The rich entering into heaven

[laronius]

23 ¶ And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 26 And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? 27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

I feel like I understand what Jesus is saying here. In the JST version it's clear that Jesus is saying we must put our faith in God and not the things of the world. But the reaction of his disciples makes me wonder how much I actually do understand Jesus' words. At first they are astonished and then they are "astonished out of measure" and act as if getting into heaven must be impossible. Even if they had misinterpreted his words to mean that people with wealth must give it away, like he had just invited the young rich ruler, then the path to heaven is clear and yet they act as if it's impossible. They themselves had forsaken the world. Why would this concept seem so impossible? And even if they understood Jesus to simply be saying don't trust in riches, why would that seem so impossible? Difficult? Sure. But not something to be "astonished out of measure" over.

[zil2]

(Any chance you could make an effort in future to give us the citation?  Yes, I can find it easily enough, but I could find it even easier with a book and chapter.)

This starts in Mark 10:23 and Luke 18:24 (some days, I hate the topical guide. Why did it not include this one, too: Matthew 19:23).

 

If I'm reading the Blue Letter Bible entry for "riches" correctly, then in the plural it most often means "money", but can mean "whatever is for use, whatever one uses, a thing, matter, affair, event, business".

Here's the entry of "for a rich man".

That first entry could be interpreted as anyone who has any money (even just a penny) or any possession at all.  The second one appears to be limited to those "abounding in material resources".

 

I don't know why they were so amazed and astonished, except perhaps as a cultural thing.  Perhaps it would be like speaking to an American and substituting "liberty" for "riches"...  I don't know.  I do know that it's awfully hard not to "trust in riches" - I mean, in theory, I could sell everything but the clothes on my back, give the money to the poor, and then get on my knees and say, "OK, what now, God?" - but I don't have sufficient faith to do that (especially not on December 8th in the northern hemisphere).

[Vort]

2 hours ago, laronius said:

Even if they had misinterpreted his words to mean that people with wealth must give it away, like he had just invited the young rich ruler,

I do not believe this is a misinterpretation. I think that is exactly what we are required to do. A camel can crawl through the eye of a needle more easily than a rich man can enter heaven. But aren't we always told how rich we all are in America and in western democracies in general? If we're all rich, does that mean none of us *are going to heaven until and unless we give up our riches? I believe that is exactly what it means.

*"None" can be either singular or plural, depending on usage. This has been the case since Old English, so it's not some new-fangled construction. Just in case anyone was wondering.

King Lamoni's father, whom the book of Alma calls "the old king", offered to give away his kingdom (and, more importantly, all of his sins) to know the blessings of God. And as we read, in the end that is exactly what he did. Exactly. He gave away all of his sins, or started down that path, and as a result he "lost" his kingdom, and shortly after he died. Salvation comes to us when we, like the old king, sincerely wish to have the blessings of God to the degree that we willingly give away all things, including our riches, our position, our standing among men, and any other vain and worthless thing that we value.

When we take the sacrament, we remake our baptismal covenants, including the covenant to be willing to take upon ourselves Christ's name. Note that we do not actually covenant to take Christ's name upon us; apparently, Christ's name cannot be taken, only bestowed. So we cannot affirmatively take Christ's name by our own volition. Rather, when we have sanctified ourselves—better said, when we put ourselves in a position to be sanctified—then Christ seals us his and makes us like him, wherein we take upon ourselves his name because he allows us to do so. So we strive for this state of spiritual cleanness, humbling ourselves before the Almighty and relying on his saving grace.

Can a man who depends in any degree on the saving power of money really be cleansed of the blood and sins of this generation? I think the answer is clear. We are cleansed by God when we repent and, to the extent of our ability, make ourselves clean in bearing the vessels of the Lord, whether those vessels are sacrament trays, gospel teachings, testimonies of truth, or our own children.

I do not say how this sacrifice must be done, because I don't know. I'm still busily involved in trying to make this sacrifice and be found acceptable before the throne of the Father of us all. But I'm confident that the sacrifice must be done, and that our Father and our Savior will joyfully accept that sacrifice when we finally make it an offering to them. Whether that involves physically giving away all our money or something more subtle, I can't say. I can only say that the sacrifice is real and must be offered if we are to receive the blessings God would bestow.

[zil2]

43 minutes ago, Vort said:

Whether that involves physically giving away all our money or something more subtle, I can't say. I can only say that the sacrifice is real and must be offered if we are to receive the blessings God would bestow.

I believe the sacrifice consists of choosing God above all else / all others.  Choosing him no matter the cost or perceived cost.  Some examples:

• being anxious to give up whatever the Lord asks you to give up (stuff, behaviors, thoughts, feelings, even people)
• being anxious to do whatever the Lord asks you to do
• being willing to enter heaven while all around you are trying to keep you out
• or even (and yes, this is absurd, but it makes the point) being willing to enter heaven if everyone already there is saying they don't want you there, but God is saying, "Come."

When you're able to choose God first and always, no matter what or who, then you're ready to be chosen by him.  This, I believe, is why the first commandment is first, and why it's the greatest.  And why it's to love God, because nothing short of love would give you the strength to do all that.

[NeuroTypical]

5 hours ago, laronius said:

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

 

5 hours ago, laronius said:

why would that seem so impossible? Difficult? Sure. But not something to be "astonished out of measure" over.

4 hours ago, zil2 said:

I don't know why they were so amazed and astonished, except perhaps as a cultural thing. 

I don't get why people don't get it.  

 

 

 

And rich people have it harder?  How can it even be possible?  

 

Now I've had many rich people tell me "that's not what it means".   Folks say something like "Some have believed that the phrase eye of the needle refers to the name of a small gate into a city through which camels had to kneel to enter."

I've met an awful lot of rich folks who take that notion, and say "oh good.  Prayer and/or humility, like a camel kneeling.  Got it."  Then they go about their lives happy in their wealth. 

 

Edited December 8, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Now I've had many rich people tell me "that's not what it means".   Folks say something like "Some have believed that the phrase eye of the needle refers to the name of a small gate into a city through which camels had to kneel to enter."

It is what it means.  The "small gate" called the eye of the needle didn't exist at the time of Christ.

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

I've met an awful lot of rich folks who take one of those, and say "oh good.  Prayer and/or humility, like a camel kneeling.  Got it."  Then they go about their lives happy in their wealth. 

Yes, some rich people will say "oh we only need to..." then don't actually do that.

No, the issue is two fold. 

• The interpretation is usually wrong. 
• Even with the right interpretation, people don't actually abide by the counsel the Savior was trying to convey.

[Backroads]

5 hours ago, zil2 said:

(I don't know why they were so amazed and astonished, except perhaps as a cultural thing.  Perhaps it would be like speaking to an American and substituting "liberty" for "riches"...  I don't know.  I do know that it's awfully hard not to "trust in riches" - I mean, in theory, I could sell everything but the clothes on my back, give the money to the poor, and then get on my knees and say, "OK, what now, God?" - but I don't have sufficient faith to do that (especially not on December 8th in the northern hemisphere).

 

I like to think that if I were to give up all my, ahem, wealth, I still have a handful of people who would look out for me and help me and my family out.

I agree that it's hard to not trust in riches. We are often told to attempt to be self-sufficient, are we not? 

As has been said elsewhere here, it's easy to completely miss the message.

[Traveler]

I am convinced that there is very little in scripture that can be understood except by and through the spirit of G-d ---- especially those things that relate to eternal life.  I do not want to pretend that I have the concepts of wealth all figured out – however, perhaps I have some ideas to be considered.

First – I would submit that there is a spiritual difference between riches and wealth.  But this is not so obvious because we do not read scripture as they were written but rather as they are interpreted and translated.  It is quite possible that our translations state riches when wealth was spiritually intended and vice versa.  All this leaves enough ambiguity that anyone can rationalize whatever they wish concerning wealth and riches – not just now in mortality but in the eternities.

Second – I would suggest that when the scriptures refer to “Glory” of the resurrection that one could understand that a reference is being made to eternal riches (wealth and power) which is in essence a form of eternal money.  All the references to kingdoms of “Glory” are in essence a form of eternal spiritual wealth and money.  Thus, the mansions of the Celestial Glory display a much greater wealth than the living quarters of the Telestial Glory.

Third – Our president, prophet and current proxy of Christ has admonished us to “think Celestial”.  Jesus taught that the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven is the servant.  This means that in the eternal scheme of things the greatest accumulation of spiritual money comes from service – which is contrary to non-Celestial thinking that wealthy individuals heir servants to serve them.  I would submit that even in this mortal world that anyone that accumulates riches by not serving others – is doing so through the lie of sin and rebellion against G-d the Father.

Fourth – the accumulation of wealth through any other means other than eternal service is sin, the beginning of lies and is outright rebellion against G-d the Father.  Because Lucifer desired the Glory (eternal money and wealth) of G-d the Father without offering himself in service is what turned Lucifer into Satan – the father of lies.  Getting rich without true service (providing eternal benefit to others) is acting as an agent of evil (in the greatest service of Satan).   

Perhaps I could explain these 4 thoughts better.  Surely, I can continue to learn and better serve my G-d and fellow men.

 

The Traveler

[laronius]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

I do not believe this is a misinterpretation. I think that is exactly what we are required to do. A camel can crawl through the eye of a needle more easily than a rich man can enter heaven. But aren't we always told how rich we all are in America and in western democracies in general? If we're all rich, does that mean none of us *are going to heaven until and unless we give up our riches? I believe that is exactly what it means.

I agree with this to the extent that the law of consecration is enforce. But it still doesn't explain the disciples' reaction which was my main point. These were men who had in essence already forsaken all worldly pursuits. So it's not a new doctrine. So why so astonished? 

Their reactionary question of "Who then can be saved?" would seem to imply that what the Savior was teaching applied to everyone, not just those we consider wealthy. 

[laronius]

6 hours ago, zil2 said:

(Any chance you could make an effort in future to give us the citation?  Yes, I can find it easily enough, but I could find it even easier with a book and chapter.)

I usually do but in this instance I figured plenty of context was given. Clearly I was wrong. 🫡

[zil2]

3 minutes ago, laronius said:

I usually do but in this instance I figured plenty of context was given. Clearly I was wrong. 🫡

No worries, I just like to go read the original, see footnotes, etc.  And I'm far from having chapters and verses memorized.  I knew that it was New Testament and recognized it, just didn't know which gospel it was from, or which chapter.  Thanks!

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, laronius said:

So why so astonished? 

I suspect it may have been as simple as that Jesus' disciples did not consider being rich a sin. On the contrary, as in our society (probably moreso), the rich were considered blessed by God and probably more virtuous than the average person. If, as in the case of the rich young man, a rich person uses his wealth generously and honorably, and otherwise lives a covenant life, yet still is not fit to enter heaven, then who is?

The answer, of course, is: No one. None of us is worthy to enter heaven on our own merits. The rich have an additional and substantial struggle: They must overcome the desire for their own money. As Christ taught, with men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. That makes this into a tale of hope, not despair.

[Carborendum]

Whenever we talk about the evils of wealth, we must also balance it with the lesson in Luke 12:13-15.  Then consider v. 16-21.