Archived Daily Manna | Rejoice Fellowship | A mission to release people to rejoice in the world.

Message: There has sprung up a Biblical “urban legend” that the “eye of the needle” was a narrow gate in Jerusalem, used after hours; in some versions a camel can get through it, only when all packs have been removed and it crawls on its knees; in others, such a large animal cannot fit. More likely, though, Christ’s words are not a reference to anything else. In Hebrew stories of the time, the eye of a needle and a large animal (usually an elephant) are used as an outlandish metaphor for impossibility. And we have seen Jesus use outlandish metaphor previously. Who hasn’t wondered at the image of a person with a “beam” or a “tree” in his own eye, criticizing the speck in someone else’s? After posing the question, Jesus qualifies what He has said. No, it is not possible for a large animal to fit through the eye of a needle. But God could allow a camel or anything else to fit through the eye of a needle. So it is not totally impossible, after all: it is impossible for us, but not for God. So is it impossible to be rich and go to heaven? No. It is impossible for a human, but not for God. Does great wealth make it more difficult? Without doubt. But here is the catch we must also remember: It is in all cases impossible for a human being to get to heaven, without God’s forgiveness. You do not have to be rich, to need Christ! Paul tells us in 1 Timothy 6:10 that love of money, not money per se, is the root of all evil. The Bible pounds a message into our unwilling minds time and time again: We must choose between this world and the next. E.g., “If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” 1 John 2:15. Vanity|19th cent. woman kissing mirror The very early church shared everything. People with land sold it and distributed among others in the church who needed basic support. Acts 4:32-37. But this does not appear to have been mandatory. Acts 5:4. We might interpret Jesus’ comments to the young man to apply only because Christ was on earth, since he repeatedly told people to abandon their families and all they knew to follow him literally. We could conclude that after Christ left the earth, as the age of Christ’s personal ministry ended and the age of the Holy Spirit began, we can no longer follow the exhortations to “follow me” literally. But we can hear what we want to hear, and we would like to be able to have the kingdom of heaven and a certain amount of material comfort, both. So we run the risk of fudging in favor of keeping our money, or most of it, if we begin to “interpret” the Bible. The apostles who wrote epistles do not give us the kind of absolute “sell everything and give it to the poor” rules that Christ did. But at a minimum, if a person has wealth and wants to follow Christ, his money must become subordinate to his love of God and his fellow man, especially those in the church. If we look at James 2, for example, we see it is more allowing church members to live in poverty that defines a sinful life, than the possession of wealth: What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? In practical terms, there are few of us that do not have and spend more than we need. As with sexual morality, the secular god of consumerism is likely to warp our vision. So in practical terms, if we wonder whether we are loving our comforts and possessions too much, and God too little, the answer is almost certainly affirmative.