The camel and the eye of the needle

[GuitarPlayer]

Ok so you’ve heard the scripture about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle tha a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

What does this mean, and where can I find catholic interpretations of all of the scriptures?

 

[raaucoin]

I believe I remember hearing that the “eye of the needle” was an archway in Jerusalem. It was very low. People entering with camels had to get the camels to lower themselves practically- crawling through the archway. It was difficult for the camels.

 

[OKAstro]

I believe I remember hearing that the “eye of the needle” was an archway in Jerusalem. It was very low. People entering with camels had to get the camels to lower themselves practically- crawling through the archway. It was difficult for the camels.

That’s what I heard too…

 

[odhiambo]

Ok so you’ve heard the scripture about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle tha a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

What does this mean, and where can I find catholic interpretations of all of the scriptures?

This saying is from Mathew 19:24
Mathew 19:16-23 relates the story of a rich young man who asked Jesus what was necessary to have eternal life. Jesus told him to keep the commandments to which he replied that he had been observing the law.
Jesus then invited him to a greater stage of perfection, asking him to go and sell all his wealth and give it to the poor so that he would have treasure in heaven.
The young man was not able to accept this .
So Jesus took this opportunity to teach about wealth; wealth can at times be a hindrance to eternal life.For a rich man, it is not just difficult, but almost impossible to be saved.
This is the literal sense of the Mathew 19:24
For the other senses I wait to see what others have to say

 

[Still_Hoping]

I believe what this verse means is that the wealth which people acquire is more important than salvation which is found in Jesus and his Passion. We are saved because we believe but also because we spiritually tie ourselves with the sufferings and joy of Christ; if one is not willing to suffer with Him he will not merit Heaven.

Rich people have a tendancy to find their happiness and purpose in their wealth and not in Godly things. They become puffed up with conceit and pride and use their money for other purposes than bringing good amongst each other. If rich people knew what it means to be hungry, hurt, rejected maybe they would listen to those who suffer more. Instead most are concerned with gaining more riches and lavish themselves.

Money isn’t evil so long as you don’t idolize it. We need it to survive but not to become exorbitant, selfish, wasteful and conceited; many of the rich are as such. They may give some money from time to time(which by the way they can claim on their income tax returns). How many of them would go out of their way to help a stranger or give out of their own pocket? This question is not for the rich only but for anyone who is capable of helping those less fortunate.

In the future if you want to consult scriptures or issues with a Catholic perspective I would advise you to use the New Advent site. Here is a link with indepth explanation on this scripture.

newadvent.org/fathers/0207.htm

I like this excerpt; it pretty much explains what I am saying.

XIII. And how much more beneficial the opposite case, for a man, through possessing a competency, both not himself to be in straits about money, and also to give assistance to those to whom it is requisite so to do! For if no one had anything, what room would be left among men for giving? And how can this dogma fail to be found plainly opposed to and conflicting with many other excellent teachings of the Lord? Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that when you fail, they may receive you into the everlasting habitations. Luke 16:9 Acquire treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, nor thieves break through. Matthew 6:19 How could one give food to the hungry, and drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, and shelter the houseless, for not doing which He threatens with fire and the outer darkness, if each man first divested himself of all these things? Nay, He bids Zaccheus and Matthew, the rich tax-gathers, entertain Him hospitably. And He does not bid them part with their property, but, applying the just and removing the unjust judgment, He subjoins, Today salvation has come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham. He so praises the use of property as to enjoin, along with this addition, the giving a share of it, to give drink to the thirsty, bread to the hungry, to take the houseless in, and clothe the naked. But if it is not possible to supply those needs without substance, and He bids people abandon their substance, what else would the Lord be doing than exhorting to give and not to give the same things, to feed and not to feed, to take in and to shut out, to share and not to share? Which were the most irrational of all things.

 

[JRKH]

I think we’ve all heard the story about the supposed gate into Jerusalem but I have also heard that there is very little verifiable support for this.

I think that in actuality the verse means precisely what it says. That it is imposible for someone who is “worldy” rich to enter the kingdom. It is only possible with God.

It sets up Worldy things, riches etc as the wrong path, and Heavenly things, faith, mercy etc, as the right.

If we are on the right path then we are not “Worldly” rich regardless of how much is in our back account for all such money is God’s, not ours.

Peace
James

 

[aicirt]

I think this can apply to a person who does not possess worldly riches but who has a rich giving spirit. He is required to give to the rich man friendship without looking for anything else. I’m thinking of Scrooge as an example and his nephew. The nephew was a man of good cheer who reached out to his uncle who was consumed with money and treasure.

 

[twinc]

I think this can apply to a person who does not possess worldly riches but who has a rich giving spirit. He is required to give to the rich man friendship without looking for anything else. I’m thinking of Scrooge as an example and his nephew. The nephew was a man of good cheer who reached out to his uncle who was consumed with money and treasure.

There was and still is two gates, even in our country/s, a broad or main gate and a narrow one,very few can get in or are allowed in thru the narrow gate - a rich man and his camel loaded with his worldly goods cannot get in thru the narrow gate so he must do what Jesus advised "go sell what thou hast and give to the poor and come follow me* - twinc

 

[Robbinson]

I think we’ve all heard the story about the supposed gate into Jerusalem but I have also heard that there is very little verifiable support for this.

I think that in actuality the verse means precisely what it says. That it is imposible for someone who is “worldy” rich to enter the kingdom. It is only possible with God.

It sets up Worldy things, riches etc as the wrong path, and Heavenly things, faith, mercy etc, as the right.

If we are on the right path then we are not “Worldly” rich regardless of how much is in our back account for all such money is God’s, not ours.

Peace
James

Agreed. This verse is often quoted leaving out the part that says “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” That is the key to the lesson. As you stated, the rich are blinded by their possessions and tend to put material things, rather than God first in their lives. It may be “impossible” for someone like this to find heaven - “BUT” with God (Holy spirit working in our hearts) it is possible.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Califman831]

I believe I remember hearing that the “eye of the needle” was an archway in Jerusalem. It was very low. People entering with camels had to get the camels to lower themselves practically- crawling through the archway. It was difficult for the camels.

I heard it was a location Israel known for robberies and that was the reason that rich men would find passing it difficult. This thread is the second time I have heard it used in a way other than some metaphor.

 

[patrick457]

I believe I remember hearing that the “eye of the needle” was an archway in Jerusalem. It was very low. People entering with camels had to get the camels to lower themselves practically- crawling through the archway. It was difficult for the camels.

Erm, no. This is just one of those pious stories that people often come up with - in this regard, it’s very much like the ‘folded napkin’ story. I’ll quote from another post of mine written a good while ago:

I’ve heard of that. While the story may make great sermon material, it is unfortunately just a rather old pious legend (it was already known in some form to Shakespeare since he makes a reference to it in Richard II [Act V, Scene 5]!) intended to explain what in the world Jesus was talking about; very much like the folded napkin story.

For one, there is no evidence in nonbiblical sources or in ancient commentaries that there was a narrow gate or a gorge in Jerusalem - or in any other ancient Near Eastern city - called “[eyes of the] needles”. Secondly, the metaphor of a big animal entering something small such as a needle’s eye is actually quite known and oft-used in Jewish literature - where it is understood as it is with no city gates are in view, a sort of paradoxical humor. For example, in a discussion of dreams in the Talmud, to explain that dreams reveal the thoughts of a man’s heart, the product of reason rather than the absence of it, a rabbi said (Berakoth 55b):

R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: “A man is shown in a dream only what is suggested by his own thoughts, as it says, ‘As for you, O king, your thoughts came into your mind upon your bed.’ Or if you like, I can derive it from here: ‘That you may know the thoughts of the heart.’ (Daniel 2:29; 30)” Rava said: “This is proved by the fact that a man is never shown in a dream a date palm of gold, or an elephant going through the eye of a needle.”

As an aside, the Jerome Biblical Commentary explicitly denies it: “the figure of the camel and the eye of the needle means exactly what is said; it does not refer to a cable or a small gate of Jerusalem.” The ‘cable’ refers to a textual variant found in some late manuscripts (579, 1424 etc.) where kamilon (“cable, rope”; the one used to secure ships when docking) is substituted for kamēlon (“camel”), either accidentally, because the two words are quite homophonic, or on purpose, to soften the perceived difficulty of Jesus’ words.

Also, the apocryphal Acts of Peter and Andrew contains a reference to the parable, making it the setting for a rather humorous miracle:

There was a rich man named Onesiphorus who said: “If I believe, shall I be able to do wonders?” Andrew said: “Yes, if you forsake your wife and all your possessions.” He was angry and put his garment about Andrew’s neck and began to beat him, saying, “You are a wizard, why should I do so?”
Peter saw it and told him to leave off. He said, “I see you are wiser than he. What do you say?” Peter said, “I tell you this It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Onesiphorus was yet more angry and took his garment off Andrew’s neck and cast it on Peter’s and haled him along, saying, “You are worse than the other! If you show me this sign, I and the whole city will believe but if not you shall be punished.”
Peter was troubled and stood and prayed, “Lord, help us at this hour, for you have entrapped us by your words.” The Savior appeared in the form of a boy of twelve years, wearing a linen garment ‘smooth within and without’, and said, “Do not fear! Let the needle and the camel be brought.” There was a huckster in the town who had been converted by Philip; and he heard of it, and looked for a needle with a large eye, but Peter said, “Nothing is impossible with God; rather bring a needle with a small eye.” When it was brought, Peter saw a camel coming and stuck the needle in the ground and cried, “In the name of Jesus Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate I command you, camel, to go through the eye of the needle.” The eye opened like a gate and the camel passed through; and yet again, at Peter’s bidding.

 

[James224]

Ok so you’ve heard the scripture about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle tha a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

What does this mean, and where can I find catholic interpretations of all of the scriptures?

It means that anyone who puts all their trust in riches instead of Christ, will have a difficult time getting to heaven. Christ has to be first. It brings to mind the saying by Jesus that you can’t have two masters.

 

[spencer2]

Erm, no. This is just one of those pious stories that people often come up with - in this regard, it’s very much like the ‘folded napkin’ story. I’ll quote from another post of mine written a good while ago:

so why did andrew tell the rich man to forsake his wife also?

 

[JRRTFAN]

This saying is from Mathew 19:24
Mathew 19:16-23 relates the story of a rich young man who asked Jesus what was necessary to have eternal life. Jesus told him to keep the commandments to which he replied that he had been observing the law.
Jesus then invited him to a greater stage of perfection, asking him to go and sell all his wealth and give it to the poor so that he would have treasure in heaven.
The young man was not able to accept this .
So Jesus took this opportunity to teach about wealth; wealth can at times be a hindrance to eternal life.For a rich man, it is not just difficult, but almost impossible to be saved.
This is the literal sense of the Mathew 19:24
For the other senses I wait to see what others have to say

From a “Catholic Commentary of Holy Scripture” Dom Bernard Orchhard, O.P., ed.1953:

“Indeed, for merely human reason it is inconcievable that those whose heart is possessed by riches should enter the Kingdom. Our Lord expresses this with a slight adaptation of the Jewish proverb (Edersheim 2, 342) that 'a man even in his dreams does not see an elephant pass through a needle’s eye. He has deliberately provoked the astonishment of the disciples in order to impress on them the spiritual menace of riches.”

I think most of us in this century have had the passage explained as “the camel had to crawl through the gate, it was tough as heck but could be done. So it’s OK to have worldly wealth, but just don’t let it master you” approach. I think it’s meant to be much deeper thought and teaching than that. But deep though and teaching are not where it’s at in most parishes, I fear. Did you ever hear the words “spiritual menace” (other than when someone is referencing intolerance) in your parish?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I know I’m going to get belted for pointing this out but here goes. An argument I hear all the time is that becoming Catholic gives the individual the assuredness of how the bible should be translated and understood. Protestants theoretically try to interpret through their own fallible lens and come up with humanistic, misguided understandings while Catholics use the papacy and magisterium to come to spirit-guided, proper understandings.

Why, if this is the case, are we all trying to understand this camel and eye of the needle verse? Where is the Catholic 100% assured definition of Christ’s sublime statement here? It seems we’re not better off than protestants, all trying to define this from our OWN lens and understandings?

I’ll duck and prepare for incoming rockets now…

 

[Spirithound]

I know I’m going to get belted for pointing this out but here goes. An argument I hear all the time is that becoming Catholic gives the individual the assuredness of how the bible should be translated and understood. Protestants theoretically try to interpret through their own fallible lens and come up with humanistic, misguided understandings while Catholics use the papacy and magisterium to come to spirit-guided, proper understandings.

Why, if this is the case, are we all trying to understand this camel and eye of the needle verse? Where is the Catholic 100% assured definition of Christ’s sublime statement here? It seems we’re not better off than protestants, all trying to define this from our OWN lens and understandings?

I’ll duck and prepare for incoming rockets now…

The Church defines dogma and doctrine for us; very rarely is one particular interpretation of a verse endorsed. Anyways, the literal meaning is quite plain, I think the biggest divide right now is whether there was a gate called “The Eye of the Needle”, and the Church most definitely does not rule on archaeological matters

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Agreed. But that’s precisely what I’m saying is the problem with the pitch people make in here all the time: “you protestants interpret Scripture for your own purposes. We Catholics have the Magisterium to explain and translate the Scriptures properly so we have the truth, not the truth as the individual sees it”

While the Church interprets the biggies like Matt 16:18 or John 6, there is a TON of Scripture left to the individual and I see little difference between Catholics and Protestants in that department.

The Church defines dogma and doctrine for us; very rarely is one particular interpretation of a verse endorsed. Anyways, the literal meaning is quite plain, I think the biggest divide right now is whether there was a gate called “The Eye of the Needle”, and the Church most definitely does not rule on archaeological matters

 

[JRKH]

Agreed. But that’s precisely what I’m saying is the problem with the pitch people make in here all the time: "you protestants interpret Scripture for your own purposes. We Catholics have the Magisterium to explain and translate the Scriptures properly so we have the truth, not the truth as the individual sees it"

While the Church interprets the biggies like Matt 16:18 or John 6, there is a TON of Scripture left to the individual and I see little difference between Catholics and Protestants in that department.

The Church provides guidance, not necessarily “strict” interpretation of Scripture. That is the difference. Protestants as a general group do not have this. ONe group contradicts another on the doctrinal meaning of a passage.
When a Protestant reads scripture and thinks they have a “spirit guided” interpretation they have nothing to check it against. That is how one winds up with “New” theologies, ones that were never even heard of 100 years ago, let alone 1000 years ago - Like the Rapture…

There are many questions that can be raised about Scripture, most do not involve specific interpretations of specific verses, but rather larger teachings and how each part fits inot the whole. Most of these large questions were answered long ago by Church council. So when we read various passages such as John 6 and the last supper naratives and Paul speaking about eating and drinking condemnation, there is no need to try and determine if the Eucharist is “Real” or Symbolic". All we need do is look to Church teaching.
Protestants have denominations who run the gamut on this as well as on baptism, predestination, saints, modes of prayer etc…

As for the “Eye of the Needle”, whether it refers to some gate, or to a literal needle is an extremely minor detail. The point of the passage is clear. Keep your eye on God, rely on God and don’t get sidetracked by material things.

Peace
James

 

[Spirithound]

Agreed. But that’s precisely what I’m saying is the problem with the pitch people make in here all the time: “you protestants interpret Scripture for your own purposes. We Catholics have the Magisterium to explain and translate the Scriptures properly so we have the truth, not the truth as the individual sees it”

While the Church interprets the biggies like Matt 16:18 or John 6, there is a TON of Scripture left to the individual and I see little difference between Catholics and Protestants in that department.

Oh boy, are we reading the same thread? Posts 4-7, 9, 12, and 14 are all saying pretty much the same thing

But on a broader scale, we read Scripture to learn Truth, right? Specifically, the ends to which we read Scripture is to obtain salvation. The Catholic Church has very clear doctrine regarding how one obtains salvation. Participate in the Sacraments, be Baptized, receive Holy Communion; if you sin, be Reconciled. Catholic doctrine is all (or mostly?) written in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is heavily annotated by Scripture.

So, I probably misspoke earlier. Not entirely sure what I meant to say…oh well, maybe we’ll find out later…

 

[JRRTFAN]

I know I’m going to get belted for pointing this out but here goes. An argument I hear all the time is that becoming Catholic gives the individual the assuredness of how the bible should be translated and understood. Protestants theoretically try to interpret through their own fallible lens and come up with humanistic, misguided understandings while Catholics use the papacy and magisterium to come to spirit-guided, proper understandings.

Why, if this is the case, are we all trying to understand this camel and eye of the needle verse? Where is the Catholic 100% assured definition of Christ’s sublime statement here? It seems we’re not better off than protestants, all trying to define this from our OWN lens and understandings?

I’ll duck and prepare for incoming rockets now…

I don’t think the Church particularly cares about the “eye of the needle” verse with any speceficity. A simple reading of the verse, no matter how poised, idicates that riches (among a million other things) may be an impediment to an individual’s salvation. Sure, you can refine it with study, but it’s clear on its face.

I’ll give you a real example of an issue where it is important. My daughter is an Evangelical and I check her ecclesial community’s website from time to time. The Pastor (a great speaker and a nice guy) has a blog and he is conflicted. One of his congregation (a Jesus loving man) approached and wanted to put anti-gay marriage petitions for signature in the lobby. The same week he was met in his office by a homosexual man asking whether he and his colleague would be welcomed in this community (he comments on how much God loves the homosexual man)…

So the pastor’s conundrum he doesn’t have any personal opposition to the petitions but doesn’t want to alienate the homosexual. What to do?

Well, he has no Magisterium and no Hierarchy to tell him the way, so he has to work through on his own. He can’t come out and say all sexual acts outside of a marital relationship, whether hetero or homo sexual are sins, because he’s lose about 65% of his 20 - 30 something congregation. He can’t quite choke out the word sin in his blog, preferring “not pleasing to God” in lieu of “sin”.

I see no conflict from a Catholic perspective, homosexual attractions are disordered but if the person is chaste there is no sin in being homosexual (hence the man should be welcome, subject to the issue of his colleague) the petitions, likewise are valid since they are concerned with active sinning, not with the mere proclivity to homosexuality. But I’ve had somebody from above tell me this and he has no one. The concept of “love the sinner, hate the sin” proclaimed by our Church won’t work if you don’t admit something is a sin but is only “not pleasing to God”.

This, in my view, is how it should work.