The vast majority of errors in interpreting Scripture are not due to lack of knowledge Greek language, or poorly understands the principles of hermeneutics, but only due to ordinary inattention. Sometimes, small word, consisting of only two letters, can have great value. Here, for example, is a word like “zhe”. Just an intensifying particle (that’s what this little word is called in Russian). It shows the relationship with the previous text and helps to understand it correctly. But it can diametrically change our understanding of what we read. Of course, it's not about the particle itself, but about the context it prompts us to explore, it's about the questions it can lead us to. It is like a hook with which you can hook a weighty fish. What a big and noticeable role such a small and inconspicuous word as “zhe” can play, says Vladislav Nasonov.
There is a very common misinterpretation regarding the “eye of a needle” and to understand this you only need to look at the context. I want to give some clarification on this issue and offer one interesting exegetical observation on the text of the 19th chapter of Matthew. We will consider questions about a rich young man who wants to enter eternal life, eyes of needles and camels, and about those who can still be saved.
Let's go through the whole story again. A rich young man approaches the Messiah and says to Him: “What good thing must I do to inherit eternal life?”(Matthew 19:16) I think this phrase is very important. In a similar way the question is formulated among all synoptic evangelists - "what should I do" at Mark's "what should I do" in Luke. As Donald Carson notes, the young man did not see the connection between Jesus and eternal life. Apparently he believed that eternal life is achieved through fulfilling the commandments of the Law. In other words, he believed in salvation by works.
Andrey Mironov. “If you want to be perfect” (fragment)
Christ answers him that he must keep the commandments. To which the young man replies that he kept all the commandments from his youth. IN in this case it doesn't matter if it's true or if he exaggerated his abilities. Personally, I doubt that he fully fulfilled all of the above commandments. Another thing is important - Christ offers him the way of salvation - go, sell all your possessions and follow Me. It is obvious that in this case the order to sell the property was given directly to this person in this situation, and God had a specific purpose. We clearly understand from the text of the gospel that salvation does not require the complete sale of all one’s property, then what was the Lord’s goal in this case?
Quite often I heard sermons condemning the rich young man, saying that he was so and so gone with a seal, was it difficult to do what Jesus commanded him? But let’s think about it: if in order to be saved we were all required to sell everything we have - houses, cars, property... and remain in the same clothes on the street... would there be many people being saved? If the obligatory condition for baptism was the condition that Christ set for the rich young man, how many were baptized? We can safely say that the condition is extremely difficult, and only God can demand this. But before we talk about the purposes that the Lord pursued, let us turn to subsequent actions. The young man walked away sadly and Christ said to His disciples: “Truly I say to you, it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven; “I also tell you: it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of the Most High.”. And here comes the fun part.
Heinrich Hoffman. Christ and the Rich Young Man, 1889 (fragment)
Nowadays, in Christian (and not only) circles there is a widespread opinion that the richer a person is, the more difficult it is for him to achieve salvation. This opinion is based on the fact that the rich have many temptations, he has to give up a lot, and so on. And it’s easier for the poor. Let us remember the words of Agur: “don’t give me poverty and wealth, feed me daily bread lest, having become full, I deny You and say, “Who is the Lord?” and lest, having become poor, I begin to steal and take the name of my God in vain.” (Proverbs 30:8-9) In general, since Old Testament times, people have understood that it is difficult for a rich person to go to God. So, in our understanding, it is difficult for the rich, but it is easier for the poor to enter the kingdom of God. But did the disciples think so?
And here the particle “zhe” will help us: “When His disciples heard this, they were greatly amazed and said, “Who then can be saved?”(Matthew 19:25). This “same” is in all the Gospels, where it is described this story. Notice that the disciples were amazed. Matthew uses a word derived from εκπλασσω , which means to be beside oneself with surprise, to be amazed, to be amazed. That is, they were very, very surprised by what was said and answered “So who can be saved?”. The word used as “same” is άρα , which is more accurately translated as "Then". We often connect “then” and “then” and say: “If not him, then who then?”. For example, the world jumping champion was unable to achieve a certain height and we say: “if Javier Sotomayor did not achieve this height, then who can achieve it?” That is, it is assumed that the one about whom it is said can do it better than others. That is, the meaning of the phrase that the disciples said to Christ is this: “If it is difficult for the rich to be saved, how can anyone be saved?”
So, the disciples assumed that it was easier for a rich young man to enter the kingdom of heaven than other people. Two important conclusions can be drawn here:
First: if we assume that such gates as the “eyes of a needle” were in Jerusalem, then the extreme degree of surprise of the disciples is absolutely inconsistent. After all, according to history, a camel could pass through these gates by kneeling. That is, this is not an impossible action. Judging by the degree of amazement of the students, one can only conclude that such a gate had never existed. Moreover, this fact is confirmed by historical evidence. Egor Rozenkov writes about this in particular. Gordon de Fee and Douglas Stewart talk about this in their book How to Read the Bible and See Its Value. Craig Kinnear also notes that the gate theory does not hold water.
There is one more interesting fact, hammering the nail into the coffin of this theory: Gordon de Fee points out that for the first time this interpretation found as early as the 11th century and it belongs to the monk Toefelactu. Apparently the monk could not relate the rich donations, temples and lands belonging to the clergy with this simple and unambiguous comparison, so he came up with an interpretation.
Also, all the main comments that I use indicate the inconsistency of this theory about the gate. In particular, Mac Arthur and MacDonald talk about this, and Matthew Henry and Biblical interpretations Dallas Theological Seminary does not even consider it necessary to prove anything regarding this gate theory. Carson omits this point altogether. Only Barkley mentions the gate in a positive context, and then his argument is limited only to the word “they say that there was such a gate.” It’s not worth talking about the level of this argumentation. The reference books I use also list the gate theory as an alternative or possible theory, without providing any historical evidence.
Those same modern “eyes of a needle” that are shown to tourists
There is only one thing that confuses: those who have been to Jerusalem have seen these gates with their own eyes. By at least, the guide told them. It is useless to discuss with such people, because they have a powerful basis for their belief in the miraculous gate: this is their own impression (seen with their own eyes), and the words of the guide, which they trust more than serious researchers and the context of Scripture. However, I will say that since the time of Christ, Jerusalem has repeatedly passed from hand to hand of different rulers and empires; it was either destroyed, starting with the famous siege of Titus in 70, or rebuilt. And the modern wall surrounding Jerusalem was built under Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent in the Middle Ages. So, if there is a gate in the Jerusalem wall today, it was built on the basis of an incorrect interpretation of Theofelakt. And it is not surprising that for tourists in Jerusalem some loopholes were called the eyes of a needle. After all, what a shame it would be to come to Jerusalem and not find the famous gates there, but it’s a pleasure for tourists - photographs, impressions. In short, the first conclusion from this text is that such a gate never existed in Jerusalem. And I mean the usual eye of a needle.
Regarding whether a rope is meant instead of a camel, I will say that I don’t think so. Because, firstly, this is mentioned in three Gospels, and the variant of such distortion in three Gospels at once tends to zero. And secondly, a similar phrase is found in ancient literature, at least in the Talmud and the Koran. Although in this case the camel or the rope are all one, you can’t push a needle into the eye. So, Christ said to the disciples: It is impossible for a rich man to be saved! As MacDonald writes, “The Lord spoke not of difficulty, but of impossibility. To put it simply, a rich man simply cannot escape.”
Boris Olshansky. Expulsion of traders from the temple
Second The important conclusion from this story is that, unlike us, Christ’s disciples had no idea that it was difficult for a rich man to be saved. Vice versa! They believed that it was easier for the rich to inherit eternal life. I think there are two reasons for this: firstly, wealth for Christ’s contemporaries meant the favor and favor of God (as for some today). Although it is obvious that Old Testament does not confirm this in any way. And secondly, a rich person can put more into the treasury and do more good deeds. Accordingly, one has a greater chance of eternal life if one understands that a ticket to the Kingdom of God is bought by deeds.
Let us remember what the rich young man’s idea was: “What good can I do?” The young man understood that eternal life could be earned through virtue. Christ showed the true highest standard of virtue - sell everything and give to the poor. The plank is almost impossible for this young man, who should have turned his gaze to Christ. I think the Lord had precisely this goal - to destroy this false idea of salvation by works. Having commanded to sell everything, He conveyed a simple thought to the young man’s consciousness on an emotional level - you will never be saved by your own works, you will never be able to save yourself without Me. Never. Later, He again points out this truth to the disciples - it is impossible to be saved by works, only through faith and following Jesus (God can save you).
By the way, pay attention to your feelings when you read this story - do you feel surprise and horror? How do you perceive yourself - is it easier for you than a young man to enter the Kingdom of God or more difficult? The fact is that emotionally we do not consider ourselves among the rich and automatically understand that it is they, the rich, who need to leave their luggage and get on their knees, crawling into the sky, and then we will fly there. And if the apostles, hearing this comparison, perceived themselves as an elephant, then we feel like, at most, a thread that can easily pass through the eye of a needle.
Find more like this:The vast majority of errors in interpretation are made not due to the fact that a person does not know Greek, or does not understand the principles of hermeneutics, but simply due to simple inattention. Sometimes, a small word with only two letters can make a huge difference. Here, for example, is a word like “zhe”. It's just an intensifying particle. But such a small and inconspicuous word as “zhe” can play a large and noticeable role. And just “zhe” is able to diametrically change our understanding of the text. Of course, it's not about the particle itself, but about the context it prompts us to explore, it's about the questions it can lead us to. It is like a hook with which you can hook a weighty fish.
Painting by Vladimir Kush “Eye of a Needle” (taken from here)
I already wrote once about the word “but” in the verse “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for” (Heb. 11:1). In this verse, the “zhe” shows the relationship with the previous text and helps to correctly understand the text. Having examined this text, we will see that Hebrews 11:1 is not a definition of faith, but its properties. Well, I won’t repeat myself, you can read more here.
When publishing a previous post, I wrote that there is a very common misinterpretation regarding “eyes of a needle” and to understand this, it is enough to look at the context. I wanted to give some clarification on this issue. Therefore, today I offer one interesting exegetical observation on the text of the 19th chapter of Matthew. We will consider questions about a rich young man who wants to enter eternal life, the eye of a needle and camels, and about those who can still be saved.
Let's go through the whole story again. A rich young man approaches the Messiah and says to Him: “What good thing can I do to inherit eternal life?” (Matthew 19:16) I think this phrase is very important. The question of all Synoptic evangelists is formulated in a similar way - “what should I do” in Mark, “what should I do” in Luke. As Donald Carson notes, the young man did not see the connection between Jesus and eternal life. Apparently he believed that eternal life is achieved through fulfilling the commandments of the Law. In other words, he believed in salvation by works. 
Mironov Andrey, fragment of the painting “If you want to be perfect”,
Christ answers him that he must keep the commandments. To which the young man replies that he kept all the commandments from his youth. In this case, it doesn’t matter whether this is true or whether he exaggerated his abilities. Personally, I doubt that he fully fulfilled all of the above commandments. Another thing is important - Christ offers him the way of salvation - go, sell all your possessions and follow Me. Obviously, in this case, the command to sell the property was given directly to a given person in a given situation, and God had a specific purpose. We clearly understand from the text of the gospel that salvation does not require the complete sale of all one’s property, then what was the Lord’s goal in this case?
Quite often I heard sermons condemning the rich young man, saying that he was so and so gone with a seal, was it difficult to do what Jesus commanded him? But let’s think about it: if in order to be saved we were all required to sell everything we have - houses, cars, property... and remain in the same clothes on the street... would there be many people being saved? If the obligatory condition for baptism was the condition that Christ set for the rich young man, how many were baptized? We can safely say that the condition is extremely difficult, and only God can demand this. But before we talk about the purposes that the Lord pursued, let us turn to subsequent actions. The young man walked away sadly and Christ said to His disciples: “Truly I say to you, it is difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven; “I also tell you: it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of the Most High.” And here comes the fun part. 
Heinrich Hoffman. Christ and the Rich Young Man, 1889. Fragment (Taken from here)
Nowadays, in Christian (and not only) circles there is a widespread opinion that the richer a person is, the more difficult it is for him to achieve salvation. This opinion is based on the fact that the rich have many temptations, he has to give up a lot, and so on. And it’s easier for the poor. Let us remember the words of Agur: “Give me neither poverty nor wealth, feed me with daily bread, lest I be full and deny You and say, “Who is the Lord?” and lest, having become poor, I should steal and take the name of my God in vain” ( Proverbs 30:8-9). In general, since Old Testament times, people have understood that it is difficult for a rich person to go to God. So, in our understanding, it is difficult for the rich, but it is easier for the poor to enter the kingdom of God. But did the disciples think so?
And here the particle “zhe” will help us: “When His disciples heard this, they were greatly amazed and said: So who can be saved?” (Matthew 19:25). This “same” is in all the Gospels, where this story is described. Notice that the disciples were amazed. Matthew uses a word derived from εκπλασσω, which means to be amazed, amazed, amazed. That is, they were very, very surprised by what was said and answered “so who can be saved?” The word άρα is used as “then,” which is more accurately translated as “then.” We often connect “then” and “then” and say: “if not him, then who then?” For example, the world jumping champion was unable to achieve a certain height and we say: “if Javier Sotomayor did not achieve this height, then who can achieve it?” That is, it is assumed that the one about whom it is said can do it better than others. That is, the meaning of the phrase that the disciples said to Christ is: “If it is difficult for the rich to be saved, then how can anyone be saved?”
So, the disciples assumed that it was easier for a rich young man to enter the kingdom of heaven than other people. Two important conclusions can be drawn here:
First: if we assume that such gates as the “eyes of a needle” were in Jerusalem, then the extreme degree of surprise of the disciples is absolutely inconsistent. After all, according to history, a camel could pass through these gates by kneeling. That is, this is not an impossible action. Judging by the degree of amazement of the students, one can only conclude that such a gate had never existed. Moreover, this fact is confirmed by historical evidence. Egor Rozenkov writes about this in particular. Gordon de Fee and Douglas Stewart talk about this in their book How to Read the Bible and See Its Value. Craig Kinnear also notes that the gate theory does not hold water.
There is another interesting fact that hammers a nail into the coffin of this theory: Gordon de Fee points out that this interpretation was first found in the 11th century and it belongs to the monk Toefelactu. Apparently the monk could not relate the rich donations, temples and lands belonging to the clergy with this simple and unambiguous comparison, so he came up with an interpretation.
Also, all the main comments that I use indicate the inconsistency of this theory about the gate. In particular, Mac Arthur and MacDonald talk about this, and Matthew Henry and Biblical Interpretations of Dallas Theological Seminary do not even consider it necessary to prove anything regarding this theory about the gate. Carson omits this point altogether. Only Barkley mentions the gate in a positive context, and then his argument is limited only to the word “they say that there was such a gate.” It’s not worth talking about the level of this argumentation. The reference books I use also list the gate theory as an alternative or possible theory, without providing any historical evidence. 
The same modern “eyes of a needle” that are shown to tourists.
There is only one thing that confuses: those who have been to Jerusalem have seen these gates with their own eyes. At least that's what the guide told them. It is useless to discuss with such people, because they have a powerful basis for their belief in the miraculous gate: this is their own impression (seen with their own eyes), and the words of the guide, which they trust more than serious researchers and the context of Scripture. However, I will say that since the time of Christ, Jerusalem has repeatedly passed from hand to hand of different rulers and empires; it was either destroyed, starting with the famous siege of Titus in 70, or rebuilt. And the modern wall surrounding Jerusalem was built under Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent in the Middle Ages. So, if there is a gate in the Jerusalem wall today, it was built on the basis of an incorrect interpretation of Theofelakt. And it is not surprising that for tourists in Jerusalem some loopholes were called the eyes of a needle. After all, what a shame it would be to come to Jerusalem and not find the famous gates there, but it’s a pleasure for tourists - photographs, impressions. In short, the first conclusion from this text is that such a gate never existed in Jerusalem. And I mean the usual eye of a needle. 
Regarding whether a rope is meant instead of a camel, I will say that I don’t think so. Because, firstly, this is mentioned in three gospels, and the variant of such distortion in three gospels at once tends to zero. And secondly, a similar phrase is found in ancient literature, at least in the Talmud and the Koran. Although in this case the camel or the rope are all one, you can’t push a needle into the eye. So, Christ told the disciples: it is impossible for a rich man to be saved! As MacDonald writes, “The Lord spoke not of difficulty, but of impossibility. To put it simply, a rich man simply cannot escape.”
Second The important conclusion from this story is that, unlike us, Christ’s disciples had no idea that it was difficult for a rich man to be saved. Vice versa! They believed that it was easier for the rich to inherit eternal life. I think there are two reasons for this: first, wealth for Christ's contemporaries meant God's favor and favor (as it still does for some today). Although, it is obvious that the Old Testament does not confirm this in any way. And secondly, a rich person can put more into the treasury and do more good deeds. Accordingly, one has a greater chance of eternal life if one understands that a ticket to the Kingdom of God is bought by deeds.
Let us remember what the rich young man’s idea was: “What good can I do?” The young man understood that eternal life could be earned through virtue. Christ showed the true highest standard of virtue - sell everything and give to the poor. The bar was almost impossible for this young man, which had to break his pride and turn his gaze to Christ. I think the Lord had precisely this goal - to destroy this false idea of salvation by works. Having commanded to sell everything, He conveyed a simple thought to the young man’s consciousness on an emotional level - you will never be saved by your own works, you will never be able to save yourself without Me. Never. Later, He again points out this truth to the disciples - it is impossible to be saved by works, only through faith and following Jesus (God can save you).
By the way, pay attention to your feelings when you read this story - do you feel surprise and horror? How do you perceive yourself - is it easier for you than a young man to enter the Kingdom of God or more difficult? The fact is that emotionally we do not consider ourselves among the rich and automatically understand that it is they, the rich, who need to leave their luggage and get on their knees, crawling into the sky, and then we will fly there. And if the apostles, hearing this comparison, perceived themselves as an elephant, then we feel like, at most, a thread that can easily pass through the eye of a needle.
So, strictly speaking, the conclusions:
- This story refers to a camel and the eye of a needle.
- You cannot enter eternal life by works
- But eternal life is hidden in our Jesus Christ
- It is impossible for a rich person to enter into eternal life until he gets rid of confidence in his wealth and admits his spiritual bankruptcy
So, a small particle of “zhe” can prompt us to more carefully study, and also change our understanding of the text, simultaneously destroying a false theory.
Andrey asksAnswered by Vasily Yunak, 07/03/2010
Greetings, Brother Andrey!
According to one version, in Jerusalem there were narrow gates intended for travelers, through which only people could pass, but not pack animals, much less carts. These gates were intended either for customs purposes, or for belated night travelers, or for secret entry and exit during military operations. This is difficult to say today because Jerusalem was completely destroyed in the first century, and the fragmentary historical records are not always comprehensive. However, according to the same version, a camel could still crawl through this gate, which was called the eye of a needle, which was extremely difficult for him.
If all this is really so, if Jesus did not mean the eye of an ordinary needle, even an old and large one, with which they sewed tents or yarn, but precisely these small narrow gates, then this does not mean impossibility, but only a difficulty in which it is necessary to reset take off all the burden and get down on your knees, giving up all comforts. This is what a rich person sometimes lacks - to throw off the burden of his wealth, to humble himself, to kneel before others, to sacrifice earthly goods, the comfort and convenience of life.
The rich have the possibility of salvation - Abraham was quite rich, and the riches of David and Solomon are known. You just need to not allow wealth to build a wall of separation from God and your neighbors. And this applies not only to wealth, but also to other categories - education, position in society, fame and other things that usually divide people and make someone think of themselves as superior to others. The Lord taught: whoever wants to be first, become last and be a servant of all. How many rich, educated, eminent people are capable of this? Not many, but there are some! This is why it is difficult, but still possible, for a Bogota to enter and be saved.
Blessings!
Vasily Yunak
Read more on the topic “Heaven, Angels and Celestials”:
An expression from the Bible, from the Gospel (Matthew 19:24; Luke 18:25; Mark 10:25). The meaning of the expression is that great wealth is rarely achieved in an honest way. Apparently this is a Hebrew proverb.
Vadim Serov, in the book encyclopedic Dictionary popular words and expressions. — M.: “Lockeed-Press”. 2003 writes: “There are two versions of the origin of this expression. Some Bible interpreters believe that the reason for the appearance of such a phrase was an error in the translation of the original biblical text: instead of “camel” one should read “thick rope” or “ship rope”, which in actually cannot be passed through the eye of a needle.
On the other hand, some scholars studying the history of Judea, accepting the word “camel,” interpret the meaning of the words “eye of the needle” in their own way. They believe that in ancient times this was the name given to one of the gates of Jerusalem, through which it was almost impossible for a heavily laden camel to pass."
Excerpt from the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 19:
“16 And behold, someone came and said to Him: Good Teacher, what good thing can I do to have eternal life?
17 And he said to him, Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. If you want to enter life eternal, keep the commandments.
18 He said to Him: Which ones? Jesus said: Do not kill; Thou shalt not commit adultery; don't steal; do not bear false witness;
19 Honor your father and mother; and: love your neighbor as yourself.
20 The young man said to Him: I have kept all this from my youth; what else am I missing?
21 Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor; and you will have treasure in heaven; and come and follow Me.
22 When the young man heard this word, he went away sad, because he had great possessions.
23 Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I say to you, it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven;
24 And again I say to you: it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
25 When His disciples heard this, they were greatly amazed and said, “Who then can be saved?”
26 And Jesus looked up and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Excerpt from the Gospel of Luke, chapter 18
18. And one of the rulers asked Him: Good Teacher! What must I do to inherit eternal life?
19 Jesus said to him, Why do you call Me good? no one is good except God alone;
20. You know the commandments: do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor your father and mother.
21. And he said, “I have kept all this from my youth.”
22. When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing: sell everything that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven, and come, follow Me.”
23. When he heard this, he was sad, because he was very rich.
24. Jesus, seeing that he was sad, said: How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the Kingdom of God!
25. For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
Excerpt from the Gospel of Mark, chapter 10
17. When He set out on the road, someone ran up, fell on his knees before Him and asked Him: Good Teacher! What must I do to inherit eternal life?
18 Jesus said to him, Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.
19. You know the commandments: do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not offend, honor your father and mother.
20. He answered and said to Him: Teacher! I have kept all this from my youth.
21. Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me, taking up the cross.
22. And he, troubled by this word, went away sad, because he had great property.
23. And, looking around, Jesus said to His disciples: how difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the Kingdom of God!
24. The disciples were horrified at His words. But Jesus answers them again: children! How difficult it is for those who hope for wealth to enter 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 the Kingdom of God.
Examples
“Yakov began to read and sing again, but he could no longer calm down and, without noticing it, he suddenly began to think about the book; although he considered his brother’s words to be trifles, for some reason he also liked Lately It also began to come to mind that It is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, that in the third year he bought a very profitable stolen horse, that while his late wife was still alive, some drunkard once died in his tavern from vodka ... "
Letter to A.S. SUVORIN May 18, 1891 Aleksin (Chekhov, having settled at his dacha in Bogimovo, writes to his rich friend):
“Rochefort has two floors, but there would not be enough rooms or furniture for you. Moreover, the message is tedious: from the station you have to go there on a detour of almost 15 miles. There are no other dachas either, and Kolosovsky’s estate will only be suitable for you next year, when both floors are finished. Really, it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the rich and the family to find a dacha. For me there are as many dachas as I like, but for you, not one.”
Rodion Chasovnikov, member of the Union of Journalists of Russia
We have all heard the expression: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” Many of us know that this is not just an ancient proverb, but the words of the Gospel (Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 19, Art. 24; Gospel of Luke, Chapter 18, Art. 25).
Some interpreters believe that the difference in size can be somewhat reduced. Thus, some argue that the “eye of the needle” should be understood as the narrow gates of Jerusalem, through which a loaded camel could not pass. Others believe that instead of the word “camel,” the correct translation would be “thick rope” or “rope.” We certainly want to preserve at least some hope or illusion that we can slip through, bypass inconvenient laws and patterns. “Well, maybe we’ll “pull ourselves up” and “squeeze in”, maybe everything won’t be so strict and fatal...”
The author of the article in no way objects to the interpretation of biblical texts taking into account historical realities and scientific data. But even with the above reservations and variants of interpretation, the essence remains unchanged: achieving wealth, as a rule, is associated with predatory, dishonest, and merciless actions. Attachment to wealth and luxury, most often, kills a person’s spiritual life, moral core, compassion, striving for the ideal... There may be exceptions, but we are now talking about what is more common and is confirmed by countless examples of history and our lives.
The apostle was considered one of those who unrighteously acquired his fortune among the Jews - before his apostleship, at a time when he was not yet a disciple of Christ. As you know, he was then a tax collector, that is, a tax collector. Like all lands conquered by the Romans, Judea was subject to taxes in favor of Rome. Publicans collected this tribute, and often, for the sake of their enrichment, they collected from the people much more than they should have, using the protection of the authorities. Publicans were perceived as robbers, heartless and greedy people, despicable agents (from among the Jews) of hostile pagan power.
It was not customary to sit at the same table with a publican, just as it was not customary to share a meal with the most wicked and sinful people, outcasts of society. IN modern world everything is different: many will consider it an honor to share a meal with those who have unjustly enriched themselves, especially if these riches are countless. How often does someone at such a meal remind the owner great fortune about conscience, about mercy? Just don't confuse it with mercy. vulgar games in “charity”, when a person flies on a private plane in the company of journalists and cameramen to “solve” the “problems” of African refugees, or when a hundred millionaires work together for many years to restore one temple, which was originally built with modest donations from ordinary people.
But rarely does one of our contemporaries sit down at the table of an oligarch to urge him to change his path, to remind him of eternity...
And in those distant times, when people were surprised to see Christ in the company of Matthew: “How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?”, the Lord answered:
It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. From then on, Matthew, leaving all his property, followed Christ (Gospel of Luke, chapter 5, v. 28).
So, the Apostle and Evangelist Matthew is a saint who, before following Christ, was connected with money, with the vain and imaginary blessings of this world. Having sacrificed his wealth and the very profitable trade of a tax collector in those days, he preferred the path of a disciple, a follower of Christ - the path of humility, poverty, martyrdom. He chose the path that leads to the Mountain Abode.
We will not now try to answer the question: “Can a person, without giving up wealth, maintain the straightness of his path?” We will only remember that the wealth of our contemporaries, acquired in the dashing nineties, will rarely turn out to be purer than those collected by the publican Matthew.
Through the choice of the Apostle Matthew, an image is revealed to us for understanding - where is the real goal and where is the imaginary one, where is our calling and where is only a means to achieve a result.
Nowadays, those who have been able to acquire a lot in material terms are often proud of some kind of superiority over others. He is confident that his skills, or intelligence, or intuition are much greater than those of those who have less income. And such a person measures people according to the monetary “rate”. In other words, he is above everyone who is poorer than him, and below everyone who is richer than him.
Every day we encounter this approach. Powerful of the world This is often considered normal. But, undoubtedly, this is a deeply flawed approach. And not only because the Lord will not credit us with our well-being. Something else is more important. Exalting themselves over those in need, feeling themselves the arbiters of their destinies, free to make decisions or neglect people, money managers cease to see both the person and their chance for Salvation behind their game.
Someone in this life got dachas and expensive cars, to someone kind heart, for some wisdom, for others poverty (a test that also needs to be passed with dignity).
But any possession is, first of all, a responsibility to the Creator. For all that we have that is good is God’s Gift given to fulfill our calling. And everything that we have that is bad is definitely not a reason for pride.
Every attempt to refuse mercy must be correlated with the Gospel Truth and conscience, and not with one’s own pseudo-truth. Not with his cynical “standard”, tuned to the attitude towards wealth, commercial or political expediency.
It is the awareness of greater responsibility, not greater rights, that is the normal reaction to wealth. It is not given at all in order to take it with you to the grave, or to give yourself maximum pleasure, or to dispose of someone else’s will at will...
Another important aspect of the problem raised is the attitude of a wealthy person who considers himself Orthodox to church charity.
So he decided to donate funds to the temple. Will he see, looking into his heart, that his sacrifice is like the mite of the gospel widow? What did he give, having millions - the required tithe or a copper penny? Her penny was big - and this money, perhaps, is worth nothing. But the most important thing is with what intention, for what internal purpose the sacrifice was made. One way or another, we hear all these common truths at sermons in churches, we see them in patristic instructions, we retell them to each other, but again and again we forget to attribute them to our own account.
Why do I donate - in order to help the revival of a holy place and my soul, or in order to tell my friends: “It was I who hung the bells here and gilded the crosses.” Which church do I donate to – the one that is in greater need than others, where spiritual life is vibrant, or the one where there is a “prestigious party”? Have I forgotten about my good deed, or should now all those living today and their descendants glorify it?
And isn’t the heart filled with exorbitant pride when a person, having a lot, calmly risks refusing a priest or an old woman elder or a disabled beggar a small request? And will a billion transferred anywhere, according to the arbitrariness of one’s will, be released from responsibility for this before the Lord?
As we know from the holy fathers and from our own limited experience, the Lord Looks at our intention, reflected in the very depths of our hearts. And no marketing solution will restore the integrity of a person living by double standards.
You cannot be a wolf from Monday to Friday and become a Christian on Saturday and Sunday. You cannot gain the experience of humility and obedience, without which there is no Christian, while remaining a willful arbiter of destinies according to the wind of your own head.
And a terrible moment for an “Orthodox” businessman who does not know humility, spiritual responsibility and simplicity may be the day when he comes to church with his tithe, but the Lord will not accept it.
Loading...