Copeland's interpretation of Matthew 19:24

[Noxot]

In the text it refers to the needle gate which a camel can get through if the rich man makes the camel humble it's self to the ground and crawl through it. Jesus used camel as a reference to the law. They are unclean. They chew the cud which is good but don't have cleft hooves. A cleft hoof is symbolic for the Lord's love and wisdom or truth and goodness. Or of man and God working together.

 

[DamianWarS]

The bible has verses that say how the rich trusting in their riches is bad.

Sure. 1. What are they, 2. How does studying the greek uniquely inform us of this position and 3. How does it relate to Mat 19:24.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not arguing that this position is missing in the bible but Copeland refers to Mat 19:24 and says if you study the greek it is about trusting in money. This intrigued me so I studied the greek of this text but didn't come to the same resolution. I didn't know if I was missing something which is about the OP is about.

And I'm thinking he mis spoke because no one has shown how the greek uniquely informs us of this position. And this answer is fine, Copeland is allowed to make mistakes but I just wanted to check his remark because it was puzzling to me.

 

[Noxot]

Sure. 1. What are they, 2. How does studying the greek uniquely inform us of this position and 3. How does it relate to Mat 19:24.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not arguing that this position is missing in the bible but Copeland refers to Mat 19:24 and says if you study the greek it is about trusting in money. This intrigued me so I studied the greek of this text but didn't come to the same resolution. I didn't know if I was missing something which is about the OP is about.

And I'm thinking he mis spoke because no one has shown how the greek uniquely informs us of this position. And this answer is fine, Copeland is allowed to make mistakes but I just wanted to check his remark because it was puzzling to me.

After that post i posted again. I think he was referring to the needle gate? As for the bible quotes, I don't remember where and this phone I'm posting on makes bible quoting difficult. Do a search of all verses with rich in them if you're interested.

 

[DamianWarS]

In the text it refers to the needle gate which a camel can get through if the rich man makes the camel humble it's self to the ground and crawl through it. Jesus used camel as a reference to the law. They are unclean. They chew the cud which is good but don't have cleft hooves. A cleft hoof is symbolic for the Lord's love and wisdom or truth and goodness. Or of man and God working together.

Yeah I've heard that before claiming the gate was called the eye of a needle and a camel had to unload everything it was carrying and lower itself to get through the gate. I have also heard this theory claimed to be debunked and there is no evidence of such a gate in the first century. Perhaps Copeland was referring to this (it seems like his style) but I still fail to see how studying the greek behind it informs us of this position. A study is required to get this answer but studying greek won't help.

Cyril of Alexandria claimed it was a misspelling of rope. kamelos is camel and kamilos is rope so his suggestion is Jesus was saying a rope through the eye of a needle. This theory, true or not, predates the gate theory and seems to still affirm the eye of a needle is from a needle not a gate suggestion that at least in Cyril's time the gate theory was not part of the conversation. This position could be argued it's a study of the greek (since we are actually looking at Greek words) yet it doesn't bring us to Copeland's position so wouldn't be what copeland is saying.

You're probably right that the gate theory is what he was referring to but just mis identifying it as a Greek study over a historical-grammatical study (not uniquely a language thing)

 

[Hawkins]

Translation doesn't affect the meaning itself that much.

Cyril of Alexandria: By “camel” here he means not the living thing, the beast of burden, but the thick rope to which sailors tie their anchors. He shows this comparison to be not entirely pointless (as a camel would be), but he makes it an exceedingly difficult matter; in fact, next to impossible. Fragment 219.

That said. I believe that the verse is very significant in terms of Law and covenants. Jesus didn't mention the first two most important commandments which are to love God and neighbors, that the young man violated even when he managed to abide by the rest of the 10 commandments.

To the Jews, the commandments are enforced as Law it is very dangerous not to share wealth with one's neighbors. The worse is when one failed the Law but still refuses to follow Jesus that his chance to be redeemed is thus next to impossible.

The even more significant point is that Jesus will be the Judge when the New Covenant takes effect. The verse shows His standard on the judgment of those failed to share their wealth with neighbors. It boils down to who are our neighbors in today's world. The children in Africa are dying of hunger and the different kinds of illness. It is the scenario of the good Samaritan. Those enjoying super richness while turning a blind eye to the neighbors are thus warned.

We all fall short of God's expectation in one way or another. We can't sell our everything to aid those dying. We however join the more important business of God to preach the gospel to save more souls. However super richness means we are risking our salvation in doing something our Judge dislike very much. I think this is the warning for them (it's a warning for everyone too).

 

[dc1]

I think if we love our neighbors as ourselves, being rich will be an exception, not the rule.

Agreed.

Capitalistic societies are proving to eat themselves alive.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Mat 19:24 and again I say to you, it is easier for a camel through the eye of a needle to go, than for a rich man to enter into the reign of God.' YLT

So if the rich man is under the reign of money, how can he transfer motives and come under God's reign?

YLT is the most literal from the Greek translation.

 

[timewerx]

but Copeland refers to Mat 19:24 and says if you study the greek it is about trusting in money. This intrigued me so I studied the greek of this text but didn't come to the same resolution. I didn't know if I was missing something which is about the OP is about.

I provided a Greek study of that verse in a previous reply of mine.

You didn't see it?

I think we both arrived at the same conclusion - KC is only making it up.

 

[Paul James]

I don't think the passage supports Copeland's position when balanced with the rest of scripture.

It all depends on how a person amasses his wealth. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a honest businessman who manufactures and sells a good product which people are very happy to buy, and makes a good deal of money out of his hard work. Often that hard work involves sacrifices, especially in family life and leisure time, and the years of eating jam sandwiches while struggling to get his business up and running.

This is very different from a man who amasses his wealth from vulnerable, financially strapped, sick and disabled people with false promises of prosperity and healing if they give their "seed" offering to his ministry, and then spends the lion's share of it on his own large mansion, airplane collection, overseas holidays for his family - staying in the most expensive hotels.

But there are godly men involved in Christian ministry who draw just an average salary from their work, and the bulk of ministry income going back into the function of the ministry. Smith Wigglesworth, perhaps the most successful healing ministry in the world, lived with his daughter in a modest three bedroom home in Bradford in England. Another successful evangelist with a TV gospel programme draws just a normal salary, even though the ministry makes millions of dollars from its book sales and donations. All that money goes right back into the ministry. I have a friend in New Zealand who has a world wide prophetic ministry and he draws no salary at all, but lives on faith and his superannuation income and lives in a modest home in a small coastal town.

So, wealth is not the issue, but where it comes from.

 

[Dave L]

It all depends on how a person amasses his wealth. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a honest businessman who manufactures and sells a good product which people are very happy to buy, and makes a good deal of money out of his hard work. Often that hard work involves sacrifices, especially in family life and leisure time, and the years of eating jam sandwiches while struggling to get his business up and running.

This is very different from a man who amasses his wealth from vulnerable, financially strapped, sick and disabled people with false promises of prosperity and healing if they give their "seed" offering to his ministry, and then spends the lion's share of it on his own large mansion, airplane collection, overseas holidays for his family - staying in the most expensive hotels.

But there are godly men involved in Christian ministry who draw just an average salary from their work, and the bulk of ministry income going back into the function of the ministry. Smith Wigglesworth, perhaps the most successful healing ministry in the world, lived with his daughter in a modest three bedroom home in Bradford in England. Another successful evangelist with a TV gospel programme draws just a normal salary, even though the ministry makes millions of dollars from its book sales and donations. All that money goes right back into the ministry. I have a friend in New Zealand who has a world wide prophetic ministry and he draws no salary at all, but lives on faith and his superannuation income and lives in a modest home in a small coastal town.

So, wealth is not the issue, but where it comes from.

I think Jesus taught the rich young ruler that you cannot love others as yourself and not consider your wealth their wealth. You are stealing if you don't treat them as equals as in Acts where the Church had all things common.

 

[Paul James]

I think Jesus taught the rich young ruler that you cannot love others as yourself and not consider your wealth their wealth. You are stealing if you don't treat them as equals as in Acts where the Church had all things common.

That certainly was the case at the beginning of the book of Acts. But not in today's churches.

 

[Dkh587]

We get a little more clarity here:

Mark 10:23-25

And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

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!

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.

 

[Dave L]

We get a little more clarity here:

Mark 10:23-25

If you don't trust in them, giving them to the needy is not an issue. That is if you love people as yourself.

 

[Paul James]

If you don't trust in them, giving them to the needy is not an issue. That is if you love people as yourself.

It is not just having the riches that is significant. It is where the heart of the person is. If a person has worked hard in his life and made personal and family sacrifices to make his business work, or that he has worked for an employer and careful saved his money, then he should not be judged for having a nice home, a car that he spends more time in it than under it, able to give his children a good education, and be able to meet all the other needs that sufficient finances can enable.

But if his dependence and heart is on his bank balance, he is like the man who built bigger barns to hold his wealth, and the Lord treated that man as a fool, because "this night your soul will be required of you". That was the fault of the rich young ruler - Jesus saw his that his heart was in his riches, and His instruction to him drove the sword of conviction into him, but the rich young man couldn't give up his riches, so he walked away from Christ.

Peter told Ananias, that his money was his to do what he wanted with it, but the fault here was that Ananias and his wife lied about how much they gave to the Apostles.

Jesus and His disciples did not have a lot of money of their own, but they had friends and supporters who were well-off and gave them much financial and material support during their three years with the Lord. Also, on two occasions, Peter, James, and John, caught a miraculous load of fish, which would have been sold and would have given them good financial support for quite a while. We must avoid being so heavenly-minded that we are no earthly use when it comes to seeing the realities.

I think that a lot of criticism of rich people comes from jealousy and envy when some Christians see the wealth of others, and think they should have a share of it, and so they quote all sorts of Scriptures to make it appear that the rich ones in the church should share their wealth with the others. But the motives are not godly at all, but comes from sheer jealousy and envy. Many well-off people in the church, because they love the brethren, contribute much to the finances of the church because they believe that the providence of God has enabled them to have greater wealth so they can give more to the work of God.

 

[Dave L]

It is not just having the riches that is significant. It is where the heart of the person is. If a person has worked hard in his life and made personal and family sacrifices to make his business work, or that he has worked for an employer and careful saved his money, then he should not be judged for having a nice home, a car that he spends more time in it than under it, able to give his children a good education, and be able to meet all the other needs that sufficient finances can enable.

But if his dependence and heart is on his bank balance, he is like the man who built bigger barns to hold his wealth, and the Lord treated that man as a fool, because "this night your soul will be required of you". That was the fault of the rich young ruler - Jesus saw his that his heart was in his riches, and His instruction to him drove the sword of conviction into him, but the rich young man couldn't give up his riches, so he walked away from Christ.

Peter told Ananias, that his money was his to do what he wanted with it, but the fault here was that Ananias and his wife lied about how much they gave to the Apostles.

Jesus and His disciples did not have a lot of money of their own, but they had friends and supporters who were well-off and gave them much financial and material support during their three years with the Lord. Also, on two occasions, Peter, James, and John, caught a miraculous load of fish, which would have been sold and would have given them good financial support for quite a while. We must avoid being so heavenly-minded that we are no earthly use when it comes to seeing the realities.

I think that a lot of criticism of rich people comes from jealousy and envy when some Christians see the wealth of others, and think they should have a share of it, and so they quote all sorts of Scriptures to make it appear that the rich ones in the church should share their wealth with the others. But the motives are not godly at all, but comes from sheer jealousy and envy. Many well-off people in the church, because they love the brethren, contribute much to the finances of the church because they believe that the providence of God has enabled them to have greater wealth so they can give more to the work of God.

If you live the Sermon on the Mount that is a Christian career. Otherwise, you are just another Christian with a career treating Christ as a sideline.

 

[Paul James]

If you live the Sermon on the Mount that is a Christian career. Otherwise, you are just another Christian with a career treating Christ as a sideline.

I would agree that His teaching is essential for the development of sanctification for every converted believer in Christ, so that he is seen to be living his belief in Christ and is not being a hypocrite.