Two Turtledoves (Luke 2:24)

What did Mary and Joseph offer as a sacrifice at the time of purification? A pair of turtledoves and two young pigeons (Luke 2:24)

The Gospel of Luke diligently documents the obedience of the infant Jesus’ parents (Luke 2:21-24). On the eighth day, Jesus is circumcised and formally given the name that is above all names (Luke 2:21). The third gospel also records that the baby is presented at the temple (Luke 2:21-38).

While there, Jesus’ earthly parents provide the requisite offerings as dictated by the Old Testament’s statutes (Luke 2:22-24).

And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”), and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord, “A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.” (Luke 2:22-24 NASB)

Robert H. Stein (b. 1935) asks:

Why did Luke describe the sacrifice [Luke 2:22-24]? Was it purely for historical reasons? Was it to demonstrate that Joseph and Mary obeyed the law? Or was it because he expected his readers to know that according to Leviticus 12:8 the normal sacrifice involved a lamb and a dove or pigeon and thus to understand that Joseph and Mary were of a “humble state” (Luke 1:48), i.e. too poor to be able to afford a lamb? Certainty is impossible, but the latter explanation fits well with the Lukan emphasis in Luke 1:48, 52-53, 2:8. That Mary offered a dove as a sin offering (Leviticus 12:6) for her purification indicates that the mother of God’s Son also needed the forgiveness and redemption that her son brought. (The description of Mary’s offering also suggests that Joseph and Mary were not yet in possession of the rich gifts of the wise men mentioned in Matthew 2:11, i.e., the wise men had not yet come. Cf. also Matthew 2:7, 16.) (Stein, Luke (New American Commentary), 114)

Luke specifies that Jesus’ parents, in accordance with the “law of Moses”, offer a pair of “turtledoves” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV)/“doves” (CEV, MSG, NIV) or “young pigeons” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) (Luke 2:24).

The Greek terms are unambiguous. I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) delineates:

λευγος (Luke 14:19) is a ‘pair’, originally a ‘yoke’. νοσσός is the ‘young of a bird’, and περιτέρα (Luke 3:22) ‘pigeon, dove’. (Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 18)

A.T. Robertson (1863-1934) relates:

“A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.” (λευγος τρυγόνων ἢ δύο νοσσοὺς περιστερων) [Luke 2:24]... is the offering of the poor, costing about sixteen cents, while a lamb would cost nearly two dollars. The “young of pigeons” is the literal meaning. (Robertson (revised and updated by Wesley J. Perschbacher [1932-2012]), The Gospel according to Luke (Word Pictures in the New Testament), 43)

While Luke apparently alludes to the Old Testament, it is uncertain precisely what the gospel has in mind. S.G. Wilson (b. 1942) acknowledges:

Despite the specific quotations from Exodus 13:2, 12; Leviticus 12:2ff, Luke’s narrative is not wholly clear. (Wilson, Luke and the Law, 21)

It cannot even be certain if Luke attempts to cite the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint though the latter likely influences the gospel’s manuscript. Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) reveals:

Luke derives most of the wording of this prescription [Luke 2:22-24] from the Septuagint of Leviticus 12:8, which speaks of “two turtledoves or two young pigeons.” The turtledove, of which three varieties are known in Palestine, is a small type of pigeon. The two species of birds are often linked in Old Testament stipulations about animal sacrifices. Here the implication is that Mary offered these animals because she (or Joseph) could not afford the one-year old lamb for the whole burnt offering. (Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (Anchor Bible), 426)

David Lyle Jeffrey (b. 1941) presumes:

The citations of the law do not follow the Greek (Septuagint) text, and we may reasonably assume that Luke’s language here reflects the report of his informants, possibly in a condensed form. (Jeffrey, Luke (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 46)

John Nolland (b. 1947) adds:

No close parallel has been offered for the idiom δουναι θυσίαν [Luke 2:23] (literally, “give a sacrifice”; cf. Psalm 51:17). τὸ εἰρημένον, “what is said” [Luke 2:24], is Lukan (Acts 2:16, 13:40) and not Septuagintal. (Nolland, (Luke 1-9:20 (Word Biblical Commentary), 118)

Some interpreters have seen Luke as having a single regulation in mind (Luke 2:22-24). Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) pronounces:

The sacrifice [Luke 2:24] is not for the redemption of the firstborn, but for the purification of the mother. (Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (Anchor Bible), 426)

I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) concurs:

Luke reverts to the cleansing of the mother [Luke 2:24], which was effected by the sacrifice of a lamb with a young pigeon or turtledove as a burnt offering and a sin offering respectively (Leviticus 12:6); Joseph and Mary, however, being poor, availed themselves of the concession to offer two doves or pigeons (Leviticus 12:8; the wording is closer to Leviticus 5:11 where the similar sacrifice for unwitting sin is described; cf. Leviticus 14:22; Numbers 6:10). (Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 117-18)

Others have seen the third gospel as conflating multiple ordinances (Luke 2:22-24). Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) encapsulates:

Luke 2:22-24 telescopes at least two traditional Jewish practices prescribed by the law. Luke 2:22a, 24 reflect the practice of the purification of the mother after childbirth, following the directives of Leviticus 12:6, 8...Luke 2:22b, 23, however, echo Exodus 13:2, 12, 13, 15 where it is said the firstborn belongs to God and must be redeemed (cf. Mishna, Bekhoroth, 8). (Talbert, Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel, 37)

John T. Carroll (b. 1954) upholds:

In this unit [Luke 2:22-24] Luke fuses two discrete ritual observances. After childbirth the mother (not both parents) would participate in a rite of purification that includes the offering of a lamb and either a pigeon or turtledove—or, if the woman’s poverty requires less, two pigeons or turtledoves—after seven days of ritual impurity and the boy’s circumcision on the eighth day (Leviticus 12:2-8). The narrator seems to connect this sacrificial offering to the presentation of Jesus as firstborn son (cf. Exodus 13:2, 11-16), rather than to the mother’s purification. In an account that reproduces with precision neither the liturgical acts nor their legal basis, the literary arrangement provides a clue to meaning. The two rituals are fused in a chiastic arrangement that places the presentation of Jesus—as firstborn son, “holy to the Lord” [Luke 2:23]—at the center of the unit and the sacrificial offering of two birds at the end [Luke 2:24]. (Carroll, Luke: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 75)

Part of the interpretive difficulty stems from the use of the plural pronoun “their” as opposed to the singular “her” (Luke 2:22). John Reumann (1927-2008) chastises:

In Luke 2:22 he speaks of “their purification,” seemingly thinking that both parents were purified, when the custom referred only to the mother [Leviticus 12:2-8]. Also, he seems to think (incorrectly) that the Law required the presentation of the firstborn at the Temple. In Luke 2:24 Luke describes the doves or pigeons as a gift on the occasion of the presentation, when according to Leviticus 12:6 they were the gift prescribed for the purification. See Heikke Räisänen [b. 1941], Die Mutter Jesu im Neuen Testament, 125-27; Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998], The Birth of the Messiah, 447-51. (Brown [1928-1998], Karl P. Donfried [b. 1940], Joseph A. Fitzmyer [b. 1920] and Reumann, Mary in the New Testament, 111)

Sharon H. Ringe (b. 1946) recognizes:

The only puzzling point in Luke’s version of the purification is the initial reference to “their” purification [Luke 2:22], since only the mother required such a ritual. There really is no way to get around the awkwardness of that pronoun, other than to recognize it in the context of Luke’s description of the pilgrimage as involving the whole family. One might even see the plural pronoun as affirming that upon the completion of this obligation, the whole family would be ready to resume its life after the dramatic intervention of the birth of the baby. (Ringe, Luke (Westminster Bible Companion), 45)

Barbara E. Reid (b. 1953) discusses:

These verses [Luke 2:22-24] are confusing in the use of “their” and “they” without antecedents. Presumably, “their purification” [Luke 2:22] refers to Mary and Joseph, but in Jewish law purification was specified only for the woman (Leviticus 12:2-8). Some commentators have understood “their” as referring to Mary and Jesus, but there was no requirement of purification for a newborn. Since the main verb anēgagon [Luke 2:22], “they took him up,” refers to Mary and Joseph, it is best to take “their purification” as referring to Mary and Joseph as well. The inaccuracy about who was required to undergo purification is usually explained as Luke’s mistake, due to his being a non-Palestinian Gentile Christian, unfamiliar with the intricacies of Jewish law. When today we are concerned for gender equality, we might smile at Luke’s unwitting inclusivity of Joseph in a ritual intended for women. (Reid, Choosing the Better Part?: Women in the Gospel of Luke, 86-87)

E.J. Tinsley (1919-1992) laments:

It is a pity that the use of the word purification [Luke 2:22] has suggested the notion that sexual processes are necessarily unseemly. Significantly in this passage the majority of manuscripts have ‘their’ purification so as to reduce the direct reference to the mother of Jesus needing purification made in those manuscripts which read ‘her’ purification. (Tinsley, The Gospel according to Luke (Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the New Testament), 41)

Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) rationalizes:

The text refers to “their” sacrifice [Luke 2:22], which seems odd at first glance in that a purification offering would normally be Mary’s alone. However, seeing that Joseph undoubtedly helped in Mary’s delivery at the distant town, he was also rendered unclean and needed to make a sacrifice for himself (Mishnah Niddah 5.1, 2.5, 1.3-5). Another possibility is that Luke is alluding in Luke 2:22 to all the sacrifices involved in the three ceremonies and that those offerings, some hers and others theirs, are combined. All these sacrifices indicate how seriously Judaism took approaching God in worship and how prepared a heart and soul one should have as they address God. (Bock, Luke (NIV Application Commentary))

While the precise regulation the gospel intends to indicate is unclear, it is undeniable that Luke holds the Old Testament tradition in the highest regard. J. Bradley Chance (b. 1954) reviews:

A survey of the Lukan materials indicates that Luke did not transfer cultic language from the temple to the church, as though he wished to imply that the church was now the proper locus of the cult...Neither does Luke spiritualize the idea of offering (προσψορά, δωρον) or sacrifice (θυσία), nor does he use such language to describe the Christian life. The language of sacrifice is employed literally, and is often employed in the context of the temple cult. When it is found in this context, it is presented in a positive light (Luke 2:24, 5:14, 21:1-4; Acts 21:26, 24:17). Explicitly negative attitudes revolve around the cultic items only in the context of the Stephen speech (Acts 7:41-42), where Stephen is describing the idolatrous incident of the golden calf (Acts 7:41) and the lack of a sacrificial cult during Israel’s period of desert wanderings (Acts 7:42). The latter reference can hardly be understood as Luke’s rejection of all sacrifice and offering, given Acts 21:26 and Acts 24:17 where Paul’s participation in the Jewish cult is viewed as an act of true piety. (Chance, Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age in Luke-Acts, 36)

There are problematic theological ramifications if Luke alludes to the redeeming of the firstborn (Exodus 13:13-16; Luke 2:22-24). Justo L. González (b. 1937) observes:

Curiously, Luke tells us that the Redeemer has to be redeemed, has to be bought back [Luke 2:22-24]. This is not because he has sinned, but simply because he is a firstborn, and all the firstborn in Israel belong to God [Exodus 13:13-16]. The theme of the Passover as a type of Jesus...appears repeatedly throughout the New Testament, with several layers of meaning. The paschal lamb that was sacrificed [Exodus 12:1-13] is a type of Jesus. Jesus himself is the new Passover, for in him God shows mercy to us. According to Luke and the other Synoptic Gospels [Matthew 26:17-19; Mark 14:1, 12, 14, 16; Luke 22:1, 7,8, 11, 13, 15], the last meal of Jesus with his disciples before the crucifixion is a paschal meal. It is there that he instituted the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist. Here, at the presentation in the temple, another Passover theme appears: Jesus the firstborn is to be redeemed by the sacrifice of two turtledoves [Luke 2:24], and he will then redeem all humankind by his own sacrifice. (González, Luke (Belief: a Theological Commentary on the Bible), 42)

Eduard Schweizer (1913-2006) counters:

The narrative [Luke 2:23-24] associates the purification of the mother after seven days with the offering prescribed for the firstborn, normally carried out through payment to a local priest...Nothing is said here of such a “redemption” of Jesus; instead he is received into the service of God (in which he will redeem others: Mark 10:45, not used by Luke). Perhaps there is also an echo of I Samuel 1:11, 22-28. There, however, the mother dedicates her child to God, whereas here God sets the child apart for service through the agency of a prophet. Thus a prescribed ritual takes on new meaning as a kind of “presentation” of the newborn child. (Schweizer, The Good News According to Luke, 55)

The theological implications of the offering effect the parents as well as the child. Based upon its presumed necessity, it could be inferred that Mary and Joseph are sinners. As such, the only sinless man (Hebrews 4:15) is raised by sinners.

This issue has been debated for centuries. Linda S. Schearing (b. 1947) presents:

It wasn’t the Holy Family’s finances...that drew the most attention from readers [Luke 2:22-24], but the fact that Mary offered what was understood as a “sin” offering. Such an action raised a host of questions about Mary’s nature. Was the mother of the Christ a “normal” woman? Did she menstruate? Did she bleed when giving birth to Jesus? In either of these cases, Leviticus 12:1-8 and 15:1-33 would have labeled Mary ceremonially “unclean.” In the early centuries following Jesus’ death, however, Christian communities claimed that Mary was “more than” other women. As this happened, such “normal” aspects of female physicality such as menstruation and parturition became the objects of controversy. For example, while some thought that Mary’s piety exempted her from the “normal” pain of childbirth, others insisted that even Mary’s hymen was left intact after Jesus’ birth! (Rolf Rendtorff [1925-2014] and Robert A. Kugler, “Double Time...Double Trouble? Gender, Sin, and Leviticus 12”, The Book of Leviticus: Composition & Reception, 440)

This topic is of special concern within Catholicism. John F. MacArthur (b. 1939) criticizes:

That Mary offered a sin offering is consistent with the reality that she was a sinner in need of a Savior (cf. Luke 1:47). The Catholic dogma that Mary was immaculately conceived and lived a sinless life finds no support in Scripture. (MacArthur, Luke 1-5 (The MacArthur New Testament Commentary), 171)

Linda S. Schearing (b. 1947) analyzes:

A...serious issue arose concerning the sin offering Mary offered in Luke 2:24. The dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception insisted that Mary was without sin. If this was the case then why would she need to be purified? How could the birth of the Savior render his mother unclean? As Mary’s visit to Jerusalem for her purification became immortalized in the church’s festival of Candlemas, focus on her purity was kept cultically alive each calendar year...Perhaps one of the most well-conceived medieval treatments of Mary’s presentation to Leviticus 12:1-8 is found in the writings of Thomas Aquinas [1225-1274]. In his Summa Theologica, he addressed Luke 2:21-24, Leviticus 12:1-8, and Mary’s sinlessness and perpetual virginity...“As Gregory of Nyssa [335-394] says (De Occursu Domini): It seems that this precept of Law was fulfilled in God incarnate alone in a special manner exclusively proper to Him. For He alone, whose conception was ineffable, and whose birth was incomprehensible, opened the virginal womb which had been closed to sexual unison, in such a way that after birth the seal of chastity remained inviolate. Consequently the words opening the womb imply that nothing hitherto had entered or gone forth therefrom. Again, for special reason it is written “a male,” because He contracted nothing of the woman’s sin: and in a singular way is He called ‘holy’ because He felt no contagion of earthly corruption, whose birth was wondrously immaculate (Ambrose [337-397], on Luke 2:23).”...In both cases—her perpetual virginity and her sinlessness—Aquinas felt it necessary to defend Mary’s actions in Luke 2:21-24 in light Leviticus 12:1-8’s association with impurity. Nor was such concern solely the purview of theologians like Aquinas. A similar point of view can be found in the liturgy of a mid-eleventh century Bavarian Candlemas ceremony...For historians like Joanne M. Pierce [b. 1955], this rite, with its imperative to let Mary “be a model for us” exemplifies how the Feast of Candlemas connected the themes of Mary and purification while at the same time exhorting women to follow Mary’s example. (Rolf Rendtorff [1925-2014] and Robert A. Kugler, “Double Time...Double Trouble? Gender, Sin, and Leviticus 12”, The Book of Leviticus: Composition & Reception, 440-43)

Given the problematic nature of including these offerings, the passage’s historicity is bolstered (Luke 2:22-24). Alfred Plummer (1841-1926) affirms:

The record of the offerings [Luke 2:21-24] is considerable guarantee for the truth of the history. A legend would very probably have emphasized the miraculous birth by saying that the virgin mother was divinely instructed not to bring the customary offerings, which in her case would not be required. (Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke (International Critical Commentary), 65)

For Luke, these theological issues are likely not at the forefront: The intent is not to discredit Jesus’ parents but rather to present them as pious Jews. Luke depicts them faithfully following three prescribed rituals: circumcision (Luke 2:22), purification (Luke 2:2) and dedication (Luke 2:23-24).

Fred B. Craddock (b. 1928) praises:

The story falls into three parts: the framing story (Luke 2:22-24, 39-40), into which are inserted the response of Simeon (Luke 2:25-35) and the response of Anna (Luke 2:36-38). The framing story itself has one governing focus: Jesus grew up in a family that meticulously observed the law of Moses. No fewer than five times in this text Luke tells the reader that they did everything required in the law. Later in life Jesus would be in tension with some interpreters of his tradition, but his position would not be that of an outsider. On the contrary, Jesus’ own nurture in his tradition prepared him to oppose flawed and hollow practices in the name of the law of Moses. (Luke, Luke (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 38)

David L. Tiede (b. 1940) agrees:

By mentioning the law in each of these three verses [Luke 2:22-24], he also stresses that proper temple observance is obedience to the will of God. The word law here means the text of Scripture, and it may also be understood to refer to God’s theocratic rule. The term is unequivocally positive in this context. (Tiede, Luke (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament), 74)

Michael Card (b. 1957) supports:

Within the scope of six verses, the observance of the “law” is mentioned four times. This is a picture of Mary and Joseph’s exacting observance of the law. Of the nine times the word law occurs in Luke’s writing, five of them are contained in this passage [Luke 2:22, 23, 24, 27, 39]. (Card, Luke: The Gospel of Amazement (Biblical Imagination), 51)

Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) determines:

Luke is making it clear that Jesus’ parents are not spiritual renegades, but Jews who are sensitive and faithful to the Mosaic law—a point reinforced in Luke 2:40-52, when they will make their customary annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem. All the persons surrounding Jesus at his birth have a heritage of devotion to God. The testimony to Jesus stands on the shoulders of a series of highly respectable figures. (Bock, Luke (IVP New Testament Commentary), 58)

God places his child into a devout home which values the precepts set forth in the Old Testament. Significantly, Jesus raised in a religious household.

Why do Mary and Joseph follow these religious observances when their circumstances are so different from the regulations’ intent (Luke 2:22-24)? What does it say of God that Jesus is inserted into a family that attempts to follow Jewish law? How closely do you live out your religious beliefs? Were you reared in a religious home? Do you think God would entrust your household with Jesus? What does their offering say of Mary and Joseph? What do your offerings speak of you?

In addition to their obedience, the text sheds light on Jesus’ parents’ tax bracket: Their offering puts their financial status on display as the majority of interpreters have seen Mary and Joseph invoking a provision that makes allowances in hardship cases (Leviticus 12:8; Luke 2:22-24).

G. Johannes Botterweck (1917-1981) reads:

In the sacrifice offered for the purification of a woman who has given birth, a year-old lamb is brought to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting as a burnt offering and a young pigeon or turtledove as a sin offering (Leviticus 12:6). Here...an indigence clause (Leviticus 12:8; cf. Luke 2:24) commutes the year-old lamb to the burnt offering of two turtledoves or young pigeons (cf. Leviticus 1:14, 5:7, 14:22; [Leviticus15:30]). (Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren [1917-2012], Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Volume VI, 39)

Mark L. Strauss (b. 1959) explicates:

The quotation [Luke 2:24] is from Leviticus 12:8, which concerns the sacrifice of purification for the woman, not the redemption of the firstborn. The woman was to offer a lamb and a pigeon or dove (Leviticus 12:6), or two doves or pigeons if she was poor (Leviticus 12:8). We have incidental evidence here that Joseph and Mary belong to the lower economic classes. (Clinton E. Arnold [b. 1958], Matthew, Mark, Luke (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 29)

William Barclay (1907-1978) envisions:

The offering of the two pigeons instead of the lamb [Luke 2:24] and the pigeon was technically called the Offering of the Poor. It was the offering of the poor which Mary brought. Again we see that it was into an ordinary home that Jesus was born, a home where there were no luxuries, a home where the cost of everything had to be considered carefully, a home where the members of the family knew all about the difficulties of making a living and the haunting insecurity of life. When life is worrying for us we must remember that Jesus knew what the difficulties of making ends meet can be. (Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (New Daily Study Bible), 30)

Walter Pilgrim (b. 1934) evaluates:

There are...several features in the actual birth story of Jesus which emphasize the lowly social status of his family. The offering they bring for the purification of Mary, a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons, is that prescribed for the poor (Luke 2:22-24). The rich offered a lamb. This tells us that though Joseph was an artisan [Matthew 13:55] and so belonged to the middle class, his actual economic situation was something less. Perhaps even the lack of room for them in Bethlehem may imply their inability to pay enough [Luke 2:7]. The entire story of the manger birth evokes a sense of God’s activity in the midst of earthly poverty. (Pilgrim, Good News to the Poor: Wealth and Poverty in Luke-Acts, 79-80)

Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) substantiates:

From Luke 2:24 it is clear that Joseph and Mary offered the offering of the poor, an offering that identifies them with the very people whom Christ portrays himself as saving (Luke 1:52, 4:18-19, 6:20; Heinrich Greeven [1906-1990] Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 6:69; Frederick W. Danker [1920-2012] 1988:62). However, it should not be concluded from this that Joseph lived in abject poverty, since he had a trade as a carpenter (William Hendriksen [1900-1982] 1978:165; Alfred Plummer [1841-1926] 1896:65; Mark 6:3). The lamb seems to have been offered only by the fairly wealthy. It is quite possible that Jesus’ parents bought their offering in the temple courts (Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] 1977:437; Luke 19:45-48). (Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50 (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 235)

Origen (184-253) approves:

It seems wonderful that the sacrifice of Mary was not the first offering, that is, “a lamb a year old,” but the second, since “she could not afford” the first [Leviticus 12:6-8]. For as it was written about her, Jesus’ parents came “to offer a sacrifice” for him, “according to what is said in the law of the Lord, ‘a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.’” [Luke 2:24] But this also shows the truth of what was written, that Jesus Christ “although he was rich, became a poor man” [II Corinthians 8:9]. Therefore, for this reason, he chose both a poor mother, from whom he was born, and a poor homeland, about which it is said, “But you, O Bethlehem Ephratha, who are little to be among the clans of Judah [Micah 5:2],” and the rest. Homilies on Leviticus 8.4.3. (Arthur A. Just [b. 1953], Luke (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture), 47-48)

The public indication is that Mary and Joseph cannot afford the offering of the rich (Luke 2:24). Thus, though Jesus’ family is not destitute, they are hardly wealthy in monetary terms.

Luke’s notice of the parents’ offerings complies with the third gospel’s emphasis on the poor. Leon Morris (1914-2006) contextualizes:

Jesus came to preach the gospel to the poor (Luke 4:18), and Luke reports a blessing on the poor (Luke 6:20 by contrast there is a woe for the rich, Luke 6:24), whereas Matthew speaks of ‘the poor in spirit’ (Matthew 5:3). Preaching good news to the poor is characteristic of Jesus’ ministry (Luke 7:22). The shepherds to whom the angels came (Luke 2:8ff) were from a poor class. Indeed the family of Jesus himself seems to have been poor, for the offering made at the birth of the child was that of the poor (Luke 2:24; cf. Leviticus 12:8). In general Luke concerns himself with the interests of the poor (Luke 1:53, 6:30, 14:11-13, 21, 16:19ff.). (Morris, Luke (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 45)

Jesus will maintain this economic status throughout his life. Joel B. Green (b. 1956) follows:

Was Jesus himself economically disadvantaged? Sentimental pictures have been painted of his lowly beginnings in a stable, as though he were homeless, but these are based on misreadings of the Lukan narrative. Luke 2:1-7 portrays a small town swelled by the requirements of the Roman-instigated census. As Bethlehem probably had no public inns, Luke envisages a near-eastern peasant home in which family and animals slept in one enclosed space, with the animals located on a lower level. Mary and Joseph, then, would have been the guests of family or friends, but their home would have been so overcrowded that, upon his birth, the baby was placed in a feeding trough...More to the point is the sacrifice offered by Jesus’s parents in Luke 2:24: “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons” – according to Leviticus 12:8 the prescribed offering for those unable to afford a yearling lamb. Furthermore, in his Galilean ministry Jesus is said to depend on the support of others (Luke 8:1-3), Later, on the way to Jerusalem, Jesus says of himself that he has no place to lay his head (Luke 9:58), presumably an assertion about his lack of a home, but surely also a warning concerning the rejection to be expected of those who follow in his footsteps. (Green, The Theology of the Gospel of Luke, 112-13)

Jesus emanates from a blue collar family; he will be raised in a humble home (Luke 1:48). This serves as a reminder that he comes to save all, not merely the privileged of society.

J. Ellsworth Kalas (b. 1928) and David J. Kalas (b. 1962) understand:

God...communicated in humanly understandable terms when he chose to have his special Son raised in a home like many others. He did not grow up in a wealthy home. We can tell Mary and Joseph were persons of small means by the humble thank-offering they brought to the Temple — i.e.. “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons” (Luke 2:24). A well-to-do family might have offered a lamb. We can also tell that Jesus grew up in a good, law-abiding home. His parents showed respect for the sacred laws by bringing their son to the Temple on the proscribed eighth day for the required ritual of dedication called circumcision [Luke 2:21]. (Kalas, Kalas, Frank G. Honeycutt [b. 1957], Stephen M. Crotts [b. 1950] and R. Robert Cueni [b. 1942], “God Communicates In Humanly Understandable Terms”, Sermons on the Gospel Readings: Series 1, Cycle C, 47)

Mary and Joseph amount to Jesus’ godparents in that they are selected to raise God’s son. God could have chosen anyone for this task and yet a humble family from lowly Galilee is the family that is given the responsibility. In Luke’s text, their obedience, not economic status, is emphasized as Mary and Joseph’s observance of the law is made explicit, while their economic standing remains implicit (Luke 2:22-24). This speaks volumes of God’s priorities.

Do you think Mary and Joseph wished that they could pay the offering of the rich (Luke 2:24)? How would you characterize your own economic status? Would you want your financial records and giving patterns publicly available at your church? If this policy was still practiced, how would it effect giving? Should church giving be recommended on a sliding scale rather than a flat rate (such as tithing)? Is Jesus’ concern for the poor in any way self serving as he himself would likely qualify? If forced to leave your children to someone, who would it be; would you choose a rich or poor family? Would economic standing be a primary consideration? Does Luke emphasize Jesus’ parents’ spiritual or monetary status? Which do you spend more time enhancing, your spiritual life or your financial portfolio?

“We may see the small Value God has for Riches, by the People he gives them to.” -Alexander Pope (1688-1744), Thoughts on Various Subjects, 1727

Rich Man, Poor Man (Luke 16:20)

Who was the beggar who lay at the rich man’s gate? Lazarus (Luke 16:20)

The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is one of Jesus’ most intriguing illustrations (Luke 16:19-31). Appearing only in Luke’s gospel, the parable is directed at the Pharisees “who were lovers of money” (Luke 16:14). The tale depicts a rich man and a beggar who are acquainted in life and whose fortunes are reversed in the afterlife. Though the text recounts no action of either character, the beggar spends the afterlife at “Abraham’s bosom” while the rich man is relegated to Hades (Luke 16:22-23). Ultimately, the rich man asks that the beggar be sent with a message from beyond to his brothers on earth in hopes of producing their repentance (Luke 16:27-28). Being deemed futile, his request is denied (Luke 16:29-31).

The story is unique among Jesus’ parables as it is the only one to depict a scene in the afterlife. It is also the only parable in which a character is named. The poor beggar is called Lazarus (Luke 16:20).

“Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. (Luke 16:19-21 NASB)

In Lazarus, Jesus paints a pathetic picture of abject poverty. Mark L. Strauss (b. 1959) describes:

The picture is one of absolute degradation. A later rabbinic proverb says, “There are three whose life is no life; he who depends on the table of another, he who is ruled by his wife, and he whose body is burdened with sufferings.” Lazarus has two out of three. From society’s perspective, he has “no life” at all. (Clinton E. Arnold [b. 1958], Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, Volume 1: Matthew, Mark, Luke,136-37)

The rich man and poor man are presented as polar opposites in every way; both representing extreme cases on the affluence spectrum. Their descriptions are carefully balanced and the multiple details serve to accentuate the contrast as strongly as possible. On the surface, the rich man is in a far superior position than poor Lazarus.

Joel B. Green (b. 1956) observes:

The stage of Jesus’ parable is set by the extravagant parallelism resident in the depictions of the two main characters. The social distance between the two is continued through to the end, symbolized first by the gate, then by the “distance” (“far away,” Luke 16:23) and the “great chasm” fixed between them (Luke 16:26). The rich man is depicted in excessive, even outrageous terms, while Lazarus is numbered among society’s “expendables,” a man who had fallen prey to the ease with which, even in an advanced agrarian society, persons without secure landholdings might experience devastating downward mobility. (Green, The Gospel of Luke (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 605)

Bernard Brandon Scott (b. 1941) adds:

The introductions of the two men are closely parallel. The first man has his richness; the poor man has only his name, Lazarus. The introductions set in parallel rich and Lazarus...The introductory clauses are nicely balanced: the first man’s introduction ends with “rich,” and the second man’s begins with “poor.” Likewise, the first man’s introduction begins with the anonymous “man,” and the second ends with a proper name, Lazarus. Perhaps this may also indicate the purpose of naming the poor man, for the name means “he whom God helps.” The name Lazarus contrasts the two characters: one is full of possessions, and the other is empty except for a name, but the meaning of the name may well hold out a promise. (Scott, Hear Then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus,149)

Michael Card (b. 1957) summarizes:

Two individuals could not be more different. One is fabulously wealthy, dressed in his finest clothes and eating the finest food every day...The other is pitifully poor, covered with festering sores, and left abandoned at the gate. (Card, Luke: The Gospel of Amazement (Biblical Imagination), 194)

Lazarus’ name is conspicuous. While it is not unheard to incorporate a proper name into a parable (Ezekiel 23:4), this marks the only time Jesus does so, not counting Abraham who appears in the same story (Luke 16:22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30).

Because of the inclusion of the proper name, it has been argued that Jesus is recounting an historical event. David Lyle Jeffrey (b. 1941) explains:

The status of this narrative as a parable has sometimes been questioned. The objection attends to rhetorical framing of the story. Luke does not call it a parable, unusually, nor is it introduced with a comparative (“the kingdom of heaven is like unto...”); moreover this would be the only parable in which a character is given a name, Lazarus. (Jeffrey, Luke (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 202)

Though Jesus never categorizes this particular story as parabolic, presumably the descriptor from Luke 15:2 carries through chapter 16.

Klyne R. Snodgrass (b. 1944) refutes:

Preachers and certain people throughout church history sometimes have asserted that this story is not a parable but depicts reals people and the consequences of their lives. I am not aware of any modern scholar who would agree. Certainly Luke viewed this as a parable. It appears in a collection of parables, possibly stands chiastically parallel to the parable of the Rich Fool, and uses the exact same introductory words (anthrōpos tis) which Luke uses to introduce several other parables. This is without question a parable. (Snodgrass, Stories With Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus, 426)

As much of the story is a dialogue (Luke 16:24-31), it has been posed that Jesus names the beggar as a literary device for narrative convenience: the story flows better with a character named. Still, the choice of name is intentional and the question remains why this particular name is selected.

Lazarus was a common name. Géza Vermes (b. 1924) views it as a Galilean corruption, representative of Jesus’ distinctive dialect (Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 53). The name has entered the English language through the word “lazar” which means “a poor and diseased person, usually with a loathsome disease; especially a leper” (Oxford English Dictionary).

Among its effects, naming the beggar Lazarus undermines the potential assumption that his unenviable earthly condition correlates to punishment for sin. I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) assesses:

The rich man he is named...Λάζαρος, i.e. la‘zar, an abbreviation of ’el‘āzār, ‘He (whom) God helps’...Its significance may be that it hints at the piety of the poor man, although the general use of πτωχος in Luke (Luke 4:18, 6:20, 7:22, 21:3) already indicates that the poor are in general pious and the recipients of God’s grace (cf. Luke 14:13, 21). (Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 635)

Robert H. Stein (b. 1935) adds:

Jesus may have named the poor beggar intentionally as a pun in order to help his hearers understand that this poor man (“whom God has helped”) should be identified with such poor as referred to in Luke 4:18, 6:20, 7:22 and later in Luke 21:3, i.e., he was a poor believer...If Jesus intended this pun, there is still the question of whether Luke recognized the play on the name and whether Luke’s readers would have understood it. This is doubtful. Regardless, Luke did not call attention to the possible pun. Yet Luke continued the theme of reversal by giving the forgotten, poor man a name while the rich man went nameless. The plight of the poor man is...described by means of a fourfold contrast between the rich man and Lazarus...For similar contrasts and reversals, cf. Luke 1:51-53, 3:5, 6:20-26, etc. (Stein, Luke (The New American Commentary), 423)

The name exonerates Lazarus and he becomes one of many examples of righteous poor people in Luke’s gospel. Still, it is doubtful that Luke’s Greek speaking audience would have gleaned the significance of Lazarus’ name.

The Greek name Lazarus is equivalent to the Hebrew Eliezer. Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) documents:

The name had numerous religious associations for the Jews. Among those who had the name were Aaron’s son and successor as high priest (Exodus 6:23), a priest who dedicated the rebuilt wall of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 12:42), a brother of the Jewish patriot Judas Maccabeus (I Maccabees 2:5), a respected martyr of the same period (II Maccabees 6:18-23), and Abraham’s chief trusted servant (Genesis 15:2). Many suggest that the latter figure is the source of the name because of Abraham’s presence in the story. (Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53 (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 1364)

As Bock notes, some have connected the character to Abraham’s loyal servant, Eliezer of Damascus (Genesis 15:2). The Septuagint even renders the name Eliezer as Lazaros (Genesis 15:2). In Jewish thought, Eliezer is an exemplar of loyalty and covenant service.

William R. Herzog II (b. 1944) relays:

J. Duncan M. Derrett (b. 1922) has proposed...that Lazarus is “none other than ‘Eliezer, Abraham’s steward,” mentioned in Genesis 15:2, who according to midrashic tradition, was sent by Abraham “to the land to observe how the ‘tenant’ [were] dealing with [their] property” and their obligation to show hospitality...Because Elizer became a well-known figure in Jewish Haggadah, the suggestion, though difficult to assess is not impossible. (Herzog, Parables As Subversive Speech: Jesus As Pedagogue of the Oppressed, 233)

Despite sharing a common name and association with Abraham, Eliezer of Damascus was hardly a beggar.

Others have connected the story to the Lazarus famously raised from the dead by Jesus (John 11:1-44). Scholars have argued that one story has influenced the other and arguments go both ways as to which anecdote influenced the other.

Craig A. Evans (b. 1952) examines:

If there is a connection between the Lazarus of the Luke account and the Lazarus of John 11, what is the nature of this relationship? There are at least two possible explanations. First, it has been argued that the Johnannine account of the raising of Lazarus is in fact a fictional illustration based upon the Lukan story: Lazarus was indeed raised from the dead (as the rich man had requested) as a witness, yet even then Jesus’ opponents did not believe (as Abraham had predicted). A second explanation, and one that is preferred to the first, is that because of the rough similarity between the point of the Lukan story and the experience of Lazarus in John 11, early in the manuscript tradition a certain Christian scribe (or scribes) inserted the name Lazarus. Although this suggestion must remain speculative, since there is no early manuscript evidence of the story without the name, it provides a reasonable explanation to the...questions raised above, for it explains why a proper name has appeared and why this name was Lazarus of all names. (Evans, Matthew-Luke (Bible Knowledge Background Commentary), 418)

Despite the common name, Lazarus of Bethany, like Eliezer of Damascus, is a man of means, not a beggar. Also, if Luke was privy to the story of Lazarus’ resurrection and wished to reference it, it remains to be seen why he would not simply include it.

In life, Lazarus’s name, with its allusion to divine assistance, seemingly mocked him. Arland J. Hultgren (b. 1939) writes, “The choice of name cannot be accidental. The man’s only help is in God, rather than persons around him (Hutrgren, The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary, 111).”

The name is also an indictment against his peers; incriminating those who did not help him. The fact that the rich man is well aware of Lazarus’ identity, calling him by name, further inculpates him (Luke 16:24).

Peter Rhea Jones (b. 1937) expounds:

The name Lazarus is clearly a Jewish name. The poor man, then, was Jewish. The rich man was Jewish. Thus, there is an incident of unbrotherliness, a denial of covenantal obligations, and a deep identification by the teller of the parable with the Jewish poor. The very person whom the rich man will not aid, God helps. Thus, the name is the exegetical clue correcting the one-dimensional idea of reversal and implying Lazarus’ trust in God’s grace, though this is not the primary thrust of the parable. If the parable were teaching that the poor were automatically blessed in the afterlife, there would be no need for the specific name Lazarus. (Jones Studying the Parables of Jesus, 173-74)

Since tragically no help came during his earthly life, Lazarus’ name may anticipate the afterlife, accurately predicting his fate: God would indeed help him.

Compare and contrast the rich man and Lazarus. Out of all of the characters in all of his parables, why does Jesus name Lazarus alone? Why does no one help Lazarus? Do you help the poor in your community?

It is significant that the beggar and not the rich man is named. To remedy this disproportionate situation, the rich man is often called “Dives”, Latin for “rich man”.

Justo L. González (b. 1937) relays:

In Luke 16:19, without further introduction, Jesus begins the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Traditionally, the rich man has been called “Dives” or “Divas”. The Vulgate says, “homo quida erat dives” (which simply means that a certain man was rich), and out of this the supposed name of the man has evolved. But the parable does not give the man’s name. This is significant as one more of Luke’s many examples of the great reversal. Normally, it is important people who have a name. They have recognition. They are somebody. But in the parable the rich and apparently important man has no name, and the poor and insignificant man does. From the very beginning of the parable, Jesus is illustrating what he has just said, that “what is prized by human beings is an abomination in the sight of God [Luke 16:15].” (González, Luke (Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible), 195)

Both God and the rich man know Lazarus’ name. He is the common bond, the figure everyone in the story knows. Frederick W. Danker (1920-2012) argues that naming Lazarus indicates that he enjoys true personhood, whereas the rich man, despite his worldly riches, lacks genuine identity (Danker, Jesus and the New Age: A Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel, 283).

David E. Garland (b. 1947) comments:

The name...gives Lazarus a measure of personhood. The rich man has no identity except as a rich man...Jesus may have chosen this name to hint at the contrast between the self-sufficient rich man, who helps himself (and helps himself too much), and the utterly dependent Lazarus, whom no one helps except God and whose angels whisk him away to a blessed afterlife. (Garland, Luke (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 669)

The world does not traditionally concern itself with the names of the poor. History may not have acknowledged the poor beggar, but God did. On the surface, the rich man has it all while Lazarus is of little importance. Yet, Lazarus is significant to God. As are we all.

Does calling the rich man “Dives” detract from Jesus’ intent? Who is truly the rich man in the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus? What would you name this parable? How do you feel when someone calls you by name? Whose names do you know? Do you know your last waitress’ name? Do you know the name of anyone who is homeless like Lazarus? Where does your sense of self worth come from? Do you truly know that you matter to God?

“Lord, when I feel that what I’m doing is insignificant and unimportant, help me to remember that everything I do is significant and important in your eyes, because you love me and you put me here, and no one else can do what I am doing in exactly the way I do it.” - Brennan Manning (b. 1934), Souvenirs of Solitude: Finding Rest in Abba’s Embrace, p. 73

Camels and Needles (Matthew 19:24)

Complete: “It is harder for a ____ man to enter heaven than for a _____ to go through the eye of a ______.” Rich, camel, needle (Matthew 19:24)

Late in his ministry, Jesus is approached by an unnamed man in Judea who has come to be known as the “rich young ruler” (Matthew 19:16-22). The wealthy man asks Jesus, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” (Matthew 19:16). He leaves the encounter saddened when Jesus suggests that he liquidate all of his assets and give the funds to the poor (Matthew 19:21-22). After the man exits the scene, Jesus capitalizes on the teachable moment, remarking to his disciples about the high degree of difficulty for a rich person “to enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 19:23). Not content to leave the issue, Jesus then intensifies his thought with an analogy using familiar objects (Matthew 19:24). He quips:

“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.” (Matthew 19:24 NASB)

The repetition underscores the thought as though Jesus uses “again” 17 times in Matthew, he does so only twice in conjunction with the emphatic preface “I say to you” (Matthew 18:19, 19:24). Jesus’ colorful illustration is not only an attention grabber; more importantly it advances the task he describes from being difficult (Matthew 19:23) to impossible (Matthew 19:24-26).

Jesus’ words are comparable to philosophers who have contended that wealth prevents the study of their field (e.g. Plutarch [45-120], De Cupidate Diviarum 526; Seneca the Younger [4 BCE-65 CE], Epistles 17.3). In 178 CE, Celsus, who produced the earliest comprehensive attack on Christianity, claimed that Jesus took the idea from Plato (427-347 BCE) who had written that it was impossible for a good man to be rich (Laws V.743a).

As he commonly did, Jesus incorporates hyperbole, contrasting the smallest aperture with the largest beast of burden known to the region. The big animal simply cannot squeeze through the small hole. Californian evangelist “Sister” Aimee Semple McPherson (1890-1944) used a live camel to demonstrate this point in one of her “illustrated sermons” in 1925.

John Proctor (b. 1952) expounds:

The camel is a fine long-distance runner on sand, but a total non-starter when it comes to sliding through narrow openings. Jesus seems to have found its irregular shape splendidly bizarre (see also Matthew 23:24), and here he offers the ridiculous picture of using a camel to thread a needle. All the probabilities are stacked against success. Rich Christians need a special kind of grace and wisdom, to steward humbly and generously what they have been given. (Proctor, Matthew: A Guide for Reflection and Prayer (Daily Bible Commentary), 163)

Though striking, the image is not entirely unique. Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) comments:

Camels were common beasts of burden among traveling Arabs...known for their strength...but not particularly for gracefulness...Jesus apparently employs a common figure of speech when he speaks of a camel passing through a needle’s eye. In Babylonia, where the largest land animals were elephants (cf. Achilles Tatius Leucippe and Clitophon 4.3.5; Lucian [125-180] Lover of Lies 24), Jewish teachers could depict what was impossible or close to impossible as “an elephant passing through a needle’s eye” (Babylonian Talmud Berakot 55b; Babylonian Talmud Baba Mesi‘a. 38b). In Palestine, where the largest land animal and beast of burden was a camel (cf. Matthew 23:24; Babylonian Talmud Ketubbot 67a), describing the impossible as a “camel passing through a needle’s eye” may have been a common expression as well. (Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 477)

The temptation to tame Jesus always exists and this text has been mitigated often as many theories have been posited which soften Jesus’ words. One way this has been done is on linguistic grounds as a few manuscripts have the textual variant kamilon (“rope”) instead of its homonym kamelon (“camel”). This transforms the subject from a large animal to the cable used to tie a ship to a dock.

W. D. Davies (1911-2001) and Dale C. Allison, Jr. (b. 1950) explain:

A few manuscripts (e.g. 59 61) and versions (e.g. Armenian, Georgian) have the similar-sounding κάμιλος = ‘rope’ or ‘ship’s cable’; so also a scholion attributed to Origen [184-253] (cf. G.W.H. Lampe [1912-1980], s.v.), and Cyril of Alexandria [387-444], Commentary on Luke 123; Theophylact [1050-1107] and Euthymius Zigabenus [12th century] mention this as the opinion of ‘some’...The same result has been obtained in modern times via conjectures about the original Aramaic. (Davies and Allison, Matthew 19-28 (International Critical Commentary), 51)

R.T. France (1938-2012) rejects this hypothesis:

The later substitution of kamilon, “rope” or “cable,” for kamēlon, “camel,” ...is not attested in Greek before this time, and Henry George Liddell [1811-1898], Robert Scott [1811-1887] and Henry Stuart Jones [1867-1939] suggest that it may have been coined in an attempt to evade the sense of this text. But if so, it was not a very clever attempt, since it is hardly less ludicrous to attempt to put a cable through the eye of a needle than it is a camel. (France, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 738)

Though few modern commentators accept it, the most widely circulated mitigating of the expression claims that it refers to a small door in the gate of a walled eastern city known as “the eye of the needle”. Such openings allowed pedestrians to enter a city without the need for the large gates to be opened as they would have been for a camel train. It has been posited that a camel might be forced through such a gate, albeit with difficulty. This reading has been spiritualized further by notions that in order to do so, the camel need be stripped of its load.

The theory is decidedly late, being first attested in the Middle Ages by Theophylact of Ohrid (1055-1107). Despite there being no evidence for such a claim, even today locals present the “site” of this gate to unsuspecting pilgrims in the Holy Land.

David E. Garland (b. 1947) refutes:

There is no basis for the widely circulated tradition that the eye of the needle was the name of a gate in Jerusalem. Walled cities had smaller gates beside or built into a larger gate so that people could enter when the larger gate was closed. Large animals might be able to squeeze through such a gate...Luke uses a different word in Greek for “needle (belonē, Luke 18:25), than Mark (raphis). If a gate has been known as “The Needle’s Eye,” it seems likely that only one Greek term would have been used. (Clinton E. Arnold [b. 1958], (Matthew, Mark, Luke (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 63)

Even if there were such a gate, context clearly dictates that Jesus is illumining something that is impossible not merely difficult (Matthew 19:25-26). Church father Jerome (347-420) concluded: “one impossibility is compared with another (Against the Pelagians 1.10).”

Watering down Jesus’ teaching is not only inaccurate, it is dangerous. Frederick Dale Bruner (b. 1932) warns:

The vice of the teaching that says, “the needle’s eye is a low gate in the Middle East that camels must stoop to enter” is that it tells the well-to-do that by acts of humility they can get into the kingdom, that they can keep their comforts and even continue their drive for financial enrichment if they will only be a little humble in the process. This teaching turns Jesus’ teaching in its head — it teaches how to be covetous and Christian at the same time. “The fact that such minimizing interpretations [as the cable or the gate] have been thought up is itself an eloquent comment on the passage”. (Bruner, The Churchbook: Matthew 13-28, 305)

The remark is also an exemplar of Jesus’ humor, serving as a one-liner or punchline. Lessening its force spoils Jesus’ joke. Christian humorist Grady Nutt (1934-1982) observes:

Humor is the capacity to describe. It takes the tangible and uses it to picture—to parable—the intangible. “It is more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle”...Jesus was called teacher more often than by any other title. Humor, parable, description were the basic tools of his trade. (Nutt, So Good, So Far, 143)

In his book, The Humor of Christ, Elton Trueblood (1900-1994) acknowledges:

Of all the mistakes we make in regard to the humor of Christ, perhaps the worst mistake is our failure, or our unwillingness, to recognize that Christ deliberately used preposterous statements to get His point across. When we take a deliberately preposterous statement and, from a false sense of piety, try to force some literal truth out of it, the result is often grotesque. The playful, when interpreted with humorless seriousness, becomes ridiculous. An excellent illustration of this is a frequent handling of the gigantic dictum about the rich man and the needle’s eye. (Trueblood, The Humor of Christ, 46-47)

Jesus’ image is intended to be outlandish. Absurd juxtaposition is actually characteristic of his teaching, e.g. Matthew 23:24 refers to the equally ridiculous swallowing of a camel.

N.T. Wright (b. 1948) examines:

Jesus often exaggerates hugely to make his point. It’s like saying, ‘You couldn’t get a Rolls-Royce into a matchbox.’ The point is not that you might achieve it if you tried very hard, or that there was a particular type of small garage called a ‘matchbox’; the point is precisely that it’s unthinkable. That’s the moment when all human calculations and possibilities stop, and God’s new possibilities start. (Wright, Matthew For Everyone: Part Two, 53)

It is not surprising that so much effort has been made to soften a statement of Jesus’ that is critical of the economic elite. Most of us want to be rich and instinctively reject any deterrent to this aim.

Theologian Stanley Hauerwas (b. 1940) interprets:

Our temptation is to think that Jesus’s reply is intended to “let us off the hook.” Being rich is a problem, we may think, but God will take care of us, the rich, the only way God can. Yet such a response fails to let the full weight of Jesus’s observation about wealth have the effect it should. We cannot serve God and mammon (Matthew 6:24). Jesus’s reply challenges not only our wealth, but out very conception of salvation. To be saved, to be made a member of the church through baptism, means that our lives are no longer our own. We are made vulnerable to one another in a manner such that what is ours can no longer be free the claims of others. As hard as it may be to believe, Jesus makes clear that salvation entails our being made vulnerable through the loss of our possessions. (Hauerwas, Matthew (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible),174)

The term “rich” need not be limited to its traditional monetary connotation. Myron S. Augsburger (b. 1929) advises:

We can paraphrase “rich man” to mean “man of privilege” in our application, for riches are not all material. It may be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a professor, a doctor, a lawyer, a bishop, a nurse, a teacher, a businessman, etc., to get involved in the kingdom of heaven now! In any position of privilege there is the danger that the status and power become primary. In T.S. Eliot (1888-1965)’s play Murder in the Cathedral there is the line, “They who serve the greater cause have the greater danger of the cause serving them.” (Augsburger, Matthew (Mastering the New Testament), 230)

This passage should put modern readers on the defensive as we need not be wealthy by the standards of society to be deemed “rich”.

Is it possible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle? Why have commentators historically tried so hard to soften Jesus’ phrasing? Have you ever said something in jest only to have had it interpreted literally? How do you think that Jesus would word this thought today? Do you consider yourself rich? How do you define “rich”? Is the intent of this passage to discourage wealth? Why is it so hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven? What obstacles does wealth present?

Though the saying is featured in all three Synoptic gospels (Matthew 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25), only in Matthew are the disciples said to be “very astonished” by it (Matthew 19:25). The counterintuitive claim shocks their sensibilities. Unlike many modern preachers, Jesus rejects the presumption that prosperity is synonymous with divine blessing.

Then, as now, wealth was generally regarded as a mark of God’s favor (Psalm 1:3). Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) analyzes:

The disciples’ astonishment is due to the widely held belief that wealth was a sign of righteousness and virtue...For the pagan world, note Seneca the Elder [54 BCE-39 CE]’s claim that wealth reflects a person’s virtue (Controversies 2.1.17). From the Jewish side see Deuteronomy 28:1-14, which says that if Israel is loyal to the covenant with Yahweh, the Lord will make them abound in prosperity (see also Psalm 112:3; Proverbs 3:13-16, 8:12-18; Song of Solomon 5:16-18; Philo [20 BCE--50 CE], On the Migration of Abraham 18.104). No text is clearer than Job. The books says that Job is righteous (Job 1:8) and his household’s wealth a divine blessing (Job 1:10). When Job loses his wealth, his friends Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar interpret his loss of wealth as punishment for sin. If one is virtuous or righteous, so the assumption goes, then one will be wealthy. If wealth is a mark of righteousness, then the disciples’ question makes sense. (Talbert, Matthew (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 237)

Where the populace saw riches as a manifestation of divine blessing, Jesus viewed wealth as a hindrance to spiritual progress. In many ways, Jesus is merely returning to the basics of his preaching ministry from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:3, 6:24).

Michael Green (b. 1930) characterizes:

Money tends to make us selfish, materialistic, independent of God and of our fellows, and distracted with methods of retaining our wealth. Wealth leads to an overconfidence which is the very antithesis of the childlike spirit of trusting dependence on the goodness and mercy of God. It is perfectly evident. It had just happened in front of their eyes, in the person of the rich young man. Wealth was something Jesus set his own face against. Christians who have great possessions are in great peril. (Green, The Message of Matthew (Bible Speaks Today), 209)

Thomas G. Long (b. 1946) speculates:

If we take at face value the statements of the rich young man, it is not that he is an evil man, an oppressor, or an extortioner...The problem with this man is not that he is dishonorable; the problem is that he is rich. The problem is not with the evil he has done to others, but with the evil his wealth is doing to him. Because he is rich, it is hard for him to surrender to God. He finds it painfully difficult to become humble like a child. His wealth reinforces his commitment to the present age and to his own status in it; his wealth underscores his self-sufficiency...Being rich...simply intensifies the basic human desire for self-justification. The disciples, who are not rich, quickly realize that Jesus is speaking about more than the moneyed rich: Jesus’ word embraces all those who, in any way, are rich unto themselves—in short, the whole of humanity...The kingdom calls for total surrender to the will of God, a demand forever defeated by human pride and self-sufficiency. (Long, Matthew (Westminster Bible Companion), 222)

For Jesus’ disciples the thought is startlingly horrific and for once, the disciples get the point exactly; often more so than many modern readers. The disciples ask the question we might: “Then who can be saved?” (Matthew 19:25).

Douglas R.A. Hare (b. 1929) notes:

While this statement [Matthew 19:24] may strike us as an exaggeration, it does not astonish us as much as the disciples’ response: “Who then can be saved?” Why are they so dumbfounded? None of them were wealthy. Why should they regard the problem of the rich as engulfing them all? Here we must remember that the young man has been presented as a model citizen: decent, law-abiding, charitable, and religious. His wealth signifies to the disciples that he has been blessed by God. If such a person is not acceptable to God, what hope is there for the rest of us?...By grace and grace alone, can we be admitted to the kingdom. While the impediment facing the wealthy is particularly serious, it is present to all. Even poor people insist on defining themselves and others by what they possess (or lack). The world is too much with us, and we become “old” too soon. How can we turn and become children of God’s world? For us this is impossible, but with God all things are possible (Matthew 19:26). (Hare, Matthew (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 228)

David E. Garland (b. 1947) concludes:

The key point..has to do with the more general issue that is raised by the disciples’ astonished question, “Who then can be saved?” (Matthew 19:25). Jesus; answer is that salvation does not come from human resources but from God alone. The young man asked, What good thing shall I do? (Matthew 19:16) and insisted, “All these things I have observed, what I still lack.” He assumes that entering into the kingdom of heaven is something that he can bid for and pull off on his own (see Matthew 8:19). Whether one is rich or poor, salvation does not come from human achievement but is a gift from God to those who follow Jesus. Only God’s gift of a new heart (Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 36:26) will enable radical obedience. (Garland, Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel, 207)

Jesus fully understood humanity’s fundamental problem: we are incapable of saving ourselves. The encounter with the rich young ruler is immediately preceded by Jesus’ call to become a child (Matthew 19:13-15). Children do not operate with an assumption of self-sufficiency and grasping the need for dependence is critical as salvation is impossible for humans to produce. But only for humans.

Impossible is not in God’s vocabulary. With God all things are possible (Genesis 18:14; Job 42:2; Zechariah 8:6; Matthew 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 1:37, 18:27). That God can squeeze a camel through the eye of a needle is evidenced at the conclusion of Matthew’s gospel when Jesus is assisted by Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:57). Joseph is a rich man who appears to have found his way squarely within the confines of the kingdom of heaven.

How is Matthew 19:24 good news? Does Jesus’ statement astonish you? Do you typically interpret a person’s wealth as being indicative of blessing? Is it any harder for a rich person to gain admittance to the kingdom of heaven than a poor person? If not, why does Jesus underscore wealth in this passage? What do you value more: spiritual or financial growth (Matthew 6:24)?

“It’s kind of fun to do the impossible.” - Walt Disney (1901-1966)

Name Value (Proverbs 22:1)

Complete: “A good name is to be chosen rather than ____________.” Great riches. (Proverbs 22:1)

Proverbs 22:1 begins a new subunit of Proverbs. Like many sections of Proverbs, it begins with a charge to acquire wisdom. One of the byproducts of wisdom is acquiring a good name. Proverbs asserts that no amount of riches can compare to the wisdom of the sages.

A good name is to be more desired than great wealth
Favor is better than silver and gold. (Proverbs 22:1 NASB)

Though not always stated explicitly, the value of a good name underlies many of the sayings in Proverbs (Proverbs 10:7, 11:16, 22, 27, 12:8, 13:15, 18:3, 21:21, 27:21). The word “good” is not actually in the Hebrew text of Proverbs 22:1 but is supplied by the translators to make the meaning clearer. The importance of a good name (or reputation) is a biblical concern (Ecclesiastes 7:1; Sirach 41:11-13). Including becoming a great nation, one of the promises God initially makes to Abraham is that his name will be great (Genesis 12:2). Having a good name was of the upmost importance in the ancient world.

Do you think a good name is as valued today as it was in the time of Abraham? When you think of having a good name, who do you think of? Do you think you carry a good name? Which would you prefer, a good name or great riches?

Most people would like to have both a good name and great riches. This proverb juxtaposes the two. Do you feel the two are mutually exclusive? Can you have a good name and great wealth? Which do you think society promotes? What truly motivates you, a good reputation or a substantial bank account?

Where do you spend most of your time and money? That is likely what you value.

“Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” - Jesus, Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:16 NASB

King Solomon’s “Navy” ( Kings 9:26)

On what sea did Solomon build his fleet? The Red Sea (I Kings 9:26)

King Solomon’s “navy” was built in Ezion-geber on the shores of the Red Sea (I Kings 9:26). The fleet is listed in a compendium of his accomplishments that convey Solomon’s splendor (I Kings 9:10-28; II Chronicles 9:13-28). Though the ASV and KJV speak of a “navy”, the Hebrew ’oniy is better rendered by the more common “fleet of ships” (ESV, HCSB, NASB, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). The MSG and NIV (“ships”) and CEV (“a lot of ships”) simply avoid the term.

Solomon’s navy was not military or imperialistic in nature but rather a commercial fleet. Ironically, perhaps the only time that Israel ever experienced peace was at a time they employed a successful “navy”. Solomon’s fleet completed three year expeditions to import all types of exotic cargo including gold, silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks (I Kings 10:22; II Chronicles 9:21).

Though the Israelites are often thought of more as sea fearers than seafarers, they do have some history on the seas. There is a reference in “Deborah’s Song” that indicates that the tribe of Dan was closely identified with maritime activities (Judges 5:17). After Solomon, King Jehoshaphat unsuccessfully attempted to get into the shipping industry (I Kings 22:48; II Chronicles 20:36-37). The only time the Israelites have been known to excel on the waters, however, was done at the time of Solomon. His Red Sea fleet could sail to African, Asian and Pacific ports and he also used an additional port in Tarshish (I Kings 10:22; II Chronicles 9:21).

Israel’s maritime success during Solomon’s reign was predominantly due to his alliance with King Hiram of Tyre (I Kings 9:10-14). Solomon’s friendship with Hiram allowed him to get a foot in the Phoenicians’ monopoly on the ancient world’s sea routes as Hiram sent seasoned sailors to teach the Israelites (I Kings 9:27; II Chronicles 8:18). In aligning with Hiram and establishing his own fleet, Solomon cut out the middle man and became a player in the lucrative maritime trade business.

Solomon was said to have been the wisest man of his time. How is Solomon’s wisdom displayed in his maritime interests? Was his alliance with Hiram a wise one? Why? Why not?

Solomon’s reign begins by him being granted any wish by God (I Kings 3:5). When Solomon chooses an “understanding heart” (I Kings 3:9 NASB), God adds “I have also given you what you have not asked, both riches and honor, so that there will not be any among the kings like you all your days (I Kings 3:13 NASB).” God fulfilled that promise in spades.

Tony Campolo (b. 1935) famously asks “Would Jesus Drive a BMW?” Is there a limit to the wealth a Christian should accumulate? Why?

“But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.” - Jesus, Matthew 6:33, NASB