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)

Amos: Calling them Cows (Amos 4:1)

What prophet called the women of Samaria “cows” or “kine”? Amos (Amos 4:1)

Amos prophesied to the northern kingdom of Israel (Amos 1:1). In imploring his audience to listen, Amos famously used the politically incorrect designation “cows” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or the more antiquated “kine” (ASV, KJV) (Hebrew: parah) to describe the pampered citizens of Israel (Amos 4:1).

“Hear this word, you cows of Bashan who are on the mountain of Samaria, Who oppress the poor, who crush the needy, Who say to your husbands, “Bring now, that we may drink!” (Amos 4:1 NASB)

Charles L. Aaron, Jr. (b. 1956) admits that Amos 4:1-5 contains “two oracles that employ a rhetorical strategy that contemporary Christian preachers would likely reject. Both oracles use mockery and insult to make their point (Aaron, Preaching Hosea, Amos, and Micah (Preaching Classic Texts), 58).”

The expression is not arbitrary nor are the cows that the prophet describes. Amos does not merely call his listeners kine but “cows of Bashan”. This designation represented the prize cattle of the day. Comparing the moniker to the terms of endearment used in the Song of Solomon (Song of Solomon 1:9, 2:9, 4:5, 7:3), James Luther Mays (b. 1921) does not see the term as demeaning:

The epithet was not in itself an insult. Bashan in Transjordan was noted for rich forests and pastures, and particularly for fine cattle (Deuteronomy 32:14; Psalm 22:12; Ezekiel 39:18); Bashan was a hallmark of quality. Nor in the idiom of ancient eastern flattery would women be offended at being called ‘cows’; one has only to remember the terms used for compliments in the Song of Songs. The Bashan-cows are the women of quality in Samaria, the pampered darlings of society in Israel’s royalist culture.” (Mays, Amos : A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 72)

Bruce C. Birch (b. 1941) counters, “While it is true that ancient terms of flattery sometimes seem strange in our ears (many mention the endearments of the Song of Songs in connection with this passage), it is evident that Amos’s purpose here in not flattery but sarcastic indictment. Amos intends to be rude. The high-born, well-bred women of Samaria with their luxurious and decadent lifestyles are addressed as fattened and pampered beasts (Birch, Hosea, Joel, and Amos (Westminster Bible Companion), 201).”

Many interpreters read Amos as categorizing women with a term that is degrading to the modern ear. Thomas J. Finley (b. 1945) defends, “Interpreters mostly understand Amos to be singling out the wealthy women in Samaria, but the female element may also be figurative, making it the wealthy of Israel who were trampling the poor and, therefore, included in the condemnation. According to this interpretation, the subsequent reference to ‘husbands’ would be part of the image (Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah - An Exegetical Commentary, 176).” As such, “cows of Bashan” refers at least to women but may not limit itself only to women.

In The Women’s Bible Commentary: Expanded Edition, Carol Ann Newsom (b. 1950) and Sharon H. Ringe (b. 1946) explain:

Two aspects of these verses may sound more misogynistic to modern readers than they were originally intended. Amos may well have meant to deliver a stinging denunciation of what he understood to be the women’s attitudes and behavior toward the poor, but yet without any intent gratuitously to insult their bodies or their relationships with their husbands, as commentators often assume. “You cows of Bashan” was almost certainly not meant as derogatorily as it sounds in English, though the precise nuance in Amos’s mind is not clear. (Newsom and Ringe, 221)

“Cows of Bashan” should be interpreted proverbially, not as a sexist barb. Amos uses the expression because the shoe fits. Gary V. Smith (b. 1943) expounds, “‘Cows of Bashan’ is a fitting symbol for these wealthy women...These pampered self-indulgent, and bossy ladies maintain their lifestyle by exploiting the poor, crushing the needy, and speaking demandingly to those around them (Smith, The NIV Application Commentary: Hosea, Amos, Micah).”

Amos called them like he saw them and he saw cows of Bashan. That being written, I would advise not calling modern women “cows”.

Do you think being dubbed Bashan cows was offensive to the original audience? What region today is known for its quality cattle? What politically correct analogy would you have used in lieu of “cows”? Should preachers always be politically correct?

The potentially insulting epithet the prophet invokes should not distract from the real issue - what the metaphor represents. It is significant that the proclamation is written to Israel’s lush northern kingdom (Amos 1:1). Contrary to many misconceptions of the area, the region east of the Sea of Galilee is choice.

Jörg Jeremias (b. 1939) points out:

The high plateau of Bashan (500-600 meters elevation) east of the Sea of Galilee (modern en-Nuqreh in Syria, though it probably includes the Golan Heights) is an extremely fertile pastureland because of its basalt soil and plentiful rainfall and was famous for its ‘fatlings’ (Ezekiel 39:18; Deuteronomy 32:14) and its mighty bulls (Psalm 22:12). (Jeremias, The Book of Amos: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 63)

This fertile region was enjoying great prosperity under Jeroboam II (Amos 1:1, 7:9, 10, 11). It was the best of times. But not for everyone. Not only did the worldly blessings not trickle down to the poorest members of society, but the rich trampled on the poor to attain their wealth (Amos 4:1). Amos is not necessarily preaching against being rich but rather the selfish means by which Israel’s wealthy acquired their abundance. As Jesus asked, “What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul (Matthew 16:26 NASB; cf. Mark 8:36)?”

James Luther Mays (b. 1921) clarifies:

The luxury and debauchery of urban affluence in Israel was a scandalous offense to the God for whom Amos spoke (Amos 6:4-7; 3:10, 15). The offense lay not just in its stark contrast to the condition of the poor, but in the fact that the affluence was built on the suffering of the needy. (Mays, Amos : A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 71)

Who today lives high on the hog at the expense of those less fortunate? Is this sin perceived as grievous in the United States as it should be?

“The man who has won millions at the cost of his conscience is a failure.” - B.C. Forbes (1880-1954), founder of Forbes Magazine