Matthew 19:24 (New International Version) > Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a > needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God. Generally I think Christians interpret this to avoid materialism and place physical, earthly concerns below concerns about what God expects from us. I was curious as to how people who preach the Prosperity Gospel interpret this passage. I did some googling, and I found several articles using it as a way to discredit the Prosperity Gospel. But, I didn't find a Prosperity Gospel interpretation of it. How to people who preach Prosperity Gospel interpret this scripture?

>23Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” [Matthew 19, NIV](https://www.biblehub.com/niv/matthew/19.htm) A plain reading of this verse suggests that it is impossible for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. Are there any denominations or prominent theologians that believe that the rich cannot enter heaven or the kingdom of heaven? (Admittedly, what I call the "plain" reading appears to be an uncommon understanding of this verse—but I'm not asking about that here, since it has already been covered in [other](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/14426) [questions](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/24899).)

According to the [Catechism of the Catholic Church](https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a7.htm) , >1807 Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor... Justice toward men disposes one to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good. The just man, often mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, is distinguished by habitual right thinking and the uprightness of his conduct toward his neighbor. "You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor." "Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven." According to Catholic Social Thought, one of the key principles of social moral theology is the so-called "universal destination of goods", for which the [Catechism of the Catholic Church](https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm#IV) states: >2403 The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise... > >2405 Goods of production – material or immaterial – such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor. Finally, [according to St. Thomas Aquinas](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3059.htm) , >since injustice always consists in an injury inflicted on another person, it is evident that to do an injustice is a mortal sin according to its genus. All these seems to mean that the rich (and more broadly, all those who "have more than they need") are obliged to share it with the poor, otherwise at the risk of committing a mortal sin. Is this a sound doctrinal conclusion from the matter at hand, according to Catholic doctrine? Partially related question for reformed theology [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9608/according-to-reformed-theology-are-all-wealthy-christians-required-to-give-th) .

I met a priest who stated that an economic system based upon shared property is the best and holiest possible system. The priest has made a few interesting Biblical arguments. In his opinion: - Such an economic system was given to people by Christ himself. He had had abstained from worldly goods during His earthen life; and also His Apostles, under His teaching, during and after His earthen life were living in a commune with no private property, with Judas Iscariot given the duty to administrate common wealths. - All Christians, not only the Apostles, from the earliest days of the Church and until about 100 A.D., were living in such communes, as testified by the Acts of the Apostles. The Acts of the Apostles are also the Biblical basis for the claim that such communism is the “correct” system people should live in, since it was imposed by the Apostles. - In this system love is at its highest, because everyone is given what they need and everyone work towards the good of the whole community. - After around 100 A.D. the Church allowed private property; they, however, did this only because there was much hostility towards this system among Christians themselves, so the Church allowed some sinless imperfection out of realism. - Modern Marxists borrowed the idea of Communism from Christianity. Their vice was that they attempted to impose it by force and through revolution rather than through sanctifying people’s hearts. Also, modern Marxists actually failed to even implement Communism; rather, they enforced a system that actually had little in common with true communism. Does the Church teach that an economic system with no private property is best and holiest possible economic system, but one with private property is needed due to people’s imperfection? If the Church does not teach so, how does it interpret the relevant verses of the Acts of the Apostles? Acts 4:32–37 : > The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. (…) There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need. Thus Joseph, also named by the apostles Barnabas (which is translated "son of encouragement"), a Levite, a Cypriot by birth,sold a piece of property that he owned, then brought the money and put it at the feet of the apostles. With annotation: > [32-37] This is the second summary characterizing the Jerusalem community (…). It emphasizes the system of the distribution of goods and introduces Barnabas, (…) who, as noted here (…), endeared himself to the community by a donation of money through the sale of property. This sharing of material possessions continues a practice that Luke describes during the historical ministry of Jesus (⇒ Luke 8:3) and is in accord with the sayings of Jesus in Luke's gospel (⇒ Luke 12:33; ⇒ 16:9, ⇒ 11, ⇒ 13). So, judging from this annotation, it would seem that indeed the Bible wants such a system to be imposed. However, CCC 2401 and CCC 1883.1885 seem to say something contrary: (other interesting parts are CCC 2211 , CCC 2402-2406 and CCC 2407 ) > 1883 (…) the teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good. > > 1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order. > > 2401 (…) For the sake of the common good, it [the Seventh Commandment] requires respect for the universal destination of goods and respect for the right to private property. Christian life strives to order this world's goods to God and to fraternal charity. How can CCC 1883.1885 and 2401 be reconciled with the aforementioned annotation to the Bible?

Prosperity gospel, as I understand it, is the teaching that God wants to bless us with wealth and health. I can't really see this in the Bible. For example, Paul writes in **2 Cor 12:7-10 (ESV)**: > 7 So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. 9 But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong. Or, looking at what Jesus has said: > **Matt 22:10 (ESV)** and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. > > **John 15:20 (ESV)** Remember the word that I said to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. What arguments (biblical or otherwise) can be used to support prosperity gospel? What does prosperity theology say about passages such as the ones I cited?

Beyond the arguments that claim prosperity theology misinterprets the meaning of the passages it uses to support it, what are some of the main scriptural-based references that would be used in a theological discussion against prosperity theology?

This is what I have so far; have I missed anything important? Luke 06:24-25 (woe to rich & fed) Luke 12:15-21 (rich fool parable) Luke 16:19-31 (rich man & lazarus) Mark 10:23-24 / Luke 18:24-25 (camel & needle) Matt 06:19-21 (treasures in heaven) Matt 06:24 / Luke 16:13 (god & money) Thanks for any input.

Mathew 19 : 16 - 24 > 16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? > > 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. > > 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, > > 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. > > 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? > > 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. > > 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. > > 23 **Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.** > > 24 And again I say unto you, **It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.** This bible passage has really got me confused. Does this mean that Jesus condemns wealth and it is not good to be rich?.

According to [Luke 16:13 (ESV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016:13&version=ESV) : > No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money. It seems to me that God gave us the desire to pursue certain things for a reason to begin with, so being successful and enjoying your career isn't necessarily a sin in and of itself. Is this the correct attitude? How can a Christian keep God in the center of his or her life and properly enjoy worldly ambitions (such as a successful career)? Is there anything wrong with being focused on your career?

In Mark 10:17-31, we see Jesus talk to the rich young ruler, and tell him to sell his possessions and give it to the poor. According to reformed theologians, is this required of _all_ wealthy followers of Christ, or was this merely a test designed for this particular rich young ruler, to show that in his heart, he loved his wealth more than he loved God? For those arguing the case of "no, wealthy Christinas are not required to give all their wealth to the poor" please explain how to handle verses like Mark 10:31, and 1 John 3:17. For those arguing the case of "yes, wealthy Christians are required to give all their wealth to the poor", please explain how to handle the wealth of Job / Abraham, as well as why Zacchaeus, upon giving half his wealth to the poor and repaying 4 fold (did this bankrupt him?) earned the praise of Christ.

I have heard of anecdotal evidence suggesting that the proportion of Christians in a population directly (positively) impacts national prosperity. In other words, the more Christians in a nation, the richer the nation becomes. Possible current examples include India and China which are apparently seeing both an increase in the proportion of Christians (India / China ) and in prosperity (India / China ). This would seem to follow the Biblical pattern, see e.g. Haggai 1 . But **is this a real phenomena**? Can we see a genuine correlation? And if so, what is its cause? **Note:** in light of comments and answers so far, this question is about *Christianity*, not *religion generally*. Other resources: - Christianity by country - Christian population growth