Former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) bashed former President Trump online and said Christians who support him ādonāt understandā their religion.
āIām going to go out on a NOT limb here: this man is not a Christian,ā Kinzinger said on X, formerly known as Twitter, responding to Trumpās Christmas post. āIf you are a Christian who supports him you donāt understand your own religion.ā
Kinzinger, one of Trumpās fiercest critics in the GOP, said in his post that āTrump is weak, meager, smelly, victim-ey, belly-achey, but he aināt a Christian and heās not āGodās man.āā
Starting with Tiberius, Roman emperors gave their heirs the name āCaesar,ā such that āCaesarā came to be known as the term used for the emperor or his heir (i.e. itās the root of kaiser in German, tsar in Russia, āqaysarā in the Ottoman Empire). Tiberius wasnāt born with the name and adopted it later, and took the honorific āAugustusā when he took the throne. So āCaesar Augustusā was the emperor, and āCaesarā was either the emperor (shorthand) or the heir. Itās kind of like a mix between family name and title, so āCaesarā can refer to any of the line of dictators following Julius Caesar, or it can refer to the title of the emperor or his heir.
So thatās why I understand āCaesarā in this context as whoever the ruling dictator is, not the government or society as a whole. This isnāt an admonition to act in the greater good, but to show obedience to those in charge, which is a theme Iāll get back to later.
Jesus never says this. The only thing thatās close is the āeye of a needleā allegory, and the intention seems to communicate that itās incredibly difficult, though not impossible. He has been more explicit about hard requirements elsewhere:
Matthew 5:20
John 3:3,16
John 3:16
So Jesus hasnāt hesitated to use direct language, so it doesnāt make sense to take this as āitās impossible.ā In fact, just before the āeye of a needleā allegory, he says itās merely difficult.
Mark 10:20-23
So itās not the money itself thatās the problem, but the love of money. Youāre not going to hell because you have a lot of money, youāre going to hell because you love it more than God, who has been explicit in whatās most important.
Matthew 22:36-40
A wealthy person should feel obligated to help their fellow man because thatās what God would do. But the actual law is to love God and your fellow man with all your heart, and thatās possible while having a lot of wealth, just incredibly unlikely because most with wealth get it by being selfish.
In short, if you feel God wants you to give everything away, you should not hesitate to do it, and that hesitation is what damned the rich young man, despite being otherwise righteous.
His Apostles did, such as Paul:
Romans 13:1-7
Jesus taught obedience consistently, and the Apostles taught what Jesus taught, so I see this as a retelling of what Jesus taught, not something new Paul came up with.
So to me, the message is very clear, Jesus and God expect obedience, both to earthly rulers as well as heavenly ones. And hereās how Jesus expects leaders to rule:
Matthew 20:25-28
So you must obey your leaders, and Jesus expects to leaders to serve those they lead. In that way everyone serves each other, but thereās also order.
Edit: couldnāt get the spoiler block to behave, so I canāt hide all the noisy verses.
Why did you supply all those quotes that were irrelevant?
The emperor was the āAugustusā. āCaesarā was the heir. Either way it makes my point. It was talking about the government, not a specific person.
It means that it is almost impossible for ārichā men to go to heaven. Like one in a million. George Bush? Hell. Carly Fiorina? Hell. Betsy Devos? Hell. None of those people have anywhere near the humility and meekness to be the one in a million rich people who donāt go to hell.
I couldnāt get the spoiler tag to work properly, and my intention was to establish cases where Jesus was explicit about requirements to establish how language is used.
If Jesus meant being wealthy would disqualify you from heaven, he wouldāve said so, but instead he said itās ādifficult.ā Thatās an important distinction and shows that the root of the problem isnāt the money itself (else why would Job have received so many riches after his trial?). The thing that disqualifies you is loving material things more than God, not having the material things.
No, āCaesarā was the family name of the ruling family, as in the dynasty name. After Tiberius, the ruler was usually named āCaesar Augustus,ā with āAugustusā being an honorific, much like āthe honorable.ā
So āCaesarā was likely commonly used to refer to the ruling family, much like we might say āthe Bidensā in the US. So Jesus was simply saying, āgive to the ruler that which is the rulerās,ā not āpay your taxes so you can help you fellow man.ā Paying taxes was a moral obligation to promote social order, giving to God was a moral obligation to show obedience and love for God. If anything, the money given to the temple was used for more good than taxes.
Exactly (though itās not your place to judge, thatās Godās job). Itās not the money thatās the issue here, the issue is prioritizing worldly things over God.
If we use the gate example (again, thatās in question by experts), the idea is that to get through the gate, the camel needs to leave behind its baggage, because otherwise itās too tall to fit. A wealthy person needs to be willing to leave all their wealth behind you be with God, and thatās less likely because of the way most people get their wealth. Iām not saying thatās what Jesus meant, but it does have a lot of merit and fits nicely with the rest of his message.
If the young man said heās willing to give up everything to follow Jesus, he wouldāve compared him to Job or something as a good example of what one āshouldā do. Worldly wealth and status are irrelevant to God, and he should be the one we want to impress, and we do that by aligning our will with his (e.g. he wants to see suffering alleviated, sinners repent, etc).
And thatās my entire point here. Nothing Jesus said indicates what form of government we should have, his message was for individuals to align their will with Godās and follow his example. Thatās it.
He didnāt say itās merely ādifficultā. He essentually said it is almost impossible. That doesnāt mean only 1 in every 5 rich people can go to heaven. That means 1 in every 5000 or 1 in every 50000.
Nope. Not a dynasty name. It was the name of the heir to the throne. But yes āCaesarā was symbolic of the government itself.
No, he used the word difficult.
From what I understand, the wisdom at the time was that money was an indicator of favor from God, and Jesus went against that. However, I donāt think he meant that money was the issue, but merely a symptom of interests not aligned with Godās. Many wealthy people care more about their wealth and fame than God or those around them.
If you just said āAugustus,ā people would think of Octavian, not the current emperor, so āCaesar Augustusā wouldāve been used to uniquely refer to the emperor. After Tiberius, emperors typically had both titles, and the heir apparent just had āa Caesar,ā so it acted as a dynastic name, even if the heir wasnāt a blood relation (e.g. Tiberius himself was adopted). So both the emperor and heir held the title āCaesarā and only the emperor also held the title āAugustus.ā
It seems odd for Jesus to be referring to the heir apparent here, he would be referring to the emperor. To add to it, Julius Caesar was deified, so āCaesarā here likely has a double meaning to show the difference between a self-proclaimed god and the true God. Heās not saying you should pay taxes to benefit others, heās saying you should pay taxes because thatās your legal obligation.
And yes, āCaesarā was symbolic, but Iād assume most would refer to the government as āRome,ā not āCaesar.ā
Initially. Then he realized he needed to be more blunt. So he gave a metaphor making it clear it was almost impossible, and even bluntly said āwith man this is impossibleā. The reaction of the disciples also prove it had nothing at all to do with any āgateā.
23Then Jesus said to his disciples, āTruly 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.ā
25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, āWho then can be saved?ā
26Jesus looked at them and said, āWith man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.ā
They were astonished because, at the time, wealth was considered to be a sign of favor from God. Jesusā statements at the time went directly against that, and thatās what surprised them. There was similar surprise at his statements that the meek and humble would inherit the earth and go to heaven.
The scandal wasnāt that rich people in general probably wouldnāt go to heaven, but that seemingly righteous people wouldnāt go to heaven.
I think heās referring to salvation generally here. Man cannot save himself, so no amount of wealth will be helpful. God can save man, and he is the one that makes it possible.
So whether itās a gate or a literal needle isnāt really relevant, God controls who gets to heaven, and Godās expectations are at odds with people who love money. The message here is that wealth doesnāt indicate favor with God and it cannot save you, so you should focus on what can save you. You can have wealth and those attributes, but wealth attracts selfish people, and those selfish attributes will prevent you from entering heaven.