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
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.