Through the Eye of a Needle

Few sayings of Jesus have provoked more fascination and misunderstanding than His declaration that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God. The saying appears in three Synoptic traditions, each within the narrative of Jesus’ encounter with a wealthy inquirer commonly called the rich young ruler. Matthew records, “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:24, ESV). Mark and Luke transmit the same image with minimal variation: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:25, ESV; Luke 18:25, ESV). The striking hyperbole arrests the imagination, unsettles the conscience, and compels the reader to reexamine assumptions about wealth, divine favor, and the nature of saving grace.

This post situates Jesus’ saying within its Second Temple Jewish context, offers lexical and exegetical analysis of the key Greek terms, engages and evaluates popular interpretations such as the so-called “needle gate” and the “rope” theory, and unfolds the canonical and theological logic by which this hyperbole serves the Gospel. The goal is not only to explain what Jesus meant but to discern why He chose this image, how His hearers would have understood it, and what the Spirit continues to press upon the Church through this word today. Because Scripture is the norming norm for Christian faith and practice, all quotations are taken from the English Standard Version, and attention is given to the coherence of the pericope within Matthew 19:16–30, Mark 10:17–31, and Luke 18:18–30.

The Rich Inquirer and the Call to Follow

All three Synoptics present Jesus’ saying within a tightly constructed narrative unit. A wealthy man approaches Jesus with a question that is both sincere and revealing: “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life” (Mark 10:17, ESV; cf. Matthew 19:16; Luke 18:18). Jesus first dislodges the man’s view of goodness by reorienting it toward God alone, then rehearses commandments from the second table of the Decalogue. The man claims exemplary fidelity: “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth” (Mark 10:20, ESV). Mark alone adds the moving detail, “And Jesus, looking at him, loved him” (Mark 10:21, ESV), after which Jesus issues a personal summons that unmasks the heart’s true allegiance: “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me” (Mark 10:21, ESV; cf. Matthew 19:21; Luke 18:22). The man departs in sorrow because “he had great possessions” (Mark 10:22, ESV).

Only after this refusal does Jesus turn to the disciples and deliver the pronouncement about wealth and the Kingdom. The sequence matters. Jesus is not offering an abstract axiom about socioeconomic status. He is exposing a spiritual dynamic by which wealth can harden trust in self and in possessions, thereby making Kingdom entry humanly impossible. The impossibility is then answered by the theological counterclaim of grace: “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God” (Mark 10:27, ESV; cf. Matthew 19:26; Luke 18:27). The hyperbole about the camel and the needle serves as the hinge that turns from human inability to divine ability, from self-reliance to saving grace.

The Second Temple Context: Wealth, Blessing, and the Surprise of the Kingdom

Second Temple Judaism inherited, cherished, and at times overextended the Deuteronomic theology of retribution, according to which covenant faithfulness tends to correlate with material blessing in the Land, while covenant infidelity tends to invite curse. Deuteronomy promises that obedience will bring prosperity, fertility, and security, while disobedience will bring deprivation and exile. The danger in the Second Temple period was not in hearing these promises, but in absolutizing them, thereby converting a covenantal pattern into a mechanical guarantee and treating wealth as a reliable index of divine favor.

There are important correctives within Israel’s Scriptures themselves. The Psalter warns, “If riches increase, set not your heart on them” (Psalm 62:10, ESV). Proverbs teaches, “Whoever trusts in his riches will fall, but the righteous will flourish like a green leaf” (Proverbs 11:28, ESV). Ecclesiastes exposes the vanity and instability of wealth. Job presents the righteous sufferer. Yet even with these correctives, the cultural expectation that wealth signaled blessing remained strong. This explains the disciples’ astonishment. When Jesus declares how difficult it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom, “the disciples were amazed at his words” and then “exceedingly astonished” when He intensifies the statement with the camel and the needle (Mark 10:24, 26, ESV). If those who appear most blessed are in fact least likely to enter, the logic of a simplistic retribution theology collapses. No wonder they ask, “Then who can be saved” (Mark 10:26, ESV).

Jesus’ teaching on wealth throughout the Gospels coheres with this destabilizing of conventional expectations. He warns that one cannot serve God and money (Matthew 6:24, ESV). He urges that treasure be laid up in heaven, “for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matthew 6:21, ESV). He cautions, “Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (Luke 12:15, ESV). Far from denying that God gives material goods as gifts to be received with thanksgiving, Jesus insists that the orientation of the heart toward those goods reveals whether God or Mammon rules the inner person.

In the Second Temple context of patronage, landholding, and the exploitation that could accompany elite accumulation, Jesus’ Kingdom ethic challenges not only personal attachments but also social imaginations. The call to sell, give to the poor, and follow Him is not a general rule mechanically applied to all but a prophetic summons calibrated to the particular idol that enslaves the individual before Him. The wealthy inquirer’s sorrow unmasks a deeper bondage that the commandments alone had not exposed. The hyperbole that follows is therefore not a clever proverb; it is a theological diagnosis.

Lexical and Textual Observations: Camel, Needle, and the Language of Impossibility

A hearing of Jesus’ saying in the original language illuminates both its force and its precision. The Greek text reads, in Matthew 19:24, “eukopōteron estin kamēlon dia trēmatos rhaphidos eiselthein ē plousion eis tēn basileian tou theou.” Three terms deserve particular attention.

First, kamēlos means “camel.” The word is ordinary and unambiguous in the Koine lexicon. Camels were the largest land animals in the Palestinian environment, integral to trade routes and familiar to all. Jesus uses the same animal in Matthew 23:24, “You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel” (ESV), a paired hyperbole that contrasts the smallest and largest of common creatures to shame Pharisaic hypocrisy. The probability that Jesus is reusing a familiar image of the largest animal strengthens the case that kamēlos is intended.

Second, trēma denotes a hole or opening, and rhaphis denotes a sewing needle. The composite phrase trēma rhaphidos therefore specifies the tiny aperture of a household needle, not the larger opening of a gate or a surgical instrument. The ordinary domestic image heightens the absurdity of the imagined passage. The point lies precisely in the visual shock of impossibility, not in the depiction of a narrow hardship.

Third, the adjective plousios means “rich,” and in this pericope it denotes one whose possessions are many and whose status is secure by the standards of the age. The term is morally ambivalent in Greek; it can denote those who are generous and righteous as well as those who are hard of heart. The moral freight comes from context. In the present story the problem is not that the man possesses wealth, but that his wealth possesses him. The verb eiselthein (“to enter”) and the object tēn basileian tou theou (“the kingdom of God,” or in Matthew, “the kingdom of heaven”) frame the ultimate good at stake.

The axe falls with Jesus’ declaration of adynaton in the following verse. “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26, ESV). The word adynatos connotes inability and impotence. Jesus does not speak of difficulty that can be overcome by greater effort. He speaks of a categorical inability that can be remedied only by divine action. The shift to the language of divine dynamis grounds the Gospel logic of grace.

Textual Variant: “Camel” or “Rope”

Some have suggested that the original word was kamilos meaning “rope” or “cable,” rather than kamēlos meaning “camel.” It is true that later manuscripts attest kamilos in certain locations. However, the earliest and best witnesses overwhelmingly support kamēlos. Moreover, the rhetorical effect is only marginally softened by “rope,” since threading a rope through a sewing needle’s eye remains impossible. The parallel in Matthew 23:24, which is undisputed, further supports “camel.” While it is fascinating to note that the Aramaic gamla can mean both camel and thick rope in some dialects, the Greek Gospel text as received by the Church is clear and coherent with Jesus’ style of hyperbole elsewhere. To insist on “rope” in order to protect the plausibility of a non-hyperbolic interpretation misapprehends the genre and intention of the saying.

The “Needle Gate” Theory

The suggestion that Jesus refers to a small “needle gate” in Jerusalem, through which camels could only pass if unburdened and kneeling, lacks credible historical and archaeological support for the period in question. More importantly, it undermines the rhetorical structure of the pericope by redefining impossibility as difficulty. Jesus does not announce that the rich will enter with great struggle or by performing a few contortions. He announces an impossibility that only God can overcome. Any reading that reduces impossibility to difficulty flattens the Gospel contrast that follows, in which divine grace accomplishes what human power cannot.

Hyperbole as Prophetic Scalpels

Hyperbole in Jesus’ teaching functions as a prophetic scalpel that cuts to the idol behind the behavior. He speaks of planks in the eye and gnats swallowed whole, of mountains cast into the sea, and of camels passing through needle eyes. The effect is never mere rhetorical flourish. Hyperbole is the surgical instrument of a heart surgeon who names what must be excised. In this case, Jesus shocks both rich and poor by revealing the deadly spiritual gravity of trusting in wealth. This is consistent with His maxim, “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matthew 6:21, ESV). Wealth can magnetize the heart toward self-security and away from childlike dependence on the Father.

The disciples’ doubled astonishment in Mark 10 underscores how Jesus’ words dismantle the prestige economy of their day. To their question, “Then who can be saved,” Jesus answers not by softening the saying, but by relocating the ground of salvation entirely: “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God” (Mark 10:27, ESV). The camel and the needle have done their work. Self-justification and self-reliance are exposed as fantasies. The Kingdom opens only by grace.

Kingdom Theology

In Matthew’s account, the rich man asks about “eternal life” and Jesus answers with a call to “enter life,” to “enter the kingdom of heaven,” and to “have treasure in heaven.” These are not separate destinies but integrated facets of the same eschatological gift. To enter the Kingdom is to enter life under God’s rule, by God’s Messiah, through God’s Spirit. The call, “come, follow me,” binds the eschatological gift to the person of Christ. The command to sell and give is not an abstract ascetic ideal; it is the concrete repentance required when Mammon has the first claim on a heart that is now being summoned by the King.

The phrase “treasure in heaven” echoes Matthew 6:19–21, where Jesus instructs His disciples to store treasure in heaven, not on earth, “for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (ESV). The rich man’s sorrow therefore signals a mislocated heart. He desired eternal life yet was governed by temporal treasure. Only divine grace can reattach the heart to the true treasure who is Christ Himself. The Acts community later models this reattachment when those with lands or houses sell them to meet needs, not under compulsion, but as the Spirit frees them for generous love.

Grace, Faith, and the Poor in Spirit

The theological center of the pericope is the impossibility of human self-salvation and the corresponding necessity of divine grace. Jesus' climactic counterclaim is categorical: “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26, ESV). The point aligns with Jesus’ blessing, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3, ESV). Poverty of spirit is the recognition that one possesses no moral capital with which to purchase entrance into the Kingdom. It is not a psychological mood but a Spirit-wrought confession. Wealth can conceal spiritual poverty by offering counterfeit capital. The wealthy person, like the poor person, may be saved only through the gift of grace that awakens repentance and faith.

This Gospel logic is echoed in Pauline and Catholic epistles. Paul warns the wealthy “not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God... They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share” (1 Timothy 6:17–18, ESV). James addresses the rich who oppress the poor with a prophetic woe (James 5:1–6). None of these texts demonize material property per se. Instead they expose the spiritual peril of trusting in it, and they summon those whom God has resourced to steward those resources in love under the lordship of Christ.

Engaging the Alternative Explanations

The Persian Elephant Proverb

It is sometimes noted that Persians would speak of passing an elephant through the eye of a needle to express impossibility. Whether or not Jesus or His hearers were aware of such a proverb, the presence of similar idioms in neighboring cultures only strengthens the conclusion that Jesus uses a well attested figure of impossibility. He adapts the image to local fauna, employing the largest common animal in Palestine. The Jewish flavor of the hyperbole coheres with His use of the camel in Matthew 23:24.

The “Needle Gate” and Spiritualizing Difficulty

The “needle gate” proposal attempts to preserve a commonsense reading by suggesting that Jesus merely highlights difficulty rather than impossibility. As noted above, there is little evidence for such a gate from the relevant period, and the narrative context resists any interpretation that renders entry possible by human exertion. The disciples do not ask, “Then what effort will be required,” but “Then who can be saved” (Mark 10:26, ESV). Jesus does not reply, “Make your camels kneel,” but “With man it is impossible... with God all things are possible” (Mark 10:27, ESV). The Gospel tension must be honored.

The “Rope” Reading and Textual Integrity

The “rope” reading grants that the image still communicates impossibility, yet it often functions rhetorically as a step toward an interpretation of arduous threading rather than impossible passage. The more substantial issue, however, is textual integrity. The received text presents “camel,” supported by the earliest witnesses and by Jesus’ own repeated use of the camel as an image for magnitude. There is no need to import a different word to secure the theological point that Jesus Himself secures with “camel.”

Exegeting Key Phrases

Several phrases across the Synoptic accounts warrant closer attention for their theological density.

“What must I do to inherit eternal life” (Mark 10:17, ESV). The verb “inherit” evokes Abrahamic promise. Eternal life is an inheritance given to sons and daughters, not wages earned. The man’s emphasis on doing reveals the subtle displacement of promise by performance. Jesus steers him first to the Law to expose the heart’s refuge in self-righteousness, then to a personal call that reveals the governing love within that heart.

“You lack one thing” (Mark 10:21, ESV). The “one thing” is not an extra merit to tip the scale. It is the decisive reorientation of the heart toward Christ the treasure. The commandments test the man’s moral performance; the summons to sell, give, and follow exposes his functional god. Jesus’ love is evident in this precise incision.

“Come, follow me” (Mark 10:21, ESV). The center is discipleship. Jesus does not call the man to generic philanthropy. He calls him to Himself. Economic divestment is instrumental to the freeing of the heart for union with the King. The disciples who left nets and tax booths supply canonical context. They model the freedom created by grace.

“How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God” followed by “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:23–24, ESV). The second statement broadens the focus. Wealth highlights one enslaving power, but the deeper truth is that entrance into the Kingdom is humanly difficult for all, since all hearts cling to idols. The camel and needle then sharpen the point for the wealthy, who are particularly tempted to trust in resources.

“All things are possible with God” (Mark 10:27, ESV). The saying does not imply that God will do anything whatsoever in abstraction. It asserts that the specific impossibility of salvation by human power is overcome by divine power. The parallel in Luke heightens the relational dynamic, “What is impossible with man is possible with God” (Luke 18:27, ESV). The shift is from human sufficiency to divine sufficiency, not from large difficulty to manageable difficulty.

Canonical Resonances

The Old Testament repeatedly testifies that wealth can delude the heart, yet it also presents faithful stewards who use wealth for the purposes of God. Abraham, Job, and David are not condemned for their possessions. They are commended for their faith and obedience. The prophets, however, denounce those who crush the poor, accumulate land, and amass treasures by injustice. Isaiah cries, “Woe to those who join house to house, who add field to field” (Isaiah 5:8, ESV). Amos rails against those who “trample on the needy” (Amos 4:1, ESV). The Wisdom literature insists that righteousness and generosity matter more than riches. Psalm 49 instructs those who “trust in their wealth” that they cannot ransom their souls by payment; “for the ransom of their life is costly and can never suffice” (Psalm 49:6–8, ESV).

These resonances prepare the soil for Jesus’ word. He does not negate the Old Testament; He fulfills it by revealing the Kingdom’s arrival in His person and by unveiling the radical nature of trust in God that entrance requires. The call to treasure in heaven recalls the Abrahamic hope that God Himself is the shield and very great reward of His people. In this light, the camel and needle image is not a universal condemnation of all who possess wealth. It is a universal exposure of the folly of trusting in wealth and a particular warning that such trust creates a humanly insurmountable barrier to entering the Kingdom, a barrier only grace can remove.

Practical Theological Implications

Salvation by Grace Alone

The first implication is soteriological. Jesus’ word secures the Reformational heart of the Gospel. Eternal life is not an inheritance obtained by doing, whether the doing is moral achievement or philanthropic generosity. It is a gift received by faith, made possible by the grace of God. “With man this is impossible” is the death of self-reliance. “With God all things are possible” is the birth of hope. The Church must therefore preach not a moralistic ladder for the rich to climb, nor a romanticized poverty that confers automatic righteousness, but Christ crucified and risen, who frees all to follow Him.

Discipleship and Economic Reorientation

The second implication concerns discipleship. Entrance into the Kingdom reorders economic life. The rich are called to radically generous stewardship. The poor are dignified as first recipients of the Kingdom’s generosity. The Church is a community where “there was not a needy person among them” because resources are shared as the Spirit leads (see Acts 4:34–35). In modern terms, this means that Christians with wealth should hold it with open hands, listen for the Spirit’s call to specific acts of sacrificial giving, and avoid the complacency that often surrounds successful accumulation.

Pastoral Discernment

Third, pastors and spiritual directors must learn from Jesus’ surgical specificity. He did not impose a uniform command on every person He met. He exposed the particular idol that held each heart. For some it was wealth. For others it was reputation, family loyalty, or fear. The criterion is not how much money one has, but how tightly one’s heart clings to it and how readily one obeys Jesus with it. Some wealthy believers display the very poverty of spirit that Jesus blesses, and some poor believers cling to the idol of money they do not possess. The pastoral task is to lead all to the freedom of following Christ.

Prophetic Witness in a Consumer Culture

Fourth, the Church must speak prophetically to cultures that equate worth with net worth. The camel and the needle confront the liturgies of consumerism that train hearts to seek ultimate security in financial instruments and possessions. The Kingdom proclaims a different economy governed by love of God and neighbor. This witness includes both personal generosity and structural advocacy for justice, always under the lordship of Christ and guided by Scripture.

Addressing Common Objections

Objection 1: Does this mean that wealthy Christians cannot be saved. Jesus’ word means that wealth creates a spiritual impossibility for human effort, not an impossibility for God. The decisive sentence follows the hyperbole. God can and does save wealthy persons by loosening the grip of Mammon and reattaching the heart to Himself. The New Testament names wealthy disciples like Joseph of Arimathea, who used his resources for the sake of Christ’s burial. The issue is not possession but lordship.

Objection 2: Is Jesus commanding every disciple to sell all possessions. Jesus’ command to the rich inquirer is tailored to his idolatry. Later, Jesus accepts the support of disciples who still own homes, and the early Church includes both sellers and stewards. What is uniform is the call to absolute allegiance to Jesus, expressed in radical generosity and readiness to let go of whatever stands in the way of obedience.

Objection 3: Would not the “needle gate” reading give a more balanced view. The balance is found not by softening Jesus’ words but by holding together the impossibility of self-salvation with the possibility of divine grace. The “needle gate” reading makes the image one of arduous effort and thereby distorts the soteriological punch. The Gospel balance is this: humanly impossible, divinely possible, therefore repent and believe, and then follow Jesus with all that you are and have.

A Close Reading of Each Evangelist

Matthew 19:16–30

Matthew emphasizes perfection language. “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor” (Matthew 19:21, ESV). In Matthew, “perfect” evokes wholeness of heart, as in “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48, ESV), which concerns complete love. The issue is an undivided heart. Matthew alone records Peter’s question, “See, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have” (Matthew 19:27, ESV), to which Jesus promises eschatological reward. Matthew also frames the scene with the theme of the first and the last, underscoring the great reversal of Kingdom values.

Mark 10:17–31

Mark’s version is the most emotionally vivid. Jesus loves the man. The man’s face falls. Jesus calls the disciples “children,” an address of tenderness mixed with realism about their vulnerability. Mark adds the two-stage emphasis on difficulty, then impossibility. “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth,” then, “how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God,” and finally the camel and needle. Mark thereby moves the focus from a class problem to a human problem while retaining the special peril of wealth.

Luke 18:18–30

Luke often pairs this story with the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, where the tax collector’s plea for mercy supplies the spiritual posture absent in the rich ruler. Luke’s Gospel consistently announces good news to the poor and warning to the rich, not because poverty justifies and wealth condemns, but because the poor are often more ready to receive the Kingdom as gift. Luke emphasizes the impossibility made possible by God: “What is impossible with man is possible with God” (Luke 18:27, ESV). The theme of divine possibility resonates with Luke’s infancy narrative, where the angel says, “For nothing will be impossible with God” (Luke 1:37, ESV).

Ethics Flowing from Eschatology

Christian ethics is not a self-constructed ladder to God but a life lived from the future of the Kingdom breaking into the present. The call to sell, give, and follow is an eschatological ethic. “Treasure in heaven” is not deferred gratification only; it is participation now in the life of the coming age through the obedience of faith. This is why Jesus can promise a hundredfold to those who leave houses or lands for His sake and for the Gospel, “with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life” (Mark 10:29–30, ESV). The Church’s generosity must therefore be rooted in hope. Christians are liberated to risk economically because their true life is “hidden with Christ in God” (Colossians 3:3, ESV). The camel and needle image reminds the Church that entrance into this life is not earned by heroic generosity but given by God’s power. Generosity then becomes fruit, not currency.

Exegetical Excursus: “Kingdom of Heaven” and “Kingdom of God”

Matthew uses “kingdom of heaven” where Mark and Luke use “kingdom of God.” The difference is stylistic rather than substantive. Matthew’s phrase reflects Jewish reverence that often avoided direct use of the divine name by employing circumlocutions. The referent is the same reign of God manifest in the person and mission of Jesus. The aim of Jesus’ saying is to spotlight the threshold of that reign and to assert that no human possesses the key. God Himself opens the door by grace.

The Church’s Spiritual Discipline of Simplicity

If Jesus’ word exposes the spiritual peril of wealth, then a fitting ecclesial response is the cultivation of simplicity. Simplicity is not forced austerity. It is a Spirit-led way of life that refuses to let possessions become masters, that channels resources toward Kingdom priorities, and that bears witness to a different horizon of value. Practical disciplines include regular, generous giving as firstfruits; periodic discernment about lifestyle inflation; hospitality that mobilizes homes and assets for love; and corporate structures that ensure transparency and accountability in financial decisions. These disciplines do not purchase entry into the Kingdom. They train the heart to remain poor in spirit and rich in love.

The Pastoral Word to the Sorrowful

The rich inquirer’s sorrow is one of the saddest scenes in the Gospels. He stands at the threshold of life, loved by Jesus, and yet turns away because another love rules him. Pastors meet versions of this sorrow often. The pastoral word must echo Jesus’ love and clarity. It must announce the impossibility of salvation by self-effort. It must invite the hearer to trust the God for whom all things are possible. It must offer practical pathways of obedience suited to the person’s station. Above all, it must hold before the eyes the beauty of Christ, who is Himself the treasure worth any relinquishment.

The Needle’s Eye and the Wideness of Grace

Jesus’ saying about the camel and the needle is not an anti-wealth manifesto. It is a Gospel annunciation dressed in prophetic hyperbole. In the Second Temple world, where wealth could masquerade as a seal of divine approval, Jesus tears the mask and reveals the heart. Those who trust in riches cannot enter the Kingdom, not because God bars the way arbitrarily, but because their trust has bound them to another master. Entrance is humanly impossible. Then the Gospel resounds. God does the impossible. He frees captives from Mammon’s grip, reorients the heart toward heavenly treasure, and summons all, rich and poor, to follow Jesus.

Therefore the Church must proclaim without embarrassment both sides of the saying. We must say with Jesus, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:25, ESV). We must also say with Him, “With man this is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God” (Mark 10:27, ESV). Held together, these sentences safeguard the Gospel against moralism and against presumption. They form repentant, generous disciples whose treasure is Christ.

To any reader troubled by this word, hear the blessing that frames the entire Sermon on the Mount: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3, ESV). Poverty of spirit is not a possession of the poor only. It is a miracle of grace that makes any sinner a child of God. In that miracle, the largest animal fits through the smallest aperture, not because the animal shrinks or the aperture widens, but because God does the impossible and brings the dead to life.

May the Church bear witness to this grace with lives of joyful simplicity, radical generosity, and unqualified obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ, for He alone is our treasure, our security, and our eternal life.