But I feel the need to repeat. You can't take scriptures in seclusion. Obviously, when you look at 1 Tim, there *were* rich Christians.
See my comment two posts up about the scriptural counsel on alcohol. I'm not denying anything Jesus said.
As a matter of fact, let's go back to the alcohol illustration for a moment. So wine is a gift from God, and is good for the stomach. Is that a commandment *TO* drink? If someone is an alcoholic, do they have to drink to be a Christian? Of course not. OTOH...it would also be un-Christian to take the scriptures condemning drunkenness to condemn others drinking just because it doesn't match up with YOUR ideal. BUT...if someone had a problem with alcohol (say they could not take a drink without having more and getting drunk) then Jesus counsel to "pluck out your eye" would apply. No matter how much you love something, if it's causing you to stumble, you need to tear it out and throw it away from you. Everyone is free to drink. But if you can't drink without getting drunk...you *MUST* abstain. It means your eternal life.
This illustrates the balance of the *whole of Scripture*. Jesus told *a man* to sell all he had and be his follower. He refused because *HE* was too attached to his money. Other scriptures say *very factually* that Jesus could read people's hearts, and knew what their problems were before they even approached him...therefore (based on scripture...not personal opinion) he must have known that this young man had an issue with money, and was giving him the opportunity to "pluck it out" and throw it away from him. He refused, and he missed out. The other apostles had sacrificed everything voluntarily and were blessed because they did so. But NOT EVERY CHRISTIAN DID. The counsel to the congregations was "*IF* you are rich, don't trust in it, don't love it, don't be snooty because of it...put your trust in God first and foremost because your money can disappear any time." (paraphrasing)
It is the only possible conclusion that harmonizes *the whole of scripture*...