On the "Camel/Eye of a Needle" passage...
[This is an interesting example of how “literal” and “non-literal” or “figurative” interpretations can get confusing].
A friend and I recently had a conversation about the meaning of this passage:
“For 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.” Luke 18:25 [also found in Matthew 19:24 and Mark 10:24]
My friend explained the passage as referencing a particular gate which was quite small and was known as the “eye of the needle” gate or something like that. Thus, Jesus was purportedly referencing that real-world gate and a real-world camel.
I had heard that explanation before, and more or less used to believe it - after all, the statement by Jesus is so extreme that if taken “literally” (i.e. an actual camel and an actual needle) then it would LITERALLY be impossible for a rich person to be saved - and we know that’s not true. So there must be some “real world” explanation for the statement, right? (Or is it possible that Jesus was using hyperbole for effect…?)
However, I recalled a year or two ago coming across discussion that the explanation was untenable.
A few days later, I was researching some other issue and stumbled onto an article about the passage. Which in typical fashion, resulted in me looking for other comments about it. Below is what I found.
Summary: It appears there's essentially zero evidence for the eye of a needle gate existing at the time of Jesus.
And Jesus (or Jewish culture) appears to have borrowed the metaphor/parable (with modification) from the Persians/Babylonians, who referred to an elephant going through the eye of a needle instead of a camel. Hardly surprising that Jewish culture would have been influenced by the saying, since the Jews had been captive in Persia/Babylon for quite some time prior to returning from exile and prior to Jesus' coming.
Anyway, on to the articles/commentary!
"There are a number of various schools of thought on what Jesus was describing in stating that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to gain eternal life (Matthew 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25). The Persians communicated the idea of the impossible by stating it would be easier to put an elephant through the eye of a needle. The camel was a Jewish variation (the biggest animal in Israel was a camel)...
... there is no evidence such recorded evidence for such a gate ever existing in the time of Jesus. Beyond that, what sane camel rider would go through such contortions when bigger gates were conveniently available? The camel’s anatomy does not permit it to crawl on its knees...
The most likely description is that Jesus was utilizing hyperbole, a figure of speech that exaggerates for emphasis. Jesus made use of this method at other times, describing a “plank” in one’s eye (Matthew 7:3 -5) and swallowing a camel (Matthew 23:24).
Jesus’ message is clear with regards to Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25 and Luke 18:25 – it is impossible for anybody to be saved on his own merits. Considering that wealth was viewed as evidence of God’s approval, it was frequently taught by the rabbis that wealthy individuals were blessed by God and were, for that reason, the most likely prospects for heaven. Jesus obliterated that idea, and together with it, the concept that anybody can earn immortality. The disciples had the proper feedback to this surprising statement. They were absolutely astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” in the next verse. If the rich among them, that included the super-spiritual Pharisees and scribes, were unworthy of heaven, what hope was there for a poor man?
Jesus’ answer is the basis of the gospel: “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God” (Matthew 19:26). Men are saved through God’s gifts of grace, mercy, and faith (Ephesians 2:8 -9). Nothing we do earns salvation for us. It is the poor in spirit who inherit the kingdom of God (Matthew 5:3), those who acknowledge their spiritual poverty and their utter failure to do anything to justify themselves to a holy God. The rich man so frequently is blind to his spiritual poverty since he takes pride in his achievements and has pleased himself with his wealth. He is as likely to humble himself before God as a camel to go through the eye of a needle."
Exegetical Evidence For A Camel Going Through The Eye Of A Needle
See also:
"... there is no evidence for such a gate...".
'The camel and the eye of the needle', Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25
"No, Jesus was not talking about a literal gate in Jerusalem called ‘the eye of the needle’ that camels had to squish their way through. I’ve checked and rechecked the evidence on this one, and there is no proof that there ever was such a gate."
Myths About the Bible: Was the Eye of the Needle a Gate?
"I wasn’t able to find a trustworthy modern commentary that genuinely advocated for the gate theory. In varying detail, they all disproved it with archaeology, translations from the Greek, interpretive history, and the plain sense of the story...
The archaeological evidence for the gate theory is pretty poor. There’s no legitimate evidence of a gate known as the “eye of the needle” gate existing in Jesus’ lifetime...
Were there gates in different times and locations referred to as eye of the needle gates? Yes. There’s gates like that in German castles from the Middle Ages and obviously a handful in Jerusalem today that claim to be eye of the needle gates. That being said, there’s no record of a gate being referred to by that title until after the year 1000. In first century Jerusalem, there is absolutely no evidence that such a gate existed...
The Greek manuscript makes the gate theory even less viable. If the “eye of a needle” was the name of a specific gate or a reference to a type of gate, that would make the language a title. You’d have to use the same words, “eye of the needle,” every time you talked about it because you’re not actually talking about eyes and needles; you’re talking about a type of gate known as an eye of the needle gate. The story comes up three times in the Gospels (Matthew 19, Mark 10, Luke 18) and each author uses slightly different words for this phrase. Matthew calls the eye of a needle the “trypēmatos rhaphidos” (τρυπήματος ‘ῥαφίδος), while Mark calls it the “trymalias tēs rhaphidos” (τρυμαλιᾶς τῆς ‘ῥαφίδος). Both are using the same word for needle (referring specifically to a tailor’s needle), but they’re using different language to talk about the eye of that needle. Luke not only adds a third option for the eye, but uses the word for a surgeon’s needle rather than the word for a tailor’s needle: trēmatos belonēs (τρήματος βελόνης ). If they’re trying to use a title for a specific kind of gate, they’re all over the map! Two of the three of them are using the wrong words to refer to that gate. If, on the other hand, they’re talking about needles and the tiny holes in them, the differences in their accounts present no problem...
Jesus literally says that the point of bringing up the whole camel and needle thing in the first place was to say that it is impossible. He’s intentionally using an absurd image to talk about something that can’t happen!"
Through the Eye of an ACTUAL Needle: The Fake Gate Theory
"There is simply no ancient Jewish or Christian text that refers to such a gate... Jesus’ words have a parallel in the Babylonian Talmud (Berakoth 55b; Baba Mezi’a 38b): here, the difficulty of something is likened to an elephant being drawn through the eye of a needle. Jesus is quoting a Jewish proverb, meaning that something can never be done."
Common Errors (36): A Needle’s Eye
If you look through those articles you'll find discussion of specific time frames - the earliest reference in Christian tradition appears to be around the 12th Century, if I recall. Anslem/Thomas Aquinas.
It's not that such gates have never existed - it's that there's apparently no evidence they existed that far back. Frankly, the plain reading (ironically... that Jesus was using hyperbole/figurative language) seems to make more sense - particularly since the Persian Babylonians already had a similar saying long before Jesus' time frame. And particularly since none of the Biblical texts actually mention a gate. Which, if correct brings us back to the idea that not everything in the Bible should be interpreted literally. You don't need a literal gate or a literal needle or even a literal camel to understand the point being made. Salvation is of God. Period.
Even John MacArthur opposes the gate idea:
"There is no evidence that such a gate ever existed. Nor would any person with common sense have attempted to force a camel through such a small gate even if one had existed; they would simply have brought their camel into the city through a larger gate... The Persians expressed impossibility by using a familiar proverb stating that it would be easier for an elephant to go through the eye of a needle. The Jews picked up the proverb, substituting a camel for an elephant, since camels were the largest animals in Palestine.
The obvious point of that picturesque expression of hyperbole is not that salvation is difficult, but rather that it is humanly impossible for everyone by any means, including the wealthy. Sinners are aware of their guilt and fear, and may even desire a relationship with God that would bring forgiveness and peace. But they cannot hold on to their sinful priorities and personal control and think they can come to God on their own terms. The young man illustrates that reality."
Given that there is apparently ZERO evidence for the idea that Jesus was referring to a gate and a lot of evidence for the idea that Jesus was using hyperbole, why have a significant number of [apparently particularly fundamentalist] Christians bought into the gate idea?
I think what's going on here is that many fundamentalists HAVE to INSIST that there's a "literal" explanation because... if Jesus was using hyperbole and figurative language in some significant passages, then it becomes possible that Jesus and other Biblical writers were using hyperbole and figurative language in other significant passages. And if we allow hyperbole and figurative language from the Biblical writers, then how can we be sure what they mean about various things...
Which is scary. It means less certainty. And it also means that a lot more digging and Bible STUDY (including about ancient cultures, history, context) is going to be necessary.
It's easier to just take the position that things are literal and criticize those scholars who dig deeper and debate things like Hebrew clause structure and contextualizing the Bible as attacking the simplicity of the gospel.
And that, I believe, is the root of the dogmatism of Ken Ham and others like him strongly criticizing those who take less literal positions on passages like the early chapters of Genesis. Ham has repeatedly expressed the fear/concern that alternative, non-literal interpretations are undermining the authority of the word of God.
But here's the thing... if a literalist interpretation of the Word of God is incorrect, then that incorrect interpretation DOES undermine the authority of the word of God. And can make Christians look silly. The point is to try and get it right based on the best evidence available. Not based on one’s preconceived biases and beliefs.
It's sort of amusing, because the same fundies (and I used to be that type of fundie) have no difficulty accepting that Jesus used a non-literal approach in his parables. But it's almost as if those fundies can only wrap their head around non-literal passages if the heading (inserted centuries or even millennia after the passage was written) says, "THIS IS A PARABLE AND YOU SHOULDN'T THINK JESUS WAS LITERALLY SAYING THIS HAPPENED." Or when there is simply no other possible interpretation/explanation.
(And interestingly, there's at least one parable of Jesus that is based on an actual, historical event... so we can't just assume that the parables are all non-literal).
THE PARABLE OF THE TEN MINAS – INTRO AND HISTORY
Why do we hesitate to believe that Jesus used hyperbole sometimes? People do it all the time and have as long as people have existed.
"All this maneuvering is unnecessary. Christ was using hyperbole, just as He did when He spoke of a plank being in one's eye while attempting to remove the splinter in a brother's eye (Matthew 7:3-4). Everyone seems to understand that this is exaggeration for effect; commentators do not claim, "Well, He really meant a toothpick, not a 2 x 4." In our own speech, we use hyperbole all the time, such as, "This book weighs a ton," or "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse."
What the Bible says about Eye of a Needle
I think there's also some concern that hyperbole could be interpreted as "lying" or telling something other than the truth, and we can't have Jesus doing that unless He explicitly says He's doing it. But normal people don't always say, "I'm using hyperbole now". If you know the culture and context in which a statement is made, you can often easily detect hyperbole. A person from Jesus' day and region would have difficulty understand some of our hyperbolic statements like, “I'm drowning in paperwork.”.
And they certainly wouldn't understand what we mean when we say, "I going to watch the Super Bowl". Or "The Giants and the Ravens are battling it out on the gridiron."
People not familiar with our culture could think literal giants were fighting birds in a very large container designed to hold liquid which is setting on top of some sort of iron platform laid out in a grid.
You can see obvious hyperbole in passages like this:
"The whole earth is at rest and quiet" - Isaiah 14:7. Is that saying that nothing on the entire globe was moving around or making noise?
"Moreover, all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain". - Genesis 41:57. It seems unlikely that every person on earth came to buy grain.
"And Saul blew the trumpet throughout all the land, saying, “Let the Hebrews hear.” I Samuel 13:3. Saul didn't LITERALLY blow the trumpet everywhere in the land.
None of those passages are "literally" true. And most fundies wouldn't have any issue with admitting that they're not literally true.
I'll close with this thought provoking discussion:
"Literalism as Idolatry
I’ve been a Christian for 35 years. For most of that time my church context has been either fundamentalism (my early years as a believer) or what I’ll call for convenience, popular evangelicalism that divorces itself from a reformed or creedal heritage. Both of those Christian sub-cultures exalt the “literal” interpretation of the Bible, especially when it comes to creation and prophecy.... But over-emphasis on biblical literalism has a cost. Literalism can become idolatry...
It might sound odd, but “literal interpretation” needs to be interpreted. Its meaning is far from clear.
Consider the word water. What does it “literally” mean? Is it a noun or verb? In either case, what exactly is its “plain sense”? How about some options:
Noun:
A chemical compound (H2O)
Liquid beverage (“I’d like some water”)
Body of water (“look at all that water”) . . . but which do we mean?
Ocean
Sea
Lake
Pond
River
Stream
Creek
Inlet
Verb:
To irrigate (“water the fields”)
To provide hydration (“he watered the cattle”)
To salivate (“my mouth watered”)
To cry (“his eyes watered”)
So which of the above is the “literal” meaning? Which one is the “plain” meaning? That’s the point. They’re all plain. What distinguishes them is context and metaphor. Things get even more interesting when you move into metaphorical meanings for water—which can be exactly what context requires. “Water” can speak metaphorically of a life source, purification, transformation, motion, or danger. The metaphors work because of the physical properties of water—and still describe real things.
Non-literal doesn’t mean “not real.” And as the saga of sanctified geo-centrism tells us, devotion to literalism won’t necessarily produce accurate—or even coherent—Bible interpretation...
When we unquestioningly teach Bible students that literalness is next to godliness, we teach them to think poorly."
Unyielding Literalism: You Reap What You Sow
If you find the material on this blog interesting, please subscribe here: