“Every part of Scripture is God-breathed …” (2 Tim. 3:16a, Msg.)
In this teaching we want to explain how the powerful reference Jesus makes about a camel going through the eye of the needle often loses its power, as well as its meaning, through inaccurate translation or interpretive gimmicks.
In the continuing onslaught of literalistic readers of the Bible who want to rationalise figurative language use at all costs, another problem that arises with the interpretations of this section is that interpreters find fault with the translation from the original root languages.
An aside about the wider matter, often interpretations of problematic Biblical passages are based on possible mistakes in the translation. On the website Freethought Debater, with the motto “Resources for America’s Atheists”, the following is said on the matter, in an article titled ‘Bible Errors and Contradictions’: “Bible debates, perhaps more than any other debate topic, can become lost in endless details of interpretation and subtle questions of translation. It can easily seem that to get into the debate at all requires one to be a Biblical scholar. Fortunately, this is not the case, particularly when dealing with fundamentalists who claim that the Bible is free of error and contradiction. The claim of Biblical inerrancy puts the Christian in the position of not just claiming that the original Bible was free of error (and, remember, none of the original autograph manuscripts exist) but that their modern version of the Bible is the end result of an error-free history of copying and translation beginning with the originals.”
Yes, there are clearly a large amount of seeming contradictions in the Bible. And yes, there are questions about the human mistakes that could possible occur at the hands of monks and scribes copying texts (as the fact that the word not in Ex. 20:14 in the King James Bible of 1631 was mistakenly left out, thus reading: “Thou shalt commit adultery.” J). And of course there are certain translations of the Bible that are less trustworthy than others. BUT, and here I am in absolute agreement with what Grant R. Jeffrey argues in his book, The Handwriting of God, about the inherent trustworthy nature of the Bible, that: “the very survival of the Bible in the face of the greatest persecution and censorship over thousands of years is inexplicable unless God preserved this book as His inspired gospel of salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ” (p. 16).
I think the word preserved is the key word in this case. The Free Dictionary defines it as follows: “To maintain in safety from injury, peril, or harm; protect. To keep in perfect or unaltered condition; maintain unchanged. To prepare for future use … To prevent … from decaying or spoiling. To keep or protect …” Amen. Despite the human fingerprints He managed to keep it COMPLETELY intact through the ages. There is a Godly supernatural element that manifests in and through “the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2) – it is not only a language document, but “the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16).
For this reason Isa. 40:8 proclaims that “the grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever.” Read the reference to flower and grass as a metaphorical reference to the temporal nature of man’s existence:
- “As for man, his days are like grass; as a flower of the field, so he flourishes.” (Ps. 103:15)
- “I, even I, am He who comforts you. Who are you that you should be afraid of a man who will die, and of the son of a man who will be made like grass?” (Isa. 51:12)
- “because ‘all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, and its flower falls away, but the word of the Lord endures forever.’ Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.” (1 Pet. 1:24-25).
The irony of all this is – the Word of God survives all its critics.
Back to the story of the rich young man in Luke 18, and specifically the image in verse 25: “For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God,” and the hermeneutic language manoeuvres theologians perform with it. There are those who argue that it stems from an incorrect translation of the original Greek, that the word kamilos (camel) is used instead of the word kamêlos, which means rope. It would then read as follows: ‘it is easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle’. Although an easier task, it is still fairly impossible for this to happen, and is thus a useless argument.
In his translation, The New Testament according to the Eastern Text, the language guru, George M. Lamsa, purports that the problem lies in the fact that the word gamla in Aramaic means both rope and camel. Given the fact that most ropes were made from woven camel hair, it provides a feasible answer, he says.
This argument could also possibly be true, but why do these theologians want to remove the camel from this Scripture at all costs? This whilst the Jewish rabbis often used the image of the camel, especially in terms of the needle! One such example from the Jewish midrash (found in the Midrash Rabbah, ‘The Song of Songs’ 5.3) renders it a well-known pair of comparison in the Hebrew framework of thought: “The Holy One said, open for me a door as big as a needle’s eye and I will open for you a door through which may enter … camels].” (From this one can also deduce “the exceeding riches of His grace” – Eph. 2:7, which neatly fits into the answer Jesus gives his disciples when they asked “Who then can be saved?”).
A last type of argument that is often used to explain the hyperbole is to examine the cultural frame of reference of the Jews. Jesus’ audience, they argue, believed that wealth and riches are a sign of God’s blessings on your life, and also that the camel refers to cultural wealth (Gen. 12:16; 24:35; 30:43; 32:15; Job 1:3; 42:12). Their argument is that when someone is rich (as in the case of the rich young man), he must thus ipso facto walk in righteousness. To thus withhold entry to the kingdom of God, means that their entire framework when it comes to understanding God begins to disintegrate. And then it is clear why they call out: “Who then can be saved?”
But this is not a valid argument, and is again based on mere tradition. The Scripture is filled with rich but unrighteous people. A single verse, Prov. 13:22, renders this argument moot: “the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the righteous”.
We need to urgently look at the unfolding of this matter, especially in the light of the serious warning found in James 5:1-3: “Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you! Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be a witness against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have heaped up treasure in the last days.”
- Selah: Realise the dangers of accepting just any interpretation of Biblical passages.
- Read: 31-35.
- Memorise: 33:15 (Link with the Scripture from James 3 in the last paragraph.)
- For a more in-depth understanding: Read one of the books mentioned in the teaching.
