The Eye Of A Needle

 

The Eye Of A Needle (Mark 10:25)

Brett A. Todd

If you have ever spent time reading the New Testament of the Bible, more than likely you came across the words of Jesus, “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.” (Mark 10:25). Bible scholars agree, there is no question that Jesus said these words, but there are those gullible preachers who have and continue spread a wishful interpretation in order to sound dynamic and educated. For them, the eye of a needle was actually a small gate in Jerusalem where camels had to crawl on their knees to fit through the gate into the city of Jerusalem. There's one problem with this popular “educated” and “dynamic” interpretation, it is not true. There is not one shred of archaeological evidence that such a gate ever existed in Jerusalem.

Where did they get this interpretation? The furthest back we can go with this interpretation is to that of Theophylact, a Byzantine archbishop of the Middle Ages (around 1055 – after 1107 CE) who wrote a Bible commentary. Some have suggested that his interpretation came from the early Church Fathers, however, there is no such evidence that goes any further back than Theophylact himself.

Simply, Jesus' words about the eye of a needle are actually an exaggeration to catch the attention of his followers. It is a hyperbole. As you read the words of Jesus throughout the four Gospels, you will discover that he used this type of speech a lot. Here is another example found in Luke 6:41, Jesus said, “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye but do not notice the log in your own eye?” And yes, there are more... Jesus loved to use this effective teaching method. Jesus used a lot of hyperboles. Adela Yarbro Collins writes:

The hyperbolic character of the saying catches the attention of the audience effectively and leads them to confront seriously the problem with wealth as a hindrance to entering the kingdom.

Did other ancient writers use such exaggerations to connect with their students and readers? Yes, for example, in early Judaism we find such statements where it is an elephant, not a camel, that had to go through the eye of a needle (See Witherington III).

In our next study, we will answer the question of whether or not Jesus was a pure Jew.

Jesus The Messiah With A Little Caveat

Jesus The Messiah

With A Little Caveat

Brett A. Todd

Did Jesus believe that he was the long-awaited Messiah?  This is a completely different question than asking, did Jesus believe he was God?  God and Messiah are not interchangeable titles but Messiah and King often refer to the same person, like King David in the Bible who is called the king and anointed one (the Messiah). Psalm 28:8 referring to King David reads, “The Lord is the strength of his people; he is the saving refuge of his anointed.”  Yes, the title Messiah means “the anointed one”.  

Did Jesus believe he was the Messiah, the anointed one (the King)?  Yes.  Among scholars, there really isn't much of a debate on this matter.  This is how Mark 15:32 narrates this Jesus title, “Let the Messiah, the king of the Jews, come down from the cross now...”

You may remember the story of when Jesus stood before Pilate.  Pilate asked Jesus point blank if he was the King of the Jews.  Jesus' answer is interesting, he said, “You say so.”  Which means that yes I am but I don't need to say because you already did (Mark 15:2). Further, all four Gospels agree, above the head of Jesus on the cross hung a sign that read, “King of the Jews” (Mark 15:26).  So once again, did Jesus believe he was the Messiah, the King of the Jews?  More than likely, yes, and he died for it as well.

Here is a little caveat, Jesus was not the first person to claim to be the Messiah.  You may remember, even in the Gospels there is a warning that many will claim to be the Messiah (Matthew 24:5).  But there were even those before Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah.

Back in 2000, archaeologists discovered what some scholars believe to be the most important archaeology find since the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1946/7.  Along the banks of the Dead Sea, they found a stone, now called “Gabriel's Stone”, with peculiar writing.  One can view this magnificent stone now displayed at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.

Why is this stone so significant?  This 4th-1st century BCE stone, or earlier, refers to a messiah who will die and rise from the dead in three days.  In Hebrew, it reads, “In three days, live”  Of course, this stone is not referring to the Jesus of the New Testament. Instead, according to  Israel Knohl, a professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem believes this refers to Simon Peraea (4 BCE).

What does all of this mean?  Long before Jesus came along, there was a certain expectation that a Messiah King would come and deliver them, the Jews, from captivity.  Jesus was just one of those individuals who believed he too was the Messiah King.  More than likely,  Christians borrowed this same idea of the Messiah dying and being raised from the dead on the third day from the same source those who wrote Gabriel's Stone got theirs.  Maybe the old proverb from Ecclesiastes is right, “...there is nothing new under the sun.”

In our next study, we will look at the words of Jesus, “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.”  What was Jesus talking about, an actual camel and an eye of a needle, or was it a gate found in Jerusalem?

IS THE MAN THE HEAD OF THE WOMAN? (Part 3)

IS THE MAN THE HEAD OF THE WOMAN? (Part 3)

Brett A. Todd

Sometimes I think if the Apostle Paul had any smarts, he would have never penned some of the things he wrote.  But of course, he lived in a different time and culture.  One example is found in 1 Corinthians 11:3 where he said, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man, is the head of the woman.”  Some translations read that “...the husband is the head of his wife.” Whatever translation one accepts, for the modern man and woman, Paul's words are not appealing.  Either way, “man” and “woman” is probably the best rendering of this text.

One might ask, however, what did the Greek word for “head” (of a woman) mean during Paul's time? There are a few opinions on this matter.  Let me mention two of them: 

First is the traditional definition which is widely accepted by scholars.  For them, the word “head” represents authority.  However, for some, this definition is gorged with male chauvinism. So, others have come up with a second suggestion that the Greek word for “head” is more accurately defined as “the source”, like the source of the river. Here it means that man is the source of a woman's existence since a woman (Eve) was made from man (Adam). These same scholars are quick to point out that this definition carries with it no sense of authority or of one person ruling over another.  

Let's pause for a moment and ask, “Really?”  Do these male Bible scholars really think this is going to appease the modern women of our day?  “Women, I have good news for you, men are not the head of women, they are just the source of your existence.  Without them, you would not exist.” 

From a scholarly perspective, there is a significant problem with this idea of a man as the source of a woman’s existence. Every Greek lexicon (Dictionary), except for two, defines this Greek word as someone having a superior rank.  The only two lexicons that offers the idea of a man as the “source” is Liddell and Scott as well as Schlier's in the TDNT. However, they offer no example of this use in Greek literature. From my research, I cannot find such an idea for this Greek word.

Why then would some scholars translate this Greek word as “source”?  It seems in their hasty effort to tame Paul for the modern Bible reader of male chauvinism, several male Christian scholars have designed a way to assure women that the Bible, Paul, and Christianity are on their side. However, in their effort to tame Paul, they seem to have no idea that this idea is still demeaning and outdated for the modern woman.

It is best, to be honest with ourselves and the Bible and recognize that this ancient literature holds many,  ideas that are improper, sinful, and even inhuman when dealing with God's creation, such as racism, classism, ableism, heterosexism, and here, sexism. All of this and more were a part of the Bible's culture.  Yes, Paul was wrong. 

In our next study, we will discuss whether or not Jesus believed he was the Kingly Messiah.  We will also look at an archeological find that many Bible readers are not aware of that may support this idea of a kingly messiah in the Bible.