It also happened to be the exact same answer my husband gave at the exact same moment.
My answer would be the same today as it was then and it would come just as quickly. I sit here now, many months after being asked that question, I have thought of it many times since it was posed to me. Not because I think it will ever be an issue in my life, after all, one must actually cross the sea, or at least a lake or large river, to ever face such a possibility. I'm not saying I couldn't find myself in that situation, I'm just saying it doesn't seem probable considering the life the Lord has set me in. But I have thought many times of that question even though such a happening does not seem logical for my life.
The reason I have pondered that thought so many, many times is because of what it would mean for me if I were to find myself in such a situation. I have considered what it would be like to have nothing but Scripture. Not only that but I've thought of what it might be like if one was raised on an island with no outside influence and then at some point began to read Scripture, approaching it with no preconceived ideas, no teachings of men.
I was recently pointed to Matthew 19:24:
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (KJV)
When I was pointed to that verse, I was told that the history behind it was fascinating.
I am aware of the various ideas of what that verse MIGHT mean and the two main understandings, the first one being to take it literally, the second being a theory that the eye of a needle was actually the name of a narrow gate in a wall through which camels must be unloaded and made to kneel down and crawl in order to get through it.
I prefer the literal translation, that Christ was speaking of rich men, that he meant a real live camel, and that the eye of a needle was actually the little hole at the end of a sewing needle. And I much prefer the understanding that Christ was speaking clearly, that the black and white of His words in Scripture are exactly what He meant.
But...I can understand why those that put stock in their own ability...or responsibility...to gain their salvation would grab onto the explanation that the eye of the needle was a gate that the camel must kneel down to crawl through. I can understand how that belief in that verse supports their belief that they must choose Christ, coming to Him out of their own free will.
What I don't understand is what happens if we follow the rest of chapter 19 through that subject.
When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. (vs 25-26)
With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. Oh, the comfort that comes from that. God can do what man cannot. Why need we worry over trying to squeeze into a tiny opening that we do not fit through, although I must admit that I am not a rich man, when I need only realize that, rich man or no, the Lord will yank me through the eye of the needle at His will and not at any works I do to try and fit through it.
But my intent today isn't to disect that verse but to think of how the differing theory's lead themselves to only one explanation. At least they do so far as I can see. That explanation is that one must approach Scripture with preconceived ideas, or earthly teachings, to take that verse as anything but what it says in Scripture.
Assuming a person was raised with zero outside influence and they read that verse, also assuming they knew what a camel and a needle were, they would have no other idea of any understanding of that verse except the literal.
When the Lord first drew me out of Arminianism I had to unlearn everything I ever knew about what Scripture supposedly said and I had to relearn what it really said straight from the pages of Scripture. I wasn't lucky enough to start my first taste of Scripture knowing nothing of man taught understandings of it. I had to weigh what it really says against what I was taught it says.
It truly is not my intention today to oppose anyone's understanding of Matthew 19:24. I leave each person to their own understanding, hoping only that they read that verse and the handful of verses that come after it, so that they can form their own conclusions. I do not even see that verse as being the most important out of that passage but the one that follows it:
But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
But then again, one's perspective on what's most important there, not that any part of Scripture is unimportant, may depend on their interpretation of Matthew 19:24.
And even as I write that last paragraph, I can't help thinking of what it would be like to be able to simply approach Scripture with no more foreknowledge of what it says than the understanding that a newly born baby has.
My husband and I discussed this passage, both agreeing that the main point here is that what is impossible for man, is possible for God. But we also discussed something else...
How would one come by the other interpretations of Matthew 19:24? How would a person know to equate the eye of a needle to a gate in a wall in Jerusalem? How would they know that camel has been speculated to be cable or that the needle spoken of has been theorized to be a much larger needle than what we are accustomed to? The only way one could possibly know any of that is if they had some sort of extra-biblical teaching on the verse.
As we discussed that, I couldn't help thinking of what insight I gained during our deep study of Scripture last summer and on all the many things that the teachings of men have done to man's understanding of Scripture. And as I thought of those lessons, and applied them to this topic, I realized something else.
When the New Testament was recorded it wasn't written down as a single book. It wasn't handed into the hands of people that generally held the same knowledge no matter where they lived. There was no standardized curriculum for school kids. There was no internet to give the same description of a topic to each person that looked it up.
As my husband recently said, 'in biblical times people generally lived and died within about 25 miles of where they were born'.
In those days the world really was a very small place. Travel took days at the least and often months or more should one want, or need, to travel to far off countries. There were no airplanes to take one across thousands of miles in a matter of hours. There were no cars, trains or any other modes of modern transportation that takes our giant world and shrinks it to something so easily traveled whether we are simply going to the grocery store or around the globe.
When the book of Matthew was written and distributed, how did it get into the hands of men? How did it reach people in different places? It sure didn't come to them through an internet search. It didn't even reach them as a printed book. It may have come to them through spoken words or it may have reached them through handwritten words on parchment or papyrus, maybe on a scroll, possibly in full, possibly in part.
However it reached them...for anyone outside Jerusalem, can we assume they even knew of the theorized eye of the needle gate? Did every city have such a gate, and if so did it go by the same exact name?
Again, it is not my intent to disect that verse. I hold to a literal understanding of it, meaning I think a needle is a needle and a camel is a camel but I am not trying to teach that understanding to others, nor am I trying to dispute the gate in the wall theory, although I do not agree with it. What I'm trying to do is share my thoughts that even the theory of a gate in a wall would be approached differently by people in biblical times based on where they lived and whether or not they knew of the theorized eye of the needle gate, assuming it was a real gate.
If the book of Matthew reached a village some 30, 50, 500 miles from Jerusalem and the people in that village knew nothing of the eye of the needle gate (if it existed)...what would they think Matthew 19:24 meant?
It's an honest question. Not something I am trying to teach anyone. It's just that for anyone, even those in biblical times to apply the understanding of the eye of the needle being a gate in the wall of Jerusalem, those people would have to know about that gate and understand what it was and how it was used. Therefore they would have to approach Scripture with their own understandings of something firmly in place to reach the conclusion that Christ was speaking of a gate in a wall and not a sewing needle. We must do the same today. One must know the theories behind that verse to be able to come to any conclusion beyond a literal one.
I fall into the take Scripture literal category. I choose to look at the words written on paper, the black ink on the white background, rather than to interpret Scripture through whatever man conceived understandings one might apply to it.
And so once again, I find myself thinking of how nice it would be if we could simply pick up the Bible and read it with a blank slate of understanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment