Y‘shua points out to all that are listening to this discussion, that YHWH is interested in commitment first and
challenges this man on the aspect of trust.
No, Y‘shua does not mean that we are to have no material possessions. However, the rich young ruler
showed by his attitude that he loved his possessions more than he loved YHWH. Believers are not to
become so wrapped up in earthly possessions or the things of this world that they let these things interfere
with their spiritual lives. Col 3:2 tells us, ―Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth."
The camel and the eye of the needle; various scenarios
For the last two centuries, it has been common teaching that there is a gate in Jerusalem called the eye of
the needle through which a camel could not pass unless it stooped and first had all its baggage removed.
After dark when the main gates were shut, travellers or merchants would have to use this smaller gate
through which the camel could only enter unencumbered and crawling on its knees! This is great sermon
material with the parallels of coming to YHWH on our knees without all our baggage.
Another scenario on this theme includes that of ancient inns having small entrances to thwart thieves; or the
story of an old mountain pass known as the "eye of the needle", so narrow that merchants would have to
dismount from their camels and were thus easier prey for brigands lying in wait.
Mangled Greek, maybe?
There are some differences in the translated Greek. The needle in Matthew and Mark is a rafic. In Luke it is a
belone. Both are synonyms for needles used in sewing, but Luke's is more likely to be used by a surgeon
than a seamstress.
Another possible solution comes from the possibility of a Greek misprint. The suggestion is that the Greek
word kamilos ('camel') should really be kamêlos – meaning 'cable, rope', as some late New Covenant
manuscripts actually have here. (Mainly 11th century or later, and in one 9th/10th century manuscript;
however, all early manuscripts and quotations in the church fathers from the 3rd through to the 8th centuries
have 'camel' not 'rope'.) Hence, it is easier to thread a needle with a rope rather than a strand of cotton than
for a rich man to enter the kingdom. A neat but unnecessary solution!
A variation on all of the above is that the needle was a 6 inch carpet needle and the rope was made of camel
hair; but this is again, clutching at straws or camel hair and is an unnecessary emendation.
The Aramaic
An alternative linguistic explanation is taken from George M. Lamsa's Syriac-Aramaic Peshitta translation
(The New Testament according to the Eastern Text, George M. Lamsa, 1940, p.xxiv and note on Matthew
19:24), which has the word 'rope' in the main text but a footnote on Matt 19:24, which states that the Aramaic
word gamla means rope and camel – possibly because the ropes were made from camel hair. Evidence for
this also comes from the 10th century Aramaic lexicographer, Mar Bahlul, who defines it as "a large rope
used to bind ships". (cf. http://www.aramaicnt.org/HTML/LUKE/evidences/Camel.html))
Some have even suggested a pun in Aramaic between camel and gnat or louse from the Aramaic kalma
'vermin, louse'.
Just as the apocryphal Acts of Peter and Andrew (see notes on the next page) refers the saying to a literal
camel and needle, so we are not meant to reason away the apparent difficulty of getting a camel through a
needle's eye. The difficulty is not apparent, but it is real; and will not be solved by textual trickery but by
taking the ludicrous language at face value.
What we have instead then, I believe, is a beautiful Hebrew hyperbole, as in the tree sticking out of one's eye
whilst one is removing a speck in another's eye! Indeed, Jewish Talmudic literature uses a similar aphorism
about an elephant passing through the eye of a needle as a figure of speech, implying the unlikely or
impossible:
"They do not show a man a palm tree of gold, nor an elephant going through the eye of a needle‖
(Babylonian Talmud, Berakoth, 55b)
This first instance concerned dreams and their interpretation and suggested that men only dream that which
is natural or possible, not that which is unlikely ever to have occurred to them.