The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Strider33, I think that is true, though the fact that some individuals try and are dissuaded from it, by Jesus, is recorded, or else their preemptive tasklist is criticized by Jesus (Lk 9:57-61). To me it looks like the whole attempt to come to Jesus in disciple status is categorically barred by very high barriers (Lk 14:26,27,33).

Luke 14:33 is very interesting relative to Lk 18:22. Because we're not often Middle Easterners (although I'm almost one, having been born in Thessaloniki), we don't like barriers to entry, and try to change them into qualifications for entry. We think of the terms as like a university, where if you qualify, you should in all fairness be admitted. The Lord erects categorical barriers in Lk 14:26,27,33, and we want to say, "OK, but how about now? Can I get in now?"

But even if we pass, by Lk 14:26,27,33, fitness for the kingdom and/or kingdom work has post-startup standards, Lk 9:62. Following Jesus has pre-startup standards too, including no goodbyes (Lk 9:61-62) or preemptions (Lk 9:59-60).

In the U.S., a close parallel we had was military service under the draft. You could apply to enlist, but you had to qualify. And the call, by them, to you, if you qualified, was "effectual."

So all these verses about discipleship, though not directly part of the story of the rich young ruler, get us to also think of the rich young ruler as someone who asked, in effect, about qualifying for discipleship. He didn't start off that way, with his question, and neither did the Lord answer that way at first. But the Lord ended that way. As readers, this would startle us in the First century, wouldn't it? I think that's what you're getting it in saying There's a relationship between what it would take to qualify to follow Jesus and what it would take to qualify to have eternal life.

However, there was a fairly well developed notion of "eternal life" in the Second Temple era (despite the lack of extensive texts in the OT). In fact, many Second Temple texts were concerned with notions of "God's kingdom," "eternal life," etc. (I'm thinking of Qumran, Enoch, Jubilees, Testament of the 12, etc.).

You are certainly right that I would have done better to have stated "eternal life" instead of "saved" (which would imply a sense of lostness and not simply the notion of reward). I fully agree that what this young man was asking was not quite what one might mean by "What must I do to be saved?" in our own context. However, he is asking about what it means to belong to the covenant community in some guaranteed state upon resurrection. To me, it is a matter of this young man wanting to know he is truly to be a member of the eschatological community.

_________________
Everyone is equal at the foot of the cross...just some are more equal than others.
Forum Code of Conduct
Bible.org Doctrinal Statement
rickwadholmjr.wordpress.com
iheartbarth.wordpress.com
bluechippastor.org
Twitter: @RickWadholmJr

Yes. See 1 Jn 5:12.

_________________
Not all those who wander are lost.

Hello,

This text - brought to mind a question. I do not know that it can be resolved, but - - I would appreciate some serious help on this section.

I had heard - - that Jesus actually said or meant Rope - - instead of Camel, in this phrase. Or possibly he used the Aramic word for Rope - which may have also meant camel. i.e.


IN FAVOR OF CAMEL = ROPE

A. In English today - - a camel is an animal, but - - it also means docking rope. One ties a ship to the dock by using a camel (which is a docking rope). Often times, they have a hoop at the end.

B. Also, the Aramaic word gamla means rope OR camel. (somewhat like our current English word). So Jesus would have known this word and may have actually used it.

C.

D. Some say that the Greek word Kamelos (camel the animal) was changed by a scribe from Kamilos (rope) by some early scribe by accident.



CORRECT IS CAMEL THE ANIMAL.

In fact, the original Greek says kamelos (camel), not kamilos (rope). The latter is found in a few late manuscripts/lectionaries, mostly 11th century or later, and in one 9th or 10th century manuscript. The oldest manuscripts are unanimous in reading kamelos, i.e., camel.

All of the following have kamelos (camel).

Codices:
Sinaiticus - 4th century
Vaticanus - 4th century
Ephraemi - 5th century
Bezae Cantabrigiensis - 5th century
Regius - 8th century
Washington Freer - 4th/5th century - This one is local for me - It is in the Freer Gallery here in D.C.
Dublinensis - 5th/6th century

Add to that list numerous minuscules, the manuscripts comprising families 1 and 13, the great bulk of the so called "majority text" manuscripts (the byzantine mss), and early quotations from the passage from Origen and Chrysostom. Add to that the testimony of the earliest translations which were made as early as the 3rd and 4th century, and the evidence is overwhelming. There is no basis for claiming the original text had "rope."


OTHER DISCUSSIONS I have found, that relate to this.

Needle.
A. It has been postulated by many that - - there was a gate, that was called a needle in the wall of Jerusalem - that a camel (animal) could enter only by being totally unloaded - and then it could enter only if it crawled on it's knees. Some say - - history shows no ancient evidence that there WAS a gate named Needle.
B. From what i understand - two different Greek words were used for needle - - hence - - it is a sewing needle that is actually meant.



Reason for question.

I know an elderly fellow - - that is a bit bothered by this.


A. If it is Camel (animal) then the Camel must give away all burdens, (to the Preacher) then crawl to get into heaven. He - - does not think this is correct - as it seems the Preacher Loves this concept too greatly. Keeps preaching on it.

B. If it is actually a ROPE - - then.. an Anchor rope cannot go through a sewing needle. Fellow then needs to do something - - but - - other than to enrich this preacher... but what he must do is quite left open - at least by this script.

So guy wants the riddle solved.

Can anyone add anything substantive to this?

I am somewhat confused on it. My bias, at the moment - - is - -
A. The Text seems to say Camel, the animal - - yet...
B. The Rich Ruler - - - left, sad. While he had apparently hunted up Jesus, and while He greatly respected Jesus - - he himself did not apparently understand that Christ was saying that he - - (the Rich Ruler), should unburden himself of some of his riches - and give him money to Christ - in order to get into heaven. (This then tends to fight against how many preachers are now trying to use these verses.)
C. The Rich Young Ruler - - - - seemed to understand Christ as saying - - - he was NOT going to make it (period, subject closed. You are rich, so - you HAVE your reward).




Thanks,

Bert

R.T.France (NICOT), Grant Osborne (ZECNT), David Turner (BECNT), and D.A.Carson (EBC) all note the attempts to make the "needle" into a pedestrian gate requiring a camel to bend the knee and be relieved of its load as unfounded and even "romantic" imagination that has lead to all sorts of explanations. They also each in turn reject the notion of the "camel" being a "rope" on the grounds of linguistics and somewhat later rabbinic statement which instead has an "elephant" through the eye of a needle (B.Ber. 55b). The whole language of Jesus is hyperbolic. It seems intended to utilize the largest animal of the region of Palestine in conjunction with the smallest passage (a needle's eye). This pastor has found something he likes, but has no basis in the actual text of Scripture and instead teaches what is not to be found here.

_________________
Everyone is equal at the foot of the cross...just some are more equal than others.
Forum Code of Conduct
Bible.org Doctrinal Statement
rickwadholmjr.wordpress.com
iheartbarth.wordpress.com
bluechippastor.org
Twitter: @RickWadholmJr

the whole deal is mostly a red herring as it misses the pt of the Text -- replace camel/rope with "walrus", "temple", "fig" & the same conclusion is reached: do not love the world more than God -- so make that D in your conclusion list -- we aren't Told if the rich man understood or not but Jesus Got to the heart of the matter -- this man had head knowledge of the Law but did not love the Law Giver

that said, it is worth studying so that we know, as best as we can, the words God Intended

Thank you Antipater,

Tis strange - - - . I must continually Challenge what I know. Tis vexing.

But - - I thank you - - for you for what you gave. I now disbelieve that there is a NEEDLE gate, in Jerusalem. I could not find it - - and... I find this concept just too convenient for Papists, and wanna be Papists - - - - and also - - the young ruler - apparently did not understand what he heard from Jesus as saying he had to bend his knee and unload his burdens at Jesus' feet - - - as he apparently left no "donation" at Jesus' feet.

Did he eventually leave some to the poor? Possibly, but... we do not know, of course.


Wished to ask you a question, if you would not mind. Same subject - - but speculative.

Of course - - Jesus and the Disciples, at the time - - spoke Hebrew, and Greek, and Aramaic.

What I am going to bring up here, is pure speculation... but - - I bring it up, because to me, it largely speaking could untangle this "riddle".

The Rich young ruler - asked a question. Jesus answered this question. Now as this was a Rich young ruler - - - - he quite likely was involved in Trade of some sorts. He would have been, at the minimum - - more widely traveled than the Disciples. He may have evenly been involved in SHIPPING, by boat.
So. If the RYR happened to ask his question, in Aramaic, and/or if Jesus ANSWERED in Aramaic - - - and if Jesus then used the word "Gamla" then what the Young Ruler would have heard - - was quite possibly Big ROPE. Young Ruler, being logical - - would not have expected the word Camel. This would have been a preposterous answer. Young Ruler would have therefore figured Jesus used the word "Gamla" (which meant both rope - or Camel) - to mean ROPE. Young Ruler then would have wandered away - - relatively depressed. Young ruler would be aware, that - - he must - somehow - - give up his riches - - - - - - at least in part - - - to get into heaven.. Must thin up himself in order to fit the needle.
So Rich Young leader, had his answer - - so he left.



However the Disciples - - who were continually tromping around the Desert - - and who were more used to Jesus and his somewhat preposterous statements - - could have easily understood Jesus as giving a preposterous hyperbolic type answer. Jesus said "Gamla" so he probably meant Camel!

So if Jesus answered using the word "Gamla" the Young ruler could have heard "rope" and the disciples "camel". Rich Young Ruler left - - understanding big rope - so understanding he probably needed to thin down his holdings, so that he might someday be able to fit into the needle. He HAD his answer.
But the Disciples - - hearing the word Word "CAMEL" were still confused - - thinking that NO ONE with any excess money - - could ever possibly enter heaven.. A Camel is HUGE - - and it cannot fit through a needle! So - - the Disciples had to ask for more information. Jesus then was forced to unravel the "Gamla" riddle for them in a more plain manner - - telling them that with God, these things are possible.

Disciples wrote the Bible in Greek then - - using the Greek "Camel" word.

So. Do you think it is possible, that Jesus may have answered the Rich young ruler, in Aramaic using the word "Gamla?" I mean - - is it POSSIBLE?


Thanks,

Bert

PS. I researched English Camel = rope. From what I can tell, - - it is a thick rope - typically with floats on it. Floats are for lifting the rope, or other things. (is where the camel comes from, I guess). Big rope - with floats. Sometimes used to tie the ships to docks/etc.