An epicenter is to point on the earth's surface nearest to the point underground where the earthquake actually began.
The Caesar cult (or imperial cult) grew up around Roman emperors, and Julius Caesar was the first emperor elevated to the status of deity, and the Caesar cult became especially strong in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) during the time of Augustus, and temples built in his honor became models for the rest of the empire.
The seven churches addressed in Revelation were located in Asia Minor, so this region could well be called the center of the Caesar cult. Hank Hanegraaff's use of the word epicenter may be a bit of a stretch, but it does make a good point: Those who proclaimed Jesus as lord were in direct conflict with the cult that declared Caesar as lord. And in the first century, Asia Minor played a significant rule in the Caesar cult.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Literally?
If there's one Hankism that drives me a bit crazy as a writer and English major, it's his use of the word literally. The word means as it is, without exaggeration or embellishment, factual, actual, as we see on the Merrian Webster website:
lit·er·al - adjective \ˈli-t(ə-)rəl\
Again, from the Merriam Webster site:
lit·er·ary - adjective \ˈli-tə-ˌrer-ē\
And they were right. While Protestant Reformers tended to be well educated and understand how to read the Bible as literature and interpret Scripture in the light of other Scripture, some of the less educated went off the deep end based on a very literal reading of the Bible.
I think this is due in part to concrete thinking. When reading science fiction or fantasy, we understand that serpents might speak, dragons might be real, and so forth. But when reading the Bible, some people believe that the serpent formed human words and that a real dragon will appear at the end of the world. They forget that every day we use analogies, metaphors, similies, and other figures of speech - and so did those who wrote the Bible.
It's understandable that young children would take things literally, and that uneducated adults might do the same thing, but educated adults should know better. Sometimes the Bible literally means exactly what it says, but sometimes it uses figures of speech to make it point, and that's exactly the issue Hank is dealing with when he talks about taking the Bible literally but not woodenly.
lit·er·al - adjective \ˈli-t(ə-)rəl\
1 a : according with the letter of the scriptureslit·er·al·ly - adverb \ˈli-tə-rə-lē, ˈli-trə-lē, ˈli-tər-lē\
1 b : adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression : actual <liberty in the literal sense is impossible — B. N. Cardozo>
1 c : free from exaggeration or embellishment <the literal truth>
1 d : characterized by a concern mainly with facts <a very literal man>
2: of, relating to, or expressed in letters
3: reproduced word for word : exact, verbatim <a literal translation>
1: in a literal sense or manner : actually <took the remark literally> <was literally insane>Usage Discussion of LITERALLY
2: in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins>
Since some people take sense 2 to be the opposite of sense 1, it has been frequently criticized as a misuse. Instead, the use is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis, but it often appears in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary.The way Hank Hanegraaff uses it, what he is talking about is the literary interpretation. The Bible is literature. It is not a mere textbook filled only with facts and rules. It tells stories and relates historical narratives; it includes prophetic and apocalyptic books; it contains songs and collections of wise sayings. On top of that, it makes rich use of imagery and figures of speech - Jesus is the lamb of God, God is our father, the church is the bride of Christ,
Again, from the Merriam Webster site:
lit·er·ary - adjective \ˈli-tə-ˌrer-ē\
1 a: of, relating to, or having the characteristics of humane learning or literatureWhat most of us would call the literal meaning of Scripture is what Hanegraaff labels woodenly literal in contrast to the literary meaning of Scripture that he labels literal. (Confused?)
1 b: bookish
1 c: of or relating to books
2 a: well-read
2 b: of or relating to authors or scholars or to their profession
Naive Reading
One danger the Roman Catholic Church foresaw in giving the average believer access to the Bible in their own language was that people would misinterpret things - not that this didn't also happen with the Latin Bible, but at least people who could read Latin had a formal education.And they were right. While Protestant Reformers tended to be well educated and understand how to read the Bible as literature and interpret Scripture in the light of other Scripture, some of the less educated went off the deep end based on a very literal reading of the Bible.
I think this is due in part to concrete thinking. When reading science fiction or fantasy, we understand that serpents might speak, dragons might be real, and so forth. But when reading the Bible, some people believe that the serpent formed human words and that a real dragon will appear at the end of the world. They forget that every day we use analogies, metaphors, similies, and other figures of speech - and so did those who wrote the Bible.
It's understandable that young children would take things literally, and that uneducated adults might do the same thing, but educated adults should know better. Sometimes the Bible literally means exactly what it says, but sometimes it uses figures of speech to make it point, and that's exactly the issue Hank is dealing with when he talks about taking the Bible literally but not woodenly.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
A Different Type of Autograph
Most people think of the signature of a famous person when they hear the word autograph. Others might remember collecting notes from friends in their high school yearbooks. And collectors think of the value of a genuine Shakespeare, Washington, or Lincoln autograph.
Bible scholars are talking about something different. For them, an autograph is the original manuscript for a book of the Bible - and those were written so long ago that none of them have survived to the present day.
That said, we have thousands and thousands of manuscript copies as evidence that such originals did exist, and by comparing these copies with each other and in light of their dates, we can come very close to reconstructing the autographs. There are places where a copyist may have dropped a word or letter, a couple places where passages may be been added (the woman caught in adultery is perhaps the best known example), spots where a name has been changed to a pronoun or vice versa, and other relatively minor differences among the multitude of existing copies.
The important thing isn't that there are so many little differences, but that there is so much consistency over centuries of making copies from copies of copies. As Hank Hanegraaff always points out, God has maintained the integrity of Scripture despite all the years of copying. And most important of all, the message of the Bible has survived unscathed despite the text being handled by humans for so many generations before the advent of the printing press, which finally made it easy to produce thousands and millions of identical copies of the sacred text.
Even though the autographs are gone and most of us can't fathom the original Hebrew and Greek of all those copies, God has also made sure that we have sufficiently accurate translations into English (and many, many other languages) that the message we read today is the same one written into those original manuscripts.
Bible scholars are talking about something different. For them, an autograph is the original manuscript for a book of the Bible - and those were written so long ago that none of them have survived to the present day.
That said, we have thousands and thousands of manuscript copies as evidence that such originals did exist, and by comparing these copies with each other and in light of their dates, we can come very close to reconstructing the autographs. There are places where a copyist may have dropped a word or letter, a couple places where passages may be been added (the woman caught in adultery is perhaps the best known example), spots where a name has been changed to a pronoun or vice versa, and other relatively minor differences among the multitude of existing copies.
The important thing isn't that there are so many little differences, but that there is so much consistency over centuries of making copies from copies of copies. As Hank Hanegraaff always points out, God has maintained the integrity of Scripture despite all the years of copying. And most important of all, the message of the Bible has survived unscathed despite the text being handled by humans for so many generations before the advent of the printing press, which finally made it easy to produce thousands and millions of identical copies of the sacred text.
Even though the autographs are gone and most of us can't fathom the original Hebrew and Greek of all those copies, God has also made sure that we have sufficiently accurate translations into English (and many, many other languages) that the message we read today is the same one written into those original manuscripts.
Friday, February 8, 2013
Who Is Daniel Knight?
Who is this Daniel Knight, and what qualifies him to write this blog?
Like Hank Hanegraaff, my parents were Dutch immigrants. They first emigrated to Canada (Hanks family came to the US). They were from the Reformed tradition and helped transplant their faith to their new homeland, part of a wave of Dutch immigrants responsible for establishing dozens and dozens of Christian Reformed congregations across Canada. (For an overview of that period, see The Dutch Reformed Presence in Canada.)
My parents brought their three sons to Grand Rapids, Michigan, in early 1963 so my father could do youth work for the denomination. We had all been baptized as infants, brought up in the church, attended Christian schools, and had devotions with breakfast and dinner every day. I took to Reformed theology like a duck to water and made profession of faith (our version of confirmation, believer's baptism, etc.) at 16. Unlike Hank, I never turned my back on the faith.
The following summer my family went back to Canada, and a year later I left for Trinity Christian College in suburban Chicago. There I made friends with believers from different traditions - Baptists, Lutherans, Adventists, Presbyterians, Catholics, and Reformed. And I struggled with issues like infant baptism vs. believer's baptism - and how to reconcile the faith of my friends who were Christians but share the theology I grew up believing was the best and most true theological system.*
After two years at Trinity, I switched to Calvin College in Grand Rapids, MI, just a few blocks from my parents' new home after immigrating once again. Here I once again gravitated to those from different traditions, and I eventually graduated with a group major in English, history, and philosophy. I had originally wanted to become a pastor, but my inability to learn foreign languages ended that plan. Journalism would have been a great path, but there was no journalism program in that era. I did take every writing course offered.
I worked a lot of retail jobs over the years, and my writing and analysis skills always helped. When the fledgling World-Wide Web came into public consciousness, I began my own websites in 1997 - LowEndMac.com for Mac users who want to get the most out of existing gear, and Reformed.net (since defunct and now being replaced by the Dutch Reformed Wiki) to share my research while attending seminary.
Over the years, I have become convinced that God is more interested in our having a relationship with Him than in our having perfect theology. I believe that you can have some less-than-perfect beliefs (after all, we are imperfect beings living in a broken world) and still be welcomed into God's family. Truth matters, but so do love, acceptance, and encouragement. As Hank often says, there are secondary issues that need not divide us as God's redeemed. Not that good theology isn't important, but without faith, it doesn't transform our lives.
I have belonged to Christian Reformed, Reformed, Episcopalian, and Evangelical Covenant churches and currently attend an undenominational one. I worship alongside people from many different traditions, and it is Christ who unites us.
I have been listening to The Bible Answer Man since October 2012 and am a big fan of Hank Hanegraaff, even if we don't share the same view on every issue. But that's part of God creating each of us different - not even identical twins are exactly the same. We need to become the unique people God planned for us to be, accepting that others are just as unique and loving them as God's creation.
* The Christian Reformed Church has a long history of being theologically rigorous. It has sometimes spent years and even decades debating issues such as the role of women in church office, the charismatic movement, and the issues associated with homosexuality, as well as whether it was permissible to dance (handled back when I was in college). I have great appreciation for the theological rigor, but less appreciation for the name calling and polarization that has so often taken place over these issues, sometimes to the point of entire groups leaving the denomination to form their own group over what many consider to be secondary issues.
Like Hank Hanegraaff, my parents were Dutch immigrants. They first emigrated to Canada (Hanks family came to the US). They were from the Reformed tradition and helped transplant their faith to their new homeland, part of a wave of Dutch immigrants responsible for establishing dozens and dozens of Christian Reformed congregations across Canada. (For an overview of that period, see The Dutch Reformed Presence in Canada.)
My parents brought their three sons to Grand Rapids, Michigan, in early 1963 so my father could do youth work for the denomination. We had all been baptized as infants, brought up in the church, attended Christian schools, and had devotions with breakfast and dinner every day. I took to Reformed theology like a duck to water and made profession of faith (our version of confirmation, believer's baptism, etc.) at 16. Unlike Hank, I never turned my back on the faith.
The following summer my family went back to Canada, and a year later I left for Trinity Christian College in suburban Chicago. There I made friends with believers from different traditions - Baptists, Lutherans, Adventists, Presbyterians, Catholics, and Reformed. And I struggled with issues like infant baptism vs. believer's baptism - and how to reconcile the faith of my friends who were Christians but share the theology I grew up believing was the best and most true theological system.*
After two years at Trinity, I switched to Calvin College in Grand Rapids, MI, just a few blocks from my parents' new home after immigrating once again. Here I once again gravitated to those from different traditions, and I eventually graduated with a group major in English, history, and philosophy. I had originally wanted to become a pastor, but my inability to learn foreign languages ended that plan. Journalism would have been a great path, but there was no journalism program in that era. I did take every writing course offered.
I worked a lot of retail jobs over the years, and my writing and analysis skills always helped. When the fledgling World-Wide Web came into public consciousness, I began my own websites in 1997 - LowEndMac.com for Mac users who want to get the most out of existing gear, and Reformed.net (since defunct and now being replaced by the Dutch Reformed Wiki) to share my research while attending seminary.
Over the years, I have become convinced that God is more interested in our having a relationship with Him than in our having perfect theology. I believe that you can have some less-than-perfect beliefs (after all, we are imperfect beings living in a broken world) and still be welcomed into God's family. Truth matters, but so do love, acceptance, and encouragement. As Hank often says, there are secondary issues that need not divide us as God's redeemed. Not that good theology isn't important, but without faith, it doesn't transform our lives.
I have belonged to Christian Reformed, Reformed, Episcopalian, and Evangelical Covenant churches and currently attend an undenominational one. I worship alongside people from many different traditions, and it is Christ who unites us.
I have been listening to The Bible Answer Man since October 2012 and am a big fan of Hank Hanegraaff, even if we don't share the same view on every issue. But that's part of God creating each of us different - not even identical twins are exactly the same. We need to become the unique people God planned for us to be, accepting that others are just as unique and loving them as God's creation.
* The Christian Reformed Church has a long history of being theologically rigorous. It has sometimes spent years and even decades debating issues such as the role of women in church office, the charismatic movement, and the issues associated with homosexuality, as well as whether it was permissible to dance (handled back when I was in college). I have great appreciation for the theological rigor, but less appreciation for the name calling and polarization that has so often taken place over these issues, sometimes to the point of entire groups leaving the denomination to form their own group over what many consider to be secondary issues.
Eternal Verities
Veritas means truth, so when Hank Hanegraaff is talking about "eternal verities", he is talking about unchanging truths. But why use a Latin phrase when plain old everyday Anglo Saxon English is so much clearer?
Because the concept of eternal verities goes back quite a ways. The Oxford Learners Dictionary defines it as "an essential basic moral principle". In other words, eternal verities are truths that are universal (as opposed to cultural) and timeless (as opposed to time-bound).
The opposite of eternal verities is relativism, a morality that changes over time or across cultures. For instance, we live in a culture that has legalized abortion and is hard at work to make it socially acceptable - and a culture that is making homosexual marriage acceptable and hard at work to make it legal. Treating abortion as a morals-free personal medical decision and equating homosexual unions with traditional man-woman marriage is not a matter of eternal verities.
Examples of eternal verities:
Because the concept of eternal verities goes back quite a ways. The Oxford Learners Dictionary defines it as "an essential basic moral principle". In other words, eternal verities are truths that are universal (as opposed to cultural) and timeless (as opposed to time-bound).
The opposite of eternal verities is relativism, a morality that changes over time or across cultures. For instance, we live in a culture that has legalized abortion and is hard at work to make it socially acceptable - and a culture that is making homosexual marriage acceptable and hard at work to make it legal. Treating abortion as a morals-free personal medical decision and equating homosexual unions with traditional man-woman marriage is not a matter of eternal verities.
Examples of eternal verities:
- God created the heavens and the earth.
- God has a plan for every part of creation.
- God loves his creation and his creatures.
- There is such a thing as sin.
- Murder is wrong.
- Lying isn't good.
- Treat others as you would want them to treat you, the so-called Golden Rule that has existed in practically every human culture known
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Gnosticism: Secrets of the Christian Faith?
gnos·tic noun, often capitalized \ˈnäs-tik\ (the g is silent)
As you listen to The Bible Answer Man, you've probably heard Hank Hanegraaff talk about gnostic gospels and gnostic teachings, and you may wonder what gnosticism is. The term gnostic comes from the Greek gnōsis (γνῶσις), which means knowledge.
For Gnostics, God didn't create the universe. Instead, the universe was fashioned and shaped from eternal matter by a Demiurge (demi-urge), which is eternal but not God - and eventually becomes the eternal opponent of God.
Gnosticism believes that matter is evil and unspiritual, and the way to be purified from its influence is through knowledge. Some trace the origin of this kind of thinking to Plato, and it certainly fits with his philosophy. Plato taught that we are composed of two parts, the material body and the non-material soul, which is the essence of life, the seat of reason, and eternal. The body weighs down the spirit and demands that we satisfy its physical needs and desires; the soul strives toward eternal spiritual truths. Body and soul are intermingled on earth and in many ways at odds with each other, but after death the soul is free from the demands of the flesh.
This kind of thinking has strongly influenced Western Christianity, although it is alien to the Old Testament mindset, which sees the breath of life permeating our physical bodies. We are designed as a unity, a being with body and soul. As we read in Genesis 2:7, "then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature." (ESV) To the Hebrew mind, the body is not evil, and in the New Testament, the body of a believer is called a temple for the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor 6:19)
Just as good and evil, righteousness and sin, right and wrong are contrasted in the Jewish and Christian faiths, gnosticism makes similar distinctions, but with a different emphasis. For gnostics, the physical world is the source of evil; for people of the Book, the physical world is something that God created and called good. (Genesis 1:4, 1:10, 1:12, 1:18, 1:21, and 1:31) Evil comes from rebellion against our Creator, not from creation itself.
Yes, sin now permeates all parts of creation, from our very souls to our bodies, weather patterns, political situations, disease, and everything else that is part of creation or human society. That doesn't make creation evil; evil only infects is since the Fall.
Gnosticism began to infect the Christian church in the first century as some people tried to reinterpret biblical truths to line up with gnostic beliefs, and some of its teachings are addressed in the New Testament.
In addition to believing that the physical world is evil and that only mind allows us to transcend and in some ways escape that evil, Gnostics also have "secret" teachings shared with initiates; it claims to know "secret" truths hidden in Scripture. there are also gnostic gospels, such as the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary (attributed to Mary Magdalene), Gospel of Truth, Gospel of Philip, and Gospel of Judas. These are mostly collections of wise sayings, like the book of Proverbs in the Old Testament, and they are generally dated after 100 CE - after the books in the New Testament were written.
One teaching necessitated by the gnostic view of matter is that Jesus did not truly take on human flesh but was instead a spirit who appeared to have physical being. This is the kind of heresy the Apostle John addresses in 1 John 4:1-3:
The Bible teaches us that God created the heavens and the earth, calling them into being by the power of his words, that creation is good, that Jesus came in human flesh, and that everything necessary for our salvation and understanding of God's truths is contained in Scripture.
Gnosticism teaches that a demiurge took existing material and crafted the universe, that matter is evil, that Jesus only appeared to be human, and that there are secret truths not contained (or at least not readily discerned) in our Bibles.
As you listen to The Bible Answer Man, you've probably heard Hank Hanegraaff talk about gnostic gospels and gnostic teachings, and you may wonder what gnosticism is. The term gnostic comes from the Greek gnōsis (γνῶσις), which means knowledge.
Mind/Body Dualism
For Gnostics, God didn't create the universe. Instead, the universe was fashioned and shaped from eternal matter by a Demiurge (demi-urge), which is eternal but not God - and eventually becomes the eternal opponent of God.
Gnosticism believes that matter is evil and unspiritual, and the way to be purified from its influence is through knowledge. Some trace the origin of this kind of thinking to Plato, and it certainly fits with his philosophy. Plato taught that we are composed of two parts, the material body and the non-material soul, which is the essence of life, the seat of reason, and eternal. The body weighs down the spirit and demands that we satisfy its physical needs and desires; the soul strives toward eternal spiritual truths. Body and soul are intermingled on earth and in many ways at odds with each other, but after death the soul is free from the demands of the flesh.
This kind of thinking has strongly influenced Western Christianity, although it is alien to the Old Testament mindset, which sees the breath of life permeating our physical bodies. We are designed as a unity, a being with body and soul. As we read in Genesis 2:7, "then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature." (ESV) To the Hebrew mind, the body is not evil, and in the New Testament, the body of a believer is called a temple for the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor 6:19)
Just as good and evil, righteousness and sin, right and wrong are contrasted in the Jewish and Christian faiths, gnosticism makes similar distinctions, but with a different emphasis. For gnostics, the physical world is the source of evil; for people of the Book, the physical world is something that God created and called good. (Genesis 1:4, 1:10, 1:12, 1:18, 1:21, and 1:31) Evil comes from rebellion against our Creator, not from creation itself.
Yes, sin now permeates all parts of creation, from our very souls to our bodies, weather patterns, political situations, disease, and everything else that is part of creation or human society. That doesn't make creation evil; evil only infects is since the Fall.
Gnosticism began to infect the Christian church in the first century as some people tried to reinterpret biblical truths to line up with gnostic beliefs, and some of its teachings are addressed in the New Testament.
Secret Wisdom
In addition to believing that the physical world is evil and that only mind allows us to transcend and in some ways escape that evil, Gnostics also have "secret" teachings shared with initiates; it claims to know "secret" truths hidden in Scripture. there are also gnostic gospels, such as the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary (attributed to Mary Magdalene), Gospel of Truth, Gospel of Philip, and Gospel of Judas. These are mostly collections of wise sayings, like the book of Proverbs in the Old Testament, and they are generally dated after 100 CE - after the books in the New Testament were written.
One teaching necessitated by the gnostic view of matter is that Jesus did not truly take on human flesh but was instead a spirit who appeared to have physical being. This is the kind of heresy the Apostle John addresses in 1 John 4:1-3:
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already." (NLT)Christianity is not a religion of secret teachings. Although Paul writes of God's secrets in 1 Corinthians, he tells us those secrets were hidden in earlier times but have been revealed to us through Jesus Christ.
Conclusion
The Bible teaches us that God created the heavens and the earth, calling them into being by the power of his words, that creation is good, that Jesus came in human flesh, and that everything necessary for our salvation and understanding of God's truths is contained in Scripture.
Gnosticism teaches that a demiurge took existing material and crafted the universe, that matter is evil, that Jesus only appeared to be human, and that there are secret truths not contained (or at least not readily discerned) in our Bibles.
"Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength." (1 Cor. 1:22-25, NIV)
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Anachronism: Out of Time
My wife and I get a kick out of watching old movies and TV shows, saying, "They ought to pull out their cell phones and dial 9-1-1" when we know perfectly well that the technology didn't exist during that period of time.
That's the basic idea behind anachronism, placing something in the wrong historical context. Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court is one of the better known books to deal with technology displaced in time.
A recent caller to The Bible Answer Man asked about the Eye of the Needle gate into Jerusalem, which is so small that it is very difficult to get a camel through it. According to some, a camel can only enter on its knees, showing the position we need to assume to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. According to others, including the version this caller heard, a camel can only get through the gate if all of its burdens are removed, showing that we can only come into the Kingdom of God by casting off all of our trappings.
In Matthew 19:24, Jesus says, "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (ASV) Doesn't that seem to fit perfectly with the story of the Eye of the Needle gate?
Problem is, as Hank Hanegraaff explains, that gate into Jerusalem didn't exist in the day of Jesus - if it existed at all (and there seems to be no evidence for it), it was a medieval addition to the fortified walls surrounding the city. Thus, all of these nice stories about the real gate are anachronisms, assuming such a gate did exist once upon a time (there appears to be no evidence for it).
Since it's logically and physically impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a real needle, Jesus is saying that it's impossible for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God on their own merits or using their own wealth.
However, Jesus also said that "With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible." (Matt. 19:26 ASV) Thus the point of the parable is that we cannot achieve heaven on our own, but by God's grace all things (including entering the Kingdom) are possible.
Thanks be to God!
That's the basic idea behind anachronism, placing something in the wrong historical context. Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court is one of the better known books to deal with technology displaced in time.
A recent caller to The Bible Answer Man asked about the Eye of the Needle gate into Jerusalem, which is so small that it is very difficult to get a camel through it. According to some, a camel can only enter on its knees, showing the position we need to assume to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. According to others, including the version this caller heard, a camel can only get through the gate if all of its burdens are removed, showing that we can only come into the Kingdom of God by casting off all of our trappings.
In Matthew 19:24, Jesus says, "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (ASV) Doesn't that seem to fit perfectly with the story of the Eye of the Needle gate?
Problem is, as Hank Hanegraaff explains, that gate into Jerusalem didn't exist in the day of Jesus - if it existed at all (and there seems to be no evidence for it), it was a medieval addition to the fortified walls surrounding the city. Thus, all of these nice stories about the real gate are anachronisms, assuming such a gate did exist once upon a time (there appears to be no evidence for it).
Since it's logically and physically impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a real needle, Jesus is saying that it's impossible for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God on their own merits or using their own wealth.
However, Jesus also said that "With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible." (Matt. 19:26 ASV) Thus the point of the parable is that we cannot achieve heaven on our own, but by God's grace all things (including entering the Kingdom) are possible.
Thanks be to God!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)