Was there a gate called "the eye of a needle"

[Scribe]

Was there a gate called "the eye of a needle" or was Jesus talking about a literal 1st century needle and a camel?

 

[laughingheart]

When the larger city gates were closed for the night, the only way to enter was through a much smaller gate. A camel could only enter if it was down on its knees and its baggage removed. To equate it to a modern sewing needle would be to change the meaning of the verse, with one being difficult and the other being impossible.

 

[Corban]

When the larger city gates were closed for the night, the only way to enter was through a much smaller gate. A camel could only enter if it was down on its knees and its baggage removed. To equate it to a modern sewing needle would be to change the meaning of the verse, with one being difficult and the other being impossible.

I concur. The large defensive gates of the medieval city, both in Arabia and Europe, would not be opened except to allow supply wagons into the city. Open Gates was a time of vulnerability and danger. To let men in an out, a much smaller, and very defensible door was inserted in the main door. I have one as a coffee table which I obtained in a Middle Eastern coutry where I worked for six years. It measures 125 cm by 65 cm (4.1 ft X 2.1 ft). I've never seen it tried, but it would be an interesting endeavor to get a mature camel through it.

 

[EleventhHour]

Was there a gate called "the eye of a needle" or was Jesus talking about a literal 1st century needle and a camel?

There is no writing from history to support such a gate existed... named "eye of the needle"

Matthew 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” 26 But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Jesus is using hyperbole to make a very important point.. a real camel cannot go through the real eye of a needle. No one can save themselves.

From the context, "Who then can be saved?"

It takes an act of God who makes all things possible. Only God is able to do what is necessary to save us.

 

[Scribe]

When the larger city gates were closed for the night, the only way to enter was through a much smaller gate. A camel could only enter if it was down on its knees and its baggage removed. To equate it to a modern sewing needle would be to change the meaning of the verse, with one being difficult and the other being impossible.

That there were such openings I think we have sufficient archaeological evidence for but that any of them were called the eye of the needle and that Jesus was referring to one of these openings is questionable and hardly likely. For these reasons 1) there is no such record of calling them that. The first time it ever shows up in writing it is given as a possible explanation from someone in the middle ages.

The only references to using the phrase "eye of the needle" at the time of Christ were rabbinical references to an elephant going through the eye of an needle and it was meant to mockingly refer to what if scenarios that will never actually happen. (I think, I have forgotten exactly what it was about but it literally referred to a needle, howbeit larger than today still impossible for a camel. So if they were using references to elephants going through the eye of a needle at the time of Christ and there is no evidence that any wall openings were called the eye of a needle (though wall openings did exist) it is more likely that the disciples would have understood him as saying it is impossible.

And of course it would mean that those who hoard wealth for themselves and are not rich toward God are showing the fruit of a regenerated heart. Of course with God all things are possible and some are liberal supporters of the ministry and no matter how much they give the Lord blesses their business and they keep making money. Investments can do that. And yet without the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit rich men will not focus on the kingdom of God. This I think is what he is saying. It is not impossible with God.

Now here is another commonly preached myth that sounds good but has been determined to have started in the middle ages and has no support from any other more ancient source. And yet preachers will preach 30 minutes on the spiritual application of stripping ourselves from the things that keep us from entering into... what? I don't know... Kingdom of God?.. .His plan for our lives?.... Heaven? ... Jerusalem? I suppose they can preach whatever they want since it is not in the scriptures and they are making it up as they go.

I have heard them all. The latest one was in the value of getting down on your knees and crawling through the opening. Now I am not sure if you can get a camel to do that or not, but that is what was preached as though Jesus had all this in mind when he made the statement.

 

[laughingheart]

That there were such openings I think we have sufficient archaeological evidence for but that any of them were called the eye of the needle and that Jesus was referring to one of these openings is questionable and hardly likely. For these reasons 1) there is no such record of calling them that. The first time it ever shows up in writing it is given as a possible explanation from someone in the middle ages.

The only references to using the phrase "eye of the needle" at the time of Christ were rabbinical references to an elephant going through the eye of an needle and it was meant to mockingly refer to what if scenarios that will never actually happen. (I think, I have forgotten exactly what it was about but it literally referred to a needle, howbeit larger than today still impossible for a camel. So if they were using references to elephants going through the eye of a needle at the time of Christ and there is no evidence that any wall openings were called the eye of a needle (though wall openings did exist) it is more likely that the disciples would have understood him as saying it is impossible.

And of course it would mean that those who hoard wealth for themselves and are not rich toward God are showing the fruit of a regenerated heart. Of course with God all things are possible and some are liberal supporters of the ministry and no matter how much they give the Lord blesses their business and they keep making money. Investments can do that. And yet without the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit rich men will not focus on the kingdom of God. This I think is what he is saying. It is not impossible with God.

Now here is another commonly preached myth that sounds good but has been determined to have started in the middle ages and has no support from any other more ancient source. And yet preachers will preach 30 minutes on the spiritual application of stripping ourselves from the things that keep us from entering into... what? I don't know... Kingdom of God?.. .His plan for our lives?.... Heaven? ... Jerusalem? I suppose they can preach whatever they want since it is not in the scriptures and they are making it up as they go.

I have heard them all. The latest one was in the value of getting down on your knees and crawling through the opening. Now I am not sure if you can get a camel to do that or not, but that is what was preached as though Jesus had all this in mind when he made the statement.

I agree with all of this. I have seen video of a camel doing this but it takes a very skilled handler and well trained and amiable camel, to make it happen. I also agree that there is a lot of dispute as to whether the eye of the needle was an actual gate or that it was more of a common way of referencing the experience of trying to enter through these gates. I can imagine the analogy and the annoyance of having to try and fit through these small spaces, compared to going through the easy and large city gates. I think for me, the final takeaway is that it is not impossible for the wealthy to come to Christ but it is uncomfortable, difficult and requires sacrifice. I think it is also a good caution against the thinking that God's blessing automatically means financial wealth. Sometimes, it is more of an obstacle to acknowledging our daily need of his grace and help. Thank you for starting this thread.

 

[Corban]

There is no writing from history to support such a gate existed... named "eye of the needle"

Matthew 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” 26 But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Jesus is using hyperbole to make a very important point.. a real camel cannot go through the real eye of a needle. No one can save themselves.

From the context, "Who then can be saved?"

It takes an act of God who makes all things possible. Only God is able to do what is necessary to save us.

You are correct. There is no direct indication that the "eye of the needle" is a gate. And the Lord could have been using an extreme example. But I think that scripture gives a connection. In ...

Matthew 19:24 the entry into the Kingdom of God is through the "eye of the needle"
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."

But in Matthew 7:13-14, entry into LIFE is by a narrow gate
13 "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

But in Matthew 18:3-9 "entering LIFE" is equated with the ENTERING the Kingdom
3 "And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
...
8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire."

I guess, without being dogmatic, a case for the "eye of the needle" being a gate can be made.

 

[Scribe]

You are correct. There is no direct indication that the "eye of the needle" is a gate. And the Lord could have been using an extreme example. But I think that scripture gives a connection. In ...

Matthew 19:24 the entry into the Kingdom of God is through the "eye of the needle"
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."

But in Matthew 7:13-14, entry into LIFE is by a narrow gate
13 "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

But in Matthew 18:3-9 "entering LIFE" is equated with the ENTERING the Kingdom
3 "And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
...
8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire."

I guess, without being dogmatic, a case for the "eye of the needle" being a gate can be made.

I am not so sure that a case can be made at all. If we stick to the rules of hermeneutics we have to be honest about this and conclude that if there was no instance in ancient literature for that phrase at the time of Christ except for howit was written in the Rabbinical writings...

The Babylonian Talmud applies the aphorism to unthinkable thoughts. To explain that dreams reveal the thoughts of a man's heart and are the product of reason rather than the absence of it, some rabbis say:

They do not show a man a palm tree of gold, nor an elephant going through the eye of a needle.[1]

And if there were other references like this one in the Talmud that might have been used and heard by the disciples in like manner we must conclude that that they would have had this kind of meaning in mind and not of a gate since there is no evidence that anyone ever called the opening in the wall by this name. It is not proper hermeneutics to use an idea invented in the 15th century or possibly the 9th century and put confidence in it that the disciples knew of such a phrase or could have had such a thought.

However we do have evidence that there did exist at their time this phrase of "an elephant going through the eye of a needle" in the Bablyonian Talmud which they probably had heard used in their life time by those who were familiar with the Babylonian Talmud and quoted from it, and it could have been a common phrase to make a point. This is strong CULTURAL CONTEXT evidence that Jesus was using the phrase in this way and not about a wall opening that is not mentioned by any Church writer for a thousand years of church history writings.

 

[Corban]

I am not so sure that a case can be made at all. If we stick to the rules of hermeneutics we have to be honest about this and conclude that if there was no instance in ancient literature for that phrase at the time of Christ except for howit was written in the Rabbinical writings...

The Babylonian Talmud applies the aphorism to unthinkable thoughts. To explain that dreams reveal the thoughts of a man's heart and are the product of reason rather than the absence of it, some rabbis say:

They do not show a man a palm tree of gold, nor an elephant going through the eye of a needle.[1]

And if there were other references like this one in the Talmud that might have been used and heard by the disciples in like manner we must conclude that that they would have had this kind of meaning in mind and not of a gate since there is no evidence that anyone ever called the opening in the wall by this name. It is not proper hermeneutics to use an idea invented in the 15th century or possibly the 9th century and put confidence in it that the disciples knew of such a phrase or could have had such a thought.

However we do have evidence that there did exist at their time this phrase of "an elephant going through the eye of a needle" in the Bablyonian Talmud which they probably had heard used in their life time by those who were familiar with the Babylonian Talmud and quoted from it, and it could have been a common phrase to make a point. This is strong CULTURAL CONTEXT evidence that Jesus was using the phrase in this way and not about a wall opening that is not mentioned by any Church writer for a thousand years of church history writings.

Good. I accept your understanding. Let our arguments stand alongside and let the others judge. Go well bro.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Was there a gate called "the eye of a needle" or was Jesus talking about a literal 1st century needle and a camel?

That is immaterial. This figure of speech was meant to illustrate the impossibility of entering the Kingdom of God by any means other that Christ Himself.

To rich men wealth was (and is) their god and does become a stumbling block to salvation (as we see in the narrative of the Rich Young Ruler). Therefore they would need to turn their backs on wealth and turn wholly to Christ. "But with God all things are possible" indicates that God can turn idolatrous hearts to Christ by His grace.

 

[Corban]

That is immaterial. This figure of speech was meant to illustrate the impossibility of entering the Kingdom of God by any means other that Christ Himself.

To rich men wealth was (and is) their god and does become a stumbling block to salvation (as we see in the narrative of the Rich Young Ruler). Therefore they would need to turn their backs on wealth and turn wholly to Christ. "But with God all things are possible" indicates that God can turn idolatrous hearts to Christ by His grace.

I see it differently. The rich man was an Israelite and he had kept the Law. The Law promised wealth if kept. Notice the wording. God's name is at stake.

"But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day" (Deuteronomy 8:18)

Covetousness is always present, but this was not the issue. The issue was whether the rich man could go the New Way. That is, could he set aside this world NOW in order to gain it when Christ set up His Kingdom. According to the prophets, especially Daniel, the Gentiles would have their time to rule, but that at a certain time Christ would wrest it away from them, crush their political, economical and military might. This is the subject at hand. Because Christ was being rejected by Israel, He would have to gather a New People to be rulers of the earth (Matt. 21:43; Act.15:14-16). And the TRAINING needed for these people to be free of the present world system, was the preparedness to forsake it wealth. The co-kings of Christ in the next age must be men and women who have learned to receive their supply from God and not the world.

The rich young man had no apparent fault. He had kept the Law and received its temporal reward. But the righteousness achieved by Law was inadequate for the Kingdom that Christ would set up. To receive an inheritance in this Kingdom, a man must be:

1. born again for this Kingdom (Jn.3:3)
2. Baptized for this Kingdom (Jn.3:5)
3. lose your "soul" - life (Matt.16:25)
4. deny your flesh daily (Matt.16:24)
5. have a righteousness exceeding that of the Pharisees (Matt:5:20)
6. be innocent of the sins mentioned in in Galatians 5:21 and Ephesians 5:5
7. undergo a transforming work of character (2nd Pet.1:5-11)
8. be resurrected with a body of celestial glory, or changed in body (1st Cor.15:35, 40, 50-53)

The rich man had recognized Who Jesus was. In Matthew 19:17 he called Him "good" in the knowledge that only God was good. But he was asked to take the same road as his "Master" and King - the road of foresaking the present age all for a future Kingdom. This he was not capable off. And nor are many Christians. The last Church of Revelation Chapters 2 and 3, Loadicea, was wealthy but void of Christ. Their wealth had made them shut a door against Christ. This is how the returning Christ will find His Church - fully immersed in the worlds wealth (Rev.18:4). Frightening!

 

[Reborn]

Both?
Maybe even 3 different possible meanings? (Like many other verses)

...both lead to “anything is possible with God.“ The Bible is clever that way. Win-Win for God.

I’m thinking the amount in a persons bank account will help them eventually come to conclusion on what that particular verse means to them.

 

[garee]

When looking at the parable I would offer. The eye of the needle would seem to represent is the gate of salvation.(east gate) Christ is the way or gate .. east (well lit) is used to signify Christ as the way

Ezekiel 10:19 And the cherubims lifted up their wings, and mounted up from the earth in my sight: when they went out, the wheels also were beside them, and every one stood at the door of the east gate of the Lord's house; and the glory of the God of Israel was over them above.

Camels as ceremonial unclean cannot enter .It is not the ceremonial unclean animal that Jesus decided to use to enter in order to show us he is not served by the corrupted hands of mankind in any shape or form .

John 12:15Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt.

Twice used to indicate the witness of God in the book of Exodus the proper unclean animal is used .Again to represent God is not served by the the unclean things of this world. The things seen the temporal .A great picture of the gospel .

The lamb of God slain for the sins of the world represented by a Ass .If not redeemed with a lamb death is the outcome.(no salvation)

Exodus 13:13And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the "firstborn" of man among thy children shalt thou redeem.

Exodus 34:20 But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.

As in most cases the Holy Spirit shows his work connected with ceremonial laws in other parables. like that of Balaam the false prophets. In effect using a Ass to stop the madness of that false prophet Balaam.

Numbers 22:27-29 King James Version (KJV) And when the ass saw the angel of the Lord, she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff. And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.

 

[Kavik]

Here’s the short version –

This is a great example of a mis-translation in the Biblical text.

Camels were actually not widely known in ancient Israel. People knew what the animal was, but not many had ever actually seen one. Sort of like say, ‘giraffe’ might be today for people living in the US.

The word in Aramaic was ‘gamla’ which was a thick rope typically used for mooring a boat. Something any fisherman could easily relate to (i.e. Jesus’ disciples), and probably not a very widely used word outside of the fishing community. When the narrative came to be translated in Greek, it was assumed that ‘camel’ was what was meant, as odd as it may have sounded.

People needed to associate it with something in order for the expression to somewhat make sense and Jerusalem did have several gates to the city, one of which apparently was rather narrow. Over time, it seems that this developed into a gate in Jerusalem called the “Eye of the Needle”. As others have pointed out, there is no historical evidence that there was ever such a name to one of the gates, but it allows the expression to make a bit more sense.

So it's not a furry desert critter trying to pass through the eye of a needle, but rather trying to thread a needle with ship's mooring rope.

 

[Scribe]

I see it differently. The rich man was an Israelite and he had kept the Law. The Law promised wealth if kept. Notice the wording. God's name is at stake.

"But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day" (Deuteronomy 8:18)

Covetousness is always present, but this was not the issue. The issue was whether the rich man could go the New Way. That is, could he set aside this world NOW in order to gain it when Christ set up His Kingdom. According to the prophets, especially Daniel, the Gentiles would have their time to rule, but that at a certain time Christ would wrest it away from them, crush their political, economical and military might. This is the subject at hand. Because Christ was being rejected by Israel, He would have to gather a New People to be rulers of the earth (Matt. 21:43; Act.15:14-16). And the TRAINING needed for these people to be free of the present world system, was the preparedness to forsake it wealth. The co-kings of Christ in the next age must be men and women who have learned to receive their supply from God and not the world.

The rich young man had no apparent fault. He had kept the Law and received its temporal reward. But the righteousness achieved by Law was inadequate for the Kingdom that Christ would set up. To receive an inheritance in this Kingdom, a man must be:

1. born again for this Kingdom (Jn.3:3)
2. Baptized for this Kingdom (Jn.3:5)
3. lose your "soul" - life (Matt.16:25)
4. deny your flesh daily (Matt.16:24)
5. have a righteousness exceeding that of the Pharisees (Matt:5:20)
6. be innocent of the sins mentioned in in Galatians 5:21 and Ephesians 5:5
7. undergo a transforming work of character (2nd Pet.1:5-11)
8. be resurrected with a body of celestial glory, or changed in body (1st Cor.15:35, 40, 50-53)

The rich man had recognized Who Jesus was. In Matthew 19:17 he called Him "good" in the knowledge that only God was good. But he was asked to take the same road as his "Master" and King - the road of foresaking the present age all for a future Kingdom. This he was not capable off. And nor are many Christians. The last Church of Revelation Chapters 2 and 3, Loadicea, was wealthy but void of Christ. Their wealth had made them shut a door against Christ. This is how the returning Christ will find His Church - fully immersed in the worlds wealth (Rev.18:4). Frightening!

I also see a literal impossibility rather than a difficulty that Jesus was talking about. We also have other parables like the one about the man who stores up for himself but is not rich toward God and is called a fool because his soul would be required of him that day. This suggests that things did not go well for his eternal state. Rich people who hoard up for themselves and are not engaged in supporting the church mission for world evangelism cause their faith to be suspect. Not that giving saves you but it will be a fruit of a saved heart and that is why With God all things are Possible, and it shows the work of God on their hearts if they are givers but also shows they have not had a regenerated heart if they are hoarders. And yet we can't take this too far as we see people who are rich giving out of their abundance but still not rich toward God. What does it profit if they save the whole world from a virus but do nothing toward the salvation of their souls?

 

[Lanolin]

Well Jesus said you have to be like a little child to enter the kingdom AND the way was narrow so maybe He WAS implying some kind of size restriction!

Im sure they did have needles and thread back in the day as then how were their clothes stitched together.

The point of the parable is you cant take your riches with you. Camels were like the big trucks of their day. They were used on the Silk Road to transport luxury goods.

 

[Corban]

I also see a literal impossibility rather than a difficulty that Jesus was talking about. We also have other parables like the one about the man who stores up for himself but is not rich toward God and is called a fool because his soul would be required of him that day. This suggests that things did not go well for his eternal state. Rich people who hoard up for themselves and are not engaged in supporting the church mission for world evangelism cause their faith to be suspect. Not that giving saves you but it will be a fruit of a saved heart and that is why With God all things are Possible, and it shows the work of God on their hearts if they are givers but also shows they have not had a regenerated heart if they are hoarders. And yet we can't take this too far as we see people who are rich giving out of their abundance but still not rich toward God. What does it profit if they save the whole world from a virus but do nothing toward the salvation of their souls?

Yes. Luke 12 deals with what the servant of the Lord can expect from men in his SERVICE. The servant who is given much must SERVE with what is given and not "take his ease". It is no sin to be wealthy. But the servant of the Lord must not look upon it as a means to an easy life. He must be vigilant to use this resource for the Lord BEFORE he dies. The man is "foolish" because he will not be rewarded for service now.

Matthew 19 deals with disowning the world and looking to God for our supply. The rich man was rich legally. He was entitled to spend his money how he liked. He was a Law-keeper and loved by the Lord. But he failed to see that he could have invested his resources in the heavenly Kingdom, and not the earthly. Revelation 18 shows the end of the world's present system of commerce. If you have resources there, they will fail. But if you took present resources and invested then in the Lord's heavenly Kingdom, the investment will multiply without danger of bankruptcy. The Lord brings it with Him when He comes.

 

[garee]

Well Jesus said you have to be like a little child to enter the kingdom AND the way was narrow so maybe He WAS implying some kind of size restriction!

Im sure they did have needles and thread back in the day as then how were their clothes stitched together.

The point of the parable is you cant take your riches with you. Camels were like the big trucks of their day. They were used on the Silk Road to transport luxury goods.

Luke 18:16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

I would offer that parable above proceeds the parable of the "eye of the needle" building toward the conclusion of the series .

The parable using the metaphor "eye of the needle" would seem to indicate the way or gate of salvation, redemption. The eye or vision is the understanding of the needlework . For we are his workmanship in that way . He is the entrance to the Holy of Holies

Exodus 26:35-37 King James Version (KJV) And thou shalt set the table without the vail, and the candlestick over against the table on the side of the tabernacle toward the south: and thou shalt put the table on the north side. And thou shalt make an hanging for the door of the tent, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen, wrought with needlework.And thou shalt make for the hanging five pillars of shittim wood, and overlay them with gold, and their hooks shall be of gold: and thou shalt cast five sockets of brass for them

 

[garee]

The eye of the needle as to its work that signified the gate to the holy of holies .It as a 70 foot vail is made of many colors . It is use as the cloak of many colors that joseph wore .

The camel is not the unclean ceremonial animal used for entering the gate (redemption). He uses a Ass to perform that work . I don't think the scripture in those parables show him riding camels.

Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

 

[posthuman]

There is no writing from history to support such a gate existed... named "eye of the needle"

Matthew 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” 26 But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Jesus is using hyperbole to make a very important point.. a real camel cannot go through the real eye of a needle. No one can save themselves.

From the context, "Who then can be saved?"

It takes an act of God who makes all things possible. Only God is able to do what is necessary to save us.

if it was just about passing through a narrow door, then the disciples wouldn't have marveled. it would have been obvious, duh, you just have to take the pack of your camel so he'll fit. a man wouldn't need God, he could just take off his rucksack momentarily & hold it in his hands while he goes through, then put it on again.

i agree -- while it makes a fairly nice allegory, the whole 'eye of the needle gate where a camel has to kneel & be unburdened to pass through' is IMO a bit of a Christian urban legend. a popular but unsubstantiated explanation someone came up with years ago that was repeated and repeated to the point that people are answering this thread with it as if it's established fact -- which it isn't. the idea of it correlates with the rich man being instructed to let go of his riches, but it doesn't fit the disciple's response, and it doesn't fit with Christ's reply that 'with man it is impossible'