Jesus was funny

JESUS WAS FUNNY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Matthew 23:24 24Youblind guides! You strainout a
gnat but swallowa camel.
BIBLEHUB RESOURCES
The Gnat And The Camel
Matthew 23:24
W.F. Adeney
It was characteristic ofthe scribes and Phariseesto strain out the gnat and yet
to swallow the camel. They would be very carefulin avoiding minute formal
improprieties, while they committed greatsins without compunction.
I. THE EVIL HAUNT. This is seen in many forms today.
1. In moral conduct. People are found to be very scrupulous about points of
politeness, and very negligentof real kindness. They will not offend an
acquaintance with a harsh phrase, and yet they will ruin him if they can
outwit him in a business transaction. There are persons of strict Puritanism,
who forbid even innocent forms of amusement for their children, and yet who
are self-indulgent, ill-tempered, uncharitable, and covetous. Suchpeople
swallow many a huge camel, while sedulouslystraining the gnats out of their
children's cup of pleasure.

2. In religious observances.The greatestcare is takenfor the correct
observance ofritual, while the spirit of devotion is neglected;a rigid standard
of orthodoxy is insisted on, but living faith is neglected;a punctual
performance of Church ordinances is accompaniedby a total disregard for
the will of Godand the obligations of obedience.
II. THE SOURCE OF THIS HABIT.
1. Hypocrisy. This was the source in the case ofthe scribes and Pharisees, as
our Lord himself indicated. It is easierto attend to minutiae of conduct than
to be right in the great fundamental principles; to rectify these a resolution, a
regenerationof character, is required; but to setthe superficial details in a
certain state of decencyand order involves no such serious change. Moreover,
the little superficialpoints are obvious to all people, and, like Chinese puzzles,
challenge admiration on accountof their very minuteness.
2. Small-mindedness. In some casesthere may be no conscioushypocrisy. But
a littleness of thinking and acting has dwarfed the whole area of observation.
The small soul is able to see the gnat, but it cannoteven perceive the existence
of the camel. It is so busy with the fussy trivialities on which it prides itself,
that it has no powerleft to attend to weightiermatters.
III. THE CURE OF THE HABIT.
1. By the revelationof its existence. Whenthe foolishthing is done in all
simplicity and goodfaith, it only needs to be seento be rejected. When it is the
fruit of sheerhypocrisy, the exposure of it will, of course, make it clearthat
the performance will no longer win the plaudits of the crowd;and then, as

there will be no motive to continue in it, the actorwill lay his part aside. But
this does not imply a realcure. For that we must go further.
2. By the gift of a largerlife. We are all of us more or less cramped by our own
pettiness, and just in proportion as we are self-centredand self-contained
shall we give attention to small things. We want to be lifted out of ourselves,
we need the awakening ofour higher spiritual powers. It is the objectof
Christ to effectthis grand change. When he takes possessionofthe soul he sets
all things in their true light. Then we can strive for greatobjects, fight great
sins, win greatvictories, and forget the gnats in the magnitude of the camels. -
W.F.A.
Biblical Illustrator
And have omitted the weightier matters of the law.
Matthew 23:23, 24
Sins of omission
J. Vaughan, M. A.
1. The very earliestcause of nearly all sin lies in omitting something which we
ought to have done. Perhaps you left your room without prayer.
2. That sins of omissionin God's sight are of larger magnitude than sins of
commission.
3. They will form the basis of judgment at the lastday — "Ye gave Me no
meat."

4. Why is any man lostthat is lost, but because he omitted God's way of
escape?
5. Sins of omissionare characteristicallysins of the Christian dispensation. Its
laws are positive.
(J. Vaughan, M. A.)
The greatduties of religion
J. Saurin
Define these weightiermatters of the law.
1. One virtue originating immediately in primitive law is more important than
another, an obligation to perform which is founded only on some particular
circumstances.
2. Virtues anterior to particulars subsistafter those circumstances.
3. A virtue that hath a greatobject is more than those which have small
objects.
4. Every virtue connectedwith other virtues, and drawing after it many more,
is greaterthan any single or detachedvirtue.
5. A virtue that constitutes the end, to which all religion conducts us, is more
important than other virtues, which at most are only means to lead to the end.

(J. Saurin)
Small duties of religion
J. Saurin.
Obligation to little duties may be urged, because
(1)they contribute to maintain a tenderness of conscience;
(2)they are sources ofre-conversionafter greatfalls;
(3)they make up by their frequency what is wanting to their importance;
(4)they have sometimes charactersas certainof real love as the greatduties
have.
(J. Saurin.)
The superlative importance of the moral duties of religio
W. Leechman.
n: —
I. Moralduties, the weightiermatters of the law, the love of God, justice,
mercy, and fidelity, are more excellentin their own nature, and ought always
to be preferred to all ritual and positive institutions, whenever they come into
competition with them.

II. Notwithstanding the intrinsic and superior excellence ofmoral duties, yet
those rites and external institutions which are of Divine appointment ought to
be religiously observed, and it is really criminal in the sight of God to despise
and neglectthem.
(W. Leechman.)
Sins of omission
The lastwords that Archbishop Usher was heard to express, were, "Lord,
forgive my sins; especiallymy sins of omission."
Fidelity in little duties no excuse for neglectof great
W. Gurnall.
The tithing of cummin must not be neglected;but take heed thou dost not
neglectthe weightiestthings of the Law — judgment, mercy, and faith;
making your precisenessin the less a blind for your horrible wickednessin the
greater.
(W. Gurnall.)
All sin traced to an omission
J. Vaughan, M. A.
It scarcelyadmits of a question, but that every sin which was ever committed
upon the earth, is traceable, in the first instance, to a sin of omission. At a
certain point of the genealogyofthat sin, there was something of which it is
not too much to saythat if it had been done that sin would have been cut
short. And the very earliestcause ofthat sin (whether you are able to discover
a root or not) lay, not in anything we did, or said, or thought, but in that

which we might have done, and did not do; or, might have said, and did not
say; or, might have thought, and did not think. Every sin lies in a chain, and
the first link is fastenedto another link. For instance, that first sin committed
after the Fall — Cain's fratricide — was the result of anger;that angerwas
the result of jealousy;that jealousywas the result of an unacceptedsacrifice;
that unacceptedsacrifice was the result of the absence offaith; and that
absence offaith was the result of an inattentive ear, or a heart which had
grown silent towards God .... As you uncoil a sin, you have been surprised to
find what a compound thing that is which, at first sight, appearedsingle. You
have gone on, finding the germ of one sin in the seedof another sin, till you
could scarcelypursue the process becauseit stretched so far; but, if you went
far enough, you found at last that some neglectwas the beginning of it all.
(J. Vaughan, M. A.)
Sins of omissionthe most heinous
J. Vaughan, M. A.
By which are we most pained — the omissions, orthe commissions, oflife?
Say you have two persons whom you love. I will suppose a father with two
sons. The one often offends him by direct and open disobedience;and your
heart is made to ache, againand again, by his frequent and flagrant
transgressions ofyour law. The other does nothing which is outwardly and
palpably bad. His life is moral, and his course correct. But he shows no sign
whatsoeverofany personalregard for you. You long to catchsome indication
of affection; but there is none. Day after day you have watchedfor it; but still
there is none! You are plainly indifferent to him. He does not injure you. But
in no thought, or word, or deed, does he ever show you that he has you in his
heart, to care for you and love you. Now, which of those two sons will pain you
most? The disobedient, or the cold one? The one who often transgresses,or
the one who never loves? The one who commits, or the one who omits? Is
there a doubt that, howevermuch the committee may the more injure himself,
or society, the omitter most wounds the parent's heart? And is it not so with
the greatFatherof us all?

(J. Vaughan, M. A.)
Omissionthe sin of the lost
J. Vaughan, M. A.
Why is any man lost who is lost? Is it because he did certainthings which
brought down upon him the righteous retribution of eternal punishment? No;
but because, having broken God's commandments, he omitted to use God's
way of escape — to go to Christ, to believe the promises, to acceptpardon, to
realize truth: therefore he is lost; and the cause ofthe final condemnation of
every sinner in hell is a sin of omission. The gospelprecept — unlike the law
— is direct and absolute, not negative:"Thou shalt love God, and thy
neighbour." And therefore the transgressionmust consistin an omission. It is
only by not loving, that you canbe brought in guilty, under the code of the
gospelof Jesus Christ.
(J. Vaughan, M. A.)
Religious duties greatand small to be combined
W. M. Taylor, D. D.
Turning to the house-old, we may see how the principle here statedholds
good. Public religious services must not be made the substitute for home
duties; and, again, home duties must not be pleaded as an apologyfor the
neglectof public ordinances. Arrangements ought to be made for rightly
engaging in both. The instructing of other people's children must not be
allowedto keepus from giving needed attention to the godly upbringing of
our own. And, again, the training of our own families should not be made a
plea for exemption from all effort for the spiritual welfare of those of others.
A workman meeting a friend on the streetin Edinburgh, one Monday
morning, said to him, "Why were you not at church last night? our minister
preachedan excellentsermon on home religion. Why were you not there to
hear it?" "Because,"was the answer, "I was at home doing it." That was a

goodanswer, for the service was anextra one, and the man had been at
church twice before. So he was right, with the third, to give his home duties
the preference. But then, on the other hand, the "athome doing it" is not all,
and it should be so provided for as not to take awayfrom proper attendance
on regular ordinances, otherwise the result will be that after a while religion
will not be much caredfor either in the church or in the home. A tardy
student coming late into the class was askedby his professorto accountfor his
want of punctuality; and replied that he had delayed for purposes of private
devotion. But his teachervery properly reproved him by saying, "You had no
right to be at your prayers, when you ought to have been here; it is your duty
to make such arrangements that the one shall not interfere with the other." So
in regard to the conflicting claims of the house. hold and the church upon you.
Make arrangements forgiving due attention to both, and do not sacrifice the
one on the shrine of the other.
(W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
These things done, and others not left undone
W. M. Taylor, D. D.
A clearconceptionof the real nature of Phariseeismis all that is needed to
vindicate the severity of this denunciation.
1. The error of the Pharisees was notsuperficial, but fundamental. Their
religion was not simply defective, but positively false.
2. Such radically erroneous notions concerning religion, lulled the Pharisees
into absolute self-security.
3. Still further we may accountfor the severityof these denunciations from
the factthat the Saviour foresaw thatPhariseeismwould in after ages become

the greatesthindrance to the progress ofHis cause in the world. There is a
constanttendency to retain the form after the life has departed.
I. THAT THE COMMANDS OF GOD ARE OF DIFFERENT DEGREESOF
IMPORTANCE.There are matters of more weight than others among the
Divine precepts. The heart that reverences Godwill seek to obey all, but each
in its ownorder. In morals as in doctrine there are things essentialand non-
essential. The weightiestofall God's commands have respectto judgment,
mercy, faith. The inner is more important than the outward life; out of the
heart are the issues of life, and therefore should have the greatestattention. So
the greatthings and the smallerwill follow in their train.
II. THAT ATTENTION TO THE MATTERS OF LESS IMPORTANCE
WILL NOT COMPENSATEFOR THE NEGLECT OF THOSE WHICH
ARE OF ESSENTIALMOMENT. Punctilious title-paying will not condone
lack of humble faith in God.
III. That when the heart is right with God through faith in Jesus Christ,
BOTH THE WEIGHTIER MATTERS AND THOSE OF LESS
IMPORTANCE WILL BE PROPERLYATTENDED TO.
(W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
The gnat and the camel
D. Fraser, D. D.
I. Inward qualities count for more than outward observances.
II. That a just sense ofproportion is essentialto a welt-regulatedChristian
mind. It is no infrequent thing to find a personwho seems to be very religious

curiously deficient in the sense of proportion. He cannotquite see what is
greator what is small. If he be disposed to obstinacyor bigotry, he simply
regards all that is plain to him as great;and all his tenets and regulations as
equally great. If he be merely small-minded, by natural affinity he fastens
keenly on small points. These are of the proper size for him; and he takes
them to be quite large. Or if he be of a self-regarding mind, considering
religion simply with reference to his own safety, he lays all the stress on the
truths which are near himself, and has but a faint appreciationof those which
are much more vast but more remote.
(D. Fraser, D. D.)
Cummin
C. Bulkley.
"Thatwe meet so often," says Sir Thomas Brown, "with cummin seeds in
many parts of Scripture, in reference unto Judaea, a seedso abominable at
present to our palates and nostrils, will not seemstrange unto any who
considerthe frequent use thereof among the ancients, not only in medical, but
in dietetical use and practice;for their dishes were filled therewith; and their
noblest festivalpreparations in Apicius, were not without it; and even in the
polenta and parched corn, the old diet of the Romans, unto every measure
they mixed a small proportion of linseedand cummin seed. And so cummin is
justly set down among things of vulgar and common use.
(C. Bulkley.)
Tithe of mint
DeanPlumptre.
The Pharisee, in his minute scrupulosity, made a point of gathering the tenth
sprig of every gardenherb, and presenting it to the priest.

(DeanPlumptre.)
Straining out a gnat
Trench.
The expressionmay be more preciselyrendered, "strain out a gnat," and then
there may be a reference intended to the customthat prevailed, among the
more strict and accurate Jews,ofstraining their wine and other drinks, lest
they should inadvertently swallow a gnat, or some other unclean insect:
supposing that thereby they would transgress (Leviticus 11:20, 23, 41, 42). A
traveller in North Africa, where Easterncustoms are very jealouslyretained,
reports noticing that a Moorishsoldierwho accompaniedhim, when he
drank, always unfolded the end of his turban, and placed it over the mouth of
his bota, drinking through the muslin to strain out the gnats, whose larvae
swarm in the water of that country.
(Trench.)
STUDYLIGHT RESOURCES
Adam Clarke Commentary
Blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. - This clause should
be thus translated: Ye strain out the gnat, but ye swallow downthe camel. In
the common translation, Ye strain At a gnat, conveys no sense. Indeed, it is
likely to have been at first an error of the press, At for Out, which, on
examination, I find escapedin the edition of 1611, and has been regularly
continued since. There is now before me, "The Newe Testament, (both in

Englyshe and in Laten), of MaysterErasmus translacion, imprynted by
Wyllyam Powell, dwellynge in Flete strete: the yere of our Lorde
M.CCCCC.XLVII. the fyrste yere of the kynges (Edwd. VI). moste gracious
reygne." in which the verse stands thus: "Ye blinde gides, which strayne out a
gnat, and swalowe a cammel." It is the same also in Edmund Becke's Bible,
printed in London 1549, andin severalothers. - Clensynge a gnatte. - MS.
Eng. Bib. So Wickliff. Similar to this is the following Arabic proverb: He eats
an elephant and is chokedby a gnat.
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Bibliography
Clarke, Adam. "Commentary on Matthew 23:24". "The Adam Clarke
Commentary". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/matthew-
23.html. 1832.
Return to Jump List return to 'Jump List'
Albert Barnes'Notes onthe Whole Bible
Which strain at a gnat … - This is a proverb. There is, however, a
mistranslation or misprint here, which makes the verse unmeaning. “To
strain” at a “gnat” conveys no sense. It should have been to strain out a gnat;
and so it is printed in some of the earlier versions, and so it was undoubtedly
rendered by the translators. The common reading is a “misprint,” and should
be corrected. The Greek means to “strain” out by a cloth or sieve.
A gnat - The gnat has its origin in the water;not in greatrivers, but in pools
and marshes In the stagnantwaters they appear in the form of small “grubs”

or “larvae.” These larvae retaintheir form about three weeks,afterwhich
they turn to chrysalids, and after three or four days they pass to the form of
gnats. They are then distinguished by their well-knownsharp sting. It is
probable that the Saviour here refers to the insectas it exists in its “grub” or
“larva” form, before it appears in the form of a gnat. Wateris then its
element, and those who were nice in their drink would take pains to strain it
out. Hence, the proverb. See Calmet‘s Dict., art. “Gnat.” It is used here to
denote a very small matter, as a camel is to denote a large object. “You Jews
take greatpains to avoid offence in very small matters, superstitiously
observing the smallestpoints of the law, like a man carefully straining out the
animalculae from what he drinks, while you are at no pains to avoid greatsins
- hypocrisy, deceit, oppression, and lust - like a man who should swallow a
camel.” The Arabians have a similar proverb: “He eats an elephant, and is
suffocatedwith a gnat.” He is troubled with little things, but pays no attention
to greatmatters.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Barnes, Albert. "Commentaryon Matthew 23:24". "Barnes'Notesonthe
Whole Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bnb/matthew-
23.html. 1870.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible
Ye blind guides,.... As in Matthew 23:16.

who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel: the Syriac and Persic versions read
the words in the plural number, gnats and camels. The Jews had a law, which
forbid them the eating of any creeping thing,
Leviticus 11:41 and of this they were strictly observant, and would not be
guilty of the breach of it for everso much,
"One that eats a flea, or a gnat; they sayF16 is ‫,רמומ‬ "an apostate";
one that has changedhis religion, and is no more to be reckonedas one of
them. Hence they very carefully strained their liquors, lestthey should
transgress the above command, and incur the characterof an apostate;and at
least, the penalty of being beatenwith forty stripes, save one; for,
"whoevereats a whole fly, or a whole gnat, whether alive or dead, was to be
beaten on accountof a creeping flying thingF17.
Among the accusations Hamanis said to bring againstthem to Ahasuerus,
and the instances he gives of their laws being different from the king's, this
oneF18;that "if a fly falls into the cup of one of them, ‫וקרוז‬ ‫,והתושו‬ "he strains
it, and drinks it"; but if my lord the king should touch the cup of one of them,
he would throw it to the ground, and would not drink of it.
Maimonides saysF19,
"He that strains wine, or vinegar, or strong liquor, and eats "Jabchushin" (a
sort of small flies found in wine cellarsF20,onaccountof which they strained

their wine), or gnats, or worms, which he hath strained off, is to be beaten on
accountof the creeping things of the water, or on accountof the creeping
flying things, and the creeping things of the water.
Moreover, it is saidF21,
"a man might not pour his strong liquors through a strainer, by the light (of a
candle or lamp), lest he should separate and leave in the top of the strainer
(some creeping thing), and it should fail againinto the cup, and he should
transgress the law, in Leviticus 11:41.
To this practice Christ alluded here; and so very strict and carefulwere they
in this matter, that to strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel, became at length
a proverb, to signify much solicitude about little things, and none about
greater. These men would not, on any consideration, be guilty of such a crime,
as not to pay the tithe of mint, anise, and cummin, and such like herbs and
seeds;and yet made no conscienceofdoing justice, and showing mercy to
men, or of exercising faith in God, or love to him. Just as many hypocrites,
like them, make a greatstir, and would appear very conscientious and
scrupulous, about some little trifling things, and yet stick not, at other times,
to commit the grossestenormities, and most scandalous sins in life,
Copyright Statement
The New John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible Modernisedand adapted
for the computer by Larry Pierce of Online Bible. All Rightes Reserved,
Larry Pierce, Winterbourne, Ontario.
A printed copy of this work can be ordered from: The Baptist Standard
Bearer, 1 Iron Oaks Dr, Paris, AR, 72855

Bibliography
Gill, John. "Commentary on Matthew 23:24". "The New JohnGill Exposition
of the Entire Bible".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/matthew-23.html. 1999.
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat — The proper rendering - as in the
older English translations, and perhaps our own as it came from the
translators‘hands - evidently is, “strain out.” It was the custom, says Trench,
of the stricter Jews to strain their wine, vinegar, and other potables through
linen or gauze, lest unawares they should drink down some little unclean
insecttherein and thus transgress (Leviticus 11:20, Leviticus 11:23, Leviticus
11:41, Leviticus 11:42) - just as the Buddhists do now in Ceylon and
Hindustan - and to this custom of theirs our Lord here refers.
and swallow a camel — the largestanimal the Jews knew, as the “gnat” was
the smallest;both were by the law unclean.
Copyright Statement
These files are a derivative of an electronic edition prepared from text
scannedby Woodside Bible Fellowship.
This expanded edition of the Jameison-Faussett-BrownCommentary is in the
public domain and may be freely used and distributed.
Bibliography

Jamieson, Robert, D.D.;Fausset,A. R.; Brown, David. "Commentary on
Matthew 23:24". "CommentaryCritical and Explanatory on the Whole
Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jfb/matthew-23.html.
1871-8.
People's New Testament
Ye strain at a gnat. "Strain out a gnat," as in the Revision. A forcible image of
those who are very conscientiousoversmall, and carelessofgreat, matters.
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain and are a derivative of an electronic edition that
is available on the Christian ClassicsEtherealLibrary Website.
Original work done by Ernie Stefanik. First published online in 1996 atThe
RestorationMovementPages.
Bibliography
Johnson, BartonW. "Commentary on Matthew 23:24". "People's New
Testament". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/pnt/matthew-
23.html. 1891.
Robertson's WordPictures in the New Testament
Strain out the gnat (διυλιζοντες τονκωνωπα — diulizontes ton kōnōpa). By
filtering through (δια — dia), not the “straining at” in swallowing so crudely
suggestedby the misprint in the A.V.

Swallow the camel(την δε καμηλονκαταπινοντες — tēn de kamēlon
katapinontes). Gulping or drinking down the camel. An oriental hyperbole
like that in Matthew 19:24. See also Matthew 5:29, Matthew 5:30; Matthew
17:20;Matthew 21:21. Both insects and camels were ceremoniallyunclean
(Leviticus 11:4, Leviticus 11:20, Leviticus 11:23, Leviticus 11:42). “He that
kills a flea on the Sabbath is as guilty as if he killed a camel” (Jer. Shabb.
107).
Copyright Statement
The Robertson's WordPictures of the New Testament. Copyright �
Broadman Press 1932,33,Renewal1960. All rights reserved. Used by
permission of Broadman Press (Southern BaptistSunday SchoolBoard)
Bibliography
Robertson, A.T. "Commentary on Matthew 23:24". "Robertson's Word
Pictures of the New Testament".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/rwp/matthew-23.html.
Broadman Press 1932,33.Renewal1960.
Vincent's Word Studies
Strain at ( διυλίξοντες )
διά , thoroughly or through, and ὑλίζω , to filter or strain. Strain at is an old
misprint perpetuated. Hence the Rev. correctly, as Tynd., strain out. Insects
were ceremoniallyunclean (Leviticus 11:20, Leviticus 11:23, Leviticus 11:41,
Leviticus 11:42), so that the Jews strainedtheir wine in order not to swallow
any unclean animal. Moreover, there were certain insects which bred in wine.

Aristotle uses the word gnat ( κώνωπα ) of a worm or larva found in the
sediment of sour wine. “In a ride from Tangierto Tetuan I observedthat a
Moorishsoldier who accompaniedme, when he drank, always unfolded the
end of his turban and placedit overthe mouth of his bota, drinking through
the muslin to strain out the gnats, whose larvae swarmin the waterof that
country” (cited by Trench, “On the Authorized Version”).
Swallow ( καταπίνοντες )
The rendering is feeble. It is drink down ( κατά ); gulp. Note that the camel
was also unclean(Leviticus 11:4).
Copyright Statement
The text of this work is public domain.
Bibliography
Vincent, Marvin R. DD. "Commentaryon Matthew 23:24". "Vincent's Word
Studies in the New Testament".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/vnt/matthew-23.html. Charles
Schribner's Sons. New York, USA. 1887.
Wesley's ExplanatoryNotes
Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Ye blind guides, who teachothers to do as you do yourselves, to strain out a
gnat - From the liquor they are going to drink! and swallow a camel - It is
strange, that glaring false print, strain at a gnat, which quite alters the sense,
should run through all the editions of our English Bibles.
Copyright Statement
is available on the Christian ClassicsEtherealLibrary Website.
Bibliography
Wesley, John. "Commentary on Matthew 23:24". "JohnWesley's
Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/wen/matthew-23.html. 1765.
The Fourfold Gospel
Ye blind guides, that strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel1!
Strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel!A proverbial expression,
indicating care for little faults and a corresponding unconcern for big ones.
Copyright Statement
is available on the Christian ClassicsEtherealLibrary Website. These files
were made available by Mr. Ernie Stefanik. First published online in 1996 at
The RestorationMovementPages.
Bibliography

J. W. McGarveyand Philip Y. Pendleton. "Commentaryon Matthew 23:24".
"The Fourfold Gospel".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/tfg/matthew-23.html.
Standard Publishing Company, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1914.
Calvin's Commentary on the Bible
24.Blind guides. This is s proverbial saying, by which he beautifully describes
the affectedscrupulousness ofhypocrites about trifling matters; for they
utterly shrink from very small faults, as if a single transgressionappearedto
them more revolting than a hundred deaths, and yet they freely permit
themselves and others to commit the most heinous crimes. They actas
absurdly as if a man were to strain out a small crumb of bread, and to
swallow a whole loaf.
Straining out (101)a gnat, and swallowing a camel. We know that a gnat is a
very small animal, and that a camelis a huge beast. Nothing therefore could
be more ridiculous than to strain out the wine or the water, so as not to hurt
the jaws by swallowing a gnat, and yet carelesslyto gulp down a camel. (102)
But it is evident that hypocrites amuse themselves with such distinctions; for
while they pass by judgment, mercy, and faith, and even tear in pieces the
whole Law, they are excessivelyrigid and severe in matters that are of no
greatimportance; and while in this way they pretend to kiss the feet of God,
they proudly spit in his face.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography

Calvin, John. "Commentary on Matthew 23:24". "Calvin's Commentary on
the Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/cal/matthew-
23.html. 1840-57.
John Trapp Complete Commentary
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
Ver. 24. Which strain at a gnat, &c.] A proverbial speech, warranting the
lawful use of such expressions for illustration of a truth. The Greeks have a
like proverb, ανδριαντα γαργαλιζειν, to gargle downan image, statue, or
coloss;that is, to make no bones of a foul fault when matters of less moment
are much scrupled. Saul kept a greatstir about eating the flesh with the blood,
when he made nothing of shedding innocent blood, 1 Samuel 14:33. Doeg was
detained before the Lord by some voluntary vow belike, 1 Samuel 21:7. But
better he had been further off, for any goodhe did there. The priests made
conscienceofputting the price of blood into the treasury, Matthew 27:6, who
yet made no conscienceofimbruing their hands in the innocent blood of the
Lamb of God. The Begardiand Beginnae, a certainkind of heretics, A.D.
1322, held this mad opinion, that a man might here attain to perfection, and
that having attained to it, he might do whatsoeverhis nature led him to; that
fornicari peccatum non esse reputabant: at mulieri osculum figere mortale
facinus arbitrabantur, fornication was no sin, but to kiss a woman was a
mortal wickedness, &c. {a}Archbishop Bancroftfell foul upon MasterPaul
Bayn, for a little black-work-edging abouthis cuffs, threatening to lay him by
the heels for it, when far greaterfaults in others were winked at.
{a} Funcc. Chron. ex Massei, xviii.

Copyright Statement
Text Courtesyof BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliography
Trapp, John. "Commentary on Matthew 23:24". John Trapp Complete
Commentary. https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jtc/matthew-
23.html. 1865-1868.
Heinrich Meyer's Critical and ExegeticalCommentaryon the New Testament
Matthew 23:24. The Jews were in the habit of straining their wine ( διϋλίζ.,
Plut. Mor. p. 692 D), in order that there might be no possibility of their
swallowing with it any unclean animal, howeverminute (Leviticus 11:42).
Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 516. Comp. the liquare vinum of the Greeks and
Romans;Mitscherlich, ad Hor. Od. i. 11. 7; Hermann, Privatalterth. § xxvi.
17. Figurative representationof the painful scrupulosity with which the law
was observed.
τὸν κώνωπα] a kind of attractionfor percolando removentes muscam (that
found in the wine, τὸν κ.), just as in classicalwriters the phrase καθαίρειντι is
often used to express the removing of anything by cleansing (Hom. Il. xiv. 171,
xvi. 667;Dio Cass. xxxvii. 52). κώνωψ is not a worm found in sour wine
(Bochart, Bleek), but, as always, a gnat. In its attempt to suck the wine, it falls
in amongstit.

τὴν δὲ κάμηλ. καταπίν.]proverbial expression, τὰ μέγιστα δὲ ἀπαρατηρήτως
ἁμαρτάνοντες Euthymius Zigabenus. Observe at the same time that the camel
is an uncleananimal, Leviticus 11:4.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Meyer, Heinrich. "Commentary on Matthew 23:24". Heinrich Meyer's
Critical and ExegeticalCommentary on the New Testament.
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hmc/matthew-23.html. 1832.
Johann Albrecht Bengel's Gnomonof the New Testament
Matthew 23:24. τὸν κώνωπα, the gnat) They who objectto swallowing a camel
should not be found fault with for merely straining a gnat,(1006)suchbeing
far from our Lord’s intention: for no one can safelyswallow a gnat, which
may choke him. A beam is the worse ofthe two, and yet a chip(1007)is not
disregarded, even in the hand, much more in the eye. See ch. Matthew 7:5.
The noun κώνωψ is a word of common gender, and signifies a gnat, properly
one belonging to wine, which easilyfalls into a strainer.(1008)
Copyright Statement

Bibliography
Bengel, JohannAlbrecht. "Commentary on Matthew 23:24". Johann
Albrecht Bengel's Gnomonof the New Testament.
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jab/matthew-23.html. 1897.
Matthew Poole's EnglishAnnotations on the Holy Bible
It is a proverbial expressionused amongstthem, againstsuchas would
pretend a greatniceness and scrupulosity about, and zeal for, little things, but
in matters of much higher concernand moment were not nice and scrupulous
at all: and this indeed is both a certain note and an ordinary practice of
hypocrites. There is no man that is sincere in his obedience to God, but hath
respectto all God’s commandments, Psalms 119:6. Thoughsome duties be
greater, of more moment for the honour and glory of God, than others, which
a goodman will lay the greateststressupon, yet he will neglectnothing which
the law of God enjoins him. But concerning hypocrites, these two things are
always true:
1. They are partial in their pretended obedience.
2. They always lay the greateststressupon the leastthings of the law, bodily
labour and exercise, and those things which require leastof the heart, and
leastself-denial.
Copyright Statement

Bibliography
Poole, Matthew, "Commentaryon Matthew 23:24". Matthew Poole's English
Annotations on the Holy Bible.
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/mpc/matthew-23.html. 1685.
Justin Edwards' Family Bible New Testament
Strain at a gnat; strain the liquid which you drink at the presence of a gnat in
it, lestyou should be made unclean by swallowing it. They reckonedthe gnat
among the unclean creeping things. Leviticus 11:20;Leviticus 11:23 The
reader will notice that the camelwas also an unclean animal. The meaning
therefore is, that they were very scrupulous about little things, while, without
scruple, they committed greatsins.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Edwards, Justin. "Commentary on Matthew 23:24". "FamilyBible New
Testament". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/fam/matthew-
23.html. American TractSociety. 1851.

Cambridge Greek Testamentfor Schools andColleges
24. διϋλίζοντες. Wetsteinquotes from Galen: εἶτα ἄρας ἀπὸ τοῦ πυρὸς καὶ
διυλίσας εἰς ἕτερον ἀγγεῖονἐᾷ ψυγῆναι.
The sense ofcontrastand the humour of the illustration are brought out by
the antithetic position of the words. In the first respectthe illustration, ch.
Matthew 7:3-5, is somewhatsimilar; for the contrastof opposites cp. ch.
Matthew 13:31 and Matthew 19:24.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
"Commentary on Matthew 23:24". "Cambridge Greek Testamentfor Schools
and Colleges".https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/cgt/matthew-
23.html. 1896.
Whedon's Commentary on the Bible
24. Strain at a gnat — Rather strain out a gnat. Our Lord here uses a
proverbial figure, by which a personin drinking is representedas filtrating a
gnat from the liquid, while he will at another time swallow downa camel. It is
a physical impossibility, indeed, but its meaning is none the less possible in
matters of religion and morality.

Alford remarks:“The straining of a gnatis not a mere proverbial saying. The
Jews (as do now the Budhists in Ceylon and Hindostan) strained their wine,
etc., carefully, that they might not violate Leviticus 11:20; Leviticus 11:23;
Leviticus 11:41-42, (and it might be added Leviticus 17:10-14.)The camelis
not only opposedas of immense size, but is also unclean.” Indeed, in warm
countries, where insect life is exceedinglyexuberant, straining liquors for
drinking is often necessary.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Whedon, Daniel. "Commentary on Matthew 23:24". "Whedon's Commentary
on the Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/whe/matthew-
23.html. 1874-1909.
PeterPett's Commentary on the Bible
“You blind guides, who strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel!”
He summarises their position by a huge contrast. The gnat(qamla) was one of
the smallestof creatures, the camel (gamla) the largestin Palestine. Note the
play on words in the Aramaic. They are so one-sided in vision spiritually that
when they see that a gnat (qamla) has fallen into their drink they carefully
strain it out in order not to partake of an ‘unclean’ creeping thing, but when a
camel(gamla) falls into the drink (equally ‘unclean’) they swallow it down
without even noticing it. The point is that they are such blind guides that they

concentrate ondealing with the small things with greatcare, and practically
ignore the big things altogether, without bothering to considerthem. They
spend hours splitting their dill and cummin into tenths and nine tenths, and
ensuring that they have missed none, and even include mint which was not
necessarilytitheable, and yet they pass over justice, mercy and faithfulness as
though they did not matter. They are too busy with the intricate details to
spend much time on large matters.
Note that in the fourth blessing (Matthew 5:6) the blessedare to be filled with
righteousness, whichthey hunger and thirst after. But these, while avoiding
an unclean gnat, will be filled with an unclean camel which they did not even
notice!
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Pett, Peter. "Commentary on Matthew 23:24". "PeterPett's Commentaryon
the Bible ". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/pet/matthew-
23.html. 2013.
Schaff's Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Matthew 23:24. Strain out the gnat, i.e., to filter wine, so as to avoid
swallowing a gnat. The common version may have been intended to express
this, but more probably contains a misprint. The saying is proverbial; this

straining actually took place to avoid defilement (Leviticus 11:20;Leviticus
11:23;Leviticus 11:41-42). The same customobtains among the Buddhists.
And swallow the camel, i.e., indulge in the greatestimpurities. The camel was
one of the largestof the impure animals forbidden for food. (Leviticus 11:4 : it
did not divide the hoof.) Besides to swallow it, would be to eatblood and what
was strangled. What was impossible literally, is only too possible figuratively.
The reality of Pharisaic sinexceeds the figure.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Schaff, Philip. "Commentary on Matthew 23:24". "Schaff's Popular
Commentary on the New Testament".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/scn/matthew-23.html. 1879-
90.
The Expositor's Greek Testament
Matthew 23:24. διϋλίζοντες ( διὰ and ὕλη, Passow), a little used word, for
which Hesychius gives as a synonym, διηθέω, to strain through.— τὸν
κώνωπα, τὴν κάμηλον, the gnat, the camel: article as usual in proverbial
sayings. The proper objectof the former part is οἶνον: straining the wine so as
to remove the uncleanmidge. Swallowing the camelis a monstrous
supposition, but relevant, the camelbeing unclean, chewing the cud but not

parting the hoof (Leviticus 11:4). The proverb clinches the lessonof the
previous verse.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Nicol, W. Robertson, M.A., L.L.D. "Commentary on Matthew 23:24". The
Expositor's Greek Testament.
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/egt/matthew-23.html. 1897-
1910.
E.W. Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes
which, &c. Figure of speechParoemia. App-6.
strain = habitually filter out. Greek. diulizo. Occ-only here.
at. A mistake perpetuated in all editions of the Authorized Version. All "the
former translations" had "out".
a = the: which makes it read like a proverb.

gnat. Greek. konops. Occurs only here.
swallow = gulp down: Eng. drink up.
camel. An uncleananimal. See Leviticus 11:4.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Bullinger, Ethelbert William. "Commentary on Matthew 23:24". "E.W.
Bullinger's Companion bible Notes".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bul/matthew-23.html. 1909-
1922.
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Unabridged
Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat. The proper rendering-as in the older
English translations, and perhaps our own as it came from the translators'
hands-evidently is, 'strain out.' It was the custom, says Trench, of the stricter
Jews to strain their wine, vinegar, and other potables through linen or gauze,
lest unawares they should drink down some little unclean insect therein, and

thus transgress (Leviticus 11:20; Leviticus 11:23;Leviticus 11:41-42}-justas
the Buddhists do now in Ceylonand Hindustan-and to this custom of theirs
our Lord here refers.
And swallow a camel - the largestanimal the Jews knew, as the "gnat" was
the smallest:both were by the law unclean.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Jamieson, Robert, D.D.;Fausset,A. R.; Brown, David. "Commentary on
Matthew 23:24". "CommentaryCritical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
- Unabridged". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jfu/matthew-
23.html. 1871-8.
The Bible Study New Testament
You strain a fly out of your drink. Satire. Jesus had a sense ofhumor. Can
you imagine them straining out the fly, and then swallowing the camel!This
illustrates Matthew 23:23.
Copyright Statement

Bibliography
Ice, Rhoderick D. "Commentary on Matthew 23:24". "The Bible Study New
Testament". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/ice/matthew-
23.html. College Press, Joplin, MO. 1974.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(24) Strain at a gnat.—Better, as in Tyndale’s and other earlier versions,
strain out. It is sometimes saidthat the present rendering of the Authorised
version is but the perpetuation of a printer’s blunder; but of this there is
scarcelysufficientevidence, nor is it probable in itself. In the Greek both
nouns have the emphasis of the article, “the gnat—the camel.” The scrupulous
care describedin the first clause of the proverbial saying was literally
practisedby devout Jews (as it is now by the Buddhists of Ceylon), in
accordancewith Leviticus 11:23; Leviticus 11:42. In the secondclause, the
camelappears, not only, as in Matthew 19:24, as the type of vastness, but as
being among the unclean beasts of which the Israelites might not eat
(Leviticus 11:4).
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Ellicott, Charles John. "Commentary on Matthew 23:24". "Ellicott's
Commentary for English Readers".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/ebc/matthew-23.html. 1905.

Treasuryof Scripture Knowledge
7:4; 15:2-6;19:24; 27:6-8; Luke 6:7-10;John 18:28,40
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Torrey, R. A. "Commentary on Matthew 23:24". "The Treasuryof Scripture
Knowledge". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/tsk/matthew-
23.html.
E.M. Zerr's Commentary on SelectedBooksofthe New Testament
The point in this verse is the same as in the preceding one but expressedwith
different terms. Both the gnat and camel were among the creatures classedas
unclean by the law of Moses.Whenthe Jews made wine they strained i t
through a fine cloth to get out all the objectionable objects. Strain at should be
translated strain out, and means they were so particular about having the
wine pure they would strain out a gnat, but would swallow a camel
(figuratively speaking). The meaning is, they would make a big ado about
minor matters but overlook the duties of greatimportance.

PRECEPTAUSTIN RESOURCES
WILLIAM BARCLAY
The Lost Sense OfProportion (Matthew 23:23-24)
23:23-24 "Alas for you, Scribes and Pharisees,hypocrites!for you tithe mint,
and dill, and cummin, and let go the weightiermatters of the Law--justice and
mercy and fidelity. These you ought to have done without neglecting the
others. Blind guides who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!"
The tithe was an essentialpart of Jewishreligious regulations. "You shall tithe
all the yield of your seed, which comes forth from the field year by year"
(Deuteronomy 14:22). "All the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the
land, or of the fruit of the trees is the Lord's; it is holy to the Lord" (Leviticus
27:30). This tithe was speciallyfor the support of the Levites, whose task it
was to do the material work of the Temple. The things which had to be tithed
were further defined by the Law--"Everything which is eatable, and is
preserved, and has its nourishment from the soil, is liable to be tithed." It is
laid down: "Of dill one must tithe the seeds, the leaves and the stalks." So,
then, it was laid down that every man must lay aside one-tenth of his produce
for God.
The point of Jesus'saying is this. It was universally acceptedthat tithes of the
main crops must be given. But mint and dill and cummin are herbs of the
kitchen garden and would not be grownin any quantity; a man would have
only a little patch of them. All three were used in cooking, and dill and
cummin had medicinal uses. To tithe them was to tithe an infinitesimally small

crop, maybe not much more than the produce of one plant. Only those who
were superlatively meticulous would tithe the single plants of the kitchen
garden.
That is preciselywhat the Pharisees were like. Theywere so absolutely
meticulous about tithes that they would tithe evenone clump of mint; and yet
these same men could be guilty of injustice; could be hard and arrogantand
cruel, forgetting the claims of mercy; could take oaths and pledges and
promises with the deliberate intention of evading them, forgetting fidelity. In
other words, many of them kept the trifles of the Law and forgot the things
which really matter.
That spirit is not dead; it never will be until Christ rules in the hearts of men.
There is many a man who wears the right clothes to church, carefully hands in
his offering to the Church, adopts the right attitude at prayer, is never absent
from the celebrationof the sacrament, and who is not doing an honestday's
work and is irritable and bad-tempered and mean with his money. There are
women who are full of goodworks and who serve on all kinds of committees,
and whose children are lonely for them at night. There is nothing easierthan
to observe all the outward actions of religion and yet be completelyirreligious.
There is nothing more necessarythan a sense ofproportion to save us from
confusing religious observanceswith realdevotion.
Jesus uses a vivid illustration. In Matthew 23:24 a curious thing has happened
in the King James Version. It should not be to strain at a gnat, but to strain
out a gnat as in the RevisedStandard Version. Originally that mistake was
simply a misprint but it has been perpetuated for centuries. In point of fact
the older versions--Tyndale, Coverdale, andthe Geneva Bible--all correctly
have to strain out a gnat The picture is this: A gnat was an insectand

therefore unclean; and so was a camel. In order to avoid the risk of drinking
anything unclean, wine was strained through muslin gauze so that any
possible impurity might be strained out of it. This is a humorous picture
which must have raiseda laugh, of a man carefully straining his wine through
gauze to avoid swallowing a microscopic insectand yet cheerfully swallowing
a camel. It is the picture of a man who has completely lost his sense of
proportion.
BRIAN BELL
WOE 5, MAJORING ON MINORS (23,24)
A. They were so punctilious to tiny details (tithing their smallestherb plants)
while disregarding the
law’s true heart (the weightiermatters).
1. They were sticklers fordetail and yet blind to great principles.
2. They were using a microscope fordetails and a kaleidoscope for doctrines.
a) The Talmud tells of the ass ofa certain Rabbi which had been so well
trained as to
refuse corn of which the tithes had not been taken. Vincent
B. Justice, Mercy, & Faith are the important qualities Godis seeking.
C. Jesus didn’t condemn tithing. He condemned when you allow your
legalistic scruples to
keepyou from developing true Christian character.
D. (24) Strain out a gnat or Filter out a gnat. And swallow a camel(hyperbole).
Camel Consumption

1. Both insect& camels were ceremoniallyunclean.
2. They strain a gnat from their wine, so as not to be defiled. Yet, they commit
greatsins w/o any twinge of consciencetherefore swallowing a camel, humps
and all.
JIM BOMKAMP
VS 23:23 - “23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!For you tithe
mint and dill and cummin, and have neglectedthe weightierprovisions of the
law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should
have done without neglecting the others.”” - Jesus pronounces a ‘woe’upon
the Phariseesand Scribes because theytried to carry out the Law to a
ridiculous degree and upon the points which were of small significance, and
yet they openly violated the Law upon the points of greatestsignificance
6.1. It is interesting in this verse that Jesus tells us that there are
‘weightier’ points in God’s Law that a personought to take to heart to
perform, and therefore we know that if we follow the heart of God that we
will not be people who place the wrong emphasis upon obedience to some
commands from the scriptures.
6.2. Jesus tells the people that the Phariseesand Scribes were people who
‘majored on the minors’.

6.2.1. Manyin the church today do the same things. Forinstance, I have seen
churches split for the silliest of reasons:
6.2.1.1.The mostrecentexample of this was that a church I know in Phoenix
had a split because the pastor had the nerve to change the font in the bulletins
which listed the announcements.
6.2.1.2.Ihave heard of church splits over the colorof the carpet.
6.2.1.3.Some churches thatare legalistic do this constantly.
6.2.1.3.1.Ihave heard of churches that were so legalistic that they taught such
things as that a womanwould be going to hell if her dress came two inches
above her ankles, orif she wore make up or jewelry, or if she curled or died
her hair.
6.2.1.4.Etc.,etc.
6.3. Mint, dill, and cumin were spices that someone might hang in their
kitchen window, and the Law of Moses did require that a personshould have
to tithe for any increase receivedin their lives, howeverthese small little
household plants amounted to next to nothing in relation to all of the other
possessionsin a persons life. However, in order for people to know the
seriousnessin which they took tithing a 10th part of everything, the Pharisees
and Scribes would give a tithe of these plants.

6.4. ‘Justice’, ‘mercy’, and ‘faithfulness’ were conduct that the Pharisees
and Scribes really did not value highly in their personallives, even in spite of
the factthat they spent much of their energyin trying to do external works so
that they might be able to be lookedup to by the people as being spiritually
minded and committed to God.
6.4.1. The PhariseesandScribes tried hard to keepmost of the external
requirements of the Law, yet the ‘weightier’ commandments of the Law
which they didn’t keeptouched upon a person’s heart and motives. The
‘weightier’ commandments of the Law were commandments that a person
carried out because ofhaving a godly ‘love’ for others, the keeping of which
were really the ‘love of God’ coming out through their lives.
6.4.2. Rememberthat Jesus taught that all of God’s commandments really
could be summed up in two commandments: To love the Lord with all of
your heart, mind, and strength; and, to love your neighbor as you love
yourself.
6.4.2.1.Keeping the external requirements of the Law without having love in
your heart for others (love that results in actions consistentwith love) was to
not keepthem at all in God’s sight.
6.4.2.2.In1 Cor. 13:1-13, Paulwrote about how that you can do any kind of
service for Christ that you want to do, howeverit doesn’t matter how radical
that service to God may be if you are not exercizing agape love, for then you
are nothing, and your service is not pleasing to God, “13:1 If I speak with the
tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy
gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all
mysteries and all knowledge;and if I have all faith, so as to remove
mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my

possessionsto feed the poor, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but do not
have love, it profits me nothing. 4 Love is patient, love is kind, and is not
jealous;love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5 does not act unbecomingly;
it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into accounta wrong
suffered, 6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7
bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love
never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away;if there
are tongues, they will cease;if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9 For
we know in part, and we prophesy in part; 10 but when the perfect comes, the
partial will be done away. 11 When I was a child, I used to speak as a child,
think as a child, reasonas a child; when I became a man, I did awaywith
childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face;
now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully
known. 13 But now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatestof
these is love.”
7. VS 23:24 - “24 “You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and
swallow a camel!”” - Jesus condemns the Pharisees forstraining out a gnat
and swallowing a camel
7.1. In this verse, Jesus just uses an visual illustration to demonstrate the
degree to which the Phariseesand Scribes majored on the minors, and visa
versa.

7.1.1. The PhariseesandScribes would title to the ‘inth’ degree, even
regarding the most insignificant of things such as spice plants in their kitchen,
and thus they were ‘straining out a gnat’ by the degree that they would try to
follow God’s guidelines for tithing, howeverthey would openly disobey God’s
commandments, such to not stealor commit adultery, and thus they were
‘swallowing a camel’ in doing these things.
JOHN BROADUS
. Ye blind guides, as in Luke 12:16, leading the people utterly astray by false
teaching and bad example. The image in Luke 12:24 expresses the same thing
as Luke 12:23. The Talmud speaks (Wet.)of straining wine in order to remove
minute unclean creatures. (Leviticus 11:41-43)The Buddhists in Ceylon strain
their wine for a similar reason. Gnats sip at wine, and so may fall into it.
Trench (on Rev.) tells of a soldier in Moroccowho always placedthe end of
his turban over the vesselfrom which he drank water, avowedly for the
purpose of straining out the gnats, "whose larvae swarmin the water of that
country." The gnat and the camelare put in contrastas extremes in regardto
size; the latter is obviously a strong hyperbole, for the camelwas the largest
animal familiarly known to the Jews. (Compare onMatthew 19:24)Observe
that it also was "unclean." (Leviticus 11:4) Thus these persons carefully strain
out the smallestcreature, and swallow the largest;they are very scrupulous
about the minutest matters of ceremonialobservance, andthen neglectthe
highest ethicalduties enjoined by the law. The translation strain at is
generallysupposed to have been a mere misprint, in the original edition of K.
James'version, for 'strain out,' which had been given by Tyn., Cran., and
Gen. The Greek means 'thoroughly filter,' thoroughly strain, applied to wine
in Amos 6:6, and here to that which is removed by filtering wine. Alford
thinks that the K. J. revisers purposely gave 'strain at,' meaning 'strain (the
wine) at (the occurrence of)a gnat,'but this is highly improbable.

CALVIN
24. Blind guides. This is s proverbial saying, by which he beautifully describes
the affectedscrupulousness ofhypocrites about trifling matters; for they
utterly shrink from very small faults, as if a single transgressionappearedto
them more revolting than a hundred deaths, and yet they freely permit
themselves and others to commit the most heinous crimes. They actas
absurdly as if a man were to strain out a small crumb of bread, and to
swallow a whole loaf.
Straining out 101 a gnat, and swallowing a camel. We know that a gnat is a
very small animal, and that a camelis a huge beast. Nothing therefore could
be more ridiculous than to strain out the wine or the water, so as not to hurt
the jaws by swallowing a gnat, and yet carelesslyto gulp down a camel. 102
But it is evident that hypocrites amuse themselves with such distinctions; for
while they pass by judgment, mercy, and faith, and even tear in pieces the
whole Law, they are excessivelyrigid and severe in matters that are of no
greatimportance; and while in this way they pretend to kiss the feet of God,
they proudly spit in his face.
Third Millennium Study Bible
Notes on Matthew 23:23-28
Woe to you - Matthew 23:23-24

"Woe to you, teachers ofthe law and Pharisees, youhypocrites! You give a
tenth of your spices - mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglectedthe more
important matters of the law - justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should
have practicedthe latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides!
You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel."
These leaders observedthe tithing ordinance of Leviticus 27:30-33;
Deuteronomy 14:22-29. See"The Old TestamentTithe" below. However, they
were so scrupulous about attending to this requirement that they measured
out and paid the tithe on the smallestof garden crops - such as the herbs mint,
dill, and cummin. Jesus does not tell these teachers ofthe law to neglectthe
tithe, but criticized them for being so preoccupiedwith it, that they neglected
the more important matters of the law - justice, mercy and faithfulness (Matt.
23:23). These Jewishleaders have lost sight that the real purpose of their
responsibilities to God is to bring about righteousness, notperpetuate mere
religious activity and burdens. Morris states:
These more important duties were made much more plain in Scripture than
the minutiae on which the Pharisees concentratedtheir attention. So Jesus
selects the qualities of justice (Gen. 18:19;Prov. 21:3, etc.), mercy (which is
said againand againto have been shown to his people by God and which God
likewise requires of them, Mic. 6:8; LXX has the same word as that used
here), and faithfulness (Prov. 28:20;Hab. 2:4). Calvin sums this up with
"Briefly, then, the sum of the Law comes back to love."
This passagecannotbe placedupon the Christian under the New Covenantas
he is no longerunder the Law. There is a new High Priest (Heb 2:17; 3:1;
4:14-5:10; 6:20; 7:11-8:2; 10:12). The law has changed(Heb 7:12). Indeed this
passagespeaksto "teachersofthe law and Pharisees,"notthose under the
New Covenant. It speaks ofthree tithes, not just one, etc. See "The New
TestamentTithe?" below.

The gnat is the smallestof unclean animals and the camel, the largestof
unclean animals. In Aramaic this also involved wordplay: "You strain out a
gnat [qamla'] but swallow a camel[gamla']. Webersays, "Jesus'hyperbole in
Matthew 23:24 was humorous. His hearers would have chuckled at the
picture of the Phariseesstraining out a small insect(gnat) while swallowing a
huge camel. In their self-serving greed, the leaders of Israelhad perverted the
law into a man-made version that allowedthem to get awaywith a show of
obedience while avoiding true obedience. And they led others into similar
disobedience."
END OF PRECEPT AUSTIN RESOURCES
Was Jesus Funny?
Well, I’m no theologian, but if I had to guess whetheror not Jesus was ever
out-and-out funny, I would guess that he was.
Yesterday I askedfolks to send me in whateverideas they might like to have
me blurg about. One especiallyinteresting response that I gotread, “I have
always wonderedif Jesus evertold a joke, or was humorous at times. What do
you think?”
Well, I’m no theologian, but if I had to guess whetheror not Jesus was ever
out-and-out funny, I would guess that he was. He was, we are told, fully
human; people are funny; it seems to me a reasonable guessthat every once in
a while Jesus could be quite the crack-up. Especiallygiventhat his whole
ministry involved communicating with people—which, of course, almost
necessarilyentails at leastsome humor. That Jesus was sometimes funny
seems like a simple enoughcall.

But if there’s one thing I’ve learned about Christians and Christianity, it’s
that when it comes to matters of Jesus and Bible, things are never as simple as
they might seem. Plus, as I say, I’m hardly a Leading Bible Scholar. Whatdo I
really know about it? I don’t speak ancient Greek orHebrew. And I sure
don’t speak BiblicalAramaic; I found it astounding that Mel Gibsonwas able
to locate so many actors who do. I don’t know if it’s how he did it, but I’m
guessing that there are a lot of great, very old community theaters in …
Aramaia.
Anyway, I know a lot of people aren’t comfortable with the idea that Jesus
was ever funny. That makes sense,too. Maybe the proclivity for humor was a
human characteristic that, for some reason, the Lord simply chose not to
adopt for himself.
Of course, the whole “plank in your eye” metaphor does seempretty funny.
I think the best thing to do, after we’ve died and come directly into his
presence, is to wait, and see whetheror not Jesus cracksa joke first.
Frankly, I hope he does. Becauseif he doesn’t, chances are that, before too
very long, I will. And when I do, I want him to laugh.
Can you imagine, cracking a joke to Jesus, andhim going, “What? What are
you talking about? I don’t get it.”?
https://www.christianity.com/god/jesus-christ/was-jesus-funny-11550095.html

WAS JESUS EVER FUNNY?
LAYTON TALBERT | JUNE 5, 2019
NEW TESTAMENT
Attentive Bible readers are aware of humor in the Bible. Who can miss the
comedic undercurrent when Haman unwittingly prescribes his own recipe for
public humiliation before his bitterest enemy? And are we really supposedto
read Elijah’s taunts to the prophets of Baalwith a straight face? (Forother
examples, see sevencolumns of discussionin Ryken, Wilhoit, Longman,
Dictionary of Biblical Imagery.)
But is it proper to think of Jesus, the God-Man, as a humorous person? Did
Jesus evenhave a sense of humor? And if so, did he everexpress it? Is there
any evidence of it in the Gospels? And if there is, why might we have trouble
recognizing it?
The Gospelrecords are solemn accounts ofthe redemptive mission of God
incarnate. Nothing should ever minimize the gravity of his mission, diminish
the earnestnessofhis demeanor, or trivialize the weightiness ofhis teaching.
At the same time, a foundational fact of that redemptive mission was that
Christ was fully God and fully man. A logicaldeduction from that factis that
he possessedthe full spectrum of non-sinful attributes and emotions that
characterize the human personality. And one of the distinctive traits of a
normal, healthy, human personality is humor.
Calvin once reflectedon this: “When you think about it, it’s weird that we
have a physiologicalresponse to absurdity. We laugh at nonsense. We like it.
We think it’s funny. Don’t you think it’s odd that we appreciate absurdity?”

(If that doesn’t sound like Calvin to you, you have to remember that he was
speaking to Hobbes at the time.) The point is, humor is endemic to the human
condition and personality.
No one denies that Christ experiencedhunger, thirst, pain, and weariness,or
that he exhibited sympa-thy, sor-row, displeasure, disappoint-ment, anger,
aston-ish-ment, aversion(not to sayfear), love, and joy. So what about a sense
of humor? If you had been one of Jesus’originaldisciples, living with him and
listening to him day and night for three years, would you have everlaughed in
all that time?
We are not dependent on purely logicaldeductions to answerthese questions.
The Gospels recordoccasions whenChrist displayed a keensense ofhumor
that is surprising only if we resistrecognizing it as somehow demeaning to
Jesus’deity. I will be so bold as to suggest, however,that we demean both
Jesus’humanity and his deity by excluding such an innately human
characteristic from the one who, as the God-Man, consummately personifies
the imago dei.
Cultivating an ear for Jesus’use of humor contributes to a deeper
apprecia-tion for the round-ness and richness of his person-ality. Sometimes it
can even help us interpret a passageand graspthe gistof his teaching more
accurately.
Commenting on the miracle of the temple tax in the fish’s mouth, A. B. Bruce
remarkedthat Christ performed “miracles expressive ofhumor, not however
in levity, but in holy earnest. Such were the cursing of the fig tree; the healing
of blindness by putting clay on the eyes, as a satire on the blind guides; and
the presentone, expressing a sense of the incongruity betweenthe outward

condition and the intrinsic dignity of the Son of God” (Training of the Twelve,
223).
I think Bruce is probably on to something. But I’m talking about a sense of
humor that the Son of God expressedevenmore directly. But first, to avoid
misunderstanding, I need to define my terms.
When I raise the question of the Lord’s sense of humor, I don’t mean a
slapstick orjesting kind of humor just to make people laugh. Notthat I think
that kind of humor would be inappropriate for Jesus, anymore than it is for
us; I just do not find it displayed in the Gospels. But what I do find is evidence
of an incisive and purposeful use of humor. Christ’s humor in the Gospels was
always edifying in its aim. He made humor a conscious andeffective part of
his ministry to highlight spiritu-al incongru-ities and to illuminate spiritual
truth.
Humor “suggeststhe ability to recognize the incongruity and absurdity
inherent in life and to use them as the basis of expressionin some medium”
(American Heritage Dictionary). Wit “implies mental keenness,ability to
discern those elements of a situation or condition that relate to what is comic,
and talent for making an effective comment on them.” Irony calls attention to
the “incongruity betweenwhat might be expectedand what actually occurs,”
or focuses onthe discrepancybetweenappearances andreality. Irony’s
observations are frank but it does not seek to taunt or wound, and lacks the
cynicism of sarcasm.
In short, the humor in the Gospels “is not of the rollicking type but the subtle
and intellectual type for which the term wit is often an accurate designation”
(Dictionary of Biblical Imagery). That doesn’t make it any less amusing. Wit
is humor at its best.

All of this is necessaryto set the stage for the discussionto follow in my next
post. But I want to end this post with one example, from Elton Trueblood’s
The Humor of Christ. (Disclaimer:I am wellaware of Trueblood’s theological
problems. He subscribedto Bultmann’s demythologization process,
Schweitzer’s conclusions regarding the elusiveness ofthe historicalJesus, the
idea that the Gospels are the product of the later Christian community, and
the notion that the Gospelwriters themselves contribute to “excessive
sobriety” of the Gospelrecord. At the same time, his book is a helpful
contribution largely by default; there simply aren’t that many treatments of
this topic.)
Trueblood relates the event that first directed his attention to this subject. He
and his wife were reading Matthew 7 in their family devotional time. When
they read how Jesus saidthat a hypocrite was like a man with a log in his own
eye trying to get a speck out his brother’s eye, their 4-yearold son erupted
with sudden laughter. The child instantly visualized the outlandish absurdity
of Jesus’word-picture. The innocent, spontaneous response ofdelight that
Jesus’words elicited from a child, uninhibited by adult sophistication, is what
alerted Truebloodto the possibility of other passages thatmight also reflect
Christ’s sense ofhumor.
My own awarenessofJesus’humor began with quite a different passage.
More on that and other passagesnexttime.
WAS JESUS EVER FUNNY? (PART 2)
LAYTON TALBERT | JUNE 7, 2019
NEW TESTAMENT

No one gets into the kingdom of God without becoming like a little child (Luke
18:17). The illustration that ended my previous post suggeststhat no one gets
Jesus’use of humor without becoming like a little child. That doesn’t imply
that the humor is infantile, but that we can become so familiar with certain
passagesand so sophisticatedin our interpretation that we miss the point
because we fail to see the laugh-worthy wit that Jesus often built into his
teaching to animate his point.
When Jesus—quite unnecessarily—painteda hyperbolic word-picture of a
hypocrite as a man trying to remove a small twig from his brother’s eye while
oblivious to the log jammed through his own eye (Matt 7:3-5), the image is not
supposedto strike us as “startling” or “grotesque”(as one interpreter puts it)
but as bizarre bordering on hilarious. WalterLiefeld gets it: Jesus’
“humorous illustration . . . hits the mark with force” because his “humor
makes the point vividly” (“Luke,” EBC, 895). It is humor in the service of
serious truth. Any teacherworth his dry board eraserunderstands that
principle.
It was Luke 7:24-26 that first caughtme off-guard one day. Mind you, I was a
serious-minded, seminary-trained student of Scripture. But that day I wasn’t
just reading black words on a white page;I was standing among the crowd
beside the Jordan, listening to Jesus. Thatwas when his deliberately facetious
description of John the Baptist—no, his two facetious descriptions!—snuck up
on me. Suddenly I heard a muffled chuckling from the crowd, lookedaround,
and realized people were grinning! I couldn’t be positive, but I thought I
detecteda suppressedsmile playing about the corners of Jesus’mouth.
John the Baptistas a spineless, flimsy, namby-pamby reedquivering at the
slightestbreeze? A soft, self-indulgent cream-puff mincing around in lavishly
expensive clothing? Are we talking about the guy in camelhair and leather?
Anyone who’d ever seenJohn or heard him preachinstantly recognizedthe

absurdity. These images were as ridiculously and intentionally unlike John as
possible. Downrightlaughable! I can no longer read this passage without
seeing some in the crowd laughing out loud and thinking, “Now that’s funny!”
Jesus knew as well as his audience the unflinching courage and moral
boldness of John, not to mention the proverbially ascetic simplic-ity and self-
denial of his lifestyle. “Mark the satire of it,” remarks Morgan. “Those
familiar with John would know no reed was he, no effeminate dilettante”
(Parables and Metaphors, 36). Morganalso points to an additionally witty
word-play: the consonantalinversion from kalamos (reed)to malakos (soft).
But the bulk of the intentional humor resides in Jesus’farcicalcaricatures of
John.
Again, what is so fascinating is that it was so unnecessary. Jesus couldhave
made his soberpoint about John in 7:26 without the clearly tongue-in-cheek
remarks of 7:24b-25. (One interpreter suggeststhat Jesus’words here might
be ironic. You think?) But you can see the effectiveness ofthe Lord’s strategy.
The facetious depictions actually accentuate the real John. The very absurdity
of the rhetoricalquestions underscores and highlights and draws stars around
John’s more-than-a-prophet status, far more effectively than if Jesus had only
spokenverse 26.
A. B. Bruce points to the adversative alla (“but what went you out to see?”)
and effectivelycaptures Jesus’subtle shift from facetious ploy to soberpoint:
“why then, seriously, went ye out?” (EGT, I:172). The Word was a master
speakerwho recognizedthe value of humor, rightly used, as a tool of effective
communication.
I’ll mention one more example. Again, you have to slip on your sandals,
mingle with the disciples, and actually see and hear Jesus telling this very

serious parable in Luke 18:9-14. On the surface it’s about prayer, but
underneath it’s really about true religion and justifying faith. Into this dead-
earnestillustration Jesus slips a surprising kind of humor. He actually
imitates a fictional Pharisee’s prayerby putting words in his mouth. Did
Jesus’hearers find his impersonationof the Pharisee’s pious hypocrisy an
amusingly accurate depictionof a Pharisaicalatti-tude?
The terms “imitate” and “impersonate” are liable to be misconstrued, but I
don’t know any better words to use. I do not mean to imply that Jesus
mimicked a tone for his fictional Pharisee (as we sometimes do). Maybe, but I
suspectnot. Jesus was not a sarcastic stand-up comic. Still, it’s significant that
Jesus choosesto intone the Pharisee’s personalpride in being unlike other
“common” people — extortioners, unjust, adulterers; yet these were the very
sins for which Jesus repeatedlyindicted the Pharisees. Butthe ultimate irony
comes in the words, “nor even as this publican”; betweenthe two of them, it
was the publican who “went down to his house justified.” Be carefulwhat you
wish for.
If there is a single personwithin the pages of the Bible that we can considerto
be a humorist it is without doubt Jesus. There is a subtle, playful quality to his
mind that is unmistakable and that emerges mostclearly if we take the time to
distill his humorous sayings from the seriousnessthat also pervades his words.
Jesus was a master of wordplay, irony and satire, often with an element of
humor intermixed. . . . Either to underemphasize [his] humor or to
overemphasize it distorts the Bible. Although the Bible is a predominantly
serious book, one of its points of humanity is its humor.
Ryken, Wilhoit, & Longman, eds., Dictionary of Biblical Imagery
Granted, not everyone laughs at the same things. Beauty is in the eye of the
beholder, and humor is in the ear of the behearer. To some degree, humor is
relative. But I have come across numerous passagesthatseemto me to

evidence Jesus’use of humor in teaching. Interestingly (and unsurprisingly),
all of them so far are in Luke and most of them are only in Luke (a few have
parallels in Matthew). This distinctive emphasis on this undercurrent of
Jesus’personalityfills out Luke’s unique presentationof the full-orbed and
approachable humanity of Christ. If John the Baptist was an Elijah, Jesus was
an Elisha.
Did Jesus Have a Sense of Humor?
Samuel Lamerson| Thu, January 12, 2017 | Articles
did jesus laugh
“Jesus neverlaughed,” or so the pamphlet said. An adolescentboy at the time,
I found myself laughing at every little thing—too often during church
services. Reading thatpamphlet I wondered, “So he never laughed? What was
wrong with him?”
Perhaps we’re accustomedto thinking of Jesus only as “a man of sorrows,
acquainted with grief” (Isa 53:3). His crucifixion is certainly no laughing
matter. Or maybe the image of a laughing Jesus offends simply because it
makes him too human. Yet Hebrews 4:15 tells us that Jesus is able to
sympathize with us because he is exactlylike us (minus the sinning). God has
gifted us with a sense of humor; it stands to reasonthat Jesus had one, too.

Every culture has its own idea of what is funny. Watch a random selectionof
German, Spanish or Japanese comedyshows, andsometimes you’ll be rolling
on the floor, and other times you’ll be scratching your head. Why is that
funny? First-century Palestine would be no different: It had its own comedic
tradition, steepedin the cutting irony of the Old Testament(Job, Jonah or
Ezekiel)and the over-the-top parodies of classicalGreece(Aristophanes).
Aristotle famously wrote that comedies end with a wedding. That may be so,
but the gas that really fuels the fire of Greek comedy is exaggeration:Take a
simple gag and blow it out of all proportion. Rereadsome of Jesus’sayings
with this in mind, and you might find a chuckle or two yourself: Your
neighbor may have a speck in his eye, but you’ve gota log. The blind are
leading the blind—right into a hole in the ground. A priest, a Levite, and a
Samaritan are walking down the road . . .
Not Exactly the “A”-List
In the parable of the wedding feast(Matt 22:1–10), the king throws a banquet
in his son’s honor. It’s the socialevent of the year. Servants are dispatched
carrying invitations to all the VIPs. The powerful. The sociallyconnected. The
“in” crowd. The kind of people who know how to dress and how to actat a
royal banquet.
But the glitterati—the Pharisees withtheir clean robes and punctilious
manners, the scribes with their jots and tittles all in a row—simply can’t be
bothered to attend.
What’s a king to do? Fedup with those who think they’re too goodto come,
he decides to invite other guests. He sends his servants out to round up the

religiously and politically incorrect. The powerless. The socially
disenfranchised. The “out” crowd. The kind of people who hang out on the
streetlate at night.
Imagine a royal wedding feastfilled with homeless people. Scandalous!This is
a comedic break in expectation, exaggeratedto drive the punchline home: The
outsiders have become the insiders. And if you’re one of the insiders, the
joke’s on you.
I’ll Gladly Pay You Tuesday. . .
The parable of the unforgiving debtor (Matt 18:23–35)makes use ofwhat
comics today call the topper or call-back. While the audience is still laughing
at the lastline, you hit them again.
Imagine a slave who owes the king some money. Make that a lot of money—
10,000talents, even. We might not getthe joke, but Jesus’listeners would
have: That’s more money than the Roman government had! It’s as if your
freshman daughter had called up to sayshe’d run a little money up on the
credit card you gave her. How much? The national debt.
Betteryet, when the man is called to pay, he says, “Give me a little more time
and I will pay all” (18:26). This is like the girl telling her father that she
“plans to geta job at Christmas” to pay off that maxed-out credit card.
What’s a king to do? Instead of laughing the slave out of his court (or into
prison), he simply forgives the debt. She calls the credit card company and
whines a little, so they let her off the hook—justlike that.
Then the topper: The slave leaves and finds someone who owes him a hundred
denarii—a few months’ wages. Notonly does he demand the money, but he
chokes the poor guy. That goes beyondmerely uncharitable; it’s downright

cruel. One might even say comicallyso. In the end, the unjust slave gets his
comeuppance—tossedin jail until he can pay in full, which he never can.
Here, Jesus lays one exaggerationontop of another until the audience can’t
help but see how utterly ridiculous it is to hold a $10 dollar grudge againsta
neighbor when God, the gracious king, has wiped clean a fortune’s worth of
sin.
The Divine Comedy
By Aristotle’s rule of thumb, God’s plan for the ages is a comedy, because no
matter how tragic this world may seem, it ends with a wedding (Rev 19:6–10).
God has chosenfor himself a bride made of people who don’t dress or act
properly—drug dealers, prostitutes, and even a few recovering Pharisees—
former sinners all. Snubbed by the people the world counts as important, God
spends his incredible riches on the unwashed masses instead, inviting them to
join him in an exquisite meal.
And, one would like to think, more than a few goodlaughs.
Dr. Samuel Lamerson is professorofNew Testamentand president of Knox
TheologicalSeminaryin Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
This article was originally published in Bible Study Magazine, May–Jun’09
with the title “Jesus NeverLaughed?” and collectedin The Bible in Its
Ancient Context: 23 Fresh Insights. Biblical references are the author’s
paraphrase.

The Humor of Jesus
By Jeremy Myers
The Humorous Stories ofJesus
I did not realize this about Jesus for the longesttime, but when I first beganto
understand the humor of Jesus, I soonrealized that in the Gospels, Jesus is
telling a humorous story on almostevery page.
No, His stories will not cause you to burst into uproarious laughter. His stories
are like banter among friends, or the humor of a political cartoonthat takes a
humorous jab at an opponent. The humor of Jesus is probably closerto what
we would call wit, satire, and irony.
When understood, the humor of Jesus rarely makes you laugh out loud, but
you might smile, or even chuckle, when you see His point. That’s Christ’s type
of humor.
One of the sources thathelped me discoverthe humor of Jesus is a little book
by Elton Truebloodcalled The Humor of Christ. His book is barely an
introduction to the humor of Jesus, but it contains some goodinsights.
Elton says in the preface to his book that the idea that Jesus was humorous
came when he was trying to have family devotions one night.
His eldestson was four years old, and Elton was reading to them out of
Matthew 7. As he read along, feeling very serious about the weighty subject

matter of that portion of Scripture, all of a sudden, his young sonbegan to
laugh.
Elton says he tried to shush his son, and admonish him againstlaughing at
Scripture. His sonobjected, “But Dad, the picture is funny!” Elton says he
lookeddown at what he had just been reading and saw that in fact, his son
was correct. The image that Jesus had painted with words was indeed
preposterous. It was the image of a man with a trunk of tree sticking out of
his eye, trying to remove a speck of sawdustfrom the eye of a friend. The very
idea is ludicrous (The Humor of Christ, p. 9).
Don’t Be So Serious!
Mostof us adults have learned that Bible study is a serious matter, that God is
up there with His arms crossedmaking sure we don’t getout of line, and that
Jesus spoke some very weighty words so we need to getdown to business and
learn them.
Elton’s child did not know any of this nonsense, and so when he heard a funny
story, he laughed. Elton says that event got him started on the study of the
humor of Christ. He says the more he studied, the more humor he found.
Elton says,
There are numerous passagesin the recordedteaching which are practically
incomprehensible when [the humor is ignored].
Another author who has also noticed The Wisdom & Wit of Rabbi Jesus
noticed the same thing:

An occupationalhazard of any witty speakeris that hearers may suppose that
what was said with tongue in cheek represents the humorist’s viewpoint (p.
33).
And if an audience canmisunderstand witty comments that they hear, written
wit from another time and culture and language are even harder to discern.
Nevertheless,understanding the words of Jesus in the Gospels will be much
easierif we presuppose that Jesus may be telling a humorous story to poke
fun at the religion and theologyof His day, rather than the traditional idea
that a dour-faced Jesus is telling a serious story about how to live and behave
to truly be His follower.
Whenever you come across a difficult teaching of Jesus, it can often be sorted
out rather quickly if you considerthe laughter factor. When the teaching is
takenseriously, it doesn’t make sense. But when you imagine the sparkling
eyes of Jesus and the hint of a smile on his lips, with the disciples winking at
eachother and elbowing eachother in the ribs, the passagewill often make
much more sense.
This post is basedoff the Grace Commentary for Luke 5:33-39. There are
three stories in this passagewhichprovide goodexamples of the humor of
Jesus.
Does Jesus Have a Sense of Humor? (Part 1)
SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 BYMARK DRISCOLL

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Religionis funny. Christian Science is neither Christian nor science. And,
fundamentalism is not fun. That’s funny.
But, have you ever wondered if Jesus was funny?
In the closing line of his classic book Orthodoxy, G. K. Chestertonspeaks of
Jesus’lack of humor: “There was some one thing that was too greatfor God
to show us when He walkedupon our earth; and I have some-times fancied
that it was His mirth.”1 According to Chesterton, Jesus was probably not
funny.
Jesus Was Funny
But Jesus was funny. This factis perhaps the most overlookedaspectofJesus’
entire earthly ministry.
Our inability to see Jesus as funny is not rooted in the pages ofScripture, but
rather in the way Jesus has been portrayed in many popular films. In 1927 the
legendary directorand devout Christian CecilB. DeMille produced the life of
Jesus in the movie King of Kings. He was very careful to portray Jesus as very
pious with little humanity; he even had a glowing aura around him, which
made him appear like something of an icon on the screen. He was without
humor and appeared as a very serious holy man.

The Library of Congress holds more books aboutJesus (seventeenthousand
last time I checkedsome years ago)than about any other historicalfigure,
roughly twice as many as about Shakespeare, the runner-up.2 One University
of Chicago scholarhas estimatedthat more has been written about Jesus in
the lasttwenty years than in the previous nineteen centuries combined.3 Yet I
have found only one book that examines Jesus’humor, Elton Trueblood’s The
Humor of Christ, published in 1964. Truebloodsays:
There are numerous passages. . . which are practicallyincomprehen- sible
when regardedas soberprose, but which are luminous once we become
liberated from the gratuitous assumption that Christ never joked. . . . Once we
realize that Christ was not always engagedin pious talk, we have made an
enormous stepon the road to understanding.”4
Trueblood goes onto say, “Christlaughed, and . . . He expectedothers to
laugh. . . . A misguided piety has made us fear that acceptanceofHis obvious
wit and humor would somehow be mildly blasphemous or sacrilegious.
Religion, we think, is serious business, and serious business is incompatible
with banter.”5 Other scholars say, “If there is a single personwithin the pages
of the Bible that we can considerto be a humorist, it is without a doubt Jesus.
. . . Jesus was a master of wordplay, irony, and satire, often with an element of
humor intermixed.”6 In the appendix of The Humor of Christ, Trueblood lists
thirty humorous passagesofJesus in the synoptic Gospels alone (Matthew,
Mark, and Luke).7
3 ReasonsWe Miss Jesus’Humor

There are at leastthree reasons why modern Bible readers and hearers are
remiss in capturing Jesus’sense ofhumor.
First, many people are so familiar with some Bible texts that they wrongly
assume they know what the texts mean and are not able to hear them in a
fresh manner.
Second, because the death of Jesus is the centerpiece ofour theology, it has in
some ways so dominated our thinking about Jesus that his life prior to his
death is seenas little more than one of avoiding sin and being an acceptable
sacrifice, whichmeans that his humor and fun are overlooked. But the fact
that Jesus was ofteninvited to parties because people liked him, crowds
thronged around him, and his fiercestcritics falselyaccusedhim of being
nothing but a party animal suggests he was fun to hang with (Luke 5:33;
7:31–35).
Third, being removed from Jesus by two thousand years means that some of
those ancient cultural clues and euphemisms are loston us. The cultural
framework required for humor was made obvious to me while in India,
because everytime I turned on the televisionand watchedan Indian show I
could not figure out for the life of me what the jokes meant. Nonetheless,it is
important to note some of Jesus’ancientfunnies.
Jesus saidthat Christians who don’t evangelize are as helpful as a house fire
in Mark 4:21: “Is a lamp brought in to be put under a basket, or under a bed,
and not on a stand?”

Perhaps his most hilarious funny is Matthew 19:24:“It is easierfor a camelto
go through the eye of a needle than for a rich personto enter the kingdom of
God.” In trying to figure out what Jesus was talking about, more than a few
Bible commentators have done origami to that sectionof Scripture. Possibly
the most common explanation is that there was some hole in some wall in
some town that a camelcould pass through only by lying on its gut and
shimmying through like a Marine crawling in boot-camp training, and some
people calledthat place “the eye of the needle.” Or Jesus was telling a joke,
and the guys in suits missedthe punch line.
Scholars in the area of humor say, “The most characteristic form of Jesus’
humor was the preposterous exaggeration.”8The whole idea of a camel being
threaded through a needle like a line of thread was an ancient funny where he
exaggeratedto make a point. Likewise, the guy who says he’s so hungry he
could eat a horse does not intend to masticate an entire horse—hooves,tail,
and all.
Another example of Jesus using preposterous exaggerationis found in
Matthew 7:3, which says, “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s
eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” This Hebrew funny
from carpenter Jesus probably got the most laughs on the job site with the
framing crew who knew the difference betweena two-by-four and a speck of
sawdustthat blows off a table saw.
For yet another example of Jesus’preposterous exaggeration, we canconsider
his encounterwith Peterin Matthew 16:13–20. There, Jesusnicknamed
Cephas after the WWE wrestler, calling him Peter, which means “the rock,”
just before Peterproved he was merely a pebble by rebuking Jesus, and Jesus
calling him Satan, or at leastSatan’s wing-man (Matt. 16:21–23).

Thankfully, Jesus is fun and funny. As a result, hanging with him in heaven
forever will not be like getting your taxes done while at the dentist foreverand
ever and ever…
G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy: The Romance of Faith (New York: Doubleday,
1990), 160.
Stephen Prothero, American Jesus:How the Son of God Became a National
Icon (New York: Far- rar, Straus & Giroux, 2003), 11.
Philip Yancey, The Jesus I NeverKnew (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1995), 20.
Elton Trueblood, The Humor of Christ (New York: Harper & Row, 1964),10.
Ibid., 15.
Ryken, et al., Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, s.v. “Humor—Jesus as
Humorist,” 410.
Trueblood, The Humor of Christ, 127.
Ryken, et al., Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, s.v. “Humor—Jesus as
Humorist,” 410.
This blog is adapted from the book ReligionSaves by Mark Driscoll.
Did Jesus everlaugh? What do the Scriptures tell us about his characterand
sense ofhumor?

I’ve heard some people answerthis question in the negative by saying that
laughter is always a sign of frivolity and a thinly veiled attempt to make light
of things that are sober. They say life is a sober matter; Jesus is describedas a
man of sorrows. He’s describedas one who was acquainted with grief. He
walkedaround with enormous burdens upon him. Add to that the fact that
there’s not a single text in the New Testamentthat explicitly says Jesus
laughed. There are texts, of course, that tell us he cried. Forexample, John 13
tells us that in the upper room Jesus was deeply troubled in his spirit. We
know that he experienced those emotions, and yet it’s strange that nowhere
does it tell us that he actually laughed.
You also askedif he had a sense of humor. When we translate any language
into another, we will often miss subtle nuances of speech. If we don’t have a
knowledge ofthe originallanguage and its idioms, we might miss the humor.
Also, different cultures have different ways of being humorous. Jesus usedone
form of humor we call sarcasm. In his responsesto Herod, for example, he
calledhim a fox and made other statements that I think had a touch of
oriental humor to them. It’s purely speculative whether or not Jesus laughed,
but I can’t imagine that he didn’t laugh for this reason:He was fully human,
and he was perfect. We certainly wouldn’t attribute to Jesus any sinful
emotions or forms of behavior, and it would seemto me the only reasonto
think he didn’t laugh would be if we first came to the conclusionthat laughter
is evil.
The Bible does say that God laughs. In the Psalms it’s a derisive laugh. When
the kings of the world setthemselves againstGod and take counselagainst
God, it says that he who sits in the heavens shall laugh. God will hold them in
derision. It’s sort of a “huh!” kind of laughter. It’s not a jovial response of
happiness, but nevertheless it’s laughter.

In the Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament—forexample, in
Ecclesiastes—we’re toldthat certain things are appropriate at certain times.
There’s a time to plant, a time to reap, a time to build, a time to tear down;
there’s a time to dance, a time to sing, a time to laugh, a time to cry. Since
God has, in his seasons, appointedappropriate times for laughter, and Jesus
always did what was appropriate, it would seem to me that when it was time
to laugh, he laughed.
Takenfrom Now, That's a GoodQuestion! Copyright © 1996 by R.C. Sproul.
Used by permission of Tyndale.
The Often OverlookedHumor of Jesus
Posted:May 30, 2013 | Author: FatherTim | Filed under: Church Humor |17
Comments
3904056793_3dca2544db_oThere’snothing worse than a humorless Christian.
You know the type — tight lipped, judgmental, unsmiling, Puritanical.
Someone who views frivolity as sacrilege and humor as heresy. Perhaps
you’ve even met the type — online or in person.
But this understanding of the Christian life is incomplete. A more nuanced
reading of Scripture leads us irrevocably awayfrom this attitude of holier-
than-thou solemnity. Jesus uses humor to teach, heal, convert and, ultimately,
redeem. And he does this while modeling the factthat laughter and profundity
are not mutually exclusive.

The humor of Jesus is subtle, nearly imperceptible at first glance. The Sermon
on the Mount, for instance, doesn’tbegin with a joke to warm up the crowd.
But throughout his ministry Jesus displays greatwit, command of the
language, a gift for irony and word plays, and impeccable timing — all
hallmarks of greatcomedians.
The gospels aren’tfunny in the traditional sense. It’s not slapstick comedy;
there are no pratfalls. They’re passionnarratives, not anthologies of“The Wit
and Wisdom of Jesus Christ.” But then the story of our salvation, the death
and resurrectionof our Lord, is serious business.
Which is preciselywhy Jesus made his messageso accessible. Parables,with
their use of common language and commentary on everyday situations, spoke
directly to people. And so, while Jesus’messagesheld the keys to salvation,
they were couchedin language people could understand and relate to.
A master storytellerwould never forsake humor as a means to reachan
audience. Jesus, who spent much of his ministry breaking down barriers
betweenpeople, 2626790116a4954152147lknewthat humor does exactly this.
Humor disarms and unites; it sets people at ease andleaves them receptive to
the speaker’smessage.
Jesus recognizedthat humor is as equal a part of the human condition as
suffering and joy. It is integralto the human condition, and Jesus embodied
this just as much as he embodied forgiveness, compassionand hope. Jesus had
a wonderfully vibrant sense ofhumor, but it wasn’t employed merely to “get
laughs.” It is humor that seeks to inform and convert. Even when the humor
is directed at a certain group, such as the Pharisees,it is still a humor born of
love and compassion. Jesus mocksthe self-righteous evenwhile calling them
to open their eyes, repent and see.

Jesus was funny

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Jesus was funny

Similar to Jesus was funny (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jesus was funny