Jesus was humorous

JESUS WAS HUMOROUS
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
MATT. 23:24
New InternationalVersion
You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallowa
camel.
New Living Translation
Blind guides! You strain your water so you won’t
accidentallyswallowa gnat, but you swallowa camel!
I am using just one kind of humor Jesus used and that
is exaggeration. Much more is involvedin His humor
and I will share more at the end of this study. Before
we begin we need to see how important the role of
exaggerationis in the world of present day humor.
"Using humor in the form of exaggerationis an extremely effective way to
market. Most people enjoy and respond well to humor and using exaggeration
is a goodway of ensuring that most people will not be offended."

Does the thought of inspiring your YouTube video communities with
entertaining content make you nervous? What if your attempts at having fun
simply fall flat?
Follow these 4 testedtechniques for applying exaggerationto your YouTube
videos, and you will be well on your way towards engaging your audience. In
fact, our study of the top viral videos demonstrated that humorous
exaggerationis the number one technique used by advertisers to boosttheir
viral video statistics.
So just when marketing folks are told to become publishers, we are now being
told to become comedians if we want any traction from our YouTube videos.
4 Ways to BoostViral Video Stats with Exaggeration
Exaggerationplays on many of our senses. We recognize itmentally and
emotionally. Of the top viral videos we examined in this category, the most
viewed YouTube videos were basedon some sort of conceptualdiscord. In
other words, we recognize something as over the top. The other YouTube
videos were basedon aberrant behaviors or visual anomalies as explained
further.
In general, most viral videos featuring exaggerationfall under the following
four categories:
ExaggeratedOutcomes
Over-reactive Behaviors
ExaggeratedQualities
Understatements
ExaggeratedOutcomes
As a conceptualdiscord, we laugh when we witness over-the-top demos and
storytelling. This theatricalshift from what we see as normal is often played
out in the aftermath of bad dreams as well. And by adding a dramatic effect

to our storylines, exaggerated dreams can also evoke ouremotions like the
infamous scene of Dorothy describing Oz when she awakes.
Over-reactive Behaviors
Our secondtechnique used in exaggerationtaps into our emotionalresponse
to ridiculous behaviors. In this case, we laughat how others take such
extremes to make their point. Forcefuldemonstrations are often loaded with
intensity so that we canappreciate the peculiar nature of others.
Some of the top viral videos in our study showedscenes ofextreme naiveté or
protectionism where we shamefully find ourselves or close ones exhibiting
these same fanatic behaviors. The laughter in this case has much to do with
pointing out our own quirks as overprotective Dads, starstruck admirers or
wired up Type A’s.
ExaggeratedQualities
Some top viral videos that feature the visual side of exaggeration. Seeing the
visual anomaly, our brains often ask:“canthat really be true?” Some of the
most popular comic devices used in this form of wit include the display of
supernatural performances, motion distortion, exaggeratedbody reactions
and incredible allure.
Understatement
We also laugh at the other extreme. Consider this photo warning us of wet
floors. Really? This popular form of comic wit is known as an
“understatement.” In the videos featured below, we can see why we laugh at a
profound grasp of the obvious or feeling underwhelmed.
What Makes Exaggerationso Popular
The use of exaggerationdates back centuries as a comic device and popular
figure of speechknownas hyperbole. Consistentwith the theory of
incongruity, it suggestslaughterresults from seeing things out of sorts.

Using exaggerationcanbe a safe choice to considerfor your viral video theme
for the following reasons:
It rarely offends any particular audience
It can be easilygraspedvisually, emotionally or cognitively
It can be easilyproduced in low budget settings (e.g., check out BlendTec’s
100M+ view channel successwith a purported budget < $10K
(http://bit.ly/di3sUP)
Study Background
A total of 3351 high performing spot TV ads (> 50K views)were examined in
this ranking of top YouTube videos. These viral videos included re-casted
commercials that were subsequently postedon YouTube as a socialmedia
video back channel. Statistics were then recordedon the number of likes,
dislikes, comments and views, where an exploratory study was subsequently
published with the Academy of Marketing Scienceand 2013 Cross Cultural
ResearchConference.
From the final list of most viewedYouTube videos, about 8% involved
humorous exaggeration. This form of viral video engagementrankednumber
one, five and six in average views, comments as % of views, and net likes as %
of views, respectively.
So what do you think? Is this an effective wayto go? Have you ever resorted
to using humor like this as an entertaining content marketing theme?
http://blog.socialcontentmarketing.com/top-15-viral-video-engagers-1-
exaggeration/
Humor Writing By Exaggeration

You may not be a humor writer, but you’ve probably used exaggerationas a
device in humor storytelling. Like when sharing about a funny incident you
observedduring the day with your friends or family.
And as you tell the story, you exaggerate in a few places, because,well, it’s
more entertaining. And everyone laughs as expected.
So you tell it againto another group and it’s even funnier than before.
Why?
Becauseyou increasedthe drama and embellished it more than the first time.
Add some here, take awaya little there. Or perhaps insert your own,
humorous, colorcommentary. In essence…youexaggeratethe truth.
Humor writing by exaggerationis based on a simple premise. Take the truth
and stretchit. The humor comes from how creatively, and how much you’re
able to stretch without going too far.
So here are three ways to use exaggerationin your pursuit of humor writing.
Writing Humor through One line ExaggerationJokes
There are two parts to a one liner exaggerationjoke. The set-up and punch
line.
The one liner, exaggerationjoke was a regular part of the comedy routine
used by former Tonight Show host, Johnny Carson. In fact, he often used the
audience to set-up the joke during his monologue.
Johnny: I visited a small town the other day.
Audience: How small was it?
Johnny: It was so small…
…you had to make a reservationto use the parking meter
…during snowstorms, saltwas spreadusing a salad shooter
…the municipal watersystem’s pump was supplied by WaterPik

The set-up line leads you toward a generalassumptionand the punch line
surprises you with a twist you didn’t expect. One that exaggeratesthe truth to
a level of absurdity.
Writing Humor Through ExaggeratedAnecdotes
Humorous, anecdotalstories—likethe ones you tell about your day—are
more than just a joke consisting of set-up and delivery. They’re universal in
nature because theyrepresent an average, everydaylife. Funny stories that
could happen to any of us.
Often it’s truth with an emotional aspect to it. Like an embarrassment,
unpleasant experience or pain that everyone relates to in some fashion.
Like your last visit to the dentist who had an unhappy childhood and now
takes sadistic delight in tooth extraction.
Dave Berry, Bill Cosbyand Mark Twain all used exaggerationin anecdotal
narratives.
Here’s Mark Twaindescribing the sour experience of eating his first
tamarind.
They pursed my lips till they resembled the stem-end of a tomato, and I had to
take my sustenance through a quill for twenty-four hours. They sharpened my
teeth till I could have shavedwith them, and gave them a wire edge that I was
afraid would stay, but a citizen said, “no, it will come off when the enamel
does” –whichwas comforting at any rate.
Writing Humor through Exaggerated Characters
When writing short, humorous skits, there’s not much time for character
development. So I create exaggeratedcharacters by using common
stereotypes.
The vain, female Diva, the dumb jock, the shifty guy lurking in the shadows,
the nerdy geek and the miserly accountant.

Stereotypes make funny characters because youraudience already knows
something of the character’s motivation and reasons behind what they say
and do.
Of course, the stereotype is just the start. Next you exaggerate the stereotype
to the Max.
The female Diva is not just vain. She’s so vain that whenevershe sees her
reflection, she pauses to appreciate it. The dumb jock is so clueless he doesn’t
realize the football helmet he misplacedis on his head. And the nerdy geek is
so sociallyawkwardhe talks to computers like they’re people.
People laugh at them because these exaggerated, stereotypesdon’t represent
anyone in real life. Even though everyone canprobably think of someone
that’s a close resemblance.
So when you need to add humor to your writing, start with exaggeration.
You’re probably already better at it than you think.
About:
Chip Tudor is a freelance, marketing copywriter, published author,
playwright and pastor. He publishes drama at www.chiptudor.com, books on
Amazon.com, and articles on his blog.
BIBLEHUB RESOURCES
Pulpit Commentary Homiletics
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 seenin 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 cases there 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 forgetthe 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 certain things 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 transgression must 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 accompanied him, 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.
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.
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,
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.

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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 good he 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.
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.
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)
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.
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.

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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Treasuryof Scripture Knowledge
7:4; 15:2-6;19:24; 27:6-8; Luke 6:7-10;John 18:28,40

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.
'Exaggerations'ofJesus
The argument is often given to us that Jesus purposely over-statedsome
things in order to grab people's attention, and that he never intended for us to
take him literally when he was doing that. In this article, I will considerthree
classic illustrations of this argument, and then I will add a fourth, which, I
believe, exposes the lie in the first three. Finally, I will return to the first three
arguments with a vastly different approach.
The most common passagereferredto when arguing that Jesus never meant
for us to take him literally is where he says that if our eye offends us we
should pluck it out, or if our hand offends us, we should cut it off. Obviously,
there are very few (if any) Christians walking around with a missing eye or
hand because they took this instruction seriously. If that is true, and if we
have never done such a thing ourselves, thenit must be that Jesus never
meant for people to take this literally. Sounds reasonable, doesn'tit?

Then there is the passagewhere Jesus says that, if we have even the smallest
measure of faith, we will be able to tell a tree (or even a mountain) to be
plucked up and tossedinto the ocean, and it will obey us. Once again, where
is there anyone who has everdone such things? And what would be the point
of it if they had? Jesus wasn'texactly talking nonsense, but he certainly was
not expecting anyone to take that literally, was he? Once again, the
conclusionis that it was just hyperbole... an exaggerationto make a point.
And finally, there is the passagethat we Jesus Christians have takenso
literally over the years, which is that we must forsake everything that we own
if we want to be followers of Jesus. (Luke 14:33) With this one, there are a
few people, ourselves included, who have tried to take it literally. But the end
result is that we are seenby virtually everyone else as being fanatics for doing
so... people who just went too far. All Jesus was really talking about was just
a need for all of us to keepan eye on our attachment to things and not let
them get out of hand.
Okay, so those are the three examples that I said I would give. But what of
the fourth example? The one I promised to give, in an attempt to refute the
claims relating to the first three? The fourth one is where Jesus (repeatedly)
talks about giving us eternal life.
Those churches and believers who ridicule so much of what Jesus saidstill
seemto take him seriouslywhen he talks about eternal life. Why? Isn't it
because they cannever be proven wrong on this one? Isn't it because they
have devised their own systems of beliefs and rules which dangle the carrotof
eternal life in front of congregations allover the world without the various
preachers everhaving to prove that this incredible promise is true? Surely if
talk about flying mountains and missing limbs is exaggeration, thentalk about
living forever must be the most incredible fantasyever devised.

In fact, if you return to the first illustration above, you will observe that the
very point Jesus was trying to make with what he said about cutting off hands
and plucking out eyes was that, if eternallife is a reality, then even losing a
limb in order to obtain it is a small price to pay. If you read our article "Cut
Off Your Hand!" you will see that we observe there that it isn't really hands
and eyes that cause us to sin, but rather it is certainattitudes, the most
insidious of them being that God doesn'texpect us to do or believe anything
extreme, which keepus from the kingdom of heaven and all that goes with it.
If cutting off my hand really was the one thing keeping me from having
eternal life, then obviously it would be stupid of me not to do it. And so the
point Jesus was making was not an exaggerationatall. He meant it exactly
the wayhe said it. Until we stoplaughing at it as being ridiculous and get
deadly serious about what it is saying, we will never truly appreciate whathe
was saying.
Then there is the secondillustration, which is that, if we had eventhe smallest
measure of faith, we would be able to tell trees and mountains to move and
they would move. Just as people HAVE cut off hands in order to save lives,
people have moved trees and even moved mountains when they have put their
minds (and backs and explosives and earth-moving equipment) to it. So we
are not talking about impossibilities here. Of course, neither are we talking
about a command. We are talking about a promise, and that promise is
illustrated by something which sounds quite impossible. We are talking about
whether or not faith can cause us to do things that, at leaston the surface,
appear to be impossible. Every story you have everread of amazing
achievements made by human beings has one common theme: They believed
in something strongly enough to do it. Faith is the source ofevery great
achievement... evenif it is just faith in one's self. But faith in God is, by far,
the greatestsourceofstrength, because it even looks deathin the eye and
comes out victorious. (Eternal life, remember?) There is no exaggerationin
what Jesus has said about faith. He is quite right in saying that if you have
faith, you will be able to do anything. ExactlyWHAT you do will depend on
where your faith lies, and what God is telling you to do, but the possibilities
are, in fact (and without exaggeration)totally limitless.

Finally we come to that simple little command which Jesus sets up as the basic
requirement for all of his followers, i.e. that we must give up everything that
we own. In other places he has expressedit in even more detailedterms, i.e.
that we sell whateverwe own, and that we give the proceeds to the poor.
Extreme? Yes. But nowhere near as extreme as telling you that after you die,
after your dead body has decayedand turned to dust, God is going to bring
you back to life and give you a new body, one that will live forever. If you can
believe in a God who cando that, can't you believe in a God who canfeed you
without you having to spend your life working for money? Can't you believe
in a God who can clothe you without you having to build biggerand bigger
wardrobes to hold all the clothes that you own? In following this command,
we have experienced a relationship with God that is not just pie in the sky
when we die. We have seenhis hand working in our lives day after day,
proving that he was not exaggerating whenhe told us to forsake everything
that we own.
In this article, we startedout with some teachings that people have dismissed
as hyperbole, because theyfound them too difficult to take seriously. We
showedthat talk about eternallife is equally fantastic, and yet it is the hope of
Christian believers around the world. And then we returned to those extreme
teachings of Jesus and showedthem to be not exaggerations atall, but serious
expressions ofthe extreme nature of all that Jesus stoodfor. Surely, if we
would spend less time ridiculing the teachings ofJesus as "exaggerations",
and more time taking him seriously, then even those fantastic promises about
eternal life may turn out to be more than fairy tales too.
https://www.jesuschristians.com/recent-articles/25-strong-meat-recent-
articles/679-exaggerations-of-jesus

Jesus was well-knownfor speaking if figures of speech, whichthe disciples
bluntly state in John 16:29, "Yes, now you are speaking plainly, not in any
figure of speech."
However, to what extent did Jesus speak in figures of speech?
First of All, What are Figures of Speech?
Figures of speechare literary tools used to communicate more effectively, and
they are often heavily dependent on culture.
For example, to communicate that someone thinks they are special, a speaker
might say they think they are "allthat, and a bag of chips" (US-English) or
they think they are "God's gift to the world" (US) or in Spanish (Mexico)they
think they are "the last Coca-colain the desert." This particular figure of
speechis calledan idiom, where the interpreted meaning is different than the
literal meaning of the words themselves. The person does not literally believe
they are a bag of chips or a Coca-cola;rather, they think they are special.
Eachculture will have their own wayof communicating this idea, and it may
seemweird to someone from a different culture.
Examples of Jesus Using Figures of Speech
Jesus Uses Parables
Jesus is well-knownfor teaching with parables, which are a form of figure of
speech. Examples include:
Sheepand Goats
GoodSamaritan

Unforgiving Servant
Jesus Uses Idioms
Jesus also usedidioms, which is when the understood meaning of the words
are not the same of the literal meaning.
As an additional example of an idiom, in order to communicate "telling a
secret" someone might say "spill the beans" (US) or "letthe catout of the
bag" (US) or "to leak" (UK). The speakerdoesn'tliterally mean to spill beans,
let a cat out of a bag, or to leak. Theymean "tella secret."
An example of Jesus using idioms is in Luke 14:26, when Jesus says,
"Whoevercomes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and
children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple."
We canknow Jesus is using an idiom because Jesusis recordedas making
almost the same statement in Matthew 10:37, "Whoeverloves father or
mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoeverloves sonor daughter
more than me is not worthy of me..."
While Jesus is recordedas using the word hate in Luke 14:26, we can see that
his actualmeaning differs from the literal meaning of the words. Jesus is
referring to loving others more than him.
In addition, if Jesus literally means hate, then he is contradicting everything
else he has taught. However, Matthew 10:37 above clarifies what Jesus means.
Jesus Exaggerates
Probably the most misunderstood figure of speechthat Jesus uses is
exaggeration. Examples include:
"You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!" (Matthew
23:24)

"Then Petercame and saidto him, 'Lord, if another member of the church
sins againstme, how often should I forgive? As many as seven times?'Jesus
said to him, 'Notseven times, but, I tell you, seventy-seventimes.'" (Matthew
18:21-22)
"If your right eye causes youto sin, tear it out and throw it away;it is better
for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown
into hell." (Matthew 5:29)
Jesus does not mean that they are literally swallowing a camel. He is
exaggerating to emphasize his point that the Pharisees "have neglectedthe
weightiermatters of the law: justice and mercy and faith." (Matthew 23:23)
Likewise, Jesusdoes not literally mean that we should forgive only until the
78th time. Ratherhe means we should forgive as many times as necessary.
Peteris proposing what he thinks is a large number of times to forgive
someone. Jesusthen proposes a significantly larger number to communicate:
as many times as necessary.
For Matthew 5:29, Jesus also does notliterally mean we should mutilate our
bodies to prevent sin. Our bodies do not cause sin; rather our selfishness
causes sin. Jesus is not advocating mutilation of the body, and Paul opposes
this idea in Colossians 2:23 saying that "severe treatmentof the body" has
"no value in checking self-indulgence." Similarto much of what Jesus teaches,
he speaks oftenabout the spiritual when he discussesthe physical.
Jesus Uses Sarcasm
Jesus evenuses sarcasmas a figure of speech. He calls the pharisees, "You
snakes, youbrood of vipers!" multiple times. (Examples include Matthew
12:34 and Matthew 23:33)
And Jesus calls Herod a fox in Luke 13:31-32.
In Matthew 15:26, Jesus basicallycalls the Canaanite woman a dog.

Jesus was Sinless
Even while Jesus was sinless and perfect, he used figures of speechto more
effectively communicate to his audience. This reveals a characteristic ofGod's
love, that he communicates to us in ways we will understand.
God is omniscient, which means that he understands everything, including all
cultures and cultural meanings. Often figures of speechare able to
communicate messageswith more powerthan using words with literal
meanings.
Which is more effective? "Youneglectthe important part of the law?" or
"You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!" (Matthew 23:24)
The visual createdby the figure of speechdelivers a much more powerful
message. The idea of swallowing a camelcomparedto straining out a tiny
insecthighlights the disparity betweenthe parts of the law the Pharisees chose
to keepversus the parts of the law they neglected.
https://www.messiah-of-god.com/weekly-sermon-jesus-exaggerate.html
Did Jesus EverExaggerate?
May 24, 2010 | Justin Taylor
Share

Mostof the time we intuitively recognize hyperbole—whena writer or
speakerconsciouslyoverstates something for emotionaleffect. For example, if
your kid says that everyone at schoolis laughing at him, or if your wife says
that you never take out the garbage, it doesn’tdo any goodtrying to prove
that there are exceptions to the statement. To do so misses the point.
But reading the Bible—especiallythe words of Jesus—canmake this a bit
more tricky. When is Jesus speaking hyperbolicallyand when is he to be
understood literalistically? [Note, I’m not using “literalistically” in a
pejorative sense in this context.]
Compounding the difficulty is that determining that a statementis hyperbole
is not an excuse to bypass the foundational, underlying truth being conveyed.
We must still allow the words to make their intended emotional impact.
In his new book, 40 Questions about Interpreting the Bible, Robert Plummer
provides some goodguidelines for identifying hyperbole (pp. 220-226). (He’s
drawing here from Robert Stein’s work, A Basic Guide to Interpreting the
Bible: Playing by the Rules.)
These are helpful in thinking through various verses, evenif you don’t agree
with every exegeticalexample.
The statementis literally impossible [e.g., Matt. 19:24; Matt. 6:3; Matt. 7:3-5]
The statementconflicts with what Jesus says elsewhere[compare Matt. 23:9
with Matt. 19:19;see also Matt. 6:6; Luke 14:26]
The statementconflicts with the actions of Jesus elsewhere [compare Luke
14:26 and Mark 7:9-13; John 19:26-27]
The statementconflicts with the broader teaching of Scripture (e.g., cf. Matt.
5:33-37 with 2 Cor. 11:31; Gal. 1:20; Phil. 1:8).
The statementis not always literally fulfilled in practice (e.g., Mark 13:2;
Mark 11:22-24).
The statement’s literal fulfillment would not achieve the desired goals (cf.
Matt. 5:29-30).

The statementuses a particularly literary form prone to exaggeration(e.g.,
proverbs, poetry, and prophecy; see 2 Sam. 1:23).
The statementuses all-inclusive or universal language (e.g., Col. 1:23;cf.
Rom. 15:20)
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/did-jesus-ever-
exagerrate/
Exaggerations ofJesus?
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/exaggerations-of-jesus.7830974/
Discussionin 'Non-denominational' started by tremble, Jul 5, 2014.
Private
Found this while browsing the other day and thought others might be inspired
by it like I was.
------------------------------------------
Exaggerations ofJesus
The argument is often given to us that Jesus purposely over-statedsome
things in order to grab people's attention, and that he never intended for us to
take him literally when he was doing that. In this article, I will considerthree
classic illustrations of this argument, and then I will add a fourth, which, I
believe, exposes the lie in the first three. Finally, I will return to the first three
arguments with a vastly different approach.
The most common passagereferredto when arguing that Jesus never meant
for us to take him literally is where he says that if our eye offends us we
should pluck it out, or if our hand offends us, we should cut it off. Obviously,

there are very few (if any) Christians walking around with a missing eye or
hand because they took this instruction seriously. If that is true, and if we
have never done such a thing ourselves, thenit must be that Jesus never
meant for people to take this literally. Sounds reasonable, doesn'tit?
Then there is the passagewhere Jesus says that, if we have even the smallest
measure of faith, we will be able to tell a tree (or even a mountain) to be
plucked up and tossedinto the ocean, and it will obey us. Once again, where is
there anyone who has ever done such things? And what would be the point of
it if they had? Jesus wasn'texactly talking nonsense, but he certainly was not
expecting anyone to take that literally, was he? Once again, the conclusionis
that it was just hyperbole... an exaggerationto make a point.
And finally, there is the passagethat we have takenso literally over the years,
which is that we must forsake everything that we own if we want to be
followers of Jesus. (Luke 14:33 ) With this one, there are a few people,
ourselves included, who have tried to take it literally. But the end result is that
we are seenby virtually everyone else as being fanatics for doing so... people
who just went too far. All Jesus was reallytalking about was just a need for all
of us to keepan eye on our attachment to things and not let them get out of
hand.
Okay, so those are the three examples that I said I would give. But what of the
fourth example? The one I promised to give, in an attempt to refute the claims
relating to the first three? The fourth one is where Jesus (repeatedly)talks
about giving us eternal life.
Those churches and believers who ridicule so much of what Jesus saidstill
seemto take him seriouslywhen he talks about eternal life. Why? Isn't it
because they cannever be proven wrong on this one? Isn't it because they

have devised their own systems of beliefs and rules which dangle the carrotof
eternal life in front of congregations allover the world without the various
preachers everhaving to prove that this incredible promise is true? Surely if
talk about flying mountains and missing limbs is exaggeration, thentalk about
living forever must be the most incredible fantasyever devised.
In fact, if you return to the first illustration above, you will observe that the
very point Jesus was trying to make with what he said about cutting off hands
and plucking out eyes was that, if eternallife is a reality, then even losing a
limb in order to obtain it is a small price to pay. If you read our article "Cut
Off Your Hand!" you will see that we observe there that it isn't really hands
and eyes that cause us to sin, but rather it is certainattitudes, the most
insidious of them being that God doesn'texpect us to do or believe anything
extreme, which keepus from the kingdom of heaven and all that goes with it.
If cutting off my hand really was the one thing keeping me from having
eternal life, then obviously it would be stupid of me not to do it. And so the
point Jesus was making was not an exaggerationatall. He meant it exactly the
way he said it. Until we stop laughing at it as being ridiculous and getdeadly
serious about what it is saying, we will never truly appreciate what he was
saying.
Then there is the secondillustration, which is that, if we had eventhe smallest
measure of faith, we would be able to tell trees and mountains to move and
they would move. Just as people HAVE cut off hands in order to save lives,
people have moved trees and even moved mountains when they have put their
minds (and backs and explosives and earth-moving equipment) to it. So we
are not talking about impossibilities here. Of course, neither are we talking
about a command. We are talking about a promise, and that promise is
illustrated by something which sounds quite impossible. We are talking about
whether or not faith can cause us to do things that, at leaston the surface,
appear to be impossible. Every story you have ever read of amazing
achievements made by human beings has one common theme: They believed

in something strongly enough to do it. Faith is the source of every great
achievement... evenif it is just faith in one's self. But faith in God is, by far,
the greatestsourceofstrength, because it even looks deathin the eye and
comes out victorious. (Eternal life, remember?) There is no exaggerationin
what Jesus has said about faith. He is quite right in saying that if you have
faith, you will be able to do anything. Exactly WHAT you do will depend on
where your faith lies, and what God is telling you to do, but the possibilities
are, in fact (and without exaggeration)totally limitless.
Finally we come to that simple little command which Jesus sets up as the basic
requirement for all of his followers, i.e. that we must give up everything that
we own. In other places he has expressedit in even more detailed terms, i.e.
that we sell whateverwe own, and that we give the proceeds to the poor.
Extreme? Yes. But nowhere near as extreme as telling you that after you die,
after your dead body has decayedand turned to dust, God is going to bring
you back to life and give you a new body, one that will live forever. If you can
believe in a God who cando that, can't you believe in a God who canfeed you
without you having to spend your life working for money? Can't you believe
in a God who can clothe you without you having to build biggerand bigger
wardrobes to hold all the clothes that you own? In following this command,
we have experienced a relationship with God that is not just pie in the sky
when we die. We have seenhis hand working in our lives day after day,
proving that he was not exaggerating whenhe told us to forsake everything
that we own.
In this article, we startedout with some teachings that people have dismissed
as hyperbole, because theyfound them too difficult to take seriously. We
showedthat talk about eternallife is equally fantastic, and yet it is the hope of
Christian believers around the world. And then we returned to those extreme
teachings of Jesus and showedthem to be not exaggerations atall, but serious
expressions ofthe extreme nature of all that Jesus stoodfor. Surely, if we
would spend less time ridiculing the teachings ofJesus as "exaggerations",

and more time taking him seriously, then even those fantastic promises about
eternal life may turn out to be more than fairy tales too.
Christian
Single
Hi Tremble,
Thanks for posting that article. I think some of the things Jesus said(e.g.
cutting off one's hand in preference to hell fire) are a bit hard to swallow. But,
as the article alluded to, it doesn't mean He wasn'tserious when He saidthem.
I think a lot of people get confusedby the literal vs symbolic approachto
understanding the Bible. Unless we are sincere, it is easyto apply the wrong
approachat the wrong time, e.g. to take a symbolic interpretation when a
literal meaning was intended, or vice versa. Bible prophecy would be an
example of one area where this occurs fairly frequently.
Anyway, I think it's important for people to question why they interpret
different teachings the way they do. Becauseofour human nature, it is easyto
fall for the allure of convenient doctrines, and miss out on the truth as a
result. But an honest approachto scriptural interpretation tries to limit biases
and assumptions, and looks forconsistencyand spiritual lessons as well.
For example, if Jesus saidwe must forsake allour possessions, andwe see that
His disciples did it, and then we see againthat the first apostles in the church
of Acts did it, it would representconsistentsupport for a literal interpretation
of that teaching. We have to apply that same approachto pretty much all

scriptural teachings if we want to find the truth. Otherwise we're likely to just
hear what we want to hear when it comes to various teachings.
Gibs
Newbie
Christian
Married
Jesus neverexaggeratedanything, it is people that exaggeratewhatHe has
said. That then leads to the apostasyin the church structures.
1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because
greateris he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
Like x 1 List
Non-Denom
Private
Gibs said: ↑
Jesus neverexaggeratedanything, it is people that exaggeratewhatHe has
said. That then leads to the apostasyin the church structures.

I agree, Jesuswasn'texaggerating, but it becomes a convenient doctrine for
people to claim that he was exaggerating, to avoid applying those teachings to
their own lives while still claiming to be a follower.
Some people even saythat Jesus was deliberatelyextreme so that we would
understand that he didn't want us trying to apply his teachings. Theyclaim
we're not supposedto try these teachings for ourselves because being extreme
doesn't fit with comfortable respectability.
Bramwell
Newbie
Christian
Single
I would also be curious to hear, Gibs, any specific examples you had in mind
of people exaggerating Jesus'teachings. I think it would help me better
understand the point you are trying to make. Thanks in advance.
Gibs
Newbie
Christian
Married

Bramwell,
Jesus is the Way the Truth and the life. He made the way and made it clear
that all who will not be hurt of the seconddeathmust be overcomers.
One way exaggerationis done here way too many make it that Christ
overcame for them.
They have faith but we have a problem, it is faith based on presumption and
that is not valid. Salvation is made so liberalized by them that all it takes they
say is just believe.
Sorry but the devils will burn in the hell of fire and they sure believe, but they
want to take as many with them as they can and are succeeding with far too
many.
Bramwell
Newbie
Christian
Single

Thanks for that further explanation, Gibs. I guess you are saying that people
exaggerateJesus'teachings aboutsalvation, saying we need only 'believe' and
that works are not necessary. Iwould agree with you on this point. Too many
Christians purport a "false grace"theologywhichis not in fact supported by
scripture.
It's also noteworthythat most of these same individuals have a short list of
works which one still must do to qualify for salvation. Usually these works
include things like saying the sinner's prayer, attending a church every week,
not drinking alcoholor swearing, etc. Byputting such demands onto believers,
they are essentiallypromoting works as a means to salvation themselves. The
biggestdifference is that they works they emphasize are not actually ones
commanded by Jesus. If we're going to try to follow God, it's bestfor us to
follow the actualteachings of the MasterHimself.
ForJesusChrist
FollowerofChrist
Christian
Single
I don't think Jesus was exaggerating. Its just that none of us have the guts to
do it. We want our faith to be beneficial for us and enjoyable, when in reality,
our lives are for God.
Was there ever a time Jesus saidHe was lying? Jesus always made it clear
when He was using a parable to explain something. If He didn't use a parable,
I don't believe He was lying.

BryanW92
Calvinist
Married
US-Others
ForJesusChristsaid: ↑
I don't think Jesus was exaggerating. Its just that none of us have the guts to
do it. We want our faith to be beneficial for us and enjoyable, when in reality,
our lives are for God.
Was there ever a time Jesus saidHe was lying? Jesus always made it clear
when He was using a parable to explain something. If He didn't use a parable,
I don't believe He was lying.
God Bless
If "none of us have the guts to do it", and you are quite correctthere, then
what was Jesus'purpose? Why would God create an impossible standard
AGAIN that he knew no one could follow. Even the people whom we consider
to be greatChristians, such as Mother Theresa, JohnWesley, Billy Graham,
all admit to being less than perfect and I believe they aren't saying that out of
false humility.
So, we agree that perfectionis nearly impossible (Wesleysaid it was possible,
but he only knew a few people who had acheivedit. Graham says its not
possible on this side of heaven.) and many people here say than anything less

is worthless, then why did God bother? Was it just a grand joke he played on
humanity, like Lucy and Charlie Brownwith the football?
"Here's a Garden. Enjoy! Stay awayfrom the enticing tree in the center!"
"How long can you tread water?"
"Here's Ten Commandments. Goodluck keeping those!LOL."
"Here's my son. He's going to give you commands that you can't keep. He's
going to die for you, but only for the one in a million who can be perfect.
Remember that you are comitting adultery just by having a lustful thought!
#YOLO. Yeah, really. Once is all you sinners are going to get!"
"Here's heaven. None of you are goodenough for it. Into the lake of burning
fire with you!"
Can you see whata joke people make of God by insisting that he sent Jesus to
just tell us to be perfect? His statements of the ideal were backedup by his
actions to washus in his blood, preciselybecause we can't live up to his ideal!
He didn't need to die on the cross forpeople who canbecome perfect. He died
for people who can't be perfect, but believe on him.
Christian
I don't believe Jesus intended us to be perfect, but I do believe he wants us to
try. There's a balance here. Ultimately we are saved by grace, but God's not
going to give us that grace if we refuse to believe his son. If we believe Jesus,

we will believe the things he said, and we will want to do them. If we don't
believe, we will say it's too hard and convince ourselves that God can't expect
us to follow the teachings ofJesus.
Private
BryanW92 said: ↑
If "none of us have the guts to do it", and you are quite correctthere, then
what was Jesus'purpose? Why would God create an impossible standard
AGAIN that he knew no one could follow.
It's not impossible to try. Quitters don't build the Kingdom of Heaven.
Overcomers do.
Even the people whom we considerto be greatChristians, such as Mother
Theresa, JohnWesley, Billy Graham, all admit to being less than perfect and I
believe they aren't saying that out of false humility.
Admitting to our faults is an important part of showing remorse. How did you
come to see it instead as a reasonto believe we should stop trying?
So, we agree that perfectionis nearly impossible (Wesleysaid it was possible,
but he only knew a few people who had acheivedit.
God's desire is for us to not sin. I believe Jesus told his followers to be perfect
because that is the expectationand it needed to be made clear. Godhas
standards and making mistakes is not a goodenough reasonto lowerthe
standard. However, grace is there for us when we try and fail; it is not an
excuse to stop trying for God's best.

Grace is there to let us know that we are not condemned when we fail. We
have a reasonto try again. It's there to give us confidence in our walk with
God, to take risks and try new things in our efforts to grow closerto him.
Remember the parable of the talents (mt 25:13-30). The first two servants
took risks and were fruitful in their efforts to follow their master's instruction
to be fruitful.
The third servant was fearful of failure and so he did nothing to act on his
master's instructions, though he had convincedhimself that his "concerns"
were reasonable.
Even the little that he had remaining was takenawayfrom him. No amount of
grace in all of Heaven will save a personwho gives up trying.
"Here's a Garden. Enjoy! Stay awayfrom the enticing tree in the center!"
"How long can you tread water?"
"Here's Ten Commandments. Goodluck keeping those!LOL."
Sure, as human beings we have a terrible time controlling ourselves and often
the circumstances seemstackedagainstus in unfair ways, but God still has
the right to make demands. If we fail, then the we should be asking him to
show us how to keephis instructions. It's not okayto start teaching that he
must have never meant for us to obey him in the first place just because we
sometimes struggle with failure.

We should definitely not listen to teachings whichencourage us to stoptrying
even if they sound spiritual, or respectable or they come from our friends or
family or our pastors or anyone. We need to resistthe convenience of
arguments which excuse us from Jesus'standards for citizenship in the
Kingdom of Heaven.
"Here's my son. He's going to give you commands that you can't keep. He's
going to die for you, but only for the one in a million who can be perfect.
Remember that you are comitting adultery just by having a lustful thought!
#YOLO. Yeah, really. Once is all you sinners are going to get!"
It is not scriptural that Jesus saidor even hinted in any way that we cannot
keephis instructions. In fact, the opposite is true. There are many examples of
Jesus being quite clearthat he expects us to act on his instructions.
Can you see whata joke people make of God by insisting that he sent Jesus to
just tell us to be perfect?
But he didn't come just to tell us to be perfect. He gave us instructions and
guidelines on how to change our behaviour to conform with God's idea of
perfection.
And he gave us Jesus'sacrificeonthe cross to show us that, while God is
willing to offer grace, he still considers sin wrong and demanded justice for it.
He didn't lowerhis standards even for his own son.
How can we now complain that his standards are too hard and unrealistic?
Even with grace available, obedience is still too unpopular.

His statements of the ideal were backedup by his actions to washus in his
blood, preciselybecause we can't live up to his ideal! He didn't need to die on
the cross forpeople who canbecome perfect. He died for people who can't be
perfect, but believe on him.
You sayyou believe "on" him while at the same time you teachthat it is
impossible to do what he askedus to do. It sounds so much like, "surelyyou
will not die".
Christian
tremble said: ↑
Found this while browsing the other day and thought others might be inspired
by it like I was.
------------------------------------------
Exaggerations ofJesus
Jesus didn't exaggerate anything, He clarified.
For any who think they have what it takes to make themselves acceptable to a
perfect God, the sermon on the mount makes it clearthey do not. The
standard is perfection. How perfect? As perfect as the Fatherin Heaven. If
that doesn't bury you, then the law still hasn't done its work in your life.
Non-Denom
Private
Steeno7 said: ↑
Jesus didn't exaggerate anything, He clarified.

For any who think they have what it takes to make themselves acceptable to a
perfect God, the sermon on the mount makes it clearthey do not. The
standard is perfection. How perfect? As perfect as the Fatherin Heaven. If
that doesn't bury you, then the law still hasn't done its work in your life.
Can you be a bit more clear?
But whateverit is you mean, I'm happy that you mentioned the sermon on the
mount. At the end of the sermon, Jesus told a story about a wise man and a
foolish man. Both men heard the teachings of Jesus, but only the wise man
actedon those teachings and as a result he was saved.
The foolishman did not acton Jesus'teachings and as a result he was
destroyed.
It is foolish to create doctrines which teachus not to acton Jesus'teachings.
Christian
tremble said: ↑
Can you be a bit more clear?
But whateverit is you mean, I'm happy that you mentioned the sermon on the
mount. At the end of the sermon, Jesus told a story about a wise man and a
foolish man. Both men heard the teachings of Jesus, but only the wise man
actedon those teachings and as a result he was saved.

The foolishman did not acton Jesus'teachings and as a result he was
destroyed.
It is foolish to create doctrines which teachus not to acton Jesus'teachings.
Click to expand...
The wise personteaches the "goodnews" ofwhat Jesus has accomplishedfor
us. The foolishperson teaches, “ everyone who hears these words of mine and
puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock” , as
if that is goodnews.
Christian
Married
No Jesus did not exaggerateanything is correct, it is man that exaggerates
what Jesus has said and taught.
Also when it comes to perfection, we are to become perfect here in our sphere
as He showedus here on earth as one of us. You must know that He did not
overcome Satanas God but as a man and yet taking our fallen nature upon
Himself.
Readand comprehend these verses,
Col 1:26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from
generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

Col 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of
this mystery among the Gentiles;which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
Col 1:28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all
wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:
Ro 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,
God sending his own Son in the likeness ofsinful flesh, and for sin,
condemned sin in the flesh:
Yes, that verse rings out true because He inherited our natures from His
mother which was in the area of 4,000 yrs. after the fall~
Private
Steeno7 said: ↑
The wise personteaches the "goodnews" ofwhat Jesus has accomplishedfor
us. The foolishperson teaches, “ everyone who hears these words of mine and
puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock” , as
if that is goodnews.
MT 7:24 Therefore whosoeverheareththese sayings of mine, and doeth them,
I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
MT 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew,
and beat upon that house;and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
MT 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them
not, shall be likenedunto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

MT 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew,
and beat upon that house;and it fell: and greatwas the fall of it.
Click to expand...
We should not believe people who tell us that we don't need to obey Jesus.
Steeno7
Christian
tremble said: ↑
We should not believe people who tell us that we don't need to obey Jesus.
It is only those who live by faith in Jesus who are obeying Him.
Christian
Single
The issue I have about the forsaking ofpossessions is that it leads to all sorts
of absurdities. If Jesus thinks possessions are bad by the letter of the law, I'm
very inclined to think the borrowing or even use of possessions wouldbe bad
as well by the spirit of the law. However, in the Bible, we see a completely
different picture. The disciples used boats and stayed at people's houses all the
time. There is no asceticismfound in the gospels orActs. They still had fairly
comfortable lives. I find it rather arbitrary that I can go to a library and fulfill
God's purposes, but I can't actually OWN one. Let's look at some other
passagesin scripture:
Jesus evensays to use money to accomplishGod's will:

Luke 16:9-11 (WEB) "tell you, make for yourselves friends by means of
unrighteous mammon, so that when you fail, they may receive you into the
eternal tents. 10 He who is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much. He
who is dishonestin a very little is also dishonestin much. 11 If therefore you
have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your
trust the true riches?"
Jesus told his disciples to buy a sword:
Luke 22:36 (WEB) "Then he said to them, “Butnow, whoeverhas a
purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet. Whoeverhas none, let him sell his
cloak, and buy a sword."
Acts 2:44-46, (WEB)"All who believed were together, and had all things in
common. 45 They sold their possessionsand goods, and distributed them to
all, according as anyone had need. 46 Day by day, continuing steadfastlywith
one accordin the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food
with gladness and singleness ofheart."
Acts 4:32 (WEB) "The multitude of those who believed were of one heart and
soul. Notone of them claimed that anything of the things which he possessed
was his own, but they had all things in common."
That being said, I don't think the claim to sell all is absolute in extent, nor is
Jesus advocating some sortof asceticism. Ithink Jesus wants us to use our
money and possessions to serve him, as well as have the necessitiesoflife. I'm
certain, at leastfor me, to sell my useless toys and stuff I don't use or really
need, and use that money to help others

I don't think the command applies to everyone in the same wayat the same
time, however.
BryanW92
US-Others
The word "exaggeration"is a bit extreme. Someone evenused the word
"lying".
Jesus was a rabbi, a teacher.
When I was in the Navy, I serveda tour as an instructor where I taught
people in their late teens and early 20s to operate a nuclear reactor. We had
an operating reactorto train them on and they actually did that after about 7
months of classroomtraining.
As an instructor, you know that you must teachthe ideal always. If you teach
the shortcut, people will take that as the ideal and then invent a new shortcut.
With nuclear power, this is not a goodidea.
So, I taught the ideal in the classroomand I demonstrated the ideal on the
critical reactorplant. As an instructor, I would never let a student see me
taking a shortcut. Even when a student would see an obviously easierwayto
do something, I would caution him that he can do whateverhe wants when he
graduated and moves to his boat, but at this plant, we do it by the book every
time.

Mostof the deep discussions found in the gospels are Jesus, the rabbi, taking
to his disciples/students. He always taught them the ideal. He taught them to
operate by the book, knowing what would happen after he was gone.
He never said, "Don't bother doing this right because Iknow you won''t."
That is not how a goodteacherteaches.But a goodteacherknows that after
the student leaves the classroom, theywill find an easierway that will yield
the same results. They also know that some will take too many shortcuts and
will fail and return to what they learned in class--the ideal.
In summary, a teacheralways teaches the ideal, knowing that the student will
find an easierway. A student will always look for the easyway, but
remembers that the ideal way did work every time. An equilibrium will
always be found, and the Good News is that Grace canbe found at the
equilibrium point just as much as it is found at the ideal.
Christian
BryanW92 said: ↑
The word "exaggeration"is a bit extreme. Someone evenused the word
"lying".
Jesus was a rabbi, a teacher.
When I was in the Navy, I serveda tour as an instructor where I taught
people in their late teens and early 20s to operate a nuclear reactor. We had
an operating reactorto train them on and they actually did that after about 7
months of classroomtraining.

As an instructor, you know that you must teachthe ideal always. If you teach
the shortcut, people will take that as the ideal and then invent a new shortcut.
With nuclear power, this is not a goodidea.
So, I taught the ideal in the classroomand I demonstrated the ideal on the
critical reactorplant. As an instructor, I would never let a student see me
taking a shortcut. Even when a student would see an obviously easierwayto
do something, I would caution him that he can do whateverhe wants when he
graduated and moves to his boat, but at this plant, we do it by the book every
time.
Mostof the deep discussions found in the gospels are Jesus, the rabbi, taking
to his disciples/students. He always taught them the ideal. He taught them to
operate by the book, knowing what would happen after he was gone.
He never said, "Don't bother doing this right because Iknow you won''t."
That is not how a goodteacherteaches.But a goodteacherknows that after
the student leaves the classroom, theywill find an easierway that will yield
the same results. They also know that some will take too many shortcuts and
will fail and return to what they learned in class--the ideal.
In summary, a teacheralways teaches the ideal, knowing that the student will
find an easierway. A student will always look for the easyway, but
remembers that the ideal way did work every time. An equilibrium will
always be found, and the Good News is that Grace canbe found at the
equilibrium point just as much as it is found at the ideal.
Click to expand...

Except it's not an "ideal" it's a requirement, a demand that must be met.
When you cheapenthe law, reducing its demand for perfection, you rob it of
its power to lead to Christ.
What Jesus was doing was using the law properly, to prepare our hearts for
the goodnews of God’ s grace. Jesus is saying you can either trust your own
law-keeping performance or you cantrust His. But what you can’ t do is
dilute the law to some standard lowerthan perfection and think that
impresses God.
Jesus ShockedPeople
Jesus oftenusedhyperbole. He taught using outrageous examples,
exaggerations, orshocking statements thatgotpeople’s attention. These
statements were notallmeant to be takenliterally, but they definitely gotthe
point across.
Forexample, Jesus didn’t reallymean we have to rip out our eyes and
amputate our hands for causing us to sin (Matthew 5:29-30), orelse all
Christians would be blind amputees.
He also didn’t meanthat the people he spoke to literally had logs in their eyes
(Matthew 7:3-5). Jesus wassimplymaking a very clearpoint. Jesus saidthings
that shockedpeople andexaggeratedthe truth to emphasize His point.
If you wantto preachlike Jesus, Shockpeople. Exaggerate a little with your
questions. Sayoutrageous things thataren’t meant to be literal, but grab
attention and communicate the point clearly.
https://factsandtrends.net/2014/03/10/6-preaching-methods-jesus-used-
that-you-should-too/

A Prayer
of Jesus
I thank thee, Father, Lordofheavenand earth, that thou hasthidden these
things from the wise
and understanding and revealedthem to babes; yea, Father, forsuchwas thy
gracious will
THE EXTREME LANGUAGE
OF JESUS IN LUKE 14:26
By EdgarJones
Luke 14:26 is one ofthe mostnotable examples of extreme language inthe
utterances ofJesus, andone thatis frequently setforth for comment. Iuse it
here as a typical example ofmany suchutterances that seemso extreme, on
first reading, thatone is inclined to the immediate response, "He can'tmean
that!" Here is the utterance:
Luke.14
[26] Ifanyone comes to me and does nothate his ownfather and mother and
wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, andevenhis own life, he cannot
be my disciple.
You see? He can'tmean that, canhe?

Skeptics love this utterance and interpret it literally because theysee it, quite
correctly, as contradictoryto allthe things that Christians promote: love of
neighbor, family values, respectforparents, andthe like. Theylove it because
they see it as showing the absurdity of the teaching ofJesus andthe hypocrisy
of Christiandoctrine that touts family values in the name of sucha teacher.
They tend to see Jesus as meaning exactlywhathe said and don't question this
evaluation. To do so wouldnotserve their agenda.
Christians hate this utterance and wish to high heavenit would go away! So, to
this end, they do all in their powerto keepit out of sightand hearing. Butthere
it is! Theyare forced, byquestioning parishioners, to visit it. Therefore many
have soughtto softenthe language byclassifying it as a rhetorical device. They
explain that Jesus does notmeanexactlywhathe says, butis using extreme
language onlyto stress a point, typical ofthe ancient oriental orNearEastern
mindset that tended to see things as eitherblack orwhite. Itis, they say, an
case ofSemitic hyperbole.
What? Don'task me. Ihad to go look itup; you cantoo! Us redneck (one
word) countrygoodol' boys don't have much use forsuch words.
A Christianposition that accepts the hardlanguage as literalbut softens its
applicationby confining it to those immediate disciples who were to
accompanyJesus onhis journey to Jerusalemis that of C. H. Dodd, a well
respectedChristianscholarofthe TwentiethCentury who was onthe faculty at
Cambridge University. Iselectthe following from his book, The Founderof
Christianity:
MostlikelyJesus deliberatelychose the harshand extreme language whichwe
find in Luke. It is in the tone of the occasion. He was calling forvolunteers who
renounce everything, renounce ("hate") life itself. And this renunciation oflife

is expressedagain, inthe most harshly realistic terms. To "carrythe cross" is
no mere metaphor. Crucifixion was the Romans’shortway with rebels. A
criminal condemned to this atrocious punishment was normallycompelledto
carry to the place ofexecutionthe crossbeamto whichhe was to be fastened.
Thatis the picture which the words ofJesus conjuredup in the minds of those
who heard him. Theywere to go to Jerusalemlike a processionofcondemned
criminals with halters round their necks. Suchwasto be the end ofthe journey
for him; he invited them to share it. "Canyoudrink the cup that I drink," he
asked, "andbe baptized with the baptism I am baptized with ?" "We can,"
they replied.
It should be noted that the callto "carrythe cross"is addressedto those who
volunteeredfor service ona particular occasion. Jesusdidnot expectall those
who had come to him in faith to accompanyhim on this desperate venture nor,
if they did not do so, did he meanto disqualify them for a part in the new
community. But the principle upon which the callis basedis a universal one:
"Whoevercaresforhis own safetyis lost; but if a man will let himself be lost
for my sake andforthe gospel, thatmanis safe."
By this means Doddwould relieve us ofthe need to apply this language to
ourselves, althoughit was meantto be takenliterally by the first disciples. But
we see immediatelythat this interpretation, that the language applies to the
special occasion(highlightedabove) is notvalid. How? Apparently Professor
Dodd chose to ignore the express specificationofthose to whomthese words
were address inLuke 16:25immediatelypreceding the utterance:
Luke.14
[25] Now greatmultitudes accompaniedhim, andhe turned and said to them,. .
..
Being addressedto the greatmultitudes that accompaniedhim, this must have
beena universal proclamation, notone applied only to a smallgroup and a
specific occasion. Prof. Dodddid acknowledgethis, to be sure, butthen
exemplified the universal aspectby reference to anotherutterance ofthe Lord

that omits the objectionable word, "hate." There are otherthings that
invalidate this interpretation but this one is adequate.
Another Christian position, one that softens the language, is thatofone who
publishes on the Web under the name of James Patrick Holding, who has an
article on Luke 14:26onhis Website, tektonics.org. OK, youcanask me, even
though I did have to go look it up as usual. Tektonis the New TestamentGreek
word, usedonly twice, to define the occupationofJosephandJesus, where itis
usually translatedcarpenter. Ithas more general meanings, suchas a
handworker, a workerinwood, one who assembles things, a craftsman. Itis a
word that Mr. Holding wellapplies to his site, craftyas he is!
Since I have mentioned Mr. Holding, I probably should also recognize the
honor he has accordedbyreferring to me directly in atleastsix different pages
on his site. He has one long paperwith an addendum dedicatedspecificallyto
my critique of Paul, in whichhe contends that I am lacking in scholarship.
Thank you, Mr. Holding! Letthere be no misconceptions here, forIwould be
ashamedto be a scholar. Iconsiderthis one of the greatestcompliments. It is
very gratifying to know my non scholarstatus shows!
Mr. Holding subscribes to the view that Luke 14:26is bestunderstoodas one of
those examples ofextreme language notto be takenliterally, but as hyperbole.
This may correct my first impressionof him, whichwas surelyin error. Ihad
thought that he might be a rather pompous individual, basedon his tendencyto
use the full name, James PatrickHolding, inbylines. Where Icome from, we
seldomare that formal (exceptatfunerals), preferring to referto our goodol'
boys by terms ofendearment suchas Billy Bob. Butnow, I see thatJames
Patrick Holding is only a rhetorical device, andwillhenceforth referto him as
Jimmy Pat. Myapologies, JimmyPat, formisjudging you. Now back to our
subject, andwe beginby asking:

Jesus was humorous

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jesus was humorous