|
|
Post by silver on Aug 19, 2013 22:04:23 GMT -5
I was very fortunate to find this early in my search because it isn't 'strain on' but 'strain out', which proves I wasn't listening perfectly growing up in the Episcopal church going to Sunday school each week. This is a much more significant and important Bible lesson than I'd realized.
Enjoy
September 13, 2009
You Strain Out a Gnat but Swallow a Camel
Jesus throws this accusation at the Pharisees in Matthew 23:23-24. Among the many condemnations he lays upon the religious leaders of the day, this one keeps sticking out in my mind.
He accuses them of paying meticulous detail to the laws regarding tithing 1/10th of their herb garden all the while neglecting matters of justice, mercy, and faithfulness. They would strain out their drink to make sure their was not a gnat they would accidentally consume (as a gnat was believed to be unclean). Yet they would swallow a camel in the process. Not literally of course, but they were focusing on a small issue to the neglect of the larger.
What was the larger issue? What was "the camel they were swallowing"? It's interesting that several comments I have seen regarding this reference will bring out the point that Jesus is addressing their neglect of bigger issues. But from there, they have inserted examples of bigger issues that have nothing to do with the "matters of justice, mercy, and faithfulness" that Jesus suggested.
As I grow in my understanding of Israel's role and purpose, it is clear that God chose them to be a blessing to the entire world (Genesis 12:1-3). In Isaiah 58, the people are rebuked for not living up to their call "to loose the chains of injustice...to set the oppressed free...to share your food with the hungry...to provide the poor wanderer with shelter..." and on and on the prophet goes. In fact, when you look at why Israel was sent into captivity, it is passages such as Isaiah 1 and 58 that highlight their failure to be the light to the world specifically in regards to justice, as the cause of their exile.
What I want to suggest is that Jesus was exposing their obsession of personal religion and piety to the neglect of the tangible transformation that was to be offered to the world around them.
Keep in mind Jesus said they should have done the former without neglecting the latter. (So as not to swing to the opposite extreme as many are doing today in their concern for social justice to the neglect of inner transformation).
Are we carrying on our own personal religious experiences/practices all the while neglecting matters that carry us out into the world to be a light in the darkness and address matters of injustice? To bring mercy to those who need to be shown mercy? To be faithful to the call that God placed on Israel, which has also been placed upon the church of Jesus Christ?
"You are the light of the world."
Let us not strain out gnats and swallow camels in the process. Our faith should change our own hearts, but it must also move out into the community and bring mercy, justice, and love to the entire world.
Indeed, God desires mercy not sacrifice. He requires of us to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with our God.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 19, 2013 22:30:08 GMT -5
Geez, I hope you're not turning born-again, Ag.
In any event, my take on such a phrase, is that such was Jesus' way of saying, 'you miss the forest for the trees'. Ancient languages had similar idioms like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 19, 2013 22:42:42 GMT -5
Geez, I hope you're not turning born-again, Ag. In any event, my take on such a phrase, is that such was Jesus' way of saying, 'you miss the forest for the trees'. Ancient languages had similar idioms like that. There is no such thing in my way of thinking. I was raised in the episcopal church, and I got a nice smattering of king james' bible version. I've learned a lot up through the years, having gone to bible studies and retreats with people here and there, and I think I learned and picked up enough of the 'good stuff' along the way. I'll always be a believer in/of Jesus and just because I talk about stuff I've read in the bible doesn't make me a bible thumper or born-again. Can 't someone just be really interested? Was there anything negative in the article I posted? |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 19, 2013 22:54:38 GMT -5
Geez, I hope you're not turning born-again, Ag. In any event, my take on such a phrase, is that such was Jesus' way of saying, 'you miss the forest for the trees'. Ancient languages had similar idioms like that. There is no such thing in my way of thinking. I was raised in the episcopal church, and I got a nice smattering of king james' bible version. I've learned a lot up through the years, having gone to bible studies and retreats with people here and there, and I think I learned and picked up enough of the 'good stuff' along the way. I'll always be a believer in/of Jesus and just because I talk about stuff I've read in the bible doesn't make me a bible thumper or born-again. Can 't someone just be really interested? Was there anything negative in the article I posted? No, I didn't see any negativity. I did see a bunch of subjective interpretation, however, which, since the stuff was even written, has only served to distort beyond all cognition what Jesus was really saying. And, the only way to even begin to grasp what he was saying, is by clearing out of your head and heart all that the Episcopal church taught you to believe. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 19, 2013 22:57:31 GMT -5
There is no such thing in my way of thinking. I was raised in the episcopal church, and I got a nice smattering of king james' bible version. I've learned a lot up through the years, having gone to bible studies and retreats with people here and there, and I think I learned and picked up enough of the 'good stuff' along the way. I'll always be a believer in/of Jesus and just because I talk about stuff I've read in the bible doesn't make me a bible thumper or born-again. Can 't someone just be really interested? Was there anything negative in the article I posted? No, I didn't see any negativity. I did see a bunch of subjective interpretation, however, which, since the stuff was even written, has only served to distort beyond all cognition what Jesus was really saying. And, the only way to even begin to grasp what he was saying, is by clearing out of your head and heart all that the Episcopal church taught you to believe. Hmm. I thought that article was pretty good....I mean it seemed based on history and politics - it made sense to me, what did you see in it that you felt/knew was distorted, and what did you think Jesus was really trying to say? |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 19, 2013 23:10:24 GMT -5
No, I didn't see any negativity. I did see a bunch of subjective interpretation, however, which, since the stuff was even written, has only served to distort beyond all cognition what Jesus was really saying. And, the only way to even begin to grasp what he was saying, is by clearing out of your head and heart all that the Episcopal church taught you to believe. Hmm. I thought that article was pretty good....I mean it seemed based on history and politics - it made sense to me, what did you see in it that you felt/knew was distorted, and what did you think Jesus was really trying to say? Mainly, the point of the article: Peeps who pride themselves on some sort of assumed professional interpretation of the Gospel often get so mired in the detail, that they fail to see the context. Again, the forest for the trees thing, which is what practically this entire chapter of Matthew is about. Read the chapter to get the context (bonus points if you can read the Latin. Double bonus points if you can read the Greek). Mainly, he's just pointing to the then-church leaders' hypocrisy. The modern day organized Christian churches do precisely the same thing, especially the Catholic church (like, for example, not eating meat on Fridays during Lent despite Jesus saying 'it's not what goes into a man's mouth that defiles him, but what comes out'; or calling their priests 'father', despite Jesus himself saying 'call no man father except He who is in the heavens'). They're missing the forest for the trees. They're not seeing the BIG picture, and by BIG picture, I mean not just the context of a chapter in the Bible, not even the context of the entire Bible itself, but the context of Beingness (or Oneness, or Intelligence, or Love, or whatever you want to call it). Life. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 19, 2013 23:19:41 GMT -5
Hmm. I thought that article was pretty good....I mean it seemed based on history and politics - it made sense to me, what did you see in it that you felt/knew was distorted, and what did you think Jesus was really trying to say? Mainly, the point of the article: Peeps who pride themselves on some sort of assumed professional interpretation of the Gospel often get so mired in the detail, that they fail to see the context. Again, the forest for the trees thing, which is what practically this entire chapter of Matthew is about. Read the chapter to get the context (bonus points if you can read the Latin. Double bonus points if you can read the Greek). Mainly, he's just pointing to the then-church leaders' hypocrisy. The modern day organized Christian churches do precisely the same thing, especially the Catholic church (like, for example, not eating meat on Fridays during Lent despite Jesus saying 'it's not what goes into a man's mouth that defiles him, but what comes out'; or calling their priests 'father', despite Jesus himself saying 'call no man father except He who is in the heavens'). They're missing the forest for the trees. They're not seeing the BIG picture, and by BIG picture, I mean not just the context of a chapter in the Bible, not even the context of the entire Bible itself, but the context of Beingness (or Oneness, or Intelligence, or Love, or whatever you want to call it). Life. Really nice work, Rev. Bear...seriously!!  |
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Aug 20, 2013 7:49:19 GMT -5
Geez, I hope you're not turning born-again, Ag. In any event, my take on such a phrase, is that such was Jesus' way of saying, 'you miss the forest for the trees'. Ancient languages had similar idioms like that. There is no such thing in my way of thinking. I was raised in the episcopal church, and I got a nice smattering of king james' bible version. I've learned a lot up through the years, having gone to bible studies and retreats with people here and there, and I think I learned and picked up enough of the 'good stuff' along the way. I'll always be a believer in/of Jesus and just because I talk about stuff I've read in the bible doesn't make me a bible thumper or born-again. Can 't someone just be really interested? Was there anything negative in the article I posted? Are you familiar with Anthony de Mello? You might like him. Jesuit priest, got banned by the church but in my opinion he does an excellent job of bridging east/west philosophies. It's weird for me to see that he's on the list of advaita teachers. I had no idea, back when I discovered him years ago. I just thought, hey this guy gets what Jesus actually meant... I wasn't raised with any religion - my parents left the church when I was too young to remember. In college I took a Bible-as-Literature course to fulfill a requirement. I was reading the New Testament for this course, and I decided to cut corners/save time, and just read Jesus' words and nothing else. As I was reading, I had an... experience. It was "beyond mind" so I will stop there. Of course many misinterpret or distort his teachings, but people do that with Niz and Buddha and other teachers too. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 20, 2013 8:00:01 GMT -5
There is no such thing in my way of thinking. I was raised in the episcopal church, and I got a nice smattering of king james' bible version. I've learned a lot up through the years, having gone to bible studies and retreats with people here and there, and I think I learned and picked up enough of the 'good stuff' along the way. I'll always be a believer in/of Jesus and just because I talk about stuff I've read in the bible doesn't make me a bible thumper or born-again. Can 't someone just be really interested? Was there anything negative in the article I posted? Are you familiar with Anthony de Mello? You might like him. Jesuit priest, got banned by the church but in my opinion he does an excellent job of bridging east/west philosophies. It's weird for me to see that he's on the list of advaita teachers. I had no idea, back when I discovered him years ago. I just thought, hey this guy gets what Jesus actually meant... I wasn't raised with any religion - my parents left the church when I was too young to remember. In college I took a Bible-as-Literature course to fulfill a requirement. I was reading the New Testament for this course, and I decided to cut corners/save time, and just read Jesus' words and nothing else. As I was reading, I had an... experience. It was "beyond mind" so I will stop there. Of course many misinterpret or distort his teachings, but people do that with Niz and Buddha and other teachers too. Yes to the bold. Anymore, it seems rather human nature to seek, interpret, and attach to this kind of thing, and those whose words of real wisdom have been recorded. |
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Aug 20, 2013 8:19:20 GMT -5
Are you familiar with Anthony de Mello? You might like him. Jesuit priest, got banned by the church but in my opinion he does an excellent job of bridging east/west philosophies. It's weird for me to see that he's on the list of advaita teachers. I had no idea, back when I discovered him years ago. I just thought, hey this guy gets what Jesus actually meant... I wasn't raised with any religion - my parents left the church when I was too young to remember. In college I took a Bible-as-Literature course to fulfill a requirement. I was reading the New Testament for this course, and I decided to cut corners/save time, and just read Jesus' words and nothing else. As I was reading, I had an... experience. It was "beyond mind" so I will stop there. Of course many misinterpret or distort his teachings, but people do that with Niz and Buddha and other teachers too. Yes to the bold. Anymore, it seems rather human nature to seek, interpret, and attach to this kind of thing, and those whose words of real wisdom have been recorded. It's been kind of interesting going back and re-visiting certain Bible passages with a fresh eye. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 20, 2013 12:59:48 GMT -5
Yes to the bold. Anymore, it seems rather human nature to seek, interpret, and attach to this kind of thing, and those whose words of real wisdom have been recorded. It's been kind of interesting going back and re-visiting certain Bible passages with a fresh eye. Indeed, not long after the events of April 24, 1994, which basically took me from devout Catholicism to Advaita (mostly), I sat down and re-read the entire New Testament, and was amazed at the clarity with which I newly understood the Gospel. Wasn't what I thought it was. Like, at all. It was completely mind-blowing. One of my hobbies is translating the Latin Vulgate, which gives me an even different perspective, but I've eased up on that, because it really bogs me down in the trees, and I end up losing the forest again. It's also not very conducive to unlearning. As I said, it's all about context, not content. Jesus was speaking to a certain group of peeps at a certain time in History about certain issues that pertained to them. Indeed, much of the stuff he is reported to have said (remember, the NT wasn't even begun until at least twenty years after his death) is pretty universal, but not entirely so. |
|
|
|
Post by Ishtahota on Aug 20, 2013 14:08:29 GMT -5
There is some really good stuff in the Jesus stories. The problem is that the best parts of the story are not in todays Bible. Jesus was a non-duality teacher, but his followers were almost all still in duality. His wife Mary Magdalon was the closest of all to becoming awakened. Those teachings started out as a process to awaken, and today the church has turned them into an excuse instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Aug 20, 2013 14:13:58 GMT -5
It's been kind of interesting going back and re-visiting certain Bible passages with a fresh eye. Indeed, not long after the events of April 24, 1994, which basically took me from devout Catholicism to Advaita (mostly), I sat down and re-read the entire New Testament, and was amazed at the clarity with which I newly understood the Gospel. Wasn't what I thought it was. Like, at all. It was completely mind-blowing. One of my hobbies is translating the Latin Vulgate, which gives me an even different perspective, but I've eased up on that, because it really bogs me down in the trees, and I end up losing the forest again. It's also not very conducive to unlearning. As I said, it's all about context, not content. Jesus was speaking to a certain group of peeps at a certain time in History about certain issues that pertained to them. Indeed, much of the stuff he is reported to have said (remember, the NT wasn't even begun until at least twenty years after his death) is pretty universal, but not entirely so. What happened on April 24, 1994? |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 20, 2013 14:34:39 GMT -5
Indeed, not long after the events of April 24, 1994, which basically took me from devout Catholicism to Advaita (mostly), I sat down and re-read the entire New Testament, and was amazed at the clarity with which I newly understood the Gospel. Wasn't what I thought it was. Like, at all. It was completely mind-blowing. One of my hobbies is translating the Latin Vulgate, which gives me an even different perspective, but I've eased up on that, because it really bogs me down in the trees, and I end up losing the forest again. It's also not very conducive to unlearning. As I said, it's all about context, not content. Jesus was speaking to a certain group of peeps at a certain time in History about certain issues that pertained to them. Indeed, much of the stuff he is reported to have said (remember, the NT wasn't even begun until at least twenty years after his death) is pretty universal, but not entirely so. What happened on April 24, 1994? Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong story, which I won't likely discuss here, but basically, this is when I was 'born again' of the spirit, just not in the stereotypically Christian sense. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 20, 2013 14:47:15 GMT -5
What happened on April 24, 1994? Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong story, which I won't likely discuss here, but basically, this is when I was 'born again' of the spirit, just not in the stereotypically Christian sense. Hey, do you remember what the thread was that you shared that with us? |
|
