Gnats and Camels and Milk and Meat
by
Philip du Nard
When St. Paul wrote his second epistle to Timothy, he told him to " Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" II Timothy 2:15. Rightly dividing the word of truth in our own minds is something every Christian should strive for. It is a matter of keeping a proper balance.
There are a couple of expressions that crop up on the internet or in Bible studies and sermons that relate to this very matter: "Peripherals vs. essentials" and "majoring in minors." The first expression conveys the thought that some aspects of Bible truth are essential to Christian belief which we dare not compromise whereas others are peripheral, or of secondary importance, and there is room for disagreement. Hence, we should not allow differences with respect to these lesser truths to divide us as believers. The second expression conveys the thought that some, or dare we say many, have failed to rightly divide the word of truth by making these lesser truths to be the main emphasis of their ministries.
Is there any Scriptural basis for these thoughts? I believe there is. In Matthew 23:34, when the Lord Jesus Christ was excoriating the scribes and Pharisees, he said, "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel." As guides, that is, as the religious leaders of the people, they were spiritually blind. As a cause or as a characteristic of this, they strained at gnats, figuratively speaking. That is, they got all worked up over minor points of doctrine and truth. But they swallowed camels. That is, they didn't strain themselves over bigger, more important matters. These were neglected or ignored, or even rejected. If it was true then, it seems reasonable that it might be true today of many Christian preachers and teachers.
The difficulty is in deciding what constitutes a gnat and what constitutes a camel. One man's gnat is another man's camel. Where some have drawn the proverbial line is in making the message of salvation in Christ to be the essential truth whereas all others, like Bible prophecy, are peripheral and we must not divide over this. It is certainly true that the gospel message itself is the single most important thing a human being can ponder and if you are not saved, you have nothing and cannot properly be called a Christian. And if you are saved, then you are in the same body of Christ as the believer who may have different beliefs about prophecy, mode of baptism, gifts of the Spirit, etc. And we are to love the brethren, irrespective of denomination. But I believe that there can be a seducing spirit at work even here that can persuade us to unwittingly set at nought Scriptural truths that are not salvation related but are essential in their own sphere. How did the Laodicean church of Revelation 3 develop its notorious lukewarmness? Might it have been by mistakenly considering important Scriptural truths to be minor so as to never be expounded upon in church lest they foster division? Can zeal toward what is considered essential ( the gospel of salvation through Christ) make up for lukewarmness in other areas? I am not trying to promote strife among Christians. I'm trying to provide food for thought.
In the verse that preceded the very passage in which Christ accused the Pharisees of straining at gnats and swallowing camels, He gave examples of what He was talking about. He said "for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of law, judgment, mercy, and faith.; these ye ought to have done, and not leave the other undone." Mercy and faith could certainly be salvation related but law and judgment pertain to God's laws for the nation and are not salvation related. So the Lord Himself did not consider the gospel of salvation to be the only "weightier matter" or "camel" we need to consider. Thus, automatically considering any truth nonessential to salvation to be peripheral is an arbitrary position to take.
Then there is the matter of "milk" and "meat." In Hebrews 5:12-14, the writer rebukes the believers he is writing to for their spiritual immaturity. He says, "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."
Milk is for babes and meat is for those that are more mature. He is saying this is true in the spiritual realm just as it is in the physical realm. Babes cannot handle meat. And spiritual babes evidently have a hard time with spiritual meat and have to subsist on the milk of the Word of God. The writer makes it plain that subsisting on a milk diet really is not sufficient and meat is essential -- not for salvation--- the believers he was writing to were already saved--- but for spiritual growth and, therefore, for the advancement of God's kingdom and the cause of Christ in the earth.
And what would constitute milk and meat and might there be any correlation with gnats and camels? Because meat is portrayed as being more substantive than milk and camels are obviously more substantial than gnats, we might be tempted to think that milk and gnats are automatically in the same category and camels and meat are in another category. We aren't told what constitutes meat but the writer of Hebrews gives us a laundry list of milk doctrines in Hebrews 6:1-3. He continues, "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit."
Baptism and laying on of hands might be considered gnats, possibly. One can bicker about whether to immerse or sprinkle, etc. But repentance, faith, resurrection and eternal judgment are all pretty central to the gospel message. These are not gnats, doctrinally speaking. They are not peripheral doctrines. We dare not compromise these. These are camels, I think most would agree. But, from the standpoint of the writer of Hebrews, these essential truths, "the principles of the doctrine of Christ", are the milk of the Word. If a preacher or a church restricts their teaching to these, as important and necessary as they are, they can glory in this restriction all they want; it is a milk of the Word ministry. And to cast aside the meat as something not very important and too divisive plays right into the hands of the Adversary.
There apparently is a special reward for going beyond the principles of the doctrine of Christ, that is, the simple gospel message, and preaching and teaching the meat of the Word of God. In Luke 12:31-40, the Lord expounds on the spirit of vigilance that we should all maintain as we await His return. Inv. 37, He says, "Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat; and will come forth and serve them." Let us realize that strong meat belongs to them that are of full age as the writer of Hebrews cited above says. Then Peter asks in v. 41 to whom this parable is directed. The Lord's replied in v. 42-44, "Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, who his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath."
The faithful servants are served meat by their Lord. But they apparently are rewarded for not only watching but for giving the Lord's household their portion of meat in due season. Blessed is that servant. who his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. So we should never belittle such a ministry just as we should not belittle giving out the gospel of salvation. The phrase, "due season," suggests that there are appointed times in which the Holy Spirit brings forth more light from God's Word for His people to ponder and cause their hearts to burn anew. God forbid that we should quench this with the thought that it's peripheral and much ado about nothing because not all of God's people can digest it easily. How can we expect to receive more enlightenment from the Holy Spirit if this is the attitude we assume?
The example of the prophet Obadiah comes to mind. Obadiah's prophecy comprises one chapter in the Old Scriptures. This is in contrast to Sixty-six chapters in the book of Isaiah. Thus, Obadiah is considered a "minor prophet" and Isaiah is considered a "major prophet." Isaiah brought forth many glorious truths central to the Christian faith: the virgin birth, the suffering of the Messiah for the sins of the world, the glories of the kingdom of God, etc. Obadiah wrote of none of these things. Obadiah had one message: judgment to come upon the nation of Edom. That was his thing, if you will. His message was anything but salvation related and we might be tempted to judge his ministry to be out of balance, so to speak, because of that. But what do you suppose his standing with the Almighty would be if he decided that he did not need to proclaim this message because it might have been considered peripheral by the rest of God's people? I daresay he might have found himself in a predicament similar to Jonah who found himself in the belly of a fish. God didn't call him to be another Isaiah,. He called him for this one task and if Obadiah had any understanding of what it meant to be a faithful steward of what had been entrusted to him, he would know this and act accordingly as he clearly did. And so must we. It doesn't matter if every other Christian is not on the same page as we when it comes to some things. We must not let that hinder us from being faithful to what the Holy Spirit has revealed to us. If God has shown you something that, for whatever reason, He has not shown to other believers, you are accountable for that. I am referring to understanding from the Bible, not some special vision apart from the Bible. Yes, we are to be "endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" as Paul enjoins us and not strain at gnats. But the other extreme is to hide that light under a bushel for the sake of some sort of Christian conformity. That is not walking in the light. Some will say that this will lead to doctrinal chaos but God is not the author of confusion.
Another example that comes to mind is that of the house of Rechab. In Jeremiah 35, they are set up as an example of faithfulness in contrast to the unfaithfulness to God in Judah. But if you examine the things they were faithful in, we might consider them to be a legalistic bunch. They chose not to drink wine, build and live in houses, or own land and plant seed because their ancestor had commanded them not to because they were strangers in the land. These things are not wrong but because of their circumstances, they chose to live this way. These things are not salvation related. They were not saved and justified before God because they didn't live in houses or own land. But because they were faithful to their father's command, God's promise to them was, "And Jeremiah said to the house of the Rechabites, Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Because you have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father, and kept all his precepts and done according to all that he commanded you, therefore thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not lack a man to stand before me forever." vs. 18-19 NKJV. And so somewhere on this earth, the descendants of Rechab live on. Sometimes steadfast faithfulness in little things or things judged by other Christians to be "peripheral" or "minor" and of little consequence brings great honor. And just as God sent Jeremiah to put the Rechabites to the test by offering them wine, so God may send other believers to prove us as well.
As to what our emphasis should be, some will say, "Just talk about Jesus." Praise God for Jesus. He has been given "a name which is above every name" Phil. 2:9 "There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12 But it may be helpful to consider that the Psalmist was inspired to write in Psalm 138: "for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." v.2. Think about that. As high as the name of Jesus is---and Jesus is God as all Christians believe--- God has magnified His word above His name. It will also be helpful to realize that Jesus affirmed what Moses was inspired to write that "man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" Matt. 4:4. If man lives by every word from God's mouth, we have to be careful what in Scripture we consider to be of little importance. Our emphasis should be on the Word and we honor God to the extent that we honor and are faithful to that.
It might also be helpful to clarify what is commonly known as "the Great Commission." There are three different ways of expressing it in three of the Gospels, all inspired. In Mark, the disciples are told to "preach the gospel to every creature." Mark 16:15. In Luke, the disciples are told that Christ had to suffer and rise that "repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations" Luke 24:47. But Matthew is the most comprehensive. In Matt. 28:19-20, we find the Lord telling the disciples to "teach all nations." And what were they to teach? They were to be "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." This would include the emphasis Christ put on the law of God in the Sermon on the Mount and parables on the kingdom of God which are prophetic in nature. So the Great Commisiion included more than the salvation message.
The great fear, of course, is being dogmatic about things that we have limited light on. As an example, consider the multitudes of interpretations of Bible prophecy, all held by born again believers. We can thank God that our respective beliefs on this subject are not salvation related. Or are they? If I were to say that one's salvation is dependent upon one's understanding and interpretation of Bible prophecy, I think most good Christian people would judge that to be a rather extreme and presumptuous statement. But it's true. If you don't believe that Jesus Christ fulfilled the Messianic prophecies and you have a different interpretation of those prophecies like the Jews do, then you can't very well believe that Jesus is the Christ and receive Him as your Savior. And if you can't do that, you can't be saved. So let's realize that those "essentials" that we dare not compromise are based upon a firm, dogmatic interpretation of certain prophecies in the Bible. A misinterpretation in this area has serious consequences.
Other mistaken interpretations of Bible prophecy that Christians may have do not generally have as serious consequences as misinterpreting the Messianic prophecies. But because this is so, many have considered mistaken teachings in this area to be of no consequence whatsoever as though it is just an intellectual exercise as opposed to seeking the mind and will of God to study the significant portion of God's Word devoted to this. Much of Scripture is made of none effect by this attitude. After the resurrection of our Lord, He encountered two disciples on the road to Emmaus who did not recognize Him. They were disconsolate because of the crucifixion of Christ. The Lord rebuked them with this thought: "O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?" Luke 24:25-26.
If the Lord's closest disciples were slow to believe, does it not seem reasonable to think that many Christians today are slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken? And if that be so, would God consider this foolish of them as He did of these two disciples? Would any Christian want to be judged a fool, albeit a saved one, by the Lord? Because Peter didn't understand Bible prophecy, he denied Christ three times. Are we better than Peter? Maybe this is why the Holy Spirit ultimately chose Peter to write that we have something more compelling and convincing than eyewitness testimony and personal experience and that is "a more sure word of prophecy." II Peter 1:19 Peter said that he and the other discples were eyewitnesses of Christ's majesty but that prophecy was more sure than this. He was, I daresay, speaking primarily of fulfilled Bible prophecy, though not exclusively. If that be so, what spirit is it that persuades Christians to magnifiy experience over this?
What might be an example of meat from God's Word that Christian people living in this hour need to aware of?
The example of King Jehoshaphat comes to mind. As we consider it, let's be reminded that St. Paul said of these examples in the Scripture, "Now all of these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come, Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." I Corinthians 10:11-12. In other words, it's treading on dangerous ground to imagine that you can remain in the will of God and chronically ignore the examples in the Old Testament Scriptures. They are written especially for us today. And when the Holy Spirit makes these Scriptures come alive and become as personal and meaningful as John 3:16, that's a good sign, not a bad sign.
After his father, Asa, king of Judah died, we read in II Chronicles 17:1, "And Jehoshaphat his son reigned in his stead, and strengthened himself against Israel." Just as nations of Christendom like Britain and Germany have warred against each other in modern times, so Israel and Judah were adversaries at times. " And he placed forces in all the fenced cities of Judah, and set garrisons in the land of Judah, and in the cities of Ephraim, which Asa his father had taken." v.2
He apparently did not try to tie the hands of the military. But what kind of king was he? In v. 3-6 we read, "And the Lord was with Jehoshaphat, because he walked in the first ways of his father, David, and sought not after Baalim; But sought to the Lord God of his father, and walked in his commandments, and not after the doings of Israel. Therefore the Lord stablished the kingdom in his hand; and all Judah brought to Jehoshaphat presents; and he had riches and honour in abundance. And his heart was lifted up in the ways of the Lord: moreover he took away the high places and groves out of Judah." So he was a good king. Isn't that something? Wouldn't it be nice if we had a President like this, and governors, etc. As a result, the kingdom was "stablished" in his hand. He didn't have to rule through fear and intimidation. He had the support of his people. It helps to have a God fearing populace, of course. But that is not all. Vs. 7-9 record how he sent teachers throughout the realm to teach the law of God. "And they taught in Judah, and had the book of the law of the Lord with them, and went throughout all the cities of Judah, and taught the people." How refreshing is this? Just imagine an administration and government that instead of opposing Christian teaching and upholding immoral practices would do the opposite. If a man like Jehoshaphat were to become President of the United States and promote the same things in this country, conservative Christian patiots would feel that finally, they had a voice. And they would stand behind him.
And what was the result? In v.10-11, we read, "And the fear of the Lord fell upon all the kingdoms of the lands that were round about Judah, so that they made no war against Jehoshaphat. Also, some of the Philistines brought Jehoshaphat presents, and tribute silver; and the Arabians brought him flocks, seven thousand and seven hundred rams, and seven thousand and seven hundred he goats." The fear of the Lord did not fall upon them simply because Judah had a strong army. God's blessing and favor was upon this administration and so there was peace, not war. Consider that Jehoshaphat was able to be at peace with the Arabs who were no more Christian then than they are today. "And Jehoshaphat waxed great exceedingly; and he built in Judah castles, and cities of store. And he had much business in the cities of Judah"vs. 12-13. So commercial activity prospered under Jehoshaphat, There was no recession or depression. Consider that this state of affairs existed in an earthly kingdom before the return of Christ.
With all of these wonderful things happening, what could possibly go wrong? Chapter 18 is what could go wrong. What we learn in this chapter is that in this instance, it was not the ACLU, the liberal Democrats, the mainstream media, or a small group of vocal atheists who upset the applecart. Jehoshaphat was his own undoing. The problem was that Jehoshaphat read the Bible the same way many prophecy preachers in our day read it. In verse 1, we read," Now Jehoshaphat had riches and honour in abundance, and joined affinity with Ahab." There you have it. Ahab, king of the northern house of Israel was a wicked king. It's nice when former adversaries stop fighting but now Jehoshaphat apparently considered it to be advantageous to be allied with Ahab. Maybe he believed that Israel was the best friend Judah had in the region and to break off relations would be displeasing to God. When wicked king Ahab asked Jehoshaphat for military support, Jehoshaphat was only too happy to give it. He said, "I am as thou art, and my people as thy people; and we will be with thee in the war." ch.18:3. And all the conservative Christian patriots undoubtedly stood behind him. Perhaps Jehoshaphat considered the fact that Ahab was an Israelite and the Israelites were God's chosen people that this was all the rationale he needed to give Ahab all the support he needed. Perhaps this belief filtered from his mind any wickedness that was going on in Israel. There was an attempt to go through the motions of getting Godly counsel but it was not heeded. Then, as now, a different interpretation, albeit a wrong one, prevailed. But what followed was a humiliating military defeat.
In chapter 19, after Jehoshaphat returned to Jerusalem, he was met by Jehu the son of Hanani the seer who told him, "Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord. Nevertheless, there are good things in thee..." This was not a prophet rebuking an otherwise wicked, unbelieving king. These were two believers talking. This was a sad day in Judah. This was not a salvation issue. There is no reason to believe that because Jehoshaphat misinterpreted the situation that he lost his salvation. But can anyone doubt the gravity of the situation and its effect upon the nation? How many men of Judah needlessly lost their lives as a result? Who knows? There were consequences. But because this did not have to do with personal salvation and was therefore "peripheral," should Hanani the seer kept quiet so as not to divide believers? Was he lacking in Christian love to say the things he said? And when the U.S. Congress and all the Presidents of the past fifty some years make the same error that Jehoshaphat did and Christian people enthusiastically support it, is not wrath upon us as a nation from before the Lord? Should we use the Abrahamic covenant to justify helping a people who have historically opposed Christ and Christianity and then wonder why in the world we as a nation are becoming "a strife to our neighbors and our enemies laugh among themselves"? Ps. 80:6. I know the ways that Christian people will use to dispute the relevance of this example and tune out what I say. All of us as believers, at best, see in part and It may be that there are any number of misinterpretations of the prophetic Word that are benign in nature. But when your interpretation of Bible prophecy causes you to suspend all discernment of spirits, is the Lord satisfied when we merely agree to disagree? Maybe it's nothing. Maybe it's a small thing. But shouldn't somebody say somethng? As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.