2971. kónóps

Lexical Summary

kónóps: Gnat

Original Word: κώνωψ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: kónóps
Pronunciation: KO-nohps
Phonetic Spelling: (ko'-nopes)
KJV: gnat
NASB: gnat
Word Origin: [apparently a derivative of the base of G2759 (κέντρον - sting) and a derivative of G3700 (ὀπτάνομαι - appearing)]

1. a mosquito (from its stinging proboscis)

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance

gnat.

Apparently a derivative of the base of kentron and a derivative of optanomai; a mosquito (from its stinging proboscis) -- gnat.

see GREEK kentron

see GREEK optanomai

NAS Exhaustive Concordance

Word Origin
probably from kónos; (cone-shaped) and óps (eye, face)
Definition
a gnat
NASB Translation
gnat (1).

Thayer's Greek Lexicon

STRONGS NT 2971: κώνωψ

κώνωψ, κωνωπος, ὁ, a gnat ((Aeschylus), Herodotus, Hippocrates, others); of the wine-gnat or midge that is bred in (fermenting and) evaporating wine (Aristotle, h. an. 5, 19 (p. 552{b}, 5; cf. Bochart, Hierozoicon, iii. 444; Buxtorf, Lex. talm. etc. 921 (474{a} Fischer edition))): Matthew 23:24.

Topical Lexicon

Occurrence and Immediate Setting

Strong’s Greek 2971 appears once, in Matthew 23:24, during the climactic series of “woes” Jesus pronounces upon scribes and Pharisees. The verse reads: “You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.” By pairing the tiniest unclean creature with one of the largest, Christ employs biting hyperbole to expose religious hypocrisy—scrupulous attention to minute ritual detail while neglecting the moral heart of God’s law.

Background in Jewish Practice

1. Purity regulations. Leviticus 11:20-23 declared winged insects that crawl on all fours unclean. Devout Jews therefore filtered wine or water through fine cloth to avoid accidental ingestion and ceremonial defilement.
2. Rabbinic extension. Later rabbinic discussion amplified the concern, treating even the smallest creeping thing as defiling the whole cup. The habit of straining beverages became a cultural marker of meticulous purity.
3. Proverbial use. In both Semitic and Greco-Roman literature gnats represented things of negligible size. The image of filtering a tiny insect while missing a glaring impurity fit naturally into popular satire.

Symbolism of the Gnat

• Negligible size—contrasted with a camel, it dramatizes disproportionate concern.
• Ritual versus moral weight—Jesus positions the gnat alongside “mint, dill, and cumin” (Matthew 23:23) as symbolic of minor matters; the camel stands for “justice, mercy, and faithfulness.”
• Blindness—failure to perceive the true scale of sin. Attempting to remove a gnat implies keen eyesight, yet Jesus calls them “blind guides,” underscoring spiritual blindness.

Theological Emphasis in Matthew 23

1. Divine priority. God values heart obedience above ritual minutiae (1 Samuel 15:22; Micah 6:8).
2. Integrity. External precision without inner transformation is hypocrisy (Matthew 15:8-9).
3. Accountability of leaders. Those who guide others must model proportionate obedience; their mis-focus can mislead whole communities (Luke 11:52).

Old Testament Echoes and Parallels

Although κώνωψ itself is Greek, the plague of “gnats” (Hebrew kinnim, Exodus 8:16-18) foreshadows the theme: small creatures wielded by God to humble the proud. Isaiah 7:18 likewise speaks of the Lord summoning “flies” and “bees” as instruments of judgment, reinforcing the motif that size does not limit divine purpose.

Historical and Natural Details

• Species. Palestinian gnats (family Culicidae) breed near stagnant water, swarming at dusk—especially around winepresses.
• Roman wine customs. Gentile vintners often clarified wine with animal products, prompting Jewish consumers to double-strain to avoid both blood and insects.
• Linguistic point. Classical writers applied κώνωψ to both biting midges and mosquitoes; the sharp irritation they caused made them a common metaphor for petty annoyances.

Practical Ministry Implications

1. Examine proportionality. Churches must avoid elevating secondary issues above clear biblical mandates.
2. Cultivate internal holiness. Straining the “gnat” of outward conformity cannot compensate for swallowing the “camel” of pride, greed, or injustice.
3. Teach discernment. Leaders should help believers distinguish essentials from adiaphora, guiding them toward the weightier matters of the faith.

Homiletical Observations

• Contrast device. Preachers can juxtapose “gnat” and “camel” to illustrate the danger of magnifying preferences while minimizing sin.
• Personal inventory. A sermon could invite hearers to identify today’s “gnats” (music styles, minor traditions) and “camels” (unforgiveness, materialism).
• Bridge to the gospel. The image underscores the impossibility of self-righteousness; only Christ can cleanse both cup and heart (Matthew 23:26; Titus 3:5).

Conclusion

Strong’s 2971, though occurring only once, powerfully encapsulates a perennial spiritual problem: valuing religious exactitude over genuine righteousness. Jesus’ vivid metaphor challenges every generation to filter its conscience through the priorities of Scripture itself, so that neither gnat nor camel escapes the sanctifying work of grace.

Forms and Transliterations

κωνωπα κώνωπα κώπας κωπηλάται konopa kōnōpa kṓnopa kṓnōpa

Englishman's Concordance

Matthew 23:24 N-AMS
GRK: διυλίζοντες τὸν κώνωπα τὴν δὲ
NAS: who strain out a gnat and swallow
KJV: which strain at a gnat, and
INT: filter out the gnat and

Strong's Greek 2971
1 Occurrence

κώνωπα — 1 Occ.