(This post was written and posted before I saw your most recent post. This is about the verses on universal reconciliation)
Hi Homer,
Thanks for reposting this response.
I think you are not looking for the same kind of evidence that I am seeking in scripture. You are apparently wanting references to the fact that God will allow those who die to have another chance to repent. No one has ever claimed that such passages exist, to my knowledge. Nor are there passages that say that death is the cut-off point for repentance. The Bible is simply silent on this matter.
The verses I listed, as I mentioned, do not all speak of universal salvation. They present a variety of sides to the view of God that must inform our calculations of how God may order ultimate outcomes. There may be no grounds for certainty, one way or the other, but there certainly is a trend to inform our hopes.
The scriptures that incline toward universal reconciliation are those that speak of God's character and disposition toward sinful man. These are easily harmonized, if there is postmortem opportunity for reconciliation, but not otherwise. There are abundant references to temporal judgment, and the sentence of death upon sinners. Such passages are not hard to find, but none of them address the pertinent question: "What about after death?"
Then there is an abundance of passages that tell us such things as that God wants to save everyone, that He sent Christ to secure this end, that God's judgments are corrective and that He does not cast off men forever. These tell us of God's intention and His determination. There is nothing to suggest that God's intention will be eternally thwarted and He will be everlastingly disappointed. There is nothing to suggest that He is required by some force or authority above Himself to throw in the towel and admit defeat when one that He wished to save goes to the grave without having repented. There is no demand of justice or any other higher principle that obligates God to withhold postmortem opportunities from those who missed their chance in this life.
In other words, universalism bases its expectations on the plain, oft repeated expressions of God's character, determination and sovereignty. All other views require texts to affirm that God's intentions change at the point of human death, that God's hands are tied and He cannot save after a certain point, or that the punishment of the lost is necessarily endless. Short of this kind of evidence, one would be justified in being directed by the passages that affirm God's universal love and sovereignty. This tends toward a universalistic conclusion.
Barclay was convinced (UR)
Re: Barclay was convinced (UR)
Homer,
This is a response to your most recent post to me. You wrote:
I wrote (and you quoted):
I wrote:
You wrote:
You wrote:
I did not ask you for particulars about hell. I asked what it is in Matthew 18 that gives you the impression that hell is mentioned there. Your answer is such a dodge that it is now I whom am astonished. Especially, when, after I told you I am impressed with exegesis, not quotes from commentators, you continued to avoid providing exegesis and simply listed commentators who agree with you! It seems that you have become so concerned to prove your points that you do not read the things I am writing to you before responding to them.
When I said that the word "duty" implies the concept of "mandatory". You responded:
You (correctly) quoted my (correctly) saying:
When I wrote:
You wrote:
You quoted my statement:
I have never argued that the servant in the parable was capable of repaying the debt. I have only said that the parable makes no point of whether he could have or not. He could not, at the moment, do so, but he seemed confident that he could do so, given enough time. Whether his expectations were realistic or not is never stated, hinted at, nor given the slightest attention in the parable. It is not the point. You are suggesting that this is a major point that Jesus is making. I am not seeing this. The point is that the man had a very large debt and was shown incredible generosity in having the debt forgiven, and that this is in contrast to the smaller debt which he himself refused to forgive another man.
If we import a great deal of our theology into the parable, from other parts of the Bible, we can introduce many points in it that Jesus does not make in telling it, and which might be no part of His intention to bring in. In saying the man must be imprisoned and tortured until full payment is made (a detail that could as easily have been omitted, if it was insignificant), Jesus leaves the question an open one as to whether this situation will or will not be permanent. One thing Jesus does not do is provide any affirmation for what you are taking from it—namely, that this incarceration is irrevocable.
Again, you wrote (as if a complete response to one of my statements):
You quote me saying:
This is a response to your most recent post to me. You wrote:
Then I guess we cannot dialogue on this. The connections are very obvious to me—and I have never heard a universalist support my position on this—nor does it matter, since, as I said, I reached these conclusions decades prior to my reading any universalists. It has never occurred to me that my interpretation of the "tormentors" has any bearing whatever on the universalist debate.I looked at the texts you cited to support your idea that Jesus is warning of demon possession if we do not show mercy. I found nothing there that appeared to support such a position. There are many people in this life that hold grudges and are unforgiving. In fact, the forgiveness Jesus taught is unusual. If there are a lot of demon possessed people around it is not noticeable to me but perhaps I am not very perceptive.
Do you think there are not very many passages that speak of sin's consequences in this life, without any reference to postmortem events (e.g., Gen.3:16-19; 4:11-12 /1 Sam.15:23/ 2 Kings 1:16/ Luke 19:43-44/ Acts 23:3; etc., etc., etc.)? Does each of these support a no-heller position, just because they happen not to mention hell, but speak of temporal consequences of sin? Why should my view of this passage be seen differently from these?Some time ago you indicated you were interested in reading Ballou. I thought perhaps you had; your "demon possession" idea speaks of consequences limited to this life, as Ballou taught.
I wrote (and you quoted):
This, you thought, was demeaning. I was not attempting to insult, but to catalogue the various possibilities that could possibly explain the misunderstanding and misapplication of my statements with which your response was rife. There are many things I have not the capacity to understand. I do not take this as an insult to myself. If I do not understand what someone said, I either was not listening, or was unable (though listening) to understand what was said. If the latter, then either the defect is in me or in the speaker. Either is possible, but in either case, I do not have the capacity to understand his statements. Is this embarrassing? It shouldn't be. You completely misunderstood every point I made, and demonstrated this in your response. What can we conclude, if not what I suggested?tells me that you either have not read, or have not the capacity to understand
I wrote:
Your response was:If you read my last post (the one that you both apparently find astonishing), you should have seen that I make no points about hell at all from Matthew 18, since I do not find any reference to hell in that particular parable. Can you defend the fact that you do see hell there? It is not mentioned.
What has this to do with our discussion? We both know that the parable is about showing mercy. What we are discussing is whether postmortem consequences are mentioned in it or not. I do not know how many times I must ask for your reasons for seeing such. That is the point under discussion here. I wish you would not avoid it.Back when I responded to your request I brought up the subject parable regarding mercy.
You wrote:
Right, but, again, what has this to do with our discussion? We all know there are conditions for salvation. That has never been questioned by any universalist (unless Todd's view can be interpreted this way, but you and I have never been discussing his view). God's character will not allow Him to violate those conditions—but in what sense is it a violation of those conditions if God should extend the sinner's opportunity for compliance? Was it contrary to God's character that He has given some people 80 years in which to choose, while others have been given less than twenty? What if He should give someone 200 or more years? Would this be any more a violation of His character than His giving me more than 50?Seems to me there is something wrong with your thinking. If God has established conditions whereby He will grant mercy, and made those conditions known, then I would think His character would not allow Him to violate those conditions. And He has declared conditions:
You wrote:
Homer, how can you say that your contention has not been about hell? Maybe you have not used the word "hell" (who cares, the Bible never uses it either!), but you have adamantly declared that this parable describes postmortem, eternal consequences of sin. If postmortem, everlasting punishment is not the same thing that most people call "hell" , then how would you define the latter? I'm sorry, but this denial just seems disingenuous. Please convince me that I am mistaken.I have carefully reviewed twice my posts from this time and found that I made no mention of Hell, in fact I said no more than Jesus said: he will be turned over to the tormentors until the whole debt is paid...Yet you accuse me of dodging a question about something I never said:
I did not ask you for particulars about hell. I asked what it is in Matthew 18 that gives you the impression that hell is mentioned there. Your answer is such a dodge that it is now I whom am astonished. Especially, when, after I told you I am impressed with exegesis, not quotes from commentators, you continued to avoid providing exegesis and simply listed commentators who agree with you! It seems that you have become so concerned to prove your points that you do not read the things I am writing to you before responding to them.
Respected by whom, and for what? I know of no respected (or disrespected) commentator that would see every passage in scripture as I do. I am interested in the text itself. If a commentator can show me something valid from the text, I respect him. If he parrots only what the majority are saying, without providing biblical arguments in favor of his view, what is there to respect in that? "If they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them."I am curious, do you know of any respected commentator who agrees with your interpretation of the parable?
When I said that the word "duty" implies the concept of "mandatory". You responded:
I think you are mistaken. Is there anything about the following definition of duty that you would modify?This is not correct. That is why the courts say jury "duty" is "mandatory". We have many duties that may or may not be mandatory. Being faithful to a spouse is a duty but the law does not make it mandatory anymore.
Where there is duty, there is a mandate. The courts that do not hold partners to their vows have made faithfulness optional (non-mandatory), and in doing so have denied any "duty". The concepts are inseparable. Why try to find fault gratuitously here?Duty: noun, plural -ties.
1. something that one is expected or required to do by moral or legal obligation.
2. the binding or obligatory force of something that is morally or legally right; moral or legal obligation.
3. an action or task required by a person's position or occupation; function: the duties of a clergyman.
You (correctly) quoted my (correctly) saying:
To which you replied:You have not made the slightest attempt to demonstrate exegetically that this threat speaks of postmortem consequences (Did someone in the story die?). Until you give reasons to find such indicators in the parable itself (rather in the commentators), your position holds no higher claim to acceptance than does mine. Mine, at least, can provide cross references in its support.
So, when asked for an exegesis, instead you provide only "I believe..." It is fine for you to believe whatever you wish to believe. None of us have ever had occasion to wonder whether you believed this or not. That has been clear. What has not been clear(and what you apparently do not wish to disclose) is why you believe this.Jesus clearly said that we will not be forgiven if we do not forgive. I do not think either of us believes that there is no time lapse allowed between the offense anf forgiving. But I believe it must be done before death. You apparently do not. I believe Jesus taught in the parable that the lack of mercy leads to irrevocable consequences.
When I wrote:
You replied:I still await your cross references to "tormentors" in hell.
This is very disingenuous. You have said much, much more than what Jesus said. You have said that this torment is postmortem and eternal—two extremely important claims. Jesus affirmed neither.I say no more than Jesus said.
You wrote:
If this is so, then why would you object (earlier) to my saying you might not have the capacity to understand my statements? You have just said as much. Here is my original statement. Read carefully. Do not assume anything. Read my actual words, and tell me which part you find difficult to understand:Now I do not know what you meant about Jesus not having "on His radar" something Paul taught.
The simple meaning is that Jesus' teachings do not (to my recollection) place any focus on the question of whether God's requirements can or cannot be fulfilled by the willing human. That they cannot might be read into some of Paul's writings, but I have not found this in Jesus' teachings. Now, instead of absurdly jumping to the conclusion that I am finding some disagreement between Jesus and Paul, why not simply take my statements at face value? Maybe I actually said what I mean, and not something entirely different. These discussions would be considerably more fruitful if the participants would not assume that I mean things different from what I say, and would provide some honest answers to my actual points.While it may be that such a large debt could hardly be repaid, I do not at all think that this is the point intended. This would probably be the case if the point of the parable was to underscore the hopelessness of a sinner to justify himself before God by his own works (a topic close to the heart of Paul, but barely on the radar in the teachings of Jesus).
You quoted my statement:
And you replied:It is one thing to say that we are saved by grace rather than by our merits. It is an entirely different subject to discuss whether the debts from which grace released us were incapable of payment or not. In other words, if I owe you $1000, as rent on a house that I am renting from you, and I say, "Could I have an extra week in order to get the money to you?", you might say, "I'll tell you what, times are hard, I'll just cover this month's rent for you!" This would be an example of grace, but it would not be an example of an unpayable debt. These are quite separate subjects. It is possible that I would be able to come up with the $1000, given a few more days. It is still be an instance of grace for me to be forgiven the debt.
No, it is not an odd example. The fact that the $1000 debt is, in fact, plausibly payable was essential to my point. The point I was making was this: Grace is just as much grace, whether the debt forgiven was one that could reasonably be repaid or not.Rather odd example. You illustrate your agument with an example of a debt that is payable, such as owed by the second sevant in the parable. A more appropriate debt to illustrate the situation of the wicked servant would be $500 - 800 billion dollars. That is a lot of "rent" money. I hope I have not misunderstood what you were trying to say.
I have never argued that the servant in the parable was capable of repaying the debt. I have only said that the parable makes no point of whether he could have or not. He could not, at the moment, do so, but he seemed confident that he could do so, given enough time. Whether his expectations were realistic or not is never stated, hinted at, nor given the slightest attention in the parable. It is not the point. You are suggesting that this is a major point that Jesus is making. I am not seeing this. The point is that the man had a very large debt and was shown incredible generosity in having the debt forgiven, and that this is in contrast to the smaller debt which he himself refused to forgive another man.
If we import a great deal of our theology into the parable, from other parts of the Bible, we can introduce many points in it that Jesus does not make in telling it, and which might be no part of His intention to bring in. In saying the man must be imprisoned and tortured until full payment is made (a detail that could as easily have been omitted, if it was insignificant), Jesus leaves the question an open one as to whether this situation will or will not be permanent. One thing Jesus does not do is provide any affirmation for what you are taking from it—namely, that this incarceration is irrevocable.
Again, you wrote (as if a complete response to one of my statements):
Didn't we already know that this is what you "think"? The point I am continually seeking to raise here is that we ought to have reasons for thinking the things we do. Your reason, as best as I can tell from your posts, is that, "though not explicitly stated" by Jesus, the opinion is explicitly stated by commentators—who are just as human as are you and I, and who need to provide reasons for what they think, just as we do. Can they? Can you?I think that Jesus' point, though not explicitly stated, is that if we go to our death in the state of the unmerciful sevant, our sin will be irrevocable.
You quote me saying:
And you respond:What the parable does affirm is that, whether the man could or could not have paid the debt, he was nonetheless released from it by the compassion of the king. You may read as much more into this as you wish, but you should recognize that you are going beyond the text, and making Christ affirm a theological point that we have no evidence that Jesus wished to make.
I think I have said plainly enough that there was a reason for Jesus making the original debt so large, and that was to provide the greatest possible contrast to the smaller debt. This reason would agree with what I believe Jesus was teaching Peter. If the debt was, in addition to being huge, also impossible to be repaid, then this is a point never made by Jesus, and not directly germane to the lesson. If you think otherwise, then it is clear that we think otherwise than each other.So you believe Jesus picture of the inconceivable debt was a sort of accident and not well thought out to drive home a point? That He just happened to use the largest denomination of currancy multiplied by the largest amount conceivable in accounting/ to picture a debt that was payable? And you see no parallel to our debt of sin?
Re: Barclay was convinced (UR)
How do you know that the description of the resurrection in 1 Cor 15 only applies to Christians? There is a reference that the subject includes everyone.
1 Cor 15:22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
This seems to indicate that Paul's description of the resurrection applies to all who die in Adam - everyone.
Secondly, regarding justice. I think it is misunderstood. It seems that most people equate justice with punishment. This doesn't seem correct. Think of it this way... When an injustice is done, punishment is required; when justice is done, no punishment is required because righteousness was exercised. Justice can be equated to righteousness. For example, when someone is described as just...
After "For in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive" comes "But each in his own turn Christ the firstfruits, then when he comes , those who belong to him."
So those who belong to him are the one he comes for at his second coming, the others are raised to judgment and go to the lake of fire, at least that's how i understand it.
1st Cor 15.22 does IMO refer to UR but no timetable is given and i don't see any reference to unbelievers receiving anything at his coming. The word "judgment" according to dictionary.com means to make a decision, to form an opinion therefore if we are judged by our works and God makes a decision , what might the decision be about? In the OT sometimes God judged and sometimes people were punished like in the flood or the plagues, but God was a righteous God in the OT so it's no not as if punishment can not be righteous depending on God's judgment.
1 Cor 15:22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
This seems to indicate that Paul's description of the resurrection applies to all who die in Adam - everyone.
Secondly, regarding justice. I think it is misunderstood. It seems that most people equate justice with punishment. This doesn't seem correct. Think of it this way... When an injustice is done, punishment is required; when justice is done, no punishment is required because righteousness was exercised. Justice can be equated to righteousness. For example, when someone is described as just...
After "For in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive" comes "But each in his own turn Christ the firstfruits, then when he comes , those who belong to him."
So those who belong to him are the one he comes for at his second coming, the others are raised to judgment and go to the lake of fire, at least that's how i understand it.
1st Cor 15.22 does IMO refer to UR but no timetable is given and i don't see any reference to unbelievers receiving anything at his coming. The word "judgment" according to dictionary.com means to make a decision, to form an opinion therefore if we are judged by our works and God makes a decision , what might the decision be about? In the OT sometimes God judged and sometimes people were punished like in the flood or the plagues, but God was a righteous God in the OT so it's no not as if punishment can not be righteous depending on God's judgment.
Re: Barclay was convinced (UR)
Steve7150,steve7150 wrote:After "For in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive" comes "But each in his own turn Christ the firstfruits, then when he comes , those who belong to him."
So those who belong to him are the one he comes for at his second coming, the others are raised to judgment and go to the lake of fire, at least that's how i understand it.
But he doesn't end the description there, he goes on to talk about the destruction of death which is the resurrection of everyone. Then he says we will all be changed. So, as I see it, Paul's description of the resurrection in 1 Cor 15 applies to everyone, not just Christians.
1 Cor 15:26-28
26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.
Here he talks about "all things are put under him". Isn't this talking about everyone and everything? I think so.
Also, I think it is significant that Paul, while making a fairly detailed description of events surrounding the resurrection, makes no mention of a gathering together for judgment. Why would he omit such a significant event if it were to happen as so many believe? The ultra-universalist would say that references to the judgment are symbolic and that there is not a singular event, but that each person reaps what he sows and is rewarded according to his works during the space of his lifetime. The description of events in 1 Cor 15 would not provide any evidence against this idea.
1 Cor 15:50-54
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”
Here he says, "the dead shall be raised incorruptible". He does not limit this to Christians; this applies to everyone.
Todd
Re: Barclay was convinced (UR)
Not that it lends any particularly weight, but Bono is probably a Christian universalist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhCezZQq ... ure=relmfu
(4.40)
(4.40)
Re: Barclay was convinced (UR)
Hi Steve,
You wrote:
The word basanistes, translated jailers/torturers, Matthew 18:34, is a noun, Strong's #930. The primary meaning is said to refer to a jailer who tortured confined persons. This word is listed in NIV theological dictionary as part of a family of four words under basanos, #931, meaning torture or torment, basanizo, #928, meaning to torture or to torment, and basanismos, # 929, meaning torturing or torment. Basanistes is used only in Matthew 18.
Basanizo is used of the paralytic being tormented by disease in Matthew 8:6. It is also used of the demon's fear that Jesus would torture them, Matt. 8:29, Mark 5:7, Luke 8:28. It is also used of God's judgements in Revelation 9:5, 11:10, 14:10, and 20:10 regarding the devil, beast, and false prophet.
Basanos is used in Mattew 4:24 speaking of those Jesus healed. There it is used as part of a list of four various afflictions, in distinction from demon-possession, that Jesus was healing. And, most interestingly, it is used in Luke 16:23 and 28 to descibe the torment of the rich man and that torment which he feared would befall his brothers.
Then we have basanismos used of God's judgements in Revelations 9:5, 14:11, 18:7, 18:10, and 18:15.
So given the above, I will go with the jailer/tormentor of Matthew 18:34 being a reference to God's judgement, and the debt being unpayable and unforgiven, thus the judgement being final.
I could find no reference to any of this word family being used of demon-possession. Perhaps you can.
But seeing as I am judged as one without light, perhaps you will share some of your abundance with us and explain how you make the connection to demon-possession. I look forward to seeing your exegesis.
On a trivial note, I realize after consideration of your "appropriate duty" comment I should have said it is a "mandatory duty" to forgive. "Mandatory" and "duty" are not synonymous. As mentioned, jury duty is mandatory, while voting is spoken of as a civic duty but is not mandatory. We have ethical, or moral duties, civic duties, and mandatory duties. All duties are not enforced by laws, and are thus non-mandatory. We may have only a moral duty to rescue someone; firemen and emergency personel have a legal requirement to do so.
I enjoyed your comments at the end of yesterday's program about how fiercely a new convert defends their new position. As I recall it was concerning your conversion from dispensationalism but it fits you to a "tee" regarding universalism.
God bless! Homer
You wrote:
Since you have evinced great interest in who I think the jailers/torturers are in Matthew 18:34 I will provide you with some additional information.I am interested in the text itself. If a commentator can show me something valid from the text, I respect him. If he parrots only what the majority are saying, without providing biblical arguments in favor of his view, what is there to respect in that? "If they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them."
The word basanistes, translated jailers/torturers, Matthew 18:34, is a noun, Strong's #930. The primary meaning is said to refer to a jailer who tortured confined persons. This word is listed in NIV theological dictionary as part of a family of four words under basanos, #931, meaning torture or torment, basanizo, #928, meaning to torture or to torment, and basanismos, # 929, meaning torturing or torment. Basanistes is used only in Matthew 18.
Basanizo is used of the paralytic being tormented by disease in Matthew 8:6. It is also used of the demon's fear that Jesus would torture them, Matt. 8:29, Mark 5:7, Luke 8:28. It is also used of God's judgements in Revelation 9:5, 11:10, 14:10, and 20:10 regarding the devil, beast, and false prophet.
Basanos is used in Mattew 4:24 speaking of those Jesus healed. There it is used as part of a list of four various afflictions, in distinction from demon-possession, that Jesus was healing. And, most interestingly, it is used in Luke 16:23 and 28 to descibe the torment of the rich man and that torment which he feared would befall his brothers.
Then we have basanismos used of God's judgements in Revelations 9:5, 14:11, 18:7, 18:10, and 18:15.
So given the above, I will go with the jailer/tormentor of Matthew 18:34 being a reference to God's judgement, and the debt being unpayable and unforgiven, thus the judgement being final.
I could find no reference to any of this word family being used of demon-possession. Perhaps you can.
But seeing as I am judged as one without light, perhaps you will share some of your abundance with us and explain how you make the connection to demon-possession. I look forward to seeing your exegesis.
On a trivial note, I realize after consideration of your "appropriate duty" comment I should have said it is a "mandatory duty" to forgive. "Mandatory" and "duty" are not synonymous. As mentioned, jury duty is mandatory, while voting is spoken of as a civic duty but is not mandatory. We have ethical, or moral duties, civic duties, and mandatory duties. All duties are not enforced by laws, and are thus non-mandatory. We may have only a moral duty to rescue someone; firemen and emergency personel have a legal requirement to do so.
I enjoyed your comments at the end of yesterday's program about how fiercely a new convert defends their new position. As I recall it was concerning your conversion from dispensationalism but it fits you to a "tee" regarding universalism.
God bless! Homer
Last edited by Homer on Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Barclay was convinced (UR)
Actually, my comments were about the fierceness with which one often attacks a view which he had formerly held, once he has found that he was deceived by it. This may or may not translate into zealous defense of another position. I am surprised you find in my posts unusual zeal. I have done little else than answer questions and objections. I would answer them just as truthfully whether I felt any zeal for the task or not.
Also, I made no accusation that you lacked light (inattention to what I have written to you, perhaps, as in the present case—but not lack of light). If you will read what I said again, but without a desire to contend, you will see that I said I will not take as authoritative those ("commentators" were my subject) who make affirmations that cannot be supported from the text. It is they of whom I made the comment about light. Take a look again, please. There is no reason for you to look for gratuitous strife. I am not interested in a fight, but in an analytical approach to the biblical witness.
To my mind, it does little good to look at the variety of usages of the word "torment," in the Greek, in an attempt to identify who the "tormentor" is in a story. Words for "torment" (including the torment of hell, of various sicknesses, etc.) do not provide any information about the identity of those who are called "tormentors"—that is, the agents of the torment. Since you yourself have demonstrated that the torment can be natural, divinely-inflicted, or generic, the question of who it is that afflicts must be determined by entirely different considerations. In speaking to Cornelius, Peter said that those whom Christ healed (of those very "torments" that you included in your list—Matt.4:24) were delivered from the oppression of "the devil" (Acts 10:38). If the oppression of the devil included the "torments" that you have catalogued for us, then we would have to identify the devil as the "tormentor" in those cases, would we not?
The verses I provided earlier all suggest that unforgiveness gives an opening to the devil. I don't know how many verses you require on a subject before you consider that there is a biblical case for the point that they make. In at least one case (1 Sam.18:8-10), the evil spirit that came to the resentful man is specifically said to be "from the Lord," which suggests that even the devil's torment may, in some cases, be seen as a judgment from God (as in Matthew 18).
This opening for the devil might not always result in demon possession. This is not the only form of affliction that the devil may bring, but it is one.
Also, I made no accusation that you lacked light (inattention to what I have written to you, perhaps, as in the present case—but not lack of light). If you will read what I said again, but without a desire to contend, you will see that I said I will not take as authoritative those ("commentators" were my subject) who make affirmations that cannot be supported from the text. It is they of whom I made the comment about light. Take a look again, please. There is no reason for you to look for gratuitous strife. I am not interested in a fight, but in an analytical approach to the biblical witness.
To my mind, it does little good to look at the variety of usages of the word "torment," in the Greek, in an attempt to identify who the "tormentor" is in a story. Words for "torment" (including the torment of hell, of various sicknesses, etc.) do not provide any information about the identity of those who are called "tormentors"—that is, the agents of the torment. Since you yourself have demonstrated that the torment can be natural, divinely-inflicted, or generic, the question of who it is that afflicts must be determined by entirely different considerations. In speaking to Cornelius, Peter said that those whom Christ healed (of those very "torments" that you included in your list—Matt.4:24) were delivered from the oppression of "the devil" (Acts 10:38). If the oppression of the devil included the "torments" that you have catalogued for us, then we would have to identify the devil as the "tormentor" in those cases, would we not?
The verses I provided earlier all suggest that unforgiveness gives an opening to the devil. I don't know how many verses you require on a subject before you consider that there is a biblical case for the point that they make. In at least one case (1 Sam.18:8-10), the evil spirit that came to the resentful man is specifically said to be "from the Lord," which suggests that even the devil's torment may, in some cases, be seen as a judgment from God (as in Matthew 18).
This opening for the devil might not always result in demon possession. This is not the only form of affliction that the devil may bring, but it is one.
Re: Barclay was convinced (UR)
Also, I think it is significant that Paul, while making a fairly detailed description of events surrounding the resurrection, makes no mention of a gathering together for judgment. Why would he omit such a significant event if it were to happen as so many believe? The ultra-universalist would say that references to the judgment are symbolic and that there is not a singular event, but that each person reaps what he sows and is rewarded according to his works during the space of his lifetime. The description of events in 1 Cor 15 would not provide any evidence against this idea.
1 Cor 15:50-54
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”
Here he says, "the dead shall be raised incorruptible". He does not limit this to Christians; this applies to everyone.
Todd
Well i concede it's possible that Paul may mean everyone is raised to immortality which if true would eliminate CI as an ultimate option. It's actually an important point to consider and i think 1st Cor 15.28 eliminates ET as a possibility. While it's true Paul doesn't mention judgment John certainly does in Rev 20.5 as he says "the dead were judged according to what they had done" and they go into the lake of fire. I think the natural reading is to view this section sequentially and i give equal weight to both 1st Cor 15 and Rev 20 and i try to blend them together so that i see Rev 20 as filling in the unspoken portion in 1st Cor 15 where Christ reigns until he has put everything under his feet and God is all in all.
I understand you see Rev 20 as retroactively applying to our earthly lives but it just doesn't add up for me.
1 Cor 15:50-54
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”
Here he says, "the dead shall be raised incorruptible". He does not limit this to Christians; this applies to everyone.
Todd
Well i concede it's possible that Paul may mean everyone is raised to immortality which if true would eliminate CI as an ultimate option. It's actually an important point to consider and i think 1st Cor 15.28 eliminates ET as a possibility. While it's true Paul doesn't mention judgment John certainly does in Rev 20.5 as he says "the dead were judged according to what they had done" and they go into the lake of fire. I think the natural reading is to view this section sequentially and i give equal weight to both 1st Cor 15 and Rev 20 and i try to blend them together so that i see Rev 20 as filling in the unspoken portion in 1st Cor 15 where Christ reigns until he has put everything under his feet and God is all in all.
I understand you see Rev 20 as retroactively applying to our earthly lives but it just doesn't add up for me.
-
jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
Re: Barclay was convinced (UR)
(Note; I underline, and apostrophe my writing to make it easier to find main points in a large body of text, and to ‘highlight terms’, just the same as I do in my study lessons and bible, someone once thought I was yelling, ?)
(The following post is part of my answer to Matthew 18 concerning the parable of the 'certain king', and whether or not the slave being thrown into prison is a picture of future punishment or earthly punishment)
The Matt 18 parable is part of a 'series' of parables (And teachings) about the Kingdom of God and Heaven.
(I know Steve agrees with this so far as i have listened to Steve teach this on his recordings)
That said, It doesn’t matter what school of eschatology you hold to, you would have to agree that ‘most’ of Jesus teachings concerning the ‘Kingdom of God’ have not yet happened, yet the Kingdom is at work now. And since it (The Kingdom of Heaven) has not been fulfilled it can only be ‘described’ as to how it will come about 'on earth as it will be in heaven'.
The Kingdom of God is synonymous with Gods will, so if the fulfilment of Gods Kingdom involves outer darkness, weeping and gnashing of teeth, departing and casting out, etc. then it is Gods will. The two opposites are generally and heavily contrasted, so to dispel with one aspect of Gods will is to destroy the whole contrast. To remove the meaning of casting out would be to remove the meaning of entering in. Removing the clear meaning of the words on one side of the contrast would remove the clear meaning on both sides of the contrast. It could then be said that Heaven is ‘not’ Gods will, or that it (The Kingdom of God) will be in our future.
I think the Bible uses the word death as symbolic of death, just as life is symbolic of life.
We can’t say Death only refers to this world, without also saying Life only refers to this world.
What would be the point in saying “the soul that sins will die?” We all die anyway.
If we take every mention of death as referring to this life only, it follows that we would have to take most every verse referring to Life and Forgiveness as ‘in this life only’ also.
Where in the Kingdom verses does it speak of hell as restorative?
Steve, I am not so concerned with only Matt 18, since I try not to take stands on parables, but I have a question regarding the Kingdom of God and Heaven.
If the Kingdom of God is synonymous with Gods Will, then why does Jesus speak of Hell and punishment so much, is not the future to be believed as real (Real, literal effects), whether it is Life, or Death?
Steve wouldn’t you agree that Matthew 18 does not stand alone, but it is part of a theme among ‘many’ parables?
The Kingdom of God is not just a parable here and there, the parables (And teachings), ‘could’ be read as one long discourse on the Kingdom. As it was the central ‘theme’ in Jesus teachings.
So with that in mind I posted the other Matthew parables, but first concerning Matt.18:25;
‘All that he had’ I think shows that it would take ‘all that we have’, no matter what the amount, as you have said; we cannot really pay off a sin. We know our salvation is not by works, so the value of having our sins forgiven is worth everything to us.
I think Matt 18:25 is a reflection of the thought in Matt.13:44 and 45;
"The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid again; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.45 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking fine pearls,46 and upon finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it.
I think the fact that it was such an exceeding amount worth 'all that we have' more than ‘hints’ at the amount. Jesus did not ‘have’ to use such a huge amount to demonstrate the forgiveness, but he did.
I do not think saying the amount was un-payable is “reading into the text”, the 'king' seemed to consider it un-payable. Jesus used an amount that was ‘extreme’ yet still a slightly ‘conceivable’ debt. 1 million is somewhat inconceivable for a slave (or for most any common person for that matter) but if Jesus said rather 1 billion, or one trillion (I know, they had no such numbers) it would have begun to sound really too ‘far fetched’ to take seriously and thus ‘lose the impact’ of the parable. Sayings like eat my flesh and drink my blood are hard sayings, but not inconceivable, in fact we do in a sense partake of His blood and flesh.
(The following post is part of my answer to Matthew 18 concerning the parable of the 'certain king', and whether or not the slave being thrown into prison is a picture of future punishment or earthly punishment)
The Matt 18 parable is part of a 'series' of parables (And teachings) about the Kingdom of God and Heaven.
(I know Steve agrees with this so far as i have listened to Steve teach this on his recordings)
That said, It doesn’t matter what school of eschatology you hold to, you would have to agree that ‘most’ of Jesus teachings concerning the ‘Kingdom of God’ have not yet happened, yet the Kingdom is at work now. And since it (The Kingdom of Heaven) has not been fulfilled it can only be ‘described’ as to how it will come about 'on earth as it will be in heaven'.
The Kingdom of God is synonymous with Gods will, so if the fulfilment of Gods Kingdom involves outer darkness, weeping and gnashing of teeth, departing and casting out, etc. then it is Gods will. The two opposites are generally and heavily contrasted, so to dispel with one aspect of Gods will is to destroy the whole contrast. To remove the meaning of casting out would be to remove the meaning of entering in. Removing the clear meaning of the words on one side of the contrast would remove the clear meaning on both sides of the contrast. It could then be said that Heaven is ‘not’ Gods will, or that it (The Kingdom of God) will be in our future.
I think the Bible uses the word death as symbolic of death, just as life is symbolic of life.
We can’t say Death only refers to this world, without also saying Life only refers to this world.
What would be the point in saying “the soul that sins will die?” We all die anyway.
If we take every mention of death as referring to this life only, it follows that we would have to take most every verse referring to Life and Forgiveness as ‘in this life only’ also.
Where in the Kingdom verses does it speak of hell as restorative?
Steve, I am not so concerned with only Matt 18, since I try not to take stands on parables, but I have a question regarding the Kingdom of God and Heaven.
If the Kingdom of God is synonymous with Gods Will, then why does Jesus speak of Hell and punishment so much, is not the future to be believed as real (Real, literal effects), whether it is Life, or Death?
Steve wouldn’t you agree that Matthew 18 does not stand alone, but it is part of a theme among ‘many’ parables?
The Kingdom of God is not just a parable here and there, the parables (And teachings), ‘could’ be read as one long discourse on the Kingdom. As it was the central ‘theme’ in Jesus teachings.
So with that in mind I posted the other Matthew parables, but first concerning Matt.18:25;
‘All that he had’ I think shows that it would take ‘all that we have’, no matter what the amount, as you have said; we cannot really pay off a sin. We know our salvation is not by works, so the value of having our sins forgiven is worth everything to us.
I think Matt 18:25 is a reflection of the thought in Matt.13:44 and 45;
"The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid again; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.45 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking fine pearls,46 and upon finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it.
I think the fact that it was such an exceeding amount worth 'all that we have' more than ‘hints’ at the amount. Jesus did not ‘have’ to use such a huge amount to demonstrate the forgiveness, but he did.
I do not think saying the amount was un-payable is “reading into the text”, the 'king' seemed to consider it un-payable. Jesus used an amount that was ‘extreme’ yet still a slightly ‘conceivable’ debt. 1 million is somewhat inconceivable for a slave (or for most any common person for that matter) but if Jesus said rather 1 billion, or one trillion (I know, they had no such numbers) it would have begun to sound really too ‘far fetched’ to take seriously and thus ‘lose the impact’ of the parable. Sayings like eat my flesh and drink my blood are hard sayings, but not inconceivable, in fact we do in a sense partake of His blood and flesh.
Last edited by jriccitelli on Sun Dec 25, 2011 10:30 am, edited 3 times in total.
-
jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
Re: Barclay was convinced (UR)
Steve wrote; "We both know that the parable is about showing mercy. What we are discussing is whether postmortem consequences are mentioned in it or not. I do not know how many times I must ask for your reasons for seeing such. That is the point under discussion here. I wish you would not avoid it"
My reasons for such are as follows: The Parable in Matt 18 is part of a 'series of parables' on the Kingdom of God, (I know you know this, but it is a sound 'reason' for interpreting this one parable in light of the other teaching on the 'Kingdom of God'). ‘The Kingdom of heaven is at hand’ and the 'Kingdom within you' verses can be understood as the Kingdom now and active on earth (As Gods 'will' is active now on earth as it is in Heaven), but most of Jesus’ descriptions of ‘The Kingdom of Heaven’ are concerning the future culmination of what and who will be in heaven. And what it is that gets us there.
Matthew 18:1 “At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, "Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"… unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven”
…but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea”
The parable starts with the ‘kingdom of Heaven’, and compares being thrown into the sea with what, something better?
Is this not a comparison of two different deaths? And how one would be better than the other?
This must be a comparison of earthly punishment compared to 'next' worldly punishment.
(Oops, I didn't mean that this was a parable, but this is a continuation of the series of 'teachings' on the 'Kingdom'.
Drowning is compared to the unstated yet obvious 'worse' consequence. Drowning is a 'better' way of dying, than what?)
The next teaching seems to be speaking of heaven and hell also…
Matt 18:8 "If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.9 "If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell"
Is Jesus making a contrast between life and life? No life and hell.
The next parable (Matt 18:13) of the sheep speaks of God searching out us ‘in this life’. I am sure God is searching out His own sheep as ‘the others’ are neither ‘lost’ and ‘not’ going ‘astray’. God is doing so that we might not ‘perish’...
"If it turns out that he finds it, truly I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine which have not gone astray.14 "So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish"
Again it would seem strange to think this perishing is in this life, because we all die sooner or later.
The next teaching, Matt 18:18, chronological or not, is very similar, it speaks of things in heaven being ‘represented’ by things on earth:
"Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.19 "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven"[/color]Regardless of what we make of binding and loosening, the point is that what we do on earth is reflected in heaven.
So again, as above in verse 18-19 we have an earthly event and its similar heavenly event. Now verse 18:23;
Matt 18:23 "For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves"
So again we have “the kingdom of heaven may be compared to…” , the Kingdom does not ‘have’ to be placed in heaven, but you would have to agree that most all of the kingdom verses use earthly subjects to describe ‘the other’ worldly subjects, and future subjects. Jesus is usually describing things we have not yet seen, with things we have seen.
So he says it may be ‘compared’. What is generally being compared?
Things on earth with those in Heaven, and sometimes hell.
(Now looking back at Matthews previous writings concerning the Kingdom of God)
Matt 5:3-6 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.5"Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.6 "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied”
This certainly hasn’t happened yet.
Matt 5:20 "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Again a comparison and requirement for entering.
Matt 6:10 'Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven.11 'Give us this day our daily bread.12 'And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors…14 "For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.15 "But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions"
Jesus is speaking here of the Kingdom of God.
Note Jesus did ‘not’ say; ‘Your will be done on earth as it is on earth’, So again the repeated form of the Kingdom parables, the transfer of what happens here to what happens there. This prayer in fact says nearly the same thing as the parable of Matt 18.
Matt 6:19 "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.20 "But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven"
Matt 7:22 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'
Again the Kingdom of heaven contrast of ‘enter’ and ‘depart’.
Matt 8:11-12 "I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven;12 but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Again; the contrast of entering and departing heaven or hell.
Matt 10:28 "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
The contrast between the death in this world and the second death. (The first death obviously does not kill the soul)
Matt 12:31 "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.32 "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
The contrast between shall be and shall not.
The contrast between this age and that age.
Matt 12:39 But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;
The contrast of the two signs, neither sign is post mortem though.
(As Jonah being in the belly of a fish was a sign, so shall Jesus be buried for three days is a sign, and the 'only' sign to be given)
Matt 12:45 "Then it goes and takes along with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first. That is the way it will also be with this evil generation."
Contrast of the final state with the first. Note it doesn’t give much hope.
Matt 13:24 "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field… 30 'Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn."
Is this not a comparison of the ‘now’ with what will happen in the ‘future’?
(The time of 'sowing' (Now) compared to the time of 'harvest' (Future), with the other comparison of bundling tares compared to gathering of wheat)
Matt 13:40 "So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age.41 "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness,42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.43 "Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear”
Even if you’re a Preterist you would have to admit that a common theme in the ‘Kingdom’ teachings is a comparison of ‘now’ with ‘future’, right? (As you have said, and to what I hold, a dual fulfillment. Never the less Gods 'opinion' of the unbeliever does not seem to change between the here and then in these teachings, and as in;
Mark 8:37 "For what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 38 "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels")
(As some are ashamed of Him now, so also, He will be ashamed of them when he comes)
(The comparison of the here and 'now' with the 'future', 70AD or 2000AD never the less it is 'future' to them)
Matt 13:44 "The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid again; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.
Matt 13:45 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking fine pearls,46 and upon finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it.
Here like verse 18:25 the comparison of all that we have with the greatness of our forgiveness. The son of God is like the great pearl, to which no amount of offering or suffering can be compared to as equal.
Matt 13:47 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet cast into the sea, and gathering fish of every kind;48 and when it was filled, they drew it up on the beach; and they sat down and gathered the good fish into containers, but the bad they threw away.49 "So it will be at the end of the age; the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous,50 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.51 "Have you understood all these things?" They said to Him, "Yes."
My reasons for such are as follows: The Parable in Matt 18 is part of a 'series of parables' on the Kingdom of God, (I know you know this, but it is a sound 'reason' for interpreting this one parable in light of the other teaching on the 'Kingdom of God'). ‘The Kingdom of heaven is at hand’ and the 'Kingdom within you' verses can be understood as the Kingdom now and active on earth (As Gods 'will' is active now on earth as it is in Heaven), but most of Jesus’ descriptions of ‘The Kingdom of Heaven’ are concerning the future culmination of what and who will be in heaven. And what it is that gets us there.
Matthew 18:1 “At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, "Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"… unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven”
…but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea”
The parable starts with the ‘kingdom of Heaven’, and compares being thrown into the sea with what, something better?
Is this not a comparison of two different deaths? And how one would be better than the other?
This must be a comparison of earthly punishment compared to 'next' worldly punishment.
(Oops, I didn't mean that this was a parable, but this is a continuation of the series of 'teachings' on the 'Kingdom'.
Drowning is compared to the unstated yet obvious 'worse' consequence. Drowning is a 'better' way of dying, than what?)
The next teaching seems to be speaking of heaven and hell also…
Matt 18:8 "If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.9 "If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell"
Is Jesus making a contrast between life and life? No life and hell.
The next parable (Matt 18:13) of the sheep speaks of God searching out us ‘in this life’. I am sure God is searching out His own sheep as ‘the others’ are neither ‘lost’ and ‘not’ going ‘astray’. God is doing so that we might not ‘perish’...
"If it turns out that he finds it, truly I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine which have not gone astray.14 "So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish"
Again it would seem strange to think this perishing is in this life, because we all die sooner or later.
The next teaching, Matt 18:18, chronological or not, is very similar, it speaks of things in heaven being ‘represented’ by things on earth:
"Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.19 "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven"[/color]Regardless of what we make of binding and loosening, the point is that what we do on earth is reflected in heaven.
So again, as above in verse 18-19 we have an earthly event and its similar heavenly event. Now verse 18:23;
Matt 18:23 "For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves"
So again we have “the kingdom of heaven may be compared to…” , the Kingdom does not ‘have’ to be placed in heaven, but you would have to agree that most all of the kingdom verses use earthly subjects to describe ‘the other’ worldly subjects, and future subjects. Jesus is usually describing things we have not yet seen, with things we have seen.
So he says it may be ‘compared’. What is generally being compared?
Things on earth with those in Heaven, and sometimes hell.
(Now looking back at Matthews previous writings concerning the Kingdom of God)
Matt 5:3-6 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.5"Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.6 "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied”
This certainly hasn’t happened yet.
Matt 5:20 "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Again a comparison and requirement for entering.
Matt 6:10 'Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven.11 'Give us this day our daily bread.12 'And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors…14 "For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.15 "But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions"
Jesus is speaking here of the Kingdom of God.
Note Jesus did ‘not’ say; ‘Your will be done on earth as it is on earth’, So again the repeated form of the Kingdom parables, the transfer of what happens here to what happens there. This prayer in fact says nearly the same thing as the parable of Matt 18.
Matt 6:19 "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.20 "But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven"
Matt 7:22 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'
Again the Kingdom of heaven contrast of ‘enter’ and ‘depart’.
Matt 8:11-12 "I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven;12 but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Again; the contrast of entering and departing heaven or hell.
Matt 10:28 "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
The contrast between the death in this world and the second death. (The first death obviously does not kill the soul)
Matt 12:31 "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.32 "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
The contrast between shall be and shall not.
The contrast between this age and that age.
Matt 12:39 But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;
The contrast of the two signs, neither sign is post mortem though.
(As Jonah being in the belly of a fish was a sign, so shall Jesus be buried for three days is a sign, and the 'only' sign to be given)
Matt 12:45 "Then it goes and takes along with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first. That is the way it will also be with this evil generation."
Contrast of the final state with the first. Note it doesn’t give much hope.
Matt 13:24 "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field… 30 'Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn."
Is this not a comparison of the ‘now’ with what will happen in the ‘future’?
(The time of 'sowing' (Now) compared to the time of 'harvest' (Future), with the other comparison of bundling tares compared to gathering of wheat)
Matt 13:40 "So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age.41 "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness,42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.43 "Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear”
Even if you’re a Preterist you would have to admit that a common theme in the ‘Kingdom’ teachings is a comparison of ‘now’ with ‘future’, right? (As you have said, and to what I hold, a dual fulfillment. Never the less Gods 'opinion' of the unbeliever does not seem to change between the here and then in these teachings, and as in;
Mark 8:37 "For what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 38 "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels")
(As some are ashamed of Him now, so also, He will be ashamed of them when he comes)
(The comparison of the here and 'now' with the 'future', 70AD or 2000AD never the less it is 'future' to them)
Matt 13:44 "The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid again; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.
Matt 13:45 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking fine pearls,46 and upon finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it.
Here like verse 18:25 the comparison of all that we have with the greatness of our forgiveness. The son of God is like the great pearl, to which no amount of offering or suffering can be compared to as equal.
Matt 13:47 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet cast into the sea, and gathering fish of every kind;48 and when it was filled, they drew it up on the beach; and they sat down and gathered the good fish into containers, but the bad they threw away.49 "So it will be at the end of the age; the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous,50 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.51 "Have you understood all these things?" They said to Him, "Yes."
Last edited by jriccitelli on Sun Dec 25, 2011 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.