Steve,
My brother, you have me a bit confused. I thought the parable of the unmerciful servant was clear, but perhaps I am wrong. Let me explain my thinking, and show me where I am in error.
Matthew 18:21-35
21. Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”
22. Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. 23. Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24. And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25. But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. 26. The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, ‘Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 27. Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.
28. “But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ 29. So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 30. And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. 31. So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. 32. Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33. Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34. And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.
35 “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”
The theme of Jesus' teaching in this passage is the necessity of forgiving others, or God will not forgive us (Matt 6:14-15). I can think of nothing more clearly taught in the scriptures. In the parable, the King is used to illustrate this principle, while also (perhaps incidentally) illustrating God's grace in forgiving us. The debt owed by the king's servant is a debt impossible for the servant to repay, as is our debt of sin. When the servant pleads for the mercy of the king, the servant is totally forgiven, just as God forgives us. The king doesn't demand even token payments be made toward the debt. This is grace.
When the wicked servant refuses to forgive a small debt owed him, then the king revokes his pardon of the debt, just as God will revoke our pardon if we persist in unforgiveness toward another. You have postulated that the great debt owed by the servant might be paid by a generous benefactor. But then the point Jesus was making would be lost, because no one can take care of our debt of sin but God; He internalizes the cost, just as the king did in the parable. The wicked servant was not thrown into prison because of the debt impossible to repay, but because of his refusal to forgive the minor debt owed him.
It would seem that for the UR scheme to be true, the wicked servant, or rather us, if we refuse to forgive during this life, would have to forgive the person indebted to us in the age to come, which would seem to be of no practical value to that person - an empty gesture. If someone has suffered through this life due to my unwillingness to forgive, of what value will it be to them then? And If I do "forgive" them then, Jesus' threat implicit in His teaching seems to be at best hollow, if not untrue.
Your suggested scenario, while a conceivable possibility in this life, would seem to have no parallel application to God and His judgements. Where do I error in my thinking on this?
Blessings, Homer
The Danger of Universalism
Re: The Danger of Universalism
Hi Homer,
You and I see the parable just about the same, until the end.
I think it significant that the man's sentence is not specifically said to be permanent, though it may be implied. It would have been entirely possible, in framing the story, for Jesus to have said, "The king delivered the man permanently to the tormentors" or "...for the rest of his natural life." The fact that there is the least suggestion of a possible reprieve (if only he could, at some future time, meet his obligations) seems significant—not only to me, but to many others. This is one of the passages that Catholics have used to prove the doctrine of purgatory. While I do not interpret it that way, one can easily see how the ambiguous wording has historically not been seen as a reference to eternal hell—or even to hell at all.
One might argue from the story that, having once been forgiven, and having further offended only in his failure to forgive another, the only "debt" that the man owed was to forgive his fellow servant. Of course, in the terms of the story itself, the debt was financial, but in terms of its application, it might well be that God only requires the unforgiving Christian to meet his new obligation to forgive those who have wronged him. If so, then it is not unimaginable that one might eventually meet this obligation.
Now, on the assumption that this parable is talking about a penalty imposed after the final judgment, you think it unprofitable for the man finally to forgive his neighbor, post mortem, since the latter would now be in either heaven or hell himself, and would benefit nothing from being forgiven. But this assumes that the value God sees in our forgiving others rests in the benefit to the person who is forgiven. In my opinion, the demand that I forgive another has as much or more to do with my own need to forgive, and my obligation before God to love those whom He loves. The forgiven person, even in this life, may benefit little or nothing from my change of heart toward him. In fact, I believe that I should forgive others who have wronged me, even if they have died before I get around to forgiving them.
My refusal to forgive may be my perceived way of punishing someone who has offended me, but he probably is little aware of my attitude on a day-to-day basis, as I am, and I am punishing only myself, and offending God, by my unforgiveness. There is plenty good reason for God to require my forgiving my brother, whether my brother derives any good from my doing so or not.
I believe that we are to forgive others, not because we owe it to them (We don't. Forgiveness is never, by nature, owed to the offender. It is a function of mercy), but because we owe it to God. He has forgiven us. We are indebted to Him, and He only requires that we forgive others as He has forgiven us. Our failure to forgive cheats God of His due, not the person we are refusing to forgive. Thus, forgiveness might well be something that God would demand that we render, even after all other scores have been settled and our offenders have gone on to their unchanging rewards.
However, as I have mentioned, I have long suspected that the parable may not be dealing with eternal destinies or disposition of justice after the judgment of the last day. It proves nothing, of course, but the story does not describe a general judgment of all men, but rather the king's dealings with an individual servant. I believe that it could be talking about divine discipline, brought upon persons in this present life, in order to persuade them to forgive those toward whom they bear ongoing malice. I could be wrong. But, in either case, your objections do not seem fatal to my position.
You and I see the parable just about the same, until the end.
I think it significant that the man's sentence is not specifically said to be permanent, though it may be implied. It would have been entirely possible, in framing the story, for Jesus to have said, "The king delivered the man permanently to the tormentors" or "...for the rest of his natural life." The fact that there is the least suggestion of a possible reprieve (if only he could, at some future time, meet his obligations) seems significant—not only to me, but to many others. This is one of the passages that Catholics have used to prove the doctrine of purgatory. While I do not interpret it that way, one can easily see how the ambiguous wording has historically not been seen as a reference to eternal hell—or even to hell at all.
One might argue from the story that, having once been forgiven, and having further offended only in his failure to forgive another, the only "debt" that the man owed was to forgive his fellow servant. Of course, in the terms of the story itself, the debt was financial, but in terms of its application, it might well be that God only requires the unforgiving Christian to meet his new obligation to forgive those who have wronged him. If so, then it is not unimaginable that one might eventually meet this obligation.
Now, on the assumption that this parable is talking about a penalty imposed after the final judgment, you think it unprofitable for the man finally to forgive his neighbor, post mortem, since the latter would now be in either heaven or hell himself, and would benefit nothing from being forgiven. But this assumes that the value God sees in our forgiving others rests in the benefit to the person who is forgiven. In my opinion, the demand that I forgive another has as much or more to do with my own need to forgive, and my obligation before God to love those whom He loves. The forgiven person, even in this life, may benefit little or nothing from my change of heart toward him. In fact, I believe that I should forgive others who have wronged me, even if they have died before I get around to forgiving them.
My refusal to forgive may be my perceived way of punishing someone who has offended me, but he probably is little aware of my attitude on a day-to-day basis, as I am, and I am punishing only myself, and offending God, by my unforgiveness. There is plenty good reason for God to require my forgiving my brother, whether my brother derives any good from my doing so or not.
I believe that we are to forgive others, not because we owe it to them (We don't. Forgiveness is never, by nature, owed to the offender. It is a function of mercy), but because we owe it to God. He has forgiven us. We are indebted to Him, and He only requires that we forgive others as He has forgiven us. Our failure to forgive cheats God of His due, not the person we are refusing to forgive. Thus, forgiveness might well be something that God would demand that we render, even after all other scores have been settled and our offenders have gone on to their unchanging rewards.
However, as I have mentioned, I have long suspected that the parable may not be dealing with eternal destinies or disposition of justice after the judgment of the last day. It proves nothing, of course, but the story does not describe a general judgment of all men, but rather the king's dealings with an individual servant. I believe that it could be talking about divine discipline, brought upon persons in this present life, in order to persuade them to forgive those toward whom they bear ongoing malice. I could be wrong. But, in either case, your objections do not seem fatal to my position.
Re: The Danger of Universalism
Here is another passage about being placed in prison until you pay your debt. George MacDonald and others understood this as an illustration of being placed in Gehenna by God, your accuser and judge, some time after death, with the implication that it was possible to pay the last penny and get out.
Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly, I tell you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny. Matthew 5:25,26
Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly, I tell you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny. Matthew 5:25,26
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: The Danger of Universalism
Hi Steve,
You wrote:
) say regarding Matthew 6:15 that "Jesus didn't really mean this, er...at least I don't think He did".
35. “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”
34. And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.
If we apply the parable to us, in this life, what kind of divine discipline can you think of that would be comparable to that which Jesus described in the parable (so my heavenly Father will do to each of you...)? I have seen people who are (or were) Christians that have fallen into the sin of unforgiveness, and been there for years, and nothing out of the ordinary happened to them. Surely Jesus' threat is a real one.
God bless bro, Homer
You wrote:
But Jesus, in His deliberate choice of the number and denomination of the amount of debt owed to the King has described a monstrous debt, beyond conception to those who heard Him, and impossible to repay. The parallel in our lives is the montrous debt of sin we likewise can not pay. I have no doubt the Catholics use this to their own ends. I have also seen that this teaching of Jesus is troubling to the eternal security folk. I heard a prominent one on the radio (no, not "two first names from Texas"I think it significant that the man's sentence is not specifically said to be permanent, though it may be implied. It would have been entirely possible, in framing the story, for Jesus to have said, "The king delivered the man permanently to the tormentors" or "...for the rest of his natural life." The fact that there is the least suggestion of a possible reprieve (if only he could, at some future time, meet his obligations) seems significant—not only to me, but to many others.
) say regarding Matthew 6:15 that "Jesus didn't really mean this, er...at least I don't think He did".Certainly we can agree that an unforgiving person can repent and be forgiven in this life. And if this is something Jesus had in mind in this parable, it is strange that He would not simply say so, which leads to the conclusion, in my mind at least, that the story is a warning regarding the final judgement, as Jeremias concludes.One might argue from the story that, having once been forgiven, and having further offended only in his failure to forgive another, the only "debt" that the man owed was to forgive his fellow servant. Of course, in the terms of the story itself, the debt was financial, but in terms of its application, it might well be that God only requires the unforgiving Christian to meet his new obligation to forgive those who have wronged him. If so, then it is not unimaginable that one might eventually meet this obligation.
But Jesus applies this teaching to his hearers, and by implication, to us as well:It proves nothing, of course, but the story does not describe a general judgment of all men, but rather the king's dealings with an individual servant.
35. “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”
Jesus described the punishment of the unforgiving servant thusly:I believe that it could be talking about divine discipline, brought upon persons in this present life, in order to persuade them to forgive those toward whom they bear ongoing malice.
34. And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.
If we apply the parable to us, in this life, what kind of divine discipline can you think of that would be comparable to that which Jesus described in the parable (so my heavenly Father will do to each of you...)? I have seen people who are (or were) Christians that have fallen into the sin of unforgiveness, and been there for years, and nothing out of the ordinary happened to them. Surely Jesus' threat is a real one.
God bless bro, Homer
Re: The Danger of Universalism
Paidion,
See my reply to Steve. The point (of the Unmerciful Servant) is the debt is impossible of repayment.
See my reply to Steve. The point (of the Unmerciful Servant) is the debt is impossible of repayment.
Re: The Danger of Universalism
Homer,
But I thought it worth considering, when deciding whether "A" point of the parable was the impossibility of the debt being repayable:
1) The king ordered the man, his family and possessions be sold so that the debt could be (at least partially) payed. (v. 25)
2) The servant did not ask that the debt be forgiven, but rather that the king be patient so that he have time to repay the debt (in full - presumably, v. 26)
3) And the aforementioned reference to the servant being sent to prison until payment in full was made. (v. 35)
For at least these reasons, I do not think it safe to make the _assertion_ that the debt was meant to be considered "impossible of repayment".
Blessings,
Mike
I have seen you make comments like this before. How people seem to be getting away w/o judgment in this life for the sins they commit. I personally believe it is not possible to tell from external appearances whether a person is experiencing judgment. I know from my own experience that even when my life was very unpleasant due to my sinfulness, I tried to put on a show of having it all together. I believe the bible teaching that we reap what we sow is as true in this life as in the next. Just my personal opinion, take it for what it's worthI have seen people who are (or were) Christians that have fallen into the sin of unforgiveness, and been there for years, and nothing out of the ordinary happened to them. Surely Jesus' threat is a real one.
I doubt you meant that this was "THE" point of the parable. (cf: Mt 18:35).The point (of the Unmerciful Servant) is the debt is impossible of repayment.
But I thought it worth considering, when deciding whether "A" point of the parable was the impossibility of the debt being repayable:
1) The king ordered the man, his family and possessions be sold so that the debt could be (at least partially) payed. (v. 25)
2) The servant did not ask that the debt be forgiven, but rather that the king be patient so that he have time to repay the debt (in full - presumably, v. 26)
3) And the aforementioned reference to the servant being sent to prison until payment in full was made. (v. 35)
For at least these reasons, I do not think it safe to make the _assertion_ that the debt was meant to be considered "impossible of repayment".
Blessings,
Mike
Re: The Danger of Universalism
Hi Mike,
Good to hear from you! You wrote:
Jeremiah 12:1 (New King James Version)
1. Righteous are You, O LORD, when I plead with You;
Yet let me talk with You about Your judgments.
Why does the way of the wicked prosper?
Why are those happy who deal so treacherously?
Job 21:7-13 (New King James Version)
7. Why do the wicked live and become old,
Yes, become mighty in power?
8. Their descendants are established with them in their sight,
And their offspring before their eyes.
9. Their houses are safe from fear,
Neither is the rod of God upon them.
10. Their bull breeds without failure;
Their cow calves without miscarriage.
11. They send forth their little ones like a flock,
And their children dance.
12. They sing to the tambourine and harp,
And rejoice to the sound of the flute.
13. They spend their days in wealth,
And in a moment go down to the grave.[a]
Psalm 94:3 (New King James Version)
3. LORD, how long will the wicked,
How long will the wicked triumph
And you wrote:
I meant the point of the description of the amount owed was that it would not be possible for the man to repay; the only possibility would be for the king to forgive the debt.
And you suggested:
2) & 3) I know you will not agree, but if the man could pay (which he could not, as I have pointed out above), then there is no grace at all in the parable, which is certainly about how God deals with us. Now if Jesus had said "throw him in prison until he learns to forgive others", I would agree with you.
God bless you, Homer
Good to hear from you! You wrote:
But the fact that they most often do not reap what they sow during their life is a problem that has long vexed the minds of Godly men:I have seen you make comments like this before. How people seem to be getting away w/o judgment in this life for the sins they commit...... I believe the bible teaching that we reap what we sow is as true in this life as in the next.
Jeremiah 12:1 (New King James Version)
1. Righteous are You, O LORD, when I plead with You;
Yet let me talk with You about Your judgments.
Why does the way of the wicked prosper?
Why are those happy who deal so treacherously?
Job 21:7-13 (New King James Version)
7. Why do the wicked live and become old,
Yes, become mighty in power?
8. Their descendants are established with them in their sight,
And their offspring before their eyes.
9. Their houses are safe from fear,
Neither is the rod of God upon them.
10. Their bull breeds without failure;
Their cow calves without miscarriage.
11. They send forth their little ones like a flock,
And their children dance.
12. They sing to the tambourine and harp,
And rejoice to the sound of the flute.
13. They spend their days in wealth,
And in a moment go down to the grave.[a]
Psalm 94:3 (New King James Version)
3. LORD, how long will the wicked,
How long will the wicked triumph
And you wrote:
You are correct!The point (of the Unmerciful Servant) is the debt is impossible of repayment.
I doubt you meant that this was "THE" point of the parable. (cf: Mt 18:35).
I meant the point of the description of the amount owed was that it would not be possible for the man to repay; the only possibility would be for the king to forgive the debt. And you suggested:
1) This could only be an expression of the king's wrath. Selling his family as slaves and his possessions would be like the government seizing what you have to bail out the banks. Slaves sold for only about 500 to 2000 dinars.But I thought it worth considering, when deciding whether "A" point of the parable was the impossibility of the debt being repayable:
1) The king ordered the man, his family and possessions be sold so that the debt could be (at least partially) payed. (v. 25)
2) The servant did not ask that the debt be forgiven, but rather that the king be patient so that he have time to repay the debt (in full - presumably, v. 26)
3) And the aforementioned reference to the servant being sent to prison until payment in full was made. (v. 35)
2) & 3) I know you will not agree, but if the man could pay (which he could not, as I have pointed out above), then there is no grace at all in the parable, which is certainly about how God deals with us. Now if Jesus had said "throw him in prison until he learns to forgive others", I would agree with you.
God bless you, Homer
Re: The Danger of Universalism
Hi Homer,
You will not be surprised that we do not see things the same way But I do respect your viewpoint.
Regarding reaping what we sow. I realize that the bible lists times when the righteous ask God why the wicked appear to be getting away with evil. However, I believe that regardless of appearances, the wicked are still reaping what they sow. (I think it is impossible to reap anything but what you sow). Plant wheat, get wheat. This is not to say that when the wicked go to war, they are always immediately defeated. It is not to say that when a robber steals, he is always immediately caught. It is not to say that when a man cheats on his wife, he derives no pleasure. Yet there are natural consequences of sin that are not always visible to those outside observers (guilt, shame, fear of being found out, inability to trust or be trusted, shallow relationships, etc.). If I am not mistaken, you have brought up the example of Hugh Hefner before of a person who is getting away with sin. (Forgive me if I am thinking of a wrong example). I personally believe Hugh Hefner is missing a great deal in having a real, loving relationship with a woman who loves him back, and probably is not as happy with his "bunnies" as he appears. Just a perspective I was not sure you were considering. In your example of people who were not "punished" for having an unforgiving spirit, I am sure you would agree that people who do not forgive suffer a self-inflicted punishment when doing this. They are often bitter and angry people.
===
I would agree that there is significance in the amount that Jesus chose to use in the parable for each of the amounts of debt. It seems to be contrasting the very large "debt" we owe to God versus the significant but relatively small "debt" that might be owed to us by our fellow servants. However, I would not take it as a given (for the reasons I expressed) that the 10,000 talents was considered beyond the means of the servant to (ever) repay. (Perhaps the servant had some very wealthy relatives ) I do not understand why you feel that if it was possible to be repaid, there would be no grace in the parable.
I do not think it is a correct method of interpreting the parable to disregard the statements made in the parable that make it sound like repayment is possible, and to assert (as a statement - not an opinion) that repayment is impossible. (which is what it appeared to me you were doing).
Blessings,
Mike
You will not be surprised that we do not see things the same way
But I do respect your viewpoint.Regarding reaping what we sow. I realize that the bible lists times when the righteous ask God why the wicked appear to be getting away with evil. However, I believe that regardless of appearances, the wicked are still reaping what they sow. (I think it is impossible to reap anything but what you sow). Plant wheat, get wheat. This is not to say that when the wicked go to war, they are always immediately defeated. It is not to say that when a robber steals, he is always immediately caught. It is not to say that when a man cheats on his wife, he derives no pleasure. Yet there are natural consequences of sin that are not always visible to those outside observers (guilt, shame, fear of being found out, inability to trust or be trusted, shallow relationships, etc.). If I am not mistaken, you have brought up the example of Hugh Hefner before of a person who is getting away with sin. (Forgive me if I am thinking of a wrong example). I personally believe Hugh Hefner is missing a great deal in having a real, loving relationship with a woman who loves him back, and probably is not as happy with his "bunnies" as he appears. Just a perspective I was not sure you were considering. In your example of people who were not "punished" for having an unforgiving spirit, I am sure you would agree that people who do not forgive suffer a self-inflicted punishment when doing this. They are often bitter and angry people.
===
I would agree that there is significance in the amount that Jesus chose to use in the parable for each of the amounts of debt. It seems to be contrasting the very large "debt" we owe to God versus the significant but relatively small "debt" that might be owed to us by our fellow servants. However, I would not take it as a given (for the reasons I expressed) that the 10,000 talents was considered beyond the means of the servant to (ever) repay. (Perhaps the servant had some very wealthy relatives
) I do not understand why you feel that if it was possible to be repaid, there would be no grace in the parable. I do not think it is a correct method of interpreting the parable to disregard the statements made in the parable that make it sound like repayment is possible, and to assert (as a statement - not an opinion) that repayment is impossible. (which is what it appeared to me you were doing).
Blessings,
Mike
Re: The Danger of Universalism
Hi Mike!
You wrote:
And:
And:
And:
And:
And:
Matthew 20:1-2 (New King James Version)
1. “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2. Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard.
Here we see Jesus recognized a denarius as a day's wages for a laborer. Josephus estimated the value of one talent at 10,000 dinars. 10,000 talents X 10,000 dinars equals 100 million days of labor! I do not think Jesus intended to leave any impression that the debt could be payed, but only forgiven as God forgives us by internalizing the loss (debt)!
And:
or express some uncertainty about it.
God bless you Mike!
Homer
You wrote:
To which I heartily agree - only it often does not occur in this life, but in the age to comeI think it is impossible to reap anything but what you sow
And:
True. But it is no more than speculation to assert they are there, in any particular case, when we have no facts that demonstrate that this is true.Yet there are natural consequences of sin that are not always visible to those outside observers
And:
Your memory is both good and correct. In your opinion he may be missing out but we have no facts that indicate this is so. He seems to be happy when I have seen him on TV and knowing of his philosophy of life (atheist/hedonist) I doubt his conscience bothers him at all. Rather, I suspect he is very satisfied with his life and would do the same things all over again if given the opportunity. But we can only speculate.If I am not mistaken, you have brought up the example of Hugh Hefner before of a person who is getting away with sin. (Forgive me if I am thinking of a wrong example). I personally believe Hugh Hefner is missing a great deal in having a real, loving relationship with a woman who loves him back, and probably is not as happy with his "bunnies" as he appears.
And:
Yes, they are often unhappy people. But I have observed that they often seem to be proud of their unforgiveness and take a perverse pleasure in it. They consider it as a positive attribute ("nobody runs over me") and appear to revel in it. Being a supervisor or manager of numerous people, and observing how they acted toward me and others, over many years, I am speaking (er..writing) from experience.In your example of people who were not "punished" for having an unforgiving spirit, I am sure you would agree that people who do not forgive suffer a self-inflicted punishment when doing this. They are often bitter and angry people.
And:
To my mind, there is no doubt Jesus was making this analogy. He pointedly applied it to those listening, and by implication to us. We can not, in any way, pay the debt for our sins, or even begin to.I would agree that there is significance in the amount that Jesus chose to use in the parable for each of the amounts of debt. It seems to be contrasting the very large "debt" we owe to God versus the significant but relatively small "debt" that might be owed to us by our fellow servants.
And:
I will try to put this into perspective. Consider Matthew 20:1-2:However, I would not take it as a given (for the reasons I expressed) that the 10,000 talents was considered beyond the means of the servant to (ever) repay. (Perhaps the servant had some very wealthy relatives
Matthew 20:1-2 (New King James Version)
1. “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2. Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard.
Here we see Jesus recognized a denarius as a day's wages for a laborer. Josephus estimated the value of one talent at 10,000 dinars. 10,000 talents X 10,000 dinars equals 100 million days of labor! I do not think Jesus intended to leave any impression that the debt could be payed, but only forgiven as God forgives us by internalizing the loss (debt)!
And:
You are correct that it is my opinion, but one I am confident is correct, otherwise I would have a different opinionI do not think it is a correct method of interpreting the parable to disregard the statements made in the parable that make it sound like repayment is possible, and to assert (as a statement - not an opinion) that repayment is impossible. (which is what it appeared to me you were doing).
or express some uncertainty about it.God bless you Mike!
Homer
Re: The Danger of Universalism
Greetings, Homer
how things are not as rosy as they may appear on the outside.
in exchange for our hearts of stone.
Notice in v. 35 that we are required to forgive *from the heart*.
I find it interesting that this parable is in answer to a question from Peter on how often he was to forgive his brother (fellow believer?) In a context where church discipline
is in view. And the parable speaks of servants of the king, where the king represents the Father.
There are numerous passages that speak of judgment for believers. Luke 12:43-48, 1 Cor 3:10-15 come to mind. Neither of these judgments are "eternal" and would appear (to me) to be intended to correct, rather than just "punish".
And if the parable is speaking of a brother in word only, then 1 Cor. 5:5 shows the judgment for this type of person, to be delivered to Satan, is so that the
person might be saved.
In any case, my view is that the judgment spoken of in the Mt. 18 parable is intended to bring the person to the point of a changed heart. Which is what the Father's desire is according to verse 35 (ie: forgiveness with compassion).
I realize that judgment is without mercy to those who show no mercy (James 2:13). Yet I believe that God shows mercy, or severity (Romans 11), according to
what we need. But as in the severity shown Israel in Romans 11, the goal is to bring to repentance so that they could be regrafted into the Olive tree.
Sorry for going all over the place in my response. I am tired, but I enjoy the give and take.
Blessings,
Mike
My personal view is that we reap in this lifetime AND in the age to come.Hi Mike!
You wrote:
To which I heartily agree - only it often does not occur in this life, but in the age to comeI think it is impossible to reap anything but what you sow
I agree, in any given case we can only speculate what that person is going through. But I do have experience of my own and of people who have confided in me,True. But it is no more than speculation to assert they are there, in any particular case, when we have no facts that demonstrate that this is true.Yet there are natural consequences of sin that are not always visible to those outside observers
how things are not as rosy as they may appear on the outside.
Then in your view that this is speaking of post mortem judgment they should have trillions of years to spareMatthew 20:1-2 (New King James Version)
1. “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2. Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard.
Here we see Jesus recognized a denarius as a day's wages for a laborer. Josephus estimated the value of one talent at 10,000 dinars. 10,000 talents X 10,000 dinars equals 100 million days of labor! I do not think Jesus intended to leave any impression that the debt could be payed, but only forgiven as God forgives us by internalizing the loss (debt)!
Perhaps you are too confident of your opinion?You are correct that it is my opinion, but one I am confident is correct, otherwise I would have a different opinionI do not think it is a correct method of interpreting the parable to disregard the statements made in the parable that make it sound like repayment is possible, and to assert (as a statement - not an opinion) that repayment is impossible. (which is what it appeared to me you were doing).
In any case, I do not think God has an interest in us re-paying our sin debt. Rather, He desires us to turn from our sins, and receive a heart of fleshTo my mind, there is no doubt Jesus was making this analogy. He pointedly applied it to those listening, and by implication to us. We can not, in any way, pay the debt for our sins, or even begin to.
in exchange for our hearts of stone.
Notice in v. 35 that we are required to forgive *from the heart*.
I find it interesting that this parable is in answer to a question from Peter on how often he was to forgive his brother (fellow believer?) In a context where church discipline
is in view. And the parable speaks of servants of the king, where the king represents the Father.
There are numerous passages that speak of judgment for believers. Luke 12:43-48, 1 Cor 3:10-15 come to mind. Neither of these judgments are "eternal" and would appear (to me) to be intended to correct, rather than just "punish".
And if the parable is speaking of a brother in word only, then 1 Cor. 5:5 shows the judgment for this type of person, to be delivered to Satan, is so that the
person might be saved.
In any case, my view is that the judgment spoken of in the Mt. 18 parable is intended to bring the person to the point of a changed heart. Which is what the Father's desire is according to verse 35 (ie: forgiveness with compassion).
I realize that judgment is without mercy to those who show no mercy (James 2:13). Yet I believe that God shows mercy, or severity (Romans 11), according to
what we need. But as in the severity shown Israel in Romans 11, the goal is to bring to repentance so that they could be regrafted into the Olive tree.
Sorry for going all over the place in my response. I am tired, but I enjoy the give and take.
Blessings,
Mike