The lectionary gospel reading for the Trinity 7 in Year A once more splits up a text in order to unite a parable and its interpretation by Jesus, though with less damage than was done previously. The parable itself is given in Matthew 13.24–30; we then skip over the brief parables of the mustard seed and yeast (to which we will come next week), and a Matthean explanation of Jesus’ use of parables as ‘fulfilment’; and we return to Jesus’ explanation of the parable in Matt 13.36–43.
In many ways this passage is more straightforward to read than some of Jesus’ other parables—but the real interest begins when we look at the different ways this has been interpreted and applied, often quite against the grain of the text (pun intended!)
The first thing we need to note is the context in Matthew’s gospel. This is yet another of the ‘parables of the kingdom of heaven’ that Matthew has collected together—as we can see clearly from the one reference to location in verse 36. The last location mentioned has been the boat the Jesus sat in in order to teach the crowds in Matt 13.2; when Jesus explains this parable privately to the disciples from Matt 13.10, it is highly unlikely that they are in the boat with him! Now we discover how this happened: following Jesus’ public teaching to the crowds, he and the disciples have returned indoors. The mention here, and the lack of mention previously, confirms that Matthew is collecting material together on the basis of its theme.
It is also interesting that this parable is unique to Matthew, with no clear parallel occurring elsewhere in the other gospels. It reads as the most ‘allegorical’ of Jesus’ parables, and in that sense is something of an ‘outlier’. Yet there is no reason to dismiss it on these grounds as a construction of Matthew rather than Jesus. It is not very much more ‘allegorical’ than the Parable of the Sower and Soils, and in fact is less like an allegory for at least two reasons. First, not all the details make allegorical sense; what does it mean for the Son of Man to ‘sow’ the ‘seeds’ that are the righteous ‘sons [children] of the kingdom’? Secondly, the interpretation of the story actually correlates well with the content of the story, whereas in allegorical interpretation the meaning (e.g. salvation) is often at some distance from the story itself (e.g. a man travelling from Jerusalem to Jericho).
So to the parable itself. In the introduction to this section, Matthew describes Jesus as ‘telling’ many parables, using the regular term laleo which he also repeats in the omitted parable of the yeast in Matt 13.33. But in introducing both this parable and the omitted parable of the mustard seed, Matthew tells us that Jesus ‘sets before them’ (paratithemi) another parable. The word is primarily used in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint, LXX) for a meal that is set before a person (and it has this sense in Mark 6.41 and Luke 10.8); Jesus is giving his listeners food for thought here, and though the meal has been well prepared, it still needs cutting up and digesting. This is no spoon feeding!
The other sense of this word is to ‘entrust’ someone with something; thus people are entrusted with much in Luke 12.48, Jesus entrusts himself to God in Luke 23.46, and the believers entrust themselves to the Lord in Acts 14.23. It will become clear that Jesus is entrusting this teaching to his disciples, and expects them to use this deposit well.
The ‘weeds’ that are sown along with the wheat are described as being zizanion, which is (following Jeremias’ studies of the parables) identified as ‘darnel‘, a poisonous grain which looked very similar to wheat as it grew, and could only be separated out with great care from the wheat grain once the crop had been harvested. Its mixture with wheat was so damaging and dangerous that there was specific Roman legislation setting out the punishments for those who sow this seed amongst someone’s wheat as a way of getting revenge. Although it is not made explicit in either the parable or its interpretation, which focus on the close proximity between wheat and weed, their similar appearance is a natural part of the story for Jesus’ listeners and Matthew’s readers.
I find it interesting that so much of the content of the parable is carried by the dialogue between the master of the household (the owner of the field) and his servants or slaves. (Jesus is, of course, not making any ethical evaluation of slavery here, but simply telling this story as part of everyday life in his world.) It gives the story much more rhetorical force; we can hear the surprise of the servants, their shock even, at this calamity—and we can also hear the weight of the master’s response, ‘An enemy did this!’ Despite the master’s apparent sovereignty over his household, it appears that an enemy, with real power and whose actions have real consequences, is also at work—as a usurper—in the master’s field.
(It is worth noting in passing that, within the parable, the servants who ask the questions will likely be the same as those who come to harvest the field—it is in the interpretation that these become different groups.)
The narrative focus of the parable itself appears to be the paradox of the wheat and the weeds co-existing, not merely side by side but in close proximity to one another—close enough that uprooting one might uproot another. Thus pastoral application has sometimes focussed on this; a modern sermon outlined here makes two of its three points relate to this (‘Stay engaged’ and ‘Practice tolerance’, both drawing on the phrase ‘Let both of them grow together’ in verse 30). There is no doubt that we should do both of these things, but it becomes less clear that this is the central focus in Jesus’ interpretation.
The question of tolerance and toleration loom large in the history of interpretation of the parable. St John Chrysostom argues that Jesus is here teaching that we should not kill heretics—though how you might suppose from the teaching of Jesus that killing anyone is a good idea, I cannot fathom.
But what means,
Lest ye root up the wheat with them?Either He means this, If you are to take up arms, and to kill the heretics, many of the saints also must needs be overthrown with them; or that of the very tares it is likely that many may change and become wheat. If therefore ye root them up beforehand, you injure that which is to become wheat, slaying some, in whom there is yet room for change and improvement. (Homily 46)
It is interesting that, in reflecting on this, Chrysostom also includes consideration that the wicked might repent—a notion that is excluded by the substance of both this parable and the parable of the soils/sower, but which is central to Jesus’ other teaching. Martin Luther makes a similar point:
Again this Gospel teaches how we should conduct ourselves toward these heretics and false teachers. We are not to uproot nor destroy them. Here he says publicly let both grow together. We have to do here with God’s Word alone; for in this matter he who errs today may find the truth tomorrow. Who knows when the Word of God may touch his heart? But if he be burned at the stake, or otherwise destroyed, it is thereby assured that he can never find the truth; and thus the Word of God is snatched from him, and he must be lost, who otherwise might have been saved. Hence the Lord says here, that the wheat also will be uprooted if we weed out the tares. That is something awful in the eyes of God and never to be justified.
But what is strange in the history of interpretation is the tradition, beginning with Augustine, of thinking Jesus is teaching that good and evil should co-exist within the ‘church’, amongst his own followers.
O you Christians, whose lives are good, you sigh and groan as being few among many, few among very many. The winter will pass away, the summer will come; lo! The harvest will soon be here. The angels will come who can make the separation, and who cannot make mistakes. … I tell you of a truth, my Beloved, even in these high seats there is both wheat, and tares, and among the laity there is wheat, and tares. Let the good tolerate the bad; let the bad change themselves, and imitate the good. (Sermon 23)
There is some appeal in this—after all, it is Matthew above all amongst the gospels who highlights the possibility of the ekklesia being less than perfect. We find it in the false prophets who are wolves dressed as sheep (Matt 7.15–20); we find it in the rebuke of those who call Jesus ‘Lord, Lord’ but he does not know them (Matt 7.2–21); we find it in the guests who come to the wedding but are subsequently ejected (Matt 22.11–13). But we do not find it here! Jesus is very clear that the field is ‘the world’ (Matt 13.38) not the ekklesia. This is a parable about being a disciple in an evil world, not about being faithful in an evil ‘church’.
(See also, as another variation on this, the interpretation of Origen, that the weeds represent the persistence of evil desires within ourselves.)
With Jesus’ interpretation of the parable, in the second part of the lectionary reading, the emphasis shifts decisively to the image and reality of judgement. The description of the Son of Man both as the king of the kingdom, and the one who in The End executes the righteous judgement of God, is both distinctive to Matthew, and is unfolded in more detail in the ‘eschatological parables’ of Matt 24 and 25. (It is almost as though we have here a prelude to that teaching.) It is dependent on the image of the (one like a) Son of Man in Dan 7, where the ‘coming on the clouds’ is coming to the Ancient of Days from the other, and not in the other direction. And it is very striking that part of the judgment of God and destruction of evil includes destroying ‘all the causes of sin’. In the new creation, to sin will not even be a possibility!
As with the later teaching, there is a clear depiction of separation followed by judgement. The world has now become ‘the kingdom’ of the Son of Man (v 41), just as it is declared, looking ahead to The End, in Rev 11.15. The image of fire and a blazing furnace is a common Old Testament image of the destruction of judgement. Despite the use of ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’, a phrase Jesus uses six times here in Matthew and once in Luke, this is not a picture of ‘conscious eternal torment’, not least because ‘gnashing of teeth’ signifies anger and resentment, not pain—and the finality of ‘burning’ admits for no sense of continuing existence. God is not a cosmic sadist, but he is the Lord of life and the righteous judge.
(As an aside, I rather like the story of the Irish ‘fire and brimstone’ preacher who majored on this phrase. An elderly person in the congregation complained: ‘What about those of us who don’t have teeth?’; to which the reply came: ‘TEETH WILL BE PROVIDED!’)
So the real emphases of the parable seem to be this: although God is sovereign in Jesus, there is a real Enemy who both opposes God and has a real effect in the world. Good and evil, in actions and people, co-exist in this world. We are not called to compromise in righteous living, but to recognise that we need to live with patience and a certain kind of tolerance in recognising that evil is real, and will not be fully dealt with until the end. But we can be sure that that End will indeed come, and that when it does the King will be fully sovereign on that day, and that all that is evil will face judgement. Without this hope, how can we rage against the evil we see around us without falling into despair?
In an age that appears to live with the twin paradox of angry intolerance and a repugnance at the reality of judgement, this parable offers a stark alternative. As followers of the Son of Man who will one day truly be king, we are confident that judgement will come. Yet in the meantime, we live with tolerance and forgiveness, not least because we know that we can trust judgement to God; God’s judgement is certain, but he is not in a hurry. It offers a very different way to live, and a different kind of hope.
Join Ian and James as they discuss these issues:
NOTE: I am giving notice that from 16th August I will no longer allow anonymous comments. All are welcome to publish under pseudonyms if you wish, but you will need to make yourself known to me from then if you wish to continue commenting.
I would like some more detail around – ..it is not ‘conscious eternal torment’ …not even for ‘all law breakers’?? what is this fire then? thank you
Fire in the OT always signifies destruction, not torment. The ‘everlasting’ nature of the punishment means that it is final, and in particular such people find no life in the ‘age to come’ (which is what ‘eternal’ refers to, just as our English word is related to aeon.)
A great deal has been written about annihilationism and universalism. Scriptural ‘proofs’, and the definitions of various Hebrew and Greek for words – “destroy,” “kill,” “punishment,” and “eternal” are presented and countered. Some scriptural texts seem to support these theories; others do not. The use of literal or metaphorical interpretations of various texts are used to explain competing theories.
It is all pretty much a matter of interpretation. Fundamental questions are raised about the basic nature of the soul. Can a soul become totally evil/depraved or can its basic nature be defected? Is God alone immortal, because He is self sufficient? Is the human soul a redemptive grace for the redeemed only or a matter of creation for all human beings?
HJ wonders where all this leaves the perspicacity of Scripture!
It is true that in the New Testament eternal means “agelong,” with the context defining the age, and in texts treating eternal destinies, eternal does refer to the “age to come”. But doesn’t the “age to come” last as long as the life of the eternal God Himself? He is eternal – He “lives forever and ever” (Rev. 4:9, 10; 10:6; 15:7) – and so does the age to come.
Is it for all or just the redeemed?
Jesus answers this in His message on the sheep and goats: “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matt. 25:46) This surely teaches us that the punishment of the lost in hell is coextensive to the bliss of the righteous in heaven – both are everlasting.
In addition, when Revelation describes the flames of hell it does not speak of consumption but says the lost “will be tormented with burning sulphur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever.” (Rev. 14:10)
Scripture’s story does not end by saying, “And the unrighteous were destroyed and exist no more.” Nor does it say, “And in the end all persons will be gathered into the love of God and be saved.” When God brings His story to a close, His people rejoice in endless bliss with Him; and the wicked endure never-ending torment in the lake of fire and are forever shut out of the joyous dwelling place of God and His people.
Thanks HJ for pressing this in contrast to Ian, though your comment would also draw out questions relating to *soul* which have been touched in in other articles and in most evangelical circles it seems that * soul* is interpreted as human person, ie part of, indistinguishable from, our material, physical bodies.
Also, destruction does not, of itself, mean irradication nor cease to exist.
Atheists, thinking modernist, would see no problem with life ending in death, even if they may not use the term annihilate, or unthinking post modernisms, new ageists, spiritualists, and others would express the idea that their loved ones and friends are looking down on them. How many think they will be reunited to family, loved ones and friends while at the same time would be horrified with any idea of God being *there*?
(As a slight sidebar, a few years ago while visiting a village in Scotland there was a public notice which displayed a prayer by one of a pair of feuding people of historical local notoriety. This was the gist: Lord may I die first before X so I can tell you all about him and let you know what he is really like.)
Even a word search for *fire* in the Old Testament would set out the context for understanding that it can not be restricted to destruction.
How many think they will be reunited to family, loved ones and friends while at the same time would be horrified with any idea of God being *there*?
This is kind of the essence of Moral Therapeutic Deism, isn’t it?
@ Geoff
Replying to questions about the human-soul’s ‘unity in duality’ would require a dissertation!
Suffice it to say, HJ holds to he traditional Christian view that the human soul transcends the human physical body; that it is immaterial or incorporeal and immortal.
He also affirms that the individual human person does not completely cease to exist with bodily death but that the person’s soul continues to exist in an intermediate state until the future resurrection of the dead.
He also rejects the view that it is not supported by Scripture or that it was imported from Greek philosophy. Whilst true that patristic and Christian authors borrowed some of the language and ideas from non-Christian authors such as Plato and Aristotle, in general they appropriated these critically. They accepted views which they considered to be compatible with Christian faith, but did not accept views which were contrary to biblical teaching and God’s revelation.
There are a number of biblical texts which support the view that the human soul continues to exist in an intermediate state between bodily death and resurrection. This implies that the human soul transcends the physical body, that it is incorporeal or immaterial or spiritual.
I find this truly awful, what kind of a God do you believe in?
I find this truly awful, what kind of a God do you believe in?
Doesn’t this question get things the wrong way around? It doesn’t matter what kind of God you believe in, it matters what kind of God actually exists.
John P,
If that is a question addressed to me, I have already set out the crux of in my comment to Andrew G, below.
It is the Triune God of Christian orthodoxy as set out with some concision in the Creeds.
It is the God of self revelation, self disclosure in the whole Protestant canon of scripture, our God, who also revealed our human nature.
I’d return the question to you.
@ John Puxty
One whose Love, Justice and Mercy are not in contradiction and who gives each of us the grace to turn to Him through Christ and the freedom to resist His grace,
What God do you follow?
Despite the use of ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’, a phrase Jesus uses six times here in Matthew and once in Luke, this is not a picture of ‘conscious eternal torment’ […] God is not a cosmic sadist,
Those aren’t the only options though (either no eternal conscious torment, or God is a cosmic sadist); cf, as the other page has turned to Lewis, The Great Divorce .
As an aside, I rather like the story of the Irish ‘fire and brimstone’ preacher who majored on this phrase.
That is indeed an even better story than the one about the Scottish preacher (‘as you look up from the fiery pit and shout “Lord, Lord, we didnae ken!”’).
In an age that appears to live with the twin paradox of angry intolerance and a repugnance at the reality of judgement, this parable offers a stark alternative.
I’m not sure this age actually has a repugnance at the idea of other people being judged. ‘TERFs’, say, people are quite happy to imagine them being judged and condemned to torment, even if it’s not quite eternal. And the ‘M’ in ‘Moral Therapeutic Deism’ is all about the need for some kind of karmic payback on one’s enemies.
The real paradox of the age is not that it doesn’t like the idea of judgement — it loves it — but that it hates the idea of being judged, or at least, being judged and found wanting; so one’s own sins (and those of people one likes) have to be defined as not really sins at all.
The phrase gnashing of teeth is found in several places in the New Testament and is used in reference to the Final Judgment where it is combined with either weeping or wailing.
Gnashing one’s teeth shows up elsewhere in scripture. In Acts 7:54 the gnashing of teeth is done in anger because of what Stephen had said to the Jewish Council. In Psalm 37:12; Psalm 35:16; 112:10; and in Lamentations 2:16. In these passages, wicked persons gnash their teeth at righteous persons as they plot against them or disapprove of them. It seems, gnashing teeth is a sign of disrespect and anger. It can also be likened to Revelation 16:10, where “the throne of the beast, and its kingdom was plunged into darkness. People gnawed their tongues in anguish.”
The idiom of gnashing one’s teeth is indicative of anguish, sadness and anger.
True, what we have is a collection of passages where Jesus, speaking of judgment day, says there will be anger and great sadness and distress. These passages (alone) don’t tell us much about Hell or whether it is eternal suffering and leaves (some) room for annihilationists (all damned will be totally destroyed), conditionalists (conscious punishment for a time before the final death). and universalists (all are saved after some punishment/cleansing).
Jesus’ first reference to weeping and gnashing of teeth comes in Matthew 8:12 where He compares the kingdom of heaven to a feast where “many” come from all parts of the world to “recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” Others, the “subjects of the kingdom”, however, are thrown into “outer darkness” where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth”. In His parable of the weeds sown in the field, Jesus again describes the fate of those who reject Him, this time adding to the description “the fiery furnace” into which they will be cast (Matthew 13:41–42). The story of the guest who comes to the wedding feast of the Lamb without the proper clothing is cast into “outer darkness” where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 22:11–13), as is the wicked servant described in Matthew 24:44–51, and the worthless servant in the parable of the talents in Matthew 25:14–30.
Now, HJ reads all these references to “weeping and gnashing of teeth” as having one thing in common – those who do not belong to Christ will suffer a terrible fate; one of anguish, remorse, pain, and misery; whereas those belonging to Him will enter a place where God “will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” (Revelation 21:4)
HJ reads them as teaching that, sadly, those who reject God will realise too late what they have truly lost, and the realisation that there is no “second chance” will cause them to feel the full weight of the pain that goes with that knowledge – the anguish of being separated from God.
It’s use in the Gospel of Luke gives a clear insight into its meaning, where it is again associated with salvation and damnation.
In response to the question: “Lord, will those who are saved be few?”, Jesus replies: “Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the householder has risen up and shut the door, you will begin to stand outside and to knock at the door”, claiming to know Him. Jesus’ reply, one we all must shudder at, is: “‘I tell you, I do not know where you come from; depart from me, all you workers of iniquity!’ There you will weep and gnash your teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves thrust out.“ (Luke 13:22-30)
That is certainly “conscious torment”. As HJ said at the beginning of this comment, whether it is “eternal” depends on whether one is inclined to accept the alternatives of annihilationism, conditionalism, or a universalism.
However, the words of Christ would appear to be unequivocal in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. In Matthew 25:41: “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” And in Matthew 25:46: “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
In Revelation 20:10, St. John describes hell (“the lake of fire,”) as a place of constant torment. Then, in Revelation 20:14-15, he again mentions this same “lake of fire” and explicitly declares that humans will go to there. In Revelation 21:8 he says it includes all those who die in a state of separation from God.
Thanks HC for a round up that does well to wake up the church from its slumber, sleep walking leadership.
At the funeral of a friend taken by her CoE son he said his mother, (who was Christian had been to many funerals and had been greived, observing that they mostly fell into one of two categories 1. those offering no hope 2. those holding out false hope. He then proceeded with a Gospel offer of Jesus and setting out the dire eternal consequences of refusal in outright opposition or in studied or careless indifference.
BTW, HC, you are really an honourable protestant in disguise, it seems to me, supported by the fact that
a) there is no p word in your short systematic exposition, unless it is wrapped up in the the terminology of conditionalist or universalist.
b) nor any mention of prayers for the dead
>>BTW, HC, you are really an honourable protestant in disguise<<
How dare you, Sir!
Purgatory or prayers for the dead, both of which Happy Jack most certainly believe in, haven't yet arisen for discussion. Did you read the link Happy Jack posted for you when you raised the issue of indulgences on an earlier thread?
https://www.catholic.com/tract/myths-about-indulgences
Besides, Happy Jack is being ecumenical as this is an Evangelical Protestant weblog.
What seems to be lacking in this discussion is any heeding of Jesus’ observations that the coming kingdom of God isn’t quite what religious people expect it to be. The first are last and the last are first. And those who expected to gain entry were denied but those who didn’t think themselves worthy were welcomed with open arms. Having grown up in a rather strict Protestant environment and then married a Roman Catholic I was impressed that Catholicism had a much better grasp of that issue.
And those who expected to gain entry were denied […] I was impressed that Catholicism had a much better grasp of that issue.
Dare you to suggest that maybe the Pope and his Cardinals will be denied entry to Heaven and see how that goes down with the Romans.
Could it be suggested Andrew, that recognition of being a sinner, not being worthy, without merit, (of shear inability), of the death, resurrection and ascension of God the Son, the spotless Lamb, last Adam, in our place, not being, never being, worthy of forgiveness, of salvation is what a believer, a Christian, is, our sin His, His righteousness ours.?
Head shaking, astonishing, wonder. Humbling; no pride permitted. Only thanks, praise and devotion, weak though they may be.
Geoff: I can’t say that I totally understand what you are saying there but my experience was that Roman Catholics, perhaps with their practice of auricular confession, have a greater depth of understanding of sin. My experience was that they were more likely to be the ones shaking their hands and asking for God’s mercy. And also being very aware that social place didn’t have any bearing on a place in the kingdom. And that working for the good of others in the community was a primary vocation.
@ S
>>My point is that the Roman denomination has as many people in it who would be shocked to find themselves denied entry to Heaven as any Protestant church<>Dare you to suggest that maybe the Pope and his Cardinals will be denied entry to Heaven and see how that goes down with the Romans<<
The presumption of salvation, for themselves or anyone else, certainly isn't Catholic teaching! We must all approach this with "fear and trembling". As a rule, Catholics of HJ's generation were less inclined to take salvation for granted than perhaps today's generation. But, yes, those who are "religious" are damned, will most probably be surprised, whatever their denomination or faith.
The presumption of salvation, for themselves or anyone else, certainly isn’t Catholic teaching!
It’s not part of Protestant teaching either (‘assurance’ is, but that’s something different). And yet Andrew Godsall wrote:
‘those who expected to gain entry were denied but those who didn’t think themselves worthy were welcomed with open arms. Having grown up in a rather strict Protestant environment and then married a Roman Catholic I was impressed that Catholicism had a much better grasp of that issue.’
So my point was that there is not in fact as much of a difference between Protestants and Romans on this as claimed.
The idea of a place where there is cleansing and renewal following death is very sensible – whether or not it is called purgatory.
The idea of a place where there is cleansing and renewal following death is very sensible – whether or not it is called purgatory.
Do you think such a place exists, then?
Quite possibly.
Quite possibly.
So it either exists or it doesn’t, but you don’t know for sure which?
I’m not sure I would call it a place but a process. C S Lewis seemed to think that also, and thought the poem by Newman, The Dream of Gerontius, was very helpful in exploring the matter. (Set sublimely to music by Edward Elgar of course)
I’m not sure I would call it a place but a process.
Okay, but either the process exists or it doesn’t, and you don’t know for sure which is the case?
C S Lewis seemed to think that also
And you don’t know for sure whether or not he was correct?
As I say – I think it is a possibility. I assumed you knew what a possibility was in the same way that C S Lewis did when he wrote about the matter.
@’ S’
The Catholic Church doesn’t teach the sinlessness of popes, cardinals, bishops or priests. Indeed, on the contrary, it acknowledges that such is their responsibility for shepherding the people of God that they face great spiritual threats.
The Catholic Church doesn’t teach the sinlessness of popes, cardinals, bishops or priests. Indeed, on the contrary, it acknowledges that such is their responsibility for shepherding the people of God that they face great spiritual threats.
I know that. My point is that the Roman denomination has as many people in it who would be shocked to find themselves denied entry to Heaven as any Protestant church.
Youre right about the gnashing of teeth. It typically reflects anger, which is understandable given the realisation of those who are not saved of what they have lost. However there is no sense in which that wailing and gnashing of teeth is a permanent state. I would find it odd if any human being remained in that condition.
As for the passage in Luke, Jesus had just humiliated the Jewish leaders by his teaching, so I think that may be linked to his subsequent words given the inevitable humiliation at being rejected from the kingdom. Indeed in context all of his words there seem to be primarily directed at the Jewish people, perhaps especially their leaders, who think they would automatically be welcomed due to just being Jewish by birth, hence his reference to Abraham etc. Gentiles wouldnt recognise Abraham from Adam! But Jesus is telling them clearly, that is not how it will work. Im not saying it doesnt apply to Gentiles, but his emphasis here is to the Jews.
I would also suggest the wailing and gnashing of teeth is precisely the sort of reaction the accused before a judge experiences when they are told the judgement of the court – death. The outer darkness may represent a place of gloom where they are temporarily held before execution, similar to an earthly jail. We dont know how long that darkness lasts. But it is clearly temporary in nature because the NT seems clear that the final destination of the unsaved is fire, not gnashing of teeth or darkness. The latter seem to be the prelude to the former, horrifying as that is.
As for eternal punishment and eternal life, punishment and life are not the same types of word so you should be careful not to treat them the same. You can punish someone else, but you cant ‘life’ a person. It seems to me the effect of the punishment is eternal in nature (ie death) from which you can not recover. Life, being a straight forward noun, can be eternal in nature.
You should also be careful how you understand ‘for ever and ever’ in the context of judgement. Typically such images reflect Old Testament passages of judgement, yet even though they use similar terms, by definition they were not literally everlasting. Rather it emphasizes the finality of the judgement.
In another post above, you mention ‘love, justice and mercy’ – I would suggest a literal everlasting conscious torment of any human being for the sin they committed during a mere 70 years of life would not reflect any of those attributes of God. Rather genuine judgement and then the death sentence reflects Him. And of course, Jesus Himself when taking on the consequences of the judgement of the sin of the whole world suffered only for a temporary period. Why then is it acceptable to argue Jesus suffered as we should, but then make the experience of that punishment extend into all eternity?
I also find the idea odd that despite God making everything ‘new’, there will continue to be a pocket of existence somewhere in reality where pain and suffering and torment continue for all eternity.
May God have mercy on us who perhaps assume we wont be one of them…
Peter
I also find the idea odd that despite God making everything ‘new’, there will continue to be a pocket of existence somewhere in reality where pain and suffering and torment continue for all eternity.
Even if the people there choose to suffer for all eternity, out of spite?
Have you read The Great Divorce?
‘ To demand of the loveless and the self-imprisioned that they should be allowed to blackmail the universe: that till they consent to be happy (on their own terms) no one else shall taste joy: that theirs should be the final power; that Hell should be able to veto Heaven…Either the day must come when joy prevails and all the makers of misery are no longer able to infect it: or else for ever and ever the makers of misery can destroy in others the happiness they reject for themselves. I know it has a grand sound to say ye’ll accept no salvation which leaves one creature in the dark outside. But watch the sophistry or ye’ll make a Dog in the Manger the tyrant of the universe.’
In that case I dont see how the heavens and earth have truly been renewed if such suffering continues, on and on and on. And I would doubt that any human truly ‘chooses’ an eternity of conscious suffering – they may have not chosen God, but why is that the alternative, rather than judgement and destruction from existence? They probably wouldnt choose that either, just as a convicted criminal wouldnt choose judgement and execution, but that is the judgement of the court. And in the end it is God who throws people out to be destroyed. I think people too often try to picture them walking outside into the darkness of their own accord, when theyre actually being thrown out.
“Either the day must come when joy prevails and all the makers of misery are no longer able to infect it”
– indeed, and they wont be able to infect anything when theyre truly dead.
Peter
Looking at the LXX’s use of paratithemi, there is this interesting one:
“When you sit down to eat with a ruler, observe carefully what is before you
[ta paratithemena soi],
…Do not desire his delicacies, for they are deceptive food.” (Prov 23:1,3)”
Perhaps more important, in Exod 19:7, Exod 21:1 and Deut 4:44, it is the verb used when Moses set before the people the law of the covenant.
Ian,
Interesting that you see that ‘evil’ has both volition and agency—something Western Christendom tends to downplay (e.g., Christopher Ash) or even deny (e.g., John Walton).
Interesting and pertinent point, Colin, though I was unaware of the positions taken by Ash (where, in his Job commentary?) and Walton.
Is that true of all of Western Christianity, Colin? Charismatic?
Doesn’t the CoE and the RC continue to retain the office of exorcism? Or has it been quietly, retired, made redundant?
Is the demonic, and satan, personal agency? Or have they been irradicated by the intellect? Or lake of fire?
Geoff,
You see it in the Christopher Ash “Where was God when that Happened” —but specifically on Job, Eric Ortlund (Lecturer in Old Testament and Biblical Hebrew at Oak Hill) —albeit in an eirenic way —repeatedly points out that regarding Job, Shaw is in line with reception history (for analysis of such see Sneed as below) and traditional evangelicalism—in that Ash does not see the book as being primarily about God’s battle with cosmic evil—however, this latter seems more in line with current trends in biblical theology.
Ortlund, Eric. Piercing Leviathan: God’s Defeat of Evil in the Book of Job. Edited by D. A. Carson. New Studies in Biblical Theology. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2021
Sneed, Mark R. Taming the Beast: A Reception History of the Behemoth and Leviathan. Studies of the Bible and Its Reception 12. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2022.
“Shaw is in line with reception history” should be: “Ash is in line with reception history”. And as regards John Walton:
“Classical theologians from Augustine to Aquinas began their theology with God and when they were finished found little room for the demons.”
“Unfortunately, many conflict theologians believe that there are such things as Satan and demons” and he comments that the “cosmic powers” etc., are the equivalent for a modern audience of climate change or a nuclear holocaust—it is simply “a message of comfort and assurance; whatever we happen to be afraid of, Christ is superior to it.”
John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton, Demons and Spirits in Biblical Theology: Reading the Biblical Text in Its Cultural and Literary Context (Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade, 2019), 95, 226, 255.
And although, as you point out, demonology is alive and well in several strands of Western Christianity, there is rarely a theology of Satan—who is notable by his relative absence in all our Reformed Confessions
there is rarely a theology of Satan—who is notable by his relative absence in all our Reformed Confessions
You what? Westminster Confession, chapter 1, point 1!
Thanks Colin. Interesting.
I had understood that you meant Ash.
I was unaware of trend you identify in Biblical theology, though whether it is a trend in all strands of it, thoughout Carson’s editorial oversight of NSBT series I don’t know.
However, I was aware that in some parts of the evangelical world (and it is not new nor confined to biblically theology) that the demonuc is seen as a throwback to anamism and and anamistic cultures.
And what you cite from Walton is far from new in some evangelical circles, well before the current emphasis on the hermeneutics of the various strands of biblical theology.
Thanks.
In that it seems the “enemy” of Matthew 13:28 is the “evil one” of Matthew 13:19 —who Jesus describes as Satan (Mark 4:15).
Just to be clear my earlier comment was in response to the last paragraph of ‘Happy Jack’s’ 1:20pm post today.
I realise that people far cleverer and versed in scripture than myself will always have answers to justify what HP is saying but for me I cannot believe in a God who creates sentient beings and then consigns some of those sentient beings to eternal torment. I am not of an evangelical persuasion but I read these blogs with a genuine desire to learn. I have struggled with my faith for most of my life but have come to a realisation of a God who will not let me go even if I try to let go of him. When I read the stuff of eternal damnation it makes me despair. Perhaps I shouldn’t get into this discussion but sometimes . . . .
I cannot believe in
But I mean… it doesn’t really matter what you, or I, can, or can’t, believe in. All that matters is what’s real. And what’s real might well be something we would prefer were not true.
a God who creates sentient beings and then consigns some of those sentient beings to eternal torment
But God doesn’t condemn anyone to eternal torment. People condemn themselves to eternal torment. And God offers every single one of them a way out of eternal torment. So the only ones who end up in eternal torment are the ones who have rejected God’s best effort (His Son dying on a cross! What more could He do?) to save them.
It’s hardly fair to blame God for their eternal torment when God went to such great lengths to save them from it and still they rejected Him and chose torment instead.
‘ There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.’
The Great Divorce
I’m not blaming God, far from it. So, some people will end up in eternal torment and God cannot or will not do anything about it?
You’ve had your opportunity, so now you must live with the consequences – is that what Jesus taught?
‘Is that what Jesus taught?’ To some degree, clearly yes. Perhaps the clearest example is in the parable of the ten virgins in Matt 25: there comes a time when the door is shut.
But the idea of eternal torment breaks the central premise of Scripture in relation to God’s judgement: that it is just. And it cannot be just if it is not proportionate.
But the idea of eternal torment breaks the central premise of Scripture in relation to God’s judgement: that it is just. And it cannot be just if it is not proportionate.
Is an eternity without God’s presence not a just and proportionate consequence of rejecting God’s authority? As justice goes to me it seems not un-poetic. That would be the The Great Divorce thesis anyway.
Another idea I sometimes wonder about is whether Heaven and Hell are actually the same place, a new city filled with the immanent presence of God… but for those who submit to God’s lordship this constant closeness to Him is glorious joy, while for those who cling on to their own self it is purest agony.
Now you can certainly criticise these ideas for lack of scriptural support and say I and Lewis are making things up, and that’d be fair. But I don’t think you could call them ‘disproportionate’. No more than a burn is ‘disproportionate’ punishment for sticking one’s hand in the fire. It’s simply the natural consequence of one’s choice.
If one were to hold a penal substituitionary view of the cross (as this one does) it would seem to be proportionate in the same way that the self giving sacrifice of Christ on cross was a “full perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world”. The identity of Christ as both covenant head and God-man was so precious that his death and passion were an amply sufficient price for the sins of the whole world – his sacrifice was infinitely valuable. By the same token, sins against the infinitely transcendant, gracious, and holy (and all the other superlatives!) God would be infinitely heinous, and so it’s hard to see how any punishment could be considered disproportionate.
@ Ian
>>the idea of eternal torment breaks the central premise of Scripture in relation to God’s judgement: that it is just. And it cannot be just if it is not proportionate.<<
But shouldn't the principle be that the measure of the punishment due relates to the gravity of the offence – not that its finite? In this life, human justice determines some offences are grave enough to exclude one from a society completely; some are not. Shouldn't we use the same principle when we’re considering offenses against God? It should be the gravity of the offence that’s going to determine our analysis of what kind of punishment is due to the offender.
The choice we make in this life is either to make ourselves our purpose or to make God our purpose. Do we freely turn to or freely turn away from God? If we turn away, then the debt of eternal punishment is for rejecting the purpose for which God created us – i.e., to know Him, serve Him, love Him, to love others and be with Him eternally. It means being excluded from God as He has an absolute right to obedience, worship, and love.
This all presupposes that my choice of turning away from God has not been repaired in this life. At death that choice is fixed. The free and wilful rejection of God – “a sin unto death” (1 John 5:16) – reasonably calls for permanent exclusion from the presence of God. If we make a permanent choice against God, then a permanent punishment follows. Hell is the “definitive self-exclusion from God” (CCC #1033)
God made humans to be in union with Him for an eternity. If anyone chooses to reject such union and are separated from Him for an eternity, the essence of hell, misery is the result. There is nothing contrary to God’s goodness or justice to allow this.
God respects our free will and if, by our actions and choices, we reject Him, He will not force Himself upon us. Hell repulses us with good reason, and while we might say no one “deserves” eternal hell, if they choose to reject God that is the consequence of that choice.
Now, some might ‘reason’: “Well, no matter how much I sin, I do not want to go to hell and be separated from God. I will always want to ask for forgiveness.” Many who are condemned to hell never thought that they would be. If one continues to sin, this will lead to increasingly more serious sins and eventually one will end up being confirmed in sin, making repentance all the more difficult.
We follow God’s will or we follow our own will.
“Do not be deceived; God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction. The one who sows to please God’s Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.” (Gal. 6.7-8).
If not permanent punishment, then there can only be two other options: a) temporary punishment or b) annihilation (God stops willing someone into existence).
@ S (July 19, 2023 at 2:07 pm)
You say: “I very much hope that Andrew Godsall has never been and is never called up for jury service. Because the task of a jury is to decide whether a certain set of facts, the truth of which can never be known for certain, is true or not.
“And I don’t know about you, but I certainly wouldn’t want to be in the dock facing a juror who things that their job is not to determine, to the best of their ability, whether the prosecution’s case is true or not, but to choose whether to believe that I am guilty.”
This just about encapsulates what Happy Jack is trying to say. You listen to the evidence and, bar conclusive proof, you have to trust in the witnesses and have faith in their veracity beyond a reasonable doubt. How many cases of false convictions have there been based on corrupt police officers and/or unreliable witnesses and evidence?
@ S (July 19, 2023 at 1:56 pm)
HJ writes: “Agreed, but because we believe we trust in God’s revelation through faith ”
You say: “What? No! Absolutely not! Quite the reverse! I don’t trust God’s revelation because I believe. I believe because I am convinced that the Bible is God’s revelation.”
You say potato …. you have trust in Scripture and the eye witness testimonies of the New Testament – through faith.
HJ says: “We’re not actually disagreeing.”
You say: “We absolutely very much 100% are not.”
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1)
Just as our physical eyesight is the sense that gives us evidence of the material world, faith is the “sense” that gives us evidence of the invisible, spiritual world.
The Bible doesn’t recommend a “blind leap” of faith. But the reasons can’t be measured in a laboratory; they have to be understood spiritually. Faith extends beyond what we learn from our senses. Its tests are not those of the senses, which yield uncertainty. Faith enables people to believe in the invisible order. If you have the substance before you or if you can see it, there is no use for faith. Faith is needed for what we can’t see and can’t touch. Only faith can prove that the Scripture is the Word of God – it is a belief beyond reason but not in contradiction to, or against reason. Faith is not an intellectual understanding. It is a willingness to trust in, to rely on, and to cling to.
Vatican I defined the act of faith as “a supernatural virtue by which, with the inspiration and help of God’s grace, we believe that what he has revealed is true not because its intrinsic truth is seen by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God who reveals it, of God who can neither deceive nor be deceived.”
(De Fide Catholica)
You listen to the evidence and, bar conclusive proof, you have to trust in the witnesses and have faith in their veracity beyond a reasonable doubt.
No you don’t. You don’t trust the witnesses. You weigh their evidence against the rest of the evidence. The only person you trust, as a juror, is the judge.
You say potato …. you have trust in Scripture and the eye witness testimonies of the New Testament – through faith.
No. I. Don’t. I believe in Scripture and the eye witness testimonies of the New Testament because I am convinced by the evidence and logic. No faith.
Vatican I defined the act of faith as
Vatican I also promulgated the noxious heresies of papal infallibility and the immaculate conception, so clearly nothing that came out of it is worth bothering with.
“a supernatural virtue by which, with the inspiration and help of God’s grace, we believe that what he has revealed is true not because its intrinsic truth is seen by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God who reveals it, of God who can neither deceive nor be deceived.”
(De Fide Catholica)
So, some people will end up in eternal torment and God cannot or will not do anything about it?
What do you mean, ‘cannot or will not do anything about it’?
He could do something. He did do something. He sent His Son. He died on a cross.
What more do you want Him to do?
“But I mean… it doesn’t really matter what you, or I, can, or can’t, believe in.”
Hmmm…..I think it matters a great deal. That’s why the Creeds start ‘I believe …’ rather than I know. This side of the grave we don’t know. So what we believe is something that really does matter.
This side of the grave we don’t know. So what we believe is something that really does matter.
It doesn’t, though. If I jump out of an aeroplane, I won’t know, this side of pulling the ripcord, whether or not my parachute was correctly packed, and doesn’t have any holes in it. But it certainly doesn’t matter whether I believe it was; what matters is the reality, and my belief won’t save me from going splat.
Belief doesn’t matter. Only reality matters.
“Belief doesn’t matter.”
Ah that’s why the Creeds don’t matter to you I suppose.
Belief in a parachute is different to belief in what happens to you when you die. You can unpack a parachute and check it.
You will need to ask St Thomas about the differences between believing and knowing.
Andrew you appear to be wilfully misinterpreting this comment.
You will need to explain then Ian because I don’t see any wilful misinterpretation I’m afraid. Belief is not the same as knowledge.
Belief in a parachute is different to belief in what happens to you when you die. You can unpack a parachute and check it.
But when you pack it away again you’ll never know whether you packed it away correctly — until you pull the riocord.
Similarly you won’t know whether your beliefs about God are true until you die. And when you die, it won’t matter what you believed; it will only matter what the reality is.
Two things with the parachute. There are protocols about how to pack it away that ensure it is safe to use. Of course, as with anything there is risk. But you base your choice on probability and the failure rate of parachutes. But secondly you carry a reserve that doesn’t need a rip cord. You just throw it out. You minimise your risks in these two ways.
With life after death – well, I think the scriptures tell us that faith can be counted as righteousness and that blessed are those who have not seen but believe. Of course the facts count. No one denies that. But until we die we don’t have those so in fact we have to base our decisions on belief, and not on facts. Hence when we say the creeds we say ‘I believe’ and not ‘I know…’.
Two things with the parachute. There are protocols about how to pack it away that ensure it is safe to use.
But no one follows protocols 100% correctly every time, or there would never be any avoidable surgical errors or data security breaches. You might have made a mistake following the protocol. You won’t know until you pull the ripcord. And at that point your belief that you did everything correctly counts for naught. All that matters is reality. And reality doesn’t care what you believe.
With life after death – well, I think the scriptures tell us that faith can be counted as righteousness and that blessed are those who have not seen but believe.
But what if my atheist friends are right, and when we did we just cease to exist? What if the Muslims are right and what matters is just the weight of your good deeds versus your bad deeds?
If the atheists are right then it doesn’t matter what you believe: when you die you will simply blink out of existence.
So it doesn’t matter what you believe, because when it comes to the crunch, reality doesn’t care what you believe . If the reality is that the atheists are right then it doesn’t matter how strongly you believed in the creeds because you believed in a lie.
So you are wrong: belief doesn’t matter. All that matters is reality.
Reality is what is true, whether or not you believe it.
“So you are wrong: belief doesn’t matter“
So why bother to say the Creeds if belief doesn’t matter?
So why bother to say the Creeds if belief doesn’t matter?
I say them because I think they are true.
What matters is whether or not they are true, not whether I believe them.
Me believing or not believing them makes absolutely zero difference to anything. Reality doesn’t change because of my belief.
But them being true, or not true, is the most important thing in the world.
Why do you say the creeds if you don’t think it matters whether the statements in them are true or not?
‘I believe X’ means ‘I think X is true’
If you don’t think the statements in the creed are true aren’t you lying every time you say it?
Yes, but you still miss the vital point here. We don’t know they are true because we have no proof – well, we have proof for some of the clauses, but not all. The Creeds are statements of faith and belief, made in communion with the church over hundreds of years. They don’t begin ‘I know’ but they begin ‘I believe…’ or ‘we believe…’ .
Now of course I’m not going to put my trust and faith in things that I don’t think are true. But you don’t have any proof for the existence of God – unless you are somehow going to produce something that has not been done before. You don’t have any proof for the existence of hell. What you have is belief and faith.
I don’t seen anyone else here agreeing that belief doesn’t matter.
Yes, but you still miss the vital point here. We don’t know they are true because we have no proof – well, we have proof for some of the clauses, but not all.
That’s not the vital point. The vital point is whether they are true or not. There is no way for us to know for sure before we die whether or not they are true, but if we did and it turns out they are not true, then we have wasted our lives on a lie. Our belief was flawed. It counted for nothing because the thing we believed in was not true.
So obviously our belief doesn’t matter. Because when we die, only reality matters. If, in reality, when we die, there is no God, or God isn’t as we believed, then no amount of belief will change that.
So our belief doesn’t, in the end, matter at all. What matters is what is true.
But if you can’t know what is true – this side of the grave – then what you put your faith and belief in is of vital importance. You have a choice between believing it is true and believing it is false. It matters which you choose. It matters what you believe.
I think we are going to have to disagree here or we will go back and forth for ever. At least we agree that we can’t actually know – this side of death.
But if you can’t know what is true – this side of the grave – then what you put your faith and belief in is of vital importance.
Yes. But what is of vital importance is that we try as hard as we can to figure out what is actually true, and out our faith in that. Negates they only thing that matters is that we get that call — if that to put our faith in — correct. So what matters is not what we believe, but that we believe what is really true.
You have a choice between believing it is true and believing it is false.
You don’t have a choice. To brief something means to be convinced it is true, and to can’t choose to be convinced something is true — either you are conceived or you aren’t.
I am convinced that Christianity is true. I won’t know for sure until I die whether I am right about that or not, but I don’t have any choice in the matter. I am convinced by the evidence; I couldn’t choose not to be convinced.
But the only thing that matters is whether I am right or not. IfI am wrong, my belief won’t stop me from ceasing to exist when I die.
“So what matters is not what we believe, but that we believe what is really true.”
Hence there was quite a lot of to and fro about what actually went in to the Creeds. And there is a lot of to and fro about what in the bible is actually fact or just parable – and you are not sure about some of it, like Noah’s Ark for instance. The Creeds have become the irreducible minimum for admission to the Christian Church. But a leap of faith is still involved and I think Happy Jack has it totally correct when they write
“When we recite the Creed we are acknowledging we accept by faith, a gift from God, the teachings of Scripture as presented to us by the Church. In the same way we have “faith” that a parachute will open. Faith is what we trust will happen.”
I very much hope that Andrew Godsall has never been and is never called up for jury service. Because the task of a jury is to decide whether a certain set of facts, the truth of which can never be known for certain, is true or not.
Andrew Godsall seems to think that if the truth can never be known then you can choose whether or not to believe something.
And I don’t know about you, but I certainly wouldn’t want to be in the dock facing a juror who things that their job is not to determine, to the best of their ability, whether the prosecution’s case is true or not, but to choose whether to believe that I am guilty .
Outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins writes,
“Another member of the religious meme complex is called faith. It means blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence. The story of Doubting Thomas is told, not so that we shall admire Thomas, but so that we can admire the other apostles in comparison. Thomas demanded evidence…. The other apostles, whose faith was so strong that they did not need evidence, are held to us as worthy of imitation.”
How wrong! This text actually teaches the exact opposite of what Dawkins writes.
Jesus describes two groups of people: those who see and believe, and those who never see and believe. All of the disciples saw the risen Jesus and believed. However, the vast majority of Christians who have ever lived have not seen and have come to believe.
This doesn’t mean that faith isn’t based on evidence. We have a different kind of evidence. We don’t get to physically see and touch the wounds of the resurrected Christ, but we have the eyewitness testimony of those who did.
When Jesus finished saying, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”, John adds:
“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”,/i> (John 20:29–31)
This text is part of the evidence for faith. There are those who see the evidence and believe, and there are those who read the evidence and believe – both rest on the foundation of the evidence. Jesus’ resurrection appearances are recorded so that we can read the evidence and respond in faith. Biblical faith is based on evidence. That’s what the story of doubting Thomas is all about.
As HJ said, we have to trust in the revelations delivered to us by scripture, the apostles and Christ’s Church – through faith.
Biblical faith is based on evidence.
Yes.
we have to trust in the revelations delivered to us by scripture, the apostles and Christ’s Church – through faith.
No, and you’ve contradicted yourself. We don’t have to trust the revelations delivered to us by scripture: rather, we believe they are true because we are convinced by the evidence (though of course e we will not know for sure until we die).
Hence there was quite a lot of to and fro about what actually went in to the Creeds.
Yes. Because those so wrote the creeds realised, unlike you, that belief doesn’t matter, only reality matters. That’s why they were so careful to put into the creeds only things that they were absolutely sure were true in reality.
That’s why you make a mockery of their work if you treat the creeds as some kind of shibboleth, or some kind of community-identity-statement, or being about situating yourself in a tradition.
If you aren’t convinced that the things in the creeds are true in reality you shouldn’t say the creeds, because when you do you are lying. Because what matters is reality, and the creeds are statements about reality. What you believe — what I believe — doesn’t matter. What matters is reality, and that’s why the creeds are carefully-written statements about reality.
“Andrew Godsall seems to think that if the truth can never be known then you can choose whether or not to believe something.”
Rubbish. I have not said anything like that, or written anything like that. I have explicitly said that the truth will be known, but not until we die. On this you also agree. Until that time, we have to make a decision based on the evidence before us – which is exactly what happens with a jury.
“Yes. Because those so wrote the creeds realised, unlike you, that belief doesn’t matter, only reality matters. That’s why they were so careful to put into the creeds only things that they were absolutely sure were true in reality.
That’s why you make a mockery of their work if you treat the creeds as some kind of shibboleth, or some kind of community-identity-statement, or being about situating yourself in a tradition.”
I think you ought to study some early Christian doctrine. They are very much a community identity statement. And very much a statement of belief
Until that time, we have to make a decision based on the evidence before us
Yes, we do have to make a decision. We have to make a decision about what we think is real. Because what matters is what is real. Our decision doesn’t matter because our decision doesn’t change reality, and when we die, what happens to us will be determined by reality, not by our decision.
– which is exactly what happens with a jury.
But a jury doesn’t, as you wrote above, ‘have a choice between believing [the prosecution case] is true and believing it is false’.
A jury can only convict if they are convinced that the prosecution case is true. They can’t choose whether or not to believe it. It’s not a matter of choice. Either they are convinced by the evidence, in which case they vote guilty, or they are not, in which case they acquit.
Similarly to be a Christian is to be convinced that the factual claims of Christianity are true. It’s not a matter of choice. Either you after convinced by the evidence or you are not.
And when you die you get to find out whether you were right, which is more than most juries ever get.
“But a jury doesn’t, as you wrote above, ‘have a choice between believing [the prosecution case] is true and believing it is false’. “
But I haven’t written that at all. Those are words you have put in my mouth, which is your usual trick.
I have said that a jury have to make a decision based on the evidence before them.
I think you ought to study some early Christian doctrine. They are very much a community identity statement. And very much a statement of belief
A statement of belief, exactly. Which means a statement of factual claims about reality that they were convinced were true. Because they knew that it is reality that matters.
But I haven’t written that at all. Those are words you have put in my mouth, which is your usual trick.
Um, no, those are exactly your words, quoted from https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/good-and-evil-in-the-parable-of-the-weeds-in-matthew-13/comment-page-1/#comment-430132
I have said that a jury have to make a decision based on the evidence before them.
Just like we have to make a decision about whether we think Christianity is true based on the evidence before us. And just like the jury, it’s not a matter of choice. It’s a matter of whether we are convinced by the evidence. Choice doesn’t come into it.
I believe because I am convinced of the saving power of Jesus Christ, who is God’s revelation, and to whom the Church and the scriptures bear witness.
So it isn’t a choice? You were convinced by the evidence?
What evidence convinced you?
We revere the holy gospels because we revere him whom they bear witness to.
No, we revere the holy gospels because we revere Him who is their ultimate author.
“Um, no, those are exactly your words, quoted from…”
Total rubbish. That comment you post a link to says nothing about a jury and nothing about a prosecution case.
That comment you post a link to says nothing about a jury and nothing about a prosecution case.
You do know what square brackets in a quotation means, don’t you? It means an editorial insertion. In this case of an analogous situation to point out the absurdity of your statement.
My point was that you claimed that we can choose whether to believe that Christianity is true or not. And I was pointing out that this is wrong because when it comes to Christianity we are in the same position as a jury in a trial: we are presented with evidence, and we have to come to a verdict about whether the case for Christianity is true or not, without knowing for sure either way (although we at least will find out eventually when we die whether we were right or not; unless the defendant subsequently confesses, or new evidence comes to light, a jury will never know for sure whether they were right or not).
So just like a jury can’t choose whether or not to be convinced by the prosecution’s case — they either are or they aren’t — so we can’t choose whether or not we are convinced by the evidence for Christianity. We either are or we aren’t.
So your claim (that we can choose whether or not to believe) is false. As proved by showing how silly it would be to make that claim about an analogous situation.
Yes, I know exactly what a square bracket insertion means. It means you put words in my mouth and as the evidence amply shows, I did not say what you claim I have said.
You can’t compare apples and oranges and claim they are analogous without taking liberty with what somebody has actually said. Accuracy is very important when quoting somebody.
It means you put words in my mouth and as the evidence amply shows, I did not say what you claim I have said.
As the evidence shows, you very much did.
You can’t compare apples and oranges and claim they are analogous without taking liberty with what somebody has actually said.
That’s why I am comparing apples with apples: two situations which are analogous, a jury’s when confronted with the prosecution’s case and ours when confronted with the evidence for Christianity.
In both cases a verdict is demanded; in both cases that verdict depends on whether we are convinced by the evidence; in neither case do we get to ‘choose’ our verdict. We either are convinced or we are not.
Let’s just check. What you first said I wrote was this:
“But a jury doesn’t, as you wrote above, ‘have a choice between believing [the prosecution case] is true and believing it is false’. “
What you then claimed I wrote – which is exactly what I did write is this:
“But if you can’t know what is true – this side of the grave – then what you put your faith and belief in is of vital importance. You have a choice between believing it is true and believing it is false. It matters which you choose. It matters what you believe.”
Context is important. And exact quotation is important. I say nothing about a jury and nothing about a prosecution case, and that is absolutely clear. You can’t put words in people’s mouths and claim it is exactly what they said.
I say nothing about a jury and nothing about a prosecution case, and that is absolutely clear.
Yes. I inserted the analogous situation into your exact words (marking the insertion) in order to show how wrong you claim was.
And I now invite everyone to note that you cannot actually argue against my substantive point but have resorted to baseless attacks against my quoting style.
Oh I’m perfectly happy for anyone to see that you have not quoted what I actually said. It’s self evident. You misquote me. Your accuracy is highly questionable.
Oh I’m perfectly happy for anyone to see that you have not quoted what I actually said.
And also to see that you are unable to refute my argument.
Once you misquote someone you don’t actually have any argument. You’ve lost it.
Once you misquote someone you don’t actually have any argument
Only I didn’t misquote you. You just don’t like that your own words prove you wrong.
If you actually had an argument you’d explain why the two situations aren’t analogous. But you can’t, because you are, so you’ve had to resort to this bizarre rant about punctuation in the hopes that you can distract people from the fact that your own words prove you wrong.
Putting words in someone’s mouth isn’t punctuation 🙂 it’s called bearing false witness.
And of course you don’t even have the courage to say who you are. You hide behind anonymity, which is why your time here is now limited. That cloak means you can say whatever you like with no accountability.
People can easily choose who they wish to respect …I have nothing to hide.
Putting words in someone’s mouth isn’t punctuation
And I didn’t put words in anyone’s mouth; I quoted your exact words, with a substitution clearly marked so that nobody could possibly thing you had written it.
Here, I’ll give you a hint: what is the relevant difference between a juror faced with a prosecution case who has to come up with a verdict, and us faced with the evidence for Christianity who have to come to a decision, that means we could choose what to believe when the juror has no choice.
Answer: there isn’t one.
(I am guessing the reason you are trying so hard to distract people from this question is because your answer would be something like ‘it’s different because the juror is being asked about something that really happened, whereas Christianity isn’t about things that really happened’, only you realise that even that’s what you and your postmodernist clergy friends think, the deal is that you shouldn’t say it out loud in public)
What you said – and I quote – was
“Um, no, those are exactly your words”
and it has now been shown that they were not exactly my words.
and it has now been shown that they were not exactly my words.
Oh, they were, as anyone who reads up the thread can see.
I’m right about why you want to distract from the real issue, aren’t I?
The real issue is that we don’t have a clue what you actually believe because we don’t even know who you are. Thankfully in a few weeks tine that matter will at last be addressed.
Bye now S
The real issue is that we don’t have a clue what you actually believe because we don’t even know who you are.
Once again exactly wrong. Far from not knowing what I believe, what I believe is the only thing you know about me. And that’s deliberate, because it’s the only thing that matters. Knowing who someone is means you can play the man instead of the ball; it means constant Bulverism. Not knowing who someone is means you have to engage only on the level of ideas.
It would be much better if everyone was anonymous.
So anyway: I’m right, then? You don’t want to engage on the actual point because then you’d have to admit that you think Christianity is not about things that actually happened; instead you think it’s about giving people a framework to make sense of their understanding of their lives and the world, or whatever guff it was Marcus Borg came out with.
@ Andrew and S
If Happy may ….
Aren’t you both correct?
When we recite the Creed we are acknowledging we accept by faith, a gift from God, the teachings of Scripture as presented to us by the Church. In the same way we have “faith” that a parachute will open. Faith is what we trust will happen.
The object of “belief” cannot be seen or directly perceived, nor proven by mere logic. If you can prove it, you don’t need to believe in it. God has revealed Himself in a way that is comprehensible to man even if man cannot fully comprehend, for example, the Incarnation or the Trinity. Hence the Creeds. Reason and logic can take man to the door of faith but cannot carry man across the threshold.
“In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace: Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace.”
(CCC 155)
So, yes, belief does matter. And, no, we cannot “know” until after death.
Just like leaping out of a plane after checking and packing the parachute and trusting it will open!
Thank you HJ. This expresses extremely well the important distinctions between belief and the reality of what is believed.
Aren’t you both correct?
When we recite the Creed we are acknowledging we accept by faith, a gift from God, the teachings of Scripture as presented to us by the Church. In the same way we have “faith” that a parachute will open. Faith is what we trust will happen.
But faith is only worthwhile if it is faith in something that is true. Faith in a parachute that turns out to be a dud is just tragic. Faith in a God who turns out not to exist is pathetic.
What matters is the reality, not the faith.
Aren’t you both correct?
Sorry meant to put: No.
HC,
Faith as you say is a gift. As such it is not a command of the will. We may be persuaded to a point of conviction.
But it it not faith in faith, but faith, trust in a Person who has revealed himself to us as Truth, Reality.
Faith or trust in future events is evidence based on the reality of what *has* happened in time and space: incarnation, of God the Son, a life lived, sacrifical, substitutional death, real life, in time and space material bodily resurrection and ascension and what he said will happen in time space and place, including his return, a new heaven and earth.
If not, then we are all to be pitied as deluded, perhaps sincerely, even vigorously deluded and vapid and it all becomes meaningless, meaningless say our teachers.
@ S
>>”But faith is only worthwhile if it is faith in something that is true. Faith in a parachute that turns out to be a dud is just tragic. Faith in a God who turns out not to exist is pathetic.”<<
Agreed, but because we believe we trust in God's revelation through faith – just as we trust in the parachute! It's not until we meet God "face to Face" that all His mysteries will be revealed.
As HJ cited:
“In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace: Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace.”
We’re not actually disagreeing.
Agreed, but because we believe we trust in God’s revelation through faith –
What? No! Absolutely not! Quite the reverse! I don’t trust God’s revelation because I believe. I believe because I am convinced that the Bible is God’s revelation.
We’re not actually disagreeing.
We absolutely very much 100% are.
“I believe because I am convinced that the Bible is God’s revelation.”
That’s the Joseph Smith version of Christianity. It’s the heresy of Mormonism.
I believe because I am convinced of the saving power of Jesus Christ, who is God’s revelation, and to whom the Church and the scriptures bear witness. The good news is primarily Jesus Christ and not the books that were written about him. We revere the holy gospels because we revere him whom they bear witness to.
Happy Jack :
I have no “Creed”, but the Bible, and thus, the earliest Christian creeds that are contained in the New Testament, itself.
God bless you, Happy Jack.
Thanks for clarification John.
It would be interesting to know what you think the evangelical persuasion is or more particularly what you understand the *evangel* to be, that is, the Good News of the Triune God of orthodoxy Christianity to be.
God offers himself, Jesus offers himself, a union with Him which is salvation, redemption, in a Divine exchange, where Jesus, God the Son takes on our sin, (died the death ought, deserve to die and lived the sinless life we should but could not live) both in his passive/active obedience in our place; in a new birth life from above and His indwelling Spirit.
Is that incomprehensible?
I’m not sure that this comments section is the correct format to tease all of that out. But I do hope that you come to a personal relationship with the Triune God, who it seems may be the One who will not let you go, and that. you may be able to sing with conviction, rather than presumptuousness, the old song, “Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine, O what a foretaste of glory Divine…” Knowing that you belong to Him, bought with a price paid in full by Him, with His life.
Neither am I sure that Ian’s blog articles have drawn out clearly, what the Good News is, though I stand to be corrected.
Yours in Christ,
Geoff
John, HJ, Andrew G and all of us to relish reality in Christ Jesus:
Yet Not I, But Through Christ In Me,
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hwc2d1Xt8gM