|
Post by Josh on Feb 6, 2008 21:12:43 GMT -8
OK, I finally got a chance to dig into your "aion" thread. Fascinating word study. That has a lot of implications. I especially like what you said about a Christ's eternal life in us. I think your logical chain is sound.
So, if the nation of Israel is in view here (sheep vs. the goats)- (and yes I am definitely aware of the Christian's escape to Pella- which is a very cool bit of info) why do you think the parables mentions "all the nations"? Do you re-interpret this as "all the tribes of Israel"?
Lastly, Rose pointed me to a passage in Malachi that might have some bearing here on your view:
Malachi 3:17-18
17 "They will be mine," says the LORD Almighty, "in the day when I make up my treasured possession. I will spare them, just as in compassion a man spares his son who serves him. 18 And you will again see the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, between those who serve God and those who do not.
If verse 17 is speaking of the founding of the Church (the kingdom of God), as is most likely from the contents of the next chapter (Malachi 4), then it might follow that the parable of the sheep and the goats is indicative of this promise to, in this kingdom, demonstrate the distinction between the righteous and the wicked.
However, if you read the verse before (Mal. 3:16) you will see what could be considered a strong allusion to the "books that are opened" at the final judgment in Rev. 20 which might again bring the context of this Malachi passage and the echoes in Matthew back around to the final judgment instead of AD 70!
Heheheh.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Feb 7, 2008 16:27:19 GMT -8
Hi Josh,
It could be, but I’ve come to the point that I don’t press a literal meaning in absolute sounding words like “all” too much (see earlier post on “all the nations”). I’ve discovered that it’s very common in scripture for the authors to use those kinds of words as hyperbole for effect, especially in prophecy. Our 20th century western brains tend to have a hard time seeing vague prophecy illustrated with detailed imagery. We tend to want to make something out of every detail of the story, when the prophet may simply be trying to add emphasis to his message. One example I can think of off the top of my head is this one regarding Jerusalem:
Isa 4:1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, "We will eat our own food and wear our own apparel; Only let us be called by your name, To take away our reproach." NKJV
I don’t think Isaiah was conveying any other message here than a lot of men will be killed. The bit about seven women taking hold of one man simply emphasizes the great loss of men in Judah IMO, to the point of a stark gender imbalance in the population.
Likewise, I think many of the details in the sheep and goats parable may simply be a fancy way of saying that there will be a significant judgment on the nation and those who were the faithful remnant will be spared, and those who were apostate idolaters will be judged. Jesus’ ministry was like Isaiah’s in so many ways.
Great observation by Rose. 10 points for that. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 7, 2008 17:07:31 GMT -8
Sorry... kind of forgot you had posted on your perspective on "all the nations".
Though I agree phrases like that are using hyperbole, I think it's a stretch to interpret "all the nations" as meaning "apostate Israel" or, simply, "the wicked".
In the other examples you've stated where the term "all the nations" was used, I think a good case can be made that in those contexts God was promising to accomplish something in the context of many cultures. Israel is by nature the stomping ground and gateway to "all the nations of the world", so much that was to happen to Israel always involved "many tribes and tongues"
I'm going to study some of those examples and get back to you on this. It just seems to stretch the phrase beyond the breaking point to have it refer to just one nation/ culture.
If I was to consider a different view than Matthew 25 referring to the Final Judgment, I still think I would be more prone to see the sheep and the goats as referring to the entire church age, starting with AD 70, than to see it as merely referring to that single event between Rome and Israel.
But keep it coming. I'm still chewing.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Feb 11, 2008 11:23:25 GMT -8
Hey Josh, You wrote: You might be right, but I’m not sure it’s really all that much of a stretch since the OT seems to use that same kind of language. Look at the prophesy against Edom found in Obadiah for example: Obad 15-16 15 "For the day of the LORD upon all the nations is near; As you have done, it shall be done to you; Your reprisal shall return upon your own head. 16 For as you drank on my holy mountain, So shall all the nations drink continually; Yes, they shall drink, and swallow, And they shall be as though they had never been. NKJVWho is this statement uttered against? Obad 1 Thus says the Lord GOD concerning Edom NKJVIt seems the prophesy is against Edom alone. And when was it fulfilled? (Keep in mind Edom no longer exists, so it can’t be future). Adam Clarke writes: Obadiah foretells the subduction of the Idumeans by the Chaldeans, and finally by the Jews, whom they had used most cruelly when brought low by other enemies. These prophecies have been literally fulfilled because the Idumeans, as a nation, are totally extinct. (from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1996 by Biblesoft) I just want to say also that I realize that most people will not see Matt 25 as I do, and I really have no desire to convince anyone quite honestly. It’s fun to discuss, but I’m not looking for converts to my viewpoint. I admit that it takes a lot of imagination to see the chapter that way because it rubs against the grain of our sensibilities. But that in itself doesn’t make it the wrong interpretation IMO. As I mentioned in a previous post, I tend to look for congruity in historical narratives like the gospels because I believe they were written to communicate something specific to a specific audience. So my reasoning is as follows: 1. Most scholars believe that the gospel of Matthew was written to the Jewish people of his day as an apologetic to the Messiahship of Jesus. Most also believe it was written prior to 70AD. 2. Matthew arranged the 5 discourses in his book topically, some think to emulate the structure of the Pentetuech (Gen-Deut). 3. The chapter and verse divisions are not part of the original manuscripts, so I try to look past them and identify the sections as a complete thought. I believe Matt 24 and 25 are one complete thought that is introduced at the end of chapter 23. 4. I have a difficult time dividing up Matt 24 into one part 70AD and one part end of the world, mainly because it doesn’t seem to flow very well that way. Notice how many times throughout the chapter Jesus uses the word “you”, speaking specifically to the disciples, even after vs 36. 42 Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming.
44 Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.5. Matt 25 begins with the phase: Matt 25:1 25:1 "Then [i.e. “at that time”: (brackets mine) ] the kingdom of heaven shall be likened to… 6. It just seems to me that the whole section (Chapter 24 and 25) has Jesus speaking to the original question of the disciples. Matt 24:1-4 24:1 Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down."
3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?" NKJVI still have more to say regarding chapter 25 about the reason the sheep are blessed and the goats are cursed. There’s a lot of parallel there to what God really wanted from the nation of Israel regarding His law. But I’ll have to come back to that. Gotta go for now. Shalom!
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 11, 2008 16:46:17 GMT -8
I see Obadiah 15 as generalizing from the specific fate of Edom to the fate of many similar nations who will oppose Mt. Zion. There would be many "days of the Lord" again the nations opposed to Israel- perhaps not simultaneously, though in some of the other prophets it looks like they did anticipate an eventual final showdown on the nations.
IMO, the second part of this verse is one of the best points in favor of seeing Matt. 25 as related to AD 70 because, if one argues that:
a) when will these things be? has to do with AD 70
and that
b) what will be the sign of your coming? has to do with the final second coming of Christ/ final judgment
then what does one do with the final question about the end of the age?(which seems joined to the second question)
I lean pretty heavily toward the "end of the age" being associated with AD 70 (ie, the end of the age of Temple sacrifice), so I am a bit hard pressed as to why those two things seem to be joined together.
Did that just make sense? I'm a bit sleepy.....
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Feb 12, 2008 12:34:02 GMT -8
Well, once again, you might be right. But it’s not clear in the text that that is so IMO. In fact, the prophesy ends the same way as it begins. Obad 21 21 Then saviors shall come to Mount Zion To judge the mountains of Esau, And the kingdom shall be the LORD's. NKJVAs you know, Esau is Edom. Not only that, the context of the “all the nations” statement seems to me to indicate that it is referring only to Edom also: Obad 15-16 15 "For the day of the LORD upon all the nations is near; As you have done, it shall be done to you; Your reprisal shall return upon your own head. 16 For as you drank on my holy mountain, So shall all the nations drink continually; Yes, they shall drink, and swallow, And they shall be as though they had never been. NKJVI'll concede here that the second part I quoted here (vs. 16) sounds more like your view on this than what I suggested. But it's hard to know in what way all the nations "drink continually" on the "holy mountain" and are "as though they had never been" [extinct?]. If you prefer, an acceptable translation of gowy in the Hebrew is “people” so it could be saying here “For the day of the LORD upon all the people [of Edom] is near” Likewise in Matt 25, the word for “nations” (ethnos) can be translated as “people” as well. Granted, it is typically used to denote the heathen or the Gentile nations, but it sometimes used to speak of Israel as well, and even the church if you include 1Pet 2:9 and Matt 21:43. Remember, to some degree we’re dealing with translator biases in our English translations so when words have multiple possibilities, it's sometimes profitable to try them all on. Anyway, like I said before, when I look at these types of poetic passages, the congruity and continuity of the message carries more weight with me than the actual meanings of the individual words. So either explanation fits quite nicely in my wacky little paradigm. I can easily see Jesus using a phrase like "all the nations" to describe all the peoples (tribes, communities, families, etc.) of His particular nation. After all, they were scattered in many communities other than Jerusalem, and the Romans sacked many of those as well. you wrote: Well, not really, but that's ok, I have a hard time making sense even when I'm fully awake. It sounds like you agree here with my point #6? I don't think that's what you're saying, but maybe you can clarify.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 12, 2008 19:54:57 GMT -8
Yeah, I'm saying that since I tend to see the "end of the age" as AD 70, and that phrase seems coupled with "what will be the sign of your coming?" that that would be a stroke in favor of your argument.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 4, 2008 20:19:50 GMT -8
Luke 14:7-14
When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: "When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, 'Give this man your seat.' Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, 'Friend, move up to a better place.' Then you will be honored in the presence of all your fellow guests. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."
Then Jesus said to his host, "When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."
I just read this in Luke and the last verse stood out to me. Here's a passage that's pretty much a parallel passage to the sheep and the goats, but Luke spells out must more clearly when the reward is to take place- at the resurrection. Can this be used to shed light on the eschatology of similar reward passages such as the ones in Matthew 25?
The only way out of seeing this Luke passage as reffering to the final judgment would be to hypothesize that the phrase "resurrection of the righteous" referrs to the "spiritual resurrection" at the beginning of the millenium (Rev. 20:4-6)
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jun 6, 2008 8:53:32 GMT -8
I wouldn't disagree with your assessment of this passage being about the real final resurrection. However, I'm having a hard time seeing how you make this the parallel passage to the sheep and goats. That passage doesn't even mention a resurrection at all, but a judgment. Please unpack that a bit. I'm not seeing it.
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Jun 6, 2008 19:32:34 GMT -8
Okay, with all of this Matthew 25 talk, please tell me that someone left their computer and went out and fed a widow at some point.
Josh, as you know I bring a different view of prophetic passages, especially those in parable form. First, a couple of questions:
Christopher, why do you use KJV/NKJV? What do you each do with the phrase "son of man?"
There are a couple of things that struck me over the twelve hours it took to read this thread. First, I should make it clear that the parable of the sheep and the goats is very central to my understanding of the Kingdom. It paints a very vivid portrait of what God expects from his people, and its poetic language makes me yearn to hear God's loving affirmation. The passage does not allow for ambiguity; we all are on one side or the other, and there is no question as to which side we should choose.
But of course we can find ambiguity in the passage, since the straightforward message is framed in prophetic language (son of man coming) and includes talk of nations being judged rather than individuals (meaning a more global, wide-scale judgment rather than one given to an individual). Of course I find that all inconvenient, since I prefer to look at passages in light of their application to the Church, and talk of the Return of the King seems pointless (why would Jesus return? Did he leave something unfinished? Are we not fully equipped? Won't we all be judged at death anyway?).
But the prophetic language is there, so we can't completely write it off as simply an "Are you saved or unsaved?" passage.
The difficulty here lies in reading Matthew through an exegetical lens. As you've both pointed out, the language Matthew uses to set up the parable of the sheep and goats is very similar to OT language found in the prophets. So you could conclude that Matthew is also being prophetical, and characterizing God's judgment / return of the Messiah in a similar style. Much of your arguments start from that premise: since Matthew's style echoes that of the prophets (and the prophets certainly were intentionally prophetic!), we can assume that Matthew too was speaking of a day to come...only question is, was Matthew describing Jerusalem's fall or end times?
But I think it's more likely that Matthew wasn't attempting to be prophetic. Instead, he was probably relaying a story to teach Jesus' ethics/theology, and used the OT language out of convention. The words, "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him..." sound like the reference standard for divine storytelling. Just like we'd say "Once upon a time, in a land far, far away..." even if we know the time and the name of the land. That's just how stories are told.
I mean, if you're winding up a gospel and want to seal the deal on the continuity of Jesus with OT prophecy, it only makes sense to put him in the place where God resided previously. Jesus is now the one on the throne. Jews were familiar with Yahweh in that position, and now Matthew is putting Jesus in that role. But remember, Matthew's point is not about Jesus' return, it's about knowing Jesus, and Jesus knowing you, through living his ethic. It's about being in the group that stays with God and out of the fire.
This is in stark contrast to John's writing. Revelation spends its time describing very specific details of prophetic visions; if the time comes, we'll have a pretty specific set of criteria to use as a checklist (or to apply to a previous event, such as AD70 or WWII, depending on what floats your boat). Matthew doesn't have that prophetic feel. It's a parable. It's not a tool for describing the literal end of the world or the temple, but a tool for teaching.
Matthew, to Josh and Christopher: "Don't over-think this one, dudes. Have a beer, read the story, and get a vision for the Kingdom, because the Messiah has come and the Kingdom's at hand."
I'm surprised I'm not canonized.
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jun 6, 2008 21:32:28 GMT -8
Hi Marcus,
Are you sure that we are on one side or the other? Lets look at the text to see if there is a third category.
Matthew 25:31-46 31 "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy F140 angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.' 37 Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' 40 And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.' 41 Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.' 44 Then they also will answer Him, F141 saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?' 45 Then He will answer them, saying, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
Who are the "these" that Jesus is referencing? Perhaps there is a third category. Perhaps his brethren (Christians). What do you think?
By the way, I to prefer the NKJV or the RSV. I believe that the textus receptus is preferred over the Alexandrian text, but that can be discussed later.
Robin
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 7, 2008 12:21:35 GMT -8
Marcus: As I likewise hope you took a break from the minutia of your particular technical interests and did the same.... The very important doesn't rule out the relative importance of the less important. I think we'd all agree that the most important aspect of the vignettes in Matthew 25 is their ability to propel the Christian to kingdom action. But still, there are other elements in these passages that are important to discuss/debate for other reasons. Actually, I think our eschatological approach to these passages has a profound affect on how we live these things out. Perhaps you more than most do need to spend some time on this.. if only so you don't have to cringe your way through 1/3 of the Scripture You know as an amillenialist I sympathize with some of your sentiment here. I don't think we should have a fatalistic attitude of what God's role in the world for the Church is. IMO, we are reigning with Christ now in a decisive way-- and need to realize that and act on this truth- not just sitting around waiting for an apocylpse. Still, I don't believe God's project in this world will be complete without final decisive intervention on his part. I think that's pretty clear in Scripture. Also, IMO, viewing these passages as events yet to come does more to empower our living out the kingdom of God now than binding them to the events of AD 70. Of course, whether one sees these vignettes as descriptions of the beginning of God's kingdom (Ad 70) or as future (final resurrection), the ideas they convene are certainly true as well for the entire duration of Christ's kingdom (Marcus), and that's a point of agreement for us all (Chris, Marcus, and Josh) I believe.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jun 7, 2008 15:29:11 GMT -8
Hi Marcus, Well, I haven't had the pleasure of feeding any widows lately, but the passage does mention something about visiting Jesus people in prison and I do that every week...does that count? ;D you wrote: 1. I use the NKJV as a matter of preference, nothing more. I would use any literal translation though (NASU, RSV, etc), but I like the way NKJV flows. I really don't like dynamic translations and paraphrases (NIV, TLB, Message) because of the built-in translators opinions. Like Robin though, I tend to favor the TR over Alexandrian simply because the amount of transcripts available for it (1 vs. many). 2. Son of Man I take to simply mean "human". Why do you ask? Are you saying Jesus didn't say these words, that Matthew made it up? I don't understand what you're getting at here. I think I agree with you here. But I'd still attribute the words to Jesus rather than Matthew (although I'd allow for some paraphrasing by Matthew, I don't expect him to remember everything word for word). But overthinking is so fun!!! ;D I honestly don't remember how this whole discussion got started, but it does have some serious ramifications on the various views of final judgment. I think you gotta be dead first...don't you? Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jun 7, 2008 15:30:13 GMT -8
Josh, I'm still wondering about how you draw the parallel with Luke 14.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 7, 2008 16:31:08 GMT -8
Whoa... I've got 2 kids. It's not 3, but, hey...!!! It doesn't help that we're investigating human nature at the same time. I'll get to it after my beer... it's on Marcus, right?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 7, 2008 16:58:55 GMT -8
Luke 14
7When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: 8"When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. 9If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, 'Give this man your seat.' Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. 10But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, 'Friend, move up to a better place.' Then you will be honored in the presence of all your fellow guests. 11For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."
12Then Jesus said to his host, "When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. 13But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."
Though not technically a parable, this passage fits nicely along with the kingdom parables, where Jesus shows up as the groom, the host, the investor, and the judge. It's in this way that I think this passage parallels the others. Jesus is saying that not only do earthly hosts shame or praise, but that He will be the ultimate exalter or humbler. Then in his further explanation (verses 12 to 13) he explains when this exultation, repayment will occur- at the resurrection.
I'm not saying here that every kingdom parable is about the final resurrection... I'm just saying that this one (if you can call it a parable), which is about a similar theme of the sheep and the goats (loving the outcasts of society), places the reward or verdict for the behavior at the resurrection (ie, the beginning of resurrection life) not AD 70 (the beginning of the church age).
This isn't a conclusive proof that both passages, though similar, need to be about similar events on the prophet timeline, of course. But the similarities are striking to me....
Gotta go somewhat mid thought.... more later, perhaps....
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 11, 2008 12:46:16 GMT -8
Marcus, Perhaps I should point out that although this discussion on Matthew 25 is focused on the eschatology of the passage, there is a parallel thread on the Bible Studies forum that would be a great place to go into the admittedly weightier implications of this passage. If you have more thoughts to throw in on the sheep and the goats, etc.. they would really be appreciated. Here's the link: www.aletheia.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=matthew&action=display&thread=551
|
|