Are you a true thinker?
It has been charged in a recent comment that we here at Bluecollar have a lack of true thinking. This assertion was made in the November 30 post, The Judgment Seat of Christ. This person's “true thinking” holds that some very uncomfortable consequences are awaiting saved true Christians when they reach heaven. For example, he believes the weeping and gnashing of teeth referred to in the following parable of Matthew 22 will happen to saved Christians after they are in heaven:Matthew 22:1-14 And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, 2 “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, 3 and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. 4 Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.’ 5 But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, 6 while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. 7 The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8 Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9 Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ 10 And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests. 11 “But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. 12 And he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 14 For many are called, but few are chosen.”
What do you think? Is this parable speaking of consequences after Christians are in heaven, or is it speaking of false professing Christians who will never make it to heaven? Please feel free to answer with or without elaboration. I am really interested if there are any FGT adherents that do not agree with his premise.
posted by jazzycat at 10:32 AM
53 Comments:
I've always thought of this as FG's version of purgatory.
December 03, 2007 12:40 PM
It is speaking of false professions.
December 03, 2007 2:03 PM
Matt Waymeyer - I love it! :-)
Daniel - YES!
December 03, 2007 2:04 PM
Daniel is right; it's false professions. Many think they are saved, when in truth, they are not.
December 03, 2007 2:44 PM
This parable is similar to others where the Lord's point is that the Messiah, the Son of God, has come to the people who are waiting for the Messiah, and they totally reject Him, and despise Him.
This is a bit different in content, and a little more difficult. but the same message I think.
This man who came in with out appropriate dress was not one of God's elect.
And being cast out into outer darkness is never for His beloved children.
December 03, 2007 2:45 PM
It is clearly speaking of false professors. Its original intent by Jesus was to nail the unbelieving Jews and the Pharisees and Saduccees that were constantly testing Him to catch him in his speech and Christ is now making the point that they will one day be speechless and cast out on Judgment day if they do not repent. Here FG theology falsely tries to harmonize the law with grace and dreadfully tries to make this apply to backslidden Christians when in truth this can only also apply to false professors who were of the same mind of the Pharisees and Saducees and were always judging the Scriptures according to their wicked hearts by trying to catch Jesus in his speach instead of letting Scripture judge them and render them speechless so that they see themselves as the outcast and repent of arguing with Christ and not admitting their own need and sinful condition and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. How tragic that Antonio and others are falsely misleading people here. Their postition is in concert with the Pharisees and Saduccees both. It is tragic and cannot be harmonized. You cannot try to harmonize the law with grace.
The dreadful thing is they are encourageing others to not be rendered speechless here by the Lord and calling them away from seeing their need of Christ's righteousness alone. Only eternity will tell the damage that is being done here. I pray they wake up and stop misleading others. This position of theirs needs to be erased. It is one of the lies of the serpent behind it. You can almost hear the hiss on this one. They are taking a much needed sting out of scripture that is meant by Jesus to wake people up to their need of Christ's finished work on their behalf. This is why it is Anti-Christ to teach a crossless gospel.
December 03, 2007 5:46 PM
Amen, all!
December 04, 2007 6:59 AM
Well, I see no one tried to defend the weeping and gnashing of teeth in heaven position!
For their (free grace) basic theology to stand they have no choice but to construct this bizarre meaning to this parable. They do the same thing with the parable of the sower and James 2:14-26. That is why I say if a theological foundation is flawed, then the building will be flawed as well.
December 04, 2007 8:50 AM
I dont see the problem with the consistent FG interpretation of the parable.
December 04, 2007 8:52 AM
‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
I see nowhere in Scripture where this describes the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom of heaven is neither darkness nor a place with weeping and gnashing of teeth.
To the contrary, there will be no more tears in heaven. ("He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away." - Rev 21:4)
December 04, 2007 10:12 AM
Amen Susan.
Hey is that really Dr. Sproul up there. Where's the blackboard and chalk?
December 04, 2007 10:48 AM
Susan, the darkness and binding are narrative details in the parable.
The parable is a story about a human lord. No lord has the power to cast somebody into hell, so obviously he is commanding the man to be put into the streets which would be dark at the time of the feast.
It is perfectly legitimate for you to argue that this represents a person going to hell, however to do so on the basis of the narrative details is unwarranted.
You would not explain the parable of the sower by arguing that the preaching of the Gospel involves a literal sowing of seed. The details of the parable are elements of the narrative structure of the parable.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
December 04, 2007 11:16 AM
Matthew,
It's interesting that you presume the darkness, weeping and gnashing as Hell.
I only said they are nowhere in Scripture mentioned details of the kingdom of heaven, which is what this parable is about.
December 04, 2007 11:25 AM
Likewise, other than the kingdom of heaven and its alternative (hell, hades, sheol...), what is there?
December 04, 2007 11:25 AM
Matthew,
Isn't it true that in other Bible passages the term "weeping and gnashing of teeth" clearly refers to hell?
In verses 5 & 6 isn't this parable clearly setting up a temporal and earthly scenerio?
Does not this parable fit perfectly with jews, gentiles, prophets, Apostles, hypocrits (false professors), wedding garment = righteousness of Christ, invisible vs. visible church, etc?
Since the concept of a hypocrit does not fit FGT, is not this the real reason this parable must be re-interpreted by FGT?
December 04, 2007 11:38 AM
Does anybody outside FGT hold to such an interpretation???
December 04, 2007 2:09 PM
Wayne, can you name any passages where weeping and gnashing are clearly identified with hell?
You do need to bare in mind that this is a distinctive parabolic disourse. The best comparison would be with another parable.
Torment is also associated with hell, yet I am sure you do not hold that the tormentors in the parable of the unforgiving servant refers to hell.
There are hypocrites.
The question is whether such a person fits the parable.
The parable prophecies the desturction of the unbelieving and the man without the garment does not seem to be ranked among that number.
The man has responded to the invitation to the wedding and he is there at the feast.
In assuming that the wedding garment is the rigtheousness of Christ, you are making an assumption.
The righteousness of Christ is not a theme dealt with in the Synoptics. It would seem more sensible to identify the wedding garment with faithful service to the kingdom (a theme that is certainly dealt with in the Synoptics).
Though it could not be used decisively in interprting this parable, I would refer you to Revelation 19:
6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, Ezek. and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying,
Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. 7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
The saints seen here are not clothed in the righteousness of Christ (though certainly they are justified persons). There garments are the good deeds of the saints.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
December 04, 2007 3:38 PM
Susan, I would not say that weeping and gnashing of teeth are characteristic of heaven for any saints.
However, saints will be judged and this and the parable of the talents indicates that some believers will have reason to weep at the judgement-seat of Christ.
No doubt they will not weep forever, but they shall have sorrow for a time. In their perfect resurrection bodies, they will be especially conscious of the awfulness of their failures in their pre-resurrection lives.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
December 04, 2007 3:40 PM
Mark, does anybody outside of Calvinism hold to Limited Atonment?
Every system has its peculiarties.
December 04, 2007 3:42 PM
Matthew,
Wayne, can you name any passages where weeping and gnashing are clearly identified with hell?
Luke 13:28.
The man has responded to the invitation to the wedding and he is there at the feast.
This does not mean he is saved as hypocrits and false professors respond to the invitation and sit in church pews as well.
There garments are the good deeds of the saints.
You argue here that it is good deeds, but FGT argues in Mt. 7:21 that the will of the Father is not good deeds. Which is it Matthew?
Notice the kingdom of heaven is considered in Mt. 7:21 and again in this parable of Mt. 22. In both passages false Christians are rejected from the Kingdom.
December 04, 2007 10:21 PM
Wayne, Luke 13:28 mentions gnashing of teeth and darkness, but what in that passage explicitly mentions hell?
It is possible that the people mentioned there go to hell, but where is this stated.
You are using a circular argument. That gnashing of teeth and darkness in Luke 13 means hell is no more certain than the reference to those things in Matthew 22.
"This does not mean he is saved as hypocrits and false professors respond to the invitation and sit in church pews as well."
I might ask where in this parable we see any reference to church pews.
The man is not destroyed with those who reject the invitation.
When Christ comes in glory to destroy the ungodly with flaming fire, is he going to spare the hypocritical professing Christians?
They are not going to sneak their way past the wrath of God that will be poured out in the future.
We read in the book of Revelation about the destruction of Babylon, which I take to be God's judgment upon the system of Christendom, the professing church.
"You argue here that it is good deeds, but FGT argues in Mt. 7:21 that the will of the Father is not good deeds. Which is it Matthew?"
I think doing the will of the Father would include more than just believing, but a person who has never believed has not done the will of the Father. Matthew 7:21 deals with the fate of false teachers not carnal and worldly believers.
"Notice the kingdom of heaven is considered in Mt. 7:21 and again in this parable of Mt. 22. In both passages false Christians are rejected from the Kingdom."
Where are we told that the man who is bound is excluded from the kingdom?
December 05, 2007 3:42 AM
Mark, would I be right in suspecting that you enjoy watching Free Gracers explain this parable?
God bless you and all of those on this blog.
December 05, 2007 3:44 AM
The Lord bless you too Matthew.
Got a thought.
Parables explain a truth with metaphors.
To bind someone, and tie their hands and feet, and throw them away from you, and into outer darkness is very cruel indeed. To have such cruel treatment requires worse behavior, don't you think?
Another parable Jesus speaks of a son who leaves his father and then lives his life recklessly and ungodly.
He then returns to his father, expecting to be a slave.
The big surprise is the father 'running' to him, and falling on his neck.
This I think shows the love of God for his elect/chosen. For these are His children, which I can not see the Ftaher binding their hands & feet, and casting them from Himself.
I may be wrong, and not as biblical as I should be here, and i'm not as studied on parables as I need to be.
But this post, and discussion has been good and helpful.
December 05, 2007 8:22 AM
Donsands, treat the story as a story for the moment.
What is the outer darkness in the story?
It is the darkness outside the feast, the grim streets.
It is the equivalent of being kicked out of somebody's house.
Not a pleasent eviction.
However, the man is hardly treated with greater severity than the people who are scheduled to be killed and have their city burned.
Do you really think that hypocritical professing Christians will be treated with more leniency than open unbelievers?
I think it is better to see this as the fate of a true believer.
We must not treat the methaphor literally. It is simply a way of describing exclusion from joy and privilege.
The writer of Hebrews warns that the sinning believer can only look at the Lord's coming as a time of fearful fiery judgement.
The sorrow of this judgment needed not be taken to be permanent. The sorrow is not unlike the godly sorrow of a Christian who has repented in this earthly life. It is not permanent, but it is real.
With regard to your comparison with the parable of the prodigal son, we must bear in mind that the son had repented of his error (I am sidestepping the question of whether that parable describes an unconverted person or a backslider).
The man without his wedding garment has never repented of his lack of faithful service. He has come in to the feast expecting to be received with joy.
However, he has forgotten that to whom much is given, much is demanded.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
December 05, 2007 8:52 AM
Matthew,
You said…….
I might ask where in this parable we see any reference to church pews.
And you also you said…..
The man without his wedding garment has never repented of his lack of faithful service.
Therefore, here in a single short comment you have rejected and called into account my interpretation that used “church pews” and yet amazingly your interpretation does the same thing by bringing in “repented of his lack of service” into the explanation.
Why should you be allowed to do this, but not me?
Comparing this person to a false professor in a church fits this parable very well, whereas bringing in works, faithful service, and lack of repentance is a grasping of straws. From the animal skin that God provided for Adam and the blood of the Passover lamb for a covering, the Jewish people were very familiar with a covering for sin….
December 05, 2007 9:33 AM
Wayne, my comment about your reference to church pews was tongue in cheek.
It is clear that the prodigal son repented. That nakes it a somewhat different case.
I would be cautitous about making comparisons between the two parables, but Donsands did ask about that one, so I needed to answer him.
Why do you think the man gets a lighter punishment than the people of the city who are wiped out on the king's orders?
Are false professors to be treated more lenienty than open unbelievers?
December 05, 2007 9:43 AM
Matthew,
You said…..
Wayne, Luke 13:28 mentions gnashing of teeth and darkness, but what in that passage explicitly mentions hell?
Luke 13:26-28 Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.’ (27) But he will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you come from. Depart from me, all you workers of evil!’ (28) In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out.
Don’t you think when a person is rejected from the kingdom of God, he is in hell? Or is this the free grace purgatory that was mentioned in the first comment?
December 05, 2007 9:43 AM
Wayne, it is quite possible that the persons mentioned go to hell. That is a question of eschatology in relation to the nation of Israel. I dont want to get into a complex discussion about Bible prophecy here.
However, the language is simply a figurative one of exclusion.
When the king commands the man to be cast into outer darkness, he is not commanding the man to be sent to hell. No king could ever give such a command. He is commanding the man to be put outside the feast.
To attempt to make this into symoblic language for hell is to do an injustice to parabolic interpretation.
God Bless
Matthew
December 05, 2007 9:49 AM
Matthew,
You said…..
However, the man is hardly treated with greater severity than the people who are scheduled to be killed and have their city burned.
Scheduled???? Matthew, these events have already happened by the time this man comes to the feast. The time line fits my (traditional) interpretation in that a long period of time on earth is in view and not just a single event in heaven. The Jews over time were disobedient and God’s wrath was poured on them from other nations. When they largely rejected Jesus, the destruction came to Jerusalem via the Roman armies.
If it don’t fit don’t force it. Forcing this destruction to occur after the man without the garment came to feast is forcing your view through your template don’t you think?
I will be out a while.
December 05, 2007 10:02 AM
Matthew,
The King is God in this parable!
I must go.
December 05, 2007 10:05 AM
The king represents God, but that does not alter the fact that it is a parable containing features that explain themselves.
Within the narrative structure of the parable, being cast into outer darkness means being cast into the street, not being cast into hell.
As regards the destruction of the city being Jerusalem in 70 AD, I think that is a plausible reference, but if you are bringing in false professors in the church, I think a broader scope may be given to the city, to encompass God's wrath being outpoured on the unbelieving. This will begin before the weddig feast mentioned Revelation.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
God Bless
Matthew
December 05, 2007 10:33 AM
"However, saints will be judged and this and the parable of the talents indicates that some believers will have reason to weep at the judgement-seat of Christ."
The parable of the talents shows NO indication of weeping. No where in that parable is there sadness for the true believer. The judgement seat of Christ determins degrees of rewards; but nowhere is sadness seen expressed by those of us less rewarded by, say, the Apostle Paul.
December 05, 2007 10:51 AM
"Every system has its peculiarties."
So you admit that FGT is a system, and that it does have peculiarties.
Hmmm.
December 05, 2007 10:54 AM
Matthew, do you agree that the Lord is specifically speaking to the Pharisees here, according to the context of this chapter and the previous chapter? How about the binding him hand and foot?
Would God the Father bind His children hand and foot? Would the King bind His subjects hand and foot?
Thi is more than an eviction to me Matthew.
I see the Father, though perhaps not pleased with His children, (as we look throughout the whole of Scripture), yet never wrathful. [The Cross has absorbed all of God's wrath. Jesus drank His Father's cup to the last drop.]
This is a particular King who is angry, and His fury is revealed against someone who does not belong at His feast. He was called, but not one of the chosen.
As far as Hebrews, I disagree with you here as well, if you are referring to Hebrews 10:26-31. These sanctified, who trod under their feet the Son of God, and who count the blood of Christ unholy, are unbelievers, as those in 2 Peter 2:1.
I will say that as much as I love to read and study the parables of our Savior, they are quite deep and need more meditation and discussion.
December 05, 2007 11:02 AM
Mark,
"The parable of the talents shows NO indication of weeping."
Well, you have the outer darkness in it.
I suppose you hold the naughty believer to be a false professor.
"So you admit that FGT is a system, and that it does have peculiarties."
I think that is obvious.
Every system has someting that makes it distinctive from other systems.
Calvinists have limited atonement.
Wesleyans have sinless perfection.
Roman Catholics have the doctrines of transubstnatiation and the immaculate conception of the mother of our Lord.
Free Graces have an unconventional interpretation of many parables.
God Bless
Matthew
December 05, 2007 11:06 AM
Donsands, our Lord certainly did address the Pharisees with this parable, but it also addressed others who were with him at the time.
"Would God the Father bind His children hand and foot? Would the King bind His subjects hand and foot?"
These are details that are explained by the narrative context. The king is dealing with the man as any eastern king would with those who dishonoured him.
It is not a literal description of the fate of unfaithful believers at the judgment seat of Christ.
God Bless
Matthew
December 05, 2007 11:14 AM
"Wayne, Luke 13:28 mentions gnashing of teeth and darkness, but what in that passage explicitly mentions hell?
It is possible that the people mentioned there go to hell, but where is this stated.
You are using a circular argument. That gnashing of teeth and darkness in Luke 13 means hell is no more certain than the reference to those things in Matthew 22."
This passage begins with Luke 13:23 "Lord, are there few who are saved?" and is seen within that "the Master" rises up and shuts the door, saying "I do not know you..." "Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity" (Matthew, this is clearly talking about unsaved people here)"and you yourselves thrust out"
Weeping and gnashing of teeth is clearly for the unsaved here. Your system does a terrible job saying it can mean hell in one place, but not another. Aterrible job indeed.
December 05, 2007 11:15 AM
"When the king commands the man to be cast into outer darkness, he is not commanding the man to be sent to hell. No king could ever give such a command. He is commanding the man to be put outside the feast."
If it weren't such a sad explanation it would be laughable. Your assertion that "he is not commanding the man to be sent to hell. No king could ever give such a command." is merely a system talking. How do we take what you say here with any weight? Why wouldn't the king heregive such a command?!
"To attempt to make this into symoblic language for hell is to do an injustice to parabolic interpretation."
To attempt to make this into symbolic language for being put out to the street is to do injustice to parabolic interpretation.
See, two can play that game.
December 05, 2007 11:27 AM
Mark, it is literal language for being put out into the street. Nothing symbolic about the words.
The king might just as easily have said:
"Get this man out of here."
The question then is what this represents.
If the language were literally of hell, then our Lord would be suggesting in this parable that a mere human being had the power to cast body and soul into hell.
"Your system does a terrible job saying it can mean hell in one place, but not another. Aterrible job indeed."
It does not with any clarity mean hell anywhere.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
The actual details of what takes place cannot be seen as symbolic, they only describe the narrative event.
It is what that event represents that we need to consider.
"Why wouldn't the king heregive such a command?!"
Can you name any king (other than the king of kings) who has the power to send somebody to hell?
December 05, 2007 11:35 AM
Matthew, if your last response to me were addressing Matthew 22, then my question is, what is a wedding garment?
I'll be away for a bit. Hope to see your answer when I get back.
Mark
December 05, 2007 11:47 AM
The righteous deeds of the saints.
December 05, 2007 11:54 AM
Matthew - when scripture instructs us to "put on Christ" do you interpret that to mean "put on good deeds"?
Just wondering...
December 05, 2007 12:08 PM
"The righteous deeds of the saints."
How is it that the saints came to have these righteous deeds?
December 05, 2007 12:34 PM
Daniel, to appropriate the sanctification we have in Christ.
December 05, 2007 4:39 PM
Mark, through the power of the Holy Spirit's working in their lives appropriated by faith in the finished work of Christ.
I am not sure I want to move from having a long discussion on a parable to having a long discussion on sanctification.
Maybe I should join the Emerging Church, whoever they are.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
December 05, 2007 4:42 PM
Lets not pull the parable out of its context. Remember that one of the scribes tried to justify himself by asking Jesus, "Who is my neighbor?" The lawyer nickle and dimes the text and finds loopholes. Jesus then caught him off gaurd by telling the parable of the good Samaritan. Jesus opened up His truths with the parable.
Now look at the context of the Matthew 22 parable and go instead to Matthew 21:45 to see where Jesus flows on from.
"Now the Chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they percieved that he was speaking of them."
The Author does not disput this and in fact goes on to confirm that they are the objects in question and their typical unbelief was being brought into court by the Master of catches who cannot be outwitted and will render the pretender speechless. See here where Matthew confirms:
"And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said..." Matthew 22:1
What happens as soon as He is done with this parable?
"Then the Pharisees went and plotted how they might entangle Him in his talk." Matthew 22:15
They continued to argue it just as some of the FGT advocates are doing. This is not a healthy deal here. You are being misled if your mind cannot see this plainly. Do not be decieved. It was so crystal clear that even the Pharisees could see it and be honest about it. That is why they wanted to entangle his talk or kill him.
Jesus would later ask, "Why test ye me, ye hypocrites in v.18.
So he even uses the word hypocrite as Jazzy and Mark rightly do.
The parable starts out by saying heaven is like...and ends by saying THERE WILL be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Future tense in a past or present tense parable. He did not use the word IS. He said will. Thats a promise from God Himself in the midst of the parable.
December 05, 2007 10:03 PM
All,
I have constructed a multi-part paper discussing this very thing on my blog. It is entitled:
So you're born again... But will you walk with Jesus in white?
Come correspond if you like. I will answer all questions and comments to the best of my limited abilities.
Your fg friend,
Antonio
December 05, 2007 11:25 PM
Brian,
the pharisees saw that they were not the man without a wedding gown, but those who were originally invited but killed the servants of the king. These originally invited guests are those of the nation of Israel who the Pharisees were representative of.
Notice that the parabe states that they were killed and their city destroyed.
Don't you think that is where they were offended?
Too, the topic is much broader than just speaking to the pharisees. Indeed, the parable is concerning "the kingdom of God"
Antonio
December 05, 2007 11:29 PM
The Pharisees also represent any and all forms of self-righteousness and hypocracy that is unwilling to receive the righteousness of Christ alone imputed to them. If anything all of these debates over all these months have done...is settle my mind securely and deepened my understanding of Justification.
Being saved and coming to the knowledge of the truth are mentioned in the same sentence. We must encourage all men in this direction.
December 05, 2007 11:40 PM
‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9 Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ 10 And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests."
It is plain and clear that a very BROAD invitation has gone out at this point, the original invitees having rejected the invitation. Note that "bad" came in also. The "bad" is the person w/o a wedding garment.
Ryrie - "not having a wedding garment. This assumes that the guests would have been supplied with robes by the king's servants, since all the guests came in a hurry and most were unsuitably attired."
""outer darkness" away from the lights of the wedding festivties. "Weeping and gnashing of teeth" indicate extreme torment, as will be true in hell(13:42; 25:30, 46)"
I use Ryrie here to show that other Free Gracers hold to a much more conventional view of these verses.
December 06, 2007 8:28 AM
Other commentators hold that the "gnashing of teeth" represents a continual and ongoing hatred and hostility against God while in hell.
Multiple commentators, multiple commentaries, multiple explanations of the text. So it is with Hodges/Wilkin. Yet another commentary with yet another opinion of what the text teaches.
One's theological possition drives their selection of commentators to embrace, no?
December 06, 2007 8:36 AM
From Antonio's post:
When one finds a consistent line of exposition and interpretation that allows him to take the words of Scripture at their face value, in other words, for what they literally say, without the inclusion of secondary assumptions and gratuitous importation, he has found exegetical gold.
I agree in principle as long as one distinguishes between allegorical, poetic, etc. writings.
December 06, 2007 9:34 AM
Well, there is another post up at my blog. I wonder what reformed people do with all the conditional statements in the Scripture?
Antonio
December 11, 2007 12:58 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home