Matthew 7:13-14 does not refute the eventual salvation of all

[yeshuaslavejeff]

No proof text is needed - YHWH says universalism is fake. He condemns it and those who preach any false gospel. Anathema He says, remember ?

 

[ClementofA]

Clement,

It is a legitimate exegetical procedure to compare other Scriptures with Matt 7:13-14 to determine if universalism is a biblical doctrine. It is not.

Matt 7:13-14 makes that clear:

13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it (NIV).​

The gate is wide and the road is broad that leads to destruction. How many people of humanity go that way? 'Many enter'.

The road that leads to [eternal] life is narrow and the gate is small. How many go that way? 'Only a few'!

This conclusion is supported by verses such as: 'Many are called but few are chosen' (Matt 22:14).

Oz

Jesus does not say that the "destruction" in view is endless, or final destiny, or non corrective, so why should i accept that this passage necessarily proves universalism false?

If the Lord had wanted to speak of "endless destruction" He had perfectly suitable Greek words to express such an idea, e.g. "no end" (Lk.1:33), "endless" (1 Tim.1:4), "eternal" (Rom.1:20). The fact Scripture - never - uses such expressions re the future destiny of those who die in their sins is evidence against endless annihilation or torments.

Lastly i would point out that your added word, "eternal", is not in the text. What may be in view is separate destinies during the millennial age kingdom of Christ.

 

[ClementofA]

This conclusion is supported by verses such as: 'Many are called but few are chosen' (Matt 22:14).

Oz

I've addressed this point here:

how do people who believe in eternal torture in fire

Since that thread has turned into a discussion about universalism in general.

Feel free to respond re Mt.7:13-14 there if you like.

 

[ClementofA]

Oz

Here is a link to a previous response you made to my post re Mt.7:13-14 in what is now a locked thread:

Universal Salvation - Did you know that this is at the core of the Gospel?

In it you said:

"That's Clement's view! You have not demonstrated this is so by exegesis and exposition. Your assertion is your opinion - nothing more, nothing less."

Sure. Do you suppose the Lord was speaking of what was happening at that time in history, or fortelling the future choices of how men would respond to the gospel in the next 2000 years? Or possibly including the millennium as well?

"Greek interlinear Bibles are not Greek lexicons and Greek word studies. They are one-word attempts to find a meaning for one Greek word. How do I know? I have taught NT Greek but am now retired."

Yes i am quite aware of that. My bookshelves are full of dozens of lexicons, dictionaries, wordbooks & the like. Though lexicons are often not much different than providing a simple gloss or "one-word" equivalent.

"Why don't you tell us the Interlinear source of your quote? I presumed it was from William Mounce but when you quote someone and don't give credit, it is plagiarism. I urge you not to do that."

The link was provided in that post & here again in the OP. The source was a poster on this site with, as i recall, alleged seminary training. Also the quoted portion was in quotation marks, indicating it was by another person, not me, so could not possibly qualify as plagarism as defined by Webster as "to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own".

"Do you know the meaning of Greek verb tenses??"

No, I have never studied Greek formally. I rely on Greek scholars, lexicons, commentaries & people i know who have studied the language.

 

[gordonhooker]

ClementofA asks a simple question about a particular verse of scripture and wants the responses to be on topic. Why do the usual suspects continue to try and hijack the topic? Please either address the direct question or butt out so this topic does not get locked.

 

[ClementofA]

Since you want to keep your OP to just two verses these two completely refute the notion all are saved no matter what they do. Jesus clearly speaks here of two ways and those who travel the easy way will not have the life those who travel the narrow path.

How does that refute universalism? I don't see anything in Mt.7:13-14 that says the topic is final destiny. Or anything saying the destruction is endless, or irreversible, or non corrective & purely sadistic. Or that it causes them endless nonexistence.

See my posts to Oz for further comments & continue in the other thread referenced if you like & wish to bring in other verses.

 

[dqhall]

How does that refute universalism? I don't see anything in Mt.7:13-14 that says the topic is final destiny. Or anything saying the destruction is endless, or irreversible, or non corrective & purely sadistic. Or that it causes them endless nonexistence.

See my posts to Oz for further comments & continue in the other thread referenced if you like & wish to bring in other verses.

The verse you quoted is against universalism. Universalism is the theory that all will be saved. You may need to back up your theory with more than one verse. Who is the rich man who can be saved?

Matthew 19:24 (World English Bible - no copyright claimed/public domain) Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.

Some scholars claimed that the ancient Greek word for camel is camelos and an ancient Aramaic word for rope was similar to the Greek word camelos. The suggested a different translation, such as: "It is easier to put a thick rope through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." In my opinion one should not collect luxury status symbols or waste precious substance. I may be held accountable for unnecessary purchases, expenses and consumption.

 

[Buzz_B]

I'll stick with the inspired Word of God through the apostle Paul, rather than your erroneous opinion of Jesus' words:

1. Jesus says "FEW" were finding it
2. Paul says "MANY" will be saved (Rom.5:18-19)

Actually both are right.

Jesus was referring to the situation at His time in the first century, not final destiny.

Rom 5:18 Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for all mankind for condemnation, thus also it is through one just act for all mankind for life's justifying."

Rom 5:19 For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, the many shall be constituted just."

“In Romans 5, the justification is co-extensive with the condemnation. Since all share in one, all share in the other. If only a certain portion of the human race had partaken of the sin of Adam, only a certain portion would partake of the justification of Christ. But St. Paul affirms all to have been involved in one, and all to be included in the other.”

Bible versions don't say "few will EVER find it". This Greek Interliner says "finding":

Matthew 7:14 Interlinear: how strait is the gate, and compressed the way that is leading to the life, and few are those finding it!

Young's Literal Translation
how strait is the gate, and compressed the way that is leading to the life, and few are those finding it!


Matthew 7:14 is in the present tense, few "finding" it, speaking of that particular time, not of final destiny. Earlier in Matthew final destiny was already revealed re salvation:

Mt.1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Mt.2:6b ...my people Israel.


"Pay attention to the Greek verb tenses.
“Enter (eiselthate | εἰσέλθατε | aor act imperative 2 pl) through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and easy the way that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter
(eiserchomenoi | εἰσερχόμενοι | pres mid ptcp nom pl masc) through it. Matt 7:13"

"How narrow is the gate and difficult the way that leads to life, and few are those who find (heuriskontes | εὑρίσκοντες | pres act ptcp nom pl masc) it! Matt 7:14"

"In v.13 the word for 'enter' is the Greek word 'eiserchomenoi' which as noted is a present tense participle more accurately translated as 'entering.' Thus all this verse is saying is that there are many who are presently entering the wide gate. This verse does not refer at all to sometime in the future where people may or may not be resurrected out of the lake of fire. If it did, this verse would employ the future tense of the verb - but it doesn't. We can only say what this verse states - simply that when Jesus spoke these words, many are entering the broad gate/road."

"Same thing with v.14. The word for 'find' is 'heuriskontes' which is a present tense participle. Thus few people are currently 'finding' the narrow gate. No reference at all to the future."

Hell is Payback


*********************************************


https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

I hope everything works out for you.

I know we do have a merciful God, .... but ....

But it is pretty clear that you opened your OP only to tell others rather than to listen to others ......

So I will not try to refute you.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Do you believe Mt.7:13-14 refutes universalism. Try to stay on the topic.

You, yourself, brought other verses into your own original post, but you chastise anyone else who does the same? That's an interesting strategy.

Jesus does not say that the "destruction" in view is endless, or final destiny, or non corrective, so why should i accept that this passage necessarily proves universalism false?

Destruction usually implies finality. "Damage" would have been a better word if he had not been intending to imply that. Looking at the verse with an honest mind, one sees a passage that contradicts universalism. You seem intent to ferret out the exceptions, but this is a fallacious way of approaching the matter. This is on top of the other fallacy of forcing the opponent to use only your evidence. Let me give a quick example, and then I'm through with you:

Jesus does not say that the "destruction" in view is endless, or final destiny, or non corrective...

He also does not say that it regards humans. It could be a passage about lemurs, by that logic. It does not say that the destruction has nothing to do with eating yourself to death at an ice cream buffet, so we might say that it does not disprove the newfound doctrine that Hell is an everlasting ice cream buffet. The logic of your argument is to hold to the exception or the unstated possibility. It should be your burden to prove that the scripture proves your positive point, and not the burden of your opponent to show that it does not. It's a great way to win an argument while proving nothing.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It is a legitimate exegetical procedure to compare other Scriptures with Matt 7:13-14 to determine if universalism is a biblical doctrine.

Yes! Likewise, Jesus in Person, Alive, Son of God, rejects u.s.

All of Scripture is opposed to u.s. , exposing it as a false gospel.

Let little children seeking God's Kingdom beware of the danger of a false gospel.

Turn to God Himself, and be not deceived by it.

"Little children, keep far away from idols"

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

what's interesting is in the gospel JEsus 8 more times about hell then heaven... I'm just trying to figure out how one could hold this uni view when JESUS himself didn't hold it. I mean when you read those parables.

There's even a portion of scripture where it's essentially an interview with a rich man who's in eternal death while the other man is in Abraham's bosom.

The Man in death can't even receive a drop of water he can't get out.


Or in Matthew 13 where it's mentioned the wicked are severed from the just and the wicked cast into a fiery pit with nashing of teeth and weeping.

Just so many indications of something opposite of all end up saved.


The bible even mentions how those that believe and baptized are saved but those that don't are damned.


Just so many things I wanted to foucs on if the OP allowed for more scripture utilization to support the one in the OP. With the one in the OP you could point out the obvious that a comparison is made and that it says few be there to find it vs the many going to the other path.

Could bring up the fact that hell has enlarged itself too as a cross reference, and could point out that the size of heaven is stated in revelation 21 to be about 1,500 square miles but if you limit a discussion to one scripture it's hard to really emphasize or prove the point.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

what's interesting is in the gospel JEsus 8 more times about hell then heaven... I'm just trying to figure out how one could hold this uni view when JESUS himself didn't hold it. I mean when you read those parables.

The bible says that most people are not holding Jesus view,
but
rather most people are holding the devil's view.

This is true until Jesus Returns.

 

[Soar Like and Eagle]

I agree with what you are saying but I also agree the Bible is like an onion skin with many layers. Or a scriptural way of putting it or let’s look at the symbolism of scripture. Clothing speaks of what we believe; example a Levitical Priest could not wear wool. You see wool speaks of sweat and toil of man’s works.

Another example of clothing: Gen 37:3 Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age: and he made him a coat of many colours (Heb. Pieces).KJV

Hebrew OT:6446 Pieces: pac (pas); from OT:6461; properly, the palm (of the hand) or sole (of the foot) [compare OT:6447]; by implication (plural) a long and sleeved tunic (perhaps simply a wide one; from the original sense of the root, i.e. of many breadths):

I like the thought of pieces more; you see it is line upon line, precept upon precept; here a little there a little that is how you find truth. Today we have all kinds of religious clothing; Baptist clothing, Catholic clothing etc. pieces.

Back to Adam and Eve in the Garden; where if you look a little deep you will see the first religious act; or the fig leaf. Here is example of first time man tried to cover his nakedness with something other then God’ glory.

So cross referencing can be amazing.

 

[Soar Like and Eagle]

what's interesting is in the gospel JEsus 8 more times about hell then heaven... I'm just trying to figure out how one could hold this uni view when JESUS himself didn't hold it. I mean when you read those parables.

There's even a portion of scripture where it's essentially an interview with a rich man who's in eternal death while the other man is in Abraham's bosom.

The Man in death can't even receive a drop of water he can't get out.


Or in Matthew 13 where it's mentioned the wicked are severed from the just and the wicked cast into a fiery pit with nashing of teeth and weeping.

Just so many indications of something opposite of all end up saved.


The bible even mentions how those that believe and baptized are saved but those that don't are damned.


Just so many things I wanted to foucs on if the OP allowed for more scripture utilization to support the one in the OP. With the one in the OP you could point out the obvious that a comparison is made and that it says few be there to find it vs the many going to the other path.

Could bring up the fact that hell has enlarged itself too as a cross reference, and could point out that the size of heaven is stated in revelation 21 to be about 1,500 square miles but if you limit a discussion to one scripture it's hard to really emphasize or prove the point.

One thing at a time:
THE RICH MAND AND LAZARUS: Luke chapter 16

Mark 4:34 says, "But without a parable Jesus spoke not unto them but when they were alone He expounded all things to His disciples." This scripture proves that the story of the rich man and Lazarus is only a parable. Contrary to traditional teaching, the rich man does not represent the wicked; neither does Lazarus the beggar represent the righteous. Psalm 37:25 says, "I have not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread." This parable is not a type of the righteous begging bread from the wicked.

The rich man in this parable represents Judah who had "five brethren." Judah retained the throne of Israel, which is typified by the purple the rich man was clothed in. Judah retained the priesthood which is typified by the fine linen that he was clothed in. And Judah retained Jerusalem, the prosperous headquarters of Israel, which "fared sumptuously."

Lazarus represents the rest of Israel who lived outside the gates of Jerusalem. They had lost the kingship. They had lost the priesthood, and they depended on Judah for both natural and spiritual government. Because of their rebellion against the Lord they had become spiritually starved and sick. The dogs represented the Gentiles, who shared the crumbs from the Master's table and were more of a comfort to the ten other tribes of Israel than Judah was.

The beggar died first, which represents the ten norther tribes going into captivity. "He was carried by the angels" represents God's control over their journey into captivity. And, he was comforted in Abraham's bosom, represents the spiritual revival that took place while they were in captivity.

Later on the rich man died. This represents Judah being taken into captivity about 100 years later. It says that Lazarus was carried to Abraham's bosom, but it says that the rich man was "buried." It does not say that Lazarus was buried. Judah, as a nation, was buried, never to be a nation in its own right again. The people of Judah will find restoration only when God reunites them once again with their brethren in the other tribes. It is true that some of Judah returned to their land after captivity, but they have lived out a miserable existence and have never been recognized as a nation in their own right again. Not even the present day state of Israel is the restoration that God is going to bring about.

The scripture says that Jesus came to his own, but His own received Him not. And Jewerey has been in a veritable lake of fire ever since they rejected Christ. There was a great gulf fixed between Lazarus and the rich man. This represents the division that was predicted in Zechariah 11:14. "I cut asunder my other staff that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel." And verse ten says they lost the covenant blessing. This great gulf is fixed so that even though Christ rose from the dead, they will not, indeed they cannot believe.

But thank God, this gulf is not eternal. A time is coming when God is going to purify and untie Israel once again and establish them as rulers in His millennial kingdom. Hosea 1:10 & 11 predicts, "In the place where it was said unto them Ye are not My people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together and appoint themselves on head (even Jesus Christ the Messiah whom they had before rejected).

Christ has bridge the great gulf and will restore the covenant blessing to a united Israel when the time is right to do so. Then will all Israel, including Judah, benefit from Ephesians 2:12-16, "That ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise. But now in Christ Jesus, ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us, that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby."

 

[Lazarus Short]

An important word in these verses is "destruction." I looked up the verse in biblehub (interlinear) and ran down the definition, as I usually do with such words. The Greek word rendered as "destruction" is defined as: "destruction, ruin, loss, perishing; eternal ruin."

Damnationists will see it as meaning the "eternal ruin." As a good Universalist, I see it, and every other instance of destruction or perishing in the Bible, as referring to what happens in our here-and-now existence, except for the Lake of Fire. I really don't see any need to conflate it to mean destruction in the hereafter - always keep an eye on the context.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

One thing at a time:
THE RICH MAND AND LAZARUS: Luke chapter 16

Mark 4:34 says, "But without a parable Jesus spoke not unto them but when they were alone He expounded all things to His disciples." This scripture proves that the story of the rich man and Lazarus is only a parable. Contrary to traditional teaching, the rich man does not represent the wicked; neither does Lazarus the beggar represent the righteous. Psalm 37:25 says, "I have not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread." This parable is not a type of the righteous begging bread from the wicked.

The rich man in this parable represents Judah who had "five brethren." Judah retained the throne of Israel, which is typified by the purple the rich man was clothed in. Judah retained the priesthood which is typified by the fine linen that he was clothed in. And Judah retained Jerusalem, the prosperous headquarters of Israel, which "fared sumptuously."

Lazarus represents the rest of Israel who lived outside the gates of Jerusalem. They had lost the kingship. They had lost the priesthood, and they depended on Judah for both natural and spiritual government. Because of their rebellion against the Lord they had become spiritually starved and sick. The dogs represented the Gentiles, who shared the crumbs from the Master's table and were more of a comfort to the ten other tribes of Israel than Judah was.

The beggar died first, which represents the ten norther tribes going into captivity. "He was carried by the angels" represents God's control over their journey into captivity. And, he was comforted in Abraham's bosom, represents the spiritual revival that took place while they were in captivity.

Later on the rich man died. This represents Judah being taken into captivity about 100 years later. It says that Lazarus was carried to Abraham's bosom, but it says that the rich man was "buried." It does not say that Lazarus was buried. Judah, as a nation, was buried, never to be a nation in its own right again. The people of Judah will find restoration only when God reunites them once again with their brethren in the other tribes. It is true that some of Judah returned to their land after captivity, but they have lived out a miserable existence and have never been recognized as a nation in their own right again. Not even the present day state of Israel is the restoration that God is going to bring about.

The scripture says that Jesus came to his own, but His own received Him not. And Jewerey has been in a veritable lake of fire ever since they rejected Christ. There was a great gulf fixed between Lazarus and the rich man. This represents the division that was predicted in Zechariah 11:14. "I cut asunder my other staff that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel." And verse ten says they lost the covenant blessing. This great gulf is fixed so that even though Christ rose from the dead, they will not, indeed they cannot believe.

But thank God, this gulf is not eternal. A time is coming when God is going to purify and untie Israel once again and establish them as rulers in His millennial kingdom. Hosea 1:10 & 11 predicts, "In the place where it was said unto them Ye are not My people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together and appoint themselves on head (even Jesus Christ the Messiah whom they had before rejected).

Christ has bridge the great gulf and will restore the covenant blessing to a united Israel when the time is right to do so. Then will all Israel, including Judah, benefit from Ephesians 2:12-16, "That ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise. But now in Christ Jesus, ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us, that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby."

interesting interpretation. I can't say I agree I believe it's literal, but it's interesting to say the least appreciate the response.

 

[redleghunter]

How does that refute universalism? I don't see anything in Mt.7:13-14 that says the topic is final destiny. Or anything saying the destruction is endless, or irreversible, or non corrective & purely sadistic. Or that it causes them endless nonexistence.

See my posts to Oz for further comments & continue in the other thread referenced if you like & wish to bring in other verses.

You chose only two verses for the discussion. This is what you get with a verse plucking OP.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'll stick with the inspired Word of God through the apostle Paul, rather than your erroneous opinion of Jesus' words:

I'll stick with the inspired word of God as well, not your interpretation thereof...Hell refutes it, it's that simple, or will you dare try to make that go away too?

 

[Lazarus Short]

I'll stick with the inspired word of God as well, not your interpretation thereof...Hell refutes it, it's that simple, or will you dare try to make that go away too?

"Hell" refutes nothing - the word cannot be found in the Hebrew or the Greek. It comes from the languages of northern Europe, and from a time when those lands were pagan. the Norse goddess Hel is an excellent example.

 

[Kenny'sID]

"Hell" refutes nothing - the word cannot be found in the Hebrew or the Greek. It comes from the languages of northern Europe, and from a time when those lands were pagan. the Norse goddess Hel is an excellent example.

But you know, by any name, I somehow get the idea it exists.

You are seriously going to play around with syntax as a means of doing away with Outer Darkness, Lake of Fire, Second Death, Gehenna, Everlasting punishment, and so on?