The Parable of the Wedding Feast

[food4thought]

Yes that does help.

Should it give us pause that Herod Antipas and God, in the final analysis, fall back upon the same solution to being resisted?

Should a judge who rightly sentences a person to prison be looked upon as the same as a kidnapper?

I think the question is an important one, because it worries me if human beings can find no better solution than killing our enemies. How much more so if God himself has no better solution. Jesus said, in Matthew 5:

Yet the king in this parable has those who opposed him killed. Whether he was Antipas or God the Father, the perfect one, killing is the final solution.

Is there no hope?

Yes, there is hope. God did not punish those who opposed him... read carefully, He only punished the murderers. God would not be good if He did not righteously punish evil actions. Here is a rather long but hopefully helpfull post I made regarding the justice of God:

God is omniscient (knowing everything that can and will happen), omnipotent (able to do anything that does not contradict His nature), and omnipresent (present everywhere in our universe at once). He is also perfectly righteous (moral), just (giving the right verdict and penalty for every crime), holy (set apart, different from His creation, sacred), true (corresponding to reality as it exists in essence, word, and action), merciful (compassionate, willing to extend forgiveness and grace), and loving (giving of Himself in affection). God possesses all these attributes (and others) in perfect-- some even say infinite-- measure. In order to rightly understand God’s actions, we have to understand His character; and to understand His character, we must understand how the above attributes interact with and balance each other. This post will deal primarily with the justice of God.

God’s justice is primarily related to His omniscience, righteousness, justice, love, and mercy— His omnisceince means that He always knows the best possible thing we could do. Also, on the one hand, His righteousness demands moral perfection, and so every failure to be morally perfect requires justice to be meted out; on the other hand, His mercy requires Him to have compassion on the offender and extend forgiveness and grace, and His love demands that He give freely of Himself. You can see how this places God in a difficult position, as His character demands opposing actions. Yet we will see how God’s love provided the resolution.


Here is where we run into the concept of substitutionary atonement. Mankind had rebelled against God and was deserving of the righteous justice of God, which true penalty was given to Adam by God in Genesis 2:16: “…dying you shall die” (LITV). The Hebrew word translated “die” is written twice at the end of the sentence. The idea is accurately rendered by the LITV, as the penalty was both immediate spiritual death (separation of their relationship to God) and eventual physical death (separation of the soul from the body)… at the act of disobeying God’s command Adam and Eve experienced immediate spiritual death (as expressed by their hiding from God and God calling out “where are you?”), and eventually the penalty of physical death came to them. Adam’s very nature was changed by his sin, and he passed down this sin nature to every one of his descendants (see Romans 5). Knowing from the beginning that mankind was going to be destined to be forever separated from Him since no action of their own could eliminate the need for justice for their rebellion, God in His mercy enacted a way that He could satisfy justice AND mercy by providing for them a covering (Hebrew word rendered as “atonement” in the law of Moses) by the death of an innocent substitute (the unknown animal that died to provide the skin clothing God gave them). The animal was innocent in that it was not under judgment for any sin or rebellion of its own, and thus temporarily, and only in part, satisfied the requirement of justice that death must result from the disobedience as well as the requirement of mercy that man be extended forgiveness and grace (unmerited favor).

All through the OT we see the idea of substitutionary atonement by the shedding of the innocent blood of an animal “without spot or blemish”… this was always meant to only be a picture of the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ in the place of man. Jesus, given to us out of God’s love (John 3:16, etc.), was the perfect fulfillment of God’s requirement for justice: 1) He was “innocent” of Adam’s sin and “without spot or blemish” because of His virgin birth and sinless life; thus making Him like Adam in that He was a “son of God” in the sense that His human nature was a direct creation of God and thus replacing Adam as a representative of all mankind, yet He was unlike Adam (and all of us) in that He did not commit sin nor did He inherit the sin nature from Adam. 2) His sacrifice was sufficient for all men because, being the eternal, infinite, uncreated “Son of God” in His Divine nature, His death had infinite value in the sight of God and thus covered every conceivable sin that mankind has or will commit… except for rejecting that sacrifice on their behalf through unbelief (blasphemy of the Spirit?), or willful knowing rejection of God and following Satan (the mark of the beast? judgment at the end of the Millennial Kingdom?). 3) Jesus experienced both physical death AND, in some way we will never be able to fully comprehend this side of heaven (if ever), spiritual death as God poured out His wrath against our sin upon Jesus.
In summary, we see how God’s character works out the redemption and salvation of mankind thru His mercy and love, yet still complies with His righteousness and justice.


I'm going to anticipate one possible objection to the above... sin is evil therefore God must punish sin because He is righteous. Sin, ultimately, is going our own way against God's wishes... imagine a world where everyone on the road was in tune with the Holy Spirit, listening for God's guidance when He gave it. Imagine that... no accidents, no injuries, no death. Imagine a home where everyone is in tune with the Holy Spirit and never says anything mean spirited or even accidentally harmful. God is omniscient, meaning that He knows everything that is going to happen and could happen ahead of time. Since God is good, if we were listening to His guidance and being obedient to that guidance there would never be any death or broken relationships. Yet as soon as someone goes their own way and does things against God's will, there enters at least the potential for death, and also the potential for broken relationships. Thus the penalty of physical death and a broken relationship with God are perfectly just and righteous penalties for disobeying God's command. The penalty fits the consequences of the crime.

God is omniscient. God is mercifull. God is loving. God is righteous. God is just. How many physical and relational hurts has following your own ways left in your path? How many more lie in the future? God offers us forgiveness of all these sins, as well as a relationship with Him that can help us not leave more hurt in our paths from here on out... obviously, we all still sin, but that is from not listening for God's guidance and instead acting on our own. As a Christian, I have access to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and it is to my shame that I am not listening even more than I do.

God bless you; and I hope this was helpful to you in growing in your understanding of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

Mike

 

[Glass*Soul]

Should a judge who rightly sentences a person to prison be looked upon as the same as a kidnapper?

The word "rightly" poisons the well a little in this question. If there were another option that might work just as well as prison in solving the problem the guilty person is creating without subjecting him to the worse aspects of jail time, yet the judge favors prison over that option because he likes the idea of imprisoning people, then one might conclude that the judge is working from a mindset not far from that of a kidnapper.

Yes, there is hope. God did not punish those who opposed him... read carefully, He only punished the murderers. God would not be good if He did not righteously punish evil actions. Here is a rather long but hopefully helpfull post I made regarding the justice of God:

No. I quote. "The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city." He burned their city. This is an evil act.

There are better solutions to our problems than killing and destroying.

 

[bling]

The reason I asked is that during my research on this topic, and in this topic itself, I have encountered a goodly number of rather detailed descriptions of first century Jewish wedding customs as they apply to this parable. However, none of them have been referenced. If there is a rich body of references that has survived from that time period, that all of these details are being drawn from, I would like to examine it. However, if there is not, then they are not facts that I need to have in hand to help me understand it. They become, instead, echo chambers that amplify a specific interpretation after its inception.

For instance, Talitha mentioned that the wedding garments were put on over one's outer clothing and distinguished invited guests from party crashers. I'll quote her below.

Unfortunately, there is tons stuff we do not know about first century Israel/Jerusalem.

Yes, we make some assumptions and pick the most likely alternatives.

Let us look at the particular parable.

All parables Jesus gave to the multitudes were about the upcoming Kingdom and to some degree the Kingdom was there in the presence of Christ (Christ was in the Kingdom, but it had not been rolled out to the masses.) Jesus parables were simple down to earth stories that could actually happen and the people could easily remember, so the people of the time would have known about these “guest wedding garments” that were part of a King’s wedding party, which means they might not have been required at an average wedding (so this could have been rare yet will known about in the first century).

This King just got through inviting poor street people, which makes it hard to believe they would have been carrying kingly wedding garments, so where did they get them?

The King finds one person not wearing wedding garments and not a huge group (all the street people). The person confronted does not say: “I could not afford wedding garments” or give any excuse for not wearing them (it is obvious he has no excuse).

The “punishment” seems harsh, but it is totally needless, since no one would be that obstinate to go to the feast without wearing the wedding garment, but if they did this is what they could expect. So should the people at the wedding feast be in “fear” of the king or fully grateful to such a generous King?

 

[aiki]

There are better solutions to our problems than killing and destroying.

Sometimes. Sometimes not. In any case, what is true of us is not necessarily true of God. When God kills and destroys, the choice to do so is made from an omniscient perspective and a holy and just nature. No human can say the same. What's more, God has a unique right as the Creator to create and destroy, to give life and to take it. Drawing a direct parallel, then, between God and the creatures He has made is a seriously flawed line of reasoning.

Selah.

 

[Glass*Soul]

Unfortunately, there is tons stuff we do not know about first century Israel/Jerusalem.

Yes, we make some assumptions and pick the most likely alternatives.

Let us look at the particular parable.

All parables Jesus gave to the multitudes were about the upcoming Kingdom and to some degree the Kingdom was there in the presence of Christ (Christ was in the Kingdom, but it had not been rolled out to the masses.) Jesus parables were simple down to earth stories that could actually happen and the people could easily remember, so the people of the time would have known about these “guest wedding garments” that were part of a King’s wedding party, which means they might not have been required at an average wedding (so this could have been rare yet will known about in the first century).

This King just got through inviting poor street people, which makes it hard to believe they would have been carrying kingly wedding garments, so where did they get them?

The King finds one person not wearing wedding garments and not a huge group (all the street people). The person confronted does not say: “I could not afford wedding garments” or give any excuse for not wearing them (it is obvious he has no excuse).

The “punishment” seems harsh, but it is totally needless, since no one would be that obstinate to go to the feast without wearing the wedding garment, but if they did this is what they could expect. So should the people at the wedding feast be in “fear” of the king or fully grateful to such a generous King?

I feel they should fear him. He has already shown his willingness to burn a city, which punishes all the residents, innocent and guilty alike. It is not good to accept garments from a powerful practitioner of injustice. Doing so not only makes you an advertisement, a billboard as it were, for the practitioner of the injustices but makes you beholden. Once you are beholden, it is very difficult to avoid becoming a collaborator.

So, yes, they should fear him and, if possible, fear him more than death. I am not advocating resisting in the fashion that the first tier of invitees did. They resisted with violence. That puts us back into the arena of regarding violence as an absolute inevitability, so absolute that despots, duly elected judges and even God Himself must resort to it. I am advocating resisting in the fashion that John the Baptist and Christ modeled. Then, if we are to imagine a God, it is a God who would rather die in resisting evil than kill because it is more ultimately effective.

 

[Glass*Soul]

Sometimes. Sometimes not. In any case, what is true of us is not necessarily true of God. When God kills and destroys, the choice to do so is made from an omniscient perspective and a holy and just nature. No human can say the same. What's more, God has a unique right as the Creator to create and destroy, to give life and to take it. Drawing a direct parallel, then, between God and the creatures He has made is a seriously flawed line of reasoning.

Selah.

Aiki, that is precisely the flaw in reasoning I thought you were making.

 

[aiki]

Aiki, that is precisely the flaw in reasoning I thought you were making.

Feel free to explain why you believe it is flawed.

Selah.

 

[bling]

I feel they should fear him. He has already shown his willingness to burn a city, which punishes all the residents, innocent and guilty alike. It is not good to accept garments from a powerful practitioner of injustice. Doing so not only makes you an advertisement, a billboard as it were, for the practitioner of the injustices but makes you beholden. Once you are beholden, it is very difficult to avoid becoming a collaborator.

So, yes, they should fear him and, if possible, fear him more than death. I am not advocating resisting in the fashion that the first tier of invitees did. They resisted with violence. That puts us back into the arena of regarding violence as an absolute inevitability, so absolute that despots, duly elected judges and even God Himself must resort to it. I am advocating resisting in the fashion that John the Baptist and Christ modeled. Then, if we are to imagine a God, it is a God who would rather die in resisting evil than kill because it is more ultimately effective.

When I was talking about “fearing” the king (in the parable God) I was talking specifically about those that were invited, accepted and are wearing the wedding garments. Why should they “fear” their host?

I did like what you said here: “…fear him more than death”.

There is some truth in what you say because Jesus said:

Matt. 10: 28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
</SPAN>
But as the whole passage conveys Christians are not to be afraid because God is with us even through death.

The only people that should be frightened of God are those that are obstinately refusing God’s free gift.

God did directly destroy Sodom and Gomorra but Abraham could not find any righteous people there.

Death is not a “bad thing”, since it is the way the innocent and the believers get to go home and the way bad people quit doing bad stuff. Do you really want to live on this earth forever or in a heavenly home?

Where do you see the injustice?

You can definitely say; Bling is beholden to God, because God has given me anything and everything that is good in my life. Whatever I “do” is the result of what has already been done for me and not to ‘get” anything since there is nothing more to get except what has been guaranteed me which is eternal life in heaven. The only “motive”/reason, I see is out of gratitude (beholding). There is just nothing “more” I could ask for (that needs an explanation, but it is true).

 

[food4thought]

The word "rightly" poisons the well a little in this question. If there were another option that might work just as well as prison in solving the problem the guilty person is creating without subjecting him to the worse aspects of jail time, yet the judge favors prison over that option because he likes the idea of imprisoning people, then one might conclude that the judge is working from a mindset not far from that of a kidnapper.

Justice is often times punitive, meaning the unpleasant results happen when you do unpleasant things like kill people. Jail/prison punishes the wrongdoer and protects society from further wrongdoing by restricting the wrongdoer's freedom. Like it or not, punishment is a valid response to evil. When a child continues to hit another child, you remove that child from the other children as punishment for the child's wrongdoing and to protect the other children... this is the essence of heaven and hell.

No. I quote. "The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city." He burned their city. This is an evil act.

In the context of the parable, we know nothing of the good or wrong actions of the people of that town, so it is an assumption of their innocence on your part to begin with. But more importantly, this is a Kingdom parable, and God will destroy the earth and all that is in it at the end. But He first gives warning to the people of earth to repent, He takes those that are His out before He starts judging, He then protects those that become His in the midst of the judgements; and He ultimately provides a new and better place for those that are His... I think you are taking this parable a bit too literally, or at the least too atomistic. Look at in the context of the book of Revelation... God judges the unbelieving and rebellious people of the world, yet He protects those that are His... ultimately, all who choose Him over evil will spend an eternity with Him in a state without the pressence of evil.

There are better solutions to our problems than killing and destroying.

Your are right in many circumstances, but I disagree to a point. Sometimes the rot goes so deep that the only way to fix the problem is to tear down the whole thing and build a new one. Sometimes, the rot goes so deep in a person that the best thing to do is to take them out of the world... for the good of the rest of us. I am ambiguous regarding the death penalty because our justice system is not perfect. Also, God can take anyone and make them new. Yet if they are unwilling He will not forcibly make them... I cannot know their heart or their future decisions, but God can and does. He is the only one who is infallable in judgement.

 

[Glass*Soul]

God is omniscient (knowing everything that can and will happen), omnipotent (able to do anything that does not contradict His nature), and omnipresent (present everywhere in our universe at once). He is also perfectly righteous (moral), just (giving the right verdict and penalty for every crime), holy (set apart, different from His creation, sacred), true (corresponding to reality as it exists in essence, word, and action), merciful (compassionate, willing to extend forgiveness and grace), and loving (giving of Himself in affection). God possesses all these attributes (and others) in perfect-- some even say infinite-- measure. In order to rightly understand God’s actions, we have to understand His character; and to understand His character, we must understand how the above attributes interact with and balance each other. This post will deal primarily with the justice of God.

God’s justice is primarily related to His omniscience, righteousness, justice, love, and mercy— His omnisceince means that He always knows the best possible thing we could do. Also, on the one hand, His righteousness demands moral perfection, and so every failure to be morally perfect requires justice to be meted out; on the other hand, His mercy requires Him to have compassion on the offender and extend forgiveness and grace, and His love demands that He give freely of Himself. You can see how this places God in a difficult position, as His character demands opposing actions. Yet we will see how God’s love provided the resolution.


Here is where we run into the concept of substitutionary atonement. Mankind had rebelled against God and was deserving of the righteous justice of God, which true penalty was given to Adam by God in Genesis 2:16: “…dying you shall die” (LITV). The Hebrew word translated “die” is written twice at the end of the sentence. The idea is accurately rendered by the LITV, as the penalty was both immediate spiritual death (separation of their relationship to God) and eventual physical death (separation of the soul from the body)… at the act of disobeying God’s command Adam and Eve experienced immediate spiritual death (as expressed by their hiding from God and God calling out “where are you?”), and eventually the penalty of physical death came to them. Adam’s very nature was changed by his sin, and he passed down this sin nature to every one of his descendants (see Romans 5). Knowing from the beginning that mankind was going to be destined to be forever separated from Him since no action of their own could eliminate the need for justice for their rebellion, God in His mercy enacted a way that He could satisfy justice AND mercy by providing for them a covering (Hebrew word rendered as “atonement” in the law of Moses) by the death of an innocent substitute (the unknown animal that died to provide the skin clothing God gave them). The animal was innocent in that it was not under judgment for any sin or rebellion of its own, and thus temporarily, and only in part, satisfied the requirement of justice that death must result from the disobedience as well as the requirement of mercy that man be extended forgiveness and grace (unmerited favor).

All through the OT we see the idea of substitutionary atonement by the shedding of the innocent blood of an animal “without spot or blemish”… this was always meant to only be a picture of the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ in the place of man. Jesus, given to us out of God’s love (John 3:16, etc.), was the perfect fulfillment of God’s requirement for justice: 1) He was “innocent” of Adam’s sin and “without spot or blemish” because of His virgin birth and sinless life; thus making Him like Adam in that He was a “son of God” in the sense that His human nature was a direct creation of God and thus replacing Adam as a representative of all mankind, yet He was unlike Adam (and all of us) in that He did not commit sin nor did He inherit the sin nature from Adam. 2) His sacrifice was sufficient for all men because, being the eternal, infinite, uncreated “Son of God” in His Divine nature, His death had infinite value in the sight of God and thus covered every conceivable sin that mankind has or will commit… except for rejecting that sacrifice on their behalf through unbelief (blasphemy of the Spirit?), or willful knowing rejection of God and following Satan (the mark of the beast? judgment at the end of the Millennial Kingdom?). 3) Jesus experienced both physical death AND, in some way we will never be able to fully comprehend this side of heaven (if ever), spiritual death as God poured out His wrath against our sin upon Jesus.
In summary, we see how God’s character works out the redemption and salvation of mankind thru His mercy and love, yet still complies with His righteousness and justice.


I'm going to anticipate one possible objection to the above... sin is evil therefore God must punish sin because He is righteous. Sin, ultimately, is going our own way against God's wishes... imagine a world where everyone on the road was in tune with the Holy Spirit, listening for God's guidance when He gave it. Imagine that... no accidents, no injuries, no death. Imagine a home where everyone is in tune with the Holy Spirit and never says anything mean spirited or even accidentally harmful. God is omniscient, meaning that He knows everything that is going to happen and could happen ahead of time. Since God is good, if we were listening to His guidance and being obedient to that guidance there would never be any death or broken relationships. Yet as soon as someone goes their own way and does things against God's will, there enters at least the potential for death, and also the potential for broken relationships. Thus the penalty of physical death and a broken relationship with God are perfectly just and righteous penalties for disobeying God's command. The penalty fits the consequences of the crime.

God is omniscient. God is mercifull. God is loving. God is righteous. God is just. How many physical and relational hurts has following your own ways left in your path? How many more lie in the future? God offers us forgiveness of all these sins, as well as a relationship with Him that can help us not leave more hurt in our paths from here on out... obviously, we all still sin, but that is from not listening for God's guidance and instead acting on our own. As a Christian, I have access to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and it is to my shame that I am not listening even more than I do.

God bless you; and I hope this was helpful to you in growing in your understanding of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

Mike

I didn't want you to think I was ignoring the bolded part of your post when I replied to the rest of it the other day. It was pretty long, so I needed to let it percolate a little first.

You can see how this places God in a difficult position, as His character demands opposing actions.

Is God in a difficult position or have we put ourselves in a difficult position by attempting to combine absolutes which we cannot fully conceptualize into a single God concept?

If it is the latter, then that reshuffles the puzzle pieces dramatically.

This is really its own separate topic. I don't know if we want to explore it more here or start a new topic.

 

[food4thought]

I didn't want you to think I was ignoring the bolded part of your post when I replied to the rest of it the other day. It was pretty long, so I needed to let it percolate a little first.



Is God in a difficult position or have we put ourselves in a difficult position by attempting to combine absolutes which we cannot fully conceptualize into a single God concept?

If it is the latter, then that reshuffles the puzzle pieces dramatically.

This is really its own separate topic. I don't know if we want to explore it more here or start a new topic.

You can start a new thread if you like... here, I will just say the obvious:

If we could entirely understand God, He would not be the Theistic God... He would not be the infinite God that requires no cause that philosophy postulates.

If it isn't obvious already, I am limited in my understanding of these things , but am trying to present as much as I believe I do understand in a way that would be helpfull in bringing you to an understanding that would allow for you to have faith.

 

[Glass*Soul]

When I was talking about &#8220;fearing&#8221; the king (in the parable God) I was talking specifically about those that were invited, accepted and are wearing the wedding garments. Why should they &#8220;fear&#8221; their host?

I did like what you said here: &#8220;&#8230;fear him more than death&#8221;.

There is some truth in what you say because Jesus said:

Matt. 10: 28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father&#8217;s care. 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So don&#8217;t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
</SPAN>
But as the whole passage conveys Christians are not to be afraid because God is with us even through death.

The only people that should be frightened of God are those that are obstinately refusing God&#8217;s free gift.

God did directly destroy Sodom and Gomorra but Abraham could not find any righteous people there.

Death is not a &#8220;bad thing&#8221;, since it is the way the innocent and the believers get to go home and the way bad people quit doing bad stuff. Do you really want to live on this earth forever or in a heavenly home?

Where do you see the injustice?

You can definitely say; Bling is beholden to God, because God has given me anything and everything that is good in my life. Whatever I &#8220;do&#8221; is the result of what has already been done for me and not to &#8216;get&#8221; anything since there is nothing more to get except what has been guaranteed me which is eternal life in heaven. The only &#8220;motive&#8221;/reason, I see is out of gratitude (beholding). There is just nothing &#8220;more&#8221; I could ask for (that needs an explanation, but it is true).

I am afraid I am going to go on carrying the conviction that destroying an entire city as punishment for the actions of a few is evil. "How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!" Indeed. Those who are killed when cities are being destroyed are those least able to flee, not those who are most guilty of crimes. Ah, but this is not a bad thing. The fire and falling rubble are but sweet doors leading them to heaven. Where is the injustice? Why, there is none. What could be more just? The destruction of Jerusalem? Just. The rape of Constantinople? Just. Hiroshima? Just. The gassing of the Kurds? Just. This is not only just but a good picture of ultimate justice. This is our picture of God. Wear his garments. They're pretty. And if you won't, you know exactly what is going to happen to you.

OK. You win. The King is God.

Edit: I apologize. When I get emotional I get snarky. It is a fault. I am distressed by what it seems you were saying in your post above, which I had not been with your other posts. Perhaps I have misunderstood.

 

[Glass*Soul]

You can start a new thread if you like... here, I will just say the obvious:

If we could entirely understand God, He would not be the Theistic God... He would not be the infinite God that requires no cause that philosophy postulates.

Agreed.

If it isn't obvious already, I am limited in my understanding of these things , but am trying to present as much as I believe I do understand in a way that would be helpfull in bringing you to an understanding that would allow for you to have faith.

I didn't mean to disrespect what you had written. It is quite carefully reasoned out. It is obvious you have thought deeply on the subject. I think it's good, though, to throw a monkey wrench into our philosophies sometimes, question our starting point and see what happens. One ends up with many of the same pieces, but they fit together differently.

I have a couple of ideas based upon John's vision in Revelation that may shed some light on the question of whether, when it comes to absolutes, God has a problem or we have a problem and what the problem may be. I need to sleep now, but if you are interested I would be happy to elaborate.

 

[food4thought]

Agreed.



I didn't mean to disrespect what you had written. It is quite carefully reasoned out. It is obvious you have thought deeply on the subject. I think it's good, though, to throw a monkey wrench into our philosophies sometimes, question our starting point and see what happens. One ends up with many of the same pieces, but they fit together differently.

I have a couple of ideas based upon John's vision in Revelation that may shed some light on the question of whether, when it comes to absolutes, God has a problem or we have a problem and what the problem may be. I need to sleep now, but if you are interested I would be happy to elaborate.

I took no disrespect, but thank you for the kind words. I also believe that we should examine our beliefs and understandings in order to grow.

I would like to hear your thoughts on Revelation and what it may mean for us.

 

[bling]

I am afraid I am going to go on carrying the conviction that destroying an entire city as punishment for the actions of a few is evil. "How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!" Indeed. Those who are killed when cities are being destroyed are those least able to flee, not those who are most guilty of crimes. Ah, but this is not a bad thing. The fire and falling rubble are but sweet doors leading them to heaven. Where is the injustice? Why, there is none. What could be more just? The destruction of Jerusalem? Just. The rape of Constantinople? Just. Hiroshima? Just. The gassing of the Kurds? Just. This is not only just but a good picture of ultimate justice. This is our picture of God. Wear his garments. They're pretty. And if you won't, you know exactly what is going to happen to you.

OK. You win. The King is God.

Edit: I apologize. When I get emotional I get snarky. It is a fault. I am distressed by what it seems you were saying in your post above, which I had not been with your other posts. Perhaps I have misunderstood.

I’m sorry, I treat you like one of my Bible students and not as an outsider sometimes.

Jesus would get frustrated with his inner circle sometimes, but was always very pleasant with those that really want to know, but have not been taught. Jesus really got mad at those that did know He was the Messiah and wanted to trick him (these were the Pharisees).

This world is not our home and it is certainly not meant to be a pleasant place to live, but it is the best place for willing individuals to fulfill their earthly objective.

 

[Glass*Soul]

I&#8217;m sorry, I treat you like one of my Bible students and not as an outsider sometimes.

Jesus would get frustrated with his inner circle sometimes, but was always very pleasant with those that really want to know, but have not been taught. Jesus really got mad at those that did know He was the Messiah and wanted to trick him (these were the Pharisees).

How would you treat me differently as an outsider rather than a Bible student? What would make me a Bible student? What would make me an outsider? Does the parable of the wedding feast have anything to say on the subject of Bible students vs outsiders?

This world is not our home and it is certainly not meant to be a pleasant place to live, but it is the best place for willing individuals to fulfill their earthly objective.

Not meant by whom to be a pleasant place?

Here is where I may be misunderstanding you. In the context of a king becoming enraged and destroying a city due to being resisted with deadly force by some of the residents, you replied, "Death is not a &#8220;bad thing&#8221;, since it is the way the innocent and the believers get to go home and the way bad people quit doing bad stuff. Do you really want to live on this earth forever or in a heavenly home?" Is this justification for persons in power addressing violent resistance by destroying cities (with, as Jesus pointed out, pregnant women and nursing mothers not being able to effectively escape)? Does the destroying of cities by persons in power make them good models for what God is like? Is there no possible greater method for dealing with such a problem even if we carry goodness and wisdom to its most imaginable extreme?

I'm going to say a few things regarding absolutes from the book of Revelation in reply to food4thought. I hope you will go ahead and read it in the context of the paragraph above. It applies.

 

[Glass*Soul]

I took no disrespect, but thank you for the kind words. I also believe that we should examine our beliefs and understandings in order to grow.

I would like to hear your thoughts on Revelation and what it may mean for us.

The first scene we see in the visionary portion of Revelation, starting with chapter 4, is a description of someone sitting on a throne.

At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it. And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and ruby. A rainbow that shone like an emerald encircled the throne...From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings and peals of thunder. In front of the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits of God. Also in front of the throne there was what looked like a sea of glass, clear as crystal.

What I find most interesting about this description is the mineral/phenomenon aspect of the person sitting on the throne. We have jasper, ruby, a rainbow like an emerald, lightning, rumblings and peals of thunder, flames, and crystal. It is an entirely inorganic description, a crystalline entity, as it were.

Throughout the next chapters, the bulk of the book actually, all of the movement of the action is from heaven to earth, and it is all, without exception, destructive to earth. There are occasional pauses in the action in which the prospect of salvation is referenced, but always as something being put off. Then right back to the from-heaven-to-earth outpouring of destruction.

This heaven to earth business reaches its final point in chapter 18 as an angel throws a boulder the size of a large millstone into the sea and says of the destruction of Babylon:

“With such violence
the great city of Babylon will be thrown down,
never to be found again.
The music of harpists and musicians, pipers and trumpeters,
will never be heard in you again.
No worker of any trade
will ever be found in you again.
The sound of a millstone
will never be heard in you again.
The light of a lamp
will never shine in you again.
The voice of bridegroom and bride
will never be heard in you again.
Your merchants were the world’s important people.
By your magic spell all the nations were led astray.
In her was found the blood of prophets and of God’s holy people,
of all who have been slaughtered on the earth.”

Yes, as we have been saying, the home of some who did evil is being destroyed. But look closely. The majority of the lamentation is an enumeration of all the good things in Babylon that were being destroyed along with the bad. Music. Trade. Light. Marrying and giving in marriage.

This is what absolutes do. They destroy everything they touch. Movement from heaven, the realm of absolutes, into the world of human reality, is harmful to us. Absolutes dash themselves mercilessly against us, and we dash ourselves against them. As we read on, we begin to realize we are witnessing a larger retelling of the parable of the wedding feast. But something has gone wrong, terribly, horribly wrong. In chapter 20, in a proposed grisly parody of the last supper, we see find the birds of the sky invited to partake in the logical end of the absolutes-against-human-reality saga :

And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”

Full stop. The great supper of God?!? Something is wrong on the most wrong of cosmic levels. The wrongish feast in which the hero is a city-destroyer feels so much like it is the rightish feast that it has to be taken to its nth degree to show itself for what it is. Here it has shown itself. This is the ultimate outcome of that approach.

More great upheaval and reordering of things necessarily takes place over the next few chapters until, at last, in the final chapter of Revelation we find, finally, and for the first time that something from earth, something living and growing, has moved up into heaven and appeared before the throne. The Tree of Life.

Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.

Here is the true wedding feast.

Heaven to earth casting of absolutes = destruction.
Living growing thing from earth to heaven = healing.

Very cool. But here is the coolest part.

“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

Where are all the bad people? Right outside the gate. Not cosmically removed. Right there where they can come inside at the very moment they come to their right minds and wash their robes. Where do you suppose ol' John the Baptist is? Yep. Right there where Herod Antipas threw him. Doing what he was born to do. In the outer darkness baptizing the outsiders and sending them through the gates in their real wedding garments, their own true Selves made right.

That's my take on Revelation. I'm not asking that anyone agree, but I do hope that you would be willing to at least hold it lightly next to what you do believe.

 

[bling]

How would you treat me differently as an outsider rather than a Bible student? What would make me a Bible student? What would make me an outsider? Does the parable of the wedding feast have anything to say on the subject of Bible students vs outsiders?

First: The New Testament are letters written to Christians and not written to the nonbeliever, so I should not expect the nonbeliever to understand especially parables about the kingdom. Christians are to be dwelling inside the Kingdom, so we should be able to ready relate to what the “parallel” spiritual meaning is. (Unfortunately many that call themselves “Christians” do not understand or even want to understand).

Secondly: For the most part I teach Christian Bible Classes by only asking questions and expect the student to tap into the indwelling Holy Spirit for help and never personally give the student my answer, but answer with more questions. We might spend several listens on this one parable with lots of expected study, pray, meditation, and discussion outside of class among fellow students.

Not meant by whom to be a pleasant place?

The way this earth is today is perfect for meeting the objective of helping willing individuals to fulfill their earthly objective.

Here is where I may be misunderstanding you. In the context of a king becoming enraged and destroying a city due to being resisted with deadly force by some of the residents, you replied, "Death is not a “bad thing”, since it is the way the innocent and the believers get to go home and the way bad people quit doing bad stuff. Do you really want to live on this earth forever or in a heavenly home?" Is this justification for persons in power addressing violent resistance by destroying cities (with, as Jesus pointed out, pregnant women and nursing mothers not being able to effectively escape)? Does the destroying of cities by persons in power make them good models for what God is like? Is there no possible greater method for dealing with such a problem even if we carry goodness and wisdom to its most imaginable extreme?

I could probably write a book on this general question, but let us look at the specific situation. When Jesus says:

Mark 13:17 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 18 Pray that this will not take place in winter, </SPAN>19 because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.
</SPAN>
“Dreadful” does not mean “impossible”. This is Christ prophesying about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. You can read the Jewish (non Christian) historian Josephus description of the destruction to see how bad it really was (the very worst).

Jesus is giving a huge warning about the destruction in 70 AD and the sign that will happen just before, to definitely tell those that heed the warning, to get out of Jerusalem. Jesus in (Matt, Mark and Luke, The Gospel of John was written after the destruction of Jerusalem) told them: Mark 13:14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation” standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.</SPAN>

This is happening about 40 years after Christianity began and it began in Jerusalem. In those 40 years everyone in Jerusalem had repeated opportunities to accept or reject God’s charity (Believe in Christ). They would have witnessed repeatedly Christians willing to suffer and die for their belief in Christ. They would have seen and maybe even been helped by gentile Christians from distant places with money to buy food during a huge famine that swept through the area that the Christians had sent lots of money to relieve the suffering. With more and more former wonderful Jews leaving Jerusalem because they had become Christians and were being persecuted, the city was left with a greater and greater concentration of wicked people. I would say: at the destruction there were no good people left in Jerusalem.

Just three days prior to the closing of the gates and the horrendous destruction of Jerusalem a Roman general Titus offered a pig on the temple alter desolating it. The few last Christians in Jerusalem did get out before the gates were closed and no one could get out. It would have been hard for those last Christian pregnant women to get out, but I’m sure God did help them if there were any pregnant Christians left in Jerusalem at the time.

There is actually a very logical good reason why Jerusalem had to be destroyed at this time in a horrendous way. After such a horrible destruction, the records kept in the temple were lost forever so a person could not “proof” he was of Jewish decent. From that time on the Jewish Christians became Christians first and of Jewish decent, living with and fellowshipping freely Gentiles Christians. The whole Jewish/Gentile issue ceased.

 

[Glass*Soul]

First: The New Testament are letters written to Christians and not written to the nonbeliever, so I should not expect the nonbeliever to understand especially parables about the kingdom. Christians are to be dwelling inside the Kingdom, so we should be able to ready relate to what the &#8220;parallel&#8221; spiritual meaning is. (Unfortunately many that call themselves &#8220;Christians&#8221; do not understand or even want to understand).

Secondly: For the most part I teach Christian Bible Classes by only asking questions and expect the student to tap into the indwelling Holy Spirit for help and never personally give the student my answer, but answer with more questions. We might spend several listens on this one parable with lots of expected study, pray, meditation, and discussion outside of class among fellow students.

The book of Matthew is not a letter. It is a narrative.

If I understand what you are saying above, no unbelievers understand Jesus' parables. Some who self-identify as Christians do, but not all. Therefore, as a nonbeliever, I have to ask someone who self-identifies as a Christian to explain each parable to me, but I cannot be sure that any one person self-identifying as a Christian is giving me the correct response.

Does this diagram aptly portray what you are saying?

BTW, a definite article should be reserved for situations in which a single identifiable person is being referenced as in "the Pope" or "the butcher down the street." There is no single person who is "the" nonbeliever. Using a definite article in such a case can come across as insulting.

The way this earth is today is perfect for meeting the objective of helping willing individuals to fulfill their earthly objective.

Ah, so it is perfectly unpleasant. You've still not told me who has meant for it to be perfectly unpleasant.

I could probably write a book on this general question, but let us look at the specific situation. When Jesus says:

Mark 13:17 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 18 Pray that this will not take place in winter, </SPAN>19 because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now&#8212;and never to be equaled again.
</SPAN>
&#8220;Dreadful&#8221; does not mean &#8220;impossible&#8221;. This is Christ prophesying about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. You can read the Jewish (non Christian) historian Josephus description of the destruction to see how bad it really was (the very worst).

Jesus is giving a huge warning about the destruction in 70 AD and the sign that will happen just before, to definitely tell those that heed the warning, to get out of Jerusalem. Jesus in (Matt, Mark and Luke, The Gospel of John was written after the destruction of Jerusalem) told them: Mark 13:14 &#8220;When you see &#8216;the abomination that causes desolation&#8221; standing where it does not belong&#8212;let the reader understand&#8212;then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.</SPAN>

This is happening about 40 years after Christianity began and it began in Jerusalem. In those 40 years everyone in Jerusalem had repeated opportunities to accept or reject God&#8217;s charity (Believe in Christ). They would have witnessed repeatedly Christians willing to suffer and die for their belief in Christ. They would have seen and maybe even been helped by gentile Christians from distant places with money to buy food during a huge famine that swept through the area that the Christians had sent lots of money to relieve the suffering. With more and more former wonderful Jews leaving Jerusalem because they had become Christians and were being persecuted, the city was left with a greater and greater concentration of wicked people. I would say: at the destruction there were no good people left in Jerusalem.

Just three days prior to the closing of the gates and the horrendous destruction of Jerusalem a Roman general Titus offered a pig on the temple alter desolating it. The few last Christians in Jerusalem did get out before the gates were closed and no one could get out. It would have been hard for those last Christian pregnant women to get out, but I&#8217;m sure God did help them if there were any pregnant Christians left in Jerusalem at the time.

There is actually a very logical good reason why Jerusalem had to be destroyed at this time in a horrendous way. After such a horrible destruction, the records kept in the temple were lost forever so a person could not &#8220;proof&#8221; he was of Jewish decent. From that time on the Jewish Christians became Christians first and of Jewish decent, living with and fellowshipping freely Gentiles Christians. The whole Jewish/Gentile issue ceased.

...if there were any pregnant Christians left...

Per Jesephus, as for those whom God chose not to protect, the presumably non-Christians:

"The slaughter within was even more dreadful than the spectacle from without. Men and women, old and young, insurgents and priests, those who fought and those who entreated mercy, were hewn down in indiscriminate carnage. The number of the slain exceeded that of the slayers. The legionaries had to clamber over heaps of dead to carry on the work of extermination."

But it was all OK and quite just as God wanted some records in the temple destroyed. It is but a small price to pay. They were, after all, non-Christians.

Come to the wedding feast. Just follow the carrion fowl.

 

[bling]

The book of Matthew is not a letter. It is a narrative.

A letter cannot contain a narrative?

Matthew is writing to Christians and it was copied and carried all over, but it was not thought of as being a book or part of a book, but a general letter to lots of people.

If I understand what you are saying above, no unbelievers understand Jesus' parables. Some who self-identify as Christians do, but not all. Therefore, as a nonbeliever, I have to ask someone who self-identifies as a Christian to explain each parable to me, but I cannot be sure that any one person self-identifying as a Christian is giving me the correct response.

I might have conveyed that idea, but nonbelievers can figure some of the parables out especially when the parable was directed at them (Like the Pharisees figured out several times Jesus was talking about them, while I do not think others picked up on what Jesus was saying.

Ah, so it is perfectly unpleasant. You've still not told me who has meant for it to be perfectly unpleasant.

God has allowed/made the world to be the way it is to help willing individuals fulfill their earthly objective and this unpleasant world is the best it can be to help willing individuals.

Per Jesephus, as for those whom God chose not to protect, the presumably non-Christians:

But it was all OK and quite just as God wanted some records in the temple destroyed. It is but a small price to pay. They were, after all, non-Christians.

Come to the wedding feast. Just follow the carrion fowl.

God allowed His wonderful totally innocent son to be tortured, humiliated and murdered by wicked people to help willing individuals fulfill their objective. God will also allow wicked unwilling people that He has done as much as possible to help, to be tortured and killed to help willing individuals fulfill their earthly objectives. There were some innocent children in Jerusalem when the gates were closed, but they were probably killed quickly by the wicked (this shows how wicked they really were), which would have been a merciful end for the innocent. Like I said: “Death is not a bad thing.” I am sure the few Christians left in Jerusalem did try, up to the closing of the gates, to persuade their Jewish friend to join them.
To help understand this you need to look at “the parable of the rich man and Lazarus”.[/
Luke 16 19 "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried
23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony
Lazarus was an innocent person and yet in lived in pain and died a cruel death. Lazarus was providing an easy daily opportunity for the rich man to experience true Godly type Love by showing mercy, but he never did. Lazarus never tries to steal from the rich man or cures God for his situation but did his “job” while here on earth providing the best opportunity for the rich man. God did make it up to Lazarus in the end by giving him an exalted place in heaven.
It would have been better for Lazarus and the rich man if the rich man turned to help Lazarus. What more could God have done to help the rich man?
Lazarus is like the innocent in Jerusalem when the gates were closed.

How bad is sin?

How long do you have?

Is it worth considering the alternatives?

Will God protect the lives of the innocent in this life if their death would help others?