The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Matthew 13:47-50, Parable of the fishing net

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#1

i searched, but couldn’t find much on this specific reference, though perhaps my search skills are inferior.

Matthew 13:47-50 (NIV) "Once again, the kingdom of heaven is
like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of
fish. When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then
they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the
bad away. This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels
will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them
into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of
teeth.

what’s the answer to this? yes, it doesn’t say it’s eternal, but it’s fairly dismissive.

#2

That parable was part of what I was preaching on earlier today. Does this help?

The Jewish expectation of the coming kingdom always expected a separation between good and evil and the creation of a perfect new society of peace and justice. So the implied question is “If the kingdom has come, why has this separation not taken place?”
Jesus’ reply shows that the kingdom can be expected to grow in a mixed society until a future day when judgement will take place. The responsibility of the disciples is not to decide who is a good fish or a bad fish, it is to keep on fishing! The judgement is God’s responsibility, not ours, and God can be trusted to eventually destroy all evil and to bring all things under his loving care and control.

#3

thanks Drew. i’m still confused though, as to me it sounds very much like the disciples/angels are judging and tossing out the “bad fish” to a fiery furnace, which sounds dismissive, ie they are chucked and forgotten.

the odd thing to me is that “bad fish” would be thrown back in the water, not a furnace. so it’s almost a mixed metaphor.

i am not becoming “unconvinced” about universalism as a result…this is one text (though it can be added to others i’m sure). but i’d like to be able to answer ir.

#4

Jesus did say some enigmatic things but I don’t think the nature or duration of postmortem punishment are in view at all here. This passage, like all the other “hell” passages, does not teach ECT for unbelievers. However if somebody is already committed to the ECT doctrine, they would probably take it as support for their view. Its a kind of blindness. :wink:

#5

I’d start by pointing out that the “fiery furnace” isn’t instantly the end of the story for the “bad fish” because “there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” in it. The question then becomes why would God keep “bad fish” alive in a “fiery furnace”? I don’t think that is answered in this parable (although personally I think “weeping and gnashing of teeth” is a precursor to repentance), which seems to be primarily instructing us to “fish” without concern for what we are catching, as God will sort that out later (it is also warning people about the intense pain “bad fish” will face).

#6

thanks guys…that is helpful.
my issue was just how dismissive the statement was. but you’re right, perhaps it’s just warning where the point of it is the righteous fish, leaving the bad fish for another discussion. i don’t know.
there are difficult bits of the Bible for all the schools of thought, so it’s not a problem. also it can’t contradict the meta-narrative of the Bible.
the Old Testament promised judgement but resurrective salvation for Israel (and some of the Gentiles)…and the New Testament is meant to have a “better hope”, and be a “better covenant.” it could hardly be better if the judgement at the end of the OT was instructive and led to restoration, but it (the NT) promised just doom and gloom for many (most) people, with no healing/cleansing/instruction/restoration. it doesn’t fit the model of Scripture if that’s the case.

#7

I believe you already know the answer to this. You cannot allow your presuppositions to interpret scripture. Any interpretation presented that follows our presuppositions (makes us feel good) does not make that interpretation true, there is only one right and true interpretation. Read it as is without any bias.

#8

Reading this without any bias. It’s a story about fish. Apparently (and this is news to me), some fish are righteous and some are wicked.

We must interpret the story. I think the end of the age is the end of the first covenant. The angels are God’s messengers, the net is the Gospel. Jews and Gentiles alike will be drawn in. Those who reject the good news and go their own way will experience ever more keenly the wrath of God until the wicked are destroyed utterly. But there are two ways of destroying the wicked. One is to vaporise them. The other is to make them righteous. Which of these options is more patient, more loving, more glorious?

#9

LOL…I like that. Clever…LOL

Whichever way God says, is.

#10

I agree we should try to not impose presuppositions and it would be wonderful if we could read it without bias, however, the reality if we all have bias, even the translators. i.e. translation from the orignal language into English is already one layer of interpretation.

Some other points about this parable. Jesus says, “the kingdom of heaven is like”, such & such. i.e. this isn’t meant to be a 100% perfect, 1:1 mapping of future reality. I think He is trying to give us the “gist” of it. We can see this with the “fiery furnace” imagery, any physical fiery furnace would very quickly kill people, there couldn’t be ongoing “weeping & gnashing of teeth”. i.e. we are forced to interpret what He means by this, we can’t just say it literally means angels will pick people up and put them into a furnace…

Just because we have to do some interpretation, doesn’t make the parable meaningless, but it does make it harder for any of us to say with 100% certainty that we know the “only one right and true interpretation”.

What do you think the parable means?

#11

I somewhat agree. However there is only one truth and one side has it.

I don’t understand? “fiery furnace would kill people”?

Isn’t that what the bible says?

“forced” in that it doesn’t aline with your view of hell?

Why not. Is that not what Jesus states will happen?

Again someone has the truth

Jesus is reiterating the parable of the tares. The net dragged along the sea floor represents the gospel, collecting both good and bad and when that net is drawn, the bad ones will be cast out and the good ones saved. There really isn’t anything more to it.

#12

How do you know which “side” (are we even that clearly “sides”) has it?

As far as I know, physical fiery furnaces completely kill people. i.e. they stop breathing, their heart and brain stop working, they become ash. They don’t regenerate and continue living/burning. So if I was to try to read this without bias, I’d have to say it initially sounds like annihilation, but then that would be illogical because they continue “weeping & gnashing”. We are forced to do at least some interpreting here to even make sense of the logical sequence of events being described.

It certainly does, that’s why I’m saying what’s being described isn’t a normal, simple, physical sequence of events.

No, notice I said “we”, I think any reader has to do some interpreting.

I tried to explain “why not”, before writing this sentence. To summarise, I think Jesus states that what He saying isn’t a literal, simple, physical sequence of events.

I agree, only God has :mrgreen: We are called to try to understand what He reveals, but we aren’t promised to have perfect understanding in this life.

Thank you. I agree that seems to be the gist of it. The disagreement is does “cast out”, have to imply ECT/P or can it allow for later fishing/collection. I don’t think we get a clear answer in this passage, however, I would suggest that because the fish are still alive in the sea (& the people are still alive in the furnace) that this at least leaves open the possibility.

#13

Unfortunately, I don’t have a direct line to God, and even if I did, how would I recognise his voice? I have to choose the God I will serve, and it’s a risky business. For example, I choose the Bible over the Koran because I judge Allah unworthy of my worship, and I judge Mohammed to be vastly inferior to Christ. In the same way, I judge my God (who destroys his enemies by making them his friends) to be more praiseworthy than your God (who either annihilates his enemies, leaves them in torment, or worst of all, actively torments them forever.)

#14

Oxymoron, you’re very forthright in your views, i’ll give you that!

however i don’t believe the option to just “take it literally” and leave it as it is has been left to us. first of all, if you are just going to take every bit of the Bible “as is”, then you have to reconcile the obvious proof texts of UR with the (incredibly dubious) proof texts for ECT/P brand Calvinism, which is impossible.

also, God IS good. the Bible tells us that. God tells us what behaviour He defines as Good, and He should know: as He is good.
therefore it’s not a simple thing of saying “whatever God does is good because God does it.” yes, in a way He sets the standard, but having set the standard, He isn’t going to contradict it. this is the God who is a refining fire, one who according to Lamentations 3:31 will “not cast away forever”, which i take literally to mean that nobody is exempt from Him eventually saving them. which brings me back on topic:

my question of this parable is simply this. how do i reconcile the dismissive “throwing into the feiry furnace” with Lamentations 3:31, or the Christ hymn of Colossians? or 1 Corinthians 13, read in concert with 1 John 4:8? if i read them literally, i HAVE to interpret this parable as the start of the story, that those in the furnace are suffering but not forever.

Allan, i think what you said has validity that i will need to consider, thank you. if He refers to the end of the Mosaic covenant, then it could be that He is merely promising an indefinite time of suffering for those who are wicked. the dismissive tone does not imply that they “die” or are annihilated, but whoever said they aren’t “dead” in the furnace may be implying the hope, as the furnace is likely a picture of refining.
though Alex Smith was correct to point out that we can’t map a parable 1:1 to reality or future reality. it’s a symbol.

thanks all for comments and discussion. Oxymoron, you got me thinking, so thanks for your input as well. it’s vital to consider all sides of each discussion.
incidentally, i believe we here are all on the side of God as best we can be, with our little understanding. we’re all brothers and sisters in Christ, if we trust in Him, and so the issue of sides and “who has the best interpretation” becomes academic. only God ultimately knows!

#15

Of course you do, it’s scripture.

You asked me , “Which of these options is more patient, more loving, more glorious?” appealing more to my fleshly sensibilities instead of scripture. Scripture tells me what is more loving and glorious.

I am glad you recognize and acknowledge that we do not have nor worship the same God therefore you see differences.

#16

There should be a little gray x button immediately to the right of the edit button; but I’m unsure if non-moderators ever see the gray x button. Even if so, it may disappear after the edit button does (which happens after some time for non-moderators).

I tested this several months ago, but I’ve slept since then so I’ve forgotten the results. Sorry. :slight_smile: You did well enough deleting it yourself, I think; and you can always erase what you said and ask a moderator to delete the entry itself if you want.

(I am inferring from your request that you want this, so I have deleted the post in question; but I’ve kept the portion above for purposes of answering your question. Hope it was helpful!)

#17

CL,

my observation would be the same as some other commenters in this thread: the story goes up to a point and stops. That doesn’t mean the story isn’t shown being continued somewhere else. If a parable features a sequence of A,B, and other data indicates A,B,C or even B,C, we shouldn’t discount the C (anymore than the A) even though it doesn’t appear in the particular data at hand.

Incidentally, the parable is obviously an analogy with limited application since, after all, the fish in the story are being caught to suffocate, be burned, eaten and effectively destroyed!–the ‘bad’ fish get thrown back to live in peace in a less-unpleasant habitat! :laughing: Christ’s interpretation fits the parable very loosely in that regard.

But for what it’s worth, the “swirling depths” (even those of Lake Galilee) are a Jewish religious analogy for hades, especially including the hades of punishment for rebel spirits (whether rebel angels or those souls who once lived materially–or both, if some rebel angels once lived materially, as there are a few hints about in scripture.) So a limited application of Christ saving some souls from punishment/hades and throwing some back works well enough, especially if the material world is (currently) considered to be a punishment situation, too.

So the only problem I have with the standard interpretation (other than amusement when the standard interpretation doesn’t notice souls are being saved out of hell–so much for hell being unsavable out of! :laughing: ) is that it doesn’t account for other data indicating the story continues after the point illustrated by the parable. It isn’t unreasonable to treat this as a parable of hopeless damnation; just short-sighted.

(And requiring sin to hyper-exceed God’s grace instead of the other way around. :wink: )

#18

Matthew 13:47-50 (NIV) "Once again, the kingdom of heaven is
like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of
fish. When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then
they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the
bad away. This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels
will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them
into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of
teeth.

Some possible points:

  1. Note, there are all kinds of people in the Kingdom of God, some righteous and some wicked. Note that they are all “in the kingdom of God”. This passage is NOT talking about people who are NOT “in the kingdom of God.” Thus it is NOT talking about the saved and the unsaved. So to interpret this as speaking of the separation of the saved vs. the unsaved is to mis-interpret this passage.

  2. Note that the people who are “in the kingdom” are separated, the righteous from the unrighteous. Considering this is talking about those who are “in the kingdom”, it’s not talking about “positional righteousness”, but about “practical righteousness” - how one actually lives.

  3. Note the metaphor and phrase, “fiery furnace” and “weeping and gnashing of teeth”. It’s likely this was an allusion to Gehenna, and we’re all familiar with the debate concerning that being a) trash dump metaphorical of a trashed, waisted, shameful life. b) previous and future Judgment of Isreal and destruction of Jerusalem. c) Pharisees’ (school of Shammai) theological metaphorical use of Gehenna as a place of Remedial Punishment for most everyone, but for the especially wicked “could” mean annihilation or indefinitely long suffering. And d) ECT, Hell, what it came to be interpreted as by Gentile Christians, similar to the concept of Tartarus in Greek Mythology.

Noting these things, I believe that this passage is a warning to Believers, to us “in the kingdom” to live rightly, and not be “bad, worthless fish”, to live our lives in such a way as to be worth something. And considering this was in Matthew, the fiery furnace and weeping and gnashing of teeth would have been a vaugue, non-specific allusion to all three (a, b, and c), a waring to live rightly and not live selfishly. It recognizes that there will be a judgment, and that we shall all face it - a fearful thing if we’re living selfishly.

Sadly, ECT has been so long read “INTO” this passage that it is difficult for many to see that it’s not talking about ECT. Anytime someone reads “weeping and gnashing of teeth” or “fire”, ECT is “assumed” though such would not have been “assumed” by Jesus’ and Matthew’ original Jewish audience. The Pharisees and many of the Jews did believe that there would be a reconning, a judgment where God punished evil doers accordingly to meet the demands of justice, but not ECT. ECT was an Egyptian, Greek, Roman, idolatrous concept used to control people; ECT was not warned of in the Law or the Prophets, and the God of Israel was not like the gods of those nations. In the Jewish scriptures, warnings of judgment and rejection are often if not usually mitigated by statements of hope, grace, and unfailing love. The God of Israel relents from causing harm, and will not cast off forever. The God of Israel even raised Jonah, a rebellious prophet, from the grave where he was in agony and separated from God, when he repented and turned his face to God. The God of israel was not like Molech who inspired the burning of children alive. The judgments of the God of Israel are righteous and good.

Well, I’ll get off my soapbox now. Have a great day.
Blessings,
Sherman

#19

Does it matter? Either the Universalists are right or they are wrong

Universalists are forced, not us. The net in the sea is the parable. Jesus is using that parable to describe a real event of the angels separating the righteous from the unrighteous furthermore I don’t see in scripture that hell is fire like the fire we see today.

When Jesus used Gehenna as a parallel for hell, ‘Their worm does not die and their fire is not quenched.’ In Gehenna as long as there was trash and earthly bodies the fire and worms would continue to consume. Hell is eternal because our spiritual bodies are eternal therefore earthly fire could not consume our new bodies.

You have to think that because it doesn’t align with your interpretation of hell. Is that not allowing your view to influence the way you interpret?

I believe scripture is infallible and inerrant but not our understanding of it.

That is adding on. The parable ends with the net drawn, good ones saved and the bad ones cast out. Anything can be a possibility in any parable but that is not what the parable says or even indicates.

#20

i’d agree with some of your points, but to be so literal about this begs alot of questions. you maybe haven’t got to my response yet, so i’ll wait for that.

i personally believe that when something appears to go so far against the grain of Scripture, we NEED to re-evaluate our interpretation, and thus i believe we are ALL forced. just because you don’t feel forced to dig into this scripture below the surface doesn’t mean you aren’t forced to dig deep into, say, Lamentations 3:31.

also, Sherman and JP, you’ve added some great incites that i feel answer the questions and show me how this fits into how God has been revealing Himself to me. thanks!