“Short-sighted” We take into consideration all of scripture and this parable plays harmoniously into our systematic theology.
That’s a bit of a straw-man. We don’t believe nor teach that sin “hyper-exceeds” God’s grace
Hi corpselight,
This has ties to Daniel 12, and I mentioned it in this thread: [What do you make of Daniel 12:2-3). Well, actually it was the previous mention of gnashing and wailing in verse 41 from the same passage which I wrote about, but it’s still relevant in my mind. I don’t know if you saw that post. That mention of the furnace also says a bit about what follows: “Then the righteous will shine forth in the kingdom of their Father.” I think that “shining” speaks of “those who have insight” who are teach the multitudes and leading them to righteousness. Others suggested it means the shining forth of those purified in the fire.
This is a prophecy of judgment and punishment against evil. And the separation of the good and evil is a frequent theme in scripture. That doesn’t mean it’s the end of the story. It mean that at some point, all evil will be dealt with, and stopped. People will stop getting away with doing wrong. But the end is not yet. The end of the story is the destruction of death itself – the last enemy, after which Christ presents the kingdom to His Father, when every knee bows and every tongue confesses the glory of God.
The furnace of fire is the wrath of God – the Consuming Fire – which destroys everything that can be destroyed – the works of wood, hay and stubble (1 Cor 3) – cleaning away the dross to let the creation shine forth in all its intended glory.
Sonia
Of course, one often “assumes” that what is being separted is “people”, evil people vs good people. But this passage doesn’t specify such. It very well could simply be God separating out the good things we’ve done from the bad things we’ve done. The evil, like wood, hay, and stuble is burnt up, consumed in the fiery pit; and the good we’ve done is itself purified. And then the righteous (people or acts) shall shine for as the sun. And I trust that there will be plenty of weeping in repentance and gnashing of teeth in utter frustration at self when all that we’ve done faces the fire of truth, and we see the truth concerning just how much we waisted our lives on selfish pursuits.
It is a parable of judgment, not meant for us to judge, exclude, assume evil of others; but it is meant for us to examine ourselves, our lives, how we live and what we live for. To interpret it as God separating out the saved from the unsaved is to render this passage powerless to call us to righteousness because it assumes that “I’m” on the good side and have nothing to fear and this passage is a warning for “others” not me. So instead of judging ourselves, we judge others. hmm, something smells like dead rotting fish.
thanks Sonia, i’ll read that carefully…much appreciated!
personally, i don’t feel that Scripture plays harmoniously into ECT-brand theology at all. it’s one reason i abandoned it for Arminian style annihilationism, and why i’d only fall back to that position. anything else is actually indefensible. sorry, but it is. i can’t comprehend why people struggle to hang on to straw men arguments that don’t stand up to any rigourous test.
it’s not a straw man. the assertion that sin could ever defeat grace contradicts what Paul plainly says in Romans about grace abounding “all the more” where sin abounds. therefore grace by nature always hyper-exceeds sin, and thus will always defeat sin eventually.
Sherman,
I agree with this as a possible interpretation, and I like your application. I definitely agree that it’s not about judging others!
Sonia
Same here. 
The difference is that we (unless we’re ultra-universalists perhaps, which I am not) have no problem including B in the story, which is where this parable ends, while you-all redefine C out of the story on various grounds in order to harmonize your systematic theology.
So are those sinner-fish in the parable hopelessly lost? Or not?
If not, then God’s grace certainly hyper-exceeds their sin (even if they have to be punished for a while longer).
If so, then something must hyper-exceed God’s grace.
Calvinists admittedly tend to say God’s glory (in effect) hyper-exceeds God’s grace, for not as the grace is His glory.
But when it is pointed out that this makes sin of no regard in what happens to people–God isn’t ethically punishing people on this explanation but only randomly tormenting them or not for purposes of His self-glorification, which any unrighteous tyrant could and probably would do just as well–then in my experience Calvinists, just like Arminians, go back to God having to punish sinners due to the ethical heinousness of the sin. At which point in practice the sin hyperexceeds the grace after all–if the punishment is hopeless in bringing the objects to the richness of the grace of God.
If sin is sin against the glory and not the grace of God, then grace never factors into it. If sin is sin against the grace but not the glory of God, then glory never factors into it.
But if the glory of God is the graciousness of his fair-togetherness (i.e. the Greek compound word we translate “righteousness” or “justice”)–which is true if and only if trinitarian theism is true–then sin is sin against the glorious grace of God.
In which case it is the glorious grace of God (not only the glory, nor even only the grace) to punish sin.
But then, if where sin exceeds grace super-exceeds for not as the sin is the grace, then the graciousness of God to sinners is fulfilled in the punishment of sin, too.
There might be ways for Calvs and/or Arms to stay Calvs or Arms while affirming that, or not; but I think it has to be affirmed either way.
I think it is important to be forthright. I don’t like it when people try to blur the line. Draw the line in the sand and let people know where you stand.
I agree with you somewhat but this is not a difficult parable in any way.
Please show me that UR verse or verses.
I do follow a Calvinistic approach to scripture but I also can clearly see in scripture that man does have a choice in their salvation.
Our “good” is tainted with sin therefore no human being can do good and none of us are good so in a sense we can’t fully comprehend what good is as even our mind is sinful and fallen. When God does something that we interpret to be bad or wrong; it is still good because 1) He did it and He said, He is good 2) We can’t judge Him because He is good and we are not.
One of the first things I learned that scripture is for believers because only believers can understand scripture. That verse does not pertain to unbelievers but believers who are going through tough periods whether it’s persecution etc…
again that’s your presupposition leading you to believe in a temporary suffering and not the parable itself. Your presupposition leads you to use those verses in that way. For example the bible says, love your enemy but then there are passages where God commands to kill their enemies, Is this what killing with kindness means? That is using a humanistic approach in interpreting who God is and what He can or can’t do.
The bible clearly states that God is sinless, holy and righteous therefore only He has the right to do what He wants with us because that is what we deserve for our sins.
You believe that the existence of an eternal hell could in some way diminish God’s love for ALL. I don’t therefore I have no difficulties harmonizing the passages you gave with the God of an eternal hell.
The fire burns us, not because it’s hot, but because we’re cold. When we reach the proper operating temperature for heaven, we’ll positively glow.
This is me 
warming up.
Or maybe like this? http://www.backyardaquaponics.com/forum/images/smilies/blob8.gif
Remember in Voyage of the Dawn Treader, the pool where Eustace had to bathe after Aslan took the dragon skin off him? At first it burned, then became refreshing and healing.
Sonia
I was just talking about this very verse yesterday with my Fiancee.
I loved Poster Aaron’s take on this, which can be found here:
[Hell and the "End of the Age")
This is what Aaron had to say about the Parable of the fishing net…
First, of what “age” is Christ speaking here? Answer: the age of the Old Covenant dispensation, which was to end with the overthrow of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple (viewtopic.php?f=18&t=663#p7023).
Second, who are the “wicked” in view? Answer: the first-century generation of unbelieving Jews which Christ declared would not escape the “condemnation of Gehenna” (Matt 23:32-36).
Third, what did Christ mean by being “cast into the furnace of fire?” Answer: this figurative language is borrowed from the Hebrew Scriptures. In Ezekiel 22:17-22 (cf. Isaiah 31:9) we read:
"And the word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man, the house of Israel has become dross to me; all of them are bronze and tin and iron and lead in the furnace; they are dross of silver. Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Because you have all become dross, therefore, behold, I will gather you into the midst of Jerusalem. As one gathers silver and bronze and iron and lead and tin into a furnace, to blow the fire on it in order to melt it, so I will gather you in my anger and in my wrath, and I will put you in and melt you. I will gather you and blow on you with the fire of my wrath, and you shall be melted in the midst of it. As silver is melted in a furnace, so you shall be melted in the midst of it, and you shall know that I am the LORD; I have poured out my wrath upon you.”
Although the judgment of which Christ speaks took place at the “end of the age,” its effects have continued on throughout the age that followed (i.e., the age of the Messianic reign), as the “house” of the Jewish people (i.e., the temple) remains left to them “desolate” (Matt 23:37-38). In this sense the punishment into which they entered at this time has been an “age-abiding” (aionion) one (Matt 25:46). They remain still today.
It isn’t only universalists who believe that. Calvinist and Arminian Christians both teach this, too. Actually, the only people I know of who aren’t universalists who believe a hopelessly never-ending hell does not in some way diminish God’s love for ALL (your emphasis), are soft Arminians like C. S. Lewis–but they believe God is hopelessly defeated by sinners thanks (somehow) to His love.
Hard Arminians believe God stops loving sinners, or at least stops loving them as much as He loves righteous people, sooner or later (typically after death). That’s a diminishment of God’s love for all.
Soft Calvinists believe God never loved the non-elect with saving love by His choice from the beginning, and so doesn’t love them as much as He loves the elect He chooses to save from sin. That may not be an ‘active’ diminishment of love, in the sense that God doesn’t diminish His love for the non-elect; but it’s a diminished notion of love for all compared to universalism.
Hard Calvinists believe God never loved the non-elect at all in any way, by His choice from the beginning. Again, that may not be an ‘active’ diminishment of love, in the sense that God doesn’t diminish His (never-existent) love for the non-elect; but it’s an utterly diminished notion of love for all compared to universalism.
Right or wrong, you’re never going to convince a universalist that something less than universalism, where God persistently loves all sinners with saving love, doesn’t involve less of God’s love for all one way or another.
I don’t usually spend my time going after preterist interpretations of scripture (mainly because I don’t have enough time and energy to do all the other projects I want to do )–but I honestly don’t think such an exegesis holds up as an argument for an entirely fulfilled prophecy without a larger and greater fulfillment on the way.
1.1.) The scope of this, as with the tares parable which precedes it (and which this, as Oxy rightly says, is a parallel restatement of), is much larger than Jerusalem and its environs. “The field is the world”; so is the sea. The fish gathered are of every kind.
1.2.) Relatedly, while the quote from Ezekiel does specifically limit itself to Jerusalem, there is nothing in either of the parables to specifically indicate limitation to Jerusalem and its locality.
2.) Angels didn’t come to pick up all the sons of the evil (Jewish or otherwise) out of the kingdom of God and put them into Jerusalem to be zorched by the Romans. Nor did angels come to take the wicked out of Jerusalem leaving the righteous in there, in order to cast the wicked into… Jerusalem?? (Or is that supposed to be Gehenna valley now?) Those things did not even figuratively happen.
3.) The concept of multiple fulfillment cannot be excised from such a prophecy, because the Ezekiel prophecy was in fact already quite fulfilled with the original overthrow of Jerusalem! If that prophecy was also supposed to count for the overthrow of Jerusalem by the Romans (although frankly I doubt it), then this prophecy can also just as easily (and on better ground thanks to the scope) be supposed to count for some upcoming future judgment that hasn’t happened yet.
4.) As Israel fares, so fares the world under God. This frequent scriptural principle cannot be ignored by universalists (of all people!–seeing as we build our scriptural case on this frequent principle). The language of the tare and dragnet prophecies fit this extension of the scope, which clearly hasn’t been fulfilled yet.
No doubt the Ezekiel passage features furnace language applied to the (pre-Christian!) overthrow of Jerusalem. But a limited application of language to Jerusalem and/or Israel in one passage does not mean all future and/or other useage of such language must also apply to Jerusalem and/or Israel. The prophets used much the same language of reprobation for both Israel and Babylon, including the striking parallel of each of them being a whorish sorceress who claimed divine glory for herself and refused to recognize that she was a widow. As Jerusalem fared, so did Babylon eventually. (For that matter as Israel fared, so did Judah and Jerusalem eventually!)
5.) The tare prophecy references Daniel 12:3, the context of which also involves the rescue of Daniel’s people (or at least of everyone written in the book) from the depredations of a schemer who will arise in a time of peace to take power even though the honor of kinghood has not been conferred on him, and after instigating war with kingdoms north and south of Palestine will set up the abomination of desolation in the sanctuary doing away with the regular sacrifices (i.e. will set himself up as God’s presence in the Temple holy of holies). At that time, there will be a resurrection of many (or all?) people, some to eonian life and others to disgrace and eonian abhorrence. It would be highly optimistic even to say that “the righteous shone” henceforth “like the brightness of the sun” after the fall of Jerusalem–possibly the gigantic moral failures of Christendom in the thousands of years afterward still count as that–but none of these things happened in the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Nevertheless Daniel 12, and those two prophecies, are looking forward to the time of the final coming of the Son of Man in judgment and salvation.
It would be better, I think, to accept the scope of the parables as a warning for more than just Jerusalem to come, even though in other sayings Jesus is warning Jerusalem specifically–but neither the broad nor the focused warnings obviate each other. As the focused warning came to pass, so should we expect the broad warnings. The stated local scope of furnace imagery in one warning does not obviate the stated broad scope of furnace imagery in another warning. A hurricane that stomps an island in the eastern Carribbean may take a while to get to continental North America, and warnings for the local incident may sound similar (for obvious reasons) to warnings for a broad region; but to claim that since the island was flattened the coast is therefore safe from broad warnings (so to speak) is not good exegesis.
I think there are better interpretations of the parables than that.
before i reply, as i’m actually quite far behind in this thread now LOL i just want to thank everyone for their input so far!!! my understanding is growing as i consider this from various angles.
just one quick thing, oxymoron…i was until maybe 2 years ago an ECT believing Arminian with traces of Calvinism, more than likely. i found the view of ECT increasingly unlikely on a number of levels, and i was initially convinced that it “must” mean annihilationism through some very good teaching by some Christadelphians i studied with. i wasn’t convinced on their non-Trinitarian views, nor am i 100% convinced that the devil isn’t real as they are, but the annihilation argument made more sense by far than the ECT view. thus, i embraced it with joy, despite it contradicting my preconceptions.
now i discover the hope of UR, and while i could be wrong, i believe i’m right to hope for it, and i believe that despite all my preconceptions (which you have mentioned) contradicting it, i have found good grounding in Scripture for this hope.
i think the scriptures are pretty well documented on here, and i did mention a few.
Thanks for explaining your interpretation in such a graceful and kind way. I always appreciate how you consistently do that.
I am just at the beginning stages of studying the book of Matthew (and Gospels) with an eye towards its possible preterist interpretations, the Ghenna texts in light of the temple destruction, how it relates to The book of Jeremiah etc. So having said that, I am still collecting information regarding all possible interpretations in order to have an open mind as I approach the study. I appreciate All input those on this board provide and will definitely consider some of your thoughts here.
We know there’ll be a separating of the wicked and the righteous. Where the wicked go will be very unpleasant. This doesn’t speak to the purpose of the fire. I find hope in thinking that there are many references to fire being for purification. And it would make sense that the wicked are in need of it. God deals with the bad, but it’s not pleasant. That just seems par for the course. Maybe we read more into the text than is actually there? Sure, it would be nice if there was more clarification like, “And this is for their benefit.” Maybe knowing what kind of God we serve we are suppose to just trust that? To think anything else is just horrid.
First off, it’s a “parable”. That means that God is writing it with natural elements to “reveal” spiritual truths. Let’s start with that first. Even the disciples were frustrated over the fact that Jesus wouldn’t just come out and say it, but instead he always seemed to beat around the bush. But he explained to them “to you it’s been given to “know” . . .” I think that’s a key right there . . .everyone “assumes” they’ve been “given” the ability “to know”. But unfortunately, their results are more destructive than constructive and people are left with ears cut off and more.
Jesus didn’t come to the world to convince people that they’re unworthy. He didn’t come to the world to point out the fact that they’ve fallen short . . .“that” was what the “law” had already done. What he came to do was fulfill the law and “be” the gap between where we were and where the Father is. These parables are the same as the rest of Scripture, they’re not meant to be read from “our” perspective. We didn’t write it, so we can’t read it as though we did. It was written by one who is “above” whereas we’ve been born into what is “below”. That’s the first step. God didn’t send the message to destroy men, but to save them. So, as such, we need to read these things from a redemptive perspective rather than from a destroyer. God didn’t send Jesus to destroy us, but to save us. When we read these things as a Savior and not a destroyer it transforms the entire message.
Secondly, a parable was never intended to be taken literally. It was all about “hearing” that which natural ears could not hear. He uses that phrase a number of times when teaching parables about the kingdom . . .all of these are about the kingdom by the way. Why didn’t he just lay it out there? For one, the kingdom of heaven doesn’t come by “observation”. you can’t grasp it by merely applying natural reasoning. If you want to see the kingdom . . .where is it? It’s “in” you. These parables are spiritual principles that manifest “in” us. He’s explaining how his power works “in” us.
“In you” there are many fish, the angels . . .not just messengers . … but it’s the message that they’re bringing. What does the sword “do”? Does it not divide flesh from spirit? Where are these angels coming “from”? Are they not being sent by God? What is their role? They bring the message . . .it’s the message . .it’s the Word that comes into the oceans of our nature and it rightly divides, it takes the godliness in us and illuminates truth and it takes the ungodliness in us and purges it out. This is how the kingdom of God works in all of is. The edible fish is what others can eat from us that benefit from the godliness in us. The inedible fish is that part of our nature that is ungdodly that “he” separates . . .remember it’s from the angels, sent by God, they are message carriers that’s all they are. They don’t separate, they bring the message and “it” does the separating.
The ungodliness in us is what get’s purged and cleansed so that we become like Him . . . in every way.
But the key to reading these things is to realize they are principles of the “kingdom” which is “in us”. God isn’t out to destroy men . . .I’ve said this over and over to many people. He’s not out to destroy men . . .he is “LOVE” He’s out to destroy the MAN in men. It’s the expression of his love.
Don’t you remember the passage that states that God is at work “in us” both to will and to do his good pleasure? He’s the one doing the separating 'in us". He’s the one that circumcise the flesh from us.
I remember having some discussions with some Christadelphians over at carm.org about a decade ago. I found it to be quite strange that these guys who spent so many hours studying the scriptures actually believed that Jesus never existed before the incarnation. Did you find their teaching on Christ persuasive?
another quick reply before i get even more behind. i did not find it persuasive, in that i wasn’t tempted that much to change my view. the only thing i was persuaded to do is admit that i could see their point. however, i personally feel the evidence is against them on that issue. i can only admire the amount of studying they’ve done though. they convinced me to abandon ECT/P (for which i’m incredibly and hopefully eternally grateful lol) and they convinced me that there is “room for doubt” on the existence of the devil. but as to the Trinity, i still feel there is too much evidence in favour of it on a number of levels. but i respect those who disagree. we aren’t all required to be correct on all facts, it’s the heart that matters, and i may very well be the wrong one!
corpselight
seen as you replied to some of my posts [you are most welcome to continue] I thought I would check out some of yours and noticed this one , a thought then came to me . Jesus said to cast their net on the other side and how many fish did they catch ? 