Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Matthew

[Newbie]

Can you explain these verses to me?

[jimwalton]

Only two choices are presented. This is a consistent theme through the Bible, and the choice is the same one, though different concepts are used. Adam and Eve could choose self or God. Later the choice was worded as the truth God or false gods. Moses talked about life or death. For Daniel it was the kingdom of God vs. the kingdoms of this world For John it was light or darkness. Here it is the narrow gate, leading to life, or the wide gate leading to death. They are all ways of expressing the same truth: God offers life (his kingdom, truth, light); the other choice is death (self, falseness, darkness).

Here Jesus is inviting anyone who wants to come the way of life, truth, and light. It's a harder road, because the way of falseness and death is more natural to people, since they were born in sin. It's the way of least resistance; it's popular and easy to discover. But all is not hopeless. There is a way that leads to life. It is findable, but it's not popular or easy. The way of truth, goodness, love, and self-sacrifice require self-discipline to struggle against the flow, resolve, and commitment. It is a deliberate and can be a costly decision to actually have to dig deeply enough to find the truth and not settle for superficial answers. It can be costly, because one may find many against him or her who do not understand and think that such pursuits are foolish.

It's like using part of the Lord of the Rings as a parable. There's one way to destroy the ring of power. The road is narrow and the gate is small. (If you use this as an allegory, my analogy falls apart quickly. I'm just using it to show the road to life was narrow and difficult.) It took resolve, self-sacrifice, and self-discipline. It was a costly decision, but ultimately the right one.

[Newbie]

"And only a few find it." The vast majority are tortured for eternity because Adam incurred the wrath of the Christian god. The Christian god decided to design most of us for the sole purpose of eternal torment.

[jimwalton]

Again, you're not paying attention. There is a way that leads to life. God was very clear in Gn. 2 about what that way was: enjoy the bounty and blessing of all that he had provided. The Lord planted a garden, and in it he put the man (2.8). It had both beauty and function (2.9). It was a place to live, a place that provided sustenance for him, and a place where he could meet and fellowship with God. The emphasis of the place was sanctuary: where the man could enjoy the presence of God. And he could enjoy the life he had been blessed with (v. 9 emphasizes that life was from God, not from the tree. There was nothing magical going on here.). The two trees (life; good & evil) were metaphors—symbols of the ultimate choice of life: God, or not God. Life, or death. Good, or evil. Everything about the garden spoke "invitation", even the trees. The invitation was to choose God over self. There was no desire on God's part to express wrath; only the desire for fellowship. But the man must choose it, or there would always be the cloud of, "Well, it's not like I had a choice." There was a way that leads to life, and it was a HUGE open door.

What happened next is described well in Rom. 1.18ff. In an act of rebellion, claiming to be wise, they exchanged the truth about God "for a pocketful of mumbles, such are promises. All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." So what did God do? He let the man choose and have his choice. The man chose self, and he chose lies, and it wasn't accidental, but intentional. God's intent was to reveal his righteousness and love, but the man, in his hubris, gives him the finger. If man has rebelled and wants self rather than God, then God must answer his disobedience, or else God is not just. "Anger" is not the best terms, because that brings to mind an emotional outburst rooted in pride. And some, probably you I would guess, would argue that "wrath" is incompatible with love, but that would only be true if there were no patience, mercy, or grace in his dealings with them, which is patently not so. God dealt with them with amazing patience, mercy, and grace. You'll notice how "wrath" is defined in Romans 1 (if you look deeper than 2").
1. God gave them over to the sinful desires of theirs hearts. He let them have what they insisted on.
2. God gave them over to shameful lusts. He didn't force them to tame the desires they were indulging in.
3. God gave them over to a depraved mind. He didn't force them to think a certain way or to act a certain way. They were free beings, and had chosen their course.

So, your readiness to stab God in the back for his awful unfairness and nasty little temper is ignoring the clear teaching of the text about what is really going on. And immediately (Gn. 3.15) God initiated a plan to love them back into fellowship. But the damage was severe. The sin of self-will is like a cancer. God can't contain self-will, or it's not self-will. Self-will can't be forced. the only way to contain self-will is to transform it into love, but that has to be a choice, not coercion. You blame God for not running roughshod over everyone's freedom of choice and force them to love him, and therefore avoid separation from him. Well, duh, that can't possibly be how it works.

To see God as "design[ing] most of us for the sole purpose of eternal torment" is to miss the message of the whole Book. His design was for glory; people choose separation from him.

Rom. 9.19: the false accusation that God still blames us when he made us this way. On the surface it makes sense: if God is sovereignly making things up, and making us do things, then we are not to blame, and it’s not free will, and we can’t be held accountable. Bingo—God is an inconsistent, petty, lying jerk! But ever since the Garden of Eden it has been clear that man has a free will and has used his free will to rebel against God (Gn. 3; Rom. 1). God has already given the answer. Paul takes the words of Isaiah and applies them to individuals. "The lump" is moral possibilities in the clay (referring back to Gn. 2.7 where man was shown to be mortal [out of clay]). Verse 22 is the clincher (that you have missed the point of): "What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?" Even though God's wrath was justified to quash the rebellion, God instead responded with patience. He showed he was not an inconsistent, petty, lying jerk, but full of grace, mercy, and love. So here's the point of v. 22: if the pot goes bad, we cannot blame God for destroying it (them) then and there; it's his right. But if bears it with endurance, that is his right also. He didn't "prepare" them for destruction is a deterministic sense but (since it's a participial form) in an adjectival sense: they are ready and ripe for destruction. But God stays his own hand to give them many more chances to turn back to his love. Verse 23: He did this to make the riches of his glory known.

Read it right, m'friend.