While it is critical of Temple worship, it is overall a positive, hopeful verse.
It is consistent through the Gospels, esp Mark, Matt and Luke, because these are the synoptic Gospels - the same story appears in all of them. Each Gospel writer puts his own emphasis on the parable, but in each the immediate context concerns problems with the Temple.
In Matthew 21 right before the part you quote (and in Mark 11, the parallel passage) is the story of Jesus turning over tables in the Temple. The Luke 13 passage includes a reference to a disturbance at the Temple (the Galileans who were killed), and follows Ch 11-12, a long discourse that is critical of Pharisees and seems to 'foreshadow' the destruction of the Temple.
More in a bit ...[/color][/color]
Here John the Baptist is calling for people to repent, to turn around and return to God. It is again not a reference to a fiery hell, but to the uselessness, and in some cases abuses, of many religious practices of that day.
Same as above. Not about throwing people into hell, but decrying the uselessness (and possible harmfulness) of teachings and religious practices that are not part of the Way Jesus was showing.
If you don't speak with Love, you are like a clanging bell, and if you do not have Love, your faith amounts to nothing. It's about relationship with each other, and with God through our love for each other.
Thank you.
Well, to clarify one thing- I haven't referenced or mentioned hell at all in this thread. Others have, and there is an understandable tendency to kind of mix opposing arguments together (I'm sure I've done it), but to argue that they don't mean to throw people into hell when my posts haven't mentioned hell sort of dilutes the discussion a bit.
It seems to me that a lot of this has to do with interpreting text that is rough around the edges through modern sensibilities. I understand that the Gospels tend to be fairly consistent between each other due to shared material. But what I'm saying is, it seems as though one has to jump through a lot of interpretive hoops to conclude anything other than how it reads.
For continued examples, here is a broader part of the Luke 3 John the Baptist quote:
Luke 3:
7 John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, We have Abraham as our father. For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 9 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
Here, he seems to be saying that Abraham as a father can't act as any sort of moral defense, that God ran raise up new children (in other words, "humble yourself, you're not that valuable, you can be replaced"), and then follows up with the ax ready for every tree that doesn't produce fruit. I don't see how one can just say it's about the uselessness or abuses of teachings- it seems pretty clearly to be about people.
The previous counterargument for the Luke 13 passage doesn't seem strong to me. It contains a reference to the Galatians, but how does that reduce any of the rest of it? Such as:
From Luke 13
"But unless you repent, you too will all perish."
"6 Then he told this parable: A man had a fig tree growing in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it but did not find any. 7 So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, For three years now Ive been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and havent found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil? 8 Sir, the man replied, leave it alone for one more year, and Ill dig around it and fertilize it. 9 If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.
As for some of the others, yes they are often linked with the part about the Temple, but doesn't it seem clear he is nonetheless talking about the people involved?
Besides, parables such as in Matthew 13 make things pretty straightforward:
Parable of the Weeds, Matthew 13:
24 Jesus told them another parable: The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27 The owners servants came to him and said, Sir, didnt you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?
28 An enemy did this, he replied.
The servants asked him, Do you want us to go and pull them up?
29 No, he answered, because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.
So, same basic concept. Things that are perceived as valuable get kept, things that are perceived as not valuable get discarded or destroyed in some way in the story. We could make it sound nicer, but he's pretty clear later:
Parable of the Weeds Explained, Matthew 13:
36 Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.
37 He answered, The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the
good seed stands for the people of the kingdom.
The weeds are the people of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.
40 As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.
I don't really see how it gets any more straightforward than that one, and it's exactly in line with all of the parables about the plants that don't bear fruit getting discarded for uselessness. The text is rather directly understood I think, without a lot of need of interpretation, and even his sort of "behind the scenes" description, just completely upholds that sort of direct reading.
Thanks for your time and your response is of course welcomed. It seems to me that responses such as the OP being disturbed by this kind of material are justified.
