Not even by IQ? Damn!allow me to point out.....the servants were sent a second time
to gather anyone......anyone
they were not allowed to judge on sight.....by sight
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Not even by IQ? Damn!allow me to point out.....the servants were sent a second time
to gather anyone......anyone
they were not allowed to judge on sight.....by sight
Such might an insolent prisoner expect from an unjust captor...To add further insult to the existing injury is to be expected...if it's going to be imposed anyway, I'm going to get my two cents worth in and feel the better for having spoken truth to power.a little over the top
you might get bound hand and foot.......AND gagged
discretion?Such might an insolent prisoner expect from an unjust captor...To add further insult to the existing injury is to be expected...if it's going to be imposed anyway, I'm going to get my two cents worth in and feel the better for having spoken truth to power.
well ....if you ARE cleverNot even by IQ? Damn!
If you want me to view the host as anything resembling justified in his actions, the host would go to each of the guests and apologize for the sudden drafting into attendance...if I was good enough to 'invite' as a guest (as apparently a third-string replacement guest), then I am good enough to not be bound and punished for being in the condition I am found.discretion?
you might be invited to dinner
but the parable has a point.......in judgement
from the viewpoint of the guest...he would be shocked
so too.....anyone else at the Table
what do you think is really going on?
The original invitees were Israel, who generally didn't respond to Christ. The feast (heaven) is then opened to all, that the banquet hall be filled, all humankind. Many come and the Hall is filled.Let us suppose that this parable is about you and I, but I think its originally about whether circumcised Christians should fellowship with uncircumcised. To me it parallels Jesus other harsh sounding parable about the servant who fears to invest his talent. I think the point of both parables is that the Christian Jew should allow the uncircumcised into the church without fear. The two parables both are about this very difficult decision for a Christian. The parable you mention says they should come to the feast prepared or be cast out, and that means they must respect the other guests. The parable of the talents means they must invest themselves or have no increase. For you and I, this is no longer a current question; but how silly it would seem to those past Christians if they heard about our strange divisions over much more petty concerns.
Sure I see what you mean. The originals are the circumcised, just as the older brother to the prodigal son is.The original invitees were Israel, who generally didn't respond to Christ. The feast (heaven) is then opened to all, that the banquet hall be filled, all humankind. Many come and the Hall is filled.
I like that. There is also the charity of fellowship with others without judging them. Charity is about taking care of someone.Some realize the great generous gift and dress up in the fine clothing of charity towards others and love.... Some do not. Those that don't even bother to dress for the wedding suffer the same fate of the goats in Mathew chapter 25s last section, and for identical reasons. (You could say all the parables of Mathew 25 are giving this same message, in their ways)
discretion?
you might be invited to dinner
but the parable has a point.......in judgement
from the viewpoint of the guest...he would be shocked
so too.....anyone else at the Table
what do you think is really going on?
I understandIf you want me to view the host as anything resembling justified in his actions, the host would go to each of the guests and apologize for the sudden drafting into attendance...if I was good enough to 'invite' as a guest (as apparently a third-string replacement guest), then I am good enough to not be bound and punished for being in the condition I am found.
good point.....though it was not mentioned in the original versionMaybe the absence of a wedding garment is evidence of ingratitude? The guest was happy to partake of the feast, but sowed his fate by failing to acknowledge the generosity of the giver.
He probably could have picked up a wedding garment at the door on the way in.
looking at the parable from the point of view of the host:still.....I can't seem to let go of one detail
the feast was set and ready
the first of invite.....declined
so the scheme switches to not letting the furnishings spoil
and anyone called was allowed in the Door
and so I suspect......the condition of yourself
what ever that might be
is called to Someone's dinner table
all very much a spur of the moment
I say......the mention of a wedding garment was a ploy
no one came ....well dressed
all came.....as is
I think the lack of 'proper garment' ....is aimed at the
lack of grace
Sure I see what you mean. The originals are the circumcised, just as the older brother to the prodigal son is.
There are two ways of looking at the gospels. First of all we can look at them as they come to us: anonymous, practically stolen from the hands of the monks -- snatched out of the grasping hands of the Roman Catholic hierarchy! We choose to believe it is this or it is that. We took it out of the hands of the RC who kept it from us! Another way of looking at it is that its miraculously been hidden from and protected from the RC who unknowingly preserved it to be discovered by us. Lucky us. Blessed are we.
For the first two centuries Christians are welcome in the synagogues (which doesn't sound like a rejection of Christ). I table your comment about Israel rejecting Christ. Let us say that Israel suffered a terrible blow when the temple was overrun, when 30,000 Jews were crucified, when it seemed like all hope was lost; but let us grant that this was for the benefit of the world, that all things worked together for good ultimately. Let us not forget those who have died blamelessly.
The main question for early Christians who visit synagogue (to hear a cantor read etc) is whether the converts to Jesus should be circumcised and follow all of the laws. Matthew deals with this repeatedly. For example in chapter 5 of the beatitudes emphasizes "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness" which is the opposite of saying "Blessed are those who have achieved righteousness, already." For another example Jesus says not to stop children from coming to him. Matthew never suggests Jews shouldn't follow the law, but it suggests they shouldn't prevent the ignorant from coming to Jesus. In this case it says they are like children, so it appeals to part of the Torah in which fathers must teach their children. I'd say its an argument to allow uncircumcised in the church.
I like that. There is also the charity of fellowship with others without judging them. Charity is about taking care of someone.
That's not what I think, so really you're saying that I'm wrong. To clarify I did mention just previously that I think Matthew repeatedly argues not to require circumcision of the new disciples or keeping the law as a whole with kosher rules etc., but for Jews and their descendants Matthew does not suggest any change. He says on the one hand to uphold the Torah but to let the uncircumcised join the church as is. I'd say it suggests that the law must not be changed and must be followed by Jews but that the new uncircumcised converts should not be discouraged and to minimize the barriers to entry.Matthew never suggests Jews shouldn't follow the law --
That's right, the gospel of Matthew helps us realize that we are to do the essence of the law:
12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets. 13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
Or the full chapter helps make this even more strongly clear:
Matthew 7 ESV
It seemed to me we largely agreed though perhaps I didn't catch something. For instance it would seem we agree already on the most central point that the law is not even a bit of it set aside until all is accomplished:That's not what I think, so really you're saying that I'm wrong. To clarify I did mention just previously that I think Matthew repeatedly argues not to require circumcision of the new disciples or keeping the law as a whole with kosher rules etc., but for Jews and their descendants Matthew does not suggest any change. He says on the one hand to uphold the Torah but to let the uncircumcised join the church as is. I'd say it suggests that the law must not be changed and must be followed by Jews but that the new uncircumcised converts should not be discouraged and to minimize the barriers to entry.
What I think from considering this is that in this story Jesus compared the Pharisee's good acts against infinite goodness; but this is in harmony with the idea that there is an infinite level of righteousness. Take Isaiah 64:6 as an example: "...all of our righteousnesses are as filthy rags..." The prophet is so searingly close to burning hot judgment that no human cannot endure, and his perception of our righteousness is that it is just filth relatively. Jesus is doing the same thing. If he were to describe your behavior or mine it might be just as bad or worse. Relative to you and I these Pharisees probably were amazingly good people (though I don't know you personally). Ok, compared to most people these were very good men; but Jesus is comparing them to infinite righteousness against which no one has a chance.But we know that Jesus over and over corrected the Pharisees on their wrong ideas of what was the law and how to keep it, and instead teaches the true law as correctly meant.
Mark 7:8 You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men."
(and no doubt many of them found this extremely challenging to hear)
So then in perspective, comparing the Pharisees righteousness to infinite righteousness, they are deficient; but its unfair for you and I to then judge them as less righteous than ourselves or to think they are in some way evil people. We would be just as evil to Jesus or worse. This affects how I think about your reply.It seemed to me we largely agreed though perhaps I didn't catch something. For instance it would seem we agree already on the most central point that the law is not even a bit of it set aside until all is accomplished:
Matthew 5:18 For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
So, all the Law is then still in effect.
But we know that Jesus over and over corrected the Pharisees on their wrong ideas of what was the law and how to keep it, and instead teaches the true law as correctly meant.
Mark 7:8 You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men."
(and no doubt many of them found this extremely challenging to hear)
He corrects them so sharply and so many times that they hate Him for that, it seems clear, in the text.
So, for instance, they are wrong, repeatedly, on how to keep the Sabbath (one of their main self-righteous areas of teaching). Prominently in Matthew 23 NIV, Christ lays out their huge wrongs and hypocrisy at length. Faced with such as this, it would seem they must hate Him or repent in sackcloth and ashes.
So, if you mean to say the law is still in effect, I think that's surely the correct reading of the text. But, what has been overturned/destroyed is the wrongful extra rules they had made up.
We are to instead keep the true essence of the law. Or the real law, as meant.
Helpfully, we learn that the circumcision now required is the circumcision of the heart (Romans 2:29), just as in the Old Testament --
Deuteronomy 30:6 The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, and you will love Him with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live. (also Deu 10:16, Jer 4:4)
I agree that I surely should not judge the Pharisees -- I'm not competent (nor is any other mortal on Earth) to judge souls.What I think from considering this is that in this story Jesus compared the Pharisee's good acts against infinite goodness; but this is in harmony with the idea that there is an infinite level of righteousness. Take Isaiah 64:6 as an example: "...all of our righteousnesses are as filthy rags..." The prophet is so searingly close to burning hot judgment that no human cannot endure, and his perception of our righteousness is that it is just filth relatively. Jesus is doing the same thing. If he were to describe your behavior or mine it might be just as bad or worse. Relative to you and I these Pharisees probably were amazingly good people (though I don't know you personally). Ok, compared to most people these were very good men; but Jesus is comparing them to infinite righteousness against which no one has a chance.
So then in perspective, comparing the Pharisees righteousness to infinite righteousness, they are deficient; but its unfair for you and I to then judge them as less righteous than ourselves or to think they are in some way evil people. We would be just as evil to Jesus or worse. This affects how I think about your reply.
Jesus tells his disciples that keeping the laws is just not good enough to achieve actual, pure righteousness. They must always do better. For example if a Roman compels them to carry a load, they must do that and then offer to do extra. If someone strikes them its not enough just to do no harm but must offer to receive another strike.
In fact Jesus is arguing that the Torah is not enough, but he's not saying Jews shouldn't keep the Torah. He's saying not to require it of the uncircumcised when we want to join his church.
In that verse 23:3 he goes on to explain what he means speaking of putting heavy weights upon others. This may correspond to the barriers to conversion in the church which are an important topic in the early churches. As for Pharisees doing everything for show...well.. What I'd keep in mind is that Matthew appears to be a dialogue between Christians about how to approach conversion, but many people have taken it to be a treatise upon Pharisees. In modern times we each have access to much more information about Pharisees, and I know that they always believed in personal humility and not in self exaltation. For example reading Josephus can show this. I'd take this chapter 23 to be not a treatise on what Pharisees believe but perhaps more hyperbole to make a point.I agree that I surely should not judge the Pharisees -- I'm not competent (nor is any other mortal on Earth) to judge souls.
I do know this:
Matthew 23:3 So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
And I noticed that wording, of course. He is saying at least some of them were less righteous than just average people(!)... The chapter is helpful to us tho! It helps us see some mistakes any of us can make, ourselves, today, and many of us have at times. And that's so useful here and now, because once we realize we've done something wrong, then we can repent of it, and when we repent while believing in Christ, then we are cleansed, 1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (verses 1:5-2:4). To me, just as in the Lutheran tradition, we are all like Peter, saved only by Grace, stumbling at times (or often!) and then needing to confess and repent to be restored.