 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Mt. 11:21 | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 10:07 AM (GMT -6) |   | Pou_Sto
02/11/01 9:08 PM
Mt. 11:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Mt 11:21, Jesus said, "Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes."
I could use some help in understanding this. Here are my questions:
(1) I've heard it claimed that miracles were not effective in converting the lost. But Jesus here states the opposite. If miraculous works had been done in Tyre & Sidon, they would have repented. Can anyone offer an explanation of this?
(2) Did God want Tyre and Sidon to repent? If so, why didn't He make sure miracles were done there so that they would?
(3) If God doesn't know the future will of men, how can He make this statement? Wasn't it a possibility that He could have been wrong?
Thanks for your help.
Pou_Sto
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ModesofThought
02/11/01 9:35 PM
RE: Mt. 11:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I take the primary meaning of this passage to be that Jesus is accusing Chorazin and Bethsaida of exhibiting a lack of faith, not only equal to but worse than, that of Tyre and Sidon. Your questions ask for answers which are not provided by this text. In a sense, Jesus is attempting to shame these cities into seeing what they are witnesses to, the power of God among them!
1. Miracles do not produce faith by themselves, but it seems that they are not without their effectiveness in calling attention to the doer of miracles! Again, my answer above is the primary meaning to be drawn from the text, in my opinion...
2. Of course God wanted Tyre and Sidon to repent. It is likely, given the precedence of this sort of thing in Scripture, that there was no one found who would stand in the gap for these cities.
3. Make no mistake! God knows all of the possible future wills/choices of all persons. (It is never accurate to say "God does not know" without involving yourself in a contradiction of some sort.) God would know that the people of Tyre and Sidon were ripe for repentence had they had someone to stand in the gap and perhaps perform miracles because God knows the hearts of all people in the past and would thereby know that they would have repented. I still think this is asking the text to respond to a question that it is not intended to answer, so I present it tentatively.
Good questions!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Pou_Sto
02/11/01 10:41 PM
RE: RE: Mt. 11:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Thought wrote: "I take the primary meaning of this passage to be that Jesus is accusing Chorazin and Bethsaida of exhibiting a lack of faith, not only equal to but worse than, that of Tyre and Sidon."
Actually, He's condemning them, isn't He? If I understand correctly, when Jesus declares a "Woe," it's a deadly serious matter. Isn't it an understatement to say they were "exhibiting a lack of faith"?
Mr Thought wrote: "Your questions ask for answers which are not provided by this text."
Perhaps there's a figure of speech here? If not, then we have no reason not to infer certain facts from Jesus's statements, which are implied in my previous questions. The scriptures require that we make inferences, to abstract general principles from specific examples, and to formulate facts and descriptions from statements and actions. Jesus made very specific statements. I think we're right to infer general facts from the specific remarks, unless something in the context requires us to take the entire matter as an exceptional case. His additional remarks about Sodom suggest a general principle is to be understood.
Mr Thought wrote: "In a sense, Jesus is attempting to shame these cities into seeing what they are witnesses to, the power of God among them!"
But couldn't He very well have done this without such bold speculation? I mean, how did Jesus know Tyre and Sidon would have repented?
Mr Thought wrote: 1. Miracles do not produce faith by themselves, ..."
Of course. That's not what I'm referring to. Rather, I'm addressing the claim that miracles actually did the opposite, namely, that those who saw God's miracles ended up hating him. Have I been told wrong? Is that simply a false claim?
Mr Thought wrote: 2. Of course God wanted Tyre and Sidon to repent. It is likely, given the precedence of this sort of thing in Scripture, that there was no one found who would stand in the gap for these cities.
But isn't Jesus referring to His own mighty works (see. v. 20)? Who else would "stand in the gap" but Jesus? Moreover, wasn't Jesus present in the land of Sodom (v. .23)?
Mr Thought wrote: 3. Make no mistake! God knows all of the possible future wills/choices of all persons.
Really? I am learning that God is bound by time and because the future doesn't yet exist, He reacts to the free will of men on the fly. If He were to know absolutely, then He would know the future (which doesn't exist yet). Or does He make intelligent predictions/guesses, but does not know absolutely, and therefore may turn out to be in error. Which is it?
Mr Thought wrote: (It is never accurate to say "God does not know" without involving yourself in a contradiction of some sort.)
What would the contradiction be if one were to say God does not know whether I'm going to take the interstate or the back road to the mall?
Mr Thought wrote: God would know that the people of Tyre and Sidon were ripe for repentence had they had someone to stand in the gap and perhaps perform miracles because God knows the hearts of all people in the past and would thereby know that they would have repented."
Again, I refer Mr Thought to my above remark: Jesus is discussing His own mighty works, therefore He is intimating that He chose instead to do mighty works in Chorazin and Bethsaida who rejected Him, and chose not to do them in Tyre and Sidon, even though He knew they would have repented.
Mr Thought wrote: "I still think this is asking the text to respond to a question that it is not intended to answer ..."
Is there an intented description of Jesus's knowledge to be inferred from His statement? If not, then why would He say it? Couldn't He just as well have said, "Woe unto thee Chorazin, etc, ... for you did not repent despite my mighty works. It will be more tolerable for those who never saw my works than it will be for you." Why go out on a limb and make a claim that only a foolish psychic would presume to make?
I thank ModesofThought for his insights.
Pou_Sto
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ModesofThought
02/12/01 12:28 AM
RE: RE: RE: Mt. 11:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First off, please call me "Modes". That has been what others have called me and "Mr. Thought" makes me sound smarter than I am. I do have a thought occasionally, but that hardly justifies the title…
I stand by my current interpretation: a lack of faith is tantamount to condemnation if not reversed so we do not necessarily disagree here.
Pou_sto writes:
Perhaps there's a figure of speech here? If not, then we have no reason not to infer certain facts from Jesus's statements, which are implied in my previous questions. The scriptures require that we make inferences, to abstract general principles from specific examples, and to formulate facts and descriptions from statements and actions. Jesus made very specific statements. I think we're right to infer general facts from the specific remarks, unless something in the context requires us to take the entire matter as an exceptional case. His additional remarks about Sodom suggest a general principle is to be understood.
Modes responds:
We have every reason not to infer beyond the main point of any text. It leads to stretched and imaginary applications which then tend to found contrived associations of ideas. We clearly disagree upon a general exegetical principle here. The Scripture does not require that we make such inferences, it is usually our curiousity or some other compulsion which "requires" it. I stand by my comment that you have asked questions of this passage which are largely out of the scope if its historical meaning.
Pou_sto writes:
But couldn't He very well have done this without such bold speculation? I mean, how did Jesus know Tyre and Sidon would have repented?
Modes:
As I stated, God knows the history of all events as completed and actual. This does not require "bold speculation" but only an accurate account of the hearts of those involved at Tyre and Sidon, which God surely has.
Pou_sto writes: (quoting Modes, initially)
Mr Thought wrote: 1. Miracles do not produce faith by themselves, ..."
Of course. That's not what I'm referring to. Rather, I'm addressing the claim that miracles actually did the opposite, namely, that those who saw God's miracles ended up hating him. Have I been told wrong? Is that simply a false claim?
Modes responds:
You must have a point you are hoping to make here? It is clear that not all who witnessed Christ's miracles hated him, the opposite is also clear, meaning niether did they all believe him. This question confuses me.
Pou_sto writes:
But isn't Jesus referring to His own mighty works (see. v. 20)? Who else would "stand in the gap" but Jesus? Moreover, wasn't Jesus present in the land of Sodom (v. .23)?
Modes says:
Well traditionally a person in the context who God has raised up and who is obedient is the type of person who might stand in the gap.
Mr Thought wrote: 3. Make no mistake! God knows all of the possible future wills/choices of all persons.
Pou_sto writes:
Really? I am learning that God is bound by time and because the future doesn't yet exist, He reacts to the free will of men on the fly. If He were to know absolutely, then He would know the future (which doesn't exist yet). Or does He make intelligent predictions/guesses, but does not know absolutely, and therefore may turn out to be in error. Which is it?
Modes responds:
Yes, really. Notice I said these are possibilities and God knows them as such. No one is saying God is reacting to free wills of men on the fly. Where did you get such a rediculous idea? Hopefully not from Open Theists! God is truly omniscient. See below for clarification…
Previous discussion ensues…
Mr Thought wrote: (It is never accurate to say "God does not know" without involving yourself in a contradiction of some sort.)
What would the contradiction be if one were to say God does not know whether I'm going to take the interstate or the back road to the mall?
Modes responds:
The contradiction would be that IF you had decided that you would do one of these (let's say "take the interstate") God would of course know that this is the decision you have made and so saying that God does not know this would be false. If you had not decided yet, God would still know that you are deliberating between the interstate and the back road and so God still knows all that is available to be known. In fact, God would know all the possible options that are available as well as the ones that you are aware of (probably a smaller set of options). No decision you make will be a surprise for God in the sense that God did not anticipate that you might have done the action decided upon. God is never ignorant of something that is logically possible to know. I hope that this is clear.
Previous discussion ensues…
Mr Thought wrote: God would know that the people of Tyre and Sidon were ripe for repentence had they had someone to stand in the gap and perhaps perform miracles because God knows the hearts of all people in the past and would thereby know that they would have repented."
Again, I refer Mr Thought to my above remark: Jesus is discussing His own mighty works, therefore He is intimating that He chose instead to do mighty works in Chorazin and Bethsaida who rejected Him, and chose not to do them in Tyre and Sidon, even though He knew they would have repented.
Modes responds:
The logic of this escapes me…please explain further.
Previous discussion ensues…
Mr Thought wrote: "I still think this is asking the text to respond to a question that it is not intended to answer ..."
Is there an intented description of Jesus's knowledge to be inferred from His statement? If not, then why would He say it? Couldn't He just as well have said, "Woe unto thee Chorazin, etc, ... for you did not repent despite my mighty works. It will be more tolerable for those who never saw my works than it will be for you." Why go out on a limb and make a claim that only a foolish psychic would presume to make?
Your claim here is baffling. Jesus is comparing faithlessness to faithlessness. You are dragging in metaphysical questions which are completely foreign to this text. I stand by my previous assessment. You also assume more continuity between the mind of Christ and the God of the Old Testament than is warranted. Jesus was born hundreds of years later than the destruction of Tyre and Sidon. The whole thing feels a bit to contrived to me…
Blessings,
Modes
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:33 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|