Luke 16: The Unjust Steward (Accompanies "Notes on Luke 16")

See Also Notes on Luke 16

Through this parable, the Lord admonishes the Jews for their adultery against the covenant as described in Malachi 2&3. The Jews in their generation were known for their love of money as is described in this very chapter of Luke (vs. 14...And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.) , and, therefore, their prudence with worldly riches would be their means of survival once they were cast out of the stewardship. This same love of money, however, was one of the ways in which they had gone astray from God's covenant in that their love of money and greed caused them not to follow the ways of charity and holiness to God and Israel. One cannot serve money and the Lord.

Mal 3:8 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.
Mal 3:9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.
Mal 3:10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.


The Jews had been commiting fornication with the surrounding nations and God was about to turn them over to the nations to be received into their "eternal habitations" which simply means that once the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70ad, the Jews would have no nation and be dependant on buying their survival for an indefinite amount of time until God "grafts them back in".

Rom 11:9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
Rom 11:10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
Rom 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
Rom 11:12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

In verse 8 of the parable the commendation from the steward's lord was not an implication of righteousness, but, a simple recognition of the steward's prudence in the ways of the world. It may also be perceived that the Jews were being abandoned to their love of money since in being unfaithful in the least thing, which would be the mammon of unrighteousness, they were not to be entrusted with the true riches of the law and covenant.

One interesting aspect of this parable is that the steward was apparently a handler of goods or potentially a money-lender dealing in another's goods. During the Dark Ages the church forbad lending with interest among Christians which in turn made Christians less likely to loan to each other. Similarly, based on the same Old Testament rules, the Jews could not lend money with interest to fellow Jews, but, could lend to the gentile Christians and therefore, with the limited rights afforded the Jews by the church, the only successful occupation left to the Hebrews was in fact: money-lending. This stigma has been with the Jews ever since.

This parable should in no way be used to teach that Christians have any justification or use for unrighteous riches.

1Ti 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

The Key to the Interpretation - Part Three - Two Little Horns

In 168 B.C. when Rome conquered Macedonia, it was then only a 'little horn'. That is, it was a Latin kingdom of small beginnings. In the centuries following, Rome would 'wax exceeding great' (Dan 8:9) and eventually absorb all the territory occupied by the three previous world empires (Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece).

In a stunning fulfillment of Daniel 8:11, Matthew 24:2, Luke 19:44, and Luke 21:6, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Jewish temple in 70 A.D.

Why is it that almost without exception the Christian church in our day fails to recognize Jesus' application of Daniel 8:11 to the Roman destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D.? Nothing displays this shocking lack of belief in Jesus' words more than the words of the commentators themselves.

John Gill writes:

...and the place of his sanctuary was cast down: not that the temple was destroyed by him (Antiochus), but it was profaned and rendered useless; the worship of God was not carried on in it, but the image of Jupiter was set up in it, and it was devoted to the service of an idol; yea, the altar was pulled down, and all the vessels and ornaments of the temple were taken away and destroyed... (emphasis mine)

Doesn't this amount to admission that by Antiochus the sanctuary was not in fact 'cast down', thus proving that Gill himself has misapplied the passage?

Albert Barnes Writes:

Was cast down - The temple was not entirely destroyed by Antiochus, but it was robbed and rifled, and its holy vessels were carried away.

Again, isn't this then a glaring admission of unbelief? Isn't it even more shocking that when we come to Jesus' words in Matthew 24:2 - that of the temple there would not be one stone left upon another that would not be 'thrown down' - that neither of these commentators connect these two passages of scripture together?

In all of this there seems to be a 'prophetical blind spot' when it comes to identifying the 'little horn' of Daniel 8. While most commentators have little trouble identifying the 'little horn' of Daniel 7 with Rome, almost none seem to see to Roman connection in Daniel 8.

Now, surely someone will ask how these things can be so. After all, isn't the 'little horn' of Daniel 8 said to spring from one of the four divisions of the Grecian Empire, while the 'little horn' of Daniel 7 appears among ten other horns of the Roman Empire? Even believing the evidence that Rome did in fact conquer and come out of Macedonia, how do we reconcile this with the 10 horns among which the 'little horn' of Daniel 7 arises?

These are the right kinds of questions and deserving of careful investigation. Unfortunately many believers fall for the wrong kinds of answers!

So the first question we might ask is: Are these horns the same? That is, do they represent the exact same power at the exact same time?

Now, the 'little horn' of Daniel 8 is clearly the Romans who in 70 A.D. cast down the Jewish sanctuary and temple. But not at that time, nor at any previous time can it be shown how that horn arose among ten horns as described in Daniel 7. Whether the ten horns there be literal kings, nations, or powers of another nature, it would be nearly impossible to show show that the 'little horn' of Daniel 8 arose among 10 of any of these.

While the 'little horn' of Daniel 7 is clearly Roman too, it is clear that these both cannot represent the exact same thing at the exact same time. What this should however indicate to us is that they are related to each other, and like each other in a very significant way.

The way in which these two horns are related is this:

1) Daniel 8 gives the entire program of the Roman power from its meager beginnings until it is destroyed by Christ's coming and kingdom. It started as a 'little horn' which first conquered Macedonia, then went on to absorb all the territory of the three previous world empires. The Romans cast down the Jewish temple, destroyed the Jewish nation, put to death our Savior, persecuted the early church, put to death many of the Lord's apostles, corrupted the Christian faith by introducing pagan doctrine and idolatry, and under a 'Holy Roman Empire' severely persecuted and put to death many true believers. THIS is the 'little horn of Daniel chapter 8. It is a panoramic overview of the pre-written history of ROME from start to finish.

2) On the other hand, the 'little horn' of Daniel 7 describes the Roman power only in its last state before it falls under severe judgment.

3) Putting these two thoughts together we can conclude that although the Roman Empire would start as a 'horn of small beginnings' it would 'wax exceeding great towards the east, towards the south, and towards the pleasant land'. In this great state represented by the fourth beast of Daniel 7, it would destroy the Jewish temple. HOWEVER, it would subsequently again become a 'horn of small beginnings', this time arising among ten horns of the Roman Empire, and in this last condition become the final persecuting power of the saints.

Note this: Rome would start out small, become great, but then be reduced again to a 'little horn' which would grow into the final persecuting power before it would be destroyed by Christ's kingdom.

How could a kingdom such as Rome start so small, become so great, and then begin again as a 'horn of small beginnings'? These visions seem extremely enigmatic, and in fact their full interpretation was not even made known to Daniel (Dan 12:4).

But make no mistake; the Bible absolutely predicts this very thing elsewhere, but in a passage of scripture that many have found equally as enigmatic and confusing. But might we suggest that this very confusion stems from a misunderstanding of Daniel Chapters 7 and 8?

Note these words given to the apostle John in 95 A.D.:

Rev 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition...

Before preceding, note a few observations about this verse:

1) The time frame here is from John's perspective in 95 AD. What he is beholding had existed prior to that time, did not exist in his day, and would arise again.

2) Whatever interpretation we come to should not use loose language. For example, some say that the 'beast' here is the 'antichrist'. In that case one would have to say that the antichrist existed before John's time, did not exist in John's time, and would rise again subsequent to John's time. A definition such as this simply does not work, nor does it work if we simply say that this beast is Rome.

But when we apply the language and the information we have learned from Daniel 7 and 8, it fits into this prophecy perfectly.

Note:

1) Rome started as a 'horn of small beginnings'.

2) It started as a small nation in Italy ruled by Latin Kings.

3) In John's time it no longer existed in this form, but had become a vast empire ruled by emperors.

4) It was at some future time to become again a 'horn of small beginnings' under the reign of LATIN KINGS, and would subsequently severely persecute the saints.

In this the angel would say to John; 'The beast once was a 'little horn' - a little latin kingdom, but this kingdom right now is not. However, it will arise again out of the abyss yet again as a 'little horn', a little latin kingdom of small beginnings, and in that form it will go into perdition.

Note this carefully friends... In Daniel chapters 7 and 8 you see two 'little horns'. Both are Roman but both obviously do not arise at the same time although they are similar in a very important way. Similarly in Revelation 17 you see a beast that 'was, is not, and shall arise' - that is to say that the beast that 'was' is like the beast that 'shall arise' in a very important way. Both are 'little horns' of small beginnings with similar characteristics.

And as the 'little horn' of Daniel 7 is the final persecuting power of the saints, so is the beast of Revelation 17 - thus these two prophecies are inseparably linked.

But as the first 'little horn' grew into a beast which desecrated the Jewish worship and temple, the second would grow into a beast which would desecrate the Christian worship and temple. Both are Roman, both had small beginnings, and both began as latin kingdoms.

These truths are generally hidden from the student of God's Word if they fail to recognize that BOTH the 'little horns' of Daniel chapters 7 and 8 are Roman, and both have similar beginnings, although appearing at different times.

Next time we will have much more to say about the 'Beast' of Revelation 17 and 13.

The Key to the Interpretation - Part Two

Sooner or later God's people are going to have to make up their minds about who they want to believe.

In our previous post we discovered that some would have us believe that Daniel's prophecies reach only to events which took place in the second century B.C. and have no connection at all with our day.

Others pretend that Daniel's prophecy skips over more than 20 centuries of time and predicts an 'antichirst' still yet to appear on the world stage.

Ignored in all of this are the words of our Savior. Jesus foretold that the temple and sanctuary of the first century would be thrown down so that not one stone would be left upon another. In saying this, Jesus identified the 'little horn' of Daniel 8 - the horn by which the sanctuary would be 'cast down'.

If any mystery remains in how to properly interpret these prophecies it is not because we do not have the proper 'key' to understand them. No, the real mystery is why so many of God's people absolutely refuse to believe the key that we have been given.

If Jesus is correct, and the little horn of Daniel 8:11 is the Roman power which destroyed the Jewish temple and sanctuary in the first century, then those who try to apply Daniel 8:11 to the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes are WRONG. Furthermore, if Jesus is correct, then those who would have us to believe that this 'little horn' represents some power still to arise in the future are equally WRONG.

But further complicating all of this in the minds of many is the fact that this 'little horn' first appears in Daniel Chapter 7. In that chapter Daniel sees a vision of four beasts. The last beast has ten horns - a 'little horn' rises among them and uproots three of the ten horns.

So the first time we are told of this 'little horn' is in Daniel Chapter 7, and then in the very next chapter we are told of this 'little horn' once again. By refusing to believe what Jesus said about the little horn of Daniel 8 - that it would cast down the Jewish temple of the first century - commentators are forced to deal with Daniel Chapters 7 and 8 in any number of creative ways.

First are those who argue that the 'little horn' of Chapter 7 must be the same as that of Chapter 8 - a logical conclusion; however the gymnastics they resort to to support this conclusion are anything but logical.

For example, some will say that the 'little horns' of Chapters 7 and 8 BOTH represent Antiochus Epiphanes. But this argument simply stretches all credibility. Daniel 7:27 states that the destruction of this 'little horn' brings in a time when the 'kingdom and dominion and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom.' Hardly something that appears to have taken place in the second century B.C.!

Others say that neither of these 'little horns' represent Antiochus because both predict an 'antichirst' still to come.

As we stated at the beginning of this article, sooner or later God's people are going to have to decide who to believe.

Now notice. The 'little horn' of Daniel 7 comes out of the fourth beast. In Daniel 7:23 we are specifically told that 'the fourth beast shall be the FOURTH KINGDOM on earth'. Since the destruction of this 'fourth kingdom' is that which brings in the everlasting kingdom of Christ, we can safely dispose of the lame notion that the 'little horn' of Daniel 7 is the Selecuid kingdom of Antiochus Epiphanes.

The four kingdoms of Daniel 7 are:

1) Babylon
2) Medo-Persia
3) Greece
4) Rome

Therefore the power rising as a little horn out of the fourth kingdom is ROMAN. It doesn't get much easier than that. The 'little horn' of Daniel 7 is ROMAN, and the 'little horn' of Daniel 8 is ROMAN.

Ok, now here comes the tricky part...

In Daniel Chapter 8 we have a vision concerning a Ram and a He-Goat. To make matters as short and as simple as possible:

1) The Ram is the Medo-Persian Empire
2) The He-Goat is the Grecian Empire
3) The 'great horn' on the He-Goat represents the unified empire under Alexander the Great
4) The four horns which come up in place of the great horn are the divisions into which Alexander's empire was divided when he died.
5) The four divisions are Asia, Syria, Egypt, and Macedonia.
6) A 'little horn' arises out of one of these four and becomes the power which 'casts down' the sanctuary.

Friends, who are we going to believe? Jesus taught us that the power which casts down the sanctuary in Daniel 8:11 is that power which would destroy the Jewish temple in the first century - that is, the ROMAN power.

Almost NO ONE believes him!

Why? Because they think he must be mistaken.

The power in Daniel 8 - the little horn that casts down the sanctuary must be either Asian, Syrian, Egyptian, or Macedonian, doesn't it? The little horn is said to rise from one of these does it not? So then the power of Daniel 8 surely cannot be the power Jesus was speaking of when he predicted the stones of the temple being thrown down by the Romans, right?

WRONG!

Careful attention to the text, belief in the words of Jesus, and a little lesson in history and geography solves this riddle without question.

First of all, what exactly is a 'little horn'? A 'little horn' is a 'horn' or a power of SMALL BEGINNINGS.

Second, notice Daniel 8:9:

Dan 8:9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.

Ok, so a little history is in order.

It is true that Antiochus Epiphanes of Syria severely harassed the Jews and profaned their temple and worship in 168 B.C.

But the text of Daniel 8 is not a description of this. As we noted, Antiochus never 'cast down' the sanctuary, nor did he 'destroy the mighty and holy people' (Dan 8:24). In fact, by 165 B.C the Jews successfully revolted against this tyrant and rededicated the temple. The fact is, the deeds of this king simply do not fit the description of the 'little horn' of Daniel chapter 8.

Sooner or later you're going to have to decide who to believe!

What many students of God's word do not know is that the very year Antiochus desecrated the Jewish temple (168 B.C.) the ROMANS (then a horn of small beginnings) conquered Macedonia - ONE OF THE FOUR DIVISIONS OF ALEXANDER'S EMPIRE.

From that point, and out of Macedonia the ROMANS would WAX GREAT toward the south, toward the east, and towards the pleasant land (the land of Israel). Notice:

- Macedonia is taken by the Romans in 168 B.C.
- By 100 B.C they have almost half of Asia
- By 65 B.C. all of Asia is under Roman control
- By 63 B.C. Israel is under Roman control
- In 70 A.D. the Roman armies destroy Jerusalem and cast down the temple and sanctuary.

The prophecy of Daniel 8 could not have been more exact. Out of one of the divisions of the Grecian Empire (Macedonia) came forth a 'little horn' (a horn of small beginnings) which WAXED GREAT toward the east, towards the south, and towards Israel. (Macedonia lies northwest of Israel). By this power (the Roman) the sanctuary was cast down and the temple was destroyed just as Jesus had predicted.

Those who say that the 'little horn' of Daniel 8 is Aniochus Epiphanes are WRONG. Those who say that this 'little horn' is a future Antichirst are WRONG. There is no confusion or difficulty in these passages if we simply believe the words of our Savior.

In part three of this series we'll compare further the descriptions of the 'little horn' in Daniel chapters 7 and 8, and in doing so unlock one of the greatest mysteries in all Bible prophecy.

The Key to the Interpretation - Part One

Found in the back of my Cambridge reference Bible is this note about the Book of Daniel:

'The prophetic visions present a succession of world-monarchies, the last of which will severely persecute the saints, but will be brought to an end by the Judgment of God and the advent of his kingdom. Ch. 8 gives the key to the interpretation of the rest; (1) the ram with two horns is the medo-persian dynasty, Cyrus being the greater horn which comes up last; (2) a he-goat with a great horn = Alexander the Great. eventually replaced by four others (i.e. his four Generals); (3) out of one of them (Syro-Greek or Seleucid dynasty) arose a 'little horn' (= Antiochus Epiphanes) which persecuted the saints. ' (emphasis is mine)

Careful readers may note that this prophetic 'key' is less than forthcoming about what this actually means in terms of how the Book of Daniel applies to our current age.

Note carefully how it is said that the 'last' in succession of world kingdoms as presented by Daniel is the one which will 'severely persecute the saints'. Then note how this 'last' kingdom is said to be the 'little horn' which is taken to be the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes.

Then among the conclusions one must draw from this supposed prophetic 'key' are:

1) That the last empire explained by Daniel's visions is that of the Seluecid dynasty which ended in 187 B.C. The Roman empire would no where be discussed in these prophecies.

2) That the saints mentioned in these prophecies have no application whatsoever to saints living in the gospel age, but are in fact second century B.C. Jews.

3) That these prophecies predict nothing concerning our day, or the close of this current age.

These are simple unavoidable conclusions that we must deal with - IF in fact the above interpretation is correct.

The fact is that the prophecies of Daniel ch. 8 have posed a problem for Christian interpreters. The above interpretation certainly looks correct doesn't it? Don't the facts of history support those conclusions? After all, this Seleucid king, Antiochus Epiphanes, did arise out of one of the four divisions of the Grecian empire and severely persecute the Jews.

Because of the ramifications listed above, commentators in our day generally deal with these facts in one of two ways:

1) Some commentators admit that while the prophecy applies to Antiochus Epiphanes it also has a further and greater fulfillment at the end of our current age. Therefore Anitochus is made a 'type' of an 'antichrist' still to come. In this way these prophecies are given a greater and more far-reaching fulfillment.

2) Some commentators deny that the prophecy has any application to Antiochus at all and insert a massive gap of time between the break-up of the Grecian empire and the rise of the 'little horn' or 'antichrist' at the end of time just prior to the return of Christ.

Now all of this is very interesting, but forgive me for suggesting that all these theories are utterly useless.

Why? Because the proper interpretation of a difficult passage such as Daniel 8 should never be sought among the theories of men when our Lord Jesus has already given us the correct interpretation.

Notice carefully in Dan 8:11 what this 'little horn' was to do; By it the daily sacrifice would be taken away and the place of the sanctuary would be CAST DOWN.

All of the theories above are already in trouble. While it's correct to say that Antiochus Epiphanes profaned the Jewish temple, he never CAST IT DOWN. Similarly, while futurist authors believe that a future antichrist will defile a newly rebuilt temple at the end of this age, I have never read that any believe the antichrist will CAST DOWN that temple either.

Now, if our Lord has something to say about this then all speculation must cease and we had better be about the business of aligning our thinking to his rather than seeking to justify our own pet theories. So what did our Lord say:

And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. (Mat 24:1-2)

The facts are these:

1) Antoiochus Epiphanes never cast down the Jewish temple.

2) No where is it taught that any future antichrist is going to cast down any future temple.

2) In this age Christians themselves are God's temple and never once is there any hint of that temple being 'cast down'.

4) Jesus said that the very temple then standing in the first century, the one his disciples were pointing at, would in fact be the one that would be CAST DOWN.

Here, my friends, lies the REAL KEY to properly interpreting Daniel 8 and with it all of Daniels visions. All you need to do is identify which power CAST DOWN that temple in the first century and you will have identified the 'little horn' of Daniel 8. It really is that simple.

Without doubt the power in question is that of the Romans, which destroyed the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. and then went on to severely persecute the Christian church. Afterwards it would corrupt the true Christian worship and under the papal system and the 'Holy Roman Empire' would 'magnify itself even to the prince of the host'

This power continues to this day under the nations of Western Christendom.

In part two we will examine how it could be said that the Roman power arose from one of the four divisions of the Grecian Empire.

What I Really Want to Know...

About two years ago I placed a notice on the Harvest Herald web site indicating that I was then investigating the notion that the Bible may in fact teach the ultimate reconciliation of ALL to God. Even at that time this was not a new concept to me but something I had struggled with for years.

This was not an investigation which was undertaken lightly, carelessly, or quickly. In fact, the ultimate reconciliation of all creation back to the Creator was not a subject I had originally intended to investigate at all, but was in fact what I felt was the inevitable conclusion of my studies concerning the immortality of the soul, the resurrection, and the final judgment and punishment of the wicked.

Finally, last year I updated the notice on the Harvest Herald web site announcing my conclusion that I did in fact believe that the scriptures taught this glorious truth; that all creation will eventually be reconciled back to God.

No single article or opinion expressed on the site has ever generated as much email as this one little paragraph. Most of the email, while not hostile in tone, has pleaded with me to reconsider or to reinvestigate this view. It has been expressed both implicitly and explicitly that I am in danger of spreading heresy.

It was not, and is not, my intention to try to change anyone's mind. But to those who have so much difficulty believing that God will actually save everyone I would ask one simple question - Do you believe that the Bible contradicts itself?

I'm going to assume that every believer who loves God, loves truth, and loves the Bible is going to answer with an emphatic 'NO'. Although the unbelieving world often levels this charge at us, no true Christian actually believes that his Bible contradicts itself.

Holding fast the firm conviction that Bible does NOT contain contradictions, please consider these two groups of scriptures:


Group 1:

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
(Mat 25:41)


And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
(Rev 20:13-15)


In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
(2Th 1:8-9)


Group 2:

And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
(Col 1:20)


Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
(Rom 5:18)


Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
(1Ti 2:4-6)


What we have here in these two groups is what appears to be a contradiction.

Now be honest with yourself. Taken at face value, don't the verses listed in Group 2 appear to teach the ultimate reconciliation and salvation of EVERY ONE? I hear this all the time -'Yes, those verses at first may appear to teach that everyone will be saved, BUT...'

On the other hand, those who teach the salvation of all will look at the verses in Group 1 and say, 'Yes, those verses appear to teach the eternal destruction (and/or torment) of the wicked, BUT...'


My point is simply this - That in either case someone is going to have to explain why certain scriptures do not mean what they appear to say. Both assertions cannot be true, and if we hold that the Bible does not contain contradictions then someone is clearly misunderstanding one of these two groups of scripture.

What I really want to know is this:

Why, given two sets of scripture such as these, do the vast majority of Christians seem to assume that a doctrine in favor of eternal destruction or torment is more valid than that which teaches the ultimate salvation and reconciliation of all?

I am often asked - 'Where does the Bible say that ALL will be saved?'

'...even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.'

'But,' you say 'that doesn't really mean ALL MEN, only all SAVED men'

or,

'...by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. '

'But,' you say 'all things doesn't really mean all things...'

But WHY, my friends, do you find this type of reasoning more valid than that which would do the opposite? For example:

Given:

'Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels...'

one might say:

'Well then obviously 'everlasting' doesn't mean 'for ever'...'

Why to you is one form of reasoning more valid than the other?

I'm not going to attempt to explain one set of scriptures or the other. What I would ask however is that you examine your heart. If you're honest enough to admit that these two groups of scriptures seem to teach contradictory views, then be honest enough to ask yourself why you think one set of reasoning which takes one group at face value at the expense of the other is the more valid of the two.

In an unprejudiced analysis, is your reasoning clearly superior? Is it free from outside influence, personal prejudice and guided solely by a love of God and a desire to know the truth? Is your reasoning so obviously correct, and the other so obviously flawed as to close this case without further investigation?

Examine your own heart...

Of Sheep and Goats

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on theleft. (Mat 25:31-33ESV)

The above passage from Matthew's Gospel is marked in the English Standard Version by the section heading 'The Final Judgment'. While this seemingly innocuous phrase will probably go unnoticed by most readers, it is sure draw the ire of more than a few evangelical theologians.

Perhaps they would prefer the section heading in the Nelson Reference Bible - 'Judgment of the Gentiles', or that of the Scofield reference Bible - 'The Lord's Return Tests the Gentile Nations'. But 'The FINAL Judgment' as seen in the ESV? No, that simply cannot be tolerated!

Why? Because, you see, most evangelical and fundamentalist theologians teach that no one, and I mean NO ONE will be saved at the final judgment. You read that correctly. According to modern evangelical theology EVERYONE appearing at the FINAL judgment is DAMNED FOR ETERNITY.

Their dilemma becomes apparent. Since there are obviously saved 'sheep' at the judgment described in Matthew 25 it simply cannot be the FINAL judgment. With a simple wave of the theological wand the 'sheep and goats' judgment becomes something, ANYTHING, other than the FINAL judgment.

The theological gymnastics required to make Matthew 25 into something other than the FINAL judgment are perhaps best illustrated by a note found in the Dake's Annotated Reference Bible (New Testament pg. 29).

Here Finis Jennings Dake has listed 18 'contrasts' between the judgment of Matthew 25 (the sheep and goats) and the final Judgment as described in Revelation 20 (the great white throne judgment - which no one disputes is the actual FINAL judgment).

But among these 18 'contrasts' we find listed the following:

Matthew 25 - Two classes, Revelation 20 - One class

Matthew 25 - Some saved, Revelation 20 - None saved

Matthew 25 - Some destroyed, Revelation 20 - All destroyed

Matthew 25 - Some go to hell, Revelation 20 - All go to hell

Matthew 25 - Some enter kingdom, Revelation 20 - None enter it

Matthew 25 - Separation of good from bad, Revelation 20 - No good judged here

Matthew 25 - Some enter eternal life, Revelation 20 - None enter eternal life

How (forgive me for asking) do the above contrasts amount to SEVEN while they are in fact the exact same objection worded seven different ways? It almost seems as though someone felt the need to try to make these two judgments look as different as possible. Apparently the 'contrast' is so great that it bears repeating SEVEN times that NONE ARE SAVED IN THE FINAL JUDGMENT.

But the irony and the real fallacy of this type of reasoning is best shown by simply opening up your Bible to Revelation 20, where we read:

Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Rev 20:11-15)

Where does this passage teach (as do our evangelical theologians) that ALL in this final judgment are LOST? Where does this passage teach the NONE in this final judgment are saved? Where?

Not only is that concept absent, it is not even implied. In fact the very OPPOSITE is implied. In saying that 'whosoever was not found written in the Book of life was cast into the lake of fire' it is surely implied that some actually were found written there.

So here is a challenge for the evangelical or fundamentalist. Do you really have any scriptural basis for teaching that ALL in the final judgment are lost? Do you have any good valid reason for not believing that Matthew 25 is describing the final judgment? Finally , if this simple fact is true, that some really are saved at the final judgment, then what does this do to the rest of your belief system?