The narrow door
Following from my recent post discussing some of the reasons for spreading the net of salvation widely, it’s time to mention one of the passages that works the other way – that says that not all will be saved. The Gospel reading in Morning Prayer today included Luke 13:22-30.
Jesus went through one town and village after another, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. Someone asked him, ‘Lord, will only a few be saved?’ He said to them, ‘Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able. When once the owner of the house has got up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, “Lord, open to us”, then in reply he will say to you, “I do not know where you come from.” Then you will begin to say, “We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.” But he will say, “I do not know where you come from; go away from me, all you evildoers!” There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrown out. Then people will come from east and west, from north and south, and will eat in the kingdom of God. Indeed, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.’
Now, there’s lots of good stuff in there, but a couple of thoughts struck me. The first follows obviously from that earlier post – just as there are passages in the Bible that clearly support universal salvation, so there are passages that clearly support the idea that “only a few will be saved”. And, again, I believe that the answer here is not to choose one side or the other, but to live with the paradox. What’s interesting here, though, is that Jesus turns the question round on the questioner. Asked the question “will only a few be saved?”, Jesus turns the answer round: “You will be turned away”. The questioner may well have been asking “will only the Jews be saved, or will others be saved also?”, and Jesus says “Many Jews will be turned away, but the Gentiles will enter in.”
What particularly struck me this morning, though, was this idea of the narrow door. Whenever I’ve heard this talked about, it’s usually along the lines of it being difficult to find or enter through. But I think that this totally misses the mark. This house, remember, is a large house – a palace, even – for it is the Kingdom of God. Grand houses have several entrances. There’s the wide door, which is for honoured guests, friends and relatives. And there’s the narrow door, which is the servants’ entrance. And this is what I think Jesus was talking about (and what would have been the obvious interpretation for his listeners). If we are to enter the Kingdom, we must not seek to enter through the wide door of honour, but through the narrow door of servitude and dishonour.
Many will try to enter the house, Jesus says, but will not be able to. That is, I think, they will not be able to enter the wide door, for no human being is worthy to enter God’s Kingdom as of right. The fact that God came out of the house into the streets of the town, and ate and drank with us, doesn’t mean that we can enter through that wide door. No, God came and told us that the narrow door is open to all who are willing to enter through it. For us, the way in is through humility and service, and what we can expect to find inside the Kingdom is hard work. But here is also a Master who cares for His servants, so we will eat and drink once our work is done. And people from the East and West, the North and South, will come together at this table together in the assurance that their work has pleased their Master.
pax et bonum
Follow comments using Co.mments.com
Add to your del.icio.us bookmarks
The wide way is not the way to the palace. It is the way to destruction, cf Mt. 7:13.
I missed your 1 Corinthians 15 poor exegesis in that post, because I was reacting to a different thought. Allow me to contribute:
In exegesis, one must consider what the words say, and what context they are in. You have done that to the point it supports your position, but suspiciously failed to even consider the next verse, which is a modifier of the verses you quote. Verse 22 says, “even so in Christ shall all be made alive”, and verse 23 clarifies – “But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.”
Only they which are Christ’s are made alive. As for the assertion that all may be Christ’s, or all who came after him, Paul finishes the thought with, “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.”
Obviously there are those that are Christ’s, and those that are his enemies. One cannot be both.
Hammertime () (URL)
2:29pm on 28 June 2006
I honestly think that you’re confusing two separate parables here. In this passage, Jesus is not talking about the “narrow way” and the “wide way”. Just as he’s not talking here about the camel passing through the eye of a needle (another well known “narrow” parable). So, I don’t think that the fact that elsewhere Jesus talked about narrow and wide roads means that He cannot here be talking about the servants’ entrance.
As for Corinthans. I assume that you’re referring to the post I linked to at the top. In which case, I’d assert that the following qualification doesn’t render “all” meaningless – that is, giving the order (and not mentioning the unsaved) doesn’t mean that “all” means less than it seems to. However, remember that I am trying to set all the biblical passages alongside one another. So, for example, we also have passages that talk of every knee bowing, which requires that the knee’s owner is alive to bow – this strongly suggests that there will be some universal resurrection.
Indeed, if there is no universal resurrection, how can hell be (as you’ve strongly suggested in the past) eternal conscious torment? If there is no resurrection of the sinful, then hell must be simple non-existence (as I’ve suggested as a possibility in the past and, IIRC, you roundly rejected).
Anyhow, thanks as always!
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
5:30pm on 28 June 2006
I wasn’t arguing against universal resurrection, and do not deny it – I was arguing against universal salvation. Unlike universal salvation, universal resurrection has a lot of support in the early church. I also noticed the disconnect in the ideas that I believe you have presented – that there could be universal salvation but that the unsaved are destroyed in hell.
Perhaps I have better explained myself this time – every knee will bow, and those who are of Christ alone will live with him in eternal glory.
I honestly think that you are really grasping at anything with your “wide/narrow” idea. There is no wide door mentioned in the parable you cite, only a narrow one. You invented the wide one completely. Why would Jesus say to strive to enter at the narrow gate? Because we know the way to destruction is wide. Also, He is the narrow gate, the only wayFurhtermore, the camel parable is specifically directed at the challenges of the rich, combined with the declaration of the power of God, with whom all things are possible.
Maybe I should post the text to show that these parables are not disconnected:
“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
Matthew 7:13-14
Yup, both the strait GATE and narrow WAY lead to life, and the wide GATE and broad WAY lead to destruction.
“Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” Luke 13:24
“But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.” Luke 13:27
Workers of iniquity are not your servants, they are enemies. The strait gate we are to enter in by is jutaposed with the gae to destruction, not the front door.
I call your analogy contrived, John, not as an attack upon you, but as a clear declaration of the falsity that somehow everybody can come in the kingdom if they are humble enough. I cannot see that anywhere in the text or in the writings of the church fathers.
Hammertime () (URL)
10:01pm on 28 June 2006
First, back to Corinthians – I don’t think that we can hold that “made alive” here means salvation, because of the pairing with “as in Adam all die”. It simply doesn’t make sense to read it as “as in Adam all die so in Christ shall some be saved”. That’s just not what it says. The subsequent verse, talking about the order in which people will be “made alive”, doesn’t change that. It’s not as simple to explain away as you seem to think. Again, though, I am in no way trying to “prove” Universalism. I’m merely showing that the biblical witness isn’t TULIP calvinism.
As for the present post, I don’t think that your attempt to show that the wide and narrow gates are the same in Matthew as in Luke is successful. The passage from Matthew is devoid of context, but differs significantly from the Lucan account; in particular, there’s no hint of a road in the Lucan parable, suggesting to me that a different picture is in mind here. I freely admit that I invented the wide door in the Lucan story – I was merely struck upon hearing the passage by what the narrow door might be. If a house has “a narrow door”, though, I do not believe it to be a stretch of the imagination for it to have a wide door also, for how else should the first door be described as “narrow”?
I think it at least plausible that, in this parable, Christ was indeed saying that we should enter the Kingdom as servants, in humility, not presuming that because Christ has walked among us we shall be saved, nor presuming that God will welcome everyone in. Indeed, I said at the start of the post that I’m not proposing universal salvation at all here; quite the reverse.
Your final point (about workers of iniquity not being servants) is exactly the point I was making – those who will not enter the narrow door are sent away once the doors are closed by the owner of the house.
Finally, I’m not saying that “everybody can come in the kingdom if they are humble enough“. I am saying that Christ has come and shown us the door by which we are to enter the Kingdom. That door is the door of service to God and fellow man by faith in Christ – I don’t think you dispute that. I’m therefore at something of a loss to understand your vehement reaction to my modest suggestion!
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
10:55pm on 28 June 2006
I really don’t see your disclaimer about not giving credence to universal salvation. I was vehement because I was suprised to see what I perceived to be such an assertion from someone I never expected it from! I consider you orthodox in matters of soteriology, although your expression of it are often novel to me – which is why I am sometimes confused!
Juxtapose these two thoughts:
1) “First, back to Corinthians I dont think that we can hold that made alive here means salvation, because of the pairing with as in Adam all die.”
2) “The passage itself is clearly talking about salvation – Paul is offering to the believers that there is, indeed, a resurrection to eternal life.”
Since they are both your statements on the relevant passage, please square them. Thanks!
Hammertime () (URL)
4:15pm on 29 June 2006
You’ve got me, somewhat. I was being sloppy in the above comment. In the original post (your point 2), I was saying that we can’t say that it means only “brought to life” because of the context. In the comment above (your point 1), I was trying to say that we can’t square it with limited salvation (see the following sentence). That is, the plain reading of the passage in Corinthians is that everyone will be made alive in Christ – which is the reversal of the curse of Adam, which is sin and death. This passage stands (on its face) for the proposition that Christ’s defeat of sin and death in His crucifixion and resurrection is for all human beings; that as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive. And this is a problem for both of us
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
4:28pm on 29 June 2006
Of course we do have to re-visit these paradoxes periodically, not just leave them alone. In the case of salvation, the more important question than “will everyone be saved” is “do I need to do anything regarding my own salvation, or the salvation of others?” If the answer is, “live a moral life,” then great… do that. If the answer is, “believe in Jesus Christ as Lord of ALL, and convert as many non-christians as possible” then do that.
I take the relatively non-biblical approach of the former. I suppose many Christians would condemn me as a “salvation by works” believer (or as a complete non-believer, or heretic… whatever). But to be honest, that simply makes sense to me, with all the rational thought God gave me.
But I would rather live with these paradoxes, think about them once in a while, and hope for a better furture based on abiding by a morality established by the words of Jesus than worry about who is condemned. My parents are athiests. Are they condemned? I sure hope not, but I honestly don’t know. I don’t think it’s my job to bring Jesus to them, any more than has already been done in their lives. But I’m pretty sure wherever they’re going when they die, I’m going there too, and I’m glad for it. :D
Peace
chris () (URL)
01:15am on 30 June 2006
I love your reference to the narrow door being the servants entrance. Thank you for this meaningful insight.
Nancy ()
05:09am on 03 July 2006
[jim] ()
9:59pm on 20 June 2007