I entered in the board mainly to ask that... I always lurked here, but now want to make a question. I posted on reddit/reformed, but deleted, because I don't know if this view is orthodox or not, and on Reddit there are more people inexperienced in faith.
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/alford/matthew/25.htm
I think that Alford's exegesis is very good, but there is a big problem.
There are various passages that say that Christians will be judges of the world (Luke 22:30, for example). But there is passages that say that Christians will go to judgment, and passages that say that Christians will not be go to judgment. And there are passages that say that persons will be judged by their works, and passages that say that salvation isn't by works.
What Alford says: in Matthew 25 we have three parts. The parable of ten virgins, the parable of the talents, and the sheeps and the goats.
Calvin (and I think most Reformed theologians) say that the three are about the same event. The first two in parabolical form, and the third in more realistic form (although with parabolic language, too).
But Alford says that events 1 and 2 (I will call by number in order to easy the writing) are one event, and event three is another event, so Matthew 25 is about two events separated in time. The arguments that the first is about "The Kingdom of God", and the second is about the coming of the "Son of Man". The first will judge the church members and their readiness to faith. The second, the rest of the humanity.
This makes sense because in Revelation 19 we have the marriage of the church and in Revelation 20 a judgment, with angels. And in the judgment in Matthew, our Lord says about "least of these", as if "these" wasn't part of the sheep nor the goats. He quotes too some Paul's Epistles.
But, althought I think that this makes much sense, there is a big elephant in the room, of course. How can some people (the sheep) be saved with their works? In defense of Alford, I saw his commentaries in Romans, Ephesians, and I did not see him saying that was possible salvation without faith.
I tried to explain, but of course will be beter if you read. Is the commentaries on Matthew 25, and Revelation 19 and 20, mainly
ps: spite of this, his commentaries on Matthew 24 are wonderful. He says how Christ was saying a dual prophecy, starting spotlighting the destruction of the temple, but more and more spotlighting the end of times.
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/alford/matthew/25.htm
I think that Alford's exegesis is very good, but there is a big problem.
There are various passages that say that Christians will be judges of the world (Luke 22:30, for example). But there is passages that say that Christians will go to judgment, and passages that say that Christians will not be go to judgment. And there are passages that say that persons will be judged by their works, and passages that say that salvation isn't by works.
What Alford says: in Matthew 25 we have three parts. The parable of ten virgins, the parable of the talents, and the sheeps and the goats.
Calvin (and I think most Reformed theologians) say that the three are about the same event. The first two in parabolical form, and the third in more realistic form (although with parabolic language, too).
But Alford says that events 1 and 2 (I will call by number in order to easy the writing) are one event, and event three is another event, so Matthew 25 is about two events separated in time. The arguments that the first is about "The Kingdom of God", and the second is about the coming of the "Son of Man". The first will judge the church members and their readiness to faith. The second, the rest of the humanity.
This makes sense because in Revelation 19 we have the marriage of the church and in Revelation 20 a judgment, with angels. And in the judgment in Matthew, our Lord says about "least of these", as if "these" wasn't part of the sheep nor the goats. He quotes too some Paul's Epistles.
But, althought I think that this makes much sense, there is a big elephant in the room, of course. How can some people (the sheep) be saved with their works? In defense of Alford, I saw his commentaries in Romans, Ephesians, and I did not see him saying that was possible salvation without faith.
I tried to explain, but of course will be beter if you read. Is the commentaries on Matthew 25, and Revelation 19 and 20, mainly
ps: spite of this, his commentaries on Matthew 24 are wonderful. He says how Christ was saying a dual prophecy, starting spotlighting the destruction of the temple, but more and more spotlighting the end of times.