Meaning of Matthew 21 : 21-22

Leroy42

Hi all,

I have been doing some reviewing of the bible and came across the following verse which, to be honest, I can't really understand.

21 Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. 22 If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”

My reading of this, is that if you ask, and truly believe, you will receive.

But that can't be right as there are plenty of Christians that pray and never receive (cure from cancer or whatever).

So it not to be taken literally. So what does it mean?

Skommando

You've answered your own question. You wouldn't take the phrase raining cats and dogs literally . . . or would you ?

Faith can easily move mountains, but you must understand scripture's overarching concern is spiritual matters, not physical ones.
Physical analogies for spiritual matters can indeed be very useful to those who look but see, hear but listen, and by the grace of God . . . understand.

Leroy42

But it says 'whatever you ask for'. This was said in the context of Matthew 21 19 about the fig tree, so surely we can take it as being meaning that anything is possible.

How else are you supposed to understand it? That is the question I am asking.

Skommando

Read carefully.

Do you think he's speaking to people who have faith and understand, or those who have no faith and don't understand ?

Do you think a person who understands is primarily concerned with mortal physical matters, or infinite spiritual ones ?

Can a deaf person truly understand music, no matter how it's described, and how useful would such a description really be for them ?

The real question my friend, is do you have enough grace to ask for faith, and enough faith to ask for grace . . . ?

You have to be able to drink milk before you can eat solid food.

Leroy42

I assume he is speaking to people both with and without faith and I would assume it was so they could understand. Why else would he say it if people are not to understand.

Clearly I don't understand but tbh your riddles are not really helping. That is not having a go, I appreciate your input, I just don't get what it is your are saying.

Now, he was saying this directly to the disciples, so people who at the least had some faith, if not total belief in Jesus was who he claimed, hence the need to do miracles.

So he withers the fig tree and then says that having faith in God you will get anything you ask for.

For those with faith it is saying that you can achieve whatever you ask for, for those that don't believe it is saying that faith in God brings many things.

Is that not it. I have no idea what you are talking about in regards to drinking milk and eating, deaf people and music.

It seems a fairly straightforward verse in the bible. The context seems pretty clear. It is why I asked about this one as there are many others which seem much more open to interpretation but this one, to me, seems fairly one dimensional.

But that can't be right, as clearly that is not what he is saying, as it isn't even remotely true. No christian actually expects to get everything to pray for.

antiskeptic

Leroy42 wrote: »

So he withers the fig tree and then says that having faith in God you will get anything you ask for.

For those with faith it is saying that you can achieve whatever you ask for, for those that don't believe it is saying that faith in God brings many things.

I think the answer given previously is the correct one.

God's chief concern is our correct relationship with him. This, since mankind's chief problem is our incorrect relationship with him.

Salvation rectifies this wrong relationship to a degree. Sanctification post-salvation continues that work. It is into this sanctification process that Jesus is, I think, speaking. He addresses believers (who have ears to hear - whether by direct understanding or by explanation through their general grasp of scripture)

"Anything we ask for" is an indication of the advances that can be made into righter relationship. Those advances have potentially "mountain into sea" magnitude. This doesn't preclude physical needs met, but the issue is largely spiritual. Paul, for instance, speaks of being "content in every situation", written from a (presumably) dank jail cell with physical threat all round him.

His faith has cast a mountain of physical worry and discomfort - something that would have people of no faith climbing the walls - into the sea.

-

Nick Park

I don't read the verse as a cast-iron guarantee that every prayer will always be answered in the way you want.

But I do see it as saying that the degree of difficulty of the answer to prayer should not intimidate us from praying. That would seem to be the point of using the example about the mountain and the sea.

Leroy42

My issue with it is that is what he has said. All the responses, and the other research I have done, seems to be based on peoples interpretation of what he said.

But why not say that? Why say one thing but mean something completely different. This was God talking directly to his people. He was speaking directly to the disciples, so knew that his words would be repeated to others so surely you make them as straightforward as possible.

We take other things in the bible as the truth. The virgin birth, love Jesus, 10 commandments, yet on something as seemingly straightforward as this verse it needs an interpretation?

Mark 24 states "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." Same thing. Neither Matthew or Mark, when the bibles were being written changed the words to reflect something else.

Leroy42

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think the answer given previously is the correct one.

God's chief concern is our correct relationship with him. This, since mankind's chief problem is our incorrect relationship with him.

Salvation rectifies this wrong relationship to a degree. Sanctification post-salvation continues that work. It is into this sanctification process that Jesus is, I think, speaking. He addresses believers (who have ears to hear - whether by direct understanding or by explanation through their general grasp of scripture)

"Anything we ask for" is an indication of the advances that can be made into righter relationship. Those advances have potentially "mountain into sea" magnitude. This doesn't preclude physical needs met, but the issue is largely spiritual. Paul, for instance, speaks of being "content in every situation", written from a (presumably) dank jail cell with physical threat all round him.

His faith has cast a mountain of physical worry and discomfort - something that would have people of no faith climbing the walls - into the sea.

-

Really. God's chief concern is how much we love Him? Not how we are, not fairness, truth etc. His main concern is how many friends he has?

So what he really meant was pray to me and, through that the relationship with me get better. And thought that you will receive everything (everything being closeness to God). Now that all makes a certain amount of sense to me, its not worldly desires but the spiritual.

But that is not what he says. He doesn;t add a caveat, he doesn't add T&C's. He simply makes a statement.

antiskeptic

Leroy42 wrote: »

Really. God's chief concern is how much we love Him?

The word "love" doesn't appear in what I said. Nor the word "friend". Relationship is a far wider ranging word, one with far more possibilities involved.

There are various ways in which this relationship is modelled in the Bible (for such models are ways in which we can begin to understand relationship as intended by someone of the scale and uniqueness of God). King/subject, husband/wife, father/child, etc.

Now, I've heard just about all the ways in which any of these relationships can be negated, by those looking to do so, as abusive. But that's not what I read or understand in the context of the whole.

Speaking of which..

But that is not what he says. He doesn;t add a caveat, he doesn't add T&C's. He simply makes a statement...

..in a book full of statements. I take the single in the context of the whole to arrive at a satisfactory judgement. The alternative leads to chaos.

Leroy42

Ok. You are right you didn't mention love (what business has that got in a discussing a relationship with God!).

And the friend comment was alluding to the current facebook trend of people seemingly more worried about how many likes they get on the web rather than the reality of what is going on around them. Seems an apt comparison of your understanding of God.

So I'll rephrase. Gods chief concern is our relationship with him. Not our happiness, or fairness, or hurt, or fears, or disease, or cruelty.

I have heard this context argument before, but the problem I have is who is qualified to judge the words that Jesus said, if what he said isn't actually what he meant.

The reason I asked about this particular verse is that the context and language is actually pretty simple. Jesus sees a fig tree with no fruit and curses the fig tree for eternity. Then turns to the disciples and tell them that through prayer they can get anything they want.

So you can only judge the single by taking the whole, but why then do you take other parts as actual.

If every part is open to interpretation then who gets to possibly say what it actually means. Its not that I totally disagree with the idea, but it does open it up and anything and I think defeats the purpose of Jesus coming to earth to be amongst men if he wasn't going to leave a message.

Talking about context again, remember that in his time,most people didn't have access to books so stories of Jesus were passed on through word or month, so even more open to interpretation.

antiskeptic

Leroy42 wrote: »

Seems an apt comparison of your understanding of God.

You'd have to point to where I gave you that impression.

So I'll rephrase. Gods chief concern is our relationship with him. Not our happiness, or fairness, or hurt, or fears, or disease, or cruelty.

These are concerns. But not his chief concern. His chief concern involves (to give but one element of it) our eternal situation. You might agree that our eternal situation ought be more of a concern to him that our temporal concerns?

Indeed, it is frequently our temporal concerns that are utilised in our salvation and post salvation, keeping our noses turns in the direction of God. There is someone, afterall, who has a vested interest in the opposite goal.

I have heard this context argument before, but the problem I have is who is qualified to judge the words that Jesus said, if what he said isn't actually what he meant.

Which means you haven't really focused on the context argument. The Jews continually saw the context Jesus was speaking in and put him to death because of it. They saw the bigger picture (the bigger picture being their scriptures and law at that point)

Similarly, what is recorded for us has to be seen in the bigger context.

Who knows what more Jesus said to people then that isn't recorded (I mean, it wouldn't take long to read all that is recorded of Jesus - are we to suppose that that's all he said?)

The reason I asked about this particular verse is that the context and language is actually pretty simple. Jesus sees a fig tree with no fruit and curses the fig tree for eternity. Then turns to the disciples and tell them that through prayer they can get anything they want.

I was involved in a group bible study of Romans once. It took 3 and a half years, an evening a week. Sometimes we sped through passages (otherwise we'd have been at it 6 years). Something we'd get through a single sentence in an evening. If there's any one thing I've learned, it's that the words "pretty simple" and anything in the Bible do not belong in the same sentence. Folk far more versed that me have learned that there simply is no end to what's contained in there: reading the same thing again and again over years keeps giving up nuggets. No end.

So you can only judge the single by taking the whole, but why then do you take other parts as actual.

Its up to me to assemble (for myself) a satisfactory, coherent theology. One that attempts to be consistent with the Bible and the God revealed therein. And one that harmonizes with the world I see around me and within.

Clearly, praying for whatever your having yourself, in his name, doesn't work - no matter how fervent the prayer, no matter how oft repeated. Now, you can either go figuring that there's something wrong with your prayer technique (in which case I'd point you to The God Channel) or you can go figuring there is something amiss with your reading.

Since I tend towards trying to focus on the whole (and how the whole is developed) I'm not so inclined to focus on a single verse and worry myself too much about what it appears to say on it own / in the very local context.

If the aim is to see how it slots into and develops and complements the whole then that's a less turbulent path to follow.

If every part is open to interpretation then who gets to possibly say what it actually means.

You do. For you.

It's God & You in this. There's no point (for you or for him) coming to stand before him telling him somebody else told you what to think. Say they were wrong?

Sure, read what others have to say - no point in rediscovering wheels. Travel with them a while if you like. Put those views and your views to the test and expect your views to have to change (heck, I used to be a YEC and suppose folk would be damned if I didn't tell them the good news!).

But don't get stuck in someone elses rut. Say they are wrong?

time,most people didn't have access to books so stories of Jesus were passed on through word or month, so even more open to interpretation.

.

Abraham didn't have either Jesus or scriptures. He did okay. The Word is beneficial to us. But God can communicate otherwise. And the Bible says he did and does

Leroy42

Let’s park the discussion about the relationship with God, it’s for another thread.

I agree with the overall view of the context argument, as can be seen in any legal case context can have a significant bearing on the view of evidence; the problem though is who gets to decide on the context?
In a legal case you need to back up your theory of context with additional evidence, but we have no additional evidence. All we can go on is the words that are attributed to Jesus in the bible. To put any context, outside of what the bible directly states, is to simply make up something to suit the narrative.

I assume he said more stuff over three years and indeed his whole life, but since we have no record of it then you can’t assume anything about it. Maybe his preaching was a cover for the fact that him and his disciples were actually a gang of lovers. They would go into towns preaching etc. to cover the fact that 13 men were hanging around which each other and wandering the desert. Stop people asking questions since he is a holy man. There is no more evidence of this theory than anything anybody else wants to claim. So making an argument that he must have said other stuff opens the whole thing up in ways that are not necessarily going to be favourable. (I don’t believe the above, I am making a crazy argument to show the extremes of the position. I am not, in any way, claiming that he above is true, or anything but non sense.)

In terms of the ‘fact’ that the bible is really complicated, why do you think that? I fully agree that there are bible study groups, theologians, monks etc. that spend years studying it, but maybe they are simply reading too much into it. It is useful for the church, and evangelical pastors in the US who have made millions out of this, to make it out that they are the only ones that can really understand the true meaning and that we need them to help us navigate the bible. Why not read it for what it is?

Do you go to book read study groups to understand the real meaning to Dan Browne’s books, or the latest Patricia Cornwall thriller? How can anybody, but the author themselves, say what they really meant? Of course people can speculate and hypothesise, but that it all it is. Is that any more ‘true’ than simply taking the words as they were written?

Jesus was talking to simple people (in that I mean 2000 years ago, without the benefit of today’s education), why would he speak in ways that people needed others to understand. Why would Jesus claim to be the way to the God, but then you first need this priest to tell you want that way actually is? You just have to look at any popular movement in the world. The leader’s message is always a simple one. Trump “Build a wall” etc. The only people who put a double meaning on that are those trying to spin a positive message from it. It means what it says. That is how you get people to follow you. You don’t do it by putting out conflicting and complicated messages and people need to study hours to understand a simple phrase.

Maybe it does mean what it says and it simply is wrong. Have you considered that? You spend hours in the study group and did anybody ever raise the theory that some things that are written just are incorrect, either they were recalled and thus transcribed wrong or that Jesus simply got it wrong?

As you said, you can either figure there is something wrong with the prayer technique or that something is amiss with your reading. What you miss is the third option. That your prayer technique is fine, your reading is fine, the bible is wrong. Why would you leave out that possibility? Have you considered it? Why do you take every word in the bible as true, but then when the simple version doesn’t stand up then it must be that there is something much deeper at work?

The last line about God communication to us in other ways is a bit strange. Jesus coming down to earth is the single biggest communication and intervention by God with us. It is God trying to reset our path. Th ultimate sacrifice for mankind. One must assume that after thousands of years God felt man was going in the wrong direction and so, in complete opposite to all before and since, he directly intervened to help us out. But then he didn’t bother to get it written down correctly? Or to make the message simple for that everyone could understand? This is the God that gave us the 10 commandments written in stone, but he couldn’t arrange for a scribe to part of the disciples?

uck51js9zml2yt

Jesus walked in Galilee 3years and healed multitudes yet there were still people around in the early part of Acts who were not healed, that Peter healed them bears this out.
Yet it says that all who came to Jesus were healed.
I've been in Africa where people have no choice than to believe God will heal them. There are no hospitals to rely on. I've seen the lame walk, the armless grow arms, cancers healed and doctors here saying their initial diagnosis was a mistake!
In many cases. I don't think we are desperate enough.
I'm in the hospital a lot at the moment as my mother is dying.( Old age)
There was a woman in the same ward who couldn't walk. I was taking to her last night and that was her wish.
I prayed for her. Tonight she told me she could get in and out of bed today on her own. She's not fully recovered but it's a beginning for her.
Can God still heal everyone who comes to Him? Yes. But we need an element of faith.
Peter asked the lame man .."what do you want? "
Sometimes we just don't want it.
In balance, I've seen the saints die of illnesses and enter glory. It wasn't called lack of faith but the Econ of God. It's God who holds our breath in His hands. It's God who holds the keys of death.

GermanicGalore

I'm going to chip in a few thoughts here, too.
I have the "Chronological Life Application Study Bible" (really like it, big recommendation), and it just so happens that this particular piece came up as part of study, so I am going to summarise the instructions from the study bible in the hope that they might help others here understand this section better:

v 21:
- firstly, it doesn't suggest that prayer is like "magic", you swing the wand and the mountain is moved
- this particular sections is more about the disciples displaying lack of faith
- it's to encourage us to think about what are our "mountains" (I would translate as issues/problems/worries), and discuss them with God, and this verse is also encouraging you to ask yourself how strong do you think your faith is.

v 22:
- it's not saying that we would get anything we want, just by asking and having a strong believe in it
- nothing that would hurt others or would go against God's will and nature will be granted
- rather the stronger our faith, the more in line with God's wishes our requests will turn out to be, and then the happier God will be to grant our requests

Maybe it helps some?

hinault

Father Haydock's 1859 couldn't be bothered to commentate.

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id39.html

There's your lead!

antiskeptic

April Defeated Stoicism wrote: »

I've seen the lame walk, the armless grow arms..

Given the rapid spread of videophonography, this last bastion of miraculous healing, (lameness, cancers and failed kidneys are healed in droves before our eyes on TV) will doubtlessly soon be caught on camera.

Leroy42

hinault wrote: »

Father Haydock's 1859 couldn't be bothered to commentate.

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id39.html

There's your lead!

Thanks for that, but it really doesn't help me. It doesn't seem to even deal with the verse I was asking about.

But the further I go with my reading of the bible, the more complicated it becomes. There is disagreements over interpretation, translation, context and even in some cases the actual version of events.

I therefore picked out, what I assumed, was a pretty straightforward verse. Jesus had just withered the fig tree and said that he they prayed and had belief then say to a mountain to take up and cast itself into the sea and it shall be done.

That appears pretty straight forward to me. Jesus showed he had the power to wither the fig tree and told his followers that pray and faith could achieve anything.

Yet, as that is clearly untrue. So people put lots of interpretations and context on it. If you can't take Jesus at what he says at that point why would we listen to others on their interpretations of what he said at other times.

Either what he said was accurate or it wasn't. I fail to see how context comes into it in any way. He didn't say it as art of a parable, or in connection with something else it was clearly in direct relation to the withering of the fig tree.

JimiTime

I do get the impression that the explanations such as 'Its not literal' or 'we need to take it this way or that' is a type of eisegesis based on our experience I.E. that God has not granted us or friends of ours we consider faithful, what they have requested, or cured them etc. Personally, i think the text is plain and unambiguous not metaphorical. 2 explanations that fit for me are as follows:
1) He was speaking specifically to his chosen, i.e. The Apostles. He bestowed THEM with such power, and we see that exemplified in their works after they receive the Holy Spirit.
2) He was speaking to all his servants, and our lack of Gods power is a testimony against us I.E. While he reserves a remanent, he has withdrawn himself from us in terms of his power. Like when he withdrew from Israel. There was a time when he would have struck down the Israelites in chastisement or visited them with great blessing, but there came a time when the temple was openly defiled etc and there was no judgement forthcoming. It was a sign that his presence had already left them. His prophets etc of course still beaconed his power, but he was no longer amongst the people.

Thats where I would be at in my reasoning about it at this particular time.