(27 votes, average: 4.78 out of 5)
Loading...In my book on Revelation, one of my goals (once I start to write it) will be to contrast its view of judgment with that of Jesus himself. I think the differences are stark and telling. BUT, that is not because I think Jesus imagined that God was simply a God of love who would forgive everyone in the end. I wish he did think that, but alas. He was a Jewish apocalypticist who firmly believed the judgment of God was coming on the earth. So did the prophet John, seventy years later, writing the Apocalypse.
But for me the important issue is the object and reason for destruction. Here they differ significantly, in ways that make me think John the prophet is not preaching the gospel of Jesus.
Nowhere, in my view, can Jesus’ understanding of the coming judgment be seen more clearly than in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31-46). I have talked about this passage several times on the blog before. In order to explain the contrast with Revelation, I need to talk about it again. (I had a friend in seminary who liked “going to the barrel” to pull out a sermon he had given before in a different context; in his view “If it’s worth giving once, it’s worth giving twice”)
The passage comes at the tail end of Jesus “apocalyptic discourse” (Matthew 24-25), two chapters of Jesus’ discussion of what will happen at the end of time and of how people need to prepare for it. To conclude the discourse, Jesus describes the coming Day of Judgment, when the great cosmic judge, the Son of Man, sits on his throne, judging all the nations of the world gathered before him (Matthew 25:31-46). This is not merely the judgment of the righteous and wicked in Israel, but of all the pagans as well. The Son of Man separates all the peoples into two groups, the sheep to his right and the goats to his left. He then addresses the sheep, welcoming them into the amazing kingdom God has prepared for them as a reward for all the good they did during their lives, because: “When I was hungry you gave me something to eat, when I was thirsty you gave me drink, when I was a stranger you welcomed me, when naked you clothed me, when sick you visited me, when in prison you came to me” (25:35-36). The sheep are completely confused and ask what he can possibly mean. They have never even seen him before. How could they have done any of these things for him? He replies, “Truly I say to you, as much as you did these things to the least of these, my brothers and sisters, you did it to me” (25:40).
He then turns to the goats, and Click here for membership options
This is an unusually important passage for anyone interested in knowing what Jesus really said and thought. Join the blog and you can read a fuller explanation of it!
“This was the belief not only of the apostle Paul, whose writings we will consider in the next chapter, but of all the early Christians we know about, including, of course, the authors of the Gospels.”
I am very confused here. Did Matthew give some other interpretation to the parable of the sheeps and goats? If so, how would we know this? Or did he contradict its apparent meaning elsewhere?
His interpretation is in teh parable itself. What are yo useeing as a contradiction?
It seems to me that IF Matthew tells the parable,
puts it in the mouth of Jesus (and at a very important occasion!)
and interprets it (roughly) the same way you do (which seems to me the natural interpretation)
THEN Matthew does NOT believe in that
“it was faith in him – in particular, his death and resurrection –
that could make a person right with God”.
In the parable, what makes a person right with God are actions, no?
Yup! That’s the point! (THis was the view of Jesus, even though it was not hte view of Matthew)
I am sorry, I still don’t get it. How do we know that Matthew believed that “it was faith in him [Jesus] – in particular, his death and resurrection – that could make a person right with God”? Not Jesus, not Paul, not John, not some other early Christian: specifically Matthew. Is not the fact that Matthew tells us the parable of sheeps and goats strong evidence AGAINST the idea that Matthew held such a belief?
From teh very beginning and throughout. Even before he is born “You shall call his name Jesus, for he shall save his peole from his sins” and he speaks to his disciples of dying for others, etc.
The parable is just one piece of the puzzle of salvation. Mt.7:21-23, disqualifies people who make allegedly good deeds like fighting demons and making miracles (e.g. feeding thousands with a few loafs of bread), because they did not obey the will of the One true God, i.e. the “Father” of Israel (Jn.8:41,54;17:3). So, it is the doctrine of so called Ethical Monotheism that is supported by the Gospels, rather than a vicarious atonement theory proposed by the Pauline sect within Jewish Christianity in the 1st century. This doctrine was still alive in non-Pauline Jewish Christianity, and later Islam.
What did Jesus have against goats?
I prefer lamb as well….
No mint sauce. I hate mint sauce on lamb. Talk about blasphemy…
Ah, I was a naif when I first came to lamb, relatively late in life; mint sauce made it palatable. I am, of course, a transformed being now.
This is really enlightning in regard to that whole “eternal torment” theme! I’m pretty sure that you will have analyzed this in “Heaven and Hell”, but, since I haven’t read that one yet (a day only has 24 hours and you’ve put out a lot of books!), I would like to ask you if we can pinpoint historically when did people start first to talk about “eternal torment”, “eternal burning in the fires of hell” and the like. Is it with the “Apocalypse of Peter” or did Jewish apocalypticists, prior to that, thought in similar fashion?
It’s hard to know when it actually started, but the Apocalypse of Peter in teh early 2nd century certainly presupposes the view.
When Jesus talks about the one’s fate, he refers to “Gehenna” 11 times. There is a strong case to be made that Jesus did not teach of eternal punishment as the antithesis to life in his “Kingdom of God,” and there are only scant references in the Gospels where he refers to it. Paul also appears to subscribe to the idea that the fate of the righteous after death would be on Earth. He considered Jesus’ supposed rising from the dead to be the start of a general resurrection and “the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Corinthians 15:20). He expected more resurrections and the establishment of God’s kingdom to follow imminently. Paul also held that there would be a day in the very near future when the unfaithful should expect retribution (Rom. 2:5, 8:3; 9:22). However, as far as Paul is concerned, “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). There is no suggestion at all in Paul’s writings of the everlasting conscious torment espoused by later Christians.
So this posthumous updating of views regarding the afterlife (e.g. 2 Thess. 1:6-9 or 2 Peter 2:4) – late anti-apocalyptic solace in Hellenistic ideas of dualism?
I’d agree that later Xn views of the afterlife do indeed involve the combination with Jewish apocalyptic and Hellenistic understandings of the soul/ongoing existence.
Hey, I always thought that the barrel was my dad’s own expression for his file of used sermons. Apparently, it’s a term of art in the trade. Who knew?!
My friend did….
Hi Dr Ehrman!
Does C.S. Lewis hold any scholarly value?
Thank you!
He was a brilliant scholar in his field of early modern English. He was incredibly learned in many ways. I would say that he was not a great philosopher or biblical scholar, though he was terrifically clever even in these areas that he would occasionally venture into.
I am very uncomfortable with this famous argument:
“A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice.”
Among other fallacies, this argument assumes that Jesus clearly said that he was God,
and said several related things which are only in John’s gospel.
You, Bart Ehrman, have made it very clear that you do not think this assumption is valid;
if I am not mistaken, NT scholars already had doubts at the time C S Lewis wrote the lines above, no?
Well, the non-Christians certainly didn’t buy it. It’s a bit of logic chopping, but apart from that, he neglects to consider whether Jesus actually said these things. THat’s the real problem. Liar, Lunatic, Lord, or LEGEND. (NOt that Jesus is a legend, but that his saying such things about himself is)
Hi Dr Ehrman!
I love this parable and it’s premise! However, I know that many pastors say that in order to be good enough to fulfill God’s standard is just too perfect for humans to manage. I believe that we are capable of being good, and I believe that helping others should be central to our lives, but the question is still raised: how good does Jesus expect us to be in order to make it into the kingdom? How many good deeds? Surely all humans hold equal capacity for good and evil? I would love to hear your opinion on this!
Thank you!
In this parable Jesus is not demanding perfection. What he is asking is perfectly doable. If you see someone hungry, needing clothing, or lonely, you help them. That is what God wants. It’s not a matter of what doctrines you hold or how outwardly pious you are. It’s a matter of caring for those in need.
Great! Thank you!
Bart, I wonder if you have read Daniel Silva’s “The Order,” inasmuch as the narrative about the “Gospel of Pontius Pilate” includes many of the points you have made in your blog, and more importantly, Silva lists 2 of your books as source material. I know the book is fiction, but if you have read it, any thoughts on how Silva has handled it? Any comments about how Silva treats history versus Dan Brown? Thanks.
I’m afraid I haven’t read it.
Well, you got the eternal fire part right, but are still assuming two incorrect parts: this is not collective judgment, even though the “nations are gathered before him,” but one-by-one at their deaths, and it only applies to those who were alive at the time he was: John 6:40, 9:4-5, and 14:7.
Bart, this is a particular kind of LITERATURE. No, they aren’t really sheep and goats
But neither is this EVERYBODY forever all at once like some kind of Nuremburg trial. He comes for us at each person’s DEATH. And, within us, in spirit,in the form of the then-current savior, or Master.
I think I’ll comment on my own post. No one ELSE seems to think it’s worth it. Bart, you still haven’t shown why the kingdom COMES ON EARTH, when 9 of 10 translations of the Lord’s Prayer show a period or colon after phrase one in, “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as in Heaven.” Nor that his salvation is for all, when Mark 10:45 is a ransom for ‘many,’ not ‘all’ as a death ransom would be. Or that a disciple must ‘SEE’ his savior, as in John 6:40, and backed up by 9:4-5, 13:1, 14:7, and 17:11, all demonstrating a limited savior with disciples only concurrently living with him. NOW, you run for cover when I tell you that judgment is a solitary event, and not collective. When has it been otherwise? “I cometh soon” isn’t 2021.
If you don’t play ball, what’s the point of showing up??? I don’t think you can.
You have yet to say something to prove me wrong on anything! The Gospels are POLEMIC, they are nothing more than an ad for Paul. And the New Testament *isn’t* a history of any ‘failed’ Apocalyptic prophet, but a coverup of master succession …
I”m actually not here to play ball with you. I’ve already explained that the kingdom is expected to come on earth as in heaven. And “many” could either mean that it won’t be efficacious for all (as most Xns have always said) or is a euphemism meaning “massively effective.”
I’ve already explained
1. You never did. I asked what evidence there was for an earthly kingdom. . And you said. “Well, there’s the Lord’s Prayer.”
You are in the minority among Greek translators there, at least from looking at Biblehub.. If consensus is so important to you, I don’t see you on the right side on this.
2. You have never rebutted John 18:36. That has Jesus saying exactly the opposite of a kingdom ‘on earth’: “not of this world.”
You say this error a lot, not just here. This must be resolved for your Apocalyptic Prophet theory to hold water. He is talking about cataclysms *in the inner planes* — not here in the physical world.
“I know a man, who went in spirit to the third heaven” …
Not like you haven’t heard of them, right? Read Enoch?
That is why it looked like his prophecies ‘failed.’ They don’t unfold out here. Lightning from east to west is a common metaphor in mysticism, as are ‘stars’ falling, sun going dark or standing still, etc. Read with more discernment. Don’t take everything so literally.
And one last thing: I speak from personal experience on some of this.
“I think I’ll comment on my own post. No one ELSE seems to think it’s worth it.”
What does that tell you?
Do you know the Gnostics’ categories: Pneumatics, Psychics, and Hylics? I think what you are describing are the Hylics, the doomed nonbelievers who are not coming back, the Psychics who believe but are not yet liberated, and Pneumatics as reincarnated Psychics to be liberated. Four lives is the max they say. I think I found evidence of this in the Amorites “iniquity, not yet complete’ in four generations in Genesis 15:16. Sure. They taught reincarnation.
“What does that tell you?”
Nothing much.
But if you are Robert, born 1953, guess what? So am *I*. Ha
June 22, 1953, same as Cyndi Lauper.
I have a question on Matt. 25:40 – why, do you think, does Jesus use the phrase ‘the least of these my brothers’? Why ‘these my brothers’? Who are these brothers?
If Jesus meant to say ‘be good to other people’, would he not have said ‘the least of your neighbours’ or ‘your fellow human beings’?
I have been puzzled by this choice of words. It seems like Jesus is saying the good deeds needed to be directed at ‘his brothers’ – his followers? only other Christians?
Why, do you think, is Jesus talking about ‘his brothers’ here?
I suppose “brothers” here would mean “fellow humans” (just as “neighbor” does for Jesus). The stress is probably “least of these” — meaning those society at large treats as lowlifes.
Why do you say that John (of Patmos) is a “prophet”? Is he labelled as one in the Christian tradition?
Seems to me the apocalyptic vision developed over the bible, at least in the 66(?) books. God destroys but always returns to forgive and begin again. This last vision forgives and begins again but with only those of that certain redeeming faith.
I have always been puzzled by Jesus’ response. How does God saying to Moses that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob prove resurrection? Maybe it proves Jesus believed there is an afterlife?? How did he jump from “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” to this proves bodily resurrection (not afterlife)? Maybe I am missing something? Thanks
Yeah, it seems weird to us. I think it’s probably because bodily resurrection is the only form of afterlife Jews like Jesus would have known about — the idea of teh soul being alive still wasn’t an option. So if they “are” alive it must mean something like “they are not finally dead”
What about Matthew 10:28?
“Don’t be afraid of those who can kill your body BUT NOT YOUR SOUL.” Jesus obviously knew the soul was alive without the body.
It’s an important verse. Here’s what I say about it in my book Heaven and Hell: And so, for example, in Matthew 10:28, Jesus says that people should not fear anyone who can “kill the body but cannot kill the soul.” In other words – they should have no fear of physically dying. We will all die, one way or another; we should not fear those who can make it happen sooner rather than later. Instead, he continues, “fear the one who can annihilate both the soul and body in Gehenna.” It is important to note that Jesus here does not merely say that God will “kill” a person’s soul: he will “annihilate” (or “exterminate”) it. After that it will not exist.
This stands in contrast to those Jews who could expect a future resurrection. For them, the “soul” or “breath” that enlivens their body is taken away at death. But at the resurrection it will be returned, bringing the body back to life. That, however, would only come to those whose bodies have died but whose life force is restored. If the life-force too is destroyed, there will be no resurrection into God’s coming kingdom. There will only be death. God alone can destroy the life-force. When he does so the person is not just physically dead, but completely dead, destroyed, exterminated out of existence.
Q is thought of as a sayings source, but the parable of the sheep and the goats like the parable of the good Samaritan are not from Q, apparently. Or they were in Q and Matthew left out one parable and Luke the other. My real question: both parables are really profound and I hope they go back to Jesus, but since we have only a single source for each how certain can we be about that? (I realize only rough estimates are possible, but what’s your estimate?)
Right! You have to use other criteria to judge — not just independent attestation. It is much harder with the good Samaritan, though I think it passes. In the case of the Sheep and the Goats, it’s precisely because it is not the sort of thing a later Xn would have been likely to make up, since salvation does not come from believing in Christ (which is what the followers of Jesus all said after his death) but by doing good things to those in need (later Christians thought that if that was the basis of salvation, there would have been no need for Christ to die).
Dr. Ehrman
Does this mean that the ones who thought Jesus was somehow Divine during his lifetime, and are further convinced that he is God after (because of) the Resurrection, now put all the emphasis on the Resurrection and devalue the actual lessons that their God himself uttered when he was alive (or present in human form)?
I”m not sure whom you’re referring to? During his lifetime I’d say that no one thought of him as divine.
Can you please clarify an aspect of the “parable” of the sheep & goats? I suppose I have always assumed this passage in Matthew 25 was part of the so-called Special Matthean material, unique to Matthew. Recently however I read a article about this material and 25:31-46 was not included. Do NT scholars consider this passage part of “M”? If not what is the parallel passage in Mark or Luke?
Thanks!
It’s definitely M. M just means the material found in Matthew not found in Mark or Luke. If someone has a different definition, I’m not sure how they would justifiy it….
Professor, is it not a fascinating contradiction that “ The earliest followers of Jesus, after his death, were firmly convinced that it was faith in him – in particular, his death and resurrection– that could make a person right with God. ” when it seems he likely taught actions and love of god and neighbor were the keys to the kingdom? And I do realize that is the otherside of the dissimilarity criteria coin.
But, if so how would it have worked? Particularly if you go back far enough that those most earliest of followers were the ones who … probably did hear him. It raises a couple of questions: What was the view of the earliest followers perhaps within the Jerusalem church? Given the views expressed in James. Particularly, was it a personality cult more interested in Jesus himself as opposed to what he said…. Had Jesus confused his Galilean hillbilly followers so badly they were unable to grasp his meaning.
When they came to believe he was raised from the dead, they had to make sense of why God would have him killed in the first place. They came to think he must have been a bloody sacrifice. If so, then God had him sacrificed. And accepting that sacrifice was the way of salvation. They almnost certainly didn’t think this contradicted what he had taught; maybe they thought it was the part he wasn’t able yet to teach because he had not yet died.
And God abhorred human sacrifice!!
Exactly why Christianity is bogus. Hosea 6:6. There are so many others, like Ecc. 1:9, John 6:40, John 9:4-5, but I think Hosea is my favorite.
Why do people give so much credence to this junk? What about all those who lived and died BEFORE Jesus? Why would they have been born at all if the Father’s will (John 6:40) was for “everyone who SEES the Son” to be given eternal life? Masters, too, must “do the works of Him who sent us,” while alive, as 9:4 says. “AS LONG AS I am in the world, I am the light of the damn place.”
Re: Daniel Silva’s book “The Order”. I had just finished HJBG for the third time and decided to take a break and read something completely different. Silva is one of my favorite spy novelists, but when I reached chapter 25, I thought I’d lost my mind. There was a duplicate summary of your thesis in all its glory. Check it out, Bart.
If the parable of the sheep and goats was actually Jesus’s own words doesn’t that mean he thought of himself as the judge of the world?
In the parable he does not identify himself as the Son of Man sitting on the thrown. In factd it’s quite striking, he doesn’t talke about what “I” will do but of what “He” will do.
would then matthew 25:34 “Come, you who are blessed by my Father” be added into the parable of sheep and goats to christianize it or would it have been originally said by Jesus about the son of man?
It could be original to Jesus — there is nothing uniquely Christian about it.
This section of your book appears to dwell on the notation of time. Eternal being the general operative word.
My questions are:
1. When did god create time? Genesis never mentions “time”. Did it exist prior to “light”? Obviously god had to exist prior to time or perhaps not, see next question.
2. Does the Kingdom of God have “time”? Is time part of the kingdom or does time evaporate? Being eternal, is there a need for time? It doesn’t appear to fill any purpose.
1. The biblical authors never reflected on the problem, or realized it was one. 2. Again, they don’t seem to have thought about it. Our notions of time are pretty recent, as far as the human race goes.
MichaelBurke “Genesis never mentions time”.
I suppose that depends on you’re interpretation of the text. ( To be fair people interpret all kinds of things from the bible but bare with me).
Genesis 1 14-16 kjv
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
So right here in Genesis 14 we read ” For signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years. ”
The sun, moon and stars being the creation of order of time.
The sun gives us our days,
The moon our months,
The movement of the constelations our years.
So here we see a percieved creation of time.
And early man used the sun, moon and yearly movement of the constellations to keep time.
As to time for an eternal being? No I dont think it would fill any purpose.
Cheers
Maybe you’re wrong, you know? You have not explained much of anything as I see it. Try John 18:36. I suppose Jesus was joking? “My kingdom is not of this world.” Pretty straightforward.
And what of John 9:4-5? Why would someone who knows he’s the sole savior of all-time say we must work while alive for ‘night comes’ when ‘NO ONE’ can work? What, Jesus is not ‘someone,’ I suppose? “*As long as* I am in the world, I am the Light of the world.” Why would anyone say THAT, knowing future generations might get wind of it? “*As long as* …”? How about, “Listen ya’ll, and listen good, you will not ever, ever — and I mean never ever — have another chance at eternal life if you take a pass on my generous offer of salvation. So, look lively and confess me [says Paul, not Jesus].” I don’t think so. It is ‘the Father’s WILL’ that ONLY those who *see* the Son and believe will be saved (John 6:40). If there ever was a direct statement of mastership succession by this Master, it is long gone, purged from the canon.
John 18:36 definitely presents the view of teh author of the Gospel. So too John 9. That’s not the same thing as saying it was the view of Jesus.
What? John quotes him! If you don’t accept red-letter quotations where do get your certainty about what the view of Jesus was? Of course, you must filter out the obvious orthodox corruptions. Nice book, btw… Thanks.
It’s probably impossible to know why author of the gospel of Matthew included the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats into his gospel. ( need time travel machine 🙂 )
If the story about Jesus’s saying is contradicting author’s beliefs, why not to leave it out?
Do you have any opinion why author would knowingly include contradiction into his work? Thanks.
It seems to happen a lot in ancient texts: an author really likes a story and doesn’t see that it might conflict with other things he’s said. Or, more likely I suppose, the way he *interprets* the story is perfectly in line with his own views.
His kingdom is not of this world (this world full of suffering and evil). It will be this world transformed?
In JOhn he means his kingdom is in the world above. (That’s not waht me would mean in the Synoptics, where his kingdom *will* be “of this world)
The sheep the the goats, both clean animals, yet they come from and as ‘the nations.’ So, two questions:
1. Do you think the sheep and the goats are the wise and the foolish, the good and the wicked, from within Israel, as per the 2 groups within Israel after Antiochus Epiphanes in Dan. 11:33-35 and 12:1-3,10? The same as the division of Israel and even of the families within it in Mat. 10:34-42? And therefore that the ‘least of these brothers of mine’ are his Apostles and missionaries rather than ‘the poor’ generally?
2. Do you think that the ‘gathering’ is the same as the eschatological harvest gathering of Mat. 3:12; 13:30; 22:10; 23:37; 24:28,31; 25:24?
It seems to me that the judgment Jesus promised was against those who persecuted his Apostles and missionaries and who rejected the kingdom message they brought, as Israel, both within the land and in the dispersion, are thereby divided between the ‘wise’ who accept the gospel and the ‘foolish’ who reject it and are judged for it.
I don’t think Jesus is relying on these earlier traditions here, no. I think he is talking about those who had been good to those in need and those who had turned a blind eye. And yes, I suppose both sets of traditions are about those who will be brought into the kingdom (as good fruit of the harvest)
Dr Ehrman,
In Matthew 27
“At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.”
Is this incident indicating that these holy men were resurrected before Jesus was resurrected?
Is “raising to life” and “resurrection” two separate things?
Wasn’t Jesus’ resurrection supposed to represents the FIRST FRUIT of those who have already died?
1. Yes, apparently so — they are raised while he’s still on the cross 2. Raised to life for these people may mean “temporarily” raised, like Lazarus, Jairus’s daughter, etc. 3. Yes, Paul calls Jesus the First Fruits; Matthew doesn’t know about that, of course. Moreover, it’s not clear that these raised (as I just indicated) went to heaven then. They may well have just died later again, waiting for the future resurrection.
When I read the synoptic Gospels, Jesus pretty consistently teaches ‘works salvation’… the Rich Young Ruler (Mt 19), sheep and the goats (Mt 25), your forgiveness is entirely based on whether you forgive others (Mt 6 & 18), there are people who are already righteous and who therefore do not need to repent (Lk 15, Mk 2:17), you become a child of God by being a peacemaker, or by loving enemies and praying for people who persecute you (Mt 5)… Outside of John, I have a hard time finding Jesus saying very much that corresponds to the Pauline gospel.
This teaching by Jesus is so pervasive in the synoptic Gospels. So I cannot understand why the gospel writers included all of these sayings, that certainly seem to contradict the notion they speak of, that Jesus was given as a ransom… or why the earliest Christians preached more of a Pauline gospel, assuming they heard from Jesus more works salvation message on a frequent basis. Did they not see the contradiction? Are you able to make sense of this?
My sense is that 99.9% of the people who read the Bible don’t see teh contradiction, so the authors themselves probably didn’t either. The early theologians who *did* deal with it claimed that it was impossible to be an ethically good person without being a follower of Jesus (or that if you were ethically good, you *would* follow Jesus). I suppose a lot of people still think that.
Some church teachers argue that when Jesus offers someone eternal life by following God with all one’s heart and soul, or by following the law, he’s actually giving an impossible task to follow. (Even though Deuteronomy 30 says it’s *not* difficult to follow God’s laws or to love God with all your heart and soul.)
One teacher claimed that, in Matthew 19:16ff (the Rich Young Ruler), Jesus suddenly changed the topic without saying so, and when he says ‘riches in heaven,’ he’s really telling him how to lead a good life–even though the man clearly asked how to obtain eternal life.
These teachers will also argue that when Jesus speaks of those who are already righteous and therefore don’t need to repent… What he really means is that they are *self* righteous, They *think* they are righteous, and therefore that they need not repent. The NLT actually adds words Luke 5:32 to read exactly this way. (which is cheating!)
I’m fairly certain that they get these arguments from actual scholars, which is pretty perplexing. In order to reconcile Jesus with their ‘gospel,’ they have to read Jesus’ mind, making him say the exact opposite of what he actually says.
You mentioned above “the sheep not only did not believe in Jesus; they had never even heard of him.” I don’t see this in the passage. It reads to me like he’s saying that they never had seen him in those conditions… Hungry, unclothed, etc. It could also be that they never saw Jesus, because they never knew him when he was living on the earth. Thoughts?
It could be. But it’s hard to imagine that all the nations of earth had seen Jesus and just not realized he was hungry
On the topic of this post, you may remember that, back in the day, I insisted that the “sheep and the goats” passage was NOT a parable but a prophesy. Although it appears in the text adjacent to some parables, unlike them it is clearly intended to be a REAL story of the future about REAL people and REAL consequences that will befall them!
I don’t think the future imperative “will” (AS a true future imperative) appears in any parable BUT in this prophesy it appears several times, as it does in many of the prophesies of Matthew.
Naturally, your parable theory has the enthusiastic approval of the evangelical/inerrancy crowd.
After all, if they accepted it as the prophesy I believe it is is, their salvation and eschatological doctrines would instantly turn to dust. So…don’t let their approval of your theory go to your head! LOL.
Now, as an old military man I am always uncomfortable contradicting the CO, and, lest we forget, YOU, not me, are the trained investigator with more degrees than a thermometer. But seriously, don’t you think I have some decent points on this issue?
Kindest regards, Jeff Elliott
My sense is that evangelicals as a rule do indeed take it as a description of what wil happen in the future at the last judgment — not as a parable. At least that’s how all of us took it when I was an evangelical. As to its parabolic nature, though, at least eveyrone agrees it is not meant as a literal description of future events, since humans in fact are not sheep and goats. (I’ve never met an evangelical yet who liked my interpretation, by the way, since I stress that the sheep are saved completely apart from the death of Christ). But NEVER feel uncomfortable about contradicting this particular (non-)CO.
Addendum to above: I see “sheep” and “goats” as a peripheral metaphor using contemporary herding practices to clarify the significance of their separation one from another NOT as literal groupings of the animals to represent people.
Ah, I didn’t see this before making my other comment. Once you say the account is figurative, where do the figures stop? I think oiur readings acutally are not so different from each other. I think it is a symbolic account but that Jesus really does think there will be a future judgment where some people will be destroyed in fire and others will enter into the kingdom.
Dr Ehrman,
A bit off topic, please accept apologies!
How and why Matthew’s genealogy contains 4 or 5 women, all of slightly ill- refute?
Who were they or do we have any record of them?
What is traditional Church’s take on that?
I answered those questions once on the blog. If you do a word search for “women in Matthew’s genealogy” you’ll find the posts! That should give you what you need.
Returning to our sheep and goats, and the “salvation via good works or faith alone” discussion, while being a non-biblical source, I wonder if F Scott Fitzgerald’s observation that “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” I used to suggest to my children (am an “ancient one” nowadays) that each of us look into a diamond and describe what we see. The range, depth and tones of the colours we each saw were different. We all know is this. But, more important, is what EACH saw was as perfectly VALID as what another saw. EACH shared the truth they saw. They were NOT contradictions. Maybe the completeness of truths require a combination of shared minds and perceptions, rather than dependence ONLY on ONE view?
Hi Bart,
I did a search and can’t seem to find where you address the “this generation” in Matthew 24:34 so I am asking the question here.
I find more apologetic explanations regarding this verse on line than I can count.
Your understanding of this verse would be greatly appreciated.
The typical explanation is that the word means the “race” of the Jews instead of the “generation” of Jesus’ time. I think that makes no sense. Why would he be telling people 2000 years ago to be alert because in millenia in theh future, when there are no more Jews on earth, then the end will come? It kinda destroys any notion of urgency, if you see what I mean.
I do see what you mean. Looks like others are trying to explain away the actual meaning. Unfortunately just another “The end is Near” claim that did not come to pass.