Table of Contents
Parent: JesusWordsOnly
Paulunist Interpretation of the Parable of the Sheep and Goats
Most of the time, Paulunist congregations ignore this parable. One Christian expresses my own experience, and perhaps your own:
In my Baptist upbringing, and even after becoming a Christian,
(Matt. 25)[:31 et seq .] was NEVER touched on, mentioned, taught,
etc. And you'd be surprised how easy it is to gloss over it in
your own studies when your own denomination, pastor, teachers, and
friends don't give it any notice, either. 10
Whenever the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats is actually examined, because it is (Jas. 2:14-17) stated as a parable, Paulunists lose all semblance of reasonable interpretation.
Dillow endorses the view that the sheep are Christians who ministered with food and clothing and visited in prison Jews, Jesus' "brothers." However, they are not just simply any Jew of every generation, but only Jews living in the great tribulation period. (Dillow, Reign of the Servant Kings, supra, at 73.) Dillow explains that if we do not choose this interpretation which imposes 'faith plus works saves' as true for a very small future historical group, then the present standard 'gospel' is ruined for the rest of us. Dillow says that but for this explanation, (Matt. 25:34) means "that inheriting the kingdom is conditioned on obedience and service to the King, a condition far removed from the New Testament \i.e., Pauline] teaching of justification by faith alone for entrance into heaven." (Id.)
http://onefortruth.blogspot.com/2005/09/sheep-and-goats-parable-orprophecy.html (Ninjanun comment to 9-29-05 blog).
Thus, this spin of the parable defers Jesus' teaching on salvation by works to only those trapped in the tribulation who were never Christians pre-tribulation. Dillow believes Paul's "faith alone" doctrine remains the valid salvation formula for us pre-tribulation.
However, James said "faith alone" does not save. In fact, the words "faith alone" only appear in the entire Bible in one passage: (Jas. 2:17). And he says "faith alone" does not justify you.
Furthermore, consider how absurd it is to interpret a parable as having a distinct salvation message for only the tribulation period. Why would it change just for those in this seven year period?
So the Pauline spin of this passage ends up teaching there is a separate salvation message for a small historical group that does require works of charity plus faith. Therefore, we today are comforted that we do not have to change Paul's gospel message until the tribulation is upon us. In this view, reconciling Paul to Jesus is not necessary because Jesus' teaching applies when Christians 'are gone anyway.'
In this manner, this parable is neatly swept under the rug to be dusted off when the time is right for non-Christians to find it. (Please note this recognizes that faith-plus-works will one day be a non-heretical doctrine; it just does not fit our time, according to Paulunists.)
This tribulation-only solution can be dismissed with just one Bible verse. Christ's 'brethren' does not mean ethnic Jews, let alone only Jews of a seven year future period. Jesus asked once "who are my brothers?" Jesus answered that His brothers and sisters should be those "doing the will of God." ((Matt. 12:48-50).)
If one must escape this parable with such a nonsensical notion that Jesus' brothers are non-Christian Jews of the tribulation period, Paulinism is not being held even loosely based on Jesus' words. The Paulunist view of salvation is being held in spite of whatever Jesus teaches.
Another example of this is Calvin's even weaker explanation of this Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. Calvin claimed that when Jesus says to one group who performed charity that they will "inherit" 11 the kingdom, the word inherit means they did not receive it by works, but by a gift. This is a non-sequitur. It does not follow. Jesus says the crucial difference in salvation was that some did works of charity while others did not do so. Thus, an essential factor in salvation, as told by Jesus, is charitable works. The concept of inheritance cannot erase this fact.
Furthermore, Calvin mistakenly spun this to suggest the word inherit implies somehow salvation is contingent on God's donative intent-His intent to make a gift. However, an inheritance in the Law does not rely upon donative intent. Rather, one inherits based on family relationship, without any donative intent at all. ((Num. 27:7-11).) The only relevance of intent is that a parent could always disinherit a son for disobedience. God declares He can do so in Numbers 14:12 toward us. God says to the disobedient "I will disinherit them." A son under the Law who had proven disobedient despite chastening was obviously disinherited by denying you ever knew him. This was the only way to spare the son of the Law's only other option of a death penalty. Deut. 21:1821. The First Century legal fiction was you would say the son's disobedience meant he "denied" his parent, allowing the parent to "deny" he ever knew the son. Thus, a parent's intent only had relevance to prove the grounds to deny inheritance. An inheritance was otherwise required by Law with no intent to make a gift being involved.
- This is not necessarily a correct translation. The Greek word also means receive or share.
12, Calvin, Institutes, 20, 822 (III, xviii, 2) Calvin wrote: "even in these very passages [Matt 25:34-46 and Col. 3:23-24] where the Holy Spirit promises everlasting glory as a reward for works, [yet] by expressly terming it an 'inheritance' he is showing that it comes to us from another source [than works]."
Thus, the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats was an example of a disinheritance warning. Do charitable works, and you will safely inherit eternal life. Fail to do them, and be forewarned-God will disinherit you. Thus, the dividing line in the Parable is clearly works. There is nothing in the word inheritance that suggests even remotely that salvation is a nostrings attached gift, and that Jesus is somehow suggesting salvation never turns at all on works.
How did Calvin reach the wrong conclusion? Calvin was confusing the law of wills and trusts (which does depend upon donative intent) with the law of inheritance. Calvin erred when he construed the word inherit to necessarily imply God was giving salvation as a gift to the sheep. Then with this error in hand, Calvin then somehow viewed the word inherit as overpowering Jesus' meaning that charity was crucial to salvation. For Calvin, making Jesus sound like Paul was the only priority that mattered. Letting Jesus correct Paul's doctrine was an inconceivable option for Calvin.
- Jesus spoke of those who did many miracles and prophecies in His name but worked anomia that He will tell them "I never knew you." (Matt. 7:23). Paul refers to how this works: "if we endure, we shall also reign with him: if we shall deny him, he also will deny us." 2Ti 2:12 ASV. Obviously, in both Paul's and Jesus' statements, the people who are denied were one-time believers. They are true sons. Otherwise, how could they have done miracles and prophecies in Jesus' name? Paul likewise refers to a collective we which includes himself. How do these passages help explain the legal practice of that era to disinherit a son? In the earlier time of the Code of Hammurabi, a son who was disobedient was said to have "denied his father." The Code of Hammurabi (2500 BC) (Translated by L. W. King)(With commentary from Charles F. Horne, Ph.D. (1915), reprinted at http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/hammurabi.html. It does not take much deduction to realize that parents under the Law given Moses who were compelled by Deut. 21:18-21 to put their son to death for wilful disobedience would rather accept the legal fiction of denying they ever knew their son rather than see their son killed. This declaration would spare his earthly life, but cut off his inheritance. Thus, both Paul and Jesus are referring to giving warnings of disinheritance of eternal life based on disobedienc e/anomia. (Incidentally, Paul in 2Tim. 2:13 then undermines his own warning, which Charles Stanley has accepted as more true.)
Furthermore, while the Greek word kleronomeo in (Matt. 25:34) (" inherit the kingdom prepared for you") can mean one receives property by the right of inheritance, it has other meanings. These other meanings are legitimate and arguably preferable translations. The word kleronomeo in Matthew 25:34 means also simply receive, share or obtain. (Strongs #2816 "getting by apportionment"; "receive as one's own or as a possession; to become partaker of, to obtain.") These are completely satisfactory alternative renderings. Thus, Jesus says you shall share in, receive, or obtain eternal life if you do these charitable works. If you fail to do so, you are sent to hell's fire. Even if Calvin's argument about inheritance were possible, it is not necessarily an accurate translation. Either way you look at this, Calvin's point is irrelevant.
In sum, anyone can see inherit does not imply a gift. In fact, an inheritance is obtained by right of sonship and lost by disobedience. No donative intent is implied. God can make your sonship and right of inheritance depend on your behavior and attitudes. See. Ps. 39:9-11 and Matt. 5:5 ("the meek shall inherit the earth"); Matt. 19:29 ("every one that hath left houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall ....inherit eternal life"); Rev. 21:7-8 ("he that overcometh shall inherit all things, and I will be His God and he shall be my son, but the fearful and unbelieving...and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire.") Cf. Ps. 149:4 ("he will beautify the meek with salvation").
Thus, Calvin's spin was clearly erroneous. Nothing in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats suggests the saved sheep receive salvation based solely on grace without works.
Finally, others like Bob Wilkin who cannot reconcile the parable to Paul insist we are forced to do so regardless of the language.
It follows from the discussion above that the basis of'inheriting the kingdom' (Matt. 25:34) is good works. Since Scripture cannot contra dict itself, we know from a host of other passages that cannot mean that these people will gain entrance to the kingdom because they were faithful. 14
Thus, the final foxhole is the ad hoc denial that Jesus can mean what He says because we know what Paul teaches must remain true.