The first question to ask concerning these verses is: "What form does this teaching take?" Armerding and Gasque call it a parable. The International Bible Commentary notes that some call it a parable while others feel it is a simile. In fact, it demonstrates the variety of forms used by Jesus. Kistemaker does not include it in his book on parables. Snodgrass, in his book on parables, says, “This is not really a parable.” But then he proceeds to treat it as such for over twenty pages. Since only the first few verses might be considered as a parable, followed by a long explanation, we will not go through all of it verse-by-verse.
Old Testament Background
The imagery in this parable may have been suggested by Ezekiel 34:17-19 although the judgment there is between sheep and sheep, and between goats and rams.
And, of course, the picture of the Son of Man in all his glory presiding over the nations in verses 31-32 comes from the vision in Daniel 7:13-14.
See Genesis 48:13-18 and Ecclesiastes 10:2 for preference to the right hand over the left hand (which I ought to take offense at since I am left handed). Also, later rabbinic sources state that Gehenna and the Garden of Eden existed before the world began, Gehenna at the left of God's throne and the Garden of Eden on the right. (Snodgrass)
Why sheep and goats?
The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery explains that sheep were used throughout OT and NT to stand for God's flock. Goats have a less tame image. The ceremony of the scapegoat associates goats with sin.
Colin Brown – Mixed herds are still kept by Arabs today. From a distance the two animals are indistinguishable. At night they are separated since goats need to be kept warm at night and sheep prefer open air.
Snodgrass, however, says that this often repeated explanation is totally without any basis in fact. Another explanation for the separation is that the young males are segregated for slaughter or the ewes are separated for milking. Actually, the word usually translated as goat really means a young male kid.
Many other commentators state that sheep were more valuable than goats.
Sheep are generally lighter in color – imagery of black vs. white standing for bad vs. good (This is disputed by several scholars).
Hendricksen – Sheep respond when the shepherd calls while goats are more unruly.
Whatever the reason for the animals used in this comparison, it does not affect the overall meaning.
Nature and Basis of the Judgment There is a wide variety of opinions on this subject:
Dispensationalists do not treat this passage as a description of the Great White Throne Judgment. They feel that event will occur after the millennial period. The judgment referred to in Matthew 25, according to Louis Barbieri, Jr., is when the Gentiles who survive the Tribulation will be judged to see who is going to be part of the Millennial reign along with all the Jews. The basis of their judgment will be solely on how they treated the Jews during the Tribulation.
Albright feels it is not primarily about the Last Judgment but a description of the responses made to Christ after his death and resurrection. This is the summary of Christ's earthly ministry. Separation of flocks occurred every night, not just once. “No final disposition is being described in v. 33, but it anticipates the Final Judgment of vv. 34ff.”
Hoekema, a Calvinist scholar, says that the central point of the judgment is not the destinies of individuals but the glory of God revealed in both his perfect justice and mercy. Calvin himself felt that this judgment was of the mixed church only, not the general populace.
Jacques Ellul (a universalist) feels it is nations themselves who are being judged, not individuals. However, Blomberg points out that there is a shift from the neuter “people” to the masculine pronoun “them” in v. 32b, implying that individuals are being talked about.
Most other evangelical commentators treat this as a description of the Final Judgment of all people.
Snodgrass summarizes five options in his book on parables:
1. This is the final judgment of all mankind and will be on the basis of how they treated the needy people of the world.
2. This strictly refers to the judgment of Christians and will be on the basis of how they treated their needy brothers and sisters in Christ.
3. This is the final judgment of non-Christians on the basis of how they received Christian missionaries and others trying to spread the faith.
4. This final judgment applies to all mankind. Christians will be judged on how they lived out their faith in practice while non-Christians will be judged on the basis of acts of love. Snodgrass rejects this view as being hard to justify from the immediate context. Elsewhere in Matthew's Gospel, there is no evidence for separate judgments for Christians and non-Christians.
5. This is not the Final Judgment, but decides who will enter the millennial kingdom. Its basis will be on how people treated the 144,000 Jewish witnesses to Christ during the Tribulation. Walvoord adds that those not deemed worthy to enter into the millennial kingdom will be put to death. This overall understanding is based solely on verse 40 where “members of my family” (lit. “these my brothers”) is interpreted as being the Jewish people. Snodgrass rejects the last view as arising from a pre-conceived theology, not from the text itself.
The interpretation really hinges on who is referred to as “these least brothers of mine” and “all the nations.” For example, “nations” can mean Gentiles, all nations including Israel, or non-Christians whether they are Jew or Gentile. One commentator has counted 32 different positions on this subject.
Concerning who are the “least of my brothers,” the first option is that this saying refers to Jesus' closest followers to reassure them. A parallel to this idea is found in Matthew 10:40-42. You can see that there are close similarities to the language in this parable. And, there are three times in Matthew where “brothers and sisters” does refer to them. However, many other places in Matthew, the term refers either to literal siblings or one's neighbor. In addition, the use of “least” may refer to the disciples, but that term is never applied to them elsewhere although they are called “little ones” in four Matthew passages.
Snodgrass concludes by saying that this parable is a paraphrase of Matthew 7:21-23, in which the basis of judgment is how faithful one is in obeying the love command. Leon Morris agrees with this judgment, and I find it personally appealing because it fits the literary structure of Matthew's Gospel, which actually pairs up these passages in parallel sections.
However, this has the unintended effect of apparently teaching salvation by works. Snodgrass states, “Are you a person characterized by the love and mercy evidenced in Jesus' kingdom – which is what faith is all about, or are you one characterized by no concern for those in need? Salvation requires such acts.” “In keeping with Jesus' rejection of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, this Gospel is more concerned about the lack of authentic obedience than about anyone trying to earn salvation by works.”
Hoekema points out that there is only one judgment. And it is not a trial. A human trial is a process of investigation. God has no need of that since he is omniscient (unlike Jehovah Witnesses and their long time of investigative judgment). He adds that we are not chosen on the basis of works: (1) chosen before the foundation of the world-v. 34, (2) inheritance-v. 34, (3) they didn't do it to earn salvation since they are surprised that they had done anything at all-v. 37.
France mentions the apparently natural inference that it is a judgment according to works. However, he feels that “little ones” stands for missionaries, apostles or all Christians. The basis of judgment is on how one receives them and their message. Hendricksen agrees.
In summary, it is safe to agree with Gasque that the parable shows how impossible it is to separate service to Christ from service to those in need and how this will be the basis of judgment.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments