When Jesus doesn’t know his doctrine.

We’re a strange breed, us evangelicals. 

(I feel like most of my posts could start with that line, but I don’t think I’ve used it yet, so I’ll take it this time.)

We’re funny because most of the time, we’re keen to just take the Bible at face-value, and let the most obvious interpretation stand as the right one. We don’t want to do much of this interpretation stuff at all, we just want to know what the words on the page say.

But then occasionally we throw that rule out of the window. For no very obvious reason but that the words that are right there on the page are pretty inconvenient.

Herd of goats in Greece

So there’s this passage in Matthew commonly known as ‘the sheep and the goats’. Because it’s a metaphor Jesus uses about sheep and goats. It’s a metaphor for the way that he will divide people up into two groups, to go to two different eternal destinies. He says that one group will go to eternal punishment and the other to eternal life.

We’re happy so far. This is good evangelical doctrine, well done Jesus.

So how are the two groups divided up? Here’s what the words on the page say: the ones who go to eternal life (called the righteous) are the ones who fed the hungry, gave water to the thirsty, welcomed the stranger, clothed the naked and visited the sick and imprisoned.

In fact, Jesus says that the righteous people are the ones who did that for him, but they don’t even realise it. They ask him ‘when did we do that for you?’ They weren’t even trying to do it for Jesus, but because they did all that for other people, Jesus says they did it for him.

Those who go to eternal punishment on the other hand, are those who did not do those things. Who see the hungry and thirsty stranger and show no hospitality, those who didn’t give from their possessions or their time to love people in need. Again, Jesus says he was that needy person and they ignored him; they didn’t realise, but because they failed to love their neighbour, they failed to love Jesus.

Every sermon I have ever heard on this passage has started along these lines:

‘Now of course, what Jesus is not saying here is that people will gain eternal life by feeding the poor or in fact by any number of good deeds done. He’s definitely not saying that the basis on which our eternal destiny is decided is how we treat other people.’

 And that’s the point at which I want to raise my hand and say, ‘Isn’t he? Looks like that’s exactly what he’s saying to me.’

Of course, it would be very inconvenient of Jesus to be saying that. Paul hits the evangelical nail on the head much more accurately when he says things like, ‘If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.’

It’s not that we think Jesus is entirely wrong – he’s right as far as saying that you can’t love him without loving your neighbour. In other words, we can be okay with the second group going to eternal punishment because they didn’t do that stuff. But he must be absolutely wrong to say that people can gain eternal life by doing those good things, even when they haven’t got a clue that they’re doing it for Jesus!

Why?

Why do we insist that Jesus didn’t mean what he said here? What would happen if we just… took him at his word? 

I know it’s breaking the first rule of evangelicalism to separate out Jesus and Paul, but indulge me just for a moment. The first retort the question, why don’t we believe that Jesus meant what he said here, is that we have to interpret Scripture with Scripture – and as this doesn’t chime well with other parts of the Bible then we can interpret it according to them instead. But firstly, who gets to decide which bit we interpret by which bit? Why not use this as the basis for understanding bits that don’t chime well with it?

Secondly, the safe evangelical lines about how to be saved by putting your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, they’re all Paul. I’m not saying I don’t believe them or that they don’t have authority, and I promise you this troubles me as much as it troubles everyone else of an evangelical faith, but I can’t deny it just because it’s unsettling – if we’d just for a minute stop and ask what Jesus said about heaven and hell, what’s actually written on the page not what we assume he should say, we’d see it’s got an awful lot more to do with how we treat each other and especially the poor than it has to do with stepping forward at an altar call.

So my question remains. What if Jesus really meant what he said about the sheep and the goats?

What if the righteous, who inherit eternal life, really are those who feed the hungry, give drink to the thirst, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, and visit the sick and imprisoned? What if, even without any desire to serve Jesus or even without knowing of him at all, people who do those things for other people, are really showing love for Jesus?

Why are we so scared to believe him?

 

 

Advertisements

About Claire

@claireylegs Keen on Jesus. Keen on justice. Ministry assistant in the Great North East. Blogger. Find me in: coffee shop / church / pub / bed.
This entry was posted in Evangelicalism, Recent posts, Salvation, heaven and hell, The Bible and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to When Jesus doesn’t know his doctrine.

  1. Bmud says:

    Does the answer not lie in James? Salvation is by God’s grace and faith alone. But part of faith is the works. The point most evangelical preachers want to make is that works alone won’t achieve salvation, but it is only by faith. But part of faith is works as faith without works is dead. But that is a response to salvation and not a necessity for salvation. The best example is the one we hear about on this very day about the thief on the cross. He did no good deeds but was saved through faith alone. But yer, my point is dont mix it up. Salvation is by faith alone but the works are the result of faith and salvation.

  2. Ben says:

    Because then we would have to give up a lot to love those in need, you know like follow His example, heck be a disciple and today of all days we are reminded that is pretty costly…

  3. Pingback: Is your mind thirsty? | Stepping Toes

  4. Peter Hardy says:

    For me, the key conclusion to be drawn from this us that explicit recognition of Jesus as Lord is not required for salvation.

    This is an awesome blog Clare, you’ve really stepped up a level with this post, I love it!!

  5. CPatz says:

    This is a good passage that I have wrestled over with friends from a Catholic works-based background theology. An explanation offered to me regarding this passage is that the sheep and goats are separated out before works are discussed. They are separated out because of their sheep or goat identity. The works are not the reason for separation but the justification of it. The judge knows the sheep are sheep because they have clothed the naked, fed the hungry and given water to the thirsty – all sheep-y (sheep-ish?!) characteristics. It’s evidence. The sheep are unaware that they are doing these things because their focus is on God’s righteousness and not their own works. Conversely the goats, who are obsessed by their own righteousness, do not realise that they haven’t been doing good works.

Have your say:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s