Philo-Semitism and the Gospel of the Kingdom, Matthew 25:31-46

 

Today we will begin our study of this last section of the Olivet discourse in Matthew 25:31-46. There's so much in this section. As I put my notes together today and it occurred to me when I finish that I just might not be able to cover this in one class.  There is so much here, there are so many implications and abuses. In fact, we should realize that many people believe is the most difficult passage to interpret in Scripture—probably because they don't come at the Scripture from a presupposition that this is the Word of God and it's talking about the future. But that's part of what we will see. One commentator has identified at least 32 different interpretations of this teaching of our Lord, this narrative at the end of the Olivet discourse.

 

If you are knowledgeable and you can keep in this text and the reference in the forefront of your mind, when you listen to a lot of politicians and you listen to a lot of various groups that are involved in social action and feeding the poor and the impoverished, and jail ministries—many of which are good—they quote from this passage, which is indicates a poverty of biblical understanding. 

 

It is a passage that is commonly used to promote a so-called Christian view of liberal social justice.  Terms like social justice are code words for socialism and Marxism, which is the avowed enemy of biblical Christianity. And those who interpret the passage that way interpret the translation of the word that should be translated Gentiles, as nations, and that this is talking about governments, it is talking about government responsibility to feed the hungry, to have social programs for those who are in prison, and all sorts of other socially active programs that come out of a Marxist framework. That is read into the passage, and usually the passage is just ripped right out of context and has nothing to do with what Jesus has been teaching, or is teaching here in this in the Olivet discourse.  So this is probably the central biblical text that people will go to to support a socialistic idea from the Bible. But as I said, that has nothing to do with the context and there's nothing that you can go to here to justify such a position.

 

Now second major view or part of many views—it's not just a second major view but it's an element that is part of many other views—is an attempt to emphasize a connection between faith and works, that those who enter the kingdom are those who have works, not just faith. They emphasize this connection that they see between faith and works that presupposes the idea that some sort of works are the inevitable and necessary outworking of true saving faith.  We spent a lot of time on that in the past.  If you want some lessons that specifically address the relationship of faith and works as emphasized in James 2:14ff, then you can go back and listen to the lessons in James showing that there is no necessary connection between faith and works. James is not talking about a test of knowing whether you're saved or not by the works that are in your life, he's talking about the fact that that a faith that doesn't result in application is a faith that isn't doing you any good. He's not saying that that faith is nonexistent or was nonexistent or that you're not saying is saying that once you are justified by faith alone, the next decision in life is to decide whether you're going to learn the word and apply it. The challenge in James is to believers to apply what they're learning.  It is not saying if you don't have works you weren't really saved; that is a backdoor way of introducing works into the gospel, and it is what is called Lordship salvation, it is the complete opposite of teaching grace because under that theology the only way you know if you're saved is if you have works. Well, who is the fruit inspector? Who of us can go look at works to say is this a good deed that is the product of a regenerate nature, or is this just a good deed that any unbeliever can imitate as well?  The Scripture is very clear were saved and our assurance is based on the promise of God, not any evidence of works in our life.  That doesn't mean that were justified in just saying, I believe in Jesus and then go and do whatever we want to. God will, now that were a child of God, definitely discipline us if that's our mentality.

 

But this passage has raised the question, because it does appear if you are not paying attention to a lot of details in the context in the whole of Scripture, as if those who enter into the kingdom do so because of what they've done, and not because of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.  So that certainly part of what we have to address here, and the issue here, as we will see is how they treat those that Jesus describes as "my brethren". That's an important term, and is the hermeneutical key to understanding this passage. People who think that my brother is just all mankind because God is the Father of all mankind demonstrate right away that they are against the Bible. They never understood the Bible, they come from pure liberalism, thinking in terms of a doctrine called the universal fatherhood of God; and that is not biblical teaching. Biblical teaching is that we are, as Jesus said of the Pharisees, the children of the devil. We have followed in his rebellion against God until we are reborn, until we move from spiritual death to spiritual life by faith in Jesus Christ as our Savior. And the instant we trust in him as our Savior, at that point with that new birth, we are adopted into God's royal family, and then he becomes our Father. 

 

When Jesus is talking about "my brethren" He is talking about, first and foremost, those who are ethnically related to him.  The term "brethren" is a term that used to refer to Jesus' literal, physical brothers in the Scripture.  Secondly, it is used to refer to those who are believers in Him.  When you put that together you realize that this is talking about those who are Jewish believers in the Tribulation period. He's not talking about just being Jewish, and that's a common interpretation from certain pro-Israel factions today. It is not just talking about Christians; it is talking about those who are His brethren, that is, spiritually alive Jews in the kingdom. This is talking about philo-Semitism. That may be a new word for you; it is the opposite of anti-Semitism. PHILO is a Greek word for love, and someone who is philo-Semitic is someone who loves and supports the Jewish people because they're under the Abraham covenant of God--people who are pro-Israel, pro-Jewish or philo-Semites. That's the technical term, the correct term for someone who is not anti-Semitic. 

 

So we are looking at philo-Semitism and the gospel of the kingdom and we need to address certain questions and what we've learned so far because so many of the interpretive problems here are a result of not paying attention to context. We need to address the issue of the connection to the previous three parables, and also address the question: is this a parable?  Third, we need to address the meaning of some key terms such as Son of Man, and throne of his glory or glorious throne, which is seen in this passage. And fourth, which judgment is this? Is this the great white throne judgment? That's a view that many people and even couple of dispensationalists take. Is it the judgment seat of Christ? A number of dispensationalism will take that view—mostly those who are influenced by Grace Evangelical Society. Or is it referring to something else? Fifth, are the sheep saved by works?  That is the critical question here.  And then last, what are the implications for us?

 

What is the context? Jesus is answering the disciples' question. He is not, I don't believe, answering something else or giving them other information that doesn't pertain to the question. The question sets the context and they are asking, when these things will be, in reference to the destruction of the temple, as Jesus has just announced that the temple would be destroyed and that no stone would be left on another. They asked this question: When is that going to take place? When will the temple be destroyed? Secondly, what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age? And in Jewish thought at that time there was the present age and then the Messiah would come, and then there was a messianic age. It is very simple, and there hasn't been any revelation yet of the mystery doctrine, the church age, no information yet on the Rapture that has been given, and there's hardly anything other than just the mention of the word church and no real content about what that is that has been given in the gospel of Matthew. 

 

The other Gospels don't even mention the word church and it's not until the night before Jesus goes to the cross in the upper room in John 13 through 17 that Jesus really begins to teach the disciples church age doctrine as He teaches about the coming of the Holy Spirit. The key word is the word "coming" which is the Greek noun PAROUSIA, and according to the Primary Greek English lexicon the first meaning it's used often for is the state of being present. It's a noun, so they are asking, what will be the sign of your presence? And the second meaning is an emphasis on the idea of arrival as the first stage of the present. So they are really asking the same question the disciples asking Acts 1:6, and that is, when even established a kingdom? Is it an hour later? What's going on here? 

 

Let's just remind ourselves of a few things.  First of all, Jesus is addressing Jews about a Jewish issue. The destruction of the Temple and the arrival of the kingdom, and He is announcing temporal judgment on Israel at that time. I ran across this quote from Tom Constable, who taught Bible department Dallas Seminary for many years and he gives a string of verses there that are a list of all the passages in Matthew that talk about judgment. Matthew is a book that emphasizes judgment. There is a judgment that's going to come on those who reject the offer of the King, the offer of the kingdom. There's a judgment coming on those who reject the King as the Savior. So this is a major sub theme throughout the Gospel of Matthew. So he says it's not surprising, therefore, that Jesus concluded this discourse that reveals events leading up to the inauguration of the kingdom by explaining the judgment that will precede it.  So it's about judgment, and this brings His teaching ministries—public teaching ministry and private teaching ministry—to a close in Matthew.

 

In the analogy with Noah that He mentions in Matthew 24:37-42 it clearly talks about one taken, one left behind. Whatever view you take, everybody agrees that the one of them is a believer and one of them is not a believer; so there's a contrast there between believer and unbeliever. It is not talking about different kinds of believers—obedient versus disobedient, spiritual versus carnal—that's not anywhere in the context; it's talking about something that is going to happen to an unbeliever. And then in the three subsequent parables there's a judgment that comes at the each end of each one of those and one is judged and goes to eternal punishment, the other goes into the kingdom. 

 

The context we are reminded is on Israel, not the church. We have to keep four distinct entities separate in our minds as we think through the Scripture: God's plan for Israel, the Jews, God's plan for the Gentiles, God's plan for the church, and the church is neither Jew nor Greek, are all one in Christ that in the church age only. When the church is raptured then we go back to Jew or Gentile, and those who are saved in the Tribulation, Jew or Gentile, are referred to as Tribulation saints.

 

The passages talk about Jesus coming, His presence (The PAROUSIA) to establish the kingdom. It's all about the kingdom, folks. It's about the establishment of the millennium; it's not about the Rapture, it's not about church age believers or the judgment seat of Christ. The Rapture and the Second Coming must be understood as distinct events separated by seven years.

 

And then finally, in terms of the review, we have seen that what controls the Olivet discourse interpretation from the time that Jesus articulates in verses 32-34, the parable of the fig tree, it is about watching for that coming.

 

The second question is, what is the connection with the previous three parables? Two points I want to emphasize here. First of all, looking at the text: if you have a new King James version, it just starts off in verse 31 saying, "When the Son of Man comes in his glory".  There are actually two words that are at the beginning of that verse. The second word is the conjunction. It is always second in any sentence and it indicates continuation from what has been said before. Sometimes that continuation is a slight contrast; sometimes it is just continuing the story. Here it is a slight contrast, which is why the new American Standard translates it, "but when". But most English translations ignore the word that is there. But it clearly shows this flows out of and is connected to that which is previous.

 

What we see here is that the preceding context involves three parables. Now a parable talks in terms of general terms. We look back at those parables. It talked about master, servant, talked about 10 bridesmaids, and talked about the bridegroom. These are not specific people; they're not named there, and not identified as such. It talks about servants and masters, wicked servant, righteous servant. They are stories that are metaphorical in nature and designed to teach spiritual truths through some sort of common understood story. But what we have here, beginning in verse 31, are specifics: the Son of Man, that's not a metaphor; the angels, that's not a metaphor; the treatment of my brethren is not a metaphor. Those are all specific terms. So they are identified as sheep or goats; that is metaphorical, but the whole episode is not a parable. So this is not a parable, it is a narrative describing one other aspect of judgment at the end of the Tribulation period. 

 

The other thing to note is that the parables preceding it are parables of the kingdom, and from my study of the parables in Jesus' ministry they are all about kingdom. Therefore, are they all about (a) Israel; (b) Gentiles; (c) the church. Pop quiz! They are all about a Israel; they're not about the church.

 

There are a lot of people who come in and take these and try to interpret them in relation to the church. But the parables make sense when we think that these three preceding parables are kingdom parables, and that it's all about Israel. Now we are going to talk about the Gentiles. And Jesus started talking in parables about whom? When did He start talking in parables? Matthew 13. In Matthew 12 the religious leadership accused him of performing His miracles in the power of Satan. He called it the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, and after that He said I'm not going to talk openly anymore and started teaching only in parables. And what did He give us? He gave us a parables related to the kingdom in Matthew chapter 13. So parables are related to the kingdom and are designed to cloak what He is teaching from the hardened hearts of the Jews who have rejected Him. 

 

But when He talks about Gentiles He talks openly, and that's the same pattern that we see here. He is talking specifically about what is going on here. 

 

Third, we have to understand the significance of two key terms in the in verse 31. The title "Son of Man" that is used of the Messiah, a messianic title from the Old Testament, and the phrase "throne of his glory" or "his glorious throne", depending on how you want to translate. Either one is fine.

 

Matthew 25:31 NASB ÒBut when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne."

 

This imagery here is the same that we see in Matthew 16:27, which states "the Son of Man will come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will reward each other, according to his works". Now both of these passages are talking about the Second Coming; they are not talking about the Rapture. At the Rapture, Jesus comes for his saints, the church. and there is no mention in first Thessalonians 4 or the other passages that He is coming with all of His angels. But that is the imagery that is consistently there when Jesus comes at the Second Coming. When He is coming to the earth He will come in His glory with all of his angels. Matthew 25:31 states the same thing: "when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him". 

 

Now the first question we need to address is, what does this term, the Son of Man, mean? What does that tell us? Where does that come from? There is only one place that is used in the Old Testament. Ezekiel call refers to himself as the Son of Man, that's a totally different issue; he just referring to himself as a human. But as a title it is used one time in the Old Testament and that is in Daniel chapter 7. Daniel has a vision related to the end times, and as part of that vision he sees two individuals. The first is the Ancient of Days; the second is the Son of Man. The Ancient of Days is God the Father; the Son of Man is the Messiah who is viewed in the passage as being deity, as being fully divine. What Daniel records in verses 13 and 14 is, "I was watching in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven". 

 

Now if you study the metaphorical use of clouds in the Old Testament, you'll discover that that is often associated with the angels. So what we see here is the same thing that Jesus is talking about in Matthew 24, the Son of Man coming with His angels. That's what he sees of this is a summary statement. For those of you who have been around a long time you know that in Hebrew often there is a statement that is a summary, and then the details come after that.  That's typical Hebrew style.  So this is the summary. We are talking about a big event: the Son of Man comes with the clouds of heaven.  What is involved in that event?

 

We get some detail in the next sentence. he came to the ancient of days that that's not the coming with the clouds of heaven.  That's talking about what immediately preceded his coming with the clouds of heaven.  Now his coming with the clouds of heaven is at the second coming, when it comes to the earth to establish his kingdom. What is it that immediately precedes that? That's a very important question. What immediately precedes it is: "He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him" (Daniel 7:13) "É and he is given". 

 

The King is not given the kingdom a long time before, He is given the kingdom only right before He returns to the earth. The idea in amillennialism, and which was picked up by progressive dispensationalism, is the idea that at the ascension Jesus went to heaven and He is now seated on a spiritual throne of David, and He is ruling His kingdom. And if you listen attentively you'll hear all kinds of very loose talk where people say, we are doing XYZ for the kingdom, that this is the kingdom, that's the kingdom, and they believe that there is some kind of kingdom today. Folks, the messianic kingdom doesn't arrive until Jesus arrives and sets up His throne in Jerusalem. That hasn't happened yet. And the curse is rolled back, and I haven't noticed the curse being rolled back lately. People still get sick; people still die; people still sin tremendously. Jesus isn't in on His throne in Jerusalem; we are not in any form of the kingdom. 

 

And this verse tells us that the order of events is that there is no kingdom given to the Son of Man.  Then when He is given, at the time that He is given the kingdom—verse 14 the dominion the glory and the kingdom—at that time is when He returns with the clouds of heaven. 

 

Now what happened when Jesus ascended to heaven? After He died on the cross He is put in the tomb, He is resurrected, He spends 40 days with the disciples, and then He ascends to heaven.  Does He sit on the throne of David in heaven?  That is the claim made by amillennialists and progressive dispensationalism, but Psalm 110:1 says, "The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool." So He is in a position of waiting.  It's at the right hand, which is a position of honor, but He is in a position of waiting, and what we see in Daniel 7:13 is when the wait is over he comes to the Ancient of Days, and the Ancient of Days gives Him the kingdom.  So from the time He ascends He sits at the session at the right hand of the Father until just before He descends to the earth at the Second Coming. He is seated at the right hand of the Father, not on David's throne, not even on His throne.  He is seated on his Father's throne. 

 

How do we know that? In Revelation 3:21 Jesus promises to church age believers who live a victorious life: "To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with me on my throne", and He says, "As I also overcame and sat down with my Father on His throne.  Now you have two thrones mentioned: "My throne", which is Jesus' throne, and the Father's throne.  What He says in the second half of the verse is, when he overcame, that is, at the ascension, He sat down with the Father on the Father's throne.  He didn't sit down with the father on His throne.  He sits down at the right hand of the Father on the Father's throne. 

 

But in the future He will have a throne and when He has that throne and comes in his glory, as we see described here in verse 31, then He will grant the overcomers to sit with Him on His throne.  So all that tells us that as verse 31 begins, "When the Son of Man comes in his glory", that is talking about His arrival at the Second Coming. This fits the whole context. I have a hard time understanding folks, and I know a lot of them, I appreciate a lot of them, I have benefited from a lot of people's ministry, but as I pointed out there are about five or six different variations of views that do not see all of the second half of Matthew 24 talking about the Second Coming. They slip the Rapture in there.

 

But look at the context. If we go back to 24:27 NASB "For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be."

 

Nobody debates this. Everybody who is a futurist dispensationalist believes verse 27.  Jesus is talking about the Coming, this presence of the kingdom that comes quickly and comes like lightning flashing from the east to the west, and it's talking about the event. That's why it uses a noun—

the event: His arrival, His presence, establishing the kingdom. And we know from the context of Matthew 24 that PEROUSIA is a descriptor of the second coming, but it's not always used that way.  It sometimes used of the Rapture, sometimes used of the Second Coming, but in Matthew 24 from the beginning question it has to be consistent because that's the question. Jesus is going to shift the meaning of the terms in the middle of the answer without informing people that He has changed the meaning.  That's just absurd.  He is not playing some sort a guessing game with the disciples, so it's talking about the Second Coming. The question was about the Second Coming: when was He going to arrive with the kingdom? He is describing what that's going to be.  It's like lightning flashing from the east to the west. And then in verse 30 NASB "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory."  

 

It shifts to the verb here because the verb describes the action of His progress from heaven to earth.  The noun emphasizes the state or the event of His establishing the kingdom.  The verb is emphasizing His progress, the movement from heaven to earth. Then we have the episode that occurs prior to verse 37 where it talks about the parable of the fig tree. And then the key verse that the Rapture guys all go to is verse 36, "Of that day and hour no one knows". The Rapture? We don't know. That could refer to that if it weren't for the context.  But there's also a sense in which the Second Coming isn't going to be precisely known. But for those whose want to shift that the question is the very next verse 37 connected to it says, "But as the days of Noah were."  That, "but" tells us that verse 37 comes right out of the thought of verse 36 and is using the time of Noah as an analogy to help us understand the PAROUSIA of Jesus. "As the days of Noah were, so also will the PAROUSIA of the Son of Man be". 

 

Son of Man is a term that relates to what? His messianic coming as the King.  So this is talking about Second Coming.  So if verse 37 is talking about the Second Coming, then verse 36 should be talking about Second Coming.  However, there are a lot of folks who get confused over that.

 

Verse 39 continues, that those who are alive at the time of Noah did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. Again, it uses the word PAROUSIA; it is talking about the Coming. It can't be all the sudden up to verse 37 talking about the Second Coming and then in verse 37 it is talking about the Rapture.  Nothing in the context, nothing Jesus says, would indicate He's not talking about what the disciples were asking him about? And then verse 44 says, "Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is Coming".  That's talking about the action, the processor; it uses the verb ERCHOMAI. "He is coming at an hour you do not expect." So all that answers the third question: What's the significance of the term Son of Man?  It is talking about the fact that He is the messianic King who receives the kingdom just before He returns, and the throne of His glory refers to his earthly throne, the throne of David that is set up in Jerusalem from which He will rule His kingdom on the earth as the Son of Man.

 

That just covers the first verse.  Now let's look at what the story is about. Matthew 25:32, 33 NASB ÒAll the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left."

 

The right hand is the side of honor.  Those folks are on the left are on the side of dishonor.

 

The question that comes up here is the question about which judgment this is. And if you read most commentaries and most people on this, they don't have a futurist view of it at all. If they do they'll put it at the great white throne judgment, so they misidentify it. But even among dispensational premillennialists there are some who believe that this is a great white throne judgment.  I ran across this outline of most of this in Stan Toussaint's book on Matthew and I thought that I would just show you the differences.

 

First of all, in the sheep and the goat judgment there is no mention of a resurrection, only living Gentiles. David Turner who is a commentator, and is supposedly dispensational—He has gone progressive dispensational—and he argues that this passage is great white throne, and he assumes a resurrection "because it evidently assumes rather than mentions a resurrection".  So for it to fit into his theology he's got to assume that the people who are being judged here have been raised from the dead.  Scripture doesn't say that, but that's what passes for exegesis today.

 

Second, at the great white throne judgment the dead are said to stand before the throne and are judged. There is a clear resurrection preceding the great white throne judgment of all the unsaved dead. At the sheep and the goat judgment there three classes of people mentioned: the Jews and Gentiles, and "my brethren". In the great white throne judgment, the only people before the great white throne in Revelation 20 are the unsaved.

 

Third distinction is that at the judgment here, the sheep and the goat, the sheep enter the kingdom and the goats are condemned to eternal fire.  So there's a distinction, believers and unbelievers. But at the great white throne judgment all are cast into the lake of fire because they don't have the right kind of works to get into heaven; they don't have perfect righteousness. 

 

Fourth distinction is at the sheep in the goat judgment the basis of evaluation is on their treatment of "my brethren"—philo-Semitism. At the great white throne judgment they are evaluated on the basis of their works: have they accumulated enough righteousness to equal God's righteousness? None have so they are destined for the lake of fire.

 

Fifth is the timing. The sheep in the goat judgment occurs at the end of the Tribulation because that is what we are talking about; it happens when the Son of Man comes with His angels.  That's at the end of the Tribulation. The great white throne judgment in Revelation 20 comes at the end of the millennial kingdom.  So we are talking about a distinct judgment that occurs at the same time these other judgments in the parables are mentioned, for those who survive the Tribulation.  Surviving Jews are evaluated for their eternal destiny in the three parables, and in the great white throne.  the sheep in the goat judgment, the Gentiles are evaluated for their eternal destiny.

 

Verse 32 says, "All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats."  This has led some people to think that this is some sort of national judgment. It's easy to see why one would arrive at that. The word that is translated "nation" is the word ETHNOS, and it can have the meaning of nation, it can have the meaning of people, and it frequently has the meaning of just Gentiles, meaning anyone who is not a Jew, anyone is not a descendent of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  Since all nations are made up of individuals this is not talking about the nations, it's talking about individuals. Nations are not sent to the lake of fire, individuals within a nation would have their destiny at the lake of fire. So this should be translated Gentiles. It is the evaluation of Gentiles who have survived the Tribulation period. 

 

They are separated into two groups, sheep and the goats.  Only a shepherd can do this. If you've ever been to Israel and you see the flocks on the hillsides, I would challenge you as an American to distinguish the sheep from the goats because the breed of sheep that you find in the Middle East looks an awful lot like what we think of as a goat; but it's a sheep.  So the shepherd needs to know the distinction, and only the shepherd can distinguish between the sheep and the goats. 

 

Now this judgment that occurs is a judgment that was predicted in the Old Testament in Joel.  Joel 31-3 is the passage that talks about the judgment of the nations, the judgment of the Gentiles in the Old Testament. It comes immediately after the day of the Lord. Remember the day of the Lord is a day when the sun is dark, the moon doesn't give its light, and this is when the Lord, the Messiah returns and destroys the enemies of Israel. That is described at the end of Joel chapter 2. Then Joel goes on and says, "For behold, in those days and at that timeÉ" That is, at the time of the day of the Lord. "Éwhen I bring back the captives of Judah and Jerusalem." When the Lord Jesus Christ restores—He's not talking here specifically about all Jews but the captives of Judah and Jerusalem.  These are those who fled when they saw the abomination of desolation. These are those who have been imprisoned and tortured because of their messianic faith, and because they're Jewish, and now they are going to be restored, and at that time the Messiah says, "I will also gather all nations É" And it's the same issue in the Hebrew the word glory can be nations.  It can be people or can be Gentiles— I will gather all the Gentiles". These are those who survived the Tribulation. "É and I will bring them down to a place called the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and I will enter into judgment with them there on account of my people É" That's going to be the basis for this judgment, just as it is with the sheep and the goat judgment in Matthew 25:31ff.  "É my heritage Israel." So that's the issue: how they treated Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations.

 

So there's this persecution among the nations, "and they have also divided up my land".  That also is important and indicates there are two issues here.  One is the scattering among the nations. That's what's been going on through the Diaspora, through the church age: Judah scattered among the nations. "They have also divided up my land".  Now I've taken this in the past to relate to the division as we see today in West Bank.  That is possible, but the more I think about this contextually this is not really talking about the current state of dividing up Israel. And in there are a lot of Christian Zionists who take this view, and for that reason any talk of a two nation solution or anything like that to them is just blasphemy.  I think that's wrong.  The people who really emphasize that really don't have a well thought out consistent eschatology either. 

 

I think this is talking about what the Antichrist does with in the Tribulation period.  This is what is taking place against Israel, the anti-Semitism that is taking place during the Tribulation when anti-Semitism just goes on steroids and the Antichrist is seeking to destroy any and every ethnic Jew on the planet. And it goes on to talk about how horrible this will be at that time. "They have cast lots for my people. They have given a boy as payment for a harlot, and sold a girl for wine, that they may drink."  I mean just the horrors, and that's what's described in the sheep in the goat judgment when it talks about those who are hungry those were put in prison.  Why does Jesus talk about it in this way? And of course that the liberal progressives come along and say, well we have to have social justice. That doesn't do justice at all to the context. 

 

What we see here is Jesus tells the story this way because He is telling us something about the horrible persecution of Jewish believers in the Tribulation period.  They are going to be starving to death; they're going to be incarcerated they are going to be tortured.  All of these things are going to happen to them.  And the only the only help that they get is from Gentile believers who recognize their importance.

 

Before we leave Joel chapter three there's mention of the Valley of Jehoshaphat.  There are basically three views that are set forth on this. One is the view that that is no place known as the Valley Jehoshaphat. But just south of Jerusalem, about 15 miles there's a valley where the Israelites defeated the Moabites under Jehoshaphat and so that was called the Valley of Blessing, or Valley of Berachah in the Hebrew, and that is identified in 2 Chronicles 20:26. Some people think that may be the Valley Jehoshaphat.  Others think that it's the Valley that is right there by the Temple Mount, separating the Temple Mount from the Mount of Olives, and I think that's a very likely view. The problem with the Valley of Berachah as the Valley of  Jehoshaphat is it is far removed from Jerusalem, and it seems like the judgment that is taking place is taking place by the King on His glorious throne right there in Jerusalem on the Temple Mount. So that Valley is too far removed. The Kidron Valley is right there at the Temple Mount and that seems to make a lot more sense geographically, and that is the view a lot of people take. And then there's another view that's based on Zechariah 14:4 that says that when Jesus feet stand on the Mount of Olives, the Mount of Olives will split into from east to west making a large Valley and so there is the thought that that the Valley of Jehoshaphat.  The problem with that is, it's never called the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and that again is just speculation.  I think there's not a whole lot more weight on the second view, but with what little information we have that seems to be a little stronger, but not a whole lot.

 

What we done today is look at the first four questions and we are stopping before we get to the fifth question: Are the sheep saved by works? That is a critical question, the people say because it looks that way: they are saved on the basis of how they treat "my brethren", and you will hear many people say if you're going to be saved then you have to have social justice, take care of the poor, feed the hungry.  There are many others that would say well it's dependent on these works because if you don't have real faith you won't have real works. And so there's a misunderstanding.  But what we see in the passage is that the sheep are then called in verse that 37 "the righteous".  How did they get righteous? They get righteous because they receive the perfect righteousness of Christ.  It's imputed to them.  Genesis 15:6, Abraham was declared righteous because he believed in Yahweh.  That is how they're saved; it is because they possess perfect righteousness.  In addition (not in addition to what is required for salvation) I think it's part of that they are going to be extremely pro-Jewish. Come back next time and find out what that means and how to understand that in terms of the gospel.

Slides