So – to beat a dead horse (as opposed to a dead sheep or goat) I will stick with the intent of Matt. 25 being mainly that of simply saying there will be a separation, and that ultimately that separation is due to those who manifested grace and those who did not.

Cool!

As you say, we all agree over doctrine, all this seems to be a matter of how far to take some biblical illustrations. I don’t detect any doctrinal problems in any of this. So I see this as merely trying to better discern our use of the scripture which is always profitable.

Since I agree with pretty much everything you said, I am trying to be careful not to end up arguing for something I don’t believe myself! I fully understand that the sheep/goat motif is not used in scripture other than Matt. 25 for the most part and even the references to saints as sheep is not used consistantly as you well said. I am merely saying that if it is used even once, it seems to give us some license to use this also as an illustration, though, not to develop doctrines.

Now the question is whether Christ is actually referring to saints as sheep and the lost as goats. You say that he does not but I would have to differ on this point. He sets the sheep on the right and says to them that they are the ones who inherit the kingdom based on their works (I am sure you understand how I mean that). Likewise the goats are on the left and clearly do not show a godly nature. So at least let’s admit that in at least this one illustation the sheep have good natures and the goats do not.

I will admit that one can go too far in equating the saints to dumb sheep, but on the other hand I think the Bible quite often refers to the fact that mankind in general and even saints have no wisdom of their own and are totally dependant on the revelation of God to know anything worth knowing. The “sheep” at least realize this. That is as far as I would take that.

One more point of interest was the reference to Ezek. Of course the Lord is speaking of dividing his people so in that sense the whole context is about separating between sheep and sheep because they are all Jews although clearly there is a spiritual side to this. But in 34:17 he addresses the flock and says he will judge between sheep and sheep, between rams and male goats. Interesting.

First, we need to take away citations referring to literal sheep As animals we’re left with 65 references.

Of these 65 references, we can break down the subject matter of each of them. In the process we can make some observations about how it is we as preachers and teachers have utilized the sheep references, and whether or not they fall in line with how the Bible has used those references.

Like my friend Nathan, I’ve been one who has often applied the “sheep” label as indicative of the NATURE of Christ’s people. In examining these texts, I wonder if we should be so free to place emphasis upon the “dumbness” of sheep, since it really finds no precedent in the way Scripture refers to them. The references which clearly appeal to the NATURE of sheep as indicative of God’s people are very few and not perhaps as we might imagine. Nevertheless, let’s survey the references.

The main categories of references as much as I’ve been able to discern from the context of each, fall into the following groups:

A: OWNERSHIP – These are places where the reference to “sheep” is merely as a token of those who God owns, and takes responsibility for in terms of their care. In other words, the issue is not the nature of the sheep, but the nature of their relationship to God as their owner and Shepherd. I will include those references in this category to those passages which also speak directly of Christ in this capacity.

B: WANDERING – These are references to the Sheep themselves, but in the context of WANDERING. While these verses address wandering, they say precious little about the motives for such wandering.

C: LEADERSHIP – There are an entire set of references, especially plentiful in Ezekiel, where the subject matter is the contrast between Leadership among God’s people (pictured as Shepherds) and God’s people as the neglected or abused flock of God.

D: ENEMIES – These are a limited number of references to Israel’s enemies as sheep being judged by God. This is especially interesting in the context of our conversation, in that one would expect these “sheep” to be unambiguously referred to as “goats”. They are not. They too bear the moniker of sheep – since all that is being said about them is – that “like sheep” something happens to them. Shades of Matthew 28 but in the opposite direction.

E:WICKED – There are a few which use the sheep metaphor simply as wicked people who are to be judged and they will in some way be treated like sheep in this regard.

F: PERSECUTED / CHRIST’S – Lastly there are a series of references to sheep in terms of their enduring persecution or trial, especially as it relates to there relationship to Christ as their Shepherd. We could also include these under A, but broke them out since they carry some nuances of their own.

When all is said and done, each of us can then compare for ourselves if we have used the Sheep metaphors in keeping with the way Scripture uses them, or if perhaps our tendency has been to run with one interjected aspect of how we think about sheep period, as more of the informing concept. If you want to take a look, I’ll send you all the references and then you tell me. Personally, I think I’ve erred in overplaying the “sheep are dumb” type of applications. That is NOT the way Scripture represents God’s People in general – nor does it seem to be (with one or two possible exceptions) what God was communicating to us through the use of this particular word picture.

What complicates issues, is that we things like this: “I will rescue my flock; they shall no longer be a prey. And I will judge between sheep and sheep.” (Ezekiel 34:22, ESV) Judging between sheep and sheep doesn’t even enter the usual paradigm. Neither do passages where Israel’s enemies are said to be slaughtered like “sheep” (“And the remnant of Jacob shall be among the nations, in the midst of many peoples, like a lion among the beasts of the forest, like a young lion among the flocks of sheep, which, when it goes through, treads down and tears in pieces, and there is none to deliver.” (Micah 5:8, ESV) or “Like sheep they are appointed for Sheol; death shall be their shepherd, and the upright shall rule over them in the morning. Their form shall be consumed in Sheol, with no place to dwell.” (Psalm 49:14, ESV). If we follow the reasoning we are trying to get out of Matt. 25 – then these passages explode it altogether.

Unless (as I originally argued) we take Jesus’ words merely as indicative of a separation, and not force it beyond that – we’ll have to figure out how to factor Israel’s enemies and the wicked INTO our sheepfold.

Thanks for your comments. One problem we usually find is that trying to discuss theological terms and concepts over the internet never is satisfying since it is so hard to convey what we are really trying to say. It seems this is part of our problem here, but maybe I am mistaken.

Let me say again, that I agree with everything Reid said and you too as far as that goes, at least in a doctrinal sense. My point is baically that one can use the sheep/goat motif as an illustration simply because Jesus did. Yes, we can easily go too far in such things as many have when trying to make every object in a parable to have some meaning. So at least understand that my point is merely whether we can use this to illustrate biblical truth, not as a means to develope truth.

Let me try to clarify a couple of problems you had with what I said. I realize and even said earlier that in a sense sheep and goats were alike to some extent, but I know shepherds and it seems rather obvious why sheep is a term used for Christians. I have never tried to develope a system to describe the lost by studying goats, but at the same time, the Lord himself for whatever reason refers to them as goats and to the saints as sheep. He didn’t say he will separate sheep from sheep. We might discuss why he made this division as he did, but he did. He also did this when he spoke of the wheat and the tares. There is a clear difference between wheat and weeds; things that look like wheat but have no fruit at the harvest.

So my point is that if Christ refers to the lost as goats then we can. Now it is possible to make too much of this and I will use this forum as an opportunity to think on this for sure.

The other thing I might clarify is where you said that what I said about the judgment and what Reid said about the judgment were two entirely different statements and conclusions. I have reread that and I cannot see a difference so I might ask for you to explain how I differend from Reid on that point.

The look at the Judgment in Matt. 25 is a good example. No mention is made of justification specifically, but I think the term sheep and goats is a veiled reference to the fact that the sheep’s nature has been changed at the point in which they were justified. But the Judgment is always seen as separating those who lived for Christ from those who did not. Because God’s grace always effects a change in us so that how we live will be the evidence that we are in Christ. If you took the word “basis” for more than I meant it, then I am sorry I wasn’t more clear.

Finally you said that my statement, “as Christians we should look like sheep more than goats” goes beyond how Christ meant it, (my words, not yours). If I am taking to much liberty here then I hope the Lord will show me, but since Christ used these terms in the context of some living humbly for the Lord while others lived for themselves, then it seems to be a valid use as long as you don’t go too far.

I hope all this means that we are merely speaking about minor uses of illustrations and not anything of too much importance, but please feel free to address it further. I am all ears.

Thanks,

Your comments are interesting in a couple of places. I don’t want to pick on you, but a couple of your statements slightly raised my eyebrows once or twice.

First, is the common teaching that compares Christians to sheep in their nature. It is widely used and just sort of taken for granted that the comparisons are valid because, as you say, “The Bible does on several occasions refer to believers as sheep.” It is easy, then, to take that a step further and start comparing ourselves to sheep as far as our natures go. But if I might, I think that nothing you said here about the nature of sheep cannot also be said about the nature of goats. Goats, too, “…are stupid, defenseless, creatures that exist for no other reason than to be used by their owners.” By nature, they are both animals.

Second, your comment that, “Certainly I would think that we are referred to as sheep since we are to be conformed to the image of the Lamb of God who also was slain from the foundation of the earth.” seems to me to be again stretching the analogy too far. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m not aware of anywhere in the scriptures that we are called to emulate or be like sheep. We are called to emulate, follow, and be like Christ Jesus. This is very different, I think, than what you are saying. I’m not trying to be insulting or facetious, but I think you’ll get my point if I say that God didn’t incarnate Himself in the form of a sheep, slain or otherwise. If He did, I think you might have a point. But, He became “flesh”, the 2nd Adam, the God-Man. For that reason, I think your conclusion, “It seems to me that this would be one reason why the passage in Matt. 25 uses sheep and goats as a way of describing the elect and non-elect, the saved and lost.” is a bit askew … it might follow from your premise (“that we’re called sheep b/c Jesus is the Lamb of God and we’re to be conformed to His image”), but I think the premise is faulty.

Third, you say, “So I agree with you that the judgment is made based on the fact that one group looks like The Lamb, while the other group’s lives look like rebels.” What Reid said is, “The issue in this passage at least is that Christ will make a final separation between those who are His and those who are not. And this will be evidenced by how they lived their lives, manifesting grace, or no. We cannot import much more into it than that.” It seems you’ve imported much more into it than that. For me, those are 2 drastically different statements and conclusions.

Fourth, you wrote, “I am sure I have used these ideas in my preaching but always in describing the difference in the elect and non-elect that God has made in us, never as if this difference existed before we were converted.” Again, if I’ve missed it please correct me, but I’m not familiar with passages that describe our differences between pre-conversion & conversion to be that of the nature/behavior of goats vs. sheep. There are lots of other descriptors: from enemies of God to friends, brothers, children; transferred from the kingdom of darkness to the Kingdom of Light; from dead to alive; from lost to found; blind to seeing, etc. But I’m ransacking my grey matter for a comparison of goat to sheep….

Finally, you say, “…as Christians we should look like sheep and not goats,” My thoughts on this comment are similar to my second remark, but I would add these questions here: Do you also use in your preaching the idea that we should look like wheat & not tares? If so, how do we tell the difference? If not, why not?

Thanks for the dialogue.

In Him,

While I do have some trouble with your title “Why Baaa-ther”, (insert smilely face here), as ususaly you make some good points. Since we come from somewhat different backgrounds and know different men, I found your take on what this guy said as interesting. Had I heard a calvinistic pastor friend of mine say this, I would assume he merely meant that he was referring to the fact of his election from eternity where God did designate a difference between mankind. God choose him “to be” a sheep while he left another “to remain” a goat.

If he meant it in the sense that he has always been different than the non-elect, then I would have a problem with that just as you wrote about. It almost sounds like the Arminian argument that God chose those that chose themselves or looked ahead to see who would choose him and chose on that basis. Clearly that has no biblical warrent.

The Bible does on several occasions refer to believers as sheep and I think for a good reason. Sheep are stupid, defenseless, creatures that exist for no other reason than to be used by their owners. Probably no creature better describes us. Certainly I would think that we are referred to as sheep since we are to be conformed to the image of the Lamb of God who also was slain from the foundation of the earth.

It seems to me that this would be one reason why the passage in Matt. 25 uses sheep and goats as a way of describing the elect and non-elect, the saved and lost. A goat is a generally seen as a stubborn animal, not nearly as passive as a sheep. (I know that rams butt also, but I think we would agree on my point) So I agree with you that the judgment is made based on the fact that one group looks like The Lamb, while the other group’s lives look like rebels. While the Bible teaches that justification comes by being in Christ alone, all the references to the Judgment in the NT make works as the deciding factor and we understand this to mean that one group will live for the glory of God while the other won’t. Those that live rightly are the ones who have been place in Christ by conversion, they don’t live rightly so that they will be placed into Christ.

I am sure I have used these ideas in my preaching but always in describing the difference in the elect and non-elect that God has made in us, never as if this difference existed before we were converted. As long as we understand that we were no more deserving of salvation than the non-elect but that as Christians we should look like sheep and not goats, then I have no problem with these references.

Does this make sense to you? I certainly agree with everything you said but I am shamelessly trying to justify my use of this “motif” of sheep and goats in my teaching. If I have missed something, you can set me straight Thursday.

In Christ,