Jesus, the Jew, on Matthew 25.

Professor Ira at "Jesus and the Professor" is continuing his exploration of a Jewish understanding of Jesus' teachings. Ira looks at Matthew 25 - the separation of the goats from the sheep - and concludes:

In Jesus’ view, salvation depends solely on what one did, not on what one believed. Nothing in this monologue suggests that salvation is dependent on belief. That should not be surprising, however. Jesus was a Jew, and in Judaism, reward in the hereafter is dependent on righteousness. Hence, yet again, the dictum, “The righteous of all nations have a share in the World to Come.”

My comment:

Wow! It's like looking in a mirror. I've made the same argument - to wit, that ethical conduct in this life plays a non-trivial role in salvation - numerous times in discussion with Protestants based on Matthew 25.


Matthew 25 is acknowledged as being a "difficult passage" for sola fide Christians. I've heard one radio apologist suggest that teachers pass over it until the sola fide message is firmly established. I've also heard one Protestant pastor explain that the message has to do with the treatment of Christ's ministers, which necessarily ties into sola fide, i.e., rejecting Christ's ministers by not giving them water, food etc. is rejecting Christ.

Obviously, that understanding was not shared by St. Augustine, who accepts that Matthew means what it says when it talks about "the least of these."

In defense of the creed not deed position, I take it that Matthew might be read as pertaining to those who have confessed a belief in Jesus and then the determination of whether someone had true belief would be determined based on their conduct, e.g., "sure, you said that you believed, but we know in your heart you didn't because you didn't do as Christ said to do." At that point, the distinction between belief and action seems to collapse.

Here is the text from St. Augustine's "On Faith and Works" that I was referring to:

For it is evident that He rebukes them, not because they did not believe in Him but because they did not perform good works. In fact, this is why He said that He will separate all who were united together by the same faith, in order that no one might think that faith alone, or a dead faith, that is a faith without works, is sufficient for eternal life, and in order to make it clear that they who will say to Him: Lord, when did we see you suffering this and that and did not minister to you? will be those who had believed in Him but had neglected to do good works - as though it were possible to obtain eternal life by a faith that is dead.

Augustine also had this to say on faith and works:

When St. Paul says, therefore, that man is justified by faith and not by observance of the law, he does not mean that good works are not necessary or that it is enought to receive and profess the faith and no more. What he means rather and what he wants us to understand is that man can be justified by faith, even though he has not previously performed any works of the law. For the works of the law are meritorious not before but after justification.

And:

In the first place, we feel that we should advise the faithful that they would endanger the salvaiton of their souls if they acted on the false assurance that faith alone is sufficient for salvation or that they need not perform good works in order to be saved.

If any of my sola fide friends have anything to add, check out "Jesus and the Professor."