Loving Others Not Enough?

[mwood30]

That's what they did. But that's not why they were separated. Go back and read it. I'll wait.

I've read it many times. Did you notice the word because (Greek: gar):

But when the Son of Man comes in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his majestic throne. All the nations will be gathered before him and he will separate them from one another just as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right and the goats on the left.

Then the king will say to those on his right, “Come here! you who are blessed of my father, take possession of the kingdom held for you from the foundation of the world because I was hungry and thirsty, and you gave me food and drink; I was a stranger and you invited me in; I was naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you visited me; I was in prison and you came to me.”

Then those who treated people altruistically will reply to him, “Your highness, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? And when did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to visit you?”

The king will answer saying to them, “I assure you that as much as you did it to one of these brothers of mine, the lowest in society, you did it to me.”

And then he will say to those on his left, “Go away from me, accursed ones, into the fire of the age which has been held for the devil and his angels because I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me nothing; I was a stranger and you did not invite me in; naked, and you did not clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.”

Then they also will answer, “Your highness, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison and did not be of service to you?'

Then he will answer them saying, 'I assure you, as much as you didn’t do it to the lowest of society, you didn’t do it to me.”

These will go away into the punishment of the age, and those who treated others altruistically into the life of the age.
​

So Jesus said they inherit the kingdom because of what they did. What say you?

 

[Brother Chris]

But Matthew 25 says humanity will be divided into two groups based solely on the altruism of their deeds.

As a very honest question, how do you deal with this passage? According to this passage anyone who treats others altruistically makes the cut.

Humanitarian works and philanthropy do not and will not save anyone. This judgement occurs at the end of the 7 year tribulation. Christ will judge those who are still alive at that time. Only the sheep, believers, will enter the millennial kingdom. The goats will not, because they were never born again, redeemed and saved. The sheep who assisted their persecuted brothers and sister give evidence of their salvation by helping them. 1 John talks about this. The goats who did not help them show they were never saved because they do not have love for the brethren. Again, atheists and unbelievers can do works of human kindness, but they do it out of an unredeemed heart that is still at war with God.

 

[Brother Chris]

I've read it many times. Did you notice the word because (Greek: gar):

But when the Son of Man comes in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his majestic throne. All the nations will be gathered before him and he will separate them from one another just as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right and the goats on the left.

Then the king will say to those on his right, “Come here! you who are blessed of my father, take possession of the kingdom held for you from the foundation of the world because I was hungry and thirsty, and you gave me food and drink; I was a stranger and you invited me in; I was naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you visited me; I was in prison and you came to me.”

Then those who treated people altruistically will reply to him, “Your highness, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? And when did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to visit you?”

The king will answer saying to them, “I assure you that as much as you did it to one of these brothers of mine, the lowest in society, you did it to me.”

And then he will say to those on his left, “Go away from me, accursed ones, into the fire of the age which has been held for the devil and his angels because I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me nothing; I was a stranger and you did not invite me in; naked, and you did not clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.”

Then they also will answer, “Your highness, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison and did not be of service to you?'

Then he will answer them saying, 'I assure you, as much as you didn’t do it to the lowest of society, you didn’t do it to me.”

These will go away into the punishment of the age, and those who treated others altruistically into the life of the age.
​

So Jesus said they inherit the kingdom because of what they did. What say you?

Read the part in red. They enter the Kingdom because of election and predestination, chosen from the foundation of the world. Election and predestination is in the Gospels as well as the Epistles.

 

[Hammster]

I've read it many times. Did you notice the word because (Greek: gar):But when the Son of Man comes in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his majestic throne. All the nations will be gathered before him and he will separate them from one another just as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right and the goats on the left.

Then the king will say to those on his right, "Come here! you who are blessed of my father, take possession of the kingdom held for you from the foundation of the world because I was hungry and thirsty, and you gave me food and drink; I was a stranger and you invited me in; I was naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you visited me; I was in prison and you came to me."

Then those who treated people altruistically will reply to him, "Your highness, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? And when did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to visit you?"

The king will answer saying to them, "I assure you that as much as you did it to one of these brothers of mine, the lowest in society, you did it to me."

And then he will say to those on his left, "Go away from me, accursed ones, into the fire of the age which has been held for the devil and his angels because I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me nothing; I was a stranger and you did not invite me in; naked, and you did not clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn't visit me."

Then they also will answer, "Your highness, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison and did not be of service to you?'

Then he will answer them saying, 'I assure you, as much as you didn't do it to the lowest of society, you didn't do it to me."

These will go away into the punishment of the age, and those who treated others altruistically into the life of the age.
So Jesus said they inherit the kingdom because of what they did. What say you?

The sheep acted like sheep. The goats acted like goats. The didn't become sheep or goats by their action. The did what they did BECAUSE of who they were.

 

[mwood30]

The sheep acted like sheep. The goats acted like goats. The didn't become sheep or goats by their action. The did what they did BECAUSE of who they were.

You are adding to the text to suit your doctrine. I'm not.

 

[mwood30]

Read the part in red. They enter the Kingdom because of election and predestination, chosen from the foundation of the world. Election and predestination is in the Gospels as well as the Epistles.

You are seeing things that aren't there. All the text says is that the kingdom is held since the foundation of the world for those who feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and clothe the naked. Adding anything above and beyond that is to insert your own theology into the text.

 

[mwood30]

Humanitarian works and philanthropy do not and will not save anyone. This judgement occurs at the end of the 7 year tribulation. Christ will judge those who are still alive at that time. Only the sheep, believers, will enter the millennial kingdom. The goats will not, because they were never born again, redeemed and saved. The sheep who assisted their persecuted brothers and sister give evidence of their salvation by helping them. 1 John talks about this. The goats who did not help them show they were never saved because they do not have love for the brethren. Again, atheists and unbelievers can do works of human kindness, but they do it out of an unredeemed heart that is still at war with God.

The problem with the dispensational idea is the Paul wrote the Christians in Rome the very same thing. He warned them that they would be judged by the benevolence of their deeds.

But in accordance with your stubborn attitude, you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day when God’s wrath and equitable judgment will be brought to light; who will repay each person according to his deeds: to those who eagerly seek glory, honor, and imperishability by persisting in benevolent deeds—life in the age to come; to those who are selfish, resisting the truth (in being yielded to injustice)—rage and wrath
​

If Paul wrote that his Christian converts will only reap the reward by persistence in benevolent deeds, then the dispensational idea is out the window.

 

[A New Dawn]

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

This part of the passage tells us how we are saved.

This part of the passage tells us how we are not saved, and why.

This part of the passage tells us how works are related to salvation. They are in an adjunct position, and have been ordained by Christ to those who have been saved.

 

[heymikey80]

I've read it many times. Did you notice the word because (Greek: gar):

That indicates some support for the action -- it does not always indicate cause. In other words, evidence is just as much a "because" as an actual cause.

IOW, "this is support for what I said earlier". It's not always "this is the cause". The word can be used to point to a conclusion, a demonstration, an explanation, or even a declaration.

I actually pointed out the use of "gar" in noting Paul is connecting "doers of Law" with the singular reference to "good works" in Romans 2.

There's also nothing in Matthew 25 that refers to altruism.

 

[Hammster]

You are adding to the text to suit your doctrine. I'm not.

Where did I add? He divides them by who they are and then explains what they've done. I don't see how that is adding.

 

[dies-l]

To the OP: I agree with your premise in part. The whole of the law is twofold, love God and love people. If we do the former, we will do the latter. Simple enough, right?

The Bible also says that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. Seems like a contradiction, doesn't it?

To resolve the seeming contradiction, I would look the First Epistle of John, where it states that God is love. And, I would ask this question: is it possible to truly and sincerely love other people when God (i.e., love) is not the foundation of your life?

My belief is that love, as Jesus said, is the whole of the law and is all that is needed for salvation, BUT genuine love does not occur apart from faith in God. While we may be able to do nice things once in a while, with or without faith, we cannot truly love without faith in God.

 

[mwood30]

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

This part of the passage tells us how we are saved.

This part of the passage tells us how we are not saved, and why.

This part of the passage tells us how works are related to salvation. They are in an adjunct position, and have been ordained by Christ to those who have been saved.

So you interpret Ephesians 2:8-10 in a way that contradicts Romans 2. Okay.

 

[mwood30]

To the OP: I agree with your premise in part. The whole of the law is twofold, love God and love people. If we do the former, we will do the latter. Simple enough, right?

The Bible also says that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. Seems like a contradiction, doesn't it?

To resolve the seeming contradiction, I would look the First Epistle of John, where it states that God is love. And, I would ask this question: is it possible to truly and sincerely love other people when God (i.e., love) is not the foundation of your life?

My belief is that love, as Jesus said, is the whole of the law and is all that is needed for salvation, BUT genuine love does not occur apart from faith in God. While we may be able to do nice things once in a while, with or without faith, we cannot truly love without faith in God.

One of the major teachings of Jesus was: The only way to love God is by loving others. Whoever loves others is loving God.

When Jesus talked about the two love commands:

• He didn't contradict his teaching that the Golden Rule is the entire Law (Mt. 7:12).
• He didn't contradict his teaching in Matthew 25 where he said all humanity will be divided into two groups based solely on the altruism of their deeds.
• He didn't contradict his quote of Hosea in Matthew 9:13 where Hosea said that God desires loving kindness shown to others for the forgiveness of sins, not an animal sacrifice. Love of others is the path to salvation.

The Pharisees tried to disprove what Jesus taught in Matthew. So Jesus made us of the Pharisee's own method of scripture interpretation, called G’zerah Shavah. According to G’zerah Shavah, any two scriptures, which use equivalent words or phrases, are cut from the same block – they are inextricably tied one to the other. So this is what Jesus communicated to the Pharisees:

And Jesus said to him, “’You shall love the Master your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and first commandment. And the second is its equivalent. ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ The whole Law hangs on both of these commandments unified together.”
​

Jesus used G’zerah Shavah to prove that the “love of neighbor” is the same as “loving God with your whole being.” Since he used the Pharisees’ own method of scripture interpretation, they had no comeback. And that was the end of the discussion.

It's sad that modern conservative translations make Jesus appear to have contradicted so many of his other teachings in Matthew. This passage is one of the most profound turns of the table in the entire Bible when read from its first century perspective.

 

[mwood30]

That indicates some support for the action -- it does not always indicate cause. In other words, evidence is just as much a "because" as an actual cause.

IOW, "this is support for what I said earlier". It's not always "this is the cause". The word can be used to point to a conclusion, a demonstration, an explanation, or even a declaration.

I actually pointed out the use of "gar" in noting Paul is connecting "doers of Law" with the singular reference to "good works" in Romans 2.

There's also nothing in Matthew 25 that refers to altruism.

Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and sheltering the homeless are all acts of altruism, are they not?

And gar really is a "marker of cause or reason:"

γάρ (Hom.+) conj. used to express cause, clarification, or inference. Never comes first in its clause; usu. second, but also third (Hb 11:32), or even fourth (2 Cor 1:19, as e.g. Menand., Epitr. 883 S. [=563 Kö.]; Lucian, Pisc. 10, Philops. 15; s. B-D-F §452; 475, 2; Denniston 56–114; Schwyzer II 560).
① marker of cause or reason


Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.) (189). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
​

The passage really does say that 'their altruistic acts caused them to inherit the kingdom,' 'their altruistic acts were the reason they inherit the kingdom.' That's what the text says.

 

[A New Dawn]

So you interpret Ephesians 2:8-10 in a way that contradicts Romans 2. Okay.

No, I interpret Romans 2 the way it was meant to be interpreted. You never responded to a previous question where I asked if you considered judgment (or rewards) to be the same as salvation. The Bible is clear that everyone will be judged according to their actions, but it is also clear that one is saved by faith and not works, so one must reconcile the two. It seems more like you are rejecting the faith aspect to bring the works aspect more to the front and say that it is all this. I'm sorry to say that the Bible spells out, very clearly, where works fall. Love, when not done from the perspective of living out a life of faith in love, falls short because no one can maintain the degree of love necessary for salvation.

 

[A New Dawn]

One of the major teachings of Jesus was: The only way to love God is by loving others. Whoever loves others is loving God.

When Jesus talked about the two love commands:

• He didn't contradict his teaching that the Golden Rule is the entire Law (Mt. 7:12).
• He didn't contradict his teaching in Matthew 25 where he said all humanity will be divided into two groups based solely on the altruism of their deeds.
• He didn't contradict his quote of Hosea in Matthew 9:13 where Hosea said that God desires loving kindness shown to others for the forgiveness of sins, not an animal sacrifice. Love of others is the path to salvation.

The Pharisees tried to disprove what Jesus taught in Matthew. So Jesus made us of the Pharisee's own method of scripture interpretation, called G’zerah Shavah. According to G’zerah Shavah, any two scriptures, which use equivalent words or phrases, are cut from the same block – they are inextricably tied one to the other. So this is what Jesus communicated to the Pharisees:

And Jesus said to him, “’You shall love the Master your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and first commandment. And the second is its equivalent. ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ The whole Law hangs on both of these commandments unified together.”
​

Jesus used G’zerah Shavah to prove that the “love of neighbor” is the same as “loving God with your whole being.” Since he used the Pharisees’ own method of scripture interpretation, they had no comeback. And that was the end of the discussion.

It's sad that modern conservative translations make Jesus appear to have contradicted so many of his other teachings in Matthew. This passage is one of the most profound turns of the table in the entire Bible when read from its first century perspective.

I'm thinking that this is a real extreme interpretation of this passage. You are really exaggerating the connection between the two laws with your interpretation of "like unto". According to Strongs, it means similar to, your interpretation has it meaning "equivalent of". Your interpretation has them meaning the same thing, Strongs does not. I'm curious as to where you have gotten your interpretation from. It does not stand up under scrutiny.

 

[heymikey80]

Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and sheltering the homeless are all acts of altruism, are they not?

And gar really is a "marker of cause or reason:"

γάρ (Hom.+) conj. used to express cause, clarification, or inference. Never comes first in its clause; usu. second, but also third (Hb 11:32), or even fourth (2 Cor 1:19, as e.g. Menand., Epitr. 883 S. [=563 Kö.]; Lucian, Pisc. 10, Philops. 15; s. B-D-F §452; 475, 2; Denniston 56–114; Schwyzer II 560).
① marker of cause or reason


Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.) (189). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
​

The passage really does say that 'their altruistic acts caused them to inherit the kingdom,' 'their altruistic acts were the reason they inherit the kingdom.' That's what the text says.

Didja catch that? "reason" is included. Reasoning is not always to a cause/effect cause.

An evidential reason is a reason, not a cause.

An associative reason is a reason, not a cause.

A mediative reason is a reason, not a cause.

Even inferences are reasons.

And examples, apparently.

Thanks for Bauer/Arndt/Decker's confirmation!

 

[heymikey80]

Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and sheltering the homeless are all acts of altruism, are they not?

First, the goats did those actions, too. "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?"

And they're not altruistic actions. There's no such thing. Altruism involves a purpose. And the purpose is not stated. If you wish to talk about adding an interpretation from outside -- here's one place where it's added.

Generally for a reasonably fair assessment, all viewpoints should get a similar bar of judgment. At this point, everyone's injecting inferences from their own viewpoint. Now if you'd like to point out the inferences, as I've pointed out yours to you, that's fine. But denying they're there is just setting the bar differently.

The passage really does say that 'their altruistic acts caused them to inherit the kingdom,' 'their altruistic acts were the reason they inherit the kingdom.' That's what the text says.

The passage says that, as a group, they were summarily judged, and their actions were the evidentiary reason for the judgment, "righteous". "There is no law against such things."

 

[mwood30]

First, the goats did those actions, too. "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?"

And they're not altruistic actions. There's no such thing. Altruism involves a purpose. And the purpose is not stated. If you wish to talk about adding an interpretation from outside -- here's one place where it's added.

Generally for a reasonably fair assessment, all viewpoints should get a similar bar of judgment. At this point, everyone's injecting inferences from their own viewpoint. Now if you'd like to point out the inferences, as I've pointed out yours to you, that's fine. But denying they're there is just setting the bar differently.

The passage says that, as a group, they were summarily judged, and their actions were the evidentiary reason for the judgment, "righteous". "There is no law against such things."

Call "feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and sheltering the homeless" whatever you wish, and the passage still means what it says.

And the word is dikaioi which the Koine Greek papyri shows meant: Those who treat others justly, equitably, and fairly. The 'righteous' is too broad a term (and yes, I realize modern rewrites do use that broad term to justify their theologies). I always stick to the first century historical use of the words. I believe that's the only way to know what the text is actually saying.

 

[heymikey80]

Call "feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and sheltering the homeless" whatever you wish, and the passage still means what it says.

Wonderful. If works cause righteousness, then the goats were righteous, too. Congratulations, God's just condemned the righteous.

Paradoxes force us to reconsider the assumption. No, works don't cause righteousness. Paradox is resolved, and we go on to determine that "gar" doesn't mean "cause" in this case, but "evidence", maybe even, "for example".

And the word is dikaioi which the Koine Greek papyri shows meant: Those who treat others justly, equitably, and fairly. The 'righteous' is too broad a term (and yes, I realize modern rewrites do use that broad term to justify their theologies). I always stick to the first century historical use of the words. I believe that's the only way to know what the text is actually saying.

The "righteous" is indeed too broad a term to even say that. "righteous" Lot? Not sure his daughters would say so.

For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.