It is not the ‘usefulness’ of livestock, it is what in particular did the goat represent in Jesus’s parable’s concerning the goats. 
The sheep and goats both sound so clueless that I wonder if His Church is even present - this may have more to do with rewards for advancing His kingdom. As Tom mentioned - faith doesn’t seem to be a factor, but a reward for giving a cup of water to His to any of His church will not be lost.
As a preterist, I have to consider the strictly Jewish audience He was addressing as He neared the end of the Mt. Olivet discourse. Many of those sitting there would be hindering Christianity over the next 40 years. Could that not be the prime warning to that generation? Is someone who is not against us a sheep or a goat?
Anyway, it’s one of those passages that, if taken out of context, makes a mess of things…
Do you have a ref for that, Jason?
I don’t have sheep to compare with, but my goats are quite active first thing in the morning–and will start yelling for me if I’m at all late. My understanding is that goats tend to be more lively, more curious, and more independent-minded than sheep–so I’m not sure why they’d behave better on the trail… but like I said, I don’t have actual experience with both … or any herding experience for that matter. But from what I know, I can’t help thinking the descriptions ought to be reversed. 
Sonia
I’m not trying to dispute the claim that ‘sheep’ and ‘goats’ may reference different qualities within the wider group of all human beings—believers and unbelievers alike, or perhaps within believers alone (which seemed to be Sherman’s point at least part of the time). I can get with all that. It’s not germane to my objections.
One of my objections was to Sherman’s claim that the passages’ warning of outer darkness and judgment (i.e., the destiny of ‘goats’) describe the inevitable fate of "all of us,” i.e., his claim that there really ARE NO SHEEP, NO faithful investors of talent, and NO virgins who stay awake. All of us, believers and unbelievers alike, are goats, unfaithful investors of talent, and sleeping virgins who will ALL fail to be ready and waiting at Christ’s return. It’s outer darkness for all human beings regardless of belief states (i.e., regardless of faith), hence based on works. Thus my question to Sherman: If believers without exception ALL go to outer darkness based on works, then what effect DOES simple trust and faith in Christ have for those in outer darkness? I’m not disputing any such effect; I’m trying to figure out what the effect would be in Sherman’s view, for on his view it seems to me that ONLY those who DO RIGHT WORKS (care for the poor and hungry) may enter heaven. So in Sherman’s view, how do those in outer darkness do these necessary works? If they don’t HAVE to do these works, then how does Sherman secure the universal condemnation of “all believers” (and their consignment to outer darkness) for failing to do them?
And I totally agree that divine judgment is a remedial and present reality. I disagree with Sherman that NO concern for the future is in view here.
Tom
This is the very sort of insightful post which serves us well here. THANKS Sherman.
And love the evolution of thoughts here.
But in the natural reading of the text, that is the words of Christ, are we not drawn to, and intended to be thus drawn, goats as something negative?? And sheep as something positive and desirable?
I hate this perspective because, for me, this has always meant goats as able to think on their own and fend for themselves (! ie the great american ethic of individuality and self reliance!) while the sheep were being praised/commended for being, well, docile. That is, for being SHEEP! Sheep don’t consider, and ponder; they react and follow. They’re SHEEP!!
Uhhh – how is the blind urge to simply FOLLOW in any way informative to how WE are to live with Christ??
Troubling…
Can’t we all just face it? The vision of ourselves as sheep, most often doesn’t work for us – does it?
I agree with Sherman in that the notion of Goats as the “bad guys” falls flat on it’s face when we consider that goats were, in the sacrificial system, seemingly on a par with sheep! That is a huge blow to the traditional interpretations of this parable it seems.
Startling too is the striking emphasis on works in this parable as well.
But maybe we dismiss “works” too readily – we Christians.
If, as we hold the OT to command, the law is fulfilled by LOVE, is there any OTHER way to measure love BUT by works??
This is deliciously awkward for Christians. Who end up protesting that its the MOTIVE for their loving acts which distinguish themselves from those others whose actions are approved, but are motivated by something else… This can get confusing I know!!!
PLEASE tell me some of you have read the book “GOOD GOATS; HEALING OUR IMAGE OF GOD”!! by Dennis Linn (and several other Linns)
Perhaps I (or someone?!) needs to do a book review on this book???
Again, thanks Sherman
TotalVictory
Bobx3
I can’t but help thinking that while Jesus was speaking in this passage that His disciples wouldn’t make a noted reference to the scapegoat mentioned in Leviticus 16 in connection with the Day of Atonement (precidence for the Day of the Lord, perhaps?). Actually there were two goats, one was slaughtered as a sin offering and the other was allowed to run into the wilderness, thus remaining alive. The word for scapegoat used here is ‘Azazel’ (see source info after comments below), which means ‘strong mountian’ (there is actually a mountian called Mount Azazel in the desert of Judea). (Side note: There is some discussion as to whether the term ‘Azazel’ might have been mistranslated to ‘scapegoat’ when it ought to beong to a class of ‘se’irim’, or goat-like spirits or jinn, which is probably how association with demons came into play, but we won’t get into that).
According to Talmudic tradition, the two goats were placed on the right hand and the left hand (coincidence?) of the high priest while he placed his hand in a box to draw out lots, one inscribed for Yahweh, and the other for Azazel. Then he gave a blessing to the sin offering for Yahweh saying “Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever.” But for the Azazel, he offered this saying, “O Lord, I have acted iniquitously, trespassed, sinned before Thee: I, my household, and the sons of Aaron Thy holy ones. O Lord, forgive the iniquities, transgressions, and sins that I, my household, and Aaron’s children, Thy holy people, committed before Thee, as is written in the law of Moses, Thy servant, 'for on this day He will forgive you, to cleanse you from all your sins before the Lord; ye shall be clean.”
What is interesting about this is that the scapegoat represents the collective sins of the people. The goat was led out into the wilderness with the scarlet thread to a precipice of the mountian. The thread was divided into two parts, one tied to a rock and the other to the goat’s horns. Then the goat was pushed off the cliff and allowed to jumble down the mountian, breaking it;s limbs end over end. According to Talmud, the scarlet thread is in reference to Isaiah 1:18 and during the forty years that Simon the Just was high priest, the thread on the goat turned white, symbolizing that the sins of the people had been forgiven. That was observed up until the destruction of the Second Temple, when the thread no longer changed color. Obviously this has connotations with Christ, both as the sin offering goat, and the scapegoat carrying the sins of the people. (And perhaps this is the answer in this threadto my question as to why Christ was sacrificed outside the city rather than on the mercy seat. Christ’s duel purpose as the division of a righteous sacrifice acceptable to God, as that goat as the sin offering, and a bearer of sins whose blood cleanses white, as that goat as the scapegoat in the wilderness.)
I mention the sins of the people, as a nation, in regards to the scapegoat carrying their sins because Jesus mentioned that the Son of Man would separate the nations as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. According to Nachmanides, the scapegoat was regarded as the personification of wickness in contrast to the righteous government of God. Perhaps, then, the goats represent all that is wrong and wicked with nations involved at His coming, while the sheep represent all that is right with those same nations. The goats, then, are the part of those nations that need to be rid of wickedness (in that they did not do to the least of their brethren) while the sheep are the part of those same nations that did right under the rule of God (that did do to the least of their brethren).
No nation is righteous before God, so I would think that there would be far and few sheep nations, if any at all. The prime example being Israel, whom God repeatedly states that He favored Israel not because they were righteous,which they most certainly weren’t, but that He would make His Name great through them. So every nation has a bit of sheep and a bit of goat in them. All that is right (sheep portion) in the nation remained intact (I Cor 3:13-15). The fires of His Righteousness will purge all the wickedness away, leaving that which is good to enjoy the kingdom. Thus the need for the leaves of the tree of life for the healing of the nations thus purged.
Source for “Azazel”: Wiki - Azazel
TotalVictory: I agree with Sherman in that the notion of Goats as the “bad guys” falls flat on it’s face…
Tom: The problem is this, Bob, that the goats are judged for not caring for the poor and needy and the sheep are rewarded for caring for them, and ultimately for Christ. That’s just the text. If you don’t want to CALL these goats who fail to care for Christ “bad guys,” that’s fine with me. But given the text, the sheep and the goats are not on equal footing in every respect–the sheep are rewarded and the goats are judged. The question is, do the ‘sheep’ constitute an empty set? Are there ANY sheep in the world at all? Sherman wants to argue that there are none, that the parable itself is designed to tell us that there are none, that we all (believers and unbelievers alike) are goats who are bound for outer darkness because we all universally fail to care for the needy. So we all, universally, go to outer darkness.
I think we’re all frail human beings who need grace and forgiveness, yes. But that doesn’t make us all ‘goats’. There are SOME sheep in the world. And I’m not concerned with labeling one group the ‘good guys’ and the other ‘bad guys’ as if goodness is intrinsic to one group and not to other. In the end, goats fail to do the good required and sheep do it. I’m not attempting to fit this into any larger hermeneutical scheme at this point either (Are the poor/needy just Jews? Or is this the judgment of Israel for failing in its calling? What?). I’m just saying there’s nothing in the text to indicate (and it’s extreme to argue) that there are no sheep in the world and that all believers and unbelievers are goats who fail to do rightly and thus shall all equally share outer darkness.
Tom
Hi Tom, I’m sorry but I don’t understand your objection/point. Do you disagree with the belief that we shall all face the judgment, that we shall all give an account for how we’ve actually lived, what we’ve done in life, that the good that we’ve done shall be rewarded extravagantly and the evil we’ve done results in punishment as needed to bring us to repentance? Or do you disagree with the belief that none of us, no matter how good we are, do not have many things we need to repent of and be remorseful for?
I believe that the God’s judgment flows out of His love for us. We need to face the truth concerning our lives, face the truth of just how sinful, rebellious, and selfish we’ve been in order to recieve the forgiveness for those sins. God’s judgment is an eternal reality, something that we shall all face, if not in this life, the life to come! And just like salvation is for all, so is judgment. But this judgment is not a judgment of exclusion and rejection, but one of inclusion and acceptance and love. It is the judgment of a loving father - painful but redemptive! The more we embrace God’s judgment, the more we embrace His salvation, and the more the love and life of God fills us.
On one hand, the traditional doctrine consigns unbelievers to endless torture regardless of the atonement. And on the other hand the traditional doctrine gives believers a “free-pass” teaching that though we might face judgment it’s just to say that we made it because of our faith! I believe both of these statements are wrong.
Rather, I believe that we are all saved by grace as revealed in the atonement, and that we shall all face the perfect remedial judgment of the Lord that takes into account everything we’ve been given or have suffered in this life with the purpose of working in us all the character of our Father. When we receive the revelation of the atonement, as we encounter the fiery passionate love of God, it burns the hell out of us!
Hi Tom.
It seems I’ve not made my point clear. I believe that the point of these passages is to encourage everyone, particularly believers, to live right, to live recognizing that we shall be judged, that there are negative ramifications for sin and selfishness in this life and the life to come. The remedial judgment of God is a present reality as well as a future dread/hope. If we’ve done good, then judgment is a hope for God is faithful to reward us for doing so. “Do not grow weary in doing good, for in due season we’ll reap if we faint not!” On the other hand, judgment is a dread if we sin (whether believer or not). “Do not be fooled, what a man sows so shall he reap.”
My point in noting that all of us sin was simply to help counter the traditional interpretation that the phrases “outer darkness”, “weeping and gnashing of teeth”, etc. are meant to convey the traditional concept of Hell, and to point out that these passages are not about whether or not we have faith, but how we actually live. “IF” one takes these passages literally and traditionally, then we all deserve endless torture. However, this passage is not talking about going to Heaven or Hell, rather it is a warning/promise of eternal judgment (God’s perfect, time-transcending, remedial judgment that will accomplish His will in our lives).
Maybe in my original post I overdid the point that we’re all sinners and “IF” one took those passages literally then we’d all be in a world of hurt – on the goat side of the judgment. I do find though that believers really struggle with the concept that judgement is based on how we actually live, not just based on whether or not we have faith in Christ. In fact, to whom much is given, much is expected. If we’re a ten talent person, but we only use one talent and bury the rest, then we’re not being faithful with what we’ve been given. And receiving faith in Christ is a privaledge, ten talents all to itself; and we’ll be held to a higher standard because of such. God desires us to walk in more grace, love, humility, and self-sacrifice than those who do not have faith in Him.
Sherman,
Thanks for the clarification. It looks to me like you’re just arguing straight-up purgatory, right?
Tom
btw, thanks Craig for the extra info on goats.
Concerning parables I tend to look for one main point, one main message; and other minor points are more subject to interpretation. The primary message of the parable on the separation of the goats and sheep is that we will face the judgment of God for how we’ve treated others less fortunate than we. Expanding upon that basic concept though, I think the separation of the sheep and goats was likely during time for sheering the sheep, highlighting the fact that when we do good for those less fortunate than we - it warms the heart of God like sheep’s wool makes warm clothing. And those who do not do good for others need a good kick to get them started in the right direction. If the goats speak something different to you, please share.
Blessings,
Sherman
I wasn’t arguing in support of or against the concept of Purgatory, though I do believe that Purgatory (Gehenna) is a scriptural concept.
Not really. Read it carefully. The primary message is how they treated Christ - unknowingly. Both the sheep and the goats share the same ignorance. I think the church is the third party in all this - we can’t and wouldn’t appeal to ignorance. The cat’s out of the bag.
“Father, forgive them, they don’t know what they are doing.” That’s a prayer for the both the sheep and the goats. Again, it’s not how they treated each other, it’s how they treated Christ.
Let’s not pretend that we know who the sheep and goats are.
I’m 98% sure I saw it in Keener’s The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. Unfortunately, it’s a huge book and despite having over 300 pages of endnote material he doesn’t have an index entry for “goat”. 
(I know, I just checked.)
I’ll try to poke around relevant topics and see if I can hunt it up again. But the notion was not that the goat would follow more loyally than the sheep once the flock got going, but that they wouldn’t need rescuing as much. (I think I mis-described it, looking back. Sorry. )
I think the main point of this particular parable is not the fact of judgment–that would have been understood by his audience from scripture. The point, it seems to me, is the nature of righteousness. Jesus’ Jewish audience assumed that they were the righteous because they had the Law, and were the Chosen People of God. But Christ is saying that in the Judgment–when the nations are gathered, and the righteous and unrighteous are separated–the criterion is not going to be what they expected.
This goes to the heart of what ‘righteousness’ is–and is very applicable to us as Christians today. We are not ‘righteous’ because we belong to the right group, or give mental assent to certain theories. We are righteous by faith–by believing God–and belief in the heart becomes deeds in the body.
Righteousness is to do what is right – “love God, and love your neighbor” and “if you do not love your brother whom you see, how can you love God whom you do not see” and “if you see your brother hungry and bless him, but don’t give him anything to eat–what good is that?”
And, this is pretty much what Sherman is saying–I think. .
Sonia
Thanks–I tried googling herding practices in the Middle East–but couldn’t find anything relevant. If you find anything (and happen to remember me ) I’d like to hear more.
I watched a herd boy with his sheep once, on a hillside in Mexico. It was very interesting.
Sonia
I think Sonia hits the nail on the head (in a non-judgmental way of course ) with her post above.
Yes Tom – of course you are correct in this.
It would have been more accurate, more precise of me, to simply ask why Jesus needed to employ the use of Sheep and Goats in His story at all. For I’ve not been able to detect anything in the culture of the day where it was common knowledge that Goats represented damnable qualities while Sheep the good and therefore savable qualities. The use of sheep and goats in the story appears just to confuse us and detract from it’s true meaning – which I think Sonia, and Sherman articulate nicely.
That God judges based on criteria apart from our social or group identity, and rather upon how we treat those needy/less fortunate in our midst, must mean that the moment a Goat begins to act like a Sheep (ie with righteousness) he BECOMES a Sheep! But that seems a little silly doesn’t it? So the designations sheep and goats are really quite peripheral to the issues Jesus finds important. ie the story might really be “cleaner” and clearer if the sheep/goat thing had been left out!
So I guess I’m saying that there must be a cultural context in which Jesus spoke that is completely foreign to me – and I’m curious if anyone knows what it is?
TotalVictory
Bobx3
I think this will help:
SEPARATION
According to Smith: “Sheep and goats mingle and graze together each day. But when they are moved to fresh pasture or when sheep are due for shearing or goats for milking, or when evening falls and the goats must be sheltered against night’s chill, then they are separated” [p. 297].
The word for “separate” (aphorizo) is a fairly rare word (10 times in the NT – 3 in Mt). It occurs twice in v. 32 of our text and also in 13:49: “So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous.”
It is one of Matthew’s themes that there are sheep and goats, evil and righteous, wheat and weeds (Mt 13:24-30) in the church at the present time. The separation is not our responsibility, but the responsibility of the angels or of the king who comes at the end of the age. Although Mt does have the discipline section in ch. 18, where a church member sins against another, the purpose of the discipline is not separation, but seeking to restore the wayward one. Until the time that the angels come to do the actual separating, we may have to put up with those stupid jerks in the world (and in the church) while we pray earnestly, “Come, Lord Jesus, come.”
SHEEP AND GOATS
Jeremias indicates that: “sheep are the more valuable animals; moreover their white colour (in distinction from the black of the goats) makes them a symbol of the righteous.” [p. 206]
I’m not sure where I picked up this idea, but I used it in a sermon on this text. Why “sheep and goats”? Why not good sheep and bad sheep or good goats and bad goats? Why two different animals? It is impossible for a goat to become a sheep.
It was common for a shepherd to have both animals in his flock. However, throughout the Bible, including the First Reading (Ezek 34:11-16, 20-24) and Psalms (100 or 95:1-7a) for Christ the King A, God’s people are referred to as sheep. Throughout scriptures the image of sheep and shepherd is used to talk about the relationship between God and God’s people. Goats are not used in the image of this relationship.
Perhaps that the most important part of this parable: We are to be sheep under authority of the Good Shepherd. The separation takes place between sheep and goats before either group is told what they have or haven’t done. The sheep are told before they know anything about what they’ve done, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” It is not their “good deeds” that brings the blessing; it is because they are sheep, God’s people, living under authority of the Good Shepherd. But as sheep, they naturally did such good things for the needy and also to Christ.
Reference : Brian Stoffregen ( I’m not endorsing his theological views, but I believe he did a nice job describing the significance of the sheep and the goats)
God bless,
Aaron
I think it’s a mistake to look for the meaning of the passage in some proposed distinction (or lack of it) between sheep and goats established in the OT other elsewhere, as if the general goodness/usefulness of goats alongside sheep establishes unity of identity across the two groups in THIS parable. The distinction that NEEDS to be made between the two IS made between the two IN THE TEXT and that’s all the distinction we need concern ourselves with: Sheep serve Christ by serving others in need. Goats don’t. Who cares whether or not goats could be offered as well as sheep within the wider Levitical code?
I still have problems with the claim that “sheep” (per Sherman) is an empty set, i.e., there are no sheep in the world and everybody–believers and unbelievers alike–are goats because everybody fails to serve the needy. I find this obviously false. But I’m not a fan of “purgatory” either.
Tom