Title: Genuine Christian Nationalism
Date: November 8, 2026
Text: Matthew 25:31-46
Preacher: Pastor Deepak Babu
“‘My country, right or wrong’ is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, ‘My mother, drunk or sober.’” These are the witty words of G. K. Chesterton in his essay A Defense of Patriotism. Similarly, the Indian educationist Jiddu Krishnamurti wrote, “Nationalism is a false god, but millions of people are very serious about it; they will go to war, destroy, kill or be killed in the name of their country.” And George Orwell acerbically wrote, “Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception.” But what if each of these great thinkers had something right, but missed the mark on something crucial?
Before we proceed to understand the text we just heard, I need to confess something before you, express my repentance, as it were. As you all know, my wife, Alice, passed away in June 2023. I took to writing as a means of processing through the loss and wrote my book In the Valley, which was published in December that year. When the Christmas season was over and Epiphany had receded into the past, I found myself floundering about what to write. I then revived my blog, which had remained dormant for a couple of years.
The volatile political situation in India and the genocide in Gaza made me focus on more political issues in the blog, even though I wanted everything to be based on the scriptures. Some people asked me if I could address a few difficult parables from the Gospels. So I began to write on two tracks - a political one and a biblical interpretation one. And I came to the passage we just heard. And I realized that it not only taught something quite different from what the majority of Christians have been taught, but was more intentionally political a parable than any other parable Jesus narrated.
But when I was planning this sermon series, though I knew what I had uncovered, I relapsed into the familiar way of understanding this parable and initially planned this sermon with the insipid title ‘Recognizing Jesus’. But after much reflection and prayer, I broke free from the addiction to the familiar and decided to go the way I will do today. So, I repent for allowing the familiar to scuttle what I had discovered almost three years back. Thankfully, I believe God, through his Spirit, shocked me to my senses in time for the necessary course correction. So let us proceed.
The parable is problematic to interpret because there are three questions, the answers to which are somewhat elusive if we have sloppy translations, if we do not pay close attention to what Jesus says, and if we do not understand why he says what he says. In other words, there are three issues that lead to the following questions: First, who is Jesus referring to as sheep and goats? Second, what is the separation of sheep from goats intended to accomplish? Third, why is what is accomplished a goal that the shepherd sets for himself?
But before we address those questions, let us clarify a few things. How many of you think that we are saved by our works? How many of you think that the parable describes things that people did or did not do? How many of you think that the separation in the parable is done on the basis of what people did or did not do? So, if we think that we are not saved by our works, then it must be the case that we are mistaken about one or more of the following. First, the parable is addressing individuals. Second, the parable is about salvation. Third, the works described in the parables are works done by individuals. As we will see, we are mistaken about all three!
So, to our first question, “Who is Jesus referring to as sheep and goats?” Suppose I told you, “Next Spring we should gather all the middle schools in Pocatello and Chubbuck and have a football tournament between them.” What did that last word ‘them’ refer to? And when the winner’s name is inscribed on the trophy, what name will go there? It is clear that ‘them’ referred to all the middle schools. And the name of the winning school would be inscribed on the trophy. In other words, the antecedent noun for the pronoun ‘them’ is the plural noun ‘middle schools’.
Now, if we read v. 32 in different translations, this is what we will discover. The NIV has the words, “All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.” The ESV tells us, “Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.” The NLT says, “All the nations will be gathered in his presence, and he will separate the people as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.” However, the NASB has, “And 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.”
Did you notice a difference? The NASB has the pronoun ‘them’, while the others have ‘people’ or ‘the people’. Now, the Greek text only has a pronoun autos. If you followed normal grammatical rules, you would link the pronoun to the nearest noun that makes sense. However, in all of chapter 25, there is no noun that could be translated as ‘people’. Rather, the nearest noun is ‘nations’. In other words, the majority of the translations surreptitiously introduce a noun for which there is no grammatical warrant. What if we decided to be honest with the text?
In that case, v. 32 would read, “And all the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate the nations from one another, just as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.” In other words, just as the trophy would not bear the individual players’ names, but the name of the winning school, so also Jesus is not talking about individuals in this parable, but about nations. This parable is about the judgment of our communal lives, not the judgment of individuals. But what does this judgment entail?
This gets us to our second question, “What is the separation of sheep from goats intended to accomplish?” The first thing we have to recognize is that, for the shepherd, both sheep and goats represent valuable livestock. If goats were inherently bad, as many common ways of understanding the parable must assume, shepherds would not keep them. Hence, sheep and goats provide different things in different ways to the shepherd. Goats have a higher rate of reproduction than sheep. This means that there are many more kids than lambs born each year.
As a result, does produce more milk than ewes. Now, sheep produce wool, while the goats can only provide their skins once - when they die. Sheep are more even tempered than goats, which are quite skittish. Now comes the hard facts. The more kids a doe has to feed, the less milk is available for the shepherd’s family or to sell. In other words, the shepherd would prefer to have fewer kids running around. However, each female kid will grow up to be a doe, a potential source for many gallons of milk and more generations of kids.
However, male kids are different. They do not produce milk. And they only provide their skins at the end of their lives. Moreover, one buck can impregnate many does, thereby ensuring future generations of goats. Hence, the vast majority of male kids are simply a drain on the shepherd’s resources. They drink the milk and eat the grass and provide their skin only once. They are quintessential consumers in the flock, hardly ever giving back to the shepherd. With sheep the situation is different. Even though male lambs will never give milk, they at least provide the shepherd with wool each year. Hence, male lambs are not as much of a drain.
Due to this, when the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats it is with the intention of culling the goat flock, killing most of the male goats who are primarily consumers rather than contributors. Note that all the female goats are kept alive precisely because they will be contributors to the flock and the shepherd. And some of the male goats, who are sturdier will be kept alive because they have superior genes that the shepherd would want passed on. The separation, in other words, is not some indiscriminate, unmotivated, unplanned killing spree!
This brings us to the third question, “Why is what is accomplished a goal that the shepherd sets for himself?” Please understand that, for the shepherd, being a successful shepherd means putting food on the table, clothes on the back, and a roof above the head for his family. This is not an exercise in philanthropy. Hence, the practices the shepherd adopts will be those that provide the most stable benefits for his family. So what does culling the male kids accomplish?
The main thing it does is ensure that there are no free-loaders, those who consume but do not contribute. This allows him to have a flock composed of only those who are mutually benefiting to him and to the rest of the flock. It also helps him to breed better kids and lambs by culling those males and some females who appear to have some genetic inferiority. In other words, those among the sheep and goats that remain to produce the next generation are selected precisely so that the next generation would be more robust and have healthier strains.
Now, it is with the future generations in mind that the shepherd conducts the culling. It is not indiscriminate, nor is it vindictive. However, it is discriminating. Qualities that the shepherd determines are unwanted are culled out while qualities he desires are selected. In other words, apart from the issue of being consumers rather than contributors, the future wellbeing of the flocks is the primary determining factor behind the culling.
Now, the parable, like any good story, uses metaphorical language. The Son of Man is not literally a shepherd. Rather, his act of judgment is compared to the act of separating conducted by the shepherd. But this does not settle the issue. Not by a long shot. And this is because, for some reason, we Christians tend to jettison our ability to deal with language when it comes to the bible. For example, if I said that one of you is a ‘rock’, what would you conclude? You could conclude that I am saying the person is hard or stubborn or reliable. But you would be quite misguided to conclude that I am saying the person is a pushover. What happened there?
Well, when I say A is B, what I am saying is that I know what B is. I know the defining qualities of B. And I am ascribing some of those qualities to A. And since rocks are not pushovers, the conclusion that the person is a pushover is misguided. Hence, when Jesus says the Son of Man will separate the nations like a shepherd separates sheep from goats, the process and rationale behind the shepherd’s actions are to be brought into play and ascribed to the separation done by the Son of Man. If we bring in extraneous ideas, we will be using a misguided hermeneutic.
What have we discovered so far? First, the entities being judged are the nations, not individual humans. Second, the separation is done so as to enable the shepherd to cull the flock by removing those members of the flock who will only consume rather than contribute and those who have undesirable traits. Third, this is done to promote the future health of the flock. This third idea is something that might escape us when we consider the parable. After all, v. 46 reads, “And these will go away into eternal punishment but the righteous into eternal life.”
There are two cases of irresponsible translation here. First, the Greek word aiónios is translated as ‘eternal’ in most translations. However, an adjective cannot bear meanings that the noun does not have. If I told you that someone is ‘good’, you can only understand what I might mean if you understand what ‘goodness’ entails. Similarly, if I told you that I am ‘healthy’, you can only understand my meaning if you know what ‘health’ is. In the same way, we can only understand what aiónios meant if we know what aión meant. And aión meant ‘age’, from which we get the word ‘eon’.
Of course, we do not have an adjective that comes from the noun ‘age’. So we have to coin one to translate aiónios. We could go with ‘age-related’ or ‘age-enduring’ or ‘age-informed’ or many more. But one thing we must not do is make it seem as though a word that originally described a definite period now automatically describes an unending period. That is how we mutilate language. That is what happens when we impose what we wish the text said onto the text. And as far as I am concerned, when you do that, you are not respecting the text, no matter how vehemently you may profess to hold it as authoritative.
So, aiónios never meant ‘eternal’. If you do not believe me, will you take Jesus’ words as reliable? In John 17.3, Jesus says, “This is aiónios life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” It is knowing God and Jesus that defines what aiónios life is. Now, let me ask you a simple question. In your walk of faith, would you be able to affirm that you know God and Jesus? If not, why are you a Christian? If yes, guess what? Barring Jesus’ return, every single one of us will face physical death! So, either Jesus is lying about what aiónios life is or we have been misguided. I prefer to think that the latter is the case.
Second, the Greek word kolasis is translated as ‘punishment’. Now, kolasis appears only two times in the New Testament. The verb kolazó, from which it is derived, also appears only twice in the New Testament. When words are so rare, we must look at sources outside the New Testament to determine what the word might mean. So what do we discover when we do this? Outside the New Testament both kolazó and kolasis are used in the context of horticulture to describe the process of pruning. If this is the case, then any different meaning must be accepted only if it is forced by the context.
So, how does v. 46 fare under these considerations? If we apply what I have suggested, we would come away with, “And these will go away into the age-informed pruning but the righteous into age-informed life.” Now, mind you, any act of pruning by the farmer would be viewed as a violation by the plant, if the plant had a nervous system. Pruning is invasive and I would venture that a plant would walk away from it if it could. What I am trying to say is that, while pruning can be viewed as a judgment or even punishment, that is from the perspective of the plant being pruned.
From the perspective of the farmer, the pruning is what will enable the plant to have a healthier, more flourishing life. This is what ‘age-informed pruning’ means. It is getting rid of what does not align with the age to come so that what does align can shine through. And even though God may intend the pruning to be beneficial, the entity being pruned, in this case the nation, may experience it in an altogether negative way and view it as a punishment, just like a toddler may view his mother’s discipline in a negative way even though she intends it for his betterment.
What we have discovered so far is that the parable is about the judgment of nations. Every nation - past, present, and future - will be judged. What are the criteria for the judgment? Here we get to the middle of the passage where the Son of Man addresses the sheep and the goats. He tells the sheep, “I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.”
While we rank nations based on GDP or military might, standards of living or democratic processes, Jesus sets for us a different standard. Look at where he focuses. He mentions the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick, and the incarcerated. What is he saying here? Every nation is a human construct, governed according to policies decided upon by humans. Because we are animals who readily identify threats, we will never be as generous and large-hearted as God is. As a result, our nations will implement policies that will result in all kinds of injustices. And injustice always leads to inequities.
Every nation is then judged on how reflective it was about the inequities within its own borders. Did it enact laws that enabled people to get productive work so that they and their families could thrive? Did it promote policies that reduced the burden on people when they attempted to buy a house? Did it provide equitable ways for people to immigrate or seek refuge? Did it divert resources to make healthcare available for everyone or at least affordable for everyone? Did it use processes that treated people who were incarcerated in a humane way?
Now, you may say, “Deepak, Jesus says we should feed the hungry and clothe the naked. Why are you going on about policies concerning work and healthcare and other things?” Well, you know the saying, “Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.” We are creatures God has created to be productive. Most people would rather have a stable job so they can provide food for their families than receive handouts from others because they are too poor. This is a part of our dignity as God’s images.
So, a nation that provides a thriving wage for the vast majority and also ensures that those who nevertheless fall through the cracks are taken care of is what Jesus is actually advocating. Every nation will be judged according to this criterion. You see, no human community has a right to exist unless it provides the necessary support for those who compose the community. Do not allow yourself to be misguided by the propaganda of those who benefit from the unjust status quo. Hence, every nation will be evaluated on the grounds of how it treated those on the margins. After all, if a nation treats those on the margins well, it probably also treats those closer to the center well.
Please note that the parable says nothing about faith. Nations, after all, cannot have faith. But each nation does have an ethos, what we could call its own version of nationalism. Now, I know that the word ‘nationalism’ has been used by people who only desire to accumulate power. This is true of India as well as the USA. And of course these two nations are not the only ones which have been infected with nationalism of the power hungry sort. However, Jesus gives us a different vision for why a nation exists. It is so different that the translations have assiduously worked to silence it.
But today we have unmuted the scriptures. We have allowed Jesus’ words to speak to us with all their potency. Since he will judge nations on the basis of certain criteria, these criteria must be the reasons for which nations exist. Hence, genuine nationalism is what promotes policies that will take care of those who are weakest in society. Genuine nationalism works to benefit everyone. Everyone! No exceptions. Regardless of economic status, political persuasion, biological sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, citizenship status, every human is to be uplifted as one who is precious in the eyes of God. No exceptions!
This is the vision that Jesus has given us. And since he addresses nations rather than people, his vision is political in nature. And it is a vision of his inbreaking kingdom. Hence, it is a new vision of what a nation ought to be. It is his redefinition of nationalism. The versions that parade around,looking nothing like Jesus are abominations that blaspheme his name. So let us reject them. For Jesus invites us to live in light of this vision. Will we heed his call on our lives? Will we accept his invitation? Will we be ambassadors of this genuine Christian nationalism?
If you do, we have our work cut out for us. You see, while forming a people of his own in the Old Testament, God issued commands to every Israelite person. A healthy community is not built from the top down, nor even from the bottom up. Rather, both need to be engaged in. We cannot say that we advocate generosity of individual Christians to benefit the weakest without supporting policies that do the same. And we cannot say we support policies to support the weakest without practicing generosity at the level of the individual Christian.
Last week, I issued a call to all of you to make your pledges to the church. Pledges of your time and talent, presence and purse. I based it on the prior generosity of God that we have all experienced. Today, I base it on the purpose of God of creating a healthy world in which everyone is taken care of. It is a two-pronged approach - addressing needs and contributing our means at both the communal and individual level. This is the only way individuals can be helped without neglecting our communal needs. It is the only way our communities can become healthy without ignoring the needs of each person. It is what I am calling genuine Christian nationalism.