The Scandalous Teachings of Jesus 2: The Last Shall Be First?

Peter had a question for Jesus. 

Matthew 19:27: “We’ve given up everything to follow you. What will we get?” 

Right after the rich young ruler left in sorrow, Jesus commented, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!” (Matthew 19:24). The disciples were astonished at His comment, which then prompted Peter to ask this question. 

This was not a foolish question, as some preachers make it out to be. We can understand Peter. He and the other disciples had left their work, spouses, perhaps even children, and much of their former lives behind. They followed Jesus through uncertainty and opposition. All that sacrifice should count for something, shouldn’t it? Because hard work and sacrifice should be means to an end. Otherwise, life doesn’t make sense, and it is unfair. 

We bring these expectations into our relationship with God. We pray, serve, give, forgive, and struggle to do what is right. We expect our faithfulness to count for something. Without that assurance, why would anyone follow God? 

In response to Peter’s question, Jesus promised the disciples a place of honor when God renews all things. He also promised a rich return to those who left homes and family for His sake, along with eternal life (Matthew 19:28-29). But at the end of that conversation, Jesus made an unexpected statement. 

 Matthew 19:30:  But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.

That’s an odd statement to make. If the disciples were among the very first to follow Jesus, does this statement mean they would be the last? As puzzling as it is, Jesus then goes on to tell a parable that is even more bizarre.

Matthew 20: 1-16 “For the Kingdom of Heaven is like the landowner who went out early one morning to hire workers for his vineyard. He agreed to pay the normal daily wage and sent them out to work. “At nine o’clock in the morning he was passing through the marketplace and saw some people standing around doing nothing. So he hired them, telling them he would pay them whatever was right at the end of the day. So they went to work in the vineyard. At noon and again at three o’clock he did the same thing. “At five o’clock that afternoon he was in town again and saw some more people standing around. He asked them, ‘Why haven’t you been working today?’ “They replied, ‘Because no one hired us.’

“The landowner told them, ‘Then go out and join the others in my vineyard.’ “That evening he told the foreman to call the workers in and pay them, beginning with the last workers first.When those hired at five o’clock were paid, each received a full day’s wage. When those hired first came to get their pay, they assumed they would receive more. But they, too, were paid a day’s wage. When they received their pay, they protested to the owner, ‘Those people worked only one hour, and yet you’ve paid them just as much as you paid us who worked all day in the scorching heat.’

“He answered one of them, ‘Friend, I haven’t been unfair! Didn’t you agree to work all day for the usual wage? Take your money and go. I wanted to pay this last worker the same as you.Is it against the law for me to do what I want with my money? Should you be jealous because I am kind to others?’

“So those who are last now will be first then, and those who are first will be last.”

When discussing this parable in 2018, Dr. Weaver highlighted three important concepts of the story that I believe are worth revisiting (Judgment: Surprise, surprise!).

The first concept is a clear invitation to enter into a relationship with God. Jesus introduces this parable with the words, “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early one morning to hire workers for his vineyard”. These men didn’t just walk into the vineyard on their own; the landowner went looking for them. This invitation looks similar to the invitation to the wedding feast, but the difference is that this vineyard is a place of work. In both cases, the host takes the initiative, giving those on the outside an opportunity to enter His kingdom.

The second concept is that God is persistent in initiating these invitations. The landowner went out early, then returned repeatedly, even up until the end of the day. There is an interesting detail here. When the landowner asked why they were standing idle, the last group of people said that no one had hired them. So, these were not lazy men refusing to work; they simply lacked work until someone offered it. Isn’t it ironic that we often think we can work our way into heaven, when the fact is that we cannot even enter the kingdom without an invitation?

The third concept is that judgment and reward are the prerogative of God. In this parable, the landowner agreed to pay only the first group a standard daily wage, and he kept his word. For the remaining groups, however, he paid them based entirely on his own generosity. The right to make that decision belonged to him alone. 

Notice another detail here. Jesus deliberately places God’s judgment alongside His generosity. We often think of God’s judgment as something purely punitive, but Jesus turns that understanding upside down. This does not mean God excuses dishonesty or injustice. In fact, when the first group accused him of unfairness, the landowner strongly defended his actions. He was perfectly fair to the first workers, but his generosity toward the last group, even though it was troubling to us, was still his own prerogative. 

An interesting detail here is that the landowner deliberately instructed his manager to pay the last workers first. When the first workers saw those who worked only one hour receive a full day’s wage, they naturally expected more. They were thinking in terms of proportional fairness. Those who worked longer should receive more. By this standard, the landowner was unfair.

But when they complained, the landowner accused them of envy. He defended his decision by appealing to his own generosity. But here is another problem. Why was he not equally generous to the first workers? He gave the later workers more than they had earned, while the first workers were the only ones who received what they had agreed upon. He was generous to the others, but merely fair to the first.

So which standard of fairness was he using? Was he being fair, or was he being unfair? Jesus leaves us with this uncomfortable question.

And this brings us to something Dr. Weaver has often emphasized about God’s judgment: it is full of surprises. We assume we know what is fair and what people deserve, but God’s judgment rarely aligns with our expectations. In fact, no one in the Bible ever seems to correctly predict how God will judge a situation. If that is the case, how can we possibly rely on our own self-assessment, which falls so short of God’s wisdom? 

This brings us back to Peter’s question: “We’ve given up everything to follow you. What will we get?” 

Peter had sacrificed much to follow Jesus, and Jesus had promised him a reward. But immediately afterward, Jesus told a parable in which those who worked the longest received no more than those who worked for one hour. Was Jesus challenging Peter’s expectation that greater sacrifice should bring greater reward? If so, what was Jesus trying to teach him about the kingdom of heaven?

Jesus did not reject the value of service. But He questioned our ability to decide how much God owes us for it. 

Think about the thief on the cross. Peter had sacrificed years of his life following Jesus. What had this thief done in comparison? In the final hours of his life, he asked Jesus to remember him when He came into His kingdom. Jesus answered with a promise of paradise (Luke 23:39-43).

We might argue that Jesus promised Peter something more. He promised the disciples that they would sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28). The thief received no such promise. But Paul also tells us that believers will judge the world and even angels (1 Corinthians 6:2-3). We do not know what responsibilities the thief will receive in God’s kingdom.

In John 17, Jesus described eternal life as this. 

John 17:3 And this is the way to have eternal life—to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth.

If eternal life is fundamentally about being in a relationship with God, then both Peter and the thief received the same essential gift despite the difference in the length and depth of their service. That means eternal life doesn’t depend on what we do, but entirely on God’s grace.

This brings us to the real difficulty. Jesus promised Peter a reward for his sacrifice, but then followed it with a parable that completely challenges our human notions of fairness and reward. Why would Jesus describe the kingdom of heaven this way?

Notice something else. Jesus said the first would be last and the last would be first. But in the parable, the first workers did not lose anything, nor did the last workers receive more money than the first. Everyone received the same wage. The only reversal was in the order of payment. The landowner deliberately instructed his manager to pay the last workers first, allowing the first workers to see what everyone else received. And that changed everything. The landowner never explained why he was more generous to those who worked less. 

So in what sense are the first last and the last first? Jesus does not deny the value of Peter’s sacrifice, but neither does He explain why those who come last should receive the same gift. Does our greater faithfulness give us a greater claim on God’s generosity? And if it does not, what is the point of being faithful in the first place? If God’s grace is freely given regardless of what we have done, does it still matter to Him what we do or fail to do? Why?

David: That was one of the most exciting talks I’ve heard in a long time, and it really got me thinking. One of my first thoughts concerns the distinction between first and last. What Jesus is saying, as I see it, is that there is no meaningful difference between first and last. There is no first, and there is no last. They are the same thing. He’s saying that the distinction simply doesn’t exist.

The other point concerns fairness and getting what you deserve. To me, the lesson Jesus is trying to bring out in the parable, and in the story of the thief on the cross, is that God is not dealing with questions of fairness and what people deserve. He’s dealing with what people need, and what they need is grace.

Why the disciples get special treatment, with thrones and so on, I don’t know. It seems to be a special case just for the disciples. As for the rest of us, God will give us just what we need.

That is also the case for the last workers to arrive. Remember, they were not asked earlier. They didn’t go late because they were lazy, avoiding work. They needed work to feed their families, too, and if it cost a denarius to feed a family, they would have wanted to work long enough to earn it. Whether they worked one hour or ten hours, their need was for a denarius to feed their families, and that’s what they got from this employer.

Donald: I had pretty much the same thoughts. We tend to think of last and first, or first and last, as a concept of order: get to the back of the line, get to the front of the line. But if you think about everyone as being the same, the line comes apart.

I don’t know how it reads in the original language, whether it reads as definitively as “last” and “first.” If it does, that causes a little confusion, because it doesn’t suggest that the line simply becomes undone and everybody is the same, with no order in the line.

We’re thinking along similar lines about this business of hiring somebody and having them work all day. I recognize that they’re hired, and because they’re hired, we tend to think that this person worked so many hours and therefore gets a certain amount, while another person worked a different number of hours and gets a different amount. But I’ve always wanted to think about it as someone giving you a gift, which would be grace.

Imagine everybody sitting around on Christmas morning, and the person giving the gifts gives one here, another there, and so on. There is nothing about a gift that suggests you deserve something. A gift is something given by the giver based upon their appreciation for you and who you are. It’s not because you’re the older brother and have been around longer, so you get a bigger gift, while the younger brother hasn’t been around as long and gets something smaller. You don’t have to measure.

I realize parents struggle with this when it comes to children and fairness. Did this child get this, and did that child get that? But here we are again, making a judgment about the appropriateness of what the giver has done. The very nature of a gift is that it’s a gift. It’s not a wage that somebody has earned.

What throws us off track is that the workers are hired. If this had been a distribution of gifts, and the gifts were not equal in value, we might think about it differently. But because they’re hired, we tend, at least in our way of thinking, to say, “Wait a minute, this person deserves more.”

Then, because of the way the story is described, we move from the concept of hiring to the concept of a line, with first and last, front and back. That makes the conversation more challenging for us to work through. If we simply say that it’s a gift and not a wage, we can understand it much better. And if we undo the order and put everybody in the same space, without a front or a back, then everybody is simply there. All are the same.

But apparently that’s not the way it reads in the Bible, and that causes some confusion.

Don: I’m thinking about the metaphor of an airplane ride. Within the airplane, there are first-class seats, business-class seats, comfort seats, and coach seats. Everybody’s travel experience is not identical. But in the end, when the plane touches down, everyone reaches the same destination at the same time.

I’m wondering whether grace might be somewhat like that. Each individual’s experience is different, but in the end, you arrive at the same place because of grace.

Kiran: But in this case, I feel that all the people who bought different kinds of tickets got bumped up into first class. So it doesn’t seem fair to the person who paid for a first-class ticket.

David: It’s a bit gruesome, but I almost think the plane would have to crash. Then there would be no difference between any of the classes.

Where Don’s analogy falls down is that when you get to your destination, the first-class passengers get off first. The rest of us in cattle class are stuck waiting in the aisle for what seems like an interminable amount of time. So I like the analogy, but only if the plane crashes at the end. It’s a bit morbid, but…!

Donald: It’s also about words, because Christ suggested that there would be a reward. But a reward is different from asking, “What do I get?”

In all three situations, the language doesn’t seem to help us understand what’s really being communicated. And surely that wouldn’t be a mistake. So how do we work our way through it?

Robin: The Bible is full of examples of people who come under conviction at different times, perhaps after different circumstances in their lives, and that’s led by the Holy Spirit.

If you’re a murderer, you have the example of Moses, who ended up leading the Israelites out of captivity, or King David, who actually plotted a murder in order to gain another man’s wife. How much more heinous a sin can you commit? And yet David, when he relinquished his guilt to the Holy Spirit, became the greatest king of ancient Israel.

Then there’s the thief on the cross. He had only minutes left to live, but approximately 2,000 years later, we’re still talking about him because of the hope someone can find when they learn of that story.

Reinhard: My interpretation is that Jesus is speaking about the same reward for everybody who came to work in the vineyard, whether they came early or late. In this case, I understand the reward to mean salvation. Some people become believers early in life, while others come to believe much later. But the reward is the same.

I’m talking about the end of the world and the reward of entering the kingdom of heaven. Some people may become believers on the last day of their lives, while others have been lifelong believers. In the end, there is only one reward: entering the kingdom of God. That’s my interpretation of the parable.

The second thing I’d like to mention concerns rank, the first and the last. I’ve been thinking about what heaven will be like, and I believe there will be some kind of structure, perhaps an administrative structure. Remember when John the Baptist sent his disciples to ask Jesus whether he really was the one who was coming? Jesus answered, in Matthew 11:11, that among those born of women there had not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist, but that the least in the kingdom of heaven was greater than he.

That’s interesting, because it suggests that there may be a structure among those who live in heaven. There may be different levels of responsibility, with people managing or doing different things. It may not be the same for everybody. We should also remember the angels. There are different orders of angels, such as the seraphim, who remain in God’s presence, and the cherubim. There are also angels who are sent to communicate with people, such as Gabriel, who appeared in the Old Testament and announced the birth of Jesus to Mary.

When Jesus speaks about the first and the last, and about being a servant, perhaps he is telling us something about what will happen in the future. People will be saved through grace, regardless of their background, their status in society, or when they came to believe in God. Even the least, including the poor, will receive the same reward: entering the kingdom of heaven.

That’s what I understand Jesus to be saying in the parable. The reward is the same for everybody. It’s one denarius. Salvation is also one thing: entering heaven. There is nothing more than that.

David: I agree absolutely. You cannot be 15 percent of the way into heaven, allowed in that far but not the rest of the way. You cannot be 75 percent saved. You’re either in or you’re out. You’re either saved or you’re not saved. So I agree with Reinhard, and that interpretation is something we can reasonably read into these parables.

Donald: Human understanding makes this rather complex. I remember what we were taught as children, although I’m not sure how to understand it now as an adult. We were taught that we would have crowns, and that there would be jewels in our crowns based upon our lives. There was the possibility that one person would have a larger crown with more jewels, while someone else would have a smaller crown with fewer jewels, or perhaps no jewels at all.

Then there’s the statement, “I have prepared a home for you.” Does that mean all the homes are the same? And if they are all the same, where are they in proximity to God? Is everybody in the same space?

It seems to be human nature to bring order and fairness into this conversation, but grace disrupts that whole way of thinking.

Sharon: From a social worker’s perspective, I see Jesus trying to overturn, or invert, the earthly power structures that existed then and still exist today.

I’m thinking about the passage in Matthew where Jesus talks about the least of these, and about seeing his face in the least of these. We’re talking about the divine presence being found in the very people who are marginalized and rejected, people whom the world considers unworthy of attention or effort. I love Jesus’ way of bringing us back to his core values, where those who are least become the most.

When we think about the opportunities we have to spend time with people, we often don’t particularly enjoy spending time with the least of these. We prefer being with people like ourselves. So what challenge does this teaching present to us today, this concept of the least becoming the most and the most becoming the least? Isn’t it about having the heart of a servant, and about valuing simple faith above social status or rank?

I also appreciate what we’ve been saying about equitable grace. We are all 100 percent saved because of what Jesus did on the cross. There is no differentiation between the worst person and the best person in that respect.

But I’d like us to challenge ourselves when we think about the least of these from a biblical, moral, and societal perspective. We have been given complete, equitable grace. What are we committed to doing to ensure that we ourselves see the face of our Divine Maker in those very people who are marginalized by society and by the world? I believe that is part of what lies at the root of this parable.

Don: David makes an important point that grace is binary. Either you accept grace or you reject it. You’re saved by grace, or you’re lost because you didn’t embrace it.

I’m wondering whether “the first shall be last and the last shall be first” is simply another way of saying that grace is free of rank. Just as the first becoming last and the last becoming first eliminates rank, so grace itself is free of rank.

Perhaps we shouldn’t take the expression as literally as we sometimes do, but understand it as a statement that grace is not something that can be ranked.

Carolyn: For me, the idea of the first and the last still suggests some kind of position, and we naturally try to picture ourselves in relation to it. I’d love to hear more about what we will actually do in heaven, and what we expect heaven to be like.

As so many people have said, I don’t want to spend eternity sitting on a cloud playing a violin. Others imagine having a big house and all sorts of things to do. But will we have positions in heaven? Will it matter whether we were first or last? Will anything be different because of how we are regarded? Being at the right hand of the Father is a position that everyone would love to occupy, to feel the love of Jesus.

I don’t believe the Lord has given us a very clear picture of these things. I hesitate to say that because it sounds rather negative, but I’ve always wondered what an ordinary day in heaven would look like. Will we have day and night? Will I be able to be with my family, or will I be with another group? Will I have a job in heaven? I’m not seeking a job, but these are the kinds of questions that come to mind.

My thinking is still so human that I have no real conception of what is to come. That makes it difficult to picture what the first and last might mean for the workers in the vineyard. Some worked all day in the hot sun, while others came in for only an hour. There was judgment involved in how people viewed that situation.

I have many questions and not many answers, but I do have grace. I know the love of the Father and the Son, and we have the Holy Spirit within us. Still, there are so many things I wonder about. Perhaps we simply have to accept that this is where we are in our understanding, at least in this life.

Donald: That being said, think about Gabriel. Correct me if I’m wrong, but there was order among the angels. It seems there were angels of lesser rank than Gabriel. So we’re going to have to work through this.

If we follow Don’s airplane analogy, we all get to heaven, but then we’re going to have different places in heaven, and we’re all going to feel good about that. That’s going to be challenging to understand. We’re trying to put human understanding around something that is divine.

David: The Jehovah’s Witnesses have not just the twelve rewards; they have the 144,000, for people who exist in a different part of heaven to govern the rest of the people.

Donald has often pointed to similarities between medicine and Christian behavior. I was reminded of this because I had the great privilege on Thursday of attending the Detroit Trauma Symposium, where some wonderful surgeons were talking about their experiences in trauma care. Many cases were discussed, and something struck me that seems particularly relevant to our discussion.

One case might be that of a 30-year-old male brought into the emergency room with a gunshot wound, smelling of alcohol and obviously high on drugs. The surgeons need to know this information in order to treat the patient, but there is never the slightest suggestion of judgment about whether they should even bother treating him. Of course they must try to save him. That is their one and only concern.

It came across very powerfully. It’s simply the way these surgeons behave. It’s not even debatable. It’s a wonderful thing to behold, and it was a great privilege to be there.

Donald: And if you take that even further, that same person may eventually come before the legal system and have to be executed. Unbelievable!

The medical system, at least as I’m familiar with it in America, has no rank or order in that sense. There’s a place for you in the hospital based upon your medical needs, but there’s no suggestion that you’re better than another person.

When I was in Europe, there were two floors where people were treated differently—not medically, but in other respects. There may be something for us to consider in the hospital analogy. There are different places in the hospital: cardiac care, children’s care, cancer care, and so on. But I don’t believe there’s any rank involved.

Don: Some people require intensive care, while others require more routine or maintenance care. Maybe some of us need intensive grace.

Donald: Well, the intensive care unit is a different place from the emergency department, isn’t it?

Don: Yes, certainly.

Donald: But they’re both dealing with critical situations, as opposed to an ordinary hospital room.

Robin: I’d like to share something that occurred to me while we were talking about angels and their rank, and the disciples and their rank. That’s God’s business. He can rank whoever he wants, however he wants. But it reminds me of an old hymn called Holy, Holy, Holy Is What the Angels Sing. I’m not going to sing it, at least not without accompaniment!

The words are:

Holy, holy is what the angels sing,
And I expect to help them make the courts of heaven ring;
But when I sing redemption’s story, they will fold their wings,
For angels never felt the joys that our salvation brings.

The angels will actually be envious—well, perhaps envy would be a sin, so astounded might be a better word—by what Christ did for fallen human beings.

Reinhard: I’d like to return to the question of who will be first and who will be last. Remember that Jesus also spoke about who would be the greatest. On one occasion, the disciples were arguing among themselves, and Jesus asked what they were discussing. In Matthew 20, he talks about greatness, which is similar to the question of who is first and who is last. Jesus said that whoever wants to be the greatest must become a servant.

This is interesting because it concerns how we live on earth. To become great, we must be servants. Whether this is directly related to salvation is another question.

There’s also the story of the rich man and Lazarus. In that story, the rich man went to hell, while Lazarus, who was a beggar, went to Abraham’s bosom. As I remember it, the story doesn’t give much explanation beyond the fact that the rich man had enjoyed a good life on earth.

Perhaps people who enjoy a good life have a greater tendency to act against God’s will and therefore fail to receive salvation. People who suffer, who are economically disadvantaged or needy, may be among the least who will share in the kingdom of heaven. This is something worth discussing further, because the story of the rich man and Lazarus doesn’t provide much explanation of why the rich man went to hell.

I’d also like to comment on the angels. Kiran mentioned that someday we will even judge angels. Human beings and angels have different roles. Angels were created as beings who are close to God. They haven’t experienced what human beings go through. Yet the Bible tells us that those who are saved will judge angels.

Angels were created with powers greater than those of human beings, and they live in the presence of God. Human beings, on the other hand, experience temptation and all the difficulties of earthly life. Perhaps the fact that redeemed human beings will judge angels tells us that we will someday have a higher rank in heaven.

We must remember that Jesus is God, who came down to earth and sacrificed himself for humanity. That tells us how greatly God values human beings, whom he created in his own image. We are a special part of his creation.

Perhaps the redeemed will enjoy a special relationship with God in heaven, even closer in some respects than that of the angels. Remember Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration. They spoke face-to-face with Jesus. Angels have their own roles, but they also have limitations. They serve as God’s representatives in dealing with humanity.

My point is that redeemed human beings may have a special status in heaven. I also believe there will be work for us to do. Earlier, I mentioned the possibility of ranks or positions in heaven, and Jesus’ statement that even the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John the Baptist suggests some kind of structure.

We don’t know what those positions will be, but I assume there will be responsibilities. We’re going to live forever, and I don’t believe eternity will be boring. Perhaps we’ll have assignments or things to do on a daily basis. We don’t know yet. Scripture tells us that there are things we have never seen or heard, and that is what heaven will be like.

David: I’d like to extend the metaphor of the surgeon as God, because many patients—not all, of course—who end up in the operating room are there because they’ve essentially broken the doctor’s orders, broken the commandments: don’t drink, don’t smoke, don’t drive too fast. These are all things doctors tell their patients. So they’re there because they’ve broken the law, in a sense. But when they’re on the operating table, the surgeon pays absolutely no regard to that fact whatsoever. The only concern is saving the life of the person on the table.

It’s a wonderful metaphor for what Jesus is talking about in these parables. It’s about grace. God is concerned only with our salvation. In terms of Kiran’s talk, there are two components: the judgment aspect and the grace aspect. The more I think about it, the judgment aspect is almost irrelevant. In fact, I would make the statement that where there is grace, judgment is irrelevant.

Don: What do you mean by irrelevant, David? Do you mean that judgment has its own place?

David: I almost think—and I am perhaps being heretical—that it’s as though judgment doesn’t exist, that God is not judgmental, which, of course, contradicts so many things said in the Bible.

If God is a God of grace, I just don’t see how judgment enters into it. Think again of the surgical metaphor. You may be operating on a patient who came in extremely high on drugs and drunk, perhaps someone with a history of coming in with gunshot wounds because he’s a drug dealer. You might have some judgmental thoughts: “Why should I bother I treating this patient?” But nothing stops you from your commitment to saving that life. So judgment, if it’s there in your mind, is irrelevant to the work of saving that person. And that’s what I mean about grace and salvation.

Carolyn: In John 3:16, and then in the following verses, it says that God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save us. We live in fear of judgment, and as you just said, David, I don’t believe we necessarily have to wait for the great judgment to come. I may not even be around for that great judgment.

Perhaps I have some of this mixed up, but there is an assurance that comes from God’s grace. Once I have that grace, it would take a great deal to tear me away from my Father and from the one who gave us salvation through the cross. He’s also given us the Holy Spirit to live by. That doesn’t mean we’ll always be perfect, but I believe we’ve met our judgment when we accept Jesus.

There’s a certain peace in that. I can sit back and say, “Oh, thank you, Lord. You have saved me.”

Reinhard: I believe God’s grace will be given to those who honestly try to follow his law. We’re not saved by the law; we’re saved by the grace of God. But there is still something to consider about what you mentioned earlier, David, concerning those who have broken the law. God has his own standards by which he will judge.

When we talk about judgment, we’re also talking about punishment. There is eternal punishment, which is what we want to avoid. But there is also temporary judgment or punishment that we experience while living on this earth, sometimes for things we may deserve. Perhaps those experiences are intended to teach us something, to make us more careful and more aware of the need to avoid eternal judgment.

That’s part of why we have these discussions every week. We offer comments and advice that may have an impact on our future lives, even on our eternal future. We want to encourage one another to remain steadfast in what we believe and in what we know we should do.

It’s a good thing that we have God’s grace. We should honestly try to do our best to follow his law. That’s part of what it means to be Christian. But ultimately, our future depends on God’s grace.

Don: Perhaps that’s a good note on which to end this morning. We’ll look forward to continuing our discussion of these scandalous ideas that Jesus has provoked us to think about. 

* * *