It is possible to look at this passage and sidestep the contentious issue of whether the ‘coming’ of the Son of Man in v.31 is 1st century or future (or both!), because the issue of Jesus’s identification with his ‘brothers’ - v.40 & 45 - bears similar application in both a past and future understanding of ‘coming’.

Who are “the least of these brothers of mine” - v.40, and “the least of these” - v.45?

A ‘brother’ of Jesus is an interesting word in context. Matthew’s gospel might not necessarily have suggested such an intimacy of relationship between Jesus and his followers. Nevertheless, the primary meaning has to be understood as such (brother = disciple of Jesus) - and not least because of the supporting passage:

“He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me. Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man’s reward. And if anyone gives a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward.” - Matthew 10:41.

An expanded gloss on the Jesus/brother relationship is provided by Hebrews 2:5-18. There is the strong identification of Jesus as brother with his followers: “so Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers” - Hebrews 2:11. The steps of logic which lead to this conclusion are particularly interesting, and not based on sentiment, or limited to a purely 1st century context, or even a purely humanan phenomenon:

- Jesus’s primary mission was to “taste death for everyone”- Hebrews 2:9, in order to bring “many sons to glory” - Hebrews 2:10, by making them holy - Hebrews 2:11, and of the same family as himself Hebrews - 2:11

- The Jesus who shared in the same (flesh and blood - Hebrews 2:14) was by implication the Jesus whose origin was not flesh and blood. He humbled himself to become lower than the angels, yet received glory, honour and power - Hebrews 2:7-8

- Jesus had not known what it was to suffer by being tempted, and so had to be made “like his brothers in every way” - Hebrews 2:17, to become a High Priest on their behalf so that “he might make atonement (hilasmos - cp hilasterion) for the sins of the people; yet he endured suffering through temptation - Hebrews 2:18, so that he could help those who were being tempted.

The suffering here is by implication the suffering of persecution.

If the sense of Matthew 25:31-46 is taken as future, then there is no problem about applying the meaning of ‘brothers’ to any follower of Jesus in any age. That is how the passage has always been understood, and visiting those in prison has been applied to visiting Christians imprisoned for their faith in any age - either by going to them, or sending messages of encouragement, for instance, and by being active on their behalf. Visiting those in prison has also been applied to believers who are imprisoned in other ways, such as in countries where there is no freedom of movement beyond national borders, or where there are oppressive regimes of one kind or another. The body of Christ has a primary responsibility to care for other members of the body who are suffering around the world.

If there is no sense of Matthew 25:31-46 beyond the 1st century, then there is still an ethical responsibility for this mutual care to be exercised in all ages, whether the passage declared it or not.

Is it then valid to extend the meaning of “the least of these brothers of mine” and “the least of these” to those who may not recognisably be followers of Jesus, but suffer in similar ways?

I think there is a secondary, but no less important application of the meaning of Matthew 25:31-46 to all those who suffer, whose suffering may be relieved by acts of compassion, but who may not be followers of Jesus - and for a particular reason. First, in the OT there is a consistent bias of YHWH towards the poor and needy, a bias which is clearly apparent in the ministry of Jesus. Admittedly, these are the poor and needy of Israel, but then it cannot be assumed that the remnant community of faith alone was those to whom YHWH and Jesus showed favour. The poor were favoured because they were poor, not on the precondition that they showed faith. Secondly, poverty was and is frequently a consequence of injustice, and therefore, indirectly or directly, a form of persecution.

Jesus then, and YHWH, identified with the poor and suffering of all kinds. ‘To identify’ means ‘to stand alongside’, ‘to suffer with’. This identification is suggested in the beatitude: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” - Matthew 5:3. It is a strong identification. It is suggested in the many times Jesus had compassion on the crowds, where the crowds consisted of the hungry - Matthew 15:32; the “harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” - Matthew 9:36.

So it seems to me that there is validity in taking a secondary, and by no means less important application of the meaning of “brothers” and “least of these” to those who are suffering anywhere, with whom Jesus identified. In bringing relief to them, we also bring relief to him. This would be the case whether one had a past or future understanding of the “coming” of Jesus in Matthew 25:31-46 (or both); but there would be a stronger sense in which the meaning of “brothers” would be towards Jesus’s followers if the “coming” had been 1st century, since the urgency of the task to gather followers would have been greater under those circumstances, and the humanitarian mandate of the church perhaps less of a worldwide priority - although there was a humanitarian mandate in those times, eg James 1:27.

All trekkies take note!