Peter, the Hebrews passage is certainly apposite - thank you for pointing that out.

But I disagree that the scope of this passage is universal. Apart from the presence in the background of the Son of man narrative (eg. 2:9-10), the argument here has to do with exactly the first century dilemma faced by the ‘offspring of Abraham’ - that is, Israel: Jesus is the ‘merciful and faithful high priest’ who makes propitiation for the sins of the nation (2:16-17). Jesus has identified himself with faithful Israel in its persecution. He tastes death not for the whole of humanity in this argument for the whole of Israel.

Matthew 25:31-46 certainly looks towards a future, but if the focus here (as in Hebrews 2) is on the fate of first century Israel, and more specifically of the community of disciples under these dangerous circumstances of renewal, this is a circumscribed future. Yes, it is appropriate to regard the later care of Christian missionaries by analogy with or in the light of this passage, but it is an over-interpretation to claim that this was what Jesus was speaking about.

And speaking of over-interpretation, I don’t see how your comments about the poor in Israel justify misinterpreting Matthew 25:31-46.There is a certain bias towards the poor in the Old Testament, not least because they are evidence of the wickedness and greed of the wealthy and powerful; and no doubt poverty is sometimes a consequence of persecution. But that has no great bearing on this passage: the fact that Jesus’ ‘brothers’ are poor does not mean that all the poor are Jesus’ brothers. This is not inconsequential.

There is a huge theological difference between seeing Jesus in the community of his disciples as they face hardship for his sake and seeing him in the poor and destitute of the world. This is not to denigrate the poor; it is simply to understand the specific thrust of Jesus’ teaching at this point. His words are not an empty bucket into which we can tip whatever meaning we like.

Likewise, the first beatitude ‘blessed are the poor (in spirit)’ has strong narrative and eschatological overtones. Along with the second statement about those who mourn it recalls Isaiah 61:1-3: the ‘poor’ in Jesus’ argument, in this redefinition of the community of Israel, are those who suffer under the present conditions of ‘captivity’, who ‘mourn in Zion’, desiring the liberation of Jerusalem. The universalizing interpretation can be sustained only by suppressing this narrative framework, and I think that’s a mistake.

It seems to me that we should no longer seek to short-cut the biblical argument by sticking isolated proof-texts on our missional endeavours.