It all depends on what you think the context of the passage is, Andrew. If you limit it to the 1st century, then you have stronger reasons for excluding my secondary interpretation - in which, again, I think you haven’t really followed the argument I was making.

Context is the heart of the issue, and applies to biblical interpretation of all kinds - right down to the devotional use of the bible by individuals in which time and again God speaks directly through passages which have very little to do with them historically. (Tut tut!).

But in Matthew 25:31-46, the issue is not a devotional (mis)reading. This class will remain behind after school and re-read my interpretation until they are able to give, in their own words, satisfactory evidence that they have understood it.