Who are 'the least of these'?
One important point of biblical interpretation that came up during the course of a recent TREK gathering with the Christian Associates team in Gothenburg had to do with the meaning of Jesus’ story of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25:31-46. It is remarkable how this passage is widely and consistently misread as providing support for Christian service to the poor. The context was a discussion about the relation between humanitarian missional projects such as Serve the City and evangelism. The usual argument is that in serving the poor - supposedly the ‘least of these’ - we are serving Jesus. To give a salient example, in their new book ReJesus: A Wild Messiah for a Missional Church (reviewed here) Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch describe an encounter with a woman outside the ornate Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow:
There is no question that the juxtaposition of the cathedral and the pauper throws into stark relief the frequent hypocrisy, apathy and moral blindness of the church. But to suggest that this woman fulfils the part of ‘one of the least of these’, in whom Jesus himself is identifiable, is misleading. The issue of social engagement and service to the poor lies at the heart of the current debate about what it means to be ‘missional’, and it is important that we do not make careless exegetical - and inevitably theological - assumptions in our eagerness to back up our missional instincts. Judgment of the nationsThe judgment of the nations that Jesus describes occurs when ‘the Son of man comes in his glory’. Within the framework of the Gospel narrative he is speaking not of a final judgment but of that historical moment - prophetically imagined - when the disciples will be delivered from their enemies and rewarded for their faithful obedience to their Lord. Since this is a judgment of the nations, the event cannot simply be associated with the destruction of Jerusalem. Jesus must have in mind circumstances under which his followers will be vindicated against their Gentile or pagan enemies. The allusion here to the image of the Lord coming ‘and all the holy ones with him’ in Zechariah 14:5 to fight against Jerusalem’s enemies supports this reading. When the people are separated, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, those on the right ‘inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world’ (34); those on the left are dismissed ‘into the fire of the age prepared for the devil and his angels’ (41). The criterion for making this division has to do with how the nations treated ‘the least of these my brothers’ when they were hungry or thirsty or outcast or naked or unclothed. So the question is: Who are these ‘least’, these ‘brothers’? There is no basis for supposing that they are the world’s poor and destitute - Jesus only ever speaks of Israel’s poor. The usage is well enough established in Matthew: they are Jesus’ disciples, whom he sends out into the world to announce that YHWH is about to act decisively as king (this is the coming of the kingdom of God) to judge, redeem and restore his people. So the risen Jesus, for example, instructs the women: ‘Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee…’ (Matt. 28:10; cf. 12:46). The teaching given to the disciples in Matthew 10 has in view the circumstances of their mission and concludes with what is in effect a summary of the story that will be told in chapter 25: ‘whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward’. Romans 8:29 provides a further development of the motif: those who have the Spirit have been adopted as sons; if they suffer as Christ suffered, they will be fellow-heirs with him (8:16-17); they will in this manner be conformed to his image; and he will become ‘firstborn among many brothers’. Jesus’ ‘brothers’, therefore, are those who will share in his sufferings and vindication for the sake of the future of the people of God. Indeed, Paul’s accounts of his own apostolic afflictions mirror the hardships that Jesus describes (cf. Rom. 8:35; 2 Cor. 11:23-27; 12:10). Little JesusesSo the point of the parable of the sheep and goats is that the nations will be judged according to how they have responded to the presence of the Christ-like disciples in their midst. Those who treat them kindly will be surprised to discover that in so doing they have ministered to Jesus himself. They will be counted as righteous; they will inherit the life of the coming age. Those who mistreat or neglect them will, conversely, suffer the destruction that will accompany the end of the age. Presumably Jesus intends to convey to the disciples, therefore, the assurance that as they face humiliation, rejection and suffering in the course of their mission, they count as much to their Father as Jesus himself did in his sufferings and death. They are, in this quite realistic and practical sense, little Jesuses. It is not simply that they are poor, nor even that they are disciples, but that they are suffering for his sake. But the passage must also say something about the eschatological significance of the mission of the disciples for the nations - for the Greek-Roman world. It is precisely the presence among them of a community that shares willingly in Jesus’ suffering that will determine the fate of the pagan world. Their mission is not simply an invitation to believe in the gospel; it is a challenge to the nations of the Greek-Roman world to discern the reality of God in such radical, self-giving, Christ-like faithfulness. But this is not in itself an argument for serving the world’s poor. |
Comments
Re: Who are 'the least of these'?
Yes - one should not apply isolated proof texts to contexts where they simply do not apply. But I think the instinct to apply this passage to those who may not have been followers of Jesus (and in later ages) is contextually justified. I had the impression, Andrew, that you may not have followed my argument for this secondary yet no less important application of the passage.
Leaving aside the question of whether Matthew 24:31-46 has already been accomplished in history, the first important question to ask is: Where is Jesus/YHWH - in relation to the hungry, thirsty, those who are strangers, in need of clothing, sick and imprisoned and not necessarily Jesus’s followers? My answer, and that of the OT/NT, and of this passage: much closer to them than we may think, and frequently siding with them because their situation illustrates some kind of injustice - either personal or systemic - and is tantamount to persecution.
So in Matthew 25:31-46, “brother”, “least of these”, might mean something more than “disciple”, and it’s this that people are wanting to describe when they see relief for the poor and needy as relief for Jesus himself, who identifies and suffers with them.
I’m avoiding the ‘eschatological’ issues for the moment - for although I see them clearly in Hebrews 2, and clearly in Matthew 5, I see them in a very different way from you.
Just to reiterate something - I am distinguishing a primary and a secondary level of meaning in Matthew 25:36-41, but saying that the one is of no less importance than the other.
Re: Who are 'the least of these'?
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.
Re: Who are 'the least of these'?
Noted with approval and entered into the ship’s log…
In Matthew 25:36-41, Jesus’s says that his brothers are the poor, the stranger, the ill, the prisoner: all who must rely on the kindness of others. The cursed of v. 41-43 are those who did not extend this kindness. What stands out most strongly in this passage is the word “stranger” — xenos in Greek, typically translated as “foreigner.” The word is used four times in this passage, clearly drawing emphasis. The only other time the word appears in the Gospels is in Matthew 27: Judas throws away the 30 pieces of silver; the chief priests scoop it up, but because it’s blood money it’s unclean to the Jews and so they can’t use it.
“So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners (xenoi).” (Mt. 27:7)
The Hebrew word for stranger/foreigner appears frequently in the Old Testament, where almost always it refers explicitly to non-Jews. So here in Mt. 25 Jesus is explicitly and repeatedly identifying himself with the non-Jew. A couple of notable Old Testament passages might have been called to mind by those who heard Jesus’s words. After Abraham’s wife Sarah died in the land of Canaan, Abraham approached the people of Canaan with a request:
“I am a stranger and a sojourner among you; give me a burial site among you, that I may bury my dead.” (Gen. 23:4).
The Canaanites agreed, honoring this stranger Abraham by offering him the choicest of their graves.
Then there’s this commandment, passed on by Yahweh through Moses during the Exodus from Egypt:
“And you shall not oppress a stranger, since you yourselves know the feelings (literally, the soul) of a stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (Ex. 23:9)
Re: Who are 'the least of these'?
Yes, but if you’re looking for how “stranger” or “foreigner” is construed in the Old Testament, and how it would have been interpreted by Jesus and his Jewish disciples, then the word is used almost by definition to distinguish the non-Jew from the Jew. The writer of Hebrews (who comes later of course) gets it: all are strangers on the earth, Jew and Gentile alike, who “desire a better country, that is a heavenly one.”
Re: Who are 'the least of these'?
http://thesheepandthegoats.blogspot.com/
You’ve never seen Matt 25 explained this way.
Re: Who are 'the least of these'?
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!