Matthew 25.31-46 exemplifies the divine inversion. Inverting worldly expectations, the king explains to those gathered before his throne that they served him as king by serving the least kingly people of all: the hungry, thirsty, naked, and the sick and imprisoned. The king identifies these individuals as his very brothers.
The naive reading of the passage places the Christian disciple with those gathered before Jesus’ throne. Jesus speaks to us, promising that we meet him, the king himself, in serving “the least of these.” So, too, the Christian disciple neglects the king himself in neglecting the hungry, thirsty, naked, sick, and imprisoned. As so often in the Scriptures, the royal inversion befuddles both groups, with none recognizing the king in those they served or in those they neglected to serve.
There is, however, another reading of the passage. The alternative does not see Jesus instructing his disciples in this passage to serve him by serving the needy. Instead, the alternative reads the passage as one encouraging Jesus’ disciples to mission by promising to hold the nations to account by how they treat the evangelizing disciples—by blessing them or by persecuting them.
In the naive reading, Christ’s disciples provide food, drink, clothing, and fellowship to those in need. In the alternative reading, Christ’s disciples receive food, drink, clothing, and hospitality as those in need.
While I think there is a strong textual argument for the alternative reading, I don’t find the evidence sufficient to justify jettisoning the naive reading of the passage. And it matters how the Church reads this passage (as also so many others).
There is a strong case for the alternative reading. For example, in his book, Jerusalem and Parousia, my friend, Concordia Seminary Professor Jeffrey Gibbs, draws attention to two notable items in the passage—the King’s specific reference to the needy as “my brothers” (in verses 40 and 45) and the identity of “the nations” (in verse 32) that the King gathers before him and judges by how they treat “these brothers of mine, even the least of them.”
Gibbs develops the argument in detail—too much detail to do it full justice in a brief summary. The upshot, however, is that, in this reading, those who Jesus identifies as “these brothers of mine” in Matthew 25 refers to the disciples he sent out to evangelize the nations. Among several lines of evidence, Gibbs observes that while “brothers” is applied in sundry ways in the Gospel of Matthew, Matthew records Jesus using it expressly in reference to the eleven disciples when he calls them together to give them the Great Commission (cf., Mt 28.10, 16, and 18-20).
So, too, Jesus tells his disciples, not least in Matthew 10, to expect suffering and persecution when they take his message to others. Even more piquantly in Matthew 10, Jesus identifies himself with the disciples whom he sends:
Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. . . . And 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.
Jesus reference to his disciples as “these little ones” in Matthew 10 could be a description he echoes in his reference to “the least of these” in Matthew 25.
Finally, Matthew 25 records the continuing discussion that Jesus started with his disciples when he exited the Temple early in Matthew 24. In verse 9 of chapter 24, Jesus tells the disciples that “they will deliver you into tribulation and they will kill you and you will be hated by all the nations on account of my name.” These are the same nations that the King gathers before him in Matthew.
Hence, Gibbs concludes the King’s “brothers” in Matthew 25 are not simply all of those in need, but are, poignantly, the disciples he sent, starting with the eleven, to take the Gospel to the nations. The message of Matthew 25 for this reading is that Jesus sends his disciples as sheep among the wolves, with the word of encouragement that he suffers with and in them, and that he will bless or judge the nations in accord with how they receive his disciples.
Yet the alternative argument misses the forest for the trees. The problem with the alternative argument is not the evidence it draws on to make its case, but rather the evidence it ignores. For example, Gibbs draws the reader’s attention to the language of “brothers” and “nations.” But in doing so I think he discounts too quickly the import of the larger narrative passage for who it is that Matthew 25 addresses.
Matthew 25 concludes Jesus’ Temple discourse which began in Matthew 21 with Jesus entering Jerusalem and then clearing the Temple. Jesus engages different religious factions through Mathew 23 regarding his actions. This chapter concludes with Jesus lament over Jerusalem and the coming destruction of the city and temple.
In Matthew 24, the disciples come to Jesus in private, asking for clarification on these events and his coming. These are the focus of his discussion in Matthew 24 and 25. Jesus explains to his disciples in a series of images and parables that no one knows the hour of his coming, so they must not grow weary of waiting or despair of his coming.
These images and parables up through Matthew 25.30, however, do not instruct Jesus’ disciples what it is, exactly, to be prepared for his coming. Matthew 25.31-46 closes the loop: As Jesus’ kingship is superlatively expressed in and through the scandal of the Cross, his kingdom comes superlatively, and just as scandalously, through service of the king’s people to his brothers, the “least of these.”
So it seems that the natural expectation of the reader or hearer would be that Jesus addresses the actions of the same set of individuals that he addresses in the passages immediately preceding verse 31. Indeed, the irony of the alternative reading is that those to whom Jesus provides this instruction are not in fact present with Jesus and hearing the instruction. Further, it seems awkward to read the passage as intended to encourage the disciples when the focus is on the acting agents.
The focus on “brothers” in the passage to motivate the alternative reading seems to miss the point altogether. Jesus’ reference to “the least of these my brothers” seems to be purposefully provocative and generalizing. I take Jesus to be making a constructive identification, akin to the move he makes when he shares the story of the good Samaritan in response to his interlocutor’s questions, “And who is my neighbor?” The point of Jesus’ language is precisely to broaden our understanding of the scope of kingdom activity, not to narrow it. So, too, the gathering of the nations can be easily taken to be no more than the gathering of all “people” (v. 32) in the general resurrection.
But is this all just hair splitting on one short passage? The thing is, I suspect that one reason the Church faces such difficulty with her message of new life in the resurrected Messiah today is that it is often heard by outsiders as little more than cheap talk; nice-sounding words that don’t really make a difference. But more than just manifest evidence of the faith, the passage invites Jesus’ Church to inhabit the world that Jesus brought to earth—a world again turned right-side-up. A world in which the King wins by losing his life on a Cross, and the people liberated by that Cross serve his most royal majesty, just as bizarrely, by serving the “least of these.”
James R. Rogers is department head and associate professor of political science at Texas A&M University. He leads the “New Man” prison ministry at the Hamilton Unit in Bryan, Texas, and serves on the Board of Directors for the Texas District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.
RESOURCES
Jeffrey A. Gibbs, Jerusalem and Parousia
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
My sincere hope is that Rogers and other authors on this blog are not following the popular lead of George Weigel these days, making one's theology fit into a certain brand of politics.
In the apologetics I engage in on line, I often use this discourse in opposition to the Protestant doctrine of sola fide. The argument almost always gets down to 'this is what it means,' versus 'this is what it says.'
Matthew 25:31-46 says, do these works, go to heaven, don't do them, go to hell. There is no alternative meaning.
Secondly, we know from other evangelical texts (Matthew 12:46-50, Luke 8:21) that Jesus specifically identified his kin as his followers. He broke the tie with natural kin, and insisted that his true family were those who obeyed him.
Now having established that, if through the Tradition-guided exposition we recognize that there is some element of Jesus' kin in poor whereever they be, I have no problem with that.
“And therefore, dearest brethren, whose fear is inclined towards God, and who having already despised and trampled under foot the world, have lifted up your mind to things heavenly and divine, let us with full faith, with devoted mind, with continual labour, give our obedience, to deserve well of the Lord. Let us give to Christ earthly garments, that we may receive heavenly raiment; let us give food and drink of this world, that we may come with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob to the heavenly banquet. That we may not reap little, let us sow abundantly. Let us, while there is time, take thought for our security and eternal salvation, according to the admonition of the Apostle Paul, who says: 'Therefore, while we have time, let us labour in what is good unto all men, but especially to them that are of the household of faith. But let us not be weary in well-doing, for in its season we shall reap.'”
Here we have exhortation, which is often missing completely in “scientific” exegesis based on historical-critical method. We find the traditional (definitely not “naive”) meaning which is to do “good to all men” and also a reminder of the importance of caring for our fellow “evangelizing disciples” where Cyprian says we should do good “especially to them that are of the household of faith.” This is because an essential aspect of evangelization is just what Christ said it would be “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.” (John 13:35) That it is essential is indicated by Christ summing up His requests of us with “This is my commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you.” (John 15:12)
So we find both poorly named understandings, the “naive” and the “alternative,” in the wisdom of one of the Fathers, in whose unanimity on the Scriptures we find the result of the promised work of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church to the truth. Catholics would do well to remember that the historical-critical method, although it useful when used appropriately, originated outside the Catholic Church and has often been misused and abused according to modern Popes.
[1] I endorse the “naïve” reading of the text. I call it naïve only because most folks upon reading it for the first time (and often many times afterwards as well) think that it applies directly to Christians, and conclude that we are supposed to engage in these activities. This is as distinguished from what I take to be the closer reading provided by proponents of a main alternative view.
[2] My intention is to maintain that the "naïve" reading of the text is in fact a more-reasonable reading in relation to an important, rival reading.
[3] I do not pit the readings against each other, but rather respond to a view that does. That said, I want to present the arguments for the rival view as fairly as I can in a short column. It appears I was so fair to the view sought to criticize that some readers took me to be advocating that view.
The motivation for engaging the rival view is precisely to avoid one implication of the view: that because the passage applies to how unbelieving peoples receive Christian missionaries it, therefore, does not apply to Christians themselves. For reasons I touch on only briefly in the last paragraph, I believe it is as critical as ever, if not more so, that the Church devote herself to Matthew 25 ministries.
What other passages does Prof. Gibbs discuss? I can imagine 'Jerusalem and Parousia' going in any number of directions.
If an unbeliever had it explained to him according to Cyprian's thought, he would come away thinking that, according to Christ anyway, he has an obligation to do good to all men, even those -- especially those -- the world considers unimportant, and also to do good to those who are the followers of Christ, of which he may become a member if he so chooses. He would also get the impression that his doing good to others or neglecting to do so has grave implications -- again, according to Christ anyway -- in terms of how he will spend eternity. These basic ideas seem to me to encompass both of the understandings you discussed, in that “the nations … gathered together before him” will certainly include unbelievers who will be called into account for their treatment of, among others, Christian missionaries.
Where in the writings of the Fathers do we get the idea that Matthew 25:31-46 is exclusively a description of the judgment of unbelievers according to how they treated Christian missionaries? And if it isn't in the writings of the Fathers and one reaches that conclusion in spite of it being an entirely novel idea, do they really also then conclude that Matthew 25:31-46 does not describe at all the judgment of Christians? Does Jeffrey Gibbs think that is the case? Would that be due to a “once saved always saved” theology that assumes good works have nothing in particular to do with salvation, so Matthew 25:31-46 can't be a description of the judgment of already saved Christians who would be in no need of judgment? Is that it?
Thanks.
While others seem to have mistaken you in the opposite direction, I understood you to favor what you called the "naive" reading, and thought you were unnecessarily harsh on the "alternative"---as in, say, missing the forest for the trees. The alternative reading is not merely a fire-and-brimstone threat to the Gentiles, but also a wondrous consolation to the disciples, who, listening in on this Gospel passage and understanding it in the "alternative" sense, must surely marvel at the intimacy with which the Lord identifies them as his little brothers, and stakes the fate of the Gentiles on them. Because I believe the "alternative" is the proper historical-critical reading of the text, I judge it also the foundation of the literal and primary meaning of the text.
Nevertheless, the Patristic reading must clearly be included in the fuller sense of the Scriptures and I am glad to learn that you accept both readings.
"If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing."
The writer fatally left out the operative component of love.
We Protestants, too often turning sola scriptura into nuda scriptura, are defenseless against the liberal attack: Christ is not talking about about his unique identity, and how one's relationship to that unique identity defines one's own eternal destiny. Rather (the liberal argument goes), all Christ is teaching in this passage that all one needs to do is good deeds. All who do such deeds (the liberal claim continues) are followers of Jesus, not just those who existentially own the unique identity of Christ as the ground of their own relationship to God the Father.
Here "historical criticism" (understanding, e.g., how Jesus' kingdom sayings were redacted in the Matthean community) comes to the rescue of catholic orthodoxy. The critic recognizes the eschatological horizon of the Matthean community: it is under attack. Over against the rich and powerful elite, they are poor, suffering, imprisoned. Yet (using as background the well-documented saying about Jesus' kin being those who follow him), the community is able to present Jesus as giving this warning about the impending kingdom: to participate one must serve Jesus, and since Jesus is no longer physically present, to serve Jesus one must serve "the least of these my brothers."
With the historical-critical reading in place as foundation, and having established the uniqueness of Jesus and the key of one's relationship with Jesus, the church can then add the signification of the "naive" reading.
(2) James Rogers writes, "Further, it seems awkward to read the passage as intended to encourage the disciples when the focus is on the acting agents." But this is not awkward at all. Is it not a standard apocalyptic literary device to encourage the disciples by focusing on the actions of others? In this case, the apocalyptic motif is quite consistent with Matthew 24.
(3) The message of the alternative reading dovetails especially neatly with the beginning of Matthew 26, where the woman with the alabaster jar is favored because of her attention to Jesus, but the chiefs priests and elders, the disciples, and Judas Iscariot, respectively, are disfavored to varying degrees according to how they trouble Jesus and the woman.