"I was hungry and you gave Me food, I was thirsty and you gave Me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed Me, I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you visited Me, I was in prison and you came to Me." Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, "Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? And when did we see You a stranger and welcome You, or naked and clothe You? And when did we see You sick or in prison and visit You?" And the King will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these My brothers, you did it to Me" (Matt 25:35-40).There you have it. Clearly, our marching command as Christians is to feed the hungry, welcome the strangers, clothe the poor, help the sick, and visit the prisoners. These are "the least of these", and doing so is the same as doing so to Christ Himself. How much clearer do you need it to be?
As it turns out, I have to agree. How much clearer do you need it to be? Because, you see, that's not what the text says. So let's be clear what the text says as we seek to follow the words of Christ.
The text does not refer to the generic "hungry", "stranger", "poor", "sick", or "prisoner". That's what the "social justice" advocates would have you believe. That's what they would beg you to classify as "the least of these". But that's something worse that eisegesis -- reading something into Scripture. That's simply ignoring the text. Who does Jesus say He is referring to? Read His words: "the least of these My brothers." And while there are those who would like to argue that Jesus considered all humans as His brothers, He says otherwise. "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it" (Luke 8:21).
All of human life is constructed of groups. There are Jews and Gentiles, males and females, Americans and Europeans (and a host of other accompanying groups in that category). Lots of groups, depending on the context. We group people and things as a means of distinguishing them from other groups of people and things. The Bible is no exception. Groups. One group prevalent in Scripture is "brethren". This would be a group of people distinct from other groups. Jesus classified this group as "those who hear the word of God and do it". That is, this group in Matthew 25 is not "all people" or it would be a meaningless group. It is, in fact, the group of His "brothers", the same group referred to in other biblical books as "the elect" or "the chosen ones". It is believers.
Who, then, are "the least of these" believers? Well, Jesus often uses the concept of "little ones" as "the least". So, for instance, in Matthew 10 He says, "The one who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and the one who receives a righteous person because he is a righteous person will receive a righteous person's reward. 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" (Matt 10:41-42). There you see Jesus's heirarchy of the "most" and the "least". The higher echelon would be "a prophet". The lower would be "these little ones." The nondescript, the unknown, the servants of Christ who first belong to Christ but are not the "prophets". Your everyday Christians who hear the word of God and do it.
As it turns out, the Bible in general and Jesus in particular show a higher regard for these "brethren" than for mankind in general. He prayed for His disciples and pointedly not for everyone else (John 17:9). He told His disciples, "By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). That "one another" isn't "all human beings". Yes, we are commanded to love our neighbor which Jesus clearly explains is whoever is in your circle of influence. But Jesus says here that "all people" (one group) will know that His disciples (a subgroup) are His disciples by their love for one another (that same subgroup). He did not say it would be by their love for everyone.
Okay, so where do we end up? I would contend that Jesus told His disciples that they need to take care of "the least of these My brothers." His command was not to take care of everyone. We should care for people, meet needs as we see them, love our neighbors. All true. But Jesus commands that we should be showing special attention to those who belong to Christ. "Oh, good," someone might say, "so we're not required to be giving to everyone; just Christians in need." As if that's easier? Or, let me ask it this way: Are you doing it? Because whoever does not do it to the least of the believers is failing to do it to Christ.
8 comments:
Excellent points. I saw that misquoted dozens of times (literally) at the Leftist Sojourners' blog this week. And of course, these people were helping the least of these with your money and they were pro-abortion (i.e., they voted Democrat and none disagreed with their unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortion platform).
I don't understand how you can turn "the least of these" to mean the least of all humans and then support killing the very least of these.
(And by "you" I mean those who argue it means "the least of these humans" and then support abortion, not you, Neil.)
I figured as such, but thanks for the clarification!
I've always thought that the even ore foundational truth of that parable is that the "sheep" did the things they did because they were "sheep". While the "goats" didn't do what they didn't do because they were "goats". Feeding the poor didn't make the sheep into sheep, they were sheep already.
It is a frustrating misuse of a text to support an agenda.
Yeah, that fascinated me from Keith Green's song and those who think that way. "The only difference between the sheep and the goats was what they did and didn't do." No, not accurate. The difference between the sheep and the goats was that some were sheep and some were goats. Cause and effect confused. What they did indicated what they were, but they were what they were.
There ya go using the context again. When will you ever learn? :oD
Yeah, Glenn, I seem to always have the same problem -- context, context, context.
Post a Comment