First, the quote comes from Jesus telling a parable (Matt 25:31-46). It's the story of the King gathering sheep and goats. The sheep are on His right and the goats on His left. The sheep cared for "the least of these" and the goats did not. The sheep are welcomed into the kingdom and the goats are sent to eternal punishment. That is, this is serious business.
So who are "the least of these"? We don't have to figure it out. Jesus states it in the text.
"Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me." (Matt 25:40)He explains that "the least of these" are "these brothers of Mine." Well, now, that limits it, doesn't it?
You see, despite the warm and fuzzy notion that we're all God's children and all brothers, Scripture is abundantly clear that this just isn't so. John wrote, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name." (John 1:12) Paul wrote that those whom God foreknew are being "conformed to the image of His Son so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren." (Rom 8:29) It is only those who are in Christ who are classified as "these brothers of Mine" and not the general public.
This is consistent with Jesus's teaching. "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35) Speaking to His disciples, He referenced love for one another, not "everybody." We are to love everybody -- our "neighbors" -- but this love for the brethren is a specific and special component of that which identifies us as His disciples.
The difference in Jesus's story in Matthew 25 between the sheep and the goats was not what they did. The difference was in what they were -- sheep or goats. They might resemble one another, but they're not the same. What they were -- sheep or goats -- reflected in what they did. In the same way, if we are His disciples (sheep), it should reflect in what we do. What we should be doing (almost unknowingly, according to the story) is naturally caring for God's people in need. And if we are not, we should really check our status. "Do I just resemble a sheep? Am I actually a goat??" Because the mark of a believer is love for the brethren. And "the least of these" refers to God's people -- brethren -- for whom we ought to be caring. Especially these days.
14 comments:
Note: I don't know what he's saying. I get notified that "Feodor" commented and I delete it. But what I can't figure out is why he keeps commenting when he said he wouldn't anymore. I thought for just awhile that he would be honest, true to his word, because he was quiet for awhile. I don't know what to conclude from his constant commenting in the face of his assurance that he was done commenting here, but I canNOT conclude he's a person of integrity.
Stan,
Well done as always.
I don't think the folx who use this as a proof text really understand the notion that what makes people sheep or goats is not their actions, the separation has already occurred. Jesus is simply pointing out that sheep act one way and goats act another.
The other thing that those who use this as a proof text ignore is that the parable is pretty clear about the ultimate fate of the goats. It's amusing to hear folx who argue against any concept of Hell that involves anything unpleasant, sing the praises of this text while ignoring a major point.
The folx who use this a s proof text tend to be folx who are perfectly fine with harm being done to those who are very truly the "least of these".
I think that there is a case to be made that Jesus taught, and the early Church lived out an ethic where those in the "family" so to speak were the primary focus of charity and help. Obviously, there is an expectation to help everyone, but there are too many instances where those calls are couched in language that indicates a special concern for believers. I could be wrong, but I think it's could be an interesting discussion.
Your conclusion fits all the available evidence.
For those who use this text as a prooftext for their SJW demands, do you suppose they mean to point out that if we don't we go to hell? (I doubt it.)
I think that they take helping the least of these as broadly and woodenly literally as they can, while taking the outer darkness and teeth part as narrowly and figuratively as possible.
It’s a strange thing where they pick parts of a story as literal, and other parts as not.
I’m pretty sure that they mean that no one (Hitler included) goes to Hell in the sense that most orthodox Christians would envision it.
I’ve seen the “It’s hell on earth”, or “Hellish existence” type of things offered as explanations. Neither seems to fit. .
Just curious. When does a commenter become classified as a stalker?
Good question, I've wondered the same thing.
It is interesting that one distinctive of the early Christians concern for the least of these was their concern for the children abandoned by the Romans to die. Yet, now we have people who claim the name of Christ protect the least of these by killing them.
Just goes to show that "We define the least of these ... and they aren't necessarily the least."
Least is in the eye of the beholder.
It's ironic that a stalker who dares question our understanding of the faith never seems to engage in behavior which is reflective of it.
Dan, you should probably read and understand before you complain. I said, "We are to love everybody -- our 'neighbors' -- but this love for the brethren is a specific and special component of that which identifies us as His disciples." I said that "the least of these" refers to "brethren" and is a "special component." I said we are to love everybody, but we are to love "brethren" especially.
It's a funny thing. There are some -- not very many in my experience, but some -- who act like stalkers. They hunt down those with whom they disagree and hound them. They make a point of worrying them (I'm using "worrying" in the sense of a carnivorous animal tearing at and shaking a prey), declaring boldly "My view is right and yours is wrong ... and it's wrong to argue that your view is right!" It's funny because I don't do that. I've never hunted down heretics, chased down naysayers, pursued "the enemy." I rarely even mention names on my own blog. Hunting heretics is not my job. Pursuing the truth is, and that's only personal (as opposed to those who hunt down the persons with whom they disagree) in the sense that "the truth" is a Person whom I long to pursue with great affection.
You haters will do what haters do. No skin off my nose. I know how to block comments. It's just a shame that you can't see it as the hate it appears to be and the hate it is and classify yourselves as "knights" defending your own views ... with hate. By classifying it as "noble" you remove the sense of sin which, I suppose, is the point, isn't it?
I've been accused of stalking because I respond to comments and opinions published on forums with invitations to do so. I suppose two we have in mind could make the same case, were it not for their being asked not to do so due to their manner. Ironically, they could make that case as well, except they block and delete due to THEIR manner as well. That is to say, similarities are superficial and I'll continue to be welcoming provided basic codes of good conduct...you know...the Golden Rule/do no harm codes...are followed. (Not that they will be.)
Stan,
Because the most effective way to engage in a discussion is to overwhelm your opponent with sheer volume of how right you are, then add in vitriol, snark, condescension, arrogance, and expletives, viola you’ve won.
Post a Comment