DISQUS

hewhocutsdown · 1 year ago

Now that got me in the 'Christmas spirit'...and that actually means a lot to me, personally, thinking of Jesus thinking ahead and considering the hard times his newborn siblings would face.

Thanks, big bro.

BDRhodes · 1 year ago

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I've been waiting, whether I knew it or not, for such a thoughtful explanation of this passage. You snap it into the bigger short-term eschatological crisis faced by the early Palestinian church brilliantly and beautifully.

I wonder, though, if it is hermeneutically possible to use this passage as a way to also understand God's intentions for life within the church, or for understanding God's wider concern and impossibly obscure preference for hanging out with (nay, solidly identifying with!) the 'least of these.' I wonder if, as the Orthodox teach us about ikons, we can look through this passage into that wider reality. I don't mean to let that be a gateway to exegetical sloppiness, but I do think we can see a big part of the heart of God in this than our neo-preterism might otherwise foster.

Merry Christmas to you, too. :)

Danny Kam · 1 year ago

I have never considered an interpretation like this before. Thanks for sharing it. I think that some conservative people would still consider it "liberal" though because it seems to make room for saving 'pagans' outside of the redemptive power of Christ (i.e. that pagans can be saved through works).

Micael · 1 year ago

I do not agree. I admit that I have been thinking of this passage very much, but not as much who "the least of these" are but rather who "the people of all nations" are. To take this passage as an argument for that we are saved by deeds and not by works... that would be grabbing Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, yeah all letters of Paul accually and throw them down the cliff... and do likewise with the other passages that claims that we are righteuss through the blood of Christ only. I say this passage shows that there are differences between Christians who put their faith into deeds and the Christians who don't. Faith without deeds is dead. And if you call yourslef a Christian and do not care about the poor, the question is how much you are a follower of Christ, and if you will make it on the last day.

Paul Munn · 1 year ago

I'm surprised and encouraged to read this interpretation of a story that is so often short-changed. Several years ago, I came to similar conclusions.

While living and working in a Catholic Worker house (shelter and soup kitchen), I noticed the spiritual struggle to "see Christ in the poor" when many of the people we served were acting just about the opposite of Jesus. Experiences like that make the usual (very widespread) "liberal" interpretation of this story a source of great confusion. And on top of that, there's sometimes even a spiritual bullying connected with it. Like the poster I once saw in a church: "Those who can't see God in the poor are atheists indeed" (attributed to Dorothy Day, though I think it's a misquote). None of this comes from Jesus' story.

I wrote about this parable in a series of journal entries (beginning here: http://cimarronline.blogspot.com/2005/02/all-na...). As you point out, "all nations" seems to refer to nonbelievers or those not following Jesus, who do not recognize him. The word translated nations, ethnos, is used in at least two other passages in Matthew to refer to "Gentiles," or those outside the people of God (Mt 6:32; 20:25). And nowhere else does Jesus identify himself with the poor in general. He does, however, identify himself with his followers, such as earlier in Matthew 10:40: "He who receives you, receives me." Which supports your conclusion that "the least of these my brothers" refers to his followers who are poor, hungry, imprisoned, outcasts, because they have followed Jesus.

This is not to say that we should neglect the needy who are not followers of Jesus. The parable of the good Samaritan gives us clear enough guidance for how to act when we encounter anyone who needs help.

But, as you mention, this reading of the parable of the sheep and goats reminds us that Jesus expected his followers to be in need themselves. As I wrote in my journal:

"When we think of those who are hungry, strangers, prisoners, we usually do not think of Christians. We think of Christians as responsible, upstanding, respected citizens. We think of Christians as those in charge of soup kitchens and other relief organizations. We don't think of Christians as those in need of help. But Jesus' own life, and his teaching, and his disciples' experience, all show the Christian life as an experience of persecution, vulnerability, need. Sheep amidst wolves."

And I hope we don't think it was that way just for the first century followers. It'll be the same for us as we follow Jesus more closely.

Which is just as well, because the cross is a much more powerful witness than the soup ladle.

Micael · 11 months ago

Now this was a comment that made me think... thank you. It is a very interesting interpretion of the text that it is rather a call to the disciples to be poor than to help them (without claiming that they shouldn't help them of course). It was also probably what Daniel wrote above, but I didn't see that... excuse me.

And speeking of seeing Christ in the poor... you have right that poor people aren't often Christ-like, just as rich people aren't. Although we like the thought of rich as evil and poor as righteous and we get, as you say, disappointed. It took a while before I could accept that many poor people wage war and steal and rob each other in for example Africa.

But we must remember that just as poor people are as sinful as rich people, both rich and poor are made in the image of God. Not only the poor but also the rich, the warlords and the hypocrites have a sparkle of godliness in them.

Daniel · 12 months ago

Thanks for the comments folks.
For further reading on my eschatology, and the source of my exegesis, NT Wright is a good gateway, but Andrew Perriman's "The Coming of the Son of Man" has been my main inspiration (see also opensourcetheology.net and andrewperriman.com).
As for the whole 'who gets saved' game--the error is to continue to think of Christianity as primarily concerned with the destination of purportedly eternal souls. That this is a mistake is neither a liberal nor a conservative claim (such unhelpful categories), as NT Wright makes clear (cf. e.g. "Surprised by Hope").
Jesus cared about the faithfulness of the people of God. As the renewed people of God then, our question shouldn't be 'who is or isn't "saved"?', but rather, are we being faithful? Period. Full stop.
Our hope in Resurrection means we should hope for God to redeem all that can possibly redeemed--and the scope of that redemption cannot be artificially narrowed to two or three human 'souls'. Nay, the very Creation itself groans (think plant and non-human animal life too!)!!!

Peace,
-Daniel-

BDRhodes · 12 months ago

Ahhh, wonderful.

Perriman, though I have carefully read two of his books ('Coming of...' and 'Re:Mission'), read his blog a lot, and prodded his theology face-to-face, continues to be a delightfully challenging conversation partner in understanding Jesus. Often, it feels like Andrew has a very small (though he would say robustly Jewish and biblical) Jesus -- something which would naturally rub many of us "way of Jesus" Anabaptist-minded folk quite sourly.

Bluntly: to me, it often feels like Andrew marginalizes Jesus and hyper-localizes Jesus' historical teachings. How have you, Daniel, made the jump from Perriman to the quasi-Anabaptist Jesus-centeredness of this web 'zine? I still ask this about myself. :)

Perhaps for me, the answer is reverting to the Jesus-centeredness of Bishop Tom, whom you also cite; and whom furthermore is able to read both TOWARD neo-preterist conclusions within the horizons of Jesus' historical locale, ... and yet also FOR enduring applications of Jesus' teachings beyond those horizons.

Andrew Perriman · 11 months ago

Hi Brandon - I hope you don't mind me interjecting! Your comments are thought-provoking. I agree that there is an issue of marginalization when Jesus is interpreted in this fashion. This is partly because the focus tends to be on the Gospels. If we follow the story through to the experience of the early church and the prophetically anticipated vindication of both Jesus and the community of his followers (ie. the 'coming of the Son of man'), we reach a much more central and comprehensive Jesus who is Lord, first born of creation, etc.

If I have hyper-localized Jesus teachings it is partly just to get us to take the narrative framework and its relation to the historical experience of the early church seriously. But even within that framework there is a more diverse and expanded reflection on the significance of Jesus - John's Gospel, for example, though this can be overrated.

But the other point I would make is one that Daniel touches on. We can get so obsessed with Jesus (if I can put it that way) that we lose sight of the concrete existence of the people of God in the world, for the salvation and transformation of which Jesus died. It is this people, existing in real communities, under the lordship of Christ, which should be the locus for divine justice and compassion; and it is the historical experience of this people that grounds for us the connection with the Jesus of the Gospels. It seems to me that this is especially important to have in mind as we face the historical crisis of the collapse of Christendom.

Daniel · 11 months ago

Thanks Andrew, a wonderful way of putting it--the ecclesial dimension is key (and, dare I say, very 'Anabaptist-friendly').