In Matthew 25:45 it says :"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' " Since this prophesy is happening during Jesus second coming ,these least ones must be a specific group of people .Your thoughts please ?
Who are the "least ones " mentioned in Matthew 25:45 ?
by raymond frantz 4 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
panhandlegirl
I don't believe that these "least of these" is necessarily a "group of people" just as the fds is not a group of people. If anything, I think it means anyone who is considered "least" by the majority of people. Maybe the poor or those
without power. Some people may be considered "least" at some time in their life and not at another time. I believe Jesus is letting us know that it is not only the powerful or those with means in this world that should be given
consideration but we should be concerned with those who have nothing and no way of repaying us for anything we do for them. These people are valuable to Jesus even though they may not be valuable to the world in general.
PHG.
-
Bobcat
I posted about this here. Here is a copy of that (to save some typing):
[Quote follows]
Searcher:
Good points about who Jesus' brothers are. The Society always goes to Hebrews chap.2 to define this rather than stick to Matthew which would provide the closest context for the wording of the parable of the sheep and goats.
In that parable (Mt 25:31-46), Jesus called his disciples, "the least of these my brothers" (v.40) and "these least ones." (v.45) "Least" (Greek elachistos) is the superlative of mikros, translated "little ones" in Matthew and Mark. It is interesting to see how "little ones" are described:
Mt 10:42 "disciples"
Mt 18:6 "who put faith in me"
Mk 9:42 "that believe"
Another point of note is that the Society says the "brothers" can't be the same as the sheep since they are both referred to in the same context. Yet just a few verses earlier they say that the 'faithful slave' is the same as the "domestics," even though they are similarly used in the same context. (Mt 24:45-47) Their logic is whatever it needs to be to maintain their 'flashes of light.'
A good counter verse is Hebrews 6:10 where those Jewish Christians "have ministered to the holy ones." Using the Society's logic, that would mean that those Jewish Christians could not themselves be "holy ones" since they "ministered to them." Same with Matthew 10:42 where anyone who 'gives a cup of water to someone because he is a disciple' would not lose their reward. By the Society's logic, giving a cup of water to one of Jesus' disciples would prove that the giver was not a disciple. Pure nonsense.
One of the biggest things (to me) that disproves the Society's explanation of the sheep and goats parable is the fact that the Society has to dispense with what Jesus said the sheep would do. In the parable, the sheep give personal help to Jesus' brothers. This is definitely doable if the "brothers" are Jesus' disciples. But by identifying these 'brothers' as the 144,000, because there are so few and no one can know for sure who is, it becomes impossible to do what Jesus said the sheep would do. The Society replaces their actions with, 'help in the preaching, obey the elders, and give money to the Society.' [See w09 10/15 pp.15-16 pars 15-18]
Rev chap.14 puts the lie to the Society's explanation of who the wheat are in the 'wheat and weeds' parable. But I'll save that for another time.
[End of quote]
Take Care
-
kepler
The idea that an analysis can reduce the scope of those in need to the tribe of brothers and sisters in the congregation is not reconciled with the use of the Greek word plision or neighbor. The law is described as "love thy neighbor as thyself" in all three canonical Gospels. Luke 10:25-37 adds a parable with to give neighbor a definition. The Good Samaritan, clearly someone who knows nothing of Christ or his kingdom. Taking the Gospels together, it is inferred that "the least of these" are simply those of the universal brotherhood who are in the most need. Not that holding the door for royalty would not be good form, but clothing the naked and feeding the hungry would be even better. To many faiths and for centuries the reading of chapter 25 equates the poor of this world with Christ himself. Re-examining the text, I see no reason to reinterpret it.
-
Bobcat
Kepler: (greetings!)
Commenting on who the recipients of kindness (in Mt 25:31-46) are, R. T. France, writing in the NICOT commentary on Matthew (p.957) has some interesting thoughts:
But there is one feature of this scene which has led probably the majority of recent interpreters to a different conclusion. The recipients of the acts of kindness are Jesus' "smallest brothers and sisters," and what is done to them is done to him (v. 40). So is the final judgment concerned not with response to human need in general, but to the need of disciples in particular, and thus indirectly with how people have responded to Jesus himself in the person of his earthly representatives? ... That interpretation has a firm foundation in the earlier language of this gospel, which has spoken of true disciples as Jesus' brothers and sisters (12:46-50; cf 28:10) and has used the phrase "these little ones" to denote members of the disciple community (10:42; 18:6, 10, 14 - note in particular 18:6, "these little ones who believe in me"). In 18:5 we have been told that to welcome one such child in Jesus' name is to welcome him (cf. also 10:40 for the same idea), and that child becomes the basis for the phrase "these little ones" in the following verses. Several go further and argue that these "smallest brothers and sisters" of Jesus are not just any disciples, but those sent out as missionaries of the good news; in that case people's response to them would be a measure of their response to the gospel, as in 10:11 - 15, 40. But this more specific identification, while clearly consonant with the theme of the mission discourse in ch. 10, is not required by the wording of this passage: "one of these my smallest brothers and sisters" sounds like an inclusive term for any disciple, however insignificant, and we shall note below that the hardships they suffer are not peculiar to missionaries.
In a footnote about this:
S. W. Gray, The Least, gives a full catalogue of twentieth century interpretations of this pericope up to the mid-eighties (pp. 255-72) and finds that among the majority who take this (Mt 25:31-46) to be a universal judgment, 305 regard the "least" as denoting people in general, while eighty-six take it to mean Christians in general, and thirteen to mean a more restricted group of Christians (missionaries or, in one case, Jewish Christians); among the minority who think this (25:31-46) is a more restricted judgment the proportion who take "the least" to be specifically Christian is substantantially higher. For a more accessible survey of the competing schools of interpretation see U. Luz, in D. R. Bauer and M. A. Powell (eds.), Treasures, 273-86.
So, your opinion is certainly the majority opinion, even in the 20th century. I see that even the Society could call on a few "experts" that would support, at least in concept, their very restricted view of who Jesus' "brothers" are. (The Society would fall among the majority who view 25:31-46 as a universal judgment.)
On a little different aspect of this, France comments:
For the striking feature of this judgment scene is that both sheep and goats claim that they did not know that their actions were directed toward Jesus. Each is surprised as the other to find their actions interpreted in that light. They have helped, or failed to help, not a Jesus recognized in his representatives, but a Jesus incognito. As far as they were concerned, it was simply an act of kindness to a fellow human being in need, not an expression of their attitude to Jesus. They seem closer to what some modern theologians call "anonymous Christians" than to openly declared supporters of Jesus himself.
Considering how the Society drives home the idea of "the faithful slave" as Christ's reps on earth, that aspect of the parable would seem to negate the Society's interpretation altogether. No JW who has kept up with the Society's writings would be unaware of the claimed relationship between the FDS and Jesus. So if "the least of these my brothers" referred to the FDS, no JW (who held to the Society's interpretation) could honestly say to Jesus that they didn't realize that their helping of the FDS wasn't related to helping Jesus.
On the other hand, if the "brothers" are Christians in general (or humans in general for that matter), I could see JWs as being included among the sheep if they practiced showing kindness to Jesus' disciples in general. They could truly claim that they didn't know these 'run-of-the-mill' Christians were being viewed by Jesus as his "brothers." Of course, the claim would be true because they had been deceived by the Society. Which begs the question: What position does that put the Society in with respect to Jesus - they having tried to hinder the views of others as to who Jesus' "brothers" were, and thus hindered any support these might have been given?
Just as an observation, IMO the context of Matthew would support the idea that "these least ones" were disciples of Jesus. But I could see, based on this other aspect (the sheep and goats not recognizing the relationship of "these least ones" to Jesus), how a basis could be found for the idea that the "brothers" were humans in general.
The idea that it is a particular group among Christians seems patently false (to me, of course): Who could blame an outsider (the goats) for failing to recognize a particular sub-group (e.g. failing to distinguish a surgeon from a general doctor). And who could believe an insider (the sheep) who claims he doesn't know the difference.
Thanks for your comments and take care.