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.
