How sheep and goats treat Christ's brothers

[VeryTas]

The Church's "option for the poor" has roots in the Corporal Works of Mercy, and they in turn were rooted in the judgment of sheep and goats in the Gospel according to Matthew. But that passage was rarely considered so global in its implications until last century, when two World Wars expanded people's concern for "distant neighbors." In fact the interpretation of that judgment scene was often somewhat backwards, as finally documented in 1986 by Sherman W. Gray's The Least of My Brothers -- Matthew 25:31-46 -- A History of Interpretation. (This is not to say we don't have plenty of other scriptures in support of charitable works, just that this passage has often been misread and misapplied.)
Here is what is backwards. First, "the nations" separated for opposite lives in eternity are not clearly everyone, given that the needy whom the King identifies with may not be among these sheep and goats, and given that the Jews may have their own separate judgment (Mt 19:28). A better translation than "the nations" would be "the Gentiles" (cf. Lk 21:24), that is, non-Jews or non-believers. Second, the King's "brothers" does not refer to all human beings in need but specifically to those faithful to him, as seen in Mt 12:50, 18:15-17, 23:8, and Jn 1:12. So instead, what Jesus is revealing is how he can judge non-believers in spite of their ignorance or even outright disbelief, namely, by their treatment of needy Christians (along the lines indicated in Mt 10:40-42, 18:5-6, and John 13:20), especially those he sends to the world. The passage contains no great new moral imperative for Christians themselves! Unless it were that we should welcome (and not be embarrassed by) charities done to us by the world.

[Stella]

Sherman Grays thesis doesn’t fit with the early fathers interpretation at all. Haydocks Commentary cites both Chrysostom and Augustine as understanding it to be addressed to everyone and perhaps especially Christians.

Ver. 35….. St. Augustine, in his 33d sermon, brings a beautiful reason why the kingdom of heaven is bestowed solely upon the works of mercy, and eternal damnation for the neglect of them; viz. because, however just a man may be, still he has many failings to atone for, on account of which the kingdom of heaven might be justly denied him: but because he has shewn mercy to his neighbours, he deserves in like manner to have mercy shewn him. But the wicked, not having shewn mercy to their neighbours, nor redeemed their sins by alms-deeds, or the like, are thus delivered up to eternal damnation.

Ver. 36. And you visited me. How easy are the things our Saviour requires at our hands! He will not say at the day of judgment: “I was in prison, and you delivered me; I was sick, and you healed me; but only this, you visited me, you came to me.” (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxxx.) — This seems particularly addressed to Christians engaged in the cares of the world, whose salvation principally depends on the practice of works of mercy.

https://haydockcommentary.com/matthew-25

Gray’s interpretation to me seems like trying to fit to the principle of OSAS. Basically being that nothing a Christian does affects their salvation.

[VeryTas]

Sherman Grays thesis doesn’t fit with the early fathers interpretation at all. Haydocks Commentary cites both Chrysostom and Augustine as understanding it to be addressed to everyone and perhaps especially Christians.

Gray goes through all the Fathers who quote the passage. Many of them inexplicably leave out "of my brothers" when they speak of the "least." To me that is bad exegesis. Doctrine can develop, but scripture does not develop. It is revelation.

[Stella]

Sherman Grays thesis doesn’t fit with the early fathers interpretation at all. Haydocks Commentary cites both Chrysostom and Augustine as understanding it to be addressed to everyone and perhaps especially Christians.

Gray goes through all the Fathers who quote the passage. Many of them inexplicably leave out "of my brothers" when they speak of the "least." To me that is bad exegesis. Doctrine can develop, but scripture does not develop. It is revelation.

Does Gray cite any Catholic sources before the turn of the 20th century to support the argument that the sheep and the goats parable in Matthew, wasn't addressed to Christians? Scooting around google it seems more an invention of the Dispensationalists (John Nelson Darby 1800-1882). They take 2 Timothy 2:15".... rightly dividing the Word of Truth" to mean dividing which parts of Scripture are and are not addressed to Christians. Some seem to think that Scriptures doesn't start addressing Christians until half way through Acts.

[VeryTas]

Sherman Grays thesis doesn’t fit with the early fathers interpretation at all. Haydocks Commentary cites both Chrysostom and Augustine as understanding it to be addressed to everyone and perhaps especially Christians.

Gray goes through all the Fathers who quote the passage. Many of them inexplicably leave out "of my brothers" when they speak of the "least." To me that is bad exegesis. Doctrine can develop, but scripture does not develop. It is revelation.

Does Gray cite any Catholic sources before the turn of the 20th century to support the argument that the sheep and the goats parable in Matthew, wasn't addressed to Christians? Scooting around google it seems more an invention of the Dispensationalists (John Nelson Darby 1800-1882). They take 2 Timothy 2:15".... rightly dividing the Word of Truth" to mean dividing which parts of Scripture are and are not addressed to Christians. Some seem to think that Scriptures doesn't start addressing Christians until half way through Acts.

1. Neither Gray nor I are saying the passage is not addressed to Christians, only that it is not addressed to us as foundational to our morality (there are plenty other scriptures that provide that for us). Rather, the sheep-and-goats tells us Christians to persevere under our sufferings and to welcome help from non-Christians, knowing that our common Judge counts our treatment at their hands as done toward him.
2. What Gray finds through every century is a variety of opinions on whether Christ's brothers are Christians or all humans, with a (statistical) preponderance of evidence in each period before the 20th century favoring their being Christians.
3. Even our U.S. New American Bible's footnote has this to say: The conclusion of the discourse, which is peculiar to Matthew, portrays the final judgment that will accompany the parousia. Although often called a “parable,” it is not really such, for the only parabolic elements are the depiction of the Son of Man as a shepherd and of the righteous and the wicked as sheep and goats respectively (Mt 25:32–33). The criterion of judgment will be the deeds of mercy that have been done for the least of Jesus’ brothers (Mt 25:40). A difficult and important question is the identification of these least brothers. Are they all people who have suffered hunger, thirst, etc. (Mt 25:35, 36) or a particular group of such sufferers? Scholars are divided in their response and arguments can be made for either side. But leaving aside the problem of what the traditional material that Matthew edited may have meant, it seems that a stronger case can be made for the view that in the evangelist’s sense the sufferers are Christians, probably Christian missionaries whose sufferings were brought upon them by their preaching of the gospel. The criterion of judgment for all the nations is their treatment of those who have borne to the world the message of Jesus, and this means ultimately their acceptance or rejection of Jesus himself; cf. Mt 10:40, “Whoever receives you, receives me.”

[Stella]

Perhaps some Scripture scholars could weigh in here. I’m not one. For what it’s worth though, I’m very familiar with Judgement of Nations verses but can’t recall a homily or Catholic explanation that deemed it ‘not foundational to our morality’. Other Christian denominations have strict definitions of who are our ‘brothers and sisters’ but in my experience that isn’t Catholic language. We regard all people to be our brothers and sisters as Christ came for all people. Perhaps that was the prudent reason that the early Fathers didn’t specify the least of my ‘brothers’ in their teachings ... tradition being that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ?

[Stella]

Brant Pitra in his explanation links Mother Teresa's mission to the goats and sheep verses. That's what I believe is generally the Catholic interpretation.

You would think that he might put faith as a condition for entering into the kingdom, and we'll see elsewhere that knowing Christ is an essential aspect of entering into the kingdom. We saw that earlier in some of the parables. But in this parable the emphasis falls on what the Church calls the corporal works of mercy. Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, visiting the sick, caring for those who are in need; these corporal works of mercy, welcoming the stranger, what does that mean? It means in particular sojourners, immigrants. So in the first century A.D., when a person would immigrate from another country into the holy land, they were essentially bereft of the protections, the ordinary protections, of family, friends, employment and those kind of things. So God made very clear to the people in the Old Testament that they were to welcome the stranger and not to abuse the stranger or abuse the immigrant or the alien or the person from another country.

So what Jesus is saying here is that all those works of mercy, what we call the corporal works of mercy, when you did it to the least of these my brethren, you did it to me. Now that is a fascinating verse. It's been made famous by Mother Teresa and the Sisters of Charity, the Daughters of Charity, who as their mission have the care for the poor and the needy. And Mother Teresa very famously said that those five words were kind of the essence of her mission and ministry: you did it to me. When Jesus says that he tells us everything we need to know about the poor and the lowly, namely that any act of charity done to the poor is in essence an act of charity done to Christ himself. It's a kind of mystical theology of the poor as living members of the body of Christ. So Jesus says when you have done it to the least of these my brethren, the sick, the imprisoned, the naked, the hungry, you actually did this to me. So the reward for those acts of mercy is to enter into the kingdom of God.

https://catholicproductions.com/blogs/b ... -the-goats

[VeryTas]

Perhaps some Scripture scholars could weigh in here. I’m not one. For what it’s worth though, I’m very familiar with Judgement of Nations verses but can’t recall a homily or Catholic explanation that deemed it ‘not foundational to our morality’. Other Christian denominations have strict definitions of who are our ‘brothers and sisters’ but in my experience that isn’t Catholic language. We regard all people to be our brothers and sisters as Christ came for all people. Perhaps that was the prudent reason that the early Fathers didn’t specify the least of my ‘brothers’ in their teachings ... tradition being that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ?

Judge for yourself if recent "Catholic language" has ignored scripture in favor of a brotherhood of all humankind that is rarely nuanced, by visiting these verses I originally cited:
Mt 12:50. For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Mt 23:8-10. As for you, do not be called ‘Rabbi.’ You have but one teacher, and you [disciples] are all brothers. Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven. Do not be called ‘Master’; you have but one master, the Messiah.
Jn 1:12. But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name ...
The nuance is that though we are "from" God by his creating us, it is by baptism and the Spirit that we are born/begotten as children of God, not naturally, "before all ages", like the only begotten Son, but still, given an adoptee's share in his divine life with the Father.

[VeryTas]

Stella, let me take you on a thought experiment. A simple Catholic gets the impression from you and Mother Teresa and many in our day, that tending to the needs of "the least" suffering person somewhere/anywhere in the world will set him/her (let's say "them") up for heaven and assure against hell. They happen to have a spouse and a couple children, but in their loving God with all their heart/mind/strength and wanting to love their neighbor as themself, they say, "Oh, my family are not as needy, not as "least", as many people in India or Africa; I must go where there is more suffering and do what I can there." And they go and do that. Yes, they abandon their family. What is wrong with this picture?
Jesus did say that those who leave usual lives "for the sake of my name" (Mt 19:29), would gain better lives and then eternal life. He didn't say that every faithful Christian must do this or that this is the only way to heaven. But I'm afraid that when this judgment scene we've been posting about is taken as a detailed account of what loving one's neighbor requires, simple Christians can get anxious, stupid, or scrupulous, and possibly even endanger their salvation. By pointing to the original meaning of the sheep and goats I'm hoping to call a few people away from this (dare I say heretical) Gospel of Least back to normal Catholic morality, which meditates on the Ten Commandments, the First and Greatest Commandment, the Second one like it (love of neighbor), and the New Commandment that Jesus gave disciples (to love each other disciple -- John 13:34-35).

[Stella]

Haydock speaks to that point in the link I posted for verse 35.

"Jesus Christ only mentions one species of good works, though others may be equally meritorious; for the means of salvation are not precisely the same for all the saints; some are saved by poverty, others by solitude, and each by that virtue which he shall have practised in the greatest degree of perfection."

Mother Teresa also addressed that when she won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979. A journalist asked 'what can we do towards world peace?' and she said "Go home and love your family".

[VeryTas]

Haydock speaks to that point in the link I posted for verse 35.
"Jesus Christ only mentions one species of good works, though others may be equally meritorious; for the means of salvation are not precisely the same for all the saints; some are saved by poverty, others by solitude, and each by that virtue which he shall have practised in the greatest degree of perfection."
Mother Teresa also addressed that when she won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979. A journalist asked 'what can we do towards world peace?' and she said "Go home and love your family".

Good examples. All right then. But do you see what damage can happen when people are left with an impression that there's only one way to love one's neighbor or get to heaven? And the sheep-goats picture gives that impression -- when it is wrongly understood, that is, which these days is usually.

[Stella]

...

[Stella]

Haydock speaks to that point in the link I posted for verse 35.
"Jesus Christ only mentions one species of good works, though others may be equally meritorious; for the means of salvation are not precisely the same for all the saints; some are saved by poverty, others by solitude, and each by that virtue which he shall have practised in the greatest degree of perfection."
Mother Teresa also addressed that when she won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979. A journalist asked 'what can we do towards world peace?' and she said "Go home and love your family".

Good examples. All right then. But do you see what damage can happen when people are left with an impression that there's only one way to love one's neighbor or get to heaven? And the sheep-goats picture gives that impression -- when it is wrongly understood, that is, which these days is usually.

I haven't heard that that's a particular problem. I've read that the 'faith alone' Christians find it to be too Pelagian for a Christian to hold hence their need to reason that it wasn't addressed to Christians. Pope Francis has commented several times that some in the Church default to Pelagianism when they angry that people should depend solely on their own free will to get to heaven, dismissing the fact of grace.

[Stella]

Haydock speaks to that point in the link I posted for verse 35.
"Jesus Christ only mentions one species of good works, though others may be equally meritorious; for the means of salvation are not precisely the same for all the saints; some are saved by poverty, others by solitude, and each by that virtue which he shall have practised in the greatest degree of perfection."
Mother Teresa also addressed that when she won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979. A journalist asked 'what can we do towards world peace?' and she said "Go home and love your family".

Good examples. All right then. But do you see what damage can happen when people are left with an impression that there's only one way to love one's neighbor or get to heaven? And the sheep-goats picture gives that impression -- when it is wrongly understood, that is, which these days is usually.

I haven't heard that that's a particular problem. I've read that the 'faith alone' Christians find it to be too Pelagian for a Christian to hold hence their need to reason that it wasn't addressed to Christians. Pope Francis has commented several times that some in the Church default to Pelagianism when they are angry that people should depend solely on their own free will to get to heaven, dismissing the fact of grace.

[VeryTas]

I haven't heard that that's a particular problem. I've read that the 'faith alone' Christians find it to be too Pelagian for a Christian to hold hence their need to reason that it wasn't addressed to Christians. Pope Francis has commented several times that some in the Church default to Pelagianism when they angry that people should depend solely on their own free will to get to heaven, dismissing the fact of grace.

The reason I am such a dog with a bone about the sheep-goats could be that I am still trying to get away from the Pelagian (works righteousness) attitude of the liberal Protestantism I grew up in. On the other hand, why does the NAB footnote I quoted say that "the identification of these least brothers" is an "important question"? Only important to Biblical scholars? Thanks for gnawing on this bone with me.
Don't any of you other post viewers have two cents to put in?

[gherkin]

It sounds like maybe Gray and you are pushing back too hard against a view that may be leaning too far in one direction. St. Thomas doesn't read the passage as exclusively as Gray seems to.

"St. Thomas"]And he says, brethren, because those are his brothers who do God’s will; hence above, it says that stretching forth his hand towards his disciples, he said: behold my mother and my brethren (Matt 12:49). In which one should note that one should give to those who are good; give to the merciful and uphold not the sinner (Sir 12:4).

And should one not give to a sinner? One should give, when he is in extreme need, but more and first to those who are just; for this reason he says, my brethren. For many come who are not brothers of God; hence, and every spirit that dissolves Jesus, is not of God (1 John 4:3). So all other things being equal, we should do better for those who are good; yet in a case of need one should give even to the evil in a time of necessity, not for the sake of aiding sin, but nature.

Are all the brothers of God? Yes; but some according to nature, and some according to grace. According to nature, all the good and the wicked: in perils from false brethren (2 Cor 11:26); according to grace, however, only the good: that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren (Rom 8:29). And one should principally have pity on these and help them; hence the Apostle says, therefore, while we have time, let us work good to all men, but especially to those who are of the household of the faith (Gal 6:10).

While this is from St. Thomas's own commentary on St. Matthew's Gospel, it's worth remembering that he put together the Catena Aurea, which presents a vast number of snippets from the Fathers and Doctors as applied chunk-by-chunk to each Gospel, so he's pretty well-versed in the history of Biblical interpretation. A quick look at the Catena on this passage shows only one quotation directly on the "brethren" point, which is from St. Jerome:

It were indeed free to us to understand that it is Christ in every poor man whom we feed when he is hungry, or give drink to when he is thirsty, and so of other things; but when He says, In that ye have done it to one of the least of these my brethren, He seems tome not to speak of the poor generally, but of the poor in spirit, those to whom He pointed and said, Whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother.

And you can see that St. Thomas more or less takes on St. Jerome's read--which explicitly allows for the 'brethren' to include every person, despite the fact that St. Jerome prefers to read it as applying to believers. St. Thomas stretches the point a little, not merely allowing for the brethren to include nonbelievers, but explaining that these nonbelievers are indeed brethren by nature if not by grace.

So there's my take based on five minutes of internet commando work.

[VeryTas]

It sounds like maybe Gray and you are pushing back too hard against a view that may be leaning too far in one direction. St. Thomas doesn't read the passage as exclusively as Gray seems to...

Excellent research, Gherkin. Yes, I am pushing back. Among Catholics especially there is almost an obsession for eliminating poverty, hunger, and disease globally (as we will indeed pray tomorrow night) that few are open to hearing what seems to be the original intent of the sheep-goats and even the love-one-another of John 13. Paul puts it concisely: "... let us do good to all, but especially to those who belong to the family of the faith" (Gal 6:10).

[gherkin]

I don't think I see the problem, though. The interpretation you're resisting is relatively well established as a legitimate reading. Your objections principally seem to be that this interpretation might (a) lead to the abandonment of one's duties and (b) lead to some kind of semi-pelagianism.

I'd say (b) is well established as a problem in modernist Catholicism, but that I suspect is due more to the rise of a degenerate knee-jerk Molinism (not that Molinism in itself isn't degenerate) than to a misinterpretation--which isn't actually a misinterpretation--of a particular Biblical passage.

And (a)--say, a mother leaving her family in order to serve the poor in Africa--is so obviously a violation of the call of one's vocation that trying to base it on an interpretation of this Biblical passage is manifestly unjustifiable. Almost any Biblical passage can be twisted out of all proportionality by one with an urge. Cf. Origen castrating himself. It's not so much the reading that's the issue. It's the failure to place it within the whole body of the Faith.

I think the book you're talking about is a doctoral dissertation, so obviously the author had to stress his point in order to show he was doing "new and important" scholarship, but I wouldn't hang too much on this if I were you. How God can judge the nations doesn't seem like much of a mystery to us, given St. Paul's explanations of various matters like the law written on our hearts, etc. And the obligation to provide for the destitute is well-established, even if there's a preferential option for providing for those of the household of the Faith before those outside of it. In fact, it's likely that at least in American circles the tendency to miss this fact derives more from a tendency towards consequentialism, which flattens all personal links and makes our obligations impersonal--than from any strictly religious impulse at all.

For example, the one-thought-too-many objection to consquentialism, very roughly put, goes like this. If I'm in charge of putting people on a lifeboat as the ship goes down, and my wife is among the last candidates, and I think "well, she's a cancer researcher and will likely do much good to many, so I'll put her on the lifeboat," then I've had one thought too many: namely, the consequentialist reasoning that supports my decision. Instead, my decision should be to put my wife on the lifeboat, even if that means leaving some cancer researcher off it. Consequentialism doesn't allow for these kinds of person-relative considerations. Hence, consequentialism is a bad theory.

But you can see how someone, like a modern American, from a culture where consequentialism is in the air we breathe, would think that preferring one's own family to strangers in Africa would be unethical. Since your average lay Catholic spends little time deeply reflecting on the Scriptures, I'd tend to place the kind of worry you have more in the general culture than in overemphasis on an out of context Scripture.

[VeryTas]

I appreciate your last post very much, Gherkin. Incidentally, I wasn't influenced by Gray's thesis; I hunted his work up purposely to try to get a little historical confirmation of my long-standing and dogged reading of the sheep-goats. I'm a stickler for reading scripture freshly and honestly, and am open to being shown whether I am misreading.

[Stella]

It strikes me that using Matthew 25 to justify a preferential option for the poor of the Church, would be devastating within the ideology of Catholic integralism which the Vatican has been hugely critical of. A polity governed by a Catholic authority with that interpretation would obviously be a disaster.