Growing up, I commonly heard the sentiment that Christians shouldn’t give money to the person on the street corner or at the intersection. Why? They’d probably spend it all on drugs or alcohol or waste it. And what good would that do for them? No, what was ultimately better was to ignore the immediate, tangible requests of these people experiencing homelessness and donate to a charity or larger cause later. Other creative solutions might include ideas such as packing care kits to hand out. Throughout my life, I’ve also heard Christians leaders suggest that praying for these people would be more important than giving them anything tangible. And there is a lot of well-meaning thoughtfulness to these ideas.
Except that never felt right to me. In college, I began to read the Gospel accounts and study the Bible more seriously. I found several passages that seemed to suggest that Christians should care for the least powerful, wealthy, or influential in society (an ethical principle given in Scriptures without any asterisk or exception). And so as a young adult, I began trying to keep a little bit of cash on me to give to people in need that I might encounter. However, they used the money or gift I gave them was between them and the Lord; it was not on me to keep account of that. Over time in my Biblical studies, I also began to observe how embodied the Gospel of Jesus Christ is; sharing the Gospel was not about words only but about an embodied witness that involved every part of a person and their life, including their tangible resources and possessions. And so more and more frequently, I tried to give to those in need, to treat the “least of these” with kindness and hospitality.
And yet, I did so reluctantly at times. I was hesitant in certain moments not only because it was uncomfortable for me but because it felt like an obligation. A Christian duty realized from an authoritative passage of Scripture that I had to obey.
I would later realize how legalistic my practice of kindness had become. In striving to avoid a subtle legalism from my past, I had fallen into a new brand of it. I was living out Christian virtue as obligation; following orders that part of me didn’t want to do. Now to be fair, I was trying my best to follow the teachings of Jesus and the convictions of my conscience. I do believe the Lord was honored by my endeavors; I was doing the best I could with what I knew at the time. But I would later recognize the hidden legalism. And as I observe the broader stream of Evangelicalism in my context, I suspect I’m not the only one.
The King Has Spoken
In Matthew 25, Jesus teaches something about the Kingdom of God that is radically paradigm-shifting. After several chapters of Jesus delivering an apocalyptic teaching (scholars label this the Olivet Discourse) on the last days, the rabbi from Nazareth launches into several teachings on the Kingdom of God. In Matthew 25, the reader encounters a radical push for resources to be stewarded in light of the unfolding Kingdom. One scholar summarizes Jesus’ teaching on stewardship and wealth with the following:
Jesus consistently prioritized the age of the kingdom over the present age, according to which he enjoined his disciples to subordinate every concern to the pursuit of the kingdom of God (Mt 16:25–26 // Mk 8:35–37 // Lk 9:24–25; Mt 10:28; 13:45–46; Gos. Thom. 76), in which they would be rewarded (Mt 19:29 // Mk 10:30 // Lk 18:29–30; Mt 25:31–46; Lk 12:33; 14:7–24; 16:1–11). This prioritization brooked no half-measures, no rival fidelities, a point that was of eminent importance for the subject of money: one cannot serve both God and mammon (Mt 6:24 // Lk 16:13). The *parable of the talents (Mt 25:14–30 // Lk 19:11–27) urged Jesus’ listeners to use their time and resources wisely and aggressively (Mt 25:25–27 // Lk 19:20–23) to prepare for the arrival of the *Son of Man.11
Then in Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus paints a radical picture for the crowds. Returning to the apocalyptic phrase “Son of Man”, he speaks of this the Messianic figure’s glorious arrival that will bring about judgement. This judgement is different that what you might expect. The King judges his followers according to their treatment of the poor, the oppressed, the disenfranchised, and those considered “the least of these” in Jewish society. Those who claimed to worship and obey the King but failed to care for these people will be rejected. But the ones who gave food to the hungry, water to the thirsty, hospitality to the stranger or foreigner, clothing to the naked, aid to the sick, and care for the imprisoned will inherit the Kingdom and be welcomed into the new world. Perhaps what’s most interesting or most scandalous in this extent of Jesus’ teaching is that the true followers of the King do not recognize their actions as worship until the King announces it. There is genuine confusion. The people who officially claimed allegiance to the King and believed they were obeying him were not honoring Him at all. And the people who cared for the “least of these” did not knowingly perform these acts in honor of the King, yet they are rewarded.
Whoever Has Ears, Let Them Hear…
So what is Jesus saying? I’ve often heard this passage interpreted as Jesus handing out a critique of the religious leaders. Just as they failed to embody the righteousness of God and care for the people of God, so too will God judge those who worship Him and do not care for others with resources and in tangible ways. This is certainly a worthy application and understanding of the text. But what if there’s more going on here?
(Side note: some commentaries and scholars suggest that the poor and “least of these” are the mistreated disciples and messengers of Christ that people are judged for caring for or not. But this is confusing and not in line with the text for several reasons. I believe the much stronger textual and theological viewpoint is to apply all the people to this category and have attached the details and evidence for this below. To all my fellow theological nerds, enjoy the footnotes!)2
Matthew 25:31-46 isn’t merely endorsing care for the poor. Jesus seemingly claims that material actions of hospitality, kindness, and provision are directly done to Him. While most discourse I’ve heard on this topic takes the connection between the poor and Jesus as a symbolic one, Jesus Himself here seems to go further than that: “to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me” (25:40). Jesus identifies with this group of people. More than that, in caring and loving those who are “the least of these”, followers of Jesus are actually able to encounter Christ. When they provide for the poor they are providing for Christ; when they give water to the thirsty, they are caring for the crucified Savior who cried out “I thirst”; when they give food to the hungry, they are feasting with their Lord; when they clothe the naked, they are clothing the naked body of Christ like Joseph of Arimathea. This is a startling claim, but it is the most direct understanding of what Jesus states in the text!
The Love of the Triune God
Jesus is instructing His followers to care for the poor, the oppressed, the needy. But He is also identifying Himself among that group. When a person shows hospitality to “the least of these”, they are worshiping the glorious Son of Man. Jesus seems to claim that, in some mystical, sacramental sense, He stands in solidarity with the lowest of the low; that he inhabits and shares in their suffering and lowly state and then receives the hospitality and kindness of others. Perhaps this is part of what makes Christ’s resurrection and ascension so spectacularly glorious (Phil 2).
Jesus redefines what it means to love God and love others because now when we show embodied expressions and acts of provisional love to others, we are loving Christ Himself! This is a very different perspective of how to view a person who experiences homelessness than what I encountered as I was growing up. And it’s still vastly different than the way I went about caring for the poor as a young adult. As Christians we shouldn’t care of the poor, show hospitality to those in need, provide resources to those who are struggling or who have lost all they have because Jesus says so. And we shouldn’t just care for others because we have to, because Christian virtue demands we care about everyone as our neighbor and everyone as an image-bearer. Our thought process shouldn’t be one of resignation: ‘sigh, fine Jesus I’ll do it.’
This completely misses the heart of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 25. The righteous are those considered to truly embody the love and ethical righteousness of God in their care for others, the ones who are most overlooked and undervalued. This provisional love is genuine; it cares for the one in need for the sake of genuine care and love, not obligation or cold, lawish adherence to religious values.
As a side note, the heart of Jesus’ teaching here is also staunchly different then the widely performative nature of platformed Christian values from the Trump administration through their speeches, social media, or the national, public reading of the Bible. Jesus sees through religious performances and virtuous posing; the King and His Kingdom invite followers of Jesus to so much more.
As followers of Jesus, we have been united with Christ. We share in His death and resurrection (Rom 6-8), have been inhabited by the Spirit of God as an eschatological downpayment (1 Cor 6, Eph 2), and have been invited into the loving, intimate connection of the Father & Son (John 17). The love of the Triune God is the basis of our love and care for others. The more I contemplate the love of the Trinity, the more I am convinced that our love for other humans must start from this place: an other-focused love and genuine delight for the good of another. Without this love, all our efforts are nothing (1 Cor 13). We don’t love others because we have to, because the Bible says so, or because the fear of Hell spurs us onward (or fearfully pushed us into this whole Christian thing to begin with). We love because of the great love we have encountered; a transformative love that has changed everything and now delightedly drives us to share it with everyone.
Isn’t that wonderful? Followers of Jesus are citizens of an otherworldly Kingdom that is taking ground in our world and stands in stark contrast to the corrupted empires of our world. People of this Kingdom are to share the abundant overflow of love they share with Father, Son, & Holy Spirit. This embodied, material, holistic love pours out onto all that come into contact with the Kingdom and its people. The spreading of this transcendent goodness, love, and justice is to benefit all who have need and come into contact with it. There is no law-ish obligation to apply to our circumstances, no qualifications to set; all are welcome and all my benefit. This is truly good news!
- C. M. Hays, “Rich and Poor,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Second Edition, ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 803. ↩︎
- First, the whole teaching of Jesus emphasizes the lack of awareness that hospitality was being shown towards the King. These people being exclusively identified as the King’s messengers is hard to square with this emphasis in the text. Messengers of Jesus proclaiming the impending Kingdom of God and the risen Messiah seem to be too obvious a connection to the “Son of Man” for the bewilderment of the people on the left of the King who are dismissed; Or the confusion of the righteous who did show hospitality and kindness for that matter! Secondly, the broader context of this text is Jesus’ teaching on the Kingdom of God and its intended stewardship of resources. Throughout the Gospels, the Kingdom of God is depicted as an impending reality that will impact all people, especially the impoverished of a society. Again, narrowing the classification of Matthew 25’s “least of these” to Christian messengers seems to import an idea to the text not clearly present. Finally, even those who claim this text is specifically about judgement of whether Christian messengers and disciples were shown hospitality will quickly admit that there is a broader reason why Christians must show hospitality, provision, and kindness to all. Ironically, even those who try to avoid the heart of this text are quick to concede it in a secondary manner. I wonder if Jesus’ claim of solidarity with the poor in this text is too radical for the systematic theology of some. “surely Jesus doesn’t mean He’s truly connected to all the poor of the world. He’s only in union or relationship with people who place their faith in Him. Therefore, this must be talking about disciples or messengers.” I genuinely can’t understand why else this claim is made. (To look at their arguments consult the Pillar Commentary or NIV Application Commentary on Matthew or even John Calvin’s reading of Matthew 25.) And I’m not just claiming on my own “all scholars are wrong.” Attached below are a few commentaries who read the text according to my view as well.
“The basis of this separation aligns with the ethos of the shalom kingdom that Jesus has taught and exemplified through his ministry—practicing solidarity with those on the margins, lifting them up and ministering to their basic needs. This alignment with the teachings of Jesus centers practice as the identifying marker of alignment with the Jesus way. In its history the church has so often centered the articulation of correct doctrine, and this reality coupled with dualism has fostered situations throughout church history in which Christians could confess “Jesus is Lord” while simultaneously trading slaves, stealing lands, and subjugating peoples. This climactic vision at the conclusion of the discourse warns us away from a hypocrisy (condemned by Jesus earlier in the discourse) that has no alignment between one’s lifeways and cognitive beliefs.” -H. Daniel Zacharias
Esau McCaulley, Janette H Ok, Osvaldo Padilla, Amy Peeler, and Amy L. B. Peeler. 2024. The New Testament in Color : A Multiethnic Bible Commentary. IVP Academic. EBSCOhost.
“Christ is present among his people not only as the eschatological Son of Man, who executes judgment upon the nations, but also as the humble Son of Man, who . identifies with those enduring life’s mundane challenges: hunger, thirst, illness, and so on. 248 The theme of not knowing, then, takes on an added, christological dimension insofar as the readers see how, in the end, people will be exposed for their failure to recognize that Jesus has been “with” them all along.”
Wilson, Walter T.. The Gospel of Matthew, Vol. 2 : Matthew 14-28, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2022. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/dallasts-ebooks/detail.action?docID=7043588.
Created from dallasts-ebooks on 2026-04-26 00:40:11. 274.
Additionally, consider the ICC survey of possibilities:
“Who are ‘the least of these my brethren’? The possibilities are as follows:
(i). Everyone in need, whether Christian or not: Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Alford, McNeile, Schlatter, T. Preiss, Cranfield, G. Gross, Jeremias, Hill, E. Schweizer, Agbanou, Meier, Schnackenburg, Gnilka, Patte, D. Wenham
(ii). All Christians/disciples: Origen, Basil the Great, Augustine, Bede, Thomas Aquinas, Zwingli, Luther, Calvin, B. Weiss, J. Friedrich, Ingelaere, S. W. Gray, G. N. Stanton, Court, France, Garland
(iii). Jewish Christians: Allen
(iv). Christian missionaries/leaders: Zahn, Gundry, Cope, Lambrecht, Hare, Blomberg, Luz
(v). Christians who are not missionaries or leaders: Maddox.
The idiosyncratic positions of Allen (iii) and Maddox (v) require no comment. Both (iv) and (ii) gain support from 10:40–2; and the theme of how those outside the believing community have treated those within is quite at home in apocalyptic literature (Stanton (v)). But we are not persuaded. It is true that, in Matthew, the non-biological ἀδελφός usually refers to Christians (cf. esp. 28:10); moreover, 10:42; 11:11; 18:6, 10, and 14 might favour identifying ‘the least’ with believers. And yet the superlative ἐλάχιστος appears here,56 but μικρός (whose comparative, ὁ μικρότερος, is used in 11:11; 13:32) in 10:42; 11:11; 18:6, 10, and 14. In addition, a more comprehensive, non-ecclesiological use of brother may appear in 5:22–4; 7:3–5 (see 1, pp. 512–13). There are also these questions: can we (even with 24:14 in mind) believe that Matthew thought ‘all the nations’ would have opportunity to succour needy Christians? Is not the identification of the needy with all in distress more consistent with the command to ignore distinctions between insiders and outsiders and with Jesus’ injunction to love even enemies? Why is ‘brother’ omitted in the parallel v. 45? If πάντα τὰ ἔθνη be thought to include non-Christians, how likely is it that our text envisages them visiting Christians in prison? Are not the unfortunate circumstances of those who are served in no way peculiarly Christian? We prefer (i). ‘Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy’ requires no qualification.
The motif (so important for Luther) of service to Jesus through service to others has fed the Christian moral imagination. One recalls chapter 53 of the Rule of St Benedict, the German folk-tale about Offerus, and much else, including the story told by Sulpicius Severus about St Martin of Tours: in winter the latter cut in two his coat (his only clothing) to share it with a beggar, after which Martin saw a vision of Christ dressed in half a cloak.
The concept goes back through our text to Prov 19:17: ‘He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed.’ It was not altogether neglected by the Jewish tradition.60 What is new in Matthew is neither this idea nor the particular deeds of mercy but the identification of the needy with Jesus the Son of man. This novel identification—another aspect of the messianic secret—is, however, left unexplained. Do we have here the real personal presence of the Son of man in the poor? or what Preiss (v) called ‘juridical mysticism’?62 or the identification of the world’s king with his people? Or—a possibility for those who identify ‘the least’ with Christians—another example of the Jewish principle that the one sent is as the sender? Or some combination of these?
W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 3, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 428–430.
“It is probably right to read “these my smallest brothers and sisters” as a description of disciples. But to draw that conclusion does not establish that the “sheep” are commended because their treatment of disciples reveals their positive attitude to Jesus himself. 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 as 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. So it does not seem to be possible to read this passage as expressing a “Pauline” doctrine of salvation through explicit faith in Jesus.78 A systematic theologian can devise a scheme whereby justification by grace through faith and judgment according to works are together parts of a greater whole, but Matthew is not writing systematic theology, and the present passage brings to its fullest expression his conviction that when the Son of Man comes he will “repay every person according to what they have done.” (16:27) This is the ultimate outworking of the Matthean motif of reward for those who have lived according to the will of God.”
France, R. T.. The Gospel of Matthew, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/dallasts-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4860095. Created from dallasts-ebooks on 2026-04-26 02:53:03.
Finally, consider the imagination of C.S. Lewis on this concept: “Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child? I said, Lord, though knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.” -C.S. Lewis, The Last Battle, Chapter 15 (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1104698-then-i-fell-at-his-feet-and-thought-surely-this) ↩︎
Faithfulapprentices 
Leave a comment