In recent years, numerous biblical scholars have called this ‘universalist’ line of interpretation into question.19 They have argued that the phrase in 25:40 describing the ‘least of these’ as my
brethren does not refer to the poor and needy in general, but rather to particular members of the
Christian community – that is, to disciples, leaders, teachers and/or apostolic messengers of the
14
Ibid., 164.
15 Unfortunately Bullivant’s commitment to dated categories of scholastic sacramentology prevents him
from affirming the possibility that works of mercy might be sacramental in the strong (albeit non-ritual) sense. Instead, he writes, ‘This sacramental, indeed Eucharistic, interpretation of Mt 25:40 must not, however, be taken too far. Specifically, it should not be taken to imply that the graced encounter with one of the Mt 25’s minimi is itself a sacrament in the full and proper sense of the term.’ Bullivant’s objections are largely indicative of his theological agenda (exploring the salvation of atheists). For the purpose of this thesis, I consider the works of mercy to be an ethical praxis of Christian discipleship, and thus ‘visible acts of the church’ which ‘presuppose faith.’ As such, the only outstanding objection Bullivant proposes is a somewhat simplistic juridical appeal to the Council of Trent: ‘Finally, and most obviously, there are only seven sacraments of the Church. One ought not speak, therefore, of any “sacrament of the minimi” or “sacrament of one’s neighbour,” unless in a figurative of analogical sense’ (2012, 167). By contrast, I contend that the rigid boundaries of scholastic sacramentology are part of the problem, not the solution. Bullivant’s errs in is his assumption that a sacrament of mercy would somehow compete with or detract from the sacramental rites of the church, when in fact the integral relation between ritual and ethical sacramentality is far more complex and theologically compelling than his interpretation allows.
16 Schillebeeckx 1963, 72 quoted in Bullivant 2012, 166. 17 Bullivant 2012, 166. 18 Ibid., 162. Cf. Kammer 1991, 133. 19 Cf. Stanton 1992; Leverett 2007.
167
Gospel.20 Graham Stanton, for example, acknowledges that ‘C.E.B. Cranfield has written movingly about the Real Presence of the Risen Christ in the poor as comparable with the presence of Christ in Scripture and sacrament.’ Theologically speaking, Stanton is inclined to agree with him. He writes,
As an exegete, however, I must consider the possibility that the evangelist’s intentions and the ways the first recipients are likely to have understood this passage may have been very different. […] If my interpretation of these two key phrases is correct, non-Christian nations are to be judged on the basis of what they have done (or not done) to followers of Jesus. They should have welcomed the “brothers of the Son of man, however insignificant,” for in so doing they would have welcomed the Son of man himself.21
This exegetical perspective complicates commonly held assumptions about Christ’s presence, but it also influences how we understand who the needy ones are and whose task it is to perform the works of mercy in the first place.
John Donahue identifies five common arguments in favour of this ‘particularist’ reading: (1) in the NT the word adelphos (brother) generally refers to a compatriot or coreligionist and is never applied to an unconverted Gentile. (2) In Matthew specifically, adelphos is used to describe those who respond to the gospel or simply the disciples of Jesus. (3) The term for the minimi (‘little ones’) is used in reference to ‘vulnerable members of the Christian community,’ thus ‘the least of the brethren of Jesus would be Christians most in need.’ (4) The Son of Man’s identification with the least is interpreted in the context of Jesus’ saying that the sender is present in the messenger – ‘he who receives you receives me’ (Matt 10:40). (5) In context, the pericope concludes a discourse to the disciples and concerns other key themes of discipleship.22 In addition, J. Ramsey Michaels argues that the acts of mercy delineated in Matthew 25 name the hardships suffered by the apostles in their various ministries to the Gentiles, and thus signify merciful service to suffering Christian missionaries – the least of Christ’s brethren.23
20
The ‘universalist’ perspective claims that ‘the least’ represent the poor as such; whereas the ‘particularist’ perspective maintains that the author of Matthew had specific persons in mind: the disciples, apostles, missionaries, Jewish Christians, or some other group of Christians within the church. For an analysis of the debate, see Luz 2005, 267-274. On the question of authorial intent, see Leverett 2007, 219-299. For a theological defence of the particularist position, see Harink 2009, 96-97.
21 Stanton 1992, 209-10, 219. For a response to Stanton (and Sherman Gray), see Cranfield 1998, 125-135. 22
Donahue 1986, 25.
23 Michaels 1965, 27-37. Donahue (1986) provides a helpful summary, noting that ‘All the sufferings of the
168
This perspective fundamentally shifts the meaning of the passage in question. So understood, the emphasis of the text no longer concerns how Christians ought to respond to the poor, but rather how the world ought to respond to the church. Whilst a rigidly ‘particularist’ position may resonate with the idea of the church as a ‘sacrament of Christ’ to the world, it is unclear what it offers to a sacramental reading of works of mercy.24 Indeed, some scholars have gone so far as to argue that this revised interpretation means that Matthew 25 ‘cannot provide a legitimate basis for Christian concern for the poor and needy of the world’; and that such a reading ‘violates the text by eisegesis.’25
This debate is far from settled. Its implications for the present study merit further discussion. Many advocates of the particularist view tend to dismiss alternative theological interpretations out of hand, insisting that theirs is the only legitimate reading of Matthew 25. Is this narrow exegetical approach necessary? Or is there space for other perspectives? When all is said and done, must we concede that the single most important biblical text concerning works of mercy is actually not addressed as an exhortation to Christians at all, but rather a description of God’s judgment the world on the basis of its treatment of the church?