Matthew XXV: 31-46: "The Sheep and the Goats" Reinterpreted

Author(s): Lamar Cope

Source: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 11, Fasc. 1/2 (Jan. - Apr., 1969), pp. 32-44
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560211 .
Accessed: 15/06/2014 20:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:35:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MATTHEW XXV: 31-46
"THE SHEEP AND THE GOATS"
REINTERPRETED
BY

LAMARCOPE
New York

There are two reasons why the passage which concludes the final
discourseof the Gospelof Matthewdeservesre-examination.The first
is the awakening interest among New Testament scholars in the
techniques and theologies of the authors of the Synoptic Gospels.
The nature of the redaction of the Gospel of Matthew is the subject
of contemporary debate. This study will attempt to show that an
analysis of Mt. xxv 31-46 can reveal a good deal about Matthean
theology and emphases.
The second reason for discussion of this passage is its wide
use in contemporary Christian ethics and theology. The concern
among Christians over the plight of the underprivileged and dis-
possessed has thrust this pericope into the foregroundin ethics and
preaching. It holds this place as a result of the widely held popular
and critical view that in this passage the finest expression of
Christian concern for human need is to be found. Whether this
interpretation is able to withstand careful scrutiny is a major
concern of this inquiry.
If a concensusof scholarshipon the interpretationof this pericope
were to be sought, it would support the view that the saying is,
in large part, from the historical Jesus 1). This position is taken by
J. JEREMIAS in his masterful work on the parables 2). There has
been a minority opinion, however. Some scholars, such as C. H.
DODD, have questioned the authenticity 3), and the assumption

1) A brief summary of recent discussion is provided by J. A. T. ROBINSON

in "The 'Parable' of the Sheep and the Goats", N.T.S., Vol. 2, p. 225.
2) JOACHIMJEREMIAS, The Parables of Jesus, trans. S. H. Hooke (Rev. ed.,
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1963), p. 206 ff.
3) C. H. DODD, The Parables of the Kingdom (Rev. ed., New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, I956), p. 85, ftnt. i.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:35:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MATTHEW XXV 31-46 "THE SHEEP AND THE GOATS." 33

that the ethical teaching is universalistic has been challenged 1).

The most important argument in the discussion has been the
passage's originality. T. W. MANSON says, "Whether or not it
belongs as a whole and in all its details to the authentic teaching
of Jesus, it certainly contains features of such startling originality
that it is difficult to credit them to anyone but the Master
himself" 2). This judgment needs thorough examination if only
because its subjectivity renders it suspect.
The Pericopein its Context.Although it is often true in the study
of the Synoptic parables that the context is secondary and the
original meaning of the parable is to be found by carefully cutting
away the context to reveal the parable and its basic meaning 3), it
is a step that should not be made too quickly. This is particularly
true of the pericope under study. Not only is there serious difficulty
for the person who would label this a parable at all, but the pericope
is very closely related to its context.
Mt. xxv 31-46 concludes the major discourse of chs. xxiv and
xxv, the last of the formal "teaching" discoursesin the Gospel. The
discourseitself consists of sayings and parablesunified by the theme
of the coming of the Son of Man. The structure of the discourse,
which is made up of various elements drawn together by the author,
is quite simple. The discours begins with apocalyptic predictions
about the end. These are followed by a series of parables warning
the disciples of the suddenness, unexpectedness, and finality of
the end and exhorting them to watch. xxv 31-46 concludes the
discourse by turning attention to the judgment of "the nations".
The center of attention throughout the discourse is the future
"return of Jesus and the end of the age" (xxiv 3). Jesus is repre-
sented as looking beyond the imminent Passion and offering words
of advice and comfort to the disciples about the time before his
"return".
Consideration of the pericope in the context of the whole of
the Gospel greatly strengthens the view that the passage is wedded
to its context. Each of the five formal discourses in Matthew
contains reference to the judgment in its concluding section, even
when the context is not closely related to judgment (cf. xiii 49-5I

1) KARL BORNHXUSER, "Zur Auslegung vom Matthaus 25:31-46", Luther-

turn (1935), PP. 77-82.
2) The Teaching of Jesus (London: 1954), p. 249.
3) This method is used by JEREMIAS, esp. pp. 23-II4.
Novum Testamentum, XI 3

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:35:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
34 LAMAR COPE

and xviii 35). Moreover,significant marks of Matthean vocabulary

can be identified in all of these passages: vii 23b "depart from me"
(Ps. vi 9), x 42 "one of these little ones" and "because he is a
disciple", xiii 49 "so it will be at the close of the age", and xviii 35
"so also my heavenly father will do to every one of you". These
references, with their parallels in xxv 31-46, may not all be due
to the hand of Matthew but they are forceful enough to warrant
the following conclusion: Matthew uses a closing reference to
future judgment as a technique for concluding the discourses of
Jesus, and he does so in ways which often show his own style and
vocabulary.
A further important aspect of the larger context is the relation-
ship of xxv 31-46 with xxviii I6-20, "The Great Commission".There
the ones to whom the disciples are sent are "all the nations", the
same group that is gathered before the Son of Man in xxv 32. This
relationship is important not only for an understanding of the
term "all the nations", but also alerts the reader to the role of the
disciples in xxv 31-46.
The Form of the Pericope. Mt. xxv 31-46 is usually referred to
as the "parable" of the Last Judgment, or the "parable" of the
Sheep and the Goats. Yet it is clearly unlike any of the other
Synoptic parables. Each of the parables of the series before this
passage begins with some form of comparative phrase. Verse 31
opens with a direct statement of future events. Most interpreters
agree that the only truly parabolic element in the passage is the
simile of the sheep and the goats in vss. 32-33. JEREMIASprefers
to call the pericope the "description of the Sentence pronounced
at the Last Judgment" 1). For him it is a mashal only in the broad
sense of figurative speech 2).
The directness of the imagery is non-parabolic. We are simply
told that "all the nations" are being judged by the Son of Man
who sits as King upon his throne. The nations are divided, as a
shepherd separates sheep from goats, into the just and the unjust
and sentence is pronounced.No imagination, recognition, or insight
is necessary on the reader's part. The statements are unambiguous
and forthright. It is advisable, therefore, to omit the term parable
in the present discussion.

1) JEREMIAS, p. 206.
2) Ibid., ftnt. 77.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:35:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MATTHEW XXV 31-46 "THE SHEEP AND THE GOATS" 35

It has been widely recognized that the closest parallel to the

form of the pericope is to be found in the Similitudes of Enoch 1).
The similitudes, in contrast to the visions, are most often in the
form of direct statement about what will occur in the future. "When
the congregation of the righteous shall appear ..." (xxxviii I), and
often, "In those days . . ." (xlvii I, li I 2). It is not necessary to posit
a directliteraryrelationshipbetween Enoch and Matthewto recognize
the use in both of a traditional form for a picture of the judgment.
The judgment pictures of the Similitudes are cast in poetic form.
Is the same true of the Matthean passage? C. F. BURNEYproposed
a retranslation of the pericope into Classical Hebrew in an article
that has received too little attention. (A portion of the translation
is given in the note below) 3). There are two reasons for taking his
proposal quite seriously. First, as he himself says:
I have not in the slighest degree exercised a tour de force in order to pro-
duce this rhythmical and rhyming effect in my translation. I have simply
translated the Greek as it stands, as literally as possible and in the same
order of words. Other scholars might conceivably have selected a different
word in translation here and there; but apart from this possibility the
parable could scarcely have been translated otherwise. 4).

BURNEY'S Hebrew translation is simple, clear Hebrew. He empha-

sizes the fact that the rhythm, essential to Hebrew poetry, is so
precise. In several instances the poem also achieves rhyme through
the use of the Hebrew suffixes. The poetic form is unbrokenthrough
the whole of the passage 5).

1) Ibid.
2) The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ed. R. H.
CHARLES (2 vols., Oxford: Oxford University Press, I913), II, pp. I63-28I.
3) "St. Matthew xxv. 31-46 as a Hebrew Poem," The Journal of Theological
Studies, Vol. 14 (I913), pp. 414-424. The Hebrew of Vss. 31-33 is as follows:

by
3)3n0ttttnn
Inv

Ibid., TT181tD 3K01S10S11

4) p.4m9.
allw,=11 1=111 1D*013X1

Dr. J. A. SANDERS. He is in fundamental agreement with the translation

and with the comment that it represents no "tour de force."

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:35:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
36 LAMAR COPE

The second reason for giving some weight to this ClassicalHebrew

translation is that it goes against the grain of BURNEY'Stheories
about the teachings of Jesus. He finds himself forced to explain why
an Aramaic speaking Jesus should deliver such a polished poem in
the unfamiliar sacred language 1). His attempts to translate the
passage into Aramaic resulted in the obliteration of the poetic
form 2). BURNEY solved the problem by recourse to an argument
that Hebrew was a living language in apocalyptic circles in the first
century and that Jesus naturally chose this vehicle for his solemn
pronouncement about the future judgment. This device avoids
the problem of a suitable situation in Jesus' ministry when such
composition might have been done and when there were hearers
who would have understood what he said. The Hebrew poem is the
more striking in view of the inadequacy of BURNEY'Sinterpretation.
At this point some conclusions about the form of the passage may
be gathered together: the passage is no ordinary Synoptic parable,
its closest literary parallels are found in the Similitudes of Enoch,
and it may originally have been a Hebrew poem.
The Imagery and Language. Vs. 31. The opening sentence probably
is from the hand of the Evangelist. It is closely paralleled in xvi 27
and xix 28. Although the phrasing of 3Ia is not peculiar to Matthew
(cf. Mk. viii 38), the triple use of it in Matthew suggests conscious
use of a favorite phrase. That the Son of Man will sit upon a throne
(3Ib) is peculiar to Matthew in the Synoptic tradition. The Simili-
tudes of Enoch contain a number of close parallels (xlv 5, li 3, lv 4,
etc.). In this picture the Son of Man sits on the throne in order
to hold royal court. The scene is a construction of the Evangelist
and it helps us to understand the change to the title "king" in vs. 34.
Vs. 32. Here we encounter the problem of the interpretation of
the term "all the nations". Does it refer to all the Gentiles or
universally to all nations including Israel? JEREMIASchooses the
former alternative as most fitting to the Sitz im Leben of Jesus 3).
The latter alternative is defended by W. TRILLING and others.
TRILLING examines the four places where the phrase xav'roc ra evOw
occurs in Mt. (xxiv 9, xxiv 14, xxv 32, and xxviii I9) and concludes
that all are broadly universalistic 4). However, he reaches the

1) BURNEY, p. 420-421.
2) Ibid., p. 412.
3) JEREMIAS, p. 209.
4) W. TRILLING, Das Wahre Israel (Leipzig: St. Benno-Verlag, 1959), p. 14.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:35:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MATTHEW XXV 31-46 "THE SHEEP AND THE GOATS" 37

conclusion by claiming the obvious universalism of xxv 32. It is

just that assumption which is at issue.
If the evidence is inconclusive with regard to the full phrase, it
rests heavily in JEREMIAS favor if the uses of "the nations" alone in
Matthew are considered. In every instance other than Old Testament
quotation the term clearly refers to non-Jews and is slightly
derogatory (vi 32, x 5, I8, xx I9 and 25). Though the evidence
thus tends to support the narrower Jewish meaning of the term,
it is also true that in the LXX `Ovr is used to translate 'ammim
where that term clearly includes Israel. Moreover, a use of the
singular "nation" in xxi 43 is certainly non-derogatory and seems
to be a reference to the Church. Thus we gain little help for under-
standing the term from linguistic considerations.
But if the context is taken seriously, new light is shed on the
problem. The legitimacy of the sharp either/or of the above dis-
cussion is called into question. Perhaps it is impossible to say
conclusively who "all the nations" are, but it is possible to say who
they are not. From the pronouncements of vss. 40 and 45 it is clear
that those who have been given or refused hospitality are not a part
of the judgment proceeding and that they are "the least of these
my brethren". This simple fact is entirely overlooked by the
traditional exegesis of the passage. "All the nations" are those
other than the brothers of the Son of Man. When this is seen, the
question of whether or not Israel is included becomes academic.
The primary point is that the "least of these" are not included. Yet
it may be that the judgment of Israel and of the Church have been
dealt with earlier in the Gospel and that the question addressed here
is how the Gentiles are to be judged.
Vss. 32b-33. The simile of the sheep and the goats is virtually
self-explanatory. Sheep were both whiter (a symbol of purity) and
commercially more valuable than goats. The left/bad and right/good
imagery is common to most cultures. It is a clear and possibly
traditional image of separation. No further stress is put upon the
simile in the ensuing verses.
Vs. 34. A number of important features mark off this verse
as pivotal for the question of the composition of the whole passage.
The language throughout is Matthean. 6TOT is a favorite Matthean
word (90 times in the Gospel) and occurs four times in this pericope
alone. The title "King" is also a Matthean favorite. As ROBINSON
notes, in only one of the four other parables where the figure of a

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:35:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
38 LAMAR COPE

king appears is the image natural and necessary, Luke xiv 31. The
other three are in Matthew (The Unmerciful Servant, The Great
Supper, and the Wedding Garment)1). However, as we noted above,
the Son of Man seated on a throne in vs. 31 is clearly a king and the
author thus can quite naturally use the title here. The next phrase,
"Come, 0 blessed of my Father", has an equally Matthean ring.
"Of my Father" occurs I6 times in Mt., never in Mk., and only
4 times in Lk. The final phrase, "fromthe foundation of the world",
is peculiar to Matthew in the Gospels (cf. xiii35). All of these
elements combined lead to the firm conclusion that this verse is the
work of the author of the Gospel.
Vss. 35-36. While it is true, as JEREMIAS points out 2), that
the list of good deeds is not intended to be an exhaustive account,
it is important to note the emphasis on hospitality. A reading of the
commission to the disciples in ch. x will show that they are likely
to be hungry and thirsty and in need of lodging. And in view of the
predicted persecution, they are also likely to be in prison, broken
in health, etc. This insight is important for the discussion of the
meaning of vss. 40 and 45.
Special attention needs to be given to the verb auvCyco meaning
"to take in". JEREMIASconsiders it a rendering of the Aramaic
kanas3). However, the Hebrew asaph has precisely the same
meaning. The verb indicates a Semitism but not the preciselanguage
involved.
The asyndetic structureof vss. 35 and 36 might also be considered
a sign of Semitic origin. Caution is in order, however, because
asyndeton is used in Greek in series and enumerations4). It does
not produce awkwardnesshere but heightens the dramatic effect.
Vs. 37. "The righteous" as a term for those who are saved at the
Last Judgment is a Matthean word (cf. xiii 43, 49). ROBINSONhas
maintained that "in ch. xxv it is not a designationthat grows out of
the story itself" 5).But those on the right have just been acquitted by
the Son of Manwho is seated on the throne. They are "righteous"in
the most accurate sense of the word. Here we encounter both
Matthean style and vocabulary and an inherently Jewish motif.
1) ROBINSON, pp. 229-230.
2) JEREMIAS, p. 207.
3) JEREMIAS, P. 207.
4) BLASS-DEBRUNNER-FUNK, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), pp. 240-242.
5) ROBINSON, p. 231.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:35:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MATTHEW XXV 31-46 "THE SHEEP AND THE GOATS" 39

Vs. 40. "As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren,
you did it to me." This statement, with its negative counterpart in
vs. 45, is the dramatic climax of the passage. All else is subordinated
to these words. But their meaning, in spite of the universalistic
exegetical tradition, is not self-evident. To whom does "one of the
least of these my brethren" refer ? In what sense are they the Son of
Man himself ? Why does an act of kindness to them, or failure to act,
merit eternal reward or punishment? Why, in fact, does such
treatment of the Son of Man himself merit such judgment? An
attempt to answer these questions is fundamental to any expla-
nation of the passage.
"One of the least of these my brethren"-Are they the poor and
needy of the world? Or are they the disciples to whom the final
discourse is addressed? JEREMIASargues from two linguistic points
for the former alternative. Ev[ is used here as rvL, anyone, in
Semitic fashion 1). And the Tour&v is a superfluous Semitic pro-
noun 2). Both of these statements are true. But they do not prove
the intended point. JEREMIASargued earlier in the same work that
in the Parable of the Lost Sheep the concluding phrase, "one of
these little ones" (xviii I4), unmistakably refers to the disciples
in spite of the redundant pronoun. He further demonstrates that
the phrase itself is Matthean and not intrinsic to the parable 3).
In view of the use of the term "these little ones" also to mean the
disciples in xviii 6, and Io, the evidence suggests that this and
similar phrases are used by the author to refer to the disciples.
x 42 clinches the matter. "And whoever gives to one of these little
ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple . . ." uses the
phrase in precisely the same connection as "one of the least of these
my brethren" is used in the judgment picture 4). This evidence,
coupled with the fact that "the least of these my brethren" are not
included in the judgment, makes the case very strong that the
phrase is a direct reference to the disciples5).
But why does kindness to a disciple constitute kindness to the

1) JEREMIAS,
p. 207.
2) Ibid.
3) Ibid., p. 39 f.
4) The change of wording from ltxpo&v
to eX'orLaou probably emphasizes
the role of any of the disciples.
5) J. R. MICHAELS, "Apostolic Hardships And Righteous Gentiles," JBL,
84, pp. 27-37, reaches this conclusion in a traditio-historical study which
moves in the same directions as our analysis.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:35:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
40 LAMAR COPE

Master? The passage itself provides no answer. The closely related

text, x 40-42, does provide a rationale for such judgment, however.
x 40 makes the halakic principle of agency fundamental to the
nature of discipleship: "He who receives you receives me". The
commissioned agent (shaliach)was considered to be the equivalent
of the person he represented. ("An agent ranks as his master's own
person". Kid. 43a) 1) Jesus' disciples are his agents. In dealing with
a disciple one deals with Jesus (cf. Jn. xiii 20). By means of the
principle of agency it is possible to say that an act of kindness to a
disciple is also an act of kindness to the Master.
But why is such a simple act as giving a thirsty man a drink
of water sufficient for salvation at the final judgment ? Obviously
such a belief would encourage and strengthen the disciple in his
task but what is the rationale for such a policy? x 40-42 again
help us to be more precise. x 42 says that whoever gives one of
the little ones a cup of water because he is a disciple shall not lose
his reward.That enigmatic statement is an application of vs. 4I,
"He who receives a prophet because he is a prophet shall receive a
prophet's reward, and he who receives a righteous man because he
is a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward." The
words imply that a belief about the granting of hospitality to
religious persons is being invoked.
Some evidence for a belief that conscioushospitality to a prophet
entitles the host to a prophet's rewardis found in I Kings xiii 11-32.
In that story a non-Jahwist prophet who has heard of the pro-
phetic deeds of a prophet of Jahweh persuades the latter, by guile,
to dine with him. By accepting this hospitality the prophet of
Jahweh disobeyed the Lord's command and brought doom upon
himself. The important point for this discussion is the fact that the
non-Jahwist prophet, as a result of his conscious act of hospitality,
received a revelation from Jahweh, the message of the prophet of
Jahweh's doom. He had by conscious hospitality to a prophet
received a prophet's reward. The story is interpretedin this fashion
in the Talmud (San. I04a). It is also possible that the story of the
widow of Zarephath depends upon such a belief in the power of
hospitality. She shares not only in Elijah's bounty from God during
the drought, but the life of her son is saved (I Kings I7). There is,

1) For a more extensive treatment of agency see P. BORGEN, Bread From

Heaven (Leiden: E. J. Brill, I965), pp. I58-I64.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:35:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MATTHEW XXV 31-46 "THE SHEEP AND THE GOATS" 4I

therefore, some evidence of a tradition that hospitality to a religious

person, consciously given, entitles the host to a share in that
person's blessing. Mt. x I2-I5 seems to presuppose the same idea.
The disciples are to grant to those who receive them a blessing, but
those who do not receive them will suffer in the judgment. It is
quite probable that the author of the Gospel of Matthew is familiar
with such a tradition about hospitality and that it underlies the
argument of x 12-15, 40-42, and xxv 31-46.
If the foregoing arguments are correct, Mt. xxv 40 and 45 draw
a picture of the judgment based upon the treatment of the disciple/
agents of the Son of Man by the nations. It is a picture which draws
upon Jewish traditions of hospitality. Thus the emphasis in the
enumeration of the deeds upon acts of hospitality is understandable
in the light of the thought context in which it is set.
Vs. 4I. The apocalyptic imagery of this verse serves to empha-
size the judgment context. The specific phrases are apocalyptic
commonplace and help us little with the problem of the origin of the
passage. This verse is carefully parallel to vs. 34. It cites the inheri-
tance of the unjust and adds a phrase about the origin of the
inheritance 1). Though the materials of apocalyptic speculation are
used in the whole passage they never become the main point.
Instead, this framework is carefully subordinated to the pronounce-
ment of the judgment.
Vs. 46. The concluding verse has often been separated from
the body of the passage as a summarizing addition by the evangelist.
In comparison with the clearer additions to two of the preceding
parables, xxiv 51 and xxv 30, the verse here has a much closer
connection to its context. It provides an entirely fitting conclusion
to the judgment scene. Since Matthean style and ideology have been
evident throughout the pericope, there are no sound critical grounds
for considering the verse an artificial addition to the pericope.
The Source of the Judgment Picture. The question of the origin
of the pericope may now be treated in the light of the foregoing
discussion. There are strong reasons why the passage cannot be
taken as going back to the historical Jesus. It is not a true parable.
Far from being marked by "startling originality", the pericope

1) ROBINSON, p. 232, errs when he says that the phrases "into the eternal
fire" and "for the devil and his angels" break the parallel with vs. 34. The
"fire" parallels "kingdom" and "for the devil and his angels" parallels
"from the foundation of the world."

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:35:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
42 LAMAR COPE

draws upon Jewish motifs of judgment, agency, and hospitality.

These motifs are encountered in other, and often redactional,
portions of Matthew. A picture of the judgment determined by the
acceptance or rejection of the disciples is much more likely to be a
reflection of the concern of the early church than of Jesus. The
equating of the Son of Man with Jesus is unmistakable and the
passage thereby betrays one of the surer signs of non-authenticity.
Not only is there no evidence for an Aramaic original, but a Hebrew
original is more probable. The passage is thus not highly original,
it does not betray Aramaic origins, and it does not reflect a situation
in the life of Jesus. The arguments against its being a saying of
Jesus are collectively compelling.
The question of a special source is only a little less clearcut.
The exegesis has shown an intricate set of relationships connecting
the pericope to other Matthean texts. If we were to hold to Streeter's
dictum that the Matthean discourses are each "an agglomeration
put together by the editor of the Gospel" 1), it might be arguable
that x 12-15 and 40-42; xiii 40-43; xviii 1-14, 35; and xxv 31-46
are all derived from a source. However, as we have seen, many of
these verses are editorial in character and their unity of subject
matter suggests a common motif far more than a common source.
To these texts must be added the Great Commission passage in
xxviii 16-20. Its position and content certainly suggest deliberate
summary by the evangelist. It is, therefore, quite unlikely that the
origin of xxv 31-46 is to be ascribed to a special source.
That leaves the alternative that the source of the pericope is the
author (or authors ?) of the Gospel. A number of arguments support
this view. A surprising number of Matthean words and phrases occur
in this passage. They are natural and germane to the content and
appear throughout the pericope. The thought patterns of the passage
are echoed elsewhere in Matthew in other and equally fitting
contexts (esp. x 40-42). All attempts to break the passage into its
components founder upon the logical unity and cohesion in the
application of the agency, hospitality, and judgment themes. The
evidence that the pericope is closely related to the theme of disciple-
ship, the great burden of the discourses, and that it points forward
to the Great Commission suggests conscious, deliberate work by the
evangelist. The most probable source of the pericope is the author
1) B. H. STREETER, The Four Gospels (London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd.,
1924), p. 259.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:35:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MATTHEW XXV 31-46 "THE SHEEP AND THE GOATS" 43

himself. In it he has brought to a dramatic climax his emphasis on

discipleship and the importance of judgment.
A Summary of the Suggested Interpretation. Mt. xxv 31-46 is a
poetic picture of the Last Judgment constructed by the evangelist
to conclude the "official" teaching ministry of Jesus. It portrays
the scene at the Last Judgment when all the nations (perhaps
including Israel) stand before the Son of Man to be judged. The Son
of Man is Jesus. His disciples are not a part of the judgment pro-
ceedings but are standing to one side 1). The Son of Man divides the
men of the nations on the basis of their reception or rejection of Him
through his agents, the disciples. He tells the judged ones that this
criterion is being used. Those who have given the disciples hospitality
are declared righteous and allowed to enter the Kingdom. Those who
have not given hospitality are sent away to punishment.
The Broader Implications of the Exegesis. The important critical
results of the exegesis are related to questions of Matthean redaction.
The passage uses recognizably Matthean language. It relies on
concepts elaborated elsewhere in the Gospel. These concepts are
thoroughly Jewish, or Jewish-Christian. This exegesis thus gives
some confirmation to the view that the redactor of this Gospel is a
Jewish-Christian. In view of Burney's Hebrew translation, the
likelihood that this author knew Hebrew appears to be strengthened.
The study also reveals an attitude of the author of the Gospel
toward Heilsgeschichte. The picture of the judgment implied in ch.
x and made explicit in this pericope is one in which the world is to
be judged on the basis of its reception of Jesus and of his disciples.
The clear implication of the combination of the picture of the
judgment and the command of the Great Commission is that the
end can only come when the disciples have carried out their mission
to the satisfaction of their master. That is, the Son of Man will
return to judge the earth only after "all the nations" have been
given a chance to receive or reject him through his agents (cf. Mk.
xiii Io, Mt. xxiv I4). The fact that Paul may have understood his
apostolic commission in a similar light indicates that such a view
is not a strange one but one which provided motivating force for the
early Christian mission (Rom. xv 19, xi 25, et al) 2).
1) Judgment of the church is not denied here, it simply is not a part of
this particular picture.
2) J. MUNCK stresses this aspect of Paul's thought in Paul and the Salvation
of Mankind, trans. F. Clarke (London: SCM Press, 1959), esp. pp. 42-49.
Also Michaels, op. cit., 29-37.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:35:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
44 COPE, MATTHEW XXV 31-46

The exegesis also has illustrated the danger inherent in ap-

proaching Matthew as a patchwork of sources or traditions. The
isolation of xxv 31-46 as an independent saying is the most glaring
mistake of the traditional exegesis of this passage. The inter-con-
nections that have been shown to exist among various portions
of Matthew illustrate vividly the need for study of the Gospels as
documents having their own themes, purposes, and unity. The
importance of source and form criticism is not thereby denied. It is
simply the case that redaction criticism should always be used to
supplement, and if necessary correct, the results obtained by those
methods. In this instance, form and source criticism have been too
hastily applied to a passage which does not readily yield to them.
A pertinent illustration is thus given of the need for flexibility
of method in Gospel criticism.
Finally, perhaps the most important result of the exegesis
relates to its use in ethics and homiletics. Matthew xxv 31-46 cannot
provide a legitimate basis for Christian concern for the poor and
needy of the world. Such an interpretation violates the text by
eisegesis. "The least of these my brethren" are the disciples; the
ethic is a churchly, sectarian one; it does not represent a significant
advance in ethical thinking over the ethics of the Judaism of its day.
For a wider concern and richer ethic interpreters must turn to
other places in the New Testament.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:35:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions