Who are the Least of These? And Why Does it Matter?
I’ve made the case (here)— as has Kevin De Young (here and here) — that the least of Jesus’s brothers are the men and women of God who are sacrificing it all for the sake of sharing the gospel. Like all of us, they live their lives fulfilling the Great Commission, the one and only Mission Christ has prepared for us. For the “least of these, my brothers,” however, their commitment to the cause costs them more than the average Christian. For this reason, Jesus says, “Treat them well! For however you treat my brothers is how you treat me.”
Some argue, however, that the “least of these” is anybody in need. It is the person who is “least” in any sort of category. Consider the implications of this interpretation:
Universalism. Universalism is the belief that good people who do good things get a good, eternal reward, which is exactly the belief system that is implied when the “least of these” means anybody in need. For example, in the text there is the “least of these” and there is a group of people who take care of the least of these. What happens to the group? They receive an eternal reward. The group does good things for people in need and they go to heaven. That is universalism.
Misrepresentation of Jesus and the Family of God. Has Jesus appointed an atheist to be His representative? Does He call the unbeliever His brother? No, those titles were bought with the price of His blood. Jesus calls Christians His ambassadors, and His brothers; therefore not just anyone — even if they are needy— can be an earthly representative of Jesus (ie, “what you have done to the least of these you have done to me”). Furthermore, how would that viewpoint translate to the context of Matthew 10:14? When the disciples shook the dust off their feet at those who rejected their gospel message, were they shaking the dust off their feet at Jesus? No. In summary, Jesus can’t be represented by just anybody and so the least of these can’t be just anybody.
Further Misinterpretation of Scripture.
Some might say that the claim of Universalism is too simplistic. What if it is a group of Christians who take care of people in need and then go to heaven? While theologically true, calling the group “Christian” doesn’t work out in the reverse. Can there be a group of Christians who do not take care of people in need and therefore do not go to heaven? No, that is impossible; all Christians go to heaven and to say otherwise would be to misinterpret scripture. Therefore it doesn’t make sense to say that both groups are automatically Christian. Consequently, someone might suggest that Christians take care of the least of these while non-Christians do not take care of the least of these but that wouldn’t make any sense either. In history and in current times we see godless people taking care of a group in need of their own choosing.
Perhaps the criticism is “Christians will of course take care of people in need because Christians will ‘show their faith by what they do’”. This reference is from the Book of James and it calls for the care of the brothers and sisters within the church body. James wrote that true faith shows up for the people of the Church in need. One would have to essentially rewrite the meaning of the verse in James in order to help rewrite the meaning of the “least of these” in order for that argument to work. Or perhaps, more broadly, the criticism is that Christians “bear good fruit.” Well the fruit of the Spirit is many things, but none of them are social causes— and to imply so would be, again, scriptural misinterpretation.
At any rate, like any belief system, the belief that the “least of these” could be anyone has consequences. Secular folks prefer an “anything goes” interpretation because it gives them an “all access” pass to heaven, and / or because it gives them a “gotcha” verse to sway Christians toward a preferred political position.
Amongst Christians, however, an “anything goes” understanding is a needless source of division, manipulation and / or misplaced emphasis. When scripture is misapplied, it takes the focus off of what God intends and puts the focus on what man intends— which is never best for the mission God has for his people. This is why when Christians misinterpret scripture, they can experience mission drift.
But what is the Christian’s mission?
In Jesus’s last few minutes on earth, the primary message He wanted to convey was this: Go out into all the world telling people about me. What He wants is for the collective body of believers — which is the church — to know Him and to make Him known to people everywhere so that they can spend eternity with Him. When scripture is misinterpreted, it fails to point Christians toward God’s mission and instead points to man’s vacillating causes: “Who do you think the least of these is? Well, who do you think the least of these is? And who do you think the least of these is? And how do we best serve them? What is the best method?” Every different answer is a new mission, and a new cause for a Christian to pursue— when in reality there is only one: the gospel.
And that mission is difficult! Starvation. Beatings. Imprisonment. The gospel of the Lord has made martyrs of Christians across the world, including here in the United States, which is why brotherly love amongst the saints is so important.
Jesus is very clear on who the least of these is because He is very clear on what the mission is: saving souls.
Did she intend for any of this to happen? Was her intent to make a statement on salvation? No, it wasn’t. She intended to use scripture to advocate for gun control. But that’s what happens when scripture is taken out of context; it ends up in a new belief system.
Post script:
Paul writes to the Church in Galatia, “Be sure to do good to all people, especially those in the household of God,” which I think is a great perspective for how Christians are to navigate the many necessary causes available to us today.
Do good to everyone.
Especially the Church.