The Poor You Have With You Always

I was reading an article in Israel My Glory magazine about Matthew 25. The writer made an excellent point. If we want the answer to who are Jesus’ “brethren” in Matthew 25:40 we need only look to those Jesus said were His brethren earlier in Matthew. He answers the question for us:

Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

So Jesus’ brethren are not a bunch of convicted rapists and terrorists who were rightly punished for their crimes (as both Peter and Paul attest too), they are those who are are doing the Father’s will. If all men are His “brethren” are the Pharisees Jesus’ “brethren” too? If not, why not? If all mankind are His brethren, then why did the Son of God say this “ye are of your father the devil”? How could people be the children of the devil (or the children of disobedience as Peter put it) and also be Jesus’ “brethren”?

In context of the Great Tribulation (Jacob’s Trouble) in Matthew 25, Jesus’ brethren who do the will of the Father will primarily be the 144,000 Jewish evangelists, the believing Jewish remnant and the few Gentiles who will believe. But we mustn’t let context get in the way of our predetermined tradition, can we?

Yesterday on Focus on Bad Theology, Jimbo had a guest who had written a book about his experiences as a self-appointed homeless person (he wanted to see how the “American Church” dealt with the homeless). He repeated the following human traditions multiple times:

1. “Jesus is constantly saying that we are to take care of the least of these His brethren”
   
2. “Jesus would hang around prostitutes, [etc.]”

Well, you’d be hard-pressed to prove that Jesus was “constantly” saying anything about “the least of His brethren.” Matthew 25 is pretty much it. And we have seen, in context, how it does not mean “all mankind everywhere.” Jim’s guest tried to justify his assertion with yet another reference to the false notion that all men are “created in the image of God.” (I covered that error in a previous post). Even the oft-quoted-without-regard-to-context passage in James (written to “the twelve tribes scattered abroad,” by the way) refers to caring for those in the church.

If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

Jesus did chastise the Pharisees for ignoring the poor of Israel which the Law commanded them to feed, however, Jesus Himself refused to feed the hungry on at least one ocassion. He ignored the pleas of a gentile woman and then ignores local Greeks who desire to speak with him on other ocassions (What Would Jesus Do? He’d ignore gentiles!).

In John 6, after feeding the five thousand, Jesus withdrew from the crowd because they didn’t understand His ministry. He then refused to feed them with physical bread and told them to seek the true bread from heaven. Had He wanted, He could have ended hunger not only in Israel, but in all the world. It should put things into perspective to note that not only did He not even come close to doing this, you could even argue that He had refused to do so.

Should we care for the poor? Should we visit the sick and imprisoned? Of course, but this is not the core message of Christianity. Even in caring for the poor, etc., Paul stresses that care for poor Christians comes first. By application these are truly “His brethren.” By believeing on Him whom the Father has sent, Christians are doing the will of God (Jn 6:29) and we are, hense, His “brethren.” There will be reward for those who give of themselves and comfort others… but primarily reward for giving to Christians and for comforting Christians. We were saved unto good works (Eph 2:10), but charity begins at home, as it were:

And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

As to all Jesus’ prostitute pals, we need to be careful how we generalize. Jesus did go to the outcast of Israel. He did have compassion on them. We are not be “respecters of persons” and we must therefore bring the good news of God’s grace to the world’s outcasts. However, that does not entail “hanging around” pimps, crack-heads and rapists. The tax collectors and prostitutes of Jesus’ day were as much a victim of the Pharisetical system as they were of anything else. Cast out of the temple, they were forced to become depedent on the Gentiles in Israel. Jesus certainly never approved of their behavior (see: the woman at the well, the woman taken in adultery and Zaccheus).

Paul tells us that Jesus was “separate from sinners.” He gave His most intimate teachings and doctrines in small gatherings of His disciples. In that particular group there was at least one former tax collector and there may very well have been some former prostitutes. The key word here, however, is “former.” To use Paul’s phrase “such were some of you.”

I read the gospels and I see Jesus spending the bulk of his time with either His disciples or with the Pharisees. Oh, and He’s not meeting with the Pharisees to try and find “common ground.” If that kid really wanted to use Christ’s ministry as his example, he’d be better off confronting doctrinal error, preaching the truth and warning false teachings of their end. Maybe Jim could follow Jesus’ example and start upbraiding the false teachers of today. If he did that, it'd be OK with me if he also wanted to start “hanging around” prostitutes and drug addicts.

The world will love you if you merely "hang around" drug addicts, but try telling them the gospel or upbraiding false teachers and you'll suddenly get a glimpse of what Jesus' sufferings were all about... and you won't get invited on Jim Dobson's show.