The Parable of the Sheep and Goats (Matthew 25:31-46): Eschatology and Mission, Then and Now

RICHARD C. OUDERSLUYS In his notable study of this parable, J. A. T. Robinson begins by saying, "The vision of the Last Judgment with which Matthew concludes so magnificently the teaching ministry of Jesus stands out from the gospel pages with a unique and snow-capped majesty." 1 He then proceeds in seventeen subsequent pages to de­ scribe all the difficulties which await any one bold enough to make an exegetical assault upon it. I The extent and number of exegetical difficulties in the parable were obscured for a time by the prevalence of two uses of it by the pulpit, one doctrinal, the other practical. If doctrinal, the sermon concentrated on the future judgment. If practical, it terminated on philanthropy. This is not to say that other and more profound levels of meaning were always ignored. From Calvin and Luther to modern times, major difficulties have emerged both at the point of the determin­ ing principle of judgment in the parable, and the identity of the various groups mentioned in it. Regarding the principle of the judgment, it was usually noted that in this parable, people are judged, not by their conscious relation to Jesus, but by their kindness or lack of kindness to the naked, needy, and poor. Older discussions commonly centered about the reconciliation of the parable with such a saying of Jesus as this: "Whoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him shall the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father and with the holy angels" (Mark 8:38; Matt. 16:27; Luke 9:26; cf. Matt. 10:32-33; Luke 12:8, 9). Regarding the identity of the persons mentioned in the parable, Calvi~ and Luther decided for the Lord's division of his church, a church which by the end of world-evangelism would embrace all nations. The prevalence of this exegesis was then interrupted by exegetes who felt that Jesus' identification of himself went beyond the bound­ aries of the church. The phrase "all the nations" (v. 32) was usually interpreted to mean any one of three groups; first, all Gentiles as opposed to Jews, second, all non-Christians as opposed to Christians or the church, and third, all the fol­ lowers of Christ. Interest began to focus on the meaning of verse forty- "as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me." The identity of those who do such good works and those to whom they are done became in­ creasingly the locus vexatus of the parable. Fortunately for brevity's sake, two main positions became dominant in the history of the exegesis, one particular, 2 the other universal. 3 Neither have been without their difficulties. If "the least 151 of these, my brothers" are the poverty-stricken of the world, then how are they to be distinguished from "all the nations" who are subject to the final judgment? And if the group is understood to mean the Christian community, then who are "the sheep" who inherit the Kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world? Such were some of the dilemmas which occupied the energies of older inter­ preters. More recent attempts at interpretation of the parable reveal that new levels of relevance have moved in to claim attention. Jesus' identification with "the least of these, my brothers" (v. 40) is now understood not only in a decidedly universal sense, but also in terms of a dynamism and mysticism that approach incarnation. The language of the parable is pressed into service to promote the doctrine of the "latent Christ" present in every man. Carrol E. Simcox, for example, puts it this way: How seriously do we take the plain doctrine of this awful parable­ that Christ, the eternal Son of God, the Judge of all the nations, is literally incarnate in the most worthless tramp, the most ragged beggar, the vilest criminal? If for us this is only a dramatic metaphor, we cannot receive the deep redemptive thrust of it. This story is much more than an eloquent homily exhorting us to compassion. It is a disclosure, a warning, a promise, by the eternal Word that 'whenever you did it to one of these lowly brothers of mine, you did it to me.' He is in the homeless but crimeless Negro who may still be arrested in some parts of the U. S. on a charge of vagrancy, and put to work on a road gang. It is Christ whom we put on that road gang, to get some cheap labor out of him. He· is in the aged, senile person whom we put into a rest home and forthwith forget. He is in the drunkard, the dope addict, the pros­ titute. This is a shocking reflection; but this is a shocking parable. 4 Another level of relevance figuring conspicuously in contemporary interpreta­ tion is the reference in the parable to what is now termed "unconscious goodness." This is traced to the surprised reaction of the righteous who say to Jesus, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, thirsty and give you drink, a stranger and welcome you, naked and clothe you, sick or in prison and visit you?" (vv. 37 -39) . This in turn gives support to what has become known in our time as "anonymous Christianity." Sherman E. Johnson says, "The most striking note of the parable is that on Judgment Day some men will discover that although they have not known it, they have been on God's side all the time." 5 Perhaps it is Karl Rahner, more than any other contemporary theologian, who has given em­ phasis to this construction. Commenting on this particular parable he says, "the saying ... that what is done to the least of his brethren is done to Jesus, [is] a saying which cannot be explained by an arbitrarily altruistic identification which, according to many commentators, Jesus himself undertakes as it were merely morally and juridically in a mere 'as if.' The understanding of this text must certainly first of all proceed from the absolutely unique position Jesus attributes to himself as the Son as such, as the presence of God and of his basileia among us, and must in general try to bring out clearly the unity of this Son with man. 152 If we do this, we will no doubt be led back again to the doctrine of the mysteri­ ous unity of the love of God and of neighbour and to its Christological basis and radicalisation." 6 In one of his more popular writings, Rahner explains what this means for the attitude of the Christian toward others of only implicit faith, and he says: He will see in them persons who do not yet know what in fact they are, who have not yet clearly realized what in the depths of their life they are, it is to' be assumed, already accomplishing. . . He sees, in others, anonymous Christianity at work in innumerable ways. He will not call their kindness, love, fidelity to conscience, "natural" virtues, which are only really found in the abstract. He will no longer say, as Augustine did, that they are certainly only the "specious vices of the heathen." He will rather think that the grace of Christ is at work even in those who in their inexpressible nameless longing have nevertheless already desired it. 7 The role being played by these concepts of "latent Christology" and "anon­ ymous Christianity" in the contemporary understanding of the mission of the church in today's world, is quite evident to those who are abreast with the whole discussion. 8 Extended comment on these concepts cannot be attempted in this brief study, and reference to them has been made here only because our Mat­ thaean passage has become implicated in the current discussion. What has been set down thus far may be sufficient to lift into view some of the problematics involved in any exegesis of this parable, and what J. A. T. Rob­ inson termed its "unique and snow-capped majesty." II When one turns to the exegesis of Matthew 2 5 : 31-46, he encounters difficulty at the outset in applying the customary approaches of source and form criticism. The form of the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats is unlike that of other parables of Jesus. Strictly speaking, the parable itself actually includes only a verse and a half ((vv. 32-34), and embraces the simple analogy of a shepherd separating at night his flock of sheep and goats. Mixed flocks were common in Palestine and the separating of them at night took place,, as Jeremias explains, simply because while the sheep could be safely left out at night, the goats, being more delicate animals, had to be brought under cover. Unlike other parables, this one is not followed by an allegorizing interpretation, such as that in the Matthaean parables of the Tares (13:24-30, 36-43) and the Drag-net (13:47-50) . This parable appears to be combined with an evocative discourse on the Last Judgment, the latter serving as an interpretation of the former. What is before us, then, is a parable-discourse, the two woven together so skillfully that they defy customary form-critcial analysis. That the parable is unique to Matthew, without Synoptic parallels, is a further difficulty for form-criticism and well-nigh disastrous for the source critic. Jeremias, for example, after applying his ten criteria for rediscovering the original form of the parable, confesses that in this instance they yield very small results. 9 Here and there he is able to subtract a phrase or term 153 as Matthaean, but in the end he is forced to conclude that the passage is an in­ herent unity and an authentic discourse of Jesus. Concurring in this judgment is Theo Preiss who shows that the entire passage is filled with Aramaisms and Semitic parallelisms.10 The most ambitious attempt to analyze the passage lin­ guistically is that of Robinson who compares it with other Matthaean passages, 11 and is able to show several significant parallels. The conclusions he draws from these data, however, are not beyond dispute. He attributes verses 32-34, 35-40 to Jesus, the remainder to Matthew, and then asserts that Matthew fused an original parable with an allegory of the Last Judgment, and that Matthew went on to weave into this other sayings of Jesus dealing with the criteria or grounds on which the Last Judgment is made. This is all quite possible, of course, but equally possible is the view that the entire passage is a Matthaean construct based on previous logia of Jesus. And it is not only possible but entirely conceivable that these themes were picked up and re-used by Jesus Himself. H. E. W. Turner is of this mind and says, "The daring reconstruction of this material in our parable strongly suggests the authorship of Jesus. Matthew's editorial methods are nor­ mally too pedestrian to assign to him the authorship or compilation of this passage." 12 The remaining technique for probing this parable-discourse is that of redac­ tion-criticism. The purpose and theology of Matthew are ~uggested by the opening and concluding verses of the gospel: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ the Son of David, the Son of Abraham" (1: 1), and "As you go, disciple all nations, baptizing them, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (28 :18-20) . It is the theology of the kingdom and the king who comes in blessing for the nations which pervades Matthew's book. The blessings promised Abraham and David begin to find their fulfillment in the "great commission." The command to teach the nations "all things that I have commanded you" has in view the content of the five major discourses of the book, of which our parable­ discourse constitutes the fifth or final discourse, usually termed the Olivet Dis­ course. It was on the eve of his suffering and death that Jesus spoke to his dis­ ciples about final things. From the Mount of Olives, Jesus and the disciples looked down upon the holy city so shortly to reject him. In view of this setting the content of the Olivet Discourse is somewhat surprising. Its main thrust is stewardship, the task and trust given his followers to discharge until the day, "when the Son of Man will come on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory, when he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call to gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other" (24:30-31). The imminent suffering and death of Jesus are not to be the end, but the begin­ ning, through resurrection and exaltation, of a new stage in the disclosure of his kingship. Although Jesus had previously proclaimed the kingdom and brought it to realization in his person, word, and work, it is now declared to be on the eve of a new stage of realization and disclosure. His kingship will soon come to new visibility in the obedience and witness of his disciples, in the form and presence 154 of the church. Although Matthew does not specifically mention the church, yet the parables of the Wicked Servant (24:45-51), the Ten Maidens (25:1-13), the Talents ( 25:14-30), together with the commands and promises which emerge from the "great commission" ( 28: 18-20), all of these speak of a new stage in the kingship of Jesus in which the church emerges as the visible evidence and locale of that kingship. When Matthew wrote his gospel-book, the church was already a reality all;d exercising its responsive stewardship. That Matthew re­ frained from explicit reference to this fulfillment is due simply to the limited scope of his literary purpose. But let it also be noted that Matthew's stress is placed not only on the preparation of Jesus' followers for realizing his kingship in the church, but for its ultimate realization in the still future event of the parous;a. Jesus' kingship dates from the resurrection and exaltation and, before the parousia, the church can and does henceforth call Jesus King and Lord. It is at the consummation of all things, however, "when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne, and before him will be gathered all nations" (25:31). Then the Son of Man will be seen truly as the Son of Man, because then he will be Judge and King of the whole world, and he will separate as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 13 The righteous will be invited to inherit the kingdom prepared for them, while the wicked will be remanded to everlasting fire. With this Matthaean ma­ terial before us, we are prepared to take up the crucial point of the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, which is the criterion by which the Judge and King reaches the final verdict. Jesus the Son of Man has been hungry, thirsty, a stranger, naked, sick, and in prison. The righteous are those who have ministered to him, the wicked are those who did not so minister. When both parties are surprised that this has been the situation, Jesus explains, "As you did it to the least of these, my brothers, you did it to me" (25:40). Who are these brothers with whom Jesus so closely identifies himself? If the context here of Matthew's theology and that of the Olivet Discourse are allowed some voice in the framing of the answer, then what is more plausible than to identify the brothers with the messengers of the Kingdom. They will arrive in the cities of the world ill, hungry, thirsty, naked, and will at times suffer imprisonment. Some wi11 receive them and their message and minister to them, while others will reject both message and mes­ sengers. As T. W. Manson said, "The deeds of the righteous are not just casual acts of benevolence. They are acts by which the Mission of Jesus and His fol­ lowers was helped, and helped at some cost to the doers, even at some risk." 14 This identification of the brothers is further illumined, as Bultmann, Preiss, and others point out, by the well-known rabbinic principle of the "shaliach," namely, that "a man's representative shall be as himself."ir. The pertinent parallel in Matthew is that at 10:40-42: He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me. He who receives a prophet because he is a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward, and he who receives a rightous man because he is a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward. And who- 155 ever gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he shall not lose his reward. Further Matthaean parallels ( 12 :48-50; 18: 3, 6, 10, 12ff.) strongly suggest that the "little ones," "the least," "the least of these, my brothers," are always Jesus' disciples, and at times even the Twelve who stand in their Lord's place and preach and teach the good news. The term "all nations" (25:32) also has a parallel at 24:13-14 where the gospel is to be proclaimed as a witness to all nations, and still another at 28: 19 where the Risen Christ gives the command to his followers to make disciples of all nations. Again, what is more plausible than to conclude that the phrase means all those to whom the gospel will have been proclaimed before the parousia, and who will be judged on the basis of their response to the message and the messengers. Their response will become visible in action, the action of unashamed welcome or ashamed rejection. And it is this response that sways the balances of destiny at the last judgment. In summary, this proposed exegesis views Matthew 2 5: 31 -46 as setting forth the solidarity of Jesus and his disciples in their mission in the period between the kingdom come and the kingdom to come. 16 To intrude here "anonymous Chris­ tians" who perform acts of kindness unaware of their Christian nature is to lift the parable-discourse out of its historic connection with Jesus' message and mis­ sion according to Matthew. Moreover, the New Testament picture of the ex­ pansion of the Christian mission is such that there is no difficulty in identifying the messengers of Jesus as hungry, thirsty, poor, naked, and imprisoned. They became such in the course of their preaching-teaching mission, and not incidentally as risks encountered in an unpopular cause or as risks deliberately invited by some religio-socio strategy. They becan:e such by genuine identification with such in the course of ministering to them. By taking upon themselves in Christ-like con­ cern and active response the poverty, sickness, suffering, hunger, and need which they found in the world, these men fulfilled their apostolic calling. In so doing, they brought to reality the word of Jesus when he said, "let the greatest among you become as the least, and the leader as one who serves" (Luke 22:26; Mark 10:43f.). The fact that the exegesis proposed above is not the popular one of our day should perturb none of us. The point at which this exegesis and contemporary interpretation conflict is easily stated. Is it sufficient to point to Jesus' self-identi­ fication with the church in its mission? Granted that the church is the place where this identification finds visible expression and realization, does it not extend beyond the confines of the church? The New Testament, to be sure, affirms that there is a sense in which Jesus' identification is with all men. As our repre­ sentative and substitute, he came to identify himself with the life and destiny of all men. His sovereignty and victory extend to all things in heaven and on earth. He fulfilled the office of man in our changing world by being the first born of many brothers, the Son of Man, the second Adam, the one who totally conformed to the divine will for all men. It is this universal aspect of Jesus' mission that 156 commentators and exegetes apply at Matthew 25: 31-46 when they assert that "the least of these" are the poor of the world generally. Utilizing this approach, Theo Preiss sees our parable-discourse enunciating a new mystery concerning the Son of Man. The new mystery is simply that when Jesus comes in his parottsia, it will not be so much as the Son of Man but as Judge and King. Before that last event, he is the Son of Man who is the justification of all men, all who objectively need help irrespective of t,heir subjective dispositions.17 The mystery of cosmic propor­ tions to be revealed at the final judgment will be "that in this world he will have been mysteriously present in the most degraded wretch." 18 Preiss develops this self-identification of Jesus in terms of what he terms "juridical mysticism," by which he means a free, sovereign act of self-identification of Jesus, which has nothing to do with absorption or incarnation. Unfortunately, Preiss is unable to present any persuasive exegetical data for locating this juridical mysticism in our Matthaean passage. 19 And it should be noted that Preiss pointedly rejects the idea that the "wretched poor" are Christians, 20 and he would probably be quite startled by the idea popular in our day that Christ is everyman and that everyman is Christ, latent or otherwise. His exegesis is mentioned here not because this study supports it, but because it is a good example of a variant exegesis often adopted in our day, and often for quite mistaken reasons. Theo Preiss would be among the last of scholars to encourage the secularizing of Christ being advocated by some of the new theologians. III Now let us turn, if only briefly, to what may be the meaning of the parable­ discourse for us today. It speaks about the bearing of eschatology upon the mission of the church. Leaving to one side many aspects of the subject which merit discussion, allow me to confine my remarks to three matters. First, the kind of future in this passage which pulls us relentlessly to the present in a searching scrutiny of the church's mission in the world; second, the predicament which this scrutiny entails for the church and its mission; and finally, the possible peril for the church in carrying forward its mission. First, we need to look again to this future sketched ify Matthew. This future is unreservedly ultimate, rigidly alternative, and unspeakably real. Utilizing the exegesis previously proposed, we come up with an event of future judgment in which the Son of Man appears as judge and king and speaks for himself and his brothers-if you will-a spokesman for the church, its mission, and missioners. Two other parties figure in the judgment scene. Those on the right will be com­ mended not because they abstained from crude and gross sins, and those on the left will be condemned not because of their indulgence in them. It is not simply a matter of some having been generous and kind-hearted, and others callous and indifferent. The verdict is not based on whether or not men have lived a good moral life or even used their checkbooks compassionately. It is based on how men have stood with respect to the Kingdom of God. Were they on the side of the kingdom or against it? For this determination, the Son of Man will come again, 157 and then as judge and king of all the world. This final event is a real future, not simply existential or mythical. As Paul Minear says with considerable point: There are preachers who use this story with gusto even though they reject as outmoded any thought of the Lord's return. In effect, they say, "This story dispenses with the need for Parousia. We have here all that we need : a living Lord who teaches us continually how to love our neighbors." The maker of the parable, however, clearly thought other­ wise. . . Unless he returns, the thought of identifying him with "the least" remains nothing more than an interesting and perhaps edifying idea. 21 This future is also one which pulls us back relentlessly to the present. Every real future, of course, demonstrates itself as such by the way it gives substance to the present. When future and present are torn asunder, man is deprived of both. Genuine hope comes to visibility in action. It does not mean sitting along the way, waiting and watching for the future. · It does not mean that, disenchanted with the world, the church may find in this future a kind of alibi or evasion. The entire Matthaean section with its companion parables of the Wise and Wicked Servant (24:45-5 1), the Ten Maidens (25:1-14) , and the Talents (25:14-3 0) are most instructive on what it means to "watch" and "wait" for this future. The inter-relation of eschatology and mission is very much to the fore in the closing chapters of Matthew. But the solidarity of Christ and his brothers whereby they are one, whereby help given to the one is help given to all and above all to Christ, presupposes that the mission of the church is such that it goes into the world proclaiming the gospel by fulfilling the service it proclaims. The solidarity of Christ and his brothers is identification with . . . and in mission to . . . The The church fulfills its mission by ~aking to itself in mission, in Christ's name, for Christ's sake, the poverty, suffering, hunger and need of men. Unless this is the situation, Matthew's description of the Christian community is the most searing piece of irony in the New Testament. But such a mission is not without predicament for the church today. Is the church in the world today taking to itself the poverty, sickness, suffering, hunger, and need of men, in a manner and to an extent that fulfills this description of Matthew? Is it possible for Christian and church today to live at all with this scripture of the Last Judgment? Through the years the church has often lost both its identity and mission by acculturation, and at times has not been too distin­ guishable from other power structures which require to be served more than they serve. Even in our own denomination it is not unusual for congregations to pro­ vide the minister with a forty-to-sixty thousand dollar parsonage to stand along­ side of equally high priced worship and educational structures. And this in a time when the denomination's benevolence budgets show yearly deficits! And yet because we are sensitive to the Parable of the Sheep and Goats, because it alerts us to our predicament, we are constrained to examine anew what it means for the church to be the church today. At one time the church proclaimed the gospel and fulfilled what it proclaimed by its vigorous activity in diakonia. In

158 fact, in many places and times, the office of the diaconate flourished and gave leadership to the church's identification with all forms of need. Rather than allow this office to fall into abeyance, we should seek to invigorate and restore it, al­ though it must not be supposed that this alone solves all the mission predicament of the church today. There was also a time when the church articulated its iden­ tification with the needy in terms of institutional ministries, care for the aged, the orphaned, the ~ick, and more recently it has added to these new centres of psychiatric care and rehabili tation therapy of various kinds. None of these deserve denigration because they do evidence person to person identification and actual, visible acts of love. It would be more scriptural if the church multiplied rather than eliminated these institutional ministries, but even so, their adequacy for meet­ ing the mission predicament of the church is still in question. In the face of the staggering millions of starving people in the world, the burdened outcry of two­ thirds of the world, the needs of the neglected and ostracized here in our own country, what is to be the mission of the church? When nationalist revolution­ aries, economic, and social revolutionaries, move to accomplish goals that likewise alleviate poverty, hunger and need, how do these relate to the mission of the church? In many places, it appears that the church is opting to work along with those who are seemingly headed in the same direction, namely, concern for all the needy and the making of a world in which there will be justice and opportunity for all. No one will dispute the fact there are movements, social and religious structures, in which is shown a concern for others which corresponds to some degree with that of the Christian community. Their faith is definitely not the Christian faith, and in some instances appears to be even anti-Christian. But inasmuch as their goals ass ume directions parallel or similar to those of the church, the church identifies with them. The result is some degree of Christian coopera­ tion and identification with the new and revolutionary world which is coming into being. The crucial question to be probed here on the part of the church is whether this kind of identification is actually indentification in mission to the needy or whether it represents identification in mission UJith contemporary political and social forces for the needy. While it is entirely conceivable that the church would approve carefully selected identifications of the hitter sort, and by so doing carry forward its mission to the oppressed, yet it does not follow that identification in mission UJith is the same as identification in mission to the needy. Finally, in those places and times where the church cooperates in mission with what is non-church, there is always the peril of secularizing the mission, secular­ izing it in a bad sense. When Christian faith cooperates and identifies with other faiths not explicitly Christian, there is the peril of confusing a biblical faith with a more secular one. If constrained to cooperate with secular movements and structures by the strong forces of the world revolution, the church may show its disavowal of spiritual pride and its desire for solidarity with the world's needy, but in so doing the church must guard against losing its all important modifier, Christian mission. There has already been too much talk, misguided talk, about 159 the church's mission in terms merely of a Christian presence. If the church is to be a presence in the world, let it be a missionary presence, a vocal presence, the kind of identifying presence that leads others to Him who prompted, in the first place, the identification. 22 To identify with others in the name of Christ means more than bringing simply a presence. "The church for others" can be a very meaningful phrase provided it means more than simply being with others. 23 In the same manner, "the Man for others" can be a scriptural truth of first magni­ tude provided one means not only that "the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve," but also that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many" (Matt. 28: 28) . When the Christian community fulfills its mission by identifying with others in situations of need, it is always to help them beyond their need. It means enabling others to share in the righteousness of the Kingdom of God now, to seek with them and for them how and where God may give them his righteousness now. To seek to identify with others in their need without ever saying whom we serve and why we serve, without explaining the reason for and meaning of our service is as unthinkable as preaching the good news without ful­ filling the service it proclaims. The old warning of Jesus is still pertinent to a church embarking on new forms of mission: "If salt loses its salinity, how shall it be restored ? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trodden under foot by men" (Matt. 5:13). The difficulties facing the Christian mission in the world today are numerous, the answers seemingly few and not always certain and clear. We must work out the answers together in affectionate forbearance, and in unfailing obedience to our common Lord. The parable we have studied illumines the solidarity of Christ and his brothers, but these brothers are described in terms which cannot be less than disconcerting to the church today. How do Christian and church herald the Kingdom today, fulfill their mission in the world, so that they are in truth the body of Christ, those for whom he will be advocate and spokesman at the last judgment? So understood, the parable is not simply shocking; it is devastating, shattering.

1J. A. T. Robinson, "The 'Parable' of the Sheep and the Goats," Twelve New Testament Studies: Studies in Biblical Theology, (Naperville: A. R. Allenson, 1962). 76-93. Other studies are those of A. T. Cadoux, "The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats," Expository Times ( 1929-1930), 559-562; Theo Preiss, Life in Ch,.ist: Studies in Biblical Theology, No. 13 (Naperville: A. R. Allenson, 1954), pp. 43-60; E. L. Mitton, "Present Justification and Final Judgment: A Discussion of the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats," Expository Times (1956-57), pp. 46ff.; W. G. Ki.immel, "Promise and Fulfil lment," Expositol'y Times ( 1956-1957), pp. 94ff.; J. Ramsey Michaels, "Apostolic Hardships and Righteous Gentiles: A Study of Matthew 25: 31-46," JormMl of Biblicttl Litel'atttl'e 84 ( 196,5), pp. 27 -3 7; and H . E. W. Turner, "Expounding the Parables: VI. The Sheep and the Goats," Expositol'y Times, ( 1960), pp. 243-246. 2Cf. John Calvin, Commentm·y on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, III (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1846); Theodor Zahn, Das Evtmgelium des Matthaiis, (Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1926) , pp. 683ff.; P. Levertoff and H. L. Goudge, On Matthew, A N ew Commental'y 011 Holy Script111·e, ed. by C. Gore, H. L. Goudge and A. Guillaume, (New York: Macmillan, 1928), III, pp. 196ff.; and W. C. Allen, Matthew: (ICC), (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1907), pp. 265f. 160 3See as typical discussions the previously cited works of Theo Preiss, W. G. Kiimmel, ]. A. T. Robinson, A. T. Cadoux, and also C. E. B. Cranfield, "Diakonia," London Quat'tefly and I-Io/born Review, (1961), pp. 275-281. 4 Carrol E. Simcox, The First Gospel: Its M eaning and Message, (Greenwich, Conn.: Sea­ bury Press, 1963), pp. 273ff. 5Sherman E. Johnson, "The Gospel According to Matthew," The Inter/n·etds Bible, (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1951), pp. 562. GKarl Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 6, (London: Darton, Longmans and Oates, 1969)' pp. 234. 7Karl Rahner, The Ch:ristian

161