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.