Matthew 25:40 – “Just as you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of mine, you did it for me.”

They are described as hungry, thirsty, homeless, naked, sick, and imprisoned.  But who are ‘these brothers of mine’?

Snodgrass regards this question as the most important issue in interpreting this parable.

Turning to consider in some details the various interpretations that have been offered:

1. Our Lord’s fellow-Jews?

Hagee espouses the Christian Zionist claim that a special debt of care is owed to the Jews.  The present saying, for him, refers to ‘the Jewish people’, adding that ‘Gentiles were never called his brethren.’  The problem with this interpretation is that Jesus never called either Gentiles nor the Jewish people ‘my brothers’.  See below.

2. Believing Jews?

The Scofield Reference Bible and the New Scofield Study Bible identify three classes within this parable: sheep (saved Gentiles), goats (unsaved Gentiles), and ‘brothers’ (the people of Israel).

According to the former publication:

‘The test in this judgement is the treatment accorded by the nations to those whom Christ calls “my brethren”.  These “brethren” are the Jewish Remnant who will have preached the Gospel of the kingdom to all nations during the tribulation.’

The latter publication states:

‘The test of this judgement is the treatment of individual Gentiles of those whom Christ calls “brothers of mine” living in the preceding tribulation period when Israel is fearfully persecuted (cp. Gen 12:3).’

So also Wiersbe:

‘It seems likely that they are the believing Jews from the Tribulation period. These are people who will hear the message of the 144,000 and trust Jesus Christ. Since these believing Jews will not receive the “mark of the beast” (Rev. 13:16–17), they will be unable to buy or sell. How, then, can they survive? Through the loving care of the Gentiles who have trusted Christ and who care for His brethren’.

As Sizer (Zion’s Christian Soldiers, 45) says, this interpretation is undermined by the fact that Jesus’ ‘brothers’ have already been defined as his disciples, Mt 10:42.  They are those who trust and follow him regardless of ties of family or race (Mt 12:48f; Mk 3:21;

Hal M. Haller, in The Grace New Testament Commentary regards Jesus ‘brethren’ as believing Israel, to whom ‘the sheep’ will have ministered during the Tribulation, ‘and in that way they were ministering to Him’:

‘During the Tribulation God will raise up 144,000 Jewish evangelists (Rev 7:4) who will bring about the conversion of a large number of Gentiles (Rev 7:9–14) through their preaching. These Gentiles will in turn minister to the Jewish people as a demonstration of their faith and gratitude.’

This interpretation has no basis in the text.

3. Everyone who is in need?

It has often been assumed that this passage bases salvation on acts of kindness done to all in need.

Preston Sprinkle speaks for many when he writes:

‘In Matthew 25, one of the most terrifying passages in the Bible, Jesus describes judgment day in detail and His criterion for who’s in and who’s out has to do with whether you and I have served the poor and needy in this life (Mt 25:31-46).’

As Blomberg  (Preaching the Parables) remarks:

‘The most common interpretation today…is that Jesus’ story teaches that all the people of the world will be judged by their response to the poor, no matter who those poor people are…The key factor in this interpretation is that we have an obligation to some degree to every needy person in the world.’

Blomberg reminds us of the slogan popularised by Mother Teresa, that as we minister to the poor, whoever they are, we minister to Christ.  She often said, “We see Jesus in the face of the poor.”

This interpretation would be consistent with Jesus’ concern for the poor and needy generally, and there can be no doubt that Scripture does teach the importance of doing good to all who are in need, (Ex 22:22-27; Prov 19:17; 21:13; Mt 5:16,44-48; Mk 10:21; Lk 16:19-25; Rom 13:8-10; Jas 1:27; 2:14-26).

As Blomberg reminds us:

‘The good Samaritan clearly makes that point, as it offers a striking illustration of compassion for physical need across ethnic and religious boundaries (Luke 10:25–37).’

Gal 6:10 teaches us to do good to everyone, especially those who are of the household of faith.  And this principle is seen in the Christian church as early as Acts 2:44f.

The Orthodox Study Bible adopts this interpretation…

‘The least (v. 40) refers to all the poor and the needy.’

…and seeks to apply the text in the following way:

‘To see Christ in everyone is the fulfillment of the great commandment to love your neighbor as yourself (22:39).’

Pinnock takes ‘the least of these brothers of mine’ to refer to ‘the poor and suffering’. According to this view, Jesus

‘wishes to say…that deeds of love done to needy people will be regarded at the last judgement as having been done to Christ, even though the Gentiles did not and could not have know it under the circumstances.’

Bruner offers the following reasons for adopting this interpretation:-

1. ‘the finality and universality of the setting of the text (Last Judgment, all nations, vv. 31–32);
2. the surprise of the righteous (vv. 37–39, in contrast to the intentional service of Christians or special people in 10:40–42);
3. the four lists of the needy, which provide the most accessible definitions of “the least” (vv. 35–36, 37–39, 42–43, 44); and
4. the context of four concluding warning stories in Jesus’ Sermon on the End of the World, the theme in each of which is the seriousness of the Judgment for Christians, too (24:45–25:46; it would be unlike Matthew to end a discourse with a story that failed to complete and heighten the teaching of all his preceding stories; cf. the endings of each of Jesus’ other sermons).’

Carson (EBC, 2nd ed) quotes Robert Smith:

‘In his vision Jesus speaks about being identified with the world’s outcasts, and in his passion he actively and actually identifies with them. The Son of God … stands deliberately and voluntarily in the shoes of the powerless, the weak, the defenseless, the hated, the tortured.’

William Barclay (DSB):

‘The lesson is crystal clear–that God will judge us in accordance with our reaction to human need. His judgment does not depend on the knowledge we have amassed, or the fame that we have acquired, or the fortune that we have gained, but on the help that we have given.’

Michael Green (BST) adopts this interpretation.

Snodgrass (Stories With Intent) is convinced that:

‘“These least brothers of mine” must be understood generally of those in need.’

Despite the comprehensiveness of his treatment of the parables, on this occasion Snodgrass (it appears to me) only seeks to justify his view by critiquing the interpretation which follows in this article.  He does not, for example, show how it is that Jesus refers to the needy as his ‘brothers’.  Nor does he explain why Jesus refers to these brothers (suggesting that they are present at the time).

A further problem with this interpretation is that it has Jesus refer to anyone who is in need as ‘a brother of mine’.  One would have to reach rather deeply into systematic theology (appealing to the image of God in all human beings,  and inferring kinship with Christ from that.

4. Jesus’ disciples (or, more specifically, persecuted believers, or Christian missionaries)?

This appears to have been the majority view until about the middle of the 19th century, and has probably becomes the prevalent view amongst scholars today (although not, perhaps, among preachers and their hearers).

Snodgrass regards this interpretation as warranting ‘serious consideration’ for three reasons:

•  ‘it is easier to handle theologically in that it does not suggest salvation by works;’
• ‘analysis of Matthew’s language shows he uses “brothers” and “little ones” elsewhere of disciples;’
• ‘sayings in Matthew and the other Gospels record Jesus teaching that receiving his disciples is the same as receiving him.’

Epiphanius the Latin:

‘The Lord hungers not in his own nature but in his saints; the Lord thirsts not in his own nature but in his poor. The Lord who clothes everyone is not naked in his own nature but in his servants. The Lord who is able to heal all sicknesses and has already destroyed death itself is not diseased in his own nature but in his servants. Our Lord, the one who can liberate every person, is not in prison in his own nature but in his saints. Therefore, you see, my most beloved, that the saints are not alone. They suffer all these things because of the Lord. In the same way, because of the saints the Lord suffers all these things with them.’ (ACCS)

Matthew Poole:

‘This only confirmeth what we had, chap. 10:42, that Christ looketh upon acts of kindness done to the meanest godly persons, and will reward them, as if they had been done unto himself; so that though our charity must not be limited only there, yet it must be chiefly shown to those of the household of faith: other charity may be showed in obedience to the command of God, and have its reward, but none can so properly be said to be done to Christ, as that which is done to those who are his true members.’

Matthew Henry understands these ‘brothers’ of Christ to be the ‘godly poor’:

‘He will take the kindness done to them, as done to himself; Ye have done it unto me; which shows a respect to the poor that were relieved, as well as to the rich that did relieve them. Note, Christ espouses his people’s cause, and interests himself in their interests, and reckons himself received, and love, and owned in them. If Christ himself were among us in poverty, how readily would we relieve him? In prison, how frequently would we visit him? We are ready to envy the honour they had, who ministered to him of their substance, Lu. 8:3. Wherever poor saints and poor ministers are, there Christ is ready to receive our kindnesses in them, and they shall be put to his account.’

According to JFB, the scene represents

‘a personal, public, final judgment on men, according to the treatment they have given to Christ—and consequently men within the Christian pale.’

Gundry writes with his usual clarity and conciseness:

‘Matthew 25:31–46 indicates that all nations will receive judgment according to their exercising or failing to exercise charity toward the wretched of the earth, whom Jesus identifies as his own brothers, not according to their hearing and believing the gospel or failing to do so. Thus it is claimed. But this interpretation, which has proved irresistible to many a Christian humanitarian, stumbles against Jesus’ own definition of his brothers as those who do the heavenly Father’s will (Matt 12:50) as revealed specifically in the teaching of Jesus (see Matt 7:21 with 7:24–27; 28:20), and even more seriously stumbles against the parallel in Matt 10, where the persecuted little ones needing shelter, food, and drink are not the world’s needy in general but Christian missionaries in particular (see especially v. 42)! When viewed in its Matthean context, in other words, the passage turns out to militate against the view for which it is cited; for “one of these littlest brothers of mine” (v. 40) is seen to be a messenger of the gospel.’

Osborne writes:

‘It is common to make this the key to the entire section and to read Jesus’ challenge as directed to all humanity (Jeremias, Hill, Bonnard, Davies and Allison, France) or to the disciples (Witherington) in terms of social action; that is, Jesus will judge everyone on the basis of helping the poor and the needy. Yet this is not the best understanding, for “the least of these brothers and sisters of mine” (v. 40) must refer to believers, not to all humanity, and Jesus is not teaching a works righteousness form of salvation here.’

Bruce Milne (Know The Truth):

‘The ‘good works’ which the ‘righteous’ perform are done to his ‘brothers’ (v. 40). They are acts of mercy towards the disciples of Jesus, a sign of living faith: ‘We know that we have passed from death to life, be- cause we love our brothers’ (1 John 3:14–17; cf. Matt. 10:42).’

Chapter 10 provides a close parallel to the present passage, and may be regarded as confirming the interpretation now proposed.  Andy Horvath writes:

‘In chapter 10, the disciples had no money, bag for food, or drink (vv. 9–10; compare to the hungry and thirsty in ch. 25). They had no extra clothing (v. 10; the naked in ch. 25), and they had no home to stay in (vv. 11–14; the strangers in ch. 25). Jesus said they would often be arrested (vv. 17–20; the prisoners in ch. 25). Even the order of these circumstances is a near match. Also recurring is the idea that one’s response to Jesus’ representatives is a response to Jesus himself: “Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me” (10:40). And the rewards language in chapter 10 is conspicuously similar, “And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward” (v. 42).’

Horvath continues:

‘The parallels between the two passages are no accident and make a strong case that the same group is in mind. The “least of these my brothers” are the disciples, followers of Jesus who carry his message. Jesus’ “brothers” in the Gospel of Matthew are always his disciples (Mt 12:48–50; 28:10). That specific language is used of no one else.’

Carson (The Gagging of God, 301) insists that ‘the least of these brothers of mine’

‘must refer to believers who are being opposed and persecuted for the gospel’s sake…One must remember that this Gospel has already established that Jesus’ true “brothers” are his disciples, Mt 12:48f; 28:10; cf Mt 23:8. Good deeds done to Jesus’ followers, even the least of them, are not only works of compassion and morality but reflect where people stand in relation to the kingdom and to Jesus himself. Jesus identifies himself with the fate of his followers and makes compassion for them equivalent to compassion for himself, cf. Mt 10:40-42; Mk 13:13; Jn 15:5,18,20; 17:10,23,26; Acts 9:4; 22:7; 26:14; 1 Cor 12:27; Heb 2:17.  This interpretation can be shown to fit the parable sequence at the end of the Olivet Discourse, Mt 24-25; the alternative is irrelevant to the flow. Moreover, this interpretation takes into account the surprise expressed by both the sheep and the goats when Jesus makes his final pronouncements. If the alternative interpretation were correct, it is difficult to imagine why the sheep in particular would be surprised by the outcome.’

In EBC (Revised) Carson strongly supports the view that these ‘brothers’ are Jesus’ disciples, who are charged with the responsibiity of taking the gospel to all nations:

‘By far the best interpretation is that Jesus’ “brothers” are his disciples (12:48–49; 28:10; cf. 23:8). The fate of the nations will be determined by how they respond to Jesus’ followers, who, “missionaries” or not, are charged with spreading the gospel and do so in the face of hunger, thirst, illness, and imprisonment. Good deeds done to Jesus’ followers, even the least of them, are not only works of compassion and morality but reflect where people stand in relation to the kingdom and to Jesus himself. Jesus identifies himself with the fate of his followers and makes compassion for them equivalent to compassion for himself (…see Mt 10:40–42; Mk 13:13; Jn 15:5, 18, 20; 17:10, 23, 26; Ac 9:4; 22:7; 26:14; 1 Co 12:27; Heb 2:17).’

Gundry (Commentary on the New Testament):

‘The “little ones” are believers in Jesus (Mt 18:6). Here in 25:40 he calls them his “brothers,” identified in 12:48–50 as those who do the will of his Father in heaven, that is, his (true) disciples. Here, “little” escalates to “littlest” and combines with “one” in the phrase, “for one of these littlest brothers of mine,” to emphasize that doing charity even for a single disciple of low profile counts as doing it for Jesus…They hungered and thirsted, were homeless and naked, and sick and imprisoned because they were suffering persecution and fleeing from it in obedience to Jesus’ command (10:23). So he isn’t talking about general humanitarianism (for that, go to passages such as Luke 10:30–37). He’s talking about disciples’ risking persecution of themselves by helping fellow disciples already under persecution. Such charity demonstrates true discipleship.’

France comments:

‘It is increasingly accepted that the criterion of judgement is not kindness to the needy in general, but the response of the nations to disciples in need…The criterion of judgement becomes not mere philanthropy, but men’s response to the kingdom of heaven as it is presented to them in the person of Jesus’ “brothers.” It is, therefore, as in Mt 7:21-23, ultimately a question of their relationship to Jesus himself.’

Blomberg (Preaching the Parables) takes a similar view:

‘The term in Matthew…does not refer to the brotherhood and sisterhood of all humanity but to those with whom one has significant spiritual commonality. ‘

A similar view is taken by Keener (IVP NT Commentary):

‘In the context of Jesus’ teachings, especially in the context of Matthew (as opposed to Luke), this parable addresses not serving all the poor but receiving the gospel’s messengers. Elsewhere in Matthew, disciples are Jesus’ brothers (Mt 12:50; 28:10; compare also the least – Mt 5:19; 11:11; 18:3-6, 10-14). Likewise, one treats Jesus as one treats his representatives (Mt 10:40-42), who should be received with hospitality, food and drink (Mt 10:8-13, 42). Imprisonment could refer to detention until trial before magistrates (Mt 10:18-19), and sickness to physical conditions brought on by the hardship of the mission (compare Php 2:27-30; perhaps Gal 4:13-14; 2 Tim 4:20). Being poorly clothed appears in Pauline lists of sufferings, (Rom 8:35) including specifically apostolic sufferings. (1 Cor 4:11) The King thus judges the nations based on how they have responded to the gospel of the kingdom already preached to them before the time of his kingdom. (Mt 24:14; 28:19-20) The passage thus also implies that true messengers of the gospel will successfully evangelize the world only if they can also embrace poverty and suffering for Christ’s name.’

Again, Carson (Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church) writes as follows:-

‘In the hands of some writers, what distinguishes the sheep from the goats is social concern: feeding the hungry, healing the sick, visiting people in prison – along with the dramatic addition of Jesus’ words, “Truly, I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me” (Mt 25:40, 45). But that misses the point here. Certainly the Bible lays considerable stress elsewhere on compassion, justice, acts of mercy, kindness, and much else – as shown by Isaiah and Amos and the parable of the good Samaritan. But it has often been shown that in Matthew’s gospel the expression “the least of these brothers and sisters of mine” can only refer to the least of his followers. In other words, the sheep and the goats are exposed for what they are by the way they treat the downtrodden of Jesus’ followers. The situation is exactly like that found in the book of Acts: when people persecute the people of Jesus Christ, they are persecuting Jesus Christ himself; prompting him the challenge a Saul on the Damascus Road, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” (Acts 9:4)’

Blomberg (NAC, but also see Neither poverty nor riches, p125f and also Preaching the Parables) writes,

‘Who are these brothers? The majority view throughout church history has taken them to be some or all of Christ’s disciples since the word “least” (elachistōn) is the superlative form of the adjective “little [ones]” (mikroi), which without exception in Matthew refers to the disciples (Mt 10:42; 18:6, 10,14; cf. also Mt 5:19; 11:11), while “brothers” in this Gospel (and usually in the New Testament more generally) when not referring to literal, biological siblings, always means spiritual kin (Mt 5:22–24, 47; 7:3–5; 12:48–50; 18:15 (2×), 21, 35; 23:8; 28:10). There may be a theological sense in which all humans are brothers and God’s children, though not all are redeemed, but nothing of that appears here or, with this terminology, elsewhere in Matthew. The minority view throughout church history, which is probably a majority view today, especially in churches with a healthy social ethic, is that these “brothers” are any needy people in the world…Yet while there is ample teaching in many parts of Scripture on the need to help all the poor of the world (most notably in Amos, Micah, Luke, and James), it is highly unlikely that this is Jesus’ point here. Rather, his thought will closely parallel that of Mt 10:42. The sheep are people whose works demonstrate that they have responded properly to Christ’s messengers and therefore to his message, however humble the situation or actions of those involved. That itinerant Christian missionaries regularly suffered in these ways and were in frequent need of such help is classically illustrated with the example of Paul (see esp. 2 Cor 11:23–27) and the teaching of the Didache (ca. a.d. 95).’

They are

‘Christ’s disciples (Mt 10:42; 12:48, 49; 18:14), not the poor and needy in general. The judgment of the nations depends on how they respond to Christians and to the gospel (Mt 10:40-42), not only because it is through the testimony of Christians that the Gentiles can hear and believe, (Rom 10:14) but also because Christ identifies with his people. Their suffering is his suffering, and compassion shown to them is compassion shown to him.’ (New Geneva)

Hagner:

‘The use of τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου, “my brothers,” makes it almost certain that the statement refers not to human beings in general but rather to brothers and sisters of the Christian community.’

Tom Wright:

‘Jesus has earlier defined his brothers and sisters as ‘those who do the will of my father in heaven’, in a context which points to this as meaning ‘those who hear and obey my kingdom-announcement’ (12:50). The likely meaning of the scene, then, is that those who have not followed Jesus the Messiah will be judged in terms of how they have treated the people whom he counts as his family.’

Hendriksen agrees with this intepretation:

‘Whatever was done for Christ’s disciples, out of love for Christ, is counted as if done for Christ.’

So also Turner (CBC).

Wilkins agrees that Jesus is referring to disciples, but especially to needy disciples:

‘The consistent way that Jesus refers to his disciples as “brothers” in Matthew’s narrative leads to [this] view. But the expression “least” points explicitly to needy disciples. Needy disciples are often the ones who are excluded from care—attention is often wrongfully diverted to prominent members of the discipleship community. This is in line with the admonition Jesus gave to the disciples arguing about who was the greatest in the kingdom of heaven (18:1). He charged them to become like children, and receiving children in his name is like receiving Jesus himself (18:2–5). This is also in line with the apostle James’s rebuke of his church for showing partiality to the rich in the assembly while dishonoring the poor in the church (cf. James 2:1).’

Leon Morris (Pillar) favours this interpretation on balance.

France (NBC):

‘This passage is often understood to teach that ultimate salvation is based on acts of kindness alone, so that there is nothing specifically Christian about the criteria of judgment. But that is to ignore the important description of the recipients of this kindness as the least of these brothers of mine (40; cf. v 45). This phrase suggests that it is not just anyone that the righteous have helped and the others have ignored: it is disciples in need. The phrase the least reminds us of the ‘little ones’ of Mt 10:42; 18:6,10,14, and…this is a term for Jesus’ disciples. When Jesus says that in helping them you did it for me, this moving identification of Jesus with his ‘brothers’ recalls the principle of Mt 10:40-42, where to receive the disciples is to receive Jesus, and it is a cup of water given to ‘one of these little ones because he is my disciple’ which will be rewarded. In that case, the criterion of judgment is not mere philanthropy (good as that is), but people’s response to the kingdom of heaven as they have met it in the person of Jesus’ “brothers”.’

The interpretation is supported by literature outside the Scriptures:

‘In some Jewish apocalyptic texts, the nations would be judged for how they treated Israel. In the Bible, God also judged people for how they treated the poor. But given the use of “brothers” or “sisters” (Mt 12:50; 28:10; the Greek term can include both genders) and perhaps “least” (Mt 5:19; 11:11; cf. Mt 18:4; 20:26; 23:11) elsewhere in Matthew, this passage probably refers to receiving messengers of Christ. Such missionaries needed shelter, food and help in imprisonment and other complications caused by persecution. Receiving them was like receiving Christ. The judgment of all nations thus had to be preceded by the proclamation of the kingdom among them (Mt 24:14).’ (NT Background Commentary)

This passage might also be regarded as ‘an extended dramatization’ of Mt 10:42′ (Green, cited by Hagner).  In fact, that earlier passage provides strong confirmation of the interpretation taken in these notes (and also by many scholars, but perhaps not by most preachers), according to which the key point is that our Lord regards the way in which his disciples are treated in a context of mission, as if he had himself been thus treated.

This interpretation resonates with:

Lk 10:16 “The one who listens to you listens to me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”

Osborne:

‘This story is most likely about how the nations treat God’s emissaries, the church.’

Wright:

‘Instead of the nations being judged on how they had treated Israel, as some Jewish writings envisage, Jesus, consistently with his whole redefinition of God’s people around himself, declares that he will himself judge the world on how it has treated his renewed Israel.’

Ian Paul has come to the same conclusion, noting the following factors:

• Firstly, as Dick France points out in his commentaries, Matthew never has Jesus refer to his ‘brothers’ or sisters as anyone other than those who do the will of God by becoming his followers. This is particularly clear in Matt 12.49, when Jesus is rather radically proposing that his new family are the disciples gathered around him (which of course includes women).
• Secondly, Jesus is clear that to follow him means to be homeless; in reply to a teacher of the law who would follow him, Jesus replies: ‘Foxes have dens, and the birds in the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head’ (Matt 8.20 = Luke 9.58). In other words, if you follow Jesus you will be like him, and this is to be without home, a wandering stranger, reliant on the charity and provision of others.
• Thirdly, at the end of Jesus’ second block of teaching in Matthew (which Matthew attaches to the sending out of the 12 in chapter 10) we have a very similar idea—whoever receives the disciples in effect receives Jesus, and how they treat the disciples is in effect how they treat Jesus. (These verses, Matt 10.40-42, don’t have an exact parallel in the other gospels, though there is a similar saying in a different context in Mark 9.41).

But, as Ian Paul remarks, this better intepretation of Jesus’ teaching has important implications:

• To follow Jesus means (to risk?) being hungry, thirsty, naked, as stranger, sick and in prison. This has not been hard to imagine for many Christians in many parts of the world in many times in history. In fact, it is perhaps only in a rich West that Christians could have misread this teaching, by naturally reading themselves in the role of the powerful helper rather than the powerless in need of help.
• It raises big questions about the status of those who don’t appear to have named Christ as Lord (Romans 10.9), but have responded to Christ in being the ‘sheep’ who have assisted his disciples because they are his disciples. This question was raised by someone listening to me teach on this recently, who works in inner cities primarily with Muslims. ‘If my Muslim friend helps me out are they counted as sheep?’ In a sense it asks the bigger question of whether it is possible to become a Muslim follower of Jesus rather than become a Christian.
• Finally, it suggests a rather different model for mission. We are not going as the strong with resources to help the weak, but we come as the weak ready to receive from those to whom we have been sent. And of course this is the idea behind the idea of finding the ‘person of peace’, taught by Mike Breen and others from the sending of the 12 and the 72 in Luke 9 and 10 and Matt 10.

The historical evidence is gathered by Sherman Gray’s 1989 book titled ‘The Least of My Brothers: Matthew 25: 31-46:  A History of Interpretation’, and summarised here by Denny Burk.