Interpretation

This parable has been interpreted in different ways:

• Jesus at his departure makes the rank and file person in need his representative. Jesus identifies himself with them. Momentous consequences hang on this paramount duty of charity. This fits well with Matthew's concern for the least of the brethren (see 18:6-35, although this refers to needy followers of Jesus, not anyone who is needy).
  
  
• A further interpretation questions whether the reading above is the primary intention of the parable. Rather than referring to all the needy, it might refer to the messengers who bring the Gospel. In receiving them, unwittingly, one treats Jesus as one treats his representatives. In the New Testament generally (e.g. Matthew 12:48-49) the brethren of Jesus are those who do his Father's will, i.e. his disciples. So the help given refers not so much to neighbourliness to everyone, but to welcome and aid for the representatives of Jesus in the toil and suffering they undergo for the spread of the kingdom. So completely does Jesus identify himself with his disciples that support which people suppose is being given to them, is in fact given to him. The reward for standing by and supporting the emissaries of the kingdom will be to inherit it (see v.34) and the punishment for not doing so will be to know it has been lost for ever.

Jesus' identity

• Son of Man, a term taken from Daniel, is used only by Jesus in his teaching to refer to a human being who represents other human beings. Jesus speaks of the Son of Man as already having authority to judge and forgive and who will give his life to set others free. In most of these references, the gospel writers understood Jesus to be speaking of himself.
  
  
• The exact meaning of the term 'Son of Man' is uncertain. It has been regarded as expressing Jesus' humanity whereas 'Son of God' expressed his divinity. It has also been suggested that 'Son of Man' was a messianic title in use among Jews in Jesus' time.

Eschatology

• 'Eschatology' means teaching about the 'last times' (in Greek 'eschatos' means 'last'). In Jesus' teaching about the end, he used the terminology of the teachers of his day as any good teacher does, but taught his own distinctive message. Jesus did believe in the consummation of the Kingdom at the end of the age, but he taught quite clearly that there would be no signs of the end (Mark 13:32-37; Luke 12:39f; 17:23-30; 21:34-36), and he also made it clear he knew nothing of the time element (Mark 13:32-37). Jesus taught that the Kingdom of God was present in him and his saving activities. So in a sense, the eschatological time had already begun in and through him. And yet he also taught that the consummation of the Kingdom awaited the end of the age. Jesus' was more a prophetic warning than an apocalyptic (revealing signs and dates) one. The end had to be anticipated in the way people lived their lives. The Kingdom was progressively coming as people individually followed Jesus' way.
  
  
• Jesus, along with everyone else, probably regarded the end as coming in a short time scale. The first Christians believed it would be in their lifetime and lived accordingly, (for example, some did not get married, a few gave up their jobs!). After Jesus' life and death, the Christians were living in a new dimension. Clearly God was in their midst and heaven no longer remote. There was an intense conviction of the historical triumph of Christ over sin and death that made them certain that Christ would soon return to earth and after Judgement the righteous would receive their reward of everlasting bliss and the wicked, doom. Further, if it is remembered that politically Palestine was in a very unsettled state with Roman occupation and Jewish revolts, which led to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, it was a time when it seemed inevitable that everything had to come to a head.
  
  
• It was believed the end would be heralded by the Parousia, the return of the Son of Man, for the Day of the Lord, when he would judge everyone and the righteous would then be in God's kingdom.

Judgement

This parable has been interpreted in different ways:

• Originally the Day of Judgement was to be one where Israel would be damned. Then it came to be seen as a day of triumph for Israel who would finally be vindicated before the pagans. Then it was vindication for only the pure remnant of Israel. Later again, judgement was seen to apply not just to a nation or group but to individuals. Every individual must submit to divine judgement and his or her destiny decided on the basis of personal righteousness or unrighteousness. The idea of a great and universal Judgement both of the living and the dead was inherited by the New Testament and reinterpreted in relation to the Second Coming of Christ. God's reign would be fully established after judgement and evil finally conquered. The righteous would abide in Paradise, a restored Eden, but heaven itself would be established with the renewal of all things, a new heaven and a new earth. Gehenna, from the vale of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem (at one time a place for burning the city's rubbish and associated with sacrifices in ancient times) becomes the symbol of the horror and torment for the wicked.
  
  
• Judgement and grace belong together both in Judaism and Christianity. A God who only loves and does not judge is unjust. A God who judges but does not love is a sadist.
  
  
• It could be questioned whether judgement according to works alone is theologically possible for the God present in Jesus. Does faith in Jesus Christ count for anything? However, it may be that humans need that sort of incentive, to take God seriously. The judgement theme has been strong in Christianity until recently. It encouraged good works through fear of God. In contrast, more recently universal salvation has been stressed, believing that a good God would not allow the eternal damning of his creation.