One of the things that has concerned me in the last few years has been the liberalization of evangelicalism. Don't misunderstand me I have never been one to say that Pastor's and teachers should not teach what the scripture says about political issues. I believe that every spiritual truth has moral application and every moral act is political. While no one wants to hear a political speech from their pastor to ignore all political issues is neglecting the whole counsel of God. Even when a political issue is complex and may not have a specific biblical answer.  (for example, is the answer to crime in cities, more law enforcement or gun control?)  There are biblical and theological issues that inform those issues. One neglects his responsibility to truth when he avoids them.  While it may not be wise to endorse candidates, you can not ignore political issues all together. The gospel can and often should be integrated into every aspects of our lives including politics:

[3] His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, (2 Peter 1:3ESV)

Does the promise that God's revelation gives us everything we need for life and godliness, have an exemption from political life? Does it give us enough knowledge to discern how to vote? Is it appropriate to apply Biblical principles to political issues? I am convinced that a proper exposition of scripture will clearly establish the principles that will guide our political decisions and voting preferences. Yet we must be careful to apply scripture correctly. A misapplied text will result in a misunderstanding of our obligations . I saw this illustrated in my denomination's mission newsletter that came out this week. They took what is popular view of scripture and used it to admonish believers about their responsibility to immigrants:

While the Bible has much to say about immigration and part of our Great Commission responsibility is to love, and help immigrants living among us assuring  their needs are met and that they are treated justly. We are to care for, love, treat fairly, evangelize  and advocate for justice for immigrants who are among us or the oppressed wherever they are? The term "immigrant" is no where used in scripture, however, there are many references to winsomely welcoming, and caring for foreigners, sojourners or aliens (the biblically equivalent terms) who are living among us (Gen 23:4; Deuteronomy 10:9, 27:19; Leviticus 19:34; 1 Chroicles 16:19-22; Job 29: 15-17: Psalm 146:9; Jeremiah 7:5-7: Ezekiel 47:22; Zeh 7: 9-10; Romans 12:13; Col 3:11; Hebrews 13:1-3 et.al) Immigrants who are living in our land are to be treated with respect, compassion, fairness and justice. However, I would argue that not one of those texts speaks to the issue of how many people, who, or when a nation ought to let cross it's borders, nor how they are to house them when they arrive. The problem with using a text wrongly is, first it misses the point of the text, second it seldom clarifies the secondary or tertiary issues that are part or a complex problem and creates more confusion. 

Will a Spirit-lead honest reflection on Matthew 25 lead to an understanding of how we reach immigrants, is that what this Passage is about?  A careful look at Matthew 25 shows that it cannot possibly be used to encourage engagements with immigrants, nor to influence our view on social or political immigration policy. 

Matthew 25: 31- 40 is part of the Apocalyptical Literature of the New Testament. In this passage Jesus described the period the scripture calls the great tribulation. He uses two parables, one of 10 virgins, five of whom are ready to meet the bridegroom  (a reference to Christ's return)  the second group are not prepared, and a  second parable, to  distinguishes between between those who will be saved from judgment and those who will face eternal condemnation. Both are a call for us to be prepare to face judgment;

 [32] Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the Goats. [33] And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. [34] Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, [36] I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’... [41] “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, [43] I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ (Matthew 25: 32- 36; 41- 43ESV)

On first reading it appears that Jesus separates the sheep, those on his right, from the goats, those on his left, based on how then respond to the downtrodden and disenfranchised. Is our eternal destiny, dependent on our compassionate social action? Is a right view of immigration a gospel issue? Our loving, precious Savior who paid such a price for us can and will send some to heaven and some to hell. And clearly as all who follow in the wake of the Reformation believe Jesus judges people based on their "faith alone embracing of grace alone."  How does our obligation to "the least of these" relate to our salvation? Is the way we treat immigrants a measure of our righteousness? "I was hungry... and you gave me food... I was thirsty and you gave me drink... I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me. I was in prison and you came to me."  "[42] For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, [43] I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 

 Jesus illustrative story, his parable,  begs the question. Does a person's eternal destiny depend on faith alone, or is it faith coupled with service, what you do? Does salvation require just repentance and faith, as suggested in the earlier parable or does saving faith need to be accompanied with feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirst, welcoming the stranger, clothing the poor? 

There are  many passage that speak to the church's mission to the downtrodden (Matthew 9: 35- 10:15, et.al) come to my mind. Matthew 25 is a popular text to use in this way. It is sometime even used by politicians and others who have some biblical understanding to guilt Christians to support social welfare programs or open borders.  If you go to an internet search engine and search "Matthew 25 [plus your city] you will get a list of social agencies. Less than a mile from my house there is a Catholic relief agency called the Matthew 25 House. Often Christians reformed and evangelical mission agency  calls people to be compassionate, to help the poor or immigrant based on what is a popular understanding of this text. When  Mission to the World seems to imply we need to help immigrants based on Matthew 25, they misuse the text, implying that to be saved we must have take certain actions toward the disenfranchised, because Christ became disenfranchised for us.  Is that consistent with The Westminster Confession? Is the gospel a message of social reformation, or does the gospel message reform?

During the recent 2020 election cycle, Matthew 25 was cited by many woke evangelicals to oppose then President Trump, whose strict immigration policies were seen as a complete disregard of the principles of this text.  Yet, he  did more to advance the kingdom  than any President of our life time. Is it reasonable to say that someone who "engages this text will view restrictions on immigration as despising "the least of these." So as we reflect on this passage what is the principle that informs the modern political scene? Do the righteous open the borders and let anyone in, or do they build a wall to keep most out.  How does one who understand the gospel act toward those Jesus calls, "the least of these?" It is a case of two very different, yet serious outcomes! Both the sheep on King Jesus's right, who are destined to be in the eternal kingdom and the goats on his left who are destined to burn in the sulphuric fires of hell, are perplexed by Jesus decrees. Neither group expect Jesus to connected their salvation to ministry to "the least of these." Further explanation is needed. 

While we understand that the gospel is an offense to those who are perishing? Those on the left, goats, are perplexed, because they are professing believers. They have been baptized, confirmed, they call him "Lord," and plead their innocence to his charges. [44] Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ (Matthew 25:44ESV)> They deny the charge that somehow their good works were unacceptable.  The righteous are equally surprised that though they too call him Lord, that he assess them worthy of salvation at all.  They too, are perplexed by his message. "37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’(Matt25:37 -45)." The righteous are mystified by the message of redemption. They plead guilty.

 If the sheep are delivered because of their faith profession and altruist action. Then are we saved by  faith and works? On the other hand, the goats claim that Jesus' judgment is faulty, that they have in fact, served the needy well. The idea that this passage compels us to care for the compassionate as an act of faith is it self contradictory to the gospel. It is precisely for this reason that this passage is used in error if we use it as MTW does. Because if on reflection on this passage one concludes that we must welcome immigrants, or help help prisoners, or feed the hungry, or heal the sick in order to act or worship rightly it belies the message of the gospel. This is actually false and dangerous teaching, especially sense there is a plethora of passages that speak of the kindness, and justice we are to extend to foreigners in our midst. How is this passage to be understood in the context of the rest of Scripture, where is the message of grace?

King Jesus explains. The goats whom he condemns, despite their confession to be his loyal subject, are described as goats, unclean, unrighteous animals. "[32] Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. [33] And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. (Matthew 25:32–33ESV)" Some interpreters will see this as a message to two different people groups. He separates, one national group the others. The issue for them is that he is separating "the true people of God from the false." This is the distinction between goats and sheep.  Goats are unclean animals, they represent the gentile world, whereas the sheep, are clean, and represent the Jews. Some scholars try to argue that since this is the gospel of Matthew, whose audience is Jewish the distinction they would claim is between, sheep and goat, is ethnic, between Jew and Gentile. They would argue that coming of Christ will be in separate ways for the Jews and the Gentiles, because the Jews had rejected him. In other words, although the Jews believed the Messiah would be Lord, they disobeyed his law, and mistreated the downtrodden in so doing rejected the Messiah, belied their faith and are worthy of condemnation. So the tribulation he speaks of above is a rescue of the gentiles from the Jews. The problem with this view is it contradicts the passage itself. The sheep, if the Jews, are delivered, whereas the goats, the gentile, believers, the church, are condemned, which is the opposite of what would expect where this interpretation valid.  There is nothing in this passage that requires us to understand that the preceding events described in Matthew 24 where God judges his people, demands a deliverance of the church form those events. Especially since Jesus himself offers a different interpretation.

Both the sheep and the goats ask Jesus for an explanation. Of course as King he is required to give no explanation. It is an undeserved act of favor that he explains the nature of salvation to them. And once again rather than distinguishing one outcome for the Jew and another for the Gentile he uses the same standard for both Jew and Greek. It has always seemed interesting to me, that those who question his verdict first, are the acquitted. When in human history have you seen someone who has been found not responsible for a crime say to judge. How could that be, but that is precisely what happens in this passage. [37] Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? [38] And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? [39] And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ (Matthew 25:37–39ESV). 

Grace, seems illogical. When you stand in the presence of God and realize your unworthiness, graced is unexpected. The sheep wonder how it is that they deserve salvation. Which is the very bases of the gospel itself. Jesus's concern for a repentant heart. Redemption comes to those who come to the realization of their own depravity. Compare and contrast the attitude of the Prodigal and the Elder Brother with that of these sheep and goats. The Prodigal who has treated his inheritance and his father with contempt is welcome back into the loving home of his father with celebration, because of a repented heart:

[21] And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ [22] But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. [23] And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. [24] For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate. (Luke 15:21–24 ESV)

[44] Then they [the goats] also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ (Matthew 25:44ESV)

They are self-righteous, even arrogant. "Lord," how can this be, when we have done so much for you." This is the cry of the religious professing Christian in the fires of hell. There will be many who will say, "I did not deserve this. I went to right church, voted for the right party, was a virgin until marriage, walked down the aisle at the evangelistic Crusade, went to Christian college, made you, Lord. How can I be here?"

Jesus answer is profound, and resolvs the conundrum of this passage:

To the sheep he answers,  And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ (Matthew 25: 40)

and to the goats,

And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.

He says the exact same thing to both groups. There is one means of salvation, just as their is one people and one program of God. He tells one group they failed to do something, the other that they did something, but the reason for his judgement is based on one principle.  It was how they engaged "the least of these, my brothers," that was equivalent to all their acts toward, the hungry, the imprisoned, the thirsty, the immigrants.

So to understand this text we must understand who those people are that Jesus calls, "the least of these my brothers." Are they immigrants crossing the border, the inmates in our county, jail, the sick in our hospitals? Both these terms, "the least of these," and "my brothers" are terms with a very narrow range of meeting in this text.

The word, translated "least of these," is the word for last. It often translated in the sense of "the last shall be first." The undeserving, the repentant the ill-equipped are those Jesus redeems. In the book of Mathew, he uses addresses his "brothers" 3 times. In no case is any of those a reference to his biological brothers Matthew uses brothers as a reference to those who believe, whom the Bible usually refers to as the weak, as those who suffer with Christ. 

So " the least of these my brothers," are those who in repentant faith have turned to Jesus and suffered persecution. Our salvation is not a matter of what we call ourselves, or of how we address the Lord. It is not a matter of titles, or service or status. Authentic faith is lived with the community of believers. Those who come to Christ in faith will be compassionate, kind and generous especially to other downtrodden believers. There is no room for status or rank in the body of Christ, only repentant faith that produces service. So far from being a message on immigration or helping the poor the passage points out the poverty, and neediness of every believers, and make the test of our salvation a faith that lives rather than a label. So this passage rather than being a call to help immigrants is a call to repent and believe and to minster to hurting and disenfranchised believers around the world. To use this passage as Mission to the World does as a call to engage immigrants shows a serious lack of integrity to the gospel.