Concerning Matthew 25: 31-46, the parable of the sheep and the goats

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&version=NIV

The parable of the sheep and the goats has always been interpreted as a parable in which the sheep are those that do good to the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned, and the goats are the ones who don't do good to the poor, sick, and imprisoned. I've always been confused by this interpretation. The king who sits in judgement over everybody in the whole world divides everybody into two categories: the goats and sheep. He says to the sheep, "I was poor and sick and imprisoned and you clothed and cared for and visited me." The sheep say, "When did we do that?" and the king answers: "Whenever you did it for the least of one of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did it for me."

Then he turns to the goats, and says, "I was poor and sick and imprisoned and you did not clothe or care for or visit me." The goats say, "When did we do that?" and the king answers, "Whenever you did not do it for one of the least of these, you did not do it for me."

Now, there are only three types of beings present here. The king, sheep, and goats. So who are the "these" that he's referring to?

This is where the traditional interpretation falls flat, in my opinion. That interpretation suddenly introduces a new type of being, namely, you've suddenly got the king, the sheep, the goats, AS WELL AS poor, sick and imprisoned people, as if these people have been magically seperated from the ranks of either sheep or goat.

I'm suggesting a new interpretation. Since, when the king is talking to the sheep, he says, "these", he must be referring to somebody else besides the sheep, because otherwise he would have said, "whenever you did it for yourselves." The only other people in the room are him and the goats! So he's got to be talking about the goats. In other words, the king says, "Sheep, you saw these goats over here (who are my brothers and sisters, by the way) poor, sick and imprisoned, and you did nice things for them. Well, actually you were doing those things for me, because I'm them."

Then he turns to the goats and says, "and you guys. You saw these sheep over here poor, sick, and imprisoned and you didn't do thing one for them. Well, I was them, so you didn't do anything for me."

Then he sends the groups off to their respective rewards.

THIS is an interpretation that makes sense.

There are only two philosophers that I know of who can adequately speak to the nuances of this parable. The first is Jesus, who says "I am the Alpha and the Omega," or here, "I am the sheep AND the goats." The other is John 'Walking' Stewart, who manages a philosophy of materialism that speaks directly to the fact that the king IS his subjects, materially and in a very real sense.

This is by far one of my favorite parables, and one that I find it challenging to live up to. We have GOT to be helping the people whom we see hurting, hungry, in legal troubles, sick--it doesn't matter if it's their own darn fault or not, because the king is both the SHEEP AND THE GOATS.