Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Matthew 18:21 - 18:35
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_18:21-35
( Mat_18:23-35 the Gospel for the 22d Sunday after Trinity.)
23Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king [a human king, ἰíèñþðῳ âáóéëåῖ ], which would take account of [who desired to make a reckoning with] his servants. 24And when he had [only] begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which [who] owed him ten thousand talents. 25But forasmuch as he had not [as ho was not able] to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. 27Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed [released] him, and forgave him the debt. 28But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellow servants, which [who] owed him a hundred pence [shillings? lit.: denáries, äçíÜñéá ]: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou [Pay if 29thou owest. And his fellow servant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. 30And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. 31So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their [own, ἑáíôῶí ] lord all that was done. 32Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave then all that debt, because thou desiredst [besoughtest] me: 33Shouldest not thou also have had compassion [pity] on thy fellow servant, even as I had pity on thee? 34And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. 35So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.
Mat_18:22. I say not unto thee;—i.e., I do not prescribe to thee.
Seventy times seven, ἑâäïìçêïíôÜê . òἑðôÜ .—Jerome, Erasmus, Grotius, de Wette, [Trench], and others, explain seventy times sevenfold [i.e., four hundred and ninety times]. But Origen, Augustine, Bengel, Ewald, and Meyer, explain seventy times and seven, or seventy-seven times, as ἑðôÜêéò does not again occur at ἑâäïìçêïíôÜêéò ἑðôÜ . Meyer says: “According to the Greek idiom, this should have been expressed either by ἑóðôὰ êáὶ ἑâäïìçêïíôÜêéò or by ÝâäïìÞêïíôá ἑðôÜêéò . But the expression is derived from the Sept., Gen_4:24 : ‘If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventyfold and seven.’ ” The reference seems to be in point; all the more, that the saying of Christ was probably intended to form a direct contrast to the revenge which Lamech imprecated. Still, even though we bear in mind the symbolical import of the number seven, yet the bare addition of that numeral seems peculiar, and almost detracting from the force of the injunction. It might, indeed, be urged, that, according to the analogy of 101, it implied nothing more than as it were the measure seventy shaken and pressed down. First, seventy times, and then, if you like, in addition to this, your own seven times! But Grotius translates Gen_4:24, ùׁáְòִéí øְùׁáְòָç , septuagies et id ipsum septies; nor Joes the translation of the Sept seem to us decidedly in favor of the opposite view. Besides, seventy times sevenfold seems to us a more apt symbolical expression for never-ending forgiveness than seventy times seven. However, grammatically and philologically, the point is not clear. Seventy is seven times ten, or the symbolical number of the world multiplied by that of the covenant. Of course, the expression is intended to indicate by the figure of a large number the quality of endless forgiveness. This view was already advocated by Theophylact.
Mat_18:23. Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened.—Referring to the reply which had been given to Peter. The parable which follows is intended to illustrate the teaching of Christ about our readiness to forgive. Meyer maintains that the Saviour insists upon unlimited forgiveness, and not, as de Wette suggests, merely upon readiness to forgive. But the latter implies the former; and, in fact, the two are identical in point of principle. The act of forgiveness presupposes genuine repentance on the part of our brother.—Likened. On account of the guilt of man, it had become necessary that the kingdom of heaven should rest on compassion as its foundation.
Unto a human king.—The expression is intended to mark the antithesis to the heavenly King.—His servants.—Here represented as administering his possessions.—He desired to make a reckoning, or settlement.—This refers to eternal justice ever seeking to right matters, and to the impending judgment; hence more especially to the economy of the law and its results.
Mat_18:24. But when he had only begun.
Very solemn and significant.—One was brought unto him,—i.e., one of the first and highest.—Ten thousand talents.—“An expression intended to indicate the infinite debt incurred, which could never be discharged. As it were an immense number of the largest coin.” The Attic talent was equal to 60 minœ [6,000 drachmæ], or 1,375 Prussian dollars (see Boeckh’s Staatshaushalt der Athener, Mat_1:15), and the mine to 100 denarii. “Hence one talent = 6,000 denarii, and 10,000 talents = 60,000,000 denarii.” Gerlach suggests that the Saviour referred to the Syrian talent, which was much smaller than the Attic, amounting only to about one-fourth of it According to the value of the Attic talent, the sum. total would amount to over 13 millions of Prussian dollars.
Mat_18:25. His lord commanded him to be sold.—In accordance with the law of Moses, Exo_22:8; Lev_25:39; 2Ki_4:1. See also Michaelis’ Laws of Moses, § 148.—And (thus) payment to be made.—The sum obtained would, of course, prove wholly inadequate. Still Fritzsche is mistaken in explaining it as meaning that the sum realized was actually to be paid. De Wette renders it: “And that this should be paid.” Better Meyer in more general terms, “and payment to be made.” The leading idea is, that the king insists upon payment being made. The exact amount is subordinate.
Mat_18:28. A hundred denaries.—Equal to nearly 21 Prussian [or 15 American] dollars. See the article in the Encycls.—Took him by the throat.—According to Roman law, a creditor was allowed to drag his debtor by the throat before the tribunal. The harsh form in which he demanded payment deserves special attention. His address to his fellow-servant implied his own condemnation. Meyer rightly objects to the view of Fritzsche and Olshausen, who explain the expression åἴ ôé as due to Greek urbanity. Others regard it as equivalent to ὅôé . Paulus and Baumgarten-Crusius understand it as implying that it was uncertain whether such a debt had really been incurred. In our view, it was intended by way of expressing reproof—the claimant all the time forgetting his own case and difficulties, which were not only similar, but even much worse. In fact, it would seem as if the remission of his debt had only called forth pride and self-confidence. His fellow-servant humbled himself in a more becoming manner than he had done before his master ( ðñïóåêí ́ åë áí ̓ ôῶ , ðáñåêὰëåé áí ̓ ôüí ); although we should bear in mind that in the latter case the creditor was the lord and king of the servant.
[Trench: “Such is man, so harsh and hard, when he walks otherwise than in a constant sense of forgiveness received from God. Ignorance or forgetfulness of his own guilt makes him harsh, unforgiving, and cruel to others; or, at best, he is only hindered from being such by those weak defences of natural character which may at any moment be broken down.”—P. S.]
Mat_18:31. Their own ( ἑáíôῶí ) lord.—Meyer accounts for the word ἑáíôῶí by remarking, “They had recourse neither to their hard-hearted companion nor to any other person.” But this would scarcely have required special mention. On the other hand, their appeal to his and their lord exposed them to danger, if his anger should burst forth against them also. Still, they ventured to apply to him—compassion and sorrow inspiring them with courage. In this case, then, we see severity from pity, as formerly harshness in spite of mercy.
Mat_18:34. And delivered him to the tormentors.—The imprisonment refers in both cases to temporary confinement, until payment should be made, But, besides this, the servant whom his master now sent to prison was also delivered ôïῖò âáóáíéóôáῖò , “to the tormentors,” to be tormented by them. The punishment of being sold into slavery, with which he had formerly been threatened, was much lighter than that which he had now to endure. However, the king was generous, and the wife and children of the offender were not molested. In its first form, they shared the guilt of that wicked servant; but the sin which he bad now committed rested upon himself alone. Still, except in reference to the manner in which payment is now enforced, the language of the parable continues the same as before. The imprisonment and the torments are intended to enforce payment; but as, in the present instance, this is manifestly impossible, they serve in reality as a punishment. Fritzsche renders the term âáóáíéóôáß by “body-guard of the king” (!); Grotius, by “gaolers” [ äåóìïöí ́ ëáêåò ]; Meyer, correctly, by “tormentors.” According to the sentence pronounced, the imprisonment would necessarily be both never-ending and hopeless (Chrysostom: ôïíôÝóôé äéçíåêῶò , ïí ͂ ôå ãÜñ ἀðïäþôåé ðïôå ). Still, we are scarcely warranted in referring these torments to the sufferings of Gehenna.
2. This parable must not be applied merely to the private relations subsisting between Christians; but also refers to the general administration of the servants of the Lord in the Church, which, however, if improperly exercised, may degenerate into a matter of private interest or favor. Under such circumstances, the contrast between the wondrous pardon granted by the Master, and the cruel exactions made by the servants, would appear in the most glaring manner. Strange, that the most harsh and heartless treatment should be connected with the dispensation of highest mercy! Compare the history of church discipline in the middle ages, and the bitter controversies on the doctrine of the holy Communion.
3. Faustus Socinus (“De Christo Servatore”) argues from this passage, that as the king forgave without ransom or surety, so God similarly pardons sinners. To this Olearius replies, that the object of this parable was to delineate the subjective condition of pardon on our part, not the objective ground of acceptance with God. Besides, each separate parable was not intended to give the whole scheme of salvation. Perhaps, however, it were more accurate to say, that the objective ground of compassion is embodied and presented in the atonement made by Christ But the latter point was not intended to be presented in this parable. [Meyer remarks that the parable implies a í ̔́ óôåñïí ðñüôåñïí , since the infinite forgiving mercy of God could only appear fully in the atoning death of Christ.—P. S.]
[4. Till he pay all that was due unto him, Mat_18:34. The offender, it seems, is not imprisoned for the act of unmercifulness to his fellow-servant, but for his old debt to God which had been forgiven him. But it must be remembered that every sin against our neighbor, or against ourselves, is at the same time a sin against God, and so the conduct of the unmerciful servant contracted a new debt due to God. This passage is often quoted in the discussion of the question: Utrum peccata semel remissa redeant, whether sins once forgiven return on the sinner through his subsequent transgressions? Hammond says, the king revoked his designed mercy; but the debt was actually and absolutely forgiven; yet forgiven, of course, as always, on certain moral conditions, the violation of which implies the forfeiture of the benefit. Forgiveness is inseparable from union with Christ. If we forsake Him we relapse into a state of nature, which is a state of wrath; yea, our case becomes much worse than it was before conversion, and our guilt increases in proportion to the mercies received. How many, alas! forfeit the benefit of baptism, i.e., the remission of sins, by a life of impenitence and ingratitude, and become worse than heathen.—P. S.]
[5. The same verse (and Mat_18:26) is also quoted by some Roman Catholic interpreters for the doctrine of purgatory, and by Universalists and Restorationists, for the doctrine of the final salvation of all men. In both cases the ἕùòïí ̀͂ is pressed as implying a final discharge of the debt and a consequent deliverance from the prison of purgatory or a temporary hell. But this argument proceeds on the radically wrong assumption that man can atone for his sins or discharge his moral debt to God. The debt is expressly represented, in Mat_18:24, as enormous, so as to make it impossible for any human being to discharge it. The debt, moreover, instead of diminishing is daily accumulating; since the utmost that man can do is to perform his present duty, comp. Luk_17:10. The phrase: till he pay all, etc., ἑùò ïὗ ἀðïäῶðᾶí , like the proverbial ad numum solvere, ad extremum assem solvere, signifies that the debtor shall have justice without mercy and taste the extreme rigor of the law. Trench (p. 158) goes even further, and says: “Since the sinner could never acquit the slightest portion of the debt in which he is indebted to God, the putting that as a condition of his liberation, which it is impossible could ever be fulfilled, is the strongest possible way of expressing the eternal duration of his punishment.” Maldonatus, one of the best Roman Catholic expounders, remarks: “Quousque redderet. Id est semper, ut Chrysostomus, Euthymius et Theophylactus interpretantur, non enim significatur, fore, ut, qui damnati sunt, pœnas aliquando persolvant et, quasi reddito debito, liberentur, qui Origenistarum error fuit; sed fore, ut numquam liberentur, nisi pœnas persolvant, quas quia persolvere numquam poterunt, numquam liberabuntur.” Olshausen in loc. (vol. i p. 594, American edition) admits that the debt of the sinner to God can never possibly be liquidated; nevertheless he infers partly from the ἕùò ïὗ , partly from the servant’s acknowledgment of his debt that he will be finally released. I cannot see how we can hold this opinion without adopting substantially the Roman Catholic dogma of purgatory. But ἕùò does not necessarily fix a limit beyond which the preëxisting state of things must cease (comp. the Saviour’s promise to be with His people to the end of the world, ἕùò ôῆò óõíôåëåὶò ôïí ͂ áὶῶíïò ; and if the mere admission of sin and guilt insures ultimate salvation, a Judas might have been saved as well who confessed that he betrayed innocent blood.—Comp. also the Notes on Mat_5:26 (p. 114) and on Mat_12:32 (pp. 225 and 227 sqq.).—P. S.]
Starke:—Canstein: It is a great honor to be in the employment of a mighty potentate; how much more, then, to be a servant of the King of kings and the Lord of lords! What faithfulness and care are requisite in such a service!—God will require an account of all that has been entrusted to our stewardship: Job_9:8; Psa_130:8; Psa_143:2.—Osiander: Sin has subjected not only our persons, but all we have, to the curse.—The natural man is not willing to rely on free grace, and to trust for atonement and righteousness to Christ alone; but would always like to contribute something of his own.—Forgetfulness of the freeness of God’s gifts a fruitful cause of relapse into sin.—Quesnel: As genuine love to God and compassionate affection toward our neighbor is a fruit of genuine conversion, so is ingratitude toward God and hardheartedness toward our neighbor an evidence of spurious religion.—Canstein: To insist on full restitution, is to be inexorable.—Your fellow-servants will see it, and lay the case before their Master.—Quesnel: To be unwilling to forgive an offence, is to provoke the wrath both of heaven and earth.—Feigned penitence is like that wicked servant, promising all, but performing nothing, Psa_12:6.—The Lord quotes the example of men, in order to render them inexcusable.—Would we like to know whether we have obtained forgiveness from God? Let us ask ourselves how we stand affected toward others.—Forgive, and He will forgive you.
Lisco:—God reckons with us when setting before us, in our consciences and by His word, His law and His just demands.—By his harshness the wicked servant loses the affection and esteem of his fellow-servants, nor can his conduct remain concealed.
Heubner:—This command to be ever willing to forgive, implies much rich and blessed comfort.—If man is to forgive so frequently, how much more will our Father in heaven be ready to extend mercy!—Unless we rightly know the extent of our guilt, we cannot properly appreciate the fulness of grace which the Lord is willing and ready to vouchsafe.—How our sins ever involve others in ruin, and generally those nearest and dearest to us.—“We should despair of being ever able to discharge our debt, and rely on grace and mercy alone.”—What contrasts here! 1. God, the King of kings, toward a servant; and again a servant toward his fellow-servant. 2. An infinite debt, and again a small debt. 3. Impossibility and inability; and again, possibility and ability. 4. Compassion and kindness; and again, hard-heartedness and cruel behavior.—Woe to him whom the tears and sighs of those who are oppressed and injured accuse before the tribunal of God.—A harsh person calls down the judgments of God upon himself.
Reinhard:—What obligation God lays upon us to forgive those who offend against us.—Kuinoel:—The character of self-righteousness: 1. Confession of debt; 2. promise of payment; 3. the manner in which this promise is kept; 4. the sad issue of the whole matter.—[Bourdalue:—Sur le pardon des injures. Serm. 34. Pour Leviticus 21 Dimanche apres la Pentecôte.—Massilon:—Du pardon des offenses,—and other famous Catholic sermons on the pericope, Mat_18:23-35.—P. S.]
Footnotes:
Mat_18:23.—[ Ὅò ἠèÝëçóå óõíᾶñáé ëüãïí ìåôÜ , ê . ô . ë .; Lange: welcher abrechnen wollte, i.e., to make a reckoning or settlement. Comp. 2Ki_21:7, where the E. V. correctly ren lers: There was no reckoning made with them of the money, etc. The Authorized Version in our place conveys a different meaning in modern English.—P. S.]
Mat_18:24.— ÐñïóÞ÷èç [for the more usual word: ðñïóçíå÷èç ] in Codd. B., D., Origen, Lachmann, Tischendorf, [Alford].
Mat_18:26.— Êýñéå is omitted in B., D., etc, and by Lachmann, Tischendorf, [Alford].
Mat_18:28.—[The English penny Is less than one seventh of a denarius, a Roman silver coin equivalent to the Attie drachma, or about seven and a half pence sterling or fifteen American cents in value. See the Dictionaries. The inaptness of the usual English rendering (in all the old English version 8) appears more fully in Mat_20:2, where laborers are hired “for a penny a day,” instead of nearly eight times that amount. About two thirds of a denarius a day was the pay of a Roman soldier. As there is no corresponding English coin, it is sary to adopt an inaccurate rendering or the foreign word denáry, which would require a marginal explanation. Shilling (in the New York sense, i.e. one eighth of an American dollar) would come nearest, but would lead to confusion, since, the English shilling is nearly double in value (23,cents). Ewald, however, in his German translation, renders: Schillinge. Lange retains Luther’s Groschen, but adds In parenthesis Denare, Zehner (dimes). Campbell and Norton: denarii (which might do in a learned Commentary, but not in a Bible for popular use): Conant, and the N. T. of the Am. Bible Union, better: denáries. It is surprising that Trench in his interpretation of the parable of the Unmerciful Servant (p. 151) and that of the Laborers in the Vineyard (p. 170), takes no notice whatever of this mistranslation and speaks repeatedly of an hundred pence as if it were all right.—P. S.]
Mat_18:28.—Codd. B., D., L., etc., omit ìïé , me.
Mat_18:28.—The reading åἴôé is best attested and much stronger than ὅôé . It is a demand for payment In the form of a rebuke: Thou wretch, he who owes, must pay! [Ewald and Lange translate: Bezaihle, wenn du wus schuldig bist! Pay, if thou owest anything. Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Alford unanimously adopt the reading: Ἀðüäïò åἴôé ὀöåßëåéò , which is now sustained also by Cod. Sinait. Dr. Conant ignores this difference of reading.—P. S.]
Mat_18:29.—The addition of the received text: åἰò ôïὺò ðüäáò áὐôïῦ (at his feet) is omitted in Codd. B., C., D., etc. [Tischendorf and Alford retain and defend the words against Lachmann, Tregelles, and Meyer, who omit them.—P. S.]
Mat_18:29.—The best authorities [also Cod. Sinait.] omit ðÜíôá (all), which seems to be inserted to conform to Mat_18:26.
Mat_18:34.—B., D., etc., omit áὐôῷ . [Lachmann and Alford omit it, Tischendorf retains It—P. S.]
Mat_18:35.—B., D., L., etc., omit the words: ôὰ ðáñáðôþìáôá áõôῶí (their trespasses), which seem to be inserted from Mat_6:14-15; Mar_11:25-26. [Cod. Sinait, and all the critical editors, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, omit the words.—P. S.]
[Jerome already observed this significant contrast of our Lord’s seventy times seven of forgiveness to the antediluvian Lamech’s seventy and sevenfold of revenge. So Trench asserts (p. 145), referring to Jerome’s works, vol. ii. p. 565. of the Benedictine edition. But I cannot find the passage in the Vallarsi edition, which I have before me. In his Commentary on Matt. in loc. (Opera, tom. 7 col 141, ed. Vall.) Jerome makes no allusion to Gen_4:24, and says simply: “Non usque septies, sed usque septuagies septies, id est, quadringentis nonaginta vicibus, ut toties peccanti fratri dimitteret In die, quoties ille peccare non possit.”—P. S.]
[Meyer likewise emphasizes ἀíèñþðö , which the English Version renders: a certain king. “ Æéé âáóéëåῖ ist nicht ohne Grund ἀíèñþðö zugesetst, da das Himmelreich mil sinem Menschlichen Könige verglichen wird. Vergleiche übrigens das Hiomerische ἀíὴñ âáóéëåýò .”—P. S.]
[Dr. Lange inserts only, to emphasize ἀñîáìÝíïõ at the beginning of the sentence.—P. S.]
[Dr. Robinson, Dictionary, sub ôÜëáíôïí , estimates the common Attic talent at £ 243 15s). sterling, or about 81, 170.–P. S]
[The original reads 10 for 100 denarii.—a palpable printing error, which the Edinb. transl. faithfully copies. “Attica ìíᾶ (mina) fuit centum drachmarum; Romana, drachmarum nonaginta seœ; Alexandrina 160 drachmarum Atticarum.” See Joa. Scapvle, Lexicon Græco Lat., Oxford ed., p. 1006. An Attic äìá ÷ìÞ nearly equa in value to a Roman denarius.—P. S.]
[Among the ancient Romans there were certain legal tortnres, as a heavy chain and a system of half starvation, which the creditor might apply to his debtor, for bringing him to terms. See Arnold, History of Rome, i. p. 186, and Trench, Notes on the Parables, p. Matt 154: “The tormentors are those who shall make the life of the prisoner bitter to him; wring out from him the confess on of any concealed hoards which he may still possess; even as there are tormentors in that world of woe, whereof this prison is a figure—fellow-sinners and evil angels—instruments of the just yet terrible Judgments of God.”—P. S.]