Matthew 18

CHAPTER XVIII

Matthew 18:1

1 In that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Who then is greater in the kingdom of the heavens? Jesus had just returned to Capernaum (17:24) and had just attended to the payment of the Temple tax. “In that hour” means that almost immediately Jesus attended to the dispute among his disciples regarding greatness. All that is recorded from 17:24 to 18:35 took place on one day, which appears to be the time spent on this final visit to Capernaum. Mark tells us that Jesus was “in the house,” which cannot be Peter’s house, as some think, but must be the home of Jesus himself who at the beginning of his ministry had transferred his home to Capernaum. The definite article points to “the house” as being one that was well known, one where Jesus stayed regularly while he was in his home city.

When Matthew writes that “the disciples came to Jesus” he intends merely to say that now the whole company was assembled in Jesus’ home. We must not assume that the disciples came to Jesus in order to have him answer this question about greatness. Mark tells us that Jesus broached the subject by inquiring about what they had discussed among themselves on the road to Capernaum. They “held their peace” because of a guilty feeling, and only Mark leads us to conclude that some of them at last told Jesus. Matthew states directly that they wanted to know who was “greater in the kingdom of the heavens.” Yet ἄρα in the question, “Who, then, is greater?” hints at what Mark states about the previous hesitation. The Greek uses μείζων, the comparative “greater,” which is more exact.

The implication is that all of the Twelve would be great, yet that some would be greater than the rest. The singular does not refer to one only but is to be understood in a general sense as a reference to any one over against others, so that for various reasons several might be ranked above others. The present tense is modified by the future idea lying in the phrase “in the kingdom of the heaven” (see 3:2), here referring to the great Messianic kingdom which the disciples thought Jesus was about to establish with wondrous earthly grandeur.

Jesus himself had furnished an occasion for this question concerning the relative position of the disciples in his approaching kingdom. He had given some distinction to three of the Twelve on two notable occasions (Mark 5:37; Matt. 17:1). Often enough Peter had been allowed to take the lead and to speak for the rest; and even on this day he had been ordered to catch the fish with the stater in its mouth and to pay the tax for Jesus and for himself. So on the road the Twelve had had their dispute, and Jesus had delayed until this time in order most thoroughly to settle this question that was so fraught with danger because of envy, jealousy, pride, and hatred. There was a possibility that it might disrupt this little band of twelve.

Matthew 18:2

2 Mark describes Jesus as sitting down and then calling the Twelve to himself and making an opening statement before he called the little child to himself. So, after the disciples had confessed their dispute, we must imagine that Jesus formally seated himself, his manner indicating that he intended once for all to clear up this question of precedence and greatness in his kingdom. We may take it that when the Twelve were called to him at this moment they sat about Jesus in the usual Oriental fashion. And having called forward a little child, he stood it in their midst and said: Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become as the little children you shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of the heavens. It is most natural to assume that this παιδίον (the diminutive is always neuter) belonged to someone who lived with Mary in Jesus’ house, and that the child thus knew Jesus and readily came at his call. We have no reason to assume that there was anything marvelous or extraordinary about this child.

This little one ran up to Jesus who then, seated as he was, told it to stand in the midst of the disciples facing the half-circle of seated men. In this way the attention of all was drawn to the child. But Mark adds the beautiful action that Jesus also took the child in his arms, lifting it to his breast as he sat before his disciples. As readily and as willingly as the child had come at Jesus’ call, so it now came to his arms and laid its head on his bosom or his shoulder. Here was a demonstratio ad oculos, one that would impress itself indelibly upon the minds of the disciples.

Matthew 18:3

3 With the child held thus, Jesus speaks, sealing his statement by the solemn formula of verity and of authority: “Amen, I say to you” (5:18). From the high places in the kingdom after which the disciples were striving Jesus takes them back to the very portals of that kingdom. They are told on what conditions alone they are admitted, and, of course, these vital conditions apply also to continuance in the kingdom. There is a hidden warning in these words: by contending about the higher places in the kingdom the disciples were losing their childlikeness and were thus endangering their very continuance in the kingdom.

“Unless you turn and become as little children” is one and the same act. By thus turning they will become as little children, and becoming such means to turn. The second aorist passive is used reflexively, στραφῆτε, “turn yourselves,” it is like the participle στραφείς used in 16:23. Here an action of the heart is referred to, one that is possible only through the power of grace (Jer. 31:18). This turning should not be reduced to a mere change of conduct: “unless you turn from your rivalry and seeking after outward greatness.” The conclusion speaks of entrance into the kingdom, and the requisite for this is something far more vital than forsaking a few of our faults. Jesus has in mind the turning which is usually called conversion, it is equivalent to the regeneration he required of Nicodemus in John 3:3.

To turn thus is to “become as little children,” to become like the one that was being held in Jesus’ arms. Besser writes: “It came at the call of Jesus’ kindly voice just because it was a child, without any conscious gratification because of its own tractableness. Just because it was a child, it in all simplicity allowed this kind man to do with it what he pleased without thinking: What an excellent child I am that I am thus set before these men! It allowed Jesus to take it into his arms and to caress it, feeling itself, indeed, a beloved child but knowing nothing of its loveliness. Well, this child in the arms of Jesus is for the disciples an illustration of what excellence in the kingdom of God is.” Then the childlikeness to be manifested in conversion is sketched: “To permit oneself to be called, led, loved, without pride and without doubt, in simple trust, that is childlikeness even as this is the nature of children who possess nothing but need everything; who are able to do nothing but receive everything; to earn nothing but receive everything as a gift—thus must all who desire to enter the kingdom of heaven become by conversion.” Humble trustfulness is a good summary of what Jesus has in mind, this translated into the spiritual realm, into our relation to Jesus. A king’s child plays with a beggar’s child, and neither feels above the other or beneath the other.

We bring our children up, God brings his children down. Many have thought that children must first grow to man-hood before they can enter the kingdom; Jesus reverses this: these twelve men must go back and become little children.

The two verbs στραφῆτε and γένησθε are rightly aorists, for they describe a momentary act; and οὐμή is the strongest form of negation with either a future indicative or a subjunctive: “in no wise.” The subjunctive εἰσέλθητε is volitional, cf. R. 933 on 5:20. Jesus closes the kingdom against all who refuse to become as little children.

Matthew 18:4

4 Now Jesus is ready to speak regarding greatness in the kingdom. The fundamental requirement for entering the kingdom continues in effect throughout the kingdom and thus decides our position in it, whether this is to be low or high. Whoever, therefore, shall humble himself like this little child, this is the greater one in the kingdom of the heavens. And whoever receives one such little child on my name, receives me. But whoever shall entrap one of these little ones that believe in me, it is fortunate for him that an ass’s millstone be hanged about his neck, and that he be sunk in the high sea. Luther writes: “Oh, do not think to be great but to be little.

Becoming great will come of itself if you have become little.” The connective οὖν, “therefore,” bases all greatness in the kingdom on the original condition required for entrance. The sentence that has ὅστις with the future indicative (some texts have the aorist subjunctive) and those having ὃςἐάν with the subjunctive (v. 5, 6), have practically the same force. The respect in which one is to become like a little child is now plainly stated: “humble himself” (we prefer the reading with the future indicative to that with the punctiliar aorist subjunctive). First the turning that gives us entrance; then, as the natural continuance of that act of turning, this growing humbleness of mind which makes us greater and greater in the kingdom after we have entered. This ταπείνωσις makes no claims, insists on no rights, comes with no demands, but bows lowly and humbly under the Lord’s will and Word, yields completely to him, and is happy and content in doing that. With “this child” Jesus again uses it as an illustration.

The child in Jesus’ arms looked up to him, depended on him, was content with what he did. This was its humility or lowliness. It claimed nothing, pointed to no merits, was proud of no achievements. This was the natural state of this child; Jesus uses this to illustrate what the spiritual state of greatness in the kingdom is. Yet we must be warned. Pope Gregory the Great called himself servus servorum.

He did it in order to be the greatest, did it in a mechanical fashion, by a shrewd kind of calculation, putting on humbleness in order to secure greatness. Any proceeding of this kind defeats itself. True humility does not hanker after greatness, does not even think of it. Its very delight lies in being nothing. Its own character is its greatness. In v. 1 μείζων may be regarded as a comparative, but here ὁμείζων seems to be used for the superlative “the greatest.” See R. 281 and 667 regarding the replacement of the superlative by the comparative in the Koine.

This is greatness as God estimates it, thus is genuine and not spurious and sham as is that which men set up and prize. The paradox is striking: the least is the greatest. He who thinks of making no claims shall have all that others claim and by claiming cannot obtain. But the paradox is easily solved. Only an empty vessel can God fill with his gifts. And the emptier we are of anything that is due to ourselves, the more can God pour into these vessels his eternal riches, honors, and glories. It is hard for our minds, trained, as they are, to worldly ways of thinking about greatness, to grasp this thought of Jesus’, and harder still to make it the motivating principle of our lives; but God’s grace in us will not be in vain.

Matthew 18:5

5 When Jesus adds the word about receiving “one such little child,” we find it unwarranted, in spite of what some commentators say, to have this exclude children. Since Jesus had a child in his arms and used it as a living illustration and then said, “one such little child,” this word can scarcely be understood metaphorically. Nor should one speak about a “physical” child. For Jesus says, “Receive one such little child on my name,” which plainly makes the entire act spiritual. The more usual phrase is “in my name,” i.e., in connection with it; “on (ἐπί) my name” merely modifies the idea: on the basis of my name. These phrases do not mean “on my authority.” When we study the connection of all these ὄνομα phrases, it will become clear that “name” is that by which Jesus (or God) is known, hence his revelation (6:9; 7:22; 10:22, 41, 42; 12:21; and elswhere in this and the other Gospels).

To receive such a little child ἐπὶτῷὀνόματίμου means to do this “on the basis of the revelation of Jesus that one has received.” The whole act rests on this and on no other considerations. Of course, this means that a person will treat the child thus received as the revelation and the teaching of Jesus require, which include especially tender spiritual care. The point of this act is the fact that it is only one such little child that is thus received. In the eyes of the world a reception for such spiritual reasons has no value. Even today, when the world has come to value children more highly, it values them thus only for natural and secular reasons (providing for their physical and their educational needs). But Jesus regards it as an act of greatness when we receive such a child on the ground of his revelation. This act is not great in the sight of men, is not praised and applauded by the world, is not understood by the multitude; but the trusting humility of the one who performs this lowly act makes for spiritual greatness in the kingdom.

For Jesus declares, “Me he receives,” with emphasis on ἐμέ. This does not mean that Jesus identifies himself with the child as a child. This “me” refers to the way in which the child is received, to the ὄνομα of Jesus on which the act rests. And here all its spiritual greatness appears. The act is as great as Jesus himself who is the King of the kingdom. If it could be made a visible deed that the glorious Son of God and Savior of the world was being tendered a grand reception, the headlines of all the daily papers would appear in the heaviest type; but since it is invisible, it is covered with the humble mantle of faith, and its greatness will not appear until the judgment day (25:40, “unto me”).

Those who admit that Jesus here has in mind an actual child often claim that this is all he has in mind. But he has just used an actual child in his own arms as an illustration of the true and humbly trustful members of his kingdom; all these are exactly like little children. We also see that in the next statement, which is the opposite of this one, he uses as the equivalent of “one such little child” the interpretative term, “one of these little ones who believe in me.” In 25:40 this is made still plainer: “One of these my brethren, even the least.” This makes it certain that Jesus has in mind not only an actual child but also any disciple of his who has spiritually become like a child. To receive such a childlike believer “on the name of Jesus” is most surely receiving no one less than Jesus himself. It would be arbitrary and illogical in the highest degree for Jesus to make all his disciples children in spirit and then to make their greatness depend only on receiving aright an actual child and not a believer who has become like a child.

Now the point of this reception, both of a child and of a believer who has become a child, lies in the words that their reception is equal to the reception of Jesus himself. Humble as they are, it will be impossible for us to treat them with disdain, because in them we would mistreat Jesus himself. They may be the very least of his brethren, without any outward prominence, and in their childlike spirit wholly unassertive and altogether lowly (thank God, the church has always had many of these “little ones”!), yet we who know the greatness of this littleness and have it in our hearts will treat them as we should treat Jesus himself. In this way Jesus spreads his protecting hand over them; as we receive them, we receive Jesus himself. James 2:2–9.

Matthew 18:6

6 The opposite of receiving a child or a childlike believer on the name of Jesus is to “entrap” one of them. On σκανδαλίζειν and σκάνδαλον see 16:23, and again note that the terms go beyond the idea of stumbling (from which one may rise) and always denote spiritual destruction. The figure is that of an animal caught by touching the bait affixed to the crooked stick in a dead-fall trap. The sense is: whoever destroys a child or a childlike believer spiritually incurs the greatest wrath of Christ. Jesus thus describes the extreme mistreatment, for nothing worse could be done. This he often does on the correct principle that the extreme includes all lesser wrongs.

In 5:21, etc., Jesus makes murder include anger, etc.; in 5:27 adultery, lustful looks. Moreover, the extreme must be mentioned lest its omission lead to wrong conclusions. By forbidding the entrapment which kills spiritually all lesser spiritual harm to others is equally forbidden.

Let no one deceive himself by saying that only a child is thus destroyed or hurt or one of the insignificant believers. Jesus has indicated how precious these are in his sight, for what is done to them is as though it were done to Jesus himself. This is a word that should awaken all of us, parents, pastors, teachers, and all who hold positions of influence. What if only one humble soul should he lost through our teaching and our conduct!

We see that Jesus again uses the numeral “one.” He knows every single one of his own. But now he uses the broader term “one of these little ones that believe in me.” Those who hold that v. 5 does not include children take the same view in regard to this verse. Often this is done because of τῶνπιστευόντωνεἰςἐμέ. They are unwilling to admit that little children can believe. Their exegesis thus becomes dogmatic. But the whole context so manifestly refers to children that some penetration of the thought is required to find in it a reference to childlike adult believers.

To believe means to trust. Even in adults the inner essential of their faith, let it be filled with ever so much discursive thought, intelligent knowledge, introspective consciousness, is childlike trust. In the matter of this trust the child is the model for the man, not the man for the child. Jesus uses the natural traits of a child to illustrate what he desires his disciples to become. As capable as a little child is of natural trust toward mother, father, etc., so capable it is of having spiritual trust in its heart. Not the discursive features make faith what it is but this essential quality of trust. As faith remains in a state of sleep, coma, insanity, senility, so it can also be active in earliest infancy (Luke 1:41, 44). Delitzsch, Biblische Psychologie, 353.

It is true enough that the impersonal συμφέρει does not express a comparative idea such as, “it is better for him,” but means only, “it is beneficial or fortunate for him,” the subfinal ἵνα clause indicating what is so considered R. 992. Yet, as in 5:29; John 11:50; 18:14, a comparative thought is suggested by the two ideas that are linked with συμφέρει. We must note that ὅςἄν with the subjunctive does not really describe an actual case but only supposes one in a vivid way. When a deed such as this is supposed with regard to a man, when one thinks of him as ruining a little one spiritually, it would, indeed, profit him, i.e., be preferable, if the most awful death at once removed him, i.e., before he is able to carry out this deed. The thought is that such a fate συμφέρειαὐτῷ, “is profitable,” when one considers the guilt and the penalty his deed, if it besomes a reality, would surely bring upon him. That is why Jesus here speaks of this unheard-of manner of death, a plunging a man into the sea with a millstone around his neck.

No human judge or court ever decreed such a penalty. This answers the view that such a penalty is here thought of as one that alone befits the crime of destroying one of these little ones.

The adjective ὀνικός means “pertaining to an ass” and describes the μύλος, here millstone, that was operated by an ass. This was much heavier than the parts of a hand mill. Πέλαγος means “the high sea” or the depth of the open sea and with τῆςθαλάσσης may be translated, “the depth of the high sea,” the genitive helping to emphasize the concept. We must not lose the intent of Jesus when he places these two side by side: a man who is drowned as indicated, and a man who ruins a little one spiritually, making the former preferable. The enormity of the crime thus indicated could hardly be expressed more strikingly.

Matthew 18:7

7 The subject of entrapments is now broadened so as to include all of them, and in v. 10 Jesus returns to “the little ones.” Woe to the world because of the entrapments! For it is necessary that the entrapments come; nevertheless, woe to that man through whom the entrapment comes! Jesus sees all the σκάνδαλα that await his disciples in the world. The world will be full of deathtraps (not merely “occasions of stumbling,” R. V.) for them. The exclamation “woe” is, of course, not an accusation, but likewise not a mere expression of sorrow.

Like μακάριος, “blessed,” (for instance, in 5:3, etc.) all the “woes” of Jesus are verdicts. Here the world, all the men in it who remain outside of the kingdom, are sentenced to “woe,” and this sentence will be duly carried out. Here ἀπό has the idea of cause, R. 580; for “from” the entrapments that are wickedly designed against believers by the world will come this woe for the world itself.

The reason for this exclamation on the part of Jesus is brought by γάρ; he so exclaims because he sees the ἀνάγκη or “necessity” that brings about “the entrapments.” Since the world is what it is, it cannot let the believers (τῶνπιστευόντων, v. 6) alone. The world will always set deathtraps for them and bait them in all sorts of ways, and some believers will be caught. Because Jesus knows the nature of the world and the dangers to which his believers are exposed he pronounces this woe. Πλήν is used as an adversative conjunction, R. 646, 1187, and is rare in the New Testament. “Nevertheless” expresses the thought that the necessity just indicated is not an excuse for the world. Since saving grace is so great and rich, the world should not remain as it is; when believers are multiplied, the world should, like them, turn to Christ. But now the collective “the world” is resolved into its individual members, those who make it their special business to set these traps: “woe to that man through whom (διά, as a willing medium) the entrapment (any specific deadly act of this kind) comes.” In the world each man shall receive his woe according to the spiritual damage he does or tries to do.

Matthew 18:8

8 But entrapments may come to us, not only through other disciples or through the world, but even from within our own selves because of the sin that still remains in us. Moreover, if thy hand or thy foot entrap thee, cut it off and throw it from thee; it is excellent for thee to enter into the life maimed or lame than, having two hands and two feet, to be thrown into the everlasting fire. And if thine eye entrap thee, pluck it out and throw it from thee; it is excellent for thee to enter into the life one-eyed than, having two eyes, to be thrown into the Gehenna of the fire. In 5:29, 30 these two statements appear in reverse order, and while they are identical in substance, the wording varies. Instead of “it profits thee” (συμφέρει, is better for thee) we have the equivalent, “it is excellent (καλόν) for thee.” More important is the change from, “that one of thy members perish, and not thy entire body be thrown into Gehenna,” to, “for thee to enter into, the life maimed or lame than, having two hands and two feet, to be thrown into the everlasting fire.” The positive “to enter into the life” explains the previous negative “not to be thrown into the Gehenna.” In both verses “the life,” ζωή, is the true life of heaven, the opposite of eternal death in hell. In 5:29, 30, “thy whole body” means the body as joined to the person, hence, when the thought is repeated, the person as such is indicated.

We also see that “Gehenna” means “the fire, the everlasting.” The addition of the adjective by means of a second article makes it emphatic; it is like an apposition and a climax, R. 776. This fire can be only hell.

Matthew 18:9

9 There are less changes regarding the right eye, etc. Jesus now says simply, “thine eye,” which may refer to either eye. The rest conforms to v. 8, except that the final phrase “into the Gehenna of the fire” (each noun being definite and having its own article) even combines the Gehenna and the fire and thus most emphatically indicates what place is referred to by either “Gehenna” (5:29, 30) or “the fire, the everlasting” (v. 8). The genitive in “the Gehenna of the fire” is descriptive, R. 496; and the positive καλόν is stronger than the comparative, it is more like a superlative: “it is best,” although the context suggests a comparison.

For the substance of the thought expressed in these two verses turn to 5:29, 30.

Matthew 18:10

10 With the little child most likely still in his arms as he sat in Oriental fashion, Jesus reverts to v. 5, etc., and amplifies what he has already said. There he warned against the extreme mistreatment, any entrapment of his little ones. As was the case in 5:21, etc., he now adds that by forbidding the extreme he includes all minor wrongs. See lest you despise one of these little ones! For I say to you that their angels in heaven always see the countenance of my Father in heaven. Here Jesus touches the bottom of all wrong conduct toward any “one of these little ones,” children or beginners in the faith or any in the church that seem unimportant.

The term is retained from v. 6 and thus shows that the subject is still the same. “To despise,” καταφρονεῖν, is really “to think down on” as though these little ones could be disregarded, as though they amounted to little or nothing. This is the attitude that runs roughshod over the little ones, that neglects their spiritual needs and works them harm in all sorts of ways. The numeral “one” should not be overlooked, for every little one is precious in his sight, he will not have one of them looked down upon. The imperative ὁρᾶτε, “see to it,” is both emphatic and durative as though Jesus foresaw how often his little ones and especially the children would be neglected in the church.

“I say to you” means “with all my authority,” and γάρ furnishes the reason that none of us dare despise one of these little ones. They are so precious that God delegates his angels to watch over them. The idea of guardian angels, one being assigned to each little one, can scarcely be supported by the mere genitive pronoun “their” angels. Tobit 5 is apocryphal and even then does not support the idea assumed; and other Jewish literature has no more value. God uses his angels as ministering spirits and often assigns individual angels for special duties. That thought suffices also here.

Acts 12:15: “It is his (Peter’s) angel” does not state a Scriptural doctrine but only the superstitious ideas of those who were alarmed by Rhoda’s report. What is to impress the disciples and to keep them from despising even one of these little ones is the fact that “their angels in heaven always see the countenance of my Father, of him in heaven” (ἐνοὐρανοῖς here used twice without the article). We cannot make a division and think of some angels that see the Father’s countenance in the angelic visio Dei, and of some who do not. While angels are of different ranks (each having his own principality, power, might, dominion, and name or title to correspond, Eph. 1:21), all of them stand in the presence of God. Jesus is thus not speaking of the “throne angels,” or of the highest angels; nor does seeing the Father’s countenance recall Ps. 123:2 (which has “hand” and not face) in the sense of being on the alert for his orders. It is enough to understand that the greatness of the angels is here impressed upon the disciples.

Here Jesus mentions two classes of ministrants for each of these little ones: the disciples who are still on earth, and these heavenly angels; the disciples who have not yet attained perfection and the visio Dei, and the angels who always see the countenance of the Father. God appoints both classes of ministrants to carry out his gracious will (v. 14) regarding each of these little ones. Let the disciples always remember with whom they are associated in this blessed task. If these angels delight in it (Heb. 1:14), shall they not? If the angels never think of despising one of these little ones, dare the disciples ever think of such a thing?

With the possessive “my” Father Jesus puts himself in the fullest accord with that Father in this matter. By adding the phrase “in heaven” by means of a second article he indicates the greatness of God even more emphatically (R. 776) than when he adds this phrase to the angels without such an article. We know too little about the dwellers in the heavenly world to explain how these angels always (διὰπαντός) see the Father’s face even while they execute their mission in behalf of these little ones. The human term πρόσωπον, here used with reference to the Father who has no body of any kind, can have in mind only his glory and his glorious presence—at least, we are able to say no more.

Matthew 18:11

11 The textual evidence against this verse is so strong that we must cancel it from Matthew’s account. It was probably inserted from Luke 19:10.

Matthew 18:12

12 An illustration resembling the parable of Luke 15:3–7, though it is much briefer, advances the thought to the spiritual help that the disciples ought to offer any of these little ones who may be endangered by going astray. As 5:29, 30 is repeated in 18:8, 9, so it need cause no comment that Jesus should use the beautiful parable of recovering the lost sheep twice in different and yet entirely suitable connections. How does it seem to you? If a hundred sheep belong to some man, and one of them strays away, having left the ninety-nine on the mountains and having gone, does he not seek the straying one? And if he conies to find it, amen, I say to you, that he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that have not strayed away. The introductory question puts the matter before the disciples; and there is no doubt as to what they will think.

Bengel writes: suavis communicatio. Here is a man who owns a hundred sheep, yet, though he owns so many, when but a single one happens to stray away and get lost, the moment he detects its absence, does he not leave the ninety-nine out there on the mountains and go and seek that one lost sheep? The interrogative particle οὐχί expects an unhesitating affirmative answer.

Here γένηται with the dative is like εἶναι and denotes possession, the aorist stating this as a fact: if a hundred sheep “shall actually become” to the man, i.e., be his. So the aorist passive πλανηθῇ means, “shall actually have strayed away.” This verb and its present passive participle at the end of v. 12 seem significant, for πλανᾶν means “to deceive,” and its passive “to be deceived.” This is exactly what has happened to the lost sheep: in some way it was deceived and thus strayed away. This is precisely what may happen to an inexperienced child or some other believer: deceit causes them to stray away. The subordinate actions are expressed by participles, ἀφείς and πορευθείς, to mark them as such although some texts have the future indicative for the former. In those texts the apodosis has both a future and a present tense: “will he not leave and does he not seek?” This is not unusual. R. 1019 remarks that the condition (ἐάν with the two subjunctives) is future in conception, while the conclusion (the present ζητεῖ) is present in reality: “he does seek.” The phrase “on the mountains” modifies the preceding participle: he leaves the other sheep there; and not the following participle: “he goes on the mountains,” for in the Greek the forward position of the phrase would lend it a disproportionate emphasis.

The fact that he goes on the mountains and not elsewhere is self-evident, for that is where he is pasturing his flock. This also accords with the topography of Galilee, the greater part of which is mountainous.

Matthew 18:13

13 The clause with ἐάν and the aorist subjunctive expects the man to find the strayed sheep although it leaves open the possibility that he may not succeed in this. The infinitive εὑρεῖν is the subject of γένηται, R. 1043, 1058. Now Jesus turns from the question he asked in v. 12 to the strongest kind of assertion and even seals it with the formula of verity and authority: “amen, I say to you” (5:18). The thought never comes to this man that he has the ninety-nine sheep, and that the one that has strayed away, being only one, amounts to very little in comparison. His feeling is quite the contrary. When he succeeds in finding the stray sheep “he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that have not strayed away.” He rejoices over them, too, though they have caused him no special trouble but, strange to say, and yet not strange at all, the one that caused him all the trouble gives him the greater joy. Jesus is simply stating what we constantly experience: a sheep, a jewel, a child, any treasure take on greater dearness when they are lost and then found or when they are endangered and then brought to safety.

Matthew 18:14

14 When making his application from this illustration Jesus states his Father’s will only in negative form. Thus (namely as here illustrated) it is not a thing willed before your Father in heaven that one of these little ones perish. Just as the man in the illustration cannot suffer his strayed sheep to perish, so the great Father in heaven (“yours,” the more important text; “mine,” the less important) could never will this thing that (subfinal ἵνα stating the contents of this θέλημα) one of his little ones perish. We should understand θέλημα objectively, “a thing willed,” even as this is then stated. Abbott-Smith calls ἔμπροσθεν a targumic formula; yet this seems to be the case only when it is used with εὐδοκία as in 11:26 (Zahn on the passage). The idea in “before your Father” seems to be that such “a will” could never be expressed “before him” and in his presence as a decree of his.

The reading ἕν (neuter) is to be preferred to εἷς (masculine). On the hypothesis that Matthew’s Greek Gospel is a translation by a late, unknown person, this neuter has been called a bit of faulty translation. Others think that this neuter is due to the continuance of the idea of a πρόβατον (the neuter noun for sheep). But this is untenable when the illustration is to be applied. No; the expression, “one of these little ones,” intends to take us back to v. 6 where it was first used; and then to v. 10 where it was repeated. Thus this neuter ἕν again takes up the diminutive neuter παιδίον, “a little child” (v. 2), “this little child” (v. 4), and “one such little child” (v. 5).

This makes it certain that Jesus is still speaking of children. Whoever else may belong to his “little ones,” children certainly do. Even if εἷς were the correct reading, the expression would include children in v. 14. The entire section from v. 1 onward turns on “the little child” and others who have become like this child. It is quite probable that Jesus held the child in his arms throughout this address. The view that “the little ones” Jesus had in mind are all his believers alike misunderstands the passage. By means of true child-likeness we become great in the kingdom (v. 4) and cease to be “little ones.” And it is thus that Jesus teaches us to make our will agree with the Father’s will by never hurting and by always helping all his little ones, undeveloped children and weak adult believers.

It is certainly true that v. 14 excludes the idea of reprobation. If any “little one,” babe or adult, is lost, this thing was not the Father’s will but contrary to his will. In this very place he forbids causing hurt and harm to these little ones and commands that all support and help be given them, and makes it plain that this is his good and gracious will. The negative “not to perish” includes its corresponding positive “but to be saved” (John 3:16). Our passage is especially valuable for little children, since they are here so clearly included, and God’s will regarding them is so positively stated. He does not want them to perish, and that is why Jesus instituted a sacrament that can be applied to children and can give them the grace that saves (Tit. 3:5; Acts 2:39, “and to your children”).

But what about babes that die before they are baptized, can this be applied to them? The answer of the church rests on this divine θέλημα, on the fact that it is not his will that one of these little ones perish. He has bound us to baptize them and thus on our part to execute his gracious, saving will; he has straightly charged us not to despise one of these little ones. While he has thus bound us he has not bound himself to specific means. He has made no definite revelation concerning babes that die in an unbaptized state. But in the expression of his will regarding them as here stated the church is justified in seeing the hope that in some way and by some means not revealed to us he will carry out his gracious will nevertheless, for his arm is not shortened, and he can save to the uttermost.

We have only this hope and no more. The inexcusable neglect of those who presume upon this hope, leave their little ones unbaptized and untaught, and yet demand that God save them when they die, God will judge (v. 6).

Matthew 18:15

15 The disciples wanted to be great (v. 1), and Jesus told them how to become great and then showed them how the great must receive and not destroy the little ones (5, etc.), must never despise but always help them in distress (v. 10, etc.). The progress of thought is clear. Only one additional step is needed. From the straying away, like a sheep, on a sinful course Jesus advances to the final possibility that one brother sins against another brother. What then? By such a sin the erring one shows that he is “a little one” in a lamentable sense.

By a wrong treatment of him the wronged brother would only share the other’s fault. Jesus tells what this brother is to do. We note that Jesus speaks about his church and the coming conditions to be found in it with perfect foreknowledge. This fact deserves more attention than it often receives.

If thy brother commits a sin against thee, go, convict him between thee and him alone; if he hears thee, thou didst gain thy brother. Here for the first time in this chapter Jesus uses “thy brother” in the sense of thy fellow-believer and thus thy fellow-church member. And, as the sequel shows, a case arises in which the continuance of this relation is jeopardized. Yet until the clear denial of brotherhood is established, I must treat the offender as a brother in Christ and in no other way. With ἐάν and the subjunctive Jesus treats an expected case; and his expectation has certainly been fulfilled. In ἁμαρτάνω we have the regular verb for “to sin,” literally, “to miss the mark,” the one set by the divine law, and the aorist indicates a specific act of sinning.

“Against thee” is textually very strongly assured. The phrase indicates what sins are here considered; those of a general nature are treated in v. 10–14, here the sin is specified as being committed against a brother. It is necessary, however, to note that only a real sin is referred to, one that is apparent as such when one or two other brethren are called in on the case and when the whole congregation considers the matter. This excludes what a sensitive brother may deem a sin without due warrant that it is such. The context furthermore supplies the directive that the sin is of such a nature that it cannot be permitted to pass as a weakness and fault such as we all commit, sometimes daily. These do not endanger the fraternal bond.

They call for a word of rebuke and are then allowed to pass. This occurs often enough, especially where these lesser faults are mutual, one brother perhaps provoking another to act faultily. Brotherly patience and forbearance heal the scar.

Jesus has in mind graver sins such as all brethren would be compelled to consider too serious and too dangerous to allow them to pass without plain evidence of repentance. Sins of this kind often involve more than the offense against one brother; they may wrong several brethren, all of them seeing and knowing about the deed. Or the sin may be altogether public, at once involving the entire congregation, such as some open scandal or some crime. Jesus takes up the least serious case, leaving it to us from it to draw the proper procedure to be followed in the graver ones. If one brother who is sinned against must take action as Jesus directs, then likewise must several if the sin be committed against a larger number, and the church as such if the sin be public from the start.

“Go, convict him” (the first imperative is a mere auxiliary, hence there is no connective), means: show him his sin so that he will see it as a sin and feel guilty accordingly. The aorist implies that this really be done, not bungled or merely attempted. Of course, in the case of a real sin this will not be difficult. Note that while ἐπιτιμῶ means simply “to rebuke,” ἐλέγχω means “to rebuke so as to bring conviction.”

“Between thee and him alone,” unter vier Augen, enjoins strict privacy and forbids blurting out the matter in public, or spreading it in secret by telling one or the other, or at once lodging complaint before the church authorities. This direction intends to shield the sinning brother and is prompted by love. It also makes it as easy as possible to confess the sin and to ask for pardon. Compare 7:3. Let both brethren respond to the Lord’s kindly intent. “If he hears thee” is again a condition of expectancy; Jesus looks for such an outcome. “Hear” is to be understood in the pregnant sense: hear so as to yield the conviction and thus to confess and in sorrow to ask pardon. The person heard is construed with the genitive. The aorist expresses conclusive hearing that requires no further rebuke.

Here we have a case in which the condition looks to the future while the conclusion turns to the past, which R. 1020 attributes to the swift leap of thought. But this past is a past only to that future: “thou didst gain” if thy brother “shall hear.” Moreover, the Greek uses the aorist to express this past, whereas the English would prefer the perfect “hast gained”; yet we do not regard this as a gnomic aorist (R. 842). The thought to be expressed by these tenses is perfectly normal. To gain or win the brother is the original purpose of the procedure. Sorrow and disappointment are to fill the wronged brother when this purpose fails. The motive Jesus desires to find operative in his heart is love toward the sinning brother, the true, spiritual love that desires to assert no rights of its own but only to gain the brother by freeing him from his sin. To gain him thus is to help to save him and is much like gaining a new member for Christ and for the church.

Matthew 18:16

16 But the case may turn out differently. But if he does not hear, take along with thee one or two more in order that everything may stand on the mouth of two witnesses or three. The going alone is usually called the first step. The idea is, of course, not to go only once, but until there is no further hope of gaining the brother. This first step is automatically omitted when the sin is one that has been committed against more than one person. The aorist “does not hear” is definite refusal to hear and to be convicted.

Every time a brother really sins against another, this is a test as to whether he really intends to stay with Christ and with the church by repentance and amendment of heart, or to let the devil succeed in plunging him into impenitence. But the battle is not lost in the first engagement even when this turns out adversely. “Take along with thee one or two more (ἔτι).” The Lord leaves the number to the brother concerned. The object is still the same, and the supposition is that the offending brother will yield when one or two additional brethren appeal to him. These ought, of course, to be most carefully chosen if the task is to be successful. Jesus does not need to repeat that if the brother heeds he is won; that is a matter of course. If he is now won, the matter is settled, and the lips of the brethren are to be sealed accordingly.

One purpose in taking along a second or a third brother is the proviso stated in Deut. 19:15 (John 8:17; 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19) and quoted freely from the LXX, “that everything may stand (the passive aorist intransitive, B.-P. 596) on the mouth (word or testimony, Hebraic) of two witnesses or of three.” In case the matter is ever inquired into, and any dispute or uncertainty arises, the case can be properly settled as to the facts by the two or the three witnesses. Or if the sinning brother still remains unconvicted, and the case must be brought before the church, decisive testimony can be produced. Πᾱνῥη̄μα is not “every word (utterance),” but “every thing,” die ganze Angelegenkeit, the whole matter.

Matthew 18:17

17 Now the worst contingency, the third and final step. But if he fails to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he fails to hear also the church, let him be to thee even as the Gentile and the publican. After the one or the two or the three fail, the entire ἐκκλησία is to use its united endeavors to gain the brother. See ἐκκλησία in 16:18. Here, still more than in 16:18, the original idea of “a called assembly” is retained, for the body of believers must hold at least one duly called meeting.

We may thus also translate, “Tell it to the congregation!” for evidently the local gathering of believers is referred to. Yet the idea of ἐκκλησία is not that of an assembly called for an outward meeting but one called to be a spiritual body in Christ by the effective κλῆσις of grace, all its members being κλητοί as having both received and accepted this call although in the meeting pretended believers (hypocrites) may also be present. The ἐκκλησία is not only the clergy, priests, presbyters, or other heads of church bodies as distinct from the membership. As far as the outward organization of the local ecclesia is concerned, this Jesus has nowhere prescribed, hence it is left to the believers themselves and to their best spiritual judgment. Once more then, if the brother that sinned against another now at last hears at least the congregation, the congregation has gained him by accepting his repentance and assuring him of pardon.

But he may refuse to hear even the church, either refusing to face the church, or facing it and the testimony of the witnesses with an impenitent heart. For we must note throughout that the sinful act, which calls for all this action, is in truth sinful and can be convincingly shown to be such. If all the brotherly effort of the church fail, then the church must consider the sinner self-expelled and must take due note of the fact and act accordingly. This is the so-called ban or excommunication—the man’s membership ceases.

“Let him be unto thee” mentions only the brother originally sinned against, but certainly what applies to him applies to all the rest, even as they finally act jointly, and the brother acts only in accordance with the verdict of his other brethren. The sinner is now (not until now) to be regarded and treated as “the Gentile or the publican,” the articles with these singulars making them representative of their respective class. Every Gentile as such was outside of the commonwealth of Israel, none of its spiritual blessings belonged to him; and every publican (9:10) was expelled from that commonwealth and thus was in the same category, as one who had separated himself from Israel. By his sin the sinner thus makes himself “one who is not a sheep, nor wants to be sought, but intends to be completely lost,” Luther using the imagery of v. 12, 13. Yet even the very severity of this action of the church is intended to bring the offender to his senses, if this be still possible. This action of the church must lead him to see the gravity of his own impenitence.

Thus expulsion is the last warning to strike the obdurate conscience. He who laughs at this, laughs at his own doom.

The church (congregation) is thus the final court of appeal. Those who would place above it a still higher authority: the pope, a bishop, some church board, a house of bishops, or a synod composed of clerics, or these combined with lay delegates, go beyond the word of Christ and the teachings of the apostles. In a difficult case the local congregation may seek counsel or advice, but the final jurisdiction in regard to a sinning member belongs to the congregation alone, and no one ought either by direct or indirect means to nullify that jurisdiction. Zahn voices the old Christian exegesis: Die Gemeinde also ist die hoechste richterliche Instanz auf Erden. False greatness and authority have often been arrogated to themselves by high officials in the church who have robbed the congregations of their divine authority; and congregations have often been remiss in exercising the Lord’s will; but that will stands as it is.

Matthew 18:18

18 Amen, I say to you, whatever things you bind on the earth shall be as having been bound in the heaven; and whatever things you shall loose on the earth shall be as having been loosed in the heaven. With the double seal of divine verity and of divine authority (on which see 5:18) Jesus confirms the power he has here ordered the church to exercise. To avoid repetition read the exegesis of 16:19, where the identical power is conferred on Peter. We add the following. The effort to make the second person plural “you shall bind,” “you shall loose” refer, not to the congregation, but only to the Twelve, i.e., the apostles, overlooks the fact that Jesus here addresses them, not in an official capacity, but as members of his church. If this is denied, then what about the person first addressed: “If thy brother sins against thee,” etc.?

Does this apply only to the relation of the apostles among themselves: “If thy brother-apostle sins against thee, an apostle”? No; this power (the keys) belongs to the church which, indeed, uses the called ministers to administer discipline, but the power put forth is that of Christ which has been entrusted to no special order of men but to the entire church.

The fact that the binding and the loosing denote judicial functions and not legislative authority (see 16:19) is plain in the present connection. “If thy brother sins against thee,” shuts out the views that apostles are to legislate and to make the laws which determine what is and what is not sin. This God has long ago done through Moses, and the verb “to sin” here used operates with that well-known law. But Jesus appoints the members of the church and the congregation to guard that law, to bring sinning members to repentance, or to rid themselves of them as members.

Here again the neuter is used; but now we have ὅσα, the plural. The church judges, not the hearts, but the words and the deeds, see 16:19. The two perfect participles (here plurals) seem to be the predicates of the two ἔσται although the grammars regard them as periphrastic future perfect tenses. The question is one of grammar. So fully has Jesus bestowed the power of the keys upon his church that, when first one brother spoke to the offender and then afterward two or three spoke to him, they could bind the impenitent by reporting to the church for final action, or could loose, absolve, and forgive the penitent, thereby closing the matter forever.

Matthew 18:19

19 The greater the power that Jesus bestows upon the church, the more necessary is it that we not only follow his instructions but also look in prayer to him for guidance and rely on his presence in our midst. Again I say to you (with my divine authority) that if two of you agree on the earth concerning any matter that they may ask, it shall be done to them from my Father in heaven. For where two or three are, having been gathered together in my name, there am I in their midst. “Again” is like “furthermore.” It adds something that is necessary as a separate point. “I say to you” is only a little less strong than the fuller formula used in v. 18; Jesus speaks with his full authority as the head of the church. He cites the smallest number, namely “two” that may unite on a matter, and we rightly think of the two witnesses mentioned in v. 16 and their special duty as one of the matters on which they will ask help from their Lord. “On earth” recalls the same phrase used in v. 18. It reminds us of our earthly state in which we have so many needs and also have to help each other to shake off the bonds of sin. The verb συμφωνεῖν means “to agree by talking a thing over,” the two persons thus weighing it well before they formulate their prayer.

They will inquire as to what Christ’s will is in the matter and will thus “ask” of him what he will be sure to give and will not ask amiss. The verb αἰτεῖν is used also with reference to petitions directed to men but quite frequently with reference to some gift that is desired of the Lord. The relative οὗ is attracted from the accusative to the genitive of the antecedent.

Jesus solemnly promises, “It shall be to them,” etc. This is a specific promise given to joint and congregational prayer. Yet it is not given in the sense that our mere agreement assures the granting of the request, for even this prayer will end, “Let the will of the Lord be done!” and will leave the answer to the wisdom of God and to his own good time. Thus this promise does not go beyond Christ’s other promises but only as far as they go, because they already go to the limit. “Combined prayer is precious,” writes Luther, “and the most effective, for which reason we also come together, and from which also the church is called the house of prayer. Oh, if God would that any gathering might pray in this manner, so that a common cry of the heart on the part of all the people might rise to God, what immeasurable virtue and help would follow such prayer! What more terrible thing could happen to all the spirits of evil?

What greater work could occur on the earth? by which so many godly people would be preserved, so many sinners converted. For truly the church on earth has no greater power or work than such united prayer against everything that may strike against her. This the evil spirit well knows, wherefore also he does all that he can to prevent this prayer. It surely does not depend on places and buildings in which we come together, even though it be under a thatched roof, but on this invincible prayer, that we may practice this properly and make it come before God.”

Matthew 18:20

20 With γάρ Jesus states the reason for the effectiveness of united prayer. It is his own unseen presence wherever even only two or three are gathered in his name. This again reminds us of the two or the three witnesses and their special task, but, of course, extends beyond them to believers who are concerned with any matter (v. 19). Εἰς is to be taken in the static sense, R. 593, as it is used extensively for ἐν in the Koine. “In my name” = in connection with my revelation, ὄνομα, as in v. 5 and in all these phrases. The phrase, of course, implies true faith in this revelation and thus in him who is revealed.

“There am I in their midst” must be understood with reference to the special and gracious presence of Christ and must not be confused with his universal presence with all creatures alike. This is the presence of the whole Christ in his two inseparably united natures by both of which he is the Christ; and the distinctive feature of this presence is his grace which is effective to guide, direct, keep, and bless those to whom it is vouchsafed. Although it is invisible, it is no less real than it was when he stood visibly in the midst of his disciples after his resurrection. Since he is thus in the assembly of the church or present when two or three are convicting a brother of sin, it is he himself who acts with his church and its members when they carry out his Word by invoking also his presence and his help.

In all that Jesus here tells his disciples he implies that soon his visible presence will be removed from them. The tone is that found in John, chapters 14–16, and is just as great, mighty, and blessed, with assurance and joy for all his true followers.

Matthew 18:21

21 Then Peter, having come forward, said to him: Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I remit it to him? Up to seven times? Matthew gives only the connection of time, “then,” and lets his readers judge as to the material connection, as to why Peter came to Jesus with this question. The participle προσελθών intimates that there was a brief interval during which Jesus probably dismissed the little child that he had been holding while speaking (Mark 9:36). In Luke 17:4 the connection is no clearer than it is in Matthew. The idea that Peter’s question is intended to raise an objection against the practicability of the proceeding just outlined by Jesus, is evidently not in accord with the facts.

Neither is the supposition that Matthew has abbreviated and thus has lost the connection, which is then sought in a version of the Gospel to the Hebrews; but this version only repeats what Matthew writes and does that in a decidedly inferior manner. It is best to give credit to Peter who here again feels free to speak. He seems to have caught the Lord’s meaning expressed in v. 15: the brother against whom another has sinned and who is to go and to rebuke the sinning brother will be able to do this properly only when he at once, before he goes, forgives the wrong that has been done to him. It seems as though Peter sees that fact and thus raises the question about the number of times he should extend such forgiveness.

The two interrogatives are deliberative, R. 934; and ἀφήσωαὐτῷ is the significant verb used for forgiving, here being construed only with the dative of the person, the accusative of the sin being understood; “remit it to him,” i.e., send it away as far as he is concerned. This remission on the part of the wronged brother is an entirely separate thing and is not to be confused with the remission God may grant. We must at once forgive every wrong, whether the wrongdoer repents and makes acknowledgment to us or not. That clears us. We hold nothing against the man who has wronged us. But he has his sin to settle with God. It is to help him settle it aright with God, so that God, too, will remit and dismiss his sin, that Jesus orders the procedure outlined in v. 15, etc.

We must also give credit to Peter for extending such personal remissions of personal wrongs “up to seven times.” For the old Jewish teaching was that three times was enough: Homini in alterum peccanti semel remittunt, secundo remittunt, tertio remittunt, quarto non remittunt, R. Weiss, from Babyl. Joma, f. 86, 2, basing this on Amos 1:3; 2:6; and Job 33:29, 30. Peter more than doubles this limit and thus reveals that he has progressed under his Master’s teaching.

Matthew 18:22

22 Jesus says to him, Not, I say to thee, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. Not for one moment does Jesus say that such a case as seven repetitions of wrongdoing could scarcely occur, and that thus seven repeated remissions would suffice; instead he takes Peter’s breath away by calling for no less than 70 × 7 remissions, a number that is so great that keeping such a count would be almost impossible. His meaning evidently is that we are to forgive all wrongs done to us, no matter how many they are.

Jesus arrives at this figure through Peter’s “seven times,” which he multiplies by another seven raised to the tenth degree (70). There is no symbolism in these figures. Thus also an allusion to Gen. 4:24 is excluded. In this passage the figure is stated as “seventy and sevenfold”; moreover, the reference is to the very opposite of forgiveness, namely to vengeance. In addition, if, nevertheless, an allusion to Gen. 4:24 is assumed, the point would have to be that Jesus makes the times of forgiveness (70 × 7) exceed by far the times of the vengeance (77). The 70 × 7 of Jesus should not be reduced to 77 because of Gen. 4:24.

The LXX translates the Hebrew shib‘im weshib‘ah with the same words that Matthew has: ἑβδομηκοντάκιςἑπτά and leaves out the “and” of the Hebrew. The LXX evidently mistranslated and regarded the Hebrew “seventy and sevenfold” as equivalent to “seventy times seven.” Yet such authorities as J. H. Moulton (Prol., 98; Einl., 158), B.-P., 330, B.-D., 248, 2, R. V. margin, Abbott-Smith, and apparently also R. 673, etc., ask us to regard the mistranslation of the LXX as equivalent to “77 times,” like the Hebrew Gen. 4:24, and then state that Matthew’s words likewise mean only “77 times.”

Matthew 18:23

23 Because it seemed almost unbelievable to Peter that Jesus should demand 490 remissions, Jesus makes the whole matter clear by means of one of his finest parables. Since he is speaking only to disciples, only the first purpose stated in 13:11, etc., is here attained: it is given them to know; and since they have, more is given to them. Since it is the parable that clears up the subject better than any direct explanation could, we must say that parables, too, have the force of Scripture proof. On this account the kingdom of the heavens has become like a certain king who resolved to settle up with his retainers. It is not Matthew who has added the phrase “on this account” but Jesus: because Peter is to forgive so often, this is the reason that the kingdom has been made to be what it is. Every time Peter has any doubts regarding the number of times he is to forgive, let him think of this parable and the king it pictures, and all his doubts and his hesitation will disappear.

On “the kingdom of the heavens” see 3:2; it is the rule of God’s grace on earth through Christ. Wherever God exercises his grace through Christ, there this heavenly kingdom is found in all its blessed power. In 13:24, R. 835 regards ὡμοιώθη as the effective aorist, but in this passage R. 837 regards this same aorist as gnomic and thus timeless. We prefer the former view; see the remarks on 13:24. In 13:31, 33, 44, 47 the present ὁμοίαἐστίν is used, but the effective aorist “became,” or as the English prefers, “has become,” also brings the comparison up to the present. The addition ἄνθρωπος to βασιλεύς uses this word pleonastically in a colorless way like τίς, B.-P. 107, as in 11:19; 12:45, and elsewhere.

Hence we translate “a certain king.” We see no reason for stressing ἄνθρωπος, either by regarding it as being in contrast to Θεός, or as denoting “a king of flesh and blood,” an expression that is found in certain Jewish parables. The fact that the parable presents a human king is as self-evident here as in 22:2, for unless such a king is referred to we should have no parable.

The real point is that this king came to the decision (ἠθέλησε, aorist) “to settle up” (συνᾶραιλόγον, also aorist and effective) with his retainers. The verb συναίρω means “to take up together,” and λόγον is often added as a part of the concept, M.-M. 601. We do not refer δοῦλοι to ordinary slaves belonging to this king’s household. The idea that slaves were often entrusted with large sums of money with which to do business for their master (25:14, 15; Luke 19:13) seems too weak here where the sum involved is so immense. These douloi were the king’s satraps who had been appointed by him to rule great parts of his domain and to turn into his treasuries the grand revenues of their provinces. Under an Oriental king, great lords though they were in their own right, they would be subject to his absolute authority and would thus be nothing but the king’s δοῦλοι.

Matthew 18:24

24 Now, he having begun to settle up, there was brought to him one, a debtor of ten thousand talents. The very first man who appears owes this great sum. The fact that he was summoned first because he owed so much is nowhere indicated. Others may have owed similar sums. This reckoning of the king does not picture the final judgment but (like Luke 16:2) a reckoning that is made during this life. It is like to that of the sinner who is brought face to face with all his sins by the awakening of his conscience.

In the providence of God such hours of judgment come to us and often shake us to our inmost souls. Just as little as “a hundred denarii” in v. 28 is a definite figure to indicate an indefinite sum, “a little sum,” so little is “ten thousand talents” a definite figure to indicate “a great sum” or “many talents.”

A talent was a weight of silver or of gold coin, and these weights varied in different nations and also at different eras. The Attic talent is $1, 200; the great Roman, $500, and the small, $375; while the Hebrew, Assyrian, and Babylonian ran from $1, 550 to $2, 000. Many are inclined to think of the Attic talent in this instance, thus $12, 000, 000; others, of the Hebrew, $15, 500, 000 to $20, 000, 000. An Attic talent amounts to 6, 000 denarii, and 10, 000 of these talents to 60 million denarii, that Isaiah 600, 000 times as much as was due this debtor by his fellow-doulos. And one denarius was a laborer’s daily wages (20:2).

For the purpose of comparison note that Archelaus drew an annual revenue of 600 talents from Judea and Samaria, and Herod Antipas one of 200 from Galilee and Perea. Trench refers to the great sums mentioned in the Old Testament. The figure 10, 000 used in the parable seems symbolical since the law contains Ten Commandments. Boos makes the practical reckoning and lets the righteous man sin seven times a day, 2, 555 times a year, and thus in a number of years—how many times! This estimate is far too low.

Sins are often considered debts, as in 6:12. This great debtor “was brought” to the king in the sense of being summoned and conducted into the royal presence, there to render an account of the revenues due the king. Of his own accord the sinner never comes to face his reckoning with God. In false security he loves to go on piling up his debts. But it is a blessed thing for him to be brought to account before it is too late.

Matthew 18:25

25 But he not having in order to pay, his lord ordered him to be sold and wife and the children and all whatever he had, and payment to be made. The man is unable to make payment for the enormous sum he owes. How he incurred so vast a debt is immaterial for the purpose of the parable, but the fact that he owed it and could not pay it is essential. While Jewish debtors were also often sold into bondage (Lev. 25:39, 47; Exod. 22:3; 2 Kings 4:1; Neh. 5:5; Isa. 50:1; Amos 2:6; 8:6), the imagery of our parable seems to be drawn from the courts of the great eastern kings with their vast wealth and their grand dependencies; for this king also uses βασανισταί (v. 34), “torturers.” The fact that the members of the debtor’s family were also to be sold into bondage need not surprise us, for they were considered the man’s property, and this was the case even according to Roman law. Some texts have ἔχει instead of εἶχε, the present referring to what the debtor “has” at the time. In the statement, “and payment to be made,” the same verb is used that was employed with reference to the great debt, but this does not imply that the proceeds of the sale of the debtor and his belongings will equal the amount of the debt but merely that the proceeds will be paid into the king’s treasury. In both infinitives ἀπό adds the idea of paying what is due.

The total inability to pay the vast debt pictures man’s spiritual bankruptcy before God. His sins are the debt, and they are so great in number that he has literally nothing to pay. While here the number of the sins is stressed, every single sin is beyond human payment. This king is not represented as a tyrant; he acts according to strict justice. He has been lenient by not demanding a reckoning much sooner, and in a moment we see his royal grace. So his act pictures the divine justice regarding the sinner and his sins.

The guilty sinner is cast out from the presence of God and through his own guilt lands in the bondage of the devil. Divine justice is not popular in the world and in certain types of preaching; but aside from the Scriptures the moral sense of men and their frequent experience bring home to them the fact that God is just and visits the iniquities of the sinner upon his head. We also see daily that one sinner draws others into his guilt and his punishment. None of us lives to himself or dies to himself.

Matthew 18:26

26 The retainer, therefore, having fallen down, worships him, saying, Lord, extend longsuffering to me, and I will pay thee all! When the verdict goes against him (οὖν), the man breaks down completely. He does not deny his debt but admits it. He is overcome and crushed when he realizes its enormity. He throws himself at the feet of the king and pleads for a postponement of the sentence. These are good effects produced in him, not by himself, but by the king and the king’s just reckoning.

Luther writes well: “Before the king drew him to account, he had no conscience, does not feel the debt, and would have gone right along, made more debt, and cared nothing about it. But now that the king reckons with him, he begins to feel the debt. So it is with us. The greater part does not concern itself about sin, goes on securely, fears not the wrath of God. Such people cannot come to the forgiveness of sin, for they do not come to realize that they have sins. They say, indeed, with the mouth that they have sin; but if they were serious about it they would speak far otherwise.

This servant, too, says, before the king reckons with him, so much I owe to my lord, namely ten thousand talents; but he goes ahead and laughs. But now that the reckoning is held, and his lord orders him, his wife, his children, and everything to be sold, now he feels it. So, too, we feel in earnest when our sins are revealed in the heart, when the record of our debts is held before us, then the laughter stops. Then we exclaim: I am the most miserable man, there is none as unfortunate as I on the earth! Such knowledge makes a real humble man, works contrition, so that one can come to the forgiveness of sins.”

It is correct psychology when Jesus lets this debtor beg for time and promise to pay this vast debt. This is the first thought that comes to the sinner. He does not at once realize the enormity of his guilt and, as Luther says, cannot think that God will actually forgive it all but imagines he must pay it off and in his fright promises to do it. The law does not at once produce its full effect. The verb μακροθυμεῖν means “to be longsuffering,” i.e., a long holding out of the mind before it gives room to action or passion, Trench, Synonyms, II, 12; who finely distinguishes it from ὑπομένειν. The latter is never attributed to God, the former refers to persons, the latter to things (bravely enduring them), hence this latter is inapplicable to God.

Matthew 18:27

27 But, moved to compassion, the lord of that retainer released him and remitted the loan to him. God is just and must confront us with our sins; but he is equally compassionate and full of grace and ready to remit our sins. Now the moment the sinner realizes his sin, confesses it, and turns to God, God pardons the guilt. On σπλαγχνίζομαι see 9:36 (also 14:14; 15:32): the pained feeling at sight of the sinner’s plight, coupled with the strong desire to help him. Compassion is the inner motive of God, from which pardon flows. And this pardon is at once complete.

The king “released” this debtor and cancelled the order to his officers to sell the debtor and all he had. And in the same instant “he remitted the loan to him.” It is called τὸδάνειον, “the loan,” because it was tribute that was long due to the king. But the verb ἀφῆκεν is most significant: “he remitted” the debt, literally, “dismissed and sent it away.” This is the verb we usually translate “to forgive,” and the Greek word means: “As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us” (Ps. 103:12): “and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea” (Micah 7:19). The noun is ἄφεσις, “the sending away.”

Here is vast comfort: God does not wait until the sinner perfects his contrition. He does not keep him on the anxious bench (Luke 15:20). He remits the sin the instant it is possible for him to remit it. And the entire debt is remitted, not only a part, even though it be the greater part, while some part is still to be paid by the debtor himself. The debtor pays nothing; in full truth can pay nothing. The only change that takes place in the man is contrition, and this is wrought in him by God through the law.

The king’s word of release and remission is forensic; God on his throne declares the sinner free from guilt, as free as though he had never incurred that guilt. This is Biblical justification, the central doctrine of the Christian faith: God declares the sinner free from guilt and righteous in his sight.

Luther writes: “All jurists, the wise and learned, say: righteousness must be in the man’s heart and soul. But this Gospel teaches us that the Christian righteousness is not in all respects in the man’s heart and soul, but we are to learn that we are righteous and redeemed from sins through the forgiveness of sins. Therefore is this a high preaching and heavenly wisdom that we believe, our righteousness, salvation, and comfort is outside of us, namely that before God we are righteous, acceptable, holy, and wise, and yet in us there is nothing but sin, unrighteousness, and folly … I myself must confess, that it is sour and hard for me to believe this article. For by nature I am thus minded as also I was accustomed in the papacy, that I would gladly do good works to pay for my sins.”

The debtor is pardoned. His debt is as though it had never existed. This state has come about through pure compassion and grace. He has not yet fully realized it all, but he is to enter into this realization, his contrition is to deepen when he thinks of what he has escaped, and his faith and joy will increase when he thinks what has been granted to him.

Rationalists use this parable to support their rejection of the atonement of Christ. They play one part of Scripture against the other instead of combining one part with the other. But a parable presents only one side of the matter and no one expects it to present all sides of a subject, let alone one that is as great as the heart of the Bible.

Matthew 18:28

28 Now that retainer, having gone out, found one of his fellow-retainers who was owing him a hundred denarii and, having laid hold on him, he choked him, saying, Pay, if thou owest anything! It is the evident intention of Jesus to reverse the position of this retainer; over against this fellow-retainer he is now where the king was a moment ago in regard to him. This explains the relative positions of these two δοῦλοι, the one stood high in the realm and could owe the king 10, 000 talents; the other occupied some humble position at the court, where he somehow came to owe this lofty man the trifling sum of 100 denarii, each of which amounted to 17 cents or the day’s wages of a laborer.

But it is Jesus’ intention to reverse still more, in fact, to present this retainer’s action as morally outrageous. He comes from the presence of the king who remitted his enormous debt of 10, 000 talents. That astounding experience which snatched him and his family from their doom produces no glow of gratitude and generosity in his soul; it leaves him cold. His own debt to the king was so enormous that the king had to summon him and to make a grand reckoning to determine the amount; this fellow-retainer’s debt is so trifling that the other who deals in grand sums would have forgotten it had he not accidentally happened upon and “found” the humble debtor.

The reversal goes farther. The violence used is in glaring contrast to the refined royal dignity and brings out the meanness of this fellow’s soul. Although holding a grand position in the realm, he descends to grabbing, choking, and the rudest, hardest demand. The aorist ἀποδός, “pay up!” is violent. The reading εἴτι must stand over against ὅτι (“what thou owest”). “If thou owest” is not a bit of Greek politeness that is used even in a case of harshness, although ironically; nor does it indicate uncertainty as though the retainer were not quite sure about his claim and yet used violence, for the clause, “who was owing him,” settles that. The condition of reality, “if thou dost owe,” implies, “as thou dost and knowest only too well.” The point is that this retainer intends to make no reckoning such as the king made in his case. “If thou dost owe” is shouted in a challenging tone and dares the poor fellow to deny that he owes this sum. “What thou owest” would leave open a chance for reckoning; the other form completely cuts it off.

The application lies on the surface. Compared with our sins against God, our sins against each other are mere trifles; the one sum is absolutely unpayable, the other is easily payable. The action is made extreme in the parable, not because it is always extreme in reality, but this extreme is intended to include all lesser cases just as in 5:21, etc., murder includes all lesser sins against the Fifth Commandment; and in 5:27, etc., adultery does likewise. Here we have the opposite of 6:12, that we be forgiven as we forgive. The debt of 100 denarii is real, as real as that of the 10, 000 talents; our sins against each other are real. But here the moral enormity is brought out that one of us should take remission of a guilt so vast and yet refuse remission of a guilt so small.

If grace is denied for the latter, then by as much as 10, 000 talents exceed the miserable 100 denarii grace must be denied also for the former. The moral sense still left in sinful men’s hearts is bound to approve such action.

Matthew 18:29

29 Having, therefore, fallen down, his fellow-retainer entreats him, saying, Extend longsuffering to me, and I will pay thee! The scene of v. 26 is repeated. How could it help but remind this harsh creditor of his own prostration and prayer a little while ago? The few slight differences are significant. The worship is omitted, and the address “lord”; both befit the king but not a mere retainer. Yet παρεκάλει is substituted; one of us may “entreat” or beseech another. And “all” is left out, the sum is too small. The entreaty which is so nearly the same must surely reach the other’s heart.

Matthew 18:30

30 But he was not willing; on the contrary, having gone away, he threw him into prison until he should pay what was owing. While the king “was filled with compassion” and thus remitted the debt, this man is filled with unwillingness. The contrast is glaring. It lies in the will, the center of the personality. “The negative imperfect commonly denotes resistance to pressure or disappointment” (R. 885), and this is true of ἤθελεν. All moral obliquity is blind; by not willing what it should will it wills its own undoing. Here the aorist ἔβαλε at once states what the outcome of the unwillingness was.

He went away and threw him into prison is usually taken to mean that he haled the poor fellow to prison. Here we have a case of imprisonment for debt which persisted until Christian influence produced a more humane law regarding debtors. We take it that imprisonment was all that could be inflicted in this case because of the small amount of the debt; if it had been large enough, this man would have sold the poor debtor into slavery. This also brings out the difference between our sins against God and our sins against each other. Comparing the full measure of both (10, 000 talents over against 100 denarii, the multiples of 10 denoting completeness), the penalties correspond (selling into bondage, imprisonment).

“Until he should pay,” etc. (ἀποδῷ, subjunctive) intimates nothing regarding the eventual outcome as to whether payment would or would not be made. The point is only this: the creditor refused to remit, he held the debt against the other. The fact that this is no figment thousands of cases in the church have shown.

Matthew 18:31

31 Accordingly, his fellow-retainers, having seen what occurred, were grieved exceedingly; and having gone, explained to their lord all that occurred. These men are attached to the king of the parable in a special way, and none of them is called a mere citizen; this implies that Jesus is speaking of the members of his church. The article in οἱσύνδουλοι points to the fact that the one who would not forgive is an exception among Christians; the others see the great wrong of such action. The effect upon them is that “they were grieved exceedingly.” A detail to the effect that they admonished the offender is omitted in order not to extend the parable. To them great grief is attributed, to the king anger. Trench is right when he attributes the difference to the consciousness of our own sins when we see another sinning, while in God holiness and the abhorrence of sin is perfect. Thus God’s reaction is his holy and righteous wrath, but ours great grief.

It is true that God is omniscient and knows before any man explains to him; and yet he waits for our prayers, waits for us to explain to him our needs and our helplessness. Unable to do anything themselves, these retainers go and lay “all that occurred” before him (διασαφεῖν as in 13:36). As far as the two readings ἑαυτῶν and αὐτῶν are concerned, the difference in meaning should not be stressed since the simple possessive often equals the reflexive. In the church we often reach the end of our resources and must turn “what has occurred” over to the Lord who still rules in his church and knows how to proceed with the wrongs occurring in its midst.

Matthew 18:32

32 Then, having called him to him, his lord says to him: Wicked retainer! all that debt I remitted to thee when thou didst entreat me. Was there no need for thee also to show mercy to thy fellow-retainer even as I on my part showed thee mercy? And, angered, his lord delivered him over to the torturers until he should pay all that is owing. Not only did this man forfeit his own remission, his penalty is made vastly worse. In the parable it happens at once, in actuality it happens as certainly as though it happened at once. No man is able to resist the divine summons.

The verdict here pronounced is already in effect in the case of every unforgiving church member who still flatters himself that he still has God’s forgiveness. The adjective “wicked” contains the verdict (Luke 19:22; Matt. 7:23; 25:41). The man’s whole person and his true nature are described by this one word. The evidence for the verdict is at once added. First, what the king had done for him, using the historical aorists. “All that debt” recalls its excessive greatness, and “when thou didst entreat me” the readiness and the wondrous grace which asked no more.

Matthew 18:33

33 The impersonal δεῖ expresses all manner of necessity, and here the imperfect, ἔδει, the moral necessity resting continually upon this man over against all companions of his. He should have extended an act of mercy as an act of mercy had been extended to him; hence the two aorists ἐλεῆσαι and ἠλέησα. And ἐγώ, abutted to σε, is decidedly emphatic and places the two into contrast. The interrogative form brings out the absolute justice of the king’s verdict. The affirmative answer implied by the interrogative particle οὐκ appeals to the moral sense of even this wicked man. He does not dare to answer “no” or to equivocate in any way.

The translation into reality is wholly obvious. It would be a moral monstrosity for one of us to receive God’s remission of all our sins and yet refuse remission of the little wrongs done against us. If any one of us is still blind to that fact, his blindness will turn to terrifled sight when he faces God in his heavenly court. God’s unspeakable mercy and compassion always come first, and they melt our hearts to mercy and compassion toward others. Where this result is not effected the divine mercy and remission are forfeited, and that with the most terrible results.

Matthew 18:34

34 The anger or wrath of God is the reaction of his holiness, righteousness, and justice against all sin and above all against obdurate and unyielding sin. The anthropopathic terms used in the Scripture in no way lower God by making his holy wrath like that of men which is at best tainted by passion. This supposition reveals that God’s own revelation of himself has not been accepted. The action prompted by the king’s wrath is absolutely just. The man has brought his fate down upon himself. In the three penalties: jailing for debt, selling into bondage for debt, delivering to the torturers for what is worse than such debts, Jesus evidently pictures three types of penalty: one inflicted by one man upon another (vengeance), two inflicted by God (these differing as the few and the many stripes mentioned in Luke 12:48).

In v. 25 the verdict is not carried out because pardon takes its place; in v. 34 the parable ends, and thus nothing is said about the execution of the verdict. We must not expect too much of a parable; it cannot illustrate every detail of the reality, it illustrates only certain points. The parable thus should not be used to alter the realities but must be interpreted according to them. That is also true in this case. Our many sins deserve hell and, when these include the sins committed against the divine grace, they deserve the worst penalties of hell. This is what the parable presents.

The verdict rendered in v. 25 did not cut off the possibility of grace, for the sinner actually received grace although he presently forfeited it. The silence after v. 34 is, to say the least, ominous. Did the sinner return to contrition, or did he remain obdurate? The silence of Jesus intensifies the warning which is evidently intended for us. But that warning implies that the possibility of heeding it is not cut off. In other words, one who is unforgiving today may, if he heeds this warning, turn again and find pardon.

But if the heart remains hard, the βασανισταί will go into action. The opinion that the term means jailors is unwarranted; it means “torturers.” They may at the same time be jailors, but they are more than that. Among the tortures anciently applied also to imprisoned debtors were: dragging about heavy chains, near-starving, excessive labor, and carnificia or bodily tortures proper, Trench. The gravity of the imagery is that the wrath of the king orders these penalties. It is spiritualizing to regard these “torturers” as the pangs of conscience and self-accusation. Hell will be full of these, to be sure. But it will also be full of hideous devils whose one occupation it will be to plague and to torture the damned.

Catholic exegesis finds a proof for purgatory in the last clause: “until he should pay all that is owing.” The conjunction ἕωςοὖ is regarded as implying that the point of this “until” can and will be reached. As far as the force of the conjunction is concerned, this is possible. Sometimes “until” contemplates what follows this terminus although it sometimes does not. Chrysostom saw that here the context shuts out a limit: “That is, perpetually; for neither will he pay ever.” The “until” clause thus really becomes the strongest proof against the idea of purgatory and for the eternal duration of punishment. Saying “until an impossible thing takes place,” simply says “never.” “When the Phocians, abandoning their city, swore that they would not return until the mass of iron which they plunged into the sea once more appeared upon the surface, this was the most emphatic way they could devise of declaring that they would never return.” Trench. The self-contradictory thing in regard to purgatory is the view that God remits the severer penalties, the poenas aeternas, while the lighter ones which the church must exact, the poenas temporales, it does not remit if they remain unpaid, but transfers to purgatory—making God more merciful than the church (she being the unforgiving creditor!)

Once the sinner dies he passes into the power of the tormentors. The parable, however, stops short of this as we have pointed out. And this means that the “until” clause is not to be dated as beginning with death but as beginning in the hour of the divine verdict during the sinner’s life. In other words, if this merciless man allows the warning to crush him in true repentance before death shuts out that possibility, he shall, indeed, be able to pay all that he owes—through the merits and atonement of Christ. As long as life lasts, all sins (save that against the Holy Spirit) are pardonable. During life also all verdicts, whether it be that of pardon or of condemnation (Jonah 3:4; 4:11), are conditional; the pardon may be lost by impenitence, the condemnation escaped by repentance.

Matthew 18:35

35 The parable itself is clear, so Jesus makes only this summary application: Thus also will my heavenly Father do to you if you do not remit each one to his brother from your hearts. The parable is intended as a mighty warning; Peter is never to refuse a brother forgiveness. “Thus” means as the king finally did. “My” Father seems more in place here than “your” Father, for those who lose the remission cannot call him their Father. As the parable pictures a king acting with supreme authority, so the supreme greatness of the Father is indicated by ἐπουράνιος (used only here with reference to the Father), which is added with a second article and thus makes the adjective emphatic. The future tense ποιήσει is volitive, “will do to you,” not merely futuristic, “shall do.” And ἐάν with the subjunctive expresses expectancy. The plural “if you do not remit” is individualized by the partitive apposition (R. 746) “each one”; and we now see that the Twelve were present. Here the remission is that granted the fellow-disciples; “to his brother,” while in 6:15 it is extended to men generally.

The former naturally broadens out so as to include the latter. Jesus does not fail to add that this remission must be genuine, “from your heart,” and not a remission spoken by the lips alone. God sees the heart, he himself remits from the heart, and he can be satisfied with no pretense on our part.

“On the declaration itself we may observe that the Christian stands in a middle point, between a mercy received, and a mercy which he yet needs to receive. Sometimes the first is urged upon him as an argument for showing mercy: ‘forgiving one another, as Christ forgave you’ (Col. 3:13; Eph. 4:32); sometimes the last: ‘Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy’ (Matt. 5:7); ‘With the merciful thou wilt show thyself merciful’ (Ps. 18:25); ‘Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven’ (Luke 6:37; James 5:9); and so the Son of Sirach (28:3, 4), ‘One man beareth hatred against another, and doth he seek pardon from the Lord? He showeth no mercy to a man who is like himself, and doth he ask forgiveness of his own sins?’ and thus, while he must ever look back on a mercy received as the source and motive of the mercy which he shows, he looks forward as well to the mercy which he yet needs, and which he is assured that the merciful, according to what Bengel beautifully calls the benigna talio of the kingdom of God, shall obtain as a new provocation to its abundant exercise.” Trench.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handworterbuch, etc.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.