Matthew 25

OGC

‹ Chapter 24 Matthew — All Chapters Chapter 26 ›

Chapter S TWENTY-FOUR AND TWENTY-FIVE SECTION 60 JESUS DESCRIBES THE LAST DAYS OF THE JEWISH STATE AND HIS SECOND COMING

(24:1-25:46)

STUDY OUTLINE: CHRIST’S PROPHETIC DISCOURSE

OCCASION (Matthew 24:1-3)

Disciples Marvel At the Magnificence of Jerusalem’s Temple (Matthew 24:1)

Jesus Predicts the Temple’s Destruction (Matthew 24:2)

Disciples Ask For Clarification (Matthew 24:3)

Jesus-’ answers: His prophetic discourse.

II.

THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM AND ITS TEMPLE (Matthew 24:4-35)

General Warning Against Misleading Signs Not Related to the End (Matthew 24:4-13)

False Christs are not the signal (Matthew 24:4-5)

International war is not the signal (Matthew 24:6-7 a)

Disturbances in nature are not the signal (Matthew 24:7 b, 8)

Troubles inside the Church and out are not the signal (Matthew 24:9-13)

Persecution of the Church (Matthew 24:9)

Religious confusion and widespread faithlessness (Matthew 24:10-12)

Individual perseverance one’s only hope (Matthew 24:13)

Specific, True Information About Jerusalem’s Destruction (Matthew 24:14-28)

The true signals of the nearness of Jerusalem’s fall (Matthew 24:14-15)

World-wide Gospel proclamation signals the approximate approach of the end (Matthew 24:14)

Jerusalem besieged is the precise, decisive signal of the end (Matthew 24:15)

Urgent, practical instructions for rapid escape (Matthew 24:16-20)

Motivation: great, unprecedented tribulation (Matthew 24:21)

Duration: short but terrible (Matthew 24:22)

Warning: No hope of Christ’s personal coming during the siege (Matthew 24:23-28)

Despite apparently miraculous signs, all false hopes of deliverance raised by false prophets must unswervingly be disregarded (Matthew 24:23-26)

Christ’s true coming will be too obvious to require prophetic announcement (Matthew 24:27)

Israel’s hopeless deadness cannot but attract scavengers: no hope of deliverance, just punishment. (Matthew 24:28)

The Theological Result of Jerusalem’s Fall (Matthew 24:29-31)

The time connection: Immediately after Jerusalem’s great tribulation (Matthew 24:29)

The collapse and removal of the old, established luminaries (Matthew 24:29)

The Messiah’s victorious, heavenly reign vindicated (Matthew 24:30)

Worldwide proclamation of the Gospel and its resultsthe beginning of the Gospel year of Jubilee(?) (Matthew 24:31)

Encouragement to Believe Jesus (Matthew 24:32-35)

Leaves are a signal of summer’s approach (Matthew 24:32)

Similarly, the foregoing clues signal the arrival of God’s Kingdom (Matthew 24:33)

All these events must occur in Jesus-’ generation (Matthew 24:34)

The certainty of the predicted events (Matthew 24:35)

III.

CHRIST’S SECOND COMING (Matthew 24:36 to Matthew 25:46)

The Date Known But to God (Matthew 24:36)

Stories Illustrating Important Features of the Final End-Times (Matthew 24:37 to Matthew 25:46)

Illustration from life before the flood: Business as usual (Matthew 24:37-42)

Illustration of the burglar: The time is unpredictable, so be always ready! (Matthew 24:43 f.)

Illustration of the Conscientious and the Hypocritical Servant (Matthew 24:45-51) Jesus-’ Return may be delayed.

Illustration of the Ten Wise and Foolish Bridesmaids: Adequate preparation must be made in time! (Matthew 25:1-13) The fate of the unprepared

Illustration of the Wise and Foolish Stewards: The present is a stewardship of God’s goods entrusted to us according to our individual ability, to be invested for His advantage, because an accounting will be given. (Matthew 25:14-30)

Illustration of the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31-46)

The Second Coming and the judgment will be contemporaneous (Matthew 25:31)

The judgment will be universal (Matthew 25:32-33)

The basis of judgment will be our everyday usefulness and service to others (Matthew 25:34-46)

The results of the judgment will be permanent (Matthew 25:46)

JESUS-’ ESCHATOLOGICAL DISCOURSE VISUALIZED BY CONTRASTS

Marcellus Kik (Matthew XXIV) suggests the following helpful outline of Matthew 24, 25 :

**FIRST SECTION Matthew 24:1-35

CONNECTING LINKS Matthew 24:34-36

SECOND SECTION Matthew 24:36 to Matthew 25:46

THE FALL OF JERUSALEM DESCRIBED

THE END OF THE WORLD DESCRIBED

TIME**

Definite description of the period preceding the judgment on Israel. Disturbing events are just false alarms typical of this period.

**TIME TEXT

Matthew 24:34**

This generation will not pass away till all these things take place.

TIME

The time of the world’s end known only to the Father, therefore, no precise signs of the time given.

SIGNS GIVEN:

General sign of the approximate approach of Jerusalem’s end: worldwide Gospel proclamation (Matthew 24:14)

Precise sign of Jerusalem’s death-date: abomination of desolation, Jerusalem surrounded by armies (Matthew 24:15)

**TRANSITION TEXT:

Matthew 24:36**

But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels, nor the Son, but the Father only.

NO SIGNS TO BE GIVEN:

Life going on as usual (Matthew 24:37-42)

A thief gives no warning (Matthew 24:43-44)

Jesus-’ coming will be delayed; hence, cannot be expected with certainty (Matthew 24:48; Matthew 25:5; Matthew 25:19). The only possible preparation must be constant vigilance.

SCOPE

Prophecies limited to a geographically specific locality: Palestine. (Matthew 24:16-28)

Destruction of Temple (Matthew 24:1)

People in Judea must flee (Matthew 24:16)

Only the land of the Sabbath is involved (Matthew 24:20)

Events would not affect the nearby mountains (Matthew 24:16)

SCOPE

Prophecies universal in scope that concern the entire world. (Matthew 25:32; cf. Luke 21:34-36)

Judgment of all men, not just Jews (Matthew 25:32)

No warnings to flee as all escape now impossible.

Final judgment not located on earth but in heaven.

ABNORMAL TIMES

those days (plural) Jerusalem died slowly, foreseeably

QUITE NORMAL TIMES

That Day (singular) Judgment to come rapidly, quite unexpectedly

In light of these significant differences between the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the world, it is unjustifiable to assert with many that the destruction of Jerusalem serves as a predictive type of the final judgment, so that what is affirmed of the one must also be precisely true of the other. How could one event which, in important details, is so radically different from another event be thought to fore picture the latter? By His clarity of language, Jesus separated the two events. The only true similarity between them is the astounding triumph in each case whereby the glory of Jesus shall be definitely revealed.

THE AUTHENTICITY OF JESUS-’ PROPHECIES

Christian apologetic interest in this chapter can shout to the world, See? Jesus-’ prophecies concerning the fall of Jerusalem came true, just as He said. We should believe His promises to come again, judge the world and bring victory to His followers, because of His reliability. Therefore, we must ask whether these predictions were truly uttered before the fact, or, as some claim, a clever rewriting of history to give Jesus undeserved credibility. Our Lord’s language is not perfectly free from some vagueness, as even modern Christian commentaries thereon illustrate by their difficulties in identifying precisely His allusions and references. But these very obscurities serve to guarantee the prophetic genuineness of His words. These Chapter s are not history penned after the fact and counterfeited as real prediction by its supposedly unknown authors. In fact, a forger, inventing this prophecy after Jerusalem’s fall, would more probably have sidestepped all unclarity to exalt how precisely Jesus foresaw the events forty years earlier and how this prediction validates His prophetic claims.

Further, if these prophecies had been recorded following the events, the silence of the Synoptic Gospels themselves is without explanation, since none mention the fulfilment of Jesus-’ prophecies. Luke, for example, is not averse to recording fulfilments (Acts 11:28). Why not here too? Because the events predicted had not yet occurred.

THE PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THIS DISCOURSE

Jesus-’ purpose from first to last is practical. A detailed schedule of Last Days Events was not even a consideration for Him. Rather, the counsel of prudence with which He begins (Matthew 24:4), aims to take our eyes off speculation about future events and put our feet on solid ground to prepare ourselves and others in the Present in which we find ourselves. His goals for preaching this sermon touch the lives of His disciples immediately, not merely some yet unborn, future generation. Foster lists five important targets this message aims to hit:

This message unmounts every goal the nationalistic movement of the Zealots and their sympathizers dreamed to realize. The worldwide proclamation of the Gospel was to substitute for materialistic materialism as the divine means of victory. In the program of God with regard to national Israel, Rome was to conquer, but the final Kingdom would be of God, not Caesar’S.

Only the Word of Christ is permanent. Nothing men have thought, done or builtnot even the Temple of God in Jerusalemis permanent.

Jesus proclaimed His own certainty that His fiercest enemies would go down in shame and defeat, even though they condemn Him to death and execute that sentence. Disciples, shaken by His death, could take heart and believe that unlimited victory would not belong to Caiaphas, Annas, Herod or Pilate, or to anyone else but to Jesus!

This message furnishes proof of the validity of Christ’s prophetic authority. Although the suffering and death of the persecuted Christians would strain their confidence to the utmost, this prophetic declaration of Jerusalem’s doom, when vindicated by its historical realization, would prove Jesus correct and validate the believers-’ confidence in everything else He taught.

The priorities obvious in this discourse are two: to furnish His disciples with critical information whereby they could foresee and elude Jerusalem’s downfall, and at the same time be ever prepared for Jesus-’ return to earth.

Matthew 25:1-13

4. Illustration of the ten wise and foolish bridesmaids (25:1-13)

1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, who took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. 2 And five of them were foolish, and five were wise. 3 For the foolish, when they took their lamps, took no oil with them; 4 but the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. 5 Now while the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. 6 But at midnight there is a cry, Behold, the bridegroom! Come ye forth to meet him. 7 Then all the virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. 8 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are going out. 9 But the wise answered, saying, Peradventure there will not be enough for us and you: go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. 10 And while they went away to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage feast: and the door was shut. 11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.

But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.

Watch therefore, for ye know not the day nor the hour.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

In what way is this story of the five wise and five foolish virgins similar to the preceding one about the faithful, wise servant and the evil servant? In what way is it different?

To what phase of the kingdom of heaven does Jesus refer in this story?

In what way is the having oil or not part of the main point of this story?

Do you see anything significant about the fact that the bride-groom made his appearance at midnight? If so, what does that fact suggest about the reality Jesus is illustrating?

Christ has taught us to share what we have. Yet He pictures with apparent approval the so-called wise virgins as refusing to share their oil! How do you explain or justify this surprising selfishness? Or, is that what it is?

The so-called wise virgins suggested that the others try to buy lamp-oil at midnight! Is not this a rather foolish suggestion for supposedly wise ones? What stores would be open at that time of night? In the reality represented by this illustration, would such a purchase even be possible?

Do you not think that it was heartless on the part of the bride-groom to refuse recognition to a few hapless girls whose only mistake was failure to provide a little oil for lamps to lighten the atmosphere of HIS marriage banquet? On what basis can such cold indifference be justified? Who does this bridegroom symbolize anyway?

From the details in the story, what may be assumed to be involved in Jesus-’ concluding admonition: Watch therefore?

Since Jesus concluded this story with Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour, a point reiterated many times in these concluding illustrations, why do you suppose He felt He needed to repeat this concept? Did He think that we would misunderstand Him and act otherwise, if He had stated His view but once?

PARAPHRASE

The time when Christ’s coming is awaited will be a time when the government of God may be compared to ten maidens who took their oil lamps to a wedding party. They were to await the arrival of the bridegroom. Five of them were thoughtless and five were sensible. The foolish took their lamps, but brought no reserve oil with them, whereas the wise girls took containers of oil along with their lamps. Because the bridegroom was a long time in coming, the girls all became drowsy and began to sleep. However, in the middle of the night someone shouted, Here comes the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!-’ At this all those girls rose and trimmed their lamp-wicks. The foolish girls said to the prudent ones, -Loan us some of your oil, because our lamps are going out!-’ But the wise ones replied, -There may not be enough for both us and you. You had better go to the store and buy some for yourselves.-’ While they were on their way to make the purchase, the bridegroom came. Those girls who were prepared went in with him to the wedding banquet, and the door was locked. Later, the other maidens also arrived. -Sir. Mister! Open the door for us!-’ But he replied, -I tell you solemnly, I really do not know you.-’ So, be on the alert, for you do not know either the day nor the hour when the Christ will come.

SUMMARY

The fate of the unprepared admonishes us that adequate preparation must be made in time. Real wisdom, according to Jesus, makes its preparation ahead of time and is not caught unawares.

NOTES

Chapter 25 must be treated as part of the great Eschatological Discourse of Jesus, begun in chapter 24. A deep, internal unity holds these parables together and binds them to the preceding parts of the sermon. (See Let’s Preview the Following Parables after Matthew 24:44.) The internal cohesiveness of these illustrations undermines the theory that Jesus could not have used these stories to illuminate His prophecies, or that Matthew is to be blamed for pasting together a collage of disconnected vignettes. Rather, they are precisely the sort of imaginative explanations that Jesus Himself could be expected to use to shed new light on His fundamental statement: Keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.. You must be ready (Matthew 24:36; Matthew 24:42; Matthew 24:44).

Matthew 25:1 **Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened. **The kingdom of heaven, here as everywhere, is the rule of God. Jesus-’ parables provide thumb-nail sketches that illustrate the typical style of God’s administration, by holding up various phases of His government to be seen from different points of view. Departing from His usual formula, the kingdom of God IS like., Jesus said, Then, at the time we have been discussing, the kingdom shall be likened. The future tense points to that future time when God’s rule will manifest the characteristics evident in the following story. Jesus singled out that phase of God’s program which He will bring to fruition at the world’s conclusion and whereby He will manifest His rule over everything. But to clarify why God shall judge as He does, Jesus must show that final issues have root causes that begin long before the final crisis. The virgins represent Christians who have been admitted to that phase of the kingdom that can be experienced in this life. Jesus shows by what principles all are being tested for their fitness to participate in the fully realized Kingdom to be revealed at His coming.

The point of comparison is ten virgins, who took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. Of all Jesus-’ illustrations this one sounds most contrived to the modern ear, because of the cultural difference between Middle East marriage customs and ours. Nonetheless, this story is a true-to-life slice of ordinary small-town life in Palestine. Allowing for local variations, the custom generally called for the groom to station girls at some convenient location, sometimes at his own house, while he went to his bride’s house to bring her back. Upon his return, the girls were to meet the returning wedding party, lighting their way and honoring them with an enthusiastic reception, accompanying them to where the banquet would take place. Jesus begins His tale after the departure of the bridegroom. The girls are expected to be ready and waiting for his return.

The interpretation of the story is greatly assisted, because its Author stated the principle point (Matthew 25:13). He is continuing to explain in what watchfulness consists in light of every disciple’s ignorance of the Last Day’s date (Matthew 24:36; Matthew 24:42; Matthew 24:44; Matthew 24:50; Mark 13:35-37). If so, the disciples are to identify themselves in the ten virgins, while Christ Himself is illustrated by the bridegroom. Because they took their lamps and went forth to meet him, in this respect the girls are all alike, a fact that underscores their shared awareness of his coming and their common opportunity to prepare. These girls stand for Christian believers in the sense that they had accepted the invitation to the wedding by being intimately involved in the wedding party. They believed the bridegroom was coming and committed themselves to share in his joy.

**They took their lamps and went forth to meet the bridegroom. **These lamps were small, flat containers for fuel with a wick protruding from a spout opposite the handle. Mounted on a long stick, these lamps could cast light from their lofty position. Being small, however, the fuel supply must be replenished often. That all the girls took their lamps and went forth indicates that they intended to participate in the wedding joy. Their going forth to meet the bridegroom is expressed proleptically and interprets their original intention, since the moment of this actual coming and their subsequent going forth is not yet come and would not until vv. 6-10. But their expression of purpose symbolizes the public commitment to take part in Christianity’s hope. That all ten girls began their watch prepared at least to this extent, then, alludes to Christendom in general. That they had their lamps pictures the possession of those external expressions of Christian faith such as baptism, deeds of mercy, congregational worship, benevolent giving, personal testimonies and prayers in the Name of Jesus, rites usually thought to be characteristic of those who intend to pursue the Christian life. This story brilliantly contrasts true disciples, who possess vital faith, with those churchgoers who only apparently enjoy Christ’s inner life, even though they formally share all the outward characteristics.

No interpretation of this parable can give importance to the total Bride of Christ, the Church triumphant, as affecting the general sense of this parable’s meaning, because not one word of Jesus actually brings the Bride into this story. In fact, in their manuscripts, some scribes mistakenly wrote in and the bride after to meet the bridegroom, apparently supposing that the bridegroom would be bringing the bride to his own home (or that of his parents) where the marriage would occur. This apparently was the custom more common in the ancient world. (Cf. Textual Commentary, 62) But the logic of Jesus-’ story does not directly concern His going to take His Bride, the Church, but simply His absence and what His people were to do in preparation for His return. Rather than lose us in complicated details, Jesus simply directs all attention to one subject: preparation (or lack of it) to meet the bridegroom,

Matthew 25:2 **And five of them were foolish, and five were wise. **This subdivision of the group precisely in half is not indicative of the proportion of the saved and lost among God’s people. Rather, this division may only intend to stress that people will be divided into two classes: the prepared and the unprepared.

Jesus had launched the theme of wisdom required to prepare for His coming, in His original problem: Who then is the faithful and wise servant (Matthew 25:45)? By terming these girls wise and foolish. He proceeds to develop that theme. Whereas in the foregoing illustration He amplified the aspect of individual responsibility in relation to the group, this time He shows how individual responsibility expresses itself despite the presence of the group. Because this division of the girls into wise and foolish is the essential point of the story, it becomes clearer why the bride could not accurately represent the Church on earth awaiting Christ’s return. The one figure of the finally perfected Bride of Christ cannot be composed of both wise and foolish, of godly and self-seeking, or of conscientious and indifferent people.

Matthew 25:3 **For the foolish, when they took their lamps, took no oil with them. **Two views of their carelessness are possible:

They took no extra supply of oil, hence only brought the diminutive amount of oil actually contained in the lamps themselves. It would seem that everyone’s lamps were lit from the beginning of their wait and continued for an unspecified period of time until the bridegroom came (Matthew 25:8). If not lit from the first, then the girls had brought only that oil which remained in their lamps from earlier use which proved insufficient and, once lit, the lamps soon went out. This view is suggested by the observation that the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps (Matthew 25:4). In this case, Jesus-’ emphasis is on their sad lack of ADEQUATE preparation.

They took no oil at all, even in their small lamps. This view emphasizes their complete disregard for ANY preparation. Yet their taking their lamps and going forth argues that they intended to make some preparation.

The Lord’s judgment that these girls were foolish is grounded on the premise that they thoughtlessly left for their appointment without making the sufficient preparation foreseeably demanded by the usual requirements of such appointments. That they could have so completely ignored their need of oil needs only one explanation: they were foolish. There can be no valid justification for a senseless deed. But this sad lack of essential foresight best explains everything that follows. McGarvey (Matthew-Mark, 216) identified these virgins best:

The foolish virgins are not the unconverted, for they make no preparation; they are not apostates, for they, after waiting at their posts for a time, abandon it and go their way; but they evidently represent those who enter the Church and stand at their post until the bridegroom comes, and are found without sufficient preparation to meet him.

What, then, is the oil?In the story the oil was an easily obtainable item which was all-essential to their function in the wedding and an integral part of the purpose for which these girls had been invited to participate. Because Jesus-’ major point is preparation or lack of it, the procuring of the oil is itself a true expression of the girls themselves, the concrete evidence of their zeal or of their indolence. Because nothing we do is purely our own, but is done by the grace and Spirit of God (cf. Ephesians 3:20; Philippians 2:12 f.; Isaiah 26:12; 1 Corinthians 15:10), the oil may well stand for the total work of God’s Spirit in us to reproduce the character of Christ in us, outfitting us for that joyous Wedding Supper of the Lamb. (See notes on Matthew 25:9; Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:27 f.; Galatians 4:19.)

Even if their foolishly taking no oil defies logic, it is not without a possible explanation. Their folly could be the logical extension of several psychological premises, any of which could be devastating to the Christian:

Lack of foresight? Could they not foresee their need to prepare for a long wait, despite the vague possibility that he might return earlier than he did? But the bridegroom tarried, their lamps died out and they had no oil. They failed to consider the possibility of delay and the consequent need for an enduring supply of oil to meet the need.

Indifference to the character and significance of the occasion? The neglectful girls took the responsibility too lightly to remedy their lack of foresight in time. Churchgoers-’ sense of the importance and urgency of God’s Kingdom becomes dull with time. While they confess His coming in judgment, they simply relegate His return to some undefined future day of no immediate concern.

Lack of loving attention to detail? Where was that love that shows itself in conscientiousness not merely in great outward display, but also in the small, hidden, apparently insignificant things that are as vital as oil to an oil lamp? (Cf, Revelation 2:4; contrast Luke 7:47.)

Presumption? Did they suppose they could get by on whatever oil remained in their lamp from former use, like church members who rest on yesterday’s triumphs for Christ as an excuse for not dedicating themselves whole-heartedly today? Or, perhaps they presumed, as Edersheim (Life, II, 456f.) suggested, that they could borrow oil from others in the group or that there would be a common stock in the house, out of which they would be supplied. in the hour of need. By presuming to leave this phase of preparation to others, they exhibit no understanding of their personal obligation. They further presume that time would be available to replenish any lack, like the disciple who hopes for tardy repentance.

They possessed the form of preparation, but not the content, lamps for giving light, but no oil to keep them burning at the critical hour. In this respect they resemble people who go through the motions of religion, but do not possess the dedication to Jesus and the power of righteousness that give the forms meaning. (Cf. 2 Timothy 3:5.) Theirs is only apparently and externally a solid relation to our absent Lord. Plummer (Matthew, 344) sees the oil as

that inward spiritual power which imparts light, warmth, and value to the externals of religion. Christian rules of life, public worship, fasting and works of mercy are good, but only on condition that they spring from, and are nourished by, the Christian spirit. Otherwise, they are as useless as lamps without oil, a burden to ourselves and misleading to others, who naturally believe that so much external profession implies what, as a matter of fact, is not there.. The inner life of constant communion with the Spirit of God is the oil which alone can illuminate and render beneficial to ourselves and to others the religious activity which we manifest in our daily life.

But, if by oil is meant a tenacious personal faith and life-long dedication, the foolish young ladies represent those who truly believe for awhile, embrace the Gospel with joy, are illuminated by the Spirit (cf. Hebrews 6:4-6), but, because of more pressing duties, cares or interests, fail in faithfulness to Jesus. Then, at the moment of spiritual crisis caused by the Lord’s delay, they literally run down spiritually, and, without personal spiritual resources, must turn to others-’ personal faith and dedication to replenish their own loss.

Matthew 25:4 **But the **wise **took oil in their vessels with their lamps. **Although these vessels (angeiois) could be thought of as the fuel chamber on the lamp itself, the expression, vessels WITH their lamps, and the logic of Jesus-’ story, together, argue that He meant a separate little flask to add oil to the lamp’s receptacle when needed. This would be especially true in light of the minuscule size of the Palestinean oil lamps in common use. Regardless of the lamp’s size, the demand for a possibly night-long use would dictate an adequate supply of lamp-oil, and only the sensible girls had the foresight to be so supplied.

These had not merely the form of readiness, their lamps, but a continuous supply of content, the oil to fuel them. Such Christians-’ lives really fulfill the function for which they are invited to share in the festive joy of the Bridegroom. Really directed by the Holy Spirit, they genuinely believe and act like it. Their spiritual life is vitally connected with its source, Jesus Christ (John 15:1 ff.). They can remain constant to the end.

Matthew 25:5 **Now while the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. **Since the groom had established no fixed schedule for his return, this delay is the critical opportunity that tests the foolish girls-’ real concern. Alford contrasted the unfaithful steward’s attitude, My lord tarries, there should be plenty of time, with these foolish girls-’ approach, Surely he will soon be here, there should be no need for much oil. One assumed too much delay; the others, too little. Both misguessed and were caught unready.

They all slumbered and slept, i.e. became drowsy and fell asleep. Nothing sinful here, because bodily weakness and the late hour combined to overcome their alertness, so they naturally succumbed to their fatigue. They all doze, but in a position so as to be instantly alert when the long-awaited announcement came. Their confidence, shown by their ability to sleep rather than bustle nervously about, suggests that all ten girls are convinced that they had done all they should to be ready for the happy occasion. Five have really done so. But five doze on, blissfully unaware that their shortcoming is becoming more and more obvious as their lamps burn lower and lower and their priceless chance to go buy oil, silently but permanently slips from their grasp.

Why did Jesus speak of their sleeping? Only as scenery for His story? Two suggestions:

Bruce (Training, 330), alluding to the main point of this illustration (Matthew 25:13) observed:

Watching does not imply sleepless anxiety and constant thought concerning the future, but quiet, steady attention to present duty.. Sleep of the mind in reference to eternity is as necessary as physical sleep is to the body. Constant thought about the great realities of the future could only result in weakness, distraction, and madness or in disorder, idleness and restlessness; as in Thessalonica (2 Thessalonians 3:12).

Plummer (Matthew, 344) said it well too:

This (sleep) seems to be a merciful concession to human weakness. It is impossible for creatures such as we are to keep our religious life always at high pressure. Certain as we are, and often as we may remind ourselves, that the Lord will come, and may come at any moment, either by our death or in some other way, we cannot live hour by hour as it would be possible and natural to live if we knew that He would come tonight or tomorrow morning. But it is possible to be constant in securing supplies of strength from the Holy Spirit; and when the call comes, whether by some crisis great or small in our own lives, or by the supreme crisis of all, we shall be ready to go out and meet the Bridegroom.

Hence, the disattention of sleep is not culpable and only apparently a failure to watch in this case, but is simply part of our human condition.

Saying, The bridegroom tarried, Jesus hinted once again at the delay in His Second Coming. (Cf. Matthew 24:48; Matthew 25:19.) Had He openly revealed His intention not to start earthward for two millennia, the early Christians would not have been moved to godliness and zeal by the sobering but stimulating realization that Jesus is due any day. Further, because the prediction of His return is dateless, it is exceedingly flexible, not at all binding Him deterministically to a firm schedule in any age. (Study Romans 10:6 f. in this connection: chrònos is the root of chronìzontos, tarried.)

Matthew 25:6 **But at midnight there is a cry, Behold, the bridegroom! Come ye forth to meet Him! **At midnight, at a moment later than he was expected, when, because of the girls-’ fatigue and slumber, they were no longer thinking about the imminent arrival of the wedding party, just like Jesus-’ delayed Second Coming. (Cf. Luke 12:38; Mark 13:35 where the uncertainty of His return date is further illustrated.) There was a cry raised by those responsible to relay the word. Behold the bridegroom! Again no mention of the bride, as in Matthew 25:1. Originally the cry of someone in the bridegroom’s party sent on ahead to alert everyone to his arrival, this sounds like the gladdening shout of the archangel on the Last Day. This shout shall not arise from the human throats of prophets (Matthew 24:23 ff.), but from that of heavenly heralds (1 Thessalonians 4:16), perhaps like those angelic voices that announced His first coming (Luke 2:10 ff.)?

Matthew 25:7 **Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. **Once again the girls appear identical in that they universally recognize the task at hand and give themselves to it. They trimmed their lamps (ekòmçsan: they arranged, set in order, prepared, put in readiness) by trimming the wick, removing the carboned edge where the flame had burned the wick. Thus trimmed, the oil would burn more brightly with a clear flame. With reference to the foolish young ladies, this aorist is simply inceptive, i.e. they started to ready their lights, but did not complete the process, because the total trimming would include their pouring oil into the lap before lighting.

Although in our comments we have assumed it, there is no objective evidence that the girls-’ lamps had already been lit and burning during their long wait. Their trimming the lamps may be but the last-minute preparation for lighting the wick for the first time that night.

Matthew 25:8 **And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are going out. **Even though the basis of their failure lay in the past, it is only at this crucial moment that these girls are jolted back to reality. That the lamps are going out means that the virtually dry wicks caught only for a moment. Because there was so little oil left in them, the flame could work only on the wick’s fabric, not on oil with which it should have been saturated, and so kept sputtering, flickering and dying, no matter how zealously the girls tried to ignite them. They resemble people who try to coast along on the moral momentum of a past generation and suppose that their own superficial piety or forms of morality and religion have some eternal worth, even though totally void of faith and unreplenished from within by God’s grace and personal devotion to Him.

If Jesus means that the girls never had any oil at all, having left for the wedding with absolutely dry wicks and lamps, He is describing countless members of European State Churches who are formally Christians but have never been born again. The same condemnation sentences also second- and third-generation Christians anywhere who simply grow up in the Church but do not share the spirit and faith of their fathers. Even though they appear to be Christians due to their exterior resemblance to genuine believers, these are nothing but a hangover from a previous age of true faith and zeal. They lack, because they never sought it, that absolutely essential, inner vitality to be capable of serving Jesus as He desires.

Only at this last, decisive moment is the essential difference between the ten girls revealed. (Cf. Matthew 13:43 notes.) The sensibility or stupidity of each is revealed by one fact: did they really possess the essential ingredient or not? Were they thoroughly equipped (2 Timothy 3:16 f.)? Their pathetic request, Give us of your oil, was made too late and to the wrong people.

Matthew 25:9 **But the wise answered, saying, Peradventure there will not be enough for us and you: go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. **This response was.

REASONABLE, typical of these far-sighted girls, in that they continue to exhibit the same prudent logic that enabled them to plan carefully before.

REALISTIC. Theirs is not grudging selfishness that is unwilling to share its bounty, but a clear-eyed realism that understood their responsibility to the bridegroom. They must provide sufficient lighting for the entire banquet. To have divided their supply at this point would have reduced their oil supply by 50% and consequently shortened the duration of their contribution to the joy of the festivities by exactly that amount. Better to have five lights that last the duration of the banquet, than ten that burn out at mid-feast!

RIGHT, because the foolish girls had requested something to which they had no just claim.

How can anyone transfer to anyone else his own deeply-felt enthusiasm, his own profound convictions, his loving determination, or that hard-earned experience or his painfully acquired knowledge that cost him time to acquire? How can anyone impart to another his own maturity or character, or that personal relationship with God that grows out of frequent fellowship with Him? These can be had only by personal acquisition: go buy for yourselves. How can anyone live on the spiritual assets of others? There will not be enough for us and you, is literally true, since no disciple possesses any more character or spiritual experience or hard-won growth in Christ than he absolutely needs for himself (1 Peter 4:17 f.).

Here Jesus gives the fatal coup de grace to the popular belief that some people are good beyond their own spiritual requirements, hence have more than sufficient to save themselves. He crushes that baseless hope that such spiritual giants can somehow share with their needy brethren. Some Jews clung to the all-covering merits of Abraham, many Catholics to the treasury of merit accumulated by the saints and Mary especially, some Protestants to the saintliness of a godly relative, while the Mormons baptize the living for the dead. The error common to them all is the supposition that the character of Christ produced by the spiritual power of the Holy Spirit in each of His people is a quantitative and transmissible value that can be transferred to others. Nonetheless, the all-essential oil must be one’s own. None can be saved by the faith, zeal, hard work and sacrifices of others. Last-minute appeals for a change in the rules, Jesus emphasized, are rightly unavailing. Considering the midnight hour, go ye rather to them that sell, and buy, sounds like a foolish suggestion quite out of character for the wise virgins. However, these girls were wise, not omniscient, for even the wisest of the virgins could not know the time-lapse between the announcement of the bridegroom’s approach and the entrance into the feast. So, if but one shop-keeper could be awakened and induced to open his shop to furnish them their need under the circumstances, the advice of the wise was actually sound, the only possible thing to do under the circumstances. In reality, however, the time had passed to act on this good advice. The foolish girls may have considered the hint their only hope, and so attempt it. That they actually succeed in securing the oil is not implied by their later arrival (Matthew 25:11). They may have dared return without it, foolishly hoping for admission anyway.

Matthew 25:10 **And while they went away to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage feast: and the door was shut. **In going to buy at this late hour, these senseless girls act perfectly in character with their former foolishness, not foreseeing that the village oil merchants could have been at the wedding feast too, or that, even if the wedding procession moved ever so slowly to the final destination, the time lost would be too great to find a merchant willing to send a servant to open up and procure them some oil. Characteristically, they did not calculate this, just as they missed their other guesses about such things.

While they went. the bridegroom came. This is the same point made earlier. The crucial hour of Christ’s return can strike at any moment, surprising people in whatever spiritual state they are then. Some might be weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness, like the evil administrator (Matthew 24:48 f.) or caught off guard like the householder (Matthew 24:43). Others might be simply asleep (Luke 17:34) or at work (Matthew 24:40 f.). Other servants of God might be unjustifiably overconfident about the completeness of their own preparation, like these foolish girls (Matthew 25:10).

Jesus no longer terms those who went in with the bridegroom wise virgins, but those who were ready. Their wisdom simply consisted in their preparing before the deadline. By His saying, they that were ready went in, Jesus implies, Those who were not ready were shut outside, a sentence He will confirm later. This is the moment of truth when the empty claims, the vacant forms and unmeaning rituals of merely external Christianity will be found useless.

To the marriage feast: even if there were other features in the traditional marriage, like the festive procession, etc., what is really important for these girls is their participation in the marriage feast itself. To share in it is to know all the joy of the festivities. To miss this is to lose the best part. (Cf. the marriage supper of the Lamb; Revelation 19:7 ff; Revelation 21:2.)

What terrible finality rings in the words: and the door was shut! (Cf. Luke 13:25.) Just as God shut the ark door, shutting Noah and his family in and shutting the ungodly world out (Genesis 7:13 ff.), so also here the bridegroom orders the banquet-hall door shut, closing the prepared ones in and the unprepared out. The opportunity for grace has passed and forgiveness is now impossible, according to our gracious Lord who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens (Revelation 3:7). Until that moment, the door of mercy is open to the worst of sinners who repents; thereafter it will be closed forever.

Matthew 25:11 **Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to **us. Flushed and out of breath but still hopeful, the tardy girls rush back to the banquet-hall. Did they find one sleepy merchant to sell them the needed oil? Because Jesus did not affirm they succeeded, this hypothesis must be discarded. In the nature of the reality illustrated, the oil of Christian experience cannot be gained after the Lord has returned. It will then be too late. So, their return probably means that they found no one to open their shop, and, in desperation, they now attempt to be admitted to the wedding feast without the oil anyway.

Lord, Lord (Kùrie, kùrie). They do not address him as Lord God, but as Mister or Sir, since, for them, he is just another man getting married. However, their repeated cries remind us of Jesus-’ pained question (Luke 6:46) and of His judgment (Matthew 7:21 ff.). Open to us. This distressed appeal implies that he should recognize them and grant them entrance. To the stupidity of not readying themselves in time, they add the final folly of demanding the impossible. By what right could they hope to function as bridesmaids to bring joy to the bridegroom, when, without the essential ingredient for such service, they were sadly unqualified to fulfill any responsibility as light-bearers at his wedding feast? They resemble those twice-a-year churchgoers who, without the spiritual vitality that gives power and character to the life and faith of the godly, nevertheless suppose that the Lord must welcome them even without it. How could they be filled with fullness of joy in His presence, when they do not share His wisdom, His Spirit or His character, enough to submit to the discipline of readying themselves for His coming?

Matthew 25:12 **But he answered and said, Verily I **say **unto you, I know you not. **(Cf. Matthew 7:21 ff.; Luke 13:25.) This solemn response means, I do not recognize your claim to participate. In the Semitic idiom, in addition to its usual meaning, to know, this verbal concept also meant to admit or recognize one’s rights or claims. (Cf. Exodus 33:12 f., Exodus 33:17; Nahum 1:7, RSV; John 10:14 f., John 10:27; Romans 8:28 f.; 1 Corinthians 8:3; Galatians 4:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:12; 2 Timothy 2:19.) So, while this bridegroom undoubtedly does know who these five girls are, nevertheless, because of their carelessness toward his feast, his disappointment moves him to treat these acquaintances as if he had never met them. He disowned them by treating them as if they had never been members of his wedding party, and left them outside. Why should he admit anyone who claims to be a bridesmaid, but who, due to neglect, never fulfills the purpose of their calling?

Why, too, does God mercilessly refuse to pardon what, on the surface, appears to be an excusable oversight? After all, can He not forgive someone for a minor unpunctuality who happened not to bring enough lamp fuel? But the oversight of the foolish girls revealed a serious character defect: they cared too little to surrender precious preparation time to him. He did not matter enough to them to justify their giving close, personal attention to ready themselves individually on time. Can anyone, who treats his own discipleship in a perfunctory way, who neglects to obtain what is easily obtainable and absolutely indispensable for participation in the divine joy and the very purpose for which they were invited, really object, if they find themselves thrown out for neglecting to acquire it? Matthew 25:13 **Watch therefore, for ye know not the day nor the hour. **This final word really concludes five parables that all accent this one point: because the final schedule lies within the province of God, hence no human can be trusted to know it, the only possible course open to us is constant vigilance. (See on Matthew 24:36; Matthew 24:42; Matthew 24:44; Matthew 24:50; Mark 13:33; Mark 13:35; Luke 21:34-36.) Although Jesus-’ application covers essentially the same ground as the other parables, this story emphasizes how the truly far-sighted, alert individuals distinguish themselves in any crowd of Christians: they make adequate preparation in time, because they know that this spiritual maturation, which requires a lifetime, cannot be crowded into the last hour.

In this story Jesus does not spell out in what the watching consists. But the readers of Matthew’s Gospel are not left to wonder, because, in His larger context, Jesus emphasized:

Remove all hypocrisy by consistency (Matthew 23:1-4), by true humility (Matthew 23:5-12), by a non-sectarian spirit (Matthew 23:13-15), by real reverence for God (Matthew 23:16-22), by moral equilibrium (Matthew 23:23 f.) and by inner purity (Matthew 23:25-28).

Accept at full value the messages and warnings of all of God’s spokesmen (Matthew 23:29 ff.).

Develop mental and moral alertness (Matthew 24:44) which carries out personal responsibilities with diligence (Matthew 24:45 f.), working profitably for the Master (Matthew 25:20 ff.).

Show a sensitive concern for the needs of others (Matthew 24:45; Matthew 25:35-40).

Do anything Jesus requires (Matthew 28:20). And Matthew is full of information in this area.

Ye know not the day nor the hour. When our highest motivation should normally be a sensitiveness to the Lord, an eagerness to serve Him, a quick-witted ambition and a zealous love, why does Jesus accentuate our fearful ignorance of the fateful Last Hour as the ground for watchfulness? Because, where love grows weak and attention dull, apprehension and fear may be the only self-protective mechanism left that will stir the coals of conscience into flame and shock us into dutiful alertness once more. Every day consciously lived in this uncertainty conducts us directly into deliberate choices to make ourselves holy as He is holy (1 Peter 2:13 ff; 1 Peter 3:11; 1 John 3:1-3). However, this can function only to the degree that we really believe that He is to return certainly and unexpectedly. To the believer, therefore, this uncomfortable uncertainty is perfectly calculated to stimulate that conscientiousness required to produce the character He thinks essential to be ready when He comes.

This parable illustrates the inner spiritual readiness for Christ’s coming. The story that follows stresses our outward expression of the capacities He intrusts to us (Matthew 25:14 ff.). In both Jesus teaches the strict individuality of our answerability to God: no one can hide in the group. During our present service, all stewards resemble each other in outward respects. At the end, however, those who have only the forms or the intellectual knowledge, but not the fulness of God in their individual soul and no loving response to the living Christ, will be finally and permanently denounced and divided from those in whom the Spirit really dwells.

FACT QUESTIONS

Explain the meaning of the following terms as Jesus used them in this parable:

kingdom of heaven

lamps

virgins

oil

wise and foolish

Explain the oriental marriage customs that shed light on the meaning of this story.

List other New Testament Scriptures that illustrate or help interpret the following phrases:

the marriage feast

Lord, Lord, open to us!

the door was shut

I know you not.

List other parables that share the same fundamental points illustrated in this one, indicating which features are parallel.

State the one point which this parable shares with no other parable in this great last discourse of Jesus, the point that throws new light on the main theme of all these parables.

What is the principal difference between the wise and foolish girls, as this is expressed in their conduct? In what did the wisdom or folly of each consist?

List the main points of comparison between this parable and the reality it illustrates.

What does this illustration teach about the Second Coming of Christ?

Matthew 25:14-30

5. Illustration of the wise and foolish stewards (25:14-30)

14 For it is as when a man, going into another country, called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. 15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one; to each according to his several ability; and he went on his journey. 16 Straightway he that received the five talents went and traded with them, and made other five talents. 17 In like manner he also that received the two gained other two. 18 But he that received the one went away and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money. 19 Now after a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and maketh a reckoning with them. 20 And he that received the five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents; lo, I have gained other five talents. 21 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will set thee over many things; enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 22 And he also that received the two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: lo, I have gained other two talents. 23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will set thee over many things; enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 24 And he that had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art a hard man, reaping where thou didst not sow, and gathering where thou didst not scatter; 25 and I was afraid, and went away, and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, thou hast thine own. 26 But his lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I did not scatter: 27 thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the bankers, and at my coming I should have received back mine own with interest. 28 Take ye away therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him that hath the ten talents. 29 For unto everyone that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away. 30 And cast ye out the unprofitable servant into the other darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Jesus began this parable by saying, For it will be as when a man going on a journey, etc. What, exactly, is like a man going? With what does the word For, connect this story? Do you think this for is important to the interpretation of this parable?

Why did this lord distribute his goods so unequally among his servants? Should he have done things this way?

Do you see anything in the situation that would indicate that the master’s explicit wish was that each steward make him a profit? Do you see any kind of contract that would condemn the unprofitable servant and justify the others?

Why did the lord praise and reward the first two stewards equally?

What, if anything, does the expression, Enter into the joy of your master, indicate about our final reward for faithful service?

If this parable is often thought to teach something about Christian stewardship, what is it doing in the middle of Jesus-’ sermon on the Second Coming? What is the connection between stewardship and the Last Day?

If the philosophy is correct that righteousness should be its own reward and that we should do nothing for rewards, then how are we to understand Jesus who does not hesitate to tell stories like this one which promises high rewards to those who serve Him well? Does this not constitute a pay-off for being good and actually corrupt that good by its self-seeking, calculating motivation?

Would not the lord in Jesus-’ story have gotten further with his third servant if, instead of intrusting him with but one talent, he had placed, say, two or even five at his disposal? Would not this show of trust have communicated more to the servant, motivating him to do a better job than he did? What is the lord’s fundamental reason for not intrusting any more to him? Why did he give him as much as he did?

When the lazy steward returned the one talent, why did not his lord accept it back?

How does this illustration carry forward concepts introduced in previous stories Jesus told? What are these points of contact with the other stories?

What do you think motivated the one-talent man to hide it rather than invest it?

On what reasonable basis could that third servant have dared describe his boss the way he does? Was there any truth in the accusations he uses as justification for his fear?

How do you explain the fact that the master did not debate his servant’s evaluation? Was the evaluation too true and well-known to doubt? If not, then why did the lord use the servant’s own analysis to condemn him?

The master ordered: Cast out the unprofitable servant. How does this description of the wicked, slothful servant serve to underline the point of Jesus-’ story?

This entire story is centered around making money, either by profitable trading or by banking interest, and the only person condemned is the one who made no money. How do you harmonize this concept with Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God (Luke 6:20), Sell your possessions and give alms; provide yourselves with purses that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail (Luke 12:33), etc.? If it is wrong to make lots of money, how could Jesus condemn the steward who did not make a profit with his master’s money? But, if one keeps making himself poor through charity, how can he ever become a good and faithful (= profitable) servant by seeking to make more money?

How is it possible to take from a man what he does not have? Jesus affirmed, From him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. Explain.

PARAPHRASE

The way God operates His Kingdom, which not incidentally affects the manner in which our lives are to be spent watching, may be compared to a man about to leave home on a trip. He called his slaves in and put his property in their hands. To the first one he committed some money equivalent to ten years-’ pay for the average day-laborer. To another servant he handed over the equivalent of roughly four years-’ pay. The third man received the equivalent of two years-’ pay. The owner distributed this money to each man according to his relative ability. Then he went on his journey. The man who had received the largest sum went immediately to put the money to work, and doubled his sum. Similarly, the second man did business with his, and doubled his sum. However, the slave who had been trusted with the smallest sum, went and dug a hole in the ground and buried his master’s money. A long time later the master of those slaves returned and asked them to give account of his money. The one who had been entrusted with the largest sum stepped up, bringing his profit. -Sir,-’ he said, -you entrusted me with five talents. Look: I have doubled your capital!-’ His master responded, -Good work, you excellent, trustworthy servant! You have shown you can be faithful with a small amount. I will put you in charge of something big! Come and share the happiness of your master!-’ Likewise, the man who had the two talents came forward, -Master,-’ he began, -you handed me two talents. Look here: I have earned you two more!-’ To him the master replied, -Splendid! Sound and reliable servant, you have proven yourself trustworthy in a small way. I will trust you with greater things. Come and share your master’s happiness!-’ Then the man who had received the smallest amount came forward. -Master,-’ he began, -I knew you were a harsh, stubborn man that enriches himself at the expense of others. So, I was scared and went and buried your money in the ground. Here is your money back.-’ But his lord answered him, -You ungenerous, lazy servant! You thought that I enrich myself at others-’ expense? In that case, you should have placed my money on deposit with the bankers and, upon my return, I would have received my capital with interest! So, take the money away from him and give it to the man who now has the most. The person who uses well what he has will be entrusted with more, and he will have plenty. But the person who thinks he has nothing will forfeit even his nothing. Also, fling that good-for-nothing servant into the darkness outside where people mourn and grind their teeth in frustrated rage!-'

SUMMARY

During Jesus-’ absence, the present moment is a stewardship of God’s goods entrusted to us according to our individual ability to handle them. These are to be invested for His advantage, because an accounting will be given. However, there is promotion for good stewards of God’s grace, but also crushing humiliation for those who do nothing to promote the Lord’s profit. Thus, the period before Jesus returns must be put to responsible use in productive service for Him.

NOTES

Matthew 25:14 For it is as when a man. For. as (Hòsper gàr) unquestionably binds this stewardship story to what precedes it, but how? What is the connection?

McGarvey (Matthew-Mark, 217) argues that the kingdom of God in general is not the immediate subject, but, rather, the way we are to watch, thus linking our story to the conclusion drawn from the parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25:13). But this overemphasizes his objection to supplying the Kingdom of heaven as subject, as did the King James translators. However, the larger, contextual picture painted in Matthew 24, 25 is truly the Kingdom of God, i.e. how He intends for us to understand and respond to various phases of His government. (See note on Matthew 25:1.) So, Jesus has not really changed the subject, but merely amplifies one more phase of it.

Rather than bog down in technical definitions of God’s Kingdom, Jesus focuses all attention on activity, the human actions that will be judged by their true Lord and King. So, by saying, For, He proceeds to explain how best to watch in light of the fact that His return date cannot be known. The Talents Parable, therefore, teaches that our time, now graciously conceded to us by God, is most profitably used, not as the foolish virgins of the previous story, but in faithful, fruitful use of everything He entrusts us with for His glory, while the time and opportunity are ours, as the five wise virgins and the businesslike stewards of this story. The Virgins Parable rightly precedes the Talents Parable, because the former lays stress on the constant state of individual readiness and the need for spiritual power within, while the latter emphasizes the devoted, individual labor required to achieve it. Alford (I, 251) noted another antithesis: the foolish virgins thought their part too easy, while the wicked steward thought his part too hard. Continuing to develop his faithful and wise servant theme (Matthew 24:45; see on Matthew 25:2), Jesus now illustrates how conscientious His disciple must be in seeking his Lord’s advantage through correct management of His affairs during His absence.

**A man, going into another country. **Once more our Lord implies that His absence from earth is going to require some time (cf. Matthew 21:33) and that His return would not be imminent (cf. Luke 19:11 f.), a point repeated later (Matthew 25:19). In this way He continues to correct the mistaken notion involved in the disciples-’ original questions that assumed that His Second Coming and the end of the world would be more or less contemporaneous with Jerusalem’s fall. (Cf. Matthew 24:3; Matthew 24:8; Matthew 24:14.)

**He called his own servants **(= slaves, doùloi). Modern views of ancient slavery cannot but warp our understanding of this illustration, since the relationship between masters and slaves in antiquity was not always that of ranting tyrant and grovelling serf. Rather, as Jesus implies, slaves could be entrusted with any phase of their master’s affairs, even to the point of handling great sums of money. (Cf. Matthew 18:24.) Merely because someone sold himself into slavery to pay debts does not mean that he necessarily toiled at menial labor until his debt to his owner was paid. Were he a skilled artist, musician or teacher captured in war, or perhaps a good businessman fallen on hard times, his skill would be especially valuable to his lord. Hence, he could be expected to labor in his area of expertise for his master’s profit.

These called are his own servants who, because part of his household, could be trusted with the employment he now has in mind. Here are Jesus-’ disciples and all those who believe on Him through their word and who accept responsibility to Him as His stewards. These are not worldlings nor hirelings, but His own property (toùs idìous doùlous). Just because they belong to Him, He has a proper, prior right to their time and effort.

Nevertheless, we may not exclude unbelieving worldlings altogether from stewardship responsibility, even if they are not contemplated primarily by Jesus-’ parable. In fact, the ungodly are God’s property too. Whether they acknowledge or understand it or not, their Creator has a proper and prior demand on them too. While there is a true, unique sense in which believers alone are servants of Jesus Christ, this does not rescind that ancient and unchanged demand that every man fear God and give Him glory. This is the eternal gospel to every man (Revelation 14:6). The original, high calling of man was to be a responsible steward of God’s creation (Genesis 1, 2; Psalms 8).

Where the former illustration featured women entrusted with a responsibility for which they must give account, this story introduces men similarly accountable, almost as if Jesus wished to place the relative human responsibility of both sexes on an equal footing before God. (Cf. Matthew 24:40 f.; Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11.)

As the sequel shows, he delivered unto them his goods for investing his liquid assets profitably for him during his absence. While not expressly stated here, this was clearly his expectation and his servants so understood it. Not putting all his eggs in one basket, this wise owner divided his assets among several agents whom he trusted to be responsible. Not merely logical business procedure, his plan ennobled and motivated his stewards to prove themselves worthy of such a trust. In fact, he was turning over all this wealth to men who were but slaves. This should impress them with the importance of their high responsibility and leave them determined to rise to the challenge this great honor entailed.

However, for the man in the street in first-century Palestine, such a parable as this is unquestionably wrong-headed. The Kingdom of God, for him, meant reigning, relaxing and rejoicing, not rigorous responsibility! But Jesus does not flinch from prospecting a hard, concentrated, risk-filled TOIL that requires attentiveness, creativity, determination and other requisites to turn a profit for God. Jesus thinks that our ability to work now determines our qualification to rule later, Hence, we are currently being tested. Shortly before Jesus ascended to the heavenly Throne, He acted precisely as this man by placing into the hands of His own people the Gospel and its precious promises of spiritual life, the means to obtain it and the gifts to develop it (Matthew 28:18 ff.; Mark 16:15 ff.; Luke 24:44-51; John 20:21 ff.; Acts 1:1-9). Then, upon conferring the administration of His affairs to His servants, He too left at once. Thus, the stewards of this parable represent, not merely first-century Christians, but His administrators of all ages.

Matthew 25:15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one; to each according to his several ability; and he went on his journey. His goods were talents of silver (tà argùria, Matthew 25:27), quantities of money on the value of which see note on Matthew 18:24. Therefore, these talents are not primarily natural abilities, as this story is often interpreted to mean. While its principles justly apply to natural talents, this parable’s initial focus is money. In fact, that the two kinds of talents are distinct in Jesus-’ story is proven by three considerations:

Because the distribution of talents occurred on the basis of native ability, or natural talents, the monetary talents must refer to the distribution of something each steward did not possess prior to that moment.

Verse 28 contemplates the taking away of the talent from one steward and giving it to another. Talents are something external to one’s native abilities and of which, presumably, he cannot be deprived without violence to his nature.

The talents distributed are uniquely the master’s goods, something the slaves did not have until their lord entrusted them to them.

And yet it would be useless hair-splitting to attempt to distinguish further the wealth of Jesus Christ from our own natural ability, since God is at work in us both to will and to work according to His good purpose (Philippians 2:13; Ephesians 3:20; Isaiah 26:12). All that we are or have has been given to us by God for His purposes and glory. So, His gifts disbursed to us may be seen as distinct from our natural talents, even if these latter are empowered by the further abilities with which He endows us, whether these endowments be natural or supernatural. (Cf. Romans 12:3-8; 1 Corinthians 12-14; 1 Peter 4:8-11.) Therefore, in the reality intended by Jesus-’ illustration, these talents represent the variety and complexity of means whereby we can be useful to the Lord.

**To each according to his several ability. **Lying on the surface of this parable is the startling fact that it is simply not true that all Christians are equal. This sagacious master knows the personal character and business ability of each man and dispenses his possessions accordingly (Romans 12:3-8; 1 Corinthians 12:11; 1 Corinthians 12:18). How irresponsible he would have been to have required, or even expected, a servant with less ability to produce as much as one more experienced. So, in reality, the distribution commensurate to each one’s individual ability was evenly matched, even though the sums differed. Merely because God saves everyone on the same basis (Galatians 3:28) does not mean He treats us all alike. Our regeneration does not dissolve our individual differences. Our bountiful Lord knows the capacity of the vessel into which He pours His grace, the ability of the person to whom He supplies His plenteous opportunities to serve. His very discrimination is evidence of His love, because He is too kind a Master to load any of His servants beyond their strength to bear it, and too wise an Administrator to want it any other way (Revelation 2:24; John 16:12; 1 Corinthians 10:13). Happy, then, is the steward who understands that to each according to his several ability means that none may

unfavorably compare the quantity of service opportunities he possesses with that of others who have more or less than he. Finally, if the master’s goods were all distributed to each according to his ability, we see that Christ’s earthly interests are entrusted to all His people. There is no Christian who is not gifted in some way with sufficient means to fulfill his own share of the Lord’s work. However great or small his part, for this he is fully responsible.

Further, as the sequel shows, there is indicated here a certain liberty of action, as if the stewards could invest their lord’s money more or less as they saw fit, so long as their management brought him the desired profit. Here is fore pictured our magnificent Christian liberty in that Jesus has not legislated nor predetermined thousands of everyday choices whereby we may demonstrate our usefulness to Him. This is decided, rather, by our own free response to every advantage and blessing He furnishes for us to employ in His service. Our free investment of His goods is controlled only by His very general directives that govern our free enterprise by furnishing generalized indications of His will without predetermining our specific choices. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 6-10; Romans 14, 15; see my Vol. III, 382ff.)

**And he went on his journey. **Jesus-’ Ascension is the key element that makes our stewardship exciting, because His absence leaves us fully responsible and because His unknown return date keeps us working against time to get as much done as possible for His glory before our personal, final accounting,

At this point some manuscripts insert the word, straightway (duthéôs), which other manuscripts and editors connect with verse 16. Connected with verse 15, the sentence would be: Then he (the master) went away at once. Although this word, when connected with either sentence, would make excellent sense, which is better?

The Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (63) rejects the connection with verse 15, not only because the limited textual evidence for connecting immediately with verse 16 is of good quality, but also because this reading best explains the origin of the others. Further, Matthew generally connects euthéôs with what follows. However, (1) what would Matthew’s general habit prove conclusively about one special case that may in fact be the exception? (2) Manuscripts that connect immediately with verse 15 are not only more numerous, but in some cases contemporary with the few that connect it with what follows. (3) The sense of the parable must be determined from the words, not the words from the sense of the parable.

The Textual Commentary argues, There is no point in the master’s departing immediately; there is much point in the servant’s immediately setting to work. On the contrary, if Jesus intended to hint that He would leave shortly after entrusting His earthly affairs to His disciples,which, in fact, He did through the Great Commission,then immediately, interpreted in harmony with the history, belongs to the foregoing sentence. This point is crucial in order to correct the false notion of disciples who supposed He must personally supervise a long, earthly Messianic reign from a material throne in Jerusalem. Not only is His absence a doctrine they must accept, but also the suddenness of His departure.

Two Intelligent, Trustworthy Executives

Matthew 25:16 Straightway he that received the five talents went and traded with them, and made other five talents. If, on the other hand, straightway belongs rightly with this verse, this servant is pictured as recognizing the preciousness of every opportunity to promote the interests of his master. Like his colleague (v. 17), he instantly grasped his responsibility to be a dependable trustee.

Why does Jesus relate that these first two administrators doubled their capital? merely to embellish the story, and not, rather, to indicate something of the time involved? How much time would ordinarily be required for a wise investor to DOUBLE his capital on the market of first-century Palestine? If this passage of time is significant, it implies once more the delay between the Lord’s departure and His return. (Cf. Matthew 25:19.)

Matthew 25:17 In like manner he also that received the two gained other two. In like manner: what is predicable of the former servant is also true of this one. The two-talent steward is no less successful than the fellow servant, even though the quantity handled and gained is less than half the other’s amount. People with even less gifts than others can yet prove themselves equally faithful and diligent in multiplying the value of what Jesus entrusts to them.

This two-talent steward is not mere scenery in Jesus-’ story, because this man could feel the power of temptations to which, in relation to the other two, he would be susceptible:

Because he possessed less than the five-talent man, he could have felt deficient and incapable, and tempted to conceal his abilities.

Because he possessed more than the one-talent man, he could have judged himself one notch better than his inferior, falling into unjustified pride.

So, standing between the others, he represents both men’s temptations to be arrogant or feel inferior to anyone with gifts more or less than their fellows. But the Lord who distributes these gifts has in mind that each simply utilize the abilities with which he personally has been gifted for his Master’s glory.

A Man Too Lazy to Try

Matthew 25:18 But he that received the one went away and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money. This unimaginative chap differs from the evil servant of Mat 24:48 f., in that the latter was openly and actively wicked, whereas this one simply does nothing. Unlike the overconfident, foolish virgins who made at least some preparation for the wedding, this over-cautious, unenterprising administrator errs because of under confidence. He remains stolidly insensitive to his responsibility to gain a profit for his master. Ironically, he takes a greater risk of losing everything. This fellow is not a great waster, like the prodigal son (Luke 15:13) nor a great debtor, like the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18:23-35). He simply hides what belongs to his lord and refuses to put it to work.

He went away and digged in the earth. Back in the days of the uncertainties of banking and war in countries where banking was untrustworthy, the earth itself became the common safe deposit box of the uncertain, a fact evidenced by later, providential discoveries of casks of valuable coins (cf. Matthew 13:44). So, this lazy steward really risked losing his treasure to some fortunate finder who accidentally dug it up. Far more praiseworthy would have been to risk losing the talent through investment, for he would at least have attempted something positive for his lord who, not unlikely, was thoroughly versed in the uncertainties of markets and business. Nevertheless, with the last shovelful of dirt piled over the money, he considered his conscience silenced. Perhaps he even prided himself on being both honest and prudent, even quite scrupulous. He would return it to its owner, possessing the identical worth it had when he received it.

But it was his lord’s money entrusted to him to invest, not his own to remove from circulation! This over-caution is not simply an excess of scruple. It is equivalent to a breach of trust. He refuses to be answerable to his master beyond the barest duty of returning the money intact.

Even before the final accounting, his true attitude is exposed. M. Dods (P.H.C., XXII, 575) applies this:

It is not without significance that the servant who did nothing at all for his master was he who had received but one talent. No doubt those who have great ability are liable to temptations of their own; they may be more ambitious, and may find it difficult to serve their Master with means which they see would bring in to themselves profits of a kind they covet. But such men, at all events, are not tempted to bury their talent. This is the peculiar temptation of the man who has little ability, and sullenly retires from a service in which he cannot shine and play a conspicuous part.

Ultimately, as always, there are really only two types of stewards in God’s judgment: the trustworthy administrators who expend their best efforts to please their Master, and the irresponsible, undependable ones who, in the end, do nothing. (Cf. John 5:41-44; John 8:29.) And these latter He condemns in no uncertain terms!

The Turning Point

Matthew 25:19 Now **after a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and maketh a reckoning with them. **This period of a long time is the indefinite interval that tries the true motives and character of each steward. During this time the lazy steward could have repented and unearthed that one talent and hurried either to invest it or place it with the bankers for interest. The two faithful stewards could have grown careless and relaxed their efforts. Instead, they considered it simply an additional grace period to labor longer! This long time serves to underline the fairness of the judgment finally given, because the final account does not have to be in until all the servants shall have had suitable time to make their Lord a profit. This delay is itself mercy so that we might correct false starts, cover lost ground and serve profitably. After a long time combines with he went away into another country (Matthew 25:14) to imply that Jesus-’ Second Coming and the final judgment pictured here will be delayed longer than people expected, and is parallel to other similar clues given earlier (Matthew 24:48; Matthew 25:5; cf. 2 Peter 3:4-13).

It is the lord of those servants who comes, a fact which emphasizes how completely the time, energies, talents and efforts of those slaves really belonged, not to themselves, but to their master (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:19 f.). Could such a master forget to demand an accounting for the wealth he had entrusted to his slaves? Here, then, is the final judgment, or reckoning, which we all must render our returning Lord. (Cf. Matthew 18:23 ff.; Matthew 21:33 ff.; Matthew 22:1 ff.; Luke 19:15.) That we too must answer is as certain as the wealth of privileges and material riches that pass through our hands.

Matthew 25:20 **And he that received the five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: lo I have gained other five talents. **You delivered to me: without this magnanimous trust, the slave could have done nothing (John 15:5; Luke 19:16). How gracious the privilege to be allowed to do anything for Jesus Christ! Considering our real worth, that He should trust us with such priceless treasures brings us inexpressible joy over this unjustified privilege (2 Corinthians 4:7; Colossians 2:2 b, Colossians 2:3)! And to think that, in some minor way, we can contribute to HIS glory, mightily empowered to do so by His Spirit, and then, at last, to be certain that even the most insignificant service done for Him shall be recognized,is not all this the very definition of grace?!

Lo, means Look here, notice, as if the happy steward enthusiastically welcomed his lord to see the money for himself. Though all we do and are is by the Lord’s grace (Acts 17:24-28; 1 Corinthians 15:10), it is also correct to say, I have gained, because our personal commitment and efforts to express our loyalty and love to Him do count (1 Corinthians 15:58). No wonder there is joyous excitement and unshaken confidence in our final reckoning before our Lord! (Cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:19; Philippians 2:16; Philippians 4:1; 2 Corinthians 1:14 all speak of Paul’s joy at Christ’s coming, due to his converts-’ faith. Our confidence before the Lord: Ephesians 3:12; Hebrews 10:19; Hebrews 4:16; Hebrews 9:28; 1 Peter 4:13; 1 John 2:28; 1 John 3:21; Jude 1:24.)

Rewards Beyond All Deserving

Matthew 25:21 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant. Here is the true spirit and character of this master, that gives the lie to the negligent servant’s attitude. M. Dods (P.H.C. XXII, 575) scores that ingrate thus:

(His view of God) is unpardonly wrong, and the Very heartiness with which these other servants were greeted refutes it. You hear the hearty Well done! ringing through the whole palacethere is no hesitating scrutiny, no reminding them they had, after all, merely done what it was their duty to do. Not at allit is the genial, generous outburst of a man who likes to praise, and hates to find people at fault.

Good and faithful servant: what a glorious title! What splendid rewards are attached to it! What joys await its wearer! He proved good by his dedication to the task assigned him, and faithful (pistòs) by being reliable or trustworthy. He was not entitled good and successful servant, but good and FAITHFUL. Praise for this highly successful manager is not based on the amount of his gain, but on the quality of dedicated service he expended, as shown by what follows.

**Thou hast been faithful over a few things. I will set thee over many things. **How very little capital he had actually handled for his master: a mere five talents in contrast to his lord’s incalculable wealth and even to his own future responsibilities! (See Special Study: The Reasonableness of the Redeemer’s Rewards for Righteousness, my Vol. I, 198ff.). He gives beyond all dreams and deserving! His lowliest servant’s final pleasure is double because duty to such a Master is already an inexpressibly gratifying favor. So, if the wealth of gifts He entrusts to us in this life is, in His estimate, but a few things, what immeasurably greater treasure must constitute the many things over which He would set us later!

I will set thee over many things. Whatever the joy of thy lord entailed, his reward was not an extended vacation, but nobler employment. I will set you over means you shall rule over or be responsible for. While there is more work to do, it is to be an employment that involves reigning. Rather than be discharged from investment service, these stewards are advanced to bigger things. To the men who had demonstrated themselves eager and dependable at a lower level of responsibility, their master intends to give prolonged opportunities for even greater service (cf. Matthew 24:47).

**Enter thou into the joy of thy lord. **What is this joy in which they would share?

A feast to celebrate the master’s return, perhaps accompanied by manumission of the slave on the basis of his outstanding fidelity and industriousness? (Trench, Parables, 94; cf. John 15:15; Luke 12:37; Revelation 3:20). To share in such a banquet with his lord would be partial reward for his exceptional service.

The master’s pleasure upon his newly acquired, even greater wealth?

The master’s personal sense of joy over his servants-’ accomplishments?

Or is it the joy of lordship. admission to fellowship in possession, partnership? (Bruce, Expositor’s Greek Testament, 303; cf. Hebrews 3:14).

All of these could be true of Jesus. This hearty welcome says to the wise and faithful steward: I want you to share in the happiness I enjoy! (cf. Hebrews 12:2; Isaiah 53:11). Servants who have their Master’s true interests at heart can participate whole-heartedly in what pleases Him. They can work for Him forever, because they share His program and are satisfied with achieving His goals. Their heart is in their (= His) work. No wonder then, that unlimited progress lies ahead for Christ’s disciples who take seriously their goal to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48).

Nor is it any surprise, too, that Jesus teaches us to believe that the world cannot grant us honors or praise equal to His. Only He can commend and reward. Long before judgment He established this final commendation, so we would seek to please Him and thus keep ourselves loyal to Him, longing to hear from Him, Well done, good and faithful servant. (Study John 5:44; John 12:26; John 12:42 f.; 2 Corinthians 10:12; 2 Corinthians 10:18.)

Matthew 25:22 **And he also that received the two talents came,. 23 His lord said unto him,. **He who received less gifts, a narrower position and more limited opportunities in life is commended in the same way as the one whose gifts outnumbered his. So, it is not the quantity of talents or the disadvantages of our social position or degree of education that determines our Lord’s attitude toward us, but our sense of responsibility to Him, demonstrated by our diligent use of what He has entrusted to us.

Self-righteous Dismissal of Duty

Matthew 25:24 **And he also that had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art a hard man, reaping where thou didst not sow, and gathering where thou didst not scatter. **After the enthusiastic expressions of graciousness on the part of the returned master, it must have taken no little courage for his little ingrate to accuse him of a grasping, tight-fisted attitude. But this trapped, badly-motivated hypocrite must make a flimsy self-defense of some kind. So he attempts to shift all the blame onto his lord for his own failure.

I knew thee, he says? How little he knew him! Thou art a hard man. Nothing would have been farther from the truth, had this servant but sought to promote his master’s good, a hypothesis confirmed by the lord’s expansive reaction to the others who did. With poetic justice, this servant’s accusation will be fulfilled in his own case, because, ironically, he pushed his lord to be harsh with him, a tactic which succeeded only in slamming the door of mercy in his own face. But it was his own indifference to duty that created in his mind this image of his lord as a hard man who makes unreasonable demands and expects back more than he gives. He hoped to establish his case by two parallel illustrations: reaping where thou didst not sow, and gathering (winnowed grain) where thou didst not scatter (sheaves to be threshed). Others sow and YOU reap! Others scatter unthreshed grain on the threshing floor and then thresh it, and YOU take the wheat, the fruit of their labors! He implies that there was no real motivation to labor, because any potential return from any investment, be it market or bank investment, would have fallen to his master, hence he would have gotten nothing for his pains. What hope of personal gain was there to motivate anyone to take investment risks for such a crusty, ill-tempered old man?

This steward’s reaction is probably not intentionally insolent (Proverbs 26:16). Not unlikely, he supposes that, under the circumstances, his approach is just, his words sincere and appropriate. His blindness to his own misconduct stems from a totally wrong view of his lord. He did not love his master, so he willfully misunderstood him, and in this alienation of sympathy, refused to serve him. By attempting to protect his own interests, he asserted his fundamental intention to work for himself.

His grave error is that of all sinners. Men justify their sin on the basis of a firmly believed but false view of God’s character. They accuse Him of demanding what they suppose belongs to them. They assume that all the time, energy, talents and cash that flow through their lives really belongs to them, and that God’s expectation that He be given His portion thereof is but an unreasonable, self-calculating money policy on His part! Ironically, there is just a grain of truth in the slave’s words. All our work, our lives, our talents, our very being must be utilized to the glory of God alone. Nothing we handle is really ours. It would appear that He alone is enriched by our efforts. This is but half of the truth, hence more treacherously deceptive. In His story Jesus faces this accusation head-on, shouting for all to hear that.

God’s gifts are proportionately bestowed according to our ability. He is so kind and understanding that He would never overload anyone with more than he can bear.

Our service is only preparation for yet greater things to come FOR US.

Our rewards are rich and desirable beyond all we could ever hope to deserve.

So, any rebellion against such a Master as Jesus arises from our real ignorance of God. No harsh, demanding Boss, He considers the smallest favor to insignificant people as done directly to Himself (Matthew 25:40)! He watches for the chance to help the weakest servants and accepts the will for the deed, loves to praise, encourage and uplift. It is only a gross and deliberate misrepresentation of His Kingdom that could ever suppose that what is given to Him or done for Him could ever be lost or forgotten or go unrewarded (1 Corinthians 15:58).

Matthew 25:25 **and I was afraid, and went away and hid thy talent in the earth: lo thou hast thine own. **I was afraid, he says. Really? He did not hesitate to insult his master to his face or return him the money without making even the smallest attempt to bring him a profit. The man feared making mistakes, so he did nothing, which was the greatest mistake of all. He implies, Driven to it by your harsh, unreasoning character and compelled by what would happen, if I lost your money through bad investment, I hid your talent in the earth.

How does God consider the one-talent man? This slave had the lightest responsibility of the three, but it was still no more than he could easily manage. Jesus rivets our attention on the man with the most limited potentiality and the least of his master’s goods, because, in comparison to the highly gifted, more influential brethren in the limelight in the Church, we easily think ourselves handicapped and hampered with little means at our disposal to do anything for God. It is precisely because of this that we feel severely tempted to hide our light under a bushel, bury our talent in inactivity and then criticize God for not being more generous. We too are tempted to create the same hypothesis contrary to fact, Had God given me more money, talents, intellect, etc., I would have produced more, when, as a matter of fact, we are not using what we have. As this improductive steward handed the solitary talent back to its owner, he concludes with an unconscious falsehood: Lo thou hast thine own. This is deceiving, because no account is given of his own time and activity, both of which were as much the possession of his master as the talent. He was a slave (doûlos, Matthew 25:26), so he himself belonged to his lord, but did not, in reality, return to his master what was his. Although he had not squandered or absconded with his master’s money, he cannot possibly escape blame, because his abilities, healthy body, time and energies were never used any more than the buried talent, but were all fruitless, as far as the master was concerned. Rather than confess any wrong, he boldly implies that his lord should praise him for his prudence and exonerate him from any blame for returning the money intact. Such is the depth of his self-deception, and the justification for his condemnation that comes next.

The Premises of His Defeat

Matthew 25:26 **But his lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I did not scatter; **Feel the contrast that marks the good and faithful from the wicked and slothful. Whereas this steward defended himself as prudent, because he apparently took no risks, his master now attacks his inoperosity precisely because he had done nothing at all.

He was wicked (poneré; Bruce, Expositor’s Greek Testament, 303 prefers mean-spirited or grudging) toward so generous a master. Why?

Because he slandered his master first to himself, then to the lord himself.

Because he had not done his duty as slave required to invest his master’s money.

Because his unwillingness to work was motivated by his disdain for his master’s concerns, prosperity and clearly expressed demands before he left.

He was slothful (oknçrè, lazy, slow, indolent, idle). The master’s proof of this accusation comes in Matthew 25:27.

Thou knewest? This is not unlikely a question to draw out what the slave could have known, hence could have produced. His master waives his own right to expect the energies of his slave to be utilized for his profit, and simply defeats the sluggard by his own arguments. You knew? Then you will be judged by your own standards expressed in your own words! This lord is not for one minute conceding the slave’s judgment as true in reality, but conceding it for sake of argument. If the servant’s argument means that the master enriched himself by the labor of others, then he could have known that the lord would demand a profit from this servant’s own labors. This alone should have made him more afraid NOT to invest that money in the surest kind of investment then known.

The Proper Conclusion From Such Premises

Matthew 25:27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the bankers and at my coming I should have received back mine own with interest. Were the slave troubled by other forms of risk through speculative investments, surely he should have been comforted by the guarantees afforded by the bankers. Although it was illegal to charge interest on money lent to fellow Hebrews (Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:36 f.; Psalms 15:5), interest could be charged to non-Hebrews (Deuteronomy 23:19 f.). Such a low-risk investment could have commanded high interest in those days and turned a reasonably handsome profit. But how apply this option in Christian practice?

Hendriksen (Matthew, 883) notes Jesus-’ utilization of this argument in the master’s rebuttal:

In passing, a safe inference would seem to be that Jesus, who tells this parable, is not opposed to responsible capitalism. Profit prompts employment and makes possible helping those in need, etc.

Those who discover little direct use for their talents in Christ’s service may well put what they do possess at the disposition of others to be invested profitably. Do they have enough talent to earn income? There is no shortage of missionary enterprises, charitable organizations and Christian education programs to which those with smaller gifts may dedicate their contributions. While this seems not to be a direct investment of life and talents, the efforts of the front-line Christian bankers brings profit to Jesus and those disciples who invest for His glory in this way shall be suitably recognized.

Why should our Lord, represented by the master in His illustration, be so driven by the profit motive? I should have received back mine own with interest, is the word of God’s Son. In Himself, therefore, He furnishes the example of the spirit that must drive His disciples: get in there and make a profit, improve your opportunities, buy up the market, know how to seize the advantage. (Cf. Ephesians 5:16, esp. in Greek: buying up the opportunity; Luke 16:8 f.) How many Christians actually believe that their one goal in life is to turn every energy and talent into a way of making positive gain for Jesus Christ? To fail to grasp this is to contribute to the sluggishness and lack of progress of His Kingdom on earth. You should have put my money to the bankers means You did not. Idleness, laziness and irresponsibility for others and their goods is soundly condemned in Scripture (2 Thessalonians 3:6-13; Hebrews 6:11 f.; 1 Thessalonians 5:14; 1 Thessalonians 4:11; Proverbs 6:6-11; Proverbs 10:4 f. Proverbs 13:4; Proverbs 18:9; Proverbs 19:15; Proverbs 20:4; Proverbs 20:13; Proverbs 21:25; Proverbs 22:13; Proverbs 24:30-34; Proverbs 26:14-16; Proverbs 27:18; Proverbs 28:19). Will a Christian rob his Lord? Yet, by preventing Him from receiving what is His right to expect and what He otherwise would have obtained, he cheats Him, even though the Christian returns his talent back to God in mint condition.

The Lazy Are Dispossessed and Punished

Matthew 25:28 **Take ye away therefore the talent from him, and give it to him that hath the ten talents. **This order proves that the master had not touched, much less accepted, the one talent from his indolent steward. As it lay there burning the useless servant’s hand, it reminded him how many opportunities had been wasted while the money was in his hands. Whereas he expected the master to take the solitary talent back, incredibly, the lord rejected it.

As another stepped forward to relieve him of that unwanted talent, the limited stewardship of the inactive servant ended. There is now no further time nor opportunity to make good, exactly as, for the five foolish virgins, the coming of the bridegroom ended all opportunity for them. Why give it unto him that hath the ten talents (cf. Luke 19:25)? Several reasons are suggested:

Indifference to one’s stewardship finally makes others wealthy and empoverishes oneself (Proverbs 10:4 f; Proverbs 11:24 f; Proverbs 12:11; Proverbs 14:23; Proverbs 17:16; Proverbs 20:13; Proverbs 21:17; Proverbs 22:29; Proverbs 27:18).

This owner may do what he will with his own possessions. God, too, is sovereign in precisely the same way. (See note on Matthew 20:15.)

Who was better qualified to accept additional responsibility than he who had demonstrated himself most capable by profitably handling the most money and in whose hands the master’s interests were safest?

A Universal Rule of Life

Matthew 25:29 **For unto everyone that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken **away. (Cf. Luke 19:26.) This rule of life in God’s Kingdom is often illustrated in human psychology (Matthew 13:12; esp. Mark 4:24 f.). What is it that one has or has not? And how could anyone, who possesses nothing, be stripped of it? In our story all three slaves possessed two fundamental assets: their servanthood and their lord’s talents to invest. The two slothful stewards grasped the preciousness of both, increased their lord’s wealth and insured the permanency of their position. The lazy slave has now been stripped of his one talent, and thus, has not. He is now to be deprived of the last precious possession, his privilege to serve this generous lord. He had treated his stewardship as if he did not have it. Now what he really possessed all along shall be taken away.

This principle is one of life’s moral laws, especially with regard to opportunities for service and abilities. To the man who had proven that he had the trustworthiness and ability to handle large sums of money, more could be entrusted. The more he was given, the more he could earn with it, the more he could be rewarded for his work, and the more he shall have abundance. Each trial of trust proves whether each of us is ready to move on to higher responsibilities. Those who know how to take advantage of their spiritual opportunities will be given others. But those who make no good use of theirs, however small or insignificant they may seem to them, will even lose their chance to do anything. (Consider Luke 16:10-12.)

How God Sees Uselessness

Matthew 25:30 **And cast ye out the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth. **Unprofitable not only describes the crime of this servant, but also establishes the point of Jesus-’ illustration.

The slave’s failure lay in what he could, but would not, do. His was voluntary inertia. He lacked, but did not want to develop, creativity, initiative, foresight, alertness, aggressiveness, dependability or responsibility. So, why should anyone want to keep such a useless slave any longer?

Cast out. outer darkness … weeping … gnashing of teeth. These combined expressions repeat a well-known paraphrase for hell. (Cf. notes on Matthew 8:12; Matthew 13:42; Matthew 13:40; Matthew 22:13; Matthew 24:51; see also Luke 13:28; 2 Peter 2:17; Jude 1:13.) In what other ways in this discourse has Jesus underscored the destiny of the wicked already (Matthew 24:39; Matthew 24:43; Matthew 24:51; Matthew 25:12; cf. Matthew 25:41; Matthew 25:46)? These expressions picture a banishment to a futile self-accusation and frustrated anger. This punishment accents the severity of the sentence Jesus pronounced upon refusal to be stewards. (Cf. Matthew 21:33-41; Luke 12:45-48.) No great sinner by most standards, this offender is rejected for unfaithfulness to his trust by simply doing nothing. There is no need to break down the broad class of unconscientious stewards to show all the various degrees of failure. After all, if our Lord so severely punishes the unprofitable use of ONE talent, what would He do to those who squander or fail to invest MORE?

This parable compares with that of the Pounds and complements it. The message of the Pounds Parable is that people given identical gifts may produce quite dissimilar results and be quite differently rewarded in strictly graduated ratio to the differing diligence. The point of the Talents Parable is that people who have unequal gifts may still utilize them equally well or badly and be rewarded in proportion to their work.

FACT QUESTIONS

Tell all the differences between the Parable of the Talents and the Parable of the Pounds (Luke 19). Show how the occasions on which each was told differed from each other.

Why are some given more talents than others? What rule did the master follow to distribute his money to each slave?

Of what phase of God’s program is the Parable of the Talents illustrative? List the points of comparison.

What is a talent as this word was used in Jesus-’ story? What is its relative value? How may this value be calculated?

List the results obtained by the first two stewards.

Describe the attitude and actions of the third steward.

List the points in this parable that have parallels in other stories Jesus told on the same day.

Explain in what sense the stewards-’ master termed them good and faithful servants. On what basis could he determine this?

Indicate the rewards of the good and faithful servants.

Explain what it means for the profitable servants to enter into the joy of their lord.

What was the third steward’s opinion of his master? Wherein was he mistaken?

How did the lord think his steward should have acted, given his present opinion?

To whom did the master give the lazy steward’s talent? Why to him?

Explain how a person who has nothing can still lose what he has. What did the lazy steward have and what did he have not?

Explain the terms (a) outer darkness, and (b) weeping and gnashing of teeth.

State the central point of Jesus-’ story in one, well-honed statement.

What does this parable teach about the Second Coming of Jesus?

Matthew 25:31-46

6. Illustration of the sheep and the goats (25:31-46)

31 But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory: 32 and before him shall be gathered all the nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats; 33 and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; 36 naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, and fed thee? or athirst, and gave thee drink? 38 And when saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 And when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and ye did not give me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these least, ye did it not unto me. 46 And these shall go away into eternal punishment; but the righteous into eternal life.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

On what basis of judgment will Jesus separate the sheep from the goats?

How do you harmonize this Scripture’s basic message with the teaching of salvation by grace through obedient faith in such verses as John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Acts 2:38, etc.?

List scriptural statements, parables, etc., that teach that following Jesus and being a Christian requires a work, service and fruit-bearing, or that reveal the condemnation of every worthless, fruitless life that simply does nothing. What are you doing about it.

Must we limit the least of these my brethren to the categories named: the hungry, the thirsty, the strangers, the unclothed, the sick or imprisoned? Who else should be treated with the same loving concern? Or do you think Jesus wanted the list restricted to those named?

What does Jesus-’ emphasis on all nations gathered before His judgment throne have to say to the anti-missionary notion that each people has its own god and is happy in its own religion and should, therefore, be left alone as they are?

When we view a needy person, whatever his need may be, how, according to Jesus, are we to react to him?

Jesus implies that all nations will be separated into two groups on the basis of their usefulness in helping others. Does this mean that the Gospel is not really the final standard of judgment, especially for those who had not heard it? Or, does Jesus imply that all the world will have already heard His message, and now is to be judged according to its standards?

Christians must do everything for Christ’s sake and motivated by Him. If the sheep represent Christians, how can any real disciple be so completely unaware that he had served Christ by helping the needy, as to ask, When saw we you hungry or thirsty, etc.?

Some believe that the sheep and goats who are judged here are distinguished from Christ’s brethren, but nothing is affirmed about a judgment of the brethren themselves. Thus, the judgment in question is only of unbelievers, not of believers. How would you react to this?

Is this picture of final judgment, initiated by the picture of a shepherd dividing sheep and goats, a parable, an allegory, simply an illustration, or what?

PARAPHRASE

When the Messiah returns in His splendor, escorted by all the angels, He will take His seat on His glorious throne. All the people of the whole world will be assembled in His presence. He will then separate people into two groups, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on His left. Then the King will say to those at His right, -You who have my Father’s blessing, come take possession of your inheritance, the Kingdom destined for you ever since the world’s founding. This is because when I was famished, you gave me some food to eat. When I was thirsty, you offered me something to drink. When I was a stranger, you shared hospitality with me. When I was poorly clad, you furnished me clothes. I was sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you visited me.-’ At this point the righteous will respond, -Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? or thirsty and give you a drink? Or when did we see you a stranger and welcome you into our homes? or ill-clad and clothe you? Or when did we ever see you sick or in prison and take care of your needs?-’ The King will give them this answer: -I can assure you that every time you showed these kindnesses to one of my brothers here, however unimportant he might be, you did it to me.-’ Then the King will turn to those at His left hand, saying, -Get out of my presence: there is a curse on you! Leave for the eternal fire destined for the devil and his messengers. You see, when I am hungry, you gave me no food to eat. When I was thirsty, you gave me nothing to drink. When I was a stranger, you did not invite me home. When I was ill-clad, you did not clothe me. When I was sick or in prison, you did not take care of me.-’ At this point they too will ask, -Lord, when did we ever see you starving or thirsty or a stranger or ill-clad or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?-’ The King will then answer, -I can tell you for sure that the extent to which you neglected to do it for one of these most insignificant people, you did not do it for me.-’ Then the damned will leave for their eternal punishment, while the righteous enter into life that is eternal.

SUMMARY

Christ’s second coming and judgment will be contemporaneous. His judgment will be universal, involving every human being that has ever lived. He will judge people, not on their Jewishness or any other superficial basis, but on their everyday usefulness and service to others.

NOTES

a. Christ’s second coming and judgment are contemporaneous

Matthew 25:31 **But when the Son of man shall come in his glory; and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory. **This illustration is not a proper parable like those preceding it, but a prophecy rich in parabolic comparisons. We shall better appreciate this concluding section of Jesus-’ discourse, if we remember that He said it just a few days before His death. In the face of the worst that Satan could hurl at Him, He calmly sets it down as indisputable fact that He would return in glory to judge!

Son of man come in his glory instantly identifies Jesus as the great subject of Daniel’s vision (Daniel 7:9-14). No longer would His glory be dimmed by the real humiliation and weakness of His incarnation (2 Corinthians 13:4). By these simple words He proclaims several stupendous certainties:

Jesus Christ shall triumph at last! His total Lordship over all the world is now ultimately certain. To term Himself the King in Matthew 25:34 harmonizes completely with the Danielian prophecy of His triumph and His own self-designations here.

He shall come in his glory, returning to earth in that splendor that rightly pertains to this regal state and is His because He is God’s Anointed.

And all his angels with him, not merely to heighten the effect of His glory by their splendor and multitude, but to execute His will (Matthew 13:41 f., Matthew 13:49 f.; 2 Thessalonians 1:7 f.; Revelation 14:17 ff.).

For Jesus Christ, all history is rolling onward inexorably toward one destiny. It will not plunge farther and farther out of control in a crescendo of moral chaos with no hope of relief. Nor is it grimly whirling in cyclic idiocy, going nowhere, eternally destined to drone on, wearily grinding out the same human follies. Rather, every man and event rolls on toward judgment before our Lord Jesus Christ! There is a time and a place when earth’s time-line stops abruptly in front of His throne.

When the Son of man shall come. then shall he sit on the throne of his glory. Jesus-’ Second Coming in triumphant glory will bring all earth history to a close and set in motion the Final Judgment of all of earth’s people. Every feature depicted here by Jesus underscores the finality of this moment. (Cf. Matthew 16:27; Romans 2:16; 1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy 4:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10; Revelation 19:11 ff; Revelation 20:11 ff.) Note the relative closeness of sequence: His Return and the Judgment occur relatively close together. The Gospels never intimate the presence of a great interval of time between Jesus-’ personal return and the world’s end, as if 1000 years must separate the two events. The Millennium of Revelation 20, during which Christ reigns with His saints, must precede His return. (See notes on Matthew 24:30.) Because He calmly sits in judgment on the throne of his glory, the completion and completeness of His victory is expressed. Thus, the battle against sin and the devil are finally over. The throne of his glory may be so described for various reasons:

McGarvey (Matthew-Mark, 220) thinks it is because by the decisions of that day his glory will be exhibited more brightly than ever before. All the obscure things in the past administration of his government will then be made clear.

It is because of the radiant brilliance of Him who sits thereon, a reflection of the true, heavenly splendor of Jesus, that glory of which the Apostles caught a fore glimpse at His Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-8 and parallels).

This throne is evidently His heavenly throne, identical with His brilliant white throne depicted in Revelation 20. There, as here, the basis of universal judgment is the same (Matthew 25:35-40; Matthew 25:42 f.; Revelation 20:12 f.).

It cannot be an earthly, temporal throne reconstructed in a material Jerusalem to be the throne of David. In fact, David himself (Psalms 110) grasped the exalted spiritual character of Christ’s reign and located the true throne of David at God’s right hand, not in earthly Palestine. Peter (Acts 2:33 ff.) revealed on Pentecost Jesus-’ exaltation to the throne of David at God’s right hand, forever establishing the true site and significance of His present reign. There is no New Testament text that definitively promises a personal reign of Christ on a temporal throne in a material city of Jerusalem (Kik, Matthew XXIV, 113).

If this language is reminiscent of Mat 19:28; Matthew 24:30 f. or Matthew 26:64 which, in my view, refer not to the Second Coming exclusively or even primarily, but to Jesus-’ full vindication during the lifetime of His contemporaries, this similarity of language may be explained as a historical preview of even greater events. That is, this Jesus, who was so preeminently distinguished by earthly events in His own day (i.e. the fall of Jerusalem by the fulfillment of His prophecies, by the liberation of His Church from Judaism’s thraldom, etc.), shall be supremely exalted to glory by His personal return at the Last Day. This is the final, glorious completion of Daniel’s prophecy (Daniel 7:13 f.).

b. The judgment shall be universal

Matthew 25:32 **Before him shall be gathered all the nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats. **Before him! Before the humble Carpenter from Galilee shall be arrayed all of the world’s religious pundits, political leaders, world philosophers, controllers of communications, sellers of armaments, heads of nations, taxi-drivers, housewives, priests, prostitutes, school childrensaints or sinners allstanding heads bared, dumbstruck, all eyes fixed on the one Figure there on the throne at the center of the universe, our dear Lord Jesus Christ! Racial differences now have no meaning; historic national distinctions are wiped out. All forms of government that ever held sway shall now bow to the King on that throne.

All nations include all those who have ever lived. Even those long dead are now resurrected from physical death to stand before Him (John 5:28 f.; Revelation 20:12 f.). Otherwise, Jesus would merely sit in judgment over those nations that happen to dwell on earth at His return.

But all nations (pànta tà éthnç) must not be confused for a similar Hebrew idiom that refers to Gentiles, as distinguished from God’s chosen people, as if no Jews or Christians are meant here. In this intensely Hebrew Gospel, Jesus-’ attitude toward the nations (tà éthnç) cannot be anything but highly interesting, because, in contrast to Israel, God’s people, the Gentiles were so commonly distinguished by this term, that the nations is ordinary Jewish parlance for the pagans. However, that Jesus is not using these words in this sense is evident from the following considerations:

He says not the nations, but all the nations. Thus, the common idiom is altered by all.

His Hebrew interpreters would not have accepted His words exclusively in the sense of the pagan Gentiles.

No Hebrew could conceive of the righteous (Matthew 25:34; Matthew 25:37) as somehow excluding the outstanding representatives of the Hebrew nation, such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and scores, if not thousands of others.

Nor would it be likely that many Hebrews would admit that Gentiles should be admitted to the Kingdom on so rudimentary a test as their good works without Mosaic Law. Remember the struggle in the early Church over this issue (Acts 15:5; Acts 21:20 ff.; Galatians; Hebrews)!

So, from the nationalistic Jewish standpoint, Jesus is talking nonsense, because His Jewish listeners would demand, as an irreducible minimum, that Israel be included as one of the nations to be admitted on the basis of its good works. But to admit Israel destroys the supposed idiom for pagan Gentiles here.

Therefore, our Lord means literally all the nations. In contrast to the foregoing Jewish prejudice, His point is precisely that the godly people whom God welcomes are not merely Hebrews, to the exclusion of the Gentiles, nor even vice versa, but, rather, anyone of any nation who proves himself useful to God on the basis indicated (Matthew 25:35-40). As will be shown, only those who submit to Jesus-’ Kingship and who trust Him to know final issues, are finally accepted.

So, speaking originally to purely Jewish Apostles, who might have thus misunderstood Him, Jesus did not predicate final judgment on the basis of national Jewishness at all, but upon any man’s real usefulness to his fellowmen, a standard of justice which all men can recognize (cf. Romans 1:18-32; Romans 2:9-16).

He shall separate them. Whereas other parables picture His angels as employed to distinguish the righteous from the wicked (cf. Matthew 13:41 ff., Matthew 13:49 f.), here He claims this as His prerogative. This is no contradiction, just a question of emphasis. What He orders His agents to do, He may be said to do for Himself. No angel moves, but at His word. He shall separate them: all the nations are not even to be judged as nations, but broken down into individuals. In Greek, them (autoùs) is masculine gender, whereas its antecedent, nations (éthnç) is neuter. (Cf. Matthew 28:19 in Greek for an analogous construction and concept.) For this last, definitive separation He shall need no last-minute, detailed scrutiny of the relative merits of each one of millions upon millions of human beings all resurrected or transformed live to stand trial before Him. He shall distinguish them into two groups as expertly as an experienced shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, i.e. according to their true character so perfectly well-known to Him who has pastured them for centuries (John 10:14 f., John 10:3 f., John 10:27 f.). Though sheep and goats are commonly pastured together, they do not share a common destiny, because of their different natures. This nicely illustrates how completely human lives are merged here on earth, yet how decisively and permanently they will be parted at judgment. Jesus must remove many from His flock, because He does not recognize them or their claims to belong to Him. Ezekiel developed this sheep-goat allegory further than Jesus does (Ezekiel 34:17 ff.). However, in strong, clear strokes the Lord more simply draws the basic distinction which permanently collects people into two fundamental categories.

Mingled together as one great flock prior to this judgment, the great family of man is difficult to distinguish into the two classes. (Cf. Matthew 13:24-30; Matthew 13:37-43.) But each man will have written his own book (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:2 f.) the contents of which are already well-known to the Judge (John 2:25; Revelation 2:23; cf. Revelation 2:2; cf. Revelation 2:9; cf. Revelation 2:13; cf. Revelation 2:19; Revelation 3:1 c, Revelation 3:8; Revelation 3:15). For Jesus to separate sheep and goats is a matter of no difficulty or delay. In fact, these books are not to be opened to inform the Lord of each man’s deeds, but to document for the world the righteousness of His judgments based on what every person had done (Matthew 16:27; 1 Corinthians 4:5; Romans 2:16; Revelation 20:12 f.). Our text (Matthew 25:34-36; Matthew 25:40) will establish an essential criterion whereby anyone may cause his name to be inscribed in the Lamb’s book of life even from the foundation of the earth (Revelation 3:5; Revelation 13:8; Revelation 17:8; Revelation 20:12 ff.; Revelation 21:27; Luke 10:20; Philippians 4:3; Hebrews 12:23). The Lord already knows who are His (2 Timothy 2:19). His practiced eye can distinguish a sheep from a goat every time, even if everyone looks like a cross between a sheep and a goat to us! Even if on earth the race had been thoroughly organized into complicated categories by racial types, styles of government, economic statuses, technological development, cultural advancement, etc., with one simple gesture Jesus shall obliterate these unmeaning distinctions that had seemed so significant before. At the final Day, there will be just sheep or goats, only a twofold division of humanity: the saved and the lost (Matthew 3:12; Matthew 7:23 ff.; Matthew 13:24 ff., Matthew 13:48; Matthew 21:28 ff.; Matthew 22:1 ff.; Matthew 24:40 f., Matthew 24:45; Matthew 24:48; Matthew 25:2; Matthew 25:33), Such a twofold categorization of the race is striking, because great rabbis prior to Jesus had confidently decided that mankind’s destiny must be distributed into three sectors: the perfectly just, the completely wicked, and those to be consigned to a Jewish purgatory (Edersheim, Life, II, 440; esp. Append. XIX).

Matthew 25:33 **And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. **Sheep, in Scripture, is a common designation for God’s people or Christ’s disciples (Matthew 7:15; Matthew 10:16; Matthew 26:31; John 10:2-16, John 10:26 f.; John 21:16 f.; Romans 8:36; Hebrews 13:20; 1 Peter 2:25). These sheep are further described:

They are called the righteous (Matthew 25:37; Matthew 25:46).

They are invited as blessed of my Father (Matthew 25:34).

The kingdom is prepared for (them) from the foundation of the world (Matthew 25:34).

Among Semitic peoples, goats are highly prized along with sheep. Their hair or wool may be of various colors (Genesis 30:32 to Genesis 31:13), although sheep’s wool is spoken of as white or snow-colored (Psalms 147:16; Isaiah 1:18; Ezekiel 27:18 white wool), while goats were generally dark colored (Son 4:1? cf. tents of goat-hair, Matthew 1:5?). Since in a nomadic society a person’s wealth could be calculated by the size of his flocks of goats and sheep, there would be no natural prejudice against goats as animals. Perhaps Jesus chose goats as the contrary of sheep, simply because they are so commonly associated together in the flocks and are separated by shepherds. They naturally lent themselves to the purpose of Jesus-’ graphic presentation of judgment. Helplessness and total dependence on the shepherd characterize sheep, whereas goats are more headstrong and daring. It may be these latter characteristics that suggest the figurative use to describe people.

Set. on his right hand. on the left. This arrangement follows well-established tradition: the right hand signified acceptance and

honor; the left, rejection. (Cf. 1 Kings 2:19; Psalms 45:9; Psalms 110:1; Ephesians 1:20; Matthew 26:64, etc.) This simple act by Jesus instantly indicates the King’s final judgment on everyone. Judgment is actually all over at this point. What follows is not the deciding of anyone’s fate, but the rewarding or sentencing and His justification in either case.

That Christians shall be brought before Christ in judgment should not be questioned by reference to texts like John 3:18 or Matthew 5:24, when texts like Romans 14:10 and 2 Corinthians 5:10 reveal that we must appear before His tribunal. The former texts correctly affirm that a Christian will not be condemned in court because of his sins, because these shall have been forgiven him for his faith in the grace of Christ. The latter passages picture our appearance before the Judge, without stating our sentence of acquittal. Not one of our sins will be discussed, only our acts of practical helpfulness.

c. The basis of judgment: everyday usefulness and service to others (25:34-45)

Matthew 25:34 **Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. **Ezekiel had depicted God as Shepherd who would care for His sheep and judge them until the time He would establish His Servant David over them to tend them and be their true shepherd (Ezekiel 34:23 f.). This great Davidic Shepherd was also to be Israel’s true King (Zechariah 9:9; Psalms 2). So, while it may appear unusual in the Gospels that the Shepherd should also be Judge and King, it is neither illogical nor unforeseen, but most appropriate, because only those who have a true shepherd’s heart are fit to be kings or judges over God’s people (Ezekiel 34; Zechariah 10:3; Zechariah 11:3; Zechariah 11:5-17). Although Jesus has already appeared in Matthew as king of the Jews (Matthew 2:2) and king of Zion (Matthew 21:5), this is the first and only occurrence of His using this regal title for Himself. To entitle Himself King in this context is tantamount to affirming His own deity. (Cf. 1 Timothy 6:15; Revelation 19:13-16.)

Come, ye blessed of my Father. Whether this expression (toû patròs mou) be seen as genitive or ablative, the concept is magnificent: they are blessed because they belong to God or their blessedness originates with Him. (Cf. Ephesians 1:3-14; 2 Corinthians 1:3 f.) When their compassionate mercy toward the needy, the unworthy and those who could not pay them back, is so characteristic of God Himself (Deuteronomy 10:17 ff.), hence shows their true spiritual kinship to Him (cf. Matthew 5:44-48; Luke 6:27-36), should not they inherit who are most kin to Him?! (Cf. Romans 8:16 f.; 1 Peter 1:4; 1 John 3:1-3.)

To inherit the kingdom, from the viewpoint of the Hebrew listener, means to take possession as rightful heir of all that Hebrew history had prepared Jewish people to long for, i.e. the perfect, total, eternal government of God in all realms of His world. (Cf. 2 Peter 1:11.) But to the righteous, what is the kingdom to be inherited?

While there is a beautiful sense in which to inherit anything of God’s is to be recognized as His child, this does not mean He intends to abdicate in favor of His renewed humanity. It is not His sovereign universal rule of all realms of the universe that they inherit, for He shall continue to be King in this sense (1 Corinthians 15:28; Revelation 11:15; 1 Timothy 1:17; 1 Timothy 6:15 f.).

As Plummer (Matthew, 350f.) expressed it, This King not only comes in His Kingdom, but has kingdoms to bestow, which have been waiting throughout all time for their proper sovereigns. (Cf. Luke 12:32; Luke 19:17; Luke 19:19; Daniel 7:27; Revelation 2:26 f; Revelation 3:21; Revelation 5:10; see my note on Matthew 5:10.) In this higher, nobler sense, then, WE shall be the kings and lords over whom Jesus shall reign as King of kings and Lord of lords! (Lenski, Matthew, 990). Before this judgment, we are but heirs of hope (Romans 8:15-25; Galatians 4:6-7; Hebrews 6:12; 1 Peter 1:4). However, because of this judgment, we really inherit all that the Lord promised. (Cf. 2 Peter 1:10 f.) This does not mean we were never in the Kingdom before (Colossians 1:13). Rather, we come into full possession of that for which we have spent our life (Acts 14:22), the new heaven and new earth wherein dwells righteousness (2 Peter 3:13), where God is sole Ruler, sin is forever banished and all things are subject to Him (1 Corinthians 15:24-28).

Because it is to be a kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world,

It is not of recent date. Jesus affirmed, In my Father’s house ARE many mansions already destined since the world’s founding for God’s children (John 14:2). But, if He Himself subsequently affirmed, I go to prepare a place for you, how, then, is everything fully ready since before man’s creation? Before creating man, God purposely designed such a Kingdom as would be suitable for man. But its pure character demanded that the conditions be established whereby sinful man could enter into it. Thus, without Christ’s part there could be no place for unredeemed sinners. So, His atonement, forgiveness and intercession prepare a place for us with God. By establishing the real, spiritual basis of this Kingdom, Jesus simply carried out all God had projected since before the world’s foundation.

It fits our needs. This kingdom was designed specifically for God’s people, in contrast to the fate of the wicked which was really reserved for someone else, the devil and his crowd.

What begins on this world’s Last Day, therefore, is but the successful completion of the personal eternal purpose of our sovereign God. The Kingdom we are to enjoy is no makeshift, contingency plan. Our future rule is but the realization of the unalterable, ultimate goal of the sovereign Lord of the universe (Matthew 20:23; John 17:24; Ephesians 1:3 ff.; 1 Peter 1:19 f.; 1 Corinthians 2:9 f.).

Is it just possible, therefore, that the kingdom we inherit is that original sovereignty for which God created us (Genesis 1:2; Psalms 8:3-9)? Will He place us once more in His Paradise where there shall be no more curse, crying or death, where He shall live with man forever and man with Him in perfect communion? (Cf. Revelation 2:7; Revelation 2:11; Revelation 2:26; Revelation 3:5; Revelation 3:21; Revelation 21:3-4; Revelation 21:6 f.; Revelation 22:1-5.) Is it thinkable that the original kingdom wewere designed and created to inherit shall finally be ours? If so, adore Him who can turn Èden episode with its aftermath of sin and death, into a proving ground for His saints and a battleground on which to defeat Satan! Worship Him whose program could not be defeated, despite a seemingly interminable interlude of several millennia!

Love, the True Test of Discipleship to Jesus

Matthew 25:35 **For I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; 36 naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick and ye visited me; I was in prison and ye came unto me. **This is the standard of values that justifies the sentence just pronounced upon the righteous. This norm is so strikingly simple that some commentators incline to apply it also to men totally ignorant of Christ. They assume that the unconsciousness, with which the righteous did their deeds of love, proves that their motivation was natural, as opposed to revealed, religion, and that Jesus here welcomes their love which prompted their deeds in lieu of intelligent faith in Him. But may it be correctly supposed that ANYONE, who does not know Jesus-’ grace or the power of His Spirit, could do consistently what is described here for any prolonged time without eventually faltering and failing? Where is the moral power in paganism to meet even this standard of justice which apparently all nations could recognize? Where, apart from God’s Spirit, are men stimulated and empowered to love so consistently as Jesus pictures here?

Jesus-’ point is not that, in the case of anyone ignorant of Christ, sentence will be given on the basis of good deeds, but, rather, that judgment is based on usefulness to God and man, rather than on national Jewishness or any other sectarian superficiality. Although He addressed a Jewish context, saying what well-versed Hebrews could have expected Him to say, the surprise is that racial Jewishness is so far from being a prime requisite that it is not even a peripheral consideration!

Such a standard is easily justified. This kind of thoughtful usefulness to others and open-handed generosity proves our likeness to God. (Cf. God’s argument in Deuteronomy 15:1 ff. and Jesus-’ restatement in Luke 6:30-36; Matthew 5:42-48.) Such steady, unstinting concern for the unfortunate, the little people and for those unable to pay, is proof of our similarity to Jesus Himself who so magnanimously mingled with and lifted the fallen (Luke 15! Matthew 9:9-13; 2 Corinthians 8:9; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 5:6-8). Bearing one another’s burdens (Galatians 6:2) links us with the great Burden-bearer (Isaiah 53:4-6). Such openhearted liberality proves also how much we really trust our heavenly Father to provide our own needs and how much we actually believe He can always make us rich enough to be generous (Matthew 6:19-34; 2 Corinthians 9:8-11). This generous spirit toward our fellow servants illustrates just how clearly we have understood the grace we have received from our own gracious Lord and King (Matthew 18:21-35). Even though those who were hungry, thirsty, strangers, naked, sick and in prison put themselves in debt to us by accepting from us food, drink and spiritual refreshment, we have really learned to forgive our debtors (Matthew 6:12; Matthew 6:14 f.). Only thus can anyone obtain mercy (Matthew 5:7). Grace is for the grateful and the gracious, not for the hard-hearted and tight-fisted. So, why should not a salvation by grace through faith be measured by the reality of the very deeds that prove this faith real (Romans 2:6; Matthew 16:27; 1 Corinthians 3:8; 2 Corinthians 5:10; James 1:27; James 2:14-26; 1 John 3:14-18; 1 John 4:20 f.; Revelation 22:12). Only by the acid test of DEEDS of humble usefulness and daily mercy are our faith, love and appreciation of grace proven real (John 13:35; 1 Corinthians 13). The contrary is also demonstrated by their absence. (See on Matthew 25:42.)

Jesus could not have added, I was ignorant and erring, and you instructed me and led me to repent, and I was forgiven, lest we misunderstand His purity, true identity and consequent authority. However, had He done so, it would have been marvelously appropriate with respect to every one of His brethren here. Our own brotherly intercession for them, pleading with them to repent and our sacrificing self for them, proves how much we grasp and appreciate His perfect High-priesthood (Hebrews 4:14 to Hebrews 5:10; Hebrews 7:26 f.).

Noteworthy is the peculiar character of these deeds. Rather than highlight some great, newsworthy accomplishments like prophecying, casting out demons or miracles (Matthew 7:22), Jesus underscores simple, common deeds of kind helpfulness that even the most insignificant, least known disciple could do for someone else.

For many whose prime religious life-emphasis is attention to the smooth functioning of ecclesiastical machinery and the construction of imposing institutional structures, the great surprise is Jesus-’ stunning lack of interest in most of our statistics thought so significant: how many miracles wrought, how many demons cast out, how many pages of prophecy penned, how many bodies present in our religious meetings, how much money given, how much our buildings are worth, how many prayers said, sermons preached or Bible verses memorized. The only finally important question is: how can I successfully serve a Lord who longs to help the lonely and the needy, unless I show Him that I love Him by seeking to serve those very unfortunates that He loves and died to save and serve? (Cf. Galatians 4:19; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 3:16 f.) So, the final aim of all growth in piety is to make us more like God, to put the mind of Christ in us and to cause us to act as He did (1 Peter 2:21 ff.; 1 John 4:17-21; Romans 8:29).

How very easy, then, it is for ANYONE however great or small, to please Jesus! All one must do is love perfectly, doing the things that anyone could do to provide the needs of common people we meet everyday. If this seems simplistic, recall what Jesus thinks is required to love perfectly. (See notes on Matthew 5:44-48; Matthew 7:12.) Such unpretentious, unstinting altruism does not spring from non-Christian philosophy, but is the natural expression of a new creature, empowered by a new Spirit and possessed with a new love. So, mere humanistic charity without faith in Jesus has no hope of final justification on the basis of our text.

That there should be striking verbal parallels between Jesus-’ words here and the pre-Christian Testament of Joseph Matthew 1:5 f., should occasion no surprise. Rather, more surprising would have been Jesus-’ ignorance of the literature of His own people. But the Lord turned that language upside down, since Joseph credits God with helping in each case, whereas Jesus the Lord Himself credits common, generous people with assisting Him in His need.

Ye took me in, though a stranger. (Cf. Judges 19:18; Hebrews 13:1 f.) This warm hospitality welcomes the stranger into our own family circle, sharing whatever is needed (3 John 1:5-8; 3 John 1:10; Titus 3:13 f.). In prison and ye came unto me, in context with predictions of Christian persecutions, calls believers to identify with the imprisoned (Hebrews 10:32 ff; Hebrews 13:3). But with respect to non-Christians incarcerated for crimes, His people may labor within existing prison systems to bring them Christ’s love and message.

Self-forgetful, Utterly Humble Service

Matthew 25:37 **Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry and fed thee? or athirst, and gave thee drink? 38 And when saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 And when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? **How could any informed Christian, whose every deed and attitude should be expressed out of his love for Christ and in conformity to His will, ever be so surprised as to ask this? Some assert that no one who has ever known a personal relationship to Jesus could ever say what is recorded here. Consequently, they decide that the righteous here are not Christians, adducing the following reasons:

Their award is based on works, not expressly on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ.

However, Christians too will be judged as believers on the basis of what their deeds reveal about the reality of their faith (James 2:14-26; Romans 2:6-11; Matthew 16:27; 2 Corinthians 5:10).

To consider pagan unbelievers who have never heard of Christ as saved specifically because all their deeds of love had been done to and for Christ, even though they did not so intend them and only discovered it at this tribunal, is to show extraordinary laxity quite out of harmony with the general trend of New Testament doctrine. (Cf. Romans 3:10-18; Romans 3:23; Romans 6:23; Romans 11:32.) No interpretation of this text can be true that undermines the three mainsprings of Christian evangelism: the conviction that (1) all men indiscriminately are really sinners and damned; (2) that Jesus Christ is their only God-appointed Savior; and (3) that Christian evangelism is the divinely appointed means for bringing the really lost to the only Savior (Romans 10:9-17).

Further, are pagans so really well-known for the kind of continuous, unselfish hospitality and generosity Jesus pictures as having been done for Him? (Cf. notes on Matthew 11:5.) Or, is it, rather, the pagans themselves who comment on the remarkable Christian open-handedness unknown among the unconverted?

These words (vv. 37-39) cannot be the language of humility because Christian humility cannot be thought of as devoid of consciousness (Biederwolf, 357, citing Olshausen).

But are Christians really as conscious of their every act as, ideally, they should be or would desire it? Are we really unfailingly aware that every needy person we confront represents Jesus Christ to us? Is it impossible that on that Last Great Day we could (in Alford’s words) be overwhelmed at the sight of the grace which has been working in and for us? Is there no room for true surprise at just how much eternal good we actually shall have done as the fruit of Christ’s Spirit in us or how far-reaching our influence for good shall have been?

Is there no room for genuine, child-like amazement that our common, lowly deeds of human sympathy, which in the course of our earth-life seemed only the right thing to do, should be exalted by the King of heaven and treated as having been done to Him personally? Can there be no happy astonishment that the many tiny favors, now long-forgotten, which were but the natural fruit of the maturation of Christ’s life in us, should suddenly reappear as Jesus-’ reason for welcoming us home?

So, the supposition, that the righteous here could not be Christians, is less well-grounded than originally thought, and it becomes unnecessary, with McGarvey (Matthew-Mark, 221) to obviate the problem by considering this conversation in Jesus-’ story as something that could not occur at judgment, or to think that most Christians will have already learned the lesson here taught. The genuine astonishment of the Christians is completely comprehensible under the following conditions:

THE TRUE ABSENCE OF CHRIST FROM THE WORLD AND THE OMNIPRESENCE OF THE HUMAN CONDITION. In the pressure of everyday life it is easy to forget that we really serve Christ. So, when the plight of another human being comes to our attention, perhaps we may not perceive the image of Jesus in them. Our decision to help them may come simply from our loving awareness of their need and our desire to minister to them. The figure of Christ is often quite obscured by the nitty-gritty realism of their need, so our kindness in meeting it really reflects the natural, spontaneous reaction of a godly, loving heart. Rather than calculate how much eternal reward we pile up by serving Jesus directly, we simply act out the true instincts of our Christ-like graciousness by serving the other human being simply for the sake of helping him. This sets the stage, however, to be surprised that such long-forgotten, spontaneous service should be considered as rendered to the King Himself.

OUR IMPOSSIBILITY TO DO SERVICE DIRECTLY TO JESUS AND HIS IDENTIFICATION WITH HIS PEOPLE. The Christ reigns from a heavenly throne. No mortal can approach Him with gifts of food, raiment or gems. None can serve Him, unless He should consider every service of our lives, however apparently insignificant they seem to us, as done to Himself. Only thus can we find service and recognition where, before, we dared not dream it possible. So, because of His kindly identification with every one of His creatures, our King graciously attributes this service to us. (Cf. Acts 9:1-4; Acts 9:13; John 15:18 to John 16:4.)

THE GREAT DISPROPORTION BETWEEN THE SERVICE RENDERED AND THE REWARD GIVEN. When Christians depend on God’s grace all their lives and merely respond to it in gratitude by serving others, suddenly find themselves endowed with abundance exceeding all they could ask or imagine, such magnificence seems a disproportionate reward for so very little done for God during their lifetime. So they stand frankly embarrassed to realize that Jesus is serious in granting them infinite, eternal glory on the basis of what they supposed was insignificant to Him.

No wonder, then, that Judgment must occur, in order to reveal to everyone what is now utterly unperceived by the majority and only dimly grasped by a few, i.e. the actual character and influence of men’s lives and the extent to which each truly harmonized or contrasted with God’s will for each one. No wonder, too, that only Jesus Christ Himself is qualified to decide on the relative significance of our small kindnesses, because only He can know how truly our conduct toward others really served His great purpose, how far-reaching our Christ-likeness influenced others to further godliness and how much the world was made a better place because of some apparently insignificant deed we did years ago. No wonder, too, that His evaluation of men’s conduct is so radically different from the estimate that both the good and the evil place on their own deeds.

Is not this paragraph motive to love, praise and serve Jesus forever? Our generous Lord considers as headline news the many little kindnesses we have done for years and totally forgotten as not worth mentioning! He erects an eternal monument to commemorate a glass of cold water, a flat tire changed for a handicapped person, a tear dried on the face of a child, additional time to pay offered a family strapped by unemployment, and countless other deeds! This simple declaration of Jesus tests our discipleship to the core: do we believe His world real? Dare we admit the hidden Christ in the ragged need of our neighbor? Can we confess the riches of the invisible Christ to be greater wealth than all the pleasures of indifference to our neighbor’s needs? Can we live as if we could see Him who is invisible? (Cf. Hebrews 11:25-27.)

Matthew 25:40 **And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me. **Our concept of this wide-sweeping criterion is influenced by two factors: (1) how do we identify these my brethren?and (2) why utilize this principle of judgment? These my brethren must be someone present in the great judgment scene, indicated perhaps by a sweep of the King’s hand. But who are they?

Some commentators assume that three groups are contemplated by the Lord: the sheep, the goats, and these my brethren. This trichotomy then forces them to identify each group somewhat as follows:

The sheep are fleshly Israel (the lost sheep of the house of Israel), the goats are unbelievers, and these my brethren are the harassed Church of Christ.

These my brethren are Israel according to the flesh (Romans 9:5), the sheep are the Church who had been kind to Jews in distress, while the goats are unbelievers who had not.

These my brethren are the elect of God, the Church of both Testaments, while the sheep and goats become two different classes of people outside the pale of either covenant.

However, Jesus was not necessarily coining terminology for a tight eschatological system. He was speaking popularly to Hebrew listeners expected to understand Him. This tri-partite division leads to confusing and contradictory conclusions, hence the simpler solution is that of Jesus, the twofold division of humanity, the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:32 f.).

The King’s sweeping gesture toward these my brethren even these least, then, must include ANYONE of the entire human family who had need, whether Christian or not.

It can be validly argued that Jesus-’ true brethren are only those who do the will of His heavenly Father (Matthew 12:46-50). Jesus said so, and that settles it.

On the other hand, our section began with Jesus-’ great Messianic title: the Son of man (Matthew 25:31), which focuses attention on His authority to judge as well as on His true identity (Daniel 7:13 f.; John 5:27). Even though He is THE Son of man par excellence, yet, by virtue of His human birth, HE IS BROTHER OF EVERY MAN WHO EVER LIVED. (See notes on Matthew 8:20.) From this point of view, then, there is no exclusiveness or pride in Jesus, because He is not ashamed to call even the worst sinner of the race brother.

So, Plummer (Matthew, 351) was right to affirm that Christ’s claiming the poor and needy as His brethren is quite in keeping with His character as the Son of Man and the Son of God. His calling any man brother expresses His love for every human being to whom He willingly claims kinship. What psychologically powerful motivation He provides us in that act: by claiming kinship to everyone, whatever their need, He endears them to us! Anyone who is a brother of Jesus is a brother of mine to love and help just as He would! He urges, The least of these my brethren are your brothers too.

How apply Jesus-’ words? By doing good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers (Galatians 6:10). Would our generous Master withhold His praise, should we show kindness to some unbeliever? Can the Savior of every man, who gave Himself without limit to win the heart of each, somehow not be sympathetic to the cry of the overlooked and despised who hurt, or fail to notice when any of His own people stops and stoops to lift the fallen and relieve their affliction, when the Heavenly Father does this every day (Matthew 5:45; Luke 6:27-36)?! So, when any believer helps anyone in the great family of man, God’s promise to Abraham, In you and in your children shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, finds surprisingly wider fulfillment (Genesis 22:18).

**Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me. **Why adopt this standard that sounds as if deeds alone are the determining factor in the salvation or loss of each man? Standing before a people for whom orthodox faith is paramount, why does Jesus emphasize deeds? Is it that faith in the correct doctrine is somehow less important than deeds? No, belief in the right teaching or hearty acceptance of the true revelations of God, is evident only in the life that acts in harmony with those revelations to express confidence in Him who told us what to believe. These deeds, then, reflect a person’s attitude toward God, and are the acid test of his belief or unbelief (Matthew 7:21; James 2:14 ff.; 1 John 2:9 ff.). Hence, the Lord will render to everyone according to his deeds (Matthew 16:27; Matthew 10:32 f.; Romans 2:6 ff.). Here is why:

There is absolutely no way anyone can serve God directly. He does not dwell in temples made by men nor is He served by men’s hands (Acts 17:24 f.). He does not use or need our gifts (Psalms 50:9-13). Our very materiality defeats our best efforts to do service to Him who is spirit (John 4:23 f.). Therefore, some other way must be found, if man is to serve Him at all.

Therefore, God has chosen to send us His representatives to substitute for His royal Person: the needy, the ill, the alienated, the least of these His brethren. This is the finest test of our true character, because, were Jesus to appear on earth in His kingly glory, too many would hastily mask their true personality, show Him smiling deference, spare no pains to do Him honor and deny Him nothing. Were He to send the great, we would suppose that their importance gives value to our service or that we could later benefit from their position. Contrarily, the least are indicated, because they cannot repay. Serving them does not advance our position socially. (Cf. Luke 14:12-14.) The inclination to show them generosity would be practically nil in self-pleasing societies, but it would demonstrate our true character.

Hence, to serve people is to serve Jesus Christ. To abuse or persecute them, or simply to turn a deaf ear to their pleas, is to treat God in the same way. (An ancient concept: Deuteronomy 15:7-11; Psalms 22:24; Proverbs 19:17; Proverbs 14:31; Ecclesiastes 11:1 f.; Isaiah 63:9; Zechariah 2:8; 2 Corinthians 9:6-8; Hebrews 6:10.) The richness of our generosity with people is the measure we give to Godeven if it is service we render our earthly superiors (Colossians 3:18 to Colossians 4:1; Ephesians 5:21 to Ephesians 6:9; Matthew 7:2; Luke 6:37 f.).

Therefore, in Jesus-’ name we identify with others in their need (Hebrews 13:3; Romans 12:13; Romans 12:15-16; Romans 12:20 f.; 2 Corinthians 8, 9; Ephesians 4:28; Ephesians 5:1-2; Philippians 2:1-5; 1 Thessalonians 5:11-15).

In the final analysis, then, everyone will be rewarded on the basis of his similarity to the Judges (Matthew 5:44-48; Luke 6:32-38). While our text intimates that our Lord will surprise the world by the startling basis on which the judgment of each turns, this verdict will harmonize perfectly with the moral sense, experience and judgments of the world as it estimates others, i.e. not merely on the basis of the opinions held, but especially on the basis of deeds and character. So, God utilizes our commonest standard of judgment to deal with everyone on that Last Day.

ARE ALL GOOD PAGANS SAVED?

Alford (I, 256) describes those, who are judged righteous here, as decent pagans:

(They) know not that all their deeds of love have been done to and for Christthey are overwhelmed with the sight of the grace which has been working in and for them, and the glory which is now their blessed portion.. It is not the works, as such, but the love which prompted themthat love which was their faith,which felt its way, though in darkness, to Him who is love, which is commended.

In a similar vein, Bruce (Expositor’s Greek Test, 306) taught

The doctrine of this passage is that love is the essence of true religion and the ultimate test of character for all men Christian or non-Christian. All who truly love are implicit Christians. For such everywhere the kingdom is prepared. They are its true citizens and God is their Father.

Others might urge that, if God wants to save a person who never heard of Christ, but whose treatment of his fellows reveals that practical love to which God aimed in all His decrees, will not that pagan’s unbaptism be considered baptism, his unconversion become conversion? After all, is not the very purpose of the Judeo-Christian tradition to make men over in the likeness of God? Could not this purpose be achieved by someone who never heard about Jesus?

This thesis, however well expressed, is only hypothetically possible but not juridically probable nor sustained by the mainstream of Scripture. None has ever been good enough to be redeemed by his own mere goodness, even though it be goodness to his fellows (Romans 3:10 ff., Romans 3:23). To affirm the contrary denies that God has consigned all men alike to the category of sin with its consequences (Romans 3:9; Romans 11:32; Galatians 3:22).

Now if God wishes to save pagans who never heard of Christ but simply on the basis of their practical love which stands in the place of faithsince they could never have any faith in a Jesus of whom they never heard (Romans 10:14-17)that is His business. He is Lord. Nevertheless, the only information He has revealed about His plans indelibly underlines the deadness, darkness and doom of those living outside the pale of the Judeo-Christian faith. The principle purpose of Romans, for instance, is to convince Jews that lost Gentiles can be saved on the same ground of faith as any Hebrew. Ephesians 2:2 ff. describes the destiny of death programmed for the disobedient. objects of wrath like the rest of mankind. Ephesians 2:11 ff. sweepingly indicts the entire Gentile population of earth as separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel. having no hope and without God in the world. Ephesians 4:17-19 categorically declares that Gentiles live in the futility of their minds. darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to the hardening of their heart. Peter too condemns as former ignorance and futile the traditions of one’s tribe or race as something from which men must be redeemed (1 Peter 1:14; 1 Peter 1:18; 1 Peter 4:3 f.; cf. Colossians 1:21). John announced that it is uniquely the Son of God who has come to give us understanding and the opportunity to know Him who is true, the true God and eternal life, while all the rest are idols (1 John 5:20 f.). Can anyone, Jew or Gentile, be saved in his idolatry? He who has the Son has life; he who has not the Son has not life (1 John 5:12). Will our covenant-keeping God act inconsistently with these revelations of His own intentions?

The Opposite Verdict

Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels. Jesus unflinchingly reveals the following characteristics of this punishment:

The punishment of the wicked is no blessing, but a curse, suited to those cursed by God. This filthy place of horror, desolation and death all over again is a place where God’s patient love and forgiveness is not. (Revelation 20:14 f.; 2 Thessalonians 1:9 exclusion from the presence of the Lord.)

Their chastisement separates them from Jesus: Depart! (cf. Matthew 7:23; Matthew 25:46; Luke 13:27 f.; cf. outside: Matthew 8:11 f.; Matthew 22:13; Matthew 25:10 ff., Matthew 25:30; Revelation 22:15). This deprives them of all the joy of His presence.

Their penalty involves being cast into the eternal fire. Some question the eternality of hell on the assumption that the wicked shall be tormented so many years and then extinguished by annihilation, But since the devil and his angels, the beast and the false prophet will be tormented day and night for ever and ever, (Revelation 19:20; Revelation 20:10; Revelation 20:14 f.) it is no surprise that those demons and men who follow Satan should share his fate (Matthew 8:29; Mark 1:24; Luke 8:31; Revelation 20:14 f; Revelation 14:9-11). Such a prospect offers little hope for a merciful reprieve through later annihilation.

Further, this unquenchable fire is eternal fire, because it is prepared, hence, not necessarily like any other fire known to man. Consequently, it is not subject to the logical deductions that some base on scientific knowledge of elements in our present universe. If the Lord Himself provides the fire, who can debate its reality or character, if He terms it unquenchable or eternal? (Cf. Isaiah 33:14; Isaiah 66:24; Matthew 3:10-12; Mark 9:43-48; Jude 1:7; Revelation 20:10; Revelation 20:14 f.; cf. Revelation 19:20; Revelation 21:8.) Such fire, then, must be worse than all our present experiences of literal, earthly fire. (Cf. Deuteronomy 32:22; Psalms 11:6; Psalms 18:8; Psalms 21:9; Psalms 97:3; Psalms 140:10; Jeremiah 4:4; Nahum 1:6; Malachi 3:2; Malachi 4:1.) On eternal, see Matthew 25:46. Sodom’s fate is but a grim preview (Jude 1:7, NIV).

Their punishment is prepared for the devil and his angels, a fact with two ramifications:

Hell is no afterthought for God. Satan’s revolt did not catch God unprepared to deal with his rebellion. God is prepared either way. For those who share His holiness, He prepared a realm of eternal happiness. For those who share Satan’s proud, rebellious spirit, He has ready a place of unending punishment (Matthew 13:41 f., Matthew 13:49 f.; Matthew 18:8 f.; Luke 16:19-31; Jude 1:7).

Hell was not originally planned for man whose high destiny was established at his creation to rule over all the works of (God’S) hands (Psalms 8). But when man determined not to realize the glorious purpose for which God created him, he damned himself to spend eternity with those who likewise rebelled against the benign purpose of God.

The Justice of the Sentence

Matthew 25:42 **For I was hungry, and ye did not, give me to eat; I was thirsty and ye gave me no drink; 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick and in prison, and ye visited me not (Hebrews 13:16). **Why should it be true that, regardless of all other considerations, the sin of neglecting to bless the needy with required refreshment is sufficient to justify an eternity of punishment? Because one’s indifference to people proves how he understands grace and shows that, in his view, when anyone is in need of mercy, it should not be granted (James 1:22; James 4:17; Luke 12:47). So, none is granted to him (Matthew 5:7; Matthew 18:32 f.). Lack of positive, out-going love that actively ministers to people is the denial of all that is fundamental in religion (Matthew 22:34-40). God’s love simply does not dwell in the selfish (1 John 3:17). God feels responsible for the unfortunate, and acts accordingly. There can be no praise for an inactive orthodoxy (James 2:14-26).

But why did Jesus not mention those other sins that men consider far more heinous, as the basis of His unquestionably right verdict? Surely murder, adultery and idolatry are still sins, still culpable. ? His piercing analysis here intends to reveal the terrible criminality of what are only apparently the least of sins. He does this for two reasons. By condemning the unimportant sins, He simultaneously pronounces His judgment convincingly against all others thought far more serious. (See note on Matthew 25:30.) Further, by condemning this indifference to our fellows which is expressed in these petty omissions, He attacks the selfishness behind all the more important sins. Again, He condemns what men’s attitude toward Him would have been, had He personally approached them in the guise of their needy fellowman. It is as if they had said no to Jesus Christ in every single situation. Should they not be rejected for this? Can the Lord welcome the uncompassionate?

The Self-righteous Rebuttal

Matthew 25:44 **Then shall they also answer, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? **Their ignorance of any contact with Jesus is precisely like that of the godly, since neither group actually saw the Son of God Himself. Nevertheless, although the form of their surprised question is identical to that of the righteous, it is motivated by self-deception. They suppose that they would have been hospitable, had they actually met Him. So, in their self-justification, the ungodly haughtily challenge the King to name the time and place where they were faced with the opportunity to serve Him and failed to do so. Their self-deceived argument is, Had we been granted the privilege to serve you, we would have been more than glad to do so. But we never met anyone that even closely resembled youjust miserable wretches whom it was useless to befriend, a shabby old woman, a waif too skinny to adopt,all situations too trifling to take seriously, you understand.

The King’s Defense

Matthew 25:45 **Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these least, ye did it not unto me. **Just how closely Jesus identified with His suffering people is illustrated by His charge that Saul of Tarsus, by persecuting the Church, had attacked Him personally (Acts 9:4 f.). Further, how closely Jesus identifies with the entire human race, despite its sinful unbelief,-’ culpable ignorance and moral hardening, is indicated by His concern that men who never heard one Gospel sermon, be fully human and humane. But they fail even this rudimentary test. Their wisdom is futile, their understanding darkened. Separated from the life of God because of their ignorance which is due to spiritual self-hardening and having lost all sensitivity, they plunge into every other form of indulgence, ever greedy for more (Ephesians 4:17 ff.). Thus, they become less than human, like unreasoning animals (Jude 1:10). To be fully human means to glorify God as God and treat His creatures accordingly. (Contrast Romans 1:18-32.)

d. The results of the judgment will be permanent (25:46)

Matthew 25:46 **And these shall **go **away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life. **Some insist that Bible texts are rare that assert the eternality of God’s punishment of the damned. Granted, but HOW MANY TIMES DOES JESUS HAVE TO SAY A THING FOR IT TO BE TRUE? When correctly interpreted, just once is sufficient. Linguistically, the punishment of the rejected will endure as long as the joyous happiness of the saved, for the word, eternal, is the same used to define both (kòlasin aiònion. zôèn aiònion). Nothing could be less defensible that to affirm that eternal punishment must be of shorter duration than eternal life. The larger Biblical context describes the wicked’s sentence of punishment as endless. (See notes on Matthew 10:28; Matthew 18:8; Matthew 3:12; Matthew 25:41; cf. Isaiah 33:14; Isaiah 66:24; Jude 1:7; Jude 1:13; Revelation 14:11; Revelation 20:10.)

Contrary to the supposition that truly eternal punishment must imply some kind of everlasting life for the wicked, it is more exact to say that the Scriptures eternalize all human spirits, whether good or bad, saved or damned.

At death the spirit returns to God (Ecclesiastes 3:21; Ecclesiastes 12:7). If man’s breath alone were intended, what is there to commit to God (Luke 23:46; Acts 7:59)?

Therefore, the wicked dead as spirits are now alive and undergoing punishment (Luke 20:38; Luke 16:19-31; 1 Peter 3:19; 2 Peter 2:9). Christians, too, survive death and are alive with the Lord before the resurrection. (See notes on Matthew 22:32-33; cf. 2 Corinthians 5:8; Philippians 1:23.) The death of the body is not equal to the death of the spirit, because all men, apart from the resurrection, survive their separation from the body (Matthew 10:28; Luke 12:4 f.; Luke 23:43; 1 Corinthians 15:18; Revelation 6:9 ff; Revelation 7:9?).

That the second death (Revelation 2:11; Revelation 20:6; Revelation 20:14; Revelation 21:8) does not imply annihilation is proven by its Biblical definition as the lake of fire. So, whatever is affirmed of the fire is true also of the second death. Further, as its name implies, it is death all over again for the wicked dead who were resurrected to face judgment. But, since the first death, which is the basis of the comparison, was not the end of man, since he survives the separation from the body in physical death, the second death clearly cannot imply annihilation. It implies but the separation, not from the continuation of God’s goodness during earth-life, but from the eternal blessedness of His goodness during the next life.

Jesus considered eternal life and eternal punishment as proper antitheses. However, the quality of life He means cannot be bare existence, for which non-existence would be the true opposite. Rather, His life connotes an existence enriched by abundant joy, peace and reigning (John 10:10; Romans 5:17). Punishment, its true opposite, connotes an existence marred by unending misery. While eternal existence marks each destiny, how completely different is their quality!

Further, how could punishment be eternal, as Jesus says, if the punished were somehow annihilated before the termination of that suffering which He Himself declares shall be as eternal as the life of the blessed? In such a case, eternal punishment would be a contradiction in terms. But, because it is not, may it not be concluded that the punished are as eternal as the punishment for which they are destined?

That eternal punishment is neither unjust nor unworthy of God, is evidenced by the unexpected appropriateness of God’s permitting the righteous and the wicked to realize their last dream, that goal to which their whole moral life tended. Is it not evidence of God’s final mercy to all that each is granted the unchangeable privilege of loving or hating Him forever, of living with Him or apart from Him forever? The impenitent continue to insist until, at last, because they will not accept what God offers, the Judgment grants them what they desired. But to their endless chagrin, they discover too late that their desires were self-destructive and horribly mistaken. So, because they shall have eternally what they desired, it shall be eternal punishment. Consequently, God would be giving sinners what they had always wanted, they would be endlessly punished, and He would be perfectly just.

Therefore, is not the self-chosen misery of the wicked also appropriate? Punishment here implies that the pain caused is not spiteful brutality or purposeless cruelty on God’s part, but rather a discipline imposed by the wise plan of a good God in harmony with the nature and needs of the impenitent themselves. Either they learn in this life to live with God and enjoy it, or they shall be granted the fearful privilege and awful responsibility of living without Him and of suffering all the eternal consequences their free choice entails.

But that God already considers their love so cold, their conscience so dead, their intellect so darkened and their will so hardened that none could ever desire to return to the hated Judge who sentenced them to eternal torment, is evidenced by the fact that the wicked dead are even now being punished (2 Peter 2:9). The permanence of their isolation from the righteous is beyond dispute (Luke 16:26; Matthew 13:41 f., Matthew 13:49 f.). Not one statement of Scripture suggests any possible future reversal of the judgments announced on the Last Day. Today is the day of salvation! After this life there remains only judgment (Hebrews 9:27; Hebrews 10:26-27).

Plummer (Matthew, 346) saw the incalculable risk and folly involved in wistfully hoping that eternal punishment does not mean just what it implies:

Although in the story of the five foolish virgins. we are told nothing as to the duration of the punishment for careless misconduct, we are told that it was inflicted, and that it was severe. meant banishment and untold gloom. And, even if, when it had done its work, the punishment ceased, yet the loss which it had involved was irreparable. Is it not the depth of folly to incur certain punishment, because it is not certain that the punishment shall last for ever?

But that it shall last forever is foreshadowed when Jesus called the wicked, Cursed. So saying, He signaled the termination of His, indeed all, intercession. Now, alone without any defender, they must stand before Him who longed to be their Intercessor, but who is now Lord and King, and He must put these enemies under His feet for ever. They have no hope, none to plead for them. They can only go away into eternal punishment.

**The righteous enter into eternal life. **(See on Matthew 25:21; Matthew 25:34.) Here is permanent success in what really counts. What perspective this final vision gives to our present, seemingly humdrum lives! Whatever the ordinariness or excitement of our present service, whatever the comparative greatness or insignificance of our achievements, the only true distinction of worth in the long-run is whether or not, in the esteemed judgment of Jesus Christ, we served Him through kind helpfulness to the least of His brethren. For with that judgment rests a joyous future with God that alone is worthy of the title, eternal life. What more appropriate, eternal dwelling could be imagined for those who are willing to associate with people of low position to lift,, encourage and lead them (Romans 12:13-16), than eternal life with God whose dwelling place is ever with him who is contrite and lowly in heart (Isaiah 57:15; Matthew 5:3-12; Revelation 21:3; Revelation 22:1-5) and loves to bless too?!

FACT QUESTIONS

List all the main features surrounding the Second Coming of Christ taught in this great prophetic discourse, whether in direct declaration, indirect statement or illustration,

List all the features of the sheep and goats illustration that are parallel with details given in other parables.

What is the one main point of this illustration about the sheep and goats? Show what is really new in this story that was not taught in others.

According to Jesus, what is to be the criterion of judgment? What makes this standard so vital?

On what previous occasion(s) had Jesus clearly taught about His glorious coming with His angels to judge men according to their deeds? (Occasion and text.)

In what sense will all nations be gathered before him? Will they be judged as nations or as individuals?

Who are the sheep and who are the goats in Jesus-’ illustration?

What is meant by inherit the kingdom?

In what sense was the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world?

Who are the brethren of Christ to whom practical help was to be given? Defend your answer.

What is meant by eternal fire? In what sense was it prepared for the devil and his angels?

Who or what is the devil? Who or what are his angels?

Define the following terms, using everything the Bible teaches on these subjects:

eternal punishment Does this imply unending existence, or a quality of existence?

eternal life Does this imply merely unending existence, or a quality thereof?

To what coming does our Lord allude in this parable? Prove your answer.

Explain what is meant by the throne of His glory.

What does this section teach or imply about the character, nature and authority of Jesus?

What does this parable reveal about the purpose of a final judgment?

Old Green Commentaries

The College Press Bible Study Textbook Series — 59 volumes by 25 authors, published between 1961 and 1992 and affectionately known as the 'old green' commentaries for their green hardback bindings. Each volume is a commentary, workbook and teaching manual in one, written by Restoration Movement …

View all chapters →

Old Testament

GEN EXO LEV NUM DEU JOS JDG RUT 1SA 2SA 1KI 2KI 1CH 2CH EZR NEH EST JOB PSA PRO ECC SOS ISA JER LAM EZK DAN HOS JOL AMO OBA JON MIC NAH HAB ZEP HAG ZEC MAL

New Testament

MAT MRK LUK JHN ACT ROM 1CO 2CO GAL EPH PHP COL 1TH 2TH 1TI 2TI TIT PHM HEB JAS 1PE 2PE 1JN 2JN 3JN JUD REV

‹ Chapter 24 Matthew — All Chapters Chapter 26 ›