Matthew 25

CHAPTER XXV

The three parables recorded in 24:45–25:30 belong together and should be studied together. The observation is correct that the first deals with both faithfulness and wisdom, the second with wisdom alone, and the third with faithfulness alone. The first is intended especially for the ministers of the church, the second and the third for all her members: the second dealing with the spiritual life, the third with spiritual gifts and good works. In the first the hypocrites are exposed; in the second, the formal Christians; in the third, the slothful Christians. But this very inner coherence of the parables and their close connection with the great discourse that precedes shuts out the hypothesis that Matthew combined these pieces and made them read like a collected whole whereas Jesus did not utter them in the sequence here given. Was Matthew not present when Jesus spoke this discourse on Mt. Olivet?

Matthew 25:1

1 Then the kingdom of the heavens shall be made like to ten virgins who, having taken their lamps, went out to meet the bridegroom. But five of them were foolish, and five sensible. For the foolish, having taken their own lamps, did not take with themselves oil; but the sensible took oil in their vessels together with their lamps. “Then” places us prior to the Lord’s Parousia sketched in 24:4–44. We may at once say that the parable applies to all of us during this entire time. This does not imply that we shall live to witness the Parousia, for only a few will be alive at the last day. At the Parousia each of us will meet the Lord in the very condition in which we were when death removed us from this world.

Foolish or wise, with or without oil, we shall appear when Jesus returns. On the kingdom of the heavens see 3:2; it is God’s heavenly rule of grace through Jesus Christ and in this case God’s rule as it turns from grace to glory.

The imagery employed is that of a grand Jewish wedding. Groom and bride have been betrothed by the parents. This has made them man and wife. This arrangement was unlike our engagements today in which two persons only promise to enter marriage, to become man and wife, at some future day. After the Jewish betrothal a certain time, usually not a very long time, was allowed to elapse, and then on a certain evening the groom, accompanied by his friends, proceeded in a festive procession from his own or his father’s house to the home of his bride to bring her and her maiden companions to the groom’s home for the consummation of the marriage with its days of wedding festivities. This homebringing was not connected with a marriage ceremony.

The husband merely took his wife unto himself. This was the common procedure, and we have no reason for thinking that another procedure was followed when the wedding feast was held at the bride’s home. In the Parousia the heavenly Bridegroom takes his bride, the true church, to his heavenly home, and the feast is held there although heaven and earth shall then be united, Rev. 21:1–5.

This explains the action of the ten virgins who took their lamps and went forth to meet the bridegroom. These were friends of the bride who went out from their homes with the necessary lamps, not to the bride’s home, but to a place that was conveniently near. When the groom brought the bride out of her home, these virgins came forward and joined the procession with their lighted lamps and had their part in the feasting and the joy of the wedding in the groom’s house. These λαμπάδες were vessels that contained oil. There was a place for a round wick at one end of the vessel. They were somewhat like a torch. In the parable the bride and her special attendants and the companions of the bridegroom are not mentioned because the tertium comparationis deals only with the bridegroom and with the action of these virgins.

The number ten is not accidental but symbolical. It denotes completeness. Thus we have Ten Commandments, ten talents (25:28), ten pieces of silver (Luke 15:8), ten servants, ten pounds, ten cities (Luke 19:13–17), an instrument of ten strings (Ps. 33:2), at least ten families needed to establish a synagogue, and ten persons for a funeral procession. These ten virgins represent all the followers of Christ during all the ages. All of them “shall be made like to” these ten virgins when the Parousia of Christ occurs.

In 13:24 we have the passive aorist “was made like to” because there is a reference to the past; here it is the passive future, the agent being God. The effort to find a mystical meaning in παρθένοι, “virgins,” as though this indicated the purity of the Christians, is fanciful; we have “virgins” because this parable deals with a fine Jewish wedding.

Matthew 25:2

2 The tertium comparationis is now summarily stated: five virgins were foolish, μωραί, stupid, and five were φρονιμοί, wise or sensible (the same term that was used in 24:45). The actions of both groups will prove it, but the decisive point is stated at the very start. Some were senseless, and some were sensible before either did a thing, and already that, or really that, decided the fate of each group. We have two fives, each a broken ten. These figures have no further symbolical significance. We have no right to say that as many Christians will be foolish as will be wise. But this division of the number ten intimates that quite a host of Christians will be found without sense at the Lord’s coming.

Matthew 25:3

3 It was necessary for the great purpose of the parable to set out first of all and apart from the following action this basic fact: some foolish—others wise. For this is really what decides all that follows, and this is the heart of the warning for us. We are also shown without delay the plain evidence for the senselessness of the one group and for the sensibleness of the other. The foolish took their lamps along but took no oil! Can you imagine anything more foolish? Of course, no Jewish maidens would do such a thing as that; but this is a parable.

Jesus has to picture such maidens in order to make us see how silly we are when, in our preparation for meeting the heavenly Bridegroom, we do exactly this silly thing in a spiritual way. Lamps, perhaps with a few drops of oil left in them from a former burning—and no oil!

Matthew 25:4

4 The others took both their lamps and oil in separate vessels in order to be fully supplied. Sensible, indeed! But we must not let our own imagination spoil the parable: the foolish brought no oil at all—that was their folly; the wise brought what they needed, fully enough, but not a bit too much. The interpretation of this, the main, point in the parable is not difficult when we clearly see what is to be interpreted: on the one hand, lamps without oil; on the other, lamps with oil. The fact that the oil is kept in convenient vessels is a matter of course.

Lamps without oil are the forms of Christian life that are without the substance of this life; lamps together with oil are the forms that are vitalized by the true Christian life. Compare 5:14. We may call this oil spiritual life, faith with its works, even the Holy Ghost as some do. We prefer to think of faith and its works as being the flame of the lamp, the grace and the power of Christ in his Word as the oil, and the outward forms of Christianity as the lamps. We have the exposition in 2 Tim. 3:5: “Having the form of godliness but denying the power thereof.” We must have both. Hundreds of people attach themselves to the church but are never reborn and renewed.

They may even do great deeds in and for the church yet inwardly remain strangers to Christ, 7:22, 23. Their folly is revealed in the end.

Matthew 25:5

5 Now, the bridegroom delaying, they all nodded and were sleeping. This is the delay mentioned in 24:48. Jesus clearly intimates that he will delay his Parousia. He does not, however, indicate how long he will delay. The uncertainty regarding the extent of this delay is the reason that we should never speak as did the slave in 24:48, but keep in mind 24:44. “All nodded and were sleeping” (descriptive imperfect, R. 838) means just what it says: the wise as well as the foolish virgins nodded. If the wise had kept awake, they would have been guilty had they not aroused the foolish. It should be noted that the point of the parable does not turn on this sleeping.

The fathers interpreted the sleep as death, which is unavoidable because of the Lord’s delay. This is far better than the interpretation that even the godly become negligent and careless while looking for the Lord’s coming. Such an interpretation would allow Jesus to condone a certain degree of carelessness in true believers; but this is contrary to all his instructions and warnings which call on us never to be unprepared. The true preparation and the absence of such preparation lie farther back, in the fact that the one group has oil and the other disregards the oil.

This nodding and this sleeping merely match the bridegroom’s unexpected delay. Both groups of virgins had done all that they considered necessary for meeting the bridegroom. If he had come at once, or if he had delayed even longer than he did, the preparation which the two groups had made would have been the same: some would have had oil and others would have been without oil. Even if all had kept wide-awake, they would not have been more ready than they were when they slept. When the call came, “Lo, the bridegroom!” the wise virgins were perfectly ready. So this sleeping pictures the security and the assurance with which the virgins awaited the bridegroom’s coming; they felt that they were perfectly ready, that they could add nothing more to their preparation.

In the case of the wise virgins this security was justified: they had lamps and oil; but in the case of the foolish virgins this security was unjustified: they had only lamps and by sleeping securely they allowed the precious time to elapse during which they might have remedied their mistake. When in v. 13 Jesus says “watch” he means: see that you have the oil. All the waking in the world and not going after oil avails the foolish no more than their long sleep while they have no oil.

An unwarranted turn is given the parable when it is thought that the virgins kept their lamps burning during the entire time that they were waiting for the groom, the foolish merely running out of oil at the critical moment at midnight. No; the lamps were not lighted until the bridegroom came. If they had burned from the start, the lamps of some of the foolish would have gone out quite soon, and their lack of oil would have been discovered. No, v. 3 settles this point: the foolish never had oil, that was their folly.

Matthew 25:6

6 Now at midnight a cry has come: Lo, the bridegroom! Be going out to meet him! Then all those virgins arose and arranged their lamps. But the foolish said to the sensible, Give us some of your oil, because our lamps are going out. But the sensible answered, saying: Nevermore! In no wise will it suffice for us and for you.

Be going rather to those that sell and buy for yourselves. And while they were going away to buy, the bridegroom came; and those ready went in with him to the wedding, and the door was shut. R. 775 calls μέσηςνυκτός the old partitive construction; it seems to express time within (genitive) “during the middle of the night.” Jesus uses the dramatical historical present perfect γέγονεν which brings out the suddenness of the cry (R. 897): “a cry has come” and is now ringing in the ears. “Lo, the bridegroom!” is the joyful announcement. This cry is directed to the waiting virgins, “Be going out to meet him!”

In the parable the people who see the lights of the bridegroom’s procession raise the cry. Since the bridegroom’s arrival is the Parousia of Christ, we may say that the signs mentioned in 24:29, 30 raise this cry. The whole world will ring with it. The great moment for all who are ready to meet Christ has come.

Matthew 25:7

7 Now all the virgins arise in great haste. All of them think they are ready. We need not locate them in the bride’s house or in its courtyard nor along the open country road (some: in a ditch!) Why could they not have been in a house close by where the bridegroom could not pass without their seeing him? The verb ἐκόσμησαν means sie schmueckten, they made beautiful their lamps by lighting them so that they would burn with a clear, bright flame. Jesus does not need to say what trouble the foolish virgins had with their lamps.

Matthew 25:8

8 We hear this from these virgins themselves. They are without oil. They beg oil from the wise “because our lamps are going out.” They earnestly tried to light them, but the dry wicks caught only for a moment and then went out, σβέννυνται, descriptive present tense (R. 879), the form being middle (R. 318). Too late the foolish maidens see what they lack: oil for their lamps. Do not ask why they had so completely disregarded the oil until this critical moment. A foolish action has no sensible explanation. That is the trouble with all folly, spiritual folly, too; it cannot explain itself.

Matthew 25:9

9 The answer the wise give to the foolish virgins is parabolic language for the fact that it is now too late. We regard μήποτε as an independent expression, as the direct answer to the δότε of v. 8: “Nevermore!” We regard οὐμή with its aorist subjunctive ἀρκέσῃ as the ordinary form of denial of something future, this double negative being used with either the future indicative or the subjunctive (usually the aorist). R. wavers between other possible constructions, see his reference. “In no wise will it suffice for us and for you” is the exact truth. Every believer has no more of spiritual grace and power than he needs for himself. It is impossible to divide this grace. Romanists interpret the oil as being good works but then get into difficulty because of this passage, for it declares that no person has enough good works to turn some of them over to others as works of supererogation.

Thus the foolish virgins are caught by this impossibility. When it is too late, we resort to impossible appeals in vain.

The wise virgins have only the suggestion that the foolish go and buy the oil. The implication is that the wise bought their oil thus though they did it betimes. This has been called irony, but irony is improper for the wise virgins; nor do the foolish treat the suggestion as irony, for they act on it. The only way to get oil is to buy it (Rev. 3:18; Isa. 55:1). Those that sell are Moses and the prophets in the Scriptures, the only source of saving grace and power (Luke 16:29). This advice to go and to buy is sound and good, but it is too late to act on it now when the bridegroom is actually coming. This is the point of the parable and what it portrays regarding Christians who let their days of grace pass without securing grace for faith and a new life.

Matthew 25:10

10 The parable shows how true this is. The foolish virgins make a frantic effort to buy after it is too late. We are not told even by intimation that at midnight they still found a bazaar open and bought oil; the implication is the opposite. While they are gone, the bridegroom came, and the other virgins were ready and went with him to the wedding. Here we have γάμοι the plural (the singular and the plural are used in the same sense in 22:1–14).

Some think that the wedding was held at the bride’s home because of the correspondence of ἦλθεν and εἰσῆλθον. But this would make the wedding exceptional, and the parable has no reason for picturing such an exceptional feature and to do that by an implication that lies in two verbs. “With him to the wedding” is the main point; the verb in the middle of the sentence is without emphasis. The coming of the groom has only the one purpose, namely to take his bride “to the wedding” which has been prepared by him in his own home.

After the wedding procession had entered the house, “the door was shut.” Subject and predicate are reversed in order to make both emphatic, “shut was the door” (Luke 13:25). This situation is the reverse of Rev. 3:20. The day is past for 7:7. Grace is vast in its extent but it has its limits. “Was shut” means never again to be opened. “No one’s penitence, no one’s prayer, no one’s groaning shall anymore be admitted. That door is shut which received Aaron after his idolatry; which admitted David after his adultery, after his homicide; which not only did not repel Peter after his threefold denial but delivered its keys to be guarded by him (16:19).” Trench.

Matthew 25:11

11 Now, afterward the rest of the virgins come, saying, Lord, lord, open for us! But he, answering, said, Amen, I say to you, I do not know you! In these two verses parable and reality meet. It is still parable when the foolish virgins, after vainly seeking oil, come and try to enter the marriage feast. They simply carry their original folly to its ultimate limit. Their cry κύριε, κύριε, recalls 7:21, 23, and the duplication is as poignant as in 24:37.

These foolish virgins disregard the oil to the last. They are the people who have despised grace and have thought that they could enter glory without grace. Even when they ran after grace too late they had no appreciation of grace. “Open to us!” to us who come without the grace that admitted the others! They add even the folly of an impossible demand. The wise who came by grace did not shout and demand. That was due to the fact that they came by grace.

Matthew 25:12

12 Here the reality begins. Jesus speaks as the great Bridegroom, “Amen, I say to you,” verity and authority, see 5:18. He has again pictured his Parousia. It will take place as here described. Many carelessly let the day of grace pass by until it is too late. In ὑμῖν and ὑμᾶς the parabolic language is still retained. But while these pronouns refer to the foolish virgins they are now quite transparent because Jesus introduces himself into the parable. “I do not know you,” like, “I never knew you” in 7:23, completely disowns. Here the verb is οἶδα, in 7:23 it was ἔγνω, but the sense is the same, but the former says more; not only, “I have no relation to you,” but, “You have no relation to me.” C.-K. 388.

Matthew 25:13

13 The final word is not a summary of the parable, it is a repetition of 24:42. Be watching, therefore, because you do not know the day or the hour. The admonition to be constantly watching should not mislead us to lay the final stress on v. 5 and to make that nodding and sleeping the fatal thing against which Jesus warns. The pivotal words of the parable are “foolish” and “sensible,” and these two center in the “oil” (grace). This verse is really an epilog. It emphasizes our utter ignorance of the day and of the hour of Christ’s final coming (24:36). This is why we must constantly be watching. Our watching means that we must constantly look to ourselves, to be ever ready, to be ever rich in grace so that, when the day and the hour arrive, there may be no question as to our being received.

Matthew 25:14

14 To the wisdom which relies on grace over against the folly which disregards grace Jesus adds another parable regarding the faithfulness which makes full use of this grace by producing good works. The connective γάρ makes this parable an exposition of v. 13. It indicates the scope of the parable: our watching for our Lord’s coming by faithfully using his talents in his service. Thus grace which kindles faith and a new life that entitle us to enter the heavenly marriage is for this very reason to be followed by the fruits of grace and faith and a new life in good works. The order of the two parables cannot be changed. “Especially in these last times it is no less needful to admonish men to Christian discipline and good works and remind them how necessary it is that they exercise themselves in good works as a declaration of their faith and gratitude to God, than that the works be not mingled in the article of justification; because men may be damned by an Epicurean delusion concerning faith, as well as by papistic and Pharisaic confidence in their own works and merits.” Concordia Triglotta, 801, 18.

This parable and that recorded in Luke 19:11–27 are not the same parable. Gerhard answered the efforts of Moldonatus and others to make one parable out of the two. Some take out of Luke’s parable what pertains to the rebellious citizens, make this a parable by itself, and then combine what remains with Matthew’s parable. But the scope and the persons addressed are different in the parable of the Pounds and that of the Talents. The parable of the Pounds was spoken when Jesus drew nigh to Jerusalem, that of the Talents on Mt. Olivet on Tuesday evening after Palm Sunday.

The parable of the Pounds includes Christ’s enemies and was spoken to the disciples and to the multitude; that of the Talents deals only with the disciples. That is why the second parable is simpler than the first. In the parable of the Pounds the lord gives the same amount to each servant (the gift of Word and Sacrament); in that of the Talents he bestows greater and lesser gifts (different measures of spiritual gifts, abilities, opportunities, and the like). The parable of the Pounds shows that, as we differ in fidelity to the Word, so shall our eventual rewards of grace be; that of the Talents shows that, according as we have been favored, so shall it be required of us.

For just as a man going abroad called his own slaves and gave over to them his possession. And to one he gave five talents, to one two, and to one one, to each according to his own ability, and he went abroad. The first sentence is abbreviated (R. 1203); ὥσπερ has no οὕτως following. The sense is quite plain. Jesus is still speaking of “the kingdom of the heavens” (v. 1) and is adding another resemblance. This is one concerning a man who goes away from home into another country, ἀποδημῶν, and remains away for a considerable time.

Unlike the man mentioned in Luke 19, he is not a nobleman or a ruler. He is a wealthy man who has ὑπάρχοντα and these consist chiefly of money. This παρέδωκεν, “he duly gives,” to his own slaves. The implication is not that they are entitled to such a gift, but that his plans necessitate this procedure. This man and his going abroad are a picture of Jesus who is about to leave his disciples to enter the glory of heaven, to be gone a long while, and then at last to return. The aorists in this and in the next verse state the facts.

He called his own slaves (δοῦλοι) who belonged to him and whose personal interests were identical with his own. He called them in order to inform them of his plans and of the great and honorable way in which he intended to employ them during his stay abroad. To turn all this wealth over to men who were nothing but his slaves implied that he was honoring them with a great trust. This appealed to the noblest motive in their hearts to show themselves worthy of such a trust. It involved a corresponding responsibility on their part and a resolve that they would measure up to this responsibility.

Matthew 25:15

15 But the money is entrusted to them with all due wisdom on the man’s part: to one slave five talents, to another two, to a third only one. Why the difference? To each according to his particular personal (ἰδία) ability. Only three slaves are mentioned. For the purpose of the parable that is enough to show diversity. In the parable of the Pounds we have ten slaves and ten pounds, to each slave one pound.

The one pound given to each slave is the Word and the Sacraments which belong alike to each of us and can never be divided. In the present parable the number of the slaves is not important. The point stressed here is the diversity, one getting more, another fewer talents. This very diversity helps us to explain the talents. They are our abilities and gifts, of which each of us has his personal and different share. We may think of the spiritual gifts, but we must include the natural (sanctified as they ought to be by grace) faculties of mind and of body, position, influence, money, education, and every earthly advantage and blessing.

They come to us from the same Lord as a sacred trust to be employed in his service.

We at once see that the parable of the Pounds was properly spoken first, that of the Talents a few days later. It is most remarkable, however, that when the Lord pictures his priceless Word and Sacraments he makes these a pound, in Hebrew silver amounting to only about $32 (heavy standard), or half that sum (light standard); but when he pictures our personal gifts, he makes these talents, each amounting to nearly $1, 940 in silver (heavy), or half that amount (light). Thus the first slave received about $9, 700, or half of this; and even the slave that received one talent had a tidy sum. This parabolic use of the pound or mina and of the talent or hundredweight appears to be a bit of sacred irony. That is the way in which men might evaluate the Word and their personal gifts. Yet, however valuable our gifts may seem to us, they aid the Lord’s work in only a very subordinate way.

The inequality: five, three, one, shows the height of wisdom and of love. We are not alike even by nature. Both in the world and in the church there is endless variety. In both life is complex and calls for a variety of service and of corresponding gifts. Read Paul’s presentation of this in 1 Cor. 12:12, etc. So the Lord apportions the gifts.

He alone has the wisdom, the complete view, and the corresponding power. Each has his place to fill, his ability (δύναμις) for that place, and receives his talent or his talents accordingly. What a calamity it is when a man who has ability to handle only one talent is burdened with five and makes a wreck of matters! Why give only one talent to him who can well handle two? Men do this to the detriment of their business, but the Lord does not. After all his business funds have been duly entrusted to his own slaves, this man goes abroad.

Matthew 25:16

16 Proceeding immediately, he that received five talents worked with them and made another five talents. Likewise he (that received) the two (worked) with them and acquired another two. But he that received the one, having gone, dug up the earth and hid away the silver of his lord. Here is a picture of Christ’s followers as they deal with his gifts to the present day. Some are faithful, and the results are according; some unfaithful, with the result corresponding. Already the fact that the first slave went immediately is a sign of his faithfulness. He does not put his work off and think that there is no need for hurry. The two aorists “he worked and made another five talents” are constative and sum up all that he did. He succeeded in doubling the amount, he made a hundred per cent profit.

Matthew 25:17

17 The second slave did the same thing, ὡσαύτως. The Greek is able to abbreviate, but the English cannot do so. He, too, “acquired” or gained a hundred per cent. In regard to the percentage of the gain these two are alike, the one is as faithful as the other. The gains represent what the Lord requires of us, namely that we shall return unto the Lord according to what we have received. The talents gained are the graces and the gifts found in others whom we win for the church and whom we help forward in their Christian life.

There is a constant extension and multiplication of gifts in the church, talent producing talent. But the point of the parable is the faithfulness of the slaves. One has a higher office in the church, wider opportunities for service, and a greater measure of knowledge, etc. Equal faithfulness will thus produce unequal results; five or only two talents. The question of degrees of faithfulness is not treated in this parable; it belongs to that of the Pounds. Of course, we may think of it here, too.

A man who has received five talents may waste time, be careless, and end with only one or two additional talents. But the Lord omitted this variation; he limits himself to one point only.

Matthew 25:18

18 Over against the faithful slaves Jesus places one who is unfaithful; only one, like the one mentioned in 22:11, and in 19:20, intending that each of us shall ask, “Lord, is it I?” To illustrate unfaithfulness Jesus uses the slave who had received only one talent. This, of course, is not to teach that only those who have the fewest gifts prove unfaithful. Jesus takes the one whose responsibilities were the lightest; he had no more than he could easily handle. If he had been burdened with more talents he would have had an excuse; but as it is he has none. Nor could he claim that, if he had received five talents, he would have proved faithful; his unfaithfulness would have been only greater. Since only three slaves are used in the parable, each stands for a complete type that includes lesser variations. So this slave who was burdened with only one talent since his ability was no greater, had no more required of him than was required of any of the others, no more than he could and should easily have done.

In Oriental fashion (13:44) this slave dug a secret hole in the earth and “hid away the silver of his lord.” Since it was ἀργύριον, we think of silver and not of gold talents. The wrong feature of his action is indicated by the genitive: this is how he treated the gift “of his lord.” But Jesus sketches the lightest type of guilt; the money was only buried and left to lie idle and unproductive, whereas it is the very nature of our gifts that they should be productive. The man might have squandered the money, and that would have been worse. By revealing the grave guilt of the less glaring forms of unfaithfulness the still graver guilt of all other forms is established. This slave regarded the gift as something he did not desire; it aroused no response in his heart. Since he had it he kept it, indeed, but only because he could not avoid this.

He kept it in a manner which revealed his real attitude toward the gift and the Giver: he buried it. He thus was like one who had no gift at all; but it was he himself who made himself thus. In this he is a picture of all those in the church who for any reason refuse to use the gifts of Christ in his service. By such non-use the gifts are buried, and those who have them put themselves into the same state with those who are without them. Moreover, this slave’s complete unfaithfulness includes all degrees of partial unfaithfulness. Does anyone among us want to be like this slave?

To do in part what he did seconds his act at least to that extent.

Matthew 25:19

19 Now after a long time the lord of those slaves comes and settles accounts with them. And he that received the five talents, having come forth, brought forth another five talents, saying, Lord, five talents thou didst give me; see, another five talents I acquired! His lord said to him: Well! slave good and faithful! Over few things wast thou faithful, over many will I station thee. Enter into the joy of thy lord! Now he also having come forth who (received) the two talents, said, Lord, two talents thou didst give me; see, another two talents I acquired! His lord said to him: Well! slave good and faithful! Over few things wast thou faithful, over many will I station thee. Enter into the joy of thy lord!

The great moment has come, hence the vivid touch in the present tenses “comes and settles account.” “After a long time” seems almost like a hint to the Twelve that the Parousia would not come as soon as they might expect. Yet the parable deals only with the lives of the men it presents, and the phrase is after all indefinite. But this long time surely implies two things: the delay thoroughly tests out the faithful, and at the same time it gives the unfaithful a long period to repent and to amend. Many start well but do not hold out; some begin ill but come to better thoughts. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 118, etc., reports that Moulton found συνᾳίρωλόγον in two papyri in the sense, “I make a reckoning, I compare accounts.” The point is this reckoning at the end. It comes eventually. It is the judgment that accompanies the Parousia.

Matthew 25:20

20 The French painter Burnand has the two faithful servants standing side by side when reporting to their lord. We see how Jesus pictures them as being exactly alike save for the difference in the number of the talents. See how they show “boldness in the day of judgment,” as does Paul: “What is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?” 1 Thess. 2:19. But behind all such, joy in faithful accomplishment for Christ there appears the sure confidence of faith in Christ’s accomplishment for us; this also motivates our faithfulness. First, the clear and significant and we may add grateful acknowledgment: “Lord, five talents thou didst give me.” The credit is his; without this gift the slave could have accomplished nothing.

In the Greek, “See, another five talents I acquired,” we have no ἐγώ but only the inflection of the verb. This is not a boast of what I, I have done. The stress is on the great amount acquired, “See, five talents!” as though it were spoken in surprise. Jesus purposely varies his parables. In Luke 19:16, 18 it is: “Thy pound produced ten (five) pounds,” προσειργάσατο and ἐποίησε, Word and Sacrament produce. But here he twice has ἐκέρδησα, both effective aorists (R. 835), “I acquired” or gained.

Our gifts are ours in a different sense than the Word is, and Jesus gladly accords us the feeling that our efforts have not been in vain, 1 Cor. 15:58.

Matthew 25:21

21 The slave is rewarded beyond all deserts. Being his master’s slave, he and all his labor and skill belonged to that master, thus also all the profits the slave might acquire. But this master is to be a picture of Christ with all his heavenly generosity. The single adverb, “Well!” i.e., “it is well,” is complete in itself, a judgment or a verdict. We might translate, “Fine!” or, “Excellent!” The same is true in regard to δοῦλεἀγαθὲκαὶπιστέ, which is an exclamation that is complete in itself. The adverb εὖ is a verdict on the work, the vocative a verdict on the worker, “Slave excellent and reliable!” and thus furnishing his master great satisfaction.

No higher commendation can come to any believer from the lips of Jesus. This significant praise outranks all the flattery and the honor the world may bestow. Jesus holds up this commendation to us in advance in order that we may ever keep it before our eyes and allow it to make us always faithful.

This slave’s master might have stopped with this praise, many masters would; or he might have added something tangible, a small sum taken from the profit gained by the five talents. Not so this master who is to be a picture of Jesus: “Over few things wast thou faithful, over many will I station thee.” So all these talents are only “few things,” just enough to try us out to see what kind of slaves we are. What, then, will the “many things” be? They are here veiled by their multitude and their richness, partly because the imagery of the parable is so restricted, and partly also because our poor earthly minds cannot reach up to these coming heavenly glories. But here all the Lord’s goodness and his grace appear: his one thought is our elevation and our joy. He places us first over few things, then over many things, and both of these phrases are placed forward for the sake of emphasis.

Note ἐπί in the sense of “over” (R. 604). The future, “I will station thee,” is volitive; it voices the power and the authority of this master. Think of what these words that are addressed to us by Christ imply!

If we have reached the limit of the imagery in the preceding word, we are now taken beyond that limit: “Enter into the joy of thy lord!” It is not strange that in several parables the imagery is too weak to present the full reality that Jesus wishes to convey. So here “the joy of thy lord” is the reality itself, the heavenly joy of Christ himself. “It is but little we can receive here, some drops of joy that enter into us; but there we shall enter into joy as vessels put into a sea of happiness.” Leighton. Gerhard had the same thought: Homo intrat in illud incomprehensibile gaudium.

Matthew 25:22

22 The report of the second servant is exactly like that of the first. He has been equally faithful with his two talents.

Matthew 25:23

23 He hears exactly the same commendation and receives the very same reward of grace. Thus not the measure of the gifts we have in this life decides our station above but the measure of our faithfulness in using whatever gifts we have. Some who have had but few gifts but were altogether faithful in the use of those few will outshine others who were favored with many gifts, but were not fully faithful in administering the many gifts.

Matthew 25:24

24 Now he also having come forth that received the one talent said: Lord, I knew thee, that thou art a hard man, reaping where thou didst not sow and gathering from where thou didst not scatter; and afraid, having gone, I hid thy talent in the earth. See, thou hast thine own! Yes, he also came. He was compelled to come. Every unfaithful servant will be compelled to come. The καί has a peculiar shading of thought: “Now he also,” etc.; it adds him to the rest with whom he ought to belong but with whom he in reality does not belong.

In a parable the characters are made to act and to speak frankly. We see exactly who and what they are. This will be especially true at the time of the judgment when every secret motive will be bared. So this slave says brazenly, “Lord, I knew,” etc. The whole parable flatly contradicts this slave’s alleged knowledge of his lord. This fellow imagines his great and generous lord to be as envious and as self-seeking as he himself is.

He calls his lord “a hard man,” σκληρός, one who is like a dried stick that will no longer bend, he is hard in a moral sense, is set absolutely on obtaining his own advantage. As proof of the hardness he mentions the fact that this lord is “reaping where thou didst not sow, and gathering from where thou didst not scatter.” The two present participles express usual and thus characteristic actions. The sense is: “Thou makest thy slaves sow in order that thou mayest get a fine harvest through their labor; and thou makest thy slaves thresh in order that thou mayest fill thy barns with the grain they have cleaned.” “To scatter” refers not to sowing grain but to letting the wind scatter the chaff after the grain is threshed.

What this slave says is true in a manner: we do all the work for the Lord. Did not the first two slaves bring their entire gain to the master? The trouble is that half a truth may be the very worst kind of a lie; so it is here. We are the slaves of Jesus Christ, and that may sound as though he profited by our labor; but think what it cost him to elevate us to the position of being his slaves: the price of his own blood! If we labored for him a million years we could never repay him. Secondly, all our gifts are his, freely, generously bestowed upon us; and these were given us in order that with joy we may serve and honor our rightful Master—or shall we serve the tyrant Satan?

Finally, this blind slave saw only the gain that was turned over to the lord; he never saw what that lord had in mind concerning these talents and his beloved slaves. The thing is, indeed, one-sided, but not in the Lord’s favor; it is all in our favor. The perfect participle εἰληφώς is used in the description of this base slave whereas the simple aorist λαβών is used in the case of the faithful servant mentioned in v. 20. This perfect participle preserves this idea of this tense (R. 909). Whereas λαβών simply notes the reception of the talents, εἰληφώς adds the thought that this base slave had had his talent during this long time. Ὅθεν is only a compact way of saying ἐκεῖθενὅπου or οὗ, R. 718, 548.

Matthew 25:25

25 This slave now claims that he was impelled by dread of such an evil master (φοβηθείς) when he went and buried the talent in a secret safe place until he could return it intact on the day of reckoning. He feared that he might lose his talent or a part of it if he tried to trade with it. Alas, he points his fears in the wrong direction. He is not afraid to call his good master hard names and to bring back the talent without having put forth the least effort to make it produce at least something. No; he did not fear to insult his kind and generous master. “See, thou hast thine own!” ἴδε is probably just an interjection as it is in v. 20 and in v. 22. Hitherto Matthew has used the middle ἰδού (1:23, etc.) with the accent of an interjection.

Here at last, perhaps unconsciously, this slave speaks a true word, “thine own”—the talent had never been his own in any true sense of the word. It is asked how any unfaithful slave of Christ can return to him the gift he has received. That, however, is not the point of the picture. The point is what such a man thinks. And remember, he is one of the better class who has not spent and squandered his talent in riotous living as the prodigal son did, he had simply done nothing, and thus expected to escape blame. He was not guilty of the world’s abuse of God’s gifts; he remains in the outward church but remains idle as a drone.

He has his faculties, his life, his health, his abilities and his influence, but that is all. No fruit gained by these was returned to the Lord. Faith without works is dead. And thus shall be his judgment.

Matthew 25:26

26 But his lord answering, said to him: Wicked slave and slothful, thou knewest that I reap where I did not sow and garner whence I did not scatter! Therefore it was necessary for thee to deposit my silver with the bankers, and, having come, I would have received back my own with interest. The very way in which he is addressed is a judgment and a verdict upon this slave. The chief emphasis is on πονηρέ which even precedes the noun. “Wicked,” namely in the active, vicious sense, is this slave. And that “wicked” attitude prompted his action in seeing to it that this lord should obtain no gain; ὀκνηρός is timid, hesitant, but in this context it has the evil turn “slothful.”

Instead of defending himself against this treacherous slave’s slanders his master turns the tables on him and convicts him out of his own mouth and shows him that he is basely lying and is pronouncing his own condemnation. In 22:12 the man is dumb and by his inability to furnish a real answer damns himself. The parables use both: dumbness and self-condemnatory answers. In either way the guilty reveal their own guilt, and sentence is pronounced accordingly. So this slave was afraid of losing the talent and knew what a harsh man his master was? These are the premises.

But see the lying conclusion: he buries the talent! That is exactly what does not follow from those premises. Wickedness always argues like a fool when it dares to open its mouth. The open falseness here displays the slave’s whole inner character and attitude. It completely blighted his soul.

Matthew 25:27

27 With οὖν his master draws the correct conclusion from this liar’s premises. And the master states what is the very least that truly follows from the premises. More activity on the slave’s part might have followed if he really thought his master hard and grasping and was afraid of losing the talent; but at least this should have followed: the slave should have felt compelled to deposit the silver talent with the bankers and should have allowed it to earn a bit of interest for the master. This would have involved no risk whatever but even less labor than digging and hiding it in a secret place. But (and this is the main point) the talent given this slave in order to produce something for his master would have produced it, a small sum at least. The A.

V. has “usury.” The older English version employed the word in the good sense like our “interest.” The least we can do with Christ’s gifts is to let others, who do business for the Lord on an extensive scale such as bankers do, use us and our small gifts in the Lord’s work. Our gifts will then earn at least something.

The imperfect ἔδει is a simple statement regarding the past. It may speak only of the past as it does here, but it may also reach into the present, R. 919. “Verbs of propriety, possibility, obligation, or necessity are also used in the imperfect when the obligation, etc., has not been lived up to, has not been met. The Greeks (and the Latins) start from the past and state the real possibility or obligation, and the reader, by comparing that with facts, notes that the obligation was not met. The English and the Germans start from the present and find trouble with this past statement of a present duty (an unfulfilled duty).” R. 886. We are compelled to think a little in the Greek idiom—that is all. Thus the clause with ἔδει is not the protasis of a conditional sentence but an independent statement; and ἐκομισάμηνἄν is an apodosis of past unreality without a protasis except by implication, “if thou wouldst have done that, I would have received,” etc.

Matthew 25:28

28 With this as the truth of the matter the slave’s sentence is pronounced. Take away, therefore, the talent from him and give it to him having the ten talents. For to him that has shall be given, and he shall be made to superabound; but from him that has not, even what he has shall be taken away from him. And the useless slave proceed to throw out into the outer darkness; there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of the teeth. The slave had never made the talent his own in any true sense of the word. We feel the justice of his now being deprived of its nominal possession.

But the command to give this talent to the man who already has ten comes as a surprise. Yet which one of the three slaves was best able to take on an additional burden? Evidently, the first. Also this fact is made plain: none of the Lord’s gifts shall be lost. He takes care of them, for they are valuable to him both here below and in the higher world. He who neglects his gifts only enriches others and doubly defeats himself.

Matthew 25:29

29 But the Lord himself explains (γάρ). The divine law of the kingdom is that he who has (by using his gifts aright and thus getting more and more) shall be given, namely by his Lord’s hand of grace; and the effect shall be that this man shall be made to super-abound (passive, by his Lord’s grace). And exactly the reverse is true according to this divine law: from him that has not (by his wicked refusal to employ the gifts bestowed upon him), from him shall be taken away even what he hath (namely, in an outward and a merely nominal way).

While this is the law of the kingdom it appears also in the ordinary affairs of men. The wealthy miser who keeps his money locked up is really a poor man. The mentally gifted man who neglects his gifts is like a man that does not have such gifts. And thus a nominal Christian who knows the gospel and confesses it but never appropriates it inwardly and makes it a part of his life is like a non-Christian. The very opportunity which one neglects to his loss is given to another for his gain; the crown which one lets go bedecks another’s brow. Here in time we may recover a loss, it will be too late to escape the operation of this law when the long day of grace ends.

Matthew 25:30

30 The negative part of the verdict is followed by the positive. Note how the object is placed forward for the sake of emphasis, “the useless (or unprofitable) slave,” and the imperative is the descriptive present, “proceed to throw out,” etc. Here we learn that none who are ἀχρεῖος, useless to the Lord, can remain in his kingdom. That is why he takes us into his trust, fits us out with great gifts, and tries us out to see whether we really have faith in him and love for him. To whom is this command addressed? The Analogy of Scripture prevents us from answering, “To the other two slaves”; for the Lord’s assistants in the final judgment are the angels.

Moreover, the imagery of the parable is here dropped for the sake of the reality, exactly as was done in 22:13; and in 24:50. On the reason for this as well as on the outer darkness, etc., see 8:32.

Matthew 25:31

31 Jesus sketched the entire course of the world until the end (24:4–14); he followed this with a sketch of the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Jewish nation (24:15–28); and to this he added the account of his actual Parousia (24:29–31). Then came the admonitory sections that were marked especially by three parables (24:32–25:30). Jesus needed yet to add the description of the final judgment itself (25:31–46). Beyond question this entire series forms one of the grandest and the most important of Jesus’ discourses.

When, however, the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on his throne of glory; and there shall be brought before him all the nations, and he shall divide them from each other just as a shepherd divides the sheep from the goats; and he shall stand the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. On “the Son of man” see 8:20. Of his coming in the Parousia for the judgment Jesus has already spoken most definitely in 24:30, 31, where also “his glory” is mentioned and the activity of his angels. It ought to be clear that Jesus is connecting this scene with 24:30, 31, and is now bringing the whole subject to completion.

“The Son of man” who is more than man, the incarnate Second Person of the Godhead, shall come as such; but not in his humiliation as he once came for our redemption but “in his glory,” in the sum of the divine attributes (δόξα), in their unrestricted exercise, use, and display also by his human nature. In 24:31 “his angels” are introduced only incidentally, and we hear of them only as they receive his order. Now we learn that “all the angels” shall be “with him,” accompanying him (μετά) at his coming. What a grandiose coming that will be! Here we see who this “Son of man” really is.

Matthew 25:32

32 The formalities of a court are fully observed. After the Judge, decked with all his authority, arrives he “shall sit on his glory throne,” αὐτοῦ making the throne definite, the absence of the articles emphasizing both “throne” and “glory,” but almost as though the two were a compound, “glory-throne.” The word “throne” conveys the thought that this is a King come to judgment (18:23), and like every other feature in this prophecy reveals the infinite greatness of the scene. In the passive “there shall be brought before him” the angels are undoubtedly the agents as is clear already from 24:31. Always the angels are the heavenly ministrants of the Judge.

Strange ideas have been associated with πάντατὰἔθνη and with the separation of “all the nations” into two groups, sheep on the right hand, goats on the left hand. It is stated (without warrant, however) that τὰἔθνη always refers to Gentiles, pagan people, and that Jesus here makes two groups of these, and besides these there is a third group, his elect. A part of the Gentiles, non-Christians, unwittingly (v. 37) showed kindness to the elect or Christ’s brethren and are thus sent into heaven; while the other non-Christians who offered no such kindness are sent into hell. This would, indeed, be a new way of salvation, and one that would contradict everything else that is said in the Bible in regard to it.

Πάντατὰἔθνη denotes universality as does πᾶνἔθνοςἀνθρώπων in Acts 17:26. Jesus chose this expression in order to match 24:14, εἰςμαρτύριονπᾶσιτοῖςἔθνησιν (“to all nations”). The Parousia will not come until the gospel has been proclaimed as a testimony to all nations; see πάντατὰἔθνη in 28:19. The whole human race will be assembled for the final judgment. Through the agency of the angels the whole human race will be divided into two groups, one being placed on the right and the other on the left of the heavenly Judge This division and this placing are already a judgment and a verdict. What follows only justifies this act.

No human court can thus determine pardon or guilt in advance. During all these centuries sheep and goats (wheat and tares) have been intermingled, and no man could really separate them; but now at last the separation is made and shall stand forever.

The Greek idiom uses the neuter plural to indicate the right and the left hand (omitting “hand”). It thinks of these two places as being composed of parts, while to us each is a unit. On the idiom ἐκ, “on the right (left)” see 20:21. The ὥσπερ clause is only a comparison, “just as a shepherd,” etc. In Palestine the sheep and the goats are often pastured together and then divided into separate folds at night.

Matthew 25:33

33 Jesus places more into “sheep” and “goats” for he uses these terms figuratively as designations of the elect and the non-elect (24:31; 22:14). We note this regarding the sheep in John 10:2, etc.; especially in v. 14–16; also in John 21:15, etc. It is thus by contrast easy to determine who is referred to by the goats, and we may well refer to Ezek. 34:7–24, in particular v. 18, 19. The sheep are here those who do the works of faith which Jesus will recognize as having been done unto him; the goats are those who fail to produce the works of faith, whose works, whatever they are, Jesus cannot recognize as having been done unto him. Needless difficulties are encountered by playing one set of passages such as John 3:18; 5:24, which exempt the believers from judgment, against another set of passages such as John 5:29; Rom. 14:10; 1 Cor. 3:13; 2 Cor. 5:10, which declare that the believers, too, shall be judged. Jesus makes the whole matter plain: not a single sin of the believers is mentioned in the judgment, examined, probed, and judged, only the good works of believers are named; so they are, indeed, not brought into judgment, and yet they are judged. All the sins of the unbelievers are brought forward, and on the basis of these sins they are damned forever.

Matthew 25:34

34 Then shall the King say to those on his right: Hither, you that have been blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom that has been made ready for you from the world’s foundation. What the term “throne” in v. 32 led us to expect is clearly stated by “the King” in the present verse. Here is judgment, indeed, but the royal judgment of our heavenly King, which is, on the one hand, a dispensing of royal grace and favor, and on the other hand, a dispensing of justice. The adverb δεῦτε which is used with plurals must be combined with the imperative κληρονομήσατε and has no independent meaning. The comment that, as the King turns toward those on his right, they shrink back from him and must be encouraged to come forward again, is based on a misconception of the adverb. The address, “you that have been blessed by my Father,” is highly significant.

We regard the genitive τοῦπατρόςμου as stating the agent who blessed them; their blessed state is due, not to themselves, but to the Father. The King names the ultimate source of their blessing, “my Father,” and the possessive “my” implies that the Father has blessed them through the Son. We know, too, that the Father used also the Holy Spirit. All the opera ad extra involve the Three Persons of the Godhead.

The substantivized perfect participle οἱεὐλογημένοι has its usual meaning, an act of blessing that occurred in the past, whose effects continue to the present. When God blesses he does more than to pronounce words of blessing and praise, as we poor creatures do when we bless him; he bestows his grace with all its gifts upon us and thus makes us persons that were and still are blessed. This perfect participle refers to all that God’s grace wrought upon these people during their earthly lives. They died in this grace, and thus after they have been raised from the dead (or suddenly transformed), they are “those that have been blessed.”

The aorist imperative κληρονομήσατε bids them forthwith to enter upon their inheritance. They have thus far been, as it were, minor heirs, the inheritance was held for them, but they did not assume its possession and its enjoyment. And their inheritance is “the kingdom.” They have thus far been crown princes, they are now to be actual, reigning kings. “The kingdom” is evidently what we call the kingdom of glory, namely heaven and its rule of glory and blessedness as distinguished from the kingdom of grace here on earth, by which we are first made heirs through grace. This word is sometimes thought to mean that the blessed are to be subjects of Christ, the King, in heaven. But none of us shall be subjects in heaven, all of us shall be actual, reigning kings, reigning conjointly with Christ in heaven. Heaven will be a kingdom that is composed entirely of kings, a kingdom raised to the nth degree.

And thus Christ shall be the King of kings (us) and the Lord of lords (us). Compare our heavenly rule and kingship, Luke 19:17, 19; and passages like Rev. 20:4; Rev. 3:21; Paul awaiting his crown, 2 Tim. 4:8 (only kings have crowns); James 1:12.

The King adds the statement that this kingdom “has been made ready for you from the world’s foundation.” In his eternal and infallible foreknowledge God beheld all of us before we were born, and beheld us as all that his grace would succeed in making of us. Far, far in advance he prepared the kingdom in which we should rule as the coheirs of Christ (Rom. 8:17). The perfect participle “has been prepared” has the same force as the preceding perfect participle. So this heavenly rule and kingdom is already awaiting us; it is not something that is yet to be prepared. Sometimes, as here, we have “from the world’s foundation,” whereas in Eph. 1:4 we have “before the world’s foundation.” This is only a formal difference. All God’s saving plans go back into the timelessness of eternity.

Matthew 25:35

35 The King’s judgment and his astounding award are now fully established as being just. For I did hunger, and you did give me to eat; I did thirst, and you did give me drink; a stranger I was, and you did take me in; naked, and you clothed me; I was sick, and you did look in upon me; in prison was I, and you did come to me. The dispute as to whether γάρ is illative or merely elucidative is really unnecessary. Some of the fathers were afraid that, if γάρ offered the actual ground for the award, works would be meritorious as the Catholics claim. This γάρ is illative, it states the grounds on which the judgment and the award rest, and these grounds are beyond question our good works. Moreover, this is the universal teaching of Scripture, Rom. 2:6, etc.; 2 Cor. 5:10; Matt. 16:27.

But these works are decisive in the final judgment, not because of an inherent meritorious quality, but because of their evidential quality. As in any proper court of law the evidence and the evidence alone decides in harmony with the law, so in this most supreme court at the end of the world this same procedure is followed.

This King’s judgment is one that is rendered in public, before the whole universe of angels and of men. This is different from the secret judgment that is pronounced upon each man at the moment of death. Hence in the public judgment faith cannot be used as a criterion of judgment, for this the King alone is able to see directly and without fail. The evidence of faith is used, namely the works which faith alone is able to produce. These all angels and all men are able to see when they are brought to perfect view in the light of the last day, when every sham and every deception fall away forever. Sometimes these works are called works of love, and their love is stressed without regard to faith, but that view perverts and Romanizes.

They are, indeed, works of love but of that love which is the product only of faith. So love, properly understood, brings us back to the ultimate source of these works which is faith.

The significant point in the six works here named is that all six refer to the King himself: “I did hunger,” “I did thirst,” etc. Each work is thus made personal as having been done to and for the King. That makes plain most clearly the inner motive that prompted these works, love for this King, the love that springs from faith in this King. Having received his saving grace by faith, our gratitude responds by works that are intended for him.

The next significant point is the fact that all the works mentioned are of the humblest and the lowliest kind. Not one grand work is listed; this is in glaring contrast with the claims made in 7:22. All these are works which even the smallest faith can easily produce. For even the smallest faith saves. In connection with giving drink note Mark 9:41. In συνηγάγετε the σύν conveys the idea of taking the stranger into the family and there giving him lodging.

Matthew 25:36

36 The verb περιβάλλειν is used to designate the putting on of any kind of clothing, and γυμνός refers to insufficient covering, it does not necessarily mean absolute nakedness. The verb ἐπισκέπτομαι, “to look upon,” has the sense of “to visit with help.” The last work, going to those in prison, helps to cast a light on all these works. They recall what Jesus said about the persecutions his believers would have to suffer. Any comfort and any help, ever so slight, offered to believers in these circumstances would really be a confession of Christ and thus in the highest sense a work of faith. What is commonly called “charity,” namely works done from humanitarian impulses, are thus ruled out. The works of faith are far more than such charity, they are confessional.

37–39) Then the righteous shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungering and did feed thee (aorist from τρέφειν)? or thirsting and did give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and did take thee in? or naked and did clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick and in prison and did come to thee? Here we are told who these people are: οἱδίκαιοι, “the righteous.” This adjective and all its cognate terms are always used in a forensic sense as a study of C.-K. will show in a most convincing manner. The righteous are those who have God’s verdict in their favor. The great Judge pronounces them free from guilt and righteous; and as a righteous Judge he must do so, namely on the strength of the righteousness of Christ which all the righteous have as their own by faith.

The entire doctrine of justification by faith through the atoning merits of Christ is contained in οἱδίκαιοι. We now see that the six works (some have counted seven) are merely three double works, the sacred number three, which refers to Christ, being emphasized by each work being doubled by means of another that is quite similar to it.

The astonished questions of the righteous are the best evidence as to how far their thoughts are from any idea of merit on their part. They have, indeed, learned from the gospel to serve Christ, their King, in even the lowliest of his brethren. But when they now note infinite glory as their inheritance in the heavenly Kingdom, the award of this inheritance on the ground of such little works seems impossible to them. They kept no record of their works, they trusted solely in grace and forgot all their works. This is the truth that Christ brings out by means of these questions. It is further evidence to show how just and righteous the award he makes is.

Matthew 25:40

40 And the King, answering, shall say to them: Amen, I say to you (on this formula see 5:18), In so far as you did it to one of these the least of my brethren, to me you did it. This declaration is worthy of the seal of verity and of authority which the King adds to it. These least of works, doubly least because they are often done to the least of Christ’s brethren, the humblest of his followers who had nothing whatever to distinguish them save that they were believers in Christ, are great in the King’s eyes. Since they were done for his sake, he rightly regards them as having been done to him. Here we see what the verbs of the first person in v. 35, 36, “I did hunger,” etc., really mean. And not only does this King, seated on his glorious judgment throne, call these humblest believers “my brethren,” he practically identifies himself with these brethren. So close is the union between true believers and Christ, but its glorious nature will not appear until the King declares this his identification with his brethren before the whole universe.

The least of the brethren (the addition of the adjective by means of a separate article making “least” emphatic, R. 776) are mentioned merely because kindness done to them would not be highly rated among men. Of course, all the good done to the greatest of his brethren such as the apostles, the great confessors, and the martyrs, the King will also regard as having been done unto him. But if he had mentioned these great brethren, we might have thought their greatness made our deeds precious. By naming the least of the brethren the King really includes all brethren. Usually the greatest is regarded as including the less, but here we have a clear case where the very least include even the very greatest.

The view that these least of the brethren cannot be a part of “the righteous” is untenable. How about the brethren that are not the least; are such brethren not included? Are they, too, not addressed by Jesus? This view in regard to the least is akin to the other that was discussed above by Jesus, namely that all these righteous are pagans who unwittingly treated these least of the brethren with kindness and for that kindness are now to inherit the kingdom. The righteous are all the believers, and as such they are all the brethren of Christ, the King, from the least to the greatest (5:19; 11:11; 18:4); and what the King says is that what they have done to each other for his sake he regards as having been done unto him; ἐφʼ ὅσον is scarcely causal (R. 963) but denotes degree, “in so far.”

Matthew 25:41

41 Then shall he say to those on the left: Be going from me, such as have been cursed, into the fire, the eternal, the one that has been made ready for the devil and his angels! Verses 41–45 are the direct opposite of v. 34–40. Is it accidental that αὐτοῦ is twice added in v. 32:33: “on his right”; but is omitted in both v. 32 and v. 41: “on the left”? We now see who those on the left are: κατηραμένοι (from καταράομαι), “having become the subjects of a curse,” R. 1096. Note that this is a perfect participle like εὐλογημένοι in v. 34, but does not have the article. We have, “the ones that have been blessed,” but only, “such as have been cursed.” The righteous and elect are one body that has been fixed in the counsel of God from all eternity; the damned are only a conglomerate mass made up of all types and kinds.

The perfect participle is passive, these people have incurred God’s curse, B.-P. 652. In v. 34 the imperative is the strong aorist but here it is the descriptive present, “be going,” as though it were marking the brief delay granted them until the final words that justify this terrible verdict have been spoken.

The best commentary regarding “the fire” is found in the previous references, 3:10, 12; 5:22; 7:19; 13:40, 42, 50; 18:8, 9. Some ask about the nature of this fire. One answer is that it is here described as one that has long ago been prepared for the devil and his angels. It is a fire that tortures both spirits and men that have bodies. We need to know nothing more than its terrible nature. Note that each modifier of “the fire” is added by a separate article: “the fire, the eternal, the one made ready,” etc.

These articles make each modifier a kind of apposition and thus form a climax, R. 776. The effect of this should be carefully noted when we think about this fire. “The fire” is terrible, indeed, but “the eternal one” increases its terribleness, and “the one made ready for the devil,” etc., raises its terrible nature to the ultimate degree.

Regarding αἰώνιος as meaning “eternal” little needs to be said. Those who would reduce the fire of hell to a shorter or a longer period of time must then similarly reduce the joys of heaven. But αἰώνιος was spoken by the King after time has already ceased, and after all angels and men have entered on their final fixed and unchanged fate and, therefore, cannot be understood in this limited sense. And if this Greek adjective does not mean “eternal,” which Greek adjective does have that meaning? Or did the Greek world, including the Jewish (Jesus spoke Aramaic), world have no words for eternity or eternal?

The remarkable thing is that hell fire was originally prepared for the devil and his angels as the fit punishment for their irremediable apostasy from God; and not for men. It is a fair deduction that men are consigned to this devil’s fire for the simple reason that they have turned from God to the devil and have become incurably apostate even as he is. The devil and his angels whose promptings these men followed on earth will be their constant companions in the eternal fire. Bengel brings out the following parallelism:

Hic: venite:

benedicti patris mei:

hereditate regnum:

paratum vobis:

a fundamenti mundi.

Illic: abite a me:

maledicti:

in ignem:

paratum diabolo, etc.

aeternum.

42, 43) The proof for the absolute justice and righteousness of this damning verdict is couched in exactly the same words that were used to establish the blessed verdict (v. 35, 36), so that we need not translate v. 42, 43, but add only the negatives: “did not give me to eat—did not give me drink—did not take me in”; etc. All these οὐ, piled up one on the other, produce a terrible indictment, indeed. Not in one instance did these accursed people do even the slightest little deed for Christ, the King. Not in a single case was there a motive that the King could recognize as an intention really to trust and to accept him.

The sins charged against them are negative, they are omissions not commissions. And this is another case where the lesser and the least include everything up to the greatest. The comment that sins of omission are here named because we are to be warned especially against these sins, is unacceptable. Jesus is speaking as a prophet and is prophetically revealing how the verdict pronounced on the damned will be established as a righteous verdict in the sight of the whole universe. It will be done by means of these simple but unanswerable negatives. Each one of them and all of them definitely, positively, unalterably thrust Christ, the King, away.

Why mention positive sins, crimes, outrages, horrors? This no—no—no with which Jesus was met tells the tale so that we really understand the King’s verdict. In the last analysis it is not sins as such that damn, whether they be great or small, many or few, commissions or omissions. For all sins can be pardoned and wiped out forever by grace. In the final analysis it is unbelief that damns, the unbelief that ever says “no” to grace, continues to say this “no” even in hell (Luke 16:30), and thus retains also the guilt and the damnation of all its other sins. This “no” was first spoken by Satan in Eden, Gen. 3:4, and by means of his man-murdering lies he instills it into all his children, John 8:44.

Matthew 25:44

44 Then shall answer also they saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungering, or thirsting, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? This question only continues the “no” of these people, for its sense is, “We never saw thee in a condition in which we might have been able to minister unto thee.” The contrast with the reply of the righteous in v. 37–39 is also significant. The righteous repeat the words of Jesus in full, the accursed abbreviate them. It has been said that this is only a formal difference in order not to tire the reader by a complete repetition. But why, then, not abbreviation in v. 37–39, and why the complete repetition, even for the third time, by the King himself in v. 42, 43? Even in the final judgment the accursed care so little for the King’s words that they abbreviate them.

To be sure, in the King’s glorious presence they dare not falsify them. All they can do is to raise their false denial. But this very final “no” seals their everlasting doom. They, too, address the King as Κύριε. What else would they dare to call him in the majesty of his glory?

Matthew 25:45

45 Then shall he answer them, saying: Amen, I say to you, in so far as you did it not to one of these the least, neither to me did you do it. Here we have another repetition, but one that has two fatal negatives and omits “my brethren.” This omission is certainly not intended to reduce their guilt. The significance of the omission lies in the fact that the accursed are addressed. The righteous aided each other for Christ’s sake, as brethren of Christ; the damned denied both Christ and his brethren and acknowledged neither. While they were in this life here on earth they saw in the righteous only a set of people whom they despised, “these least,” whom they either ignored or antagonized.

The King takes the damned at their own word. They declare that they never saw Jesus hungry, etc. They challenge Jesus to point out to them one time when they saw him thus and did not minister unto him. They imply that, if they had seen him under such circumstances, they would have ministered unto him. That claim falls to pieces before the facts. The gospel was heralded over the entire inhabited world, it was a testimony to all the nations, 24:14.

The accursed met preachers and teachers of the gospel and came into contact with the believers in this gospel. They regarded them as fools. They never saw Christ, the eternal King himself, in them; they did not realize that their treatment of all these believers and confessors was really the treatment they were according the eternal King himself. This was not ordinary ignorance but the obdurate and vincible blindness of unbelief. Even now they cling to their blind unbelief with damnable persistence (v. 44; Luke 16:30). Thus they never ministered unto “these least,” and by that very fact never did a thing for Christ; ἐμοί is the emphatic form of the pronoun as in v. 40.

They disowned Christ, they repudiated his grace and his salvation. The evidence for this are these negative acts of theirs which even they themselves admit as facts though for a false and a lying purpose. The long day of grace is past, now the hour of judgment has struck. The evidence is clear to the universe, the sentence of hell-fire is the only sentence the eternal Judge can pronounce if he himself is to remain absolutely righteous and just.

Matthew 25:46

46 There is no indication that even a slight interval occurred between the pronouncement of the verdicts thus substantiated by the universally admitted evidence and the execution of these verdicts. And these shall go away into punishment eternal, but the righteous into life eternal. So brief the words, so tremendous the realities they state. Some think that the righteous stand by while the damned leave and then also depart. But the words make the impression that both the righteous and the damned (let us say under the guidance of the angels) go to their eternal abodes. Here we have a plain commentary on “the fire, the eternal” of v. 41, namely “punishment eternal.” Who would want either?

The opposite is ζωὴαἰώνιος, “life eternal.” The punishment is the absence of this ζωή, the removal from the enjoyment of God and of the saints and the angels in the new heavenly world. Instead of God, the devil; instead of the saints and the angels, the company of the other damned and of the devil’s angels. Instead of heavenly joy, hellish torture that will exactly match the moral condition of the damned. Here αἰώνιος plainly refers to both punishment and life, so that it is impossible to give the word two different meanings. This settles the question: hell is as eternal as is heaven; heaven no more so than hell.

The question is sometimes asked: “Can God damn to hell forever?” Those who argue away the existence of hell and of the devil are not “the righteous” but those who contradict the King and are in danger of arriving in hell. God seeks to keep all of us out of hell; but many nullify all his grace. They contradict God and Christ even on the judgment day. They have reached a devilish state which God himself cannot change. They exclude themselves and also must be excluded from God and all holiness, and that means hell. On the day of judgment no arguments will avail but only the facts, whether we accept them or rebel against them. All that the writer desires is that he may be among the righteous on that last day when they go away into life eternal.

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

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

Concordia Triglotta Triglot Concordia. The Symbolical Books of the Ev. Lutheran Church.

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