CRITICAL NOTES
Matthew 18:22. Until seventy times seven.—That is, as often as there is a cause—a certain number is put for an uncertain (John Wesley).
Matthew 18:24. Ten thousand talents.—The talent was not a coin, but a weight or sum of money. See margins A.V. and R.V. The amount here intended cannot be exactly determined. “Even if silver talents are meant, the sum is enormous—at least two million pounds of our money. It was probably more than the whole annual revenue of Palestine at this time” (Carr). The expression is perhaps used indefinitely for a very large sum; yet it might be understood literally, if we suppose, with Archbishop Trench, that the servant in question is a satrap or governor of a province, who should have remitted the revenues of his province to the royal treasury. Cf. Esther 3:9 (Mansel).
Matthew 18:27. Forgave him the debt.—The Greek noun in this case expresses a debt contracted through a loan, and in the interpretation of the parable suggests a thought like that in the parables of the Pounds, the Talents and the Unjust Steward. What we call our own—life, with all its opportunities—is really lent to us, and God requires repayment with interest (Plumptre).
Matthew 18:28. An hundred pence.—A hundred Roman denarii. See margin A.V. and R.V. The denarius was the common wage per day of a labourer (Matthew 20:2).
Matthew 18:29. Besought.—Not the same word as “worshipped” (Matthew 18:26). The word in the text would be used by an equal addressing an equal (Carr).
Matthew 18:31. Very sorry.—This seems to point to the common conscience of mankind approving or anticipating the Divine sentence (ibid.).
Matthew 18:34. Tormentors.—This word probably signifies more than “keepers of the prison,” as it is sometimes interpreted. Though there is no evidence of torture being applied to debtors under the Jewish law, yet the practice was not unknown in other countries (Mansel).
Matthew 18:35. From your hearts.—A different principle from the Pharisees’ arithmetical rule of forgiveness (Carr). Their trespasses.—Omitted in R.V., the MS. authority being against the retention of the words.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Matthew 18:21-35
Quousque?—The Rabbis are said to have taught men to forgive their neighbours three times, but no more. Even this advice, however, they are also said to have qualified so greatly as to amount, practically, to hardly recommending any forgiveness at all. Doubtless, therefore, in the question he asks (Matthew 18:21). Peter thought himself to be even conspicuously nearer the spirit of Christ. The Saviour’s reply showed him plainly that he was yet very far off. Showed him, in fact, that there was hardly any limit to the question he asked (Matthew 18:22). Amongst many things confessedly difficult in the parable which follows, there are two things bearing on this question of forgiveness which it makes very plain. It shows, first, the real character of man’s relation to God; and therefore, secondly, the real meaning, on man’s part, of a distinct refusal to forgive.
I. Man’s relation to God.—Generally speaking, this is that of a debtor to his creditor. We have not done to God as we ought. In this broad way of speaking there is “no difference” between one man and another. We have “all sinned and come short” in this most vital respect (Romans 3:22-23). We have all unquestionably withheld that from God which is just as unquestionably His legitimate due. We have done so, also, to an extent which it is quite impossible to compute. This is signified by the ten thousand talents of which the parable speaks. In 2 Kings 5:26, we see how much Gehazi thought of doing with only two “talents of silver”; and may judge, therefore, what would have been the purchasing power of five thousand times as many talents; and these, moreover, not impossibly, talents of “gold.” It is just one of those sums, in short, which is so great that we cannot really reckon it up. And yet it is that, be it observed, to which our Saviour Himself compares our “owings” to God. It follows, next, therefore, that the debt in question is what we can never discharge. It is true, no doubt, that the servant here spoken of, when called to account, and in imminent danger, promised to discharge, and that in full, what was owing by him; but that we may, perhaps, look upon as being simply in keeping with the general unscrupulousness of his character. And that is certainly in keeping with what we see daily of the utterly unreliable arithmetical reckonings of most persons in debt. Those who never have saved as yet always think that they can. Those who attribute all the evil of the past to infirmity, always hope to be not only strong, but doubly strong in the future. What we know of such “hopes” is that they are not believed in by any one else; and, in fact, that the very expression of them only increases the mistrust of every one else. Just so is it of all those who think of making up for themselves and by their own efforts what is owing from them to God. It only shows that they have no adequate conception either of themselves or of it. And yet, for all this, observe, lastly, that we are none of us, at present, as it were, paying the penalty of that debt. God may, indeed, have begun to “reckon with us” about it, as was done with the man in this story. He may be causing us thereby to feel something of its weight and enormity. But He is not as yet exacting from any of us in this world, that heavy and terrible “satisfaction” for it, which, is required by His law. In this sense we are all of us—even the most unbelieving among us—“forgiven” souls for the time, and the sentence against us, if not yet in all cases reversed, is yet, in all cases, suspended. So that to every living soul we may say as was said of old in the latter part of Job 11:6.
II. The true meaning, therefore, on man’s part, of a distinct refusal to forgive.—We see, in the first place, the intrinsic iniquity and wickedness of so doing. For it is exacting that from our neighbour which is not being exacted from us. It is taking him “by the throat” when we have been allowed to go free. It is saying to him just that which has not been said to ourselves. And using the hand, as it were, which has been released from prison to close it upon him. A most outrageous and crying injustice, if ever there was one in the world! Also, it is an injustice which is greatly aggravated by every difference in the two cases. What are one hundred pence to ten thousand talents? What are my brother’s few sins against me compared to my numberless sins against God? What my rights, also, against him as my fellow-servant compared with God’s rights over me as His creature? Even if the cases had been similar, the injustice of not doing as I have been done by would be at once gross and complete. As things are, it is even more—it is beyond expression in words. Lastly, we are to notice here the exceeding audacity of this description of conduct. We are told (Matthew 18:31) that when the man’s “fellow-servants saw what was done, they were exceeding sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.” This is not an inapt description of the real meaning of such an action as that. It is doing that which is sure to come under the notice of God. It is an appeal to God, in fact, on such an offender’s part, against that offender himself. Other sins may be described as simply so many violations of His law—and they bad enough in all conscience. But this is very much more; it is a direct perversion of it, it is an open defiance of it as well. How can God be omniscient and not know of such things? How can He be holy and not abominate such cruelty? How can He be just and not punish such injustice?
See, in conclusion, how the close of this parable carries us back. The Rabbis and Peter (Matthew 18:21) had treated forgiveness as an exceptional thing; a thing to be granted, as it were, under compulsion, and only so far. The issue of this teaching of Christ is on just the opposite line. According to Him we should not be reluctant but glad to forgive. Let your forgiveness be “from the heart” (Matthew 18:35). This is the true mark of belonging to Christ (Ephesians 4:3). Compare also the saying about Archbishop Cramner: “Do my Lord of Canterbury an ill-turn, and you have made him your friend for life.” Also how the whole parable carries us upward. Why were these other teachers so radically wrong as to their duty towards their neighbour? Because they were wrong to an equal degree about their relation to God. This is always true of the unregenerate heart (see Psalms 9:17; Psalms 10:4). The opposite is the unfailing sign of the regenerate heart (Psalms 51:4; Genesis 39:9, perhaps Psalms 16:8). How wise, therefore, the words of the Saviour in John 17:3.
HOMILIES ON THE VERSES
Matthew 18:21-35. The duty of forgiveness urged.—Forgiveness is urged:—
I. By a consideration of the greatness of God’s mercy to us.—How can we behold the great mercy of God to us and yet be unforgiving to others?
II. By a consideration of the littleness of our brother’s sins.—Our brother’s trespass was an error, a fault, a mishap, result of ignorance or inadvertence, small in comparison of our grave and multiplied offences. Our fellow servant needs what we sought. The unforgiving is “wicked,” evil-disposed. He invades the right of his Lord.
III. By a consideration of the terrible consequences of indulging an unforgiving spirit.—Lord not wroth on account of debt. Punishment is greater than before for sin is greater; hard, unforgiving spirit is added to debt. The offender has not caught the spirit of his Lord. He says in effect: The Lord was in error in forgiving me; He is excised from the kingdom of God, for he has not the spirit of the kingdom. He only can really understand forgiveness who practises it. Forgiveness vain if we be not cleansed from all unrighteousness.—Anon.
Matthew 18:21. Forgiving injuries.—
1. We are always in our heart to forgive, I take it, though until forgiveness is craved, it is neither wise nor necessary to express it.
2. When we think of injuries, debts, offences, it is always well to recollect that self-love is very apt to exaggerate such things, and that a day or two’s calm reflection will often convince us that we have made too much ado about nothing; and that the sensible as well as the right thing to do is to treat the matter as if it had never happened.
3. Especially is this the case with hot and unpremeditated words, spoken when our friend was off his guard, or repeated to us by some one who ought to have known better. “Also take no heed to all words that are spoken, lest thou hear thy servant curse thee.”
4. Bishop Butler has taught us that resentment is a moral faculty bestowed on the human soul for its protection and self-assertion. Not all anger is sinful. Sometimes not to be angry is the basest and most cowardly of sins. St. Paul does not tell us not to be angry; only not to harbour and cherish our resentment. “Be ye angry, and sin not. Let not the sun go down upon your wrath.” Our Blessed Lord, we read, was sometimes angry; and it was a holy anger. The Revelation tells us of “the wrath of the Lamb.”
5. There are offences and offences. Some, let us confess, while they ought always to be forgiven, make the restoration of love and the rekindling of friendship impossible. “There is a sin unto death,” says St. John; and this is true of man, as well as of God, in the sense that some sins, such as repeated ingratitude, constant deceit, and flagrant dishonesty, make love, in the fullest sense of the word, not only impossible but unjustifiable. Did Christ love the scribes and Pharisees, who not only would not enter the kingdom of God themselves, but also prevented others from entering in? Did He love the “fox” Herod, or the self-blinded Caiaphas? We need not think or try to love better than the Saviour loved. But this moral impossibility of loving those who have proved themselves utterly unworthy of it must not, need not, hinder our doing them a kindness whenever it is in our power to do so, or fulfilling the reasonable claims of vicinage, or affinity, or relationship. In our hearts we can wish them well; before God we sometimes remember them, though we do not tell them so.—Bishop Thorold.
Matthew 18:23-35. Forgiveness and after.—Our Lord proceeds to lay before us something like a complete outline of the moral politics of God’s kingdom.
I. The fundamental moral principle in God’s kingdom is righteousness.—“A certain king would take account of his servants.” There are many who have failed to notice that the gospel comes to us, first of all, as the news of inquisition and of judgment, the institution of a strict account between God and man. The gospel is popularly identified with pity and compassion, and the eager welcome that it gets from many is due to the belief that it dispenses with the reckoning of judgment by the message of a mercy which is so soft and gentle that it hardly makes mention of our sin. This common notion is superficial and mistaken. God never comes to men with a fresh revelation without awakening in their souls a sharper sense of righteousness and sin. “When the Spirit is come He shall convince the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment.” A solemn sense of God’s awful righteousness looking with a searching eye upon our sin is needed as the forerunner of salvation; for until we feel our guilt and confess the justice of God’s condemnation, we are in no condition either to desire or to receive the mercy that God is willing to bestow. It is the same all through the Christian life. From the converted man God demands not less, but more. No moment in his life is free from the burden of responsibility. We are always sowing, and behind every seed-time comes a harvest. This thought should give solemnity and depth of tone to every hour of life.
II. In God’s kingdom the demand for righteousness is accompanied by the needful mercy.—While the gospel demands that the righteousness of the law shall be fulfilled in us, it is quite as essentially the message of heaven’s mercy. The servant in this parable is no sooner humbled by the demands of justice than, upon the confession of his helplessness and desire to make amends, he is abundantly forgiven. It is no hard task for a, sinful man to obtain forgiveness from his God. This servant’s repentance was neither very broad nor very radical. The man was by no means a noble specimen of his race. There was in him no conspicuous merit to make him worthy of such generous treatment as to have his debt of nigh two million pounds frankly and at once forgiven. Therefore the picture is expressly intended to convey the fact that in the heart of God there is no reluctance to forgive, and that man’s honest appeal to be forgiven is met by an immediate and most generous response.
III. In God’s kingdom man’s inhumanity stultifies God’s mercy.—The most serious block to your salvation may emerge after your forgiveness rather than before it. After you have received forgiveness you enter on a new probation. What are you going to do with it? When you know that Christ has died for you, and that God forgives you, what influence are these facts going to have upon your life?—that is the question on which your ultimate salvation hangs.—Alexander Brown.
Matthew 18:23-35. The unforgiving temper.—There is a fine story illustrative of this parable, told by Fleury (Hist. Eccles., 5:2, p. 334). It is briefly this: Between two Christians at Antioch enmity and division had fallen out; after a while one of them desired to be reconciled, but the other, who was a priest, refused. While it was thus with them, the persecution of Valerian began; and Sapricius, the priest, having boldly confessed himself a Christian, was on the way to death. Nicephorus met him, and again sued for peace, which was again refused. While he was seeking, and the other refusing, they arrived at the place of execution. He that should have been the martyr was here terrified, offered to sacrifice to the gods, and, despite the entreaties of the other, did so, making shipwreck of his faith; while Nicephorus, boldly confessing, stepped in his place, and received the crown which Sapricius lost. This whole story runs finely parallel with our parable. Before Sapricius could have had grace to confess thus to Christ, he must have had his own ten thousand talents forgiven; but, refusing to forgive a far lesser wrong, to put away the displeasure he had taken up on some infinitely lighter grounds against his brother, he forfeited all the advantages of his position, his Lord was angry, took away from his grace, and suffered him again to fall under those powers of evil from which he had once been delivered. It comes out, too, in this story, that it is not merely the outward wrong and outrage upon a brother, which constitutes a likeness to the unmerciful servant, but the unforgiving temper, even apart from all such.—Archbishop Trench.
Matthew 18:28. The weakness and strength of example.—Every moralist extols the beauty and value of good example. In an age of abounding hypocrisy, it would ill become us to say aught against the habit, if it were not that the language used sometimes runs into perilous exaggeration. From the immoderate eulogy of the good example, you might sometimes infer that nothing more was needed for the awakening of men’s consciences and their guidance into peace than the consistent lives of some God-fearing men. It is bad theology. It is flatly contradicted by human experience.
I. The impotence of example.—Lest we should over-estimate the power of example, Christ has given us here a picture which illustrates its utter impotence over some minds. Mercy for himself is well enough; mercy from himself is out of the question. What had example done for him? Nothing.
II. Its causes.—How is it that, in the frailty of our nature, example is lost on some?
1. The example we expected to be so potent may be taken as a matter of course.
2. A high example often produces in the onlooker a sense of annoyance.
3. We have to face to-day a strong conviction in many minds that all professors of religion are more or less insincere. It is a revolting proof of the depth to which some natures have fallen that purity, sincerity, other-worldliness are to them incredible.
4. We are familiar, too, with another way of regarding high examples; it is the way of regretful admiration. The observer finds such a character very noble, very impressive; he does not challenge its sincerity or detract from its beauty. But in effect he says “It is above me, I cannot reach such a level; I need not try.” But how can we feel any surprise at the frequent impotence of example? Lot’s acquaintance with Abraham did not keep him from stupendous blunders. Gehazi’s daily service of Elisha could not control his greed. The companionship of St. Paul did not keep Demas faithful. Nay, most striking warning of all, from the society of those who daily looked on the example of Jesus, went the man who for thirty pieces of silver betrayed Him. As it was then, so it is now; the very noblest example will not of itself quicken a single conscience. Example is of value; but for its efficacy it depends upon an external influence—even the Holy Spirit. He who would serve Christ must believe in his own ministry and watch his own example. But he who would have hearts to be touched and lives to be changed must look beyond the witness of man.—A. R. Buckland, M.A.