Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 18:22
Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
22. Until seventy times seven ] i. e. an infinite number of times. There is no limit to forgiveness.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Till seven times? – The Jews caught that a man was to forgive another three times, but not the fourth. Peter more than doubled this, and asked whether forgiveness was to be exercised to so great an extent.
I say not unto thee, Until seven times, but, Until seventy times seven – The meaning is, that we are not to limit our forgiveness to any fixed number of times. See Gen 4:24. As often as a brother injures us and asks forgiveness, we are to forgive him. It is, indeed, his duty to ask forgiveness, Luk 17:4. If he does this, it is our duty to declare that we forgive him, and to treat him accordingly. If he does not ask us to forgive him, yet we are not at liberty to follow him with revenge and malice, but are still to treat him kindly and to do him good, Luk 10:30-37.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 22. Seventy times seven.] There is something very remarkable in these words, especially if collated with Ge 4:24, where the very same words are used-“If any man kill LAMECH, he shall be avenged seventy times seven.” The just God punishes sin in an exemplary manner. Sinful man, who is exposed to the stroke of Divine justice, should be abundant in forgiveness, especially as the merciful only shall find mercy. See Clarke on Mt 5:7, and on Mt 6:14; Mt 6:15. The sum seventy times seven makes four hundred and ninety. Now an offence, properly such, is that which is given wantonly, maliciously, and without ANY PROVOCATION. It is my opinion, that, let a man search ever so accurately, he will not find that he has received, during the whole course of his life, four hundred and ninety such offences. If the man who receives the offence has given any cause for it, in that case, the half of the offence, at least, towards his brother, ceases.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
22. Jesus saith unto him, I say notunto thee, Until seven times; but, Until seventy times seventhatis, so long as it shall be needed and sought: you are never to cometo the point of refusing forgiveness sincerely asked. (See on Lu17:3, 4).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee,…. Which is as if he had said, observe what I am about to say, I do not agree to what thou sayest to fix the number, “until seven times only”, but
until seventy times seven; a certain number for an uncertain, see Ge 4:24. Christ’s meaning is, that a man should be all the days, and every day of his life, forgiving those that sin against him, as often as they repent and acknowledge their fault; and that no time is to be set for the exercise of the grace of forgiveness; but as often as there are objects and occasions, though ever so many and frequent, it should be used; and which he illustrates by the following parable.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Until seventy times seven ( ). It is not clear whether this idiom means seventy-seven or as the Revised Version has it (490 times). If were written it would clearly be 490 times. The same ambiguity is seen in Ge 4:24, the LXX text by omitting . In the Test. of the Twelve Patriarchs, Benj. vii. 4, it is used in the sense of seventy times seven. But it really makes little difference because Jesus clearly means unlimited forgiveness in either case. “The unlimited revenge of primitive man has given place to the unlimited forgiveness of Christians” (McNeile).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Seventy times seven [ ] . 5 It was a settled rule of Rabbinism that forgiveness should not be extended more than three times. Even so, the practice was terribly different. The Talmud relates, without blame, the conduct of a rabbi who would not forgive a very small slight of his dignity, though asked by the offender for thirteen successive years, and that on the day of atonement; the reason being that the offended rabbi had learned by a dream that his offending brother would attain the highest dignity; whereupon he feigned himself irreconcilable, to force the other to migrate from Palestine to Babylon, where, unenvied by him, he might occupy the chief place (Edersheim). It must, therefore, have seemed to Peter a stretch of charity to extend forgiveness from three to seven times. Christ is not specifying a number of times greater than the limit of seven. He means that there is to be no limit. “Forgiveness is qualitative, not quantitative.”
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
B. JESUS ANSWERS: NO LIMIT: MERCIFULNESS IS THE RULE IN GODS KINGDOM! (18:2235)
Mat. 18:22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times; but, Until seventy times seven. On another occasion Jesus actually did say, If your brother sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, and says, I repent, you must forgive him. (Luk. 17:3-4) There is no contradiction between the two texts, since there the forgiveness is proportioned to the number of sins and repentance, so that the seven times a day means as many as necessary, infinitely. (Cf. Psa. 119:164 where the same expression means availing oneself of every available impulse and opportunity.) Jesus memorable requirement of reasonableness and mercy stands in contrast to the unreasonable mercilessness of a Lamech who demands vengeance seventy and seven for what he personally suffered from others! (Gen. 4:23 f) Although Jesus quantitative expression harmonized with Peters question about quantitative mercifulness, it unquestionably left in wreckage the basic assumption that love, mercy and forgiveness could be measured in numbers. With numbers He eliminated the meaning of numbers! The state of ones heart, his readiness to forgive, his longing for the restoration of his brother, his hoping for renewed fellowshipthese are not things to tally. Hendriksen (Matthew, 704) puts it succinctly: One might as well ask, How often must I love my wife, my husband, my children? as to ask, How often shall I forgive? Jesus answer, in the light of the following parable, might be paraphrased: How many times should you forgive? As many times as it will be necessary for God to forgive younot one time more! (Mat. 18:35) God Himself is not keeping score of the times He shows us mercy, because if He did, who could stand? (Psa. 103:8-14; Psa. 130:3 f; Ezr. 9:13; Lam. 3:22) Dare a sinful mortal be more severe in justice than the Almighty? Rather, nothing could bring us more into harmony with the character of our God than to do good to those who have ignored, injured or despised us. (See on Mat. 5:44-48 and notice esp. Lukes variations, Luk. 6:27-36.)
There are several connections between this section on mercifulness and what has gone before:
1.
Jesus is still dealing with selfish ambition (Mat. 18:1), in the sense that vindictiveness, the attitude condemned here, is but a side effect of ambition. The person who tramples others in his rush to the top makes himself the target of his victims offenses. It is an unavoidable part of his psychological armament to react quickly to the offense and be slow about forgetting an injury. Longanimity is just not his style. He is far more at home grabbing his debtor by the throat and demanding instant retribution.
2.
Since in the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant Jesus pictures that servant as refusing to dispense with his undeniable legal right to throw his debtor into debtors prison, a fact which scandalized his fellow servants, He may have intended the parable to respond also to that harshness that can despise weaker disciples and be oblivious to ones own obligation to do without what is perfectly justifiable if it hinder ones own access to life in the Kingdom or cause the loss of others. (Mat. 18:6-9)
3.
Jesus needs also to say that true greatness in the Kingdom (Mat. 18:1) embodies a forgiving spirit.
1. CONSIDER THE MAGNITUDE OF GODS MERCY TO YOU (18:2327)
Mat. 18:23 Therefore means: What I have just said about the need to forgive indefinitely is the reason the Kingdom is like the following story. Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king who would make a reckoning with his servants. The moral procedure of this king and the justice of God as He rules His Kingdom are similar. The way God will treat His people is illustrated by the king. (Mat. 18:35) The picture of the kingdom of heaven drawn in this parable is that which includes the life decisions of a given sinner who has been forgiven by God, but refuses to show similar mercy to a fellow. Arraigned before God once more, presumably at judgment, he is actually cast to his final fate. Therefore, the point of view from which the Kingdom is here viewed is the rule of God over all men anywhere at any time clear down until final judgment. (For notes on the Kingdom, see comments after Mat. 13:53.)
Who would make a reckoning with his servants. In the parable this reckoning could well have been normal administrative procedure, but it only became critical for the storys protagonist due to his gross indebtedness. The fact that this oriental kings debtors are called servants should not surprise, for, though they might be powerful executives in their own right, nevertheless, because they are under the absolute authority of their potentate, in his eyes they would be considered his slaves.
In the reality, God operates His Kingdom with a strict accounting in righteousness. The basic ethical principle of His rule is uprightness. The reckoning in the parable does not stand for the final accounting, which actually comes later when the servant is rearraigned before the king. (Mat. 18:32 ff) This audit, based upon a strict account between God and man, intends to bring each of Gods servants to the painful awareness of what he had previously ignored, the depth of his failure to meet the rigid standard of absolute truth and righteousness. No gospel of mercy and forgiveness can make any sense until the solemn sense of Gods perfect law probing our inmost being awakens in us a horrified consciousness of our imperfection, unrighteousness and sin. (See Jesus Purpose For Preaching This Sermon, Vol. I, 188ff, also notes on Mat. 5:48.) There can be no desire to put ourselves in a position to receive Gods generous forgiveness until we hear our sentence read and are conscience-driven to admit the justice of His decision. God mercifully brings us up short, ending our careless security, by making us face our sins. Sometimes this occurs when we hit our point of despair, up to our neck in adversity. He would rather we see ourselves in the light of His law. This is why it is a perversion of both the Gospel and compassion to offer salvation in Christ as something that eliminates a severe arraignment before God to give an account. It is this very reckoning of strict justice that makes us see that our standing before God can never be a question of strict legal merit or contracts, but a gift of grace. (Cf. how Jesus upsets the usual, worldly value judgments in His later parable of the Eleventh-Hour Servants. Mat. 20:1-16)
Mat. 18:24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought to him, that owed him ten thousand talents. One was brought to him, perhaps because the guilt of his negligence or embezzling his king made him reluctant to come willingly face-to-face with his victim, the king whom he had been damaging. It is not unlikely that, had this reckoning not interfered, the self-assured sinner would have gone on doubling and tripling the indebtedness for which he must at last give account. (Cf. Rom. 2:5)
Ten thousand talents. The value of money mentioned in the Bible is difficult to establish in precise dollar equivalents, because of the fluctuating purchasing power of our own money. Therefore, all the estimates given in the Bible encyclopedias have to be continually updated, because the sums given there represent world economic conditions in the times of the editors. However, to form some idea of his debt, the following calculation can be made: (See on Mat. 20:2.)
1 days salary = 1 denarius 100 denarii = 1 mina
60 minas = 1 talent
If this servant were a common day laborer, he would have to work at least 100 days to earn one mina, 6,000 days to earn one talent. Since he owed him ten thousand talents, he must work 60,000,000 days or just a little over 164,384 years. On the other hand, supposing him to have been more likely a royal minister who could have earned a 1000 times the pay of a day laborer, he would still have to labor 164 years with no overtime and no weekends off! This is merely the time required to earn that amount, not the time required to save that much, since, if he supported himself and his family while trying to earn the required amount, he would have to work that much longer.
To put it into dollars, if the common laborer could earn as much as $2 an hour for an eight-hour day, his denarius would be worth $16. In a 100 days (= 1 mina) he could earn $1600. In 6000 days (= 60 minas or 1 talent) he could earn $96,000, but since he must pay 10,000 talents, he must earn $960,000,000 over the 164,834 years. In other words, our appreciation of the value of the talent is dependent on the average sum the laborer receives as pay per day. (= denarius)
To illustrate the magnitude of his debt another way, this 10,000 talent figure represented the amount Haman hoped to be able to pour into the royal treasury upon confiscating the Jewish properties after exterminating their race in every part of the empire! (Est. 3:9; Est. 3:13) When the Romans under Pompey took Jerusalem in 63 B.C., tribute was imposed on the Jews amounting to about 10,000 talents. (Antiquities, XIV, 4, 4 and 5) Or, back in 220 B,C. the sum of the taxes together for Coelesyria and Phoenicia, Judea and Samaria, came to 8,000 talents. (Ant. XII, 4, 4) So, the mans debt was larger than the national budget for four different provinces! How he got himself so hopelessly in debt is not important for the point of the parable, although it is not impossible, if he be thought of as a financial agent through whom royal funds flowed from which he could siphon off a private reserve of considerable proportions to squander over a number of years. This debt could have been incurred as a loan. (Mat. 18:27)
Bruce (Training, 211) argues that the particular type of service involved here is another contextual connection with the basic theme of Jesus entire discourse:
That it was some such unscrupulous minister of state, guilty of the crime of embezzlement, whom Jesus had in His eye, appears all but certain when we recollect what gave rise to the discourse of which this parable forms the conclusion. The disciples had disputed among themselves who should be greatest in the kingdom, each one being ambitious to obtain the place of distinction for himself. Here, accordingly, their Master holds up to their view the conduct of a great one, concerned not about the faithful discharge of his duty, but about his own aggrandizement. Behold, He says to them in effect, what men who wish to be great ones do! They rob their king of his revenue, and abuse the opportunities afforded by their position to enrich themselves; and while scandalously negligent of their own obligations, they are characteristically exacting towards any little one who may happen in the most innocent way, not by fraud, but by misfortune, to have become their debtor. Thus understood, the parable faithfully represents the guilt and criminality of those at least who are animated by the spirit of pride, and deliberately make self-advancement their chief end. . . . It is impossible to overestimate the magnitude of their guilt.
Mat. 18:25 But forasmuch as he had not wherewith to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The royal minister evidently had nothing salted away with which to repay such an astronomical debt, so the king sentenced this agent to be sold into slavery along with his family possessions to meet the obligation. Who can affirm that such a sale would have totally liquidated the debt? Was the king salvaging what little he could by confiscation and sale of his property?
Jesus mention of this sale of people into slavery gives us pause. Some commentators brush it off as mere scenery needed to complete the story, but not typical of God, for He would never approve of slavery, especially of innocent people like his wife and children. Accordingly, Jesus only pictures the classic procedure among oriental potentates with whatever rigor they judged proper, however unjust their decisions might be judged to be on the Christian balance. But it is only the commentators who assert that the mans wife and children were innocent, whereas the king knew better and acted accordingly. Their collusion must not be excused. In fact, the OT Law ordered the sale of the insolvent thief or thieves. (Exo. 22:3)
Not one other OT text justifies the sale of debtors into slavery.
1.
Lev. 25:39-40 admits the possibility of voluntary indenture in extreme poverty, but this lasted only until the year of jubilee and the servant was to be considered as a hired servant temporarily sojourning. Strict humanitarianism governed the treatment of such slaves (Lev. 25:39-55).
2.
2Ki. 4:1 reports without approval the case of two children taken as slaves by their deceased fathers creditor.
3.
Neh. 5:1-13 reports the desperation of people mortgaged over their heads who must force their own children to serve as slaves, after many of these same people had been repurchased from pagan slave-owners. Nehemiah condemned this slavery for debts on the basis of the Levitical law. (Lev. 25:42)
4.
Isa. 50:1 in figurative language argues that God had not been forced to sell Israel to creditors for any supposed insolvency on His part. Their present condition was that of someone who had been sold into slavery because of their own indebtedness.
5.
Amo. 2:6; Amo. 8:6 condemns the harsh, heartless sale of the righteous poor into slavery, whereas the Law had only permitted the sale of the unrighteous thief, but permitted voluntary indentured service for a limited time and under humane conditions. (Lev. 25:39-55)
The case before us in Jesus story is that of an entire family that conspired together to use the influential, lucrative position of the man of the house to use for their own purposes what really belonged to their king. Theirs is culpable insolvency and theft, and the proper verdict is: Sell them! (Exo. 22:3)
In the reality of which the selling into slavery was but the symbol God in perfect justice has every right now in this life to punish His debtors and all that is dear to them by turning them over to those who would make them feel the full force of their iniquity. In fact, the implication of Isa. 50:1 is that God would indeed sell His people into slavery for their iniquities. He did it historically in the captivities of sinful Israel, and should the Church not learn therefrom? (Rom. 3:23; Rom. 6:23; Joh. 8:34; Rom. 6:16; 2Pe. 2:19; Rom. 1:24; Rom. 1:26; Rom. 1:28) He can abandon man, destroy him, sell him, torture him or anything else, because the enormity of mans sins require that divine justice be satisfied, and no sinner has even the slightest chance of repaying what he has already squandered, nor any right to complain about the severity of the sentence!
The creeping tragedy of this royal ministers sin is that it enveloped his whole family, because he could not limit the ramifications of his dishonesty to himself. Even those who might have been innocent at first were drawn slowly, inexorably into the web of his self-seeking and, therefore, must share the consequences of what at first may have been only his sin. A sinners contaminated character casts its evil influence upon all around him and, imperceptibly, draws others into his guilt.
Mat. 18:26 The servant therefore fell down and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. The royal verdict had been pronounced, but before its sentence was carried out, the now terrified ex-official acts:
1.
He cannot deny the reality of the debt: the incriminating evidence is too clear.
2.
He offers no excuses or rationalizations for his responsibility in this outrageous imbroglio.
3.
He has nothing with which even to make even a down-payment or even a token payment of the debt. He is bankrupt!
4.
In typically oriental style, he threw himself on his knees, touching his forehead to the ground in front of his lord in abject obeisance and made his incredibly impossible request:
a.
Have patience with me (makrothmeson ep emo = Be long-suffering with me.) Obviously this wretch has not really calculated the debt in terms of CENTURIES required to repay it (as we did at Mat. 18:24), because he needs this much long-suffering from his lord and no less. He cannot imagine that he would actually erase the debt, and so trembles to think he must repay it.
b.
I will pay thee all. How absolutely impossible it was to fulfil such a promise! (See on Mat. 18:24.) His promise of mountains of gold is the wild desperation of the absolutely hopeless. It would have been ridiculous to have taken him seriously.
However, are any of us actually cognizant of the gravity, the multitude and the heinousness of his sins to the extent God is? Is not this mans promise the very wording of the hypocrites prayer, I promise to be good enough to resolve every claim you have against me, God!? To make such a promise is proof that we hope that any amount of future goodness could somehow compensate for past iniquity. Such a sinner would gladly amass any number of good works to pay for his sins. A righteousness outside himself but imputed to him by faith is, to him, an incredible doctrine. (Romans!)
Mat. 18:27 And the lord of that servant, being moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt. Impressed with the servants total impossibility to repay such an incredible amount, totally unimpressed by his promises and confident he would never be repaid, perhaps touched by the servants evidence of a right purpose and determination to meet his obligations, and moved to pity by the mans abject despair, the generous lord acted. He consented to far more than the servant dared dream: not only did he release him from sale into slavery, but he completely erased all indebtedness.
The debt (dneion means money given or taken on loan with interest; a loan, Rocci, 413; Thayer, 125; Arndt-Gingrich, 169) Apparently, the king had loaned the man money for an ill-fated enterprise which had not paid off but left him totally bankrupt, hence he is now exposed as a thief, having misappropriated his lords loan for his own ill-fated projects which could not pay off the handsome profits promised, but rather left him penniless and broken, a debtor to his king. As in other parables, the idea of debt reminds us that what we think of as our own is actually but a loan from God who expects repayment. (Cf. Mat. 25:14-30; Luk. 16:1-9; Luk. 19:11-27)
In the reality of Gods Kingdom the severe demand that the standard be absolutely respected is followed by the mercy necessary to help those who fail. In fact, God mercifully cancels sin the instant it is morally possible to do so. God is not reluctant to forgive, but He must first make the sinner realize how much he is being forgiven, and where there is the sincere request for grace, He is glad to respond immediately and generously with forgiveness. Like the forgiven servant, we start out anew, born again as a little child with a clean slate and imputed righteousness. (Joh. 3:3-5; Mat. 18:3-4; Rom. 5:1 f; Php. 3:9) Our moral debt is reduced to zero and although we owe a debt of gratitude to our Lord, we can begin again. (See on Mat. 18:3-4.) Lenski (Matthew, 716) rightly sees that
The kings word of release and remission is forensic: God on his throne declares the sinner free from guilt, as free as though he had never incurred that guilt. This is Biblical justification, the central doctrine of the Christian faith.
There is another sense in which this principle applies to Gods dealings with every man on earth, Christian or not. Because this is not the final reckoning, but rather the crisis of conscience that comes when man, as man, becomes aware of the gravity of his sin against the Almighty, the very sense of relief that comes even to the most unbelieving when we realize that God exacts of us less than our guilt deserves (cf. Job. 11:6) and even suspends the sentence temporarily to afford us time to accept His mercy and live (Cf. Luk. 13:1-9; Rom. 2:4), is personal, subjective evidence to every sinner that he is only on probation. So, whether we be Jew, facing the demands of Moses Law (Rom. 2:12 f), or pagan, feeling the accusations of conscience (Rom. 2:14 f), or Christian trained in the doctrine of Christ, the rule applies to us all. From this standpoint, we all stand halfway between mercy received and mercy yet needed. (Cf. Trench, Parables, 59)
2. CONSIDER THE SMALLNESS OF YOUR BROTHERS SINS AGAINST YOU (18:2830)
Mat. 18:28 The cutting satire of Jesus story becomes even more incisive as He throws the forgiven servants conduct into a series of contrasts with that of his lord.
1.
The forgiven official as creditor stands in relation to his fellow servant as debtor where his king stood not long before in his own case. He is now lord of the situation with powers to exact justice or show mercy.
2.
The king had considerately summoned him to assist at the grand audit. Here the functionary curtly and completely excludes any honest reckoning and all further opportunity to pay. There is no opportunity for a calm, reasoned accounting, verification and admission. Pay what thou owest (apdos e ti opheleis = literally: If you owe me something, pay it!) There is no doubt here that his fellow owed something, although he may have been in doubt about the exact amount. The main point is: Pay up whatever you owe me. (Cf. Arndt-Gingrich, 219)
3.
The king freely cancelled his enormous debt, but this unbelievable chance of a lifetime which rescued him and all that was dear to him from certain disaster left no sense of obligation nor even the slightest trace of gratefulness and brotherly love on his soul. No sooner had he left the warm, sunny love of his king than his heart froze over solid! The man who had owed his sovereign billions was let off, but now he has his brother, his peer, by the throat for a contemptibly insignificant sum! Jesus main contrast is here: the astronomical debt forgiven and the paltry figure demanded here. Hundred shillings attempts to translate 100 denarii = 1 mina = 1/60th of 1 talent = 1/600,000 of the 10,000 talents remitted the avaricious creditor. Admittedly the debt amounted to just over three months work for a common laborer, but for a big-time operator like this creditor, it was small change.
4.
The king had shown polished, regal dignity in his composure despite his enormous loss due to the maladministration of his subordinate. Crassly ignoring his own high nobility, this functionary stoops to a rudeness and brutality unworthy even in serfs. Grabbing his fellow by the throat, perhaps even without greeting him properly, he began to choke him, demanding moralistically, Pay your debts promptly; follow the rules! His refusal to do for his fellow servant as he had desired be done for himself evidences his hatred. (See on Mat. 7:12 and Mat. 5:44.) He refused mercy to a subordinate and would not receive a little one in the name of the kings mercy! (Mat. 18:5; Mat. 18:10)
Precisely similar to Nathans treatment of David (2Sa. 12:1-5), Jesus deliberately provokes our sense of outrage at the abusiveness and consummate arrogance of this ruthless, close-fisted legalist. (Grace for me, Lord, but the letter of the law for my neighbor!) In no sense must He be understood to affirm that others sins against us are somehow unreal, because the indebtedness of 100 denarii is fully as real as the debit of 10,000 talents.
Mat. 18:29. Note the similarity between the two cases: both debtors
1.
Humble themselves before their creditors
2.
Beseech their creditors for mercy
3.
Request additional time to gather money
4.
Promise to pay what is owed.
This similarity of circumstances should have awakened pity for his peer and gratitude for the privilege of being so soon able to treat someone else with the same kindness he himself had been shown.
In the reality, Jesus demand that we forgive indefinitely is conditioned by the willingness of our debtors to request forgiveness, just as this debtor sought to be shown mercy by his creditor. (See Luk. 17:3 : If he repents)
Mat. 18:30 Rather than sell him into slavery, as he himself had been sentenced (Mat. 18:25), he went and cast him into prison, probably because of the small amount of the debt, until he should pay that which was due. This latter phrase does not reveal whether a jailed prisoner had any possibility by forced labor to work out payment or not. It is more likely that discovery of his imprisonment would force relatives and friends to scrape together enough money to pay his debt and secure his release. If so, the punishment inflicted was in proportion to the debt incurred. The severity of the merciless creditor is not in his choice of penalty.
The Lords point is another, far more significant one. The severity of the pitiless servant is manifest in the fact that HE DID EVERYTHING ACCORDING TO THE BOOK. Note that he did not necessarily go beyond the letter of the law in force in his country. He was well within his legal rights and could plead absolute strictness as his right to exact his due from his debtor. But this very appeal to strict justice must be his condemnation in the eyes of his lord, who, waiving absolute justice for him, had magnanimously forgiven him completely. It was, in fact, his holding to the letter of the law that would damn him! (Mat. 18:33 f) In fact, the concept of a divine rigor determined by human mercy toward equals is not at all new for Jesus. (See on Mat. 5:7; Mat. 6:12; Mat. 6:14 f.) Sure, the servant had roughed up his customer a bit, but his great sin was his score-keeping, his holding him to the book, his legalism. Since only the absolutely perfect can rightly demand every personal right, for a sinful humanity the only just course left is humble humaneness. Compassion, sympathy and sincere consideration for other human beings is the only justice left open to us. We must never suppose that no one could be so cruel as to exact the last penny from a petty debtor. Anyone who thinks so is just not a good student of mankind nor of church history.
3. CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCES OF INDULGING AN UNFORGIVING SPIRIT (18:3134)
Mat. 18:31 So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were exceedingly sorry. Did these fellow servants know about the unmerciful servants having been forgiven? Are they incensed by his gross insult to the royal great-heartedness shown him by the king whose example he had refused to imitate? They are definitely shocked at the unreasonableness and brutality shown their fellow by this ingrate so pitiless in his adamant refusal to understand. Nothing is necessarily implied about the personal righteousness of the fellow servants, because, as McGarvey (Matthew-Mark, 161) wrote, No matter how much we are inclined to deal harshly with men ourselves, we are always indignant, when, as disinterested witnesses, we behold such conduct in others.
They came and told unto their lord all that was done. Rather than take the law in their own hands, they denounced the incident to their lord. Foster (Middle Period, 292) considers the detail of the fellow servants simply part of the scenery, not intended to represent some spiritual reality, because God does not need to be informed by men. On the other hand, assuming that these fellow servants are men, two other views are possible:
1.
Could they not represent the common conscience of mankind that approves the sentence of God and appeals to Him for vengeance for the tyranny which they are powerless to do anything about? (Cf. Rev. 6:9-11; Gen. 4:10 and McGarveys comment above.)
2.
Although an omniscient God needs no human explanations of earthly events, it is true that He lets men reach the end of their human resources and turn to Him in their helplessness and need. (Mat. 6:8 does not preclude Mat. 6:9-13 or Mat. 7:7-11.) Legally powerless to stop their fellow servants brutality, in their sorrow these take the matter to him alone who can bring justice. Jesus Christ is now Lord of the Church and as He rules we may appeal to Him to resolve the difficulties that perplex us.
What if these fellow servants are angels? (Cf. Mat. 13:27-28 notes) Jesus warned that these fellow servants of God (Rev. 22:9; Rev. 19:10) have His immediate audience with respect to little ones who are ill-treated. (Mat. 18:10) If so, we see one more subtle tie with all that precedes in Jesus discourse.
Mat. 18:32 Then his lord called him unto him. In the parable it is not clear how much time elapsed between the appeal of the fellow servants and the summons of the unmerciful servant, but any apparent brevity between the events is typical of the extreme brevity of our earthly life, so that what happens at once in the parable, in the life of the sinner may have taken place over a span of years. The certainty of the divine summons, not its immediacy, is the point. So we have here a picture of man haled before his final judgment from which there can be no appeal and for which there can be no repentance and restitution. This is not another confrontation with God during the life of the servant somewhat on the same plane as the first confrontation (cf. Mat. 18:24 ff) merely for the purpose of making him conscious of the monstrous wickedness of which he is now guilty. This is the final accounting, because the servant is sent away to his fate at the hands of the torturers.
In Greek the lords accusation flashes with fire: You evil slave! All that debt I forgave you since you begged me to! Note the states evidence sustaining the verdict of Wicked!
1.
I (your king) underscores the high, royal authority by which he had benefited.
2.
forgave you emphasizes the mercy received; he did not have to pay it all back even in time-payments.
3.
all that debt reminds him of its enormity and impossibility of payment.
4.
because you besought me indicates the simplicity and ease by which he obtained so magnificent a forgiveness.
His wickedness, so far as his king is concerned, consists in thinking so little of the mercy his lord had granted him and in demonstrating himself so unmistakably undeserving of such grace. (Rom. 2:1-11)
Mat. 18:33 Shouldest not thou also have had mercy on thy fellow servant, even as I had mercy on thee? Does my example mean nothing to you? His question expects an unqualified yes answer. The kings mercy should have been the servants ideal for his own imitation, but the despicable handling of his fellow servant reflected this standard only by its violent contrast to it and its negation of it. Note that the lord does not scold the unmerciful steward for wanting to get back his 100 denarii or for calling his own fellow servant to account. His only accusation is leveled against the legalistic unmercifulness of his treatment.
In the reality, this question is the whole point of Jesus illustration. (See notes on Mat. 5:45; cf. Luk. 6:32-36; Eph. 4:31 f; Col. 3:12 f.) Gods mercy extended to us is intended to make us His sons and like Him in character. (Rom. 2:4; Luk. 6:35 f) God promises to forgive our iniquity and remember our sin no more, (Jer. 31:34; Heb. 8:12; Heb. 10:17) This exposes the hypocrisy of the person who voices forgiveness but does not really cancel the offense. But the man who honestly faces his own weakness, presumption and ignorance with the realization that God will forgive him even these sins, cannot but be moved to imitate his Father by caring for his fellows no matter how or how much they stumble. But this is not just an emotional reaction. It should be the demand of an informed conscience. (1Pe. 1:13-17; Col. 4:1; Eph. 5:1)
According to Gods rules, mans inhumanity demonstrates the futility of showing him any mercy, because the only way man can even come close to repaying God for His kindness is by merciful helpfulness to His creatures. But the man who will not do even this much just proves how useless it is for God to grant him further leniency. To show him further mercy would only contribute to his delinquency. As Brown (PHC, XXII, 441f) said it:
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 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.
Mat. 18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him only, since his family had apparently not been party to his unmercifulness as they had been to his wasting his masters goods. The clemency unquestionably enjoyed but never merited nor understood by this short-sighted ingrate is now revoked. From the moment of his earlier forgiveness until this, he was a free man, forgiven of his great debt. Now, however, the dreaded punishment ordered earlier is carried out as if nothing had ever happened in the meantime. He who had so gloriously tasted the great-souled magnanimity of his lord, must now taste the lash of his indignation and wrath. He is turned over to the court-appointed torturers (basanistas, inquisitors, executioners whose task is to elicit the truth by torture) to exact everything possible from him. Till he should pay all that was due = never! Could he hope to live long enough to earn and save enough to pay his debt while he was free? (Mat. 18:24). What hope has he of so doing, now that he is stripped of his liberty and earning power? The expression, till he should pay all, offers no hope of freedom thereafter. Lenski (Matthew, 723) perceives that
The until clause thus really becomes the strongest proof against the idea of purgatory and for the eternal duration of punishment. Saying until an impossible thing takes place, simply says never.
But for what is he being punished: his most recent unmercifulness toward his fellow alone, or the original, unthinkably great indebtedness or both? Trench (Parables, 58) sees this problem:
It is strange that the king finally delivers up the offender, not for cruelty, but for the very debt which would appear to have been entirely remitted to him. The question is here involved, Do sins once forgiven, return on the sinner through his after offenses?
The answer lies in the fact that his own appeal to law and strict justice in his treatment of his fellow, in effect, condemned his lords recourse to mercy and waiving strict justice in his own case earlier. By condemning his kings decision to forgive him, he himself literally reopened his own case for rejudgment! Now the king simply obliged him by reversing the former decision of mercy and letting the mans own sense of justice be the measure whereby he himself would be judged, even if this meant that the full force of the kings justice must now be meted out upon him. Further, if he would refuse mercy for so miserable a debt, then, in proportion as 10,000 talents exceed the 100 denarii, continued mercy must, in justice, be denied him for his own vast debt.
In the reality, God simply lets every man choose by what standard he would be judged. This is no new doctrine. (See notes on Mat. 5:7; Mat. 6:12; Mat. 7:2; Mat. 9:13; Mat. 12:7) In fact, if a man rejects grace, mercy and forgiveness as a way of dealing with offenders, then God one last time lets that blind sinner have his way by permitting him to be judged by his own standard and face the consequences. So, in the long run, God has absolutely nothing to lose in terms of strict absolute justice by being patient, long-suffering, merciful, kind and generous with even the worst of sinners. He can show them new mercies every morning. (Mat. 5:44-48; Luk. 6:27-36! Rom. 2:4; Rom. 9:22; 2Pe. 3:9; 2Pe. 3:15) But if by inhumanity men reject the standard by which they themselves are blessed and forgiven far more times than they can count, He can still treat them in absolutely perfect righteousness and let them face the consequences and go to hell.
Some, determined not to believe that a child of God, once saved, can ever be lost thereafter, when faced with the eternal punishment of some Bible character, simply affirm, as, for example is this case, that this servant was a fraud, hence does not represent a genuine, believing Christian after all. But such an interpretation misrepresents the purpose behind Jesus telling this story. Would any deny that Jesus conclusion (v. 35) included the Apostles to whom it was specifically addressed? Would any affirm that these same Apostles were not genuine, believing Christians? No, there is no doubt that the unmerciful servant had actually enjoyed a period of grace before being brought to judgment for post-forgiveness sinfulness.
Tormenters is not a reference to a hell full of hideous devils whose unique mission it is to rack or afflict the condemned. They themselves are going to be too busy suffering, and probably will not have Saturdays off to torture others! (Cf. Mat. 25:41; Mat. 8:29; Luk. 8:31; Rev. 16:13 f; Rev. 19:20; Rev. 20:10) It probably refers, rather, to all the suffering. Jesus refers to in other contexts as eternal fire, Gehenna (of fire) eternal punishment, torment, etc. (Cf. Mat. 18:8-9; Mat. 25:41; Mat. 25:46; Luk. 16:23 ff) Since the guilt involved a sin against grace and mercy, a sin which by its own dictates demanded that there be no mercy, but only harsh, pitiless application of the letter of the law, then there could be no end to it. (Heb. 10:26-31) And since sin ammasses a debt that can never be paid, the suffering that is its punishment would logically have no end either. (Mat. 25:46)
C. CONCLUSION: YOU ENDANGER YOUR OWN POSITION IN THE KINGDOM BY UNMERCIFULNESS AND RECKLESS SUPERIORITY! (18:35)
Mat. 18:35 So shall also my heavenly Father do unto you, if you forgive not every one his brother from your hearts. So concludes the comparison begun in Mat. 18:23 which has continued to this point. Jesus means that Gods dealings with men will proceed exactly as pictured in every part of the story now ended. McGarvey (Matthew-Mark, 162) wrote that
The comparison has reference only to the last act of the king, that of delivering the unforgiving servant to the tormentors . . . We are not to infer, from the fact that the king retracted the forgiveness first granted, that God will do so with us. Our sins, once forgiven, are remembered no more. (Heb. 8:12)
But our forgiveness is conditional, as also Gods willingness to forgive and forget. (Heb. 10:18; Heb. 10:26; see on Mat. 18:34) Implied in Jesus threat are the following points:
1.
We are all debtors to God. (Mat. 18:23; Rom. 3:22-23; Mat. 6:12) What an argument for humility! (Mat. 18:4)
2.
Our debt is so enormous that none can possibly pay it alone. (Mat. 18:24-25 a) What irony: our only indisputable claim to greatness is our great indebtedness! (Cf. Mat. 18:1)
3.
Justice requires that it be paid. (Mat. 18:25 b; Rom. 6:23; Eze. 18:4)
4.
When each asks for mercy, God is happy to concede it, fully and completely, because it is His nature. (Mat. 18:26-27; Eze. 18:30-32; Psalms 103; Rom. 5:8)
5.
Our hearts must feel how easy it is to forgive our fellows small debts when what God has forgiven us is so infinitely greater. (Mat. 18:28 ff)
6.
The mercy of God in forgiving us is the standard for treatment of our fellows (Mat. 18:33; Eph. 4:32)
7.
Fear of severity when we are judged will push us to be merciful when we judge others. (Mat. 18:34)
In short, God will punish with eternal punishment everyone who refuses to be genuinely merciful to his fellow. God just cannot forgive an unforgiving heart! Judgment is without mercy to him that has shown no mercy! (Jas. 2:13) This parable illustrates the logical antithesis of the fifth Beatitude: Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Cursed are the unmerciful and unforgiving, for they shall be treated with unmerciful severity. (Study also Psa. 18:25 f; Jas. 5:9; cf. Sir. 28:1-12) Any disagreement with Jesus on this point, any qualification of His severity undermines our discipleship, yet people are not in the habit of acting as if keeping careful books on others wrongs against them were a far more serious sin than anything registered on their books. It is far more common to think of dirty sins as sex scandals, and heinous sins as murder, high treason or something else. Barker (As Matthew Saw the Master, 94) comments:
We call the unforgiving man strong-willed, a person who sticks by what he thinks, perhaps on rare occasions stubborn, Sinner? Never! The unforgiving man is excused on the grounds that a man has to keep his self-respect.
So shall also my heavenly Father do unto you. This careful wording crushes out every hope that the announced severity might possibly be mitigated for some. Bruce (Training, 213) said it best:
This very doom Jesus, in the closing sentences of His discourse, solemnly assured His disciples awaited all who cherish an unforgiving temper, even if they themselves should be the guilty party . . . Stern words these, which lay down a rule of universal application, not relaxable in the case of favoured parties. Were partiality admissible at all, such as the twelve would surely get the benefit of it; but as if to intimate that in this matter there is no respect of persons, the law is enunciated with direct, emphatic reference to them. And harsh as the law might seem, Jesus is careful to indicate His cordial approval of its being enforced with . . . (strict) rigour. For that purpose He calls God the Judge by the endearing name My heavenly Father; as if to say: The great God and King does not seem to Me unduly stern in decreeing such penalties against the unforgiving. I, the merciful, tender-hearted Son of Man, thoroughly sympathize with such judicial severity. I should solemnly say Amen to that doom pronounced even against you if you behaved so as to deserve it. Think not that because ye are My chosen companions, therefore violations of the law of love by you will be winked at. On the contrary, just because ye are great ones in the kingdom, so far as privilege goes, will compliance with its fundamental laws be especially expected of you, and non-compliance most severely punished.
If you forgive not every one his brother from your hearts. The plurals (afte and tn kardin humn) are individualized: every one his brother. Whereas in the parable the relationship between the two servants was one of equality (your fellow servant Mat. 18:33) despite their creditor-debtor relation, in the conclusion Jesus underscores their common human bond: every one his BROTHER. This is the brother who sinned against you (Mat. 18:15), and about whom Peter asked, How often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? (Mat. 18:21) Jesus answers, You who have received the mercy of God in ocean-sized quantities, dare you dispense it to others with an eye-dropper, carefully measuring and calculating each precious drop? Does your love keep books? Is there a mad mathematics to forgiveness? Nothing that men can do to you or that you must forgive can begin to compare even faintly or remotely with what you have done to God or that He must forgive you!
From your hearts. Jesus began this discourse in answer to a question from His disciples, whom Mark identified as the Twelve (Mat. 18:1; Mar. 9:35), and now He concludes it with a most piercing conclusion aimed right at their hearts, the very source of their selfish ambition, their status-seeking, their jealousy of official prerogatives, their stumbling blocks, their callousness toward others weaker conscience and their limitations on forgiveness. Forgiveness cannot be limited to using the right words nor to going through the correct formal steps. It must be rightly motivated. In fact, unless our spirit is first freed of bitterness and unfriendly feelings, our facial expressions and body English will betray the aching for vengeance seething under our skin. This merciful spirit will seek in every way to restore the former, friendly relations. Edersheim (Life, II, 297) asks:
How often is our forgiveness in the heart, as well as from the heart narrowed by limitations and burdened with conditions; and is it not of the very essence of sectarianism to condemn without mercy him who does not come up to our demandsay, and until he shall have come up to them to the uttermost farthing?
Is there someone whose outrageous conduct you cannot forget or for whom you cannot thank God?
And so ends the Lords most remarkable discourse on the value of every single person. Although it echoes truth already taught in the Sermon on the Mount, it differs in emphasis. Whereas the other message emphasized the personal character and problems of the citizen of the Kingdom of God, this discourse highlights his relation to others, especially those whom he would see as his debtors, his inferiors. In Jesus Christ has the value of every single human being come to its greatest importance. He knows that this view of human personality will profoundly affect our evangelism, our institutions, our personal relations, our congregational life, our sense of values, in short, all else. But in all these areas He furnished us the key that opens up to us the secret of true greatness: self-giving service to others, mutual edification, conscientiousness about ones own faults, mercifulness, self-discipline, and tender, considerate love.
Mat. 19:1 Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered into the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. Chapter 18 should end here, because Matthew indicates hereby that he has terminated the record of one connected discourse and the arguments given before for this conclusion are also valid here. (See on Mat. 11:1; Mat. 13:53 and notes on the Unity of Chapter 18.) Chapters 19 and 20 will furnish a series of living illustrations of applications of the truth of this discourse in chapter 18: look for them!
FACT QUESTIONS
1.
Outline or summarize all that Jesus taught when the Apostles disputed about which was the greatest among them. What does Jesus teach about mens ambitions to be great? Which verses would you choose from Matthew 18 which contain the kernel of the teaching of the entire chapter?
2.
Where and when in the ministry of Jesus did this discussion about relative greatness in the Kingdom occur? List all the events and topics of Jesus teaching from the confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi up to this time and show their connections.
3.
What various factors seen in the previous events might have formed the motivation back of this discussion? That is, what might have tended to elevate certain Apostles above their fellows?
4.
How was the question brought before the group: did the Apostles ask about it first, or did Jesus bring it up? Harmonize Mat. 18:1 with Mar. 9:33-34 and Luk. 9:46-47.)
5.
Where had the argument about greatness among the disciples taken place?
6.
What is the meaning of unless you be converted or unless you turn? Converted or turn to what? Why bring that up here?
7.
What is the principle characteristic of children that Jesus intends to serve as a model for disciples? How do you know?
8.
How long did this argument about greatness in the Kingdom continue among the Twelve?
9.
What other passages of Scripture bear on the question as to how we should receive one such little one in my name?
10.
List the various situations in Jesus life that illustrate how He steadfastly showed the kind of humility He teaches here.
11.
What is the connection between Jesus discussion of humbly receiving lesser disciples in His name, and Johns question about the unaffiliated worker of miracles? (Mar. 9:38-41; Luk. 9:49-50)
12.
What other incidents or statements of Jesus show that one is blessed (or acceptable to God) on the basis of his own faith and deeds, and not necessarily on the basis of his affiliation or close association with the right people or the one true church?
13.
What other Biblical incidents prove that God does not have to work with or through a chosen few, and at the same time show that the greatness of the power is of God and not of the chosen few?
14.
List Jesus answers to Johns question about the unaffiliated miracle worker. Explain how this information should apply to us and our relations with other religious workers not affiliated with us.
15.
What is a stumbling block? Is it best to look for them, or ignore them and let others point them out?
16.
Who are these little ones that believe in me? Little children? New Christians without maturity in the faith? Could it be both?
17.
What is a great millstone? How big is it? For what is it normally used? Why would it be so effective when used as Jesus suggests here?
18.
In the expression Woe to the world because of occasions of stumbling! is the world the victim or the cause of these things that cause people to sin?
19.
What is the lesson involved in the illustrations about the removal of hands, feet or eyes?
20.
What does the word despise mean? What attitude is meant by despise one of these little ones? How or why do we tend to despise them?
21.
If the reference to ones own hands, feet or eyes is only an illustration of something else in our lives, what does Jesus mean? What Scriptures indicate what Jesus means, i.e. that He does not intend for us to practice bodily amputation?
22.
What other Scriptures help us to understand Jesus comments about salt and fire? (Mar. 9:48-50) What is the meaning, then, of every one shall be salted with fire? How could the disciples have salt within themselves and live at peace with one another?
23.
What does Jesus imply by His warning, their angels always behold the face of my Father? What may we learn about the ministry of angels from this text? What other texts corroborate it or elaborate upon the angelic ministry? Why does Jesus say their angels?
24.
What is the main point of the story about the lost sheep?
25.
After discussing true greatness, self-renunciation and individual concern, Jesus seems to change the subject to church discipline. Show how He has never left the fundamental problem posed at the very beginning of the discussion, by indicating the logical connections.
26.
Outline the basic steps given by the Lord for settling problems among believers, explaining the wisdom of each step. What other Scriptures provide additional information on each of these steps and their purpose?
27.
What is the meaning of the phrase: you have gained your brother?
28.
Explain: let him be to you as the heathen (or Gentile) and the publican.
29.
Explain the sentence: Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Tell where it is found and to whom it was addressed. Explain the terms bind and loose, and their particular application in this sentence by showing from other Scriptures exactly what is to be bound or loosed. Indicate any parallel passages that help to interpret its meaning. And, finally, demonstrate whether what God binds or looses in heaven has already been bound or loosed by the disciples, or vice versa.
30.
What did Jesus promise about the agreement of two disciples in prayer? What other Scriptures describe the secrets of successful praying?
31.
What is involved in the disciples gathering in (Jesus) name? What does it mean to meet in His name?
32.
What is the main point of the story of the two debtors as it is seen as Jesus answer to Peters question: How often should I forgive my brother?? Are there any secondary issues or points brought up in this same parable? If so, what are they?
33.
Describe the psychological mechanism of forgiveness: how do we forgive someone?
34.
Why must we forgive seventy times seven? After the 490th time, what do we do then?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(22) Seventy times seven.The use of the symbolic numbers that indicated completeness was obviously designed to lead the mind of the questioner altogether away from any specially numerical standard as such. As there was no such limit to the forgiveness of God, so there should be none to that of man. The very question as to the latter showed the inquirer had not rightly apprehended the nature and extent of the former.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
22. Seventy times seven This may seem a maxim of impracticable morality; but the duty of such a succession of pardons is founded upon the supposition of the offender’s sincere repentance, as a condition, and the absence of any danger from his machinations. Doubtless one would endeavour in some way to remove the liability to such repeated backslidings and necessities for forgiveness, before the full number above named had arrived. Yet the rule lays down that in no case do we retain resentment toward a sincere penitent. And thus we have a striking parallel to the state of things between God and ourselves as continually sinning and repenting.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Jesus says to him, “I do not say to you, “Until seven times”, but, “Until seventy times seven”.
So Jesus is basically saying, “No Peter, there is no limit. Think in terms of seventy times seven.” Jesus was not, however, saying that a person could be forgiven four hundred and ninety times. He was saying that there is no limit to how often a person can be forgiven. This is good news for us, for there are many sins that we have committed far more than four hundred and ninety times, and yet here we have the promise that God is still willing to forgive us.
Some translate as ‘seventy seven times’ (the Greek is the same expression as that used in LXX to translate Gen 4:24), but others argue that that is not what the Greek indicates. If the former is so then Jesus is taking Lamech’s increased requirement for revenge (seventy seven times compared with Cain’s seven times) and applying it to forgiveness. But it is not strictly a parallel. Lamech was not speaking of taking revenge seventy seven times, he was speaking of how great his vengeance would be. Here Jesus is speaking of the number of times an unlimited forgiveness must be offered (and whether it is seventy seven times or four hundred and ninety times it means exactly the same thing – it is without limitation).
We should, however, consider carefully what Jesus was really saying. He was not actually saying that we must forgive everyone for whatever they do, and never take what they have done into account when dealing with them. That would be gross foolishness. Even though we do have to approach them in a spirit of love (Mat 5:43-48), we do have to consider men’s past behaviour and their present attitude when deciding how to deal with them. Certainly we must love our enemies and not have feelings of vindictiveness towards them, but while that is good, it is not the meaning of forgiveness. Forgiveness means restoring a person to the relationship in which they were seen before they sinned. It means treating the sin as though it had never happened.
So Jesus is rather here speaking of behaviour between fellow-disciples (note Peter’s ‘my brother’) on the basis of their having repented (as in Mat 18:15). This comes out in Luk 17:4. ‘If your brother sin, rebuke him, and if he repent, forgive him. And if he sin against you seven times in the day, and seven times turn again to you, saying “I repent”, you shall forgive him.” It will be noted there that the forgiveness follows a profession of repentance truly given. The point therefore is of the forgiving of those who seek forgiveness, and that means reinstating them into the position in which they were before they sinned. It means trusting the repentant thief to look after your money on the basis of a genuine representation of repentance, because you now know that he can be trusted, just as God trusts us once we have truly repented. Thus in the case of Mat 18:15 the brother who repents is restored, while the one who refuses to repent is treated on a different level (Mat 18:17), still with love, but on the basis of the condition that still holds.
These words then make Mat 18:15 unrestricted. No individual believer or ‘congregation’ can limit the level of their forgiveness to one who truly expresses repentance. Such an expression must be taken at face value and acted on. We have thus no right to say to someone that we can no longer accept their apparently sincere offer of repentance, for we must always take the weakness of the sinner into account, just as we expect God to take our weakness into account.
On the other hand without genuine repentance there can be no true forgiveness. God looks with mercy and benevolence on all sinners (Mat 5:45) but He offers forgiveness and a place under the Kingly Rule of Heaven only to the repentant (Mat 4:17), and in His case he knows how genuine our repentance is.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 18:22 . ] are to be taken together (in answer to Fritzsche), and to be rendered thus: I do not say to thee , I do not give thee the prescription; comp. Joh 16:26 .
] not: till seventy times seven, i.e. till the four hundred and ninetieth time (Jerome, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Grotius, de Wette, Bleek); but, seeing that we have , and not again, the rendering should simply be: till seventy-seven times . No doubt, according to the classical usage of adverbial numerals, this would have been expressed by or ; but the expression in the text is according to the LXX. Gen 4:24 . [1] So, and that correctly, Origen, Augustine, Bengel, Ewald, Hilgenfeld, Keim; comp. “the Gospel of the Hebrews” in Hilgenfeld’s N. T. extra can . IV. p. 24.
For the sense, comp. Theophylact: , .
[1] 1 Where, indeed, cannot possibly mean anything else than seventy-seven, as is clear from the , not seventy times seven; comp. Jdg 8:14 . This in answer to Kamphausen in the Stud. u. Krit. 1861, p. 121 f. The (substantive) feminine form cannot be considered strange (seventy and a seven). See Ewald, Lehrb. d. Hebr. Spr. 267 c., and his Jahrb. XI. p. 198.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
Ver. 22. Until seventy times seven ] i.e. Infinities, toties quoties. God multiplieth pardons, Isa 55:7 ; so should we. “Love covereth all sins,” Pro 10:12 , so large is the skirt of love’s mantle. Between God and us the distance is infinite, and if it were possible, our love to him, and to our friends in him, our foes for him, should fill up that distance, and extend itself to infiniteness. We may without sin be sensible of injuries (a sheep is as sensible of a bite as a swine), but it must be with the silence of a sheep, or at utmost the mourning of a dove, not the roaring of a bear, or bellowing of a bull, when baited. All desire of revenge must be carefully cast out; and if the wrong doer say, I repent, you must say, I remit, and that from the heart; being herein like that king of England, of whom it is said that he never forgot anything but injuries. Every Christian should keep a continual jubilee, nexus solvendo et nexas remittendo, by loosing bonds and remitting wrongs, , 1Co 5:8 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Mat 18:22 . : emphatic “no” to be connected with . Its force may be brought out by translating: no, I tell you, not till, etc. . . .: Christ’s reply lifts the subject out of the legal sphere, where even Peter’s suggestion left it (seven times and no more a hard rule), into the evangelic, and means: times without number , infinite placability. This alone decides between the two renderings of : seventy-seven times and seventy times seven, in favour of the latter as giving a number (490) practically equal to infinitude. Bengel leans to the former, taking the termination – as covering the whole number seventy-seven, and referring to Gen 4:24 as the probable source of the expression. Similarly some of the Fathers (Orig., Aug.), De Wette and Meyer. The majority adopt the opposite view, among whom may be named Grotius and Fritzsche, who cite the Syriac version in support. On either view there is inexactness in the expression. Seventy times seven requires the termination – at both words. Seventy-seven times requires the – at the end of the second word rather than at end of first: either , or .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
seventy times. Greek. hebdomekontakis. Occurs only here.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Mat 18:22. , seventy-seven[836]) The termination makes the whole number seventy-seven. Thus the LXX., in Gen 4:24, use the same phrase regarding Lamech.[837]
[836] E. V. Seventy times seven. Vulg., Septuagies septies.-(I. B.)
[837] One could hardly believe that so great dissension could arise even among those entertaining the worst feelings towards others. Therefore there is required a willingness to forgive, which cannot be wearied out by any provocations, however numerous.-V. g.
If Cain be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold; not seventy times seven; LXX. .-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
but: Mat 6:11, Mat 6:12, Mat 6:14, Mat 6:15, Isa 55:7, Mic 7:19, Mar 11:25, Mar 11:26, Rom 12:21, Eph 4:26, Eph 4:31, Eph 4:32, Eph 5:1, Col 3:13, 1Ti 2:8
Reciprocal: Gen 4:24 – seventy Pro 19:11 – and Ecc 11:2 – seven Zec 8:23 – ten men Luk 17:4 – if
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
8:22
If seven means completeness then it would not be possible to go any further in the extension of mercy. We therefore understand the statement of Jesus here to have been spoken figuratively for the sake of emphasis.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 18:22. Until seventy times seven. It is doubtful whether the original means 490 or 77. But in either case it is a symbolical expression for never-ending forgiveness. Love is not to be limited by the multiplication table.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 22
Seventy times seven; that is, as many times as he may offend; the spirit of forgiveness must be inexhaustible.