Chapter Eighteen

1–5. The disciples’ dispute about who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. – 6–9. Teaching about stumbling blocks. – 10–14. Teaching about the salvation of the lost. – 15–20. Teaching about reconciliation with brothers. – 21–22. Teaching about forgiveness of wrongs. – 23–35. Parable of the unmerciful servant.

Matthew 18:1. At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked: Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? (See Mark 9:33-34; Luke 9:46-47). The parallel account in the synoptists (up to Matt 17:23; Mark 9:32; Luke 9:45) was interrupted by an insertion by Matthew (Matt 17:24-27) of an account about paying the tax, which is not found in the other evangelists. In the expression of the Russian translation “at that time” one should understand the correct Greek reading—ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ, which, if translated literally, means “at that hour.” This reading is confirmed by some Greek codices and translations, but in others (among them the Syriac Sinaitic, Cyr., Armenian) this word is replaced by ἡμέρα, day. The latter is considered a later correction. However, ὥρα cannot be taken here as a precise indication of time, as is generally the case in Matthew. But that the evangelist used this expression not only to indicate connection is evident from the mentioned parallel passage in Mark, which says that the Savior, when he came to Capernaum and was in the house, himself asked the disciples what they had been discussing on the road. Thus the latter could actually have occurred “at that hour.” Judging from the fact that the disputes of the disciples about who is the greatest happened more than once and each time provoked the Savior’s rebuke (see Matt 20:20 ff.; Mark 10:35 ff.; Luke 22:24 ff.; John 13:5 ff.), it should be thought that the thought about earthly advantages in connection with the presumed earthly dominion of such a person as the Savior took root in the disciples’ minds, they cherished it, did not wish to abandon it, and when circumstances were suitable, expressed it in the presence of the Savior himself, without restraining themselves and almost without heeding his rebukes. Perhaps this explains why the Savior revealed to the disciples the incorrectness of such opinions not only in words (as in Luke 14:7-11) but sometimes also with the help of powerful plastic images, which were meant to indelibly impress upon the disciples’ consciousness and that of all people the thought of the necessity in the kingdom of heaven not of dominion, but of service and humility. The immediate causes of the present dispute among the disciples about who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven are, however, insufficiently clear, and it is quite difficult to determine them. Paying attention to ὥρα (hour), some thought that the cause of the question was the envy of the other disciples toward Peter because Christ had preferred to command him to miraculously pay the tax for both himself and Peter. That all the disciples would occupy a high position in the kingdom being established—this seemed certain for them. But who among them, and would there be someone who would be the highest, the greatest? They reasoned about this in a worldly manner: who would hold the highest position with the Messiah in his kingdom? This is an indirect, but very important confirmation of the fact that the apostles themselves recognized the Savior as the Messiah-King, although in an earthly sense, otherwise the question they asked would have made no sense.

Matthew 18:2. And Jesus called a child, placed him in the midst of them, (See Mark 9:35-36; Luke 9:47). Teaching and edification is given not only by word but by example. So it often happens in ordinary life; and Christ also used similar, highest and truly classical (so to speak) methods of teaching and instruction. The example he chose is remarkable for its extreme simplicity, but it implies a complete revolution in the thinking and views of that time and points to it. The truth impressed upon the mind and heart by this example is of such depth that even now it is not fully understood by everyone.

Matthew 18:3. and said: Truly I say to you, unless you turn around and become like little children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven; (See Mark 9:36; Luke 9:48). The agreement of the synoptists here consists only in two words (Matthew: καὶ εἶπεν; Mark and Luke: εἶπεν αὐτοῖς). The further words of the Savior that Matthew includes, Mark and Luke omit. The words placed in Mark 10:15 and completely similar to them Luke 18:17, were spoken at another time and for another reason. It is rightly noted that if in the previous sections of Matthew’s Gospel the discussion concerned the relation of people gathering around Christ to the Jewish people in general and to public worship, then further teaching up to Matt 20:28 concerns the inner life of the community established by Christ. In the words of Christ addressed to the disciples, there is obviously given to them, as adults, instruction and moral teaching to abandon their former thoughts, inclinations, and strivings (στραφῆτε, as some consider μετανοεῖτε repent) and to become like children. But what does it mean to become like children, to resemble children? What should adults do if they wish to become like children? These questions can be answered by noting that the character of childhood is well known and the thought expressed by Christ is fully understandable without further analysis. Since a child was placed in the midst of the disciples as an example to them because of their desire to resolve the question of who is greatest, we can now move from general reflections about the character of childhood and “an adult similar to a child” to more specific definitions. Here we encounter one of the strongest and most convincing proofs of the thought that, according to the general New Testament view, the followers of Christ should, like children, refrain from claiming any external power for themselves and any preference over their brothers. “To climb high upward—this means to descend proportionally low.” The idea of the New Testament consists not in dominion over people but in service to them. Not external power should be characteristic of the followers of Christ, but moral. The followers of Christ acquire power over people by becoming like children. This idea is purely Christian and is marked by extraordinary moral beauty and attractiveness, and is clarified generally in the Gospels by the self-sacrificial service of the Servant of Jehovah and, in particular, by several other examples in which the thought of Christian service is also expressed.

Matthew 18:4. therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven; (See Matt 23:12; Luke 14:11). It should not be thought that the thoughts set forth in verses 3 and 4 are completely identical. In verse 3 the general thought is set forth that the disciples should become like children, that is, in all the good qualities characteristic of them. Verse 4 appears to be a conclusion from the foregoing, which is indicated by the particle οὖν (“therefore”), and points to a particular trait of the childish character, indeed contained in humility. Literally: “therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

Matthew 18:5. and whoever receives one such child in my name, receives me; (See Mark 9:37; Luke 9:48). This verse is set forth more fully in Luke, and the most abbreviated speech is in Matthew. It is difficult to explain the connection of this verse with the preceding one. In our opinion, an explanation is possible only if we allow that in the words of Christ “receives me” is expressed the thought of both the King, that is, Christ, and his kingdom. With such an interpretation, in the given verse one can see an answer to the last part of the question set forth in verse 1. This question can be divided as follows: 1) who is greatest? and 2) who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven? An answer was given to the first part in the sense that whoever is greatest should be least of all, should become like a child. An answer was given to the second part in the sense that whoever wishes to be greatest of all in the heavenly kingdom must receive Christ. Thus the King and the kingdom here seem not only not to be separated but to be identified, and at the same time information is given about what the heavenly kingdom is. According to Matthew, it is the reception (into one’s soul and heart) of Christ, but according to Mark and Luke—and the one who sent him, the Father. So too in John: “Whoever loves me will keep my word; and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him” (John 14:23). The difference is that the synoptists, speaking of the same thing as John, express their thought in images. The Savior does not simply say “receives me,” but “whoever receives one such child in my name, receives me,” with the further additions in Mark and Luke. The thought expressed here is similar to Matt 25:35-36, where Christ identifies himself with the hungry, thirsty, strangers, naked, sick, and imprisoned. Here he identifies himself with children. Christ was humble, meek, and so forth like “this child” or “one of these children.” Whoever receives a child receives Christ himself in the person of that child, and the one who sent him, the Father, and consequently becomes a participant in the kingdom of heaven. But what does “receives” or, better, “whoever would receive” (ὃς ἐὰν δέηται in all three evangelists) mean? Why is it not simply said “receives a child,” but “receives a child in my name”? What does the latter expression mean, “to receive a child in the name of Christ”? Evidently these questions can be answered only by establishing the precise meaning of the verb δέχομαι here, which, of course, means “I receive” and is usually translated in this sense (in the Vulgate—susceperit, in German—aufnimmt, etc.), but not always. In contrast to λαμβάνω, which has almost the same meaning but is independent of the feelings with which something is taken or received, δέχομαι in general and usually means “I receive with goodwill, love, joy, in a friendly manner” and is used in this sense both in classical writers and in the Old and New Testaments (in the Bible never in a hostile sense). See, for example, the translation of the Seventy: Prov 1:3; Jer 5:3; John 4:45; Gal 4:14; Eph 6:17; Col 4:10; Heb 11:31 and others. Thus the meaning of Christ’s words is this: “whoever receives with love one such child, receives me.” And where Christ is received with love, there his kingdom is received as well, and a man who has received them is close to Christ, and consequently occupies a high place in the kingdom, just as people close to an earthly king occupy the highest state positions. But evidently between simple reception, though with love, and such reception which is made in the name of Christ (ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου), a distinction is drawn here. To receive a child with love, to treat him in a friendly manner, to imitate him, to value his humility and modesty—this does not yet mean to receive Christ himself with love. He is received only when a child is received in his name, that is, when there is a certain relation of the receiver and the one received to his name, when a child is received in the Christian sense. Such is the nearest, exact meaning of Christ’s words. Since a child was placed in the midst of the apostles as a living image of the idea which Jesus Christ wished to impress upon the minds and hearts of his disciples, it is clear that by children one can understand here both adults similar in character to children, in particular, the apostles themselves. It means that the Savior does not speak here exclusively only about children or adults, but indifferently about both. What conclusion can be drawn from all that has been said? The speech of Christ and its connection will be even more understandable if we set forth everything in such a paraphrase. You ask, who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. You can understand this if you look at this child placed in your midst. You need not ask about who is greatest, but change your way of thinking (στραφῆτε) and become like this child. Does it ask anyone such questions? No, it does not even think of them. You too should first humble yourselves like a child, and only under this condition will you achieve the pre-eminence which you desire. The attainment of dominion and pre-eminence in the worldly sense is not possible for all, and moreover it is not necessary. But for all it is possible to attain such dominion and such pre-eminence as belong to this child; they are completely opposite to worldly pre-eminence. By trying to imitate children, you will look at them and receive them with love, and by receiving with love children, you will have the same close relations with me as with them, will receive me with love as well, and in this way will become the highest, greatest citizens of the heavenly kingdom which I have established. Concerning the numeral ἕν, Bengel remarks: frequens unius in hoc hapite mentio (the word “one” is often used in this chapter).

Matthew 18:6. But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned in the depths of the sea. (See Mark 9:42). At Luke 17:1-2 there are similar expressions, but in a different context. At Mark 9:38-41 and Luke 9:49-50 there are inserted accounts of a man who cast out demons in the name of the Savior; then Christ’s speech is presented in Matthew and Mark with almost literal agreement. What is said in the verse being examined is obviously placed in opposition to the speech in the previous verse. There it is spoken of receiving with love; here—of harm arising from stumbling. The latter word (σκανδαλίσῃ), as in other cases (see commentaries to Matt 5:29), indicates falling. As in the previous verse “if anyone receives” (literally), so here “if anyone causes to stumble.” But if in the previous verse it is “one little child,” then here it is “one of these little ones who believe in me.” The speech thus widens and generalizes. The child standing in the midst of the disciples serves as an image for clarifying the complex relations that exist among adults who believe in Christ. At first glance it seems that the Savior is here turning to a speech about an almost completely new subject, and moreover from simple association, so that this verse seems to have only an external connection with what was said earlier. But undoubtedly it has with the previous verses a more internal, profound, hidden connection. This latter is expressed, it seems, chiefly by the word “causes to stumble” (σκανδαλίσῃ). If in the previous verses the way was indicated, achievable for all and reliable, to acquire not imaginary but real advantages for oneself in the kingdom established and being established by Christ, then in the present verse obstacles are pointed out that turn from this path, and the consequences of such activity. The word πιστευόντων shows that here are meant not only little children as such and as such, for children in general are not characteristic of conscious faith that is manifested in humility and self-abasement, but adults who place themselves on the same level as infants. The Greek word συμφέρει can be translated, as in the Synodal translation, through “it would be better” in the sense of “it is more useful.” Such is the meaning of this verb in the classics and in the New Testament (in the non-transitive sense—Matt 5:29-30; John 11:50; 1 Cor 6:12; 2 Cor 8:10 and others). The meaning of the further speech shows in what the usefulness for a person who produces the stumbling consists. Before he causes someone to stumble, it would be more useful for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned in the sea depths. Then his body would perish, but his soul would be saved because he was prevented from producing a stumbling block. “Great millstone”—the translation is inexact; in the Slavonic translation it is exact: “a millstone driven by a donkey,” that is, a large millstone which a donkey turned; the latter was therefore called ὄνος μυλικός (a millstone donkey). The inaccurate translation in the Russian Bible was apparently made due to assimilation with Luke 17:2 (λίθος μυλικός—millstone or millstone). Here, of course, the upper millstone, or the so-called runner, is meant. Drowning in the sea was not a Jewish execution, but such a punishment was practiced by the Greeks, Romans, Syrians, and Phoenicians.

Matthew 18:7. Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! For stumbling blocks must come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes. (See Luke 17:1). It was said earlier that a man who produces stumbling blocks will be subjected to severe punishment; now he is warned of “woe” in a more general sense. In interpreting this verse one can distinguish the first half and the second, separated from the foregoing by the adverb πλήν (in the Russian translation—“but”). In explaining the first half, some asserted that “if it is necessary for stumbling blocks to come, then it is necessary to sin; if it is necessary to sin, then those who sin are unjustly subjected to punishment, obeying necessity.” Here, thus, necessitas consequentiae. This opinion is cited in particular by Euthymius Zigabenus and refuted by him in that “it is necessary for stumbling blocks to come because of the necessity of the existence of demons, but there is no necessity for those devoted to virtue to produce stumbling blocks, because men have free will. When stumbling blocks appear, this does not depend on us, but not to be subjected to stumbling blocks—this entirely depends on us.” Or John Chrysostom: “From this it is clear that even if it is necessary for stumbling blocks to come, that is, for those people who cause harm to exist, it is not necessary for us to cause harm.”

Matthew 18:8. If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away from you; it is better for you to enter into life crippled or lame, than to be thrown into the eternal fire with two hands and two feet; (See Mark 9:43-45). Literally: “it is better for you to enter into life crippled or lame (κυλλὸν ἢ χωλόν)...” The Russian translation was done rather according to the sense than literally. In the Slavonic: “better for you to enter into life crippled or lame” and so on, where the word “better,” as in Russian, inexactly renders the Greek καλόν ἐστιν, and through “lame”—χωλόν. However, it is noted that καλόν should be taken here in the sense of a comparative degree because of the ἤ (than) that follows it. In the Seventy such a construction is common; its basis is found in Hebrew construction, where the comparative degree is used with the subsequent “min.” The connection of the verse with the foregoing is determined thus: “do you wish not to be such a man of whom woe is pronounced?... cut them off and throw them away from you” and so on. The meaning is that “stumbling blocks not only cause one man to harm another, but arise for a disciple from his own nature” (Zahn), that is, depend on his free will, and he has the power to cause stumbling and not to cause stumbling for himself and others. This gives occasion to the sayings of verses 8–9, the meaning of which is essentially the same as in Matt 5:29-30 (see commentaries to that passage). The expression “into life” in the Greek with the article, “the known life,” true, real, not false, not illusory; and the corresponding expression “eternal fire”—also with the article, true, real fire. The idea of eternal punishment was characteristic of the Jewish apocalyptic literature of that time (Sol. 2, 35; Enoch 91:9, 27:3 and others). According to John Chrysostom, the Savior here speaks not of members of the body, but of friends and relatives of ours, which constitute as it were the necessary members for us. This interpretation is considered “too restrictive.” Our deeds and habits, as well as persons, can be as dear to us as a hand or a foot.

Matthew 18:9. And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it away from you; it is better for you to enter into life with one eye, than to be thrown into the Gehenna of fire with two eyes. (See Mark 9:47-48). The construction of this verse is identical to the previous one. The same thought is repeated for emphasis.

Matthew 18:10. See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my heavenly Father. The given verse contains “a wonderfully beautiful thought that the little ones as such enjoy the special protection of God, which is given to them through angels—mediators who see the face of God.” Therefore, attempts to add to and alter this thought in the form that by “little ones” are meant only “those who believe in my name” or “those remaining in the Church” (as in verse 6) appear to be limitations that do not correspond to Christ’s general thought and the general tone of his speech. His thought consists in the fact that neither physically nor spiritually should “little ones” be not only caused to stumble, but even be treated with arrogance and contempt. Here is a very subtle continuation of the answer to the question of who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Since the “little ones” are greater than all, then it is an error to belittle and demean them. The interpretation that Christ borrowed these images from the Jewish angelology that existed at that time and that his words have more or less close parallels in the customs of that time’s court life with kings (see 1 Sam 10:8; 2 Sam 25:19; Esth 1:14; Matt 5:8; Heb 12:14) really explains nothing. Closer to the evangelical expressions are Tob 12:15; Dan 9:13. It is more correct to think that here is new teaching about angels, an independent thought about them, expressed by Christ and his apostles in numerous places in the New Testament and representing its own, distinctive New Testament angelology, although perhaps having some formal similarity to the Old Testament and Jewish angelology. In any case, the thought that “the little ones” have angels who protect them before God is not found anywhere in such a form as in the New Testament. By “little ones” should rather be understood children, who serve as images for teaching and instruction of adults, and then these latter; these “little ones” we should not cause to stumble, but “imitate the angels and their care for these little ones” (Bengel). To see the face of the heavenly Father means to be in special closeness to God.

Matthew 18:11. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost. Many exegetes consider this verse to be a later addition, borrowed from Luke 19:10. In their opinion, by the insertion of this verse, the connection of verse 10 with verse 12 is obscured, which without verse 11 is completely clear. Morison, however, says that the evidence for the inauthenticity of this verse does not exceed the evidence for its authenticity, and the latter are found in the majority of ancient manuscripts, uncial and cursive, ancient Latin and Syriac translations, and in the Vulgate.

Matthew 18:12. What do you think? If a man had a hundred sheep and one of them went astray, will he not leave the ninety-nine in the mountains and go to seek the one that went astray? Matthew 18:13. and if he happens to find it, truly I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that have not gone astray. (See Luke 15:3-5). Luke calls this speech of Christ a parable. What is depicted in the parable constantly happens in the life of every shepherd. Who, for example, does not know how the lost animals are recovered by our village shepherds? The shepherd does not concern himself with the rest of the flock because he is assured of it, knows that the animals entrusted to his care will not go astray, will not be in danger, and will not be lost. But a lost animal may perish. “A hundred sheep” and “one”—a contrast. “A hundred” has a general (inexact) sense and is used simply instead of the words “a large flock” (in contrast to “a small flock”, Luke 12:32); it is simply a round number. It is not easy to explain the connection of the verse with the preceding verse 10 (unless verse 11 is excluded). To clarify it one can point out that in verse 12 the speech continues about the value in the eyes of God of “these little ones.” They have angels—protectors standing before the face of God, and God does not permit these “little ones” to perish. The thought of verse 12 becomes clear from the further verse 14.

Matthew 18:14. So it is not the will of your heavenly Father that one of these little ones should perish. (See Luke 15:7). Some exegetes, considering verse 11 to be authentic, hold that this section first presents the “introduction to the parable” (verse 11), then the parable itself (verses 12–13), and finally the parable’s conclusion (verse 14).

Matthew 18:15. If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him in private, just between you and him; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. (See Luke 17:3 – in different context). Just as God relates to people with love, so also people ought to love one another. Reconciliation with brothers, and specifically with those who have caused us some injury, is presented as one aspect of this brotherly love. Earlier the Savior said that people should not cause “these little ones” to stumble; now he speaks of how to act when we ourselves are caused to stumble. “Having directed a strong word against those who cause stumbling, the Lord now corrects those who are caused to stumble” (Theophylact). Clearly, these teachings refer not to sins in general, but specifically to private offenses and insults. Therefore, some have incorrectly interpreted this verse to mean that the Church itself is being discussed here, and that when it notices certain sins in its members, it should proceed as stated here: to rebuke and then to forgive or retain sins. The expression “you have won your brother” John Chrysostom interprets thus: “He did not say (the Savior): you have sufficiently avenged yourself on him, but rather: ‘you have won your brother,’ showing that enmity brings harm to both. He did not say: he gains benefit only for himself; but: and you, on your part, have won him. And by this he showed that both the one and the other previously lost much – one lost a brother, and the other lost his own salvation.”

Matthew 18:16. But if he does not listen, take one or two more with you, so that by the testimony of two or three witnesses every word may be confirmed. This is explained very well by Chrysostom: “And a physician, seeing that the illness does not cease, does not abandon the sick person and does not become angry with him, but applies even greater care. The Savior commands the same thing here. You were weak when you were alone; you will be stronger with the help of others.”

Matthew 18:17. And if he does not listen to them, tell it to the church; but if he does not listen to the church either, let him be to you as a gentile and a tax collector. Those persons mentioned in the previous verse, serving as witnesses, should also persuade and help toward reconciliation. If the person being persuaded does not listen to them, the injured party may turn to the church and present the matter for its judgment. What is meant by “church” here? Some thought it meant the Jewish “kahal” or synagogue. This opinion was based on the fact that when the Savior spoke, the Christian Church did not yet exist, and he could have used this word only in a Jewish sense, otherwise his speech would have been incomprehensible to the listeners. Against this opinion it is objected: He never called the synagogue a church; he never once uttered the word “synagogue” itself. Could we think that the Savior here had in mind the Jewish synagogue, especially in light of how verse 17 connects with the subsequent verses 18–20? From these latter verses it is entirely evident that no reference to the synagogue is actually being made here. It is certain that Christ understood here and could have had in mind only his own Church as a community of believers, and his speech was comprehensible to his disciples (to whom he was now speaking), because the church had already been spoken of somewhat earlier (Matt 16:18). But immediately following this question arises another. Does the Savior here mean the Church as a community of believers in their entirety, or only “the leaders of the Church”? The latter interpretation, it may be said, became established in antiquity. “Tell it to the Church, that is, to its representatives” (St. John Chrysostom). “By Church he now means the leaders of the Church, which consists of believers” (Euthymius Zigabenus). Many other ancient Greek and Latin commentators hold the same view. “As a gentile and a tax collector.” For Christ himself, gentiles and tax collectors were not lost, and he did not say that all obligations and relations toward them should be severed (see Matt 8:5-13). However, the “line of demarcation” between a church member and one condemned by it must still be drawn. Do not count him, Augustine says, among your brothers, but you should not be negligent about his salvation, for although we do not number gentiles among our brothers, we always care for their salvation.

Matthew 18:18. I tell you truly: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Similar words were spoken to Peter in Matt 16:19 and have the same meaning. In place of “what” (ὅ) Matt 16:19, here it is ὅσα – also neuter gender and refers to actions, not to persons.

Matthew 18:19. I tell you also truly that if two of you agree on earth about any matter they ask for, it will be given to them from my heavenly Father. The power of the disciples and of all believers in general is based on the inner spiritual unity of the community among its members (συμφωνεῖν) and with God.

Matthew 18:20. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them. In manuscripts D, the Sinaitic-Syriac, and in Clement of Alexandria, this verse is given in negative form: “for there are not two or three gathered in my name near whom (alongside whom) I am not (I am not present) in the midst of them.” Here reference is made to a church minimum. Christ is truly present among people even when only two or three of them gather in his name.

Matthew 18:21. Then Peter came to him and said: Lord! How many times should I forgive my brother when he sins against me? As many as seven times? (See Luke 17:4). Peter’s question does not have close connection with Christ’s discourse in verses 18–20, but it does have connection with verses 15–17. Christ apparently concluded his speech. His words about forgiveness of injuries to neighbors prompted Peter to ask for further clarification. In proposing his question, Peter, as one may suppose, knew of the customs and opinions that existed at that time among the Jews regarding forgiveness of injuries. “When a man sins against another, he is forgiven once, he is forgiven a second time, he is forgiven a third time, but he is not forgiven a fourth time.” Such is the frequently cited saying of the Babylonian Talmud (Yoma 86a, 2), which was supported by Job 33:29-30; Amos 1:3 and others. Peter wants, apparently, to stand above the scribes of his time and increases the number of forgivenesses almost twofold, to seven.

Matthew 18:22. Jesus says to him: I do not say to you, “as many as seven times,” but “as many as seventy times seven. The Savior refutes Peter’s thought first with a brief remark. If Peter thought one must forgive the neighbor as many as seven times, perhaps each day in the course of a whole week, then the Lord says that one must forgive “as many as seventy times seven” (ἕως ἑβδομηκοντάκις ἑπτά). What does this last expression mean? Tertullian and Jerome related this expression to Gen 4:24, where Lamech says that “if Cain is avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy times sevenfold.” Therefore, people think that in the Gospel there is “a definite allusion to the account in Genesis, and it is quite probable” that the Gospel expression was formed in imitation of the similar phrase in that place in Genesis. It is fairly noted that the exact count here is not of great importance. As appears from the parable that follows, Jesus Christ wanted to indicate only that we must forgive brothers personal offenses an unlimited number of times.

Matthew 18:23. Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. (On ὁμοιώθη see the commentaries to Matt 13:24). The kingdom is “like” a king – a characteristic feature of the Savior’s speech in parables. The king is called a man, some event in human life, past or present, is pointed to. The expression “to settle accounts with his servants,” also used in Matt 25:19, is considered a Latinism – rationes conferre. The pure Greek expression would be different: διαλογίζεσθαι πρός τινα. By servants here are usually meant not simple, lowly slaves, but courtiers – ministers, treasurers, stewards. They are called servants according to Eastern custom; in relation to Eastern despots they had as many rights as ordinary slaves in relation to their masters. Therefore, the Gospel expression shows complete accuracy and vividly depicts the relationships that were customary at that time and fully comprehensible to Christ’s listeners. What is related in the parable serves as an image of human relations with God and with neighbors. The king-man is understood to be God, who settles accounts with people (Isa 1:18). “God begins to settle accounts when through afflictions and infirmities he brings people to the deathbed and to death.” This, however, is not the final account and consequently not identical with what is spoken of in Matt 25:19, 2 Cor 5:10; Rev 20:11-12, but rather similar to Luke 16:2 and following (Trench).

Matthew 18:24. When he began the accounting, there was brought to him one who owed him ten thousand talents. An enormous sum of debt (12,000,000 rubles, or by other calculations – 25,000,000 rubles) shows that this servant held a high position with the king and was his highest official. That a man could be such an irrepayable debtor before God is not even a matter of discussion. Putting a hand upon the heart, each person will say that he commits many deeds for which his conscience accuses him, deeds contrary to the moral law, and he commits them every day. How many, then, does he commit in each week, each year, and finally in the course of his whole life? We have become so accustomed to many deeds that we have ceased to notice that they are moral transgressions, offensive to divine justice.

Matthew 18:25. Since he could not pay, the master commanded that he be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment be made. The rights of Roman citizens were known under the technical name caput. A slave was deprived of these rights, and this was indicated by the technical formula nullum habet caput. “The slave was practically deprived of all rights; what he apparently possessed was his property more out of grace than by right. He was property and could not be a subject, but only an object of rights.” “The master’s rights were practically absolute. Since the property of a slave, his wife, and his children were also considered the master’s property, the latter could treat them as he wished” (Trench). According to Jewish law, slaves were in a somewhat better position (Lev 25:39-55; see also 2 Sam 4:1 and others).

Matthew 18:26. Then the servant fell down, prostrated himself before him, and said: Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you everything. In the words “have patience with me, and I will pay you everything,” one rightly perceives the presumption of the servant, who promises to pay a debt that he could not pay.

Matthew 18:27. The master, moved with compassion toward that servant, released him and forgave him the debt. The servant’s debt is not only lightened, but entirely forgiven. It is incorrect to say that the parable does not speak of the basis on which the debt was forgiven. The chief basis for this was the mercy (σπλαγχνισθείς) of the king, and then, as should be understood, also his great wealth, because such an enormous loss apparently brings him no harm or distress. The parable speaks of no mediation, intercession, or surety for the servant.

Matthew 18:28. But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii, and seizing him, he choked him, saying: Pay what you owe. The word “going out” shows that the former actions took place in the palace or in the king’s court. In a spiritual sense, the temple may perhaps be meant here. What is portrayed in this verse could not, of course, have occurred in the court in the presence of the king and his servants (verse 24). “He found” indicates chance. The fellow servant of the forgiven servant (σύνδουλος) owed him a trifling sum, only a hundred denarii (if a denarius equals 20 kopecks, then 100 denarii equal 20 rubles, equivalent to 400 grams of silver value).

Matthew 18:29. Then his fellow servant fell down at his feet, begged him, and said: Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything. Matthew 18:30. But he refused; instead, he went and threw him into prison until he should pay the debt. Matthew 18:31. When his fellow servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and came to tell their master everything that had occurred. Matthew 18:32. Then his master summoned him and said to him: Wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. Matthew 18:33. Should you not also have shown mercy to your fellow servant, just as I showed mercy to you? A logically entirely correct argument. The one to whom a great debt is forgiven thereby obligates himself to forgive others their small debts. But people are evil and in pursuit of earthly benefits often act contrary to all logic and common sense. Therefore, what is portrayed in the parable is encountered very frequently in ordinary practical life.

Matthew 18:34. In anger, his master handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all the debt. “The torturers, those who torture, represent a certain foreign institution and incline us to think that the action of the parable took place in one of the Eastern monarchies, rather than in Judea” (Trench). The rabbinic laws regarding debt collection were much milder compared to this, apparently harsh (Roman or Herodian) disposition about the debtor. If someone owed the temple money or property, his possessions could undergo inventory or seizure, but the debtor was left some of his property necessary for subsistence. This should also have happened between ordinary creditor and debtor (see Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1892, vol. 2, p. 295, note ed.). Roman Catholics try to confirm their doctrine of purgatory with the words of verse 34, “as if they meant a limit beyond which punishment does not extend, but this expression is a common saying, and it means only that the criminal must now experience the utmost rigor of the law, judgment without mercy, the endless payment of an eternal debt” (Trench). The Savior’s words do not contain any doctrine of purgatory. But here there is a certain difficulty, not easily resolved. The debt was already forgiven by the king to the debtor, and therefore the question is raised: utrum peccata semel dimissa redeant (do sins once forgiven return and become imputable again)? To this is answered that the form of the parable is determined by its spiritual meaning. Whoever departs from a state of grace enters into a state of condemnation.

Matthew 18:35. So my heavenly Father will also do to you if each of you does not forgive your brother from your heart. A parable immortal in its simplicity, depth, vividness, and clarity, concludes with a conclusion equally immortal in its dignity – a practical application in the highest sphere – to relations between God and man.