Chapter Twenty-Five

1–13. The parable of the ten virgins. – 14–30. The parable of the talents. – 31–46. The prophecy of the last judgment.

Matthew 25:1. Then the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins, who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. Matthew 25:2. Five of them were foolish and five were wise. The word “then” (τότε) here indicates the time when the Son of Man will come. It is understood primarily (but not exclusively) as His final coming for judgment before or at the end of the world. Τότε also serves as a connection with the preceding speech and indicates its continuation. The Savior continued to speak to His disciples on the Mount of Olives, with a view of Jerusalem. Vizeler determines the time as Tuesday, April 14, 12 Nisan, 783 years from the founding of Rome. The kingdom of God cannot, of course, be like ten virgins – this is only a special turn of speech, as in Matt 13:24 and others, and means that the kingdom of heaven is like all the circumstances set forth in the parable, in which the ten virgins participated. The same thing that happened to the ten virgins who went out to meet the bridegroom will happen or will come to pass in the kingdom established by the Savior. All without exception members of this kingdom, believers and unbelievers or only those who have heard about Christ, may resemble the ten virgins. With extraordinary accuracy and brevity, in only eighteen separate words (in the Greek language), here the personality of each person is characterized, who is a member of Christ’s kingdom or who has any relationship whatsoever to Christ. The number ten is chosen, apparently, not arbitrarily, because in speech that is highly artistic and lifelike, there could be nothing arbitrary and accidental. But to explain why exactly the number ten is chosen is quite difficult. The answer, why the parable points to virgins, should be that the entire parable is full of the most beautiful, highly attractive, poetic and artistic images, and reference to virgins was best able to correspond to the thought that was intended to be expressed in the parable. The Baptist was the friend of the bridegroom and rejoiced in hearing His voice. Christ Himself called Himself the bridegroom (Matt 9:15; Mark 2:19-20; Luke 5:34-35). Since He was now continuing to speak about His second coming, there was no better and more beautiful image that He could have chosen than the image of a wedding feast, all the joy and celebration of which depend on the presence of the bridegroom at it. An illustration for the parable can be the 44th psalm and the Song of Songs; compare 1 Macc 9:37.

Matthew 25:3. The foolish ones, taking their lamps, did not take oil with them. This verse contains proof (γάρ) of why in the preceding verse five virgins are called foolish: because they did not take oil with them for their lamps.

Matthew 25:4. But the wise ones, along with their lamps, took oil in vessels. By oil here are meant in general all virtues that make a person worthy of participation in the feast of the kingdom of heaven, but especially those that are opposed to foolishness, negligence, frivolity, and carelessness of the foolish virgins.

Matthew 25:5. And while the bridegroom delayed, they all became drowsy and slept. The word “delayed” is imprecise; in the original: χρονίζοντος (present tense) δὲ τοῦ νυμφίου – while the bridegroom delayed, took a long time, did not come. It should be noted that all the virgins fell asleep, both foolish and wise. Neither some nor the others are blamed or condemned for this. Therefore, there is no reference here to the criminality and sinfulness of spiritual drowsiness and sleep. Only the need for watchfulness is pointed out. Otherwise, when the bridegroom comes, he will receive no greeting at all. The virgins are wholly distinguished from the evil servant (Matt 24:48) who says: ‘My master is not coming soon’ – they expect his speedy arrival. The foolish, in this connection, speak as it were thus: ‘Surely he will come soon, and therefore there is no need to stock up much oil.’ ‘This,’ says Alford, ‘may serve as an indication of how generally distinct are the foundations of both parables.’

Matthew 25:6. But at midnight there was a cry: ‘Behold, the bridegroom is coming; go out to meet him.’ It should be noted that from this verse the so-called Alexandrian Codex, which is dated to the 5th century, comes to the aid of the critics of the Gospel text. It is kept in the British Museum. Up to this verse in this codex, all preceding chapters of the Gospel of Matthew have been lost. “At midnight,” that is, at a time when sleep is especially deep. Who raised the cry? Unknown. The matter presents itself as so ordinary and natural that there was no need to mention it. Perhaps, while the virgins slept, there were found lovers of all kinds of processions and ceremonies, who from a distance raised a cry at the appearance of the bridegroom. Some think that the cry was raised by the virgins themselves, those who awakened first, and who began to awaken their companions. The word γέγονεν (in the Russian translation – ‘there was a cry’) is very picturesque. It means: a cry arose (began, happened) and did not cease (perfect tense), as if hanging in the air. This is how it happens during all kinds of popular celebrations. One can also translate it in the present tense: ‘at midnight a cry arises.’ Trench and Morison cite passages from the English writer Ward, where he describes a wedding ceremony that he witnessed in India: ‘After two or three hours of waiting, finally, around midnight, it was announced: “Behold the bridegroom comes; go out to meet him.” All who participated in the procession lit their lamps and hastily took their places in the procession; some of them lost their lamps and turned out unprepared. But it was already late to search, and the cavalcade moved on.’ That which happens in India now, was surely also in Palestine in the time of Christ. Chrysostom uses the words “at midnight” to indicate that at this time there will be resurrection. ‘This He says either in accordance with the parable, or showing that resurrection will occur at night.’ Jerome goes further and points to a ‘Jewish tradition,’ according to which ‘Christ will come at midnight, as this happened in Egypt, when the Passover was celebrated, and the (Angel) destroyer came, and the Lord passed over the dwellings, and with the blood of the lamb the doorposts of our houses were sanctified’ (Exod 12). From this, I think, there also remained an apostolic tradition that on the wakeful day of Passover it was not permitted to disperse the people before midnight, the people waiting for the coming of Christ. This opinion was criticized, and they said that Christ will more likely come for judgment in the morning, because He is pater lucis – Father of light. Neither one nor the other opinion, apparently, is based on anything. Midnight simply indicates the time of sleep and deep rest, to more sharply contrast the unexpectedness of the bridegroom’s arrival (compare Matt 24:37). At what time Christ will come, this is not said and is not clarified. Everything here has symbolic meaning and serves only to clarify that Christ’s coming will be unexpected.

Matthew 25:7. Then all the virgins arose and trimmed their lamps. Matthew 25:8. The foolish ones said to the wise: ‘Give us some of your oil, because our lamps are going out.’ In verses 8 and the following – the “dialogue” of the parable. Explaining this verse, Origen says: ‘Although the virgins were foolish, they understood that to meet the bridegroom they should have light by keeping all the lamps of their senses burning.’ Jerome: ‘If anyone has a virgin soul and loves modesty, he should not be satisfied with what is ordinary, which quickly dries up, and having begun to burn, goes out; here perfect virtues are indicated, emitting eternal light.’

Matthew 25:9. But the wise ones answered: ‘So that there will not be a lack for us and for you, go rather to those who sell and buy for yourselves.’ The response of the wise virgins is sometimes considered cold and even ‘ignoble.’ But Jerome notes: ‘Thus (the virgins) answer not out of greed, but out of fear. And just as during the Babylonian captivity Jeremiah could not help the sinners, and was told: “Do not pray for this people” (Jer 7:16), – so terrible will be that day, when each one must think only of himself.’ Some assumed that the response of the wise virgins contained mere irony or mockery of the foolish. Newer critics and exegetes decisively reject such an interpretation. It appears to have arisen, perhaps, chiefly because if we do not take the response as mockery and if it was serious, then it is difficult to explain where and how the foolish virgins could get oil at night time, ‘when all the shops were closed.’ But the matter is explained more simply. If the wise virgins advised the foolish to go and buy oil for themselves, then, this means, the advice was feasible. From the following verse 10 one can conclude that the foolish actually did get oil, only it was too late; perhaps it was not needed at all. In all probability, the merchants lived nearby. It is known that in hot countries, as in Palestine, because of daytime heat, active commerce is conducted at night. Under ‘those who sell’ Chrysostom understands the poor. ‘Do you see what benefit the poor bring to us? If you remove them, you will be deprived of all hope of salvation. So, here one must stock up with oil so that later, when time requires, one can use it: the present, not the future, is the time of preparation.’ The same thought is repeated by Theophylact: ‘The foolish go to those who sell, that is, to the poor. This means: they repented that they did not give alms. Only now do they learn that we must receive oil from the poor. Therefore, the words that they went to those who sell to buy oil mean that they in their thoughts went to the poor and began to reflect on what good deed almsgiving is.’ But the parable does not say at all that those who sell are poor people.

Matthew 25:10. When they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready entered with him to the wedding feast, and the door was shut; Matthew 25:11. afterwards the other virgins came and said: ‘Lord! Lord! open to us.’ Matthew 25:12. He answered them: ‘Truly I say to you: I do not know you.’ Compare Luke 13:25-27 – similar expressions are encountered, but in a different context, and the speech is about a different subject.

Matthew 25:13. Therefore, be watchful, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man will come. “At the end Christ speaks no longer as Bridegroom, but as Judge” (Holtzmann). The final words: ‘in which the Son of Man will come,’ are absent in some codexes, and it is possible that they were added to the original text. (The Sinai, BL 33 C, Coptic-Saitic, Syriac-Sinai codexes and Jerome’s text end the verse with the word ‘hour’). But although this addition is not authentic, it can serve as an explanation of the words ‘neither the day nor the hour.’ In verse 13, the very essence of the parable of the ten virgins is clarified. In it, it is not said that people should possess various virtues, for example, almsgiving, mercy, and such. The parable gave rise to famous disputes between Protestants and Catholics about what should be understood by the oil in the lamps, faith or good works. Protestants, of course, understood only faith, while Catholics understood good works. But, strictly speaking, here neither one nor the other is spoken of. Some even thought that the Holy Spirit is spoken of here. But all such interpretations are of little relevance. The essence of the parable, apparently, is that it is merely ‘an illustration of the last part of Christ’s speech’ (Matt 24:44-51). The parable of the ten virgins can be briefly outlined in its main features as follows: be personally ready, be ready at all times, be ready to go to Christ directly. To this we add that both the parable of the ten virgins and the further parable have had, have, and will continue to have enormous practical and vital significance for Christian life. Nowhere else in any other religion do we find anything similar. In all other religions, so to speak, there is a constant and noticeable lack of motivators or stimulating means for action, progress, and perfection. From this in all other religions, except Christianity, there is constant stagnation, idleness, and torpor. In contrast to these deficiencies in the life of peoples, Christ urges Christians to constant watchfulness, and this becomes one of the strongest driving forces of all progress and perfection. Here the leaven is cast into the mass of humanity. Here an unrestricted and constant forward movement is aroused, not stopping or becoming calm at any dead point. An invitation to constant watchfulness is contrary to any stagnation and reaction. But one can ask: where does such power come from? What is its source? The answer of Christ Himself to these questions may seem somewhat strange. Be watchful, do not sleep, be active and wise, do not fall into idleness... because you do not know the day or hour... The motive for watchfulness is, thus, the constant expectation of the coming of the Son of Man, although no one knows the exact time of this coming. What an amazing motive! Who could have put it forward but the true Messiah, who said: ‘Be watchful,’ constantly wait for Me, ‘because you do not know’ when I will come. Only the enormous authority and dignity of the Messiah who appeared on earth could give power to such words. Others might perhaps only have said: Be watchful until I come, and I will come at such and such an hour. Do not sleep until My arrival, then you can rest. So masters speak to their servants. But the Messiah speaks differently.

Matthew 25:14. For He will act like a man who, going away to a foreign country, called his servants and entrusted his property to them: (Compare Luke 19:12.) In Russian “He will act” is emphasized. These words are not in the original. Literally: “For as a man going away from his people called his servants and gave them his property.” From this it is evident that here is one subordinate clause, which begins with “as” (ὥσπερ), but there is no main clause. In our Slavonic this Greek form is rendered entirely accurately (without a main clause): “For just as a man going away called his servants and gave them his property” and so on. In many old and new translations there is also no main clause. Thus in the Vulgate: sicut enim homo peregre proficiens vocavit servos suos et tradidit illis bona sua. In English (Authorized Version) such an addition was made: For the kingdom of heavens as a man travelling into a far country who called his own servants (for the kingdom of heaven is like a man going into a distant country, who called his servants and so on). In this translation there are main and subordinate clauses, but the main clause is not the same as in the Russian translation. From the foregoing one can see how difficult it is to render exactly in Russian the 14th verse. What kind of construction is this? It is called by the complicated word ‘anantapoton,’ which is not in dictionaries and which is not in all grammars and means ‘non-return, non-giving back; absence of correspondence to the previous speech.’ Such constructions are also found elsewhere in the New Testament (Mark 13:34), they are also called ellipsis (shortening) or aposiopesis (reticence) and are used for brevity of speech. Similar expressions were also common in Jewish Midrash (Merke). The particle γάρ (‘for’) connects the speech of verse 14 with the preceding, but it is not easy to explain its meaning here. In all probability, the connection is as follows: you do not know the day or hour and are like not only the virgins spoken of in the preceding parable, but also like servants to whom one man divided his property. Because (γάρ) when he went away to a distant country, he called and so on. The difference between the parable of the talents and the parable of the ten virgins lies in the fact that in the latter is depicted the “personal state” of the members of Christ’s kingdom, whereas in the former it points to their personal activity. Chrysostom compares the parables of the virgins and of the talents with the parable of the faithful and evil servant (Matt 24:40-51). ‘These parables are similar to the previous parable of the unfaithful servant, who wasted his master’s property.’ By ‘his property’ is here meant not immovable property, but only money. From the fact that later the master says: ‘I will set you over much’ (verses 21 and 23), one can conclude that he was not even comparatively poor and, going to a distant country, entrusted his servants with only part of his property. In Luke (Luke 19:12-27) a similar parable is related earlier in time and in a different context – the parable of the ten minas. The question of whether the parable of the minas is identical to the parable of the talents is very difficult. Some consider them two different parables in view of certain differences. This includes, first of all, the difference in time and place. Luke’s parable is said before the Lord’s entry into Jerusalem and was addressed to the people and disciples. It is assumed that its historical basis was the known circumstances of the accession to the throne of Archelaus, when he had to go to Rome and seek for succession to the throne (Schürer, Geschichte, I, p. 442). Matthew’s parable is part of the last eschatological speech of Christ; in this parable there is no reference to ‘a man of noble birth’ whom ‘the citizens hated.’ It was spoken in the immediate circle of disciples. But, on the other hand, the very close similarity of the expressions of both parables (although not literal), especially compare Matt 25:20-29; Luke 19:16-26, does not allow us to get rid of the thought that both parables are only a variant of one and the same parable. The identity of both parables is recognized by many serious scholars. In this case, Matthew’s recension, as more ‘uniform and compact,’ is recognized as original, and Luke, it is said, combines with the parable of talents another parable – of the revolted citizens. Now, of course, it is very difficult to decide how it was in reality. In view chiefly of the difference of expressions, it is more probable that two separate parables were pronounced on different occasions, under different circumstances, and at different times. This is where one must stop, since there is not enough material for further judgments. In Mark (Mark 13:34-35) we find only a slight allusion to the circumstances set forth in the parables of Matthew and Luke.

Matthew 25:15. and to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability; and he went away immediately. (Compare Luke 19:13.) All the property of the man who went away to a foreign country consisted, consequently, of eight talents. These talents, as is evident from verses 18 and 27, were silver (τὸ ἀργύριον, τὰ ἀργύρια). Holtzmann determines the value of the total sum of money given to the servants at 35,000 German marks, that is, approximately 17–18 thousand rubles in our money. Others, translating the value of one silver talent into English pounds sterling, count one talent as equal to 234 pounds sterling (pound sterling – about 10 rubles in our money), two talents – 468 pounds sterling, five – 1,170, and the whole sum was, consequently, 1,872 pounds sterling, in our money approximately 18,000 rubles. In a spiritual sense, by talent is understood the various abilities given by God to a person, which he must use in serving God and for the advancement of the kingdom of heaven. Expressions borrowed from this parable – talent, talented, do not bury your talent, and so on – have become stereotypical and common, entered into a proverb. By the talent given to people, different exegetes understand any gift received by a person from God. But in particular definitions of this general concept there is some difference. “By talents,” says Chrysostom, “here is meant what is in the power of each one (ἡ ἑκάστου δύναμις – the power of each one): either patronage, or property, or teaching, or something similar.” Others understood those gifts of which the apostle Paul speaks in the 12th chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. By “power” (δύναμις) one can understand rather the readiness of a certain person, his disposition, willing or unwilling, to serve the cause of Christ’s kingdom, than some positive gift or talent. All the same, gifts or talents are given to a person from God.

Matthew 25:16. The one who received five talents went and put them to work and gained five more talents; Matthew 25:17. and in the same way the one who received two talents gained two more; Matthew 25:18. but the one who received one talent went and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money. An indication is given of the customary way of preserving money among the ancients (used even recently in our villages), when money was buried in secret places known only to the one burying it or to a few trusted persons (treasures).

Matthew 25:19. After a long time, the master of those servants came and settled his accounts with them. (Compare Luke 19:15 – the expressions are completely different.) Origen says: “Notice here that it is not to the master (the servants) go to judgment and to receive what is worthy according to their deeds, but the master comes to them.” The master of the servants went away to a foreign country, not having given the servants any instructions regarding his monetary sums. About this they had to guess themselves, as is evident from the parable. Two guessed that they would be required to give an account, and acted wisely. The third reasoned otherwise. The expression “after a long time” is understood to mean that it affects the expressions made earlier about the unexpectedness and quickness of the Lord’s second coming, and one says that the latter should not be understood in an absolute sense. Non est absoluta celeritas adventus Dоmini (Bengel). Some think that, strictly speaking, there is no speech here about the Last Judgment universal, but about a particular one, when God will require an account from each person before his death or during it. One can, of course, understand the words of Christ in this latter sense. Συναίρει λόγον – confert, vel componit rem seu causam. In Russian this expression is rendered precisely, though not literally.

Matthew 25:20. The one who had received five talents came and brought five more, and said: ‘Master, you gave me five talents; see, I have gained five more.’ Compare Luke 19:16. In ancient times money was valuable, and one hundred percent on one hundred was not an extraordinary matter.

Matthew 25:21. His master said to him: ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful in a small matter; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ Compare Luke 19:17. By “much” one can understand all the property, the whole house (compare Heb 3:6). The expressions “good” and “faithful” differ; the first points to absolute goodness, goodness in itself, to the inner virtues of the servant, independent of the commission given to him; the second – to his relationship to his master and to his property. Both expressions are distinguished as genus (ἀγαθός) and species (πιστός) – genus and species. By ‘joy’ one cannot understand any kind of celebrations or feasts arranged by the master on the occasion of his return, but simply the joy of his return itself, or on the occasion that on meeting with the first and second servants all was, properly speaking, found in good condition, and the loss caused by the lazy servant was more than covered by the profit obtained by other servants. Compare Gen 1:31; Isa 53:11; Heb 4:3-11; Rev 3:21.

Matthew 25:22. The one who had received two talents came and said: ‘Master, you gave me two talents; see, I have gained two more.’ Matthew 25:23. His master said to him: ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful in a small matter; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ Matthew 25:24. The one who had received one talent came and said: ‘Master, I knew you were a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter, Matthew 25:25. and in fear I went and hid your talent in the ground; here is what belongs to you.’ (Compare Luke 19:20-21.) To preserve the talent without profit, it had to be buried in the ground; in Luke a small sum, just one mina, is wrapped in a cloth. Despite all similarity in meaning, there is a strong difference in expressions between Matthew and Luke. The servant’s speech is distinguished by business-like quality – so, at least, it seems to him. Instead of reasoning he points to facts, well known both to him and to the master himself. It is incorrect to think that talis non erat hic dominus (the master was not such in reality), as the servant depicts him. If the parable depicts actual persons, if it is a depiction of contemporary reality of that time, then one must assume that the master was indeed such. Such an assumption not only does not harm the spiritual meaning of the parable, but, on the contrary, greatly strengthens it. There is no need for sentimentality and embellishments, which are allowed by various exegetes, if only one recognizes that Christ depicted persons such as they were, and not idealized them. The servant’s words were just, which is partly confirmed later by the master himself. The kindness of the latter, shown to the first two servants, cannot be called flawless from the point of view of absolute morality. He cares not at all how the servants made their money and doubled his capital, only so long as they made it. He loves to reap where he did not sow, that is, perhaps, from his neighbors, on fields adjacent to his own, and to gather grain on foreign threshing floors. He was harsh (σκληρός); the servant expresses fear before him (φοβηθείς – verse 25; ἐφοβούμην – Luke 19:21), and not only “knows” him to be such, but “knew” (ἔγνων – aorist) before, in the course of indefinite time. There is no need to assume that this servant here is an allegory for the Jewish people, who were in lege persistens, totus carnalis et stupidus; here every separate person, every separate individual is meant, whom God calls to give an account of his actions.

Matthew 25:26. His master answered him: ‘You evil and lazy servant! You knew that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I did not scatter; (Compare Luke 19:22.) About the former joy at meeting with the first two servants there is now no mention. The former affectionate and quiet speech now turns into a threatening storm wind. Again it is incorrect to think that here the master refutes the servant’s slander (servus autem malus appellatur: quia calumniam domino facit – Jerome) or speaks here only hypothetically (ὑποθετικῶς τὸν λόγον προήγαγεν, Euthymius Zigabenus). There is no refutation of slander here, no hypotheticality. The servant’s words are recognized as just, but the master is so powerful and strong that for him ordinary morality seems to have no significance. Might – that is his right! Therefore, greed, rapacity, love of profit, absence of ordinary logic in him appear as virtue. If he reaps on foreign fields, then this is correct! If he gathers grain on foreign threshing floors, then this is lawful! The servant knew well about this, and he should have taken it into account. Since the servant did not do what was desirable to his master, he is judged, and on the basis of principles, again disapproving from the point of view of ordinary morality. The master almost entirely repeats the speech just spoken by the servant and puts it to his charge.

Matthew 25:27. therefore you should have given my money to the money changers, and on my return I would have received what is mine with interest; (Compare Luke 19:23.) The meaning of the speech is not as follows: you should have given my money to the money changers, and if you through carelessness, lack of skill, or for some reason had wasted the talent given to you, you would have had nothing to fear – I would not have subjected you to punishment for this. On the contrary, one should think that if the servant had wasted the property entrusted to him and returned nothing to the master or returned only part of it, then he would have been subject to even greater condemnation and punishment. About this only nothing is said. The character depicted in the parable is excellently sustained from beginning to end. He is a harsh, willful, and greedy man, who reasons about nothing but profit. He does not demand of the “evil” and “lazy” servant that he necessarily earn him, as others did, one hundred percent on one hundred. But there should be some profit at least! If it were too small, the master would not have invited the servant to enter his joy; but he would not have subjected him to severe punishment either. The very questionable nature of all this business and the requirements, which, however, so easily, quickly, and naturally, almost imperceptibly, transforms into the very highest Christian morality, is evident from the fact that the Hebrews had laws that allowed lending money to Hebrews, but strictly forbade giving them money at interest (Lev 25:35-37; Deut 15:1-10). Among those who may dwell in the dwelling of the Lord and live on His holy mountain, the Psalmist counts the one ‘who does not put his money out at interest’ (Ps 14:5). But if usury was forbidden among Hebrews, it was entirely permitted with respect to foreigners: ‘From a foreigner you may take interest, but from your brother you must not take interest’ (Deut 23:20); ‘Of a foreigner you may demand interest, but of your brother forgive the debt’ (Deut 15:3). In the Talmud (Rosh Hashana I, 8; Talmud, trans. Peferkovitch. V. 2, p. 427; Sanhedrin, III, 3; ibid., v. 4, p. 258) there are decrees of a general nature that those who lend at interest cannot be witnesses and judges. ‘One who lends at interest cannot repent until he tears up the promissory notes in his possession and makes complete repentance’ (Bavli adds that he will not even give to gentiles at interest; Talmud, trans. Peferkovitch. V. 4, p. 259; see also Bava Metzia, ch. IV–IV; ibid., v. 4, p. 103–127, where complicated discussions are conducted on buying, selling, deceptions, interest, etc.). In Bava Metzia, V, 6 (ibid., V. 4, p. 119) it is said: ‘One does not receive from a Jew the “iron livestock” (“tzon barzel”), for this is interest, but one receives “iron livestock” from gentiles, and borrows from them and gives interest; the same applies to a resident proselyte. A Jew may lend money belonging to a gentile with interest, with the knowledge of the gentile, but not with the knowledge of the Jew.’ Despite all such decrees, at that time, however, ‘usury flourished without limit’ and ‘there is no doubt that Jewish usurers in Palestine and everywhere engaged in such enterprises.’ The master points to this, using a precise Greek expression meaning reproduction or increase (σὺν τόκῳ, in the Russian translation – ‘with interest’).

Matthew 25:28. therefore take from him the one talent and give it to the one who has ten talents, (Compare Luke 19:24.) Origen says: ‘How something is taken from someone that was previously given to him, and given to another, active one, so that he may have more of what he has already acquired – this is not easy to explain.’ After this follows in Origen an allegorical and vague explanation. In a spiritual sense, of course, the explanation is quite difficult, but if we hold to the historical or everyday basis of the parable, the explanation will not seem particularly difficult. The talent is taken from the servant who did not put it out at interest, as from an inactive and lazy one. This serves as the first punishment for him. The talent that did not bring interest is given not to the second servant, although he was also good and faithful. This is more reliable. It is not necessary that the first one already has many talents. His powers are great, and he can act again and gain more. The master everywhere and always is calculating and knows very well how to preserve his interests.

Matthew 25:29. For to the one who has, more will be given and he will have plenty, but from the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away; (Compare Luke 19:25-26.) A peculiar, but entirely lifelike and understandable reason is indicated for why the last talent is taken away. It lies not in the fact that the evil and lazy servant does not have a talent, but in the fact that he does not have profit or interest. For this lack of profit, the talent itself is taken from him. Τοῦ δὲ μὴ ἔχοντος, the so-called genitivus privativus (compare Matt 13:12 and commentaries to this verse).

Matthew 25:30. and cast the worthless servant into outer darkness: there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. In Luke 19:27 the speech is completely about a different subject. The final words placed in the Russian and Slavonic texts are absent in any ancient codexes and translations, and they should be considered not authentic. Rightly they point out the difference between the speech to the good and faithful servants and to the evil and lazy one. There the master himself invites the faithful servants to enter his joy; here, as in Matt 22:13, he commands his servants to cast out the worthless servant. About outer darkness and so on, see commentaries to Matt 8:12. The parable examined has even more, than the parable of the ten virgins, has had, has, and will continue to have enormous practical and vital significance. It serves as the strongest driving force for Christian activity. Its influence has always been great. The practical meaning of it is this: do not hesitate before anything, but use the talent given to you from God and apply it in service to His kingdom. It serves as a counteraction and antidote to all stagnation, torpor, idleness, laziness, retrogression, and self-satisfaction. Unceasing advancement on the path of self-perfection, continuous activity and development – this constitutes the main postulate of the parable. The motive presented for all of this is even more astounding than in the parable of the ten virgins. If any ordinary man, say even a father of a family, were to urge people to sleepless, relentless activity, he would probably point to its practical usefulness, profit, happiness, to the necessity of movement, the harm of idleness and inactivity. The Savior points to an entirely different and unique motive. When He comes again, returns to His own, He will harshly, cruelly, and without mercy demand of each person for the proper use of the talent given to him, and if there is no profit, He will punish severely. Such a motive has indeed become the driving force in the midst of Christian peoples, and people both believing and not believing, all in essence, consciously and unconsciously, are guided by it in their activity. No one, even the most exalted religious teacher, could have proposed such a motive, except one only – the true Messiah.

Matthew 25:31. When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory, The word “holy” is absent in some codexes, and it is inserted here, perhaps, from Zech 14:5. Many consider the speech beginning from verse 31 to the end of the chapter not a parable, but a prophecy, into which only abundant figurative and symbolic elements are introduced. Christ’s speech becomes increasingly magnificent. In it new aspects of His eschatological teaching are revealed. At first – a bridegroom, coming suddenly and taking the ready ones with him to the wedding feast. Then – a master, rewarding for good performance of his servants’ work and severely punishing them for inactivity. Finally, a king (verse 34), coming into the world for judgment. In all these cases, evidently, one and the same Person of the Son of Man Himself is presented, acting differently under different circumstances. In this lies the deep inner connection of all three parables, which have close relation to the entire eschatological speech set forth in chapter 24. This connection can be expressed in a few words: one and the same Lord. The new appearance of Christ will be entirely opposite to the former. If His first coming was in the form of a servant, full of humility and abasement, then the second – in the form of a king, accompanied by angels and sitting on a throne. How these figurative expressions are to be understood, in a literal or only spiritual sense, is difficult to say. One usually speaks of the personal appearance of the Son of Man, sitting on a magnificent and exalted throne, and so they write in pictures and icons. But one can understand the appearance in a spiritual sense as well. To clarify this latter to some extent and bring it closer to understanding, let us say that after the passage of centuries and even now the Son of Man sits, although invisibly, on a throne (also invisible), and people constantly approach Him and gravitate as to their King. Something similar, perhaps, will be the case at the final judgment. It should be added that the images taken for the prophecy are distinguished by extraordinary simplicity. The speech is not complicated by ever newer and newer reasonings, but almost entirely consists of the repetition of the same thing, done with extraordinary skill, and this makes it easily accessible and easily assimilated even by small children. There were found exegetes who did not dare to interpret this speech of the Savior.

Matthew 25:32. and all the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; Much discussion has been conducted regarding the expression ‘all nations.’ What nations? Christian only, or also gentiles, as well as Jews? Origen added other distinctions here. “It is not sufficiently clear,” he said, “whether the word ‘all’ means from all generations (ab omnibus generationibus), or those that will remain until the day of judgment, or only those who believed in God through Christ, and whether all of them or not all. However, some seem to think that this is spoken about the separation of those who believed.” These expressions are not sufficiently clear. Zigabenus asserted that here the speech is only about Christians (περὶ τῶν χριστιανῶν δὲ μόνον ὁ λόγος ἐνταῦθα). But if the speech is only about Christians, about which one might conclude from the subsequent conversation of the King with those judged, showing that all of them know Christ, then the question arises: will other peoples, besides Christian ones, be judged or not? If not, then, consequently, the last judgment will not be universal. In view of this some make a concession and say that the judgment will be universal, all people without exception will be called to it; Christians will be judged on the basis of the principles of ‘mercy and love’ indicated in the speech itself, and all others – either on the basis of natural law, or the moral law codes that existed among them. This opinion is supported by the expression πάντα τὰ ἔθνη – all nations, and this opinion, with various modifications, is accepted generally by newer exegetes. Against it, however, one can object that Christ said to His disciples that they would not be judged, but would judge together with Him the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt 19:28). On the other hand, it is beyond doubt the authenticity of the following words spoken by the Savior Himself: ‘Truly, truly, I say to you: he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has eternal life, and does not come to judgment, but has passed from death to life’ (John 5:24). These words are entirely clear; judgment will not be universal, some people will be spared from judgment. Thus, this first and important limitation must exist at the Last Judgment. To clarify all this, which apparently contradicts one another, we must not imagine the Last Judgment as an ordinary judgment, where a case is investigated and examined by ignorant judges, who derive material for their judgments from judicial investigation. The heavenly Judge does not resemble earthly judges; He is all-knowing and knows the secrets of the human heart beforehand; He will have no need for interrogations and questions, as ordinary judges do. Such an interpretation greatly simplifies the matter. We must free ourselves from all ideas of our human courts and then we will understand that the entire prophecy consists of images and symbols directed toward the main practical goal – to urge people to acts of mercy and love. Thus, the parable of the virgins urges watchfulness, of talents – activity, and the prophecy of the Last Judgment – to acts of mercy and love. From what has been said, there remains only one conclusion: all people will be judged, but the moments of judgment will be prolonged; some before the last judgment will pass into eternal life. All expressions in the prophecy are figurative. A great difficulty for interpretation is presented by the fact that πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (all nations) is neuter gender, and the further ‘them’ (in the Russian translation – ‘from one another’ – αὐτοὺς ἀπ´ ἀλλήλων) – a pronoun of masculine gender. Such an impossible and unusual combination in Greek of a masculine pronoun with a neuter noun caused some exegetes to even suppose that here two completely different speeches from two different sources are borrowed and mechanically joined (even without agreement) into one speech. ‘The introduction, therefore, does not fit the further speech; between συναχθήσονται πάντα τὰ ἔθνη and καὶ αφοριεῖ αὐτούς there can be no unification, and here, therefore, there is a bringing together of parts that originally had no connection with each other, which cannot be more reliably explained.’ The matter is here somewhat exaggerated. Similar constructions ad sensum, as Blass shows, are found elsewhere in the New Testament (Blass, Gram., p. 162 ff.). Thus, Acts 8:5: And Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them Christ; Gal 4:19: My little children, whom; John 6:9: Child, who; Phil 2:15: of a crooked generation, in which and so on. The separation is compared to the actions of a shepherd who separates sheep from goats (ἐρίφων – masculine gender). Why on the right side will be placed sheep, which represent the righteous, this does not require explanation, because the image of sheep is so used in the New Testament that the matter presents no difficulties. But why for those standing on the left side were chosen not even goats, but precisely male goats, is difficult to explain. Jerome said: ‘He did not speak of goats, which can have offspring,’ but ‘of male goats, an animal lustful and always eager for coition.’ Others assert that male goats ‘were not highly valued’ (compare Luke 15:29), and therefore in verse 33 even a disparaging diminutive τὰ ἐρίφια is used. All these explanations are improbable. It is better to explain the matter using natural images. All peoples appearing for judgment present themselves as a herd, not homogeneous, but consisting of different elements. If Christ had said that a shepherd would separate wolves from sheep, then such speech would be, by itself, obviously unnatural. But goats and sheep are constantly pastured together in Eastern herds. One traveler says that, traveling between Joppa and Jerusalem, he saw in one place a large mixed herd of sheep and goats. The goats were entirely black, the sheep – all distinguished themselves by beautiful whiteness, and thus, even at considerable distance, the distinction between the two classes of animals was well noticeable. The separation of sheep from goats is customary in all countries where these animals are pastured in great numbers. Male goats, of course, do not serve in this parabolic speech as a characterization of those standing on the left side; these animals are used by Christ briefly to denote the division of people, perhaps into black and white, that is, evil and good. Zahn considers the relation of this verse to Ezek 34:17 ff. to be ‘very questionable.’

Matthew 25:33. and He will put the sheep on His right and the goats on His left. The Russian translation is precise, but not entirely conveying the thought of the original. In Greek: ‘from (from, ἐξ) the right side’ and ‘from the left side.’ The Judge’s face will be turned toward the peoples, and the right side does not mean the right side in the direction toward Him (as in our churches), but from Him. Instead of ἔριφος in verse 32, now ἐρίφιον – a small goat, a diminutive. Explaining such a distinction is quite difficult. Probably, τὰ ἐρίφια is placed here in closer correspondence with the preceding τὰ πρόβατα and means not so much ‘goats,’ but ‘the goat herd,’ about which there was no speech in verse 32, because the goats were mixed with the sheep and together formed one herd. In verse 32 one could not say that the shepherd separates the ‘goat herd’ from the ‘sheep herd,’ because this would not be precise and would not correspond to what happens in reality. Now, when the goats (and female goats) were separated, the entire aggregate of them, the whole herd is called τὰ ἐρίφια.

Matthew 25:34. Then the King will say to those on His right: ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: The goats and sheep in this verse and further completely disappear from view. They served only to denote different classes of people, to whom the King now addresses Himself. Instead of ‘sheep’ the expression ‘those on your right’ is used, and instead of goats – ‘those on your left’ (verse 41). The King calls those standing on His right blessed of His Father and invites them to inherit the ‘kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world.’ ‘He did not say: take, but ‘inherit,’ as your own, as of your father, as yours, as belonging to you from ages past’ (St. John Chrysostom). The expression ‘from the foundation of the world’ (ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου) is difficult to translate precisely from the Greek. Καταβολή in use by classical writers is sometimes placed beside θεμέλιον, foundation; sometimes means fecundation, sowing (Heb 11:11). In the Sacred Scripture of the New Testament, the expression points to the historical beginning with relation to the future, to purpose and completion, because in καταβολή there is always a relation to what is to be restored (Cremer). A distinction is drawn in the New Testament between the time πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, before the foundation of the world, and from the foundation of the world. In the present case one should not understand the pre-eternal preparation before the foundation of the world (compare Eph 1:4), but the Savior uses simply a general expression to denote an ancient time, ‘not going back very far.’ The expression can simply mean ‘from long ago.’ Theophylact draws attention here to the fact that before judgment a speech is pronounced. ‘The Lord does not reward and punish before deliberation, because He is merciful, and thus teaches us also not to punish before we investigate the matter.’ When, notes Bengel, good and evil are compared to each other, to the good is always attributed eternal existence, so to speak, antecedent, but evil is said to come from the beginning (ab exitu). Thus in the present verse (compare verse 41; 1 Cor 2:6-7).

Matthew 25:35. ‘For I was hungry and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger and you welcomed Me; Matthew 25:36. I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’ The picture suddenly changes, without becoming any less magnificent. The King recalls His past. He is not ashamed of His former poverty and destitution. These words were understood by all.

Matthew 25:37. Then the righteous will answer Him: ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You? or thirsty and give You something to drink?’ Matthew 25:38. ‘When did we see You a stranger and welcome You? or naked and clothe You?’ Matthew 25:39. ‘When did we see You sick or in prison and come to You?’ Matthew 25:40. And the King will answer them: ‘Truly I say to you: whenever you did it for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did it for Me.’ Matthew 25:41. Then He will say to those on His left: ‘Depart from Me, cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels:’ In verse 41, special attention is drawn to the word κατηραμένοι – ‘cursed.’ It comes from ἀρά or ἀρή – prayer, entreaty; in Greek epic and with poets it is used in the sense of ‘misfortune,’ ‘calamity,’ ‘punishment,’ ‘divine wrath.’ The Greeks even had a goddess of curse and death, which was called thus. In the New Testament the word κατάρα and καταρᾶσθαι is used several times, and always, apparently, as opposed to εύλογία – blessing (Matt 5:44; Mark 11:21; Luke 6:28; Jas 3:9-10; 2 Pet 2:14; Rom 12:14; Gal 3:10; Heb 6:8), as in the present place (for details see Cremer under ἀρά and κατάρα). Thus, by the word ‘cursed’ here are meant such people to whom a word is spoken that brings upon them calamity, destruction, death, and ‘eternal fire.’ The curse should be understood here in the sense of condemnation. But it is noted that formally the curse is not attributed to God the Father and ‘the curse is pronounced as if in an impersonal form.’ By the expression ‘eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels,’ as in other places of the New Testament, may be meant not material fire, but simply torments that will be eternal (compare Jude 1:7).

Matthew 25:42. ‘For I was hungry and you did not give Me something to eat; I was thirsty and you did not give Me something to drink;’ Matthew 25:43. ‘I was a stranger and you did not welcome Me; I was naked and you did not clothe Me; I was sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’ Matthew 25:44. Then they also will answer: ‘Lord! when did we see You hungry or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not serve You?’ In verse 44 the speech of verses 37–39 is repeated, but with strong abbreviations. As the righteous, so the sinners show ignorance of what the King speaks about. If sinners ever saw Him as He depicts Himself, that is, hungry, thirsty, and so on, then – oh, certainly! – they would have served Him. But if the error, or better, the naive and modest ignorance of the righteous is interpreted in their favor, then here it is the opposite.

Matthew 25:45. Then He will answer them: ‘Truly I say to you: whenever you did not do it for one of the least of these, you did not do it for Me.’ Matthew 25:46. And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. * * * Notes The gold content of a ruble at that time was 0.86 g; that is, the entire sum roughly corresponded to the value of 15 kg of gold. – Editor’s note. That is, approximately 15 kg 480 g of gold. – Editor’s note.