Matthew 18:21

Mat_18:21-22

Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him?

The forgiveness of injuries

I. The best exemplification of the spirit of forgiveness is our Lords own life. There were two kinds of sin in these days of which Christ took cognizance; those against society or the race, and those against Himself. To each He applied the principle of the text. He forgave the vilest sinners who came to Him; and Saul who persecuted His Church. But we find the highest illustrations of His love when we mark His dealings with the souls He seeks to save. Christ does not turn against the man who rejects Him.

II. This principle is intended to guide us in our actions towards our fellows.

1. Shall not Christians be forbearing towards other men. Let us bear wrong in as generous a spirit as we can. The feeling of brotherhood must be kept higher than that of revenge.

2. This law must be observed in the family.

3. Christ teaches the spirit in which we must regard offenders whose sin is against society. Unlimited forgiveness you will say is unpractical. Put it into action, and let it fail. Christianity conquers by failing; its martyrs are its victors. This is not a dead law; but life-giving. (A. J. Griffith.)

Forgiveness of offences

I. A personal offence is anything whereby we are personally injured in our feelings, our reputation, our person or estate. A public offence is one by which the Church is injured by any of its interests.

II. The question is, what is our duty in reference to personal offences?

1. We should not cherish any malignant or revengeful feelings towards those who injure us.

2. We should not retaliate, or avenge ourselves on our offenders.

3. We should cherish towards those who offend us the feelings of kindness, regarding them with that benevolence which forbids our wishing them any harm.

4. We should treat them in our outward conduct with kindness, returning good for evil and acting towards them as though they had not injured us.

III. When are we to forgive? There are two classes of passages which bear upon this subject.

1. Those which prescribe the condition of repentance (Luk_17:3).

2. Those in which no such condition is prescribed (Mat_6:14; Mat_18:21; Mat_5:44-45). So Christ prayed for His crucifiers. So Stephen prayed. So is God in His dealings with us. These passages are not inconsistent. The word forgiveness is used in a wider or a stricter sense. In the wider sense, it includes negatively, not having a spirit of revenge; and positively, exercising a spirit of kindness and love, and manifesting that spirit by all appropriate outward acts. This is forgiveness as a Christians duty in all cases. In a more restricted sense it is the remission of the penalty due to an offence. This is illustrated in the case of an offence against the Church. Repentance is the condition only of the remission of the penalty, not of forgiveness in the wider sense. There are penalties proper to private as well as public offences.

IV. Grounds of the duty.

1. Gods command.

2. Gods example.

3. Our own need of forgiveness. Our sins against God are innumerable and unspeakably great.

4. The threatening that we shall not be forgiven unless we forgive others.

5. It is a dictate of Christian love. (C. Hodge, D. D.)

The duty of forgiveness

I. Is urged by a consideration of the greatness of Gods mercy to us.

II. Of the lightness of our brothers sins.

III. Of the terrible consequences of indulging an unforgiving spirit. (Dr. Dobie.)

The forgiveness of sires

1. If God commands us thus to forgive, there must be an infinite ocean of forgiving love in His own heart.

2. That Gods forgiveness is altogether above mans conception of it. (J. H. Evans, M. A.)

A forgiving spirit essential to vital religion

I. The Christian duty of forgiveness.

II. The consequences of refusing to fulfil that duty. (B. W. Noel, M. A.)

The duty of forgiving offences

There are many wrong notions about forgiveness. Consider the following conspicuous points-

I. The principle of forgiveness is single.

II. Forgiveness and forbearance are two separate principles of action.

III. The object of the Christian religion is to make like God, and therefore the Christian is called upon to imitate God in his action.

IV. Compassion and forgiveness are very different things.

V. Forgiveness has an element of justice in it. (N. Schenck, D. D.)

Limited forgiveness

This question was framed in the very spirit of the old law of retaliation. By proposing any limit whatever to forgiveness, Peter showed that he still considered that to forgive was the exceptional thing, was to forego a right which must some time be reassumed, was not an eternal law of the kingdom, but only a tentative measure which at any moment may be revoked; that underneath the forgiveness we extend to an erring brother, there lies a right to revenge which we may at any time assert. This feeling, wherever it exists shows that we are living with retaliation for the law, forgiveness for the exception. But Christs law is, that forgiveness shall be unlimited. (Marcus Dods, D. D.)

Injuries not to be made public

A man strikes me with a sword, and inflicts a wound. Suppose, instead of binding up the wound, I am showing it to everybody, and after it has been bound up I am taking off the bandage constantly, and examining the depths of the wound, and making it fester, is there a person in the world who would not call me a fool? However, such a fool is he who, by dwelling upon little injuries or insults, causes them to agitate and influence his mind. How much better were it to put a bandage on the wound and never look to it again. (Simeon.)

The superior influence of forgiveness

A soldier in the American army heard of the severe illness of his wife. He applied for leave of absence but was refused. He left the army, but before he got away he was retaken, and brought in as a deserter. He was tried, found guilty, and summoned before the commanding officer to receive his sentence. He entered the tent, saluted, and stood perfectly unmoved while the officer read his fearful doom-To be shot to death with musketry on the next Friday. Not a muscle of his face twitched, not a limb quivered. I deserve it, sir, he replied, respectfully; I deserted from my flag. Is that all, sir? … -No, replied the officer-I have something else for you; and, taking another paper, he read aloud the doomed mans pardon. The undaunted spirit which severity had failed to move was completely broken down by clemency. He dropped to the ground, shaking, sobbing, and overcome, and, being restored to his regiment, proved himself grateful for the mercy shown him, and was soon promoted for good conduct.

Forgiveness awakens gratitude

A private was court-martialled for sleeping at his post. He was convicted, sentenced to death, and the day fixed for his execution. But, the case reaching the ears of the President, he resolved to save him; he signed a pardon and sent it to the camp. The day came. Suppose, thought the President, my pardon has not reached him. The telegraph was called into requisition; but no answer came. Then, ordering his carriage, he rode ten miles and saw that the soldier was saved. When the Third Vermont charged upon the rifle-pits, the enemy poured a volley upon them. The first man who fell, with six bullets in his body, was William Scott, of Company K. His comrades caught him up; and, as his life-blood ebbed away, he raised to heaven, amid the din of the war, the cries of the dying, and the shouts of the enemy, a prayer for the president. (Moore.)

Forgiveness

Peters question showed that he wholly misunderstood the nature of forgiveness. He thought it was something he might withhold or give as he pleased. Our Lord shows that it is a state of the heart which cannot be called forth by order or calculation.

I. Both in the parable and in the teaching of our Lord here it is admitted that all men have claims on one another. These are not to be compared, in point of magnitude, with the claims which God has on all, but still they are claims. The man who is debtor towards God may be a creditor towards somebody, and the man who has committed most wrongs may be able, in his turn, to say that there is some one who has wronged him.

II. Admitting to the full the claims which one man has against another in the way of personal offences, yet there is something of more importance still than the rectifying of a wrong act or word. His of importance to have the wrong righted, but Jesus Christ has more respect still to the character, repentance, and restoration of the individual who has offended. It is difficult to realize that the offender has inflicted a worse injury on himself than on the offended, the injury he has wrought on his own spirit. This truth will come out more clearly when you consider the precepts Christ gives for guidance in the matter, and the great result of success-Tell him his fault between thee, etc., Thou hast gained thy brother. This is above all personal gain. Charity is victory.

III. This duty of forgiveness is enforced by a parable where our claims on others are placed in contrast with Gods claims on us. We have no hope but in forgiveness. If we feel the need of Divine compassion, have we not learned the worth of it towards our fellow-creatures. (A. Watson, D. D.)

Forgiveness not a matter of calculation

Suppose a man were to put the question, How often must I admire what is beautiful and great in creation? how often must I cherish affection for my child? how often must I honour God? how often must I practise the duty of kindness? or how often must I feel sympathy for the unhappy and the suffering? You will see that any answer which could be given to such a question would be misleading, simply because the question proceeded on a false notion of what admiration, or affection, or sympathy is. To give a direct answer to such questions, you could only say, in Christs words, Until seventy times seven i.e., numbers have nothing to do with the matter. Forgiveness is a simple state of mind, like admiration of Gods creation, for which all that a man needs is a sense of beauty and order in his nature, Forgiveness is a state of heart, just as affection or sympathy is. And no man thinks of determining how often and how far he must feel sympathy, or how often and how far he must love those who are dear to him. The sympathy is always there, the love is always in the heart, and it requires only to be appealed to and touched to come forth. You could not imagine a man of genuine tenderness of heart making up his mind and calculating whether he should feel pity for a case of distress or not. You could not imagine a friend debating with himself whether he would sympathize with his friend in some calamity. Sympathy is free and spontaneous; it does not come and go at ones call: love is only love; sympathy is only sympathy, when it cant help itself. (A. Watson, D. D.)

The offender the greatest sufferer, and therefore needs pity most

If a man, in robbing us of a trifle, were to meet with an accident which disabled him and made him a sufferer for life, we should feel that his punishment far exceeded our loss; and most of us would have the heart to commiserate him, even though he had only himself to blame. And if the injury is not to life or limb, but to the immortal part of the man-if he destroys his own spiritual life-we should commiserate him all the more. (A. Watson, D. D.)

Forgiveness must be real and true

We may not forgive with our lips, and bear malice in our hearts. Such sham forgiveness is only too common. A man was lying on his sick bed, and the clergyman by his side was urging him to be reconciled to some one who had injured him. After much persuasion the man said, If I die I will forgive him, but if I live he had better keep out of my way. And again, our forgiveness must be willing, not forced from us. (Buxton Wilmot.)

Forgive and forget

How many are there who profess to forgive, but cannot forget, an injury. Such are like persons who sweep the chamber, but leave the dust behind the door. Whenever we grant our offending brother a discharge, our hearts also should set their hands to the acquittance. (Archbishop Secker.)

A sensibility to injury not sinful

We may without sin he 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 wrongdoer 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. (John Trapp.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 18:21-22. Then came Peter — When Jesus had given this advice for the accommodation of differences among his disciples, Peter, imagining it might be abused by ill-disposed persons, as an encouragement to offer injuries to others, came and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Must I go on to do it until he has repeated the injury seven times? He does not mean seven times a day, as Christ said, Luk 17:4, but seven times in his life, thinking, if a man had trespassed against him seven times, though that person were never so desirous to be reconciled, he might then lawfully and properly renounce all society with him: Jesus saith, I say not, Until seven times — I never intended to limit thee in any such way; but, Until seventy times seven — That is, as often as there is occasion; a certain number being put for an uncertain: for it is not the number of times in which a person may offend that is to be here regarded, but his true repentance. In short, the precept is unbounded, and you must never be weary of forgiving your brethren, since you are so much more indebted to the divine mercy than your fellow-creatures can be to yours.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

Mat_18:22. Until seventy times seven.—That is, as often as there is a cause—a certain number is put for an uncertain (John Wesley).

Mat_18:24. Ten thousand talents.—The talent was not a coin, but a weight or sum of money. See margins A.V. and R.V. The amount here intended cannot be exactly determined. “Even if silver talents are meant, the sum is enormous—at least two million pounds of our money. It was probably more than the whole annual revenue of Palestine at this time” (Carr). The expression is perhaps used indefinitely for a very large sum; yet it might be understood literally, if we suppose, with Archbishop Trench, that the servant in question is a satrap or governor of a province, who should have remitted the revenues of his province to the royal treasury. Cf. Est_3:9 (Mansel).

Mat_18:27. Forgave him the debt.—The Greek noun in this case expresses a debt contracted through a loan, and in the interpretation of the parable suggests a thought like that in the parables of the Pounds, the Talents and the Unjust Steward. What we call our own—life, with all its opportunities—is really lent to us, and God requires repayment with interest (Plumptre).

Mat_18:28. An hundred pence.—A hundred Roman denarii. See margin A.V. and R.V. The denarius was the common wage per day of a labourer (Mat_20:2).

Mat_18:29. Besought.—Not the same word as “worshipped” (Mat_18:26). The word in the text would be used by an equal addressing an equal (Carr).

Mat_18:31. Very sorry.—This seems to point to the common conscience of mankind approving or anticipating the Divine sentence (ibid.).

Mat_18:34. Tormentors.—This word probably signifies more than “keepers of the prison,” as it is sometimes interpreted. Though there is no evidence of torture being applied to debtors under the Jewish law, yet the practice was not unknown in other countries (Mansel).

Mat_18:35. From your hearts.—A different principle from the Pharisees’ arithmetical rule of forgiveness (Carr). Their trespasses.—Omitted in R.V., the MS. authority being against the retention of the words.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Mat_18:21-35

Quousque?—The Rabbis are said to have taught men to forgive their neighbours three times, but no more. Even this advice, however, they are also said to have qualified so greatly as to amount, practically, to hardly recommending any forgiveness at all. Doubtless, therefore, in the question he asks (Mat_18:21). Peter thought himself to be even conspicuously nearer the spirit of Christ. The Saviour’s reply showed him plainly that he was yet very far off. Showed him, in fact, that there was hardly any limit to the question he asked (Mat_18:22). Amongst many things confessedly difficult in the parable which follows, there are two things bearing on this question of forgiveness which it makes very plain. It shows, first, the real character of man’s relation to God; and therefore, secondly, the real meaning, on man’s part, of a distinct refusal to forgive.

I. Man’s relation to God.—Generally speaking, this is that of a debtor to his creditor. We have not done to God as we ought. In this broad way of speaking there is “no difference” between one man and another. We have “all sinned and come short” in this most vital respect (Rom_3:22-23). We have all unquestionably withheld that from God which is just as unquestionably His legitimate due. We have done so, also, to an extent which it is quite impossible to compute. This is signified by the ten thousand talents of which the parable speaks. In 2Ki_5:26, we see how much Gehazi thought of doing with only two “talents of silver”; and may judge, therefore, what would have been the purchasing power of five thousand times as many talents; and these, moreover, not impossibly, talents of “gold.” It is just one of those sums, in short, which is so great that we cannot really reckon it up. And yet it is that, be it observed, to which our Saviour Himself compares our “owings” to God. It follows, next, therefore, that the debt in question is what we can never discharge. It is true, no doubt, that the servant here spoken of, when called to account, and in imminent danger, promised to discharge, and that in full, what was owing by him; but that we may, perhaps, look upon as being simply in keeping with the general unscrupulousness of his character. And that is certainly in keeping with what we see daily of the utterly unreliable arithmetical reckonings of most persons in debt. Those who never have saved as yet always think that they can. Those who attribute all the evil of the past to infirmity, always hope to be not only strong, but doubly strong in the future. What we know of such “hopes” is that they are not believed in by any one else; and, in fact, that the very expression of them only increases the mistrust of every one else. Just so is it of all those who think of making up for themselves and by their own efforts what is owing from them to God. It only shows that they have no adequate conception either of themselves or of it. And yet, for all this, observe, lastly, that we are none of us, at present, as it were, paying the penalty of that debt. God may, indeed, have begun to “reckon with us” about it, as was done with the man in this story. He may be causing us thereby to feel something of its weight and enormity. But He is not as yet exacting from any of us in this world, that heavy and terrible “satisfaction” for it, which, is required by His law. In this sense we are all of us—even the most unbelieving among us—“forgiven” souls for the time, and the sentence against us, if not yet in all cases reversed, is yet, in all cases, suspended. So that to every living soul we may say as was said of old in the latter part of Job_11:6.

II. The true meaning, therefore, on man’s part, of a distinct refusal to forgive.—We see, in the first place, the intrinsic iniquity and wickedness of so doing. For it is exacting that from our neighbour which is not being exacted from us. It is taking him “by the throat” when we have been allowed to go free. It is saying to him just that which has not been said to ourselves. And using the hand, as it were, which has been released from prison to close it upon him. A most outrageous and crying injustice, if ever there was one in the world! Also, it is an injustice which is greatly aggravated by every difference in the two cases. What are one hundred pence to ten thousand talents? What are my brother’s few sins against me compared to my numberless sins against God? What my rights, also, against him as my fellow-servant compared with God’s rights over me as His creature? Even if the cases had been similar, the injustice of not doing as I have been done by would be at once gross and complete. As things are, it is even more—it is beyond expression in words. Lastly, we are to notice here the exceeding audacity of this description of conduct. We are told (Mat_18:31) that when the man’s “fellow-servants saw what was done, they were exceeding sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.” This is not an inapt description of the real meaning of such an action as that. It is doing that which is sure to come under the notice of God. It is an appeal to God, in fact, on such an offender’s part, against that offender himself. Other sins may be described as simply so many violations of His law—and they bad enough in all conscience. But this is very much more; it is a direct perversion of it, it is an open defiance of it as well. How can God be omniscient and not know of such things? How can He be holy and not abominate such cruelty? How can He be just and not punish such injustice?

See, in conclusion, how the close of this parable carries us back. The Rabbis and Peter (Mat_18:21) had treated forgiveness as an exceptional thing; a thing to be granted, as it were, under compulsion, and only so far. The issue of this teaching of Christ is on just the opposite line. According to Him we should not be reluctant but glad to forgive. Let your forgiveness be “from the heart” (Mat_18:35). This is the true mark of belonging to Christ (Eph_4:3). Compare also the saying about Archbishop Cramner: “Do my Lord of Canterbury an ill-turn, and you have made him your friend for life.” Also how the whole parable carries us upward. Why were these other teachers so radically wrong as to their duty towards their neighbour? Because they were wrong to an equal degree about their relation to God. This is always true of the unregenerate heart (see Psa_9:17; Psa_10:4). The opposite is the unfailing sign of the regenerate heart (Psa_51:4; Gen_39:9, perhaps Psa_16:8). How wise, therefore, the words of the Saviour in Joh_17:3.

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Mat_18:21-35. The duty of forgiveness urged.—Forgiveness is urged:—

I. By a consideration of the greatness of God’s mercy to us.—How can we behold the great mercy of God to us and yet be unforgiving to others?

II. By a consideration of the littleness of our brother’s sins.—Our brother’s trespass was an error, a fault, a mishap, result of ignorance or inadvertence, small in comparison of our grave and multiplied offences. Our fellow servant needs what we sought. The unforgiving is “wicked,” evil-disposed. He invades the right of his Lord.

III. By a consideration of the terrible consequences of indulging an unforgiving spirit.—Lord not wroth on account of debt. Punishment is greater than before for sin is greater; hard, unforgiving spirit is added to debt. The offender has not caught the spirit of his Lord. He says in effect: The Lord was in error in forgiving me; He is excised from the kingdom of God, for he has not the spirit of the kingdom. He only can really understand forgiveness who practises it. Forgiveness vain if we be not cleansed from all unrighteousness.—Anon.

Mat_18:21. Forgiving injuries.—

1. We are always in our heart to forgive, I take it, though until forgiveness is craved, it is neither wise nor necessary to express it.

2. When we think of injuries, debts, offences, it is always well to recollect that self-love is very apt to exaggerate such things, and that a day or two’s calm reflection will often convince us that we have made too much ado about nothing; and that the sensible as well as the right thing to do is to treat the matter as if it had never happened.

3. Especially is this the case with hot and unpremeditated words, spoken when our friend was off his guard, or repeated to us by some one who ought to have known better. “Also take no heed to all words that are spoken, lest thou hear thy servant curse thee.”

4. Bishop Butler has taught us that resentment is a moral faculty bestowed on the human soul for its protection and self-assertion. Not all anger is sinful. Sometimes not to be angry is the basest and most cowardly of sins. St. Paul does not tell us not to be angry; only not to harbour and cherish our resentment. “Be ye angry, and sin not. Let not the sun go down upon your wrath.” Our Blessed Lord, we read, was sometimes angry; and it was a holy anger. The Revelation tells us of “the wrath of the Lamb.”

5. There are offences and offences. Some, let us confess, while they ought always to be forgiven, make the restoration of love and the rekindling of friendship impossible. “There is a sin unto death,” says St. John; and this is true of man, as well as of God, in the sense that some sins, such as repeated ingratitude, constant deceit, and flagrant dishonesty, make love, in the fullest sense of the word, not only impossible but unjustifiable. Did Christ love the scribes and Pharisees, who not only would not enter the kingdom of God themselves, but also prevented others from entering in? Did He love the “fox” Herod, or the self-blinded Caiaphas? We need not think or try to love better than the Saviour loved. But this moral impossibility of loving those who have proved themselves utterly unworthy of it must not, need not, hinder our doing them a kindness whenever it is in our power to do so, or fulfilling the reasonable claims of vicinage, or affinity, or relationship. In our hearts we can wish them well; before God we sometimes remember them, though we do not tell them so.—Bishop Thorold.

Mat_18:23-35. Forgiveness and after.—Our Lord proceeds to lay before us something like a complete outline of the moral politics of God’s kingdom.

I. The fundamental moral principle in God’s kingdom is righteousness.—“A certain king would take account of his servants.” There are many who have failed to notice that the gospel comes to us, first of all, as the news of inquisition and of judgment, the institution of a strict account between God and man. The gospel is popularly identified with pity and compassion, and the eager welcome that it gets from many is due to the belief that it dispenses with the reckoning of judgment by the message of a mercy which is so soft and gentle that it hardly makes mention of our sin. This common notion is superficial and mistaken. God never comes to men with a fresh revelation without awakening in their souls a sharper sense of righteousness and sin. “When the Spirit is come He shall convince the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment.” A solemn sense of God’s awful righteousness looking with a searching eye upon our sin is needed as the forerunner of salvation; for until we feel our guilt and confess the justice of God’s condemnation, we are in no condition either to desire or to receive the mercy that God is willing to bestow. It is the same all through the Christian life. From the converted man God demands not less, but more. No moment in his life is free from the burden of responsibility. We are always sowing, and behind every seed-time comes a harvest. This thought should give solemnity and depth of tone to every hour of life.

II. In God’s kingdom the demand for righteousness is accompanied by the needful mercy.—While the gospel demands that the righteousness of the law shall be fulfilled in us, it is quite as essentially the message of heaven’s mercy. The servant in this parable is no sooner humbled by the demands of justice than, upon the confession of his helplessness and desire to make amends, he is abundantly forgiven. It is no hard task for a, sinful man to obtain forgiveness from his God. This servant’s repentance was neither very broad nor very radical. The man was by no means a noble specimen of his race. There was in him no conspicuous merit to make him worthy of such generous treatment as to have his debt of nigh two million pounds frankly and at once forgiven. Therefore the picture is expressly intended to convey the fact that in the heart of God there is no reluctance to forgive, and that man’s honest appeal to be forgiven is met by an immediate and most generous response.

III. In God’s kingdom man’s inhumanity stultifies God’s mercy.—The most serious block to your salvation may emerge after your forgiveness rather than before it. After you have received forgiveness you enter on a new probation. What are you going to do with it? When you know that Christ has died for you, and that God forgives you, what influence are these facts going to have upon your life?—that is the question on which your ultimate salvation hangs.—Alexander Brown.

Mat_18:23-35. The unforgiving temper.—There is a fine story illustrative of this parable, told by Fleury (Hist. Eccles., 5:2, p. 334). It is briefly this: Between two Christians at Antioch enmity and division had fallen out; after a while one of them desired to be reconciled, but the other, who was a priest, refused. While it was thus with them, the persecution of Valerian began; and Sapricius, the priest, having boldly confessed himself a Christian, was on the way to death. Nicephorus met him, and again sued for peace, which was again refused. While he was seeking, and the other refusing, they arrived at the place of execution. He that should have been the martyr was here terrified, offered to sacrifice to the gods, and, despite the entreaties of the other, did so, making shipwreck of his faith; while Nicephorus, boldly confessing, stepped in his place, and received the crown which Sapricius lost. This whole story runs finely parallel with our parable. Before Sapricius could have had grace to confess thus to Christ, he must have had his own ten thousand talents forgiven; but, refusing to forgive a far lesser wrong, to put away the displeasure he had taken up on some infinitely lighter grounds against his brother, he forfeited all the advantages of his position, his Lord was angry, took away from his grace, and suffered him again to fall under those powers of evil from which he had once been delivered. It comes out, too, in this story, that it is not merely the outward wrong and outrage upon a brother, which constitutes a likeness to the unmerciful servant, but the unforgiving temper, even apart from all such.—Archbishop Trench.

Mat_18:28. The weakness and strength of example.—Every moralist extols the beauty and value of good example. In an age of abounding hypocrisy, it would ill become us to say aught against the habit, if it were not that the language used sometimes runs into perilous exaggeration. From the immoderate eulogy of the good example, you might sometimes infer that nothing more was needed for the awakening of men’s consciences and their guidance into peace than the consistent lives of some God-fearing men. It is bad theology. It is flatly contradicted by human experience.

I. The impotence of example.—Lest we should over-estimate the power of example, Christ has given us here a picture which illustrates its utter impotence over some minds. Mercy for himself is well enough; mercy from himself is out of the question. What had example done for him? Nothing.

II. Its causes.—How is it that, in the frailty of our nature, example is lost on some?

1. The example we expected to be so potent may be taken as a matter of course.

2. A high example often produces in the onlooker a sense of annoyance.

3. We have to face to-day a strong conviction in many minds that all professors of religion are more or less insincere. It is a revolting proof of the depth to which some natures have fallen that purity, sincerity, other-worldliness are to them incredible.

4. We are familiar, too, with another way of regarding high examples; it is the way of regretful admiration. The observer finds such a character very noble, very impressive; he does not challenge its sincerity or detract from its beauty. But in effect he says “It is above me, I cannot reach such a level; I need not try.” But how can we feel any surprise at the frequent impotence of example? Lot’s acquaintance with Abraham did not keep him from stupendous blunders. Gehazi’s daily service of Elisha could not control his greed. The companionship of St. Paul did not keep Demas faithful. Nay, most striking warning of all, from the society of those who daily looked on the example of Jesus, went the man who for thirty pieces of silver betrayed Him. As it was then, so it is now; the very noblest example will not of itself quicken a single conscience. Example is of value; but for its efficacy it depends upon an external influence—even the Holy Spirit. He who would serve Christ must believe in his own ministry and watch his own example. But he who would have hearts to be touched and lives to be changed must look beyond the witness of man.—A. R. Buckland, M.A.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

C. Absolution in the Church.

Mat_18:21-35

( Mat_18:23-35 the Gospel for the 22d Sunday after Trinity.)

21Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till [until, ἔως] seven times? 22Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until [ἔως] seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

23Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king [a human king, ἰνθρώπῳ βασιλεῖ], which would take account of [who desired to make a reckoning with]22 his servants. 24And when he had [only] begun to reckon, one was brought23 unto him, which [who] owed him ten thousand talents. 25But forasmuch as he had not [as ho was not able] to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord,24 have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. 27Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed [released] him, and forgave him the debt. 28But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellow servants, which [who] owed him a hundred pence [shillings? lit.: denáries, δηνάρια]:25 and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me26 that thou [Pay if 29thou27 owest. And his fellow servant fell down at his feet,28 and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.29 30And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. 31So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their [own, ἑαντῶν] lord all that was done. 32Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave then all that debt, because thou desiredst [besoughtest] me: 33Shouldest not thou also have had compassion [pity] on thy fellow servant, even as I had pity on thee? 34And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.30 35So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.31

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Mat_18:21. Until seven times, ἕως ἑπτάκις.—The directions of Christ in regard to the discipline of the Church presuppose readiness to forgive. If our brother listen to our admonition, and be reconciled, he is to be forgiven. But the Lord had not indicated how often this mercy was to be exercised. It seemed to Peter as if there must be some limit in the matter. His query indicated that he still regarded forgiveness as something outward and quantitative, rather than as something inward and spiritual. His proposal, “until seven times”—the sacred number—is very characteristic of his state of mind. It was, however, greatly in excess of the rabbinical ordinances, which prescribed forgiveness only three times: “Homini in alterum, peccanti semel remittunt, secundo remittunt, tertio remittunt, quarto non remittunt.” Babyl. Joma.—[The Jewish rabbins based the duty of forgiving three times and no more, upon Amo_1:3; Amo_2:6; Job_33:29-30. Peter, under the influence of the spirit of Christian charity, increased the number to seven, because in the Old Testament this number is closely linked with the idea of the covenant and of forgiveness, as well as with that of retribution; comp. Lev_25:28; Lev_26:18; Lev_26:21; Lev_26:24; Lev_26:28; Ps. 28:25; Dan_4:15; Rev_15:1.—P. S.]

Mat_18:22. I say not unto thee;—i.e., I do not prescribe to thee.

Seventy times seven, ἑβδομηκοντάκ. ςἑπτά.—Jerome, Erasmus, Grotius, de Wette, [Trench], and others, explain seventy times sevenfold [i.e., four hundred and ninety times]. But Origen, Augustine, Bengel, Ewald, and Meyer, explain seventy times and seven, or seventy-seven times, as ἑπτάκις does not again occur at ἑβδομηκοντάκις ἑπτά. Meyer says: “According to the Greek idiom, this should have been expressed either by ἑσπτὰ καὶ ἑβδομηκοντάκις or by έβδομήκοντα ἑπτάκις. But the expression is derived from the Sept., Gen_4:24 : ‘If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventyfold and seven.’ ”32 The reference seems to be in point; all the more, that the saying of Christ was probably intended to form a direct contrast to the revenge which Lamech imprecated. Still, even though we bear in mind the symbolical import of the number seven, yet the bare addition of that numeral seems peculiar, and almost detracting from the force of the injunction. It might, indeed, be urged, that, according to the analogy of 101, it implied nothing more than as it were the measure seventy shaken and pressed down. First, seventy times, and then, if you like, in addition to this, your own seven times! But Grotius translates Gen_4:24,שׁבְעִים רְשׁבְעָח, septuagies et id ipsum septies; nor Joes the translation of the Sept seem to us decidedly in favor of the opposite view. Besides, seventy times sevenfold seems to us a more apt symbolical expression for never-ending forgiveness than seventy times seven. However, grammatically and philologically, the point is not clear. Seventy is seven times ten, or the symbolical number of the world multiplied by that of the covenant. Of course, the expression is intended to indicate by the figure of a large number the quality of endless forgiveness. This view was already advocated by Theophylact.

Mat_18:23. Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened.—Referring to the reply which had been given to Peter. The parable which follows is intended to illustrate the teaching of Christ about our readiness to forgive. Meyer maintains that the Saviour insists upon unlimited forgiveness, and not, as de Wette suggests, merely upon readiness to forgive. But the latter implies the former; and, in fact, the two are identical in point of principle. The act of forgiveness presupposes genuine repentance on the part of our brother.—Likened. On account of the guilt of man, it had become necessary that the kingdom of heaven should rest on compassion as its foundation.

Unto a human king.33—The expression is intended to mark the antithesis to the heavenly King.—His servants.—Here represented as administering his possessions.—He desired to make a reckoning, or settlement.—This refers to eternal justice ever seeking to right matters, and to the impending judgment; hence more especially to the economy of the law and its results.

Mat_18:24. But when he had only34 begun.

Very solemn and significant.—One was brought unto him,—i.e., one of the first and highest.—Ten thousand talents.—“An expression intended to indicate the infinite debt incurred, which could never be discharged. As it were an immense number of the largest coin.” The Attic talent was equal to 60 minœ [6,000 drachmæ], or 1,375 Prussian dollars (see Boeckh’s Staatshaushalt der Athener, Mat_1:15),35 and the mine to 100 denarii.36 “Hence one talent = 6,000 denarii, and 10,000 talents = 60,000,000 denarii.” Gerlach suggests that the Saviour referred to the Syrian talent, which was much smaller than the Attic, amounting only to about one-fourth of it According to the value of the Attic talent, the sum. total would amount to over 13 millions of Prussian dollars.

Mat_18:25. His lord commanded him to be sold.—In accordance with the law of Moses, Exo_22:8; Lev_25:39; 2Ki_4:1. See also Michaelis’ Laws of Moses, § 148.—And (thus) payment to be made.—The sum obtained would, of course, prove wholly inadequate. Still Fritzsche is mistaken in explaining it as meaning that the sum realized was actually to be paid. De Wette renders it: “And that this should be paid.” Better Meyer in more general terms, “and payment to be made.” The leading idea is, that the king insists upon payment being made. The exact amount is subordinate.

Mat_18:28. A hundred denaries.—Equal to nearly 21 Prussian [or 15 American] dollars. See the article in the Encycls.—Took him by the throat.—According to Roman law, a creditor was allowed to drag his debtor by the throat before the tribunal. The harsh form in which he demanded payment deserves special attention. His address to his fellow-servant implied his own condemnation. Meyer rightly objects to the view of Fritzsche and Olshausen, who explain the expression εἴ τι as due to Greek urbanity. Others regard it as equivalent to ὅτι. Paulus and Baumgarten-Crusius understand it as implying that it was uncertain whether such a debt had really been incurred. In our view, it was intended by way of expressing reproof—the claimant all the time forgetting his own case and difficulties, which were not only similar, but even much worse. In fact, it would seem as if the remission of his debt had only called forth pride and self-confidence. His fellow-servant humbled himself in a more becoming manner than he had done before his master (προσεκν́ελ αν̓τῶ, παρεκὰλει αν̓τόν); although we should bear in mind that in the latter case the creditor was the lord and king of the servant.

[Trench: “Such is man, so harsh and hard, when he walks otherwise than in a constant sense of forgiveness received from God. Ignorance or forgetfulness of his own guilt makes him harsh, unforgiving, and cruel to others; or, at best, he is only hindered from being such by those weak defences of natural character which may at any moment be broken down.”—P. S.]

Mat_18:31. Their own (ἑαντῶν) lord.—Meyer accounts for the word ἑαντῶν by remarking, “They had recourse neither to their hard-hearted companion nor to any other person.” But this would scarcely have required special mention. On the other hand, their appeal to his and their lord exposed them to danger, if his anger should burst forth against them also. Still, they ventured to apply to him—compassion and sorrow inspiring them with courage. In this case, then, we see severity from pity, as formerly harshness in spite of mercy.

Mat_18:34. And delivered him to the tormentors.—The imprisonment refers in both cases to temporary confinement, until payment should be made, But, besides this, the servant whom his master now sent to prison was also delivered τοῖς βασανισταῖς, “to the tormentors,” to be tormented by them. The punishment of being sold into slavery, with which he had formerly been threatened, was much lighter than that which he had now to endure. However, the king was generous, and the wife and children of the offender were not molested. In its first form, they shared the guilt of that wicked servant; but the sin which he bad now committed rested upon himself alone. Still, except in reference to the manner in which payment is now enforced, the language of the parable continues the same as before. The imprisonment and the torments are intended to enforce payment; but as, in the present instance, this is manifestly impossible, they serve in reality as a punishment. Fritzsche renders the term βασανισταί by “body-guard of the king” (!); Grotius, by “gaolers” [δεσμοφν́λακες]; Meyer, correctly, by “tormentors.”37 According to the sentence pronounced, the imprisonment would necessarily be both never-ending and hopeless (Chrysostom: τοντέστι διηνεκῶς, ον͂τε γάρ ἀποδώτει ποτε). Still, we are scarcely warranted in referring these torments to the sufferings of Gehenna.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The symbolical import of the number seven is spiritual and festive rest after the work has been finished; ten, that of the world. Hence the number seventy represents the power of the Spirit as conquering the world (the 70 disciples). Again, seventy times seven would convey the all-conquering power of the Spirit in all His fulness, as reconciling us, and rendering us willing to be reconciled. The largeness of the number would indicate that there was to be no measuring or limitation in the exercise of kindness; but that infinite love was, in its fulness and strength, to sweep all barriers, and that forgiveness was to be bounded by no other limits than those demanded by truth, i.e., more especially, by the state of mind of him who had offended against us.

2. This parable must not be applied merely to the private relations subsisting between Christians; but also refers to the general administration of the servants of the Lord in the Church, which, however, if improperly exercised, may degenerate into a matter of private interest or favor. Under such circumstances, the contrast between the wondrous pardon granted by the Master, and the cruel exactions made by the servants, would appear in the most glaring manner. Strange, that the most harsh and heartless treatment should be connected with the dispensation of highest mercy! Compare the history of church discipline in the middle ages, and the bitter controversies on the doctrine of the holy Communion.

3. Faustus Socinus (“De Christo Servatore”) argues from this passage, that as the king forgave without ransom or surety, so God similarly pardons sinners. To this Olearius replies, that the object of this parable was to delineate the subjective condition of pardon on our part, not the objective ground of acceptance with God. Besides, each separate parable was not intended to give the whole scheme of salvation. Perhaps, however, it were more accurate to say, that the objective ground of compassion is embodied and presented in the atonement made by Christ But the latter point was not intended to be presented in this parable. [Meyer remarks that the parable implies a ν̔́στερον πρότερον, since the infinite forgiving mercy of God could only appear fully in the atoning death of Christ.—P. S.]

[4. Till he pay all that was due unto him, Mat_18:34. The offender, it seems, is not imprisoned for the act of unmercifulness to his fellow-servant, but for his old debt to God which had been forgiven him. But it must be remembered that every sin against our neighbor, or against ourselves, is at the same time a sin against God, and so the conduct of the unmerciful servant contracted a new debt due to God. This passage is often quoted in the discussion of the question: Utrum peccata semel remissa redeant, whether sins once forgiven return on the sinner through his subsequent transgressions? Hammond says, the king revoked his designed mercy; but the debt was actually and absolutely forgiven; yet forgiven, of course, as always, on certain moral conditions, the violation of which implies the forfeiture of the benefit. Forgiveness is inseparable from union with Christ. If we forsake Him we relapse into a state of nature, which is a state of wrath; yea, our case becomes much worse than it was before conversion, and our guilt increases in proportion to the mercies received. How many, alas! forfeit the benefit of baptism, i.e., the remission of sins, by a life of impenitence and ingratitude, and become worse than heathen.—P. S.]

[5. The same verse (and Mat_18:26) is also quoted by some Roman Catholic interpreters for the doctrine of purgatory, and by Universalists and Restorationists, for the doctrine of the final salvation of all men. In both cases the ἕωςον̀͂ is pressed as implying a final discharge of the debt and a consequent deliverance from the prison of purgatory or a temporary hell. But this argument proceeds on the radically wrong assumption that man can atone for his sins or discharge his moral debt to God. The debt is expressly represented, in Mat_18:24, as enormous, so as to make it impossible for any human being to discharge it. The debt, moreover, instead of diminishing is daily accumulating; since the utmost that man can do is to perform his present duty, comp. Luk_17:10. The phrase: till he pay all, etc., ἑως οὗ ἀποδῶπᾶν, like the proverbial ad numum solvere, ad extremum assem solvere, signifies that the debtor shall have justice without mercy and taste the extreme rigor of the law. Trench (p. 158) goes even further, and says: “Since the sinner could never acquit the slightest portion of the debt in which he is indebted to God, the putting that as a condition of his liberation, which it is impossible could ever be fulfilled, is the strongest possible way of expressing the eternal duration of his punishment.” Maldonatus, one of the best Roman Catholic expounders, remarks: “Quousque redderet. Id est semper, ut Chrysostomus, Euthymius et Theophylactus interpretantur, non enim significatur, fore, ut, qui damnati sunt, pœnas aliquando persolvant et, quasi reddito debito, liberentur, qui Origenistarum error fuit; sed fore, ut numquam liberentur, nisi pœnas persolvant, quas quia persolvere numquam poterunt, numquam liberabuntur.” Olshausen in loc. (vol. i p. 594, American edition) admits that the debt of the sinner to God can never possibly be liquidated; nevertheless he infers partly from the ἕως οὗ, partly from the servant’s acknowledgment of his debt that he will be finally released. I cannot see how we can hold this opinion without adopting substantially the Roman Catholic dogma of purgatory. But ἕως does not necessarily fix a limit beyond which the preëxisting state of things must cease (comp. the Saviour’s promise to be with His people to the end of the world, ἕως τῆς συντελεὶς τον͂ αὶῶνος; and if the mere admission of sin and guilt insures ultimate salvation, a Judas might have been saved as well who confessed that he betrayed innocent blood.—Comp. also the Notes on Mat_5:26 (p. 114) and on Mat_12:32 (pp. 225 and 227 sqq.).—P. S.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

“Till seven times?” or, the tendency of the class of which Peter is the type to count and limit spiritual acts.—Acts of forgiveness, prayers, and similar deeds, should not be counted.—Seventy times seven; or, the sacred number,—which implies that our love must not be limited by the rules of arithmetic.—The kingdom of heaven under the figure of reckoning: 1. The king reckoning; or, the remission of an infinite debt. 2. The servant reckoning; or, the harsh demand of a small claim. 3. The final reckoning of the king occasioned by that of the servant—The great alternations in the kingdom of heaven, occasioned by the unfaithfulness of man in opposition to the faithfulness of God: 1. From the judgment of the law to the mercy of the gospel; 2. from mercy to judgment.—The grace of God has converted the economy of the law into that of the gospel; but the unmercifulness of Christians seeks to transform the dispensation of the gospel into one of judgment—How could the servant who had been forgiven act with such cruelty against his fellow servant? 1. It was suspicious, that he who apparently was among the first of his fellow-servants should have incurred so heavy a debt without accounting for the money long before that; 2. it was still worse when he only plead for delay, promising payment which he well knew he never could make; 3. but it fully indicated his state of mind, when he could go from the presence of his master cherishing such feelings of pride and bitterness.—The unconditional and the conditional remission of debt in the kingdom of God: 1. The former is full and irrevocable; the latter is only granted to try us. 2. The former is real, both in respect of its basis and its character; the latter only emblematical. 3. The former leads to humility and compassion; the latter may readily call forth pride and harshness in the unconverted.—The unmerciful are equally destitute of feeling and memory, A. 1. They forget their own guilt and humiliation; 2. the pardon extended to them, 3. nor are they even reminded of it by the entreaty of a fellow-servant, so similar to their own pleading; 4. they only remember it in the hour of final judgment. B. Such persons have only a heartless memory for their own selfishness, for their own claims, demands, etc.—How the remission of our immeasurable debt should induce us to forgive the small debt incurred by our brother: 1. We are bound to do Song of Solomon 2. enabled; and, 3. impelled to it.—How the harshness and cruelty of those who are proud and insecure seems to come out in all its fulness in the gospel kingdom of grace.—How the evil disposition of the servants has transformed: 1. The gospel of grace into compulsory conversions; 2. the call to repentance into forced penance; 3. the discipline of the Church into the tortures of the Inquisition; the exhibition of the Redeemer into a call for the Judge.—Guilt under the law called forth grace; but harshness under the gospel will bring down the judgment Mat_25:31, etc.—The complaint of the fellow-servants in its effects, viewed historically.—Heavy judgments impending on those who show no mercy, Jam_2:13.—How unmercifulness introduces an order of things which ensures its own ruin.—The tormentors and torments of the next world in their relation to those of this life.—Unmercifulness is practical unbelief.—The practical bearing of this second fall.—The domestic guilt which is remitted, and the personal guilt which is retained.—” So likewise,” etc. Or, this parable as specially applicable to the Apostles, and the servants of Christ both in Church and State.—“My heavenly Father.” 1. The Father of mercy, and of the Saviour—grace itself. 2. The Father of the Judge of the world—justice itself. 3. The Father of Christ in the congregation, or of the Church.

Starke:—Canstein: It is a great honor to be in the employment of a mighty potentate; how much more, then, to be a servant of the King of kings and the Lord of lords! What faithfulness and care are requisite in such a service!—God will require an account of all that has been entrusted to our stewardship: Job_9:8; Psa_130:8; Psa_143:2.—Osiander: Sin has subjected not only our persons, but all we have, to the curse.—The natural man is not willing to rely on free grace, and to trust for atonement and righteousness to Christ alone; but would always like to contribute something of his own.—Forgetfulness of the freeness of God’s gifts a fruitful cause of relapse into sin.—Quesnel: As genuine love to God and compassionate affection toward our neighbor is a fruit of genuine conversion, so is ingratitude toward God and hardheartedness toward our neighbor an evidence of spurious religion.—Canstein: To insist on full restitution, is to be inexorable.—Your fellow-servants will see it, and lay the case before their Master.—Quesnel: To be unwilling to forgive an offence, is to provoke the wrath both of heaven and earth.—Feigned penitence is like that wicked servant, promising all, but performing nothing, Psa_12:6.—The Lord quotes the example of men, in order to render them inexcusable.—Would we like to know whether we have obtained forgiveness from God? Let us ask ourselves how we stand affected toward others.—Forgive, and He will forgive you.

Lisco:—God reckons with us when setting before us, in our consciences and by His word, His law and His just demands.—By his harshness the wicked servant loses the affection and esteem of his fellow-servants, nor can his conduct remain concealed.

Heubner:—This command to be ever willing to forgive, implies much rich and blessed comfort.—If man is to forgive so frequently, how much more will our Father in heaven be ready to extend mercy!—Unless we rightly know the extent of our guilt, we cannot properly appreciate the fulness of grace which the Lord is willing and ready to vouchsafe.—How our sins ever involve others in ruin, and generally those nearest and dearest to us.—“We should despair of being ever able to discharge our debt, and rely on grace and mercy alone.”—What contrasts here! 1. God, the King of kings, toward a servant; and again a servant toward his fellow-servant. 2. An infinite debt, and again a small debt. 3. Impossibility and inability; and again, possibility and ability. 4. Compassion and kindness; and again, hard-heartedness and cruel behavior.—Woe to him whom the tears and sighs of those who are oppressed and injured accuse before the tribunal of God.—A harsh person calls down the judgments of God upon himself.

Reinhard:—What obligation God lays upon us to forgive those who offend against us.—Kuinoel:—The character of self-righteousness: 1. Confession of debt; 2. promise of payment; 3. the manner in which this promise is kept; 4. the sad issue of the whole matter.—[Bourdalue:—Sur le pardon des injures. Serm. 34. Pour Leviticus 21 Dimanche apres la Pentecôte.—Massilon:—Du pardon des offenses,—and other famous Catholic sermons on the pericope, Mat_18:23-35.—P. S.]

Footnotes:

[22] Mat_18:23.—[Ὅς ἠθέλησε συνᾶραι λόγον μετά, κ.τ.λ.; Lange: welcher abrechnen wollte, i.e., to make a reckoning or settlement. Comp. 2Ki_21:7, where the E. V. correctly ren lers: There was no reckoning made with them of the money, etc. The Authorized Version in our place conveys a different meaning in modern English.—P. S.]

[23] Mat_18:24.—Προσήχθη [for the more usual word: προσηνεχθη] in Codd. B., D., Origen, Lachmann, Tischendorf, [Alford].

[24] Mat_18:26.—Κύριε is omitted in B., D., etc, and by Lachmann, Tischendorf, [Alford].

[25] Mat_18:28.—[The English penny Is less than one seventh of a denarius, a Roman silver coin equivalent to the Attie drachma, or about seven and a half pence sterling or fifteen American cents in value. See the Dictionaries. The inaptness of the usual English rendering (in all the old English version 8) appears more fully in Mat_20:2, where laborers are hired “for a penny a day,” instead of nearly eight times that amount. About two thirds of a denarius a day was the pay of a Roman soldier. As there is no corresponding English coin, it is sary to adopt an inaccurate rendering or the foreign word denáry, which would require a marginal explanation. Shilling (in the New York sense, i.e. one eighth of an American dollar) would come nearest, but would lead to confusion, since, the English shilling is nearly double in value (23,cents). Ewald, however, in his German translation, renders: Schillinge. Lange retains Luther’s Groschen, but adds In parenthesis Denare, Zehner (dimes). Campbell and Norton: denarii (which might do in a learned Commentary, but not in a Bible for popular use): Conant, and the N. T. of the Am. Bible Union, better: denáries. It is surprising that Trench in his interpretation of the parable of the Unmerciful Servant (p. 151) and that of the Laborers in the Vineyard (p. 170), takes no notice whatever of this mistranslation and speaks repeatedly of an hundred pence as if it were all right.—P. S.]

[26] Mat_18:28.—Codd. B., D., L., etc., omit μοι, me.

[27] Mat_18:28.—The reading εἴτι is best attested and much stronger than ὅτι. It is a demand for payment In the form of a rebuke: Thou wretch, he who owes, must pay! [Ewald and Lange translate: Bezaihle, wenn du wus schuldig bist! Pay, if thou owest anything. Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Alford unanimously adopt the reading: Ἀπόδος εἴτι ὀφείλεις, which is now sustained also by Cod. Sinait. Dr. Conant ignores this difference of reading.—P. S.]

[28] Mat_18:29.—The addition of the received text: εἰς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ (at his feet) is omitted in Codd. B., C., D., etc. [Tischendorf and Alford retain and defend the words against Lachmann, Tregelles, and Meyer, who omit them.—P. S.]

[29] Mat_18:29.—The best authorities [also Cod. Sinait.] omit πάντα (all), which seems to be inserted to conform to Mat_18:26.

[30] Mat_18:34.—B., D., etc., omit αὐτῷ. [Lachmann and Alford omit it, Tischendorf retains It—P. S.]

[31] Mat_18:35.—B., D., L., etc., omit the words: τὰ παραπτώματα αυτῶν (their trespasses), which seem to be inserted from Mat_6:14-15; Mar_11:25-26. [Cod. Sinait, and all the critical editors, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, omit the words.—P. S.]

[32][Jerome already observed this significant contrast of our Lord’s seventy times seven of forgiveness to the antediluvian Lamech’s seventy and sevenfold of revenge. So Trench asserts (p. 145), referring to Jerome’s works, vol. ii. p. 565. of the Benedictine edition. But I cannot find the passage in the Vallarsi edition, which I have before me. In his Commentary on Matt. in loc. (Opera, tom. 7 col 141, ed. Vall.) Jerome makes no allusion to Gen_4:24, and says simply: “Non usque septies, sed usque septuagies septies, id est, quadringentis nonaginta vicibus, ut toties peccanti fratri dimitteret In die, quoties ille peccare non possit.”—P. S.]

[33][Meyer likewise emphasizes ἀνθρώπφ, which the English Version renders: a certain king. “Ζιι βασιλεῖ ist nicht ohne Grund ἀνθρώπφ zugesetst, da das Himmelreich mil sinem Menschlichen Könige verglichen wird. Vergleiche übrigens das Hiomerische ἀνὴρ βασιλεύς.”—P. S.]

[34][Dr. Lange inserts only, to emphasize ἀρξαμένου at the beginning of the sentence.—P. S.]

[35][Dr. Robinson, Dictionary, sub τάλαντον, estimates the common Attic talent at £ 243 15s). sterling, or about 81, 170.–P. S]

[36][The original reads 10 for 100 denarii.—a palpable printing error, which the Edinb. transl. faithfully copies. “Attica μνᾶ (mina) fuit centum drachmarum; Romana, drachmarum nonaginta seœ; Alexandrina 160 drachmarum Atticarum.” See Joa. Scapvle, Lexicon Græco Lat., Oxford ed., p. 1006. An Attic δμα χμή nearly equa in value to a Roman denarius.—P. S.]

[37][Among the ancient Romans there were certain legal tortnres, as a heavy chain and a system of half starvation, which the creditor might apply to his debtor, for bringing him to terms. See Arnold, History of Rome, i. p. 186, and Trench, Notes on the Parables, p. Matt 154: “The tormentors are those who shall make the life of the prisoner bitter to him; wring out from him the confess on of any concealed hoards which he may still possess; even as there are tormentors in that world of woe, whereof this prison is a figure—fellow-sinners and evil angels—instruments of the just yet terrible Judgments of God.”—P. S.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

FORGIVING ONE ANOTHER

Mat 18:21-35. “Then Peter, coming to Him, said, Lord, how frequently shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? until seven times? Jesus says to him, I do not say unto thee, Until seven times; but, Until seventy times seven.” You see from this response of our Lord that our forgiveness is to be utterly illimitable. The rabbis had taught that three times were often enough. Here you see the verdict is plain and definite we are to forgive on infinitesimally.

“Therefore the kingdom of the heavens is like unto a kingly man, who wished to make a reckoning with his servants. And he, beginning to reckon, one was brought to him owing him ten thousand talents.” What an enormous indebtedness! One talent is four hundred dollars. The Greek word here is i.e., “myriad,” ten thousand — but it is in ‘the plural number; hence, tens of thousands. Now, since myriad is in the plural, though the sum is indefinitely large, its minimum is twenty thousand talents; i.e., eight millions. But as the sum is indefinitely great, we have no right to settle on the minimum. Therefore, with the convenience of round numbers, we may conclude that he owed him ten millions of dollars, whereas it might have been infinitely greater. “And he, not being able to pay, the lord commanded him, his wife, and children, and all things so much as he had, to be sold, and payment to be made. Then that servant, falling down, continued to worship him, saying, Be patient with me, and I will pay thee all things. The lord of that servant, being moved with sympathy, sent him away, and forgave him the debt. And that servant, having gone out, found one of his fellow-servants, who owed him a hundred denaria [i.e., fifteen dollars; as the denarion is fifteen cents]; and seizing, throttled him, saying, Pay me what you owe me. Then his fellow-servant, falling down, continued to entreat him, saying, Be patient with me, and I will pay thee. And he was not willing; but going away, cast him into prison until he may pay the debt. Therefore his fellow-servants, seeing the things which were done, were grieved exceedingly, and having come, they explained to their lord all the things which had been done.” The fellow servants here are the saints, who are always grieved when they see an unforgiving spirit among them, and immediately go and tell the Lord about it; i.e., get to praying over it in good earnest. When that is the case, something is sure to happen. “Then his lord, calling him to him, says to him, Thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, since .thou didst entreat me; did it not behoove thee to have mercy on thy fellow-servant, as I also had mercy on thee? And his lord, being angry, delivered him to the tormentors until he may pay all that was due him. Thy My Heavenly Father will do unto you, if you do not each one forgive his brother from your hearts.” You are not only to forgive, but to do it cheerfully and spontaneously, with brotherly love gushing up from the deep interior of the heart; as God forgives you, lovingly, freely, and fully, for Christ’s sake. We are not to conclude that God gets angry in the human sense, as He has no malevolent affections nor evil passions, like fallen men and demons.

The language here is an accommodation to our human apprehension, the anger of God being His righteous and holy indignation. I hope you hear, see, and understand this allegorical exegesis, which our Savior gives, in order to elucidate the infinite magnitude of God’s forgiving mercy, and the insignificance of ours, even though we do cheerfully, freely, and fully forgive all who have ever done us an injury.

Now, remember the case: The one servant was forgiven ten millions of dollars; and the other only owed him fifteen dollars, only one six- thousandth part of his indebtedness, yet seizing and throttling him, and demanding the payment of the fifteen dollars, and even casting him into prison because he couldn’t pay it. Now I hope you see the beautiful and forcible meaning of the allegory. Let the people treat us as badly as they can, our Heavenly Father has actually forgiven us six thousand times as much as all we ever can forgive them — all our innumerable sins, in thought, word, and deed, actually amounting to ten millions, contrasted with the fifteen dollars which some one owes us. Now, if we are too vile, selfish, and diabolical to forgive our comrades what little they may owe us, how can we expect God to forgive us the ten millions which we owe Him? Now you see, in the finale of this affair, that the ungrateful servant, who had been forgiven so much, and then refused to pardon his fellow-servant, was actually arrested, and delivered to the tormentors till he paid it all.

This is the great trouble with Churches — having fallen out with one another, they refuse to forgive and make friends. Consequently they all fall under condemnation, backslide, as you see in this illustrative case, get back where they were before they were forgiven, forfeiting all the progress they had made in the Divine life, and, if they so persist, finally making their bed in hell. We find whole Churches stranded, befogged, wrecked, and captured by the devil in this way.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Section 4. (Mat 18:21-35.)

The failure in mercy of one who has received mercy.

We have now a solemn word upon the responsibility of showing grace in a day of grace. In His teaching as to prayer the Lord has already warned us to the same effect, in words which are almost identical with those which close the parable before us. But here the principle is shown us in the full extent of its application, and enforced in the most absolute way.

(1) The first object in dealing with a brother who has sinned is, as we have seen; restoration. If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. Forgiveness is necessarily grounded upon the "hearing," for that alone would show restoration. But Peter has a question here: how often is there to be forgiveness? The Rabbins had already decided as to this, and their limit was three times. Peter has so far appreciated the spirit of the Lord’s words as to more than double this number. Seven was the perfect number: shall his forgiveness of an offending brother be "till seven times"? But the Lord answers, He has put no such limit; and then He puts one which is practically none at all: "I say not unto thee, until seven times, but until seventy times seven." I suppose it would test Christian grace in us, to go even half way to such a boundary line; but the Lord does not mean us seriously to contemplate this. Could it be a question how often I should gain my brother? Peter is after all still viewing things from the stand-point of personal rights. He must still be seeking in some measure his own; but "love seeketh not her own." Hence the personal element still rules here - "sin against me, and I." The Lord takes up, therefore, this very side of things, but to turn it in another direction: "how oft shall I sin against God, and God forgive me?" If there be no limit here, and I am in the sense of this, how can this question of Peter be asked at all?

(2) The similitude which the Lord draws for us here is necessarily a similitude of the Kingdom of heaven. It is not after all a picture of perfect grace, such as we know it in God, although this is as nearly approached as possible for the purpose of the illustration; and, of course, it is a true presentation of God, in no wise inconsistent with the fullest grace. But the Lord will not image one of His own people in the picture that He gives of this unmerciful servant. He is one with the responsibility of such a profession; but without the real apprehension of divine grace, as his conduct shows. Hence the grace shown to him is not the unconditional grace of the gospel, but that which, in fact, is manifested in the Kingdom, as in "baptism for the remission of sins" (Act 2:38) where the grace witnessed to is manifestly conditioned, as here, upon the truth of discipleship. The Kingdom, as we see in the parables, embraces the true and the false, and in it all is governmental, conditional blessing.

The Kingdom of heaven is likened here unto a human king; which prepares us for certain points in it which we must not attribute to the divine. The king here will have a reckoning with his servants; and no sooner has he begun to reckon than there is brought to him one with an overwhelming debt, which argues in itself surely something more than any misfortune can account for. He is ordered, therefore, to be sold, with his wife and children and all belonging to him, for the debt. We see in this the "human" king, of course; yet there is this truth in it, that the sinner against God, as far as he can do it, wrecks not himself alone, but all connected with him. No man can be his own enemy only, as men sometimes assert; and we need no argument to prove how the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children in this world, although in the final account every one answers simply for his own.

So helplessly are we all indebted to the supreme King. Good it is that there is mercy with Him for which all figures fail. The debtor falls at his lord’s feet with an impossible plea for mercy in his own case, - how impossible in our own! "I will pay thee all." The king can accept no such agreement, takes no notice of it; but his heart is moved with compassion, and taking counsel of that, "he loosed him, and forgave him the debt."

(3) All this, thank God, the blessed Speaker has now made very plain to us; but the point of the parable has yet to come. "But that servant went out "out from an experience like this! - "and found one of his fellow-servants, who owed him a hundred pence" - denarii (about a 700,000th part of his own debt just forgiven); "and he laid hold of him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me what thou owest."

It was his own that he was demanding. Apart from the violence used, he was, as men say, quite within his rights. That was not the question; and every one at once understands that that was not the question. We too, in the exaction of our own from others, may be within our rights; and why is it that in our own case we are not as simple in judging of the real state of things as we are in the case of the man before us? We have been forgiven (if we are Christians) as well as he; and with regard to a debt in proportion to which his was as nothing. How is it that we can look upon grace or mercy shown to others as if it were anything more than the merest righteousness on our part, from the standpoint of forgiven men?

There follows an appeal, so like his own recent one, save only in its greater reasonableness and simplicity, that it should have pierced the heart of the hardened man: "Then his fellow-servant fell down and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee. But he would not, but went off and cast him into prison till he should pay the debt." It is the grace shown him that fully exposes the obduracy of his unmerciful heart.

(4) Plain as the matter seems, it is developed and enforced upon us. The grief of his fellow-servants who bring the account of it to their lord; who on his part summons the guilty man and puts before him the wickedness of his conduct with abhorrence. The close of the parable has the moral of it, that mercy fails for him with whom it fails: "his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors till he should pay all that was due" - an impossible thing, and typical therefore of an eternal recompense.

A tremendous failure, when divine mercy fails to impress its image on the soul that has been subjected to its influence! Love that subdues not saves not, and this is, of course, the history of an unsaved soul. But the lesson that is to be learned is not to be limited by this, as the Lord’s application of it shows. His government is over sinner and saint alike; and He is the same with sinner and saint in His unchanging reprobation of sin. Communion can only be in the holiness and love of the divine nature; and through all degrees of resemblance to that which has been before us, the principle applies. "So also shall My heavenly Father do unto you, if ye forgive not every one his brother, from your hearts."

F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

18:21-35 Peter’s suggestion of seven times was generous, so Jesus’ answer was startling. The disciple’s willingness to forgive should be like God’s forgiving grace, limitless and free (see 18:10-14). Those who do not forgive in this way cannot themselves have experienced God’s forgiveness (18:35; see 6:12).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mat 18:21. Ποσάκις, how often?) in one day, or my whole life. Cf. Luk 17:4. [This question arose from some sense of super abounding Divine grace, which had been so much dwelt upon and magnified in the preceding discourses.—V. g.—ἁμαρτήσει, shall my brother sin?) These words are to be understood, not of some slight offence, which excites a sudden burst of indignation, though this also is indeed sinful, yet ready to forgive of its own accord, but of some more heavy offence or injury.—V. g.]

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat_18:21. At this point Peter steps forward from amongst the disciples (Mat_18:1), and going up to Jesus, νομίζων φανῆται μεγαλοψυχότατος (Euthymius Zigabenus), proposes that forgiveness should be shown more than twice the number of times which the Rabbis had declared to be requisite. Babyl. Joma, f. 86. 2, contains the following words: Homini in alterum peccanti semel remittunt, secundo remittunt, tertio remittunt, quarto non remittunt.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 18:21-22 . Peter’s question about forgiving . The second of two interpellations in the course of Christ’s discourse ( vide Mar 9:38-41 ; Luk 9:49-50 ). Such words touch sensitive consciences, and the interruptions would be welcomed by Jesus as proof that He had not spoken in vain.

Mat 18:21 . ποσάκις , etc.: the question naturally arose out of the directions for dealing with an offending brother, which could only be carried out by one of placable disposition. Their presupposition is that a fault confessed is to be forgiven. But how far is this to go? In Luk 17:3 the case is put of seven offences in a day, each in turn repented of and confessed. Is there not reason for doubting the sincerity of repentance in such a case? Or is this not at least the extreme limit? Such is Peter’s feeling. ἁμαρτήσει , ἀφήσω : two futures instead of ποσ . ἁμαρτόντι ἀφήσω : Hebrew idiom instead of Greek. ἕως ἑπτάκις : Peter meant to be generous, and he went considerably beyond the Rabbinical measure, which was three times (Amo 1:6 ): “quicunque remissionem petit a proximo, ne ultra quam ter petat,” Schöttgen.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

They shall find God severe and not to be pleased, which do not forgive their brethren, although they have been diversly and grievously injured by them.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him?--In the recent dispute, Peter had probably been an object of special envy, and his forwardness in continually answering for all the rest would likely be cast up to him--and if so, probably by Judas--notwithstanding his Masters' commendations. And as such insinuations were perhaps made once and again, he wished to know how often and how long he was to stand it.

till seven times?--This being the sacred and complete number, perhaps his meaning was, Is there to be a limit at which the needful forbearance will be full?

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 21. Till seven times?] Though seven was a number of perfection among the Hebrews, and often meant much more than the units in it imply, yet it is evident that Peter uses it here in its plain literal sense, as our Lord's words sufficiently testify. It was a maxim among the Jews never to forgive more than thrice: Peter enlarges this charity more than one half; and our Lord makes even his enlargement septuple, see Mt 18:22. Revenge is natural to man, i.e. man is naturally a vindictive being, and, in consequence, nothing is more difficult to him than forgiveness of injuries.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(21) How oft shall my brother sin . . .?—The words of Mat_18:15 had obviously told on the minds of the disciples, and had roused them to question with themselves. But they could not, all at once, take in the truth that the “commandment” was “exceeding broad.” Surely, they thought, there must be some limit to this way of dealing with the brother who has sinned against us? And the sacred number suggested itself as the natural limit. Not, it may be conjectured, without a half-conscious reference to the words of the prophet (Amo_1:3), that “for three transgressions and for four” the punishment thereof should not be turned away, the Apostle made answer to his own question, “Until seven times?” as though the line must be drawn there.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

21. till seven times?] The Rabbinical rule was that no one should ask forgiveness of his neighbour more than thrice. Peter, who asks as a scribe a scribe’s question, thought he was making a great advance in liberality and shewing himself worthy of the Kingdom of heaven. But the question itself indicates complete misunderstanding of the Christian spirit.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And when he had begun to reckon,.... To open the book of conscience, and to bring to account by some awakening providence, and strong conviction: one was brought unto him; whether he would or no, through the force of an awakened conscience, under guilt and terror;

which owed him ten thousand talents; which must be understood, either of gold, or silver: a talent of silver contained 3,000 shekels, as appears from Exo 38:25, and was in value of our money 375l. but a talent of gold was equal to 4,500l. of our (f) money. According to Dr. Prideaux (g), a talent of silver was 450l. and a talent of gold, the proportion of gold to silver being reckoned as sixteen to one, was 7,200l. and according to Bishop Cumberland, a talent of silver was 353l. 11s. 10d. ob. and a talent of gold of the same weight, was 5,075l. 15s. 7d. ob. The whole, according to Dr. Hammond, was a thousand eight hundred seventy five thousand pounds, reckoning them silver talents; but if talents of gold are meant, what an immense sum must ten thousand of them be! According to some, seventy two millions sterling. The design of the phrase, is to set forth the exceeding greatness of the debt. Munster's Hebrew Gospel reads it, "ten thousand manehs", or pounds; and so the Persic version: now the value of a maneh of gold, was 75l. and of silver, 7l 10s. (h) take the sum in the least quantity and value, it was exceeding large. The Arabic version renders it a "sum of talents", without mentioning the number, and may mean an innumerable one. Mention is made of such a number of talents of silver, in Est 3:9, which Aben Ezra says is defective, and signifies ten thousand thousand talents. The "second" Targum on the place says, that the sum of six hundred thousand zuzim, drachms, or pence (i.e. Roman ones) is ten thousand talents of silver. These "ten thousand talents" intend sins, which are called debts, in Scripture; not that they are properly so, or owing to God, for then it would be right to pay them, but because they bind over to punishment. All men owe a debt of thankfulness to God, for their beings, the preservation of them, and all the mercies of life; and a debt of obedience to the whole law, in failure of which, they are obliged to punishment: hence every sin becomes a debt, and these are numerous; indwelling sin, and the lusts thereof, are innumerable; as are actual sins and transgressions, they are more than the hairs of a man's head, and are fitly expressed, both for the weight and quantity of them, by "ten thousand talents". In this light they appear to the conscience of an awakened sinner, who sees that he has been doing nothing but sin, all the days of his life; and that he has been continually breaking the law, one precept or another of it, in thought, word, or deed: which violations of the law, even in word and deed, are risen up to so great a sum, that he is not able to give it to any nearness, and with any exactness; he cannot understand all his errors, nor express the full number of them, or declare all their aggravated circumstances; besides the swarms of corruption of internal lusts and sins, which he observes dwelling in his heart, and are as innumerable as the motes and atoms in a sunbeam. The sins of God's people, which have been all made to meet upon Christ, have been laid upon him by his Father's imputation of them to him, with his own consent, are represented in this manner; see Psa 40:12. And indeed, if the debts of one of them amount to ten thousand talents, what must the sum of all be, put together! and how great must be the strength and power of Christ, to bear the weight of these sins, and not be broken or discouraged, and fail, as he did not! and what a rich virtue and efficacy must there be in his blood, to pay off all these debts, and make satisfaction for them, which could never have been done, if he had not done it! for, it is impossible that a person in such circumstances as here described, should ever be able to recover himself, or pay his debts, as follows.

(f) Brerewood de Nummis Heb. c. 4. (g) Connection, Vol. 1. Preface, p. 20. (h) Brerewood de Numuis. Heb. c. 4.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

Ver. 21. And I forgive him? till seven times] How many good people even at this day think if they forgive an offending brother some few times, that they have supererogated, {a} and deserved to be chronicled, yea, canonized! it was a fault in Peter to presume to prescribe to Christ how often he should enjoin him to forgive. Peter is still the same; ever too forwardly and forthputting.

{a} To do more than is commanded or required; spec. to perform a work or works of supererogation.? ŒD

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Then came Peter ... - The mention of the duty Mat 18:15 of seeing a brother when he had offended us, implying that it was a duty to forgive him, led Peter to ask how often this was to be done.

Forgive him - To forgive is to treat as though the offence was not committed - to declare that we will not harbor malice or treat unkindly, but that the matter shall be buried and forgotten.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

St. Peter knew the Jews to be much given to revenge; he therefore thought it a great proof of superior virtue to be able to forgive seven times. It was for this reason he proposed this question to our Lord; who, to shew how much he esteemed charity, immediately answered, not only seven times, but seventy times seven times. He does not mean to say that this number must be the bounds of our forgiving; we must forgive to the end, and never take revenge, however often our brother offend against us. There must be no end of forgiving poor culprits that sincerely repent, either in the sacrament of penance, or one man another his offences. (Bristow) --- To recommend this great virtue more forcibly, he subjoins the parable of the king taking his accounts: and, for the great severity there exercised, he intimates how rigid will his heavenly Father be to those who forgive not their enemies. (Denis the Carthusian)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Luke hath something like this Luk 17:4, but it seemeth to have been spoken at another time, and upon some other occasion; yet the sense is much the same, and there are who think that Peter’s mention of seven times arose from our Saviour’s command there, that we should forgive our brother offending us seven times, when our Saviour by it intended not a certain and definite number, but a number uncertain and indefinite. But it is a greater question, what sinning and what forgiveness is there meant, I cannot think that our Saviour here speaketh concerning the church’s absolving scandalous sinners justly excommunicated, but of the private forgiveness of injuries done to us; it is not the church, but I forgive him; for although the doors of the church ought to be as open to a repenting sinner as the doors of heaven are, yet I think both the phrase of the text and the following parable (which seemeth to me a comment upon this text) seem to lead us to the interpretation of these verses as to private wrongs or injuries; they are properly sins against us, and such as it is in every single person’s power to forgive. But it seems hard that Christians should be obliged to forgive another his private wrongs so often as he doth them, if he will go on without end multiplying affronts and injuries to us; we must therefore know, that our Saviour by this precept doth not oblige any to take his enemy into his bosom, and make him his intimate or confidant again; but only to lay aside all malice, all thoughts and desires of revenge towards him, to put on a charitable frame of spirit towards him, so as to be ready to do him any common offices of friendship. Thus far we are obliged to forgive those that do us injuries, so often as they stand in need of forgiveness. The apostle, Col 3:8, speaks of wrath, malice, &c., as pieces of the old man, which every true Christian hath put off, and calls upon us in malice to be children.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

GOSPEL LAW OF FORGIVENESS ILLUSTRATED BY THE PARABLE OF THE UNFORGIVING SERVANT, 21-35.

This parable enforces the rule just laid down by our Lord to Peter. It draws a contrast between God’s patient forgiveness and man’s unpitying cruelty.

It warns us of the terrible penalty of incurring God’s justice by our merciless dealing with our fellow-beings.

21. Peter… said… how oft — Peter perceives that a law of tenderer dealing is to prevail in the Church than exists in the synagogue. The Jewish limit of forgiveness was thrice and no more.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 21-35. The pardon of injuries, and the parable of the unmerciful servant.

Peter was greatly struck with what Christ had just said about reconciliation of enemies; and he wanted to know what limits were to be imposed on his generosity, especially, it might be, if the offender made no reparation for his offence, and acknowledged not his wrong doing. My brother. As ver. 15, fellow disciple, neighbour. Till seven times? Peter doubtless thought that he was unusually liberal and generous in proposing such a measure of forgiveness. Seven is the number of completeness and plurality, and our Lord had used it in giving his sentence about forgiveness: "If he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn to thee again," etc. (Luk_17:4) Some rabbis had fixed this limit from an erroneous interpretation of Amo_1:3 Amo_2:1. "For three transgressions, and for four," etc.; but the usual precept enjoined forgiveness of three offences only, drawing the line here, and having no pity for a fourth offence. Ben-Sira bids a man admonish an offending neighbour twice, but is silent as to any further forgiveness (Ecc 19:13-17). The Jews were very fond of defining and limiting moral obligations, as if they could be accurately prescribed by number. Christ demolishes this attempt to define by law the measure of grace.

Vers. 21-35. The law of forgiveness.

I THE CONVERSATION WITH ST. PETER.

1. Peter"s question. The Lord had intimated the duty of gentleness in dealing with offences. Every effort was to be used to reconcile the offending brother; he was to be approached with all gentleness, with all Christian tact, if so be that he might be won back to Christ and to the Church. Peter wished for a definite rule to guide him in carrying out the Lord"s directions. According to the rabbis, an erring brother should be forgiven three times. Peter suggested a larger number, the sacred number seven, as the limit of Christian forgiveness.

2. The Lords answer. "I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven." There seems to be a reference to the words of Lamech. (Gen_4:24) Lamech desired a seventy and sevenfold vengeance. The Lord commands a seventy and sevenfold forgiveness. There is some doubt as to the numerical value of the words. But it is of little importance which rendering we adopt, "seventy times seven," or "seventy-seven times," for the Lord certainly means that acts of forgiveness are not to be counted. It is a question not to be settled by arithmetic, but by Christian love and by the grace of God. "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us.

II THE PARABLE OF THE KING AND THE UNMERCIFUL SERVANT.

1. The account. The Lord illustrates the duty of forgiveness by the parable of a human king and his servants. The king would take account of his servants. God takes account from time to time. There are preliminary reckonings preparatory for the great day of account. In the visitations of his providence, in dangerous sickness, in the hour of deep and heartfelt penitence, the Lord brings home to our hearts the exceeding guilt of our sins, the greatness of our debt. A servant was brought who owed ten thousand talents. The reckoning had only just begun; there may have been other even greater debts to come. It was a terrible beginning. The servant was brought; he would not have come of his own will. The sinner shrinks in terror from the awful presence of the Judge. Adam and Eve hid themselves when first the King came to take account. But he was brought. We cannot escape, we must come, when he requires our presence. The debt was enormous, far more than we can even represent to our imagination. Such is the awful debt of sin; we may well say every day, and many times every day, "Forgive us our debts.

2. The mercy of the king. The servant was to be sold, he and his family, and all that he had. In his agony he fell down before his lord and worshipped him; "Lord," he said, "have patience with me, and I will pay thee all." He could not pay, he never could have paid, that vast debt. But in his presumption, or in his deceitfulness, or, it may be, in the frenzy of his abject terror, he promised the impossible. The king was moved with compassion; he loosed him, and forgave him the debt. It is a parable of the infinite compassion of the heavenly King; "he pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent." "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

3. The cruelty of the servant. He went out from the king"s presence. We are only safe while we abide in union with the Lord. He is the Source and Fountain of love, and apart from him there is no true and holy love. When men go out from his presence, from the sphere of his influence, they cease to love; they become selfish, hard, unfeeling. That forgiven servant found a fellow servant who owed him a hundred pence, a trifling sum compared with his own enormous debt. He caught him by the throat; he would not listen to his prayer (though the prayer was that very same prayer which he himself had just before poured forth in the bitterness of his soul); he cast him into prison till he should pay the debt. So now men forget their own guilt, their own danger; they are hard and unforgiving to others, forgetting their own deep need of mercy and forgiveness.

4. The condemnation. His fellow servants were very sorry. The sins of others will cause real sorrow to the true Christian; he will grieve over the hard hearted and impenitent, as the Lord wept over Jerusalem. "Rivers of waters run down mine eyes," said the psalmist, "because men keep not thy Law." They told their lord. The all-seeing God needs no information from men or angels; yet in their prayers his saints lay before him the oppression and sufferings of his people, as Hezekiah laid the letter of Sennacherib before the Lord, as the disciples "went and told Jesus" of the death of the holy Baptist. The king was wroth: "O thou wicked servant," he said. He had not called him wicked because he owed the ten thousand talents; he pitied him then; now he upbraids him. His want of mercy showed the utter hardness and selfishness of his heart; it showed that his own cry for mercy implied no sense of the greatness of his debt, but only fear of punishment. The king was wroth; he delivered him to the tormentors till he should pay all that was due to him. His cruelty cancelled the forgiveness which had been granted him. His last state was worse than the first. Those who, having been once enlightened, fall away from grace are in awful danger. "It had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them." The unhappy man could never pay that tremendous debt; he could not had he remained free, how much less when he was in the hands of the tormentors! Those words are very awful; they represent awful possibilities; they sound in our ears in tones of awful warning. "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses." The unloving cannot abide in Christ, who is Love; the hardhearted and unmerciful cannot continue in union with him who, though he was rich, yet for our sakes became poor; the unforgiving cannot dare to use the prayer which the Lord himself hath taught us, "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us." "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." There is no mercy for the merciless. We may repeat again and again the words of prayer, "Lord, have mercy upon us!" but countless repetitions will not win mercy for those who have not mercy in their hearts. And oh! we shall need mercy in the great day. Then let us be merciful now: "Be ye kind one to another, tender hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ"s sake hath forgiven you.

LESSONS.

Let us always remember the great account; God has given us work todo, let us work out our own salvation in fear and trembling.

1. Our debt is immense; let the remembrance of our sins keep us humble.

2. God"s mercy is infinite; let us trust in his forgiving love.

3. He is wroth with the unforgiving; let us learn mercy of the most Merciful.

4. We say the Lord"s Prayer daily; let us ever strive by God"s grace to translate that prayer into practice, to live as we pray, to forgive, as we hope for forgiveness.

Vers. 21, 22. The duty of unlimited forgiveness.

Jesus once required forgiveness to be repeated seven times. (Luk_17:4) St. Peter now asks what is to be done when these seven times of pardon are passed. Our Lord simply multiplies them by seventy. There is to be no arithmetic in the matter; there is to be no limit to forgiveness.

I IT IS A MISTAKE TO SEARCH FOR THE MINIMUM OF DUTY. Why should St. Peter want to know what to do when he had forgiven seven times? Was there any law which he might transgress if he went too far in the generosity of pardon? His question was one that should never have been asked. It savours of rabbinical casuistry. Now, one of the great defects of casuistry is that it is too often pursued in the interest of those who wish to do no more good than is absolutely required of them. But the spirit of such a desire is immoral. He who seeks a limit to forgiveness has not really a forgiving spirit at all. He only forgives under compulsion, that is to say, he does not really forgive in his heart. So it is with all other duties. When we ask how far must we go, with how little will God be satisfied, we betray a spirit out of sympathy with our duty. If we loved it we should not anxiously search for the line of obligation, we should rather press on to the utmost with an enthusiastic desire to do our best.

II FORGIVENESS CANNOT HAVE A LIMIT. Some duties are limited, although we are free to exceed the limit. This is the case with honesty. We have simply to pay what we owe, to give a just price for what we buy, to refrain from stealing, and we have discharged the whole of our obligation in this direction. Thus, at all events in the pecuniary world, it is possible to be absolutely honest, and hosts of people have reached the stage of absoluteness in regard to this duty. But there are other duties that run out to the infinite; we can never entirely compress them. All our spiritual education only enables us to reach towards a little more of their boundless possibilities. Of such a nature is forgiveness. We may be called at any moment to carry this further than we have yet gone.

III THE LIMITLESS CHARACTER OF FORGIVENESS SPRINGS FROM ITS DIVINE ORIGIN. Forgiveness is God-like. It belongs to the ethics of heaven. It cannot be enforced in the law courts of earth, where Shylock is awarded his pound of flesh. In strict right and law, forgiveness cannot be enacted. Forgiveness is above law, as the sovereign who pardons in clemency is above the judge who is compelled to condemn in justice. God forgives without limit. He requires the condition of repentance, and this we have a right to demand also. (see Luk_17:3) But when that is present he forgives hardened old offenders, who have grieved his Spirit many and many a time before. It is only the limitless forgiveness of God that makes it possible for us to be pardoned by him. Then it is incumbent on us to show the same spirit towards our fellow men. W.F.A.

Vers. 21-35. The unmerciful servant.

The form of Peter"s question shows that he still considered that to forgive was not the law of the kingdom, but a tentative measure which might at any moment be revoked, that underneath the forgiveness there lies the right to revenge. We also know this feeling of Peter"s, that in forgiving we are doing something more than could be demanded of us. And this feeling, wherever it exists, shows that we are living with retaliation for the law, forgiveness for the exception. It is to mark with reprobation the unforgiving and self seeking spirit that our Lord utters this parable.

I The first result of this spirit is that IT LEADS TO DISHONOURABLE OUTLAY UPON OURSELVES OF WHAT GOD HAS GIVEN US FOR BETTER USES. The man whose great motive in life is the desire to get all the good out of it he can for himself will contract debt to God, that is, will contract real guilt, exactly in proportion to his opportunities of doing good and playing a high part in life. Whether the power be great or little, the guilt contracted is the same, if we lay out on ourselves what should in simple honesty have been laid out on God, if we habitually divert from God the revenues which truly belong to him.

II But still more strongly does the parable point to THE HATEFULNESS OF AN UNFORGIVING SPIRIT. The man was not softened by the remission of his own great debt. So it often is with the sinner deadened by long sin. There is no deep contrition in his cry for pardon, only a desire to escape, as selfish as the desire to sin was. If the forgiving love of God does not humble, it hardens us. If we take it as a mere trifle, and are not thoroughly humbled by it, we are only too apt to show our zeal in exposing and reproving the faults of other men, or by violent and unrelenting condemnation of those who offend us. The hatefulness of this spirit is signalized by one or two added particulars.

1. The petty amount of the debt he exacts as set over against the enormity of that which had been remitted to himself. There is something almost incredibly mean as well as savage in this man"s quick remembrance of the pence that are due to himself, while he so easily puts from his mind the ten thousand talents he owes. But our incredulity gives way when we think of the debt we owe God and the trifles committed against us which we find it so hard to forget. What are the causes of quarrel among men? Often a word, a look, an expression unwittingly dropped. Or measure even the deepest injury that has ever been done to you; the wrong that has darkened or obstructed your whole life with that for which you yourself need to ask forgiveness of God, and say whether you ought still to be implacable. No doubt you may detect in the injuries done to you more malice and intention to wound than in your own sins against God; but you will certainly not find more dishonoring neglect, more culpable repudiation of what was due. And what was the harm done in comparison with giving false impressions about God or counterworking his will? Is our shame for sin against God as intense and as real as our indignation at injuries done to ourselves?

2. But the chief aggravation of this man"s conduct lay in the tact that he had just been forgives. He thought mercy a good thing so long as he was the object of it, but in the presence of a debtor he is deaf to the reasons that filled his own mouth immediately before. And how hard do we all find it to deal with others as God has dealt with us! We go from his presence, where we have felt it is mercy, which is the most needful gift in a world like this it is mercy which gives us hope at all and we go straight to our fellow servant and exact all our due. Here, then, our Lord enounces the law of unlimited forgiveness as one of the essential laws of his kingdom. Men are to be held together, not by external compulsion, but by the inward disposition of each member of the society to forgive and be on terms of brotherly kindness with every other member. We lose much of the power and practical benefit of Christ"s teaching by refusing to listen to what he says about his kingdom as cordially as to what he says about individuals. We are not, perhaps, too much, but too exclusively taken up with the saving of our own souls, neglecting to consider that the Bible throughout takes to do with the Church and people of God, with the kingdom; and with the individual only as a member of the kingdom of God. And so it is not for the individual Christ legislates. To unite us individually to God he recgonizes as only half his work. Our salvation consists, not only in being brought into reconciliation with God, but in our becoming reconciled to men. The man who is content if he is sure his own soul is safe has great cause to believe it in danger, for in Christ we are knit one to another. But how are we to get into a right state of feeling towards other men; to find it natural to forgive always, not to stand on our rights and exact our dues, but to be moved by the desire to promote the interests of others? The true way to a forgiving spirit is to be forgiven, to go back again and again to God, and count over our debt to him, though the man, whose mind is filled with a true view of his own wrong doing, always feels how much more he has been forgiven than he can ever be called on to forgive. We must begin, therefore, with the truth about ourselves. D.

Vers. 21-35. The limits of mercy.

Peter"s question here was suggested by his Lord"s doctrine concerning Christian judgment (vers. 15-20). "Then came Peter," etc. The form of Peter"s question may have been suggested by the custom of the rabbins who from Amo_1:3 three transgressions, and for four, I will not turn away wrath held that three offences were to be forgiven, and not the fourth; or, uniting the two numbers, made "seven times" the extreme limit of their forgiveness. The Lord"s reply teaches us

I THAT THE CLAIMS OF BROTHERHOOD ARE THE LIMITS OF MERCY.

1. Forgiveness should never be refused when sought with repentance.

(1) That repentance is understood here is evident from the illustrative parable of the two debtors (vers. 26, 29). Also from the parallel place. (see Luk_17:4)

(2) To gain a brother is more noble than to ruin him. Mercy is nobler than sacrifice.

(3) The gaining of a brother is greater than the recovery of property. Life is more than meat. How much is a man better than a sheep?

2. Forgiveness is no mercy to the impenitent.

(1) It leaves his evil nature still unchanged.

(2) It encourages and hardens him in his perversity.

(3) It offends public justice. The fellow servants of the oppressor were "exceeding sorry." They looked to their lord for his judgment upon the tyrant.

II THAT THE MERCIFULNESS OF THE LORD IS OUR INCITANT TO MERCY.

1. God"s mercy is boundless.

(1) Offences against God, as compared with offences against our fellows, are as "ten thousand talents" to "one hundred pence." We should regard ourselves as debtors to God in all we have and all we are.

(2) It is folly in us to say to him, "I will pay thee all." He that goes about to establish his own righteousness is guilty of this folly of attempting with nothing to pay all (cf. ver. 25; Rom_10:3).

(3) The parable teaches that the only way to forgiveness is to acknowledge our debt and appeal only to mercy. The promise to pay may express the desire of the contrite heart to make amends.

(4) The Lord does not exact; he forgives. (cf. Psa_78:38, Psa_78:40) His mercy is limited neither to "seven times" nor to "seventy times seven.

2. We must forgive as we are.forgiven.

(1) This is required. (cf. Mat_6:12 Mar_11:25, 26) It was at the close of the great Day of Atonement that the jubilee trumpet sounded a release from debts. (see Lev_25:9)

(2) To the merciless God will show no mercy. A claim pushed to an extremity becomes a wrong. Mercilessness is great wickedness. "Thou wicked servant!" "To be beggars to God and tyrants to our brethren is the height of depravity" (Helfrich).

3. Forgiveness must be from the heart.

(1) God"s reasons of mercy are from himself. "He will have mercy upon whom he will have mercy;" "He was moved with compassion.

(2) So the wisdom which is from above, true religion, is "easy to be entreated." The returning prodigal child will find a relenting heart. The insolvent debtor, a compassionate creditor. The distressed tenant, a lenient landlord. Gratitude to God will make it so. "I am thy servant; for thou hast loosed my bonds.

(3) This is a forgiveness which leaves no pique behind, no refusal of friendship. We should keep no account of the offences of a brother, but pass them over, and so forgive and forget until it becomes a habit to do so.

III THAT THE MAGNITUDE OF GOD"S MERCY IS ALSO THE MEASURE OF HIS WRATH,

1. There is a time for reckoning with the King.

(1) The King reckons with his servants when their regeneration commences. Then they reflect upon their spiritual state, and upon their liability to ruin.

(2) There are retributions and rewards in the order of God"s providence in this world.

(3) The grand reckoning will be in the day of judgment at the end of the age. To this end God keeps account. (see Deu_32:34) Every sin we commit is a debt to God. The aggregate is the "ten thousand talents

2. His pardons will be retracted from the unmerciful.

(1) The same servant went out and throttled his fellow servant. "Went out." How different may be our conduct when we go out into the world from what it is when we go into our closet! Went out; not immediately, perhaps, but when by degrees the spirit of the world replaced the grateful emotion.

(2) Those who have experienced God"s mercy have the greater reason to deprecate his wrath. They will find the "seventy times seven" of the mercy transformed into wrath. (cf. Gen_4:24) How serious, then, may be the consequences of the difference between the attitude of the closet and that of the world!

3. How fearful are the treasures of wrath!

(1) There are the sufferings of loss. The debtor is sold up. He forfeits wife, children, property. All ennobling excellences of his nature are removed. His talents, his trusts, are taken away. (cf. Mat_25:15, Mat_25:28) "Those who sell themselves to work wickedness must be sold to make satisfaction" (Henry).

(2) The sufferings of reproach. "Thou wicked servant." This expresses a perception which God will give to the sinner of the enormity of his conduct. "I forgave thee all that debt." It is terrible to be upbraided with the mercy we have abused. "Shouldst not thou also," etc.? What a contrast is here with the mercy that is given liberally without upbraiding! (Jam_1:5)

(3) Torment. Eastern prisons were places of torment. (cf. Mat_25:46 2Pe_2:4, 17 Jud_1:6) The prison keepers are the tormentors. (cf. Rev_14:10-12) The tortures are the worm that dieth not and the fire that is not quenched.

(4) The sufferer has no voice to reply. J.A.M.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

sin

(See Scofield "Rom 3:23")

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

True forgiveness:

v. 21. Then came Peter to Him and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

v. 22. Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times; but, Until seventy times seven.

The entire discourse had really concerned the question of dealing with an erring brother. The need of saving the brother, if there were any possibility of doing so without denying the truth and bringing dishonor upon God, had been emphasized. But Peter now wanted to know whether there is any limit to the number of times one should forgive a repentant brother. His question implies: Is there not reason for doubting the sincerity of repentance in such a case? Or is this not at least the final limit? Peter’s estimate, he thought, was generous. But Christ’s answer is staggering: "I say not unto thee, Until seven times. " He would not even begin with such an insignificant sum, nor would He want to be tied down to any definite sum. No number would begin to show the greatness of forgiving love that should be found in the hearts of Christians; there is no limit to the number of times that we should forgive an erring brother and reinstate him in our esteem after a transgression on his part. Christ here speaks of forgiveness of sins, and here He has no limit, the seventy times seven evidently being in place of a number beyond petty calculation. Nothing but love and forgiveness shall be in the hearts of Christians.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Here St. Peter puts a question to our Saviour, how often Christians should forgive offences to their brethren professing repentance: Christ answers that there should be no end of our mutually forgiving one another, but we are to multiply our pardon as our brother manifests his repentance. Not that we are hereby obliged to take the frequent offender into our bosom, and to make him our intimate; but to lay aside all malice, and all thoughts and desires of revenge, and to stand ready to do him any office of love and friendship.

Learn, 1. That to fall often into the same offence against our brother, is a great aggravation of sin, so the multiplication of forgiveness is a great demonstration of a God-like temper in us. He that multiplies sin, doth like Satan, sin abundantly; and he that multiplies pardon, doth, like God, pardon abundantly.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

21. Then came Peter to him. The Lord had just spoken of the duty of seeking reconciliation with those who trespassed against us (vs. 15–17), and there seems to have been some doubt in the mind of Peter how far this principle should be carried. Till seven times? It is stated that the Jewish Rabbins held that forgiveness must be extended to one who confessed his fault, but this was limited to three repetitions of the offence. Peter had an idea that the Savior's rule would insist on still greater forbearance.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

seven times

"7 times" (See: Numbers)

seventy times seven

Possible meanings are 1) "70 times 7" or 2) "77 times." If using a number would be confusing, you can translate it as "more times than you can count" or "you must always forgive him." (See: Numbers)

translationWords

Peter

Jesus

lord

brother

sin

forgive

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

21. ἕως ἑπτάκις. The Rabbinical rule was that no one should ask forgiveness of his neighbour more than thrice. Peter, who asks as a scribe a scribe’s question, thought he was making a great advance in liberality and shewing himself worthy of the kingdom of heaven. But the question itself indicates complete misunderstanding of the Christian spirit.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

21-35.] Reply to Peter’s question respecting the limit of forgiveness; and by occasion, the Parable of the forgiven but unforgiving servant. See Luk 17:3, Luk 17:4. It is possible that Peter may have asked this question in virtue of the power of the keys before (ch. 16:19) entrusted to him, to direct him in the use of them: but it seems more likely, that it was asked as in the person of any individual: that Peter wished to follow the rules just laid down, but felt a difficulty as to the limit of his exercise of forgiveness.

The Rabbinical rule was, to forgive three times and no more; this they justified by Amo 1:3, &c.: Job 33:29, Job 33:30 LXX, and . E. V. The expression ‘seven times’ is found Pro 24:16, in connexion with sinning and being restored: see also Lev 26:18-28. In our Lord’s answer we have most likely a reference to Gen 4:24.

Seventy times seven, not ‘seven and seventy times,’ is the rendering. οὐκ ἀριθμὸν τιθεὶς ἐνταῦθα, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἄπειρον καὶ διηνεκὲς καὶ ἀεί. Chrys. Hom. lxi. 1, p. 611.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

21. Then came Peter, and said to Him, Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I shall forgive him? unto seven times?] Luk 17:4 has: “And if seven times in the day he sin against thee, and seven times turn to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.” For the introduction of Peter, cf. 14:28, 15:15; and see note on 16:19, p. 180.

(L)

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.