Matthew 24:48

Mat 24:48. Ὁ κακὸς δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος, THAT evil servant) whom the Lord knoweth.—χρονίζει, delayeth) See Mat 25:5 [cf. Ecc 8:11].

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

Mat_24:48-51. Ἐὰν δὲ, κ.τ.λ.] the emphasis is on ὁ κακός as contrasting with ὁ πιστὸς κ. φρόνιμος, Mat_24:45, therefore ὁ ἄπιστος κ. ἄφρων.

ἐκεῖνος] refers back to ὃν κατέστησεν, κ.τ.λ., Mat_24:45, and represents the sum of its contents. Hence: but suppose the worthless servant who has been put in that position shall have said, etc. To assume that we have here a blending of two cases (the servant is either faithful or wicked), the second of which we are to regard as presupposed and pointed to by ἐκεῖνος (de Wette, Kaeuffer), is to burden the passage with unnecessary confusion.

ἄρξηται] will have begun, does not refer to the circumstance that the lord surprises him in the midst of his misdemeanours (Fritzsche), because in that case what follows would also have to be regarded as depending on ἄρξηται, but on the contrary it brings out the fearless wickedness of the man abandoning himself to tyrannical behaviour and sensual gratifications.

ἐσθίῃ δὲ κ. π.] Before, we were told what his conduct was toward his fellow-slaves over whom he had been set; now, on the other hand, we are shown how he behaved himself apart from his relation to the οἰκετεία.

διχοτομήσει αὐτόν] he will cut him in two (Plat. Polit. p. 302 F; Polyb. vi. 28. 2; x. 15. 5; Exo_29:17), a form of punishment according to which the criminal was sawn asunder, 2Sa_12:31; 1Ch_20:3; Heb_11:37. Comp. Sueton. Calig. xvii.: medios serra dissecuit. Herod, vii. 37. See, in general, Wetstein and Rosenmüller, Morgenl., on our passage. There is no force in the usual objection that, in what follows, the slave is assumed to be still living; for, in the words καὶ τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ, κ.τ.λ., which are immediately added, we have a statement of the thing itself, which the similitude of that terrible punishment was intended to illustrate. All other explanations are inconsistent with the text, such as: he will tear him with the scourge (Heumann, Paulus, Kuinoel, Schott, de Wette, Olshausen), or: he will cut him off from his service (Beza, Grotius, Jansen, Maldonatus; comp. Jerome, Euthymius Zigabenus), or: he will withdraw his spiritual gifts from him (Basil, Theophylact), or generally: he will punish him with the utmost severity (Chrysostom).

καὶ τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ, κ.τ.λ.] and will assign him his proper place among the hypocrites, i.e. he will condemn him to have his fitting portion in common with the hypocrites, that thenceforth he may share their fate. Comp. on Joh_13:8, and the classical phrase ἐν μέρει τινὸς τίθεσθαι. Rabbinical writers likewise regard Gehenna as the portion of hypocrites; see Schoettgen. But the expression τῶν ὑποκριτ. is made use of here because the κακὸς δοῦλος is a hypocrite in the inmost depths of his moral nature, inasmuch as he acts under the impression χρονίζει μου ὁ κύριος, though he hopes that when his lord arrives he will be able to assume the appearance of one who is still faithfully discharging his duty, just as he must have pretended to be good at the time when he received the trust which had been committed to him; but now he is suddenly unmasked.

ἐκεῖ] namely, in hell, Mat_8:12, Mat_13:42; Mat_13:50, Mat_22:13, Mat_25:30.

REMARK 1.

It is exegetically certain that from Mat_24:29 onward Jesus announces His second advent, after having spoken, in what precedes that verse, of the destruction of Jerusalem, and of that, too, as an event that was to take place immediately before His second coming. All attempts to obtain, for the εὐθέως of Mat_24:29, a different terminus a quo (see on Mat_24:29), and therefore to find room enough before this εὐθέως for an interval, the limits of which cannot as yet be assigned, or to fix upon some different point in the discourse as that at which the subject of the second advent is introduced (Chrysostom: Mat_24:23; E. J. Meyer: Mat_24:35; Süsskind: Mat_24:36; Kuinoel: Mat_24:43; Lightfoot, Wetstein, Flatt: not till Mat_25:31; Hoelemann: as early as Mat_24:19), are not the fruits of an objective interpretation of the text, but are based on the assumption that every trifling detail must find its fulfilment, and lead to interpretations in which the meaning is explained away and twisted in the most violent way possible. The attempts of Ebrard, Dorner, Cremer, Hoelemann, Gess, to show that the prediction of Jesus is in absolute harmony with the course of history, are refuted by the text itself, especially by Mat_24:29; above all is it impossible to explain Mat_24:15-28 of some event which is still in the womb of the future (in opposition to Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. p. 630 ff.); nor again, in Mat_24:34, can we narrow the scope of the πάντα ταῦτα, or extend that of the γενεὰ αὕτη, or make γένηται denote merely the dawning of the events in question.

REMARK 2.

It is true that the predictions, Mat_24:5 ff., regarding the events that were to precede the destruction of Jerusalem were not fulfilled in so special and ample a way as to harmonize with the synoptical representations of them; still, that they were so in all essential respects, is proved by what we learn from history respecting the impostors and magicians that appeared, the wars that raged far and near, the numerous cases of famine and earthquake that occurred, the persecutions of the Christians that took place, the moral degeneracy that prevailed, and the way in which the gospel had been proclaimed throughout the world, and all shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem (after the Jews had begun to rise in rebellion against the Roman authority in the time of Gessius Florus, who became procurator of Judea in 64). This prophecy, though in every respect a genuine prediction, is not without its imaginative element, as may be seen from the poetical and pictorial form in which it is embodied. Compare on Mat_24:7, Remark. But it is just this mode of representation which shows that a vaticinium post eventum (see on Mat_24:1) is not to be thought of. Comp. Holtzmann, Weizsäcker, Pfleiderer.

REMARK 3.

With regard to the difficulty arising out of the fact that the second advent did not take place, as Jesus had predicted it would, immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem,and as an explanation of which the assumption of a blending of type and antitype (Luther) is arbitrary in itself, and only leads to confusion,let the following be remarked: (1) Jesus has spoken of His advent in a threefold sense; for He described as His second coming (a) that outpouring of the Holy Spirit which was shortly to take place, and which was actually fulfilled; see on Joh_14:18 f., Mat_16:16; Mat_16:20 ff., also on Eph_2:17; (b) that historical manifestation of His majesty and power which would be seen, immediately after His ascension to the Father, in the triumph of His cause upon the earth, of which Mat_26:64 furnishes an undoubted example; (c) His coming, in the strict eschatological sense, to raise the dead, to hold the last judgment, and to set up His kingdom, which is also distinctly intimated in such passages of John as Joh_4:40; Joh_4:54, Mat_5:28, Mat_14:3 (Weizel in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 626 ff.), and in connection with which it is to be observed that in John the ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐγὼ τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ (Joh_6:39 f., Joh_6:44; Joh_6:54) does not imply any such nearness of the thing as is implied when the spiritual advent is in question; but, on the contrary, presupposes generally that believers will have to undergo death. Again, in the parable contained in Mat_22:1-14, the calling of the Gentiles is represented as coming after the destruction of Jerusalem; so that (comp. on Mat_21:40 f.) in any case a longer interval is supposed to intervene between this latter event and the second coming than would seem to correspond with the εὐθέως of Mat_24:29. (2) But though Jesus Himself predicted His second coming as an event close at hand, without understanding it, however, in the literal sense of the words (see above, under a and b); though, in doing so, He availed Himself to some extent of such prophetical phraseology as had come to be the stereotyped language for describing the future establishment of the literal kingdom of the Messiah (Mat_26:64), and in this way made use of the notions connected with this literal kingdom for the purpose of embodying his conceptions of the ideal advent,it is nevertheless highly conceivable that, in the minds of the disciples, the sign of Christs speedy entrance into the world again came to be associated and ultimately identified with the expectation of a literal kingdom. This is all the more conceivable when we consider how difficult it was for them to realize anything so ideal as an invisible return, and how natural it was for them to apprehend literally the figurative language in which Jesus predicted this return, and how apt they were, in consequence, to take everything He said about His second coming, in the threefold sense above mentioned, as having reference to the one great object of eager expectation, viz. the glorious establishment of the Messiahs kingdom. The separating and sifting of the heterogeneous elements that were thus blended together in their imagination, Jesus appears to have left to the influence of future development, instead of undertaking this task Himself, by directly confuting and correcting the errors to which this confusion gave rise (Act_1:7-8), although we must not overlook the fact that any utterances of Jesus in this direction would be apt to be lost sight ofall the more, that they would not be likely to prove generally acceptable. It may likewise be observed, as bearing upon this matter, that the spiritual character of the Gospel of Johnin which the idea of the advent, though not altogether absent, occupies a very secondary place as compared with the decided prominence given to that of the coming again in a spiritual senseis a phenomenon which presupposes further teaching on the part of Jesus, differing materially from that recorded in the synoptic traditions. (3) After the idea of imminence had once got associated in the minds of the disciples with the expectation of the second advent and the establishment of the literal kingdom, the next step, now that the resurrection of Jesus had taken place, was to connect the hope of fulfilment with the promised baptism with the spirit which was understood to be near at hand (Act_1:6); and they further expected that the fulfilment would take place, and that they would be witnesses of it before they left Judea,an idea which is most distinctly reflected in Mat_10:23. Ex eventu the horizon of this hope came to be gradually enlarged, without its extending, however, beyond the lifetime of the existing generation. It was during this interval that, according to Jesus, the destruction of Jerusalem was to take place. But if He at the same time saw, and in prophetic symbolism announced, what He could not fail to be aware of, viz. the connection that there would be between this catastrophe and the triumph of His ideal kingdom, then nothing was more natural than to expect that, with Jerusalem still standing (differently in Luk_21:24), and the duration of the existing generation drawing to a close, the second advent would take place immediately after the destruction of the capital,an expectation which would be strengthened by the well-known descriptions furnished by the prophets of the triumphal entry of Jehovah and the disasters that were to precede it (Strauss, II. p. 348), as well as by that form of the doctrine of the dolores Messiae to which the Rabbis had given currency (Langen, Judenth. in Paläst. p. 494 f.). The form of the expectation involuntarily modified the form of the promise; the ideal advent and establishment of the kingdom came to be identified with the eschatological, so that in mens minds and in the traditions alike the former gradually disappeared, while the latter alone remained as the object of earnest longing and expectation, surrounded not merely with the gorgeous colouring of prophetic delineation, but also placed in the same relation to the destruction of Jerusalem as that in which the ideal advent, announced in the language of prophetic imagery, had originally stood. Comp. Scherer in the Strassb. Beitr. II. 1851, p. 83 ff.; Holtzmann, p. 409 f.; Keim, III. p. 219 f.

Certain expositors have referred, in this connection, to the sentiment of the modern poet, who says: the worlds history is the worlds judgment, and have represented the destruction of Jerusalem as the first act in this judgment, which is supposed to be immediately followed (Mat_24:29) by a renovation of the world through the medium of Christianity,a renovation which is to go on until the last revelation from heaven takes place (Kern, Dorner, Olshausen). But this is only to commit the absurdity of importing into the passage a poetical judgment, such as is quite foreign to the real judgment of the New Testament. No less objectionable is Bengels idea, revived by Hengstenberg and Olshausen (comp. also Kern, p. 56; Lange, II. p. 1258; Schmid, Bibl. Theol. I. p. 354), about the perspective nature of the prophetic vision,an idea which could only have been vindicated from the reproach of imputing a false vision, i.e. an optical delusion, to Jesus if the latter had failed to specify a definite time by means of a statement so very precise as that contained in the εὐθέως of Mat_24:29, or had not added the solemn declaration of Mat_24:34. Dorner, Wittichen, rightly decide against this view. As a last shift, Olshausen has recourse to the idea that some condition or other is to be understood: All those things will happen, unless men avert the anger of God by sincere repentance,a reservation which, in a prediction of so extremely definite a character, would most certainly have been expressly mentioned, even although no doubt can be said to exist as to the conditional nature of the Old Testament prophecies (Bertheau in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1859, p. 335 ff.). If, as Olshausen thinks, it was the wish of the Lord that His second advent should always be looked upon as a possible, nay, as a probable thing,and if it was for this reason that He spoke as Matthew represents Him to have done, then it would follow that He made use of false means for the purpose of attaining a moral end,a thing even more inconceivable in His case than theoretical error, which latter Strauss does not hesitate to impute. According to this view, to which Wittichen also adheres, it is to the ethical side of the ministry of Jesus that the chief importance is to be attached. But it is precisely this ethical side that, in the case of Him who was the very depository of the intuitive truth of God, would necessarily be compromised by such an error as is here in view,an error affecting a prediction so intimately connected with His whole work, and of so much importance in its moral consequences. Comp. Joh_8:46.

REMARK 4.

The statement of Mat_24:29, to the effect that the second advent would take place immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem, and that of Mat_24:34, to the effect that it would occur during the lifetime of the generation then living, go to decide the date of the composition of our Greek Matthew, which must accordingly have been written at some time previous to the destruction of the capital. Baur, indeed (Evangelien, p. 605; Neut. Theol. p. 109), supposes the judgment that was immediately to precede the second advent to be represented by the Jewish war in the time of Hadrian, and detects the date of the composition of our Gospel (namely, 130134) in the βδελ. τῆς ἐρημώς. of Mat_24:15, which he explains of the statue of Jupiter which Hadrian had erected in the temple area (Dio Cass. lxix. 12). Such a view should have been felt to be already precluded by Mat_24:1-3, where, even according to Baur himself, it is only the first devastation under Titus that can be meant, as well as by the parallel passages of the other Synoptists; to say nothing, moreover, of the fact that a literal destruction of Jerusalem in the time of Hadrian, which is mentioned for the first time by Jerome in his comment on Eze_5:1, is, according to the older testimony of Justin, Ap. i. 47, and of Eusebius, iv. 6, highly questionable (Holtzmann, p. 405). But as regards the γενεά, in whose lifetime the destruction of the capital and the second advent were (Mat_24:34) to take place, Zeller (in the Theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 299 f.), following Baur and Hilgenfeld, üb. d. Ev. Justins, p. 367, has sought to make the duration of the period in question extend over a century and more, therefore to somewhere about the year 130 and even later, although the common notion of a γενεά was such that a century was understood to be equal to something like three of them (Herod, ii. 142; Thuc. i. 14. 1; Wesseling, ad Diod. i. 24). The above, however, is an erroneous view, which its authors have been constrained to adopt simply to meet the exigencies of the case. For, with such passages before them as Mat_10:23, Mat_16:28, neither their critical nor their dogmatical preconceptions should have allowed them to doubt that anything else was meant than the ordinary lifetime of the existing generation, the generation living at the time the discourse was being delivered (the γενεὰ ἡ κατὰ τὸν παρόντα χρόνον, Dem. 1390, 25), and that, too, only the portion of their lifetime that was still to run. Comp. Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 494; Holtzmann, p. 408; Keim, p. 206; also Köstlin, p; 114 ff.

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 24:48 . he other side of the picture ἐὰν δὲ … ἐκεῖνος : not the same individual, but a man placed in the same post (“cui eadem provincia sit demandata,” Schott). χρονίζει (again in Mat 25:5 ): the servant begins to reflect on the fact that his lord is late in coming, and is demoralised. ἄρξηται , he (now) begins to play the tyrant ( τύπτειν ) and to indulge in excess ( ἐσθίῃ καὶ πίνῃ , etc.). Long delay is necessary to produce such complete demoralisation.

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

Verse 48. But, and if that evil servant] Here are three characters of a bad minister.

1. He has little or no faith in the speedy coming of Christ, either to punish for wickedness, or to pardon and sanctify those who believe. It may be, he does not outwardly profess this, but he says it in his heart, and God searches his heart, and knows that he professes to teach what he does not believe.

2. He governs with an absolute dominion, oppressing his colleagues and doing violence to the followers of Christ. And shall begin to smite, &c.

3. He leads an irregular life does not love the company of the children of God, but eats and drinks with the drunkards, preferring the tables of the great and the rich, whose god is their belly, and thus feeds himself without fear. Great God! save thine inheritance from being ravaged by such wolves!

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

(48) But and if that evil servant.—Better, but if that evil servant, the “and” being in modern English usage superfluous, and representing originally a different conjunction.

My lord delayeth his coming.—The temper described is identical with that portrayed in 2Pe_3:3-4. The words are memorable as implying the prescience, even in the immediate context of words that indicate nearness, that there would be what to men would seem delay. Those who looked on that delay as St. Peter looked on it would continue watchful, but the selfish and ungodly would be tempted by it to forget that Christ comes to men in more senses and more ways than one. The tyranny and sensuality which have at times stained the annals of the Church of Christ have had their origin in this forgetfulness, that though the final coming may be delayed, the Judge is ever near, even at the doors (Jas_5:9).

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

And shall begin to smite his fellow servants,.... By abusing the power lodged in him, usurping a dominion over their faith, and imposing on their consciences things which Christ has never commanded; vexing and burdening them with trifling rites and ceremonies, and other unnecessary things; wounding, grieving, offending weak minds by his conduct and example; or persecuting the saints, such of them as cannot come into everything in his way of believing and practising:

and to eat and drink with the drunken; giving himself up to luxury and intemperance; feeding himself instead of the family; serving his own belly, and not his Lord and Master Christ; living an ungodly and licentious life, altogether unbecoming the Gospel of Christ: such servants and stewards have been, and are in the church of God; but sad will be their case, when their Lord comes, as follows. Respect seems to be had either to the ecclesiastical rulers among the Jews, who went under the name of the servants of the Lord, but persecuted the apostles, and those that believed in Christ; or the "Judaizing" Christians, and false teachers, that were for imposing the ceremonies of the law upon believers; or Simon Magus, and his followers, a set of licentious, men; or all of them; who lived in this period of time, between the death of Christ, and the destruction of the temple.

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

48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;

Ver. 48. But and if that evil servant] All places are full of such evil servants (and so is hell too), as future their repentance, and so fool away their salvation. Of such dust heaps we may find in every corner: this is a depth of the devil, brimfull with the blood of many souls, to persuade them that they have yet long to live, and many fair summers to see; that there is no such haste, but that hereafter may be time enough. In space comes grace, and a few good words at last will waft them to heaven.

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.

48. My lord delayeth his coming — There is a clear allusion to the coming of Christ to judgment implied under all these symbolical expressions of its conceptual nearness, yet real distance.

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

But and if (ea). is a remnant of an old use of the word, meaning "it"," so that it is here redundant, and the translation should he simply, but if; si autem. That evil servant (oo kako ) is in a sense the same as he who, in ver. 45, was regarded as faithful and prudent. The opposite case is here put; he is supposed to be wicked and untrustworthy; he no longer is always watching for his lord"s coming and endeavouring to be always ready, because he knows that he may at any moment be called to account. My lord delayeth his coming. B, a, and other good manuscripts omit elyein as unnecessary. Revised Version, my lord tarrieth, he brings himself to believe that the day of reckoning is still distant, and that he will have plenty of time to prepare his accounts before the settlement is called for. So men put off the day of repentance, saying, "Tomorrow, tomorrow," when they ought to feel that the present alone is theirs in which to prepare for judgment.

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

But if that evil servant - Now evil, having put away faith and a good conscience.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The unfaithful servant:

v. 48. But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming,

v. 49. and shall begin to smite his fellow-servants, and to eat and drink with the drunken,

v. 50. the lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,

v. 51. and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The opposite side of the picture: the servant that takes advantage of the supposed delay of his master. Frivolously, exultingly, he says in his heart: There is no danger, the master is tardy about coming. The very remark proves that his work is mere eye-service. And this is borne out by his behavior: playing the tyrant in beating his fellow-slaves, especially such as are anxious to do their duty, indulging to excess in eating and drinking with such as are willing to join him in his debauch. Here the unexpected arrival of the master brings the curse and punishment, an unmerciful thrashing and a condemnation to the lot of the hypocrites, the dungeon with a remorse of weeping and gnashing of teeth. The same doom awaits the false Christians that abuse the trust of their Lord Jesus Christ, delay true repentance, are unmerciful in their dealings with others, join with the children of the world in all the lusts and vices of the flesh, and try to console themselves with the thought: The Day of Judgment is not yet coming. While the Lord rewards the true believers with the fullness of His heavenly blessings and all the riches of the mansions above, the false servants will be doomed to everlasting torment in hell. And not without reason have commentators of all times made special application of this parable to the ministers of the Word, upon whom special responsibilities devolve. The greater the trust placed by God in any man, the more exact will be the reckoning.

Summary.Jesus foretells the destruction of the Temple and of the city of Jerusalem, with all the signs that are intended as a warning to believers; He makes this a, type of the coming to Judgment, which He briefly describes, adding an earnest admonition to be watchful and faithful.

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

Our Lord in these verses describes an unfaithful and negligent steward, and denounces the dreadful sentence of wrath hanging over him.

He is described, 1. By the character of infidelity; he believeth not Christ’s coming to judgment, though he preaches it to others: he saith in his heart, My Lord delayeth his coming.

2. He is described by his hatred, envy, and malignity against his fellow-servants, that were more painful and faithful than himself. He begins to smite, at least with the virulence of his tongue, if not the violence of his hand.

3. By his associating with the wicked, and strengthening their hands by his ill example, He eateth and drinketh with the drunken; that is, as their associate and fellow-companion.

Thus the unfaithful servant is described; next his judgment and sentence are declared.

Observe, 2. The tremendous judgment that shall come upon unfaithful stewards.

1. Christ will surprise them in their sin and security, by coming in an hour when they look not for him.

2. He will execute temporal vengeance upon them: He will cut them asunder, or hew them in pieces, as the Jews did their sacrifices; that is, separate their souls from their bodies by untimely death.

Hence some observe, That God seldom suffers slothful, sensual, wicked, and debauched ministers to live out half their days.

3. Christ will punish them with eternal destruction also: appointing them their portion with hypocrites; that is, with the worst of sinners, they shall have a double damnation. As the hypocrite has a double tongue, a double heart, and is a double sinner, so shall he undergo a double damnation.

Learn hence, That such ministers as neglect the service of God, and the souls of their people; as they are ranked amongst the worst of sinners in this life, so shall they be punished with them in the severest manner in the next.

When Satan destroys the souls of men, he shall answer for it as a murderer only, not as an officer that was entrusted with the care of the soul. But is the steward doth not provide, if the shepherd doth not feed, if the watchman doth not warn, they shall answer not only for the souls that have miscarried, but for an office neglected, for a talent hidden, and for a stewardship unfaithfully administered.

Woe unto us, if at the great day we have distressed souls roaring out their complaints, and howling forth that doleful accusation against us; "Lord! our stewards have defrauded us, our watchmen have betrayed us, our guides have misled us."

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

48. My lord delayeth his coming. The worst enemy of Christ is the professed servant of the Lord who practices are evil, and who supposes he can evade punishment for his crimes.

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.

Connecting Statement:

Jesus concludes his proverb of a master and servants to illustrate that his disciples should be prepared for his return. (See: Proverbs)

says in his heart

Here "heart" refers to the mind. AT: "thinks in his mind" (See: Metonymy)

My master has been delayed

This can be stated in active form. AT: "My master is slow to return" or "My master will not return for a long time" (See: Active or Passive)

on a day that the servant does not expect and at an hour that he does not know

Both of these statements mean the same thing. They emphasize that the master will come when the servant is not expecting him. (See: Parallelism)

cut him in pieces

This is an idiom that means to make the person suffer terribly. (See: Idiom)

assign him a place with the hypocrites

"put him with the hypocrites" or "send him to the place where hypocrites are sent"

there will be weeping and grinding of teeth

"Grinding of teeth" here is a symbolic act, representing extreme suffering. See how you translated this in Matthew 8:12. AT: "people will weep and grind their teeth because of their suffering" (See: Symbolic Action)

translationWords

evil

servant

heart

lord

drunk

hour, hours

hypocrite

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

48-51.] The question is not here asked again, τίς ἐστιν κ.τ.λ., but the transition made from the good to the bad servant, or even the good to the bad mind of the same servant, by the epithet κακός.

On this graphic use of the demonstrative pronoun, see Kühner, Gramm. ii. 325.

χρονίζει] then manifestly, a long delay is in the mind of the Lord: see above on ver. 29. Notice that this servant also is one set over the household—one who says ὁ κύριός μου—and began well—but now ἄρξηται τύπ., &c.—falls away from his truth and faithfulness;—the sign of which is that he begins (lit. shall have begun) to κατακυριεύειν τῶν κλήρων 1Pe 5:3, and to revel with the children of the world. In consequence, though he have not lost his belief (ὁ κύρ. μου), he shall be placed with those who believed not, the hypocrites.

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

(L) 48, 49. But if that evil slave say in his heart, My master delays, and shall begin to beat his fellow-slaves, and shall eat and drink with the drunken;]

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