7. Transitional conclusion: fourth major passion prediction and the plot against Jesus (26:1–5)
22“If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. 25See, I have told you ahead of time.
26“So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the desert,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.”
COMMENTARY
22 Many problems in interpreting the Olivet Discourse relate to the assumption that “those days” refers to the period described in vv.15–21 and also to v.29. But there are excellent reasons for concluding that vv.22–28 refer to the general period of distress introduced by vv.4–14 and that, therefore, “those days” refers to the entire period of which vv.15–21 are only one part—the “great distress” (v.21).
1. The term “elect” (in Matthew only at 22:14; 24:22, 24, 31; plus the variant at 20:16) most naturally refers to all true believers, chosen by God; thus it is reasonable to assume that it does so here.
2. Similarly, pasa sarx (lit., “all flesh”; NIV, “no one”; see Notes) normally refers to all mankind and is more sweeping than “no one in Jerusalem.”
3. The themes of the ensuing verses have already been taken up as characteristics of the entire age (vv.4–14), especially the warning against false christs (cf. vv.4–5).
4. It has already been shown that v.21 makes a suitable ending to vv.15–21.
5. Wenham (Rediscovery of Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse) posits a neat presynoptic tradition that embraces the content of all three gospels and suggests reasons for individual selection of materials. That tradition (slightly modified from Wenham) runs approximately as follows:
Right or wrong as to source-critical details, this reconstruction at least makes sense of the relationship among the Synoptics at this point and supports a logical break between v.21 and v.22 of Matthew 24.
6. Further literary and structural arguments suggest that vv.4–28 must be taken as one time period, with vv.15–21 a critical part of it (see 
While none of these arguments are decisive, all are reasonable and help us understand the whole discourse. If they are correct, then v.22 tells us that this age of evangelism and distress—wars, famines, persecution, hatred, false prophets—will become so bad that, if not checked, no one will survive. The last hundred years have seen two world wars and the threat of extinction by nuclear holocaust, and witnessed more Christian martyrs than in all the previous nineteen centuries put together. Jesus’ prediction does not seem far-fetched. But the age will not run its course; it will be cut short. (For a somewhat similar idea, see the Jewish apocalypse 2 Bar. 20:12; 83:1.) This promise enables believers to look for God’s sovereign, climactic intervention without predicting dates.
23–25 Empty-headed credulity is as great an enemy of true faith as chronic skepticism. Christian faith involves the sober responsibility of neither believing lies nor trusting imposters. As false christs and false prophets proliferate (v.24), so will their heralds (v.23). Jesus’ disciples are not to be deceived, even by spectacular signs and miracles (see 
Ei dynaton (“if that were possible”) no more calls into question the security of the elect (contra I. H. Marshall, Kept by the Power of God [rev. ed.; Minneapolis: Bethany, 1975], 72–73) than it calls into question the inevitability of Jesus’ cup (26:39). If “deceive” is telic (i.e., “in order to deceive”; see Notes), the “if possible” refers to the intent of the deceivers: they intend to deceive, if possible, even the elect—without any comment on how ultimately successful such attacks will be. “If that were possible” clearly suggests that “deceive” is not ecbatic (i.e., “with the result that”). That Jesus tells these things in advance (v.25) not only warns and strengthens his followers (cf. Jn 16:4) but also authenticates him (cf. Dt 13:14; Jn 14:29).
26–27 It is pointless to look for Messiah’s return in the desert (cf. 4:1) or in inner rooms (cf. 6:6)—whether in some desert monastic community or in some hidden, unrecognized enclave for insiders (cf. Stendahl, “Matthew,” in Peake’s Commentary). Far from it! The coming of the Son of Man (see 
28 Here Jesus quotes a proverb (cf. Job 39:30; Lk 17:37). “Eagle” (KJV) is wrong: “vulture” (NIV) is correct. Aetos can mean eagle, kite, or vulture, but eagles are not normally carrion eaters. The proverb itself is a difficult one.
1. Calvin, following some of the Fathers, sees it as portraying God’s children, gathering to feed on Christ. But identifying carrion with Christ is strange indeed!
2. Others see an allusion to Roman military eagles, with the Roman forces swarming over corrupt Jerusalem. But eagles are not vultures; and the preceding verse relates to the Parousia, not the fall of Jerusalem.
3. Hill and others think that the vultures’ gathering indicates that the Parousia is near. But there must be carrion before the vultures gather, so the symbolism breaks down, because the “signs” attest the reality only after the fact.
4. Manson (Sayings of Jesus, 147) emphasizes the swiftness of the coming of the Son of Man—the carrion is no sooner there than the vultures swoop down (Eze 17:3, 7; Rev 4:7; 8:13). But in passages where the aetos (“eagle” or “vulture”) symbolizes speed, it is understood to mean an “eagle.” Why then assign it to a setting where it must be taken as a vulture?
5. The proverb may be a colorful way of saying that things come to pass at just the right time (Broadus); thus the proverb applies here and in Luke 17:37 to the Parousia of the Son of Man. Concluding this broader section (vv.4–28) is this thought: Do not be too eager for Christ’s coming, or you will be deceived by false claimants (vv.23–26). When he comes, his coming will be unmistakable (v.27), in God’s own time (v.28)—a time when the world will be ripe for judgment (Zahn; see 
6. This enigmatic proverb may simply mean that it will be as impossible for humanity not to see the coming of the Son of Man (cf. v.27) as it is for vultures to miss seeing carrion (Klostermann). This makes sense of the immediate context. Jesus’ disciples are not to be seduced by some claim to a secret and largely unseen putative coming (like that which the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to have taken place in 1914). Animals regularly go off somewhere and die, and their time and place of death are unnoted. But where there is a carcass over which vultures are hovering, everyone can see that a death has taken place. Similarly with respect to the coming of Christ. It will be as visible and as undeniable as lightning flashing across the heavens (v.27); it will be as public as hovering vultures make any death public. As a colleague put it in a private communication, “The return of the Son of Man will not have taken place at all if it is not visible to all.”
NOTES
22 On the aorist verbs in this verse, see Zerwick, Biblical Greek, para. 317. The οὐ ... πᾶς (ou ... pas, lit., “not ... all”) construction is often said to represent the Hebrew 
(lō ʾ ... kōl), equivalent to Greek οὐδείς (oudeis, “no one”; e.g., Zerwick, Biblical Greek, para. 446; but the Semitizing stretches even farther to οὐκ ... πᾶσα σάρξ (ouk ... pasa sarx, lit., “not ... all flesh,” i.e., no person).
24 The construction ὥστε πλανῆσαι (hōste planēsai, “to deceive”) would most naturally be expected to be consecutive, and so it may be (Moule, Idiom Book, 143); but the same construction can have final force (Zerwick, Biblical Greek, para. 352), as does the parallel expression in Mark 13:22.
OVERVIEW
Matthew essentially follows Mark (13:24–27; cf. Lk 21:25–28) but adds the allusion to Zechariah about mourning (v.30) and the trumpet call (v.31).
29“Immediately after the distress of those days
“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’
30“At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.”
29 For general arguments that vv.29–31 refer to the Parousia, not the coming of the Son of Man in the events of AD 70, see
The cosmic portents (cf. esp. Isa 13:9–10; 34:4; but also Eze 32:7; Joel 2:31; 3:15; Am 8:9; Rev 6:12) are probably meant to be taken literally, because of the climactic nature of the Son of Man’s final self-disclosure. Yet this is not certain, since in some political contexts, similar expressions are used metaphorically (see
30 “The sign of the Son of Man” has been interpreted in three principal ways.
1. Some of the Fathers after the Constantinian settlement thought it referred to Constantine’s vision of a cross in the sky, with the words “In this sign, conquer”—an interpretation both anachronistic and fanciful.
2. More commonly, “the sign” is assumed to be Jesus’ coming, with “of the Son of Man ... in the sky” being taken as standing in epexegetical relation to “the sign.” The Jews had repeatedly asked for a sign (12:38; 16:1; cf. Jn 2:18), and the disciples had just asked for the sign of his coming (v.3). The supreme “sign” is his parousia at the end of the age. This interpretation is possible, though perhaps a bit forced. When the Jews asked for a sign, Jesus referred them to “the sign of Jonah” (12:39–41), not to his parousia. His disciples’ more specific question (v.3) was partially answered by vv.4–28, with a fuller answer in vv.32–35.
3. T. F. Glasson (“The Ensign of the Son of Man [Matt. xxiv, 30],” JTS [1964]: 299–300) offers the best explanation. He points out that careful comparison of vv.30–31 with the synoptic parallels shows Matthew has added mention of both “sign” and “trumpet.” But sēmeion (“sign,” GK 4956) commonly meant “ensign” or “standard” both in pagan Greek literature and in the LXX; and “standard” and “trumpet” are both regularly associated with the eschatological gathering of the people of God (cf. v.31; Isa 11:12; 18:3; 27:13; 49:22; Jer 4:21; 6:1; 51:27; 1QM 3:14:2). Therefore, sēmeion has two different meanings in this chapter (vv.3, 30)—a phenomenon common enough in the NT. Theologically, this means that the kingdom is being consummated. The standard, the banner of the Son of Man, unfurls in the heavens, as he himself returns in splendor and power. This view is rightly taken up by many today (e.g., Davies and Allison, Turner).
The event will prompt “all the nations of the earth” to mourn, an allusion to Zechariah 12:10–12, probably directly from the MT (see Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 53; Blomberg, “Matthew” in CNTUOT; cf. Jn 19:37; Rev 1:7). In Zechariah, the reference is to the tribes of Israel in the land, and the mourning is that of repentance. Those who follow Kik (Matthew Twenty-Four) and France (Jesus and the Old Testament) want to keep the first link with the OT (the tribes of Israel) but not the second (the mourning; see
What we discover is an implicit a fortiori argument. In Zechariah 12, Yahweh enables the house of David and Judah to crush its enemies; as a result, the Jews weep, apparently in contrition for their past sins in light of Yahweh’s merciful deliverance and salvation (cf. Zec 13:1–2). But it is the Gentile enemies who are crushed. If, then, the Jews face judgment and mourning (vv.15–21), even though not only Jerusalem but also all nations (v.9) have hated Jesus’ disciples, how much more will all the nations of the earth, to whom the gospel has been preached (v.14), also mourn at the Parousia, when the lost opportunities and the persecution of Jesus through persecuting his disciples are seen as they truly are?
The next allusion in v.30 is to Daniel 7:13–14. Some have objected that, since in Daniel’s vision “one like a son of man” approaches the throne of “the Ancient of Days” and does not descend to earth, v.30 and parallels cannot be speaking about the Parousia, which requires the descent to earth. The objection misses the point. In Daniel, “one like a son of man” approaches God to receive all authority, glory, and sovereign power—“an everlasting dominion that will not pass away.” In the framework of NT eschatology, we may imagine Jesus the Son of Man receiving the kingdom through his resurrection and ascension, his divine vindication, so that now all authority is his (28:18). Yet it is equally possible to think of him receiving the kingdom at the consummation, when his reign or kingdom becomes direct and immediate, uncontested and universal. Unless one thinks of the location of the Ancient of Days in some physical and spatial sense, it is hard to imagine why Christ’s approaching God the Father to receive the kingdom might not be combined with his returning to earth to set up the consummated kingdom. This interpretation goes well with the vivid context.
The Son of Man, whose standard has been unfurled, comes “on [epi] the clouds of heaven” (cf. 26:64; Rev 14:14–16). It is doubtful whether sharp distinctions are to be drawn between this expression and “in [en] a cloud” (Lk 21:27; cf. Mk 13:26) or “with [meta] the clouds of heaven” (Mk 14:62 [NIV, “on”]; Rev 1:7). The clouds symbolize God’s presence (see 
31 The sound of a loud trumpet (cf. Isa 27:13; 1Co 15:52; 1Th 4:16) is an eschatological figure (see 
32“Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.”
COMMENTARY
32–33 This “lesson” (parabolē, GK 4130, lit., “parable”; see 
“All these things” is more problematic. If the words include the celestial signs and the Parousia itself (vv.29–31), then vv.32–33 are illogical, because any distinction between “all these things” and “it is near” would be destroyed. Thus many have suggested that vv.32–33 constitute a displaced parable—once again making the synoptists out to be less intelligent than their critics two millennia later. The more natural way to take “all these things” is to see them as referring to the distress of vv.4–28, the tribulation that comes on believers throughout the period between Jesus’ ascension and the Parousia.
Having warned his disciples of the course of this age (vv.4–28) and told them of its climax in the Parousia (vv.29–31), Jesus in these verses answers the part of his disciples’ questions (v.3) dealing with timing. He makes two points. First, “all these things” (vv.4–28) must happen, and then the Parousia is “near, right at the door”—“imminent.” In other words, the Parousia is the next major step in God’s redemptive purposes. Second, this does not mean that the period of distress pinpoints the Parousia, for “no one knows about that day or hour” (vv.36–42).
34 “I tell you the truth” emphasizes the importance of what it introduces. “This generation” (see
35 The authority and eternal validity of Jesus’ words are nothing less than the authority and eternal validity of God’s words (Ps 119:89–90; Isa 40:6–8).
36“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
COMMENTARY
36 Many commentators read v.36 with the preceding paragraph; but it goes much better with the following verses, which constitute an exhortation to vigilance precisely because, the day and the hour being unknown to humanity, life goes on as it always has. The gar (“for”) at the beginning of v.37 must not be overlooked, as in the NIV.
The gist of v.36 is clear enough. Jesus’ disciples are morally bound to repress all desires to know what no one knows but the Father—not even angels (cf. 18:10; 4 Ezra 4:52) or the Son (see Notes). If the Son himself does not know the time of the Parousia, “how cheerfully should we his followers rest in ignorance that cannot be removed, trusting in all things to our heavenly Father’s wisdom and goodness, striving to obey his clearly revealed will, and leaning on his goodness for support” (Broadus). Moreover, it is ridiculous quibbling divorced from the context to say that though the day and hour remain unknown, we ascertain the year or month.
Jesus’ self-confessed ignorance on this point has generated not a little debate. In fact, it is part of the NT pattern of his humiliation and incarnation (e.g., 20:23; Lk 2:52; Ac 1:7; Php 2:7). John’s gospel, the one of the four gospels most clearly insisting on Jesus’ deity, also insists with equal vigor on Jesus’ dependence on and obedience to his Father—a dependence reaching even to his knowledge of the divine. How NT insistence on Jesus’ deity is to be combined with NT insistence on his ignorance and dependence is a matter of profound importance to the church; attempts to jettison one truth for the sake of preserving the other must be avoided. (For an attempt to work some of these things out, see Carson, Divine Sovereignty, 146–60.)
NOTES
36 The words “nor the Son,” while textually secure in Mark 13:32, are disputed here. The omission is supported by most late MSS and by 
a. Such omission may have been prompted by the doctrinal difficulty presented by the words, but it is mildly surprising that Mark 13:32 has not suffered similar distortion. One might in fact argue that the omission in Matthew is original and that the words were added by assimilation to Mark. The most convincing argument in favor of retaining the words in Matthew is grammatical (cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 62). The curious suggestion of Jeremias (Prayers of Jesus, 37), that “nor the Son” is a late addition in both Matthew and Mark that makes explicit the implications of “but only the Father,” is not only without textual warrant but also an intrinsically unlikely christological development.
37“As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.”
COMMENTARY
37–39 (See also Mk 13:33 and Lk 17:28–32, though the latter is in a different context and has quite different structure and wording.) The gar (“for”) in the best MSS further elucidates v.36: that the coming of the Son of Man takes place at an unknown time can be true only if, in fact, life seems to be going on pretty much as usual—just as in the days before the flood (v.37). People follow their ordinary pursuits (v.38). Despite the distress, persecutions, and upheavals (vv.4–28), life goes on: people eat, drink, and marry. There is no overt typological usage of the flood as judgment here, nor any mention of the sin of that generation. Yet Jesus’ warning may well have given rise to 1 Peter 3:20–21. Jesus expects ceaseless vigilance of his followers, for the final climax of human history will suddenly come on ordinary life. In the human condition, massive distress and normal life patterns coexist. For the believer the former points to the end; the latter warn of its unexpectedness.
40“Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.”
COMMENTARY
40–41 These two vignettes do not “stress the sharp cleavage caused by the coming of the Son of Man, rather than the unexpectedness of the event” (Hill, emphasis mine), but the unexpectedness of the event by means of the sudden cleavage. Two men are working in a field; one is taken, the other left (v.40). Two women work their hand mill (v.41)—one normally operated by two women squatting opposite each other with the mill between them, each woman in turn pulling the stone around 180 degrees. The two are apt to be sisters, mother and daughter, or two household slaves. Yet no matter how close their relationship, one is taken, the other left (cf. 10:35–36). It is neither clear nor particularly important whether “taken” means “taken in judgment” (cf. v.39, though the verb “took ... away” differs from “taken” in vv.40–41) or “taken to be gathered with the elect” (v.31).
OVERVIEW
The exact relation between vv.42–51 and Mark 13:33–37 is obscure and has not been satisfactorily explained. On the nature of parables, see
42“Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.”
COMMENTARY
42–44 The first parable teaches both the unexpectedness of the return of “your Lord” (kyrios hymōn, v.42)—an expression that not only is identical to “the master” in the next parable (v.45) but lays the foundation for the church’s cry “Come, O Lord!” (1Co 16:22)—and the willingness of the church to call Jesus ho kyrios (“the Lord”), a title hitherto reserved in its religious use by the Jews for God himself (1Co 12:3; Php 4:5; 2Th 2:2; Jas 5:7; see 
OVERVIEW
The good servant is prepared for his Lord at any time, is faithful throughout his delay, and in the end is highly rewarded. The wicked servant is faithless in his responsibilities, abusive to fellow servants, and lax in waiting for his master’s return, and he ultimately earns the punishment that is his due (see
45“Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time,’ 49and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. 50The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. 51He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
COMMENTARY
45–47 The doulos (“servant,” GK 1528) in this parable is the head over all the domestics. This, however, does not so much limit the application of the parable to leaders as establish that their responsibilities entail good personal relationships (v.49), requiring exemplary conduct and precluding harshness and lording it over others. The good servant is faithful and “wise” (i.e., prudent, judicious—cf. 7:24; 10:16), doing what is assigned him. When his master returns (v.46), he is makarios (“blessed,” GK 3421; NIV, “will be good”; see 
48–51 If the servant is wicked (v.48) and lacking faithfulness and wisdom (v.45), he may convince himself that the master “is staying away a long time”—perhaps a subtle hint that the Parousia could be considerably delayed (cf. 25:19). The wicked servant uses the delay to abuse his fellow servants and carouse (v.49). (For “begins to beat,” see 11:7, 20.) But the wicked servant, surprised and unprepared for his master’s return (v.50), is put with the “hypocrites” (v.51). His lot is with the punishment given those most constantly held up as vile in this gospel (6:2, 5, 16; 15:7; 23:13–29). The master “will cut him to pieces” (cf. 1Sa 15:33; Heb 11:37; Sus 55; on the punishments accorded Jewish slaves, see Str-B, 4:698–744). Dichotomeō literally is “I cut in two” (found in the NT only here and Lk 12:46). Alleged parallels in 1QS 1:10–11; 2:16–17; 6:24–25; 7:1, 2, 16; 8:21–23 are unconvincing. The Hebrew “cut off from the midst of the sons of light” refers to excommunication. Here, however, the wicked servant is not cut off from anything; he is cut in pieces—a most severe and awful punishment—and joins the hypocrites in weeping and grinding of teeth (cf. 8:12).
NOTES
50 This is one of only three places in Matthew where the relative pronoun is attracted to the case of its antecedent (see
OVERVIEW
This parable has been widely discussed. Hill, largely following Jeremias (Parables of Jesus, 51–53), notes the “allegorical” elements (bridegroom’s coming = coming of the Son of Man; ten virgins = expectant Christian community; tarrying = delay of the Parousia; rejection of the foolish virgins = final judgment) and claims there is evidence for thinking these to be later additions by the church. This view is strengthened, it is claimed, by the fact that the equation Messiah = bridegroom is virtually unknown in late Judaism (cf. Jeremias, p. 52) and first appears in 2 Corinthians 11:2. The story Jesus actually told, stripped of its “allegorical accretions,” involved wedding preparations and warned his hearers of the impending eschatological crisis. But this will not do. We have already seen that source criticism of gospel parables based on theoretical distinctions between “parable” and “allegory” is ill founded (see 
While dispensationalists divide on whether this parable relates to the “rapture” of the church (A. C. Gaebelein) or the second advent, following the tribulation (Walvoord), both views introduce eschatological structures that do not emerge naturally from the text (see
W. Schenk (“Auferweckung der Toten oder Gericht nach den Werken: Tradition und Redaktion in Matthäus xxv 13,” NovT 20 [1978]: 278–99) reconstructs a very simple “original” parable in which all the virgins have enough oil but only five of them sleep. When the bridegroom comes, they all enter and enjoy the feast. The point is that when the bridegroom comes, some are asleep and some are awake, but all enjoy the festivities (as in 1Th 4:15–17). But Matthew has allegorized this parable and required a store of good works (oil) as qualification for entry. It is hard to decide which of Schenk’s options is more wrong—his reconstruction of the alleged original or his interpretation of the parable as it stands in Matthew.
Blickenstaff (While the Bridegroom, 78–109) continues her “resistant reading” of select parables found in Matthew and insists the bridegroom is simply rude and cannot possibly represent Jesus or God; this is merely more prejudice and violence against women. Scarcely less idiosyncratic is J. M. Ford (“The Parable of the Foolish Scholars,” NovT 9 [1967]: 107–23), who, arguing largely from late rabbinic sources, claims the virgins represent Jewish scholars, the lamps Torah, and the oil good deeds. The foolish virgins are Jewish scholars who study Torah but who fail to practice good deeds. They are, therefore, excluded from the Chamber of Instruction.
Such ingenuity ignores both the narrative and the context, as J. M. Sherriff (“Matthew 25:1–13: A Summary of Matthean Eschatology?” in Studia Biblica 1978 [ed. Livingstone], 2:301–5) has pointed out. The plot turns on the bridegroom’s delay. The foolish virgins do not forget to bring oil; rather, the delay of the bridegroom shows they did not bring enough. The oil cannot easily apply to “good works” or “Holy Spirit.” It is merely an element in the narrative showing that the foolish virgins were unprepared for the delay and so shut out in the end. In a real sense, it is the bridegroom’s delay that distinguishes the wise from the foolish virgins. Any interpretation that ignores this central element in the story is bound to go astray (cf. G. Bornkamm, Geschichte, 49–50). The context similarly shows that the overriding theme is preparedness for the coming of the Son of Man. Even when this involves certain forms of behavior (24:45–51; 25:14–30), that behavior is called forth by the unexpectedness of the master’s return.
From this perspective, vv.1–13 fit well into this sequence of parables and agree with what we know Jesus taught. There is no good reason for doubting their authenticity or retreating to one of several reconstructed cores. The first parable (24:42–44) warns of the unexpectedness of Messiah’s coming. The second (24:45–51) shows that more than passive watchfulness is required: there must be behavior acceptable to the master, the discharge of allotted responsibilities. This third parable (25:1–13) stresses the need for preparedness in the face of an unexpectedly long delay.
1“At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2Five of them were foolish and five were wise. 3The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. 4The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. 5The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.
6“At midnight the cry rang out: ‘Here’s the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’
7“Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. 8The foolish ones said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.’
9“‘No,’ they replied, ‘there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.’
10“But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.
11“Later the others also came. ‘Sir! Sir!’ they said. ‘Open the door for us!’
12“But he replied, ‘I tell you the truth, I don’t know you.’
13“Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.”
1 Tote (“At that time”) is sufficiently vague in Matthew’s usage (see 
The setting is fairly clear, given what we know of the marriage customs of the day (cf. Broadus; Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 173–74; TDNT, 4:1100; esp. H. Granquist, Marriage Conditions in a Palestinian Village [2 vols.; Helsingfors: Central-tryckeriet, 1931, 1935]; Bailey, Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes, esp. 271–73). Normally the bridegroom with some close friends left his home to go to the bride’s home, where there were various ceremonies, followed by a procession through the streets—after nightfall—to his home. The ten virgins may be bridesmaids who have been assisting the bride; they expect to meet the groom as he comes from the bride’s house (cf. Kistemaker, Parables of Jesus, 130), though this is uncertain. Everyone in the procession was expected to carry his or her own torch. Those without a torch would be assumed to be party crashers or even brigands. The festivities, which might last several days, would formally get under way at the groom’s house.
That the bride is not mentioned in the best MSS (see Notes) has been variously interpreted. Some have thought this is the trip to the bride’s house or that this is one of those rare occasions when all the festivities took place at her home, because the groom lived at a considerable distance. But then the bride’s father, not the groom, would have refused entrance to the foolish virgins. To demand the presence of the bride is to demand that the parable walk on all fours; mention of her is not essential to the story.
For the meaning of parthenos (“virgin,” GK 4221), see
2–5 The “wise” are called such because they are prepared (v.4) for the bridegroom’s delayed coming. Both wise and foolish wait and doze (v.5); no praise or blame attaches to either group for this. There is no point in seeing hidden meanings in the oil or sleep. The sole distinction between the two groups is this: the wise bring not only oil in their lamps but an extra supply in separate jars, while the foolish bring no oil (either no extra oil or no oil at all [cf. Robertson, Word Pictures, 1:196; Hendriksen; Lenski]; if the latter, then the lamps going out [v.8] is the sputtering of wicks or rags that burn brightly but don’t last). The wise are prepared for delay; the foolish expect to meet the groom but are either utterly unprepared or unprepared if he is delayed. And the bridegroom is a long time coming (24:48; 25:19).
6–9 At midnight, symbol of eschatological climax, “the cry rang out”—an admirable paraphrase of kraugē gegonen (lit., “a cry has arisen”; the perfect is unusual and probably dramatic; cf. Moule, Idiom Book, 14, 202; BDF, para. 343 [3]). All the virgins wake up and trim their lamps (v.7), but the lamps of the foolish virgins quickly go out (present tense, “are going out,” contra the KJV’s “are gone out”). Apart from the identification of “oil” with “grace,” Matthew Henry’s observation is pertinent: “They will see their need of grace hereafter, when it should save them, who will not see their need of grace now, when it should sanctify and rule them” (p. 291). The wise virgins cannot help them. Whether the text reads “there may not be enough” or “there will certainly not be enough” (see Notes), the effect is the same: the foresight and preparedness of the wise virgins cannot benefit the foolish virgins when the eschatological crisis dawns (vv.8–9). Preparedness can be neither transferred nor shared.
10–12 The bridegroom comes, the wise virgins enter, and the door is shut (cf. 7:22–23; Lk 13:25). The intense cries of the ill-prepared and foolish latecomers—“Sir! Sir!” (on the doubling, cf. BDF, para. 493 [1]; 7:21–23; 23:37)—are of no avail (v.11). Because this parable concerns the consummation, the refusal to recognize or admit the foolish virgins (v.12) must not be construed as calloused rejection of their lifelong desire to enter the kingdom. Far from it; it is the rejection of those who, despite appearances, never made preparation for the coming of the kingdom.
13 The theme is reiterated once more (cf. 24:36, 42, 44, 50). Jeremias (Parables of Jesus, 52) and others suggest this verse is a late addition to the parable, since it is at variance with the fact that both the wise and the foolish virgins fell asleep. But this misses the purpose of v.13. “Keep watch” does not mean “keep awake,” as if an ability to fight off sleep were relevant to the story. Rather, in light of the entire parable, the dominant exhortation of this discourse is repeated: Be prepared! Keep watching!
NOTES
1 The words “and the bride,” attested by D X* Θ f1 et al., may have been added out of a sense of propriety, a desire for a well-rounded story in which the bride should be present. Alternatively, one might argue that the words were original but omitted out of the widely held view that Christ would come and fetch his bride, the church. These and other internal considerations (how much did copyists know about marriage customs in Jesus’ day?) are indecisive. On external evidence alone, omission is more likely original.
9 The two readings are (1) μήποτε οὐκ ἀρκέσῃ (mēpote ouk arkesē, “no, there may not be enough”), supported by 
A L Z (Θ) f13 et al.; and (2) μήποτε οὐ μὴ ἀρκέσῃ (mēpote ou mē arkesē, perhaps “no, there will certainly not be enough”), attested by B C D K W Δ et al. The second option might be taken to introduce into the parable the notion of the absolute untransferability of the oil. But three things must be borne in mind: (1) though the grammatical points are much discussed, there is some ground for thinking that by NT times the second construction (οὐ μὴ, ou mē, plus the subjunctive) could itself be softened to the first meaning (cf. Zerwick, Biblical Greek, para. 444); (2) on internal grounds, the first reading is considerably more likely, since copyists might well wish to change an οὐκ, ouk, to an οὐ μὴ, ou mē, before the subjunctive; and (3) the effect on the story is the same—whether the wise virgins are certain they will not have enough oil to share or doubt that they will, the outcome is the same; and the reasons differ but little.
OVERVIEW
This parable goes beyond the first three (24:42–25:13) in that it expects the watchfulness of the servants to manifest itself during the master’s absence, not only in preparedness and performance of duty, even if there is a long delay, but in an improvement of the allotted “talents” until the day of reckoning.
The parable is frequently compared with Luke 19:11–27, the parable of the ten minas. The majority opinion today is that there is only one original and that most likely Luke has borrowed from Matthew’s version or from a precursor of it (cf. Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 700–703; esp. Davies and Allison; see
14“Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. 15To one he gave five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. 17So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. 18But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.
19“After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.’
21“His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
22“The man with the two talents also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.’
23“His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
24“Then the man who had received the one talent came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’
26“His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.
28“‘Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’”
COMMENTARY
14 The introduction to this parable in the Greek is somewhat abrupt (lit., “for as,” without mention of the kingdom, “it” [NIV]; or a verb [NIV, “will be”]; the closest parallel is Mk 13:34). Probably this parable is so tightly associated with the last one as to share its introduction (see
Slaves in the ancient world could enjoy considerable responsibility and authority. The man going on a journey entrusts his cash assets to three of his slaves who are understood to be almost partners in his affairs and who may share some of his profits (cf. Derrett, Law in the New Testament, 18). The departure and the property are integral parts of the story and should not be allegorized (to refer to the ascension and the gifts of the Spirit), though doubtless some early readers after Pentecost read these into the text.
15 Modern English uses the word “talent” for skills and mental powers God has entrusted to people, but in NT times the talanton (“talent,” GK 5419) was a unit of exchange. Estimates of its value vary enormously for four reasons.
1. A talent could be of gold, silver, or copper, each with its own value. Argyrion in v.18, a word that can mean either “money” or “silver,” may hint at the second option.
2. The talent was first a measure according to weight—between fifty-eight and eighty pounds (twenty-six to thirty-six kilograms)—and then a unit of coinage, one common value assigned it being six thousand denarii.
3. Although it is possible to calculate by weight or metallic value, another problem remains. For instance, eighty pounds of silver at fifteen dollars an ounce would mean that a talent was worth about nineteen thousand dollars. But modern inflation changes silver values so quickly that prices are soon obsolete. Yet such equivalences are passed on from generation to generation of reference texts (e.g., BAG [1957] and BAGD [1979] have the same figures; mercifully, BDAG [2000] updates).
4. It may be more sensible to compare the talent with modern currency in terms of earning power. If a talent was worth six thousand denarii, then it would take a day laborer twenty years to earn so much—perhaps three hundred thousand dollars. If the weight was of gold (cf. the TNIV’s “bag of gold”), then the value was much greater yet. On any reckoning, the NIV’s footnote (“more than a thousand dollars”) is much too low.
So the sums are vast—much larger than in Luke 19:11–27, where a “mina” (one hundred drachmas) is very close to one hundred denarii, or one-third of a year’s wages (perhaps five thousand dollars). Moreover, in Matthew’s parable, the talents are distributed according to the master’s evaluation of his slaves’ capacities, whereas in Luke, each slave is given the same amount. In Matthew, therefore, the parable lays intrinsic emphasis on the principle “to whom much is given, from him also shall much be required.”
Attempts to identify the talents with spiritual gifts, the law, natural endowments, the gospel, or whatever else lead to a narrowing of the parable with which Jesus would have been uncomfortable. Perhaps he chose the talent or mina symbolism because of its capacity for varied application.
16–18 “At once” relates to the slave’s promptness to put the money to work (NIV), not with the owner’s departure (KJV; cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 63). The point is that the good slaves felt the responsibility of their assignment and went to work without delay. The NIV’s “put his money to work” does not mean the slave invested the money in some lending agency. Rather, he set up some business and worked with the capital to make it grow. But one slave, unwilling to work or take risks, merely dug a hole and buried the money (v.18). This was safer than the deposit systems of the time. (In Luke’s parable, the money of the last slave is hidden in a piece of cloth.)
19–23 The accounting begins “after a long time” (v.19), the implication being that the consummation of the kingdom will be long delayed (24:48; 25:5). “Settled accounts” (synairei logon) is a standard commercial term (cf. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 118–19). The first slave, who doubled his five talents (v.20), is praised, especially for his faithfulness, and given two things (vv.21, 23): increased responsibility and a share in his master’s chara (“joy,” as in Jn 15:11). But we should not conclude that the sole reward of fulfilled responsibility is increased responsibility. The eschatological setting, coupled with the promise of joy that bursts the natural limits of the story, guarantees that the consummated kingdom provides glorious new responsibilities and holy delight (cf. Ro 8:17).
The parallelism of vv.22–23 with vv.20–21 is not exact but close (cf. 7:26–27 with 7:24–25) and reflects a Semitic cast. The second slave has been faithful with what has been given him (v.22) and hears the same words as his more able fellow slave (v.23). Probably the “many things” assigned the two men are not exactly the same. The point is not egalitarianism, whether here (cf. 13:23) or in the consummated kingdom, but increased responsibility and a share in the master’s joy to the limits of each faithful slave’s capacity.
24–25 The third slave accuses his master of being a “hard” (sklēros, GK 5017) man. The word, both in Greek and English, can mean various things (elsewhere in the NT it is found only in Jn 6:60; Ac 26:14; Jas 3:4; Jude 15). The slave is saying that the master is grasping, exploiting the labor of others (“harvesting where you have not sown”), and putting the slave in an invidious position. Should he take the risk of trying to increase the one talent entrusted to him, he would see little of the profit. If he failed and lost everything, he would incur the master’s wrath. Perhaps, too, he is piqued at having been given much less than the other two (cf. Derrett, Law in the New Testament, 26); so, in a rather spiteful act, he returns to his master what belongs to him, no more and no less (v.25).
What this slave overlooks is his responsibility as a slave to his master and his obligation to discharge his assigned duties. We must not read the parable with modern Western eyes as an exercise in negotiations between capitalist owners and trade union workers, the latter having the right to go on strike and withdraw their labor. This slave’s failure betrays not only his lack of love for his master, which he masks by blaming his master and excusing himself, but his own responsibilities as a slave (the modern rendering “servant” does not capture the original). Only the wicked slave blames his master. “There, the foolish virgins failed from thinking their part too easy—here, the wicked servant [fails] from thinking his too hard” (Alford, New Testament for English Readers, 1:173–74). Grace never condones irresponsibility; even those given less are obligated to use and develop what they have.
Is it necessary to point out that this parable no more condones slavery than comparing Jesus’ coming to that of a thief (24:42–44) condones theft?
26–27 The master condemns the slave on the basis of the slave’s own words, which prove his guilt (v.26). If the master was so hard and grasping, should not the slave have put the money where it would have been relatively safe, earned interest, and required no work (v.27)?
The OT forbade Israelites from charging interest to one another (Ex 22:25; Lev 25:35–37; Dt 23:19; cf. Ps 15:5; usury is from the Lat. usura, “use,” and came to refer to the interest charged for the use of money), but interest on money loaned to Gentiles was permitted (Dt 23:20). Doubtless the law was frequently broken (e.g., Ne 5:10–12). By NT times, Jewish scholars already distinguished between “lending at interest” and “usury” (in the modern sense). According to Roman law the maximum rate of interest was 12 percent (cf. W. W. Buckland, A Textbook of Roman Law [3rd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1963], 465). It is wrong to assume that Jesus is here either supporting or setting aside the OT law. The question does not arise, for Jesus’ parables are so flexible that he sometimes uses examples of evil to make a point about good (e.g., Lk 16:19; 18:18).
28–30 The talent entrusted to this wicked slave is taken from him; the relationship between master and slave is severed (cf. Derrett, Law in the New Testament, 28). It is given to the man who now has ten talents, following the kingdom rule (v.29) Jesus had already taught in 13:12. Moreover, there is OT warrant for this pattern. On this basis, the kingdom of Israel was stripped from Saul and given to David (cf. 21:43). The wicked slave is “worthless” (achreios, used only here [v.30] and in Lk 17:10), for to fail to do good and use what God has entrusted to us to use is grievous sin, which issues not only in the loss of neglected resources but in rejection by the master, banishment from his presence, and tears and gnashing of teeth.
The parable insists that the watchfulness that must mark all Jesus’ disciples does not lead to passivity but to doing one’s duty, to growing, to husbanding and developing the resources God entrusts to us, until “after a long time” (v.19) the master returns and settles accounts. Christ’s followers, his slaves, are responsible for improving their Master’s assets. For those of good heart, this will be more than a responsibility; it will be a challenge, a joy, a privilege. The parable applies widely and cannot be restricted to Christian leaders or Jews who fail to recognize their Messiah.
OVERVIEW
Strictly speaking, this passage is not a narrative parable. Its only parabolic elements are the shepherd, the sheep, the goats, and the actual separation. Moreover, because the pericope is unique to Matthew, criticism based on close parallels is impossible. It clearly functions in this discourse somewhat as 10:40–42 (with which it has some connections) does in the second discourse. Almost everyone praises the simplicity and power of the passage. Alford remarks, “It will heighten our estimation of the wonderful sublimity of this description, when we recollect that it was spoken by the Lord only three days before his sufferings” (New Testament for English Readers, 1:176, emphasis his). But there is disagreement over the meaning and literary history of these eloquent words.
For a detailed history of the interpretation of this parable, see Sherman W. Gray, The Least of My Brothers: Matthew 25:31–46: A History of Interpretation (SBLDS 114; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989).
1. A majority of scholars understand “the least of these brothers of mine” (vv.40, 45) to refer to all who are hungry, distressed, needy. The basis of acceptance into the kingdom is thus established by deeds of mercy and compassion. This interpretation is often allied with a misunderstanding of 22:34–40 (see
Most authors stress the Jewish parallels relating to compassion and almsgiving. Bornkamm (“End-Expectation and the Church,” 23–24) holds that the parable (as we shall call it) eliminates distinction not only between Jews and Gentiles but also between Jesus’ disciples and unbelievers. All will ultimately be judged by their response to human need, and on this basis, some from each group will be numbered among the sheep (cf. P. Christian, Jesus und seine geringsten Brüder [Leipzig: St. Benno, 1975], who holds this is a sermon for the Christian church concerning the eschatological significance of human solidarity). J. Friedrich’s Gott im Brüder? (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1977) includes much useful information about how this pericope has been interpreted; but its basic point—that Matthew narrowed down to Christians Jesus’ teaching that the eschatological judgment would decide the fate of all men according to their response to all human need—is unconvincing because it rests on a redaction-critical methodology of dubious worth. Robert Smith (Matthew [ACNT; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989], 299) writes, “In his vision Jesus speaks about being identified with the world’s outcasts, and in his passion he actively and actually identifies with them. The Son of God ... stands deliberately and voluntarily in the shoes of the powerless, the weak, the defenseless, the hated, the tortured.” Powerfully stated, possibly at some level true—but is it the point of this parable?
The weakness of this general position is the identification of the least of Jesus’ brothers with the poor and needy without distinction. There is no parallel for this, but there are one or two excellent alternative interpretations with strong NT parallels.
2. If the first interpretation extends “one of the least of these brothers of mine” too far, the second does not go far enough. Several scholars (e.g., J. R. Michaels, “Apostolic Hardships and Righteous Gentiles,” JBL 84 [1965]: 27–37; J. Mánek, “Mit wem identifiziert sich Jesus (Matt 25:31–46)?” in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament [ed. B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1973], 15–25) argue that Jesus’ “least brothers” are apostles and other Christian missionaries, the treatment of whom determines the fate of all men. Those who receive them receive Christ; those who reject them reject Christ (cf. 10:40–42). This interpretation is much closer to the text than the first one. The only hesitation concerns the restriction to apostles and missionaries in any technical sense. Appeal to Matthew 10 cuts two ways: though that mission was first restricted to the Twelve, it is clear that Jesus was looking beyond the Twelve to all true disciples, who without exception must confess him before men (10:32–33). Proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom to all nations (24:14) takes place in obedience to a universal mandate (28:18–20), and the suffering that Jesus envisages for his disciples (24:9–13) is not restricted to missionaries, even if sometimes theirs is a special share of it. Without detracting from the Twelve, Matthew’s report of Jesus’ words makes it clear that all true disciples are his emissaries.
3. Another restrictive interpretation is that of George Gay (“The Judgment of the Gentiles in Matthew’s Theology,” in Scripture, Tradition, and Interpretation [ed. W. W. Gasque and W. S. LaSor; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978], 199–215). Relying on Matthew 18, Gay holds that three mutually exclusive groups are involved: those outside the Christian community who think they are part of it, those inside the community but not the “little ones,” and the “little ones” within the community. The basis for judgment is the attitude of professing believers to the “little ones,” Jesus’ favorites. The judgment is therefore not the judgment of the nations (“It would be unfair and illogical to judge the unrepentant who have never made any commitment to Jesus and know nothing of the demands of the kingdom on the same basis” [p. 210]).
But Matthew 18 does not support Gay’s tripartite distinction, and 12:46–50 makes it clear that Jesus’ brothers are his disciples. Moreover, the language of vv.31–32, 46, including a reference to “all the nations” gathered before the Son of Man “on his throne in heavenly glory,” cannot easily be made to apply to anything as restricted as Gay suggests.
4. Dispensational writers see a reference to the second coming, after the church has been removed at the rapture. Jesus’ “brothers” are Jews who have been converted during the tribulation, and the “nations” are converted Gentiles (the “sheep”) because they side with the converted Jews during this period. But unconverted Gentiles (the “goats”) continue to oppose Jesus’ brothers (Jews converted during the tribulation). The sheep enter the millennial kingdom with Jesus’ “brothers.” “All the nations” (v.32), therefore, excludes Jews—though it is doubtful whether the same interpretation would be pressed in 28:18–20. Some older writers argue that the judgment determines what nations as opposed to individuals are admitted to the millennial kingdom, but see 
This interpretation fails unless the dispensational interpretation of Matthew 24–25 is sustained, something we have rejected on other grounds (see
5. By far the best interpretation is that Jesus’ “brothers” are his disciples (12:48–49; 28:10; cf. 23:8). The fate of the nations will be determined by how they respond to Jesus’ followers, who, “missionaries” or not, are charged with spreading the gospel and do so in the face of hunger, thirst, illness, and imprisonment. Good deeds done to Jesus’ followers, even the least of them, are not only works of compassion and morality but reflect where people stand in relation to the kingdom and to Jesus himself. Jesus identifies himself with the fate of his followers and makes compassion for them equivalent to compassion for himself (cf. Kistemaker, Parables of Jesus, 146ff.; Manson, Sayings of Jesus, 251; G. E. Ladd, “The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Recent Interpretation,” in New Dimensions [ed. Longenecker and Tenney], 191–99; Witherington; Turner; Blomberg [NAC]; see Mt 10:40–42; Mk 13:13; Jn 15:5, 18, 20; 17:10, 23, 26; Ac 9:4; 22:7; 26:14; 1Co 12:27; Heb 2:17).
To the objection that this interpretation does not preserve an adequate distinction between the “sheep” and “the least of these brothers of mine,” the answer is that (1) a similar ambiguity occurs in Matthew 18; (2) this interpretation emphasizes the kind of loving relationships that must exist within the Christian community, a constant theme in the NT; and (3) it prepares the way for the surprise shown by both sheep and goats (vv.37–39, 44) and for some important theological implications (see below). Moreover, it is entirely in line with the way the resurrected Jesus ties himself to his persecuted church when he confronts the church’s arch-persecutor on the Damascus Road (Ac 9:4).
31“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
31 Nowhere in this discourse does Jesus explicitly identify the “Son of Man” (see
32–33 Presupposed is the fulfillment of 24:14. “All the nations” (panta ta ethnē) means “all peoples” and clearly implies that “all the nations” includes more than Gentiles only (see
In the countryside, sheep and goats mingled during the day. At night they were often separated. Sheep tolerate the cool air, but goats have to be herded together for warmth. In sparse grazing areas the animals might be separated during the day as well. But now these well-known, simple, pastoral details are freighted with symbolism. The right hand is the place of power and honor.
34–40 The change from “Son of Man” (see
The reason they are welcomed and invited to take their inheritance is that they have served the King’s brothers (cf. Isa 58:7). The thought is antithetical to Paul only if we think this is all Matthew says and that all Paul says touches immediately on grace. Both assumptions are false: 2 Corinthians 5:10 is related to the thought of this parable, and Matthew has other things to say about the salvation of men and women (1:21; 11:25–30; 20:28). The reason for admission to the kingdom in this parable is more evidential than causative. This is suggested by the surprise of the righteous (vv.37–39; see comments below). When he is questioned, the King replies that doing the deeds mentioned to the least of his brothers is equivalent to doing it to him (v.40), and by implication to refuse help to the King’s brothers is sacrilege (Calvin).
There is no awkwardness in the scene that requires a disjunction between the sheep (the righteous) and “the least of these brothers of mine,” for in pronouncing sentence on each one, the King could point out surrounding brothers who had been compassionately treated.
41–45 The condemnation is even more awful than in 7:23. The “goats” are cursed; they are banished from the King’s presence and sent to the eternal fire. Hell is here described in categories familiar to Jews (see
More important is the surprise of the sheep (vv.37–39) and the goats (v.44), a major part of the parable, though rarely discussed. Three things can be said with confidence.
1. Contrary to what some have suggested (e.g., Gay, “Judgment of the Gentiles”), neither the sheep nor the goats are surprised at the place the King assigns them but at the reason he gives for this—namely, that they are admitted or excluded on the basis of how they treated Jesus. Thus there is no need to say the goats expected to be welcomed or the sheep expected to be rejected.
2. Zumstein (La condition du croyant, 348) is right to point out that the surprise of the righteous makes it impossible to think that works of righteousness win salvation. How the sheep and the goats treated Jesus’ brothers was not for the purpose of being accepted or rejected by the King; they did not act the way they did because they themselves recognized that what they were doing, or not doing, was done, or not done, with respect to Jesus himself. The sheep did not show love to gain an eschatological reward, nor did the goats fail to show it to flout eschatological retribution.
3. The parable, therefore, presents a test eliminating the possibility of hypocrisy. If the goats had thought that their treatment of Jesus’ “brothers” would gain them eschatological felicity, they would doubtless have treated them compassionately. But Jesus is interested in a righteousness of the whole person, a righteousness from the heart (see
We must not think that the Bible is unconcerned for the poor and the oppressed (Dt 15:11; Mt 22:37–40; 26:11; Gal 2:10; 6:10; cf. Tim Keller, “The Gospel and the Poor,” Them 33:3 [2008]: 8–22). But that is not the center of interest here.
46 The same word, “eternal” (aiōnion, GK 173), modifies “punishment” as modifies “life.” Aiōnion can refer to life or punishment in the age to come, or it can be limited to the duration of the thing to which it refers (as in 21:19). But in apocalyptic and eschatological contexts, the word connotes not only “pertaining to the [messianic] age” but, because that age is always lived in God’s presence, also “everlasting” (cf. BDAG, 33; NIDNTT, 3:826–33). (On penal notions in NT theology, see J. I. Packer, “What Did the Cross Achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution,” TynBul 25 [1974]: 3–45.)
The final separation of “sheep” and “goats” is a recurring theme in the NT, including Matthew (e.g., 7:21–23; 13:40–43). Some have argued that this doctrine has turned many people into infidels; but so have other Christian doctrines. The question is not how men respond to a doctrine but what Jesus and the NT writers actually teach about it. Human response is a secondary consideration and may reveal as much about us as about the doctrine being rejected. Nevertheless, two things should be kept in mind: (1) As there are degrees of felicity and responsibility in the consummated kingdom (e.g., 25:14–30; cf. 1Co 3:10–15), so also are there degrees of punishment (e.g., 11:22; Lk 12:47–48); and (2) there is no shred of evidence in the NT that hell ever brings about genuine repentance. Sin continues as part of the punishment and the ground for it.
1When Jesus had finished saying all these things, he said to his disciples, 2“As you know, the Passover is two days away—and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.”
3Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, 4and they plotted to arrest Jesus in some sly way and kill him. 5“But not during the Feast,” they said, “or there may be a riot among the people.”
COMMENTARY
1–2 For the other major passion predictions, see
The Passover began Thursday afternoon with the slaughter of the lamb. “Two days” (v.2) must be somewhat under forty-eight hours, or the “two days” would be “three days” (see
The “Son of Man” (see
3–5 Tote (“then,” v.3) is such a loose connective (see
Matthew mentions the chief priests and elders, probably meaning the clerical and lay members of the Sanhedrin (see
The combination of synagō (“assembled,” GK 5251) and symbouleuomai (from bouleuomai, “plotted,” GK 5205) in vv.3–4 strongly suggests an allusion to Psalm 31:13. Psalm 31 is the lament of a righteous sufferer and the source of Jesus’ word from the cross in Luke 23:46 (cf. Moo, Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives, 234–35). Earlier that day, the leaders had wanted to arrest Jesus but dared not do so for fear of the people (21:46; apparently earlier attempts had also failed, Jn 7:32, 45–52). Now they decide to do away with Jesus (v.4), recognizing that they must do this by dolos (“stealth,” “cunning,” “guile,” GK 1515) so as not to excite the crowds and start a riot (v.5).
The leaders were right in fearing the people. Jerusalem’s population swelled perhaps fivefold during the feast; with religious fervor and national messianism at a high pitch, a spark might set off an explosion. They decided to suspend action, but Judas’s offer to hand Jesus over at a time and place when the crowds were not present was too good an opportunity to pass up (vv.14–16). Thus in God’s providence, the connection between Passover and Jesus’ death that he had just predicted (vv.1–2) came about.