The Greatest Is the Child (18:1-5)
The Greatest Is the Child (18:1-5)
Cf. Mk 9:33-37; Lk 9:46-48; Jn 13:20. Here Jesus begins the fourth discourse in Matthew, addressing relationships in the church, which is the community of the kingdom (18:1-35). The disciples are concerned with an issue naturally prominent in status-conscious Mediterranean Judaism (Dalman 1929: 65; Harrington 1982: 73; Anderson 1976: 233): Who will be greatest in the kingdom (18:1; cf. 5:19; 20:26; 23:11)?1 Jesus declares that the kingdom belongs to children (cf. 19:14) — to those lowly in status.
Early Judaism clearly emphasized humility (cf., e.g., Jos. Ant. 3.212; ARN 38A; 41, §111B; b. Soṭa 4b-5a; Gen. Rab. 1:5), both in stories about the early Pharisaic sages (e.g., ARN 15A; 29, §§60-62B; p. Sanh. 6:6, §2) and stories of later rabbis (e.g., p. Taʿan. 4:2, §§8-9; Num. Rab. 9:20; Deut. Rab. 3:6). Such humility was often expressed toward those in positions of greater power (m. ʾAbot 3:12; b. Meg. 28a; Taʿan. 20b), but those in power dare never become too arrogant themselves (e.g., Sifre Deut. 38.1.4; ARN 39A; p. Taʿan. 4:1, §14). At the same time Jesus’ example of the child was even more dramatically countercultural than many of these rabbinic sentiments. Some Tannaim opined that one should begin with the greatest when extolling greatness (Sifra Shemini Mekilta deMilium 99.6.1). Scholars often thought that others should serve them (see comment on 23:7-11); for a certainly hyperbolic example, those who did not serve scholars, including serving them food, could warrant death (ARN 27, §56B)! Likewise, any student who was so presumptuous as to offer a legal decision in front of his teacher might be struck dead (Sifra Shemini Mekilta deMilium 99.5.6; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26:6/7). Matthew’s Jesus may not invert all social power structures in practice, but his rhetoric and example certainly challenge his audience to a more radical consideration of humility than was customary.
First, status in the kingdom is often inversely proportional to status in the world (18:1-4). Ancient moralists regularly trotted forth models of heroes and statesmen for their students to imitate; Jesus instead points to a child. More so then than today, children were powerless, without status and utterly dependent on the parents (Harrington 1982: 74; Hobbs 1990). On one hand, parents loved their children (cf. Arist. N.E. 8.12.2-3, 1161b; Diog. Laert. 7.1.120) and townspeople probably showed their “openness” to neighbors by letting other children pass through one’s home and workplace (Malina 1981: 77-78; cf. the LCL introduction to Epictetus, ). On the other hand, perhaps due to the high infant mortality rate among rural peasants (cf. CIJ passim, e.g., 1:308, §399), ancient Mediterranean parents sometimes may have been slower than are their modern Western counterparts to attach themselves too deeply to their younger children (Dixon 1988: 113). Yet disciples must imitate such people of no status, people who recognize their dependence.2 To “turn” reflects the Jewish concept of repentance (e.g., Jer 34:15); such a saying about conversion may also stand behind (hence be attested in) John 3:3, 5 (Witherington 1992: 64; cf. Pryor 1991).3
Second, by embracing the weak, association with whom can confer no worldly status, disciples embrace Christ himself (18:5). True disciples are “little ones” (10:42; 18:10, 14) “who believe in Jesus” (18:6), out to make Christ alone great.4 In contrast to false religious leaders (7:22), children who come “in his name” truly represent him (cf. 18:20; 19:29), and other disciples must “receive” such little ones (10:40). That is, Jesus is modeled best among the most powerless, not among the powerful.5
Causing a Little One to Stumble (18:6-9)
Cf. Mk 9:42-50; Lk 17:1-2. Placing a literal stumbling block before an unsuspecting and vulnerable person was illegal (Lev 19:14), but Jesus was hardly the first to reapply the image figuratively; Greek texts use it for obstacles or opposition (cf. Plut. Cato Younger 30.2; Marc. Aur. 7.22). Jewish texts developed the Old Testament (Ezek 14:3, 7; 18:30) sense of the term referring to falling into or leading someone into sin to his or her destruction (Sir 9:5; 25:21; 34:7; 1QS 2.12; 3.24; 1QpHab 11.7-8; Jub. 1:9; Test. Reub. 4:7), or like the righteous stumblingstone of Isaiah (Sir 34:15; 39:24). Causing one to “stumble” meant causing the person to fall from the way of Christ and be damned (e.g., Jn 6:61; 1 Cor 8:9), which merited severe judgment (26:24; cf. Prov 28:10; Rev 2:14; Sifre Deut. 252.1.4; Num. Rab. 21:4). Matthew often uses the term in the same manner as here (17:27; 26:31; cf. 5:29-30; 11:6; 13:41; 16:23; Mk 9:42-47).
First, God will avenge the precious little ones, whom he favors (18:6-7). The cruelest legal punishment in Jesus’ day was crucifixion, but this image of drowning represents a Roman punishment more horrifying to Jewish hearers than crucifixion and only rarely tolerated among them.6 When people in a community had much grain to grind they took it to the community mill, pouring it between an upper and lower millstone. Jesus refers here not to the lighter millstone turned by a woman’s hand but to the heavier community kind turned by an ass — heavy enough to take one quickly to the bottom (Deissmann 1978: 81; cf. 1 Enoch 48:9).7 Jesus says that this punishment would be an act of mercy compared to what is in store for those who turn little ones from Christ’s way.8
Second, avoiding hell is worth any price (18:8-9). Here the image shifts from others as the cause of stumbling to personal responsibility; perhaps Matthew’s source may have combined disparate material (5:29; Mk 9:42-47; cf. Taylor 1935: 92). Because Judaism so abhorred self-mutilation (Dalman 1929: 227), that injury provided a stark image of the cost one must be willing to pay to avoid spiritual death.9 “Entering life” was shorthand for “entering the life of the coming age” (19:17).10 The language of losing limbs was the language of the price martyrs paid for their devotion to God (2 Macc 7:11; 4 Macc 10:20; Lane 1974a: 348). According to a common Jewish belief (e.g., 2 Bar. 50:2-4; Montefiore 1968: 1:222; cf. 2 Macc 7:11; 14:46), a person with missing members would be resurrected in that form before being restored.11
Go After the Straying Sheep (18:10-14)
Cf. Lk 15:3-7; on possible translation variants between the two pasasages, cf., e.g., Jeremias 1972: 133. The similar parable in the context of Luke 15:11-24 emphasizes God’s pursuit of the lost sheep; in this context, however, the parable summons those who share God’s concerns to pursue the lost sheep (Jeremias 1972: 39-40).12 By his ingenious arrangement of the material, Matthew demonstrates that overbearing leaders unwilling to forgive the repentant fall into the same category as those who caused the stumbling to begin with. As some rabbis did (Marmorstein 1968c: 69), Matthew’s audience should be ready to lament leaders in the religious community who are more concerned with their own reputation and position than with the needs of the people (20:25-28; 23:5-12; 24:45-51).
First, Jesus reveals how God feels toward each sheep, even the weakest (18:10, 13-14). Although scholars have proposed various interpretations (e.g., “angels” means the spirits of the little ones after death or the resurrection, as perhaps in Acts 12:15; Mt 22:30; 1 Enoch 104:2; 2 Bar. 51:5, 10, 12; Prayer of Joseph 19; Acts of Paul 3:5; cf. 1 Enoch 51:5; Ps-Phocyl. 104; the view of Carson 1984b: 401), the majority view and the most satisfactory interpretation of this passage in light of ancient Jewish ways of speaking would refer to guardian angels (see Davies and Allison 1991: 770-72).13 The guardian angels of these children were of the highest rank (18:10), indicating their special place before God (cf. Jeremias 1971: 182; Meier 1980: 203-4; cf. perhaps 1 Enoch 43:4; Gen. Rab. 68:12).14 In Palestinian Jewish idiom, 18:14 even more explicitly reiterates that “it is not God’s will for even the very least to be lost” (Jeremias 1971: 10, 39; idem 1972: 39-40; cf. 1 Tim 2:4-5; 2 Pet 3:9; for the emphasis on God’s will, e.g., 7:21; 21:31).
Secondly, Jesus summons those who share God’s concerns to go after those who stray from his way (18:12). It is not enough simply not to cause stumbling; disciples must also actively seek to prevent anyone from stumbling. Higher-status urban Jews probably looked down on shepherds the way later teachers did;15 shepherds represented a lower-class occupation in the Empire period in general (MacMullen 1974: 1-2, 15). Yet the image probably does not function totally negatively here (cf. Jos. Ant. 1.53); Moses, David, and Amos were shepherds (Ex 3:1; 1 Sam 16:11; 17:15, 28, 34-37; Amos 1:1; 7:14-15),16 in the early period the ancient Israelites were mainly shepherds (Gen 46:32; 47:3; Num 14:33; Jos. Apion 1.91), and the God of Israel regularly appeared in such terms in the Scriptures (including Ezek 34).17
Jesus’ portrait of the shepherd is realistic. “One hundred” was common as a round number in Jewish illustrations (Manson 1979: 208), but was also the number of an average-size flock (Jeremias 1972: 133; cf. eighty in P. Hib. 33.16); three hundred was large (t. B. Qam. 6:20; cf. Hom. Od. 12.129-30; 1 Sam 25:2), and twelve (e.g., P. Oxy. 245) small (poor was the widow with but one sheep — Babrius 51.1). Naturally shepherds and goatherds had to keep careful watch to prevent any animals from straying (e.g., Longus 1.10). Contemporary evidence indicates that shepherds and cowherds did leave their flocks or herds to search for lost animals (1 Sam 9:3; Diog. Laert. 1.109; Hock 1988: 139, citing Longus 1.5.1-2; Bultmann 1968: 202; Vermes 1993: 101 citing Gen. Rab. 86:4), as does the practice of more recent Palestinian shepherds (Jeremias 1972: 133); often shepherds would leave sheep with other shepherds (cf. Lk 2:8; Longus 3.29; Bailey 1976: 149; cf. t. B. Qam. 6:20). In rugged terrain, shepherds often became skilled mountaineers (Diod. Sic. 33.1.1); shepherds commonly grazed their flocks in the mountains, as here (e.g., Babrius 91.2). One might bring back a lost sheep or goat by placing it over one’s shoulder (Lk 15:5; Ex. Rab. 2:2). Like God, his true shepherd will search for the straying sheep (Ezek 34:4, 11; cf. Riesenfeld 1970: 151).18
Addressing Stumbling Blocks Seriously (18:15-20)
Cf. Lk 17:3. Given standard ancient usage for “brother,” the sinning “brother” here is a member of one’s religious community, the church (Manson 1979: 210).19 Disciples must pursue the straying sheep (18:10-14), but certain very exceptional circumstances demand expulsion of wolves in sheep’s clothing who may not wish to leave (18:15-20; cf. 7:15-23). In this context of forgiveness to the fullest possible extent (18:21-27), however, even in the case of expulsion the ultimate goal remains restoration (cf. 18:19-20; 1 Cor 5:5; 2 Cor 2:5-11; 1 Tim 1:20; cf. also, e.g., Pfitzner 1982). The unpardonable sin of this context is being a continuing stumbling block to others (18:6-7, 15),20 unwilling to accept them (18:28-33; cf. 18:1-14) — a sin that results in damnation (18:34-35). Presumably it is an unrepentant and continuing sin against the community or members of the community.
First, a disciple must admonish his or her fellow privately before taking any other steps (18:15). Although Jewish teachers preferred that the offender seek forgiveness first (as many as three times before witnesses if necessary — Edersheim: 378; as long as necessary — cf. b. Ber. 28a; p. B. Qam. 8:7, §1), Jewish law also emphasized proper giving and receiving of reproof (Sifra Qed. pq. 4.200.3.3; Sifre Deut. 1.3.2; b. ʿArak. 16b, bar.; Shab. 119b; Tamid 28a, bar.; Gen. Rab. 54:3; Manson 1979: 210), that admonition must always precede punishment (Sifre Deut. 173.1.2; p. Sanh. 7:6, §2), and it must continue until the offender repents or decisively repulses the reprover (Moore 1971: 2:153).21 One who reproves must do so with the proper attitude (1QS 5.25; CD 7.2-3).
Like some other ancient moralists (Plut. Flatterer 32 in Boring 1995: 115), rabbis emphasized that reproof was to be private (e.g., b. Sanh. 101a) and taken before witnesses only if necessary (Edersheim: 378, cites b. Shab. 119b; Tamid 28a; ʿArak. 16b; see Beer 1988). A sage could hyperbolically rule that publicly shaming one’s fellow warrants exclusion from the coming age (m. ʾAbot 3:11; also b. Sanh. 107a; other references in Urbach 1979: 1:253). The Scrolls, which include record keeping of rebukes (for offenses like anger and pride; 4Q477; Eshel 1994), also emphasize this sequence: private reproof, then before witnesses, and finally before the gathered assembly (cf. Schiffman 1983: 97-98; Davies 1966b: 79; Brown 1972: 4); the Qumranites detested disrespect for fellow members of the community (e.g., 1QS 6.26–7.9; 7.15-16). That Josephus adds to Exodus 18:14 this principle of private correction in Antiquities 3.67 reinforces the probability that Jewish people expected private reproof. Public admonition thus represented the form of rebuke reserved for the severest of circumstances (cf. Gal 2:14; t. Kip. 4:12).
Second, although disciples seek reconciliation, they must gather evidence in the proper order in case they later need proof of what transpired (18:16). As community centers, synagogues doubled as local courts, a function they maintained when evaluating internal disputes in Diaspora Jewish communities (cf. Grant 1977: 38; comment on 10:17). Judaism was strict about the need for witnesses (Syr. Men. Sent. 142; t. Sanh. 8:3), and later Jewish teachers regularly echoed the judicial requirement of two witnesses in Deuteronomy 17:6-7 and 19:15 (Jos. Life 256; Ant. 4.219; CD 9.17-23; 11QTemple 61.6-7; 64.8; Sifre Deut. 148.1.1; 188.2.1-2; 188.3.1-2; b. Sanh. 37b, bar.; p. Giṭ. 4:1, §2; Sanh. 6:3, §3; Smith 1951: 169; cf. Heb 10:28); they required a pair of witnesses even to attest the new moon (m. Rosh Hash. 1:7; 2:6). Under their rules, to speak evil of another without supporting witnesses warranted a public beating (Belkin 1940: 267). The requirement of two witnesses remained standard judicial procedure in early Christianity (2 Cor 13:1-2; 1 Tim 5:19-20). (Because m. Sanh. 1:1 indicates that normal as opposed to capital cases required only three judges, Matthew might suggest that Christian witnesses are competent as judges; but the Mishnah’s number of judges may be later than Matthew’s period.) Other Jewish groups also required confronting an erring person before witnesses before the matter could be brought before the public assembly (1QS 5.25–6.1; CD 9.3-4).
Third, if all else fails, the messianic community must publicly dissociate itself from a habitually sinning professed disciple (18:17). Neither outsiders nor the sinner should continue under the delusion that this person is truly a follower of Jesus. One should treat such a person as a tax gatherer (cf. 9:9; 21:32) or a Gentile (cf. 5:47; 6:7; 20:25; cf. Pol. Phil. 11) — unclean and to be avoided. Although lesser forms of public discipline existed (e.g., 1QS 6.25 vs. 5.16-17; p. Moʿed Qaṭ. 3:1, §§4, 10; 2 Thess 3:6; Edersheim: 407), the discipline urged here was full excommunication, implying spiritual death (1 Cor 5:5; 1 Tim 1:20; Titus 3:10-11).
Fourth, God authorizes the messianic judicial assembly that follows these procedures to act on the authority of heaven (18:18). The verb tenses literally represent the cumbersome “whatever you bind … shall have been bound,” which grammatically need not but could mean what the context probably suggests: that their earthly action followed the heavenly action.22 Presumably the “binding and loosing” here (cf. comment on 16:19) mean that “the halakic decisions of the community have the authority of heaven itself” (Davies and Allison 1991: 787).23 In this context, halakic authority applies to judicial decrees and not merely legal theory. By removing an unrepentant sinner from Jesus’ community, believers merely ratify the heavenly court’s decree;24 to borrow Johannine language, they merely remove branches already dead on the vine (cf. Jn 15:2, 6). The person has been excluded not only from the community but from salvation (Overman 1990b: 104). “Binding” and “loosing” refer to the judicial authority of gathered Christians to decide cases on the basis of God’s law.25 Most scholars thus recognize that this passage applies to church discipline (Cullmann 1973: 204-5; Fuller 1971: 141).26
Fifth, the witnesses are to pray, not to act vindictively (18:19-20). Some suggest that this verse is misplaced from the tradition (Albright and Mann 1971: 221) or that it refers to arbitration rather than prayer (Derrett 1979b), but the verse makes perfect sense in this context. The “two” or “three” gathered for prayer in 18:19-20 must be the “two or three” witnesses of 18:16; the “matter” (cf. the similar forensic use of the general term in 1 Cor 6:1) concerning which they agree is prayer for the offender. Whereas in Deuteronomy 17:6-7 the two or three witnesses were to be the first to cast stones, here they are to be the first to pray. While this could refer to the negative prayer of execration (which may have been more of a curse — cf. 1 Cor 5:5; 1 Tim 1:20; Marshall 1974: 48; cf. 21:19-22; on curse-tablets, cf., e.g., Jordan 1985; Corn. Nep. 7 [Alcibiades], 4.5), in this context of forgiveness the prayer may represent a prayer for ultimate restoration (though cf. 1 Jn 5:16-17). Jewish excommunication even in its long-term form was normally reversible if repentance took place (p. Moʿed Qaṭ. 3:1, §11; though cf. the extreme cases in 1QS 7.1-2, 16-17, 24-25).27
Finally, Jesus himself is the presence of God (18:20). An ancient Jewish saying promised God’s presence not only for ten males (the minimum prerequisite for a synagogue — b. Ber. 6ab; Meg. 23b; p. Meg. 4:4, §5; Reicke 1974: 121; 1QS 6.3, 6; CD 13.2-3), but for even two or three gathered to study his law (m. ʾAbot 3:2, 6; Mek. Bah. 11.48ff.; cf. m. Ber. 7:3).28 Here Jesus himself fills the role of the Shekinah, God’s presence, in the traditional Jewish saying (which probably predates this saying, since the rabbis would not likely borrow it from Christian sources; cf. Smith 1951: 152-53; Meier 1980: 206; Barth 1963: 135; Sievers 1984).29 Jewish teachers often called God “the Place,” that is, “the Omnipresent One”;30 Jesus is “God with us” (1:23; 28:20).31
Forgiveness (18:21-35)
On Mt 18:21-22, cf. Lk 17:4. This parable employs very Matthean language (Gundry 1982: 371-72). Its point is that one’s fellow disciples (18:28-29) are Christ’s representatives no less than oneself (18:5-6), and God will avenge their harsh treatment at the hands of those who claim his mercy for themselves.
First, a disciple’s forgiveness should be unlimited (18:21-22).32 Judaism also stressed forgiveness (Ladd 1974b: 130 cites Test. Gad 6:3), though some teachers saw the need to limit forgiveness to three instances of premeditated sin, whose repentance was hence not genuine (ARN 40A; cf. Blomberg 1992a: 281, citing b. Yoma 86b; 87a; Herm. 2.4.1 is stricter, perhaps deliberately). But Jesus here reverses the principle of 490fold (Gen 4:24 LXX; Argyle 1963: 142) or seventy-sevenfold (Gen 4:24, where LXX uses the exact phrase; Carson 1984b: 405; France 1985: 277) vengeance.
Second, the magnitude of God’s saving grace is the proper model for forgiveness (18:23-27). Although “the central theme of forgiveness” described here “belongs to the kernel of Jesus’ preaching,” Vermes 1993: 106 doubts the parable’s authenticity; it treats a clearly Gentile court quite different from the Galilean surroundings of most of Jesus’ parables. Vermes is right about the court’s being Gentile (also Derrett 1970: 35), but he applies the criterion of coherence too narrowly here; the Gentile court provides the requisite suspense for the awfulness of the punishments, and the exaggerations fit Jesus’ love for hyperbole and graphic confrontation. Moreover, Galileans were quite aware of some features of royal courts outside Palestine (20:25), and while Jesus usually prefers parables set in the countryside, such is not always the case (e.g., 22:1-14; 25:14-30;33 Lk 18:10-14). Indeed, examples of Gentile royal authority affected models of royalty in Palestine; even in Palestine rulers had multiple waiting rooms with long benches (Wilkinson 1978: 26), and Antipas, like Herod the Great, accommodated hellenistic models where possible (cf. comment on 14:1-12). Likewise, the language of God’s “kingdom” virtually invites a royal comparison. As common as kings become in later rabbinic parables (where they nearly always represent God),34 we probably should not begrudge Jesus a few.35
The parable emphasizes that no one can offend our human moral sensibilities as much as everyone offends the moral sensibilities of a perfect God. The parable accordingly underlines the magnitude of God’s forgiveness, a point unlikely to be lost on Jesus’ hearers; other Jewish teachers also praised God’s forgiveness.36
Once the hellenistic aura of the court is taken into account, the setting is realistic, underlining the impossibly unrealistic character of the debt and the characters’ absurd folly. A king’s “servants” could refer to his higher officials, like provincial satraps (Jeremias 1972: 210, 212; Meier 1980: 208; Via 1967: 138; but contrast Gundry 1982: 373-74). Possibly the “servants” here are tax farmers working for the king; under the old Ptolemaic system in Egypt, tax farmers would bid on collecting taxes for the king and could generally turn a profit — provided everyone paid.37 Because these tax farmers were responsible to collect the taxes for the king, they could become quite ruthless in their efficiency.38
At the appropriate time of year, the king is “settling accounts” with his servants (cf. 25:19; for the phrase, cf. Deissmann 1978: 117, citing P. Oxy. 113; B.G.U. 775.18-19). Although the extravagant image probably stems from Esther 3:9 (where the talents are, however, of silver) and the talent’s worth varied in different periods, 10,000 talents represented between 60 and 100 million denarii (30-100 million days’ wages for an average peasant — no small amount of labor). Further, the real worth of the debt in this story may be greater still: 10,000 being the largest single number Greek could express and the talent being the largest unit of currency, Jesus is making the parable particularly graphic. The combined annual tribute of Galilee and Perea just after the death of the repressive Herod the Great came to only 200 talents (Jos. Ant. 17.318; Jeremias 1972: 30); the tribute of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea came to 600 talents (Jos. Ant. 17.320).39 This fact starkly reveals the laughably hyperbolic character of the illustration: the poor man owes the king more money than existed in circulation in the whole country at the time! Jesus’ hearers would scoff that the man was a fool to get so far in debt, and that the king had been a fool to let him get away with it.
Selling the man into slavery would recover virtually none of the loss, though it might abate some of the king’s anger: the most expensive slave recorded would sell for only a talent, the average being one-twentieth to one-fifth of that (Jeremias 1972: 211). Jewish custom prohibited the sale of women and children, but Jesus’ hearers recognized that a pagan king would not care about such just technicalities (cf. m. Soṭa 3:8; t. Soṭa 2:9; Livy 26.34.3).40 And of course if the story is about a Gentile kingdom and a Gentile slave, there would be no biblical “year of release” to secure the man’s freedom later (Ex 21:2; Lev 25:40; Deut 15:12); Jesus’ hearers thus recognize the man’s impossible plight — not to mention the king’s financial shortfall. In all, the king was bound to lose at least 9,999 talents (as much as 99,990,000 denarii — perhaps over 250,000 years’ wages for an average worker) despite the sale. Perhaps this was one reason the king canceled the debt at the pitiable sight of the fool offering to pay it all back.41
Third, the parable depicts the hubris of unforgiveness toward a fellow servant of Christ (18:28-30). Jesus expects disciples to treat their fellow servants justly (24:49; for the term, cf. also Col 4:7; Rev 6:11), to show mercy as they have received it (5:7). When poor crops or other circumstances forced a ruler to forgive taxes, he did so with the understanding that his people would respect his benevolence; if he released his subordinate ministers’ debts, they in turn must release the debts of those indebted to them. In Ptolemaic Egypt no one could bring suit against those who worked for the king, nor could debt collectors arrest them (P. Hal. 1.124-27). This principle was widely known, and the first servant should have understood it (Derrett 1970: 42; cf. MacMullen 1974: 35); but as we have seen, this servant was a fool.
Although other ancient creditors were known to have gone so far as to seize debtors by the throat, as here,42 and creditors could come up with money quickly by demanding immediate payment on loans (Stambaugh and Balch 1986: 72), the sum the other man owed the first servant was impossibly small compared to what that higher official owed the king. Perhaps the sum was so small that the first man had previously overlooked it. Yet this first servant, perhaps still determined to repay his debt to the king, has now decided to become ruthlessly efficient in exacting what is owed him — a sum less than one-fifth of the minimum he himself would have fetched on the slave market, and less than one five-hundred thousandth (as little as a millionth) of what he had owed the king. In other words, the forgiven servant has failed to embrace the principle of grace. Once the unforgiven man is jailed, he is unable to settle his own debts with the king (it is still the time of accounting — Derrett 1970: 41); he also is away from his active duties, costing the king more money. Further, he must depend especially on his relatives and political allies — and perhaps the king himself, as his patron — to pay his way out.43
Finally, the parable depicts the consequences of human unforgiveness (18:31-35). Although the other servants offer no money to release the imprisoned man, they are “grieved” (17:23; 19:22; 26:22) and do not hesitate to report the forgiven servant’s act that has now cost the king (and thus ultimately them) still more money (Manson 1979: 214).44 Ancient documents indicate that his act was legal — and that officials could severely punish those who abused it (Deissmann 1978: 269-70). The king who was earlier moved with compassion (18:27) is now moved with anger instead (18:34; in both cases his “lord” with a participle).45 The parable teaches that although God is longsuffering (18:26, 29), he has his limits (“enraged” in 18:34; 22:7). The first servant’s debt is reinstated, and he is handed over to the torturers (for the term, cf. 8:29). Jewish law forbade torture — though exceptionally cruel persons were known to practice it (e.g., Jos. War 2.448) — but hellenistic rulers in Egypt and others had customarily tortured tardy officials to extort money from their friends (Jeremias 1972: 212; cf. Livy 3.13.8; 25.4.8-10; 39.41.7; 43.16.5; Appian R.H. 2.8.2; Aul. Gel. 16.10.8). Yet who would be so politically naive as to come to the rescue of one who had obviously fallen from the king’s favor? The magnitude of the debt was simply unpayable by any means, and the man would never escape the torturers.
Forgiveness must issue “from the heart” — it must be sincere (cf. Is 59:13). God has forgiven Jesus’ disciples; if they fail to show grace to others who have repented, then this text promises them hellfire (cf. 5:7; 6:12, 14-15; Manson 1979: 214).46 In Jesus’ strongly worded ethical pronouncements characteristic of the Gospel tradition, this parable forces Matthew’s audience to interpret the rest of Jesus’ ethical teaching in light of grace.
1. Thom 1994: 109-10 points to formal similarities with one kind of Pythagorean question; but this question reflects more directly a live matter of discussion in Jesus’ Jewish milieu (see comment on 5:19).
2. On the subordination of children in antiquity, see Keener 1991a: 98; cf. idem 1992b: 187-88. Developing Manson’s view, Jeremias 1971: 155-56; idem 1972: 190 finds no Jewish parallels for children as images of humility or purity, and hence suggests that “become as children” means “learn how to say ‘Abba’” anew, returning to the waiting Father (cf. Lk 15:18-24; Jn 3:3-5; cf. Snodgrass 1993: 193; on conversion as something of a “new birth” in early Judaism, see, e.g., Davies 1980: 119). Gundry counters that this is Matthean composition in Greek rather than dependence on an Aramaic source (1982: 360). Young 1995: 99 suggests that Jesus alludes to children’s sense of wonder and faith; Lachs 1987: 265 sees childlike innocence (not humility); for childlike innocence cf. Herm. 3.9.39; many early interpreters felt that infants were infected with humanity’s sin but remained exempt from needing repentance because they had not personally sinned — Cyprian Letters, Epistle 58; Augustine Homily 50; ACCS, 137); one could also argue that the passage refers to children’s impressionability to learn new matters quickly (Plut. Educ. 5, Mor. 3E); or conversely (and nonsensically here) as examples of misbehavior (cf. 11:16-17; some texts in Lindemann 1983). Probably, however, “become as children” refers to assuming a child’s low status rather than a characteristic like humility (France 1985: 270; Hagner 1995: 518). Jesus’ contemporaries could easily enough understand that a radical sacrifice for the kingdom would lead to eternal reward in the future era (e.g., b. B. Meṣ. 85b in Lachs 1987: 266).
3. If so, it is possible that Matthew may have conflated two sayings to produce this one, perhaps using oral tradition; “receiving the kingdom” like a child in Mk 10:15 reflects a typically Jewish phrase (Vermes 1993: 144) that surely did not originate with Mark. “Conversion” was important in hellenistic philosophy (e.g., Diog. Laert. Lives 4.16; 6.2.56; Nock 1933a: 164-86; cf. Meeks 1986: 44, 54; Stowers 1986: 37, 112-13; Malherbe 1986: 56-57; for similarities and differences with Christian conversion, see especially MacMullen 1985-1986), but for the Jewish concept see comment on 3:5-9. “Conversion” appears in various cultural contexts, e.g., the shaman’s change of behavior in Eliade 1958: 88.
4. First-century sages debated whether or not children needed to be sprinkled with the sin-offering (m. Para 3:4); they were exempted from many duties (e.g., t. Sanh. 9:11; Ter. 10:18; p. Ḥag. 1:1, §4). Some think that “little ones” was a derisive title coined by Jesus’ opponents for his low-status disciples (e.g., Borg 1984: 204), or that the rare “believe in me” is a later addition to Jesus’ words (Hatch 1917: 22). Historians’ and biographers’ editorial freedom to interpret and reword sayings allows such possibilities, but the emphasis of Jesus’ teachings on servanthood and the centrality of his own servant mission suggest that such phrases were characteristic of Jesus.
5. Though following much of Mark’s sequence, Matthew omits Mk 9:38-41. May Matthew do so to avoid permitting the impression that he condones false exorcists in his community (cf. 7:22)?
6. Jeremias 1972: 180; Nineham 1977: 258; Carson 1984b: 398; cf. Livy 1.51.9 (drowned with a crate full of stones); 27.37.5-7 (newborn hermaphrodite); Babrius 27 (weasels); meanwhile, Livy claims that the Romans exercised more humane punishments than other peoples (Livy 1.28.11). For an exception, see Jos. Ant. 14.450.
7. Derrett 1985 thinks that the millstone counts as a different kind of stumbling stone, avenging the crime of the lighter stone. A donkey could pull about half the weight a mule could, easily over a hundred pounds (cf. Rapske 1994: 8); at worst, one would use an old horse (Babrius 29.1-2). The image of a “millstone around the neck” may have also become a traditional figure for an encumbrance (b. Qidd. 29b. bar.).
8. The saying has Palestinian Jewish features: woes are characteristic of Jesus (23:13; 24:19); rabbis sometimes described a great burden as a “millstone around the neck” (though Jesus clearly means the language more strongly here — Vermes 1993: 84). Most significantly, “better never to have been born” was also typically Jewish (26:24; 1 Enoch 38:2; 4 Ezra 7:69; 2 Bar. 10:6; ARN 29A; b. Qidd. 40a). Given Jesus’ sense of his own mission, we are not surprised that he would declare that the “world” (cf. 5:14) would merit judgment for its oppression of his little ones; “it is better” also fits his (as well as others’) usage (5:30; cf. the disciples in 19:10).
9. Boring 1995: 113-14, also provides relevant Greek parallels concerning those willing to suffer amputation for a greater good (Plato Symp. 204CE; Xen. Mem. 1.54; Arist. E.E. 7.1; Philo Worse Attacks Better 174-75; and especially Porphyry Letter to Marcella 34).
10. Cf. the common Jewish expressions “life of the world to come” (e.g., m. ʾAbot 2:7; Sifre Deut. 305.3.2-3; CIJ 1:474, §661), “eternal life” (= “life of the world”; Ps. Sol. 3:12; 13:11; CIJ 1:422, §569; 2:443, §1536; cf. Philo Fug. 77), and “life” (Tob 12:9-10; Test. Abr. 11B; Herm. 1.1.1). Compare “entering life” with “entering the kingdom” (5:20; 7:21; 19:24).
11. Addley 1976 and Koester 1978 find behind the original sayings the exclusion of offending members of Christ’s body in excommunication. This view also makes some sense of the context, especially in Matthew (cf. also Xen. Mem. 1.54), but native Palestinian Jewish images followed above seem more suggestive.
12. For God’s people as straying sheep, see, e.g., Ps 119:176; Is 53:6; Jer 23:1-4; Ezek 34:11-16; Mt 9:36; 10:6. Sheep were less prone to stray than most animals (Aelian Animals 7.27). Some rabbis also emphasized properly balancing welcome and discipline (b. Sanh. 107b, bar.)
13. On guardian angels in Judaism, cf., e.g., Heb 1:14; Ps-Philo 11:12; 59:4; t. Shab. 17:2-3; Sifre Num. 40.1.5; Gen. Rab. 44:3; 60:15; Song Rab. 3:6, §3; Philo Gig. 9. Cf. Plotinus 3.4.6 and the Roman genii (Malina and Rohrbaugh 1992: 117; cf. Herm. 1.5) for pagan parallels. The step from nations having guardian angels (Dan 10; 12:1) to individuals having them was not large. Guardian angels and deceased spirits are not irreconcilable (in Hesiod W.D. 122 deceased members of the golden race now function as guardian spirits) but cannot both be in view simultaneously here.
14. The expression “seeing the face” applied particularly to access to a ruler, only the highest officials of whom had such access “always” (see Gundry 1982: 364). Angels nearest the throne were those of the highest rank, which normally did not include guardian angels (cf. Gaster 1976: 287; Hagner 1995: 526-27; Test. Job 33:2-3), except for Israel’s own guardian angel Michael (and sometimes Israel saw itself as God’s oppressed “little ones” — 2 Bar. 48:19). Double angels appear under particular circumstances in early Amoraic literature; see JE 1: 587; cf. Bonsirven 1964: 36. Cf. connections between the righteous on earth and angels (Jub. 31:14; 1QS 11.8; comment on 5:22.
15. B. Sanh. 25b; Jeremias 1972: 132-33; idem 1971: 110; idem 1975: 304; Bailey 1976: 147; Tooley 1964: 23; Bailey 1976: 147; Malina and Rohrbaugh 1992: 118.
16. “Shepherds” provided a natural analogy for rulers (cf. Anacharsis to Tereus 7; Artem. Oneir. 2.12); frequently for leaders in Homer (e.g., Il. 1.263; 2.85, 105; 4.296; 5.144, 513; 6.214; 8.81; 10.3, 73, 406; 11.92, 202, 370, 465, 842; 13.411, 600; 15.262; 16.2; 19.386; 20.110; 22.277; 23.389; Od. 4.24; 17.109; 18.70; 24.456; especially Agamemnon, Il. 2.243, 254; 4.413; 7.230; 19.35, 251; 24.654; Od. 3.156; 14.497) and continued later (Hesiod Theog. 1000). Natural shepherds like David and Moses easily became “shepherds” of Israel. David became a shepherd of Israel in his generation and the future (2 Sam 5:2; 1 Chron 11:2; Ps 78:70-72; Ezek 34:23; 37:24; in later literature, cf. Ps. Sol. 17:40; Gen. Rab. 59:5). The psalmist calls Moses a shepherd of Israel (Ps 77:20; Is 63:11), as do later texts (1 Enoch 89.35; Ps-Philo 19.3; Sifre Deut. 305.3.1; p. Sanh. 10:1, §9; Soṭa 5:4, §1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 2:8; Ex. Rab. 2:2; Marmorstein 1968: 100-101). The Davidic Messiah (Mic 5:2-4; cf. Jer 23:1-6; Longenecker 1981: 48-49) and sometimes Jewish teachers (Derrett 1973: 26-28) appear as shepherds. The spiritual leaders God assigned to care for his flock for him were also “shepherds” (Num 27:17; 1 Kings 22:17; Jer 3:15; Mek. Pisha 1.162-63; CD 19.8-9); righteous prophets often ironically labeled Israel’s unjust leaders by this title (Is 56:11; Jer 22:22; 23:1-4; 25:34-36; Zech 10:3; 11:5, 15-17; 13:4-7). When God portrays Israel as a scattered or lost flock, his shepherds are often to blame (Jer 10:21; 50:6-7; Ezek 34:1-10). (Some information on shepherds here also appears in my article for InterVarsity Press’s Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, 1090-93.)
17. For God as shepherd, see Ps 23:1-4; 28:9; 74:1-2; 77:20; 78:52; 79:13; 80:1; 100:3; Is 40:11; Jer 13:17; 31:10; Ezek 34:11-17; Mic 7:14; Zech 9:16; 10:3; Sir 18:13; 1 Enoch 89.18; Philo Agr. 50-53; Ps-Philo 28.5; 30.5; b. Ḥag. 3b; Pesaḥ. 118a; Ex. Rab. 34:3; Lam. Rab. 1:17, §52; Pesiq. R. 3:2. He carried the young (Ps 28:9; Is 40:11; 46:3-4) and led his flock as in the first exodus (Ps 77:20; 78:52; 80:1; Is 40:11; 63:14; cf. Ex 13:21; 15:13; Deut 8:2; Neh. 9:12; Ps 78:14; 106:9; 136:16; Is 48:21; Jer 2:6, 17; Hos 11:3-4; Amos 2:10). Thus God led and protected his people, for whom he cared. Israel nearly always appears as God’s flock; see, e.g., Ps 74:1; 77:20; 78:52; 79:13; 80:1; 100:3; Is 49:9; 63:11; Jer 13:17; 31:10; Zech 9:16; 10:3; 1 Enoch 89-90; 4 Ezra 5:23-24; Ps-Philo 23:12; Mek. Pisha 1.162; Ex. Rab. 24:3; Pesiq. R. 9:2; 26:2. (Sir 18:13 and Philo Agr. 50-53 are exceptions.) Again, see my article for the Dictionary of the Later New Testament.
18. Textual evidence with wide geographical distribution and patristic support argues for the omission of v. 11. Although it is authentic Jesus tradition (Lk 19:10) and the idea is not foreign to the text of Matthew (cf. 10:6), this verse interrupts the flow of the context here.
19. Brother-sister ties were normally quite close (e.g., Dixon 1988: 19, citing CIL 6.9868, 12564, 22423); ancients used “brother” for coinitiates into mysteries (Burkert 1987: 45, citing Andocides 1.132; Plato Epistles 7.333E; Plut. Dio 56; Sopatros Rhet. Gr. 8.123), close friends (Ahiqar 49, col. 4; Plut. Many Friends 2, Mor. 93E; Marc. Aur. Med. 1.14; cf. CPJ 3:41, §479), or potential allies (1 Kings 20:32-33; 1 Macc 10:18; 12:6, 10, 21; 14:40). Jewish circles used the title for exemplary hospitality toward a stranger (Test. Abr. 2B) and one rabbi’s title for another (Sifre Deut. 34.5.3; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 18a, bar.), and Israelites addressed fellow Israelites in such terms (e.g., Tob 5:10; 6:10; 7:3; 2 Macc 1:1). In Matthew the term applies to fellow disciples (23:8-9; 25:40; 28:10; cf. 6:9; 12:49-50).
20. Some of the earliest manuscripts omit the words “against you” in 18:15, but the early geographical distribution favors their inclusion; cf. Metzger 1971: 45.
21. Though to a lesser extent, some Greek and Roman moralists also recognized the importance of reproof (Pub. Syr. 10; Malherbe 1986: 48). This provides a broader context for the rabbinic practice (Hallevy 1982). Hunter 1961: 48 may well be right that Gal 6:1 depends on Jesus’ teaching here, but one cannot argue this case based on lack of other available parallels.
22. For specific grammatical arguments for either reading of the construction, see Mantey 1973; Marshall 1974; Carson 1984b: 370-72; France 1985: 256; Blomberg 1992a: 255 following Porter 1988.
23. The image would not be unfamiliar to an ancient audience; even in classical Athens, lawbreakers acted lawlessly against the gods, hence a jury might execute justice or vengeance “in place of the gods” (prosecutor in Ps-Demosth. Or. 59, Against Neaera 126, LCL 6:448-51).
24. For a detailed discussion of the background of the heavenly court here, see Keener 1991a: 141-43. At least some Jewish circles affirmed that the judgments of earthly judges who extrapolated the law properly would always coincide with God’s (t. Rosh Hash. 1:18; ARN 2A). Cf. the rabbinic idea in which God ratifies decrees of the earthly Beth Din (e.g., on when months occur) — Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:13; 23:4; p. Rosh Hash. 1:3, §28 (cf. m. Rosh Hash. 3:1; t. Rosh Hash. 1:18; p. Rosh Hash. 3:1, §17). When earthly courts could not execute a requisite death sentence, the heavenly court would do so (t. Sanh. 14:16; Mak. 5:16; ARN 25A; p. Ketub. 3:1, §8; Deut. Rab. 5:5; Midr. Ps 72, §3); for a heavenly “ban” cf. Sifra V. D. Den. pq. 2.2.4.1.
25. In later Jewish literature “binding” and “loosing” signify legislative authority through interpreting the law and mean “prohibiting” and “permitting,” respectively, regularly in rabbinic texts (e.g., m. Giṭ. 9:1; t. Sanh. 7:2; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 7a, bar.; ʿErub. 17a; Ḥul. 39b, bar.; Pesaḥ. 42a; p. Ter. 11:7; Beṣa 3:6, §5; 55:2, §13; Gen. Rab. 7:2; 80:9; 85:5; Num. Rab. 20:24; Deut. Rab. 2:19; cf. perhaps Mt 23:4). This legislative authority could be extended judicially, and the terms also naturally apply figuratively to judicial action, given the literal use for detaining and releasing prisoners (e.g., Jos. War 1.111; pace Thompson 1970: 190). The neuter hosa (“whatever”) can include persons (Carson 1984b: 372).
26. The passage does not refer to the ancient practice in the magical papyri of manipulating demons to perform the magician’s will, e.g., using a curse and a demon to bind a person from speaking any further against someone (Lefkowitz and Fant 1982: 257; see comment on 12:24). For “divorces” (lit. meaning, “sending away”) of demons from people (exorcisms), see Aramaic incant. Text 18.1; 19.5-6.
27. Jos. War 2.143-44 thinks that in practice the Essenes often mercifully readmitted those expelled.
28. Study of Torah invites the Holy Spirit’s presence (b. Mak. 23b). Whenever possible, Jewish disciples studied in groups of two or three (ARN 8A). With the exception of very prominent individuals, later rabbis also disapproved of judging alone (cf. m. ʾAbot 4:8; p. Sanh. 1:1, §§4-5; cf. comment on Mt 7:1).
29. Cf. Ziesler 1984, comparing Jesus’ presence with Yahweh’s in the OT. Davies and Allison 1991: 790, with most scholars (e.g., Stanton 1995a: 60), regard the saying “as an utterance of the risen Lord” (i.e., not “authentic” in the sense of deriving from Jesus before the resurrection). At the same time they concede that they cannot be dogmatic; was Paul the only person to speak “of being spiritually present with others”? But Mt 18:20 means far more than 1 Cor 5:3-5 (which, pace Fee 1987: 205, communicates merely epistolary presence — cf. 1 Thess 2:17; Col 2:5; Isoc. Nic./Cypr. 51-52, Or. 3.37; Sen. Ep. Lucil. 32.1; cf. Funk 1967: 264; Hock 1988: 142; Stowers 1986: 58; though contrast Diog. Ep. 17 to Antalcides). If Jesus did offer this saying in anticipation of his resurrection, he communicated a point to his disciples the full impact of which they were unprepared to grasp.
30. Although Judaism in general accepted God’s omnipresence (Sib. Or. 3.701; sometimes qualified in practice — Mek. Pisha 1), the title especially appears in later rabbinic tradition, e.g., 3 Enoch 18:24; m. ʾAbot 2:9, 13; 3:14; t. Peʾa 1:4; 3:8; Shab. 7:22, 25; 13:5; Rosh Hash. 1:18; Taʿan. 2:13; B. Qam. 7:7; Sanh. 1:2; 13:1, 6; 14:3, 10; Sifre Num. 11.2.3; 11.3.1; 42/½; 42.2.3; 76.2.2; 78.1.1; 78.5.1; 80.1.1; 82.3.1; 84.1.1; 84.5.1; 85.3.1; 85.4.1; 85.5.1; Sifra V. D. Den. pq. 2.2.4.2; 4.6.4.1; Sifra Sav Mekhilta deMiluim par. 98.7.7; Shemini Mekhilta deMiluim 99.1.4, 5, 7; 99.2.2, 3; 99.3.9, 11; 99.5.13; Sifra Qed. par. 1.195.2.3; pq. 7.204.1.4; Sifra Emor pq. 9.227.1.5; Behuq. pq. 5.266.1.1; Sifre Deut. 1.8.3; 1.9.2; 1.10.4; 2.1.1; 11.1.1; 21.1.1; 24.3.1; 26.4.1; 28.1.1; 32.3.2; 32.5.8; 33.1.1; 37.1.1, 3; 38.1.1, 3; see Keener 1991a: 150n.27 for fuller documentation. Among Greeks, cf. Diog. Laert. 6.2.38.
31. One may exclude this saying from the words of the historical Jesus (e.g., Flusser 1988: 515) only if one a priori assumes that wisdom Christology (here, Shekinah Christology) originated among Jesus’ followers after his departure — by excluding a number of Jesus’ sayings (e.g., 23:34; 24:36) in favor of this hypothesis. (For the thesis that wisdom Christology originated with Jesus, see Witherington 1994; while the thesis does not match traditional modern theories of Christology’s evolution, I believe that it best addresses the evidence of the texts.)
32. Bultmann (1968: 141) thinks that Luke 17:3-4 may preserve the earlier setting; whether Matthew expanded or Luke abbreviated (cf. Lk 16:17-18//Mt 5:18, 32), however, both follow the same original sequence (Mt 18:15, 22).
33. 22:1-14 and 25:14-30 have distant Lukan parallels, the distance of which may suggest a pre-Q oral tradition behind both Matthew and Luke in these cases, or separate parables (possibly somewhat conflated in the tradition) attesting a different kind of parable than those that appealed to compilers like Mark or Q.
34. Tos. Ber. 6:18; B. Qam. 7:2, 4; Sanh. 8:9; Suk. 2:6; Mek. Beshallah 6.8-9; Shirata 2.131ff; 3.30, 65; 4.54ff; Amalek 2.22-23; Bahodesh 5.2-3, 82-83; 6.114ff; 8.72ff; Sifra Shemini Mekhilta deMiluim 99.2.2, 5; Behuq. pq. 2.262.1.9; pq. 3.263.1.5; Sifre Num. 84.1.1; 84.2.1; 86.1.1; Sifre Deut. 3.1.1; 8.1.2; 11.1.2; 26.3.1; 27.6.1; 28.1.1; 29.4.1; 36.4.1; 40.6.1; 43.8.1; 43.16.1; 45.1.2; 48.1.3; 53.1.3; 306.4.1; 306.7.1; 312.1.1; 313.1.1; 343.1.2; 343.5.2; 349.1.1; 352.7.1, 4; 355.17.9; 357.18.2; ARN 2; 16; 19; 24; 25A; 2, §10; 8, §24B; 34, §77; b. Ber. 33b; Hag. 16a; Pes. 56a; Sanh. 91a; p. Rosh Hash. 1:3, §§32-34; Taʿan. 2:1, §11; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:1-3; 2:7-8; 3:9; 4:2, 8; 5:11, 13; 6:3; 9:5; 11:6; 12:11, 19; 13:11; 14:5; 15:3-4; 16:9; 19:2, 4-5; 21:3; 24:11; 25:4; 26:9; 28:7, 9; Sup. 5:3; 7:3; Gen. Rab. 12:1, 15-16; 28:6; 47:4; 52:5; 56:11; 57:4; 61:6; 62:2; 67:12; Ex. Rab. 2:2; 3:4; 15:9-10, 30-31; 18:10; 19:7; 20:1, 14; 21:8; 29:3-4; 30:9, 20; 43:1, 6; 44:4; 48:3; 52:5; Lev. Rab. 1:13, 14; 2:5; 5:3; 6:5; 10:3; 18:1; 27:10; 31:4, 10; 32:2; Num. Rab. 2:15; 4:1, 20; 8:2; 12:4; 13:2; 15:3; 16:7, 21; 18:9; 19:17; Deut. Rab. 3:3, 7, 10; 4:5; 7:4, 9; 10:4; Ruth Rab. Proem 7; Ruth Rab. 8:1; Lam. Rab. 1:17, §52; 2:1, §3; 3:1, §1; 3:20, §7; Koh. Rab. 1:1, §1; 2:12, §1; 5:10, §2; 5:11, §1; 12:13, §1; Song Rab. 1:9, §5; 3:6, §3; 3:10, §2; 4:12, §1; 5:1, §1; 5:16, §§3, 6; 6:2, §6; 6:11, §1; 6:12, §1; 7:2; 7:14, §1; 8:9, §2; 8:11, §2; Pesiq. R. 8:2; 15.preamble; 15:17, 18; 20:2; 21:9, 15; 29/30:2; 29/30A:9; 31:3; 39:2; 52:6; cf. Test. Abr. 2A; Apoc. Ezek. 1. For one study of five king parables in Mekilta, see Plank 1979. Although most surviving parables are rabbinic, the image of God as king is much wider, e.g., Jdt 9:12; Tob 13:6; 1 Enoch 25:3, 5; 91:13; Sib. Or. 1.73; 3.11, 56, 499, 704; Philo Prob. 20; cf. perhaps PGM 1.164. In other cultures, cf., e.g., Epict. Diss. 1.6.40; Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus in Stob. Eclogae 1.1.12; Mbiti 1970: 58-59. Stories often opened with kings (Apul. Metam. 4.28).
35. That one does not find many examples in Jesus’ teaching should not surprise us given his era and his audience. Johnston 1977b: 583 finds the king (nearly always representing God) in over half the Tannaitic parables, noting that this stereotypical feature was often added in the course of developing tradition. Stern 1991: 19-21 gives examples of this transformation, especially from Tannaitic to Amoraic sources: Mek. Beshallah 2 and Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11:3; Mek. Beshallah 4 and Ex. Rab. 21:8; Mek. Bah. 6 and b. ʿAbod. Zar. 54b; Sifre Deut. 356 and 19; b. Sukk. 29a and t. Sukk. 2:6; ARN 1A and 1B. Rabbis also used householders (as Jesus did), albeit less often (e.g., Sifra Behuq. pq. 3.263.1.8), and in view of biblical precedents it is difficult to doubt that Jesus would have viewed God as a king (e.g., 5:35).
36. One very late rabbinic parable even focuses on God’s forgiving human debts to him (Ex. Rab. 31:1; Marmorstein 1968b: 63-64). An earlier parable compares sins that squander the merits of one’s righteous ancestors to borrowing more and more from a king (Sifre Deut. 349.1.1). Kings were also naturally angry if managers lost any of their money (Ex. Rab. 43:6).
37. Derrett 1970: 37; Scott 1989: 270; cf. CPJ 1:16-19; Avi-Yonah 1978: 194; Koester 1982: 1:53.
38. Even in the Roman period papyri speak of peasants with overwhelming tax indebtedness becoming fugitives; see Lewis 1983: 164-65; Avi-Yonah 1978: 216; MacMullen 1974: 51-52; Grant 1992: 90.
39. Davies and Allison 1991: 797-98 think that the figure is Matthean redaction to emphasize God’s bountifulness; this is possible (cf. 25:15 with Lk 19:13 if they represent the same parable), but such a hyperbolic image would also not be inconsistent with Jesus’ own style (e.g., 19:24).
40. Cf. Jeremias 1972: 180, 211; Derrett 1970: 38; Via 1967: 138-39. More than in cases of debt (for debt slavery, see, e.g., Varro 7.5.105), conquests often led to the slaughter of male adults and enslavement of women and children (e.g., Dion. Hal. 10.26.3; Paus. 3.23.4; Jos. Apion 1.76). Pagan tax collectors in the Roman period still oppressed families of tax fugitives (see Lewis 1983: 161); thus, hearers of Jesus’ parable may have thought the king’s servant was getting his just due. Cf. debt imprisonment and slavery in the Ptolemaic period (Llewelyn 1994: 218-24; thus Diod. Sic. 1.79.3 may present too idealistic a portrait); cf. Corn Nep. 5 (Cimon), 1.1. Romans no longer imprisoned Romans for it (Livy 8.28.1).
41. “I will repay” was a standard I.O.U. in ancient business documents (Deissmann 1978: 331). Compare with this parable the public gratitude (and economy recovery) when imperial benefactors released the debts of peasants or other economically ravaged people unable to pay (Grant 1992: 88-89; Bowersock 1965: 85). Such a royal release of a city’s debt serves as an early third-century parable of God’s forgiveness of Israel on Rosh ha-Shanah (Pesiq. R. 51:8); cf. a possibly earlier comparison in Derrett 1970: 46; on ancient bankruptcy, see Derrett 1991.
42. Manson 1979: 213 and Jeremias 1972: 211-12 cite m. B. Bat. 10:8. Lachs 1987: 273 acknowledges this practice but contends that it was especially Roman, because Roman law permitted the creditor to bring the debtor before an official by force (citing also Plautus Poen. 3.5.45).
43. The patron-client model was well established in Roman antiquity (e.g., CIL 6.1492; Hor. Sat. 1.1.9-10; Epodes 1.7; Rhet. ad Heren. 3.3.4; Juv. Sat. 3.122-25; 4.15-18; Mart. Epig. 1.112; 2.30.1-5; 2.68; 10.34; Sen. Benef. passim; cf. also Friedländer 1965: 1:195-202; Carcopino 1940: 171-73; Crossan 1991a: 59-65), and already applied to imperial benefactions (Lewis 1983: 196-97, citing Virg. Aen. 6.851-53). Jewish texts reveal intimate acquaintance with the patron model (e.g., CIJ 1:340-41, §462; CPJ 2:20-22, §148; Katzoff 1986), which obtained even in the countryside (Macmullen 1974: 47). Benefaction was important in the east (Marc. Aur. Med. 1.15.3; Danker 1982; Bowersock 1982: 171; for figurative usages, cf. Philo Spec. Leg. 4.58; Epict. Disc. 1.4.29), and the concept was familiar in Judaism (Jos. Ant. 5.30; 11.253; 15.190; 16.159; 17.109; 20.66; Test. Job 16:6/3; 44:3). Officials (Char. Chaer. 4.5.8), rulers (OGIS 666; IGRR 1.1110 in Sherk 1988: 104; Jos. Apion 2.57), and deities (Plut. Isis 12, Mor. 355E; Kee 1983: 125-28; Otto 1965: 113; Koester 1982: 1:176) could be benefactors; in the east people associated royal benefaction with divinity (Philo Leg. Gai. 148) and being a “savior” (SB 3924 in Sherk 1988: 61; Jos. War 1.530; 7.71; Life 244). Jewish texts apply this title to some of the Ptolemaic rulers (Sir prol.; Ep. Arist. 205; Jos. Apion 2.48), probably relevant for our parable, as is the fact that Jewish people recognized God as the ultimate benefactor (Wis 3:5; 7:22; 11:13; 2 Macc 6:13; 10:38; Ep. Arist. 190, 210, 281; Philo Cong. 97; Som. 1.163; Decal. 41; Spec. Leg. 1.209; 4.187; Praem. 122; cf. Epict. Disc. 1.6.42; 2.14.13).
44. Scott 1989: 280 thinks that the audience’s natural identification with the fellow servants in avenging injustice implicates them, too, in the “systematic evil” of unforgiveness. This reading may fit modern social understanding of guilt, but it is foreign to the text’s worldview; the other servants are merely foils to the main action, and the judgment of the unforgiving servant is a just decree analogous to God’s justice. The parable is set up to invite condemnation of the wicked servant and those who find themselves in him, which supports the parable’s moral summarized in 18:35.
45. Lachs 1987: 273 cites rabbinic parallels for the expression “you wicked servant.”
46. For eternal torture by evil angels, cf. 2 Enoch 10:3J, although it is unclear whether the tradition would have been contemporary with the disciples to help them envision Jesus’ words in this manner (Rec. A does not specify the angels).