Bible Commentary

Matthew 18:34

The Pulpit Commentary on Matthew 18:34

The Pulpit Commentary · Joseph S. Exell and contributors · Public domain

Was wroth. This, as we said above, is the prerogative of God. Man is pained and grieved at sin; God is angry. Tormentors; βασανισταῖς: tortoribus. These are not the gaolers, prison keepers, but persons who put prisoners to the torture.

Neither Jewish nor Roman law at that time recognized any such officials; neither were those in confinement treated thus in either community. The idea is taken from the practice of Oriental despotism, which might thus punish an offence considered supremely detestable.

In a mystical sense these are the ministers of Divine vengeance who carry out the behests of the King. Till he should pay; until he should have paid ( ἑ ìως οὗ ἀποδῷ). Some editors omit or bracket οὗ, but the sense is the same with or without the relative.

The debt never could be paid, so practically the punishment would last forever. Commentators, mediaeval and modern, see here an argument for the eternity of future punishment; others see in the clause an intimation that sin may be forgiven in the other world, though not repented of or pardoned in this present life.

The words give no support to the latter interpretation. Until, etc., does not necessarily signify that the condition specified is certain to be fulfilled. As Bengel says, on , "Non sequitur ergo post."

And in the present case there could be no possibility of payment. A criminal delivered to the tormentors would have no opportunity or means of raising the necessary funds. If this is a picture of the final judgment, it is parallel to our Lord's statement in , "Thou shalt by no means come out thence till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing;" for, as the Preacher says, "There is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave whither thou goest" ().

All that was due [unto him] ( πᾶν το Ì ὀφειλο ìμενον αὐτῷ). Modern editors reject αὐτῷ: Vulgate, universum debitum. This is more general than "all that debt" in . It is usually taken to refer to the old debt now redemanded.

But a difficulty has been found in the fact that this old debt had been freely forgiven and utterly done away, and therefore could not, in equity, be again exacted. Hence some commentators have explained the clause as referring not at all to the former debt, but to a new debt incurred by a new offence, viz.

ingratitude and unmercifulness. But the spiritual truth seems to be that, although sins once absolutely forgiven are not again imputed, they make subsequent sins more heinous, as in a human law court previous conviction increases the penalty of a fresh transgression.

Falling from grace, a man passes into enmity with God, and so far cancels his pardon, and is in a state of condemnation (see , ).

Recommended reading

More for Matthew 18:34

Continue with other commentaries and DiscipleDeck content connected to this verse, chapter, or topic.

Other commentaries

The Pulpit Commentary on Matthew 18:1-35Matthew 18:1-35 · The Pulpit CommentaryDiscourse concerning the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, and the mutual duties of Christians. (Mark 9:33-50; Luke 9:46-50.)Matthew Henry on Matthew 18:21-35Matthew 18:21-35 · Matthew Henry Concise CommentaryThough we live wholly on mercy and forgiveness, we are backward to forgive the offences of our brethren. This parable shows how much provocation God has from his family on earth, and how untoward his servants are. There…Christian Worshippers Encouraged; The Cruel CreditorMatthew 18:21-35 · Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole BibleCHRISTIAN WORSHIPPERS ENCOURAGED; THE CRUEL CREDITOR. This part of the discourse concerning offences is certainly to be understood of personal wrongs, which is in our power to forgive. Now observe, I. Peter's question c…The Pulpit Commentary on Matthew 18:21-35Matthew 18:21-35 · The Pulpit CommentaryThe unmerciful servant. The form of Peter's question shows that he still considered that to forgive was not the law of the kingdom, but a tentative measure which might at any moment be revoked, that underneath the forgi…The Pulpit Commentary on Matthew 18:21-35Matthew 18:21-35 · The Pulpit CommentaryThe limits of mercy. Peter's question here was suggested by his Lord's doctrine concerning Christian judgment (Matthew 18:15-20). "Then came Peter," etc. The form of Peter's question may have been suggested by the custo…The Pulpit Commentary on Matthew 18:21-35Matthew 18:21-35 · The Pulpit CommentaryThe pardon of injuries, and the parable of the unmerciful servant.
commentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Matthew 18:1-35Discourse concerning the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, and the mutual duties of Christians. (Mark 9:33-50; Luke 9:46-50.)Joseph S. Exell and contributorscommentaryMatthew Henry on Matthew 18:21-35Though we live wholly on mercy and forgiveness, we are backward to forgive the offences of our brethren. This parable shows how much provocation God has from his family on earth, and how untoward his servants are. There…Matthew HenrycommentaryChristian Worshippers Encouraged; The Cruel CreditorCHRISTIAN WORSHIPPERS ENCOURAGED; THE CRUEL CREDITOR. This part of the discourse concerning offences is certainly to be understood of personal wrongs, which is in our power to forgive. Now observe, I. Peter's question c…Matthew HenrycommentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Matthew 18:21-35The pardon of injuries, and the parable of the unmerciful servant.Joseph S. Exell and contributorscommentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Matthew 18:21-35The limits of mercy. Peter's question here was suggested by his Lord's doctrine concerning Christian judgment (Matthew 18:15-20). "Then came Peter," etc. The form of Peter's question may have been suggested by the custo…Joseph S. Exell and contributorscommentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Matthew 18:21-35The law of forgiveness. I. THE CONVERSATION WITH ST. PETER. 1. Peter's question. The Lord had intimated the duty of gentleness in dealing with offences. Every effort was to be used to reconcile the offending brother; he…Joseph S. Exell and contributorscommentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Matthew 18:21-35The unmerciful servant. The form of Peter's question shows that he still considered that to forgive was not the law of the kingdom, but a tentative measure which might at any moment be revoked, that underneath the forgi…Joseph S. Exell and contributorscommentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Matthew 18:23-35The hard debtor. This parable follows our Lord's answer to St. Peter's question about the limits of forgiveness. The great reason why we should forgive freely is that we have been freely forgiven much more than any men…Joseph S. Exell and contributors