article30

§25 Parables of Judgment (Matt. 25:1–46)

Chapter 24 closed with a parable warning what will happen to servants who are unfaithful while the master is away. The same general theme continues throughout chapter 25. Like the foolish young women of verses 1–13, they will be excluded from the marriage feast; like the worthless servant who buries his talent, they will be thrown outside into the darkness (vv. 14–30); and like the “goats” who do not respond to the needy, they will suffer the fate of the devil and his angels (vv. 31–46). The clear-cut distinction between the two groups reminds us of the parable with which Jesus closed his Sermon on the Mount (7:24–27, the wise man who built on rock and the foolish man who built on sand). Both the first and the last of the five discourses in Matthew end with the same emphasis.

25:1–5 / Many writers find a number of allegorical features in this parable and judge, therefore, that if it had its origin with Jesus it has under gone considerable modification. But if one’s concept of parable allows it to illustrate more than one truth, the problem of allegorization is no longer so threatening. The very nature of proverb and parable indicates that they allow (perhaps encourage) multiple application. A parable whose immediate application could have been a judgment against the scribes and Pharisees (like the foolish maidens who were unprepared for the coming of Christ, the bridegroom) could also serve in a predictive way as a warning to the later church that the second coming of Christ should find them prepared. The question of whether the marriage customs reflected in the parable are consistent with first-century Palestinian practice cannot be proven or disproven from extrabiblical sources (although Jeremias is certain that they reflect the realities of life at that time, Parables, pp. 172–75).

Jesus compares the kingdom of heaven to what happened to ten bridesmaids who were waiting for the bridegroom to appear and take his bride in procession to the wedding banquet. In ancient Palestine a marriage normally had three stages: engagement, betrothal (which was legal and binding), and the marriage itself. The setting of the parable is that of bridesmaids waiting at the bride’s house ready to light torches for the procession back to the groom’s house, where the ceremony will take place. The five who are called foolish took their torches (lampas here is probably a torch rather than a lamp or lantern) but no extra oil. The wise took containers for the additional oil that would be needed for the procession and the dancing that would follow. That there were five foolish and five wise does not mean that half the world will find salvation. The numbers simply provide two categories. Wisdom consists in being prepared: foolishness is the lack of preparation for unexpected circumstances that may arise. Because the groom was a long time in coming, the bridesmaids grew drowsy and fell asleep.

25:6–13 / At midnight a cry rang out announcing the imminent arrival of the groom. The ten girls awoke and trimmed their lamps (kosmeō means “to put in order” and could refer to the preparation of torches as well as the trimming of a wick). The foolish were short on oil. Not only did they fail to bring additional oil, but their torches, when lit, burned with a low flame (they were going out, v. 8). When asked by the foolish for more oil, the wise refused, on grounds that there would not be enough for all. The decision was not selfish but based on common sense (if all the torches went out, the procession would be a disaster). The foolish girls went to the store to purchase oil (on a festive night in a rural village, everyone would be up and about for such a celebration, Schweizer, p. 467), but while they were away the groom came and led the entourage off to the banquet hall. Central to the parable is the point that, once the wedding party was inside, the door was shut (v. 10).

When the foolish five returned and found the door closed, they pleaded to be admitted. The bridegroom’s answer was I tell you the truth, I don’t know you. This phrase is said to be a formula used by rabbis to prevent certain disciples from approaching (Green, p. 205). The failure of the foolish to prepare for the bridegroom’s arrival led to their total exclusion from the marriage festivities.

The conclusion that Jesus draws is, Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour. In context, keep watch means to be thoroughly prepared and ready for the Parousia. The remaining verses in the chapter suggest that readiness involves using the opportunities provided and responding to the needs of the disadvantaged. Though the parable primarily teaches the necessity of being ready for the return of Christ, it also contains a number of related truths of practical importance: religious merit cannot be transferred (v. 9); the door to eternal life, once shut, will not be reopened (vv. 10–11); the end will arrive unexpectedly (v. 13). As with every good parable, the message is applicable in any number of related circumstances.

25:14–18 / Jesus provides another parable to emphasize the importance of using the interval before his return in a wise manner. Just before a man was to leave on a trip, he called his servants together and placed them in charge of his money. To one he gave five talents of money (over five thousand dollars, cf. NIV text note), to another two talents, and to the third one talent. The three servants received different amounts based upon the particular ability of each. This parable has led to the use of the word talent in English in the sense of a natural or supernatural gift.

The servant entrusted with five talents doubled the amount by wise investment. So also did the servant who received two talents. The third servant, however, dug a hole and buried his master’s money (not at all an uncommon way of protecting valuables in the ancient world). Schweizer reports that, according to rabbinic law, burying property was conceived of as the safest possible course of action (p. 471) and therefore would absolve the servant from any liability.

25:19–30 / After an extended period of time, the master returns to settle accounts. The first servant reports his earnings and is commended as a good and faithful servant (v. 21). As a reward for managing faithfully a small amount, he will be “put in charge of something big” (NEB). In addition he is invited to come and share his master’s happiness. The second servant (who has done equally well with the two talents) receives the same commendation and reward as the first. But it is another story with the servant who failed to invest his allocation of money. He attempts to defend himself by impugning the character of the master. “You’re a ‘tight-fisted’ man” (v. 24, Norlie) who insists on a return even where you haven’t invested, so I did the only reasonable thing and kept what you gave me in a safe place.

The master, however, doesn’t let him get away with the attempt to make laziness a virtue. You are a wicked, lazy servant. Verse 26b is a question: So you knew that I reap where I haven’t sown, did you? Then you should have deposited my money in the bank so I could have collected not only the principal but the interest as well. The master orders the talent to be taken from the lazy servant and given to the one with the most. Verse 29 states the general principle that those who have, receive more, and those who do not, forfeit what little they do have. In context it means that faithfulness is rewarded by expanded opportunities, whereas the lack of fidelity leads to impoverishment. The law of spiritual atrophy is that when gifts are not exercised they are withdrawn. The “good-for-nothing slave” (Goodspeed) is flung out into the darkness (described in v. 41 as “eternal fire”), where he can “weep and wail over his stupidity” (Phillips). The warning is appropriate for Christians who rest upon their religious profession without any apparent desire to live out its implications. The point of the parable is crystal clear. The servants of Christ, as they await his Parousia, have been entrusted with the responsibility of utilizing the gifts they have been given by the Master. To fail in this critical obligation is to be excluded from the kingdom when Christ returns.

25:31–46 / Shortly after the transfiguration, Jesus prophesied that, when the Son of Man returns in the glory of his Father and accompanied by angels, he will “repay every man for what he has done” (Matt. 16:27). Matthew closes Jesus’ fifth major discourse with a description of this apocalyptic event as a separation of sheep and goats (v. 33) on the basis of their response to the needs of these brothers of mine (v. 40). Final judgment allows no shades of gray. Each person will either enter into eternal life or be sent away into eternal punishment (v. 46).

The Son of Man is pictured as a King seated on his throne in heavenly glory and surrounded by an angelic court. Before him are gathered all the nations of the world. As a shepherd, who in the evening separates the sheep (who like the open air) from the goats (who need the warmth of shelter), the king will put the sheep on his right and the goats on is left (cf. Ezek. 34:17, 20, 22). The masculine autous (“them”) in 32b following the neuter ethnē (nations) in 32a indicates that the separation will be between individual people rather than between nations. The scene does not depict a trial but the passing of a sentence on those whose judgment has already taken place. The righteous are invited to take possession of the kingdom ready for them since the creation of the world (v. 34). Their blessedness stems from their response to the needs of the deprived (the hungry, thirsty, homeless, poor, sick, and imprisoned). The righteous are unaware that in ministering to the dispossessed they have been ministering to the King.

Scholars are divided on exactly who is intended by the phrase these brothers of mine (v. 40). If they represent anyone in need, then the section seems to teach that future judgment rests on broad humanitarian principles. On the other hand, if the reference is to the disciples of Jesus (cf. 12:49; 28:10)—and by extension all who follow Christ (note 12:50)—the application is narrowed to the treatment afforded those who minister in his name. Green writes that the contrast is between “heathen who serve Christ without knowing him and Christians who know him without serving him, in the persons of their suffering fellow Christians” (pp. 206–7). Although the New Testament clearly teaches that deeds of kindness in and of themselves do not secure salvation, it also teaches that when faith is real it must of necessity express itself in a life of concern for others. The warning is directed against goats, who, as they mingle daily with sheep, might be led to think that they can get by as sheep.

Those who have been placed on Jesus’ left are cursed (v. 41). They are sent from the presence of the King to the eternal fire that was prepared for the devil and his angels (cf. Rev. 19:20; 20:10, 14, 15; 21:8). Unlike the righteous, they did not minister to Christ when he was hungry, thirsty, homeless, poor, sick, and in prison. In a tone of “injured innocence” (Tasker), they asked when it was that they saw him in such straits and would not help. The answer is that when they refused help to the least important of Christ’s followers they refused help to Christ. Their judgment rests not on acts of wickedness but on their failure to respond compassionately when faced with human despair. Their destiny is eternal punishment, whereas that of the upright is eternal life. Although aiōnios (eternal) is primarily a qualitative word, its temporal aspect should not be overlooked. Verse 46 offers little support for those who would like to think of eternal life as endless and eternal punishment as restricted in some way. That the adjective modifies both nouns in the same context indicates that we understand it in the same way.