Matthew 25

Click link to the next study in my sequential chapter study through the Gospel of Matthew. https://www.mymorningmanna.com/post/matthew-26

"Then the kingdom of heaven shall be likened to ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. Now five of them were wise, and five were foolish. Those who were foolish took their lamps and took no oil with them, but the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. But while the bridegroom was delayed, they all slumbered and slept. And at midnight a cry was heard: 'Behold, the bridegroom is coming; go out to meet him!' Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.' But the wise answered, saying, 'No, lest there should not be enough for us and you; but go rather to those who sell, and buy for yourselves.' And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding; and the door was shut. Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, 'Lord, Lord, open to us!' But he answered and said, 'Assuredly, I say to you, I do not know you.' Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming.' (1-13) "Why then did the five silly girls miss the feast? It was not that five slept and five stayed awake: v. 5 says explicitly that they all slept and all had to be awakened by the midnight shout. The problem goes back to the preparations they had made before going to sleep. We are offered no allegorical identification for the oil, and the best efforts of commentators and preachers to supply one are no more than speculation. [inserted— I am in favor of the Holy Spirit.] The preceding and following parables both indicate an ethical understanding of what it means to be ready, and this will be further underlined in vv. 31–46, but within this parable that is not spelled out…. If there is any hint here as to what was lacking it is in the bridegroom’s verdict ‘I don’t know you,’ which, as in 7:21–23, indicates a criterion deeper than merely ethical correctness. But the point is simply that readiness, whatever form it takes, is not something that can be achieved by a last-minute adjustment. It depends on long-term provision, and if that has been made, the wise disciple can sleep secure in the knowledge that everything is ready. If that is what the parable means, the addition of v. 13 seems quite inappropriate to the story on which it comments: ‘keeping awake’ is precisely what none of the ten girls did, and the sensible ones did not suffer because of their dozing. The verse looks like an editorial comment, virtually repeating 24:42, where it preceded a parable which was about staying awake. But the metaphor of keeping awake was more concerned with readiness than with disrupting the normal routine of life… , and that sense is indeed appropriate here, even though the metaphor used to express it is literally incompatible with the different imagery of the parable just concluded. “ (New International Commentary on NT by R. T. France)

In Matthew 25:14-30, Jesus tells the parable of the talents. It ends in rebuke. Then he who had received the one talent came and said, 'Lord, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed. And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the ground. Look, there you have what is yours.' But his lord answered and said to him, 'You wicked and lazy servant, you knew that I reap where I have not sown, and gather where I have not scattered seed. So you ought to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I would have received back my own with interest. Therefore take the talent from him, and give it to him who has ten talents. For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away.And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. They will not come to the wedding feast.] There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. “ (24-30) “Peterson [a traditionalist on hell], as always, thinks this signifies ‘great pain.’ However, as we have already shown, in Scripture gnashing of teeth always expresses anger. Mark summarizes the story as a lesson on vigilance but omits Matthew’s ending (Mark 13:32–36). Luke reports the parable in detail, also without Matthew’s ending, but he introduces a subplot and some new characters. Neither Mark nor Luke adds to our picture of final punishment.” (The Fire That Consumes by Edward Fudge)Next explicitly: “’When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him.’ Who are ‘all the nations’ judged in this parable? Dispensationalists who agree with The New Scofield Reference Bible identify them as individual Gentiles alive at Christ’s second coming, who are judged for their treatment of Jews during the great tribulation just ended. [3—The New Scofield Reference Bible] Most exegetes, however, agree with Jeremias and Hunter that this parable speaks of the great judgment at the end of the world [4—Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 206ff; Hunter, The Parables Then and Now, 115ff.]… ‘And He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats.’ The gathering of God’s scattered flock is a familiar feature of the messianic age. [6—Isa 40:11; Ezek 34:11–31; John 10:1–16; 11:52.] In Ezek 34:17 God promises to ‘judge . . . between rams and goats.’… And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.Then the King will say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world’ (31-34) Inherit the Kingdom— Those on the right are told to take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world’ (v. 34). Jesus’ first discourse in Matthew has some receive the kingdom (Matt 5:3), and so does his last. In the first case they are the ‘poor in spirit’; here they are those who have been so generous to the needy. We think of the similar language used about the Macedonians, whose ‘extreme poverty welled up in rich generosity’ (2 Cor 8:1–5).” (The Fire That Consumes by Edward Fudge] —‘for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me,’” (35-36) This is the fruit of faith.

“Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’ Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed,’— “The ‘cursed’ are certainly under God’s imprecation, but the word itself says nothing of what it involves.” (Edward Fudge)

“In OT days, an anathema was “a vow to devote persons, animals, or objects under such a curse to God. In some cases the priests could use objects that had fallen under the ban (Nm 18:14; Ez 44:29), but that provision did not apply to living beings. All persons or animals under the ban were sacrificed or destroyed (Lv 27:28-29). The ban was commonly used in Israel's wars against its pagan neighbors. Sometimes everything was declared anathema (Jos 6:17-19), but normally only persons and heathen images were destroyed (Dt 2:34; 3:6; 7:2, 25-26--not even the melted gold of images was to be kept). To violate the ban by preserving any part of the cursed things was to come under the ban oneself. Because Achan did not respect the ban placed upon Jericho, the terms of that curse came upon all Israel until Achan confessed and was executed (Jos 7).” (Tyndale Bible Dictionary)— ‘into the everlasting fire' “The ‘eternal fire’ mentioned in Matt 25 : 41 is described elsewhere in Matthew as a consuming fire, not a tormenting one (Matt 3 : 12; Heb 12:29).” (Does Revelation 14:11 Teach Eternal Torment? by Ralph G. Bowles printed in Rethinking Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism) ‘prepared for the devil and 'his angels.’ 37-41

“These might include human messengers with a different Gospel. God’s faithful people are associated with stars. (Daniel 12:3) John plainly says that the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches. Angel in the Old Testament is the word Malek or Messenger. “In Malachi, the priests and messengers of God’s people are referred to as angels (Mal 2:7; 3:1), an idea that also appears in the New Testament (cf. Matt 11:10) The context here suggests that the angels stand for the leaders of the churches…. ‘they represent the churches in such a way that they are practically identified with them, and are responsible for the conditions of the churches.’ (Beckwith)”(Ranko Stefanovic) ‘for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.' Then they also will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?' Then He will answer them, saying, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’” (42-45) Deeds did not match profession of faith.

“‘And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.’ (46) "It is probable that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and that it was early rendered into the Greek, from which our translation is made. But in the earlier Latin versions, which were probably made from the original Hebrew, we have — not ad supplieium odernum, which answers to the Greek eis kolasin aionion, and to our English version, "everlasting punishment; but — ad ignem aternum, "eternal fire ;" and there is good reason to suppose that this is the true rendering, as this is the phrase elsewhere used....

[Moreover:] That the same word, aionios, eternal, is predicated, in the Greek, both of the life of the righteous, and of the punishment of the wicked, and should have been rendered by the same English word in our common version; as it indeed is, in the Revised version. We make this criticism because some are inclined to regard the word 'everlasting' as having more strength and force than the word 'eternal.' But there is evidently meant to be a perfect parallel in the allotments of these two classes." (CHAPTER THIRD of THE LIFE EVERLASTING - Bible Eschatology—SECTION VI. Misinterpreted Texts; or, Texts Supposed to Teach the Doctrine of Immortality in Sin and Misery.— by J. H. Pettingell)

"In Christ, the opportunity for eternal life (lost at Eden) has been restored. When our Lord taught about His return for judgment, He said he will call all the nations to Him, and separate people from each other, the sheep from the goats. They will be separated according to their destiny. Those goats destined for permanent destruction will be separated from the sheep who are destined for permanent life. [Matt. 25:31-46.]… Jesus calls this eternal life ‘the kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world.’ [Matt. 25:34] By doing this, Jesus weaves together two biblical concepts into one fabric: the kingdom of God and the resurrection. Both concepts put together suggest that believers are destined to live forever, but unbelievers are not.”

(An Advent Christian Systematic Theology by Jefferson Vann)

“In the debate among evangelical theologians on the issue of annihiliation as against continuing punishment, the phrase ‘eternal punishment’ here in Matt 25:46 is commonly cited as a proof-text for the latter position. But this is usually on the assumption that ‘eternal’ is a synonym for ‘everlasting.’… That assumption depends more on modern English usage than on the meaning of aiōnios, which we have seen to be related to the concept of the two ages… ‘Eternal punishment’, so understood, is punishment which relates to the age to come rather than punishment which continues for ever, so that the term does not in itself favor one side or the other in the annihiliationist debate. In so far as the metaphor of fire may be pressed, however, it suggests destruction rather than punishment, especially if the imagery of the incineration of rubbish is understood to underlie the idea of hell…; the fire of Gehenna goes on burning not because the rubbish is not destroyed by it, but because more is continually added. The imagery of incineration in relation to the final destiny of the wicked also occurs more explicitly in 13:42: the weeds are destroyed, not kept burning for ever. We have noted also the use of the verb ‘destroy’ in relation to hell in 10:28. These pointers suggest that an annihilationist theology (sometimes described as ‘conditional immortality) does more justice to Matthew’s language in general, and if so the sense of ‘eternal punishment’ here will not be ‘punishment which goes on for ever’ [96— Tasker, 240, comments on the KJV translation of αἰώνιος by ‘everlasting’ here and in v. 41: ‘It would certainly be difficult to exaggerate the harmful effect of this unfortunate mistranslation.’] but ‘punishment which has eternal consequences’, the loss of eternal life through being destroyed by fire.” (The New International Commentary on the NT by R. T. France)