18:21–35 Peter understands the teaching of verses 15–20 well enough, but he has a problem. Peter inquires concerning a hypothetical situation in which a brother sins and repents, Peter forgives, and then the brother takes advantage of his mercy. What if someone sins against him again and again? “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” (v. 21). Peter probably thinks he is being generous. Judaism stressed forgiveness, but rabbis sometimes limited such forgiveness to three cases of premeditated sin, since the repentance might be insincere.292

Jesus answers, “not . . . seven times, but seventy-seven times” (v. 22). Many translations read “seventy times seven” (KJV, NASB, RSV), but in this case the difference between seventy-seven and four hundred ninety is pointless. One can count to seven, waiting for the obligation to forgive to expire, planning vengeance all the while. But if the number of offenses reaches dozens or hundreds, forgiveness either becomes a way of life or the offended party explodes or withdraws. Peter and Jesus both know it is hard to forgive. Peter wants to limit forgiveness. Jesus wants to motivate his disciples to continue in it, and so he tells a parable about an unforgiving servant.

The story is straightforward if we recognize differences between Jewish and Western cultures. The parable describes a king “who wished to settle accounts with his servants” (v. 23). The reckoning begins with one who “owed him ten thousand talents” (v. 24). This is a vast sum. In the NT era, a talent was a unit of weight, about 75 pounds (34 kg) for valuable metals, chiefly silver. Thus 10,000 talents represents 750,000 pounds (340,000 kg) of silver. More telling, one talent equaled 6,000 denarii. A denarius was a respectable day’s wage, not a subsistence wage. One talent represented twenty years’ wages for a capable laborer. Mathematically, 10,000 talents equals the wages earned in 200,000 years or 60,000,000 days. Had he been speaking today, Jesus might have said the servant owed the king ten billion dollars. In that world, repayment is impossible, but punishment is not. The king orders that the debtor, his family, and his possessions be sold to recover part of the loss (v. 25).

The sale implies that the man is a slave. Slavery in the Roman Empire differed from slavery in Europe and the Americas in the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries. It was neither race based nor necessarily lifelong. Slaves often worked beside free men and received the same wages. They could own property and hold responsible positions. A few sold themselves into slavery to gain security, an education, or a responsible position, such as city treasurer. A royal treasurer could be a slave and accrue a vast debt.293 Josephus recorded the total annual tax yield of Palestine (Judea, Samaria, and Galilee) as 8,000 talents (Antiquities 12.175). Today the parallel would be a treasurer who embezzled billions from a national government.

Absurdly, the servant begs the master for patience: “Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything” (v. 26). The king far surpasses the steward’s request. Moved by sympathy,294 the king calls the debt a bad loan and cancels it: he “released him and forgave him the debt” (v. 27). In one stroke, the problem disappears.

Almost at once, the servant “found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii.” He begins to choke him, saying, “Pay what you owe” (v. 28). Two comments are necessary. First, “find” (Gk. heuriskō) can mean either to locate “through purposeful search” or to “come upon” something accidentally (BDAG). Neither definition is exculpatory. If the servant sought the debtor, he is vicious; if he happened upon him, he is merciless by reflex. Second, given that a denarius is a good day’s wage, one hundred denarii is a substantial debt—the wages earned in roughly four months. But the king has just forgiven the man a vastly larger debt—600,000 times more.

The second servant, still in a chokehold, “fell down and pleaded with him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you’” (v. 29). This appeal is nearly identical to the first man’s cry for mercy before the king: “Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything” (v. 26). The similarity is obvious to everyone but the steward. He tosses his fellow servant into debtors’ prison “until he should pay the debt” (v. 30). Other servants witness this and report it to the king, who summons his steward a second time and says, “You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?” (vv. 32–33). The word order in Greek reads, “Wicked slave, all that debt I forgave you.” The forward location of “all that debt” emphasizes that debt. Because the first servant was forgiven so much, he ought to forgive much (cf. Luke 7:40–47). In anger, the master delivers the man to the jailers “until he should pay all his debt” (Matt. 18:34). That is impossible, so the man faces life in prison.

Given that Jesus reveals that the king represents God (v. 35), the parable implies that God has an emotional life. Theologians hesitate to affirm this, since emotions, which are variable, seem to conflict with God’s changelessness. Lay readers blanch, since human emotions tend to derail. But if we define emotions correctly, we can affirm that God has an emotional life. Robert Roberts calls emotions “concern-based construals.”295 That is, emotions follow the way events affect our deep concerns. Kevin Vanhoozer argues that God has covenantal, concern-based construals.296 Covenantal means God’s emotions are faithful, stable, and grounded in his concern for creation and humanity. His feelings neither shift nor vary (James 1:17). When he sees evil he is not angry one time, blasé the next. He is properly concerned about good and evil. He cares the right way about the right things. His emotions are well ordered. The hardhearted idiocy of the merciless servant makes God angry, and rightly so.

Jesus leaves no doubt about the parable’s lesson: “So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart” (Matt. 18:35). This identifies the characters. The king represents God the Father, as he calls people to account for sin, extends mercy to those who ask, and requires the forgiven to forgive. The first debtor is “you,” Peter and every disciple who likes to receive mercy but not to give it. The vast debt represents the debt sinners owe to God. Finally, “your brother” is the disciple who owes a modest debt to a fellow disciple.

When people hear stories, they have two impulses: to identify and to evaluate. That is, we identify with someone in the story, if possible, and evaluate the characters in the story. Evaluators find the steward to be repulsive. The king graciously forgives his vast debt, but he learns nothing from it. The question of identification is harder. Readers cannot identify with the king, since he represents God. This leaves only two other characters—the steward or the servant he chokes. The parable nudges readers to identify with the choker. Like Peter and the steward, we owe God a vast debt due to sin. Like Peter and the steward, we do not grasp the implications of God’s mercy. No matter how much we are forgiven, we hesitate to forgive. Like Peter, we want limits. Like the steward, we want to be forgiven more than we want to forgive. Jesus challenges these dispositions. If God forgives “all that debt,” we must forgive lesser debts. The forgiven forgive.