Verse by Verse

36 Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and said to the disciples, “Sit here while I go and pray over there.”

37 And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and He began to be sorrowful and deeply distressed.

38 Then He said to them, “My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death. Stay here and watch with Me.”

39 He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”

40 Then He came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, “What! Could you not watch with Me one hour?

41 Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

42 Again, a second time, He went away and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done.”

43 And He came and found them asleep again, for their eyes were heavy.

44 So He left them, went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.

This account also appears in Mark 14:32-42; Luke 22:39-46 and John 18:1.

Gethsemane (v.36) = olive press — a garden east of Jerusalem near or on the slopes of the Mount of Olives

sons of Zebedee (v.37) — James and John

See Psalm 20:1 and Hebrews 5:7-8.

Asking eight of the disciples to sit down, Jesus took Peter, James and John, and they went farther into the garden. These three, who seem to form the inner circle, had been with Him on the mount of transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-9), had seen the girl raised at the house of Jairus (Matthew 9:18-25), and were apparently the three from whom Jesus could most expect sympathy and understanding in this hour. — Walvoord, page 216.

__________

deeply distressed (v.37) — Most probably it has come from one word that means “away from home.” He began to be sorrowful and away from home. It means more than that, of course; but that is the root idea, that of desolating loneliness. He began to enter into that consciousness of His absolute isolation. — Morgan, page 302.

watch (v.41) = keep watching

Christ’s prayer in the garden to have the cup pass from Him while at the same time submitting totally to the Father’s will has to be one of the most difficult to comprehend passages of Scripture. It certainly displays His total humanity while demonstrating His complete unity with the Father in deity. I don’t think it’s possible for us get to the bottom of what it means, but here are two attempts.

That a sinless Being should have any contact with sin (John 8:46); and further, should be loaded with sin (1 Peter 2:24); and, most dreadful of all, should be constituted sin (John 3:14 and 2 Corinthians 5:21), must have been unspeakable agony. Hebrews 5:7, and several of the Psalms, support the belief that the horror of being forsaken by God (Psalm 22:1) and cast into hell was so great that He could not, as a man, have endured it but for added angelic strength (Luke 22:43-44); yet was there no antagonism between His independent will and the will of the Father. — Williams, page 726.

__________

Adam’s penalty for sin was death. This included both physical and spiritual death. Men are born into the world spiritually dead and therefore are subject to physical death. If Christ was to provide salvation for sinners, He had to partake of death on their behalf (Hebrews 2:9). When He went to the cross, He vicariously bore both aspects of death for sinners. He endured spiritual death on the cross, that is, the separation of His soul from the Father. The evidence that He bore spiritual death is seen in His cry, “My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me? (Matthew 27:45). Christ also experienced physical death (Matthew 27:50; John 19:33). Thus we see that Christ died both spiritually and physically because He died as the sinners’ substitute. The penalty that God had intended for sinners fell on God’s own Son. The penalty for sin is eternal separation from God. This eternal separation is called “the second death” (Revelation 20:14). God would have been just if He had demanded that Christ, who tasted death for every man, be eternally separated from Himself. Christ prayed that God might accept His death as a full payment of the sin of sinners and bring Him out of death and restore Him to life again. Thus the prayer should be understood the be a prayer for restoration to physical life by resurrection, and a restoration to full fellowship with His Father out of the spiritual death into which He would enter. The evidence that God answered Christ’s prayer is seen, first, in the fact that Christ was raised from the dead on the third day and given a glorified body. Second, it is seen in the fact that on the fortieth day He ascended to the Father to be seated at His right hand in glory.

If it be objected that restoration to life and to fellowship or deliverance from physical and spiritual death meant that God exacted less of Christ in payment for sin than God would exact from the sinner, let it be noted that the life that Christ offered to the father was His own eternal kind of life. Therefore Christ made an eternal offering for sins even though that offering was accomplished in a few moments of time. This explanation seems to meet the demands of Hebrews 5:7, which states that His prayer was answered.

It did involve physical death, being made sin, being separated from the Father, and entering into the fullness of death, both physical and spiritual, for us. While we cannot comprehend all that was entailed, we can take note of the unquestioned and implicit obedience of the Son, who said three times to His Father, “Not what I will, but what you will” (Mark 14:36). Because of this, Paul could say He “became obedient to death — even death on a cross! — Pentecost, pages 455-456.

What we can be sure of is that Christ was not asking to be excused from the cross. That would be counter to His entire ministry. But that He was dreading His exposure to sin and His separation from the Father takes nothing away from His willingness to endure it.

30 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

31 Then Jesus said to them, “All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for it is written: ‘I will strike the Shepherd, And the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’

32 But after I have been raised, I will go before you to Galilee.”

33 Peter answered and said to Him, “Even if all are made to stumble because of You, I will never be made to stumble.”

34 Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.”

35 Peter said to Him, “Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You!” And so said all the disciples.

hymn (v.30) — probably part of the Passover celebration, the Hallel — Psalms 113–118.

The quote in verse 31 is from Zechariah 13:7 in the Septuagint

made to stumble (v.31) — from the Greek word from which we get “scandal”

go before you (v.32) = lead you forth, go at your head as a shepherd leads his sheep

He was preparing them by giving them to know before they should be offended, that He knew they would be offended. Christ was always making it easy for these men to get back presently; and when He told them the worst that was in them, and they did not believe Him; though they all personally declared they would not be offended, He did not argue; but He left something in the heart, and mind, and memory, which, returning presently, would make it easier for them. It is a great thing to be able to say within one’s own soul, Well, my friend knew and warned me, I will go back to Him. Christ was telling them the worst, but not only the worst. Mark the next words well, words flashing with light, “but after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.” — Morgan, page 301.

²⁶ And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”

²⁷ Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you.

²⁸ For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

²⁹ But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

This account is also found in Mark 14:22-25: Luke 22:17-20; John 13:12-30.

kingdom (v.29) — The Millennium

During the Passover feast the Jewish householder took bread in his hand and said, “This is the bread of affliction which our fathers ate in the land of Egypt,” meaning, of course, that the one represented the other. By His words the Lord changed the whole significance and emphasis of the feast from looking back to the typical redemption from Egypt to faith in the redemption from sin accomplished by His death.

Three cups were passed around by the Jewish householder during the Passover meal; the third, which is probably that referred to here, being known as as “the cup of blessing.” My blood of the new covenant, taken from the LXX of Exodus 24:8 with allusions to Jeremiah 31 and Zechariah 9:11. The covenant in Exodus 24:8 was sealed with blood. — KJV Bible Commentary, pages 1226-1227.

__________

Bread and wine were significant parts of the Passover meal. Bread was used throughout the Old Testament as a symbol of God’s provision for His people. Wine was used throughout the Old Testament as a symbol of the joy that would be the experience of those in Messiah’s kingdom. The lamb signified the sacrifice by which God would provide a covering for sin so as to receive men into His kingdom. These elements played a significant part in the Passover Feast. It came as no surprise to the disciples that Christ used bread in the observance of the meal and that He passed the cup from which all drank. But now Christ departed from the normal use of these elements at the Passover Feast. He gave a new significance to the bread and wine.

He wanted them, whenever and wherever they ate bread, to be reminded of His body that soon was to be given as a sacrifice on their behalf.

The emphasis in Christ’s statement was on the covenant — the covenant that necessitated the blood that was shed. By these two statements, Christ revealed that through His death He would institute the new covenant that Jeremiah had promised. The institution of the new covenant would terminate the old Mosaic covenant under which God had dealt with His people previously. Whenever and wherever these men would drink from the cup, they were to be reminded that a new covenant based on Christ’s shed blood had been instituted and they were to eat and drink in remembrance of Him. Christ would not Himself drink of the cup while He was at His Father’s right hand. However, He did promise that the time would come when He would drink of the cup with them again in His Father’s kingdom. Thus there would be two memorials to Christ in the future millennial kingdom. From Ezekiel 46:13-25 we know that Israel will offer memorial sacrifices in the millennial temple as memorials of the death of Christ. We know that church saints should periodically memorialize the death of Christ by breaking bread and drinking from the cup because the apostle Paul was told by special revelation that Christ’s church should do this (1 Corinthians 11:17-34). — Pentecost, pages 432-433.

Here’s my study from 1 Corinthians.

¹⁴ Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests

¹⁵ and said, “What are you willing to give me if I deliver Him to you?” And they counted out to him thirty pieces of silver.

¹⁶ So from that time he sought opportunity to betray Him.

¹⁷ Now on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying to Him, “Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?”

¹⁸ And He said, “Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, “My time is at hand; I will keep the Passover at your house with My disciples.”’”

¹⁹ So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover.

²⁰ When evening had come, He sat down with the twelve.

²¹ Now as they were eating, He said, “Assuredly, I say to you, one of you will betray Me.”

²² And they were exceedingly sorrowful, and each of them began to say to Him, “Lord, is it I?”

²³ He answered and said, “He who dipped his hand with Me in the dish will betray Me.

²⁴ The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”

²⁵ Then Judas, who was betraying Him, answered and said, “Rabbi, is it I?” He said to him, “You have said it.”

The account of the meal also appears in Mark 14:12-16; Luke 22:7-13; John 13:1-29.

Thirty pieces of silver (v.15) — about a month’s wages — Prophesied in Zechariah 11:12. — The price one had to pay for killing or making useless another’s slave (Exodus 21:32).

In keeping with the previous decision (Matthew 26:5), Judas sought an opportunity to betray Christ secretly so as not to start a riot. Judas’ unexpected offer changed the timetable arranged by the Sanhedrin. They had thought it necessary to plan the death of Christ after the Passover. If it had not been for Judas’ offer, the arrest of Jesus in all likelihood would have been postponed. But now that an accuser had presented himself, the Sanhedrin moved with haste.

Judas offered to do more than merely identify Him. Identification would have been unnecessary, for all the Sanhedrin were very familiar with Christ; all had seen and heard Him many times. Judas agreed to fulfill a point of Roman law, a necessary requirement if the Sanhedrin was to proceed with their plot to execute Christ. A person could not be brought to trial before a Roman court until an indictment had been officially lodged against him, charging him with a crime. This indictment had to be signed by witnesses who, by signing the indictment, agreed to appear in order to give testimony for the prosecution against the accused. Thus Judas offered himself as a witness against Christ. He agreed to go before the Roman courts when Christ was brought to trial on a yet undetermined charge. — Pentecost, page 415.

betray (v.16) — The same word in the original is translated “deliver” in vs. 15

first day of the feast (v.17) — the 14th of Nisan, beginning at sundown on the 13th

The day referred to, the 14th of the month Abib or Nisan (Exodus 12:6), was only in a loose and popular sense the first day of the festival. It was strictly the preparation day, when all arrangements had to be completed for the commencement of the festivities, immediately after sunset. As however these arrangements were, so to speak, the inception of the festivities, the day was sometimes, as here, spoken of as the first day of the festival. Hence in Josephus’ Antiquities, we read, “we keep a feast for eight days, which is called the feast of the unleavened,” while in the same Antiquities, he says, “the feast of the unleavened falls on the fifteenth day of the month, and continues seven days. — Pentecost, page 416.

__________

On Thursday morning Peter and John, according to the custom, would go to the Temple and provide for the lamb, which they must purchase and take to the priests who had to pass upon it. Early in the afternoon the lamb would be killed in the Temple court, offered at the altar, and, after the blood was poured out at the altar and a certain part of the Lamb was reserved for the sacrifice, the rest would be wrapped in the skin and taken home. Before sunset, the carcass would be roasted in barbecue fashion and made ready for the meal at the blasts of the trumpet just at sunset. The apostles must provide also for the wine, unleavened cakes, bitter herbs, and the charosheth or paste of crushed fruits moistened with vinegar — symbolic of the clay with which the Israelites made brick in Egypt. — Pentecost, page 424.

__________

The dipping of a piece of bread was a significant part of the Passover ritual. In the course of the paschal meal, the master of the feast would pick up some unleavened bread, which was a flat cake. He would put bits of lamb on the piece of bread, sprinkle some bitter herbs on it, and then roll it. Then he would dip the bread containing the meat and herbs into a bitter sauce. This bread would then be handed to a guest. The ritual would be repeated until a piece of bread had been provided for each guest.

In preparing the bread with the meat and herbs dipped in sauce, the master of the feast was reminding the participants of God’s promise to provide salvation. In receiving the piece of bread, each participant acknowledged his sin. Each also reaffirmed his faith in God’s promise that He would send a Messiah to take away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, and each professed his willingness to receive the salvation which Messiah would offer.

Since the giving of the bread was in effect an offer of salvation, Christ was offering forgiveness to Judas if he would accept the offered salvation and put his faith in Him. Judas took the bread, but there is no record that he ate it as a sign of his acceptance of the Messiah’s offer of salvation. Rather, it seems that the moment he took the bread “Satan entered into him” (John 13:27). Judas left the bread untouched and went out from the Lord’s presence. He rejected the gracious offer of salvation. — Pentecost, page 430-431.

Judas probably asked (v.25) because the other apostles asked and would have noticed his silence. He was probably seated to the immediate left of Christ.

Rabbi (v.25) — Judas, alone, didn’t call Christ “Lord.”

You have said it (v.25) — an emphatic “Yes!”

⁶ And when Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper,

⁷ a woman came to Him having an alabaster flask of very costly fragrant oil, and she poured it on His head as He sat at the table.

⁸ But when His disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste?

⁹ For this fragrant oil might have been sold for much and given to the poor.”

¹⁰ But when Jesus was aware of it, He said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a good work for Me.

¹¹ For you have the poor with you always, but Me you do not have always.

¹² For in pouring this fragrant oil on My body, she did it for My burial.

¹³ Assuredly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her.”

This account is also found in Mark 14:3-9 and John 12:1-8. John says it took place six days before Passover, so therefore, in Matthew, it is given in topical order and not chronological order.

Simon the leper (v.6) — Most commentaries think he was probably the father of Lazarus, Martha and Mary, but the Bible doesn’t say.

disciples (v.8) — apparently led by Judas (John 12:4)

good (v.10) = beautiful

It was common to anoint the heads of the Rabbis who attended marriage feasts with fragrant oil, and special guests were sometimes similarly honored. Jesus Himself, at an earlier date [Luke 7:36-50], had had even His feet anointed by a grateful penitent, who had, besides, washed them with her tears and wiped them with her hair, flowing loose, in self-forgetfulness. But now, Mary outdid all former honor paid Him. The costliest anointing oil of antiquity was the pure spikenard, drawn from an Indian plant, and exported in flasks of alabaster for sale throughout the Roman Empire, where it fetched a price that put it beyond any but the wealthy.

Of this Mary had bought a flask, containing about twelve ounces weight, and now, coming behind the guests as they reclined, opened the seal, and poured some of the perfume, first on the head and then on the feet of Jesus, drying them, presently, with the hair of her head, like her predecessor. — Pentecost, page 413.

Mary, probably because she was more content to sit and listen, understood more about the Lord’s coming death of which He repeatedly spoke than any of the other disciples. Because of the resurrection of her brother, Lazarus, she may have also understood that Jesus Christ would also rise from the dead. It was due to this understanding that she anointed the Lord (v.12).

The Lord’s words about the poor in verse 11 don’t mean that helping the poor isn’t important, but that there are things that are more important — like the salvation of rich and poor alike that would be available because of His death and resurrection.

1 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, that He said to His disciples,

2 “You know that after two days is the Passover, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified.”

3 Then the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders of the people assembled at the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas,

4 and plotted to take Jesus by trickery and kill Him.

5 But they said, “Not during the feast, lest there be an uproar among the people.”

The events of these five verses occurred on Tuesday of the last week. (Matthew 21:23-26:5 all takes place on that day.)

This (v.2) was the Lord’s fourth prediction of His death. The account also is covered in Mark 14:1 and Luke 22:1.

palace (v.3) — The courtyard of the high priest’s residence

Caiaphas (v.3) — A Sadducee, appointed about AD 18.

The rulers wanted Christ dead at anytime except during the feast (Passover and the seven-day feast of Unleavened Bread that followed), but God’s plan, which in fact took place exactly as He wanted, was for Christ to die the moment the Passover lamb was slain in the temple.

Christ’s scathing denunciation of the Pharisees (Matthew 23:1-36) stirred that group into a frenzy of activity. The hostility between Christ and the Pharisees became so open and irreversible that action could not be delayed.

While He was delivering His Olivet discourse to the disciples, the chief priests and elders of the people withdrew into a secret session in the house of the high priest. This assemblage was under the direction of Caiaphas, the one who had counseled the Jews that “it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50).

The High Priest was, in virtue of his office, President of the Sanhedrin, and at that crisis the High Priest was Joseph Caiaphas, a remarkable man and allied with a remarkable family. He was son-in-law to old Annas, who not only had held the high priesthood from AD 6 to 15 but enjoyed this unique distinction, that after his deposition by the governor Valerius Gratus, his four sons and his son-in-law held the sacred office. Such good fortune, remarks the historian, “has fallen to the lot of no other of our High Priests.” Yet it was in no wise to the credit of Annas and his family. In those days the high-priesthood was at the disposal of the Roman governors and the Herodian princes, and went commonly to the highest bidder; and the prolonged ascendancy of the house of Annas is an evidence no less of their corruption than of their astuteness. — Pentecost, pages 411-412.

³¹ “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.

³² All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats.

³³ And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.

³⁴ 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:

³⁵ 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;

³⁶ I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

³⁷ “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink?

³⁸ When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You?

³⁹ Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’

⁴⁰ 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.’

⁴¹ “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:

⁴² for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink;

⁴³ 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.’

⁴⁴ “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?’

⁴⁵ 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.’

⁴⁶ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

This judgment, at the Lord’s second coming, of Gentiles who survived the Tribulation, is not the same as the Great White Throne Judgment at the end of the Millennium when the wicked dead will be resurrected to judgment.

nations (v.32) — Gentiles

My brethren (v.40) — Israel

The reference to “these brothers” indicates that there will be a third group there in the presence of Christ. That phrase may refer to those who are Christ’s brothers after the flesh, that is, the nation of Israel; or it may refer to those chosen messengers, the 144,000 of Revelation 7, who will bear witness of Him during the Tribulation. Such ones will be under a death sentence by the beast. They will refuse to carry the beast’s mark, and so they will not be able to buy and sell. Consequently, they will have to depend on those to whom they minister for hospitality, food, and support. Only those who receive the message will jeopardize their lives by extending hospitality to the messengers. Therefore what is done for them will be an evidence of their faith in Christ, that is, what is done for them will be done for Christ. These will not be accepted because of their works, for no man is ever saved by works. But their works will demonstrate their faith in in the person of Christ that renders them acceptable to Him. — Pentecost, page 410

__________

By rejecting God’s love and mercy, by continuing in unbelief they [the goats, v. 46] sided with the devil and his angels and now there is no other remedy for them but to share for all eternity the place prepared for the devil and his angels. At the close of the thousand years the devil is put into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10). Previously the beast and the false prophet were cast into that place before the Millennium (Revelation 19:20). The order of punishment then is the following: 1.) The beast and the false prophet. 2.) The unrighteous nations. These go there before the millennial kingdom. 3.) The devil with his angels. 4.) The wicked dead from the great white throne judgment. This takes place after the thousand years. — Gaebelein, page 548.

__________

This judgment, which results in the goats being cast into everlasting fire, is in keeping with the previous prediction of Christ in the parable of the wheat and tares and the parable of the dragnet (Matthew 13:24-30, 31-43, 47-50), and is also clearly taught in Revelation 14:11 and 19:15. No adults who are not converted will be allowed to enter the millennial kingdom. The judgment here is not a final judgment, but is preparatory to establishing the kingdom of righteousness and peace, of which many Scriptures speak. — Walvoord, page 202.

Pentecost includes a helpful summary of the entire Olivet Discourse.

Christ’s announcement of judgment on Jerusalem undoubtedly was understood by the disciples in its eschatological context as a judgment preceding the second advent of Messiah to the earth. They asked when the judgment would come and what signs would be given to the nation Israel. Christ explained the signs in detail (Matthew 24:4-26), outlining the events of the first half of the Tribulation (vs.4-8) and also the events of the second half (vs.9-14). He then described the climactic sign (vs.15-26). Christ moved on to the next eschatological event, His second advent to the earth (vs.27-30), followed by the regathering of Israel (v.31). In a parenthetical statement in unfolding the eschatological events, He gave exhortations to watchfulness, preparedness, and faithfulness (vs.32-51). He then resumed the eschatological revelation, teaching that following Israel’s regathering, Israel will be judged to separate the saved from the unsaved. The saved will be received into the kingdom but the unsaved will be excluded (25:1-30). In concluding He spoke of the judgment of living Gentiles to separate the saved Gentiles from the unsaved. Again, the saved will be received into the kingdom but the unsaved will be excluded (Matthew 25:31-46). — Pentecost, pages 410-411

¹⁴ “For the kingdom of heaven is like a man traveling to a far country, who called his own servants and delivered his goods to them.

¹⁵ And to one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one, to each according to his own ability; and immediately he went on a journey.

¹⁶ Then he who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and made another five talents.

¹⁷ And likewise he who had received two gained two more also.

¹⁸ But he who had received one went and dug in the ground, and hid his lord’s money.

¹⁹ After a long time the lord of those servants came and settled accounts with them.

²⁰ “So he who had received five talents came and brought five other talents, saying, ‘Lord, you delivered to me five talents; look, I have gained five more talents besides them.’

²¹ His lord said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant; you were faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord.’

²² He also who had received two talents came and said, ‘Lord, you delivered to me two talents; look, I have gained two more talents besides them.’

²³ His lord said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord.’

²⁴ “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.

²⁵ And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the ground. Look, there you have what is yours.’

²⁶ “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.

²⁷ So you ought to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I would have received back my own with interest.

²⁸ Therefore take the talent from him, and give it to him who has ten talents.

²⁹ ‘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.

³⁰ And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

The words “the kingdom of heaven” (v.14) aren’t in the Greek. The verse should read “For it is as if a man traveling …” But it is obviously referring to the sentence immediately preceding (there are no verses in the original, so there is no break here). “… the hour in which the Son of Man cometh.” So, along with the context of the whole passage, this makes it clear that it’s still referring to the Lord’s return at the beginning of the millennial kingdom.

talent (v.15) — A talent was a large sum of money, varying greatly in value according to whether it was silver or gold, and could weigh from 58 to 80 pounds. A silver talent could be worth as much as $2,000, and a gold talent could be worth as much as $30,000. With the rise in price of these metals, today the value would be even higher. When taking into consideration that a man’s wage in Christ’s time was 16 cents a day, the purchasing power of this amount of money was very large. At maximum, the five-talent man could have received as much as $150,000, a fortune, which would be worth millions today in purchasing power. — Walvoord, pages 197-198

__________

The explanation seems to be that this wicked man had the same kind of cunning that Judas Iscariot used when he accepted the money for the betrayal of Christ. Judas had reasoned that if Jesus was indeed the Messiah, his betrayal would not matter, and he would be ahead thirty pieces of silver. If Jesus was not the Messiah, he at least would have the silver. So, the wicked one-talent man likewise reasoned: If my lord returns, I will be able to give him back his talent and cannot be accused of being a thief, but if he does not return, there will be no record that the money belongs to him, such as would be true if I deposited it in the bank, and then I will be able to use the money myself. His basic problem, like the problem of Judas, was a lack of faith.

The one-talent man did not believe that it was sure his lord was coming back. It is therefore clear that his basic problem was that of being an unbeliever, not simply being unfaithful in service. Accordingly, the conclusion of the illustration, “for unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath” (v.29), refers to everyone who has faith or who is lacking faith. — Walvoord, page 199.

__________

In the second parable (Matthew 25:14-30), Christ again taught that following His return and Israel’s regathering the nation must undergo judgment, This again will be a judgment to determine, on the one hand, who is saved and therefore to be accepted into the kingdom, and on the other hand, who is unsaved and to be barred from entering the kingdom. In this parable the Lord taught truth similar to what He had taught in Luke 19:11-27. In that parable in which there was equal distribution, Christ taught equal opportunity; here however, where there is an unequal distribution, He taught individual responsibility.

Christ in this parable revealed that the nation Israel, which had been set aside as Gods servant (Exodus 19:5-6), received a responsibility for which they were answerable. In the Old Testament Israel was designed to be God’s light to the Gentile world. The candelabra in the tabernacle was to be a perpetual reminder of Israel’s function. Because Israel was faithless to that function, Isaiah promised that another Light would come to bring light to the Gentiles (Isaiah 60:1-3). Christ came as the “true light’ (John 1:9; 8:12). God will set apart Israel again during the Tribulation to be His light to the world (Revelation 7:1-8). When Christ comes the second time, the nation will be judged to determine individual faithfulness to that appointment. Faithfulness will indicate faith in in the person of Christ. Those who prove themselves faithful will be accepted into His kingdom, but those who are faithless will be excluded from His kingdom.

Thus, in these two parables, Christ described the judgments that will come on the nation Israel following their regathering after His second coming. — Pentecost, page 408-409

1 “Then the kingdom of heaven shall be likened to ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.

2 Now five of them were wise, and five were foolish.

3 Those who were foolish took their lamps and took no oil with them,

4 but the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.

5 But while the bridegroom was delayed, they all slumbered and slept.

6 “And at midnight a cry was heard: ‘Behold, the bridegroom is coming; go out to meet him!’

7 Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps.

8 And the foolish said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’

9 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.’

10 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.

11 “Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, ‘Lord, Lord, open to us!’

12 But he answered and said, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, I do not know you.’

13 “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming.

The lamps consisted of round receptacles for pitch or oil for the wick. This was placed in a hollow cup or deep saucer, which was fastened by a pointed end into a long wooden pole, in which it was born aloft. — Gaebelein, page 529

Every one of my commentaries (except Pentecost) inexplicably and almost desperately attempts to apply this parable to the current church age even though the Lord clearly states in verse 1 that He’s referring to the kingdom of heaven, the Millennium. My guess is that most pastors and writers find that it gives them such a great opportunity to lecture their listeners and readers about being good that they just can’t bear not to use it. Of course, there is universal application here, but first and foremost, it’s important to find out what the passage actually means and to whom it is written.

Again, the Lord was talking to His disciples (Matthew 24:3), the men who will sit on twelve thrones in the kingdom (Matthew 19:28). He was in the process of explaining the coming prophetic program. In chapter 24, He took them through the Tribulation and His second coming at the end of that period. Then He began teaching them through parables the importance of being ready for the second coming and the kingdom that would immediately follow. The existence of the church hadn’t yet been revealed and the existence of a gap of time in the prophetic program hadn’t yet been revealed. In fact, the kingdom hadn’t even been offered yet! There is simply no honest, logical way to apply this directly and primarily to the church.

Pentecost is the only commentary I have that sees this. I wish he had gone into some more detail, but here’s what he has to say on this passage in its entirety.

Christ now resumed His revelation of the chronology of prophetic events for Israel. He taught that following His return (Matthew 24:30) and the regathering of the nation Israel to their land (v.31), the nation would be brought under judgment (25:1-30). Christ used two parables to teach that the regathered nation will be judged to determine who is saved and who is unsaved. The purpose of this judgment will be to exclude the unsaved from, and to receive the saved into, the kingdom that He will establish following His Second Advent. The first parable is that of the ten virgins (25:1-13). While Paul used the figure of a virgin in reference to the church (2 Corinthians 11:2), the Jewish context here shows that the church is not in view. Christ in His discourse was developing the eschatological program for the nation Israel. The parable was based on the marriage customs of our Lords’ day. Previous to the actual wedding, an invitation would be extended to those who were invited to the marriage feast. At the time for the banquet, a second invitation would be sent out announcing that the marriage feast was prepared. While the bridegroom sent for his bride so as to claim her as his own, the guests would assemble. The presentation of the bride to the bridegroom would be made in a private inner chamber. At the conclusion of the presentation ceremony, the assembled guests would eagerly await the appearance of the bridegroom with his bride. In the Lord’s parable ten virgins had been invited as guests and were awaiting the appearance of the bridegroom with his bride. The ten were divided into two groups. Jesus called one group foolish. The reason was that while they took lamps anticipating a possible delay in the appearance of the bridegroom, they did not take any extra oil so their lamps could be kept burning if there was a delay in his appearance. The wise not only took lamps but, anticipating a possible delay, took extra oil so that their lamps could be replenished and thus kept burning. The bridegroom was delayed and the ten fell asleep. And in the middle of the night, they were suddenly awakened from their sleep. It was announced that the bridegroom had returned, and now they were expected to meet him to welcome him and his bride. The lamps of the foolish virgins had gone out, and they were unprepared to meet the bridegroom. They sought oil for their lamps, but it was too late to obtain oil because the bridegroom had come.

The foolishness of the five virgins thus consisted, not (as is commonly supposed) in their want of perseverance — as if the oil had been consumed before the bridegroom came, and they had only not provided themselves with a sufficient extra-supply — but in the entire absence of personal preparation, having brought no oil of their own in their lamps.

The five who had prepared themselves for the delay could light their lamps and welcome the bridegroom because they were prepared. “The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet” (Matthew 25:10). The appearance of the bridegroom terminated the time of opportunity to prepare to meet him. After the prepared virgins were admitted to the wedding banquet “the door was shut.” When the unprepared virgins returned and sought admittance, they were rejected because they were unprepared and were not watching.

In this parable Christ taught that during the interval in which He will be absent, those who anticipate His coming should be prepared and should be watching. His return will terminate the opportunity for people to prepare themselves to enter the millennial kingdom, and only the prepared will be accepted. No unsaved (unprepared) person will be admitted into Christ’s millennial kingdom. This is made very clear in Psalm 24, which tells of pilgrims proceeding to Jerusalem for a festival. They are seen approaching the city with the hope that they might on that occasion meet Messiah and welcome Him to His kingdom. But as they proceed, some ask, “Who may ascend the hill of the Lord? Who may stand in His holy place?” (Psalm 24:3), that is, who will be accepted into Messiah’s kingdom? Others give the answer, “He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to an idol or swear by what is false” (v.4). Thus only the pure in heart shall see God (Matthew 5:8). — Pentecost, pages 407-408.

45 “Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his master made ruler over his household, to give them food in due season?

46 Blessed is that servant whom his master, when he comes, will find so doing.

47 Assuredly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all his goods.

48 But if that evil servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’

49 and begins to beat his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunkards,

50 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him and at an hour that he is not aware of,

51 and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The Greek word here translated household is only once again used [in Scripture]. In Revelation we read that “the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.” What relation can there be between healing and household? This question can only be answered by an understanding of what this word household really signifies. It is the word form which we derive our word therapeutic, and the basic idea of it is healing. The word household refers to all such in the house as serve.

That first word, “Who then is the faithful and wise servant?” is the word bond-slave; but the word household comes from another term for servant, which is other than the word bond-slave. It is a word that signifies a loving service, a purpose of healing in service. This is a case of metonymy, where one word is put for another, which the other suggests, as when we say a man keeps a good table, when we refer really to his food. This word in the parable, then, suggests the picture of a great house, and one Lord; and all of those in the house under his control, as thinking of his interests, while serving under his command.

His attitude is simply that of bringing forth meat in the due season, and feeding the rest; the attitude of caring for all the other members of the household during the Lord’s absence, for the sake of the absent lord. — Morgan, page 288.

The commentaries don’t know what to do with this passage. Some try to apply it as a general truth for every age. Others say the Lord suddenly stopped talking about the Tribulation and His second coming and started talking about the current age.

While there is obvious universal truth here about serving faithfully, it is impossible for me to believe that the Lord suddenly shifted His topic from His second coming to a separate period that hadn’t yet been revealed and that His listeners could not possibly have understood. Since the kingdom He came to offer wasn’t actually offered until after His resurrection and ascension, it makes no sense that He would be speaking as though it had already been set aside.