<p>18:34&nbsp;<i>And his lord was angry</i>- The wrath of God here stands in sharp contrast to the amazing grace He has just shown to the indebted man. His anger was not that the man had stolen such a colossal sum from him [see on<i> The tormentors</i>], not admitted it, not appreciated the depth and gravity of the theft, not repented&hellip; but rather that despite that, the man would not forgive another. The purpose of the parable in its end thrust [which is so significant in nearly all the parables] is that unforgiveness of others is the ultimate and worst sin, far worse than anything else, including lack of repentance for our own sins.</p>
<p><i>And delivered him to the jailors</i>- In the Lord&rsquo;s frank forgiveness of the heavily indebted man, there was no mention of any conditions. But when that same man refused to forgive his debtor, he was brought back into court, the debt was re-instated and he was eternally imprisoned until he paid every bit of it. The frank forgiveness of the debt, the &lsquo;release&rsquo; from it, was actually conditional on him being forgiving to others subsequently. But that condition wasn&rsquo;t mentioned.&nbsp;<br />
In the furniture of the parable, the tormentors may refer to the prison keepers. But the same word is used in Rev. 14:10; 20:10 about the tormenting in fire of the beast and his supporters at the last day. Clearly the point is that self-righteous unforgiveness of the little ones, the obviously immature and even insincere, will lead to the same condemnation as the very worst of the world. The same point was made by the Lord talking about offenders of little ones having a millstone put around their neck and cast into the sea- the very punishment of Babylon.</p>
<p>&quot;Jailers&quot; can also be rendered &quot;tormentors&quot;. Another option is that the man needed torturing- and that is the essential force of the Greek word used- because clearly his huge debt was a result of theft, and he did actually have the money stashed away somewhere. Hence the need for torturing to get him to confess where it was hidden. This would mean that his claim not to have anything at all to pay back was simply a false plea, a fake repentance. Which would be a function within the story exactly relevant to the context, which is that we should forgive others without limit, regardless of the sincerity of their repentance; and realize that so much of our own repentance is hardly that genuine either, resulting as it has done in the huge debt which we personally owe to God; a debt so great we are to perceive it as far more serious than anything anyone has done to us. If this interpretation of the torturers is valid, and it is hard to interpret it any other way really, then this throws into an even worse perspective the man&rsquo;s demand for the 100 denarii from his fellow servant. He already had considerable wealth stashed away&hellip; Remember that this unpleasant, insincerely repentant man is our representative right up to the point where he encounters his fellow servant who is in his debt. All his insincere representations about his debt, his complete failure to appreciate the extent and gravity of what he had done- these are all typical of our shallow repentances. And this serves to remind us not to refuse forgiveness to others because we consider their repentance somehow insincere. We also reflect that the King surely knew that the servant had stolen the money- it was such a huge sum. But He chose not to &lsquo;take the matter up&rsquo;; He didn&rsquo;t make that specific allegation. And this lends weight to my suggestion that the earlier language of &lsquo;taking up a matter&rsquo; with a brother who has wronged us is not a command for us to do so, but is rather a parody of Jewish and legalistic thinking.</p>
<p>There are of course those who misuse this verse to support their view of literal torture at the last day. But remember that this is a parable, and that every other entity in the parable has a fairly obvious interpretation. The torturers likewise must represent someone or something, rather than be the only element of the parable which is taken literally. That they represent something is clear, but what- is not so clear. In Matthew&rsquo;s pictures of judgment, the Angels have a major part to play in punishing the wicked (Mt. 13:41,42,49,50; 22:13). So perhaps they refer to how Angelically-ministered punishment will bring the wicked to some state of self-knowledge and confession, although tragically all too late.</p>
<p><i>Until he should pay</i>- The teaching is surely not that through the experience of torment, the man somehow could earn the 10,000 talents. Then he would finally be free and justified before God, as if through some kind of Roman Catholic purgatory. Rather I suggest the Lord is demonstrating His principle of judging people from their own mouths and according to their own words (Lk. 19:22- the context is likewise of a &ldquo;wicked servant&rdquo;). The servant had claimed to be able to &ldquo;pay all&rdquo; if given time (:29). Now, that untruth is being quoted back to him.</p>
<p><i>All that was due-</i>&nbsp;The same Greek word is used elsewhere in this chapter only with regard to how the wicked servant perceived the debt of his brother- he uses the word in saying &ldquo;Pay me what you&nbsp;<i>owe me</i>&nbsp;[&lsquo;what is&nbsp;<i>due</i>&nbsp;to me&rsquo;]&rdquo; (:28), and demanding the man &ldquo;Pay the debt&rdquo;, &lsquo;that which was due&rsquo; (:30). Again the words and attitudes of the wicked servant are being quoted back to him, and he is being treated as he treated his brother.</p>
<p>The big debtor was rejected because he wouldn't&nbsp;forgive his brother. The Lord says that He will make such a person pay all the debt. There is a connection here with an earlier parable, where He spoke of how unless a man agrees with his adversary quickly, the adversary will drag him to court and jail until he pays all that is due (Mt. 5:26). The adversary of the parable, therefore, is the Lord Himself. He is the aggressive invader marching against us with an invincible army (Lk. 14:31), with whom we must make peace by total surrender. Putting the Lord's teaching in context, He is showing Himself to be very harsh and demanding on the unforgiving believer, but very soft and almost unacceptably gracious to those who show forgiveness.</p>