The Covenant With Abraham (2)
Genesis 15 clearly teaches that God’s covenant with Abraham—and through Abraham also with the true Israel of God and with us—is a covenant of grace. Yet that same chapter also reminds us of another important aspect of the Abrahamic covenant, namely, the promise of the land (18-21).
This land promise is frequently misunderstood. Many appeal to it in support of a future restoration of national Israel to the earthly land of Canaan. We believe such an expectation is mistaken.
The covenant with Abraham itself shows this very plainly. If the covenant were fundamentally a land covenant concerning an earthly inheritance, then the promise failed with respect to Abraham himself. Yet Scripture cannot fail.
Acts 7:5 expressly states that God “gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on.” Yet the same verse also declares that God promised the land not only to Abraham’s seed, but to Abraham himself: “he promised that he would give it to him for a possession.”
This is confirmed elsewhere in Scripture. God said to Abraham, “For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it …” (Gen. 13:15), and again, “I will give unto thee … the land wherein thou art a stranger” (Gen. 17:8).
There can hardly be clearer proof that this promise, together with the other Old Testament promises connected with it, pointed beyond earthly realities to a spiritual fulfilment. The land promise was, in its deepest significance, the promise of a heavenly inheritance.
Hebrews 11:8-16 confirms this interpretation. When Abraham obeyed God and departed from Ur to enter the land of promise, he “looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (10). Isaac and Jacob likewise confessed that they were “strangers and pilgrims on the earth” (13), seeking “a better country, that is, an heavenly” (16). Indeed, if they had truly desired an earthly homeland, they might have returned to the country from which they came (15). But their hope was not earthly. Neither is ours.
Because the promise to Abraham was ultimately spiritual and heavenly, all the true children of Abraham—Jew and Gentile alike—shall inherit its fulfilment (Rom. 4:16-17; Gal. 3:29). Every promise God made to Abraham and his seed shall surely come to pass. Not one believer shall fail to obtain what was promised—not Abraham himself, not believing Israelites such as Joseph who died in Egypt before the Exodus, not those saints scattered after the captivity who never returned to Canaan, and not believing Gentiles who by faith are also Abraham’s seed.
Thus all Abraham’s children inherit with him something infinitely greater than the earthly land of Canaan with its hills, rivers and cities. They receive the heavenly inheritance spoken of in Hebrews 12:22-24, and there is no inheritance more glorious. Rev. Ron Hanko
The Interpretation of Parables (1)
“And when one of them that sat at meat with him heard these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God. Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many …” (Luke 14:15-24).
We cannot quote the entire parable here, and we urge our readers to pause for a moment, take up their Bibles and read the passage before proceeding further.
Two readers submitted questions concerning this parable. One reader simply requested an explanation of the passage itself. Another asked: “In the Lord’s parable, is the ‘master’ God the Father and the ‘servant’ the Lord Jesus Christ? Or is the ‘master’ Christ Himself, sending out His servant to compel sinners to come in? Or is the parable primarily an illustration of spiritual truth without requiring detailed figurative interpretation?”
It is best to address the last question first, because it concerns the general principles by which parables ought to be interpreted. Before turning to the meaning of the parable itself, therefore, a few remarks should be made concerning those principles.
In our judgment, the first suggestion of the reader is the correct one. “The certain man” who made the great supper represents God, while the servant sent forth refers to Christ.
The questions raised by the reader bring us naturally to the broader subject of interpreting parables. It may be helpful for our readers to preserve these principles for future Bible study, since they reflect rules of interpretation long recognized by the church.
1) The first rule is that, whenever possible, the occasion for the parable must be determined. In many cases Scripture itself provides the setting in which the parable was spoken. Here the occasion is found in Luke 14:15: “One of them that sat at meat with him heard these things, [and] said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.”
2) The second rule is that the parable must be understood in connection with its occasion. One must ask what situation or misunderstanding the parable addresses. In this case, the man who spoke these words was evidently assuming that the Jewish nation, as the natural descendants of Abraham, would surely inherit the kingdom. Christ’s answer teaches otherwise. As it were, Jesus says: “It is true that blessed are they who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God. But those whom you assume will be there shall in fact be excluded, while many whom you would never expect shall enter in.” Thus the parable points to the calling of the Gentiles and the rejection of unbelieving Israel.
3) The third rule is that the main teaching of the parable must be identified. This can only be done by viewing the parable in light of its occasion and by carefully considering the parable as a whole. One must continually ask: “What is the central truth the Lord is teaching?”
Applying this principle here, the central teaching appears to be that Israel, because of her rejection of the Messiah, would herself be rejected, while people gathered from all nations would be brought into the kingdom. The church of Christ would no longer be confined to one earthly nation, but would become a universal and catholic church gathered from Jews and Gentiles alike.
4) The fourth rule is that, after determining the main point of the parable, one must distinguish between elements that carry spiritual significance and incidental details included merely to complete the narrative. The important question is this: Which details contribute directly to the central teaching, and which do not?
Naturally there may be some minor differences of judgment here, but such differences need not obscure the principal truth being taught.
If one applies this rule to the present parable, several significant elements stand out: 1) the certain man who made the great supper; 2) the servant sent to summon the invited guests; 3) the refusal of those invited; 4) the command to bring in the poor, maimed, halt and blind; and 5) the command to go into the highways and hedges and compel others to come in.
Incidental elements would include such things as: 1) the precise time the servant was sent; 2) the particular excuses offered by those who refused; and 3) the various locations visited by the servant.
5) The fifth rule is that each significant element must be interpreted in harmony with the whole of Scripture. Applied to this parable, the certain man represents God and the servant represents Christ. It is unlikely that the servant symbolizes gospel ministers generally, since only one servant is mentioned. Nevertheless, if one preferred that interpretation, the essential teaching of the parable would remain unchanged. The feast signifies the final manifestation of the kingdom of God. Those originally invited represent the Jews, whose refusal signifies their unbelief and rejection of Christ. Those afterwards compelled to enter represent the Gentiles gathered into the kingdom.
6) The sixth and final rule is that all these elements must be brought together under the central teaching of the parable so that the one truth Christ intends to teach may stand clearly before us. It is this final step that we hope to consider next time when we examine the parable as a whole. Prof. Herman Hanko
How Can a “Dead” Heart Be “Hardened”? (3)
We have been considering questions concerning the Lord’s hardening of the sinner’s heart. We have already shown that this hardening does not contradict the doctrine of total depravity. We have also seen that hardening involves God’s removing those providential restraints by which sin is held in check, giving men over to greater wickedness and thus increasing their resistance to warning, correction and punishment.
We conclude this study by showing from Scripture that hardening is both a sovereign work of God and, at the same time, something for which the sinner himself remains fully responsible. For this we turn to the example of Pharaoh in the book of Exodus.
The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is referred to repeatedly throughout Exodus 4-14 (Ex. 4:21; 7:3, 13, 14, 22; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7, 12, 34, 35; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 8, 17). In ten of these instances the hardening is directly ascribed to God, in four it is attributed to Pharaoh himself and in the remaining passages the hardening is simply mentioned without specifying the agent.
Isaiah 6:9-10 and its New Testament quotations present the same truth. There hardening is attributed variously to God (John 12:39-40), to the preacher declaring God’s word (Isa. 6:9-10; Mark 4:12) and to the people themselves (Matt. 13:14-15; Acts 28:26-27).
What, then, does Scripture teach us through the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart?
1) God is the primary author of this hardening. It is simply incorrect to claim that Scripture emphasizes Pharaoh hardening himself more than God hardening him. God’s activity is mentioned ten times, while Pharaoh’s own activity is mentioned only four times.
2) Scripture does not teach that Pharaoh first hardened himself and that God only afterwards hardened him judicially. Hardening is not merely God’s reaction to human wickedness, but a sovereign act of His own will. God first announces His intention to harden Pharaoh’s heart in Exodus 4:21, whereas Pharaoh’s hardening of his own heart is not mentioned until Exodus 8:15.
3) These passages make clear that God’s sovereignty over the wicked cannot be reduced to a mere “permission” of sin. Romans 9:17 speaks of God’s raising up Pharaoh in order to display His power in him. Indeed, the language of hardening in Exodus indicates that God strengthened Pharaoh in his rebellion and confirmed him in his wicked course.
4) Romans 9:18 teaches plainly that this hardening took place according to God’s sovereign will and purpose. Pharaoh’s destruction was not accidental, but belonged to God’s eternal decree.
5) None of this occurred against Pharaoh’s own will. Pharaoh willingly hardened himself in the face of repeated warnings and even against the counsel of his own wise men, who confessed, “This is the finger of God!” (Ex. 8:19).
6) Finally, Scripture presents God’s sovereign hardening and Pharaoh’s own wicked activity together without contradiction. God remains absolutely sovereign, while Pharaoh remains fully guilty and accountable before Him (Rom. 9:17-18). God sovereignly accomplished His purpose through Pharaoh’s wickedness, yet in such a way that Pharaoh himself remained deserving of God’s righteous wrath and judgment. Rev. Ron Hanko
