Introduction
There are many who interpret Scripture as referring to all persons
at all times and thus ignore dispensational teaching. The parables
in particular, are interpreted as teaching present day Christianity,
causing confusion and uncertainty by setting Scripture against
Scripture, and ignoring the precept of 2 Tim. 2: 15. A prime example
of this is the parable of the unforgiving bondman in Matt. 18:
21–35. One such expositor sums up the parable in five points: our
sins are great; God freely forgives them; the offences committed
against us by our brethren are comparatively small; we should
therefore most freely forgive them; if we do not, God will be justly
angry with us, and punish us.
All five points are
true but they do not represent the teaching of the parable, and
together are not its correct interpretation. It is like hanging the
right coat on the wrong peg!
In the parable, the
king’s forgiveness could be revoked, the punishment of the wicked
bondman was not for ever, and the household of the wicked bondman
was to suffer because of his action. If the parable teaches God’s
forgiveness of our sins, then it follows that Hell is temporal,
forgiveness provisional, and a man’s actions directly determine the
eternal destiny of his household! How different is Eph. 1: 7: “in
whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of
offences, according to the riches of his grace”. It is the blood of
Christ that secures God’s redemptive forgiveness for me, and its
measure is the riches of His grace not my forgiveness of others! The
forgiveness in the parable is that of Matt. 6: 14: “For if ye
forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father also will forgive
you [yours]”. How unlike Eph. 4: 32: “forgiving one another, so as
God also in Christ has forgiven you”! In the one, I forgive to
obtain forgiveness; in the other, I forgive because I have been
forgiven. The one is law; the other is grace. Thus the parable of
Matt. 18 is about time and not eternity; about earth and not heaven,
and about those who profess to accept heaven’s rule over the earth
in the kingdom of the heavens.
Forgiveness
Before looking at the parable in detail. it is important that we
should be clear as to forgiveness itself. Broadly speaking,
forgiveness may be governmental or eternal, provisional or absolute.
In the former case it has the limit of time; in the latter case it
is everlasting. Now the first and last time something is mentioned
in Scripture is often significant. The last time we read of
forgiveness is in 1 John 2: 12. There John says “I write to you,
children, because [your] sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake”.
Reading on (vs13–28) makes it clear that
children is John’s word
for all believers irrespective of growth. Our sins are forgiven, not
will be forgiven; not for our sakes, but “for his name’s sake”. That
is, the impelling cause is His name. Nothing can alter or weaken
this forgiveness, for His name, His renown and His glory are
involved in it. It is absolute and eternal. The cost was met and the
price was paid when Christ “bore our sins in his body on the tree”
(1 Pet. 2: 24). This was done before I was born and thus cannot be
affected by any conduct of mine—it is absolute. But until Christ
died this full forgiveness (or remittance, this being the same word
in Greek) could not be known.
The governmental
aspect of forgiveness is seen in its first occurrence in Scripture
in Gen. 18: 24. There Abraham pleads for the city of Sodom on the
ground that there might have been fifty righteous within the city.
God replies that “If I find at Sodom fifty righteous within the
city, then I will forgive all the place for their sakes” (v26). This
forgiveness is clearly provisional and temporal, and depends on
man’s conduct on the earth. The eternal destiny of those involved is
not the subject. Believer and unbeliever alike are subject to God’s
governmental dealings. Governmental forgiveness is not only
individual as in the cases of David (see 2 Sam. 12: 1–23) and Ahab
(see 1 Kings 21: 17–29) but also national (see Num. 14: 18, 19).
Now in this
parable of the unforgiving bondman we are dealing with the kingdom
of the heavens, and a kingdom is a form of government. Kingdoms are
governed by laws. Thus the forgiveness in the parable is
governmental and hence provisional. Contrary to the popular
interpretation, the parable has nothing to do with eternal
forgiveness. Nor is it individual forgiveness as in Luke 17: 3, 4,
but also involves companies of people.
The Setting of the
Parable
This
parable, like others, is unique to Matthew. It is a parable of “the
kingdom of the heavens”—an expression used only by Matthew. He
writes with Israel in mind and thus quotes the fulfilment of more OT
prophecies than any other Evangelist. He details the presentation of
the kingdom of Daniel’s prophecy to Israel (see Dan. 2: 44), firstly
by the Baptist (see Matt. 3: 1, 2), then by the Lord (see Matt. 4:
17) and lastly the twelve (see Matt. 10: 7). In each case the word
preached was virtually the same: “Repent, for the kingdom of the
heavens has drawn nigh” (Matt. 3: 2). Matthew records Israel’s
rejection of that offer in chapter 11 and reveals the mystery form
the kingdom would take subsequently in the parabolic teachings of
chapter 13. Consequently, he shows the dispensational changes that
would take place with the introduction of the Assembly and the
giving of the keys of the kingdom to Peter in chapter 16. Hence our
parable opens with the words “For this cause the kingdom of the
heavens has
become like …” (Matt.
18: 23, my emphasis). Thus the setting of the parable is the kingdom
of the heavens following Israel’s rejection of her King.
The Occasion of the
Parable
The
parable comes as the result of a question by Peter “Lord, how often
shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? until seven
times?” (v21). Peter’s question was prompted by the Lord’s
instruction in v15: “But if thy brother sin against thee …”. Now
Peter had heard the Lord’s earlier teaching on the importance of
being “reconciled to thy brother” (Math. 5: 24), of
making “friends with thine adverse party quickly” (v25), and
the consequences of failing to do so being to be cast into prison
and not coming out “till thou has paid the last farthing” (v26).
Again, Peter was present when the Lord said “For if ye forgive men
their offences, your heavenly Father also will forgive you [yours],
but if ye do not forgive men their offences, neither will your
Father forgive your offences” (Matt. 6: 14, 15). We must consider
how Peter would understand this teaching. Just as his concept of the
Assembly as a called–out company at that time would be limited to
Israel, so his understanding of “his brother” would be limited to
fellow Jews. Thus when Peter heard the words “But if thy brother sin
against thee…”
(Matt.
18: 15), his horizon would be limited to his own nation (a prejudice
not changed until much later—see Acts 10: 34, 35).
What Peter
wanted to know from the Lord was how many times he should offer his
fellow Jew forgiveness. Did the word in Amos 1: 3 prompt him to be
more generous than the Rabbinical limit of three in suggesting seven
times? Or was it Lev. 26: 28?
The Lord’s Reply
The
Lord’s reply to Peter’s question was “I say not to thee until seven
times, but until seventy times seven” (Matt. 18: 22). This, in
itself, answered the question, but the Lord does not stop there but
goes on to give the parable before us, introducing it with the words
“For this cause the kingdom of the heavens has become like a king
who would reckon with his bondmen” (v23). The addition of the
parable indicates that the Lord wanted to take Peter beyond the
immediate answer. This is confirmed by the fact that the parable
does not concern two brothers but two bondmen. Now it is true that
in His summary the Lord says “Thus also my heavenly Father shall do
to you if ye forgive not from your hearts every one his brother”
(v35). However, this only further confirms the point just made, for
the Lord in this verse does not use the singular pronouns
thee,
thou, and
thine but the plural ones
you,
ye and
your. Peter is thus not
addressed personally but as the representative of others.
One final point: the expression “heavenly Father” is peculiar
to Matthew and is used in the context of the kingdom.
The Parable and its
Players
The
parable involves a king reckoning with his bondmen. One has an
enormous debt owing to the king; another has a minor debt, not in
relation to the king, but to his fellow bondman. Both own the
authority of the king. The major debtor pleads patience from the
king in order to pay his debt. The king forgives the loan, but
immediately this major debtor seeks payment for a minor debt from a
fellow–bondman who also begs for patience. This is refused by the
major debtor who exercises his authority and casts him into prison
until he can pay. Fellow–bondmen witness this injustice and tell
their Lord, whereupon the major debtor is cast into prison until he
has paid all that he owes.
The king is
clearly Christ, for He who was Israel’s God, Jehovah, in the OT is
their Messiah in the NT. Those who teach the dispensational
interpretation of the parable generally take the major debtor as
representative of the nation of Israel and the minor debtor as
representative of the Gentile. This is true to a point (see later).
Certainly, as a nation, Israel was to be God’s servant as Is. 41: 8
and other Scriptures testify. That Gentile nations were also to be
Jehovah’s servants in the kingdom is affirmed by such Scriptures as
Ps. 72: 11; 102: 22; Is. 60: 12; Dan. 7: 27. However, in that
kingdom Israel will be the dominant servant over the Gentiles (see
Ps. 47: 3; Is. 14: 2; 49: 22, 23; 60: 12)—as this parable also
indicates. What of the other fellow–bondmen who report events to the
king? These represent angels (see Rev. 19: 10; 22: 9) who are
involved in the affairs of the present age (see Matt. 13: 28, 39; 1
Cor. 4: 9; 11: 10; Heb. 1: 14; 2: 5) and have access to the presence
of God (see Job 1: 6–12; 2: 1–7).
The Parable and its
Interpretation
God
had chosen Israel as His people, had given them His law and made
them custodians of the Holy Scriptures of the OT. For all involved
in this “loan” God expected a return. Although the imagery is
different, the parable of the vineyard (see Matt. 21: 33–46) teaches
the same truth, namely that God expected fruit from Israel. What did
the Gentile owe to Israel? Compensation for Israel’s present
suffering under Rome? In reality, very little, hence the Lord
portrays the major debtor as saying “Pay [me] if thou owest
anything” (Matt. 18: 28). The debt was so small that the major
debtor wasn’t sure whether or not there was a debt!
Israel had
knowingly entered into a contract with God at Sinai and had
accumulated an enormous debt that could never be paid. Not only had
Israel rejected her King and His kingdom but had cried “We have no
king but Caesar” (John 19: 15). However, the Lord had also prayed
“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23: 34)
thus putting the matter on the ground of a sin of inadvertence, and
so allowing forgiveness. This forgiveness was national and not
individual, and hence governmental and not eternal. However, it did
allow the offer of eternal forgiveness for all to commence at
Jerusalem according to the risen Lord’s command that “repentance and
remission of sins should be preached in his name to all the nations
beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24: 47). Hence the most guilty were
the first to benefit from the royal prerogative issued on the day of
Pentecost by Peter in Jerusalem (see Acts 2: 14–41).
Now in the
parable, the major debtor pleads for mercy. This Israel as a nation
has not done, for only a remnant at Pentecost and afterwards ever
repented. Thus the major debtor is the believing remnant of Israel
rather than the whole nation. The nation, and its rulers in
particular, failed to see their awful position of impending
judgement but a believing remnant acknowledged the gravity of their
situation and so received eternal forgiveness. Subsequently,
however, they were in danger of ignoring the governmental position.
The proof is in the attitude of this remnant of believing Jews
towards the Gentiles—in particular those of the Gentiles who
believed. Hence it required a vision from God to get Peter to go to
Cornelius, and the believing remnant initially upbraided him for
doing so (see Acts 11: 3)! Later, this remnant of the nation wanted
to circumcise their Gentile brethren into Judaism (see Acts 15: 1),
rather than allowing them to enjoy the same blessings outside of
that system. Later again we learn that in Jerusalem there were “many
myriads … of the Jews who have believed, and all are zealous of the
law” (Acts 21: 20). These are indistinguishable from “the
whole city” (v30, my
emphasis) who, regarding Paul, sought “to kill him” (v31). Later
they listened to Paul until he spoke of his commission from the
Lord: “Go, for I will
send thee to the nations afar off” (Acts 22: 21) when again they
called for his death (see v22). Such was the general disposition of
this believing remnant. They were more aligned with the unbelieving
nation than with their Gentile brethren, even though the exhortation
to them had been “Be saved from this perverse generation” (Acts 2:
40)—a generation of Jews that formed the front–line of the
opposition to God’s testimony throughout the Acts.
The Fulfilment of the
Parable
Many
of the Jews who believed at Jerusalem clung so tightly to their
national separation from the Gentiles and so identified themselves
with the unbelieving nation in their disposition to the Gentiles,
that they never in heart forgave them as they had been forgiven.
Therefore, when Jerusalem was given up
to desolation in fulfilment of the Lord’s prophecy (see Luke
21: 20) and its people scattered among all nations, the Jewish
believers also were scattered and became “sojourners of [the]
dispersion” (1 Pet. 1: 1).
Israel has been
delivered “to the tormentors”
but only for a time. It says “till he paid all that was owing
to him” (Matt. 18: 34), a specified time which answers to the
“seventy times seven” (v22). That nation has been “cast out” as the
son of the maid servant (see Gal. 4: 30), but has not been “cast
away” (Rom. 11: 1). Presently the “seventy times seven”—the seventy
sevens (or 70 weeks) of Daniel (see Dan. 9: 24) will have run their
course and then “all Israel shall be saved” (Rom. 11: 26) for “if
their casting away [be the] world’s reconciliation, what [their]
reception but life from among [the] dead?” (v15).
Conclusion
The
foregoing is, I believe, the true interpretation of the parable. In
itself it has nothing to do with our eternal forgiveness from God
but is limited to the forgiveness that often forms a part of God’s
governmental ways with men on earth. Has it no application for us?
Yes, for we own the authority of the same Lord in heaven. A
forgiving spirit must ever mark us but we must also remember that we
are not under law but under grace. We do not forgive to get
forgiveness, but we forgive because we are forgiven! As the Lord put
it in the parable “shouldest not thou also have had compassion on
thy fellow–bondman, as I
also had compassion on thee?” (Matt. 18: 33)
