Matthew 13

CHAPTER THIRTEEN INTRODUCTION IS THE SERMON IN PARABLES ONE UNITED WHOLE?

The Apostle Matthew has a recognizably editorial style which he puts to good use by collecting together ideas and facts that logically go together. For example, he collected together a series of fast-moving illustrations to convince his readers that Jesus possesses the divine credentials to tell men what God wants them to know (Matthew 8, 9). In these sections at least we noticed that Matthew was driven not so much by chronological considerations as by his interest in assembling those events whose unified weight would have considerable persuasive power. Since the divine inspiration of Matthew as Apostle guarantees for us the rightness of his procedure, we are not surprised whenever his method surfaces at any given point in his work.

Now, does Matthew’s chapter 13 represent this procedure? Did he collect these parables into one place without regard to context? That is, is the material contained in Matthew 13:1-53 the account of one particular sermon preached by Jesus in its entirety on a given day in Galilee?

Farrar (Life, 254) doubts it, offering the following arguments against its fundamental unity:

It seems clear that our Lord did not on this occasion deliver all of those seven parables. which, from a certain resemblance in their subjects and consecutiveness in their teaching, are here grouped together by St. Matthew. (Footnote: For the scene of delivery at least changes in Matthew 13:34-36.) Seven parables (Footnote:. Eight, if we add Mark 4:26-29.) delivered at once, and delivered without interpretation, to a promiscuous multitude which He was for the first time addressing in this form of teaching, would have only tended to bewilder, and distract. Indeed, the expression of St. Markas they were able to hear it (Mark 4:33)seems distinctly to imply a gradual and non-continuous course of teaching, which would have lost its value if it had given to the listeners more than they were able to remember and understand. We may rather conclude, from a comparison of St. Mark and St. Luke, that the teaching of this particular afternoon contained no other parables, except perhaps the simple and closely analogous ones of the grain of mustard seed, and of the blade, the ear, and the full corn in the ear..

Farrar’s explanation, and any others of which his may be considered typical, does not take adequate account of the following arguments urging the fundamental unity of this discourse:

Matthew intentionally gives the distinct impression that he is recording both the beginning (Matthew 13:1-3), and the conclusion (Matthew 13:53) to a single discourse given in its entirety at least in the presence and hearing of His close disciples. Mark (Mark 4:1-35) and at least Luke 8:4-18 confirm this impression. (See critical note on Matthew 13:53 at that place.)

Again, it is Matthew himself who clearly notes the change from public discourse to private explanations and continued teaching which obviously came later (Matthew 13:36). The only problem that arises is that affecting the intervening material, i.e., Why Jesus Teaches by Parables (Matthew 13:10-17). The Explanation of the Sower Parable (Matthew 13:18-23) and probably also The Use of Parables (Mark 4:21-25; Luke 8:16-18). However, Mark (Mark 4:10) reveals that this intervening material, which Matthew has inserted before the end of the public discourse, was the subject of Jesus-’ remarks made privately to the insiders. Thus it would seem that only this aforementioned material became the private property of these intimates, whereas the parables recorded immediately thereafter are but the continuation of the public sermon. This is true, because, after the story of the Growing Seed (Mark 4:26-29), of the Tares (Matthew 13:24-30), of the Mustard Seed and that of the Leaven, Matthew gives the discourse a definite rounding off: All this Jesus said to the crowds in parables (Matthew 13:34). Should any object that Matthew should have interjected an explanation or two out of order, when, as a matter of fact, they were given privately and later, let it be remembered that Mark and Luke do the same thing. Then, it is Mark who verifies this conclusion:

With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it, he did not speak to them without a parable. But privately he explained everything to his own disciples (Mark 4:33 f).

Has anyone inquired into the psychological value of our author’s making the very kind of parenthetical insertion that we find here (Matthew 13:10-23)? Since Matthew is not merely providing his reader with a full transcript of the sermon anyway, and since the readers of Matthew’s gospel, faced with a barrage of unexplained parables, would have some of the same difficulties as the original audience to Jesus-’ sermon, the Apostle comes to the aid of his readers. (After all, the circumstances occasioning the sermon in the first place are changed at the time of the Apostle’s penning the Gospel.) So, he furnishes early in this chapter not only the answer to the anticipated question of why Jesus used this method. He also provides an interpreter’s key for the reader’s appreciation of the parables that were to follow. (Cf. Mark 4:13) So the insertion itself made by Matthew is no argument against the integrity of the discourse given that day by Jesus.

Accordingly, besides the above-mentioned material inserted out of its chronological order for psychological effect, the private explanations included the key to the story of the Weeds, and perhaps also the illustrations of the Hidden Treasure, the Pearl of Great Price and the Dragnet.

Again it is Matthew, an eye-witness to the event, who specifies that, besides the recorded stories, many more were delivered on the same occasion (Matthew 13:3; Matthew 13:34; Matthew 13:53). This would allow for considerable variation in reporting the stories, which, surprisingly, is limited mainly to Mark 4:21-29, and Luke 8:16-18.

The mere observation that some of these parables are to be found elsewhere, reportedly given by Jesus in differing circumstances, does not militate against their repetition on this occasion, especially since their character is general and the need for their retelling widespread.

The objection that a barrage of parables without explanation, delivered before a heterogeneous audience would have tended only to confuse, losing its value on listeners unable to understand, entirely misses the real purpose behind Jesus-’ tactics. In fact, it is His declared intentions to hide truth from some by letting each person’s trust in Jesus determine how much truth he would be willing to learn. (See the section on the Purpose of Parables.)

Farrar objected that the expression as they were able to hear it (Mark 4:33) implies a gradual, non-continuous course based upon the listeners-’ ability to understand, hence not one continuous sermon. However, Mark’s full statement runs: With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; he did not speak to them without a parable. The word, here, is the description of the Kingdom Jesus revealed. Thus Mark is affirming, not that Jesus doled out the spoonfuls of information gradually or on different occasions as people could swallow them, but the victorious truth that Jesus actually succeeded in speaking the soul-saving truth to those people in the measure to which they were actually to grasp it. All this, despite His total use of parables to communicate that truth! The proof that some really understood Jesus-’ parables is seen in His question of His intimates: Have you understood all this? (Matthew 13:51). No doubt much of their affirmative answer is based upon His private explanations, but it by no means follows that all of their understanding was so founded. Much clear, unparabolic information about the Kingdom had already been laid openly before the disciples (Matthew 4:23; Matthew 5:3; Matthew 5:10; Matthew 5:19-20; Matthew 6:10; Matthew 6:33; Matthew 9:35; Matthew 10:7; Matthew 11:11-12; Matthew 12:28; Mark 1:15; Luke 4:43; Luke 8:1). Therefore, it was not impossible that some disciples who had studied His clear teaching could have seen the connections intended between His former lessons and the point of the parables. For these people, then, the parables really illustrated, rather than hid, truth. So Mark’s statement affirms Jesus-’ success in communicating truth instantly to some hearers that day, notwithstanding the fact that many different listeners, for just as many varied reasons, were unable to grasp it.

Upon closer examination, then, there is nothing that would sustain the hypothesis of fundamental disunity in this discourse of Jesus, whereas a comparison of the related texts discloses enough satisfying proof of its unity to convince the objective reviewer. So what if the message reported by Matthew is one cohesive unit? Many Bible students would never have thought to fragment this chapter anyway, having no preconceived notions about where Matthew must have derived his materials. It is important to see this discourse as a unit for several important reasons:

(1)

If this sermon be one continuous speech, uttered at a given historical juncture of events in Jesus-’ ministry, its mysterious character, half-revealing, half-hiding precious truth about the nature of the Messianic Kingdom of God, will provide further insight into the plans of God. It will become increasingly clearer to the believer why God has made the choices He has. (Cf. Matthew 11:25 ff; 1 Corinthians 1:18-31)

(2)

If this message was deliberately organized by Jesus, more or less as the Evangelists report it, our own understanding of the Lord as a Master Teacher and strategist is sensibly increased. For if this strange assortment of seemingly disconnected stories be but one lecture, intended to keep pushy, uncomprehending curiosity seekers at bay, if its definitely low-key disclosures are intended to cool Zealots-’ nationalistic messianism, if its intriguing but unexplained stories are aimed at keeping the scholars guessing, then Matthew is absolutely right to consider the great sermon in parables as symptomatic of the growing crisis in Jesus-’ public relations, and right to introduce significant portions of that message at this place in his account. There were various ways Jesus maintained His messianic reserve (not messianic secret, as Wilhelm Wrede would have it) such as forbidding demons and men not to inform others He was the Christ until after His resurrection (Cf. Matthew 8:4; Matthew 9:30; Matthew 16:20; Matthew 17:9) This sermon, if our reading of Mat 13:34 and Mark 4:34 is correct, is typical of Jesus-’ approach during this increasingly stormy period that would finally erupt in the crack and collapse of His popularity with the crowds. So, in this very sermon Jesus maintains His messianic reserve in the sense that He deftly defers divulging His own messianic plans in the presence of any but the most dedicated.

Consequently, we see that the question of the sermon’s unity is not one of dubious, abstract value, but rather integral to a correct understanding of Jesus, His message and ministry.

ARE JESUS-’ PARABLES PARABLES?

That depends on what we think a parable is. If Jesus is using the word parable in harmony with modern technical definitions in mind, we will interpret His stories one way. On the other hand, if the word parable in the usage of Jesus and His contemporaries plays havoc with modern distinctions and rules, then we must get at the thinking behind His linguistic habits and let that be our guide to understanding His stories. One must recognize that the ancients used the word parable to cover a rather kaleidoscopic range of figurative sayings. Further, since they did not make, nor necessarily respect, our nice distinctions between figures, it would lead to a mistaken interpretation of the ancient figures, were we to use modern rules governing the interpretation of what modern rhetoric would call a parable. The Bible writers use the word parable (Greek: parabole) in the following senses:

A proverb (1 Kings 4:32 [= Matthew 5:12 LXX]; Psalms 49:4 [= Psalms 48:5 LXX];·Proverbs 1:6; Ecclesiastes 12:9; Ezekiel 16:44; Ezekiel 18:2; Ezekiel 12:22-23)

A byword (Psalms 69:11 [= Psalms 68:12 LXX]; 2 Chronicles 7:20; Jeremiah 24:9; Deuteronomy 28:37)

An allegory (Ezekiel 17:2; Ezekiel 20:49 [= Matthew 21:5 LXX]; Matthew 24:3)

Any poetic discourse composed of poetical imagery, sustained parallelisms, brief pointed sentences. (Numbers 23:7; Numbers 24:3; Numbers 24:15; Numbers 24:20-21; Numbers 24:23; Micah 2:4; Habakkuk 2:6; Isaiah 14:4)

Didactic history (Psalms 78:2[= Psalms 77:2 LXX]; see on Matthew 13:34-35) Symbolic or typological events, things or persons. (Hebrews 9:9)

A figure of speech, a speaking figuratively (Hebrews 11:19)

A germ illustration or enigmatic speech not immediately clear (Cfr. the disciples-’ attitude: Matthew 15:15; Mark 7:17)

Of course, the familiar, classic one-point story form made famous by our Lord (although its employment was certainly known before His time, cfr. Hosea 12:10)

These broad uses of parabolé are really a part of the historical significance of the word, despite the contemporaneous existence of other Greek words which Jesus could have used to describe His figurative language: allegorìa (verb: Galatians 4:24), enìgma (Numbers 12:8; Numbers 21:27; Deuteronomy 28:37; Proverbs 1:6; Daniel 8:23), probléma (Psalms 48:5; Psalms 77:2; Daniel 8:23 Theod.; Habakkuk 2:6); skoteinòn, lógon (dark saying, Proverbs 1:6); paroimiai (proverbs, Proverbs 26:7); diégema (story, Deuteronomy 28:37; Ezekiel 17:2)

Therefore, in the light of the broad use of the word parable (parabole), it should be no surprise if the Savior calls an indisputable allegory a parable instead of an allegory. Consequently, as we seek to interpret this chapter, we will discover that sometimes a given illustration is strictly a parable with one point and no more, whereas another story is really a short allegory with numerous points of comparison. So, rather than accuse Jesus of abusing the word parable, we revise our definition! The correct definition of parable is the meaning the author intended to convey when he used the word. So, if Jesus calls an allegory a parable, we must not use modern rules governing parables only to ruin the true interpretation of His allegory-parables! As in other areas of good Bible interpretation, so also here: the author’s definitions and explanations of his language are sufficient and final. Some of Jesus-’ parables, as He explains them, are clearly allegories.

PARABLES AND ALLEGORIES COMPARED

A parable in the modern sense differs from the allegory in several important particulars. The parable, strictly speaking, is an illustration or a story or an event taken from everyday life, known to all, used to clarify or explain something else not understood by all, with which it can be compared, The parable generally portrays one fundamental point of comparison, and all the details serve only to make this point clear, not being intended to represent separate features of the thing the parable is supposed to illustrate. Obviously, then, the purpose of a parable, in this stricter sense, is to explain something under discussion with a view to making it clear to everyone.

The allegory, strictly speaking, also involves one great underlying idea (like the nature of the Kingdom of God, the tragic folly of rejecting God’s messengers, etc.). But, contrary to parables in the strict sense of the word, in allegories the various characters, events, actions and other details that interact to move the plot forward to its natural climax, actually signify, or refer to, the separate parts of the things being described by the allegory. Further, the various parts of the allegory have meaning and must be interpreted. Another interesting feature of the allegory that vitally affects our understanding of Matthew 13 and other parables of Jesus, is the fact that quite often allegories are intended to mask, or even deliberately hide, the meaning of the comparison, so that only the initiates, the insiders, the intimate members of a given group should recognize what is meant.

Our task, then, will not be easy, since Jesus Himself uses the word parable rather loosely. It may well be that, in those instances where the Lord has not furnished the interpretation, we may need to treat His stories as strictly one-point parables, lest we commit another common error in Biblical interpretation of seeing meaning in details that even the Lord Himself knew nothing about. But, regarding those for which He does provide the meaning, He obviously treats them as allegories, so detailed is His explanation of each part of the stories. (Cf. e.g. the Parable of the Sower; the Parable of the Weeds) Yet even here some of the temptingly interesting details of Jesus-’ original allegory are discarded in His explanation as apparently meaningless or unimportant, a fact that warns against fanciful invention of meaning for insignificant details even in allegories. As the history of exegesis would amply show, the decision just which details in Jesus-’ parables are to be regarded as significant, and which meaningless, will not be easy. In fact, in some cases it will be impossible. Our dilemma is dramatized in Jesus-’ question: Do you not understand this parable (of the sower)? How then will you understand all the parables? (Mark 4:13). It may be granted that His questions mean that the truth contained in the Parable of the Sower is fundamental to a secure grasp of everything else Jesus has to say by means of the other parables, i.e., The reception of the message of the Kingdom depends upon the condition of one’s heart and the attention he gives to the message. Still, one cannot avoid the more than probable conclusion that He intended to furnish us with a key to the interpretation of them all. (See Trench, Notes, 16.) If so, the key Jesus provides in the examples He gives is frankly allegorical, since He explains practically every detail in the stories of the sower and of the weeds. (See also the triad of parables in Matthew 21:23 to Matthew 22:14 and parallels.)

SOME HELPFUL GUIDELINES FOR UNDERSTANDING JESUS-’ PARABLES

Approach the parables, not with a self-admiring ingenuity that would seek to discover meaning in all the minutest fibers of the narrative, but with the conviction that God’s purpose for all Scripture, including the parables, is to make men holy through the truth, not to encourage them to exercise the vaunted ability of dubious value to discover hidden meanings where there were none intended.

Determine the one central truth which the parable intends to proclaim.

a.

How much of the parable did Jesus Himself interpret? He may have pointed this idea out.

b.

On what occasion is the parable introduced? This may indicate the truth it is intended to illustrate.

c. With what explanations is the parable introduced? d.

How is the parable applied in its own context?

e.

Is there a similar parable in the context illustrating the same central point?

f.

How do the historical and cultural circumstances indicated in the story help to underline the central thought being illustrated?

g.

Having determined the major point essential to the comparison, all the different parts will appear in their true perspective: either as mere embellishments essential to complete the story as a story, or else in their true light as essential points upon which the major comparison is based. These latter must be interpreted; the former, no. Any minor points of comparison must be handled with reserve, i.e., with a rigorous hesitation to accept any minor details in the story unless they really function as part of the comparison. The very lack of connection between any details and the principle lesson of the parable is the clearest indication that they were not intended to be interpreted at all. Any interpretation inconsistent with the subject to be illustrated must be rejected.

Parables must not be used to furnish the basis for doctrinal argument, because their purpose is primarily to illustrate truth. They do not prove or demonstrate it. The basis of doctrine lies in the clear, unfigurative expositions of truth elsewhere in Scripture. The function of parables is to illustrate these doctrines to intimate disciples of Jesus, so the illustrations themselves are valid only insofar as they perform this function, Doctrine does not lean on parables; parables lean on doctrine. No detail may be pressed which indisputably violates clear moral principles spelled out elsewhere. No interpretation of a parable can be broader than the nature of the thing it is supposed to illustrate: a parable is not intended to say things greater than, or other than, the thing it is trying to describe. The actual extent of meaning must be determined by the author’s intent and by the nature of the subject, not only on the basis of the parable considered by itself.

The interpretation of parables must be an easy one, a natural one, not violent or forced. This is especially true and possible for moderns with full access to the completed revelation in the broad outlines of God’s plans. Since these doctrines have now been revealed in clear, unparabolic language, the parables which were once such tough going for the early disciples should require little special genius to discover their meaning. To this end, it will be found that the analogies will be real, never arbitrary.

No one parable tells the whole story. A parable, by its nature, is a figure of speech called synecdoche, by which its author indicates the whole of something by mentioning a significant part of it, or vice versa, the general for the particular and vice versa, the definite for the indefinite, etc. This is most certainly the case with Jesus-’ parables in Matthew 13, since no one parable exhausts the full expression or meaning of the Kingdom of God. Each parable is but a facet of a lovely diamond. Each facet is fully part of the diamond, but in no sense does it alone express all of the gem’s beauty. This should be easy to see, since Jesus is quite obviously saying, The Kingdom of God is like this and this and this and this. How COULD God’s reign be similar to so many diverse things, if but one of them exhausted the full meaning of the whole Kingdom? No interpretation of a given parable, therefore, must be permitted to override or contradict the lessons taught by other parables.

Parables almost invariably are true to human experience, if not already oblique allusions to historical incidents. But details, missing from the narration, must not be supplied by the interpreter’s imagination, because the parable’s author selected just so many details as were pertinent to HIS purpose. To invent details, or add them out of historical research, when the author himself did not consider them necessary to the communication of his ideas, is not only to ruin his original, but become the presumptuous editor-author of a different story without any divine sanction.

The correct interpretation of a parable has been discovered if it leaves none of the main features of the story unexplained.

A clear understanding of the time-period to which many of the parables refer is necessary for their proper interpretation. Most of them are a description of times between the two comings of Christ. Others have as their objective the illustration of certain features of future eschatological events and the Christian’s response to them: preparation for final judgment, the unexpectedness of the time, the exhortation to be faithful, the finality of ultimate separations, etc. Some even depict such short-range eschatological truth as the destruction of Jerusalem and the transfer of the privileges of the Kingdom from Jews to the Gentiles, In this sense, some are prophetic, and as such, would then be treated with the same rules that govern the proper understanding of prophecies, especially seeing their significance in the light of their undoubted fulfillment.

**Section 31 JESUS PREACHES THE GREAT SERMON IN PARABLES **

(Parallels: Mark 4:1-34; Luke 8:4-18)

PREVIEWING IN OUTLINE FORM

I.

The Occasion (Matthew 13:1-3 a; Mark 4:1-2; Luke 8:4)

II.

The Parable of the Soils (Matthew 13:3 b - Matthew 13:9; Mark 4:3-9; Luke 8:5-8)

III.

The Purpose for Parables (Matthew 13:10-17; Mark 4:10-12; Luke 8:9-10)

IV.

The Explanation of the Soil Parable (Matthew 13:18-23; Mark 4:13-20; Luke 8:11-15)

V.

The Parable of the Weeds (Matthew 13:24-30)

VI.

The Parable of the Mustard Seed (Matthew 13:31-32; Mark 4:30-32)

VII.

The Parable of the Leaven (Matthew 13:33)

VIII.

The Multiplicity of Parables (Matthew 13:34-35; Mark 4:33-34)

IX.

The Explanation of the Weeds Parable (Matthew 13:36-43)

X.

The Parable of the Hidden Treasure (Matthew 13:44)

XI.

The Parable of the Precious Pearl (Matthew 13:45-46)

XII.

The Parable of the Dragnet (Matthew 13:47-50)

XIII.

The Use of Parables (Matthew 13:51-53)

A word is in order here concerning the method to be followed in the study of this great sermon in parables. There can be no valid interpretation of a parable which misses its author’s own meaning, ignores the historical circumstances of the story or the setting in which the teller narrates it, or otherwise fails to see his express intent for telling it. In this sermon Jesus obviously takes no text, indicates no logical outline or specific sequence of thoughts and draws no clear-cut conclusions, a fact so remarkable that it caused some problems for His closer disciples. It was just not His usual style to teach exclusively using apparently disconnected and unexplained stories. They did not recognize that His discourse is organized according to what in good public speaking would be called the string-of-beads outline. This outline consists in a series of illustrations strung together in no particular sequence. Even as beads are strung together on a single cord, so each story is a separate unit and pertains to the whole insofar as it illustrates the common theme running through them all. In the case of these parables, the major theme illustrated from various vantage points is the Kingdom of God.

Since it is the Lord’s declared purpose to convey meaning to His disciples, as well as to illustrate how other parables are to be understood (cf. Mark 4:13), and in order to let Jesus-’ own exposition guide our thinking, in the notes which follow, each explanation He gave has been grouped with the parable it interprets. As the following interpretative outline indicates, the only parable taken out of order is that of the Dragnet which parallels and complements that of the Weeds with which it will be studied. This, because the Lord’s style makes use often of two parallel stories to illustrate and reinforce the same truth from two similar standpoints, as in the case of the Mustard-Seed and Yeast Parables or the Treasure and Pearl Parables. As a partial parallel for the Sower and Soils Parable, the Parable of the Seed Growing By Itself, narrated in Mark 4:26-29, has been added to Matthew’s list for completeness.

THE FOLLOWING ORDER WILL BE THAT FOLLOWED IN THE COMMENTS:

I. The Occasion of the Sermon (Matthew 13:1-3 a)

I. The opportunity to know truth

II. The Message

II. The truth presented

A.

The Problem of Kingdom Proclamation

A.

Reactions to truth

Parable of the Sower and Soils (Matthew 13:3 b - Matthew 13:9, Matthew 13:18-23)

Parable of the Growing Seed (Mark 4:26-29)

B.

The Problem of Evil in God’s Kingdom

B.

The trials of truth

Parable of the Weeds (Matthew 13:24-30; Matthew 13:36-43)

Parable of the Dragnet (Matthew 13:47-50)

C.

The Problem of Growth; and Success in God’s Kingdom

C

The triumph of truth

Parable of the Mustard Seed (Matthew 13:31-32)

Parable of the Yeast (Matthew 13:33)

D.

The Inestimable Value of the Kingdom

D.

The price of truth

Parable of the Hidden Treasure (Matthew 13:44)

Parable of the Precious Pearl (Matthew 13:45-46)

III. Jesus-’ Methodology in Parabolic Instruction

III. The psychology behind the proclamation.

A.

The Purpose of Parables (Matthew 13:10-17)

B.

The Multiplicity and Justification of Parables (Matthew 13:34-35)

C.

The Appreciation For and Use of All Truth (Matthew 13:51-53)

HOW DID JESUS ORGANIZE HIS SERMON?

Because Matthew purposely re-edited Jesus-’ message (see his statements at Matthew 13:10; Matthew 13:34; Matthew 13:36; cf. Mark 4:10; Mark 4:33-34), it might be thought helpful to attempt a tentative reconstruction of that message as Jesus might have delivered it. The only value therein would be to help the reader better to visualize the original scene. There is no intention whatever here to question Matthew’s integrity as a historian or his proper rights as an inspired author. Rather, since the theorists of the Redaktionsgeschichte-school would reduce even Matthew’s literary connectors into unhistorical fabrications serving editorial purposes, rather than intending to register objective relationships, only a Christian who trusts the Publican-Apostle implicitly to be telling the truth could begin a serious reconstruction!

Here is the author’s reconstruction:

I. Situation (Matthew 13:1-2; Mark 4:1; Luke 8:4 a)

II. Message proper

A.

Many parables (Matthew 13:3 a; Mark 4:2)

B.

Sower Parable (Matthew 13:3 b - Matthew 13:9; Mark 4:3-9; Luke 8:5-8)

C.

Growing Seed (Mark 4:26-29)

D.

Weeds Parable (Matthew 13:24-30)

E.

Mustard Seed (Matthew 13:31-32; Mark 4:30-32)

F.

Leaven (Matthew 13:33)

G.

Hidden Treasure (given at this point? Matthew 13:44)

H.

Precious Pearl (given at this point? Matthew 13:45-46)

I.

Dragnet (given at this point? Matthew 13:47-50)

J.

Many similar parables (Matthew 13:34-35; Mark 4:33-34)

K.

Official end of the seaside message (Matthew 13:36 a)

III. Private Explanations to the Disciples (Matthew 13:36 b; Mark 4:34 b)

A.

Disciples request private explanations of His methodology (Matthew 13:36; cf. Mark 4:10)

B.

Jesus explains His method:

The reason for parables (Matthew 13:10-11; Mark 4:10-11; Luke 8:9-10)

Revelations are for publication (Mark 4:21-22; Luke 8:16-18 a)

Responsibility for the proclamation (Mark 4:23)

Rewarding of the perceptive (Matthew 13:12; Mark 4:24; Luke 8:18 b)

Recollection of a prophecy because of a replay of perverseness (Matthew 13:13-15)

Rejoicing in possession and the responsibilities of privilege (Matthew 13:16-17)

C.

Explanation of the Sower Parable (Matthew 13:18-23; Mark 4:13-20; Luke 8:11-15) Parable of the Lamp given here? Mark 4:21 ff; Luke 8:16 ff

D.

Explanation of the Weeds Parable (Matthew 13:36-43) E. Conclusion: Parable of the Christian Scribe. (Matthew 13:51-53)

Matthew 13:1-9

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

I. THE OCCASION TEXT: 13:1-9, 18-23

(Parallels: Mark 4:1-9; Mark 4:13-20; Luke 8:4-8; Luke 8:11-15)

1

On that day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.

2

And there were gathered unto him great multitudes, so that he entered into a boat, and sat; and all the multitude stood on the beach.

3

And he spake to them many things in parables, saying,

II. THE MESSAGE A. PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN KINGDOM PROCLAMATION

1. THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER AND THE SOILS

Behold, the sower went forth to sow, 4 and as he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the birds came and devoured them: 5 and others fell upon the rocky places, where they had not much earth: and straightway they sprang up, because they had no deepness of earth: 6 and when the sun was risen, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. 7 And others fell upon the thorns; and the thorns grew up and choked them: 8 and others fell upon the good ground, and yielded fruit, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty, 9 He that hath ears, let him hear.

18 Hear then ye the parable of the sower. 19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the evil one, and snatcheth away that which hath been sown in his heart, This is he that was sown by the way side. 20 And he that was sown upon the rocky places, this is he that heareth the word, and straightway with joy receiveth it; 21 yet hath he not root in himself, but endureth for a while; and when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, straightway he stumbleth. 22 And he that was sown among the thorns, this is he that heareth the word; and the care of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful. 23 And he that was sown upon the good ground, this is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; who verily beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

How does this parable show that more than the objective presentation of truth is necessary in order to convert a person to Jesus?

b.

What does the parable teach about the power and effectiveness of the Word of God?

c. What does the parable suggest about the limitations of the power of God’s Word? d.

Does this parable prove that a person has to be honest and good before he can actually accept the Gospel and grow in it? I thought that it was the Gospel that makes people honest and good, not that they had to be good and honest before they could accept it. Explain.

e.

God promised that His Word would not return to Him void, but would accomplish the purpose for which He had sent it (Isaiah 55:10-11). But is it not true in this parable that many, many people made void God’s Word in their own case by letting other things destroy its influence? Also the elders-’ traditions make void God’s Word (Matthew 15:1-20). How would you go about harmonizing God’s declaration (Isaiah 55:10-11) with this seemingly contrary teaching found in the parable of the Sower?

f.

How do you account for the fact that there seems to be a boat handy just when Jesus needs it? Whose boat might it have been? Why would Jesus need it here in this incident; i.e., what tactical use of it did He make?

g.

When Jesus gives an interpretation along with His parables, what are we to do with it? But when He does not explain a parable for us, what are we to do? What were His disciples expected to do with a parable for which He gave no immediate explanation?

h.

When do you think the Apostles began questioning Jesus for further information regarding the meaning of His parables?

i.

Do you think that the people represented in the first three classes described are personally responsible for the condition of their heart at the time of their hearing the message of Christ? Why?

j.

Do you think Jesus is here condemning the various things that fill a person’s life, which somehow hinder him from producing a fruitful life for God? What are your reasons for thinking this?

k.

What is the difference in definition between good and honest, as descriptive of the proper sort of heart Jesus is seeking? (Luke 8:15)

What is so deceitful about wealth?

m.

What is the care of the world? Do you think that Jesus means: the care, or desire, for the world? Or does He mean the world’s cares, that is, that which the world worries about? Or is there another possibility?

n.

How is it that even those who do accept God’s Word in a good, honest heart do not even produce the same results? Why should Jesus have to stress this point, after defining so sharply the difference between the hearts of those who, for whatever reason, do not produce fruit, and those who do? What is so important about even this latter distinction (v. 8) that helps us to understand the basic nature of the best, most faithful followers of Jesus?

o.

To what would you attribute the fruitfulness of the fourth class of people? State in several ways exactly what it means to have a good and honest heart.

p.

When Jesus describes the Gospel as producing in good hearts sometimes thirty-, sixty- and hundredfold, do you think that He was stating His ideal, i.e., the goal He wished to reach in human lives, or do you think that He was stating a fact, making a true observation about what He knew would be the result?

q.

How does the short parable narrated in Mark 4:26-29 about the Seed Growing By Itself qualify, or aid in the correct understanding of the Parable of the Sower and Soils, as well as that of the Weeds?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

That same day Jesus walked out of the house, sat beside the sea and began to teach. Such a very large crowd of people from town after town was gathering about Him that He boarded a boat and sat in it on the lake of Galilee. The whole crowd stood on the beach listening as He taught them many lessons in story form. During the course of His instruction He said. Listen! A farmer went out to sow his seed. While he was sowing, some grain fell along the path and was walked on by people who passed, and the birds came and ate it up. Other seed fell on rocky ground where there was not much soil. Immediately that grain sprouted, since the soil was not deep. But as it grew, the sun rose and withered it. Since there was no root, it withered away, because it got no moisture. Other grains fell among brambles. These thorns grew up with the good grain and choked it with the result that this too yielded no grain. Other seed fell into rich soil and brought forth grain, growing up and increasing and yielding a crop. Sometimes it produced thirty times what was sown, sometimes sixty times what was sown, sometimes even a hundred. And as He was saying this, He practically shouted, If you have ears to hear with, then listenpay attention! Later, His disciples began questioning Him regarding the meaning of this story. He answered, You have certainly understood this illustration, haven-’t you? How would you go about interpreting all the rest of these stories? Listen then to the explanation of the story about the sower. The meaning is as follows: the seed stands for the Word of God. The sower, then, is someone who broadcasts the message. The people along the path when the message is preached are those who, when they hear the news about the Kingdom of God, do not understand it. Satan, the evil slanderer, comes immediately to snatch away the Word implanted in their mind, to prevent their believing it and being saved by it. This is the meaning of the ground which was sown with seed along the path. In a similar way, the rocky ground which had been sown represents those people who, when they hear the message, immediately welcome it joyfully. However, since they have no deep-rooted convictions within them, they believe, but, consequently, last only for a little while. Then, when trouble comes or persecution arises because they followed the Word, they immediately fall away. What seed fell among brambles illustrates those people who hear the Gospel, but as they go about their business, the worries of the present age, the deceitful seduction of wealth, the desire for other things, and life’s pleasures all contribute to choke out the influence of the Word in their life. Thus, they either prove completely unproductive, or else their character does not mature. By what was broadcast on good soil I meant those people who hear the message, understand it, accept it and hold it fast in an honest, good heart. In fact, they patiently produce the character that the Gospel in them must bring forth. They produce in some cases thirty times what they received, sometimes sixty times, and in other cases, even as much as a hundred times!

SUMMARY

It was the same day Jesus had held a vigorous discussion with the Pharisees and scribes over the true source of His power when He cast a demon from a blind, dumb demoniac, the same day that Jesus-’ work had been interfered with by His family and friends, that He went out to the beach where He taught the congregated crowds from a boat. His first story described the limitations that the individual qualities of men’s hearts impose upon the effectiveness of God’s Word: some reject, stifle, or else accept the influence of God’s Word in their individual case in direct proportion to their character and their willingness to let God have His way.

NOTES

I. THE OCCASION OF THE SERMON: THE OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW

Matthew 13:1 On that day (En tê heméra ekeìne) is the expression whereby Matthew establishes a definite link between the Sermon in Parables and the events immediately preceding: the interference of Jesus-’ relatives, and, probably, also, the psychological motivation for that interference: the accusation levelled by religious leaders that He worked in secret agreement with Satan. (Cf. Matthew 12:46 and parallels; Mark 3:19-21)

Redaction criticism would see this verse as merely a literary device having absolutely no historical value whatever, because it was invented by the anonymous editor of Matthew’s Gospel, intending thereby to create a smooth connection between otherwise disconnected materials. (See also on Matthew 13:53,) But as has been noticed in the introduction to this chapter, Matthew gives the deliberate impression that he is recording one, unified discourse presented in the presence of Jesus-’ disciples with only one major change of locale carefully noted (Matthew 13:36). It should occasion no surprise that he establish also the time, place and circumstance in which that discourse occurred. On the basis of what theory of authorship of this Gospel are we warranted to reject as unhistorical these circumstantial details, when the Gospel itself was already circulating either in Aramaic or Greek at a time when not only eye-witnesses still lived who could contradict any of these details if mistaken, and when enemies of the faithboth heretics and persecutorssought justification for their rejection of the orthodox message believed and taught by the early Church contained therein? If we must conclude with these modern critics that the phrase On that day or any other connector used by Matthew is unhistoricalthat is, that for some reason, the facts if really known are quite differenton what basis may we receive as genuinely historical ANY other supposed fact reported by Matthew, as, for example, the resurrection?

The situation on that day, then, is charged with high tension by four basic elements which must be understood before the Sermon in Parables can be rightly seen in its proper perspective:

Growing opposition from the authorities (Matthew 12:22-45)

Worried family and friends of Jesus (Mt. 3:19-21; see especially notes on Matthew 12:46-50)

Increasingly greater crowds or curiosity seekers neither disposed to think with Jesus nor ready to accept clear teaching. (See notes on Matthew 13:10-17; Matthew 13:34-35.)

Disciples to prepare, revelations to give them before the crisis of Calvary, deadlines to meet.

**On that day Jesus went out: **Nothing stops Him: no interruptions by well-meaning kinfolks, no hard-faced opposition, no misunderstanding friends can hinder Him from pouring out the revelations He had come to earth to share! If the above-mentioned connections are all solid, then the house is probably His Capernaum home to which He returned from His Galilean tour (Luke 8:1; Mark 3:19 b) and in which took place the healing of the blind and dumb demoniac and the fierce discussion with the calumnious Pharisees.

**Jesus. sat by the sea side **as He had done before (Mark 2:13). Notice how naturally the situation evolved: having left the house with His close disciples, Jesus found a suitable position along the lakefront where He could be comfortably heard by a small group of listeners. His lesson had no sooner gotten underway when the number of new faces around the listening circle got to be too great for the limited teaching situation. In fact, Mark and Luke assure us that the crowd began to swell surprisingly quickly, not merely with local towns people from Capernaum out promenading along the beach, but people kept coming together from town after town (Mark 4:1; Luke 8:4)! This made His words impossible to follow because of the confusion created by the unavoidable whispering, pushing and squirming into a hearing position, as the ones in the back probably complained about not being able to hear.

Matthew 13:2 **And there were gathered unto him great multitudes, so that he entered into a boat, and sat; and all the multitude stood on the beach. **It is not enough that Jesus has just battered His way through a forest of Pharisean arguments and come out victorious, even though the scribes themselves remain of the same opinion still. Here are perhaps hundreds of well-wishers and curious folk out for an afternoon walk with no television for their diversion. Instead of going down to the station to watch the trains come in, or gathering at the local football stadium, these Jews of another age stroll down to the waterfront to muse over the latest pronouncements of the budding rabbi from Nazareth. In general, or at least formally, they are committed to follow God’s teaching wherever it might lead, but no doubt many of them have no specific interest in taking Jesus-’ message personally or even too seriously, This audience is fundamentally friendly to Jesus, but not at all committed to Him as LORD enough to let Him rule. If they link Him with the long-anticipated Messianic Kingdom of God, they probably do so only in terms of their own popular notions about it. If there is to be any ruling done, Jesus will just have to do it their way, or they will not play along with it! (Study John 6:14-66.)

The first step Jesus takes is to get this milling mob under psychological control. It is impossible to teach anyone anything while thoughtless people are trying to make their own personal petitions for help and healing. Jesus-’ solution, so simple and so effective, was to get into (Peter’S?) boat and have him shove off a short distance from the beach. (Cf. Luke 5:1-3) This gave Him an excellent speaker’s platform from which He could easily be heard, and, at the same time, it made the crowds keep their distance unless they wanted to get wet. (Cf. Mark 3:9-10)

Matthew 13:3 a **And he spake to them many things in parables. **In the light of this uneasy situation, it would appear nothing short of incredible that Jesus should meet this extraordinary challenge by telling a string of seemingly harmless little stories. Parables, as the anglicized Greek word implies, are comparisons between two things, one definitely known which serves as a basis of comparison by which the other, which is set along side it, is to be understood. (parabolè, from para-ballein, to compare, Arndt-Gingrich, 616; see introduction to chapter 13 for further notes.) The many things in parables, as the introductory words of most of the illustrations say, are various aspects of the Kingdom of God, the one subject described through this entire discourse, however, seen from different points of view. Usually, a parable is a short story which, by means of its comparison, illustrates or clarifies a concept. But, as will be seen from our present examples, Jesus-’ parables represent that concept obscurely, hence require interpretation for anyone not already perfectly familiar with the thing being described. Parables, as such, are not new in Jesus, since many such illustrations appear in His teaching before this. (Cf. Matthew 5:13-16; Matthew 6:22-23; Matthew 6:26-30; Matthew 7:24-27; Matthew 9:15-17; Matthew 10:29-31; Matthew 11:16-19; Matthew 12:25-26; Matthew 12:29; Matthew 12:43-45)

CLEAR TEACHING PREVIOUSLY GIVEN

As will be noticed in each pair of parables that follow, Jesus is merely restating in parabolic form information that was implicit in His previous teaching, notably that of the Sermon on the Mount. From this standpoint, He is not really offering completely new revelations for the person who had eyes to see the implications of what the Lord had there suggested. But who on earth really saw all that? The impression He made on His audience then was one of astonishment at His authority and doctrine. But is it probable that even the most intimate, most alert disciples fully appreciated the heights and depths of that grand discourse? That enormous declarationeven as it stands in its quite probably edited form in Scriptureis massive! And if WE are just now growing to understand it after centuries of study by the predecessors upon whose shoulders we stand to get a better look, should we imagine that the multitudes, or even the Twelve, with minds filled with quite other notions about the coming Kingdom, should have been able so quickly to sound its depths and scale its heights or so instantly perceive the truth about the intentions of God for His Kingdom? This is highly doubtful. And yet, from a historical perspective we can admit that the general outline of the Kingdom was there all the time, clear and right on the surface. With the notes on each pair of parables there has been included also an indication as to how the truth of those parables had already been anticipated in the Sermon on the Mount. On this basis, then, it is possible to understand why these parables would have actually communicated meaning to some disciples, because, however unconsciously, they had really been over this ground before. These stories would actually communicate more knowledge in the sense that each would extract some principle implicit in the Sermon on the Mount (and in any other previous teaching of which that message is but a classic example), and hold that principle up for closer examination. The result is genuine progress in the revelation about the Kingdom.

THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER IN PREVIOUS TEACHING

If in that great Sermon on the Mount Jesus says that the truly blessed do not depend for their happiness on outward conditions with which contentment in a material kingdom is associated, but rather upon a condition of HEART which causes them to be poor in spirit, mourning, meek, famished for righteousness, merciful, pure in heart, peaceable, reviled sufferers for Jesus-’ sake, we are warned at the outset that the Kingdom of God is designed to include and satisfy only those whose hearts are honest and good, unpreoccupied with other concerns. Further, if the Kingdom morality is one not merely of achieving standard Pharisaic goals, outward compliance with religious practices such as fasting, alms-giving and prayer, calculating self-interest, etc., if it is not merely superficial bending to divine revelations, if it is rather a morality of the conscience and a purity of heart that produces real piety, real love for others, then it becomes increasingly clear that the Kingdom itself is going to be found only in those whose hearts are honest and good. Again, if the fundamental function of the Kingdom’s citizens is to be salt to the earth and light to the world, it follows that one must expect an abundance of worldlings needing the proclamation of this Kingdom Gospel, many of whom would remain unconvinced. The continued presence of evil in the world will be noticed under the Parable of the Weeds, but hints of it in the Sermon on the Mount indicate that reactions to the Kingdom’s proclamation would be varied, exactly as taught by the Parable of the Sower. Else, how could there be any persecutors (Matthew 5:10-12), or enemies (Matthew 5:21-26; Matthew 5:38-48), thieves (Matthew 6:19-21), dogs and swine (Matthew 7:6), or false prophets (Matthew 7:15 ff)? And even more clearly, if in the Last Day even charismatic disciples of Jesus must face condemnation for evil works then not even the former habit of calling Jesus Lord, Lord can be substituted for doing the will of the Father (Matthew 7:21-23). This fact warns that not every disciple who begins the Christian life will finish acceptably. Even in the description of false prophets, the emphasis is on the kind of heart that produces good or bad fruits as the case may be. (See on Matthew 7:17-20.) Finally, the genuine freedom enjoyed by each individual to determine how or whether the Word of God will influence his belief and conduct is implicit in the totally unmanipulated decision which of the two ways open to man he will choose (Matthew 7:13 f).

II. THE MESSAGE (13:3b - 13:50) A. THE PROBLEM INVOLVED IN PROCLAIMING THE KINGDOM: VARIED REACTIONS TO TRUTH

1. THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER AND SOILS a. THE COLD INDIFFERENCE OF A CLOSED MIND

Matthew 13:3 b The picture is that of a farmer walking through his field with a grain-sack over one shoulder. As he walks he broadcasts seed-grain right and left. This free throwing, naturally, allows grain to fall wherever it will, although most of it would probably fall onto the good ground. Nevertheless, because no paved farm-to-market roads criss-crossed the country laying out the land in neat checkerboard squares, people beat paths through the fields (Cf. Matthew 12:1). On this hard, beaten path on which nothing would take root or grow, the seed lay exposed to the feet of passersby (Luke 8:5). The essential characteristic of this kind of soil is the fact that it remains precisely the same after the sowing as itwas before: as if it had never known the sowing. In fact, not a seed penetrated its asphalt-hard surface. Rather, hungry birds quickly snatched them up.

Matthew 13:18 **Hear then ye the parable of the sower. **It is important to remember here that Mark 4:10; Mark 4:13 definitely places this explanation following the dismissal of the crowds, a fact which effectively keeps this information private. Matthew’s inclusion of this interpretation at this point in his narrative, as suggested in the Introduction, is not intended to intimate that it was told at this point, but solely to aid the reader.

At this point in the narrative, before Jesus explains the parable, He draws attention to its typical character: Do you not understand this parable (of the sower)? How then will you understand all the parables? (Mark 4:13) The evident purpose of Jesus-’ question is to stimulate the disciples to begin developing their ability to interpret parables or any other instruction that, from their standpoint, was not clear either because of the form in which it was given, or because their own preconceptions blocked their grasp of its concept. But what did He mean?

Regarding the form: does He mean to introduce a rule by which to interpret other parables? If so, the point should not be missed that Jesus-’ own illustration of His, method of interpretation is allegorical, even though some uninterpreted parables seem to have only one point of comparison. (See introduction to Chapter Thirteen.)

Regarding the content: is He saying that a grasp of the Parable of the Sower is absolutely fundamental to an adequate comprehension of the content, or message, of the other parables? That is, before one can see that evil will remain in the world until judgment (cfr. Parable of the Tares and of the Dragnet), even after the beginning of God’s Kingdom in the Church, he must see that the proclamation of God’s Kingdom will coerce no one to enter it, This absolute freedom to accept or refuse the Word of God will, of course, mean a very small beginning because of the limited, local proclamation of that message, and because its, influence can spread only gradually throughout the world by means of its power to persuade men to submit to God’s rule (Parable of the Mustard Seed and of the Yeast). Likewise, to see why some accept the Word of the Kingdom and why many do not is to be prepared to understand how God’s Kingdom could be a sudden, unexpected, joyous discovery worth any sacrifices to obtain it (Parable of the Hidden Treasure). Again, the appreciation of the excelling value of the Kingdom is only explicable if lesser values in life are allowed to remain, among which the individual, remains absolutely free to choose (Precious Pearl). According to this view, then, the Parable of the Sower explains why Jesus chose to proclaim the Kingdom as He did: God intends to leave absolutely inviolate the human freedom to choose. This foundational fact stands in the background of all the stories which follow.

**Hear then ye the parable of the sower. **Even as the Lord draws a striking contrast between the unreceptive crowds and the willing disciples by the use of emphatic pronouns (see on Matthew 13:16-17), so also here He underscores that difference: **Here YE! **The blessing He pronounced upon the disciples for their genuine experience of God’s revelation (Matthew 13:16) is proportionate to the extent that they truly understand what is going on. This is why He not only explains the story to them, so it would certainly become revelation, but He also calls attention to the fact by ordering: You, then, listen to the meaning of the parable!

Jesus entitles His story the parable of the sower, as if the sower were to be the main interest, but His explanation of the illustration lays great stress on the kinds of terrain in which the Word is planted, while the sower himself plays no significant roleespecially in the explanation. It would be truer to say that the sower actually disappears, while primary emphasis is placed on the soils. In fact, whereas each separate part of the story begins with mention of the seed, the very distinctions in types of soil draws immediate attention to the cause for the various types of ground’s yielding as many kinds of harvest from the identically good seed faithfully sown by the same sower. None the less, with good justification Jesus entitles His story the parable of the sower, because, by so doing, He draws attention to what would otherwise escape notice, because of the great attention given to the kinds of soils. In the Parable of the Seed Growing By Itself (Mark 4:26-29) He will give special attention to the power of the seed to accomplish its work. In that of the Weeds He will place more emphasis on the sower, identifying him there as the Son of man. But here, surprisingly, the sower is deliberately left unidentified except to style him generally as one who sows the Word of God (Mark 4:14; Luke 8:11). With this kind of introduction the Lord helps us to see that the problems involved in proclaiming the message of the Kingdom, the Word of God, are those to be faced by ANY proclaimer of that message. Whether it is Jesus Himself who proclaims the Kingdom, or whether it is His ambassadors who preach the Word (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:18-20; Matthew 10:40; Luke 10:16), the hindrances that impede it, as well as the causes that facilitate it, must be understood.

Matthew 13:19 **When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, **he stands in the unique, glorious position of one who can know the plans of God. Thus, he is thoroughly responsible for what he does with the information given. The seed is the word of God (Luke 8:11, cf. 1 Peter 1:22-25; James 1:18; James 1:21). So, anyone who admits the premise that Jesus-’ message is none other than the proclamation of God’s Kingdom would be in a position to understand it, because, if it were not clear to him, he could trust Jesus to explain what was not clear. So the expression, **any one hears the word. and understands it not, **does not refer so much to intellectual capacity, as it speaks of a moral attitude which is the key to understanding the first basic response to the message. Such an individual, upon hearing the message, immediately loses any real grasp on it, because he did not really understand it at all. But since that message is the identical Word that produces the finest results in someone else, the fault cannot be in a message intellectually beyond the capacity of the former. Why should this take place? How could any man be so absolutely hard that any message about the problems of the spirit, about concern over sin or about hope of redemption would be absolutely unintelligible and without meaning? As Trench (Parables, 30) has it, here is a man who has exposed his heart as a common road to every evil influence of the world, till it has become hard as a pavement. Dulled conscience, jaded sentiments, perverse will, prejudiced intellectall contribute to his inability to comprehend. (Cf. Hebrews 3:13, hardened by the deceitfulness of sin; Ephesians 4:17-19) This mind could also be closed by prejudice, unwillingness to be taught, pride or fear of new truth.

But not the least of the causes of his loss are the external influences that go to work immediately upon the individual while he is still listening to the Word: **then cometh the evil one and snatcheth away. **From such a person it is an easy snatch, because he left the Word lying around on the surface of his life where anyone or anything could remove it. He made it no part of his thinking. Since Jesus spoke of several birds devouring the grain, one would have expected Him to interpret them as many impersonal temptations. Instead, the birds are **the evil one, Satan (Mark 4:15), the devil **(Luke 8:12). Jesus is not embarrassed by modern theories that would eliminate Satan as a personal, evil adversary. (See on Matthew 4:3.) Likewise, Paul feels the human nakedness of the unarmed individual, exposed to the attacks of the evil one. (Ephesians 6:10-18 where note how he, too, speaks of the various methods, methodeias, of the devil, the principalities, the powers, the world rulers of this present darkness, the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Nevertheless, for Paul, there is still but one unspeakably malicious and personal enemy who actively pursues the seduction of men and women to lead them away from a sincere devotion to Christ. Cf. 2 Corinthians 11:3; 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12) The Lord makes it obvious from this first parable that no view of the Messianic Kingdom can be adequate that makes no account of a real, personal devil dedicated to hindering its progress at every step. This fact warns all starry-eyed dreamers, who expect the proclamation of the Kingdom to be crowned with instant success, that even the free, malevolent activity of God’s enemy will be tolerated until the final victory (Cf. Matthew 13:28; Matthew 13:39).

Luke’s addition to the parable, the Word **was trodden underfoot **(Luke 8:5), though not interpreted by the Lord, might suggest that, in the same way that the seed cast on the path lay exposed to be trod upon by any who crossed the field that way, so the Word, too, was no sooner heard than it got literally trampled in the stampede of other thoughts crowding the life of this person, regardless of the origin of these thoughts. In this case, the Word, considered as a new thought, never had a chance. While the man in Luke 12:13 ff could well be an illustration of the thorny soil, his callousness to spiritual reality makes him a good example of this one too. In fact, while Jesus is pouring His heart out to get men’s mind off of their earthly concerns long enough to let God have His way in everything, this individual can think of nothing else but the injustice of his brother and his own part of their family inheritance! Herod Antipas wavered back and forth from an interested listener of John the Baptist to his plotting murderer (Cf. Matthew 14:5 and Mark 6:20). The Word of God, no matter who preaches it, just can never penetrate the surface of a mind paved over with indifference to truth, dulled by complacency and protected by prejudice. Not even Jesus Christ can get through to a man like that!

b. THE SUPERFICIAL ENTHUSIASM THAT DOES NOT COUNT THE COST

Matthew 13:5 The picture here is of shallow topsoil covering a slab of rock, because if it were soil mixed with rocks, the seed would have found little difficulty finding a crack between the stones to reach down into good humus, were that the case. The point of the apparently rich soil covering the layer of rock is its deceptive superficiality, a fact that leads naturally into the interpretation.

Matthew 13:20 Some easy, surface culture softens some people, making them seem open-hearted and good prospects for conversion. In fact, upon hearing the message, they **receive it immediately with joy. **There is real joy in knowing that we have been forgiven, real rapture in the assurance that God has adopted us. Many genuinely admire Christ, truly appreciate the beauty of holiness and sound the depths of clear emotions, but mistake all this for faith, for attachment to Jesus, for depth of godliness and for patient maturity. **They receive the word **readily, because it is objectively good and desirable (Hebrews 6:5). There seems to be a poignant contrast underlying Jesus-’ double use of straightway: He. straightway with joy receives it. straightway he stumbles, of this type of individual who begins to make splendid progress but is hindered (Cf. Galatians 5:7), Perhaps he accepted the Gospel without weighing its consequences for the rest of his life. (Cf. the scribe in Matthew 8:19 and notes; 1 Thessalonians 5:21). Easily converted by the arguments of the moment, he was just as easily disposed to change under other tensions or on the basis of other arguments (Cf. John 5:35; Mark 6:20; Luke 4:22; Luke 4:29). The shallow-minded person with no strength of character, no long-range goals, a creature of the hour, has few convictions that can override momentary difficulties or outlast shortlived whims. (Contrast 2 Corinthians 4:1 to 2 Corinthians 6:10; esp. 2 Corinthians 3:4; 2 Corinthians 3:12; 2 Corinthians 4:7; 2 Corinthians 4:13; 2 Corinthians 4:16; 2 Corinthians 5:6; 2 Corinthians 5:11). During periods of great revival, many easily get on the bandwagon, but apostacize when their Christianity is put to any real tests (Cf. Hebrews 3:12). The fault lies not with the seed, but entirely with the soil, not with the Word, but with the lack of depth in this impulsive person who can go for the Gospel or Jesus or the Church, like he would go for any other fad, and then reject it as quickly, because something else has caught his fancy. It was to this kind of mentality that Jesus had to address His stern challenge of the high cost of discipleship, in order to get people to consider the cost before plunging into the life of a disciple and then failing to finish (Luke 14:25-33).

**Yet he has no root in himself: **does this expression mean to say that (1) he has in himself, i.e., in his life, no roots sunk down into, and taking nourishment and stability from, other things outside himself? or (2) that he has no roots sunk down deep in his own psychological make-up. Are the roots to be thought of as subjective, objective or both? When we examine a man’s subjective constitution, we find the traditions that form his conscience and the sentiments that fire his emotions. Even if these are an integral part of the man that makes him what he is, their cause of stimulus is outside of him in the teaching he has received from his parents and society, and in his reactions to it and them. So, even here, we have the combination: a subjective reaction to an objective reality, and the ground in which his roots would have been planted. But, Jesus declares, He has no roots, no well-trained conscience that can keep his duty clear in the face of doubts and contrary desires, no disciplined will to hold him steady under anti-Christian persecution, no practice at governing his emotions and desires, and no intellect used to facing truth and reality wherever and however it comes. (Contrast Hebrews 10:32-35; 2 Corinthians 4:17-18; Ephesians 3:17; Colossians 2:7; Matthew 7:25.) He lacks, in short, the very things that would have made him tenacious under fire. Result? He endures for a while (proskairos estin). The time-limit is not indicated, leaving each disciple to ask himself: At what point am I? Faithful until death is the demand (Revelation 2:10).

**And when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word. **a person under pressure must decide whether his cause is worth the trouble to die for or not. Jesus knows that too many would wait until they are put under pressure to consider this, since their initial decision was not properly weighed. If our decision to follow Christ is well taken, we need not die a thousand deaths with the arrival of each single tormenter or temptation to quit (Cf. Luke 8:13). What would it take to tempt you to deny the Lord? Many who might actually rise to the challenges of a heroic martyrdom in the arena or suffer in the flames at the stake, forget the treacherous peril of sneers, scoffing and laughter, and to stoop to cursing and denial of their Lord. Ironically, serious opposition can produce precisely the opposite reaction: push some men back into a corner with their back to the wall and they will hold all the more tenaciously to the position for which they are being thus maltreated (Cf. 2 Samuel 17:8; Jeremiah 26:12-15; 1 Kings 22:1-28). But the difference lies in each individual’s gut-level attitude toward his chosen position. That is, does his spirit really dominate his flesh, and does the Lord really govern him? At any rate, it is the same trouble, pain and persecution, the same lack of clothes and food, the same plundering of property, the same threats of death, for one Christian as for the other (Cf. Hebrews 10:32 ff; -Romans 8:31-39). So the fault lies, once again, not in the inquisitory fires, but in the quality of the material tested thereby (Cf. 2 Corinthians 4:7-12; 2 Corinthians 4:16 to 2 Corinthians 5:10; 2 Corinthians 6:4-10; 2 Corinthians 7:3; 2 Corinthians 7:5; 2 Corinthians 8:2; 1 Corinthians 3:10-15; 1 Peter 1:3-9; James 1:2-4. See Special Study Temptation, Vol. I, pp. 143-152.). None the less, the trial or persecution must be because of the Word, not because of one’s own mistaken opinions or limited views of that message. (Acts 14:22; 2 Thessalonians 1:5; see notes on Matthew 5:11.)

The only saving of this superficial enthusiast from this shallow rootlessness is to give this new convert some roots. Where is the new Christian who does not want Jesus to abide in him, who does not desire to bear fruit to the Lord’s honor? Let the rich strength of the words of Jesus become part of his thinking, the source of his power, the guidance for his prayers and the stimulus to his obedience, and his initial joy need never fade! (John 15:1-11; Ephesians 3:14-19; Colossians 2:6-7.) Let him learn quickly that he has been predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son of God who was persecuted for righteousness-’ sake and ended up on a cross (Romans 8:29)!

c. THE PREOCCUPIED INDIVIDUAL: TOO BUSY, DOUBLE-MINDED

Matthew 13:7 What will grow thorns will also grow wheat! Here is soil with real potential, but already occupied: it could produce a great harvest, but is growing a jungle, **Upon the thorns **(or, among thorns, as Mark and Luke have it) zooms in on the real problem: the areas into which this portion of the seed fell were already occupied, already committed. Is there a suggestion here also that the productive power of the ground for a given year is limited, so that the ground itself, like the human heart, can support only a certain concentration of strength-consuming growth beyond which point comes exhaustion and failure?

Matthew 13:22 Is this man a Christian? It is significant that the only apostolic use of a similar figure mentioning well-watered, cultivated land producing thorns as eventually worthless, near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned, is intended to describe Christian people who have once been enlightened, have had a taste of the heavenly gift, have received the Holy Spirit, have experienced the goodness of God’s word and the spiritual resources of the age to come. (Hebrews 5:11 to Hebrews 6:12; Hebrews 10:32-39; Hebrews 12:12-15). There is no denying that the thorny heart is that of a Christian, once a child of God by faith in Jesus Christ, but now in danger of falling away for many reasons before arriving at maturity. Although Jesus does not state outright that the man with the preoccupied heart had actually accepted the Word, as in the case of the superficial convert, this is a fair assumption in light of these factors:

The crescendo of reactions to the message rising from total indifference up to genuine faith among which the thorny heart is put after the shallow heart which had actually received the Word with joy, would lead us to see this individual as a Christian.

The nature of the ground represented here, while crowded with other stronger growths, can also receive the seed and permit it to start growing.

Luke’s expression: but as they go on their way (poreuòmenoi, Matthew 8:14) indicates that the choking out of the good fruit of God’s Word in their lives would have occurred sometime after they had heard it but before they normally would have arrived at maturity. It takes time to suffocate the Word, if it is going to be done by cares, pleasure, wealth, etc. So this happens gradually as these go through life, but before they reach the goal.

Even the thorns needed time to grow up with the seeds (Luke 8:7).

In short, here is an individual unable to concentrate his entire life on God, i.e., he cannot consecrate (concentrate) it to make it wholly (holy) His (Cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 1 Thessalonians 4:3). His good intentions to make an honest, all-out, positive response to Jesus and begin the life of faith are frustrated, since divided loyalties usurp his highest loyalty and so strangle his spiritual life. He is a careless dabbler in many, not immoral things, in fact, easily justifiable, reasonably good things. But his inattention to priorities permits these other preoccupations to ease out of its first place his one great preoccupation: the service of God. The little boy who prayed in a Christian service camp: And, Lord, thank you for those boys and girls who concentrated their lives today, accidentally said more truth on the subject of holiness than most preachers can say on purpose! Here again, Jesus drives home the point: Only the pure in heart will see God. (See notes on Matthew 5:8.)

PALTRY PANACEAS AND PERENNIAL PREOCCUPATIONS THAT PREJUDICE PRODUCTION

What are these previous commitments that impede this man’s spiritual growth? As will be noticed from the hindrances themselves, these various preoccupations may all be found in the same individual in varying degrees in some unbeatable combination, or, too, one or more single preoccupations will be more accented in a given person, bringing about his downfall. (See the Special Study on Temptations, Vol. I, pp. 143-152, for more notes on this conflict of desires.)

**Cares of the world (**he mérimna toû aiônos, or, as Mark has it, hai merimnai), because of the problem of the subjective versus the objective genitive, is handily ambiguous here: (1) The worry connected with the times, those into which one’s life is cast (Lenski, Matthew, 521); (2) the cares which the world worries about. Jesus had already warned against the insidious paganism involved (Matthew 6:19-34), Martha was an easy target for this seduction (Luke 10:38-42). We, like her, get worried and bothered about so many relatively necessary things and commonly neglect the one thing really imperative. The toil and fatigue of being always on the job, always plodding, gives no leisure for concerns of the spirit. Our head buzzes with our minute-to-minute problems and our schedule is full up. Within themselves, each single care is no sin, and may even be justified in Scripture (Cf. 1 Timothy 5:8; Ephesians 4:28; Matthew 15:4-5; 2 Corinthians 12:14; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-13). The idolatry begins, however, when the individual seeks first the solution to these cares and then relegates the Kingdom-quest to whatever time, interest and strength is left. (Contrast Matthew 6:33.)

Lest anyone feel himself above these cares, let him count how many great things for God he intends to do before he dies, but whose daily business of living has such a grip on him that he is left simply too tired to think about these goals. Is our life so crowded that we never quite have time to get around to them? This is why the Lord dedicated so much soul-searching preaching to this single human concern: the Christian and the cares of this world. While there may be a definite ethnic undertone to the Parable of the Great Banquet and the Lame Excuses (Luke 14:15-24; Cf. Matthew 22:1-10), the excuses given by those originally invited reveal their real preoccupation and what they really wanted out of life.

**Delight in riches, **or the deceptive seduction that comes from wealth, or the false glamour of wealth. The reason for these varied translations lies in the word apàte, rendered by Rocci (196): 1. deception, fraud, betrayal; 2. trick, artifice; 3. diversion, pastime; and enjoyed deception, said of theatrical spectators. Arndt-Gingrich (80) mention: 1. deception, deceitfulness; seduction; deceit; 2. pleasure, pleasantness that involves one in sin. NT texts using this word are: Matthew 13:22; Mark 4:19; Ephesians 4:22; Colossians 2:8; 2 Thessalonians 2:10; Hebrews 3:13; 2 Peter 2:13; the verb apàtao occurs in Ephesians 5:6; 1 Timothy 2:14; James 1:26, where it can mean deceive, cheat, mislead, 2 mid. enjoy oneself, live pleasurably. The more talent a man has, the more the world demands his service and the more money he can make, the more he can be deceived into believing that this world’s goods are the real wealth (Cf. 1 Timothy 6:6-10). Whether we possess wealth or merely long for it, it embroils us with promises to satisfy which it cannot keep. Remember wealth’s seduction of the rich young ruler (Matthew 19:16-30). Demas fell for this trap, too (2 Timothy 4:10). Judas Iscariot had his hand in the cash register, too (John 12:6). Just as surely as Jesus knew there would be some smart boys who would attempt to serve God and Mammon (Matthew 6:24), so here too He sounds the warning: either wheat or thorns will be the produce of one heart, but not both!

Let not the poor suppose that they are somehow exempt from this temptation, merely because they have so little as never to be free from their daily cares! They too may envy the advantages that wealth provides their richer neighbors, and, consequently, embroil themselves in the same greedy grasping for just a little bit more. Even the well-fixed gentry may presume their cares to be over, only to find it hard for them to enter into God’s Kingdom (Matthew 19:16-26).

The deception lies in the hope that one’s nervous quest of wealth need not destroy his faith. Should not he use his talent for making money? While he reasons this way, the bonds of slavery to his sources of wealth harden into steel. Death or judgment catches this man still dreaming that at any minute he can free himself from his financial ties. It all begins with an eagerness to acquire it, develops through a proud confidence in what wealth can do, matures in the resolve to hold and increase the gains. He perfects a flexible honesty and that hard-nosed inhumanity called business is business. Ironically, Jesus was most exasperated with people who were so bent on acquiring money that they remained blind to the true wealth. They do not see that all worldly riches are borrowed goods given into man’s administration, and, sooner or later, must be returned to their rightful Owner for a final accounting. The sage Preacher of Ecclesiastes saw wealth with the disguise removed, and he cried, Vanity! This is a realistic picture of a life spent without God and Christ.

**The desire for other things **(Mark 4:19 hai perì tà liopà epithumìai). As noted in the Special Study on Temptations (Vol. I, pp. 147ff), the word desires (epithumia) may or may not have an evil connotation, a fact extremely important here. Is Jesus defining covetousness? Pleonexia, usually rendered covetousness, as its etymology reveals, means have-more-ishness, hence greediness, insatiableness, avarice, covetousness. (Arndt-Gingrich, 673) This is that selfish ambition that drives for wealth, position, status, recognition, certainly, but it is more. Paul succeeded in sorting out for himself the one essential ingredient in life, and dropped everything else, however desirable it might once have been, (Study Philippians 3:13 in context.) He felt so keenly the danger in desiring just a little bit more that he called covetousness by its right name: IDOLATRY (Colossians 3:5; Ephesians 5:5), Perhaps the printed liturgy for this religion is a full-illustrated sale catalogue of the products of American industry, its sacrifices are made on the easy-payment plan. Many get so bogged down in the hard-labor burden of keeping up the easy payments, that the husband is forced to hold down two jobs, and the wife must seek extra work away from the home, all in the name of the desire for other things.

**The pleasures of life **(Luke 8:14) Is this another name for the desire for other things? Is it not rather that unadulterated hedonism frankly unabashed by its own luxuriating in the good things of life?

While it may seem that each of these preoccupations is quite distinct from each otherdoes it not ring strange to hear of pleasures, the luxuries of the affluent, mentioned as thorns in the same context with the daily, crushing struggle of the poor man to live?yet there are several unifying characteristics of everyone in this class that justify Jesus-’ including these divergent tendencies in one group. Some, for instance, see a logical progression in this series of thorns: ANXIETY about things essential to one’s existence leads to activity that will produce WEALTH, which, in turn, will make possible enough comforts to create a taste for JUST A BIT MORE until one’s absorbing interest turns into unashamed living for PLEASURE. Whether this ascending (descending?) progression is intended by Jesus or not, wherever a man finds himself absorbed or obsessed at any of these levels, he is in trouble (Luke 21:34-36).

Another unifying characteristic of this class is the double-mindedness of everyone in it. It is evident from Jesus-’ emphasis that to have any harvest at all, much less a bountiful one, the choice must be faced: either thorns or no harvest at all, or only good seed and a harvest with no thorns. These are those individuals whose interests vacillate between God and anything else, and, at this point, it really does not matter WHAT else. These doubt and hesitate about their conflicts of interest. (Cf. James 4:8; James 1:8 dìpsuchos; irresolute, vacillating, uncertain) They are neither totally confident that God can be their all in all, nor that earth’s cares and pleasures can satisfy. So they wander incessantly back and forth between these two poles, struggling to harmonize the irreconcilable demands of the flesh and those of the Spirit (Cf. Galatians 5:16-26), rather than reconcile themselves to choose. How they need Elijahs to challenge them to a decision: How long are you going to waver between the two sides? If the Lord be God, follow Him. But if __________ (you fill in the blank) be a god, follow him then! Whether the real dependence of everyone in this class reveals itself in religious doubts or not, they are in reality idolaters who seek the supply of all that satisfies life’s needs in something else, anything else, other than the living God. They may trust God, but with inward reservations and divided loyalties (Cf. James 1:5-8). John, also heard this message, indicated the this-worldliness of these thorns: Do not set your heart on this world or anything in it. Anyone who loves the world cannot love the Father at the same time. In fact, the whole world system with its primitive desires, its enticements, and its pride in one’s possessions, does not derive from the Father, but from the world itself. Further, this world and its passions is already on the way out, whereas the man who does what God desires, will last forever (1 John 2:15-17).

Here are some tests that help reveal whether these thorns are crowding out the Word in us:

How much of my income is budgeted for (1) Upkeep, (2) Recreation, (3) Savings and investments, (4) the Lord’s work?

Can I consciously recall the content of the last Bible study or sermon I heard? What was the text studied? How was it developed? How was it applied? What was my personal reaction to it?

What proportion of my time may be actually said to be dedicated to learning what God wants me to know and do?

How easy is it for other things to interfere with my commitment to serve the Lord in the specific ways He has indicated?

Add also the questions listed at Matthew 6:21 (Vol. I, p. 375).

d. THE GOOD, HONEST PERSON

Matthew 13:8 Since ancient writers speak of harvests even more abundant than these more modest yields indicated here by Christ, nothing should be affirmed in the application about the rarity of the highest degrees of spirituality (Cf. Genesis 26:12). Trench (Notes, 32) cites Herodotus as saying that two hundredfold was a common return in the plain of Babylon, and sometimes three hundredfold occurred (Cf. Thomson, The Land and the Book, Vol. I, 116f). Here is ground relatively free from previous growths, broken up, and ready to receive the seed-grain.

Matthew 13:23 Is single-mindedness, or whole-heartedness, in Jesus-’ mind here? In contrast to all the foregoing, this person puts God’s Kingdom first, last and always, because his heart is neither impervious, nor previously committed, nor superficial. Consider his composite qualities taken together, since it is not possible to argue that any one of these qualities alone distinguishes these individuals, since all are essential to a successful harvest of righteousness:

He hears **the Word **(Matthew 13:23; Cf. Romans 10:14-15)

He **understands **it, in contrast to the indifferent (Matthew 13:23). Plummer (Luke, 222) thinks that katéchousin (Luke 8:15), paradéchontai (Mark 4:20), and sunieìs (Matthew 13:23) may all be equivalents of the same Aramaic verb, meaning to take in. However, it is well to note the important differences of shading in the Greek verbs actually employed by our Gospel authors. Here, therefore, suniemi speaks simply of comprehension of what is said. (Contrast Matthew 13:13-15; Matthew 13:19; cf. Matthew 13:51; Matthew 15:10; Matthew 16:12; Matthew 17:13; Luke 24:45; Ephesians 5:17)

He accepts it. (Mark 4:20; cf. James 1:21) This is a separate step beyond comprehension, since many reject the message BECAUSE they comprehend it and what it will cost them should they accept it (Cf. Acts 16:21; Acts 22:18).

**He holds it fast. **(Luke 8:15; Cf. 1 Corinthians 11:2; 1 Corinthians 15:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; Hebrews 3:6; Hebrews 3:14; Hebrews 10:23) He knows that unless he does, he can drift away from it (Hebrews 2:1-4).

I**n an honest and good heart. **(Luke 8:15) It may be justly surprising to learn that a Gospel geared to make men good should produce fruit only in hearts that are pictured as already good before receiving the message. Nevertheless, even before examining the meaning of the terms, one should expect that, in the foregoing observation, the word good is used in two different ways. That is, Jesus-’ intended target for the Gospel is to make men perfect like God, not relatively good. (See on Matthew 5:48.) So, even as soil may be described as good for the purpose for which it is sown, so we may speak of a person as a good prospect for the Gospel, although we are affirming nothing about the absolute goodness of his character or about what the Gospel will eventually produce in him. So it is that an unregenerated mind may be termed good ground for the Gospel, since it is specifically addressed to just such a mind. When a man has a sensitive conscience that accepts no easy justifications and an intellect that loves truth no matter the cost, he is honest and good. These are folks whose minds are not already filled with false notions about God and goodness, and so are ready to receive anything Jesus wants to tell them, or else they hold their prejudices lightly and so can be relieved of them. They view their vested interests as only a stewardship from God, and are happy to seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and their pleasure is always to find pleasure in what pleases God.

**Honest and good **kalòs kaì agathòs), it is true are two separate adjectives, but, when taken together, they may become a fixed phrase, sometimes written kalòs kàgathòs, and are not intended to be broken up or considered as single descriptives. From the classical Greek point of view, Rocci (961, also 4) sees this combination as meaning: respectable, honest; complete in every sense; excellent; virtuous and cultured; beautiful and precious;. excellent in every way.

(However, Arndt-Gingrich, 401 and 3, see these two as separate qualities. Nevertheless, even English has a similar idiom in which good and. followed by an adjective is but the reinforcement of the normal value of that adjective, e.g., good and ready, good and tired good and angry. In these cases we affirm nothing about the relative goodness of the person so described, because we intend only to emphasize the second adjective, as in the combination: When I become good and tired, I cannot think well. Nothing is affirmed here for the Greek expression on the basis of the English idiom, except to point out the possibility of the Greek combination of two adjectives united by and used to express one concept.)

Trench (Notes, 32) sees this description honest and good as referring to

… a receptivity for the truth. One (division of men) was of the false-hearted, who called good evil, and evil good, self-excusers and self-justifiers, such as were the Scribes and Pharisees for the most part. The other class were sinners too, but yet acknowledging their sins, and having no wish to alter the everlasting relations between right and wrong. Such were the Matthews and the Zacchaeuses. Nathaniel would be yet a more perfect specimena man of simple, earnest, truthful nature, who had been faithful to the light which he hadwho had not resisted God’s preparation for imparting to him His best gift.

**He produces fruit. **(Cf. John 15:1-16; James 1:22-27) Note that it is fruit, not proven sterilty and indifference; fruit, not an abundance of promises and withered leaves; fruit, not immature or incomplete production however far advanced it might be; but ripe, harvestable fruit that proved the ground to be good. Further, fruit is the proper, natural product of the seed. The Gospel seed will produce only Gospel fruit in the sense that, when we think, speak and act in harmony with the Word, and because of our desire to obey the Word, we are bearing fruit. We bear fruit when we do as the Lord teaches us. (Study John 14:15; John 14:21; John 14:23; John 15:6-7; John 15:10; John 15:12; John 15:14; John 15:17.) Our actions and new thought patterns, reoriented in conformity with the Word received in our heart and life, are nothing short of the activity of the very Spirit of God at work to produce His fruit in us! (See 1 Peter 1:22-23; 1 Peter 1:25; James 1:18; James 1:21; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18; Galatians 5:5; Galatians 5:13-24; Romans 8:9-11; Philippians 2:12-13.)

**Fruit. some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. **There is no indication in the text whether Jesus approves or disapproves of these differences in results. Argument for each could be made as follows:

a.

If He approves of the varied harvest, then Jesus is taking into account individual differences; even good hearts do not all produce alike. He does not expect the same level of performance from all His different disciples, because they are precisely thatDIFFERENT. (Cf. Romans 12:3-8; Matthew 25:14-30; 2 Corinthians 8:11-12.) But He does expect them to produce to their own individual capacity. (Colossians 1:28; 2 Peter 1:3-4; 1 Corinthians 4:2; Matthew 25:15; 2 Corinthians 8:3; 2 Corinthians 8:5; 2 Corinthians 8:8; 2 Corinthians 8:12; 2 Corinthians 9:5-7). Their very difference justifies no false comparisons or easy justifications for inadequate production (Cf. Galatians 6:1-10; 2 Corinthians 10:12; 2 Corinthians 10:18).

b.

If He disapproves, these differences reveal themselves as part of the larger problem as to why the Word receives different treatment in the heart of different hearers. In this case, one must not be satisfied to bear only thirtyfold or sixty, in the same way that one must not allow himself to remain infested with worldly preoccupations or pleasures of life. To change the figure, as the Lord’s vine, we can be pruned to bear much more fruit than we actually do (John 15:1-5; John 15:8; cf. also Luke 13:6-9). Any diversity in our own consecration or in our understanding of the Word will result in a harvest of righteousness dissimilar to that of others. Consider James 3:18 in its context Matthew 3:13-17 addressed to Christians who must make their own that true, heavenly wisdom that is pure, peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without uncertainty or insincerity. Paul encourages the rich to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous (1 Timothy 6:17 ff). But since all such production must necessarily be relative to one’s opportunities, his inclination to respond positively to each situation, his understanding of God’s will in each case, etc., his reaction will obviously differ. The net result is a series of reactions which comprise the life of each individual, which, when measured comparatively with that of others, will appear to vary from a hundredfold to sixty to thirty.

While it may be that the Lord is happy to recognize individual differences among His disciples, can He be satisfied with less-than-perfect concentration on, and obedience to, His Word? Since it is the Word which is sown (Luke 8:11), it is the Word which grows to maturity. Paul, besides rejoicing that the word of the truth, the gospel which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growingso among yourselves, from the day you heard and understood the grace of God in truth, prayed also that the Colossians be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, to lead a life worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God (Colossians 1:3-14). While the Word itself may be a fixed quantity, our grasp of it and obedience to it certainly is not (Cf. Ephesians 1:15-19; Ephesians 3:14-19; Ephesians 4:11-16; Philippians 1:9-11).

e. CONCLUSION TO THIS PARABLE ON HUMAN FREEDOM

Matthew 13:9 He that hath ears, let him hear. (See notes on Matthew 11:15; Matthew 13:43; Cf. Revelation 1:7, 11, 17, 26, 29; Revelation 3:6; Revelation 3:13; Revelation 3:22.) But ears are standard equipment! This observation turns us aside to consider the fact that, although everyone normally is furnished with a pair of ears, he may not actually be listening with interest and understanding to Jesus. Consequently, his ability to grasp the kind of Kingdom of God that Jesus is revealing depends greatly upon the concentration of his heart, upon his attitude, upon what he wants in life, because all these determine greatly whether he will be convinced by the truth when he hears it. This aphorism with which He concludes the simple narration about the Sower, Seed and Soils should prevent people’s supposing that this story has no deeper meaning. It warns them to look beneath the surface, if they would not be merely mystified by it. It is significant that, according to Mark 4:3, Jesus introduced this parable with the verb akoùete:

If translated as an indicative question, Jesus is stirring up the sleepy-minded: Are you listening?

If translated as an imperative, Jesus orders: Pay attention! Either way, He helps men to see that the real point of His story is to show how vitally each individual’s concentration affects how the Word is received and retained (Cf. Mark 4:24-25; Luke 8:18).

This simple, oft-repeated invitation is so very urgent, because -so much depends upon its proper understanding. DETERMINISTIC PREDESTINATION IS JUST NOT TRUE, because it sees God as sealing the inexorable fate of the damned or the unchangeable bliss of the saved, irrespective of their individual choices. Jesus cannot make such an unlimited invitation, unless menall menare genuinely free to hear His message and be changed by it, and so be saved. This whosoever-type exhortation, further, means nothing, unless men, after listening to Him, can freely choose not to accept it, and so be damned. So, God’s grace is really free to all and proceeds from unbounded goodness, but He will not violate human liberty in order to force His grace upon man. Without further cultivation the terrain remains what it was. There is a sense in which God cultivates the soil in the attempt to help it to produce (Cf. Romans 2:4; Luke 13:6-9). However, this is not a cultivation that manipulates the free will of the person determined not to respond. The goodness of God aims to reach the sentiments of the person, but does not touch his will at all. Man always retains the keys to his own free will and remains lord of his own destiny. Not even the loving effort of fellow Christians to help him bear fruit can force him to choose something he does not want (Cf. Hebrews 6:4-6). This concept becomes even clearer when we remember the conditions that made each of the four hearts what they are:

The first heart did not understand the Word, but he was perfectly free to ask for further explanations from Jesus.

The superficial hearer believed for a while, therefore he could have believed a while longer, growing ever stronger in the faith, even to the point where he could withstand the scandal of persecutions and temptations to quit.

The preoccupied person, suffocated by worldly cares, by the deception of wealth, by the ambition for other things and by the pleasures of life, was perfectly free to die to the slavery to all this, suffer the consequences, but, in so doing, enjoy the life that is real.

Whereas the good heart depicts a generally honest person, this good character notwithstanding, he could let himself be drawn into the same deceptions that capture and destroy the other (Hebrews 2:1-3 a; Matthew 3:12-13; Matthew 10:32-39; Matthew 12:15-16).

So the will of each individual remains absolute lord of his own choice. Trench (Notes, 33) puts it as follows:

The disciples might have been in danger of supposing that these four conditions of heart were permanently fixed. This warning. obviates the possibility of such a mistake, for it tells us that according as we hear and receive the word, so will its success bethat even for those who have brought themselves into an evil condition, recovery is still, through the grace of God, possible. For, whilst it is true that there is such a thing as laying waste the very soil, yet, on the other hand, the hard soil may again become softthe shallow soil deepthe soil beset with thorns clear.

The marvel of this unfeigned, deep respect that God has for human freedom is His unhesitating willingness to take the risk involved in letting His divine Truth be rejected because of ignorance, misunderstanding, temptations, weakness of character that leaves the individual with no convictions capable of conquering temporary difficulties, persecutions, trials, etc., and because of that selfishness which expresses itself in the usual cares of the world, delight in riches, greed and pleasure! But God thinks that this risk is well worth taking, since He longs for men who freely choose to be His sons, not robots who could do no other.

MATERIALISTIC DETERMINISM IS JUST NOT TRUE EITHER. If Jesus-’ warning means to reveal anything important about man, it shouts in this unphilosophic way a final answer for all philosophers to hear: man is no machine, no part of a greater universal Machine comprising the universe as we know it. Man is not conditioned to walk lock-step with mechanical processes that force him to be what he is, for which conduct he is fundamentally not responsible, not culpable.

Therefore, let no man excuse himself, pleading irresponsibility for disobedience on the ground that he is helpless against the inclinations of his own deeply-ingrained characteristics. If he will but listen to Jesus, the Lord can help him to change all that through that radical transformation whereby he harmonizes every part of his being according to the new, living reality before Him in Jesus. He can really be born again! (John 3:3-5; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:22-23). Weak men can be made strong! What is a Savior for, if He be unable to free the enslaved, hearten the hopeless and turn the shallow-hearted into dedicated disciples who are deeply rooted and firmly established in the Lord (Cf. 2 Corinthians 1:21; 1 Peter 5:10).

**He that hath ears, let him hear! **Lest we be proud because of our privileged position, and in order that we might better appreciate the mental blocks in the minds of Jesus-’ hearers, blocks that hindered their comprehension of messages that seem now so simple to us, let us begin to recognize some of our own! With all due respect to all unfortunate people on earth, how would you react to Jesus were He to live in your town, if you discovered that He were physically ugly? Do we not usually imagine the Lord as the very picture of our ideal of manly beauty? How would you react to Him, were you to find that He could not qualify for membership in the American cult of handsome jet-set young men? Think about Isaiah 52:13 to Isaiah 53:3 before answering. Here is where some so-called faith reveals itself for the personality cult it really is. If his loveliness were altogether spiritual glory, would you have any difficulty following Him?

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS MULTIPLE-IMPACT PARABLE?

Is it that Jesus intended gently to remove from His hearers-’ thinking the erroneous concept of a materialistic kingdom that batters its way to conquest by force of arms? Does He wish to imply that God’s Kingdom does not intend to win its victories in this way? Does He want us to understand that the success of His program will depend upon the painfully slow process of planting truth in people’s hearts, patiently waiting until it grows and bears fruit? If so, this story speaks directly to those disciples troubled about clouds on Jesus-’ horizon, because this outline of His program includes the clouds and spells out His ultimate plan for victory.

Or is it His design to apprise the disciples of the difficulties to be expected by any proclaimer of the Word, in the sense that they must be prepared to face these four kinds of response? If so, it must not be assumed that He thinks that 75% of their work will ultimately fail or be lost. After all, the good ground is represented as consisting of three different qualities, as opposed to the three qualities of soil that failed to produce good fruit. So, His lesson is this: the Gospel herald, since he cannot anticipate the judgment of God, must not try to calculate when to be cautious or try to choose terrain so cautiously that he evangelizes some people and rejects others as unfit. There can be no preselected prospect lists for his evangelism, for how could he possibly foresee, at the time of his first attempts to evangelize them, which people would be fruitful and which not? Let him be as generous in broadcasting as was Jesus the Chief Sower Himself! This requires a strategy of open evangelism only. No farmer expects every single seed to produce a bumper crop, but this does not keep him from sowing widely, confident that a harvest will come. (Study 1 Corinthians 9:19-23; Romans 1:13-16.) Jesus simply pictured several types of hearers without indicating the relative percentages involved in each group. If the Lord of the harvest did no more than this, who are we to identify the persons involved in each group and refuse to evangelize those in the first three groups?

Or is His desire to drive each single hearer to examine the character of his own heart? Even now, before judgment, Jesus would have us see the final fate of the Word in us, so that we can examine how we even now respond to it. According to Jesus, then, the chief business of the listener is not to speculate about the varying causes behind the momentous differences in hearers, nor decide the proportionate results of Gospel proclamation, nor worry how much of it is ultimately unfruitful, nor wonder whether more abundant spiritual growth is more common than less abundant growth. Rather, each one is to answer the one burning question: What kind of a person are YOU? Are you producing anything at all? Are you for Jesus Christ, or in your attempt at an unaligned neutrality, are you against Him? The question: Lord, will those who are saved be few? has only one answer: What is that to you? Go all out to be among the very best! (Cf. Luke 13:23-30; John 21:20-23.)

A brilliant psychological effect of Matthew’s placement of the disciples-’ questioning Jesus about His method immediately after the Parable of the Sower is the underlining of a truth many unbelievers often miss: whether a person will be convinced by the truth or not, often depends, not so much on the weight of the evidence, as upon his mind-set, his philosophy, his desires, his traditions, etc. People just imagine the human brain as a delicate scale that will register conviction according to the weight and sufficiency of the evidence, thus leaving the individual somehow unresponsible for his beliefs. Nevertheless, by His repeated warningsListen!. He that has ears, let him hear!. Take heed how you hearJesus holds each listener personally answerable for his response to truth. (Ironically, this same position is taken by the unbelievers themselves when they too hold a man responsible for his beliefs, by criticizing a Christian for remaining one, when surely he would have seen the falsity of Christianity, were his mind not clouded by his desire for security, etc.)

FACT QUESTIONS

On what day did Jesus teach this sermon in parables? Study the closer chronological connections found in the parallel passages to gather the various facts that occurred that day.

Out of what house did Jesus probably walk to go down to the seashore to teach? On what other occasions is this house mentioned?

Explain the fact that Jesus sat in the boat to teach the people. Could He not have stood quietly in the boat to deliver the same message? Why sit?

Is Jesus-’ use of parables in this incident an entirely new method of teaching for Jesus? Why do His disciples ask Him about the method?

What is a parable as Jesus uses that word in this story? How does a parable, as defined today, differ from an allegory?

In what does the interpretation of this parable consist? How are we to decide what the point is? What is the surest way of learning the meaning of this, or any, parable?

Identify in this parable the following:

a.

The sower

e.

The scorching sun

b.

The seed

f.

The rocky places

c.

The way side

g.

The thorns

d.

The birds

h.

The good ground

Explain the purpose for the expression: He that has ears, let him hear, as a proper conclusion to the parable itself and as a key to the understanding of its meaning.

Explain how persecution arises because of the word. What word? How because of the word?

Summarize the total message of this single parable without specific reference to the details.

What other parable(s) have more or less the same point of emphasis or same information about God’s Kingdom as revealed in the Parable of the Sower?

2. THE PARABLE OF THE GRAIN THAT GROWS BY ITSELF (Mark 4:26-29)

Several comments are in order regarding our insertion of this exclusively Marcan parable into this commentary on Matthew’s version of the Great Sermon in Parables. Immediately three major objections present themselves. First, and most obvious, is the fact that Mark does not relate this parable in any contextual way to the other stories having similar symbols, i.e., soil, seed(s), sower, harvest, etc., since he inserts the Parable of the Lamp and its explanation between the Parable of the Sower and this story of the Seed Growing By Itself. This fact notwithstanding, it appears that Mark, like Matthew, does not aim to indicate a strictly chronological continuity between the various parts of his version of this sermon, a supposition based on the staccato style of Mark’s introductory words with which he prefaces each speech of Jesus: And he said. (kaì élegen). The expression is so general as to leave his final result as almost, if not absolutely, devoid of strict chronological connection. (Cf. Mark 4:2 where the very looseness of his arrangement is clearly introduced. Note especially in Greek: 4:10, 11, 13, 21, 24, 26, 30.) This observation would permit us to consider Mark’s parable in a freer (looser) context to ascertain its meaning.

A second objection to consideration of the parable at this point is the fact that Jesus did not interpret this story, hence furnished no clue to its relationship to the rest of the sermon, unless, of course, it be thought to continue or develop a thought mentioned in the Parable of the Lamp immediately preceding it. Consequently, any interpolation of Mark’s parable into Matthew’s arrangement for the purpose of discovering its meaning is purely arbitrary, hence any interpretation based upon any such systematization must be held lightly if not with outright suspicion. And yet, despite the force of these sound hermeneutical principles, another rule of interpretation must be considered: the very literary affinities this parable shares with both that of the Sower and that of the Tares, evident in the use of many of the same symbols (however with different shadings and emphases), should give us pause before categorically denying any relationship whatever. In fact, two interesting patterns in the Sermon suggest themselves to the reader of all three Synoptics:

Jesus apparently told two stories to reinforce each point, even if certain details of each member of the couplet give the major point a slightly different twist. (See the revised outline at the beginning of this chapter.) However, Matthew’s version of this discourse includes no direct companion to the Parable of the Sower. Is it possible that Mark’s Parable of the Growing Seed IS its mate?

Matthew himself, while usually keeping these couplets together, as in the case of the Mustard Seed and Yeast Parables, or in that of the Hid Treasure and Precious Pearl Parables, does, in fact, separate the Parable of the Weeds from that of the Dragnet, even though these stories illustrate fundamentally the same point despite some individuality of details. So, if Matthew can separate stories of similar import, why cannot Mark?

These considerations, of course, leave open the possibility that the very similarity of symbols could be a clue to parallel ideas involved in all three illustrations taken from the field, since, as we have seen, order in the transcription of the stories is no serious objection to their consideration together or the supposition of their similarity of teaching.

A third objection to considering this parable in connection with that of the Sower arises from an exclusive interpretation that sees only Jesus as the Sower in all three field parables. Whereas He IS the Sower par excellence, and is even specifically so identified in the Parable of the Weeds (Matthew 13:37), the precise identity of the Sower in both the Parable of the Sower and in that of the Growing Seed is left completely out of consideration. Since there is no compelling reason to believe the Parable of the Tares to have been told first chronologically, with the result that its identification of the Sower as Jesus should be thought to be normative for the others, and since the Synoptic authors are agreed that the Parable of the Sower with its anonymous sower probably came first, it is better to regard the positive identification of the sower in the Parable of the Weeds as a special feature of that story alone, and not necessarily to be read back into the field parables preceding it. Therefore, the appropriateness of the Parable of the Growing Seed as a parallel to that of the Sower is not at all hindered by the anonymity of its chief protagonist, the farmer who broadcasts the seed. Rather, his very anonymity argues that he is not to be so strictly identified with Jesus. So, as was noted at Matthew 13:18, although the point of the story may touch Jesus-’ work, and the sower intended COULD symbolize Him in general, nevertheless it may not refer to Him so exclusively. Although some details of the story might apply to Him, it does not follow that all details must, especially since certain characteristics, affirmed of the farmer in the Growing Seed Parable, are unworthy of our Lord (Mark 4:27). Not all that is affirmed of the farmer in the story may be said of Jesus, because, considered as a symbol, the farmer may actually represent anyone who, like Jesus, broadcasts the Gospel.

As will be noted later, this parable develops Jesus-’ thoughts regarding the problems involved in proclaiming the truth of God’s Kingdom, a fact which (if we have correctly understood its meaning) renders it a proper parallel to that of the Sower, and so to be inserted at this point.

TEXT: Mark 4:26-29

26 And he said, The Kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed upon the ground, 27 and should sleep and rise night and day, and the seed should sprout, he knows not how. 28 The earth produces of itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. 29 But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest is come.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

Why should we consider this parable in context with that of the Sower?

b.

What further information does this story add to the total revelation of the Kingdom of God presented in this sermon by Jesus?

c.

If Jesus did not furnish the key to the interpretation of this parable, how must we go about arriving at its meaning?

d.

Why mention the passage of time in this parable, i.e., the farmer’s sleeping and rising night and day, as well as the time required for the development of the harvest? What does this indicate about the parable’s main point?

e.

How far should each detail in this illustration be pressed?

PARAPHRASE

At another point in His great sermon in parables Jesus gave another illustration: The great Messianic Kingdom may be illustrated by a farmer who broadcasts seed in his field. Then he goes on about his regular business, sleeping well every night and rising to work each day. The seed itself sprouts quite independently of the farmer’s ken and concern, because the earth produces automatically according to its own law and order: first, the blade, then the stalk with the green head, and finally the fully mature headed-out grain. Only at the time of the dead-ripe harvest does the farmer once more intervene by beginning instantly the reaping.

SUMMARY

The Kingdom of God and the truth of its proclamation are already perfectly suited to accomplish their appointed tasks in the human heart, without recourse to artificial, humanly-devised means to make them function. Nevertheless, their own proper development requires time so that the desired results be realized according to the norms and schedule for its completion.

NOTES

A. THE PRINCIPLE FACTS of the parable:

The story intends to illustrate the Kingdom of God, but to what aspect of it does Jesus refer?

a.

to the Messianic Reign of the Christ?

b.

to the government of God in the individual disciple?

c.

to the Kingdom of God realized in the Church?

d.

to God’s government of the universe?

e.

to the Kingdom perfected at the close of the present age?

f.

to all these concepts collectively?

It may be that Jesus is including most of these concepts of the Kingdom, since Jewish expectation, with its cosmic eschatology surrounding the Messiah’s coming, would tend to mingle these various expressions into one overall concept of God’s Kingdom. Further, as will be seen later, the main emphasis of this parable may be rightly applied to each of these concepts.

2. The farmer:

a.

that scatters seed upon the ground, a reminder of the Parable of the Sower;

b.

that sleeps tranquilly (sleeps by night), because he is confident that he has done all that is humanly possible to provide suitable growing conditions for the seed he has sown, and because he is confident in the vitality of the seed itself.

c.

that rises by day to go calmly about his daily business during the time when he must necessarily await the natural development of the harvest.

d.

that knows not how the seed should sprout and grow. Making the seed grow is none of his immediate concern, because he could not interfere with the normal laws of its life if he wanted to, The farmer may know a great deal about the value of preparing the ground before sowing, about fertilizers, about proper rain and sun, as well as about the removal of weeds and other harmful growth in competition for the strength of the soil. These are not the elements of the seed’s germination and growth about which he is ignorant, for his farm organization can do much to prepare for and follow up his own sowing and set up the conditions favorable for a good harvest. But all his organization and any anxiety about the harvest cannot make the plants grow. This comes from the life within the seed itself.

3. The seed:

a.

that is sown upon the ground:

b.

that sprouts and grows automatically (the earth produces of itself). It is the earth of itself, not the farmer, that produces in its own good time and according to the laws of development inherent in the soil, rains, sun and seed, totally independently of all human efforts to force the seed to grow or bring it to maturity for the final harvest. Farmers the world over can control many factors by cultivating the soil, by sowing each crop in its proper season, etc., but if the earth did not spontaneously produce of itself when sown, all would be useless. Sometimes unforeseen factors enter in to ruin the crop: new plant diseases, insect plagues, unusual weather conditions, etc., and farmers have fought these enemies of their crops for millennia. Why? Because the basic assumption behind all their efforts is that, if they are successful in controlling the controllable, the earth will produce of itself, because the seed and the soil are made for each other. No special adaptation or manipulation is required, since good seed faithfully sown in reasonably good soil will produce the desired harvest.

c.

that matures according to its own natural laws and schedule of development:

(1) first the blade

(2) then the ear, or head of grain (stàchus)

(3) then the full grain in the ear.

4. The harvest:

a.

that must be begun at once, because the time of the harvest is come.

b.

that must begin only when the grain is ripe, not when human impatience dictates.

B. SOME LESSONS SUGGESTED BY THIS STORY:

Whereas it would seem, on the basis of the teaching in the Parable of the Sower and Soils, that the effectiveness of the Word of God is contingent upon the quality of the soil/heart in which it is planted, leading to the natural however erroneous, conclusion that human effort is required to force the seed Word to grow and produce, this Parable of the Growing Seed corrects that impression. It teaches that, as in the natural world such effort is as unnecessary as it is impossible, so in the Kingdom of God, all artificial attempts at manipulation of spiritual growth must give way to humility, patience and gratitude.

Gonzalez-Ruiz (Marco, 121) reminds that

… the kingdom of God is a divine enterprise. While accepting human collaboration, it must always remain above every human attempt to force the progress of its operation. The parable, with its confident awaiting the arrival of the harvest, is directed against all attitudes that would force the coming of the Kingdom or even construct it outright, by national revolution, like the Zealots would have it, or by obedience to an absolute legal discipline, like the Pharisees demanded, or by precise calculations on the time of the end, as the apocalyptists dreamed it. The Evangelist opposes all this with an openness to the future that awaits what God Himself will do. In fact, to Him alone belong the initiative and spiritual direction of the Kingdom. Western Christians are notorious for their confidence in human organization and what it can do to bring about greater spirituality, the arrival of the Kingdom of God on earth, and other worthwhile spiritual goals. Organization can help to sustain pre-existent life, but HOW LITTLE LIFE organization can produce! Trench (Notes, 101) correctly sees that Our Lord’s object. is pointedly to exclude the continuous agency of the sower, i.e., of the same kind as he exercises at the first. Human effort, however well intentional or organized, just cannot force or manipulate spiritual growth into the likeness of God.

He who proclaims the message of the Kingdom, and, as a consequence, produces a bridgehead for the Kingdom in the individual Christian, and, collectively, in the Christian congregations, must not expect to see immediate results of his work, shortly after completing it. In fact, as is the case with every worthwhile enterprise, time is needed to let things mature, and the more important it is, the more time is needed, so also is the case with the Kingdom of God. Jesus is announcing that even the Word of God requires time to extend the influence of God’s good government in men’s hearts.

He who proclaims the Gospel of the Kingdom must have confidence in the message he announces, because this Word is capable of producing the desired results without ulterior updating or other manipulation by the disciples to make it more effective. How striking is the contrast between our exaggerated confidence in human methods, human philosophies, human organizations, etc., and Jesus-’ confidence in the power of His Word in the human heart! This is easily judged by His own procedure: He too came to earth to bring spiritual life to light through the Gospel (2 Timothy 1:10). Everything that Jesus accomplished Himself or achieved through His supernaturally-endowed Apostles to establish His Truth in the world is all part of one stupendous sowing. Then, He too left the seed to grow spontaneously by itself. He will not break into the present world order until that glorious miracle of His second coming, His resurrection of all the dead to judgment and His bringing the present age to a halt before His throne. BUT IN THE MEANTIME Jesus is not personally present in the world encouraging the growth of the Gospel in the human heart. True, His Spirit is the unseen power at work helping the Word to produce its effect in men’s hearts, but His Spirit leaves men entirely masters of their own will. (See notes on Matthew 13:9.) Jesus is now literally gone from the earthly scene, having firmly planted His Word and His Church in the world. Although the Church is always faced with possible extermination by persecutions and apostacy, yet Jesus has never visibly or personally returned to earth to extricate her from her torments. His confidence in the power of His Word to accomplish the work for which He set it forth has dictated a hands off policy. (Cf. Paul’s confidence in the Word of God: Acts 20:32; Romans 1:16.) For almost two millenia now, Jesus-’ confidence in the vitality of His Word and its power in the human heart has let Him go on unhurried and unworried about other business (Cf. John 14:2-3; 1 John 2:1-2; Hebrews 1:2-3; 2 Peter 3:3-15 a). Then, when the earth harvest is ripe, He will make His second and final appearance during this epoch of earth’s history to complete the marvelous task inaugurated at His first advent. Can we too, like Jesus, resist the temptation to modify or manipulate or otherwise mutilate our message, hoping for better, speedier results?

The Kingdom of God and its Gospel and the human heart are already adapted perfectly to one another. Consequently, no modification of either can be considered essential to make the Word of God more effective in converting the heart, or to make it possible for the heart to receive it more easily.

a.

No changes in the Gospel can be justified on the basis of a supposed need to update the message to make it relevant, as if its Author had not already perfectly adapted it to the needs of men of any century, any nation, any culture, any class!

b.

No revamping of the inborn simplicity of God’s Kingdom can be defended, that would organize new ecclesiastical structures to manipulate spiritual growth or accelerate the maturation of the plan of God, as if the divine means indicated in the Word itself for the realization of that plan should be thought to be inadequate!

c.

Nor does man himself have to be specially adapted to the Gospel or somehow readied for the Kingdom of God through man-made schemes for better health, higher educational advantages or more general welfare, before the Gospel can operate in his heart or before he can respond positively to it, as if the King’s message were not already addressed to Man in any social condition!

What a tragedy that the Church herself has never perfectly learned that, in the period intervening between sowing and reaping, the crop must be let alone, without insisting on speedy maturation or hasty harvesting of immature fruit! What is objected to here is none of the God-given means for edification and encouragement of spiritual growth in the individual and in the Church, but rather all those artificial, humanly devised means that express a Boanergean desire for fire from heaven and a Zealot’s violent impatience with God’s means and schedule for bringing in the Kingdom.

God’s procedure for establishing and developing His Kingdom proceeds by stages according to fixed, orderly laws of spiritual development until the time chosen by God for judging the final results, This fact prohibits a priori any hasty, negative judgments about the present reality or incomplete condition of God’s Kingdom on earth. Any short-sightedness on the part of Christ’s followers could lead only to disappointment, doubt and unbelief, because anyone who looks at the present world condition and presumes this state of affairs to be the finished product, must pronounce it a hopeless chaos and God’s Kingdom a failure! (Remember the impatience of John the Baptist? Matthew 11:3 or worse still, the scoffing question: What has happened to his promised coming? (2 Peter 3:4). Instead of leaping to this unfounded conclusion, men must understand that the faith of Jesus Christ, both in the individual follower and in the Church in the world, develops according to those orderly principles that govern the progress of truth in the human mind from one stage of maturity to another, and from one person to another.

The only haste manifest in the parable is seen when the harvest is come: at once he puts in the sickle (euthùs apostéllei to drépanon). This urgency stands out in contrast to the slow passage of time for the farmer between his sowing and the harvest, that time in which the grain matured, that time in which the farmer was helpless to hurry the crop’s development. So, the Church too cannot anticipate the judgments of God. It is only when the last fulness of time will have arrived, that things will be brought rapidly to their natural conclusion (Revelation 10:6).

Any impatience toward the means by which God has chosen to develop His rule on earth is completely out of place, as also every expression of self-reliant zeal that would abbreviate God’s schedules by inventing and imposing on the Church and world artificial structures and means, rather than be content with those designed and desired by God.

C. NEW ATTITUDES INDICATED:

A PATIENCE that awaits the maturing of God’s program according to the laws of life planned in His design (Cf. James 5:7-11). John Brown (PHC, XXIII, 149) urges:

A man may be converted in a moment of time; but after he has turned right round, the development of that life must needs take many long years of discipline before it reaches the height for which God intended it. Salvation means not merely delivering a man from sin, from every evil thing, but building him up to all nobleness; not merely the putting aside of what is weak and sinful, but the attainment of all that is noble and true; and is always the work of time. You can make a man a present of some material things in a moment, but you cannot give him patience purity. humility, in a moment of time. Faith gets grip and strength through stress of suffering; wisdom is the child of experience. We can never do without any of the intervening stagesnever expedite the processes of God either in nature or in grace.

We can no more pray, Thy Kingdom come and expect God to answer instantly by giving us a fully mature Kingdom, because to do so would violate man’s will and his freedom to choose the Kingdom, than we can pray, Give me patience and give it to me now! for the same reason.

A HUMILITY that admits its own inability to produce spiritual life, because this is neither its function nor responsibility. We may plant and water, but God makes the plants grow (1 Corinthians 3:7). This humility is content that the Word should grow and bear fruit however embarrassing be its ignorance of the process by which God’s Word will eventually accomplish in the world that purpose for which He sent it forth (Isaiah 55:10-11). After all, our ignorance of the psychological operations of His Word in people is nothing new, nor is our incomprehension of the final fulfillment of God’s plans (Cf. 1 Peter 1:10-12; Matthew 24:36-51).

A GRATITUDE that we may go cheerfully about our taste without the burden of an undefined, unlimited responsibility, since we know that the ultimate success of men’s conversion and the development of God’s Kingdom is not under our control. We may be grateful that the power is of God and not of ourselves (2 Corinthians 4:7). After having faithfully declared the whole counsel of God and done everything in our power to evangelize the world and provide suitable growing conditions for spiritual maturity, we can depend on God, thankful that the final victory is in His hands.

A SELF-DISCIPLINE in the face of temptation to demand immediate results, instant growth and measurable progress in terms of dollars and cents, numbers, institutional power and financial holdings, to the probable spiritual damage of the little ones in our care. Here is a self-discipline that refuses to criticize God because He seems to delay the fulfillment of His promise, a self-discipline that knows that He is patient toward you, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the Day of the Lord will come. (2 Peter 3:9-10).

A LOYALTY and a CONSTANCY on the part of the disciples in proclaiming faithfully and vigorously the Gospel as the ONLY MEANS to foster the many necessary social revolutions for the enduring happiness of man, confident in the wisdom of God that chose to use this very means. Rather than promote the Kingdom by Maccabean methods and views that can do it nothing but violence and embarrass its King, rather than endeavor to speed up the arrival of the Kingdom by organizing imposing ecclesiastical superstructures that manipulate the Church, rather than attempt social betterment by means that bypass faithful Gospel proclamation, rather than substitute political freedom for a biblically-defined liberation from guilt of personal sin, the Church of Jesus Christ is to be constant in preaching the Word of her divine Lord, confident that His Word, given time, will bring about the results HE desires, because it is HIS Kingdom, not hers, that she desires to promote.

HOW UNMESSIANIC!

The cooler heads in Palestine certainly did not share the Maccabean fervor for revolution now!, especially those elements most interested in Hellenizing (= paganizing) the population. Education and culture had long been moving toward cultural syncretism even before the time of Christ, But with the exciting preaching of John the Baptist that heralded the near arrival of the Kingdom of God, there was revived in Israel the almost-forgotten hopes for national greatness in a Jewish Kingdom of God. Excited masses turned to Jesus of Nazareth hoping that, sooner or later, they might seize Him to make Him their King. Every day Jesus talked and men listened for some word, some clue that would indicate zero-hour for which they had so long dreamed. Here, as elsewhere in this great sermon (see on Matthew 13:30-33), Jesus opts, however, for gradualism and a patient utilization; of God’s means until He should have completed His program to bring in the long-awaited Kingdom. Not only would the hard-core Zealots and card-carrying Assassins have been disappointed by this parable of Jesus, but also all those pious, less openly political sympathizers with those nationalists, would have been left baffled, asking, What kind of a Kingdom of God does He think to represent anyway?

FACT QUESTIONS

What phase or phases of the Kingdom of God are represented by this parable?

What factors indicate whether this parable is to be understood as an allegory or as a one-point illustration?

For what mistaken attitudes among Jesus-’ original hearers is this parable an antidote and corrective?

Demonstrate the logical relationship between this parable and others delivered the same day by Jesus.

Identify the main point of this illustration of God’s Kingdom.

Matthew 13:10-17

III. JESUS-’ METHODOLOGY BEHIND PARABOLIC INSTRUCTION

A. THE PURPOSE FOR PARABLES TEXT: 13:10-17

(Parallels: Mark 4:10-12; Mark 4:21-25; Luke 8:9-10; Luke 8:16-18)

10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 And he answered and said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath. 13 Therefore speak I to them in parables; because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14 And unto them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall in no wise understand; And seeing ye shall see, and shall in no wise perceive:

15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross,

And their ears are dull of hearing, And their eyes they have closed; Lest haply they should perceive with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And should turn again, And I should heal them.

16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear. 17 For verily I say unto you, that many prophets and righteous men desired to see the things which ye see, and saw them not; and to hear the things which ye hear, and heard them not.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

Should we use parables? Why, what good purpose would they serve?

b.

Some Christians balk at the idea of Jesus-’ coming to earth to hide truth from some, while, at the same time, revealing it to others. How can Jesus be justified in not only hiding truth from some of His contemporaries, but also in making deliberate use of a method which would continue to hide the truth from people down through the centuries? As a matter of fact, Jesus not only chose to conceal the truth, but justified His course of action as correct and cited Scripture to show how such a course fitted perfectly into the situation perennially faced by all true prophets of God. How do you explain this? Is He being fair? How do you know?

c.

From what kind of people has God, or Jesus, hidden truth? Are these people responsible for not knowing truth that they could not see? If not, why not? If so, then how can they be held responsible for something they did not, even could not, know? Or does this correctly state their case?

d.

How can something be taken away from someone who has nothing? Yet, Jesus affirms that whosoever has not, from him shall be taken away even that which he has. How can he both have something and still have nothing at the same time? Explain, then, how Jesus can give people something, and in the very act of giving it to them, He takes away what they have? How would you solve this riddle?

e.

What vital connection exists between Matthew’s report of Jesus-’ general explanation for hiding truth (Matthew 13:10-17) and the other Evangelists-’ report of Jesus-’ illustration about lamps under beds? (Cf. Mark 4:21-25; Luke 8:16-18)

f.

How is it true, as Jesus affirms, that unto them (the multitudes) is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah. ? Did Isaiah have Jesus-’ audience in mind when writing for his own generation? If not, then how could Jesus apply this prophetic declaration with any propriety to His own hearers?

g.

What is the psychological truth behind the statement of Jesus: The measure you give will be the measure you get, and still more will be given you, a truth that pinpoints the reason why people would have trouble grasping truth? (Mark 4:24) How, then, is this idea the very motive for Jesus-’ switch to the parabolic system?

h.

Why does Jesus continue to hammer on the expression: If any man has ears to hear, let him hear? Further, what is so important about taking heed how you hear and what you hear? (Mark 4:24; Luke 8:18)

i.

What do you think makes people so unreceptive to Jesus-’ message that He feels compelled to hide it from them?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

It was when He was alone that the disciples in His company, along with the Twelve, approached Him and began asking Him about the stories, Why did you address the people only in stories? His answer was to the point: Because it has been granted to YOU to know the revealed secrets of God’s Kingdom. But for those who choose to remain outside, everything is presented in the form of stories, for to that kind of follower it has not been granted to understand these things.

After all, is a lamp that has been lit ever brought in to be put under a dish, or under a container of some sort, or even under the bed? No, it is put on a stand, that those who enter the room may see the light. I say this, because there is nothing that is now secret that shall not someday be revealed, nor is there anything secret in what I tell you that shall not later be known or come to light. So, if anyone has ears to hear with, let him pay attention. Take care, then, how you listen and what you listen to. The measure of generous attention you give to the message will be the measure of information you will receive, and you will be able to comprehend even more that will be given you, For to him who has some real understanding about the Kingdom will more information be given, and he will know a great deal about it. But from him who has no real understanding, even what truth he thinks he knows about it will mean little to him and he will lose even that too. This is the motive behind my speaking to the curiosity seekers in illustrative stories, since, though they have the ability to see, they do not actually see what I am driving at. Though they can listen, they still do not understand. The prophecy of Isaiah (Matthew 6:9-10) describes these people all too well:

-You shall hear, truly enough, without ever understanding, You shall certainly see, but never grasp what is being said to you. In fact, the mind of these people has become dull-witted, Their ears are bored from listening, they have closed their mind, So that they could not actually see with their eyes, Actually hear with their ears, actually understand with their mind, And actually repent, turning to me to heal and forgive them.-’ But you are to be congratulated, because you actually see and hear what is going on here. As a matter of fact, many are the ancient prophets and godly men who fervently longed to witness these events that you yourselves are seeing, and to hear the messages you are listening to, but whose death prevented it.

SUMMARY

Jesus must now explain to His Apostles the fundamental psychological truth that the mind can learn only that truth that it is willing to accept. He was able to teach His disciples in clear, easily grasped, literal language, because they had opened their mind to let Him inform them on subjects about which only He could give authoritative information. But with the masses whose minds were already full of the rubbish of the rabbis, people who felt that they already knew too much to admit the Lord’s teaching, Jesus repeated the same truth in story form. This system disguised the message under the scenery of the illustrations. Nevertheless, even Jesus admits that teaching is intended to reveal, not hide, truth. In fact, He points out that even this secret message, now so carefully unveiled to only His closest followers, will eventually be widely broadcast. But even so, only those who generously give real attention to what Jesus is teaching will be able to see His meaning. Only those who trust Him and come to Him seeking explanations will learn.

NOTES A. THE REASON FOR PARABLES (13:10, 11)

Matthew 13:10 **The disciples came. to him, **as noticed in the Introduction, when He was alone (Mark 4:10), a fact which places this section probably at the same time when He left the crowds and went into the house at the conclusion of His public message. (Matthew 13:34-36) There again it is said that His disciples came to Him. The reaction is natural to suppose that Matthew refers to two separate moments in which His followers sought solutions. However, the following factors are determinative for the conclusion that they did not interrupt His sermon, but held their queries until they could corner Him for this confidential information:

Mark (Mark 4:10) specifies that Jesus was definitely alone.

Luke’s version of their question does not puzzle so much over the Lord’s strategy as it seeks the interpretation of this parable, i.e., of the Sower (Luke 8:9 ff) This explanation was given only once and only in private (Mark 4:13; Mark 4:10)

Matthew himself, who records this explanation in this place, clearly informs us that he said nothing to them without a parable. (Matthew 13:34; cf. Mark 4:33-34)

The last objection to the view that the disciples supposedly interrupted Jesus to pose Him this half-question, half-request that the Sower Parable be explained for the sake of the people, and that Jesus did comply, is its psychological improbability from His standpoint. While they were not above interrupting Him publicly to propose courses of action for Him (cf. Matthew 16:21-23; Matthew 15:12; Matthew 15:15; Matthew 14:15), it is to be doubted that the Lord should have deliberately surrendered that very psychological advantage that His parables gave Him over the very public He intended to keep on the outsideunless, of course, they came in humility as disciples to seek this very help He now generously gives the others.

**Why speakest thou unto them in parables? **That Jesus should resort to riddle-like stories to present His truth, should present no surprise to the disciples, since part of their Hebrew culture was the teacher of wisdom whose parables with hidden meaning and recondite proverbs actually invited those who desired to apply themselves to meditate on the Law of the Most High and attend to the study of the prophets. (Cf. Proverbs 1:2-6; also Sir. 39:1-11; Sir. 51:23-30) This is true, because even the prophets themselves had left no means of admonishing Israel untried, even combining prophecy with parables. (Cf. Hosea 12:10) Why. parables? What is their special value as a teaching device?

A parable presents truth in a neutral setting apparently nowhere near the dangerous area of the hearer’s prejudices.

A parable fires the imagination to envision truth from a different perspective. It forces a man to discover its truth for himself, making him do his own thinking. This, in turn, not only makes the truth learned his own possession but unforgettable, because the conclusions are his. But for those too lazy to think or too prejudiced to admit its truth, the parable effectively hides information, It begins with something understood or familiar and proceeds to illustrate ideas or experiences unfamiliar to the listeneran excellent educational principle, Abstractions take on concreteness and are easier to grasp.

A parable appeals to a man’s discernment, causing him to make an impartial moral judgment, independent of his self-defense mechanism. Later, when the story’s point becomes clear to him, either he will accept the lesson and repent, or else he will be forced to repudiate his own judgment formed when he first heard the story.

A parable obtains from the listener a personal, sympathetic participation in others-’ problems before he can feel menaced by the truth thus presented and before he can erect his defences.

A parable completely respects human freedom, not forcing its message on anyone who chooses not to commit himself to Jesus, enter into His fellowship as a student in order to learn the truth to which the parabolic images alluded. The responsibility for such absolute liberty, however, is left strictly and rightly with the individual himself.

While it is right to notice with Barclay (Matthew, II, 63), that a parable was spoken, not read, with an immediate impact, not the result of long study with commentaries and dictionaries, we must not forget that Jesus-’ parables incline toward allegorical interpretation, which requires pondering and study. It is this very element in His stories that drives the hearer to decide to go or not to Jesus for the key to understanding them.

But these men were not seeking this kind of information when they ask Why. parables? Rather, the inner circle of disciples senses a radical change in tactics and are disturbed enough about His apparent lack of communicativeness to demand explanation. Implicit in their question is the presumption that Christ did not in the beginning of His ministry make such unrelenting and exclusive use of parables as a teaching method. While there are some germ parables earlier and many others appear after this sermon (Luke 14-16 is a parable-rich section), yet they rightly notice that the wind has changed. Did they feel that the real problem was not: Why is Jesus using unexplained stories?, but rather: Why does this whole business about Jesus, His words and deeds, always seem to force people to a cleavage, rather than unite everyone behind Him? Some understand Him and believe; many more do not. It would seem that, since the Kingdom has arrived and the time is fulfilled, the invitation of God should be equally desirable for everyone. Instead, it seems as if He is pushing men to a decisive judgment about Him! At the outset of Jesus-’ ministry the situation was different. His evident purpose then was to get as wide a hearing as possible with a view to discipling as many as possible. This He managed with clear, initial instruction and not-too-disturbing preaching that convinced the multitudes of His authority superior to that of the scribes. However, knowing well that a milk-only diet would not train the Twelve for the demanding role of apostleship nor deepen the others, He took a second step by deliberately narrowing the field and upping the quality. This change of pace shows up in:

The adoption of the parabolic method to make His message temporarily esoteric, i.e., for insiders only. (Mark 4:11)

Deliberately long trips taken into unpopulated or foreign areas for private teaching of the Twelve. (Matthew 15, 16)

Intentionally scandalous sermons to keep crowds small. (John 6) As a method for developing the Twelve and other close disciples into a world-conquering Church, this solution helps, but what of the others?

Jesus, the Teacher come from heaven, faced an extremely delicate problem. On the one hand, the minds of the people were so jammed with materialistic aims and ideas that most of them could not imagine that He was revealing a purely spiritual kingdom. (See notes on Matthew 11:2-6.) Yet, if they were ever to participate intelligently in it, He MUST reveal is true nature to them. On the other hand, if He bared all its harsh realities. He would succeed only in crushing out every spark of hope they had invested in Him, since, psychologically, they would not have borne the blow. Not only would they have left Him en masse, perhaps even dragging away with them His precious nucleus of Apostles, but they might have even crucified Him right there in Galilee! How could He possibly keep teaching them, holding them in His discipleship as long as He could, while lovingly preserving each little flicker of understanding and faith, and still hope to reveal the mysteries of the true nature of God’s Kingdom which He was about to establish? The Lord was prepared. The parables are His masterful answer to this dilemma.

This is why Jesus-’ immediate reaction to His students-’ puzzled query draws attention to the strategy of the Kingdom of God. The rejection by many, and therefore the uncalculated experience of a lack of success, and the consequent need for parables and mysteries, is no sign of defeat nor even something strange. It is all part of the larger strategy of God. (Cf. Colossians 1:24-29; Ephesians 3:7-13)

Best of all, this strategy functions marvelously! With just a simple, well-worded series of parables, Jesus the royal Judge began to divide the sheep from the goats, the true disciples from the indifferent. This is because each listener must decide whether to go to Jesus for explanations or not.

Those who are only idly curious do not worry about it if they cannot figure out the sense of His little stories.

The erudite, if they think they see what He is saying, reject His concepts as out of step with the thinking of the great rabbis in the tradition of, say, a Hillel, a Shammai, or more recently, a Gamaliel.

The nationalists, if they do not understand Him, may scoff at His little stories as too harmless for a great revolutionary. If they do comprehend His meaning, His anti-militaristic, non-nationalistic doctrine is a positive menace to their own program.

Others amble away, because no anguish, no concern for Jesus-’ success, no interest in learning the secrets, bothers them.

Only the fully committed followers ask for explanations by coming to Jesus. In fact, because of this understanding thus gained, they can go on to glorious service in the Kingdom of God.

Nevertheless, all unsuspected by its very protagonists, the judgment of God has begun. (Cf. John 12:46-48; John 9:39; John 3:18)

WHY PARABLES? JESUS-’ ANSWERS SUMMARIZED:

Because their message is for insiders only. (Matthew 13:11; Mark 4:11; Luke 8:10)

Because their message is only temporarily hidden and to be revealed later. (Mark 4:21-22; Luke 8:16-17)

Because everyone is free, hence responsible, to seek and know their meaning. (Mark 4:23)

Because openness to the teaching determines how much anyone can understand. (Mark 4:24; Luke 8:18)

Because parables effectually enrich the believer’s understanding of the Kingdom while actually empoverishing the man who thought he understood the Kingdom when he really knew nothing about it. (Matthew 13:12; Mark 4:25; Luke 8:18 b)

Because men close their minds to truth. (Matthew 13:13-15; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10 b)

Matthew 13:11 Unto you it is given to know. but to them it is not. Mark’s version (Matthew 4:11) is most revealing:

To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that they may. not understand.

The insider is one who trusts Jesus, becomes His disciple and learns Christianity’s secrets from the inside. Many moral lessons are understood by obedience to their dictates, rather than by pondering their meaning without ever personally experiencing their truth.

**To know the mysteries of the kingdom **is the attractive goal Jesus sets before everyone by His deliberate use of this allegorical style that intentionally hides and reveals truth simultaneously. He has an unquestionable respect for man’s freedom to choose. He desires that each man receive God’s truth because that man freely desires it. So, as indicated above, a man must, because he can, freely decide whether or not he trusts the Master enough to go to Him for this inside information. If God’s Messianic Kingdom is to be understood at all, it is only visible in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth. Whoever stumbles on Jesus just will not be able to fathom the mystery.

Far from being actually mysterious, i.e., incomprehensible to the average intelligence, the mysteries of the kingdom are simply the secret plans of God which He reveals to His people. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 2:6-16; Colossians 1:26; Matthew 11:25-26 notes; Ephesians 3:3-6; Ephesians 3:9-11; 1 Corinthians 15:51 ff; Revelation 17:5-7) These mysteries, as judged by later revelations, were nothing but descriptions of a Kingdom whose principles, motives and rewards were so opposed to men’s ideas of empire that Jesus later characterized it clearly as a Kingdom not of this world. (John 18:36) The very idea that faith in God, obedience to anything but Moses, and a Kingdom admitting Gentiles on equal footing with the Jews, was not merely unfamiliar to Jesus-’ hearers. Such talk was positively unwanted! Anything would remain a positive mystery to people who depended upon their own technical knowledge, upon official status and upon accidental birth in the right nation for standing in the Kingdom of God. Jesus-’ previous, clear, literal teaching, when considered in contrast to standard Jewish views about the Kingdom of the Messiah, only became mysterious in direct proportion to their unwillingness to be taught. Conversely, they become clearer in direct proportion to one’s openness to anything Jesus says. Edersheim (Life, I, 592) has it:

Such parables must have been utterly unintelligible to all who did not see in the humble, despised Nazarene and in His teaching, the Kingdom. But to those whose eyes, ears and hearts had been opened, they would carry the most needed instruction and most precious comfort and assurance.

Barclay (Matthew, II, 66) rightly reminds us that the success of a joke lies not only in the joke-telling ability of the speaker, but also in the mind of the hearer. Has the hearer a sense of humor and is he prepared to smile, or is he a humorless creature, grimly determined not to be amused? He might have noted, too, how the mood of the listener affects radically his reaction. (Proverbs 25:20) This striking parallel suggested by Barclay illustrates nicely the difference in hearers faced by Jesus.

Matthew 13:11 Unto you is given to know the mysteries. but to them it is not given. To the question: Why parables? this is Jesus-’ first answer. But how does this explanation answer the question and show how parables, by nature, serve the purposes of God to create these distinctions?

BECAUSE PARABLES REVEAL TRUTH to those willing to seek it and submit to it. Primarily in this context it was to the Apostles that it was permitted to understand Jesus-’ secrets which they would later announce in the most public way possible. (Cf. Notes on Matthew 10:27) This truth is open to all who share this frame of mind found only in the committed student of Jesus. The secret of the difference between real followers and mere well-wishers is the very gesture expressed here: the disciples came and asked him, whereas the indifferent or only idly curious did not really care to know what these little stories might mean. Further, because of the multifaceted character of God’s Kingdom, Jesus could continue to multiply illustrations and reveal worlds of truth by this medium, because the parables themselves would continue to teach long years after the full revelation had been given. Nevertheless, the allegorical nature of the stories themselves hid their meaning from any but close disciples who restlessly insisted upon explanations. (Cf. Matthew 7:7-11)

BECAUSE PARABLES HIDE TRUTH from those who intend to use it for their own purposes, whether their intentions proceeded from malicious motives in the sense that some, prematurely spying His meaning, would have used it to destroy everything He had been working to erect, or whether they would simply have been frustrated, because His ideas did not reflect their prejudices. In either case, the force of their opposition would be dissipated before they would have had time to recognize His intentions and, in one way or another, hinder His ministry. So He sets the unwelcome truth in a neutral setting, thus avoiding the negative emotional reactions rising out of their instinct of self-defense. Even while hiding truth from people, the Lord is mercifully helping them. He stimulated their imagination, appealed to their discernment, enlisted their sympathy and tried to encourage them to arrive on their own at an independent, impartial moral judgment without arousing their fear of being found wrong. Later, when the comparison is understood, either they can accept the teaching or be forced to act in contempt of their own judgment given when they first committed themselves on the parable. Naturally, they may see that the Lord’s ideas go against their own exalted opinions, and become antagonistic. But the Lord thinks it certainly worthwhile to approach people on their blind side, get into their brain with memorable stories which can later reveal the truth under conditions less threatening.

Now, if one of the purposes for Jesus-’ use of parables was to hide truth, when, by their nature, parables, in the strict sense, are intended to clarify, amplify or explain truth by providing lucid illustrations with which it is compared, how could parables ever function to mask or obscure it? Easy! Each hearer brought to Jesus his own personal set of prejudices, categories, frames of reference, philosophy of religious truth, etc., through which he filtered Jesus-’ words. Since Jesus explained none of His parables in public, each listener was thrown upon his own resources to try to organize in his own mind the truth thus presented to him.

a.

If at this point he discovers that he understands what Jesus is saying, but these ideas will not fit his preconceived categories or philosophical framework, the man has then to decide whether he will scrap his limited views and permit his mind to expand to let Jesus-’ categories and viewpoint find comfortable lodging in his thinking. This obviously depends on what he thinks of Jesus! If, however, he decides that his structures of prejudice are to be defended even at the expense of discarding, as menacing to his emotional security, whatever of Jesus-’ truth cannot be crammed into his biased mental orientation, then he will thrust into his intellectual limbo and forget any and every piece of information he deemed unacceptable. In this way, even this truth lying on the threshold of his understanding remains hidden to him, because he closed his mind to it.

b.

On the other hand, if he discovers that he is not understanding anything Jesus is saying, at which point the truth is effectually hidden from him, he has to decide whether he will go to Jesus for explanations or not.

BECAUSE PARABLES JUDGE HEARTS. The hearer himself must decide about himself: Do I trust Jesus to be God’s true Prophet and approach Him for help, while admitting my ignorance and lack of understanding, or do I trust my traditional teachers-’ views to be sufficient? Here in this very description of the Kingdom, Jesus put His own method to the acid test: He narrated the Parable of the Sower and Soils, and almost immediately, because of the genius of the parabolic method itself, the listeners began to fit themselves into the very categories mentioned in that parable! Some understood His meaning; most did not. Some desire further clarification, others are puzzled but not interested enough to hear Him out. Still others go home because they are bored with long sermons anyway and are anxious to get on with life and good times. Thus, the parables become a test of their intellectual honesty: will they unceremoniously dismiss anything, however true, that implies unwanted duties? It tests their earnestness: will they go to any pains to solve these riddles and submit to their truth?

BECAUSE PARABLES SET TRUTH IN MEMORABLE FORM which will function later when the prejudices may be persuaded to surrender. To put it another way: the parables are really sticks of dynamite disguised as candy bars. They function as time-bombs planted in the mind of the listener, who at the moment does not see their purpose, but given time to be persuaded that Jesus-’ way was best after all, may accept their truth. Ironically, even the man who never accepts Jesus may see his own ideas destroyed by these parables even long after he forgets who told him the story. (See on Matthew 13:12.) Even the highest moral lessons preached in plain, abstract language can be soon forgotten, whereas the very same truth worked into an unforgettable illustration fastens itself in the memory and continues to do its work.

B. REVELATIONS ARE FOR PUBLICATION. (Mark 4:21-22; Luke 8:16-17)

His parable of the Lamp may be paraphrased like this: Is anyone so foolish as to light a lamp to give light and then hide that very illumination under some container or even stick it under the bed, rather than on a lampstand? No, they put it up where everyone who enters the room may see the light, right? So there is nothing hidden except to be shown later. Secrets are for telling. The unspoken scruple involved in the disciples-’ question is: But, Jesus, are you hiding the truth from these people forever, so that they can never be influenced by an appeal of the Gospel and be saved by it? His response is twofold:

The Lord’s Lamp Parable echoes His doctrine that His disciples are to be a world-wide influence for God. (Cf. Matthew 5:13-16) Thus, Jesus argues, in light of their common mission to bring God’s light to the world, any secrecy could only be temporary, or for a special, limited purpose.

His explanation of the parable is a direct echo of His challenge to the Apostles on the eve of their first evangelistic mission in Galilee. (See notes on Matthew 10:26-27.) He had at that time pointed to a time when what He had privately disclosed to them should be given the widest possible publicity. But this talk of privacy and mysteries only means that He had already foreseen an interval in which practical secrecy would mark His approach, an interval during which fuller publication of the good news would not have been possible, So, since He had already intimated it before, it was necessary only to remind them now that the moment had arrived for secrecy.

But to what phase of His own mission does the lamp in His humorous illustration refer?

To Jesus-’ illustrations as such? If so, He says that a parable is intended to give light, not hide truth permanently, as a lamp under a vessel or bed. In this case, the parables, when explained, throw a great deal of light on various aspects of the Kingdom. What is meant to convey information must not be left deliberately obscure.

To Jesus-’ preaching method in general? If so, then He is justifying this temporary use of obscure stories, the meaning of which is available only to the most serious students who because of this commitment to Him will come to be taught and fit into His program. In this case, He is saying, What is a revelation for? To make it the exclusive property of the elite? The hope of glory for this dark world is -Christ in you-’ (Colossians 1:27), but how can that come about if men’s only hope is jealously guarded from the ignorant, despised masses by an arrogant religious minority? How could any real revelation occur, if truth is always hidden inside undecipherable stories?

If this latter interpretation reflects Jesus-’ intention more closely, then the exhortations which follow (Mark 4:24-25) might be intended to cause the disciples to consider seriously what they themselves are to do about the great secrets of the Kingdom which they had the distinct privilege to hear explained. In the words of Gonzalez-Ruiz (Marco, 121):

… if a proclaimer of the Gospel makes the mystery a secret reserved for an ecclesiastical elite, if he converts the dancing, splashing water of Life into a magic drug kept in an elegant flask to sell only to the wealthy, then that mummified mystery which he so jealously conserved in his theological museum will be stripped from him!

It is obvious that these texts (Mark 4:21-25; Luke 8:16-18) are meant primarily to explain Jesus-’ strategy. By extension, however, they sit in judgment on anyone who would proclaim the Kingdom message. If the Son of God used a deliberately concealing technique only for the purpose of achieving a limited objective, real disciples of the Lord today should evaluate His tactics in light of His ultimate goals, share those goals and, now freed from those local limitations, give His message the widest possible publication. Shortly, He will point to their precious personal privilege to see Him as light for which they would be held accountable, because what their eyes had seen and what they had heard Him say was to become the unshakeable testimony at the center of all their future preaching: (Mark 4:24; Matthew 13:16-17; cf. Acts 4:20; 1 John 1:1-4)

**Hid. manifest. secret. known. **Plummer (Luke, 223) reminds that apokryphon (hidden away from the public eye, see Lightfoot on Colossians 2:3) was a favorite word with the Gnostics to indicate their esoteric books which might not be published. Lightfoot also notes that this was an honorable term to describe their doctrines and books for members only. Is Jesus making use of such terminology to make His point? If so, Matthew 13:11 is where He indicated that the limits of His fellowship was to be the circle within which He would reveal His secrets. (Cf. tà mystéria) If this present text indicates that none of the Twelve or any other private group was permanently to cover up the Gospel story, and if any disciple of Jesus may know what the Kingdom is all about, still, in order adequately to appreciate it, one must be a disciple.

C. RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PROCLAMATION (Mark 4:23)

Mark 4:23 **If any man has ears to hear, let him hear. **Jesus had already said this to the crowds. (Matthew 13:9) But this is the second time during this private discussion with His closest disciples! (Matthew 13:43) Here this oft-repeated invitation is further development of Jesus-’ answer to the disciples-’ question: Why parables? and proof that the Lord had not finally nor absolutely closed the doors to the Kingdom in the face of anyone sincerely desiring to submit himself to anything God requires. No man need fear that fate should have excluded him from any possibility of enjoying the mercies of God, This seemingly pleonastic expression with which Jesus concludes numerous paragraphs is not a harmless little literary device used to signal the conclusion of a thought. It is, rather, the heart-cry of God who pleads with people not to turn a deaf ear on the emphatically important message just communicated. Let him hear with understanding, because the mysteries of the Kingdom are available to disciples. If he cannot understand, let him give up his self-justifications, his biases, his pride and complacency and come for answers to the Lord who invites all to share in His great public secrets.

D. THE RULE OF PROGRESS AND THE REWARD FOR RESPONSIVENESS (Mark 4:24; Luke 8:18)

Mark 4:24. **Take heed what you hear. **Content is so very crucial, since Jesus longs for people to get past the external form of His little word-pictures to see the reality, the real Kingdom He so urgently wanted them to understand. This is not so much a warning against the treacherous views of false teachers, as if He were saying, Be cautious about accepting what you hear from others, as it is an urgent exhortation to pay careful attention to what they heard from Him. The content of these messages of Jesus would become for the Christians the source of their faith and the foundation of their preaching. (Matthew 28:20) So it was critical that this teaching be heard in its correct form. Because of the supernatural inspiration by the Holy Spirit which would have recalled everything to their minds and even reveal new truth where necessary, they would not be limited to a stereotyped oral tradition. Nevertheless, Jesus considers it essential that His message be correctly assimilated in order that it have a chance to function properly in transforming its hearers. He knows how dangerous would be the situation when a powerful, revolutionary message like His is only half-understood, and, so, wrongly applied by sincere people.

Luke’s version, rather than emphasize content: Take heed WHAT you hear, lays stress on men’s personal psychological approach: Take heed then HOW you hear. (Luke 8:18) This warns against a merely intellectual interest or an idle curiosity, since men are morally responsible for what they DO with what they learn. Pay attention to the attitude with which you listen, with what attention you listen, and to what profit! Do you listen intelligently and with a good, honest heart? Since the similarity of these two reports in such close proximity cannot be overlooked, someone will undoubtedly be tempted to accuse either Mark or Luke of not quoting Jesus correctly. The matter may be resolved in one of two ways:

Jesus actually made both statements, one being recorded by Mark and the other by Luke, because they are both needed to deal with the objective content of what is heard and with the subjective mood of this listener. (Later, Jesus put the how and the what in the same sentence. Luke 12:11; cf. Matthew 10:19)

One of two Greek idioms may not yet have been fully understood or correctly translated, in the sense that Mark’s what (tì) and Luke’s how (pôs) might be discovered to be roughly equivalent, rather than the two separate emphases they are presently seen to be.

It is known, for instance, that ti in certain situations means why?, functioning as a direct interrogative. (Arndt-Gingrich, 827) Is it possible that in our sentence that it be thought of as an indirect interrogative to be rendered: Take heed WHY you hear!? This scrutiny of motives is surprisingly close to Luke’s version that examines one’s attitude toward what is said.

**The measure you give will be the measure you get, and still more will be given you. **This proverbial principle, capable of rather varied applications, has no direct connection with Matthew 7:1 where the main point was: Personal generosity or niggardliness in judging others will be reciprocated to you by them. Here, however, Jesus-’ psychological principle is relevant to that degree of generosity and openness with which anyone approaches His revelations: The amount of open-mindedness or prejudice which you bring to me will determine how much truth I will be able to give you. Small trust will be rewarded with little effective communication, since you did not let me teach you. Even great ignorance, united with great faith that comes to me for instruction, will go home full and overflowing. You will receive from my instruction precisely that amount of information which the receptiveness you show will allow! When will men learn that paradox: the generous man always receives far more than he ever gave away, whereas the miser who never shares has nothing! If men desire a larger measure of the Lord’s truth, let them bring him a larger measure of faith to put it in! How can He load a trainload of truth into a thimble of faith?

Here in these simple words the Lord of heaven lets us choose in absolute freedom just how much we want to be blessed. How blind and miserly is the man who stubbornly limits the degree of his devotion to Jesus, saying, I will go so far and no farther! (Contrast 2Corinthians 8, 9, esp. 2 Corinthians 9:6-11 in this connection.) No man can out give God, because, after all he has sacrificed for the Kingdom, even to the point of surrendering his dearest personal prejudices so that the Lord can teach him, he joyfully discovers that he has been receiving far more all the time!

Matthew 13:12 **For to him who has, will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. **(Cf. Mark 4:25; Luke 8:18 b) Although Jesus made varied use of this puzzling dictum, nevertheless, in each case there is an underlying call for generosity and energetic activity to take advantage of an unexcelled opportunity to make progress. (Cf. Matthew 25:29; Luke 19:26) The thing that sharpens a rather ordinary sentence into this clever aphorism is the omission of its key word. What is it that a man has, that makes it possible for him to be given more to the point of having abundance? And what is it that can be taken away from a person who thinks he possesses it, when, in reality, he has nothing? (Notice Luke’s version: … even what he thinks that he has will be taken away.)

Until the beginning of this great sermon in parables, everyone in Jesus-’ audience certainly had the OPPORTUNITY to hear and know the truth about God’s Kingdom. The parables will now change all this. Whereas some disciples would seize and appreciate this unexcelled privilege offered by God, and permit themselves to be taught by Jesus and thus go on to greater heights of understanding until they enjoyed an abundance of revelations, others would not recognize what they had before them. (Cf. Proverbs 17:24) Supposing themselves to have the opportunity to know the truth, but not recognizing in Jesus God’s Teacher, even this opportunity to learn the most elemental facts about God’s Kingdom would be taken away from them. And the parables accomplished this.

This is a sound psychological verity that can be demonstrated over and over again: the tight UNDERSTANDING of one lesson puts the active, thinking listener in a position to grasp the next one. In fact, each lesson helps to explain and illustrate the other, and furnish a groundwork for all that follow. To this kind of person, education in the Kingdom’s message becomes commonly easier and more enjoyable as he proceeds. But another student in the same class who did not learn the first and fundamental lesson will not only gain nothing from the more advanced lessons. He will be positively confused, rather than helped, by them and what he thought he possessed of the first lesson will make less and less sense to him. Jesus-’ axiom smacks of that shrewd businessman’s observation: Nothing succeeds like success or fails like failure, or perhaps, It takes money to make money, or The rich get richer, while the poor get poorer! But it is true: even the simplest disciple who has accepted the fundamental lesson and has confessed to Jesus: I know that you are a Teacher come from God, because no man can do these things except God be with him, is in an excellent position to move to the head of the class.

To those who have FAITH in Jesus and some understanding of His mission, the parables will provide more real information. Those who do not have so many wrong notions about what the Kingdom of God has to be can receive much from Jesus. Ideal preparation to receive the Kingdom, according to Jesus, is to take the attitude: Whatever Jesus says, is rightwhether I can understand it perfectly or not, whether it appeals to my prejudices or not, whether it has ever been preached in our church or not, whether Papa ever thought it or notif Jesus said it, I believe it and that settles the matter! But to those who have little faith, less knowledge and much prejudice against His ideas, even what shallow faith and limited grasp of the truth they thought they possessed will fade out. In fact, they really have no use for something that does not fit their preconceived schemes and categories into which all truth must fit or be discarded. They have little willingness to be taught by Him, no matter how good His credentials. They have little zeal for righteousness nor honesty enough to decide objectively about Jesus and His message on the basis of the evidence, So; he who has not is no merely unfortunate have-not in the modern economic sense, hence, somehow to be excused for the accidental misfortune of being born in that class. Rather, the Lord bares their strictly personal, responsible choice: THEY have shut THEIR eyes! (Matthew 13:15) From that point on, their search for the wisdom of God is a pretense, because compromised:

A scoffer seeks wisdom in vain,

But knowledge is easy for a man of understanding. (Proverbs 14:6)

The mind of him who has understanding seeks knowledge,

But the mouths of fools feed on folly. (Proverbs 15:14)

The entire picture of human reactions to Jesus of Nazareth may be summarized as follows:

He that corrects a scoffer gets himself abuse, And he that reproves a wicked man gets himself bruises, Reprove not a scoffer, lest he hate you: Reprove a wise man, and he will love you. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: Teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning. The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom; And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding,

(Proverbs 9:7-10)

TEACHABILITY is the key. What a man brings to the situation is so very critical. If he comes to Jesus with an open, honest mind ready to examine critically whatever Jesus has to say, but yet ready to think with the Lord, letting Him lead, because of what His miraculous credentials prove about His right to speak as He does, that man, says Jesus, is going to go home full and be ready for more of the same.

E. THE RECOLLECTION OF A PROPHECY BECAUSE OF A REPLAY OF PERVERSENESS (Matthew 13:13-15)

Matthew 13:13 **Therefore speak I to them in parables. Therefore **(dià toûto) summarizes Jesus-’ total answer to the question: Why parables? (See outline before Matthew 13:11.) I do it, because they do not see, (Cf. John 12:37-43; contrast Matthew 13:16) For people who could not see the supernatural authority implicit in Jesus-’ miracles, for those who felt no divine judgment in His pronouncements, for those who recognized no fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy in His ministry, in short, for those who saw no substantial reason to permit Jesus to tell anything God wanted them to know about the Kingdom, despite the sufficiency and persuasiveness of His credentials, for such, the door to God’s Kingdom is rightly closed. (John 6:36; Jeremiah 5:21-31)

Although Matthew writes: I speak to them in parables, BECAUSE. the other Synoptics introduce the seemingly scandalous expression: For those outside everything is in parables, so, THAT they may. not understand. (Mark 4:11-12; Luke 8:10) How explain this difference?

In terms of form, Matthew’s report summarizes the prophecy of Isaiah which he will shortly quote. Stated in the indicative mode, he describes the facts as they are without committing himself at this point on the question of purpose or result. Mark and Luke, on the other hand, since they do not plan to quote Isaiah, telescope their quotation of Jesus-’ words, so as to retain much of the form and meaning of the prophecy. By so doing, they only appear to have produced an impact different from that of Matthew when they agree that it was Jesus-’ declared purpose to adopt a special mode of teaching to conceal truth from the outsiders. (hina. mè. mè, Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10 b) This same sense, however, is implicit in Matthew’s quotation of Isa 6:10. So Mark and Luke provide a neat condensation of Jesus-’ words without any loss of meaning, while Matthew’s version quotes Him more fully.

In terms of sense, Matthew states the facts which called for Jesus-’ change of strategy: I speak to them in parables, because, seeing they see not. neither do they understand. The construction by Mark and Luke (hina. mè and the subjunctive) indicates Jesus-’ purpose to keep the message private: but for others outside everything is in parables, so that they may indeed see, but. not understand.

The harmonic result of these considerations is a paraphrase somewhat as follows: Jesus says, My adoption of the mystery/parable strategy is occasioned by the fact that people, with every opportunity to understand, do not want to understand. My strategy is intended to keep things that way. They do not want to know? Fine, my method will let them have their way, because the presentation of my message in the form of unexplained mysteries guarantees that they will not understand! So, rather than say with Edersheim (Life, I, 583ff) that the basis for the different effect on the unbelieving multitude and on the believing disciples was not objective, or caused by the substance or form of these Parables, but subjective, being caused by the different standpoint of the two classes of hearers toward the Kingdom of God, we should admit that the difference was both subjectively and objectively caused. How many of these parables, in fact, were easy to understand for even the closer, more attentive disciples? No, the mysteries of the kingdom were objectively genuine mysteries, i.e., unknown and unknowable to everyone, disciples and indifferent alike, until each individual decided to come to Jesus for explanations, or to disregard these dark sayings as completely unintelligible, unimportant and unworthy of further attention, Because of the barrier to understanding that most men had erected against Jesus-’ truth, He obliged them by erecting His own barrier between them and the truth itself, When anyone abandons his own barrier to get behind Jesus-’ barrier to know His truth, Jesus gladly reveals His secrets to him.

The fact that Jesus intentionally purposed to hide truth from people stuns the conscience of some, but must not be explained away as if He could not, nor should not, have done so. His historical situation demanded that He do it, Edersheim (Life, I, 583ff) has correctly noticed that the Lord is not simply beginning at this point to give primer lessons suited to little children. Nor is He hoping to recruit disciples by this method. Rather, He is driving adults to decide about truth already plainly taught them both in Christ’s earlier teaching and in His mighty works. He knew that plain truth openly stated now would have served only to alienate any but those few genuinely committed to Him. Rather than drive them away permanently, He mercifully holds them at arm’s length until the scandal of His humanness be eclipsed by the glorious vindication of His proper deity at the resurrection.

The very idea that a merciful God should play the game this way is so jolting to some that they eviscerate this bold purpose clause, They suggest with Bales (quoting McNeile, Jesus The Ideal Teacher, 126, italics his(: … in accordance with a well-known Hebraic idiom, the result is ironically described as a purpose. It is true that these debated words describe the inevitable result of Christian preaching, because when Jesus purposes a thing He produces results, especially these results! But anyone who argues that men’s blindness to truth is a result of His method must admit that the Savior could have foreseen this result. So, by His deliberate choice of the method purposely willed that result. Further, this surprise maneuver of Jesus harmonizes perfectly with God’s plan to send upon men, who refuse to love the very truth that could have saved them, the full force of evil’s delusion, so that they put their faith in what is false. Their condemnation is just, because they not only enjoy evil, but have no confidence in the truth. (Study 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12.)

Matthew 13:14 Unto them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isa 6:9-10, This noticeably unusual expression (autoîs anapleroûtai), unlike the more usual statements for fulfillment of prophecy, seems to suggest a framework of truth the details of which perhaps many a situation could amply satisfy. (Cf. John 12:40; Acts 28:26-27) For further illustrations of Matthew’s varied use of fulfilled prophecy,-see the special study at pp. 81-86, Vol. I, How Does Matthew Use the Prophecies? In fact, Isaiah did not prophesy specifically regarding the contemporaries of Jesus, but regarding those of his own generation. Nor is the Lord affirming that that ancient prophet had accurately foreseen across 750 years the very reaction to Messiah’s ministry here depicted as real. Although this people (Matthew 13:15) is the same Hebrew nation, Isaiah was simply discussing another generation. Nevertheless, as the Master hastens to show, the prophet’s words so well delineate a mentality of indifference, prejudice and moral perverseness that Isaiah’s expressions may be used again to picture the identical negative reactions to Jesus. The result, then, of Jesus-’ preaching and His contemporaries-’ response was the tragic replay of a scene in the drama in which Isaiah and Israel had been the earlier protagonists.

Far from being bleak and foreboding to Jesus-’ disciple-evangelists, these words comfort bewildered men, stunned by Jesus-’ apparent lack of success. By citing Isaiah’s generation, He reminds them that God’s greatest prophets down through the ages have encountered the same spiritual insensitivity and the same lack of response. But, far from offering them merely more company in their misery, He lifts them into the same mighty work where God’s finest prophets had toiled. If this text applies principally to Jesus-’ relation to His-’ listeners, it finds application over and over again in the experience of His heralds. Any unsuccess they would encounter had already been foreseen and explained by the Lord of the harvest. It was already part of the common problem of God’s greatest spokesmen, all part of the program, hence, nothing new or surprising.

**Hear. but never understand: **why not?

13:15 **Because this people’s heart is waxed gross **(epachùnthe from pachùno whose literal meaning is to make big, fat, solid, dense; then by extension becomes: to render obtuse, insensitive, stupid, Rocci, 1448; Arndt-Gingrich, 644, see the figurative meaning as make impervious [orig. to water], make gross, dull). They are insensitive to unwelcome truth, seek reality in unreality, and so become deaf, blind and stupid. **Their ears are dull of hearing: **bored with unwanted lessons, they listen unwillingly. What can you do with people whose eyes they have closed and whose mind is closed to evidence no matter how satisfying? This self-chosen blindness is the whole point of this entire section and the reason for Jesus-’ tactics, Lest the disciple become smug and complacent in his limited knowledge and understanding to the point he quit learning from the Lord, let him see that he is never beyond temptation. (Cf. Mark 8:17-18; Hebrews 3:13)

Because people do not have God’s Word abiding in them. (John 6:38; Matthew 22:29)

They have no real love for God. (John 6:42)

They aim for human praise, rather than God’S. (John 6:44)

They place ignorant hope on their superficial possession of divine revelations. (John 6:45-47)

They are deceived. (1 Timothy 2:14; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 2 Timothy 3:13; Ephesians 4:22; James 1:13 ff)

They are conceited. (Romans 1:21-22; Romans 12:3; Romans 12:16; Romans 11:25; 1 Corinthians 3:18; 1 Corinthians 8; 1 Corinthians 1, 2; 1 Corinthians 10:12; Revelation 3:18) They are proud of their human wisdom. (Matthew 16:22-23; Acts 17:16-32)

They have no real love for truth: they just do not care about the difference between truth and falsehood. (2 Thessalonians 2:10) They deliberately ignore facts in order to follow their own passions. (2 Peter 3:3; 2 Peter 3:5; 2 Peter 3:8)

They measure themselves by themselves. (2 Corinthians 10:12)

They are unwilling to act on the ideas of another (Matthew 11:14-15; Luke 7:30 ff)

They fear men. (John 12:42; Matthew 10:24-33)

They trust themselves to be righteous. (Romans 9:30 to Romans 10:3; Luke 7:30)

They seek truth in any other place than where it can be found. (Proverbs 17:24; Proverbs 15:14; Proverbs 14:6; 1 Corinthians 1:18 to 1 Corinthians 2:16; 1 Corinthians 3:18 f)

They lack stability. (2 Peter 3:16; 2 Timothy 3:6-7)

They hate exposure of their evil deeds. (John 3:19-21)

And the list could continue to grow, but is it any wonder that people could hear Jesus, but never understand Him?

Matthew 13:15. **Lest haply they should. understand. and should turn again. Lest haply, **both in Greek (mépote) and Hebrew (pén), is a conjunction expressing the purpose to remove, prohibit or hinder something one fears or wishes removed, and is used following an action taken to avoid the thing feared. (Gesenius, Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, 678; Arndt-Gingrich, 521) But with what previous action in our present case is this apprehension connected? Who is taking steps to avoid the comprehension of God’s message and the consequent repentance and salvation of the Israelites? We must understand Isaiah in order to understand Jesus-’ use made of his prophecy.

In Matthew’s letter-perfect citation of the Septuagint translation, rather than the Hebrew as we have it today, it is the people whose mind has grown impervious, whose ears are bored with listening. It is the people who closed their eyes to what was being said, in order that they might not ever (= mépote, lest haply) **see. hear. and understand and repent, and I should heal them. **The responsibility for any action taken to avoid or hinder comprehension of God’s word rests squarely upon the people.

The Hebrew of the Masoretic text of Isa 6:10 quotes God as commanding Isaiah to make this people’s heart fat, their ears heavy and shut their eyes, an action which would have effectively hindered their comprehension, their consequent repentance and God’s healing. In this case the responsibility for everything is Isaiah’S, hence, God’S. Since Isaiah’s mission thus conceived would seem to be an absurdity, because he would blind Israel by using the very preaching intended for their salvation, many see God’s words as ironically stating as His purpose what He knew would be the tragically unavoidable result. But who can complain to the just Judge of earth that He should purposely close the doors to repentance against His people as a whole, while not precluding the possible salvation of individuals? Further, there is awesome psychological power to harden anyone who steels himself against the continued repetition of truth.

Whereas the current Hebrew text and the Septuagint represent apparently differing textual traditions and it is temporarily impossible to decide which objectively reproduces Isaiah’s original, nevertheless both readings express profound truth confirmed elsewhere on the question. (Habakkuk 1:5; Acts 13:40-41) It should be noticed that Mark’s summarization (Mark 4:11 b, 12) agrees in concept with the Hebrew text by putting the emphasis on God’s purpose to hinder their sight, repentance and healing. The harmonization of these two versions, i.e., the Hebrew as over against the Septuagint and Matthew, may be stated as follows: God foresaw and preannounced this self-hardening in evil that rendered men completely incorrigible, and purposely sent them a prophet to tell them truth again and again that would make them all the more determined to remain what they were. This self-induced guilt and God’s judicial punishment are bound up together, because God created men’s mind to work that way.

The goal, as Jesus sees it, of understanding God’s revelations is not erudition for its own sake or the satisfying of an uncommitted curiosity, but repentance! Note that men must turn again, not be converted as in the King James Version, because the responsibility is fully theirs.

**And I should heal them (**kaì ìasomài autoùs). Juridically, they need forgiveness (cf. afethè autoùs, Mark 4:12); psychologically, they need healing, because true sanity, health and normalcy can be found only in living in harmony with God, with His truth, in His universe, with His world and His people. (Cf. Exodus 15:26?; Deuteronomy 28:60; Isaiah 19:19-22; Isaiah 30:26; Isaiah 53:5; Isaiah 57:14-21; Jeremiah 17:13-14; Jeremiah 30:10-17; Proverbs 3:7-8; Proverbs 3:16; Proverbs 4:22; Proverbs 12:18; Proverbs 14:30; Proverbs 15:13; Psalms 38:3; Psalms 38:7; Psalms 38:10; Psalms 38:17)

F. REJOICING IN POSSESSION AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF PRIVILEGE (Matthew 13:16-17)

Matthew 13:16 **But blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears for they hear. Blessed: **the humblest disciple of Jesus who has experienced God’s mercy at first-hand is better off, far happier (makàrios, see on Matthew 5:3), than anyone else who is a stranger to God, be he among the greatest scholars or sought-after philosophers. Because your eyes begins the Greek sentence, it is thrown into special relief, a fact that marks the contrasting results of Jesus-’ ministry. These men, in contrast to all the unreceptive who refused to be Jesus-’ disciples, actually experienced realities quite invisible to the unseeing people all around them, because their openness to Jesus as a Teacher let them see in Him the very revelation of God. Others looking at the same Jesus see nothing but an itinerate rabbi who perhaps should go back to his carpenter-shop.

The situation is similar to a chess-game in progress between two expert players. Beside the table is standing a child who knows the names of the pieces and some of the most elementary moves, and, because of this beginning, is curious to see how the game will proceed. The experts will battle back and forth, thoroughly understanding every move and countermove. Even though the child is watching every play, he does not see what is really happening on the board. By contrast, the contestants see it all, experience it all.

**Blessed are your eyes because they see! **What a joy to Jesus to find someone who really is beginning to understand Him and His mission! (Note the contrasts in Matthew 11:25-27; Luke 10:21-24.) It should now be no surprise that Peter should have confessed Jesus to be the Christ at Caesarea Philippi, because here is the solution to the problem of how God revealed that truth to Peter. Peter arrived at that conclusion, as did the others, because he had seeing eyes to perceive the obvious: God is doing His works and revealing His will by Jesus of Nazareth who must therefore be God’s Anointed and Son. It is no marvel that Jesus should again pronounce Peter blessed on that occasion, because it is the logical outgrowth of this one.

Matthew 13:17 For the combination prophets and righteous men see Matthew 10:41; Matthew 23:29. How many prophets longed to see Jesus at work! Not only Moses and Isaiah, but all the rest of those faithful servants of God were looking and searching hard for this salvation. who tried to find out at what time and in what circumstances all this was to be expected. It had to he revealed to them that the predictions they made about Christ and His Kingdom were for the Christians, not for themselves. Even angels long to catch a glimpse of these very things! (Cf. 1 Peter 1:10-12) It is not at all surprising to feel the yearning expressed by other voices out of the intertestamental Jewish literature, crying:

Blessed be they that shall be in those days,

In that they shall see the good fortune of Israel which God shall bring to pass in the gathering together of the tribes.

Blessed shall they be that shall be in those days,

In that they shall see the goodness of the Lord which He shall perform for the generation that is to come,

Under the rod of chastening of the Lord’s anointed (sic, Anointed?) … A good generation (living) in the fear of God

in the days of mercy.

(Psalms of Solomon 17:50; 18:7 ff)

In fact, during the period between the last of the great OT prophets and appearance of John the Baptist, the voice of God was silent. This silence was painful to the thoughtful Jew who felt abandoned in a hostile world. Contemplation of Israel’s predicament in that tormented time drove him to seek answers to this chafing situation and to study all previous revelations to sieve from them the solution. This contemplation and these studies produced a body of literature practically unknown to most modern Christians, i.e., that apocalyptic literature included in what is known as the Pseudepigraphical Writings. Whatever else may be said about or against these books, the fundamental issue in them is: When and how will God’s Messiah and His Kingdom right all these wrongs, establish righteousness, peace and blessing in our land?

Before we leap to criticize these Jewish thinkers, let us recognize that THEIR question states precisely our own yearning! Some of their guesses were quite close; others were wide of the mark. If there be any similarity between certain declarations of Jesus or certain of His viewpoints of the Kingdom, and those of some of the apocalyptists, let it be underlined here that they were guessing; He was not. He was revealing the plans of God, whereas they were doing the best they could with the light they possessed, to ink in the details before the fact. Jesus IS the fact. Now, in much the same way as they pondered the coming Messianic Kingdom, we speculate about the eternal Kingdom of Christ, how the Second Coming will be organized, the nature of the resurrection body, the geography of heaven and hell. And, if we are not careful, we will be unhappy with the very reality which these sincere, often mistaken, men longed to see and saw it not! Further, how many righteous men down through all the ages of the Church would have rejoiced to be permitted to view even one movie of Jesus-’ ministry or hear one tape-recording of His voice! How much more to be there in person?

**But they saw them not, **however, not because of the stubborn, self-induced blindness of those of Jesus-’ age who refused to see, but because they died centuries before His birth. Though well established by their faith, they did not receive what was promised, since God had foreseen something better for us, that apart from us they should not reach the goal. (Hebrews 11:39-40)

But if the Apostles and their contemporaries were privileged to witness the very events of which their predecessors could only dream and long to experience, and if the disciples could consider themselves blessed, because just five minutes with Jesus eclipses 5000 years of anticipation, what will they do about the fearful responsibility inherent in that joyous privilege? By reflection, how will the Church of Christ respond to the exceptional opportunity she has enjoyed to know not only the Law and the Prophets, not only John the Baptist, not only the Son of God on earth, not only the Apostles and their ministry, but she has been privileged to live through the very centuries that witnessed the fulfilments of many of Jesus-’ prophecies. She has personally experienced the execution of a major part of God’s design for the Church described in the great Sermon in Parables. Can she see it all? Will she rise to the challenge of responsibility that such favor places upon her?

FACT QUESTIONS

Why did Jesus teach in parables? List His reasons.

State and explain the psychological principle behind Jesus-’ strategy as this is seen in His choice of the parabolic method by which He taught. Show how the parabolic method in itself proved to be a screening process by which Jesus divided the audience into two basic groups: those who followed Him out of selfish motives and had no intention of becoming His disciples; and those who, though often weak, wanted above all else to grow in His discipline and serve Him.

Define the word mystery as used by Jesus in this chapter. What are, then, the mysteries of the kingdom? List some of them.

Show why the disciples were justified in asking Jesus for an explanation of His practically exclusive use of the parabolic method in this particular sermon.

Explain how people who have eyes, ears and a mind can neither see, hear nor understand. What OT passage speaks of this condition? What was there in this situation faced by Jesus that prompted Him to recognize in the situation itself a clear fulfilling of the ancient prophecy?

The OT passage cited by Jesus in reference to the obtuseness of the unbelieving of His generation is not quoted in the NT as you find it in your OT. How do you account for the different rendering Jesus gives of the passage? In what sense is the original author of that text to be understood? Is this difference significant? Was this difference created by Jesus, or did it exist before His time? If so, who made the change?

What did God expect of His people when He longed for them to turn again? What is involved in this turning?

What is the meaning of the allusion to prophets and righteous men who desired to see things observed by the Apostles?

Matthew 13:24-30

B. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD: THE TRIALS OF TRUTH

1. THE PARABLE OF THE WEEDS TEXT: 13:24-30, 36-43

24 Another parable set he before them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man that sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares also among the wheat, and went away. 26 But when the blade sprang up and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27 And the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it tares? 28 And he said unto them, An enemy hath done this. And the servants say unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29 But he saith, Nay; lest haply while ye gather up the tares, ye root up the wheat with them. 30 Let them both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather up first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn. 36 Then he left the multitudes, and went into the house; and his disciples came unto him, saying, Explain unto us the parable of the tares of the field. 37 And he answered and said, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; 38 and the field is the world; and the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; 39 and the enemy that sowed them is the devil; and the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are angels. 40 As therefore the tares are gathered up and burned with fire; so shall it be in the end of the world, 41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling, and them that do iniquity, 42 and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth. 43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He that hath ears, let him hear.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

Do you see any relationship between this parable and the age-old human problem of evil? That is, how could God be perfectly good and not want to do something about the evil in the world? How could He be omnipotent and yet not move a hand to exterminate that which His righteous character must recognize and condemn as wicked? If you see a connection in this parable, what is it? If not, explain why you think there is none.

b.

Do you think Jesus is describing the problem of evil in the Church, or in the world, or in both, or in neither? Why do you decide as you do?

c.

After what Jesus says about the difficulty of discerning the best from the worst of men, how can you still believe in a church discipline that excludes church members who persist in their sinning despite all the efforts of their fellow Christians to bring them to repentance? How do you harmonize these two concepts?

d.

When Jesus used the expression, The end of the world, (Matthew 13:40), His reference was an allusion to the conclusion of the Jewish world, i.e., to the decline and final fall of Judaism as a religion and Israel as a nation. Do you think this is a fair statement of His meaning? If not, how would you correct it? If so, how would you demonstrate it?

e.

In Matthew 13:41, Jesus promises that He will personally send His angels to gather out of His Kingdom all things that cause stumbling and them that do iniquity. Now, some believe that once a person has become a member of God’s Kingdom as a child of God, he cannot possibly be lost thereafter by sinning. Does this passage say anything on this question? If not, why not? If so, what does this text reveal about the possibility of removal of members from God’s Kingdom on account of their sin?

f.

What do you think about the following statement: Jesus came to give us just as much a revelation about Satan as He came to give a revelation about God? Affirm or deny and tell why.

g.

Do you think it is very important to spend much time studying about the devil? Some would say that to be happy in this world and safe for eternity, it is enough to know all we can about God and that no other problem is essentially important. What is your opinion? Should we waste time studying about the Evil One, God’s enemy or not? Why?

h.

How does one become a son of the Kingdom?

i.

How does one become a son of the evil one? Is there a similarity in process between the development as a Christian and that as an unbeliever? Think this one over carefully, because it may be trickier than it looks!

PARAPHRASE

Here is another parable that Jesus told the people: The Kingdom of God may be compared to a farmer who sowed select seed in his field. But while everyone was asleep, an enemy of his came and maliciously broadcast seeds of bearded darnel over the ground already sown in wheat. Then he left. Later, when the plants sprouted and began to head out, then the darnel appeared as well. So the owner’s field hands came to him with the question, -Sir, did you not sow quality seed in your ground? Where did all these darnel weeds come from?-’ His answer was: -Someone has done this out of pure malice!-’ The man’s field hands asked another question: -Then do you want us to go out and pull up the weeds?-’ -No,-’ he replied, -because in pulling up the darnel you might root up good wheat along with it. Just leave them as they are, growing together until harvest. Then at harvest I will tell the ones working in the harvest to gather all the darnel first, tying it in bundles to be burned. Then they can gather and store the good wheat into my granary.-’ Later, when Jesus had dismissed the crowds and gone indoors again, the disciples approached Him with the request: Would you explain the story about the weeds of the field to us? This was His answer: I, the Son of man, am the farmer who sows excellent, quality seed. My field is the whole world. The good seed here represents the people whose hearts are ruled by God. The darnel weeds are those people who belong to Satan. The enemy who scatters them throughout my world is the Devil himself! The harvest represents the end of the world. The ones who will do the harvesting are the angels. Just as in the story where the weeds were collected and burned, this is the way it will happen at the end of time. I, the Son of man, will send my angels to gather out of my Kingdom everything that causes sin and all the evil-doers. These will be thrown into the blazing furnace of hell. That will be a place where men will wail and grind their teeth in frustrated anger. Then it will be obvious who the righteous really are, for it will be just as clear and obvious as the sun who is really in the kingdom of their Father, God. So, if you have the ability to hear, then listen!

SUMMARY

God is not to be blamed for the problem of evil in His Kingdom in the world. Even as He began His creation with good people, so it is also with His new creation. His Kingdom, or rule, has always reflected this fact. The existence of the wicked in the world in no way denies the reality of God’s control, nor in the final denouement will they escape the justice of their fate. The extreme difficulty of deciding just who are the truly righteous during this earthly journey renders such judgments patently impossible for those who are themselves involved in the problem of evil. However, God Himself is fully capable of distinguishing the only apparently good from those who actually please Him, and at the conclusion of all earth-life will be responsible for making that separation now so difficult for us. Then, and then alone, will it become perfectly clear who, all along, were the true sons of God.

NOTES

INTRODUCTION TO THE PARABLE (13:24)

Matthew 13:24 **Another parable set he before them. **This generalized indefinite introduction to a story is to be expected in Matthew, since he has reworked the order of this sermon by inserting the explanation of the Sower parable out of order to place the interpretation near the story itself for sake of the reader. (See notes on Matthew 13:18 and the Introduction.) Technically speaking, therefore, the telling of the Weeds Parable actually precedes the explanation of the Sower Parable. What viewpoint of **the Kingdom of heaven **is represented in this parable?

The Church exclusively? No, because Jesus says that God’s Rule, or Kingdom, is like the whole picture of two farmers competing for the same soil, each by sowing his own seed in the field. Now, if the good seed represents those who submit to the rule of Jesus Christ, i.e., His Church, then the Kingdom itself cannot be two separate parts of the parable at the same time. The Kingdom includes the Church, but not vice versa, since the Kingdom here is the larger concept. Trench (Notes, 194, note 2), desiring to apply this parable more exclusively to the Church, quotes Calvin with approval:

Although Christ adds that the field is the world, yet it is not doubtful that He wished to apply this name to the Church in particular, concerning which He had begun His discourse. He transferred by synecdoche to the world what fitted a part only.

Then Trench adds:

It required no especial training to acquaint the disciples that in the world there would ever be a mixture of good and bad, though they must have been so little prepared to expect the same in the Church, that it was very needful to warn them beforehand, both that they might not be stumbled, and that they might know how to conduct themselves.

But the good Archbishop is not looking at the question from the vantage point of the disciples-’ Jewish concept. What did THEY believe the Messianic Kingdom was to accomplish in the world? That is, did they expect the Messiah to usher in an unprecedented era of perfect righteousness, a paradise of holy persons whose King would instantly destroy all the wicked? If so, the startling revelations made by this parable would require that they re-evaluate all their previous thinking about the Kingdom.

The future reign of God after the conclusion of the present age is automatically ruled out as the exclusive meaning by the fact that the parable ends on this note, whereas it represents God’s authority over the world as already having had full sway for the long interval from before the establishment of His Church in the world until the final victory at the end, Even if Jesus says, Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father, it is evident (1) that they had been in that kingdom ever since their submission to the King and this is but the moment of their glorious revealing, and (2) that God had not relinquished His right to rule nor surrendered the government of earth to anyone in the interim.

This parable, rather, pictures the government of God in its totality. The particular background of this story is the eschatological waiting of the people of God for the realization of the Paradise of God. The Jews would have linked this directly with the first appearance of the Messiah and establishment of the Kingdom on earth (Cf. Psalms of Solomon 17:23ff, 29). Naturally, the failure of the nationalistic triumph to materialize as a visible result of Jesus-’ mission would not only raise serious questions about Him, but would lead to an understandable disappointment with Him. This is the kind of tension that motivates the uneasy question of John the Baptist (Matthew 11:2-6) and that of the Apostles (Acts 1:6).

Jesus would have men see that His new society of the redeemed is but one significant expression of God’s Kingdom. The very fact that God can afford to wait until that Day to destroy evil is surprising proof that His Government is supreme. The final, permanent crushing of the Enemy and those whom he deceived, is another evidence of God’s invincible rule. The radiant dignity to which the saints will then be elevated is a crowning evidence that the Almighty reigns! And this carefully constructed allegory splashes all these tremendous truth before His hearers in one coherent picture. But this is NOT new material. The truth taught about the kingdom in this parable had already been suggested by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount in clear, unparabolic language.

Why worry, for instance, about persecution from evil men (Matthew 5:10-12), or about strife (Matthew 5:21-26) or about personal vengeance against attackers (Matthew 5:38-42), or even about loving one’s enemies (Matthew 5:43 ff), if the Kingdom of God is going to eliminate all these problems from its inception?

Would not the great Messianic King remove all hypocrisy by the purifying power of His presence? (Cf. Matthew 6:1-18)

Why then all this concern for personal purity as if the citizens of the Kingdom could somehow become contaminated by divided loyalties and worry? (Matthew 6:19-34)

Further, if the Kingdom is only for the pure and holy anyway, why concern oneself with dogs and swine? (Matthew 7:6)

Most significant of all is the preoccupation with false ways and false prophets, as if IN THE KINGDOM YET one could actually be duped into following them to his destruction! (Matthew 7:13-23)

Incredible? Yes, but all that is rendered explicit in the Parable of the Tares was already implicit in the clear language of the Sermon on the Mount. This is the reason Jesus now repeats these ideas in the parabolic form: the prejudices of His hearers would not permit them to detect what He was driving at even when He talked plain about these very concepts. This simple story flashes before them God’s entire answer to the problems of sin and its accompanying evils in the world. The Church, of course, is not incidental, because she is the very crop for which the world’s true Owner yearned to see the fruition.

INTRODUCTION TO ITS EXPLANATION (13:36)

Matthew 13:36 **Then he left the multitudes, and went into the house; **did he leave them or dismiss them? The Greek verb means either. Interestingly, Jesus probably did both to go into the house. (His own house? Cf. note on Matthew 13:1)

**His disciples came to him, saying, Explain. **This is the most important verse in the entire chapter and the only reaction acceptable to Jesus Christ! They proved themselves genuine disciples by coming to HIM and laying before HIM their ignorance and confusion. This is the verse that draws the distinction between the sheep and the goats, the truly wise and the fools, the good and the evil. There is no evil like unbelief in Jesus in Nazareth, and there is no good like that absolute trust in Him that will bring a person spontaneously to Him so that He might teach him. (Cf. John 8:24; John 3:36; Psalms 25:8-9; James 1:5-8; see Notes on Matthew 13:10-17.)

**THE SAVIOR’S SOWING (13:24, 37, 38)

Matthew 13:24 A man. sowed good seed in his fields. 37. He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man: **keep that straight! The problem of evil in the world, and particularly in the institutional Church, often blinds men to the fact that only good giving and every perfect gift comes down from above, from the Father, whereas temptations, lust, sin and death come from human desires willing to be enticed by Satan (James 1:13-18; James 3:6; James 3:13-18; James 4:1-10). In starting His Church as one tangible expression of His Kingdom on earth. Jesus made no mistakes. The Lord knows His own (Cf. Numbers 16:1-5; Ezekiel 8:1 to Ezekiel 9:11; 2 Timothy 2:19; John 10:14). On that Day the justice of His strategy will be vindicated. In the meantime, the field is His field, His world, and any evil in it is the result of an enemy’S work, not His (Matthew 13:28)!

Matthew 13:38 a **The field is the world, **not merely the Church, although this is composed of people who live in the world. He is not only affirming the world-wide character of His reign as opposed to narrow nationalism, but also that the world itself is the soil within which the life growing-cycle of the two divergent kinds of people is brought to maturity. So, as long as the world stands, the mighty Kingdom of God has a sphere of action that is coextensive with all humanity. In unveiling this Kingdom Jesus taught His Jewish hearers to look not merely upon Palestine as the boundary of His dominion and the limit of His concern. Rather, He came to enlarge their horizons to include the utmost limits of mankind as the supreme target of His love and sphere of His good government.

Matthew 13:38 b **The good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom. **The expression sons of, rather than refer here to ancestry, is rather a Hebraism expressive of a more general relationship. Sometimes the connection is membership in a guild, class or sect (Cf. 2 Kings 6:1; 2 Kings 4:38; Matthew 12:27 see note). Or else the expression indicates some characteristic quality of the persons so described. The sons of the Kingdom, then, are Jesus-’ followers, because these disciples share the goals of the Kingdom (Cf. Notes on Matthew 5:45 and Matthew 8:12). They are the true Church, hence not a hypocrite among them. Wheat plants are just the wheat seed in a changed form: that new life-character in a Christian is actually the product of the truth he has accepted. God plants truth in a man, buries it in his heart, fires his imagination with, and energizes his will with it until that man literally becomes the truth incarnate (Cf. 2 Corinthians 3:18; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 3:14-21; Colossians 1:27-28; John 17:14-19; 2 Peter 1:3-4; 1 Peter 1:22-23; James 1:18; James 1:21; 1 Timothy 4:6). They are good seed, not perfectly matured plants ready for harvest; good seed with all the potentiality for producing the right results desired by the Lord of the harvest. Good seed is Jesus-’ evaluation of His Church: woe to the man who disagrees with Him!

SATAN’S SINISTER SOWING (13:25, 26, 39)

Matthew 13:25 **But while men slept, his enemy came **… This taking of rest need not refer to any lack of attention or care on the part of those responsible for the field, nor is the sleeping blamed. Rather, sleep is not only proper because earned by honest labor, but may easily signify the farmer’s undisturbed confidence that good seed has been sown, as in the parable of the Growing Seed (Mark 4:27). Nevertheless, it was this time that Satan turned to his own advantage.

**His enemy. sowed tares also among the wheat, and went away 26 But when the blade sprang up and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. **From these details it is obvious that the servants only discovered their presence in the field when the weeds had already begun to mature, hence not earlier. In fact, it was only when the wheat had brought forth fruit that then appeared the tares also. On this basis the Davis Dictionary of the Bible (759) argues for the Lolium as the culprit:

The bearded darnel (Lolium temulentum) is a poisonous grass, almost undistinguishable from wheat while the two are only in blade, but which can be separated without difficulty when they come into ear.

It was the fruit that gave it away (Cf. Matthew 7:15-20). Though the fruits furnish the saints a practical clue, or test, whereby they may guard themselves from the influences of the wicked, they are not permitted to destroy them, because only at the judgment will all fruit be fully matured, rendering possible a true final decision. So, before that Day, who but God can recognize the genuine wheat from the obnoxious darnel? (In fact, some may even be charismatics. Matthew 7:21-23) Merely because God does not seem to be doing anything about rooting out the wicked now must not be interpreted by anyone as if He were doing absolutely nothing about the evil. He is biding His time until harvest when the final reckoning will reveal the drastic difference between the sham believers, the hypocrites, the role players, the shamelessly evil ones, and the genuine sons of God.

The use of the darnel weed was aptly chosen by the Lord because of its striking similarity to wheat, since the shoots of both are so alike it is next to impossible to decide which is which. The value of this resemblance for the story lies in its vivid representation of a real problem: there would be many non-Christians in the world whose honesty, integrity, generosity and other good traits often surpass the average morality of many Christians who really do believe Jesus and try to serve Him, but whose ethics are no match for those high-minded unbelievers. Or, there might be two men of equal moral worth, one a disciple of Jesus; the other, no. Many would be tempted to leap to the conclusion that faith in Jesus and justification on the basis of that faith makes little essential difference, since, they would say, Surely God wants good people, not just believers whose life and morals are unspectacular for their similarity to non-believers. In fact, the whole concept of justification by faith which puts a man in Christ and renders him juridically perfect before God, is so unbelievable that God would have had to say it before any of us would have ever believed it possible. Man’s idea of justice would just not let him dream it up, because it involves condemning himself regardless of how good he is. Since people in Christ must live out their lifetime among the more-or-less good people in their community, anyone who would decide about the effectiveness of Jesus-’ mission to earth would be inclined to pronounce it a failure, since no noticeable difference distinguishes the one from the other. But what a difference judgment will reveal between the two!

Matthew 13:38 c **The tares are the sons of the evil one. **Although very few of them would openly own Satan as their lord and actively seek to promote the interests of his domain, yet in doing exactly what they want to do, they carry out his wishes (Cf. John 8:44; Ephesians 2:2 f). This real, fundamental commitment explains the need to play the hypocrite, felt by those sons of the Devil who want to be part of the Church. While mimicking the externals of the Christian society, they cannot go all the way to fruits of righteousness, because they are already committed to themselves, which, in effect, means commitment to Satan’s desires. (See Ezekiel 33:30-33 in this context!) Just as the sons of the Kingdom are the logical, moral product of the truth that transforms them, so also the sons of the evil one are the product of the false, the inadequate, the sham, the deceptive, that they too have taken into their being in exchange for truth (Romans 1:21-32; 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12; Ephesians 2:1-3; Philippians 3:19; Colossians 2:8; Colossians 2:18; 1 Timothy 4:1-2; 1 Timothy 6:20-21; 2 Timothy 2:16-17; 2 Timothy 4:3-4; 2 Timothy 3:7).

Matthew 13:39 a **The enemy that sowed them is the devil. **Contrary to the correct understanding of this parable, Christians are tempted to see the enemy as anything or anyone else! Before a successful battle can be waged, one ought at least to know who his enemies are. All of our seemingly great difficulties with people are but minor skirmishes in comparison with the bloody war with Satan himself. Nevertheless, although millions march at his orders, his ranks can be infiltrated, even as he tries to infiltrate the Kingdom of God, and some of his tools can be converted into disciples of the Kingdom (Cf. 2 Timothy 2:24-26). However, were the sons of the evil one to be treated as one would their father and chief, were they uprooted and burned before the time, their conversion could never take place. Our warfare, our struggle for the control of men’s minds, therefore, must not mistake men for Satan, for the enemy is the devil (Cf. 2 Corinthians 10:3-6; Ephesians 6:10-19)! Not even the Romans, nor the Pharisees!

This simple declaration marks the chasmic distance between Satan and Jesus Christ! No accusations of secret collusion with that sinister demon can be sustained (Cf. Matthew 12:24; Matthew 9:34), In fact, in His most secret revelations to His intimates, the Lord bares the harsh reality of that moral struggle for world domination in which the lines are sharply drawn (Hebrews 2:14-15; 1 John 3:8).

These literal words of our Lord (The enemy is the devil.) expose as fundamental unbelief the embarrassment of people who blush at the mention of the devil. Satan is as real for Jesus as is God His Father. But, some would urge, While I accept Jesus-’ words as true, should they not be understood figuratively? No, because the words of this text are not part of a figure, picture or parable, but, rather, the literal interpretation of a parable. Jesus, who sees as clearly the invisible realm of the spirits as He does the visible world of time and sense, declares as eternal truth: the enemy is the devil!

THE SERVANTS-’ SURPRISE (13:27, 28)

Matthew 13:27 **And the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it tares? **Although Jesus did not interpret this verse nor the following one, it is the basic problem back of this parable to which the story is the answer. The causes of the shock in these servants are two: their confidence in their lord’s wisdom in sowing good seed in his field, and their own discovery of the continued presence of noxious weeds that threatened to compromise his harvest.

Matthew 13:28 **And he said unto them, An enemy hath done this. And the servants say unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? **The farmer’s true response not only does not solve the problem for them; it, rather, increases their anxiety to right this disturbing situation immediately.

These anxious questions would not long remain unuttered after men should have seen how Jesus intended to establish His Messianic Kingdom. Such questions, in fact, would be wrung out of the tortured emotions of embattled saints: Lord, did you not establish your new humanity comprised of your own people who submit to your rule in the world? Why, then, are there yet so many people who obviously not only do not accept your rule, but openly belong to the ranks of Satan? Lord, if your Church is what you say it is, if we are to be as victorious as you promise, if we are to bring every tribe, nation, people and tongue to your honor, riches, praise and thanksgiving at your feet, what are all these OBDURATE, UNCOVERTED AND UNCONVERTIBLE SINNERS doing here, still left seemingly at peace in the world? Why, Lord, are they left to pursue their own degenerate and degrading course? If you, Lord Jesus, are really the King of the world, as we believe, how is it that the world still lies in the power of the wicked one-’? Who are the servants whose righteous zeal thus manifests itself in personal interest in the proper management and future success of their Lord’s property? Interestingly, Jesus leaves us no direct clue to their identity.

The Church? But in this parable, the Church is already symbolized by the good seed, not the servants of the householder. Nevertheless, the disciples of Christ have as much need for the information given these servants as anyone else, even if not specifically addressed to them.

Angels? Since the reapers in this figure are angels, it would not be at all surprising to see also these servants as angels who raise the problem of the continued presence of evil in the world even after the Son of God had completed His redemptive work. However, while these servants could well be the angels, yet thoughtful men too have always been tormented by this same question of justice.

It may well be that Jesus left their identification deliberately indistinct, in order to permit nonemen or angelsto make false accusations or ignorant final verdicts. But if the exact identity of these concerned servants of God is intentionally left out of the picture, the attitude expressed is strikingly typical of John the Baptist. (See notes on Matthew 11:1-6.) His heavy, thundering demands for repentance and his blazing threats of unquenchable fire practically cancelled out for John the possibility that a loving Messiah should patiently and mercifully seek the salvation of the vilest of the wicked. Nor had Jesus been sufficiently prompt in satisfying John’s own understanding of Jesus-’ mission.

Barker (As Matthew Saw the Master, 60f) visualizes Jesus-’ immediate situation as an uneasiness about the kind of people He was attracting. He had given a blanket invitation to the human race to come to Him, and some who came had notorious reputations. Some were with Him for the wrong reasons, expecting rewards and honors. And what about the borderline, the wobbly, superficial followers? Surely, the disciples may have been thinking, they should sort out those who were insincere. Critical and untolerant, some mumbled to Jesus about the bag of mixed followers, around Him. Why not weed out the undesirables?

Matthew knew better than most what it was to be an undesirable, A dubious risk with a disgraceful past, Matthew had no letters of recommendation to get him into Jesus-’ Kingdom. If there had been any sorting out of followers, Matthew knew that he would have been classified as unreliable, or offensive.

How desperately pertinent is this parable to the immediate perplexity of the Twelve themselves! How appropriate for their peace of mind! They must not only witness the desertion of Jesus by fickle, uncomprehending mobs of well-wishers (John 6:66), but also face the certainty that even one of their own number would be Satan’s tool (John 6:70)!

God’s servants are always tempted to ignore this teaching by allowing themselves to become overly alarmed by the great, powerful causes or movements of sinners united together. Consequently, abandoning the ministry to which Jesus had set them working, they set about to eradicate the evils in the world by combatting the great evil movements themselves, By contrast, the Apostles finally understood their Lord and refused to get involved in fighting totalitarian government and godless ideologies of their day, for they believed that preaching the Gospel of Christ would produce more necessary, grass-roots changes in humanity and, consequently, in its philosophies and systems, than could begin to be touched by tremendous reactionary campaigns.

THE SERVANTS-’ SHORT-SIGHTED SOLUTION SCRAPPED (13:29, 30a)

Matthew 13:29 Their seemingly natural, more obvious solution is surprisingly, but wisely, rejected. Not only would the roots of the plants have become intertwined in the earth, so that the uprooting of the unwanted weeds would necessarily ruin the good stalks yet unready for harvest, but the very similarity between the good and bad plants would require powers to distinguish them that the servants did not possess.

Matthew 13:30 **Let them both grow together until the harvest. **The striking likeness of bearded darnel to wheat is gone by harvest, making it possible to distinguish the plants without difficulty.

It is this definitive, standing order of the Lord of the harvest that exhibits the true relationships: these persons, overeager to help along the punitive justice of God must recognize their true position as Jesus assigns it to them in this parable. They are servants, nothing more. It is not theirs to dictate policy to the Lord, no matter how staggered they are by the enormity of the evil in the world, no matter how provoked to demand immediate justice. (Cf. Revelation 6:9-11 and God’s reaction even to those martyred for Christ.) For anyone ready to rush radical remedies to the scene, Jesus reminds that judgment still belongs to the Almighty who can well afford to wait. Even if His judgment is inexorable, His patience can take its time. If Jesus had sometimes to rebuke the all-too-human desire to call down fire from heaven upon those deemed to be enemies of Christ (Cf. Luke 9:51-56) or reprove the attempts to hinder the efforts of anyone not a part of Jesus-’ personal following (Luke 9:49-50), here, however, He guarantees the final, impartial extirpation of the really wicked. This guarantee, however, is based on the righteous and mercifully patient justice of God, not upon the hasty elimination of all the doubtful on the part of the pure. We need to feel the arrogance it would involve to propose to begin God’s sentencing by using human evaluations and methods. We must learn to distrust the smug conviction of our personal purity and worth that considers itself qualified to root out all the impure and damn them to an eternal fire.

**Let them both grow together! **What an excellent combination of patient wisdom and far-reaching grace! We would have ordered an immediate quarantine of all the wicked, called fire down from heaven, burnt up all the unworthy and set up a pure, true Church. But how like God to be serenely patient! Nevertheless, His very forbearance irritates us, because somehow we just cannot see that we too would have to go, were He to give the green light to such punitive measures, because not a one of us is pure wheat, except by His patient grace. His wise mercy halts the self-extermination of the Church in its present condition of imperfection and immaturity. In one clear word He forbids all kinds of Inquisitions, Crusades and Holy Wars. If it be contrary to God’s longsuffering kindness for angels to rush among an unwitting humanity with drawn sword, how much more is it wicked for the Church, God’s means to save the world, to don the robes of secular power and turn her sword against heretics and execute them herself? How many Zealots, Assassins and sympathizers in Jesus stomped impatiently for some clue from Jesus, some key phrase that would signal the zero hour to begin the messianic holy war against all enemies of the New Israel! And yet, He quotes with approval the words of the world’s Owner: Let them both grow together. ! He simply will not permit anyone to take over for God and begin to execute precipitate justice by slicing men out of the Kingdom. Jesus is justly optimistic about the converting power of His own gospel, because He knows what so many forget: The Gospel is God’s power to save anyone who believes it, Tares can become wheat! (See notes on the Growing Seed Parable, Mark 4:26-29.)

Here again is the Lord’s option for gradualism, as opposed to instant revolution and apocalyptic judgment, a doctrine reiterated in the stories of the Mustard Seed and of the Leaven and that of the Growing Seed. Although the Jewish apocalyptist wrongly imagined the fulfillment of God’s plans, he was not altogether wrong to calm the impatience of the godly man, chafing for perfect justice in the world:

Your haste may not exceed that of the Most High; for you are hastening for your own self, but the Exalted One (is acting) on behalf of many. (IV Ezra 4:34).

Let them both grow together cannot apply to church discipline.

Because the field is the world, not merely, nor only, the Church. The Church is planted IN the world, and so does not include all that is affirmed of the world. The basic distinction drawn in this parable is that between those who share God’s mentality and the Devil’s own. Though they must all grow along together in the present age, the separation will be made later. But in the case of church discipline, the basic distinction is between the wicked and righteous within the Church itself, and the separation must be made immediately on earth.

Because the reapers here are the angels, not church members indignant about the sins of a fellow Christian.

Because no interpretation of this parable can be correct that contradicts the Lord’s clear instructions on church discipline (Matthew 18:15-18; 1 Corinthians 5; 2 Corinthians 2:1-11; esp. 2 Corinthians 2:9; Titus 3:10; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; 2 Thessalonians 3:14; 2 John 1:9-11; Romans 16:17-18). The Church is condemned that tolerates inquiry within (Revelation 2, 3). Those individuals who demonstrate by their attitudes and actions that they are tares at heart, those sons of the evil one, however much they protest their orthodoxy or innocence, if the facts justify their being disciplined by the congregation and if they repent not, are to be severed from the fellowship of other Christians.

Because Jesus is not answering the specific question about dealing with sin in the Church. The burning question on the lips of the servants is: Why is all the evil in the world allowed to continue? Shall we begin final judgment and damnation right now? Decisions to be handled by the Church in carrying out church discipline are not of this order at all. This is because her judgments do not carry the weight of final judgment and eternal damnation. She is merely restoring to the world those of her number who refuse by their well-known character to be what the Church is really supposed to be. Naturally, the sequel to this situation will be the eternal damnation of the ex-church member IF HE DOES NOT REPENT, but that consequence will be God’s decision, not the Church’S. Church discipline is so designed as to seek this very reconversion to Christ, and, if successful in its working the desired effect in the sinning member, re-embraces him in reconciliation. Even if not instantly successful in his restoration, church discipline always leaves the door open until his death, so that he can repent and return if he will. From these considerations, it is demonstrated that, in no way does this parable forbid Church members to make the necessary judgments to discipline a recalcitrant fellow Christian (See fuller notes at Matthew 18:15-18.)

SUBSEQUENT SETTLEMENT BY SCRUPULOUS SEPARATION OF SINNERS (13:30b, 39-42)

Matthew 13:30 Note the perfect foresight and calm mastery of this situation on the part of the householder, despite the tension felt because of the apparently menaced outcome of the harvest.

Matthew 13:39 b **The harvest is the end of the world **(Cf. Matthew 13:49; Matthew 24:3; Matthew 28:10; Hebrews 9:26-27). What as astounding revelation, either from the standpoint of Jewish eschatology or from that of modern philosophical determinism. The former sees the coming of the Messiah as the immediate, cataclysmic solution to all problems, the precipitate punishment of all wicked, and hard on the heels of judgment, the arrival of the Jewish paradise. But, as the Parables of the Mustard Seed and of the Leaven teach, so here too, Jesus pictures the perfection of the Kingdom through an extended time-period of internal and external development after which a cataclysmic event will finally bring everything to a sudden, abrupt halt and hale every man before God’s court for judgment. (Is the Lord here reacting directly to that strand of Jewish apocalyptic that sees a necessity for the eradication of evil before something better can take its place? Cf. IV Ezra 4:22-24)

Further, in contrast to that philosophical pessimism that sees history as going nowhere, endlessly repeating itself in cycles, Jesus diagrams a scheme of history that rolls right up to its last hour and comes to a decisive conclusion. For the wild-eyed optimists who see man’s travail as an upward-moving, endless spiral curving ever higher toward infinity, Jesus-’ incisive definition spells the same defeat.

The reapers are angels (Cf. Matthew 25:31; Matthew 16:27; Luke 12:8-9). Those who had been no more than spirits in the service of God commissioned to help those who are to inherit salvation (Hebrews 1:14) and who have longed to look into God’s plan for human redemption (1 Peter 1:12) will consummate the last act of their service for this epoch by becoming, with regard to the vile and the unbelieving, the ministers of God’s justice.

Matthew 13:41 **The Son of man shall send forth his angels. **Compare the grand similarities of language and figures between Jesus-’ interpretative prophecy here and that ancient prophetic judgment described in Ezekiel 9! Who does Jesus think He is, since He applies such majestic language to Himself in such a way that none could miss His underlying authority? Even without any reference to echoes from Ezekiel, this impression stands solidly on its own imagery. Here is Jesus in all His divine power and majesty in full charge of the final judgment, directing His angels, to purify His Kingdom, which is, of course, the Kingdom of God.

**They shall gather out of his kingdom **what had, to that moment, actually been IN that Kingdom as it existed in the world. This obvious truism points to the fact that the presence of evil in the world and hypocrites in the Church were no surprise in Jesus. He not only knew about them all the time, but had already made adequate plans for this disposal. They could not, for all their rebellion, escape from God’s Kingdom, God’s control. Despite temporary appearances to the contrary, God had always been Sovereign. Despite their insubordination, they had had to live in His world with His reality. They could not even escape this! Now they shall be gathered out of His Kingdom. So let not the disciple trouble himself either with the difficulty of telling the genuine from the false Christians or with the task of eliminating them, because the responsibility for this final judgment is not his. This is the Lord’s right (John 5:22; John 5:27) and He has never surrendered this task to any human officers, or servants. But gather them out He will! (Cf. Matthew 15:13-14; John 15:1-8; Hebrews 6:4-6; Hebrews 10:26-31)

**All things that cause stumbling: **see Matthew 18:1-35 for fuller notes. **Them that do iniquity: **may not represent **a **separate class, since the Lord may be speaking according to a popular Hebraistic idiom (parallelism) to repeat an idea. Rather than divide the offenders into neat groups, He actually throws them both into the same category. If any distinction is intended, He sees as damned both those who are the cause, or temptation, to sin and those who yield to the allurement, in which case none escape. No more can he who is merely the source of temptation excuse himself as being extraneous to the sins of. others than can another be excused who permits himself to be beguiled into acting as if there were no laws (anomìan poioûntes). They are both sons of the evil one, and so must be segregated forever.

Matthew 13:42 **And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. **This image, squarely set as it is within the literal interpretation of the parable, must be taken seriously without hedging or watering down its force, even if human experience has never encountered a furnace of fire that punishes forever. (See notes on Matthew 3:12 where John the Baptist used a similar image to convey a picture of the horrible thoroughness of God’s condemnation. See also Matthew 18:8-9; Matthew 25:41; Matthew 25:46; John 15:6; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8; 2 Peter 3:7; 2 Peter 3:10; 2 Peter 3:12; Jude 1:7; Revelation 20:15; Revelation 21:8.) Whatever the reality intended, it is a horrible destiny, if the language employed to picture it contemplates such a gruesome punishment! (Cf. Jeremiah 29:22; Daniel 3:6) Weeping and gnashing of teeth is an expression characteristic of bitter regret and impotent rage. (See on Matthew 8:12.) There are still only two classes of people in the world, however mixed the lines seem to be. There is no middle, no third group; just wheat or tares. Righteousness is still righteousness, even if no one anywhere seems to be praticing it, and sin is still sin and will be punished, even if it seems that everyone everywhere is doing it (Cf. 1 John 2:28 to 1 John 3:10; Revelation 21:1-8; Revelation 21:27; Revelation 22:14-15).

THE SATISFACTION, SECURITY AND STUNNING SPLENDOR OF THE SAVED

Matthew 13:43 Here, finally, is the climax toward which Jesus had been building: THEN, and only then, **shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. **Trench (Notes, 195) citing Calvin, rejoices that

It is a very great comfort that the sons of God, who now are either lying covered with squalor, or are hidden and unesteemed, or are even buried under reproaches, shall then, as in a clear sky and with every cloud dissipated, at once shine out brightly.

At judgment they will be as obviously recognizable as God’s children as the midday sun is obvious in the summer sky (Cf. Judges 5:31; Daniel 12:2-3; Romans 8:19). Since the scene of this great presentation, in which the true character of the righteous will be so gloriously displayed, is set in their Father’s kingdom, we have further proof that, when Jesus uses the expression Kingdom of God, the Church is but a part of this great concept. Here, rather, the righteous are all of God’s elect of all ages who acknowledge God’s rule (Cf. on Matthew 8:11), including the Church of Jesus Christ, but the kingdom itself is greater than all these who are now thus glorified therein. The kingdom here, then, is God’s universal rule (Cf. 1 Peter 5:10; 2 Peter 1:3-11).

**Then shall the righteous shine. **How and why?

Physically, their lowly earthly body will be changed to be like His glorious body (Philippians 3:20; 1 Corinthians 15:43).

Juridically, their justification will be complete, because they Believed God and it was imputed to them for righteousness (Romans 4:3 ff; Galatians 5:5). Though morally imperfect on earth, a fact which made others-’ prior final judgments undependable, however after God’s judgment it will be absolutely clear to angels, demons and men why God saved THESE of all people (Cf. Romans 3:21-26).

Morally, they will shine because the very thing that makes them righteous is the fact that they had already accepted into their very being the Word of that God who Himself is Light and dwells in light unapproachable. In their fellowship with Him and in their imitation of Him as His children, they grew to be like Him (Ephesians 5:1; 1 John 1:3-7; 1 Timothy 6:16). We shall be like Him (1 John 3:1-3)! We shall shine as the sun: is this some figure of speech? Read the following attractive brochure on our future and decide for yourself! (Romans 2:7; Romans 2:10; Romans 5:2; Romans 8:18; Romans 8:21; 1 Corinthians 2:7; 1 Corinthians 15:43; 2 Corinthians 3:18; 2 Corinthians 4:17; Ephesians 1:18; Ephesians 5:27; Colossians 3:4; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; 2 Thessalonians 1:10; 2 Thessalonians 1:12; Hebrews 2:10; 1 Peter 4:14; 1 Peter 5:1; 1 Peter 5:4; 1 Peter 5:10; 2 Peter 1:3) This is why we will be glorified in Him and He in us, because what we shall be will have been His work in us and our positive response to it for His sake.

**The kingdom of their Father **is the same as what Jesus had but a moment before called His Kingdom (Matthew 13:41). The government of God belongs, therefore, to both the Father and the Son, a fact that prepares the mind to accept the concept of the Trinity, even if he cannot understand it. Also, the fact that the Kingdom is of their Father declares them all to be heirs of the Kingdom and royal princes (Cf. James 2:5; Revelation 21:7; Romans 8:15-17).

**He that hath ears, let him hear. **(See notes on Matthew 13:9.) Despite all that has been said about the sons of the evil one and the permanency and horror of their fate, yet all could actually hear with understanding and change their relationship to God. Notwithstanding the fact that this parable is not immediately concerned with the doctrine that even Christians that produce no fruit will also be destroyed (Cf. John 15:2; Hebrews 6:4-6; Hebrews 10:26-31), nevertheless, this warning, appended to the explanation given privately to Jesus-’ closest disciples, is particularly ominous. None can plead inability to hear and understand, since He hereby makes each one responsible to listen, understand, accept or pay the consequences.

APOLQGETIC VALUE OF THIS PARABLE

At first glance, it would seem that if, according to this parable, evil is never to be absent from the world, the unbeliever would have a strong argument for rejecting Christianity, because of its self-confessed inability to conquer all evil here and now. Paradoxically, however, if evil is never to be absent from the world during the present reign of the Messiah, this parable has tremendous psychological power to deal with our anxiety caused by the problem of evil and to persuade men to believe the Gospel’s truth:

There is psychological wonder that the amount of good done is as great as it is, considering the obstacles the Kingdom must overcome using the means within its power, To put it another way: look what God is able to do, working under the deliberately chosen handicap of leaving evil in the world! Further, when men consider that God freely elected to use only the influence of His Word to overcome sin and all its ramifications and consequences, rather than organize great armies of police to enforce His will and execute the evildoers, they must marvel. If He can do that much with His hands tied behind Him, what a great God He must be! How worthy of our praise and worship! Our God can beat Satan while letting Satan do his worst.

The Church affirms that men are morally free to accept or reject her message, and if this is true, then one must be prepared to expect to find at least some people left in the world who do not accept it. Even if the existence of these evil men is dreadfully uncomfortable for the godly people and makes it appear that God is powerless to do anything about them, their very existence proves the true freedom of the human will. Here, then, is real proof of the correctness of God’s procedure, because this parable demonstrates just how much opportunity there is for the full development of freely chosen righteousness by its being put to real tests in an evil world where all options are live! If God were suddenly to remove all temptations and evil from the world, there could be no freely taken choice to love and obey Him, since there would be no real alternatives to do otherwise. So the very presence of unchecked evil in the world and even the very imperfection of the Church, when looked at from THIS angle, prove the truth of its message!

Faith is real, because even though this parable paints in some detail the great victory over evil won by the Son of God, most of us will not live to see it. So, from a purely human point of view, since that victory is not a sure thing, anyone who stakes his life on its occurring, really does so because he trusts the word of Christ.

As in the lesson of the Growing Seed Parable, so also here, any precipitate verdicts critical of the present state of the Kingdom of God are just bad misjudgments. Too many facts are left out of account when men look only at the chaos and injustice in the world without seeing what God is doing about it by means of His Gospel. This Parable clarifies His total program.

FACT QUESTIONS

What are tares? What particular difficulty do they present to the inexperienced eye that observes them? What characteristic makes them especially appropriate for use as a symbol in this story?

What great philosophical problem does Jesus pose here under the form of a parable? How does He answer the problem?

What difference is there between the answers that the philosophers have given to the problem, and the answer Jesus gives?

State the declarations in this text that give evidence of the unique nature of Jesus as revealer of God’s will.

What is the one principle point of this parable? State it, if possible in one well-sharpened proposition.

With what other parable(s) does this story show a distinct relationship as to the meaning intended?

What may be deduced about the Evil One from the description Jesus provides in this text? What is known about him from other passages?

Give Jesus-’ interpretation of the following points in the parable:

a.

The Sower

e.

The enemy

b.

The good seed

f.

The harvest

c.

The field

g.

The reapers

d.

The tares

h.

The fire

What are the things that cause stumbling?

Where are they to be found?

Who are those that do iniquity? Where are they found?

Harmonize the seeming contradiction between the fact that Jesus here presents the punishment of the wicked as a blazing furnace of fire, whereas elsewhere He speaks of an outer darkness. All the fire we have ever seen gives off light in the darkness, and all the darkness we have ever experienced is the absence of light. Which of Jesus-’ expressions is the correct representation of the facts: the fire or the darkness? What does the apparent contradiction teach us about Jesus-’ way of speaking about things of which we have not yet had any experience?

What other Scriptures speak of the punishment of the wicked?

What other passages speak of the future happiness of the righteous?

What other Scriptures describe who are the sons of the Kingdom? Does Jesus always use this expression with the same identical meaning, referring always to the same people?

Explain gnashing of teeth.

In what sense will the righteous shine forth as the sun?

Why does Jesus not refer to those in His Kingdom as sons of the Kingdom, who do iniquity and whom the angels will eventually expel, if unfaithful Christians were really the ones intended?

Who are the sons of the Kingdom? How, according to Jesus, does one get to be one?

Show the relation (or lack of it) between this parable and the doctrine of church discipline.

To what aspect of the Kingdom of God does this parable address itself? List the possible concepts of the kingdom involved and defend or deny each one.

Matthew 13:31-32

C. THE PROBLEM OF GROWTH AND SUCCESS IN GOD’S KINGDOM: THE TRIUMPH OF TRUTH

1. THE PARABLE OF THE MUSTARD SEED TEXT: 13:31, 32

(Parallel: Mark 4:30-32; cf. Luke 13:18-19)

31 Another parable set he before them, saying, The Kingdom of heaven is like unto a grain of mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field; 32 which indeed is less than all seeds; but when it is grown, it is greater than the herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the heaven come and lodge in the branches thereof.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

Why do you suppose that it was so very important for Jesus to reveal to His disciples, even in this veiled way, that His Messianic Kingdom would have a small, insignificant beginning? What was there in their background that would have made this special information necessary?

b.

To what extent, if at all, may we regard these parables as prophecies about the features to be expected in Christ’s (then) coming Kingdom? If they are to be considered as prophecies, then what does this make Jesus? If they are not so to be considered, in which case Jesus is just telling it like it is, then what does that make Jesus?

c.

How does this story about the mustard seed contribute to the general impression of the government of God revealed elsewhere in the near context of the great sermon in parables, and in the larger framework of Scripture? In other words, how does this parable’s message harmonize with, or incorporate, ideas expressed in other parables and elsewhere in the New Testament?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

Jesus set before them another story: To what is God’s rule comparable? What story would describe it? God’s Kingdom is similar to a grain of mustard seed which a farmer took and sowed in his field. The mustard seed is, relatively speaking, the smallest of all the tree seeds on earth. Nevertheless, when it is sown and has grown up, it becomes the largest of all shrubs. It puts forth large branches and becomes a tree, so that birds can come and make nests in the shade of its branches.

SUMMARY

The concrete, visible beginnings of God’s Kingdom on earth will be small, but His rule will show extensive growth until its impact in the world is significantly felt.

NOTES

Matthew 13:31-32 A **grain of mustard seed. becometh a tree. **ISBE (2101, article Mustard) notes

Several varieties of mustard (Arab. khardal) have notably small seed, and under favorable conditions grow in a few months into very tall herbs10 to 12 ft, The rapid growth of an annual herb to such a height must always be a striking fact. Sinapis nigra, the black mustard, which is cultivated, Sinapis alba, or white mustard, and Sinapis arvensis, or the charlock (All of N.O. Cruciferae), would any one of them, suit the requirements of the parable; birds readily alight upon their branches to eat the seed (Matthew 13:32, etc.), not, be it noted, to build their nests, which is nowhere implied.

However, the expression, the birds of the heaven come and lodge in the branches thereof may rightly be rendered make nests, since kataskenoûn means to live in or settle in a place; of birds, to nest in the branches. (Cf. Rocci, 1004; Arndt-Gingrich, 419) Plummer (Matthew, 194) reminds that -tree-’ (déndron) does not necessarily mean a timber-tree. We speak of a rose-tree and a gooseberry-tree.

Had Jesus furnished an interpreter’s key to this parable, it might have sounded something like this: The field is the world, the man who sowed the seed is the Son of man, the grain of mustard seed is the rule of God in men’s hearts. Even with an unpretentious debut, it will expand throughout the world until many nations, peoples and tongues will find peace in its realm. If, then, the mustard plant actually becomes a tree, the Lord does not have to extend the literal qualities of the mustard bush beyond its botanical limits in order to make a tremendous impression upon His Jewish audience. The description of something insignificant when planted, but begins bringing forth boughs and becoming a noble tree under the shade of which will dwell all kinds of beasts and in whose shade birds of every sort will nest, is familiar prophetic language to those Jewish hearers. (Cf. Ezekiel 17:22-24 in its context; Ezekiel 31:6; Ezekiel 31:12 in the parable of the cedar; Daniel 4:10-27) Is it possible that this choice of language is deliberately and appropriately utilized by the Lord to call direct attention to something for minds alert to such apocalyptic jargon? What would these words have communicated to readers familiar with Ezekiel and Daniel? In those prophets such language describes the grandeur of empires magnificent enough to provide people with refuge, defense and the satisfaction of their needs. The alert listener to Jesus could not but recognize a prediction that His Kingdom, despite its inauspicious beginning, would progress by gradual growth to become an empire so vast and so powerful that it could protect all its subjects and satisfy the desires of their souls.

How desperately needed was this information at that historical moment! The thought that the Kingdom could begin small and arrive at greatness only through gradual growth is always a view totally unacceptable to people itching to get where the action is. Had a sounding of public opinion been taken to determine popular sentiment regarding the Kingdom and Jesus, the results would have probably left many a serious disciple shaking his head. At this stage of the game the powerblock of Jerusalem and especially the Pharisees were beginning to line up a stiff, growing opposition. The important backers began to raise eyebrows at the trends becoming more and more visible in Jesus-’ proclamation of the Kingdom. Realistic observers could sense that Jesus had no intention of setting up a military kingdom with a fully developed power structure which would usher in a paradise of prosperity for all. And it was this very reluctance of His that would deeply trouble those who had high hopes of making a fortune in that Kingdom. A statistical review of Jesus-’ hard, countable successes would confirm the unspoken suspicion that He was making no progress at all. Worse still, His message menaced judgment for all that was held dear by the various representatives of standard Judaism: the rabbinical traditions, the temple graft, nationalism, material prosperity, ostentation and class and race superiority. Rather than organize the elite and court the heads of organized labor and government, rather than rally the masses in anti-Establishment crusades, His major efforts were directed at regenerating the folks on the fringe, the ordinary, the down-and-outers, the renegades,in short, the nobodies. Humanly speakings, this was no way to organize a mighty messianic machine for bringing in the Kingdom with its flurry of trumpets, its flash of heraldry and the stirring roll of drums. (Cf. Luke 17:20-21 in context) The absurdity of Jesus-’ being able to accomplish very much with the temperamental, ordinary, problematic people in His immediate coterie of associates, must have been staggering to the Jewish public!

The disciples themselves too, throughout their associations with Jesus, had unceasing trouble with this kind of thinking. (Study Matthew 19:24-28; Matthew 20:20-28; see notes on Matthew 11:2-6; Acts 1:6.) Other disciples, after the feeding of the 5000, tried to take the Lord by force to make Him their kind of king, but He refused. (John 6:15) The next day, when He bared the spiritual character of His mission, people abandoned Him en masse. (John 6:22-66)

Nevertheless, as indicated elsewhere in His teaching, Jesus had been intimating His intentions to found just this sort of Kingdom, i.e., one that constitutionally strikes at the heart of material ambitions, nationalistic conquest, pampered pride and superficial religiousness. (Cf. the Sermon on the Mount as a vigorous polemic against these views.) Further, if the fundamental message of the Parable of the Sower is that God intends to use only the influence of His Word to transform men who remain absolutely free to accept or reject it, then does it require any particular astuteness to foresee that any Kingdom of God that follows such policies MUST BEGIN SMALL, IF AT ALL? And yet Jesus-’ divine foresight is evident in His unshaken confidence that His Kingdom, however discouragingly insignificant its beginnings, would grow to become a powerful, worldwide empire. We do not esteem Jesus-’ words at their proper worth unless we see just how far from being hyperbolic they were. If it seemed an exaggeration that He should speak of the mustard seed as the smallest of all seeds on earth, when compared with the realities they symbolized they are almost an understatement!

Christ’s Kingdom began in a very obscure way without any reasonable prospect of success, without any hope of greatness. Its King did not appear in public until His thirtieth year and then taught only two or three years occasionally in the capital, but more often in the provincial villages.

The Kingdom began among the Jews, a subject people chafing under the yoke of foreign lords. It began as the smallest sect among this people in a despised province of the Roman Empire. Its leader contradicted the cherished notions of His own people and, consequently, was rejected by them. He made only a few real followers among the poor and ignorant. He had no political power in His own homeland and no hope from abroad. The founder of this Kingdom was shamefully executed by His own people. Even after the day of Pentecost, the Kingdom seemed to its enemies a struggling movement crying for elimination through persecution and death. THIS is the beginning of the universal Reign of God on earth? (Cf. 1 Corinthians 1:27-29)

And yet it grew and became a force to be dealt with in the world. (Cf. Romans 16:25-26; Colossians 1:6; Colossians 1:23) Do YOU believe Paul, or is his rhetoric a bit hyperbolic for you? (1 Thessalonians 1:6-10; Acts 28:22; Acts 17:6) And it is still growing!

For further notes on the impact and significance of this revelation, see after the Parable of the Leaven, its companion.

FACT QUESTIONS

How does one harmonize the fact that many seeds are actually smaller than the mustard seed, with Jesus-’ declaration that it is the smallest of all seeds?

What illustrative stories in the Old Testament furnish the imagery for Jesus-’ parable here? What was the major point of those stories? Did Jesus say that these are His source? If so, how? If not, what factor connects the story of Jesus with those OT pictures?

Describe the Palestinean mustard plant showing how it fits Jesus-’ use of it as a fitting symbol of His Kingdom.

Had Jesus presented this truth before? If so, how or where?

C. THE PROBLEM OF GROWTH AND SUCCESS IN GOD’S KINGDOM: THE TRIUMPH OF TRUTH

2. THE PARABLE OF THE YEAST

TEXT: 13:33 (cf. Luke 13:20-21)

33 Another parable spake he unto them: The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till it was all leavened.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

Some people believe that yeast in the Bible is always a symbol of the far-reaching, pervasive influence of evil. Do you agree? If so, on what basis? If not, why not? In what way, then, is the Kingdom of God itself like yeast?

b.

If the Kingdom of God is to progress by the most vigorous public evangelization that gives the Gospel the widest hearing possible, how can Jesus say that the Kingdom expands secretly and quietly and by intensive growth like yeast works in dough?

c.

What is there in this parable that had already been suggested in Jesus-’ other messages, like, for example, the Sermon on the Mount?

PARAPHRASE

He told them another story: God’s Kingdom is like yeast that a woman worked into three measures of flour, till the dough was entirely leavened.

SUMMARY

The Rule of God in the world will grow quietly, without great fanfare, but its progress will not be hindered until its intensive, transforming power influences all of life.

NOTES

Had Jesus furnished an interpretative key to this parable it might have perhaps run as follows: The three measures of meal represents humanity, The woman that kneaded the dough stands for the Son of man. The yeast is the dynamic, transforming influence of the Word of God by which the Kingdom of God penetrates and transforms mankind. The three measures of flour should not be thought especially mysterious, because that may have been merely the right amount for the usual recipe for homemade bread. (See Genesis 18:6; Judges 6:19 where 3 seahs = 1 ephah.) The idea that a woman should be used to represent Jesus is no problem, since in Luke 15 He used a man seeking a lost sheep and a woman sweeping the house for her lost coin to symbolize God’s search and rejoicing over repentant sinners, without concerning Himself whether people would be confused about whether God be male or female. So, if bread-making in the home is usually the work of a woman, and if Jesus wants to use yeast as His main symbol, it would have been more surprising to His audience were He to have inserted man, instead of a woman. What is really startling is to hear the Lord compare the glorious Messianic Kingdom to YEAST, of all things! After all, as Edersheim comments in another connection (Life, II, 70, note 2),

The figurative meaning of leaven, as that which morally corrupts, was familiar to the Jews. Thus the word. (Seor) is used in the sense of -moral leaven-’ hindering the good in Ber. 17a while the verb. (charnets) -to become leavened,-’ is used to indicate moral deterioration in Rosh ha Sh. 3b, 4a.

This same negative feeling about yeast as a figure of speech for something corrupt and corrupting is back of the proverbial saying twice quoted by Paul (1 Corinthians 5:6-8 and Galatians 5:9) as well as that reflected in Matthew 16:6; Matthew 16:12. However, yeast in this parable has nothing whatsoever to do with an evil, corrupting influence, however often it be so employed elsewhere.

SYMBOLS ARE JUST NOT UNIVERSAL.

Readers need to beware of supposing yeast to be a universal symbol of corruption, because Bible writers can change the standard symbology if they want to! The fact that Jesus Christ is the Lion of the tribe of Judah (Revelation 5:5) does not mean Peter is mistaken to call Satan a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8). Although Jesus is the Lamb of God (Revelation 5:6-12), this does not hinder His charging Peter with the care to feed my lambs (John 21:15). Birds can be (1) nations at rest within an empire, Ezekiel 31:6; Ezekiel 31:17; or (2) Satan, Matthew 13:19; Mark 4:15. Serpent can represent (1) Satan, 2 Corinthians 11:3; Revelation 20:2; or (2) the only means of salvation and symbolic of Christ, John 3:14; or (3) a symbol of Christian wisdom, Matthew 10:16. Vine can represent (1) Jesus Himself, John 15:1 ff; or (2) Israel, Mark 12:1; Isaiah 5:1-7; Ezekiel 19:10-14. Mountain can suggest (1) great world empires, Daniel 2:35; Daniel 2:45, or (2) any apparently insurmountable obstacle, Matthew 17:20. Shadow can be (1) a symbol of blessing, Isaiah 32:2; or (2) protection, Isaiah 49:2; Psalms 91:1; or (3) a short-lived existence, Psalms 102:11; or (4) a lack of spiritual enlightenment, Isaiah 9:2; Matthew 4:16; Luke 1:79. The point is, of course, to let a given Bible writer or speaker use a symbol in any way that suits his subject, regardless of whether anyone else, or even he himself, ever used it that way before, Let Jesus tell His own story without anyone’s dictating to Him what symbols He may utilize!

While everyone else sees in yeast a symbol of corrupting influence, Jesus, with the eye of a keen observer, can also see in that live ferment a picture of transforming power for good and for God. What a contrast! That drowzing Jewish audience, quite naturally expecting leaven to be used as a symbol of defilement and corruption, must have been brought wide-awake and to the edge of their seats to hear Jesus compare something so vibrantly glorious as the Kingdom of God with something so sinister, dark, ominous and evil as yeast! But literal yeast itself is innocent. Its permeating, transforming, ever growing character had just always furnished a handy cliché for the influence of evil among men. But Jesus turns that metaphor to His advantage by pointing out that what had served so well to illustrate the way evil increases in humanity, serves just as well to depict the growth of His own Kingdom! By so doing, He not merely rescued yeast from the stereotyped role usually assigned to it as a symbol. He flashed before His audience a picture of a Kingdom that is vibrantly alive, effectively at work, vitally influencing everything around it, and gloriously conquering until every area of human life feels its effect, even though its entire work is not readily discernible.

**Hidden in the mass. **Trench (Notes, 44) remembers that

In the early history of Christianity the leaven was effectually hidden. This is shown by the entire ignorance which heathen writers betray of all that was going forward a little below the surface of society, even up to the very moment (with slight exceptions) when the triumph of Christianity was at hand.

**Hidden in the mass till it was all leavened **suggests two applications:

The influence of God’s will in human affairs through the Kingdom of Christ is the first reference. Jesus could foresee the Church’s vitality and energy, her enthusiasm in evangelizing humanity and her zeal for edifying. What a transforming power He intended to unleash to disturb and unsettle the basis of despotic government, and to right the standards of ethics in human relations! (Cf. John 11:45-53; Acts 4:16-17; Acts 5:24; Acts 5:28; Acts 17:6; Acts 28:22) He could see the wide-sweeping social revolutions fermenting at the grass-roots level in men made over in the image of God’s Son. (Cf. 2 Corinthians 10:3-6) All. leavened: what a goal: all of human lifeits work and play, its philosophy and religion, its politics and commerce, its science and artsall is to feel the pervasive, persuasive pressure of a robust, convincing Christianity that neither compromises its influence by closing itself in monastic seclusion to avoid contamination nor leaves its Christian morality behind when it enters society. Till it was all leavened is the prophetic past tense that speaks of as past a future event so sure to take place that even before it happens, it is declared to be a fact! Jesus guarantees us here nothing short of the final triumph of God’s Kingdom and of His people. (Cf. 2 Corinthians 2:14; Romans 16:19; Romans 16:26; Colossians 1:6; Colossians 1:23; Revelation 11:15; Daniel 7:14; Daniel 7:27)

The influence of God’s will in the life of each individual Christian who accepts that rule. If the Kingdom of Christ is to do all that is predicated of it, then it follows that every single Christian must be a person in whom the Kingdom is a reality. The rule of God expressed through His Word when buried in a man’s heart is living and powerful and persistent in bringing that entire man to obey it, transforming him completely until he becomes at last a totally new man in Christ Jesus. (Cf. 2 Corinthians 3:17-18; 2 Corinthians 5:17; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; what a change!)

THE RELATION OF THESE TWO PARABLES TO THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT

The Parables of the Mustard Seed and of the Yeast reveal little that is absolutely news to any disciples steadily tuned-in to Jesus. In the Sermon on the Mount He had pictured the ethics of the Kingdom of God as motivated by selfless love and grounded in a single-minded devotion to God as a gracious Heavenly Father, an ethic which expresses itself in a generous helpfulness to even the ungrateful (Matthew 5:39-48), in a forgiving spirit (Matthew 6:12; Matthew 6:14-15), in a clemency in judgment (Matthew 7:1-5) despite a proper reserve towards people with no appreciation for the holy or the priceless. That kind of Kingdom, launched in a world of dedicated egotists, cannot but progress slowly, granted, of course, that its chief Proponent could succeed in convincing even a few people that ideals of this sort will really function, convinced enough, that is, to give them a try and help Him launch the idea. For, unless Jesus is willing to abandon His ideals long enough to get His program underway, such a spiritual Reign could never even get off the ground. And, if it should turn out that He really inaugurate such a movement, without some artificial priming, it must necessarily have not only an embarrassingly small debut, but also undergo a painfully slow progress in the world. Any shrewd humanist who seriously weighed Jesus-’ words could have expected these two parables sooner or later. What he could not have expected was Jesus-’ bringing these dreams to reality in exactly the way He planned.

Nor had Jesus been silent about the eventual greatness and success of His Kingdom. While His emphasis in the Sermon on the Mount is decidedly on the personal implications of God’s Rule, still He does not ignore the world-wide impact Christians are to make as salt of the EARTH. light of the WORLD. (Matthew 5:13-16) The Kingdom is the subject of prayers that it come and that God’s will be done on EARTH with the same joyful seriousness it is being done in heaven. And who could be satisfied with partial success or half-way obedience to God? Those who share Jesus-’ views and His love must pray that the Kingdom of God cover the entire globe and affect every creature.

So these stories about yeast and mustard seed are stupendous illustrations of a spiritual kingdom that comes not with observation, but is within you. (Cf. Luke 17:20-21; Romans 14:17)

THE APOLOGETIC FORCE OF THESE PARABLES

There is embedded in these stories a persuasive apologetic power to convince skeptics, that Jesus cannot be explained in terms of the popular messianism of His people, since it would be difficult to imagine a concept of the Kingdom of the Messiah less nationalistically Jewish than that presented here. Conspicuous for its absence is any allusion to a privileged place for national Israel in the Kingdom. These seemingly harmless little tales are on a collision course with the aims of people who desired to rush on past the judgment to introduce the Messianic Paradise. (Cf. Sib. Orac. lines 285-294; 652-808; Enoch 62:11) The meaning of these unexplained stories remained unintelligible enigmas to these Jewish hearers. Therefore, Jesus did not weave them out of theological materials lying around Him. His revelations are made out of divine stuff.

Here again we are confronted with one of the motifs of the Gospel: the Messianic reserve, in the sense that the Kingdom will not be proclaimed in any triumphalistic sense by tyrannic force of arms, but with absolute respect for human freedom, without all of the apocalyptic artillery that many of Jesus-’ nationalistic contemporaries dreamed would be absolutely essential. (Cf. Sib. Orac. 652ff) Further, the scandalous, continued presence of sin in the world and Jesus-’ failure to call down heavenly fire to destroy the more obvious sinners could not help but raise many eyebrows. However, since God’s judgment is not to be anticipated, men must not even conclude that the Kingdom’s regenerating power be somehow not functioning to transform society as it changes the men who compose it. Rather, they must even now submit themselves to the will of the King and recognize the evidences of the invisible activity of the Kingdom which is not man’s work alone, but God’S, and dedicate themselves to its vigorous proclamation. They must take the long view.

These parables still shock and remain unbelieved by modern churchmen who promote great political schemes, even to the point of smuggling machine-guns to bring peace through peoples-’ movements for liberation. They would install air-conditioners and piped-in music in hell, while hoping to make it possible for more people to enjoy the questionable benefits of a conscienceless materialistic kingdom of God here on earth. (Cf. Sib. Orac. 657!) They just cannot conceive of a Kingdom that can operate effectively on the basis of a message patiently taught to wobbly, often undependable people, tenderly and lovingly cultivated but whose foibles and mistakes, more often than not, embarrass, rather than glorify, their Lord. Such ecclesiastical organizational procedure has little time for bruised reeds and smoldering wicks (see notes on Matthew 12:20) nor stoops to preach good tidings to the poor from any truly Biblical perspective. (See notes on Matthew 11:5) But do we ourselves believe with Jesus that the Kingdom of God will progress only to the extent that we care about the lambs (John 21:15-19), the little child. who believes in me (Matthew 18:1-14), the babes (Matthew 11:25)? If so, we may well wish to table our grandiose schemes to bring in the Kingdom, and join Jesus in the slow, often disappointing, but ultimately fruitful, business of evangelization of the unbelievers and edification of the saints. (Cf. 1 Thessalonians 3:10)

Jesus is to be believed precisely because He is NOT the revolutionary wanted by the doctrinaire apostles of modern social change who would use Him as their banner for political or social subversion of the status quo. On the contrary, these parables picture a Christ who can settle for gradualism, a not unimportant heresy to those who demolish and burn in the name of instant change. While He preached a gospel capable of producing gradually the personal and social changes necessary to deal with every iniquity weighing upon the shoulders of a suffering humanity, He deliberately did NOT mount a protest against the current regime nor harangue the crowds about the living conditions of the underprivileged. The revolution, rather, to which He dedicated Himself and to which He calls us, challenges every Christian to preach this Gospel of the Kingdom and live in conformity with it, as if that alone would bring in the Kingdom. These parables reveal the future, inevitable triumph of the Kingdom! They speak not only of a God who triumphs over the wicked in the end. They describe also a Church that, during the progress of its history, will enjoy a glorious growth and a penetrating force throughout the world. Therefore, any hasty, superficial judgments about any given stage of the Kingdom’s progress are out of place, on the part of both believers and unbelievers alike. We must not be discouraged by the temporary retreats, the heartbreaks, the battles lost, nor must we be impatient if it seems that the Gospel is not bringing immediate results. Even if it seems that God’s people are not yet holy enough or numerous enough or the Kingdom not powerful enough, we may not make snap judgments about it, because we have not yet come to the end of the present age, and God’s Kingdom has some more growing to do.

These parables reveal the spirit behind the Kingdom of God as a missionary spirit. Yeast cannot function unless it is living in vital contact with that which it must influence. Therefore, the monastic spirit is essentially antichristian. No true Christian can avoid human society for fear that he might be contaminated by it, because his mission, as was His Lord’S, is to touch human life at every point so that every facet might come under the influence and penetrating gaze of Christian morality and ideals. Rather than take up a defensive position within which to protect what remains of our pretended humanity, our final orders are to attack! (Matthew 28:18-20)

FACT QUESTIONS

What is the one basic point shared commonly by the Parable of the Mustard Seed and that of the Yeast?

In what way are these two parables different in emphasis?

State in one clear sentence the literal message Jesus was communicating in this story.

What is learned about Jesus from the fact that He taught THESE truths instead of their more popular opposite concepts?

Is there anything significant about the fact that it was a woman who put the yeast in the dough? Or that it was precisely three (and no more) measures of flour in which she put the yeast? If so, what is the hidden meaning? If not, what does one do with this information?

Had Jesus taught this same truth before? If so, where or how?

Matthew 13:34-35

B. THE MULTIPLICITY AND JUSTIFICATION OF PARABLES

TEXT: 13:34, 35

(Parallel: Mark 4:33-34)

34 All these things Jesus spake in parables unto the multitudes; and without a parable spake he nothing unto them: 35 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

Do you think Jesus preached this great sermon in parables with the express intent to fulfill the Old Testament prophecy (Psalms 78:2), or do you think that His preaching of this sermon resulted in its fulfilment? Or does this question even correctly state the case? What does Matthew mean by the word fulfilled here?

b.

When Matthew affirms that Jesus said nothing to the crowds without a parable, what are we to understand about Matthew’s own insertion of Jesus-’ explanation of His strategy as well as the explanation of the Sower Parable immediately following the public narration of that parable? That is, did Jesus publicly explain the Sower Parable? If so, how do we explain this present section (Matthew 13:34)? If not, how do we justify Matthew’s insertion of the explanation at that point, i.e., out of order? (Matthew 13:10-23)

c.

From Matthew’s assertion, All this Jesus said to the crowds in parables. and Mark’s notice, With many such parables he spoke the word to them, what should we conclude about the number of parables told that day, in relation to the actual number recorded by the Gospel writers? What would this conclusion reveal, then, about the accounts of the three Evangelists who report the event?

d.

When compared with the Hebrew original and the Septuagint Greek version of Psa 78:2, it appears that Matthew has altered the citation. How would you explain and/or justify this?

e.

Since Jesus had already justified His own use of parables (Matthew 13:10-17), is not Matthew gilding the lily to add this additional justification? What is he really adding to what Jesus had already explained?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

Using many similar illustrations, Jesus presented the entire foregoing message to the crowds. To the degree that people were able to hear it with understanding He succeeded in speaking the Word to them. In fact, He told them nothing except in a story form. However, He explained everything privately to His own disciples.

This approach fits the pattern pioneered by the prophet Asaph (Psalms 78:2) who began:

I will speak to people, using parables. I will declare things kept secret since the creation of the world.

SUMMARY

The Evangelists recount only representative stories the Lord used to communicate His truth. To the extent that individuals saw what He was driving at, His message was full of information. However, He gave no public explanations. The mysteries were cleared up for anyone who trusted Jesus enough to approach Him for solutions. This tactic used by the Lord has a well-known and approved Old Testament precedent in the great 78th Psalm.

NOTES

Matthew 13:34 **All these things spake Jesus in parables unto the multitudes. **While Matthew is consciously editing Jesus-’ message, putting portions of it out of its normal chronological order for reasons suggested by the Spirit, this sentence, however, signals not merely the conclusion of His discourse, but what to the original reader must have been nothing less than amazing. Jesus really succeeded in proclaiming all the preceding information to the people in story form without telling them anything that He did not want them to know. The marvel is even greater, because Mark (Mark 4:33-34) not only agrees that this discourse was nothing but one story after another, but that the ones listed by the Evangelists are but typical samples! All these things are still the Word of God, whether people were able to understand it or not. (Cf. He spoke the Word to them. Mark 4:33)

**Without a parable spake he nothing to them. **Jesus knew His audience and followed this policy to handle the crowds on this occasion. (See on Matthew 13:1-2.) It cannot mean that He never used another type of instruction in other situations. (Cf. Luke 12 all; Matthew 14:25; John 7-10)

Matthew 13:35 **that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet, **See fuller notes on Matthew’s use of this expression, because our author’s use of this fixed phrase is far more general than ours. (Vol. I, pp. 81-86) Matthew is saying, What Jesus did fits perfectly (and in this sense, fulfills) the grand prophetic precedent established by the prophet Asaph in his teaching. This fact vindicates the method against any Hebrew scandalized by it.

Through the prophet Asaph, not Isaiah, as several important manuscripts have it. Since the practice for restoring the original text is to prefer the more difficult reading, the inclusion of the word Isaiah in the original text would for that reason be preferred, since so obvious an error on Matthew’s part would have been corrected by scribes. However, Matthew may have placed no name in his original text. This is a real possibility since such omissions of the prophet’s name appear elsewhere. (Cf. Matthew 1:22; Matthew 2:5; Matthew 12:4; Acts 7:48) Perhaps several copyists would have been tempted to fill in the gap by inserting the name of a famous prophet. It is conceivable that a scribe, not only aware of the original source of the quotation (Psalms 78:2) and the prophetic office of its author (2 Chronicles 29:30), added Asaph. Others, ignorant of both, corrected this to the more familiar Isaiah, thus producing the mistaken manuscript reading. (See Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 33.)

Asaph the prophet, famous musician contemporary with David and author of twelve of Israel’s Psalms, left a high standard in educational technique. In the context of Psalms 78, as Delitzsch (Psalms, Vol. II, 363) observes:

He here recounts to the people their history, from that Egyptaeo-Sinatic age of yore to which Israel’s national independence and specific position in relation to the rest of the world goes back. It is not, however, with the external aspect of the history that he has to do, but with its internal teachings.. The poet, however, does not mean to say that he will literally discourse gnomic sentences and propound riddles, but that he will set forth the history of the fathers after the manner of a parable and riddle, so that it may become a parable, i.e., a didactic history, and its events as marks of interrogation and notabene’s to the present age.

So the seer Asaph was not inspired to predict anything about Christ’s teaching methods. Rather, in the sense that he rehearsed Israel’s past in order to point out a moral, his own method actually anticipated and paved the way for Christ to draw illustrations from nature and human life to predict and explain the nature of the Kingdom.

I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world.

Asaph had really written: … I will utter dark sayings from of old, things that we have heard and known, that our fathers have told us. (Psalms 78:2 b, Psalms 78:3) So, here again, Matthew consciously alters the quotation to render even more precise what would have been ambiguous or even untrue had he strictly followed the standard Hebrew or Greek text. In fact, Asaph intended only to reach back into five hundred years or so of Hebrew history, but Matthew wants his readers to note that the revelations Jesus gave antedate the creation of the world and come from the mind of God! To do this he rewords the latter sentence and chops off the mention of the traditional history of Israel, because he must affirm what is true of Jesus-’ revelations. While His method finds its superlative antecedent in Asaph’s approach, the content of His message absolutely surpasses that of the prophet. Matthew’s Lord, in contrast to the great Asaph, reveals things hidden from the foundation of the world! This sudden change of text is calculated to shake the complacent Hebrew reader. Matthew says, To you who are accustomed to great teachers who reach back to the beginnings of things for their teaching (cf. ap archês, LXX Psalms 77:2), I present you a Teacher who reveals things unknown even before there was a beginning, (apò katabolês [kòsmou])!By so doing, Matthew nudges his readers to ask: Who IS this Jesus of Nazareth anyway?

FACT QUESTIONS

How many parables did Jesus present to the multitudes in this one great sermon? How do you know?

Did Jesus ever explain a parable to the crowds on this occasion?

Name the prophet and locate his text that Matthew cites to justify Jesus-’ use of parables.

Explain why Matthew does not quote verbatim the text of the very author cited to prove Jesus-’ method a sound approach. In what way(s) does Matthew’s version of the prophecy differ both from the Hebrew text and its Greek translation?

Matthew 13:44

D. THE INESTIMABLE VALUE OF THE KINGDOM: THE PRICE OF TRUTH

1. THE PARABLE OF THE HIDDEN TREASURE

TEXT: 13:44

44 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a treasure hidden in the field; which a man found, and hid; and in his joy he goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.

THOUGHT QUESTONS

a.

The long-awaited Kingdom of the Messiah was the object of the prayers and aspirations of the Jewish nation, and yet, by means of this parable and its companion, Jesus would convince His hearers to seize their opportunity to make the Kingdom their own, as if there would be some danger that they would not. How would you explain this?

b.

Jesus describes the Kingdom of God, i.e., the Kingdom proclaimed in HIS message and seen from HIS view of it, as worth all the sacrifices we could ever be called upon to make. What should we think about Him, if He is wrong? What must we determine to do, if He has deceived us? How could we ever know, before it is too late, whether or not He has, in fact, done this? If you object to these questions, what gives you confidence to think them to be improper?

c.

Do you suppose that the man acted in perfect honesty to hide the treasure and buy the field that contained it without informing its owners about his discovery? Should Jesus use stories about people with such dubious ethics as models for our imitation? Or, is that what He did? How would you go about unraveling this mystery?

d.

What is there about the Philippian jailor that makes him an excellent example of this fortunate finder? (See Acts 16:23-34.)

PARAPHRASE

The Kingdom of God is similar to **a **treasure someone had buried in a field, which another man found and reburied. This latter, for the joy of his discovery, went and sold all he possessed in order to buy that piece of land.

SUMMARY

The Kingdom will not be forced upon anyone now. When a man stumbles onto its inestimable preciousness and recognizes its value, he wisely surrenders all else unquestioningly and unhesitatingly to make it his own, Our service to God is worth all it costs.

**NOTES

The kingdom of heaven is like unto a treasure: **this is the main point of this parable. All else may be nothing but scenery necessary to make this one point, which is perfectly parallel to that of its companion story, The Parable of the Precious Pearl. In both stories three points make this lesson clear:

There is first the discovery of the inestimable value of God’s divine government.

There is the consequent desire to make it one’s own.

There is, last, the necessity to give everything else one possesses to acquire it.

How much else is proper to interpret is debatable, as is evident from the contradictory results achieved by conscientious, believing interpreters. The following points seem to find echoes in the reality for which they are but the illustrations:

**A treasure hidden in the field. **In a land racked by centuries of war and harassed by banditry, often the safest deposit for one’s treasure is the earth. But what one man hid, by sheer coincidence another can find. (Long-forgotten arms caches hidden by partisans during the Second World War are still turning up in Italy more than thirty years after their hiding.)

Whatever the field may signify, God’s Kingdom is there present, but hidden from common view. This concealment reaffirms with the Sower Parable that the message of the Kingdom, because it encounters widely varying receptiveness among its hearers, would produce varying results ranging from total failure to qualified success, leaving an uneven, spotty control of the Kingdom over the world. Neat, black-white distinctions between good and evil people are impossible, because of the presence of evil in the world, as explained in the Weeds Parable. This fact leaves the King’s control over the world apparently in doubt and His Kingdom practically indistinguishable from other world systems until the judgment. So, here too in the story of the hidden treasure, He describes a state of the world where happy surprise over the unexpected discovery of the Kingdom of God is really possible.

Did Jesus mean to communicate meaning through the detail where the man purchased the field in order to have the treasure? The field itself took on supreme value for him because of the treasure it contained, as if before the discovery the field was relatively valueless to him.

a.

Some with Trench (Notes, 46) see the field, as picturing

… the outer visible Church, as distinguished from the inward spiritual. He who recognizes the Church not as a human institute, but a divine, who has learned that God is in the midst of it, sees now that it is something beyond all earthly societies with which he has confounded it; and henceforth it is precious in his sight, even to its outermost skirts, for the sake of its inward glory, which is now revealed to his eyes. And as the man cannot have the treasure and leave the field, so he cannot have Christ except in his Church; he cannot have Christ in his heart, and at the same time separate his fortunes from those of Christ’s struggling, suffering Church, The treasure and the field go together.

b.

Others, with Lenski, (Matthew, 542), think of the field as the Scriptures which had seemed so common and ordinary to the reader. But, suddenly, he comes alive, because he has just discovered the vital truth of the Kingdom and Jesus Christ, the Bible’s grand subject. Whereas before, the Bible had been treated as if it had belonged to others, now he must make its true treasure his very own personal possession.

c.

Is it not simpler to see the field as parallel to the various pearl markets among which the merchant found the one pearl of inestimable value? (Cf. on Matthew 13:46) If so, we see that this field was not the previous possession of the fortunate finder, because his possessions and interests lay elsewhere. Nevertheless, while present in THIS field for whatever reason (was he plowing it or just walking through it?) he stumbled onto its treasure. Could it be that by the field He means to suggest the intellectual field of specifically religious ideas which a person does not necessarily make his own unless he sees some compelling reason to do so? Until this discovery, his material interests and cares could effectively block any concern for buying anyone’s religious ideas. But when he gets a glimpse of Jesus Christ and the live possibility to realize at least in his own life the Kingship, beauty and order of God, he no longer chokes on religious ideas, but accepts them readily in order to possess Him who is the highest treasure. (Cf. Matthew 11:25; 2 Corinthians 4:3-6; Colossians 2:3-4; Luke 19:42)

**which a man found and hid; and in his joy he goeth. **His unexpected discovery brings him joy, but also to the crisis of decision. No matter what made the discovery possible, he finds himself face to face with Truth and must decide whether to seize it or lose it by default. The morality of his covering up his discovery has been doubted by some who leave Jesus-’ use of this story in question, despite their attempts to defend Him. They argue that the treasure belonged technically to the present owner of the field, so that the principle of personal integrity would have required the finder to inform him of the treasure. Then, they correctly insist that Jesus did not justify the man’s conduct nor hold his (im)morality up for imitation. They rightly see the point of the story as the man’s earnestness in obtaining the treasure. But they assume too much and thus leave the Lord open to criticism:

a.

Is the present owner of the field any more the true owner of the treasure than the happy finder? Edersheim (Life, I, 595f) shows that then-current Jewish law vindicated the finder as the proper owner.

b.

The treasure’s original owner may as easily be presumed dead and forgotten long before the finder arrives on the scene, rather than think of him as the current owner of the field. It is not necessary, of course, to assume that the field had ANY owner. To whom belong, for instance, the treasures found on the Mediterranean Sea’s floor beyond the territorial limits of any nation, treasures that once represented the wealth of Rome or Greece? And if it be presumed that the happy finder had stumbled onto a fortune in Babylonian gold coins no longer in circulation but whose intrinsic value represented a fortune reminted, all in a field whose original owner left no heirs, and if it be imagined that his nation had no laws specifically protecting its own ownership of such antiquities, then it would be possible for the man easily to pay to his township the field’s value, thus clearing his title to the treasure. (Did abandoned lands revert automatically to government disposition at the death or in the absence of their heirless owners? Cf. 2 Samuel 9:9 f; 2 Kings 21:16; 2 Kings 8:3-6) At any rate, the captivities would have effectively interrupted, if not altogether ended, the normal execution, especially in the case of some families wiped out, of the ancient patrimonial inheritance laws whereby such lands would pass to one’s next of kin, thus keeping them and any improvements thereon within the ancient tribal families. (Cf. Leviticus 25:25-34; Leviticus 26:31-32; Leviticus 26:34 ff; Leviticus 26:43 ff; 1Chron. 36:21; Isaiah 1:7; Isaiah 6:11-12) Because of these disorders it would be perfectly imaginable for the field to have no known private owners to whom the treasure would supposedly belong, It is unfair to judge the man’s morality on the basis of modern legislation or obligations that do not represent his actual ethical responsibility in his own time-period and legal situation.

c.

The brevity of Jesus-’ story does not permit those who doubt the man’s morality to prove that he did not in fact inform the present owners of the field’s treasure. They might have let the treasure go to the new buyer, because of indifference or some other unstated technicality. (Cf. Boaz-’ purchase of Ruth ahead of his kinsman who had prior rights. Rth 4:5)

d.

His reburying the treasure is no indication of immorality, but of prudence lest he lose it by theft during his absence, and of haste lest someone else buy the field ahead of him while he dallied. He honestly cleared his own title to the property before moving the treasure. In fact, his rehiding the treasure (ékrupsen) is merely the act of putting the treasure back exactly as he found it: hidden (kekrumméno, from the same verb krùpto).

**In his joy he goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field. **Possession costs everything, but cost is no object, since his joy motivates him to part with whatever was dear and closest to him in order to make the field his own. **All that he hath **is the price, but how much is that if we would purchase the Kingdom? All that a person thinks important or of value: place and possessions, fame, wealth, one’s former religious system, family, philosophies, etc. Any ambition, however dear, any habit or way of life that obstructs our possession of the Kingdom must go. Whatever sins a man quits for Jesus-’ sake are part of his price. (Cf. Matthew 10:37-39; Matthew 16:24; Matthew 19:29; Mark 9:43 ff) Often our dearest possessions are but garbage in contrast to the supreme joy of having the Father and the Son! (1 John 1:3; 1 John 2:23; 1 John 5:11-12) Listen to Paul describe HIS great find! (Philippians 3:1-17) Or Philip and Nathanael (John 1:43-51)

By means of this illustration Jesus pleads with people not to be ashamed of the price they pay for the Kingdom of God in comparison with the value they receive. Many would refuse the fortune of Christ, because fool’s gold is less expensive. Yet the only sure way to purchase peace of mind, genuine joy, unmarred beauty, enduring righteousness and that crowning happiness to be found nowhere else is to accept the discipline, the self-denial and the cross. Any happy finder of the Kingdom should be willing to part with any prejudices, any previously dear values and ideas, in order to possess and enjoy all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden in Christ.

Matthew himself is one such fortunate finder, because this publican probably never dreamed that one day he would look up from his ledgers into the face of a Jesus fully ready to invite him into special service in His Kingdom as an Apostle. This sudden hope so gripped him that he was willing to drop instantly and permanently his lucrative tax job and cast his lot with the Lord. **He goes and sells all that he has **for Jesus the yet-uncrowned King? Despite the apparent ridiculousness of staking everything on this one investment, something more than a good head for figures brought Matthew, wide-eyed, to his feet. It took some real vision, some true understanding of Jesus of Nazareth, and much real faith to think the yet undefined service of an itinerate, controversial Rabbi worth chucking away his cozy, materially rewarding position, in order to make his own all the Lord offered! (See notes on Matthew 9:9.)

On the basis of this man’s sagacious personal acquisition of the Kingdom, Trench (Notes, 50) shares the following suggestive outline on buying well:

Purchase truth, instruction, wisdom and understanding: all things of the spirit! (Proverbs 23:23)

Buy what has real value, ironically at no cost whatever! (Isaiah 55:1)

Buy while there is still time! (Matthew 25:1-13)

Buy from Jesus the deep needs of our soul! (Revelation 3:18)

More comments on the impact of this parable will follow the Precious Pearl Parable.

FACT QUESTIONS

What single point does this story have in common with that about the precious pearl?

What is there in the background of the disciples that made this story necessary?

What is there in the immediate teaching of Jesus that rendered this story essential at this point in His message?

Explain the historical situation of the happy finder by illustrating the customs of Jesus-’ time that make His story a living reality to His original hearers, and, at the same time, prove the legitimacy of that man’s course of action.

How does the happy finder of the treasure differ from the pearl merchant in the companion parable? Does this indicate a difference in emphasis between these stories? What, precisely, was the man doing when he discovered the treasure, or can we know this? Is this important?

To what (if anything) is reference made by the following symbols:

a.

The hidden treasure?

b.

The fortunate finder?

c.

The field?

d.

The finder’s former possessions? (all that he hath)?

What texts indicate that Jesus had already taught this truth before the great sermon in parables?

Matthew 13:45-46

D. THE INESTIMABLE VALUE OF THE KINGDOM: THE PRICE OF TRUTH

2. THE PARABLE OF THE PRECIOUS PEARL

TEXT: 13:45, 46

45 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a merchant seeking goodly pearls: 46 and having found one pearl of great price, he went and sold all that he had, and bought it.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

Why is it so very important that Jesus reveal to His disciples, even in this veiled way, that His Kingdom could only be discovered after diligent search on the world market? What was there in their background that called for this sort of information?

b.

How would you summarize the fundamental message of this story?

c.

Is the search for God’s rule in your life the one absorbing passion of your existence, or does the cry of other things demand so much of your attention that you wonder who really is in control? What are you going to do about it?

d.

Are you willing to liquidate the whole collection of lesser values in your life to purchase the blessings of God’s good government at whatever expense? Can you truthfully say, When it comes to the Kingdom of God, cost is no object?

PARAPHRASE

In a similar way, God’s Kingdom is similar to the situation of a pearl merchant searching for exquisite pearls. When he found one pearl of inestimable, value, he liquidated his entire collection and bought that one.

SUMMARY

The Kingdom of God is worth all it costs! When a connoisseur seeks it with all diligence, its value will be so obvious and desirable that he will instantly recognize its preciousness and expend all his resources to gain it. The Kingdom consists in releasing our entire, miserable collection of lesser values in order to be filled with all of His.

NOTES

Matthew 13:45 **The kingdom of heaven is like unto a. merchant seeking goodly pearls. **This man, in contrast to the coincidental. discoverer of the treasure in the preceding story, is an expert engaged in regular commerce on the pearl market. In his search he perhaps thought to be able to purchase the best ones with the cash he had in hand. This would leave his other possessions intact and still his own. Apparently, he had not yet imagined himself coming across a specimen so precious that it would cost him not only his present collection, but all that he had. That is, he could not conceive it until he saw it. But his wisdom, developed over the years in this field, recognizing the excelling worth of this one pearl, demanded that he give up further search in order to possess this one at the expense of all else.

Had Jesus furnished us an interpretative key to this story, perhaps He would have said, The goodly pearls are all the higher values of this life. The pearl merchant is a dedicated seeker of righteousness, service, virtue, peace, love, science, art, beauty and such. The one pearl of great price is the Kingdom of God. As the pearl merchant sold all that he had and bought it, so the disciple of the Kingdom gives up searching for satisfaction in those other worthy endeavors outside the Kingdom, only to rejoice that in possessions of the Kingdom all that was lovely or of value in them he now possesses in the Kingdom. Here again appear the three basic steps:

The expert search. Do we see here Jesus-’ appreciation of the artists, the scientists, the philosophers, the poets, the philanthropists, etc., who are regularly, sometimes painfully, engaged in developing all that enriches life and elevates conduct, hoping to find satisfaction there? If so, each can find in the Kingdom of God that rare and infinite preciousness in comparison with which the relative value of all else pales into insignificance. Are these people well-rounded individuals who, despite their wealth in many human joys and fulfillment, suspect that some higher fulfillment, some superior happiness must exist without which all the others wane into mediocrity? Could absolute good ever become the actual experience of human beings? These hunger and thirst after righteousness (even if they cannot satisfactoricallly define it) and set out on an unrelenting quest until they should discover it. Perhaps they too do not yet believe, as they begin their quest, that their very search, when realized, will revolutionize their entire perspective, and, consequently, everything else.

The wisdom to evaluate the superiority of the Kingdom. The uniqueness of the single pearl did not deny the worth and loveliness of all other pearls, for they too had intrinsic value. All that made the smaller, less valuable pearls desirable, however, is present absolutely in this flawless exemplar. Its advantage lies in the fact that it possesses perfectly each good quality only partially or imperfectly realized in the inferior specimens. The good, however; are always the enemy of the best and we must choose between the very good and the best! We cannot content ourselves with mediocrity. This parable illustrates by contrast the case of the Jews who had a zeal for righteousness, but who, when they saw God’s most precious pearl, Jesus Christ, they refused to surrender their self-righteousness and all else they considered precious to save Him. Cornelius (Acts 10:1 to Acts 11:18) is a better example, as is Mary of Bethany (Luke 10:38-42) and the Ethiopian official (Acts 8:26-40)

The unhesitating readiness to release one’s grip on anything else he deems of more importance or higher in value. The rich young ruler, by contrast, balked at accepting Jesus as the Lord and Master of his life, clutched his paltry collection of inferior pearls and stalked away. This is the critical decision faced by all would-be disciples. (See notes on Matthew 8:18-22.) When we have seen the supreme value of the Kingdom and the necessity of a personal response to the mercy of its gracious King, we must then, immediately, seize the opportunity before it pass forever beyond our reacheven if that means leaving the loved, the known and the apparent security of our present situation.

THE SCANDAL CAUSED BY THESE TWO STORIES

It must have been frankly unexpected to hear the Nazarene speak of His Truth and His Kingdom as a commodity on the world market to be handled, evaluated, bought and sold like cabbages, as if it were somehow in competition with everything else that vies for men’s attention and interest. For people who had just always supposed that, at the manifestation of the Messiah, the Truth of God would be equally evident and equally precious to everyone, this parable must have been, bluntly, unbelievable. The modern reader of both these parables about the hidden treasure and the pearl can sense only second-handedly the disappointment they caused for Jesus-’ original hearers, primarily because he is personally living in the time-period to which Jesus alludes and, because of this fact, has become accustomed to it. But the Twelve and the others lived before the arrival of these days, and their preconceptions about them were based upon their reading of the ancient prophecies and upon the then-current popular interpretations. Whether the mute multitudes grasped the full details of these stories or not, the quicker thinking among them must have been puzzling: What kind of a kingdom does that Nazarene intend to represent to us anyway, if its preciousness is hidden from everyone but a fortunate finder who stumbles onto it quite by accident, or perhaps the unexpected find of one carefully scouring the market? Or if, as we have believed, the Kingdom of the Messiah is to bring unprecedented wealth to the Hebrew people after centuries of suffering and sacrifice, how can Jesus affirm that the Kingdom is so expensive to its adherents that it will actually cost them everything they can scrape together to make it their own? This exaggerated idea of continued personal sacrifice is incompatible with our ideas of the Messianic Paradise wherein everyone will sit under his own vine and fig tree to be served by the kings of the earth who pour into Jerusalem bearing their wealth to contribute their glory to the Kingdom of Israel. Besides, if God intends to give the Kingdom to Israel as a natural right, why should it be thought necessary that ANY HEBREW should be imagined as required to decide whether he would BUY the Kingdomand at extreme expense at that! It is precisely at this point that any given hearer must decide whether he thinks Jesus knows what He is talking about. He must overcome the disappointment of his false hopes and the Lord’s rejection of is mistaken conception of the Kingdom. Tragically, many never would.

And lest we smile at their incomprehension and difficulties, let us count the Demases who are willing to resell the Kingdom to repossess their lesser values! (Cf. 2 Timothy 4:10; 2 Peter 2:1-22) Count the Christians who rightly think that salvation is free but are aghast to learn that it costs everything we have to obtain it, and who begin to put price ceilings on what they are willing to expend to have God’s best. (See Special Study The Cost of Our Salvation after Matthew 16:24-28.) It was to this unpreparedness that Jesus addressed His challenges of the high cost of discipleship (Luke 14:25-33; Luke 9:23-26; Luke 18:29-30). Just how far the Church is from understanding her Lord here is measurable in terms of the humanitarian projects, the philanthropic enterprises, the social welfare schemes that are substituted for, rather than occasioned by, the realization of the Christ-life in her. Such projects may be expected as the natural outgrowth of the Rule of God in and through the Church. But when these projects and their supposedly Christian proponents in the name of the Kingdom of God categorically exclude the very means by which the spreading of the Kingdom is to take place, i.e., by proclaiming the whole counsel of God, then they have at that point cashed in the Kingdom in order to purchase goodly pearls of far less value.

Consider also the fact that the glory of God’s government is actually hidden in our world even today. Men still blindly stumble past the Church, supposing it to be only another social betterment society with metaphysical overtones. Men also fail to recognize the principles, order and beauty of God’s total control over the earth, because they are blinded by their own rebellion and their struggle with Nature in revolt. But, bless God, this all contributes to make faith real, since sight is impossible. (Romans 8:18-25) Even when men come face to face with the Kingdom message they still must decide whether it is worth surrendering their partial plans, their inadequate goals, their incomplete wisdom, their transitory joys, their ethereal hopes to obtain something which their faith only partially helps them to understand! (Hebrews 11:3; 1 Corinthians 1:18 to 1 Corinthians 2:10)

So the scandal is still there, because even during this Church-age, God has not permitted us personally to experience the glory of His final plans. A serious look at the world must lead to more doubts than solid optimism. But this very human uncertainty guarantees the absolute freedom of our choice and the moral quality of our decision to believe on good evidence what we can yet only imagine. (Cf. Ephesians 1:17-23; Ephesians 3:14-19; 2 Corinthians 4:16 to 2 Corinthians 5:7; Titus 2:11-14; 1 Peter 1:3-9)

WHAT IS THE HIDDEN TREASURE, THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE?

The Kingdom represented in the person of the King Himself, Jesus Christ. (Cf. 1 Peter 2:4; 1 Peter 2:7) Everything that God treasures most is bound up in Jesus. (Colossians 2:2-3)

The realization of the Kingdom on earth is the realization of its ideal, the developing of everything Christ like in us. Morgan (Matthew, 171) is right to say that We who come to Him worthless and base, are changed into worth and preciousness because He communicates to us His own infinite value. and this results in a peace of mind because we have peace with God, a clean heart, a renewed mind, a hope in death and a heaven of glory. What lay formerly so far beyond our reach is now actually attainable by faith. (Romans 5:1 ff; Colossians 1:27-28. The entire Ephesian epistle helps us to appreciate this.)

Since the subjective realization of God’s rule in the world is to be through the Church of Jesus Christ, no one can claim to have submitted himself to the rule of God, hence, in the Kingdom, who claims to love Jesus but detests or ignores the Church which He purchased with His own blood. (Acts 20:28; Ephesians 1:18; Ephesians 2:10; Ephesians 3:10; Ephesians 3:21; Ephesians 5:25-30)

God’s government of the universe is reality, truth itself. Any world-view or philosophy that is not big enough to take in this reality nor humble enough to let God be God in every aspect of every minuscule part of His Kingdom is just not grand enough for a believer. Contrarily, the believer who has accepted this truth by faith is able to see further, learn truth faster and master reality like no unbeliever ever could. The degree to which this is not true of the believer is the degree to which he is yet controlled by something other than Truth.

The choice between these interpretations makes no significant difference, since he who has the King as Sovereign is in the Kingdom, and he who buys the Kingdom at so great expense does so by joyfully acknowledging the King. Only such a mind is open to all truth and can live as a citizen at home in the universe, because he has become the son of its Owner and Governor. And, not at all least, he engages in an active campaign with others to make men holy. This is the Church.

JESUS HAD SAID ALL THIS BEFORE

The supreme value of the Kingdom and the necessity that each individual make it his own by decisive action had already been implied in Jesus-’ earlier teaching. In the Sermon on the Mount, He had insisted that men make heaven their highest treasure because of the uncertainties that attend all material wealth. (Matthew 6:19-21) Further, there is no possibility of compromise whereby one could hope to serve God while devoting himself to material wealth: they are two irreconcilable masters. Hence, a decisive choice between the two is imperative, because loving devotion can be rendered only to one. (Matthew 6:24) Then, after Jesus had assured men that the regular preoccupations of life are already the concern of a loving heavenly Father, He ordered them to seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well. (Matthew 6:33; Matthew 7:11) The limitation of the choices to two is understood by the Lord’s description of only two ways, as well as by His closing the Kingdom of Heaven to any who do not do God’s will. (Matthew 7:13-23)

FACT QUESTIONS

State in one well-chiselled sentence the meaning of the Pearl Parable.

What reality is symbolized by the following:

a.

The pearl merchant?

b.

The goodly pearls?

c.

The pearl of great price?

d.

The pearl merchant’s other possessions (all that he has)?

What single point does the parable about the pearl share with that of the happy discoverer of the treasure?

What difference of emphasis is evident in the parable of the pearl?

What passages in the Sermon on the Mount indicate that Jesus had already taught much of this same truth before, however in unparabolic language?

Matthew 13:47-50

B. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD: THE TRIALS OF TRUTH 2. THE PARABLE OF THE DRAGNET TEXT: 13:47-50

47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: 48 which, when it was filled, they drew up on the beach; and they sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but the bad they cast away. 49 So shall it be in the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the righteous, 50 and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

What is God planning to do about all the hypocrites in the Church?

b.

For whom was this parable originally planned? What would this fact have to do with its interpretation?

c.

Is there any similarity between this parable and that of the Weeds? If so, what features are similar? If not, what differences exclude their consideration as parallel stories speaking to the same problem?

d.

Since Jesus gave a partial interpretation without defining precisely the kingdom of heaven, what phase of the Kingdom was foremost in His mind, and how would you go about deciding that?

e.

Where do you think Jesus got this story? By direct inspiration from God or out of His personal, human encounter with real life in the midst of the daily business of living? Where was Jesus when He told this story?

PARAPHRASE

From another point of view, Jesus went on, God’s Kingdom is similar to a fisherman’s dragnet which, when lowered into the sea, brings in a haul of all kinds of fish. When it is full, the fishermen haul it ashore. There they sit down to sort the good fish into containers and throw the unusable away. This is how it will be at the end of the world. The angels will come and divide the wicked from the righteous. Then they will throw the wicked into hell, where they will know sorrow and impotent anger.

SUMMARY

The grand scope of the Kingdom of God takes in the whole world, a fact, of course, that means the inclusion of many wicked people. Nevertheless, the final judgment will definitively separate these from God’s people.

NOTES

While covering essentially the same ground as the Parable of the Weeds, slight differences of emphasis are traceable. While the latter story sets forth the present mixture of good and evil and the necessity of allowing this mixture to stand until judgment, the Dragnet story acknowledges the mixture, but gives more emphasis to the ultimate separation. Coming, as Matthew lists it, almost on the heels of Jesus-’ interpretation of the Weeds Parable, this illustration is its perfect complement and parallel.

Matthew 13:47 The word for net (sagéne) pictures an enormous, crescent-shaped seine (from the same Greek word) utilized much like a huge fence lowered into the water between two boats. With floats fastened to the top of the fence and weights at the bottom so the lower part would trail over the lakefloor, these large dragnets were then slowly towed toward shore, entrapping any fish in its path. Once near the shore the fishermen could then haul this heavy, fish-ladden fence close enough to drag it out of the water. At this point they could easily divide the unusable rejects from the good fish.

But to what aspect of the Kingdom does the net refer?

The Gospel and its effect in the world? The visible Church? Lenski (Matthew, 547, 549) so pictures it;

This net is the gospel, The sea is the world, and of every kind means some (partitive ek) of every kind, race, type, social and intellectual grade of men. Being the gospel, the net belongs to God or Christ and, of course, is handled by all who promulgate the gospel, i.e., the church. But the parable omits mention of these, as not belonging in the picture at this time. To bring them in, nevertheless, spoils the whole comparison for all the members and pastors of the church are also the fish caught in the net. the whole of it is one great sweep of the net through the waters of the sea. The picture is not that of repeated casting. The parable deals with all those who are caught by the great gospel net. All kinds and conditions of men are swept into its meshes, but these are of two classes. Here on earth both are mixed together in the outward body of the church. They all confess and profess faith, but not all are vere credentes and thus pronounced righteous by the divine Judge. Church discipline cannot eliminate them, for we cannot judge men’s hearts.

Trench (Notes, 51) takes a similar view.

However, Lenski’s admission that to mention the evangelizing Church as part of the parable, in that she manages the Gospel-net, spoils the comparison, is really fatal to this too-exclusive interpretation. In fact, it ignores Jesus-’ own explanation that the fishermen who separate the fish represent the angels, who, it may be supposed, superintend the entire operation, (See below on angels, Matthew 13:49.)

Also his interpretation of ek as exclusively partitive in the sense of some of every kind, as if Jesus did not mean ALL of every kind, too arbitrarily sets aside the significant class of uses of ek denoting the origin, family, race, city, people, etc., from which someone or something comes, hence, the kind to which he belongs. The idea of each fish’s belonging to a kind, here, completely overshadows the idea of its separation from the group of his own kind. The attentive reader will notice that the translators have rightly added, not (some) of every kind, but (fish) of every kind.

He refers, rather, to the Rule of God over the world. The net, in this case, is not the visible Church in the world nor the mixed catch its true and false members. The net is the invincible power of the Kingdom of God itself. The sea is the world in which the net begins almost invisibly to exert its influence. Gradually, almost imperceptibly, but ever more certainly the Rule of God closes in on humanity bringing men ever closer to judgment. This interpretation has the advantage of including the former, in the sense that the Church and its Gospel are subsumed under the prejudgment activities of that portion of humanity under God’s dominion that, in the end, will be declared righteous. It is, in fact, the Church’s proclamation of the Gospel that makes good men good, and prepared for that happy conclusion prepared for them. Nevertheless, this is but one aspect of God’s Kingdom, and must not be made to overshadow what God is doing to tighten His grip on the greater majority of mankind which rejects His benign rule and so will be rejected. (Cf. Matthew 7:13-14)

It is a fact that while the net is yet in the sea, the quality of character of its catch is yet unknown, since the fish are still free to swim around in its ever smaller radius. What they are is hidden from view until the haul is brought out onto the bank. Is this, too, part of Jesus-’ thought? If so, it is perfectly parallel with the striking similarity between the wheat and the tares in the companion parable. In fact, it is not until judgment that the formerly invisible distinctions in men come to light. So long as men are left together until judgment, for the present, at least, it often appears to make little difference whether a man sees the truth and goes all out to possess it. The big fish gobble the small fry, the rich get richer and the poor get trampled. It becomes an especially strong temptation to play the fool and say that truth and righteousness do not matter. (Study Psalms 73: Asaph felt this keenly.) But after the time together, the great separation will reveal what had so often been hidden before, i.e., the chasmic difference in the final destiny of men who saw, understood and made the rule of God their own, and that of those who did not.

Matthew 13:48 **They sat down and gathered the good into vessels. **This refers to nothing other than what, in other descriptive expressions, is termed the granary for the wheat (Matthew 13:30; Matthew 3:12), the many dwelling places (John 14:2), the bosom of Abraham (Luke 16:22), eternal habitations (Luke 16:9), the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God (Hebrews 11:10), a homeland; a better, heavenly country; a city (Hebrews 11:14-16).

Matthew 13:49-50 This is practically a repetition of Mat 13:39-42 on which see notes.

**The angels shall come forth. **How could Jesus have affirmed the express activities of angels, if such beings did not exist? The skeptics who see in His teaching nothing more than accommodation to the traditional superstitions then current among the Jews will have to give this same down-grading to a wide range of situations in which He affirms their certain existence and activity. (Cf. Matthew 16:26; Matthew 18:10; Matthew 22:30; Matthew 24:31; Matthew 24:36; Matthew 25:31; Matthew 25:41; Matthew 26:53) Their reality stands (or falls) on the same basis as anything else about whose existence we cannot know otherwise than because He tells us. These heavenly ministers of God will proceed to do what His earthly ministers dare not begin: they carry out the actual work of severing the wicked from among the righteous. (Cf. Matthew 13:30) The great, fundamental concept of God’s Kingdom pictured in this illustration is the final and full realization of its holiness. The Kingdom may be temporarily forced to tolerate the existence of the moral uncleanness and vileness forced upon it by its self-chosen commitment to use every means available to bring about the conversion to Christ of unclean, vile men. But this temporary, longsuffering toleration must never be mistaken for the final goal or confused for secret compromise with evil, for the threatened separation WILL come.

This parable, like that about the tares, is Jesus-’ simple, unphilosophical revelation about God’s ultimate answer to the problem of pain and evil in the world. Since the fundamental assumption is that the world is God’s domain, this illustration deals with all evil in the Kingdom: God is neither powerless nor unconcerned about these seemingly insurmountable problems. In fact, Jesus is here shouting for all to hear that God’s mercy and longsuffering gives sinners thousands of opportunities to know the truth and change before the net gets to shore. But it is also abundantly clear that God shall have the last word. The Lord SHALL judge His people, bringing all the present confusion to an end by separating the precious from the worthless and vile. (Cf. Psalms 1:5; Hebrews 10:30; Matthew 25:32; Matthew 13:39 ff)

**Furnace of fire **is a picture of horrible suffering, arising perhaps from some terrible historical realities like Nebuchadnezzer’s burning fiery furnace (Daniel 3:6) developed into a figure of Gehenna contrasted with Paradise in later Judaism. (Cf. IV Ezra 7 :36) See Notes on Matthew 13:42; Matthew 3:12; Matthew 8:12.

AN INTERESTING COINCIDENCE?

The prophet Habakkuk, inspired to prophesy the horror-provoking Babylonian invasion of Israel, and shocked by the ruthlessness and violence of those pagans rolling over the people of God, felt driven to protest. In his complaint against this apparent injustice his prayer took the form of a comparison: Art thou not from everlasting, O Lord my God, my Holy One?

We shall not die.

O Lord, thou hast ordained them as a judgment;

and thou, O Rock, hast established them for chastisement.

Thou who art of purer eyes than to behold evil

and canst not look on wrong,

Why dost thou look on faithless men,

and art silent when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he?

For thou makest men like the fish of the sea,

like crawling things that have no ruler.

He (the Chaldean) brings all of them up with a hook,

he drags them out with his net,

He gathers them in his seine;

so he rejoices and exults.

Therefore he sacrifices to his net

and burns incense to his seine;

for by them he lives in luxury,

and his food is rich.

Is he then to keep on emptying his net,

and mercilessly slaying nations for ever? (Habakkuk 1:12-17)

To the prophet the Kingdom of God was being twisted all out of shape. The victory of evil over good was too real, screwing men’s faith down to the very limits of endurance. Nevertheless, God’s response to his perplexity demanded that he live by his faith. (Habakkuk 2:4)

Foreseeing that godly men would ever be perplexed by the apparent weakness and failure of the Kingdom of God, as they judge its progress in a chaotic world before the appointed time for judgment, did Jesus just take Habakkuk’s illustration of the net and turn it right side out? The real net is not in the hands of evil men or godless empires endlessly gobbling up defenseless people, good and bad alike. The true seine is in the hands of the living God whose government slowly, solemnly draws all men closer into His control, some to their everlasting destruction, others to the eternal life of God itself. And Jesus-’ Parable of the Dragnet, like God’s answer to Habakkuk, while revealing the final victory of Jehovah, demands that the believer bow in humble submission to His rule, even if he does not understand it all nor can see the outcome on the horizon.

FACT QUESTIONS

In what way is the Parable of the Dragnet similar to the Parable of the Tares? List the various points of resemblance.

Summarize in one sharply pointed sentence the teaching of this story.

Describe the net used by Jesus to create this illustration and then indicate the way it is used in fishing.

Explain how this parable illustrates the Kingdom of God.

Matthew 13:51-53

C. THE APPRECIATION FOR AND USE OF ALL TRUTH

TEXT: 13:51-53

51 Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea. 52 And he said unto them, Therefore every scribe who hath been made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old. 53 And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

Why would Jesus ask His disciples whether they understood everything He had preached that day?

b.

Do you think they really did understand? Perfectly or partially? If you think they only partially understood what He had been driving at, how would you explain their answer?

c.

If you are convinced that they understood only partially, how would you explain Jesus-’ immediate reaction to their affirmative answer? That is, He goes ahead with His discussion as if their answer were in some way representative of their actual situation.

d.

Have you ever heard of a scribe who ever became a disciple to the Kingdom of God? Practically every scribe in the New Testament was hostile to Jesus. Is Jesus picturing a practical impossibility, as if He were speaking humorously of a Jewish rabbi’s eating a ham sandwich on the wedding day of a Catholic priest? What is there about a scribe that makes Jesus-’ illustration live for the disciples, and, at the same time, urges them to achieve everything implied in the images here presented?

e.

What peculiar treasure possessed uniquely by a Christian scribe would so enrich him that he could share things old and new?

PARAPHRASE

Have you understood all these stories? They answered Him, Yes, we have. Then He continued, This is why every theologian who has trained in the disciplines of God’s Kingdom, like the master of the house who can provide out of his stores what is new as well as what is old, can teach old, long-known truth as well as the most recent revelations.

SUMMARY

Before concluding the private session with His disciples, Jesus checks the disciples-’ own comprehension of the lessons. Since they affirm some understanding of His meaning, He can set before them the advantages possessed by a Christian scholar and teacher.

NOTES

Matthew 13:51 **Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea. **Earlier (Matthew 13:10), the puzzled disciples had questioned the propriety of His parabolic procedure, since it tended to obscure, rather than reveal, truth. Here the Lord pushes them to re-examine their own previous evaluation, because of their now greater understanding both of His methodology and the message thus relayed to them. They confess the effectiveness of the method, The highest theological truths have just been imparted impartially to everyone by means of the simple, accessible story. These disciples must see that high-sounding theological jargon and dry, uninteresting lectures cannot stimulate the imagination nor fire the will nor challenge the mind -nor smite the conscience like well-planned, pointed illustrations.

The explanations Jesus gave of some of the parables doubtless provided insight into the meaning and application of the others. (Cf. on Mark 4:13 before Matthew 13:18 notes.) Thus, in this limited sense, the disciples could honestly answer affirmatively. Naturally, fuller perception of the deeper significance of all the parables awaited the disciples-’ personal experience of the truths taught. Looking back on their positive answer that day, they must have smiled at how little they had really comprehended, so inadequate had been their ability to fathom their meaning or project into the future any clear outline of what the Kingdom might be or accomplish.

Matthew 13:52 **Therefore **(dià toûto),On the basis of your answer, i.e., because you have understood these truths presented in parabolic form, I can now take you one step further. As conceded before, the disciples-’ subjective understanding was probably far below Jesus-’ objective intentions. Nevertheless, the Lord does not bother at this point to chide any overconfidence evident in their words, because He wants them to arrive at another, higher point in their growth. And, if He succeeds in bringing them to that point, they will themselves fill in any gaps in their knowledge. He sets before them an ideal that, whether He ever inspired them with supernatural guidance or not, would make these men avid students of God’s Word and lead them to heights of growth in holiness and wisdom they had probably hitherto imagined inaccessible except to the well-born or especially gifted.

The phrase, **every scribe who has been made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven, **must have seemed to the disciples almost itself a contradiction, since at practically every point at which they came into contact with Jesus-’ ministry, the scribes as a class had done everything in their power to hamper Jesus-’ progress, and logically so, because His theological position so often collided with their own. (See notes on Matthew 2:4; Matthew 5:20; Matthew 7:29; Matthew 8:19; Matthew 9:2-3; Matthew 12:38 for a description both of their origin, position and relation to Jesus.) Despite their foibles, the scribes walked in the long shadow cast by one skilled scribe whose godliness and scholarship established a high, noble tradition: Ezra! (Cf. Ezra 7:6; Ezra 7:10)

He set his heart to study (what an engrossing, lifetime job!)

the law of the Lord (not merely oriental wisdom)

and to do it (how often a rare quality in theologians?)

and to teach His statutes and ordinances in Israel. (He labored not for his own good and glory, but for others.)

Other men whose gifts differ may serve God with their hands, but the ideal scribe loves and serves God specifically with his mind. (Jewish rabbis knew that the pursuit of the Law and earning a living and practical helpfulness are not mutually exclusive, the question being one of emphasis, of zeal to study and of preparedness to teach.)

Every scribe that amounts to anything in Jesus-’ service must have been made a disciple. The scholar who, because of his relative achievements in the disciplines of the Kingdom of God, somehow forgets his parallel role as a DISCIPLE of Jesus, is a positive danger for all under his influence: he must never get to the point where he ceases to learn from the Lord! The disciple can become a scribe, but the scribe must never cease being a disciple with all the obedience and teachability that that word implies.

But when Jesus spoke of scribes, did He mean them as a class existent in His day, or is He speaking more generally?

A scribe specifically? If so, He means the typical Jewish rabbi already educated in the Law, when converted to Jesus-’ view of the Kingdom, could make a tremendous contribution. Look at the excellent work of that budding rabbi Saul of Tarsus when once he became a disciple trained in the spirit and power of God’s Kingdom! What a wealth of experience and knowledge of OT religion he brought to his service as a Christian Apostle!

A scribe generically? Any disciple, well-read in the Word of the Kingdom, would be able to function as a theological teacher, expounding the Word with understanding, clarity and authority. Is Jesus, because of the disciples-’ theological training in His school, describing His men as God’s servants at the level of rabbis? Does He mean that what the scribes were to the OT, the disciples would become to the Gospel? (Cf. Matthew 23:34)

If He intended the former, He could hope for very few applicants from that group (however, see Matthew 8:19!), but just to mention them fixes in the disciples-’ mind an ideal of zealous students and defenders of God’s Word and teachers of the people.

Even as a provident master of the house keeps a larder well stocked with vintage wines and cheeses, heirloom lace and silver, as well as fresh fruits and vegetables and freshly-slaughtered meat, to be served on recently acquired table service, so it is with the Christian scholar. His treasure is his own personal repository of information and experience, his mind and memory. (See on Matthew 12:35 for fuller notes on this psychological reality.) Any learning, acquired by special studies or gained through experience, which helps the Christian better to understand God, His Word and His creatures, is his treasure. Consider, then, how rich indeed must have been the experience, how thorough the education, of these very Apostles. Despite their lowly beginnings, their day-by-day experiences in the constant company of Jesus of Nazareth while learning at His feet were beginning to qualify them as scribes discipled for the Kingdom. Only the most spiritually insensitive could have shared what these Twelve experienced with Jesus without becoming zealous scholars and no mean teachers of the Word.

**The bringing forth out of his treasure **speaks of the altruistic and effective use of what is there, distributing according to the need. There can be no ever learning and never coming to the USE of the truth for the good of others. What, then, are the things new and old which this Christian OT scholar and teacher is to share?

Is Jesus still on the subject of parables considered as a didactic method? If so, the old refers to any previous knowledge of nature or human affairs or divine revelation that could be brought forth in the service of the Kingdom. Good parables require not only an observant eye, but also an intuitive discernment that sees in the old, familiar facts parallels with which to illustrate and communicate the new, unfamiliar ideas to be taught. As an educational methodology, the Lord’s principle functions marvelously as it takes the mind of the hearer from the known to the unknown.

If, on the other hand, Jesus intends some more specific knowledge, then by old He points to the rich, many-sided revelations of God already given through patriarchs, Moses, the prophets, poets, kings and priests, precepts and statues, miracles and signs, which, taken together, were all intended to prepare Israel for her King, Jesus. The new, accordingly, is the Savior’s teaching which leads to the proper understanding of the old and completes it. (Cf. Luke 24:25-27; Luke 24:32; Luke 24:44-48; 2 Timothy 3:15) In this sense, then, the Christian OT scholar not only appreciates the ancient Scriptures, because he reads them in a new light, that of Christ, but also because he grasps clearly the new revelations now unveiled by Jesus, he can share his bountiful treasure in a way that does honor to the Kingdom and enriches all whom he teaches. (Study 2 Timothy 3:14-17 in this connection; 1 Corinthians 10:11; Romans 15:4.)

So, the new and old are truths, as Lenski words it, not known or taught before or long known and often taught. Many conservatives in Jesus-’ audience would have rejected the new, preferring the old. (Cf. Matthew 9:16-17; Luke 5:39) Other doctrinaire zealots of modernity would be tempted to despise the old in favor of the most recently revealed truth. But either choice would be equally folly, since it would involve severing ties with all the rich preparations for Christianity that old, long-known truth had made. While there was no more vigorous exponent of Christ’s triumph over the Law than Paul, this scribe now a disciple for the Kingdom of God, like a wise householder, could bring forth the old, long-cherished, now priceless heirlooms of understanding, knowledge and experience out of the OT for the eternal enrichment of Christianity. The so-called Jewish Gospel of our author, Matthew, is another superb illustration of this tasteful, harmonious blending of the best of ancient Judaism in the service of NT revelation. The Epistles to the Romans, the Galatians and the Hebrews, as well as numerous sections in others, point up the glorious realization, in Christ and the Kingdom, of all the truly essential concepts not only of Mosaic religion, but of the patriarchal faith as well. This merely underscores again the fact that all that is really truth is of necessity old as well as new. Truth is ancient, because, being reality itself, it dates back to the foundation of reality, however long it had been overlooked by man because of his ignorance, neglect and sin. (Cf. Matthew 13:35) This is why it seems new when called to his attention. (Example: 1 John 2:7-8; 1 John 3:11; 2 John 1:6) Since the things old, here, are the things of God’s Spirit, they never become obsolete, breathing forth a new freshness and vitality with each generation of new minds that sets itself to understand them.

Woe be to the Christian preacher or teacher whose life is so full of busy-work that he has no time to study the Old Testament! Those who have a grasp of Christ’s message will be able, out of both new and old revelations of God’s will, to treasure rightly all that is of value and utility and to share its treasures with others. Granted, the New Testament is the will of Christ for the Church, but who can pretend to be qualified to expound even this document, who is an ignoramus of the great 39-stone pyramidal foundation upon which the New Testament is built and of which it is the glorious capstone? Who can read with intelligence Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, Revelation, even Matthew, with a view to understand just these superb volumes, who has no time for Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel and a host of others? Will we ever grow to be able adequately to appreciate and properly use every truth, old or new, that God puts into our store?

Matthew 13:53 **When Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence. **For the trusting reader, unoverburdened with scholarly prejudices, this sentence obviously signals the final conclusion of Jesus-’ great discourse, especially for the disciples listening in private to His explanations. But some modern scholars (e.g. of the Redaktions-geschichte school) suppose that this verse just cannot be a simple declaration of fact that Jesus simply finished this series of parables and left. They see it as a literary device of Matthew (whoever HE was!) whereby the five major sections of this Gospeli.e., Matthew 7:28; Matthew 11:1; Matthew 13:53; Matthew 19:1; Matthew 26:1are brought to an end. (See R.V.G. Tasker, The Nature and Purpose of the Gospels, 35.) But granted for sake of argument that Matthew, for theological purposes, includes some such sentence at the conclusion of the five major sections as asserted, what would that prove about their authentic historicity, i.e., about the objective reality that Jesus really concluded the particular message in question and left the scene for another destination? It is a false dichotomy to demand that such sentences be read EITHER historically OR theologically, when it is intellectually honest and possible to have it both ways. The deliberate bias that forces such a choice is the conclusion of some that the Gospel cannot be read as a simple, forthright historical statement where it makes historical declarations. Despite any supposed theological overtones in this verse (Matthew 13:53), the evidence for its probable authenticity as history is seen in these factors:

its naturalness as the conclusion of the event narrated, which, without it, would have been left suspended;

its true chronological relationship to the subsequent events recorded by Mark 4:35;

and in the greater incredibility of deception by Matthew. That is, if our author has deceived us about a simple conclusion to a sermon, upon what grounds would or could we trust him to speak truly about the resurrection, since they stand upon the same grounds for us; i.e., his testimony?

FACT QUESTIONS

What is a scribe? What was the relation of the scribal class to the nation of Israel? What was their usual response to Jesus?

In what does the scribe’s position and preparation consist that makes him an especially valuable asset to the Kingdom once he has become a disciple of Jesus?

Identify the things new and old which the provident master of the house could bring forth from his treasure.

Now that you have seen the entire sermon in parables, discuss what Jesus taught about the Kingdom, its nature and its various aspects. When did it come, or when will it arrive? Who is to be in it? Who were called the sons of the Kingdom? Should we pray for it to come today? What importance did Jesus attach to the Kingdom in His teaching? How important did He say it should be to His listeners? In answering each of these questions, cite key words, or, if possible, the entire texts that illustrate your answers.

List as many parabolic figures as you can, that demonstrate the fact that the Bible does NOT necessarily mean the same thing every time it uses the same figurative expressions. To start you out, remember that the lion can be a symbol either for Jesus, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, or of Satan who walks around as a roaring lion. Sheep are symbols both of Jesus, God’s Lamb, as well as the errant people of God. Now make your own list. Why? Because a lot of bad theology is built on mechanical use of Bible figures of speech: parables, allegories and similes.

When and in what way are some of the features of God’s Kingdom, predicted in any of these parables, already in the process of being fulfilled, or are already complete?

What is proved about Jesus in this sermon?

THE GLORIOUS LORDSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST

As seen in the great Sermon in Parables, Matthew 13

While one of the distinguishing characteristics of Jesus-’ message is His absolute respect for human free-will, it should be equally clear to all that only He who is a true Lord can permit Himself this luxury! Only He who enjoys a position of true power could permit the following situations to exist:

In the Parable of the Sower and varying types of terrain, the great truth everywhere noticed is the absolute freedom of the individual who can actually accept or reject the Word of the Kingdom. This freedom to choose is also the freedom to become a rebel against God’s good government, but Jesus knows that this is a worthwhile risk in view of the end He has in mind.

In the explanation of His own methodology (Matthew 13:10-17) to whom does Jesus entrust the tremendous truths that would bring about far-reaching revolutions in the world? To a Peter, or a Matthew! But who are they? Rustic peasants from the provinces! many would have sneered, A minimum of good sense would have dictated greater seriousness in choosing more qualified personnel, perhaps from the nobility, in order to propagate a message of such consequence! Nevertheless, only a truly powerful Lord can permit Himself to use weak men do His bidding, to show that the greatness of the power is not of them, but in His own majesty and might.

In the Parable of the Weeds, the Lord of the field confidently orders His servants regarding the Wheat and the Tares: Let them both grow together until the harvest; and at the time of the harvest I will say to the harvesters. Evil can remain in the world clear up to the judgment, and Jesus does not feel Himself at all menaced by this fact! He will have the last word. (Matthew 13:41)

In the Parables of the Mustard Seed and of the Leaven, Jesus promises that the Kingdom of the great God of heaven, Creator of the heavens and the earth, will have an insignificant beginning! We usually judge the success of a thing by the auspiciousness of its beginning. Therefore, how is it born? great and powerful? or weak and hidden off in a corner somewhere? One can measure the stellar distance that divided Jesus from the politicians of this world, on the basis of His brothers-’ pushy advice; Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples may see the works you are doing. For no man works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world. (John 7:3-4) Jesus, however, did not hesitate to describe His Kingdom as having a disappointingly unpromising birth. Further, He affirmed that its growth would be gradual, almost imperceptible, however sure. This was bad news for the public relations men who needed exciting material to make a sensational proclamation of the Kingdom; But this great Lord believes in truth in advertising, even if many customers refuse to buy, because He is a true Lord who can well afford to tell people just how it is and still expect them to respond.

In the Parables of the Hid Treasure and the Precious Pearl, Jesus even pictures His precious Kingdom and His priceless truth as being discovered by chance, quite accidentally, by a fortunate person. Worse yet, He permits His truth to be freely evaluated along with all the other truth and so-called realities of this world! How confident He is that the supreme value of His Kingdom will not only be apparent, but especially desirable above everything else!

Jesus teaches, further, so as to hide certain truths from people, and, paradoxically, this fact demonstrates His Lordship. It is easy to feel a tender compassion for those few dear ones bound to us sentimentally. Sometimes this causes us to express an impulsive kindness toward them which actually frustrate our intentions to help them and results in positive damage to their highest good later. But Jesus was not that way: seeing the true need of every single hearer in His audience, and because of His-’ profound love for each one, He composed a message that met their need by hiding under the parabolic form those truths that would have only been distorted by them to their ruin.

It is obvious that, in hiding these truths from people, Jesus feels Himself in a strong enough position to be able to run the risk that they would never have discovered them later when the Apostles would have revealed them in their preaching.

And so it is that Jesus does not impose His regime on anyone-yet. However, only He who enjoys a strong position can permit Himself this luxury, in the sense that He is sure to have the last word and that His truth is the only definitive reality to be reckoned with. The humanist must ask himself at this point, What is the basis of this confidence of Jesusuncanny, political astuteness alone? Even an unbeliever could admit that Jesus acted in character as Lord, because only a true Lord could be patient enough to permit everyone the possibility to accept, or else reject, His Gospel.

WHAT DOES THIS GREAT SERMON REVEAL ABOUT JESUS?

JESUS WAS NO CHILD OF HIS TIMES, gathering up into one message the aspirations and philosophy of the Jewish people! Eder-sheim (Life, I, 597) reminds how un-Jewisheven anti-Jewishis Jesus-’ teaching concerning the Kingdom. This point becomes immediately clear when we remember what Jesus did NOT say in this sermon, quite as much as what He did, A.B. Bruce (Training, 43) indicated that

The kingdom whereof Jesus was both King and Lawgiver was not to be a kingdom of this world; it was not to be here or there in space, but within the heart of man; it was not to be the monopoly of any class or nation, but open to all possessed of the requisite spiritual endowments on equal terms. It is nowhere said, indeed, in the sermon, that ritual qualifications, such as circumcision, were not indispensable for admission into the kingdom. But circumcision is ignored here, as it was ignored throughout the teaching of Jesus. It is treated as something simply out of place that cannot be dovetailed into the scheme of doctrine set forth; an incongruity the very mention of which would create a sense of the grotesque· How truly it was so anyone can satisfy himself by just imagining for a moment that among the Beatitudes had been found one running thus: Blessed are the circumcised, for no uncircumcised ones shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. This significant silence concerning the seal of the national covenant could not fail to have its effect on the minds of the disciples, as a hint at eventual antiquation.

If Bruce’s observation regarding the Sermon on the Mount be proper, how much more is it true regarding the Sermon in Parables, where Jesus had every opportunity to sanction His favorite current in Jewish apocalyptic writing! In the light of His further declarations is it conceivable that He should ever have told the following parable? The Kingdom of heaven is like a great king who organized his followers into a strong army. Together they marched against a great city to destroy the wicked and establish there the throne of David. Having established the Kingdom by the overthrow of all his enemies, the king ordered the conquest of all surrounding countries until his vast empire covered the earth, guaranteeing thereby to himself and all Israel great wealth and happiness. All the uncircumcised were destroyed and their property was confiscated and distributed among the children of Abraham. If such an illustration seems out of place, if not inconceivable, then, with Edersheim (ibid.) we may ask: Whence this un-Jewish and anti-Jewish teaching concerning the Kingdom on the part of Jesus of Nazareth?

JESUS IS A GREAT PROPHET. In each of the parables some prediction is made relative to the (then) future character of the Kingdom:

a.

In the parable of the Sower and Soils the varying responses to the Gospel is foreseen and explained.

b.

In that of the Weeds the presence of evil in the Messianic Kingdom is accounted for and its final removal predicted.

c.

In that of the Mustard Seed the extensive growth of the Kingdom from a small beginning is foreseen.

d.

In that of the Yeast the intensive expansion of the Kingdom by the power of its inner vitality is fore pictured.

e.

In that of the Hidden Treasure we see the prediction that the Kingdom’s great value would be hidden from all but the fortunate ones who stumble onto it and sacrifice all to acquire it.

f.

In that of the Pearl Merchant the presentation of the Kingdom-idea on the world market of ideas is predicted as well as its superlative value for those who diligently seek it to acquire it.

g.

In that of the Dragnet the final separation of good and evil is promised.

Edersheim (Life, I, 597f) feels the force of this argument too:

Our second question goes still farther. For, if Jesus was not a Prophet,and, if a Prophet, then also the Son of Godyet no more strangely unexpected prophecy, minutely true in all its details, could be conceived, than that concerning His Kingdom which His parabolic description of it conveyed. Has not History, in the strange, unexpected fulfilling of that which no human ingenuity at the time could have forecast, and no pen have described with more minute accuracy of detail, proved Him to be more than a mere manOne sent from God, the Divine King of the Divine Kingdom, in all the vicissitudes which such a Divine Kingdom must experience when set up on earth?

Even if, as was suggested in the notes, an unbeliever who had taken Jesus-’ earlier teaching seriously and studied its implications could have predicted that sooner or later Jesus would have arrived at some of these predictions implied in the parables, nevertheless the ring of divine certainty that we hear in Jesus-’ voice would be absent from the merely astute political sage. A mere human would have to hedge his predictions with expressions qualifying their likelihood, like: If things turn out in a given way, then the following may be expected, etc. If not, then perhaps we will see some other phenomenon come to pass. Since Jesus just tells it like it is going to be, we must pronounce Him either mad, or an imposter, or a great prophet worthy of our deepest respect!

JESUS IS DIVINE LORD. It is especially fitting that, in the very parable dealing with the thorny problem of continued evil in the world despite the establishment of Christ’s Kingdom in it, Jesus-’ divinity also comes to the fore with a clarity equal to the seriousness of the evil.

a.

The Son of man owns the field which is the world! (Matthew 13:24; Matthew 13:37)

b.

Jesus is Lord of the judgment who can afford to wait until both good and evil are fully mature! (Matthew 13:30; Matthew 13:41)

c.

My barn into which the righteous are gathered is none other than the Kingdom of God (Matthew 13:30; Matthew 13:43), but it was out of His (i.e., of the Son of man) Kingdom, that the evil-doers will have been cast! (Matthew 13:41)

d.

The ministers of justice directly responsible for the final separation of the souls of men are His angels, i.e., of the Son of man. (Matthew 13:41)

Plummer (Matthew, 197) asks: Who is it that makes these enormous claims upon all mankind? Who is it that offers, to those who respond to the claims, such enormous rewards? Indeed, who?

SPECIAL STUDY: THE KINGDOM OF GOD

Perhaps the most important question affecting the interpretation of Matthew 13, is, To what aspect of the Kingdom of God does Jesus refer?. Unless this problem receives a proper answer, unnatural interpretations will be forced upon the stories He told to describe the Kingdom. The essential aspects of a kingdom are themselves multiple, consisting of a king, a territory over which he rules, his subjects, the constitutional expression of the king’s will, and the boundaries, or limits, of citizenship in his kingdom. There may be other essentials perhaps, however this multiplicity of essentials forewarns us that, in order to reveal the full nature of His Kingdom, Jesus might make use of various parabolic illustrations to clarify the various features. A system so many-sided as God’s Kingdom is just incapable of exhaustive treatment by a single illustration or symbol! If this were untrue, Jesus could have told one, all-inclusive parable and dismissed the crowds that day! (Matthew 13) Let us, therefore, begin by examining the concepts of the Kingdom of God which God had taught Israel to understand, because this instruction served as background for Jesus-’ use of the same terminology.

GOD’S UNIVERSAL RULE

It would be instructive here to recall that God’s Sovereignty over heaven and earth proceeds in an orderly manner since before the creation of the earth and man upon it. (Deuteronomy 4:32; Deuteronomy 4:39; Psalms 47:2; Psalms 47:7-8; Psalms 93; Psalms 95-97, 99; Isaiah 66:1-2) As Ruler, Judge, Sustainer and Creator of the universe, His Lordship is an eternal Sovereignty which He will surrender to none. (2 Kings 19:15-19; Psalms 83:18; Isaiah 54:5; Jeremiah 23:24; Zechariah 4:14; Zechariah 6:5; Zechariah 14:9; Matthew 11:25; 1 Corinthians 10:26; Revelation 11:4) In this sense, then, God has always reigned and always will. The Kingdom of God in this sense is nothing less than His eternal sovereignty over the universe and all it contains.

GOD’S KINGDOM OF ISRAEL

Nevertheless, there is also a sense in which God began to reveal a new expression of His rule on earth among men. This He initiated by establishing a convenantal agreement with Israel when He freed that nation from Egyptian slavery. (Exodus 19:6) Whereas in the civil legislation God had foreseen the desire for a human king for the orderly exercise of kingdom (Deuteronomy 17:14-20), God Himself remained tacitly the real Ruler of Israel, as also of the rest of the world. (1 Samuel 8:7-8; 1 Samuel 10:19; 2 Samuel 23:3) The political principle is true even here: the king-maker is really king, for God remained Sovereign over the monarchs of Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:15: You may indeed set as king over you him whom the Lord your God will choose.) And every time those kings forgot the sovereignty of God, they and the whole nation of Israel paid the price of their insubordination.

Nevertheless, all the development of the Kingdom of God in Israel has as its final purpose the readying of a people through whom the coming of God’s Anointed might enlarge the bounds of God’s earthly rule so as to embrace all men, Predictions picturing this new expression of God’s rule began to fork out in two directions:

God Himself is coming to earth to rule over Israel. (Zechariah 2:10-11; Zechariah 8:3; Zechariah 9:9; Zechariah 11:12-13; Zechariah 12:10; Zechariah 14:3-4; Zechariah 14:9) He will do this through His suffering Servant and Shepherd. (Zechariah 13:7; Malachi 2:17 to Malachi 3:2, Malachi 3:5; Malachi 4:3) He would be born as a child upon whose shoulders the government would rest and whose titles, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace, identify him as truly Immanuel, God with us (Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 9:6; Isaiah 40:9-11; Isaiah 42:1-4)

During the last of the great world empires, God, who continues to rule in the affairs of men, would set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor its sovereignty be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand for ever. (Daniel 2:44) The Anointed King over the Kingdom of God would be one

coming with the clouds of heaven like a son of man to the Ancient of Days. and to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom that all peoples, nations and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall never pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed,. and the time came when the saints received the kingdom.. And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High. (Daniel 7:13-14; Daniel 7:22; Daniel 7:28)

This Kingdom of God, thus, is to be an empire that would surpass the glory of all preceding ones, and, whereas the Kingdom of God in Jewish thought had been limited to Israel, it now becomes increasingly clear that God’s design includes the whole world in its scope. (Daniel 2:35)

So, within Israel and beyond it, among the nations of the world, God’s Kingdom would grow, wherever His rule be acknowledged or makes itself effectively felt. A Son of David, yet David’s Lord (Psalms 110:1; 2 Samuel 7:11-16) would reign over God’s Kingdom, yet not over Israel alone, but growing out of Israel, His authority would extend over the last man on earth. (Cf. Psalms 18:50; Psalms 117:1; Isaiah 11:1; Isaiah 11:10; Isaiah 49:6)

As is evident from this briefest of sketches, the Kingdom of God is an expression which was already a complex subject before Jesus ever used it with the original hearers of this great sermon in parables. If any simplistic application of that expression to a limited phase of God’s rule would have missed Jesus-’ meaning, i.e., were a Jewish listener to have applied the message of Jesus in any given parable to, say, the nation of Israel exclusively, he would have totally misunderstood the Lord, to what extent would we blunder, were we to assume that the Kingdom of God must always refer exclusively to the Church?

EVIDENCES THAT THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND THE CHURCH ARE NOT STRICTLY SYNONYMOUS NOT TO BE STRICTLY IDENTIFIED

In the overall picture presented by the parables it must be admitted that in the Parables of the Mustard Seed and of the Leaven, of the Hid Treasure and of the Precious Pearl, Jesus seems to be talking about the effective growth of the Church in the world, as well as about her surpassing value because of the truth she proclaims. Nevertheless, even this much precision of identification is modified by emphases evident in other parables:

THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER AND SOILS. If it be legitimately assumed that this entire parable pictures the inauguration of the Kingdom of God in the world as well as its continued progress through the proclamation of the Gospel throughout the world, then it may be said that the true Church is represented by the good soil alone; those who fall from grace, by the rocky and thorny soil. But the way-side soilor the indifferent individual,is also part of the total picture of God’s Kingdom, in the sense that the Gospel of grace was offered to him too, but he turned it down, not really caring to understand it. In the final judgment, not specifically mentioned by this parable, he will be among the evil who will not be saved (Luke 8:12), a detail that is, however, covered by other parables. Nevertheless, this non-church member was ever under God’s control or Kingdom.

THE PARABLE OF THE WEEDS. The Kingdom is compared to the whole picture of a man who sowed good seed in his field, in which also his enemy sowed weeds. (Matthew 13:24)

a.

The good seed are the sons of the Kingdom, the true Church, the saints. But they are only a portion of the total picture of God’s government which includes the field, the sower(s), the reapers, the concerned servants, the harvest. God reigns over the whole situation, not permitting anyone the right of precipitate and final judgment. His Kingship is over more than just the sons of the Kingdom, since His Word governs also those who would destroy the wicked. His gracious and sagacious determination to let them grow together until the harvest permits time for the wicked to become sons of the Kingdom, and for the sons of the Kingdom to mature.

b.

The harvest is intended not merely to destroy non-church members, but to gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evil-doers. Since God’s Kingdom includes the Church, wicked men will be removed from the Church too, but since the Kingdom is larger than the Church and includes the world also, the final separation will snatch all the sons of the devil from every quarter, be they in the world or in the Church.

c.

Should we interpret the Kingdom as precisely equal to the Church, this parable could not but forbid church discipline, inasmuch as the order to let them grow together until the harvest would effectively prohibit any congregation of the Church to drive out the wicked person from among you. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 5:13) It would also force the saints to associate with immoral men. who bear the name of brother. (1 Corinthians 5:9; 1 Corinthians 5:11; Matthew 18:15-18; 2 Thessalonians 3:6 ff, 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15)

THE PARABLE OF THE DRAGNET The Kingdom is again compared to an instrument which gathers together men of every moral condition, the righteous and evil alike. Again, as in the Parable of the Weeds, the separation of the good and bad is pictured as the work of God’s angels. The impression is left by the parable, although not specifically stated, that the net made one great sweep of the sea, inexorably taking with it all the fish therein, leaving none unnetted. Then, after the fishermen had separated the catch, there is no mention of further fishing to bring in those fish not previously caught. If this be important, then the implication is that the Kingdom of God includes the whole world in its scope, ruling over both Christians and non-Christians alike. The final judgment will distinguish them. Again, the Kingdom-net is greater in scope that either the Church-fish or the world-fish.

THE PARABLE OF THE POUNDS (Luke 19:11-27). The kingly authority of the nobleman included even those citizens who hated him, who proved to be his enemies, because they did not want him to reign over them.

There could be other Kingdom-parables, but let us now examine.

THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST

As promised in the prophecies, in the days of the Roman empire there arose in Israel in the person of Jesus of Nazareth a royal heir to David’s throne who set in motion the very principles which would guarantee the success of God’s government on earth. Eventually, the message He proclaimed and the movement He inaugurated developed into a reasonably well-trained corps of genuine disciples ready to evangelize the world. But this is not yet the Church, for that will be OFFICIALLY inaugurated on Pentecost. But first we must see.

THE EVIDENCES OF THE PRESENCE OF THE KINGDOM BEFORE PENTECOST:

The announcement: Repent for the Kingdom of God has arrived, when made either by John the Baptist, Jesus or His disciples-’ preaching, is always expressed in the perfect tense, i.e., expressed as a fact that has taken place in the more or less recent past and its effect continues until the present time, It is always expressed by èngiken: Mark 1:15; Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17; Matthew 10:7; [cf. Luke 9:2] Luke 10:9; Luke 10:11; [cf. Luke 9:60].

Jesus continually announced the good news of the Kingdom of God from the very outset of His earthly ministry. (Matthew 4:23; Matthew 9:35; Matthew 13:19; Luke 8:1)

Since the days of John the Baptist until now the Kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and men of violence take it by force. (biàzetai, see on Matthew 11:12; Luke 16:16) There must be some sense in which, even in the days of Jesus-’ ministry before the cross, that these words are true.

Jesus-’ miracles evidence the reality of the Kingdom of God come upon you. (Matthew 12:28; Luke 11:20; éfthasen ef humâs: arrived clear up to you, overtook you, has already reached you, cfr. Rocci, 1952; Arndt-Gingrich, 864) The defeat of Satan and his demons is evidence, says Jesus, that the Kingdom of God is not merely on its way, but, rather, evidence in every demoniac’s deliverance, that God’s royal government has already arrived. In fact, the defeat of Satan must actually precede the plundering of his house in the sense that God’s Kingdom must have already been manifest before the demonized could be freed as Jesus Himself was liberating them. (Matthew 12:29)

To hear with understanding the message of Jesus preached in Galilee is to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 13:11; Matthew 13:19; Luke 8:10) Although such explanations could well be given before the actual inception of the Kingdom, the disciples themselves were even then witnesses to the actual functioning of the Word of the Kingdom, the Word of God in men’s hearts. (Cf. Matthew 13:16; Matthew 13:19; Luke 8:11)

The Kingdom consists of such as are like children in Jesus-’ day. (Matthew 18:1-4; Matthew 19:14; contrast Mark 10:14-15 with Mark 10:23-25) Publicans and harlots precede you (Pharisees and lawyers) into the kingdom of God, because John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and harlots believed him. (Matthew 21:31-32; cfr. Luke 7:28-30) The Kingdom is the possession, says Jesus, of those who grasped its fundamental message. (Cf. Mark 12:34; Luke 6:20; Matthew 5:3; Matthew 5:10; Luke 12:31-32; Luke 18:16-17) Is it conceivable that some people understood this and so entered into this new relationship with God before Pentecost?

The scribes and Pharisees before Pentecost shut the Kingdom of heaven in men’s faces, not entering yourselves, you forbid the ones who are entering to do so. (oudè toùs eiserchoménous afiete eiseltheîn) Were there some actually in the process of entering the Kingdom before the cross? (toùs eiserchoménous)

The Kingdom is not coming with observation, i.e., in such a way that its rise can be observed, because, Take note, the Kingdom of God is:

a.

within you, i.e., inward or spiritual, not material, in nature;

b.

or, among you, i.e., already present in the personal presence of God’s Messianic King Jesus, standing in front of the Pharisees. (Luke 17:20-21; cf. John 18:36: My Kingdom is not of this world.)

Sons of the Kingdom existed before Pentecost, because they had already left (afêken) possessions and loved ones for the sake of the Kingdom of God. (Luke 18:29; cf. Matthew 19:29; Mark 10:29 for my name’s sake, for my sake and for the gospel)

None of the foregoing statements, of course, must ever be thrown into conflict with the even clearer descriptions of the external and formal realization of the Kingdom of God on earth in the Church. In fact, until the King is on His throne, there can be no formal Kingdom, however many are the loyal supporters who swear and prove their loyalty to Him by acts of service rendered even before His coronation. Further, whatever special problems arose in Jesus-’ earthly ministry and found their solution in the on-the-spot decisions of the King-designate, these solutions must be interpreted in the light of the King’s constitutional law, once His will is ratified at His formal ascension to the throne and that will is now expressed through His new covenant with His people. A mistaken application arising out of a misunderstanding of this evidence for the real existence of the Kingdom during, and expressed by, the personal ministry of Jesus, is that fostered by the faith-only branch of Christendom which urges, on the basis of examples of salvation of single individuals simply pronounced by Jesus, that such examples remain normative for the Church also after the personal ministry of Jesus, after Pentecost. They deny, thus, to baptism any relationship to salvation, simply because Jesus did not apparently require it for the salvation of any of these personal converts. (This is, of course, arguing from silence, since no faith-only teacher can prove that even one of these people had never been immersed by Jesus-’ disciples,) This rite, however, being a term of pardon expressed in the ratified will of the King upon the formal establishment of His Kingdom at Pentecost, is normative and universally to be required of believers to express their obedience, on the basis of which they too will be saved, It should be noted that, even thus, the terms of pardon in the Kingdom are unchanged, ever the same in every age since the time of Abel’s offering: faith and obedience to whatever God requiresfirstfruits, an ark, blood on the doorposts, the offering up of Isaac, looking at a serpent on a pole, being baptized, whatever God requires. This is why Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets and righteous men from the four corners of earth’s geography and history are in the Kingdom of God, because they faithfully obeyed what was required of them in their historic situation. (Matthew 8:11-12; Luke 13:28-29) And THIS is the Kingdom.

THE INAUGURATION DATE OF THE KINGDOM

In very precise language, Jesus established the date for the inauguration of God’s Kingdom on earth:

The preparation for the Kingdom was made by John the Baptist, Jesus and His Apostles. (Matthew 3:2; Matthew 9:35; Matthew 10:7; Matthew 11:11-12; Matthew 12:28; Matthew 21:31; Luke 4:43; Luke 10:9; Luke 10:11;

The Kingdom was to begin during the personal absence of Jesus. (Matthew 26:29; Luke 22:16; Luke 22:18 all in connection with John 14:16-18; John 14:25-28; John 16:4b-7; Acts 1:3; cf. Luke 19:11-12; Luke 19:15)

The Kingdom was to begin during the lifetime of the Apostles themselves. (Matthew 16:19; Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27)

The Kingdom was to begin just a few days after the suffering, resurrection and ascension of Jesus into heaven. (Cf. Matthew 17:9; Luke 19:11-12; Luke 24:46-49; Acts 1:6; cf. Luke 22:16; Luke 22:18? Matthew 26:29?)

The Kingdom was preached throughout the world during the apostolic ministry as a realized fact even then in existence. (Matthew 24:14 [= Colossians 1:6; Colossians 1:23]; Acts 8:12; Acts 19:8 ff; Acts 20:25; Acts 28:23; Acts 28:31; 2 Thessalonians 1:4-5?)

Christ now reigns in His Kingdom. (Matthew 28:18-20; Matthew 13:37-43; 1 Corinthians 15:24-25; Colossians 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:12?; Revelation 1:6; Revelation 1:9; Hebrews 1:8) He shall reign until The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign for ever and ever. (Revelation 11:15; Revelation 12:10)

HARMONIZATION OF THE TWO CONCEPTS

Thus far, we have the Kingdom of God as manifested in His universal government, and we have the Church sometimes thought of as an expression of His Kingdom. Someone might object: But if the Kingdom of God is everything, what is the use for the Church then? Edersheim (Life, I, 269) answers:

The Kingdom of God, or Kingly Rule of God, is an objective fact. The visible Church can only be the subjective attempt at its outward realization, of which the invisible Church is the true counterpart.

Ideally, then, the Church of Jesus Christ is nothing less than a colony of the Kingdom of God on earth. (Cf. Philippians 3:20) Christ’s true congregation (ekklesìa) consists of those who submit to the rule of the King. Anyone else is a rebel against our Sovereign’s government while camping on His land and taking ungrateful advantage of His benevolence. Also, because of the prevalence of evil in the world and its corruption even of people who have formally sworn allegiance to become subjects of the King, the boundary lines of the Kingdom are only imperfectly represented by the church-membership rolls.

The definition, which harmonizes these concepts, then, and explains how the great Kingdom of God is to be found in the heart of the Church and how anyone in the Church is a citizen of the Kingdom, is included in the following observations: The Kingdom is the total replacing of self with the will of God, even to the point of losing our lives in the service of God, losing all that matters of our lives. All that we could amass is bound up in our life, so Jesus urges us to give up our lives to receive what God would give us in its place. While our faith is important because it does things for God, it finds its highest value in what it is willing to receive from God. (Luke 12:32 in its context!) This is a blow to man’s pride, but the Kingdom is entered by self-renunciation and is often resisted by self-assertion. Asceticism, per se, is not submission to the King, because it may be nothing but a willful abuse of the gifts intended to be pressed into His service, and becomes but another form of self-assertion. Finally, the ultimate rebellion against the Kingdom is the demand for self-rule, motivated by self-interest, to arrive at self-complacency. But God’s Kingdom is not His power over the material world manipulated for our advantage, but primarily God’s control over our wills for His advantage. This is the Kingdom, and the reason why many Church members are not in it.

SUMMARY

Edersheim’s helpful summary bears restudy. (Life, I, 269ff; see his work also for Jewish views of the Kingdom.) His analysis of 119 passages in the NT where the expression Kingdom occursto which have been added eight more, shows that it means:

THE RULE OF GOD: Matthew 6:33; Matthew 12:28; Matthew 13:38; Matthew 19:24; Matthew 21:31; (Matthew 22:1); Mark 1:14; Mark 10:15; Mark 10:23-25; Mark 12:34; Luke 1:33; Luke 4:43; Luke 9:11; Luke 10:9-10; Luke 11:20; Luke 12:31; Luke 17:20-21; Luke 18:17; Luke 18:24-25; Luke 18:29; John 3:3; (John 18:36); Acts 1:3; Acts 8:12; Acts 20:25; Acts 28:31; Romans 14:17; 1 Corinthians 4:20; Colossians 4:11; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; Revelation 1:6; Revelation 1:9.

WHICH WAS MANIFESTED IN AND THROUGH CHRIST: Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17; Matthew 4:23; Matthew 5:3; Matthew 5:10; Matthew 9:35; Matthew 10:7; Mark 1:15; Mark 11:10; Luke 8:1; Luke 9:2; Luke 16:16; Luke 19:12; Luke 19:15; (John 18:36); Acts 1:3; Acts 28:23; Hebrews 1:8; Revelation 1:9.

IS APPARENT IN THE CHURCH: Matthew 11:1; Matthew 13:41; Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:1; Matthew 21:43; Matthew 23:13; (Matthew 26:29?); (Mark 14:25?); Luke 7:28; (Luke 22:16; Luke 22:18?); John 3:5; (John 18:36); Acts 1:3; Colossians 1:13; Revelation 1:6; Revelation 1:9.

GRADUALLY DEVELOPS AMIDST HINDRANCES: Matthew 11:12; Matthew 13:11; Matthew 13:19; Matthew 13:24; Matthew 13:31; Matthew 13:33; Matthew 13:44-45; Matthew 13:47; Matthew 13:52; Matthew 18:23; Matthew 20:1; Matthew 22:2; Matthew 25:1; Matthew 25:14; Mark 4:11; Mark 4:26; Mark 4:30; Luke 8:10; Luke 9:62; Luke 13:18; Luke 13:20; (John 18:36); Acts 1:3; Revelation 1:6; Revelation 1:9.

IS TRIUMPHANT AT THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST (the end): Matthew 16:28; (sic!); Mark 9:1 (sic!); Mark 15:43; Luke 9:27(sic!); Matthew 19:11; Matthew 21:31; Matthew 22:16; Matthew 22:18; (John 18:36); Acts 1:3; 2 Timothy 4:1; Hebrews 12:28; Revelation 1:9. (See the special study The Coming of the Son of Man, Vol. II, 430ff, for my dissent from Edersheim’s interpretation.)

AND, FINALLY, PERFECTED IN THE WORLD TO COME: (Hebrews 2:5) Matthew 5:19-20; Matthew 7:21; Matthew 8:11; Matthew 13:43; Matthew 18:3; Matthew 25:34; Matthew 26:29(?); Mark 9:47; Mark 10:14; Mark 14:25(?); Luke 6:20; Luke 12:32; Luke 13:28-29; Luke 14:15; Luke 18:16; Luke 22:29 (30); (John 18:36); Acts 1:3; Acts 14:22; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Corinthians 15:24; 1 Corinthians 15:50; Galatians 5:21; Ephesians 5:5; 2 Thessalonians 1:5; (2 Timothy 4:18); Js. Matthew 2:5; 2 Peter 1:11; Revelation 1:9; Revelation 12:10; (Matthew 11:15).

These conclusions may be represented graphically in the following way:

THE KINGDOM OF GOD BEFORE CHRIST

Romans 3:29

God’s Kingdom rules over the entire earth and all humanity, Jews and Gentiles alike. (2 Kings 19:15; Daniel 4:2; Daniel 4:17; Daniel 4:25; Daniel 4:32-35; Daniel 6:26; Jeremiah 10:7; Jeremiah 10:10; Jeremiah 27:5; Isaiah 43:13; Psalms 22:28; Psalms 47:2; Psalms 47:7-8; Psalms 95:6; Psalms 96:10; Psalms 103:19; Malachi 1:14) However, within national Israel, there was always a remnant of believers who acknowledge God’s rule. (Cf. 1 Chronicles 17:14; 1 Chronicles 28:5; Romans 9:6-8; Galatians 3:7-9; Galatians 3:29; Luke 2:25; Luke 2:38; Luke 3:8-9; Luke 13:16; Luke 19:9; Luke 23:51; Isaiah 1:9; Isaiah 4:3; Isaiah 10:20 f; Isaiah 11:11; Isaiah 11:16)

THE KINGDOM OF GOD BEFORE PENTECOST

Romans 4:16

In the time of the last world empire God set up a worldwide Kingdom under the rule of the Son of man, a Kingdom of the saints, the spiritual throne of David. (Cf. Daniel 2:35; Daniel 2:44; Daniel 7:13-14; Daniel 7:28; John 18:36; Luke 1:32-33; Acts 2:30-36) But the Messianic King arose from within Israel, not from the pagan world. (Matthew 15:24)

THE KINGDOM OF GOD AFTER PENTECOST UNTIL JUDGMENT

While God controls the entire world, yet by His permissive will men are permitted to choose good or evil. Most choose evil to remain in it, while a minority choose to enter that subjective expression of God’s Kingdom, the Church. (Matthew 13:24-30; Matthew 13:47-48; John 3:3-5; 1 Corinthians 1:18 to 1 Corinthians 2:16; 1 Corinthians 3:18-23; Colossians 1:13)

THE KINGDOM OF GOD IN ETERNITY AFTER JUDGMENT

1 Corinthians 15:24-28

(Zechariah 14:9; Daniel 7:22; Daniel 7:27; Matthew 13:40-43; Matthew 13:49-50; Revelation 1:5; Revelation 11:15; Revelation 15:3)

The first thing to notice about each of these diagrams is the solid line of the Kingdom of God around every single diagram: God is ALWAYS on the throne! The next thing to observe in the first three diagrams is the broken line surrounding the world within the Kingdom of God, the dotted line of evil, because the whole world lies in the evil one, but only by the permissive will of a sovereign God who has the last word. (1 John 5:19) But the third thing to notice is crucial: within the evil world God has established a beachhead: spiritual Israel = the Church today. The fourth detail is the final and permanent separation of all evil doers into one place reserved for them: even Hell is positive proof of the power and reality of God’s government. Note, contemporaneously, the glorious revelation of the people of God enjoying the perfect rule of the eternal Kingdom of God.

For further notes on the Kingdom and the great sermon in parables, see especially Seth Wilson’s Special Study, Mark (Bible Study Textbook Series, pp. 499-506: What the Kingdom is Like and Treasures of the Kingdom) and R.C. Foster’s Middle Period, pp. 79ff.

Matthew 13:54-58

Section 32 JESUS IS REFUSED BY HIS OWN AT NAZARETH.

TEXT: 13:54-58

(Parallel: Mark 6:1-6)

54 And coming into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph; and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? 57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own house. 58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

What is so significant about the amazement of these people, given the fact that it is caused by the miracles and message of Jesus?

b.

Why do you think that the Nazarenes did not know the answer to their own question: Where did He get all this wisdom and these miracles? c. Analyze the reasons why the Nazarenes were caused to stumble in Jesus.

d.

Now, if causing someone to stumble is regarded by the NT as sin, how can you justify Jesus-’ doing precisely that? The Scripture says that the Nazarenes were scandalized by Jesus.

e.

One of the accusations we often make against faith miracle workers today is that too often their miracles do not seem to want to occur in the presence of skeptics, unbelievers or other critical eyes. Here Jesus did not do many miracles because of the Nazarene’s unbelief. Nay, worse, Mark (Mark 6:5) actually affirms that the Lord COULD NOT do any miracles in Nazareth. Does faithor is it credulity?in the miracle worker or in the recipient of the miracle create miracle-working power? Perhaps Jesus was limited by the same weakness and failure as modern fake healers. What is your explanation?

f.

What is the importance here of the mention of Jesus-’ brothers and sisters?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

Jesus left Capernaum and went to His own hometown, Nazareth. His disciples accompanied Him. On the sabbath. He began to teach the folk in the local synagogue. Many who listened to Him were astonished and asked, Where did this man get all this wisdom? What great wisdom He has! What mighty works are done by Him! Is not this the carpenter, the son of the carpenter? Is not his mother called Mary? Are not his brothers named James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters here with us? Where, then, did he get all this? So they were shocked at Him. But Jesus commented to them, No prophet is left unhonored, except in his own hometown, among his own kin, and in his own house. And He could not do many mighty miracles in Nazareth, because of their unbelief, except that He laid His hands upon a few sick folk and healed them. He marveled because of their unbelief.

SUMMARY

Jesus tried again to win His own hometown to discipleship. The result was superficial amazement at His supernatural wisdom and miracles, but no real conviction of His true position as God’s Prophet. The Nazarenes were shocked at Jesus; He marveled at their continued unbelief. The townspeople gave Him little or no opportunity to work great miracles on their behalf.

NOTES

Before attempting to comment on this section, it is well to ask whether it be the same incident as that recorded by Luke (Luke 4:16-30). Some commentaries identify the two accounts and create thereby unnecessary problems for the reader. The coincidences which make the identification appear possible are three:

In both accounts the Nazarenes marveled at Jesus-’ ability. (Matthew 13:54 b = Mark 6:2, cf. Luke 4:22) Is this psychologically credible especially the second time, if there were two visits? Yes, because, however well they may have remembered a supposed first visit to Nazareth at the beginning of His ministry (i.e., Luke 4:16-30), several new factors would have contributed to occasion their astonishment: His far greater popularity in Galilee is now a fact that demanded reappraisal of His claims. New to them also would be His surprising courage in returning after the attempt on His life on His last visit, as well as the loving meekness of His manner, in contrast to their meanness, and His magnanimity in not holding their deeds against them. If time heals things, then Jesus-’ absence from Nazareth for a sufficiently considerable interval would render a repetition of some of the same surprise quite credible.

In both accounts the Nazarenes objected to Jesus-’ pretended authority, because He was the son of Joseph the carpenter. (Matthew 13:55 = Mark 6:3; cf. Luke 4:22 b) But this is only natural, since it is the basis of their refusal no matter how many times He visited there.

Would Jesus on two separate visits have reiterated the prophet? Although not exactly verbatim, the wording is close enough. (Matthew 13:57 b = Mark 6:4, cf. Luke 4:24) Yes, the reverting to this proverb is not exceptional, since the general circumstances of the two visits to the same hometown could have evoked the same general reaction in Jesus. In fact, the deliberate hammering on this particular motto may indicate Jesus-’ aim to reach a far higher goal than a mere accounting for local prejudices. (See below on Matthew 13:57 b.)

Nevertheless, the differences are more marked than these supposed likenesses:

THE NARRATIVE OF MATTHEW AND MARK

THE NARRATIVE OF Luke 1.

Mark links this visit to Nazareth with the events around Capernaum following the great Parables Sermon, the trip to Gerasa and return to Capernaum. Matthew, having already told this, links this trip to Nazareth more loosely after the Parables Sermon. But these events are admittedly late in the Galilean ministry.

Luke gives the definite impression that he is narrating an incident early in the Galilean ministry of Jesus shortly after His baptism and temptations.

Mark notices the presence of Jesus-’ disciples on this visit, a natural feature to be expected, as Jesus has now developed His program more fully since His earlier visit, including a following. This argument cannot be conclusive, since Matthew is silent about disciples here, and his account alone cannot argue their absence any more than can Luke’s earlier story (Luke 4:16-30).

Luke is silent about disciples on Jesus-’ first visit to Nazareth, a fact that cannot militate against their possible presence. Nevertheless, the very progress of His relationship to His immediate followers at that early period indicates that He may not yet have called them to personal discipleship. (See Luke 5:1-11; Luke 5:27-32.)

Matthew notices the paucity of miracles while Mark mentions a few.

Luke not only records no miracles, but cites Jesus-’ words about Elijah and Elisha that seem to preclude His having done any before entering the synagogue. Certainly, none were recorded as done later.

Matthew and Mark indicate no specific duration of His visit to Nazareth, but they imply at least some time to do a few miracles.

Luke tells how in the synagogue an attempt was made on His life from which He narrowly escaped by walking through the crowd and departing immediately.

These differences are explicable on the basis of Jesus-’ love for His own townspeople: is it like Jesus to have entirely abandoned even Nazareth after one rejection? Second, Jesus-’ growing popularity throughout Galilee and the healing of time might have counselled a second visit because of changed circumstances. Although time did not heal their unbelief, it may have let their offended pride cool enough to permit Him to try again.

Matthew 13:54 **Coming into his own country, **as Mark connects it, means leaving the unwanted excitement around Capernaum where Jesus had just completed a series of steps to keep tight reins on His own popularity:

The Great Sermon in Parables intended to hide vital truth from any but the most understanding disciples. (Matthew 13:1-53; Mark 4:1-34; Luke 8:4 ff).

The withdrawal from the Capernaum crowds by a stormy voyage to Gerasa and, hopefully, some tranquility was interrupted by Gerasene fearful reluctance. (Matthew 8:28-34; Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-39)

Then followed the return to Capernaum and the great crowds, the healing of the woman with the hemorrhage, and the resurrection of Jairus-’ daughter and the injunction to the parents to avoid publicity. (Matthew 9:1; Matthew 9:18-26; Mark 5:21-43; Luke 8:40-56)

Although He sternly ordered two healed blind men not to publish the news of their healing, they disobeyed. (Matthew 9:27-31)

The crowds marveled yet more when He freed a dumb demoniac. (Matthew 9:32-34)

These pressures on Jesus may have determined His decision to reach an area where His impopularity would have granted a small respite from the constant thronging of people. Nazareth suited His requirements ideally, since the earlier disapprobation of His townsmen had been previously encountered. (Luke 4:16-30) But Jesus-’ return to Nazareth is no mere avoidance of Capernaum, as if He had nowhere else to go. He strode into Nazareth, because He knew His people and loved them, despite their sins, pride and prejudices. He had remained away from them to let them study Him at long range while He preached and healed all over Galilee. Now He must return once more to teach them, work among them and give them fresh glimpses of His true identity.

**Coming into his own country He taught them in their synagogue. **Matthew’s imperfect tense (edidasken) does not in this case mean to suggest that He kept this up for some time, because this is an example of the inchoative imperfect which describes an action as recently, or just begun, being in its first stages. (See Robertson-Davis, Short Grammar, 300; Blass-Debrunner, 169, sec. 326 call it conative imperfect) So, Mark’s expression, he began to teach, is only the more explicit equivalent of Matthew’s idiom.

So earnest and powerful, so winsome and true was His message that its immediate effect was the astonishment of the audience. But this amazement is not the marveling that leads to joyous acceptance. It arose, rather, out of what they suppose to be perfect familiarity with Jesus: they think they know Him, as their questions reveal afterward. Their perplexity, expressed in the question: **Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works?, **arises out of the apparent incongruity between what they thought they knew about Him and what they were even then experiencing with their own senses. But He was, in reality, a perfect Stranger. Edersheim (Life, I, 636ff) rightly notices that the very events of Jesus-’ miraculous conception and birth were hidden from the Nazarenes, even as His earthly development was unseen by the Bethlehemites. But this fact in no way lessens the responsibility of both cities to test the claims of Jesus. In fact, the ignorance of Nazareth concerning the great fact of the Incarnation is no warrant for their unbelief. It should, rather, have spurred them on to examine all the more critically His claims in the light of His miraculous credentials. If they are curious enough to ask this kind of question, which itself contains such damaging admissions on their part, let them seek their proper answers! There was no denying that **this man has this wisdom and these mighty works are wrought by his hands! **Since their knowledge of these deeds is largely based on hearsay evidence filtering back into Nazareth from nearly every village in Galilee,apparently He worked no miracle in His hometown prior to this historical moment,is it credible that the popular opinions of their fellow Galileans, that Jesus might possibly be the Christ, should not also have been breathed about? They were taken aback, not because of His grace in speaking or because of the truth of His doctrine, but that these virtues should be HIS. Had they not been wilfully blind, they should have understood that ANYONE SO demonstrably without the preparation of academic education who proves himself so amply in possession of such unmatched wisdom and such glorious power MUST have been sent and empowered by God. Their culpability is the more inexcusable because not only were they well aware of these mighty works, but before He left town, they were even to witness the healing of a few sick folk. (Mark 6:5) Even when they saw it, they did not afterward repent and believe Him. (Cf. Matthew 21:28-32) Were they but to pronounce Him Christ, they would arrive immediately at the only satisfactory answer to their questions, but they supposed the matter settled merely by voicing a few insinuating questions.

Matthew 13:55 **Is not this the carpenter’s son? **For this oblique reference to Joseph, Mark has only: Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary. ? Did Jesus so establish Himself as a worker in Nazareth during His pre-ministry days that His acquaintances remember Joseph only in passing as the man whose carpentry his son took over? Where then is Joseph? His passing may be implied in his not being mentioned in any of the events immediately concerning Jesus-’ family following the return to Nazareth after Jesus-’ birth. (Cf. Matthew 1:16; Matthew 1:18-20; Matthew 1:24; Matthew 2:13; Luke 1:27; Luke 2:4; Luke 2:16; Luke 2:33; Luke 2:43; Luke 3:23; Luke 4:22; John 1:45; John 6:42 are the only references to Joseph by name in Scripture.) His absence on some occasions may be explained on grounds other than his death, for example, where business demanded that he be elsewhere when Mary and her sons visited Jesus. (Matthew 12:46; Luke 8:19) However, if Joseph were still alive during Jesus-’ last visit, the unusual phrasing of some Nazarene’s question according to Mark, is remarkable.

**Is not his mother called Mary? **Is not this. the son of Mary. ? (Mark 6:3) The simplest reading of either of these versions would lead the uncomplicated reader to think the Nazarenes are simply confirming by a negative question expecting a positive answer what they think they know about Jesus. But, some, remembering it somehow un-Jewish to identify a man by mentioning his mother’s name, think Mark to be pointing to some peculiar fact.

These words in the mouth of the Nazarenes, says McMillan (Mark, 76) smell of an early rumor circulating to the effect that Jesus was illegitimate, but his proof-texts (e.g., John 8:41; John 9:29, etc.) do not substantiate this, being open to other interpretations. Rather, as discussed at Matthew 1:24, the very circumstances surrounding Jesus-’ birth, in the wisdom of God, forestalled such an accusation on the part of the Nazarenes. Further, Matthew’s text, parallel to Mark, actually quotes the Nazarenes themselves as describing Jesus as the carpenter’s son, before ever mentioning Mary. If the Nazarenes believe Jesus to be Joseph’s son, there can be no suspicion of illegitimacy here. Again, that these words indicate no such rumor is proved by their very vagueness, if such an insinuation were intended. Jesus-’ detractors did not mince words when resorting to name-calling! (Cf. John 8:48; John 8:52; John 7:20; John 10:20; Mark 3:21-22; Mark 3:30; Matthew 10:25; Matthew 11:18-19)

Is Mark’s special wording intended to convey the concept of the Virgin Birth? That is, by saying, Is not this. the son of Mary? is he not eliminating Joseph as Jesus-’ real father in the same sense that Mary is His real mother? No, because Mark is citing the objections made by the Nazarenes on the basis of what they considered common knowledge. These words, far from containing Mark’s doctrine, are in fact not really his at all.

An even simpler solution for the Marcan phenomenon is available; Mark mentions only Jesus-’ mother, because the people he is quoting could not, for some reason, refer directly to Joseph as any longer an active participant in Nazareth’s life. Is he only remembered by some (cf. Matthew’s the son of the carpenter), but absent from immediate concern, whereas Mary, being still alive, is very much present in their thinking? Mark’s words, rather than express editorializing, may well reflect the precise situation in Nazareth and suggest the well-nigh universal supposition that Joseph had been long dead.

Contrary to Plummer, (Matthew, 199), this difference in the form of the questions does not at all represent redactional changes by Matthew, but rather the natural, rapid-fire questioning of excited people.

**Are not his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? **See the Special Study, The Brethren of the Lord after this chapter. But why do the Nazarenes bother to mention these men by name? They are proudly proving thereby to be able to remember them, since these brothers had moved to Capernaum with Jesus some time earlier. (See on Matthew 4:13; Cf. John 2:12.) By proving their ability to name them one by one, they think they have thereby explained Jesus too: could He possibly be any different from those named?

Matthew 13:56 **And are not all his sisters here with us? **Did these girls marry Nazarenes and so not move with Jesus-’ mother and brothers to Capernaum with Him? How many ladies are implied in all his sisters is unknown, but, when considered as all younger than Jesus the firstborn and included with four baby brothers, they certainly represented a houseful for Jesus and His (widowed?) mother. Because of the poignant note in Jesus-’ sad proverb: A prophet is not without honor except. among his own kin, and in his own house, some have wondered whether the sisters, fearing reprisals from their townsmen who had so bitterly rejected Jesus earlier, had sought to disassociate themselves from Him, because of His apparently unwarranted assumption of superiority over His own people.

The surprise expressed by these Nazarenes in their barrage of questions indicates just how perfectly normal must have been the entire course of Jesus-’ life and development there. This does not deny the deep-running differences that only Mary could have known. Nevertheless, their astonishment serves to mark the perfect humanity of His maturity in wisdom and physical stature to the delight of God and man. (Luke 2:40; Luke 2:52) For, if the Nazarenes who knew His history among them best, humanly speaking, could trace no abnormality in His boyhood conduct, we are right to conclude that

He did no miracles as a boy, contrary to the fantastic narrations of the apocryphal gospels. His first miracle was done at Cana of Galilee and not sooner. (John 2:11)

His anointing by the Spirit at His baptism really signaled the beginning of His Messianic mission, after He left Nazareth a few days prior. (Acts 10:37-38) None of His days at Nazareth before this anointing should be considered as having any relation to that commission except as they gave Him time and opportunity to mature as a perfect human being. (Cf. Luke 2:40; Luke 2:52)

The doctrine of Jesus-’ perfect humanity (cf. Hebrews 2:14; Hebrews 2:17; Hebrews 4:15; Hebrews 5:7-8; Philippians 2:8) passed the test of His closest acquaintances. The Nazarenes could not tell the difference between Jesus and His four brothers and all His sisters. His humanity was convincingly real to them.

Their rhetorical questions are devastating to any theory of perpetual virginity for Mary, because they imply the common knowledge that Jesus is in no way different from His brothers, sisters, mother or father. Had there been some suspicion that they were but cousins, their questions would not have been able to imply so much, since He would, in that case, not have been of the same family as the brothers, hence He could have potentially been actually superior and their own argument falls. In fact, they use the words son, mother and sisters in their normal connotation. Why should they be thought to have changed to a larger range of meaning when they speak of His brothers?

Matthew 13:57 And they were offended in him. By what right does the village carpenter, whom we have known all our lives, rise to speak to us with an authority superior to the learned rabbis? Indeed, what right? Their former astonishment hardened into scandal. He did not fit the slot they had carved for Him. So, rather than reject their categories, they rejected Him. But in so doing, they left themselves without any accounting for His wisdom and works, real facts that, despite the fact that they surpassed human understanding, were to be believed. Their shock, indignation and hurt was not any whit less real because Jesus, far from intending them any spiritual damage, aimed only at their eternal life and peace. Their stumbling into sin, further obstinacy and unbelief, could not be helped by Jesus, and this fact leads us to see that stumbling-blocks are of two types:

Sinners being offended by righteous men in the pursuit of righteousness whose godliness itself is the cause of pain, indignation, shock or disgust. Jesus, in the pursuit of His messianic mission, could not help becoming the world’s greatest stumbling block! (Luke 2:34; Matthew 21:44 = Luke 20:18; 1 Peter 2:6-8 = Isaiah 8:14-15; see notes on Matthew 11:6).

Weak, or relatively innocent people are offended by supposedly righteous men in the pursuit of their own comfort, exercising their rights or freedom while quite unconcerned for the conscience of others. (Cf. Notes on Matthew 18:5-9; Romans 14:1 to Romans 15:7; 1 Corinthians 6:12 to 1 Corinthians 11:1)

Ironically, the Nazarenes mistakenly reputed Jesus to be a stumbling block of the latter type, only to splatter their lives against the Rock of Ages!

The Nazarenes blundered by trying to account for Jesus by discussing His quite human family, but they omitted from the account the one ingredient which, though they could not have known it, would have explained Him: the Incarnation. Lest WE too stumble over Jesus, we must appreciate how gross is the blunder involved in attempting to explain Him by ordinary rules. We are tempted to think that unless or until we are able to fathom the mystery of God, or, at least, solve the problem of Jesus Christ, we shall not surrender to Him. Nevertheless, even a perfect intellectual solution would not bow our heads in submission since common canons permit us to measure other people every day, yet we never throw ourselves at their feet to become their servants. In fact, were we to succeed in reducing the Lord’s Christ to a philosophical formula or a mathematical equation, He would then be unneeded, because, in our conceit, we would have thought to understand Him perfectly. He would be then useless to us as Master and Lord, since we would have then reduced Him to our own self-created categories. But His Incarnation and His Atonement are facts to be believed on the evidence He gives us of their truth, not propositions for debate the issue of which is of little or no consequence. Rather than discredit the evidence because of our failure perfectly to comprehend, let us postpone debate and submit! After all, what is faith for, if we must walk by sight? Our scandal-level, i.e., that point at which we too are most liable to be shocked, disgusted or hurt by Jesus, is really that point in our thinking at which Jesus holds no surprises for us anymore. When our theology will have succeeded in saying all there is to know about Him, we are perfectly set up for OUR big disappointment in Him. We are Christians, wrote Morgan (Matthew, 181ff), because Jesus towers above us, impresses us, baffles us, eludes us, yet enwraps us with love and thrills us with power. We are Christians in the presence of the Infinite Mystery, infinitely more than in the presence of things that can be perfectly explained.

**But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own house. **Two thrusts are noticeable in Jesus-’ use of this proverb:

He cites to the Nazarenes this true psychological observation, and by so doing, shows them that, humanly speaking, He understands them. It is genuinely difficult to appreciate the surpassing importance and real accomplishments of someone whose entire growth and development occurred before our eyes. We do have problems accepting the profound changes in people with whom we think ourselves perfectly familiar. So, the Lord, perfectly familiar with His own people, because He really knew their weakness and need, in heart-warming understanding and generous mercy, expresses this solidarity with them in their difficulty.

But the very proverb He selected so to express Himself speaks volumes. He could have said, A successful man is not without honor, etc., and have communicated the above-mentioned human comprehension. Instead, His choice of wording may be nothing less than the earnest challenge to His dear acquaintances to re-examine the evidences that would have led them to see Him as a PROPHET. They might not understand Him to be God’s Son, rather than Joseph and Mary’s boy, but even so, let them think of Him as Joseph’s Son the PROPHET! Let them study His message, accept His credentials as proving His right to reveal God’s message like any other mighty prophet born of human parents but called by God! By this approach they might eventually be convinced to bow in humble submission of their divine Townsman. (Cf. Jesus-’ use of a similar approach with Judean enemies, John 10:37-38 and with His most intimate followers, John 14:10-11.)

Matthew 13:58 **And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief. **If it be true that faith is that positive contact which man makes with God by abandoning his self-justifications, if it be that positive living in conformity with the convictions he has about Him, then we see why these Nazarenes-’ unbelief caused them to stay away from Jesus. They made no contact with Him, so He did not force them to accept unwanted miracles. If they did not believe Him enough to come bringing their sick to them or ask Him to help them, then He could do no mighty work there. (Mark 6:6) Jesus could truly say, I just could not help them, because they would not let me!

Further, since Jesus had chosen to limit Himself to help only those willing to receive His blessing, He deliberately did not force either their belief or acceptance of His help. The seemingly objectionable statement of Mark (He could do no mighty work there.) reflects only this moral commitment, not any objective ability that somehow failed in Nazareth. Rather, here is written the meekness of the Son of God: we would have been sorely tempted to rip off some stupendous wonder just to show them, but Jesus stood firm. Again, the Lord refused to undersell the evidential value of a single healing! If the imposition of hands on a few sick folk to heal them (Mark 6:5) will not produce the unshakeable conviction that God has sent Jesus, no mere escalation of signs and wonders could be hoped to produce it. Nor is He willing to discount the importance of believing the true testimony of others who carried the news of His miracles to Nazareth. (Cf. Matthew 13:54; Luke 4:23)

Not only **did Jesus not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief, **but He marveled because of it. (Mark 6:6) See notes on Matthew 8:10 where Jesus marveled at the great faith of the Roman centurion. There, marveling is described as implying some ignorance of that about which one feels genuine surprise. But who can complain if JESUS CHOSE NOT TO KNOW who would eventually believe or disbelieve Him? This very choice, itself part of the mystery of incarnation, lets Him react genuinely, because He is truly overjoyed at excitingly real faith, or stunned and grieved at obstinate unbelief. He was astounded as He heard their reaction, because their unbelief was so unreasonable. Even though they admitted the premises for the divine origin of His mission and message, they resolutely denied the obvious conclusion to which these premises must necessarily lead.

Although Jesus-’ own doctrine that the quality of one’s heart affects his receptivity to the truth had already been expounded in the Parables of the Kingdom, (Matthew 13:1-53), this did not alleviate His heartbreak when He too had to live with that reality embodied in the wayside hearts of His old friends and fellow townsmen. Here, again, we see that the atmosphere which a congregation brings to a message deeply affects its effectiveness, being either a stone wall of hostility through which the message cannot penetrate, or a friendly expectancy that can turn the simplest testimony into soul-stirring eloquence. Many a message has been absolutely ruined, not because it was not true and needed, but due to prejudices against the speaker. And Jesus faced this tooin His own hometown.

FACT QUESTIONS

Is this event but another version of Jesus-’ rejection at Nazareth as recorded in Luke 4:16-30? What are the similarities and differences?

What is the point of the rhetorical questions asked by the Nazarenes in reference to Jesus-’ family?

What damaging evidence against the theory of the perpetual virginity of Mary is unconsciously provided by the Nazarenes-’ questions in this section?

Did Jesus do any miracles at Nazareth? How do you know?

Explain how the Nazarenes took offense at Him.

Name Jesus-’ brothers.

How many sisters did Jesus have?

How did the Nazarenes admit as a matter of fact the miracles that Jesus did? What, then, did they reject?

What proverb did Jesus cite as the explanation of the Nazarenes-’ rejection of His person and ministry?

According to the best information available in the NT, how many times did Jesus visit the Nazareth synagogue after the beginning of His ministry? What was the response each time?

Explain how Jesus could marvel at the unbelief of His townspeople. Did their unbelief surprise Him? If so, how? If not, why not?

SPECIAL STUDY: THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD

What is the real purpose of this study? Is it to discover from an examination of the best evidence available to us, whether the men who are entitled in Scripture the brethren of the Lord, were real, natural half-brothers of Jesus, being sons of Mary; or whether they were step-brothers, being sons of Joseph by a former wife before espousing Mary; or whether they were cousins, being sons of Alphaeus (or Clopas), Joseph’s brother (or else, sons of Mary of Clopas, sister of Mary, Joseph’s wife)? Is this research into the semi-obscure facts surrounding the life of our Lord only for academic discussion?. What could be gained by a knowledge of the answer to the proposed questions? Beyond mere acquaintance with the facts, are we any richer morally? Or is it the purpose of such a study to affirm or deny the perpetual virginity of Mary as a dogma affirmed by the Roman Catholic denomination? Even if, after accurate study, one concludes that Mary did, in fact, have no other children after the birth of Jesus, and that the reputed brethren of the Lord were, in fact, sons of Joseph by a former wife named Hannah, what is gained for the Catholic position, or what is lost for those who previously objected to the idea (not to say, doctrine or dogma) of the perpetual virginity of Mary? Or is the question even correctly put in that fashion? Could we not ask ourselves, what USE is to be made of the supposed perpetual virginity? What is the FUNCTION of such a pretended fact? So the importance or value of this study does not lie so much in enriching our information about the private life and relations of Jesus, as in dealing with the Catholic apologists who would elevate Mary to a superhuman plane. To do this they must demonstrate three fundamental propositions, one of which this study touches directly:

Mary was herself conceived without sin, or the dogma of the immaculate conception;

Mary remained virgin throughout her married life, or the dogma of perpetual virginity;

Mary is an object of special veneration, or the dogma of her special status in heaven whereby she is supposed to be accorded particular devotion. This last step in her exaltation involves the following unproven assumptions: (Cf. I.S.B.E., 2003)

a.

Christ’s perpetual humanity (something else to prove) presumes His perpetual Sonship to Mary, as argument which implies that the glorified Lord Jesus is still subject to His mother.

b.

Christ hears her prayers, hence she is an intercessor through whom prayers may be addressed to Jesus.

c.

Since Mary cared for the body of Christ when He was on earth, naturally, His spiritually body, the Church, would be her special care in heaven.

Even if it were possible to establish as fact that every Church Father who supported the perpetual virginity of Mary had no ulterior theory to defend by that stand, in which case each may be regarded as trustworthy to transmit no more than simple, historical fact, and even if it were possible to establish on purely logical and exegetical grounds from the Scriptures that both Mary AND Joseph remained virgins in their marriage relationship, still much stands or falls in relationship to the moral implications drawn therefrom by the modern Christian, some of which are:

The medieval conception, not yet fully clarified or changed by those whose denomination officially tolerated it, of the intrinsic sinfulness of the desire for marital relations and the act by which that desire is realized. (Contrast 1 Timothy 4:3-4; Hebrews 13:4) Marriage, though a holy sacrament for many, must yet be viewed by them as inferior to celibacy and incompatible with holy living in its highest, purest sense. This conclusion must necessarily follow and certainly was the view of many, however contradictory both to Scripture and to logic. For, if, Mary was married to Joseph and Joseph to Mary in appearance only, then they were recreant to each other and to the ordinance of God which made them one. (I.S.B.E., 2003)

Must the ancient repugnance to Christian feeling to think of the womb of Mary, in which the Word, made flesh, had dwelt in a peculiar way, as the habitation of other babes, (I.S.B.E., 520) express also the sentiments of the modern Christian?

Must the modern Christian share the view that Mary is not to be considered a human being under the ordinary obligations of human life, (I.S.B.E., 2003), removed from the sphere of ordinary life and duties as too commonplace for one who is to be surrounded with the halo of a demi-god, and to be idealized in order to be worshipped? (I.S.B.E., 520)

Must the Scriptures continue to be mishandled in order to support an unjustifiable theory of celibacy, an unbased theory of Joseph’s virginity, a distorted view of marriage and an inadequate understanding of the family? Even if it were logically conceded that Joseph and Mary chose, for whatever reasons, to abstain from marital relations after the birth of Jesus, and even if the brethren of the Lord are logically conceded to be the sons of any other woman than Mary, it is not right that Biblical texts be distorted to prove it.

It is too apparent that the presumption of perpetual virginity for Mary is an important link in her exaltation without sin to be an object of worship in her function as mediatrix, just as much as the dogma of her immaculate conception (her being born sinless so as not to transmit inherited original sin to Jesus) and the almost forgotten but necessary assumption of her immaculate life. But whatever may be the eventual use of the particular information regarding the brethren of the Lord, the evidence for this link in the chain of Mariolatry, which binds the conscience of millions of people for whom Christ died, is as weak as any of the others.

WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE?

As will be seen, the main interpretations of the brethren of the Lord have been three: the cousin theory, the step-brother theory and the half brother view. (For fuller exposition of these views and their relative literature, see I.S.B.E. and other encyclopedic articles on the brethren of the Lord, on the individual names of the four brothers, on Mary, on virginity and similar topics. See especially J.B. Lightfoot’s commentary on Galatians, pp. 252-291. For much of the following material, I am indebted to Lightfoot’s collection of evidence, however much I may disagree with his choice of conclusion.

The basic problems involved in the identification of the Lord’s brethren turns upon the following considerations:

The identification of Clopas (or Cleophas): was he the same man as Alphaeus, father of the Apostle, James of Alphaeus? Was Clopas the brother of Joseph, foster father of Jesus? Are Judas Thaddaeus or Simon the Zealot, or both, sons of this Alphaeus-Clopas?

Is Mary of Clopas to be identified with the Mary mother of James and Joses, hence also mother of Simon (or Simeon) Zelotes and Judas Thaddaeus? Is this Mary to be identified as the sister of Jesus-’ mother?

Is Jesus-’ mother’s sister to be identified with the wife of Zebedee and with Salome?

In order better to see the relative connections the following charts are offered:

Chart 1:

WOMEN AT THE CROSS.

Question marks indicate doubt about the identificath

Matthew 27:56

Mark 15:40

John 19:25 (rearranged)

Mary Magdalene

Mary Magdalene

Mary Magdalene

Mary, mother of James and Joses

Mary, mother of James the Little and Joses

Mary of Clopas (?)

________, mother of Zebedee’s sons

Salome (?)

________, Jesus-’ mother’s sister (?)

---

---

________, Jesus-’ mother

The identification of these women depends upon the certainty of several probabilities:

It is unlikely that in John 19:25 the phrase Jesus-’ mother’s sister is to be taken as in apposition with Mary of Clopas, making John list only three women at the cross, since he is actually listing two pairs of women. This is shown in two ways:

a.

He links the first two and the last two by the conjunction and, almost, as if to indicate a separation of some sort between the two pairs.

b.

John’s well-known habit throughout his gospel of suppressing the names of himself and his relatives may be evident here, since it may be presumed that Mary Magdalene and Mary of Clopas were not relatives of John, whereas if this identification suggested above proves valid, then Mary, Jesus-’ mother, and Salome, John’s mother, would be sisters. For this reason John leaves both women nameless, identifying them only by a descriptive phrase.

It is likely that John’s mother is to be equated with Jesus. Mother’s sister, since John’s mother was certainly at the cross and it does not seem likely that John would have omitted her.

Both Salome and Jesus-’ mother’s sister remain otherwise totally unidentified. and unidentifiable to the modern reader of the text, unless they are otherwise to be identified with the also unnamed mother of Zebedee’s sons, This is not impossible, since Salome would be her name, mother of Zebedee’s sons gives her relationship to the Apostles, and Jesus-’ mother’s sister identifies her connection with Jesus and His mother.

One result of this theory, of course, is that Jesus is seen as a cousin of James and John, a theory which may also account for the definite intimacy these two enjoyed with the Lord, as well as provide a reason why Jesus consigned His mother over to John the Apostle, His cousin.

Chart 2:

LISTS OF THE APOSTLES INVOLVED IN THIS QUESTION

Matthew 10:2-4

Mark 3:13-19

Luke 6:12-16

Acts 1:13

---

---

---

---

James of Alphaeus

James of Alphaeus

James of Alphaeus

James of Alphaeus

Thaddaeus

Thaddaeus

Simon the Zealot

Simon the Zealot

Simon the Cananean

Simon the Canaanean

Judas of James

Judas of James

Judas Iscariot

Judas Iscariot

Judas Iscariot

---

For a full list of the Twelve, see notes on Matthew 10:2-4.

In this chart several items are to be noted:

James of Alphaeus is always the principle name leading this third group of Apostles, even as Peter’s always leads the first group and Philip’s the second. Judas-’ lscariot’s name always concludes this third group, except in Acts where his suicide is already an accomplished fact, hence the omission in the fourth list.

The remaining two names, though reversed in the last two lists, remain together as if bound together by some unmentioned tie.

The identification of Thaddaeus with Judas of James is discussed under Matthew 10:2-4; so also the names Cananaean and Zealot.

The intriguing question to be solved is which James is intended in the descriptive Judas of James. Is Judas the brother of the son of Alphaeus? Or is he the son of another unknown James?

With these crude, rudimentary tools in hand, let us examine the evidence for each view.

THE COUSIN THEORY

The great Jerome propounded the theory which has gained currency among Catholic commentators that the brethren of the Lord are, in reality, His cousins. Others have noticed certain points necessary to sustain this suggestion and so have added features unknown to Jerome but were essential to the theory. The theory is based upon the following points:

James, son of Alphaeus, is thought to be the Lord’s brother, James.

Alphaeus, the father of James, is supposedly to be identified linguistically with Clopas (or Cleophas), since Alphaîos is the Greek equivalent of the Aramean Chalphai. (On this, see Lightfoot’s learned discussion, pp. 256f and footnotes, 267f.)

The term James the Less, seemingly, implies only one other eminent man among the Apostolic band known by the name of James, i.e., James of Zebedee. Therefore, James of Alphaeus would be also James the Less, son of Mary, whose brother’s name is Joses (or, Joseph), a name also found in the list of the brethren of the Lord.

According to the theory, Mary of Clopas is said to be the wife of Alphaeus, hence, mother of James of Alphaeus.

Mary of Clopas (Alphaeus), being the mother of James, is said to be sister of Jesus-’ mother.

The result of this theory, that James the Lord’s brother is really the Lord’s cousin, is also based upon the loose Aramaic use of the word brother in Scripture for: actual brotherhood, common nationality, wider kinsmanship or only friendship or sympathy.

Due to the testimony of Hegesippus (cited by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. iii, 20), some add also Judas of James, considering him to be brother of James the Lord’s brother, and perhaps Simon the Zealot as well, since these three names are kept together in the list of the Apostles. Not only are the Lord’s brethren to be thought of as His cousins, but some, if not all, of His brothers are also Apostles, according to the theory.

The theory presupposes also the death or incapacitation of Alphaeus (= Clopas) the putative father of these four men, as well as the inability of Mary (of Clopas) to care for them, in which case they must have been practically raised in the house of Joseph and Mary in whose company they are often seen. (Cf. John 2:12; Matthew 12:46 and par.) The Nazarenes consider these brethren to be as much a part of the family of Joseph and Mary as Jesus or His sisters. (Matthew 13:54-58)

Perhaps it would help to visualize the view of Jerome as it was adapted by its adherents:

Objections to this theory are hardly less numerous than the points on which it is founded :

While it may be granted that in Hebrew or Aramaic the word brother must do service for a wider range of relationships, it would be unnatural for the Evangelists who left their works for us in Greek to have failed to specify the exact relationship intended, especially since in Greek the words are available for cousin (anepsiòs, Colossians 4:10) and kinsman (suggenés, Luke 1:36; Luke 2:44; Luke 21:16; Mark 6:4). Surely the very Evangelists who describe the other most intimate facts about the relationships of people in the Lord’s family would not have failed to be reasonably specific about this point, avoiding those expressions which are ambiguous at least, and might be understood as implying that these men were half brothers through Mary.

Another serious objection to the Cousin Theory is its presumption that at least two (i.e., James of Alphaeus and Judas [brother] of James), if not three (including Simon the Zealot), of the Lord’s brethren were Apostles, a conclusion inconsistent with the Apostle John’s declaration (Matthew 7:5) that as late as six months before Jesus-’ death: even his brothers did not believe in him. Could John say this of two or three out of four brothers, if those who did not believe were supposedly Apostles? Instead, the brethren are clearly distinguished from the Apostles. (Cf. Acts 1:14; 1 Corinthians 9:5, Cephas-’ name being distinguished in this latter passage only for special emphasis, not as being separate from the Apostles-’ group just mentioned.) Judas of James (Jude 1:1; Jude 1:17) only seems to disclaim being an Apostle, since Peter speaks the same way (2 Peter 3:2). However, this latter part of the argument would not be conclusive.

The expression, James the Less, implies only two of the name James, one of which is distinguished from the other by this epithet. But Mark (Mark 15:40) wrote: James the Small, Little or Young, not the Less. (Iakòbou toû mikroû, not mikrotérou) So the descriptive title usually translated as an adjective of comparative degree, which generally speaks of only two between which the comparison is made, turns out to be one of positive degree. That it certainly denotes some standard of comparison, without which it would make no sense, cannot be doubted, but that that standard has to be one, and only one other, James (and not rather two or three others) must be questioned. Besides, there might be some long-forgotten reason in the domestic life of James the Less that dubbed him with that distinctive title that even in adult life he could not shake off. (Cf. the diminutive ending on Jimmy, or even Jim for James, used as names for grown men. Also, James the Less-’ may have been a very tall man, earning him the humorous label Little Jimmy.) So it may well be that the expression, the Less, relates the James to no other James at all, but refers, rather, to some other point of comparison. Even if the comparison is with others by the name of James, these cannot be limited in number to only one other, as Jerome’s theory demands.

According to the theory, Jude. of James is considered as the brother, instead of son, of James, an interpretation which, according to Lightfoot (Galatians, 253), is not the proper word to be supplied in the ellipsis. It also goes against early translations which use son. Had these two men been brothers, it is probable that Luke would have written James of Alphaeus and Jude his brother, or else, James and Judas, sons of Alphaeus, as in the case of the other pairs of brothers. Also in the Apostolic lists of Luke (Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13), Simon the Zealot interrupts this supposed brotherhood, for, if he were not a brother, why insert his name here? If Simon too were a brother, as some adherents of this theory claim, why call only Judas of James and not Simon too? Further, neither Matthew nor Mark, who actually mention Thaddaeus (presumably the same as Judas of James) immediately following James of Alphaeus, show any evidence of connecting Thaddaeus with James of Alphaeus. Finally, Lightfoot remarks that since this Judas is described in so many different ways (Thaddaeus, of James and not Iscariot, John 14:22), were he really the Lord’s brother, as this theory supposes, it would not be thought possible that he could, in all these instances, have escaped being described in that way, when that one designation would have immediately identified the man meant by the authors.

Of course, it must be admitted in reference to Simon the Zealot that the fact that he is not designated also as of James, is not conclusive, since he is uniformly labelled the Zealot = the Cananaean. This appellation distinguishes him at once from Simon Peter and, at the same time, indicates his background. Both are sufficient reasons perhaps to override the necessity to mark him as brother of James of Alphaeus and Judas of James. So the interruption mentioned above would not in itself be fatal to this part of the theory;

Another significant improbability to be noted in the Cousin Theory is the presupposition that there were two Marys in the same family: Mary of Joseph and Mary of Clopas. (John 19:25, see Chart 1) The problem rests in the decision whether the expression Mary of Clopas is to be taken as in apposition with the descriptive: Jesus-’ mother’s sister, and not rather as naming another woman. The reasons offered for taking the two expressions as designating two separate women are:

a.

It is at least reasonably improbable that two sisters should have borne the same name. Among near kin, such a practice would not be so improbable as its use in the same household for blood sisters.

b.

John 19:25 seems to separate the four women into two pairs each by his use of conjunctions.

c.

Lightfoot (ibid., 264) puts emphasis on the rendering of the Peshito Syriac which inserts a conjunction between the two names: his mother’s sister, and Mary of Cleophas. He says, It is not unlikely that a tradition underlies the Peshito rendering. (ibid., 264)

Regardless of the linguistic relationships between the Aramaic name Cleophas (Chalphai) or Clopas, and the Greek name Alphaeus, (Alphaîos), let it be remembered that perfect identification of names still does not prove identity of persons.

Jesus-’ brothers are mentioned in the Gospels in connection with Joseph and Mary, Jesus-’ reputed father and real mother, never with Mary of Clopas, the presumed wife of Alphaeus-Clopas. (Matthew 12:46; Matthew 13:55 and parallels) Further, these cousins real mother, Mary of Clopas, was very much alive even until Jesus-’ crucifixion. (See Chart 1: John 19:25.) Why she could not have raised these boys, instead of Joseph and Mary is, of course, unknown to us, but is it likely that the Nazarenes should have described them as Jesus-’ brethren, in the same sense that they supposed Him to be Joseph’s son, Mary to be His mother, and the girls in that family to be His sisters? Their argument, intended to account for the humanness of Jesus, implies the quite ordinariness of these relations. (See on Matthew 13:54-58.)

THE STEP-BROTHER THEORY

This understanding of the matter sees the brethren of the Lord as sons of Joseph by a former wife before marrying Mary. Having, as it does, the advantage of the support of the large majority of the Church Fathers would seem to give this explanation additional importance, since that fact alone would seem to signify that a nearly unanimous opinion on the subject was shared by the very men most able to testify on the subject. Various, interesting bits of information are supplied by those Fathers who happened to write on the subject, as, for instance, the names of Jesus-’ sisters (Mary and Salome, according to Epiphanius in his treatise against Heresies), the name of Joseph’s former wife (Hannah, or Anna, according to Eusebius, On the Star) or that Joseph was at least eighty years old or past when he married Mary (Epiphanius, Protevangelium Jacobi). Without pretending to pronounce upon the worth of each testimony of the Fathers, a task well beyond my competence, I might just observe that the support by a large majority of the Church Fathers does not necessarily argue the validity of the view. It may only demonstrate how widespread the error was believed and handed on. So, like any evidence received from the Fathers which must be tested by the revelation they purport to explain, so this theory of theirs must face the same fire, despite the fact that some of them write as if they thought to be giving testimony to fact, not theory.

This explanation may be represented graphically as follows:

Support for this theory is not so much exegetical or logical as it is traditional, i.e., based upon citations from the Fathers, who are themselves debating the issue.

The question, then, must be resolved in the same way the Fathers themselves tried to deal with it, i.e., by debating the relative points in the argument. While it seemed to Lightfoot, and certainly to others, that certain of the more informed Fathers were giving testimony to facts against which the appeal of logic or exegesis of Scripture would have no force, yet the Fathers themselves, if the citations brought forward by Lightfoot are typical examples, do not affirm the antiquity of their opinions on the basis of undoubted, uninterrupted tradition. Or, if some of them seem to do this, others of the same periods do not let this hinder their own independent investigation of the case. Although the great Jerome ultimately seems to have relinquished his position, yet at the close of the fourth century in his commentary on Matthew (398 A.D.) he does not seem to consider the question closed on the basis of traditional authority. Rather he taunts those who considered the Lord’s brethren to be the sons of Joseph by a former wife with -following the ravings of the apocryphal writings and inventing a wretched creature. Melcha or Escha by name.-’ (Lightfoot, 260) This state of affairs in the Fathers leaves us freer to consider the bad logic or bad exegesis involved in the problem and freer to come to our own conclusions.

The advantage of this position over the Cousin Theory is immediately apparent in that this theory takes the word brother seriously, giving to it a more natural meaning. These step-brothers can be called brothers in the same sense in which Joseph is called Jesus-’ father (Luke 2:33; Luke 2:41; Luke 2:43), even by Mary who knew the facts best. (Luke 2:48) This view also takes better account of the fundamental Gospel description of the Lord’s brothers as unbelievers distinct from the Apostles. It also connects them better with Joseph and Mary, instead of bringing them in from a completely different family.

However, several objections appear at once to this theory:

The Step-brothers Theory makes Joseph a very old man, assuming for him a previous marriage, a supposition nowhere alluded to in the canonical Gospels. The argument usually offered for Joseph’s advanced age, on the basis of the NT Gospels, is these books-’ silence regarding the man after his appearance in the narrative of Jesus at age twelve in the Temple. (Luke 2:41-51) From this silence it is usually presumed that he passed permanently out of the picture by death. But this very silence, offered as Biblical evidence for the advanced age of Joseph (ignoring for sake of the argument the traditions in the Protevangelium Jacobi and in Epiphanius), is perfectly consonant with the possibility that Joseph was killed or died a natural death while relatively young. So, silence proves nothing certain about the age of Joseph.

But granted for sake of argument that Joseph actually did die shortly after Jesus was twelve years old, this still means that Joseph lived as husband with Mary for twelve years. One of the incredible results of this fact, if the perpetual virginity of Mary be true, is that, if Joseph dwelt with Mary for twelve years yet keeping her a virgin until the day of his own death, then Joseph must be seen to have made a solemn renunciation of his own marriage rights. As far as Mary was concerned, and as far as Joseph in his new relation with her was concerned, he was virtually a virgin too. Were it possible to demonstrate categorically that the Lord’s brethren were His cousins or His step-brothers, yet the words of Sweet (I.S.B.E., 2003) would still ring with devastating truth: That a married woman has no children is no proof of virginityperpetual or otherwise. The idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity demands, by the nature of the marriage relationship, the continued abstinence from marital relations with his wife on the part of Joseph, dating at least from the time of his marriage to Mary until his death.

Further granted for sake of argument that Joseph were eighty when he married Mary and died when Jesus was twelve years old, let it not be supposed that he COULD NOT have begotten by Mary at least six children before his death. Neither the birth of Isaac (Genesis 21:1-3) nor that of John the Baptist (Luke 1:5-24; Luke 1:57-67) are ever thought of as miraculous (i.e., supernatural) conceptions, even though they were born of extremely old parents, a fact which makes the births marvellous indeed, but that fact alone would not necessitate their being considered as being supernaturally conceived. Had they been supernatural, then the astonishing, supernatural conception of Jesus would not have been at all unique.

Another objection that should be raised to this theory is the fact that, had these brothers been sons of Joseph by a former wife before he espoused Mary, then the oldest of these brothers would surely have been regarded as legal heir to Joseph, hence to the throne of David. Jesus would not be the legal heir of Joseph, as attested by the genealogies of Matthew (Matthew 1:1-17, on which see notes, Vol. I) and of Luke (Luke 3:23-38), since Jesus, in such a case, would be but the youngest of five legal sons of Joseph. While it is true that these very genealogies of Jesus do not always follow the direct line of descent from father to his firstborn son, due to deaths, adoptions, etc., yet the generally established rule is to follow this direct succession, unless there be some well-known, overriding factor that prohibits this. But in the Gospel there is no such fact that would justify the passing over four older sons of Joseph merely in order to consider Jesus as the legal heir of Joseph, unless that were His rightful position because of His real primogeniture.

While the argument from silence can never be conclusive, yet the ancient authors, who are cited as being of the opinion that the Lord’s brethren are elder sons of Joseph by another wife before his espousal to Mary, do not take adequate account of the Scriptures-’ silence regarding their (supposed) existence from before the birth of Jesus until their actual appearance in the narrative. That is, where were those supposed sons of Joseph while he took Mary to Bethlehem for the census? Where were they during the flight into Egypt? Until Joseph brought the family back to Nazareth? That is, unless the testimony of Eusebius (On the Star) be so construed, which says, Joseph and Mary and Our Lord with them and the five sons of Hannah (Anna) the first wife of Joseph. Supposedly, the account from which this passage is taken professes to be founded on a document dating A.D. 119. (See Lightfoot, ibid. 283, footnote 1.) The usual assumption of the Fathers, who lean heavily upon the apocryphal gospels for their proof of the existence of these sons of Joseph prior to Jesus-’ birth, is that the Gospel silence is to be interpreted as suggesting that either the brethren were present on the occasions mentioned above but escaped mention by the Evangelists because of the relative unimportance of their place in the history at that point. Or, it must be assumed that they were left at home in Nazareth, being grown up enough to care for themselves during Joseph’s absence. Let it be remembered, however, that this same silence of the Evangelists is just as fully capable of being interpreted to mean that these brethren of the Lord had not yet been born!

THE HALF BROTHERS VIEW

This view, in the words of Lightfoot (Galatians, 253), is that the obvious meaning of the term (brethren) was the correct meaning; and that these brethren were the Lord’s brethren as truly as Mary was the Lord’s mother, being her sons by her husband Joseph. Though each detail in connection with the protagonists of this question, when considered individually, might with some difficulty be explained otherwise, the force of the argument is cumulative. There are too many items to be explained away, in order to establish any other inference than that these people were half brothers of Jesus. (I.S.B.E., 519)

This view may be diagrammed as follows:

Some of the points in the chart depend upon factors already discussed, such as the identification of Mary of Clopas with Mary the mother of James and Joses (see Chart 1), the identification of the Apostles James, Simon and Judas (Chart 2 and notes under the Cousin Theory), as well as the linguistical identification of Alphaeus with Cleophas (or Clopas), hence enjoy the strengths or suffer the weaknesses of the position of these factors in the other theories.

There are, however, several new items that are derived, rightly or not, from the testimony of Hegesippus, a Hebrew Christian of Palestine living around 160 A.D. Though the testimony was cited by Lightfoot as tending to support the Step-brothers Theory, rather than the Half Brother View, since Eusebius and Epiphanius who quote Hegesippus take former view of the question, yet the objective facts which Hegesippus mentions are susceptible of another interpretation:

After the martyrdom of James the Just on the same charge as the Lord, his paternal uncle’s child Symeon the son of Clopas is next made bishop, who was put forward by all as the second in succession, being cousin of the Lord. (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., iv. 22)

They say he (Simeon the son of Cleophas) was the cousin german of our Saviour, for Hegesippus asserts that Cleophas was the brother of Joseph. (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., iii, 11)

In another place (iii, 32), Eusebius cites Hegesippus-’ testimony to the same effect. Now, the question arises whether it is legitimate to reject out of hand the contrary testimony of the Fathers on one view and appeal to agreeable testimony for another view. It will be noticed, however, that appeal is not made here to direct testimony on the perpetual virginity of Mary or upon the relation of the brothers to Jesus, even though Hegesippus-’ witness contains also notice of this latter fact. Rather, the testimony is brought forward to notice the connection of Cleopas and Joseph, a relationship that, while not directly material for the controversy, yet provides a link in an otherwise incomplete chain. Eusebius himself quotes this testimony no less than three separate times as if he had no doubt about its authenticity even though he himself lived about 180 years later.

Weaknesses of this theory of the relationships immediately arise:

The identification of Clopas with Alphaeus, which itself, in turn, is dependent upon the following considerations: (I.S.B.E., 106)

a.

That Mary of Clopas is the same as Mary, mother of James the Less and Joses. (See Chart 1.) Impossible to prove or disprove.

b.

That James the Less and James of Alphaeus are the same person. Though this is impossible to demonstrate absolutely, this identification is the absolutely necessary key to solve the problem.

c.

That Clopas and Alphaeus are different variations of a common name, variations arising out of varying approximation in Greek of an Aramaic name. Competent scholars stand both for and against this identification. But, as noted before, certain linguistic identification of the two names would never prove identification of persons.

d.

That Clopas (or Alphaeus) was known by two names, a hypothesis not unlikely, considering the practice of that period. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to demonstrate whether he too followed this usage.

Also the supposition that we have correctly identified the sons of Clopas (Alphaeus?) and Mary as being James and Joses (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40), Simon (Hegesippus, cited above) and Judas of James (or Thaddaeus). While it would seem that three out of four of these cousins of the Lord are to be numbered among the Apostles, yet the tenuous identifications are impossible to prove:

a.

While Simon of Clopas is described by Hegesippus as the Lord’s cousin, this seems to weigh against his being the same as Simon the Zealot, the Apostle, else would not Hegesippus have found it easier so to describe him? Further, Hegesippus-’ remark (Eccl. Hist. iii, 11) is found in a context where the Apostles, brethren and disciples of the Lord gather to seek a worthy successor to James, bishop of Jerusalem. Considering the particular mission of the Apostles, it would be hardly likely that an Apostle, Simon the Zealot, were he to be identified with Simon of Clopas, should have been selected to fill the episcopal office.

b.

The likelihood of Judas-’ being the brother of, rather than the son of, James, has already been noticed. (See objection 4 under the Cousin Theory.) Yet, if the writer of the Epistle of Jude is the same man as Judas of James, the identification of that Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James (Jude 1:1) is reasonably assured. Unfortunately, the very, fact that the name James was so common, reduces our certainty that the very James to whom he was brother is also James of Alphaeus.

At this point it is worthwhile to examine the objections Lightfoot (ibid. 270ff) offers to the Half Brother View:

Without stating it clearly, Lightfoot seems to suggest that since Joseph disappears from the record after Jesus-’ visit to the Temple at age 12; therefore Joseph died. Hence, Mary naturally appears alone with Jesus-’ brethren. Lightfoot suggests (but does not state) the conclusion that Joseph could not have begotten at least six children in these twelve years. If so, this is patently impossible to prove, since Mary and Joseph could have had one baby every other year, all born after Jesus.

It is objected also that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not hindered by certain expressions thought to deny it:

a.

According to Lightfoot, the expression he knew her not until (Matthew 1:25) does not imply normal marital relations after the birth of Jesus. But this is manifestly false in light of the following considerations:

(1)

The very fact that Matthew made any declaration at all, short of saying, He knew her not until her death, suggests quite the opposite interpretation. Had the Apostle Matthew considered the perpetual virginity of Mary to be so important as later to be recognized as dogma, he could not have expressed the critical information upon which the dogma depends in more equivocable or compromising language.

(2)

It is often argued by defenders of the perpetual virginity myth that the Evangelist, whose purpose in this chapter (Matthew 1:25) is to bring out the supernatural birth of Jesus, clearly affirms the virginity of Mary up to the moment of birth; what occurred after that, and that which comes to us through tradition, lies outside of his present perspective. In an excellent discussion of the critical word until (héos hoû) Fausto Salvoni (Sesso e amore nella Bibbia) brings forward cogent reasons why the word until actually does deal with, or speak clearly about, that period which follows the time limited by until. It has been thought useful, therefore, to include in summary form Salvoni’s argument at the conclusion of this study.

b.

As Lightfoot rightly points out, some have mistakenly supposed that Luke’s (Matthew 2:7) expression, She gave birth to her first-born son, implied a second-born and so further. However, first-born to the Jewish mind had special significance. (Cf. Luke 2:22-24) The first-born belonged to the Lord in a special way that was not true of the second-born, or of other children born later. The term first-born refers, then, to a position based upon order of birth, it is true, but does not necessitate other births.

Woman, behold thy son. (John 19:26-27) is thought by Lightfoot to be most devastating to the Half Brothers View, for this phrase seems to indicate that Mary did not have four grown sons who should care for her so well as John the disciple. Lightfoot argues (ibid. 272):

Is it conceivable that our Lord would thus have snapped asunder the most sacred ties of natural affection? The difficulty is not met by the fact that her own sons were still unbelievers, This fact would scarcely have been allowed to override the paramount duties of filial piety. But even when so explained, what does this hypothesis require us to believe? Though within a few days a special appearance is vouchsafed to one of those brethren, who is destined to rule the mother Church of Jerusalem, and all alike are converted to the faith of Christ; yet she, their mother, living in the same city and joining with them in a common worship (Acts 1:14) is consigned to the care of a stranger of whose house she becomes henceforth the inmate.

But Lightfoot’s rejection of the Half Brothers theory is ungrounded in light of the following considerations:

a.

The supposed unnaturalness of Jesus-’ action on the cross in consigning His mother to John, were there other sons of Mary to whom He might have given her, is not formidable against His placing her in the hands of John. As a matter of fact, no one knows exactly WHERE those brothers were at that moment, just before Jesus died. Some unknown domestic circumstance may explain the omission of her sons. (J.S.B.E., 520) If, for any reason whatever, those sons of Mary were not present at the cross, Jesus COULD NOT have consigned her care to them, even had He wanted to, unless by delegation.

b.

But the very assumption by those who argue against the Half Brothers Theory on the view that these men were older sons of Joseph by a former marriage, falls at this very point. Their assumption fails to take into account the fact that Jesus, according to their theory, turns out to be the YOUNGEST of five sons in the legal family of Joseph. Hence, Jesus does not have the right to turn His mother over to anyone! That right belongs to the oldest brother, not to Jesus. If appeal is made in this discussion to Jewish custom, neither Jesus-’ authority nor the special circumstances under which Jesus made the statement can have anything to do with the question. On the other hand, Jesus-’ action on the cross, delivering Mary into John’s care, is perfectly harmonious with the view that He consistently maintained the position and performed the duties of the eldest son throughout His earthly life. Jesus could hand over His sacred charge to the trustworthy keeping of another, because He had faithfully maintained it Himself. (I.S.B.E., 2002)

Some may take exception to this view that the picture seen of Jesus in the Gospels is that of His playing the part of the eldest son, by objecting, But does not the interference of His mother and brothers with Jesus-’ ministry (Matthew 12:46 ff; Mark 3:31 ff; Luke 8:19 ff; cf. Mark 3:19 b - Mark 3:21) presuppose a superiority? This attitude of superiority is quite inconsistent with the position of younger brothers, according to Jewish customs. Jacobs (ISBE, 520) answers, Those who pursue an unjustifiable course are not models of consistency.

c.

True, the mere supposition that Mary’s own sons were still unbelievers, by itself, would not be completely convincing, since it was Jesus-’ intention to make a special appearance to James (1 Corinthians 15:7) who was to become such an important leader in the early Church (Galatians 1:19; Galatians 2:9; Galatians 2:12; Acts 15). Yet, conceding all this, it must still be repeated, they were yet unbelievers. Even Lightfoot himself admits the force of this fact: (ibid. 265)

A very short time before the Lord’s death His brethren refuse to accept His mission: they are still unbelievers. Immediately after His ascension we find them gathered together with the Apostles, evidently recognizing Him as their Master. Whence comes this change? Surely the crucifixion of one who professed to be the Messiah was not likely to bring it about. He had claimed to be King of Israel and He had been condemned as a malefactor: He had promised His followers a triumph and He had left them persecution. Would not all this confirm rather than dissipate their former unbelief?

Lightfoot believes with us that only the post-resurrection appearances would have been sufficient to produce the great turning point in the religious life of Jesus-’ brethren.

Granted, then, the importance of the unbelief of Mary’s own children, the extreme likelihood of a profound spiritual sympathy and friendship between John Bar-Zebedee and Jesus and His mother, as well as a possible kinship (if John be Jesus-’ cousin and Mary’s nephew), when considered together with the unbelief of Mary’s own sons, form an almost irrefragable combination that both justifies and explains Jesus-’ choice.

d.

If it be objected that this view sees two families (that of Joseph and that of Cleophas, Clopas or Alphaeus) naming their sons with nearly identical names, this is no great difficulty, since these four names are all famous in Israel. (Lightfoot, ibid., 268) No special claim is made for the order in which the names of the sons of Clopas-Alphaeus are given, except to show the coincidence of the first three names with those given in the Apostolic list. But, as the question marks on the graph indicate, no claim is made that all the men named were actually Apostles; the intriguing, but unanswerable, query is raised whether they might not be the same.

As Lightfoot (ibid. 269) notes further, the difficulty in seeing two families, possibly related, is not at all increased but actually diminished on the supposition that they were actually related, since family use of the names of common ancestors or relatives is most reasonable. (Cf. Luke 1:59-61)

CONCLUSION

While the view that the Lord’s Brethren were actually Jesus-’ half brothers, being true sons of Joseph and Mary born after the birth of Jesus, is not without weaknesses, it appears to possess fewer weaknesses than are found in the alternate theories, while at the same time this view explains equally well, if not better, the scraps and pieces of information given in Scripture. Also, in relation to the motherhood of Mary, it may be said that

The interpretation that they are the Lord’s real brethren ennobles and glorifies family life in all its relations and duties, and sanctifies motherhood with all its cares and trials as holier than a selfish isolation from the world, in order to evade the annoyances and humiliations inseparable from fidelity to our callings.

(I.S.B.E., 520)

Thus, the polemic against the perpetual virginity of Mary is not by any means a polemic against Mary. Rather, it is the desire to present the relations of our Lord in their proper light, in order better to understand our own position before God, for if we are ignoring a fundamental part of our mediation between us and God (the supposed mediation of Mary), then we do her injustice and weaken our own spiritual position on earth. On the other hand, since the major step in her exaltation, the human declaration of her perpetual virginity, is founded upon bad exegesis and human authority (i.e., of the Fathers who assert it), the modern Christian loses nothing to reject it.

AND HE KNEW HER NOT UNTIL SHE HAD BORNE A SON

Does the use of the word until in this Matthaean text suggest anything about what took place in the marital relations of Joseph and Mary after the birth of Jesus? Or, as many think, does the word until affirm only that Joseph kept Mary a virgin until the time of Jesus-’ birth, without either affirming of denying anything about his attitude following that event? Fausto Salvoni (Sesso e amore nella Bibbia, 95-132) deals with the question underlying the problem of interpretation of the word until: Is there a defining use of the word -until-’?, by putting to critical examination the proofs offered. In reading the text of the English Bible, beware of missing the point of Salvoni’s illustrations by failing to note that in English translations the word until might not have been used in the passages cited. However, a cognate idea is always present, even if the English translators adopted another word having the same meaning as until.

1. Until death.

Many times Fathers and theologians try to prove the definitive sense of until by referring to those numerous Bible passages in which it is affirmed that a given thing took place until the death of an individual. Evidently the fact indicated could not be done after his death! However, the passages of this category have no value whatever, since the situation of the individual after death was so totally altered as to impede any possibility to-’ act. But this is not true in the case of Matthew, which puts the limitation in a period in which there was yet the possibility for conjugal relations. Now if in Matthew we should have read until death, there would not be anything we could object to on this subject, since any matrimonial relationship would have been evidently and forever excluded. Unfortunately, this is not the case with Matthew. It would be useless to examine such examples, which, however, will be presented, even if briefly, for greater completeness:

a.

Until the death of the individual. (2 Samuel 6:23; 2 Samuel 20:3; 2 Kings 15:5; Job 27:2-5; 2 Kings 7:3)

b.

Until the death of one’S, adversaries. (Psalms 112:8; 1Ma. 5:54)

c.

Until the end of the world. Here, too, the passages are parallel to those on the death of the individual, except that instead of one’s death, the end of the world or of humanity is spoken of. (Matthew 28:20; Psalms 72:7) Such passages evidently cannot be considered as being truly parallel with Matthew 1:25, because this latter text is not discussing the end of the world or of the individual which would have rendered any conjugal relationship impossible. Rather, we are talking about a particular period prior to it, that is, the birth of Jesus, after which conjugal relations continued to remain possible.

2. Unto this day

Cf. Deuteronomy 34:6; Genesis 35:20; Matthew 27:8; Matthew 28:15. This expression really limits the consideration of the writer to the period prior to the limit set (the defining sense), not because that limit is inherent in the word until, but because this is required by the limit established, which is the moment in which the writer is living. He wanted to limit his statement to this instant for the simple reason that the rest of the future remained unknown to him. The reality he indicated could have continued or not, for which reason he could not predict what would have happened after the moment in which he was writing, unless he had a divine revelation. So we are not talking about a true parallel with the passage in Matthew in which he is talking about a period prior to the moment in which the Evangelist was writing, that is, the birth of Jesus. If Matthew had written: Joseph had no relations with Mary to this day, in that case, then, he would have excluded from his consideration all the time from Joseph’s espousal of Mary until the time of writing the record by Matthew.

All the passages presented up to this point do not correspond at all to the until used in Matthew’s sentence in our study, since, at the end fixed in them, it was not at all possible to act in the manner indicated, whereas, contrarily, the action of knowing Mary was always possible after the birth of Jesus. Therefore, they are not parallels to the Matthaean text. For if they were, it would be necessary to read that Joseph did not have relations with the bride until her death, or to this day, or up to the moment of the time of writing or until the moment in which such an act was no longer possible. Let us now see the importance of the Biblical until in the various cases where the action indicated by the principle verb always remained possible even after the limit established. Here we are in the field more exactly parallel with the Matthaean text under study.

3. Until a certain moment in the past.

In all these cases the until always presupposes a change of situation after the limit indicated.

a.

In the case in which the indication of the principle clause is positive, until affirms the denial of it at-’ the moment of the limit set by until. Examples offered by Salvoni are: Daniel 11:36; Genesis 24:19; Rth 2:21; Numbers 32:17; Isaiah 30:17; Matthew 2:15; Matthew 2:19; Matthew 13:33; Luke 13:21; Matthew 14:22; Matthew 26:36; Luke 12:50; Luke 24:49; Acts 21:26; Acts 25:21; 2 Peter 1:19; cf. Revelation 22:5. In each of these illustrations he shows how a reasonable view of each case shows that, once a change is brought about in the situation, the action limited by until is no longer needed, possible or reasonable.

b.

If the principle clause is negative (as in the case of Matthew), the until always indicates the realization of the thing denied before.

Eliezar, sent by Abraham to search for a wife for his son Isaac, said to Laban, I will not eat until I have said (what I must say), after which, naturally, he would eat. (Genesis 24:33) Also the Jews that intended to kill Paul made a vow not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul (Acts 23:12; Acts 23:14; Acts 23:21). After the transfiguration Jesus demanded that the three Apostles present not speak about the vision until the Son of man be risen from the dead (Matthew 17:9); afterwards they would have been able to talk about it. When Jesus left Jerusalem He said that they would not have seen Him any more until they received Him with the cry of Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord. In that moment, then, they would have seen Him. (Matthew 23:39) Other illustrations: Matthew 5:26; Luke 22:16; Luke 22:18; Luke 22:34; John 13:38; John 18:27; John 9:18; 1 Corinthians 4:5. After considering seeming exceptions to the rule (i.e., Psalms 110:1; 1 Corinthians 15:27 f; Psalms 123:2; 1 Timothy 4:13; Luke 1:80; cf. Luke 3:4; Luke 7:24; Genesis 49:10; Numbers 20:17; Genesis 28:15 of cf. Genesis 28:20-21; Matthew 12:18-21 citing Isaiah 42:1-4), Salvoni concludes that, unless the action which is the logical opposite to that indicated in the principle clause is rendered impossible by death or the end of the world or a (then) unknown future, the action is to be considered possible, the limitation until indicating the change of what was affirmed or denied by the principle verb.

To keep from limiting the abstinence from marital relations to the period prior to the birth of Jesus, Matthew would have had to use an expression similar to that describing Judith where it is said that after the death of her first husband, No man knew her all the days of her life. (Jdt. 16:22)

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE PASSAGE

Now we need to see why Matthew should have used such a limiting formula. For what reason did he want to insist on the fact that the marital relations did not take place before the birth of Jesus?

Some have found the motive in the fact that Matthew wanted to use this phrase to underline the virginal conception of Mary and the purely legal paternity of Joseph. But there was no motive to take up this theme again, since it had already been clearly established by the expression and before they came together, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:16), or else by the words of the angel to Joseph: Do not fear to take Mary your wife, because what is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:20) Later marital relations would not have had any influence on the conception that had already taken place.

Others insist on the fact that Matthew wanted to demonstrate how the prophecy of Isaiah that he had cited had been fully realized in Mary: Behold the virgin shall be with child: and she shall bring forth a son; and He will be called Emmanuel. (Matthew 1:23 = Isaiah 7:14) Here the virginity of Mary is not only affirmed at the time of the conception, but also at the time of the birth. But the wife of Joseph would not have been a virgin at the time of the birth of Jesus, had Joseph had conjugal relations with her prior to that moment. Thus, those who hold this view emphasize that clear up to the moment of delivery Joseph respected the virginity of his own wife.

But as we have seen before, with this phrase Matthew hints at conjugal relations in a later period, i.e., after the birth, In fact, after having said that Joseph took Mary as his wife and introduced her into his own house, it was logical for the reader to conclude that he would have treated her as his wife, Therefore, Matthew corrects such a thought, saying that in fact they abstain from every contact until the birth of Jesus. The reader was logically led to conclude, by the normal course of marital relations, that later he acted toward her as any husband. Even if his intent had been to announce that the bride remained a virgin until the birth of Jesus, Matthew used language that clearly lets the reader catch a glimpse of a different comportment after that birth. If Matthew had been convinced that Mary remained always a virgin, he would not have expressed himself in an ambiguous, actually compromising, phrase such as he did. Blinzler does not want to feel this difficulty and debates it by saying that inasmuch as the early Christians knew that Jesus did not have brothers german by Mary, the expression of Matthew did not cause them any difficulty. But this argument has the defect of supposing already proved what must yet be demonstrated, Who says that the early Christians, who tranquilly speak of brothers and sisters of Jesus, did not consider them as being born from Mary and Joseph? Given the fact that there were persons described as brothers of the Lord, would it not have been much simpler to clarify yet further the fact of the perpetual virginity of Mary, if her supposed condition had possessed such importance, for Christian theology? The early believers were interested in Jesus and not in the virginity of Mary, and this latter truth had value only insofar as it could document the virginal conception of the Christ. Having completed this mission, Mary returned, as far as they were concerned, to the situation of all other women.

Why did Joseph abstain from any marital relationship until the birth of Jesus? It is usually thought that Mary, being a temple of God, that she would be considered taboo for Joseph. But this reasoning is based upon the metaphysical concepts of much later Catholic theology that Joseph did not possess at that time. For him Mary was his own wife, for him the yet unborn babe was the fruit of a special divine intervention, after whose birth there could be no reasons for which he should regard his own wife as taboo. Given the illumination by the angel, it would have been logical, as Matthew says, that Joseph should have abstained from marital relations as long as the unborn Babe lived in the womb of Mary, and not afterwards.

Fausto Salvoni’s own view is that due to influences of the Essenes felt in Jewish life, perhaps Joseph would have abstained from regular marital relations during the pregnancy, even as the Essenes reputedly did. This, even though not a member or even a sympathizer with their movement. Of course, this view is absolutely impossible to prove, however attractive to some, since it is impossible to document to what extent the Essene’s views permeated and affected Jewish life or to what extent Joseph or Mary would have respected those views.

Salvoni concludes by repeating that the perpetual virginity of Mary, asserted by many, creates some not indifferent Biblical problems, since it seems to be contradicted by clear New Testament testimonies. Such a doctrine obligates the believer to give to the until of Matthew a defining sense that is never found elsewhere in Holy Scripture, introducing into it an exception without any sure foundation.

DO YOU HAVE THE WORD IN YOUR HEART?

Matthew 13

Can you remember who made each of the following statements? What was the occasion? To whom was it spoken? What did they mean by it? Are there any manuscript variations or other ways of translating it? Is it possible to apply its truth to our own day? If so, how?

Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Blessed are your eyes, for they see.

… and the thorns grew up and choked them.

Let them both grow together until the harvest.

… but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath.

Is not this the carpenter’s son?

All these things spake Jesus in parables unto the multitudes; and without a parable spake he nothing unto them: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet. (Deal particularly with the phrase in italics.)

He that hath ears, let him hear.

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling, and them that do iniquity, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire.

Therefore every scribe who hath been made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven is like unto a. householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.

A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country.

He did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.