Paul tells us, walk by the Spirit and you will not... you will not accomplish the desires of the flesh and yet when we do fail to walk by the Spirit then John says first John one nine if we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. So as always we have an opportunity before we get into exposition to confess any known sin privately between ourselves and the Lord. And so let's take a moment right now as we get started to do that. Dear Heavenly Father, we thank you for the opportunity to look at the Gospel of Matthew once more tonight and to review some of the important themes that lead up to the parables in Matthew 13, this third discourse, and the most extensive Gospel recording Christ's discourses. And we pray, Lord, that you would give us wisdom and insight by your Spirit to understand these parables as they are intended to be understood. And tonight, to understand the contextual background and how to study the Bible so that we may come to know the things which you have revealed, to know them as you think. And we ask that you'd bless our time. And we are appreciative of the so great salvation that we have in Christ and of what we learned tonight which opened the door for the Gentiles to come in. And we ask all these blessings on us tonight as you reveal these things to us by your word. In Christ's name, Amen. Okay, so we are going to return once more to Matthew. And we're in chapter 12. And Matthew is a very important book of the Bible, J. Vernon McGee said, What Genesis is to the Old Testament, Matthew is to the New Testament. And he considered it to be the most important transitional book for understanding Israel and their dispensation in the Old Testament and the distinction with the church and its development in the aftermath of the cross in the New Testament. And Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost said that it may surprise you that as far as dispensationalists are concerned, I would not say that Daniel and the book of Revelation are the most important, but I would say that Matthew and the book of Acts are the most important. So, it is a very important book for understanding God's plan for the ages, which is closely tied and knit to the covenants and to the kingdom. So in Matthew 12, we come to what I consider to be a major turning point in history. Of course, the cross is also a turning point, but this in one sense is even more of a turning point because of what happens in light of this. So we can't overemphasize the consequences of what happens in Matthew chapter 12 and the magnitude of it for the rest of world history. What has happened so far leading up to this in this chapter is the leadership of Israel in the early verses of chapter 12 have tried to catch Jesus on a technicality of the law related to Sabbath on multiple occasions, but Jesus kept trapping them in return. So they came to determination that they were going to destroy him. And then in this chapter, when a man with a dumb demon was brought to him, which was considered an incurable case, Jesus cast the demon out so that the man both spoke and saw, and the people at this point are looking for a response from the leadership. They had to give a response because everyone knew that he had cast this demon out. That was never in question that he did the miracles. How he had done it was the only question, because this was not something that their sons who cast out demons could do. This wasn't something that anyone could do. So how could he do it? And the Pharisees had only two explanations possible. Either he cast out demons by the Spirit of God, in which case the kingdom of God had come near to them, or he had cast them out by Satan. And since the leadership were not believing in him, then they made the accusation that he cast out demons by Satan. Now this was classified in this chapter as the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which is slandering his work. and it is considered to be the unpardonable sin. It is a sin that was committed by the leadership and all who followed them. It was a generational sin related only to those who saw him do these miracles by the Spirit. Jesus then refuted their accusation that he had done this by the power of Satan. And then he gave the people, of course, an opportunity to decide for themselves if they're going to identify with him and his explanation of how he had done the miracles or their leadership, and identify then with the unpardonable sin. So this is what's going on in verses 33 to 37, where you have the tree and its fruit. They obviously had thoughts about circulating about how he had done it. So what were they thinking? That's the question. Who were they going to identify with? And that's what Jesus is saying in 1233, you know, either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. That is, the tree is their thoughts, it's the inner person, what you're thinking. And the fruit is what comes out of your mouth, as he says. But this was a difficult decision for them to make because the Pharisees had been their teachers in the synagogue since they were just little bitty kids. And they looked to them as their spiritual leaders. So were they going to reject their spiritual leaders whom they had identified with since childhood? Or were they going to reject them? And 1234 shows how they could make known what they were thinking, and that is that they could speak. The Pharisees had already spoken. They made known their thinking. Jesus, they declared, had done these things by the power of Satan. And Jesus declares them in this verse to be a brood of vipers. So how could they, being of such evil nature as the chief viper himself, Satan, how could they speak that which is good? Because out of the mouth speaks that which fills the heart. And in 1235, the same truth is restated another way, looking at the treasure. A man of a good nature brings out of his good thinking, his good treasure, good words to say, whereas a man of evil nature brings out of his evil thinking, his evil treasure, evil words to say. And this little section, this pericope, is referring specifically to what they were thinking about Jesus's casting out of the demons. It's not a general idea. It's a very particular issue about what were they thinking about. What do you think about how Jesus cast out the demons. So show us what you think, and the way you do that is you tell us. You speak. And in 1236, he issues a very strict warning about what they speak. And he says, but I tell you that every groundless... The word careless there is not careless. We said it's a groundless accusation, something that has no grounds for stating. So I tell you that every groundless accusation that people speak, they'll give an account for that in the day of judgment. And so, of course, his point is that to make a groundless accusation, particularly in light of the fact that Jesus refuted them soundly with perfect logical precision, and now to fall in line with them with this groundless accusation will have consequences in the judgment day. Jesus obviously was not continually possessed by a demon. So to join them in that accusation was just going way too far. And it signified something like what we find in the book of Revelation with a group that is technically known as the earth dwellers, the Katoikeo. It's a group of people who have decided in the book of Revelation. They're not going to believe. They are going to take the mark. and they take the mark and nobody who takes the mark is going to believe, okay? Period. They are kato keo, which means thoroughly down on the earth. Meaning a final decision has been made and nothing will move them. And that's something like what this is, okay? Not identical, but something like that. They have decided and they will never move. from that position. So it's very serious that they think about the decision they make. Because in verse 37 he says, "...by your words you will be justified, by your words you will be condemned." as far as their decision regarding this situation. This isn't talking about going to heaven and hell, but it's like this. If you are taken to a court of law because you've been accused of some offense, and the court finds you in the right, relative to that offense, you're justified. That doesn't mean you're justified with respect to everything you've done in your life. It's just one offense by which you have been justified, found in the right by the court, or condemned. And this is a single offense that if their words affirm that Jesus had indeed cast out these demons by the Spirit of God, then they would be justified. They would be found in the right with regard to that accusation. They would not have made that accusation, but if they decided to side with the Pharisees in claiming that Jesus had done this by Satan, then they would be condemned regarding that offense, and that means that they would identify with the Pharisees and that generation who were going to judgment a judgment which came temporally in A.D. 70. So, in either case, I'm trying to clarify a little bit why justified and condemned are related to an offense and not to heaven and hell. I mean, a man is justified before God not by what he says, but by faith in Christ and Messiah. So, this is a specific generational issue relative to Jesus's miracles, specifically the casting out of demons. Probably they are going to go to hell, but that's just not the main thing that's in view here. That's underneath it, okay? But the important point of verses 33 to 37 is that a Jew had the opportunity at this point to separate himself from that judgment and the judgment that was coming. And the way he could separate himself was to reject the Pharisee's explanation and to follow after Jesus, okay? Now, in 1238, some of the scribes and Pharisees requested to see a sign from him, and what he'd already done was insufficient. And in 1239, this request only furthered evidence to Jesus that they were evil. They didn't want to see another sign in order to believe. This is just games. And he pronounced that generation to not only be evil, but also adulterous, adultery being the physical counterpart or image that teaches about idolatry, spiritual idolatry. They were worshipping idols. And the Pharisees and the whole religious system was an idolatrous system. They worshipped the idols of ritualism, ritual religious practice, much like we find in the Roman Catholic Church or even other Protestant churches which border on Catholic churches, where there's so much ritual involved. and also the idol of self-righteousness. So the only sign that that generation would receive would be the sign of Jonah the prophet, he says. In 1240, the sign of Jonah the prophet is that as Jonah was separated from the land of the living for three days and three nights, and then returned to the land of the living, so the Son of Man would also be apart from the land of the living for three days. and then returned to the land of the living as a testimony. So resurrection is the essential component of the sign. In 1241, he pronounces judgment on that generation, okay? And note, we see that Jonah, when Jonah went and Jonah preached to the Ninevites, those nasty Gentiles, they had repented. But this generation of Israel did not repent at one who was greater than Jonah, that is, the Messiah. And this qualified the Ninevites to stand up at the judgment and condemn that generation of Israel. Another example in 1242, the Queen of the South, the Queen of Sheba, she came to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and she repented. But that generation of Israel did not repent at the preaching of the one who is greater than Solomon, and that is the Messiah. So that also qualified her to stand up at the judgment and condemn that generation of Israel. Both examples show that Gentiles were more responsive to God's message than that generation of Israel, which is quite a condemnation. Now as a consequence then in verses 43 to 45 we read an analogy of a demon-possessed man who signifies or stands for that generation of Israel under the influence of the system of religion created by the Pharisees. So the demon-possessed man, under the influence of a demon, is representative of the nation Israel at the time when John came, who was under the influence of the religion of the Pharisees. The man had a demon, we read, but he was cleansed from the demon, only to find that when the demon found no one else to enter into, he returned to that very same man, but this time with seven other demons, more wicked than himself, and entered into him, they all entered into him, making the final state of the man worse than the first." So the analogy teaches that that generation of Israel had, when John came initially, John the Baptist, had been under the religious system of the Pharisees, and John preached the message of repentance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand, and many responded showing that they were freed from the influence of the Pharisees. But when they did not continue to follow after the one John pointed out to be the Messiah, the Lamb of God, that is Jesus, then they came back under the influence of the Pharisees and joined them in their final rejection of the Messiah. So that the state of that generation at the rejection is worse than when John first came. So now the nation was like a man possessed by one demon, but by the time of the rejection they were like a man who is possessed by eight demons. And this meant that while originally they were partially blinded, you know, they couldn't see very well being under the influence of that religious system. They couldn't see spiritually very well. But now with eight demons, they were going to be completely blind spiritually. And so Jesus is now, of course, going to speak in parables. And this is for at least one side of the purpose is for them to not understand. And I'll actually show you next week that that's in a lot of grace and mercy on his side. But before we introduce the discourse and parables that comes in Matthew 13, which we've reviewed up to here, we have only one small but very important little section to work with at the end of Matthew 12. And this is verses 46 to 50. This is the story of Jesus' family coming to Him and He is rejecting them. his own family. And this probably causes a lot of confusion with people as they read this. So let's look and see what he's teaching. In Matthew 12, 46 we read, while he was still speaking to the crowds, behold, his mother and brothers were standing outside and seeking to speak to him. Now the expression, while he was still speaking to the crowd, shows that this happened in close connection with what just came before. While he was still speaking. What came before was Jesus describing the demon-possessed man who represents the nation, who is now worse off than he was before, right? Mark 3.21 adds about this scene that his family members thought that the things he was saying were so extraordinary that, quote, he had lost his senses. They are at the house in order to rescue him from his madness. That's what they're there for. And of course, we know none of his brothers believed before the resurrection. After the resurrection, we know some of his brothers believed. But apparently Jesus is in a house, and His mother and brothers are standing outside. And we say He's in a house because in chapter 13 verse 1, you read, on that day Jesus went out of the house. So He's still in the house at this time, and there's crowds of people in the house with Him, surrounding Him, so that His mother and His brothers can't get to Him in the house. But Matthew says they want to speak to Him. And then verse 47, you may note it's a variant in your text. It's a variant as far as is this original or is it added by a scribal mistake called homoteluton. We won't go into all that except it's to say that when you write on a line, if you're writing or you're typing, And you come to the end of a line, and then you go to the next line and you write. Sometimes the two words at the end of those two lines have the same ending. And that, as you read, or if you're a scribe, as you copy, you can skip a line on accident. Because you think, oh, I already did that. It's called homoteluton. It's not common, but it's a mistake that some we think scribes made. That's what it looks like when you see these differences. And committees look at these things and they decide whether they think it's original or not. Anyway, Metzger and his committee gave it a C rating, and that means, well, we had difficulty deciding which variant is original. we look at the context the verse the verse 47 says someone said to him someone said to Jesus behold your mother and your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to you well that statement would seem to be necessary because He's in a house surrounded by people, and there's no way that his mother and brothers can speak to him. So the only way to address him is to send a message through people who have access to him in the house. And actually Mark 3.31 tells us, quote, they sent word to him. So I accept this verse as original. They were outside the house. They sent a word to him through people in the crowd. Now when the message reaches Jesus in 1248, that's where we find the difficult statement. Now something's happened here. Oh this is the wrong lesson. We don't want this. We don't want that. Excuse me for just a moment. Something has happened here that I'm sure most of the people in the audience didn't catch. And we want to understand what exactly it is. The natural response, as Dr. Pentecost said, the natural response to that question, who is my mother and who are my brothers, would be, well, those with whom you have a blood relationship. But rather than recognizing blood ties as constituting a true relationship, he pointed to his disciples, that is, those who by faith had accepted his person. Jesus wasn't dishonoring His mother or His brothers, James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, who are named later in chapter 13. He wasn't rejecting them with whom He had a physical relationship. But what He was doing was rejecting the idea that physical relationship was sufficient for entrance into the kingdom." This is the idea that he's going after. It's a common belief in Judaism that physical relationship to Abraham was sufficient to enter the kingdom. Right? And this is exactly the idea he's going after. John the Baptist had expressed this belief when he challenged the Sadducees and the Pharisees in Matthew 3.9 when he said, And do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, we have Abraham for our father. That's not sufficient for kingdom entrance. As John went on to say, I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. So the belief that a physical connection back to Abraham was sufficient for kingdom entrance was an incorrect doctrine. And he's taking that on. As two saints said, participation in the messianic kingdom is not merely based upon a claim to Abraham's family, but is contingent upon a spiritual relationship to Christ. He's speaking, of course, through faith, right? So Jesus is emphasizing the spiritual relationship, their spiritual relationship, contrary to what common Jewish belief emphasized. And since that generation did not have a spiritual relationship with him, but only a physical relationship, they were all descendants of Abraham, then his rejection of his mother and brothers, the physical, is actually a rejection of that generation. That's what this section is about. This is his rejection of that generation. They had rejected him, now he is rejecting them. On the flip side, there were those who are present here who did have a spiritual relationship with Him. And to those, it says, He stretched out His hand toward those who were His disciples. And He said, Behold, My mother and My brothers, for whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother. So the disciples were those who had a spiritual relationship with him. And this would have been a striking lesson, using your own mother and brother to communicate this lesson. They probably didn't catch the lesson, but that's his meaning. And his point, of course, is that his disciples would take part in the coming kingdom. because they did have a spiritual relationship with him. And that is what is necessary to enter the kingdom. As Jesus even goes on later to teach Nicodemus in John 3, right? What must a man do to see the kingdom of God? He must be born again. It's a spiritual issue, okay, it's not physical relationship back to Abraham issue. So that's what's happening here, and Pentecost makes a good remark, concluding remark. He says, The one who offered the kingdom now rejected the nation that had rejected him. So, this is his rejection of the nation. And this is the part that's not often talked about. We talk about Matthew 12, that's where the nation rejects the Messiah, but it's also where the Messiah rejects the nation. Now, because of this, from this point forward, the kingdom will never ever be said to be at hand. This is what was taught in Matthew 3.2 by John the Baptist when he preached, repent for the kingdom of the heavens is at hand. This is what Jesus taught in Matthew 4.17, repent for the kingdom of heavens is at hand, meaning that it had come near, not that it had come here. It's coming here was contingent on Israel's receiving Jesus as their king. But from this point forward, the kingdom is never said to be at hand ever again. And it is never offered, never again, okay? Well, until the book of Revelation. But anyway, that's then. That's in Revelation 14. But the reason is very simple. He had rejected them. And so now we come to the parables of Matthew 13. And there are literally scores of books that are written on this chapter alone, written on the parables and the mysteries of the kingdom. Maybe not as much as written on the Sermon on the Mount, but they're pretty close. And what the scores of books almost invariably do is leave out a thorough, careful discussion of the context, the principle of context in interpreting the mysteries of the kingdom. And because of that, there have arisen four major groups of interpretations about this chapter. And I'm going to share briefly with you these and try to sketch them in general. so that you can grasp these different views. Now, the first view, let's just draw a map. Okay, we'll put the cross. Actually, we have to go a little bit before the cross because this is happening before the cross, right? So let's just leave some room for that. And let's just break history up in a basic way. We're not going to get too involved. We have the offer of the kingdom happening over here. The kingdom offer has been rejected, right? In Matthew 12, okay? Now, the first view is called, is ultra-dispensationalism. This is like, some people call it extreme dispensationalism. They don't like that name. They like to be called the consistent dispensationalists. But anyway, so I'm trying to be fair. And what they say is that the mysteries that are spoken of here in these parables about the kingdom all refer to the kingdom time, okay? They all refer to this period over here and don't have anything to do at all with the time between, let's say, the rejection, which happened before the cross, and the beginning of that kingdom. So they say that the parables are describing new truths about the thousand-year kingdom that were never revealed before. That's ultra-dispensationalism. The second view is that of amillennialism and postmillennialism. And they don't believe in all this. So we can just erase that. They don't hold to a thousand year kingdom. And their view is that the mysteries of the kingdom where Jesus correcting the Jews about their view of the kingdom being an earthly visible kingdom where Christ would sit on the throne of David on earth. They're saying that the Jews were wrong about that and Jesus is correcting their view of the kingdom and he's explaining that the kingdom is really a spiritual kingdom now, which equals the church. So the Jews were wrong to expect the Messiah to come and to reign on David's throne. They were just wrong about that. That's amillennialism and postmillennialism. And the third view, and this is getting messy so let's draw another one. And again let's put the thousand year kingdom over here. And, of course, there was the offer of the kingdom over here, as we saw before, and it's rejected. So the third view versus ultra-dispensationalism, it's all over in the future kingdom. It has nothing to do with this time, the inter-advent age. Second, aumil, premil, there is no earthly kingdom. It's all about a spiritual kingdom, which is the church. And then the third view is that of some classic dispensationalists, like Dr. Pentecost at Dallas Seminary. Also, it's the position of progressive dispensationalists, who now dominate Dallas Theological Seminary. and also of historic pre-millennialists. Historic pre-millennialists just, they believe in a millennium and all that but they don't hold to the pre-trib rapture, they'd be post-trib, they'd be post-trib rapture people. And what they say, what these people all say is that is that it's a little different from this view before, where these people saw it as just referring to the church. These people say it's bigger than the church. The church, of course, occurs in here, but the mysteries of the kingdom are talking about from the day of the rejection to the day of the reception of the king. So it's something, let's say the church is from here to here, let's say, and within these brackets. Well, the mysteries of the kingdom are broader than that. They encompass the church, but they're broader than the church. And the church is within these mysteries of the kingdom. And the kingdom then is, for them, going into a mystery form. That's the word you'll always read. The mysteries of the kingdoms means there's a mystery form of the kingdom, a new form which had never been revealed before. That's what's being revealed here. And then the fourth view is that of only people who are classic dispensationalists. Some of them, of course, because some hold to this. But this view says that, no, the mysteries of the kingdom are new truths about the kingdom, never before revealed, and the basic new truth that's being revealed is that there's going to be a postponement of the kingdom. And during the postponement, there's going to be the growth of those who are not natural sons of the kingdom. We would say Gentiles. But those who are not the natural sons of the kingdom are going to grow in the world to have citizenship in the kingdom to come. To have citizenship in the kingdom to come. And when Israel repents, then that kingdom will come. So every view, except the ultra-dispensationalists, they put the kingdom in the all in the future, and we have the church now. But these other two views that I mentioned both see a kingdom now in some sense. Either the kingdom is the church, as all mill and post mill say, or the church is within a mystery form of the kingdom now. and not yet in its physical form. So they want now and not yet kingdom. And this view on the bottom here, which I was mentioning, progressive dispensationalist, P.D. holds to this, is what I'm very concerned about. Because once you have a form of the kingdom now, as they have done, jumping off from Dr. Pentecost, you unfortunately, very unfortunate, because Dr. Pentecost opened the door for this, and as much as I love what he's done, when he came along in Things to Come, which is his dissertation and book form, back in the 50s or 60s, And he published that book and he came out with this idea that these are mystery form of the kingdom. When he did that and he put the church within that, as we see here, the PDs came along 30 years later and they said, well, if you've got a form of the kingdom now, then we're not doing anything different than you by putting Jesus on David's throne now in heaven. See, because if there's a form of the kingdom here now, why can't Jesus be reigning on David's throne in heaven? And of course, what Bach and Blazing, these guys did, who are all PDs and who are propagating this stuff through all these students, is they're going to Acts 2, verse 32, 33, which is a quotation of Psalm 132. And I've personally talked to him, okay? I know his argument. I have personally talked to him about this. And his whole view is that in the Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost, Peter makes allusions to Psalm 132 which allude to the Davidic covenant being partially fulfilled now so that Jesus is on David's throne in heaven right now. This is the key word, allusions. This is how they get Jesus on David's throne now because Revelation 3.21 is pretty clear that Jesus is not seated on David's throne in heaven. Where is he seated in heaven right now? at the right hand of the Father on the Father's throne. And these are not the same thing. How do we know what the Davidic throne is? Where is it defined? How do we know that information? Well, we go to 2 Samuel 7, we go to Psalm 89, we go to Psalm 132, where David is promised that he and his seed will rule on the throne forever in the kingdom. And that is an earthly kingdom. It doesn't have to do with a heavenly kingdom. Okay, something if the real I mean in another world I mean it has to do with the literal throne of David on literal planet earth in literal Jerusalem Okay, and you can't go like moving it, you know Like suddenly it's over there. Okay, of course, they're gonna say well, it's it's in heaven now not yet on earth okay, so they like to have their cake and eat it too, but I don't think that, I'm going to show you from the context, that's not at all what is going on now. Okay, there's no Jesus on David's throne right now. Jesus never took the throne, just like David. When David Okay, when David was anointed, right? And then he went out to battle against the great Philistine Goliath, right? And everybody recognizes that who's this little shepherd boy? He's obviously being authenticated by God to be the one true king of Israel. And Saul is no longer really the legitimate king, is he? But he's still on the throne, and David won't remove him, will he? He won't take his life, even though Saul tries to take his life seven times, you know, throwing spears at him and all sorts of other things. But he won't remove Saul. He waits till God disposes of Saul. And then and only then does he take his throne. Now the exact parallel is here. Okay, Jesus came, he offered himself as the king of Israel, just as David was the legitimate king and heir to the throne, but Saul wouldn't get off the throne. The people didn't receive David at that time. The people, after all these years, later received David, and then David came to sit on the throne. David wasn't sitting on the throne in between there. I don't think. Not when I read 1 Samuel 15 through 31. He'd never sat on that throne, anywhere. But He does come to sit on it when the people finally accept Him, and it's the same concept here. I mean, that's not my exegetical proof for this, but I'm just saying there's a parallel. And Jesus has not come to sit on any throne yet, just like David didn't sit on any throne until he actually got there. And it's an earthly throne. Now, so the fourth view then, as I mentioned, is that, no, what these mysteries of the kingdom are about are essentially that the kingdom is going to be postponed. And this is a new truth. This is something that had never been revealed before. And during the time in which the kingdom is delayed, there's going to be those who are not really natural sons of the kingdom, Gentiles, who are going to come to be citizens of the kingdom. And when that kingdom comes, when Israel receives their king, then that kingdom will come. Now there are several contexts when you study scripture to evaluate texts. So when you think of how to interpret, you might think of like a target. This is a good one for me because I'm a guy and I like to hit right on the target. I like to get a bullseye. There are broader contexts, say these outer rings, and then there are narrower, closer contexts as you work your way in to the actual text you're working with. So we have, of course, the greatest context is the whole Bible. Where does this passage fit in the whole Bible? And then, within that, we say, well, which testament is it in, old or new? And then once we've answered that question, we say, okay, what book is it in, in that testament? What's the argument of that book? Okay, and then, what are the chapters close to the passage I'm interested in? And then what is the section or pericope, the little section. And then what's the verse before and what's the verse after. And that's all I've done by narrowing these circles in. This is how you study. And I teach you this. This is hermeneutics 101 in seminary. But it should just be Bible study 101 for anybody. So that's what I'm going to do right now. I'm going to show you how this works. How is Matthew 13 to be properly interpreted? It has to be interpreted in these contexts, working from the broad down to the narrow. So first, in terms of just the greater context of the whole Bible, What do we know? We know that the Bible has a kingdom program that is defined by the covenants that were given to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob, to the nation Israel, to David, and to King Messiah. There are six direct recipients of the covenants and those covenants look to a kingdom. That's what we know. Matthew's specific contribution, when we just look at his book in the New Testament, from verse 1, from verse 1, is the king and his kingdom program. He's talking about he's the son of David, he's the son of Abraham. This is the covenants and the kingdom program through these men that God promised. So, if that is Matthew's contribution, It's about the king and his kingdom program. Then where did Matthew get his concept of the kingdom and the king? Where did he get that from? Where did he come up with the idea or the sketch of what the king should look like? He got it from the Old Testament prophecies. He got it from the covenants about David and so forth. In other words, somebody is going to come from David's house. He's going to be an eternal seed. He's going to sit on the throne of David. He's going to rule over the earth. That's where Matthew got his concept of the king. Where did he get, okay, and that kingdom, of course, it was very visible, spiritual, political, in the Old Testament, David, it was Solomon, it was Rehoboam, all the kings, right? And this kingdom lasts in history until the Babylonian exile in 586, right? When it was removed from the planet, in the times the Gentiles come in, okay? So that's his concept of the kingdom. He never redefines the kingdom as the church, I mean, that's a concept completely foreign to scripture. The church is not mentioned until Matthew 16, 18. Matthew doesn't redefine the kingdom as something that's already present in some kind of mystery form, spanning the time from Israel's rejection to Israel's acceptance. He doesn't do that. Matthew is simply receiving his definition of the kingdom from its usage in the Old Testament as a king who will come from the house of David He's the rightful heir of the throne of David. And the kingdom, well that kingdom he's getting from the Old Testament, it was there, then it was defeated, so it's going to be restored. And it's visible, it's political, it's a spiritual manifestation on the earth of God's rule through man, the God-man. Now, so since Matthew, I've been reading this book, he never redefines anywhere in his book this kingdom. Then when he talks about this kingdom in the parables, it's the same kingdom. It can't be something else. And the kingdom that he's been talking about is obviously not here. If it is, I'm living in the trash dump part of it. Because I read the description of the kingdom in the Old Testament, what it's to be when it comes, and this ain't it. This ain't it. That's good English in this context. That's the biggest context you can look at. The whole Bible and then Matthew, his contribution. Now we come a little bit closer. And this is in terms of what is Matthew's argument. What is he trying to say in this book? Every book has an argument. Nobody just sits down and writes something just to do it. Unless they're crazy. You write for a purpose. And the argument that he's making is that Jesus is the king, and he offered the kingdom to Israel, but that generation rejected the king, and so the kingdom has been postponed. That's his point. He's not trying to prove that in the light of Israel's rejection, Jesus decided to establish a spiritual kingdom called the church. That is not What his point is, he's not saying, well, the Jews were wrong about the kingdom being restored. They should have never thought that. It's not going to be re-established on the earth. It's just this heavenly thing. Remember, Matthew, again, he's writing for a purpose. So what is Matthew's purpose as he writes this book? If you look at his book, we know he wrote, all those debated, but around AD 50, and he's writing to Jewish believers. They're part of the church. They've already believed. They're believers. And Jesus is the Messiah. They're part of the church. He's writing this gospel to them. And they're scattered, of course, throughout the Mediterranean world. And if you were a Jew living in the Mediterranean world, in some city, say Greece or Athens, in Athens, Greece or Alexandria, somewhere, where would you be living if you lived in that city as a Jew? You'd be living in the ghetto, right? The Jewish ghetto. There's always the Jewish ghetto in every city. They were a separate type people. Just like you go to New York, you get the Chinese ghetto and the whole thing. And it was always this way. So, in the ghettos, you're going to have Jewish believers living alongside Jewish unbelievers, right? And the Jewish believers are saying, why don't you guys believe that Jesus is the Messiah? Jesus did this, Jesus did that, Jesus is the Messiah. He's fulfilled the Old Testament prophecy. What are all the Jewish unbelievers going to say back? They're going to have one argument against you every single time. They still make this argument today. What is it? That's right. If Jesus is the king, where is the kingdom? Well, it's not going to really do to say to those Jews, I guarantee you, well, it's really just a spiritual kingdom. If that is the case, question, why in Acts 1, after the resurrection, I mean, this is decades, you know, a long time after this in Acts 1, not decades, but a long time after Acts 1, after this, and the crucifixion, the resurrection, he's already raised, and he's going around, he's teaching in Acts 1 his disciples about the kingdom for 40 days, it says. In his resurrection body, he's teaching them about the kingdom for 40 days. 40 days of kingdom instruction, right? I haven't even given you like 10 days, okay, in my whole ministry here, right? He gives them 40 straight days of instruction about the kingdom, and they say to him, what? Is it at this time you're restoring the kingdom to Israel? Well, if it's not an earthly kingdom that they're looking for, what is it? If they were wrong about an earthly kingdom being re-established, shouldn't Jesus have taken that as an opportunity to say, guys, look, the kingdom of God is in your hearts. Except he never said that, did he? And Luke 17 is abused and destroyed. Jesus is talking to the Pharisees when he says the kingdom of God, in the bad translation, is within you. You really think the kingdom of God is in the Pharisees? I don't think so. I know it's not. He's saying something much different in Luke 17 that people always miss. It's the concept of among you. The kingdom of God, when it comes, is among you. That's his concept. The kingdom concept was always that when it comes into history, it will burst in suddenly. It will just be there. And that is his concept in Luke 17. Not that it's inside people. Jesus isn't sitting on the Davidic throne in people's hearts either. And you see people are all screwed up on this thing, okay? Because they're not allowing the greater context of the Old Testament to define the king and his kingdom, which is the concept that Matthew is using. And these Jews need this because Jesus is the king, but the kingdom isn't there. So how are they going to argue? Well, what Matthew's whole point is, is that the answer is that the coming of the kingdom was contingent on Israel's reception of the king. They had to repent. And they didn't. And so the king left. And now the new truth about the kingdom that we're learning in Matthew 13 is that it's going to be postponed in its realization in this world. There's going to be an inter-advent age which is not a kingdom. So he proves, Matthew proves in 1 through 12 Jesus is the King. I mean, think about what's there. He has the genealogy of the King. He has the supernatural conception of the King prophesied in the Old Testament. He fulfills lots of other prophecies of the King in the Old Testament that Matthew cited. He has orthodox teaching of the King in the Sermon on the Mount. He has all the authenticating miracles of the King. All these prove that He is the King and the Kingdom had come near. And then Matthew 12, of course, they reject the king. So Matthew 13 begins to show what happened to the kingdom in light of its rejection, and that is it's going to be postponed until Israel does receive her king. There's no kingdom now. So that's the simple solution. And, well, you can see which way I'm going with this. That's the contextual argument of the book of Matthew. We've seen the whole scope of the Bible. Now just the argument of Matthew. Now the third thing, and that is the surrounding context of Matthew 13, which is Matthew 11 and 12. Okay? Matthew 11 and 12. These chapters. This gives us close, right? Close to the context here. Now remember, as I've told you, he writes in a very definite form. And that definite form is, I'm going to write narrative, I'm going to write stories, events, and then I'm going to follow that by a discourse. Isn't this what we've seen over and over? So Matthew 1-4, narrative. Matthew 5-7, the discourse. Matthew 8-9, narrative. Matthew 10, discourse. here we go again Matthew 11 and 12 narrative stories and then Matthew 13 discourse same thing and we know this because he always use the exact same Greek expression word for word Kai Agoneta Hathe Atelesin Hayesus when Jesus had finished these things that's it new section narrative followed by discourse every time okay five times in the book so the narrative here began in 11 one so look 11-1, Kai, Agoneta, Hathe, Ateles, and Ha-Yesus. And it came into about that when Jesus had finished. Those are the words. That means this is a new narrative and 11 and 12 finish the narrative and 13 is the discourse. Now, I've re-evaluated 11, especially the part about John, which I'm going to show you. But 11 and 12 are giving us the context for this discourse. They're the background. If you don't know 11 and 12, you cannot get 13 right. That's going to be my argument. You have to understand the entirety of 11 and 12 to get 13 right. Because 11 and 12 are the story of the rejection. They're the story of the rejection. And Matthew 13 is his response to the rejection. And that's it, in a nutshell. This is probably where most people have gone astray. Most never even go back to Matthew 12. Those who do, you're close, but not close enough. Only if you go back into 11 will you really grasp the significance of what's happening in 13. It begins in Matthew 11 with one of the most fascinating scenes in all of scripture. One that bothers all sorts of people who study the Bible. No other gospel writer records this. This has no parallel anywhere. It's only in Matthew. And that means it's part of his argument. He is using this thing about John to make a particular point in his argument. And so it's the event where John is in prison, right? Matthew 11, 1 through 19 or so. John is in prison, right? He hears about the works of the Messiah there, and so he sends some of his disciples to ask Jesus, quote, are you the expected one or shall we look for someone else? And you think, are you kidding me? You're John the Baptist. You're not sure he's the one? I mean, give me a break. You pointed to him. You saw the dove come down. Give me a break. What is happening? And Jesus answers, go and report to John what you hear and see. And then he quotes Isaiah 35. The blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have the gospel preached to them. I said, when we talk, this is strange, you know, that John, the forerunner of the king, you know, he's questioning whether Jesus is the king. But I said, well, maybe he was confused on the timing and he's thinking, well, the kingdom is supposed to come when the Messiah comes. He's supposed to bring a time of great turmoil and deliver Israel, which includes me, and I'm over here in prison, and take us into the kingdom. Well, this isn't happening, so what's going on? And that's possible that this is something of that nature is going on. But there's another way to look at this that I've looked at, and in hindsight it looks to me like this. John isn't confused whether Jesus is the king at all. He knows he's the king, but The strangest thing about this passage and the one over in chapter eight or nine, where there's still disciples of John the Baptist running around, is why in the world are the disciples of John the Baptist running around? Didn't John say, the one I point to, he's the one. Go after him. I'm not even fit to untie the guy's sandals. So why would you still be following John around, you see? Why do disciples of John the Baptist exist? At this stage, they should have all gone after the Messiah, right? So, they're not. That's the problem here in chapter 11. They're not going after the King. And so John says, okay, fine, I'm going to send these guys down to Jesus to ask them a question, and I'm doing it for their own benefit. And what did Jesus do? He points them right back to Scripture, Isaiah 35. He's basically saying, I'm the king because I do the works that were predicted in the Old Testament that the king would do. They should be following him. So John was pointing them to Jesus as the king. This was his mission as the forerunner of the king. He's fulfilling his mission right here, but not even his disciples were believing in the king. So something you're supposed to pick up, I'm supposed to pick up. Something is dreadfully wrong here in chapter 11 very early. And when they leave, then in verse 8 or so, Jesus uses this as an occasion to speak to the crowds about John and the greatness of John, you see, because John is not just a prophet, is he? John is the forerunner of the king. This means no one in history was as great as John, says Jesus, because no one in history had that great a privilege. I mean, to be a prophet is great, but to be the forerunner of the king? That's immensely greater. So if they receive the kingdom offer, you see, then he even says John would be Elijah, who is to come. But they weren't receiving the kingdom. And so they weren't receiving John. See, his own disciples have rejected him. If they had accepted him, they would have followed the Messiah. But instead they're rejecting John. And that, my friend, is the beginning of the rejection of the king himself. You see? Because in order to reject the king, you have to reject the forerunner of the king first. And that's exactly what's happening here. So what we're seeing then in Matthew 11 is the forerunner being rejected and this is just a harbinger of the rejection of the king himself which comes later in chapter 12 for sure. And Jesus says it himself in verse 18 here. So let's look what he says. John came neither eating nor drinking and they say what of John? He has a demon. If that's not a rejection I don't know what it is. That's a rejection of the forerunner. Then he turns to himself, the true king, and he says of himself, the son of man came eating and drinking, and what do they say about him? Behold, he's a gluttonous man and a drunk, a friend of tax collectors and sinners. And this is the beginning of the rejection of the king. Because later on it's going to get a lot worse. They're going to say he's demon possessed, right? Continually. So I said before, draw a thick black line right there between verse 19 and 20, and that's pretty correct, but you might think about the connection back before that, where they're rejecting John, because the rejection of the king starts with the rejection of the forerunner of the king. It starts with John. Then we read in 11, 20 to 24, Jesus is just pronouncing judgment on the whole cities of Israel. I mean, it becomes quite clear they're not gonna repent, right? Then in 11.25, we find out that, well, because they're not going to repent, you know, he says certain truths are going to be hidden. He's thanking the Father there in verse 25 that he's going to be hiding these truths from those who are wise and intelligent. He's going to reveal them to babes, that is, to those who received him. And the truths that he's talking about, of course, are the mystery truths of the kingdom in chapter 13. And he's calling individuals at this point already in chapter 11 to separate from the leadership of Israel and follow him so they can learn these new truths. So this is definitely preparatory for the parables in Matthew 13. And that's why I'm saying here, you have to go all the way back to Matthew 11 to get the stage set correctly for interpreting Matthew 13 right. It's not enough to go back to Matthew 12. You have to go back to Matthew 11. And then in Matthew 12, we come into Matthew 12, and here are the Pharisees, right? They're trying to catch him. Oh, you violated the Sabbath. You know, and he just basically completely dismantles their system right in front of their eyeballs. And in front of everybody else's too, he shows them to be totally phony. And he presents himself as the one true king. And it's so clear. It's a powerful chapter of Scripture. It's probably the most powerful single chapter of Scripture I've ever taught. Jesus Christ is portrayed in this passage as unbelievably authoritative. And in 1214, the Pharisees decide they're going to join hands with the Herodians, as Luke tells us, to determine how we're going to destroy him. So they're set on murdering him now. I mean, he's made an embarrassment and a mockery of their whole religious idolatrous system. And it's not whether they're going to destroy him, it's only now about how they're going to do it. So we see here that he withdraws when that arises, and this is where I said there's a threefold pattern we want to watch from here through the rest of Matthew, and that is Opposition will rise, He will withdraw, and He will train His disciples. Why withdraw when opposition arises? The simplest way to view it is that it's not time for Him to die yet for the sins of the world. There's a little bit more to the answer, but that's a simple way to view it, and it's right. The other side of the answer is, he needs the time to train his disciples about the truths of the new inter-advent age. And again, these are the mystery truths of the kingdom. Not that there's gonna be a new form of the kingdom, but that the kingdom is gonna be postponed. And during this time, there are gonna be these people who are not natural sons of the kingdom, these Gentiles. And it took them a while to figure this out, right? Because you get into the book of Acts and they're all hesitant to go to the Gentiles, aren't they? It took them a while to figure this out. But what did Jesus say? I will give you the Spirit and He will bring to remembrance these things. See, they didn't understand all this when it was coming to them. It was coming to them like it sometimes feels like it's coming to you. Like through a fire hose out my mouth. And then suddenly, three years later, the Holy Spirit goes, oh, boom, yeah, and he brings it back to remembrance. In that type of way, these things are gonna come back to them, okay? And they're gonna figure it out, but that takes a while, right? But this definitely relates to the mystery truths of chapter 13. I mean, if Jesus was crucified at this time, just imagine. Nobody knew what in the world was going on. How are we supposed to live the spiritual life? There's no epistles. Forget it all. Forget the upper room discourse. Forget everything. Forget all that. You wouldn't know anything about how to live your Christian life. You wouldn't even have a Christian life. You wouldn't be a Christian. You wouldn't know what was going on. Nobody in the world would. So he needed time, and he withdraws. And you see in this chapter, in the middle of chapter 12, Gentiles coming to him. He's preaching to them. Man, this is a foreview of things to come. Gentiles. You see he's doing miracles, but what does he say now when he does a miracle? Don't tell anyone I did this. Why? Because he doesn't want to draw all this attention to himself because he needs time to teach his disciples and he doesn't need all this conflagration in his life. You can't go around teaching people when you got everybody trying to kill you. So just imagine. So the kingdom is, this again, this touches on the kingdom's postponement. There's something new coming. He needs to clarify what is happening. And that's Matthew 13. He's giving new truths about the preparatory period of the kingdom's postponement. Then of course in 1224, what do you see in 1224? Well, I mean, my goodness, the rejection himself by the leadership. I mean, my goodness, I mean, this is a grave sin. It's the unpardonable sin, we said. They accused Jesus, you're continually doing the work of Satan, you're continually demon-possessed. And so now things are really taking shape, and Jesus turns to the people and He says, look, you've got a choice to make, you better separate from the Pharisees, because if you don't, you're identifying with them and the unpardonable sin, it's going to be not so good for you and your generation. And then in verses 43 to 45, that's it. I mean, the rejection is determined. I mean, that generation, now having rejected Him, is worse off than they were when John first came. And now they're going to be so blind, you see, and that is so helpful to explain to us why Jesus is speaking in parables in Matthew 13. Because they didn't want the truth, so he's going to shut them off from it. And finally in 1246-50, now that they had rejected him, what did we say Jesus is doing here in the mothers and brothers and all that? He's rejecting that generation. Okay, that's it. Lights out. And that concludes the narrative. See, that's all narrative. 11 and 12. And now, that's the context. Now we can look at the discourse. See? You see what I've done? All I've done is I've said, look, the Bible as a whole teaches a great kingdom program, covenanted. to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob, to David, to Messiah and the nation Israel. Those six, right? Matthew keys in on the king and his kingdom program and its offer, its rejection, and now in light of that, what do we have? We have these parables, the mysteries of the kingdom. And what is the basic new truth that's now being revealed? The kingdom is not coming now, but it'll come when Israel receives their king. Jesus is the true king. Mr. fellow Jewish unbeliever in the ghetto next to me. OK. Jesus is the true king. The reason his kingdom is not here is because we as a generation rejected him and only a remnant. They would know that he only a remnant believed in him. And God always has a remnant of us believing Jews. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Jesus. But Jesus, he's he's departed. And he's not coming back to bring his kingdom until we as a nation receive him. So this is how you interpret. And the kingdom is always, always the same kingdom. The one come to earth. What did Jesus say? Pray in this way. that thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." God's will is always done in heaven, good, okay? But it's not always being done on earth. That's why I say there's no kingdom now. God's will is not being done on earth everywhere, in every corner of the planet. No way. But when he comes in his kingdom, it will. So the kingdom is always the same kingdom. You see, it's the Davidic kingdom. It's a visible kingdom. It's an earthly kingdom. It's a political kingdom. It's also spiritual. It's highly spiritual. It's got a restored Davidic monarch sitting on a restored Davidic throne in a restored Jerusalem, which is not some kind of an international city at this point, but it's the city of the king. But the kingdom at this point has been rejected by Israel. And so that kingdom is now being postponed. And this was something totally unknown before this time. I mean, if you read the Old Testament, there's no concept that when the king comes, there's going to be this delay. And they certainly didn't think, no, 2,000 years, I'll tell you that. I mean, look at them in Acts 1. Is it at this time you're going to restore the kingdom? It's been like six months, you know, since he said it's going to be delayed. They're thinking it's right around the corner, right? Come on, it's right now. Let's get the game on. They don't understand this stuff about the church. They don't understand all that yet. They're going to understand it, but it takes time. And here we are 2,000 years later. During this time of postponement, what we're going to learn is that there's going to be some growth of some new kingdom citizens alongside of the growth of Satan's servants. Tell me that does not represent our world. The growth of believers in Jesus Christ alongside the terrors of Satan. And then and only then, at the end of this, will the judgment come and take out Satan's servants and leave the kingdom citizens to enter into the kingdom, that generation that's alive at that time. So a lot of this we're going to see is paralleled actually in the Olivet Discourse, Matthew 24 and 25. A lot of this relates to Romans 11, what we've been studying, and scholars have recognized these connections. But you can see then that I take this fourth view. I take this bottom view that what the parables and mysteries of the kingdom are all about is new truths about the postponement of the kingdom. And during this postponement, some non-natural sons, that's us, coming to faith in the Messiah, becoming citizens of this coming kingdom, we're going to be heirs with Him. We're going to be heirs with Him. So we'll look more at these views in the coming weeks, but basically that sets the stage for the parables and mysteries of the kingdom of Matthew 13. And next time I'll define carefully what is a parable and what is a mystery and we'll work our way into the discourse. I hope that helps some because you have to kind of backtrack and come up to speed again to approach these things and understand them. Heavenly Father, we ask, Lord, that You would give us wisdom and insight. We don't have omniscience like You. We're just totally dependent and humble. And we pray, Lord, that You would, by Your Spirit, teach us, because He's our ultimate teacher. He's the master teacher. And as we study the text, that He'd open our eyes to receive the wonderful things in Your Word. And to be impressed, not with our theology and our thoughts and how wonderful we are and how much we've done and all this baloney, but with what you have revealed and who you are and what you're doing in history. Because your plan is the ultimate one that brings glory to you. And that's the one we want to have in our skulls. So we pray, Lord, you teach us so we might know you and we might worship you, the one true God in three persons. In Christ's name we pray. Amen.