And challenges, I always go home with some new thoughts, tweaks on passages and work through things, so I appreciate that kind of input from other people, other minds that are looking at the scripture. I'm going to take this off for now, but I may be putting it back on. So yes, now we're in Spokane, Washington. That's quite a change from Texas, central Texas. We had our first snow. last Sunday. That's snow in September. Those two words should not be used in the same sentence, but they are now. Okay, so this morning, of course, we're going to work on Matthew 13, and this is one of the controversial ones that we as dispensationalists, I think, good heart want to work out, and I hope we can do so humbly, and I'm not pontificating, but I'm projecting what I think is a good and consistent view of the parables of the kingdom of heaven in Matthew's argument. So, you know, there's one thing that Dr. Pentecost said that I thought was interesting years ago. He said that for dispensationalists, the two most important books aren't Daniel and Revelation. but Matthew and Acts. And because of that, I've considered a course of study of both of these to be very pertinent to our understanding of the dispensational plan of God. And if you haven't worked through these books, verse by verse, I would certainly encourage you to do so as soon as possible. I want to start with a quote from Stanley Toussaint about parables. He says, never can the context conflict with the interpretation of a parable. To look at a parable apart from the setting in which it is presented is to set one's boat adrift in the shifting tides of speculation. The parables of Matthew 13 must be considered in the context of the rejection of the Messiah. Thank you, Kurt. He set up that context for us. Now the theme of Matthew is the king and his kingdom program that's defined by the one Davidic covenant, the kingdom covenanted to David. This covenant guarantees the eternal reign of an eternal king, descended from David, over an eternal kingdom, from an eternal throne. When Jesus, the son of David, offered his Davidic credentials before the nation, the people, even in Matthew 12, supposed him to be the son of David. But the leadership in that chapter rejects him, they commit the unpardonable sin, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, And immediately following this, Jesus began to speak in parables, parables of the kingdom of heaven. What is the purpose of these parables and what has happened to the Davidic kingdom? So dispensationalists, as you well know, follow two major views or interpretations. Some claim the kingdom of heaven is now being revealed in a new form, a mystery form of the kingdom, and others claim that the Davidic kingdom was postponed and now there's an intervening age before the Davidic kingdom is established. So the view that a new form of the kingdom, a mystery form, is the purpose is held by many. Walvard is a representative when he said, Matthew 13 introduces a different form of the kingdom, namely the present spiritual reign of the king during the period he is physically absent from the earth prior to his second coming. So, in this view, the mystery form is said to begin with the rejection of the Messiah by the nation Israel, and it will end with the reception of the Messiah by the nation Israel. The church is not the mystery form, but it takes place within the mystery form, and truths relate to a previously unrevealed kingdom where the king would reign in the hearts of believers by means of the spirit. This view, in my estimation, changes the meaning of the kingdom of heaven in the Gospel of Matthew. So the other view interprets the parables as presenting new truths regarding the Davidic kingdom. And the central new truth is that it would be postponed from its appearance in history to a later date. So there is no kingdom now, but an intervening age there is. And Stanley Tussaint is representative when he said, the king is giving additional information concerning the kingdom of heaven, information which has never before been revealed. he is instructing his disciples regarding a hitherto unrevealed period of time prior to the establishment of the kingdom. This new age would not be the promised kingdom, nor would it be, strictly speaking, a kingdom in the so-called mystery form. Thus, the mysteries of the kingdom of the heavens relate to the span in which the millennial kingdom is being postponed. So in effect, proponents of this view are saying that the consequences of Israel's rejection are a postponement of the kingdom, This view does not change the meaning of the kingdom of heaven in Matthew, and it says the parable should be interpreted as primarily teaching a postponement of the Davidic kingdom as a judicial penalty for rejecting their king and his offer. So this paper is paper. It is something of a paper. It's sort of a little baby of mine that I've been polishing for a long time, many years. This hour is dedicated to trying to give the most consistent interpretation of the meaning of kingdom of heaven as the Davidic kingdom. So a parable, let's start with parables. This is probably the most important point as far as hermeneutics are concerned and how to interpret parables. So what is a parable? It's a story well known from life. It's true to life that is cast alongside a theological truth. in order to illustrate one major point of comparison. One major point, not 20 major points, not three major points, but one major point of comparison. Zuck says the word parable comes from the Greek para, beside or alongside, and balein, to throw. So the story is thrown alongside the truth to illustrate the truth. Ellison points out that a parable has one central lesson, Its primary lesson is a central truth rather than a conglomerate, though it may involve several points. Unlike the so-called allegory, which attaches meaning to most of its parts, the parable generally has but one or a few points of tangency. It does not walk on all fours, as does the allegory. So there's difference between parables and how we should approach them, and an allegory, as in Galatians 4. Therefore, we should be careful as we come into these parables to not press every detail into service, as is sometimes done, but rather search for the main or key idea. McLean, in his Greatness of the Kingdom, warned of the need for extreme caution when interpreting parables, and it is a worthy warning. He says, in no area of the word of God is there greater need for caution on the part of the interpreters than in the parables. and especially in those concerned with the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. Even the most spiritual and well-taught monk students of the word may go astray here, and many an error has found its basis in some parabolic detail. So let's talk about the word mystery since it's phrased mysteries of the kingdom of heaven that is somewhat in dispute. When Jesus was asked, why do you speak to them in parables? He answered, to you, it's been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. To them, it has not been granted. So the Greek word mystery, mysterion, this word is rooted in the dream of Daniel 2 and the Aramaic word raza in the Hebrew sod, and means some objective truth that is hidden absolutely in God until it is revealed by God. So this meaning is confirmed actually in our context in verse 35. We don't have to conjure up a definition. It's a quotation from Psalm 78 to verse 35. I will open my mouth in parables. I will utter things hidden since the foundation of the world. In other words, a mystery is something that's been hidden since the foundation of the world. So it's something that has never been revealed before. So it is not a truth that has been unrecognized, but now recognized. That's the view of progressive dispensationalism. In other words, it's in the Old Testament. We just didn't recognize it. Nor is it the meaning unrealized in the Old Testament, but now realized, the view of, like, amillennialism. But the meaning is something that has never been revealed before and is now being, of course, revealed. Olson, in his translation of the New Testament, called them open, secret truths. They were secret, but now they are being laid open. Secretly hidden in God, now open to mankind. So, Jesus is explaining new truths to the crowd, but these truths would be heard by all, but would only be understood by some. Others who did not have ears to hear would hear, but they would not understand. and what little they did have would be lost. So this is the purpose of the parables, that they would continue to see, but not perceive, continue to hear, but not understand, and this would set them for judgment, which came in 8070. Another issue we have to deal with in addition to the meaning of mystery is the kingdom of heavens and kingdom of God. Expressions. The expression is used exclusively by Matthew, but it's identical, is essentially synonymous with kingdom of God. Contrary to, of course, a lot of earlier dispensationalists. Parallel passages in the synoptic substitute the expression kingdom of God for kingdom of heaven. And I've listed some there, like Matthew 3.2 equals Mark 1.15. Matthew 10.7 equals Luke 10.9. Additionally, Matthew uses kingdom of God in synonymous parallelism with kingdom of heaven in Matthew 19, 23, and that should be 24. Further, Old Testament usage of kingdom of heaven was a valid substitute for kingdom of God since Jesus, or Jews, viewed God as dwelling in heaven. Daniel 2, 4, and 5, there are references throughout those chapters referring to God as the kingdom of heaven, being in heaven. So Matthew, why does he alone use this expression? Well, very likely because his audience was Jewish and he wanted to avoid causing offense to Jews who had a sensitivity to the overuse of the name of God. And so he used kingdom of heaven almost always, though in a few passages he does use kingdom of God. And what is the kingdom of God? What is the kingdom? Well, because it is not defined anywhere in Matthew, we must understand that its meaning is given to us by the Old Testament. And so the kingdom of God in the Old Testament is defined by the context of the Abrahamic covenant and the Davidic covenant as a mediatorial kingdom. that was lost at the exile, predicted by all the prophets to be one day restored. So it was this kingdom that John, Jesus, and the 12 offered to the nation Israel in the first century. And two saints said this about it. If John or the Lord Jesus or even the disciples had a different interpretation of the term kingdom, they certainly would have or at least should have explained it. No such clarification is found anywhere in the Gospels or Acts. In other words, they never said they were using the term in a different way. They never clarified by a context they were using in a different way. It just seems to be being used the same way. So the natural interpretation is that the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven refer to new truths that are related to the establishment of the kingdom, the Davidic kingdom. And in particular, that its establishment will be postponed until a future generation of Israel receives Jesus as the Messiah. Nevertheless, of course, many dispensationalists claim that the mysteries of the kingdom refer to this mystery form. This new form, they say, began with Israel's rejection of Jesus as the Messiah, Matthew 12, and extends until Israel receives Jesus as the Messiah. So it does include the church, they say, and to some extent, because of their interpretation of these parables here, it confuses the church with the kingdom. So what kind of arguments do they make for a mystery form? The chief argument is that the expression, the mysteries of the kingdom, is to be interpreted to mean the mystery form of the kingdom. Pentecost is emphatic when he said that Christ referred to, quote, the secrets of the kingdom. He was not referring to the covenanted Davidic or millennial kingdom. but the hitherto unrevealed form in which God's theocratic rule would be exerted in a previously unrevealed age. The chief objection to this argument is that Jesus does not say, of course, mystery form of the kingdom of heaven. He simply says mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. the construction, the genitive construction means of, related to, or concerning the kingdom of heaven. That is, Jesus is giving us new truths related to the Davidic kingdom. The second argument for this view is Matthew 13, 41, which I'm sure everybody's familiar with. It says, the Son of Man will send forth his angels and they will gather out of his kingdom, out of his kingdom, all stumbling blocks and those who commit lawlessness. This is interpreted to mean that when Christ returns, he returns to a mystery form of the kingdom and he will have to gather out of the mystery form those who do not belong to it so he can establish the Davidic kingdom. However, there's really no difficulty in interpreting this to mean that when Jesus returns in his kingdom, he will have to remove the wicked from that kingdom at the beginning of his reign. Several passages teach that when the Son of Man returns, he will bring about a judgment. Here are several passages, Matthew 22, 11 to 14, and what Andy will teach. Matthew 24, 45 to, that's not, yeah, Matthew 24, 45 to 25, 46, and especially Matthew 25, 31, because in that verse, Jesus, the Son of Man, sits on the throne of David, and then he carries out a judgment. The third argument that mystery form proponents make is that In the book of Acts, the kingdom is something that's being proclaimed. In the epistles, church saints are said to have been transferred into his kingdom, and our fruit is associated in some way with the kingdom. But the reason for the preaching of the kingdom is because through the gospel, what happens? Those who believe it become future citizens of that kingdom, or citizens of that future kingdom. The reason our fruit is associated with the future kingdom is because it is the fruit of the spirit and is therefore of eternal quality and will be rewarded for use in the future kingdom. So it's neither necessary nor justifiable to argue that uses of kingdom in the book of Acts or the epistles means that the kingdom is now here in a new form, a spiritual form. It just means that we are forming a nucleus for the future kingdom. Toussaint, referring to the mystery form view, said this. This is a dangerous hermeneutic. What is to keep a person from saying the spiritual form of the kingdom was what the Lord was describing from the beginning? And in Matthew 13, he clarifies this point. Or what will prevent one from saying Israel rejected Christ, so it has no future kingdom, and the only kingdom according to the gospels is the spiritual one? It's my thinking that it's this mystery form interpretation of chapter 13 that opened the door for progressive dispensationalism. We're not trying to shut it just to shut a door. We're just trying to be accurate to the text. Does it really teach a mystery form? But once you've opened that door, it seems that this is, the logical conclusion of that is to go ahead and say that Jesus is ruling from David's throne now in heaven, but then, If we go on and say that, that he is ruling now on David's throne in heaven, what is to stop us from saying that David's throne in heaven is all the throne that Jesus will ever sit and rule on? So this hermeneutic is dangerous in that it deviates from the kingdom that is envisioned by the Abrahamic and the Davidic covenants. So I consider this view to be the most hurtful and dangerous view over the last 2,000 years. It's not a new issue. The Roman Catholic Church has developed this quite extensively in its most visible expression. But isn't it much simpler to just say, as two saints said, I don't have this quote here. He says in chapter 13, the king is giving just additional information concerning the kingdom of heaven. Information which has never before been revealed. He is instructing his disciples regarding a hitherto unrevealed period of time prior to the establishment of the kingdom. He's just speaking of a Interadvent age, he says, this new age would not be the promised kingdom, nor would it be, strictly speaking, a kingdom in the so-called mystery form. Thus, the mysteries of the kingdom of the heavens relate to the span in which the millennial kingdom is being postponed. Okay, here's a brief introduction to the parables of Matthew 13. First point is that while many hold that there are eight kingdom parables, there's actually only six. The first is not a kingdom parable, but it is a parable that is designed to introduce the kingdom parables. Walvord said, the first paragraph does not have the precise formula of the later paragraphs. The kingdom of heaven is likened unto, but is rather an introductory parable serving as a basis for all that follow. So the parable of the sower, and that's the proper name, it's not the parable of the four soils. Jesus calls it the parable of the sower for a reason. It's not a kingdom parable, but what it does is it explains why Jesus is now speaking kingdom truths in parables. It's an explanation for why he is now speaking parables. Second, the first four were spoken in public and the last four were spoken in private. Chapter 13, verse 10 says, the public ones, he says the disciples came and said to him, why do you speak to them in parables? So the pronoun them shows that he was speaking them in public, that is to the crowds. And after the four parables, we read in verse 36, verse 36, that Jesus left the crowds, he went into the house. So these will be private. If he left the crowds, he's now going to a private engagement with his disciples. So four are public and the last four are private. Third, only two of the parables are interpreted. This is the parable of the sower and the parable of the tares. The parable of the sower is explained in verse 18 and following. And the parable of the tares is explained in verse 36 and following. So these two, because they're interpreted, they are critical to understand because what they're doing is they're giving interpretive parameters. or how the other parables that have no explanation are to be interpreted. And of course, understanding the very first one, the parable of the sower, not a kingdom parable, but a parable. This is the most important because Jesus said in the parallel Mark 4.13, do you not understand this parable, the parable of the sower? How will you understand all the parables? So if you don't understand the first one, the parable of the sower, it's gonna be difficult to understand the other parables. Fourth point, no parables were interpreted publicly. Okay, so it could appear that way from Matthew. It looks like the parable of the sower is explained in public to the crowds, but if you go to Mark 4.10, you see that he had gone privately into the house in order to explain that one. So he spoke four parables in public before verse 36, and then he goes into a house privately with his disciples. They ask him why he's speaking in parables. He explains to them the parable of the sower and the parable of the tares, and he gives them four more parables. But the crowd got no interpretation. They just got parables only. Fifth, the last parable is not a kingdom parable either, but it's a conclusion of the kingdom parables. If you notice, the parable again does not have the introductory formula like the kingdom of heaven is compared to or is like, but it just simply is explaining that the disciples are now going to need to wed the new truths revealed about the kingdom with the old because now they are to become the new scribes of the remnant of Israel. And the last point, the sixth point, is that all these parables were given on the same day as his rejection. Matthew 13, 1 indicates this was, quote, on the same day, or on the day. It's talking about the day of his rejection in chapter 12. So, a lot occurred on this day, of course, and because of that, theologians have called this the long day. Okay, let's go to the parable of the sower. In verse 18, hear then the parable of the sower. When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one on whom seed was sown beside the road. The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary. And when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he falls away. And the one on whom seed was sown among the thorns, this is the man who hears the word, and the worry of the world, and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful. And the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and brings forth some a hundredfold, some 60, and some 30. Jesus said that understanding this parable was critical to understanding all the others. He said that in Mark 4.13. This is because it's not a kingdom parable, but it is introductory to the kingdom parables. In other words, Jesus is giving this parable to explain why he is speaking in parables. In other words, this passage is not going to be a prediction of gospel response in the church age. as taught by many dispensationalists, but rather it's a description of Israel's response to the king and his offer as described in the earlier chapters of Matthew. Why are you speaking in parables? Well, because of some things that have happened up to this point regarding myself, my credentials, and my offer of the kingdom. So, the sower. The sower is not one individual, but represents those who proclaim the gospel of the kingdom. It would be Jesus, it would be John the Baptist, it would be the 12, okay? And they proclaimed the kingdom to be at hand, near, not here. The seed they scattered was the message of the kingdom itself. The field where they flung this message was the house of Israel only. Remember, go not to the Gentiles. Do not go to the Samaritans, only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And the four soils where this message was proclaimed and the results represent the four Jewish responses to the king and his message, this kingdom message. So the first, in verse 19, this represents Israelites who heard the kingdom offer. But they did not understand. Their hearts were too hardened to understand the message. So what happened? The devil and his workers came along and took away the message so they would never understand. The second response in verses 20 to 21, this represents Israelites who heard, but with only a little understanding. their hearts were not adequately prepared. So they initially received the message with joy, but they're not prepared to endure the difficulties associated with acceptance of the message. When temptation came, their flesh gave way, and they fell away and did not follow after him. The third. is in verse 22. These are Israelites who heard with some understanding, but their hearts were not adequately prepared either. They saw some significance to the kingdom message, but the worries of the world choked out the significance of the message of the kingdom, and they fell away. So the first three, you can see the kingdom message was heard, but it shows the influence of the world, the flesh, and the devil, on those who heard in Israel when it was proclaimed. So then we come to the fourth, and this is verse 23. This represents those Israelites who heard and understood the significance of the kingdom message. I mean, the king was present. There is no more significant time in the history of the world, and no generation ever saw the things that that generation saw, only some. heard and understood the significance of this for the history of the world. They also are the only ones who held fast to the message despite the influences of the world, the flesh, and the devil. And because they understood the significance of the kingdom message, they would bear fruit. The fruit born is reception of further revelation concerning the kingdom in light of that generation's rejection. Two saints said this, the fruit spoken of is more revelation and understanding concerning the kingdom. Seed produces what? More seed. The word of the kingdom received into the heart would yield more revelation and understanding of it. And the last parable, the parable of the householder answers to this, to this fourth group. and that they're to take the old truths of the kingdom and now add to them the new truths that they are now receiving in parable form and teach those things to others. So, the parable of the sower then, by summary, serves as an introduction to the kingdom parables, just as Jesus stated in verse 11, to you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to them it has not been granted. So the issue is not salvation, but the impartation of understanding new truths related to the kingdom by way of parables. And only the fourth soil, those who understood and saw the significance of the kingdom message are now going to receive more revelation and understanding concerning it. The rest would not. Hearing they would not hear, seeing they would not perceive. Parable of the Tares, First Kingdom Parable, verse 37. And he said, the one who sows the good seed is the son of man. The field is the world. As for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom. The tares are the sons of the evil one. The enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age. The reapers are angels. So, just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. Son of man will send forth his angels. They will gather out of his kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their father. He who has ears, let him hear. First kingdom parable first parable introduced by the phrase verse 30 Or earlier in the when he gave the parable kingdom of heaven may be compared to So this expression to introduce a parable, what does it mean? You know the kingdom may be compared to or is similar to to Saint says this Why is that so big? Did that just go like? Must be important. Let's just, I'll just read it. I don't know what happened here. Okay. I'll just read it. In this parable, the Lord uses the verb to compare, homoiao, to make the comparison with the kingdom of heaven. While in the remainder of the parables, the adjective like, homoiois, is used. Actually, there's no great difference between these two formulas. The verb, like the adjective, is simply used to indicate a comparison. Some comparison is being made. Something is related to the kingdom. These formulas do not mean that the kingdom of heaven is symbolized by any single object in the parables. It is simply used to introduce a narrative which represents truth relative to the kingdom. End quote. So this parable, of course, was spoken publicly to the crowds. He wasn't in the house yet. But its interpretation was only given privately in the house to the disciples. So the crowds would hear this parable, but they would not understand the parable. But his disciples were told in verse 51, well, he asked them, do you understand? And they said, yes. I don't know if they really did, but they said they did. So like the first parable, this parable was interpreted for us. It's the second and the last one that he will tell us the interpretation of. But it's distinct from the first parable because that was not a kingdom parable, it just introduced the parables. This is the one, it is the first kingdom parable. So, let's see if this will work, it'll work somewhat. The one who sows the good seed, that's the son of man. The field is the world. This is an expansion of his field, because before, they were to go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, right? So this is an expansion of his field, okay? The whole world. The good seed are the sons of the kingdom, okay? Whether, I would say, Jew or Gentile, because it's throughout the world. Anyone who believes in Jesus during the inter-admin age. The tares are the sons of the evil one, okay? The devil. These are, therefore, unbelieving Jews and Gentiles during the intermittent age. The enemy who sowed them is identified as the devil. The harvest will take place at the end of the age. Well, we would say, you know, the tribulation. The Jews viewed only two ages, right? They saw two ages. The age leading to Messiah and the age of Messiah. Simple. The harvest will take place at the end of the age leading up to Messiah, up to his kingdom. The reapers are identified as the angels, and of course these are good angels who will separate the wheat from the tares at the end of the age. Now verses 41 and 42. These verses have led many interpreters to conclude that when the son of man returns and sends his angels to do the reaping, there's already a kingdom there, some mystery form perhaps, or just this is all the kingdom there ever will be. But this does not mean that necessarily. When Jesus returns in the kingdom, he has to remove those who are not fit for entrance into the kingdom. Many passages talk about a judgment when he returns. This shouldn't be a problem. Several passages, Matthew 21, 40, 44, 22, chapter 24, chapter 25. So, shouldn't be a problem. Now, Sossi, some consider to be the father of progressive dispensationalism. In his little book on the church, or actually his little book on progressive dispensationalism, he actually said that verses 40 to 43 do not describe a kingdom present before Messiah returns, which I found was interesting. So while he disagrees with us on other points of the kingdom, he actually said this, This does not suggest that the righteous are presently in some inaugurated kingdom on earth, but not shining. The wheat and the weeds are growing in the same field, that is, the world, which is never identified as the kingdom. Furthermore, as we have seen, the weeds are cast out of the kingdom, but this is only with its coming at the end of the age, with the return of Christ. They could not be said to be in the kingdom today. which is interesting to say that, of course, we would agree. You know, Daniel 2, Daniel 7, there's four great Gentile kingdoms before the kingdom of the Son of Man comes and displaces them all. They come in sequence, one, two, three, four. The last has, let's say, two phases, so to speak, an ancient and a future phase. And then, only after that, you have the kingdom of God comes, so how can we have a form of the kingdom today, even if it was something hidden? Why would that be the case, and why would we change the meaning of Kingdom of Heaven to something other than the Dvaitic Kingdom, to something different? Now, so the Parable of the Tares, second one, first kingdom, serves to show the intervening age of the son of man. During this age, there's a busyness sowing sons of the kingdom in the world, and Satan is busy sowing sons of evil right alongside them. They appear indistinguishable until the end of the age when Jesus sends forth his angels to gather out the sons of evil so the sons of the kingdom can enter into the kingdom and shine in righteousness. Now, as a brief aside before I go on, this is one of the one of the reasons it's very important to not read the church into any of these parables, besides the fact that it's never been revealed before. And. Is the idea that if you do, and in this very parable, you're going to. End up arguing with the post tribes over when the rapture is, because there's no mention of like a preacher of rapture or anything like that before this great judgment. at the end of the age. So again, why are we going to bring the church into these parables? A, when it hasn't been revealed before, but something new, Matthew 16. But also then you begin to make things more complex because now you're having to defend why there's no pre-trib rapture mentioned in the parable of the tares or anything like that. Okay, so I think it's best to avoid doing a hermeneutic that does exactly what we say not to do, and that is read something that's later back into something that's earlier. Okay, parable of the mustard seed, verse 31. He presented another parable to them saying, the kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field. This is smaller than all other seeds. But when it's full grown, it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches. And some of that may make you think of Daniel 4. Now, the third parable is also a kingdom parable. It was also spoken to the crowds publicly. It was not interpreted for the disciples, though. So they were not told what it means. Mike Stollard said this. He didn't get to teach this chapter in detail, so I decided to quote it more than once. He says, since neither Christ nor Matthew interprets these parables, with the exception of the terse interpretation of verse 49 and 50, the interpreter should be more cautious and perhaps less dogmatic about his conclusions. Now, fortunately, we are not left without any guidance for interpreting the mustard seed, okay, because The first kingdom parable, the parable of the tares, that was interpreted for us. So this gives us a frame of reference for interpreting the mustard seed within the context of the good seed and the evil tares. So the parable of the mustard seed relates to the good seed, and then the next one, the parable of the leaven, relates to the evil seed. So the mustard seed. It was a small garden seed. It refers to the small band of disciples who were the first sons of the kingdom during the intervening age. And they correspond to the first good seed in the parable of the tares. The field is the world, just like it was in the parable of the tares. It refers to land that has been put under cultivation. And the man who sowed them is the son of man, just as in the parable of the tares. The mustard seed had the greatest growth potential relative to other garden seeds. When it was full grown, it could even be classified as a tree, even though it was truly a large garden shrub. The full growth of the seed into a large garden shrub pictures the significant increase in the sons of the kingdom as they grow in number through the intervening age. Now, I can't go into all the other interpretations of all the other dispensationalists because all over the board. But it is perhaps at this point significant to say that several, for example, Rari, say that one of the characteristics of the mustard seed is rapid growth. He says what this means is the kingdom will grow quickly. But remember, when it says the kingdom of heaven is like, it is not identifying the kingdom with any part of the parable necessarily, but it is saying something relative to the kingdom. There is nothing about the study of the mustard seed that shows that it had rapid growth. The real issue is rather the insignificant number of sons of the kingdom initially, but the large growth in number by the end of the age. So the resulting tree or bush represents the large and prosperous results of the growth that began so small. And the birds of the air that come and nest in its branches are a picture of the large and prosperous results by the end of the intervening age, those who are about to enter into the kingdom. Stollard said this, the essential meaning of the parable of the mustard seed is that the period of preparation leading up to the kingdom will be one in which many would come to accept Christ as the Messiah. McLean said something similar, simply stating this, that those who accept Christ during the intervening age are forming, quote, the spiritual nucleus of the future kingdom. So the parable teaches a growth in the number of the sons of kingdom, not the growth of a present form of the kingdom, such as Christendom or something like that. So the mustard seed is employed because the end results of its growth are so large in comparison to its small beginning. This means that the kingdom is entirely future while the number of the sons of the kingdom is increasing in this age until the kingdom comes. So it's an elaboration of the growth of the sons of the kingdom in the previous parable. The parable of the leaven. The parable of the leaven. Verse 33. He spoke another parable to them. The kingdom of heaven is like leaven. which a woman took and hid in three pecks of flour until it was all leavened. Now, if we took every detail all of a sudden and made some significance to it all, we'd be saying something about women right here, but we're not going to do that because that's not the point. There's also a chart in your book at the back where I give, maybe I not have seen it, you see the slides, but at the back there's a chart that goes with all these parables. So, parable of the leaven. Now, if the parable of the mustard seed related to the good seed out of the parable of the tares, then the parable of the leaven relates to the evil seed that comes from the same parable. This pattern in the parables contradicts the idea that the leaven should be interpreted as something positive, which is sometimes done. as in saying, well, this is the growth of the kingdom of heaven, or it's the growth of Christendom, due to the penetrating power of the gospel progressing by inward means of the spirit, or something of that type of language. In reality, Jesus is using leaven, as it was well known to his audience, that is, as a corrupting influence. Two saints said, This parable reveals the fact that evil will run its course and dominate the new age, but it also indicates that when the program of evil has been fulfilled, the kingdom will come. Therefore, the parables of the mustard seed and then the leaven grow out of the wheat and the tares in the previous parables. Stahler agreed, and he said, the controlling factor here in the interpretation is the parables of the tares, parable of the tares. That parable has two key elements with respect to the activities of the present time, one good, one evil. It is not a stretch, exegetically, to see that Jesus gives these two parables, the mustard seed and the leaven, to illustrate the two elements of good and evil. In this light, the period leading up to the kingdom, we'll see many come to Christ, but we'll also see many reject him as well. Each of the two parables illustrates one half of the description given by the parable of the tares. In the end, of course, evil will have penetrated the world on a global scale, and at that time, judgment will ensue, and the kingdom will come to remove that evil. Parable of the treasure, okay. So, here we go. Because it's when you come to the treasure and the pearl that it's often found to be Israel and the church. Israel's the treasure, the pearl's the church, Or vice versa, on some occasions, we're told the treasure is the church and the pearl is Israel. Interpretations are fairly widespread. The kingdom of heaven, verse 44, the kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid again. And from joy over it, he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. This is when Jesus has gone into the house, and he's already given the interpretation of the parable of the sower, he's already given the interpretation of the parable of the tares, and now he gives them four parables privately to his disciples only. Now, the treasure. The treasure is something extremely valuable, obviously. It's so valuable here that when a man stumbled upon it in someone else's field, he hid it, He went and sold everything he had, and he bought that field. What does the treasure represent? It simply represents the value of the kingdom. This man recognized the kingdom's value, and that it's greater than anything the world has to offer. Rodmacher, House, and Allen said, The central truth being taught, and that's what we're always looking for in a parable. What is the central truth? We're not trying to identify every little jot and tittle. The parable's intent is to convey one central truth. The central truth being taught is the immense value of the kingdom. Now, some criticize this view. They say, well, this would mean that the man purchased a ticket to get to the kingdom. But this view requires the field or the treasure are the kingdom. But the formula is the kingdom of heaven is like, not that it is. So some comparison is being made with the kingdom. A treasure is being compared to the kingdom. Treasures of immense value, what's the kingdom? Kingdoms of immense value. So the man's not buying a ticket to the kingdom. In fact, the man is already a believer, because this is being given privately to the disciples only to instruct them, and they're being told the immense value of the kingdom. And because the kingdom is of such great value, believers should do what? They should reevaluate their priorities in life during this interadvent age. This becomes the challenge of the next parable, to reevaluate our priorities relative to the kingdom and its greatness. Parable of the Merchant. By the way, this is not the parable of the pearl. What does it say? Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a pearl. It says, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking fine pearls. And upon finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it. So again, this is given to the disciples alone. It's for believers and sometimes called Parable of the Pearl, but it's not. It's a comparison with a merchant who seeks pearls, find pearls. Failure to recognize that has led to a lot of different interpretations. So who is a merchant? A merchant is one who seeks to invest in things of value so he can be a successful businessman. The merchant was seeking to invest in fine pearls. So what do we know about fine pearls? In the ancient world, fine pearls were considered more valuable than gold. In some cultures, as much as three times as valuable as gold. So the merchant was seeking the most valuable asset he could invest in so he could be most successful. And the most valuable asset to invest in by comparison is the kingdom. Jesus' point is that this man has his priorities in order. He sought the kingdom first. Jesus' disciples should order their priorities in their intervening age by also putting the kingdom first. So you begin to see there is a pedagogical shift happening. Now the kingdom is no longer going to be offered, but there's an intervening age during which his disciples, forming the very first nucleus of that as sons of the kingdom, are now being commissioned to put the kingdom first in their priorities as part of their ministry, as they will go out and teach as the new scribes to the remnant of Israel. So, this interpretation links this parable with the treasure. The pearl merchant and the merchant who sought pearls and the treasure are similar. In the prior, though, Jesus taught the immense value of the kingdom. In this parable, he teaches his disciples to be like a merchant who seeks to invest in the most valuable asset. And since that asset is the kingdom, then their lives should be characterized as putting the kingdom first. And we all know we are part of the Church, we learn this later, and we have the great and blessed hope, but these are not exclusive focuses. It's not one or the other. We look for Christ and the blessed hope to return, to transform us or resurrect us. And then what? To be judged? For what? For our service in this age? And rewarded? So that we can do what? We can return with him in his kingdom and rule and reign with him in some capacity. These are not exclusive focuses. If we have the kingdom first, we're going to be looking for Christ, for his return, to take us into that kingdom. Parable of the dragnet, verse 47. Last kingdom parable, the sixth and the last kingdom. Verse 47, again, the kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet cast into the sea and gathering fish of every kind. And when it was filled, they drew it up on the beach, they sat down, they gathered the good fish into containers, but the bad they threw away. So it will be at the end of the age. Angels will come forth, take out the wicked from among the righteous. We'll throw them into the furnace of fire. In that place, there'll be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Now, because it's the last, of course, its focus is on the end of the age. We'll say the end of the present age leading to Messiah, which is the tribulation time. So just as the parable of the tares, it deals with the end of the age. It grows out of the parable of the tares. Again, this one is given privately just to the disciples. What do we know about nets in Jewish fisherman lingo? Well, there were three types of fish that they used, the cast net, the trammel net, the drag net. Cast net, used to catch particular kinds of fish. Trammel net, used to catch jumping fish. Drag net, used to catch all kinds of fish, all kinds. The drag net was chosen because it is the most indiscriminate way of fishing. You just catch all kinds of fish. After you caught all these kinds of fish, you would have to drag that net ashore and you'd have to separate the fish, the good from the bad. The good fish are what? Those that were clean under dietary law. Those that were bad were not, so they would be separated out. The good were gathered into containers, taken to market, battered, chunked away. The main point of this parable is what? At the end of the age, when Messiah comes in his kingdom, there will be a separation. Believers and unbelievers will be in the world. God will send forth his angels to remove the unbelievers. The believers will be gathered into the kingdom. So this parable is parallel and in many ways to the parable of the terrorist. It kind of rounds out everything. Stollard said this. At the least, one can say that the parable of the dragnet repeats the core message of the parable of the terrorist concerning a judgment to come as seen by its appeal to the end of the age. The angels who reap, the fiery furnace, the weeping and gnashing of teeth, the good fish and bad fish are separated in the same way that the wheat is to be separated from the tarry. Okay, last one, parable of the householder, verse 52. And Jesus said to them, therefore, every scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like a head of a household who brings out of his treasure things new and old. So the last parable, see, it's not a kingdom parable because it was not introduced by an expression such as the kingdom of heaven is like or the kingdom of heaven may be compared to. So just like the first parable was not a kingdom parable, it anticipated and explained why he was speaking in parables. So the last parable is not a kingdom parable. It's just a parable that concludes and wraps things up, anticipating the pedagogical shift, anticipating the disciples' responsibility for teaching the truths of the kingdom parables. Jesus' reference to scribes is a positive one. He is now referring to those who become a disciple of the kingdom. Scribes, of course, were experts in the law. But in light of the official scribe's rejection of Jesus, now he is commissioning his disciples to become the new scribes. Toussaint said, it's interesting to note that in this verse, the Lord refers to his disciples as scribes. By doing so, the Messiah rejected the ministry of the common scribes and appointed his own. So his disciples were now the experts of the kingdom of heaven. And each is to be like a head of a household. The head of the household was the only one who had the right to go into the storeroom and bring out things both old and new. So they are now to do what? They are to take the old trues of the kingdom, join them with the new, and communicate them to others. Stollard said, well, what's Toussaint? Short quote. The disciples instructed in the new trues of the kingdom as well as the old were now responsible to minister these trues. So, conclusion to the parables. The parables of Matthew 13 are given in the context of that generation of Israel's rejection of their Messiah, Matthew 12. The dispensational view that the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven are a mystery form of the kingdom is not consistent in its interpretation of the usage kingdom of heavens in Matthew. Like all kingdom now views, It is vulnerable to attendant beliefs such as outlined in Andy's book on page 341 to 386. The coming kingdom, social gospel, we've got lordship salvation, progressive dispensationalism, non-cessation of spiritual gifts or an open but cautious view of the spiritual gifts. Anytime you have a kingdom now in some form, you are open to these viewpoints. But in the context, it's more consistent, it's more exegetically sound to simply maintain that the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven are things that have never before been revealed about. That same kingdom, the Davidic kingdom. Two saints said, how much better to say that the same kingdom is being discussed, but now the Lord Jesus is providing further revelation about that kingdom. That's why I think, you know, I listened to two saints one time just giving his message on Matthew 13, which who knows how many times he gave this. He gave it to a church, and of course, him and Dr. Pentecost discussed these things cordially, I'm sure, for many, many years. But he said at the end of this talk, and maybe some of you have seen it, that Dr. Pentecost had come to him and said, you know, I think your view of Matthew 13 is more consistent than mine. I don't know if Dr. Pentecost ever changed his view, but I think that He was right, that this view is more consistent. And these are our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who may differ on this point, but I do think it's important to really consider, we're trying to sharpen one another here, we're trying to have humility. If I can be corrected by you, that's what I need. If you can be corrected by me, that's what you need. Because the important thing is that what? We find out what is the truth of what the scriptures teach. We want to accurately portray what God said. Because if we say something that is not what God said, he didn't say it. And then it is me and my ego saying it. And that has no place in the Christian way of life. The Christian way of life is Philippians 2 to humble ourselves, right, as Christ humbled himself, taking to himself the form of a bondservant. We are to do the same thing and submit and humble ourselves and put ourselves under the scripture. As far as Matthew 16, I'm about out of time. But I think the important thing to see is that Matthew 16 is gonna be the first reference to the ecclesia. And that even there, it is kept distinct from the kingdom. It is simply mentioned, I think it's the first mention of the church. Some have begun to say, or have said, that the first reference to the church is Matthew chapter three. where John prophesies that Messiah would give a spirit baptism and take that over to Acts chapter one and make John the prophet of the church. I find this problematic. However you want to read Matthew three, it seems that he's talking to Israel and has in mind a baptism for the nation Israel. If there's a connection with Acts one and two, that is a connection of application, not a fulfillment of John. John is not prophesying the church. He has no idea about a church. And he is certainly talking to the nation Israel. Matthew 13 is also not bringing up the church yet. It's simply bringing up an intervening age. Does the church fall in that? Yes, the church does fall within that. But the church is not to be discovered in these parables. The first clear mention of the church is Matthew 16. And again, it's kept separate from the kingdom. Peter is given keys to the kingdom and so forth. This has nothing to do with Acts 2, Acts 8, Acts 10. This has to do with authority that he will have in the kingdom, as it says. Okay, so I hope that was helpful. And if not, come correct me.