The Parables of the Dragnet and of the Householder

By Mark L. Bailey

[Mark L. Bailey is Vice President for Academic Affairs, Academic Dean, and Professor of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.

This is article seven in an eight-part series, “The Kingdom in the Parables of Matthew 13.”]

The parable of the dragnet is the seventh parable in Matthew 13 (vv. 47–50), and the parable of the householder is the eighth and last (v. 52). Between them stands Jesus’ question to the disciples, “Have you understood all these things?” (v. 51). This question looked back at what He had said and prepared for the concluding comparison. The Gospels of Mark and Luke do not include either of these parables.

The Parable of the Dragnet

The Setting of the Dragnet Parable

Like the parables of the sower and of the tares, this one includes an interpretation. And like the parable of the tares, the dragnet parable discusses the end of the age and both parables have similar closing words: “cast them into the furnace of fire; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (v. 50; cf. v. 42). In contrast to the two parables before it, the parable of the dragnet is concerned with securing many items (fish) rather than just one item of value. The parable begins with the phrase “the kingdom of heaven is like,” the same wording as in verses 31, 33, 44, and 45 (cf. v. 24). The word “again,” with which the sentence begins, either relates this parable to these preceding ones or it indicates that this parable will again deal with the subject of final judgment.

The Need or Problem Prompting the Dragnet Parable

Pentecost suggests Jesus spoke this parable to answer the question, How will the present form of theocracy introduced in the parables end?[1] This, he suggests, was a legitimate concern, since all previous forms of theocracy in the Old Testament ended in judgment. Blomberg says, “However valid an analysis of Old Testament history this may be, there is not the slightest hint in Matthew’s context that such a question triggered this parable or that the problem [how this new form of the theocracy would end] even entered Christ’s mind. The parable does not address the question of how the church age will end but of how all humanity will be judged.”[2] In making this statement Blomberg unfortunately misunderstands Pentecost as equating “kingdom of heaven” with “church age.”

Blomberg meanwhile does not distinguish between the judgment of the sheep and the goats at Christ’s return to earth and the Great White Throne judgment after the millennium. He sees the parable as referring to a more general final judgment “of all humanity.” However, it seems better to see this judgment and that described in Matthew 25:31–46 as the same.

One reason perhaps that the disciples needed to know how this present age or phase of the kingdom will end relates to Matthew 10. Jesus told His disciples to go to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (vv. 5–6). Now that the Jewish leaders had rejected Christ (12:24–37), the disciples may have wondered if they were to continue to preach only to Israelites. In the parable, then, Jesus was clarifying that now no one, regardless of his or her background, was to be excluded from the offer or message of the kingdom. This is indicated in the parable by the fact that fish “of every kind” were gathered in the net.

The Narrative Structure and Details of the Dragnet Parable

The passage includes the parable proper (13:47–48), a transitional statement (v. 49a), and the interpretation of the parable (vv. 49b–50).

The narrative section. The parable speaks of two major actions; the gathering of the fish in the net and the sorting of the fish on the shore. The first scene mentions the net without reference to a fisherman, and the same is true of the second scene which mentions the fish. This shows that the person or persons doing the fishing are not the major focus of the parable.

The fishing scene first mentions the casting of the net into the sea. The seine (σαγήνη), or dragnet, as it is often called, is either dragged between two boats or is set by a single boat and drawn to shore with long ropes.[3] As Ross explains, “A common way of working the seine (drag-net) is to have one end of it attached to the shore, while the other is taken seawards by a boat in a wide circuit, and at length brought to land again. The upper side of the net is sustained by corks, while the lower, being weighted, sweeps along the seabottom. The ends are gradually drawn in till the whole net is brought up on the beach, carrying with it all the fish in the area through which it has passed.”[4]

The second phase of the fishing scene is the gathering of the fish, which included fish “of every kind” (ἐκ παντὸς γένους). At least twenty-four kinds of fish have been discovered living in the Sea of Galilee.[5] Hagner suggests that “this phrase may be an intentional reflection of the universality of the invitation to accept the good news of the kingdom.”[6]

The good fish were separated from the bad fish because of Old Testament dietary laws.[7] Unclean fish were considered inedible and would be discarded by fishermen. The rest would be carried in baskets to the marketplace for sale. The contrast between the “good” (κάλος) and the bad (σπάρος) is found elsewhere in Matthew (7:18 and 12:33) in reference to good and rotten fruit. Σπάρος is not the normal word for undesirable fish. Harrington says the use of this term points to ”(1) inedible sea-creatures and (2) unclean fish (see Lev 11:10–12) not having fins and scales.”[8] The term for “kind” (γένος) is more commonly used for “race” or “tribe” of people with an ethnic identification. So the different kinds of fish may suggest differing nationalities. That the invitation should be extended to both the good and the bad is also seen in the parable of the marriage feast (22:1–11).[9]

The interpretation section. Jesus’ interpretation of the tares parable includes the destiny of the righteous and the wicked (13:41–43), whereas the interpretation of the dragnet focuses only on the judgment of the wicked. The interpretation in verse 49 is signaled by the transitional phrase “so it will be at the end of the age.” Since there is no real effort to identify the fishermen, the action of the verb “cast” in verse 47 (βληθείση) is best linked to that of the parable of the tares which assigns the role of sowing to Jesus as the Son of Man (v. 37). He is likewise supervising the entire “fishing” process now and will personally send His angels to do the separating at the end of the age (vv. 41–42, 49–50).[10]

In the parable itself the final stage of the fishing process is indicated by the words “when it was filled” (ὅτε ἐπληρώθη). In Jesus’ interpretation this is explained as “the end of the age” (v. 49). “Just as the wheat and the weeds must come to ripeness, so the net must be filled before a separating judgment can be made.”[11] Harrington connects the term “filled” with the fullness of the Gentiles in Romans 11:25.[12] As in Matthew 13:41, the angels are the agents of judgment (v. 49) who will act under the authority of Jesus, the Son of Man. They “separate” (ἀφοριοῦσιν)[13] the evil ones “from among the righteous” (ἐκ μέσου τῶν δικαίων). That the church is not in view is evident from the fact that at the rapture the church will be taken from the world of the wicked, whereas at the Second Coming of Christ to earth, the wicked will be removed, leaving the righteous to enter the earthly kingdom.

The judgment that awaits the wicked is the furnace of fire (v. 50; cf. v. 42; 25:41). The words “weeping and gnashing of teeth” denote the suffering that is expressive of the anguish and anger the condemned will experience when they recognize they have been eternally rejected and separated from God.[14] “The ideas of tolerance and patient waiting implied in the parable proper have given way to the themes of judgment and punishment.”[15] To insist as some do that the furnace is not a suitable ending for bad fish is, as Carson says, “to confuse symbol with what is symbolized; the furnace is not for the fish but for the wicked.”[16] The absence of any reference to the Son of Man, the devil, and the destiny of the righteous focuses the point of the parable on the grim reminder of the ultimate fate of the wicked.

The Central Truth(s) in Relationship to the Kingdom in the Dragnet Parable

Opinions differ on whether the significance of the parable is in the fishing with the net or the sorting of the fish on the shore. Some prefer to see both as essential to the meaning.

The catching of the fish. Some stress the action of fishing as most significant, whereas others see in the presence of good and bad fish the character of the present age. Dods speaks of both. “The preachers of the kingdom have no powers to make selections for God; and to say of one that he will be, and of another that he will never be valuable to God. They are to cast the net so as to embrace all, and leave the determination of what is bad and what is good to the end.”[17]

Dods also sees the mixture of fish as the existence of good and bad in the church until the eternal separation occurs.[18] Walvoord argues for an interpretation that speaks to both the character of the present age and its culmination: “As in the preceding parables, [the parable of the dragnet] describes the dual line of good and evil, continuing until the time of the end when both the good and evil are judged according to their true character.”[19] Dodd says the primary stress should be placed on the responsibility of fishing, not on the judgment: “Now the point of the story is that when you are fishing, you cannot expect to select your fish: your catch will be a mixed one: ‘all is fish that comes to your net,’ as our proverb has it.”[20] He adds, “The mission of Jesus and His disciples involves an undiscriminating appeal to men of every class and type.. .. The appeal goes to all and sundry: the worthy are separated from the unworthy by their reaction to the demands which the appeal involves.”[21]

The sorting of the fish. Addressing the first half of the analogy, Kingsbury says, “Jesus calls men of all nations (‘of every kind,’ v. 47) into God’s kingly rule through the medium of His earthly ambassadors.”[22] Kingsbury does not, however, restrict his interpretation to the first half. For him, while the front end of the story relates to the responsibility of Jesus’ followers to spread and draw the net indiscriminately through the evangelistic ministry of the kingdom in the present age, that mission will not be completed until the end of the age when the final separation of the evil from among the righteous will be made.[23] On the other hand for Jeremias the point of the parable is not to compare the kingdom to a seine-net, but to emphasize the coming judgment, which is likened to the sorting of the fish from the net.[24]

While Blomberg says that the reference to all kinds of fish (v. 47) suggests that Jesus’ followers must preach to all people regardless of ethnic background, he nevertheless says the point of the parable is the coming judgment on all peoples, regardless of race. “The point must rather be that which the story of the judgment of the sheep and the goats elaborates (Mt 25:31–46)-no race or category of person will escape final judgment.”[25] Everyone will be in one of two groups, those Jesus accepts or those He rejects.

Both the catching and the sorting. Rather than saying the parable emphasizes one or the other, it is preferable to see it addressing both the responsibility of the disciples and the certainty of final judgment. Beasley-Murray argues this point well. “The spreading of the net and the gathering of the fish are, along with the separation that follows them, integral to the eschatological event. That insight is not trite; it is of extreme significance. For the reality symbolized by the catch of fish is God’s sovereign action: His kingdom is at work among men, as truly as His judgment will manifest it.”[26]

Jüngel speaks to the same point. “To the gathering function (of the net) corresponds the separation function (of the fishers). Without the gathering, the catch of fish is not possible; without the separating it would remain meaningless. The separation presupposes the gathering; the gathering proceeds to the separation.”[27]

Thus Jesus taught two major truths in this parable. The fishing for fish of every kind reveals that the mission of Christ and His followers was to evangelize the world without discriminating on the basis of nationality or race. Jesus had already challenged the disciples to be “fishers of men” (4:19). The sorting corresponds with the judgment at the end of the interadvent age which will separate people not on the basis of nationality or race, but according to their discernible character which will determine their salvation or their judgment. Within the context this undoubtedly means their response to the message of Jesus and His kingdom.

That there will be a judgment of the nations before the Messiah’s kingdom can be set up on earth is seen in Joel 3:2, 11–12; Zephaniah 3:8; and Zechariah 14:2–3. The parable of the dragnet has significant parallels with the judgment of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25:31–46. Both speak of the angelic agents (13:49; 25:31); in both the subjects are gathered to one place (13:47; 25:32); both involve a separation of the good from the bad (13:48; 25:33); and in both the wicked are cast into the furnace of fire (13:50; 25:41).

Fishing is the present responsibility of Jesus’ followers, and future separation is the prerogative of the Son of Man and His angelic messengers. Thus both the present and the future aspects of the kingdom are in focus. However, the dragnet is likened to the kingdom, not the church. To assume, as some do[28] that the church (the net, in their view) contains those who are bad as well as good is to go beyond the context of the chapter as well as the specifics of the parable. It is better to identify the drawing activity of the net with the culminating events of this age. The drawing in of the net is like the harvest in the parable of the tares. In both parables the good and the bad will not be fully known until the judgment at the end of this present age.

Some argue that the separation of the wicked from the righteous shows a mixture of righteous and wicked in the church (a corpus mixtum).[29] Bruner holds that “the present kingdom of the Son of Man, the church, contains both good and bad, but after the judgment, in the kingdom of the Father, the kingdom will have only the good.”[30] Therefore since some people may be in the church but not be retained for the kingdom, they should be motivated by fear.[31]

This view, however, fails at several points. First, Jesus had not yet introduced the church (see 16:18). Second, throughout Matthew righteousness is the prerequisite for entrance into the kingdom (e.g. 5:20; 7:21). As in other passages in Matthew (e.g., 25:31–46), good or evil character reflects whether one has faith. Third, this view fails to note that the interadvent age of the kingdom is broader than the age of the church. This interadvent phase of the kingdom extends from before the foundation of the church on the Day of Pentecost through the present age and the Tribulation until the second coming of Christ, at which time the judgment portrayed in the parables of the tares and of the dragnet will take place. Since the church will have been raptured before the Tribulation, the righteous in the parable (“good fish”) will be those who will have been saved during the Tribulation. Fourth, this view fails to distinguish between the local expressions of the church (in which unbelievers will inadvertently be admitted) and the true church to which only believers are added (Acts 2:47). In the present interadvent age of the kingdom-as opposed to its future age when only the righteous will enter at the judgment-both the righteous and the wicked dwell alongside each other in the world. “The other parables taught the disciples of Christ that a new age was to intervene before the coming of the kingdom. This parable revealed the fact that the expected judgment would be postponed until after this new age had been completed.”[32]

The Intended Appeal for the Audience of the Dragnet Parable

Donahue contrasts the parables of the tares and the dragnet with the parables of the treasure and the pearl merchant.

By his arrangement and structure, Matthew reflects Jesus’ concern for ethics as well as eschatology. Both [the parables of the tares and of the dragnet] stress the end time, both employ apocalyptic imageries, references to the end of the age, the presence of the Son of Man and the angels, separation of the good and the bad, and the punishment by fire. In contrast, the twin parables of the Treasure and the Pearl Merchant do not have the eschatological focus, do not employ apocalyptic themes. Therefore, by bracketing these parables by the two apocalyptic allegories Matthew shows that the conduct or the ethics of response to the kingdom is qualified by the eschatology. The present is not simply the time for passive waiting but it is to be characterized by the joy of finding and the risk of losing all to possess a treasure at the same time; the disciples are not to be overly concerned about the apparent failure and by the presence of evil in their midst. Ultimate judgment is in the hands of God, and the end time will be the time when their hidden deeds of justice will be disclosed.[33]

Beasley-Murray distinguishes between application of the dragnet parable for believers and application for unbelievers.[34] For the believer the application is a warning against judgmental discrimination, whether religious or racial. The activity with the net stresses the need for evangelism without discrimination or prejudice. Judging the good and the bad is not the prerogative of the believers of this age, but rests in the authority of Christ and His angels to execute at the end of the age. Until the day of judgment “all false zeal must be checked, the field must be left to ripen in patience, the net must be cast widely, and everything else left to God in faith, until this hour comes.”[35] The reference to various kinds of fish might suggest that Jesus’ disciples must preach to all people regardless of ethnic background. As Paul wrote, “knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Cor. 5:11, NKJV). The gospel must be preached to all classes of people because God is “not willing that any should perish” (2 Pet. 3:9, NKJV).

For unbelievers the parable presents a warning to take steps to avoid being condemned in the judgment to take place at the end of this age. The events of the end of the age are certain even if the time is unknown. Each person should examine himself to be sure he is not one who will be separated away from the righteous at the judgment. The fear motive is often condemned by modern Christians, but the Book of Matthew shows Jesus was not opposed to using it properly. “Matthew recognizes, like no other evangelist in the canon,. .. human nature’s need for warning.”[36]

The Parable of the Householder

The eighth analogy in Matthew 13 begins with a question about the disciples’ understanding (v. 51) and ends with Jesus’ words about new and old treasures (v. 52).

The Setting of the Householder Parable

In their literary setting the parables of the dragnet and the householder are similar in structure and terminology. Both parables use a form of the root βάλλω (“cast,” v. 50; “brings forth,” v. 52) for the major activity of the parable. The dragnet parable presents a contrast between the good and the bad, and the householder parable compares the old and the new. In the dragnet parable the good and bad are separate; in the householder parable related yet different elements of the kingdom are joined.

When Jesus asked His disciples, “Have you understood all these things?” (v. 51), He brought them “full circle” back to His response in verses 11–15 to the disciples after He told the first parable in this chapter. Both occasions point up the need to understand God’s kingdom program in the present age. Morris calls this parable “a little postscript about the happy state of the well-instructed disciple.”[37]

The need or problem prompting the householder parable

Since the disciples understood what had been communicated in the previous seven parables, what was to be their responsibility in light of these truths? The parable in verse 52 answers this question. The “mysteries” progressively communicated throughout Matthew 13 are the truths that disciples of the kingdom must understand in order to have an effective ministry for Jesus Christ.

The narrative structure and details of the householder parable

The structure of the passage includes a question to the disciples, their answer, and the consequent analogy. The disciples’ understanding was a prerequisite to their fruitfulness (v. 23) and such understanding is a logical condition for the communication of both new and old truths. “All these things” (ταῦτα πάντα) connotes the previous parables of the kingdom. Their affirmative response is surprising because of their continued struggle to grasp the significance of Jesus’ ministry.

While the term “scribe” (γραμματεύς) is normally used with negative implications in Matthew (e.g., 5:20), the context must be the deciding factor in determining its meaning.[38] A number of views have been suggested for the meaning of “scribe” in 13:51.[39]

Moule says this was Matthew’s secret attempt to identify himself within the narrative.[40] Kilpatrick says it refers to a special class of teachers within the New Testament church.[41] It seems better within the context to relate the scribal role to the responsibility of the disciples who understand the parables. One of the duties of scribes was to interpret the Torah. Sirach 39:2–3 says scribes are to “seek out the wisdom of all the ancients” and “penetrate the subtleties of parables.” Therefore the role of the scribe corresponds with the duties of the disciples, who are responsible to communicate the truths of the kingdom (cf. Ezra 7:6, 10). The following connection with the term “disciple” makes this even more plain.

To “become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven” implies being committed to the person and teachings of Jesus. The verb μαθητεύω, “to become a disciple,” occurs only three times in Matthew (13:52; 27:57; 28:19) and once in Acts (14:21). It suggests being taught or trained. The training in the immediate context specifically relates to the truths essential to understanding the kingdom. The “householder” (οἰκοδεσπότης) is common in Matthew[42] in contexts that specify the responsibility of those who are rightly related to the kingdom of God through faith in Jesus Christ and who are exhorted to be faithful to those teachings of the kingdom expressed in His ministry. The word for “treasure” (θησαύρος) may refer to the treasure itself (as in 13:44) or as in verse 51 to the storage room in which valuables are kept.[43] Carson interprets the “treasure” as a person’s heart, understanding, or personality.[44] But nothing in the passage demands this view. In the context it seems better to see the term referring to truth entrusted to the “scribal disciple.” The verb “brings forth” (ἐκβάλλω) can convey the idea of setting forth for the purpose of display.[45] This would be appropriate for the communication (or teaching) responsibility in the scribal analogy.

Jesus’ reference to the “new and old” (καινὰ καὶ παλαιά) has fostered a variety of opinions. Bruner says the phrase means the message of “the Risen Christ now active in the written and spoken gospel (‘new things’) who constantly reawakens His church to the relevance of the Bible and of the church’s tradition (‘old things’).”[46] However, this seems too anachronistic and allows for more creative redaction than a conservative view of the Gospels allows. Phillips takes the “old” to be the quotation from Isaiah (in Matt. 13:14–15) and the “new” to be Jesus’ prophetic enunciations.[47] However, this seems too restrictive. It seems more natural to see all the parables in Matthew 13 as included in the new.

Carson argues from the Sermon on the Mount that the new (the gospel of the kingdom) takes precedence over the old revelation and its fulfillment.[48] Others, like Morris, see the new as “fresh insights” in comparison with the “teachings that have stood the tests of time.”[49] He adds, “The new age has dawned, and it is only in recognition of that fact that the old can be understood in its essential function of preparing the way for the new.”[50] In a slight variation of this view Blomberg says the “old” refers to the Hebrew Scriptures and the “new” refers to the kingdom age (both present and future).[51] Wenham says the “old” means the older revelation of Moses and the prophets and the “new” means their fulfillment in Jesus.[52] He relates this parable to those of the new patch and the new wine (9:16–17). “So, to return to the parables of the cloth and the wine, Jesus was not an iconoclastic revolutionary, smashing everything that had gone before, but He did see His coming as bringing a decisively new stage in God’s purpose.”[53] Hill takes these to be either the traditional Jewish teachings about the kingdom “which had now been renewed completely by the presence of Jesus, or the ancient Old Testament promises which had found fulfillment in Jesus’ person or teaching.”[54]

Some comments on the previous ideas are in order. If any of the “old” is not yet fulfilled, there cannot be a wholesale setting aside of the old in favor of the new. Also the new cannot be a partial fulfillment of the promises of the old, because both, not just the new, is brought out of the treasure. Further, if the new simply fulfills the old, then it is really not new. The text emphasizes not one but two entities, both the old and the new. The word order suggests that the parable emphasizes the new more than the old. But, while there is an emphasis on the new, it is not the new instead of the old; both new and old are brought forth. Therefore a combination of the new and the old is to be preferred. But new and old what?

The Central Truth(s) in Relationship to the Kingdom in the Householder Parable

The entire pericope of Matthew 11:1–13:52 shows that the rejection of Jesus by Israel’s leaders and their replacement by His disciples has necessitated the introduction of a “new” (what Jesus called mysterious) phase of the kingdom. This phase does not replace the “old”-what was previously prophesied to Israel. Those promises concerning Israel and other nations, delivered through the Old Testament spokesmen for God, will ultimately be completely fulfilled, as predicted. What God will do between their promise and their fulfillment is in keeping with and supplemental to (but not a substitute for) those purposes. Morris approaches the central meaning of the analogy in the following observation: “The new teachings His [Jesus’] followers are embracing do not do away with the old teachings (those in the Old Testament), but are key to understanding them.”[55]

However, this does not go far enough. Morris does not articulate the relationship between what Jesus was inaugurating and the fulfillment of the kingdom as predicted in the Old Testament. Similarly Hagner states, “The Christian Torah scholar or ‘scribe’ is one trained in the mysteries of the kingdom who is able to maintain a balance between the continuity and discontinuity existing between the era inaugurated by Jesus and that of the past.”[56] Both Morris and Hagner introduced what this author sees as the main emphasis of the parable. Jesus was preparing His disciples to be His new representatives in the present phase of His kingdom program. The disciples would be given the responsibility of being the new “managers of the house,” as implied by the term οἰκοδεσπότης. Whereas the Jewish scribes looked back to the Law and forward to the coming of the Messiah, those who follow Jesus are disciples of the kingdom, and are to bring to others the older revelation of the kingdom program as well as the new.

Jesus’ disciples were to be teachers (scribes), in keeping with their previous ministry to Israel (Matt. 10) and their future commission to make disciples of all nations (28:19–20). This responsibility was necessary because of the transfer of leadership authority from the religious leaders of Israel to the disciples. These disciples became the custodians of the kingdom message for the next phase of the kingdom. The disciples became the instructors, on a par with any Jewish scribes. What qualified them was their understanding (faith), which the leaders of Israel lacked and for which reason the mysteries were granted to the former and not the latter (13:10–11).

The Intended Appeal for the Audience of the Householder Parable

The appeal of the parable is for Jesus’ followers to communicate the mysterious treasures of God’s kingdom truth, both its older and newer elements. Disciples of the kingdom should emphasize what God revealed through the Old Testament prophets as well as what He revealed through His Son in His earthly ministry. His disciples should also show the relationship between the old and new truths. Understanding on the part of the disciples was a sign of their faith and was the basis for their responsibility as teachers. Wenham states, “Jesus implies that Christian teachers are similar to the Jewish theological experts in some ways, and yet, whereas the Jewish teachers looked to the past, to the great figure of Moses above all, Jesus’ disciples had not only the old but also the great new treasures as well-in Jesus and His message of the kingdom, being the fulfillment of Moses and the prophets.”[57] Israel’s expectation of the coming earthly kingdom, as revealed in the Old Testament, needs to be taught along with the truths of the present interadvent age, the mystery element unknown in the Old Testament. The mysteries (the new element) of the kingdom present what God will do with His kingdom in the world apart from the nation of Israel. Later of course He will fulfill what He said He will do in the future through Israel.

Conclusion

Of the eight parables of the kingdom in Matthew 13, four were delivered publicly to the multitudes and Jesus’ disciples beside the sea, and four were delivered to the disciples privately in a house.

The first two parables relate to planting. The parable of the sower speaks of different responses to the message of the kingdom. The parable of the tares explains the origins of the conflict between the sons of the kingdom and the sons of the enemy and announces that a final separation of the two groups will take place when Jesus, the Son of Man, will return at the end of the age. The second pair of parables utilizes the analogy of growth. The mustard seed reveals the extent of the rapid international growth of the kingdom of heaven, and the leavening process addresses the internal and invisible dynamic of that growth. The next two parables (the treasure and the pearl merchant) address the value of the kingdom. Whether one is looking or not looking, no sacrifice is too great for the kingdom. The final set of parables reveals the disciples’ dual responsibilities. The dragnet teaches that evangelism without discrimination should be done in view of Jesus’ discriminating judgment at the end of the age. The householder encourages the teaching of both the older and newer truths of the kingdom of heaven by the disciples of the kingdom.

The final article in this series will develop a synthesis of Matthew 13 and suggest a summary of the theology taught in its eight parables.

Notes

1. J. Dwight Pentecost, The Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 62.
2. Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 203.
3. Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, trans. S. H. Hooke, 2d ed. (New York: Scribner & Sons, 1954), 225.
4. A. E. Ross, “Nets,” in Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, ed. James Hastings et al. (New York: Scribner & Sons, 1902), 2:242. Also see Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, TX: Word, 1993), 399.
5. G. H. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästinia (Gütersloh: Olms, 1964), 6:351.
6. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 396.
7. See the classifications of fish in Leviticus 11:9–12.
8. Daniel Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991), 207.
9. Matthew 22:10 has the words πονηρούς τε καὶ ἀγαθούς (“both evil and good”).
10. For a similar line of reasoning, see Jack Dean Kingsbury, Matthew 13: A Study in Redaction Criticism (Richmond, VA: Knox, 1969), 121.
11. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 207.
12. Ibid. In the parable, however, there is no racial distinction as there is in Romans 11. In fact the point of the good and the bad in the parable is that there should be no discrimination in the fishing actions. The separation will not be along racial lines.
13. This same word is used in Matthew 25:32 to describe the separation of the sheep and goats in the judgment of the Gentiles. There the two categories and two eternal destinies are again emphasized.
14. For a similar statement, see Kingsbury, Matthew 13, 123.
15. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 207.
16. D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:330. Kingsbury makes a similar point (Matthew 13, 123, n. 143).
17. Marcus Dods, The Parables of Our Lord (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1890), 113.
18. Ibid., 118.
19. John F. Walvoord, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come (Chicago: Moody, 1974), 107.
20. C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (New York: Scribner & Sons, 1961), 151.
21. Ibid., 152. For similar statements see Archibald M. Hunter, The Parables Then and Now (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 48, n. 3; and David Wenham, The Parables of Jesus (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1989), 66.
22. Kingsbury, Matthew 13, 120.
23. Ibid., 124.
24. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 225.
25. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 202.
26. George R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 136.
27. Eberhard Jüngel, Paulus und Jesus (Tübingen: Mohr, 1962), 146.
28. For example Kingsbury says, “While it is the resolve of God that the Church, the empirical representative of the kingdom of heaven on earth, is in the present age a ‘corpus mixtum,’ it is likewise the resolve of God to terminate this state of affairs in the Great Assize at the End of the age” (Matthew 13, 125).
29. Hagner, Matthew 1–13; and Frederick Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1990), 514.
30. Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary, 514.
31. Ibid.
32. Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold Your King (Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1980), 185.
33. John R. Donahue, The Gospel in Parable (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 69.
34. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom, 137.
35. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 227.
36. Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary, 514.
37. Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 362.
38. Ibid. “Mostly it [γραμματεύς] is used in a pejorative sense for learned people who strongly opposed Jesus and whose understanding of the real meaning of the law was superficial. But here it is not such scribes who are in mind, but one whose studies proceed from a genuine humility and lead him into a true understanding of the things of God” (ibid.).
39. Carson gives a helpful survey of these views (“Matthew,” 331–32).
40. C. F. D. Moule, “St. Matthew’s Gospel,” Studia Evangelica 2 (1964): 98-99.
41. G. D. Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1946), 111.
42. The term οἰκοδεσπότης is found seven times in Matthew and only five other times in the New Testament. The term can refer to God (21:33), Jesus (10:25), or the disciples (24:43).
43. This word is also used in 2:11; 6:19–21; 12:35; 13:44; 19:21.
44. Carson, “Matthew,” 332.
45. Capon states, “Therefore the bringing forth referred to here by Jesus is no rummage-sale unloading of junk; rather it is a displaying of rare treasures for the fascination of the castle guests” (Robert F. Capon, The Parables of the Kingdom [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985], 166).
46. Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary, 517.
47. Gary Allen Phillips, “Enunciation and the Kingdom of Heaven” (Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1981), 470.
48. “The new is not added to the old; there is but one revelation, and its focus is the ‘new’ that has fulfilled and thereby renewed the old, which has thereby become new” (Carson, “Matthew,” 333).
49. Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 363.
50. Ibid.
51. Blomberg, Matthew, 225.
52. Wenham, The Parables of Jesus, 33.
53. Ibid.
54. David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible (London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1972), 240.
55. Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 363.
56. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 402.
57. Wenham, The Parables of Jesus, 33.