The Doctrine of the Kingdom in Matthew 13

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

The message of the kingdom, preached by John, Jesus, and the disciples, included both the need for repentance and the announcement of the imminent coming of the kingdom. The former prepares individuals for the latter. Whereas in Luke 8:11 the message is called “the word of God,” Matthew appropriately referred to it as “the word of the kingdom” (Matt. 13:19), that is, the good news of the kingdom. While the message of the kingdom cannot be limited to the gospel, it must at least include it, as the various gospel contexts affirm. The good news is that God acted in Jesus Christ to provide redemption for humanity and to defeat all who would stand in the way of His being recognized as King.

Reception of the Word

The reception of “the word of the kingdom” produces varying degrees of growth in the lives of those who hear it. Maximum reception with a good and honest heart is shown to be God’s goal for every hearer of the Word of God (13:23). The right response to the message includes hearing, understanding, and doing (v. 23). Obedience is a critical concern in several of Matthew’s kingdom parables. The blessing of God is seen in the fruitfulness of one’s life. The degree of fruitfulness is not the same even among those responding rightly to the message of the kingdom. Each individual is unique in his or her heart response and understanding, and so the extent of fruitfulness also varies. That not all grow at the same rate is an encouragement not to judge one person by the benchmark of another. The differing rates of growth are also a warning that failure to produce fruit may indicate a problem in discipleship commitment that needs to be addressed. Hearing, understanding, obedience, and a commitment that holds fast even under pressure are prerequisites for maximum fruitfulness. Receptivity enhances productivity.

Rejection of the Word

Those who preach or teach the message of the kingdom need to realize that not all will respond as they ought. Three obstacles to the effective appropriation of the message of the kingdom include satanic activity, external pressures from those unsympathetic to God’s purposes, and the lack of internal spirituality within the hearers themselves (in which worry, the desire for riches, and being overly attached to this present world keep the Word of God from producing His desired results, vv. 19–22). The first obstacle is Satan, who seeks to snatch the word of the kingdom from the hearts of those who hear it but have not yet responded to it. The second obstacle is affliction and persecution from others when initial interest has been shown by a prospective hearer. The third distraction is personal desires that can choke out any possibility of a fruitful response. “The main aim of the parables is to describe the activity of God in Jesus, more particularly so that men may trust in it and become disciples, or else be offended at it.”[1]

Opposition to the Word of God

Two spiritual leaders are revealed in Matthew 13 as competing for influence in the world: the Son of Man and Satan. The devil, as the enemy (vv. 25, 28, 39) of Christ and believers, uses various strategies in seeking to carry out his objectives. One is to snatch away the word of the kingdom from those who have not yet adequately welcomed it, in order to keep it from taking root and producing fruit in people’s lives. Another strategy of the enemy of the Son of Man is placing his “sons” (tares) into the world to masquerade as sons of the kingdom. This counterfeiting activity introduces into the world a hypocritical substitution of “sons of the evil one” to imitate those who are the real “sons of the kingdom” (v. 38). Thus the righteous and the wicked are defined by their family relationship. Each person is either a son of the kingdom that belongs to God or a son of the devil, whose desire is to deceive and to destroy God’s work. The fact that it is often difficult to distinguish the sons of the evil one from the sons of the kingdom supports the fact of satanic deceitfulness mentioned throughout Scripture. Such masquerading religiosity has always been one of the enemy’s tactics. A third strategy of Satanic opposition is more subtle. Some individuals are classified as “stumbling blocks” (v. 41). These will be judged at the end of the age along with the rest of the wicked. Therefore the kingdom is under attack by Satan and those he uses as his representatives.

In spite of this hostility the kingdom of heaven will survive and succeed. The judgment at the end of the age will reveal the true identity of those wicked individuals who are allied with Satan and his attempts to frustrate God’s kingdom purposes. A professed allegiance or a superficial response is inadequate for a relationship with Christ and participation in His kingdom.

The Timing of the Kingdom

The parables of Matthew 13 reveal three phases of the kingdom. The aorist tense of several verbs in the parable of the tares (vv. 24–28) suggests a previous history for the kingdom. This would pertain to the revelation and development of God’s kingdom purposes in the Old Testament. The parable of the tares also speaks of a future phase of the kingdom referred to as “His [i.e., Christ’s] kingdom” (v. 41) and “the kingdom of their Father” (v. 43), referents to the Messiah’s future earthly reign. By far the most dominant phase of the kingdom in these parables is the present interadvent age. This period is portrayed as having a beginning (planting), phenomenal growth and extension, and a culminating judgment. This present phase began with the ministry of Jesus and His disciples. Jesus is seen as having an active and personal role in the planting phase of the kingdom (vv. 3–4). This will be an extended period of time leading to the end of the age with its climactic events.

What began with hardly any perceptible presence will reach a level of international proportions. The world continues in this era to be the stage for conflict between Satan and the Son of Man and between those they strategically place in the world to carry on their influence and purposes. The present (“mystery”) form of the kingdom is broader than but includes the church age. At the culmination of this interadvent phase of God’s kingdom angels will accompany Jesus and will separate (vv. 39, 41, 49) the wicked from the righteous. The righteous then will shine as the sun in the Lord’s kingdom (v. 43).

The Kingdom as a Present Reality

The parables in Matthew 13 focus on the phase of God’s kingdom program that extends from the time of Israel’s rejection of Jesus in His earthly ministry to the time of judgment at His second coming. Both the beginning (planting) and expansion (growth) of the interadvent phase of the kingdom are noted. The world is portrayed as the stage for the ongoing conflict between the work of the Son of Man and Satan, between the sons of the kingdom and the sons of the evil one. The various responses to the kingdom message and the continuing conflict of the kingdom messengers (sons of the kingdom) in the first two parables are portrayed as initial stages that will progress to the time of harvest.

The mustard seed and the leavening process depict the successful growth of the kingdom in the present age. While not intended necessarily to trace the growth itself, the small beginning and extensive expansion to the end argue for an indefinite period of time between these two points. These parables signal coming judgment for those of Israel who were rejecting the message of Jesus. These parables also encourage believers to remember that what God is doing during the present phase of the kingdom will enjoy a successful growth. And, in contrast to what was thought by some to be only a Jewish hope, the kingdom of God in the present age, starting with almost imperceptible beginnings, will survive and even expand to international proportions, bringing light to the nations before the end of the age.

What Jesus is doing in the present age is consistent with what God has designed for the future phase of the kingdom. This includes the international ministry to the Gentiles and their participation in the kingdom of God. While the institutional structures through which God works in each age differ, they all emphasize His concern for the world. The humble beginning and seemingly small results in Jesus’ ministry are not inconsistent with the future manifestation of the kingdom of God in which His absolute worldwide sovereignty will be recognized and consummated.

The growth of the kingdom in its interadvent phase does not result from external religious activity. Instead the growth comes by means of the ministry of the Holy Spirit. He is the invisible yet effective Agent of transforming growth.

The Sons of the Kingdom

The people placed by the Son of Man in the world to represent Him are called the sons of the kingdom. The citizens (sons) of the kingdom may seem indistinguishable from those who are not sons of the kingdom. However, as sons of the kingdom they are related to Christ as God’s children by means of their obedient faith. The metaphor of wheat shows them to be the desired harvest from the earth. They are contrasted with the sons of the evil one who, pictured by the tares, will be rejected by the Son of Man when He returns to earth.

The Lord’s servants are to resist the temptation to prejudge the people of this world, for two reasons. One is the danger of mistaking the character of those being evaluated (v. 29), and another is that the right of judgment is reserved for the Son of Man. He alone has the ability to discern the true character of those He will judge.

Discipleship and the Kingdom

Since Jesus interpreted the first two and the last four parables for the disciples in private, it follows that these parables suggest principles by which the disciples should live and minister. The disciples are presented in Matthew as the privileged recipients of the mysteries, since they are credited with a responsive heart of understanding (vv. 11–12, 51). Fruitfulness results from such a response. Implied also is the ongoing need to have an honest heart if future insight and fruitfulness are to be realized.

Disciples are prohibited from being the agents of judgment during the present phase of the kingdom (v. 30). As stated earlier, the reasons are that they would be prone to misjudge because of their inability to distinguish the sons of the kingdom from the sons of the evil one, and the role of judge has been delegated to the Son of Man along with his “collection agents,” the angels.

The disciples can be confident that though the kingdom with which they aligned themselves may have a small beginning, its future will be glorious and international through the powerful ministry of the Holy Spirit. What may seem invisible in its beginnings and even in its process and progress will have dramatic results in God’s timing.

Those who are disciples of Jesus and His kingdom must be prepared to give up everything that would stand in the way of wholehearted commitment to the priority of the kingdom of God, as emphasized in the parables of the hidden treasure and the pearl merchant. Whether one realizes its value or not, whether one was looking for it or not (vv. 44–46), the kingdom is so valuable it is worth giving up all for it. These are reasons for participating in the kingdom; it is valuable, and its benefits bring joy. Therefore whatever is given up for the pursuit of the kingdom is not really a loss. God’s kingdom should be the highest priority in one’s life. The theme of total commitment for those who would be disciples of the kingdom is a well-recognized theme in the Synoptic Gospels.

The Mission of the Kingdom

The mission of the kingdom includes both evangelism and edification, both worldwide proclamation and comprehensive teaching. The international mission of the kingdom has been designed to reach people of “every kind” (v. 47), that is, people of every tribe, tongue, and nation. The disciples of the kingdom are to invite everyone to come in. Separation of the good from the bad (the righteous from the wicked) will be the future responsibility of the Son of Man and His angels (vv. 41, 49–50).

Teaching both the new and old truths of the kingdom is the burden of the final parable in verses 51–52. Referring to the “new” before mentioning the “old” places the focus on the mysteries of the kingdom-the parables of this chapter and probably the others Jesus taught in His ministry. The “old” would include what had already been communicated in the Old Testament about the kingdom and its future fulfillment.

The Judgment at the End of the Age

The judgment that will separate the wicked from the righteous will not occur until the end of the age. This final judgment is depicted by the images of harvesttime and the close of a fishing day (vv. 30, 48–50). This judgment will divide humanity, not along racial or religious lines as supposed by many of Israel’s leaders but according to the character of people’s lives, which will reveal their relationship and response to Jesus. The wicked will be confined to eternal punishment and the righteous will remain to enter into the kingdom of the Father (vv. 41–43, 49–50).

The agents of that judgment are said to be the angels, while the Son of Man is portrayed as the Judge who has the right to determine the destiny of both the righteous and the wicked. The punitive judgment is said to include all who are stumbling blocks and all who are guilty of wickedness (v. 41). This speaks not only of their personal character but also of their negative influence on others. Those so judged will experience weeping and gnashing of teeth (vv. 42, 50), which connotes the anguish and anger the condemned will experience in their eternal separation from God. The righteous, on the other hand, will enjoy the kingdom of the Father (v. 43), sharing in His glory.

The parables clearly support a premillennial perspective on eschatology. After the judgment at the end of the age the righteous will become a community of believers who are said to be like light in the kingdom of the Father (v. 43). The judgment that determines who will enter this future phase of the kingdom will take place on earth; no translation of saints to heaven is mentioned in Matthew 13. Therefore the future phase of the kingdom must also be on earth, and will follow the judgment of the wicked and the righteous that will occur when the Son of Man returns to earth.

The Self-Understanding of Jesus as King of the Kingdom

One of the most controversial subjects in the study of the Gospels pertains to Jesus’ self-understanding. Therefore it is only natural to ask what the parables of Matthew 13 contribute to that subject. Jesus’ boldness in teaching about His right to share the privileges of God argues strongly for His deity as well as His right to rule as the messianic King.[2] The parables themselves contain some of the boldest references by Jesus about Himself.

As Blomberg observes, “Never did such individuals [other prophets or spokesmen of God] apply symbols for God to themselves so consistently as did Jesus, and none ever claimed that he was doing precisely what the Scriptures said God himself would do. Yet in the parables Jesus claims to forgive sin, usher in the kingdom, sow his word in human hearts, graciously welcome undeserving sinners into God’s presence, seek out and rescue his lost sheep, oversee the final judgment, and distinguish those who will and those who will not enter the kingdom.”[3]

In the parable of the tares Jesus is identified as “the Son of Man” (vv. 37, 41). This title speaks of His humanity and deity in His incarnation, earthly ministry, and coming judgment. This title is loaded with implications for the kingdom.[4] Jesus has the authority to send angels to gather humanity for the great separation at the end of the age. He is not indifferent to the evil that exists in the world, as a delay of judgment might lead some to conclude. As the One who can give directions to the angels and who will preside over the judgment, only Jesus has the authority to judge. As seen in the parable of the tares, even the servants of the Son of Man are not allowed to judge (vv. 29–30). The fact that the kingdom is said to be His (v. 41) reveals He has the right to be the King. He is the One who determines the eternal punishment for the wicked and the entrance of the righteous into the kingdom of the Father. In the parable of the tares Jesus is seen as present at both the beginning of the planting process and the harvest at the end of the age. These facts clearly show that Jesus understood that He is the coming divine King.

Applicational Principles

Several applicational principles can be gleaned from the intended appeals of the parables in Matthew 13.

1. Not everyone will respond to the message of the kingdom, and not all who do respond are equally fruitful.
2. Satan is personally active in seeking to prevent people from receiving the message of God’s kingdom.
3. Both external pressures and internal distractions hinder the proper appropriation of the Word of God.
4. God desires that people hear, understand, and apply the truth of His Word in order to be fruitful for Him.
5. The hearers of the Word are at least partially responsible for the level of productivity in their lives.
6. Jesus’ followers should realize that Satan sends his representatives into the world to masquerade as sons of the kingdom to disrupt and hinder the work of Christ.
7. Believers need to be realistic about the presence of hypocrites, but believers should not assume the role reserved for Jesus by seeking to judge others.
8. Servants of the Lord need to wait patiently for Jesus to judge and separate the wicked from the righteous.
9. People should decide to be followers of Christ in light of the impending judgment which will determine their eternal destiny.
10. God has promised the righteous a glorious future in the shared reign of the Son and the Father in the next phase of the kingdom, Jesus’ rule on earth.
11. The success of God’s work cannot be fully evaluated until the time of the judgment.
12. Messiah has come in humility and will one day reign in sovereignty.
13. The work of the Spirit authenticates the ministry of Jesus Christ.
14. Jesus’ disciples need to depend on the invisible yet powerfully transforming work of the Holy Spirit.
15. The kingdom of heaven should be the highest priority of anyone who finds it.
16. No sacrifice is too great in light of the value of the kingdom.
17. The joy of participating in the kingdom should motivate Jesus’ followers to make whatever sacrifice is necessary.
18. Discipleship calls for wholehearted dedication to God’s kingdom purposes.
19. Participation in God’s kingdom is not restricted to any single race.
20. Jesus places a high priority on evangelism to all classes and cultures.
21. The need to evangelize the world is motivated by the reality of future judgment.
22. God’s judgment will be based on inner character rather than cultural backgrounds.

Notes

1. John J. Vincent, Secular Christ (Nashville: Abingdon, 1968), 113.
2. For an extended discussion of this observation see Philip Barton Payne, “Jesus’ Implicit Claim to Deity in His Parables,” Trinity Journal 2 (Winter 1981): 2-23.
3. Craig Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 320.
4. Daniel 7:13–14 especially speaks of the expectation of the coming kingdom and the reign of the saints with the Son of Man.

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.

The Parables of the Hidden Treasure and of the Pearl Merchant

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 six in an eight-part series, “The Kingdom in the Parables of Matthew 13.”]

The parables of the hidden treasure and of the pearl merchant are the first two Jesus spoke after He left the crowd and went into a house with His disciples (Matt. 13:36). In both of these parables, as with others in Matthew 13, the introductory formulas are the same: “The kingdom of heaven is like” (vv. 44, 45; cf. vv. 24, 31, 33, 47). Hagner notes that as in the previous two parables (the mustard seed and the leavening process) the imagery of hiddenness and smallness is evident.[1]

The Setting of the Hidden Treasure Parable

After telling the crowd and His disciples four parables (Matt. 13:1–33), Jesus left the crowd and entered a house with His disciples, where He explained the parable of the weeds (vv. 36–43). Then He told them four more parables. Using the word “hidden” (κεκρυμμένῳ) in verse 44, the first of these four parables in the house is linked with verse 35, which quotes Psalm 78:2: “I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things hidden [κεκρυμμένα] since the foundation of the world.” Fenton has suggested that the entire “in-house” section of verses 34–52 has been recorded as a chiasm:[2]

A Jesus’ speaking in parables as a fulfillment of prophecy (v. 35)

B The explanation of the weeds (vv. 36–43)

C The parable of the treasure (v. 44)

C’ The parable of the pearl (vv. 45–46)

B’ The net and its explanation (vv. 47–50)

A’ Jesus’ saying about the new and the old (vv. 51–52)

The “A” lines emphasize the Old Testament truth and the mysteries being delivered by the new Sage, Jesus. The “B” lines refer to the judgment at the end of the age when the wicked will be separated from the righteous. The “C” lines contain the “couplet” parables, which show the value of the kingdom.

The Narrative Structure and Details of the Hidden Treasure Parable

Blomberg lists the parables of the hidden treasure and of the pearl merchant as “one-point parables,” since each contains only one main character in the narrative. Yet he argues that there are actually two foci to the narrative of each parable.[3] On the other hand Phillips says the parable of the hidden treasure has a threefold structure with a major transformation at the end.[4]

The parables of the hidden treasure and of the pearl merchant are parallel in five ways: a reference to something of value, the finding, the going, the selling all one has, and the buying. They also have some significant differences. The treasure parable speaks of hiding, joy, and the location of the treasure that is found and hidden again in the field. It also contains historic-present tenses (“goes,” “buys,” and “sells”), whereas the pearl merchant parable has all these verbs in the past (“went,” “sold,” and “bought”). In the first the discovery is accidental, while in the second the person was in the business for just such a find. Obviously, then, the parables, while similar, are not the same, as some have suggested.

The Treasure Hidden in the Field

In verse 44 the term “treasure” can mean the place where valuables are kept or the treasure itself. People would bury their treasures to keep them safe from marauders. This was a common practice when people went on a journey or were at war.[5] Josephus referred to the incredible wealth that Jews had buried underground and that the Romans discovered.[6] The tenuous political conditions that prevailed at the time of Christ prompted people to bury their treasures for security. This was also done by the unprofitable servant in another of Jesus’ parables (25:25).

Several interpreters have understood the treasure to be a particular group of people. Trench identified the treasure as Gentiles and the pearl as believing Jews, because, he said, the Jews were looking for the kingdom and the Gentiles were not.[7] Fenton argues against such a notion, saying that the Jews should have been mentioned before the Gentiles.[8] Therefore some interpret the treasure as a symbol of the Jews-either Jewish Christians[9] or the nation Israel.[10] Walvoord says the treasure is Israel whose value is unrecognized by the world.[11] Irenaeus, on the other hand, held that the treasure was Christ, and the field was the Scriptures.[12] Some identify the treasure with Israel because it was found in the field, a subtle reference to the land of Israel. Similarly the pearl, found in the sea, is associated with the Gentiles. However, to suggest further that such references apply to only the believers in Israel or among the Gentiles seems to go beyond the basic thought of something valuable.

The background for the phrase “treasure hidden in the field” (θησαυρῷ κεκρυμμένῳ ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ) may be found in Proverbs 2:4 and Sirach 20:30. In the first reference wisdom is something to be searched for like a hidden treasure. The verse in Sirach states that it is folly not to possess the hidden treasure. Jesus’ parable is teaching that possessing a treasure such as the kingdom should be of the highest priority for any person interested in living wisely. The fact that the treasure was found “in the field” simply distinguishes the location from a city or village. Blomberg identifies the man in both parables as “anyone who becomes a ‘child of the kingdom,’ that is a disciple of Jesus.”[13]

The Acquisition of the Treasure

Some writers challenge as unethical the man’s keeping what did not belong to him. But others argue that the morality of the parable is beside the point, since the value of what is found is the central truth of the parable.[14] This issue within the economy of the day was debated by the rabbis.[15] “When anyone found treasure like this, the legal position appears to have been that the finder was entitled to keep it.”[16] There is nothing in the parable to hint that anything out of the ordinary took place. As Stein observed, “What is clear is that they [the audience of the parable] believed that the man of the parable could have acquired such treasure by the purchasing of the land in which he found the treasure.”[17] Blomberg dismisses the parable’s details of joy, the hiding, and the ethics of hiding before buying as peripheral to the main issues.[18]

The Re-hiding of the Treasure

The man’s re-hiding of the discovered treasure has been interpreted variously. Thomas said the re-hiding portrays the rejection and postponement of the kingdom. His point is that true believers would not be revealed until at least after Pentecost.[19] He also believes Matthew 11:25 indicates that God has “hidden” certain truths from the wise and has revealed them to babies. The kingdom is among those things God has hidden from those who, because of a lack of humility, cannot understand. For Thomas, the treasure is not the kingdom found by people, but the people of the kingdom found by God.[20] The man’s selling “all he has” is for Thomas a picture of the Savior’s death.[21]

Scott argues that the “finders keepers, losers weepers” mentality of the parable is an “escape from the bonds of the everyday, to a lawless world where we are rewarded for not working.”[22] This can “be a sign of God’s grace working outside the laws of the everyday.”[23]

It seems preferable, however, to interpret the re-hiding as a part of the finder’s desperate effort to own the treasure. Thus the parable seems to state that individuals should let nothing stand in the way of possessing the kingdom as their highest priority.

Darrett has surveyed the talmudic case law with respect to “lifting” (removing treasure after it is discovered) and has concluded that, depending on the specificity of the instructions by the owner, a day laborer may retain what he finds.[24] “That which is found by a laborer [while working for another] belongs to himself. When is that? [It is if] the employer had instructed him, ‘Weed or dig for me to-day.’ But if the employer had instructed him, ‘Work for me to-day’ [without specifying the nature of the work], his findings belong to the employer.”[25] What seems clear in the rabbinic traditions is that if a treasure had a mark of ownership, the finder was required to return the find to the owner. Otherwise the opportunity to buy the property and so possess the treasure was considered legal. Rights of ownership are then tied to the property on which the treasure is discovered.[26] Scott summarizes, “Treasure that can be presumed to have an owner cannot be claimed by the finder.”[27] But here in Jesus’ parable the action of the man was ethical and legal according to rabbinic authorities.[28]

The Selling of Everything

The worker was motivated to sell everything he owned because he recognized the great value of the discovered treasure and he sensed the joy of owning such a treasure. The phrase “from joy over it” (ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς αὐτοῦ) shows the finder understood both the value of the treasure and the significance of possessing it. Jesus was not saying that a person can purchase the kingdom. That would fly in the face of God’s grace, the only means of obtaining eternal life and entering the kingdom. (In fact Jesus said, “Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom” [Luke 12:32, NIV]). Instead Jesus was saying that “the selling of all he has is rather a way of bringing out the truth that one should count all well lost for the sake of the kingdom.”[29] Charles states, “The selling and the buying in this connection express a man’s willingness to give up, to sacrifice, everything that prevents his making the heavenly treasure his own.”[30]

What the man lost by selling everything was worth it for what he gained. This paradoxical finale drives the parabolic analogy. What was originally thought to be of personal worth becomes insignificant in comparison with what is acquired.

The Central Truth(s) in Relationship to the Kingdom

The options for the central truth of this parable include the sacrificial work of Christ, the sacrifice (both the demand and the joy) to possess the kingdom, the reward of the righteous in the age to come, and the essential value of the kingdom.

The Work of Christ

The tension that one cannot buy the kingdom of God has led some to identify the person in each of the parables as Jesus Christ.[31] Toussaint says this parable presents a history of the kingdom, as seen in the following analogies.

a. Hidden state: the dark period of Israel from Rehoboam to Christ

b. Discovery: the coming near of the kingdom in the ministry of Jesus

c. Hiding the treasure: removal of the kingdom from Israel (Matt. 21:43)

d. Buying the field: the condescension of Jesus through His death.[32]

However, since the period under consideration in Matthew 13 is the period from the ministry of the Son of Man to the judgment at the end of the present age, it is difficult to see the kingdom initially found, appreciated, and then hidden as a reference to kingdom history in the Old Testament. As a mystery of the kingdom the parable points out that what was not previously known in the Old Testament is now revealed in the ministry of Jesus Christ.

The Reward for the Righteous

Fenton argues that the point of the parables of the treasure and of the pearl merchant is to stress the reward for the righteous in the age to come.[33] And Patte writes, “The point of these parables is to show how people should fully devote themselves to the appropriation of this ultimate good.”[34]

The Demand for Sacrifice

A number of scholars believe that the point of this parable is the sacrifice required for possession of, or participation in the kingdom. Songer argues that the central truth is that sacrifice of oneself and one’s possessions is a requirement for discipleship.[35] Stein gives three reasons why sacrifice is the central point of the analogy.[36] First, the value of the kingdom would have been an “obvious given” for Jesus’ audience. Second, the end stress of the parable lies with the sacrificial action of the main characters of both parables. Third, the shift from the aorist tense at the beginning of the parable of the treasure to the present tense at the end draws attention to the end, where the cost is emphasized. He summarizes, “It is evident, therefore, that Jesus in these parables meant to portray the decision to possess the kingdom of God as a ‘joyous sacrifice.’ ”[37]

Blomberg says that the major difference between the parables of the treasure and of the pearl merchant is significant. In the first, a man found a treasure without looking for it, while the merchant in the second spent much time and travel looking for pearls. “Jesus may therefore be calling both the individual who is diligently searching for spiritual riches as well as the person who is entirely apathetic toward God to give up whatever stands between them and the kingdom.”[38] “They must be willing to risk all, if the priorities of the kingdom threaten the security of their earthly existence.”[39]

The Joy of Possession

Beasley-Murray argues that the willingness to sacrifice is more important than the act of sacrifice itself. “The point is that the worth of what has come to the finders is so great that they are happy to pay whatever price is necessary to get it.”[40] Regarding the relationship between the value and the cost, Jüngel affirms, “The joy on the part of the finder corresponds to the superior worth of the treasure; as joy in the greater over the less, it self-evidently (not sacrificially!) makes renunciation, if that which is of greater worth can be gained.”[41] Bruner also sees the joy of the gospel as the “leading point” of the parables of the treasure and the pearl merchant.[42] Bruner argues against the idea of sacrifice in favor of joy: “Because of the treasure, selling was not sacrifice; it was smart. It was a joy!”[43] In neither parable was the act of selling seen as a sacrifice.

Both Joy and Demand

Some writers find in these two parables a balance between joy and demand. Bruner states, “The two great and complementary lessons of the gem parables-the joy of the gospel and the demand of the gospel-should be the interpreter’s emphases.”[44] Bonnard writes, “The evangelical stripping [dépouillment, self-sacrifice] is not the means of acceding to the kingdom, but [it is] the consequence of the discovery. Yet on the other hand, the treasure once discovered requires and permits [enables?] this stripping.”[45] This is also the position of both Dodd and Linnemann.[46] More specifically, Linnemann thinks the central point of the two parables is the risk factor.[47] While joy and demand do find their place in the narrative, they are understood only against the backdrop of the value of the kingdom which, when found, produces joy and demands sacrifice.

The Value of the Kingdom

What best explains the actions and emotions of the man who found the treasure is the value of the kingdom. That the concept of value is the supreme point of the parable can be seen by the fact that in neither parable was the sacrifice viewed as a loss. Rather, both men end up with treasures far beyond their net worth before they acquired the treasures.[48] In Matthew, selling is a condition for possessing the treasure, not for finding it.[49] “It may not appear to be riches from the world’s point of view, but membership in the kingdom has superlative value.”[50] Wendland agrees that the major picture is “the incomparable worth of the kingdom which surpasses all earthly things, for which everything must be offered up.”[51] Among others, Hagner argues that the value of the kingdom justifies the cost. He sees in these two parables “the glorious character of the kingdom brought by Jesus, which justifies the cost of absolute discipleship.”[52] The point is that the kingdom is worth everything. “Rigorous, self-denying discipleship is in view.. .. This parable, like its following companion, is about the reality of the kingdom and its absolute worth in terms of personal sacrifice.”[53] Addressing the balance between value and sacrifice, Young says, “However, both aspects are complimentary, for the cost of discipleship describes the value of the kingdom and the value of the kingdom is commensurate with the commitment required of a disciple.”[54]

The Conclusion

The central truth of this parable of the hidden treasure is the value of the kingdom of heaven. The joy in finding it, its potential possession, and the need for sacrifice support the fact that value is the dominant theme. Also sacrifice is involved. “The kingdom of God is so valuable that it is worth sacrificing anything to gain it.”[55] Sider has rightly articulated these points of value and sacrifice in slightly different words. “In this parable Jesus evidently wished to say at least two things about the kingdom. First, it comes of God’s grace, not of our ability; this requires that the purchase be a notable bargain. Second, the kingdom demands total commitment; this requires that the man pay with everything he has.”[56]

Because of the inherent value of the kingdom and the joy that comes to those who possess it, no sacrifice is too great to make for such a treasure as the kingdom of God.

The Intended Appeal for the Audience of the Hidden Treasure Parable

Because Jesus spoke these two parables to the disciples only, the primary application relates to believers. The parable of the treasure portrays the value of the kingdom and affirms that it is to be the highest priority in one’s life. “When we find it (read, ‘fully grasp its infinite worth’) we will joyfully let go of all competing claims upon our lives and make it our one great possession.”[57] Paterson’s catalog of the values of the kingdom makes all else shrink by comparison.

The chief of these-if they may be described by the modern categories-are the religious values of the forgiveness of sins and filial communion with the heavenly Father; the moral values of the change of heart, the practice of true righteousness, and the call to the service of God and man; the intellectual values of the knowledge of the Father and the mysteries of the Kingdom; the social values of the fellowship of the Christian society; and the affective values of the peace and the joy which the world can neither give nor take away. The Kingdom might even be said to include economic values, since the disciples were assured of a providential care by which the hairs of their head were all numbered, and were promised that if they made it their concern to seek the Kingdom of God the Father in heaven would make it His concern to provide for their earthly necessities (Mt 6:33).[58]

This parable thus serves to motivate believers to be faithful and to be on guard against worldliness. “Worldliness consists, not in possessing the goods of this world, but in valuing them as ends in themselves, or in using them for selfish or sordid ends.”[59]

The inherent value of the kingdom also motivates Jesus’ disciples to evangelize others. Disciples who have “found” the kingdom ought to communicate its message as the treasure others should possess. “It is first by telling people of God’s treasure that people make the sellings that are necessary in following God.”60 Fenton describes the evangelistic appeal within the overall eschatological message of the kingdom: “God is about to rule; and when He takes over, there will be no place for private empires. The only way to survive the coming cataclysm is to change from a life of sin and selfishness and pride, to the life that is for God. Those who ‘buy’ this will be ensuring their future safety and prosperity; and the cost of it is total abandonment, in faith.”[61] Joy is a major motivation for both discipleship and evangelism. “The basic motif of discipleship, for all its difficulties, is certainly joy-joy in the discovery of the reality of Jesus and in the thoughtfulness of His commands.”[62] Bengel adds, “Spiritual joy is an incentive to deny the world.”[63]

The Parable of the Pearl Merchant

Glombitza lists five differences between the parables of the treasure and of the pearl merchant: (1) The former likens the kingdom to a treasure; the latter to a merchant. (2) The treasure is intentionally concealed; the latter involves the merchant’s effort to find the pearl in its natural setting. (3) The treasure was accidentally found; the pearl was intentionally sought. (4) The verbs in the former parable are in the present tense; in the latter they are generally in the past tense. (5) The character of the selling is different between the two: the dayworker sold his possessions, while the merchant was accustomed to buying and selling as part of his normal activity.[64]

The first two parables of Matthew 13 (the sower and the weeds) were interpreted by the Lord. The next two (the mustard seed and the leavening process) have Old Testament backgrounds. But the parables of the treasure and of the pearl merchant stand by themselves without interpretation. These two have similar characteristics: the introductory formula is the same; the structure of both is similar; and their central truths are similar.

The association of pearls with other precious stones in Revelation 17:4; 18:12, 16; 21:21 indicates their value in the ancient Greco-Roman culture. The link between pearls and a merchant is also found in Revelation 18:11–12, no doubt reflecting a typical cultural connection. Jesus said, “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine” (Matt. 7:6). Each of the gates of the New Jerusalem seen by the apostle John was a single pearl (Rev. 21:21). Thus the pearl was an object of great value. Pearls were mostly found in the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the Indian Ocean.

The Narrative Structure and Details of the Pearl Merchant Parable

The structure of this parable parallels that of the hidden treasure parable. Both refer to something valuable; both record the finding of those valuables; and both mention an intentional action of going, selling everything, and buying the object of value.

The word “merchant” (ἔμπορος) comes from the word πόρος “journey.” The idea is that of a traveling wholesaler, not that of a more stationary retailer.65 The merchant was looking for “fine pearls” (13:45). “Fine” (καλός) can mean beautiful as well as what is good. Μαργαρίτης, the word for pearl, is found three times in Matthew, once in 1 Timothy, and five times in Revelation. It does not appear at all in the Septuagint. Pearls were often classified with gold as especially valuable items.66 The pearl found by the merchant is said to have been “of great value” (Matt. 13:46). This word πολύτιμος is used of the costly ointment that Mary poured on Jesus in anticipation of His death and burial (John 12:3) and of the believer’s faith under trial, which is more precious than gold (1 Pet. 1:7). Jeremias says the phrase “one precious pearl” (ἕνα πολύτιμον μαργαρίτην) is an Aramaism that should be translated “a specially valuable pearl.”[67]

Walvoord says the pearl represents the church, noting that “there is a sense in which the church was formed out of the wounds of Christ.”[68] Carson criticizes this view, saying, “This does not take us much beyond patristic allegorizing.”[69] He says Jesus was “saying that the person whose whole life has been bound up with ‘pearls’—the entire religious heritage of the Jews?—will, on comprehending the true value of the kingdom as Jesus presents it, gladly exchange all else to follow him.”[70] However, how much allegorizing is Carson guilty of in identifying other pearls as the heritage of the Jews as opposed to other items of value or interests in this life? Pentecost identifies the man in the parable as Christ and the pearl as the Gentiles.[71] However, this author has difficulty seeing any distinction of nationality in the two parables of the treasure and the pearl merchant.

In the parable of the treasure the verb “sells” is πωλέω, whereas the verb “sold” (perfect tense) in the pearl merchant parable is from πιπράσκω. Morris feels the change is merely stylistic.[72] He adds, “The sacrifice of all that a man has is not too much. But in this second parable there is the further point that, whereas the man with the treasure could sell part of it and still be wealthy, the man with the pearl must retain it; his delight was in possessing it, not in the profit he could make from it.”[73] Whether part of the treasure could be sold and part of it kept is beyond the statements in the parable. Finding a valuable pearl, the merchant sold everything he owned (just as the man did in the previous parable), picturing total commitment.

The Central Truth(s) in Relationship to the Kingdom

Because this parable is so closely related to the previous one, it is not necessary to repeat all the options proposed for the parable’s central truth. Bruner states, “Few places in the New Testament as perfectly spell out the two main foci of the gospel (grace and demand), and place them in their proper sequence, as do these two gem parables: first the jewels and then the selling; but without the selling there is no possession of the jewels.”[74] This parable, like the previous one, has been interpreted as emphasizing the value of the kingdom,[75] the necessary sacrifice for the kingdom,[76] or the compelling power of God’s grace.[77]

Why did Jesus tell two parables with such a similar structure and emphasis? If they are intended as a strict couplet, the purpose would be to deepen the lessons of value and sacrifice. Paterson lists two possible reasons why they should not be viewed as a couplet, teaching the same lessons: to appeal through the characters in the narrative to peasant folks as well as city dwellers; and to address two classes of disciples-those finding the kingdom while not looking, and those looking for the Messiah with great expectation of the kingdom. Matthew would be an example of the former and Peter and Andrew would be typical of the latter.[78] However, Jeremias says the differences between the parables are irrelevant. “In both parables the discovery was a surprise, the doubling of the parable is not concerned with the manner of discovery but with the contrast of the poor and the rich.”[79]

The Intended Appeal for the Audience of the Pearl Merchant Parable

Together with the previous parable this one stresses the priority of the kingdom based on its inherent value. “People must always be willing to abandon anything that might stand in the way of wholehearted allegiance to Christ and the cause of the kingdom.”[80] “Again we see that it is well to take decisive action while the opportunity is there, and that no cost is too great when it is a matter of gaining the kingdom.”[81] Therefore all that one has is never too much to give in exchange for absolute dedication to the Lord’s rule. Of course neither parable is teaching that a person’s efforts or sacrifices will gain him or her salvation. Instead the parables are emphasizing the need for complete allegiance to Jesus and His cause, regardless of the personal cost.

For Hagner, the fifth and sixth parables of Matthew 13 “have as their focus the glorious character of the kingdom brought by Jesus which justifies the cost of absolute discipleship.”[82] He states further, “But in the case of the kingdom, wonderful beyond price, the analogous action of the disciple in full and unreserved commitment is more than justified.”[83] The value of the kingdom is worth sacrificing all one has. When a follower of Jesus makes such a sacrifice, paradoxically he or she gains. Like the treasure, the kingdom is the source of highest joy, and, as seen in the pearl, the kingdom should be deemed as the most precious possession.

Notes

1. Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, TX: Word, 1993), 396.
2. John C. Fenton, “The Parables of the Treasure and the Pearl (Matt. 13:44–46),” Expository Times 77 (March 1966): 178.
3. Craig Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 278–79.
4. Gary Allen Phillips, “Enunciation and the Kingdom of Heaven” (Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1981), 444.
5. Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 359.
6. Josephus, Jewish War 7.5.2.
7. Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1948), 112–13.
8. Fenton, “The Parables of the Treasure and the Pearl (Matt. 13:44–46),” 179.
9. W. H. Griffith Thomas, Outline Studies in the Gospel of Matthew, 202.
10. J. Dwight Pentecost, The Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 60–61.
11. John F. Walvoord, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come (Chicago: Moody, 1974), 104–5.
12. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.26.1.
13. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 279.
14. Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, trans. S. H. Hooke, 2d ed. (New York: Scribner & Sons, 1954), 99; T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM, 1949), 196; Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 359; and Schweizer, The Good News according to Matthew, trans. David Green (Richmond, VA: Knox, 1975), 312. Blomberg notes that “Jesus frequently told parables in which unscrupulous characters nevertheless display some virtue from which Christians can learn (cf. esp. Luke 16:1–8; 18:1–8)” (Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, New American Commentary [Nashville: Broadman, 1992], 223).
15. Cf. m.BabaBatra 4:8; y.BabaMeṣiʿa 2:5, 8c; also see the extended discussion in Bernard B. Scott, Hear Then the Parable (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 398–401.
16. Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 359. Morris argues that the reason the man hid the treasure he discovered was that in working for the owner, he would be an agent of the owner and the discovery would belong to the one for whom he worked.
17. Robert H. Stein, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 100.
18. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 280.
19. Thomas, Outline Studies in the Gospel of Matthew, 202.
20. Ibid., 203.
21. Ibid., 202.
22. Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 402.
23. Ibid.
24. J. Duncan M. Darrett, Law in the New Testament (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1970), 6, 7, 13.
25. b.BabaMeṣiʿa 118a.
26. m.BabaMeṣiʿa 2:1. For a detailed discussion of what constituted legal marks of ownership, see y. BabaMeṣiʿa 2.3-10.
27. Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 399.
28. m. BabaMeṣiʿa 2:1.
29. Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 360 (italics his).
30. R. H. Charles, “Two Parables: A Study,” Expository Times 35 (March 1924): 266.
31. Jeffrey A. Gibbs, “Parables of Atonement and Assurance: Matthew 13:44–46, ” Concordia Theological Quarterly 51 (January 1987): 19-43; and Pentecost, The Parables of Jesus, 60–61.
32. Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold Your King (Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1980), 183–84.
33. “It will be like gaining possession of a treasure, or of a pearl of very special value; no sacrifice in this age will be too great for that” (Fenton, “The Parables of the Treasure and the Pearl (Matt. 13:44–46),” 178.
34. Daniel Patte, The Gospel according to Matthew: A Structural Commentary (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 198.
35. Harold Songer, “Jesus’ Use of Parables: Matthew 13, ” Review and Expositor 59 (October 1962): 499.
36. Stein, An Introduction to the Parables, 102–3.
37. Ibid., 104.
38. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 281.
39. Ibid., 280; cf. Otto Glombitza, “Der Perlenkaufmann,” New Testament Studies 7 (January 1961): 153-61; and Pheme Perkins, Hearing the Parables of Jesus (New York: Paulist, 1991), 28.
40. George R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 111.
41. Eberhard Jüngel, Paulus and Jesus: Eine Untersuchung zur Präzisierung der Frage nach dem Aufsprung der Christologie (Tübingen: Mohr, 1962), 143.
42. Frederick Dall Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1990), 2:511.
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid., 513.
45. Pierre Bonnard, L’évangile selon saint Matthieu (Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1963), 207.
46. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, 112; and Eta Linnemann, Jesus of the Parables, trans. John Sturdy (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), 99.
47. Linnemann, Jesus of the Parables, 170.
48. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 140; and Adolf Jülicher, DieGleichnisreden Jesu (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche, 1963), 2:583.
49. Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary, 2:512.
50. Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 360.
51. Heinz D. Wendland, Die Eschatologie des Reiches Gottes bei Jesus: Eine Studie über den Zusammenhang von Eschatologie, Ethik und Kirchenproblem (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1931), 35; so also Floyd V. Filson, The Gospel according to Matthew, Harper’s New Testament Commentaries (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960), 164.
52. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 396.
53. Ibid., 397; cf. Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991), 207.
54. Brad Young, Jesus and His Jewish Parables (New York: Paulist, 1989), 213; cf. John P. Maier, Matthew (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1980), 152.
55. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 279; cf. Jack Dean Kingsbury, Matthew 13: A Study in Redaction Criticism (Richmond, VA: Knox, 1969), 115–16; and Stein, An Introduction to the Parables, 103. Dodd (The Parables of the Kingdom, 112) and Linnemann (The Parables of Jesus, 99) emphasize sacrifice more than value.
56. John W. Sider, “Interpreting the Hid Treasure,” Christian Scholar’s Review 13 (1984): 371.
57. Robert Mounce, Matthew (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 135.
58. W. P. Paterson, “The Parables of the Treasure and the Pearl,” Expository Times 38 (April 1927): 296.
59. Ibid., 298.
60. Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary, 2:511.
61. Fenton, “The Parables of the Treasure and the Pearl (Matt. 13:44–45),” 180.
62. Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary, 2:512.
63. J. A. Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament (reprint, Edinburgh: Clark, 1866), 1:191.
64. Glombitza, “Der Perlenkaufmann,” 157.
65. Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2d ed., rev. F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 491.
66. Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 360, n. 109.
67. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 199–200.
68. Walvoord, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come, 105.
69. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:329.
70. Ibid.
71. Pentecost, The Parables of Jesus, 60. He also suggests the treasure might represent the remnant from among Israel who will have their part in the kingdom.
72. Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 360. While the perfect is often used in much the same way as the aorist, Carson explains that the perfect tense was chosen because there is no aorist form for the verb πιπράσκω (“Matthew,” 329). Hagner too believes the shift in tenses is insignificant (Matthew 1–13, 396).
73. Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 360.
74. Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary, 2:513.
75. For examples see Paterson, “The Parables of the Treasure and the Pearl,” 295–96; R. H. Charles, Eschatology, 2d ed. (London: Adam and Black, 1913), 265; George E. Ladd, “The Life-Setting of the Parables of the Kingdom,” Journal of Bible and Religion 31 (January 1963): 198; and Henry B. Swete, The Parables of the Kingdom, 51.
76. For examples see Patte, The Gospel according to Matthew, 198; Songer, “Jesus’ Use of Parables: Matthew 13, ” 499; and Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, 122–40.
77. James M. Reese, “The Parables in Matthew’s Gospel,” The Bible Today 19 (1981): 30-34.
78. Paterson, “The Parables of the Treasure and the Pearl,” 263–64.
79. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 200. For him the call for surrender is not valid either; the major point is the joy of the finder.
80. Blomberg, Matthew, 224.
81. Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 360.
82. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 396. Since Jesus was speaking in a house to His disciples, the parable relates more to discipleship commitment than kingdom entrance.
83. Ibid., 397.

Antichrist: His Mark, Name and Number by Henry Gruver

The Parable of the Leavening Process

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 five in an eight-part series, “The Kingdom in the Parables of Matthew 13.”]

The parable of the leavening process follows the parable of the mustard seed in Matthew and Luke. As in that parable Matthew used a statement of introduction (“The kingdom of heaven is like,” Matt. 13:20), compared to the introductory question in Luke 13:20 (“To what shall I compare the kingdom of God?”). The parable itself is virtually identical in Matthew and Luke. Like that of the mustard seed the analogy in Matthew is said to concern “the kingdom of heaven,” whereas in Luke it is “the kingdom of God.”[1]

The Setting

Spoken on the great day of Sabbath controversy and rejection, this is the second of two growth parables, the fourth parable in Matthew 13, and the last of those spoken by Jesus to the crowd beside the Sea of Galilee. After the parable Jesus explained why He used the parabolic method with the crowds, adding a validating Old Testament quotation from Psalm 78:2 (LXX, 77:2). Hunter’s argument for calling this the parable of the “leavening process” is impressive. “The Kingdom. .. is being compared not to the leaven but to what happens when you put leaven into a batch of meal-a heaving, panting mass, swelling and bursting with bubbles, and all the commotion indicating something live and at work below: in one phrase, a ferment, pervasive, dynamic, resistless.”[2] The emphasis is on the dynamic of permeation more than simply a referent identification for leaven.

The Need or Problem Prompting the Parable

As with all the parables various motives have been proposed for this one. Drury links it with the two previous ones as stressing the “intermediate state of confusion, littleness, and hiddenness” in which “the confusion will clarify, the littleness grow, and the hiddenness be seen.”[3] Some see the purpose as an encouragement to the disciples who may have felt intimidated because of opposition. For example Blomberg sees the parable as a counter to “defeatism or siege mentality when Christian witness seems temporarily ineffective.”[4] Similarly Hill states, “From the hidden beginnings in Jesus’ ministry, which must have caused many to be impatient, God causes His Kingdom to grow.”[5] Scott sees the small beginnings in both the parable of the mustard seed and this one as offering encouragement.[6] Still another view is that the purpose was to link Jesus’ ministry to the coming kingdom of God. Others say the parable addresses the relationship of the kingdom program as it had developed during the time of Christ with its state at the end of the age. In this vein Ladd believes the underlying question is, “What could Jesus’ humble ministry and His handful of followers have to do with the coming of God’s kingdom?”[7]

Whereas the parable of the mustard seed answers the question of whether the phase of the kingdom planted by Jesus would survive, the parable of the leavening process answers how. This can be supported by the fact that leaven is found in all three sections of the narrative: the beginning, the permeation stage, and the completed “whole.” Another way to put the question being answered by the leavening process could be, “What is the nature of the power that will expand the kingdom of heaven in the present age?” That the parable can be confined to the present age is supported by the fact that the mysteries of the kingdom present new revelation and by the stated time references throughout Matthew 13, especially those in the parallel parables of the tares and of the dragnet. The present age of the interadvent kingdom extends until the end of the Tribulation.

The Narrative Structure and Details

The pericope surrounding this parable includes an introductory formula (Matt. 13:33a), the parable itself (v. 33b), an explanation of Jesus’ method of speaking parables to the crowd (v. 34), and an Old Testament fulfillment formula together with its quotation (v. 35).[8] Details to be interpreted include the leaven, the hiding, and the ultimate effect of the leaven in the loaf.

The Analogy of Leaven

Leaven (ζύμῃ) was a common and necessary ingredient in the households of Palestine. It was a piece of the previous week’s fermented dough saved over to help cause the current week’s dough to rise.[9] Leaven by itself is a fermenting agent which, when added to flour, causes it to rise and expand. According to Wenham, the fermentation process can be started from scratch by letting water and barley ferment or by mixing bran with wine.[10]

In the New Testament the leavening metaphor often portrays the permeating effect of evil (Matt. 16:6, 11–12; 1 Cor. 5:6; Gal. 5:9). In the Old Testament all leaven was to be purged from Jewish households in preparation for the first Passover (Exod. 12:15, 19). Elsewhere in the Old Testament leaven may occasionally symbolize evil, as in Exodus 34:25 and Leviticus 2:11 (though these verses do not explicitly state that leaven is a symbol of evil).

Blomberg finds that among interpreters leaven in Jesus’ parable may picture evil overtly or covertly.[11] In the view of some dispensationalists leaven represents the overt presence of evil or its growth in the present stage of God’s program.[12] Toussaint, for example, says leaven refers to the progressive evil character of the present age before God establishes the messianic kingdom.[13] Covertly leaven was Jesus’ parody against the religious leaders in which He was teaching that the kingdom is to be made up of those whom the religious leadership believed were the scum of the earth, such as tax collectors and sinners.[14]

A hermeneutical principle to be kept in mind is that a term may not have the same symbolic significance every time it is mentioned. A lion symbolizes the adversarial work of the devil (1 Pet. 5:8), and the Lord Jesus is “the lion of the tribe of Judah” (Gen. 49:8–10; Rev. 5:5). Similarly while leaven is often associated with evil in the Scriptures, it is not always used in that way.[15] Notable exceptions include Leviticus 7:13 and 23:15–18. Both Genesis 19:3 and Exodus 12:39 (cf. 1 Sam. 28:24; Hos. 7:4) associate omitting leaven with haste rather than with evil as such. While the association of leaven with evil may have been known in Israel’s culture, the disciples did not recognize this symbolism when Jesus warned of the leaven (false teachings) of the Pharisees and the Sadducees in Matthew 16:5–12.

Kingsbury argues for a more positive use for leaven, suggesting that it pictures not “bad things” but “great effects.”[16] Similarly Swete maintains that leaven signifies the kingdom’s subtle power of spreading itself through society and transforming it. The kingdom grows by its own inherent vitality.[17]

The Hiding of the Leaven

Hiding leaven in the dough was the customary practice in baking bread. “Three measures of flour” (σάτα τρία, v. 33) is a large amount of flour. Since one σάτον equals about thirteen liters, the whole amount would be nearly forty liters, or enough, some suggest, to feed 150 people.[18] Capon humorously comments on the surprising size of the meal being prepared: “This is no slip of a girl making two tiny loaves for her husband’s pleasure. This is a baker, folks. Three measures. .. is a bushel of flour.. .. That’s 128 cups! That’s 16 five-pound bags! And when you get done putting in the 42 or so cups of water you need to make it come together, you’ve got a little over 101 pounds of dough on your hands.”[19]

Dalman maintains three measures of wheat flour was the largest amount of dough a woman could knead at one time.[20] Jeremias says the excessive amount of flour points beyond normal practice and therefore must speak only of divine reality.[21] Gundry suggests the leaven refers to the eschatological banquet.[22] However, three measures of meal was not unique, since this amount was used by Sarah (Gen. 18:6), Gideon (Judg. 6:19), and Hannah (1 Sam. 1:24). It was enough to feed a crowd, but it is also not an unrealistic exaggeration, as sometimes advanced.

The Ultimate Effect of the Leaven

The leavening process continued “until the whole was leavened.” As in the previous parables, the agent causing the growth or transformation is unstated. However, the same one responsible for the growth of the seed may be responsible for the transformation within the loaf.[23] Therefore the sovereignty of God is again at work. The last emphatic word of the narrative is the term “whole” (ὅλον), which is also used in both Pauline passages that employ the leavening metaphor (1 Cor. 5:6; Gal. 5:9). This suggests that, whatever meaning is assigned to leaven, the idea of permeation is constantly associated with leaven. This emphasis on the final effect of the leaven functions in parallel with the final stage of the mustard tree, which has been interpreted as suggesting international inclusion.[24]

In the two parables of growth Jesus gave one illustration with a man and one with a woman. As Blomberg concludes, this probably “reflects His concern to relate well to women as well as men in His audience.”[25] This same pairing of a man and a woman can be found in the parables of the lost sheep and coin in Luke 15:1–10 and the eschatological warnings regarding “two men in the field” and “two women at the mill” in Matthew 24:40–41.

In conclusion the leavening process is analogous to the kingdom of heaven in that the small amount of leaven affects the whole batch of flour.

The Central Truths in Relation to the Kingdom

Various paths have been followed in interpreting this parable, most of which have been influenced by the interpreter’s theology of the kingdom. These various proposals can be identified with the various narrative stages of the parable.

The Insignificant Beginnings

Those who take this as the parable’s emphasis argue either from its smallness or its realized presence. As for the former, Stein holds that the parables of the mustard seed and of the leavening process refer not to the greatness of the kingdom, which every Jew expected-but to the fact that the kingdom would begin insignificantly.[26] Dodd, who teaches “realized eschatology,” says the parable refers to the eschatological kingdom of God, which was already present in the teaching of Jesus. Dodd says the parable emphasizes the completion of the process of fermentation. “The period of obscure development is over; the dough is completely leavened: the Kingdom of God, for which the prophets up to John made preparation, has now come.”[27] Likewise, Young states, “The reign of God is being realized in the work and ministry of Jesus and His followers.”[28]

The Idea of Hiddenness

Emphasizing the leaven’s hiddenness, some say the parable refers to martyrdom, power, and mystery. Gerhardsson says the parables of the mustard seed and of the leavening process emphasize the process that creates the ultimate effect. The leaven, he says, must “die” in the dough in order to have its ultimate effect.

“The leaven can leaven the lump (influence it, change its character) under one condition only: it must, to use drastic language, ‘die’ in the dough.”[29] Therefore the leaven shows why some will be martyred for the sake of the kingdom.

Bruner concentrates more on the invisible power of the kingdom. In contrast to other power displays and philosophical movements, “the gospel will rarely be front-page news; its standard method of operation is barely visible to the eye of publicity.”[30] Wenham follows along closely: “The kingdom of God which Jesus brought, seemed unimpressive to many people, but Jesus was setting in motion a powerful process which, though hidden at present, would as surely reach its goal as does the leaven in the dough.. .. Jesus’ present work is the beginning of a powerful process which will eventually lead to the reconciliation and renewal of all creation.”[31]

Hendrickx writes, “Jesus apparently used the term ‘hid’ to suggest that the present development of the kingdom is hidden by His ministry, although in a mysterious way it also reveals the kingdom. It is out of this hidden reality that the final glorious kingdom of God will grow.”[32] Some have suggested the leaven speaks simply of the secrecy or hiddenness of the kingdom in the present age. As Hill maintains, “The kingdom was inaugurated without display or pomp; its silent, secret character must have surprised those who were zealously impatient for its expected manifestation in power and glory.”[33]

The Contrast of the Beginning with the End

As with the parable of the mustard seed, most interpreters say the purpose of this parable is to contrast the insignificant beginning of the kingdom during Jesus’ ministry with its glorious future in the end times. Regarding both parables, Jeremias states, “Their meaning is that out of insignificant beginnings, invisible to the human eye, God creates His mighty Kingdom, which embraces all the peoples of the world.”[34] Treating the two parables together, he writes, “With the same compelling certainty that causes a tall shrub to grow out of a minute grain of mustard seed, or a small piece of leaven to produce a vast mass of dough, will God’s miraculous power cause [a] small band to grow into a mighty host of the people of God in the Messianic Age, embracing the Gentiles.”[35] Here Jeremias is addressing the international flavor found previously in the mustard seed.

Ladd says, “The one point is the contrast between the present and future character of God’s kingly rule. The kingdom which will one day be like a tree harboring the birds of heaven is now like an insignificant seed. One day filling all the earth, it is now like scarcely perceptible leaven leavening a bowl of dough.”[36]

Kingsbury, too, sees this parable as referring to the insignificant form the kingdom manifested in Jesus’ ministry and the final form the kingdom will assume at the end of the age.[37] “Just as leaven initiates a process that is independent of man’s control, so God alone determines the course of events that will culminate in the manifestation of His splendid Kingdom.”[38] Morris states, “Like the previous parable this one brings out the contrast and the continuity between the small beginnings of the kingdom and its consummation.”[39] Hagner believes that this parable and that of the mustard seed speak of “that which appears initially to be insignificant and of no consequence but which in time produces an astonishing and dramatic effect.”[40] And Bruner says, “the main point of the seed parables is the contrast between the littleness of the means and the largeness of the end.”[41]

Blomberg writes, “Since the emphasis is on the small beginnings and the large results, the emphasis must lie there and not in the process of growth.”[42] For him these twin parables have one central point: “The kingdom will eventually attain to significant proportions despite its entirely inauspicious outset.”[43] He also points out that the size of the tree in the mustard seed and the extravagant amount of flour in the leavening process portray that “the end result will be far greater than what anyone observing Jesus and His band of disciples would have imagined.”[44]

The Encouragement for Church Evangelism

Bruner distinguishes the historical message of Jesus from the theological intent of Matthew. “Historically, Jesus taught here that His little ministry would be gloriously vindicated by God. Theologically, Matthew’s church heard Jesus teaching the disciples through these twin stories to have confidence in the telling of the little gospel as Jesus’ unsensational way of making His community a sheltering tree and a nourishing loaf.”[45]

Kingsbury also sees an apologetic purpose in the parable; leaven pictures the presence of the kingdom in the church, from which the entire leavened bread of God’s eschatological kingdom will issue forth.[46] Similarly Bruner says the leaven speaks of the penetration of the message of Christianity in the world.[47] However, this view fails to take seriously the possibility of a future age of the kingdom beyond the present dispensation of the church age.

The Presence of Evil in the Present Age

Reading this parable with the previous two (the tares and the mustard seed), Donahue believes “all three reveal the paradoxical nature of the Matthean church.”[48] And further, “The church is the corpus mixtum, a body in which the good and bad are mixed together.”[49] This has also been the traditional dispensational interpretation. As stated earlier, Toussaint follows older dispenationalists in seeing the referent to evil: “This parable reveals the fact that evil will run its course and dominate the new [church] age.”[50] His support includes the references to leaven as a symbol of evil and what he calls the “sinister effect” of the hiding of the leaven by the woman.[51]

Green maintains that Jesus preserved the traditional association of leaven with evil but that He intentionally reversed it. “Leaven had a bad press in Judaism.. .. So the hearers would be surprised to find Jesus using leaven as an image of the Kingdom. Yet, on second thought, that is just what His followers must have seemed to respectable Jews. Common uneducated fishermen and farmers, carpenters and women, tax-gatherers and disreputable characters-it would all seem rather distasteful.. .. But God is like that. He takes the distasteful characters and transforms them, and then transforms society through them.”[52]

The Nature of Kingdom Growth

Neglected in all the above interpretations is the parable’s focus on the effect leaven has on dough; that is the major point of the analogy. Pentecost observes that the growth occurs because of an internal source, not an external source. “Thus Jesus was teaching that the kingdom would not be established by outward means, since no external force could cause the dough to rise. Rather this new form of the kingdom would operate according to an internal force that would be continuous and progressive until the whole mixture had been leavened.”[53]

For Pentecost, this internal force is the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The mystery of the leavening process is the internal growth effected by the Holy Spirit, which the kingdom will experience before its final manifestation in the world. Though advancing a different center point, Morris supports Pentecost’s view with this statement: “The parable also makes the point that the power that effects the change comes from outside the dough; the mass of dough does not change itself.”[54] While the Holy Spirit comes from without, He works internally to permeate the whole.

Commenting on the difference between this parable and that of the mustard seed, Carson says, “If there is a distinction between this parable and the last one, it is that the mustard seed suggests extensive growth and the yeast intensive transformation.”[55] Of course the kneading and the wholly baked bread are visible elements. But the focus of the parable seems to be on how the leaven works inside the dough, picturing the Holy Spirit’s work in the present age. If the mustard seed speaks of the extent of kingdom growth, the leavening process speaks of the nature or means of kingdom growth. Like leaven, the kingdom appeared in a humble form, is expanding, and at a future time it will be manifested in splendor.

The Intended Appeal for the Audience

To the multitudes this parable revealed Jesus’ association with the present form of the kingdom. Apologetically, though the kingdom in its smaller stages may not seem impressive, it is nevertheless what God is doing.

For the disciples this parable offered assurance that what seemed to be a failed movement will ultimately issue in triumph.[56] Beasley-Murray captures this double-edged appeal of the parable for unbelievers and believers. “Both vantage points are of moment, alike to those who fail to perceive the significance of the ministry of Jesus and to those who count themselves as His followers. The former are called on to recognize the signs of the future in the present and to place themselves under the saving sovereignty in repentant faith in order that they might enter it when it is revealed in glory. The latter are encouraged to stand firm and to look for the completion of that to which they have committed themselves in faith and which they serve in hope.”[57]

Kingsbury argues that in reference to Matthew’s readers the parable functions in a twofold way: an apologetic against the Jews’ failure to understand that the message of the kingdom comes through Jesus, and as an encouraging reminder to believers that in the church age God is manifesting and expanding His rule.[58] “God, through the vehicle of the Church, is even now at work in power to spread out His kingly rule, and this will terminate only with the setting up of His latter-day Realm.”[59] While Kingsbury does not believe in a future earthly Davidic kingdom, his argumentation can support a premillennial interpretation.

Practical applications of this parable to present readers can include the following. First, believers should depend on what God is doing through His Spirit in the present age. Second, Christians should be suspicious of any man-made, externally influenced institutional structures that say they are the manifestation of God’s kingdom. Third, believers must be cautious about setting dates and presuming the arrival of the kingdom since the parable gives no hint as to when the permeation ends. Fourth, Jesus’ followers can be confident that regardless of any current perspectives, the kingdom of God has a glorious future.

Notes

1. This parallel argues against the view that the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are different spheres of God’s rule. Matthew’s term is better understood as a reference to Daniel 7 and especially appropriate for a Jewish audience.
2. Archibald M. Hunter, Interpreting the Parables (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 44.
3. John Drury, The Parables in the Gospels (New York: Crossroads, 1985), 86.
4. Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 221.
5. David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible (London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1972), 233.
6. Bernard B. Scott, Hear Then the Parable (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 322.
7. George E. Ladd, “The Life-Setting of the Parables of the Kingdom,” Journal of Bible and Religion 31 (January 1963): 198.
8. The first line of parallelism in the psalm quotation agrees verbatim with the Septuagint, while the second is closer to the Hebrew.
9. H. A. White, “Leaven,” in Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings et al. (New York: Scribner & Sons, 1902), 3:573; Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 353; and C. L. Mitton, “New Wine in Old Wineskins: IV. Leaven,” Expository Times 84 (August 1973): 339-43.
10. David Wenham, The Parables of Jesus (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1989), 55.
11. Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 286.
12. John F. Walvoord says the leaven represents the corrupted state of professing Christendom (Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come [Chicago: Moody, 1974], 103).
13. Stanley D. Tousssaint, Behold Your King (Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1980), 182.
14. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 286; cf. Francis W. Beare, The Gospel according to Matthew (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981), 309; and Eduard Schweizer, The Good News according to Matthew, trans. David Green (Richmond, VA: Knox, 1975), 307.
15. Oswald T. Allis, “The Parable of the Leaven,” Evangelical Quarterly 19 (1947): 254-73.
16. Jack Dean Kingsbury, Matthew 13: A Study in Redaction Criticism (Richmond, VA: Knox, 1969), 86.
17. Henry B. Swete, The Parables of the Kingdom (London: Macmillan, 1921), 43–44.
18. Ibid., 390; cf. Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, trans. S. H. Hooke, 2d ed. (New York: Scribner & Sons, 1954), 147. D. A. Carson has a long footnote detailing the debate on the exact amount (“Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], 8:399). Cf. David Ussishkin, “Excavations at Tel Lachish: 1973–1977,” Tel Aviv 5 (1978): 87.
19. Robert F. Capon, The Parables of the Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 118 (italics his).
20. Gustof Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina (Hildesheim: Olms, 1964), 4:35.
21. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 147.
22. Robert Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 268; also see Blomberg, Matthew, 268. Hagner, however, sees these details as “drapery” in the story and of no allegorical significance (Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, Word Biblical Commentary [Dallas: Word, 1993], 390).
23. Phillips, “Enunciation and the Kingdom of Heaven,” 415.
24. Mark L. Bailey, “The Parable of the Mustard Seed,” Bibliotheca Sacra 155 (October-December 1998): 449-59.
25. Blomberg, Matthew, 221. Blomberg rightly dismisses the feminist overstatements of Elizabeth Waller, “The Parable of the Leaven: A Sectarian Teaching and the Inclusion of Women,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 35 (fall 1979-winter 1980), 99–109. More appropriate is Wenham’s observation: “The revolution of God means the breaking down of divisive prejudice, whether against Samaritans, tax-collectors, women or children” (The Parables of Jesus, 53). Cf. Henry Barclay Swete, The Parables of the Kingdom (London: Macmillan, 1921), 40.
26. Robert Stein, An Introduction to the Parables (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 95.
27. C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (New York: Scribner & Sons, 1961), 154.
28. Brad Young, Jesus and His Jewish Parables (New York: Paulist, 1989), 210.
29. Birger Gerhardsson, “The Seven Parables of Matthew 13, ” New Testament Studies 19 (October 1972): 23, 27.
30. Frederick Dall Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1990), 2:304.
31. Wenham, The Parables of Jesus, 56–57.
32. Herman Hendrickx, The Parables of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986), 48.
33. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, 233.
34. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 149.
35. Ibid., 132.
36. Ladd, “The Life-Setting of the Parables of the Kingdom,” 198.
37. Kingsbury, Matthew 13, 86.
38. Ibid., 87.
39. Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 353.
40. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 389.
41. Bruner, Matthew, 2:502.
42. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 284.
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid. All other allegorizings can be ignored, as Simon Kistemaker demonstrates (The Parables of Jesus [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980], 48–49).
45. Bruner, Matthew, 2:502.
46. Kingsbury, Matthew 13, 86.
47. Bruner, Matthew, 2:504.
48. John R. Donahue, The Gospel in Parable (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 67.
49. Ibid.
50. Toussaint, Behold Your King, 182.
51. Ibid.
52. Michael Green, Matthew for Today (Dallas: Word, 1988), 138.
53. J. Dwight Pentecost, Thy Kingdom Come (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1990), 223.
54. Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 353.
55. Carson, “Matthew,” 319.
56. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 146; and Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 322.
57. George R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 195.
58. Kingsbury, Matthew 13, 87.
59. Ibid.