Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION. 3
THE
MAJOR THEME OF PROPHECY: “THE SUFFERINGS
OF THE CHRIST & THE GLORIES TO
FOLLOW” 4
PROPHETIC
PARABLES OF JESUS. 5
PARABLES OF THE “MYSTERIES OF THE
KINGDOM”. 6
The
Parable of the Sower (Matt 13:3-9, 18-23;
Mk 4:1-20; Lk 8:4-15) 8
The
Parable of the Wheat and the Tares (Matt
13:24-30, 36-43) 9
The
Parable of the Mustard Seed (Matt 13:31,
32; Mk 4:30, 32; Lk 13:18-19) 10
The
Parable of the Leaven (Matt 13:33-35; Lk
13:20, 21) 11
The
Parable of the Hidden Treasure (Matt 13:44) 12
The
Parable of the Pearl of Great Price (Matt
13:45, 46) 12
The
Parable of the Dragnet (Matt 13:47-50) 13
OTHER PROPHETIC PARABLES. 13
Parables
on Readiness for the Coming of the Son of
Man (Lk 12:35-48; Matt 24:42-51) 13
The
Parable of the Postponed Kingdom a.k.a. The
Parable of the Minas (Lk 19:11-28;
Matt 25:14-30) 15
The
Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers a.k.a.
The Parable of the Vineyard (Matt
21:33-46; Mk 12:1-12; Lk 20:9-19) 17
The
Parable of the Marriage Feast (Matt 22:1-14
cf. Lk 14:15-24) 17
The
Parable of the Fig Tree (Matt 24:32-35; Mk
13:28-31; Lk 21:29-33) 22
The
Parable of the Ten Virgins (Matt 25:1-13) 22
EXAMPLES OF OTHER PARABLES THAT
REQUIRE DISPENSATIONAL DISTINCTIONS FOR PROPER
INTERPRETATION. 23
The
Parable of the Rich Fool (Lk 12:13-34; Matt
6:19-21, 25-34) 23
The
Parable of the Unfruitful Fig Tree (Lk 13:6-9) 23
Two
Parables in the House of a Chief Pharisee
(Lk 14:1-24) 24
The
Parables of the Lost Sheep, Lost Coin, and
Lost Son (Matt 18:10-14; Lk 15) 25
The
Rich Man and Lazarus (Lk 16:14-31) 26
The
Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard (Matt
20:1-16) 26
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 28
These notes are intended to supplement the
classroom-type sessions conducted during
the 2005
Arkansas Winter Family Retreat (AWFR) – an event sponsored by the James A.
Brettell Bible Ministries. The notes are
not meant to be an
“all-comprehensive” analysis of all of the
parables of Jesus. The parables of
Jesus (as is true of most all of Scripture)
can be examined from multiple
dimensions (e.g. theological, soteriological,
dispensational, the spiritual
life and principles related thereto, etc.);
however, consistent with the theme
of the 2005 AWFR, I have been
invited as a speaker to focus upon the prophetic
and eschatological dimensions
of the parables of Jesus. Accordingly, I
have selected many of Jesus’ parables
in these notes and the parables selected
constitute more than a representative
sample of Jesus’ teaching using the parable
as a tool intended to communicate
spiritual realities to God’s people – the
Jews of the nation Israel with whom God entered
into a covenant relationship.
Even though I present some positions at
odds with Alva J. McClain, he makes a
very salient observation regarding the parables
of Jesus, especially in regard
to the parables of Matthew 13 which these
notes address.
In no area of the Word of God is
there greater need for caution on the part
of interpreters than in the
parables, and especially in those concerned
with the “mysteries of the kingdom
of heaven.” Even the most spiritual and
well-taught among students of the Word
may go astray here; and many an error has
found its basis in some parabolic
detail, e.g. the gradual and ultimate triumph
of the Church in converting the
world through the “leavening process” of
the Gospel. It is never safe to use
either a type or a parable to teach something
not elsewhere taught directly and
clearly in the Word of God.
It is important for me to note that
the emphasis upon dispensational distinctions
embodied in these notes and in
the classroom teaching is not intended to
promote a self-righteousness borne of
some feeling of interpretive superiority.
I certainly acknowledge that there
are similarities or continuities that exist
between dispensations and some are
highlighted in these notes. We must recognize
that there should be a correct
interpretation toward which all expositors
and students of the Word strive.
Once correct observations of the passage
have been made and the correct
interpretation is obtained, we are then positioned
to extract the spiritual
meaning and relevance to us in this unique
age of the Body of Christ (or Church
Age) in which we live. In many cases, the
parables of Jesus have wonderful
spiritual principles applicable to us today;
however, those parables were
directed at a specific audience and that
audience was not us. Nevertheless, it
is extremely profitable for us to understand
the whole of Scripture for it is
through that understanding of the whole that
we gain insight, appreciation and
a strengthened faith regarding our past,
our present and our future as members
of the greater community of faith throughout
all of human history (2 Tim
3:16-17).
Not all of the material contained
in these notes will be presented during the
time period I have been allotted – three
45 minute sessions. However, it is my hope
and prayerful desire that they will
be of some value to the attendees who consider
investing a bit of time apart
from the conference in further consideration
of this material.
To begin reading the Bible by
starting in the New Testament with the Gospels
is like starting to read a novel
in the middle of the book. As we read the
Gospels, we see on occasion after
occasion where it is recorded that Jesus
did something or said something in
order “that it might be fulfilled which was
spoken by” an Old Testament prophet
(e.g. Matt 2:5-6, 17-18; 3:3; 4:14-16; 12:17-21;
13:35; 21:4-5; 26:31; 27:35).
Jesus Himself said: “Do not think that I
came to destroy the Law or the
Prophets. I did not come to destroy but
to fulfill.” (Matt 5:17)
Peter presents the theme of and
the key to
interpreting the prophetic passages of Hebrew
Scripture in 1 Peter 1:10-11.
Note his statements.
Of this salvation [“deliverance”
in an eschatological sense based upon the context] the prophets
have inquired and searched carefully, who
prophesied of the grace that would
come to you, searching what, or what manner
of time, the Spirit of Christ Who
was in them was indicating when He testified
beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories
that would
follow. (1 Peter 1:10-11)
The first component (“the sufferings
of Christ”) is redemptive. The second component (“the glories that
would follow”) is eschatological and dispensational. The
“glories that would follow” refers to the
Messianic, millennial kingdom – the
kingdom that John the baptizer, Jesus and
Jesus’ apostles announced as being
“near at hand” (see Matt 10:1-26 esp. v.
7).
The theme of the Gospels as a whole
is centered around the “King” and His “kingdom”
and these two words appear
approximately 178 times in the Gospels.
The “kingdom” of the Gospels is not
simply a reference to the spiritual condition
of the hearts of believers nor is
it simply a reference to the general sovereignty
of God over the universe.
Jesus taught His disciples to pray “Thy kingdom
come, Thy will be done on
earth as it is in heaven.” This “Kingdom” is
the spiritually regenerate
nation of Israel from which the Messiah (Christ)
will rule and reign over the
earth for 1000 years after His 2nd Advent (Rev 20:1-7).
Before that Kingdom could be
established, other
important prophecy had to be fulfilled –
the Messiah must first suffer and die
in order to provide redemption for man (e.g.
Gen 3:15 cf. Psa 22; Isa
52:13-53:1-12). Jesus’ life and teaching
(including the parables) must be
interpreted in view of this thematic backdrop.
The Greek word for “parable” means
something placed beside something else.
In the Gospels, Jesus used a truth or
well-recognized principle from nature or
the temporal realm to illustrate a
spiritual reality. Jesus recognized the
principle that some people choose to
remain in darkness or a state of spiritual
blindness, thus some people would
not accept the spiritual realities that underlay
His teaching.
At a certain point in Jesus’ public
ministry it became obvious that some were
not willing to believe that Jesus was
the Messiah. If they did not accept this
most basic fact based upon clearly
presented evidence, they would certainly
not accept the spiritual reality that
was the subject of Jesus’ parables. The
“mysteries of the Kingdom”
is the spiritual insight into the interpretation
of the then existing body of
prophetic Hebrew Scripture – an insight that
was missing in all the teaching
provided by Israel’s leadership. This was
the spiritual reality that the
parables were designed to highlight. This
is illustrated in the following
passages.
And the disciples came and said to
Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”
He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know
the mysteries
of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For
whoever has, to him more will be given, and
he will have abundance; but whoever
does not have, even what he has will be taken
away from him. Therefore I speak
to them in parables, because seeing they
do not see, and hearing they do not
hear, nor do they understand. And in them
the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled
which says: ‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
and seeing you
will see and not perceive; for the hearts
of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing, and their
eyes they have closed, lest they
should understand with their hearts and turn,
so that I should heal them.’
But blessed are your eyes for they see, and
your ears for they hear; for
assuredly, I say to you that many prophets
and righteous men desired to see
what you see, and did not see it, and to
hear what you hear, and did not hear
it.” (Matt 13:10-17)
But when He was alone, those
around Him with the twelve asked Him about
the parable. And He said to them, “To you it has been given to know the mystery of the
kingdom of God, but to those who are outside, all things
come in
parables, so that ‘Seeing they may see and not perceive, and
hearing they
may hear and not understand; lest they should
turn, and their sins be forgiven
them.’” (Mark 4:10-12)
Then His disciples asked Him,
saying “What does this parable mean?” And
He said, “To
you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables,
that ‘Seeing they may not see, and
hearing they may not understand.’” (Luke 8:9-10)
It is important to observe and
note the audience
to whom Jesus’ teaching was directed. Jesus’
teaching was directed to Jews who
were the children of promise and who constituted
the nation of Israel. This is very clear
in Jesus’ words – “I was not sent
except to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel” (Matt 15:24). This
provides us with one of the most important
hermeneutical principles that
underlies any attempt to interpret the Gospels
– especially those sections that
record Jesus’ teaching.
While various spiritual
applications may be drawn from the parables,
it is most important to understand
their primary interpretation. The parables deal with either the
subjects of the Kingdom or with the chief
Character of the Kingdom, who is
depicted under such figures as Nobleman,
King, Bridegroom, Builder, Master
Judge, Sower, Husbandman, Shepherd, Physician,
Creditor, Rock, Cornerstone.
After we understand the primary meaning of
the parables, we may make secondary
applications to ourselves in this Church
age, for the simple reason that
there are certain moral and spiritual truths
which are unchangeable and apply
to mankind in every age.
[Underline mine – added for emphasis]
The “Kingdom” of which Christ spoke
was (and is) the Messianic Kingdom (a.k.a.
the Millennial Kingdom) – the Davidic Kingdom
with its capital of Jerusalem. This “Kingdom”
is not a reference to God’s
general sovereignty over the universe. This
“Kingdom” is not simply a purely
spiritual kingdom consisting of believers
of all ages.
The error of identifying the
Kingdom with the Church, followed by the
logical attempt of certain
ecclesiastical organizations [i.e. Roman
Catholicism] to exercise during the
present age a regal authority which belongs
to the true Church in a future
Kingdom, has been the source of untold evil
and disaster. Such authority and
power could never be safely committed to
sinful men, even though redeemed and members
of the body of Christ. To this lamentable
fact we have the clear witness of
nineteen centuries of church history. The
Church must be perfected in order to
reign with Christ over the nations in the
coming Kingdom (Rom. 8:17-23). [Bracketed words are my addition].
To reiterate – the “mysteries
of the Kingdom” to which Jesus referred is
the spiritual insight into
the interpretation of the then existing body
of prophetic Hebrew Scripture – an
insight that was missing in all of the teaching
provided by Israel’s leadership.
The word “mysteries” does not mean that a
Jew of Jesus’ day did not have the
same Hebrew Scriptures that Jesus had. It
does not mean that God had withheld
Truth from the Jews that would have allowed
them to possess a correct prophetic
outline of future events on the Jewish calendar.
(They had such passages as
Genesis 3:15; Psalm 22; Isaiah 52:13-53:12;
and Daniel 9:24-27). What they did
not have was a correct interpretation of
these passages and a correct
understanding of the spiritual life required
by God for a Jew to enter the
Kingdom.
Without exception (based upon the
Biblical record), every Jew believed that
the Kingdom would accompany the
Messiah’s coming in very short order (Luke
19:11). They reasoned – “If Jesus
is truly the Messiah, then where is the Kingdom?”
The answer to this question
was truly a “mystery” to the Jew of Jesus’
day. Jesus’ parables were designed
to unravel the web of false understanding
surrounding His “sufferings and the
glories to follow” that were the subject
of much of Hebrew Scripture.
It is important to keep in mind
that Jesus was addressing the Jews. He did
not come to directly address the
Gentiles even though He knew that the Gentiles
would be beneficiaries of the
Truth and that they would participate in
the Kingdom that was “at hand.”
(Reference the story of the Syro-Phonenician
woman recorded in Matthew
15:21-28). Hebrew Scripture is replete with
the blessings that would accrue to
the Gentiles by association with believing
Israel. Therefore, in these
parables, we see believer and unbeliever
represented by “wheat” (“good seed”)
and “tares” or “good” fish and “bad” fish.
The “good” remain while the “bad”
are thrown away into the fire.
This understanding and distinction
is vital to a proper interpretation of Jesus’
parables and teaching, especially
on those occasions in the Gospels where we
see an emphasis upon a demonstration
of one’s faith through baptism or other works
that evidence repentance. These
actions (e.g. baptism or good deeds) on the
part of the Jew of Jesus’ day were
very important in that they provided testimony
to other members of the Jewish
community regarding whether one identified
with Jesus as the Messiah and
accepted His claims or not. When the focus
of Jesus’ teaching is confused with
the present age, then, among other things,
the Pauline-centric grace gospel of
salvation by faith alone in Christ alone
is blurred. A saving faith that is
equated with obedience (a.k.a. “Lordship
Salvationists”) such as that promoted
by John MacArthur and which is prominent
with Reformed theology is one result
of this confusion.
There are many passages in Hebrew
Scripture which refer to the re-gathering
of Israel and the separation of the
faithful from the rebellious (e.g. Isa 27:12-13
cf. Ezek 20:13-38 esp. v.
38). Why would the prophets Prophecy concerning
a future re-gathering and a
separation of the faithful from the rebellious?
Because they understood the
principle and promise of God in Leviticus
26:14-39 – the five cycles of
discipline. According to Matthew 24:31,
God will use the angels to re-gather
the elect of Israel from all the Gentile
nations among which they are
scattered. In the symbolism of Revelation,
the sea represents peoples,
multitudes, nations, and languages (Rev 17:15
cf. 13:1; Dan 7:2).
The “mystery”
parables are located in Matthew 13:1-53;
Mark 4:1-34 and Luke 8:4-18. Matthew
records seven “mystery” parables while Mark
and Luke record only the first one
– the Sower. Mark then records the parable
of the candle and the parable of
the unconscious growth before he presents
another mystery parable – the Mustard
Seed. Luke mentions the Mustard Seed and
the Leaven in a different context
(13:18-21).
The first two parables (the
“Parable of the Sower” and the “Parable of
the Wheat and Tares”) contain quite
a bit of detail. The remaining “mystery”
parables should be interpreted in
harmony with the first two parables. The
lesson of the first two parables is
that there will be a period of preaching
of the Kingdom during which good and
evil will grow up together. The preaching
of the Gospel of the Kingdom occurs
during the Tribulation (a.k.a. Daniel’s Seventieth
Week). The dual presence of
believers and unbelievers in Israel will
be rectified at the 2nd
Advent of Jesus. The wicked are punished
and the righteous are ushered into
the new age of the Millennial Messianic Kingdom.
This parable is not necessarily
prophetic on the surface; however, it does
teach a spiritual principle that is
associated with the preaching of the gospel
– in context, the gospel of the
kingdom. The gospel of the kingdom was preached during Jesus’ day
and it will be preached during the future Tribulation period. It is
this fact that adds a prophetic or eschatological
aspect to this parable.
As previously mentioned, there are
spiritual principles that transcend dispensational
setting and this parable
illustrates one such spiritual principle.
The parable is more about production
in the life of a Jew than it is about salvation.
The following points
highlight the interpretation of the parable:
ü
The “sower” is Jesus.
ü
The “seed” is the gospel of the kingdom
ü
The “ground” upon which the seed fell represents
four different
kinds of hearers.
§
The “wayside” hearer is the one who heard
the Kingdom message,
but did not understand or accept it (Matt
13:19).
§
The “stoney place” hearer is the one who
heard the Kingdom
message, immediately received it, but because
of his lack of spiritual depth,
he wilts under adversity and persecution
(Matt 13:20-21)
§
The seed which fell among thorns and was
choked out represent
those hearers who accepted the Kingdom message,
but who allowed the cares of
the world to keep them from being spiritually
productive (Matt 13:22).
§
Finally, the “good ground” represent those
who accept the Kingdom
message, who have spiritual depth and who
bear varying degrees of spiritual
fruit (Matt 13:23).
ü
In regard to the salvation of each of these
groups of Jews, it is
clear that the first group represents unsaved Jews and the last
group are saved Jews; however, the second and third group are
open
to interpretation – especially when it comes
to the Jews of Jesus’ day.
ü
The point of the parable – the preaching of the Kingdom
Gospel will not result in the conversion
of the entire nation of Israel. Only some
will accept the Kingdom message and become
spiritually productive.
ü
Important – While this parable has secondary application
to the preaching of the Gospel in the Church
Age, we must be careful to not
confuse personal salvation with spiritual
production. Saved people have been
caused to doubt their salvation by a faulty
application of this parable to our
day.
This is a parable of two sowers.
One man sowed good seed in his field and
his enemy sowed tares in the same
field while the man slept. Again, we are
fortunate that Jesus explains this
parable for us in verses 36-43. First, let
us make some observations about
this parable.
ü
The “man who sowed good seed” - Jesus (v.
24 cf. v. 37)
ü
The “field” is the world (v. 38)
ü
The “good seeds” are the sons of the kingdom,
i.e. the Age of
Israel believers who will inherit the kingdom
and enter into it (v. 38)
ü
The “tares” are the children of Satan (v.
38)
ü
The “enemy” who sowed the “tares” is Satan
(v. 39)
ü
The “harvest” is the 2nd Advent at the end of the Age
of Israel (v. 39)
ü
The “reapers” are the angels who come with
Christ at His Second
Advent (v. 39)
Note that the “tares” are gathered
by the reapers (i.e. the angels) at the end
of the age. Only the “good seeds”
remain. In the parable, the “tares” are
cast into the fire (v. 40). This
event seems to coincide with the “end of
the age” in the parable narrative.
However, the parable compresses the “end
of the age” and the casting into the
fire events together. The casting of the
tares into the fire is the ultimate
outcome and doesn’t actually occur until
a date future to (i.e. after) the “end
of the age” and the “harvest” (see Rev 20:11-15).
At the 2nd Advent of
Christ, the righteous will remain on the
earth to inherit the Messianic
Kingdom. Unbelievers (i.e. the “tares”)
who have lived alongside and in the
midst of believers within Israel will be
taken away. (This is true of Jew and
Gentile; however, the focus of Jesus’ ministry
is the Jew). As a point of
distinction, the Rapture of the Church Age
Body of Christ will take believers
away and leave unbelievers behind – just
the opposite of the events described
in this parable (see 1 Thess 4:15-17).
The only thing in this parable
which is similar to God’s present spiritual
program is the fact that both good
and evil exist together in the world. Everything
else in the parable is a
contrast when compared to the truths that
are applicable to the Church Age Body
of Christ.
The parable of the mustard seed
and the parable of the leaven (13:33) are
parallel parables and teach a parallel
truth. The parable of the mustard seed likens
the kingdom of heaven (the
Messianic kingdom on earth) to a grain of
mustard seed. This parable has four
elements:
ü
A grain of mustard seed
ü
A sower
ü
Birds
ü
Abnormal growth of the mustard seed into
a tree
This parable, like the parable of
the wheat and the tares is should be interpreted
in the context of the last
days of the Age of Israel known as the Tribulation.
During that period of
human history, the gospel of the kingdom
will be preached again in anticipation
of the 2nd Advent of Christ and the Messianic, Millennial
kingdom on
earth (Matt 24:14). This understanding requires
the following interpretation:
ü
Grain of mustard seed = the gospel of the
kingdom
ü
Sower = Jesus Christ (same as the parable
of the wheat and the
tares)
ü
Birds = does not represent evil as in the
parable of the sower or
soils. In the Hebrew Scriptures, a tree
large enough to support nesting birds
was considered prosperous and healthy (see
Ps 104:12; Ezek 17:23; 31:6; Dan
4:12, 21).
ü
Abnormal growth of the mustard seed into
a tree = the gospel of
the kingdom which is once again preached
(sowed) during the Tribulation grows
into a great tree (the Millennial kingdom)
at His 2nd Advent.
The point of
the parable – even though the Messianic,
Millennial Kingdom has insignificant
beginnings in the small seed of the Gospel
of the Kingdom, it grows to great
proportions (i.e. the rapid expansion of
the Kingdom after the events of the
Tribulation and 2nd Advent of Jesus). It will provide blessing
to
all of those who come into it.
The principle of leaven is that a
little leaven has an effect upon the whole
of the dough with which it
interacts. The context of the passage determines
whether leaven should
represent evil or whether it should represent
something positive. When leaven
or yeast is kneaded into dough, it causes
the dough to expand. Here the
kingdom of heaven (the “Messianic Kingdom”
or “Millennium”) is seen to grow
based upon the internal dynamic of the Holy
Spirit verses being powered by
outward armies or organizations. The kingdom
was presented to be near without
any display of pomp or extravaganza.
The point of the parable –
The kingdom grows disproportionately in relation
to its insignificant
beginnings. The dough [not mentioned] is
Israel, whereas the yeast or leaven
is the gospel of the kingdom. This is a
parallel truth to the parable of the
mustard seed.
Point of comparison – The
parable of the mustard seed addresses the
extent of the kingdom’s growth
whereas this parable (the parable of the
leaven) concerns the source or impetus
for its growth. All kingdoms of the world
have grown by military might. Once
established, the Messianic Kingdom will grow
through an internal dynamic (the
Holy Spirit) much like dough which has had
yeast added to it.
Point of contrast – Leaven
is used to represent evil in 1 Corinthians
5:6-8 and Galatians 5:9 as well as
many Old Testament passages such as Exodus
12:15 and Leviticus 2:11. However, this
is not always the case, e.g. Leviticus 7:13
(leavened bread is specified as a
part of the peace offering) and 23:15-18
(the loaves of bread used during the
Feast of Weeks were to be made with leaven
and were considered firstfruits to
the Lord).
Some dispensationalists have
tried to interpret the leaven of Matthew
13:33 to represent evil. Most of
those who do so interpret the leaven as representing
the professing (but not
believing) Church that grows throughout the
Church Age which is a part of the
Interregnum period.
This understanding is derived from their
understanding of the phrase, the
“mysteries of the kingdom” (13:11) whereby
the term “mystery” in the Gospels is
equated to Paul’s use of the same term in
his epistles.
Other dispensationalists have
interpreted the
leaven to represent religious (unbelieving)
Judaism during the Age of Israel
(pre-Pentecost and Tribulation). However,
this too is an interpretation that
sees leaven as only representing evil. These
alternative interpretations by
various dispensationalists overlook the fact
that the leaven represents a
principle related to a growth dynamic and
not evil in context. The spiritual
quality [good or evil] of the growth must
be evaluated based upon the context.
The Jews did not consider leaven to always
be evil, otherwise they would never
have used it. Instead, it was forbidden
on certain occasions, e.g. the feast
of unleavened bread. The context of this
parable is Jesus’ clarification of
the nature of the kingdom of heaven (the
Millennial/Messianic reign on earth)
through parables. Again, the kingdom produces
ultimate consequences out of all
proportion to its insignificant beginnings.
The dough [not mentioned] is Israel, whereas
the yeast or leaven is the gospel of the
kingdom.
This parable and the next parable
(the Pearl of Great Price) are paired in
order to make the same general point,
but have significant individual emphasis.
The purpose of the parable of the
hidden treasure is to illustrate the value
of the kingdom. The following
points interpret this parable:
ü
Israel is the hidden treasure (among the nations of the
world). See Exodus 19:5; Psalm 135:4
ü
The field is the people or nations of the world (among
whom true Israel was dispersed).
ü
Jesus is the man making the purchase.
ü
The Cross was where Jesus sold all that He had (1st
– He gave up His presence in heaven and 2nd His earthly, physical
life)
ü
Jesus paid the price for the entire field
(a.k.a. unlimited atonement
– 1 Jn 2:2) in order to obtain the treasure
(Israel).
ü
Jesus recognized Israel as something of value
The fulfillment of this parable
will occur
when the believers of the Tribulation (last
seven years of the Age of Israel)
will enter the kingdom because they accept
God’s redemptive provision through
Christ’s death on the Cross as the Messiah.
The
Parable of the Pearl of Great Price (Matt 13:45, 46)
This parable is paired with the
parable of the hidden treasure to emphasize
the same point, i.e. that the
Messianic kingdom is of extreme value to
our Lord – so much so that He is said
to sell all that He has in this parable also.
This is yet another reference to
our Lord’s death on the Cross in which He
(the merchant) gave His life (sold
all that He had) and purchased the pearl
of great price (believers who enter
the Messianic Kingdom). See Revelation 7:4-8;
12:17 cf. Romans 9:27; 11:5 and
the many references to the remnant in Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel and
Micah).
Note: the point is not that Jesus didn’t
pay the price for other believers of other
ages. The focus of Jesus’ preaching
at this point in His ministry is upon the
gospel of the kingdom.
Some interpreters claim that
the pearl
represents the Church as distinct from Israel.
However, the Church Age Body of
Christ was a mystery that was only made known
through the Apostle Paul.
This parable is a parallel to the
parable of the wheat and the tares. However,
the parable of the wheat and the
tares focuses upon the coexistence of believing
and unbelieving Jews during the
Tribulation. The parable of the dragnet
focuses upon the situation that will
exist when the judgment associated with the
2nd Advent occurs. An
interpretation of the symbolism of this parable
follows:
ü
The dragnet cast into the sea represents judgment
associated with the 2nd Advent of Christ
ü
The some of every kind represents believing and
unbelieving Jews and Gentiles
ü
The good gathered into vessels represents Tribulation
believers who enter the Millennial, Messianic
reign of Christ.
ü
The bad thrown away represents unbelievers who are cast
into hell to await the Great White Throne
Judgment at the Lake of Fire at the end of
the Millennium (Rev 20:11-15).
ü
Angels attend Christ at His 2nd Advent to
assist Him in executing judgment (Matt 25:31)
ü
The end of the age (v. 49) is the end of the Age of Israel
(i.e. the end of the Tribulation or Daniel’s
seventieth week)
ü
Things new and old (v. 52) refers to truth concerning the
kingdom in the “Old” Hebrew Scriptures which
was given fresh insight by Jesus
in these parables. The “kingdom” was an
important motif in the Hebrew
Scriptures; however, Jesus shed new light
on spiritual aspects of the kingdom
that had been missed by the Jewish teachers
and leaders (except for the
prophets of course).
There are really three parables
in this section. The first – the Parable of the
Faithful Servants – (Lk 12:35-38) is based
upon a bridegroom returning from
his wedding and finding his servants waiting
for him. The second – the Parable
of the Thief – (Lk 12:39-40 cf. Matt 24:42-44)
deals with the unexpected visit
of the thief who breaks into the house.
The third – the Parable of the
Watchful Owner and the Wise Steward – (Lk
12:42-48 cf. Matt 24:45-51)
contrasts the faithful and wise steward with
the unfaithful and unwise
steward.
ü
The first two parables illustrate the importance of
constancy of faith in the life of the believer
who is anticipating the
Kingdom’s advent (the “servant” in the parable).
§
Constancy of faith to the Jew of Jesus’ day
meant to live as if
entrance into the kingdom was “near at hand.”
§
Being blessed equated to entrance into the
Messianic kingdom.
ü
In the first parable (v. 35-38), the girded waist and the
burning lamps are illustrations of readiness.
§
Girding the waist involved pulling up the
hem of the robe so that
one could run.
§
A lamp was used at night.
§
The point of the first parable (and the second)
is to stress
watchfulness and preparedness in regard to
the Messiah’s return.
ü
In the second parable (v. 39-40; cf. Matt 24:42-44), Jesus
adds emphasis.
§
Jesus’ point in this parable is to emphasize
the necessity for
the servants (believers anticipating the
kingdom’s advent and representatives
of the master of the house) to be on guard
ü
The third parable (v. 42-48 cf. Matt 24:45-51) involves a
wise and unwise steward.
§
The former is constantly prepared for his
master’s return; whereas
the latter expects and acts as if the return
will be delayed.
§
The point of the third parable is to stress
the need for
faithfulness on the part of those who witness
the signs of the Kingdom.
§
In Luke’s account, this parable ends with
a statement of
principle upon which judgment of the Jewish
unbeliever will be based – there
will be greater punishment for those who
know God’s will but did not prepare
themselves to do it and there will be lesser
punishment for those who do not
know God’s will.
§
This is consistent with the statements we
find about the Great
White Throne Judgment in Revelation 20:11-15
whereby unbelievers are judged
according to their deeds written in “the
books” and those whose names are not
found written in “the Book of Life” are cast
into the Lake of fire.
§
In Matthew’s account, this parable ends more
simply with
unbelievers (“hypocrites”) weeping and gnashing
their teeth (v. 51)
It is important to keep in mind the
fact that Jesus is speaking to the elect nation of Israel – not the corporate Church Age Body of Christ.
The elect nation of Israel contained both believers and unbelievers
– particularly at the point in time of
Jesus’ address to His disciples in our passage.
The spiritual Body of Christ
contains only believers chosen (elected)
“in Him before the foundation of the
world” (Eph 1:4 cf. 1 Pe 2:9-10).
We should not misconstrue Jesus’ teaching
to the elect nation of Israel that consisted of both believers
and unbelievers to also be directed to the
elect
Church Age Body of Christ that consists of only believers. Otherwise,
we
risk confusing the means of salvation. Consider
the following excellent
analysis of this passage.
There is always the danger when
speaking of judgments and rewards to apply
these things to the salvation of the
soul. It will help to remember that no one,
in any dispensation, receives
salvation as a reward for his works or faithfulness.
The unsaved who are
finally cast into the lake of fire are judged
and punished according to their
works, and therefore there will be degrees
of punishment. [See Revelation
20:11-15]. The saved will also be judged, but not
for the penalty of their
sin which has been forgiven, but for their
service for Christ. [See 1
Corinthians 3:11-15 cf. Romans 14:10; 2 Corinthians
5:9-10]. This will
result in reward or loss of reward. Believers
in this present dispensation
also are instructed to wait for the coming
of the Lord (1 Cor. 1:7; Tit. 2:13),
but this coming is not to earth to judge
the world and to set up His Kingdom,
but His coming in the air to catch up the
Church in resurrection and
glorification.
[Inserts in brackets are comments I added
for additional information and
clarification]
The
Parable of the Postponed Kingdom a.k.a. The Parable of the Minas
(Lk 19:11-28; Matt 25:14-30)
Luke and Matthew’s accounts are
virtually identical with some minor changes
in the analogy (e.g. “talents” in
Matthew vs. “minas” in Luke). The interpretation
is the same for both
accounts. For these notes, I’ll use Luke’s
account.
Jesus is near Jerusalem in Luke’s
narrative at this point. The disciples evidently
believed that Jesus’ arrival
in Jerusalem would signal or inaugurate the
kingdom (v. 11). After all, John
the Baptist had preached that the kingdom
of heaven was near (Matt 3:2) and
Jesus had preached the same message (e.g.
Matt 4:17). Jesus’ teaching of the
parable of the minas is designed to dispel
this erroneous notion held by His
disciples and others perhaps (e.g. verse
37). The phrase “do business till I
come” (v. 13) shows that Jesus’ return would
not be immediate. In addition,
the return would not be until “a certain
nobleman” (i.e. Jesus, the
Messiah/King) went away into a far country
(i.e. heaven) to receive a kingdom
(v. 12). The kingdom would not be received
until after a delay for a period
(i.e. the period between His death, resurrection
& ascension and His 2nd
Advent).
This parable may have had a connection
to an
actual historical event. Archelaus, the
son of Herod, went from Jericho, the town
in which Jesus is currently located, to Rome
to obtain the right to rule
over Palestine. Archelaus was granted his
kingdom by the Roman emperor
Augustus. The palace of Archelaus was in
the neighborhood of Jericho. The connection to Jesus’ parable is
that like Archelaus, the nobleman did not
remain in the far away place, but he
returned to rule.
The kingdom that Jesus receives is
the Messianic/Millennial kingdom. The Father
grants Him the kingdom;
therefore, we see many references to the
kingdom as the kingdom of the Father
and the kingdom of the Son (Dan 2:44; 6:26;
7:14; cf. Matt 6:10, 13; 13:43;
16:28; 26:29; Lk 1:33; Acts 1:3; 1 Co 15:24;
Eph 5:5). Jesus ministered with
the anticipation that the kingdom would be
established in accordance with
prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e.
the Old Testament – 2 Sam 7:16; 1
Chron 17:14; 2 Chron 7:18) once He had fulfilled
prophecies related to His
death (e.g. Psa 22; Isa 52:13-53:12).
Therefore, in our passage, the period of
time in which the “nobleman” (i.e.
Jesus) would have been away in a far country
would have corresponded to
Daniel’s 70th Week (i.e. the seven year Tribulation –
Dan 9:24-27).
The principle that Jesus taught in
verses 15-27 relates to reward in His Messianic
kingdom. Reward in the kingdom
will be related to service in one’s life.
This principle is true of any
believer who inherits the kingdom regardless
of dispensation (Ex 19:6; Matt
5:3-12 cf. 1 Co 3:11-15; 2 Thess 1:5; 2 Tim
2:11-13). Nevertheless, bad
hermeneutical precedent is established whenever
such a passage as Luke 19:15-27
is interpreted as if Jesus was Prophecying
the Church Age in a veiled manner
just because there are spiritual principles
that are common to both the
dispensation of the Age of Israel and the
Church Age.
The “mina” was equivalent to about
four month’s wages. By analogy, the mina represents the spiritual heritage
and responsibility (cf. Rom 9:3-5; 11:11-36) of the Jew within the last
days of the Age of Israel (i.e. Daniel’s 70th Week or the
Tribulation).
In verse 20, we see a servant who
did nothing with the mina that he had been
given. One can almost picture the
Jew during the Tribulation period, who under
the pressure of depravation,
suffering and even death at the hand of the
anti-Semitic forces of the Anti-Christ,
does not execute his responsibility as a
Jew to believe the gospel of the
kingdom (Matt 24:14) and claim the privileges
associated with that kingdom as
his own as prophesied in Scripture. He is
an unbeliever.
This is evident in his lack of
understanding of the Messiah as manifest
by His statement in verse 21 that “I
feared you because you are an austere man.
You collect what you did not
deposit, and reap what you did not sow.”
The implication is clearly that the
servant did not really expect the king to
come back. He was not concerned
about the king’s return so he did not bother
with the king’s business. He
belonged with the group of unbelievers who
did not want the king to reign over
them (v. 27).
Obviously, Jesus was speaking of
the nation of Israel that had been carefully
prepared by God to be His fruitful
vineyard (Isa 5:1-7). The care of the vine
had been delegated to the nation’s
religious leaders. However, they failed
to acknowledge the Master’s (the
Heavenly Father’s) authority over them and
treated His messengers and prophets
badly. They would ultimately even kill His
Son, Jesus outside Jerusalem (outside the
vineyard).
In verse 43, Jesus makes a prediction
that the kingdom of God would be given to
a “nation” (eqno~ - nation
or people) which would bear the fruits of
it [the kingdom]. Many have
interpreted this to be a prophecy of the
Church which would consist of Jew and
Gentile since the Church is on some occasions
referred to as a nation (Rom
10:19; 1 Pe 2:9-10).
However, I do not believe that Jesus was
necessarily predicting the Church
here. The Kingdom will one day belong to
Israel (Rom. 11:15, 25) and the Church
Age Body is not now inheriting the Kingdom.
In this parable, Jesus is referring
to that future group of Jews who will in
fact believe in Him. Jesus was using
the term “nation” in the same sense as the
term “generation” in Matthew 23:36.
Because of their rejection, that generation
of Israel would never be able to
experience the kingdom. However, a future
generation will respond to Him in
faith (Ro 11:26-27) and experience the spiritual
and physical blessings of
kingdom.
Summary of the meaning of this
parable: This parable (as most of Jesus’ parables)
is designed to
illustrate or teach a point of truth regarding
the Messianic kingdom (i.e. the
“kingdom of heaven” or the “kingdom of God”).
The point is simply that those
who had rejected the invitation to enter
the Messianic kingdom through the
message of the gospel of the kingdom would
be destroyed by the armies that
attend Christ’s Second Advent, e.g. Matt
24:29-31; 25:31. Also, after the
Second Advent and as the Messianic kingdom
is being established, the invitation
to participate is extended to Gentiles (i.e.
those “in the highways” – v. 9) as
well as Israel. Any unbelievers (the man
without the wedding garment) will be
destroyed and ultimately cast into the Lake
of Fire at the Last Judgment.
Further points of analysis in support of
this
interpretation: There are other interpretations of this
parable that have
been made by dispensationalists and others
which attempt to connect this
passage with: 1) a prediction of the destruction
of Jerusalem in A.D. 70;
and/or 2) to interpret the casting “into
outer darkness” to refer to the fate of
Christians of the Church Age who were unfaithful
during their lives on earth. However,
I find those interpretations unacceptable.
The destruction of Jerusalem did
occur in A.D. 70 and represented the 5th Cycle of discipline (Le
26:14-33) toward Israel for failure to repent
in anticipation of the Kingdom.
However, to interpret the destruction in
this passage to refer to the
destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 would
require that the wedding feast (i.e.
the establishment of the Messianic kingdom)
follow that event. The destruction
of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was in no way related
to the establishment of the
Millennial kingdom and did not accomplish
the purging of unbelievers from the
kingdom as is taught in this parable (verses
11-13) and as will occur during
the establishment of the Messianic kingdom.
The phrase “weeping and gnashing of
teeth” is never used in reference to the
Church Age believer. It is a phrase
descriptive of the Jewish (and Gentile) unbeliever
during the period of time
that the gospel of the kingdom (i.e. “the
kingdom of heaven is at hand”) was
preached during Jesus’ public ministry and
will again be preached during the
Tribulation (Matt 24:14). Unbelievers of
all dispensations will be judged at
the Great White Throne Judgment at the end
of the Messianic Millennial Kingdom
in what is known as the Second Resurrection
(Rev 20:11-15) and be cast into the
Lake of Fire after having been judged “according
to their works” (Rev 20:13)
which are not sufficient to save.
The symbolism or analogy used by
Jesus in this parable is presented in point-by-point
manner in support of the
previous paragraphs:
Ø
The “king” (verse 2, 7, 11, & 13) represents
God the Father.
Ø
The “son” (verse 2) is Jesus Christ.
Ø
The “marriage” (verse 2) is the uniting of
all believers on earth
under the rule of the Messiah. Believers
of prior dispensations rule and reign
with Christ during this period (Heb 12:22-24;
Re 3:21; 5:10; 20:4, 6) and Israel has a
very prominent position among the nations
once again (e.g. Is 2:1-4; 11:11-16;
44:21-28 among many others).
Ø
The “servants” (verse 3 & 4) are the
prophets and Jesus’
disciples who proclaimed the Messiah’s arrival,
but who were rejected by the
religious people of Jesus’ day. (See also
Matt 21:33ff).
Ø
The “wedding” (verse 4) is the same as the
“marriage supper of
the Lamb” (Re 19:9) or the “wedding feast”
that pictures the Messianic kingdom
after the Second Advent of Christ.
Ø
The “armies” are angels that will attend
Christ’s Second Advent
and defeat His foes (Matt 24:31; Re 19:14).
Ø
The “murderers” (verse 7) are those unbelievers
during the last
seven years of the Age of Israel (Dan 9:24ff)
known as the Tribulation who will
persecute believers (even to the point of
death for some – Re 20:4). Note:
It is vitally important when interpreting
this parable of Jesus to keep the
dispensational perspective in mind that Jesus
had and that should have been
understood by believers within the last years
of the pre-Trib portion of the
Age of Israel, i.e. the years of Jesus’ public
ministry on earth. The fact
that not many, if any, Jewish believers understood
the prophetic timeline with
the clarity that Jesus did is not the issue.
The issue is the perspective from
which Jesus taught and ministered. That
perspective was one which recognized
the possibility that Israel might accept
Jesus as the Messiah, suffer seven
years of Tribulation after the Messiah’s
death at the hands of the Romans, and
those who endured until the end of the seven
years would enter the “kingdom of
heaven” on earth in the form of the Messianic
reign at His Second Coming.
There was no Church Age in view for the Church
was a later intercalation into
human history due to Israel’s failure to
repent in anticipation of the kingdom
being “near at hand.”
Ø
The “wedding garment” is the righteousness
of God possessed by
every believer as a result of trusting in
Christ as the Messiah (Age of Israel)
or trusting in Christ’s death as the payment
for sin (Age of the Church). Both
are in reality the same message with just
a different emphasis on Christ’s
person and work.
Ø
The man without the wedding garment is an
unbeliever within the
Age of Israel (specifically the Tribulation)
who is discovered during that
period between the Second Advent and the
establishment of the Messianic kingdom of
God on earth (Millennium). It is during
this period that the Jewish believers
are gathered to form a believing nation of
Israel and Gentile believers have
the privilege of participating in the joys
of the Messianic kingdom. Note:
Not all of the events associated with the
Second Advent and the establishment
of the Messianic kingdom transpire in a split-second
of time even though the
Second Advent occurs in an instant of time.
Over the course of several days to
perhaps a month or so, the Second Advent
will occur, the campaign of Armageddon
will be concluded, and unbelievers (Jew and
Gentile) will be culled out and
destroyed while believing Israel is gathered.
Believing Gentiles will have been
identified and will be allowed to enter the
Messianic kingdom. They will be
invited to attend the “wedding feast”. There
will be some overlap in
chronological sequence between these events;
therefore, it is indeed possible
that an unbeliever could be identified during
the period that the Messianic
kingdom on earth is being established (i.e.
the “wedding feast” is prepared)
and cast out just prior to its inaugural
event (i.e. the “wedding feast”).
Ø
The “outer darkness” is the abode of all
unbelievers awaiting the
Great White Judgment Throne at the end of
the Messianic kingdom and the
conclusion of the Battle of Gog and Magog
(Re 20:11-15).
As we have
already seen, there are differences among
dispensationalists in the
interpretation of the prophetic aspects of
the parables of Jesus. I have
presented a representative sample of the
views of various theologians in
regards to this parable in a chart to follow.
As I noted in the introduction
to this series of notes, such analysis is
not meant in any way to be critical
of the motives or the spiritual lives of
any of the men mentioned. Each of
these men are admirable men who have only
the purest of motives based upon my
knowledge of them. Each has made a great
contribution to many believer’s
understanding of Scripture. However, as
I’ve said before, when a person
teaches 99 points that are correct, it doesn’t
automatically mean that the 100th
point will be correct. Evaluate each point
on its own merits – not based upon
the fact that other statements have been
correct and supported.
|
Author/Reference
|
Synopsis of View
|
Points of
Comparison/Contrast
|
|
Jody Dillow – The Reign of the Servant Kings, 345-6,
& 535.
|
Dillow connects the parable in this passage
to Christians
of the Church Age. The man without the
wedding garment is the “Christian”
who suffers loss of reward at the Bema
Seat (2 Co 5:10; Ro 14:10-12) and the
loss is defined to be rejection from the
wedding banquet in the Messianic
kingdom even though the unfaithful “Christian”
is not completely excluded
from the kingdom. On the same page, Dillow
also makes the statement that
“the invitation to attend is to be understood
as an invitation to national Israel to accept
Christ as Messiah.” The wedding garment
is defined as righteous deeds of
the saints (i.e. experiential righteousness)
and Dillow uses Revelation
19:7-8 to support that view. In my opinion,
in his admirable attempt to
defend the doctrine of the eternal security
of the believer, Dillow has not
exegeted this passage, but he has eisegeted
in order to defend this
doctrine. The sad thing is that the doctrine
of the eternal security of the
believer is not even in question in this
passage based upon the
interpretation I have presented. Also,
while it is true that Church Age
believers who have been unfaithful during
their time on earth will experience
a loss of reward at the Bema Seat, the
exact nature of that loss is not
defined in Scripture.
|
Ø
Believers of the Church Age will rule and
reign with Christ
during the Millennium. Dillow and I are
consistent on that point.
Ø
Dillow associates the loss of reward that
the unfaithful Church
Age believer suffers at the Bema Seat with
the sorrow expressed through
“weeping and gnashing” of teeth in this
passage. He has been accused of
advocating a type of Christian purgatory
for unfaithful believers during the
Millennial reign.
Ø
Dillow views the wedding garment as experiential
righteousness
(righteous deeds) vs. the believer’s possession
of the righteousness of God –
a fact true of the Age of Israel believer.
Ø
Dillow’s interpretation places the man without
the wedding
garment in the Kingdom. However, his interpretation
doesn’t consider that the
establishment of the Messianic kingdom
is not instantaneous like the 2nd
Advent.
Ø
Dillow equates loss of reward for the Church
Age believer with
loss in the Messianic Kingdom. While I
agree that there will be loss of
reward for the unfaithful believer, Scripture
doesn’t disclose the exact
nature of that loss for the Church Age
believer. A logical conclusion is
less ruling and reigning authority in the
kingdom; however, there is no
Scripture to support that statement.
Ø
Finally, nothing in the context of this passage
requires an
understanding of the Church for its interpretation.
|
|
John Walvoord, Prophecy Knowledge Handbook, 362
|
Walvoord gives only very brief treatment
to this passage.
However, he does equate the man without
the wedding garment to an unbeliever
and states that “without salvation, it
is impossible to go to heaven.”
|
My interpretation and
Walvoord’s interpretation of this passage
seem to be fairly consistent from
what I can determine.
|
|
Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, 227
|
Pentecost includes this passage (among others)
in his
discussion of the marriage or wedding supper.
He defines the marriage supper
as a “parabolic picture of the entire millennial
age, to which Israel will be invited during
the tribulation period, which invitation
many will reject and
so they will be cast out, and many will
accept and they will be received
in.” Because of the rejection of the invitation
by Israel, many Gentiles are allowed entry
into the Millennium.
|
Ø
The view that I have presented is fairly
consistent with
Pentecost’s interpretation.
Ø
Pentecost doesn’t specifically address the
man without the
wedding garment nor does he address the
phrase “weeping and gnashing” of
teeth in the Matthew 22:1-14 passage in
this book.
Ø
Pentecost doesn’t address the timing of the
destruction of the
city
|
|
Dwight Pentecost, The Words and Works of Jesus Christ,
386
|
Pentecost’s interpretation is consistent
in that he
relates this parable to the Messianic kingdom
being offered to Israel. He provides a little
more information regarding the requirements
necessary to
enter the kingdom, i.e. a righteous life
not just the righteousness
associated with initial faith in Christ.
|
Ø
Pentecost interprets the “weeping and gnashing
of teeth” to
relate to eternal judgment.
Ø
However, he interprets the wedding garments
to be related to “a
righteous character and holy life”, i.e.
experiential righteousness.
Ø
He doesn’t address the timing of the destruction
of the city.
|
|
Barbieri, “Matthew” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary,
71.
|
The offer of the kingdom by Christ is in
view. The
wedding banquet portrays the Millennial
Age.
|
Ø
The “weeping and gnashing of teeth” is seen
as related to the
eternal judgment.
Ø
The destruction of the city is seen as related
to A.D. 70
Ø
The “wedding garment” is interpreted to be
related to
experiential righteousness not righteousness
associated with belief.
|
|
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein,
General Editor, 456-457
|
This commentary is written more from a covenant
theological perspective; however the insight
that it provides has proven
valuable on occasion when properly sifted.
|
Ø
The allusion to A.D. 70 in regard to the
destruction of the
city is rejected.
Ø
The “kingdom of heaven” is seen as having
already dawned in
spiritual form which is consistent with
the amillennial perspective.
Ø
The commentary avoids a specific interpretation
of the wedding
garments.
|
This parable is set in the midst
of several
prophecies of Jesus that deal with the end
of the Age of Israel (Matt 24:3-28)
and the 2nd Advent (Matt 24:20-31). The Parable of
the Fig Tree was
presented by Jesus as a means to illustrate
the significance of the signs in
the prophecies and how His followers should
respond when they see those signs.
The fig tree is
not Israel in this passage. The fig tree
is just an analogy for purposes of Jesus’
lesson. When the fig tree begins to sprout
leaves, then summer is soon to
come. In the same way, when these prophecies
(i.e. “these things” – v. 4-26) transpire,
the disciples would have known that the Second
Advent is at hand.
The phrase
“this generation” has two acceptable explanations:
1) It can mean “race” as in
the Jewish race; OR 2) it can mean the generation
that sees these prophecies
fulfilled.
In association with our Lord’s
return (24:30) and the regathering of the
elect of Israel to the land (24:31),
Jews will be judged (Matt 25:31ff). This
judgment will also affect Gentiles;
however, remember Matthew is writing to Jews
primarily with an emphasis upon
their relationship to Jesus as the Messiah.
The Messianic (Millennial) kingdom
will be inaugurated with only believers after
the judgment associated with
Jesus’ 2nd Advent.
The parable of the ten virgins
is based upon the
marriage customs of our Lord’s day. Prior
to the wedding, an invitation would
be sent to those who were invited to the
wedding feast. During the Tribulation
period (a.k.a. Daniel’s 70th Week), the invitation to participate in
the Messianic kingdom will be extended to
Jews (and Gentiles) through the
preaching of the gospel of the kingdom, i.e. that the kingdom of heaven
is at hand (24:14 cf. 10:7). The kingdom
of heaven is by analogy likened to a
wedding feast (22:1-14). Therefore, the
ten virgins are representative of Jews
during the Tribulation who have heard the
gospel of the kingdom and who
have been invited to the wedding feast.
Some prepared themselves to enter the
kingdom and others did not. Their preparation
(or lack thereof) is an outward
representation of inward faith (or no faith)
in the gospel of the kingdom.
Like the faithful servant of Matthew 24:45,
the wise virgins anticipated and
prepared for the Messiah’s Coming. Like
the unfaithful servant of 24:48, the
foolish virgins assumed things would continue
as they always have and they did
not prepare in faith.
In this parable of the ten virgins,
Christ taught that during the period before
His Second Coming, those believers
who had faith in the gospel of the kingdom
would manifest that faith through
proper preparation for His arrival. They
would not have an attitude
similar to the “evil servant” of 24:48 who
believed that Christ would not be
coming for some time and live their lives
based upon their own selfish
interests (e.g. self-preservation and denial
of the Messiah in the face of
persecution). Christ’s return at the Second
Advent will terminate the
opportunity for people to prepare themselves
to enter the millennial kingdom,
and only the prepared will be accepted.
Psalm 24 presents a picture of
pilgrims making their way to Jerusalem for
a festival. They are seen
approaching the city with the hope that they
might on that occasion meet
Messiah and welcome Him to His kingdom.
As they proceed, some ask, “Who may
ascend the hill of the Lord? Who may stand
in his holy place?” (Psa 24:3).
Others provide the answer, “He who has clean
hands and a pure heart, who does
not lift up his soul to an idol or swear
by what is false.” (Psa 24:4). Thus
only the pure in heart shall see God (Matthew
5:8).
While this parable is rich with
application to believers of all ages, it
is important to recognize that Jesus
spoke this parable to His disciples within
the context of the Kingdom Gospel. Nowhere in the Pauline corpus do we
find any command to “sell what you have and
give alms” (12:33). Paul never
tells the members of the Body of Christ to
sell all and give it away. He does
instruct the believer though to work with
his own hands so that he might supply
not only his own needs but the needs of others
(Eph 4:28; 1 Thess 4:11) and if
any would not work neither should he eat
(2 Thess 3:10). Furthermore, Paul
does not instruct the rich to sell everything,
but he does instruct them to be
rich in good works (1 Tim 6:17, 18). Paul’s
instructions on Christian giving
are found especially in 2 Corinthians 8 and
9 which he wrote in connection with
the collection of money from the Gentiles
to help the principally Jewish
believers in Jerusalem. (Interestingly enough,
it was the Jerusalem believers
who had at one point sold their possessions
for the common good, but they were
now destitute and in need of contributions
from the Gentiles (Rom 15:25-27).
Jesus taught the parable of the
rich fool after having received a request
from a bystander to make the
bystander’s brother divide their inheritance
so that the bystander might
receive his fair share. On the surface this
seems like a reasonable request
for justice; however, Jesus was concerned
with the more fundamental issue –
covetousness. The energy man spends accumulating
the things of this world has
been compared to passengers on a sinking
ship jockeying for the best deck
chair. It is vanity. A man who is focused
upon laying up treasures for
himself is a pauper towards God. The majority
of the book of Ecclesiastes is a
commentary on this principle (e.g. Eccl 2:18,
19 cf. 5:10-17; 6:1, 2).
Political and economic dynamics
will be completely different in the Messianic
Kingdom when Jesus Christ is
present to enforce justice. If Paul’s Church
Age converts had given all that
they had, they certainly would have had nothing
left to give to the Jerusalem believers.
The same is true of believers in the present
day and age.
Israel is pictured with analogies
to the Olive
Tree, the Fig Tree and the Vine (see Rom
11:24-26; Isa 5:7; Jer 24:1-10). In
this parable, the man who came to Israel
(pictured as a fig tree) represents
Christ who came to Israel looking for spiritual
fruit and found none. (In
Matthew 21:19, Jesus actually curses a fig
tree and it withers away to
illustrate judgment upon unbelieving Israel
that was soon in coming should she
not repent). As a matter of fact, the man
in the parable tells the gardener
that he had been looking for fruit for three
years and found none. The three
years probably corresponds to the period
of Jesus’ public ministry to Israel even
though Jesus’ public ministry may have not
been exactly three years. The keeper
of the vineyard interceded on behalf of the
fig tree (Israel) and asked for additional
time to cultivate and fertilize the tree.
Israel was given a chance to repent as evidenced
by Peter’s preaching that is recorded in
Acts 3:17-21.
The second of these two parables
is only mildly
eschatological in nature and certainly there
is great value in the
cross-dispensational principles contained
in them. I include this passage only
because it serves as a very good example
of the fact that we should maintain a
balance in our interpretation of Scripture
– a balance between recognizing the
dispensational distinctions on the one hand
and similarities of certain
spiritual truths that transcend dispensations
on the other.
On other occasions in the Gospels
the Pharisees
invited Jesus to their houses for a meal
(cf. Lk 7:36), but their motives were
anything but pure. They desired to trap
Jesus and thereby find some basis for
legitimizing their hatred of Him. In our
passage, the Pharisees have invited
Jesus to dine with them on the Sabbath.
Throughout Jesus’ public ministry, the
Pharisees were constantly looking for Jesus
to break the Sabbath because the
penalty for doing so was stoning (Num 15:31-36).
On this particular occasion,
there happened to be a man present who was
afflicted with dropsy – a condition
of excess fluid in the tissues of the body.
This man was probably invited to
Jesus’ house just to see what Jesus would
do. Jesus recognized the setup and
immediately asked them if it was lawful to
heal on the Sabbath (14:3). The
Pharisees had learned not to answer Jesus’
questions because every time they
did they just got themselves in deeper trouble
so they kept quiet. So Jesus
healed the man and let him go (14:4). Jesus
then asked them the same question
in the form of a practical scenario. He
took them from the world of the
academic, theoretical and impractical to
the real world where people had to
live and make day-to-day decisions under
the yoke of legalism. When faced with
the dilemma of pulling their son or their
ox out of the ditch on the Sabbath or
leaving him there, would they ponder the
intricacies of a legalistic code or
would they quickly do the right thing (14:5-6)?
Jesus then tells the first of two parables
– the parable of the overly ambitious guest.
As the Pharisees had entered the
house for a meal, Jesus observed them vie
for the best seat next to the host.
The parable is a simple lesson in courtesy
and humility toward others as a
demonstration of one’s spiritual status.
It was designed to get the Pharisees
to think about the spiritual realities of
the kingdom Gospel He and His
disciples had been proclaiming. In God’s
economy (the future Kingdom), the one
who exalts himself will be abased and the
one who humbles himself will be
exalted in due time (cf. 13:30). The Pharisees
were of a mindset that assumed
that they would occupy places of honor in
the Kingdom and their actions at the
dinner reflected it. However, the path to
a place of honor in the Kingdom was
and will be through humility of soul that
is reflected in servant attitudes and
actions. Jesus then turned to the host who
was orchestrating this attempt at
entrapment. Jesus told him that if he would
invite the outcasts and lowly of
circumstances – people who could never repay
him for his generosity – he would
thereby demonstrate his humility. His reward
would come in the resurrection
instead of this life (cf. Matt 6:1-7; James
1:26-27).
The second of the parables that Jesus
told was prompted by the statement of one
of the guests that those who eat
bread in the kingdom of God would be among
the blessed (14:15). We can almost
picture the man looking around the table
with a knowing glance that
non-verbally acknowledged the thought that
all of the Pharisees held in common
– the assumption that they would have important
positions in the kingdom
because of the honor bestowed upon them in
this life. The setting is perfect
for Jesus’ parable. Jesus was at a table
to dine with Jewish Pharisees who all
thought that they of all people would be
among those seated at the table of fellowship
in the Kingdom. As we have seen in other
parables (e.g. Matt 22:1-14), a
banquet feast was often used in Scripture
as an analogy to fellowship among the
redeemed in the Kingdom.
In the second parable, the host
had invited many
guests; however, all of those invited began
to provide excuses for not
responding. The excuses appeared to be valid
on the surface (14:18-20). The
host became angry and invited the poor, lame,
blind and maimed. Jesus was
referring to the members of the Jewish society
who were ceremonially unclean,
yet who had responded to the Gospel message
He and His disciples preached.
Those from the “highways and hedges” who
were invited to fill the remaining
seats at the banquet most likely refers to
the Gentiles who will participate in
the Kingdom since there are a multitude of
references in the Scriptures to the
blessings that will come to the Gentile nations
in the Messianic Kingdom by
virtue of their association with Israel.
These parables are fairly well-known
and the
spiritual value to people of our dispensation
of the Church Age is rich. The
parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin
emphasize the principle that God
pursues the wayward sinner in grace. The
parable of the lost or prodigal son
emphasizes the principle that God receives
the sinner in grace. Nevertheless, there
is a dispensational and eschatological component
to the proper interpretation
of these parables that is often overlooked.
It is fairly obvious that these
parables were directed at the religious leadership
of Israel. They complained about the fact
that Jesus spent time with known sinners
–
something a self-“righteous” Pharisee or
religious leader would never do. In
these parables, Jesus is describing God’s
joy over a sinner who repents. The
dispensational and eschatological components
of these parables that are
frequently overlooked involves a recognition
of the greater context of the
parable. The greater setting is Jesus’ presentation
of the kingdom Gospel to
Jews – God’s elect nation among whom there
were believers and unbelievers.
Today, most expositors place these
parables in a Church Age setting where they
refer to the joy of the Father when
an unbelieving “sinner” repents (changes
his/her mind about Christ) and
believes in Him for salvation. While this
principle is true and that
interpretation and application is certainly
correct by analogy, the primary
meaning of the parable is related to the
fact that the Jewish people were in
covenant relationship to God – even if they
didn’t accept Jesus as their
Messiah. The emphasis of John’s and Jesus’
preaching was repentance by the
Jews from a rejection of Jesus as their Messiah
and basis of covenant
blessings.
Today, the covenant God made with
the Jewish people is suspended. We do not
have the possibility of entering the
Messianic Kingdom in our mortal bodies in fulfillment of God’s covenant
as did the Jewish believer of Jesus’ day.
However, as believers of the Church
Age, we do face the privilege of ruling and
reigning with Him in that Kingdom
in our resurrection bodies. Only truly saved
people are the children of God
today; whereas when the covenants were in
effect, the nation of Israel was God’s people
and that nation included both saved and unsaved
Jews.
This fact is highlighted by the
parable of the lost son. The older son represents
the self-righteous Pharisees
– children of the covenant, duty bound to
stay, but unrepentant, unloving and
unforgiving. The lost or prodigal son represents
the Jew who repented and
accepted the Father’s provision thereby being
restored to a position of
fellowship with the Father. Note once again
the eschatological significance of
the “feast.” When the younger son had repented,
the father wanted to celebrate
with a feast and put the best clothes and
a robe on the son. Entrance into the
Messianic Kingdom and fellowship with the
Father there is often pictured by
means of a banquet feast. The repentant
younger son had only hoped to be
brought back as a hired servant, but the
father honored him greatly. The older
son was angry and refused to take part in
the festivities. The older son
revealed a heart that was hardened and opposed
to the love and grace shown by
the father toward this repentant son. The
Pharisees and religious leaders in
like manner were opposed to those who were
repentant in Israel.
The chapter division between
chapter 19 and 20 is unfortunate because
chapter 20 is just a continuation of
Jesus’ teaching of His disciples in 19:28-30.
In the last verses of chapter
19, Jesus has responded to the disciples
question regarding their reward in the
kingdom considering all that they have sacrificed
to follow Christ. If it is
impossible for the rich man to enter the
kingdom on the basis of his merits
(remember in Jesus’ day, the prevalent thought
was that material blessings
implied God’s favor), then the disciples
wondered if they would have any reward
at all considering all that they have sacrificed.
Jesus answered their
question in 19:28-30 and continues by reinforcing
the answer with a parable in
20:1-16.
In this parable, Jesus reinforces
the point that
the notion that the rich, the powerful, the
great, and the prominent will
continue as such in the kingdom is contrary
to God’s grace. The parable begins
with a typical scene and introduces atypical
elements for shock effect upon the
listeners. Jesus leads the hearers along
in the flow of the parable to
demonstrate that God’s grace is completely
removed from all principles of human
merit found in a laissez faire economy.
Those who approach God in childlike
trust (verse 4 & 7 – “whatever is right”)
will be advanced beyond those who
enjoy prominence now (19:23, 30) based upon
the fact that God is omniscient and
gracious. The point is not that all are
equal before God and all kingdom work
is equal. Nor is Jesus trying to teach free
enterprise or establish principles
for resolving management/employee disputes.
In verses 1-2, the owner of the
vineyard agrees
to pay the workers a denarius – the normal
wage for a foot soldier or a day
laborer. These workers would have started
about 6 a.m. Note that the other
four groups agreed to “whatever is right.”
The third hour would have been
about 9 a.m. and the eleventh hour would
have been about 5 p.m.
The principle in the world is
that the worker
who works the most (assuming the same job)
receives the most pay. This is
certainly just and the wise owner would not
have many workers if he violated
this principle. But in the kingdom, the
principle of God’s grace prevails.
Some of these workers (Jews in context to
whom the kingdom is being presented)
protested (v. 12) and the owner (God) is
said to respond with the question –
“Is your eye evil because I am good.” The
evil eye is an idiom referring to
jealousy (Deut 15:9; 1 Sam 18:9).
It is fairly easy to recognize
the spiritual
principles related to God’s grace and sovereignty
in this parable. However,
the dispensational distinction that needs
to be highlighted for a proper
interpretation is that Jesus is addressing
an audience that had the potential
during their life-times to enter the Messianic
Kingdom of God on earth. As
noted, Jesus is not teaching believers of
this present age (or any age)
principles of employer/employee relations.
Could a person of the 1st
Century A.D. come to faith just prior to
the Messianic Kingdom’s establishment
on earth and still be granted access? Yes
– that is what this parable
teaches. Are there indirect parallels related
to the present age? Yes.
Baker, Charles
F. Understanding the Gospels – A Different Approach. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Grace Publications,
Inc., 1978.
Barbieri, Louis
A. “Matthew.” In The Bible Knowledge Commentary – New Testament.
Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck.
Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books,
1983.
Blum, Edwin A.
“John.” In The Bible Knowledge Commentary – New Testament. Edited by
John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton,
Illinois: Victor Books, 1983.
Dillow, Joseph
C. The Reign of the Servant Kings – A Study
of Eternal Security and the
Final Significance of Man. Haysville, North Carolina: Schoettle Publishing
Company, 1992.
Gaebelein, Arno C. History of the Scofield Reference Bible. New York: Our Hope Publications,
1943.
Gaebelein, Frank
E. general editor, Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1989-1998, electronic version.
Grassmick, John
D. “Mark.” In The Bible Knowledge Commentary – New Testament. Edited
by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton,
Illinois: Victor Books, 1983.
Klein, William
W. The New Chosen People – A Corporate View
of Election. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers,
1990.
Martin, John A.
“Luke.” In The Bible Knowledge Commentary – New Testament. Edited by
John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton,
Illinois: Victor Books, 1983.
McClain, Alva J. The
Greatness of the Kingdom – An Inductive Study
of the Kingdom of God. Winona Lake, Indiana: BMH Books, 1959.
Pentecost, J.
Dwight. The Parables of Jesus – Lessons in Life From
the Master Teacher.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications,
1982.
Pentecost, J.
Dwight. The Words and Works of Jesus Christ, A Study
of the Life of Christ.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1981.
Walvoord, John F.
The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook. Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books,
1990.
The Parables of Jesus and Prophecy