Understanding The Parables in Matthew 13

In his insightful  essay on the parables of Jesus found in Matthew 13, Jonathan Pennington, Assistant Professor of New Testament Interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, explores the specific question of the coherence and function of the collection of parables in Matthew 13.  Pennington begins by considering how Jesus’ parables fit into his ministry and teaching overall.  The insight he draws from this consideration is that the parables are part of his work as a prophet of judgment and renewal. The parables are not simply teaching or informing or making a moral or religious point. They are instead the vehicle for the paradoxical and dangerous campaign which Jesus was undertaking, namely a redefinition of the people of God and a reorientation of the grand story of Israel’s hope. With this insight, Pennington sees Matthew 13 as a similar apocalyptic retooling of Israel’s self-understanding, namely, that the great separation of God’s people from those condemned is not based on ethnic Israel identity but faith-response in Jesus.

He then lays out the larger context of the book of Matthew in which we come across the parables of Matthew 13. He believes Matthew has structured his narrative as a clue to the purpose of the parables. The why of this parabolic ministry is explained by Jesus Himself, later on in Matthew 13 and to make sense of this explanation, it is important that one is conversant with the story so far in the first gospel.  It is this what makes Pennington deal with the narrative flow of the book of Matthew in this section.

After his summarization of the story so far, Pennington moves to Matthew 13 to catch a bird’s eye view of the parables.  He notes that, It is at the altitude of the whole chapter that we can discern a pattern in these parables. The divine crop-circles that he observes in Matthew 13 is summarized by him as, An opening parable about a sower of seed and its interpretation in relation to the kingdom, two other major parables about the separation of good and bad and their interpretation as the end of the age when the kingdom comes, and four little parables about the hiddeness and great value of the kingdom.

In his next section, he deals with the meat of the matter, working on the purpose and intention of this structure and pattern of the parables in Matthew 13. Pennington suggests three main threads that run through this entire chapter and structure that, when examined, pull it all together. These are the Sower, the Secret, and the Separation.  The parable of the Sower is the opening parable of this whole teaching section of Jesus in Matthew 13 and thus serves as the main or the big parable in this chapter.  Jesus Himself gave us the interpretation of the parable and the Sower is He Himself. Pennington observes that this parable is not  primarily an exhortation to be fruit-bearing ourselves but is rather an explanation of the mixed reception to Jesus’ kingdom message. … reading the parable in its context, it becomes clear that primarily this parable serves to explain why the Great Sower, Jesus himself, meets with such mixed results with most people not receiving and believing! This parable is primarily descriptive of what happens when the Gospel seed is sown, by Jesus himself and, by extension, by his disciples as well. After noting this descriptive aspect of this parable, Pennington asserts that this leads us to the second thematic thread of this chapter, which he calls the Secret.

By secret, Pennington is referring to the mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven.  He notices how the disciples were perplexed by the teaching of Jesus in vague metaphors rather than his clear teaching so far. Pennington pictures this scene quite vividly as follows : To feel the weight of their confusion one must think back to the narrative that precedes this text… These fishermen and tax collectors and political revolutionaries are following Jesus because they have seen his God-given miraculous powers and because every time he opens his mouth they are amazed at his wisdom and authoritative and clear teaching… Nothing shows this better than the incredible teachings as summarized by Matthew in the Sermon on the Mount. What insight, wisdom, and clarity are found here, such that at the end of the Sermon everyone responds the same way: “Wow! He teaches as one with authority, not like our scribes!” (7:28-29). But now here in chapter 13 Jesus’ teaching seems crazy. What is this odd story? An apparently careless farmer goes out and sows seed very poorly. Most of it is wasted on the road and clearly bad soil for sowing, and then one little portion produces an astronomical, unheard of, fairy-tale like yield. What kind of sermon is this? What kind of story is this? What does this vague little story have to do with Jesus’ teachings as in the Sermon on the Mount? We can easily imagine the disciples’ perplexity: “What happened to that powerful, meaty teaching like Jesus used to give us?”  It is in reply to this confusion of the disciples that Jesus responds with a very crucial and shocking answer. It is from this answer that we gain understanding on the why of this parabolic ministry of Jesus. Jesus quotes Isaiah 6 to show how his parabolic ministry is a fulfillment of that which was told to Isaiah, to preach even though his hearers will not hear or perceive. Pennington reasons, This is why Jesus is now teaching in parables—not to reveal the truth of God to all, but to conceal. There is a mystery—the “mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” (verse 11)—that functions as a word of judgment. At the same time, Jesus offers an unprecedented word of blessing on his disciples: You are blessed because unlike many former prophets and righteous men, you do get to see and understand this mystery (13:16-17).  Pennington also notes that from this response of Jesus, we can see how the common tendency to see Jesus’ parables as His down to earth style of teaching is entirely wrong.  It is actually the opposite and is done with the purpose of preventing people with hardened hearts from understanding.  Pennington notes, It is not accidental that this shift occurs after the great opposition of chapter 12 and the religious leaders’ resolution to destroy Jesus (12:14). Jesus changes his teaching style to this prophetic double-functioning mode so that he can simultaneously judge and proclaim.  Pennington finally summarizes his understanding of this second thematic thread of secret as follows : This is the nature of parables: They conceal and at the same time reveal if one understands the interpretation. If one is not given the knowledge to understand (by God) then the meaning remains a mystery, a secret. If one is given the knowledge then understanding and perception occurs. Therefore, this whole parable section hinges on this idea of the revealing and concealing of secrets.

After having shown how not everyone responds to the Sower in the same manner, and how those who do respond, do so, because God has blessed them with eyes to see and ears to hear the Secret or the mystery of the Kingdom, Pennington moves to his third thread, which he calls the Separation.  Pennington notes how the parabolic ministry is aimed at sorting out those with understanding from others. He argues, The Four Soils is a separating of responses into four types. Even more pointedly, the purpose of the second and seventh parables (the Wheat and the Weeds and the Dragnet of fish) is to separate the good from the bad. This is apparent not only in the parable stories themselves but also in their explicit, eschatological interpretation. Both parables speak of a separating of the good from the bad at the close of age when the Son of Man, Jesus, comes and renders reward and judgment.  He then moves onto show how the theme of separation can be found in the quoted passage from Isaiah 6. On the basis of this he shows how the theme of the great separation finds its ultimate fulfillment and consummation in Jesus, who is the ultimate prophet who preaches the mystery of the kingdom of God—the mystery that God has come incarnate in Jesus himself—and who is calling to himself a chosen remnant who will be granted understanding and insight into the mystery or secret.  Concerning this remnant, Pennington notes, Unlike the tares amidst the wheat or the bad fish in the net or the first three soils, “Blessed are your eyes and ears,” Jesus says, “because they see and hear” (13:16).

Pennington summarizes his overall point concerning Matthew 13 as follows using these three thematic threads, Matthew 13 is a highly structured pattern of parabolic teaching. It is not just a concatenation of assorted parables to show Jesus as an interesting and engaging teacher. Rather, it is a set of parables which should be taken together as a whole. Woven throughout the whole chapter is a set of three themes which in concert speak a powerful truth: Jesus’ parabolic teaching is a sowing of the Word in the world. This Word from God is simultaneously a message of judgment on the unbelieving and a word of hope and blessing for the believing. The Word both reveals and conceals and in the process it performs a great separation of all people (cf. Heb 4:12), based on their response to the Son, the Incarnate Word.

Pennington is wise and godly to not end his essay with the above summary. Rather he has one more section dealing with our response if we have been given eyes to see and ears to hear the secret of the Kingdom. He warns us that Instead of seeking just to understand Matthew 13, we are called to a posture of standing under its message, lest we prove ourselves to be unfruitful soil. He then enlists practical implications of the three main thematic threads that he has discussed so far. Concerning the Sower and His sowing, he says,  This word of the kingdom, the “gospel of the kingdom” as Jesus calls it, is still going forth through us today as Jesus’ disciples…To be a disciple of Jesus means to do the same things he did, to live a life of self-sacrifice, serving others, …. and crucially, to proclaim the gospel of the Kingdom. Concerning the Secret, he calls us to be not be surprised when it [our proclamation] meets with every response from apathy to persecution. Pennington wants us to be confident in God’s election of some if not all of our hearers, who will be blessed with eyes to see and ears to hear. But just as with the four soils, the yield of even one fruit-bearer far outweighs any loss!. Finally concerning the Separation, Pennington calls all those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, who have been separated from the unbelieving, to - humble praise and thanksgiving to God. Pennington’s rationale behind this exhortation is indeed very God-glorifying and sweet to any saint. Here is his argument drawn from the text itself for why praise and thanksgiving is fitting for all those to whom God has revealed the mystery of His Kingdom, This is because we see in this text and we know in our hearts that our believing is not a choice on our part but is a revelation that is given. This is grace. We did not choose God. We did not reason in all our brilliance and decide that faith in God was an acceptable risk to take. We did not earn favor with God by our great faith and goodness and God-centered hearts and lives. Rather, we were dead in our sins and God made us alive through Christ Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. For no reason other than mysterious grace we have been granted to understand the divine secret of the gospel even in the midst of God’s just judgment on all of the world. If it were our choice it would not be divine revelation. For those who understand this, the only response can be praise and thanksgiving. Any response less than this fails to understand what the gospel is and the function of the parables as we see them in Matthew 13.  

Pennington thus concludes his essay by drawing every saint to his knees in rich adoration of the Almighty God and His grace in His Son, Lord Jesus Christ. If we are of the believing, then the parables of Jesus are aimed at our praise. It is hoped that this insight would draw out much praise and thanksgiving for our God, the next time the readers would come across the mysterious parables of Jesus. 

Matthew 13 and the Function of the Parables in the First Gospel  Read | Download

Footnotes  

----------------

[1]  All quotations from the featured article by Dr. Jonathan Pennington, SBTS Journal of Theology, 13/3 (Fall 2009)

Understanding Hebrews 6:4-6 and other Warning Passages of Hebrews

One of the most hotly debated topic among Christians is in regard to the doctrine of perseverance. This doctrine pertains to the understanding of the nature of salvation that Christians have in the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Reformed Christians have always believed in the preservation and perseverance of the saints. In other words, we believe a Christian would be kept by God from falling away and would thus persevere till the end. Thus all true Christians shall persevere till the end and only those who persevere till the end are true Christians. 

The warning passages in the book of Hebrews have always been considered as a clear biblical objection against such an understanding of the nature of salvation. The debate is whether the book of Hebrews teaches the final perseverance of the saints or does it teach some genuine Christians will fall away.  This question is essentially an exegetical one and thus needs to be answered by an exegete who carefully examines and exegetes the text to understand the teaching of the book.

Dr. Wayne Grudem, Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary, has done a very thorough case study on Hebrews 6:4-6 and other warning passages of Hebrews, in his contribution to The Grace of God and The Bondage of the Will Vol.I (Eds:Thomas Schreiner, Bruce Ware; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995). Grudem’s basic thesis is “by focusing our attention within the book of Hebrews itself, we will see that this passage in its immediate context and within the larger context of the book of Hebrews as a whole, is entirely consistent with the Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints.”

Grudem’s analysis of this passage in its immediate and wider context of Hebrews is exegetically sensitive and theologically astute. After his analysis of the book of Hebrews, he moves onto the wider canon of New Testament. Grudem’s interacts with the rest of the New Testament to show how similar descriptions like in Hebrews 6:4-6, is used elsewhere by Jesus and the Apostles, to refer to people who, though having enjoyed many blessings, were not saved. He concludes his article with some implications of his exegetical investigation, on the assessment of and proclamation of the doctrine of perseverance.

The article has been organized as follows :

I.              Analysis of Hebrews 6:4-6 in its immediate context

a.     Definition of the question

b.    The meanings of the descriptive terms in verses 4-6

                                          i.    The argument that these people were once saved

                                         ii.    The argument that the terms alone are inconclusive

                                        iii.    Other views of 6:4-6

                                        iv.    Conclusion regarding the positive terms in 6:4-6

                                         v.    Why is it impossible to restore such people to repentance?

c.     Verses 7-8: The metaphor of the field

d.    Verses 9-12: Better things, that is , things that belong to salvation

e.    Chapters 3-4: Comparison with the earlier state of those who fell away elsewhere in Hebrews

f.     Comparison with language describing the saved elsewhere in Hebrews

g.    Conclusions regarding Hebrews 6:4-6

II.             Analysis of other warning passages in Hebrews

a.    Hebrews 2:1-4

b.    Hebrews 3:6-4:13

c.    Hebrews 10:26-31

d.    Hebrews 12:25

III.            Comparison with related passages in the rest of the New Testament

IV.           Conclusions for the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints

This article is one of the finest exegetical treatment of the warning passages in Hebrews. It is very easy to read and would be appealing to both laymen and scholars.

Perseverance of the Saints  Read | Download

An Exegetical Response to D.A Carson

Theoblogy highly recommends D.A Carson, for he is a fine exegete, scholar and preacher. He is Reformed, Baptistic and above all very passionate about being gospel-centered in all things. God be praised for gifting the church with such a blessed leader.

However Carson’s exegesis of Matthew 5:17-48 is considered by many as undermining the traditional Reformed view of the passage, and then the fact that most New Covenant Theologians appeal to Carson’s exegesis as the exegetical basis for their teachings have made things only worse. 

It is important to note here that Carson does not belong to the NCT camp.  Two aspects of Carson as an exegete may tempt his listeners to think he is promoting NCT. They are :

1. When it comes to exegetical discussions, Carson is critical of using the tripartite division of the Law as Moral, Civil and Ceremonial, as a textually warranted division.

This however does not mean he does not believe in this classification. He rather wants to consider the historic development of this thought and calls it as rightly developed by Thomas Aquinas. In his lecture on the OT use in NT, he does say that the classification of Law like this and especially the category of Moral Law, is an important one and to be considered, especially in discussions after we have done our exegesis. He says, ‘that part of revelation of God which undergoes minimum change over the plain of redemptive history can be a posteriori defined as Moral Law.' Carson is however hesitant to consider moral law as an a priori category in his exegetical discussions.

2. His exegesis of "fulfillment" language in Matthew 5:17-48

When it comes to understanding the word “fulfill” (πληρόω, plēroō), Carson makes a case in showing that Jesus is speaking of Him being the eschatological fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. Carson feels that the reading of Scripture in classic Reformed exegesis, where you see the command to not hate embedded in the command to not murder is a bit flat. He rather opts for a prophetical overshadowing of the teachings of Christ, where the command to not murder did envision an eschatological abolition of hatred too.

Now the noteworthy thing is, Carson himself admits that in terms of moral and ethical consequences, there is little difference between the two readings. In other words he is not denying the use of moral law for Christians. He does not do that. He rather feels he is making some cases for a more textually faithful reading of scriptures within the framework of redemptive historical trajectory model. Unlike an NCT guy, Carson does not criticize the use of Decalogue for the Christian or promote any Law-of-Christ alone for Christians.

In spite of these reasons, Carson’s exegesis of Matthew 5 is still the intellectual and exegetical foundation for the NCT movement. This alarming reality calls for a response from exegetes who favor the traditional Reformed view.

Dr. Greg Welty, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, has written a very thorough and fair response to Carson, where he shows how Carson’s exegesis can only be considered as a “conceptual innovation”, and thus defends the classic Reformed exegesis of the passage. After critiquing Carson, Welty closes by providing a positive account of Mt 5:17-48 which both incorporates one of Carson’s key insights from v. 17, and yet retains the traditionally Reformed interpretation of the antitheses.  He argues that it is precisely because Jesus is the eschatological fulfillment of the law and the prophets, that we would expect Him to confirm the Mosaic laws He treats in the antitheses, and to defend such laws from Pharisaic distortion and misinterpretation. The paper has an Appendix which then addresses the slightly different view of NCT exegete Fred Zaspel, in light of the preceding discussion.

Eschatological Fulfillment and the Confirmation of Mosaic Law  Read

What Is the Gospel?

D.A Carson’s contribution to  For the Fame of God’s Name : Essays in Honor of John Piper is a must read essay entitled, “What Is the Gospel?—Revisited”. Carson emphatically defines the gospel as that which God has done for us in Christ Jesus and nothing else.  He says,

The heart of the gospel is what God has done in Jesus, supremely in his death and resurrection. Period. It is not personal testimony about our repentance; it is not a few words about our faith response; it is not obedience; it is not the cultural mandate or any other mandate. Repentance, faith, and obedience are of course essential, and must be rightly related in the light of Scripture, but they are not the good news. The gospel is the good news about what God has done. Because of what God has done in Christ Jesus, the gospel necessarily includes the good that has been secured by Christ and his cross work. Thus it has a present and an eschatological dimension. We announce the gospel. [1]

Read the table of contents of this book, and Carson’s essay here:

Or download the free, 32-page PDF here.

Footnotes

----------------

[1] D.A Carson,  For the Fame of God’s Name  (Crossway, 2010)  pg 162

“The Israel of God” According To Paul

When the apostle Paul ends his letter to the Galatians, he pronounces his benediction as follows in Galatians 6:16 “And as many as walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God”.  Who the Israel of God is in this verse,  is the exegetical issue that has generated the most discussion and disagreement among interpreters of the letter. Most in the history of interpretation have argued that Paul uses this phrase with reference to the church, the “true Israel” or “spiritual Israel.” Yet a number of scholars believe this view is very questionable, if not highly unlikely.

The following essay by Christopher W. Cowan, Adjunct Instructor of New Testament Interpretation at Southern Seminary, considers the issues that have contributed to the competing understandings of the verse, looking first to the arguments of those who believe Paul uses “the Israel of God” to speak of ethnic Jews in some sense. Cowan then offers several reasons to justify the traditional interpretation and argue that Paul instead uses the phrase to refer to the church. In the context of Galatians (and the New Testament) it is best to see “the Israel of God” in Gal 6:16 as a reference to the unified people of God consisting of both Jews and Gentiles who have faith in Jesus Christ.

 

Cowan first lists the arguments of Ernest de Witt Burton, Peter Richardson and S. Lewis Johnson, to interpret “the Israel of God” as referring to ethnic Jews and not the church. Burton argues for the illogical order of “peace” and “mercy” in this benediction, compared to other NT benedictions and the lack of any other instance in which Paul uses the term “Israel” except to refer to the Jewish nation. Like Burton, Richardson also builds his case on the illogical order in the benediction, to prove that Paul, while writing this verse, had two groups in mind. Johnson objects to taking the kai (“and”) that follows “mercy” in an explicative or epexegetic sense ( as to mean “namely,” “that is”).

In response to these arguments, Cowan gives  five reasons why he believes the traditional interpretation of this phrase, as referring to church is justified by the context of the letter. His reasons briefly are as follows : 

(1) While it is certainly true that nowhere else in the New Testament do we find the term “Israel” being applied to the church, the concept is ubiquitous.

(2) The context of Galatians justifies understanding “the Israel of God” as designating all believers, Jew and Gentile.

(3) Believing that the church is the “true Israel” and that there is a future salvation for ethnic Israel are not inconsistent propositions.

(4) The infrequency of the epexegtical usage of kai is not sufficient evidence to deny its presence in Galatians 6:16.

(5) The unique construction of Paul’s benediction here and the unique combination of “peace and mercy” would appear to argue against its being a formulaic benediction.

Cowan thus concludes his brief essay, by reminding us the adage that “context is everything” and employing the context as the decisive factor in understanding Paul, he says, Paul identifies the church, those who conform to the new creation in Christ, as the true Israel.

Context Is Everything: “The Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16  Read

Footnotes

--------------------

[1]  Christopher W. Cowan, Context Is Everything: “The Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16, SBJT Fall 2010

Does Paul Impute Legalism To Moses?

It is very common to hear interpretations of Pauline epistles that suggest a false dichotomy between an Old Covenant system based on works and a New Covenant system based on faith. One of the most common passages used to draw this conclusion is Galatians 3:12, where Paul seems to compare law and faith. Now it is right to conclude from this verse that righteousness comes through faith and not on the basis of deeds. However is it right to say that the Old Testament, at least partially was a legalistic covenant between God and his people. Is it right to say that Paul in Galatians 3:11-12 is pitting the theology of Leviticus to that of Habakkuk. 

In the 2005 edition of The Gospel Witness, James M. Hamilton Jr., Associate Professor of Biblical Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote an article investigating on this issue of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12. According to Hamilton, to view Old Covenant as a partial legalistic covenant “fails to appreciate the gracious character of the Levitical system”. Hamilton recognizes the central problem with the Galatians as a failure to “understand the law’s role in salvation history”.  With an aim to demonstrate the salvation-historical nature of Paul’s argument, Hamilton in the first section of his article, attempts “to summarize the Levitical system of the Old Testament with the hope of gaining a better understanding of the nature of the Old Covenant.” With that foundation laid, he then “considers the context of Galatians 3”.

In trying to make sense of the Levitical system, Hamilton contends that sincere trust from one’s heart is very much an inevitable element even in keeping the law and in the offering of sacrifices in penitence. Hamilton says “The Mosaic Covenant requires perfect obedience to the law, but the law provides sacrifice for the reparation of relationship when laws are broken. In order for these sacrifices to repair the relationship with Yahweh, however, they must be offered from a trusting heart that is repenting of the sin and seeking Yahweh’s pleasure”. If done without a right heart, then it does not bring any pleasure to Yahweh. Thus the covenant of Moses is to be, in that sense, kept by faith and if thus kept, then Leviticus 18:5 promises escape from being slain by the holiness of Yahweh.  Though this faith is not an explicit faith in the Messiah and His sacrifice, it is still a sincere trust in God and the sacrifices He has instituted for the covering of our sins.  Thus to view Old Covenant as a legalistic covenant is a failure “to appreciate the gracious character of the Levitical system”

In understanding the salvation-historical context of Galatians 3, Hamilton points out that the issue is not “that the Old Testament presented a legalistic way of gaining salvation but that the period in salvation history in which the Levitical system was operative has ended.” Hamilton therefore concludes that, “anyone who seeks to approach God by means of the Old Covenant in this new period in salvation history must keep the Old Covenant law perfectly (Galatians 5:3).” Since the Old testament sacrifices for sins are no longer in effect, the Law Covenant if kept should be kept flawlessly.  Thus Hamilton concludes his article as follows: “Thus, the statement in Leviticus 18:5 as it is used in Galatians 3:12 is equivalent to Galatians 5:3—the one who submits to the Mosaic covenant in this new period of salvation history “is obligated to do the whole law.” Paul does not impute legalism to Moses.”

This short article is worth reading for its many valuable insights into the nature of the two testaments, how faith is an inevitable element in both of them and that neither of them, particularly the Old  is legalistic in its nature.  A proper understanding of this will yield much fruit in faithful interpretation of Paul.

The One Who Does Them Shall Live By Them: Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12  Read | Download

Does Baptism Replace Circumcision?

Reformed Peadobaptists believe in the sacramental equivalence of Old Testament circumcision and New Testament baptism. They believe baptism has functionally replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant. If you ask them to give a textual warrant for believing baptism as the Christian circumcision, then the verse that is often taken is Colossians 2:11-12. They argue that Paul here is equating the two and making baptism the Christian sacrament that correspond to circumcision.

Martin Salter, an MTh student at Oak Hill Theological College in London, has written an excellent essay verifying this claim made by Peadobaptists.  The paper does not tackle Peadobaptism in its entirety, but demonstrates how the use of Colossians 2:11-12 by Peadobaptists, to prove the replacement of circumcision by baptism, is an illegitimate one.  

In the paper, he first briefly considers the passage in its historical context to show that "the passage is primarily polemical and not sacramental". Hence Salter warns us to be cautious in "drawing  firm conclusions regarding sacramentology" from these verses.  Secondly, he examines Paul’s theology of baptism and circumcision to show that there is "a disjunction between physical and spiritual circumcision and it is the latter that is referred to in Col 2".  Thirdly he goes for an exegesis of the verses and shows "how spiritual circumcision and baptism do not signify the same realities".  He then summarizes his arguments and makes three conclusions. He makes an appeal to both sides of the debate, "to be cautious with this passage as it is mainly concerned with false teaching and not  to teach the theology of baptism."

Does Baptism Replace Circumcision? An Examination of the Relationship between Circumcision and Baptism in Colossians 2:11–12