Hastening the day of God 2 Pet Ch. 3

[Guest]

Christopher,

When each of the parables starts 'the kingdom of heaven is like....', is it mandated that the kingdom is like the next word in the paragraph? I am not sure about this. Perhaps the whole parable is what the kingdom of heaven is like. Perhaps each story Jesus told in that chapter shows what things will be like during the 5th kingdom (the church age). There will be great things happening in the church age (good soil, wheat, planting, Spiritual growth) and there will be bad things happening in the church age (satan snatching some away, rocky places, thorns, tares)

In this light, one could argue that the mustard seed and leaven parables show more of the negative side of what will occur during the church age in regards to the visible church. Since these 2 parables are sandwhiched b/w the telling and the interpretation of the wheat/tares parable...and since the servants were perplexed by the tares (28), it makes sense to me that parables 3+4 expand on the tares.

Like I said, I have spent much time thinking about these verses and slightly favor the negative interpretation. I could very well be wrong. Perhaps I have not eliminated some unknown bias.

The reason I think it is possible to view the birds in the mustard 'tree' negatively is b/c birds had just been used negatively. See verses 4 + 19 of the 4 soils parable. It is possible, but unlikely in my mind, that Jesus would have opposite meanings for an identical symbols 13 verses (possibly mere minutes of teaching) apart.

[Guest]

Hi Matt,

In parables, it isn't necessary that the kingdom of heaven be identified with the next word in the sentence, but it certainly would be misleading to say, "The kingdom...is like leaven which a woman hid in three measures of meal" (not necessarily a bad thing) if the intended meaning was really, "The kingdom...is like three measures of meal into which a woman hid leaven" (intended maliciously, somehow?).

It would have been as easy to say one sentence as the other. Saying the first, when the second idea was in fact intended, would certainly be a method calculated to throw us all off the scent—especially since this is one parable that Jesus declined to explain, apparently thinking its meaning to be sufficiently clear without explanation.

The mustard seed parable does raise questions as to why Jesus descibed a mustard plant as "a tree," but He did not say it as though He was stating an anomaly, but as if it were axiomatic. I think this impression is strengthened by the inclusion of the word "indeed" (Matt.13:32)—as if to say, "of course!" or "obviously!" In Mark's parallel, the word tree is missing altogether, and it is only claimed that the mustard seed becomes larger than other herbs, and has large branches (Mark 4:32).

The reason that birds could be used in different parables but with opposite (or at least divergent) meanings is found in the fact that, in one scenario (that of trying to plant seeds), birds are a nuisance, whereas, in another (nesting in a grown tree), birds are not a nuisance and are, in fact, in their proper dwelling (See Psalm 104:12, where the birds singing in the tree branches are part of the psalmist's celebratory description of God's good creation).

Again, this parable is given without further explanation, meaning its message was intended to be clear enough to the disciples. How would they have understood it? It is not likely that, upon hearing of birds lopdging in the branches of a tree or a bush, they would immediately think, "Oh dear! That bodes ill!"

It seems more likely that this imagery would remind them of the identical imagery in passages like Daniel 4:11-12; Ezekiel 17:23 and 31:6, where there is not the slightest negative connotation to the birds finding shelter in the tree branches. Sheltering birds and woodland creatures is, arguably, a primary function of trees in God's creation.

I appreciate your humble and teachable attitude in considering these ideas. It is clear that the positioning of the parables in the chapter counts for a lot in your interpretive leanings. This factor does not weigh so heavily with me, as I am not even sure that Jesus spoke all of the parables in the exact context in which Matthew places them.

I see Matthew 13 as one of Matthew's five summary collections of Jesus' sayings on related topics (the other four being chapters 5-7; chapter 10; chapter 18; and chapters 24-25). I don't think that the Matthew or the other synopticists were as concerned as modern writers are about exact chronologies. In any case, Mark's and Luke's gospels place the parable of the mustard seed in a context devoid of any negative connotations (Mark 4:30-32/ Luke 13:18-19).

These are my thoughts. I am not at all surprised to hear that Gabelein, an avowed dispensationalist, takes another view.

[Guest]

You may be right

I guess I don't interpret the phrase 'kingdom of heaven' as something exclusively positive, but more as synonymous with the church-age or the millennium. There are some fantastic things that have occurred during this time, and some horrific things, even (perhaps especially) in the context of the church.

With this view, I am not surprised at all to see the kingdom of heaven described in negative ways. It isn't describing heaven (where negatives will be no more), but God's kingdom on earth. Some of the kingdom parables seem to focus on positives, others focus on negatives, and most discuss both. It doesn't seem misleading to me either way.

I am not sure if Psalm 104:12 came to mind faster than the previously stated Matthew 13:4+19, but if these parables are not chronologically back to back you have a point. But, I could just as easily pull a bunch of quotes about the 'birds of the air' feasting on carcasses throughout the Old Testament or verses showing them as instruments of judgment (as in Jeremiah).

But your explanation for how birds can be used in 2 divergent ways b/c they are being used in 2 different fuctions is quite reasonable. And I think the strongest argument for the positive interpretation is the positive context in Mark & Luke.

My biggest issue is why Jesus would use leaven positively when it was almost exclusively negative imagery in Scripture. My view on the mustard seed parable is pulled to the negative b/c of the leaven. If you have time, perhaps you could convince me of this positive usage of leaven.

A final reason I allow for the possibility of the negative interpretations is that it's view is certainly true. The visible church has been corrupted throughout the centuries and become big in a fleshly instead of spiritual way.

I may change my view on these 2 parables, but I don't think I can do so as confidently as you and I'll most likely teach both possibilities with an open mind next time I teach this chapter.

[Guest]

My biggest issue is why Jesus would use leaven positively when it was almost exclusively negative imagery in Scripture. My view on the mustard seed parable is pulled to the negative b/c of the leaven. If you have time, perhaps you could convince me of this positive usage of leaven.

I don't see why? Even you admit that the church (the visible church) is both something that can look corrupt and something great in God's eyes. Can't leaven have the same dual meaning?

Is leaven inherently evil? I just take it as a figure of speach. Leaven is like salt, it is something that in small amounts can impact everything it comes into contact with. Leaven also does this. If the Kingdom is like leaven, the kingdom grows and affects it's sorroundings, just like salt.

I parallel it with this:

Dan 2:35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.

It grows as it expands. Look at how Jesus and 12 apostles affected the whole world!

A final reason I allow for the possibility of the negative interpretations is that it's view is certainly true. The visible church has been corrupted throughout the centuries and become big in a fleshly instead of spiritual way.

Isn't it also true that the church has grown and the gospel is being preached into more and more of the world with new converts entering every day.

It's true that the visible church has been corrupted, but the actual body of Christ, the true believers follow Christ. I just take Jesus as talking about the real body and not those who say they're in the Kingdom but are not. Either way you look at it, the church has grown very large from pentacost.

[Guest]

Leaven could have a dual meaning, but it doesn't it Scripture, that's my point. Leaven is decidedly bad in God's Word except possibly in this verse. I understand your point. I could go either way and feel both sides make some solid Biblical arguments, I just don't feel comfortable sounding sure on this passages meaning.

I definitely agree with your 2nd point. Both interpretations are 'true' whether the passage is declaring it or not.

Anyways, I don't want to hijack christopher's thread anymore Thanks for your replies and I'll continue to think about it.