I. Introduction. The information in this paragraph is provided so that new readers will have an understanding of the sources of information for the articles that are written.
A. This series of articles focuses on a study of the Gospel Of Matthew, which takes place through a consistent, literal, grammatical, historical and contextual interpretation of God’s Inspired Word.
B. We all read things that other people have written. Therefore, it is necessary for all whom study the works of biblical commentators to choose, for their references, those writers whom have gained the trust of their peers as it relates to the knowledge of scriptural truth and context. The theological scholars that are identified in this series of articles have been found to be faithful to the requirements of the goals of Biblical truth and context.
C. The contents in this article, and those that follow, rely heavily on the writings of such theological scholars as those of the following faculty members of Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS), which was founded in 1924. DTS is well known for its curriculum on Eschatology (Study of last things).A list of my references is shown in my Page, “My References.”
1. Lewis Sperry Chafer, D.Div., Litt. D (1871—1952) was the primary founder of the Dallas Theological Seminary (1924; then Evangelical Theological College), an institution widely considered the academic front-runner of dispensationalist theology. Besides serving as the college’s first president and principal theologian, Chafer was a musician, evangelist, and frequent Bible conference speaker. Although he wrote many popular books on prophecy, evangelism, and Christian living, Lewis Sperry Chafer’s most enduring work was his eight-volume Systematic Theology, the first theological textbook framed within a dispensational, premillennial view.
2. John F. Walvoord, Th. B., Th. M., Th. D., D. Div., received his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1931. That fall Walvoord entered the fledgling Dallas Seminary, where he earned his bachelor’s and master’s of theology (Th. B., Th.M.) degrees, magna cum laude, in 1934 and doctorate in theology (Th.D.) in 1936. He went on to receive an M.A. in philosophy from Texas Christian University in 1945. Wheaton College awarded him a doctor of divinity (D.D.) in 1960; Liberty University conferred the Doctor of Letters (Litt.D.) on him in 1984; he taught at Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) for 50 years, during which time he was President of DTS for 34 years, dying at age 92
3. Charles C. Ryrie, Th. M. Th. D., Ph. D., taught elsewhere for 40 years, and 20 years at DTS, dying shy of his 91st birthday. Dr. Charles Caldwell Ryrie (b. 1925) has died only weeks before his ninety-first birthday. Dr. Ryrie taught Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary before serving as dean of doctoral studies for more than two decades until his retirement in 1983. He passed away on February 16, 2016. Although Ryrie left Haverford before completing his studies there, Haverford conferred his B.A. (1946) on the basis of his work at DTS. A year later, Ryrie received his Th.M. (1947), and two years following that, his Th.D. (1949). He went on to complete a Ph. D. (1953) at the University of Edinburgh, and he later received a Litt.D. from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, now Liberty University School of Divinity.
4. J. Dwight Pentecost, B.A., Th. M., Th. D., taught for 58 years at Dallas Theological Seminary. “Dr. P,” as he was affectionately known on the DTS campus, began his time at the seminary in 1937 as the one hundredth student at the then twelve-year-old school. From 1958 through 1973, Dr. P served concurrently as a DTS professor and senior pastor of Grace Bible Church in North Dallas. As he completed his doctorate in theology, the seminary’s president at the time, Dr. John F. Walvoord invited Dr. Pentecost to join the DTS faculty, where he served until his death.
5. Notable DTS Graduates. Robert Jeffress, David Jeremiah, J. Vernon McGee, Charles Swindoll.
6. The works of other faculty or graduates of DTS, or of other such minded theological scholars, may also be consulted.
7. Dates that are provided in this article come from the Scofield Study Bible (1909 A.D.) and the Ryrie Study Bible (1986 A.D.).
8. It is important to know that the Gospel of Matthew is not a Christian apologetic, in that there was no offer of a Christian personal salvation, or loss of such salvation.
a. The offer of salvation that Jesus offered to first Century Israel,was that of a national salvation of Israel from the persecution of Gentile empires, which would be based on the acceptance by Israel of Jesus being God’s chosen King of the earthly Kingdom of God, that was, and still is, yet future(30 A.D.).b. The audience of Jesus was Jews of first century Israel (30 A.D.). Matthew wrote the Gospel, after the Day Of The Jewish Feast Of Pentecost (33 A.D.), when Jews came to belief in Christ as their personal Savior. Matthew’s Gospel was written to Jews who had believed in Christ for Salvation, to make known to those Jews that Jesus was God’s choice to be the King of the Kingdom of God on earth (which is still yet future).c. The date of the writing of Matthew’s Gospel was prior to the destruction of Jerusalem (70 A.D.), and was likely to have been between 50 and 60 A.D., although the preferred date is 51 A.D. Jews who had come under the OT teaching of Jesus in 30 A.D. (Book of Matthew), would have been present during the “Day of the Jewish Day of Pentecost,” when the Apostle Peter preached the first Gospel message of the Christian Dispensation (Acts 2:1-36, 33 A.D.).
9. As you read my articles it is important to remember that, just as Luke’s gospel was based on the discussions that he had with Jewish eye-witnesses of the life of Christ (Lk 1:2), my articles are based on the sermons and articles of highly educated theological scholars whom are students of the written Word of God, to include the languages in which the Scriptures were written. I serve as an investigative reporter, who draws no conclusions, other than those which have already been drawn by such scholars, as I have described above.
10. My resources, both individual and institutional, are both independent and non-denominational; therefore, there they have no denominational axes to grind
II. Discussion.Matthew Chapter 13 – Part -5 -The Parables – Mustard Seed and Leaven
A. Parable of the Mustard Seed, 13:31-32
1. In this parable, the kingdom of heaven was compared to the small mustard seed which became such a large plant that birds were able to lodge in its branches. This mustard plant is a species different than the common one used as a condiment. Although left without interpretation, it anticipated that Christendom as a sphere of profession will grow rapidly from a small beginning to an organization with great power and wealth. While the plant included both true believers and those who professed to believe, the mustard plant was distinguished from the birds lodging in its branches which were unbelievers (Daniel4:20-22)
2. Some have noted that the mustard seed described as “the least of all seeds” is not actually the smallest seed, and that this is an error in the Scriptures. The answer is twofold. The Greek word translated “smallest” is actually a comparative and should be translated “smaller,” as it is in the New English Bibleand in the New American Standard Bible.. The thought is that it is “very small.” Second, “Yeshua is speaking of the seeds that were ordinarily planted in ancient gardens, so the remark that botanists know about many seeds that are still smaller is pointless.”
3. The parable of the mustard seed is also found inMark 4, where it is related to the kingdom of God. This has supported the view of many that the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are identical, as they are occasionally found in parallel passages. There is some indication in Scripture, however, that the kingdom of heaven emphasizes the professing character of the kingdom as including unbelievers who look like believers, as illustrated in the tares, in contrast to the kingdom of God, containing only true believers. It is significant that the kingdom of God is not compared to the second parable, that of the wheat and the tares, as those in the kingdom of God are genuine believers. Putting Matthew and Mark together, the conclusion can be reached that both the number of true believers (the kingdom of God) as well as the sphere of profession in the present age (the kingdom of heaven) will grow rapidly. This is in contrast to the future millennial kingdom, which Christ will bring at His second coming, which will begin abruptly as a worldwide kingdom, rather than as a product of gradual growth (During the interadvent age, believers and unbelievers will be present,side by side
B.Parable of the Leaven, 13:33-35
1. In this parable, the kingdom of heaven is likened unto leaven hidden in meal. In biblical times, it was customary to retain a small portion of leavened dough from each batch to mix in with the next batch of dough, thereby leavening the new dough. In modern times, yeast is usually used. What does the leaven represent? Postmillenarians and Amillenarians, usually assume dogmatically that leaven cannot represent evil in this parable, although it is universally used to represent evil in both the Old and New Testaments. It is impossible to use leaven in this sense when picturing the kingdom.” If the kingdom of heaven was all good, this would be true, but the other parables make clear that there are tares among the wheat, bad fish as well as good fish in the net. The kingdom of heaven includes both good and evil. To make the leaven synonymous with the gospel as a permeating and ameliorating principle in the world may coincide with postmillennialism but does not coincide with this chapter in its presentation of the present age. It is more evident than ever in the last third of the previous century that the gospel has not permeated the whole world and that evil tends to permeate the entire professing church, which is exactly what Matthew 13 teaches. It is important to relate the Kingdom of God, in our time of life, to the Interadvent age. The yet future Kingdom of God will have Christ reigning as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, with Satan being bound, and un able to tempt anyone.
2. In the Old Testament, leaven is used consistently to represent evil. In sacrifices, which represent Jesus Christ, such as the unleavened bread on the table of shewbread, no leaven was permitted. In cases where leaven was permitted, they inevitably represented human situations, as the peace offering of Leviticus 7:11-13 , and the two loaves anticipating typically the professing church, mentioned in Leviticus 23:15-18. In the New Testament, leaven was used by Christ for the externalism of the Pharisees, of the unbelief of the Sadducees, and of the worldliness of the Herodians, and in general of evil doctrine (Mt16:6). In Paul’s letters, likewise, leaven represents evil, as in 1 Corinthians 5:6-8 and Galatians 5:7-10)
3. In the parable, the meal represented that which is good, as it was made from wheat and not from tares. The professing church, however, is permeated by evil doctrine, externalism, unbelief, and worldliness, which tend to inflate the church and make it larger in appearance, even as the leaven inflates the dough but actually adds nothing of real worth. The history of the church has all too accurately fulfilled this anticipation, and the professing church in the world, large and powerful though it may be, is permeated by the leaven of evil which will be judged in the oven of divine judgment at the end of the age (Iteradvetage). The parable applying to the kingdom of heaven (interadventage) applies to the professing church which will continue in the world after the true church, the body of Christ, is caught up at the time of the rapture. To some extent, evil will extend even to the kingdom of God, which includes the body of true believers in the church, as well as those who come to Christ after the rapture. Even true believers fall far short of perfection and can embrace to some extent worldliness, externalism, and bad doctrine.