Q&A 45: How do we view passages about picking up your cross daily, the parable...
Vern Peterman · Nov 21, 2010
Questions & Answers, No. 46
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/49261720343930

Transcribed from the recording by SermonAudio, so expect the occasional misheard word.

This Q&A is Q&A at 45. How do we view passages about picking up your cross daily, and the parable of the sower, and similar passages and parables spoken by Christ and his earthly ministry? Now, in order to answer this question properly, we have to apply many of the insights and principles of in last Q&A. Let's see, number issue. I probably should have had a Q&A at 44, I think.

Anyway, in summary, these would include, until the very end, and by the way, this is a pivotal truth. I would say most of Christendom has got some misunderstanding in this area. Until the very last part of Jesus' ministry, end of Israel. Christians are frequently prone to just look at, oh, if Jesus said and did it, that's directed to me. And so this is an important insight.

Matthew 10.6, Jesus sends the disciples out two by two. Who does he send them to? To the Jews. Go only, and the phrase is, go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Right? He says don't go to any road that leads to the Gentiles.

In chapter 15, Jesus is approached by a Canaanite woman. And his response, I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. As we studied on Thursday night, going through the Gospel of John, at one place, some Greeks approach Jesus, and basically He doesn't even take any time with them. And at first you think, my heavens, this just doesn't seem right. But right on point, He was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

A minor exception to this was when Jesus went through Samaria, which was in the land intended by God for Israel. Two things. One is Jesus, when he encountered Gentiles, he did so by going to places that the Jews were originally supposed to have as their own. One of those is Samaria. which is, that's a place where it's half-Jew, half-Gentile. And another is this Matthew 15, where this Canaanite woman greets him. So Jesus goes deliberately into areas that the Jews should have taken and claimed and retained as their own land. Very interesting. Okay.

He spoke to the Samaritans, who were part Jewish and part Gentile, and recognized a modified version, excuse me, these Samaritans did, recognized a modified version of the five books of Moses, that is, Genesis through Deuteronomy. The modification of those books was simply to accommodate the fact that they weren't doing their temple practices in Israel, in Jerusalem. Instead, what did they do? They had their temple up on another mountain north of Jerusalem and so they changed some features of the books of Moses to fit what they were doing. Other than that, the Samaritan Pentateuch, as it's called, the Samaritan five books, is identical.

Only in the very last parts of each of the four Gospels was Jesus directing his message to the disciples with a view to their being a part of and a foundation for the new spiritual body known as the Church. Christians will often read through the Gospels and think, oh, that's for me.

Well, It's specifically and intentionally directed to the Jews. Are there things to apply to us? Yes, there certainly are. It's there for a reason. But it's not said directly to us as if we were under the law living in the land of Israel with the temple system. Right? Because we're not. We're the temple. Right? Okay, a second bullet.

As Jesus addressed the Jews, he appointed them to the original law of Moses, setting aside mere compliance as well as, external compliance rather, as well as supplemental Jewish legal traditions, but rather urging compliance with the law of Moses from and within the heart. So the two ways that you see Jesus making an emphasis on the law of Moses Even when he talked to Jews, was one, forget about all these additional traditions. That's part one. Secondly, from the heart is where it counts, not just on the outside. So those two things were the directions in which he pressed the Law of Moses. Just the Law of Moses, not all the other stuff you add to it.

Some of the things that Jesus makes mention of. people would swear, and if they'd swear by certain things, they could basically tell a lie. I promise, and as long as they promised by the right things, or wrong things, then they wouldn't have to abide by it. So Jesus says, let your yes be yes and your no be no. Just say it. Don't make all these crazy, fancy promises, and I swear by this and I swear by that, so that people don't know if you're telling the truth or not.

Right? Okay. We in the church, however, have died to the law of Moses. Now, this is critical stuff. And here's a place where it becomes really valuable and important. You look at the Sermon on the Mount under the Jewish system, where you are blessed if you followed the law. What did Jesus say? Forgive so that you will be forgiven. If you don't forgive, you won't be forgiven. That's law.

Paul writes in Ephesians 4.32, forgive. Why? Because you've already been forgiven. Isn't that a huge difference? That's really different. Okay.

Now, third bullet, to approach the four Gospels in the exact same way as the rest of the New Testament is to fail to see the distinctions between Israel and the Church, between living under law as the reigning principle and living under grace as the reigning principle. But since all of Scripture is given to us as spiritually profitable, we are to gain insight by comparison of what is the same or similar for all groups and times. and what stands in contrast, as was detailed in the eight bullets under what was applicable to us in the church in last Sunday's handout.

So the New Testament is very clear that God, through Moses and through Christ, was establishing two different houses of people. In Hebrews 3, 1-6, which we make reference to there in this quote from John 1-17, It talks about Moses and his house, and Christ and his house, and it says whose house we are. It makes an identification difference there. So John 117, for the law was given through Moses, grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.

Much of what Moses did and established was to foreshadow what Christ was to do and establish. Some churches will have altar calls, but they're not slaying any bulls up on the altar. They'll have an altar call, but if we were really using it as an altar, you wouldn't want to come up to it. There'd be blood all over the place.

So the Law of Moses was to foreshadow, to serve as spiritual examples, which is one of the reasons God had Moses write what he did. Moses wrote what he did because it was written for our instruction, 1 Corinthians 10. It will be our opening scripture reading this morning in the main service.

Romans 15.4 has the same thing, written for our instruction. Alright, page 2. Now, how about picking up your cross daily? Anybody have any crosses around their house to pick up? Make sure it's heavy. This teaching comes from three different passages in Matthew and Luke. One in Matthew and two in Luke. Matthew 10, 37-39.

He who loves father and mother more than me is not worthy of me. And he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for my sake will find it." Luke 9 has a similar statement, Luke 14 has a similar statement, and we quote those there. I won't read through them all.

These sayings given above are actually fairly typical of the things that New Testament-era Jewish rabbis would say. to prospective or recently enlisted disciples. All the rabbis would say these things. Now, here's what's interesting. Jesus said things that a lot of the other rabbis said, including some of these things that you read right here. And then Jesus would say things that no other rabbi would say. So this is where the words comparison and contrast are really important for us to pick up on.

Why would Jesus make statements like, you know, boy, you've got to love me more than mother and father and sister and brother, more than family, and you have to pick up your cross daily, and you need to count the cost. Why would Jesus say that along with all the other rabbis? Why would he say things like that? Making that comparison, he's not saying you should love them more, or not love them, but you should love them more. Right. First of all, he's not saying you actually ought to hate your family. That was not it.

But there's a reason why the rabbis and Jesus would say things like this. You can look through what the rabbis would say, other rabbis aside from Jesus, and they would say things very much like this. And why would they do that? You know, a rabbi was a leader and a teacher and a rabbi would have disciples and the disciples would hear words like this, just like what you see here to challenge them to be very committed to the study under the rabbi. That's the bottom line. They wanted them to be very committed to the study under the rabbi. Some rabbis had a few followers.

Interestingly enough, Gamaliel, ever hear that name? Gamaliel was the rabbi that taught Paul. Gamaliel is quoted and referenced in the New Testament. Gamaliel had, and this is not in the Bible, this is from other records, about a thousand disciples over the course of his lifetime. About a thousand disciples.

Isn't it very interesting that Jesus didn't have anywhere close to that? Isn't that fascinating? But what these rabbis wanted to do was to have their disciples be committed to what they're doing, not just kind of dropping in and out and, you know, casual about it and, you know, yeah, I kind of hang out with this guy once in a while when it's convenient, you know, when it doesn't bother my schedule, etc. The rabbis wanted people to be very committed to what they were doing, so statements like this can actually be found in a lot of the rabbinical literature. What are some of the things that Jesus would say that you would never find in any rabbinical literature? How about calling God my father? They would never do that. Because that's a claim to be God. They would not say, I am the Son of God. Never do that.

Jesus said repeatedly, and especially as we see it patterned in the Gospel of John, in the Greek it's, Ego Emi. I am, but it is a pair of words that's used in the Greek Old Testament. Here is Moses asking God, who is showing himself in the burning bush, who should I say has sent me? And God says, I am. and it's Ego Emi in the Greek Old Testament.

So the rabbis would never say that and Jesus said it again and again. So Jesus would say things like this, that we've quoted here, that other rabbis would say, and then he would say things that no rabbi would say. The rabbis would say, take the yoke of Torah upon you, the Torah being the first five books of the Old Testament, right? Take the yoke of Torah upon you. What does Jesus say? Take my yoke.

So Jesus would say something that the other rabbis would never say. Jesus repeatedly claimed to be deity. The other rabbis wouldn't even come close. They would walk away from him. And as Craig pointed out, there's something else Jesus did that shocked them. The rabbis love to quote this expert and this expert and leave it hanging. Leave it in tension.

I joke, and I hope you'll pardon me if you've heard this before, because I've told it here before more than once. There's a group of Jews arguing with another group of Jews over what is the proper tradition. I don't even know what the matter was, but arguing over the tradition. And they argued and argued and argued and argued over what was the proper tradition.

Finally, the rabbi walked into the room, and one group said, Rabbi, Rabbi, we need you to settle this issue for us. And so they described the tradition that they were proposing was the right one. And the rabbi says, no, that's not the tradition. And then the other group said, ah, see? And then they described what they thought the tradition was. And the rabbis said, no, that's not the tradition either. And as soon as he said that, both groups just started arguing again. He said, that's the tradition. That's the tradition.

The rabbis loved to quote authorities and leave things in tension. leave things unresolved. They loved to do that. Guess what Jesus did? He was an authority, he spoke with authority, and he never left things unresolved. Even if the people who were listening didn't like the answer, he didn't leave it unresolved. So, let's turn to page 3. Pardon?

Who appointed the rabbis? Ah. Well, this is an interesting thing. The rabbis started some couple of centuries before the time of Christ. And so how that got started is a good question. A lot of them like to point back to Ezra. But whether that's the case or not is highly doubtful. But the rabbis were supposed to be taught by another rabbi. I mentioned Gamaliel. Gamaliel's grandfather was Hillel. So Hillel was a rabbi and so it could be a family tradition but one way or another you're supposed to be taught by a rabbi. Who was Jesus' rabbi? the father.

And that was another thing about him that was completely unique. But that's a very good question. Who taught the rabbis? There was always another rabbi except for Jesus. And where those other rabbis started is a good question because who knows? Somebody said at the beginning, must have said I'm a rabbi. Yeah, Pat? We said that Jesus did something that a lot of the other rabbis would say, more than me, that the other rabbis make themselves exclusive to other standards?

The other rabbis would make statements with the intent that they wanted people to be committed to study. However, the rabbis would still quote other authorities. so that there wasn't that exclusivity, at least in terms of authority. Yes, I see what you're saying. The bottom line is they would say things like that because what they're looking for is commitment on the part of their disciples. that more than me, not more than the Torah and more than scripture, but more than me is exclusive to other teachers. Did other rabbis say, I'm the guide and you stick with me, nobody else? They were more inclined to point more indirectly to themselves and more to the Torah. Yeah, good point.

This pick up your cross daily and similar expressions, the part of the cross that was carried by one who was on the way to his death was the patibulum in Latin. And remember the cross piece, they made Jesus carry his cross piece, the patibulum. And that's when they talk about carrying a cross, they didn't actually carry the whole cross, he carried the cross piece. Carrying the entire cross would have been, especially for somebody who had been whipped, It would be like, you're not moving it, not very far. So the petibulum would be, they would say pick up your cross and carry it, typically it would be the cross piece. It would be the petibulum there.

Now, when they come to the New Testament epistles, we are finally not called upon to view the cross in the same way. This is where I think a lot of Christians get easily confused. They'll take it as pick up your cross and not recognize that that was just a common way of rabbis saying I want a commitment out of you. When we look at the New Testament, does it say pick up your cross when we get into the epistles?

No. What do we find? The New Testament urging for us in the church is for us to recognize what Christ has already accomplished on His cross. Already accomplished on His cross, not ours. And very importantly, that neither He nor we are still there. Is Christ still on the cross? No. That's a done deal. and even understanding identification, we are not still there. Rather than carrying the cross in anticipation of our death, that's what carrying the cross would be. Carrying the cross in anticipation of death, we are called to look back upon His death and our death with Him.

We take the Lord's table here typically once a month, right? And when we do so, what are we doing? Do this in remembrance of me. Is it just in remembrance of Christ, or what does He mean in remembrance of me? His work on the cross, right? Do this in remembrance of me for what I did on the cross.

And that's why we have the bread and the cup. Because that was His body and His blood given for us on the cross. Picking up or carrying our cross would be our own continuing effort. Typical of life under the Law of Moses. Right? That's your own effort. Pick up your cross. Keep picking it up. Right? Daily. You keep going back and picking it up.

Well, the New Testament message is for us to rely upon Christ's work for us in our gracious identification with Him in that work. See the difference there? Good works for the believer are the outcome of his life in us, with us having already died with him, which is why we in the Church are disciples.

In our study of 2 Corinthians 4-11, presented in poetic form below, we saw that Paul had this perspective on Christ's death on the cross and God's present purpose for that in each of our lives. to carry on the poetic pattern, for we who live are always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our body. For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh. What's manifested in these verses? The life of Jesus, right? Yeah, the life of Jesus. That's the point here. So the pick up your cross daily message in the Gospels does not convey the past death of Christ as Christ worked for us, nor our identification with him in his death, nor the life of Christ living through us.

We have this treasure in earthen vessels, Jesus spoke to the disciples in the passages quoted on the prior page. They did not yet. They didn't yet. So as we've seen and will continue to see, the great value in studying these scriptures and seeking to apply them will come from comparison. Is there mention of the cross in these passages in Luke and Matthew?

Yes. Comparison and contrast. What's the same? What's different? And we're going to be talking about that more in the main service too. Let's look at page 4. How about the parable of the sower? That's actually quoted in several different passages we have listed there. The one I have here on the handout is in Matthew 13. Matthew 13, 8 through 23 reads this way. Here then the parable of the sower.

When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one on whom seed was sown beside the road. The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man that hears the word and immediately receives it with joy. Yet he has no firm root in himself. but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the Word, immediately he falls away. And the one on whom seed was sown among the thorns, this is the man who hears the Word, and the worry of the world and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the Word, and it becomes unfruitful. And the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the Word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and brings forth, some a hundred, some sixty, some thirty.

So let's look at the context of the passage here. It's right between those passages we pointed out before, where Jesus says, only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. This is Matthew 13, when he sends the disciples out two by two, that's Matthew 10. And when he says, I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, that's Matthew 15. So this is right in the middle of them there. This passage is deliberately directed to a Jewish audience in the land of Israel.

Note the reference to the kingdom in verse 19. What did the Jews think of when they heard the word kingdom? Pardon? Yes, they thought of an earthly kingdom. They thought of the kingdom as here's the land of Israel and the kingdom had What a surprise, a king, right? So that was their context.

The way that's been adapted in a great many churches was completely foreign to any understanding that they might have had. Now many Christians will assume that the kingdom is either a direct reference to the church or is the mystery form of the kingdom during the church age. Many of these will also assume that the gospel of the kingdom is the same as the gospel of salvation by grace through faith.

And it's not. Go ahead and have a seat. We've got handouts here if you'd like. But a careful examination of the passages and context indicates that the In the parable of the sower, Jesus was talking about the receptiveness to the gospel of the coming kingdom in which Christ would reign. Contrary to the assumption of many Jews of Christ's day, just being Jewish wasn't a free ticket to getting into the coming kingdom. When Christ began talking about the gospel of the kingdom, he had a shocking message to tell them.

They figured, man, I am Jewish, I'm going into the kingdom, that's it! Right? And, as a matter of fact, the Jewish mythology, not in the Bible, but the Jewish mythology was that in the last day, Abraham stays at the gates of hell to make sure no Jew ever gets in. Right? Because all the Jews are supposed to go into the kingdom. So they assumed, man if I'm Jewish I'm going in.

So Jesus comes with this shocking revelation where again and again and again, including in the Sermon on the Mount, he keeps talking about some are going to enter and some aren't. And you have a choice to make. There's two gates. One's wide and one's narrow. Who's getting into the kingdom? The ones who enter by the narrow gate. And if you don't enter by the narrow gate, you're not getting in.

So then this was shocking news. What? I'm Jewish! You mean I'm not automatically going into the kingdom? No. And the implication of the narrow gate is, does that say that most are going in? where some are going in. Some, yeah. The implication was not only is it not 100% of the Jews are going in, but it's a matter of it's a minority they're going in. That to them was mind-boggling. What? genealogy is right there at the temple, on the north side of the middle part of the temple, and I'm Jewish to the core! And Jesus says, so what? Right? So what? So this was shocking news to them.

So, this parable of the sower talks about how receptive are people to this gospel of the kingdom. that here's Jesus, he is the king, and do you accept that? That's the pivotal question as to whether you're going into the kingdom or not. You accept Jesus as a Jew, you accept Jesus as your king, the king of the Jews. So that's why you would ask the question, who do you say that I am?

Right? That's why you would bother with it, because that's the pivotal question. Now, it's still a pivotal question when you're talking about the gospel. The gospel of salvation by Grace Sufi. Right? It's still a pivotal question. But for Jews, the gospel of the kingdom was the question of, yeah, you can get into the kingdom. Not everybody's going in. But it starts with recognizing who Christ is. He's the king. That's the gospel of the kingdom. Yes.

So, when they looked for a king, is that the Messiah they were looking for? That's the Messiah. In other words, if you look at where this whole idea of the Messiah came from, it came from, here's David, who was given a promise through the prophet Nathan, right there in his court, and said, a descendant of yours will reign, this coming king, will be a son of David, will be a descendant of David. And that's carried through Isaiah, that's carried into the Gospels. That Jesus, the descendant of David, would be the one. So they have to recognize him as Messiah. As Messiah.

And if they were to look at the temple records, he was indeed a descendant of David. The book of Hebrews says it is evident that Jesus is descended from, I think in that particular book, it's descended from Judah, which would be the right tribe. And that means that at the time Hebrews was written, you could go check on the genealogical records there on the north side of the temple. Okay.

So, top of page 5, now having recognized that Jesus was directing his message to a Jewish audience regarding receptivity to the gospel of the coming kingdom, we will also recognize that there is a similar pattern of non-receptivity or receptivity among people to the gospel of salvation by grace through faith. That is, in this the church age, right? There are also similar hazards as well as similar ranges of political productivity among Christians. Even among believers on specific doctrines, there can be varying kinds of non-receptivity or receptivity.

What Jesus was laying out was specifically focused on the gospel of the kingdom. It was specifically focused on the question of how receptive were people to the gospel of the kingdom, which focused on, do you accept Christ as the king? And what he was saying was there's different degrees of receptivity. That's what it's about.

Now, not by direct application, but by analogy, we also know that there's different kinds of receptivity to people to the gospel of salvation. You tell one person the gospel, and oh yeah, maybe not. you'll find a range of receptiveness and responsiveness just like Jesus pictured there in this parable with the soils. So what you find is, though it's directly written about the gospel of the kingdom to Jews in that context, that the kinds of receptiveness has application to us. even though it's not directly written to us in the church and directly written to those people now at this time. That make sense? Let me suggest something else. There can also be ranges of responsiveness to people about certain teachings, even among those who are Christians.

We have had people come here at Holly Hills and hear us talk about grace and walk out the doors just muttering, sometimes beyond muttering, heretics, you know, because we're teaching this gospel of grace. We're teaching about grace and it will have a receptivity range among different people. Some people say, yeah, that's the best thing I've ever heard. And then there are those at the other end who say, that's the craziest thing I ever heard.

Right? Of the same words. So, what Jesus laid out here that was specifically directed to the gospel of the kingdom has other applications. Okay? Does that make sense? Okay. Now, I want to have some, do you have some questions? apply to us. Can you give an example? Okay, let's take it for instance.

Do you find that if you tell somebody the gospel that everyone receives it with open arms and becomes a believer? No. What you find is very similar to what Jesus laid out in this parable of the sower. Very similar to that, that there is a range of responsiveness. And which of the soils was actually productive? How many of the four? Just one. Just one of them was actually productive.

So part of what that's telling us is that there will be people, by analogy of this same principle, there will be people, and perhaps even a great many, who will refuse to respond to the Gospel. How about, of that one soil that's productive, is there uniform productivity? No. How about among Christians? You'll find some people who are Christians, it's like, OK, I know that guy's saved, but it doesn't seem to do very much in his life. And others, where you look at it and you say, wow, I can really tell the Lord's working in that person's life, right? So a similar principle applies there. Similar principle applies there. Does that answer the question? Okay, let's look at, additionally, this parable brings forth the importance of recognizing some principles about interpreting parables. I'm just going to touch on this briefly, but I think importantly.

We need to ask the question, what's the point of the parable? What is the parable illustrating? Let me ask you this. Do you think that when Jesus told the parable of the sower that he intended to convey that only one person can spread the gospel? No, that's not the point, is it? So, when we look at a parable, we have to ask the question, what is it intended to convey?

Something else. Do you see in the parable of the sower any attention to how the Gospel is presented. Not particularly. What you see is that the sower just sows everywhere, right? When in fact, there ought to be thought to, how is the Gospel presented? What will make it receivable and understood and clear, right?

But that's not the point of the parable. The parable is looking at the character of the soils as an indication of the receptivity to the message, whereas we could overextend a parable in the areas it's not intended to convey anything. The next thing, what's the cultural context of the parable and what are the key insights that come from understanding the culture? Why would Jesus select that illustration? Would Jesus select an illustration about cell phones? No, because it had no relevance. He would not do that because it had no relevance.

These people, where 90% of the population is agricultural, they would all relate to things like seeds, and sheep, and vineyards, and things like that. So he chose parables that would communicate well with people, people who are agriculturally based. OK, point three. Where should the parable aspect end? That is, the reason for asking this question is to avoid drawing conclusions from the parable that were not intended. Comes up to a similar point to the first one that I made. In other words, we need to look at, if we say what's the point, then where's the end of that point?

Here's something very interesting. Jesus told a number of different parables in the last week before his crucifixion. Almost every single one had something to do with money. Is Jesus' intent that we be very money focused? No. Right? So that's where we have to look at it. What's the intent? And let's understand the intent of the parable and not get carried off on some wrong conclusion. Right? Now, I'd like to take a look at, ah, here we go. In the last paragraph, I have a question to ponder, and I'm jumping into the middle of that last paragraph. Here is a question to ponder.

Since Jesus trained the disciples intensively over a period of three years, and used many parables in doing so. I saw a listing of Jesus' parables, they typewritten, they filled a page. Why didn't those disciples turn around and use parables regularly in the New Testament letters? I thought they were trained by Jesus. Why didn't they turn around and just use parables left and right? Why not? What was the reason? Here's Paul, who was personally trained by Christ. He would have thought, well, heavens, if parable was the right thing to do, Paul would have just spoken in parables all the time. Why not?

Why does the New Testament not contain a bunch of parables once you get past the Gospels? Were the parables kind of a mystery? Christ down on the cross and we had full revelation and the parables weren't necessary. Okay, he's saying that the parables were a mystery and then later on the parables weren't necessary.

I think you got part of the picture. Yeah, Marilyn? I would say that Christ was, I mean the rest of the New Testament Paul and stuff are written to believers. And Jesus was Well, I mean, it's not always an excuse. Think about this, yeah. When? Parables are kind of focused on what we should do and on us, instead of pointing us to Christ and doing what He did. OK, yeah. Oftentimes, parables have a focus on what we should do, right? OK. That's a good observation. Pat? Isn't there a verse that said something that spoke in parables that they may not turn from their wicked ways? It's a strange verse. Yeah, and we'll be addressing that in a little bit. Let's think about this for a minute.

When Jesus first started speaking, did he use parables? Not really. As there began to be opposition, and in fact even some danger to Jesus' ministry, he began using parables, but not at first. And He was far less prone to use parables even towards the very end of the ministry when he was talking about giving just the disciples directions about the church. It's the middle section of the Gospels that has the parables.

Why? It's so that Jesus could convey a message, and those who are in opposition, those who are trying to catch him on things, those who are trying to snag and to snare him, couldn't understand what he was saying. See that? It has to do with what Jesus was doing, his purpose in the Gospels.

The purpose in the Gospels was not to tell the church how to do everything that the church was supposed to do. The purpose in the Gospels up until close to the very end of each of the Gospels was to approach the Jews with the gospel of the kingdom, pivotal to which was, who do you say that I am? You need to recognize me as the king.

But that message became increasingly difficult for Jesus to present directly. He got more and more opposition. John chapter 10. The Jews come up to him and they say, if you're really the Messiah, just tell us plainly. Because remember, he'd be talking a lot of parables. Let me interpret. If you're really the Messiah, tell us plainly so we can just hang you. Right? That's the real point. And so, you know what Jesus answered when they asked that? Basically, I'll summarize it. He says, I save them and I keep them saved. Okay? I save them and I keep them saved. And then he followed that with the Father and I are one. And then he picked up rocks.

And that was the reason for parables because the message as it got across I mean, obviously the real gospel of the kingdom put out there was, do you believe that Christ is who he says he is as the Son of God, the King of Israel, the Messiah, the Promised One, the Son of David, God in the flesh, do you believe that that's who I am? And many Jews were saying no, and leaders were saying especially no. And so they had to veil his message in parables. that would leave those who had an inside track with some understanding and those who didn't on the outside. That's why the parables. But Paul and Peter, James, when they wrote in the New Testament, they weren't trying to keep anybody on the outside.

They wanted everybody, all the Christians, right? to be on the inside. So that's why Paul would write to the believers in Corinth, 1 Corinthians. He'd tell them in chapter 3, all of you together are the temple. Chapter 6, each one of you individually is the temple.

And he told them, he wanted to make things plain, to reveal things, not to obscure them from those who were on the outside and would remain there. So Jesus told parables because he was talking to the Jews and it was becoming increasingly evident that the Jews were rejecting the gospel of the kingdom.

So we had to be careful. That's why the parables. Lots of them. It was a strategy, right? It was the approach. You're talking about the fish in the dirt symbol where you make one little arc and somebody else comes along and makes the other. In other words, it indicates understanding. Yeah, that's a good analogy, although it typically came up a little bit later. Questions, comments, exasperations? Yeah. When parables are used in Christendom today, in the least it causes a lot of confusion. It just seems like it has to be interpreted allegorically to fit yourself or whatever you want it to fit in. Are there other dangers in using the parables?

Well, I think the thing that we've emphasized here, in fact, you're going to hear it in some degree again in the main service. is that when Christ came, when Christ was born of Mary, what was the ethnicity of Mary and Joseph? Jewish. And so here's Christ. He was born of Mary and Joseph. On both sides of the lineage, descendants of David. It's unquestionably this is a descendant of David, right? So this descendant of David Born of Jews in the land of Israel, and other than a brief sojourn as an infant down in Egypt, he was in Israel. Was raised in Israel. He stayed in Israel. He focused upon Israel.

When asked to get diverted into any other direction, he said, no, I was sent only to the Lashit for the house of Israel. And when you talk about the gospel, the gospel he was talking about was the gospel of the kingdom. Because that's what he was sent to do. It was only upon his ultimate rejection that the disciples were appointed to be apostles to the church.

And not before then. But what Christians do is they sit there and they mix it all up. Oh, it must be the same gospel. Gospel of the kingdom, gospel of salvation. must be the same gospel, must be the same kingdom, and the church must be the kingdom. Christ must be our king.

They mix it all up because they don't understand the distinction. So the danger with the parables is because they're presented, they're directly a message in a Jewish context. presenting the gospel of the kingdom. They get misunderstood when we try to make direct and frankly undiscerning application to the church.

Whether you're talking about the clear message that Jesus gave to the Jews or the parables, it needs to be understood that way. Just like I should not stand before you here today and tell you, you'd better forgive or you won't be forgiven. What I ought to tell you is forgive because you've been forgiven, which is an entirely different message. So the parables are good to look at, but they have to be understood as spoken directly to the Jews in that Jewish context in the land of Israel by their king.

Other questions? Good to see you, Art and Doris. Glad you could join us. Okay, let's pray. Thank you, Lord, for the insights into your Word. Thank you for what you have written and revealed for us. Thank you for the beauty of what you have written and revealed for us. We pray ever, Lord, for clarity. It's because clearly We pray in Jesus' name, Amen.