This is a strange title for our next chapter! Most people think that salvation is found in religion. The Bible does not say so! Notice also, we did not say “other religions” as if the Christian religion were different. There are millions of people who claim to be following the “Christian religion” but they are not really followers of Christ at all!

Anyone who reads the New Testament carefully will realize that Jesus did not come to found a religion. The Jewish religion had been given by God at the time of Moses (1500 B.C.) and its main purpose was to prepare the way for the coming of the Savior. Jesus came into the world to save sinners, which is a very different thing from founding a religion.

To illustrate this point, let us think for a moment of the religion of Islam. Islam is a religion which has a comprehensive Law (Shariah) which regulates every aspect of the life of Muslim peoples. This Law is so detailed that Islam is actually a religious system, and a legal system, and a political system and a social system. Islamic Law covers religion, ethics, marriage, divorce, inheritance, diet, dress, taxation and similar matters and in the fullest sense it can only be practiced ideally in an Islamic State. Islam is thus a religion, a culture and a community in which Muslim life is governed by the laws of the Quran and the Traditions. In contrast with this, no rules are given in the New Testament for a religious-state-culture system to be embraced by the followers of Christ. This is a startling concept to many people.

Jesus said that He came to build my church (Matthew 16:18) which would consist of all those who trusted and obeyed Him as Savior. The State is mentioned in the New Testament. Christians are viewed as a minority in the State which is more often than not hostile to them. (This is not really part of our main subject, but the student can check up for his own interest by reading the following sample references: Romans 13:1-10; 1 Peter 2:11-17; Acts 4:1-3; Acts 8:1-3; Acts 12:1-5; Acts 16:22-24.)

Millions of people equate Christianity with Western Civilization. Many think that Christianity and Capitalism are the same thing. Such an idea is completely foreign to the Bible. It is true that many lands in the West have adopted the basic ideals and ethics of the gospel and have thus become known as “Christian nations” but this is only a cultural development. From the very first time the gospel of Christ was proclaimed, its message was clearly one of spiritual truth, completely and entirely non-cultural! One of the reasons for the initial hostility of the Jewish leaders toward Christianity was because the Christians disregarded cultural and racial ties completely. Greeks, Romans, Jews, and peoples of many tribes and nations were brought together in a new brotherhood of equality and unity. Slaves and their masters, aristocrats and commoners, soldiers and their officers, all shared the common life of the church of Christ. All were permitted to retain their own cultural heritage except for those customs which were tainted by idolatry or immorality. An example of this is given in Acts 15:28-29: “For it seemed best to the Holy Spirit and to us not to place any greater burden on you than these necessary rules: that you abstain from meat that has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what has been strangled and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from doing these things, you will do well. Farewell.

True followers of Christ have always been a minority group. Jesus and His disciples were a “little flock” within the Jewish circle. Christians were a minority in Greek or Roman cities; they are still a minority, in the world today, whether in Asia, in Africa or in European lands. In England, for example, less than 10% of the people ever attend any form of religious service yet people think of England as a “Christian” country! In many countries the Christians are a very small minority. What then, is the advantage of being a Christian? Why choose a “religion” which does not even offer the benefit of a common, unifying culture and the security of communal strength?

This is the reason—the gospel offers us personal salvation from sin! Men are not saved from sin in communities, but as individuals who realize that they are personally responsible to God. “Religion” can indeed be a cohesive force in social, communal and national affairs. The gospel of Christ emphasizes the vital importance of the individual and the great responsibility each person has to decide for himself the all-important matter of salvation from sin. This is evident from the very beginning in the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself. When He first began to preach, vast crowds flocked to hear Him, attracted by His personality, His teaching and His miracles. They imagined He would soon dominate the religious and political life of Israel and bring in “the golden age” of Jewish universal sovereignty. But as they heard His unchanging emphasis on the moral issues of sin and repentance, the majority of His “followers” deserted Him. An example of this is given in John 6:66-69. As Jesus watched the crowds turning away from Him, He said to His disciples, You don’t want to go away too, do you. The apostle Peter replied, Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God! Peter was absolutely right! Those who are seeking religion, or culture, or pleasure, or security can find many leaders to follow—leaders who make no heart-searching demands for confession of sin and sincere repentance. But if we want eternal life, there is no alternative! It is Christ or nothing! Read the following words of Jesus. But the gate is narrow and the way is difficult that leads to life, and there are few who find it (Matthew 7:14). Jesus replied, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Read also the words of the apostle Peter: And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12).

It is at this point that we realize that the Bible is different from all books. Every religion in the world has as its base the idea that we must try to atone for our own sins, and that we can acquire merit by good deeds and religious acts. The way of “salvation” in “religion” is through human merit; through the good deeds balancing up the bad deeds. Islam, for example, lays great stress on the importance of ritual prayers, prescribed fasts, pilgrimages, alms giving and other religious acts by means of which the faithful are promised Paradise.

The gospel is totally different! God says that we are sinful and that no merits of our own can deal with this fatal spiritual condition. No human merit can change the deadly harvest of sin. In Galatians 6:7-8 we read Do not be deceived. God will not be made a fool. For a person will reap what he sows, because the person who sows to his own flesh will reap corruption from the flesh, but the one who sows to the Spirit will reap eternal life from the Spirit. Our problem is that we have a sinful nature and we cannot please God (Romans 8:8). The popular notion is that if we try to do as many good things as possible then God will balance this against our sins and will forgive us! This false idea arises from a failure to understand how truly holy God is and how far we have come short of His standard. The Bible says, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

Suppose a businessman decided to pay half of his debts and ignore the rest of his liabilities! Would he be being honest or dishonest? Would the “merit” of his paying off half his debts atone for his failure to pay the other half? Of course not! His clear obligation is to pay off all that he owes. Religious people think that by being good and kind and honest and moral they can somehow accumulate merit and that this merit can be used to pay off their liability of sin. But these things are all obligations; we ought to do these things all the time. Since being good and kind, moral and honest is what God demands of us as life’s standard of behavior it is obvious we cannot offer Him half payment and say “Yesterday I failed to do and be all that you demand. I think I did better today. Please accept today’s achievement in payment for yesterday’s failure.” His answer would be, “You should have done and been all that I expected both yesterday and today.” In any case we cannot live the kind of life that God demands; when we sin we are simply showing our inability to live up to the standard of goodness that God requires of us. Read the following verses: And although you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you formerly lived according to this world’s present path, according to the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the ruler of the spirit that is now energizing the sons of disobedience, among whom all of us also formerly lived out our lives in the cravings of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath even as the rest… But God, being rich in mercy, because of his great love with which he loved us, even though we were dead in transgressions, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you are saved!—and he raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, to demonstrate in the coming ages the surpassing wealth of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast (Ephesians 2:1-9). Yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified (Galatians 2:16). But when the kindness of God our Savior and his love for mankind appeared, he saved us not by works of righteousness that we have done but on the basis of his mercy, through the washing of the new birth and the renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us in full measure through Jesus Christ our Savior. And so, since we have been justified by his grace, we become heirs with the confident expectation of eternal life (Titus 3:4-7).

The Bible tells us that no matter how popular and appealing the notion of human merit and religious good deeds might be, this path leads to hell. It is a broad way, crowded with lost people vainly hoping they will reach heaven at the end of life’s journey. But just because the great mass of humanity is going in that fatal direction is no reason why we should blindly follow them! This is the very heart of the gospel message. Each person is individually accountable to God; each person is responsible for his own repentance and confession of sin, for his own personal faith in Jesus Christ as Savior. Jesus said, Listen! I am standing at the door and knocking! If anyone hears my voice and opens the door I will come into his home and share a meal with him, and he with me (Revelation 3:20). He said, But to all who have received him—those who believe in his name—he has given the right to become God’s children (John 1:12). Paul said, If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). In all these verses the dominant note is personal acceptance of Christ, personal faith and personal commitment to Christ as Savior and Lord. Have you made a personal decision to accept Jesus Christ as your Savior?

The Book of Revelation is perhaps the most notoriously cryptic work of literature ever composed. The history of the interpretation of this book leaves most students with more questions than answers. Commentators have come to little, if any, consensus on the interpretation of many key passages, and many of the best scholars of Christian history have simply thrown up their hands in bewilderment at the challenge of scaling its enigmatic heights.¹

Thus, approaching the Apocalypse for analysis necessarily requires the possession of a couple of key items: one, an interpretive grid integrating one’s hermeneutics and general theological viewpoint, and two, a healthy dose of respectful reservation. Interpretation of Revelation and dogmatism do not go well together, despite the impression one might draw from the popular literature.

That said, it is the intent of this study to examine what is hopefully a sufficiently narrow issue in the interpretation of the Apocalypse: the identification of “Babylon," the harlot of chapters seventeen and eighteen.² While discussion of this topic will of necessity involve the implementation of perspectives that have been embraced on quite separate grounds, this issue has been chosen for study precisely because it is my conviction at this point that a harmonization of the evidence for Babylon’s identity can potentially go a long way in contributing to the ever tapering “spiral” of one’s hermeneutical approach. If the conclusions of this thesis are correct, proper identification of the harlot may quickly shed light on such issues as general themes of the book, its dating, and interpretations of other problem passages.

In order to fairly acknowledge personal leanings, warranted or otherwise, that influence my interpretation of the text, it will be helpful as we begin to first examine the overall grid from which I am proceeding and the most relevant presuppositions I bring to the discussion. The three most pertinent perspectives to consider for the topic at hand are my understanding of promise/fulfillment issues (i.e., the covenant-dispensational spectrum), my view on interpretation of apocalyptic material, and my take on the book of Revelation as a whole (i.e., futurist, preterist, historicist, or idealist).

Regarding the biblical covenants: to state the matter briefly, while I do not consider myself a dispensationalist by most definitions, I find traditional covenant theology unconvincing as well. I prefer a mediating position along the lines of what some are calling “new covenant theology.” This term is actually claimed primarily by authors at the pastoral level,³ but the views involved are basically similar to those of such scholars as D. A. Carson,⁴ Douglas Moo,⁵ Gordon Fee,⁶ and others, who see primary fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises as a whole in the present-day new covenant people of God, composed of the remnant of the nation of Israel and Gentile believers who have been grafted into the tree of God’s people. While this does not preclude a future soteriological restoration of the rest of ethnic Israel, I am not persuaded that this will involve a Jewish kingdom or a necessary restoration of the land of Israel for the Jewish people. On the whole, I take these views largely on the basis of Pauline passages such as Rom 2:26–29, Gal 3:6–29, and Eph 2:11–22, which I take to describe the full Abrahamic heirship of believers in Christ, be they Jew or Gentile.

For my handling of apocalyptic material, I derive much of my understanding from the work of N. T. Wright and G. B. Caird.⁷ While a thoroughgoing discussion of the complex debate over apocalyptic literature is outside the scope of this thesis,⁸ I would summarize the gist of this perspective as the view that in the genre of second-temple Jewish apocalyptic, exalted, cosmic, metaphorical language is used to communicate the theological significance of this-worldly events in history. Unlike the idealist view, which takes the language simply as abstract metaphor, this position regards apocalyptic symbolism as having a focus on actual historical events, but with the full investiture of their salvation-historical significance, which is portrayed by the strikingly colorful rhetoric of the Jewish imagination. In other words, I see in apocalyptic writing the application of stock images from the Jewish worldview (which includes the Creation, the sovereign, universal kingship of Yahweh, the Exodus, the enemy empires of Israel’s past, and the rest of the narrative of her entire history) to major events that manifest the salvation-historical working of God for His people.

This then leaves open the question of whether prophecies can be fulfilled in multiple ways and instances. This question arises from the surprising manner in which the New Testament often uses the Old. For instance in the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24; Mark 13; Luke 21) we see Christ applying Danielic language to coming eschatological events even though it would seem that some of this material from Daniel originally found its focus in the events surrounding Antiochus Epiphanes’ dealings with the Jewish people in the intertestamental period.⁹ This seems to indicate that God’s dealings with history are such that certain events may recapitulate key happenings of the past, perhaps filling out their theological significance in a greater way and a new context. The prophetic imagery of the former events may then be properly recalled with reference to the new situation, especially if historical experience or further revelation apparently indicate that the previous scenario did not exhaust the full range of God’s eschatological intention.

Such a perspective leaves open the possibility that some of the interpretations we propose as we consider Revelation may not be the final say in the matter. It may always be that God’s historical plan will work itself out in such a way that certain prophecies will again find significant realization in a future scenario. However, for the purposes of this study, my intention is to focus on whether or not the human author of the Apocalypse had in mind a specific referent for the Babylon/harlot imagery within the context of his own day of writing, and if so, to whom was this devastating polemic directed?

Related to this hermeneutical approach to apocalyptic literature is my take on the Book of Revelation as a whole, which is largely preteristic. There are basically four major angles on the interpretation of the book, namely, historicism, futurism, idealism, and preterism.¹⁰ Historicism looks to the events of the entire Christian era for fulfillment, futurism looks primarily to the future (from our perspective), and idealism regards the images of Revelation as symbolic portrayals of the eternal cosmic conflict between good and evil.

As one who prefers a preteristic emphasis, I understand much of the book to be primarily dealing with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 as a judgment from God for covenant apostasy. This dovetails with the topic in question, the identity of the harlot, in

that ultimately it will be the aim of this thesis to present the evidence (which I find to be persuasive) that this image is intended by the author of Revelation as a veiled reference to Jerusalem itself. All of this is very much in keeping with my own “spiral” pilgrimage of interpretation, since my primary reason for taking seriously a preteristic interpretation of Revelation is what I consider to be the weight of the internal literary evidence for recognizing Jerusalem in the passage presently under discussion.

Thus, we will proceed to consider the issues surrounding the interpretation of this text. While this solitary issue might seem peripheral, the implications of the view for which we opt on this matter may be of more significance than one might suppose. If the conclusions of this thesis stand up to scrutiny, and Jerusalem is being warned of the coming of judgment through Rome, then the major themes and dating of the book warrant thoughtful reconsideration among scholars.

¹ E.g., Luther and Calvin, neither of whom, despite their otherwise voluminous literary legacies, produced a commentary on the Apocalypse.

² That is, sufficiently narrow in the sense that we will hopefully not be biting off a larger portion than can adequately be addressed in a work of this size. The scope of this study will also be limited in that the research will be restricted to English sources only.

³ E. g., John Reisinger, Abraham’s Four Seeds (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 1998); Fred Zaspel and Tom Wells, New Covenant Theology: Description, Definition, Defense (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 2001).

⁴ Cf. D. A. Carson, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and His Confrontation with the World: An Exposition of Matthew 5–10 (Grand Rapids: Global Christian, 1999), 296–99.

⁵ Cf. Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Gordon Fee (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 175, 697–710.

⁶ Cf. Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 870–76.

⁷ See especially N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, vol. 1, Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), chap. 10; G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980).

⁸ For more comprehensive study, see D. E. Aune, T. J. Geddert, and C. A. Evans, “Apocalypticism,” in Dictionary of New Testament Background, ed. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000); John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 2d ed., The Biblical Resource Series, ed. Astrid B. Beck and David Noel Freedman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); Leon Morris, Apocalyptic (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972); D. S. Russell, Divine Disclosure: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992).

⁹ Cf. Matt 24:15; Mark 13:14.

¹⁰ For a helpful, concise discussion of these positions, see Steve Gregg, ed., Revelation: Four Views, A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1997), 2–3.

If you were a Jew in the OT, you would draw your time line with a present age and an age to come, separated by Messiah’s coming. Prophets did not see but one advent.

We now know that everything promised in OT was not fulfilled when Jesus came the first time and Jesus said that He would be back to do the rest. In the meantime there is something going on that no one in the OT knew about. We now know that there are two advents and we are in the “inter-advent age.”

What is going on in between becomes the question.

Remember the initials - EMK= Elijah/Messiah/Kingdom was the expectation. Malachi 4:5 said that Elijah would come, announce the arrival of the Messiah and the Kingdom would begin.

In Matt 11:14 Jesus said that John the Baptist was Elijah “if you care to accept it.” What does that mean? If they don’t accept it, he’s not? How can that be? What Jesus is saying is that for those who believed John the Baptist and repented, and in turn believed in Jesus as the Messiah, then John was Elijah for them and consequently they entered the kingdom.

We also know that the two witnesses in Revelation will have powers like Elijah and Moses (Rev 11:6) so another will come in the power and spirit of Elijah before the second advent. After the Second Advent, the millennial kingdom will be established.

The question becomes, “What kingdom do those who accept John the Baptist as Elijah enter?

Matt 13 is dealing with that.

Rev 10:7 talks about the mystery of God being finished. What mystery? Col 1:26 says the mystery is the church.

Matthew is presenting Jesus as the King and part of Jesus’ mission was to proclaim the arrival or imminence of the kingdom.

In Matt 12:24 the religious leaders accuse Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Satan. This is the climax of the rejection by the leadership. Jesus says this is unpardonable and in turn rejects Israel.

Matt 13 is hinge in the literary structure of the book. It is a turning point in ministry of Jesus. In Matt 13 Jesus begins talking about the mystery form of the kingdom by telling parables. We know that because in 13:10 the disciples asked Jesus why he was speaking in parables. He answers that he is revealing the mysteries of the kingdom.

In Matt 13 we have eight parables. Six begin with the phrase, “The kingdom of heaven is like...” The first one doesn’t begin that way, but we know it is about the kingdom from its explanation in 13:19. The last one doesn’t begin that way, but it talks about a disciple of the kingdom.

1. The Sower and the Soils (13:1-9)

2. The Reason for Parables (13:10-17)

3. The Explanation of the Sower (13:18-23)

4. The Tares (13:24-30)

5. The Mustard Seed (13:31-32)

6. The Leaven (13:33)

7. The Hidden Treasure (13:44)

8. The Costly Pearl (13:45-46)

9. The Dragnet (13:47-50)

10. The Householder (13:52)

The Sower and the Soils (13:1-9) - The beginning of the Kingdom

Jesus ends this parable with the statement, “He who has ears, let him hear.” What does He mean? What is necessary for hearing or better -- understanding the parables? An open and receptive heart. How do we know that? He will tell us in the next section

The Reason for Parables (13:10-17)

Chiastic Structure

1. “Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

2. “And in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,

3. ‘You will keep on hearing, but will not understand;

4. And you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive;

5. For the heart of this people has become dull,

6. And with their ears they scarcely hear,

7. And they have closed their eyes

7’ Lest they should see with their eyes,

6’ And hear with their ears,

5’ And understand with their heart and return, And I should them.

4’ “But blessed are your eyes, because they see;

3’ and your ears, because they hear.

2’ “For truly I say to you, that many prophets and righteous men

1’ desired to see what you see, and did not see [it]; and to hear what you hear, and did not hear [it].

This whole section can be outlined as a chiasm. At the center of the chiasm is the most important part - the focus of the passage. Numbers 5,6 & 7 reveal the root problem and give us a progression. Because they had hard hearts, they could not hear Jesus’ words. Because they would not listen to His words, they could not see who He was. They could not see that He was the Messiah. Therefore they could not see the kingdom that had come upon them.

When you understand this, the miracles which involved restoring sight to the blind take on new significance. They become physical symbols of the spiritual blindness of Israel.

The reason Jesus told the parables was to hide the truth from those with hard hearts who did not want to hear the truth and did not want Jesus as their Messiah. They were looking for a different type of Messiah. They wanted one who would come in and defeat their earthly enemies right then.

But while He was hiding the truth from the hard hearted, he was also revealing truth to those who had open hearts and were willing to accept the truth, even if it was not what they expected.

What did the prophets and righteous men not see nor hear that the disciples were hearing about and soon to see? (Matt 13:17) The interadvent age. In OT Israel there was the present age and the age to come. The age to come was the kingdom where the Messiah would rule. What the prophets and righteous men did not see or hear about was the church age. They only saw one coming of the Messiah in the OT. They didn’t see him coming to die the first time, and returning later to judge. (Isa 61:1-2)

What Jesus is doing is revealing truth about the interadvent age - the church age - a mystery form of the kingdom. Matt 13:12 says, “what they have shall be taken away...” What is it that they don’t have? Spiritual insight. What will be taken away? Their responsibility. Because they rejected Jesus, their responsibility to reach the world - bless the world would be taken from them and given to others - the church.

The Explanation of the Sower (13:18-23)

This is one of the few parables that Jesus explains, and there is still much debate about its meaning. The question that I always hear debated is the state of the “soils.” Which soils represent saved or unsaved people? I don’t think we are to try to determine which ones are saved or not. The next parable will tell us why.

But what lessons can we learn from this parable?

• One lesson we can learn is that we need to sow the word. There will be results. Some will reject, some will accept and bear fruit. Our job is to spread the good news.
• Another lesson is that people need to have an open heart to receive the word. We cannot convince them intellectually of the Truth and their need for Jesus. Their hearts must be prepared and ready.
• We also need to have an open heart to hear the word. We need to let it speak to us. We do not want to be like the man in James that looks in the mirror and does not notice the things that need fixing.

The Tares (13:24-30) - Satan's counterfeit.

You can’t tell the difference between tares and wheat until the very end when it is time to harvest the wheat. I think the significance of this is that we can’t tell who is and is not saved. Why? Because we do not know the heart. Only God knows the heart. And only He can separate the wheat from the tares - the saved from the unsaved.

I think it is significant that this one follows the last parable because maybe it tells me we shouldn’t even try to determine who was and wasn’t saved among the soils. Only God knows.

If the parables are about the kingdom, then how does this one relate?

Jesus is teaching that the present form of the Kingdom will be one in which those of genuine faith and counterfeit faith will co-exist in the world until a future harvest (13:24-30).

When asked if he wanted his workers to gather up the tares, the farmer insisted on allowing them to grow together, for the sake of the wheat, until the final harvest when they will be separated unto different destinies (13:28b-30).

What does that say to you and me? What about that never ending Lordship Salvation / Free Grace debate that has raged for centuries and been made more popular by John MacArthur?

The Mustard Seed (13:31-32) - The extent of the growth of the Kingdom

We will treat this one with the next parable.

The Leaven (13:33) - The secret of the growth of the Kingdom

Some think that the growth of the mustard seed into a tree is deliberate overstatement by Jesus to alert his hearers to the fact that something is wrong. And they say that the birds nesting in the branches are Satan’s messengers. They also say that yeast is always bad in the Bible and that the yeast in this passage represents the pervasive nature of evil - i.e. the way it spreads.

I think that is an over reaction to the way the postmillennialists interpret this passage.

Just in case you are not familiar with Postmillennialism - “it is the conservative counterpart to the optimistic, liberal, evolutionary view which expects the world to get better through Christianization. A transformed world will precede the coming of Christ to the earth. Though this view nearly died with the transpiration of two world wars and subsequent events, there seems to be a contemporary resurgence of it in some Christian circles.” (Ramesh Richards, Elements of a Biblical Philosophy of History, BibSac, Apr-Jun 1981, p. 116) Postmillennialists typically deny the future millennial kingdom and think that the church is in it.

Therefore, postmillennialists see the rapid growth of the mustard plant and the dominance of the leaven as indicating the millennial kingdom will be brought about by the church dominating society and bringing about world peace so that Jesus can return.

I think Boice’s view is an over reaction to the typical postmillennial interpretation. We don’t need to over react to the postmillennialists. All we need to do is look at the society around us to see that things are getting worse and not better.

The mustard seed growing into a tree is not overstatement by Jesus. In Palestine, the mustard seed (the smallest seed in that culture) did in fact grow to be ten or twelve feet tall. And birds could and did build nests in mustard tree branches. Jesus’ hearers would not have been “alerted” that something was wrong because nothing was wrong with what he was saying. It was true. Jesus is simply saying that what starts out small (with just Him and a few disciples) would grow to great proportions in a very short time. And in fact it did. So, that is the significance of the mustard seed illustration - rapid growth.

The illustration with the leaven may be teaching one of two things:

• First - it may mean that the kingdom is hidden -- like the leaven is invisible in the lump of dough. That would refer to the spiritual aspect of the kingdom that was begun with the arrival of Jesus.
• Second - it may mean that the source of growth would be secret - an internal dynamic -- i.e. the HS, and that it would spread to the whole world (like it spread throughout the dough. That in fact did happen. By the end of Paul’s life, only 40 years after Christ spoke these words, the gospel had been taken to the end of the known world. I don’t think it has to mean that the whole world would be converted and the millenium brought in by the church.

The birds nesting in the branches are not Satan’s messengers. They are Gentiles participating in the Kingdom of God. It is the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham that through his seed all the nations would be blessed. Hosea 14:7 talks about Israel as a tree with others being blessed by living in its shadows. Cf. Ez 17:22-23. Also compare Dan 4:12 for the birds benefiting from the tree.

The Hidden Treasure (13:44)

How valuable is this kingdom that Jesus is talking about?

It is so valuable that a man should give up everything necessary to be a part of it.

The Costly Pearl (13:45-46)

Who is the Merchant? God? Christ? Man?

Boice says it is the person who searches his whole life for God? That this is contrasted to the previous parable in which the man accidentally discovered the hidden treasure.

Some say it is Christ. The Kingdom was established through the total sacrifice of Christ. The problem I have with this interpretation is that it gives intrinsic value to humans. We weren’t and aren’t pearls. God turned the dirt into man, not pearls.

Whatever or whoever the pearls and the merchant are, the point of these last two parables is the value of being a part of the kingdom. We should do everything possible to possess it and to bring others into it.

The Dragnet (13:47-50)

This parable illustrates the believers responsibility to spread the gospel without discrimination. We bring as many as we can into the kingdom and let God sort them out at the end.

Boice points out that the parable of the dragnet is a warning to the wicked that judgment is coming.

The Householder (13:52)

It says the householder “brings forth out of his treasure things new and old.” What is the new and old?

• The Old is the OT expectation of a literal earthly Kingdom
• The New is the mystery form of the kingdom that is in existence now in light of Israel’s rejection.

As citizens of the kingdom, we are to teach both. Some have thrown out the old teachings and said that he church replaces Israel, that there will be no future millennial kingdom (amillennial).

Others deny the new. We see here that we are to teach both.

If the last parable is about the responsibility of evangelism, then this one is about the responsibility of edification.

Edification is “building others up.” How does edification relate to the Kingdom? Once someone is in the kingdom (the parable of the dragnet) they need to be taught

I think that citizens of the kingdom are to act in such a way that they will cause others to want to be part of that kingdom. If we use an example from secular life, it might be equated with America being the land of opportunity. Despite the bad picture that certain politicians paint about our country, people from Mexico, Haiti, Cuba, Russia, etc. are giving up everything they have back home to try to get here. When they see rich Americans traveling in their country (and all Americans are rich by comparison to them), they are motivated to come here so they can be rich too.

If we live according to the ethic of God - loving God and neighbor (something that can only be done if we have God’s resources as citizens of the kingdom) - building others up (edification) then we will be salt and light. Others will be attracted to what we have. If we relate it back to the first parable, some may receive it with joy, trying to manufacture it on their own, but others will “understand” (receive the word) and ultimately bear fruit.

Is there a significance to the location?

Possible Chiasm?

The Sower and the Soils (1-9) - no introductory formula

The Tares (24-30) - not mine to discriminate - final judgment with tares burned

The Mustard Seed (31-32) - growth - what’s connection with pearl?

The Leaven (33) - leaven hidden in dough

The Hidden Treasure (44) - hidden kingdom

The Costly Pearl (45-46) - value - what’s connection with mustard seed?

The Dragnet (47-50) - indiscriminate evangelism - final judgment with wicked burned

The Householder (52) - no introductory formula

What is the relationship between the Mustard Seed and the Pearl?

Is it significant that the center of the chiasm is about the hiddeness of the kingdom?

The Passage:
Luke 10:30-37

The Problem

A lawyer approaches Jesus and asks a question. There are really two questions being asked and answered in the parable.

Question 1: What must I do to inherit eternal life?

Jesus answers the first question with a question. What does the law say? The lawyer, a man skilled in the Mosaic law, answered and summed up the teaching of the law by saying one must love God with all one’s heart (Deut 6:4) and his neighbor as himself (Lev 19:18).

Some think that Jesus really surprises the Pharisees in Matt 22:37f when He summarizes the law with these two points. This was in fact the conclusion that the Jews had come to concerning the 10 commandments. In Matt 22 Jesus was probably saying that you are not applying the very thing which you understand. (That is a common theme - people are held responsible for what they know! Jesus did not condemn them for what they did not understand. He condemned them for what they did understand, but did not do!)

When Jesus tells the man to “do this and you will live,” He is not saying, you can get to heaven by being perfect. He is using the man’s statement and saying, “Assuming it is true for the sake of argument, do it and you will live.” Jesus is just holding up a mirror so the man can see his sin. He makes an accommodating statement - to accommodate the man’s understanding and help him see the truth. Jesus knew the man could never do it. He wanted the man to see it too.

You’ve heard the statement - “You’ve got to get them lost before you can get them saved.” That is what is going on here. Jesus is trying to make the man see his need for salvation.

Then the man asks a second question:

Question 2: Who is my neighbor?

The lawyer asks the question to test him. He is not sincere. That may be the reason Jesus goes along with the assumption that you can earn eternal life. Another thing we see about the lawyer is his self-righteousness. Remember that most parables answer a question and deal with an attitude. The attitude being dealt with in the parable is self-righteousness. The text says the lawyer was “seeking to justify himself.” That by the way was the problem with the nation. Of course we don’t have that problem in our culture. We just write books titled, I’m ok, You’re ok.

Verse 30 says, “Jesus replied...” The Greek word means to “take up.” The man had thrown down a challenge and Jesus took him up on it. This is not simply, “Jesus answered him.”

The parable is primarily answering the question asked by the lawyer “who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29), but Jesus also indicates in a subtle way the true answer to the lawyer’s first question.

The Parameters

The historical context is that Samaritans were despised and hated by Jews. The story which follows would have seemed impossible to a Jewish audience.

To the Jew, the above diagram represents the social hierarchy within the society. It was so ingrained in the culture that even in synagogue the priest read first, then the levite and then the regular Jew. It is important to understand this, because the lawyer is asking how far out in that diagram do I have to go? How far do the love priorities of the law extend? We might ask, “Do I have to love street people and boys in the Hood?”

The Progression

The best way to organize the parable is around the major players. In the story there are the robbers, the victim, the priest, the levite, the Samaritan and the innkeeper. Of these, the major players are the victim, the priest and levite (which represent the same attitude) and the Samaritan. Notice that Jesus says, “A certain man, a certain priest, a certain levite.” There are no names; parables are representative of real life.

The Robbers

The road between Jerusalem and Jericho was very steep and it was treacherous because of the many places for robbers to hide. In fact the name for the road was the way of blood. So, this is a very believable story for those listening. Although Jesus does not identify the man going down to Jericho, since this was a Jewish lawyer and audience, they more than likely imagined a Jewish person. The man is robbed and wounded and left for dead. He needs help.

The Religious - Priest/Levite

It helps to understand the culture here - anyone who touched a dead man would be unclean. The priests could have used the excuse that they didn’t want to touch the man because he might have been dead. That would have kept them from serving God in the temple.

BUT, the priest and Levite were going "down on the road." (Jerusalem is on a hill) They were leaving Jerusalem and could not use the excuse that they did not want to touch the man and be unclean for worship. They had already accomplished their duties and were heading home. In fact, the story shows their hypocrisy. They had just been to worship God (love God), but did not help the wounded man (love neighbor). His refusal to love his neighbor casts doubt on his love for God.

The Priest was an expert in the law and undoubtedly knew of laws like those in Ex 23:4-5 which commanded that you help your enemy’s donkey if he was lost or overburdened, but he was unwilling to help a human in distress.

vs 32 The Levite was also from the tribe responsible for spiritual leadership of the nation. He also would “know” the law and what was required of him.

What did they do? Both ignored the wounded man lying in the road.

These two represent people caught up in lifeless religion. They play at church, but it does not affect the way that they live.

The Righteous - the good Samaritan

Who does the hearer of the parable expect to come by next. Look at the circles. They would have expected Joseph Jew to come by. But Jesus as the master story teller, tells a 3 billy goats gruff, 3 little pigs type of story with a surprise ending and skips all the way down to the Samaritan. Samaritans were an inferior mixed race in the Jewish mind. He was considered to be less than human, but look at his actions:

Compassion - In the Greek this stands out because of the prepositions. While the priest and Levite passed by ajntiparh'lqen, the Samaritan passed by proselqwVn. He doesn’t pass by on the other side. He moved toward the injured man. This is so significant because you must move toward people in order to love, in order to build relationships. It doesn’t just happen. It isn’t convenient. The Samaritan is moving toward someone who would despise him, if he were conscious. Someone who would not do the same if the situation were reversed.

When you feel like you have no deep relationships with others, perhaps it is because you are waiting for something to happen. You are waiting for someone to move toward you. Perhaps you need to take the initiative and move toward others. It is a scary thing to do because you might be rejected or hurt, but you can’t build relationships unless you do.

Care - He stopped and took care of his wounds (oil and wine were the traveling medicine kit of the day). He put him on his own donkey and the Samaritan walked. He took the wounded man to an inn. It is important to recognize that he took the time to take care of him. I think we sometimes make a donation to a worthy cause to pacify our conscience when perhaps we should have gotten involved. In our society, we are so busy with the rat race of going to work, taking our children to soccer games, going to Bible studies or care groups, etc. that we don’t have time to reach out and help someone else. Even something as small as going out of our way to take someone home would be a Good Samaritan act - a demonstration that we care and love others.

Cost - He gave money to take care of him and put no limit on how much he would spend to see that the wounded man was taken care of. Remember that this is a Samaritan in enemy territory. He has just told one of his enemies (a Jewish landlord), “Here is my VISA card.” Do whatever you need to do to take care of him. Talk about vulnerability!!! This is also significant because vulnerability is also essential for loving others. When you move toward someone else, you might be hurt. But you must be willing to sacrifice and be vulnerable, and take the chance of being hurt.

Conclusion

Which of these “proved to be a neighbor?” The obvious answer is that the Samaritan proved to be the “neighbor” to the wounded man. But the lawyer couldn’t bring himself to say the good Samaritan. That was an oxymoron. He answered, “The one who showed mercy toward him.”

Notice the significance of the question. What did the man ask? “Who is my neighbor? He was asking who and how much do I have to love. Jesus changes the question and makes the neighbor be the subject. Love does not ask how far do I have to go. Love asks, “What can I do?” Love does not just meet the other person half way. The old saying that marriage is a 50/50 relationship is terrible. If you love, you give 100%.

The Samaritan’s actions were a true demonstration of love because he had no prior relationship with the wounded man, he would not gain anything materially from his actions. He would instead lose time and money. And the wounded man probably would not have done the same for him if the situation were reversed.

The Point

How you love people shows your relationship with God. And Israel had failed to keep the elementary principle of the law which was to love. I believe this is the main message of the whole Bible.

Craig Blomberg teaches that parables have as many points as they do major characters. If this is true, then the following points might correspond to the characters in this parable:

Point 1: Even our enemies are our neighbors.

Point 2: Ethnic and social standing are no guarantee of right standing before God.

Point 3: The Samaritan’s actions are an example of what it means to love.

Relation of parable to the kingdom of God

The parable relates to the kingdom program of God by demonstrating what it means to fulfill the ethic of the law which is summed up in the command to love one’s neighbor. The man is asking, what must I do to get in? Jesus tells him what one who is on the inside looks like.

This is so important to understand. What Jesus is doing here is showing the difference between works and fruit. “Works” has the idea of what must I do to get in. But “Fruit” - what you do - is the result of being on the inside.

If the lawyer is asking the question, “How do I get in?” and Jesus is telling him what one on the inside looks like, then we can assume the lawyer is on the outside. How he gets inside becomes the question.

And I think Jesus answers that very subtly.

There is an interesting analogy here that is worth noting. Who was in the ditch? A Jew. What did it take for the Jew to get out of the ditch? He had to trust a despised person to help him. The Samaritan, an outcast, paid the price to get the man out of the ditch.

Who else was an outcast and paid the price to get men out of the ditch of sin? Jesus

How does Jesus answer the lawyer’s question about inheriting eternal life? Allow one who will be called a “Samaritan” by the religious leaders to pay the price for him. Compare John 8:48. Jesus was called a Samaritan by the religious leaders.

So Jesus answered the man’s question about how to inherit eternal life, but it is in a whole different way than he expected.

Principles

Three Attitudes displayed:

• We must not think that our “membership” in the body of Christ or rituals in our church services satisfy the commands to love God and love our neighbor.
• When we love our neighbor, we show that we love God.
• Biblical love transcends boundaries of geography, race, religion, socio-economic status and even convenience. We must love all men equally and well.
• My neighbor is anyone with a legitimate need for which God has given me the resources to meet that need. 2Ch 28:5-15, Hos 6:9, Micah 6:6-8
• Love means moving toward others. It is not convenient.