| THIRD IN A SERIES ON THE MATTHEW 13 KINGDOM PARABLES | ||
|---|---|---|
|
According to A.M. Hunter in his Interpreting the Parables, Jesus used about 60 different parables, which comprise roughly one third of His recorded teaching. Two parables — one point“Another parable he put to them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches. Another parable he spoke to them; the kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of flour, till all was affected” — Matthew 13:31-33.Having introduced the idea of the false — the tare — Jesus, in these next two parables illustrates how falsity spreads. He does this in the open setting before going with His disciples into “the house”, where they asked Him to explain “the parable of the tares of the field” (v 36). Interestingly their request makes no reference to the wheat, although the story was about both wheat and tares. Nor do they inquire about the mustard and leaven, which implies that the significance of the two parables that we are now considering is made clear if we really grasp the truth about the tares. The point is the disciples are primarily concerned about the presence and effect of the false, which is the new element that Jesus introduced in the second parable. This is just one reason why I consider the parables of the mustard and leaven as an extension of the parable of the tares. Of course Christ in His responsive explanation deals with both the true and the false (vs 37 to 43). We should note that of the eight parables in Matthew 13 only the first two are directly explained or interpreted by Christ — c/f vs 18 to 23 with vs 37 to 43. Mark 4: 13 implies that an understanding of the parable of the sower and seed is basic to an understanding of all of Christ’s parabolic teaching: “And he said to them, ‘Don’t you understand this parable? And how then will you understand all the parables?” — Mark 4: 13. By also interpreting the second parable and none other, Christ implies that so long as we truly grasp the significance of the parables of the Sower and of the Tares we will grasp the truth of the other parables at least in degree. In the story of the mustard seed, He illustrates how small beginnings can lead to outrageously big endings. Normally a mustard seed — “the smallest of seeds” (c/f Mark 4:31) — does not become “a great tree” (see Luke 13:19), unless some hybrid element is introduced. Similarly, in the story of the leaven, Jesus supplies us with an example of the way “a little leaven affects the whole lump” (c/f 1 Cor 5:6). Both of these parables illustrate the effect of corrupting influences; the first, corruption through uncontrolled growth; the second, corruption through unrestrained evil practice. Let’s take a closer look and bring the parables into the setting of the modern church. The mustard seedJesus refers to one seed planted in a field. It is not a harvest of mustard that is in view, but a plant growing in isolation away from the control and protection of its ‘fellows’. The result is a monstrosity. In the end, all sorts of feeble flighted, feathered fiends lodge in its unintendedly large branches.It never was, and never will be, God’s intention for men to build their own empires. Too easily they become isolationists. The simple seed planted at the beginning of their ministry develops and ‘shoots out large branches’ (c/f Mark 4:32), the support of which exceeds their projected budget by a million miles. Also, additional problems occur as all sorts of ‘queer birds’ lodge and build their nests in the tree. The leavenLeaven, in scripture, represents evil and corruption (c/f 1 Cor 5:6-8; Gal 5:9; Matt 16:6,12).All Old Testament offerings had to be free from leaven: “No grain offering, which you shall bring to the LORD, shall be made with leaven: for you shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering to the LORD made by fire” — Leviticus 2: 11. Similarly, the Passover, the first and most important feast in the Jewish calendar must be free from leaven: “Seven days you shall eat bread made without leaven; on the first day you shall remove leaven out of your houses: for whoever eats bread with leaven in it from the first day until the seventh day, shall be cut off from Israel” — Exodus 12:15. The symbolism of this is so vital that the command to exclude leaven was given to Israel three times at the first Passover (Ex 12:15, 19 & 13:7) and is repeated in various ways throughout the Bible. It is unthinkable that Jesus would use any analogy in contrast to the whole tenor of scripture. Therefore, this parable must refer to the spread of evil and not, as some have taught, to the spread of the gospel or of the true Christian church. Immorality and heresyNow the interesting thing is that leaven actually increases the bulk of the product into which it is placed. Without leaven the bread, cake or whatever, does not rise! Further, leaven eventually permeates everything into which it is placed.This is why Paul, speaking of immorality in the Church, states that such must be removed otherwise it will corrupt the entire Church — see 1 Corinthians chapter 5 in total and note especially the following verses: “Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new batch, as you really are without leaven. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the bread without leaven, of sincerity and truth” — 1 Corinthians 5:7-8. Elsewhere Scripture likens false doctrine and wrong teaching to leaven. So there are the two things – wrong living and wrong teaching: “Then Jesus said to them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees ... (11) ... I did not speak to you concerning bread, but that you should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then they understood that he told them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees” — Matthew 16:6-12. “A little leaven affects the whole batch” — Galatians 5:9. Literal leaven (yeast), when mixed in meal is very difficult if not impossible to remove and this of course is where the analogy breaks down. It is vital in correctly interpreting and applying truth that we compare scripture with scripture and don’t just extrapolate on the basis of one passage let alone on the basis of one illustration. Our Lord warns of the potential of leaven to permeate the whole when once it is introduced. Paul tells us that it can be removed. Both ideas are vital to our considerations here. Removing evil and errorBy way of digression one of the miracles of Elisha provides us with a marvellous illustration of the way leaven, which is spiritually symbolic of evil and error, is removed:“And Elisha came again to Gilgal: and there was a famine in the land; and the sons of the prophets were sitting before him: and he said to his servant, Put on the large pot, and boil stew for the sons of the prophets. And one went out into the field to gather herbs, and found a wild vine, and gathered a lap full of wild gourds, and came and shredded them into the pot of stew: though they didn’t know what they were. So they served it for the men to eat. And it came about, as they were eating the stew, that they cried out, and said, O man of God, there is death in the pot. And they could not eat it. But he said, Then bring flour. And he put it into the pot; and he said, pour it out for the people, that they may eat. And there was no harm in the pot” — 2 Kings 4:38-41. The story is a study in itself. There are several lessons that may be extrapolated from the following four considerations:
One of the group ignorantly introduced poison. He is neither remonstrated against nor is he identified. These acts would have embarrassed the guilty person and would have effectively destroyed future eager service. Elisha does not try to remove the poison directly. If this were possible it would have taken too long and it would have reduced the bulk. In introducing “meal” Elisha actually increases the content and at the same time provides us with a great biblical illustration of how we tackle false teaching within the Church. Meal represents two things: firstly, the truth of God’s Word — “Give us this day our daily bread” (Matthew 6:11); and secondly the element of direct personal sacrifice. The herb of the field from which flour is derived (from corn) is man’s part in creation (Genesis 1:29). It was the major constituent in the second offering, which is actually called the “grain” or “flour” offering (Lev 2). If man introduces “poison” or “leaven” then God has provided a way whereby its effect can be removed, but it will cost something. The poison is not taken out of the pot but its effect is destroyed. This is a wonderful commentary on how we should deal with both immorality and heresy in the church. Simply add the elements of God’s Truth (from the Bible which must be implicitly obeyed) and godly sacrifice, especially on the part of true ministry. Lessons from historyHistory teaches us two things in this regard:Firstly, it shows how easy it is for us to depart from the original mandate and mission, and introduce false doctrine or extraneous evil and corrupting practices into our program. When this happens, the church initially enjoys immediate numeric growth and this deceives us into thinking that what we are doing is being blessed by God. In actual fact, it is only the natural result of the leaven doing its job. Secondly history teaches us that ‘we never learn from history’. We simply repeat the mistakes of a bygone day. Every denomination started in revival and ended in rebellion unless it experienced repentance. So what are the essential lessons of these two parables that will help us as we face a new beginning albeit, most probably, with a very short future seeing Christ may return at any time? Dare to disciplineE. Stanley Jones wrote, ‘You can’t attain salvation by discipline, but you can’t retain it without discipline’. Discipline is almost a dirty word in our modern ‘let-everyone- do-what-seems right-in-his-own-eyes’ age. We’re scared to chastise our children; afraid to correct our teenagers; reluctant to expose false teaching and immoral living in the Church, and we’ve lost the art of self-discipline to boot!Certainly we’ve come a long way from ‘ladies shouldn’t wear make-up and must wear hats’, and thank God we have! But have we come too far? Of course, we know that God looks on the heart and not on how you appear. But let me say this — if what you wear (or refuse to wear) and the way you appear is out of a spirit of rebellion, both you and what you are doing are wrong. Rebellion spreads like leaven and ‘rebellion is like the sin of witchcraft’ (1 Samuel 15:23). Don’t driftThe history of the Church is in some ways the record of the perversion of the intentions of its founders. Christ intended that the Church should remain simple in its structure, program and message. But gradually it drifts from its moorings, deviates from its intentions and complicates its message. You can see this drift in history. The powerful and rapidly growing apostolic church of the first and second centuries, soon corrupts itself with state affairs. At first it becomes even bigger — greater growth — then decadence sets in as Church leaders turn to rituals and relics that have nothing to do with the simplicity of the gospel; darkness follows.Many centuries later, Martin Luther ignites a flame with his re-discovered truth of justification by faith. The “church” starts to come alive and improve in health once more. How long does it last? Not long! Only as long as the leaders keep to the track. With the dawn of the Renaissance the leaven of educational and artistic pursuits within the church becomes hidden in the flour and imperceptibly does its work. Of course there were other corrupting influences such as the clergy-laity divide and false doctrines, which were never fully corrected. These things had the effect of adding more leaven and with it observable natural increase. Or to use the analogy of the ‘mustard seed’, of course, the tree grew; but it was a hybrid mustard tree with great branches containing strange birds. What of the Pentecostal tree? The Pentecostal revivalThere has seldom been a movement of God that has so impacted the world as the mighty outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which launched the Pentecostal revival of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Someone has called it “the third arm of Christendom”, apostolic Christianity being the first and the Reformation the second. Classic- Pentecostalism started in the fire of passion and purpose as men and women pursued after God in prayer and through His Word. In the USA and UK the various Pentecostal groups developed mainly out of previous revivals, notably the great evangelical awakenings of the mid 19th century and the 1904-1906 Welsh Revival.In his book WITH SIGNS FOLLOWING Pentecostal author Stanley Howard Frodsham provides a number of anecdotal incidents of people being baptised in the Holy Spirit with the supernatural sign of “speaking in tongues” in 1854 (New England), 1873 (New England & Sunderland UK), 1874 (New England), 1875 (Rhode Island & New England), 1879 (Arkansas), 1890 (Ohio), 1892 (Seattle, Washington), 1895 (Dalton, Minnesota), 1896 (Greenfield, S. Dak & North Carolina) *1, and 1900 (North Carolina). The fact that Frodsham, though not a historian per se, lists place and personal names together with dates and in some cases additional information about the lives of those 19th century recipients of the baptism of the Holy Spirit makes his book a convincing source. These incidents and the Welsh Revival predate the so called Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles and the earlier Topeka “out-pouring” around the turn of the century when a young woman called Agnes Ozman spoke in tongues. Those who denigrate the entire Pentecostal Movement on the basis of the alleged questionable teaching and character of Charles Parham and WJ Seymour, who were associated with Topeka and Azusa Street, do so from the basis of ignorance of the full facts and of the ways of God throughout history. Their attempt to apply what Jesus said about “roots and fruits” in Matthew 7:15-20 to a movement is unsustainable as is any similar attempt to denigrate a movement on the basis of James 3:11-12. In Matthew Jesus is warning about men not movements. James addresses the issue of speech and the power of the tongue. In neither case is a movement per se in view. That Pentecostalism, like all previous movements, has been corrupted there is no doubt. The parables of the mustard and leaven explain why and how. A brief historical surveyClassic-Pentecostalism gathered momentum against great opposition until the middle of the 20th century when, through the so-called Charismatic Renewal, “neo- Pentecostalism” *2 was born in the historic churches. The by-then separate and largely marginalized Pentecostal denominations were naturally drawn to this new phenomenon of the acceptance of spiritual gifts especially “tongues-speaking” by mainstream churches. Cross-fertilization occurred. An appeal to “common experience”, as a basis of fellowship and unity, took precedence over the appeal to truth. The leaven of doctrinal error extended through the classic Church structure — both mainline and Pentecostal.Someone wisely pointed out that the seeds of destruction are sown within the movements of men at the outset. No doubt there was poison in the classic-Pentecostal pot, BUT in many of the denominational expressions of it the flour of the Word of God and of personal sacrifice removed the poison. An analysis of major differences between what we call classic-Pentecostalism and neo-Pentecostalism though controversial is probably helpful at this point: 1..The first and major difference is that classic-Pentecostalism in its organisational structure was Bible based; neo-Pentecostalism tends to be experience driven. Bible doctrine was vital to our Pentecostal “fathers”. I am not suggesting they got everything right, just as we don’t get ever ything right, BUT their constant appeal was to Scripture, and they had the major doctrines right. If they couldn’t find it in “The Book” then they would not embrace it. The charismatics and the neo- Pentecostals on the other hand tended to say, “We speak in tongues just like you so there’s no difference” and sadly that idea began to permeate through sections of the classic-Pentecostal movement. In Britain, where I commenced my Christian journey as a boy and where I returned to minister in the Assemblies of God from 1961 to 1978, there was a great deal of reaction to this neo-Pentecostal emphasis. Most AoG “pastors” were alarmed when church leaders, who taught baptismal regeneration and the perpetual sacrifice of Christ through the Mass, claimed to be baptised in the Holy Spirit simply because they “spoke in tongues.” This brings into focus the watershed doctrine that separates neo-Pentecostals from classic-Pentecostals. The latter insist that the baptism into the Holy Spirit is an experience that is separate from and subsequent to regeneration, which proceeds only on the basis of personal repentance from sin, and faith in the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. The former in some instances have no knowledge or understanding of regeneration, which is recognised in both the Evangelical and the classic-Pentecostal camps as the new birth. One of the major differences between Evangelicals who are not Pentecostal and those who are is that the former claim that there is no “second” experience. The baptism into the Holy Spirit is what happens at regeneration and it is wrong they say to teach a subsequent experience. Of this claim the late Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones states: “There is nothing, I am convinced, that so ‘quenches’ the Spirit as the teaching which identifies the baptism of the Holy Ghost with regeneration. But it is a very commonly held teaching today; indeed it has been the popular view for many years. It is said that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is ‘non-experimental’, that it happens to every one at regeneration. So we say, ‘Ah well, I am already baptized with the Spirit; it happened when I was born again, at my conversion; there is nothing for me to seek, I have got it all’. Got it all? Well, if you have ‘got it all’, I simply ask in the Name of God, why are you as you are? If you have ‘got it all’, why are you so unlike the Apostles, why are you so unlike the New Testament Christians? The teaching that I have just mentioned is false. The apostles were regenerate before the day of Pentecost. The baptism of the Holy Ghost is not identical with regeneration; it is something separate. It matters not how long the interval between the two may be, there is a difference; there is an interval, they are not identical. *3” That statement encapsulates one of the basic tenets of classic-Pentecostalism, with which the late DML-J was quite closely allied though it would be wrong to claim him as a Pentecostal. He was not, but he did join forces with the late W T H Richards, who was a classic-Pentecostal, in opposing neo-Pentecostalism or what most refer to as the Charismatic movement. It is the opinion of this writer that DM Lloyd- Jones went further and was closer to the truth than most classic-Pentecostals in that he affirmed in other published sermons and lectures that there is a second and a third and a fourth and so on experience of the filling or infusion of the Holy Spirit and I think he was right. The Christian Warfare quoted above and his masterly Preaching and Preachers and his many sermons, especially those on Ephesians 1:13 and 3:14-21 make it abundantly clear that at least in this one basic doctrine about the Baptism in the Holy Spirit being separate from and subsequent to regeneration DML-J was in harmony with classic-Pentecostals, while differing totally with neo-Pentecostals on the issue. Evan Roberts and Jessie Penn Lewis who coauthored the book, WAR ON THE SAINTS likewise taught a subsequent baptism in the Holy Spirit, as pages 215, 286 and 292 of the Full Text Unabridged Edition make abundantly clear. 2) A second difference is one of cause and effect. In the case of classic-Pentecostalism what happened came out of earnest seeking after God, whereas in the case of neo-Pentecostalism it was frequently a matter of orchestration, manipulation and convenience. In my Cessationism versus Biblicism article (.../archives/cetf2001/tongues01.html) *4 I have provided extensive citations with sources, which show that, far from being a modern phenomenon, the work of the Holy Spirit in the manifestation of the supernatural gifts, among classic-Pentecostals, including speaking in tongues, has occurred throughout Church history. To argue against this is to ignore or deny the facts of history. Those who claim that the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased when the canon of Scripture was complete, fly in the face of both history and Scripture.Scripture. These people are in serious error. Their stance is a direct attack on “solascriptura”. They have to appeal to specious extra-biblical material in their attempt to support the case. In contrast our appeal, as I demonstrate in the above-cited article, is firstly to Scripture and then to Church History. The Bible teaches that the supernatural “gifts” are available throughout the Church age under the sovereignty of God. In Cessationism v Biblicism I have dealt with the objections, which are raised from time to time by well meaning but ill-informed cessationist Bible teachers. 100 years agoThe closing years of the 19th century set the stage for revival. The preaching of the American evangelists Charles G Finney (1792-1875), Dwight L Moody (1837- 1899) and R A Torrey (1856-1928) plus a number of lesser known English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish evangelists aroused many to earnestly seek God in prayer. As a result God sovereignly visited His people in revivals as He had done half a century before, notably in what Dr Edwin Orr calls the Second Evangelical Awakening (1858-62). These revivals were the direct result of prayer movements as well as a spur to greater prayerThe year 1904 saw the start of the Welsh revival and the year 1906 the almost simultaneous out-pouring of the Holy Spirit with the sign of speaking in tongues and other supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit in several nations – USA, UK, Australia *5, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, China and so on. Coincidentally these outpourings of the Holy Spirit were experienced within diverse denominations from the Holiness people in USA to the Anglicans in UK, the Methodists in Norway and the Baptists in Sweden and others in their various national settings. The point I am emphasising is that classic- Pentecostalism was birthed in revival which was the direct consequence of a great prayer movement i.e. many men and women earnestly seeking God. In contrast neo-Pentecostalism at best can claim only rather gimmicky prayer activity e.g. Dennis Bennett’s book Nine o’clock in the Morning in which he tells of personal and private prayer linked to his alleged experience of the Holy Spirit. In the main the Charismatic movement was orchestrated by incidents like that of David du Plessis’ claimed commission by Smith Wigglesworth, through prophecy, to take the experience to the Vatican. Personally I have never read any first hand third party report of SW’s alleged prophecy. Even du Plessis’ book The Spirit Bade Me Go does not document it. Could it be that someone invented the story in an attempt to justify his going to Rome, which was viewed with horror by many of his fellow Pentecostal ministers at the time? *6 The cause and effect scenarios of the two — classic and neo Pentecostalism are poles apart. The first was birthed and bathed in prayer. The second in our view was a ploy to take the church closer to Rome. 3) A third difference is one of purity of motive and clarity of direction. Early Pentecostals retained a clearer vision of their message and mission than those of neo-Pentecostal persuasion. The preaching of the former was Christ centred and cross-related. Since the advent of the latter the message has become largely “Church” centred and gimmick-related. Those who think that I have over generalised should reflect on the many intrusions that have taken place during recent times. Church Growth; Imagining; Visioning; Point of Contact; Faith-Seed Giving; Transformation Videos; Cleansing Streams; Spiritual War fare; Mapping; Prayer Marches; Creative Art; Cultural Dances; Healing of the Memory; Theophostic Counselling, and a host of other things, some of which are blatantly occult, have surfaced in the Pentecostal-Charismatic section of the Church, which pays lip service to the dynamic of the Holy Spirit. Classic Pentecostalism was a holiness movement of the Holy Spirit of a Holy God. It was born in the fire and can be nourished only by the Word of God and the genuine supernatural. Sadly holiness preaching and soul-winning activity have largely waned even among classic-Pentecostals. On the other hand neo-Pentecostalism, as it has become, is a psychological and psuedo-supernatural hybrid monstrosity. Here I am not distinguishing between the current Charismatic and Pentecostal movements per se. In speaking generally I do recognise that there are good people and godly expressions in both. The problem is the LEAVEN and the MUSTARD. God is innovative, but the devil is also very crafty and sometimes he pushes us beyond our original intentions. Paul said, ‘All things are lawful for me... but all things do not edify’ (1 Cor 10:23). NEXT: ‘Kingdom Costs’— Salvation is free but it costs you everything! *1With Signs Following © 1946 Gospel Publishing House, Springfield, Missouri – Chapter 1 – Gracious Showers of Blessing in the 19th Century pages 7-17. *2The word “classic” when linked to “Pentecostalism” in this article is used in the sense of “historic”. On the other hand “neo-Pentecostalism” is used to describe the modern amalgam of the Charismatic and the Pentecostal movements. *3 From THE CHRISTIAN WARFARE © 1976 D. M. Lloyd- Jones – Banner of Truth Trust, pages 280-281. *4 Published as the last chapter in Gathering the faithful Remnant © 2002 Christian Witness Ministries pages 355-397. *5 Dr Barry Chant has documented the fact that Australia witnessed a visitation of the Holy Spirit with Pentecostal manifestations before the Azusa Street and the Welsh outpourings — see Heart of Fire Plympton: Tabor, 1997:34ff. *6 The same applies to the alleged prophecy by Wigglesworth that Australia would be the last place in the world to see revival. I have never come across any reference to that anywhere in contemporary sources, and no one who quotes it today has been able to provide a reliable source. Philip L Powell About the Author...
Appeared in Issue CETF NR MONTH YEAR |
Details HERE...  Order HERE.. |
|
-Last revised-