The kingdom as treasure, pearl, leaven, and net in Matthew 13

Having, in previous weeks, pulled out the parables of the sower/soils and of the weeds, together with their interpretations, from the collection of ‘kingdom of heaven’ parables in Matthew 13, the lectionary for Trinity 7 in Year A now mops up the remaining, mostly short, parables about the kingdom to complete our reading of the chapter. (It is difficult to see how one might organise the texts for preaching in any other way, since you could not postpone the explanation of a parable for the week after its telling—but there is still a very strange effect in unweaving what Matthew has weaved together.)

The selection by the lectionary disguises the careful way in which Matthew has brought together this teaching of Jesus in chapter 13 (plain text denotes material shared with Mark and Luke; italics denotes material shared with Luke; bold denotes what is unique to Matthew):

Parable of sower/soils

Reason for teaching in parables

Explanation of parable of sower/soils

Parable of weeds

Parable of mustard seed

Parable of leaven in flour

Explanation of parable of weeds

Parable of the treasure in the field

Parable of the pearl of great price

Parable of the net with its explanation

So, following the opening parable about parables, which is also found in both Mark 4 and Luke 8, we then have two sets of three parables, one longer with an explanation, and the other two shorter and with no explanation. The mustard seed is also found in Mark 4.31 and Luke 13.19, and the parable of the leaven is found in Luke 13.21. In Mark 4, the parable of the mustard seed is the last of Mark’s collection here, and Mark follows it with his intriguing conclusion:

With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything (Mark 4.33–34).

This suggests that, where we have three explanations here, Jesus might have offered the disciples an interpretation of all the parables, and not just the ones that we have!

Luke’s versions of the parables follow Mark in opening each with a more reflective introduction, ‘What is the kingdom of God like? And to what shall I compare it?’, whereas Matthew dives straight in to Jesus’ teaching: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like…’

In this week’s reading, we are mostly focussing on those parables in bold above, which are unique to Matthew. The imagery here is striking, very visual and direct; each of them can easily be turned into a book for children or a ‘Sunday school’ lesson for children (which raises the question: why don’t we have Sunday school for adults?), and each is very pithy and memorable. In that regard they both accord with other, shared material in the Synoptics, but also with many of the ‘I am’ sayings in the Fourth Gospel (‘I am the good shepherd, the resurrection and the life, the light of the world…’) which suggests less distance between the parables here and the sayings in the Fourth Gospel than is usually understood.

The first two parables in our reading, of the mustard seed and the leaven, share with the outer ‘bread’ of this parable sandwich, the parable of the weeds, an organic dynamic where the focus is on different kinds of growth, in contrast to the second group of three which use inorganic vehicles (treasure, pearl, net) to explain the subject of the kingdom.

There is often some debate in commentators about exactly which variety of ‘mustard’ Jesus is referring to here, whether it really is the smallest of all seeds, and whether it can really grow to be the size of a tree. But in the end these miss the rhetorical point of the exaggeration of the parabolic form; mustard is proverbially small, and black mustard (brassica nigra) can in fact grow to be several metres tall. (This is also a wider feature of polemical language; it was not literally true, as Jesus predicted, that ‘not one stone of the temple will be left on another’ [Matt 24.2] since you can still see today some stones of the lower wall of the Second Temple, and share the wonder of the disciples at their size and majesty.) The surprising nature of something substantial growing from something small is actually a feature of all gardening and cultivation. I have just sown and pricked out my second crop of lettuce, and it is a constant surprise to see something so small—almost too small to handle—eventually provide an abundance of food. The kingdom of heaven seems at first to be something small and insignificant—small seeds are almost as fine as dust, and just as easily blown away or lost—but there will come a time when, like the plants that seeds produce, it is impossible to ignore.

(To the keen eared who are soaked in the Old Testament, there is an echo here of the language of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and its interpretation by Daniel in Daniel 4.12, 21. The kingdom of Babylon is like a tree, and the birds in its branches are the nations who become subject to it. This is not unconnected with the subject of the kingdom of God/heaven, since in chapters 2 and 7 we have visions of how the ‘kingdom of the God of heaven’ will destroy the four great kingdoms of this world [Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome], depicted as a four-stage statue or four beasts emerging from the ‘sea’ of the peoples of earth.)

Whereas the parable of the mustard seed has a man as the central agent, the parable of the leaven (or yeast) presents us with a woman as the agent of kingdom-like activity. Matthew is not as careful as Luke in having balanced male-female pairs, but this sits quite happily with his emphasis in women, just as much as men, being members of Jesus’ disciple-kinship group in Matt 12.50.

It is striking that the woman ‘hides’ the small piece of sourdough from the previous batch of dough into this new batch of flour. Though the action is common enough as a way of making traditional breads (for example, the pain de campagne in many parts of rural France), the ‘hiding’ links this with other themes of the kingdom: it is ‘hidden’ from the wise and intelligent in Matt 11.25; it is hidden from the crowds in the telling of parables, and is a ‘secret’ given only to the disciples in Matt 13.11; it is like the hidden treasure in the following parable; and Jesus’ true identity becomes a secret from Matt 16.20 onwards, only being revealed in the later, post-resurrection proclamation.

Once more, we have absurd exaggeration to make a point; the ‘sixty pounds’ of flour would be enough to feed a whole village! It is striking that the emphasis here, that the kingdom of heaven will work its effect through the whole batch, offers a counterpoint to the surrounding parable of the weeds. In the weeds, there is a sharp distinction between those who are of the kingdom and those who are not, though that distinction will only become evident at The End. In the flour, there is much more a focus on the intermingling, and the effect of the kingdom in the meantime.

The second group of parables shifts focus, from the inevitability of the growth of the kingdom, to its discovery and the response it elicits. The two parables have different kinds of appeal. On the one hand, the idea of buried treasure has a wide, almost archetypal popular appeal: ‘X marks the spot!’ On the other hand, whilst pearls, with the shimmering lustre of their opalescence, have a universal appeal, they were particularly prized by the wealthy elite in Roman society—so much so that they would dissolve the most expensive in vinegar and drink them with wine as a kind of extreme indulgence! It is this indulgence which is behind the importance of pearls in the figure of the great prostitute of Rev 17, and its counterpoint in the pearl gates that adorn the bride-city in Rev 21.

But once again, the practical issues at stake are not really the point. If someone finds treasure in a field, is it really ethical to purchase it without informing the owner? And why would a pearl merchant sell all he has in order to buy this marvellous pearl? At least the man who buys the field can now use the treasure and live off it; but how can you eat a pearl?

There are two issues here, and these are what make this pair of parables ones that have gripped me ever since I first read them. The first issue is that, whilst there is some hint of the pearl merchant searching for the pearl of great price, the overwhelming sense is that these things of great value have been discovered, almost by chance. The man digging in the field does not appear to be a treasure hunter; he is presumably digging in order (ironically!) to sow a crop. And so the kingdom becomes this thing of great value that has been found by accident.

This chimes with my own story, since as I reflect on my journey to faith as a teenager, there was little sense in which I was looking for God, but rather, God was looking for me, and it was only after I was found that I realised I was in any sense lost. Through a series of relationships and connections, I stumbled across this great treasure that God was just waiting for me to find. This kind of experience correlates with the narratives of Jesus calling the disciples in the Synoptics, and it is made explicit in the Fourth Gospel: ‘You did not choose me, but [in contradiction to the usual practice of rabbis] I chose you’ (John 15.16).

But notice that, in both of these pithy parables, the enormity of the gift of grace leads quite naturally to the second issue of the immediate and radical response. If we struggle to respond to God’s call, then we have not yet understood the extent of his grace to us. And when we realise what a great treasure we have come across, it would be foolish not to give up everything in order to gain this!

The third parable of this second group, the parable of the net, offers interesting connections with the other two, but also with the preceding group, especially the parable of the weeds. Here, the kingdom is about God’s sovereignty and action; none of the fish ‘chose’ to be caught! And once again, Jesus is using an image from everyday life around him—but one that has an OT antecedent, in two places in Ezekiel. Ezek 17.20 speaks of God’s net being a snare for the judgement of the disobedient king of Israel; but Ezek 47.9ff offers the positive image of people fishing with nets in the Dead Sea which now teams with life, an image that is alluded to in both John 21 and Acts 2 (through the numbers 17 and its triangle 153).

So as with the parable of the weeds, there is a mixture of the good and the bad, until there is a sorting at the end of the age, and in this parable there is an unavoidable emphasis on the fate of the wicked in the ‘blazing furnace’; the language of Matt 13.50 almost exactly matches the language of Matt 13.42.

The conclusion to this section of teaching is another enigmatic saying of Jesus, unique to Matthew. Given that Jesus has been explaining the parables to them, it is perhaps no surprise that the disciples affirm their understanding—and it reflects Matthew’s overall more positive depiction of the disciples as a group, in contrast to Mark.

None of them is likely to have been a ‘scribe’, though perhaps Matthew, in his writing work in his booth might come close, which has led some commentators to suggest that this is his autobiographical note. But the overall emphasis here is rather important; in Jesus’ teaching about the kingdom of heaven, and his expression of it in his ministry, the disciples have seen something that ‘the prophets and righteous men’ longed for but did not see (Matt 13.17). And yet the treasure of the kingdom comes from the same storeroom as the previous treasures of God’s dealing with and speaking with his people. Jesus has not come to abolish the law, but to fulfil it (Matt 5.17).

In the kingdom of heaven, set out in the teaching and ministry of Jesus, God is doing a radical new thing—the same radical new thing that he has always been doing. He is the living God. And this new work of grace is one that demands response if it is to be received as gift; whether people will respond or not in itself brings division (Matt 13.57).

Join James and Ian as they debate and discuss this passage.


NOTE: I am giving notice that from 16th August I will no longer allow anonymous comments. All are welcome to publish under pseudonyms if you wish, but you will need to make yourself known to me from then if you wish to continue commenting.

Signup to get email updates of new posts
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.

Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:

For other ways to support this ministry, visit my Support page.

Comments policy: Do engage with the subject. Please don't turn this into a private discussion board. Do challenge others in the debate; please don't attack them personally. I no longer allow anonymous comments; if there are very good reasons, you may publish under a pseudonym; otherwise please include your full name, both first and surnames.

45 thoughts on “The kingdom as treasure, pearl, leaven, and net in Matthew 13”

  1. Really interesting post.

    You say “but there will come a time when, like the plants that seeds produce, it is impossible to ignore.”

    Do you think this time has come?

    Did anybody else have absolutely no recollection of what the Parable of the Net was?

    • On the first—no, this is the End of Age.

      On the second, there is unique material in each of the gospels. They selected it for their own purposes in telling the true story of Jesus and his teaching.

      • A Message to ‘Psephizo” Commentators :

        How can we really disagree well ?;

        And, strive for a unity in the Faith ?

        Introducing this great video discussion with :

        Dr. Larry Hurtado –

        Historian of Early Christianity, and Professor Emeritus of New Testament Language, Literature, and Theology;

        ” Is Jesus God ?”.

  2. It is difficult to see how one might organise the texts for preaching in any other way, since you could not postpone the explanation of a parable for the week after its telling

    Um surely it’s obvious, you could organise it into three chunks exactly the way Matthew does, thus; week one, vv. 1-23; week two, vv. 24-43; week three, vv. 44-58

    That way you get the whole chapter, and where the preacher has to preach on multiple parable they are the parables that Matthew himself wrapped up in a unit.

    What’s wrong with that?

    • It would not be welcomed by those places who are unhappy with any homily longer than about 10 minutes if people preached well on a passage of 20 verses.

      • It would not be welcomed by those places

        What, are they afraid something terrible might happen if people are exposed to too much Bible?

        • Perhaps I was not clear. There is a mood in some churches that homilies should be short – perhaps 10 minutes long. This is not long enough to do justice to a longer passage.

          • Perhaps I was not clear.

            Perhaps I was not clear. What awful consequences do they think might follow if they have to listen to too much of the Bible?

          • David sermons should never be more than ten minutes. The sermon is part of a liturgical sequence and the lenght needs to be balanced with the other elements of the sequence. The sermon has a particular purpose – which is to explore what the set passage of the bible, usually the passage from the Gospel, means for the listener this coming week. A sermon is different to a bible study. A more lengthy bible study on the passage(s) should be made available either after the service or in some other way during the week.

          • ‘sermons should never be more than ten minutes’. And there you have the reason why so many in the C of E are biblically and theologically illiterate. If you don’t feed people, then grow thin—or consume rubbish elsewhere.

          • Ian, maybe you deliberately ignored the second part of my comment just to score some kind of point? Let me repeat:

            A sermon is different to a bible study. A more lengthy bible study on the passage(s) should be made available either after the service or in some other way during the week.

            You can’t rely on a sermon of 20 minutes or half an hour to teach in the way that you suggest. There has to be teaching. But it has to be done in the context of a session where people can interact with the teacher and others present.
            Roman Catholics are often much better at knowing their bibles and understanding theology and sermons are usually 5 minutes.

          • Oh and as we noted in an earlier blog post here, American Anglicans are usually much better at teaching because they hold some form of adult Sunday school as well as the liturgy. If you want good teaching, that’s the way forward. Not longer sermons.

          • You can’t rely on a sermon of 20 minutes or half an hour to teach in the way that you suggest.

            A sermon longer than ten minutes isn’t sufficient ; but it is necessary .

          • To : Andrew Godsall,

            The first ever church I attended as a believer, was an Anglican church whose vicar was a man named Cyril Ashton (who later went on to become a Bishop). Cyril’s sermons were absolutely riveting, and ideally, involved the use of a Bible in order to check up the Bible verses which he was using in his sermon. A typical Cyril Ashton sermon last about forty-five minutes, and it was absolute, joyous blessing – whether one called it a ‘sermon’, and/or, a ‘bible-study’ !

          • How did Jesus teach? A lot of the time and most effectively in parables. How long did they take to tell? A few minutes.
            Other times he used very short saying with imagery.

            Teaching is important but worship is not primarily about teaching a captive audience who can’t talk back. Worship is about gathering people into the presence of God and giving them a glimpse of the Holy. That is just one of the reasons that Cathedrals remain popular.
            Teaching is a different discipline and needs to done effectively in something like an adult Sunday school or in house groups where people can get to know each other and learn very effectively.
            A sermon is not a lecture. It can make one or two points effectively. Just as the parables did.

          • How did Jesus teach? A lot of the time and most effectively in parables. How long did they take to tell? A few minutes.

            We don’t actually know for how long Jesus typically taught. Certainly He must have said many more things than were recorded in the gospels. At least once He taught late enough into the evening that people were getting hungry.

            While He might have taught in parables, the impression of the gospel is certainly not that he would tend to show up, throw out a single Thought for the Day-sized aphorism, and then leave. Quite the reverse: large crowds sought Him out and stayed for long periods to hear His teaching, and He keeps teaching them on several occasions until He is exhausted and needs to go away and rest.

            So I don’t think you can use Jesus as an exemplar of short preaching.

            Teaching is important but worship is not primarily about teaching a captive audience who can’t talk back.

            Worship is primarily about expounding the Word of God. The rest of the stuff is there either to prepare for hearing the Word, or to respond to it. The Word and its exposition is the main point.

            You can have a worship service without music, without practically everything else — pretty much the only things you can’t do without are the exposition of the Word, and prayer.

            A sermon is not a lecture.

            That’s kind of exactly what it is.

          • you think Jesus only taught for 2 hours in his entire ministry..?

            I’m pretty sure Andrew Godsall thinks that ‘Jesus’ is a fictional character, albeit one based (very loosely) on a real person — a sort of first-century Mediterranean Davy Crockett — so what’s in the stories about him is all he ever actually ‘did’.

          • And S thinks the bible was something discovered up a mountain by a man with special glasses.

            Ian, of course I don’t think that. But it is clear that he didn’t teach in a lecture style. And I do wish you wouldn’t confuse homiletics with catechetics.

          • Your argument was: Jesus spoke with brevity; therefore we should preach short sermons. I was pointing out that your premise is false.

            I don’t think that you can separate homiletics from catechesis. Jesus didn’t. The NT uses the verbs kerusso and katecheo interchangeably.

            There might be a different experiential focus, but you cannot preach (to engage, eliciting response) without teaching, and you cannot teach (imparting understanding) without engaging and eliciting response.

            I think this is a false division which doesn’t have a biblical basis.

          • the bible was something discovered up a mountain by a man with special glasses.

            First, how on Earth do you still not understand that ‘Bible’ is a proper noun?

            Second, equating the perfectly standard, orthodox view of the Bible that I hold with Mormonism: nice.

            Third, I notice you don’t deny that you think that the ‘Jesus’ described in the gospels is a fictional character based on a real person.

          • I completely deny your ridiculous suggestion S. I just don’t believe in feeding trolls.

          • I completely deny your ridiculous suggestion

            … Which is inconsistent with your many previous statements passim about your views on the nature of the gospels.

          • Ian: Jesus taught with parables. Do you deny that?
            My suggestion was that Jesus taught in a shorter, memorable form. Nowhere do I deny that the gospels can not and do not contain all of Jesus’ teaching. What it does do is give us a ‘type’. Shorter, memorable forms.

            Maybe it would be better to focus on more proven forms of teaching and formation in the Church: an adult form of Sunday school and smaller home groups which aim at formation. But by all means ignore the points I have made.

          • Andrew, I don’t think the parable form *as we have it in the synoptics* represent Jesus; actual teaching form. For one thing, it looks fairly monologic, where in fact there is plenty of evidence that he taught dialogically. There is no doubt that he embedded parables in his teaching, but it is clear he did other things too. And both his parables and apothegms often appeared to be embedded in longer discourse and discussion.

            How do we know what are proven forms? When surveys are done testing knowledge of the faith, evangelical churches consistently come out top—way out ahead of others. And this is a tradition which believes in long sermons, as well as other forms of teaching. It is not either/or.

            And it is perfectly possible to make preaching interactive. Last Sunday I changed one of my four points in response to a comment from the congregation as I was preaching.

          • Jesus taught with parables. Do you deny that?
            My suggestion was that Jesus taught in a shorter, memorable form.

            And nobody’s ever suggested that modern ministers shouldn’t use short, memorable forms either alongside or within longer sermons — as Jesus likely did. It’s you who set up the false dichotomy of either / or.

          • You might also add to this that Jesus taught a great deal in conversations. That’s possible in home and formation groups, but not possible in sermons.
            Jesus also taught by example followed by discourse: go and do likewise – something that is possible in smaller formation and home groups by discussing the experiences of members and using those as a basis for action and reflection. Not possible to do that in sermons.
            Sermons have an important place, but they are no use as a sole method of catechesis. Research has shown that.

          • Sermons have an important place, but they are no use as a sole method of catechesis.

            No one has ever claimed they are, so now you are arguing against a straw man.

          • I don’t think I have ever suggested either/or.

            S will by no means agree with you that the parables we have in the Synoptics are a format created by the evangelists.
            Or that the signs in the front Gospel are a from created by the Evangelist of the fourth gospel but I am pleased you have made that useful point.

          • will by no means agree with you that the parables we have in the Synoptics are a format created by the evangelists.

            I don’t think the web-site host would agree with you that the format was ‘created by the evangelists’ either. I may be wrong, but I suspect the web-site host would agreed with me that the reports of Jesus’ testing in the gospels are reliable, but edited, reports from people who had actually seen Jesus teach. The parables, being the most memorable bits, obviously feature heavily in the witnesses’ recollections (perhaps overrepesenting their prominence in Jesus’ actual teaching style); but nothing was ‘created’ by the evangelists.

          • I don’t think I have ever suggested either/or.


            ‘You can’t rely on a sermon of 20 minutes or half an hour to teach in the way that you suggest. There has to be teaching. But it has to be done in the context of a session where people can interact with the teacher and others present.’

            The only way to read that as an argument against half-hour sermons (as you clearly intended it) is if you are saying that you can either have half-hour sermons or interactive Bible studies, but not both.

            Otherwise it is just an argument for having Bible studies as well as half-hour sermons.

            So yes you are setting up an either/or dichotomy because your arguments make no sense otherwise.

  3. Possibly you are thinking of Nick Butterworth anf Mick Inpens Stories Jesus tells. Great as an Intergenerational Worship method of sharing the Parables

  4. I have often read the parable of the “Pearl of Great Price” incorrectly, so that the Lord is saying the Kingdom of God is like a pearl of great price.” But that is not what our Lord says, is it? He actually says,”Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, …” (13:45). The Kingdom, without doubt, is a treasure beyond price, for which a person would give all he has to obtain. But the parable becomes even more powerful when read correctly, understanding that the Kingdom is like a Merchant searching…. In this reading, we are the treasure of great price, and our Father, the Merchant” gave his all in hopes of obtaining our devotion.

    • Hi Elbert,
      Yes, my poem posted on yesterday’s video discussion is about the Merchant (Jesus) finding a ‘green/blue pearl of great price…the earth.

    • Hi Elbert, thanks for your comment. I have heard this interpretation before, but not been persuaded by it—though we didn’t have time to respond in the video discussion. I think that there a few things against it.

      First, the grammar of ‘the kingdom of God is like…’ in the other parables does *not* suggest that the kingdom is like the first person mentioned. This is simply Jesus/Matthew’s way of introducing the whole scene.

      Second, I wouldn’t rule this out immediately, since there are some strong parallels with the parables of the lost in Luke 10, where it is made clear that the person doing the searching is God who searches the lost. Jesus makes that quite explicit. And of course Deut 14.2 does talk of Israel as God’s treasured possession.

      Thirdly, however, we need to note that this theme (of God searching) appears to be absent from this collection of parables. The focus is consistently on the question of response to the news of the kingdom.

      Fourthly, there are strong parallels between the language in the parable of the treasure and the pearl (which we must surely take as parallels) with Jesus call to his disciples. When he calls those fishing by Galilee (either in Mark 1 or in Luke 5) they ‘leave everything and follow him’. And when Jesus meets the rich (young) man (ruler) in Mark 10, Jesus tells him to sell all he has.

      It is a shame we do not have the interpretation that Jesus probably gave his disciples on these ones! But I think the reading offered here is more persuasive in the end.

      But I will keep on thinking! I hope that explains my reasoning…

      • Thank you Ian and Steve for your responses to my comment. Both are most helpful, and a springboard to further thought on this and other parables of Jesus. Let me just say here how much I appreciate your Psephizo website. It is one of the best sources of bible scholarship and contemporary issues I have found on the Internet.

      • Somebody once told me they only take communion if the bread is unleavened because leaven was a sign of evil. I was taken aback and did not think to point to the other use of the metaphor. In the same way, can a Pearl represent different things?
        Pearls of wisdom = words of Christ.
        New Jerusalem’s gates = the wisdom of the kingdom , lips that speak truth.
        But also the thing sought by Wisdom itself?
        To fulfil the prophecy “ man should not be alone” The Son of Man , Wisdom Himself needs a bride, His Pearl of great price, made priceless by the cost of winning it.

    • I agree with Elbert. We are the pearl, we are God’s treasure that he (“the merchant”) purchased at great cost.

      My wife disagrees: she says it should be read thus: “The Kingdom of Heaven is like this: a certain merchant went looking for fine pearls . . . . ” However, I think the hidden treasure is about our response to God and the pearl is about God’s response to us.

      Indeed, it would make more sense to read the preceding parable in the same way as all three of the “lost” logia in Luke 15: a person (God) loses something / someone (a sheep, a coin, a son) and is happy to when reunited with it.

      In Luke 15 the thing gained is “not-God”. Here, in these two parables, the thing gained (treasure, pearl) is God — and the “finder” is us. Now I think that certainly hold true for the pearl story, it’s a possible but imho less plausible reading of the tale of the treasure trove.

      In short, I’d find most convincing reading to be the one I’ve already evinced, followed by them both being about “finding / buying God” followed last of all (and least likely) as them both being effectively the same as the Luke 15 trio (God as the finder of the lost object).

  5. On the mustard seed Matthew and Luke have different quotes on the same topic at different places and times.
    Mat 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
    Luke 17:6 And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.
    Which makes me think that, he, like many preachers, the same sermon might be preached in different locations.
    Of the leaven hidden in flour I have often felt that
    * the kingdom* is always within the Church
    but that the Church [local] may not be *in the kingdom*
    I think we too often focus on the Church as more than just a vehicle when in fact we must like, Jesus, focus on the reality of the kingdom as the power of life in God.

    • Which makes me think that, he, like many preachers, the same sermon might be preached in different locations.

      ‘Mustard seed! Mustard seed! Who had mustard seed on their card today? Did you have mustard seed, James? Peter? Matthew? Oh, John, of course. How come John always gets mustard seed and I only ever get gnashing teeth?’

  6. On pearls The merchant found a very valuable thing in the soil. I wonder if the pearl was a discovery of something Holy.
    In Matthew 7:6 Jesus said “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you”. When preaching the Gospel to some people, they have no interest.Perhaps like the philosophers of Athens whom Paul abandoned or his injunction to Timothy 2 Tim 2:23 andTitus Tit 3:9
    It seems to indicate that holy things are are not understood,are trampled underfoot and result in dog behavior towards the person teaching.
    Holiness is the sublimest nature of God and I find that very few understand or appreciate the fact.pigs and dogs particularly.


Leave a comment