The parable of the ten talents (Matthew 25:14-30)

This is a very similar parable to the parable about the king going away.  I won't comment on it further.

The parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1-13)

Jesus was talking to the Twelve about how no one will no know the day he arrives beforehand.

He uses this parable to illustrate it.

The Kingdom of Heaven is like ten virgins awaiting their bridegrooms.  Five of them have lamps with extra oil while five have lamps, but not enough oil.

They all fall asleep and are awakened at the time of the arrival of the bridegroom.  The five without oil ask for oil from those who have it, but they decline it.  Those without oil go to find oil.

The bridegroom arrives while they are still away and those with oil go in with the bridegroom.  When those who left to get oil return, it is too late.

This is another parable in which a wedding is used to illustrate the Kingdom of God.  

The context of the parable is used to discuss the return of Jesus, but I think a more immediate application for the rest of us is to prepare one's soul for death.  Death can arrive just as unexpectedly as Jesus.  Many generations lived and died without the return of Jesus, but they had to prepare their own soul's for death.  

Regardless if Jesus returns in our generation or not, at the very least, we must be ready for at the very least, we might die unexpectedly.

The parable of the wedding banquet (Matthew 22:1-14)

Again, speaking to the Pharisees, Jesus tells another parable about a wedding banquet.  It is similar to a prior parable about a feast that is hosted.

In it, a king has a wedding banquet for his son.  He invites many friends who either blow off the invitation or even beat up the messenger who told them they were invited.  This enrages the king who has them beaten.  Finally, he invites the general public to fill up the hall.  Up to now, the details of the parable parallel that of another banquet parable.  The main difference is that the messenger is treated harshly.

However, the king notices a loan person who is not wearing wedding clothes.  The king orders the man thrown outside, to the darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Jesus ended the parable by saying "many are invited, but few are chosen".  This seems to be the closes we get to a parable, but it is vague itself.

Unlike the other parables with the Pharisees, this one is not interpreted by Jesus, not even to his own disciples.   However, it comes right after two other parables about the Pharisees, so we can assume the parable is about the Pharisees as well.

Based on that, we can assume that the Pharisees are the invited guests who do not attend, but rather mistreat the by messenger who gave the invitation.  This is in alignment with the parable of the vineyard that immediately preceded this parable.

The man taken away for got wearing wedding clothes was unprepared for what the banquet was about.  He is dealt with In similar fashion who declined the invitation.  In other words, this man tried to enter the banquet without paying honor to the king or the king's son, and that got him kicked out.

I prefer to interpret parables on their own terms without importing anything beyond the immediate context.  But I think now is a good time to import something we find later on.  Jumping ahead to the writings of the Apostle Paul, we get the idea that a relationship with Christ is like one of a marriage.  Christ married the church and those in the church.  If we import that idea into this parable, this man in the parable wanted to enter the banquet, but did not want to marry Christ.

The result of that was he is thrown out "to the darkness", where he weeps and gnashes his teeth.  Christ used similar words to describe hell on other occasions, so this seems to be a reference to hell.  It is (will be) dark and characteristic of sorrow.  Still, there is no indication distinguishing between an afterlife or the present life.

Finally, the ending of the parable is interesting - many invited, but few chosen.  This is a nebulous phrase and the term "chosen" seems particularly strange and having no bearing on the parable.  Many are "invited" seems to be a general reference to an invitation to both the king's friends as well as the general public.

Under a Calvinistic/ Predestination interpretation, one might think that the "chosen" refers to some predestination concept.  That does not satisfy me as I think it stands in contrast to the rest of the parable.  The invitation went out to all and some people chose to accept the invitation, some did not.

So, in that terms, "are chosen" could just be a reference that they choose to accept the invitation.

Regardless, it is a strange stand alone statement that is hard to interpret without other details.

The parable of the tenants (Matthew 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12; Luke 20:9-19)

Jesus speaks another parable to the Pharisees.

A man builds a vineyard and rents it to tenants.  The owner sends servants to the tenants to collect some harvest as rent.  The tenants beat the owner's servants.  Eventually, the owner sends his own son, whom the tenants kill.

Jesus ask, what will the owner do with the tenants?

Again, the Pharisees agree with the principle of the parable - the owner will deal with the tenants harshly.

Meanwhile, the other people in the temple understand what Jesus is talking about they say "may this never be".  At this time, Jesus explains the parable and the Pharisees get mad because they know Jesus was talking about them.

Although the agreed with the principle of the parable, they still do not want to change.  In fact, they plan to fulfill the parable by killing the owner's son.

It is also interesting that many of Jesus parables involve vineyards.  This continues the theme of wine in Jesus' ministry - the first miracle and eventually communion wine.

The parable of the two sons (Matthew 21:28-32)

Jesus asks the Pharisees about a parable.  In the parable, there are two sons of the same father.  One refuses to work his father's vineyard, but later changes his mind and does it.  The other son agrees to work the vineyard, but then does nothing.

The Pharisees agree that the first son did what the father wanted.

Jesus then uses this an example to contrast the tax collectors with the Pharisees.  On prior occasions, Jesus did not interpret the parables with those other than his disciples.  Here, Jesus does, but after they had agreed on the principle of the parable.

The parable is another expression of grace.  It is more important to God that we turn around if we are in the wrong, as opposed to acknowledging God, but then doing nothing about it.

The king's minas coins (Luke 19:11-27)

Right after the discussion about Zacchaeus, the text states that the crowd believes that the Kingdom of God "will appear at once".  Many seem to believe that Jesus is a Messiah, but that the Kingdom of God to be a political upheaval rather than something internal to the hearts of people.  

In actuality, if one considers the growth of Christianity over the centuries, including the conversion of Constantine, then the Kingdom of God has had powerful political ramifications.

Jesus tells them a parable.  In the parable, a man of noble birth goes to a distant land to be made king.  He gives money to servants to manage his affairs while he is gone, specifically ten minas coins each to three different servants with the instruction to put the money to work.

He also has enemies who send a delegation that protests the coronation.

The man is made king and returns.  One servant invested the ten coins and made ten more coins.  Another servant's investment produced five coins.  The last servant hid the coins and it did not produce any return on investment.  

The king gave ten and five cities to the first two servants, respectively.  But he chastised the last servant for disobeying him and not even putting it in a bank to earn interest.

Finally, the enemies who protested the coronation are ordered to be killed.

The traditional interpretation is that God has given us all talents and resources.  God wants us to put them all to use.  Some investments we choose will produce different amounts of return.  But the thing that made the king angry is hiding our talents and doing nothing at all.

Likewise, in no example is a servant who lost the investment.  Rather, each had a return on investment and it was only the one who did nothing that made God angry.

Finally, the mentioning of the enemies that protest the coronation is interesting.  Putting it all together, Jesus seems to be saying:  I have a kingdom.  Those servants who make investments for it will be rewarded regardless of how big or small the pay out is.  Those who oppose me will be punished.

The workers in the vineyard (Matthew 19:27-20:16)

After the rich man and the eye of the needle, Peter states that they have left everything to follow Jesus.  They did what the rich man could not do, although they were not hindered by the wealth and possessions that the rich man was.

Jesus explains that they will be rewarded for their efforts, including inheriting eternal life.

Jesus then discusses a parable in which a vineyard owner pays workers the same amount of money regardless of how long they worked in the field.  At the end of the parable, Jesus states that it was the vineyard's prerogative of what to allocate to each.  After the parable, Jesus states that many who are first will be last and the last will be first.

I think the parable means that there a different things that everyone gives up as they become part of Christ.  This may be differing amounts of money or various relationships (family conflict).  The cost is different for each person, but the reward is the same, grace and fellowship with God.

The Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:9-14)

Jesus tells another parable about a Pharisee and a tax collector.  The Pharisee thanked God for letting him not be like even worse sinners.  In contrast, the tax collector asked for forgiveness.  Jesus stated that those who humble themselves before God will stand righteous.

This is a good follow-on parable to the one about the people who choose their own seats at the banquet.  I think it goes to the similar point, in that God glorifies those who are humble.

The persistent widow (Luke 18:1-8)

Jesus tells a parable about how an unrighteous will eventually help out a persistent widow if she persists enough.  His motive is to prevent her from annoying him further.

God is like that in the sense he will help those who ask, but without the delay.

Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19-31)

Jesus seems to be within earshot of the Pharisees when he describes another parable.

A man rich had a gate where a beggar lay.  The beggar was named Lazarus and was very sickly with sores.  He longed to eat scraps of food from the rich man's tables.  Rather, dogs came and licked Lazarus' wounds.

The reference to dogs and table scraps reminds us of the woman in Tyre who begged Jesus to heal her daughter.  She said that even dogs get the scraps of food.  This was enough faith for Jesus to heal her daughter.

Eventually, Lazarus and the rich man die.  Lazarus goes to heaven with Abraham and the rich man goes to hell.  In hell, the rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus to hell and give some water to him.  The rich man refers to hell as fire.  Abraham says this is impossible due to a great chasm between those in heave and those in hell.

Lazarus then asks Abraham to send Lazarus to the rich man's brothers to warn them about hell.  Abraham responds that they had Moses and the Prophets and if that it is not enough, they would not be convinced if someone rises from the dead.

There is a lot here.  

I think this parable has given a lot of wood to the proverbial (and literal) fire the popular conceptions of hell.  I would be cautious about interpreting too much about the details of heaven/hell based on the parable beyond that hell sucks.  There is at least one detail that hard to apply literally, which I discuss below.

A few conclusions I would be cautious against but are part of the parable:

1.  those in hell can talk to those in heaven
2.  Abraham had the ability to send people in heaven to earth (it is implied, but not demonstrated)

Rather, the conclusion of the parable emphasizes to the role that Moses and the prophets played with regard to the Jewish people.  They were not convinced that the essence of both was that God wanted people to treat each other better than to allow beggars at the gate of his home with dogs licking the man's sores.  This man is in need, but the rich man is on record of doing nothing.  

Further, the reference to the death of Lazarus obviously brings to mind the death and literal resurrection of Lazarus.  It is so strongly highlighted that one wonders which came first - this parable or the rising of Lazarus.  

This brings to mind a crucial detail in the parable that we know is false if applied literally.  In the parable, Abraham is reluctant to send Lazarus back from the dead.  The parable concludes before the decision was made.  In real life, Lazarus did return from the dead.  However, the parable's point was that the people would not be convinced because Lazarus returned from the dead.  This describes the situation surrounding the rising of Lazarus because it was then that Jewish authorities in Jerusalem started plotting to kill Jesus in the next Passover.

The shrewd manager (Luke 16:1-14)

Jesus tells a parable about a man who manages the finances of a rich man.  The manager is about to lose his job, so he decides to cut deals with the people who owe the master.  The manager changes the debts and "cooks the books" and reducing the debt of those who the master.  In essence, he is giving the master's property away to his friends.

Again,  this is a parable and should not be interpreted literally.  Jesus is not endorsing embezzlement.

Rather, the explanation that Jesus provides is that people should use worldly wealthy to win friends.  Jesus then explains that no one can serve two masters, either God or money.

Putting it all together, Jesus is saying that worldly wealth should be given away.  Further, giving away money shows service to God.  All the worldly wealth we will ever have is actually on loan to us from God.  What does God want us to do?  Give it away to win friends.

The Pharisees hate this teaching because they loved money.

Lost and found parables - sheep, coins, and Prodigal Son (Luke 15)

Jesus is hanging out with tax collectors and sinners again when the Pharisees and legal experts complain that Jesus welcomes sinners.

Jesus then provides three parables.  Each of which outline God's perspective of losing a loved one and then finding him or her again.

First, the parable of a shepherd with 100 sheep.  He leaves the 99 behind to find the lost one and rejoices when it is found.  Jesus states that there is more rejoicing in heaven for the one sinner who repents than the 99 who do not need to repent.

Second, the parable of a woman with 10 silver coins.  The marginalia of the NIV states that each coin was worth a day's wage She loses one and searches for it.  She finds it and calls her friends over to share in her excitement.  In the same way, the angels rejoice when a sinner repents.  

This actually is interesting.  The value of the coins was not all that much.  I doubt many people find enough value in a day's wage to call over friends should be they lose and then recover a day's wage.  Rather, a day's wage is quite ordinary and mundane to us.  We might not consider it all that valuable.  

But the contrast is that in heaven, the angels think view the soul of the sinner as valuable.  We might consider the winner to not be that high of value, but to the angels and ultimately to God, they are quite valuable.

Finally, the probable of the Prodigal Son.  A rich man has two sons.  One of whom asks for his inheritance early (which is very rude, even by today's standards) and then completely squanders it.  He is eating broken down and hungry and decides to return to the father.  The father sees him far off, runs to embrace him, and has a big party.

Meanwhile, the other son is resentful.  He has worked and served the father all his life never had any party.

This last parable parallels the exact situation in which Jesus was in while describing the same parable.  The was surrounded by sinners and in his heart was rejoicing that they were turning to him.  Meanwhile, the Pharisees and legal experts who looked down at the sinners were the resentful son in the parable. 

The parable also stands for the contrast of free will and grace versus being a slave to the law.  The Pharisee/ resentful son was a slave to expectations and duty.  He followed accordingly, but the fruit was resentment.  Meanwhile, the returning son had made a number of choices, both good and bad.  He lived under choice, but the freedom to choose the father or not to be with the father.  He choose to not be with the father and the father willingly accepted this, even enabling it with the early inheritance.  

But the fruit of that decision was terrible.  When he eventually realized it, he choose to go back to the father.  The father met him with love, grace, rejoicing, and a big party.

Jesus the dinner guest (Luke 14:1-23)

Jesus eats at the home of a prominent Pharisee.  Jesus actually might seem to be a little rude as a guest, but Jesus is being carefully watched by the Pharisees.  Things might already be a bit tense.

First, the heals someone at the banquet and it just so happens to be a Sabbath day.  He asks the other dinner guests if they would help their ox in trouble on the Sabbath, then he heals the man.

He also sees the dinner guests selecting their own seats.  He gives them a parable about letting others selecting their own seats at a banquet and the importance of humility.  On one hand, it is wise advice.  It is best to wait a bit at a big banquet to see where it might be appropriate to sit.  But it is a parable, so Jesus is probably speaking about something on a spiritual level.  This seems to be a general concern about exalting oneself before others and the importance of humility.  

Jesus further states that at banquets, one should not invite their friends, but rather the crippled, lame, and poor.  This is because the friends can pay the person back by having a banquet, whereas the poor cannot.  Again, this is another parable, so Jesus is talking about things on a spiritual level.  It totally is fine to invite one's friends to banquets, for after all, Jesus attended banquets and ate with this friends.  But it means more to God that we do things for other people who cannot repay us by inviting us to a party or at least without the expectation of repayment.  This is the true heart of the servant.

In some ways, it also parallels the banquet of the Kingdom of God that Jesus is hosting.  Jesus extends an invitation to us - the spiritual crippled, lame, and poor - who cannot repay Jesus.

Jesus tells a final parable in which a man has a banquet, but all the invited dinner guests decline.  So, the man invites the poor, crippled, and lame to fill up the banquet and seems to revoke the invitation of the original invitees.  

There probably are a number of applications of this, but for me, it reminds of me trying to throw a party for friends and they blow you off.  I have done the same, whether because it was inconvenient to go there, had prior commitments, or may have felt socially inappropriate to go.  There are legitimate reasons.  

But in the parable, it does not seem like there are appropriate reasons to decline the invitation to dine with God.  What also comes across is God's disappointment and hurt feelings that people declined the invitation.

Going back to the setting of the parable, this is also a very literal application to the banquet that Jesus was eating.  Granted, he did not arrange the banquet, but a Pharisee did take the effort to invite Jesus to dine with him among his friends.  How many other Pharisees liked Jesus enough to invite him to dine with him?  The record is silent and this comes across as an isolated occasion.

The Narrow Door (Luke 13:22-38)

Jesus is going through the villages and is asked by someone, "Lord, will only a few people be saved?"

The use of the word "Lord" suggests the questioner is a disciple of Christ.  

Jesus responds to "them", meaning a crowd in the villages that they should make every effort to through the narrow door.  Further, many will try to enter, but would be unable to.  Eventually, the door will close and owner of the house will say "away with you, you evildoers" and there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.  The people outside will then see other people from the north, south, east, and west eat with the patriarchs and the prophets in the Kingdom of God.

Let's unpack this.  Here is what I see.

1.  This supports the idea that not entering in faith will result in banishment from God.  

2.  Banishment from God will result in weeping and gnashing of teeth.

3.  The question seems to imply salvation in the afterlife, but the answer given does not necessarily mean this refers to the afterlife.  The scope of the answer includes the afterlife (seeing the patriarchs and prophets), but is not necessarily limited to it.

4.  Jesus never actually directly answers the question.  The question was about numbers - how many will be saved?  Jesus' answer is basically - "it is up to you".  Jesus implies that the numbers saved will be large by referring to people coming from the "north, south, east, and west".

5.  The response also functions to predict the Gospel going to the Gentiles.  People will come from the north, south, east, and west to eat with the patriarchs and the prophets.  That means that other, non-Jewish people, will be given a chance to enter the kingdom of God.

6.  Likewise, the answer somewhat predicts the rejection of the Gospel by the Jews and in turn, God's rejection of them.  Jesus is speaking to Jews and tells them to enter the narrow door.  However, many [of these Jews] will not be able to.  Then, these Jews will be outside while non-Jews get to go in.  If we take this literal level, then the "weeping and gnashing of teeth" could also refer to the upcoming destruction of Jerusalem and near annihilation of the Jews by the Romans during the Jewish revolt (67-73 AD).

I am the Shepherd (John 10:1-21)

After healing the blind man, Jesus gives the Jews a parable.  A shepherd's flock knows the shepherd, does not know the robbers and thieves that came to rob.  The shepherd enters peacefully through the gate while the robbers do not.  The sheep respond to the shepherd, but not the robbers and thieves.

On a literal level, this is another straightforward and obvious story in similar fashion to the one about the farmer.  Here though, Jesus explains the parable to the crowd because they did not understand what he was talking about.  He explained he, Jesus, was the shepherd and that his flock knows his voice.  He also explains about how wolves try to scatter the flock and there are other sheep, but there is only one flock.

At this, the Jews are divided.  Some think Jesus is demon-possessed while others find credibility in that he healed the blind.

The Good Samaritan (Luke 25:10-37)

This is another very famous passage in the Gospels.  It has entered our culture under the "Good Samaritan Laws", protecting from tort liability anyone who provides medical treatment to someone found unconscious and unable to consent or ask for help.

The parable actually is a longwinded answer to a question - "who is my neighbor?"

 An expert in the law asked Jesus what must one do to inherit eternal life?  According to the text, this man was trying to test Jesus.  A test is not necessarily a trap.  The Pharisees try to trap Jesus.  This is a perplexing question.

Jesus responds by asking the same individual what does the law say.  He responds that one should love God with all that you have (heart, strength, soul, and mind) and to love your neighbor as yourself.  Note, the second half of this is the "Golden Rule".

Interestingly, Jesus says this is correct if he does this, he will live.  This is not exactly laying down a works-based faith in which works inherit and enable eternal life.  For if one loves the God with all that one has, this will lead to embracing Christ and righteousness.  

The man then asks "who is my neighbor?". In other words, to whom do I have to be nice?  

Jesus tells a parable in which a man is beaten, robbed, and left for dead.  A priest and Levite pass by and cross the road to avoid him.  According to Jewish law, they actually arguably did the right thing.  If this man was dead, they did the right thing because if his man is dead, they should not come in contact with a dead body and they would be unclean.

A Samaritan finds this man and takes him to an inn.  He gives the innkeeper money to care for the man for all that he needs.  

Jesus then asks, who is the neighbor?  The expert replies that it is the Samaritan.

By answering with a parable and then asking who is the neighbor, Jesus turned it around and got the expert in the law who was testing Jesus to state that the law has its problems and pitfalls.  Otherwise, the Levite and priest did the right thing, but it was the Samaritan who was actually being the neighbor and hence, was following the purpose of the law.

Various other teachings (Matthew 18:10-35)

Jesus uses the occasion to explain a few other things.

The parable lost sheep

God is like a shepherd who leaves the herd of sheep to find the one that is lost.  God is also happier about finding the one that is lost than about the herd that did not get lost.

This is kind of similar to the story of the prodigal son, but uses the sheep-shepherd analogy instead of the father-son.

The context within the chapter as a whole discusses how people are to relate to one another, particularly children (look after these little ones).  This underscores a social responsibility of Christians to look after each other.


Conflict resolution

Jesus says that if someone sins, go to the person privately at first.  If that does not work, go with two or three others.  If that does not work, bring the matter to the church.  If that fails, treat the person "as you would a pagan or tax collector".  

If we follow Jesus example of eating with tax collectors, the "last resort" option is still not ostracization or banishment from the community.  Rather, it still involves communal fellowship, but with different expectations.

This actually is an interesting contrast to a super-literal interpretation of "turning the other cheek".  Here, Jesus says it is OK for conflicts to exist, but provides a road map for their resolution.

Forgiveness

Simon Peter asks Jesus how many times one should forgive a brother.  Simon Peter suggests seven.  Jesus says no, but rather seven times seventy.  This should not mean a literal limit of 490 times and no more, but effectively unlimited grace and forgiveness.

Jesus then explains a parable in which a man is forgiven a very large debt by the king, but then treats another person very harshly who cannot pay a smaller debt.  

We have all been wronged and we have all been wronged.  There are probably several interpretations to this parable, but it stands to remind me that the wrongs ("debts") I have done to others and the others are a fraction of debt that has been by Jesus on my behalf.  Thus, to treat others with contempt for wrongs and hold grudges actually dishonors the debt Jesus paid.  

More parables (Matthew, Mark, Luke)

After the farmer parable, Jesus had several other parables for them.

The lamp on a stand (Mark 4:21-25; Luke 8:16-18)

Jesus states that no one hides the a lamp, but rather places on it on a stand.  Jesus provides a quasi-interpretation in that whatever is concealed is meant to be exposed and brought out into the light.  

There probably are a lot of different interpretations of this.  One possible interpretation is to follow the use of "lamps" and "lamp stands" as used elsewhere.  In Revelations, seven "lamps" represent seven churches.  Following this analogy, this could mean that the churches, or the message of the churches, may have once been hidden, but is destined to be on full display.

Jesus further tells other parables employing the farmer analogy.

The growing seed (Mark 4:26-29)

After planting, the seed the farmer has sown grows day and night until the harvest.  This seems like it could just mean that the Kingdom of God has an unexplainable organic growth to it.

Interestingly, Jesus points out the farmer does not how the plant grows.  (v. 27).  On one hand, Jesus might be slightly stepping out of the shoes of the farmer in this parable for story-telling purposes.  Hence, maybe we should not read too much into this statement.  

On the other extreme and perhaps in alignment with a free-will theology, there might be details of the growth of the Kingdom of God that even Jesus cannot predict. 

Regardless, it seems to be a stand alone statement, but it is interesting since it comes among all these parables about farming and the Kingdom of God is identified with the plants.  But likewise, the details of the parables generally have significance.

The weeds among the harvest (Matthew 13:24-30; 36:43) and The net of fish (Matthew 13:47-50)

Jesus states the Kingdom of God is like the farmer who sows the seeds, but an enemy comes and plants weeds among the good crop.  As a result, the weeds and good crop grow together.  The farmer declines pulling out the weeds to prevent damage to the good crop.

Later, Jesus disciples ask Jesus about this parable after Jesus left the crowd.  It is interesting that this is the one with the recorded explanation.  In contrast, Mark 4:34 states that Jesus explained all these parables.  

Jesus explains that the sower is again the Son of Man.  The enemy is the devil, the weeds are the devil's children, the harvesters are the angels, and the harvest is the end of the age.  At the end of the age, the harvesters will take out all the weeds, meaning those that are evil and everything that causes evil.  These will be thrown into a fiery pit while the good crop will remain with God.

Later in the chapter when he is alone with the disciples, Jesus brings up a similar parable about a net of fish.  The net catches all kinds of fish and the fisherman separates the good fish from the bad.  

Several things come to mind:

1.  Jesus has changed the "harvester" due to the nature of the analogy.  Compare the time with the Samaritan woman at the well, the "harvester" was a human being spreading the Gospel ("Harvest is full and the workers are few").  Here, "harvester" is angels.  The difference explainable by the temporal difference - the end of the age (angel harvesters) versus this present age (humans are needed to spread the Gospel).

2.  It is for the benefit of the good crop that the weeds are not pulled out now.  This is sort of mind-blowing.  I will wait to explain a bit more until we get to the parable of the prodigal son, as I think both parables carry the same meaning.

3.  Jesus does not explain this hell-theology until he is with the disciples.  This may have been a happy accident that the disciples asked him about it after the crowd has left.  But, it is consistent with Jesus' pattern not to discuss hell except with his disciples and/or Pharisees.

The mustard seed and the yeast (Matthew 13:31-35; Mark 4:30-34)

Before explaining about the weeds, Jesus said two parables:

1.  The Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed, which starts out small but grows so big that it provides shade for birds.

2.  The Kingdom of God is like a bit of yeast that is sprinkled into an entire patch of dough.

Both parables are listed back to back in Matthew 13 and seem to carry the same message that the Kingdom of God is starting small but will grow to encompass the world.  Here, one man speaks with a group followers.  The group of followers will spread the message to others who will carry it further and so on.

A few other things come to mind.  First, the mustard plant also alludes to the Jonah story as Jonah took shade under a plant.  Second, the dough continues with the harvest-crop-theme since the dough for bread is made of harvested wheat.  

Third, in the Old Testament, leavening and yeast symbolizes sin.  In the lead up to Passover, the Israelites had to remove the leavened bread from their homes.  However, yeast and leavening gives bread its flavor.  If you ever tried Matzo bread, you will understand why it is less popular than normal bread.  In some ways, this parable flips the analogy from the Old Testament association of yeast as it could also be understood that the Kingdom of God will provide flavor to the world.

The treasure and pearl (Matthew 13:44-46)

Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is like where a man finds a treasure in the field, then sells everything to buy the field to own the treasure.  Similarly, the Kingdom of God is like a man who collects pearls, finds a great pearl, and sells everything to buy the pearl.

I think the common interpretation is one of priorities.  One should prioritize the Kingdom of God over all else.  This is not to say that one sell all of one's possessions to enter the Kingdom of God, but rather it should be more important than one's material possessions.

The storeroom of treasures (Matthew 13:51-52)

Jesus asks his disciples if they understand everything he has said.  They reply yes.  Jesus then states that therefore the teachers of the law that understand the Kingdom of Heaven is like a man who opens the storeroom in his house and brings out old and new treasures.

This seems to the final parable of the day before they leave on the boat and Jesus takes a nap.  On one hand, this parable ties back to the very first parable of the day - the strongman in the home.  In contrast to a whom with a strongman (demon), a person in the Kingdom of God has treasures within this heart that the enemy cannot steal.  They are on full display and without fear of being robbed.  

 As for the old and new treasures, I think it means that of those within the Kingdom of God, there will be a continual onset of "treasures".  In other words, the relationship with God has its own continuing rewards with increasing value (new treasures).

The parable of the sower (Matthew 13:1-23; Mark 4:1-20; Luke 8:4-15)

The same day as the "Beelzebub" incident, Jesus went to the lake and sat there alone.  

Large crowds soon started forming around him.  He taught the crowds, but soon the crowd got so big that got into a boat and taught the crowd on shore.  Speaking across water is a natural way to amplify one's voice. 

It sounds like Jesus spent a lot of time with these crowds at this time, but the Bible only records one message.  Perhaps he said this message repeatedly.  Perhaps he discussed the events that happened earlier that day.  

He tells a parable about a farmer.  The farmer takes his crop seed and scatters it onto various soil conditions:

- along the path, where it is eaten by birds,

- on rocky shallow soil, where it grows quickly, but is scorched by the sun

- among thorny plants, which choke the plant that farmer has sown

- on good soil, where it produced a crop of 30, 60, or 100 times

This is a farming parable told to parables.  On a literal level, this is completely common sense, even among people who have no background in farming.  Everyone knows that seeds need good soil to produce plants.

The crowd leaves and Jesus is alone.  I imagine there were probably a lot of disappointed farmers in the crowd who came to hear something more meaningful from this guy Jesus than an obvious teaching about farming.  

A handful of people stick around and ask Jesus what did he mean by this.  Jesus responds that to them, they have been given the secret of the Kingdom of God and that he talks in parables so people will not understand.

Jesus then explains what the parable meant.  The farmer sows the word of God.  The various soil conditions are the people's response to it.  The bird represents Satan, who snatches the word before it can even grow a root.  The sun represents hardships in life that kill the seedling faith.  The thorns are the various distractions in this life that choke away the crop.  Finally, the good soil can exponentially multiply the crop of the original seed.

Putting it all together, the farmer has sown the seed and the people asking Jesus have been given the "secret" and later are given the interpretation, this means that the "secret" is to ask Jesus for the interpretation.  The classic interpretation of the parable is that the "secret" is no secret at all, at least not anymore, but rather a relationship with Jesus is the secret of the Kingdom of God.

So, based on that, we can look back at the story.  Jesus was the farmer sowing the seed, i.e. speaking from the boat.  He spoke to the crowd, which had various soil conditions.  The seed was immediately snatched by Satan and people were disappointed by the obvious message and left in disappointment.  Other seeds may have been choked as people were distracted by their own life and did not stick around to ask Jesus what this meant.  Still, the seed found good soil and people stuck around to ask Jesus what it meant.

One last thing about the farmer, the farmer spreads the seed to every soil, good or bad.  The farmer full well knows what will happen to the seed on the bad soil, but the farmer spreads it anyway.