24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field;
25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way.
26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared.
27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’
28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’
29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”
The parable is explained in Matthew 13:36-43.
The explanation is given to the disciples alone (v.36), which makes it clear that the parable itself, along with the next two (the mustard seed and the leaven) were given to the crowd.
The method so far as the foe is concerned marks his wiliness, his cowardliness, his dastardly determination to harm. He was a trespasser, full of subtlety, animated by malice. There was no other motive in his action. He could gain nothing by sowing another’s field with darnel, for it is not a saleable produce, and no profit can be made out of its growth. It is as worthless to the man who sows it as to the owner of the field. This sowing, then, was the result of pure malice. — Morgan, page 151.
__________
According to the common view, these tares represent what is botanically known as the “bearded darnel” (lolium temulentum), a poisonous rye-grass, very common in the East, entirely like wheat until the ear appears, or else (according to some), the “creeping wheat” or “couch-grass” (triticum repens), of which the roots creep underground and become intertwined with those of the wheat. But the parable gains in meaning if we bear in mind that, according to ancient Jewish (and indeed, modern Eastern) ideas, the tares were not of different seed, but only a degenerate kind of wheat. Whether in legend or symbol, Rabbinism has it that even the ground had been guilty of fornication before the judgment of the Flood, so that when wheat was sown tares sprang up. The Jewish hearers of Jesus would, therefore, think of these tares as degenerate kind of wheat, originally sprung at the time of the Flood, through the corruptness of the earth, but now, alas! so common in their fields; wholly indistinguishable from the wheat, till the fruit appeared: noxious, poisonous, and requiring to be separated from the wheat, if the latter was not to become useless. — Pentecost, page 216.
18 “Therefore hear the parable of the sower:
19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it,then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside.
20 But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy;
21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles.
22 Now he who received seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful.
23 But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.”
does not understand it (v.19) — rejects it by choice — it was sown in his heart, but he would not receive it
stony places (v.20) — those who put on the form of godliness but with no power
Thus we see in these three classes, in which the seed perishes and brings no fruit, the Devil, the Flesh and the World represented. The Devil snatches up and devours, the Flesh attempts and fails, the World surrounds and chokes. — Gaebelein, page 273
My commentaries were of no further help. What follows is my take on this parable.
The Lord was talking to a Jewish audience. He explained His teaching to His Jewish disciples who will one day sit on the thrones over the 12 tribes in the Millennium. He was talking about that Millennium, just as He had been since He began His ministry by declaring that the Kingdom was at hand because the King was at hand.
The seeds that fell in the wayside and are eaten by birds (the Devil) are like the Pharisees, who would have no part of the Lord’s message and of whom He said, “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do (John 8:44).
The seeds that fell on stony ground are like the Jews who were impressed by the Lord’s miracles but fell away when He didn’t behave the way they wanted a King to behave. From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more (John 6:66).
The seeds that fell among the thorns are like the rich young ruler who wouldn’t forsake the things of the world to follow the Lord. Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions (Matthew 19:21-22).
The seeds that fell on good ground are those who accepted Him as Messiah and continued to believe even when He went to the cross (although many of them had doubts).
The Lord knew that many in that generation would not accept His message and trust Him, and He was preparing His disciples for that fact. They still didn’t understand about His coming death and resurrection or that the Kingdom would be postponed.
10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”
11 He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.
12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.
13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: ‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, and seeing you will see and not perceive;
15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them.’
16 But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear;
17 for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.
seeing they do not see (v.13) — they did not wish to see — or hear or understand
The quote (v.14) is from Isaiah 6:9-10 in the Septuagint.
dull (v.15) = fat
The people, notwithstanding His ministry, had rejected Him up to this time, and therefore He could not give to them, nor could they have received, the mysteries of the Kingdom. To the men who had crowned Him, He belonged; and all the principles and privileges of the Kingdom they were able to appreciate and possess. The others had so far refused their allegiance and were therefore unable to see, or enter into, the Kingdom.
If we go further back for a moment, we may state the case thus. All these men among whom the ministry of Jesus had been exercised had preliminary knowledge of the ways of God as a result of the religion in which they had been born and trained. In fulfillment of the messages of their own Scriptures He had come. Certain of them had received Him, others of them had rejected Him. To those receiving Him were given the mysteries of the Kingdom. to those rejecting Him these messages could not be given, and they were in danger of losing the real value of all that they had gained through their early religious training. — Morgan, page 141.
__________
It was never God’s desire to harden anyone’s heart or to close anyone’s eyes against the truth, but it is a principle that runs throughout the word of God that the truth either softens or hardens. The very same sun that softens the wax hardens the clay; and so the very same gospel message which breaks down honest hearts and leads to repentance, hardens the hearts of the dishonest and confirms them in their path of disobedience. — Ironside, page 163.
The unbelievers could not grasp the new revelation about the kingdom because they would not grasp the revelation already given.
Most of my commentaries claim the kingdom the Lord was teaching about here is the current age, between His resurrection and His second coming. This is demonstrably wrong for several reasons. I’ll mention two.
First, verse 17 says that the prophets desired to see what the apostles were seeing. Since the prophets hadn’t known anything about the current age (as evidenced by the misunderstanding nearly everyone had about the Messiah’s suffering), they couldn’t have desired to know more. Their desire must have been related to some truth that was revealed to them in some degree — namely, the Millennial Kingdom.
Second, while John the Baptist and the Lord preached that the Kingdom was at hand — or close — because the Messiah was at hand, they never said it was here. Again, this is because of the misunderstanding about the necessity of the Messiah to suffer and die. It was only after that death occurred that the Kingdom could be — and was — offered, in Acts 2. So, it makes no sense that Christ would have moved on to teaching about what is to take place after the Jews rejected the Kingdom before the Kingdom was even offered and when their final rejection hadn’t yet occurred.
The mystery of the current age, during which the Kingdom would be delayed, was still a mystery—until the truth was given to Paul after the Jew’s final rejection of the Messiah when Steven was put to death.
1 On the same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the sea.
2 And great multitudes were gathered together to Him, so that He got into a boat and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore.
3 Then He spoke many things to them in parables, saying:“Behold, a sower went out to sow.
4 And as he sowed, some seed fell by the wayside; and the birds came and devoured them.
5 Some fell on stony places, where they did not have much earth; and they immediately sprang up because they had no depth of earth.
6 But when the sun was up they were scorched, and because they had no root they withered away.
7 And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up and choked them.
8 But others fell on good ground and yielded a crop: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
9 He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”
On this day, Jesus gave several parables — seven in Matthew and four, including one not mentioned in Matthew, in Mark. The total number of parables in Scripture is generally considered to be 34.
seaside (v.1) — Sea of Galilee
Subsequent verses in this chapter explain why the Lord began speaking in parables and what the parable in this chapter means, so I’ll leave those issues until then.
Literally, [a parable] is a throwing or placing of things side by side, with the suggestion of comparison. Something is placed by the side of something else, with the intention of explaining the one by the other.
Invariably in the teaching of Jesus a parable was a picture of things seen, intended to revel and explain things unseen, and a rapid glance over this chapter will show how the King made use of the things that were most common in the experience of those amongst whom He was teaching for this purpose. — Morgan, page 140.
__________
In considering the interpretation of parables, it is important to observe the following words of Christ: “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you” (Matthew 13:11). The parables were designed to teach truth concerning the kingdom program. Again and again our Lord used the formula, “The kingdom of heaven is like” (vs. 24 et al.). Truth is always applicable to believers, and truth may be gained from a study of the parables and applied to persons living today. Yet it must be noted from the Lord’s own words that His parables were designed to convey truth concerning the kingdom program. — Pentecost, page 213.
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him.
47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?”
49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers!
50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”
brothers (v.46) — almost certainly the sons born to Mary and Joseph after the birth of Christ (Matthew 13:55).
Some commentaries (and I think it makes sense) link the arrival of Mary and the Lord’s brothers with Mark 3:21: But when His own people heard about this, they went out to lay hold of Him, for they said, “He is out of His mind.” His family probably came to stop Him from speaking and stirring up trouble with the authorities.
This is not to say that He lost His affection for His brethren, or failed in love to His mother. In the last and awful hours of His intensest suffering, He still thought of her, and with tender solicitude entrusted her to the care of John. His brethren, moreover, according to the flesh, we find eventually numbered among His disciples. But in this hour, when unable to understand Him, they sought from the motive of a true affection to hinder Him in His work. He resolutely refused to yield to their desire, and by His words revealed the fact that He counted earthly relationships as nothing compared to those spiritual relationships which were born of a common loyalty to the will of God. — Morgan, page 138.
__________
The nation Israel claimed a relationship to Messiah when He should come because of a common relationship to Abraham. But Christ rejected blood ties as constituting a true spiritual relationship. The only ones whom He would accept as being spiritually related to Him were those who were related to Him by faith. In that multitude there were those who claimed a relationship to Abraham as a basis for entrance into the kingdom. Christ said the kingdom must be entered by faith in His person, not by the accident of physical birth. In this paragraph, then, we find the conclusion to the Pharisees’ decision that Jesus Christ was demon-possessed. — Pentecost, page 210.
If Mary and her sons had no claims on Christ due to family ties, the Pharisees certainly had no claims on Him due to racial ties. In that light it makes sense that this passage appears here right at the time that Christ’s offer of the kingdom to Israel was being withdrawn until after His death and resurrection.
43 “When an unclean spirit goes out of a man, he goes through dry places, seeking rest, and finds none.
44 Then he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes, he finds it empty, swept, and put in order.
45 Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first. So shall it also be with this wicked generation.”
My commentaries pretty much take one of two views of this passage. Gaebelein is typical of those who think “this wicked generation” refers to Israel in general and that the fulfillment of the Lord’s words will occur during the Tribulation.
Generation is certainly to be understood in the sense of race. The unclean spirit is idolatry. It had left the nation, and even now the nation is swept from that evil spirit and unoccupied, and boasts of reform. It will not be so forever. The unclean spirit will return and bring seven others with him and take possession of that house again, and the last condition, the end, becomes worse than the beginning. The return of the unclean spirit with its seven companions will take place during the great tribulation. — Gaebelein, pages 256-257.
Pentecost agrees that idolatry is the issue, but thinks the Lord’s words referred to the generation of Israel that was around when the Lord was on earth. I lean toward this view, because the true Israel will be saved during the tribulation, but I’m not certain.
As compared with the other nations of the world, Israel was like a house from which the demon of idolatry had gone out with all his attendants — really the “Beel-Zibbul” whom they dreaded. And then the house had been swept of all the foulness and uncleanness of idolatry, and garnished with all manner of Pharisaic adornments. Yet all this while the house was left empty; God was not there; the Stronger One, Who alone could have resisted the Strong One, held not rule in it. And so the demon returned to it again, to find the house whence he had come out, swept and garnished indeed — but also empty and defenseless. The folly of Israel lay in this, that they thought of only one demon — him of idolatry — Beel-Zibbul, with all his foulness. That was all very repulsive, and they had carefully removed it. But they knew that demons were only manifestations of demoniac power, and that there was a kingdom of evil. So this house, swept of the foulness of heathenism and adorned with all the self-righteousness of Pharisaism, but empty of God, would only become a more suitable and more secure habitation of Satan; because, from its cleanness and beauty, his presence and rule there as an evil spirit would not be suspected. So, to continue the illustrative language of Christ, he came back “with seven other spirits more wicked than himself” — pride, self-righteousness, unbelief, and the like, the number seven being general — and thus the last state — Israel without the foulness of gross idolatry and garnished with all the adornments of Pharisaic devotion to the study and practice of the Law — was really worse than had been the first with all its open repulsiveness. — Pentecost, pages 209-210.
38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.”
39 But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
41 The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here.
42 The queen of the South will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and indeed a greater than Solomon is here.
adulterous (v.29) — unfaithful (to God)
great fish (v.40) = lit. “great sea monster” — In Jonah 1:17, the creature is referred to as a “great fish.”
Queen of the South (v.42) — Queen of Sheba (1 Kings 10)
They were not really prepared to receive a sign. If they had been, the casting out of the demons was in itself sufficient to have proved His cooperation with the Spirit of God, as He had declared. Thus when a sufficient sign had been given they had refused it by attempting to account for it in the most terrible way. Yet these men, already hardened against convincing signs, asked for one; and the asking was satirical, the asking of men who were not prepared to accept as sufficient any sign He could give, because of their personal hatred of Him. That is exactly what He meant when He declared in words of the sternest, “Ye generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” Their use of the word “Teacher” was in itself an insult, as they refused to accept Him or His teaching. — Morgan, page 133
__________
While refusing a sign He promised a sign; and thus in the presence of their malicious hostility foretold the new opportunity which would be created for them by the carrying out to completeness of His divine work in the world. His purpose was that of saving and redeeming. Therefore He refused the sign they asked, which would have had no effect; and promised them the only sign that could by any means arrest and constrain them, that namely of His own resurrection from the dead after their malice had encompassed that death. The giving of that sign would afford them a new and final opportunity.
They knew how Jonah had been a sign to Nineveh in its sin by virtue of the fact that he had appeared in the city a preacher of Jehovah, after he had been cast out to death. That is the only possible solution of the words of the King here, for in that is the only parallel between Jonah and Jesus. — Morgan, page 134
__________
Thus less enlightened people [Nineveh and the Queen of Sheba] had obeyed less enlightening preaching and teaching; and in that fact the patent condemnation of those to whom He spoke, and who were to receive His final sign was declared. — Morgan, page 135
33 “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for a tree is known by its fruit.
34 Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
35 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things.
36 But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment.
37 For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
Say that you know the tree is corrupt because its fruit is corrupt; or dare to say that the tree is good, because its fruit is good. There is in these words the touch of a great pity, of a great desire to help these men. He appealed to them not to attribute good fruit to a corrupt tree. That is what they were doing. They said that the good result, of a man freed from demon possession, was wrought by Satan. He appealed to them to be consistent; to believe on Him for the very works’ sake.
Then finally He uttered the most awe-inspiring words of all; “Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things?” The severity of that consists in His evident pity for them. It seems as if even the hopeful spirit of Christ was almost hopeless about these men. He said, How can ye speak a true thing? How can ye say the tree is good because its fruit is good? How can you tell the truth? You are the offspring of vipers; you are morally degenerate; you have lost your moral discrimination. — Morgan, page 132.
In short, Christ was pointing out the evilness of their accusation that His good miracles were done in the power of Satan.
In contrast, since they acted in the power of Satan, nothing they produced could possibly be good.
The idle words the Lord referred to were their words about Him. Their words indicated that they rejected Christ and attributed His power to Satan. For those words, they would be judged. From this point on, Christ’s words and actions demonstrate that He considered the nation of Israel to have rejected Him.
31 “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men.
32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
There are several interpretations of these verses. Some commentaries attempt to apply the passage to people today and say the sin against the Holy Spirit is not trusting Christ for salvation. Walvoord takes a view very like this:
There has been much misunderstanding about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Here it is properly defined as attributing to Satan what is accomplished by the power of God. Such a sin is not unpardonable in itself, but rather because it rejects the person and work of the Holy Spirit, without whom repentance and restoration are impossible. As far as it applies today, it is not the thought that one seeking pardon will not find it, but rather that one who rejects the Holy Spirit will not seek pardon. — Walvoord, page 89
That seems like semantic juggling to me. Gaebelien takes another view:
They had blasphemed the Spirit, spoken injuriously about Him, in saying that Beelzebub, the prince of demons, was present with Christ and not the Holy Spirit. This they did maliciously. And this and nothing else is the sin of which our Lord here speaks. The sin is to charge the Lord with doing His miracles through Satanic power and not through the Holy Spirit. We do believe, therefore, that this sin could only be committed as long as our Lord Jesus Christ was in the earth and that it was committed by the Pharisees with their blasphemies. — Gaebelein, page 250.
Morgan takes the stand that the Lord’s words weren’t a sentence, but a warning.
Pentecost takes yet another view.
Christ was warning that generation in Israel that if they rejected the Father’s testimony and the Spirit’s testimony to His person and His work, there was to be no further evidence that could be given. Their sins would stand unforgiven and result in temporal judgment on that generation. That judgment ultimately fell in A.D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed. This sin, then, was not viewed as the sin of an individual but rather as the sin of the nation, and this sin brought that whole generation under divine judgment. — Pentecost, page 207.
What I’ve heard, from Stam, I think (although I can’t put my hands on it right now) is this: The generation of Israel on the earth at that time had already rejected God the Father in the Old Testament, law period which was coming to a close. They had just rejected God the Son by attributing His miracles to Satan. They would get a chance to accept the testimony of God the Spirit — as evidenced by Christ’s miracles, but ultimately at Pentecost. If they rejected the Spirit, there was no hope left because they would have rejected the Father, the Son and the Spirit.
If this is the true meaning, the Lord’s words function as a warning along the lines of “Be careful. You just swung and missed and now have strike two against you and the next pitch is on the way.”
So, this sin could only be committed by that generation, the only one that existed during the Old Testament law period, the period of Christ’s ministry on earth, and the Holy Spirit’s ministry at Pentecost.
22 Then one was brought to Him who was demon-possessed, blind and mute; and He healed him, so that the blind and mute man both spoke and saw.
23 And all the multitudes were amazed and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”
24 Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, “This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons.”
25 But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.
26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?
27 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges.
28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you.
29 Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.
30 He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.
Is not this … ? (v.23) — Their question was phrased to expect a negative reply.
Son of David (v.23) — They knew of the promised Messiah by this title.
The people were beginning to wonder if Jesus was who He said He was (v.23). The Pharisees (most likely) responded as they did because of fear that they were losing their influence (v.24).
The question arose not because of insufficient evidence but rather because the Pharisees had rejected Christ. Having been taught that they were sheep who should follow the shepherds, they could not conceive of accepting Christ apart from the approval of the Pharisees. Therefore, a conflict arose in their minds over the evidence that Christ presented and the response of the Pharisees to that evidence. They professed a willingness to accept Christ if the Pharisees approved but felt they must reject Him since the Pharisees disapproved. The Pharisees quickly presented their explanation of the miracle that had so convinced the multitude. “It is only by Beelzubub …” — Pentecost, page 205.
Beelzebub (v.24) — see notes on Matthew 10:25
Jesus knew their thoughts (v.25) — This had to be disconcerting.
Jesus revealed in His answer, first, the folly of their suggestion; secondly, the inconsistency thereof; thirdly, the willful rebellion that induced it; fourthly, the blindness which caused it; and, finally, their complicity with Satan as the secret of it. So that commencing by denying His own complicity with Satan logically, and in such a way that they could not reply, He ended by inferentially charging upon them complicity with Satan. — Morgan, page 129.
your sons (v.27) — Jewish exorcists? (Acts 19:13)
Some in Israel could cast out demons, and Israel deemed them to be God’s gifts to the nation. Even the Pharisees acknowledged this manifestation of God’s power and thanked Him for the gift of the exorcists. Christ’s argument was that since the Pharisees recognized the ability to drive out demons as coming from God, they should not charge Him with being demon-possessed when He drove out demons. The implication of Christ’s words was that if He cast out demons by Satan’s power, He could not be offering the prophesied kingdom of God to them. “But,” He said, “If I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” Since Christ did cast out demons by God’s power, it must be concluded that His offer of the kingdom was genuine and He was its bonafide King. — Pentecost, page 206
has come upon you (v.28) = lit. “has come upon you unawares”
The strong man (v.29) is Satan, but the Lord, stronger than Satan, had bound him and has the power to enter his domain and take away his prey. When then is He who bound the enemy? Perhaps His voice rested here. Perhaps He waited for an answer. “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God” would have been in order here.
And stronger still He speaks. “He that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathers not with Me scatters.” He demands decision. Half-heartedness does not satisfy Him and in face of such open-faced accusations and blasphemies would be impossible. it was an appeal to decide. — Gaebelein, page 248.
