The Sower and the Soils (13:1-23)
The Sower and the Soils (13:1-23)
Cf. Mk 4:1-20; Lk 8:4-15; Jn 9:39; 12:37-40; Acts 28:25-27. That Matthew's central discourse section (13:1-52) contains seven or eight parables depicting the present character of the kingdom until the end is no coincidence. Matthew arranges his work strategically: his final discourse section contains a roughly equal number of end-time kingdom parables (24:32-25:46; Jeremias 1972: 93). As in Mark, Jesus' parables of the kingdom's present state explain why Jesus' kingdom comes first in a hidden way and why Israel's leaders reject Jesus (cf. F. F. Bruce 1972a: 69; Gerhardsson 1972: 36; Ladd 1963a). They dramatically reinforce that Jesus' first coming was coercive neither militarily nor intellectually (11:25-27); he came as the meek burden-bearer (11:28-30), and only the meek could recognize and follow him (11:25, 28).
That the parables in Matthew address his people's acceptance or rejection of the kingdom message follows from the context in Matthew's narrative: Jesus speaks parables "that same day" that he has confronted Pharisaic opposition (12:24-45) and offered a culturally offensive statement about his family (12:46-50). The parables section closes immediately with an account of Jesus' rejection by his hometown (13:53-58), so that rejection by "one's own" frames his kingdom parables (cf. 12:46-50; 10:21, 34-37). This likewise implies that true disciples — those who follow the kingdom message — must be prepared to pay the ultimate price for doing so (13:20-22, 44-46).1
What is a parable? The Greek term for "parable" roughly translates the Hebrew mashal in biblical Greek (cf. also 1 Enoch 1:2-3); the Septuagint translates mashal in different ways, but as parabolē in 1 Kings 5:12; Ezekiel 17:2; and Psalm 78:2 (Stern 1991: 290n.l0). The mashal includes a variety of types of discourse, including stories (e.g., Ezek 24:2-5; cf. fable in Judg 9:7-15), proverbs (e.g., 1 Sam 24:13), taunt-songs (Is 14:4), and riddles (Ezek 17:2; Jos. Ant. 8.148-49; cf. Jesus' questions, e.g., in Mt 21:24, 31).2 Jewish hearers were thus accustomed to a variety of parables. But in rabbinic literature, the mashal specifically includes the kind of story parables told by Jesus (e.g., 21:33; 22:1; 24:32) and later rabbis (Stern 1991: 9-10; cf. Scott 1989: 7-11). This suggests that between the Septuagint and the time of the rabbis, a parable like those Jesus told would already be recognized as a mashal (as attested later by the rabbis), which would naturally be rendered into Greek as parabolē(as attested by the LXX).3
Although Jesus may use "parables" in something related to the Aristotelian sense of analogies (cf. Sider 1981; Quint. 5.11.1), the source of his storytelling style is plainly not Greek.4 When one compares Jesus' parables with many other preachers' illustrations from the Roman period, the frequent illustrations of Paul and Greco-Roman philosophers provide only a relatively distant comparison (cf. Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.34.45; 4.49.62; Johnston 1977a: 226).5 To be sure, rhetoricians also regularly employed metaphor (Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.45) and allegory (Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.46), and various writers used riddles (e.g., Virg. Ecl. 3.104-7). More relevantly, Greeks borrowed the ancient Near Eastern form of story parables called fables (which are attested in the Sumerian period; see Perry 1965: xxviii-xxxiv; Babrius 2.intro. 1-6). Hesiod used animal fables as riddles too obvious to require explanation (W.D. 202-11). Aesop's fables were known as early as Aristophanes in the late fifth century B.C. (Birds 651-53) and circulated in prose collections before the first century A.D. (e.g., Babrius prol. 15-19), and some speakers employed them to communicate morals in public rhetoric (e.g., Aul. Gel. 2.29.1). Yet the Greeks typically called these stories "fables," not parables (Theon Progymn. 3).
Most importantly, our closest parallels to Jesus' parables in form and substance are Jewish, and story parables are a largely Jewish phenomenon (Young 1989: 1). Parables appear in the biblical prophets (2 Sam 12:1-7; Is 5:1-7; Hill 1979: 58-59), in some apocalyptic literature (e.g., 1 Enoch 1:2-3; 37-71; cf. Herm. Sim. 3.1-10; Hammershaimb 1975; Witherington 1990: 243), and in other Jewish texts (e.g., Test. Job 18:7-8) but were especially common property of the sages (Sir 1:24; 3:29; 20:20; 39:2; 47:17; cf. Sir 18:29).
The closest formal and linguistic parallels to Jesus' parables, however, occur in Palestinian rabbinic texts, that is, later records of how Jewish teachers customarily reasoned and taught (e.g., m. Soṭa 9:15; Mek. Pisha 1.82-84; b. Ber. 61b); this seems the consensus of scholars directly familiar with both sets of parables.6 Although rabbinic parables are later and midrashic, hence more stereotyped, examination demonstrates considerable formal similarities between rabbinic and Gospel parables, especially morphological but often even extending to stock metaphors and characters (Johnston 1977b: 628-33).
Our rabbinic parables are all later than Jesus, but this should not surprise us since all rabbinic literature is later than Jesus, as are most of the sages it cites (Vermes 1993: 97; cf. Young 1989: 3).7 But because Jesus probably did not influence directly most later rabbis (pace the argument from silence in Jeremias 1972: 12), we may assume that both Jesus and these rabbis drew on and adapted standard Palestinian Jewish teaching techniques of their day (Abrahams 1917: 106; Johnston 1977b: 43). Occasionally he probably even developed traditional story lines (Taylor 1935: 104; Johnston 1977b: 635).8 Whereas the later rabbinic parables often focus on such settings as royal courts, however (cf. 22:2; see comment on Mt 18:23), Jesus most often told stories about agriculture and the daily life of his common hearers (e.g., 20:1; cf. Neusner 1984: 23), a characteristic that supports authenticity. Another contrast with rabbinic parables is that Jesus' parables tend to subvert conventional values, whereas those of the rabbis tend to reinforce them (Johnston 1977b: 633-34).9 Jesus' parables are also far more apt to emphasize eschatology (Johnston 1977b: 508, but cf. 626), though this might say more about the development of rabbinic Judaism after Bar Kochba than about Jesus.
Except when reporting Jesus' parables, other New Testament writers, usually addressing urban communities outside Palestine, do not employ parables. Because later Christians would therefore not have invented Jesus' parables, this supports their authenticity as genuine teachings of Jesus, which most scholars accept.10
Authenticity, of course, does not preclude adaptation, although the measure of that adaptation remains open to debate. Later tellers altered characters in earlier rabbinic parables and otherwise adapted them to speak to new situations (Johnston 1977b: 621-24, 639). Likewise, embellishment was natural to the folklorish context in which parables were transmitted (Young 1989: 179). But rabbinic literature preserved and recycled parables primarily because of the story lines themselves, whereas the Gospel tradition preserved parables because they were Jesus' parables. As noted in the Introduction, the process of transmission behind our extant Gospels was brief by comparison, and the controlled conditions do not lend themselves to folklorish embellishment. In this early period we should usually think of more conservative adaptations fitting rhetorical principles governing expanding or condensing narratives (compare Matthew's conservative adaptations of Mark 4 in this chapter), allowing, however, for reapplication of parables in new contexts (e.g., Mt 5:15//Mk 4:21). On the authenticity of interpretations for parables, including so-called allegorical interpretations, see comment on 13:18-23 below.
Kinds of parables. If we set aside for the moment morphological categories (e.g., example stories, similes, fables; Johnston 1977b: 520-26), scholars have devised various categorization schemes. For example, Crossan uses Heidegger's time-related scheme of advent, reversal, and action; but not all parables fit such externally imposed structures (Scott 1989: 73). For more reasonable plans based on content, one may examine Scott's organization by social role: parables relating to family, patron-client relations," or daily life artifacts (1989: 73),11 or, similarly, Vermes' division into countrymen's (rural) parables, daily life episodes, social parables, parables relating to judges and law courts, and parables of wedding feasts (1993: 98). One can determine such divisions by setting inductively, though one cannot thereby create tight, symmetrical categories. One could also distinguish parables according to their main theme or point (of which Vermes 1993: 117 stresses three: teshubah — repentance and forgiveness; 'emunah — trust in God; and superlative trust expressed in high risks for the kingdom).
The setting for the parables is noteworthy (13:1-2). Not every element of the setting is equally critical; mention of the house (13:1) might be part of Matthew's style (cf. 9:28; 13:36; Mk 4:1; 10:46); Jesus also seems to have customarily sat to teach (cf. 24:3; comment on 5:1).12 More significantly, the crowds outside were apparently severe (13:2; cf. Mk4:l; b. Ber. 6b; Livy 33.33.1-2; ancients would see in this praise of the teacher's rhetorical abilities, e.g., p. B. Meṣ. 2:11, §1; Hor. 3:4, §4; Diog. Ep. 2), so Jesus entered into a boat and pushed out slightly from the shore, a technique that had enabled him to speak to large crowds (rather than merely those near him) on other occasions (Lk 5:3, unless the reason Luke omits Mk 4:l's setting in Lk 8:4 is that he used it here). Like a cove near Capernaum, many natural acoustic settings existed in Galilee that would enable thousands to hear the voice of someone properly positioned (Crisler 1976: 134-37).
Bailey 1980: xiii suggests that some of the parable settings may have been transmitted along with the traditions to which they were attached. In rabbinic parables one might expect an attribution and an application, but rarely a description of the setting in which the teaching was uttered; still, rabbinic analogies may break down here since rabbinic texts usually stress the rabbis' teaching more than their person, whereas the Gospel tradition is interested in both. It is thus possible that Jesus may have spoken many parables on specific occasions mentioned in the Gospels. An inductive approach would test this best, and one such study concludes that the Synoptic writers almost invariably claim the same audience for the same parables, with but two exceptions that may represent different parables (Carson 1984b: 409-10, following P. B. Payne's Ph.D. dissertation).
At the same time, it is likely that Jesus spoke parables in a variety of settings (e.g., 18:23-35; 19:30-20:16; 21:28-44; 22:1-14; 24:32-25:46), and many of his parables were collected into arrangements like those in the Gospels; parables tend to occur in bunches in later Jewish texts as well (Johnston 1977b: 502; Perry 1965: xi shows that Greeks had also collected fables for rhetorical purposes by the first century). Also, "Like the gospel parables, the same rabbinic parable may appear in different contexts far removed from one another" (Young 1989: 179; cf. Johnston 1977b: 621-24).
First, Jesus used commonplace images to illustrate kingdom principles (13:3-9). This "parable of the sower" (13:18) draws from natural agricultural conventions, as one would expect from a teacher sensitive to rural Galilean hearers. Most Palestinian Jews, like most other Mediterranean people, worked in agriculture (see Jos. Apion 1.60; Sanders 1992: 119); perhaps 90 percent of the Roman world was rural (Malina 1981: 72-73; Horsley and Hanson 1985: xii, following Sjoberg 1960/66: 110).13 With only two large cities, Galilee's population primarily resided in agrarian villages and towns (Jos. Apion 1.60; Goodman 1983: 27; Freyne 1988: 144-45; Horsley 1995: 189). Although much land was fertile (Jos. War 3.42-44), the peasant farmers held few concerns more pressing than harvest (p. Ma'aś. 2:1; Freyne 1988: 246-47; Borg 1984: 31-32). In general in Mediterranean antiquity, farming was a difficult and time-consuming occupation (see, e.g., MacMullen 1974: 32-33), and absentee landlords exploited peasants working on their large estates (MacMullen 1974: 4-6, 39, 48-56; cf. Urbach 1979: 1:632).
Greek and Roman teachers could compare words to seed (Sen. Ep. Lucil. 29.2; 38.2; cf. b. Ber. 63a),14 and though most later rabbinic accounts are farther removed from agricultural images (cf. R. Eleazar's negative view of agricultural occupations in b. Yebam. 63a), Jewish sages like Jesus who moved among agricultural peasants undoubtedly used them. Some writers imply that Jesus (or his later editors) borrowed this style from Greek thinkers (Mack 1988: 159-60), but Jewish tradition supplied Jesus some clear antecedents. Biblical prophets had depicted judgments, especially those of the end time, in agricultural terms (Is 32:13-17; 35:1-2; 44:3-4; Jer 31:28; 51:33; Joel 3:13; Amos 8:1-2; Riesenfeld 1970: 150; Allison 1998: 148). Jewish sources speak of the law bringing forth fruit in Israel (4 Ezra 3:20), God sowing his seed in Israel (4 Ezra 9:31), and the fruit of the law continuing (9:32). God's people should prepare to sow into their minds the fruits of the law (2 Bar. 32:1). Later tradition presents a young Torah scholar as sprouting seed (b. Ta'an. 4a) or speaks of the Torah spreading through a person's body like roots of a tree (Pesiq. R. 3:2).
If 4 Ezra reflects earlier tradition, Jewish sources also provided an eschatological cast for the seed image. 4 Ezra declares that just as not all the seeds a farmer sows survive or put down roots, so not all people will persevere to eternal life (4 Ezra 8:41).15 But whereas the harvest would be completed in the end time (13:39; 3:12; 21:34; cf. 9:37-38), Jesus portrays the present as a time of sowing to prepare for that harvest.
The sower must sow widely to insure a good harvest. It made more sense, in a field like the one in Jesus' parable, to plow up the ground before sowing, as often in the Old Testament (Is 28:24-25; Jer 4:3; cf. Hos 10:11-12; Gundry 1982: 253; White 1964). On such a reading of the parable, the sower would be "an anti-hero, not very competent at his job," wasting seed by reversing the sequence (Vermes 1993: 98). Jesus could have used such stark and humorous terms to depict his benevolence in preaching to everyone (18:27; 21:37).
Later literature, however, repeatedly speaks of plowing after sowing (although some plowed both before and after sowing); farmers who knew their fields aparently felt comfortable sowing first, then plowing the seed into the ground (Jub. 11:11).16 Because disciples cannot know the conditions of given hearers' hearts before they preach, Jesus uses the second analogy of sowing before plowing; they must sow as widely as possible and let God bring forth the appropriate fruit (cf. the agricultural counsel in Eccl 11:6).17
Not all ground will yield good fruit. The "way" typically meant some sort of road or path (e.g., Test. Job 23:11), but in a field represents one of the footpaths running through or around it (Argyle 1963: 101; A. B. Bruce 1979: 195; perhaps in Virg. Priapes 3.21). Some of the grain accidentally fell on (Jeremias 1972: 12n.4) or beside it (cf. 20:30; Gundry 1982: 253); perhaps the farmer plans to plow up the footpath anyway (Jeremias 1972: 12), but until he does he has exposed the seed there to hungry birds, which would devour grain until it was plowed into the soil (Hesiod W.D. 469-71), and continue to feed however possible until the harvest (Babrius 13.1-2; 26; 33.1-5; 88). Indeed, when one sowed first and then plowed the seed into the ground, it was not unnatural for birds to consume the seed (Jub. 11:11, where they are sent from the devil; Gundry 1982: 253).
The sower's field in this parable includes some land where the soil is shallow over some rock. Palestine includes much land like this, but though seed springs up quickly on such soil that holds its warmth, the seed readily dies because it cannot sink down roots (Argyle 1963: 101). Even urbanites recognized the disappointment of quick-growing but fruitless grains (Quint. Inst. Or. 1.3.5), though some claimed that stony ground in some cases produced better fruit than deep soil (Peleus in Eurip. Androm. 636-38, comparing illegitimate children). One kind of thistle (Silybum marianum) grows densely around roads, quickly reaching a height of more than one meter (three feet) in April, with small pink or white flowers on its heads (Hepper 1992: 35). The thistles grow up in the field because the farmer had cut them down instead of torn them up by the roots (Argyle 1963: 101).
The fruitful soil yields enough to make up for the useless soil (cf. 5:13-16). Italy and Sicily averaged fivefold or sixfold return on the grain sown; irrigated fields in Egypt averaged around a sevenfold yield for wheat and eightfold or better for barley (Lewis 1983: 121-22). Following the ancient rhetorical technique of praising a land (cf., e.g., Aelius Aristides on Rome), Josephus emphasizes the fruitfulness of Palestine's soil (Apion 1.195). The average Palestinian harvest may have yielded seven and a half to ten times the seed sown. Thus while even a hundredfold harvest is not "miraculous" for some parts of Palestine (see Payne 1980a:183-86; Hock 1988: 139; pace Jeremias 1972: 30; Hurtado 1983: 58), harvests yielding thirty to a hundred times the seed invested are extraordinarily abundant (Gen 26:12; Jub. 24:15; Sib. Or. 3.264-65), and one rarely exceeded one hundredfold (Payne 1980a: 183-84).18 The fruit from the good soil more than makes up for any seed wasted on the bad soil.
Second, Jesus reveals special truth to his disciples through parables (13:10-17).19 Jewish teachers used parables as sermon illustrations to explain a point they were teaching (e.g., Johnston 1977b: 507). To offer an illustration without stating the point, however, was like presenting a riddle instead (cf. Test. Abr. 12-13A). (For this reason some scholars have wrongly thought that Jesus used parables only to reveal and that Mark, the first Gospel writer, misrepresented him — Wrede 1971: 62; cf. Via 1967: 9; Filson 1964: 105.)
Yet Jesus was not completely alone in such a practice. Some ancient teachers like Plato wished to keep his teaching obscure to outsiders (Diog. Laert. 3.63 — after all, his mentor Socrates had been martyred); Pythagoras and others sometimes followed the same practice (Diog. Laert. 8.1.15; Boring 1995: 92 adds Iamb. Life of Pythag. 23.104). Even most itinerant Greek teachers spent more of their time instructing disciples indoors than lecturing publicly, although members of the general public were welcome to attend (Liefeld 1967: 205-6); unwritten teachings further provided "insiders" a superior status (cf. Botha 1993); some of Epicurus's teachings, while not secret, were penetrable only by his advanced students (Culpepper 1975: 112); philosophers might also choose to communicate in metaphor obvious only to insiders (e.g., Aul. Gel. 13.5.5-12). One might also think of the prophetic aspects of Jesus' calling; in the broader Mediterranean context, oracles often appeared obscure until fulfilled (e.g., Soph. Oed. Rex 439; Virg. Aen. 6.98-101), though this was less common in the Jewish prophetic tradition; cf. comment on 16:21.
Some Jewish people believed that God had entrusted Israel with special "mysteries" in his law (cf. Test. Levi 2:10; Judah 16:4; t. Qidd. 5:21; Ex. Rab. 19:6; Esth. Rab. 2:4). Sages sometimes spoke of the "hidden things," like the laws of creation, concealed from most of humanity (Deut 29:29; 1 Enoch 4:1-3; 41:1-8; 49:2; 52:2; 59:1-3; 103:2; 106:19; Wis 7:21; 1QH 13:13-14; 1QM 14.14; 2 Bar. 48:3) or "hidden things"/"mysteries" in the teachings of the righteous, concealed from humanity or from the wicked (Wis 2:22; 4 Ezra 14:45-47; Ps-Phocyl. 229; cf. Ps 25:14; Prov 3:32; conventional wisdom in Job 11:6; 15:8; for the secrets of the wicked, see Wis 14:23; 1 Enoch 16:3; 1QM 14:9; 2 Thess 2:7). The Qumran community believed that God had revealed to its leaders mysteries hidden from other readers of Scripture (lQpHab 7.4-5,13-14; 1QH 2.13-14; 9.23-24; 11.9-10,16-17; 12.11-13; 1QS 8.1-2, 12; 9.13, 17-19; cf. 1QS 5.11-12; 11.3-5; 1QM 3.9; 17.9; 4 Ezra 14:45-47).20 Although most mainstream Jewish teachings were available to the public (cf. Jn 18:20; b. Sukk. 49b; cf. Goodman 1983: 74), many Jewish teachers apparently held particular teachings to be too esoteric for public teaching.21 Jesus apparently agrees that until the end (10:26), some truths will be communicated to and understood by only a special group (11:25; 16:17; cf. 13:35).
By articulating his principles only in parables, Jesus offers riddles whose answer can be fathomed only by those who understand the riddles in the context of his own ministry (e.g., events like the Pharisees' rejection — 12:24-45; some other riddles were comprehensible only in the context of knowledge of the speaker, e.g., Phaedrus 3.1.7) or who patiently press into his inner circle to wait for the interpretation (13:12; cf. Iren. Haer. 2.27.3). Undoubtedly members of the general public who wished could attend Jesus' private lectures to his disciples, though most would have dispersed after Jesus' public teaching; both situations were normal in Greco-Roman antiquity (Liefeld 1967: 206).
Disciples regularly asked their rabbis questions (e.g., t. Sanh. 7:10; b. Qidd. 31a; Num. Rab. 11:4; Safrai 1974/76a: 966), and sometimes sought a private interpretation after a purposely vague or hostile public statement (e.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:7; Gen. Rab. 8:9; Num. Rab. 9:48; 19:8; Pesiq. R. 21:2/3; Daube 1973: 141-50; cf. Aul. Gel. 19.1.11-21; for the form of a homily responding to a question, see Aune 1987: 53). Further, whereas parables usually illustrated, even rabbis sometimes used them for secret speech (Stern 1991: 202). Some rabbinic traditions may also link ability to understand with membership in the community of Israel (cf. Stern 1991: 202-4, who cites ARN 15.3 A).
Jesus spoke in parables because the kingdom was an end-time "mystery" now being revealed to those with ears to hear.22 Jesus' parables were revealing things "hidden from the creation of the world" (13:35; cf. 10:26), but only to a chosen few, who had "ears to hear" (13:9, 16; cf. 11:15; 13:43; Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22);23 Jesus was making more available to their ears than all that the prophets had heard (13:17).24 ("Hear" in this context means "understand" — 13:18; cf. 7:24-27.) The disciples are more special than the prophets of old only because they live in a time when they can receive a greater revelation than the prophets of old, as Jesus' blessing on them makes clear. "Happy are those who see" (God's long-awaited blessings on Israel; his Messiah; etc.) was a fairly regular beatitude, a Jewish figure of speech (Ps. Sol. 17:44; Sir 48:11; b.Ḥag. 14b; the Messiah in Ps. Sol. 18:6-7; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 6:5; Pesiq. R. 37:2). But it was also customary to praise one person by blessing another related to that person; for example, "happy is the one who bore so-and-so" is a means of praising so-and-so (e.g., Lk 11:27; Jub. 25:19; m. 'Abot 2:8; t.Ḥag. 2:1; ARN 13, §32; b. Ḥag. 14b; p.Ḥag. 2:1, §4; Pesiq. R. 37:2; Petron. Sat. 94); conversely, declaring unhappiness to one's mother is pronouncing doom on the child (Horn. Il. 6.127; Judg 5:28-31; perhaps Lk 2:35).25 The disciples' eyes and ears were blessed (13:16) because of the greater one among them (13:17; cf. 1 Kings 10:8).
The rest of the hearers, unable to fathom his message, fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah about penal blindness: because of Israel's sin, they would be unable to truly "see," "hear," and understand God's message (13:13-15; 15:8, 14; Is 6:9-10; cf. Is 29:9-10; Jer 4:22; Evans 1981). Rabbinic parables are commonly midrashic or contain biblical allusions (e.g., Vermes 1993: 94), and though Jesus' parables focused far less on Scripture exposition, it is intrinsically likely that he sometimes related his parables to Scripture.26 Isaiah 6:9-10 is central for the early Christian understanding of why Israel as a whole did not accept Jesus (Mk 4:12; Lk 8:10; Jn 12:37-41; Acts 28:26-27; cf. Mk 8:17-18; for later interpretations see Evans 1982) and reflects a common motif in the prophets (e.g., Is 29:9-10; 42:19-20; 43:8; 44:18-19; Ezek 12:2). Yet those who did turn to the truth would be "healed" (13:15); Jesus' physical healings provided concrete signs of the spiritual healing of which Isaiah spoke (8:17; cf. Is 6:10; 53:5; Hos 11:3; 14:4; Sir 28:3). For Matthew as for Mark, the parables "conceal truth from some but. . . reveal it to others" (Wenham 1979b: 522; cf. Via 1967: 8-9).27
The disciples alone had pressed close enough to Jesus to understand the rest of the teaching he was giving them. That those who had more would receive more was a principle of ancient economics (Stambaugh and Balch 1986: 113; cf. Mt 25:29; Lk 16:10-11; ARN 35, §79B); more to the point, Jewish people recognized that only disciples of wisdom or the law could understand more wisdom or the law (Ps-Phocyl. 89-90; 4 Ezra 7:22-25; cf. ARN 27, §56; 32, §68B; Dalman 1929: 228; Bultmann 1968: 108; Lachs 1987: 219; cf. references in Hagner 1993: 373). Jesus explained that to the disciples, those who had some revelation, more revelation would be given (13:11-12; cf. 12:39; the clarification in Lk 8:18). In other words, the disciples alone proved to be good soil (13:23). Jesus' parable of the sower frames his explanation of the purpose for his parables precisely because it explains the same concept in a different way (cf. Toussaint 1964).28
Third, the only conversions that count in the kingdom are those confirmed by a life of discipleship (13:18-23). Jesus sowed the word widely, but not all his hearers persevered in discipleship. What was true of the crowds that followed Jesus would also prove true among subsequent generations of disciples, in ways relevant to Matthew's audience (7:21-22). Whether the message went in one ear and out the other (13:19), whether someone began the Christian life eagerly and then abandoned it because it entailed too much hardship or persecution (13:20-21), whether one accepted the gospel but then backslid into complacency, seduced by other interests (13:22), such crowds are useless to the kingdom. Yet others will more than make up for the seed invested in them, becoming true disciples of the kingdom and spreading the true message of the kingdom to others (13:23).29
Some writers attribute many of the parables to Jesus but many of the interpretations of the parables to later editors. Their presupposition for this approach is almost certainly mistaken. 30 Many Greek and Roman fables include explicit moral lessons at the beginning 31 or end 32 of the fables; occasionally fables include morals at the beginning and the end (Phaedrus 3.10.1-8, 51-60; 4.13). Some of these are clearly redactional, added by the authors to apply the oral traditions (e.g., Phaedrus 2.2.2; 2.3.4; 3.3.14-17; 3.6.10; 3.19.1). Phaedrus suggests that slaves like Aesop originally used fables because they did not dare to express their views openly (3.prol. 33-40; though this perspective may be somewhat shaped by Phaedrus's experience with Sejanus — 3.prol. 41-44). Other attached lessons, however, may well be part of the original fables (cf., e.g., Babrius 4.6-8; 6.16-17; 11.10-12; 18.15-16).
Of more direct relevance are the Jewish models. Though some are riddles (e.g., perhaps Prov 304, 18-19, 21-31; cf. Test. Job 36-38:5), our earliest Israelite parables usually have interpretations (e.g., Judg 9:16-20; 2 Sam 12:7-9), and rabbinic parables nearly always occur alongside the points they illustrate (Johnston 1977b: 561-62, 565-66, 638; Vermes 1993: 92-99).33 Rabbinic parables typically begin with the point to be illustrated and include the nimshal (application or explanation) near the end (Stern 1991: 24). What is unusual about the Gospel parables is not that Jesus interprets them but rather that he usually does not do so when telling the parable (13:10). Even the parable of 4 Ezra 4:13-18 includes some sort of explanation in 4:20-21; Enoch's eschatological Similitudes (1 Enoch 37-71) remain more mysterious, however, like most of Jesus' public parables about the kingdom (cf. Vermes 1993: 92).
How many points with significance beyond the story setting can parables contain? Generally unfamiliar with the traditional function of parables in Jesus' Jewish context, many church fathers blatantly allegorized the parables for their own agendas (Young 19 89 : 3 1 7).34 Clearly, many characters appear in stories for purely literary reasons rather than any function extrinsic to a parable.35 Many "figures and features ... are simply 'stage-setting' or 'stage props,' there merely because the story requires them" (Johnston 1977b: 601).36
Distressed with uncontrolled allegorization of parables among many previous interpreters, such as H. A. W. Meyer (1858), A. B. Bruce (1882), and most influentially Adolf Jülicher rejected allegory in parables, contending for one main point (Young 1989: 21). By contrast, against Jülicher's categorization of parables in Aristotelian terms (following Rhet. 2.20; 3.4),37 Fiebig drew attention to rabbinic parallels that showed weaknesses in Jülicher's line of argument (see history of responses to Jülicher and Fiebig in Johnston 1977b: 27-52). Jülicher began with deductive categories and imposed them on the Gospel data, whereas Fiebig's approach was inductive, based on concrete parables (Johnston 1977b: 119-20). Dodd followed Jülicher, but unfortunately his own work "betrays not the slightest firsthand acquaintance with rabbinic parables" (Johnston 1977b: 75), and Jeremias, who might have known better, admits that he follows Dodd (Johnston 1977b: 77; cf. Young 1989: 25).38
Modern interpreters tend to be especially skeptical of Jesus' parable interpretations if the interpretations focus too much on details (cf. Jeremias 1972: 13-14; F. F. Bruce 1977b: 21). But although parables generally exhibit a central thrust and details are sometimes merely part of the story, one cannot exclude some allegory from even their earliest form (pace Jülicher; Dodd 1961: 15; Koester 1982: 2:79; cf. Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.34.46); different characters in their narrative world often represent different actors in the real world (e.g., ARN 2A). Biblical parables could include multiple points of contact with the original audience's situation (e.g., 2 Sam 12:1-6); noting these correspondences is legitimate and different from the wanton allegorization practiced in earlier centuries (Bailey 1980: xxi).
Rabbinic parables likewise often have allegorical features (Stern 1991: 11). Vermes 1993: 96, for example, notes that R. Meir took four different men as examples and supplied an interpretation for each, just like Jesus in the Gospels (t. Sota 5:9). Johnston 1977b: 601-2 thus complains that "The demand that we must choose between one-point-of-comparison 'parable' and every-feature-must-be-decoded 'allegory' is artificial, arbitrary, and unreasonable." The vast majority of Tannaitic parables "are either allegories, by Jülicher's definition, or mixed forms, to use Fiebig's term" (1977b: 606). One of his dissertation's most important conclusions (1977b: 636-37) bears quotation:
Most importantly, the study of rabbinic parables renders unusable the distinction between parable and allegory in respect to the parables of the gospels: if the parables of Jesus are generically the same as those of the rabbis, which seems inescapable from the standpoint of morphology and inner structure, then the classical Jülicherian model must be discarded as inapplicable to the gospel parables. . . .
Recent research on metaphor also tends to undermine Jülicher's and Jeremias's skepticism concerning allegory; allegorical language "is no more avoidable in the New Testament parables than it is in the Old Testament prophetic oracles" (Jones 1995: 68). There is thus no historical reason to deny the authenticity of parable interpretations of Jesus based on allegorization or multiple extrinsic referents (Johnston 1977b: 608, 638-39; Witherington 1990: 72; cf. Scott 1989: 44; at greater length, see Blomberg 1990a).
In some cases, the word goes in one ear and out the other; such neglect is the devil's work (13:19). Jewish teachers (who could "sow" Torah, the law — b. Ber. 63a) exhorted students to listen intently and memorize their teachings (e.g., Mek. Pisha 1.135-36; Sifre Deut. 306.19.1-3); they despised those who neglected these teachings (cf., e.g., m. 'Abot 2:8; ARN 36A). One who remembered much would be able to remember more, but one who forgot would forget still more (Sifre Deut. 115.1.1-2; cf. also Mek. Vayassa' 1, Laut. 2:95, on Ex 15.26 in Smith 1951: 135). Yet many who listened to Jesus would forget the message of his kingdom (cf. 21:9; 27:20).
Some embrace the gospel excitedly, but tests ultimately prove the shallowness of their commitment (13:20-21). Rabbinic parables often rehearse the theme of Israel's tribulations (eleven examples in Tannaitic parables; Johnston 1977b: 627). Matthew's Gospel illustrates such failing disciples, both the danger for all disciples (26:41, 56) and for those who truly apostatize permanently (24:9-10).
Some embrace the gospel, but gradually other interests — wealth, security, family, and the like — choke it out of first place (13:22). Ancient moralists sometimes warned that one should bear with hardships so as to be prepared for the tests of ease (Pub. Syr. 218, 220). Like Jesus, some other Jewish teachers believed that the yoke of God's word (in that case the law; here, the gospel) would free one from the cares of this age (m. 'Abot 3:5); Christ's apostles proclaimed that Jesus must hold first place in his followers' lives (cf. 1 Cor 10:31; Col 3:17). (On the deceitfulness or danger of riches, cf. also 6:24; 19:23; Deut 6:10-12; Jub. 23:21; CD 4.17-18; Sen. Dial. 10.13.7.) In the Gospel tradition, the warning that they would be fruitless promises severe judgment (21:19). Matthew elsewhere illustrates how desire for money can seduce one to apostasy (26:15).
But some dare to believe the gospel rather than the values they see lived out around them (13:23). These people dare to seek to make other disciples in the world for the name of their Lord Jesus. The fruitful person is the one who understands the message (13:23). Jewish teachers emphasized understanding the word; Philo, for example, emphasized reading Scripture with one's understanding rather than one's eyes (Spec. Leg. 1.214). Only those who press close to Jesus, persevering until they understand the real point of his teaching, will prove to be long-term disciples (13:10-17; cf. Jn 8:30-47; Marshall 1974: 62-63). By choosing to remain after the "crowds" have dispersed, the truly committed prove themselves to be good ground. Patristic interpreters sometimes recognized Jesus as the sower (Chrysostom On Temperance)', some seed was then lost through no fault of the sower but because the ground was unwilling (Chrysostom Gospel of St. Matthew, Homily 44.5.1-44.6; idem On Temperance, ACCS, 51-52). Thus one should work hard and be diligent to become good ground (Augustine Sermons on NT Lessons 73.3, ACCS, 57).
The Future Revelation of the Kingdom People (13:24-43)
Cf. Mk 4:30-34; Lk 13:18-21. Just as Matthew presents the purpose for Jesus' opaque teachings (13:10-17) in the midst of a parable explaining that not all will receive and persevere for him (13:3-9, 18-23), he now presents the parables of the mustard seed and yeast (13:31-33) in the midst of the parable of the weeds (13:24-30, 36-43), with more words about the nature of parables (13:34-35). The parable of the weeds (13:24-30, 36-40) emphasizes the hiddenness of the kingdom in the present: children of the kingdom must coexist with children of the evil one in this world until their vindication at the end. The parable may also reinforce images of conversion, perseverance, and apostasy in the parable of the sower (13:3-9, 18-23): especially in places where disciples can blend into the world (13:22), one cannot be sure who will prove to be God's elect until the final judgment. The parables of the mustard seed and the yeast complement this parable by reminding disciples that the glorious kingdom of the future is present in this age in only an obscure and hidden way, except to those with eyes of faith (13:31-33).
First, Jesus again tells an agricultural story that is relatively realistic (13:24-30).39 Jesus often utilizes agricultural images familiar to his audience, such as sowing (13:31) and fields (13:31, 44). But while the color is local, the protagonist of the story is not a peasant like many of Jesus' hearers; he is a wealthy landowner (13:27), whereas the farmer in the parable of the sower could easily have been a tenant farmer, a fellow peasant. Against some interpreters, peasants would not necessarily resent the figure, although they would not fully identify with him; they might recognize in the protagonist a benevolent local patron on whom they might be dependent. Peasants might even prefer to identify with characters of status greater than their own if those characters were benevolent; we often tell stories as a means of escaping and reflecting on our own social reality.
The protagonist's authority suits him as an analogy for God. A well-to-do man would easily be a "head of a household" (NRSV "householder"; NIV "master"; cf. 10:25; 24:43; Epict. Disc. 2.20.20), which figured as an illustration in rabbinic parables (e.g., Sifra Behuq. pq. 3.263.1.8; Marmorstein 1968b: 77-78; cf. the title in Lev. Rab. 6:3; Num. Rab. 13:2; on kings, see comment on 18:23-27), and even Greek philosophers could employ a householder as an analogy for God (Epict. Disc. 3.22.4-5).40 Given the agrarian character of much of ancient life, it should not surprise us that fields figure prominently as settings in rabbinic parables, but that their meaning is entirely ad hoc rather than standard (Johnston 1977b: 596).
Jesus introduces the parable with a standard means of comparison (cf. 7:24; 13:31,33; 18:23; 22:2; 25:1; 11:16); "the kingdom is like" reflects standard Jewish idiom for "It is this way with the kingdom," rather than implying that the kingdom is equivalent to the first actor stated (Smith 1951: 179; Jeremias 1972: 101 ).41 Thus the kingdom need not be the landowner; rather, the situation with wheat and darnel is analogous to the situation with the kingdom. "Tares" or "weeds" here represent darnel (lolium temulentum), a poisonous weed organically related to wheat and difficult to distinguish from wheat in the early stages of its growth (Jeremias 1972: 224; A. B. Bruce 1979: 200; Hepper 1992: 88). Given the occasional feuding of rival farmers (Derrett 1973: 43; cf. Virg. Ecl. 3.10-11, 17-24; Longus 4.8; two villages in B.G.U. 1035), it is not surprising that Roman law would specifically prohibit sowing such poisonous plants in another's field (Hepper 1982: 948), nor that one who found an abundance of such weeds would suspect an enemy's hand (13:28).
Despite their willingness to try (13:28) — workers regularly uprooted weeds before their roots were entangled with those of the wheat (Jeremias 1972: 225; Kümmel 1957: 134-35) — it would be difficult for the workers to root out so many tares without damaging the wheat at this stage (Manson 1979: 193; Meier 1980: 147). They had grown enough that their roots were already intertwined with those of the wheat but not far enough that it would be easy to distinguish them from the wheat; uprooting thus might endanger the wheat (13:29). After the wheat and darnel were grown, they were easily distinguished and reapers could gather the darnel, which did have one use: given the scarcity of fuel, it would be burned (13:30; Jeremias 1972: 225; A. B. Bruce 1979: 200; cf. 3:12).42 Wheat was normally gathered and bound in sheaves, then transported, probably on donkeys, to the village (or, in this case, the large estate's own) threshing floor (Lewis 1983: 123), then stored.43
Second, Jesus insists that the kingdom, though present in a hidden way in the ministry of Jesus and his followers, is the glorious anticipated kingdom of God (13:31-33). These parables most clearly declare that God's kingdom had arrived in some sense in Jesus' ministry, in a hidden and anticipatory way (e.g., France 1985: 225). Far from baptizing the wicked in fire and overthrowing nations at his first coming, Jesus had come as a meek servant (12:18-20), wandering around Galilee with a group of obscure disciples, healing some sick people. The Romans took no notice of him until angry Jewish aristocrats brought him to their attention, and even this did not happen until Jesus attacked the temple system (21:12-17). In a world with governments in turmoil and full of wandering teachers and magicians, Jesus' initial arrival as a meek and politically inconspicuous servant rendered his mission as opaque as his parables, except to disciples bearing the insight of faith. Only those who press into Jesus' circle truly understand his identity.
Jesus first illustrates this principle by comparing the kingdom to a mustard seed (13:31-32). Despite some dispute over which plant Jesus intended, the mustard seed had become proverbial for small size (17:20; commentators cite m. Nid. 5:2; Ṭohar. 8:8; b. Ber. 31a; Antigonus of Carystus 91; Diod. Sic. 1.35.2; cf. also p. Ketub. 1:1, §8). That it grew to such a height that birds could "perch" (more likely here than "nest"; cf. Granata 1983) in its branches alludes to the image of God's authority over the mightiest kingdom of a given era (Dan 4:12; cf. Ezek 17:23-24; 31:6; Meier 1980: 149; Gundry 1982: 267; Mounce 1985: 138). Although not literally the smallest of seeds and yielding a shrub rather than a "tree" in the technical botanical sense, the mustard plant hyperbolically conveyed Jesus' point (the inconspicuous becomes mighty) better than any other.44 This kind of parable is a "similitude" rather than a full story, but it nevertheless exhibits a very basic plot movement that contrasts present obscurity with future greatness (cf. Ladd 1974b: 98) 45
Jesus next illustrates his point by noting how a little bit of leaven in the beginning can pervade and overtake the whole mixture of dough in the end (13:33). Many writers emphasize leaven's function as a symbol of evil (in Jewish text's, e.g., b. Ber. 17a; cf. Abrahams 1917: 51-53; Schechter 1961: 266; perhaps Philo Spec. Leg. 1.293; ARN 9, §25B; Gen. Rab. 17:8; Plut. R.Q. 109, Mor. 289EF), perhaps here used for shock value (Scott 1989: 328-29), or an analogous but inverted, positive infection (Dodd 1961: 192; Jeremias 1972: 147; in Jewish texts, e.g., b. Ber. 17a; cf. Abrahams 1917: 53), but Scripture had also applied it in other ways (e.g., Gen 19:3; Ex 12:11, 39; Lev 23:17; Deut 16:3; Ladd 1974b: 98; in the rabbis, Young 1989: 210-12). Rather than debating which of many symbolic uses could form the background for the yeast here, we should recognize their common factor: when most women thought of yeast, they contemplated especially its ultimately pervasive character. One leavens unleavened meal until one's finished product is thoroughly leavened. That other sources do not describe this permeation by leaven as "hiding" it need not make this image more "negative" (Scott 1989: 326), but certainly indicates the significance of the tradition's choice of wording: Jesus' kingdom invades the world in a hidden way.
Although Roman cities had bakeries, Galilean women baked their own families' bread (Stambaugh and Balch 1986: 69). The amount of flour involved here (perhaps taken from Gen 18:6) represents roughly fifty pounds, providing enough bread for over one hundred people. A housewife would not normally fix so much meal and could not knead more than this; the unnatural magnitude of the illustration probably suggests that the kingdom far exceeds daily examples to which it may be compared.46
Third, Matthew emphasizes that Jesus' parables were to reveal God's long-hidden mysteries (13:34-35). The lesson offered earlier in Jesus' discourse (13:10-17) still applied to the present parables; while the parables were riddles to outsiders, they conveyed God's hidden revelation to his followers (cf. 1 Cor 2:7-10; Col 2:2-3). (Matthew has, however, removed Mark's critique of Jesus' family suggested by "outside" in Mk 3:31 with Mk 4:11.) Matthew cites the psalmist as a prophet in verse 35, recognizing that the psalmists were inspired (cf. 1:7-8; 1 Chron 25:1-3; 2 Chron 29:30; Acts 2:30; Lachs 1987: 226; Keener 1991b: 69-77; idem 1992b: 263-64). He translates the text directly from the Hebrew (Gundry 1982: 270).
Fourth, Jesus explains that God tolerates the wicked in the present for the sake of his elect, but will one day publicly distinguish between the two (13:36-43). That the servants were sleeping may (26:40, 43, 45; Gundry 1982: 263) or may not (cf. 25:5) be significant, but the "enemy" (also, e.g., Lk 10:19; 2 Enoch 70:6) explicitly represents the evil one (13:38-39; cf. 5:37; 6:13; 13:19). The landowner avoids uprooting the young darnel, which still looks like wheat, because he values the wheat; in the same way, God endures the wicked in the present to provide all those who will receive him time to become his followers (Rom 9:22-24). The harvesters differ from the servants (13:30) in part because a harvest's urgency would require extra laborers (9:37-38; 20:1-7) but perhaps in part because the symbolism here may be different: whereas the harvesters represent angels, the servants tending the field may represent disciples (13:39).
Jesus' portrayal of the final judgment is graphic and contains numerous images familiar from contemporary Judaism and early Christianity. One later writer depicts the end time as a harvest when the seed of the evil ones and of the good ones is ripe for harvest (2 Bar. 70:2); a later rabbinic tradition depicts Israel as wheat gathered at the age's end but the wicked nations as the field's straw and stubble to be burned and scattered (Gen. Rab. 83:5). At the final harvest (Rev 16:16; 4 Ezra 4:30-32), the end of the age (Test. Job 4:6; cf. Gk. Ezra 6:1), God will gather his scattered chosen ones for his kingdom (Mt 24:31), but gather the wicked (25:32) to be burned in a furnace of eternal torment (13:42, 50; see comment on 3:10-12; cf. 1 Enoch 54:6; 98:3 MSS; 4 Ezra 7:36) with weeping and gnashing of teeth (8:12; 22:13). The wicked here are the "lawless," those who subvert the true meaning of God's law (5:19; 23:28; 24:12) and seek to bring down the righteous (18:6; cf. 16:23); but the righteous are the "children of the kingdom,"47 who will shine (cf. 5:16; eschatologically, Rom 8:8-19; Col 3:4; 2 Thess 1:10) in their Father's kingdom (13:43)48 The interpretation includes but does not linger over the striking christological element, where the Son of Man fulfills a divine function (13:41; cf. 24:31; Gundry 1975: 214), albeit through the figure of the reigning Son of Man of Daniel 7:13-14.
Jesus observed these principles when he embraced sinners at table fellowship and denounced the Pharisees; such conflicts with his society's values may have occasioned parables like this one (Jeremias 1972: 224; Gundry 1982: 265). But the principle offers abundant applications for Jesus' followers as well. Matthew himself may have thought specifically of the need for Jewish Christians to remain part of the larger Jewish community rather than withdrawing from it out of resentment against Jewish leaders' opposition (Kingsbury 1969: 75). Jesus' primary point is probably the coexistence of kingdom people with the world's people in this age.49 Though the context also suggests some application to the church (13:19-23, 47-50; cf. Steinmetz 1993; Mclver 1995: 658-59), the point here is not that disciples should abandon efforts to keep the church pure (18:15-20), although that agenda could easily be carried too far (18:7-14, 21-35; cf. Argyle 1963: 105).50 The point is that the kingdom remains obscure in the present world, and only the final day will bring God's true children into their vindicated glory and banish the wicked from among them (Ladd 1974b: 97; cf. Rom 8:18-21).
Those Who Knew the Kingdom's Value (13:44-52)
The kingdom might be hidden to the world (13:24-43, 47-50) like a hidden treasure or a special pearl that only a merchant searching for it would find (13:44-46; cf. 6:20); but a few people would recognize its value and live accordingly. Such people were those who would relinquish everything they had to obtain it (13:44-46; cf. 6:19-24; 19:21). Having made this point, Jesus returns to his earlier theme about only the final time distinguishing the righteous from the wicked (13:47-50), reminding his hearers that a single sacrifice for the kingdom may be insufficient. Jesus then returns to his theme of knowing the kingdom's value. He con-eludes by comparing teachers of the kingdom to well-to-do householders who display or pay out from (cf. 12:35) their new treasure, the kingdom (13:51-52).
First, the kingdom will cost its true followers everything (13:44-46).Most early Christians emphasized that the kingdom is available to disciples only by grace through faith; but most also recognized that genuine faith involves embracing and yielding to God's reign, not simply acknowledging it and then passing it by as if it did not exist. The kingdom is a treasure, and those who really believe it will sacrifice everything else in their lives for the Kingdom's agendas (cf. Ladd 1974b: 99; Fenton 1977: 227; Gundry 1982: 276).51
Jesus tells of a man who found treasure hidden in a field (13:44).52 People in Palestine often hid treasures, which might remain concealed if the hider died before he could retrieve them (Fenton 1977: 227). Thus hidden treasure became a prominent motif in Near Eastern folklore (e.g., 3Q 15; Avianus Fable 12; Phaedrus 1.27; 4.21.4; Jeremias 1972: 198; Vermes 1993: 108n.37; for various views on Qumran's Copper Scroll, Goranson 1992; McCarter 1992; Harper 1993; Lehmann 1993), exciting the imagination of peasants for whom it represented the ultimate dream.
Probably the central character of this parable was a peasant working a wealthy landowner's field who when plowing turned up a strongbox or jar containing coins. Once he bought the field the contents of the field legally belonged to him (especially with a contract covering the land "with all that is in it" — m. B. Bat. 4:8-9; Vermes 1993: 107; for later rabbinic texts cf. Lachs 1987: 229; earlier, cf. Gen 23:17), freeing him to "rediscover" the treasure later (Jeremias 1972: 198; cf. Smith 1951: 139). (That the field's original owner sold it to the peasant indicates that the owner had not buried the treasure and was unaware of it, hence was not the treasure's original owner.)53 Whereas most discovered-treasure stories emphasized the finder's extravagant lifestyle afterward or some compromise between the field's seller and buyer (Gen. Rab. 33:1; Lev. Rab. 5:4; Deut. Rab. 4:8; Jeremias 1972: 200; cf. Menander Treasure), Jesus lays the entire emphasis on the price the man was ready to pay to invest in this treasure far greater than any he already owned. Although this treasure, like the kingdom, was hidden to most of the world, the man not only recognized that its value outweighed all he had, but he acted accordingly.
After telling of a peasant laborer's discovery, Jesus tells of a more prosperous merchant seeking pearls. In contrast to the tenant worker, the protagonist of this story is a merchant, a man with capital, hence a person of greater means. Most merchants and shopkeepers sold single products (e.g., oils, or vegetables, or fruits), though some "general stores" existed as well (Lewis 1983: 136).
Jeremias (1972: 199) notes that divers fished for pearls in the Red Sea (which was proverbial for its wealth, Babrius 115.7), the Persian Gulf, and the Indian Ocean (Virg. Culex 67-68 mentions pearls from there); Arrian (Indica 8.11) claims that they were often caught by nets (though he also improbably asserts that one must catch the king to catch the other oysters). Normally such pearls were quite valuable (cf. Phaedrus 3.12; p. B. Meṣ. 2:5, §2); the pearls were sold for wealthy women's necklaces, and ancient reports tell of pearls worth tens of millions of dollars in modern currency (Jeremias 1972: 199). This merchant, uniquely sensitive to the value of the pearl, wisely invests all he has to purchase it. Other Jewish accounts of finding expensive pearls typically emphasized the finder's piety; thus a Jewish tailor paid an outrageous price for a fish because he needed it to keep the Sabbath, yet found in it a pearl that supplied his needs the rest of his life (Pesiq. R. 23:6). Jesus, however, instead emphasizes only the value of the pearl and the joy of finding it (Jeremias 1972: 199; cf. Gen. Rab. 39:10). Whereas Jewish teachers sometimes naturally used the pearl as a parable of Torah teaching (ARN 18A) and stressed material sacrifices made to study Torah (Young 1989: 214), Jesus applies these images to the value of the message of the kingdom. One who was unwilling to sacrifice everything else for the kingdom, who did not believe its reality sufficiently to stake all one's future on it, was unworthy of it (19:21).
Second, only the final judgment will reveal who was truly committed to the kingdom, and how wise the committed were to invest their lives in it (13:47-50).54 Fruits often reveal true and false disciples in the present (7:15-23), but Matthew also emphasizes that some who seem to be genuine today may not persevere to the end, and some who will become believers may not have yet heard the gospel (13:23).
Continuing the practice of parabling in language relevant to his hearers, Jesus applies fishing imagery (cf. 4:18-19). Those who lived around the Lake of Galilee would often have seen fishermen separating the edible and kosher fish from the inedible ones (Harrington 1980: 23). Of at least twenty-four species of fish counted in the Lake of Galilee, many were unclean or inedible, and the net would not discriminate in its catch (just as wheat and darnel appeared similar in the early stages; Jeremias 1972: 226).55 Jesus probably refers here not to a net cast from a single boat but to the still larger seine net either dragged between two boats or drawn to land by long ropes (Jeremias 1972: 225-26).
Although Jesus here draws from the same profession as in 4:19 for his image of gathering fish, the point he is illustrating is quite different. Now he refers not to gathering people into the church, but gathering people to judgment (possibly echoing Ezek 47:10, though we were more skeptical of that allusion in 4:19). Until the final day, Jesus will continue eating with sinners to seek and save the lost (Ladd 1974b: 101). Yet the point here seems less the coexistence of the righteous and the wicked in the church (cf. Kingsbury 1969: 124) than their coexistence in this present age (18:15-20; "the world" in 13:38; cf. "separate" in 25:32). The kingdom had not consumed the wicked with fire (3:10-12) or come "with signs to be observed" (cf. Lk 17:20); it had invaded the world in a hidden way, and would remain hidden until the end. Nevertheless, those who apply the parable to the church are not wholly amiss: the same line between the righteous and the wicked would ultimately divide Jesus' professing disciples (13:20-23).
Finally, true teachers of the kingdom display the kingdom's treasure for all to see (13:51-52). Matthew concludes this central discourse of his Gospel with a final, eighth parable, "a cryptic Wisdom parable, a kind of riddle" that invites further reflection (Jones 1995: 211). If Jesus' disciples have truly understood his teaching (13:51), they are prepared to teach others the value of the kingdom (13:52). Most of Jesus' original disciples were not literal scribes before following Jesus, but the scribes did have the old treasures of God's law, which were still valuable if correctly understood (5:17-20; 23:3; cf. b. Shab. 88b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:11; wisdom in Prov 3:14-15; Isoc. Demon. 19, Or. 1; Sir 1:24; 41:14; Wis 7:8-14; 8:5; Ep. Arist. 8).56 Jesus expects his disciples to build on both the biblical teachings that had come before him and on his gospel of the kingdom; the heavy dependence of the earliest Christians, not least the predominantly Jewish Matthean Christians, on both shows that they did so.57 Matthew emphasizes "understanding" (13:13-14, 19, 23, 51; 15:10, 16; 16:9, 11; 17:13; 22:29; 24:39); because these disciples understand (13:51), they prove that they are the good soil, those who pressed in close enough to Jesus to know him (13:23; cf. 13:11-12, 16).58
Many scholars suspect that Matthew's audience included Christians — very possibly including Matthew himself — who had been scribes and brought substantial biblical background with them to the Christian faith; or who viewed their Christian vocation as teachers in terms of the Jewish category of scribes.59 Some suggest that Matthew speaks of Pharisaism's scribes and synagogues as "theirs" in the sense of "theirs as opposed to ours" (e.g., Luz 1989: 78; Overman 1990b: 61). Such Christian scribes (cf. 23:34) would go forth to pass on their new Rabbi's teachings and make disciples for him (28:19; cf. 23:8).60
———————————————————
1. Scholars have observed different aspects of the chapter's structure. Besides Mark's sower parable, Matthew includes three parables called "parable" and three introduced with "again ... is like" at the end of each group including an interpretation (Jeremias 1972: 92, 94n.l0). Yet if one divides the chapter into two sections (13:1-35; 13:36-52), each shares an analogous structure (setting, parables with excursus, and conclusion — Kingsbury 1969: 12). This chapter is centrally located, and some (including Kingsbury 1969; Ellis 1974: 11) see Mt 13 as the thematically central point of the Gospel. Matthew is not bound to Mark's structure (which bears little resemblance to a typical chreia, pace Mack and Robbins 1989: 143-60). Matthew also alternates between crowds with disciples (13:2, 34) and disciples alone (13:10, 36; Heil 1998: 65-66).
2. See further Stein 1978: 35-36; Manson 1979: 29; Gerhardsson 1988; Vermes 1993: 90.
3. A variety of forms also appear in Jesus' and rabbinic parables. Johnston 1977b: 520-26 classifies Tannaitic parables into groups including example stories (520-22), short similes and metaphors (522-23; pace Dodd, these usually are called mashal and have standard parable formulas), and parabolized fables (523-24). The example stories in the Gospels all appear in Luke (Lk 10:30-37; 12:16-21; 16:19-31; 18:10-14; perhaps 14:7-11, 12-14; Johnston 1977b: 636n.4), and example stories may be distinct from normal parables; but Bultmann's distinction between similitudes and parables is untenable (1977b: 636).
4. Pace Mack 1988: 157-58, who merely summarizes Greco-Roman rhetoric's use of the term and then applies it directly to Jesus' parables. Aristotle used parabole for brief comparisons rhetoricians used as proofs, generally similes; he called genuine stories (like most of Jesus' parables) logoi instead, though later rhetoricians also applied the term to narrative illustrations (Stern 1991: 10).
5. This in spite of the fact that Greek models and even story lines (e.g., in Aesop's fables) did affect rabbinic parables (Stern 1991: 7; cf. also Mack 1988: 160n.l8).
6. E.g., Stewart 1964; Cave 1965; 387; Johnston 1976: 355; Sandmel 1978b: 105; Barth 1981; de la Maisonneuve 1987; Goulder 1974: 47-69; Scott 1989: 14; Young 1989: 317-18; D'Angelo 1992; Vermes 1993: 97.
7. Our earliest layers of rabbinic texts are quite thin and preserve few parables. Three items attributed to Hillel are not very developed; eleven come from ben Zakkai's generation; thirty-three from the next generation (ten from R. Gamaliel II alone); thirty-nine from the next; and ninety-three from the next (forty-nine of which come from two rabbis); see Johnston 1977b: 498-500; Vermes 1993: 97n.21. Unlike Jesus and perhaps some other early wisdom sages, the rabbis use parables in predominantly midrashic (exegetical) rather than narrative contexts (see Johnston 1977b: 632; Scott 1989: 15-16; Vermes 1993: 114-15; for exceptions, see Johnston 1977b: 503). Even in Aramaic contexts, rabbinic parables appear in Hebrew (except for some vernacular conversation in them; Young 1989: 40-42).
8. Rabbinic parables were sometimes attributed to different authors (Young 1989: 179), probably in part due to their reuse by other rabbis; recycling earlier story lines was a sign of respect for the story's content (e.g., Terence Eunuch 30-43 argues that recycling characters is acceptable).
9. As Scott 1989: 39 observes, Jesus' parables employ traditional mythemes but function counterculturally, hence as "antimyth."
10. E.g., Stein 1978: 44-45; Dodd 1961: 11; Vermes 1993: 90-91; see more fully Payne 1980a; Payne 1981a. Pace Mack 1988: 146-47, who resorts to suggesting that most scholars accept authenticity from motives of convenience! Mack 1993: 34 seems correct to observe that few parables (at least in the sense of story parables) appear in Q (unless Mark heavily mined Q's parables, but the evidence, such as Matthew's and Luke's omitting Mk 4:32's "large" branches, is weak), but works from the assumption that only Q (and a hypothetical early layer at that) is largely authentic; yet even his own portrait of Jesus as a wisdom teacher should have allowed parables. (Even the notorious Jesus Seminar accepts many parables — Blomberg 1995: 20.)
11. Although overstating his case on the analogy's primacy, see Malina 1988 for God as patron (and Jesus as broker) in Synoptic theology.
12. Crosby 1988: 21-75 connects "house" with "church" in Matthew. Theissen 1991: 283 suggests that the "house" reflects later house churches receiving the "additional teachings," but while the tradition might have stressed the house for this reason, we need not suppose that the house was invented. Houses were common places for teaching in Jewish Palestine, and houses where healers stayed might also draw crowds (cf. 8:14-16).
13. Boring 1995: 89 compares Aesop Fables 172, but while this example illustrates the widespread use of agricultural images in antiquity, it differs significantly from Jesus' and rabbinic parables. While it offers a moral lesson as any narrative would, it does not provide symbolic correspondences as in Jesus' parables (e.g., the mustard seed represents the kingdom).
14. Mack 1988: 159 also cites Hippocrates Law 3; Antiphon Fr. 60; Quint. Inst. Or. 5.11.24; Boring 1995: 90 adds Plut. Lectures 48.
15. See also Vermes 1993: 98n.23; Hagner 1993: 368; Blomberg 1992a: 214, adding ARN 8:2. Payne 1980b: 568 suggests that the Aramaic of Mark supports soil being sown with seed rather than seed being sown in soil, and points to other possible Aramaisms.
16. Jeremias 1972: 11; idem 1966b; Nineham 1977: 134; Lane 1974: 153-54; see especially Payne 1978: 128-29, who contends that both practices occurred. Depending on the crop and the region, sowing and plowing could occur around November, anticipating harvest around May (Hesiod W.D. 383-84, 448-50).
17. Cf. also 4 Ezra 8:42-45, in which God is the farmer. Following J. B. Payne, some recent scholars suggest that Jesus here applies to himself an OT and Targumic image for God as the sower (Is 61:11; Jer 31:27-28; Targ. Yer. I on Ex 15:17; Witherington 1990: 212). By itself, the evidence cited may be inadequate in view of the frequency of agrarian images; Jesus' self-application of divine language elsewhere may, however, help the case.
18. Elsewhere in the Roman world, a hundredfold was quite good and more than that very rare (Pliny N.H. 18.21.95; Theophrastus Hist. Plant. 8.7.4; Strabo Geog. 15.3.11; Columella Agriculture 2.9.5-6; Varro On Agriculture 1.44.2; Herod. Hist. 1.193; see Scott 1989; 357; Davies and Allison 1991; 385 n.50; Garland 1993; 145); real hyperbolic images for eschatological abundance are at least one hundred times this much (Iren .Haer. 5.33.3-4; b. Ketub. 111 b-12a in Davies and Allison 1991; 385).
19. That the narratives of Matthew and Luke share some features omitted in Mark here suggests that this material also appears in "Q," increasing the likelihood of authenticity by the criterion of multiple attestation (pace Wrede 1971; 63). Even Boring 1982; 152accepts 13:16-17 as authentic.
20. Vermes 1993: 116 doubts the authenticity of this Matthean pericope, suggesting that an intention to keep the crowd from fully understanding would make Jesus more Essene or Gnostic, which he is not; he misses rabbinic parallels to the attitude. Wright 1992a: 394 regards Mk 4 as essentially apocalyptic revelation in which Jesus replaces the angelic revealer; but this proposal is again too narrow in view of other forms of revelation mentioned above.
21. Jewish teaching considered too esoteric for popular consumption (in general, e.g., b. Pesah. 119a; Pesiq. R. 22:2) includes especially accounts of the throne-chariot, since no one was to "see" God (t.Ḥag. 2:1; b.Ḥag. 13a, bar.; 14b, bar.; Shab. 80b; p.Ḥag. 2:1, §63-4; cf. 4Qsl40) and the creation (m.Ḥag. 2:1; t.Ḥag. 2:1,7; ARN 39A; b.Ḥag. 15a, bar.; p.Ḥag. 2:1, §15; Gen. Rab. 1:5,10; 2:4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:5; 2 Enoch 24:3). Later rabbis also preferred teaching in synagogues to public preaching on the streets (Liefeld 1967: 207).
22. This concept of mystery derives from Daniel (future mysteries in 2:18, 19, 22-23, 23, 27- 30, 47; 4:9; the mystery involves God's coming kingdom in 2:44-45) and possibly 1 Enoch (Nock 1964: 30a; Gibbard 1956: 109; Caragounis 1977: 126); cf. also the Qumran Scrolls dependent on them (cf., e.g.. Brown 1958-59; idem 1968; Ellis 1977: 208; Ramirez 1976)
23. Robbins suggests that Mark modified the prophetic "hear the word of the Lord" to fit Greco-Roman disciple-gathering patterns here (Robbins 1992: 59). But while early Christian prophecy may have borrowed the idiom via Jesus (Rev 2:7), "let one hear" may reflect a wisdom idiom (e.g., Ps 78:1; Prov 4:1; 5:1). Some moralists emphasized the responsibilities of a good audience alongside those of a good speaker (Plut. Lectures 14, Mor. 45D).
24. The disciples' role was greater than that of the prophets of old because Jesus himself was among them (5:12; 11:9-11; 23:34; especially 10:41, also coupling prophets and "righteous persons"); and the prophets had certainly seen more than hard-hearted outsiders had (13:14-15). In Jewish tradition the prophets of old had not yet seen God (Smith 1951: 154, suggesting that Matthew emphasizes Jesus' deity here) or his messianic redemption (McNamara 1972: 140).
25. For blessings for revelation, besides this Q statement (= Lk 10:23), Davies and Allison 1991: 621 (on Mt 16:17) also cite Jn 20:29; 4 Ezra 10:57; Jos. and Asen. 16:14. As early as 1 Kings 10:8, the Queen on Sheba praises Solomon by declaring how blessed are those with access to his wisdom.
26. Cf. Jones 1995: 71-72, challenging those who a priori assume that biblical allusions in Jesus' parables must be inauthentic.
27. It is unlikely that Mt 13:13 softens Mark's point (Mk 4:12), as some have contended (cf., e.g., Stern 1991: 201-2); Matthew's hoti (often "because") probably means the same here as Mark's hina (often "in order that." though this sense in Mark is often disputed on various grounds; see, e.g., Peisker 1968; Jeremias 1972: 17; cf. Hollenbach 1983). Robbins 1992: 138, suggests irony here similar to that in Plato Theaetetus 152C.
28. The "disciples" here are not just the Twelve, but any who had chosen to press in close enough and follow Jesus. (Teachers usually had a close circle, but others could listen in — cf. Safrai 1974/76a: 965. Even if Jesus' circle here is limited to official disciples, however, this group includes more than the Twelve.) Bailey 1976: 61-62 finds a chiasmus in 13:13-17; this structure presupposes Matthean redaction (cf., e.g., Gundry 1982: 258).
29. Gerhardsson 1968: 193 links the various soils to the various expressions of love in the Shema (Deut 6:4-5); despite how commonly the Shema was recited, however, the allusions remain dubious.
30. Davies and Allison 1991: 397-99 represent an exception. Although they tentatively deny authenticity in the tradition of Jeremias, they rightly refute traditional reasons for rejecting authenticity, recognizing that Jewish parables could include interpretations. I believe it likely that Jesus explained the parables to his disciples and that the disciples who preserved the traditions of the parables themselves (it is doubtful that the crowds provide the traditions' source) would have transmitted the interpretations as well.
31. E.g., Phaedrus 1.4.1; 1.5.1-2; 1.8.1-3; 1.9.1-2; 1.10.1-3; 1.11.1-2; 1.12.1-2; 1.13.1-2; 1.15.1-3; 1.16.1-2; 1.17.1; 1.18.1; 1.19.1-2; 1.20.1-2; 1.21.1-2; 1.23.1-2; 1.24.1; 1.25.1-2; 1.26.1-2; 1.27.1-2; 1.28.1-2; 1.29.1-3; 1.30.1; 1.31.1-2; 2.2.1-2; 2.5.1-6; 2.6.1-3; 3.1.7; 3.5.1; 3.7.1; 3.8.1; 3.9.1; 3.16.1-2; 4.1.1-3; 4.5.1-2; 4.8.1-2; 4.9.1-2; 4.12.1-2; 4.20.1; 4.23.1; 5.5.1-3; 5.7.1-3.
32. E.g., Phaedrus 1.1.14-15; 1.7.4-5; 1.14.18-19; 1.22.10-13; 2.1.11-12; 2.3.7; 2.4.25-26; 2.6.14-15; 3.2.1; 3.3.1-3; 3.6.10-11; 3.11.7; 3.12.8; 3.14.12-13; 3.17.13; 4.3.5-6; 4.4.12-13; 4.6.11-13; 4.7.25-26; 4.10.4-5; 4.11.14-21; 4.17.7-8; 4.24.3-4; 4.25.23-25; 5.2.14-15; 5.3.11-13; 5.4.7-12; 5.6.7; 5.8.6-7; 5.9.5; 5.10.10.
33. Explanations appear in less than half the parables in the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Babylonian Talmud, but in more cases in other sources, averaging about 76 percent, especially in later Tannaitic strata; but in no stratum are they unknown (Johnston 1977b; 566-67, 637-38). The form of the interpretation in 13:18-23 may deliberately echo Zechariah's vision interpretations (Jones 1995: 79).
34. Jerome was aware of Jewish teachers' skill in using parables, however (Comm. Matt. 18.23; Vermes 1993: 91n.l4, 95). If Matthew has somewhat more allegorization than Mark (a suggestion the accuracy of which is not always clear), this fits his Jewish context (Goulder 1974: 56-60).
35. Most Tannaitic parables have three characters (41) or fewer (162 with two, 106 with one), but not all the characters are always "absolutely essential," some being "little more than part of the scenery" (Johnston 1977b: 543-44).
36. Johnston, who notes that characters and details often serve as stage props, also observes that in many other cases characters and details correspond to something extrinsic to the story world itself, though these are often ad hoc rather than standard metaphors (1977b: 597). Most details, he finds, are metaphorical (601). Characters in Matthean parables are "flat," stock figures as in the rabbis, whereas Luke's tend to be "rounder" (cf. Goulder 1974: 55-56, 62, 64).
37. As Johnston 1977b: 578, after a massive analysis of Tannaitic parables, wryly observes against Jülicher, "the rabbis evidently felt no obligation to conform to Aristotelian canons defining parable or allegory. . . ." Witherington 1994: 189 notes that even Aristotle does not truly support the distinction; "What Aristotle in fact says is that the difference between simile and metaphor is slight (mikron) — The Art of Rhetoric 3.4, 1406b)!"
38. Funk's structuralist schema for interpretation worked fairly well on the parables he chose but did not work well with Tannaitic parables (Johnston 1977b: 545); for a critique of Funk's parable-as-metaphor view, see Stern 1991: 11-12; cf. Scott 1989: 46 (though Scott 1989: 419 notes that the narrative is "primary and can never be replaced by its supposed meaning"). Against some contemporary writers, subversion is also not implicit in the parable genre itself; rabbinic parables more often reinforce conventional values (Johnston 1977b: 633-34). Witherington among others argues persuasively that Jesus' parables should be examined in the context of other Jewish parables (1994: 183-90) rather than as purely polyvalent literary entities (1994: 147-83; cf. also Gerhardsson 1991).
39. Realism was appropriate to many kinds of illustration and persuasion. Greco-Roman rhetoric also emphasized making one's images so vivid that it was as if one set them "before hearers' eyes" (Arist. Rhet. 2.8.14, 1386a; 3.11.1-3, 1411b; Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.55.68; Theon Progymn. 7.53-55; Quint. 6.1.31; 8.3.65; 9.2.40; Gal 3:1).
40. This parable undoubtedly derives from a source no longer extant; it differs too greatly from Mk 4:26-29 to have been derived from it (A. B. Bruce 1979: 199; pace Gundry 1982: 261) — compare how closely in their essentials Matthew follows the Markan parables he does use (13:1-23, 31-32). Despite the connection of 13:34-35 to the section 13:24-43, Fenton 1966 sees a chiasmus in 13:34-52 (with a smaller such structure in 13:40-50). Despite the pre-Matthean tradition clear at most points, Derrett finds numerous connecting allusions to Mai 3:16-4:3 (1970: 15; many of these appear contrived). Scott 1989: 68-70 suggests 13:24-30 (par. Gos. Thorn. 20) is inauthentic because it establishes community boundaries; but does not much of Jesus' authentic teaching do the same?
41. The question "To what shall I compare . . . 7" (11:16; m. 'Abot. 3:17; Sukk. 2:10; t. Ber. 1:11; 6:18; B. Qam. 7:2-4;Ḥag. 2:5; Sanh. 1:2; 8:9; Sifra Shemini Mekhilta deMiluim 99.2.5; Behuq. pq. 2.262.1.9; Sifre Num. 84.2.1; 93.1.3; Sifre Deut. 1.9.2; 1.10.1; 308.2.1; 308.3.1: 309.1.1; 309.2.1; ARN 1, 2,6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 19, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31A; 2, §10; 4, §14; 8, §24; 9, §24; 12, §29; 13, §§30, 32; 18, §§39-40; 30, §63; 32, §§69,70B; 35, §77; b. Sanh. 107a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:2; 3:8; 14:5; 27:6; Sup. 1:11; 3:2; 7:3; Qoh. Rab. 9:8, §1; cf. Bultmann 1968: 179; Johnston 1977b: 531, 630) and the statement "So-and-so is like" (13:24; 25:1; t. Sukk. 2:6; Sifra Shemini Mekhilta deMiluim 99.2.2; Behuq. pq. 3.263.1.5, 8; Sifre Num. 84.1.1; 86.1.1; 89.4.2; Sifre Deut. 3.1.1; 11.1.2; 26.3.1; 28.1.1; 29.4.1; 36.4.5; 40.6.1; 43.8.1; 43.16.1; 45.1.2; 48.1.3; 53.1.3; 306.4.1; 306.7.1; 309.5.1; 312.1.1; 313.1.1; 343.1.2; 343.5.2; p. Ta'an. 2:1, §11; Lev. Rab. 27:8; cf. Johnston 1977b: 531; Vermes 1993: 92) were common ways to open a parable.
42. Widespread in the Mediterranean, darnel grew each year to between one and two feet (30-60 cm.); later rabbis in Gen. Rab. 28:8 viewed it as false wheat stemming from the sinful period before the Flood. Preserved samples of wheat and barley in Egyptian tombs and excavations in Lachish show inadvertent mixtures of darnel, which can cause sickness and even death (Hepper 1992: 88).
43. Jesus regularly recycles his eschatological agricultural images rather than assigning all details the same sense; thus, e.g., terms for "gather" are positive in 3:12; 13:48; represent judgment here as in Is 13:4; Joel 3:2, 11; Zeph 3:8; Zech 12:3; 14:2; Rev 16:16; and the good and wicked together in Mt 25:32; Is 2:2-4; 66:18.
44. One might consider it a "tree" in size, larger than other garden plants. Some commentators remark that it sometimes achieves a height of five meters and rather commonly reaches ten feet around the Lake of Galilee (Jeremias 1972: 148; cf. Vermes 1993: 100); Hepper 1992: 133 argues that the likeliest candidate for Jesus' mustard plant rarely exceeds five feet (1.5 meters). Hepper 1992: 133 suggests that Jesus meant "the smallest of cultivated seeds." For more details on reports of the mustard plant's growth, see h. Ketub. 111b; Pliny N.H. 19.170; Davies and Allison 1991: 418. For early "tree parables," see Judg 9:8-15; 2 Kings 14:9; cf. Dan 4:11-12.
45. Matthew might read "field" in contrast to Luke's "garden" and Mark's general reference because Palestinian custom located mustard in fields (see m. Kil. 3:2; Gundry 1982: 268). Even if so, however, the planting of mustard seed in a garden was not such an inalienable rule that it would constitute scandal (Scott 1989: 386); indeed, the very ruling in question permitted it if only mustard seed was sown and the perimeters of garden were acceptable (see especially Young 1989: 207). Matthew may read "field" only to connect this parable with the preceding one (13:24, 31; cf. Hagner 1993: 386). Ambrose (The Grain of Mustard Seed, A CCS, 61) understood the seed as Jesus himself, like the obscure martyrs (probably reading this parable in light of Jn 12:23-26).
46. So Jeremias 1972: 147; cf. Meier 1980: 149; Gundry 1982: 268; Hagner 1993: 390; on the precise figures, see Davies and Allison 1991: 423. On women in Jesus' parables, see, e.g., Witherington 1984: 35-37.
47. Jesus' followers, in contrast to Israelites in general in 8:12 (pace Strombeck 1982: 164).
48. The shining of the righteous in the future was a motif in Jewish end-time texts (Wis 3:7-8; Qumran's commentary on Is 54:11-12; Ps-Philo 26:13; 4 Ezra 7:97; 2 Enoch 65:11 A; Sifre Deut. 47.2.1-2; b. Sanh. 100a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:2; Lev. Rab. 30:2; Qoh. Rab. 1:7, §9; Rev 22:5); here it alludes especially to Dan 12:3 (not to Mai 4, pace Derrett 1970: 15) and the language of Jesus' own transfiguration (17:2; cf. Phil 3:21). Smelik 1995 reads the Targumic transformation of the righteous into light as apotheosis; Greeks could describe people shining like stars but noneschatologically (e.g., Ap. Rhod. 1.239).
49. Stern 1991: 198-99 suggests that the parable's purpose is thus theodicy, which fits the rhetorical function of many rabbinic parables.
50. Compare the later rabbi who exhorted an executioner to let God, the garden's owner, root out the garden's thorns himself (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11:19).
51. That the Son of Man finds the children of the kingdom as a treasure (Burchard 1988) would be consistent with other Gospel pictures of Jesus, but it remains a far less likely interpretation of this parable in this context. Boring 1995: 94-95 cites as examples of sacrificing all possessions for God's purposes Test. Job 18:6-8; Mek. Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai 14:5; see further comments on 4:18-22; 19:21-22.
52. The historical presents, which Matthew usually removes even from Mark, suggest that this parable is pre-Matthean (Jeremias 1972: 198; pace Gundry 1982: 275). The buyer represents not God or Jesus seeking their people, but God's people seeking his blessings, as in Mek. Beshallah 2.142-43 (Blomberg 1992a: 223).
53. Scott 1989: 402 reads too much into the situation to suppose that the field's new owner dare not dig up the treasure "unless he wants to face the rather embarrassing question of whence it came." The situation was legal, from a peasant standpoint surely moral, and finally tangential to the parable's thrust. Compare rabbinic parables in which buyers sell various kinds of property, unaware until too late of the value of what they had lost (Young 1989: 215-19).
54. Whether or not a direct relationship exists, Gos. Thom. 8 is probably a secondary version of the earlier form preserved in Matthew (see Davies and Allison 1991: 443).
55. For ancient views on various kinds of fish (not all accurate), see, e.g., Pliny N.H. 9.16.43-9.45.84.
56. Davies and Allison 1991: 445 compare 1QM 10.10 ("schooled in the law and learned in wisdom"). Less convincingly, Lachs 1987: 230 cites various rabbinic parallels: the most convincing is the later rabbinic interpretation of Song 7:13: "The old is the Written Law, the new the words of the Scribes" (b. 'Erub. 21b).
57. Jones 1995: 149-50 suggests that Matthew invites here the vocation of Christian scribes. That Jesus speaks first of "new" treasures and of "old" ones second may suggest the need to understand the kingdom before one may correctly interpret the law (Meier 1980: 154). Derrett 1973: 175 suggests that the image Jesus uses is that of new and old coins, which someone would "pay out."
58. For the centrality of "understanding" in Matthew, especially via "seeing" and "hearing" Jesus, see Kingsbury 1995b: 376.
59. E.g., Stendahl 1968: 30; Bonnard 1963; Fenton 1977: 230; F. F. Bruce 1972a: 72; Meeks 1986: 117; cf. Phil 3:5; Acts 15:5; pace Van Tilborg 1972b: 128-41.
60. Orton 1989: 137-76 notes Matthew's scribal compositional and redactional techniques, though he probably overstates them.