5. Transitional conclusion: movement toward further opposition (13:53)

5. Transitional conclusion: movement toward further opposition (13:53)

3b“A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9He who has ears, let him hear.”

COMMENTARY

3b–7 The focus of the parable is not the sower (the article is used in v.3 to designate a class; cf. 12:43) but the soils. The farmer scatters the seed, which falls in various places. Paths run through and around the unfenced fields (see

8–9 Some seed falls on good soil and produces crops of various yields, which, contrary to what many think, are not extremely high, symbolic of the fertility of the messianic age, but well within ordinary expectations (cf. Keener; Payne, “Authenticity of the Parable,” 181–86). The same seed produces no crop, some crop, or much crop according to the soil’s character. The final exhortation (v.9; see

At this point, many commentators, believing vv.18–23 to be unauthentic, attempt to interpret vv.3b–9 without reference to vv.18–23. Their efforts fail to produce interpretations more believable than the one Matthew ascribes to Jesus. Typical is that of Hill, who says the parable means that just as every (Palestinian) sower does his work in spite of many frustrations, so the kingdom makes its way in spite of many difficulties. It will be established in time, with a sure and glorious harvest, but only after much loss. The parable has little to do with how to hear the word of God. But Hill’s interpretation depends on treating the parable serially—i.e., the sower sows seed in all the bad places first! On the face of it, the differences lie in the soils, not in the order of sowing: i.e., the kingdom, while advancing now by the promulgation of the good news about the kingdom (4:23), is meeting many different responses.

OVERVIEW

Matthew’s treatment is not only longer than Mark’s (Mk 4:10–12) and Luke’s (Lk 8:9–10; 10:23–24), but it includes more OT Scripture and is structured with great care. The disciples’ question (v.10) evokes Jesus’ basic answer (vv.11–12), which is then applied in greater detail first to “them” (vv.13–15) and then to the disciples (vv.16–18). The latter two sections are a well-ordered chiasm whose inversion echoes OT form (e.g., Ps 89:28–37) and emphasizes the climax of judgment and mercy (so Kenneth E. Bailey, Poet and Peasant [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976], 61–62):

Therefore I speak to them in parables,

10The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”

11He replied, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13This is why I speak to them in parables:

“Though seeing, they do not see;

though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

14In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;

you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

15For this people’s heart has become calloused;

they hardly hear with their ears,

and they have closed their eyes.

Otherwise they might see with their eyes,

hear with their ears,

understand with their hearts

and turn, and I would heal them.’

16But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.”

COMMENTARY

10 “The disciples” (Mk 4:10: “the Twelve and the others around him”) approached Jesus, apparently in private. If this occurred at the end of the discourse, the plural “parables” would be well accounted for. Kingsbury (Parables of Jesus, 40–41) detects in the verb proselthontes (“came to him,” GK 4665) a “cultic connotation”: the disciples approached Jesus “with the same reverence that would be due to a king or deity.” He defends this doubtful view with a prejudicial selection of the evidence that could in some cases be taken that way, while ignoring contrary evidence regarding Matthew’s use of the verb (cf. 4:3; 8:19; 9:14; 15:1, 30; 16:1; 17:24; 22:23).

Recent scholarship rightly sees in this chapter the distinction between the disciples and the crowds, presupposed by the above outline. But there has been a regrettable tendency to think Matthew has absolutized the distinction, idealized the disciples, and played down their lack of understanding (Barth, “Matthew’s Understanding of the Law,” 105ff.; Kingsbury, Parables of Jesus, 42ff.). This idealization, it is alleged, is very strong in vv.10–17 and emerges in v.10. The disciples ask why Jesus speaks to the crowds in parables, not what the parables mean—and this presupposes they already know. But Mark’s question is ambiguous (4:10); Matthew typically has merely clarified the point. The critics’ contention is based on an argument from silence. But if the disciples did understand the parable of the sower, why does Jesus proceed in a few verses to give them an explanation (vv.18–23)? And why do they ask for an explanation to a later parable (v.36)? The focus of Jesus’ reply (vv.11–17) is not so much on the disciples’ understanding as on the fact that the revelation is given to some and not to others and why. On this recurring question, see Trotter, “Understanding and Stumbling.”

11–12 Jesus’ answer cannot legitimately be softened. At least one of the functions of parables is to conceal the truth, or at least to present it in a veiled way. This point is strengthened if the hoti is not “recitative” (equivalent to the quotation marks in the NIV) but fully causal—“because.” The disciples ask, “Why do you speak, etc.?” and Jesus replies, “Because the secrets of the kingdom have been given to the disciples but not to others.” The strength of this translation turns not only on its suitability after “Why?” but also on the fact that hoti is nowhere else in the NT “recitative” after the particular formula used: ho de apokritheis eipen (“he replied,” v.11; cf. Wenham, “Structure of Matthew XIII,” 519 n. 5, and literature cited). The pronoun autois (“to them”) does not refer first to the Jews in Matthew’s day but to “the people” mentioned by the disciples in the previous verse.

Ta mysteria tēs basileias (“the secrets of the kingdom”) is not explained; its meaning may be deduced by the context and by the use of mysterion (“secret”) elsewhere. Mysterion (GK 3696) has no obvious connections with pagan mystery religions but reflects a thoroughly Semitic background (cf. R. E. Brown, The Semitic Background of the Term “Mystery” in the New Testament [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968]). It appears in the OT in Daniel (Aram. rāz; GK 10661), which refers to some eschatological secret, some portent of what God has decreed will take place in the future. The Greek term can also reflect the Hebrew sôd (“secret,” “confidential speech,” GK 6051), taken from the heavenly council (cf. Brown, Semitic Background, 2–6; NIDNTT, 3:502). The same range of meanings is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. “Mysteries” are divine plans or decrees, often passed on in veiled language, known only to the elect, and usually relating to eschatological events.

For the “secrets of the kingdom” to be “given” the disciples suggests that to them certain eschatological realities are being revealed. What is revealed is not who Jesus is, the nature of God, or the power of love (all of which have been suggested); rather, the “mystery of the Kingdom is the coming of the Kingdom into history in advance of its apocalyptic manifestation” (Ladd, Presence of the Future, 219–42, esp. 222). That God would bring in his kingdom was no secret. All Jews looked forward to it. “The new truth, now given to men by revelation in the person and mission of Jesus, is that the Kingdom which is to come finally in apocalyptic power, as foreseen by Daniel, has in fact entered into the world in advance in a hidden form to work secretly within and among men” (ibid., 225, emphasis his).

It is unlikely that the plural “secrets,” as opposed to Mark’s “secret,” refers to everything Jesus has taught (so Kingsbury, Parables of Jesus, 44–45). The strongest reason for the latter view is that some of the parables deal with ethical matters, not eschatology, reflecting, it is argued, the full gamut of Jesus’ teaching (e.g., parables of the hidden treasure, of the pearl, of the unforgiving servant). But in reality, all such parables, as we shall see, necessarily presuppose some form of realized eschatology to make their ethical demands meaningful. The plural “secrets” is best accounted for as a typical Matthean preference for the plural (cf. Mt 4:3—Lk 4:3; Mt 8:26—Mk 4:39; Mt 26:15—Mk 14:11; and a regular changing of “crowd” to “crowds” at 12:46; 13:2; 14:22; 15:36; 21:46; 23:1; 27:20), or as a reflection of a non-Markan source (there are several Matthew–Luke “minor agreements” against Mark here; for details, see Wenham, “Synoptic Problem Revisited”), or perhaps as a reference to the multiple elements bound up with the basic eschatological truth that the age to come has already dawned.

The antithesis of v.12 is proverbial and repeated elsewhere (25:29; cf. Mk 4:25; Lk 8:18). It warns against taking spiritual blessings for granted and serves to increase gratitude and a sense of privilege among those who continue to enjoy them. What is lost in the second part of the antithesis is not the law but one’s standing as the expected subject of the kingdom (cf. 8:11–12).

13 Jesus now explicitly applies his answer (vv.11–12) to those who are not disciples. Discussion of this verse turns on Matthew’s change of hina plus subjunctive in Mark 4:12 (“in order that ...”)—which implies that the parables’ blinding outsiders is a function of divine election—to hoti (“because”), which means that Jesus speaks in parables because the people are spiritually insensitive. Though they “see,” they do not really “see.” There are four possible approaches to the above data.

1. Some argue that Matthew’s change of hina to hoti is motivated by his editorial desire to blame the Jews or to establish a moral basis for their being rejected (e.g., Kingsbury, Parables of Jesus, 48–49; Dupont, “Le point de vue,” 233–34). But this badly oversimplifies the matter because of the strong note on election in the best rendering of v.11 (see comments above).

2. Others suggest a sort of additive harmonization: “because” (hoti, Matthew) the willful rejecters refused to see and hear, Jesus spoke to them in parables “in order that” (hina, Mark-Luke) they might not (truly) see and hear (Hendriksen). This may be theologically sound, but it is doubtful whether simple addition best explains what Matthew has done.

3. Many attempt to soften the hina in Mark to lose its telic force (“in order that”) and take on a consecutive force (“with the result that”; cf. NIV’s ambiguous “so that”). Mark and Matthew would then be very close in thought in this verse. Certainly hina can have consecutive force in Hellenistic Greek, a distinct departure from the classical, but Mark has hina ... mēpote (lit., “in order that ... lest”; NIV, “so that ... otherwise”), and it is very difficult to give such an expression anything else than full telic force. Moule (Idiom Book, 143) recognizes the strength of this argument, but because he judges the notion of parables told to prevent any who are not predestined for salvation from hearing “too incongruous with any part of the NT period to be plausible,” he is forced to appeal to Semitic idiom or even the much later linguistic development of causal hina. But attempts to ground Mark’s hina in a Semitic mistranslation (cf. esp. T. W. Manson, The Teachings of Jesus [2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1935], 76ff.) have proved futile (cf. Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 34–35 n. 1; Boucher, Mysterious Parable, 43–44). And appeals to rabbinic parables and their function have turned out to support the telic view, since rabbis did indeed use parables to mask truth: the rabbinic parable “is not a universalistic form” (D. Daube, “Public Pronouncement and Private Explanation in the Gospels,” ExpTim 57 [1945–46]: 177).

4. Though the last two approaches are not convincing, the first can become plausible if presented with greater awareness of the relationship v.12 enjoys with v.11 and v.13. Verse 11 most likely embraces a strictly predestinarian viewpoint, more strongly than Mark 4:11 and doctrinally, though not verbally, like Mark 4:12. The reply to the disciples’ question (v.10) is thus given in terms of election in v.11, which is further explained in v.12. Verse 13 recapitulates the reason for speaking in parables but now frames the reason, not in terms of election, but in terms of spiritual dullness. Matthew has already given Jesus’ answer in terms of divine election (v.11); now he gives the human reason. While this brings him into formal conflict with Mark 4:12, he has already sounded the predestinarian note of Mark 4:12. Here Matthew includes much more material than Mark, and in the ordered structure (see parallelisms above) that results from the inclusion of such new material, verbal parallels are lost in favor of conceptual ones.

Three broader reflections help resolve the problem.

1. Biblical writers in both the OT and NT have, on the whole, fewer problems about the tension between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility than do many moderns. This is not because they fail to distinguish purpose and consequence, as many affirm (e.g., Moule, Idiom Book, 142), but because they do not see divine sovereignty and human responsibility as mutually incompatible antitheses. In short, they are compatibilists and therefore juxtapose the two themes with little self-conscious awareness of any problem (cf. Ge 50:19–20; Jdg 14:4; Isa 10:5–7; Hag 1:12–14; Jn 11:49–52; cf. Carson, Divine Sovereignty).

2. Thus, even though he records Jesus’ answer in terms of election, Mark does not thereby mean to absolve the outsiders of all responsibility. How could he, in the light of the interpretation of the parable of the sower he records (4:13–20), his record of John’s demand for repentance (1:4), and much more? Matthew has taken up these themes in greater detail because he wishes simultaneously to affirm that what is taking place in the ministry of Jesus is, on the one hand, the decreed will of God and the result of biblical prophecy and, on the other hand, a terrible rebellion, gross spiritual dullness, and chronic unbelief. This places the responsibility for the divine rejection of those who fail to become disciples on their own shoulders while guaranteeing that none of what is taking place stands outside God’s control and plan. The same sort of pairing has already been expressed in 11:25–30.

3. This sheds much light on the parables. It is naive to say Jesus spoke them so that everyone might more easily grasp the truth, and it is simplistic to say that the sole function of parables to outsiders was to condemn them. If Jesus simply wished to hide the truth from the outsiders, he need never have spoken to them. His concern for mission (9:35–38; 10:1–10; 28:16–20) excludes that idea. So he must preach without casting his pearls before pigs (7:6). He does so in parables: i.e., in such a way as to harden and reject those who are hard of heart and to enlighten—often with further explanation—his disciples. His disciples, it must be remembered, are not just the Twelve but those who are following him (see

The parable of the soils not only says that the kingdom advances slowly and with varied responses to the proclamation of that kingdom but also implicitly challenges hearers to ask themselves what kinds of soil they are. Those whose hearts are hardened and who lose what little they have do not participate in the messianic kingdom they have been looking for, and for them the parable is a sentence of doom. Those who have ears to hear, to whom more is given, perceive and experience the dawning of the messianic age; for them the parable conveys the mysteries of the kingdom. In the varied responses given to the challenge of the parables, God’s act of judgment and his self-disclosure in Jesus are both seen to be taking place in exactly the same way that various “soils” respond to the “seed,” which is the message about the kingdom (see

14–15 Stendahl (School of St. Matthew) and others advance several reasons for taking this quotation as a late gloss on the gospel, including an anomalous introductory formula, and insist that the quotation is tautologous after v.13. But parallels to this introductory formula are common in the LXX and other Greek-Jewish literature with which Matthew is familiar, and vv.14–15 are not strictly tautologous since they go on to stress the theme of fulfillment. Moreover, if Matthew follows Mark (4:12) in v.13, it is unlikely he abridged his source by omitting the entire last clause of Mark 4:12 (“otherwise they might turn and be forgiven”). The one area where Matthew almost invariably gives more material than the other synoptists is in OT quotations and allusions. “We must rather assume that verse 13 leads up to the formal quotation in verses 14, 15” (Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 116–18). These two verses thus become the rough equivalent of Mark 4:12–13.

The text form is LXX (as also in Ac 28:26–27), which follows the MT of Isaiah 6:9–10 pretty closely, except that the LXX is a description of the people whereas the MT makes this a command to the prophet (“Be ever hearing, but never understanding.... Make the heart of this people calloused”). But this is not as significant a change as some have thought; for judging by the prophet’s later messages, the words in Isaiah 6:9–10 are steeped in bitter irony. After all, Isaiah was not given this charge because the result was desirable but because it inevitably came on people who were calloused. So also in Jesus’ day! The Messiah who comes to reveal the Father (11:25–27) succeeds only in dulling what little spiritual sense many of the people have, for they do not want to turn and be healed. Indeed, the context of Isaiah 6:9–10 reveals that their dullness will continue “until the cities lie ruined ... and the fields ruined and ravaged ... and the land is utterly forsaken. And though a tenth remains in the land, it will again be laid waste” (6:11–13). The reference is to the exile, but the events surrounding the exile are seen as a paradigm, the classic case of rejection of God and resulting judgment, repeated in Jesus’ generation on a new level and so fulfilling the words of the prophecy. It is unclear whether any claim that Isaiah 6:9–10 has predictive force is implied (if so, see

The first two lines of the quotation are in the second person plural: the people are directly addressed. But v.15 gives us God’s description of the people in the third person. This makes it at least possible to interpret the “otherwise” clauses (mēpote, “lest”), not as the people’s purpose (they have closed their eyes lest they see and turn and be healed), but as God’s judgment (they have closed their eyes as the result of divine judicial action, otherwise they might see and turn, etc.). The thought then becomes similar to 2 Thessalonians 2:11. Again, of course, neither Jesus nor Matthew would see anything incongruous in God’s judicial hardening (see

16–17 The disciples were blessed by God (see

Those who think Matthew idealizes the disciples (see

NOTES

14 The addition of a cognate participle or a cognate dative to a verb in order to strengthen the verb is a customary way for the LXX to render the Hebrew infinitive absolute (cf. BDF, para. 422; Zerwick, Biblical Greek, para. 369). Both are found here in this LXX quotation: ἀκοῇ ἀκούσετε (akoē akousete, lit., “in hearing you will hear”), βλέποντες βλέψετε (blepontes blepsete, lit., “seeing you will see”). In English these are confusing tautologies, and their meaning is rightly rendered by the NIV: “You will be ever hearing,” or “you will be hearing acutely,” etc.

OVERVIEW

Jeremias (Parables of Jesus, 62) thinks the interpretation provided in all three gospels (cf. Mk 4:14–20; Lk 8:11–15) is a later church creation, but we have already questioned the cogency of some of his criteria. Payne (“Authenticity of the Parable”) has taken up the points in question and offered comprehensive rejoinders, some of which will be noted below. Here it is enough to say that (contra Jeremias, 79) not every point in the parable is interpreted allegorically. No explanation is given of the sower, the path, the rocky ground, or the diverse yield. What “allegorical” points are scored emerge naturally from the story (even the identification of the birds; see

The general point is that the “message about the kingdom” (v.19) receives a varied reception among various people, and that during this time of difficulty and frustration there is an implied delay while the seed produces in some soils its various yields. The interpretation therefore demands that each person look to himself as to how he “hears” the message. Broadus, 294, cites Chrysostom: “Mark this, I pray thee, that the way of destruction is not one only, but there are differing ones, and wide apart from one another. Let us not soothe ourselves upon our not perishing in all these ways, but let it be our grief in whichever way we are perishing.”

18“Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: 19When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path. 20The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away. 22The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful. 23But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.”

COMMENTARY

18 The hymeis (“you”) is probably emphatic: in light of the great privilege extended to you, which prophets and righteous men wanted to enjoy and the calloused spurn, you listen.

19 Matthew omits “the farmer sows the word” (Mk 4:14) and plunges right into the significance of the various soils. This does not mean he is concerned with the ecclesiastical implications at the expense of the christological ones (so Kingsbury, Parables of Jesus, 72), since Mark himself does not identify the sower as Jesus. If he here depends on Mark, Matthew simplifies to get to the point. But David Wenham (“Interpretation of the Parable of the Sower”) has provided a plausible source reconstruction that would invalidate redaction-critical conclusions in this pericope that depend on Markan priority. Possibly Matthew and Mark share a common source.

Neither “word” (Mark) nor “word of the kingdom” (Matthew; NIV, “message about the kingdom”) indicates later ecclesiastical tradition (cf. Payne, “Authenticity of the Parable,” 178–79; contra Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 77–78; Hill). On the change from “word” to “word of the kingdom,” compare Matthew’s “gospel of the kingdom” (4:23; 9:35; 24:14). More difficult is the mixed metaphor: the seed appears to be “the message about the kingdom,” but in the last sentence of the verse it is ho para tēn hodon spareis (lit., “he who was sown along the path”; the NIV has smoothed out the difficulty by treating the masculine participle as if it were neuter).

A similar problem occurs in Mark’s parallel. Several ways for resolving the problem have been suggested. G. H. Box (St. Matthew [Edinburgh: T. C. & E. C. Jack, n.d.) and Alan Hugh McNeile are among those who take the text literally but think there is a purposeful link between the seed and human character, which grows from the seed. But surely the point of this part of the parable is that the seed is taken away before it has time to grow. Others have suggested some sort of ellipsis: “This is [the situation of] the seed sown along the path,” understanding “This” to refer to the situation, not the seed or the person, which would also explain vv.20–23, though the masculine houtos (“this”) instead of the neuter is somewhat surprising. Alexander and Hendriksen therefore opt for a fairly complex ellipsis: “He is the one that [in his reaction to the message resembles the reaction of the ground to the seed that] was sown along the path”—which is possible but rather finely drawn.

Wenham (“Interpretation of the Parable of the Sower”) offers a complex but plausible source-critical solution; Payne (“Authenticity of the Parable,” 172–77) proposes an underlying Aramaic too literally translated and observes that the Greek can be understood to mean, not “this is he who was sown along the path,” but “this is the man who received the seed along the edge of the path” (JB; cf. NASB), understanding the passive participle ho spareis to mean, not “the one [seed] sown,” but “the one [soil] sown.” C. F. D. Moule (“Mark 4:1–20 Yet Once More,” in Neotestamentica et Semitica [ed. Ellis and Wilcox], 112) has shown that the ambiguity is no indication that the interpretation is secondary; the same thing occurs in Colossians 1:6, 10, where the metaphor of growing and bearing fruit is applied first to the seed sown and then to the ground in which it is sown.

Two further features of this verse require explanation.

1. The words “in his heart” make the heart the place of decision, the center of personality (see

2. The evil one (cf. 6:13; 12:45; 13:38–39), called “Satan” in Mark 4:15 and “the devil” in Luke 8:12, has been symbolized by the birds, a point Via (Parables, 8) uses to argue that this interpretation goes beyond the range of the natural and understandable symbolism inherent in the parable and must therefore be judged guilty of falling into allegorizing. In fact, close study of birds as symbols in the OT and especially in the literature of later Judaism shows that birds regularly symbolize evil and even demons or Satan (cf. b. Sanh. 107a; see also Rev 18:2).

Jesus’ interpretation is clear: Some people hear the message about the kingdom, but like hardened paths, they do not let the truth penetrate; before they really understand it the devil has snatched it away.

20–21 The language of these verses is often taken to reflect the apostolic age, not Jesus (cf. Jeremias, Parables of Jesus). But “root” (v.21) is appropriate to the extended agricultural metaphor, and “persecution” is amply treated by Jesus elsewhere in nonparabolic settings (e.g., 5:10–12, 43–44; 10:16–25; 24:9; see Payne, “Authenticity of the Parable,” 177–80). Jesus’ interpretation is coherent. The person who receives “the word” (same Gk. word as “message” in v.19) in a thoughtless way may show immediate signs of life and promise to be the best of the crop: he receives the truth “with joy” (v.20). But without real root, there is no fruit; and external pressures, trouble, and persecution (cf. 24:9, 21, 29), like sun beating on a rootless plant, soon reveal the shallowness of this soil. “At once” (euthys) he receives the word with joy and, as “quickly” (euthys), “falls away” (skandalizetai, GK 4997; see

22 This person does not hear the word “with joy” (as in v.20) but simply never permits the message about the kingdom to control him. Life has too many other commitments that slowly choke the struggling plant, which never matures and bears fruit. The competing “thorns” are summed up under two headings—the “worries of this life” (lit., this “age” as opposed to the age to come; see

23 By contrast with the negative results of the preceding verses, we now come to the person who hears the word and understands it (thus reverting to the categories of Isa 6:9–10 used in vv.13–15, 19). The use of syniēmi (“understand,” GK 5317) in vv.19, 23, a verb not found in the Markan parallels, has led some to say that “understanding” is a fundamental characteristic of discipleship in Matthew, and that his disciples have again become idealized (see

David Wenham (“Interpretation of the Parable of the Sower,” 308–9 n. 5) has shown that granted Matthew’s syntax in v.19, he could not very well have omitted syniēmi there. Its use in v.23 picks up the Isaiah quotation given more briefly in Mark. Moreover, v.23 does not apply the verb directly to the disciples but interprets the parable aphoristically; in so doing it is merely in line with Mark’s “hear the word, accept it” (4:20, emphasis added). In this chapter the disciples are distinguished from the crowd, but their understanding is only relatively better (v.36), and they are not idealized. Misunderstanding of this point springs from too ready a willingness to read the later church into every phrase of the parable and from a failure to recognize the absolute categories that any competent preacher, including Jesus, uses (see

The interpretation, like the parable itself, ends positively. We must not fail to notice that the soil that produces only a small crop is nevertheless called “good” (cf. 25:22–23).

NOTES

23 The particle δή (dē, used for various kinds of emphasis) is normally employed in the NT in sentences of command or exhortation. This is the sole NT exception (though there are good classical parallels): “he is just the man who, etc.” (cf. BDF, para. 451 [4]). The anomaly has prompted a variant reading in the Western textual tradition.

OVERVIEW

This parable occurs only in Matthew. For the reasons why its interpretation (vv.36–43) is separated from it, see

The parable of the sower shows that though the kingdom will now make its way amid hard hearts, competing pressures, and even failure, it will produce an abundant crop. But one might ask whether Messiah’s people should immediately separate the crop from the weeds; this next parable answers the question negatively: there will be a delay in separation until the harvest.

24Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

27“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

28“‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

29“‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

COMMENTARY

24 Jesus parethēken (“told”) the people another parable (lit., “he set another before them”). This verb is used in the NT only here and in v.31 in the sense of teaching, though that meaning is attested elsewhere. “Them” must be the crowd, not the disciples (cf. vv.34, 36).

The kingdom of heaven is not “like a man” but “like the situation of a man who ...”; the “is like” formula reflects an Aramaic idiom meaning “It is the case with X as with Y” (cf. Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 100–101; Zerwick, Biblical Greek, para. 65). But the peculiar tense used here (see Notes) also implies that the kingdom has become like the situation of a man who, etc. The thought is intriguing; for whereas Judaism was accustomed to delays in waiting for the coming of Messiah (cf. R. J. Bauckham, “The Delay of the Parousia,” TynBul 31 [1980]: 3–36), what Jesus argues is both that the kingdom has come (see 4:17; 12:28) and that the Parousia is still delayed (i.e., the kingdom has become like a parable dealing with the delay of the kingdom’s arrival).

25–26 “Sleeping” does not imply that the servants were neglectful but that the enemy was stealthy and malicious. What he sowed was zizania (“weeds”—almost certainly bearded darnel [lolium temulentum]), which is botanically close to wheat and difficult to distinguish from it when the plants are young. The roots of the two plants entangle themselves around each other; but when the heads of grain appear on the wheat, there is no doubt which plant is which (v.26). This weed the enemy sowed “among the wheat”; the Greek (ana mesov) suggests thorough distribution. The growing plants gradually become identifiable, and the servants tell their master about the weeds.

27 For oikodespotēs (“owner,” GK 3867), see

28–30 The owner blames an enemy (lit., “a man [who is] an enemy”; the construction occurs again in v.52). But the owner forbids his servants from attempting to separate weed from wheat until the harvest (v.29–30). Then, as the workers reap the field, only the wheat will be gathered; the weeds, apparently so plentiful they must first be gathered up and burned (v.30), contaminate the wheat no longer. “Harvest” is a common metaphor for the final judgment (see

An astonishing number of scholars treat this parable as if there were behind it a Matthean church riddled with problem people, perhaps even apostates. So Jesus’ answer in Matthew becomes, in effect, advice not to try to have a pure church, because the Lord will make the right distinctions at the end (cf. G. Barth, “Auseinandersetzungen um die Kirchenzucht im Umkreis des Matthäusevangelium,” ZNW 69 [1978]: 158–77). But this is a major error in category. Nowhere in Matthew does “kingdom” (or “reign”—see

NOTES

24 The normal way for synoptic parables of the sort “the kingdom is like” to express “is like” consists of ὁμοία ἐστίν (homoia estin, “is like”) plus dative. In Matthew, however, this pattern sometimes changes to aorist passive ὁμοιώθη (homoiōthē, “has become like,” here and in 18:23; 22:2) or to future passive ὁμοιωθήσεται (homoiōthēsetai, “will become like,” 7:24, 26; 25:1). The future passive usages of the verb focus on the kingdom at its consummation, and the aorist passive on the kingdom as it has already been inaugurated (cf. Strecker, Weg der Gerechtigkeit, 214–15; Kingsbury, Parables of Jesus, 67; esp. Carson, “ὅμοιος Word-Group”). If so, Pamment’s view (“Kingdom of Heaven”; see

29 Only here in the NT does the adverb ἅμα (hama, “at the same time”; NIV, “when”) function as an improper preposition “with,” “along with” (plus dative, cf. Moule, Idiom Book, 81; BDF, para. 194 [3]).

31He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. 32Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches.”

COMMENTARY

31–32 Close comparison with Mark 4:30–32 and Luke 13:18 suggests that Matthew may have slightly modified the Q form of this parable under Mark’s influence. Yet it is easy to exaggerate the differences (see

There is a better interpretation. In all three gospels the parable begins with a mustard seed (for the introductory formula and the verb parethēken [“he told”], see

But if the greatness of the kingdom is in view, why a mustard plant? The contrast in size between seed and plant does not itself establish the greatness of the kingdom. Contrary to Kingsbury (Parables of Jesus, 81) and Huffmann (“Atypical Features in the Parables,” 211), it is doubtful whether Jesus’ point is that the kingdom grows supernaturally. Instead, the point is the organic unity of small beginning and mature end (cf. Dahl, Jesus in the Memory, 155–56). No pious Jew doubted that the kingdom would come and that it would be vast and glorious. What Jesus is teaching goes beyond that. He is saying there is a basic connection between the small beginnings taking place under his ministry and the kingdom in its future glory. Though the initial appearance of the kingdom may seem inconsequential, the tiny seed leads to the mature plant.

We can now see why Jesus chose the mustard seed. For him it was not essential to stress the greatness of the future kingdom; few would dispute that. It was more important that he find a metaphor emphasizing the kingdom’s tiny beginning. Jacques Dupont (“Le couple parabolique du sénevé et du levain,” in Jesus Christus [ed. Strecker], 331–45) has suggested another reason for this metaphor. He convincingly shows that the parables of the mustard seed and of the yeast, linked in Matthew and Luke but only the first occurring in Mark, actually belonged together from the beginning. He argues that Mark has structural reasons for dropping the parable of the yeast, and so his silence is scarcely determinative. But one of the links he finds between the two parables is the incongruity of both metaphors. He quotes authors who find the mustard plant an incongruous or even bizarre symbol for the kingdom, while everyone knows that yeast normally symbolizes evil (see

NOTES

31 The construction ὅν λαβὼν ἄνθρωπος ἔσπειρεν (hon labōn anthrōpos espeiren, lit., “which having taken a man sowed”) represents a Semitic auxiliary construction and occurs only here in the NT and at vv.33, 44; Luke 12:37; 13:19, 21.

32 The word μεῖζον (meizon, “the largest”) is neuter and is therefore in agreement with τὸ σίναπι (to sinapi, “mustard,” “mustard plant”) rather than ὁ κόκκος (ho kokkos, “seed”). There is no smooth way of translating the anomaly.

33He told them still another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough.”

COMMENTARY

33 The general thrust of this parable is the same as that of the mustard seed. The kingdom produces ultimate consequences out of all proportion to its insignificant beginnings. Efforts by many dispensationalists (e.g., Walvoord) to interpret the yeast as a symbol for evil are not very convincing in this setting because they require the introduction of anachronistic ideas like “the professing church.” Moreover, though yeast is normally associated with evil in the OT, this is not always so (cf. Lev 7:13; 23:15–18). Metaphors may have diverse uses; e.g., the lion at different times symbolizes both Satan and Jesus. In any case, the anomalous metaphor is here best explained along the lines suggested by Dupont (“Le couple”; see

If there is a distinction between this parable and the last one, it is that the mustard seed suggests extensive growth and the yeast intensive transformation. The yeast doesn’t grow; it permeates, and its inevitable effect, despite the small quantity used, recalls Jesus’ words in 5:13. In both parables it is clear that at present the kingdom of heaven operates, not apocalyptically, but quietly and from small beginnings.

There seems little merit in trying to identify the woman, any more than the man in v.31. Some have thought that enekrypsen (RSV, “hid”; NIV, “mixed,” from enkryptō, GK 1606) resonates with “hidden” (kekrymmena, from kryptō, GK 3221) in vv.35, 44: “The Kingdom was inaugurated without display or pomp; its silent, secret character must have surprised those who were zealously impatient for its expected manifestation in power and glory” (Hill, 234). These comments, while relevant to the parable as a whole, read too much into the verb enkryptō itself. It simply means “put something into something,” even in nonbiblical Greek (cf. BDAG, 274); the NIV’s “mixed” is therefore not bad. Usage of kryptō in later verses of this chapter (vv.35, 44) is best interpreted in other ways.

NOTES

33 The phrase εἰς ἀλεύρου σάτα τρία (eis alearou sata tria, “into three satas of flour”) is anomalous (an anarthrous noun that depends on a preposition is normally placed before a case governed by it) but not unprecedented (cf. BDF, para. 474 [4]).

Far more difficult is the expression σάτα τρία (sata tria, “three satas”). The NIV has “a large amount of flour,” which is true enough, but it is not an unreasonable amount of flour, adopted for parabolic purpose, since the same amount was mixed by Sarah in Genesis 18:6. It probably represents the largest amount of flour a woman might make up into bread at one time. But how much is it? The NIV text note specifies “about 1/2 bushel or 22 liters.” In fact, the standard reference works (including ISBE) adopt an unrecognized and conflicting pair of computations leading to mutually exclusive results. If one follows OT ratios and equivalences, τὸ σάτον (to saton) = Aram. (sā ʾtā ʾ) = Heb. (s^eʾâ) = 1/3 of an ephah or bath. Therefore, three satas, as here, equal 1 ephah, known to be 1/10 of a homer.

Now an ephah (or bath) is normally reckoned at about 22 liters. Measurements were imprecise in the ancient world, ranging substantially in place and time (cf. Jeremias, Jerusalem). That this estimate is approximately correct has been confirmed by an archaeological find that has measured what is almost certainly a “bath” jar and found it to have the capacity of about 21 liters (David Ussishkin, “Excavations at Tel Lachish—1973–1977,” TA 5 [1978]: 87 n. 9; I am indebted to Hugh G. M. Williamson for this reference). This agrees with the NIV text note. But Josephus (Ant. 9.85 [4.5]) and other Jewish sources (cf. Str-B, 1:669–70) establish that one σάτον, saton, = 1½ modii, where 1 modius = 16 sextarii = approx. 8.75 liters (confirmed by Josephus, Ant. 8.57 [2.9], which says a bath contains 72 sextarii); and in that case σάτα τρία (three sata, as in v.33) = 1.5 x 3 x 8.75 = approx. 39.4 liters—a long way from the 22 suggested by the alternative computation.

Both approaches are unwittingly juxtaposed in the standard reference works The Illustrated Bible Dictionary (3:1637–39) and The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (4:833–35), though the writer in the former mentions in passing that “the bath is variously calculated between 20.92 and 46.6 litres.” The matter has not been finally resolved. D. J. Wiseman, in a private communication (December 2, 1980), suggests that the solution may be analogous to the “greater” and “lesser” (half) weights measures (cf. the approximately double “royal bath”).

OVERVIEW

Mark 4:33–34 concludes Mark’s report of Jesus’ parables on this occasion. But Matthew has already departed from Mark at 13:16–17 and 13:24–30 and by omitting Mark 4:21–29. Now he continues on his own. To believe he has simply modified Mark in this section is difficult because of the great differences between the two accounts. Speculating about Matthew’s dependence on an earlier form of Mark (Schniewind) seems too uncontrolled. It is better to assume that Matthew had independent information (Lohmeyer).

34Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. 35So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet:

“I will open my mouth in parables,

I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.”

COMMENTARY

34 The Greek’s chiasm puts the emphasis on parables: Jesus did not speak to the crowds without using them. The first verb is aorist (elalēsen, “spoke”), referring to the situation at hand; the second is imperfect (elalei, “used to say”), implying that this was Jesus’ constant custom. But chōris parabolēs (“without a parable”) does not mean that he told nothing but parables to the crowd but that he said nothing to them without using parables. In short, parables were an essential part of his spoken ministry.

35 The quotation is from Psalm 78:2 (LXX 77), a psalm of Asaph. In addition to two difficult textual variants (see Notes), the text form is notoriously difficult to resolve. The first line follows the LXX exactly; hence it uses the plural en parabolais (“in parables”) to translate the Hebrew b^emāšāl (“in a parable” or “in a wise saying”; for the meaning of these words, see

But in what sense can Jesus’ ministry in parables be said to be a fulfillment of Asaph’s psalm? The problem does not arise just because the quotation is from a psalm. In 22:43–44, another psalm is quoted as prophecy. Matthew 11:11–13 has already established that the entire OT is in some sense prophetic (see

Despite its popularity, this approach misunderstands both Psalm 78 and Matthew 13. It is true that Psalm 78 recounts the known history of Israel, but there is no escaping the fact that Psalm 78:2 nevertheless finds the psalmist declaring that he will open his mouth “in parables, wise sayings,” and pour forth ḥîdôt (“enigmas,” “dark sayings”). The point is that, though the history of the Jews, which Asaph relates, is well-known, the psalmist selects the historical events he treats and brings them together in such a way as to bring out things that have been riddles and enigmas “from of old.” The pattern of history is not self-evident; but the psalmist will show what it is really all about. He enlarges on God’s might at the time of the exodus and at other major turning points, a might exercised on behalf of his people. With these events the psalmist juxtaposes the people’s persistent rebellion, the result being a vivid portrayal of God’s justice and mercy and the people’s obtuseness, need, and privilege.

The psalmist teaches all this by opening his mouth “in parables” (i.e., by comparing various things) and in so doing utters “things hidden from of old”—“things that we have heard and known, that our ancestors have told us” (NRSV, v.3), yet enigmatic and hidden. They are “deep and hidden teachings, which the events of the past embrace” (Louis Jacquet, Les Psaumes [Brussels: Duculot, 1975–81], 2:522). Thus the psalmist makes his deep points, as does Stephen in Acts 7, by comparing events in redemptive history.

We turn to Matthew 13:35 and discover a similar pattern. If Jesus pours forth things hidden from the beginning, does this mean that those things remain hidden, i.e., that Jesus pours forth teaching in so hidden a form that outsiders cannot understand them? That is what the popular interpretation of the passage requires, but its death knell is the final phrase: “from the beginning.” Whatever that phrase means—the NIV has “since the creation of the world” (see Notes)—it modifies kekrymmena (“things hidden”), the unavoidable implication being that those hidden things are no longer hidden since Jesus has revealed them. Otherwise, Jesus is saying no more than this: “I will reveal things that have always been hidden so that they will remain hidden”—an unnatural way to take the sentence.

Apparently, then, as applied to Jesus the second line of the quotation pictures him as revealing things formerly hidden. This does not necessarily mean he is teaching entirely new things any more than the psalmist was teaching such things. In both cases, the patterns of redemptive history may be so stressed that when rightly interpreted they point toward new revelation—namely, they are fulfilled (see

It follows that vv.34–35 are much closer in thought to Mark 4:33–34 than is commonly believed. Jesus does teach the crowds, in parables, revealing new things. How much they understand is a different matter. Yet we have already seen that even 13:11–13 must not be taken to mean that in Matthew the parables for nondisciples are designed only to conceal. Actually they have a dual role, and here Matthew, rightly understanding the psalmist and reverting to the Hebrew from the LXX so as not to miss his desired nuance, insists that Jesus reveals new truth to the crowds.

But what are these “hidden things” Jesus is now uttering? In Psalm 78 they are “the righteous acts of God in redemption” (Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 157). Likewise, that is what Jesus is now revealing—the righteous acts of God in redemption taking place in his teaching, miracles, death, and resurrection. Matthew insists that the OT Scriptures prophesied these things. They are not novel. If in one sense they have not been known before, it is because they have not all been brought together in the same pattern before. Jesus’ kingdom parables to the crowds declare new things—secrets (v.11), hidden things (v.35). Yet they are secret and new chiefly because they depend on an approach to Scripture not unlike Asaph’s—bringing together various pieces of previous revelation into new perspectives. Thus Messiah is Son of David but also Suffering Servant. Jesus is the royal King and Son of David foreseen in Scripture (21:4–11) but also the stricken Shepherd equally foreseen in Scripture (26:31). Who clearly foresaw that both streams would merge in one person?

Taken as a whole, Jesus’ parables preserve the expectation of the apocalyptic coming of Messiah. They also introduce a new pattern of an inaugurated kingdom that anticipates the Parousia. Moreover, this pattern rests on Jesus’ self-understanding as the Messiah who unites in himself streams of revelation from the old covenant that had not been so clearly united before.

The connection between Matthew 13:35 and Psalm 78:2 is thus very close. But what does Matthew mean when he says that Jesus’ ministry of parables “fulfilled” the word spoken through the prophet? Elsewhere when psalms are treated as prophecies, there is normally a Davidic typology, but not so here. A number of things may have led Matthew to this psalm. The phrase “in parables” may have drawn his attention to Psalm 78, but in itself that does not account for the notion of “fulfillment.” But a second connection presents itself: it is possible that, as Psalm 78 recounts Israel’s history, so Jesus is presented as the one who is the supreme embodiment of Israel and her history, the one who fulfills all the patterns of the OT regarding Israel. We have noticed this theme before in Matthew, though it is stronger in the fourth gospel.

But there may be a third and more subtle factor. Matthew understands that “prophecy” does not necessarily predict the future; it may reveal hidden things (cf. 26:68 with parallels in Mark and Luke). This sense of “prophecy” and its predictive sense “converge” in a passage such as 11:13, where, as we have seen, the entire OT Scripture (both Law and Prophets) “prophesy”; i.e., they comprehend certain patterns, types, predictions, declarations, which cumulatively look forward to him who “fulfills” them. Now in Psalm 78 Asaph claims to be explaining such earlier patterns in redemptive history, but in so doing, from a NT perspective he is also himself becoming a constituent element of the recorded redemptive history the NT explains. As such Psalm 78 becomes part of the “Law and Prophets” that prophesy. Blomberg (“Matthew,” in CNTUOT) is not wrong to call this use of the OT the purest instance of typology. If part of this sacred record interprets and brings new truth out of an earlier part, it establishes a pattern that looks to one who will interpret and bring new truth out of the whole. Jesus, Matthew claims, fulfills that role and is exercising it in his own parabolic teaching.

NOTES

35 There are two important and extremely difficult variants in this verse.

1. Most MSS read διὰ τοῦ προφήτου (dia tou prophētou, “through the prophet”). A few witnesses in Jerome’s day read διὰ ᾽Ασὰφ τοῦ προφήτου (dia Asaph tou prophētou, “through Asaph the prophet”); but none have come down to us, and “Asaph” is certainly an interpolation. But an impressive group of witnesses (* H f¹ f¹³ 33 eth^ms et al.) read διά ᾽Ησαΐου τοῦ προφήτου (dia Ēsaiou tou prophētou, “through Isaiah the prophet”); precisely because the quotation does not come from Isaiah, the reading could lay claim to being the lectio difficilior that scribes would want to correct. On the other hand, transcriptional evidence favors the probability of adding a prophet’s name where none is mentioned (e.g., 1:22; 2:5; 21:4; Ac 7:48). This factor is even more compelling in Matthew than elsewhere since the first evangelist tends not to name the prophet except when quoting Isaiah or Jeremiah, a habit that makes it less likely that he would falsely ascribe to Isaiah, a book with which he was intimately familiar, something extraneous to Isaiah. Scribal misascription is therefore more likely than misascription by Matthew.

2. A majority of the witnesses support the reading ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου (apo katabolēs kosmou, “from the foundation of the world”); a second reading, ἀπὸ καταβολῆς (apo katabolēs, “from the foundation”), is attested by a small but diversified number of Alexandrian, Western, and Eastern text types (^b B f¹ it^e,k syr ^c,s eth et al.). Although the preponderance of external evidence supports inclusion of κόσμου, kosmou, the phrase “the foundation of the world” is so stereotyped in the NT (25:34; Lk 11:50; Jn 17:24; Eph 1:4, Heb 4:3; 9:26; 1Pe 1:20; Rev 13:8; 17:8) that there is far greater transcriptional probability that the word was added rather than omitted.

There is another reason for thinking the shorter text is original. While we have already seen that in the second line of the quotation Matthew stops following the LXX and apparently offers his own rendering of the MT, I did not discuss this closing phrase of the second line. The Hebrew here reads (minnî-qedem, “from of old”), which the LXX renders ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς (ap archēs, “from the beginning”). Now the MT’s “from of old” can mean “from the beginning” or “from eternity” (cf. parallelism in Pr 8:23; see also Dt 33:27; Ps 55:19). Yet the expression itself is indefinite and in the context of Psalm 78 may refer only to the beginning of the nation, since God’s dealings with Israel constitute the focus of discussion. If so, then the LXX’s “from the beginning” might sound too absolute, and this could account for Matthew’s “from the foundation [i.e., of the nation].” Certainly καταβολή (katabolē, “foundation,” GK 2856) does not have to be taken to refer to the foundation of the world: cf. ἀποστάσεως καταβολή (apostaseōs katabolē, “the beginning of the insurrection”) in Josephus, J.W. 2.260 (13.4) (other examples in BDAG, 515). The shorter expression in Matthew might then easily have been lengthened by later scribes. If this reasoning is right, then “since the creation of the world” (NIV) is wrong, and the probability that Matthew is treating his OT text thoughtfully and with profound theological understanding is all the more increased.

For fuller discussion of the technical questions of translation and related bibliography, see Gundry (Use of the Old Testament, 118–19); Rothfuchs (Erfüllungszitate, 79–80).

OVERVIEW

For a discussion of the authenticity of this interpretation, see

Those who see more of Matthew’s church than of Jesus in Matthew’s gospel commonly identify the kingdom in vv.41, 43 with Matthew’s church. There is, they argue, a double level of meaning. At one level the passage tells the church not to excommunicate its members because there will be a mixture of “wheat” and “weeds” in the church until the end of the age. For Hill this leads to an anomaly: 18:8–9, which he applies to church government, suggests excommunication. But it is doubtful whether Matthew ever confuses kingdom and church. These are two quite distinct categories (see

Hendriksen recognizes the distinction in principle but then ignores it, arguing (1) if tares are “sown among the wheat, not alongside of it or on some other field,” then it is “natural to think of the intermingling of true and false members within the church”; (2) that the parables shed light on “mysteries” (v.11), and there is no “mystery” in both kinds of people living on the same earth, but it is “far more of a mystery ... that within the church visible God allows both the true and the merely nominal Christians to dwell side by side”; and (3) that the gathering “out of his kingdom” (v.41) assumes the weeds were inside, “in this case inside the church visible” (emphasis his).

In reply, (1) Jesus explicitly says the “field is the world” (v.38), not the church, so how could there be “some other field”? The intermingling is adequately explained if it takes place on the field of the world (see

36Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”

37He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.

40“As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.”

COMMENTARY

36 The Greek apheis tous ochlous could mean either that Jesus sent the crowds away (KJV) or that he left them (NIV). The house referred to is the one Jesus left in order to preach to the crowds (v.1) and was located, presumably, in Capernaum. In Matthew’s narrative, the house provides the setting both for Jesus’ private explanations (vv.37–43, cf. vv.10–23) and for the parables aimed at his disciples (vv.44–52).

Whether the verb “explain” is diasaphēson (used elsewhere in the NT only in 18:31) or phrason (some MSS; used elsewhere in the NT only in 15:15) is uncertain but of little consequence. More important is the fact that the disciples need explanations (cf. 15:15–16). They are not distinguished from the crowds by their instant and intuitive understanding but by their persistence in seeking explanations. Jesus’ disciples come to him and ask, and therefore a full explanation is given them (see

37–39 On “Son of Man,” see

“The field is the world” (v.38). This brief statement presupposes a mission beyond Israel (cf. 10:16–18; 28:18–20) and confirms that the narrower command of 10:5–6 is related exclusively to the mission of the Twelve during the period of Jesus’ earthly ministry. Of greater importance in the history of the church has been the view that this actually means that the field is the church. The view was largely assumed by the early church fathers, and the tendency to interpret the parable that way was reinforced by the Constantinian settlement. Augustine made the interpretation official. Struggling against the Donatists, who were overzealous in their excommunication practices, he went so far as to say that a mixture of good and evil in the church is a necessary “sign” of the church (cf. his Brev. coll. and Don.). Most Reformers followed the same line. Calvin went so far as to say that the “world” here represents the church by synecdoche.

Ironically, some modern redaction criticism has returned to this interpretation because it sees more of Matthew’s church than of Jesus in this gospel. Nevertheless, this interpretation is without exegetical foundation. The kingdom is a category flexible enough to be used simultaneously for the saving reign of God (so that “sons of the kingdom” can refer to those who are truly God’s people, v.38) and for his reign more broadly considered (so that the kingdom in this sense might well embrace wheat and tares; see

In this parable and its interpretation, unlike the parable of the sower, the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom—a healthy reminder that images can symbolize different things in different contexts (see

What must also be pointed out is how many features in the parable are not given nonsymbolic equivalents. These include the conversation between the man and his servants, the servants’ sleep, and the fact that the wheat was sown before the tares. This selective use of elements in the story is not atypical of parables (see

40–42 The identification of the actors is over, and the description of the action begins. As the weeds are “pulled up” (same verb as “collect” in v.30b, syllegō, GK 5198) and burned, so it is at the end. The kingdom we have known as the kingdom of heaven or the kingdom of God is also seen as the kingdom of the Son of Man, Jesus’ kingdom (cf. 20:21; 25:31; cf. Da 2:35; Rev 11:15). This is not the church (contra Bornkamm, “End-Expectation and the Church,” 44; see comments above), for Jesus’ reign after the resurrection extends to the farthest reaches of the universe (28:18). In that sense, “everything that causes sin and all who do evil” may be weeded out of his kingdom (v.41). For the meaning of panta ta skandala (“everything that causes sin”), see

The entire expression “everything that causes sin and all who do evil” appears to be a periphrastic rendering of the Hebrew of Zephaniah 1:3 (hammakšēlôt ʾet-hāršāʿîm [lit., “the stumbling blocks with the wicked”]), a phrase so difficult in its context that emendations have been suggested and the best MSS of the LXX omit it. The first of the two Hebrew words occurs elsewhere only at Isaiah 3:6, where it means “ruins.” Hence the NIV translates the phrase in Zephaniah 1:3 as “The wicked will have only heaps of rubble.” If this is correct, Matthew is either not referring to Zephaniah 1:3 or else is freely adapting it. But the Hebrew word may well mean “stumbling blocks,” “offenses.” For what it is worth, etymology supports it, and the Targum understands it that way. Thus in Zephaniah 1:3, the word may refer to idols, or, better yet, in a figurative manner to people seen as “things that cause offense.” If so, Matthew’s rendering is appropriate.

The “sons of the evil one” (v.38) may be metaphorically considered as “everything that causes sin” or, without any metaphor, “all who do evil.” They, like the weeds, are thrown into the fiery furnace (v.42; see

43 In contrast to the evildoers, “the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” The allusion is to Daniel 12:3 LXX, somewhat shortened by omitting hoi synientes (= Heb. hammaśkilîm, “those who are wise” or “those who understand”), further evidence that Matthew has not idealized the disciples as those who have understanding (see

The “kingdom of their Father” must not, as is commonly done, be set over against the kingdom of the Son of Man (v.41) on the supposed ground that the former alone is eternal, or that the Son of Man hands over the elect to him (1Co 15:24). The Son’s postascension reign is a mediated reign. All God’s kingly authority is given to Jesus (28:18) and mediated through him; for all that time the kingdom can be called the kingdom of God or the kingdom of the Son of Man or, more generally, the kingdom of heaven. But even when that mediation ceases, halted by the destruction of the last enemy (1Co 15:24–26), in Matthew’s terminology it is still appropriate to call Jesus Messiah the King (20:31; 25:34; cf. 26:64), for the kingdom remains no less his.

NOTES

39 In the final two identifications of the list in vv.37–39, the subjective complement precedes the copula verb and becomes anarthrous, in conformity with the rules developed by E. C. Colwell and extended by Lane C. McGaughy (Toward a Descriptive Analysis of EINAI [Missoula, Mont.: SBL Press, 1972]). The absence of articles in συντέλεια αἰῶνός (synteleia aiōnos, “the end of the age”) is therefore no evidence for a construction built on analogy to the Hebrew construct state (contra Hill), not least because the construction is very common in the NT (706 occurrences) and widely distributed.

OVERVIEW

For the way these parables relate to the structure of the chapter, see

The parables of the hidden treasure and the pearl are a pair; and pairing is not uncommon in Matthew (e.g., 5:14b–16; 6:26–30; 7:6; 9:16–17; 10:24–25; 12:25; 13:31–33; 24:43–51), an excellent way of reinforcing a point. Like the paired parables with which these two are chiastically coordinated (mustard seed and yeast, vv.31–33), these two make the same general point but have significant individual emphases.

Unlike the parables earlier in the chapter, these two do not deal so much with the hidden, inaugurated form of the kingdom and the concomitant delay of the Parousia as with the superlative worth of the kingdom of heaven. Yet even here, the previous eschatological structure underlies them, for in traditional Jewish apocalyptic, one could scarcely liken the kingdom to a man finding a treasure or buying a pearl. The kingdom was to come apocalyptically at the end of the age by an act of God alone. In contrast to this, some kind of realized or inaugurated eschatology is here presupposed.

44“The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.”

COMMENTARY

44 On the “is like” language, see

Derrett (Law in the New Testament, 1–16) has pointed out that under rabbinic law if a workman came on a treasure in a field and lifted it out, it would belong to his master, the field’s owner; but here the man is careful not to lift the treasure out until he has bought the field. So the parable deals with neither the legality nor the morality of the situation (as with the parable of the thief in the night) but with the value of the treasure, which is worth every sacrifice. When the man buys the field at such sacrifice, he possesses far more than the price paid (cf. 10:39). The kingdom of heaven is worth infinitely more than the cost of discipleship, and those who know where the treasure lies joyfully abandon everything else to secure it.

Two alternative interpretations must be dismissed.

1. The first, represented by Walvoord, understands the treasure to represent Israel and Jesus as the man who sold everything to purchase her. He rejects the above view by making the parable mean that “a believer in Christ has nothing to offer and the treasure is not for sale” and proposes his own interpretation by noting that in Exodus 19:5 Israel is called God’s treasure. But any view, including Walvoord’s, can be made to look foolish by pressing a parable into a detailed allegory. For instance, one could rebut his view by showing that it entails Israel’s being worth far more than the price paid, and that of course would constitute an implicit depreciation of Christ’s sacrifice, which no thoughtful Christian would accept. One must come to grips with the nature of parables (see

2. J. D. Crossan (Finding Is the First Act [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979], esp. 93ff.) argues that “sold all he had” must be taken so absolutely that “all” includes the parable itself. One must give up the parable itself and, in abandoning all, abandon even abandonment. The parable is therefore a paradox, like the sign that reads “Do not read this sign.” Crossan’s interpretation is unacceptable for exegetical, literary, historical, and theological reasons: exegetical, in that this parable does not speak of “abandoning” or “giving up” things but of “selling,” and one cannot imagine giving the parable away by selling it; literary, in that Crossan, like Walvoord, fastens on one word and rides it so hard that the nature of parables is overlooked; historical, in that ascription of such existentialist results to Jesus or to Matthew is so anachronistic as to make a historian wince; theological, in that his interpretation of “paradox” is defective and is used in undifferentiated ways. Crossan oscillates between paradox construed as a merely formal contradiction and paradox construed as antinomy or even incoherence.

45“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. 46When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.”

COMMENTARY

45–46 The word palin (“again”) ties this parable fairly closely to the preceding one (cf. 5:33). Walvoord recognizes that this parable is roughly equivalent to the last. But here, he says, the pearl represents not Israel but the church. The church, like the pearl, is formed organically, and “there is a sense in which the church was formed out of the wounds of Christ.” This does not take us much beyond patristic allegorizing. The real connection with the last parable is the supreme worth of the kingdom. But here we deal with a merchant whose business it is to seek pearls and who chances on one of supreme value. Derrett (Law in the New Testament, 15) sees a rabbinic parallel: “One wins eternal life after a struggle of years, another finds it in one hour” (b. ʿAbod. Zar. 17a); contrast the conversions of Saul and the Ethiopian eunuch.

Unlike the man in the last parable, the merchant, though he sells everything he has to purchase the pearl, apparently pays a full price. Although he is an expert in pearls, this single find so far surpasses any other pearl the merchant has ever seen that he considers it a fair exchange for everything else he owns. Thus Jesus is not interested in religious efforts or in affirming that one can “buy” the kingdom; on the contrary, he is saying that the person whose whole life has been bound up with “pearls”—the entire religious heritage of the Jews?—will, on comprehending the true value of the kingdom as Jesus presents it, gladly exchange all else to follow him.

NOTES

45–46 The change from present tense (v.44) to aorist (vv.45–46) is not transparent but doubtless reflects the evangelist’s decision to portray the action in v.44 as progression, and the action in vv.45–46 in a perfective fashion. The perfect tense πέπρακεν (pepraken, “sold,” GK 4405) is aspectually vague. There is no aorist active form for this verb.

47“Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. 48When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away.”

COMMENTARY

47–48 This parable, like the last two, is peculiar to Matthew. In the chiastic structure of the chapter, it is parallel to the parable of the weeds and has a somewhat similar meaning. But whereas the parable of the weeds focuses on the long period of the reign of God during which tares coexist with wheat and the enemy has large powers, the parable of the net simply describes the situation that exists when the last judgment takes place: the kingdom embraces “good” fish and “bad” fish, and only the final sweep of the net sorts them out. That is why the introductory formula uses the present tense (see

A sagēnē (lit., “dragnet,” used only here in the NT) was drawn along between two boats or tied on shore at one end and put out by a boat at the other end, which was then drawn to land by ropes. “All kinds of fish” (v.47) might hint at the multiracial character of the subjects of the kingdom, but more probably this refers to “good” and “bad” fish (v.48). In the parable itself, “good fish” and “bad” have no moral overtones but refer simply to fish ceremonially suitable and large enough for eating and those for some reason unacceptable, respectively. The word sapron (“bad,” GK 4911) can mean “decayed,” but here it simply means “worthless.”

49“This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

COMMENTARY

49–50 Many separate the parable (vv.47–48), supposedly about the disciples on mission as “fishers of men,” and the interpretation (vv.49–50), which transforms the parable into a “last judgment” scene. Hill insists this is “not a suitable ending, for the furnace is hardly the place for bad fish.” But that is to confuse symbol with what is symbolized; the furnace is not for the fish but for the wicked. To be consistent, Hill (and many others, e.g., Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 85; Strecker, Weg der Gerechtigkeit, 160–61) would also have to object that the tares, when burned (v.42), do not weep and gnash their teeth (Kingsbury, Parables of Jesus, 165–66 n. 143). The parable itself cannot easily be made to refer to the missionary activity of the church; for it describes a separation when the net is full, not a continuous separation. Nor may one attach some deep significance to the distinction between catching all the fish (v.47) and separating them (v.48)—as if the original parable referred to both the church’s witness in catching men and the final separation (so Kingsbury, Parables of Jesus, 120)—any more than it is legitimate in interpreting the tares to divide the harvesting from the final separation of weeds and wheat. Both the parable and its interpretation point to the last judgment. On the angels and the image of the fiery furnace, see

But this does not mean that the parable and its interpretation are about the last judgment in the same way 25:1–13 (the ten virgins) and 25:31–46 (the sheep and the goats) are, the one warning of the need for readiness and the other establishing a basis for judgment. The focus here is on the state of the kingdom when the judgment occurs. Though it includes both the righteous and the wicked, a thorough sorting out will certainly take place.

51“Have you understood all these things?” Jesus asked.

“Yes,” they replied.

COMMENTARY

51 Both “Jesus says to them” and “Lord” (KJV) are late additions to the text; it is difficult to explain why they were dropped if part of the original text.

Jesus’ question picks up the disciples’ request for an explanation (v.36) but goes beyond it, since the question is introduced, not after v.43, but after three additional parables. The words “all these things” have been taken to refer to what Jesus means by his parables (Filson, Plummer, Schweizer) or to the unexplained parables (Robinson, Twelve New Testament Studies) or to the “secrets of the kingdom” in v.11 (Grundmann, Bonnard, Hill, Fenton). In fact, all these are so tightly linked that it is hard to imagine how one could understand one of these areas and not the other two.

This is the only place in this chapter where the disciples themselves are explicitly said to understand, and they say it by themselves. It is as wrong to say that Matthew has portrayed them as understanding everything as it is to say that they understood nothing. The truth lies between the extremes. The disciples certainly understood more than the crowds; on the other hand, they are shortly to be rebuked for their dullness (15:16). Like another positive response in this gospel (see

52He said to them, “Therefore every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.”

COMMENTARY

52 Interpretations of this difficult verse are legion. It has been variously held that it refers to scribes who become disciples of the kingdom (Jeremias, Parables of Jesus, 216) or join the Christian community (Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, 17ff.); that Matthew here refers to the way he himself functions within the community (C. F. D. Moule, “St. Matthew’s Gospel,” SE 2 [1964]: 98–99); that the verse demonstrates the existence of Christian “scribes” or “teachers of the law” in Matthew’s church, men who exercise much the same role as scribes in Judaism (Kilpatrick, Origins, 111; Grundmann), or even that disciples within Christianity are more important than scribes within Judaism (Manson, Sayings of Jesus, 198–99); that each disciple who is able to qualify may present himself as a “teacher of the law” (Lagrange); that any scribe who understands what has been taught about the kingdom is like the lord of a house “who handles everything in a carefree manner, who does not save anything and even uses what is old” (van Tilborg, Jewish Leaders, 132; Walker, Heilsgeschichte, 27–29).

The verse’s parabolic structure must be noted and a number of exegetical details explored before its meaning can be grasped or the significance of the introductory “therefore” rightly perceived. The “is like” formula (see

The point of comparison becomes clearer when we remember that a grammateus (“scribe,” GK 1208) in Jesus’ day might refer not only to rabbinic, Pharisaic scribes, who were theological interpreters of the Scriptures capable of rendering halakic decisions (rules for conduct), but to apocalyptic scribes. This is central to the thesis of David E. Orton (The Understanding Scribe). Matthew does not reject all “scribes” (NIV, “teachers of the law”) but only those from the rabbinic/Pharisaic matrix. Orton’s extended discussion (pp. 65–120) shows how “apocalyptic” scribes—scribes in the apocalyptic tradition—were devoted to understanding and interpreting hard sayings, dark sayings, apocalyptic sayings. Indeed, parables were part of their focus (cf. Sir 39:1–3). Since Jesus’ disciples have now understood his parables, they can legitimately be called “scribes” themselves, as can all of his disciples with similar understanding. Jesus adds an explanatory expression: the scribe with whom he is concerned mathēteutheis tē basileia tōn ouranōn (“has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven”). Whether the verbal form is construed as deponent (“has become a disciple”) or strictly passive (“has been made a disciple”), it is not at all clear that the dative expression means “about the kingdom of heaven”; in the one NT passage with similar construction (27:57), Joseph of Arimathea had become a disciple of Jesus, not about Jesus. By analogy, the scribes in this verse have become disciples of the kingdom of heaven.

If the preceding exegetical observations are correct, the points of comparison in the parable are two. The emphasis in the first part of the verse rests, not on the supposition that the scribe has been instructed about the kingdom and therefore understands, but that he has become a disciple of the kingdom and therefore his allegiance has been transformed. It is with such a person as with “the owner of a house”—a discipled scribe brings out of his storeroom new things and old.

The thēsauros (“storeroom,” GK 2565) so regularly stands for a man’s “heart,” its wealth and cherished values (see

But the order is of great importance. The parable shows that a discipled scribe has this understanding, not that understanding generates discipleship. This conforms perfectly to the chapter’s structure. The disciples are not defined as having understanding but are described as having been given revelation and understanding (vv.11–12). When the disciples ask for an explanation, they are given it (vv.36–43) and thus claim some measure of understanding (v.51). “Therefore” (v.52) a discipled scribe is like, etc. Discipleship to Jesus, recognition of the revelation he is and brings, and submission to the reign he inaugurates and promises are necessary prerequisites to understanding and bringing out from oneself the rich treasures of the kingdom (see

But there is a second point of comparison in the parable. The last one could have been made by stressing discipleship but omitting any reference to scribes. Scribes were “teachers of the Scriptures.” If they are likened to the owner of a house who brings treasures out of his storeroom, the further implication is unavoidable: they are not bringing forth things new and old for purely private or personal reasons but in their capacity as teachers. Jesus’ disciples claim they have understood what he has been teaching. “Therefore,” he responds, discipled teachers of the Scriptures, if they have understood, must themselves bring out of their storeroom the treasures now theirs so as to teach others (cf. Trotter, “Understanding and Stumbling”). Implicitly this serves as “a warning against neglecting the old in the excitement of having discovered the new—as indeed the imagery of the parables of the treasure and the pearl might suggest” (France [NICNT]).

This interpretation admirably fits in with three other Matthean themes.

1. The disciples have a major responsibility in evangelizing and making disciples, both during Jesus’ ministry (ch. 10) and after his departure (28:18–20).

2. In the latter instance, they are told to “disciple” the nations and teach them everything Jesus has commanded them: i.e., the focus of their mission is Jesus and the revelation—the new “fulfillment” revelation—he has brought.

3. This interpretation, which places some teaching responsibility on the disciples, also fits the purpose of the parables described in the

If this interpretation of v.52 is correct, then though “disciples” in this chapter most probably refers to the Twelve, they epitomize the church to come. In that event, “disciples” does not refer to a special group of “teachers of the law” within Matthew’s community (see

53When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there.

COMMENTARY

53 On the Greek preliminary formula, see

The common view that v.53 properly introduces the following pericope fits neither that beginning nor the structure of Matthew. Gooding’s claim (“Structure littéraire,” 229) that v.24 is syntactically tied to v.53 is incorrect (cf. the same openings at 8:14; 9:23, where new pericopes are introduced). This verse, as Hill, 241, points out, “suggests that Jesus spoke all the preceding parables at once”—though he thinks this “is unlikely” (see

NOTES

53 The verb μετῆρεν (metēren, “he moved on”), found in the NT only here and at 19:1 (again in a formulaic discourse ending), is normally transitive and probably owes its present intransitive force to Semitic influence (Moisés Silva, “New Lexical Semitisms?” ZNW 69 [1978]: 256).

↑ Back to top