Matthew and Luke pair up the short stories of the Mustard Seed and Leaven while Mark leaves out the Leaven Parable. Blomberg notes that the first parable shows a typical male activity while the second one involves a female activity so that Jesus relates to both audiences equally. Some apply these parables to individual growth when people receive the word and grow in belief and understanding through the Spirit. Others tend to apply it to the growth of the visible kingdom here on earth. One can view the mustard seed parable as demonstrating extensive growth while the leaven shows intensive growth. It is interesting that in the seven summary statements found throughout the Book of Acts, both of these aspects are stressed: growth of the church numerically and in spiritual maturity. As an example:
“So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily.” (Acts 16:5)
Several commentators I read expressed the belief that attempts to make any distinctions in meaning at all between the two stories "are risky."
Parable of the Mustard Seed (Matthew 13:31-33; Mark 4:30-32; Luke 13:18-19)
All three Synoptic gospels have this parable, with practically identical wording.
Mark has an unusual double introduction to his version. The first half reads, “With what can we compare the kingdom of God?” Marcus feels this emphasizes the difficulty in actually describing the present kingdom, which will remain somewhat mysterious until the end time. The second half of his introduction says in the Greek, “in what parable are we to place it?” Swift says it is “as though the parable were a kind of wrapper to contain the truth.”
One issue needs to be cleared up at the beginning. Atheistic critics make fun of Jesus' faulty science in this story, and extreme literalists are disturbed by it for the same reason. It should first be pointed out that the concept of the mustard seed as the smallest seed is a proverbial idea found in early Jewish literature and in the Koran. The tree is the largest herb or tree grown from seed by farmers in Israel. It is an annual which grows to the height of 8-15 feet in one growing season and then dies off rapidly in winter. And although the smallest seed in the world is technically that of a particular South American orchid, reference by Jesus to that seed would have been meaningless to his immediate audience, let alone the fact that this seed is never sowed in the ground.
Leaven (Matthew 13:33; Luke 13:20-21)
Some see an allusion here to Genesis 18:6 in which Abraham directed Sarah to bake three measures of bread for the three visitors from God who revealed that she would have a son. Thus, they connect the parable to receiving divine revelation. Snodgrass is correct in saying that this connection is highly unlikely.
The action of yeast in leavening dough needs no explanation. Strictly speaking, the parable doesn't refer to yeast but to starter dough that has fermented. Three measures of meal is roughly one bushel. The amount of bread made is enough to feed about 100-150 people if we properly understand the size of the measures. It seems like a large number, but comparable batches of bread are mentioned not only in Genesis 18:6, but also in Judges 6:19 and I Samuel 1:24.
The Greek literally reads that the leaven was hidden in the dough. “Hidden” is an unexpected word here and it draws attention to the present hiddenness of the kingdom. That idea is also found in Matthew 13:35 and 44. In the book Hidden But Now Revealed by Beale and Gladd, the authors show that, as implied in their title, whenever the Bible speaks of something in the plan of God that is a secret or hidden, it is is only hidden in order to be eventually revealed. Just as the almost invisible mustard seed eventually is plain to everyone once it begins growing, the leaven can't be seen at all when mixed in the dough but its effect becomes obvious later when the dough begins to rise.
Interpretation
There are many conflicting explanations for the meaning of these simple parables. There is always the allegorical interpretation. For example, when the early church interpreted the leaven parable, they treated the woman as either Mary, the church, or the synagogue. And the leaven was either Christ, the Twelve Apostles, Christian doctrine or knowledge of the Scripture. And one commentator counted 17 different interpretations for the three measures. Snodgrass wisely says, “This tells us more about the church than it does about the parable.” If you wanted, you could even use this parable to criticize a monastic lifestyle since leaven only works when intimately mixed with the dough. But again, that would be reading too much into the teaching.
Most standard commentaries treat both parables in a positive way to show the mysterious way that God's word will permeate the world to reach many. The only minor controversy among them is where the exact emphasis of the parables lies. Does it center on the contrast between the apparently weakness and insignificance of Jesus' present ministry and the widespread kingdom that will grow from it. (Snodgrass); the fact that God's power is at work in a hidden way (Fitzmyer); the certainty that growth will occur (Marshall); or the suddenness of the transformation (several other commentators)?
But surprisingly, some scholars feel that the two parables are of a negative nature instead and contain warnings to Jesus' audience. The difference between the two basic approaches stems from disagreement on (a) the proper context for the teachings and (b) the meaning of the symbols involved. Let's deal with the second factor first.
Meaning of the symbols
The most controversial image in the first parable is that of the birds roosting in the tree. Those who feel the growth of the kingdom will become abnormally large so that it includes even the “birds of the air,” feel that these birds obviously stand for evil influences, i.e., unsaved people in the visible church body. As a variation in this belief, James Boice feels that the “abnormal” growth of church structure is in mind. The main evidence they have that birds represent evil is to point to the parable of the sower and the seed where the birds (standing for Satan) snatch the seed away before it can germinate.
Those who consider kingdom growth to be positive point out that symbols in the Bible have to be taken on their individual basis in their contexts since often the same symbol represents different spiritual realities. As proof, the entry in the Dictionary of Biblical Imagery under the subject of “Birds” shows that they can stand for a myriad of things, both good and bad. And more specifically, the image of birds roosting in a tree appears in three other places in the Bible, all positive in nature.
a. Daniel 4:20-21 – Just as Nebuchanezzar's kingdom encompassed the people of many nations, so will God's kingdom. This is a prophecy of the salvation of the Gentiles. Kistemaker points out that the ancient rabbis referred to Gentiles as “birds of the air” alluding back to this OT passage.
b. Ezekiel 17:22-23 – Most Christian scholars treat this as a messianic prophecy in which Christ is the sprig upon which the birds roost. The Targum on Ezekiel understood the birds to be the righteous and humble and interpreted this passage to refer to restoration of the Davidic dynasty. (Beale and Carson)
c. Psalm 104:12 – This Psalm praises God for his bounty that sustains everything and everyone in the world.
Since the negative view regarding these growth parables is most commonly found among dispensationalist teachers, it is instructive to look at the range of opinions found in the Bible Knowledge Commentary written exclusively by professors at DTS. The respective commentators on Matthew, Mark, and Luke in this book feel that the birds probably stand for (a) unbelievers within the church but maybe just “an expression of prosperity and bounty,” (b) probably the incorporation of Gentiles into the Kingdom or less likely evil forces, and (c) all-pervasive evil in the world in the last days.
Moving on to the parable of the leaven, or yeast, those who see negative implications here point out that elsewhere in the Bible leaven is evil (such as commands to eat unleavened bread and Jesus' comments about the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees). So in this parable, the leaven stands for evil influences in the church, false doctrines, sin, and hypocrisy. In a similar manner, the woman in the parable must stand for the Great Harlot of Revelation = Jezebel of the OT.
Critique: Again, the same symbol can stand for different things, sometimes diametrically opposed to one another depending on the context. Regarding leaven, The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery treats it as positive in this particular case. Also, the emphasis on unleavened bread in some ceremonies was primarily to remind the Jews of the Passover when they had to leave in a hurry and did not have time to properly leaven their bread; it had nothing to do with any evil associated with leaven. Actually, in some of the OT sacrifices (peace offerings, first fruit offerings and thank offerings) leavened bread was to be specifically offered as a sign of God's bounty. And in the case of Jesus' warning to his disciples in Mark 8:15, leaven stands for any influential teachings as seen in Matthew 16:13. G. T. A. Angel agrees that “the point appears to be expansion by secret, hidden permeation, not evil influence.” The dough itself may represent the the whole earth or society's culture.
Ellison notes that despite the Scofield Bible's insistence that leaven is evil doctrine, “leaven is symbolically neutral, referring to the hidden forces the human spirit can release.” Interestingly, the only modern commentator I could find who felt yeast was “something undesirable” was another dispensationalist, John A. Martin. But even his fellow professor at DTS, Louis Barbieri, Jr., disagreed and said that “Jesus had in mind the dynamic character of yeast.”
Immediate Context
Those who see negative meanings in the two parables under question point out that in Matthew's account, the preceding two kingdom parables are somewhat negative in tone since of the four soils, only one continued to thrive, and the wheat and the tares story demonstrated the mixed nature of the visible kingdom. However, the two parables that follow those in question are of hope, stating that God's kingdom will grow and prosper even though it looks insignificant in its beginning phases. Also, in Mark's account, the mustard seed parable is paired with the Growth of Wheat Parable, which is definitely positive in tone.
The nature of Jesus' audience as he told these parables must also be taken into account. From what we can deduce from the various Gospel accounts, it was composed of :
1. Jesus' followers who were impatient for change (Hendricksen) and discouraged (Craddock). Recall that even John the Baptist was looking for more spectacular signs of the coming of the kingdom.
2. Interested listeners and hangers-on who were curious about Jesus' teachings and perhaps ready to accept the word (Fitzmyer)
3. Skeptics who saw no obvious signs that the Kingdom was anywhere near arriving. Where was the re-establishment of the Jewish State to a position of world prominence and where were the Gentiles who were predicted to flock to Jerusalem?
The variously proposed negative interpretations of these parables (evil influences in the visible church, prophecy of the Harlot of Babylon, or warnings against a bloated church structure) would have had little meaning for Jesus' immediate audience, however much they may speak to the visible church of later times. On the other hand, the standard positive meanings would have registered well with this mixed audience by assuring the first group that the changes they were expecting would inevitably come even if they were not obvious now; by issuing an open invitation to the second group to become part of this growth; and (as Snodgrass says) by restructuring Jewish expectations of the time expressed by the third group. This last point is especially demonstrated by revisiting one of the three OT parallels mentioned earlier.
Old Testament Context
The vision of Ezekiel 17:22-23 uses the image of a mighty cedar tree whereas Jesus' parable concerns a mere shrub. This purposeful contrast has been explained by various commentators in the following ways:
a. It means “the kingdom of God that he [Jesus] proclaims is established not through bullying power but through developments that initially seem inconsequential.” (Pao and Schnabel)
b. Comparison with the cedar tree is “deliberate irony.” “What may not look like much to the world will in fact fulfill all God's promises.” (Swift)
c. Comparison with the mighty cedar tree is a “lighthearted burlesque and satire of all pride, especially Israel's. The kingdom then erupts from weakness and refuses to perpetuate itself by power.” (Funk)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments