PARABLE OF THE GROWING SEED (MARK 4:26-29)

Mark groups together three parables of growing plants. This short parable is sandwiched in between the stories of the sower and the seed and that of the mustard plant. Some of the disagreement as to the meaning of this parable stem from trying to connect it with one of the other two. But Snodgrass cautions that each of the three must be taken on its own terms. This is the only parable unique to Mark; however, it contains about 6-7 words in common with Matthew's parable of the wheat and the tares. “This has ranked as one of the more enigmatic parables, even though its overall intent is clear enough.” (Snodgrass)

There are two other important scriptures to keep in mind when reading this parable:

Isaiah 55:10-11a – “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there until they have watered the earth, making it bring forth the sprout...so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth.”

I Corinthians 3:6 – I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.”

verse 27  A day begins at sunset in Jewish thinking. Sleeping and rising doesn't teach passivity; it merely marks the passage of time. Many details of work such as preparing the soil, fertilizing the crops, weeding, etc. are left out.  The word “sprout” is applied to the Messiah in OT prophecies. (Marcus)

verse 28 “It presents a comprehensive picture of the coming of God's kingdom: sowing, growing and harvesting, with the emphasis on the growing phase.” The soil accomplished the growth automate (emphasized by its position in the sentence), meaning “without visible cause or human agency.” (Grassmick)

Automate in Jewish writings of the OT and Intertestamental Period often indicates something miraculous. (Marcus) It is rarely used in the NT. (Lane) It is unjustified to connect the “not knowing” to Jesus' saying in Mark 13:32 // Matt. 24:26 to not knowing the time or to the disciples' blindness as some people have. “Automate” may be the key word in the parable: “Growth happens without human intervention.” (Snodgrass)

verse 29 When harvest is ready, he literally “sends for the sickle,” meaning he sends for the reapers. (Grassmick)

There are clear echoes of Joel 3:13 concerning the effect of Judgment Day on unbelievers whereas the emphasis in Mark is on the positive aspects of judgment. (Marcus, Kistemaker, Snodgrass)

The general idea of a full measure is also found in Romans 11:12,25.

Matthew 13:39 explains the harvest as being that of the end of the age where believers are vindicated. “The reapers are angels.” (Payne) God sends out his angels to gather the harvest (Revelation 14:12-16)

Emphasis

The exact point of emphasis of the parable is a highly disputed matter. This is reflected in some of the other titles given to it, such as: The Blade, the Ear and the Full Corn; The Reaper, and The Confident Investor, The Patient Husbandman, The Earth Producing of Itself, The Carefree Sower, and The Unbelieving Farmer. Keep in mind Snodgrass' admonition that “isolating one feature leads to distortion and all the elements must be taken into account.”

The three phases (shoot, ear, and full grain) may correspond to Jesus' earthly ministry, ministry of the church, and the final consummation. (Marcus) “The parable bypasses all the details, significant as they may be, and places the emphasis on the sowing, the growing, and the mowing.” (Kistemaker)

In contrast, Anderson feels that the emphasis is not on the three-fold process but on the fact that God will bring it about without human help. Mann says that "but when" in verse 29 shows that the emphasis is on the last stage.And Cranfield expresses the opinion that the main point is on the contrast between the sowing phase (with no obvious growth) and the eventual phase. Other proposed points of emphasis listed by Lane include  "the idea of the power released through scattering of the seed," "...the identity between the sower and the reaper," and the "certainty of a mature crop in spite of the sower's temporary passivity."

Interpretive Options summarized by Snodgrass and by Mann:

Medieval allegory: Christ puts the divine seed in human hearts; growth = development of Christian work. Man's sleep = Jesus' death; not knowing = Christ did not let the people know which works result in salvation. Or one could come up with the allegorical interpretation that the sower is Jesus, the apparently resting farmer is the Holy Spirit, and the reaper is God the Father.

The sowers = ministers of the word (Calvin and Kistemaker) Snodgrass points out that especially in short parables such as this one, an allegorical approach should not be used.

19^th century optimists (Post-millennialists): There will be a gradual evolution of God's kingdom permeating all human activity. This view is totally rejected by Snodgrass and by Mann.

An apocalyptic focus on the end times with an explanation of its delay or teaching of its imminent arrival.

To dampen the zeal of the Zealots or some of Jesus' disciples. It exposes the Zealot's idea of bringing about the Kingdom themselves. (Jeremias)   Snodgrass concludes that adjusting the Kingdom expectations of his audience was certainly in mind but not limited to the Zealots.

A teaching of realized eschatology. “The phrase 'present kingdom' does not mean that the end of the world was present; it means that the promises of the OT Scriptures, especially the prophets, had begun with Jesus' actions and words.”  Although the parable definitely teaches a necessary period of time between Jesus' present mission and the consummation, the kingdom is already among them (evidence: the word “immediately” and present tense used for growth and harvest). (Snodgrass)

Application

“It does not instruct people about that they should or should not do.” It has nothing to teach regarding works-righteousness, workaholism, or passivity. (Snodgrass) “It is only for the preacher to cast seed into the waiting growth, not to dictate in what way or at what pace it will bear fruit.” (Marcus)

Jesus has sown the seed and nothing can prevent the harvest. So “show calm patience and confident expectation.” (Short)

The parable's “principle emphasis is upon the fact that the word of God will do its own work in human hearts if given the opportunity in the right conditions.” (Swift) Therefore proclaimers of the word should be patient as the farmer, as taught in James 5:7. Recall that in Revelation 6:9-11 when the martyrs under the throne cry out, “How long? They are told to wait a little longer.

There has been an on-going debate in Judaism from Jesus' time up to the present on whether human action is needed to bring about the final days. According to the logic of the parable, the farmer is only responsible for one thing: to help sow the seed. Jesus says it is all in God's hands. (Marcus) Compare this to some who try to manipulate world events today in attempts to hasten the kingdom (funding oil drilling in Israel, finding Noah's ark in order to determine the length of a cubit, reaching all people/language groups with the Gospel). Only the last activity has any kingdom value, but even it may be pursued with the wrong motive.

 

BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS: JESUS' TEACHINGS

Here are some additional criticisms of the Bible found on the internet, this time dealing with Jesus' teachings.

Christ warned his followers not to fear being killed. (Luke 12:4)

Christ himself avoided the Jews for fear of being killed. (John 7:1)

In the first place, nowhere in John 7 does it say that Jesus “feared” the Jews. Acting prudently is quite different from living in fear, which is the context of the teaching in Luke 12:4. Most importantly, however, is Jesus' motive for avoiding the Jews, and that is given a few verses later in John's Gospel. John 7:6-8 makes it clear that although Jesus knew that he would be killed by them, he had a number of things in his given ministry to accomplish before then. And, of course, all of the Gospel accounts teach that when the time did come for his death, Jesus went to it voluntarily.

Parenthetically, I should point out that whenever John speaks of the “Jews,” he uses it to refer specifically to the Jewish authorities who were enemies of Jesus. After all, Jesus himself was a Jew, as were almost all of his original followers.

Public prayer is sanctioned. (I Kings 8:22, 54; 9:3)

Public prayer is disapproved (Matthew 6:5-6)

Again, the context is all-important in understanding these verses. The I Kings passages describe King Solomon's prayer at the dedication of the temple. It is obvious from the context and specifically from I Kings 8:55 that this is not a private prayer of an individual but a prayer by the recognized leader of the whole nation in which he is representing the people on their behalf before God. By contrast, Jesus' warning to his followers in Matthew 6 is that they should not behave like those individuals who purposely chose the most public places for their private prayers in order that others would see how righteous they were. Jesus uses a hyperbolic statement expressing the opposite extreme (go into your closets) to make his point in a striking and unforgettable way.

Importunity in prayer commanded. (Luke 18:5,7)

Importunity in prayer condemned (Matthew 6:7-8)

The parable of Jesus has been much misunderstood, even by Christians. I will later post a more complete discussion of that parable, but at this time let me simply say that:

(a) The unrighteous judge in no way represents God and therefore we do not have to constantly bug him in order to get what we want. The reasoning here is from the lesser to the greater, i.e., if even an evil judge will eventually give in to the widow's pestering, how much more readily will a righteous God listen to our prayers.

(b) The person who formulated this “contradiction” again purposely quoted only the part of the passage that he wanted to and ignored the rest. If he had mentioned the beginning of the story in v. 1 instead of just the conclusion, it would have been obvious that the meaning behind the parable is that we should not be discouraged to the point where we give up on prayer altogether.

By contrast, Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount as recorded in Matthew is a specific criticism of those who “heap up empty words” using elaborate and flowery phrase to impress God (and whoever else is listening) rather than just getting to the point. God obviously knows already what we want before we express it in words.

Taking of oaths sanctioned. (Numbers 30:2; Genesis 21:23-24:31; Genesis 31:53; Hebrews 6:13)

Taking of oaths forbidden. (Matthew 5:34)

There are several ways this “contradiction” can be easily refuted. Let's take each of the passages quoted in turn. Numbers 30:2 just gives the general command to carry out any vows or oaths to God that you make. But it says nothing regarding any person or object that you might swear by in making these oaths.

Genesis 21:22-24: Abraham swears by God at Abimelech's insistence soon after Abraham had deceived him in the previous chapter.

Genesis 31:53: Jacob swears an oath by “the Fear of his father Isaac” (whatever that might mean) at Laban's insistence soon after Laban was convinced that Jacob had stolen Laban's house idols from him.

In both of these cases, one could argue that the patriarchs involved were not known for their honesty, and so the people they were dealing with demanded more than just a simple promise to behave better in the future. And secondly, remember that both of these events occurred before the giving of the Law. Thirdly, God did not endorse either vow.

Now turning to the supposedly contradictory teaching in Matthew 5:34 (but looking at the complete passage), Jesus states that for believers there should be no need to swear an oath by someone or something greater than ourselves since we should be known as honest people whose mere word could be taken at its face value. That speaks to the Genesis 21 and 31 examples above, where obviously untrustworthy people were concerned.

A second reason for Jesus' teaching is given in Matthew 5: we cannot and should not swear by something that does not belong to us, but belongs to God. This is fully consistent with Hebrews 6:13 (alluding to Genesis 22:16-18) passage, alluding back to the event in Genesis 22:16-18, since God is swearing by something that does belong to Him, namely His own person.

Obedience to masters enjoined. (Colossians 3:22-23; I Peter 2:18)

Obedience due to God only. (Matthew 4:10; I Corinthians 7:23; Matthew 23:10)

The Colossians 3 reference should also include verse 24 which makes it even clearer that the slave, in serving his earthly lord well is really serving his heavenly Lord.

I Peter 13-21 as a whole teaches that slaves of earthly masters are first and foremost slaves of God (see. v. 16). However, they should “accept the authority of those put above them, whether the emperor (v. 17) or an earthly master (v. 18). And if they suffer for it, they are actually following Christ's example (v. 21).

Turning to the opposite side of the coin, Matthew 4:10 quotes two parallel lines from an OT verse. Thus, “serving only Him” is the same as “worshiping only God.” The critic has conveniently left out the second line of the quotation which explains the first line.

I Corinthians 7:21-24, taking the whole passage rather than just the one verse given above, teaches that whatever your earthly status (slave or free) remember that you are spiritually free and only ultimately belong to the Lord.

Matthew 4:10 really has nothing to say on the subject at all because it deals specifically with those from whom we should get our spiritual teachings, and the answer is Christ.

Note that in each of the above cases, the critic has (purposefully?) chosen to pick only the individual verses that proved his case and ignored the complete context.

 

PARABLE OF THE SOILS AND THE SEED (MATTHEW 13; MARK 4; LUKE 8)

Most of the kingdom parables are found in Matthew 13 and parallels. The parable of the sower and soils is first because it helps set the stage for the following parables about the growth of the kingdom.

This parable is found in all three gospel accounts. All versions have the same overall structure:

    A. The Parable

            B. Comments about the reason for parables in general

    A'. Explanation of the Parable

Since we have already discussed Section B as part of the Introduction to the Parables, we will now concentrate on the parable itself and its interpretation. Snodgrass calls it a 'parable about parables.' because it contains several parables in one and because it gives a model interpretation by Jesus himself to help us approach other parables that are not explained. This parable is also found in the Gospel of Thomas.

It should be noted that there are minor differences in wording between the three accounts. For example, Luke adds that seed on the wayside was trodden under foot. And only Mark adds that seed among thorns didn't die but yielded no fruit. And finally, there are different numbers given in the three accounts for the amount of crop increase. For convenience sake, we will follow Mark's account.

Mark 4:1-2 This parable is an appropriate one to tell a mixed multitude since it summarizes the various responses that will be made to his words.

Verse 3a This is a call to truly understand what is being said. It is interesting that Jesus rarely taught on how to speak, but often on listening. The word “listen” points to seriousness and solemnity; it demands total attention to and involvement with the words that follow. It emphasizes that the meaning of the story may not obvious; it must be thought about. “He who has ears, let him hear” can be paraphrased, “Take care how you hear” and indicates that a person's attitude toward the word is not necessarily fixed for all time. As one commentator said, “We may be all four types [of seed] at various points in our lives. We listen to same song at different times in our lives but have different attitude.”

Verse 3b Surprisingly, after such an introductory warning, the opening sentence is rather mundane. Imagine it today in words such as "One day a woman got in her car and went to work."

Verse 4 The physical picture is fairly clear, but it should be pointed out that at the time in Palestine the normal practice was to sow the seeds on the unprepared ground without caring what the soil was like underneath and then to plow it all under, including the thistles, right up to the paths. This picture seems to indicate that we should not try to figure out beforehand whether a person is necessarily properly prepared to hear the Word, but just spread it anyway – only time will reveal the results. As a personal example, years ago I thought I was witnessing in a fairly clear manner to a fellow worker, but the Word only sunk in later when he attended a religious retreat. And afterward he said he couldn't even remember me having talked to him about Christ at all.

Verse 5 This is not soil filled with rocks, but a rocky limestone formation just below the surface – common in Galilee, and in central Texas where I live. The rocks beneath captured the heat of summer and released it in November and December, causing early growth.

Verse 6 This is not sunrise but the heat of midday. This idea is also expressed in Psalm 129:6 -- "May they be like grass on the housetops, which withers before it grows up."

Verse 7 “Choked is a strong word, more like "strangled." This physical picture is of a young plant deprived of sunlight, moisture and nourishment. Newly growing roots had to compete with those (of thistles) already established.

Verse 8 The Greek literally says “seeds” denoting some individual seeds in this case, unlike the singular “seed” used in vv. 5 and 7 which denotes "seed" in general. Seeds are the subject of the verb “brought forth” (This indicates that it is not the soil that causes the increase, but the seed itself).

Trench says that 100-fold harvests were not unheard of. Another commentator says 10-fold is more common in a good year. Where it grows well, the increase of crop can be quite high so we don't necessarily have to view this as miraculous growth. Note the difference between the three Synoptic accounts at this point:

Mark: 30, 60 and 100-fold increase

Mark's version pairs this parable with two others involving the growth of the kingdom here on earth without any negative connotations involving the Final Judgment. This is consistent with the sizes of the crop given in Mark 4:8, listed in ascending order.

Matthew: 100, 60 and 30-fold increase

Matthew places this parable right before the one concerning the wheat and tares. Since that story concerns the at the Last Judgment, some people feel that the decreasing size of crops here is to show that many appear to accept the word and join the church, but that large number will be pared down on Judgment Day. Alternatively, Davies and Allison suggest that Matthew changed the order of the numbers in Mark's original account to fall in line with the later experienced failure of preaching.

Luke: 100-fold increase

Finally, in Luke's version, there is only one other, short parable (of the lamp) paired with the Sower Parable. Its theme is the revelation of previous mysteries only to those who listen. So this time, instead of stressing the final separation of the saved and damned (as in Matthew), there is now an emphasis on the divisions that will occur here on earth between those who hear and those who refuse to hear. There is no emphasis on the growth theme, as echoed by the fact that only one figure for crop increase is given in verse 8.

Which account is the most authentic? It is useless to to try and answer that question since (1) the Gospel writers are known to sometimes group sayings thematically instead of in the order which Jesus originally told them in, and (2) there is the very real possibility that Jesus told the same story in multiple settings to make slightly different points each time depending on the audience.

Verse 9 Jesus ends the parable as he started it. This phrase occurs elsewhere in the Gospels and eight times in Revelation.

Parable Explained (verses 13-20)

The fairly detailed explanation shows that this parable is close to an allegory in nature. That is the reason it is suspect in the eyes of liberal scholars who feel it was manufactured by someone in the early church who did not realize that a parable only has one point. However, (a) one can't put the definition of parable into a box, and (b) it is not a true allegory because there is no explanation of who the sower is (God, Jesus, evangelists, missionaries), what the seed is, the function of plowing, and the sun and water, etc.

Verse 13 Jesus' words sound harsh but as Matthew Henry says, “Those who would improve in knowledge, must be made aware of their ignorance.”The Greek in this verse uses two different words for “understand” – the first means to know by intuition and the second to know by experience.

Verse 14 The word has gone out everywhere, not just on fertile ground.

Verse 15 This reads a little strangely in the Greek but the meaning is obvious. “Those” refers to believers (symbolized by the soil in the parable itself, but by the type of seed in the explanation); the Word is seed sown in man and men are seed sown by God. This ambiguity is another reason why the parable is not an allegory. As Gundry puts it, “If the seed doesn't represent both the word and the hearers, it makes no sense.”

The same idea is found in the apocryphal book II Esdras (9:30-33) from a late 1st cent. AD: “You said, 'Hear me, Israel; listen to my words, race of Jacob. This is my law which I sow among you to bear fruit and bring you glory forever.' But our fathers who received your law did not keep it; they did not observe your commandments. Not that the fruit of the law perished; that was impossible, for it was yours. Those who received it perished, because they failed to keep safe the good seed that had been sown in them.”

Although Satan is doomed by the coming of Christ, he is still present in the world to oppose the Church. But the emphasis should not be on Satan as if he had omnipotence over our lives.

Verse 16 Trench: “He [the hearer of the word] has exposed his heart as a common road to every evil influence of the world, til it has become hard as a pavement.” Or “in one ear, out the other.”

To me it looks like the description of an emotional person who gets wildly excited at first, but who has no root to sustain him. (Which is not at all to say that emotional people are weak in faith)

Verse 17 In a true believer, tribulations only strengthen one's faith.

Verse 17b “to give up or fall away”-- the Greek word is derived from a stick with bait to trap an animal; it could be translated “they are trapped.” "Superficial" is the best word to describe these listeners.

Verse 19 anxieties – see I Peter 5:7-8 (pairing anxiety and Satan), II Corinthians 11:28 (but not all anxiety is necessarily evil; it depends on where it draws one's thoughts)

Arnold Bennett tells the story about his conversation with a lady who had read a self-help book and was trying to change her life for the better. “I'm going to concentrate.” “On what?” “Oh, lots of things.” Imagine if the distractions of the world were great in 1st century Palestine, what about today?

It is interesting that both “good” or “bad” circumstances can draw a person away from God. In either case, it is worldly influences. These examples are given matter-of-factly, not as a warning or necessarily for encouragement. That is just the state of affairs (Anderson)

Verse 20 Who are these people? Luke-- “But the seed on the good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop.” Matthew-- “the man who hears the word and understands it.”

“Fruit” in this verse may mean spiritual growth within an individual or those who are won by his witness.

major interpretations:

Allegorical: by Ulrich Mell (German theologian): the farmer is an early church missionary, birds are a threat of extinction to disobedient Christians, thorns are people who can't control their desires, the rocky ground refers to Peter.

Snodgrass lists various opinions in the literature on how the parable should be viewed, which he stresses are not necessarily mutually exclusive:

    pastoral: encouragement in the face of failure

    historical: the reason Israel has rejected her Messiah

    theological: the effectiveness of the proclaimed word

    prophetic: the productive seed is the remnant of Israel that will believe

    ethical: the responsibility of the audience in truly listening to Jesus' words

He feels there are three main points:

1. The kingdom involves a proclamation about God and His purposes and actions.

2. The kingdom presents a challenge for people to reorient their lives.

3. The kingdom is presently at work and is established as people respond appropriately.

As with the Parable of the Prodigal Son, one can prejudice the interpretation by the title one gives it. “Naming a parable is tantamount to interpreting it.” (Snodgrass)

A. PARABLE OF THE HARVEST Eschatological, emphasizing the fullness of the harvest. The purposes of God cannot be negated by man's disobedience. The kingdom will come. Pro: The parables that follow are about growth of kingdom, Con: Jesus' explanation hardly mentions the growth.

B. PARABLE OF THE SOILS Emphasizes the responsibilities and spiritual state of the hearers of the Word; then as now, we have to be attentive to God's word.

C. PARABLE OF THE SOWER A picture of Jesus' experiences (fits in with question below on context in Mark) OR Encouragement to the disciples regarding their ministry.

D. PARABLE OF THE SEED Emphasizes the coming of the word of revelation to mankind, not the reception or results.

Conclusion: In fact, the entire nature and history of the Kingdom is described in this parable; there is no need to choose from the above.

Another convenient way to view the three unproductive soils is to compare them with the three enemies of man--the world, flesh and the devil or to the three aspects of human personality: intellect, emotion, and will. The packed soil represents attacks by the devil, shallow soil represents temptations of the flesh, and the thorny soil represents influence from the world. This evil triad is in opposition to the Trinity and is also found in Christ's three temptations in the wilderness and in Ephesians 2:1-3. The three soils can also be compared to the three aspects of human personality which may be missing in the hearer of the word: intellect (packed soil), emotion (shallow soil) and will (thorny soil).

It is also possible to treat this story, as does Snodgrass, as four short, separate parables that have been joined together. Thus, we should be able to derive a different meaning out of each part of the parable.

The pathway, hard, packed-down soil: Pharisees, those who already have their mind made up, those who have had negative experiences with Christians, those who have intellectual objections to believing, etc. How do you salvage seed that ends up here? (a) roto-till the soil or (b) don't waste your time trying to salvage them (casting your pearls before swine).

Satan is the one who prevents them from accepting the Word because these people have been brainwashed. Paul talks about them in II Corinthians 4:4: “They do not believe, because their minds have been kept in the dark by the evil god of this world. He keeps them from seeing the light shining on them, the light that comes from the Good News of the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.” Former director of the British and Foreign Bible Society Tom Houston (CT, May 29, 1981) points out: “Clearly, it will take more than the technical skills of communication to convince this kind of hearer.” Is apologetics the answer?

Houston explains that the pathway represents other thoughts and ideas to which we are constantly being exposed. These interfere with us accepting the truth of the message. Much of Jesus' ministry was a confrontation with those who only heard the parts of His message that had immediate interest to them. They were obsessed with spiritual, economic, social or political power, and they were consumed with their own religious systems and prejudices. Houston's response to this type of opposition is a positive one: ask them why they reject the Good News and then state the message as an answer to their position.

Key themes: intellect, devil

Rocky, shallow soil: Initially enthusiastic believers who are are mainly emotional in their acceptance of the word but do not have the will or encouragement to grow. The Gospel accounts are filled with descriptions of the emotional responses of the crowds who heard Jesus (they praised him, were impressed with him, marveled at his eloquence, were filled with anger or fear, etc.). Holland wisely notes that these are all crowd responses, not individual ones. “The heat in which these seeds germinate is group heat. The moisture that is eventually lacking is the on-going support of other people.”

To combat this problem, it is necessary to truly disciple new believers the way Jesus did. Add extra nutrients, water more often so that roots will be established.

Another aspect to this syndrome is seen in the periodic furor whipped up by modern prophets of the imminent coming of Christ to take us away from all our problems on earth within our lifetime. This may generate enough excitement to bring new believers into the fold, but the question to deal with is what to do with the disappointment and cynicism that sets in when the “Rapture” doesn't materialize soon enough for these hearers. Hal Lindsay was once asked by a reporter what would happen if his various predictions didn't come to pass as he taught. Sadly, Lindsay's response dealt only with the effect it would have on his own personal reputation, not the effect it might have on the faith of his followers.

Key themes: emotion, flesh

Thorny ground: Those who lead a double life; they have one foot in the church and the other in the world (worldly Christians). Luke's version identifies three areas that hold these believers back from being productive in their faith: worries, riches and pleasures. Elsewhere in Luke, the word “worries” is used only in a home setting (12:22-30; 10:38-42). Houston: “Putting Jesus before family without question is the only way to avoid the bitter fruit of immature Christianity. Riches are seen by Jesus as being a major barrier to a growing faith, as witnessed by his conversation with the rich young ruler (Luke 18:18-30). Luke uses the Greek word from which we get “hedonism” when he talks about pleasure here. Houston calls this “unregulated leisure.” How do we combat this? Yank out the weeds, put weed killer on them.

Key themes: will, world

Good soil: Genuine seekers who realize the lack in their life and wholeheartedly embrace their new faith. Keep it watered, fertilized and weeded. In describing this category of people, Luke uses the phrase “a good and obedient heart,” which was a commonly expressed goal of the Greek philosophers. Houston – “It implies a moral discontent with what we are, and a wholehearted commitment to something better.”

 

BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS: RELIGIOUS PRACTICES

Men's long hair sanctioned: Judges 13:5; Numbers 6:5

Men's long hair condemned: I Corinthians 11:14

Numbers 6 describes the specific situation of someone who wishes to dedicate themselves wholly or for a given time period to God by adhering to a number of rules that will set them apart from the rest of the community's normal practices (a nazirite vow). One of these regulations is to abstain from cutting one's hair. The fact that this is an exception to the general rule shows that the normal custom for a Jewish man was to periodically trim his hair, as Paul much later alludes to in I Corinthians. Of course, Samson (Judges 13) was the most famous example of a Nazirite (not to be confused with a Nazarene).

Circumcision instituted: Genesis 17:10

Circumcision condemned: Galatians 5:2

This was a religious rite performed on all Jewish boys (and men who wished to convert to Judaism) in order to set them apart from most Gentiles. Paul, in Galatians, is addressing a group of Gentile Christians, not Jews. And for them, he explains that they are not converting to Judaism, but to belief in Jesus Christ. Therefore they have no need for the ritual of circumcision. Nowhere does Paul ever teach that Jews are to stop the ritual of circumcision, and he even goes as far as having Timothy, a half-Jew on his mother's side, circumcised.

Only clean animals for food permitted: Leviticus 11

All animals for food permitted: Acts 10-11

This chapter in Leviticus outlines the rather detailed, and in many cases seemingly arbitrary, regulations concerning which animals were clean to eat and which ones were not. The main purpose of these laws was to sharply distinguish the Jews from the surrounding nations as being set aside for God as a holy people. But by NT times, God needed to stress that there was no distinction between Jew and Gentile in His eyes; all could be holy if they accepted Christ's sacrifice on their behalf. Peter is the first one given this message in Acts 10, and he subsequently shares it with the Jerusalem church. They therefore decide to not trouble the Gentile believers with keeping all the Jewish dietary laws, only the one that might disturb their Jewish brothers and sisters the most – eating flesh from which the blood had not been first drained.

Sabbath instituted: Exodus 20:8

Sabbath repudiated: Isaiah 1:13; Romans 14:5; Colossians 2:16

The full chapter 1 of Isaiah demonstrates that it is not at all the institution of the sabbath that is condemned by God, only the fact that the people are following all the ceremonial laws without paying any attention to God's moral laws. Paul, in Romans and Colossians, alludes to sabbaths along with other dates on the religious calendar of the Jews as being of little importance to Christians, whether Gentile or Jew, since they were only a shadow pointing to Christ, whereas the substance, Christ himself has now arrived. (Colossians 2:17) Romans 14:6 stresses that everyone can worship on whatever day they want to as long as it is to the honor of God. Thus, Seventh Day Adventists should not be criticized if they worship on Saturdays, and in turn they should not judge those who worship on Sundays. Note how easy it is to refute this so-called criticism by just reading a verse or two before or after the verses quoted above.

Baptism commanded: Matthew 28:19

Baptism not commanded: I Corinthians 1:14, 17

The critic who came up with this one had to be very careful which verses in I Corinthians 1 he quoted since a complete reading of verses 10-17 would easily contradict what he said. Paul starts out by bemoaning the divisions in the Corinthian church caused by the people who claim their main allegiance is to various human leaders rather than Jesus himself. Solely because of that fact, he says that he is glad that he only personally baptized one or two of them; otherwise they might start another “Paul group.” Finally he states that his personal mission is to preach the word while others can do the baptizing.

Different reasons for the Sabbath are given in Exodus 20:1 and Deuteronomy 5:15.

The author of this “contradiction” seems to feel that there can never be more than one reason behind a given action. This is patently untrue. As a simple example, the various motives behind prescribing jail sentences for certain crimes may be some or all of the following at the same time: require the felon to pay his debt to society as a whole, provide some form of restitution and sense of closure to his/her victims, act as a deterrent to others, and give the felon a chance for a new life and direction through counseling and re-education.

Exodus 20:1 looks all the back to the creation and God's resting on the seventh day for the rationale behind the sabbath observances while Deuteronomy 5:15 invokes the time when the Jews were slaves in Egypt before God rescued them from their labors. J. A. Thompson simply says, “There were thus two good reasons for observing the sabbath.” Two other commentators on the Book of Deuteronomy give their detailed takes on these reasons:

Weinfeld: Combining these two passages provides identification with the Creator (Exodus) and also with the slave (Deuteronomy). “Thus on the Sabbath man resembles God in two ways: by creating and contemplating on the created world, and by giving freedom to those dependent on him.”

Craigie: “The two reasons complement each other and both emphasize man's dependence on God.”

 

THE PRODIGAL SON: PART 2 (LUKE 15:25-32)

Verse 25: The Greek word for “elder” is presbuterous; he is the morally upright Presbyterian son.

Verse 27: The slave tells the older son that his brother has come back and the father received him with “peace.”

This word can mean “in good health” but it also translates the Hebrew word shalom, which indicates reconciliation also. “He received him” is a reminder of the Pharisees' objection to Jesus' behavior in Luke 15:2. The banquet is really a celebration of the success of the father's efforts at reconciling his son.

Verses 29-30: By contrast, the older son treats the banquet as a celebration of the prodigal, not the father. We see in reality a type of the communion service in which it is Jesus who is celebrated, not we sinners.

Verse 28 The older son is mad that the reconciliation has taken place without the prodigal paying for his sins. That is why he actually takes the step of publicly breaking off his relationship with his father, which he was doing by refusing to participate in his father's banquet. Note that father went out to meet the older son as he had done with the younger one. Bruner says, “Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound, that saves a self-righteous prig like me.”

Craddock points out that in our competitive society we always feel that there needs to be a winner and a loser. We find it difficult not to be offended by God's grace toward another, especially if we have serious questions about that person's conduct and character. “We might not mind welcoming the prodigal son back in the family as long as he would wear sackcloth and ashes, but not for feasting and dancing.”

Verse 29: The older son doesn't call father, father; and compares himself to a slave. It also demonstrates his similarity with the younger son in that he expected something from his father instead of rejoicing that being in his father's presence was reward enough. Also note his repeated “I, me, and my” in this verse.

Verse 30: Look at the other pronouns. “This son of yours” betrays his attitude toward his brother just as the lawyer's refusal to say the word “Samaritan” in the Good Samaritan Parable showed his true attitude.

Verses 31-32: In addition to ignoring the insult, the father humiliates himself again by trying to woo his older son back. The father pointedly calls the younger son “your brother.”

He reminds the older son that his brother has no more inheritance left, unlike himself, and would 

remain dependent on him or others when the father died. Even though we may have been forgiven for 

our sins, we must still live out the consequences of our actions for the rest of our lives. The father 

reminds older son that they all are family and that the Father is still the one in charge, but does it in 

gentleness. He does not argue with the son that he is mistaken or try to defend the younger son. 

“The older son had not learned that family language is largely the language of love, forgiveness, and reconciliation, not that of moral obligation.” (Christopher A. Hall)

“If the older son accepts the love now offered to him, he will be obliged to treat the Prodigal with the same loving acceptance with which the father welcomed the pig herder. The older son will need to be “conformed to the image” of that compassionate father who comes to both kinds of sinners in the form of a suffering servant, offering undeserved, costly love. (Bailey)

By the way, if we are similarly bothered by the message in this story and the parable of the laborers in 

the field, then we most likely identify with the older brother. 

 

Let us turn next to the literary characteristics of this parable. In the first place, it is cleverly designed so 

that it strictly follows the Rule of Stage Duality: only two characters or groups of characters are on the 

stage at one time. Of the three major characters, each scene takes place between only two of them at a 

time, and the two brothers never appear together, perhaps to demonstrate how estranged they are from 

one another. Contrast it to this painting of this parable. The same thing happens in the Book of Ruth 

where Naomi and Boaz are never together and in the David and Bathsheba story where Uriah is never 

together with Bathsheba, which has obvious implications to the conclusion of the narrative.

While we are on the subject of the OT parallels, an interesting study is to compare and contrast the 

story of Jacob and Esau's reconciliation found in Genesis with this parable. Kenneth Bailey has done 

just that in his book.

The next thing to note about the structure is that it is divided into two parts: the first concerns the youngest son (vv. 1-24) while the rest is about the eldest son. The parallelism between these two halves is accentuated by the similar endings of each half. But what does happen at the end? Will the whole family now celebrate? We are not told what the older son decided to do, and the open-ended nature of this parable, which makes us ponder what we would have done in the same situation, is highlighted by the missing phrase at the end (see Figure 1). “Is he willing? We are not told. By this point the audience is on the stage and must decide for itself.” (Bailey) Interestingly, Bailey also sees this parable as consisting of a dual chiasm with a pointed missing final element at the end, but his divisions are totally different from those below, and Snodgrass calls them “forced and arbitrary.”

This literary technique turns out to be identical to that used in the Book of Jonah, which happens to 

have exactly the same message as the parable: the fact that God shows his love toward all (see Figure 

2).

Figure 1: Parable of the Prodigal Son

I. The Prodigal Son (15:12-22)

    A. Father gives the son his inheritance (12)

        B. Son leaves home and squanders his money (13-16)

            C. Shares his thoughts about his situation (17-19)

        B'. Returns home repentant (20a)

A'. Father reassures him regarding his place in the family (20b-22)

II. The Righteous Son (15:25-32)

A. Son hears about the feast when coming home (25-27)

    B. Becomes angry and refuses to go in (28)

        C. Shares his thoughts about his situation (29-30)

    (B'. He repents and goes to the feast)

A'. Father reassures him regarding his place in the family (31)

Note that the similar center sections to each chiasm point to the similarity between the two sons and expose their heart issues.

Conclusions to the Parable

Prodigal Son: Conclusion (23-24)

    1. “let us eat and celebrate” (23)

        2. “my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found” (24a)

            3. “and they began to celebrate” (24b)

Righteous Son: Conclusion (32)

    1. “we had to celebrate and rejoice” (32a)

        2. “your brother was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found” (32b)

(3. “and they all began to celebrate”)

Figure 2: The Structure of Jonah 4

1. Jonah's Attitude: Anger (4:1)

2. Jonah's rhetorical question to the LORD (4:2)

3. Dialogue (4:3-5a)

a. Jonah asks to die (4:3)

                                                    b. LORD's question: “Do you do well to be angry?” (4:4)

                                                        c. Jonah's reply: He leaves the city (4:5a)

4. Jonah in the shade (4:5b)

5. LORD grows the plant (4:6a)

6. Jonah's Attitude: Gladness (4:6b)

5'. LORD withers the plant (4:7)

4'. Jonah in the sun (4:8a)

3'. Dialogue (4:8b-9b)

a. Jonah asks to die (4:8b)

                                                    b. LORD's question: “Do you do well to be angry?” (4:9a)

                                                        c. Jonah's reply: “Yes” (4:9b)

2'. LORD's rhetorical question to Jonah (4:10-11)

1'. Jonah's Attitude: ?

Notice that God's behavior in the story of Jonah and the father's attitude in this parable are identical. He 

shows equal compassion toward those outside and those within the fold and gives each of them time to 

repent. The parable is not an attack on the Pharisees, and the ending “functions as an invitation for

them to change their attitude.” (Snodgrass)   Jesus is not saying that the older brother (Pharisees) has

no relationship with God, merely that he should not have a disdainful attitude toward repentant 

sinners.

An alternative chiastic organization to this parable has been proposed by Welch which points to the father's love as the main point of the story. It illustrates Breck's contention that fresh insights can be gained from varying attempts to discern the overall structure of a passage.

A. One son takes his inheritance, scene between father and son. (vv. 11-12)

    B. One son goes out; his conduct (vv. 13-16)

        C. The well-being of the father's servants recalled (v. 17)

            D. I will say, “I have sinned” (vv. 18-19)

                E. Father is compassionate toward his son (v. 20)

            D'. The son says, “I have sinned” (v. 21)

        C'. Father gives instructions to the servants (vv. 22-24)

    B'. One son refuses to go in; his conduct (vv. 25-30)

A'. One son promised his inheritance; scene between father and son (vv. 31-32)

Go back to verse 2: They had criticized Jesus for welcoming sinners and tax collectors and dining with 

them just as the father in the story welcomed his son, who was also a sinner and worked for Gentiles 

(just as the tax collectors did), and had a feast for him. Jesus effectively hands the situation back to the 

Pharisees and says, “What will you do now?”

Similar teachings are found in Luke 5:31-32 and Luke 19:10.

An interesting Bible study could be made by comparing and contrasting this parable with the story of 

the reunion between the estranged brothers Jacob and Esau found in Genesis 32-33.

Tertullian felt that this parable must never be applied to Christians. “Security in sin develops an 

appetite for it.” Novatian felt that those who lapsed in times of persecution should never be admitted 

back into the church. By contrast, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and Gregory of Nazianzus were 

appalled that anyone could deny forgiveness for those wishing to repent and rejoin the church. Gregory 

pointed out that Novatian was very selective in which sins he felt couldn't be forgiven.

 

One final note regarding the way in which all three parables end: The sheep parable says that there is 

more rejoicing in heaven over the one sinner who repents than over 99 righteous people while the coin 

parable just says there is joy over the repentant sinner without comparing it to their attitude toward the 

righteous ones. This possible contradiction is only resolved at the end of the final parable in which the 

“righteous” person is asked to join in the rejoicing but also reminded of the constant love the father has 

for him. The older brother has to wrestle with his feelings that the father is doing exactly what the 

angels are said to do regarding the sheep parable – show some sort of preference for the sinner.

 

Snodgrass sees three main messages in this parable:

            1. An emphasis on the actions of a loving God.

            2. An invitation to celebrate the return of a sinner.

            3. A defense of Jesus' association with sinners.

 

THE PRODIGAL SON: PART 1 (LUKE 15:11-24)

Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) 

Trench in his book on the parables calls this “the pearl and crown of all the parables of Scripture...The Gospel within the Gospel.” Robert Bridges calls it “an absolutely flawless piece of work,” and others label it as the most beautiful short story ever told. Snodgrass says, “The parable itself is relatively straightforward. What scholars often do to the parable is not.” So let's start by rejecting some proposed approaches to this parable:

1. Since this is the longest of Jesus' parables, even modern commentators can't resist the temptation to allegorize it. For example, Osborne (Spiral 310) cites the example of N. T. Wright who says that it is the story of Israel going into exile in a foreign land. Israel must repent and return to God. But the older brother (the Samaritans) are standing in their way. By contrast, others actually feel that Jesus is the younger son who leaves the Father (The Incarnation) and then returns to him (The Resurrection).
2. Islamic scholars make another crucial mistake by saying that since there is no atoning sacrifice mentioned in the story, that teaches that God merely requires of a person that he repent. The problem, of course, is that parables do not pretend to present a complete theological teaching on any subject. (DOJ)
3. Augustine took the younger son to stand for the Gentiles and the older son to represent the Jews.
4. One psychological approach views the father in a negative light and feels that the return of the younger son is a tragic conclusion since it retards the son's development.
5. A Freudian interpretation treats the three major characters in the parable as standing for the id, superego, and the ego.
6. Sociological approaches deal with issues of honor, shame, and reconciliation with the whole community rather than issues of right and wrong. As Snodgrass says, “those who take this approach, “become more intrigued with the culture than with the parable, more with what is not there than with what is.”
7. Feminist scholars complain that there is no mother in this parable. And one even accuses the father of sexually abusing his sons.

And in interpreting parables, sometimes we beg the question by the (non-biblical) title we give them.

Prodigal Son (one who spends his money lavishly and foolishly, a spendthrift.) This title leads one to concentrate on foolish behavior of the younger son, how we should be wiser with our money or we will have a miserable life. This is the interpretation I had heard the most in growing up.

Some more appropriate titles might lead better lead us to the real emphasis in the story:

1. Parable of the Lost Son does better justice to the context of the rest of the chapter: three stories involving lost items.

2. Parable of the Two Sons recognizes that, unlike the first two parables in the series, there is equal emphasis on the non-lost item.

3. Parable of the Loving Father gets to the heart of the matter and best addresses the concern of the Pharisees in verses 1-2.

4. The three “lost” parables or the three parables of joy are also appropriate titles due to the similar refrains that end each one: “Rejoice with me because X was lost and has been found.”

“Which of the three characters is the central figure is an unnecessary question, for the parable needs all three to accomplish its goals.” (Snodgrass)

Kenneth E. Bailey ( Finding the Lost: Cultural Keys to Luke 15) says that there are fourteen points we need to take into account in reading it. I will reference his somewhat unusual ideas as we go through the story and compare them to what other commentators have to say. Bailey was a missionary who served in poor villages in the Near East for some years and based many of his ideas on customs he observed there. The problem with some of his suggestions is that he assumes that customs still going on in this region have been basically unchanged over the last 2,000 years.

Verses 11-12: The son's request is really the equivalent of saying to the father, “I am eager for you to die.”

Verse 12: The son was not married so he was probably about 20 years old. As a younger son, he would have received 1/3 of the estate at the father's death, but some scholars feel that he forfeited much of it by settling early, getting only about 1/5 of the estate instead (like taking Social Security at age 62.)

What was the root of the younger son's problem? The desire to be free of the restraints of his father and be self-sufficient. What do you think of the father's decision to give in to the son's request? Wasn't it unwise? What does this say about God? See Romans 1:22-24 about God "giving them up." God's act was not necessarily an act of hatred and judgment since it might eventually lead to their repentance. This might be similar to excommunication of an unbeliever from the congregation so that their soul might be saved. (I Corinthians 15:5; I Timothy 1:20).

In contrast to Bailey's contention, others note about this son's behavior that he was at least polite to his father, unlike the older son's attitude later in the story. Notice that the father bent over backward to be fair in that he appears to have given the older son his share also at this time. However, this appears not to be the case since he is still clearly in charge of the farm at the end of the story.

Verse 13a-b: Bailey assumes that the prodigal is obligated to sell quickly (“A few days later”) and get out of town due to the probable anger in the village that would have resulted.  Allowing the son to actually sell his part of the property (“he turned it into cash” – NEB) before the father's death went against the Jewish law of the first century for the division of an inheritance. It would have meant public disgrace for the whole family.

Verse 13c: Most translations falsely accuse him of engaging in some sort of sinful living. The text just says that he was a spendthrift despite the older son's later, and perhaps groundless, accusation that he spent the money on prostitutes. Note the contrast between gathering and scattering.

From the Jerusalem Talmud of the time, there was a method of punishing any boy who lost the family inheritance to Gentiles. It was called the qetsatsah ceremony. If he returned to the village, the villagers would bring a large jar of burned nuts and corn and break it in front of him while shouting “So-and-so is cut off from his people.” This was a ban against any contact with him whatsoever.

Verse 14: One hundred North American students were given this parable to read and then asked to retell it from memory. Only six mentioned the famine. By contrast, 42 of 50 Russian readers mentioned the famine. Why don't we interpret catastrophe in our circumstances as God's grace rather than His retribution?

In the OT, famines were looked on as a direct action of God to effect a desired result. Think of the famine that begins events in the Book of Ruth that will eventually lead to the line of the Messiah. Also, the famine that brought Joseph to power in Egypt and moved his family there. The only difference in this case is that the famine triggers a movement toward home, not away from it as in the other cases.

Verse 15: The Talmud teaches: “Cursed is the man who raises swine or who teaches his son Greek philosophy.” Trench points out that those who begin by treating the world as their servant end up being its slave. Another way of putting it is that those who attempt to be free by throwing off all restraints, end up being slaves.

Verse 16: Pods of the carob tree, also called St. John's Bread since he was believed to have eaten them, were actually eaten by the poorer people of the time if they couldn't get anything else. C. S. Lewis says that physical sins make one closer to an animal than a human, but “spiritual” sins (as we will see with the older son) make one closer to a demon. His “friends” had deserted him. It says in Proverbs 14:20: “The poor man is an offense even to his neighbors, but the rich man has many friends.” This is not the way it should be, but often is.

Verse 17a: “He came to himself” (other translations?) Trench – “Coming to oneself is equivalent to coming to God.” F. Dale Bruner – “On the whole, the self does not get a good press in the New Testament. We are told to deny ourselves; the person who seeks his self will lose it; the person who loses his self will find it. But this is one of those few texts indicating that when we consult our self, we are only one step from God.” Often a low point in our life has to be reached before we turn to God. The sone did not even compare himself to his father's servants, but to his part-time hired helpers. There were three classes of servants. First bondmen, next servants, and the lowest class was hired servants given work for special occasions, somewhat like day laborers or migrant workers. How many of us would have been held back by pride and refuse to admit our failure in front of our father and brother?

Then there is Bailey's rather controversial take on this statement. He notes that this phrase is translated in various Arabic versions as “He got smart,” “He took an interest in himself,” or “He thought to himself.” None of these indicate any repentance on his part. And his planned “confession” is actually a quote from Pharaoh when he was trying to manipulate Moses: “I have sinned against the LORD your God, and against you.” (Exodus 10:16) In Bailey's mind, this indicates that the son wasn't at all sincere. 

Snodgrass feels that this point would have been way too subtle for the audience to have grasped. However, in Bailey's defense, looking at the few other times in the OT that anyone admitted sinning against another person, they only include Saul apologizing to Samuel (I Samuel 15:24) and then to David (I Samuel 26:21), and Shimei apologizing to David (II Samuel 15:24). Saul immediately went back on his word in both cases, and Shimei obviously had a change of heart only out of fear because David was back in power.

Verse 17b: This leads to Bailey's equally controversial point: The younger son's need for cash is to avoid the ceremony described above. However, swineherds are only paid with food, not money. His second option is to use his father's backing to get training as a servant to eventually earn his money back by working for another farmer. Augustine and Pelagius debated this text. Pelagius said it was the son's actions that triggered his salvation while Augustine said that it was the son's good memories of his father's behavior that initiated it. Notice that neither one mentions repentance on the son's part.

Verse 18: Back to the majority interpretation: I have sinned against heaven (i.e., God) and before you (Different words in the Greek; NIV is not the best translation here). He was not merely guilty of a victimless crime; he came to the realization that one's unthinking and selfish actions affect those around you and God. Trench points out that, like David, we may injure others but it is only God that we can sin against. Discuss?

Verse 19: “When we confess our sins, he is faithful, he is just, he will forgive us our sins, cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (I John 1:9)

Verse 20a: Bailey says that the father anticipates the son's failure and that the only way he can prevent the qetsatsah ceremony is if he heads off the son before the villagers see him and then publicly reconciles with him. After that, the villagers would be reluctant to shame him.

The father sees him when he is far off. “The 'great distance' is more spiritual than it is physical. If the Prodigal thinks he can earn money and with it solve the problem of their relationship, he is yet very far away! The language is borrowed from Isaiah 57:19, where God affirms peace to those who are 'far off.'” The Greek word for “a long way off” is the same one used earlier as a “far” country. God seeks us out no matter how far we have strayed.

Verse 20b: Repentance only comes at this point when his father runs to him in an undignified manner, which would have been considered disgraceful for a respected man in the community. And then the father takes on the form of a servant before the son has a chance to finish his rehearsed speech. In his actions, the father actually behaves more like a mother of the time was expected to behave in similar circumstances. God the Father is also described in the OT as one who acts with the tender compassion of a mother. At this point, the father becomes Jesus himself who not only eats with sinners (Luke 15:2) but gets down on his knees and showers kisses on them.

Verse 21: One interpretation is that the father doesn't interrupt the speech before the son has finished, but the speech now means something real to the son. He gives the first two-thirds of it but stops before going into his scheme for working his way back into the father's good graces.

Verses 22-24: “But,” not “thus.” The father's acceptance is not dependent on son's repentance. Contrast this with the OT law regarding publicly renouncing and then stoning a rebellious son (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). “ I am no longer worthy”—the son spoke the truth, but father responded in mercy not judgment. Notice that the father did not say anything to his son at all, but he demonstrated his love by his actions alone.

A robe was for feast days, not worn when working (contrast the older brother who was out working in the field). The ring was a symbol of authority, and sandals were not worn by servants (Even guests in a house took off their sandals while only the master wore his.) —All of this indicates that father was restoring him to full status in the family. The robe could be construed as the clothing of righteousness covering his sins, as in Garden of Eden. God's people are promised new robes in heaven (Revelation 6:11).