THE SERVANT ENTRUSTED WITH AUTHORITY (MATTHEW 24:45-51; LUKE 12:42-46)

There are actually five parables in the gospels involving a servant and a master's return.

This particular parable is found in both Matthew and Luke, but for convenience sake, we will follow the account in Luke. There are only minor differences the two versions: (1) The evil servant is assigned to the lot of the hypocrites in Matthew, but with the unbelievers in Luke. This difference is probably due to the different audiences for each Gospel. (2) Matthew adds, “There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” This expression appears six other times in the Gospels, always in the context of the Last Judgment. Weeping is due to everlasting hopelessness; gnashing denotes pain and anger.

Contexts

There is an ABA structure in which two longer parables involving slaves waiting for their master's return bracket a shorter parable of the thief breaking into a house. The first and last parables both contain “Amen, I say to you” followed by a blessing and reward.

The whole context of Chapter 12 involves teachings regarding Christ's Second Coming and the Last Judgment.

The previous verse has Peter asking to whom the parable is addressed, but Jesus doesn't answer except through this current parable. That “heightens the reader's engagement with the relevance and applicability of that material and what follows.” (Snodgrass)

Betz has pointed out the striking parallels between this parable and Psalm 37. There the righteous wait patiently for the LORD, give generously, and shall inherit the land while the wicked abuse others, shall perish, are cut off, and gnash their teeth.

The parable may also refer back to Genesis 39:4-5. The Greek phrase “all that he had” in v. 44 is found in the Septuagint only one other time: Genesis 39:5b. (Pao and Schnabel)

Audience

The liberal view is that this parable was fabricated by the Gospel writers to address the problem of Jesus' delayed return. But the story doesn't put the stress on the delay itself; it is just a detail needed to make the story work.

Albright and Mann speculate that this parable was originally addressed by Jesus to the Jewish leaders of the time warning them of the imminent coming of the Kingdom (with Jesus' death and resurrection). Then the Gospel writers re-applied it to the time of the church until the Second Coming. One of the main reasons they and others think this refers to Christ's first coming is that they appear not to accept the possibility that Christ knew he would be coming again.

They add that the original context may have been addressed to Jews of the time who were not prepared for Jesus' first coming, Jesus' death and resurrection. The signs have already been given so there only remains the timing. “It is Jesus' hearers who will be on trial, not Jesus. Those who have been set over the Lord's household are indeed in a perilous position.”

On the more conservative end of the theological spectrum, dispensational teachers also feel this parable is addressed to the Jews, but for different reasons. Dwight Pentacost: The servants are Jews who will be God's stewards during the Tribulation. J. A. Martin (Bible Knowledge Commentary): This is directed toward Jewish leaders at the time and those at the time of the Second Coming.

Hill feels that the parable was originally addressed to Jewish leaders of the time as well as to the Twelve Apostles.

The parable could apply specifically to Jewish or Christian leaders, but a more general audience is probably in mind. (Snodgrass)

The audience was specifically the Twelve Apostles but also church leaders and all Christians (almost all other commentators). This contains a warning to those in positions of authority in the church that the church is not theirs but belongs to God. (Ellison)

Verse-by verse

verse 42 The sense is “Who then is willing to be a faithful steward?” (Marshall)

A delay in return of the master is part of the story, but it is more about the preparedness once he does return, i.e., the time during the interval. “The focus on faithfulness reminds us again that Christian faith is not about believing certain ideas but about living out convictions over the long haul.” (Snodgrass)

The primary emphasis is on faithfulness and prudence, not on the reward. There is the minor theme of individual faithfulness in light of one's unexpected death. (Fitzmyer)

See 2 Timothy 4:1-5 for spiritual feeding of the flock.

“Will set” suggests position of responsibility in the church after Jesus' departure. (Marshall)

verse 43 “blessed” or “happy” This is a beatitude.

verse 44 is a paraphrase of v. 42.

verse 45 As an example, see the Corinthian church (I Corinthians 11:21). This shows that the parable could be applied to all Christians. Marsha lnotes regarding the phrase, “Now what a man says to himself is often even more important than what he says openly.”

verse 46 “Cut in two” is never used metaphorically. It is only found elsewhere in the Bible for a ritual vow while walking between pieces of animals, but Jeremiah 34:18 takes that as a model for human punishment. This is either an example of hyperbole or fits the historical cruelty shown by some masters toward their slaves.

Susanna and the Elders: “The angel of God is waiting with his sword to split you in two, and so destroy you both.”

“This is the form of execution in Hebrews 11:37 and Luke 19:27. However, the servant is still alive afterward; so 'cut into pieces' may mean “ to punish with the utmost severity.” (as in “I'll tan your hide.”) (Marshall) “Cut to pieces” may also mean cut off from the church (excommunication). (Hill)

verses 47-48 distinguish between unwitting sins and witting sins. (Marshall) There is a distinction between mere folly and outright rebellion.

verse 48 “Does not Christ's promise also imply the assignment of certain specific tasks in the life hereafter, each task a matter of pure delight and satisfaction and each in harmony with the individuality of the person for whom it is marked out?” (Hendricksen)

 

 

BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS: GENEALOGIES

Many skeptics latch on to what look like contradictions between various parallel listings of genealogy in the Bible. However, any attempt to definitively state that there are errors is practically doomed from the start due to several factors.

In the first place, the standard naming pattern in biblical times was to name a child after his grandfather, a practice called papponymy. Thus, several generations of A begat B begat A begat B might occur and this whole series could be condensed simply as A begat B in a list of ancestors, thus skipping over many generations. This is one explanation for the fact that several times in the Bible it appears that there are not nearly enough generations identified to fill the known time period that had elapsed.

Another reason that several generations might be skipped over in a list is to highlight a prominent ancestor and ignore the intervening ones. The most obvious example is when Jesus is called the son of David. Another reason for purposely shortening a list by omitting some people is so that the number of names comes out to a multiple of a symbolic number such as 7. Matthew's 3 x 14 genealogy for Jesus is a prime example.

Also, there are a number of examples in the Bible of a person going by two different names. Witness Abram and Abraham, Jacob and Israel, etc. The New Testament example of Peter is an extreme example in that he was also called Cephas or Simon (also known as Simeon).

And lastly, because marriages outside of the nation were rare, intermarriage occurred within a fairly limited population. That can even happen today when people stay in a confined locale for several generations. I can attest to this fact even in my own family line. Thus, people might be able to trace their lineages through more than one parallel line of descent. This can also occur if one list actually is traced through the female side in order to highlight more well known personages that might appear there.

With that background, here are two specific examples of suspected errors in biblical genealogy taken from the internet. Of course, a believer may choose to simply ignore these rather nitpicking items that have absolutely no effect on one's faith. In any case, it is foolish to agonize over these specific details and feel that our whole belief in the Bible and God depends on resolving these issues.

The father of Joseph was Jacob. (Matthew 1:16)

The father of Joseph was Heli/Eli. (Luke 3:23)

This example actually brings up two different explanations for conflicting genealogies in addition to those given above. France (The Gospel of Matthew) summarizes both of them:

Luke gives the actual biological family tree while Matthew traces the royal, or legal, succession from David. In such throne successions, the line often passed to a brother or nephew if there were no biological heir who was suitable. Most commentators prefer this explanation over those given below. Interestingly, Hillyer notes that some recent scholars actually reverse the purported purposes behind the two genealogies so that Matthew's is the biological family tree and Luke's is the biological one.

Raymond Brown, in his exhaustive study The Birth of the Messiah, summarizes this way of harmonizing the two account: “It is possible to have conflicting genealogies of the same person if those genealogies have different functions. Only one or neither of them may be historical in terms of traceable biological lineage, but both of them may be accurate in terms of the function they serve.”

Another approach mentioned by many commentators involves a letter that Julius Africanus (ca. 225 AD) wrote describing information he had obtained from one of Joseph's descendants as part of their family tradition. According to that story, Eli died childless, and so his half-brother Jacob fathered Joseph as Eli's legal son. This is an example of the levirite marriage custom mentioned several times in the OT. Although this is a possibility often mentioned in commentaries, Brown outlines several problems with this explanation in an appendix to his book.

The next oldest explanation for the discrepancy dates back to the time of Luther and is still espoused by some people today. Basically, it says that Matthew is giving Joseph's family tree while Luke is recording that of Mary. The major problem with this theory is that Luke 3:23 specifically states that Eli is Joseph's father, not Mary's. Attempts to get around this barrier by totally re-translating this verse are not generally accepted as valid.

 

The father of Salah was Arphaxad. (Genesis 11:12)

The father of Salah was Cainan/Kainan. (Luke 3:35-36)

It is the consensus view of scholars such as Fitzmyer, Marshall, Pao and Schnabel (just to list a few) that the answer boils down to one of textual criticism. The Hebrew text of Genesis 11:12 goes directly from Arphaxad to Shelah (Salah) and skips Kainan. As explained above, it is not uncommon for such genealogical lists to do this. But if one goes to the Greek Septuagint version of the same verse, Kainan is sandwiched in between Arphaxad and Shelah. It is well recognized that the Septuagint stems from a somewhat different Hebrew text and may in some cases actually capture a more ancient version. Luke is obviously relying on the Greek version of the OT (as the Synoptic Gospels did in general). Modern OT textual scholars wrestle with discrepancies such as these before making a judgment call on whether to go with the Hebrew or Greek version, depending on the relative strengths of the evidence either way.

 

BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS: THE PENTATEUCH

The contradictions offered in GhanaNet.com just keep coming. This group involves those that appear in the Books of Moses or allude to those books:

Seedtime and harvest were never to cease. (Genesis 8:22)

Seedtime and harvest did cease for seven years. (Genesis 41:54, 56; 45:6)

The second group of references all refer to the seven-year famine in Egypt. However, Genesis 8 is a blanket promise given to all mankind after the flood that there would be no similar massive disruption of the various cycles in the earth. That verse can be diagrammed as follows in order to better show the poetic parallelism in God's words:

As long as the earth endures,

    seedtime and harvest,     cold and heat,

    summer and winter,       day and night

            shall not cease.

You can see that the pair “seedtime and harvest” is explained in the next line as the extremes of the seasons. Similarly, “cold and heat” are referring to the daily rotation of the earth. It nowhere says that there will be seeds planted or crops harvested every year, only that the two time periods when those events normally happen will continue forever.

 

God hardened Pharaoh's heart (Exodus 4:21, etc.)

Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Exodus 9:3, etc.)

I have explained this one elsewhere, but suffice it to say that both events happened. Here as in other cases in the Bible, the usual pattern is that people first sin by hardening their hearts. If the attitude persists, God then hardens their hearts even more in order to publicly demonstrate some subsequent action of His. This might be to show the justification for His judgment on them or to highlight even more clearly the actions of that person's righteous opponents.

All the cattle and horses in Egypt died. (Exodus 9:3,6)

All the horses did not die. (Exodus 14:9)

The author of this contradiction could just as well have added that some cattle appear to be left two plagues later. There are basically two proposed solutions to this one, and so we will take them in turn:

1. “The story is obviously told in dramatic form. The Semitic writer does not expect his reader to be a literalist. His phrase is as legitimate as ours, when we say that 'Everyone went to the concert.'” (Knight)

Childs says much the same thing: “But the discrepancy is not a serious one, since the narrative style should not be overtaxed.” Propp concurs: “This seems a clear case of hyperbole.” And he quotes the Jewish scholar Ibn Ezra, who explained that “all” really means “most.”

2. Alternatively, both Cole and Dillman explain that the text only says that the livestock out in the field at the time were hit by the plague. Consequently, those animals housed in barns were spared. This view is also supported by the punctuation used by the NRSV translators: “...the hand of the LORD will strike...your livestock in the field: the horses, etc.” Notice the different implication one gets using different punctuation: “..the hand of the LORD will strike...your cattle/livestock in the field, the horses, etc.” Of course, the original Hebrew had no punctuation, and so both translations are possible.

Lastly, there is my own unscholarly opinion. Many commentators correlate the various plagues with the times during the year when they would have been most likely to have occurred. They conclude that the time period for all ten plagues to have taken place would have stretched out to encompass most or all of a year. Thus, after the fifth plague decimated the cattle, the Egyptians had plenty of time to acquire replacements from neighboring peoples, or even take some of the Jews' livestock from them, before the seventh plague or the time of the Exodus.

Moses feared Pharaoh. (Exodus 2:14,15,23; 4:19)

Moses did not fear Pharaoh. (Hebrews 11:27)

Let us consider the Exodus passages first. After Moses had killed the Egyptian, he was surprised to find out that the event had been witnessed. Feeling that discretion was the better part of valor, he left town before others found out. It nowhere says that Moses was afraid of Pharaoh, although I can see how that can be inferred from the text. And, of course, there is a difference between showing wisdom and prudence in one's actions and being in deadly fear. F. F. Bruce adds, “He was afraid, admittedly, but that was not why he left Egypt; his leaving Egypt was an act of faith [knowing that God would take care of him],” as the author of Hebrews explains.

Note that the above criticism assumes that it was Moses' leaving Egypt in Genesis 2-4 rather than the later Exodus of all the Jews that was referred to in Hebrews, but scholars are divided regarding that point. Hodges, Ellingsworth and Buchanan, among others, feel that the reference is to the Exodus instead. In any case, the author of Hebrews does not mention the negative aspects of the various heroes of the faith he lists in the 11^th chapter, but emphasizes instead their acts of faith. Thus, Buchanan explains the situation as such: “The author sharpened the contrasts between the values at stake for Moses so that they appear more vivid than they were presented in the Exodus account.”

There is also a third possibility. The main obstacle to seeing a reference to the Exodus in Hebrews 11:27 is that it would disrupt the strictly chronological order of the events related in that chapter (placing the Exodus before the Passover instead of after it). One possible way, however, out of that problem is explained by Ellingsworth, who evokes an incident in Exodus 11:8 occurring before the Passover in which “Moses went out from Pharaoh with fury.” It is possible that the sentence can be translated to refer to Pharaoh's fury rather than that of Moses. In that case, there is no mention of Moses being momentarily in fear for his life at that time. This explanation would also locate the historical allusion in Hebrews 11:27 in its proper chronological order.

24,000 died in the plague. (Numbers 25:9)

23,000 died in the plague. (I Corinthians 10:8)

One possible explanation is that Paul was relying on an alternative text of Numbers of which we have no present knowledge. I have discussed elsewhere that numbers in the Bible, unlike words, have little to no redundancy. Thus, if a scribe at one point or other in the copying of the text accidentally wrote down the wrong number, there was little chance for that error to be caught in subsequent copying of that defective text.

However, other theories have been proposed to resolve this discrepancy. But many feel that it “has not yet found a satisfying solution.” (Ciampa and Rosner, Commentary on the NT Use of the OT) Nevertheless, here are two other possibilities.

Koet explains that Paul fused together two punishments of the Israelites found in the Pentateuch: the one in Numbers and the incident in Exodus 32:28 occurring after the people worshiped the golden calf. In this latter event, it states that 3,000 “fell in a single day.” That same wording appears in I Corinthians. This was done so that “the reference to Numbers 25:1-4 would still be recognizable but that the echo of Exodus might also be heard.” (Ciampa and Rosner)

Probably a more likely explanation is proposed by a number of other commentators. The Numbers 25 incident describes the deaths as occurring over several days. In verses 1-4, the leaders are killed, and in verses 5-8, the other Israelites who aligned themselves with the Moabites were killed. Verse 9 then gives the total as 24,000. Thus, those killed on a single day amounted to only 23,000, as accurately stated by Paul in I Corinthians using additional information to which we are not privy today.

 

CHAD BIRD ON MELCHIZEDEK (GENESIS 14:17-20; HEBREWS 7:1-3)

First off, let me say that from watching this one podcast, it appears that Mr. Bird is a very knowledgeable and trustworthy teacher who has a gift for making even difficult subjects understandable to a general audience. This particular video was on the subject of his Master's Thesis: Melchizedek. It was, as one would expect, well researched and free from any factual errors, at least that I could detect. However (as I can personally attest after researching and writing my own thesis in another field), as with most anyone who has spent a great deal of time in an academic setting studying a very specific subject, there are always at least two great temptations: (1) reading too much into the available data in order to strengthen one's final conclusions and (2) not considering alternative explanations for the data seriously enough.

Thus, Mr. Bird contends firstly that the author of Hebrews, in speaking about Melchizedek in chapter 7, was directly influenced by the extra-canonical writings of 2 Enoch, Josephus, Philo, and the Qumran community or their original sources (which we do not possess). However, to prove that conclusion one must demonstrate (1) that these writings or sources date to before the writing of Hebrews, (2) that the author of Hebrews was actually aware of these writings, (3) that the borrowing was not actually in the opposite direction (i.e., they were dependent on the Book of the Hebrews for their ideas, and not vice versa), and above all (4) that the ideas and language in the various sources were close enough to those in Hebrews to show that any borrowing even occurred in the first place. None of these conditions has been met with any degree of certainty.

In terms of the relative dates of writing, there is great uncertainty concerning some of the documents, as even Bird allows. In particular, Second Enoch has been felt by some scholars to to date as late as the 10^th century AD, since we possess no early manuscripts. A date of 100-200 AD is probably more reasonable to assume. Most recent scholarship seems to locate the writing of Hebrews somewhere between the early 60's and 70 AD. Therefore we can also take Josephus' actual writings out of the equation since they date to well after 70 AD. However, both Philo and the Qumran community were active well before the writing of Hebrews. But Ellingsworth states, “It is not even quite certain that it would have been chronologically possible for the writer of Hebrews to quote Philo.”

As to whether the author of Hebrews was aware of the demonstrably earlier sources, that is almost impossible to prove. The Qumran community was located in Palestine, but that geographical proximity says nothing regarding how widely disseminated their writings were outside of their very exclusive community. And although Philo's writings were definitely known to a later generation of Christian writers, there is little evidence that the NT authors were aware of them. Philo's life was mainly spent in Alexandria, Egypt, and that could have perhaps served as a geographical barrier to his writings being widely known in Palestine at the time.

Determining the direction of borrowing is also notoriously hard to pin down. But we can definitely state that Philo did not get his ideas from Hebrews since Philo died in 50 AD. On the other hand, Josephus could have possibly borrowed from Hebrews, and it is known that there are later Christian interpolations found in manuscripts of at least some of Josephus' writings. Some manuscripts of Second Enoch, as well as other non-canonical Jewish writings, also contain suspected Christian ideas in them. But whether they were in the original writings or added later by Christian writers is impossible to tell at the present time. Borrowing in either direction to or from the Qumran writings seems to be unlikely due to the sectarian nature of that group. For example, earlier attempts to show that the Gospels took some of their ideas from Qumran have been mostly disproved by now.

Concerning the key technical question of the similarities in wording and thought between the various sources, I must rely on those who are more expert in the matter than I am. Ellingsworth (Commentary on Hebrews) concludes after discussing several possible sources that there is no direct borrowing from Philo or the Dead Sea scrolls. In fact, he notes that Hebrews often contradicts ideas found in Philo's numerous writings. At best, Hebrews merely demonstrates a reflection of the general religious ideas circulating at the time. 

Similarly, D. C. Allison in the Dictionary of the Later NT and Its Developments says, “It may also be that, even if Hebrews 7:2-3 does not (as has been thought) borrow from a non-Christian source, the words depend upon pre-Christian tradition about Melchizedek.” He also states, “There is no sure evidence of direct dependence upon the Qumran material.” D. L. Allen (Lukan Authorship of Hebrews) agrees: “Recent scholarship stands firm, however, in its refusal to see any real connection between Hebrews and the Qumran writings.” And Schniedewind (Dictionary of NT Background) explains that in contrast to Hebrews, both Philo and Josephus “took a purely human interpretation of Melchizedek.”

The second part of Bird's thesis is that although the author of Hebrews quotes or alludes to the ideas circulating at the time, he is not actually endorsing them as being true. This appears to be an unlikely possibility and no way provable. Certainly NT writers such as Paul or Jude quoted from pagan or extra-canonical writings without endorsing all the other statements in those particular sources. But to say that they didn't really believe the actual statements they quote seems to make little sense. I can see how a preacher might, for example, compare Samson and his hair to Popeye and his spinach. But a mere illustrative example to clarify a point is not really the same as the way the author of Hebrews utilizes these supposed sources to prove a point.

So if the author did not utilize contemporary writings to get his ideas, where did he get them from? I think that the answer simply is that he got them directly from Genesis 14 (and partially from Psalm 110). There was a well-known principle of arguing from silence practiced by the early rabbis which said, “What is not in the Torah is not in the world.” Using this principle and writing to a Jewish audience who would have been acquainted with it, the author simply states that Genesis does not mention anything whatsoever about Melchizedek's mother and father, genealogy, birth or death. Therefore, he concludes that, according to Jewish rules of interpretation, none of those existed. There is thus no reason to invoke any additional sources for those statements outside of the Bible itself. 

So the author of Hebrews was only influenced in a negative way by the mass of theories concerning the person of Melchizedek circulating at the time. In this speculative climate the author of Hebrews was “left an ideal opening,..to chart a new way.” (Schniedewind)

 

PARABLE OF THE UNJUST JUDGE (LUKE 18:1-8)

“I consider this one of the more difficult parables.” – Snodgrass, Stories With Intent  There are several reasons he gives for this statement:

Problem 1: Those who treat the authority figures in parables as representing God (as is true in many other cases) are rightly confused when they hear that the judge fears neither God nor man, a denial of the two great love commandments. That particular problem can be easily disposed of once one realizes that there is a contrast between God and the judge intended here, not a comparison.

Problem 2: There is the problem of how the parable itself fits in with its introduction and concluding explanation. In addition, there is the question of whether this parable was originally told by Jesus at the same time as the Parable of the Neighbor at Midnight but re-located by Luke to its present position. The latter is a real possibility since Luke often tends to group his material by common themes rather than taking the more chronological approach of Matthew and Mark. However, the safest approach is to only consider the present setting of the parable and its explanation and not speculate any on its possible pre-history.

Problem 3: The meaning of the parable seems to be that we should keep on pestering God with the same request and not stop praying just because He hasn't answered yet. But this idea is at odds with the examples of Jesus and Paul who both prayed that burdens be lifted from them, but stopped praying after only three requests were made.

Problem 4: The statement that God will answer our requests speedily often doesn't ring true when compared to our own experiences. And that is especially true if the parable specifically refers to requests for God's Kingdom to come, which has been delayed for 2,000 years so far.

Problem 5: The ending of verse 8 is confusing at best and seems to be understood differently by various translators.

Biblical Context This parable fits well in the context of 17:20-37 with its concern about the Second Coming. Similarly, the mention of prayer connects it with 18:9-14. (Kistemaker)  In addition, Snodgrass connects these last two with common wording (righteous, unjust, vindicate) and notes that both have explanations which come before the parable instead of at the usual conclusion. In the first parable God will vindicate the saints; in the second those who confess they are sinners are vindicated. (Kistemaker)

And as already mentioned, this parable has often been considered to be a companion piece to the Parable of the Friend at Midnight in Luke 11:5-8. Interestingly, as earlier mentioned, that particular parable can be viewed as an expansion of the prayer for our daily bread in the Lord's Prayer. In the same manner, one can view the Parable of the Unjust Judge as a comment on our prayer for God's Kingdom to come.

Literal Picture

The judge may be a Gentile (forbidden by Pharisaical law, but people would go to them if they couldn't get satisfaction elsewhere.). She can't afford a lawyer so she asks him to be both judge and lawyer. (Kistemaker) Snodgrass quotes contradictory, and later, Jewish laws: three judges are needed to decide monetary cases according to the Mishnah while the Talmud says that only one judge is needed. We really don't know which set of laws, if any, was applicable during Jesus' time, and the inclusion of only one judge in the story may have only been to simplify the story and eliminate the necessity of the woman having to pester multiple judges.

The plight of a widow in those times is well known. Since a woman generally married quite young, she might also be a young widows left without support for the many remaining years of their life. She could not inherit her husband's estate, would be treated poorly if she remained in her husband's household, her family would have to forfeit any money exchanged at the wedding if she returned to their house, and she might have even been sold as a slave.

This was probably a financial matter in which the judge was waiting for a bribe, which the widow could not afford to pay. (Marshall)

Verse 1: This teaching is contrary to the Jewish custom of only praying three times daily to avoid disturbing God. (Geldenhuys)  But it certainly doesn't mean emulating the Pharisees who felt they could be heard by their long prayers. However, to “pray always” does not mean to keep praying for the same thing over and over, but instead to never give up on the power of prayer (i.e., not continuous, but continuing or continual). (Fitzmyer)   This is also the meaning of similar teachings found in Ephesians 6:18 and I Thessalonians 5:17. Trench says that prayer should be “the continual desire of the soul after God.” A concrete example may be found in Matthew 15 where a Canaanite woman tries to get help from Jesus and and the disciples ask Jesus, “Send her away for she keeps shouting at us.” But the woman keeps imploring Jesus for help, which he provides.

Verse 3: “adversary” = the powers of darkness and the world. (Trench) There is a key word in this verse which has been variously translated as vengeance, justice or vindication. It also appears in Revelation 6:9 where the souls under the altar ask God for the same thing. In this present context, vengeance should not be the interpretation.

Verse 5: “Wear out” has the basic meaning literally of “hit under the eye” meaning “cause much trouble.” (Geldenhuys)

Verse 7: The last part of this verse is the most problematic in terms of possible interpretations:

(a) Will not God be patient with their complaint?

Will not God be patient with the wicked?

He is long-suffering over them

though he bear long with them. (KJV)

(b) Can he just endure their plight? (Geldenhuys)

while he listens patiently to them (NEB)

while he delays to help them

even if he keeps them waiting for him. (Marshall, Jerusalem Bible)

(c) Will he keep putting them off? (NIV, NRSV, TEV, NASB)

The last meaning is probably the best.

Crying indicates intense prayer while “day and night” means regular prayer.

Verse 8a Another difficult phrase is en tachei, which can be translated as either “soon” or “suddenly.” 

If it refers to the Last Judgment, as the context of the chapter suggests, then the only possible meaning 

is “suddenly.” This is especially in light of the preceding teachings in Luke 17 on this subject. 

Habakkuk 2:3: “For there is still a vision for the appointed time; it speaks of the end, and dos not lie. If 

it seems to tarry, wait for it; it will surely come, it will not delay.” “Suddenly” means without undue 

delay or warning while “soon” indicates a short duration of time. 

 

Snodgrass summarizes the situation in vv. 7-8 to say that “God's people need to examine themselves as 

they await the vindication of God. While the vindication is still future (vv. 7a and 8a), God's patience is 

at work in the present (v. 7b, which explains the switch to the present tense).” In this way, the parable 

addresses both “an overly realized eschatology and doubt that deliverance will come.”

 

The parable taken by itself is almost always understood as an argument from the lesser to the greater. In Snodgrass' words, that means: “If even an unjust judge will vindicate a widow who keeps coming to him, how much more will God answer the cries for vindication from his people.” But in addition, there may be the secondary themes of being faithful in prayer and not giving up and the certainty that God will hear our prayers.

Verse 8b Snodgrass notes that besides the assurance that God will answer pleas from his people for deliverance, there is also the important question: “Will his people remain faithful?” This question bookends the parable together with verse 1 and explains faithfulness as not losing heart, rather than referring to Christian “faith.” Keep in mind that the injunction to pray without ceasing is to be understood in the same way that Peter was told to forgive his brother 70 x 7 times. In both cases, it refers to the thoroughness of our actions, not the number of times we perform them.

 

PARABLE OF THE FRIEND AT MIDNIGHT (LUKE 11:5-8)

Some of Jesus' parables pose problems for the reader by either painting an unflattering picture of God or seeming to approve of immoral behavior. Most problem parables have been explained in one of four ways:

1. Using arguments from the lesser to the greater such as “If you being evil know how to give good gifts, etc.  “We can hardly make analogies about God without some sense of 'how much more.'” (Ron Sider, Interpreting the Parables)

2. Realizing that these are limited comparisons in one aspect only. After all, Jesus is actually compared to a thief in Matthew 25:1-13; Mark 3:27; and II Peter 3:10. As Snodgrass puts it,  "Metaphors are not equations."

3. By attempting to justify the dubious behavior of the characters.

4. Dismissing problem areas as being extraneous details of the story.

Before we get to any of these specific stories, I would like to briefly look at some problems pointed out by one atheist, Brian Bolton, in regard to several of Jesus' other parables involving masters and slaves.

“And while he condemned interpersonal violence, even in self-defense, he hypocritically incorporated extreme violence into his five Matthean slave parables.” (“Jesus: Prophet of Peace and Love or Purveyor of Fear and Hate?,” American Atheist, 4^th Quarter 2017, pp. 16-21)

“Jesus' approval of slavery is readily apparent in his inclusion of servants and their masters in eight of his parables. Because he never criticized nor condemned slavery and he did not forbid people from owning slaves, he tacitly endorsed the practice. In one of these parables, he explicitly authorized the cruel master-slave relationship when he recommended whipping disobedient slaves.” (“God is a Slave Owner's Best Friend and the Bible is the Instruction Manual,” American Atheist, 1^st Quarter 2018, pp. 22-26)

In rebuttal are the following points:

1. Parables take familiar situations of the day and use them to make a spiritual point. The details of the parable are there mainly to add color to the story.

2. Parables often do not teach morals in the least and were not intended to do so. We will see this in the present lesson.

3. Also, parables, as made-up stories, often contain hyperbolic situations. For example, masters loaning “slaves” huge amounts of money or personally carrying out a death penalty (which probably would not have been allowed under current law at the time).

4. Bolton purposely blurs the categories of slave, servant, and steward in his criticism and has little understanding of how these workers were treated in the Jewish world at the time and how the situation differed from both slavery in the Roman world and slavery in the Southern USA.

5. The argument from silence is always a weak one and could easily be used to prove that Jesus endorsed any typical practice in the world at that time that he didn't specifically condemn.

The Friend at Midnight (Luke 11:5-8)

Context: It follows Luke' version of the Lord's Prayer in vv. 1-4, to which it is connected by the similar requests for “bread” in vv. 3 and 5. Geldenhuys notes that this parable goes beyond Jesus answering the original request in v. 1 on how to pray. He now addresses the certainty we should have that our requests will be answered. The present parable is also followed by a related teaching on prayer in vv. 11-13, which some people have also labeled as a parable. In addition, Marshall and others point to the Parable of the Unjust Judge in Luke 18:1-8 (discussed in future post) as a close parallel to help us understand the meaning. Both contain the phrase “cause me trouble” (11:7 and 18:5).

Almost everything depends on the definition of the Greek word anaideia, which occurs nowhere else in the NT.

Translations for anaideia

A. Persistence – J. B. Phillips, Living Bible, NASB, Jerusalem Bible, NRSV, AB

    Marshall: “Persistent, rather than importunate, prayer is the point.”

B. Importunity (overly persistent and urgent) – KJV, RSV

C. Shamelessness – NEB, TEV, NIV

Snodgrass has made an extensive study of this word in Greek and Roman writings and concludes that it never means persistence and always connotes something very negative. It is best translated as “insensitivity, shamelessness or effrontery/nerve.” In secular contexts of the time it had the meaning of outrageous and offensive behavior or recklessness.

Verse 5 can be paraphrased as “Can anyone of you image that..?” or “Would any of you do such a thing?” This is a rhetorical question that runs to the end of v. 7 with the implied answer of 'no.' The problem is that it is not clear who the unthinkable action applies to: the one requesting the bread or the man awakened from sleep. Kistemaker concludes that both of them behaved shamelessly in different ways.

The one approach to the parable to avoid is the allegorical one. Leaving aside the details of the parable, the main identifications one is tempted to find in the story are:

    Man inside the house = God.

    Man requesting bread = a poster child for how we should approach God in prayer.

Unfortunately, when you start out with that mindset, it becomes necessary to interpret the actions of both characters in a totally positive light, whether or not the text justifies it. For example, Geldenhuys sees absolutely no initial hesitation or refusal on the part of the awakened man, despite the obvious indications otherwise. In addition, he points out that the man gives his neighbor “all that he needs,” stressing his generosity.

Geldenhuys then explains that the “shamelessness” of the requester only refers to his boldness in approaching the neighbor since he knew he would get a favorable response. Thus, (a) there was a close relationship of friendliness between the two characters to begin with and (b) the request was not frivolous but based on necessity. That last point is disputed among scholars and depends on how reasonable or unreasonable the request for three loaves was in the first place. If Marshall is correct, then that was much more than needed for a meal; so instead the neighbor gave him only what was really required.

The above approach explains why some call this a problem parable since most readers can easily sense that these two characters demonstrate more human than divine behavior and find this picture hard to reconcile with what they know about the nature of God and the way we should relate to Him in prayer.

Verse 6: The parable has realistic overtones since (a) many travelers began after sundown in order to avoid the heat of the day and (b) all the shops would have been closed by then.

Verses 7-8 The disturbed sleeper omits “friend” because of his annoyance. (Marshall) To get up, light a lamp, find the bread, step over his sleeping family on the floor and draw the bolt would wake up the others in the house also. Kistemaker says that the man is all but saying “no” to the request. However, he acts as the first son in the Parable of the Two Sons by eventually complying. At this point, I have to disagree with Snodgrass. In order to avoid even a hint that the neighbor continued to knock and pester him, Snodgrass denies that the sleeping man was initially reluctant but later changes his mind. That stance is hard to justify from the text, but Snodgrass is perfectly correct in seeing no “persistence” in the man's request.

Snodgrass summarizes the various opinions as to the interpretation of this parable. The only ones that make any sense rely on the argument from the lesser to the greater (as utilized overtly in the subsequent story at v. 13), and these fall into three camps:

    1. If a human will respond to persistent asking, how much more will God. This is Kistemaker's approach. The major problem here is that there is absolutely no indication that the neighbor continued to knock and repeat his request for help. That whole idea is foreign to this parable and is probably heavily influenced by the somewhat similar story of the Unjust Judge in Luke 18. 

    2. If a human will respond to a request in order to avoid shame, how much more will God? Some people take the word anaideia in a positive sense as “wishing to avoid appearing as shameless in the community because of lacking proper hospitality.” But whether that description is applied to the man asking for bread or the sleeping man, there is no justification in the text for either interpretation. Snodgrass notes that the key word never connotes avoidance of shame but instead expresses an ignorance of or total disregard for shame. 

    3. If a human will respond to a shameless and rude request, how much more will God respond to a legitimate request. Snodgrass: “The whole point of the parable...is that God is not like the sleeper. It is a parable actually contrasting God with the sleeper.” “The parable teaches the certainty of a God who hears prayer and responds.” This is the favored interpretation, at least in my mind.

DOES GOD DWELL IN LIGHT OR DARKNESS?

This is an interesting question since I Timothy 6:16 says that God dwells in light while he is apparently said to dwell in darkness in I Kings 8:12; Psalm 18:11; and Psalm 97:2. As in many of the other contradictions that skeptics find (or make up) in the Bible, context is all-important.

Let's start with the easiest verse to understand, I Timothy 6:16. The idea that God covers himself with light as a garment is also found in Psalm 104:2. Generally, we are used to the image of light as a symbol of goodness, blessing, truth, and revelation from God. So the Dictionary of Biblical Imagery explains, “By extension, God who is light inhabits a heaven bathed in light.” But, “To the primitive mind, moreover, light is shrouded in mystery, and it retains this quality in the Bible. This shrouding feature of light is also evidenced in the occasions where humans could not see God due to the radiance of his glory.” The following commentators on I Timothy 6:16 echo this cloaking feature of God's appearance:

Because of the dazzling light, no one can see God. (Hanson)

Light represents God's transcendence and his invisibility. (Guthrie)

“On all sides of the light which is God's home notices are to be seen bearing the familiar words: 'keep out.'” (Ward)

“The blinding glory of God renders him unapproachable both metaphysically and morally.” (Lea and Griffen)

Explaining the references to God wrapped in darkness would seem to be much more difficult, but we actually see a perfect analogy the purpose of light. In the first place, keep in mind that the references above to God dwelling in darkness refer to theophanies only, i.e., when God comes down to earth and appears to humans. In these cases, it is again necessary that he conceal himself from view. This time the idea is expressed through the imagery of a dark cloud that envelops him, which may be literal or figurative. Here is what commentators have to say about the passages that utilize that phraseology:

On I Kings 8, G. H. Jones says that the Hebrew word “refers to the darkness of a cloud, which is often described as shrouding the deity.”

He is “a transcendent spiritual being veiled from human view.” “In OT theophanies the concealing or covering quality of darkness makes it part of God's appearance. On the premise that a mortal cannot see God and live, God's veiling of himself in darkness is an act of mercy toward the human race.” (DBI)

Kidner, in commenting on Psalm 97 states that “clouds and thick darkness warn of His unapproachable holiness and hiddenness to presumptuous man.”

Anderson similarly adds, “This description points to the awe and mystery which surround God, who is said, metaphorically, to dwell in thick darkness.”

Although thick clouds and darkness surround God as he comes, note (1) he is also accompanied by fire and lightning; (2) his appearing brings light to the righteous (v. 11); and (3) the “clouds and thick darkness” in v. 2a are in parallel to “righteousness and justice” in v. 2b, perhaps explaining what those images actually stand for.

Regarding Psalm 18:11, Although Yahweh manifests himself to men, at the same time, he is still the hidden God who cannot be seen by human eyes.” (Anderson)

He shrouds himself in darkness as he comes down in might and judgment. (DBI)

T. D. Alexander aptly summarizes the situation in this way: “Although God's presence is characterized by light, he is enshrouded with darkness to conceal...the light of his glory from human view.” (Dictionary of OT Theology and Exegesis)

 

1st or 21st CENTURY?

Many Bible teachers look at what is happening in the world and see similarities to predicted conditions during the Last Days. I think it is safer and more useful to look at parallels between our times and the past to learn lessons from them. For example, consider the following examples from the time of Jesus and fill in your own correspondences with the current climate in America. I promise that this will be my last political posting on this site.

King Herod Agrippa: Roman ruler who courted the favor of his Jewish subjects who considered him one of their own despite his mixed ancestry. He was a violent enemy of the apostles and was struck down because of his egotistical love of glory (Acts 12:21-23)

Pontius Pilate: Political leader who was so afraid of both the king and the people that he refused to do the right thing.

Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus: Two closet believers who refused to openly endorse Jesus for fear of losing their positions of power until Jesus' trial when they at last did the right thing and later helped bury Jesus' body.

The Sanhedrin: A ruling body composed of two incompatible factions – the Pharisees whose power base was among the common masses and the Sadducees who aligned themselves strongly with the wealthy and powerful. The only thing that brought them together was hatred of a common enemy.

The individual scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees who personally witnessed Jesus' miracles and knew him to be the valid Messiah, but continued to deny the reality of the truth because it might jeopardize their positions.

Qumran: A fringe cult group which held to bizarre beliefs and was waiting for a coming leader, the Teacher of Righteousness, to lead an armed revolt ousting the invalid and immoral temple leadership.

Zealots: A group who resolved to use any means possible, including armed force, to kick out the entrenched political power in the country and restore Israel to its former greatness.

Of course, Jesus was the real power at that time and still is today. We know from the Gospel accounts how he witnessed to the truth when bodily present. The question is: Does the body of Christ do the same today?

 

TITUS: INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERARY STRUCTURE

The following is a condensed version of a chapter in my unpublished book entitled The Structure of Scripture. The complete chapter will be sent to anyone requesting it. Contact me at elmerphd21@hotmail.com.

There is almost complete agreement among scholars regarding the subdivision of this letter for at least its first half, with individual literary units at 1:1-4; 1:5-9; 1:10-16 and 2:1-10. There is disagreement regarding the sections in the second part of Titus although the conclusion of the epistle is generally considered to be the last four verses, sometimes further subdivided into 3:12-14 and 3:15.

There has been little attempt to formulate an overall scheme that orders these individual units, however they may be defined, other that the rather negative assessment of Hanson, who states that the author imitates the style of a letter by arbitrarily alternating between his original sources even though this results in a thoroughly disjointed composition crudely strung together by transitional sentences.  As examples of verses containing common themes but separated by unrelated material, he cites Titus 2:11-14 with 3:3-7; 1:10-16 with 3:9-11; and 3:8 with 3:14. However, if one recognizes the parallel style of composition employed throughout the Bible, these paired passages can actually be used as the basis for reconstructing the overall symmetrical architecture for Titus diagrammed in Fig. 1.

Figure 1: The Structure of Titus

I. Opening Greeting (1:1-4)

II. Specific Instructions to Titus: Church Leaders and Corrupt Influences (1:5-16)

A. Church Leaders (1:5-9)

B. Warnings (1:10-16)

III. Teach! (2:1-14)

A. Introductory Charge (2:1)

B. Submission (2:2-10)

C. Turning from the Past and

                                                                                         Becoming Purified (2:11-14)

III'. Exhort and Reprove! (2:15-3:8a)

A. Introductory Charge (2:15)

B. Submission (3:1-2)

C. Turning from the Past and

                                                                                         Being Regenerated (3:3-8a)

II'. Specific Instructions to Titus: Corrupt Influences and Church Leaders (3:8b-14)

B. Warnings (3:8b-11)

A. Church Leaders (3:12-14)

I'. Closing Greetings (3:15)

Sections I and I'

These two greetings work in several directions: they begin in 1:1 from Paul to Titus and conclude the letter with regards from Paul’s companions to Titus, Paul to the church by way of Titus, and finally from Paul directly to “all.”

As short as these two sections are, they have in common two words of uncommon power, “faith” and “grace,” the dual poles around which this letter revolves. In commenting on the first and last verses in Titus, Ward says, “Faith is prominent in the epistle...Even the elect must have faith.”  If the Cretan Christians are to demonstrate their faith by following the instructions given to them through Paul and Titus, “the doctrinal basis for these instructions is the grace of God.” (Gundry)

Sections II and II'

The major parallelism between these sections is the mirror image relationship between its two subsections portrayed in Fig. 1, especially between IIB and II'B. For example, “know” occurs in the letter only at 1:16 and 3:11, both in the context of descriptions of the false leaders. Karris has noted in those same two units (at 1:10 and 3:9) the characterization of the false teachers as engaging in “verbal quibbles.”  Similarly, the Jewish elements in the dissidents’ teaching are alluded to in 1:10,14 and 3:9, and the false teachers are said to speak out against sound doctrine in 1:14 and 3:10 (6).

The “A” sections are also parallel in thought if not in verbal similarities. Thus, the appointment of elders outlined in IIA is not due, in Gundry’s words, “to advanced hierarchical Church government, but to the starting of new churches under missionary conditions.”  In the parallel context of IIA', continuity of church leadership is also addressed. Titus is to aid various companions of Paul who will be coming to Crete, perhaps in the role of traveling evangelists or teachers to help the fledgling church after Titus himself departs. The word translated “be wanting” (1:5; 3:13) appears as a sort of inclusio to the whole body of the epistle.

Sections III and III'

There are many parallels between these two cycles, which comprise the bulk of the epistle. Concerning the climatic “C” units:

1. Lea and Griffin note that these sections contain some of the rare occurrences of the gospel message found in the Pastoral Epistles. They treat these verses, along with the opening words 1:1-4 as the three “outstanding theological statement[s]” in Titus.

2. Both of these units begin with “for” (gar) and share vocabulary such as “appear,” “grace,” “salvation,” “passions,” “hope” and “works.” Knight notes that only in Titus, among the Pauline letters, is Jesus referred to as Savior. He finds special significance in the fact that Jesus Christ appears as Savior at 2:13 and 3:6, which he treats as the centers of their respective literary units. In fact, this repeated designation has even more significance in that it appears at the end of two parallel cycles, according to the scheme of Fig. 1.

            3. It is also in these two climactic units that the believers are described as having the hope of eternal life (the same phrase introducing the epistle in 1:2) and that the word of God is said to be in them.

            4. Knight comments on 2:11 and 3:3-6: “Both passages speak of God’s saving actions as the basis for what Christians are told to do, and both do so by saying that a characteristic of God has ‘appeared’..., bringing salvation or causing people to be saved.”

Overall Architecture

The most elaborate inclusio involving the first half of the letter is formed from the titles given Jesus:

Christ Jesus our Savior (1:4)                     our Savior Jesus Christ (2:13)

The complete phrase in 2:13 has been variously understood as “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” or “the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ.” If the latter translation is taken, it yields perfect mirrored symmetry in the three elements shown above.

The presence of verbal parallels between the start and end of the first half of the epistle may perhaps explain why Paul applied the rare designation “slave” to himself in the first verse. Rather than being an indication of the pseudonymous nature of the letter, the word may have been purposefully employed in order to correspond to the slaves mentioned in 2:9. (Hanson)

Viewing the letter as the two-part composition described in Fig. 1 may answer another one of Hanson’s problems with the Epistle to Titus. He is critical of the appropriateness of v. 2:15 as a link passage since it has little association with the previous verses. In fact, a glance at Fig. 1 will show that this verse not only starts a brand new cycle, it also serves as the introduction to the second half of the letter. Therefore there is no real reason to expect that it should be closely tied with what precedes it.

Since the literary composition outlined in Fig. 1 contains no true center, the intended emphasis of the letter should fall on the first and last elements (namely, I and I'). The surprising amount of doctrinal information crammed into the introductory Section I has been noted by Ward.

At the same time, the parallel cycles III and III' move toward their respective climaxes in their third subunits. It is thus no accident that Nute identifies “three short, but most valuable doctrinal statements” in the letter, which are practically synonymous with the verses labeled sections I, IIIC and III'C.  Similarly, Towner states that the presentations of God and Christ reach “high points” at 2:11-14 and 3:4-7. The verses, corresponding to Section IIIC, have been called “one of the richest passages of Holy Writ.” (Hendricksen)

 

TWO GROWTH PARABLES (MATTHEW 13; MARK 4; LUKE 13)

 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)