The Challenge of Jesus Parables by Richard N. Longenecker (z-lib.org)

TH E CHALLENG E O F JESUS ' PARABLE S

MCMASTE R NE W TESTAMEN T STUDIE S

Th e McMaste r Ne w Testamen t Studie s series , edite d b y Richar d N Longenecker , is designe d t o addres s particula r theme s i n th e Ne w Testamen t tha t ar e o f concer n t o Christian s today Writte n i n a styl e easily accessibl e t o ministers , students , an d laypeopl e b y contributor s wh o ar e prove n expert s i n thei r field s of study , th e volume s in thi s serie s reflec t th e bes t o f curren t biblica l scholarshi p whil e als o speakin g directl y t o th e pastora l need s o f peopl e i n th e churc h today

Th e Challenge of Jesus' Parables

Edited by Richar d N . Longenecke r

WILLIA M B EERDMAN S PUBLISHIN G COMPAN Y

GRAN D RAPIDS , MICHIGA N / CAMBRIDGE , U.K .

© 200 0 Wm Β Eerdman s Publishin g Co

25 5 Jefferso n Ave. S.E., Gran d Rapids, Michiga n 49503 / P.O Box 163, Cambridg e CB3 9P U U.K

All right s reserved

Printe d i n th e Unite d States of Americ a 05 04 03 02 0 1

Librar y of Congres s Cataloging-in-Publicatio n Dat a

ISBN 0-8028-463 8 6

Content s

Contributors

Preface

Introduction

I. History , Genre , an d Parallel s

1. Fro m Allegorizin g t o Allegorizing : A Histor y o f th e Interpretatio n o f th e Parable s o f Jesu s

KLYNE R SNODGRAS S

2 . Th e Genr e o f th e Parable s

ROBERT H STEI N

3 . Parable s i n Earl y Judais m

CRAI G A. EVANS

II . Parable s o f th e Kingdo m

4 Mark' s Parable s o f th e Kingdo m (Mar k 4:1-34 )

MORN A D HOOKE R

5 . Matthew' s Parable s o f th e Kingdo m (Matthe w 13:1-52 )

DONAL D A HAGNE R

RICHAR D N . LONGENECKE R

III . Parable s o f Warnin g an d Preparednes s

7 . "Produc e Frui t Worth y o f Repentance" : Parable s o f Judgmen t agains t th e Jewis h Religiou s Leader s an d th e Natio n (Matthe w 21:28-22:1 4 par. ; Luk e 13:6-9 ) 151 ALLAN W. MARTEN S 8 . O n Bein g Read y (Matthe w 25:1-46 )

RICHAR D T. FRANC E

IV. Parable s o f th e Christia n Lif e 9 . Parable s o n God' s Lov e an d Forgivenes s (Luk e 15:1-32 )

STEPHE N C BARTO N

. Parable s o n Povert y an d Riche s (Luk e 12:13-21 ; 16:1-13 ; 16:19-31 )

STEPHE N I. WRIGH T

Parable s o n Praye r (Luk e 11:5-13 ; 18:1-14 )

WALTER L. LIEFELD

Strang e Neighbor s an d Risk y Car e (Matthe w 18:21-35 ; Luk e 14:7-14 ; Luk e 10:25-37 )

SYLVIA C . KEESMAAT

13 . "Everyon e Wh o Hear s Thes e Word s o f Mine" : Parable s o n Discipleshi p (Matthe w 7:24-27//Luk e 6:47-49 ; Luk e 14:28-33 ; Luk e 17:7-10 ; Matthe w 20:1-16 )

Contributor s

Stephe n C. Barto n Senio r Lecture r i n Ne w Testament , Departmen t o f Theology , Universit y o f Durham , Durham , Englan d

Crai g A. Evan s Professo r o f Ne w Testamen t an d Directo r o f th e Graduat e Progra m i n Biblica l Studies , Trinit y Wester n University , Langley , BC

Richar d T. Franc e Recto r o f th e Unite d Benefic e of Wentnor , Ratlinghope , Myndtown , Norbury , More , Lydha m an d Snead , Bishop' s Castle , Shropshire , Englan d

Donal d A. Hagne r Georg e Eldo n Lad d Professo r o f Ne w Testament , Fulle r Theologica l Seminary , Pasadena , Californi a

Morn a D. Hooke r Th e Lad y Margaret' s Professo r o f Divinit y Emerita , an d Fellow o f Robinso n College , Universit y of Cambridge , Cambridge , Englan d

Sylvi a C. Keesmaa t Senio r Membe r i n Biblica l Studie s an d Hermeneutics , Institut e fo r Christia n Studies , Toronto , Ontari o

Michae l P. Knowle s G . F. Hurlbur t Professo r o f Preaching , McMaste r Divinit y College , McMaste r University , Hamilton , Ontari o

Walte r L. Liefel d Professo r Emeritu s of Ne w Testament , Trinit y Evangelica l Divinit y School , Deerfield , Illinoi s

Richar d N . Longenecke r Distinguishe d Professo r o f Ne w Testament , McMaste r Divinit y College , McMaste r University , Hamilton , Ontari o

Alla n W. Marten s Adjunc t Professo r o f Ne w Testament , Tyndal e Colleg e an d Seminary , Toronto , Ontari o

Klyn e R. Snodgras s Pau l W Brande l Professo r o f Ne w Testamen t Studies , Nort h Par k Theologica l Seminary , Chicago , Illinoi s

Rober t H . Stei n Ernes t an d Mildre d Hoga n Professo r o f Ne w Testamen t Interpretation , Souther n Baptis t Theologica l Seminary , Louisville , Kentuck y

Stephe n I. Wrigh t Director , Colleg e o f Preachers , London , Englan d

Preface

THI S IS TH E fourt h volum e i n th e McMaste r Ne w Testamen t Studie s series , sponsore d b y McMaste r Divinit y College , Hamilton , Ontario , Canada Th e serie s is designe d t o addres s particula r theme s i n th e Ne w Testamen t tha t ar e (o r shoul d be ) o f crucia l concer n t o Christian s today Th e pla n is t o prepar e an d publis h annua l symposiu m volumes , wit h th e contributor s bein g selecte d becaus e o f thei r prove n expertis e i n th e area s assigne d an d thei r know n abilit y t o writ e intelligibl y fo r reader s wh o ar e no t necessaril y academics . Eac h articl e include d i n thes e symposiu m volumes , therefore , wil l evidenc e first-clas s biblica l scholarship , bu t wil l als o b e writte n i n a manne r capabl e o f capturin g th e interes t o f intelligen t lay people , theologica l students , an d ministers . I n purpose , th e article s wil l b e bot h scholarl y an d pastoral . I n format , the y wil l b e style d t o reflec t th e bes t o f contemporary , constructiv e scholarship , bu t i n a wa y tha t is abl e t o b e understoo d b y an d speak s t o th e need s o f aler t an d intelligen t peopl e i n th e churc h today .

Thi s fourt h volum e i n th e MNT S serie s focuse s o n th e parable s o f Jesu s as presente d i n th e Synopti c Gospels I t is a topi c tha t is centra l fo r a n understandin g o f Jesu s an d hi s ministry It is als o importan t fo r a n appreciatio n o f ho w th e canonica l evangelist s treate d th e tradition s abou t Jesu s a t thei r disposal Mor e tha n that , however , th e teaching s o f Jesus ' parable s form , i n larg e part , th e hear t o f th e Christia n gospel , an d s o ar e integra l t o all o f ou r Christia n live s an d ministries

Th e topi c has , o f course , bee n treate d extensivel y throughou t th e his -

tor y o f th e Christia n church , bot h b y scholar s an d preacher s — wit h interes t i n thes e parable s havin g actuall y increase d i n ou r day , bot h o n th e par t o f thos e wh o rea d the m academicall y an d thos e wh o rea d the m devotionally. Nonetheless , w e believ e tha t Jesus ' parable s nee d a mor e responsibl e scholarl y treatmen t an d bette r persona l application s tha n the y usuall y receiv e i n eithe r scholarl y writing s o r th e popula r press . S o w e hav e prepare d thi s fourt h MNT S volum e wit h th e hop e tha t it wil l prov e t o b e o f hel p t o man y earnes t Christian s wh o see k t o thin k an d live i n a mor e Christia n fashion , an d thereb y hav e a positiv e impac t o n th e churc h a t large .

Ou r heartfel t thank s ar e expresse d t o Dr Willia m H Brackney , Principa l an d Dea n o f McMaste r Divinit y College , an d t o th e faculty , administration , an d board s o f th e college , fo r thei r encouragemen t an d suppor t o f th e entir e project Likewise , w e expres s ou r dee p appreciatio n t o th e famil y o f Herber t Henr y Bingham , B.A. , B.Th. , D.D. , a note d Canadia n Baptis t ministe r an d administrato r o f th e previou s generation , whic h ha s generousl y funde d th e fourt h annua l "H . H . Bingha m Colloquiu m i n Ne w Testament " a t McMaste r Divinit y College , hel d durin g Jun e 22-23 , 1998 . It wa s a t tha t colloquiu m tha t th e author s o f th e presen t volum e presente d thei r paper s an d receive d criticis m fro m on e another , fro m th e editor , an d fro m other s i n attendance , befor e the n reworkin g an d polishin g thei r papers , a s necessary , prio r t o fina l editin g an d th e norma l publicatio n process . Mos t heartily , however , w e than k thos e wh o hav e writte n article s fo r thi s volume , fo r the y hav e take n tim e ou t o f bus y academi c schedule s t o writ e i n a mor e popula r fashio n — i n man y cases , distillin g fro m thei r academi c publication s materia l o f pertinenc e fo r th e Christia n churc h generally An d w e than k Bill Eerdman s an d th e Wm B Eerdman s Publishin g Compan y fo r thei r continue d suppor t o f th e series . TH E EDITO R

Introductio n

TH E PARABLES O F JESU S ar e commonl y assume d t o b e simpl e stories , tol d i n a n engagin g manne r an d easily understoo d b y almos t everyone Peopl e ca n stil l b e hear d t o say, "Giv e u s onl y th e parables , an d th e Christia n religio n will b e mor e readil y welcomed , mor e quickl y understood , an d mor e easily assimilated. " Bu t Jesus ' parables , whil e seemingl y simpl e i n thei r stor y lines , se t befor e thei r moder n reader s a numbe r o f comple x an d significan t challenges : challenge s havin g t o d o wit h (1 ) Jesus ' purpos e i n tellin g thes e parables , (2 ) ho w the y wer e use d by th e canonica l evangelist s i n thei r Gospels , an d (3 ) th e dept h an d breadt h o f meanin g tha t the y possess — bu t also , an d probabl y mor e important , (4 ) ou r bein g awakene d ane w t o th e radica l messag e tha t the y proclaim . Th e wor d "parable " (parabole) appear s forty-eigh t time s i n th e Synopti c Gospel s (seventee n time s i n Matthew , thirtee n i n Mark , an d eightee n i n Luke) . It is entirel y absen t i n John' s Gospe l an d is missin g i n th e res t o f th e Ne w Testamen t as well , excep t fo r tw o use s i n Hebrew s 9:9 an d 11:19 tha t ar e withou t importanc e fo r a discussio n of Jesus ' parables . Th e wor d ha s variou s shade s of meanin g i n th e Synopti c Gospel s an d ca n b e understoo d t o refe r t o a numbe r o f way s i n whic h Jesu s bot h taugh t an d ministered . John' s Gospel , however , present s Jesu s as speakin g i n extende d discourses , no t i n saying s o r parables , thoug h paraboli c form s ma y underli e som e of th e Johannin e discourse s (e.g. , 10:1-5 ; perhap s als o 3:29 ; 8:35 ; 11:9-10 , an d 12:24) .

Wha t follow s i n thi s boo k ar e thirtee n article s writte n b y thirtee n

first-rat e Ne w Testamen t scholar s tha t attemp t t o understan d th e parable s o f Jesu s a s portraye d i n th e Synopti c Gospel s o n thei r ow n term s an d t o se t ou t th e challeng e o f thei r teaching s ane w — all th e whil e profitin g fro m th e grea t amoun t o f stud y tha t ha s alread y transpire d an d seekin g t o us e th e tool s o f contemporar y Ne w Testamen t scholarshi p i n a responsibl e manner . Th e article s buil d o n th e scholarl y expertis e o f thei r respectiv e authors Bu t the y ar e presente d i n a manne r tha t is intende d t o b e understoo d b y intelligen t lay people , theologica l students , an d ministers Eac h articl e ha s a Selecte d Bibliograph y o f n o mor e tha n sixtee n entrie s fo r furthe r study , wit h man y o f th e work s cite d bein g foundationa l fo r th e articl e itself . All o f th e articles , however , ar e devoi d o f discussion-typ e footnote s whic h eithe r interac t wit h competin g position s o r brin g i n subsidiar y materials Eve n documentary-typ e footnote s ar e hel d t o a minimum , an d the n onl y se t i n abbreviate d for m i n parenthese s i n th e tex t whe n fel t t o b e absolutel y necessary

Th e organizatio n o f Jesus ' parable s int o particula r subjec t groups , a s wel l a s th e wordin g o f th e caption s fo r thes e groups , is simpl y fo r pedagogical purposes Suc h groupings , admittedly , ar e somewha t artificial , an d suc h caption s somewha t anachronistic . Jesu s di d no t structur e hi s teachin g i n term s o f ou r moder n categories . No r di d th e evangelist s incorporat e Jesus ' parable s int o thei r Gospel s t o confor m t o ou r moder n analyses

Nonetheless , i t is hope d tha t — whil e th e parable s shoul d undoubtedl y b e understoo d a s somethin g o f a "seamles s garment " i n thei r genera l contour s an d thrus t — suc h grouping s an d caption s wil l prov e usefu l fo r a mor e detaile d analysis .

Unabashedly , th e author s o f thi s volum e hav e take n certai n critica l stance s an d use d a variet y o f interpretiv e method s i n thei r respectiv e treatments Th e onl y criterio n the y hav e followe d is tha t o f greates t compatibilit y wit h th e materia l bein g studied . I t is expecte d tha t thei r academi c expertis e wil l b e eviden t i n wha t the y write Mor e tha n that , however , i t is hope d tha t throug h thei r effort s th e teachin g o f Jesu s i n hi s extan t parable s an d th e proclamatio n o f th e evangelist s i n thei r portrayal s o f thos e parable s wil l b e bette r presente d tha n is usuall y th e case An d wha t is praye d fo r is tha t b y suc h a true r an d able r presentation , Christian s wil l b e instructe d an d challenge d t o live mor e genuin e live s a s Jesus ' follower s an d th e Christia n churc h wil l b e benefite d i n carryin g ou t th e task s o f it s God-give n mission .

TH E EDITO R

PAR T I

History, Genre, an d Parallels

CHAPTE R 1

Fro m Allegorizing t o Allegorizing:

A History of th e Interpretatio n of th e Parables of Jesus

KLYN E R . SNODGRAS S

I N N O OTHE R AREA o f Ne w Testamen t stud y is a histor y o f interpretatio n s o crucia l as it is wit h th e parable s o f Jesus Her e a histor y o f interpretatio n is virtuall y a prerequisit e fo r understandin g (1 ) th e issue s tha t mus t b e addresse d an d (2 ) th e tendencie s tha t appea r i n man y of today' s treatments . It is a stor y tha t ha s bee n tol d repeatedl y an d i n muc h greate r detai l b y other s tha n is possibl e her e (see , fo r example , th e work s b y Blomberg , Jones , Kissinger , Perrin , an d Stei n i n th e bibliography) Nonetheless , on e canno t d o a seriou s stud y o f th e parable s withou t first settin g ou t an d interactin g wit h suc h a histor y of interpretation Fo r thes e seemingl y simpl e storie s o f Jesus , whic h ar e widel y see n t o b e gem s o f articulatio n abou t lif e an d God , hav e prove n t o b e anythin g bu t simple .

1 . Theologica l Allegorizin g

Th e primar y interpretiv e issu e wit h regar d t o Jesus ' parable s ha s alway s bee n th e exten t t o whic h th e detail s o f th e storie s ar e t o b e take n a s relevan t fo r a prope r understanding . Fro m th e earlies t day s an d throughou t mos t o f th e church' s history , Jesus ' parable s hav e bee n allegorize d — tha t is, peopl e hav e rea d int o the m variou s feature s o f th e church' s theology ,

wit h man y o f thos e feature s ofte n havin g littl e t o d o wit h Jesus ' ow n intent

Th e best-know n exampl e o f suc h theologica l allegorizatio n is Augustine' s interpretatio n o f th e Parabl e o f th e Goo d Samarita n (Luk e 10:3037) , wher e virtuall y ever y ite m is give n a theologica l significance : (1 ) th e ma n is Adam ; (2 ) Jerusale m is th e heavenl y city ; (3 ) Jerich o is th e moon , whic h stand s fo r ou r mortality ; (4 ) th e robber s ar e th e devi l an d hi s angels , wh o stri p th e ma n o f hi s immortalit y an d bea t hi m b y persuadin g hi m t o sin ; (5 ) th e pries t an d Levit e ar e th e priesthoo d an d th e ministr y o f th e Ol d Testament ; (6 ) th e goo d Samarita n is Christ ; (7 ) th e bindin g o f th e wound s is th e restrain t o f sin ; (8 ) th e oil an d win e ar e th e comfor t o f hop e an d th e encouragemen t t o work ; (9 ) th e donke y is th e incarnation ; (10 ) th e in n is th e church ; (11 ) th e nex t da y is afte r th e resurrectio n o f Christ ; (12 ) th e innkeepe r is th e apostl e Paul ; an d (13 ) th e tw o denari i ar e th e tw o commandment s o f love , o r th e promis e o f thi s lif e an d tha t whic h is t o com e (summar y fro m Quaestiones Evangeliorum 2.19) .

Suc h allegorizin g o f text s wa s no t limite d t o th e church I t is foun d frequentl y i n th e writing s o f th e Jewis h philosopher-theologia n Philo , wa s use d b y variou s Hellenisti c interpreter s o f Home r an d Plato , an d appear s i n som e o f th e pesharim o r interpretiv e treatment s o f Scriptur e foun d i n th e Dea d Sea Scroll s a t Qumran , lik e tha t o f 1QpHa b 12.2-1 0 (o n Ha b 2:17) I n th e churc h thi s "Alexandria n exegesis " wen t han d i n han d wit h th e belie f tha t Scriptur e coul d yiel d a fourfol d meaning : a litera l meaning ; a n allegorical-theologica l meaning ; a n ethica l meaning ; an d a heavenl y meaning , whic h reflecte d futur e bliss So , fo r example , Thoma s Aquina s too k God' s statemen t o f Ge n 1:3, "Le t ther e b e light, " t o refe r literall y t o creation , bu t als o allegoricall y t o mea n "Le t Chris t b e bor n i n th e church, " ethicall y t o mea n "Ma y w e b e illumine d i n min d an d inflame d i n hear t throug h Christ, " an d wit h regar d t o heave n t o mea n "Ma y w e b e conducte d t o glor y throug h Christ " (se e hi s Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians 4:7) .

I n th e histor y o f parabl e interpretation , therefore , it is no t surprisin g t o fin d commentator s assertin g wit h respec t t o th e Parabl e o f th e Hidde n Treasur e (Mat t 13:44 ) eithe r tha t Chris t is th e treasure , wh o is hidde n i n th e fiel d o f Scripture , o r tha t th e treasur e is doctrine , whic h is hidde n i n th e fiel d o f th e church Competin g allegorie s coul d coexis t withou t difficulty . Similarly , Gregor y th e Grea t understoo d th e thre e time s tha t th e owne r cam e lookin g fo r frui t i n th e Parabl e o f th e Barre n

Fi g Tre e (Luk e 13:6-9 ) t o represen t (1 ) God' s comin g befor e th e la w wa s given , (2 ) hi s comin g a t th e tim e th e la w wa s written , an d (3 ) hi s comin g i n grac e an d merc y i n Christ . H e als o understoo d th e vinedresse r t o represen t thos e wh o rul e th e church , an d th e diggin g an d dun g t o refe r t o th e rebuk e o f unfruitfu l peopl e an d th e remembranc e o f sin s (se e hi s Forty Gospel Homilies, 31) . Allegorizing , i n fact , wa s th e primar y metho d fo r th e interpretatio n o f Jesus ' parable s fro m a t leas t th e tim e o f Irenaeu s t o th e en d o f th e nineteent h centur y (fo r numerou s othe r examples , se e Wailes , Medieval Allegories). Unfortunately , it stil l occur s all to o ofte n i n moder n preaching

Som e Churc h Father s an d Reformers , o f course , proteste d suc h allegorizing . Tertullia n an d Luthe r did , a t leas t t o som e degree . Likewise , Joh n Chrysosto m an d Joh n Calvi n voice d oppositio n t o allegorica l exegesi s — though , a t times , allegorizin g continue d t o cree p int o thei r ow n treatment s (cf . D . Steinmetz , "Calvi n an d th e Irrepressibl e Spirit, " Ex Anditu 12 [1996 ] 94-107) Chrysostom' s commen t o n th e Parabl e o f th e Vineyar d Worker s is stil l goo d advice :

Th e sayin g is a parable , wherefor e neithe r is it righ t t o inquir e curiousl y int o all thing s i n parable s wor d b y word , bu t whe n w e hav e learn t th e objec t fo r whic h it wa s composed , t o rea p this , an d no t t o bus y one' s self abou t anythin g further ( The Gospel of Matthew, Homil y 64.3 )

Som e caution , however , need s t o b e exercise d i n ou r evaluation s o f thos e wh o allegorized , fo r peopl e lik e Augustin e wer e no t ignorant . Thos e wh o engage d i n allegorica l interpretatio n assume d (1 ) tha t lif e ha d a relatio n t o th e tex t an d (2 ) tha t th e tex t ha d powe r t o direc t thei r lives . Suc h assumptions , o f course , ar e highl y laudatory . Furthermore , the y di d no t bas e thei r doctrina l formulation s o n allegorica l exegesis , bu t sough t t o establis h control s i n orde r t o preven t excesse s b y limitin g thos e wh o coul d participat e i n suc h interpretation s an d b y settin g u p boundarie s withi n whic h tha t interpretatio n shoul d operat e (cf . Steinmetz , "Calvi n an d th e Irrepressibl e Spirit, " 97) .

Still , allegorizin g is n o legitimat e mean s o f interpretation . I t obfuscate s th e messag e o f Jesu s an d replace s it wit h th e teachin g o f th e church . Suc h a n interpretiv e procedur e assume s tha t on e know s th e trut h befor e readin g a text , an d the n find s tha t trut h parallele d b y th e tex t bein g rea d — eve n if th e tex t is abou t anothe r subject .

2 . Historical , Non-Allegorizin g Approache s

Theologica l allegorizin g o f th e parable s cam e largel y t o a n en d i n scholarl y circle s durin g th e latte r par t o f th e nineteent h centur y an d throughou t mos t o f th e twentiet h century , principall y throug h th e wor k o f Adol f Jülicher , C . H . Dodd , an d Joachi m Jeremia s — eve n though , a s w e wil l see , the y wer e no t alway s consistent .

Adolf Jülicher

Althoug h other s befor e hi m ha d argue d agains t th e abuse s o f allegorizing , Adol f Jülicher' s tw o volume s o n th e parable s o f Jesu s i n 188 8 an d 189 9 sounde d th e deat h knel l fo r theologica l allegorizin g a s a legitimat e hermeneutica l too l an d radicall y affecte d th e interpretatio n o f Jesus ' parable s thereafter I n hi s wa r agains t allegorizing , Jüliche r denie d tha t Jesu s use d allegor y a t all (whic h h e define d a s a serie s o f relate d metaphors ) o r incorporate d an y allegorica l trait s int o hi s storie s (wher e a poin t i n a stor y "stand s for " somethin g els e i n reality) Allegor y wa s to o comple x fo r th e simpl e Galilea n preacher Rather , Jesus ' storie s containe d self-eviden t comparison s tha t di d no t nee d interpretation Al l allegorizin g interpretation s o f th e parables , therefore , mus t b e viewe d a s bein g illegitimate Furthermore , Jüliche r insisted , wher e allegor y o r allegorica l trait s d o appea r i n th e storie s — suc h a s i n th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r o r th e Parabl e o f th e Wicke d Tenant s — th e evangelist s ar e t o blame . Fo r th e evangelist s misunderstoo d th e parables , assume d tha t the y ha d a concealin g functio n (e.g. , Mar k 4:10-12) , an d turne d the m int o dar k an d mysteriou s saying s (Gleichnisreden Jesu, 1.44-7 0 an d 80-81) . Paradoxically , however , Jüliche r retaine d confidenc e abou t th e genuinenes s o f th e parabl e tradition , an d h e kne w tha t parable s i n "Hellenisti c scriba l learning " wer e sometime s enigmati c (cf. ibid., 1.42) .

I n Jülicher' s view , a parabl e is a n expande d simile , wherea s a n allegor y is a n expande d metaphor . Simil e an d parabl e ar e feature s o f litera l speech , an d s o ar e easil y understood . Metapho r an d allegory , however , ar e non-literal ; the y sa y on e thin g an d mea n another . Therefore , the y ar e t o b e see n a s feature s o f indirec t speech , whic h hid e meanin g an d nee d t o b e decoded . Jüliche r allowe d n o minglin g o f parabl e an d allegory , n o "mixe d forms. "

Furthermore , i n Jülicher' s understandin g ther e coul d b e n o positin g o f severa l point s o f compariso n betwee n a n imag e (Bild) an d th e objec t (Sache) portrayed , a s happen s wit h allegory . Jesus ' parable s ha d onl y on e poin t o f contac t (on e tertium comparationis) betwee n a n imag e an d it s object Hi s purpos e wa s no t t o obscure , an d s o hi s parable s canno t b e viewe d a s allegories . Rather , Jesus ' parable s shoul d b e see n a s enunciatin g onl y on e somewha t genera l religiou s maxi m — or , perhap s mor e accuratel y said , som e piou s moralis m abou t Go d an d th e world

Jülicher' s impac t o n th e stud y o f parable s wa s no t limite d t o hi s discussio n o f allegory H e als o distinguishe d betwee n variou s type s o f parables : "similitudes " (a s th e Parabl e o f th e Leaven) , "parables " proper , an d "exampl e stories " (a s th e Parabl e o f th e Goo d Samaritan) . Thes e distinction s — alon g wit h tha t o f allegor y — ar e stil l use d today , thoug h ther e is considerabl e debat e abou t whethe r allegor y an d exampl e stor y are , i n fact , legitimat e categories Also , b y arguin g tha t th e evangelist s ha d altere d Jesus ' parables , Jüliche r opene d th e doo r fo r attempt s t o reconstruc t th e origina l versio n o f th e parable s (fo r hi s reconstructio n o f th e Parabl e o f th e Banque t i n Mat t 22:1-1 4 an d Luk e 14:15-24 , se e Gleichnisreden Jesu, 11.431; not e als o hi s admissio n tha t thi s parabl e ha s numerou s correspondence s betwee n imag e an d objec t [ibid., 432]) Suc h reconstruction s ar e fairl y commo n amon g scholar s today , eve n whe n thos e wh o mak e the m complai n abou t thei r hypothetica l character . Attack s o n Jülicher' s positio n cam e quickl y an d hav e continue d righ t t o th e present . Amon g th e first wa s Pau l Fiebig , wh o argue d tha t Jüliche r ha d derive d hi s understandin g o f Jesus ' parable s fro m Gree k rhetori c rathe r tha n fro m th e Hebre w world , wher e allegorica l parable s an d mixe d form s wer e commo n (Altjüdische Gleichnisse und die Gleichnisse Jesu [Tübingen : Mohr-Siebeck , 1904] ; Die Gleichnisreden Jesu im Lichte der rabbinischen Gleichnisse des neutestamentlichen Zeitalters [Tübingen : Mohr-Siebeck , 1912]) An d i n contemporar y treatment s o f th e parables , a s w e wil l see , scholar s wh o focu s o n a Jewis h backgroun d fo r th e parable s objec t t o Jülicher' s reductionisti c view s an d rejec t th e ide a tha t an y literatur e is self-interpreting I n fact , it ma y fairl y b e sai d tha t th e mor e attentio n on e pay s t o Jewis h parables , th e les s impresse d on e is wit h Jülicher' s explanations

Furthermore , man y scholar s hav e calle d attentio n t o th e confusio n tha t exist s betwee n "allegory " an d "allegorizing " i n Jülicher' s treatmen t o f th e issues Hans-Jose f Klauc k (Allegorie und Allegorese in synoptischen

Gleichnistexten [Münster : Aschendorff , 1978]) , fo r example , speak s o f Jüliche r a s havin g throw n ou t allegory , whic h is a literar y form , wherea s th e rea l proble m is tha t o f allegorizing , whic h is a n interpretiv e procedur e o f readin g int o materia l a theolog y no t originall y intended . An d others , particularl y Madelein e Bouche r ( Th e Mysterious Parable [Washington : Catholi c Biblica l Associatio n o f America , 1977] ) an d Joh n Side r ( Interpreting the Parables [Gran d Rapids : Zondervan , 1995]) , hav e argue d tha t allegor y is no t a literar y genr e a t all , bu t a wa y o f thinkin g tha t ca n b e presen t i n variou s genres .

Fe w toda y accep t Jülicher' s definitio n o f parable , fo r mos t vie w a parabl e a s a n expansio n o f a metapho r an d no t a simil e (e.g. , H . Weder , Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern [Göttingen : Vandenhoec k & Ruprecht , 1978]) An d virtuall y n o on e accept s hi s clai m tha t th e parable s presen t u s wit h onl y rathe r genera l religiou s maxims . Severa l scholars , i n fact , hav e pointe d ou t tha t Jülicher' s reactio n agains t allegor y onl y reflect s a nineteenth-centur y distast e fo r th e allegorie s tha t wer e writte n durin g th e sixteent h throug h th e eighteent h centurie s (e.g. , Mar y Ford , "Toward s th e Restoratio n o f Allegory, " St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 3 4 [1990 ] 162-63) . An d other s hav e mounte d fronta l attack s agains t man y o f Jülicher' s view s (e.g. , Maxim e Hermaniuk , Matthe w Black , Raymon d Brown , Joh n Drury , an d Crai g Blomberg) , particularl y agains t hi s treatment s o f metapho r an d allegor y (cf . esp . C . L. Blomberg , Interpreting the Parables [Downer s Grove : InterVarsity , 1990])

Eve n so , Jülicher' s conclusion s hav e ha d surprisin g stayin g powe r — continuin g o n i n th e scholarl y an d popula r psyche s righ t dow n t o th e present , despit e th e inadequac y o f hi s views . Peopl e ofte n stil l spea k o f a parabl e a s havin g onl y on e poin t an d ar e suspiciou s o f an y featur e tha t ma y hav e allegorica l significance . An d eve n whe n awar e o f th e inadequac y o f Jülicher' s arguments , man y scholar s ar e stil l caugh t i n th e vorte x o f hi s procedure s an d conclusions I t is a s if onc e th e seed s o f th e attac k o n th e allegorizin g o f th e churc h wer e scattered , the y canno t b e collecte d agai n fo r réévaluatio n bu t mus t b e allowe d t o germinat e withou t hindrance

C. H. Dodd and Joachim Jeremias

Th e Dod d an d Jeremia s er a o f parabl e studie s extend s fro m 1936 , wit h th e appearanc e o f Dodd' s The Parables of the Kingdom, t o roughl y 197 0 —

thoug h Jeremias e The Parables of Jesus (1963 ) is stil l influential . Jeremias e wor k wa s a n extensio n o f Dodd's , an d bot h wer e dependen t o n Jülicher Bot h trie d t o understan d th e parable s i n thei r historica l an d eschatologica l contexts , eve n thoug h the y differe d i n thei r respectiv e understanding s o f eschatology Bot h viewe d th e parable s as realisti c first-centur y peasan t storie s an d sough t t o explai n th e cultura l settin g o f th e individua l parables . Bu t i n seekin g t o recove r th e origina l situation s i n whic h Jesu s spoke , bot h Dod d an d Jeremia s als o trie d t o remov e th e allegorica l feature s foun d i n th e evangelists ' presentation s o f th e parables .

A t leas t a thir d o f Dodd' s smal l boo k is no t explicitl y o n th e parables , bu t is concerne d mor e generall y wit h Jesu s an d th e kingdom Dod d understoo d Jesus ' messag e i n term s o f "realize d eschatology " — tha t is , tha t th e kingdo m o f Go d ha d alread y arrived Hi s treatment s o f th e parable s ar e relativel y brie f an d ofte n quit e straightforward Bu t Dod d believe d tha t late r Gospe l traditio n had , a t certai n points , obscure d Jesus ' origina l messag e b y reorientin g hi s origina l realize d eschatolog y t o ethica l issue s an d a futuristi c eschatology . Fo r example , th e Parabl e o f th e Talent s (Mat t 25:14-30//Luk e 19:11-27 ) wa s originall y abou t th e conduc t o f th e Pharisees , bu t wa s change d t o addres s matter s o f mora l responsibilit y an d t o spea k abou t th e secon d adven t o f Chris t ( Parables , 146-53) . Likewise , parable s abou t th e en d time , suc h a s tha t o f th e Te n Virgin s (Mat t 25:1-13 ) an d thos e regardin g th e harves t (Mar k 4:26-29 ; Mat t 13:24-30) , wer e no t originall y abou t a comin g en d time , bu t abou t th e crisi s o f Jesus ' earthl y ministry

Jeremia s extende d Dodd' s wor k i n detail . H e provide d historica l an d cultura l evidenc e fo r understandin g th e parable s and , guide d b y th e canon s o f for m criticism , sough t t o ascertai n a parable' s origina l for m b y strippin g awa y th e allegorica l feature s an d othe r addition s tha t ha d bee n supplie d b y th e earl y church Almos t a thir d o f hi s boo k discusse s te n area s wher e change s mad e b y th e churc h nee d t o b e addresse d an d rectifie d i n orde r t o retur n t o th e origina l utterance s o f Jesu s — thes e secondary , non-origina l matter s havin g t o do , invariably , wit h th e contexts , introductions , conclusions , an d interpretiv e comment s connecte d wit h th e storie s a s the y no w appea r i n th e Synopti c Gospels . Suc h shortened , deallegorize d version s o f Jesus ' parable s ar e clos e t o th e version s o f th e parable s foun d i n th e Gospel of Thomas, a collectio n o f saying s o f Jesu s tha t probabl y date s fro m th e secon d centur y (althoug h th e questio n o f dat e is debated) .

Whil e grantin g th e presenc e o f th e kingdo m i n Jesus ' ministry , Jeremia s describe d Jesus ' messag e a s a n eschatolog y tha t wa s i n th e proces s o f realization . I n hi s parable s Jesu s presente d peopl e wit h a crisi s o f decisio n an d invite d the m t o respon d t o God' s mercy . Thu s th e parable s ar e ofte n viewe d a s a vindicatio n o f Jesus ' offe r o f th e gospe l t o th e poor .

Jeremias' s influenc e ha s bee n s o stron g tha t Norma n Perri n onc e asserte d tha t all futur e interpretation s o f th e parable s woul d hav e t o b e interpretation s o f the m a s Jeremia s analyze d the m ( Jesu s and the Language of the Kingdom, 101) ! Fe w today , however , woul d mak e suc h a claim . Rather , man y contemporar y scholar s hol d tha t jus t a s Jülicher' s wor k wa s foundational , bu t aberrant , s o Jeremias' s work , whil e significant , is fatall y flawed .

A t th e ver y least , on e mus t double-chec k all o f Jeremias' s claims , fo r som e o f the m wil l no t stan d u p t o investigation .

On e furthe r poin t shoul d als o b e made . Whil e bot h Dod d an d Jeremia s attempte d t o remov e allegor y fro m Jesus ' parables , bot h o f the m als o brough t allegorica l interpretation s bac k int o consideratio n whe n the y discusse d th e meanin g o f th e parables . Fo r example , Jeremia s hel d tha t Jesu s coul d no t hav e uttere d th e Parabl e o f th e Banque t (Luk e 14:7-14 ) a s a n allegor y o f th e feas t o f salvation , bu t tha t h e may , nonetheless , wel l hav e ha d it i n min d ( Parables , 69) ! Suc h duplicit y le d Matthe w Blac k t o accus e Dod d o f runnin g wit h th e allegorica l har e an d ye t huntin g wit h th e Jüliche r hound s ("Th e Parable s a s Allegory, " Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 4 2 [1960 ] 283) Suc h inconsistenc y ofte n occur s amon g thos e wh o overreac t agains t allegory

3 . Existentialist , Artistic , an d Initia l Literar y Approache s

Sinc e abou t 197 0 a moo d ha s prevaile d amon g Ne w Testamen t scholar s tha t feel s th e historical , eschatologica l approache s o f peopl e lik e Dod d an d Jeremia s t o b e insufficient . Th e beaut y an d th e powe r o f Jesus ' parable s is considere d t o hav e bee n lost , o r a t leas t seriousl y curtailed . Attentio n ha s turne d t o hermeneutica l an d aestheti c concerns . Severa l person s an d movement s hav e attempte d t o g o beyon d th e wor k o f Dod d an d Jeremias . Yet whil e seekin g somethin g mor e tha n th e merel y historical , mos t o f thes e approache s stil l follo w thei r predecessor s i n metho d b y firs t strippin g of f thos e feature s o f th e parable s tha t ar e though t t o b e allegorica l o r interpretiv e additions .

Existentialist Approaches

As par t o f th e "Ne w Hermeneutic, " Erns t Fuchs , alon g wit h hi s student s Et a Linneman n an d Eberhar d Jüngel , brough t th e concern s o f existentialis m an d th e insight s o f a particula r understandin g o f languag e t o bea r o n th e interpretatio n o f th e parables . Fuch s an d Jüngel , however , ar e no t principall y importan t i n th e stud y o f th e parable s becaus e o f thei r exegesi s o f specifi c parables . Rather , the y ar e significan t becaus e o f thei r applicatio n o f thei r understandin g o f languag e t o th e interpretatio n o f th e parable s generally

Fo r Fuchs , existenc e is essentiall y linguistic H e argue s fo r wha t h e call s "th e language-characte r o f existence " ( Studie s of the Historical Jesus, 211) , an d h e assert s tha t "th e rea l conten t o f languag e is bein g itself " (ibid., 222). Languag e doe s no t merel y describe I t enacts ; i t imparts ! Languag e ha s th e powe r t o brin g int o bein g somethin g tha t wa s no t ther e befor e th e word s wer e spoken To cal l someon e a brother , fo r example , doe s no t mak e hi m one , bu t i t admit s tha t perso n a s a brothe r an d establishe s communit y (ibid., 209-10) .

Th e parable s ar e suc h "languag e events " (Sprachereignisse). Thi s concep t is simila r t o th e ide a o f "performativ e utterances, " whic h emphasize s th e powe r o f languag e t o accomplis h an d enact . Fo r Fuchs , parable s ar e analogies , an d i n analog y lies th e ver y languag e powe r o f existence Th e purpos e o f a n analog y is no t t o increas e th e knowledg e tha t on e has . Rather , a n analog y function s t o shap e one' s attitude . Thu s Jesus ' parable s hav e th e powe r t o brin g t o expressio n th e realit y t o whic h the y point I n hi s parables , Jesus ' understandin g o f hi s ow n situatio n enter s languag e i n a specia l wa y s o tha t hi s existenc e is availabl e t o hi s hearers Th e parables , therefore , ar e a summon s t o thi s existence ; an d t o respond , on e mus t allo w onesel f t o b e lai d hol d o f b y Jesus ' existenc e (ibid., 220) .

Fuch s an d hi s colleague s wer e als o par t o f "th e ne w ques t fo r th e historica l Jesus, " an d s o the y place d heav y emphasi s o n understandin g Jesu s an d hi s mission Th e parable s ar e verbalization s o f Jesus ' understandin g o f hi s situatio n i n th e world . Understandably , therefore , on e o f th e mai n feature s o f Linnemann' s Parables of Jesus (London : SPCK , 1966) , whic h stand s a s muc h i n th e Jeremia s traditio n a s it doe s i n th e ne w hermeneutic , is he r attemp t t o hea r th e parable s a s Jesus ' origina l audienc e woul d hav e hear d them

Muc h ca n b e sai d b y wa y o f evaluatin g th e view s o f Fuchs , Linnemann , an d Jünge l wit h respec t t o th e parable s o f Jesus Pertinen t critique s

hav e bee n se t fort h b y Jac k Dea n Kingsbur y ("Erns t Fuchs ' Existentialis t

Interpretatio n o f th e Parables, " Lutheran Quarterly 2 [1970 ] 380-95 ; idem, "Th e Parable s o f Jesu s i n Curren t Research, " Dialog 11 [1972 ] 101-7 ) an d Anthon y C . Thiselto n ("Th e Parable s a s Language-Event, " Scottish Journal of Theology 2 3 [1970 ] 437-68) , a s wel l a s b y Norma n Perri n an d Warre n Kissinge r (se e bibliography) . Fo r m y part , I believ e th e importanc e o f thei r stanc e is i n forcin g peopl e t o conside r languag e an d it s effec t mor e seriousl y tha n before . Fo r th e parable s o f Jesu s are , i n fact , languag e event s tha t creat e bot h ne w world s an d th e possibilit y o f a change d existence .

Artistic Approaches

If Fuch s an d hi s colleague s wer e stil l concerne d wit h th e situatio n o f th e historica l Jesus , th e sam e canno t b e sai d fo r thos e wh o toda y emphasiz e th e artisti c characte r o f th e parables . Existentia l concern s stil l ran k hig h o n th e agend a o f curren t artisti c approaches Bu t a focu s o n th e historica l situatio n o f Jesu s ha s bee n deemphasized .

Man y interpreter s i n th e pas t hav e commente d o n th e artisti c characte r o f th e parables , includin g C H Dod d (cf Parables, 195) Bu t the y ha d no t mad e thi s a majo r facto r fo r interpretation . Gerain t Vaugh n Jone s i n 1964 , however , sough t t o wide n th e relevanc e o f th e parable s b y emphasizin g thei r artisti c an d literar y characte r an d t o highligh t th e wa y tha t the y mirro r huma n experienc e — tha t is, "t o transpos e the m int o th e field o f symbol s o f ou r permanen t huma n experience " ( Ar t and Truth of the Parables, xi) . H e attempte d t o distinguis h betwee n symbo l an d allegory , th e forme r bein g presen t i n th e parables , an d accepte d tha t Jesu s tol d allegorica l stories . Yet despit e seekin g a wide r relevanc e fo r th e parables , h e considere d onl y eigh t o f th e fifty parable s h e studie d t o b e candidate s fo r a wide r interpretatio n — viewin g ninetee n o f them , i n fact , t o b e strictl y limite d b y thei r historica l referenc e (ibid., 141-43) .

Da n Via , wh o wa s heavil y influence d b y existentialis t interpreter s lik e Fuchs , argue d i n 196 7 tha t th e parable s ar e no t boun d b y thei r author' s inten t (cf hi s The Parables), an d s o expresse d les s interes t i n Jesus ' origina l situation . Th e parable s ar e aestheti c work s tha t shoul d b e interprete d a s text s i n thei r ow n right The y mus t b e viewe d a s bein g autonomous . The y addres s th e presen t becaus e i n thei r pattern s is a n understandin g o f existenc e tha t call s fo r decision .

Bot h Jone s an d Vi a sough t t o recove r th e humanit y o f th e parable s an d t o highligh t thei r universa l appea l t o th e huma n condition . Jones , however , wa s willin g t o sa y tha t som e o f Jesus ' parable s wer e allegories , wherea s Vi a spen t considerabl e effor t (a s man y ha d befor e him ) tryin g t o distinguis h parabl e an d allegory . Yet eve n Vi a grante d tha t parable s ma y hav e allegorica l correspondence s an d argue d agains t a "on e point " approach . Vi a als o emphasize d tha t parable s canno t b e completel y translate d int o anothe r for m (cf . Parables, 32-56) . An d thi s understanding , a s w e wil l see , ha s becom e increasingl y importan t i n mor e recen t studies .

Vi a divide d th e parable s o f th e Gospel s int o "tragic " an d "comic " parables , wit h "comic " connotin g a sens e o f positiv e movement . Hi s procedur e fo r th e interpretatio n o f th e parable s ha s thre e divisions : (1 ) historico-literar y criticism ; (2 ) literar y existentia l analysis , whic h is usuall y th e longes t section ; an d (3 ) existential-theologica l interpretation . Th e lesson s h e draw s fro m th e parable s sometime s see m strikingl y simila r t o Jülicher' s piou s maxims , thoug h wit h a n existentia l twist . Bu t ar e w e reall y t o believ e tha t th e Parabl e o f th e Wicke d Tenant s is onl y a parabl e o f "unfaith " tha t teache s tha t si n is a person' s self-centere d effor t t o rejec t an y an d all limitation s tha t Go d impose s (cf Parables, 137) ?

Initial Literary Approaches

Rober t Funk' s 196 6 Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God is perhap s th e mos t influentia l wor k o n th e parable s o f th e las t fe w decade s (thoug h onl y page s 124-22 2 dea l directl y wit h th e parable s themselves) . H e to o wa s heavil y influence d b y th e Germa n existentialis t theologians , bu t h e brough t a literar y focu s tha t the y di d no t have . Adaptin g Dodd' s definitio n o f parable , h e emphasize d fou r basi c points : ( 1 ) tha t a parabl e is a simil e o r metaphor , whic h ma y remai n simpl e o r b e expanded ; (2 ) tha t th e metapho r o r simil e is draw n fro m commo n life ; (3 ) tha t th e metapho r arrest s th e heare r b y it s vividnes s o r strangeness ; an d (4 ) tha t th e applicatio n is lef t imprecis e t o teas e th e heare r int o makin g hi s o r he r ow n applicatio n (ibid., 133) . Contrar y t o Jülicher , however , Fun k understoo d a parabl e no t a s a n extensio n o f a simile , bu t a s a n extensio n o f a metaphor . Furthermore , h e di d no t vie w metaphor s a s inferio r t o simile s i n thei r communicativ e abilities . Quit e th e opposite : if simile s illustrate , metaphor s creat e meaning s

(ibid., 137) . Furthermore , a metapho r canno t b e close d of f t o onl y on e particula r meaning , sinc e it is incomplet e unti l th e heare r is draw n int o it a s a participant . Therefore , a parabl e canno t b e reduce d t o a singl e meaning , a s Jüliche r claime d i n reducin g th e lesson s o f th e parable s t o piou s moralism e o r a s Dod d an d Jeremia s di d i n distillin g a singl e eschatologica l point . Fo r sinc e metaphor s ar e bearer s o f th e realit y t o whic h the y refer , an d a parabl e is a n extende d metaphor , parable s canno t b e reduce d t o idea s an d ar e no t expendabl e onc e thei r meanin g ha s bee n derived

Metaphor s — an d therefor e parable s — remai n open-ende d wit h a potentia l fo r ne w meanings Even i n thei r origina l context s the y wer e hear d b y divers e audiences , an d s o ha d th e capacit y fo r variou s ideas . I n assertin g a potentia l fo r ne w meaning s i n th e parables , Funk , however , is no t arguin g fo r a n unbridle d creatio n o f meaning Fo r i n hi s understanding , th e origina l tellin g ha d a n inten t tha t serve d a s a contro l ove r ever y reinterpretation . Furthermore , Funk' s emphase s o n "everydayness " an d "vividnes s o r strangeness" whic h wer e th e secon d an d thir d point s i n Dodd' s definitio n — ma y see m somewha t contradictory . Bu t Fun k show s tha t everydaynes s point s t o th e way s tha t parable s addres s huma n existence , wherea s strangenes s point s t o th e way s i n whic h parable s shatte r th e familiar . Paradox , therefore , is intrinsi c t o Jesus ' parables An d th e Gospel of Thomas, a s Fun k view s it , is t o b e see n a s sometime s superio r t o th e canonica l Gospels

Severa l o f Funk' s point s hav e bee n well-receive d b y scholar s today Tha t parable s ar e extende d metaphor s an d tha t the y canno t b e translate d int o idea s an d the n discarde d ar e commonplac e theme s amon g contemporar y interpreters . Likewise , hi s focu s o n reade r respons e an d hi s insistenc e o n parado x ar e accepte d b y many , a s is als o hi s hig h valuatio n o f th e Gospel of Thomas.

Followin g th e directio n o f Funk' s wor k is Joh n Domini c Crossan' s In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus (Ne w York : Harpe r & Row , 1973) Th e state d purpos e o f Crossan' s boo k is t o rende r explici t all tha t is containe d i n a phras e draw n fro m Günthe r Bornkamm : tha t "th e parable s ar e th e preachin g itsel f an d ar e no t merel y servin g th e purpos e o f a lesso n quit e independen t o f them " (cf Bornkamm' s Jesus of Nazareth [Ne w York : Harpe r & Row , 1960] , 69) . No t surprisingly , Crossan , followin g Pau l Ricoeur , distinguishe s betwee n a n allegor y an d a parabl e — arguin g tha t a n allegor y ca n alway s b e translate d int o a tex t tha t ca n b e understoo d b y itself , whic h render s th e allegor y useless , wherea s myt h an d metapho r canno t b e reduce d t o "clea r language " (Parables, 11)

Th e metaphor s tha t Crossa n is intereste d i n ar e no t one s tha t simpl y illustrat e information , bu t thos e i n whic h participatio n precede s information . H e argue s agains t a linea r vie w o f tim e an d fo r a permanen t eschatolog y — tha t is , fo r a n eschatolog y tha t emphasize s "th e permanen t presenc e o f Go d a s th e on e wh o challenge s th e worl d an d shatter s it s complacenc y repeatedly " (ibid., 26) . Furthermore , h e believe s ther e ar e thre e parable s tha t provid e u s wit h a ke y t o th e understandin g o f all th e others , fo r the y sho w th e dee p structur e o f th e kingdom : th e Treasur e (Mat t 13:44) ; th e Pear l (Mat t 13:45) ; an d th e Grea t Fis h (Gospel of Thomas, Logio n 8) . Also , h e divide s th e parable s int o thre e categorie s tha t correspon d t o th e "thre e mode s o f th e kingdom' s temporality" : (1 ) parable s o f advent ; (2 ) parable s o f reversal ; an d (3 ) parable s o f action .

Crossa n offer s detaile d analyse s o f th e parables , usuall y favorin g th e Gospel of Thomas an d endin g u p wit h shortene d versions , afte r eliminatin g th e introductions , th e interpretations , an d th e conclusion s tha t h e think s wer e adde d b y th e church Th e parable s o f reversal , fo r example , ar e understoo d t o hav e bee n change d int o exampl e storie s b y th e earl y church

Creativ e reinterpretatio n o f Jesus ' parable s b y th e primitiv e church , i n fact , is a state d presuppositio n o f Crossan' s wor k (cf Parables, 5) , an d s o necessitate s th e wor k o f scholarl y reconstruction . Th e meaning s tha t Crossa n assign s t o th e parable s ar e sometime s creativ e an d helpful , bu t a t othe r time s ar e quit e unconvincin g — fo r example , hi s suggestio n tha t th e Parabl e o f th e Wicke d Tenant s is a n immora l stor y abou t peopl e wh o acte d quickl y o n a n opportunit y (ibid., 96)

I n th e decad e betwee n 197 0 an d 1980 , "structuralist " approache s dominate d th e stud y o f th e parables , especiall y i n th e "Parable s Seminar " o f th e Societ y o f Biblica l Literatur e an d th e earl y issue s o f Semeia (whic h is appropriatel y subtitle d An Experimental Journal for Biblical Criticism an d publishe d b y th e SBL) . Funk , Via , an d Crossa n wer e all participant s i n th e Parable s Seminar , an d the y hav e continue d t o b e activ e i n man y o f th e late r development s o f parable s researc h a s well

A structuralis t approac h t o th e parable s is no t concerne d wit h historica l meanin g o r th e author' s intent . Rather , structuralist s see k t o compar e bot h th e surfac e an d th e dee p structure s o f th e text s themselves , highlightin g matter s havin g t o d o wit h movements , motives , functions , oppositions , an d resolution s withi n thos e texts A t time s structuralis t analyse s hav e bee n suggestive . Mos t o f th e time , however , structuralis t studie s onl y drippe d wit h technica l jargo n an d provide d littl e additiona l insight .

No t surprisingly , structuralis m quickl y fade d fro m th e scene . Norma n Perrin' s negativ e assessmen t wa s full y justified : "Th e contributio n thi s [th e literary-structuralis t approach ] ma y mak e t o th e understandin g an d interpretatio n o f thi s o r an y parabl e is b y n o mean s eithe r obviou s o r immediate " (Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom, 180 , se e als o 181)

Th e wor k o f Madelein e Bouche r i n The Mysterious Parable (1977) , however , is quit e unlik e th e mainstrea m o f studie s tha t tak e a literar y approach . I n m y estimation , thi s brie f boo k is on e o f th e mos t significan t treatment s o f th e parable s eve r written Fo r fro m he r expertis e i n literar y criticism , sh e ha s provide d a devastatin g critiqu e o f Jülicher , san e discussion s o f parabl e an d allegory , an d a helpfu l treatmen t o f Mark' s suppose d theor y o n th e purpos e o f parable s i n Mar k 4 .

Bouche r argues , a s doe s Joh n Side r (se e hi s Interpreting the Parables [1995] ) an d a numbe r o f othe r literar y specialists , tha t allegor y is no t a literar y genr e a t all , bu t a wa y o f thinking . I n on e fell swoop , therefore , sh e set s asid e all previou s discussion s tha t hav e attempte d t o distinguis h betwee n a parabl e an d a n allegory Sh e finds , i n fact , nothin g inherentl y objectionabl e abou t th e presenc e o f allegorica l feature s i n th e parable s o f th e Gospels , fo r parable s ca n b e eithe r simpl e o r comple x an d ar e ofte n mysterious . An d he r explanatio n o f th e redactiona l shapin g o f Mar k 4 an d o f th e theolog y operativ e i n tha t chapte r is superb .

Othe r literar y approache s toda y questio n th e legitimac y o f th e distinctio n betwee n a n imag e an d it s objec t i n th e parables , a s wel l a s th e searc h fo r a tertium comparationis (cf. , e.g. , H Weder , Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern [Göttingen : Vandenhoec k & Ruprecht , 1978] , 97) . Suc h questionin g is almos t a by-produc t o f a n emphasi s o n th e irreducibilit y o f metapho r an d parable Fo r if a metapho r canno t b e reduce d t o non-metaphorica l language , bu t mus t b e participate d in , on e canno t se t asid e a n imag e t o fin d its object

4 . Studie s Emphasizin g Palestinia n Cultur e an d th e Jewis h Parable s

Fro m a t leas t a s earl y a s C A Bugg e (Die Haupt-Parabeln Jesu [Glessen : Ricker'sch e Verlagsbuchhandlung , 1903] ) an d Pau l Fiebi g (Altjüdische Gleichnisse und die Gleichnisse Jesu [Tübingen : Mohr-Siebeck , 1904] ; cf als o hi s Die Gleichnisreden Jesu im Lichte der rabbinischen Gleichnisse des

neutestamentlichen Zeitalters [Tübingen : Mohr-Siebeck , 1912 ] ) , som e scholar s ha d argue d fo r th e importanc e o f recognizin g th e Jewis h origi n o f Jesus ' parables . An d i n th e las t thre e decade s thi s focu s ha s receive d majo r attentio n fro m severa l directions .

J. Dunca n M . Derrett , a specialis t i n ancien t orienta l law, is on e schola r wh o ha s draw n attentio n t o th e importanc e o f Palestinia n cultur e fo r interpretin g Jesus ' parables . Derret t ha s publishe d a numbe r o f article s — man y o f the m o n th e parable s — whic h see k t o sho w th e significanc e o f first-centur y Jewis h cultur e fo r a n understandin g o f th e Ne w Testamen t generall y (se e hi s Law in the New Testament [London : Darton , Longma n an d Todd , 1976] ; als o hi s Studies in the New Testament, 2 vols [Leiden : Brill , 1977 , 1978]) . Derrett' s studie s ar e neve r boring . H e bring s informatio n fro m th e rabbini c materia l an d fro m a variet y o f othe r ancien t source s i n orde r t o displa y attitude s an d presumption s o f th e ancien t Jew s abou t suc h thing s a s contracts , ownershi p issues , employer-employe e relations , an d socia l relation s — tha t is, abou t th e everyda y situation s fro m whic h th e parable s wer e formed Th e materia l h e present s is alway s helpful , though , i t need s t o b e als o noted , th e conclusion s h e draw s sometime s stretc h credulity . Few, fo r example , woul d accep t hi s vie w tha t th e Parabl e o f th e Wicke d Tenant s allude s t o th e stor y o f th e expulsio n fro m th e garde n i n Genesi s 3 (cf . Law, 310-12 ) o r tha t th e Parabl e o f th e Banque t is a n artisti c midras h o n Zep h 1:1-1 6 (cf Law, 126-29) Nonetheless , s o muc h backgroun d materia l fo r th e parable s is brough t togethe r by Derret t tha t hi s wor k shoul d no t b e ignored .

Anothe r schola r wh o draw s attentio n t o Palestinia n cultura l feature s is Kennet h Bailey , wh o als o engage s i n a detaile d analysi s o f th e literar y structur e o f eac h parabl e tha t h e treat s (cf . Finding the Lost: Cultural Keys to Luke 15 [St Louis : Concordia , 1992] ; se e als o hi s Poet and Peasant: A Literary Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke [Gran d Rapids : Eerdmans , 1976] , an d hi s Through Peasant Eyes: More Lucan Parables, Their Culture and Style [Gran d Rapids : Eerdmans , 1980]) Baile y interpret s th e parable s no t onl y fro m researc h i n ancien t Jewis h sources , bu t als o fro m wha t h e learne d o f th e Palestinia n mindse t as a missionar y i n Lebano n an d fro m examinin g Arabi c an d Syria c translation s o f th e parables . Unfortunately , on e canno t alway s assum e tha t th e attitude s an d practice s o f modern , peasan t lif e i n eithe r Lebano n o r Palestinia n ar e th e sam e a s the y wer e i n Jesus ' day , o r tha t suc h moder n context s shoul d b e take n a s key s t o th e interpretatio n o f Jesus ' parables Nonetheless , Bailey' s wor k is valuable , eve n thoug h i t mus t b e use d wit h caution .

Quit e differen t i n thei r focu s o n Jewis h origin s ar e severa l work s tha t directl y compar e ancien t Jewis h parable s wit h thos e o f Jesus Ashe r Feldma n ( The Parables and Similes of the Rabbis [Cambridge : Cambridg e Universit y Press , 1924] ) an d W . Ο . E. Oesterley , ( The Gospel Parables in the Light of Their Jewish Background [Ne w York : Macmillan , 1936]) , amon g others , di d preliminar y wor k i n thi s area . T o date , a t leas t 1,50 0 rabbini c parable s hav e bee n collected An d i n th e las t tw o decade s a t leas t eigh t book s hav e appeare d tha t analyz e thes e rabbini c parable s an d thei r relevanc e fo r a n understandin g o f th e parable s o f Jesus , wit h tha t o f Davi d Flusse r ( Di e rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, Teil 1: Das Wesen der Gleichnisse [Bern : Pete r Lang , 1981] ) bein g th e mos t significant .

Flusser' s work , a s wel l a s tha t o f th e othe r scholar s wh o focu s o n parable s withi n Judaism , challenge s th e conclusion s no t onl y o f Jülicher , bu t als o o f Jeremias , o f reader-respons e approaches , an d o f muc h o f contemporar y Ne w Testamen t scholarship Flusse r acknowledge s tha t a thoroughgoin g editin g o f Jesus ' parable s b y th e evangelist s ha s take n place , bu t h e is nonetheles s optimisti c abou t th e reliabilit y o f th e parable s a s the y ar e se t ou t i n th e Gospels H e argue s (1 ) tha t th e context s o f th e parable s ar e usuall y correct , an d (2 ) tha t th e introduction s an d conclusion s t o th e parable s ar e bot h necessar y an d usuall y deriv e fro m Jesu s himself . H e view s th e Gospel of Thomas a s dependen t o n th e Synopti c Gospel s an d a s bein g unimportan t fo r researchin g th e word s o f Jesus . Furthermore , h e assert s tha t th e parable s ar e no t realistic , bu t pseudo-realisti c — tha t is, tha t whil e Jesus ' parable s buil d o n th e feature s o f everyda y life , the y g o wel l beyon d thos e everyday , realisti c feature s i n makin g thei r points .

O f th e othe r studie s tha t hav e recentl y bee n publishe d analyzin g Jewis h parable s vis-à-vi s th e parable s o f Jesus , th e mos t importan t (i n English ) ar e thos e b y Bra d H Youn g (Jesus and His Jewish Parables [Ne w York : Paulist , 1989]) , Harve y Κ. McArthu r an d Rober t M . Johnsto n (They Also Taught in Parables [Gran d Rapids : Zondervan , 1990]) , an d Davi d Ster n (Parable in Midrash: Narrative and Exegesis in Rabbinic Literature [Cambridge , MA : Harvar d Universit y Press , 1991]) . Comparin g th e structur e o f Jesus ' parable s wit h th e structur e o f th e rabbini c parable s reveal s tha t explanation s usuall y accompan y no t onl y th e parable s o f Jesu s bu t als o thos e o f th e rabbi s — which , o f course , raise s question s abou t th e eas e wit h whic h Ne w Testamen t scholar s hav e delete d th e explanation s i n th e Gospels . Stern , i n fact , argue s directl y agains t Jülicher' s notion , whic h ha s

ofte n bee n adopte d b y others , tha t parable s d o no t requir e a n interpretation H e rightl y insist s tha t n o literatur e is self-interpretin g (cf hi s "Jesus ' Parable s fro m th e Perspectiv e o f Rabbini c Literature, " i n Parable and Story in Judaism, ed . C . Thom a an d M . Wyschogro d [Ne w York : Paulist , 1989] , 45-51)

Tw o word s o f caution , however , nee d t o b e expresse d wit h regar d t o thi s "Jewish " approac h t o th e stud y o f th e parables Th e firs t ha s t o d o wit h som e o f th e conclusion s reached . Sometime s studie s focusin g o n th e Jewis h parable s fin d i t necessar y t o g o ou t o f thei r wa y t o defen d agains t eithe r a n anti-Semitis m o r a disparagemen t o f th e Jewis h parables , a s if the y wer e inferior . Give n th e insensitivit y an d hyperbol e o f som e Christia n scholars , thi s is no t surprisin g an d ma y b e necessary

A secon d wor d o f cautio n regardin g metho d need s als o t o b e expressed Fo r whil e compariso n wit h th e rabbini c parable s is absolutel y necessary , numerou s pitfall s exis t i n usin g th e rabbini c materials . Th e mos t obviou s problem , o f course , is th e lat e dat e o f th e rabbini c parables Virtuall y n o Jewis h parables , othe r tha n thos e i n th e Ol d Testamen t an d on e foun d t o dat e i n th e Dea d Sea Scrolls , ca n b e demonstrate d t o b e olde r tha n th e parable s o f Jesus , an d s o wit h rabbini c parable s w e ar e dealin g wit h materia l tha t is late r tha n th e Gospels . Furthermore , whil e th e rabbini c parable s ar e simila r i n for m an d conten t t o thos e o f Jesus , unlik e Jesus ' parable s the y wer e use d t o suppor t th e rabbis ' exegetica l interpretation s an d explanation s o f Scripture . Suggestion s o f dependenc e betwee n th e rabbi s an d Jesus , o r vice versa, shoul d probabl y b e ignored , fo r direc t dependenc e i n eithe r directio n is unlikel y (se e furthe r th e articl e b y Crai g A . Evans , "Parable s i n Earl y Judaism, " i n th e presen t volume) . On e othe r commen t need s her e als o t o b e made . Fo r whil e numerou s studie s exis t o n th e relatio n o f th e Gospe l parable s t o Jewis h parables , relativel y littl e ha s bee n don e b y wa y o f studyin g Graeco-Roma n parable s an d thei r relevanc e fo r ou r understandin g o f Jesus ' parables . Thi s is a seriou s lacun a tha t need s t o b e filled.

5 . Th e Retur n o f Allegory , Allegorizing , an d Polyvalenc e

Fro m approximatel y 198 0 t o th e present , severa l discernibl e shift s hav e take n plac e i n th e stud y o f th e parables Mos t o f thes e hav e bee n influence d principall y b y literar y criticism

Somewha t surprisingly , allegor y ha s resurface d i n a muc h mor e positiv e light Crai g Blomber g i n Interpreting the Parables (1990) , fo r example , argue s tha t w e nee d t o recogniz e tha t Jesus ' parable s ar e allegories , an d tha t a parabl e ma y hav e mor e tha n on e correspondenc e betwee n a n imag e an d th e realit y depicted A parable , i n fact , ca n b e expecte d t o hav e a t leas t a s man y correspondence s a s i t ha s mai n characters . Hi s argumen t is legitimate , if on e accept s tha t allegor y is a literar y genre I n m y opinion , however , i t is bette r t o vie w allegor y a s a literar y mod e rathe r tha n a genre , an d s o t o vie w parable s a s proportiona l analogie s (a s argue d b y Mar y Ford , "Toward s th e Restoratio n o f Allegory, " an d Joh n W Sider , Interpreting the Parables). Nonetheless , I agre e tha t parable s ma y b e allegorica l an d hav e mor e tha n on e point .

I n severa l o f hi s late r writings , Joh n Domini c Crossa n ha s radicall y altere d hi s earlie r view s o n th e parable s an d advocate d a muc h mor e positiv e vie w o f allegory . Hi s appreciatio n fo r th e usefulnes s o f allegory , however , is quit e differen t fro m tha t o f Blomberg Fo r Crossan' s concer n is less wit h th e questio n o f correspondence s an d mor e wit h issue s havin g t o d o wit h readerresponse , i n whic h a text' s meanin g is determine d b y th e interactio n o f th e reade r wit h th e tex t (se e hi s Cliffs of Fall [Ne w York: Seabury , 1980] , esp 9697 ; an d "Parable , Allegory , an d Paradox, " i n Semiology and the Parables, ed . D. Patt e [Pittsburgh : Pickwick , 1976] , 247-81 , esp . 271-78) .

Increasingl y Crossa n ha s emphasize d tha t parable s ar e paradoxe s an d tha t the y ar e polyvalent , capabl e o f multipl e meanings . Fo r sinc e the y ca n b e rea d i n multipl e contexts , the y posses s th e capabilit y o f multipl e meanings . Polyvalen t narratio n reveal s th e pla y o f th e variou s plot s acros s man y level s o f reality . Thu s a n interprete r o f parable s mus t b e on e wh o play s wit h a narrativ e i n it s variou s contexts , an d th e possibilitie s ar e withou t limit . Thi s emphasi s o n polyvalence , whic h ha s becom e popula r i n th e las t fe w decades , is th e frui t o f seed s plante d b y Rober t Fun k an d Da n Via , a s wel l as , t o som e degree , b y G . V. Jones .

I n Perspectives on the Parables (Philadelphia : Fortress , 1979) , Mar y An n Tolber t offer s a defens e o f polyvalen t interpretatio n tha t assist s u s i n understandin g th e movement . Fo r i n tha t wor k sh e argue s fo r multipl e meaning s o n th e basi s o f th e fac t tha t competen t scholars , wh o us e th e sam e methods , hav e reache d equall y vali d bu t differen t interpretation s (ibid., 30) . Sh e admit s tha t th e specifi c context s o f th e Gospe l parable s limi t thei r interpretation , bu t als o note s tha t sometime s th e Gospe l writer s themselve s plac e th e sam e parabl e i n differen t context s (ibid., 52-55) . Sh e doe s no t disparag e

th e allegorizin g exegesi s tha t existe d prio r t o th e Enlightenment ; o n th e contrary , sh e call s attentio n t o th e challeng e an d excitemen t tha t i t provide d ancien t preacher s (ibid., 63-64) . Sh e view s interpretatio n a s a creativ e act , as a n ar t rathe r tha n a skill . Sh e als o seek s t o preserv e th e integrit y o f th e parables , bu t a t th e sam e tim e t o allo w th e interprete r t o choos e th e particula r contex t i n whic h eac h o f th e parable s is t o b e rea d (ibid., 68-71 ) i n orde r t o "exploit " th e polyvalenc y o f th e parabl e (ibid., 93)

Fo r example , o n on e reading , usin g th e term s o f Freudia n psychology , Tolber t interpret s th e Parabl e o f th e Prodiga l So n a s speakin g t o th e wis h o f ever y individua l fo r harmon y an d unit y within . Th e younge r so n correspond s t o Freud' s id, th e elde r brothe r t o th e superego, an d th e fathe r t o th e ego (ibid., 102-7) Alternatively , bu t stil l i n lin e wit h Freud , sh e see s th e parabl e a s speakin g abou t th e painfu l natur e o f emotiona l ambivalence Th e excessiv e lov e o f th e fathe r betray s hostilit y towar d th e prodigal , whil e th e ange r o f th e elde r brothe r is displace d ont o th e father . Bot h interpretation s sh e view s a s bein g legitimate . O r t o tak e anothe r example , Daniel Patt e offer s thre e competing , bu t i n hi s estimatio n equall y valid , interpretation s o f th e Parabl e o f th e Unforgivin g Servan t ("Bringin g Ou t o f th e Gospel-Treasur e Wha t Is Ne w an d Wha t Is Old : Tw o Parable s i n Matthe w 18-23, " Quarterly Review 10 [1990 ] 79-108) Clearl y w e hav e move d a lon g wa y fro m Jülicher . Whil e Augustin e migh t no t hav e understoo d th e interpretiv e conclusions , h e woul d certainl y hav e enjoye d th e process !

A wor d o f cautio n is necessary , fo r peopl e us e "polyvalence " i n differen t ways . Crai g Blomber g use s th e ter m t o poin t t o a dept h o f meanin g tha t is presen t i n th e parables , bu t h e mean s b y it readin g th e parable s fro m th e multipl e perspective s o f th e character s withi n th e stories . H e is no t intereste d i n readin g th e parable s i n context s othe r tha n thos e provide d b y th e Gospe l writer s (se e hi s "Poeti c Fiction , Subversiv e Speech , an d Proportiona l Analog y i n th e Parables, " Horizons in Biblical Theology 18 [1996 ] 123) Thi s is quit e differen t fro m th e wa y others , lik e Tolbert , us e "polyvalence " t o refe r t o multipl e meaning s th e reade r ma y assig n parable s fro m readin g the m i n variou s contexts .

Tha t Jesus ' parable s hav e depth , far-reachin g implications , an d ar e no t reducibl e t o simpl e explication s ar e vali d observations Bu t thos e wh o argu e fo r polyvalen t reading s i n variou s non-Gospe l context s have , it seem s t o me , no t bee n reflectiv e enoug h abou t thei r practice . Fo r i n adaptin g an d retellin g th e parable s i n ne w contexts , the y hav e cease d bein g hearer s o f th e parable s an d hav e becom e teller s o f th e parable s instead .

Susa n Wittig' s advocac y o f polyvalen t reading s reveal s wha t reall y is happening Sh e grant s tha t th e origina l telle r o f th e Gospe l parable s ha d a meanin g syste m i n min d an d tha t fro m th e sender' s [i.e. , th e author's ] perspectiv e multipl e signified s ar e wrong . Still , sh e argue s tha t wha t wa s originall y signifie d b y th e parabl e become s a secondar y signifier , whic h lead s t o multipl e meanings . He r argumen t is: "Fro m another , mor e objectiv e poin t o f vie w [i.e. , othe r tha n th e author's] , wha t is demonstrate d her e is th e abilit y t o semanticall y alte r a paraboli c sig n b y embeddin g it withi n anothe r belief-syste m an d validatin g th e ne w significanc e b y referenc e t o thos e beliefs " ("A Theor y o f Polyvalen t Reading, " i n SBL 1975 Seminar Papers, vol . 2 , ed . G . MacRa e [Missoula : Scholars , 1975] , 169-83 ; quotatio n fro m p . 177) .

Embeddin g parable s i n anothe r belie f syste m wa s exactl y wha t Augustin e wa s doing Whe n on e doe s this , however , on e is n o longe r interpretin g th e parable s o f Jesus . On e is, rather , reflectin g o n th e significanc e o f hi s parable s i n anothe r system , howeve r clos e o r fa r away Meditatin g o n th e parable s is perfectl y legitimate Bu t i t is fa r differen t fro m discernin g th e inten t o f Jesus . Par t o f th e difficult y is, o f course , ou r multipl e use s o f th e wor d "meaning. " An d i t is fo r thi s reaso n tha t I prefe r t o tal k abou t th e "function " o f th e parable s i n th e teachin g o f Jesu s an d o f th e "significance " o f tha t functio n fo r u s today .

6 . Reductio n t o Banalit y

Th e charg e o f banalit y agains t man y moder n treatment s o f th e parable s — tha t is, o f reducin g th e parable s o f Jesu s t o worn-ou t convention s o r simplisti c statements , wit h thei r message s bein g drearil y predictabl e — is no t new . I t wa s levele d agains t Jülicher' s piou s religiou s maxims , an d Norma n Perri n spok e o f th e surprisin g banalit y o f Da n Via' s conclusion s (cf . Perrin , Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom, 154) . Indeed , Jüliche r himsel f claime d tha t Jesus ' parable s wer e originall y abou t "triflin g matters, " an d tha t the y ha d onl y bee n give n mor e theologica l meaning s b y th e evangelist s (se e hi s "Parables, " Encyclopedia Biblica [Ne w York : Macmillan , 1902] , III . 3566) . An d tendencie s t o reduc e th e parable s t o th e leve l o f banalit y continu e today .

On e suc h exampl e is Bernar d B. Scott' s Hear Then the Parable (1989) , whic h is on e o f th e mor e comprehensiv e treatment s o f th e parable s o f th e

Synopti c Gospel s i n recen t years . Scot t stand s i n th e Jeremia s traditio n o f reducin g th e parable s t o a n earlie r form Unlik e Jeremias , however , h e doe s no t see k th e origina l word s o r ipsissima verba o f Jesus , but . th e origina l structure s o r ipsissima structura o f th e parables . I n hi s opinion , peopl e di d no t memoriz e words ; rather , whe n firs t hearin g th e parable s the y memorize d structures . Lik e Jeremias , h e view s th e Gospel of Thomas a s a n earl y an d ofte n superio r sourc e o f th e Jesu s tradition

Scot t accept s tha t th e parable s a s originall y give n ha d a numbe r o f allegorica l features , thoug h h e seek s t o remov e th e allegorica l addition s tha t h e believe s hav e bee n inserte d b y tradition . Allegorica l feature s i n th e parables , h e asserts , ope n the m u p t o polyvalence . Hi s metho d is firs t t o analyz e th e "performance " o f a parabl e b y eac h evangelis t a s h e work s bac k t o th e simples t form . Second , h e analyze s ho w th e originatin g structur e effect s meaning ; an d third , h e analyze s th e parable' s juxtapositio n t o th e kingdo m t o discove r ho w th e parabl e challenge s conventiona l wisdom .

Th e firs t par t o f Scott' s boo k offer s a numbe r o f helpfu l insight s regardin g parable s i n general . Hi s interpretations , however , regularl y reduc e th e parable s t o rathe r simplisti c statements , whic h ar e ofte n reminiscen t o f

Jülicher' s reductio n o f th e parable s t o piou s moralisme . I n th e end , on e wonder s — if , indeed , th e inten t o f th e parable s wa s s o evasiv e an d genera l wh y th e storie s wer e eve r remembered Why , it mus t b e asked , wa s th e Parabl e o f th e Pharise e an d th e Tol l Collecto r eve r remembered ? I n Scott' s view , i t is no t a n exampl e stor y an d ha s n o lesson Rather , i t subvert s th e

syste m tha t see s th e kingdo m o f Go d i n term s o f th e temple , an d s o place s th e hol y outsid e th e kingdo m an d th e unhol y insid e th e kingdo m ( Hea r Then the Parable, 97) Likewise , th e Parabl e o f th e Prodiga l So n subvert s th e ide a tha t th e kingdo m decide s betwee n th e chose n an d rejected , fo r th e fathe r reject s n o on e an d bot h ar e chose n (ibid., 125) . An d th e Parabl e o f th e Wicke d Tenant s is understoo d t o questio n whethe r th e kingdo m wil l g o t o th e promise d heirs , sinc e "in the plot the kingdom fails and the inheritance is in doubt" (ibid., 253 , italic s his)

Lik e Jülicher , Charle s Hedric k explicitl y say s tha t Jesus ' parable s wer e bana l an d tha t i t wa s th e evangelist s wh o inserte d theologica l an d kingdo m significanc e int o the m i n a n attemp t t o mak e the m relevan t (cf hi s Parables as Poetic Fictions [Peabody : Hendrickson , 1994]) . Hedrick' s view s o n th e parable s ru n counte r t o virtuall y all previou s works H e argue s tha t parable s ar e no t metaphors/symbols , tha t the y d o no t referenc e th e kingdo m o f God , an d tha t the y wer e poeti c fiction s tha t Jesu s taugh t t o stimu -

lat e thought . Th e specifi c circumstance s o f thei r origina l narratio n i n th e lif e o f Jesu s is irretrievabl y lost Th e origina l storie s wer e brie f fiction s tha t portraye d realisti c aspect s o f first-centur y Palestinia n lif e an d wer e mean t t o b e ope n t o a rang e o f possibl e meaning s (ibid., 3-8 , 27 , 35) . Th e parables , therefore , ar e "potentiall y radica l poeti c fiction s tha t compete d wit h Judaism' s paradigmati c narrativ e rigidity " (ibid., 87) . Wit h thes e assumptions , Hedric k propose s tha t th e Parabl e o f th e Goo d Samarita n offer s tw o response s t o th e injure d man : th e first , tha t o f callou s indifference ; th e second , outlandis h benevolence . Th e firs t is wrong ; th e secon d is a n impossibl e ideal . Th e parabl e is , i n fact , a parod y o f th e idea l o f th e righteou s perso n i n lat e Judais m (ibid., 113 , 115-16)

Th e Parabl e o f th e Ric h Fool , h e believes , is abou t th e laughingl y inappropriat e actio n o f a ric h ma n wh o tear s dow n hi s barn s whe n h e shoul d b e harvesting . Th e parabl e is ultimatel y nihilisti c an d offer s n o hope , meaning , o r theolog y (ibid., 158-61) . An d wit h regar d t o th e Parabl e o f th e Pharise e an d th e Tol l Collector , th e praye r o f th e tol l collecto r assume s tha t on e ma y rel y o n God' s merc y withou t confession , repentance , o r restitution Th e reade r is lef t wit h a frightenin g glimps e o f tw o possibl e alternatives , neithe r o f whic h is satisfying , an d doe s no t kno w i n th e en d whic h perso n i t is tha t Go d accept s (ibid., 233-35) .

Willia m Herzog' s Parables as Subversive Speech (Louisville : Westminster/Joh n Knox , 1994 ) is quit e differen t fro m th e work s o f Scot t an d Hedrick , bu t th e procedur e an d th e result s ar e muc h th e same Herzo g assume s tha t th e parable s ar e no t theologica l o r mora l stories , bu t politica l an d economi c ones . Th e scene s the y presen t ar e codification s abou t ho w exploitatio n expresse d itsel f i n th e ancien t world Th e wor k o f Paul o Freire , th e twentieth-centur y Brazilia n pedagogu e o f th e oppressed , is th e len s tha t Herzo g use s t o rea d th e Ne w Testamen t parables H e see s Jesu s usin g parable s t o presen t situation s tha t wer e familia r t o th e rura l poo r an d t o encod e th e system s o f oppressio n tha t controlle d thei r lives an d hel d the m i n bondage Th e parables , therefore , wer e no t a mean s o f communicatin g theolog y an d ethics , bu t o f stimulatin g socia l analysi s (ibid., 27-28) The y wer e discussio n starters , an d tha t is wh y th e "conclusions " ar e ofte n unsatisfyin g (ibid., 259-61)

Sinc e th e parable s ar e t o b e separate d fro m thei r Gospe l contexts , a ne w contex t mus t b e foun d i n whic h the y ar e t o b e read Fo r Herzo g i t is th e contex t o f exploitation , a theor y derive d fro m hi s wor k o n th e Parabl e o f th e Vineyar d Workers Th e vineyar d owne r doe s no t correspon d t o

God , bu t is a membe r o f a n oppressin g elit e clas s (ibid., 96) . I n th e Parabl e o f th e Wicke d Tenants , th e tenant s ar e no t wicked ; rather , the y ar e th e origina l landowner s wh o los t thei r lan d throug h usurpatio n an d thei r actio n is a n attemp t t o reasser t thei r honorabl e statu s a s heirs . I n th e en d th e parabl e codifie s th e futilit y o f violenc e (ibid., 112-13) Th e Parabl e o f th e Unforgivin g Servan t point s t o th e hopelessnes s o f lookin g fo r a messiani c rule r an d t o th e critica l rol e playe d b y "retainers " i n a n oppressiv e system Th e parabl e propose s tha t neithe r th e messiani c hop e no r th e traditio n o f popula r kingshi p ca n resolv e th e people' s dilemm a (ibid., 148-49) .

Undeniably , a numbe r o f recen t studie s hav e mad e helpfu l methodologica l contribution s t o a n understandin g o f Jesus ' parables . Nonetheless , th e exten t t o whic h man y moder n critica l approache s an d assumption s hav e cause d problem s fo r parabl e interpretatio n is displaye d b y som e recen t interpretation s o f th e Parabl e o f th e Wido w an d th e Judg e — all o f whic h ar e liabl e t o th e charg e o f banality Da n Via , fo r example , takin g a Jungia n approach , view s thi s parabl e a s presentin g a proble m i n mal e psychology : Th e mal e eg o refuse s t o respon d t o th e anima , th e archetyp e o f a woma n i n a man' s unconsciou s ("Th e Parabl e o f th e Unjus t Judge : A Metapho r o f th e Unrealize d Self," i n Semiology and Parables, ed . D . Patt e [Pittsburgh : Pickwick , 1976] , 1-32) Herma n Hendrick x applie s th e parabl e t o th e re d tap e an d bureaucrac y o f today' s societ y an d t o th e briber y an d venalit y o f judges , a s a resul t o f whic h Christian s shoul d see k justic e (The Parables of Jesus [Sa n Francisco : Harpe r & Row , 1986] , 231-32) Bernar d Scot t focuse s o n th e widow' s continue d wearin g dow n o f th e judge , viewin g i t a s a metapho r fo r th e kingdo m — tha t is, i t teache s tha t th e kingdo m keep s coming , keep s batterin g dow n oppositio n regardles s o f hono r o r justice , an d ma y eve n com e unde r th e guis e o f shamelessnes s (Hear Then the Parable, 175-87) An d Charle s Hedric k argue s tha t th e parabl e present s th e judg e a s a thoroughl y hones t ma n wh o i n th e en d compromise s hi s integrit y fo r hi s ow n comfort , whic h shoul d lea d reader s t o reflec t o n th e integrit y o f thei r ow n compromise s (Parables as Poetic Fictions, 187-207)

Mor e radically , Willia m Herzo g interpret s th e scen e a s a clea r violatio n o f Jewis h lega l practice , sinc e onl y on e judg e is present . Th e wido w refuse s t o b e silent , an d b y he r shameles s behavio r sh e achieve s a jus t verdict Thus , Herzo g concludes , th e oppresse d mus t collud e i n thei r oppressio n fo r th e syste m t o wor k — and , b y implication , suggest s tha t the y shoul d refus e t o accommodat e t o th e syste m (Parables as Subversive Speech, 215-32) . Mor e radicall y still , Rober t Pric e argue s tha t thi s parabl e wa s originall y a n

exemplar y stor y an d tha t i t ha s bee n adulterate d b y Luk e t o kee p wome n i n submission Th e parable , i n hi s view , attest s th e bitternes s o f widow s wh o hav e bee n mistreate d b y churc h officials . Th e unjus t judg e is th e pastor , an d th e parabl e advise s widow s t o ge t justic e b y th e terroris m o f nuisanc e

(The Widow Traditions in Luke-Acts: A Feminist-Critical Scrutiny [Atlanta : Scholars , 1997] , 191-201) .

Wha t is obviou s i n all o f thes e attempt s t o interpre t th e Parabl e o f th e Wido w an d th e Judg e is tha t th e mor e on e cut s a parabl e fro m it s context s i n th e Gospels , th e lif e o f Jesus , an d th e theolog y o f Israel , th e mor e ther e exist s a lac k o f contro l an d th e mor e subjectivit y reigns . Wit h th e remova l o f th e theolog y o f th e evangelist s ther e ha s bee n introduce d th e ideolog y o r sociolog y o f th e interpreter . Herzo g asserte d tha t i t is "naiv e t o assum e tha t th e for m o f an y parabl e foun d i n th e Gospel s coincide s wit h th e parabl e spoke n b y Jesus " ( Parable s as Subversive Speech, 46) . Bu t while , undoubtedly , th e Gospe l parable s hav e bee n redactionall y shape d b y th e evangelists , i t seem s fa r mor e naiv e t o thin k tha t interpreter s ca n abando n th e Gospe l context s an d eve r hop e t o fin d th e messag e o f Jesu s — particularl y whe n correspondence s exis t betwee n th e parable s an d th e non-paraboli c teaching s o f Jesus If th e messag e o f th e parable s is wha t man y moder n studie s suggest , on e wonder s wh y th e storie s wer e eve r originall y tol d an d — eve n mor e — wh y the y wer e eve r remembered

7 . Concludin g Reflection s

W e hav e com e ful l circle . Fo r if th e patristi c an d medieva l interpreter s allegorize d th e parable s b y readin g int o the m thei r ow n theologies , moder n scholarshi p is n o les s guilt y i n readin g int o the m its ow n agenda . W e hav e gon e fro m allegorizin g t o allegorizin g — i n som e cases , strayin g toda y eve n furthe r fro m hearin g th e voic e o f Jesus . I n fact , if som e o f th e assumption s o f ou r contemporary , mor e radica l interpreter s ar e correct , th e averag e perso n surel y canno t rea d th e parable s an d com e t o a n understandin g o f them . Thi s is no t t o castigat e everythin g don e b y interpreter s today , fo r i n man y way s muc h goo d wor k ha s bee n don e an d man y insight s hav e bee n achieve d — particularly , w e believe , b y scholar s wh o hav e pai d attentio n t o th e contex t o f Jesus ' ministr y an d t o parallel s tha t exis t i n th e Jewis h parables .

W e stan d a t a tim e when , fo r all ou r moder n insight s int o ho w figu -

rativ e speec h works , w e nee d t o readdres s issue s o f method . Jüliche r wa s certainl y correc t t o reac t t o th e theologica l allegorizin g o f th e church A simila r reaction , however , is neede d agains t th e sociologica l an d ideologica l allegorizin g o f today . Th e blunde r tha t Jüliche r mad e i n hi s assessmen t o f allegor y need s t o b e se t aside Bu t als o severa l question s o f metho d deserv e bette r answer s tha n w e hav e bee n given .

On e o f th e importan t question s fo r curren t interpreter s concern s th e context s i n whic h th e parable s o f Jesu s hav e bee n place d b y th e evangelists

Clearly , man y o f Jesus ' parable s (bu t no t all ) woul d hav e bee n tol d severa l times . So w e shoul d probabl y no t thin k o f onl y on e specifi c occasio n fo r th e tellin g o f eac h o f th e parables An d t o th e degre e tha t thi s is true , w e shoul d giv e u p attempt s t o reconstruc t a parable' s origina l form .

Th e parable s ar e storie s wit h a n inten t i n th e contex t o f Jesus ' ministry , thoug h the y als o hav e bee n frame d b y th e evangelist s t o spea k t o th e situation s tha t the y addressed . It is legitimate , therefore , t o ask : To wha t degre e i n readin g th e parable s d o w e se e Jesus ' inten t an d t o wha t degre e d o w e se e th e situatio n o f th e earl y church ? Bu t if th e genera l context s i n whic h th e evangelist s hav e place d th e parable s ar e totall y unreliable , I se e littl e hop e o f findin g th e inten t o f Jesus

Equall y importan t ar e th e explanation s tha t ofte n com e a t th e conclusio n o f th e parables . Is thi s commo n featur e o f Ol d Testamen t an d Jewis h parable s tru e als o o f Jesus ' parables , o r wer e hi s parable s lef t imprecis e an d withou t an y clea r indicatio n o f thei r intent ? D o w e hea r i n thes e explanation s th e voic e o f th e churc h o r th e voic e o f Jesus ?

Contemporar y Ne w Testamen t scholarshi p rightl y resist s th e ide a tha t th e parable s ar e reducibl e t o abstrac t explanations , a s if th e storie s coul d b e distille d an d the n discarded A t th e sam e time , th e parable s d o poin t beyon d themselve s t o othe r realitie s an d ca n b e explaine d i n nonfigurativ e speec h — whic h is wha t all scholar s attemp t t o d o i n writin g book s an d article s o n th e parables Ho w d o w e d o justic e t o th e "languag e event " characte r o f th e parables , retai n thei r force , an d ye t understan d th e theolog y the y expres s withou t reducin g the m t o piou s (o r no t s o pious ) moralisme ? Th e parable s hav e a n unquestionabl e depth . Ho w ca n w e legitimatel y appreciat e thei r "fiel d o f meaning " withi n th e inten t o f Jesu s withou t turnin g the m int o polyvalen t modelin g clay?

Tha t th e parable s ar e artisti c an d poeti c mus t neve r b e denied . Equall y important , however , is th e convictio n tha t the y ar e als o historicall y an d contextuall y based I n 197 7 Madelein e Bouche r ha d th e goo d sens e t o

say : "I f th e poeti c structure s i n th e parable s becam e dominant , thei r powe r t o achiev e a n effec t i n th e heare r woul d the n b e lost " ( Mysteriou s Parable, 16) . Sadly , tha t ha s happene d all to o often . Th e parable s deriv e thei r meanin g fro m Jesu s wh o tol d them , an d the y canno t legitimatel y b e understoo d

apar t fro m th e contex t o f hi s ministry .

Ca n interpreter s d o justic e t o th e variet y o f form s i n Jesus ' paraboli c teaching ? Frequentl y th e categor y "parable " ha s bee n define d b y a smal l numbe r o f examples . Suc h a practice , however , predetermine s ho w othe r form s ar e assesse d an d interpreted . Pete r Dschulnig g is correc t t o complai n tha t previou s parabl e theorie s hav e bee n shape d to o littl e fro m th e parable s o f Jesu s themselve s ("Positione n de s Gleichnisverständnisse s i m 20 . Jahrhundert, " Theologische Zeitschrift 4 5 [1989 ] 347) . Relate d t o thi s is th e questio n o f realism : T o wha t degre e ar e th e parable s realistic , everyda y occurrences , an d t o wha t degre e ar e the y pseudo-realistic , extravagant , o r unrealistic ? If predetermine d t o b e realistic , an y ite m no t fittin g th e nor m wil l b e foun d offensiv e an d excluded .

I a m painfull y awar e o f studies , bot h genera l an d specialized , tha t hav e bee n omitte d fro m ou r presen t surve y — fo r example , th e si x volume s o n th e parable s produce d i n 183 5 b y Edwar d Greswel l (Jüliche r wa s no t th e first t o d o a seriou s stud y o f th e parables) , o r moder n studie s b y Jac k Kingsbury , Charle s Carlston , Joh n Donahue , Ja n Lambrecht , an d numerou s others A n enormou s amoun t o f wor k ha s bee n don e o n th e parables On e migh t b e tempte d t o say, a s Gerain t Jone s di d i n 1964 , " I doubt , moreover , if man y furthe r line s o f interpretatio n ca n b e explore d tha n thos e whic h hav e alread y bee n established " (Art and Truth of the Parables, x) Bu t tha t woul d b e a s wron g no w a s it wa s then , fo r wor k wil l an d shoul d continue Perhaps , however , w e hav e provide d enoug h perspectiv e s o a s no t t o repea t th e error s o f previou s interpreter s an d t o appreciat e mor e full y somethin g o f th e dept h o f Jesus ' inten t i n thes e relentlessl y engagin g stories

Selecte d Bibliograph y

Blomberg , Crai g L Interpreting the Parables. Downer s Grove : InterVarsity , 1990 . "Th e Parable s o f Jesus : Curren t Trend s an d Need s i n Research, " i n Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of the Current

Research, ed . B. D . Chilto n an d C . A . Evans . Leiden : Brill , 1994 , 23154

Boucher , Madeleine . The Mysterious Parable. Washington : Catholi c Biblica l Associatio n o f America , 1977

Dodd , C . H . The Parables of the Kingdom. London : Nisbet , 1936 .

Flusser , David . Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus. Teil 1: Das Wesen der Gleichnisse. Bern : Pete r Lang , 1981

Fuchs , Ernst . Studies of the Historical Jesus. Naperville : Allenson , 1964 .

Funk , Rober t W . Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God. Ne w York : Harpe r 8c Row , 1966

Jeremias , Joachim The Parables of Jesus. London : SCM ; Ne w York : Scribner's , 1963 .

Jones , Gerain t Vaughn . The Art and Truth of the Parables. London : SPCK , 1964

Jülicher , Adolf . Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, 2 vols . Freiburg : Akademisch e Verlagsbuchhandlun g vo n J C Β Mohr , 1888 , 1899

Kissinger , Warre n S The Parables of Jesus. Metuchen , NJ : Scarecrow , 1979

Perrin , Norman Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom. Philadelphia : Fortress , 1976

Scott , Bernar d Brandon Hear Then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus. Minneapolis : Fortress , 1989 .

Stein , Rober t H An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus. Philadelphia : Westminster , 1981 .

Via , Da n Otto , Jr. The Parables. Philadelphia : Fortress , 1967 .

Wailes , Stephe n L. Medieval Allegories of Jesus' Parables. Berkeley : Universit y o f Californi a Press , 1987 .

Th e Genre of th e Parables

ROBER T H . STEI N

TH E STUD Y O F TH E PARABLES o f Jesu s ha s gon e throug h a numbe r o f phases , focuse d o n a numbe r o f issues , an d develope d a numbe r o f divers e methodologies It is important , therefore , t o understan d ho w th e genr e "parable " ha s bee n define d durin g th e pas t centur y an d t o clarif y th e natur e o f th e parable s as the y appea r i n th e Synopti c Gospels .

1. Th e Moder n Discussio n

Th e moder n discussio n o f parable s an d o f th e genr e "parable " wa s introduce d b y Adol f Jüliche r i n 188 8 i n hi s two-volum e Die Gleichnisreden Jesu. I n treatin g Jesus ' parables , Jüliche r followe d Aristotle' s Rhetoric i n dividin g thi s literar y for m int o (1 ) "similitude " (Gleichnis), (2 ) "parable " i n th e narro w sens e (Parabel), an d (3 ) "exemplar y story " (Beispielerzählung). A similitud e h e define d a s a brie f narrativ e o f a typical , real-lif e event , whic h is usuall y tol d i n th e presen t tense . Example s o f thi s h e foun d i n Mar k 4:212 2 ("th e Ligh t Hidde n unde r a Basket") , Mar k 4:26-2 9 ("th e See d Growin g b y Itself") , Luk e 15:4-1 0 ("th e Los t Shee p an d th e Los t Coin") , an d Mat t 24:32-3 3 ("th e Fig Tree") . H e define d a parabl e as a fictitiou s narrativ e involvin g a particular , one-tim e even t o r situation . Example s o f thi s h e foun d i n Luk e 15:11-3 2 ("th e Prodiga l Son") , Mat t 20:1-1 6 ("th e Worker s i n th e Vineyard") , an d Mat t 25:14-3 0 ("th e Talents") . Unlik e similitudes , parable s ar e usuall y tol d i n th e pas t tense . A n exampl e stor y Jüliche r de -

fine d a s a stor y tha t function s a s a mode l fo r correc t behavior . H e foun d fou r o f thes e i n th e Gospels : Luk e 10:30-3 5 ("th e Goo d Samaritan") ; Luk e 12:16-2 1 ("th e Ric h Fool") ; Luk e 16:19-3 1 ("th e Ric h Ma n an d Lazarus") ; an d Luk e 18:10-1 4 ("th e Pharise e an d th e Ta x Collector") .

Thi s shar p distinctio n betwee n similitude s an d parables , however , ha s rightl y bee n calle d int o questio n a s bein g somewha t arbitrary Som e similitude s coul d easil y b e classe d a s parables , whil e som e parable s coul d b e labele d similitudes . Fo r example , ar e Mat t 7:24-2 7 ("th e Wis e an d Foolis h Builders" ) an d Luk e 11:5- 8 ("th e Frien d a t Midnight" ) similitude s o r parables ? Commo n t o all o f Aristotle' s thre e subspecie s o f thi s literar y genr e is th e compariso n mad e betwee n tw o unlik e things

Jüliche r als o followe d Aristotl e ( Rhetori c 2.20 ) i n equatin g fable s wit h parable s ( Gleichnisrede n Jesu 1.98) Th e issu e o f whethe r fable s shoul d b e include d i n th e genr e o f parable s ultimatel y center s o n ho w on e define s "fable. " Fo r if on e define s a fabl e broadl y a s a narrativ e tha t shed s ligh t o n huma n experienc e o r behavior , the n fable s ar e ver y muc h lik e parable s (cf . Beavis , "Parabl e an d Fable, " 473-98) . Bu t if on e use s th e mor e commo n definitio n o f a fabl e a s bein g a stor y abou t animals , plants , o r inanimat e objects , the n equatin g fable s wit h parable s i n th e Ne w Testamen t is illegitimate , sinc e ther e ar e n o suc h anima l o r plan t storie s i n th e teaching s o f Jesus Tw o clea r example s o f fables , o f course , ar e t o b e foun d i n th e

Ol d Testament , i n Jud g 9:8-1 5 an d 2 King s 14:9 . An d thoug h neithe r is specificall y referre d t o a s a mashal o r parable , the y bot h shoul d b e considere d a s such . Nonetheless , if w e determin e ou r definitio n an d understandin g o f th e genr e o f th e parable s fro m th e Ne w Testament , the n fable s canno t b e included

A majo r contributio n o f Jüliche r involve d hi s discussio n o f th e differenc e betwee n parable s an d allegories . H e define d a parabl e a s bein g a n extende d simile , wherea s a n allegor y wa s a serie s o f extende d metaphors Becaus e a parabl e wa s a n extende d simile , Jüliche r conclude d tha t it coul d contai n onl y a singl e poin t o f comparison I n interpretin g a parable , therefore , on e shoul d no t searc h fo r variou s meanings , bu t fo r the meaning Detail s i n a parabl e simpl y provid e loca l colo r an d interest . The y d o no t posses s meanin g i n themselves , bu t onl y contribut e t o the meanin g o f th e text

Consequently , the y contai n n o poin t o f comparison . O n th e othe r hand , a n allegor y incorporate s numerou s metaphor s tha t posses s variou s meanings An d eac h o f thes e metaphor s wit h it s respectiv e meanin g ca n an d shoul d b e interpreted .

Fo r Jülicher , therefore , th e parable s o f Jesu s ar e t o b e see n a s extende d similitude s tha t posses s onl y a singl e poin t o f compariso n o r tertium comparationis. Whe n h e cam e acros s allegorica l detail s i n th e parables , h e attribute d the m t o th e earl y churc h an d no t t o Jesus . Parable s ar e furthermor e t o b e understoo d a s bein g self-explanatory The y ar e themselve s interpretations , an d s o shoul d b e see n a s aid s t o understandin g (Gleichnisreden Jesu 1.73) Thu s ther e is n o nee d t o interpre t them I n fact , an y parabl e tha t require s interpretatio n woul d b e a n extremel y poo r one , an d s o woul d totall y fai l i n it s purpos e (ibid., 1.74) . Allegories , o n th e othe r hand , hav e t o b e decoded Fo r wherea s parable s illuminate , allegorie s disguise .

Jülicher' s absolut e distinctio n betwee n parable s an d allegorie s is generall y no t accepte d today Literature , lik e reality , doe s no t fit int o neat , arbitrar y categories . Wha t w e find, instead , is a continuu m betwee n "singl e poin t parables " an d "detaile d allegories. " I n betwee n ther e exis t parable s an d story-lik e comparison s tha t contai n allegorica l details , which , whil e no t detaile d allegories , ar e als o no t simpl e parables .

Jüliche r himsel f acknowledge d tha t som e parable s i n th e Gospel s posses s allegorica l details , bu t h e attribute d all o f thes e detail s t o th e wor k o f th e earl y church . Nevertheless , th e fac t o f th e presenc e o f suc h allegorica l detail s i n som e o f th e Gospe l parable s indicate s tha t "parables " an d "allegories " — a t leas t i n th e min d o f th e earl y churc h — wer e no t viewe d a s bein g radicall y differen t o r separat e literar y forms . An d ther e is n o reaso n t o assum e tha t Jesu s sa w the m a s separat e an d mutuall y exclusiv e literar y form s either .

A s fo r th e clai m tha t parable s ar e self-explanator y an d antithetica l t o interpretations , w e nee d t o not e tha t th e teasin g natur e o f som e parable s suggest s tha t a t time s the y functio n a s riddles Riddle s ar e no t alway s selfevident . Nonetheless , parable s serv e wel l a s riddle s eve n whe n the y hav e t o b e explained , a s Nathan' s parabl e i n rebuk e o f Davi d illustrate s (cf 2 Sa m 12:1- 4 fo r th e parabl e an d 12:5-1 3 fo r th e explanation) Th e Ol d Testamen t contain s a numbe r o f suc h riddl e parable s tha t ar e the n explaine d (cf 2 Sa m 14:6- 7 [8-21] ; 1 King s 20:39-4 0 [41-42] ; Isa 5:1- 6 [7] ; Eze k 15:25 [6-8] ; 17:2-1 0 [ 11-2 1 ]; se e als o Jud g 9:7-1 5 [ 16ff.] ; 2 King s 14:9 [10]) . Likewise , th e Ne w Testamen t ha s man y parable s tha t appea r wit h a n accompanyin g interpretatio n (cf Mar k 3:23-2 6 [27] ; 4:3- 9 [13-20] ; 4:2 1 [22] ; 4:2 4 [25] ; 7:14-1 5 [18-23] ; 12:1- 9 [10-11] ; 13:2 8 [29] , 34 [32-33,3537] ; Mat t 11:16-1 7 [18-19] ; 13:24-3 0 [37-43] , 47-4 8 [49-50] ; 18:23-3 4

The Genre of the Parables [35] ; 20:1-1 5 [16] ; 21:28-31 a [31b-32] ; 22:11-1 3 [14] ; 25:1-1 2 [13] ; Luk e 4:23 b [23c] ; 7:41-4 2 [43-47] ; 10:30-3 5 [36-37] ; 11:5- 7 [8] ; 12:16-2 0 [21] , 35-3 8 [40],3 9 [40] ; 13:25-2 7 [28-30] ; 14:8-1 0 [11],28-3 0 [33],31-3 2 [33] ; 15:4- 6 [7] , 8- 9 [10] ; 16:l-8 a [8b-13] ; 17:7- 9 [10] ; 18:2- 6 [1, 7-8] , 9-14 a [9 , 14b] ; 19:12-2 7 [11])

Regardles s o f whethe r on e view s some , most , o r all o f th e interpretation s i n th e Gospel s a s secondary , thei r presenc e indicate s tha t a t leas t som e earl y interpreter s o f Jesus ' parable s sa w suc h appende d interpretation s a s no t bein g impossible , unnecessary , o r contrar y t o th e genr e o f parables . Fo r them , it seems , the y wer e integra l part s o f th e parables . Furthermore , i t shoul d b e note d tha t rabbini c parable s frequentl y ar e — and , i n fact , ofte n nee d t o b e — followe d b y interpretations . Thu s th e vie w tha t interpretation s ar e antithetica l t o th e genr e o f parable s turn s ou t t o b e a theoretica l bia s tha t ha s bee n belie d i n practice

Th e threefol d divisio n o f parable s int o "similitudes, " "parables " i n th e narro w sense , an d "exemplar y stories " ha s bee n followe d b y a numbe r o f writers Bultmann , fo r example , use d Jülicher' s categories , althoug h h e subdivide d th e first (i.e. , similitudes ) int o thre e parts : "figurativ e sayings " o r Bildwörter (e.g. , Mar k 4:21-22 , "th e Ligh t Hidde n unde r a Basket" ; Mat t 5:14 , " a Cit y Se t o n a Hill") ; "metaphors " (e.g. , Mat t 7:3-5 , "th e Spec k an d th e Log" ; Mat t 7:13-14 , "th e Narro w Gate") ; an d "similitudes " prope r (e.g. , Mar k 4:26-29 , "th e See d Growin g Secretly" ; Luk e 15:4-10 , "th e Los t Shee p an d th e Los t Coin") Bultmann' s final tw o categorie s ar e "parables " (e.g. , Luk e 15:11-32 , "th e Prodiga l Son" ; Mat t 20:1-16 , "th e Worker s i n th e Vineyard" ; Mat t 25:14-30 , "th e Talents" ) an d "exemplar y stories " (i.e. , Luk e 10:30-37 , "th e Goo d Samaritan" ; Luk e 12:16-21 , "th e Ric h Fool" ; Luk e 16:19-31 , "th e Ric h Ma n an d Lazarus" ; Luk e 18:10-14 , "th e Pharise e an d th e Ta x Collector") Thes e categorie s correspon d exactl y wit h thos e o f Jülicher . I n fact , man y o f th e parable s liste d b y Bultman n a s example s o f thes e tw o las t categorie s ar e th e sam e a s liste d b y Jüliche r ( Histor y of the Synoptic Tradition, 166-79)

C . H . Dod d als o followe d Jüliche r an d groupe d th e parable s o f th e Gospel s int o thre e mai n categories : "figurativ e sayings " o r simpl e metaphor s (e.g. , Mat t 5:14 , "a Cit y Se t o n a Hill" ; Mat t 15:14 , " a Blin d Ma n Guidin g a Blin d Man" ; Luk e 12:33 , "Purse s tha t D o No t Wea r Out") ; "similitudes " (e.g. , Mar k 4:21-22 , "th e Ligh t Hidde n unde r a Basket" ; Mar k 13:28-29 , "th e Fi g Tree" ; Mat t 7:3-5 , "th e Spec k an d th e Log") ; an d "parable s proper " (e.g. , Luk e 15:4-10 , "th e Los t Shee p an d th e Los t Coin" ;

Luk e 15:11-32 , "th e Prodiga l Son" ; Mat t 20:1-16 , "th e Worker s i n th e Vineyard") Althoug h Dod d refer s t o thes e thre e categorie s o f parable s i n th e sam e wa y a s Jüliche r an d Bultmann , eve n usin g th e Germa n name s Gleichnis an d Parabel fo r th e latte r tw o ( Parable s of the Kingdom, 5-7) , h e define s the m a bi t differentl y an d sometime s include s i n on e categor y material s tha t Jüliche r an d Bultman n include d i n another . Dod d clearl y sa w tha t th e categorie s o r classe s int o whic h on e divide s th e parable s wer e somewha t arbitrary , notin g tha t "i t canno t b e pretende d tha t th e lin e ca n b e draw n wit h an y precisio n betwee n thes e classe s o f parabl e — figurative sayings , similitudes , an d parable s proper " (ibid., 7)

Wherea s Dod d accepte d a certai n amoun t o f arbitrarines s i n th e classificatio n o f th e parable s accordin g t o th e categorie s o f Gree k rhetoric , wit h ever y propose d categor y possessin g a degre e o f fluidity , i t wa s Joachi m Jeremia s wh o questione d thi s whol e procedure Mor e tha n Jülicher , Bultmann , o r Dodd , Jeremia s recognize d tha t th e parable s o f Jesu s wer e roote d i n a Jewis h milieu S o h e argue d tha t th e categorie s draw n fro m Aristotl e d o no t fit wel l th e parable s o f Jesus . An d becaus e o f th e broa d natur e o f th e Hebre w mashal, whic h th e Gree k Ol d Testamen t (th e Septuagint ) an d th e Gree k Ne w Testamen t translat e a s "parable, " Jeremia s viewe d an y attemp t t o fit Jesus ' parable s int o th e categorie s o f Gree k rhetori c a s "fruitles s labou r i n th e end " (Parables of Jesus, 20) All suc h attempt s resul t i n forcin g o n the m a differen t an d foreig n literar y genre

2 . A Ne w Approac h

I n th e latte r thir d o f th e twentiet h centur y th e historica l paradig m governin g parabl e stud y gav e wa y t o a ne w approach . Dod d an d Jeremia s ha d focuse d attentio n o n th e stud y o f th e parable s i n ligh t o f th e situatio n o f Jesu s (i.e. , th e first Sitz im Leben). An d redactio n critic s ha d studie d the m i n ligh t o f th e situatio n o f th e evangelist s (i.e. , th e thir d Sitz im Leben). Bu t thes e historica l interest s wer e swep t asid e b y th e ne w approach , whic h advocate d a literar y rathe r tha n a historica l paradigm . Furthermore , thi s ne w approac h wa s wedde d t o a n existentia l philosoph y an d t o a deconstructionis t and/o r reader-oriente d hermeneutic . As Richar d Eslinge r notes : "Th e watershe d i n parable s researc h derive d fro m moder n literar y analysi s whic h locate d parabl e withi n th e rang e o f metaphor " ("Preachin g th e Parables, " 27) . Consequently , th e genr e o f th e para -

ble s wa s understoo d no t a s a vehicl e tha t serve d t o bea r th e meanin g o f it s author , bu t as a n ontologica l entit y tha t coul d no t b e interprete d o r broke n dow n int o a meanin g component . A s metaphors , parable s coul d no t b e reduce d t o a n interpretatio n o r a n illustration . Fo r a s ontologica l entities , the y ar e irreducible

"Metaphors " an d "parables " (th e latte r understoo d a s a subse t o f metaphor ) wer e als o sharpl y distinguishe d fro m "similes " an d "allegories " (th e latte r understoo d a s a subse t o f simile) . Previously , littl e differenc e ha d bee n see n betwee n metaphor s an d simile s othe r tha n th e us e o f th e particle s "like " o r "as." Aristotl e ha d said : "Th e simil e is a metaphor , fo r ther e is ver y littl e difference " (The Art of Rhetoric, 1.406b) An d Quintilia n asserted : "O n th e whol e metapho r is a shorte r for m o f simile " (Institutio Oratoria, 8.6.8) . Now , however , a n enormou s chas m wa s see n a s separatin g thes e tw o literar y forms , wit h eac h o f the m functionin g i n radicall y differen t ways Thu s similes an d allegories , whic h wer e claime d t o operat e o n a lowe r level, wer e see n a s merel y describin g an d bearin g information , bein g dea d illustration s tha t presuppos e understanding Metaphor s an d parables , o n th e othe r hand , whic h wer e claime d t o b e livin g an d transformin g entities , wer e viewe d a s actuall y creatin g understandin g an d meaning

I n thi s ne w approac h a metapho r an d a parabl e ar e attribute d unusua l power , bein g almos t divine-lik e i n quality Simil e an d allegory , becaus e the y dea l wit h wha t is expressible , ca n b e reduce d t o litera l an d abstrac t interpretations Bu t metapho r an d parabl e ar e untranslatabl e becaus e the y dea l wit h th e inexpressible . The y ar e no t simpl y illustration s o r bearer s o f meaning . The y d o no t enhanc e o r conve y meaning . O n th e contrary , the y interpre t thei r readers ! The y creat e meanin g b y forcin g th e reade r t o participat e i n th e paraboli c event .

Understoo d i n thi s manner , on e experience s a languag e even t i n th e readin g o f a parable . A perso n canno t stud y o r see k t o understan d a parable . On e ca n onl y experienc e it Metapho r an d parabl e ar e furthermor e no t simpl y one way o f huma n knowing ; rather , the y ar e the wa y (cf . McFagu e TeSelle, Speaking in Parables, 62) The y ar e th e basi c form s o f all though t an d languag e (ibid., 52) Thu s becaus e o f its almos t ontologica l power , on e doe s no t simpl y rea d a parable . On e "risks " it . Fo r whe n on e enter s int o th e worl d o f a parable , on e is confronte d wit h a reversa l o f expectation s an d compelle d t o respond . On e "lose s control " an d is "tor n apart " b y a parable . I n fact , whe n peopl e ar e confronte d b y a parabl e the y find tha t it "shatter s thei r world, " "call s existenc e int o question, " an d "cause s the m t o ris k all."

ROBER T H STEI N

Anothe r consequenc e o f thi s ne w approac h t o parable s is th e rejectio n o f th e ide a tha t a parabl e possesse s a singl e meaning A s literar y works , parable s ar e self-standin g work s o f ar t tha t posses s live s o f thei r own . The y posses s powe r an d beaut y withi n themselve s independen t o f thei r origi n an d ar e capabl e o f creatin g man y ne w "meanings " o r languag e events . Thi s independen t natur e o f th e parable s is ofte n describe d b y suc h term s a s "autonomous, " "autotelic, " "polyvalent, " o r "plurisignificant. " A parable , therefore , canno t b e limite d t o a single , correc t meaning , bu t eac h parabl e throug h it s regeneratin g powe r produce s man y different , bu t equall y acceptable , impact s o n a reader

Muc h o f th e moder n discussio n o f metapho r an d parabl e is adorne d wit h s o muc h hyperbol e an d existentialis t terminolog y tha t i t is difficul t t o understan d wha t is actuall y bein g sai d o r meant A s a result , a s Clau s Westerman n observes , "th e simplicit y o f th e parable s is ofte n n o longe r recognizabl e i n th e loft y height s o f th e abstrac t languag e o f [the ] .. . interpretation " ( Parable s of Jesus, 178-79) Frequentl y moder n discussion s revea l a grea t dea l mor e abou t th e proponent s o f thes e view s tha n abou t th e natur e o f a metapho r o r a parabl e — o r abou t ho w th e origina l author s iise d them

Yet is a parabl e reall y abl e t o interpre t us ? Ho w ca n a n inanimat e tex t interpre t anyon e o r anything ? Wha t doe s it mea n "t o interpret? " Is interpretatio n no t a n aspec t o f though t an d thinking ? Ca n inanimat e text s d o this ? Th e ne w approac h clearl y ha s attribute d t o a n inanimat e literar y for m a n exclusivel y huma n characteristi c — tha t is, th e abilit y t o interpret . O n th e othe r hand , if w e explai n th e statemen t "metaphor s interpre t us " a s a "personifie d metaphor, " wha t d o w e mea n b y thi s ne w metaphor ? Ar e w e not , then , explainin g on e abstrus e metapho r ("parable s interpre t us") , whic h w e hav e use d t o explai n anothe r metapho r (whic h i n th e cas e o f th e biblica l parable s is fa r less abstruse) , b y stil l anothe r metapho r ("personified metaphor") ?

Muc h o f th e confusio n i n pas t discussion s o f th e parable s o f Jesu s appear s t o b e du e t o th e dua l natur e o f communication . Fo r all communication , whethe r ora l o r literary , involve s bot h referentia l an d commissiv e dimensions Wherea s th e forme r is primaril y informativ e i n nature , th e latte r is primaril y affective . An d wherea s th e forme r seek s mainl y t o conve y information , th e latte r seek s t o conve y emotio n an d brin g abou t decision N o for m o f communicatio n is simpl y informativ e o r purel y affective . Eve n a n accountant' s mos t steril e analysi s an d statistica l repor t o f peopl e kille d

i n automobil e accident s durin g a certai n perio d ca n affec t peopl e deeply , particularl y if the y hav e suffere d a persona l los s throug h on e o r mor e suc h accidents . Similarly , th e mos t hyperbolic , metaphorica l lov e poe m doe s no t onl y affec t th e reade r bu t i t als o convey s informatio n — a t leas t this : tha t th e poe t love s th e addresse e o f th e poem ! Th e ne w approac h is correct , i n part , whe n it assert s tha t a parabl e canno t b e reduce d t o a n interpretation . Parable s d o no t simpl y conve y meaning . No r d o the y simpl y clarif y an d illustrate . O n th e othe r hand , th e ne w approac h is incorrec t whe n it claim s tha t w e canno t interpre t a parable . I t ha s bee n sai d tha t a parable , lik e a joke , canno t b e explained . Bu t a jok e ca n b e explained ! O f course , th e effectivenes s o f an y jok e is los t whe n i t need s t o b e explained . Nevertheless , wha t a jok e is seekin g t o sa y an d d o ca n b e explained . Wha t is bein g confuse d is th e meaning o f a jok e and/o r a parabl e (th e referentia l dimension ) an d it s affective nature (th e commissiv e dimension) . As Mar y An n Tolber t insists , w e ca n an d mus t interpre t th e parable s ( Perspective s on the Parables, 42)

A parabl e is bot h a vehicl e an d a message , an d a s suc h it possesse s bot h informativ e an d affectiv e dimensions . Interpreter s i n th e pas t hav e ofte n s o concentrate d o n th e informativ e dimensio n tha t the y los t sigh t o f th e powerful , affectiv e natur e o f thi s literar y form . A n interpretatio n tha t begin s "Thi s parabl e mean s . . . , " if correct , ca n conve y th e meanin g o f a parable , bu t i t canno t conve y it s affectiv e dimension I t omit s th e commissiv e aspec t an d simpl y elucidate s th e parable' s messag e i n a didacti c manner Suc h barre n an d steril e referentia l languag e canno t conve y th e persuasiv e natur e o f th e for m o f tha t message Presently , however , thi s latter , affectiv e dimensio n o f a parabl e is bein g s o emphasize d b y th e ne w approac h tha t th e former , informativ e aspec t is ignore d an d eve n denied

Yet som e advocate s o f th e moder n approac h see m t o b e sayin g fa r mor e tha n tha t metapho r an d parabl e ar e powerfu l literar y forms . The y appear , i n fact , t o attribut e t o thi s for m itsel f th e abilitie s an d power s tha t traditionall y hav e bee n associate d wit h Go d himself . A s Joh n Donahu e aptl y observes : "Th e impressio n arise s tha t a t time s salvatio n come s fro m metapho r alone! " ( Gospe l in Parable, 11) Yet ca n a parabl e reall y "transform? " Ca n i t forc e its hearer s t o "risk " th e parable , t o "respond, " t o forc e the m t o participat e i n a languag e event ? If a parabl e o r a metaphor , i n an d o f itself , ca n d o this , ho w the n ca n w e hav e "dead " metaphor s an d parables? Wh y d o no t all metaphor s an d parables , sinc e the y posses s thi s sam e

literar y form , equall y transfor m an d interpre t thei r hearers ? An d wh y doe s no t th e sam e parabl e produc e exactl y th e sam e effec t o n eac h hearer ?

I t is no t a literar y for m per se tha t transform s hearer s o r produce s i n the m a response Rather , suc h effect s ar e th e resul t o f th e combinatio n o f (1 ) th e persuasiv e an d disarmin g natur e o f th e literar y form , (2 ) th e trut h o f th e divin e messag e encapsulate d i n tha t form , (3 ) th e convictin g wor k o f God' s Spiri t workin g throug h th e particula r vehicl e an d message , an d (4 ) a huma n response . All o f thes e factor s i n combinatio n brin g abou t transformatio n an d "event. " An d o f thes e factors , th e literar y for m mus t b e judge d t o b e th e mos t dispensable Fo r transformatio n an d "event " ca n als o tak e plac e throug h suc h form s a s a comman d (e.g. , Jos h 24:15) , a n allegor y (e.g. , Mar k 12:1-12) , a pros e portio n (e.g. , Joh n 3:lff.) , o r didacti c materia l (e.g. , Ro m 3:21-31 ) — a s lon g a s th e truthfu l natur e o f th e messag e encapsulate d i n a particula r literar y for m an d th e convictin g wor k o f God' s Spiri t workin g throug h tha t vehicl e an d messag e ar e present !

Parable s functio n i n tw o ways The y enhanc e communicatio n an d the y assis t persuasio n — tha t is , the y posses s a referentia l dimensio n an d a commissiv e dimension The y perfor m th e latte r b y disarmin g thei r hearer s an d b y piercin g throug h defense s an d resistance . The y ca n d o thi s becaus e th e analog y i n a parabl e is differen t fro m th e sensitiv e realit y wit h whic h it is dealing Throug h a parabl e Natha n wa s abl e t o discus s th e issu e o f David' s murde r o f Uria h an d hi s adulter y wit h Uriah' s wife , fo r th e realit y par t o f th e parabl e wa s onl y recognize d afte r th e parabl e ha d bee n tol d an d explained Ho w fa r woul d Natha n hav e gotte n if h e ha d sai d t o David : " O King , I woul d lik e t o tal k t o yo u abou t you r adulter y wit h Bathsheb a an d you r murde r o f Uriah" ? Th e natur e o f a parable , however , enable d th e prophe t t o spea k t o Davi d abou t bot h hi s adulter y an d hi s murder . Fo r disarme d b y th e innocuou s natur e o f th e parable , Davi d wa s ope n t o judg e honestl y th e issu e a t hand An d h e foun d ou t to o lat e tha t h e wa s th e ma n tha t h e wa s th e on e who , wit h hi s teemin g flocks , ha d stole n anothe r man' s on e ew e lamb !

3 . Th e Basi c Issu e

Discussio n o f th e genr e o f a parabl e i n th e abstrac t ca n lea d onl y t o arbitrar y definition s o f wha t on e think s a parabl e is an d ho w i t shoul d function O n th e othe r hand , if w e see k t o defin e th e genr e mor e objectivel y alon g th e line s

8

o f ho w suc h classica l writer s a s Aristotl e o r Quintilia n understoo d a parable , w e wil l agai n arriv e a t somewha t arbitrar y definitions Certainl y t o spea k o f th e Ne w Testamen t parable s a s autonomous , aestheti c work s o f ar t totall y ignore s thei r intimat e ti e wit h th e on e wh o tol d thes e parables . Christian s ove r th e centurie s hav e no t bee n intereste d i n Jesus ' parable s becaus e the y hav e bee n enamore d wit h anythin g s o abstrac t a s thei r literar y genre . Rather , the y hav e read , studied , investigated , an d praye d ove r thes e parable s precisel y becaus e the y ar e th e parable s of Jesus!

Onc e w e decid e tha t w e ar e intereste d i n investigatin g th e parable s o f Jesus , i t become s apparen t tha t w e ar e investigatin g th e parable s of on e wh o live d an d though t i n a worl d governe d b y th e Ol d Testament . Jesus ' understandin g o f thi s genr e wa s shape d b y th e Ol d Testamen t an d earl y rabbini c mashalim, rathe r tha n b y th e Greco-Roma n fabellae (cf Beavis , "Parabl e an d Fable, " 493) . An d eve n if w e gran t a stron g Hellenisti c influenc e o n th e Palestinia n cultur e o f Jesus ' day , th e mos t direc t influenc e o n Jesus ' understandin g o f th e genr e o f th e parable s cam e fro m th e Ol d Testament . I t is, therefore , t o thi s Ol d Testamen t influenc e tha t w e mus t no w turn .

4 Th e Genr e o f Parabl e i n th e Ol d Testamen t

Th e ter m use d i n th e Ne w Testamen t t o describ e th e parable s o f Jesu s is th e Gree k ter m parabole. Yet whil e Jesu s probabl y bot h understoo d an d spok e Greek , hi s mothe r tongu e wa s Aramaic Thu s t o understan d Jesus ' us e o f parable s w e mus t focu s o n th e Aramai c ter m tha t Jesu s used , understan d it s semanti c range , an d com e t o appreciat e ho w th e genr e describe d b y tha t ter m functioned .

Th e Aramai c ter m tha t Jesu s use d (a s i n Mar k 4:30 ; 13:28 ; Luk e 4:23) , whic h lie s behin d th e Gree k ter m parabole foun d i n th e Gospels , is mashal. W e kno w thi s becaus e wheneve r th e ter m parabole appear s i n th e Gree k translatio n o f th e Hebre w Ol d Testamen t i t translate s th e Hebre w mashal, excep t i n Eccl 1:17 . (I n 2 Sa m 23: 3 an d Eze k 19:1 4 th e translator s o f th e Septuagin t apparentl y erre d i n usin g parabole t o translat e a differen t Hebre w wor d tha t ha s th e sam e consonant s [mashal], bu t whic h mean s "t o rule." ) I t become s immediatel y apparen t whe n on e observe s ho w mashal is use d i n th e Ol d Testamen t tha t an y simpl e definitio n o f thi s genr e ignore s it s breadt h o f meaning . I n th e Ol d Testamen t a mashal ca n refe r to :

9

A Maxim or Proverb

"Lik e mother , like daughter. " (Eze k 16:44 )

"Ou t o f th e wicke d come s fort h wickedness.' " (1 Sa m 24:1 3 [24:1 4 i n th e Hebre w Bibl e an d th e LXX] )

Cf . als o 1 Sa m 10:12 ; 1 King s 4:3 2 (5:1 2 i n th e Hebre w Bibl e an d th e LXX) ; Eccl 12:9; Eze k 12:22-23 ; 18:2-3 Othe r example s o f a mashal servin g a s a maxi m o r prover b i n whic h th e ter m is no t translate d b y parabole i n th e Septuagint , bu t whic h nevertheles s hel p u s understan d thi s us e o f mashal, are : Jo b 13:12 ; Pro v 1:1; 10:1; 25:1 ; 26:7 , 9 .

A Byword or Taunt

"Yo u shal l becom e a n objec t o f horror , a bywor d / taun t [mashal], an d a thin g o f ridicul e amon g all th e people s wher e th e LOR D wil l lea d you. " (Deu t 28:37 )

"Yo u hav e mad e u s a bywor d [mashal] amon g th e nations , a laughingstoc k amon g th e peoples. " (P s 44:1 4 [44:1 5 i n th e Hebre w Bibl e an d 43:1 5 i n th e LXX] )

Othe r example s are : 2 Chro n 7:20 ; Ps 69:1 1 (69:1 2 i n th e Hebre w Bible ; 68:1 2 i n th e LXX) ; Je r 24:9 ; Mi c 2:4 ; an d Ha b 2:6 Additiona l example s i n whic h mashal is no t translate d b y parabole i n th e Septuagin t ar e Nu m 21:27-30 ; 1 King s 9:7 ; Isa 14:3-4 ; an d Eze k 14:8

A Riddle

" I wil l ope n m y mout h i n a parabl e [mashal i n th e sens e o f a riddle] ; I wil l utte r dar k saying s fro m o f old. " (P s 78: 2 [77: 2 i n th e LXX] )

" I wil l inclin e m y ea r t o a prover b [mashal use d i n th e sens e o f riddle ] ; I wil l solv e m y riddl e t o th e musi c o f th e harp. " (P s 49: 4 [49: 5 i n th e Hebre w Bibl e an d 48: 5 i n th e LXX] )

Cf . als o Pro v 1:6 an d Eze k 17:2ff . wher e mashal is a synony m fo r riddle .

A Parable

W e find numerou s example s o f parable s i n th e narro w sens e i n th e Ol d Testament . As i n th e cas e o f man y o f Jesus ' parable s wher e th e ter m parabole is no t use d (cf. , e.g. , Mat t 18:23-35 ; 20:1-16 ; 25:1-13 ; Luk e 10:30-35 ; 15:11-32 ; 16:1-8) , s o her e th e ter m mashal doe s no t appear . Nevertheless , i t is clea r tha t th e followin g parable s ar e example s o f mashalim:2 Sa m 12:1- 4 (5-7) , whic h ca n als o b e define d a s a riddle ; 14:6- 7 (8-21) ; 1 King s 20:39-4 0 (41-42) ; Isa 5:1- 6 (7) ; 28:24-28 ; Eze k 15:1- 5 (6-8) ; an d Eze k 21:9-17 .

An Allegory

Example s o f allegor y tha t ar e describe d b y mashal an d parabole i n th e Hebre w an d Gree k Bible s ar e Eze k 17:2-1 0 (11-21) , 20:45-4 9 [21:1- 5 i n th e Hebre w Bibl e an d th e LXX] , an d 24:2-5 . Othe r example s i n whic h mashal an d parabole ar e no t use d bu t whic h nevertheles s belon g t o thi s genr e ar e Eze k 19:2-9 , 10-14 ; 23:2-21 .

Additional Dimensions of the Term 'Mashal'

A mashal i n th e Hebre w Ol d Testament , a s wel l a s a parabole i n th e LXX, als o designate s "figurativ e discourses " (cf . Nu m 23:7-10,18-24 ; 24:3-9,1519,20,21-22,23-24) , ode s o r poem s (cf . Ps 49: 4 [49: 5 i n th e Hebre w Bible ; 48: 5 i n th e LXX] ; 78: 2 [77: 2 i n th e LXX]) , an d "fables " (cf . Jud g 9:7-1 5 [16ffi] ; 2 King s 14:9 [10]) . I n th e las t tw o example s th e term s mashal an d parabole d o no t appear . 5 . Th e Parable s o f Jesu s

Th e parable s o f Jesu s i n th e Gospel s exhibi t a simila r breadt h an d semanti c rang e o f meanin g a s foun d i n th e Ol d Testamen t mashal. Thi s is hardl y surprising . Rather , it is wha t w e shoul d expect . Fo r sinc e th e mos t formativ e influence s i n th e lif e o f Jesu s wer e th e Hebre w Scripture s (cf . Mat t 5:17 ) an d th e Jewis h worl d o f th e first centur y a s shape d b y thos e Scriptures , i t is onl y natura l tha t Jesus ' understandin g o f a parabl e woul d follo w

th e line s o f th e Ol d Testamen t mashal. Thu s w e find tha t th e parable s o f Jesu s includ e th e following :

Maxims or Proverbs

"H e als o tol d the m a parable : 'Ca n a blin d perso n guid e a blin d person ? Wil l no t bot h fall int o a pit?" ' (Luk e 6:39 )

"Doubtles s yo u wil l quot e t o m e thi s prover b [parabole], 'Doctor , cur e yourself]' " (Luk e 4:23 )

Additiona l example s ca n b e foun d i n Mar k 3:23-2 5 an d 7:15-17 Cf als o Mat t 6:22-23 ; 7:12 , 17-18 ; 15:11 ; Mar k 2:21 , 22 ; an d Luk e 9:6 2 wher e th e ter m parabole doe s no t appear , bu t whic h ar e nevertheles s parables Wherea s a parabl e ca n b e a proverb , thi s doe s no t mea n tha t ever y prover b ca n b e classifie d a s a parable Onl y thos e proverb s i n whic h a compariso n o f unlik e thing s is foun d shoul d b e include d i n th e genr e "parable. " Thu s suc h passage s a s Mat t 6:21 , 34 ; 16:25 ; an d Mar k 6:4 , whil e assuredl y proverbs , ar e no t parables

Similes and Metaphors

I n th e Gospel s w e encounte r numerou s example s o f simile s an d metaphor s o n th e lip s o f Jesus . Althoug h th e ne w approac h t o parable s ha s attribute d a significan t ontologica l differenc e t o thes e tw o literar y forms , th e onl y literar y differenc e betwee n the m is tha t i n a simil e ther e is a n explici t compariso n mad e tha t use s "like, " "as, " "a s if," "seems, " etc. , wherea s i n a metapho r th e compariso n is implicit . Despit e th e claim s mad e b y th e ne w approac h fo r th e separatenes s o f thes e tw o literar y forms , ther e seem s t o b e littl e differenc e betwee n a simil e an d a metaphor . Th e differenc e betwee n "Jesus , a s th e Goo d Physician , wen t abou t healin g th e sick " an d "Th e Goo d Physicia n wen t abou t healin g th e sick " is onl y th e word s "Jesus , as." Th e lac k o f thes e word s doe s no t caus e th e metapho r t o "interpret " u s o r mak e u s experienc e a "languag e event " an y mor e tha n if thes e tw o word s wer e presen t an d th e sayin g wa s a simile . Althoug h w e d o no t find an y simile s o r metaphor s specificall y calle d parabole i n th e Gospels , th e followin g coul d easily b e referre d t o a s parables :

(1 ) Simile

"See , I a m sendin g yo u ou t lik e shee p int o th e mids t o f wolves ; s o b e wis e a s serpent s an d innocen t a s doves " (Mat t 10:16) ;

(2) Metaphor

"Yo u ar e th e ligh t o f th e world. " (Mat t 5:14 )

Shoul d w e includ e amon g th e parable s o f Jesu s ever y simil e an d ever y metapho r tha t h e uttered ? Basi c t o th e genr e o f mashal an d parabole is th e ide a o f a compariso n betwee n unlik e things , an d simile s an d metaphor s ar e comparison s o f unlik e things ! Leavin g asid e similitudes , whic h ar e extende d similes , it ma y therefor e b e sai d tha t ther e ar e ove r sixty-seve n example s o f simile s an d metaphor s i n th e Gospel s (cf Stein , Method and Message of Jesus' Teachings, 14-17)

Riddles

Ther e ar e n o example s i n th e Gospel s o f byword s o r taunt s suc h as foun d i n th e Ol d Testament Nonetheless , th e riddle-lik e natur e o f som e o f Jesus ' parable s is quit e apparent .

"Ther e is nothin g outsid e a perso n tha t b y goin g i n ca n defile , bu t th e thing s tha t com e ou t ar e wha t defile. " (Mar k 7:15 )

Th e lac k o f stric t boundarie s betwee n th e variou s classification s o f parable s i n th e Gospel s ca n b e see n b y th e fac t tha t thi s passag e is frequentl y classifie d a s a prover b o r figurativ e saying , an d tha t it fit s eac h o f thes e classifications .

"W e hear d hi m say, Ί wil l destro y thi s templ e tha t is mad e wit h hands , an d i n thre e day s I wil l buil d another , no t mad e wit h hands.' " (Mar k 14:58 )

Th e ter m parabole is no t use d i n thi s example , no r i n Mat t 13:5 2 o r Luk e 13:32-33 .

ROBER T H STEI N

Similitudes

A distinctio n is ofte n mad e betwee n similitude s an d parables . Th e forme r ar e define d a s simpl e comparison s involvin g picture s o f typica l occurrence s o f dail y life , wherea s parable s ar e comparison s involvin g storie s o f singula r event s (cf . Stein , Introduction to the Parables of Jesus, 1981) . I n genera l thi s distinctio n is helpful , a s lon g a s i t is no t see n a s rigi d an d absolute . Thu s i n Luk e 15:3- 7 w e fin d a compariso n tha t involve s somethin g typica l o f a shepherd' s life :

So h e tol d the m thi s parable , "Whic h on e of you , havin g a hundre d shee p an d losin g on e of them , doe s no t leave th e ninety-nin e in th e wildernes s an d go afte r th e on e tha t is los t unti l h e find s it? Whe n h e ha s foun d it , h e lays it o n hi s shoulder s an d rejoices . An d whe n h e come s home , h e call s togethe r hi s friend s an d neighbors , sayin g t o them , 'Rejoic e wit h me , fo r I hav e foun d m y shee p tha t wa s lost.' " (Luk e 15:3-7)

Likewis e i n Mat t 13:3 3 ther e is portraye d a typica l experienc e o f a woma n makin g bread :

H e tol d the m anothe r parable : "Th e kingdo m of heave n is like yeas t tha t a woma n too k an d mixe d i n wit h thre e measure s of flou r unti l all of it wa s leavened. " (Mat t 13:33)

Othe r example s ar e Mat t 13:31-32 , 44 , 45-46 , an d 52 (cf . 13:34-35) ; Mar k 4:21-22 , 26-29 , an d 30-3 2 (cf . 4:33-34) ; 13:28-29 ; Luk e 5:36-38 ; 12:35-38 ; 15:8-1 0 (cf . 15:3) . Compar e als o th e followin g passage s where , however , th e ter m parabole doe s no t occur : Mat t 7:24-27 ; 11:16-19 ; Mar k 2:19-20 ; Luk e 7:41-43 ; 12:39 ; 17:7-10 .

Story Parables

Unde r thi s classificatio n w e refe r t o parable s i n th e narro w sens e — tha t is, t o extended , fictiona l comparison s i n stor y for m tha t refe r generall y t o a uniqu e event Stor y parable s mak e u p th e mos t famou s o f Jesus ' sayings

A n exampl e is th e stor y parabl e o f th e persisten t widow :

The n Jesus tol d the m a parabl e abou t thei r nee d t o pra y always an d no t t o lose heart . H e said , "I n a certai n cit y ther e wa s a judg e wh o neithe r feare d Go d no r ha d respec t fo r people . In tha t cit y ther e wa s a wido w wh o kep t comin g t o hi m an d sayin g 'Gran t m e justic e agains t m y opponent. ' Fo r a whil e h e refused . Bu t late r h e sai d t o himself , 'Thoug h I hav e n o fea r of Go d an d n o respec t fo r anyone , yet becaus e thi s wido w keep s botherin g me , I wil l gran t he r justice , s o tha t sh e ma y no t wea r m e ou t b y continuall y coming.' "

An d th e Lor d said , "Liste n t o wha t th e unjus t judg e says. An d will no t

Go d gran t justic e t o hi s chose n one s wh o cr y t o hi m da y an d night ? Will h e dela y lon g i n helpin g them ? I tell you , h e wil l quickl y gran t justic e t o them . An d yet , whe n th e So n of Ma n comes , will h e fin d fait h o n earth? " (Luk e 18:1-8)

Othe r example s tha t us e th e ter m parabole includ e Luk e 13:6- 9 ("th e Barre n Fi g Tree" ) an d Luk e 19:11-2 7 ("th e Pounds") Othe r eve n mor e familia r stor y parable s tha t d o no t us e th e ter m parabole, however , ar e Mat t 20:1-1 6 ("th e Graciou s Employer") , Mat t 25:1-1 3 ("th e Wis e an d Foolis h Maidens") , Mat t 25:14-3 0 ("th e Talents") , Luk e 14:15-2 4 ("th e Grea t Supper") , Luk e 15:11-3 2 ("th e Prodiga l Son") , an d Luk e 16:1- 8 ("th e Shrew d Manager")

Example Parables

Th e distinctio n betwee n stor y parable s an d exampl e parable s is somewha t arbitrary . Wherea s a stor y parabl e function s a s "a n earthl y stor y bearin g a heavenl y meaning, " a n exampl e parabl e function s a s a n exampl e tha t say s eithe r "G o an d d o likewise " (Luk e 10:37 ) o r "G o an d d o no t d o likewise. " A s a result , th e meanin g o f th e pictur e par t o f a n exampl e parabl e — tha t is, th e analog y prope r — lie s muc h neare r t o th e surfac e an d correspond s mor e closel y t o th e realit y tha t th e analog y is teaching . Thi s ca n b e see n i n th e parabl e o f th e ric h bu t foolis h farmer :

The n h e tol d t o the m a parable : "Th e lan d of a ric h ma n produce d abundantly An d h e though t t o himself , 'Wha t shoul d I do , fo r I hav e n o plac e t o stor e m y crops? ' The n h e said , Ί wil l d o this : I wil l pul l dow n m y barn s an d buil d large r ones , an d ther e I wil l stor e all m y grai n an d m y

goods . An d I wil l say t o m y soul , "Soul , yo u hav e ampl e good s laid u p fo r man y years ; relax , eat , drink , b e merry. " Bu t Go d said t o him , 'You fool ! Thi s ver y nigh t you r life is bein g demande d of you . An d th e thing s yo u hav e prepared , whos e wil l the y be? ' So it is wit h thos e wh o stor e u p treasure s fo r themselve s bu t ar e no t ric h towar d God. " (Luk e 12:16-21 )

Othe r example s i n th e Gospel s wher e th e ter m parabole is foun d ar e Luk e 14:7-1 1 ("th e place s a t a feast" ) an d Luk e 18:9-1 4 ("th e Pharise e an d th e publican") . Cf . als o Luk e 10:30-3 5 ("th e goo d Samaritan") ; Luk e 16:19-3 1 ("th e ric h ma n an d Lazarus") ; an d possibl y Mat t 18:23-3 5 ("th e unforgivin g servant" ) i n whic h th e ter m is no t found

Allegories

Whe n w e spea k o f th e genr e "parable " a s includin g allegory , w e ar e referrin g t o allegor y a s a literar y form , no t a s a n exegetica l method Thi s distinctio n betwee n th e literar y for m o f allegor y an d th e hermeneutica l methodolog y o f "allegorizing " mus t b e kep t clea r (cf Klauck , Allegorie und Allegorese). Allegor y is a literar y for m foun d i n bot h th e Ol d Testamen t mashal an d th e Ne w Testamen t parabole. I t originate s wit h th e origina l authors , wh o bot h use d thi s literar y for m an d intende d thei r hearer s t o interpre t th e for m a s a n allegory "Allegorizing " is a n exegetica l metho d tha t originate s wit h a reade r wh o interpret s a n author' s word s i n a manne r tha t th e autho r di d no t intend I t is therefor e wron g t o interpre t stor y parable s an d exampl e parable s a s allegories Thi s woul d b e t o "allegorize " thes e parables , fo r th e reade r woul d violat e th e intentio n o f th e author O n th e othe r hand , it woul d als o b e wron g no t t o interpre t a n allegor y a s a n allegory , fo r thi s woul d likewis e violat e th e intentio n o f th e author I n th e Gospel s ther e ar e severa l storie s tha t i n thei r presen t for m ar e allegorica l i n nature Th e Parabl e o f th e Tenant s is a prim e example :

The n h e bega n t o spea k t o the m i n parables . "A ma n plante d a vineyard , pu t a fenc e aroun d it, du g a pi t fo r th e win e press , an d buil t a watchtower . The n h e leased it t o tenant s an d wen t t o anothe r country . Whe n th e seaso n came , h e sen t a slave t o th e tenant s t o collec t fro m the m hi s shar e of th e produc e of th e vineyard . Bu t the y seized him , an d bea t him , an d sen t hi m away empty-handed . Agai n h e sen t anothe r slave t o them .

Thi s on e the y bea t over th e hea d an d insulted . The n h e sen t another , an d tha t on e the y killed . An d so it wa s wit h man y other s — som e the y beat , an d other s the y killed . H e ha d still on e other , a belove d son . Finall y h e sen t hi m t o them , saying , 'The y will respec t m y son. ' Bu t thos e tenant s sai d t o on e another , 'Thi s is th e heir ; come , le t u s kill him , an d th e inheritanc e wil l b e ours. ' So the y seize d him , kille d him , an d thre w hi m ou t of th e vineyard . Wha t the n wil l th e owne r of th e vineyar d do? H e will com e an d destro y th e tenant s an d give th e vineyar d t o others . Hav e yo u no t rea d thi s Scripture : 'Th e ston e tha t th e builder s rejecte d ha s becom e th e cornerstone ; thi s wa s th e Lord' s doing , an d i t is amazin g i n ou r eyes'?" Whe n the y realize d tha t h e ha d tol d thi s parabl e agains t them , the y wante d t o arres t him , bu t the y feare d th e crowd . So the y lef t hi m an d wen t away. (Mar k 12:1-12 )

Othe r allegorie s ar e foun d i n Mar k 4:3- 9 ("th e Soils") ; Mat t 13:24-3 0 ("th e Whea t an d th e Tares") ; an d Mat t 21:1-1 0 ("th e Marriag e Feast") I n all o f thes e example s th e ter m parabole is use d t o describ e th e allegory . Th e issu e o f whethe r th e allegorica l interpretation s associate d wit h th e parable s o f "th e Soils " (Mar k 4:13-20 ) an d "th e Whea t an d Tares " (Mat t 13:36-43 ) — a s well , th e allegorica l detail s foun d i n th e parable s o f "th e Wicke d Tenants " an d "th e Marriag e Feast " — ar e authenti c is greatl y debated . Yet eve n if ever y allegorica l featur e foun d i n thes e parable s an d thei r interpretation s wer e t o b e attribute d t o th e earl y churc h an d no t t o Jesus , th e fac t woul d remai n tha t th e genr e "parable " foun d i n th e Ne w Testamen t include s "allegory. "

6 . Conclusio n

Th e ter m "parable " i n th e Bibl e possesse s a n extremel y broa d semanti c range . I t ca n refe r t o th e three-wor d prover b "Physician , hea l yourself " (Luk e 4:23 ) o r t o a length y stor y parabl e suc h a s th e prodiga l so n (Luk e 15:11-32) Lyin g a t th e cor e o f th e Ol d Testamen t mashal an d th e Ne w

Testamen t parabole is a compariso n o f tw o unlik e things Th e compariso n ca n b e brie f o r extended , implici t (a s i n a metaphor , riddle , story , o r exampl e parable ) o r explici t (a s i n a simile , similitude , o r allegory) Th e metaphysical-lik e distinction s attribute d t o certai n o f thes e form s ar e no t onl y exaggerate d bu t unwarranted I t is no t th e for m o f thi s genr e

tha t transform s th e reader , bu t th e divin e trut h tha t the y contain . Th e fac t tha t no t jus t parables , bu t als o similitude s an d allegorie s foun d i n th e Bible , hav e bee n use d b y Go d t o transfor m live s indicate s tha t i t is no t primaril y th e for m bu t th e conten t tha t Go d use s t o transfor m thos e wh o hea r an d respond

Th e parable s o f th e Bibl e posses s a twofol d nature The y contai n bot h a n informativ e dimensio n (th e realit y part ) an d a n affectiv e on e (th e pictur e part) . Additiona l expression s use d t o distinguis h th e affectiv e pictur e o r metapho r fro m it s informativ e conten t are : figurativ e meanin g vs . litera l meaning ; vehicl e vs . tenor ; fram e vs . focus ; illustratio n vs illustrated ; subsidiar y subjec t vs principl e subject ; signifie r vs signified ; o r Bildhälfte vs . Sachhälfte. W e ca n interpre t int o referentia l languag e th e informativ e conten t o f a parable , becaus e thi s dimensio n ca n b e expresse d i n non-metaphorica l language Thu s th e "meaning " o f Jesus ' parabl e o f th e prodiga l so n ca n b e expresse d a s follows : "Jesu s wa s sayin g t o th e Pharisee s an d scribes , 'Wh y ar e yo u s o upse t tha t Go d is showin g merc y t o outcast s an d sinner s i n m y ministry ? Wh y ar e yo u no t enterin g int o th e jo y o f th e occasion ? Th e kingdo m o f Go d ha s come!' "

Suc h a n explanatio n can , if correct , interpre t th e informativ e dimensio n o f th e parable . I t neglect s an d lose s entirely , however , th e affectiv e dimensio n o f thi s parable , an d a parabl e consist s o f bot h th e messag e an d th e persuasiv e vehicle

Wha t th e ne w approac h ha s clearl y observe d abou t th e paraboli c genr e is it s affectiv e dimension . Parable s no t onl y communicat e information , the y als o disar m an d persuade I t is no t eas y t o resis t th e messag e o f a parable . Tha t is becaus e its riddle-lik e natur e require s involvemen t b y th e hearer s an d becaus e th e informativ e conten t i t bear s come s suddenly , usuall y befor e peopl e ar e abl e t o defen d themselve s agains t it s message Thu s befor e Davi d coul d defen d himsel f agains t th e informativ e dimensio n o f Nathan' s parabl e ( 2 Sa m 12:1-4) , th e arrow-like , affectiv e natur e o f th e parabl e ha d alread y pierce d hi s heart . W e fin d a simila r us e o f parable s b y Jesu s i n hi s attemp t t o disar m hi s hearer s (cf . Mat t 20:1-16 ; Luk e 7:41-43 ; 10:30-35 ; 15:11-32)

Althoug h th e ne w approac h ha s bee n helpfu l i n bringin g t o ou r attentio n th e affectiv e natur e o f th e paraboli c genre , th e extravagan t natur e an d th e magnitud e o f it s claim s fo r thi s genr e mus t b e rejected Fo r Jesu s a parabl e serve d a s a super b mean s o f communication , bu t i t wa s neve r a n en d i n itself Rather , i t serve d a s a vehicl e b y whic h Jesu s sough t t o teac h

th e divin e message . Thi s is clearl y Mark' s understandin g whe n h e states , "Wit h man y suc h parable s h e spok e th e wor d t o them , a s the y wer e abl e t o hear " (Mar k 4:33) . I t shoul d b e note d tha t th e phras e "wit h man y suc h parables " reveal s tha t parable s serve d a s instrument s o r mean s b y whic h Jesu s taugh t th e wor d o f God . I t is , therefore , a n erro r t o equat e th e mean s b y whic h Jesu s taugh t th e wor d o f Go d — tha t is , b y th e us e o f parable s — wit h th e transformin g powe r an d natur e o f tha t "word. " I t is also , however , a n erro r fo r thos e wh o toda y proclai m tha t "word " no t t o mak e us e o f suc h a n affectiv e genr e i n thei r proclamation !

Selecte d Bibliograph y

Beavis , Mar y Ann . "Parabl e an d Fable. " Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 (1990 ) 473-98

Brosend , Willia m F., II "Th e Limit s o f Metaphor. " Perspectives in Religious Studies 21 (1994 ) 23-41

Bultmann , Rudolf . History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans . J. Marsh . Ne w York : Harpe r 8c Row , 1968

Dodd , C H The Parables of the Kingdom. Ne w York : Scribner's , 1961

Donahue , Joh n R . The Gospel in Parable. Philadelphia : Fortress , 1988 .

Eslinger , Richar d L "Preachin g th e Parable s an d th e Mai n Idea. " Perkins Journal 3 7 (1983 ) 24-32

Jeremias , Joachim . The Parables of Jesus, trans . S. H . Hooke . London : SCM ; Ne w York : Scribner's , 196 3 (fro m 6t h Germa n edition) .

Jülicher , Adolf . Die Gleichnisreden Jesu. Tübingen : Mohr , 1910 .

Kjargaard , Mogen s Stiller Metaphor and Parable. Leiden : Brill , 1986

Klauck , Hans-Josef . Allegorie und Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexten. Münster : Aschendorff , 1978

McFagu e TeSelle , Sallie Speaking in Parables: A Study in Metaphor and Theology. London : SCM , 1975

Meier , Joh n P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Ne w York : Doubleday , 1991

Siverns , L. E. "A Definitio n o f Parable. " Theological Review 9 (1988 ) 60-75 .

Stein , Rober t H An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus. Philadelphia : Westminster , 1981

. The Method and Message of Jesus' Teachings. Louisville : Westminster , 1994

ROBER T H STEI N

Tolbert , Mar y Ann . Perspectives on the Parables: An Approach to Multiple Interpretations. Philadelphia : Fortress , 1979 .

Westermann , Claus . The Parables of Jesus in Light of the Old Testament, trans . F. W . Golk a an d A . H . B. Logan . Minneapolis : Fortress , 1990 .

CHAPTE R 3

Parables in Early Judaism

CRAI G A EVAN S

ACCORDIN G T O MAR K 4:33-34a , Jesu s "spok e th e wor d t o the m wit h man y suc h parable s (parabolai), as the y wer e abl e t o hea r it; h e di d no t spea k t o the m withou t a parabl e (parabole)" Th e Gospel s give credenc e t o Mark' s claim , fo r th e bul k of Jesus ' teachin g i n th e Synopti c Gospel s is presente d i n th e for m of parables . Mos t of th e article s i n th e presen t volum e will b e devote d t o analyse s o f th e meanin g of thos e parables . Ou r tas k i n thi s article , however , is t o se t ou t th e dat a regardin g parable s i n Early Judais m — i n particular , t o dea l wit h matter s havin g t o d o wit h th e origins , forms , an d function s of earl y Jewish parables .

Two majo r caveats , however , ar e immediatel y i n order Fo r if b y "earl y Jewis h parables " w e mea n parable s of th e firs t century , then , apar t fro m th e parable s of Jesus, ther e ar e ver y fe w tha t ca n wit h certaint y b e date d t o thi s period Furthermore , th e characte r of th e parable s derive d fro m th e Jewish worl d — whethe r fro m shortl y befor e th e tim e of Jesus, durin g hi s time , o r afterward s — ar e no t exactl y comparabl e t o thos e of Jesu s i n th e Synopti c Gospels Nonetheless , w e shoul d no t assum e tha t Jesus wa s th e onl y Jewish teache r of hi s da y whos e teachin g styl e wa s characterized b y parables It seem s wises t t o assum e tha t at least some of th e rabbi s wh o taugh t durin g th e tim e of Jesu s mad e us e of parable s as well.

A n interestin g statemen t in th e Mishna h lend s suppor t t o suc h a n assumption . Accordin g t o Mishnah Sotah 9:15 , "Whe n Rabb i Mei r [a fourthgeneratio n Tannaiti c rabbi , wh o taugh t abou t 150 CE] died , maker s of parable s ceased. " It ma y b e inferre d fro m thi s statement , as well as fro m th e

contex t o f gloo m an d doo m i n whic h i t is found , tha t rabbi s wh o live d earlie r tha n Rabb i Mei r compose d an d tol d parable s — an d tha t Rabb i Mei r wa s particularl y wel l know n fo r hi s parable s (jus t a s Rabb i Hanin a be n Dosa , fo r example , wh o is cite d shortl y afterward s i n th e sam e passage , wa s wel l know n fo r hi s deed s o f powe r an d whos e deat h sa w a declin e i n th e "me n o f deeds") .

Th e mor e pressin g concern , however , is no t th e identificatio n o f othe r parable-tellin g rabbi s fro m th e tim e o f Jesus , bu t a n understandin g o f th e origins , forms , an d function s o f parable s i n Judaism . If Jesu s di d no t inven t th e parable , wher e di d i t com e from ? A n answe r t o ou r questio n suggest s itsel f immediately : Jesu s derive d th e parabl e for m o f teaching , whethe r directl y o r indirectly , fro m th e Scripture s o f Israel . Thi s observatio n provide s u s a goo d star t i n ou r stud y o f parables , thoug h othe r factor s fo r a fulle r understandin g wil l nee d t o b e take n int o consideratio n a s well .

1 . Th e Linguisti c Dat a

Th e nou n parabole ("parable" ) occur s forty-fiv e time s i n th e Gree k Ol d Testament , th e LXX I n ever y instanc e i t translate s th e Hebre w nou n mashal (wit h th e ver b mashal bein g rendere d b y parabolēn eipein, i.e. , "t o spea k a parable") Bot h mashal an d parabole ar e word s tha t hav e a broa d rang e o f meaning .

Th e firs t occurrenc e o f mashal i n th e Hebre w Bibl e (excepting , o f course , thos e occurrence s wher e th e meanin g is "t o rul e over" ) is foun d i n Nu m 21:27 : "Fo r thi s reaso n the y tha t spea k i n meshalim say, 'Com e t o Heshbon ; Le t th e cit y o f Siho n b e buil t an d established'. " Her e meshalim ma y b e rendere d "proverbs, " "parables, " o r eve n "riddles. " Indeed , th e LXX translato r seem s t o hav e understoo d it i n thi s latte r sense , fo r h e render s th e passage : "Fo r thi s reaso n the enigmatists wil l sa y (dia touto erousin hoi ainigmatistai)...." Th e nex t occurrenc e o f mashal is i n Nu m 23:7 : "An d h e too k u p hi s parable , an d said , 'Fro m Ara m ha s Bala k brough t me , th e kin g o f Moa b fro m th e mountain s o f th e East : "Come , curs e Jaco b fo r me ; an d come , def y Israel".' " Severa l time s w e ar e tol d tha t th e prophet-for-hir e Balaa m "too k u p hi s parabl e an d said " such-and-suc h (cf . Nu m 23:18 ; 24:3 , 15, 20 , 21 , 23) I n all o f thes e occurrence s mashal is rendere d b y parabole. Yet thoug h th e prophet' s oracle s ar e poetic , the y d o no t constitut e "parables, " a t leas t a s w e ten d t o understan d them .

Warnin g th e secon d generatio n o f Israelites , o n th e eve o f thei r entr y int o th e promise d land , Mose s predict s dir e consequence s fo r si n an d disobedience : "An d yo u shal l becom e a n astonishment , a proverb , an d a byword , amon g all th e people s t o who m th e Lor d shal l lea d yo u away " (Deu t 28:37) Her e agai n mashal is rendere d b y parabole. Bu t wha t is interestin g is tha t parabole is her e juxtapose d wit h othe r word s tha t wer e evidentl y considere d t o b e roughl y synonymous I n th e LXX it reads : "a s a n enigm a an d a parabl e an d a story " (en ainigmati kai parabolç kai diēgēmati; se e als o LXX 2 Ch r 7:20) . S o parabole ca n mea n a "byword " o r "taunt-song, " whic h is a meanin g i t ha s elsewher e i n th e Gree k Scripture s (cf Ps 43:15 ; 68:12 ; Je r 24:9 ; Mi c 2:4 ; Ha b 2:6 ; Tobi t 3:4 ; Wisdo m 5:4) . Bu t parabole ca n als o mea n a n enigm a o r riddle , a s see n i n Ps 49: 4 ( = LXX 48:5) : " I wil l inclin e m y ea r t o a parable ; I wil l ope n m y dar k sayin g upo n th e harp" ; o r Ps 78:2 ( = LX X 77:2) : " I wil l ope n m y mout h i n a parable ; I wil l utte r dar k saying s o f old " (cf . Pro v l:6;Sirac h 39:1-3 ; 47:15,17) I n Ezekiel , a s well , parabole connote s th e ide a o f a riddl e (cf . Ezek 12:22 , 23 ; 16:44; 17:2; 18:2, 3) . Th e prophe t say s tha t th e Lor d is a speake r o f parable s (Eze k 21: 5 = LXX 20:49) , bu t thes e parable s appea r t o b e oracle s o f judgmen t (24:3 ; cf LXX Da n 12:8)

Accordin g t o th e Preache r o f Ecclesiastes , t o kno w wisdo m approximate s th e knowledg e o f parable s (Ecc l 1:17) Jesu s be n Sir a hel d a simila r view , saying , "I n th e treasurie s o f wisdo m ar e parable s o f knowledge " (Sirac h 1:25) ; an d again , "A hear t o f discernmen t wil l appreciat e a parable , an d a n ea r o f attentivenes s is th e desir e o f a wis e person " (Sirac h 3:29) . Mashal an d it s Gree k equivalen t parabole sometim e mea n n o mor e tha n a saying , a s see n fo r exampl e i n 1 Sa m 10:12 : "I s Sau l als o amon g th e prophets? " I n thi s cas e ther e is nothin g metaphorica l abou t th e saying Indeed , ther e is nothin g especiall y enigmati c abou t it , thoug h it ma y hav e bee n mean t a s a taunt Late r i n 1 Samue l w e encounte r a n obviori s exampl e o f a proverb : "As th e prover b o f th e ancient s says , Ou t o f th e wicke d come s fort h wickedness' " ( 1 Sa m 24:13) . I n Hebre w i t is appropriatel y designate d a mashal (cf th e boo k o f Proverbs , i.e. , th e boo k o f meshalim), bu t th e Gree k translato r curiousl y choose s parabole instea d o f paroimia (i.e. , "proverb") , a s on e migh t hav e expected . Likewis e i n 1 Kg s 4:3 2 ( = LXX 5:12) , wher e w e ar e tol d tha t Solomo n "spok e thre e thousan d proverbs, " i n th e Gree k w e hav e parabolai, no t th e expecte d paroimiai.

Fro m thi s brie f surve y i t seem s tha t parabole, paroimia, an d ainigma ca n hav e overlappin g meaning s an d tha t thei r usag e is n o certai n indicatio n o f genr e (cf F Hauck , parabole, TDNT 5.744-61 ; idem, paroimia,

TDNT5.854-56; G Kittel , aìnigma, TDNT 1.178-80) On e thin g the y hav e i n commo n is tha t the y ar e th e opposit e o f plai n speech Thi s is seen , fo r example , i n Nu m 12:6-8a : "Whe n ther e ar e prophet s amon g you , I th e Lor d mak e mysel f know n t o the m i n visions ; I spea k t o the m i n dreams

No t s o wit h m y servan t Moses ; h e is entruste d wit h all m y house Wit h hi m I spea k fac e t o fac e — clearly , no t i n riddle s (MT : behidoth; LXX: dl' ainigmatön)·, an d h e behold s th e for m o f th e Lord. "

2 . Ol d Testamen t Parable s

Ther e ar e approximatel y te n parable s i n th e Ol d Testamen t tha t loosel y resembl e thos e spoke n b y Jesu s (cf Manson , Teaching of Jesus, 59-66 ; Gerhardsson , "Narrativ e Meshali m i n th e Synopti c Gospels, " 339-63) Th e firs t parabl e tha t appear s i n Scripture , an d possibl y th e oldest , is foun d i n Jud g 9:8-1 5 an d ha s bee n calle d th e Parabl e o f th e Trees I t reads :

Th e tree s onc e wen t fort h t o anoin t a kin g over them ; an d the y sai d t o th e olive tree , "Reig n over us." Bu t th e olive tre e sai d t o them "Shoul d I leave m y fatness , b y whic h Go d an d ma n ar e honored , an d g o t o wav e t o an d fr o over th e trees? " An d th e tree s sai d t o th e fi g tree , "Come , an d reig n over us." Bu t th e fig tre e said t o them , "Shoul d I leave m y sweetnes s an d m y goo d fruit , an d go t o wav e t o an d fr o over th e trees? " An d th e tree s sai d t o th e vine , "Come , an d reig n over us." An d th e vin e sai d t o them , "Shoul d I leave m y ne w wine , whic h cheer s Go d an d man , an d go t o wave t o an d fr o over th e trees? " The n said all th e tree s t o th e bramble , "Come , an d reig n over us." An d th e brambl e sai d t o th e trees , "If i n trut h yo u anoin t m e kin g over you , the n com e an d tak e refug e i n m y shade ; an d if not , le t fire com e ou t of th e bramble , an d devou r th e cedar s of Lebanon. "

Becaus e trees , vines , an d bramble s ar e portraye d a s speaking , thi s materia l is probabl y mor e o f th e natur e o f a fabl e tha n a parable , a s T. W . Manso n ha s rightl y observe d (cf . Teaching of Jesus, 62-63) . Nevertheless , it is interestin g t o observ e tha t th e fabl e is explaine d i n verse s 16-2 1 tha t follow . Thi s for m ma y paralle l thos e instance s i n th e Gospel s wher e parable s ar e followe d b y explanation s (e.g. , Mat t 13:24-30 + 13:36-43 ; Mar k 4:2- 9 + 4:13-20 ; 7:14-1 5 + 7:17-23) .

Th e Fabl e o f th e Tree s is suppose d t o interpre t th e slaughte r o f th e sevent y son s o f Gideo n a t th e hand s o f hi s so n Abimelec h an d th e me n o f Schechem . Whateve r its origina l meanin g — an d interpreter s disput e it , alon g wit h question s o f sources , editing , an d compilatio n i n Judge s 9 — Jotham' s interpretatio n anticipate s tha t judgmen t wil l befal l Abimelech . Fo r Abimelec h ha d pu t t o deat h th e son s o f Gideo n "o n on e stone " (9:5) , an d s o h e wil l b e consume d b y fire (9:20) . Bu t wherea s th e fabl e speak s o f bein g devoure d b y fire, th e narrativ e itsel f draw s a n eve n close r paralle l betwee n wha t Abimelec h di d t o th e son s o f Gideo n an d wha t woul d befal l him , sayin g tha t Abimelec h suffere d a morta l injur y whe n a woma n crushe d hi s skul l wit h a millston e (9:53-54) .

Tw o parable s appea r i n 2 Samuel . Th e first is th e Parabl e o f th e Ew e Lam b i n 2 Sa m 12:lb-4 , whic h Natha n th e prophe t tol d agains t Kin g David , afte r h e ha d committe d adulter y wit h Bathsheb a an d the n arrange d th e deat h o f he r husban d Uriah . Th e parabl e read s as follows :

Ther e wer e tw o me n i n on e city ; th e on e rich , an d th e othe r poor Th e ric h ma n ha d many , man y flock s an d herds ; bu t th e poo r ma n ha d nothing , save on e littl e ewe lamb , whic h h e ha d bought H e brough t it up , an d it gre w u p wit h him , an d wit h hi s children ; it use d t o ea t of hi s ow n food , an d drin k of hi s ow n cup , an d lie i n hi s bosom , an d it wa s like a daughte r t o him An d a travele r cam e t o th e ric h man , an d h e wa s reluctan t t o tak e of hi s ow n floc k an d of hi s ow n herd , t o dres s fo r th e wayfarin g ma n wh o ha d com e t o him . Instead , h e too k th e poo r man' s lamb , an d dresse d it fo r th e ma n wh o ha d com e t o him .

Davi d is outrage d whe n h e hear s thi s parable . "Th e ma n wh o ha s don e this, " h e avers , "deserve s t o die! " ( v 5) . Bu t the n Natha n explain s th e parable : "You ar e th e man! " Th e Lor d ha d give n Davi d everything , includin g th e daughter s o f Sau l th e king , hi s predecessor . Unsatisfie d wit h all o f tha t h e struc k dow n Uria h th e Hittit e an d too k hi s wife . Therefor e troubl e wil l overtak e th e king' s hous e ( w 7-14) . To hi s credit , Davi d confesses : " I hav e sinned " ( v 13) .

Th e Parabl e o f th e Ew e Lam b is a juridica l parabl e (cf . Simon , "Poo r Man' s Ewe-Lamb, " 207-42) . Lik e th e Fabl e o f th e Tree s considere d above , thi s parabl e is interprete d a s a porten t o f judgment . Althoug h Davi d confesse s hi s si n an d s o avoid s a judgmen t o f deat h o n himself , th e prophe t foretell s bloodshe d withi n th e king' s family . Th e death s o f David' s son s

5 5

Amnon , Absalom , an d Adonija h offe r th e mos t shockin g tokens , amon g others , o f thi s prophecy' s fulfillment . Th e secon d parabl e o f 2 Samuel , th e Parabl e o f th e Tw o Brother s o f 2 Sa m 14:4-7 , is , i n reality , a rus e mean t t o deceiv e Davi d (cf . w 1-3 , 1220) . Davi d assume s tha t th e stor y is factua l (a s h e initiall y di d i n respons e t o Nathan' s Parabl e o f th e Ew e Lamb) . Later , however , h e learn s tha t it concern s hi s so n Absalom . Th e situatio n an d portraya l o f th e Parabl e o f th e Tw o Brother s read s ( w 4-7) :

An d whe n th e woma n of Tekoa spok e t o th e king , sh e fell o n he r fac e t o th e ground , an d di d obeisance , an d said , "Help , Ο king. " An d th e kin g said t o her , "Wha t is you r trouble? " An d sh e answered , "O f a trut h I a m a widow , an d m y husban d i s dead An d you r servan t ha d tw o sons , an d the y tw o strov e togethe r i n th e field , an d ther e wa s non e t o par t them , bu t th e on e struc k th e other , an d kille d him And , behold , th e whol e famil y is rise n agains t you r servant , an d the y say, 'Delive r hi m tha t struc k hi s brother , tha t we ma y kill hi m fo r th e life of hi s brothe r who m h e slew, eve n if w e destro y th e hei r as well.' Thu s will the y quenc h m y on e remainin g ember , an d will leave t o m y husban d neithe r nam e no r remnan t o n th e fac e of th e earth. "

I n thi s instanc e th e heare r o f th e parabl e di d no t kno w tha t it wa s a parable Davi d assume d tha t th e widow' s dilemm a wa s a rea l one Indeed , i n th e ensuin g conversation , sh e beg s th e kin g no t t o allo w th e avenge r o f bloo d t o d o an y mor e killing . Davi d assure s he r tha t "no t on e hai r o f you r so n shal l fal l t o th e ground " ( ν 11) . Afte r thi s pronouncement , th e woma n reveal s tha t th e kin g ha s convicte d himself , fo r hi s determinatio n t o pu t t o deat h hi s so n Absalo m is inconsisten t wit h hi s judgment . Onl y the n di d Davi d realiz e tha t th e stor y wa s fiction , designe d t o promp t hi m t o reconside r hi s thinking . A s such , thi s parabl e is anothe r exampl e o f a juridica l parable .

A parabl e an d a fabl e ar e foun d i n 1 Kg s 20:38-43 , wher e w e hav e th e

Parabl e o f th e Escape d Prisoner Afte r bein g wounde d an d bandaged , a prophe t wait s o n th e roa d fo r Ahab , kin g o f Israel Th e parabl e an d it s explanatio n rea d a s follows :

Th e prophe t departed , an d waite d fo r th e kin g alon g th e road , disguisin g himsel f wit h a bandag e over hi s eyes. As th e kin g passe d by, h e crie d t o

th e kin g an d said , "Your servan t wen t ou t int o th e mids t of th e battle ; and , behold , a ma n turne d aside , an d brough t a ma n t o me , an d said , 'Kee p thi s man : if b y an y mean s h e b e missing , the n shal l you r life b e fo r hi s life, o r else yo u shal l pa y a talen t of silver.' An d as you r servan t wa s bus y her e an d there , h e wa s gone. " An d th e kin g of Israe l sai d t o him , "S o shal l you r judgmen t be ; yo u hav e decide d it." An d h e quickl y too k th e headban d away fro m hi s eyes; an d th e kin g of Israel recognize d tha t h e wa s on e of th e prophets . An d h e sai d t o him , "Thu s says th e Lord , 'Becaus e yo u hav e let go ou t of you r han d th e ma n who m I ha d devote d t o

destruction , therefor e you r life shal l go fo r hi s life, an d you r peopl e fo r hi s people.' " An d th e kin g of Israe l wen t t o hi s hous e heav y an d displeased , an d cam e t o Samaria .

Thi s parabl e is simila r t o th e on e tol d t o Davi d b y th e woma n o f Tekoa . Aha b assume s tha t h e is bein g tol d a factua l story As Davi d befor e him , th e kin g o f Israe l passe s judgment , onl y t o b e tol d tha t h e ha s passe d judgmen t o n himself

Th e Fabl e o f th e Thistl e an d th e Ceda r give n i n 2 Kg s 14:8-1 0 is anothe r instanc e o f a fabl e i n th e Ol d Testament :

The n Amazia h sen t messenger s t o Jehoash , th e so n of Jehoaha z so n of Jehu , kin g of Israel , saying , "Come , le t u s loo k on e anothe r i n th e face."

An d Jehoas h th e kin g of Israe l sen t t o Amazia h kin g of Judah , saying , "Th e thistl e tha t wa s i n Lebano n sen t t o th e ceda r tha t wa s i n Lebanon , saying , 'Giv e you r daughte r t o m y so n fo r marriage ; an d ther e passe d b y a wil d beas t tha t wa s i n Lebanon , an d tro d dow n th e thistle. ' You hav e indee d struc k Edom , an d you r hear t ha s lifte d yo u up : glor y i n it , an d abid e a t home ; fo r wh y shoul d yo u meddl e t o you r hurt , tha t yo u shoul d fall , eve n you , an d Juda h wit h you? "

Amaziah , kin g o f Juda h an d cock y ove r hi s recen t succes s agains t Edom , wishe s t o mee t wit h Jehoash , kin g o f Israel , perhap s t o negotiat e payment s t o mercenar y troop s fro m Israe l (se e th e explanatio n give n i n 2 Ch r 25:616; th e marriag e proposa l hinte d a t i n th e fabl e itsel f probabl y doe s no t reflec t a n actua l detai l i n th e historica l drama) . Jehoas h tell s hi m t o sta y hom e an d enjo y hi s recen t victory . Th e poin t is drive n hom e wit h th e Fabl e o f th e Thistl e an d th e Cedar . Th e thistle' s presumptio n wil l ge t hi m trample d b y th e bi g player s i n th e drama .

On e o f th e classi c biblica l parable s is Isaiah' s Son g o f th e Vineyar d i n

Isa 5:1-7 Althoug h it is a song , mos t commentator s agre e tha t i t is a parabl e — and , lik e severa l alread y considered , a juridica l parabl e (cf . J. T. Willis , "Th e Genr e o f Isaia h 5: 1 -7" Journal of Biblical Literature 9 6 [1977 ] 33762 ; G A Yee, "Th e Form-Critica l Stud y o f Isaia h 5:1-7, " Catholic Biblical Quarterly 4 3 [1981 ] 30-40) . I t reads :

Let m e sin g fo r m y belove d a son g of m y belove d concernin g hi s vineyard M y belove d ha d a vineyar d o n a ver y fruitfu l hill; an d h e digged it, an d gathere d ou t th e stone s fro m it , an d plante d i t wit h th e choices t vine , an d buil t a towe r i n it s midst , an d als o hewe d ou t a winepres s i n it H e looke d fo r it t o brin g fort h grapes , an d it brough t fort h wil d grapes

An d now , Ο inhabitant s of Jerusale m an d me n of Judah , judge , I pra y you , betwee n m e an d m y vineyard Wha t coul d hav e bee n don e mor e t o m y vineyar d tha t I hav e no t don e i n it? Why , whe n I looke d tha t it shoul d brin g fort h grapes , brough t it fort h wil d grapes ? An d no w I will tell yo u wha t I will d o t o m y vineyard : I will tak e awa y it s hedge , an d it shal l b e devoured ; I will brea k dow n it s wall , an d it shal l b e trodde n down ; an d I wil l lay it waste It shal l no t b e prune d no r hoed , bu t ther e shal l com e u p brier s an d thorns I wil l also comman d th e cloud s tha t the y rai n n o rai n upo n it . Fo r th e vineyar d of th e Lor d is th e hous e of Israe l an d th e me n of Juda h hi s pleasan t plant An d h e looke d fo r justice , but , behold , oppression ; fo r righteousness , but , behold , a cry.

W e hav e i n thi s son g a n instanc e o f th e hermeneutic s o f propheti c criticism , whereb y th e prophe t allude s t o Israel' s sacre d traditio n bu t finds i n i t ground s fo r judgment , no t assuranc e (cf . Sanders , "Hermeneutic s i n Tru e an d Fals e Prophecy, " 22-41) . Israe l ma y ver y wel l b e likene d t o a chose n vin e tha t Go d ha s plante d o n a mountai n an d lovingl y care d for . Bu t if justic e an d righteousnes s ar e lacking , on e shoul d expec t judgment . Th e remainde r o f th e Ol d Testamen t parable s ar e foun d scattere d amon g th e oracle s i n th e first hal f o f th e boo k o f Ezekiel . Th e Riddl e (o r Parable ) o f th e Eagle s an d th e Vin e i n Eze k 17:2-1 0 reads :

So n of man , pu t fort h a riddle , an d spea k a parabl e t o th e hous e of Israel ; an d say, "Thu s says th e Lor d God : A grea t eagl e wit h grea t wing s an d lon g pinions , ful l of feathers , whic h ha d variou s colors , cam e t o Lebanon , an d too k th e to p of th e cedar ; h e croppe d of f th e topmos t of

th e youn g twig s of it , an d carrie d i t t o a lan d of commerce ; h e se t i t i n a cit y of merchants H e too k als o of th e seed of th e lan d an d plante d it i n a fruitfu l soil; h e place d it besid e man y waters ; h e set it a s a willowtree . An d it gre w an d becam e a spreadin g vin e of lo w stature , whos e branche s turne d towar d him , an d th e root s of i t wer e unde r him So it becam e a vin e an d brough t fort h branche s an d sho t fort h sprigs . Ther e wa s als o anothe r grea t eagl e wit h grea t wing s an d man y feathers And , behold , thi s vin e di d ben d it s root s towar d hi m an d sho t fort h it s branche s towar d him , fro m th e bed s of it s plantation , tha t h e migh t wate r it It wa s plante d i n a goo d soil b y man y waters , tha t i t migh t brin g fort h branche s an d bea r frui t an d b e a goodl y vine. " Say, "Thu s says th e Lor d God : Shal l it flourish ? Shal l h e no t pul l u p it s root s an d cu t of f th e frui t fro m it , tha t i t ma y withe r — tha t all it s fres h springin g leave s ma y wither ? An d no t b y a stron g ar m o r man y peopl e ca n it b e raise d fro m it s roots Yea, behold , bein g planted , shal l i t flourish ? Shal l i t no t utterl y withe r whe n th e eas t win d touche s it? It shal l withe r i n th e bed s wher e i t grew."

Part s o f thi s extende d parabl e ar e reminiscen t o f Isaiah' s Son g o f th e Vineyard Fo r lik e th e olde r song , Ezekiel' s Riddl e o f th e Eagle s an d th e Vin e envision s judgment . Th e rhetorica l questio n o f vers e 9 , "Shal l i t flourish?, " recall s th e rhetorica l questio n o f Isa 5:4 : "Wha t mor e wa s ther e t o d o fo r m y vineyar d tha t I hav e no t don e i n it? "

Anothe r parabl e i n Eze k 19:1- 9 reads :

Moreover , tak e u p a lamentatio n fo r th e prince s of Israel, an d say, "Wha t wa s you r mother ? A lioness : sh e couche d amon g lions , i n th e mids t of th e youn g lion s sh e nourishe d he r whelps . An d sh e brough t u p on e of he r whelps ; h e becam e a youn g lion , an d h e learne d t o catc h th e prey ; h e devoure d men . Th e nation s also hear d of him ; h e wa s take n i n thei r pit ; an d the y brough t hi m wit h hook s t o th e lan d of Egypt . No w whe n sh e saw tha t sh e ha d waited , an d he r hop e wa s lost , the n sh e too k anothe r of he r whelp s an d mad e hi m a youn g lion . An d h e wen t u p an d dow n amon g th e lions ; h e becam e a youn g lion , an d h e learne d t o catc h th e prey ; h e devoure d men . An d h e kne w thei r palace s an d lai d wast e thei r cities; an d th e lan d wa s desolate , an d it s fullness , becaus e of th e nois e of hi s roaring . The n th e nation s set agains t hi m o n ever y sid e fro m th e provinces ; an d the y sprea d thei r ne t over him ; h e wa s take n i n thei r pit .

An d the y pu t hi m i n a cage wit h hook s an d brough t hi m t o th e kin g of Babylon ; the y brough t hi m int o strongholds , tha t hi s voic e shoul d n o mor e b e hear d upo n th e mountain s of Israel."

Thi s is a funera l lamen t tha t is presente d a s a parable . Althoug h animal s pla y a part , i t is no t a fable . Yet i t is mor e o f a n allegor y tha n a simpl e parable . Indeed , Ezekie l s parable s ar e beginnin g t o exhibi t feature s a s encountere d i n suc h late r apocalypti c work s a s Danie l an d 1 Enoch , wher e symbolis m is employed .

Th e Parabl e o f th e Lionnes s is immediatel y followe d b y th e Parabl e o f th e Vin e i n Eze k 19:10-14 , whic h is a lamen t tha t take s u p agai n th e imager y o f th e vine :

Your mothe r wa s like a vine , i n you r blood , plante d b y th e waters : it wa s fruitfu l an d ful l of branche s b y reaso n of man y waters An d it ha d stron g rod s fo r th e scepter s of the m tha t rule , an d thei r statur e wa s exalte d amon g th e thic k boughs , an d the y wer e see n i n thei r heigh t wit h th e multitud e of thei r branches . But i t wa s plucke d u p i n fury ; it wa s cast dow n t o th e ground . Th e east win d drie d u p its fruit ; its stron g rod s wer e broke n of f an d withered ; th e fir e consume d them An d no w it is plante d i n th e wilderness , i n a dr y an d thirst y land . An d fire is gon e ou t of th e rod s of it s branches ; i t ha s devoure d it s fruit , so tha t ther e is i n it n o stron g ro d t o b e a scepte r t o rule Thi s is a lamentatio n an d shal l b e fo r a lamentation .

Her e w e hav e anothe r highl y allegorica l parable , thi s tim e wit h a n obviou s allusio n t o Isaiah' s Son g o f th e Vineyard . "You r mothe r wa s lik e a vine " is a referenc e t o th e Davidi c dynasty . A s i n man y o f th e parable s reviewe d above , th e poin t o f th e Parabl e o f th e Vin e convey s a messag e o f judgment . Thoug h "plante d b y waters " an d "fruitful, " i t wa s "plucke d u p i n fury " an d "cas t dow n t o th e ground " wher e th e "eas t wind " (i.e. , th e Babylonia n Empire ) "drie d it s fruit. " Th e dynast y ha s bee n uproote d an d replante d i n th e desert . It s is frui t devoured . I t n o longe r rules . Ezekie l provide s tw o mor e parables . On e is th e Parabl e o f th e Fores t Fir e i n Eze k 21:1- 5 (M T = 20:45-49) :

An d th e wor d of th e Lor d cam e t o me , saying , "So n of man , set you r fac e towar d th e south , an d dro p you r wor d towar d th e south , an d prophes y

agains t th e fores t of th e fiel d i n th e South Say t o th e fores t of th e South , 'Hea r th e wor d of th e Lord : Thu s says th e Lor d God , Behold , I will kindl e a fir e i n you , an d it shal l devou r ever y gree n tre e i n yo u an d ever y dr y tree Th e flamin g flam e shal l no t b e quenched , an d all face s fro m th e

sout h t o th e nort h shall b e burn t b y it An d all fles h shall see tha t I, th e Lord , hav e kindle d it It shal l no t b e quenched'. " The n said I, "Ah, Lor d God ! The y say of me , 'I s h e no t a speake r of parables?' "

Th e las t vers e identifie s th e text , a t leas t b y inference , a s a parable I t is, however , mor e o f a metaphor , fo r i t lack s a plot A fir e burn s a forest , an d tha t represent s judgment Bu t ther e ar e n o tru e characters , ther e is n o plot , an d ther e is n o mora l o r lesso n t o th e story God' s judgmen t is likene d t o a consumin g fire , whic h wil l destro y th e "south " (i.e. , Judah , no t th e Negev ; cf ν 8) Thi s is metaphor , therefore , no t a parabl e (o r a fable ) i n th e mor e technica l sense Nonetheless , th e allegorica l feature s tha t wer e observe d i n th e previou s parable s o f Ezekie l ar e stil l i n evidence

Ezekiel' s fina l parabl e is th e Parabl e o f th e Seethin g Pot , whic h is foun d i n Eze k 24:2-5 Th e parabl e reads :

So n of man , writ e th e nam e of th e day, even of thi s ver y day : "th e kin g of Babylo n dre w close t o Jerusale m thi s ver y day." An d utte r a parabl e t o th e rebelliou s house , an d say t o them , "Thu s says th e Lor d God : Set o n th e caldron , set it on , an d also pou r wate r int o it; gathe r it s piece s int o it, eve n ever y goo d piece , th e thig h an d th e shoulder ; fill it wit h th e choic e bones . Take th e choic e of th e flock , an d also a pil e of woo d fo r th e bone s unde r th e caldron ; mak e it boi l well Yea, let th e bone s of it b e boile d i n th e mids t of it."

Ezekiel' s mashal her e is mor e o f a n objec t lesso n tha n a parabl e (cf . Eze k 4:1-5:17 , wher e th e prophe t perform s variou s symboli c action s tha t porten d a comin g sieg e an d hardship) , whic h throug h symbolis m convey s a messag e o f judgment . Nevertheless , ther e is n o indicatio n i n thi s cas e tha t th e prophe t actuall y acte d ou t wha t h e describe s i n hi s parable Th e prophe t enjoin s th e Babylonia n kin g t o coo k rebelliou s Jerusalem , takin g car e no t t o leav e ou t th e "choice " parts , tha t is , th e rulin g elit e wh o hav e promote d rebellion

3 . Dream s an d Dream-Interpretation s

Befor e leavin g th e biblica l data , ther e is on e othe r genr e o f paraboli c materia l tha t shoul d b e considere d briefly Fo r ther e ar e approximatel y on e doze n dream s tha t ar e somewha t paralle l t o th e parable s an d fable s tha t hav e alread y bee n reviewed . An d lik e th e propheti c meshalim, the y ar e understoo d a s medi a throug h whic h Go d reveal s thing s t o huma n beings All o f the m ar e symbolic , requirin g interpretation . Josep h an d Danie l ar e th e best-know n dreamer s o r dream-interpreter s o f th e Bible Joseph' s dream s o f firs t th e sheave s bowin g dow n t o hi s shea f an d the n o f th e sun , moon , an d star s bowin g dow n t o hi m (Ge n 37:5-7 , 9-10 ) offende d hi s parent s an d brothers , fo r th e meanin g o f thes e dream s wa s quit e plai n t o them Bot h o f thes e dream s ar e allegories , thoug h i n ver y brie f form . Th e dream s o f Pharaoh' s bake r an d cupbearer , whic h Josep h interprete d (Ge n 40:5-19) , ar e similar Thoug h allegorical , the y ar e relativel y simple . So als o Pharaoh' s drea m o f th e seve n fa t cow s eate n b y seve n emaciate d cow s an d th e seve n fa t ear s o f cor n eate n b y seve n withere d ear s o f corn I t come s a s n o surpris e tha t the y represen t seve n year s o f plent y followe d b y seve n year s o f famin e (Ge n 41:1-7) .

Daniel' s statur e a s a n interprete r o f dream s is a s impressiv e a s tha t o f Joseph's H e successfull y interpret s Nebuchadnezzar' s drea m o f th e grea t statu e (Danie l 2 ) an d Nebuchadnezzar' s drea m o f th e grea t tre e (Danie l 4 ; cf Eze k 31:3-14) Likewise , Danie l himsel f dream s hi s "nigh t visions " an d see s th e fou r beasts , th e convenin g o f th e heavenl y court , th e presentatio n o f th e kingdo m t o "on e lik e a so n o f man, " an d th e grea t struggl e betwee n th e hol y one s an d th e fourt h kingdo m o f th e eart h (Danie l 7) . Althoug h somewha t simila r t o th e dream s o f Joseph , Daniel' s dream s ar e mor e involved , mor e highl y charge d wit h symbolism Moreover , Daniel' s dream s ar e no t concerne d wit h Danie l himself , unlik e Joseph' s dreams , whic h mostl y concer n Joseph' s fate . Rather , Daniel' s dream s ar e nationa l an d eschatological , lookin g fo r Israel' s redemptio n an d restoration .

Th e othe r dream s i n th e Bibl e tha t contai n paraboli c detail s includ e Jacob' s drea m o f th e staircas e (Ge n 28:12-15) , Jacob' s drea m abou t th e goat s an d th e floc k an d it s meanin g relativ e t o hi s father-in-la w Laba n (Ge n 31:10-13) , an d th e drea m tha t Gideo n overheard , i n whic h th e cak e o f barle y tumble d int o th e cam p o f Midia n an d cause d a ten t t o collapse , thereb y signifyin g Midian' s certai n defea t (Jud g 7:13-14) .

4 . Earl y Postbiblica l Parable s

I n th e earl y writing s o f postbiblica l Judais m ther e appea r als o som e othe r Jewis h parables . Thre e o f thes e earl y postbiblica l parable s ar e particularl y significan t here .

I n th e Genesis Apocryphon, whic h wa s writte n abou t 5 0 BCE-5 0 CE, Abra m recount s hi s Drea m o f th e Ceda r an d Date-Palm . IQapGen 20.13-1 6 read s a s follow s (cf . Wise , Abegg , an d Cook , Dead Sea Scrolls 79) :

I, Abram , ha d a drea m th e nigh t of m y entr y int o th e lan d of Egypt In m y dream , I saw a ceda r tre e an d a date-pal m growin g fro m a singl e root The n peopl e cam e intendin g t o cu t dow n an d uproo t th e cedar , thereb y t o leave th e date-pal m b y itself Th e date-palm , however , objected , an d said , "D o no t cu t th e ceda r down , fo r th e tw o of u s gro w fro m bu t a singl e root. " So th e ceda r wa s spare d becaus e of th e datepalm , an d wa s no t cu t down

Abram' s drea m is ver y simila r t o th e dream s relate d i n th e Ol d Testament , particularl y i n Genesi s an d Daniel Lik e fables , thes e dream s ar e surreal , fo r date-palm s d o no t tal k t o woodcutter s an y mor e tha n emaciate d cattl e devou r fa t cattle A s i n th e biblica l dreams , Abram' s Drea m o f th e Ceda r an d Date-Pal m convey s a messag e fro m God , guidin g th e patriarc h an d hi s wif e throug h th e peril s the y wil l encounte r i n Egypt . Th e element s o f Abram' s drea m ar e draw n fro m P s 92:13 , a passag e tha t i n rabbini c literatur e is sometime s associate d wit h Abraha m an d Sara h (cf. , e.g. , Genesis Kabbah 41. 1 [o n Ge n 12:17])

On e mor e parabl e fro m Qumra n is atteste d i n fragment s fro m cav e 4 . Fo r fragmen t 1, colum n 2 o f th e Parabl e o f th e Fruitfu l Tree , whic h is identifie d a s 4Q302 a o r 4Qpap Parable, read s a s follow s (cf Wise , Abegg , an d Cook , ibid., 296) :

Pleas e conside r this , yo u wh o ar e wise : If a ma n ha s a fin e tree , whic h grow s high , all th e wa y t o heave n [. . .] of th e soil , an d i t produce s succulen t frui t [ever y year ] wit h autum n rain s an d th e sprin g rain s [. . .] an d i n thirst , wil l h e no t [. . .] an d guar d it [. . .] t o multipl y th e bough s of [. . .] fro m it s shoot , t o increas e [. . .] an d it s mas s of branche s [. . .] .

Fragmen t 2 , colum n 1 possibl y constitute s th e interpretatio n o f thi s parable . I t ma y eve n mentio n God' s kingdom , thoug h thi s wor d mus t b e partiall y restored .

Finally , w e ma y conside r a postbiblica l parabl e tha t is associate d wit h Ezekiel . Epiphaniu s (c . 315-403) , th e bisho p o f Salami s i n Cypru s an d a n earl y historian , cite s th e Parabl e o f th e Lam e Ma n an d th e Blin d Ma n (Panarion o r Against Heresies 64.70.5-17 ) an d say s tha t h e too k i t fro m th e Apocryphon of Ezekiel ( = frag . 1). Th e parabl e als o appear s i n briefe r for m i n rabbini c literatur e (cf . b. Sanhédrin 91a-b , wher e i t is attribute d t o Juda h ha-Nasi ; als o Lev Rabbah 4. 5 an d th e Mekilta o n Exo d 15:1 , wher e i t is attribute d t o Ishmael) . Th e longer , Epiphania n versio n o f thi s parabl e read s (cf . Muelle r an d Robinson , "Apocrypho n o f Ezekiel, " 492 , 494) :

A certai n kin g ha d everyon e i n hi s kingdo m drafted , an d ha d n o civilian s excep t tw o only : on e lam e ma n an d on e blin d man , an d eac h on e sat b y himsel f an d lived b y himself . An d whe n th e kin g wa s preparin g a weddin g feas t fo r hi s ow n son , h e invite d all thos e i n hi s kingdom , bu t h e snubbe d th e tw o civilians , th e lam e ma n an d th e blin d man . An d the y wer e indignan t withi n themselve s an d resolve d t o carr y ou t a plo t agains t th e king

No w th e kin g ha d a garde n an d th e blin d ma n calle d ou t fro m a distanc e t o th e lam e man , saying , "Ho w muc h woul d ou r crum b of brea d hav e bee n amon g th e crowd s wh o wer e invite d t o th e party ? So com e on , jus t a s h e di d t o us, le t u s retaliat e (against ) him. " Bu t th e othe r asked , "I n wha t way? " An d h e said , "Le t u s go int o hi s garde n an d ther e destro y th e thing s of th e garden. " Bu t h e said , "Bu t ho w ca n I, bein g lam e an d unabl e t o crawl? " An d th e blin d on e spoke , "Wha t a m I abl e t o d o myself, unabl e t o see wher e I a m going ? Bu t let u s us e subterfuge. "

Pluckin g th e gras s nea r hi m an d braidin g a rope , h e thre w [it] t o th e blin d ma n an d said , "Take hol d an d com e alon g th e rop e t o me. " An d h e di d as h e [th e lam e man ] ha d urge d [and ] whe n h e approached , h e said , "Com e t o me , b e [my ] fee t an d carr y me , an d I will b e you r eyes, guidin g yo u fro m abov e t o th e righ t an d left." An d doin g thi s the y wen t dow n int o th e garden . Furthermore , whethe r the y damage d o r di d no t damag e [anything] , nevertheles s th e footprint s wer e visibl e i n th e garden .

No w whe n th e partygoer s disperse d fro m th e weddin g feast , goin g dow n int o th e garde n the y wer e amaze d t o find th e footprint s i n th e garden An d the y reporte d thes e thing s t o th e king , saying , "Everyon e i n

you r kingdo m is a soldie r an d n o on e is a civilian . So how , then , ar e ther e footprint s of civilian s i n th e garden? " An d h e wa s astounded

H e summone d th e lam e ma n an d th e blin d man , an d h e asked th e blin d man , "Di d yo u no t com e dow n int o th e garden? " An d h e replied , "Who , me , lord? You see ou r inability , yo u kno w tha t I canno t see wher e I walk." The n approachin g th e lam e man , h e aske d hi m also, "Di d yo u com e dow n int o m y garden? " An d answering , h e said , " O lord , d o yo u wis h t o embitte r m y sou l in th e matte r of m y inability? " An d finall y th e judgmen t wa s delayed

Wha t the n doe s th e jus t judg e do? Realizin g i n wha t manne r bot h ha d bee n joined , h e place s th e lam e ma n o n th e blin d ma n an d examine s bot h unde r th e lash An d the y ar e unabl e t o deny , the y eac h convic t th e other Th e lam e man , o n th e on e hand , sayin g t o th e blin d man , "Di d yo u no t carr y m e an d lea d m e away?" An d th e blin d ma n t o th e lame , "Di d yo u yoursel f no t becom e m y eyes?" In th e sam e wa y th e bod y is connecte d t o th e sou l an d th e sou l t o th e body , t o convic t [them ] of [their ] commo n deeds . An d th e judgmen t become s fina l fo r bot h bod y an d soul , fo r th e work s the y hav e don e whethe r goo d o r evil

I n th e briefer , simple r rabbini c versio n o f thi s parable , th e poin t is th e same Th e kin g judge s th e blin d ma n an d th e lam e ma n a s one Fro m this , th e mora l is drawn : "S o th e Hol y One , blesse d b e he , bring s th e spiri t an d placin g i t i n th e body , h e als o judge s the m a s one " (Muelle r an d Robinson , ibid., 493) . 5 . Feature s o f th e Biblica l an d Postbiblica l Parable s

All o f th e material s surveye d abov e — wit h th e possibl e exceptio n o f th e las t parabl e cite d fro m th e Apocryphon ofEzekiel, whic h ha s bee n date d betwee n 5 0 BCE an d 5 0 CE (cf Muelle r an d Robinson , ibid., 488 ) — wer e i n circulatio n i n Jesus ' day , an d s o ma y hav e provide d hi m wit h th e themes , forms , an d conten t ou t o f whic h h e coul d hav e constructe d hi s ow n parables . Th e feature s o f th e biblica l an d postbiblica l parable s ma y b e summarize d a s follows :

1. Man y parable s ar e juridical , tha t is, th e heare r pronounce s judgmen t o n himself . Thi s is eviden t i n 2 Sa m 12:1-4 ; 14:1-20 ; 1 Kg s 20:35-43 ;

bu t particularl y s o i n Isa 5:1-7 . Furthermore , mos t o f th e parables , eve n if the y d o no t expressl y dra w th e heare r int o passin g judgmen t o n himself , ar e judgmenta l i n perspective .

2 . Som e parable s ar e tol d a s fact , thereb y initiall y deceivin g th e hearer . Thi s devic e ma y hav e bee n intende d t o preven t th e heare r fro m puttin g himsel f o n guar d agains t th e parable' s principa l point .

3. Th e parable s ar e tru e t o life , thoug h thi s is no t th e cas e wit h fable s o r dreams

4 . Som e parable s contai n allegorica l elements , especiall y thos e i n Ezekiel

5 Th e fable s appea r t o serv e simila r function s a s th e parables

6. Al l o f th e parable s an d fable s ar e addresse d t o monarch s o r leader s o f th e people .

7. Th e dream s ar e viewe d a s message s fro m God , whic h ar e i n nee d o f decipherment Unlik e th e parable s an d fables , however , dream s ar e no t devise d fo r pedagogica l purposes .

Ho w d o th e parable s o f Jesu s compar e t o thes e features ? Man y o f Jesus ' parable s ar e juridical , invitin g th e hearer s t o judg e themselve s — or , a t least , t o dra w thei r ow n conclusions Jesus ' parable s ar e tru e t o life , bu t ar e neve r tol d t o deceiv e anyon e (tha t is, t o mak e someon e thin k a n actua l even t is bein g described) . Jesu s tell s n o fables , an d hi s parable s contai n a relativel y smal l amoun t o f allegorica l features Althoug h som e o f Jesus ' parable s ar e addresse d t o th e leader s o f Israel , mos t ar e addresse d t o hi s followers Jesu s neithe r dream s (thoug h h e ma y hav e ha d visions ) no r interpret s dreams

Certai n stylisti c feature s an d theme s commo n t o Jesus ' parable s ar e no t foun d i n th e biblica l an d earl y postbiblica l parables . Close r approximations , however , ar e t o b e foun d i n th e earl y rabbini c parables . An d s o it is t o thos e parable s tha t w e mus t no w turn .

6 . Comparison s wit h Earl y Rabbini c Parable s

Ou r purpos e her e is no t t o trea t i n an y detaile d manne r Jesus ' parables Tha t is th e tas k assigne d t o thos e writin g chapter s 4-1 3 o f th e presen t volume Rather , wha t is intende d i n thi s sectio n is t o sho w ho w th e parable s o f th e rabbi s o f th e Tannaiti c period , whic h roughl y parallel s th e firs t tw o

centurie s o f Christianity , offe r vali d an d instructiv e point s o f compariso n t o th e parable s o f Jesus Fo r t o understan d th e earl y rabbini c parable s is t o b e abl e t o understan d bette r th e parable s o f Jesus . Fou r features , i n particular , nee d her e t o b e highlighted : (1 ) tha t th e rabbini c parable s frequentl y spea k o f a king , (2 ) tha t "kingdom " is usuall y define d a s God' s sovereig n reig n ove r hi s dominion , (3 ) tha t th e character s i n th e parable s ofte n behav e i n illogica l ways , an d (4 ) tha t rabbini c parable s us e terminolog y an d theme s tha t ar e ofte n t o b e foun d als o i n parable s attribute d t o Jesus . Th e recognitio n o f thes e fou r feature s serves , i n fact , t o clarif y i n variou s way s th e parable s o f Jesus

1. God as King in the Rabbinic

Parables

Ther e ar e som e 32 5 extan t Tannaiti c parables , mor e tha n hal f o f whic h featur e a king , wh o almos t alway s represent s Go d (cf . R . Pautrel , "Le s canon s d u Masha l rabbinique") Amon g thes e w e hav e th e Parabl e o f th e Forgivin g Kin g [b. Rosh ha-Shanah 17b ; attribute d t o Rabb i Yose th e priest , c . 90-10 0 CE; cf . Mat t 5:23-24 ; 18:21-35) ; th e Parabl e o f th e King' s Wis e an d Foolis h Servant s ( b Shabbath 153a ; als o Eccl Rabbah 9: 8 §1 ; Midrash Prov 16:11 ; attribute d t o Rabb i Yohana n be n Zakkai , c . 70-8 0 CE; cf . Mat t 24:4551 ; Luk e 17:7-10) ; th e Parabl e o f th e King' s Banque t Guest s {Semahot 8:10 ; attribute d t o Rabb i Meir , c 150 CE; cf Mat t 22:1-10 : Luk e 14:15-24) ; th e Parabl e o f th e King' s Stewar d ( Abot h de R. Nathan 14.6 ; attribute d t o Rabb i Eleaza r be n Arak , c 9 0 CE; cf Mat t 25:14-3 0 / / Luk e 19:12-27) ; an d th e King' s Tw o Administrator s ( Mekilt a o n Exo d 20: 2 [Bahodesh §5] ; attribute d t o Rabb i Simo n be n Eleazar , c . 170 CE; cf . Mat t 25:2 1 / / Luk e 19:17) Othe r parable s coul d b e mentioned , bu t thes e ar e amon g th e mos t illustrative .

Mor e tha n hal f o f Jesus ' parable s spea k o f th e "kingdo m o f God, " whic h Jesu s seeme d t o hav e understoo d i n term s o f God' s powerfu l presence Althoug h th e rabbini c parable s usuall y spea k o f Go d a s kin g an d Jesus ' parable s spea k o f th e kingdo m o f God , thes e expression s ar e closel y relate d an d meri t comparison Th e nex t poin t shoul d mak e thi s evident

2. Kingdom as God's Sovereign Reign over His Dominion

Years ag o T. W . Manso n note d tha t i n a fe w rabbini c passage s th e ter m "kingdom " sometime s mean s God' s dominio n (cf . Manson , Teaching of Jesus 130-32 ; se e als o C . L. Blomberg , "Parable s o f Jesus" ; B. D . Chilton , "Regnu m De i Deu s Est " an d "Kingdo m o f Go d i n Recen t Discussion") , whic h is th e meanin g tha t th e ter m probabl y ha s i n Jesus ' parables . A parabl e foun d i n th e Mekilta o n Exo d 20: 2 ( Bahodes h §5 ) is illustrative :

Wh y wer e th e Ten

Commandment s no t sai d at th e beginnin g of th e Torah ? The y give a parable To wha t ma y thi s b e compared ? To th e following : A kin g wh o entere d a provinc e said t o th e people : "Ma y I rul e over you? " Bu t th e peopl e sai d t o him : "Hav e yo u don e anythin g goo d fo r u s tha t yo u shoul d rul e over us? " Wha t di d h e d o then ? H e buil t th e cit y wal l fo r them , h e brough t i n th e wate r suppl y fo r them , an d h e fough t thei r battles The n whe n h e sai d t o them : "Ma y I rul e over you? " The y sai d t o him : "Yes, yes." So it is wit h God H e brough t th e Israelite s ou t of Egypt , divide d th e sea fo r them , sen t dow n mann a fo r them , brough t u p th e well fo r them , brough t th e quail s fo r them H e fough t fo r the m th e battl e wit h Amalek The n h e said t o them : "Ma y I rul e over you? " An d the y sai d t o him : "Yes, yes."

Anothe r illustrativ e passag e is foun d i n Sifra Lev §19 4 (o n Lev 18:130) . I t is no t formall y introduce d a s a parable , bu t it s fictiv e conversatio n betwee n Go d an d th e wildernes s generatio n is parable-like . I n all probabilit y thi s materia l is relate d t o th e abov e parable .

Th e Lor d spok e t o Mose s saying , "Spea k t o th e son s of Israe l an d say t o them : Ί a m th e Lord you r God' " [Lev 18:1-2] . Rabb i Simeo n be n Yohai says, "Thi s i s i n lin e wit h wha t is sai d elsewhere : Ί a m th e Lor d you r Go d (wh o brough t yo u ou t of th e lan d of Egypt , ou t of th e hous e of bondage)' " [Exod 20:2] . "Am I th e Lord , whos e sovereignt y [literally, 'kingdom' ] yo u too k upo n yoursel f i n Egypt? " The y said t o him , "Yes, yes." "Indee d yo u hav e accepte d m y dominio n [literally, 'm y kingdom'] . The y accepte d m y decrees : 'You wil l hav e n o othe r god s before' " [Exod 20:3] . Tha t is wha t is sai d here : " I a m th e Lor d you r God, " meaning , "A m I th e on e whos e dominio n [literally, 'kingdom' ] yo u accepte d at Sinai?" The y sai d t o him , "Yes, yes." "Indee d yo u hav e accepte d m y dominio n [liter -

ally, 'm y kingdom'] . The y accepte d m y decrees : 'You shall no t cop y th e practice s of th e lan d of Egyp t wher e yo u dwelt , o r of th e lan d of Canaa n t o whic h I a m takin g you ; no r shal l yo u follo w thei r laws' " [Lev 18:3].

Th e definitio n o f "kingdom " a s God' s kingl y rul e i n thi s passag e is quit e clea r as th e us e o f "sovereignty " an d "dominion " i n Jaco b Neusner' s translatio n (quote d above) , instea d o f th e mor e litera l "kingdom, " point s up . Thi s secon d passag e cohere s wit h th e first on e cite d i n declarin g tha t Go d rule s ove r Israe l a s a king Furthermore , thi s secon d passag e understand s th e people' s acceptanc e o f To ra h a s thei r acceptanc e o f God' s roya l sovereignty . An d thi s ide a o f Go d a s a kin g wh o reign s sovereignl y ove r th e dominio n o f hi s peopl e approximate s Jesus ' proclamatio n o f th e kingdo m o f God .

3. Illogical Characters in the Rabbinic Parables

Tannaiti c parable s presen t thei r character s a s sometime s actin g i n illogica l ways Th e parabl e foun d i n Seder Elijah Rabbah §28 , fo r example , describe s a remarkabl y foolis h an d incautiou s kin g who , agains t th e sensibl e advic e o f hi s friends , entruste d hi s city , palace , an d youn g so n t o a guardia n wh o wa s a n utte r rascal Th e parabl e reads :

Th e parable , as tol d b y Rabb i Yose th e Galilean , concerne d a morta l kin g wh o ha d set ou t fo r a cit y fa r acros s th e sea . As h e wa s abou t t o entrus t hi s so n t o th e car e of a wicke d guardian , hi s friend s an d servant s sai d t o him : "M y lor d king , d o no t entrus t you r so n t o thi s wicke d guardian. " Nevertheles s th e king , ignorin g th e counse l of hi s friend s an d servants , entruste d hi s so n t o th e wicke d guardian Wha t di d th e guardia n do? H e proceede d t o destro y th e king' s city, hav e hi s hous e consume d b y fire, an d slay hi s so n wit h th e sword Afte r a whil e th e kin g returned Whe n h e saw hi s cit y destroye d an d desolate , hi s hous e consume d b y fire , hi s so n slai n wit h th e sword , h e pulle d ou t th e hai r of hi s hea d an d hi s bear d an d brok e ou t int o wil d weeping , saying : "Wo e is me ! Ho w [foolish ] I hav e been , ho w senselessly I acte d i n thi s kingdo m of min e i n entrustin g m y so n t o a wicke d guardian! "

I n Rabb i Yose's parabl e w e hav e a ma n wh o appear s utterl y t o lac k commo n sense . Agains t th e advic e o f friend s an d counselor s h e entrust s

hi s so n t o a ma n know n t o b e a "wicke d guardian. " Bu t th e action s o f th e guardia n ar e jus t a s difficul t t o comprehend . W e ar e no t tol d tha t h e stol e anythin g o r profite d i n an y wa y b y hi s actions H e destroy s th e king' s city , burn s dow n hi s house , an d murder s hi s son . Wha t coul d h e possibl y hav e hope d t o gain ? Di d h e imagin e tha t h e coul d ge t awa y wit h thes e crimes ?

Woul d no t ever y heare r o f thi s parabl e suppos e tha t th e kin g woul d sen d troop s afte r th e guardia n an d hav e hi m executed ?

Thes e ar e th e sam e kind s o f question s tha t critic s hav e raised , fro m tim e t o time , agains t th e authenticit y o f th e Parabl e o f th e Wicke d Tenant s (Mar k 12:1-12) . Ho w coul d th e owne r hav e bee n s o foolis h an d s o reckles s wit h th e live s o f hi s servants ? Ho w coul d h e hav e bee n s o stupi d a s t o sen d hi s so n t o th e vineyar d afte r hi s servant s ha d bee n maltreated , eve n murdered ? Wha t coul d th e tenant s hav e hope d t o gain ? Di d the y no t kno w tha t th e owne r ha d th e powe r t o com e an d destro y them ? Di d the y reall y imagin e tha t the y coul d inheri t th e vineyard ? An d on e ma y as k simila r question s wit h respec t t o th e rud e behavio r o f th e invite d guest s i n th e Parabl e o f th e Grea t Banque t (Luk e 14:15-24 ) o r th e eccentri c behavio r o f th e vineyar d owne r i n th e Parabl e o f th e Laborer s (Mat t 20:1-15) .

Question s suc h a s thes e d o no t constitut e vali d objection s agains t th e authenticit y o f an y particula r parable Th e incomprehensibl e foll y o f th e kin g i n Rabb i Yose's parabl e — particularl y sinc e Yose applie s th e parabl e t o God' s trustin g Nebuchadnezzar ! — nee d no t cas t doub t o n th e questio n o f th e parable' s authenticity . No r shoul d th e foll y o f th e vineyar d owne r o r it s tenant s cas t doub t o n th e authenticit y o f Jesus ' parable . Indeed , suc h detail s provok e thes e kind s o f question s — bot h fo r ancien t hearer s an d fo r moder n readers . Bu t thes e shockin g details , togethe r wit h th e question s the y raise , ar e ther e t o lea d hearer s an d reader s alik e t o a bette r gras p o f th e story-lin e o f th e parable , a bette r appreciatio n o f its issues , an d a bette r applicatio n o f it s intende d lesso n o r lessons .

Sometime s objection s ar e raise d agains t th e authenticit y o f certai n parable s o f Jesu s — mos t notably , again , th e Parabl e o f th e Wicke d Tenant s becaus e the y appea r t o b e allegorie s base d o n th e fat e o f Jesu s or , it is alleged , o n th e experienc e o f th e earl y church Bu t rabbini c parable s ar e als o sometime s allegorical . Th e presenc e o f allegor y shoul d no t alon e decid e th e questio n o f authenticity

4. The Terminology and Themes of the Rabbinic Parables vis-à-vis Those of Jesus

Th e parable s o f th e rabbi s an d thos e o f Jesu s frequentl y us e commo n terminology Thes e includ e th e Hebre w nou n mashal (cf th e Gree k parabole), th e Hebre w ver b mashal (cf . th e Gree k parabolēn paratithenai), th e Hebre w ter m domah, whic h set s u p a compariso n (cf . th e Gree k hömoioun o r homoia einai), th e Hebre w interrogator y pronou n lemah, whic h call s fo r a compariso n (cf . th e Gree k interrogator y pronou n tint), an d th e Hebre w adver b cak, whic h applie s th e parabl e (cf th e Gree k houtös). Som e example s o f introductor y wordin g t o th e parable s ar e a s follows :

" I wil l give yo u a parable . To wha t doe s thi s matte r compare ? To a ma n wh o len t hi s neighbo r a min a " (b. Rosh ha-Shanah 17b) ;

"I t compare s t o a kin g wh o summone d hi s servant s t o a banquet... " (b. Shabbath 153a);

"H e se t befor e the m anothe r parable , saying , 'Th e kingdo m o f Heave n ma y b e likene d t o a ma n wh o sowe d goo d see d ..." ' (Mat t 13:24) ;

"Wha t is th e kingdo m o f Go d lik e an d t o wha t shal l I compar e it? I t is lik e a mustar d see d " (Luk e 13:18) ;

"Thu s i t happene d t o th e Egyptian s " ( Mekilt a o n Exo d 14:5 [Beshallah 2]) ;

"Thu s di d Mose s spea k t o Israe l " ( Sifr e Deut §5 3 [o n Deu t 11:26]) ;

"Thu s is th e kingdo m o f God " (Mar k 4:26) ; and , "Thu s i t wil l b e als o wit h thi s evi l generation " (Matt . 12:45) .

Likewise , man y o f Jesus ' parable s contai n withi n the m certai n vocabular y an d theme s tha t ca n b e parallele d i n rabbini c literature . Fo r example , th e Parabl e o f th e Prodiga l So n i n Luk e 15:11-3 2 contain s man y o f thes e features

"An d h e sen t hi m int o hi s field s t o fee d swine " (Luk e 15:15b ) — cf "N o Israelit e ma y rais e swin e anywhere " ( Mishnah , Baba Kamma 7:7) ; "Curse d is th e ma n wh o raise s swine " ( b Baba Kamma 82b)

"An d h e longe d t o b e filled wit h th e pod s whic h th e swin e wer e eat -

ing " (Luk e 15:16a ) — cf . "Whe n Israelite s ar e reduce d t o eatin g carob-pods , the y repent " ( Le v Rabbah 13.4 [o n Le v 11:2]) .

"'Ho w man y o f m y father' s hire d servant s hav e brea d enoug h an d t o spare , bu t I peris h her e wit h hunger ! I wil l aris e an d g o t o m y father ' . . . 'pu t shoe s o n hi s feet!' " (Luk e 15:17 ) — cf . "Whe n a so n [abroad ] goe s barefoo t [throug h poverty] , h e remember s th e comfor t o f hi s father' s house " ( La m Rabbah 1: 7 §34) .

" I a m n o longe r worth y t o b e calle d you r son " (Luk e 15:19 ) — cf . " I [th e son ] a m ashame d t o com e befor e yo u [th e father] " ( Den t Rabbah 2.2 4 [o n Deu t 4:30]) ; " I a m no t worthy " ( Targu m Neofiti o n Ge n 32:11) .

"Thi s m y so n wa s dead , an d is no w aliv e again " (Luk e 15:24 ) — cf . "Fou r ar e regarde d a s dead : th e leper , th e blind , h e wh o is childless , an d h e wh o ha s becom e impoverished " ( Ge n Rabbah 71. 6 [o n Ge n 30:1]) .

Furthermore , th e Parabl e o f th e Prodiga l So n give s expressio n t o severa l theme s commonl y foun d i n rabbini c parables On e thinks , fo r example , o f th e Parabl e o f th e King' s Erran t So n ( Deu t Rabbah 2.2 4 [o n Deu t 4:30] ; attribute d t o Rabb i Meir , c 15 0 CE); th e Parabl e o f th e King' s Younges t So n ( Sifr e Deut §35 2 [o n Deu t 33:12) ; anonymous) ; th e Parabl e o f th e King' s Twelv e Sons , on e o f who m th e kin g love d mor e tha n th e other s ( Ge n Rabbah 98. 6 [o n Ge n 49:8 ] ; anonymous) ; th e Parabl e o f th e Repatriate d Prince , wh o accordin g t o on e versio n returne d t o hi s "inheritance " (Sifre Deut §34 5 [o n Deu t 33:4] ; anonymous ) an d accordin g t o anothe r versio n wa s me t halfwa y b y hi s fathe r ( Pesikt a Rabbati 44.9 ; anonymous) ; and , finally, th e Parabl e o f th e Fathe r wh o divide d hi s inheritanc e amon g hi s son s (b. Kiddushin 61b ; attribute d t o Rabb i Hanin a be n Gamaliel , c . 12 0 CE)

7 . Conclusio n

Ou r surve y o f earl y jewis h parable s make s it clea r tha t Jesus ' parable s ar e righ t a t hom e i n first-century Jewis h Palestine . I n mos t respect s Jesus ' parable s ar e no t unique . Thei r emphasi s o n th e kingdo m o f Go d roughl y parallel s th e rabbis ' emphasi s o n Go d a s king , thoug h wit h importan t differences . Jesus ' parable s ar e simila r i n form , beginnin g wit h suc h introductor y

phrase s a s "t o wha t ma y thi s b e compared? " o r "th e kingdo m o f Go d is like."

The y ar e abou t th e sam e lengt h a s th e rabbini c parables . Sometime s allegorical feature s ar e present . Kings , banquets , travels , an d busines s dealing s ar e commo n themes . Parable s ar e usuall y use d t o illustrat e o r defen d a n interpretatio n o f Scriptur e o r a poin t o f doctrine . Th e logi c behin d thi s is aki n t o th e ide a tha t natur e an d everyda y lif e teac h u s th e way s o f God . Th e Ol d Testamen t parable s an d relate d material s probabl y supplie d th e basi c form s an d content s ou t o f whic h Jesu s an d hi s contemporarie s fashione d thei r parables . Bu t compariso n wit h th e parable s o f th e rabbini c literatur e make s i t clea r tha t a certai n amoun t o f formalizatio n ha d take n plac e betwee n th e compositio n an d circulatio n o f Israel' s Scriptures , o n th e on e hand , an d th e late r highl y formulate d parable s o f th e rabbis , o n th e other . Davi d Ster n ha s rightl y observe d tha t "Jesu s use d th e parabl e (insofa r a s th e gospe l narrative s tel l us ) i n essentiall y th e sam e wa y a s th e Rabbi s employe d th e mashal i n publi c context s (sermon s o r preaching) , an d a s a n instrumen t fo r prais e an d blame , ofte n directe d a t th e person s presen t i n th e audience " ( Parable s in Midrash, 200) . Bu t tha t is no t t o sa y tha t ther e ar e n o importan t difference s i n emphasi s an d theolog y betwee n th e parable s o f Jesu s an d thos e o f th e rabbis , particularl y wit h regar d t o matter s o f purity , election , an d th e natur e o f th e kingdo m o f Go d (cf Blomberg , Interpreting the Parables, 65-68)

On e furthe r poin t shoul d als o b e mentione d here Fo r ther e is i n Jewis h lor e a n interestin g associatio n o f parable s wit h Solomo n an d wit h th e prope r interpretatio n o f Torah A rabbini c midras h reads :

You will find tha t unti l Solomo n cam e ther e wa s n o parable... . So unti l Solomo n aros e n o on e wh o coul d properl y understan d th e word s of th e Torah , bu t whe n Solomo n arose , all bega n t o comprehen d th e Tora h

So proceedin g fro m on e thin g t o another , fro m on e parabl e t o another , Solomo n penetrate d t o th e innermos t meanin g of th e Tora h .. . throug h th e parable s of Solomo n w e maste r th e word s of th e Torah . Ou r rabbi s say: "Le t no t th e parabl e b e lightl y esteeme d i n you r eyes, sinc e b y mean s of th e parabl e a ma n ca n maste r th e word s of th e Torah. " ( Son g Rabbah 1:1 §8 )

Ho w earl y thi s traditio n ma y b e is difficul t t o determine Perhap s i t is quit e old , fo r surel y th e clai m o f Jesus , th e telle r o f parables , tha t "on e wh o is greate r tha n Solomo n is here " (Mat t 12:4 2 = Luk e 11:31 ) — indeed , on e

7 3

wh o interpret s Tora h wit h greate r authorit y (cf . Mat t 5:21-48 ; Mar k 2:27 ) point s t o a simila r traditio n an d association .

Wha t a t firs t blush , therefore , appea r t o b e disparat e tradition s — tha t is , th e identificatio n o f Jesu s a s th e so n o f Davi d (Mar k 10:47-48 ) and a s a Solomoni c figur e wh o speak s parables , interpret s Torah , cast s ou t demons , an d proclaim s th e kingdo m o f Go d — may , i n fact , b e essentia l feature s o f a first-centur y Jewis h messiani c expectation . Th e tellin g o f parable s ma y b e mor e tha n merel y anothe r indicatio n tha t Jesu s understoo d himsel f a s a rabbi . I t is quit e possibl e tha t Jesu s develope d a teachin g styl e consisten t wit h hi s messag e an d wit h hi s mission : tha t th e proclaime r o f God' s kingdo m proclaime d th e kingdo m i n th e manne r an d styl e expecte d o f th e so n o f David .

Selecte d Bibliograph y

Blomberg , Crai g L Interpreting the Parables. Downer s Grove : InterVarsity , 1990

"Th e Parable s o f Jesus : Curren t Trend s an d Need s i n Research, " i n

Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (NTT S 19) , ed B D Chilto n an d C A Evans Leiden : Brill , 1994,231-54

Chilton , Bruc e D "Regnu m De i Deu s Est, " Scottish Journal of Theology 31 (1978 ) 261-70

"Th e Kingdo m o f Go d i n Recen t Discussion, " i n Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (NTT S 19) , ed B D Chilto n an d C A Evans Leiden : Brill , 1994 , 255-80

Drury , John The Parables in the Gospels: History and Allegory. London : SPCK ; Ne w York : Crossroad , 1985

Evans , Crai g A Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies (AGJ U 25) Leiden : Brill , 1995 , esp 252-62

Gerhardsson , Birger "Th e Narrativ e Meshali m i n th e Synopti c Gospels A Compariso n wit h th e Narrativ e Meshali m i n th e Ol d Testament, " New Testament Studies 3 4 (1988 ) 339-63

Manson , T W The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of Its Form and Content. Cambridge : Cambridg e Universit y Press , 1948

Mueller , Jame s R. , an d Stephe n B Robinson "Apocrypho n o f Ezekiel, " i n

Parables

The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols. , ed . J. H . Charlesworth . Ne w York : Doubleday , 1983 , 85 , 1.487-95

Oesterley , W . O . E. The Gospel Parables in the Light of Their Jewish Background. London : Macmillan , 1936 .

Pautrel , Raymond "Le s canon s d u Masha l rabbinique, " Recherches de science religieuse 26 (1936 ) 6-4 5 an d 2 8 (1938 ) 264-81 .

Sanders , Jame s A "Hermeneutic s i n Tru e an d Fals e Prophecy, " i n Canon and Authority (W Zimmerl i Festschrift), ed G W Coat s an d B O Long . Philadelphia : Fortress , 1971,22-41 .

Simon , Uriel "Th e Poo r Man' s Ewe-Lamb : A n Exampl e o f a Juridica l Parable, " Biblica 4 8 (1967 ) 207-42 .

Stern , David . Parables in Midrash: Narrative and Exegesis in Rabbinic Literature. Cambridge , MA : Harvar d Universit y Press , 1991 , esp 188-206

Wise , Michae l O. , Marti n G . Abegg , Jr. , an d Edwar d M . Cook , The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. Sa n Francisco : HarperCollins , 1996 Young , Bra d H . Jesus and His Jewish Parables. Ne w York : Paulist , 1989 .

PAR T I I

Parables of th e Kingdom

CHAPTE R 4

Mar k s Parables of th e Kingdom

(Mark 4:1-34)

MORN

A D . HOOKE R

WER E I T O TAKE m y brie f t o discus s Mark' s parable s of th e kingdo m literally, thi s articl e woul d b e ver y shor t indeed , fo r th e Gospe l o f Mar k ha s onl y tw o "parable s of th e kingdom " — th e Parabl e of th e Growin g Seed i n 4:26-2 9 an d th e Parabl e of th e Mustar d Seed i n 4:30-32 . It is clear, however , fro m th e interpretatio n tha t th e evangelis t insert s betwee n th e parabl e an d its explanatio n in verse s 10-12 , tha t h e understand s th e Parabl e of th e Sowe r in 4:1-2 0 as also havin g somethin g t o d o wit h th e kingdom . An d w e will , I think , discove r tha t th e Parabl e of th e Lam p in 4:21-2 3 ha s a clos e connectio n wit h th e sam e theme .

On e of th e reason s wh y Mark' s Gospe l is shorte r tha n th e other s is, of course , tha t h e include s muc h less of Jesus ' teaching . Thi s is no t becaus e h e regard s tha t teachin g as unimportant , fo r h e tells u s frequentl y tha t Jesus taugh t an d present s hi m as teachin g wit h authority . I n fact , i n hi s portrayals of Jesu s Mar k use s th e nou n "teaching " (didachē) five time s an d th e correspondin g ver b "t o teach " (didaskö) seventee n times . We d o no t kno w whethe r th e parable s include d b y Matthe w an d Luke wer e availabl e t o Mar k o r not . If the y were , tha t migh t tell u s somethin g ver y significan t abou t Mark' s choice . Bu t we d o no t know , an d w e woul d b e in dange r of gettin g th e wron g answe r if we wer e t o guess . All w e ca n properl y d o is se e wha t pictur e is buil t u p b y th e materia l tha t Mar k included .

1 . Th e Marka n Contex t

I n orde r t o appreciat e th e significanc e o f th e parable s i n Mar k 4:1-34 , i t is necessary , first o f all , t o se t the m i n contex t b y considerin g fou r mor e genera l matters . I n wha t follows , therefore , I wan t t o conside r briefl y (1 ) th e impac t o f th e othe r parable s include d b y Mark , (2 ) reference s t o th e kingdo m i n Mark , (3 ) Mark' s arrangemen t o f th e mai n block s o f Jesus ' teaching , an d (4 ) th e paralle l betwee n parable s an d miracle s i n Mark .

The Other Markan Parables

Th e first o f th e Marka n parable s occur s i n 2:19-20 . I n respons e t o hi s critics , Jesu s says : "Ca n th e friend s o f th e bridegroo m fas t whil e h e is wit h them ? As lon g a s th e bridegroo m is wit h them , the y canno t fast . Bu t th e tim e wil l com e whe n th e bridegroo m is take n awa y fro m them ; an d whe n tha t da y comes , the n the y wil l fast. " Th e parabl e is clearl y understoo d t o refe r t o Jesu s himself , fo r h e is th e "bridegroom " whos e presenc e — o r absenc e — make s all th e differenc e t o hi s disciples

Thi s parabl e is immediatel y followe d b y tw o paraboli c sayings Th e first, i n 2:21 , is abou t mendin g a garment : "N o on e sew s a patc h o f unwashe d clot h ont o a n ol d garment ; otherwise , th e patc h tear s awa y fro m it , th e ne w fro m th e old , an d make s a bigge r hole. " Th e second , i n 2:22 , is abou t storin g wine : "N o on e pour s ne w win e int o ol d wineskins ; otherwise , th e win e wil l burs t th e skins , an d bot h th e win e an d th e skin s wil l b e lost . Ne w win e goe s int o fres h wineskins. " Bot h o f thes e sayings , a s recounte d b y Mark , poin t t o th e significanc e o f wha t is takin g plac e i n Jesus

I n 3:23-2 7 w e hav e wha t is explicitl y sai d t o b e a "parable" :

The n h e summone d the m an d spok e t o the m i n parable s (en parabolais): "Ho w ca n Sata n driv e ou t Satan ? Fo r if a kingdo m is divide d agains t itself, tha t kingdo m canno t stand An d if a househol d is divide d agains t itself, tha t househol d will no t b e abl e t o stand An d if Sata n ha s rebelle d agains t himsel f an d is divided , h e canno t stand ; tha t is th e en d of him

Bu t n o on e ca n brea k int o a stron g man' s hous e an d plunde r hi s propert y withou t first tyin g u p th e stron g man ; the n indee d h e ca n plunde r hi s house. "

Th e suggestio n tha t th e stron g ma n (i.e. , Satan ) ha s bee n boun d is a clea r referenc e t o th e wor k o f Jesu s himself , wh o confronte d Sata n i n th e wildernes s (cf . 1:12-13) . Thi s parable , lik e th e earlie r ones , is addresse d t o Jesus ' opponents .

Leavin g asid e th e parable s i n 4:1-3 4 (whic h w e wil l b e examinin g later) , w e com e t o th e sayin g i n 7:15 : "Ther e is nothin g outsid e a perso n tha t b y goin g i n ca n defile , bu t th e thing s tha t com e ou t ar e wha t defile. " W e migh t wel l hav e faile d t o recogniz e thi s sayin g a s a parable , wer e i t no t fo r th e explici t referenc e t o it a s suc h i n vers e 17 ("Whe n h e ha d lef t th e crow d an d entere d th e house , hi s disciple s aske d hi m abou t thi s parable " [ten parabolēn] ). I n fact , thoug h i t play s o n th e doubl e meanin g o f "wha t come s ou t o f a person, " th e sayin g seem s t o b e a fairl y straightforwar d on e abou t wha t it is tha t defiles . An d if i t is describe d a s a parable , tha t is perhap s becaus e it s radica l meanin g wa s difficul t t o accept Th e commen t a t th e en d o f vers e 19 ("Thu s h e declare d all food s clean!" ) make s i t plai n tha t i t is th e wor d an d authorit y o f Jesu s tha t ar e crucia l i n "makin g all food s clean. "

Th e final parable s o f Mark' s Gospe l ar e presente d a s havin g bee n give n i n Jerusalem I n 12:1-1 2 w e hav e th e Parabl e o f th e Vineyar d an d th e Wicke d Tenants , whic h Jesus ' opponent s recognize d a s a n attac k o n the m (se e th e discussio n o f thi s parabl e i n Chapte r 7 o f thi s book) Th e parabl e is , i n effect , a n allegory . Mos t importan t fo r ou r purpose s here , however , is th e fac t tha t onc e agai n Mark' s comment s mak e i t clea r tha t h e understand s th e parabl e t o b e abou t Jesu s himself

The n a t th e en d o f chapte r 13, whic h consist s o f privat e teaching s t o fou r o f th e disciples , w e hav e tw o parable s abou t th e End . I n th e first , tha t o f th e Fi g Tre e i n 13:28-29 , th e poin t is tha t th e En d — or , is it Jesu s himself ? — wil l soo n b e a t th e door : "Lear n a lesso n fro m th e fig tree : whe n it s branc h become s tende r an d put s ou t leaves , yo u kno w tha t summe r is near . I n th e sam e way , whe n yo u se e thes e thing s happening , yo u wil l kno w tha t h e is near , a t th e ver y door. " I n th e second , tha t o f a Householde r Returnin g fro m a Journe y i n 13:33-3 7 (se e th e discussio n o f thi s parabl e i n Chapte r 8 o f thi s book) , th e maste r o f th e hous e wh o is expecte d t o retur n is clearl y understoo d t o b e Jesu s himself .

W e see , then , tha t suc h othe r parable s a s Mar k ha s included , i n additio n t o th e so-calle d "parable s o f th e kingdom, " focu s ou r attentio n o n th e perso n o f Jesus . W e wil l discover , i n du e course , tha t th e sam e is tru e o f th e parable s i n 4:1-34

The Kingdom of God

Th e kingdo m o f Go d is firs t referre d t o i n Mark' s Gospe l i n 1:15 , wher e Jesu s announce s it s imminen t arrival : "Th e tim e is fulfilled , an d th e kingdo m o f Go d is a t hand ; repen t an d believ e th e goo d news. " Hi s subsequen t word s an d action s demonstrat e tha t it s effect s ar e alread y bein g felt . I n 9: 1 h e make s anothe r announcement : "Trul y I tel l you , ther e ar e som e standin g her e wh o wil l no t tast e deat h befor e the y se e th e kingdo m o f Go d com e wit h power. " Mark' s positionin g o f thi s sayin g is significant , fo r it is precede d b y th e firs t clea r predictio n o f Jesus ' deat h an d resurrectio n i n 8:31 , an d immediatel y followin g i t w e hav e th e stor y o f th e Transfiguratio n i n 9:2-1 3 i n whic h Jesu s is acknowledge d b y a heavenl y voic e t o b e God' s So n a scen e reminiscen t o f th e stor y o f Jesus ' baptis m a t th e ver y beginnin g o f Mark' s Gospel . Th e clos e conjunctio n o f bot h thes e announcement s o f th e kingdom' s comin g wit h th e heavenl y revelation s o f Jesus ' identit y suggest s tha t Mar k sa w a clos e lin k betwee n thes e tw o ideas . Jesus ' thir d declaratio n tha t th e kingdo m is comin g occur s i n 14:25 : "Trul y I tel l you , I wil l neve r agai n drin k o f th e frui t o f th e vin e unti l tha t da y whe n I drin k i t ne w i n th e kingdo m o f God. " Th e implicatio n seem s t o b e tha t hi s deat h is necessar y befor e th e kingdo m ca n arrive . Thi s tim e w e hav e t o rea d o n t o th e en d o f th e Passio n Narrativ e t o fin d th e declaratio n tha t Jesu s is God' s Son Fo r i t is onl y afte r Jesu s ha s die d tha t th e centurio n remark s i n 15:39 : "Trul y thi s ma n wa s a so n o f God. " I t ha s ofte n bee n pointe d ou t tha t thes e thre e declaration s o f Jesu s a s "So n o f God " occu r a t thre e strategi c point s i n th e narrativ e — tha t is , a t th e ver y beginnin g (1:1) , a t th e turning-poin t o f th e Gospe l (9:7) , an d a t th e momen t o f Jesus ' deat h (15:39) I a m intrigue d t o discove r tha t th e thre e reference s t o th e futur e comin g o f th e kingdo m shoul d als o occu r i n ver y simila r places : a s Jesus ' firs t word s i n th e Gospe l (1:15) , a t it s turningpoin t (9:1) , an d a s hi s fina l word s a t th e Las t Suppe r (14:25) I suggest , therefore , tha t fo r th e evangelis t Mar k ther e wa s a ver y clos e connectio n betwee n th e comin g o f th e kingdo m an d Jesus ' identit y a s So n o f God An d lik e th e parables , thes e crucia l reference s t o th e kingdo m focu s ou r attentio n o n th e perso n o f Jesus , wh o proclaim s an d embodie s it s coming .

Othe r reference s t o th e kingdo m i n Mark' s Gospe l ar e foun d i n chapte r 4 ( w 11,26,30 ) an d i n variou s late r chapters , wher e the y all refe r t o enterin g o r receivin g th e kingdom , o r t o bein g eithe r fa r fro m i t o r nea r t o i t (s o 9:47 ; 10:14-15 , 23-25 ; 12:34 ; 15:43) I n ever y cas e i n th e late r chapter s

o f Mark' s Gospel , th e kingdo m is linke d i n som e wa y wit h th e authorit y o f Jesus Th e referenc e t o th e kingdo m i n 9:4 7 ("I f you r ey e cause s yo u t o stumble , pluc k it out ! I t is bette r fo r yo u t o ente r th e kingdo m o f Go d wit h on e ey e tha n t o hav e tw o eye s an d b e throw n int o Gehenna" ) occur s i n th e contex t o f teachin g abou t wha t i t mean s t o b e Jesus ' disciple Th e sayin g i n 10:14-1 5 ("Le t th e childre n com e t o me ; d o no t sto p them . Fo r i t is t o suc h a s thes e tha t th e kingdo m o f Go d belongs Trul y I tel l you , whoeve r doe s no t receiv e th e kingdo m o f Go d a s a littl e chil d wil l neve r ente r it" ) is foun d i n th e contex t o f childre n bein g brough t t o Jesu s t o b e blesse d b y him Th e saying s i n 10:23-2 5 ("Ho w har d it wil l b e fo r thos e wh o hav e wealt h t o ente r th e kingdo m o f God ! . . . Children , ho w har d it is t o ente r th e kingdo m o f God ! I t is easie r fo r a came l t o g o throug h th e ey e o f a needl e tha n fo r someon e wh o is ric h t o ente r th e kingdo m o f God" ) ar e linke d wit h Peter' s remark s abou t leavin g everythin g t o follo w Jesu s i n verse s 2831 Th e commen t i n 12:3 4 ("Yo u ar e no t fa r fro m th e kingdo m o f God" ) is addresse d t o a scrib e wh o give s wholehearte d endorsemen t t o Jesus ' teaching . I n 15:4 3 it is th e fac t tha t Josep h o f Arimathe a "wa s himsel f waitin g expectantl y fo r th e kingdo m o f God " tha t lead s hi m t o pa y hono r t o Jesus

An d thi s sam e linkag e o f th e kingdo m wit h th e authorit y o f Jesu s wil l b e see n i n th e saying s o f Mar k 4 , a s w e wil l observ e i n ou r examinatio n o f thi s chapte r below

The Teaching of Jesus

Althoug h th e Gospe l o f Mar k doe s no t contai n a grea t dea l o f sustaine d teachin g b y Jesus , it doe s se t ou t tw o mai n block s o f teachin g material : th e first , th e parabl e chapte r o f 4:1-32 , occur s towar d th e beginnin g o f th e Gospel ; th e other , chapte r 13, consistin g o f eschatologica l teachin g delivere d o n th e Moun t o f Olives , is foun d towar d th e end . Similaritie s betwee n thes e tw o passage s sugges t tha t Mar k ma y hav e though t o f the m a s balancin g eac h othe r i n som e way . To b e sure , th e overal l audienc e is different , fo r th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r i n 4:1-1 0 is addresse d t o th e crowd , whil e th e teachin g i n chapte r 13 is addresse d t o onl y fou r disciples . Nevertheless , i n chapte r 4 th e explanatio n i n verse s 11-2 0 is taugh t privatel y t o th e disciples , whil e th e audienc e fo r verse s 21-3 2 is uncertain . Moreover , th e effec t o f Jesus ' teachin g throughou t chapte r 4 is t o narro w dow n th e rea l hearer s o f hi s messag e t o thos e wh o ar e committe d disciples .

I t is, however , i n th e setting s o f th e tw o passage s wher e w e se e parallels Chapte r 4 follow s a serie s o f confrontation s betwee n Jesu s an d th e religiou s authoritie s i n th e previou s tw o chapters . Th e healin g o f th e paralyti c (2:1-12) , th e mea l wit h ta x collector s an d sinner s (2:15-17) , th e disput e abou t fastin g (2:18-22) , th e pluckin g o f grai n i n th e fiel d (2:2328) , th e healin g o f th e ma n wit h a withere d han d (3:1-6) , an d finall y th e accusatio n tha t h e is possesse d b y Sata n (3:20-35 ) — all o f thes e episode s presen t th e challeng e o f Jesus ' authorit y an d th e refusa l o f hi s opponent s t o recogniz e it . Onl y tw o passage s i n thes e chapter s giv e a differen t picture : 2:13-14 , whic h recount s th e cal l o f Levi , an d 3:7-19 , whic h describe s th e respons e o f th e crowd s t o Jesu s an d hi s appointmen t o f twelv e disciples . Thes e tw o passage s contras t vividl y wit h th e res t o f th e materia l i n chapter s 2-3 , showin g th e positiv e respons e mad e b y thos e wh o recogniz e th e authorit y o f Jesus , ove r agains t th e negativ e reactio n o f thos e wh o rejec t it.

A simila r pictur e is foun d i n th e contex t o f chapte r 13, wher e w e agai n find th e religiou s leader s rejectin g Jesus ' authority Thi s time , however , Jesu s is show n i n severa l o f th e incident s a s o n th e offensive : i n (1 ) th e cleansin g o f th e templ e (11:11,15-19) , which , howeve r i t is interpreted , is a condemnatio n o f th e nation' s insincer e worship ; (2 ) th e cursin g o f th e fig tre e tha t fail s t o produc e frui t a t th e prope r tim e (11:12-14,20-25 ) — an d tha t means , fo r Mark , no t durin g th e usua l seaso n fo r figs, bu t a t th e momen t whe n th e Messia h come s lookin g fo r frui t t o ea t (cf . W . R. Telford , The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree); (3 ) th e Parabl e o f th e Vineyar d an d Wicke d Tenant s (12:1-12) , wher e th e leader s ar e condemne d fo r thei r failur e t o han d ove r th e produc e o f th e vineyard ; (4 ) th e questio n abou t th e Messia h bein g so n o f Davi d an d hi s Lor d (12:35-37) ; an d (5 ) th e condemnatio n o f th e scribe s (12:38-40) , wh o ar e contraste d wit h th e poo r wido w wh o gav e everythin g sh e ha d t o th e treasur y (12:41-44) .

Paralle l t o th e accusatio n regardin g hi s exorcism s i n 3:20-3 5 w e hav e th e questio n abou t Jesus ' authorit y i n 11:27-33 : "B y wha t authorit y ar e yo u doin g thes e things ? Wh o gav e yo u thi s authorit y t o d o them? " ( v 28) Bot h incident s focu s o n th e vita l questio n o f th e basi s o f Jesus ' authority : Is it fro m Sata n o r fro m th e Hol y Spirit ? Fro m Go d o r man ? Hi s opponent s ar e unabl e t o reply , bu t Mark' s reader s wil l b y no w b e i n n o doub t regardin g th e correc t answer ! I n thi s sectio n ther e ar e als o deliberat e attempt s t o tri p hi m u p i n th e question s abou t tribut e t o Caesa r (12:13-17 ) an d th e resurrectio n (12:18-27) . I n contrast , onc e again , w e hav e thos e wh o respon d positivel y t o Jesus : th e crow d tha t greet s hi m a s h e enter s Jerusale m o n th e

bac k o f a col t (11:1-10 ) an d th e scrib e wh o approve s hi s teachin g (12:2834)

A s Mark' s readers , therefore , tur n fro m thes e incident s t o th e materia l i n chapter s 4 an d 13, the y hea r i n thos e chapter s teachin g tha t is give n wit h authority . Furthermore , i n bot h case s tha t teachin g is closel y relate d t o th e contex t i n whic h i t appears . Fo r th e incident s leadin g u p t o chapte r 4 hav e focuse d o n Jesus ' abilit y t o hea l th e sic k an d t o exorcis e demons : Jesu s ha s attacke d th e kingdo m o f Satan , an d th e trut h o f hi s initia l proclamatio n tha t th e kingdo m o f Go d is a t han d ha s bee n demonstrate d i n th e crumblin g o f Satan' s power W e expec t i n Jesus ' teachin g t o lear n mor e abou t thi s kingdom , bu t w e no w kno w tha t it s comin g is firml y linke d wit h th e authorit y o f th e on e wh o proclaim s it W e ar e no t surprised , therefore , whe n th e parable s o f chapte r 4 see m t o tel l u s as muc h abou t ou r respons e t o Jesu s a s abou t th e natur e o f th e kingdo m itself — tha t is, tha t thos e wh o respon d positivel y t o hi s messag e wil l produc e a bumpe r harvest

I n chapter s 11 an d 12, o n th e othe r hand , Jesus ' attac k ha s bee n launche d agains t thos e wh o hav e faile d t o produc e a harvest It is launche d agains t th e leader s o f th e nation , wh o ar e condemne d fo r thei r failur e t o han d ove r frui t t o God , an d agains t th e peopl e i n general , wh o hav e faile d t o worshi p Go d wit h sincerit y o r t o produc e rip e fig s fo r th e Messia h t o eat . I t is hardl y surprising , therefore , tha t Jesus ' teachin g i n chapte r 13 concentrate s o n th e comin g judgment No r is i t surprisin g tha t thi s teaching , too , is linke d wit h hi s ow n authority . Hi s rejectio n wil l inevitabl y brin g sufferin g fo r hi s followers Bu t it wil l als o brin g fina l vindication , whe n th e So n o f Ma n gather s hi s elec t fro m th e fa r corner s o f th e earth

Parables and Miracles

Th e fina l matte r w e nee d t o conside r regardin g th e contex t o f th e kingdo m parable s i n 4:1-3 4 concern s th e paralle l tha t exist s betwee n parable s an d miracle s i n Mark' s Gospel A s w e hav e seen , th e parable s i n chapte r 4 ar e precede d b y variou s healin g miracles , man y o f the m exorcisms Immediatel y following , w e hav e a serie s o f miracles : th e stillin g o f th e stor m (4:3541) , th e healin g o f th e Gerasen e demonia c (5:1-20) , an d th e healin g o f th e woma n wit h a hemorrhag e (5:25-34) , whic h is intercalate d int o th e accoun t o f th e raisin g o f Jairus' s daughte r (5:21-2 4 an d 35-43) Afte r th e storie s o f Jesus ' rejectio n i n hi s hometow n an d th e beheadin g o f Joh n th e

Baptist , whic h bot h offe r inadequat e attempt s t o answe r th e questio n o f Jesus ' identity , w e hav e th e feedin g o f th e fiv e thousan d (6:3-44) , th e walkin g o n th e wate r (6:45-52) , an d a summar y o f healing s (6:53-56) . An d followin g thos e incidents , w e hav e Jesus ' teachin g abou t wha t is clea n an d unclea n (7:1-23 , includin g th e "parable " o f ν 15) an d th e miracl e o f th e healin g o f th e Syro-Phoenicia n woman' s daughte r (7:24-30) . Th e connectio n betwee n th e teachin g o f verse s 1-2 3 an d th e miracl e o f verse s 24-3 0 is clea r — indeed , if thi s passag e ha d occurre d i n th e Fourt h Gospel , w e shoul d hav e labele d i t "discours e + sign. "

Ther e the n follow s th e healin g o f a ma n wh o wa s dea f an d dum b (7:31-37) , th e feedin g o f th e fou r thousan d (8:1-10) , an d th e reques t o f th e Pharisee s fo r a sign , whic h is refuse d (8:11-13) . Th e discussio n betwee n Jesu s an d hi s follower s i n th e boa t (8:14-21 ) indicate s tha t fo r thos e wit h eye s t o se e an d ear s t o hear , a "sign " has , i n fact , bee n give n i n th e tw o feedin g miracles Finall y i n thi s sectio n w e hav e th e healin g o f th e blin d ma n a t

Bethsaid a (8:22-26) , whic h is closel y followe d b y th e accoun t o f th e openin g (o r semi-opening! ) o f th e disciples ' eye s t o th e trut h abou t wh o Jesu s is a t Caesare a Philipp i (8:27-33) Onc e again , w e hav e her e th e equivalen t o f a Johannin e "discourse, " whic h spell s ou t th e significanc e o f a precedin g miraculou s "sign " (cf th e ver y simila r patter n o f a miracl e an d a subsequen t discussio n i n Joh n 9)

Thes e miracle s o f 4:35-8:2 6 appea r t o hav e bee n carefull y arrange d b y Mar k t o carr y o n th e them e o f th e parabl e chapter , and , i n particular , t o pic k u p th e ke y saying s i n 4:10-1 2 abou t ear s an d eye s tha t ar e dea f an d blin d t o th e truth . Severa l o f the m hin t a t th e tru e identit y o f Jesu s — th e issu e tha t wa s openl y raise d a t th e beginnin g o f thi s sectio n i n th e disciples ' cry , "Wh o ca n thi s be? " (4:41) , an d tha t wa s picke d u p i n th e hopelessl y inep t questio n pose d b y hi s forme r neighbors , "I s no t thi s th e carpenter , th e so n o f Mar y an d brothe r o f Jame s an d Jose s an d Juda s an d Simon , an d ar e no t hi s sister s her e wit h us? " (6:3) . An d thi s sam e issu e is reiterate d i n th e stor y o f th e Baptist' s death , wit h question s abou t whethe r h e wa s "Joh n th e Baptist " raise d fro m th e dead , "Elijah " returned , o r " a prophet , like on e o f th e prophet s o f old " (6:14-16 ) — question s tha t ar e finall y answere d (thoug h inadequately! ) a t Caesare a Philippi : "You ar e th e Messiah " (8:29b)

I n thes e miracle s Jesu s is reveale d a s th e on e wh o ha s powe r ove r win d an d waves , powe r t o giv e lif e t o th e dead , an d powe r t o provid e foo d fo r hi s people I n thes e miracles , too , ther e ar e echoe s o f th e Ol d Testamen t narrative s abou t Mose s an d Elijah . Yet Jesu s emerge s i n the m a s greate r

tha n both . Furthermore , th e las t fou r miracle s sugges t symboli c meanings : first , th e healin g o f th e Syro-Phoenicia n woman' s daughter , th e meanin g o f whic h is spel t ou t (7:24-30) ; the n th e openin g o f dea f ear s (7:31-37 ) an d blin d eye s (8:22-26) ; whil e i n betwee n thes e latte r tw o storie s ther e is a repetitio n o f th e miracl e o f th e feedin g o f th e crow d (8:1-13) , which , a s th e subsequen t discussion s mak e clear , emphasize s th e refusa l o f Jesus ' enemie s t o se e th e trut h an d th e obtusenes s o f hi s ow n disciple s (8:14-21)

I n th e res t o f Mark' s Gospe l ther e ar e fe w miracles . Th e healin g o f a chil d i n 9:14-1 9 is use d a s a lesso n o n th e meanin g o f faith , whil e th e healin g o f blin d Bartimaeu s i n 10:46-5 2 is, lik e th e accoun t o f th e blin d ma n a t Bethsaida , a stor y wit h a doubl e meanin g — fo r althoug h h e is blind , Bartimaeu s recognize s Jesu s a s So n o f David ; bu t whe n h e receive s hi s sight , h e follow s Jesu s "o n th e way." Finally , th e stor y o f th e cursin g o f th e fi g tre e is, a s w e hav e alread y seen , a "sign " o f th e failur e o f Israe l an d he r consequen t fate .

Unlik e th e Fourt h Evangelist , Mar k rarel y spell s ou t th e meanin g o f Jesus ' miracles . H e prefer s t o se t incident s sid e b y sid e an d t o leav e i t t o hi s reader s t o mak e th e necessar y connections Bu t i t is clea r tha t fo r hi m miracle s no t onl y confron t u s wit h th e significanc e o f Jesus ' teaching , bu t als o serv e th e sam e purpos e a s th e parables . Fo r bot h parable s an d miracles , i n thei r ow n way , presen t th e messag e o f Jesu s i n a dramati c for m (cf M D

Hooker , The Signs of a Prophet; als o W . D . Stacey , Prophetic Drama in the Old Testament). Th e parable s ar e storie s tol d by Jesus ; th e miracle s ar e storie s tol d about Jesus Bot h parable s an d miracles , however , ar e dramati c presentation s o f th e gospel , whic h fo r th e evangelis t is abou t Jesu s himself . I n hi s arrangemen t o f hi s materials , therefore , Mar k use s bot h parable s an d miracle s — lik e hi s reference s t o th e kingdo m — t o focu s hi s readers ' attentio n o n th e figur e o f Jesus .

2 . Th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r (Mar k 4:1-20 )

Thi s firs t bloc k o f teachin g i n Mark' s Gospe l begin s wit h th e Parabl e o f th e Sower , whic h is understoo d b y th e evangelis t t o b e a parabl e abou t parables . Thi s is mad e clea r i n th e explanatio n o f th e parabl e i n verse s 13-20 , whic h begin s wit h th e words : "Don' t yo u understan d thi s parable ? The n ho w wil l yo u understan d an y o f th e parables? " Clearly , Mar k regard s thi s introductor y parabl e a s th e ke y t o understandin g th e rest .

Mark's Use of the Parable

Th e clu e t o Mark' s ow n us e o f th e parabl e is foun d i n verse s 10-12 , whic h ar e intercalate d betwee n th e parabl e itsel f an d it s explanatio n — thoug h becaus e o f thei r difficulty , th e significanc e o f thes e verse s fo r Mark' s understandin g o f Jesus ' ministr y is ofte n overlooked . I n hi s teachin g Jesu s confront s me n an d wome n wit h a n all-importan t decision , whic h is a matte r o f lif e an d death . Thos e wh o d o no t respon d ar e thos e whos e heart s ar e hardened , who m Sata n ha s i n hi s power Thos e wh o respond , wh o hea r an d follo w Jesus , ar e thos e t o who m th e secre t o f th e kingdo m is given Althoug h Jesu s doe s no t announc e o r proclai m himsel f a s th e Christ , th e effec t o f thi s parable , a s presente d t o u s b y Mark , is t o d o precisel y that Jesu s confront s th e reade r a s th e on e wh o bring s salvation . Thu s t o accep t o r rejec t hi s teachin g abou t th e kingdo m is t o accep t o r rejec t bot h th e kingdo m itsel f an d th e on e wh o bring s it

Fo r Mark , th e parable s o f Jesu s bot h revea l an d conceal . Fo r thos e wh o hav e ear s t o hear , the y conve y th e goo d new s o f God' s kingdom ; fo r thos e wh o refus e t o listen , thei r messag e is obscure . Th e parable s ar e i n som e way s simila r t o crosswor d clues , makin g sens e t o thos e wh o ar e prepare d t o accep t thei r challenge . Th e Hebre w wor d mashal, whic h is translate d int o Gree k a s parabole, mean s "proverb " o r "riddle " a s wel l a s "parable, " an d Mar k ma y no t b e wron g i n believin g tha t Jesus ' parable s containe d a certai n enigmati c quality .

By th e tim e tha t Mar k wa s writing , however , th e enigm a seeme d muc h greater . Fo r on e thing , i t is clea r tha t h e sa w i n th e parable s som e explanatio n fo r Israel' s rejectio n o f Jesu s — tha t is, tha t th e peopl e o f Israe l ha d faile d t o respon d t o hi m becaus e the y ha d no t understoo d hi s teaching , an d the y ha d no t understoo d hi s teachin g becaus e the y ha d no t bee n abl e t o deciphe r th e parables A secon d reaso n wh y Mar k woul d b e consciou s o f th e parables ' obscurit y wa s th e shif t i n th e situatio n fro m Jesus ' tim e t o hi s own . Parable s spoke n b y a wanderin g teache r i n Galile e sounde d ver y differen t whe n recite d a s word s o f th e Maste r who m th e communit y acknowledge d a s rise n Lord . Inevitably , therefore , parable s too k o n ne w meaning s i n ne w situation s — an d inevitably , i n th e process , thei r relevanc e sometime s seeme d obscure

I t wa s natural , onc e th e parable s seeme d undul y puzzling , t o ad d explanator y comments Application s t o ne w situation s woul d necessaril y involv e som e for m o f allegorization I n th e explanatio n o f 4:14-20 , i n fact ,

w e fin d a n allegorica l interpretatio n tha t sound s ver y muc h lik e a n earl y preacher' s expositio n o f th e parable , warnin g Christian s o f th e danger s tha t migh t overcom e thei r faith .

Mar k seem s t o hav e understoo d th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r a s fundamental , providin g no t simpl y th e ke y t o understandin g th e teachin g o f Jesus ' paraboli c teachin g (cf . ν 13) bu t als o th e explanatio n o f hi s whol e ministry . Thi s is brough t ou t i n th e expositio n o f th e parabl e i n verse s 14-20 : th e see d represent s th e wor d proclaime d b y Jesus ; th e crop , th e respons e o f me n an d wome n t o him . Fo r th e en d o f th e stor y w e hav e t o tur n t o th e

Parabl e o f th e Vineyar d an d th e Wicke d Tenant s i n 12:1-12 , wher e w e fin d th e Lor d demandin g grape s fro m hi s vineyard , jus t a s h e ha d onc e looke d fo r a harves t i n hi s field. I n chapte r 12, th e tenants ' failur e t o respon d t o th e messenger s lead s ultimatel y t o th e deat h (an d resurrection! ) o f th e so n o f th e owne r o f th e vineyard . Th e fac t tha t eac h o f thes e parable s is place d immediatel y afte r a direc t challeng e b y th e Jerusale m religiou s authoritie s concernin g th e natur e o f Jesus ' authorit y — th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r afte r th e challenge s recounte d i n 3:20-35 ; th e Parabl e o f th e Vineyar d an d Wicke d Tenant s afte r tha t o f 11:27-3 3 — suggest s tha t Mar k regarde d bot h o f the m a s allegorie s o f Israel' s respons e t o an d rejectio n o f Jesus . Take n together , the y encapsulat e th e whol e stor y o f hi s ministry .

Jesus ' firs t wor d o f th e parabl e i n vers e 3, "Listen! " (akouete), is echoe d i n hi s final exhortatio n i n vers e 9 , "Thos e wh o hav e ear s t o hear , le t the m hear! " (akouetö) —an d the n commente d o n i n vers e 12 i n word s quote d fro m Isa 6:1 0 t o th e effec t tha t th e peopl e "liste n an d listen , ye t understan d nothing " (akouontes akouösin kai me suniösin). Birge r Gerhardsso n ha s argue d tha t w e hav e her e echoe s o f th e Shema, th e traditiona l Jewis h confessio n draw n fro m Deu t 6:4- 5 tha t begin s "Hear , Ο Israel " (cf hi s "Th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r an d It s Interpretation") . Hi s evidenc e is muc h stronge r fo r Matthew' s versio n o f th e parabl e tha n i t is fo r Mark's Nonetheless , thi s languag e does , a t th e ver y least , indicat e th e authorit y wit h whic h Jesu s is sai d t o hav e spoken . Furthermore , i t migh t wel l hav e evoke d i n th e mind s o f Mark' s reader s th e comman d t o hea r — an d therefor e t o obe y — th e demand s o f th e speaker . Bu t wherea s Deu t 6:4- 5 require d it s hearer s t o lov e Go d wit h hear t an d sou l an d strength , th e parabl e o f Jesu s call s fo r wholehearte d respons e t o Jesu s himself Th e "word " tha t h e sow s is th e wor d abou t himself . An d i t wil l tak e onl y on e shor t ste p fo r th e evangelis t Joh n t o identif y tha t wor d wit h Jesu s (cf Joh n 1:1)

Th e symbolis m o f bearin g frui t is commo n i n bot h th e Ol d Testa -

men t an d th e teachin g o f Jesus , an d s o i t is possibl e tha t Jesu s himsel f use d th e parabl e t o confron t th e peopl e wit h God' s deman d fo r obedienc e t o hi s will . Th e contras t betwee n fruitfu l an d barre n soil s represent s th e contras t betwee n thos e wh o ar e responsiv e t o God' s commands , an d therefor e tru e member s o f hi s people , an d thos e wh o fai l t o obe y hi s will . I t is thos e wh o ar e responsiv e an d obedien t t o God' s wil l wh o belon g t o hi s Kingdom . However , insofa r a s Jesus ' teachin g represent s a fina l challeng e t o Israe l t o respon d t o God' s demands , Mar k ha s correctl y interprete d th e parabl e i n term s o f th e respons e mad e t o Jesu s himself . Th e openin g comman d t o "listen " i n vers e 3 , togethe r wit h th e closin g word s "Thos e wh o hav e ear s t o hear , le t the m hear " i n vers e 9 , remin d u s o f th e nee d t o pa y carefu l attentio n t o Jesus .

The Purpose of the Parables

Verse s 10-1 2 ar e perhap s th e mos t difficul t an d mos t discusse d verse s i n th e whol e o f Mark' s Gospel Thei r meanin g fo r th e evangelist , however , is clea r enough Mar k share s th e fundamenta l Jewis h convictio n tha t Go d is a t wor k bot h i n historica l event s an d i n people , whos e action s ar e ultimatel y th e resul t o f hi s decree Fo r th e Christia n community , therefore , lookin g bac k o n th e ministr y o f Jesus , th e rejectio n b y Israe l o f he r Messiah , a s wel l a s th e continue d obdurac y o f th e Jewis h natio n whe n confronte d b y th e Christia n gospel , coul d onl y b e explaine d a s par t o f God' s mysteriou s purpose . If me n an d wome n ha d refuse d t o accep t Jesus , the n i t mus t hav e bee n th e wil l o f Go d tha t thi s shoul d happen . I n spit e o f attempt s t o softe n th e harshnes s o f Mark' s words , ther e ca n b e n o doub t tha t thi s wa s hi s meaning .

I t mus t b e noted , however , tha t ther e is fo r Mar k anothe r aspec t t o thi s picture . Thos e outside , t o who m everythin g come s i n parables , stan d i n contras t t o thos e wh o wer e abou t hi m wit h th e Twelve . To thos e wh o refus e t o accep t th e challeng e o f th e teachin g o f Jesus , hi s parable s inevitabl y remai n nothin g mor e tha n parables . Thoug h the y se e an d hea r him , the y ar e totall y withou t comprehensio n — an d s o withou t th e salvatio n h e brings . Bu t t o thos e wh o respond , th e meanin g o f th e parable s is explained . T o the m th e secre t o f God' s kingdo m is give n (cf . Mat t 11:25-2 7 / / Luk e 10:21-2 2 fo r a simila r sayin g regardin g hiddennes s an d revelation) . Yet thoug h th e choic e betwee n bein g a discipl e o r a n outside r is suc h a

vita l one , ther e is n o rigi d lin e betwee n th e tw o groups . Th e invitatio n of Jesu s t o liste n i n verse s 3 an d 9 is addresse d t o everyone , an d th e secre t o f God' s kingdo m is give n t o anyon e wh o is prepare d t o receiv e it. As fo r th e Twelve, the y ar e rebuke d i n vers e 13 fo r thei r failur e t o understand ! Mar k wil l late r sho w the m behavin g wit h n o greate r understandin g tha n th e crowds Indeed , thei r obtusenes s stand s i n contras t t o th e remarkabl e fait h o f others .

As th e stor y unfold s i t become s clea r tha t th e secre t o f th e kingdo m o f Go d is inextricabl y linke d wit h th e perso n o f Jesu s himself Th e disciple s fai l t o understan d th e powe r o f Jesu s (cf . 4:40-41 ; 6:37,49-52 ; 8:4 , 1421) ; the y ar e mystifie d b y hi s teachin g (cf . 7:18 ) — especiall y o n th e nee d fo r sufferin g (cf 8:32-4 ; 9:32-34 ; 10:32 , 35-41 ) — an d the y fai l hi m a t th e crucia l hou r (cf . 14:32-42 , 47 , 50 , 66-72) . Bu t t o thos e outside , fait h is given : t o th e woma n wit h a hemorrhag e (5:34) , th e Syro-Phoenicia n woma n (7:29) , th e fathe r o f th e epilepti c bo y (9:24) , th e childre n wh o ar e brough t fo r blessin g (10:13-16) , th e woma n wh o anoint s Jesu s (14:3-9 ) an d — mos t remarkabl e o f all — th e centurio n a t th e cros s (15:39) Ho w is i t tha t thos e t o who m th e secre t o f th e kingdo m is reveale d fai l t o comprehend , whil e thos e fro m who m it is hidde n gras p it? Thi s is th e enigm a o f Mark' s Gospel Th e statemen t i n 4:1 2 ("the y liste n an d listen , ye t understan d nothing" ) prove s t o b e true , bu t th e identit y o f thos e t o who m th e secre t is give n provide s som e surprise s — thoug h Mar k has , perhaps , prepare d u s fo r thi s b y includin g a referenc e i n vers e 10 t o other s beside s th e Twelv e wh o ar e wit h Jesus .

I n thei r presen t for m an d context , thes e verse s see m t o reflec t a tim e whe n th e parable s ha d becom e somewha t puzzlin g t o th e earl y church , probabl y becaus e thei r origina l contex t ha d bee n lost . Althoug h it is customar y t o contras t th e self-eviden t characte r o f Jesus ' origina l parable s wit h th e attempt s o f th e earl y communit y t o extrac t meanin g fro m wha t ha d becom e obscure , i t is possibl e t o exaggerat e th e difference I t seem s likely tha t Jesus ' intentio n i n teachin g i n parable s wa s t o challeng e hi s listener s an d mak e the m thin k fo r themselves . Whethe r o r no t it wa s necessar y fo r Jesu s t o spel l ou t thei r meanin g t o hi s disciples , a s Mar k suggests , w e d o no t know Bu t Mar k is certainl y righ t i n picturin g th e disciple s a s representin g thos e fo r who m — throug h thei r respons e t o Jesu s — th e parable s ha d becom e meaningful , whil e fo r thos e outsid e th e Christia n communit y thei r significanc e wa s los t becaus e thei r challeng e wa s rejected .

Th e quotatio n i n vers e 12 come s fro m Isa 6:9-10 . Althoug h th e word s occu r i n th e accoun t o f Isaiah' s call , it seem s probabl e tha t the y rep -

resen t th e prophet' s understandin g o f hi s ministr y t o Israe l a t th e en d o f hi s lif e rathe r tha n a t th e beginnin g — tha t is, a s h e looke d bac k o n wha t seeme d t o hi m a complet e failur e t o conver t hi s people . Bu t eve n thi s failur e h e sa w a s par t o f God' s purpose . S o hi s word s woul d hav e seeme d highl y appropriat e t o earl y Christian s wrestlin g wit h th e proble m o f Israel' s rejectio n o f Jesu s a s it s Messiah . Th e fac t tha t th e versio n o f Isa 6:910 give n her e is close r t o th e Targu m tha n t o th e LXX suggest s tha t i t ma y g o bac k t o a n Aramai c source I t is possible , therefore , tha t Jesu s himsel f commente d o n hi s failur e t o conver t Israe l (wit h s o fe w exceptions ) i n word s reminiscen t o f Isaiah . Certainl y Mar k understoo d Isaiah' s word s t o hav e bee n fulfille d i n Jesus ' ministr y (se e M A Beavis , Mark's Audience, o n th e importanc e o f thi s sayin g fo r Mark) .

I t wa s suggeste d b y Joachi m Jeremia s ( Parable s of Jesus, 14-18 ) tha t th e origina l Aramai c o f th e word s "al l thing s ar e i n parables " o f vers e 11 mean t "everythin g is obscure, " an d tha t Mar k misunderstoo d th e Gree k phras e en parabolais, meanin g "i n riddles, " a s a referenc e t o Jesus ' parables

If Jeremia s wa s correct , the n i t wa s thi s misunderstandin g tha t le d t o verse s 11 an d 12, whic h originall y mad e u p a separat e saying , bein g linke d t o th e them e o f parables Bu t a s w e hav e alread y seen , Jesus ' word s an d action s ar e fo r Mar k a unity . Therefore , whethe r thes e verse s wer e originall y a genera l sayin g abou t th e effec t o f Jesus ' ministr y a s a whole , o r referred , a s Mar k believed , t o hi s paraboli c teachin g i n particular , thi s sayin g sum s u p Mark' s understandin g o f th e event s tha t h e describes : i n Jesus , th e powe r o f God' s kingdo m is breakin g int o th e world , an d th e sign s o f its comin g ar e presen t fo r all t o see ; bu t onl y hi s follower s gras p th e tru e significanc e o f wha t is happening

Fo r Mar k ther e is n o doub t tha t th e paradoxica l resul t o f Jesus ' ministr y — an d s o it s purpos e — wa s tha t man y faile d t o comprehen d th e trut h eve n whe n the y sa w an d hear d it Jewis h though t tende d t o blu r th e distinctio n betwee n purpos e an d result , fo r if Go d wa s sovereign , then , o f course , wha t happene d mus t b e hi s will , howeve r strang e thi s appeared I t is les s eas y t o see , however , wha t plac e thes e word s coul d hav e ha d i n th e ministr y o f Jesu s himself , fo r w e ma y confidentl y assum e tha t th e purpos e o f hi s teachin g wa s t o stimulat e response , no t preven t it Commentator s hav e mad e innumerabl e attempt s t o ton e dow n th e meanin g o f th e expressio n "i n orde r that " (hina) a t th e beginnin g o f vers e 12, suggesting , fo r example , tha t it is a mistranslatio n o f th e Aramai c (see , e.g. , T W Manson , Teaching of Jesus, 76-80) . If Jesu s use d th e quotation , th e mos t likel y expla -

natio n is tha t h e fel t Isaiah' s word s wer e bein g fulfille d i n hi s ow n ministr y tha t is, tha t th e peopl e wer e a s unresponsiv e t o hi s missio n a s the y ha d bee n t o tha t o f th e prophe t Isaiah .

The Explanation of the Parable

Mos t commentator s believ e tha t th e explanatio n o f th e parabl e i n verse s 132 0 originate d i n th e earl y Christia n communit y an d represent s a n earl y "exegesis " o f it. Th e interpretatio n seem s t o presuppos e a fairl y lon g perio d durin g whic h th e fait h o f Christian s wa s teste d i n variou s ways , an d t o reflec t th e hars h experienc e o f Christia n preacher s an d communities Th e elaboratio n o f th e misfortune s o f th e unfruitfu l see d i n verse s 15-1 9 ha s shifte d th e balanc e o f th e parable , s o tha t ther e is no w fa r mor e emphasi s o n th e failure s tha n ther e wa s i n th e origina l stor y i n verse s 1-9 . Th e tripl e failur e i n production , thoug h recounte d ther e i n som e detail , wa s balance d b y th e tripl e success ; bu t i n th e explanation , th e variou s difficultie s see m overwhelming Th e setback s encountere d b y th e see d ar e allegorized , and , thoug h ther e is n o reaso n t o den y (a s som e hav e done ) tha t Jesu s eve r use d allegory , th e allegorizatio n o f detail s is ofte n a sig n o f late r attempt s t o expoun d th e parables . Thi s seem s especiall y likel y here , sinc e th e explanation s sui t th e perio d o f Christia n missio n bette r tha n th e lifetim e o f Jesus Yet thoug h th e interpretatio n ma y com e fro m th e church , rathe r tha n fro m Jesus , it ha s perhap s no t distorte d th e origina l parabl e a s muc h a s is sometime s suggested Rather , a s wit h th e accoun t o f Nathan' s parabl e i n 2 Samue l 12, w e detec t a t eac h poin t th e warnin g o f a n earl y preacher : "Thi s coul d mea n you! "

Wh y doe s Mar k ascrib e suc h importanc e t o thi s parabl e an d se e it a s th e ke y t o understandin g all o f th e parables ? Th e answe r lie s i n vers e 14. Fo r th e parabl e is abou t th e proclamatio n of th e gospe l an d ho w it is receive d — tha t is, abou t th e respons e tha t is mad e t o Jesu s himself . Th e parabl e convey s th e sam e messag e as th e sayin g i n vers e 11, "T o yo u ha s bee n give n th e secre t o f God' s kingdom , bu t t o thos e outside , everythin g come s i n parables. " Thus , althoug h th e stor y describe s fou r differen t kind s o f soils , it s endin g show s tha t th e essentia l divisio n is betwee n tha t whic h produce s frui t an d tha t whic h doe s not . Th e proclamatio n o f Jesu s divide s thos e wh o hea r hi m int o tw o camps , an d th e numbe r o f thos e wh o ar e "outside " is larg e b y compariso n wit h th e circl e o f thos e wh o accep t him

Th e authoritie s whos e heart s ar e hardene d an d wh o rejec t Jesus '

teaching , th e crowd s wh o hea r Jesu s gladl y bu t ar e no t prepare d t o accep t th e wa y o f discipleship , thos e me n an d wome n whos e concern s ar e centere d o n themselve s t o th e exclusio n o f thought s abou t God' s kingdo m — all thes e group s stan d i n oppositio n t o th e smal l ban d o f disciple s wh o hea r th e wor d an d accep t it . Th e challeng e t o th e member s o f Mark' s community , wh o hav e gathere d togethe r t o liste n t o th e parabl e an d t o its explanation , is clear : the y mus t ensur e tha t the y ar e foun d i n th e las t group . Thos e wh o bea r frui t ar e thos e t o who m th e kingdo m is given . I t is becaus e i t expresse s th e sam e trut h a s tha t foun d i n vers e 11 tha t th e parabl e is pri -

mar y fo r Mark . An d if th e disciple s canno t understan d thi s parabl e abou t thei r ow n response , the y ar e numberin g themselve s wit h th e outsider s (cf .

Mat t 7:24-27 , a t th e clos e o f th e Sermo n o n th e Mount , fo r anothe r parabl e abou t th e tw o possibl e response s t o Jesus) .

3 . Th e Parabl e o f th e Lam p an d

Associate d Saying s (Mar k 4:21-23 )

Mar k bring s togethe r fou r saying s i n 4:21-2 5 tha t see m originall y t o hav e bee n separate I n Luke' s Gospel , thre e o f thes e saying s appea r i n thei r Marka n contex t (cf . Luk e 8:16-18) ; bu t th e fou r saying s ar e als o foun d scattere d throughou t Matthe w an d Luk e (cf Mat t 5:15 ; 10:26 ; 7:2 ; 13:12 , repeate d a t 25:29 ; an d Luk e 11:33 ; 12:2; 6:38 ; 19:26) . Th e Parabl e o f th e Lam p appear s als o i n th e Gospel of Thomas (Logio n 33) , a s wel l a s saying s simila r t o thos e i n Mar k 4:22 , 23 , an d 25 Th e evangelis t Mar k — or , perhaps , someon e befor e hi m — ha s arrange d thes e fou r saying s int o tw o pairs , i n eac h o f whic h th e secon d sayin g is linke d t o th e firs t b y th e explanator y conjunctio n "for " (gar).

I t is no t clea r whethe r Mar k understand s Jesu s t o b e addressin g th e disciple s o r th e crowd . Th e them e o f thi s sectio n — th e contras t betwee n wha t is hidde n an d wha t is reveale d — suggest s tha t th e audienc e consist s stil l o f th e disciples , thoug h th e injunction s t o liste n i n verse s 23-2 4 remin d u s o f earlie r command s tha t ar e addresse d t o th e crowd Probabl y thei r appearanc e i n thi s contex t is mean t t o sugges t tha t eve n th e disciple s wer e i n dange r o f failure . Th e for m o f th e questio n i n Gree k indicate s tha t th e answe r expecte d is "No" : "O f course , a lam p is no t mean t t o b e concealed , bu t t o b e pu t o n a lampstand . I t woul d b e absur d t o hid e it , fo r a lam p is mean t t o give light , an d canno t d o s o if i t is hidden. "

However , b y linkin g th e Parabl e o f th e Lam p i n vers e 2 1 wit h th e sayin g o f vers e 2 2 ("Fo r nothin g is hidden , excep t t o b e revealed ; an d nothin g is concealed , excep t t o b e brough t int o th e open") , Mar k show s tha t h e believe s tha t th e ligh t was , i n fact , hidde n durin g th e ministr y o f Jesus . Nevertheless , thi s wa s a n anomal y an d o f onl y a temporar y nature Th e tru e purpos e o f th e ligh t wil l finall y b e achieved . Th e notio n tha t thing s ar e deliberatel y hidde n i n orde r t o b e revealed , o r conceale d i n orde r t o b e brough t int o th e open , is, o n th e fac e o f it , absurd Bu t i t is i n keepin g wit h

Mark' s understandin g o f th e Messiani c Secre t — fo r th e concealmen t o f

Jesus ' tru e identit y wa s a necessar y par t o f God' s purpose , whic h embrace s bot h hi s crucifixio n an d hi s resurrection .

Th e imag e o f th e lam p remind s u s o f th e contras t se t ou t i n verse s 11-1 2 betwee n th e secre t give n t o som e an d th e trut h hidde n fro m many Fo r jus t a s th e see d is intende d t o grow , s o th e lam p is mean t t o giv e light . Neithe r th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r i n verse s 1- 9 no r th e Parabl e o f th e Lam p i n vers e 2 1 is specificall y sai d t o b e abou t th e kingdom Yet th e fac t tha t th e idea s i n verse s 21-2 5 ar e s o simila r t o thos e i n verse s 11-1 2 suggest s tha t Mar k understoo d th e Parabl e o f th e Lamp , lik e th e Parabl e o f th e Sower , t o b e a "parabl e o f th e kingdom. " Nevertheless , i t is clea r tha t fo r Mar k th e lam p is non e othe r tha n Jesu s himsel f ! H e an d th e kingdo m are , i n effect , identified An d onc e agai n Mark' s presentatio n is clos e t o a Johannin e declaratio n abou t Jesus , a s expresse d thi s tim e i n th e identificatio n o f "th e Lamp " wit h "th e Lamb " (cf Re v 21:23)

Th e tw o pair s o f saying s i n verse s 21-2 3 an d 24-2 5 ar e linke d togethe r wit h tw o mor e injunction s t o listen . Th e first i n vers e 2 3 repeat s th e comman d i n vers e 9 almos t verbatim : "Thos e wh o hav e ear s t o hear , le t the m hear! " Th e secon d i n vers e 2 4 (literally : "Loo k wha t yo u hear" ) echoe s th e commen t i n vers e 12 abou t lookin g an d listening . Th e responsibilit y o f me n an d wome n t o respon d t o th e wor d o f Jesu s remains Th e saying s i n verse s 24-2 5 themselves , however , see m t o hav e littl e connectio n wit h th e Marka n contex t — vers e 2 4 ("th e measur e b y whic h yo u giv e wil l b e th e measur e b y whic h yo u receive , an d mor e besides") , fo r example , seem s muc h mor e a t hom e i n th e contex t give n it b y Matthe w (7:1-2 ) an d Luk e (6:37-38) , wher e th e them e is tha t o f judgin g other s — bu t wer e presumabl y intende d i n Mark' s contex t t o mea n tha t thos e wh o liste n t o Jesu s wil l receiv e accordin g t o thei r response .

Th e final vers e o f thi s section , tha t o f vers e 2 5 ("Fo r t o thos e wh o have , mor e wil l b e given ; an d fro m thos e wh o hav e nothing , eve n wha t the y hav e

wil l b e take n away!") , is, perhaps , intende d t o su m u p th e idea s i n verse s 120 . Thos e wh o accep t th e wor d — tha t is, th e wor d of Jesu s an d about Jesu s an d t o who m th e secre t o f th e kingdo m is therefor e given , wil l receiv e all th e joy s o f th e kingdom ; bu t thos e wh o d o no t hav e thi s secre t wil l los e eve n wha t the y ha d — tha t is, th e wor d tha t wa s offere d an d rejected .

I n it s non-Marka n context s — tha t is, i n Mat t 5:15 , Luk e 11:33 , an d th e Gospel of Thomas 3 3 — th e Parabl e o f th e Lam p appear s t o hav e bee n understoo d i n term s o f th e ligh t tha t Jesu s urge d hi s hearer s t o spread , an d no t t o conceal . Paradoxically , it s meanin g i n thos e context s is close r tha n i n

Mar k t o tha t o f th e Parabl e o f th e Sower , fo r th e message s o f th e tw o parable s ar e the n remarkabl y similar : "Bea r fruit ! She d light! " Thi s ma y wel l hav e bee n th e origina l meanin g o f th e parable .

O r perhap s Jesu s though t o f th e ligh t a s th e equivalen t o f th e seed , whic h represent s "th e word, " fo r th e lam p wa s a recognize d imag e fo r "th e word " (cf . Ps 119:105 ; Pro v 6:23 , specificall y th e wor d o f th e law) . Th e wor d is spoke n b y Go d himsel f — th e see d is sown ; th e ligh t is se t o n a stan d fo r all t o see Me n an d women , however , mus t respon d b y allowin g th e see d t o gro w an d th e ligh t t o shine . Withi n th e settin g o f th e ministr y o f Jesus , therefore , th e saying s i n verse s 24-2 5 perhap s refe r t o thos e who , o n th e on e hand , respon d t o God' s cal l an d posses s th e kingdom , an d thos e who , o n th e other , imagin e tha t the y ar e withi n th e communit y o f Israel , bu t find ou t to o lat e tha t the y hav e los t tha t privilege

4 . Th e Parable s o f th e Growin g See d an d th e Mustar d See d (Mar k 4:26-32 )

An d s o a t las t w e com e t o th e tw o parable s i n Mark' s Gospe l tha t ar e specificall y abou t th e kingdo m o f God : th e Parabl e o f th e Growin g See d i n verse s 26-2 9 an d th e Parabl e o f th e Mustar d See d i n verse s 30-32 . Th e first, th e Parabl e o f th e Growin g Seed , ha s n o paralle l i n th e othe r Gospel s (thoug h Matthew' s Parabl e o f th e Tare s i n 13:24-3 0 ma y b e a n elaboratio n o f it) . Mar k make s n o mentio n a t all o f Jesus ' audienc e i n hi s origina l tellin g o f thes e parables . Nonetheless , i t seem s clea r fro m verse s 33-3 4 tha t h e though t o f thes e parable s a s bein g onc e agai n addresse d t o th e crow d an d the n explaine d i n privat e t o th e disciples . Man y differen t interpretation s hav e bee n give n t o thes e tw o parables . On e suggestio n is tha t the y teac h tha t ther e is t o b e a lon g perio d betwee n

sowin g an d maturity . Thi s point , however , is no t stresse d i n th e firs t parable ; an d i n th e secon d i t is quit e inappropriate , sinc e mustar d is a fastgrowin g plan t tha t spring s u p a t a grea t pace . Other s emphasiz e th e harves t a s a symbo l o f th e Eschato n — eithe r a s a stil l futur e even t o r a s dawnin g i n th e ministr y o f Jesus O n thi s reading , th e parable s ar e assurance s o f th e comin g o f God' s kingdom . Th e earl y Christia n communitie s ma y wel l hav e take n comfor t fro m th e belie f that , thoug h respons e t o th e gospe l wa s ofte n indiscernible , Go d was , i n fact , stil l i n control Therefore , eve n thoug h the y di d no t understan d wha t wa s takin g place , the y coul d b e confiden t tha t th e harves t woul d eventuall y appear

Sinc e th e Parabl e o f th e Growin g See d i n verse s 26-2 9 stresse s tha t th e growt h o f th e see d is du e t o God , no t man , it coul d hav e bee n use d b y Jesu s t o teac h tha t th e kingdo m wil l com e whe n God' s purpos e is complete , an d canno t b e hastene d b y violenc e (cf Mat t 11:12/ / Luk e 16:16) Th e Parabl e o f th e Mustar d See d i n verse s 30-3 2 lays emphasi s o n th e powe r o f Go d an d th e scal e o f th e fina l outcome Mustar d see d wa s apparentl y proverbia l fo r it s smallnes s (cf . Mat t 17:20 / / Luk e 17:6) , bu t whe n i t is sown , i t spring s u p an d grow s bigge r tha n an y othe r plan t (thoug h Matthe w an d Luk e exaggerat e i n describin g it a s a tree) I t grow s so large , i n fact , tha t th e bird s o f th e ai r ca n buil d nest s i n it s shad e (or , perhaps , "roost " i n its branches) . Thes e word s ech o Ol d Testamen t imager y o f a tre e i n whos e shad e bird s tak e shelter , a s foun d i n Eze k 17:23 an d 31:6 , o r nes t i n it s branches , a s i n Da n 4:12,14 , an d 2 1 (cf . Mat t 13:32 / / Luk e 13:19) , wit h th e tre e symbolizin g a grea t kingdo m tha t gives protectio n t o subjec t nations If th e Marka n parabl e is interprete d allegorically , th e bird s ma y represen t th e Gentiles , wh o wil l on e da y hav e a plac e i n God' s kingdo m — and , indeed , i n Mark' s da y wer e perhap s alread y flockin g in Bu t fo r Mark , th e importan t poin t seem s t o b e th e contras t betwee n th e almos t invisibl e see d an d th e enormou s bush .

Th e fac t tha t Mar k ha s place d thes e tw o parable s togethe r a s a pai r suggest s tha t h e understoo d the m bot h t o b e conveyin g th e sam e message . Bot h o f the m en d i n languag e reminiscen t o f Ol d Testamen t reference s t o th e final unfoldin g o f God' s purpos e — a final reapin g an d harves t i n vers e 29 ; th e greatnes s o f th e plan t an d th e bird s tha t nes t i n it s shad e i n vers e 32

On e woul d expec t tha t th e kingdo m woul d b e spoke n o f i n term s o f futur e judgmen t an d o f settin g thing s right . Instead , w e hav e her e parable s tha t impl y tha t th e kingdo m is presen t an d ye t no t presen t — an d tha t continu e th e them e o f th e previou s paragrap h o f th e contras t betwee n wha t is no w hidde n an d wha t wil l assuredl y b e revealed

Fo r Mark , th e kingdo m o f Go d is displaye d alread y i n th e lif e o f Jesus , bu t i t is displaye d lik e see d throw n ont o th e earth : yo u d o no t kno w tha t it is ther e unles s yo u ar e le t int o th e secret . Bu t wha t th e kingdo m wil l finally b e is a ver y differen t matter . It s greatnes s come s abou t b y th e powe r o f God , a s silen t an d mysteriou s an d inevitabl e a s th e powe r o f growth . Jus t a s th e harves t come s fro m grai n sow n i n th e earth , an d th e mustar d bus h spring s fro m almos t invisibl e seed , s o th e kingdo m wil l follo w fro m th e ministr y o f Jesus Unlik e th e Parabl e o f th e Sower , ther e is n o hin t her e o f eve n partia l failure . Thu s b y mean s o f thes e tw o parables , Mar k seem s t o b e deliverin g a messag e o f hop e t o hi s community , whic h live s i n th e perio d betwee n th e initiatio n o f th e kingdo m an d it s final consummation .

Th e questio n a s t o wha t thes e tw o parable s migh t hav e mean t i n th e mout h o f Jesu s is enormousl y complicate d becaus e o f th e uncertaint y regardin g hi s understandin g o f th e natur e o f th e kingdo m o f God . Th e emphasi s i n the m both , however , is o n th e final resul t — tha t is, o n th e resultan t harves t an d th e matur e mustar d plant To thos e i n Jesus ' tim e wonderin g wha t ha d happene d t o God' s promises , thes e parable s woul d hav e conveye d th e assuranc e tha t hi s kingdo m woul d come

I n verse s 33-34 , Mar k tell s u s tha t Jesu s regularl y taugh t i n parables , implyin g tha t ther e wer e man y more Presumabl y th e evangelis t ha s selecte d thos e parable s tha t wer e mos t appropriat e fo r hi s purpos e i n th e compositio n o f hi s Gospel Jesu s taught , Mar k tell s us , "a s the y wer e abl e t o hear. " Thes e word s hav e seeme d t o som e t o b e inconsisten t wit h verse s 1112. I n fact , however , the y sho w u s clearl y Mark' s understandin g o f tha t section : th e parable s ar e a challenge , bu t respons e t o the m lies withi n th e powe r o f thos e wh o hea r (cf . w 9 , 23 , an d 24) . Nevertheless , Jesu s explaine d thei r ful l significanc e t o hi s disciple s (cf ν 34) Mark' s reader s woul d presumabl y identif y themselve s wit h thi s smalle r grcmp , sinc e the y wer e amon g thos e wh o ha d responde d t o Jesus ' challenge . So Mark' s reader s woul d b e abl e t o comprehen d everything , becaus e t o the m th e secre t o f th e kingdo m ha d bee n given .

5 . Late r Interpretation s

Late r expositor s use d allegor y constantl y a s a metho d o f exegesis , an d th e parable s o f Jesu s provide d ampl e scop e fo r thi s method . I t wa s hardl y sur -

prising , i n vie w o f Mark' s handlin g o f th e Parabl e o f th e Sower , if commentator s assume d th e parable s t o b e allegorie s tha t require d a specia l understandin g i n orde r t o unrave l thei r hidde n meanings . Preacher s wer e abl e t o extrac t innumerabl e meaning s — an d sermon s — fro m on e parabl e i n thi s way A boo k b y Thoma s Taylor , publishe d i n 1621 , fo r example , consist s o f a discours e o f som e 45 0 page s o n th e Parabl e o f th e Sower ! I t wa s thi s approac h tha t Adol f Jüliche r challenge d a t th e en d o f th e nineteent h century , maintainin g tha t th e parable s o f Jesu s wer e no t allegorie s a t all an d shoul d no t b e interprete d a s such .

Bu t Jülicher' s basi c assumptio n tha t th e parable s o f Jesu s wer e no t intende d t o b e allegories , an d tha t eac h on e contain s onl y on e point , ha s prove d t o b e to o rigid . Whil e i t is eas y t o se e th e differenc e betwee n extreme s — as betwee n a simpl e parabl e an d a n artificia l allegor y (e.g. , a fabl e i n whic h animal s o r plant s ar e substitute d fo r people ) — th e lin e betwee n parabl e an d allegor y is no t alway s s o simpl e t o draw Whe n Jesu s tol d a stor y abou t a vineyard , fo r example , hi s hearer s woul d immediatel y assum e tha t h e wa s tellin g a stor y abou t Israel , fo r the y woul d all hav e bee n familia r wit h th e allegor y abou t a fruitles s vineyar d i n Isaia h 5 Similarly , well-know n image s lik e thos e o f harves t an d ligh t ma y wel l hav e struc k instan t chord s wit h thei r firs t hearers , an d certainl y woul d no t hav e bee n a s obscur e a s Mar k suggests

Mark' s parable s wer e a cal l t o actio n i n th e particula r situatio n o f th e evangelist' s ministr y — a cal l mad e t o me n an d wome n o f a particula r religiou s an d cultura l background , an d wit h presupposition s quit e differen t fro m ours . Already , whe n retol d i n Mark' s community , the y too k o n a differen t meaning , fo r no w the y wer e bein g hear d b y thos e wh o ha d a commitmen t t o Jesu s a s Lor d an d wh o accepte d hi s authorit y t o spea k i n God' s name .

Retol d i n ou r moder n world , however , the y suffe r fro m th e proble m o f over-familiarity . W e kno w the m to o wel l t o b e puzzle d b y th e confuse d explanatio n o f th e differen t kind s o f soil , o r t o b e surprise d b y th e notio n o f hidin g a lam p unde r a bed . A t th e sam e time , th e imager y o f th e storie s belong s t o a worl d ver y differen t fro m ou r own Thre e o f th e fou r parable s i n Mar k 4 ar e abou t sowin g seed s — somethin g ver y fe w o f u s no w d o — an d th e fourt h is abou t a wic k floatin g i n oil , whic h is a fa r cr y fro m a n electri c ligh t bulb Thos e wh o originall y hear d Jesu s woul d hav e bee n challenge d b y hi s messag e ever y tim e the y sowe d o r harveste d thei r crops , o r wheneve r the y sa w thei r crop s growin g i n th e field, an d ever y tim e the y li t

a lam p an d se t i t o n a lampstand . Bu t w e ar e n o longe r reminde d i n thi s wa y o f hi s words

What , then , is th e messag e o f Jesus ' parable s fo r today ?

First , the y confron t u s wit h th e deman d t o respon d an d t o bea r fruit

Th e kingdo m o f Go d is no t abou t sittin g aroun d waitin g fo r Go d t o act , bu t abou t doin g hi s wil l an d acknowledgin g hi s kingshi p ove r ou r dail y lives Thos e wh o belon g t o hi s kingdo m mus t accep t hi s authorit y an d obe y him . Thi s is wh y th e parable s ar e intersperse d wit h th e warning s "Listen! " an d "Thos e wh o hav e ear s t o hear , le t the m hear! "

Second , the y remin d u s tha t Go d confront s u s wit h hi s demand s an d hi s salvatio n i n th e perso n o f Jesu s himself . I f th e wor d spoke n by Jesu s ha s becom e fo r th e believin g communit y th e wor d about Jesus , thi s is becaus e tha t communit y ha s recognize d i n wha t h e sai d an d di d th e voic e an d activit y o f God .

Third , sinc e Christian s toda y ma y wel l fin d themselve s wondering , lik e first-century Jews , whethe r th e kingdo m o f Go d wil l eve r com e i n its fullness , thes e parable s assur e u s tha t th e harves t is certain , tha t th e hidde n wil l b e revealed , an d tha t Go d wil l ultimatel y b e acknowledge d a s King . An d sinc e th e lam p is no t totall y hidde n bu t is alread y sheddin g light , thes e parable s sugges t als o tha t fo r thos e wit h eye s t o see , th e harves t is alread y bein g gathere d an d th e kingdo m is alread y presen t i n th e heart s an d live s o f thos e wh o respon d t o God' s call

Selecte d Bibliograph y

Beavis , Mar y Ann . Mark's Audience: The Literary and Social Setting of Mark 4.11-12. Sheffield : Sheffiel d Academi c Press , 1989 .

Boucher , Madeleine . The Mysterious Parable. Washington : Catholi c Biblica l Associatio n o f America , 1977 .

Derrett , J. Dunca n M . Law in the New Testament. London : Darton , Longma n an d Todd , 1970 .

Dodd , C . H . The Parables of the Kingdom. London : Nisbet , 1935 .

Drury , John . The Parables in the Gospels: History and Allegory. London : SPCK , 1980 .

Gerhardsson , Birger . "Th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r an d It s Interpretation, " New Testament Studies 14 (1968 ) 165-93 .

Hooker , Morn a D . The Message of Mark. London : Epworth , 1983 .

. The Gospel according to St. Mark. London : Black , 1991 ; Peabody : Hendrickson , 1992 .

. The Signs of a Prophet. London : SCM , 1997 ; Harrisburg : Trinit y Pres s International , 1997 .

Jeremias , Joachim . The Parables of Jesus, trans . S. H . Hooke . London : SCM ; Ne w York : Scribner's , 196 3 (fro m 6t h Germa n edition) .

Manson , T. W . The Teaching of Jesus. Cambridge : Cambridg e Universit y Press , 1935 .

Marcus , Joel . The Mystery of the Kingdom of God. Atlanta : Scholars , 1986 .

Stacey , W . D . Prophetic Drama in the Old Testament. London : Epworth , 1990 .

Telford , Willia m R . The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree. Sheffield : JSOT , 1989 .

CHAPTE R 5

Matthe w s Parables of th e Kingdom

(Matthew 13:1-52)

DONAL D A . HAGNE R

I N CHAPTE R 13 o f hi s Gospel , th e evangelis t Matthe w devote s th e thir d an d centra l discours e of hi s five discourse s t o a serie s of seve n parable s tha t concer n "th e mysterie s of th e kingdo m of heaven " (ta mystēria tes basileias tön ouranön, vil) . Whe n th e disciple s ask Jesus wh y h e teache s th e crowd s usin g parables , h e indicate s tha t it is becaus e of thei r unreceptiv e hearts . Th e disciple s — tha t is, thos e wh o hav e received th e kingdo m — have , b y implication , understoo d th e mysterie s of th e kingdo m mor e directly . Yet eve n the y ar e unclea r abou t th e meanin g of th e parables , an d s o mus t ask abou t th e Parabl e of th e Weed s an d th e Grai n (v 36) . Nevertheless , the y ar e th e one s wh o hav e "th e knowledg e o f th e mysterie s o f th e kingdo m of heaven, " t o who m mor e understandin g is given , an d t o who m th e promis e is mad e tha t the y will i n th e futur e hav e even greate r understandin g — i n fact , will hav e understandin g "i n abundance " ( w ll-12a) . Matthe w build s th e firs t par t o f hi s discours e o n Mar k 4 , fro m whic h h e borrow s hi s introductor y materia l ( w 1-2 ; cf . Mar k 4:1) , th e stor y of th e sowe r an d seed ( w 3-9 ; cf. Mar k 4:2-9) , a statemen t o n th e purpos e of th e parable s ( w 10-13; cf. Mar k 4:10-12) , an d th e interpretatio n of th e Parabl e of th e Sowe r an d th e Seed (vv 18-23; cf . Mar k 4:13-20) . Somewha t surprisingly , h e omit s Mark' s secon d parable , th e Parabl e of th e Growin g Seed , insertin g instea d th e Parabl e o f th e Weed s an d th e Grai n ( w 24-30) .

Bu t h e doe s includ e Mark' s thir d parable , th e Parabl e of th e Mustar d Seed

( w 31-32 ; cf . Mar k 4:30-32) . Apar t fro m th e fulfillmen t quotatio n i n vers e 3 5 applie d t o th e purpos e o f Jesu s teachin g i n parables , th e remainde r o f th e materia l i n Matthe w 13 is fro m th e evangelist' s ow n ora l traditio n source , whic h is commonl y designate d b y th e lette r "M. "

I t is clea r tha t th e firs t par t o f Matthe w 13 depend s o n th e orde r o f th e materia l i n Mar k 4 . Th e structur e o f thi s centra l Matthea n discours e ha s bee n muc h discusse d an d nee d no t detai n u s here . Th e lac k o f symmetr y i n its structur e prevent s an y satisfyin g analysi s o f th e whole . Wha t is significant , however , is th e clea r transitio n tha t is cause d b y th e narrativ e insertio n a t vers e 36 , wher e Jesu s turn s fro m th e crowd s t o teac h hi s disciples . Thi s transitio n divide s th e discours e o f chapte r 13 int o tw o mai n sections : tha t foun d i n verse s 3-3 5 an d tha t o f verse s 36-52 . I n tha t divisio n th e Parabl e o f th e Weed s an d th e Grai n is separate d int o tw o parts , wit h th e stor y bein g give n openl y t o th e peopl e ( w 24-30 ) an d th e interpretatio n give n privatel y t o th e disciple s ( w 36-43) . Bu t tha t divisio n is par t o f th e narrativ e strateg y o f th e text , a s w e wil l observ e agai n later . (O n th e narrativ e progressio n o f thi s Matthea n discourse , se e J. P. Hei l i n Carte r an d Heil , Matthew's Parables, 64-95. )

W e tur n no w t o a n analysi s o f eac h o f th e seve n Matthea n parable s o f th e kingdo m i n turn

1. Th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r an d th e See d (13:3-23 )

The Story (vv 3-9)

Matthe w follow s Mar k ver y closel y i n settin g ou t th e stor y o f th e sowe r an d th e seed . Th e change s i n wordin g ar e minor , wit h man y o f the m bein g simpl y th e resul t o f Matthew' s characteristi c abbreviatio n o f Mark' s Gospel . Th e onl y significan t change s ar e (1 ) Matthew' s us e o f th e plura l i n referrin g t o "seeds, " rathe r tha n Mark' s singula r (excep t fo r th e plura l i n Mar k 4:8) , an d (2 ) Matthew' s reversin g o f th e orde r o f th e yiel d fro m Mark' s "thirtyfol d an d sixtyfol d an d a hundredfold " t o a n enumeratio n tha t begin s wit h th e larges t yiel d first : "som e a hundredfold , som e sixtyfold , som e thirtyfold " ( v 8)

Th e stor y speak s o f sowin g see d i n fou r differen t circumstances : (1 ) alon g th e path ; (2 ) o n rock y ground ; (3 ) amon g thor n bushes ; an d (4 ) o n goo d ground Eac h o f thes e is give n a correspondin g secondar y ele -

3

DONAL D A HAGNE R

ment : (1 ) bird s com e an d ea t th e seed ; (2 ) th e su n rise s an d wither s th e seedling ; (3 ) thorn s chok e th e seed ; an d (4 ) th e see d bear s frui t i n varyin g amounts . Th e questio n arise s whethe r th e parabl e require s u s t o imagin e a situatio n wher e th e seed s wer e actuall y sow n i n suc h places . O r doe s th e imager y o f th e parabl e merel y refe r t o wha t ma y b e conceive d o f a s happening , unusua l thoug h it migh t be ?

Som e evidenc e ca n b e cite d fro m ancien t agricultura l practic e t o sugges t tha t a fiel d wa s ploughe d after i t wa s sown Suc h a practic e coul d possibl y explai n th e instance s o f sowin g see d "alon g th e path " o r "o n rock y ground. " Bu t suc h a n explanatio n is hardl y necessary . No r is it pertinen t t o th e poin t o f th e parable Fo r th e hear t o f th e parabl e concern s th e fac t tha t seed s tha t ar e sow n sometim e becom e unfruitfu l an d sometim e ar e fruitful Th e issu e is succes s o r lac k o f success An d th e poin t is tha t unde r certai n circumstances , seed s tha t ar e sow n i n a fiel d ar e subjec t t o hostil e realitie s suc h as birds , scorchin g sun , an d thorns .

Sinc e th e parabl e follow s account s o f unbelie f i n Jesu s an d hi s messag e i n Matthe w 11 an d 12, wit h th e account s se t ou t i n a n escalatin g fashio n i n thos e tw o chapters , i t is mos t natura l t o conclud e tha t th e parabl e allude s t o th e mixe d succes s o f Jesus ' ministry . I n tha t case , Jesu s become s th e sowe r an d th e see d represent s hi s messag e o f th e kingdom . Fo r a variet y o f reasons , th e see d doe s no t bea r fruit Yet som e see d fall s o n goo d soi l an d i t "kep t producing " ( edidou , a n imperfec t tense ) fruit , wit h spectacula r t o ver y goo d results Th e hig h yiel d ma y als o b e a n allusio n t o eschatologica l fulfillment , thoug h i n tha t cas e on e migh t hav e expecte d eve n mor e fantasti c number s tha n these . A t leas t th e number s poin t t o th e hig h succes s o f th e kingdom

Th e concludin g word s o f vers e 9 , "Le t th e perso n wh o ha s ear s hear!" , aler t th e reade r t o th e fac t tha t th e parabl e point s beyon d itsel f t o a matte r o f dee p concern Th e stor y ha s t o d o wit h receptivity I t amount s t o a n appea l t o hea r positivel y an d t o respon d appropriatel y (cf . ν 43) . An d thi s applicatio n is mad e unmistakabl e i n th e interpretatio n o f th e parabl e give n inverse s 18-23

On the Purpose of the Parables (vv 10-17)

Betwee n th e stor y an d it s interpretation , w e encounte r i n verse s 10-17 , a s parallele d partiall y i n Mar k 4:10-12 , a passag e tha t deal s wit h th e purpos e

o f th e parables . Thi s intervenin g materia l is importan t becaus e o f it s reference s t o positiv e an d negativ e response s t o th e messag e o f Jesus , whic h is th e ver y concer n o f th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r an d th e Seed . Belie f an d receptivity , o n th e on e hand , ar e attribute d t o th e grac e o f God . Fo r th e word s o f vers e 11, "t o kno w th e mysterie s o f th e kingdo m ha s bee n give n t o you " — whic h occu r i n th e for m o f a divin e passiv e — indicat e tha t Go d is th e sourc e o f th e disciples ' knowledge , a s wel l a s thei r receptivit y t o tha t knowledg e (cf . 11:25-27) . Unbelie f an d u n receptivity , o n th e othe r hand , ar e attribute d t o th e hardheartednes s o f thos e wh o d o no t respon d (henc e th e ful l quotatio n o f Isa 6:9-10) .

I n thi s obviou s lac k o f symmetry , whic h is s o characteristi c o f th e biblica l writer s o n th e subject , w e encounte r th e mysteriou s sovereignt y o f God , wh o accomplishe s hi s wil l withou t a t an y tim e violatin g a person' s freedo m o f choic e o r th e responsibilit y tha t goe s wit h it. An d parable s functio n similarl y i n suc h a dua l manner . Fo r thos e wh o hav e responde d positivel y t o Jesus ' proclamatio n o f th e kingdom , th e parable s conve y furthe r insigh t an d knowledge . Bu t fo r thos e wh o hav e rejecte d Jesu s an d hi s message , th e parable s hav e th e effec t o f onl y darkenin g th e subjec t further Therefor e belie f an d commitmen t lea d t o furthe r knowledge , whil e unbelie f lead s t o furthe r ignorance

The Interpretation (vv 18-23)

Th e interpretatio n o f th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r an d th e See d is though t b y man y Ne w Testamen t scholar s t o b e a n allegorize d additio n o f th e earl y churc h t o a simpl e stor y o f Jesus . Bu t whil e late r meaning s ca n b e rea d int o th e story , i t is no t necessar y t o d o so . Th e interpretatio n a s i t is, eve n wit h it s slightl y unusua l vocabulary , make s quit e goo d sens e i n th e mout h o f Jesu s (cf . Β. Gerhardsson , "Parabl e o f th e Sower, " 192 ; se e als o W . D . Davie s an d D . C . Allison , Matthew, 397-99) . It is simpl y unjustifiabl e prejudic e t o conclud e tha t Jesu s neve r allegorize d a parable . I n th e interpretation , Matthe w replace s Mark' s introductor y words , whic h impl y criticis m o f th e disciple s ("D o yo u no t understan d thi s parable ? The n ho w wil l yo u understan d all th e parables?") , wit h th e simpl e exhortation : "You , therefore , liste n t o th e parabl e o f th e sower " ( v 18) . Thi s is perhap s th e counterpar t t o Matthew' s omissio n o f th e ver b "listen " (akouete) a t th e beginnin g o f th e stor y i n Mar k 4:3 . Als o t o b e note d is th e

DONAL D A HAGNE R

oddit y tha t wherea s i n th e stor y Matthe w consistentl y refer s i n th e plura l t o "seeds " an d Mar k usuall y use s th e singula r (excep t i n 4:8) , her e i n th e interpretatio n th e revers e is th e case , wit h Matthe w usin g th e singula r an d Mar k th e plural . Thi s stat e o f affair s ma y b e du e t o cross-fertilizatio n i n th e ora l transmissio n o f th e materials . Th e explanatio n o f th e las t thre e instance s o f sowin g is give n i n parallelis m usin g th e followin g elements : (1 ) th e introductor y formul a "wha t wa s sow n o n . . ."; (2 ) th e descriptio n formul a "thi s is th e on e hearin g th e word" ; (3 ) furthe r descriptio n o f th e circumstances ; an d (4 ) th e outcome . I n th e firs t instance , however , th e firs t o f thes e element s ("thi s is wha t wa s sow n o n th e path" ) is place d last , enablin g Matthe w i n vers e 19 t o pu t emphasi s o n hearin g "th e wor d o f th e kingdom. " Thi s als o immediatel y identifie s th e sowin g a s a matte r o f hearin g th e word .

An d precisel y fo r thi s reaso n th e see d metapho r ca n refe r bot h t o th e messag e itsel f an d t o th e perso n receivin g o r no t receivin g th e messag e (cf w 19, 20 , 22 , an d 23) Th e perso n is lik e th e particula r instanc e o f sowin g see d i n th e describe d soil Also , th e carefull y forme d parallelis m o f th e passag e is noteworth y an d suggest s tha t i t wa s designe d fo r catechesi s an d eas y memorization

A s i n Mark , wha t is sow n is identifie d a s "th e word. " Matthew' s expressio n "th e wor d o f th e kingdom " (ton logon tes basileias) make s i t clea r tha t i t is th e wor d o f Jesu s tha t is i n view . Th e wor d o f th e kingdo m is th e equivalen t o f Matthew' s favorit e phras e "th e gospe l o f th e kingdom " (cf 4:23 ; 9:35 ; 24:14 ) — tha t is, th e announcemen t o f th e dawnin g o f "th e kingdo m o f heaven, " a n expressio n synonymou s wit h "th e kingdo m o f God. " Thi s place s th e parabl e squarel y withi n th e lif e settin g o f th e Jesu s o f history , wher e it woul d hav e bee n use d t o depic t th e varie d response s o f peopl e t o Jesu s an d hi s preachin g (cf G Ε Ladd , " Sit z im Leben o f th e Parable s o f Matthe w 13") . Matthew' s community , however , coul d easil y hav e applie d th e parabl e t o thei r ow n failure s an d successe s i n preachin g th e gospel

I n th e firs t instance , wher e th e see d wa s sow n "alon g th e path " (cf . ν 4) , th e proble m is describe d i n vers e 19 a s a failur e t o understand . Thi s is no t th e resul t o f a n inadequat e presentatio n o f th e message , bu t rathe r o f th e hardheartednes s o f th e heare r an d hi s o r he r refusa l t o receiv e (cf . v v 13-15 ; se e als o 11:21 , 23 ; 12:41-42) Thos e wh o wil l no t receiv e th e messag e d o no t understan d it . Th e bird s tha t ea t u p th e see d ar e identifie d a s "th e evi l one " (ho ponēros) wh o "snatche s awa y wha t is sow n i n th e heart. "

I n Jewis h literatur e bird s ar e sometime s identifie d wit h th e devi l (cf Jubilees 11:11-12 ; Apocalypse of Abraham 13:3-7) . Here , referenc e t o th e activit y o f th e evil on e i n n o wa y lessen s th e culpabilit y o f thos e wh o rejec t th e message . Rather , it is becaus e the y hav e rejecte d th e messag e tha t th e evi l on e is enable d t o snatc h awa y th e seed . I n th e secon d instance , th e see d fel l o n ston y groun d an d immediatel y produce d shoot s (cf ν 5) Thi s is explaine d i n vers e 2 0 a s th e on e who , o n hearin g th e word , receive s it "immediately " an d "wit h joy." A t firs t thi s respons e seem s t o b e a n exampl e o f succes s ("receiving, " lambanān) rathe r tha n failure Th e story , however , refer s t o a burnin g ho t su n tha t withere d th e shoot s i n th e shallo w soi l ( v 6) , an d th e interpretiv e counterpar t i n vers e 2 1 speak s o f th e experienc e o f "troubl e o r persecutio n o n accoun t o f th e word " — tha t is, o f sufferin g fo r th e messag e o f th e kingdom . Tha t th e disciple s wer e t o expec t persecutio n ha s alread y bee n emphasize d i n Matthew' s Gospe l (cf 5:11-12 ; 10:16-25) Th e followe r o f Jesu s mus t b e prepare d fo r thi s eventualit y an d b e read y t o endur e t o th e en d (cf . 23:34-36 ; 24:9-13) I n th e presen t case , th e eagernes s o f th e ne w discipl e is no t matche d wit h enduranc e unde r trial Thi s show s tha t th e initia l respons e o f th e heare r is no t deep , an d s o th e resul t is tha t th e see d doe s no t bea r frui t tha t lasts

Th e thir d instanc e refer s t o see d tha t fall s amon g thor n bushes , whic h eventuall y chok e th e seedlin g ( v 7) . Here , too , ther e ha s bee n a hearin g an d a receivin g tha t produc e a measur e o f growt h befor e th e thorn s d o thei r destructiv e work . Th e interpretatio n i n vers e 2 2 identifie s th e thorn s a s "th e anxiet y o f th e worl d an d th e seductio n o f riches. " Bot h anxiet y an d wealt h ar e subject s deal t wit h i n th e Sermo n o n th e Moun t (cf 6:19-34 ; o n riches , se e 19:23-24) . I t is no t difficult , t o se e ho w thes e thing s ca n becom e obstacle s t o genuin e discipleshi p an d s o thwar t a n appropriat e respons e t o th e messag e o f th e kingdom .

Onl y i n th e fourt h instance , wher e th e see d fall s o n goo d soil , is th e see d trul y productiv e ( v 8) . I n thi s cas e th e wor d is hear d and , i n direc t contradictio n t o th e firs t instance , th e heare r "understands. " Her e i n vers e 23 , a s i n vers e 19, th e wor d "understand " (sunieis) implie s receptivity Furthermore , understandin g result s i n a respons e o f prope r conduct . S o th e goo d soi l represent s th e heare r wh o receive s th e see d o f th e word , nurture s tha t see d i n discipleship , an d bear s frui t (karpophorei) i n spectacularl y abundan t measure . "Fruit " her e is probabl y t o b e understoo d a s th e patter n o f conduc t describe d i n th e Sermo n o n th e Mount : th e livin g ou t o f

th e kingdo m o f Go d her e an d now . An d thus , thoug h th e parabl e addresse s particularl y th e proble m o f unbelie f (cf . v v 10-15) , i t als o contain s a stron g elemen t o f ethica l exhortation .

I t is importan t t o understan d thi s shif t o f focu s i n th e Parabl e o f th e

Sowe r an d th e See d — a shif t wher e th e natur e o f th e soi l is highlighte d — i n it s contex t (wher e bot h sowe r an d see d pla y principa l parts ) an d wit h th e origina l purpos e o f th e parabl e i n min d (wher e th e proble m o f unbelie f is addressed) . Th e ke y issu e o f th e parabl e is responsivenes s o r non-responsivenes s t o th e messag e o f th e kingdom . I t is i n thi s sens e tha t on e eithe r understand s ( v 23 ) o r doe s no t understan d ( v 19) . Bu t ther e is als o th e possibilit y o f a n initia l positiv e respons e tha t prove s t o b e less tha n adequate . Tw o instance s ar e given , thoug h i t woul d no t b e difficul t t o thin k o f others .

I n th e first instanc e w e encounte r a fair-weathe r discipl e who , unde r th e pressur e o f advers e circumstances , abandon s hi s o r he r fait h an d commitment . Thi s perso n ha s though t onl y o f th e blessing s o f th e kingdom , havin g mad e a simpl e equatio n betwee n th e enjoymen t o f the m an d bein g a disciple , an d s o is unabl e t o cop e wit h th e realit y o f continuin g evi l i n th e world Th e shallownes s o f suc h discipleshi p underline s th e appropriatenes s o f th e metapho r o f shallo w soil I n th e secon d instance , th e respons e o f discipleshi p is cu t shor t b y th e ordinar y care s o f lif e (cf 8:2 1 ) an d th e seductio n o f wealt h (cf 6:24 ; se e als o 1 Ti m 6:9-10) Th e pul l o f th e latter , o f course , remain s a dominan t facto r i n th e moder n worl d wit h its rampan t materialism

W e are , therefore , reminde d i n thi s passag e o f th e absolut e clai m o f discipleship Th e wor d o f th e kingdo m whe n receive d full y an d withou t reservatio n result s i n a n unqualified , constant , an d abundantl y fruitfu l discipleshi p (cf Joh n 15:8, 16; Ga l 5:22f.) Th e parabl e containe d a challeng e t o Matthew' s churc h (cf J Lambrecht , Out of the Treasure, 176) I t als o contain s a n ongoin g challeng e t o Christian s an d th e churc h today

2 . Th e Parabl e o f th e Weed s an d th e Grai n (13:24-30 , 36-43 )

Matthew' s secon d parable , th e Parabl e o f th e Weed s an d th e Grain , addresse s a majo r concer n o f th e whol e discours e — tha t is, th e concer n abou t God' s dela y i n judgment Her e is on e o f th e mos t innovativ e an d dif -

8

ficul t aspect s o f Jesus ' doctrin e o f th e kingdom . Indeed , i t is trul y on e o f th e mysterie s o f th e kingdom !

Th e immediat e an d natura l reactio n o f th e peopl e t o Jesus ' announcemen t o f th e presenc e o f God' s kingdo m wa s t o wonde r abou t th e continuin g presenc e o f evi l i n th e world , particularl y a s manifeste d i n Roma n rul e ove r th e peopl e o f God . Th e remainin g parable s o f Matthe w 13 dea l wit h on e aspec t o r anothe r o f th e paradoxica l natur e o f th e presentl y dawnin g kingdo m o f God . Thi s secon d parabl e is pu t alongsid e th e precedin g parabl e becaus e o f thei r commo n agricultura l motifs , despit e th e fac t tha t th e tw o parable s hav e entirel y differen t purposes . Fo r a s i n th e first , her e to o is a stor y o f on e wh o sow s see d wit h th e en d resul t bein g mixed .

The Story (vv 24-30)

Th e parabl e begin s wit h th e formul a "th e kingdo m o f heave n ma y b e compare d t o (hömoiöthe) .." ( ν 24) Thi s reflect s a n underlyin g Aramai c constructio n tha t is t o b e understoo d a s "i t is th e cas e wit h a s with.... " A simila r formul a introduce s eac h o f th e remainin g fiv e parable s ("th e kingdo m o f heave n is lik e [homoia] .") Th e firs t par t o f th e stor y o f thi s parabl e consist s o f a narrativ e i n verse s 24-26 ; th e secon d part , a dialogu e i n verse s 27-3 0 wherei n th e mai n poin t o f th e parabl e is made .

I n th e narrativ e sectio n w e lear n o f tw o sowings : th e firs t b y a ma n wh o sowe d goo d see d i n hi s field ; th e secon d b y hi s enemy , wh o cam e b y nigh t t o so w weed s ( zizania , a commo n weed ) amon g th e goo d grain

Whe n th e plant s cam e up , bot h th e grai n an d th e weed s appeared Ther e is som e similarit y her e wit h Mark' s Parabl e o f th e Growin g See d (cf Mar k 4:26-29) , whic h is no t repeate d b y Matthew Yet despit e som e commo n features , th e poin t i n Matthew' s Parabl e o f th e Grai n an d th e Weed s is no t th e miraculou s growt h o f th e seed , bu t rathe r th e growin g o f th e grai n an d th e weed s together

Th e dialogu e sectio n bring s ou t th e poin t o f th e narrativ e section

Th e ma n wh o sowe d goo d see d is identifie d a s "th e maste r o f th e house " (ho oikodespotēs), who , it ma y b e inferred , represent s Jesu s — a poin t tha t is furthere d b y th e addres s Kyrie, "Sir, " whic h Matthew' s reader s woul d hav e understoo d a s "Lord. " Whe n th e servant s (hoi douloi) as k ho w th e weed s appeared , the y ar e informe d tha t "a n enem y ha s don e this " ( v 28)

DONAL D A HAGNE R

To th e servants ' questio n abou t whethe r the y shoul d pul l u p th e weeds , a negativ e answe r is give n o n th e ground s tha t th e grai n migh t accidentall y b e pulle d u p wit h th e weeds . Thi s coul d wel l happe n no t becaus e o f an y difficult y i n distinguishin g betwee n th e two , bu t rathe r becaus e o f th e proximit y o f th e tw o an d th e stronge r root s o f th e weeds . Bot h ar e t o b e allowe d t o gro w togethe r unti l th e harves t tim e whe n th e tw o wil l b e separate d — th e weed s t o b e burne d an d th e grai n t o b e pu t int o th e granary . Th e ke y poin t here , whic h wil l b e develope d furthe r i n th e remainin g parable s o f Matthe w 13, is tha t it is no t ye t th e tim e o f harvest , an d s o no t ye t th e tim e fo r separatin g th e grai n fro m th e weeds . Th e judgmen t moti f o f thi s imager y is clear . I t is a moti f tha t is foun d frequentl y i n Jewis h literature . An d it wil l receiv e considerabl e elaboratio n i n th e interpretatio n o f th e parabl e give n i n verse s 36-43 : Th e kingdo m o f Go d ha s indee d come , bu t i t involve s a surprisin g dela y i n th e comin g o f th e eschatoiogica l judgment .

The Interpretation (vv 36-43)

Lik e th e firs t parable , th e stor y o f th e grai n an d th e weed s als o receive s a n allegorizin g interpretation Again , ther e is n o compellin g reaso n t o conclud e tha t thi s interpretatio n is th e produc t o f th e churc h an d no t somethin g tha t Jesu s himsel f coul d hav e given An d a s i n th e previou s parable , th e interpretatio n is separate d fro m th e stor y rathe r tha n place d immediatel y afte r it .

I n thi s secon d parable , however , ther e is a shif t i n th e audience , wit h Jesu s i n vers e 3 6 portraye d a s leavin g th e crow d an d goin g int o a hous e wher e h e ca n addres s hi s disciple s privately . Furthermore , betwee n th e stor y an d it s interpretatio n tw o othe r parable s o f th e kingdo m ar e presented , tha t o f th e Mustar d See d (v v 31-32 ) an d tha t o f th e Leave n ( v 33) , a s wel l a s a summarizin g commen t tha t bring s th e firs t sectio n t o a n en d ( w 34-35) I n th e latte r passag e it is sai d tha t Jesu s spok e t o th e crow d onl y i n parables a commen t draw n fro m Mar k 4:33-34 . An d t o tha t remar k Matthe w append s a quotatio n o f Ps 78:2 , whic h h e introduce s b y a fulfillmen t formula :

Thi s wa s t o fulfil l wha t ha d bee n spoke n throug h th e prophet : " I will ope n m y mout h t o spea k i n parables ; I wil l proclai m wha t ha s bee n hidde n fro m th e foundatio n of th e world. "

0

Thi s quotatio n become s a t onc e th e raison d'être o f th e Matthea n parable s discours e (cf . th e revealin g o f "th e mysterie s o f th e kingdo m o f heaven " i n ν 11) a s wel l a s a furthe r confirmatio n o f Jesu s a s th e fulfille r o f th e Ol d Testamen t Scriptures .

Verse s 37-3 9 contai n a one-to-on e identificatio n i n paralle l for m o f seve n ke y feature s i n th e story : th e sowe r = th e So n o f Ma n (i.e. , Jesus) ; th e fiel d = th e world ; th e goo d see d = thos e wh o belon g t o th e kingdom ; th e weed s = thos e o f th e evil one ; th e enem y = th e Devil ; th e harves t = th e en d o f th e age ; an d th e harvester s = th e angels

No t ever y elemen t o f th e parable , however , is explicitl y allegorized . Fo r example , "th e master " coul d b e identifie d wit h Jesus , "th e servants " wit h th e disciples , an d "th e bearin g o f fruit " wit h righteousness . I t is , furthermore , unclea r whethe r th e referenc e t o "everyon e sleeping " i n vers e 2 5 is merel y a n incidenta l introductor y statemen t o r wa s intende d t o reflec t a failur e t o b e watchful An d wha t woul d a prematur e "rootin g out " refe r to ? Possibl y churc h discipline ? No t ever y detai l ca n o r shoul d b e presse d fo r meaning An d whil e th e exten t o f th e explici t allegorica l identification s is impressive , it shoul d als o b e note d tha t tw o o f th e item s identifie d (i.e. , th e worl d an d th e Devil ) ar e no t mentione d agai n i n th e continuatio n o f th e interpretation

Th e field , whic h is explicitl y identifie d a s "th e world " (ho kosmos), canno t hav e bee n understoo d a s th e churc h b y eithe r th e evangelis t o r hi s reader s (contra R . K. Mclver , "Parabl e o f th e Weed s amon g th e Wheat") . Suc h a n identificatio n o f th e field a s th e world , however , doe s coher e wit h Matthew' s understandin g o f th e worldwid e missio n o f th e churc h i n th e sprea d o f th e gospe l (cf . 24:14 ; 28:19) . "Th e evi l one " (ho poneros) o f vers e 38 , wh o is referre d t o als o i n vers e 19 a s th e on e wh o snatche s awa y th e see d o f th e wor d tha t wa s sow n o n th e path , is i n vers e 39 a equate d wit h "th e Devil " (ho diabolos), wh o sowe d th e weed s i n th e field. "Th e harvest " (ho therismos) i n vers e 39 b is a commo n metapho r fo r th e tim e o f eschatologica l judgmen t (cf . Joe l 3:13 ; Jer. 51:33 ; 2 Apocalypse of Baruch 70:2) . Likewise , "th e angels " wer e commonl y believe d i n Jewis h traditio n t o b e administrator s o f th e wil l o f Go d i n accomplishin g th e eschatologica l judgmen t (cf 1 Enoch 46:5 ; 63:1)

Verse s 40-43 , whic h wer e calle d b y Joachi m Jeremia s a "littl e apocalypse " (cf hi s The Parables of Jesus, trans S H Hook e [London : SCM ; Ne w York : Scribner , 197 2 rev ed. ] ) , explai n th e centra l poin t o f th e parable Th e gatherin g an d burnin g o f th e weed s refe r t o th e eschatologica l judgmen t (cf 3:10) A t "th e clos e o f th e age " th e wicke d wil l b e judged Thi s wil l b e

accomplishe d b y th e So n o f Man , wh o is th e sowe r o f th e goo d see d i n th e parable , an d b y hi s angel s (cf 16:27 ; 25:31-33 ; an d 24:30-31) Her e th e angel s ar e sent, t o gathe r "everythin g tha t cause s stumbling " an d "thos e guilt y o f lawlessness " — whic h ar e tw o o f th e mos t grievou s offense s depicte d i n Matthew' s Gospe l (o n "causin g t o stumble " [skandalizö], se e 18:6-7 ; o n "lawlessness " [anomia], se e 7:23 ; 23:28 ; 24:12) . Peopl e guilt y o f thes e offense s wil l b e collecte d "ou t o f hi s kingdom, " tha t is, fro m th e kingdo m o f th e So n o f Man Thi s probabl y refer s t o wher e th e see d ha d bee n sown , an d so , ideally , ha s i n min d th e whol e world .

Th e wicke d ar e gathere d "ou t of " o r "from " th e kingdo m no t i n th e sens e tha t the y wer e actuall y a par t o f th e church . No r doe s th e kingdo m exactl y equa l th e field/world . Bu t th e wicke d ar e gathere d fro m th e kingdo m i n th e sens e tha t the y wer e i n th e worl d an d ha d existe d alongsid e th e righteou s (cf . ν 30) . S o the y wer e eve n i n th e visibl e church , bu t ar e t o b e finall y distinguishe d an d separate d fro m th e righteous Th e imager y o f a furnac e o f fir e is draw n fro m Da n 3:6 . It occur s agai n i n vers e 50 , a s doe s als o th e formulai c languag e abou t th e weepin g an d grindin g o f teet h (cf . 8:12 ; 22:13 ; 24:51 ; 25:30)

A s th e lawles s wil l receiv e punishment , s o "th e righteous " (hoi dikaioi), whic h is a favorit e ter m o f Matthe w fo r thos e wh o respon d positivel y t o Jesus , wil l b e rewarded . "The y wil l glimme r lik e th e su n i n th e kingdo m o f thei r Father. " Thi s languag e is almos t exactl y th e sam e a s tha t use d i n describin g th e transfiguratio n o f Jesu s i n 17:2 , an d s o suggest s th e experiencin g o f th e glor y o f God . Th e sam e imager y is use d als o i n Da n 12:3 , whic h say s tha t thos e raise d t o everlastin g lif e "wil l shin e lik e th e brightnes s o f th e firmament. " An d whil e vers e 4 1 speak s o f "th e kingdo m o f th e So n o f Man " an d vers e 4 3 "th e kingdo m o f thei r Father, " thes e tw o phrase s refe r t o th e sam e realit y an d ar e no t t o b e distinguished Th e dramati c contras t o f th e fat e o f "th e lawless " an d tha t o f "th e righteous, " therefore , conclude s wit h th e pointe d exhortation : "Le t th e perso n wh o ha s ears , hear! " — a n exhortatio n tha t is als o foun d verbati m i n vers e 9 an d 11:15

I n thi s world , eve n afte r th e announcemen t o f Jesu s tha t th e eschatologica l kingdo m ha s alread y begun , thos e guilt y o f lawlessnes s — tha t is, peopl e wh o belon g t o th e evi l on e — continu e t o coexis t wit h th e righteous , wh o ar e th e peopl e o f God' s kingdom . Ther e ha s no t been , no r wil l ther e be , a dramati c separatio n o f th e lawles s fro m th e righteou s unti l th e harves t a t th e en d o f th e age . Th e presen t ag e is therefor e on e i n whic h hu -

ma n societ y — an d s o eve n th e churc h — is a mixtur e o f thos e o f th e evi l on e an d thos e o f th e kingdom Thi s ca n resul t i n a confusin g situation , especiall y whe n th e wicke d see m t o prospe r an d th e righteou s suffer . Bu t th e ambiguit y o f th e presen t situatio n is a temporar y one , an d wit h th e en d o f th e ag e it , too , wil l b e brough t t o a n end Then , an d onl y then , wil l ther e b e a clea r demarcatio n betwee n thes e tw o classe s o f people , wit h eac h receivin g thei r eschatologica l due : fo r th e lawless , a dreadfu l punishment ; fo r th e righteous , extravagan t blessedness Evil peopl e wil l b e show n fo r wha t the y are . Bu t th e righteous , too , wil l becom e conspicuous . To thi s futur e expectatio n Matthe w return s agai n an d agai n i n hi s Gospel , thereb y settin g befor e hi s reader s bot h warnin g an d encouragement .

3 . Th e Parabl e o f th e Mustar d See d (13:31-32 )

Th e thir d parabl e o f Matthe w 13, th e Parabl e o f th e Mustar d See d i n verse s 31-32 , continue s th e portraya l o f th e kingdo m o f Go d usin g th e imager y o f see d tha t is sown Th e catchword s "sowing, " "seed, " an d "field " provid e continuit y betwee n th e firs t thre e parables I n thi s thir d parabl e th e kingdo m is agai n portraye d a s a presen t reality Bu t her e it s presenc e is i n secre t for m — tha t is, it s presence , thoug h real , ca n b e easil y overlooked Th e kingdo m ha s come , bu t no t i n th e spectacular , unmistakabl e fashio n i n whic h it wa s expected Tha t sam e poin t wil l b e mad e i n th e Parabl e o f th e

Leaven , whic h follow s i n vers e 33 Indeed , thi s is on e o f th e "mysterie s o f th e kingdom " give n t o disciple s o f Jesu s (cf . ν 11) . Thi s is th e firs t parabl e i n th e discours e o f Matthe w 13 tha t doe s no t receiv e a n interpretation . Non e o f th e remainin g parables , i n fact , receive s one . S o th e hearer s (an d readers ) ar e lef t o n thei r ow n t o wor k ou t th e implie d interpretation . Furthermore , thi s is th e las t parabl e tha t Matthe w draw s fro m Mark , thoug h th e amoun t o f agreemen t betwee n th e evangelist s i n thei r wordin g is small . Severa l verba l agreement s betwee n Matthe w an d Luk e agains t Mar k sugges t th e possibilit y o f th e influenc e o f Q , whic h ma y hav e containe d th e parabl e a s wel l — thoug h thos e agreement s ma y als o b e du e t o th e influenc e o f ora l traditio n o n bot h Matthe w an d Luke . I n th e Parabl e o f th e Mustar d Seed , th e kingdo m is likene d t o th e situatio n o f a ma n wh o plante d a mustar d see d i n hi s field . I n th e ancien t worl d th e mustar d see d wa s know n fo r it s smallness . Fro m thi s "smallest " o f seed s (i t matter s no t tha t w e kno w o f smalle r seeds ) a n amazingl y larg e

DONAL D A HAGNE R

bush-lik e plan t emerged , whic h a t maturit y wa s eigh t t o te n fee t i n heigh t (cf . Babylonian Talmud, Ketuboth 111b , whic h refer s t o timbe r fro m a mustar d tre e sufficien t i n quantit y t o cove r th e roo f o f a potter' s hut ) an d larg e enoug h t o accommodat e th e nest s o f birds . Thi s fac t wa s s o remarkabl e tha t i t seem s t o hav e take n o n a proverbia l character . Matthew' s fina l clause , "th e bird s o f th e sk y dwel l i n it s branches, " agree s nearl y verbati m wit h Da n 4:2 1 (LXX , Theodotio n version ) an d Ps 103:1 2 (LXX , whic h i n Englis h translation s is 104:12) , wit h thes e tw o passage s alludin g t o th e grea t tre e o f Belshazzar' s drea m an d th e cedar s o f Lebanon , respectively It is th e contras t betwee n a tin y mustar d see d an d th e larg e siz e o f a mustar d plan t a t maturit y tha t is determinativ e i n th e parabl e o f verse s 31-32 Bu t Matthew' s us e o f th e wor d "tree " (dendron) t o describ e th e mustar d plan t probabl y involve s hyperbole , wit h tha t hyperbol e suggestin g a symbolis m tha t point s beyon d agricultur e t o a greate r realit y o r kingdo m (a s is ofte n th e cas e i n th e OT ; cf Eze k 17:22-24 ; 31:2-13 ; Da n 4:20-21) .

Althoug h no t impossible , th e usua l interpretatio n o f th e bird s i n th e branche s a s referrin g t o Gentile s (wit h O T support ) introduce s a n allegor y tha t is no t intrinsi c t o th e parabl e itself , bu t on e bot h foreig n t o th e contex t an d unnecessar y fo r a straightforwar d readin g o f th e text . Fo r th e bird s ar e mentione d onl y t o indicat e th e remarkabl e siz e o f th e plant . Th e poin t o f th e parabl e is simpl y th e miracl e o f natur e symbolize d b y a mustar d seed , whic h develop s fro m th e smalles t o f beginning s t o a n astonishin g fullness . I n th e sam e way , th e kingdo m ha s begu n inconspicuously Yet it has begun! An d i n th e en d it s greatness , whe n compare d t o its siz e a t its beginning , wil l provid e a s amazin g a contras t a s tha t betwee n a mustar d see d an d a full-grow n mustar d plant

I t is impossibl e t o rul e ou t a n allusio n i n thi s parabl e als o t o growth , eve n thoug h it s mai n poin t is abou t contras t rathe r tha n growth . Fo r thoug h th e kingdo m o f Go d ha s humbl e beginnings , di d no t overwhel m th e worl d i n it s coming , an d ca n b e easil y overlooked , i t is destine d t o becom e a n impressiv e entity Thi s parable , indeed , take s th e plac e i n Matthe w 13 o f th e parabl e o f Mar k 4:26-29 , whic h speak s o f th e miracl e o f th e growt h o f see d a s a metapho r fo r th e growt h o f th e kingdom . Th e poin t is th e same : Th e kingdom' s mysteriou s growt h is th e wor k o f God If w e restric t th e analog y onl y t o size , the n th e contras t betwee n Jesu s wit h th e Twelve , a t th e beginning , an d th e churc h universal , a s i t no w is , ha s remarkabl y fulfille d th e parable

4 . Th e Parabl e o f th e Yeas t (13:33 )

Th e fourt h parabl e o f Matthe w 13, th e Parabl e o f th e Yeast i n vers e 33 , is th e las t o f Jesus ' publi c parable s i n th e Matthea n paraboli c discourse Fo r th e thre e remainin g parable s ar e addresse d t o th e disciples . Furthermore , thi s parable , despit e it s chang e o f imagery , is closel y relate d t o th e precedin g parable Fo r it , too , speak s o f th e initia l unimpressivenes s o f th e kingdo m compare d t o wha t i t wil l eventuall y become .

Th e Parabl e o f th e Yeast is draw n fro m Q (cf . Luk e 13:20-21) . Matthew , however , introduce s i t wit h hi s ow n formula , "h e spok e anothe r parabl e t o them " (cf . w 24 , 31) , an d turn s wha t wa s probabl y a questio n i n Q t o a n indicativ e statemen t (cf th e sam e chang e i n ν 31) Likewise , Matthe w change s "kingdo m o f God " (cf Luk e 13:20 ) t o "kingdo m o f heaven. " Bu t beyon d thes e changes , th e agreement s wit h Luk e ar e quit e close .

Ther e ar e a numbe r o f forma l similaritie s betwee n thi s parabl e an d th e precedin g on e — mos t obviously , th e initia l referenc e t o "anothe r parable, " th e openin g word s "th e kingdo m o f heave n is simila r to, " an d th e parallelis m i n th e clause s "yeast , whic h a woma n too k an d mixed " an d " a see d (o f mustard ) whic h someon e too k an d sowed. " Yeast, o r leaven , wa s a commo n an d importan t ingredien t i n Palestinia n households It s specia l characte r o f gradua l fermentatio n mad e it a particularl y suggestiv e metapho r fo r describin g simila r processe s i n th e mora l sphere , givin g ris e t o th e prover b "a littl e leave n leaven s th e whol e lump " (cf 1 Co r 5:6 ; Ga l 5:9) Beyon d its appearanc e her e i n chapte r 13, Matthe w agai n use s yeas t metaphoricall y i n 16:6, 11-1 2 t o refe r t o th e teachin g o f th e Pharisee s an d Sadducees

Althoug h leave n i n th e Ol d Testamen t usuall y symbolize s th e corruptin g influenc e o f evi l (thoug h no t always ; cf . Le v 23:17) , an d s o wa s t o b e purge d entirel y fro m Israelit e household s a t Passove r (Exo d 12:15 , 19) , ther e is n o indicatio n tha t i t is t o b e viewe d i n thi s parabl e a s somethin g evil Wha t is portraye d her e is th e dynami c powe r o f leave n whereb y a smal l amount , whic h is imperceptibl e whe n first mixe d int o doug h (not e th e ver b "hid") , ha s a n eventual , inevitable , an d astonishin g effec t o n th e whol e batc h o f dough I n thi s sense , thi s parabl e is paralle l t o th e immediatel y precedin g Parabl e o f th e Mustar d Seed . Bot h spea k o f tha t whic h appear s initiall y t o b e insignifican t an d o f n o consequence , bu t whic h i n tim e produce s a n astonishin g an d dramati c effect Th e kingdo m o f Go d is lik e yeas t i n thi s way . Fo r althoug h a t it s beginnin g it ma y loo k unimpressive , i t wil l hav e a n effec t tha t is ou t o f all proportio n wit h tha t beginning

DONAL D A HAGNE R

Th e dynami c powe r o f th e kingdo m o f Go d — which , thoug h it ma y expres s itsel f i n seemingl y hidde n way s i n th e beginning , wil l eventuall y permeat e everythin g — is th e mai n poin t o f th e Parabl e o f th e Leaven . I t is unlikel y tha t th e growt h i n vie w point s t o th e wor k o r influenc e o f th e disciples No r is ther e nee d t o allegoriz e suc h detail s a s th e woman , th e thre e measures , o r th e whol e batc h o f doug h itself . I t is, however , wort h notin g tha t a n exceptionall y larg e amoun t o f doug h is indicate d b y th e expressio n "thre e measures " (sata tria), whic h amount s t o nearl y 4 0 liter s o r 5 0 kilogram s o f brea d an d woul d b e enoug h t o fee d abou t 150 people . Suc h a n in -

flate d figur e ma y sugges t eschatologica l fulfillment , thoug h probabl y no t th e messiani c banquet .

Whe n a batc h o f doug h is first leavened , it doe s no t loo k altered . Wit h th e passin g o f time , however , th e yeas t take s it s effec t an d th e doug h rises . Similarly , th e parabl e suggests , thoug h th e initia l comin g o f th e kingdo m o f Go d doe s no t loo k a s thoug h i t ha s ha d an y effect , th e effec t wil l becom e visibl e an d dominan t — jus t a s surel y a s yeas t ha s it s effect

5 . Th e Parabl e o f th e Hidde n Treasur e (13:44 )

Th e fifth o f th e parable s o f Matthe w 13, tha t o f th e Parabl e o f th e Hidde n

Treasur e i n vers e 4 4 — togethe r wit h th e sixth , tha t o f th e Parabl e o f th e Pear l i n verse s 45-4 6 — ha s a s it s focu s th e gloriou s characte r o f th e kingdo m institute d b y Jesus , whic h justifie s th e cos t o f absolut e discipleship

Thes e tw o parables , however , ar e linke d wit h th e precedin g parable s b y th e continuin g moti f o f hiddennes s an d smallness . So , i n effect , th e hidde n treasur e ( v 44 ) correspond s t o th e hidde n leave n ( v 33 ) an d th e smallnes s o f th e pear l ( w 45-46 ) t o th e smallnes s o f th e mustar d see d ( w 31-32) .

I n additio n t o th e sam e openin g formula , "th e kingdo m o f heave n is like, " thes e tw o parable s hav e th e sam e five element s i n th e sam e order : (1 ) a referenc e t o somethin g ver y valuable ; (2 ) findin g it ; (3 ) going ; (4 ) sellin g everything ; an d (5 ) buyin g it (i n th e first parable , th e field; i n th e second , th e pear l o f grea t value) . Th e first parabl e ha s th e additiona l feature s o f hidin g a treasur e i n a field an d th e mentio n o f jo y a t it s discovery . Althoug h th e synta x is no t altogethe r parallel , certainl y th e conten t o f th e parable s is quit e paralle l — whic h suggest s a n earl y linkin g o f thes e tw o parables , a t leas t i n th e ora l traditio n an d perhap s eve n fro m th e beginning .

I t wa s no t a t all unusua l i n th e ancien t worl d t o hid e treasur e i n th e ground Th e backgroun d o f thi s phrase , however , is probabl y t o b e foun d i n Israel' s Wisdo m literatur e (cf . Pro v 2:4 ; Sirac h 20:30) , althoug h man y fol k tale s als o dea l wit h thi s theme . Th e analog y here , lik e th e re-hidin g o f a treasur e b y a perso n wh o finds it , suggest s tha t somethin g o f tremendou s wort h ca n b e presen t an d ye t no t know n t o other s wh o ma y hav e frequentl y traverse d th e sam e field. Similarly , th e kingdo m ca n b e presen t an d ye t no t perceived , becaus e it s presen t for m doe s no t overwhel m th e worl d o r overcom e resistanc e t o it. Bu t th e perso n wh o doe s discove r th e treasur e goe s wit h jo y t o sell everythin g i n orde r t o obtai n tha t field an d it s hidde n treasure .

Th e questio n o f th e ethica l propriet y o f buyin g a fiel d wit h hidde n treasur e is no t addresse d i n th e parable Th e sol e poin t bein g mad e is tha t th e kingdo m o f Go d is wort h everything . Furthermore , thoug h n o explanatio n o f th e parabl e is provided , i t is obviou s tha t a rigorous , self-denyin g an d costl y discipleshi p is i n vie w (cf 19:21 , 29 ; se e als o Luk e 14:33 ; Phi l 3:7) . Thi s is th e basi c messag e o f th e parable . Othe r features , suc h a s th e rehidin g o f th e treasur e an d th e buyin g o f th e field, ar e merel y supportiv e detail s an d nee d no t b e allegorized . Th e parable , lik e its companio n parabl e following , is abou t th e realit y o f th e kingdo m an d it s absolut e wort h i n term s o f persona l sacrifice

6 . Th e Parabl e o f th e Pear l (13:45-46 )

Th e Parabl e o f th e Pear l i n verse s 45-46 , a s w e hav e seen , is paralle l t o th e precedin g parable , bot h i n for m an d basi c message . I n thi s parabl e th e kingdo m is likene d t o th e circumstanc e o f a pear l merchan t i n searc h o f fine pearls . Thi s merchan t finds on e supremel y preciou s pear l an d sell s everythin g h e ha s i n orde r t o bu y it (cf . th e Wisdo m text s o f Jo b 28:1 8 an d Pro v 3:15 ; 8:1 1 fo r background) . Th e pear l i n th e stor y clearl y represent s th e kingdom . Pearl s wer e ver y highl y value d i n th e ancien t world , eve n mor e tha n gold . Ther e is deliberat e hyperbol e i n vers e 46 , fo r i t is rathe r unlikel y tha t an y merchan t woul d sell everythin g tha t h e o r sh e ha d i n orde r t o acquir e an y singl e pearl . Bu t i n th e cas e o f th e kingdom , whic h is wonderfu l beyon d price , suc h a n analogou s actio n o f a discipl e i n ful l an d unreserve d commitmen t is mor e tha n justified !

DONAL D A HAGNE R

A

s i n th e Parabl e o f th e Hidde n Treasure , th e supportiv e imager y o f "buying " is no t t o b e allegorized Sellin g an d buyin g togethe r poin t t o th e respons e o f th e disciple . Rather , wha t is highlighte d i n th e parabl e is tha t th e kingdo m o f God , thoug h lik e a small , inconspicuou s pearl , is o f incalculabl e value , an d so , onc e discovered , call s fo r unrestraine d respons e i n th e for m o f absolut e discipleship . Th e kingdo m o f Go d is th e greates t o f treasures Thoug h it s wort h is immeasurabl e b y an y standar d (cf Wisdo m o f Solomo n 7:7-9 , 14 concernin g wisdom) , it is no w presen t onl y i n veile d for m an d ca n b e possesse d b y som e withou t th e knowledg e o f thos e nea r them Lik e a pear l tha t ca n b e hel d i n one' s hand , th e kingdo m is know n onl y t o it s joyfu l possessors .

Yet thos e wh o find th e kingdo m — tha t is, thos e wh o receiv e Jesus ' messag e an d respon d i n discipleshi p — hav e begu n t o experienc e th e wonde r o f th e kingdom' s presence . The y kno w tha t th e kingdo m is a realit y wort h everything , an d s o the y joyfull y mak e it thei r on e priorit y i n lif e (cf 4:18-22 ; 10:39) The y see k first th e kingdom , sacrificin g all t o it ; bu t a t th e sam e time , paradoxically , the y find i n th e kingdo m all the y nee d (6:33) .

7 . Th e Parabl e o f th e Ne t (13:47-50 )

Th e sevent h an d las t parabl e o f Matthe w 13, th e Parabl e o f th e Ne t i n verse s 47-50 , return s t o th e moti f o f th e eschatologica l separatio n o f th e righteou s an d th e evil , proclaimin g th e judgmen t o f th e latter Th e parabl e is reminiscen t o f th e secon d parable , th e Parabl e o f th e Weed s an d th e Grai n i n verse s 24-3 0 an d 36-43 . W e may , i n fact , hav e t o recko n wit h reciproca l influenc e betwee n thes e tw o parable s — perhap s eve n i n th e pre-Matthea n tradition . Fo r vers e 5 0 o f thi s parabl e is a verbati m repetitio n o f vers e 4 2 o f tha t earlie r parable : "an d thro w the m int o th e furnac e o f fire; ther e peopl e wil l wee p an d gnas h thei r teeth. " Furthermore , i n roundin g ou t hi s collectio n o f parable s i n chapte r 13, Matthe w return s t o on e o f hi s favorit e themes : th e judgmen t o f th e unrighteous . An d th e stres s here , a s it wa s earlier , is o n th e occurrenc e o f judgmen t onl y "a t th e en d o f th e age " ( v 49 ; cf . ν 40) . Yet fo r all th e similaritie s betwee n thi s parabl e an d th e precedin g parables , ther e is on e strikin g difference . Her e i n verse s 49-5 0 a n interpretatio n is provide d alongsid e th e narrativ e imager y o f verse s 47-48 . Th e appropriatenes s o f thi s parabl e fo r th e severa l disciple s wh o ha d bee n fisherme n is obvious . Th e ne t i n question , whic h i n Gree k is calle d a

8

sagēnē, wa s a seine-ne t wit h float s a t th e to p edg e an d weight s a t th e bottom Whe n th e ne t wa s throw n int o th e wate r it encircle d th e fis h an d the n wa s dragge d u p o n th e shore . Th e ne t naturall y gathere d fis h indiscriminately , henc e "o f ever y kind " (ek pantos genous). Th e exaggerate d inclusivenes s o f thi s phras e ma y b e a n intentiona l reflectio n o n th e universalit y o f th e invitatio n t o accep t th e goo d new s o f th e kingdo m (cf . 22:9-10 : "bot h ba d an d good, " ponērous te kai agathous). So whil e th e Parabl e o f th e Weed s an d th e Grai n ma y onl y hav e implie d a mixtur e o f th e unrighteou s an d th e righteou s i n th e church , th e Parabl e o f th e Ne t make s tha t poin t quit e clearly

I n thei r proclamatio n o f th e kingdom , th e disciple s ha d becom e "fisher s o f me n an d women " (cf . 4:19 : halieis anthröpön). Amon g thos e wh o respon d ar e man y wh o wil l no t persever e i n thei r initia l commitmen t (cf 13:3-8,18-23) ; ther e wil l b e thos e wh o d o no t live u p t o th e standard s o f th e churc h (cf . 7:21-23 ; 18:17) . Th e claus e "whe n i t wa s full " (hote eplēmthē) o f vers e 4 8 correspond s t o "a t th e en d o f th e age " (en tē synteleia ton aiönos) o f vers e 49 , an d therefor e hint s a t eschatologica l fulfillment . I t woul d hav e bee n a ver y commo n experienc e a t Capernaum , fo r example , t o se e fisherme n sittin g o n th e beach , goin g throug h th e day' s catch , keepin g th e goo d fis h an d throwin g awa y th e ba d ones . Th e expressio n ta sapra, "th e ba d ones, " o f vers e 4 8 is use d als o t o describ e ba d tree s o r ba d frui t i n 7:17-1 8 an d 12:33 An d "t o thro w out " o r "away " i n verse s 4 8 an d 5 0 echoe s th e languag e o f 8:12 .

Th e determinativ e claus e is a t th e beginnin g o f vers e 49 : "S o i t wil l b e a t th e en d o f th e age. " Th e separatio n o f th e evil fro m th e righteou s wil l occu r onl y then . Her e i t is agai n th e angel s wh o ar e th e agent s o f eschatologica l judgmen t (cf ν 41) The y wil l separat e th e evi l one s "fro m th e mids t o f th e righteous " (ek meson tön dikaiön). Thi s las t phras e highlight s th e presen t mixtur e o f goo d an d evi l i n th e kingdom , an d s o point s t o th e churc h a s it no w exist s bein g a corpus permixtum. Th e evi l ones , o r fals e disciple s withi n th e church , wil l experienc e eschatologica l judgment . Afte r th e referenc e t o tha t separation , th e judgmen t o f th e wicke d is describe d i n term s o f th e standardize d fir e imager y (cf . 25:41) , thereb y departin g fro m th e imager y o f th e parabl e itself .

Thi s fina l parabl e focuse s agai n o n th e realit y o f eschatologica l judgmen t a t th e en d o f th e age I n th e presen t era , evi l person s ar e allowe d t o live togethe r wit h th e righteou s — i n fact , i n thei r mids t — eve n withi n tha t manifestatio n o f th e kingdo m know n a s th e church . Th e ne t o f th e

DONAL D A HAGNE R

kingdo m include s a mixtur e o f bot h goo d an d evil . Tha t suc h circumstance s coul d exis t i n th e er a o f th e kingdo m o f Go d is nothin g les s tha n astonishin g — something , indeed , wort h callin g on e o f "th e mysterie s o f th e kingdom. " Tha t goo d an d evi l coul d b e locate d withi n th e ne t o f th e kingdo m seeme d equall y strange , n o doubt . Yet a t th e tim e o f eschatologica l judgment , onl y th e righteou s — tha t is, thos e wh o hav e receive d th e kingdo m wit h a n appropriat e respons e i n th e for m o f discipleshi p — wil l survive . Thos e wh o ar e evi l wil l experienc e thei r punishment . A focu s o n judgmen t withi n th e church , o f course , presuppose s th e wide r contex t o f th e judgmen t o f th e world . Th e evangelis t Matthe w neve r tire s i n warnin g hi s reader s o f th e realit y o f judgment , an d henc e o f th e importanc e o f a genuin e discipleship . I t is a warnin g tha t bot h th e worl d an d th e churc h nee d today .

8 . A Scrib e Traine d fo r th e Kingdom : Th e En d o f th e Discours e (13:51-52 )

Th e en d o f Matthew' s parable s discours e i n chapte r 13 is forme d b y a questio n concernin g th e disciples ' understandin g i n vers e 5 1 an d a commen t regardin g thos e wh o teac h thi s doctrin e o f th e kingdo m i n vers e 52 , wit h tha t fina l commen t bein g give n i n th e for m o f ye t anothe r paraboli c analogy . Thi s concludin g analog y throw s ligh t o n th e seve n parable s o f th e discours e b y focusin g o n on e o f th e basi c tension s inheren t i n thei r message : th e continuit y an d discontinuit y o f ol d an d new

Jesu s ask s th e disciple s if the y hav e understoo d "al l thes e things " — tha t is , abou t th e precedin g parable s o f th e kingdom , bu t als o th e conten t o f th e entir e discours e a s Matthe w ha s constructe d it Th e referenc e t o understandin g th e parable s recall s th e discussio n o n th e purpos e o f th e parable s i n verse s 10-17 Fo r onl y if th e disciple s hav e understoo d thes e thing s wil l the y b e i n a positio n t o b e fruitfu l fo r th e kingdo m (cf ν 23) An d thoug h ther e is stil l muc h ahea d o f the m t o learn , an d thoug h the y wil l stil l stumbl e i n ignoranc e o n mor e tha n on e occasion , the y ar e abl e — a t leas t wit h regar d t o thes e parable s — t o answe r wit h a somewha t deceptivel y confiden t "Yes."

A "scribe " (grammateus) i n Judais m wa s a scholar-teache r wh o wa s traine d i n th e interpretatio n o f th e Torah Suc h a scrib e is describe d i n Sirac h 39:2- 3 a s on e wh o wil l not . onl y "see k ou t th e wisdo m o f all th e an -

cients,"bu t als o on e wh o wil l "penetrat e th e subtletie s o f parables " an d "b e a t hom e wit h th e obscuritie s o f parables. " Jesu s here , however , refer s t o a ne w kin d o f scribe : on e wh o is instructe d (mathēteutheis, literally : "havin g bee n mad e a disciple" ) i n th e kingdo m o f heave n — tha t is, instructe d a s a discipl e concernin g th e natur e o f God' s kingdo m a s elucidate d b y Jesu s throug h hi s parables . So , i t seem s evident , Jesu s ha d her e i n min d th e disciple s who m h e ha s bee n teaching (Late r i n 23:3 4 Matthe w agai n refer s t o Christia n scribes , bu t ther e th e referenc e is probabl y t o Christia n scholar s o f th e Torah. )

Thi s ne w typ e o f scribe , wh o is traine d i n th e knowledg e o f th e kingdom , is likene d t o a "maste r o f a household " (oikodespotēs; cf 20:1 ; 21:33) , wh o bring s ou t o f hi s storeroo m "ne w thing s an d ol d things " (kaina kai palaia). Th e ke y her e — as , indeed , th e ke y t o th e parable s themselve s — is th e combinatio n o f ne w an d old Fo r th e parables , lik e Jesus ' othe r teaching s abou t th e kingdom , involv e ol d an d familia r thing s juxtapose d wit h ne w elements

I n vie w her e ar e no t merel y ne w hermeneutica l application s o f th e Tora h i n ne w situation s — somethin g th e Jewis h scribe s wer e alway s concerne d with No r is it simpl y ne w application s o f ol d saying s o f Jesus Rather , wha t is i n vie w is th e relatio n o f th e Tora h t o th e genuinel y ne w realit y o f th e kingdo m o f Go d (cf . Mar k 1:27) — tha t is, th e "mysteries " concernin g th e purpose s o f God , whic h wer e hidde n fro m th e beginnin g bu t no w ar e bein g mad e know n (cf . ν 35) . Th e Christia n scribe , wh o is traine d an d prepare d t o teac h others , mus t b e abl e t o us e th e ol d an d th e ne w togethe r t o brin g clarit y an d understandin g t o th e messag e o f th e kingdo m i n it s applicatio n t o th e present . Th e ol d thing s an d th e ne w thing s o f th e Christia n scrib e ar e bot h indispensabl e t o th e gospel

Th e gospe l o f th e kingdo m a s announce d b y Jesus , believe d i n b y th e disciples , an d establishe d a s th e foundatio n o f th e church , is b y it s ver y natur e a blen d o f continuit y an d discontinuit y wit h th e ol d (i.e. , th e O T a s ordinaril y understood) . A t its hear t th e gospe l consist s o f "ne w things, " an d tha t newnes s mus t neve r b e underestimated Bu t fo r Matthew , thes e "ne w things " presuppos e an d ar e fundamentall y loya l t o th e "ol d things " (cf . 5:17-19) . Th e Christia n schola r o r "scribe, " therefore , is on e traine d i n th e mysterie s o f th e kingdom , an d s o is abl e t o maintai n a balanc e betwee n th e continuit y an d discontinuit y tha t exist s betwee n th e er a inaugurate d b y Jesu s an d tha t o f th e past .

I t is remarkabl e th e exten t t o whic h Ne w Testamen t theolog y is char -

DONAL D A HAGNE R

acterize d b y thi s tensio n betwee n th e ol d an d th e new . An d fo r Matthew , i n particular , wh o wrot e fo r a Jewis h Christia n congregatio n tha t probabl y ha d it s ow n Christia n scribe s (th e counterpar t o f th e Jewis h rabbis) , i t is n o wonde r tha t thi s wa s a n especiall y importan t theme . Som e hav e eve n take n th e descriptio n o f th e scrib e i n vers e 5 2 a s a self-descriptio n o f th e evangelist . Bu t whateve r th e exac t referen t o f th e passage , certainl y Matthe w woul d hav e though t o f himsel f a s include d amon g thos e scribe s wh o ha d bee n traine d i n th e mysterie s o f th e kingdo m o f heaven . If th e churc h toda y is t o carr y o n th e wor k o f th e disciples , ther e is a sens e i n whic h no t onl y biblica l scholar s bu t als o ever y Christia n mus t brin g ou t o f hi s o r he r storeroo m bot h ne w thing s an d ol d things . To b e tru e t o th e teachin g o f th e parable s o f Jesu s an d t o th e presentatio n o f thos e parable s b y th e evangelis t Matthew , Christian s toda y mus t represen t a Christianit y tha t encompasse s bot h Testaments , wit h a loyalt y t o both .

9 . Conclusio n

Th e evangelis t Matthe w ha s place d hi s discours e o f collecte d parable s i n th e middl e o f hi s Gospe l — i n particular , a t a majo r turnin g poin t i n th e ministr y o f Jesus . Followin g th e people' s widesprea d rejectio n o f hi s message , Jesu s her e i n chapte r 13 begin s t o articulat e th e Gospe l o f th e Kingdo m throug h th e mediu m o f parables . I n s o doing , h e make s us e o f teachin g device s tha t coul d bot h concea l an d revea l th e mysterie s o f tha t kingdom

Bu t th e parable s o f Matthe w 13 ar e no t jus t t o b e understoo d a s teaching s pertinen t fo r disciple s o f tha t day , fo r all o f th e issue s treate d remai n curren t today Th e firs t parabl e is concerne d wit h receptivit y an d non-receptivity ; th e secon d an d sevent h parable s wit h th e proble m o f th e dela y o f th e expecte d judgment ; th e thir d an d fourt h parable s wit h th e presen t apparen t insignificanc e o f th e kingdom ; an d th e fift h an d sixt h wit h th e incalculabl e valu e o f th e kingdom , unknow n t o thos e wh o d o no t posses s it I n a n increasingl y secula r day , whe n th e succes s o f th e gospe l seem s questionable , th e kingdo m a doubtfu l reality , an d fina l judgmen t a n ide a o f th e past , thes e parable s retai n thei r significance . Face d wit h th e myster y o f a kingdo m tha t is bot h presen t an d future , Christian s livin g betwee n th e time s nee d thes e truths .

Th e parable s o f Matthe w 13, i n short , addres s realitie s tha t continu e

t o b e o f grea t importanc e fo r th e churc h today . The y confir m t o u s th e realit y o f God' s kingdo m an d motivat e u s i n ou r discipleship . Bu t the y d o s o onl y if w e hav e ear s t o hear !

Selecte d Bibliograph y

Blomberg , Crai g L. Interpreting the Parables. Downer s Grove : InterVarsity , 1990

Carter , Warren , an d Heil , Joh n Paul Matthew's Parables: Audience-oriented Perspectives. (CBQM S 30) . Washington : Catholi c Biblica l Associatio n o f America , 1998

Dahl , Nil s A . "Th e Parable s o f Growth, " Studia Theologica 5 (1952 ) 132-66 .

Davies , W . D. , an d Allison , Dal e C. , Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (ICC) , vol 2 Edinburgh : Τ & Τ Clark , 1991 .

Gerhardsson , Birger "Th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r an d It s Interpretation, " New Testament Studies 14 (1968 ) 165-9 3 (a translatio n an d revisio n o f a n articl e i n Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok 31 [1966 ] 80-113)

"Th e Seve n Parable s o f Matthe w XIII, " New Testament Studies 19 (1972 ) 16-37

"I f W e D o No t Cu t th e Parable s Ou t o f Thei r Frames, " New Testament Studies 3 7 (1991 ) 321-35 .

Hagner , Donal d A Matthew 1-13 (Wor d Biblica l Commentar y 33A) Dallas : Word , 1993 .

. "Ne w Thing s fro m th e Scribe' s Treasur e Bo x (Mt . 13:52), " Expository Times 109 (1998 ) 329-34 .

Jones , Ivo r H . The Matthean Parables: A Literary and Historical Commentary. Leiden : Brill , 1995 .

Kingsbury , Jac k D The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13. St Louis : Clayton , 1969 .

Ladd , Georg e Eldon . "Th e Sitz im Leben o f th e Parable s o f Matthe w 13: Th e Soils, " Studia Evangelica 2 (1964 ) 203-10

Lambrecht , Jan . Out of the Treasure: The Parables in the Gospel of Matthew. Louvain : Peeters ; Gran d Rapids : Eerdmans , 1992

Marshall , I . Howard . Eschatology and the Parables. London : Tyndale , 1963 . Mclver , Rober t K . "Th e Parabl e o f th e Weed s amon g th e Whea t (Mat t 13:24-30,36-43 ) an d th e Relationshi p betwee n th e Kingdo m an d th e

3

DONAL D A HAGNE R

Churc h a s Portraye d i n th e Gospe l o f Matthew, " Journal of Biblical Literature 11 4 (1995 ) 643-59 .

Wenham , David . The Parables of Jesus. Downer s Grove : InterVarsity , 1989 .

CHAPTE R 6

Luke s Parables of th e Kingdom

(Luke 8:4-15; 13:18-21)

RICHAR D N . LONGENECKE R

THRE E PARABLES I N Luke' s Gospe l paralle l th e kingdo m parable s o f Mar k 4 an d Matthe w 13: Th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r (8:4-15) ; th e Parabl e o f th e Mustar d See d (13:18-19) ; an d th e Parabl e o f th e Leave n (13:2021) . All thre e contai n th e sam e storie s a s foun d i n Mar k and/o r Matthew ; all thre e includ e th e phras e "th e kingdo m o f God " (8:1 0 [see als o ν 1]; 13:1 8 an d 20) ; an d all thre e appl y th e metaphor s containe d i n th e storie s i n a manne r relevan t fo r th e audienc e bein g addressed . I n for m an d content , therefore , thes e thre e parable s ma y rightl y b e calle d "kingdo m parables. " I n th e wa y Luk e use s the m i n th e developmen t o f hi s Gospel , however , the y functio n differentl y an d serv e othe r purpose s tha n the y d o i n Mar k an d Matthew .

Consideratio n o f thes e thre e Luka n parable s is partiailarl y rewardin g fo r a stud y o f ho w th e parable s o f Jesu s wer e use d i n th e earl y church , fo r it highlight s a somewha t differen t us e b y on e evangelis t (i.e. , Luke ) visà-vi s tha t o f th e othe r tw o evangelist s (i.e. , Mar k an d Matthew) . Suc h a differenc e is no t alway s apparen t whe n dealin g wit h parable s tha t appea r i n onl y on e Gospe l o r i n th e "doubl e tradition " of tw o Gospels . Bu t i n "tripl e tradition " parables , divers e redactiona l feature s stan d ou t rathe r clearly . An d suc h redactiona l feature s no t onl y ai d u s i n identifyin g th e variou s levels of understandin g i n th e earl y church , bu t als o aler t u s t o possibl e way s o f contextualizin g th e parable s o f Jesus today .

1 . Th e Kingdo m Parable s i n th e Structur e o f Luke' s Gospe l

Luke' s tw o volumes , whic h mak e u p abou t thirt y percen t o f ou r Ne w Testament , ar e distinctiv e i n man y ways On e importan t wa y is th e prominenc e give n t o symmetr y o r "th e principl e o f balance " i n thei r structuring , whic h seem s t o b e primaril y "du e t o deliberat e editoria l activit y b y th e autho r o f Luke-Acts " (Talbert , Literary Patterns, 5, 23 , passim). Fo r no t onl y ar e ther e significan t structura l parallel s between Luke' s Gospe l an d hi s Act s (cf ibid., 15-23 , 58-65) , ther e ar e als o strikin g parallel s bot h within hi s Gospe l an d within hi s Act s (cf ibid., 23-58 ) — wit h suc h parallel s eviden t no t onl y i n th e architectur e o f eac h o f hi s tw o volumes , bu t als o i n th e evangelist' s repeate d parallelin g o f significan t words , narratives , miracl e stories , an d (mos t significan t fo r ou r purpose s here ) th e parable s o f Jesus .

Thi s phenomeno n o f symmetr y i n Luke' s writing s ma y b e explained , t o som e extent , b y a n appea l t o th e Jewis h rubri c tha t testimony , t o b e accepted , mus t b e validate d b y a t leas t tw o witnesse s (cf . Deu t 19:15) , a s Rober t Morgenthale r ha s argue d ( Di e lukanische Geschichtesschreibung als Zeugnis: Gestalt und Gehalt der Kunst des Lukas, 2 vols . [Zurich : Zwingli , 1949 ] ) . I n mos t cases , however , i t shoul d probabl y b e viewe d a s simpl y reflectin g a "principl e o f balance " (or , "la w o f duality" ) tha t no t onl y pervade d Gree k classica l literatur e an d Greco-Roma n ar t an d architecture , bu t als o is t o b e foun d i n variou s Nea r Easter n artisti c tradition s an d Jewis h writings , a s Charle s Talber t ha s pointe d ou t ( Literar y Patterns, 67-88) I t may , therefore , b e rooted , a t leas t t o som e extent , i n th e tradition s use d b y th e evangelis t i n writin g hi s tw o volume s — thoug h it s extensiv e us e throughou t Luke-Act s shoul d probabl y b e understoo d mor e a s signallin g Luke' s ow n literar y proclivities , a s coupled , o f course , wit h hi s perceptio n o f th e interest s an d appreciatio n o f hi s audience

Thi s "face t o f Luke' s artistry, " whic h Talber t define s a s "hi s tendenc y t o balanc e som e featur e o f hi s wor k wit h anothe r whic h correspond s o r is analogou s t o it i n som e way " (ibid., 1) , come s mos t obviousl y int o vie w i n th e Thir d Gospe l i n th e parallel s se t u p betwee n th e Galile e Ministr y o f 4:14-9:5 0 an d th e Trave l Narrativ e o f 9:51-19:27 . Tw o prominen t example s o f symmetrica l parallelin g i n thes e section s ar e (1 ) th e presentation s o f certai n o f Jesus ' teachings , whic h ar e brough t togethe r a s th e Sermo n o n th e Moun t i n Matthe w 5-7 , bu t appea r i n th e firs t sectio n o f Luke' s Gospe l i n chapte r 6 an d i n th e secon d sectio n i n chapter s 11, 12, 14, an d 16, an d

(2 ) th e settin g ou t o f th e thre e Passio n Prediction s o f Jesus , whic h ar e closel y relate d i n Mar k 8:31-38 , 9:31-37 , an d 10:32-34 , bu t widel y separate d i n Luke : th e firs t tw o i n 9:22-2 6 an d 9:43-48 ; th e thir d i n 18:31-34 . Als o important , particularl y fo r ou r purpos e here , is th e fac t tha t whe n Luk e treat s th e kingdo m parable s o f Jesus , whic h appea r a s unifie d bodie s o f materia l i n Mar k 4 an d Matthe w 13, h e doe s s o b y includin g th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r i n th e firs t sectio n o f hi s narrativ e a t 8:4-1 5 — pairin g i t wit h "A Lam p o n a Stand " an d othe r exhortation s i n 8:16-1 8 — an d the n presentin g th e Parabl e o f th e Mustar d See d an d th e Parabl e o f th e Leave n i n th e secon d section , a t 13:18-1 9 an d 13:20-2 1 respectively

Befor e an y detaile d stud y o f th e Luka n kingdo m parables , it is importan t t o not e ho w the y appea r withi n th e structur e o f Luke' s Gospel Fo r redactiona l analysi s an d exegesis , a s Talber t remind s us , "canno t b e don e i n a satisfactor y wa y withou t attentio n t o th e forma l pattern s tha t mak e u p th e architectur e o f a writing " ( Literar y Patterns, 5) I n wha t follows , therefore , w e wil l nee d constantl y t o kee p i n min d th e context s int o whic h Luk e ha s place d thes e thre e kingdo m parable s an d th e way s h e ha s paire d them , allowin g suc h consideration s t o infor m bot h ou r redaction-critica l analyse s an d ou r exegesis

2 . Th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r (8:4-15) : O n Hearin g an d Respondin g t o th e Wor d o f Go d

Th e contex t o f th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r i n Luke' s Gospe l is se t b y th e statemen t o f 8:1 : "Afte r this , Jesu s travele d abou t fro m on e cit y an d villag e t o another , proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God" (kērussān kai euaggelizomenos ten basileian ton theou). Th e tw o unit s tha t follo w thi s statemen t — tha t is, th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r i n 8:4-1 5 an d th e pericop e abou t puttin g a lam p o n a stan d (wit h it s associate d exhortations ) i n 8:1618 — ar e give n a s example s o f tha t preaching . Th e focu s i n thes e tw o unit s o f materia l is o n Jesus ' proclamatio n o f "th e wor d o f God " (cf . 8:11 , 15) , wit h th e emphasi s bein g o n hearing an d responding t o tha t wor d (cf . 8:8b ; 15; 18) . Th e concludin g episod e i n 8:19-21 , whic h depict s th e reaction s o f Jesus ' mothe r an d brother s t o hi s preaching , bring s t o a clima x all tha t is presente d i n th e sectio n wit h th e statemen t o f vers e 21 : "M y mothe r an d brother s ar e thos e who hear and put into practice God's word" (hoi ton logon tou theou akouontes kai poiountes).

Literary Relations

Assumin g a two-sourc e theor y o f synopti c relationships , Mar k 4:1-2 0 is probabl y th e sourc e fo r th e parabl e i n Luk e 8:4-15 Ther e are , o f course , a numbe r o f omission s i n Luke' s versio n whe n compare d wit h tha t o f Mark . Fo r example , Luk e omit s detail s abou t th e shallownes s o f th e soi l an d th e scorchin g su n (8:6 ; cf Mar k 4:5b-6) , th e failur e o f th e see d amon g th e thorn s t o "bea r fruit " (8:7 ; cf . Mar k 4:7c) , an d th e redundan t expressio n "growin g u p an d increasing " (8:8 ; Mar k 4:8b) Non e o f thes e matters , however , ar e o f an y majo r importance Mor e significan t difference s betwee n Luk e an d Mar k ar e (1 ) th e greate r emphasi s tha t Luk e give s t o th e see d (8:5 : "A sowe r wen t ou t t o so w his seed," ton sporon autou), wit h tha t "sow n seed " the n bein g th e focu s o f th e explanatio n give n i n 8:11-1 5 (cf . 8:11 : "Th e see d is th e wor d o f God") , (2 ) Luke' s droppin g o f Mark' s "thirtyfold , sixtyfold , an d a hundredfold " languag e t o rea d simpl y "i t yielde d grai n a hundredfold " (8:8a) , thereb y drivin g hom e th e mai n point , i n Luke' s view , o f th e parable , an d (3 ) th e stres s lai d b y Luk e o n th e moti f o f "hearin g an d responding " t o th e wor d o f Go d b y th e additio n o f th e introductor y phras e "h e [Jesus ] called out" (8:8b) . Bu t thes e ar e matter s mos t easil y explaine d i n term s o f Luke' s redactiona l purposes , an d s o probabl y not t o b e credite d t o anothe r sourc e othe r tha n Mark .

Ther e are , admittedly , a fe w verba l agreement s o f Luk e an d Matthe w agains t Mar k i n th e parable , whic h som e scholar s hav e take n a s evidenc e o f som e sor t o f literar y dependenc e betwee n Luk e an d Matthew : th e articula r infinit e "t o sow " (tou speirai) i n 8:5 a (cf . Mat t 13:3b) ; th e us e o f th e persona l pronou n "he " (auton) a s th e subjec t o f th e secon d articula r infinitiv e i n 8:5 b (cf Mat t 13:4) ; th e omission s o f "di d no t bea r fruit " i n 8: 7 (cf Mat t 13:7 ) an d "growin g u p an d increasing " i n 8: 8 (cf . Mat t 13:8) ; an d th e participia l for m "th e on e wh o has " (ho exön) i n 8: 8 (cf Mat t 13:9) Bu t thes e ar e suc h mino r an d rathe r standar d amelioration s o f wordin g tha t i t ma y b e postulate d tha t bot h Matthe w an d Luke , i n separat e attempt s t o improv e th e styl e o f Mark' s Greek , mad e suc h change s quit e independently

O n th e othe r hand , Luk e is exactl y i n lin e wit h Mar k i n th e wordin g o f th e main , climacti c statemen t o f th e parabl e — whic h statemen t Luk e seem s t o hav e wante d t o highlight , a s witnes s hi s additio n o f "h e calle d out " (ephönei) i n introducin g it : "Th e on e wh o ha s ear s to hear, le t tha t perso n hear! " (8:8b ; cf Mar k 4:9) Th e fac t tha t th e infinitiv e "t o hear " (akouein) is omitte d i n th e bette r manuscript s o f Mat t 13:9 (i.e. , th e

8

fourth-centur y codicie s Sinaiticu s [uncorrected ] an d Vaticanus) , bu t include d i n Mar k 4:9 , suggest s tha t Luk e — despit e hi s omissions , stylisti c revisions , an d redactiona l alteration s — wa s basicall y dependen t o n Mar k fo r hi s versio n o f th e Parabl e o f th e Sower . An d th e fac t tha t Luk e pair s Jesus ' teachin g abou t a Lam p o n a Stan d (an d it s associate d exhortations ) i n 8:16-1 8 wit h th e parabl e o f th e Sowe r i n 8:1-1 5 als o suggest s hi s literar y dependenc e o n Mark . Fo r thes e unit s ar e similarl y paire d i n Mark' s Gospe l (cf . 4:1-2 0 an d 4:21-25 , respectively) , bu t no t i n Matthew' s Gospe l (cf . 13:1-2 3 an d 5:15 , respectively) .

Redactional Features

Sourc e criticis m give s ris e t o redactio n criticism , fo r it is alway s necessar y t o propos e explanation s fo r th e difference s a s wel l a s fo r th e agreement s tha t appea r i n th e variou s Gospels . An d Luke' s versio n o f th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r offer s fertil e groun d fo r suc h a redactiona l treatment , bot h wit h respec t t o dat a observabl e betwee n th e Gospel s (i.e. , "horizonta l redactio n criticism" ) an d t o dat a o f significanc e withi n th e Gospe l itsel f (i.e. , "vertica l redactio n criticism")

Luke' s placemen t an d structurin g o f th e parabl e ar e somewha t differen t fro m Mark's Fo r wherea s Mar k se t th e parabl e firs t i n th e settin g o f a larg e crow d gathere d b y th e sea , who m Jesu s addresse d whil e sittin g i n a boa t ( w 1-9 ; cf Mat t 13:1-9) , an d the n i n th e contex t o f th e Twelv e an d a fe w othe r followers , t o who m Jesu s explaine d th e parabl e whe n h e wa s alone (kata monas) wit h the m (v v 10-20 ; se e th e principl e state d i n v v 3334 ; cf Mat t 13:10-23) , Luk e state s tha t Jesu s addresse d a larg e crow d fro m variou s citie s an d village s — wit h tha t crow d includin g no t onl y th e Twelve , bu t als o som e name d wome n an d "man y others " (Luk e 8:1-4) Suc h a n inclusio n o f wome n i n th e purpose s an d progra m o f Go d is prominen t throughou t Luke' s tw o volume s (cf . hi s focu s o n Mary , Elizabeth , an d Ann a i n Luk e 1-2 ; se e als o Luk e 10:38-41 ; 11:27-28 ; 13:10-17 ; 15:8-10 ; 18:1-8 ; 23:49 , 55-56 ; 24:1-11 ; an d Act s 1:14; 2:17-18 ; 9:36-42 ; 16:14-15 ; 17:34b ; 18:2 , 18-19a , 26)

Furthermore , wherea s Mar k distinguishe s betwee n a n ope n declaratio n t o th e crow d an d a privat e explanatio n t o th e disciple s — a distinctio n tha t was , i t seems , a featur e o f Jewis h rhetori c (cf . D . Daube , "Publi c Retor t an d Privat e Explanation, " The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism [Lon -

9

don : Athlone , 1965] , 141-50) , an d therefor e carrie d o n b y bot h Mar k an d Matthe w — Luk e lessen s tha t distinction , thereb y makin g hi s portraya l mor e cohesiv e an d understandabl e fo r a Gentil e audience . An d wherea s i n Mar k 4 th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r appear s i n th e contex t of Jesu s attemptin g t o withdra w fro m th e crow d t o prepar e hi s disciple s fo r wha t the y wil l fac e i n th e futur e (cf . Matthe w 13) , i n Luk e 8 i t is presente d a s a prominen t exampl e o f Jesus ' preachin g t o a larg e crow d o f peopl e gathere d fro m variou s citie s an d village s aroun d an d o f hi s proclamatio n t o the m t o "hea r th e wor d o f Go d an d pu t i t int o practice " (cf . esp . v v 1,4,8b , 15,18 , an d 21) .

O f greates t significanc e i n evaluatin g Luke' s redactiona l treatmen t o f th e Parabl e o f th e Sower , however , ar e thos e matter s tha t th e evangelis t himsel f emphasize s b y hi s rathe r subtl e addition s an d tha t h e tone s dow n b y hi s omissions Chie f amon g hi s addition s ar e (1 ) hi s insertio n o f "h e [Jesus ] called out" (ephönei) i n th e introductor y word s o f 8:8b , whic h call s o n th e reade r t o tak e wit h grea t seriousnes s th e statemen t tha t follows , an d (2 ) hi s characterizatio n o f "goo d soil " a s bein g "peopl e wit h a nobl e an d goo d heart " (hoitines en kardi(i kale, kai agathē) i n th e explanatio n o f 8:1 5 neithe r o f whic h addition s appear s i n Mar k (o r i n Matthew) Fo r b y introducin g Jesus ' word s wit h th e emphati c "h e calle d out, " Luk e signal s tha t hi s mai n interes t i n settin g ou t th e parabl e fo r hi s reader s is t o trumpe t th e challeng e o f Jesus : "Th e on e wh o ha s ear s t o hear , le t tha t perso n hear! " An d b y speakin g o f "goo d soil " a s bein g "peopl e wit h a nobl e an d goo d heart, " h e implie s tha t thes e ar e th e typ e o f peopl e h e want s t o address

O n th e othe r hand , th e omission s o f Luk e ar e als o significant Fo r Luk e ( 1 ) omit s th e possibilit y o f a varie d respons e o n th e par t o f thos e wh o represen t th e goo d soil , condensin g Mark' s "thirtyfold , sixtyfol d an d a hundredfold " (Mar k 4:8 ; cf Mat t 13:8: "som e a hundredfold , som e sixty , an d som e thirty" ) t o simpl y " a hundredfold, " (2 ) delete s th e quotatio n o f Isa 6:10b , "otherwis e the y migh t tur n an d b e forgiven " (Mar k 4:12 ; cf Mat t 13:15) , an d (3 ) say s nothin g abou t th e disciples ' lac k o f understandin g (Mar k 4:13 ; a s als o omitte d i n Mat t 13:18) . Evidentl y Luk e excise d thes e matter s becaus e h e di d no t conside r the m t o b e appropriat e fo r eithe r hi s ow n purpos e o r hi s audience' s edification .

Th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r i n Luk e 8:4-1 5 is, therefore , addresse d principall y t o peopl e a t larg e — including , o f course , th e Twelv e an d a numbe r o f wome n wh o "wer e helpin g t o suppor t the m ou t o f thei r ow n means " ( w 2-3) , bu t no t wit h th e Twelv e o r thos e wome n bein g primaril y i n view . It s focu s is o n Jesus ' proclamatio n o f th e wor d o f God It s appea l is fo r peopl e

t o hea r an d respon d positivel y t o Jesus ' preaching . Bu t i t is not , a s i n Mar k

4 an d Matthe w 13, th e firs t i n a serie s o f parable s give n t o explicat e certai n enigmati c feature s regardin g th e reig n o r "kingdom " o f Go d — thoug h it carrie s on , i n larg e measure , th e discussio n betwee n Jesu s an d hi s disciple s foun d i n Mar k 4:10-20 No r is i t concerne d wit h th e identit y o f th e sowe r o r th e intrinsi c qualit y o f th e seed .

Furthermore , Luk e ha s n o interes t i n suc h a varie d respons e a s suggeste d b y th e "thirtyfold , sixtyfol d an d a hundredfold " wordin g o f Mar k 4: 8 (or , conversely , "som e a hundredfold , som e sixty , an d som e thirty " o f Mat t 13:8) . Rather , wha t Luk e is pleadin g fo r i n hi s reproductio n o f th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r — whic h i n hi s handlin g shoul d probabl y mor e accuratel y b e calle d "Th e Parabl e o f Thos e Wh o Hea r th e Word, " a s Eduar d Schweize r title s it (The Good News according to Luke, trans D E Gree n [Atlanta : Joh n Knox , 1984] , 143 ) — is tha t "peopl e wit h a nobl e an d goo d heart " hear "th e wor d o f God " an d respond t o i t positivel y i n a "hundredfold " fashion , an d s o "hol d i t fast " (8:8 , 15)

Pairing with Additional Gospel Material

Understandin g Luke' s us e o f th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r i n thi s manner , i t become s clea r wh y h e paire d thi s parabl e i n 8:4-1 5 wit h Jesus ' teachin g abou t a Lam p o n a Stan d (an d it s associate d exhortations ) i n 8:16-18 . Evidentl y h e viewe d thes e tw o unit s o f materia l a s havin g alread y bee n paire d b y Mar k becaus e o f thei r commo n emphase s o n "hearing " an d "responding" : "Th e on e wh o ha s ear s t o hear , le t tha t perso n hear!, " a s i n Mar k 4:9 ; and , "I f anyon e ha s ear s t o hear , le t tha t perso n hear!, " a s i n Mar k 4:2 3 — whic h is, o f course , wha t Luk e highlighte d b y insertin g "h e calle d out " (ephönei) int o hi s introductio n t o th e statemen t i n Luk e 8:8b . I t ma y be , o f course , tha t Luk e (perhap s als o Mark ) considere d th e teaching s an d exhortation s o f Mar k 4:21-2 5 t o constitut e a furthe r parable . Certainl y th e imager y o f a lam p o n a stan d is paraboli c i n nature ; an d th e word s o f Mar k 4:2 5 ("Whoeve r ha s wil l b e give n more ; whoeve r doe s no t have , eve n wha t h e ha s wil l b e take n fro m him" ) appea r i n Mat t 13:1 2 (i n expande d fashion ) i n connectio n wit h Matthew' s versio n o f th e parabl e o f th e Sower . Yet th e fou r rathe r discret e element s o f Mar k 4:21-2 5 — th e imager y o f a lam p o n a stan d ( v 21) ; th e aphoris m abou t wha t is hidde n bein g disclose d ( v 22) ; exhortation s t o "hear " an d "hea r carefully " ( w

23-24a) ; an d statement s abou t bein g measured , wit h mor e give n t o thos e wh o hav e an d les s t o thos e wh o hav e no t (v v 24b-25 ) — als o appea r a s individua l saying s scattere d throughou t Matthe w an d Luk e (cf . Mat t 5:15 ; 10:26 ; 7:2 ; 25:29 ; Luk e 11:33 ; 12:2; 6:38 ; 19:26 ; se e als o Gospel of Thomas, Logi a 33,5-6,41) Thi s fac t make s i t see m likel y tha t thes e fou r somewha t differen t element s wer e originall y separat e proverbia l o r wisdo m saying s o f Jesus It ma y als o sugges t tha t Luke , a t least , viewe d th e evangelis t Mar k a s th e on e wh o firs t brough t the m togethe r int o a pairin g relationshi p wit h th e Parabl e o f th e Sower . Bu t whateve r thes e saying s migh t hav e mean t i n thei r origina l contexts , an d howeve r the y wer e brough t together , Luk e treate d the m a s a unifie d bod y o f teachin g materia l tha t serve d t o buttres s hi s mai n point : "Conside r carefull y ho w yo u listen " (8:18) .

Likewise , i t need s t o b e note d tha t Luk e ha s take n materia l fro m Mar k 3:31-3 5 (cf Mat t 12:46-50 ) abou t th e reaction s o f Jesus ' mothe r an d brother s an d use d i t fo r hi s ow n purpos e i n 8:19-2 1 t o clos e of f thi s sectio n regardin g Jesus ' preaching Give n wha t h e sai d abou t Mar y i n th e Infanc y Narrativ e o f hi s Gospe l (cf 1:26-56 ; 2:5-7 , 19, 22 , 33-35 , 39 , 41-51 ) an d abou t Jesus ' mothe r an d brother s bein g amon g th e firs t Christian s i n Act s (1:14) , Luk e evidentl y ha d n o desir e t o reproduc e Mar k 3:20-2 1 abou t Jesus ' famil y ( ho i par autou, "thos e wh o wer e hi s own" ) comin g t o tak e hi m awa y becaus e the y though t h e wa s "ou t o f hi s mind. " Bu t Luk e doe s reac h bac k t o tha t sam e narrativ e i n Mar k 3 , wher e it speak s agai n o f th e reaction s o f Jesus ' famil y t o hi s ministry , an d h e reproduce s tha t secon d accoun t i n 8:19-21 An d h e doe s this , it seems , simpl y becaus e Mar k 3:31-3 5 enunciate s quit e clearl y th e poin t h e ha s bee n makin g throughou t hi s recital s o f th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r i n 8:4-1 5 an d Jesus ' teaching s i n 8:16-18 : tha t "thos e wit h a nobl e an d goo d heart " ( v 15) ar e t o "hea r God' s wor d [as proclaime d b y Jesus ] an d pu t i t int o practice " ( v 21) .

Dominical Status and Intent

Tha t th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r wa s originall y give n b y Jesu s is fairl y eas y t o establish . I t ha s mor e tha n enoug h conceptua l an d stylisti c feature s t o justif y confidenc e i n it s dominica l status . It reflect s a Palestinia n agricultura l practic e o f sowin g see d i n a field — whethe r th e field wa s lef t unploughe d afte r th e previou s year' s harves t o r give n a first roug h ploughin g — an d the n turnin g i n th e see d b y a final ploughin g o r diskin g (cf . Jubilees 11:11) .

Furthermore , i t evidence s mark s o f ora l compositio n i n it s tight , lea n an d compresse d style , it s unadorne d an d uncomplicate d plot , an d it s concrete , vivi d images .

Probabl y mor e tellin g i n suppor t o f th e parable' s authenticity , however , is th e shockin g natur e o f th e metapho r used Fo r t o compar e th e comin g kingdo m o f Go d t o somethin g grea t o r imposin g wa s wha t wa s expecte d b y mos t Jew s durin g th e perio d o f Secon d Templ e Judais m (cf . Eze k 17:1-24 , whic h compare s th e eschatologica l kingdo m t o th e to p o f a nobl e ceda r o f Lebano n tha t is transplante d ont o a hig h an d loft y mountai n i n Israel) Bu t t o compar e th e kingdo m o f Go d t o see d tha t is devoure d b y bird s (alon g th e path) , withere d b y th e su n (o n rock y places) , o r choke d b y weed s (amon g thorns ) — an d eve n whe n fallin g o n goo d soi l produce s variousl y a cro p tha t yield s "thirtyfold , sixtyfold , o r a hundredfold " mor e (Mar k 4:8 ; cf . Mat t 13:8 ) — would , undoubtedly , hav e bee n jarrin g t o th e sensibilitie s o f th e majorit y o f Jesus ' hearers . Bu t whil e th e authenticit y o f th e parabl e o n Jesus ' lip s ca n b e defended , man y believ e tha t an y attemp t t o determin e Jesus ' ow n inten t i n givin g th e parabl e t o b e pur e speculation Admittedly , its settin g i n Luke' s Gospe l provide s n o clu e a s t o it s origina l intent . Bu t i n tha t bot h Mar k an d Matthe w plac e th e parabl e i n th e contex t o f Jesu s clarifyin g fo r hi s disciple s th e natur e o f hi s ministr y an d ho w the y shoul d understan d th e kingdo m o f Go d — being , i n fact , th e firs t o f th e explici t kingdo m parable s i n bot h o f thes e Gospels , wit h th e firs t parabl e evidentl y mean t a s th e ke y fo r thei r understandin g o f th e res t — it ma y b e propose d tha t Jesu s intende d thi s parabl e t o signa l somethin g o f grea t importanc e abou t hi s ministr y an d abou t th e reig n o r "kingdom " o f Go d i n hi s disciples ' live s an d i n th e world . An d i n tha t th e focu s o f th e parabl e i n all thre e Gospel s is o n th e see d tha t is sow n (Mar k 4:3-8 ; Mat t 13:3b-8 ; Luk e 8:5-8a ; se e als o Gospel of Thomas 9) , it shoul d probabl y b e conclude d tha t Jesus ' inten t wa s t o us e th e metapho r o f "sow n seed " t o revea l somethin g o f importanc e regardin g hi s ow n ministr y an d th e natur e o f th e reig n o f Go d i n people' s lives

I t seem s eviden t o n an y readin g o f th e parabl e tha t a larg e par t o f Jesus ' inten t wa s t o assur e hi s disciple s tha t th e reig n o r "kingdom " o f Go d woul d com e about , despit e th e seemin g insignificanc e o f its beginning Likewise , thoug h th e sowe r i n th e parabl e is neve r identified , it is difficul t t o imagin e tha t Jesu s i n givin g th e parabl e di d no t als o impl y tha t h e himself , a s God' s agent , wa s t o b e see n b y hi s disciple s a s tha t sower ; an d thoug h th e see d is spoke n o f simpl y a s "th e word " (Mar k 4:14 ; o r "th e wor d o f th e kingdom, " a s

i n Mat t 13:19, o r "th e wor d o f God, " a s i n Luk e 8:11) , it is difficul t t o thin k tha t Jesu s ha d i n min d anythin g othe r tha n hi s teachin g an d ministry Furthermore , it seem s eviden t tha t i n givin g th e parabl e Jesu s wa s callin g fo r a positiv e respons e t o hi s teachin g an d ministry , an d tha t hi s disciple s understoo d hi s word s i n tha t way Jesus ' Parabl e o f th e Sower , therefore , seems , o n th e fac e o f it , t o hav e bee n intende d fo r a numbe r o f reasons : (1 ) t o offe r word s o f hop e an d assuranc e regardin g th e futur e (th e kingdo m o f Go d woul d come) , (2 ) t o asser t th e importanc e o f hi s perso n an d ministr y (h e is th e sowe r an d hi s teachin g an d ministr y th e seed) , an d (3 ) t o issu e a call t o respon d positivel y (t o bea r fruit)

Yet underlyin g thes e mor e obviou s features , ther e seem s als o t o b e a challeng e give n b y Jesu s i n th e parabl e fo r hi s disciple s t o revis e i n quit e a radica l fashio n thei r view s abou t th e wor k o f th e Messia h an d thei r understandin g o f th e reig n o r "kingdom " o f God I n contradistinctio n t o th e dominan t Jewis h view s o f th e da y tha t th e Messia h woul d b e all-gloriou s an d th e Messiani c Ag e woul d com e abou t victoriousl y an d wit h overwhelmin g power , Jesus , i t appears , taugh t hi s disciple s tha t hi s ministr y an d th e reig n o f Go d shoul d b e compare d t o see d sow n i n a fiel d — which , fo r variou s reasons , ca n b e rejected ; an d eve n whe n accepted , wil l manifes t variou s degree s o f response . Th e enigm a o r "mystery/mysteries " o f th e gospe l proclamatio n (Mar k 4:11 ; Mat t 13:11 ; Luk e 8:10 ) is evidentl y this : tha t God' s reig n i n people' s live s an d i n th e worl d doe s no t com e abou t wit h overwhelmin g powe r an d majesti c glory , bu t is mor e lik e see d tha t is sown , whic h experience s variou s response s — i n man y cases , rejected ; i n othe r cases , however , accepted , thoug h i n varyin g degrees .

Suc h a teachin g would , indeed , hav e bee n shockin g t o Jesus ' disciples . Fo r the y expecte d "th e kingdo m o f God " t o com e i n glor y an d power , wit h Israe l bein g its chie f beneficiar y (cf Act s 1:6) It wa s necessary , therefore , fo r Jesu s t o clarif y fo r the m th e natur e o f hi s ministr y — and , derivatively , als o o f thei r ministrie s — an d ho w the y shoul d understan d th e reig n o r "kingdom " o f God , particularl y vis-à-vi s th e understandin g o f contemporar y Judais m regardin g Messiahshi p an d th e Messiani c Age .

Varied Uses

Th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r appear s t o hav e bee n use d variousl y i n th e earl y church . Lik e a diamon d cu t wit h numerou s facets , it wa s seen , i t seems , t o

4

cas t reflection s o f trut h i n man y directions . Jesus , w e hav e postulated , use d th e parabl e generall y a s a messag e o f hop e fo r th e futur e realizatio n o f th e reig n o r "kingdom " o f God , a s a mean s o f self-identification , an d a s a cal l fo r response . Mor e particularly , however , h e seem s t o hav e focuse d o n th e "sow n seed " i n th e parable , an d use d tha t metapho r t o defin e th e natur e o f hi s ministr y an d th e characte r o f th e reig n o f God . Hi s inten t wa s principall y t o clarif y fo r hi s disciple s ho w the y shoul d understan d hi s ministr y and , derivatively , als o thei r ministrie s — an d ho w the y shoul d conceptualiz e th e reig n o r "kingdom " o f Go d i n people' s lives an d i n th e world , i n contradistinctio n t o thei r inherite d views I t wa s certainl y a radica l understandin g o f ministr y an d God' s reig n tha t h e se t befor e them . An d h e di d this , a s Mark' s Gospe l suggests , a t th e ver y beginnin g o f hi s tim e wit h the m (cf th e nea r juxtapositio n o f th e call o f th e Twelv e i n 3:13-1 9 an d th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r i n 4:1-20) .

Amon g th e earlies t Jewis h believer s i n Jesus , question s regardin g Israel' s rejectio n o f Jesu s an d th e minorit y statu s o f believer s i n Jesu s becam e dominant : Wh y di d th e natio n rejec t its Messiah ? Wh y ar e believer s i n Jesu s i n th e minorit y i n th e Messiani c Age? Th e evangelist s Mar k an d Matthew , a s Jewis h follower s o f Jesus , undoubtedl y fel t th e forc e o f thes e questions . So whil e carryin g o n th e imager y o f th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r an d reflectin g somethin g o f ho w Jesu s himsel f use d it i n teachin g hi s disciples , the y highlighted , i t appears , th e implici t rational e fo r Israel' s rejectio n tha t the y foun d i n th e parable : (1 ) tha t Isa 6:9-1 0 foretol d suc h a rejectio n (Mar k 4:12 : "Eve r seeing , bu t neve r perceiving , an d eve r hearin g bu t neve r understanding ; otherwis e the y migh t tur n an d b e forgiven!" ; whic h is expande d i n Mat t 13:13-15) ; (2 ) tha t a lac k o f spiritua l understandin g brough t i t abou t (Mar k 4:13) ; an d (3 ) tha t rejectin g Jesu s is th e wor k o f Satan , stem s fro m people' s desir e t o avoi d troubl e o r persecution , and/o r arise s fro m "worrie s o f thi s life , th e deceitfulnes s o f wealt h an d th e desire s fo r othe r things " (Mar k 4:15-19 ; cf . Mat t 13:19-22) .

Furthermore , b y bringin g closel y int o associatio n wit h thi s parabl e man y othe r parable s o f th e kingdo m spoke n b y Jesus , th e evangelist s Mar k an d Matthe w wer e abl e t o sugges t additiona l nuance s o r overtone s o f meanin g that , evidently , woul d hav e resonate d wel l withi n earl y Jewis h Christianity Thu s Mar k include s wit h thi s parabl e th e Parabl e o f th e Growin g See d (4:26-29 ) an d th e Parabl e o f th e Mustar d See d (4:30-32) , thereb y allowin g th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r t o b e rea d wit h a n understandin g o f th e instrinsi c qualit y o f th e see d ("th e see d sprout s an d grows " o n it s

own ) an d th e growt h o f th e see d fro m a stat e o f insignificanc e t o on e o f grea t importanc e ("th e smalles t o f seeds " t o "th e greates t o f plants") . An d thu s Matthe w add s th e Parabl e o f th e Weed s (13:24-30) , th e Parabl e o f th e Mustar d See d (13:31-32) , th e Parabl e o f th e Leave n (13:33) , th e Parabl e o f th e Hidde n Treasur e (13:44) , th e Parabl e o f th e Pear l o f Greates t Valu e (13:45-46) , an d th e Parabl e o f th e Dragne t (13:47-50 ) — wit h thes e parable s supplyin g thei r ow n harmoni c overtone s t o wha t wa s hear d originall y i n th e firs t o f thes e parables , th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r (13:1-23)

Luke' s Gospel , however , doe s no t hav e th e sam e concern s a s th e Gospel s of Mar k o r Matthew Luk e seem s t o hav e ha d littl e interes t i n assurin g hi s reader s o f th e comin g o f God' s promise d kingdom . Neithe r wa s h e concerne d wit h Jesus ' instructio n t o hi s disciple s abou t th e natur e o f hi s o r thei r ministries , no r abou t ho w the y shoul d understan d th e reig n o r kingdo m o f Go d (cf. , e.g. , th e separatio n i n Luk e betwee n Jesus ' cal l o f hi s disciple s i n 6:12-1 6 an d th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r i n 8:4-15) No r wa s h e drive n b y question s regardin g Israel' s rejectio n o f it s Messia h o r abou t th e minorit y statu s o f believer s i n Jesu s amon g Jews . Rather , wha t Luk e want s t o presen t t o hi s Gentil e audienc e is (1 ) tha t Jesus ' ministr y wa s a propheti c ministr y (cf Luk e 4:24 ; 7:16,39 ; passim), a s is als o tha t o f th e Christia n churc h (cf . Act s passim); (2 ) tha t i n carryin g ou t tha t propheti c ministry , Jesu s proclaime d "th e goo d new s o f th e kingdo m o f God " (cf . Luk e 4:43 ; 11:32 ; 16:16 ; passim), a s d o als o prophet s withi n th e churc h (cf . Act s passim); an d (3 ) tha t suc h preachin g call s fo r a wholehearte d respons e o n th e par t o f thos e t o who m i t is directed Thu s Luk e set s th e Parabl e o f th e Sowe r i n th e contex t o f Jesu s travelin g abou t i n variou s citie s an d village s "proclaimin g th e goo d new s o f th e kingdom " (8:1) , an d h e use s it a s th e prim e exampl e o f suc h preaching Hi s principa l concer n is no t t o spel l ou t detail s regardin g ho w o r wh y th e "seed " wa s rejecte d — o r t o sugges t b y associatio n wit h othe r kingdo m parable s ho w Jesus ' teachin g i n thi s parabl e ca n b e nuance d furthe r — bu t simpl y t o call fo r hi s reader s t o "hear " th e proclamatio n o f Jesu s (8:8b ; cf als o w 18 an d 21 ) an d t o respon d t o it a s "thos e wit h a nobl e an d goo d heart " i n a "hundredfold " fashio n (8:8 , 15; cf . als o w 18 an d 21) .

3 . Th e Parable s o f th e Mustar d See d an d th e Leave n (13:18-21) : O n th e Growt h an d Developmen t o f th e Gospe l

Luk e finishe s of f th e first par t o f hi s Trave l Narrativ e (9:51-19:27 ) wit h tw o kingdo m parable s o f Jesus , bot h o f the m aphoristicall y brief : th e first abou t a mustar d see d (13:18-19) ; th e secon d abou t leave n (13:20-21) . Thes e tw o tersel y worde d parable s ar e paire d parables . Fo r no t onl y d o the y bot h us e rathe r surprisin g metaphor s i n thei r highlightin g o f somethin g o f significanc e regardin g "th e kingdo m o f God, " the y als o presen t a balanc e betwee n a ma n plantin g a mustar d see d i n hi s garde n an d a woma n mixin g leave n int o a batc h o f flour . Furthermore , bot h parable s i n Luke' s handlin g spea k abou t th e reig n o r "kingdom " o f Go d i n term s o f it s growt h an d development .

Ther e the n follow s i n 13:2 2 th e secon d mentio n o f Jesu s travelin g t o Jerusale m i n Luke' s Trave l Narrativ e (th e first bein g i n 9:51) , whic h is ofte n see n t o signa l th e star t o f th e secon d sectio n o f a three-par t narrativ e (i.e. , 9:51-13:21 ; 13:22-17:10 ; 17:11-19:27 ) — wit h reference s t o Jesu s o n hi s wa y t o Jerusale m servin g t o introduc e eac h part

Literary Relations

Th e wordin g o f th e Parabl e o f th e Mustar d See d i n Luk e 13:18-1 9 is close r t o Mat t 13:31-3 2 tha n t o Mar k 4:30-32 . I t is simila r t o Mar k i n its us e o f "h e said " (elegen) an d "th e kingdo m o f God " (he basileia ton theou), rathe r tha n Matthew' s "anothe r parabl e h e pu t befor e them " an d "th e kingdo m o f heaven. " Bu t otherwis e it s similarit y t o th e longe r an d fulle r for m i n Mar k is rathe r minimal . I t is close r t o Matthew , however , i n it s wordin g "whic h a ma n too k (ho labön anthröpos) .. . it becam e a tre e (egeneto eis dendron, ginetai dendron)" an d "[th e birds ] buil t thei r nest s i n it s branche s (kateskênônsen en tois kladois autou)" rathe r tha n Mark' s "whic h whe n sow n .. . it grow s u p an d become s th e greates t o f all shrub s an d put s fort h larg e branches , s o tha t th e bird s o f th e ai r ca n mak e nest s i n it s shade. " Yet Luke' s versio n is dissimila r t o bot h Mar k an d Matthe w i n its omissio n o f th e comparativ e phrase s "th e smalles t o f all th e seed s [o n earth] " an d "th e greates t o f [all ] shrubs. "

I t appears , therefore , tha t th e principa l sourc e fo r Luke' s Parabl e o f th e Mustar d See d — assuming , again , a two-sourc e theor y o f synopti c re -

D N. LONGENECKE

lationship s — wa s Q . Bot h Matthe w an d Luk e ma y b e assume d t o hav e know n Mark' s version , an d possibl y the y ha d i t befor e the m whe n writing . Matthew' s version , i n particular , seem s t o reflec t Mark' s influenc e i n its contras t betwee n "th e smalles t o f al l th e seeds " an d "th e greates t o f shrubs. " Nonetheless , bot h Matthe w an d Luk e wer e probabl y primaril y dependen t o n th e wordin g foun d i n Q , wit h Luke' s versio n bein g th e mos t concis e o f th e thre e evangelist s an d therefor e probabl y th e closes t t o Q .

An d thi s primar y dependenc e o f Luk e o n Q fo r th e Parabl e o f th e Mustar d See d seem s t o b e confirme d whe n takin g int o consideratio n th e literar y relation s o f Luke' s Parabl e o f th e Leave n i n 13:20-21 . Fo r thi s secon d o f thes e paire d parable s ha s nothin g t o d o wit h Mark' s Gospel , sinc e it is absen t i n Mark . Rather , it s onl y synopti c paralle l is Mat t 13:33 . An d apar t fro m th e introductor y narrativ e formula s an d th e openin g words , th e wordin g o f th e parabl e i n Matthe w an d Luk e is almos t identical .

So i t ma y b e postulate d tha t Luk e ha s draw n thes e tw o parable s principall y fro m a n earl y collectio n o f Jesus ' "Sayings, " whic h is identifie d b y scholar s toda y a s "Q. " I t ma y b e tha t th e Parabl e o f th e Mustar d See d an d th e Parabl e o f th e Leave n existe d a s separat e saying s i n Q , no t bein g paire d togethe r i n tha t collection Thei r appearanc e i n th e Gospel of Thomas a s Logio n 2 0 ("Mustar d Seed" ) an d Logio n 9 6 ("Leaven" ) ma y sugges t suc h a separation

Yet th e fac t tha t the y ar e paire d i n bot h Mat t 13:31-3 3 an d

Luk e 13:18-2 1 make s i t mor e likel y tha t Luk e foun d the m alread y paire d i n hi s Q sourc e an d tha t h e simpl y accepte d tha t pairin g a s fittin g nicel y int o hi s ow n interest s an d purpose

Redactional Features

I n evaluatin g Luke' s treatmen t o f th e Parabl e o f th e Mustar d See d i n 13:1819, it is importan t t o observ e no t onl y thos e matter s tha t th e evangelis t ha s retaine d fro m hi s source s bu t als o thos e feature s tha t h e appear s t o hav e altere d — whethe r b y omission , addition , o r intensification . An d i n comparin g Luke' s versio n o f th e parabl e wit h tha t o f Matthew , assumin g bot h wer e writte n wit h a n awarenes s o f Mar k bu t ar e primaril y dependen t o n th e wordin g i n Q , tw o difference s stan d out . Th e mos t obviou s is Luke' s omissio n o f th e contras t i n Mat t 13:3 2 betwee n "th e smalles t o f all seeds " an d "th e greates t o f shrubs " (cf . Mar k 4:31b-32a) . Bu t als o t o b e note d is th e intensificatio n o f th e rathe r obliqu e wordin g "whe n i t shoul d b e

8

grown " ( hota n anxēthē, whic h is a n aoris t subjunctiv e passiv e construction ) i n Mat t 13:3 2 t o "i t gre w an d became " (ēuxēsen kai egeneto, whic h ar e aoris t indicativ e activ e verbs ) i n Luk e 13:19 . Fo r Luke' s wordin g focuse s attentio n i n a mor e direc t an d straightforwar d manne r tha n doe s Matthew' s

o n th e seed' s growt h an d development

Suc h difference s may , a t firs t glance , see m somewha t insignificant . O n close r examination , however , the y sugges t matter s o f rea l importanc e fo r a n understandin g o f Luke' s purpos e i n settin g ou t thi s parabl e fo r hi s readers . Fo r wherea s i n Mat t 13:3 2 ther e is a n emphasi s o n contras t i n th e growt h o f th e kingdo m o f God , fro m "th e smalles t o f all seeds " t o "th e greates t o f shrubs " (cf . als o Mar k 4:31b-3 2 an d Gospel of Thomas, Logio n 20:2) , i n Luk e 13:1 9 ther e is n o referenc e t o th e siz e o f th e see d whe n plante d an d n o contras t mad e betwee n whe n i t is plante d an d whe n grown . Rather , Luke' s emphasi s is simpl y o n th e growt h an d developmen t o f th e seed : "i t gre w an d becam e a tree " (13:19b ) — tha t is , o n th e reig n o r "kingdom " o f Go d a s proclaime d b y Jesu s a s growin g an d developin g int o somethin g significant , whateve r migh t b e sai d abou t its start

Likewis e i n th e Parabl e o f th e Leave n i n 13:20-21 , Luke' s emphasi s seem s t o b e simpl y o n th e growt h an d developmen t o f th e gospe l i n Jesus ' preaching . Th e wordin g o f th e parabl e i n Luk e 13:21 correspond s exactl y t o tha t o f Mat t 13:33b , an d s o ma y b e postulate d t o hav e bee n draw n fro m

Q . Furthermore , th e fac t tha t th e Parabl e o f th e Mustar d See d an d th e Parabl e o f th e Leave n appea r i n th e contex t o f Luke' s Trave l Narrativ e — and , i n particular , a t th e en d o f th e firs t sectio n o f tha t narrativ e — suggest s tha t th e evangelist' s mai n poin t i n givin g hi s reader s thes e tw o parable s wa s t o highligh t hi s them e throughou t thi s section : tha t i n Jesus ' proclamatio n o f th e reig n (o r "kingdom" ) o f Go d o n hi s journe y (o r "way" ) t o Jersualem , th e goo d new s o f th e gospe l wa s growin g an d developing .

Suc h a n emphasi s o n growt h an d developmen t generally , a s wel l a s o n th e growt h an d developmen t o f th e gospe l proclamatio n i n particular , is a featur e ofte n foun d i n Luke' s tw o volumes Fo r example , i n hi s Gospel , a t th e clos e o f hi s Infanc y Narrativ e o f 1:5-2:52 , th e evangelis t make s th e commen t tha t "Jesu s increase d i n wisdo m an d i n stature , an d favo r wit h Go d an d people " (2:52) An d a t man y place s i n hi s Trave l Narrativ e o f 9:51-19:2 7 h e highlight s no t onl y Jesus ' trave l "o n th e way " bu t als o th e advance s i n hi s preachin g a s "h e se t hi s fac e t o g o t o Jerusalem " (9:51) Similarly , feature s o f growt h an d developmen t ar e prominen t throughou t Luke' s Acts Fo r example , Act s start s of f wit h th e suggestio n tha t th e au -

thor' s secon d volum e wil l continu e th e stor y "abou t all tha t Jesu s began t o d o an d t o teach, " whic h wa s se t ou t i n th e firs t volum e (1:1) ; it the n recount s i n it s twenty-eigh t chapter s numerou s episode s i n th e ministrie s o f Pete r an d Pau l tha t depic t bot h advance s o f th e gospe l an d heroi c exploit s b y th e apostles ; an d it conclude s wit h th e triumpha l statemen t tha t fo r tw o whol e year s a t Rome , eve n whil e unde r hous e arrest , Pau l "proclaime d th e kingdo m o f Go d an d taugh t abou t th e Lor d Jesu s Chris t boldl y an d withou t hindrance " (28:31)

Perhap s b y comparin g th e grow n plan t t o " a tree " an d sayin g tha t "th e bird s o f heave n mad e nest s i n it s branches " (13:19c) , Luk e als o wante d t o highligh t somethin g abou t th e kingdom' s universality . Fo r a grea t tre e tha t supplie s a hom e fo r bird s is a commo n representatio n i n th e Ol d Testamen t fo r a grea t empir e tha t provide s securit y fo r th e peopl e an d nation s o f th e worl d (cf . Eze k 17:23 ; 31: 6 an d Da n 4:12 ; se e als o 1 Enoch 90:30 , 33 , an d 37) Bu t thi s is wordin g tha t Luk e foun d i n bot h Q an d Mark , an d h e seem s t o hav e give n i t n o greate r emphasi s tha n h e foun d i n hi s sources .

Dominical Status and Intent

I t is probabl y easie r t o argu e fo r th e dominica l statu s o f th e Parabl e o f th e

Mustar d See d an d th e Parabl e o f th e Leave n tha n fo r an y othe r o f Jesus ' recorde d parables . Matthe w Blac k ha s pointe d ou t tha t th e Parabl e o f th e Mustar d Seed , whe n translate d bac k int o Aramaic , exhibit s Semiti c alliteratio n an d a typicall y Jewis h pla y o n word s (cf . An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, Oxford : 1967' , 165-66) , an d Joachi m Jeremia s make s th e poin t tha t th e wor d "measure " (saton) use d i n th e expressio n "thre e measure s (sata) o f flour " is a Palestinia n measur e tha t equal s 13.1 3 litre s (cf . Parables, 146-47) . Yet eve n mor e significan t tha n thes e Semiti c feature s i n establishin g th e authenticit y o f thes e parable s o n th e lip s o f Jesu s ar e th e metaphor s use d i n th e parables . Fo r t o compar e th e kingdo m o f Go d t o a mustar d see d o r t o leave n woul d hav e bee n shockingl y incongruou s t o mos t Jew s o f th e day , an d therefore , mos t likely, shoul d b e see n a s stemmin g fro m Jesu s himself . Whil e th e Jesu s Semina r ma y b e viewe d a s bein g excessivel y radica l i n it s us e o f th e tool s o f contemporar y critica l scholarship , it s conclusion s regardin g th e dominica l statu s o f thes e tw o parable s ar e commonl y accepted : (1 ) "Th e Mustar d See d originate d wit h Jesu s becaus e th e prover -

biall y smal l mustar d see d is a surprisin g metapho r fo r th e kingdom . I n everyda y usage , th e prope r figur e fo r th e kingdo m o f Go d is greatness , no t smallness " (Funk , Scott , an d Butts , Parables of Jesus: Red Letter Edition, 34) ; an d (2 ) "Th e parabl e o f th e Leave n transmit s th e voic e o f Jesu s a s clearl y a s an y ancien t writte n recor d can,.. Jesu s employ s th e imag e o f th e leave n i n a highl y provocativ e way . I n Passove r observance , Judais m regarde d leave n a s a symbo l o f corruption , whil e unleave n stoo d fo r wha t wa s holy... Th e Leave n provide s a suprisin g reversa l o f expectations " (ibid., 29) I n moder n critica l theory , suc h incongruitie s provid e a hig h degre e o f critica l certaint y fo r authenticity

Bu t whil e th e authenticit y o f thes e parable s ca n b e criticall y defended , man y believ e i t impossibl e t o spea k abou t Jesus ' purpos e i n givin g them Ther e are , however , a numbe r o f feature s i n thes e parable s tha t see m t o reflec t somethin g o f Jesus ' ow n inten t an d wha t h e wante d t o teac h hi s disciple s abou t hi s ministr y (and , derivatively , their ministries ) an d abou t th e reig n o f Go d i n people' s live s an d i n th e world

First , i t need s t o b e note d tha t implici t i n bot h th e Parabl e o f th e Mustar d See d an d th e Parabl e o f th e Leave n — whethe r i n all thre e Synopti c Gospels , a s wit h th e former , o r onl y i n Matthe w an d Luke , a s wit h th e latte r — ar e suggestion s tha t th e growt h o f th e reig n o r "kingdom " o f Go d take s plac e throug h th e mysteriou s operatio n o f divin e powe r (whethe r represente d a s bein g i n th e see d itsel f o r i n th e leaven ) an d tha t suc h divin e powe r is alread y a t wor k i n Jesus ' preaching . A s Josep h Fitzmye r note s regardin g th e Parabl e o f th e Mustar d Seed : "Th e parabl e implie s th e sam e divin e operatio n o f whic h Eze k 17:22-2 4 spok e explicitly , i n connection , however , wit h a ceda r (cf . Eze k 31:2-9) " (Luke 2.1016) .

Second , th e wordin g o f Mat t 13:3 2 an d Luk e 13:1 9 — which , w e ma y believe , represent s mor e adequatel y th e word s o f Jesus , bein g derive d fro m Q — tha t (1 ) th e mustar d see d become s "a tree " (dendron), tha t (2 ) "th e bird s o f heaven " foun d refug e i n it , an d tha t (3 ) the y mad e "nest s i n it s branc h es "suggest s a n "eschatologica l character " fo r th e parabl e i n it s origina l setting For , a s Joachi m Jeremia s pointe d out , (1 ) th e metapho r o f a mustar d see d becomin g a tre e transcend s "th e bound s o f actuality " (sinc e n o mustar d see d eve r become s a tree) , (2 ) th e pictur e o f bird s nestin g i n a tree' s branche s wa s a rathe r commo n symbo l i n Secon d Templ e Judais m fo r Gentile s seekin g refug e wit h Israe l (cf . Eze k 17:23 ; 31:6 ; Da n 4:12 ; 1 Enoch 90:30 , 33 , an d 37) , an d (3 ) th e ver b "t o nest " (kataskēnoun) is probabl y t o b e take n a s "a n eschatologica l technica l ter m fo r th e incorpo -

ratio n o f th e Gentile s int o th e peopl e o f God " (cf . Parables, 147) . Also , th e fac t tha t i n Mat t 13:33 b an d Luk e 13:21 , whic h wordin g als o stem s fro m Q , th e leave n is worke d "int o thre e measure s o f meal " (eis aleurou sata tria) is probabl y t o b e see n a s reminiscen t o f Abraham' s actio n i n Ge n 18:6, wher e th e patriarc h prepare d a n "overflowin g mass " o f brea d fo r hi s thre e angeli c guest s a t Mamr e — an d s o t o sugges t somethin g o f a n eschatologica l banque t (cf ibid.).

I t ma y b e postulated , therefore , tha t Jesus ' inten t i n givin g th e Parabl e o f th e Mustar d See d an d th e Parabl e o f th e Leave n t o hi s disciple s wa s no t onl y t o assur e hi s disciple s tha t th e kingdo m o f Go d woul d surel y come , bu t als o t o revea l somethin g o f importanc e t o the m abou t hi s ministry , thei r ministries , an d th e natur e o f th e reig n o r "kingdom " o f Go d visà-vi s thei r inherite d understanding s o f ministr y an d th e kingdo m o f God . I n thes e tw o paire d parables , therefore , it ma y b e postulate d tha t h e wante d hi s disciple s t o b e assure d tha t th e kingdo m o f Go d woul d certainl y come , whateve r migh t b e though t abou t it s beginning s i n hi s o r thei r ministries Bu t also , i t seems , h e wante d the m t o realiz e (1 ) tha t th e kingdo m woul d com e abou t onl y throug h th e mysteriou s operatio n o f divin e power , no t b y huma n authority , expertise , o r ingenuit y (usin g th e metaphor s o f a mustar d see d an d leaven , whic h hav e powe r i n themselves) , (2 ) tha t i t ha s t o d o wit h eschatologica l realities , no t wit h mundan e actualitie s (usin g th e eschatologica l figure s o f a tre e an d a grea t amoun t o f dough) , an d (3 ) tha t th e eschatologica l kingdo m ha s universa l dimensions , an d is no t t o b e confine d t o th e nationa l interest s o f Israe l (usin g th e imager y o f "th e bird s o f heaven " makin g "nests " i n th e tree' s branches) An d thes e ar e matter s tha t h e wante d hi s disciple s t o kno w a s h e bega n hi s ministr y wit h them

Varied Uses

A s wit h th e Parabl e o f th e Sower , wha t appear s t o hav e take n plac e i n th e telling , re-telling , recording , an d the n re-recordin g o f th e Parabl e o f th e Mustar d See d an d th e Parabl e o f th e Leave n wa s a constan t reshapin g o f origina l storie s s o a s t o mak e the m mor e applicabl e fo r th e variou s audience s bein g addressed . Thi s is no t t o impl y tha t th e spi n give n t o th e parable s b y th e canonica l evangelist s wa s oppose d t o thei r origina l telling . Rather , i t is t o sugges t tha t wha t th e evangelist s di d wit h Jesus ' parable s wa s

t o giv e the m a sensus plenior o r "fulle r sense, " whic h the y sa w a s bein g inheren t i n th e storie s themselve s an d whic h the y believe d t o b e particularl y importan t fo r thei r readers . A t leas t thre e level s o f usage , it seems , ca n b e

see n i n th e Ne w Testamen t itself .

Jesus , w e hav e postulated , originall y tol d th e Parabl e o f th e Mustar d

See d an d th e Parabl e o f th e Leave n fo r bot h genera l an d particula r purposes . Generally , h e wante d t o assur e hi s disciple s o f th e certaint y o f th e comin g kingdo m o f God . I n particular , h e wante d t o teac h the m abou t th e mysteriou s operatio n o f God' s workin g i n people' s lives an d i n th e world , abou t th e eschatologica l natur e o f th e kingdo m o f God , an d abou t th e universa l implication s o f hi s ministr y an d th e reig n o f God O n thi s level , thes e tw o parable s functio n a s importan t pedagogica l devices , wit h whic h Jesu s instructe d hi s disciple s a t th e star t o f thei r associatio n together .

Amon g th e earlies t Jewis h believer s i n Jesus , confronte d as the y wer e wit h thei r compatriots ' rejectio n o f Jesu s an d thei r ow n minorit y statu s withi n th e nation , question s undoubtedl y aros e regardin g th e significanc e o f Jesus ' earthl y ministr y an d thei r continue d allegianc e t o him A s Jeremia s characterize s thei r queries : "Ho w differentl y th e beginning s o f th e Messiani c Ag e announce d b y Jesu s appeare d tha n wa s commonl y expected ! Coul d thi s wretche d band , comprisin g s o man y disreputabl e characters , b e th e wedding-guest s o f God' s redeeme d community? " ( Parables , 149)

Mar k certainl y fel t th e forc e o f thes e questions So , a s wit h th e Parabl e o f th e Sower , whil e carryin g 011 th e messag e o f assuranc e an d hop e regardin g th e comin g kingdo m o f Go d — an d whil e reflecting , t o som e extent , ho w Jesu s himsel f mus t hav e use d th e parabl e i n teachin g hi s disciple s th e evangelis t highlighted , i t appears , th e aspec t o f contras t inheren t i n tha t parable Thu s h e lai d stres s o n th e followin g word s i n hi s reproductio n o f th e parable : "I t is th e smalles t o f all th e seed s o n earth , ye t whe n it is sow n i t grow s u p an d become s th e greates t o f all shrubs , an d put s fort h larg e branches " (4:31b-32) .

Likewis e Matthew , workin g fro m bot h Mar k an d Q , highlight s th e sam e contras t i n speakin g abou t th e kingdo m o f Go d a s bein g "th e smalles t o f all seeds , bu t whe n i t ha s grow n i t is th e greates t o f shrub s an d become s a tree " (Mat t 13:32 ; cf . Gospel of Thomas 20:2 : "th e smalles t o f all seeds " bu t "produce s a grea t plant") I n addition , Matthew , no w workin g onl y fro m Q , brough t int o consideratio n th e Parabl e o f th e Leave n (Mat t 13:33) . Fo r evidentl y h e sa w i n th e smallnes s o f th e leave n an d th e climac -

ti c wordin g o f th e stor y ("unti l i t worke d all throug h th e dough" ) th e sam e contras t i n thi s parabl e a s wel l — tha t is, a n inheren t contras t betwee n presen t insignificanc e an d futur e greatness . Luke , however , completel y omit s th e contras t highlighte d b y bot h Mar k an d Matthew . Hi s an d hi s readers ' concern s wer e no t thos e o f th e evangelist s Mar k an d Matthe w o r thei r readers . Rather , Luke' s emphasi s i n th e givin g o f thes e tw o parable s seem s t o b e simpl y o n th e fac t tha t i n Jesus ' proclamatio n o f th e reig n o r "kingdom " o f Go d th e goo d new s o f th e gospe l wa s growin g an d developing .

4 . Contextualizin g Jesus ' Kingdo m Parable s Toda y

Tha t Jesus ' Parabl e o f th e Sower , Parabl e o f th e Mustar d Seed , an d Parabl e o f th e Leave n ar e se t i n somewha t differen t context s an d use d fo r differin g purpose s i n th e Synopti c Gospels , an d therefor e ca n b e rea d wit h multipl e meanings , see m t o b e truism s tha t fe w woul d debate Th e multifacete d o r polyvalen t natur e o f thes e parable s ca n hardl y b e denied . Bu t viewin g Jesus ' parable s i n suc h a fashion , a numbe r o f question s regardin g ou r us e o f the m arise First , o f course , is th e question : How , then , ar e thes e thre e parable s t o b e contextualize d today ? An d if thes e parable s ar e take n a s somethin g o f tes t cases , th e broade r questio n arises : Ho w ar e an y o f Jesus ' parable s t o b e use d today ?

Furthermore , w e nee d t o ask : To wha t exten t ca n th e polyvalenc e o f thes e parable s b e appeale d t o an d expresse d i n ou r ow n contextualizin g o f them ? Ar e w e hel d t o th e plots , metaphors , perspectives , an d application s tha t Jesu s an d th e evangelist s mad e i n tellin g an d recordin g thes e stories ?

O r ar e w e fre e — perhap s eve n encourage d b y th e genr e "parable " itself — t o pla y wit h th e plot s an d metaphor s an d t o appl y the m i n almos t unlimite d way s t o contemporar y issues , events , an d situations ? O r t o restat e th e questio n i n a slightl y differen t manner : I n ou r us e o f Jesus ' parables , ar e w e committe d t o wha t ca n b e foun d within th e parable s themselves , o r ar e w e fre e t o develo p ne w plot s an d metaphors , discove r ne w perspectives , an d mak e ne w application s tha t g o beyond th e Gospe l texts ?

Widel y divers e answer s ar e give n t o thes e questions Fo r m y part , I fee l mysel f constraine d t o hol d t o th e storie s an d contextualization s foun d i n th e Synopti c Gospels . Fo r i n th e parable s o f Jesu s a s se t ou t i n th e Gospel s w e ar e presente d wit h a numbe r o f way s o f contextualizin g th e storie s

tol d — a variety , I believe , tha t provide s u s wit h mor e tha n enoug h stimulu s fo r theologica l contemplatio n an d mor e tha n enoug h challeng e fo r ethica l action . Th e thre e parable s w e hav e deal t wit h migh t no t tel l u s everythin g abou t God , th e ministr y o f Jesus , th e natur e o f redemption , o r a believer' s respons e an d resultan t actions Othe r parable s an d othe r biblica l teaching s nee d als o t o b e take n int o accoun t fo r a fulle r understandin g o f suc h matters Nonetheless , dealin g separatel y o r i n concer t wit h th e truth s presente d i n thes e thre e multifacete d parable s alone , follower s o f Jesu s ar e challenge d ane w i n bot h thei r though t an d thei r action .

Th e tas k fo r Christian s today , bot h i n ou r proclamatio n an d i n ou r living , is t o appl y th e individua l feature s foun d i n thes e parable s t o th e need s an d circumstance s tha t w e encounte r and t o incorporat e int o ou r lives an d ministrie s somethin g o f th e fullnes s o f tha t paraboli c teachin g a s give n i n th e Gospe l portrayals . Tha t mean s tha t i n variou s situation s w e wil l nee d t o highligh t on e o r mor e o f th e feature s tha t wer e centra l (a s w e hav e postulated ) i n Jesus ' ow n us e o f th e parables , suc h as : (1 ) th e convictio n tha t th e reig n o r "kingdom " o f Go d wil l assuredl y com e abou t i n abundanc e (a s i n all thre e parables) ; (2 ) tha t God' s kingdo m ha s uniquel y entere d ou r huma n existenc e i n th e perso n an d ministr y o f Jesu s (a s implicitl y represente d b y th e sower) ; (3 ) tha t peopl e ar e calle d t o respon d positivel y t o "th e wor d o f God, " a s expresse d i n th e ministr y o f Jesu s (th e see d sown) ; (4 ) tha t Jesus ' follower s ar e t o revis e quit e radicall y thei r view s abou t th e ministr y o f th e Messia h an d th e reig n o r "kingdom " o f Go d (th e smallnes s o f th e see d an d th e differin g response s t o it) ; (5 ) tha t th e kingdo m wil l com e abou t onl y throug h th e operatio n o f divin e powe r (th e mustar d see d an d th e leaven) ; (6 ) tha t th e kingdo m ha s t o d o wit h eschatologica l realit y (th e tre e an d th e dough) ; an d (7 ) tha t th e eschatologica l kingdo m ha s universa l dimension s (th e bird s nestin g i n th e tree' s branches) .

I t coul d mean , o f course , tha t i n certai n circumstance s th e redactiona l emphase s o f Mar k an d Matthe w — thoug h withou t confinin g thos e emphase s t o th e natio n Israel , bu t understandin g the m i n th e broade r contex t o f all peopl e — shoul d b e highlighte d a s well , suc h as : (1 ) a rational e fo r people' s rejectio n o f Jesus , an d (2 ) a contras t betwee n th e presen t smallnes s an d futur e greatnes s o f th e kingdom Probabl y mor e pertinen t today , however , ar e Luke' s redactiona l treatment s o f thes e parables , whic h present s the m (1 ) a s understoo d i n th e contex t o f a propheti c ministry , (2 ) as example s o f th e proclamatio n o f th e goo d new s o f th e

kingdo m o f God , (3 ) a s highlightin g th e growt h an d developmen t o f tha t kingdom , an d (4 ) a s callin g o n thos e wh o hea r t o respon d positivel y i n a wholehearte d fashion .

Thi s is no t t o sugges t som e ne w allegorica l metho d i n th e stud y o f th e parables . Rather , i t is t o not e tha t th e Luka n kingdo m parable s expres s a wid e rang e o f significan t teaching s — wit h thes e teachings , whil e varied , possessin g a certai n "sens e o f center " — an d t o argu e tha t i t is th e tas k o f contemporar y interpreter s t o explicat e an d contextualiz e thos e teaching s today , bot h individuall y an d collectively . T o g o beyond th e text s i n th e Gospel s ma y b e considere d a n existentia l exercis e i n th e literar y genr e "parable. " Bu t i t is n o longe r a stud y o f Jesus ' parables . An d bein g n o longe r a n explicatio n o f hi s parables , it lack s th e authorit y o f hi s teachin g an d turn s ou r thought s i n othe r directions . To sta y within th e texts , however , attemptin g t o contextualiz e fo r ou r da y th e multifacete d natur e o f th e explici t an d implici t teaching s o f th e parable s o f Jesus , is , a s Luke' s Gospe l ha s it , t o proclai m "th e goo d news " t o "thos e wit h a nobl e an d goo d heart , who , hearin g th e word , hol d i t fas t an d brin g fort h fruit " (8:15)

Selecte d Bibliograph y

Albright , Willia m F., an d C S Mann Matthew. Garde n City : Doubleday , 1971 , esp . "XI . Parable s i n Matthew, " CXXXII-CL .

Barclay , William . And Jesus Said. Edinburgh : Sain t Andre w Press , 1970 . Carlston , Charle s E. The Parables of the Triple Tradition. Philadelphia : Fortress , 1975 .

Dodd , C . H . The Parables of the Kingdom. Ne w York : Scribner's , 196 1 rev . ed .

Fitzmyer , Josep h A . The Gospel According to Luke, 2 vols . Ne w York-London-Toronto : Doubleday , 1981 , 1985

France , Richar d T The Gospel according to Matthew. Leicester : InterVarsity , 1985

Funk , Rober t W. , Bernar d Brando n Scott , an d Jame s R Butts The Parables of Jesus. Red Letter Edition. Sonoma , CA : Polebridge , 1988

Hagner , Donal d A Matthew, 2 vols Dallas : Word , 1993 , 1995

Hooker , Morn a D The Gospel according to St. Mark. London : Black , 1991 ; Peabody : Hendrickson , 1992

Matthew's Parables of the Kingdom

Jeremias , Joachim . The Parables of Jesus, trans . S. H . Hooke . Rev. ed . London : SCM ; Ne w York : Scribner's , 1972 .

Lane , Willia m L. The Gospel according to Mark. Gran d Rapids : Eerdmans , 1974 .

Marshall , I. Howard . The Gospel of Luke. A Commentary on the Greek Text. Gran d Rapids : Eerdmans ; Exeter : Paternoster , 1978 .

Moule , C . F. D . The Gospel according to Mark. Cambridge : Cambridg e Universit y Press , 1965 .

Schweizer , Eduard . The Good News according to Luke, trans . D . E. Green .

Atlanta : Joh n Knox , 1984 .

Stein , Rober t H . An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus. Philadelphia : Westminster , 1981 .

Talbert , Charle s H . Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts. Missoula : Scholars , 1974 .

PAR T II I

Parables of Warnin g an d Preparednes s

"Produce

CHAPTE R 7

Fruit Worth y of Repentance":

Parables of Judgmen t against th e Jewish

Religious Leaders an d th e Natio n

(Matt 21:28-22:14, par.; Luke 13:6-9)

ALLA N W MARTEN S

SOM E O F JESUS' mos t pointe d word s wer e directe d agains t th e Jewis h religiou s leader s of hi s time . I n on e episod e i n Matthew' s Gospel , fo r example , Jesus is reporte d t o hav e rebuke d th e scribe s an d Pharisee s as follows :

You hypocrites ! Isaiah rightl y prophesie d abou t you whe n h e said, "Thi s peopl e honor s m e wit h thei r lips, bu t thei r heart s are fa r fro m me . In vain d o the y worshi p me , teachin g huma n precept s as doctrines. " (15:7-9 )

Th e narrativ e the n goe s o n t o say tha t Jesus ' disciple s informe d thei r teacher : "D o yo u kno w tha t th e Pharisee s too k offens e whe n the y hear d wha t yo u said? " (15:12) . I t is hardl y surprisin g tha t th e Pharisee s wer e offended , fo r Jesu s ha d marshale d Isaiah' s word s agains t them, th e mos t piou s peopl e of Israel ! Yet i n th e nex t vers e o f thi s passage , rathe r tha n modifyin g hi s rebuk e of thes e religiou s leaders , w e rea d tha t Jesu s continue d hi s condemnatio n of the m b y pointin g t o a n impendin g divin e judgment :

ALLAN W MARTEN S

Every plan t tha t m y heavenl y Fathe r ha s no t plante d wil l b e uprooted . Let the m alone ; the y ar e blin d guide s of th e blind ! An d if on e blin d perso n guide s another , bot h will fall int o a pit. " (15:13 )

A simila r judgmen t is directe d agains t th e religiou s leader s o f Jesus ' da y i n th e thre e highl y polemica l parable s o f Mat t 21:28-22:1 4 — wit h tha t judgmen t including , a t leas t b y extension , th e Jewis h natio n a s well . Th e majo r par t o f thi s article , therefore , wil l examin e thes e thre e Matthea n parables , whic h ar e commonl y identifie d a s th e Parabl e o f th e Tw o Son s (21:28-32) , th e Parabl e o f th e Wicke d Tenant s (21:33-46) , an d th e Parabl e o f th e Weddin g Banque t (22:1-14) . Luke' s Gospe l als o include s th e Parabl e o f th e Unproductiv e Fi g Tre e (13:6-9) , whic h is simila r i n it s judgmen t them e t o thos e o f Mat t 21:28-22:14 . So w e wil l analyz e thes e fou r parable s wit h referenc e t o ( 1 ) th e literar y an d theologica l context s i n whic h the y appear , (2 ) th e evangelists ' editoria l purpose s i n presentin g eac h parable , (3 ) th e meanin g tha t Jesu s gav e t o thes e parables , an d (4 ) wh y th e earl y Christian s preserve d the m i n thei r collectiv e memory I n addition , w e wil l highligh t (5 ) som e application s fo r today

1 . Th e Contex t o f Matthew' s Parable s o f Judgmen t

The Literary Context

Matthew' s thre e parable s o f judgmen t i n 21:28-22:1 4 ar e positione d immediatel y afte r thre e narrative s tha t spea k o f judgmen t an d featur e th e Jerusale m templ e i n on e wa y o r another . Th e firs t narrativ e i n 21:12-1 7 depict s Jesu s cursin g th e Jerusale m temple , wherei n is acte d ou t a symboli c judgmen t o n th e temple . Th e secon d i n 21:18-2 2 present s Jesu s cursin g th e fi g tree , whic h probabl y is t o b e understoo d no t onl y a s a symboli c ac t o f judgmen t o n th e Jewis h leader s bu t als o a s a n ac t o f judgmen t o n th e Jewis h natio n an d its religion . An d th e thir d i n 21:23-2 7 set s ou t a questio n abou t Jesus ' authorit y a s h e teache s i n th e templ e precincts , wher e h e is portraye d a s demonstratin g hi s dialectica l master y ove r th e Jewis h leaders . Afte r thes e thre e narrative s o f judgment , Matthe w goe s o n t o recoun t th e thre e parable s o f "th e Tw o Sons, " "th e Wicke d Tenants, " an d "th e Weddin g Banquet, " whic h spea k o f furthe r judgment . U p t o thi s poin t i n hi s Gospel , Matthe w seem s t o hav e bee n followin g Mark' s basi c orde r (assum -

in g tha t Matthe w use d Mar k a s hi s primar y narrativ e source) . Hi s procedur e now , however , changes . Fo r thoug h Mar k 12:1 declare s tha t Jesu s "bega n t o spea k t o the m i n parables" Mar k record s onl y one parable , th e Parabl e o f th e Wicke d Tenants . Matthew , o n th e othe r hand , seem s t o hav e take n hi s cu e fro m Mark' s referenc e t o "parables " t o recor d a trilog y o f parable s — th e first draw n fro m hi s specia l material , o r so-calle d "M " materia l (i.e. , "th e Tw o Sons") , th e secon d fro m Mark' s Gospe l (i.e. , "th e Wicke d Tenants") , an d th e thir d fro m th e Saying s materia l tha t h e seem s t o hav e use d i n commo n wit h Luke , o r "Q " (i.e. , "th e Weddin g Banquet") . An d followin g thes e thre e parable s ther e the n appea r thre e controvers y dialogue s i n 22:15-40 . Thu s Matthew' s literar y artistr y become s eviden t i n bot h hi s us e o f variou s source s an d hi s predilectio n fo r arrangin g materia l int o group s o f thre e (fo r furthe r example s o f Matthew' s preferenc e fo r a threefol d arrangement , se e Davie s an d Allison , Matthew 1.62-72 , 86-87) . An d throughou t th e contex t o f thes e thre e parables , Matthe w ha s effecte d a numbe r o f othe r literar y parallels , som e o f whic h wil l b e note d i n wha t follow s (fo r furthe r discussion s o f th e redactional , literary , an d themati c feature s i n th e contex t o f thes e parables , se e m y dissertatio n o n "Th e Compositiona l Unit y o f Matthe w 21:12-24:2")

The Theological Context

I n additio n t o thei r literar y context , however , w e nee d als o b e awar e o f th e them e o f judgmen t tha t reverberate s throughou t th e theologica l contex t o f thes e thre e parables . Man y scholar s hol d tha t thes e parable s wer e directe d eithe r b y Jesu s himsel f o r b y th e evangelis t Matthe w — only agains t th e hypocris y o f th e Jewis h religiou s leader s o f th e day , an d s o shoul d not b e viewe d a s havin g an y anti-Judaisti c o r contra-nationa l sens e a t all . Yet severa l feature s appea r i n thes e parables , bot h i n thei r contex t an d i n th e parable s themselves , tha t hav e relevanc e fo r th e natio n a s well .

A firs t featur e tha t need s t o b e note d is th e fac t tha t th e whol e controvers y sectio n o f 21:23-22:4 6 present s th e Jewis h leader s a s representative s o f th e nation . Matthe w specificall y mention s almos t all o f th e categorie s o f th e Jewis h leader s o f tha t day : chie f priests , elders , Pharisees , Sadducees , scribes , an d eve n Herodian s (se e 21:23 , 45 ; an d 22:15 , 23 , 34 , 41) . Furthermore , h e introduce s th e chie f priest s an d elder s i n 21:2 3 a s be -

in g th e leader s "o f th e people. " Al l o f thi s is significant , fo r i t give s th e reade r th e sens e tha t th e judgmen t articulate d b y Jesu s is directe d mor e broadl y tha n jus t agains t th e Jewis h leaders . Ther e is here , i n fact , a clea r nationa l implication .

Second , th e episode s o f th e cursin g o f th e templ e an d th e cursin g o f th e fi g tre e i n 21:12-2 0 hav e nationa l significance Fo r th e templ e wa s

viewe d a s bein g a t th e ver y hear t o f th e nationa l cultu s an d th e nation' s consciousness . An d th e fi g tre e wa s a well-know n symbo l o f th e natio n (se e Ho s 9:10 , 16; cf Isa 28:4 ; Je r 8:13 ; 24:1-8 ; Mi c 7:1)

An d third , nea r th e en d o f th e uni t i n whic h Matthew' s parable s ar e locate d — tha t is , a t th e en d o f th e woe s pronounce d i n chapte r 2 3 — Jesus ' sevent h wo e i n 23:29-3 6 modulate s fro m denunciation s o f th e scribe s an d Pharisee s (cf v v 29-33 , whic h begin : "Wo e t o you , scribe s an d Pharisees , yo u hypocrites!" ) t o a statemen t o f doo m directe d agains t th e whol e natio n (cf w 35-36 , whic h spea k o f judgmen t o n "thi s generation") I n particular , witnes s th e supra-historica l rol e tha t Jesu s take s o n i n th e followin g words : " I a m sendin g yo u prophet s an d wis e me n an d scribes . Som e o f the m yo u wil l kill an d crucify ; other s yo u wil l flo g i n you r synagogue s an d pursu e fro m tow n t o town " ( v 34) . Thi s languag e depict s Jesu s a s a n extra-terrestria l figure , lik e Sophi a i n Israel' s Wisdo m literature , wh o send s envoy s t o th e natio n i n orde r t o rebuke , judge , an d correc t th e peopl e an d thei r leaders .

Furthermore , i n th e parable s themselve s ther e ar e tw o ver y clea r indication s tha t th e natio n o f Israe l is als o include d i n Jesus ' word s o f judgment Th e firs t is i n th e Parabl e o f th e Wicke d Tenants , wher e th e concludin g word s o f Jesu s rende r a shar p judgmen t agains t Israel : "Therefor e I tel l yo u tha t th e kingdo m o f Go d wil l b e take n awa y fro m yo u an d give n t o a people [ethnei, "t o a nation"] wh o wil l produc e it s fruits " (21:43) Th e secon d is i n th e Parabl e o f th e Weddin g Banquet , wher e ther e is referenc e t o a kin g wh o burne d th e cit y o f thos e wh o ha d murdere d hi s servant s (22:7 ) whic h is probabl y a post-A D 7 0 reflectio n o n th e burnin g o f Jerusalem , th e nation' s capital .

I n dealin g wit h thes e thre e Matthea n parables , therefore , it need s firs t o f all t o b e appreciate d tha t th e theologica l contex t o f judgmen t i n whic h the y ar e se t — a judgmen t tha t is directe d agains t bot h th e religiou s leader s o f th e da y an d th e natio n itsel f — is o f crucia l importanc e fo r thei r interpretation Th e question , however , naturall y arises : To who m is thi s stron g anti-Judaisti c an d contra-nationa l ton e t o b e attribute d — t o Jesus ,

o r t o Matthew' s interpretatio n o f Jesus ' words ? To answe r thi s questio n w e mus t analyz e mor e carefull y thes e thre e parable s fro m bot h redaction-critical an d historica l perspectives .

Matthew's Redactional Activity

Redactio n criticis m is a n analytica l metho d tha t attempt s t o determin e a n evangelist' s theologica l motivation s a s evidence d b y hi s editoria l us e o f sources . I t seek s t o understan d how an d why a Gospe l write r collected , selected , adapted , arranged , linked , expanded , and/o r interprete d th e earl y tradition s abou t Jesus , believin g tha t b y a bette r understandin g o f hi s method s on e ca n gai n a bette r sens e o f hi s theologica l purposes . Wha t follows , therefore , is a redaction-critica l analysi s o f eac h o f Matthew' s thre e parable s o f judgmen t i n 21:28-22:14 . I n concer t wit h mos t interpreters , th e analysi s assume s tha t Matthe w mad e us e o f (1 ) Mark' s Gospel , (2 ) a Saying s source , whic h is commonl y designate d "Q, " an d (3 ) disparat e "M " materials , whic h wer e eithe r ora l o r written

2 . Th e Parabl e o f th e Tw o Son s (Mat t 21:28-32 )

Th e Parabl e o f th e Tw o Son s appear s onl y i n Matthew' s Gospel , an d s o is usuall y judge d t o hav e com e fro m th e evangelist' s specia l "M " material . As a result , tradition-historica l question s ar e difficul t t o answer . Helmu t Merkel , wh o represent s th e vie w o f som e scholars , ha s argue d — base d o n Matthea n linguisti c peculiaritie s i n th e parabl e an d themati c similaritie s wit h othe r tradition s — tha t Matthe w himsel f compose d thi s parabl e (cf . "Da s Gleichnis") . Bu t th e genera l vie w amon g scholar s is tha t th e parabl e stem s fro m Jesus , thoug h ther e is littl e doub t tha t i t ha s bee n subjecte d t o Matthew' s redaction .

Evidenc e fo r Matthea n redactio n is threefold . First , i t is clea r tha t Matthe w ha s assimilate d th e thre e parable s o f 21:28-22:1 4 b y usin g simila r vocabular y an d theme s throughout . Withou t doin g a complet e linguisti c analysis , w e ma y simpl y poin t t o thre e expression s tha t appea r i n all thre e parables : "man, " "son, " an d "kingdom. "

Al l thre e parable s includ e a majo r character , a "man " ( anthröpos , 21:28 , 33 ; 22:2 ) wh o represent s Go d — thoug h h e appears , respectively , a s

W MARTEN S

a father , a vineyar d owner , an d a king . Th e significan t poin t abou t thi s figur e is tha t i n eac h cas e h e ha s a "will " tha t is bot h obeye d an d disobeyed Th e emphasi s i n eac h o f th e thre e parables , however , fells o n thos e wh o rejec t thi s will . Furthermore , i n all thre e parable s ther e is a "son " (o r sons) , thoug h th e ter m is no t unifor m ( teknon i n 21:28 ; huios i n 21:37 ; 22:2) An d i n eac h cas e th e so n o r son s represen t uniqu e characters .

Anothe r similarit y i n thes e thre e parable s is th e appearanc e o f th e expressio n "kingdo m o f God/heaven " ( basilei a tou theou/tān ouranön, 21:31 , 43 ; 22:2) . An d i n eac h cas e th e kingdo m is associate d wit h a displacemen t o f people . I n th e firs t parable , th e outcast s o f societ y ente r th e kingdo m "ahea d of " th e Jewis h religiou s leader s (21:31) ; i n th e second , th e kingdo m "wil l b e give n t o a peopl e tha t wil l produc e it s fruits " (21:43) ; an d i n th e third , wher e th e kingdo m is symbolize d b y th e messiani c banque t o r feas t o f salvation , th e origina l guest s — tha t is, Jew s — ar e replace d b y outsider s — tha t is, Gentile s (22:8-10) . Eve n if thes e thre e term s ar e no t see n a s indicatin g Matthew' s redactiona l treatmen t o f Jesus ' paraboli c teaching , bu t viewe d a s bein g traditional , a t leas t th e fac t tha t th e evangelis t collecte d simila r parable s togethe r show s evidenc e o f hi s editoria l activity

A secon d evidenc e o f Matthea n redactio n is t o b e see n i n th e introductio n t o th e Parabl e o f th e Tw o Sons , fo r th e questio n "Wha t d o yo u think? " (Ti humin dokei) o f 21:2 8 is characteristicall y Matthea n (cf . 18:12 ; 22:42 ; 26:66 ; als o 17:25 ; 22:17) : i t appear s elsewher e onl y i n Joh n 11:56

An d a thir d evidenc e o f Matthew' s redactio n come s t o th e for e i n 21:32 , th e parable' s fina l verse , whic h is probabl y t o b e see n a s a n independen t sayin g tha t Matthe w ha s adde d a s a n applicatio n t o th e origina l parable . On e reaso n fo r viewin g vers e 3 2 a s a n independen t sayin g is tha t Jesus ' judgmen t expresse d i n vers e 31 c — " I tel l yo u th e truth , th e ta x collector s an d th e prostitute s ar e enterin g th e kingdo m o f Go d ahea d of you" ) form s a fittin g conclusio n t o th e parable , wherea s th e statemen t abou t Joh n th e Baptis t is somewha t inconsisten t wit h th e thrus t o f th e parable Fo r th e parabl e itsel f concern s obedienc e t o th e father' s (i.e. , God's ) will , an d it set s ou t a contras t betwee n word s an d deeds . An d whil e Jesus ' pronouncemen t i n vers e 31 c doe s no t pic k u p o n thi s contras t o f word s an d deeds , i t doe s portra y society' s outcast s as bein g obedien t t o God' s wil l i n contras t t o th e disobedienc e o f th e Jewis h leaders Vers e 32 , however , take s u p a ne w topic , on e tha t focuse s o n believing th e messag e o f Joh n th e Baptis t — a s evidence d b y th e threefol d us e o f th e Gree k ver b pistenö ("believe" ) i n th e thre e part s o f th e verse : "Fo r Joh n cam e t o yo u i n th e wa y o f righteousness ,

an d yo u di d no t believe him " ( v 32a) ; "bu t th e ta x collector s an d prostitute s believed him " ( v 32b) ; "an d eve n afte r yo u sa w this , yo u di d no t repen t late r an d believe him " ( v 32c) .

Anothe r reaso n fo r thinkin g tha t vers e 3 2 is a late r Matthea n additio n stem s fro m th e openin g formul a o f vers e 31c : "Trul y I sa y t o you " (amen legö soi). Fo r thi s formul a mark s th e en d o f Jesus ' teachin g i n othe r instance s i n th e Gospe l traditio n (cf . Mat t 5:26 ; als o Luk e 15:24 ; 15:7, 10; 18:14)

An d a thir d reaso n fo r viewin g vers e 32 a s a n independen t "saying " o r logio n is th e fac t tha t ther e is a somewha t paralle l logio n i n Luk e 7:2930:

An d all th e peopl e wh o hear d this , eve n th e ta x collectors , acknowledge d th e justic e of God , becaus e the y ha d bee n baptize d wit h John' s baptism . Bu t th e Pharisee s an d th e lawyers rejecte d th e wil l of Go d fo r themselves, becaus e the y ha d no t bee n baptize d b y him .

Th e broa d similaritie s betwee n th e "sayings " o f Mat t 21:3 2 an d Luk e 7:293 0 probabl y poin t t o a commo n traditio n underlyin g thes e verses Yet i n Luk e th e sayin g is expresse d a s par t o f th e narrativ e abou t John , wherea s i n Matthe w th e sayin g is no w place d o n th e lip s o f Jesu s a s th e punchlin e t o a parable

A s fo r Matthew' s reaso n fo r addin g vers e 32 , i t is likel y tha t th e referenc e i n vers e 31 t o "ta x collector s an d prostitutes " provide d th e "catchword " fo r th e additio n o f thi s logio n abou t th e ta x collectors .

Th e basi c messag e o f Jesus ' Parabl e o f th e Tw o Sons , therefore , is tha t wha t count s i n relatio n t o th e kingdo m o f God , o r salvation , is obedienc e t o God' s will . Word s b y themselve s d o no t matter . I t is deed s tha t coun t befor e God . An d so , base d o n th e criterio n o f obedience , society' s outcasts , lik e th e ta x collector s an d prostitutes , wil l enjo y God' s salvatio n "ahea d of " or , instea d o f — th e Jewis h leaders .

By th e additio n o f vers e 32 , Matthew , it seems , ha s intensifie d th e polemi c o f vers e 31 . Fo r no t onl y is Jesu s no w presente d a s condemnin g th e Jewis h leader s mor e harshl y ("Yo u di d no t believ e John!" ; "Yo u di d no t repen t an d believ e John!") , bu t th e messag e o f Joh n th e Baptist , whic h wa s a proclamatio n o f "th e wa y o f righteousness, " no w become s th e foca l poin t fo r salvation . An d b y linkin g thi s sayin g o f vers e 32 wit h th e earlie r pericop e i n verse s 23-2 7 (whic h materia l immediatel y precede s th e parabl e

ALLAN W MARTEN S

itsel f i n verse s 28-31 ) abou t Jesus ' authorit y i n relatio n t o John' s baptism , th e reade r o f Matthew' s Gospe l is le d t o understan d tha t belie f i n Joh n th e Baptist' s messag e compel s belie f i n Jesu s a s well . Therefor e b y hi s redactiona l treatmen t o f Jesus ' Parabl e o f th e Tw o Sons , Matthe w ha s highlighte d th e call give n b y Jesu s t o Israel' s leader s t o respon d i n obedienc e t o Go d — tha t is, t o respon d positivel y t o a "righteousness " tha t center s i n th e messag e o f bot h Joh n th e Baptis t an d Jesus .

3 . Th e Parabl e o f th e Wicke d Tenant s (Mat t 21:33-46 , par. )

Matthew' s secon d parabl e i n hi s trilog y o f judgmen t parables , tha t o f th e Parabl e o f th e Wicke d Tenants , is draw n fro m Mar k 12:1-1 2 an d parallele d b y Luk e 20:9-19 , whic h make s i t relativel y eas y t o not e th e evangelist' s editoria l changes Matthe w make s th e owne r o f th e vineyar d a n authorit y figur e (a n oikodespotēs o r "landowner, " i n contras t Mark' s simpl e anthröpos), wh o justifiabl y demand s " hi s fruit " (contras t Mark' s "th e frui t o f th e vineyard" ) fro m th e tenant s t o who m h e ha s rente d th e vineyard Th e parabl e is obviousl y a n allegor y base d o n th e Son g o f th e Vineyar d i n Isa 5:1- 7 wher e th e vineyar d represent s Israel

Onc e th e identificatio n o f th e vineyar d wit h Israe l is made , th e othe r feature s o f th e stor y ar e easil y identifiable Thu s th e owne r is God ; th e tenant s ar e Israel' s leaders ; th e envoy s ar e th e prophet s sen t t o Israel ; th e so n an d hei r is Jesu s th e So n o f God ; th e killin g o f th e so n represent s th e crucifixion ; th e punishmen t o f th e tenant s represent s th e rui n o f Israel ; th e "othe r tenants " represen t th e (Gentile ) church ; th e prope r "renderin g o f fruit s t o th e owner " (21:34,41,43 ) is doin g th e wil l o f th e Fathe r (cf . 21:31 ; 7:21) ; th e "rejectio n o f th e ston e b y th e builders " an d its "elevatio n t o th e hea d o f th e corne r b y God " allud e t o th e deat h an d resurrectio n o f Jesus ; an d th e fina l ston e saying , "Th e on e wh o fall s o n thi s ston e wil l b e broke n t o pieces , an d th e on e o n who m i t fall s wil l b e crushed! " (21:44) , serve s a s a warnin g tha t rejectio n o f Jesu s wil l resul t i n condemnatio n (cf . 10:32-33) . I n general , Matthe w follow s closel y wha t ha s bee n terme d Mark' s "christologica l allegory. " Th e change s tha t Matthe w makes , however , strengthe n th e christological , ecclesiological , an d anti-Judaisti c feature s o f th e parable .

Matthe w effect s som e transitiona l change s i n th e story , whic h caus e th e tellin g o f th e stor y t o unfol d mor e naturally : "Whe n th e tim e o f frui t

approached " i n vers e 34a ; "Whe n th e owne r o f th e vineyar d comes " i n vers e 40a ; an d "Hav e yo u neve r rea d i n th e Scriptures? " i n vers e 42a Th e firs t o f thes e transitiona l change s i n vers e 34 a als o introduce s th e them e o f fruitfulness , whic h is a centra l them e no t onl y i n th e parabl e bu t als o throughou t Matthew' s Gospel "Producin g fruit " an d simila r expression s i n Matthe w signif y suc h action s a s repentance , doin g th e wil l o f God , an d doin g righteousnes s — all o f whic h ca n b e summe d u p i n term s o f a prope r respons e t o God Ultimately , however , th e frui t require d o f Israe l is th e acceptanc e o f Jesus , th e So n o f God , who m th e Fathe r ha s sent .

Moreover , particularl y fo r th e natio n Israel , i t is alway s th e "seaso n fo r fruit. " Thi s lesso n wa s implici t i n th e Cursin g o f th e Fi g Tre e pericop e o f 21:18-22 , whic h portraye d Jesu s i n symboli c fashio n a s lookin g fo r righteousnes s i n Israe l bu t unabl e t o fin d it An d th e sam e lesso n is implici t her e i n th e Parabl e o f th e Wicke d Tenants , wher e th e repeate d sendin g o f servant s t o receiv e "hi s fruit " suggest s tha t Go d ha s continuall y sough t righteousnes s fro m Israel .

Matthe w als o reconstruct s Mark' s descriptio n o f th e sendin g o f servant s t o receiv e th e landowner' s frui t (v v 34-36) Accordin g t o Mark , th e owne r sen t thre e servant s individuall y an d successively , an d the n "man y others. " Matthew , however , ha s i t tha t th e owne r sen t tw o delegations o f servants , th e firs t composed , presumably , o f thre e men , on e o f who m wa s beaten , anothe r killed , an d anothe r stone d (cf . 23:37) . Th e secon d delegatio n consiste d o f a large r numbe r o f servant s ("mor e tha n th e first") , wh o wer e treate d "i n th e sam e way." Luke' s versio n o f th e parable , it shoul d b e noted , ha s a n eve n differen t scenari o (cf . Luk e 20:10-12) , whic h suggest s tha t th e thre e evangelist s fel t considerabl e freedo m t o allegoriz e th e parabl e i n thei r ow n way s — wit h th e par t abou t th e sendin g o f envoy s particularl y susceptibl e t o allegorization .

Th e tw o delegation s of servant s i n Matthe w hav e bee n variousl y interpreted , wit h commentator s usuall y viewin g the m a s representin g th e preexili c prophet s an d th e postexili c prophets Mor e likely, however , the y represen t fo r Matthe w "th e prophet s an d righteou s men, " whic h is a couplin g o f classification s tha t is uniquel y Matthea n (cf 10:41 ; 13:17 ; 23:29 , 34-35) "Prophets " an d "righteou s men, " o f course , coul d b e though t o f a s distinc t categorie s o f redemptiv e figures . Bu t Matthe w apparentl y view s the m togethe r a s God' s servant s an d a s opponent s o f th e "unrighteous, " wh o throughou t Israel' s histor y hav e rejecte d God' s ways .

Bot h Matthe w an d Mar k describ e th e sendin g o f th e so n an d hi s re -

ALLAN W MARTEN S

jectio n i n simila r terms . Fo r som e reason , however , Matthe w omit s Mark' s christologicall y significan t adjectiv e "beloved " fro m th e descriptio n o f th e so n ( v 37) . Furthermore , Matthe w reverse s Mark' s orde r regardin g th e treatmen t o f th e son , presentin g hi m a s bein g firs t throw n ou t o f th e vineyar d an d the n kille d ( v 39) I t ma y b e impossibl e t o speculat e a s t o wh y Matthe w omitte d th e wor d "beloved. " Bu t thi s latte r chang e o f firs t bein g throw n ou t o f th e vineyar d an d the n killed , whic h als o appear s i n Luke' s presentation , almos t certainl y wa s mad e t o confor m th e parabl e t o th e circumstance s o f Jesus ' crucifixio n outsid e th e cit y wall s (cf . Joh n 19:17 ; He b 13:12)

Matthe w follow s Mar k i n recordin g Jesus ' question , "Therefore , wha t wil l th e lor d o f th e vineyar d do? " ( v 40) . Bu t wherea s Mar k ha s Jesu s answe r hi s ow n question , "H e wil l com e an d kil l th e tenant s an d give th e vineyar d t o others " (Mar k 12:9) , Matthe w ha s th e hearer s — tha t is, th e Jewis h religiou s leader s — answe r th e questio n an d thereb y inadvertentl y judg e themselve s (v41) Matthe w add s a Gree k lega l idio m t o thei r answer , "H e wil l brin g thos e wretche s t o a wretche d end, " thereb y intensifyin g th e expressio n o f judgment . Furthermore , th e leaders ' answe r is expresse d onc e mor e i n term s o f th e frui t theme , fo r the y ad d tha t th e vineyar d wil l b e give n t o othe r tenant s "wh o wil l giv e hi m th e frui t i n its season. " Thi s additio n clearl y allude s t o P s 1:3 ("i t wil l giv e it s frui t i n its season" ) an d strengthen s Matthew' s polemic , fo r no w th e Jewis h leader s ar e compare d t o th e godles s me n o f Psal m 1.

Matthe w als o follow s Mar k i n settin g ou t th e ston e sayin g o f vers e 4 2 ("Th e ston e th e builder s rejecte d ha s becom e th e capstone ; th e Lor d ha s don e this , an d i t is marvelou s i n ou r eyes!") , whic h follow s th e sayin g o f judgmen t i n vers e 41 . Th e ston e sayin g is a quotatio n o f Ps 118:22-23 , which , a s i t appear s i n conjunctio n wit h th e Parabl e o f th e Wicke d Tenants , present s Jesu s a s th e rejecte d bu t no w exalte d So n of God Muc h ha s bee n writte n abou t th e possibl e authenticit y o f thi s quotatio n o n th e lip s o f Jesu s — particularl y sinc e i t refer s t o th e vindicatio n o f th e Messiah , whic h is a topi c tha t doe s no t appea r i n th e parabl e itself . On e featur e o f not e is th e Aramai c pu n o n "son " (ben) an d "stone " (eben) tha t appear s i n comparin g th e parabl e an d th e saying , whic h ma y sugges t tha t Jesu s himsel f (or , perhaps , th e earl y church ) joine d th e parabl e an d th e ston e quotatio n o n thi s basis Here , however , w e ar e mor e intereste d i n th e late r stage s o f th e us e o f th e parable An d wit h respec t t o thes e late r stages , i t is eviden t tha t Matthe w ha s take n ove r th e sayin g fro m Mark , wit h th e resul t tha t th e

quotatio n o f P s 118:22-2 3 serve s t o reinforc e th e them e o f judgmen t alread y i n th e parabl e an d t o highligh t th e ne w them e o f exaltatio n tha t is no t intrinsi c t o th e parabl e itself . S o th e presenc e o f th e quotatio n i n bot h Mar k an d Matthe w provide s anothe r bi t o f "christologica l coloring. "

I n vers e 4 3 Matthe w add s a ver y significan t concludin g sayin g t o Mark' s parable : "Therefor e [i.e. , becaus e o f Israel' s rejectio n o f th e son / stone ] I tel l you , th e kingdo m o f Go d wil l b e take n awa y fro m yo u [i.e. , th e natio n Israel ] an d give n t o a peopl e (ethnei) wh o wil l produc e it s fruit s (tous karpous au tes) " Her e w e hav e th e salvation-historica l schem e carrie d on e ste p further , fo r no t onl y is th e son/ston e exalte d bu t als o th e kingdo m is transferre d fro m Israe l t o th e church Th e sayin g shift s imager y s o tha t th e vineyar d n o longe r represent s Israe l bu t no w th e kingdom . Vers e 4 1 ha d alread y mad e a n implici t connectio n o f th e vineyar d an d th e kingdo m b y referrin g t o th e transfe r o f th e vineyar d (cf als o Mar k 12:9) Vers e 43 , however , make s tha t identificatio n explicit .

A s fo r th e origi n o f thi s concludin g sayin g i n vers e 43 , th e matte r is hotl y debated . Som e scholar s hol d tha t Matthe w himsel f compose d i t an d adde d it here Other s believ e tha t th e evangelis t foun d th e sayin g a s a n independen t logio n o f Jesu s an d adde d i t here . An d stil l other s posi t tha t th e sayin g wa s alread y attache d t o th e parabl e i n a pre-Mat.thea n stag e o f th e Jesu s tradition Th e mos t plausibl e solution , i t seems , is tha t Matthe w use d suc h traditiona l element s a s th e "producin g fruit " theme , whic h is commo n i n th e synopti c tradition , an d th e contrastin g formul a "i t wil l b e take n awa y it wil l b e given " (cf Mar k 4:2 5 par. ; Luk e 19:26//Mat t 25:29) . An d o n suc h a view , vers e 4 3 shoul d probabl y b e attribute d primaril y t o Matthe w an d see n a s carryin g o n i n quit e consisten t fashio n th e evangelist' s distinctiv e theologica l emphase s o f "kingdom, " "fruit-bearing, " "church, " an d "anti-Judaism. "

Th e secon d ston e sayin g o f vers e 4 4 ("Th e on e wh o fall s o n thi s ston e wil l b e broke n t o pieces , an d anyon e o n who m it fall s wil l b e crushed!" ) is absen t i n Mark Bu t i t appear s i n nearl y identica l languag e i n Luk e 20:18 , wher e it follow s th e first ston e sayin g (cf . vers e 17, quotin g Ps 118:22) . Despit e som e scholars ' argument s fo r a n origina l associatio n o f Mat t 21:4 3 an d 44 , vers e 4 4 seem s s o awkwardl y place d afte r vers e 4 3 tha t it shoul d probabl y b e considere d a n interpolatio n fro m Luk e 20:1 8 b y som e earl y copyist An d th e absenc e o f vers e 4 4 i n severa l manuscript s ( D 3 3 e t al.) support s thi s view .

Als o t o b e note d i n comparin g Matthew' s versio n o f th e Parabl e o f

th e Wicke d Tenant s wit h tha t o f Mar k is th e fac t that , whil e th e narrativ e aftermat h o f th e parabl e is relate d b y bot h evangelist s i n simila r terms , Mat t 21:45-4 6 intensifie s th e Jewis h leaders ' guil t b y reversin g th e sequenc e foun d i n Mar k 12:12 . Fo r i n Matthew' s versio n th e leaders ' perceptio n o f th e poin t o f th e parabl e is highlighte d b y bein g place d first , wit h thei r attemp t t o arres t Jesu s the n place d second . Furthermore , Matthe w add s t o Mark' s versio n a not e tha t th e crowd s "hel d Jesu s t o b e a prophet. " Thi s additiona l claus e recall s a simila r on e i n th e pericop e abou t Jesus ' authorit y i n 21:23-27 , wher e Joh n th e Baptis t is sai d t o hav e bee n hel d b y th e peopl e t o b e a prophe t ( v 26) Thes e references , therefore , dra w anothe r paralle l betwee n Joh n th e Baptis t an d Jesus , wh o as God' s messenger s for m a unite d fron t agains t th e Jewis h religiou s leaders . Hence , Joh n an d Jesu s ar e associate d i n th e las t thre e pericope s o f thi s chapte r — tha t is, i n th e narrativ e tha t deal s wit h th e Questio n abou t Authorit y i n 21:23-27 , i n th e Parabl e o f th e Tw o Son s i n 21:28-32 , an d i n th e Parabl e o f th e Wicke d Tenant s i n 21:33-46 .

Undoubtedl y th e Parabl e o f th e Wicke d Tenant s ha s undergon e a numbe r o f secondar y change s an d addition s i n it s retellin g b y th e synopti c evangelists , whic h hav e brough t abou t a shif t o f meanin g a t certai n points It s mai n emphasis , however , lie s i n th e followin g analogy : tha t a s th e wicke d tenant s rejecte d th e landowner' s son , an d therefor e wer e punishe d an d los t th e vineyar d t o othe r tenants , s o als o Israe l ha s rejecte d Jesus , th e So n o f God , an d wil l b e judge d an d wil l forfei t th e kingdo m t o anothe r peopl e wh o wil l produc e righteousnes s fo r God Thi s parable , therefore , continue s th e them e o f Israel' s rejectio n o f God' s messenger s tha t appeare d i n th e immediatel y previou s Parabl e o f th e Tw o Sons . I n tha t previou s parable , Israel' s rejectio n o f Joh n th e Baptis t wa s explici t (cf . 21:32) , whil e he r rejectio n o f Jesu s wa s onl y implied . I n thi s parable , however , th e rejectio n o f th e Baptis t is onl y implie d i n Israel' s rejectio n o f th e man y servant s sen t t o her , whil e th e rejectio n o f Jesu s a s th e So n o f Go d an d th e "capstone " o f th e divin e histor y o f salvatio n is explicit .

4 . Th e Parabl e o f th e Weddin g Banque t (Mat t 22:1-14//Luk e 14:15-24 )

Matthe w insert s th e Parabl e o f th e Weddin g Banquet , whic h is th e thir d o f hi s trilog y o f judgmen t parables , betwee n narrativ e materia l take n fro m

Mar k 12:1 2 an d Mar k 12:13 . Ther e is genera l agreemen t tha t thi s parabl e derive s fro m Q , fo r a simila r versio n is i n Luk e 14:15-24 Bot h Matthe w an d Luke , however , hav e place d th e parabl e withi n thei r ow n respectiv e contexts , wit h th e openin g statement s o f Mat t 22:l-2 a an d Luk e 14:15 - 16a bein g separatel y compose d redactiona l transitions

Thi s parabl e begin s wit h th e notic e tha t a ma n prepare d a grea t mea l t o whic h h e invite d man y guest s (cf Luk e 14:16) I n Matthew' s version , however , th e ma n is a kin g an d th e occasio n is a weddin g banque t fo r hi s so n (22:2) . An d thi s settin g is use d i n Matthew' s Gospe l no t onl y fo r th e parabl e itsel f i n 22:3-10 , bu t als o fo r th e additiona l stor y abou t th e ma n withou t a weddin g garmen t i n 22:11-1 3 an d th e applicatio n mad e o f tha t stor y i n 22:14

Bot h account s relat e thre e mission s o f servant s sen t ou t t o call peopl e t o th e feast Bu t the y ar e no t parallel Fo r Matthe w ha s restyle d th e first mission , a s foun d i n Luke , int o tw o missions , wit h th e secon d correspondin g t o Luke' s first (cf Mat t 22:3-6 ; Luk e 14:17-21a) An d Matthew' s thir d missio n correspond s t o Luke' s secon d missio n (cf Mat t 22:8-10 ; Luk e 14:21b-22) . I n Luke' s Gospel , however , ther e is a thir d missio n tha t seem s t o b e th e evangelist' s ow n additio n (Luk e 14:23)

Matthew' s accoun t o f th e initia l missio n i n 22: 3 ha s th e plura l "servants, " i n contras t t o Luke' s singula r "servant. " Thi s alteratio n begin s Matthew' s assimilatio n o f thi s parabl e t o hi s earlie r presentatio n o f th e Parabl e o f th e Wicke d Tenants , wher e i n 21:3 4 "servants " als o appeare d i n contras t t o Mark' s "servant. " Als o t o b e note d is th e fac t tha t th e first mission , i n Matthew' s handling , end s abruptl y wit h th e notic e tha t thos e invite d "wer e no t willin g t o come, " whic h is a phras e tha t recall s th e respons e i n 21:1 9 o f th e first so n i n Matthew' s Parabl e o f th e Tw o Sons . Matthew' s secon d missio n i n 22: 4 correspond s mor e closel y t o Luke' s first missio n i n 14:17 . Bu t Matthe w introduce s i t wit h th e word s "Again , h e sen t othe r servants " — whic h word s ar e identica l t o thos e tha t wer e use d i n 21:3 6 fo r th e secon d delegatio n o f servant s i n th e Matthea n versio n o f th e Parabl e o f th e Wicke d Tenants Bu t wherea s th e tw o delegation s i n tha t previou s parabl e represente d "th e prophet s an d righteou s men, " her e the y represen t th e Ne w Testamen t apostle s an d Christia n missionarie s wh o ar e sen t t o invit e Israe l t o th e roya l "messiani c banquet. " Fo r th e secon d missio n end s i n th e destructio n o f th e city , whic h surel y ha s i n min d th e fal l o f Jerusale m i n AD 70

Als o t o b e note d i n Matthew' s versio n o f th e Parabl e o f th e Weddin g

Banque t is th e fac t tha t th e king' s so n is no t sen t o r killed , a s i n th e previou s Parabl e o f th e Wicke d Tenants So Jesu s th e Messia h is presente d i n thi s parabl e i n hi s postresurrectio n state , wit h hi s Fathe r invitin g Jew s t o a "messiani c banquet. " A n eschatologica l scenari o is evident , a s well , i n th e king' s instruction s t o hi s servant s t o announc e t o th e invite d guests : "Everythin g is ready . Com e t o th e weddin g banquet! " (22:4) . Matthe w heighten s th e fac t tha t th e banque t wa s read y b y hi s referenc e t o th e kin g havin g alread y slaughtere d hi s oxe n an d fattene d cattl e ( v 4) . Th e rejectio n o f th e king' s invitation , however , come s i n th e remark : "Bu t the y too k n o notic e an d wen t awa y — on e t o hi s farm , anothe r t o hi s business " ( v 5) Luk e ha s th e invitee s makin g excuse s wh y the y coul d no t com e (14:18-20) . An d Luke' s versio n is probabl y mor e original , eve n thoug h mor e detailed Fo r Matthe w seem s t o hav e wante d onl y t o highligh t th e absolut e refusa l o f th e invitees , wh o represen t Israel , an d s o t o hav e narrowe d th e focu s o f th e parabl e t o tha t point .

I n focusin g o n th e refusa l o f th e invitees , Matthe w ha s create d a dramati c intrusio n int o th e Parabl e o f th e Weddin g Banque t b y hi s additio n o f verse s 6-7 . Vers e 6 say s tha t som e o f thos e invite d t o th e banque t "seize d hi s servants , mistreate d them , an d kille d them. " Her e agai n ther e occur s a n assimilatio n t o th e previou s Parabl e o f th e Wicke d Tenants , wher e th e owner' s servant s wer e "seize d . . . beate n .. . kille d .. . an d stoned " (21:35) . An d vers e 7 tell s th e reade r tha t th e king , becaus e o f th e ill treatmen t afforde d hi s servants , become s angry , an d s o send s hi s armie s t o destro y "thos e murderers " an d bur n "thei r city." O n th e "image " level , thi s latte r vers e is incredible , fo r it picture s a kin g destroyin g murderer s an d burnin g thei r cit y whil e hi s banque t mea l remain s ho t fo r th e nex t se t o f invite d guests O n th e "reality " level , however , i t ca n onl y refe r t o th e destructio n o f Jerusalem , whic h wa s viewe d a s havin g bee n cause d b y Israel' s rejectio n o f God' s messenger s • particularl y th e nation' s rejectio n o f Jesus . Tw o expression s i n vers e 7 recal l earlie r expression s i n th e previou s parable : "thos e murderers " recall s "thos e tenants " o f 21:40 , wit h bot h expression s bein g use d i n th e contex t o f judgment ; an d "destroy " point s bac k t o th e leaders ' self-condemnatio n i n 21:41 , "H e wil l destro y th e evi l me n evilly."

Th e thir d missio n i n Matthew' s versio n o f th e parabl e (22:8-10 ) resume s th e narrativ e afte r th e intrusio n o f verse s 6-7 Thi s missio n correspond s t o Luke' s secon d (14:21b-22) Th e motiv e fo r thi s missio n is give n b y Matthe w himsel f — namely , tha t "thos e wh o wer e invite d [were ] no t worthy " ( v 8) Here , onc e more , Matthew' s polemi c agains t th e natio n o f

Israe l fo r rejectin g God' s salvatio n come s t o th e fore . Fo r h e view s "th e one s invited " a s bein g "no t worthy, " whic h is a particularl y Matthea n concep t (cf . 3:8 ; 10:10 , 11, 13, 37 , 38) . A t th e sam e time , however , th e banque t remain s read y — tha t is, th e feas t o f salvatio n is ope n t o all thos e wh o wil l come So th e servants , wh o no w represen t th e post-destructio n apostle s an d Christia n missionaries , ar e sen t ou t a thir d time . Bu t thi s tim e the y ar e t o g o ou t int o th e environ s o f th e Gentile s ( diexodou s tön hodön, whic h suggest s road s goin g ou t o f th e cit y int o th e paga n world ) i n orde r t o fin d a s man y a s the y ca n fo r th e weddin g banque t prepare d b y th e kin g fo r hi s so n ( v 9)

Thi s thir d missio n is finall y successful , fo r "th e servant s wen t ou t int o th e street s an d gathere d all th e peopl e the y coul d find , bot h goo d an d bad , an d th e banque t hal l wa s fille d wit h guests " ( v 10) Her e is Matthew' s portraya l o f th e churc h a s a n ethnically mixe d body , fo r Gentile s ar e no w included . Israe l a s a natio n ha s refuse d th e invitatio n t o th e feast , ye t th e banque t hal l is eventuall y fille d wit h bot h Jew s an d Gentiles An d her e als o is Matthew' s portraya l o f th e churc h a s a n ethically mixe d body , whic h wil l continu e mixe d unti l th e en d o f th e ag e whe n evi l peopl e wil l b e separate d fro m th e goo d (cf 13:24-30 , 36-43 , 47-50 ; 25:31-33)

Ther e is, however , alway s a dange r tha t Christian s wil l thin k the y hav e bee n include d i n th e eschatologica l weddin g feas t simpl y becaus e the y wer e invite d o r "called. " S o Matthe w add s th e Parabl e o f th e Ma n withou t a Weddin g Garmen t (22:11-13) Thi s parabl e is probabl y a traditiona l one , thoug h som e scholar s thin k tha t Matthe w compose d it . Som e als o believ e tha t a pre-Matthea n edito r adde d thi s parabl e t o th e previou s one Bu t i t seem s mor e probabl e tha t it wa s Matthe w himsel f wh o joine d thes e tw o parable s together .

Th e joinin g o f thes e tw o parable s reflect s anothe r featur e i n Matthew' s concer n fo r th e church . Fo r th e appende d parabl e function s a s a warnin g fo r Christian s t o b e properl y "attired " — tha t is, t o produc e th e frui t o f righteousness . Lik e th e natio n Israel , th e churc h is als o subjec t t o judgment Som e member s may , i n fact , b e foun d lackin g a t th e eschaton Th e combinin g o f thes e parables , therefore , serve s t o se t ou t anothe r allegorica l scenari o regardin g th e histor y o f salvation , albei t thi s tim e a scenari o tha t extend s fro m th e cal l o f Israe l b y th e apostle s an d Christia n missionarie s u p t o th e fina l judgmen t o f Christians .

Th e statemen t i n 22:14 , tha t "man y ar e called , bu t fe w ar e chosen, " is no t onl y th e evangelist' s fina l sayin g i n concludin g thi s parable , bu t als o

W MARTEN S

serve s a s hi s final, climacti c conclusio n t o all thre e o f hi s judgmen t parable s i n 21:28-22:13 . I t applie s t o bot h th e Parabl e o f th e Weddin g Banque t an d th e Parabl e o f th e Weddin g Garment , sinc e th e first deal s wit h thos e wh o hav e bee n "called " whil e th e secon d concern s thos e wh o i n th e final judgmen t wil l b e "chosen. " I n effect , th e sayin g i n its immediat e contex t serve s a s a warnin g t o Christian s agains t a fals e sens e o f security . Bu t i t als o function s a s th e conclusio n t o Matthew' s trilog y o f judgmen t parables , fo r i t sum s u p th e evangelist' s mor e genera l vie w o f judgmen t vis-à-vi s Israe l namely , tha t Israel' s callin g canno t guarante e he r electio n t o salvation . Wha t is als o require d ar e suc h thing s a s (1 ) doin g th e Father' s wil l (th e Parabl e o f th e Tw o Sons) , (2 ) producin g frui t (th e Parabl e o f th e Wicke d Tenants) , (3 ) heedin g th e call t o salvation , wit h it s attendan t requirement s (th e Parable s o f th e Weddin g Banque t an d th e Weddin g Garment) , and , abov e all , (4 ) acceptin g Jesus , th e So n o f God . I n thes e matter s Israe l a s a natio n ha s failed , an d s o ha s bee n rejected .

5 . Jesus ' Meanin g an d Earl y Christia n Memor y

Give n th e editoria l shapin g tha t w e hav e see n i n Matthew' s presentatio n o f thes e parable s o f judgment , i t is understandabl e wh y i t is no t alway s eas y t o determin e Jesus ' origina l word s an d meaning . Mos t interpreters , therefore , tak e a stanc e somewher e betwee n th e extreme s o f sayin g eithe r tha t Jesu s spok e thes e parable s exactl y a s w e hav e the m i n ou r Gospel s o r tha t th e earl y churc h o r th e evangelis t wa s responsibl e fo r creatin g them . I n an y case , determinin g Jesus ' meanin g mus t b e carrie d ou t fo r eac h parabl e o n a n individua l basis .

Wit h regar d t o th e Parabl e o f th e Tw o Sons , th e materia l containe d i n Mat t 21:28b-3 1 — tha t is, th e stor y o f th e parabl e a s w e hav e it , minu s Matthew' s introductio n ( v 28a ) an d conclusio n ( v 32 ) — is ver y muc h lik e wha t w e woul d expec t fro m Jesus . I t is a simpl e stor y abou t a famil y an d a wor k situation , wit h th e poin t bein g tha t obedienc e is mor e importan t tha n mer e words . Th e punchlin e i n vers e 31 abou t ta x collector s an d prostitute s enterin g th e kingdo m o f Go d ahea d o f th e Jewis h leader s — presumabl y becaus e th e forme r peopl e hav e repente d an d obeyed , wherea s th e latte r grou p ha s no t — give s u s n o reaso n t o thin k tha t Jesu s di d no t appl y th e call t o obedienc e an d t o th e kingdo m i n thi s way

Th e Parabl e o f th e Wicke d Tenant s is muc h mor e complex . I n it s

presen t for m it is a full-blow n allegor y an d highl y christologica l i n it s application If on e wer e t o attemp t t o remov e late r allegorica l features , wher e woul d on e stop ? Fo r th e whol e parabl e is imbue d wit h a Christia n salvation-historica l poin t o f view . Th e sendin g o f servants , wit h tha t sendin g culminatin g i n th e sendin g o f th e landowner' s son , is essentia l t o th e parable . Th e mai n question , then , revolve s aroun d whethe r Jesu s woul d hav e tol d a parabl e tha t feature d hi s ow n person , especiall y a s th e So n o f God , a s th e mai n focu s o f th e story An d th e roo t o f th e issu e concern s th e messiani c consciousnes s o f Jesus .

Opinions , o f course , diffe r widely . Yet if Jesu s di d understan d hi s rol e i n salvatio n histor y a s bein g God' s So n an d humanity' s Savior , ther e is n o a priori reaso n tha t h e coul d no t hav e tol d a parabl e tha t pointe d t o God' s sendin g Ol d Testamen t prophet s an d finall y hi s ow n so n t o cal l Israe l t o repen t — wit h a threa t o f punishmen t included ! Suc h a n imag e o f Israel' s recalcitrance , despit e havin g messenger s repeatedl y sen t t o he r b y God , wa s par t o f a widesprea d traditio n tha t scholar s toda y ter m th e "deuteronomisti c vie w o f Israel' s history. "

Furthermore , th e proclamatio n o f judgmen t wa s no t somethin g ne w t o Jesus Th e proclaimin g o f judgmen t was , i n fact , a standar d featur e i n th e propheti c message . An d a s t o whethe r Jesu s himsel f adde d th e rejecte d ston e sayin g o f 21:4 2 t o th e imag e o f th e rejecte d so n — whic h is a matte r stil l hotl y debate d — ther e is n o questio n tha t Jesu s coul d hav e employe d th e pu n o n son (hen) an d stone (eben) b y usin g th e quotatio n fro m Ps 118:22-23 Yet sinc e th e quotatio n seem s t o hav e bee n a favorit e Ol d Testamen t tex t use d b y Christian s t o explai n th e meanin g o f Jesus ' rejectio n an d crucifixio n b y mean s o f hi s consequen t vindicatio n (se e Act s 4:11 ; 1 Pe t 2:7) , th e us e o f thi s tex t her e shoul d probabl y b e viewe d a s a late r interpretation .

Th e Parabl e o f th e Weddin g Banque t is als o colore d christologicall y an d strongl y allegorized , especiall y i n Matthew' s versio n wher e w e ar e dealin g wit h th e "weddin g banquet " o f th e "son " o f a "king. " Luke' s versio n is likel y close r t o th e versio n tha t wa s i n Q , thoug h Luk e ha s als o allegorize d th e stor y — particularl y wit h regar d t o th e secon d an d thir d mission s o f th e slave , wh o is sen t t o invit e Jewis h outcast s (th e poor , crippled , blind , an d lame ) an d the n Gentile s t o th e feast . Th e origina l Q wordin g o f th e parabl e is extremel y difficul t t o reconstruct , le t alon e wha t word s Jesu s himsel f migh t hav e said . Nevertheless , i t is ver y possibl e tha t Jesu s tol d a parabl e abou t someon e wh o invite d guest s t o a feast , onl y t o b e

ALLAN W MARTEN S

rejecte d — despit e th e cultura l tabo o tha t suc h a situatio n depicts . An d it is no t ou t o f th e questio n tha t Jesu s tol d o f th e ange r o f th e rejecte d hos t an d hi s actio n o f invitin g other s t o hi s feast , wit h a consequen t judgmen t o f th e firs t rejecters . Thi s scenari o is aki n t o wha t w e migh t call a "us e i t o r los e it " situation , thoug h wit h a n adde d threat . Moreover , it is entirel y possibl e tha t Jesu s applie d thi s situatio n t o th e real m o f th e kingdom , wit h th e poin t bein g tha t on e mus t respon d t o God' s graciou s offe r t o joi n th e "feas t o f salvation, " o r els e los e th e opportunit y an d fac e punishment . Th e disciple s o f Jesu s 110 doub t remembere d thes e parable s fro m th e

lip s o f thei r Lord , especiall y i n thei r argument s wit h othe r Jew s regardin g th e significanc e o f Jesus , who m the y confesse d t o b e Israel' s Messiah . Thu s the y woul d hav e appeale d t o Jesus ' ow n word s o f judgmen t o n thos e wh o refuse d t o obe y th e divin e will , t o produc e th e frui t o f righteousness , o r t o believ e th e messag e o f Joh n th e Baptis t an d Jesus . Bu t wit h th e benefi t o f hindsigh t an d a developin g theolog y abou t th e perso n an d meanin g o f Jesus , thes e earl y Christian s obviousl y fel t a measur e o f freedo m t o extrapolat e o n Jesus ' words , especiall y a s thos e word s coul d b e mad e t o focu s o n th e Jewis h rejectio n o f Jesu s himself An d s o i n Matthe w w e se e tha t th e evangelis t ha s ·—- sometime s subtl y an d sometime s blatantl y — interprete d Jesus ' word s t o highligh t th e Jewis h repudiatio n o f thei r Messiah

6 . Th e Parabl e o f th e Unproductiv e Fi g Tre e (Luk e 13:6-9 )

Literary and Theological Context

Unlik e th e contex t o f th e parable s i n Mat t 21:28-22:14 , wher e ther e is a distinctiv e literar y structur e an d unifie d theme , th e contex t o f th e Parabl e o f th e Unproductiv e Fi g Tre e i n Luk e 13:6- 9 is relativel y unstructure d an d mad e u p o f rathe r disparat e materials . Th e parabl e appear s onl y i n Luke' s Gospel , an d s o source-critica l question s ar e difficul t t o answer . Moreover , th e parabl e is foun d i n Luke' s so-calle d Trave l Narrativ e o f 9:51-19:27 , whic h focuse s o n Jesus ' goa l o f gettin g t o Jerusalem , th e cit y o f destiny . An d whil e th e reade r get s th e impressio n tha t Jesu s is goin g o n a journe y (cf . 9:51-56,57 ; 10:1,38 ; 11:53 ; 13:22,33 ; 17:11 ; 18:31,35 ; 19:1,11,28 ) — an d whil e ther e is a grea t dea l o f teachin g give n b y Jesu s i n thi s section , whethe r t o hi s disciples , t o th e crowd , o r t o hi s opponent s — "th e genera l theme s o f thi s section, " a s Howar d Marshal l ha s noted , "ar e har d t o define ,

an d i t is eve n mor e difficul t t o find an y kin d o f threa d runnin g throug h it " (The Gospel of Luke [Gran d Rapids : Eerdmans , 1978] , 401-2) .

Ther e are , o f course , judgmen t statement s tha t surroun d th e parabl e o f 13:6-9 , a s ca n b e foun d i n 12:49-59 ; 13:22-30 , 34-35 . Bu t thi s materia l doe s no t reall y she d ligh t o n th e parable' s interpretation . Rather , w e nee d t o loo k a t th e immediat e contex t i n 13:1- 5 fo r a n understandin g a s t o ho w t o interpre t th e parable .

Luke's Redactional Activity

I t is clea r tha t th e discussio n abou t "th e Galilean s whos e bloo d Pilat e ha d mixe d wit h thei r sacrifices " o f 13:1- 5 is mean t t o b e interprete d wit h th e parabl e o f 13:6-9 Yet th e exac t natur e o f th e relationshi p betwee n thes e tw o unit s is somewha t ambiguous D o Jesus ' word s i n verse s 2- 5 interpre t th e parable ? Or , doe s th e parabl e i n verse s 6- 9 illustrat e Jesus ' earlie r words ? A n analogou s situatio n prevail s i n othe r Luka n text s wher e Jesus ' teachin g is expande d i n paraboli c for m (cf. , e.g. , 10:27-2 9 an d 30-37 ; 11:910 an d 11-13 ; 12:14-1 5 an d 16-21 ; 12:54-5 7 an d 58-59 ; se e als o 11:1-4 ; 12:35 ; 15:1-2 ; 18:1; 19:11) Th e specifi c proble m here , however , is tha t whil e bot h unit s o f materia l war n abou t th e urgen t necessit y fo r repentance , th e first speak s merel y abou t th e nee d fo r a universa l repentanc e wherea s th e parabl e itsel f suggest s tha t grac e an d merc y ar e availabl e fo r thos e wh o repen t i n time .

I t is impossibl e t o determin e whethe r i t wa s Jesu s himsel f wh o originall y linke d thes e tw o unit s togethe r o r th e evangelis t Luk e wh o first mad e th e connection . Yet give n th e fact s (1 ) tha t Luk e ha s assemble d togethe r a grea t dea l o f disparat e materia l i n thi s sectio n an d (2 ) tha t th e tw o unit s hav e somewha t differin g lessons , it ma y b e surmise d tha t it wa s Luk e wh o wa s mainl y responsibl e fo r thei r bein g s o place d i n tandem . Vers e 6 make s th e connectio n betwee n th e tw o unit s onl y ver y loosel y b y th e transitiona l statement : "No w h e wa s sayin g thi s parabl e (elegen de tauten ten parabolēn)!'

Th e settin g fo r bot h Jesus'teachin g an d hi s parabl e i n 13:1- 9 is state d i n vers e 1: Som e peopl e cam e t o Jesus , wh o wa s probabl y stil l i n Galilee , t o tel l hi m abou t a n inciden t tha t too k plac e i n Jerusalem , wher e th e Roma n governo r Pilat e ha d massacre d certai n Galilea n Jew s a s thei r sacrificia l animal s wer e bein g slaughtere d a t th e temple . Pilate' s brutalit y is well-docu -

mente d b y Josephu s (cf Antiq 18:60-62,85-87 ; War 2:175-77) , thoug h thi s inciden t is no t atteste d b y an y othe r source . Judgin g b y Jesus ' response , wha t motivate d th e repor t wa s th e vie w tha t calamit y is alway s a punishmen t fo r si n (cf . Jo b 4:7 ; 8:20 ; 22:4-5 ; Joh n 9:1-2) . Jesus ' repl y i n verse s 25a , however , emphaticall y repudiate s suc h a notion . Thos e wh o suffere d thi s gruesom e catastrophe , Jesu s asserts , wer e no t wors e sinner s tha n others . The n Jesu s turn s th e questio n int o a solem n warning : "Unles s yo u repent , yo u to o wil l all perish! " ( v 5b)

Th e parabl e i n verse s 6- 9 the n take s u p th e idea s o f repentanc e an d perishing , thoug h unde r a differen t guise Th e threa t o f judgmen t is t o b e see n i n th e owner' s comman d t o cu t dow n th e unproductiv e fig tree . Fo r jus t a s a n unfruitfu l tre e is soone r o r late r cu t down , s o th e judgmen t o f Go d wil l com e o n peopl e wh o neve r produc e th e frui t o f repentance Th e situatio n presente d is reminiscen t o f th e Baptist' s message : "Th e a x is alread y a t th e roo t o f th e trees , an d ever y tre e tha t doe s no t produc e goo d frui t wil l b e cu t dow n an d throw n int o th e fire" (Luk e 3:9) .

Th e wor d "repent, " o f course , doe s no t appea r i n th e parable Nonetheless , th e ide a o f repentanc e is implie d b y th e fac t tha t judgmen t is stayed , thereb y givin g th e fig tre e (figuratively ) tim e t o repen t an d produc e goo d fruit . Th e ne w featur e o f th e parable , however , is th e emphasi s o n God' s patienc e an d mercy , fo r th e owne r let s th e gardene r tal k hi m int o allowin g th e fig tre e t o remai n fo r on e mor e yea r i n th e hop e tha t th e tre e wil l bea r frui t th e nex t year . An d s o th e twi n aspect s o f God' s judgmen t an d merc y becom e evident , wit h repentanc e bein g th e criterio n tha t determine s wha t Go d wil l met e out

Bu t th e questio n naturall y arises : I n wha t sens e ca n th e Parabl e o f th e

Unproductiv e Fi g Tre e b e viewe d a s directe d agains t th e nation ? Som e interpreters , o f course , d o no t se e nationa l implication s i n th e parabl e a t all

Yet ther e ar e severa l hint s tha t poin t i n tha t direction , an d s o mos t commentator s hav e understoo d Israe l i n som e sens e t o b e th e targe t o f Jesus ' warning On e hin t ca n b e foun d i n th e teachin g materia l tha t precede s th e parable , wher e calamitou s incident s ar e relate d abou t som e Galilean s bein g slaughtere d a t th e templ e ( v 2 ) an d certai n resident s o f Jerusale m bein g kille d whe n th e Towe r o f Siloa m fell o n the m ( v 4 ) — whic h calamitie s involv e peopl e fro m bot h Galile e an d Judea , an d s o ma y sugges t somethin g o f a nationa l perspective Mor e particularly , however , th e poin t is mad e tha t thos e victim s wer e no t wors e tha n all th e othe r Galilean s o r Jerusalemites , whic h suggest s tha t everyon e i n Israe l is a sinne r an d need s

t o repent . Furthermore , Jesu s reinforce s thes e suggestion s o f "all " i n hi s concludin g statemen t o f vers e 5: "Unles s yo u repent , all of you likewis e wil l perish. " I t is eve n possible , a s J. M . Cree d ha s observed , tha t Jesu s ha d her e i n min d no t th e destructio n i n th e worl d t o come , bu t th e destructio n o f

Jerusale m an d th e natio n a s a whol e ( Th e Gospel according to St. Luke [London : Macmillan , 1930] , 181) .

A secon d hin t o f nationa l judgmen t appear s i n th e parabl e itself . Fo r th e fi g tre e wa s a rathe r standar d symbo l fo r Israe l (cf . Isa 28:4 ; Je r 8:13 ; 24:1-8 ; Ho s 9:10 ; Mi c 7:1) , a s wa s als o th e vineyar d (cf . Isa 5:1-7 ; Ho s 9:10 ; Mi c 7:1) . Som e commentator s hav e gon e to o fa r i n interpretin g th e parable' s detail s b y positin g tha t th e vineyar d = Israel , th e fi g tre e = Jerusalem , th e gardene r = Jesus , an d th e thre e year s = Jesus ' ministry . Ther e is need , therefore , t o tak e seriousl y Earl e Ellis's word s whe n interpretin g thi s parable : "Som e allegorica l element s appea r i n Jesus ' parable s but , lik e th e subtl e feature s o f a painting , the y ar e mor e i n th e natur e o f hint s tha n o f precis e equations , mor e susceptibl e t o feelin g tha n analysis " (The Gospel of Luke, rev . ed . [London : Marshall , Morga n 8c Scott , 1974] , 185) . Th e mai n poin t o f th e parable , however , is clear : th e nee d fo r timel y repentance An d thi s poin t is equall y applicabl e t o individual s toda y a s i t wa s fo r th e natio n o f Israel

Jesus' Meaning and Early Christian Memory

Bot h th e teachin g o f verse s 1- 5 an d th e parabl e o f verse s 6- 9 wer e probabl y recorde d essentiall y a s Jesu s spok e them . Tha t th e parabl e is traditiona l is evidence d b y th e us e o f th e histori c presen t "h e says " (legei) i n vers e 8 (cf . Jeremias , Parables, 182-83) . Furthermore , tha t th e stor y stem s fro m th e religiou s folklor e o f th e Jew s is suggeste d b y it s paralle l t o th e Story of Ahikar 8:35 , whic h date s fro m a t leas t th e fift h centur y BCE — thoug h Jesus ' emphasi s o n God' s grac e an d mercy , a s wel l a s hi s judgment , differ s fro m Ahikar' s hars h repl y t o hi s so n Nadan' s ple a fo r patienc e i n tha t earlie r story :

I [Ahikar ] answere d an d sai d t o hi m [Nadan] , 'M y son , tho u has t bee n t o m e like tha t palm-tre e tha t stoo d b y a river, an d cas t all its frui t int o th e river, an d whe n it s lor d cam e t o cu t it down , i t sai d t o him , "Le t m e alon e thi s year, an d I will brin g the e fort h carobs. " An d it s lor d said unt o

it , "Tho u has t no t bee n industriou s i n wha t is thin e own , an d ho w wil t tho u b e industriou s i n wha t i s no t thin e own?" ' (8:35 )

Jesus ' Parabl e o f th e Unproductiv e Fi g Tre e a s a lesso n t o th e nation , a s wel l a s t o all wh o woul d hear , regardin g th e urgen t nee d fo r repentance , certainl y fit s i n wit h Jesus ' teachin g elsewher e — a s witness , fo r example , hi s announcemen t a t th e ver y beginnin g o f hi s ministry : "Th e tim e ha s come ! Th e kingdo m o f Go d is near ! Repen t an d believ e th e goo d news " i n Mar k 1:15; o r hi s Parabl e o f th e Tw o Son s (discusse d earlier ) i n Mat t 21:28-32 ; o r hi s condemnatio n o f Bethsaid a i n Luk e 10:13 , whos e resident s ha d see n Jesus ' miracle s bu t di d no t repent An d sinc e th e parabl e is no t christologicall y colored , i t pose s n o proble m t o critic s a s t o havin g bee n compose d later

Yet earl y Christian s probabl y sa w place s i n th e parabl e wher e late r interpretation s coul d b e made Fo r example , if th e barre n fi g tre e is t o b e cu t dow n becaus e i t use s u p th e soil , is ther e no t als o her e a hin t tha t anothe r vin e wil l b e plante d i n it s place ? An d if tha t poin t is mad e — eve n thoug h no t implie d i n th e stor y itsel f — th e parabl e coul d b e see n t o approac h th e sens e o f Mat t 21:43 : "Therefor e I tel l you , th e kingdo m o f Go d wil l b e take n awa y fro m yo u an d give n t o a peopl e wh o wil l produc e its fruits " (cf als o th e imager y o f "natura l branches " an d "engrafte d branches " i n Ro m 11:17) Likewise , i t is possibl e tha t th e earl y Christian s sa w i n th e parabl e a n allusio n t o th e rol e o f Jesus , a s represente d b y th e gardener , wh o plead s fo r a repriev e fro m th e judgmen t pronounce d agains t th e nation , a s represente d b y th e fi g tree

7 . Th e Parable s o f Judgmen t Toda y

Tw o matter s nee d t o b e recognize d an d deal t wit h whe n interpretin g thes e parable s o f judgmen t today . Th e firs t concern s th e hars h polemic , o r antiJudaism , tha t appear s i n them . Ho w ar e w e t o respon d t o this ? Fo r if thes e parable s no t onl y condem n th e Jewis h religiou s leader s o f th e day , bu t als o exten d tha t judgmen t t o th e natio n o f Israe l itself , doe s tha t the n giv e Christian s th e righ t t o condem n Jewis h peopl e en masse? Ou r answe r t o thi s is unequivocal : Certainl y not ! "Anti-Judaism, " whic h is a polemi c agains t th e religion o f Judaism , mus t neve r b e use d a s a n occasio n o r excus e fo r "anti-Semitism, " whic h is a racia l hatre d o f Jew s (and/o r othe r

Semites) . Bu t w e mus t the n tr y t o understan d wh y Matthew , i n particular , use d suc h hars h tone s agains t hi s ow n people

Perhap s th e bes t wa y o f understandin g th e hars h an d judgmenta l languag e o f thes e parable s — whic h is presen t i n all o f thei r appearances , bu t is especiall y prominen t i n thei r Matthea n redaction s — is t o se e it a s roote d i n a particula r sociologica l an d theologica l context . Fo r th e earlies t Jewis h believer s i n Jesu s wer e facin g ostracis m an d persecutio n b y thei r Jewis h compatriot s fo r subordinatin g th e majo r symbol s o f Jewis h identit y tha t is, Torah , temple , circumcision , Sabbath , an d dietar y law s — t o a positio n belo w th e crucifie d an d rise n Christ T o a n extent , therefore , th e hars h languag e o f thes e parable s ca n b e explaine d b y th e socia l situatio n tha t th e earl y Christian s face d a s the y sough t t o maintai n thei r ow n identit y a s a rejecte d people . Mor e importantly , however , Matthew' s rhetori c agains t th e natio n shoul d b e see n a s grounde d i n th e theologica l convictio n tha t if Jesu s is trul y Israel' s Messiah , the n thos e wh o rejec t Israel' s God-give n hop e fo r fulfillmen t wil l necessaril y b e judged . Thu s th e centra l issu e i n th e anti-Judais m polemi c o f thes e parable s o f judgmen t — jus t a s i t is throughou t all o f th e Ne w Testament , whateve r th e specifi c topi c bein g treate d — is christologica l i n nature .

Christian s toda y nee d t o b e extremel y sensitiv e t o issue s regardin g anti-Semitis m an d carefu l no t t o repea t th e sin s o f thei r forbears , man y o f who m wer e anti-Semite s i n blamin g th e deat h o f Jesu s o n th e Jewis h race . W e nee d t o develo p a hermeneuti c tha t allow s th e writer s o f th e Ne w Testamen t t o spea k t o issue s i n thei r ow n context s an d i n thei r ow n ways , bu t als o on e tha t doe s no t permi t u s t o mov e fro m "anti-Judaism " t o "antiSemitism. " Indeed , Matthe w ma y repor t tha t certai n Jewis h peopl e onc e said , "Le t hi s bloo d b e o n u s an d o n ou r children " (27:25) . Bu t tha t statemen t mus t no t b e take n a s equivalen t t o a decre e o f God ! Fo r Go d is no t onl y a Go d o f judgment , bu t als o a Go d o f grac e an d mercy . No r shoul d it b e use d a s a pretex t fo r a Christia n attitud e towar d others , whoeve r h e o r sh e migh t be !

A secon d matte r tha t need s t o b e highlighte d whe n considerin g thes e parable s o f judgmen t is ho w the y defin e th e concep t o f righteousness , particularl y whe n the y defin e righteousnes s i n term s o f doin g th e wil l o f God If th e Jewis h religiou s leader s — and , indeed , th e whol e natio n — wer e disobedien t t o th e wil l o f God , what , then , doe s it mea n t o b e righteous ? Wha t di d Jesu s wan t t o se e i n th e Jewis h leader s an d th e Jewis h peopl e tha t h e als o want s t o se e i n us ? Th e parable s themselve s ar e rathe r brie f o n thi s

matter . Wha t the y do , i n th e main , is t o se t ou t th e primar y respons e desire d — tha t is , th e acceptanc e o f Jesu s a s th e Messiah An d the y urg e God' s peopl e t o d o God' s will , whic h is define d a s a positiv e respons e t o God' s Messiah .

Othe r passage s i n Matthew' s Gospel , however , shoul d als o b e considere d whe n seekin g t o understan d furthe r ho w th e wil l o f Go d ca n b e accomplishe d i n ou r lives today . On e suc h passag e ha s t o d o wit h Joh n th e Baptist , a s foun d i n 3:1-12 . Ther e w e lear n tha t w e ma y begi n i n ou r understandin g o f righteousnes s b y heedin g hi s message , whic h was : "Produc e frui t worth y o f repentance " ( v 8) . A secon d passag e tha t shoul d b e considere d is th e so-calle d Sermo n o n th e Moun t i n 5:1-7:29 , wher e th e teachin g o f Jesu s regardin g righteousnes s is collate d fo r u s b y th e evangelis t Matthew . I n fact , o f Matthew' s seve n reference s t o "righteousness, " five appea r i n th e Sermo n o n th e Mount An d i n tha t sermo n Jesu s is presente d a s saying : "Unles s you r righteousnes s surpasse s tha t o f th e Pharisee s an d scribes , yo u wil l certainl y no t ente r th e kingdo m o f heaven " (5:20)

A thir d passag e i n Matthew' s Gospe l wher e th e meanin g o f doin g God' s wil l is mad e explici t is th e stor y o f th e ric h youn g ma n i n 19:16-22 , wh o is tol d tha t t o receiv e eterna l lif e h e mus t obe y th e commandments , b e willin g t o sell hi s possession s an d giv e t o th e poor , an d follo w Jesus . An d fo r a fourt h suc h passag e w e ma y poin t t o th e teachin g i n 23:2 3 a s a mode l o f wha t i t mean s t o d o God' s will Fo r thoug h se t i n a negativ e contex t o f woe s agains t th e scribe s an d Pharisees , Jesu s say s t o hi s hearers : "Yo u giv e a tent h o f you r spice s — mint , dill , an d cummin Bu t yo u hav e neglecte d th e mor e importan t matter s o f th e la w — justice , mercy , an d faithfulness You ough t t o hav e practice d th e latter , withou t neglectin g th e former. "

Th e dominan t issu e tha t come s t o th e for e i n all o f Jesus ' parable s o f judgmen t — whethe r a s presente d b y Matthe w alone , b y all thre e synopti c evangelist s together , b y Matthe w an d Luk e i n concert , o r b y Luk e alon e — is a christologica l issue . An d tha t sam e issu e face s u s a s squarel y toda y whe n readin g thes e parable s a s i t di d thos e wh o eithe r hear d o r rea d the m i n th e first century W e ar e challenge d b y th e Parabl e o f th e Tw o Son s (Mat t 21:28-32 ) t o follo w th e "wa y o f righteousness " b y believin g i n th e messag e o f Joh n th e Baptis t an d Jesus Th e Parabl e o f th e Wicke d Tenant s (Mat t 21:33-46 , par. ) urge s u s t o produc e th e fruit s o f righteousnes s b y acceptin g Jesus , th e So n o f God . Th e Parabl e o f th e Weddin g Banque t (Mat t 22:1-14//Luk e 14:15-24 ) call s o n u s t o mak e sur e tha t w e hav e actuall y responde d t o th e invitatio n t o th e feas t o f salvatio n an d ar e producin g th e

4

frui t o f righteousness . Finally , th e Parabl e o f th e Unproductiv e Fi g Tre e (Luk e 13:6-9 ) warn s u s t o produc e th e frui t o f repentanc e befor e i t is to o late .

A s i n th e day s whe n thes e parable s wer e originall y given , s o toda y Go d is givin g peopl e anothe r chance I t is foolhard y t o fly i n th e fac e o f divin e judgment ! An d i t is foolis h t o flou t God' s grace , patience , an d mercy !

Selecte d Bibliograph y

Blinzler , Josef "Di e Niedermetzelun g vo n Galiläe r durc h Pilatus, " Novum Testamentum 2 (1958 ) 24-49

Davies , W D. , an d Allison , Dal e C A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 3 vols Edinburgh : T 8c T Clark , 1988 , 1991 , 1996

Dillon , Richar d J "Toward s a Tradition-Histor y o f th e Parable s o f th e Tru e Israe l (Matthe w 21,33-22,14), " Biblica 4 7 (1966 ) 1-42

Dodd , C H The Parables of the Kingdom. London : Nisbet , 1935

Jeremias , Joachim The Parables of Jesus, trans S H Hooke 2n d rev ed Ne w York : Scribner's , 1972

Linnemann , Eta Parables of Jesus. Introduction and Exposition, trans J Sturdy London : SPCK ; Ne w York : Harpe r 8c Row , 1966

Manson , T W The Sayings of Jesus. London : SCM , 194 9 (firs t publishe d a s Par t II o f The Mission and Message of Jesus. London : SCM , 1937)

Marguerat , Daniel Le Jugement dans l'Évangile de Matthieu. Geneva : Edition s Labo r e t Fides , 1981

Martens , Alla n W "Th e Compositiona l Unit y o f Matthe w 21:12-24:2 : Redaction-Critical , Literar y Rhetorical , an d Themati c Analyses " (Th.D dissertation , Wycliff e College , Universit y o f Toronto , 1995)

Merkel , Helmut "Da s Gleichni s vo n de n 'ungleiche n Söhnen ' (Matt xxi.28-32), " New Testament Studies 2 0 (1974 ) 254-61

Ogawa , Akira "Parabole s d e l'Israë l véritable ? Reconsidératio n critiqu e d e M t xx i 28-xxi i 14," Novum Testamentum 2 1 (1979 ) 121-49

Smiga , Georg e M Pain and Polemic: Anti-Judaism in the Gospels. Ne w York : Paulist , 1992

Snodgrass , Klyn e R The Parable of the Wicked Tenants: An Inquiry into Parable Interpretation. Tübingen : Mohr-Siebeck , 1983

ALLAN W MARTEN S

Stanton , Graha m N . A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew. Edinburgh : Τ & Τ Clark , 1992 ; Louisville : Westminster/Joh n Knox , 1993 .

Strecker , Georg . Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit: Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthaus. Göttingen : Vandenhoec k & Ruprecht , 1962 , 1966 , 1971 .

Trilling , Wolfgang . "Zu r Überlieferungsgeschicht e de s Gleichnisse s vo m Hochzeitsmah l M t 22,1-14, " Biblische Zeitschrift A (1960 ) 251-65 . . Das Wahre Israel: Studien zur Theologie des Matthäusevangeliums, 3 Aufl . Munich : Kosel , 1964 .

CHAPTE R 8

O n Being Ready

(Matthew 25:1-46)

RICHAR D T . FRANC

E

MATTHEW' S GOSPE L is distinguishe d b y a serie s o f fiv e discourse s compile d fro m th e saying s o f Jesus Eac h discours e conclude s wit h th e formula : "An d it happened , whe n Jesu s ha d finishe d [thes e words] " (7:28 ; 11:1; 13:53 ; 19:1; 26:1) . It seem s tha t th e evangelis t ha s se t thes e fiv e discourse s int o hi s narrativ e as somethin g o f th e natur e o f fiv e commentarie s o n th e significanc e o f th e event s o f Jesus ' ministr y portraye d i n hi s Gospel . Th e fift h an d las t o f thes e discourses , tha t containe d i n Matthe w 2425 , is abou t th e future . It take s it s cu e fro m Jesus ' predictio n o f th e destructio n o f th e templ e i n 24:2 , whic h provoke s th e disciple s t o as k whe n tha t destructio n wil l happen . Bu t thei r questio n associate s wit h thi s imminen t historica l even t th e mor e far-reachin g hop e o f Jesus ' futur e "coming " (parousia) an d th e "en d o f th e age " (24:3) . An d th e discours e move s fro m th e first o f thes e event s t o th e second .

Jus t wher e i n th e discours e tha t chang e o f subjec t fro m a n imminen t historica l occurrenc e t o event s i n th e futur e take s plac e is a matte r o f dispute . I mysel f believ e it is no t unti l afte r 24:3 5 (se e m y Matthew commentary) . Bu t commentator s generall y agre e tha t fro m a t leas t 24:3 6 onward s it is Jesus ' futur e parousia tha t is i n view . An d jus t a s th e first par t o f th e discours e i n chapte r 2 4 ha s focuse d o n th e judgmen t o f Jerusale m an d its temple , s o als o th e secon d par t i n chapte r 2 5 carrie s a dominan t not e o f

RICHAR D T FRANC E

judgmen t whic h not e reache s it s clima x i n th e grea t universa l judgmen t scen e o f 25:31-46 . Mos t o f Matthe w 2 4 is roughl y parallele d i n th e shorte r discours e o f Mar k 13, thoug h i n Matthew' s Gospe l th e them e o f judgmen t is develope d mor e extensively . Non e o f Matthe w 25 , however , is parallele d i n Mark . On e o f th e componen t parable s o f th e secon d hal f o f Matthew' s discourse , tha t foun d i n 25:14-30 , ha s a paralle l o f sort s i n Luk e 19:12-27 , wher e it is recorde d separatel y fro m th e discours e abou t th e fat e o f th e templ e (cf . Luk e 21:5-36) . But , a s w e wil l see , th e difference s betwee n Mat t 25:14-3 0 an d Luk e 19:12-2 7 ar e a s strikin g a s ar e thei r similarities . To all intent s an d purposes , therefore , Matthe w 2 5 represent s Matthew' s uniqu e contributio n t o ou r knowledg e o f Jesus ' teachin g abou t futur e judgment . An d th e evangelis t doe s thi s b y th e inclusio n o f tw o parable s an d a n appende d tableau .

1 . Th e Contex t

Jesus ' parable s o n bein g read y fo r hi s comin g d o no t begi n i n Matthew' s Gospe l onl y a t 25:1 Alread y i n 24:43-5 1 tw o shor t parable s hav e underline d th e cal l t o b e read y fo r th e comin g o f th e Lor d a t a tim e whe n h e is no t expected I n 24:4 3 th e simpl e analog y o f a burglar , whos e succes s depend s o n th e elemen t o f surprise , provide s th e basi s fo r th e call i n 24:4 4 t o "b e ready. " The n i n 24:45-5 1 a rathe r mor e elaborat e parabl e underline s th e sam e point : A ma n goe s away , leavin g hi s slav e i n charg e o f hi s household , an d everythin g depend s o n wha t th e houseowne r find s whe n h e returns ; if th e hous e is i n goo d order , th e slav e wil l b e rewarded , bu t if h e ha s take n advantag e o f hi s master' s absenc e h e wil l b e caugh t ou t an d severel y punished .

Th e focu s i n thes e tw o mini-parable s is o n th e unexpectednes s o f Jesus ' futur e comin g — tha t is, th e burglar' s surpris e appearanc e an d th e master' s unannounce d return . Th e tim e o f th e Lord' s comin g is unknow n (24:36) It ca n b e prepare d fo r no t b y attemptin g t o calculat e th e date , bu t b y behavin g i n suc h a wa y tha t on e is read y whenever it ma y occur . I t is thi s them e tha t is take n u p an d develope d i n th e firs t parabl e o f chapte r 25 , tha t o f th e bridesmaid s i n 25:1-13 Th e parabl e o f th e talent s tha t follow s i n 25:14-3 0 take s u p th e them e agai n i n depictin g a maste r goin g awa y an d leavin g hi s slave s wit h responsibilitie s durin g hi s absence ,

an d th e differen t way s i n whic h the y acqui t themselve s unti l th e tim e o f hi s return Ther e ca n b e littl e doubt , therefore , o f th e intende d applicatio n o f thes e parable s a t th e poin t wher e the y occu r i n Matthew' s Gospel . Fo r Jesu s — havin g "gon e away " i n hi s death , resurrection , an d ascensio n t o heave n — wil l on e da y com e back Bu t n o on e know s whe n tha t wil l be Hi s disciple s mus t therefor e b e read y a t all times . If the y ar e not , ther e is th e prospec t o f judgment

Bu t th e cal l t o b e read y raise s th e importan t questio n regardin g wha t tha t readines s consist s of Jus t ho w is on e suppose d t o prepar e fo r th e unexpecte d comin g o f th e Lord ? A s w e wor k ou r wa y throug h chapte r 25 , thi s questio n become s mor e urgent . Throughou t th e chapter , i n fact , i t begin s t o receiv e a n answe r — though , admittedly , b y th e en d o f th e chapte r th e answe r ma y no t b e a s specifi c a s w e migh t wish .

I t ha s lon g bee n fashionabl e t o assum e tha t Jesus ' parable s hav e mostl y bee n adapte d b y th e first-century churc h t o addres s thei r ow n concerns , whic h ma y hav e bee n quit e differen t fro m th e thought s o f Jesu s himsel f o r th e reaction s o f hi s disciple s a t th e tim e whe n th e stor y wa s first told . Paul' s letter s leav e u s i n n o doub t tha t th e retur n o f Jesu s wa s a prominen t concer n o f Christia n congregation s i n th e middl e o f th e first century , an d tha t man y believe d i t woul d b e soon Th e relevanc e o f thes e parable s t o tha t concer n is obvious . A s year s wen t by , however , suc h a feelin g o f urgenc y ma y wel l hav e faded , wit h th e resul t tha t "parousi a delay " cam e t o loo m large r i n thei r consciousnes s tha n imminence Feature s havin g t o d o wit h th e dela y o f Jesus ' parousia ar e prominen t i n thes e parable s (cf . 24:48 ; 25:5 ; 25:19 , "afte r a lon g time") Thi s ma y reflec t a concer n o f churc h leader s tha t peopl e shoul d no t becom e complacent , sinc e i n eac h stor y th e delay is followe d b y a sudde n arrival .

Bu t th e relevanc e o f thes e storie s t o th e concern s o f th e middl e an d latte r par t o f th e first centur y doe s no t necessaril y mea n tha t the y wer e coine d then , eve n if the y wer e late r modifie d b y th e churc h t o spea k t o issue s regardin g th e dela y o f Christ' s parousia. Th e questio n is: Ca n th e focu s o f thes e storie s o n a futur e "coming " b e als o understoo d a s appropriat e t o th e settin g i n whic h Matthe w ha s place d the m — tha t is, immediatel y befor e th e cros s an d resurrectio n o f Jesus ? Ou r answe r t o thi s questio n depend s largel y o n whethe r w e accep t tha t Jesu s did , i n fact , teac h hi s disciples , whil e h e wa s stil l wit h them , tha t afte r hi s deat h an d resurrectio n h e woul d on e da y return Thi s belie f is s o firml y establishe d i n wha t is perhap s th e earlies t o f Paul' s letters , tha t is, i n hi s letter s t o hi s Thessalonia n

9

convert s (cf . esp . 1 Thes s 4:13-5:11 ; 2 Thes s 2:1-12) , tha t i t is har d t o explai n wher e else it coul d hav e com e fro m s o quickly

I n th e Gospel s w e hav e saying s o f Jesu s tha t spea k o f suc h a futur e even t — no t onl y i n th e discours e o f Matthe w 24-25 , bu t als o i n Luk e 12:35-48 ; 17:20-37 ; an d 18:8 . O n th e basi s o f suc h teaching , therefore , it is no t difficul t t o believ e tha t th e disciple s ha d alread y graspe d thi s parousia concep t sufficientl y t o nee d t o as k th e questio n tha t Matthe w attribute s t o the m i n 24:3 : "Tel l us , whe n wil l thi s happen , an d wha t wil l b e th e sig n o f you r comin g an d o f th e en d o f th e age? " An d if the y wer e alread y concerne d t o kno w th e tim e o f Jesus ' futur e coming , i t is n o surpris e that , havin g tol d the m tha t the y coul d no t kno w th e tim e o f i t (24:36) , h e wen t o n t o war n the m abou t th e nee d t o b e alway s read y fo r it Moreover , a prospec t o f judgmen t an d theme s regardin g reward s an d punishment s occu r frequentl y throughou t th e recorde d saying s o f Jesus . So thes e storie s o f Matthe w 2 5 dea l wit h matter s wit h whic h th e disciple s woul d no t hav e bee n unfamiliar .

Chapte r 2 5 consist s o f thre e units Tw o o f the m ar e parable s i n th e norma l sens e o f th e term . Th e thir d contain s a paraboli c imag e — tha t o f a shepher d separatin g shee p fro m goats I t is no t itself , however , a story-parable , bu t rathe r a magnificen t tablea u o f fina l judgment . I n all thre e unit s th e them e o f judgmen t is central .

2 . Th e Parabl e o f th e Bridesmaid s (25:1-13 )

Th e divisio n o f bridesmaid s int o tw o groups , th e "wise " an d th e "foolish, " pick s u p a contras t tha t is familia r fro m Jewis h wisdo m literatur e an d ha s alread y bee n se t ou t earlie r i n othe r parable s i n Matthew' s Gospe l — tha t o f th e "wise " an d "foolish " builder s i n 7:24-27 , an d o f th e "wise " an d "foolish " slave s i n 24:45-51 . I n thos e parables , a s here , th e "wise " — o r probabl y bette r th e "prudent, " whic h mor e accuratel y translate s th e Gree k wor d phonimos — ar e thos e wh o recogniz e th e nee d t o tak e actio n i n readines s fo r a comin g crisis , s o tha t the y wil l no t b e caugh t unprepared . Ou r knowledg e o f ancien t Palestinia n weddin g custom s is no t sufficien t fo r u s t o b e sur e jus t wh o th e "virgins " (parthenoi) woul d be . The y ma y hav e bee n attendant s o f th e bride , o r servant s i n th e bridegroom' s house , o r jus t friend s an d neighbors . Bu t thei r rol e i n th e ceremonie s wa s t o accompan y th e bridegroo m i n a torchligh t processio n int o "th e wed -

ding, " presumabl y th e marriag e feast . Thei r torche s ( lampades , whic h is no t th e sam e wor d use d fo r standin g "lamps " i n 5:15 ; 6:22 , an d elsewhere ) woul d probabl y b e bundle s o f oil-soake d rag s wrappe d o n a stick , s o tha t i t wa s necessar y t o carr y jar s o f oi l t o di p the m i n befor e lighting . Thos e girl s wh o ha d no t brough t oil wit h the m coul d no t religh t thei r torche s whe n the y drie d ou t whil e waitin g fo r th e bridegroom . Whe n hi s arriva l wa s announced , it wa s to o late An d thei r futil e attempt s t o ge t ne w supplie s i n tim e resulte d i n thei r missin g th e processio n an d bein g shu t ou t o f th e feast .

So thi s is , i n genera l terms , a stor y o f readines s an d unreadiness , wit h eithe r inclusio n o r exclusio n th e result . An y mor e specifi c identification s draw n fro m th e detail s o f th e stor y mus t b e mad e wit h care , an d onl y insofa r a s the y ca n b e justifie d fro m th e contex t i n whic h th e stor y is set Nonetheless , sinc e th e precedin g verse s hav e bee n abou t th e parousia o f Jesus , it seem s clea r tha t Jesu s is th e bridegroo m (a n imag e tha t h e ha d use d earlie r o f himself , a s depicte d no t onl y i n Mat t 9:1 5 bu t als o i n Mar k 2:2 0 an d Luk e 5:35) . An d if tha t is so , the n th e feas t t o whic h th e girl s wer e invite d woul d naturall y b e see n i n th e ligh t o f th e Jewis h hop e o f th e "messiani c banquet, " whic h woul d tak e plac e whe n th e Messia h come s (cf . Mat t 8:1112; 22:1-14) So muc h seem s require d b y th e story' s context Bu t th e effec t o f th e parabl e doe s no t depen d o n ou r discernin g a specifi c meanin g i n th e oil ; no r o f identifyin g th e girls , whethe r wis e o r foolish , a s a particula r grou p i n th e church Still les s d o w e nee d t o explai n th e lac k o f an y mentio n o f th e bride .

I t may , however , b e appropriat e t o notic e certai n detail s i n th e wa y th e stor y is tol d tha t d o no t see m t o b e require d b y th e mai n stor y line , sinc e suc h detail s ma y hin t a t th e wa y th e stor y wa s mean t t o b e understood . On e suc h detai l is th e emphasi s place d o n th e bridegroom' s delay . Th e inclusio n o f thi s detai l shoul d probabl y b e take n as a n acknowledgmen t tha t tim e ha d passe d sinc e Jesu s promise d t o return Mor e importantly , it probabl y shoul d b e see n a s a recognitio n tha t th e churc h neede d guidanc e o n ho w t o live i n wha t seeme d t o b e a n unlimite d interi m period

Durin g tha t dela y all th e girl s go t o sleep , no t merel y th e foolis h ones . So readines s doe s no t consis t i n livin g i n a constan t stat e o f "re d alert. " Lif e mus t g o o n i n th e interim ; an d provisio n fo r th e parousia o f Jesu s depend s rathe r o n havin g mad e preparatio n beforehan d s o tha t on e ca n safel y g o t o sleep , secur e i n th e knowledg e tha t whe n th e tim e come s everythin g wil l b e i n place . Thi s tallie s no t s o muc h wit h th e Parabl e o f th e Burgla r i n 24:43 ,

RICHAR D T FRANC E

whic h seem s t o requir e stayin g awake , a s i t doe s wit h th e Parabl e o f th e Slav e i n 24:45-5 1 — whos e "readiness " wa s no t i n constantl y sittin g b y th e door , bu t i n gettin g o n wit h th e jo b h e ha d bee n give n t o do . W e wil l hea r a simila r not e i n th e Parabl e o f th e Talents , wher e th e faul t o f th e thir d slav e wa s i n hi s doin g nothin g rathe r tha n bein g activel y involve d i n everyda y business .

Th e unsuccessfu l attemp t o f th e foolis h girl s t o borro w fro m th e wis e ma y b e n o mor e tha n dramati c storytelling Bu t th e mora l woul d b e easil y draw n tha t "readiness " is somethin g fo r whic h eac h o f u s is responsibl e — tha t is , tha t w e canno t b e passenger s o n anothe r person' s readiness . Th e apparen t selfishnes s o f th e wis e is no t th e poin t o f th e story Rather , a s Davi d Garlan d point s out : "Th e parabl e is a n allegor y abou t spiritua l preparedness , no t a lesso n o n th e golde n rule " ( Readin g Matthew, 240)

Th e clima x o f th e stor y come s a t th e en d o f vers e 10 whe n th e doo r is shut Ther e is a gri m finalit y abou t thi s shuttin g o f th e banque t doo r tha t is unlikel y t o reflec t th e bonhomie , o r genera l atmospher e o f geniality , usuall y associate d wit h a villag e weddin g ceremony N o doub t i n rea l lif e th e patheti c appea l o f th e foolis h girl s i n vers e 11 woul d hav e me t wit h a mor e sympatheti c response . Bu t th e stor y is increasingl y losin g th e contour s o f everyda y lif e an d takin g o n th e dimension s o f th e fina l judgment Fo r th e girl s appea l t o th e bridegroom , rathe r tha n t o th e porter , wit h th e cry : "Lord ! Lord! " — thereb y echoin g th e appea l o f thos e wh o i n 7:2 2 hav e claime d thei r righ t o f entr y t o th e kingdo m o f heave n o n th e basi s o f thei r charismati c achievements . Furthermore , th e bridegroo m answer s the m i n almos t th e sam e word s a s directe d t o evildoer s o n th e da y o f fina l judgment , a s give n i n 7:23 : " I neve r kne w you! " Thei r unreadiness , th e stor y suggests , consiste d no t i n wha t the y di d o r di d no t do , bu t i n a failur e o f relationship An d so , a s i n Jesus ' teachin g i n 7:21-23 , wha t ultimatel y decide s whethe r on e is insid e o r outsid e th e doo r is bein g know n b y th e bridegroom

To thi s alread y comple x se t o f criteri a fo r inclusio n — tha t is, (1 ) oil , whateve r i t is; (2 ) bein g ther e whe n i t counts ; an d (3 ) bein g know n b y th e bridegroo m — vers e 13 add s anothe r tha t seem s entirel y incongruous : tha t o f remainin g awake Thi s is jus t wha t neithe r th e wis e no r th e foolis h di d i n th e story . I t echoes , rather , th e languag e o f 24:42-44 , an d s o shoul d perhap s b e understoo d a s a cod a t o th e whol e sectio n o f 24:36-25:1 2 rathe r tha n a summar y o f th e stor y o f th e bridesmaid s specifically . I t revert s t o th e Parabl e o f th e Burgla r i n orde r t o reinforc e th e cal l t o b e read y

b y mean s o f a complementary , thoiig h literall y a n incompatible , metaphor

Th e effec t o f thi s story , then , is t o stres s th e nee d t o b e read y fo r a "coming " tha t wil l b e a t a n unexpecte d time Furthermore , th e stor y suggest s tha t amon g thos e wh o t o all outwar d appearance s wer e all i n th e sam e categor y (i.e. , te n girl s sleepin g togethe r b y th e roadside ) ther e is, i n fact , a fundamenta l divisio n betwee n thos e wh o wer e read y an d thos e wh o wer e unready , an d tha t thi s divisio n ha s eterna l consequence s fo r thei r contrastin g destinie s — tha t is, eithe r sharin g th e feas t wit h th e bridegroo m o r wailin g unavailingl y outsid e th e close d door

Bu t th e questio n a s t o ho w tha t readines s is t o b e understoo d ha s no t ye t bee n clearl y answered . Th e answe r suggeste d b y th e word s o f th e bridegroo m invers e 12, " I don' t kno w you, " seem s strangel y ou t o f keepin g wit h th e wa y th e res t o f th e stor y is told To carr y a ja r o f oil look s mor e lik e som e sor t o f providen t preparatio n fo r a comin g crisis . Bu t wha t sor t o f preparation ? Th e parabl e tha t follow s goe s a t leas t par t o f th e wa y i n providin g a n answer . 3 . Th e Parabl e o f th e Talent s (25:14-30 )

Befor e considerin g th e Parabl e o f th e Talent s a s foun d i n Matthew , w e mus t not e tha t i n Luk e 19:11-2 7 ther e appear s a parabl e tha t is clearl y a versio n o f th e sam e stor y — a n absen t maste r givin g hi s slave s mone y t o us e i n hi s absence ; tw o o f th e slave s tradin g wel l an d bein g rewarded ; on e slave , claimin g t o fea r hi s master' s know n rapaciousness , keepin g th e mone y safe , bu t bein g punishe d becaus e o f hi s lac k o f enterpris e — wit h som e o f th e sam e dialogu e (cf . Mat t 25:21a , 24,26-27,2 8 an d Luk e 19:17a , 21 , 22-23 , 24 ) an d th e sam e interpretativ e comment s (cf . Mat t 25:2 9 an d Luk e 19:26) . Luke' s version , however , is ver y differen t i n th e detail s o f th e stor y itsel f — tha t is , a nobleman , te n slaves , muc h smalle r sum s o f money , all receiv e th e sam e amount , varyin g rate s o f return , proportionat e governorshi p o f citie s a s a reward , mone y wrappe d i n a cloth . Furthermore , it is expande d wit h th e apparentl y unrelate d theme s o f th e noblema n seekin g t o hav e himsel f appointe d a king , a delegatio n o f hi s disaffecte d subject s voicin g thei r oppositio n t o hi s appointment , an d thei r ultimat e annihilation . Moreover , th e settin g o f th e stor y i n Luk e is no t i n th e contex t o f a discours e abou t th e futur e (a s foun d i n Luk e 21) , bu t jus t befor e Jesus ' ar -

RICHAR D T FRANC E

riva l a t Jerusale m an d becaus e "th e peopl e wer e thinkin g tha t th e kingdo m o f Go d wa s abou t t o appea r immediately " (Luk e 19:11)

Thos e word s o f introductio n i n Luk e 19:1 1 sugges t tha t th e them e o f "parousi a delay " is importan t fo r Luke' s version Th e dela y i n Luk e is relate d t o th e appearanc e o f th e kingdo m o f Go d rathe r than , a s i n Matthew' s context , t o th e parousia hop e — thoug h i t is no t difficul t t o detec t thi s latte r moti f i n th e Luka n symbolis m o f th e nobleman' s retur n a s a king . I n Luke , a s i n Matthew , however , th e essentia l messag e seem s t o b e tha t th e perio d o f waitin g mus t b e use d responsibly , thoug h th e theme s o f kingshi p an d rebellio n introduc e ne w dimension s t o th e parabl e tha t d o no t si t ver y comfortabl y wit h th e story' s mai n them e (somewha t similar , it appears , t o th e wa y tha t th e king' s militar y expeditio n intrude s int o th e Parabl e o f th e Grea t Suppe r i n Mat t 22:1-14) .

Mos t commentator s believ e tha t Luke' s versio n represent s a late r adaptatio n an d expansio n o f Jesus ' parable Bu t th e difference s betwee n th e tw o version s — eve n i n th e basi c stor y lin e — ar e suc h tha t here , if anywhere , w e shoul d tak e seriousl y th e possibilit y tha t Jesu s himsel f ma y hav e retol d th e stor y wit h difference s o n anothe r occasion , thereb y givin g ris e t o tw o separat e parabl e traditions , an d tha t thes e tw o separat e telling s foun d thei r wa y ultimatel y int o th e account s o f Matthe w an d Luk e respectively I t is remarkabl e ho w resistan t som e Ne w Testamen t scholar s ar e t o th e possibilit y tha t Jesus , i n th e cours e o f severa l month s o r eve n year s o f publi c ministry , ma y hav e use d an d reuse d simila r materia l a numbe r o f time s wit h differen t audience s an d fo r differen t purposes . An y preache r coul d hav e tol d the m tha t thi s is th e mos t natura l scenari o i n th e world !

Ou r focu s here , however , mus t b e o n Matthew' s versio n o f th e story , th e Parabl e o f th e Talents , a s i t relate s t o th e overal l effec t o f th e parable s i n th e latte r par t o f th e discours e abou t th e future Like th e precedin g parable s o f th e slav e lef t i n charg e an d o f th e bridesmaids , i t speak s o f a perio d o f waitin g befor e th e master' s return , an d i t call s o n thos e wh o hea r t o b e read y whe n h e comes Bu t thi s tim e ther e is mor e emphasi s o n wha t th e slave s hav e done , o r shoul d hav e done , durin g th e master' s absence . An d it is thi s focu s tha t take s u s furthe r tha n th e previou s parable s towar d a n understandin g o f wha t it mean s t o "b e ready. "

Th e stor y is o f a wealth y ma n wh o durin g a n absenc e fro m hom e leave s ver y larg e sum s o f mone y wit h hi s slaves A talen t wa s normall y reckone d a s 6,00 0 denarii . An d sinc e i n Mat t 20: 2 a denariu s is a n acceptabl e day' s pa y fo r a laborer , a talen t presumabl y represent s somethin g lik e

twent y years ' wages . So th e ma n wh o receive s fiv e talent s is handlin g mor e tha n h e coul d hav e expecte d t o ear n i n a lifetime ! Thi s is seriou s money ! Th e purpos e o f thi s allocatio n o f mone y t o hi s slave s is no t state d i n Matthew , a s i t is i n Luk e 19:1 3 ("Trad e wit h it unti l I com e back") . Bu t th e seque l make s it clea r tha t th e maste r expecte d — an d tha t th e slave s kne w h e woul d expec t — tha t the y woul d fin d mean s o f increasin g it durin g hi s absence

Th e focu s o f th e stor y is o n th e contrastin g achievement s an d fate s o f th e firs t tw o slave s i n compariso n wit h th e third An d sinc e th e thir d — lik e th e ba d slav e o f 24:48-5 1 an d th e foolis h girl s o f 25:8-1 2 — is deal t wit h a t greate r lengt h tha n thos e wh o succeeded , it seem s clea r tha t it is hi s exampl e tha t w e ar e particularl y mean t t o notic e an d t o hee d a s a warning I t is i n th e differenc e betwee n hi s actio n (o r lac k o f it ) an d th e action s o f th e firs t tw o slave s tha t w e wil l find th e ke y t o "bein g ready. "

Th e first tw o slave s "trade d with " ( ergazoma i en, literall y "t o wor k in" ) th e mone y the y ha d receive d an d "gained " ( kerdainö , "t o gain , mak e a profit" ) a on e hundre d percen t profit Th e natur e o f thei r tradin g is no t specified , an d is no t important . I t wa s apparentl y somethin g mor e productiv e — probably , a s well , mor e risk y — tha n merel y placin g it o n deposi t wit h a bank , sinc e th e master' s commen t i n vers e 2 7 suggest s tha t depositin g it wit h a ban k woul d hav e resulte d i n onl y a minima l gain . Bu t eve n tha t woul d hav e bee n bette r tha n nothing

Th e thir d slave , however , playe d i t safe Merel y tyin g mone y u p i n a clot h (a s i n Luk e 19:20 ) wa s regarde d as inadequat e security , renderin g a truste e liabl e t o mak e goo d whateve r wa s los t o r stole n (cf Mishnah, Baba Metzia 3:10) . Bu t thi s slav e wen t fo r maximu m security , an d s o hi d hi s master' s mone y i n th e groun d (25:25) . A late r Rabb i is reporte d t o hav e declare d that , sinc e banker s coul d no t b e trusted : "Mone y ca n b e guarde d onl y b y placin g it i n th e earth " ( Babylonia n Talmud, Baba Metzia 42a ; thoug h se e Jesus ' parabl e i n Mat t 13:4 4 fo r wha t migh t happe n eve n t o mone y burie d i n th e earth) . I n a perio d fre e o f inflation , th e slav e apparentl y viewe d hi s actio n a s bein g pruden t an d a s guaranteein g tha t hi s maste r woul d incu r n o loss

Yet hi s prudenc e is condemne d a s timidity . Th e maste r require s profit , no t jus t th e retur n o f hi s capital Th e slave' s portraya l o f hi s maste r a s graspin g an d unreasonabl e wa s mean t t o justif y hi s caution , s o a s t o avoi d punishmen t fo r los s o f th e deposit . Bu t it , i n fact , is turne d agains t him , fo r a graspin g maste r is no t goin g t o b e satisfie d wit h a ni l profit As

i n othe r parable s (notabl y Luk e 11:5-8 ; 18:2-5) , wher e a n unattractiv e huma n trai t is use d t o illustrat e th e characte r o f God , w e nee d no t assum e a simpl e allegorica l equivalence . Th e messag e is no t tha t Go d is a "rapaciou s capitalist " (F. W . Beare , Matthew, 486) , bu t tha t h e is no t satisfie d wit h inaction T o pla y i t saf e an d kee p one' s slat e clea n is no t enough Go d look s fo r mor e tha n " a religio n concerne d onl y wit h no t doin g anythin g wrong " (E Schweizer , Matthew, 473) Discipleshi p i n th e kingdo m o f heave n is no t a matte r o f safet y bu t o f risk , o f losin g lif e i n orde r t o gai n it (cf Mat t 10:39 ; 16:25-26) .

What , then , d o th e talent s represent ? Wha t sor t o f "trading " is require d o f disciple s i n th e interi m perio d befor e thei r Lor d returns ? Her e w e mus t pu t ou t o f ou r mind s th e meanin g o f th e Englis h wor d "talent. " Fo r th e Gree k talanton mean s a larg e su m o f money , an d nothin g more I t doe s no t carr y withi n it an y necessar y indicatio n o f wha t suc h a su m represents . Th e metaphorica l us e o f "talent " i n Englis h fo r "innat e ability , aptitude , o r faculty " (Collins ' English Dictionary) derive s no t fro m th e meanin g o f th e Gree k wor d bu t fro m subsequen t interpretation s o f thi s parable , o n th e assumptio n tha t tha t wa s wha t th e sum s o f mone y wer e intende d t o represent Bu t th e Gree k ter m ha s n o suc h meaning I n th e contex t o f Jesus ' ministry , an d especiall y o f th e expectatio n o f hi s return , i t is unlikel y tha t w e ar e intende d t o thin k o f wha t w e no w cal l "talents " — tha t is, th e genera l aptitude s an d abilitie s tha t peopl e hav e a s natura l endowment s o r a s a resul t o f thei r variou s environments Jesus ' centra l messag e wa s abou t th e kingdo m o f Go d (or , a s Matthew' s wordin g ha s it , "th e kingdo m o f heaven") . Consequently , i n Matthew' s Gospel , particularl y i n th e Sermo n o n th e Moun t o f chapter s 5-7 , discipleshi p is portraye d a s a styl e o f lif e peculiarl y appropriat e t o tha t divin e regim e — tha t is, a s th e distinctiv e value s an d commitment s o f thos e wh o hav e bee n calle d t o follo w Jesu s an d wh o hav e a Fathe r i n heaven . An d i n 13:11-1 7 Jesu s is presente d a s makin g a ringin g declaratio n o f th e specia l privileg e enjoye d b y hi s disciples , whic h is a privileg e tha t ha s bee n denie d t o man y prophet s an d righteou s peopl e befor e them . Fo r t o th e disciples , bu t no t t o th e crowd s a t larg e wh o cam e merel y t o hea r Jesus ' teaching , ha s bee n entruste d th e "secret s o f th e kingdo m o f heaven. " S o havin g receive d suc h a privilege , the y ar e expecte d t o exploi t i t i n th e servic e o f thei r master , fo r "muc h wil l b e expecte d o f thos e t o who m muc h ha s bee n given " (Luk e 12:48) .

Th e primar y meanin g o f th e talents , therefore , ha s t o d o wit h th e

specia l privilege s an d opportunitie s entruste d t o Jesus ' disciple s a s subject s o f th e kingdo m o f heaven Whe n th e maste r goe s away , i t is thei r responsibilit y no t t o wai t i n piou s idlenes s bu t t o ge t o n wit h th e jo b h e ha s entruste d t o them . H e wil l leav e behin d grea t potential . Bu t h e expect s tha t potentia l t o b e develope d throug h th e faithfu l discipleshi p o f hi s people

Th e differen t sum s give n t o th e thre e slave s ma y b e n o mor e tha n goo d storytelling . Still , perhap s w e ar e intende d t o not e tha t no t everyon e ha s th e sam e opportunitie s an d abilitie s t o achiev e result s fo r th e kingdo m o f heave n (cf th e differen t rate s o f yiel d o f th e goo d see d i n 13:8) , an d tha t th e result s expecte d wil l b e proportionat e t o th e initia l endowmen t (cf . th e teachin g o n varie d gift s i n suc h passage s a s Ro m 12:3-8 ; 1 Co r 12:4-11 ; an d Ep h 4:7-13) . It is, therefore , a n encouragemen t t o fin d tha t th e commendation s give n t o eac h o f th e firs t tw o slave s i n verse s 2 1 an d 2 3 ar e identical , eve n thoug h th e sum s involve d differed Afte r all , 100 percen t is 100 percent , eve n if th e initia l capita l sum s varied !

Whil e growt h is a recurren t them e i n th e Parable s o f th e Kingdo m o f

Heave n i n Matthe w 13, a n impressio n coul d easil y b e draw n fro m thos e parable s tha t growt h is automati c — tha t is , tha t th e goo d see d wil l develo p b y it s ow n power , an d all tha t me n an d wome n hav e t o d o is t o wai t fo r th e outcome . Bu t th e Parabl e o f th e Talent s refine s th e ide a o f growt h b y changin g th e metaphor Fo r jus t a s see d grows , s o doe s money Yet it doe s no t gro w b y it s ow n efforts , bu t onl y a s peopl e pu t it t o use . Fo r unlik e seed , mone y burie d i n th e groun d wil l no t grow So if th e tin y mustar d see d is , indeed , t o becom e a grea t bush , i t wil l b e becaus e disciple s hav e bee n makin g i t grow . Thes e tw o paraboli c metaphors , o f course , ar e no t linke d togethe r i n th e sam e story , bu t b y takin g not e o f the m sid e b y sid e a creativ e fusio n is achieved .

Th e interva l betwee n Jesus ' initia l sowin g o f th e see d an d hi s ultimat e retur n t o collec t th e harves t is , therefore , no t t o b e see n a s on e o f passive waitin g (a s th e parabl e o f Mar k 4:26-29 , take n o n it s own , migh t suggest) . Rather , it is a tim e fo r enterpris e an d initiativ e o n th e par t o f thos e wh o hav e bee n calle d t o follo w Jesus , an d h e wil l expec t results Thu s t o b e read y fo r hi s comin g is t o b e activ e o n behal f o f th e kingdo m o f heave n an d t o hav e result s t o sho w fo r it . I t is t o sho w initiativ e an d t o tak e risk s i n orde r t o achiev e somethin g fo r God Thos e wh o hav e caus e t o fea r hi s comin g ar e thos e wh o hav e no t mad e us e o f th e opportunitie s an d privilege s entruste d t o them , wh o hav e burie d thei r mone y i n th e ground , an d s o achieve d nothin g fo r th e kingdo m o f heave n — or , t o ech o anothe r par -

RICHAR D T FRANC E

able , wh o hav e hidde n thei r lam p unde r a meal-tub , wit h th e resul t tha t n o on e ha s bee n abl e t o se e thei r ligh t an d s o bee n draw n t o giv e glor y t o thei r Fathe r i n heave n (5:15-16) . Fo r the m ther e wil l b e n o "Wel l done! "

I t is a t th e leve l o f reward s an d punishment s that , a s i n th e tw o precedin g parable s o f th e slav e lef t i n charg e an d th e te n bridesmaids , th e applicatio n invade s th e tellin g o f th e story . Fo r "Ente r int o you r master' s joy! " ( w 21 , 23 ) hardl y ring s tru e a s a real-lif e businessman' s respons e t o hi s slaves ' successes Thi s is no t th e languag e o f commercia l transactions , bu t o f th e kingdo m o f heave n — o f th e messiani c banque t tha t is foreshadowe d i n 8:1 1 an d symbolize d i n th e weddin g feas t int o whic h th e fiv e wis e girl s wer e welcome d i n th e previou s parabl e a t 25:10 Joachi m Jeremia s ha s suggeste d tha t "joy " represent s a n Aramai c wor d tha t ca n als o mea n "banquet " ( Parables , 60) Bu t thi s seem s a n unnecessaril y prosai c wa y o f reinforcin g wha t is alread y a fairl y obviou s symbolism .

Likewise , th e languag e o f vers e 30 , "thro w tha t worthles s servan t int o oute r darkness , wher e ther e wil l b e weepin g an d gnashin g o f teeth, " goe s fa r beyon d th e dismissa l o f a n unsatisfactor y servant Th e "oute r darkness " an d th e "weepin g an d gnashin g o f teeth " ech o th e word s o f 8:1 2 an d 22:13 , whic h describ e th e fat e o f thos e wh o fai l t o qualif y fo r th e messiani c banque t (cf als o 13:42 , 50 ; 24:51 , wher e "weepin g an d gnashin g o f teeth " is use d i n connectio n wit h parable s abou t th e fat e o f thos e rejecte d a t th e fina l judgment) Suc h languag e is no t th e languag e o f huma n transaction s an d employment , bu t traditiona l Jewis h languag e o f th e ultimat e fat e o f th e ungodly .

Anothe r curiou s touc h tha t sit s uncomfortabl y withi n th e framewor k o f th e stor y o f thi s parabl e is th e comman d i n vers e 2 8 t o tak e th e thir d slave' s carefull y preserve d talen t an d giv e i t t o th e slav e wh o no w ha s te n talents . Th e stor y wa s o f slave s wh o wer e expecte d t o trad e fo r thei r master' s benefit , no t thei r own , an d th e rewar d promise d i n verse s 2 1 an d 2 3 is no t persona l gai n bu t furthe r responsibility S o i t is surprisin g t o fin d tha t th e successfu l slav e is no w no t onl y allowe d t o kee p bot h th e capita l an d th e profit , rathe r tha n retur n the m t o hi s master , bu t als o give n a furthe r persona l bonu s a t th e expens e o f hi s les s successfu l colleague .

I n Luk e 19:2 4 th e sam e comman d is given , and , understandably , it provoke s a shocke d protest : "Lord , h e alread y ha s te n pounds! " (19:25) But , again , w e nee d t o remembe r tha t a parabl e is no t mean t t o b e a mirro r o f rea l life . Whe n incongruou s feature s occur , the y usuall y appea r i n orde r t o introduc e additiona l point s o f application An d her e i n Matthe w 2 5 thi s

strang e featur e is explaine d b y th e sayin g t o whic h i t give s ris e i n vers e 29 : "T o all thos e wh o have , mor e wil l b e give n s o tha t the y hav e mor e tha n enough ; fro m thos e wh o d o no t have , eve n wha t the y hav e wil l b e take n away."

Thi s epigra m occur s i n a numbe r o f place s i n th e Gospel s (cf . Mat t 13:12 ; also , thoug h i n a differen t setting , Mar k 4:2 5 an d Luk e 8:18) . Bu t it doe s no t fi t ver y neatl y wit h th e parabl e here . Fo r th e focu s o f th e stor y u p t o vers e 2 7 wa s no t o n th e persona l gai n o f th e firs t tw o slaves . Furthermore , th e thir d slav e wa s no t destitute , bu t stil l ha d on e talent . I t is th e additio n o f vers e 28 , however , tha t ha s allowe d th e epigra m t o b e introduced , thereb y addin g a relate d bu t separat e mora l base d o n a principl e o f capitalis t economic s — tha t is , tha t capita l breed s income , bu t a lac k o f capita l spell s ruin . So also , th e parabl e teaches , ther e is rewar d fo r th e spirituall y successful , bu t disaste r fo r th e spirituall y bankrupt . Th e kingdo m o f heave n is, i t seems , a n enterpris e culture , wit h n o plac e accorde d fo r mer e passengers . Th e Parabl e o f th e Talents , therefore , develop s th e them e o f "bein g ready " b y spellin g ou t a littl e mor e concernin g wha t is expecte d o f disciple s i n th e perio d befor e thei r Lor d returns Jus t a s th e slav e o f 24:4 6 wa s commende d an d rewarde d fo r bein g har d a t wor k whe n hi s maste r returned , so thi s parabl e call s follower s o f Jesu s t o responsibl e activit y — or , i n th e imager y o f th e parabl e itself , t o maximiz e one' s potentia l fo r th e benefi t o f th e kingdo m o f heaven An d jus t a s th e fiv e wis e bridesmaid s wer e no t caugh t ou t becaus e the y ha d alread y mad e sur e o f thei r oil supply , s o follower s o f Jesu s ar e expecte d no t t o si t an d watc h bu t t o mak e preparations

Ou r "readiness " consist s i n havin g faithfull y an d boldl y discharge d ou r responsibilitie s a s disciples , whethe r the y hav e bee n smal l o r great I t is th e maste r wh o allocate s th e scal e o f responsibility ; it is th e slave' s responsibilit y t o carr y ou t faithfull y th e rol e tha t ha s bee n entrusted Th e visio n tha t follow s i n 25:31-4 6 spell s ou t mor e explicitl y wha t a t leas t par t o f tha t rol e is t o be

4 . A Tablea u o f Fina l Judgmen t (25:31-46 )

Th e final sectio n o f Jesus ' discours e abou t th e futur e i n Matthe w 2 5 ha s onl y a limite d plac e i n a discussio n o f parables It s languag e is vivi d an d visionary I t is not , however , a t leas t i n an y norma l sens e o f th e word , a par -

RICHAR D T FRANC E

able , thoug h commentator s displa y a remarkabl y persisten t tendenc y t o describ e i t a s such Jeremias , fo r example , call s it " a masal " o r "a n apocalypti c revelation, " lik e thos e o f 1 Enoch (Parables, 206) . Bu t fe w Englis h reader s woul d recogniz e thi s a s a natura l meanin g o f "parable. " Other s ten d simpl y t o cit e Jeremias' s authorit y fo r callin g it a parable !

Admittedly , th e passag e contains a paraboli c simil e o f a shepher d dividin g shee p fro m goat s i n verse s 32-3 3 (cf . Eze k 34:17) . Nonetheless , th e shepher d imager y is no t develope d an d th e dramati c judgmen t scen e is presente d i n term s o f a dialogu e betwee n th e Kin g an d tw o group s o f people , withou t furthe r recours e t o tha t shepher d imagery . W e will , therefore , firs t commen t briefl y o n th e simil e i n verse s 32-33 , an d the n conside r ho w th e judgmen t scen e a s a whol e round s of f th e them e o f readines s fo r th e master' s return , whic h th e precedin g parable s hav e opene d up .

Mixe d flock s o f shee p an d goat s ar e ofte n see n i n Palestine . Whil e shee p (whe n clean! ) ar e normall y whit e an d goat s mainl y brow n o r black , som e shee p (mor e tha n i n mos t Wester n flocks ) hav e brow n o r blac k patche s an d som e ar e generall y dark I t can , therefore , tak e a n experience d ey e t o separat e the m a t th e en d o f th e day , whe n th e goat s nee d t o b e take n indoor s whil e th e hardie r shee p remai n i n th e ope n air . So a t th e las t judgment , i t ma y no t b e obviou s t o all observer s — eve n t o th e participant s themselves , a s verse s 37-39 , 4 4 graphicall y illustrat e — wh o belon g t o th e "righteous " an d wh o d o not I t takes , i n fact , th e exper t judgmen t o f th e Kin g t o tel l the m apart

I t is probabl y no t helpfu l t o speculat e wh y th e righteou s ar e represente d a s shee p an d th e unrighteou s a s goats , sinc e bot h animal s wer e valuabl e i n a societ y tha t (unlik e ours ) wa s no t prejudice d agains t goatmeat , an d i n whic h goatski n wa s a s muc h i n deman d a s sheep' s wool I t shoul d b e noted , however , tha t th e Ol d Testamen t ofte n describe s God' s peopl e a s hi s sheep , bu t neve r a s hi s goats Th e poin t her e is not th e identification o f th e animals , bu t th e fac t o f thei r separation An d insofa r a s ther e is th e possibilit y o f visua l confusio n betwee n th e shee p an d th e goats , thi s littl e simil e reinforce s th e messag e o f th e Parabl e o f th e Weed s (cf Mat t 13:24-30 , 36-43) : tha t it is onl y a t th e final judgmen t tha t w e ca n kno w wh o is who .

A s i n th e conclusio n t o th e Parabl e o f th e Weed s (cf 13:41) , th e judg e i n thi s tablea u o f final judgmen t i n 25:31-4 6 is not , a s w e migh t hav e expected , God . Rather , it is "th e So n o f Man, " wh o is describe d a s "th e King. " Th e imager y o f th e grea t visio n o f Da n 7:9-2 8 is use d t o depic t hi s ultimat e

enthronemen t a s sovereig n ove r "al l peoples , nation s an d languages " (Da n 7:14) , an d s o "al l nations " ar e gathere d befor e hi m fo r judgment Th e settin g a t th e en d o f a discours e tha t ha s increasingl y focuse d o n th e parousia o f Chris t — an d tha t climaxe s i n vers e 4 6 wit h th e unrighteou s goin g of f t o "eterna l punishment " an d th e righteou s bein g le d int o "eterna l life " — indicate s tha t thi s is th e fina l judgment , a s a resul t o f whic h peopl e wil l find themselve s eithe r enjoyin g "th e kingdo m prepare d fo r yo u fro m th e foundatio n o f th e world " ( v 34 ) o r sharin g "th e eterna l fire prepare d fo r th e devi l an d hi s angels " ( v 41) . Thi s is th e momen t fo r whic h w e hav e bee n insistentl y warne d tha t w e mus t b e ready , wit h th e choic e betwee n thes e tw o destinie s dependin g o n tha t readiness .

Bu t ho w doe s thi s tablea u o f final judgmen t i n 25:31-4 6 defin e tha t "readiness" ? Th e answe r is disarmingl y bu t disturbingl y simpl e — "disturbingl y simple, " tha t is, fo r thos e o f u s wh o believ e wit h th e apostl e Pau l tha t w e canno t b e save d b y goo d works Fo r wha t is sai d her e is tha t thos e wh o wil l find lif e ar e thos e wh o hav e performe d act s o f kindnes s t o peopl e i n distress , wherea s thos e destine d fo r th e fire ar e thos e wh o hav e ignore d people' s needs Th e Gree k conjunctio n gar ("because" ) a t th e beginnin g o f bot h vers e 3 5 an d vers e 4 2 make s a direc t lin k betwee n a person' s ultimat e destin y an d th e act s o f kindnes s tha t h e o r sh e ha s performe d o r withheld . Th e leas t tha t thi s us e o f gar implie s is tha t th e performanc e o r non-performanc e o f suc h act s o f kindnes s ar e th e evidence o f a person' s blesse d o r curse d state Mor e probably , however , th e Gree k gar ("because" ) shoul d b e understoo d a s signalin g th e actua l basis — or , a t least , par t o f th e basi s — fo r tha t judgment . Bein g read y fo r final judgment , then , woul d see m t o consis t i n havin g acte d kindl y toward s anyon e i n need

Thi s apparentl y "Pelagian " teachin g ha s understandabl y me t wit h stou t exegetica l resistanc e (cf. , e.g. , R . H . Stein , Introduction to the Parables, 135-40 ; se e als o th e commentarie s o n Matthe w b y R H Gundry , D A Carson , an d D . A . Hagner) . I t is probabl y tru e t o sa y tha t th e majorit y o f recen t commentator s hav e oppose d it , thoug h ther e ar e thos e wh o continu e t o suppor t it (cf. , e.g. , D Wenham , Parables, 90-92 ; se e als o th e Matthe w commentar y b y W . D . Davie s an d D . C . Allison) .

Th e obviou s poin t o f departur e i n attemptin g t o restric t th e apparentl y universa l scop e o f th e act s o f kindnes s describe d is th e fac t tha t thes e act s ar e describe d b y th e Kin g a s havin g bee n don e no t t o peopl e i n general , bu t t o him. I t is onl y i n respons e t o th e incredulit y o f th e righteou s tha t th e Kin g explain s tha t i t wa s throug h kindnes s t o "on e o f thes e small -

RICHAR D T FRANC E

es t brother s an d sister s o f mine " tha t the y showe d i t t o him . Thei r kin d deed s towar d othe r people , therefore , wer e take n a s evidenc e o f a positiv e attitud e towar d Jesus , eve n if thos e wh o di d the m wer e no t themselve s consciou s o f thei r significance .

Moreover , th e beneficiarie s ar e no t peopl e i n general , bu t "littl e brother s an d sister s o f Jesus. " Th e crucia l question , therefore , is whethe r Jesus , o r th e evangelis t Matthew , woul d hav e use d suc h a phras e t o mea n jus t anybody , howeve r insignifican t — o r whethe r it mus t mea n specificall y th e member s o f Jesus ' tru e famil y ("m y brothe r an d siste r an d mother") , wh o hav e bee n define d i n 12:5 0 a s "thos e wh o d o th e wil l o f m y Fathe r i n heaven. " I n othe r words , is th e basi s o f divin e judgmen t a n undiscriminatin g philanthropy ; o r is it , rather , kindnes s show n specificall y t o Christia n disciple s (cf . 28:1 0 fo r th e disciple s a s Jesus ' "brothers") , an d throug h the m t o thei r Lord ?

Som e hav e gon e furthe r an d argue d tha t th e referenc e i n 25:31-4 6 is specificall y t o Christia n missionarie s (e.g. , J. R. Michaels , "Apostoli c Hardship s an d Righteou s Gentiles : A Stud y o f Matthe w 25:31-46, " Journal of Biblical Literature 8 4 [1965 ] 27-37 ; R H Gundr y i n hi s Matthew call s the m "th e persecute d messenger s o f Jesus") , s o tha t people' s basi c allegianc e is reveale d b y whethe r the y receiv e o r rejec t thos e wh o com e t o the m i n th e nam e o f Jesus . Th e compariso n is mad e wit h statement s i n Matthe w 10, wher e a judgmen t wors e tha n wha t befel l Sodo m an d Gomorra h is sai d t o awai t thos e wh o rejec t Jesus ' emissarie s ( w 11-15 ) an d Jesu s is quote d a s saying : "Anyon e wh o receive s yo u [th e disciples ] receive s me " ( v 40) Bu t i t ma y b e doubte d tha t Christia n missionarie s ar e specificall y i n vie w i n 25:31-46 . Fo r whil e Matthe w 10 goe s o n t o commen d th e gif t o f a drin k o f wate r t o "on e o f thes e littl e ones , becaus e h e is a disciple " an d declare s tha t suc h a n ac t o f kindnes s t o suc h a "littl e one " wil l b e rewarde d ( v 42) , tha t chapte r doe s no t specificall y spea k o f thes e "littl e ones " a s missionaries

Th e similarit y o f 25:35-4 0 t o thes e statement s i n Matthe w 10 is striking , an d th e referenc e her e t o Jesus ' brother s an d sister s a s "littl e ones " suggest s a deliberat e echo Th e sam e languag e abou t "littl e ones " occur s als o i n 18:6 , 10 an d 14, an d there , too , i t is specificall y disciple s o f Jesu s wh o ar e i n view Moreover , th e cu e fo r tal k abou t "littl e ones " i n Matthe w 18 is Jesus ' us e o f a chil d a s a mode l o f tru e discipleshi p ( w 25) , an d i t is i n tha t connectio n tha t h e declares : "Whoeve r receive s on e suc h chil d i n m y nam e receive s me " ( v 5) S o i n Matthew' s Gospe l ther e

appear s a recurren t them e o f disciple s a s "littl e ones " i n who m Jesu s himsel f is t o b e recognized , wit h ho w the y ar e treate d bein g a n indicatio n o f people' s attitud e als o t o him . An d 25:35-4 0 fit s snugl y withi n tha t developin g motif , bringin g i t t o a clima x i n th e solem n contex t o f th e fina l judgment

Ther e is , then , a stron g cas e t o b e mad e fo r understandin g th e kindnes s o f th e righteou s an d th e hardnes s o f th e unrighteou s a s specificall y directe d towar d Jesu s i n th e perso n o f hi s insignifican t followers , rathe r tha n towar d huma n need s i n general O n tha t basis , it is possibl e t o argu e tha t th e criterio n o f judgmen t is no t s o muc h goo d work s per se a s i t is one' s respons e t o Jesu s — an d tha t is a muc h mor e comfortabl e conclusio n fo r Protestan t theology ! Unfortunately , however , neithe r th e righteou s no r th e unrighteou s knew tha t the y wer e respondin g t o Jesus . If th e act s o f th e righteou s revea l the m a s Christians , it is apparentl y a s "anonymou s Christians, " wh o ar e surprise d t o fin d themselve s o n th e sid e o f Jesu s a t th e grea t divide Thu s th e interpretatio n o f thi s passag e a s locatin g th e criterio n o f judgmen t i n shee r undiscriminatin g goo d deed s t o th e need y — eve n whe n ful l weigh t ha s bee n give n t o th e fac t tha t Jesu s describe s th e recipient s a s hi s brother s an d sister s — refuse s t o evaporat e completely .

Th e criterio n o f judgment , an d therefor e th e basi s o f ou r "readiness, " spelle d ou t i n thi s climacti c judgmen t scen e is a ver y practica l one : one' s work s o f kindness Thes e work s are , Jesu s declares , directe d towar d hi m i n th e perso n o f hi s followers . Bu t thos e bein g judge d ar e apparentl y unawar e o f tha t fact . I t is thei r kindnes s i n itself , rathe r tha n an y consciou s targetin g o f suc h act s towar d thos e know n t o b e disciples , tha t mark s the m ou t a s thos e "blesse d b y m y Father. " Here , then , is a mor e tangibl e spellin g ou t o f wha t wa s symbolize d b y th e slave' s car e fo r th e househol d (24:45-46) , th e girls ' suppl y o f oi l (25:4) , an d th e firs t tw o slaves ' tradin g activitie s (25:1617) . I t is ho w w e behav e towar d othe r peopl e tha t wil l b e a ke y criterio n o f judgment

I t is possible , o f course , t o argu e fro m othe r part s o f Scriptur e — eve n fro m Matthew' s Gospe l — tha t thi s is no t th e onl y criterion , bu t rathe r a sympto m o f a n underlyin g relationshi p wit h Go d o f whic h work s o f kindnes s ar e a natura l outworking . Bu t tha t is no t wha t thi s particula r passag e says N o othe r criterion , i n fact , is mentioned A s Jesu s is reporte d t o hav e sai d o n othe r challengin g occasions , an d s o mus t b e understoo d t o hav e intende d her e a s well : "I f yo u hav e ears , hear! "

5 . Conclusio n — "Bein g Ready "

Jesus ' grea t discours e o n futur e event s i n Matthe w 24-2 5 ha s com e t o a farreachin g climax Havin g lef t behin d th e initia l questio n o f th e fat e o f th e Jerusale m temple , Jesu s ha s turne d th e spotligh t ont o hi s ow n futur e retur n i n glory . An d it is thi s them e tha t ha s give n ris e t o a powerfu l sequenc e o f parable s o f judgment , leadin g u p t o a searchin g tablea u o f th e fina l judgmen t o f all nation s execute d b y himsel f a s Kin g upo n hi s throne .

Throughou t th e immediat e contex t an d th e latte r par t o f thi s eschatologica l discourse , th e moti f o f a n ultimat e divisio n ha s bee n predominant . Th e parable s hav e centere d o n contrastin g individual s o r groups : th e responsibl e an d irresponsibl e slave s (24:42-51) ; th e sensibl e an d foolis h bridesmaid s (25:1-13) ; th e successfu l an d unsuccessfu l trader s (25:14-30) ; an d th e shee p an d th e goat s (25:31-46) . Ever y reade r is lef t t o ponde r wher e h e o r sh e stand s withi n thi s radica l separation A m I a responsibl e o r irresponsibl e slave? A sensibl e o r foolis h bridesmaid ? A successfu l o r unsuccessfu l trader ? A shee p o r a goat ?

A t th e en d o f eac h story , jus t a s i n th e earlie r Parabl e o f th e Weed s an d Parabl e o f th e Ne t i n Matthe w 13, ther e appear s th e momen t o f decisio n — whe n th e maste r returns , th e bridegroo m arrives , o r th e shepher d separate s th e flock A t tha t tim e i t wil l b e to o lat e t o chang e sides , t o go lookin g fo r oil , o r t o star t trading . Th e doo r wil l b e shut ! An d ther e wil l b e som e insid e an d som e outside !

N o on e know s ho w soo n tha t momen t o f decisio n ma y come Tha t is wh y th e not e tha t sound s throughou t th e latte r par t o f th e discours e is a cal l t o "b e ready " — s o a s no t t o b e caugh t ou t i n riotou s irresponsibility , t o discove r to o lat e tha t yo u hav e n o oil , t o hav e nothin g t o presen t t o th e returnin g maste r bu t bar e capital , o r t o fin d onesel f o n th e lef t sid e o f th e throne

W e hav e trace d th e gradua l unfoldin g o f th e them e o f "bein g ready " fo r th e final judgmen t i n thes e stories , highlightin g th e fac t tha t i n Jesus ' teachin g suc h preparatio n ha s t o d o wit h (1 ) a responsibl e fulfillmen t o f dut y (24:43-51) , (2 ) makin g adequat e provision s i n th e presen t fo r event s i n th e futur e (25:1-13) , (3 ) boldl y an d activel y exploitin g opportunitie s fo r advancin g th e growt h o f th e kingdo m o f heave n (25:14-30) , and , mos t searchingl y o f all , (4 ) givin g foo d an d drink , welcoming , clothing , carin g for , an d visitin g th e "littl e brother s an d sister s o f Jesus " (25:31-46) Her e is a n eminentl y practica l agend a o f preparatio n fo r th e comin g judgment . I t

4

ha s nothin g t o d o wit h eschatologica l timetable s o r asceti c regimes . Rather , i t is all abou t livin g t o th e ful l a lif e o f responsibl e an d joyfu l discipleship , an d doin g it no w befor e i t is to o late .

Selecte d Bibliograph y

Beare , Franci s W . The Gospel according to Matthew. Oxford : Blackwell , 1981

Carson , Donal d A Matthew, i n The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol 8 , ed . F. E. Gaebelein . Gran d Rapids : Zondervan , 1984 , 1-599 .

Davies , W D an d Dal e C Allison , Jr The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 3 vols . Edinburgh : T. 8c T. Clark , 1988 , 1991 , 1996 .

France , Richar d T. Matthew. Leicester : Inter-Varsity ; Gran d Rapids : Eerdmans , 1985

·. Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher. Exeter : Paternoster ; Gran d Rapids : Zondervan , 1989

Garland , Davi d E Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel. Ne w York : Crossroad , 1993

Gundry , Rober t H Matthew: A Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art. Gran d Rapids : Eerdmans , 1982

Hagner , Donal d A Matthew 14-28 (Wor d Commentar y 33B) Dallas : Word , 1995 .

Jeremias , Joachim The Parables of Jesus, trans S H Hooke Rev ed London : SCM , 1963 .

Ladd , Georg e E . "Th e Parabl e o f th e Shee p an d th e Goat s i n Recen t Interpretation, " i n New Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed . R . N . Longenecke r an d M C Tenney Gran d Rapids : Zondervan , 1974 , 191-99 .

Schweizer , Eduard The Good News according to Matthew, trans D E Green . London : SPCK ; Atlanta : Joh n Knox , 1975 .

Stein , Rober t H . An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus. Philadelphia : Westminster , 1981

Wenham , David . The Parables of Jesus: Pictures of Revolution. London : Hodde r 8c Stoughton , 1989

PAR T I V

Parables of th e Christia n Life

CHAPTE R 9

Parables o n God s Love an d Forgiveness

(Luke 15:1-32)

STEPHE N C . BARTO N

1 . Introduction : Chea p Grac e

Dietric h Bonhoeffer , th e Germa n theologia n an d martyr , bega n hi s memorabl e boo k o n The Cost of Discipleship (ET, 1948 ) as follows :

Chea p grace is th e deadl y enem y of ou r Church . We are fightin g toda y fo r costly grace.

Chea p grace mean s grace sold o n th e marke t like cheapjack' s wares . Th e sacraments , th e forgivenes s of sin , an d th e consolation s of religio n are throw n away at cu t prices . Grace is represente d as th e Church' s inexhaustibl e treasury , fro m whic h she shower s blessing s wit h generou s hands , withou t askin g question s or fixin g limits . Grac e withou t price ; grace withou t cost!

Chea p grace mean s grace as a doctrine , a principle , a system . It mean s forgivenes s of sin s proclaime d as a genera l truth , th e love of Go d taugh t as th e Christia n "conception " of God . An intellectua l assen t t o tha t idea is hel d t o b e of itself sufficien t t o secur e remissio n of sins. Th e Churc h whic h hold s th e correc t doctrin e of grace has, it is supposed , ipso facto a par t in tha t grace . In suc h a Churc h th e worl d find s a chea p coverin g fo r its sins; n o contritio n is required , still less an y real desire t o b e delivered

fro m sin . Chea p grac e therefor e amount s t o a denia l of th e livin g Wor d of God , i n fact , a denia l of th e Incarnatio n of th e Wor d of God . (35 )

Thes e propheti c word s provid e a n ap t startin g poin t fo r a stud y o f th e parable s abou t God' s lov e an d forgivenes s i n Luk e 15:1-32 Fo r the y hel p u s towar d a n understandin g o f wha t th e questio n — or , a t least , on e o f th e question s — is t o whic h thes e parable s migh t b e a n answer . Admittedly , thes e word s o f Bonhoeffe r com e fro m th e mid-twentiet h century , no t th e first century , an d the y tal k abou t th e churc h an d th e incarnation , no t abou t th e Pharisees , th e scribes , o r Jesu s o f Nazareth . Bu t tha t is th e point ! Fo r w e rea d th e parable s o f th e Gospel s i n th e ligh t o f ou r resurrectio n fait h a s word s o f Christia n Scriptur e withi n th e ongoin g lif e an d witnes s o f th e churc h i n th e world . I t is, i n fact , a fallac y roote d i n Enlightenmen t rationalis m an d th e hermeneutic s o f Romanticis m t o thin k tha t w e ca n star t wit h th e parable s "then " and , a s a final afterthought , sa y somethin g Christia n abou t thei r meanin g "today. " Thi s is t o abdicat e ou r responsibilit y a s interpreter s wh o stan d i n a lon g lin e o f parabl e interpretation , a lin e tha t goe s bac k int o Scriptur e itsel f (cf . 2 Sa m 12:1-15) . I t is als o t o misconstru e ou r relationshi p t o th e communitie s o f fait h whos e vocatio n is th e ongoin g performanc e of th e parable s — and , o f course , o f Scriptur e a s a whol e — fo r th e glor y o f Go d an d th e lif e o f th e worl d (cf . Lash , Theology, 37-46)

Ou r readin g o f th e parable s shoul d no t b e t o tr y t o stri p awa y thei r "inessentials " i n orde r t o ge t t o thei r "rea l message " — whethe r o f Jesus , o r th e earl y church , o r th e evangelist Thi s strateg y o f historica l criticism , thoug h sometime s o f valu e a s a correctiv e t o uncontrolle d over-interpretation , is alway s i n dange r o f bein g rationalisti c an d reductionist . I n th e end , th e parable s themselve s becom e dispensable Onc e w e hav e worke d ou t wha t the y meant , w e nee d no t concer n ourselve s furthe r wit h them , excep t perhap s t o find appropriat e platitude s wit h whic h t o replac e them . Rather , readin g th e parable s a s the y wer e mean t t o b e rea d is t o b e "onc e mor e astonished " b y th e gospe l — t o s o engage with the text i n all o f it s detail , contingency , an d after-lif e i n th e tradition , that , lik e Jaco b afte r hi s struggl e wit h Go d a t th e Jabbok , w e com e awa y marke d fo r life . Returnin g t o th e poin t mad e b y Bonhoeffer , I want , therefore , t o sugges t tha t on e wa y — thoug h no t th e onl y wa y — o f engagin g fruitfull y wit h th e Luka n parable s abou t God' s lov e an d forgivenes s is t o conside r

0

the m a s exploration s o f divin e grac e and , i n particular , a s providin g answer s t o th e proble m o f "chea p grace. "

2 . Th e Parable s o f Luk e 1 5 i n Contex t

Th e thre e parable s o f Luk e 15 ar e amon g th e mos t famou s parable s of Jesu s an d hav e bee n transmitte d b y Luk e wit h consummat e literar y skill As Joh n Drur y put s it , "Th e parable s o f Luk e 15 an d 16:1- 8 ar e Luke' s pièce de résistance" (Parables, 139) . Followin g a n introduction , whic h set s ou t a scen e o f controvers y wit h th e Pharisee s an d scribe s ove r hi s table-fellowshi p wit h "sinners " ( w 1-3) , Jesu s is depicte d a s respondin g wit h a powerfu l verba l defens e i n th e for m o f a sequenc e o f fou r parables , th e firs t thre e o f whic h ar e th e Los t Shee p ( w 4-7) , th e Los t Coi n ( w 8-10) , an d th e Los t (or , a s commonl y known , th e Prodigal ) So n ( w 11-32) .

Ther e ar e a numbe r o f indication s tha t thes e thre e parable s o f Luk e 15:1-3 2 (perhap s als o th e Parabl e o f th e Unjus t Stewar d o f Luk e 16:1-8 , thoug h tha t parabl e wil l b e treate d late r b y Stephe n Wrigh t i n chapte r 10 ) wer e intende d b y Luk e t o b e rea d a s a literar y unit , which , i n turn , is par t o f th e evangelist' s large r narrativ e regardin g Jesus ' journe y t o Jerusale m i n 9:51-19:44 A t leas t thre e feature s i n th e parable s highligh t thei r essentia l unity . First , an d mos t obviously , the y shar e a commo n theme : God' s deligh t i n a sinner' s repentanc e ( w 7, 10, 24 , 32) Second , ther e ar e certai n word s an d phrase s tha t recu r an d serv e t o bin d th e parable s togethe r — as , fo r example , "repentance " ( w 7,10,18) , "joy"/"rejoice"/"mak e merry " ( w 5-7 , 9-10 , 23-24 , 32) , an d "becaus e th e los t is found " (v v 6, 9 , 24 , 32)

Third , th e firs t two , shorte r parable s shar e a commo n structure : a man/ a woman ; on e los t sheep/on e los t coin ; th e sheep/coi n is sough t an d found ; a summonin g o f friend s an d neighbor s fo r celebration ; an d a concludin g lesso n (cf . Bailey , Poet and Peasant, 144-58) .

Th e structur e o f th e longe r Parabl e o f th e Prodiga l Son , eve n if mor e elaborat e an d complex , is als o recognizabl y similar , wit h feature s o f loss , recovery , restoration , an d celebratio n present Furthermore , th e beginnin g an d en d o f th e materia l i n Luk e 15 constitut e a n inclusio, wit h th e elde r son' s complain t abou t hi s father' s hospitalit y t o th e prodiga l ( w 28-30 ) echoin g th e openin g complain t o f th e Pharisee s an d scribe s abou t th e hospitalit y o f Jesu s t o "sinners " ( w 1-2) . I n passing , it coul d b e noted , a s well , tha t ther e ar e significan t parallel s linkin g th e Parabl e o f th e Prodiga l So n

i n 15:11-3 2 an d th e Parabl e o f th e Unjus t Stewar d i n 16:1- 8 (cf . Donahue , Gospel in Parable, 162-69) , bu t tha t is anothe r story

No w le t u s conside r thi s tightl y kni t sequenc e o f parable s i n mor e detail . Th e redactiona l introductio n o f verse s 1- 3 is important . A rathe r ironi c contras t is draw n betwee n tw o paire d groups : o n th e on e hand , ther e ar e presen t "al l th e ta x collector s an d sinners, " wh o dra w nea r t o hea r Jesu s teachin g God' s word ; whereas , o n th e other , th e Pharisee s an d scribe s ar e als o there , thoug h no t t o hea r bu t t o "murmur " ( diagogguzö , whic h is reminiscen t o f th e Israelite s i n th e wildernes s a s depicte d i n Exodu s 1517) . I n relatio n t o th e immediatel y precedin g block s o f tradition , th e forme r ar e lik e "th e poor " invite d t o th e banque t (14:15-24) ; whil e th e latte r ar e reminiscen t o f thos e wh o mad e thei r excuse s (14:18 ) — or , eve n more , lik e th e sal t tha t ha d los t it s tast e (14:34-35) . Thei r complaint , "Thi s ma n receive s sinner s an d eat s wit h them " (15:2) , is a repetitio n o f th e complain t mad e b y th e Pharisee s an d scribe s agains t Jesu s a t th e outse t o f hi s ministry , whe n h e calle d th e ta x collecto r Lev i t o follo w (cf 5:27-32 , notin g th e ver b gogguzö, "grumble " o r "murmur, " i n ν 30) An d i t is a complain t tha t is voice d agains t Jesu s elsewher e i n Luke' s Gospe l (cf . 7:39 ; 19:7) . A s Charle s Talber t point s ou t ( Readin g Luke, 148) , th e complain t reflect s a t a genera l leve l th e scriptural , prudentia l warnin g agains t associatio n wit h evildoer s (cf . Pro v 1:15 ; 2:11-15 ; 4:14-19) I t reflect s als o th e symboli c weigh t accorde d tabl e fellowshi p i n Earl y Judais m an d i n antiquit y generally , wher e th e sharin g o f a commo n tabl e wa s a basi c mechanis m fo r initiatin g o r maintainin g sociabilit y an d th e bond s o f a commo n identity , a s wel l a s fo r markin g on e grou p o r societ y of f fro m anothe r (cf . Da n 1:3-17 ; Judith 12; 2 Mac c 7 ; Joseph and Asenath 7; se e Moxnes , "Meal s an d th e Ne w Community, " fo r a discussio n o f tabl e fellowshi p an d identit y i n antiquity)

Fo r th e Pharisees , i n particular , settin g boundarie s aroun d th e househol d an d th e commo n tabl e wer e primar y way s o f settin g themselve s apar t a s God' s chose n ones , wh o wer e calle d t o b e hol y i n a worl d tha t wa s constantl y threatene d b y defilin g impurit y (cf . Neusner , "Tw o Picture s o f th e Pharisees") On e sourc e o f impurit y wa s contac t wit h peopl e labele d "sinners " — a labe l tha t extend s inter alios t o "ta x collectors " (15:1-2 ; cf 5:30 ; 18:9-14) . Th e identit y o f th e peopl e s o labele d "sinners " is a matte r o f ongoin g debate A s a labe l i t wa s a ter m fo r outsiders, an d Jame s Dun n ha s show n tha t suc h a usag e ha d wid e currenc y i n th e factiona l contex t o f firstcentur y Judais m (se e hi s Jesus, Paul and the Law, 61-88) Use d b y th e Phar -

isees , i t likel y connote d peopl e wh o fo r on e reaso n o r anothe r — whethe r occupation , racia l identity , physica l incapacity , o r mora l weaknes s — faile d t o confor m t o th e holines s cod e derive d fro m th e templ e cult . Th e wa y o f Jesus , however , wa s different . Fo r him , holines s is a matte r no t s o muc h o f separatio n fro m "sinners " a s o f separatio n fro m anythin g tha t inhibit s ful l commitmen t t o the God who is drawing near (cf . 14:25-33) . It is no t a statu s t o b e possesse d an d hedge d aroun d fo r selfprotection , bu t a relationshi p t o b e celebrate d an d shared Jesus ' proclamatio n was : " I hav e no t com e t o call th e righteous , bu t sinner s t o repentance " (5:32)

Jesus ' comin g i n th e powe r o f th e Spiri t inaugurate s th e tim e o f eschatologica l salvatio n whe n God' s covenan t merc y is offere d t o all — particularl y t o thos e o n th e margin s o f Israe l an d beyond Thi s offe r is mad e tangibl e i n propheti c act s o f ope n hospitalit y an d unrestricte d tabl e fellowshi p tha t represen t a transformatio n o f th e conventiona l pattern s o f sociability No t surprisingly , suc h a challeng e t o th e piet y o f th e da y generate s resistance . So Jesu s offer s a defens e i n th e for m o f parables .

But , w e migh t ask , wh y di d Jesu s giv e hi s defens e i n th e for m o f parables? On e answe r is tha t thi s wa s on e o f Jesus ' usua l way s o f defendin g hi s practice , a s th e account s i n Luk e 13:10-2 1 an d 14:1-1 1 suggest . Bu t if w e pres s th e questio n further , th e possibilit y arise s tha t Jesu s spok e i n parable s becaus e parable s ar e a for m o f discours e tha t hav e th e potentia l bot h t o imag e Go d differentl y an d t o ope n u p a wide r rang e o f imaginativ e an d volitiona l response s amon g listener s an d reader s tha n th e discours e o f la w an d purity . I n othe r words , Jesu s di d no t respon d t o hi s Pharisai c critic s on their own terms — perhap s becaus e holines s define d i n term s o f la w an d cul t foreclose s prematurel y o r restrict s to o narrowl y th e boundarie s o f God' s merc y an d lov e a s embodie d i n Jesu s himself .

Relate d is th e ide a tha t extende d parable s suc h a s w e fin d i n Luk e 15 hav e th e potential , b y virtu e o f thei r ver y mundane , human , realistic , an d subtl e character , for revealin g "Go d i n th e ordinary. " Suc h parable s ar e a n invitatio n t o se e Go d an d th e worl d differentl y — tha t is, t o b e converte d b y a divin e grac e mediate d throug h everyda y stories , whos e content , o n th e surface , is quit e mundane , bu t which , fo r tha t ver y reason , paradoxically , bring s Go d near . O n thi s view , an d agains t th e historical-critica l tren d i n parabl e interpretatio n inaugurate d b y Jülicher , th e detail s o f th e parable s ar e no t t o b e discounte d i n th e ques t fo r th e suppose d "simpl e truth " tha t a parabl e conveys Rather , a s Donal d MacKinno n ha s helpe d u s t o se e (cf R White ,

N C BARTO N

"MacKinno n an d th e Parables, " i n Christ, Ethics and Tragedy, ed . K. Suri n [Cambridge : Cambridg e Universit y Press , 1989] , 49-70) , the y ar e th e imaginativ e stuf f o f a n exploratio n tha t ha s th e potentia l fo r openin g th e eye s an d redirectin g th e will s o f bot h hearer s an d reader s alike .

3 . Th e Parabl e o f th e Los t Shee p (Luk e 15:1-7 )

Th e first parabl e i n th e serie s is th e Parabl e o f th e Los t Sheep . Tha t thi s parabl e come s firs t is probabl y no t coincidental Fo r it s messag e is hardl y a n incidenta l one , bu t concern s matter s o f rea l importance .

Th e parabl e contain s stron g echoe s o f scriptura l text s lik e Ezekie l 34 , wher e God' s prophe t speak s vehementl y agains t th e leader s o f Israe l o n accoun t o f thei r failur e a s "shepherds " o f th e peopl e t o see k ou t th e los t an d scattere d shee p an d fee d the m (cf Green , Luke, 574-75) Accordin g t o th e prophet , s o grea t is th e failur e o f Israel' s leader s tha t Go d himsel f wil l tak e thei r plac e i n seekin g fo r hi s los t sheep :

Fo r thu s says th e Lord God : Behold , I, I mysel f wil l searc h fo r m y sheep , an d will seek the m out As a shepher d seek s ou t hi s floc k whe n som e of hi s shee p hav e bee n scattere d abroad , so will I seek ou t m y sheep ; an d I will rescu e the m fro m all place s wher e the y hav e bee n scattere d I wil l seek ou t th e lost , an d I will brin g bac k th e strayed. " (Eze k 34:11 - 16a)

Th e resonance s o f thi s passag e i n Ezekie l 3 4 wit h th e parabl e o f Luk e 15:17 ar e strong . Agains t suc h a backdrop , th e Pharisee s an d lega l expert s wh o murmu r agains t Jesu s find tha t the y themselve s ar e unde r God' s indictmen t fo r thei r failur e a s leader s t o see k th e los t i n Israel . Jesus , o n th e othe r hand , act s i n accordanc e wit h Scriptur e an d th e wil l o f God . H e is th e on e wh o seek s ou t th e los t an d feed s them . Als o wort h notin g is th e fac t tha t o f thes e thre e Luka n parables , th e Parabl e o f th e Los t Shee p is th e onl y on e wit h a synopti c parallel , appearin g als o i n Mat t 18:12-14 A compariso n wit h it s Matthea n counterpar t is instructiv e fo r bringin g ou t th e distinctiv e emphase s o f Luke' s version I n Matthe w th e parabl e occur s i n th e contex t o f th e fourt h o f five discourse s o f Jesus , whic h — becaus e o f it s attentio n t o matter s o f intramura l disciplin e an d b y analog y wit h a simila r tex t fro m Qumra n identifie d a s 1Q S (wit h th e "S " o f th e designatio n signalin g serek o r "rule" ) — ha s becom e

know n a s Matthew' s "communit y rule. " Her e Jesus ' teachin g is directe d no t t o outsider s bu t t o insiders , an d th e parabl e is par t o f a n extende d instructio n o n ho w t o live togethe r a s fellow-member s o f th e kingdo m o f heaven . Mor e precisely , i n Matthew' s versio n th e parabl e speak s t o th e proble m o f wha t t o d o if , a s th e resul t o f mora l "stumblin g blocks " (ta skandala) bein g throw n i n th e pat h o f a low-statu s membe r o f th e brotherhoo d (i.e. , a "littl e one") , h e o r sh e "goe s astray " (cf 18:6-11) I t is a n encouragemen t t o see k ou t th e erran t brothe r o r sister , eve n if succes s is no t guaranteed .

Th e valu e o f th e parabl e fo r Matthew , therefore , is it s pastora l relevanc e i n a n ecclesia l context . I n Luke , however , th e thrus t o f th e parabl e is it s pastora l relevanc e i n relatio n t o thos e outside th e communit y o f th e faithful To ris k a n anachronism , th e thrus t o f Luke' s versio n ma y b e sai d t o b e no t s o muc h ecclesia l a s evangelical . Fo r wher e i n Matthe w th e shee p ha s "gon e astray, " i n Luk e i t is "lost" ; an d wher e i n Matthe w th e rejoicin g is ove r th e retrieva l o f "on e o f thes e littl e ones, " i n Luk e i t is rejoicin g (i n a muc h mor e convivia l style ) ove r th e repentanc e o f a "sinner. "

Takin g no w th e parabl e a s it stand s i n Luke , ther e ar e severa l othe r observation s t o b e mad e tha t deepe n ou r appreciatio n o f it First , ther e is th e apparen t recklessnes s o f th e shepher d i n leavin g th e ninety-nin e othe r shee p "i n th e wilderness " (o f all places! ) t o go i n searc h o f jus t on e los t shee p (15:4) . Ther e is a lac k o f a sens e o f proportio n her e tha t is surprisin g an d almos t shockin g (cf . 1 Sa m 17:28) . Bu t God' s grac e is like that . I t doe s no t fi t int o ou r ordinar y pattern s o f accounting Eac h shee p is s o valuabl e tha t th e shepher d risk s th e well-bein g o f th e entir e floc k i n orde r t o fin d it . Th e concer n fo r th e "lost " is emphatic An d tha t is a featur e tha t highlight s a profoun d poin t abou t divin e accountin g — tha t is , tha t God counts by ones.

The n ther e is th e shepherd' s perseverance , fo r h e searche s " unti l h e finds it " ( v 4 ; cf . Mat t 18:13 : "if h e finds it") . Suc h is th e valu e o f eac h sheep ! Ther e is als o th e shepherd' s demonstratio n o f hi s car e fo r th e sheep , for , rejoicing , h e carrie s th e shee p hom e o n hi s shoulder s ( v 5) . Then , finally , ther e is th e publi c testimon y tha t th e los t shee p ha s bee n found , alon g wit h a n invitatio n t o shar e i n th e shepherd' s jo y ( v 6 ) — presumably , b y sharin g hi s table . Th e shepher d doe s no t kee p hi s jo y t o himself . It spill s ove r t o other s an d become s a n occasio n fo r joyfu l sociability

Al l o f this , it shoul d b e added , come s i n th e for m o f on e lon g question , beginnin g "Whic h on e o f yo u ?" ( w 3-6) Th e questio n is ad -

N C BARTO N

dresse d t o Jesus ' interlocutors , th e Pharisee s an d scribes . The y ar e bein g challenge d t o rethin k thei r understandin g o f th e divin e econom y an d t o respon d accordingly . Fo r God' s grac e canno t b e fence d in . I t is no t limite d t o "th e righteous. " O n th e contrary , i n Jesus ' ope n hospitalit y i t is extende d firs t an d foremos t t o "sinners " — tha t is , to those who need it most. Th e redactiona l conclusio n t o thi s first parabl e o f Luk e 15 make s th e parabl e a n analog y o f th e lif e o f God : "Jus t so , I tel l you , ther e wil l b e mor e jo y i n heave n ove r on e sinne r wh o repent s tha n ove r ninety-nin e righteou s person s wh o nee d n o repentance " ( v 7) Th e emphasi s o n repentanc e bot h her e an d a t th e en d o f th e Parabl e o f th e Los t Coi n ( v 10) is demonstrabl y Luka n (cf Barton , Spirituality of the Gospels, 77-83) Bu t it is als o traditiona l (cf . Mar k 1:15) . Clearly , th e parabl e is bein g interprete d b y bein g amplifie d i n a particula r direction , for , afte r all , neithe r los t shee p no r los t coin s "repent" ! Nonetheless , th e interpretatio n is appropriat e i n th e contex t an d anticipate s wha t is t o becom e muc h mor e centra l i n th e climacti c thir d parabl e o f th e Lost/Prodiga l So n (cf Drury , Parables, 141) If Jesus ' mea l tabl e solidarit y wit h "sinners " is a tangibl e expressio n o f God' s grac e an d th e jo y o f th e kingdo m o f God , the n repentanc e is th e obviou s an d appropriat e respons e — an d tha t goe s fo r th e "righteous " a s wel l a s fo r th e "sinner. "

Wha t Jesu s offer s i n paraboli c mode , therefore , is no t chea p grac e — th e concer n (w e ma y surmise ) o f th e Pharisee s an d scribe s — bu t a n altogethe r differen t economy of grace. Th e moo d o f thi s ne w econom y is jo y an d welcome , no t separatio n an d self-justificatio n (cf . 16:15 ; 18:9) . Furthermore , th e repentanc e tha t i t call s fo r is no t cheap . I t is no t somethin g narrowl y boun d t o th e preservatio n o f th e elec t an d th e holy Rather , i t is somethin g muc h more costl y — no t separatio n fro m "sinners, " bu t bein g "found " b y Jesus , God' s So n an d Servant , becomin g par t o f hi s company , an d (a s 14:3 3 make s clear ) leavin g everythin g behin d fo r hi s sake .

Th e Pharisee s o f Luk e 15 faile d t o understan d th e teaching , whic h wa s als o give n i n parable s t o th e Pharisee s o f Luk e 14 (se e esp . w 1-14 , 2535) Lik e th e guest s o f 14:15-24 , wh o wer e invite d t o th e banque t an d mad e thei r seemingl y legitimat e excuses , th e Pharisee s i n 15:2 ar e offerin g on e mor e suc h excuse Bu t wha t Jesu s offer s is no t chea p grac e bu t "grac e abounding " an d grac e demanding .

4 . Th e Parabl e o f th e Los t Coi n (Luk e 15:8-10 )

Th e Parabl e o f th e Los t Coi n ca n b e deal t wit h mor e briefly . I n structure , theme , an d interrogativ e mode , i t fits closel y wit h th e Parabl e o f th e Los t Sheep , a s indicate d above . I n fact , ther e is a sens e i n whic h thi s whol e sequenc e o f thre e parable s is reall y jus t on e — a s suggeste d b y th e evangelist' s introductio n statement : "H e tol d the m this parabl e (ten parabolēn tauten, no t tas parabolas tautas)" (15:3 ; cf . 5:36) . Th e repetitio n ha s a n intensifyin g effect Lik e repetitio n i n goo d liturgy , thes e thre e parable s see m designe d t o deepe n engagemen t wit h th e fundamenta l matter s o f fait h an d life . Bu t repetitio n doe s no t mea n sameness , fo r ther e ar e als o subtl e difference s whic h ar e significant . Mos t noticeabl e is th e fac t tha t th e first is a stor y abou t a ma n ou t i n th e ope n spaces , wh o pursue s hi s occupatio n a s a shepherd , whic h is paire d wit h a stor y abou t a woma n pursuin g he r wor k i n th e mor e seclude d spac e o f th e home . Suc h a balancin g o f me n an d wome n is characteristi c o f Luk e i n hi s writings , a s Mar y Ros e D'Angel o ha s pointe d ou t i n he r stud y o f "Wome n i n Luke-Acts " (Journal of Biblical Literature, 10 9 [1990 ] 441-61) . I n thi s particula r case , Luk e appear s t o hav e adde d th e parabl e abou t a woma n fro m hi s specia l sourc e (so-calle d "L " material ) t o th e parabl e abou t th e shepher d fro m th e traditio n h e share s wit h Matthe w (i.e. , "Q") An d takin g Luke' s Gospe l a s a whole , suc h a pairin g is reminiscen t o f th e balancin g o r pairin g o f th e Parabl e o f th e Goo d Samarita n an d th e stor y o f Marth a an d Mar y earlie r o n (i n 10:25-3 7 an d 38-42) , o r o f th e Parabl e o f th e Wido w an d th e Judg e an d th e Parabl e o f th e Pharise e an d th e Ta x Collecto r subsequentl y (i n 18:1- 8 an d 9-14 ) — a s well , o f course , th e pairin g o f th e prophecie s o f Simeo n an d Ann a a t th e beginnin g o f Luke' s Gospe l (i n 2:25-3 5 an d 36-38 ) an d o f th e resurrectio n appearance s t o wome n an d me n a t th e en d (i n 24:1-1 1 an d 12-43) .

Thi s is no t jus t a compositiona l technique I t expresse s Luke' s convictio n tha t th e "goo d new s t o th e poor " tha t Jesu s announce s (4:18-19 ) an d tha t hi s practic e embodie s is goo d new s fo r peopl e o f all kind s — fo r "sinners " a s wel l a s thos e wh o ar e "righteous, " wome n a s wel l a s men , worker s in th e househol d an d worker s i n th e cit y o r country , Gentile s a s wel l a s Jews , an d s o on To pu t i t otherwise , God' s grac e is no t a "limite d good " (cf . Malina , New Testament World, 71-93) . I t is availabl e freel y t o all wh o wil l receiv e it .

I n th e Parabl e o f th e Los t Coin , instea d o f on e los t shee p ou t o f on e

hundred , it is on e los t coi n ou t o f ten . Thi s increase s furthe r i n th e Parabl e o f th e Prodiga l Son , wher e i t is a cas e o f on e los t so n ou t o f tw o — with , o f course , a n eve n greate r differenc e bein g tha t it is no t a n anima l o r a coi n tha t is lost , bu t a huma n being , wh o is a muc h love d son . S o th e dramati c intensit y increase s fro m on e parabl e t o th e next An d i n thi s secon d parable , th e tensio n is relate d als o t o th e valu e o f th e coi n lost , whic h wa s probabl y th e equivalen t o f a ful l day' s wage s — th e los s o f whic h woul d b e a caus e o f grea t hardshi p fo r a househol d i n a villag e econom y wher e cas h is a rar e commodit y (cf . Bailey , Poet and Peasant, 157) . Th e woman' s action s paralle l th e shepherd's , bu t ar e appropriat e t o th e domesti c setting . Ther e is a threefol d movemen t conveyin g urgen t action : sh e light s a lamp , sweep s th e house , an d searche s "diligently " (epimelös). Furthermore , lik e th e shepherd , sh e searche s "until sh e finds " he r coi n ( v 8 ; cf . ν 4) . Th e coi n is valuable , wort h searchin g fo r — s o muc h so , tha t th e jo y o f findin g it ha s t o b e share d wit h he r femal e friend s (tas philas) an d neighbors . As wit h th e shepherd , he r onl y reporte d speec h is th e all-importan t invitation , "Rejoic e wit h me , fo r I hav e foun d [that ] . . . whic h wa s lost " ( v 9b ; cf ν 6b) The n follow s th e authoritativ e commentar y o f th e Luka n Jesus , whic h is addresse d t o th e Pharisee s an d scribe s (an d als o t o th e reader) , tha t th e jo y o f th e angel s i n heave n ove r th e repentanc e o f a "sinner " is lik e th e jo y o f th e woma n an d he r friend s ove r th e recovere d coi n ( v 10) . An d here , subversivel y onc e more , is "Go d i n th e ordinary. " Fo r th e parabl e is a n invitatio n t o Jesus ' interlocutor s t o b e (t o us e a n expressio n coine d b y C . S. Lewis ) "surprise d b y joy. "

Significantly , th e las t wor d i n th e Gree k tex t o f bot h o f thes e firs t tw o parable s o f Luk e 15 is th e ver b metanoeö, "repent, " o r th e nou n metanoia, "repentance " ( w 7 [twice ] an d 10) W e are , therefore , bein g prepare d fo r th e parabl e t o follo w (se e esp . v v 17-20 a an d 21) . Bu t wha t is importan t her e t o stres s is tha t thi s redactiona l them e doe s no t distor t th e parable s b y narrowin g thei r focu s i n a "moralizing " direction , a s if Jesu s himsel f di d no t see k b y th e formulatio n o f parable s suc h a s thes e t o evok e repentance . Agains t E P Sander s (cf hi s Jesus and Judaism [London : SCM , 1985] , 17421 1 ) , it need s t o b e insiste d tha t th e summon s t o repentanc e wa s no t a mino r featur e i n th e teachin g an d missio n o f Jesus , no r wa s i t confine d onl y t o a fe w individual s (cf Chilton , "Jesu s an d th e Repentanc e o f E P Sanders") .

Jesu s wa s no t som e kin d o f antinomia n libertaria n jus t "hangin g out " wit h th e peopl e o n th e boundarie s o f Judaism Tha t woul d hav e

mean t leavin g everythin g a s i t was , fo r antinomianis m is ofte n intensel y conservative Bu t tha t is no t wha t Jesu s wa s abou t (cf Luk e 4:16-30)

Rather , Jesu s wa s seekin g t o shif t th e focu s fro m concern s abou t boundarie s — tha t is , regardin g "who' s in " an d "who' s out " — t o concern s abou t ethos and action — tha t is , regardin g wha t kin d o f peopl e Israe l an d th e nation s neede d t o b e (an d t o become ) i n th e ligh t o f God' s comin g i n merc y an d judgment I f th e accen t o f thes e firs t tw o parable s fall s mos t heavil y o n a n activ e searc h fo r th e lost , tha t doe s no t mea n tha t respons e (i.e. , "repentance" ) is no t th e obviou s corollary . I t mean s onl y tha t wha t th e Pharisee s neede d mos t t o hea r wa s a challeng e t o b e th e kin d o f leader s whos e priorit y wa s t o engag e i n suc h a search .

5 . Th e Parabl e o f th e Prodiga l So n (Luk e 15:11-32 )

Th e thir d an d longes t i n th e sequenc e o f parable s i n Luk e 15 is th e famou s Parabl e o f th e Prodiga l Son No w w e mov e fro m th e real m o f animal s an d propert y as way s o f talkin g abou t righ t prioritie s i n th e lif e o f th e kingdo m t o tal k abou t people

Th e Parabl e o f th e Prodiga l So n ha s tw o paralle l parts : th e firs t speak s abou t th e los t younge r so n ( w 11-24) ; th e second , abou t th e elde r brother , wh o was , i t seems , equall y los t ( w 25-32) I n eac h par t th e focu s is o n th e so n firs t an d the n o n th e father I t is th e fathe r i n bot h part s o f th e story , however , wh o ha s th e last , authoritativ e wor d ( w 23-24,31-32) I t is noteworth y tha t thi s wor d i n bot h case s is directe d t o th e issu e o f ho w t o respon d appropriatel y t o th e recover y o f th e prodigal Tha t is wha t tie s th e parabl e s o closel y t o th e concern s o f th e Pharisee s an d scribe s a t th e outse t o f th e chapter , whe n the y muttere d abou t Jesus ' tabl e companion s (v v 12) So w e ar e stil l i n th e real m o f Luke' s exploratio n o f divin e grac e a s i t ha s bee n reveale d i n Jesus

Tha t help s t o explai n wh y thi s parabl e ha s suc h stron g echoe s o f th e storie s o f th e Ol d Testament Fo r biblica l storie s abou t younge r brother s wer e a classi c sourc e o f reflectio n o n th e unpredictabilit y o f God' s way s — i n particular , o f God's refusal to limit the measure of his grace t o huma n way s o f seein g an d doin g things Th e stor y o f Joseph , wh o goe s dow n t o a fa r countr y wher e ther e is a famin e an d is late r reunite d wit h hi s father , is a cas e i n poin t (cf Genesi s 37 , 39-50) Speakin g o f suc h stories , Joh n Drur y put s i t well :

9

Ther e is a sneakin g distrus t of olde r brother s an d fondnes s fo r th e younger, eve n whe n less meritorious . It gave th e excitemen t of reversa l t o man y tale s — an d mor e scop e t o God . O f Cai n an d Abel, Go d preferre d th e younger . Younge r Jacob/Israe l supplante d senio r Esau . Ther e is a n ech o of tha t classic tal e of siblin g rivalr y i n th e prodigal son. Th e elde r so n wa s "i n th e field " whe n h e hear d of hi s younge r brother' s retur n .. . (Parables in the Gospels, 145)

To sa y tha t suc h tale s giv e "mor e scop e t o God " is exactl y right . Th e Parabl e o f th e Prodiga l fit s th e bil l wit h stunnin g effect

Afte r th e briefes t o f introduction s t o th e thre e protagonists , a ma n an d hi s tw o sons , th e stor y focuse s o n th e younge r o f th e two H e is cas t i n a negativ e ligh t fro m th e start , an d hi s action s precipitat e a tigh t downwar d spira l i n hi s fortunes First , h e act s presumptuousl y an d covetousl y (cf th e paralle l situatio n an d parabl e o f 12:13-21 ) i n initiatin g a divisio n o f th e famil y inheritanc e — no t leas t whil e hi s fathe r wa s stil l aliv e (cf Sirac h 33:20-24) , bu t als o withou t prio r consultatio n wit h hi s olde r brothe r ( v 12) Second , havin g converte d hi s shar e o f th e inheritanc e int o transportabl e capital , h e turn s hi s bac k o n hi s family , depart s int o " a fa r country " (presumabl y Gentil e territory ) an d squander s hi s resources , livin g beyon d th e pal e o f th e la w ( v 13) Next , whe n famin e strike s — whic h present s u s wit h a kin d o f natura l justic e — h e attache s himsel f t o " a citize n o f tha t country " (presumabl y a Gentile ) an d submit s t o th e sham e (bot h fo r himsel f an d fo r hi s family ) o f becomin g a swineherd , somethin g abhorren t t o Jewis h sensibilitie s (cf . 8:32-33 ; se e als o Le v 11:17 ; 14:8; 1 Mac c 1:47; 2 Mac c 6:18 ; 7:1) . Hi s lonely , pitiabl e pligh t is summe d u p i n th e claus e a t th e en d o f vers e 16: "an d n o on e gav e t o him " ( oudei s edidou autö). Havin g bee n give n everythin g b y hi s fathe r a t th e beginning , h e is no w alon e an d lef t wit h nothing . H e is a s goo d a s dead , havin g experience d a mora l an d socia l deat h ( w 24 , 32 ) tha t woul d functio n a s a prelude , i n du e course , t o hi s physica l deat h a s well . Bu t no w ther e is a turnin g point : th e youn g ma n "cam e t o himself " ( v 17a) . I n a characteristicall y Luka n soliloqu y markin g a chang e i n fortun e (cf . 16:3-4 ; 18:4-5) , h e articulate s fo r th e first tim e th e peri l o f hi s situatio n an d a strateg y fo r hi s rescue . H e is , o f course , a t las t bein g prudent , havin g realize d th e catastroph e h e ha s brough t o n himsel f an d hi s kinsfolk . Bu t tha t prudenc e nee d no t b e interprete d a s mer e self-servin g cunnin g (contra Bailey , Poet and Peasant, 173-80) .

Th e word s tha t th e youn g ma n uses , "Father , I hav e sinne d agains t heave n an d befor e you ; I a m n o longe r worth y t o b e calle d you r son " ( v 18, an d repeate d a t ν 21) , ar e grav e word s o f humbl e repentanc e tha t invok e th e presenc e o f Go d (cf . w 7,10 ) a s wel l a s a respons e fro m hi s father . Als o t o b e note d is tha t th e repeate d us e o f th e participl e anastas, "rising, " i n verse s 18 an d 2 0 is suggestiv e o f comin g bac k t o lif e — tha t is, o f resurrection I n th e overal l contex t o f thes e thre e parables , wher e th e them e o f repentanc e is s o strong , Luk e ca n hardl y hav e mean t th e son' s word s t o b e take n otherwise . I t is unnecessary , therefore , t o polariz e "repentance " an d "prudence. " O n th e contrary , fo r Luk e (an d fo r Jesus ) salvatio n is abou t th e restoratio n o f people' s full humanity — bot h bod y an d soul ; bot h individua l an d corporat e (cf . Green , "Goo d New s t o Whom?") .

Attentio n no w turn s t o th e extraordinar y action s o f th e father . Tha t h e sa w hi s so n "whil e h e wa s ye t a t a distance " implie s that , lik e th e shepher d o f th e firs t parable , hi s lookin g ou t fo r hi s los t so n ha s bee n ongoing . Seein g hi s so n provoke s compassio n ( v 20 : esplagchnisthē, "h e wa s filled wit h compassion" ) — a respons e t o nee d tha t remind s u s o f th e respons e o f Jesu s t o th e pligh t o f th e wido w o f Nai n (7:13 ) an d th e respons e o f th e Samarita n t o th e "half-dead " travele r (10:33) Wha t thes e variou s episode s hav e i n commo n is th e fundamenta l moral-theologica l poin t tha t it is compassion for the lost tha t bring s abou t lif e ou t o f deat h an d tha t make s restoratio n — eve n transformatio n — possibl e i n people' s lives

Th e father' s compassio n lead s t o action A t th e ris k o f hi s honor , an d i n a rhetoricall y powerfu l threefol d movement , h e run s t o mee t hi s son , embrace s him , an d kisse s hi m ( v 20) Th e so n speak s hi s word s o f confession . Bu t h e is prevente d fro m completin g th e line s h e ha s rehearsed , fo r th e fathe r wil l no t hea r o f hi m bein g accepte d bac k a s a hire d servan t (v21 ; cf w 18-19) Instead , i n action s tha t spea k o f forgivenes s an d ful l reconciliation , h e order s fo r hi s so n th e "best " rob e t o cloth e him , a rin g fo r hi s finger , sandal s fo r hi s feet , an d a magnificen t feas t t o celebrat e hi s retur n an d mar k hi s reincorporatio n int o th e famil y an d societ y ( v 22) . As i n th e tw o previou s parables , th e retur n o f tha t whic h wa s los t is marke d b y joyfu l feasting , wit h tha t feastin g havin g stron g eschatologica l overtone s (cf 19:9; 22:16 , 18) an d servin g a s th e clima x o f th e episode . I n thi s case , however , th e jo y is eve n mor e emphatic Fo r a s befit s th e recover y o f a son, ther e is a fatte d calf , a n invitatio n t o a n unspecifie d numbe r t o "ea t an d mak e merry, " an d a n elaborat e justificatio n fo r thi s astonishin g munificenc e — all conclude d b y th e narrator' s repor t tha t "the y bega n t o mak e merry " ( w

1

23-24) . A s a parabl e o f divin e grac e an d forgiveness , wha t Luk e give s u s her e is unsurpassed

Bu t th e parabl e doe s no t sto p there , a s w e migh t hav e expected . Ther e is a second , contrastin g part , thi s tim e involvin g th e fathe r an d th e elder son . Th e narrativ e characterizatio n is def t an d subversive . W e expec t th e olde r so n t o compar e wel l wit h hi s younge r brother , bu t instea d h e is i n

som e way s a mirro r image , a s selfis h an d preoccupie d wit h hi s ow n interest s a s hi s sibling . First , w e ma y surmis e tha t h e ha s no t bee n wit h hi s fathe r o n th e lookou t fo r th e prodigal , fo r h e wa s "i n th e field " ( v 25) Second , th e soun d o f musi c an d dancin g arouse s i n hi m suspicion , no t excitement . Third , h e keep s hi s distanc e an d make s inquir y vi a a servan t abou t wha t is goin g on Next , a t th e new s o f hi s brother' s saf e return , an d i n contras t wit h hi s father' s compassio n an d hospitality , h e get s angry . I n fact , h e refuse s (shamefully , i n a Mediterranea n context ) t o g o i n t o shar e i n th e festivitie s a t th e commo n tabl e ( v 28)

So th e fathe r come s ou t an d entreat s him Lik e th e shepher d i n th e Parabl e o f th e Los t Sheep , th e fathe r is th e on e wh o is always going out t o brin g i n th e lost Bu t th e elde r son , i n th e on e piec e o f direc t speec h attribute d t o him , respond s onl y wit h word s o f bitte r complain t an d self-justification : "Listen ! Fo r all thes e year s I hav e bee n workin g lik e a slav e fo r you , an d I hav e neve r disobeye d you r command Yet yo u hav e neve r give n m e eve n a youn g goa t s o tha t I migh t celebrat e wit h m y friends . Bu t whe n thi s so n o f your s cam e back , wh o ha s devoure d you r propert y wit h prostitutes , yo u kille d th e fatte d cal f fo r him " ( w 29-30 ; cf 16:15) Wha t th e word s revea l is a so n s o insecur e i n himself , an d therefor e rigi d i n hi s relation s wit h hi s fathe r an d hi s brother , tha t h e ca n onl y rag e agains t th e apparen t unfairnes s o f hi s father' s largesse. Wha t h e migh t hav e see n a s a natura l expressio n o f jo y an d reconciliatio n h e interprets , instead , a s threatenin g th e usurpatio n o f hi s positio n i n th e household I n s o doing , h e reflect s th e insecurities , no t o f a son , bu t o f a slave : "Fo r all thes e year s I hav e bee n workin g lik e a slav e fo r you , an d I hav e neve r disobeye d you r command " ( v 29a) . Ironically , it is a s if b y no t disobeyin g hi s father' s command s h e ha s becom e a s muc h a slav e a s hi s brothe r becam e b y a lif e o f lawlessness . Thus , a t th e momen t th e younge r brothe r is bein g embrace d bac k int o th e family , th e olde r brothe r is separatin g himsel f fro m it H e refrain s fro m addressin g hi s fathe r a s "father " (i n contras t t o hi s brother' s attitud e an d addres s i n w 17, 18, 21) , refer s t o hi s brothe r a s "thi s so n of yours" and , b y ungraciousl y characterizin g hi m a s th e on e "wh o ha s devoure d

2

you r propert y wit h prostitutes " ( v 30 , thoug h no t explici t i n ν 13b) , show s n o sig n o f reconciliation . All h e ca n thin k o f is hi s ow n sens e o f th e unfairnes s don e t o him . Th e disproportio n betwee n "eve n a youn g goat, " whic h wa s neve r provide d fo r hi m an d hi s friends , an d th e "fatte d calf " tha t hi s fathe r prepare d fo r hi s brother , become s fo r hi m no t a measur e o f hi s father' s lov e an d happiness , bu t a sig n o f paterna l unpredictabilit y smackin g o f favoritism .

Yet eve n i n suc h a situation , th e father' s lov e persists . H e doe s no t repa y evil fo r evil (cf . 6:27-36) . Th e elde r brothe r is stil l hi s so n an d h e addresse s hi m a s such , tryin g als o t o reassur e hi m tha t hi s positio n i n th e famil y is assured : "Son , yo u ar e alway s wit h me , an d all tha t is min e is yours " ( v 31 ; cf . ν 12b) . A t th e sam e time , however , h e remain s firm. Ther e is a large r econom y withi n whic h th e econom y o f inheritanc e an d primogeniture , a s wel l a s matter s o f persona l honor , mus t b e se t if i t is t o b e o f tru e worth . Thu s th e fathe r says : "I t wa s necessary [edei, "fitting " i n NRS V is to o weak ] t o mak e merr y an d b e glad , fo r thi s you r brothe r wa s dea d an d is alive ; h e wa s los t an d is found " ( v 32) .

I n Luka n perspective , it is th e economy of divine love tha t is reflecte d i n th e father' s jo y a t th e prodigal' s return An d tha t econom y o f lov e is highlighte d i n th e us e o f th e imperfec t ver b edei ("i t wa s necessary") , whic h is a commo n expressio n i n Luk e (cf 2:49 ; 4:43 ; 9:22 ; 13:16 , 33 ; 17:25 ; etc.) Fo r jus t a s rejoicin g ove r th e recover y o f a shee p an d a coi n is mad e a windo w int o th e jo y i n heave n ove r a sinne r wh o repent s ( w 7,10) , s o th e rejoicin g an d banquetin g o f a fathe r ove r th e repentanc e an d retur n o f hi s so n is a windo w int o th e divin e lov e an d forgivenes s tha t wa s bein g mad e manifes t a t Jesus ' tabl e fellowshi p wit h ta x collector s an d "sinners. "

Tha t thi s thir d parabl e (unlik e th e first two ) remain s open-ended , a t leas t wit h respec t t o th e respons e o f th e elde r son , is significant Thi s allow s th e parabl e t o spea k directl y t o its contex t (cf w 1-2 ) an d t o pos e a questio n t o thos e wh o themselve s questione d Jesus Joe l Gree n put s i t well :

Scribe s an d Pharisee s ar e invite d t o fin d themselve s represente d i n th e parabl e as th e elde r so n — responsibl e an d obedient , it woul d seem , bu t failin g in thei r solidarit y wit h th e redemptiv e purpos e of God . Will the y identif y wit h God' s will and , havin g don e so, joi n repentan t sinner s at th e table ? Puttin g asid e thei r ow n concern s wit h statu s an d recognitio n (cf . 14:7-14) , wil l the y accep t as member s of th e famil y of Go d thos e who m Go d accepts? Or , refusin g t o embrac e God' s graciou s calculus ,

BARTO

whic h work s t o includ e thos e wh o (re)tur n t o him , wil l the y exclud e themselve s fro m th e famil y of God ? Th e parabl e is open-ende d an d so is th e invitation . (Luke, 586)

6 . Conclusio n

Ther e is n o goo d reaso n t o doub t tha t Luk e is a reliabl e guid e t o th e Sitz im Leben Jesu t o whic h th e parable s o f chapte r 15 o f hi s Gospe l wer e a response . Attacke d b y Pharisee s an d scribe s fo r eatin g wit h "sinners, " Jesu s respond s no t i n term s o f Tora h an d halaki c statement s bu t i n parables . Th e parable s h e tell s ar e a wa y o f changin g th e term s o f referenc e o f a n influentia l patter n o f thought . The y ar e Jesus ' characteristi c wa y o f invitin g hi s critic s t o recogniz e tha t i n hi s ministr y a ne w orde r o f thing s is breakin g in At th e hear t o f thi s ne w orde r o r econom y is a trul y radica l insistenc e o n divin e compassio n — a compassio n tha t overflow s i n th e forgivenes s o f sinners , hospitalit y t o th e poor , th e healin g o f th e sick , an d th e proclamatio n o f th e "goo d news " o f th e kingdo m o f God .

Thi s ne w econom y is eschatologica l — tha t is, it ha s t o d o wit h th e reorderin g o f one' s prioritie s an d practice s i n a wa y appropriat e t o th e comin g o f Go d i n merc y an d justice . I t bring s heave n t o earth , a t leas t i n anticipator y ways I t reflect s th e divin e communio n tha t is mediate d b y Jesu s an d presen t amon g thos e wh o commi t themselve s t o him . Thi s is a tim e no t fo r a separatio n o f withdrawal i n th e interest s o f purit y (sinc e th e templ e is n o longe r a t th e hear t o f things) , bu t o f separatio n fo r a mission with Jesus fo r th e sak e o f th e "lost. " I t is a tim e no t fo r dividin g int o partie s antagonisti c t o on e another , bu t fo r unitin g i n a ne w kin d o f solidarit y tha t is grounde d o n th e grac e o f Go d an d sustaine d b y ongoin g practice s o f repentance , forgiveness , an d reconciliation .

Tabl e fellowshi p wit h ta x collector s an d "sinners " is on e suc h practice . Thi s ne w econom y is no t a matte r o f "chea p grace, " whic h is ho w w e hav e characterize d th e criticis m voice d b y th e Pharisees Wha t th e parable s show , an d wha t Jesus ' lif e show s a s well , is tha t separatio n fo r missio n is costl y an d demandin g becaus e i t require s ris k an d sacrifice Fo r it require s goin g t o th e los t i n love , offerin g forgivenes s t o thos e wh o ar e peniten t (cf . 7:36-50 ; 18:9-14 ; 23:39-43) , an d welcomin g the m int o a peopl e bein g renewe d b y God' s So n i n th e powe r o f th e Spirit

A s w e liste n agai n t o thes e parable s w e fin d tha t the y spea k powerfull y

still Thei r challeng e is no t i n spit e o f thei r historica l an d literar y particularities , bu t becaus e o f the m — tha t is, becaus e als o o f th e communitie s o f fait h tha t hav e nurture d an d bee n nurture d b y thei r ongoin g interpretativ e performance Acceptin g th e parable s as constituen t part s o f Christia n Scripture , it is vita l tha t w e no t allo w question s o f method i n parabl e interpretatio n t o distrac t u s fro m question s o f content and truth. As Dietric h Bonhoeffe r ha s helpe d u s t o see , makin g metho d centra l encourage s u s t o rea d th e Bibl e for ourselves , i n term s o f ou r ow n interests , wherea s makin g conten t centra l allow s u s t o hea r th e Spiri t speakin g throug h Scriptur e over against ourselve s (cf . als o Fow l an d Jones , Reading in Communion, 135-64) . Tha t is no t t o sa y tha t question s o f conten t an d trut h ca n b e separate d fro m question s o f metho d i n an y straightforwar d way. Bu t it is a n importan t reminde r o f ou r fundamenta l obligatio n t o hea r th e parable s o n thei r ow n (scriptural ) terms : a s testimonie s t o th e transformin g realit y o f th e kingdo m o f Go d manifes t i n Jesu s an d hi s followers , and a s testimonie s t o th e sam e transformin g realit y a t wor k i n th e worl d toda y throug h th e Spirit . I t is, therefore , quit e legitimat e — indee d essentia l — t o ask : Do we believe i t t o b e tru e tha t "ther e is jo y i n heave n befor e th e angel s o f Go d ove r on e sinne r wh o repents" ? D o w e believ e i t t o b e tru e tha t Go d is lik e tha t shepherd , tha t woman , an d tha t forgivin g father ? D o w e believ e it t o b e tru e tha t Jesu s embodie d suc h a n understandin g o f Go d i n hi s practic e o f eatin g wit h "sinners, " an d tha t t o b e a followe r o f Jesu s mean s t o engag e i n practice s tha t ar e i n creativ e fidelit y wit h hi s teachin g an d example ? N o amoun t o f agreemen t in principle wil l sho w i n an y convincin g wa y tha t wha t is affirme d is true . I n Bonhoeffer' s terms , wha t is necessar y is th e ste p beyon d "agreemen t i n principle. " Wha t is necessar y is th e ste p (a s h e provocativel y pu t it ) fro m bein g a theologia n t o bein g a Christian . I n othe r words , wha t wil l sho w i t t o b e tru e is whethe r o r no t th e testimon y o f th e parable s t o th e overflowin g grac e an d forgivenes s o f God , whic h lead s t o repentance , become s embodie d i n ou r ow n live s an d practices .

Selecte d Bibliograph y

Bailey , Kennet h E Poet and Peasant: A Literary Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke. Gran d Rapids : Eerdmans , 1976 . Through Peasant Eyes: More Lucan Parables, Their Culture and Style. Gran d Rapids : Eerdmans , 1980 .

5

Barton , Stephe n C . The Spirituality of the Gospels. London : SPCK , 1992 .

Chilton , Bruc e D . "Jesu s an d th e Repentanc e o f E. P. Sanders, " Tyndale Bulletin 3 9 (1988 ) 1-18 .

Donahue , Joh n R. The Gospel in Parable. Philadelphia : Fortress , 1988 . Drury , John . The Parables in the Gospels: History and Allegory. London : SPCK ; Ne w York : Crossroad , 1985 .

Dunn , Jame s D . G . Jesus, Paid and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians. Louisville : Westminster/Joh n Knox , 1990 .

Fowl , Stephe n E. an d Jones , L. Gregory . Reading in Communion. Scripture and Ethics in Christian Life. London : SPCK , 1991 .

Green , Joe l B. "Goo d New s t o Whom ? Jesu s an d th e 'Poor ' i n th e Gospe l o f Luke, " i n Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ, ed . J. B. Gree n an d M . Turner . Gran d Rapids : Eerdmans , 1994 , 59-74 .

. The Gospel of Luke. Gran d Rapids : Eerdmans , 1997 .

Jones , L. Gregory . Embodying Forgiveness: A Theological Analysis. Gran d Rapids : Eerdmans , 1995 .

Lash , Nicholas . Theology on the Way to Emmaus. London : SCM , 1986 .

Malina , Bruc e J The New Testament World. London : SCM , 1983

Moxnes , Halvor "Meal s an d th e Ne w Communit y i n Luke, " Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok 5 1 (1986 ) 158-67

Neusner , Jacob "Tw o Picture s o f th e Pharisees : Philosophica l Circl e o r Eatin g Club, " Anglican Theological Review 6 4 (1982 ) 525-38

Talbert , Charle s H Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel. Ne w York : Crossroad , 1982

CHAPTE R 1 0

Parables o n Poverty an d Riches

(Luke 12:13-21; 16:1-13; 16:19-31)

STEPHE N L WRIGH T

JESUS ' PARABLES of th e Rich Fool (Luk e 12:13-21) , th e Shrew d Manage r (Luk e 16:1-13) , an d th e Ric h Ma n an d Lazaru s (Luk e 16:19-31 ) focu s o n issue s havin g t o d o wit h povert y an d riches . The y war n agains t th e allur e o f wealth . The y poin t th e poo r t o a wa y of liberatio n b y forsakin g th e illusio n of ownership , by makin g friend s throug h th e jus t remissio n o f debts , an d by trustin g Go d fo r justice . At th e sam e time , however , the y summo n th e ric h t o repentance . The y hol d i n tensio n a propheti c an d a practica l vision . Thei r messag e is roote d i n th e law, prophecy , an d wisdo m of Israel' s Scriptures . Bu t it is also couche d i n a fres h an d subversiv e style .

1. Socia l an d Literar y Question s

Each of thes e thre e parable s begin s wit h th e phras e "a ric h man, " whic h invite s moder n interpreter s t o locat e thes e word s in thei r first-centur y socia l world . Furthermore , thes e word s brin g immediatel y int o play th e questio n of ho w characte r emerge s i n a story . Thu s socia l an d literar y question s ar e intertwine d i n thes e parables . Fo r th e way a storytelle r gives characte r t o a figur e in a stor y — particularl y i n shor t parable s draw n wit h suc h ters e brush-stroke s as thes e — an d th e wa y a n audienc e understand s tha t teller' s

characterizatio n depen d heavil y o n a genera l perceptio n o f th e figure' s rol e i n society

Alon g wit h othe r ancien t agraria n societies , th e Nea r Eas t o f th e firs t centur y wa s marke d b y star k disparit y betwee n a small , wealth y rulin g clas s an d a larg e numbe r o f peasant s wh o barel y eke d ou t a livin g fro m thei r tin y plot s o f land . Th e ric h maintaine d an d enhance d thei r statu s an d

wealt h b y exactin g tribut e fro m th e poor A laye r o f bureaucracy , o f course , develope d i n tande m wit h th e expansio n o f a n exploitive , oppressiv e economy Fo r agent s wer e neede d t o collec t tribute ; merchant s wer e require d t o sel l produc e an d impor t goods Bu t thoug h som e o f thes e intermediarie s ma y hav e accumulate d a rathe r comfortabl e nes t eg g fo r themselves , i t is importan t tha t w e clea r ou r mind s o f an y anachronisti c notion s o f a prosperou s middl e clas s i n antiquity , suc h a s migh t hav e bee n influence d b y somethin g comparabl e t o ou r Protestan t wor k ethic . Lif e i n first-centur y Palestin e wa s live d ou t i n a basicall y two-tie r society An d i n suc h a societ y th e retainer s o f th e ric h di d no t ris e muc h abov e th e insecurit y o f th e poo r

(cf Herzog , Parables as Subversive Speech, 53-66)

D o thes e thre e parable s o f Jesu s represen t character s an d occurrence s tha t were , withi n suc h a socia l setting , eithe r typica l o r extraordinar y — or , perhaps , ar e wha t the y represen t somewher e i n between ? Her e literar y a s wel l a s historica l judgmen t come s int o play Fo r whil e th e storie s o f thes e parable s see m realisticall y grounde d i n th e worl d o f first-centur y Palestine , the y are , nonetheless , presente d i n way s tha t ar e strikin g i n thei r development s an d strang e i n thei r outcomes Indeed , th e story-for m itsel f lead s on e t o expec t th e unexpected . Thu s whil e th e character s ar e typical , th e plot s ar e unusual

Th e rhetori c o f th e storie s is als o fragil e an d understated . Th e parable s o f th e Ric h Foo l (Luk e 12:13-2 1 ) an d th e Ric h Ma n an d Lazaru s (Luk e 16:19-31 ) presen t scene s tha t ar e hidde n fro m norma l huma n perception : th e voic e o f Go d i n th e nigh t (cf . 12:20) ; th e destinie s o f tw o me n beyon d deat h an d a conversatio n wit h decease d Abraha m (cf 16:23-31) Her e ther e is n o knockdow n argument ; n o appea l t o som e universall y obviou s principle . Rather , wha t reverberate s throughou t thes e tw o parable s is a provocativ e summon s t o though t an d imagination : "Wha t if it wer e so? " Likewise , th e conclusion s o f thes e parable s ar e quit e ters e an d restrained W e d o no t rea d o f th e foolis h farmer' s respons e t o God' s voice , o r o f hi s death , o r o f anythin g tha t ma y hav e take n plac e beyon d it . W e d o no t kno w whethe r th e fiv e brother s eventuall y repented Eve n th e chas m be -

twee n th e ric h ma n an d Lazaru s ma y b e "fixed " i n a functional rathe r tha n eternal sens e (cf Herzog , ibid., 124) , reflectin g a rabbini c belie f tha t eve n th e wicke d i n Hade s ma y b e abl e t o repen t (cf . Oesterley , Gospel Parables, 208) . Th e tru e "en d o f th e story " i n bot h case s remain s untold .

Th e fac t tha t tw o o f thes e tale s unfol d i n private , invisibl e way s lend s weigh t t o th e belie f tha t th e third , th e Parabl e o f th e Shrew d Manage r (Luk e 16:1-13) , wa s als o intende d t o represen t a n imaginar y rathe r tha n a n actua l incident , thoug h th e latte r possibilit y canno t b e rule d out Tha t parable , too , end s abruptly , wit h th e maste r praisin g th e stewar d ( v 8) . Bu t muc h is lef t fo r th e heare r o r reade r — particularl y someon e familia r wit h th e socia l scen e — t o ponder

Sinc e Adol f Jülicher' s treatmen t o f Jesus ' parable s a t th e en d o f th e nineteent h century , th e Parabl e o f th e Ric h Foo l an d th e Parabl e o f th e Ric h Ma n an d Lazaru s hav e usuall y bee n classe d wit h th e Parabl e o f th e Goo d Samarita n an d th e Parabl e o f th e Pharise e an d th e Ta x Collecto r a s "exampl e stories " — being , thereby , distinguishe d fro m "parable s proper, " whic h categor y woul d includ e th e Parabl e o f th e Shrew d Manager . Yet all thre e o f th e storie s wit h whic h w e ar e her e concerne d see m t o hav e bee n give n fo r exemplar y purposes , an d ou r treatmen t o f the m i n wha t follow s wil l attemp t t o demonstrat e th e validit y o f suc h a n understanding . I n particular , interpreter s hav e ofte n bee n embarrasse d b y th e ide a o f a n exemplar y purpos e fo r th e Parabl e o f th e Shrew d Manager Bu t thi s coynes s is due , w e believe , t o a failur e t o appreciat e th e socia l an d literar y question s o f characterizatio n i n th e parable Fo r ever y readin g o f a parable , whateve r its nature , require s a "readin g betwee n th e lines, " whic h is entirel y proper . An d tale s o f "th e rich " an d "th e poor " woul d hav e evoke d fo r thei r firs t hearer s a sens e o f th e whol e we b o f ancien t society , whic h moder n reader s mus t tr y t o imagine . So ou r tas k a s present-da y interpreter s is t o re-visualiz e th e feature s o f ancien t societ y tha t ar e containe d withi n bot h thi s parabl e an d th e othe r tw o o f ou r presen t concer n — an d havin g positione d ourselve s bac k int o th e societ y depicte d i n thes e parables , t o mak e sens e o f the m a s examples

2 . Th e Parable s i n Thei r Immediat e Contex t

Al l thre e o f thes e Luka n parable s ar e se t i n context s tha t impl y tha t the y wer e addresse d t o bot h privat e an d publi c audiences . Thes e audience s wer e

compose d o f th e ric h an d th e poor , th e crowds , th e disciples , an d th e Pharisees

Th e Parabl e o f th e Ric h Foo l i n 12:13-2 1 is se t broadl y i n a discours e directe d t o a crow d o f thousand s o f peopl e wh o ha d gathere d abou t Jesu s (cf . 12:1) , bu t i t is explicitl y tol d i n respons e t o on e perso n wh o ask s fo r a specifi c decisio n fro m hi m ( v 13) . I t is unlikel y tha t thi s "perso n i n th e crowd " wa s on e o f "th e rich " (se e th e discussio n o f th e parabl e below) , ye t th e stor y ha s t o d o wit h a ric h man . Th e openin g word s o f th e discours e stan d a s a rubri c ove r everythin g tha t is said : "Bewar e o f th e leave n o f th e Pharisees " (12:1 ) — wit h muc h o f wha t is sai d i n th e discours e bein g directe d no t jus t t o th e crow d bu t als o t o Jesus ' disciples , wh o ar e identifie d a s hi s "friends " (12:4 ) an d hi s "littl e flock " (12:32)

Th e Parabl e o f th e Shrew d Manage r i n 16:1-1 3 is addresse d b y Jesu s explicitl y t o "hi s disciples " ( v 1) Bu t i t follow s immediatel y o n th e heel s o f thre e othe r parable s i n 15:3-3 2 tha t wer e directe d towar d grumblin g "Pharisee s an d scribes " (cf 15:2 ) an d give n i n th e presenc e o f a numbe r o f "customs-officer s an d sinners " (cf 15:1) An d th e parabl e concern s bot h a landowne r an d hi s retainer .

Th e Parabl e o f th e Ric h Ma n an d Lazaru s i n 16:19-3 1 continue s a respons e o f Jesu s t o th e Pharisees , wh o ha d scoffe d a t hi s warning s abou t mone y (cf . 16:14) . Bu t sinc e th e Pharisee s i n thi s vers e ar e sai d t o "hear " wha t Jesu s ha d bee n sayin g t o th e disciple s (i.e. , th e content s o f 16:1-13) , th e implicatio n is tha t thes e sam e "disciples " continu e t o hea r wha t Jesu s say s t o th e Pharisees . No r doe s th e narrativ e giv e u s an y reaso n t o assum e tha t th e custom s officer s an d sinner s o f 15:1 ha d departed Furthermore , th e parabl e contain s i n roughl y equa l measur e bot h warnin g t o th e ric h — includin g thos e who , lik e th e Pharisees , whil e perhap s no t overl y wealthy , ar e sai d t o hav e bee n "lover s o f money " (16:14 ) — an d encouragemen t t o th e poor .

Luke , therefore , ha s se t thes e thre e parable s i n literar y nexuse s tha t highligh t thei r applicabilit y t o differen t group s o f people , wit h thes e divers e group s evidentl y servin g t o represen t th e whol e o f societ y i n Jesus ' day . Jesu s warn s th e crowd s — particularl y thos e h e speak s o f a s hi s "littl e flock, " hi s disciple s — no t t o fea r thei r povert y o r t o imitat e thos e wh o aspir e t o b e rich . Suc h a warnin g o f itself , however , doe s no t impl y a blanke t rejectio n o f th e ric h o r th e greedy . Fo r i n thes e parable s Jesu s appeal s t o the m a s wel l a s t o th e poor

3 . Th e Parabl e o f th e Ric h Foo l (Luk e 12:13-21 )

Th e Parabl e o f th e Ric h Foo l i n Luk e 12:13-2 1 appear s a s par t o f Jesus ' answe r t o a ma n callin g o n hi m t o settl e a n inheritanc e disput e betwee n himsel f an d hi s brothe r ( v 13) . Th e ma n wa s probabl y fro m a peasan t family . Wealth y familie s woul d hav e ha d thei r ow n mean s t o ge t wha t the y wanted , an d probabl y woul d no t hav e resorte d t o seekin g advic e fro m a wanderin g teacher .

Th e poo r i n a n Israelit e agraria n cultur e ha d thei r preciou s littl e patrimonies , an d inheritanc e law s wer e designe d s o tha t eac h membe r o f a larg e famil y woul d receiv e a shar e — with , o f course , th e larges t shar e bein g reserve d fo r th e eldest Bu t th e hars h realit y wa s tha t sometime s a plo t o f lan d becam e to o smal l t o divid e an y further I n suc h a situation , on e o r mor e member s o f th e famil y migh t b e drive n of f th e lan d t o a lif e o f insecurity , wher e on e coul d onl y see k casua l labo r o r sin k t o crim e o r beggar y (cf . Herzog , Parables as Subversive Speech, 65) . Jesus ' refusa l t o ac t a s "a judg e o r divider " i n th e disput e ( v 14) is th e mor e strikin g whe n thi s socia l backgroun d is appreciated . I n s o doing , h e no t onl y renounce s th e rol e tha t Mose s wa s accuse d o f havin g arrogate d t o himsel f (cf . Exo d 2:14) , h e als o refuse s th e tas k give n b y Go d t o Joshu a t o b e th e divide r o f th e lan d (cf . Joshu a 13-22) . Jesu s propose s n o instan t solution Rather , h e point s ou t t o bot h partie s (cf "them " i n ν 15) th e hear t o f th e proble m — tha t is, th e matte r o f "greed " o r "covetousness. "

If Jesus ' answe r t o th e ma n her e seem s a somewha t hars h respons e t o a potentiall y desperat e situation , w e shoul d not e tha t it fit s wel l wit h hi s othe r saying s i n th e sam e chapte r tha t war n agains t anxiet y (cf . 12:6-7,2231 ) an d tha t encourag e generosit y (cf 12:32-34 ) — wit h 12:22 carryin g a specifi c reminde r tha t Jesu s wa s addressin g hi s disciple s i n all o f thes e statements Th e disciple s ar e identifie d a s "th e poor " (hoi ptöchoi) i n Luk e 6:20 ; an d sinc e th e poo r hav e specia l reason s t o b e anxious , thes e othe r saying s hav e th e sam e shockin g qualit y a s th e warnin g agains t covetousnes s i n 12:15 Bu t whil e Jesus ' warnin g is shocking , i t is als o realisti c an d practical . Fo r if bot h disputant s woul d abjur e gree d — eve n if th e situatio n wa s perilou s — th e stin g woul d b e draw n an d a wa y forwar d coul d b e discerned

A reaso n is adde d t o th e warning : "becaus e one' s lif e doe s no t consis t i n th e abundanc e (en tç perisseuein) o f possessions " (12:15b) "Abundance " suggest s th e surpluse s tha t sustaine d th e wealt h an d statu s o f th e

elit e member s o f society . Thoug h frequentl y take n a s pittin g material lif e agains t spiritual life , i t is probabl y bette r t o rea d thi s sayin g a s contrastin g luxury wit h necessity. Thu s peasant s ar e no t t o b e delude d b y th e harshnes s o f thei r povert y int o thinkin g tha t "life " mean s havin g mor e tha n on e need s — tha t is, no t t o b e deceive d int o thinkin g tha t th e solutio n t o povert y is t o b e foun d i n imitatin g th e deligh t o f th e elit e i n thei r excesses . Th e large r contex t o f thi s parabl e make s i t natura l tha t a stor y abou t a ric h ma n shoul d b e give n i n answe r t o a proble m pose d b y a poo r man

Jesus ' largel y peasan t audienc e ha d bee n tol d t o bewar e o f th e attitud e o f th e rich , jus t a s the y wer e tol d t o bewar e o f th e leave n o f th e Pharisee s (12:1) S o no w the y ar e tol d o f a ric h ma n wh o ha d a bumpe r harvest , whic h gav e hi m a n ampl e surplu s (12:16) . Thoug h technicall y th e lan d migh t no t hav e bee n "his, " fo r legall y th e peasant s wer e allowe d thei r patrimony , th e syste m o f exploitatio n wa s suc h tha t h e ha d de facto ownershi p o f th e lands , bot h hi s an d theirs .

I n Jesus ' tellin g o f th e stor y hi s hearer s ar e give n a glimps e int o th e ric h man' s thinking , whic h woul d hav e bee n readil y recognizabl e t o the m i n tha t day . Th e man' s plan s wer e i n lin e wit h ancien t recommendation s t o farmer s t o maximiz e thei r productiv e lan d area So h e decide d no t t o ad d furthe r barn s t o hi s existin g ones , bu t t o tea r dow n hi s ol d barn s an d buil d mor e spaciou s an d efficien t one s o n th e sam e sit e ( w 17-18) . Grai n coul d b e kep t fo r a numbe r o f years Perhap s h e though t tha t on e da y h e woul d ge t a bette r pric e fo r it . Bu t whethe r o r no t h e wa s a n astut e speculator , h e foresee s tha t thi s grea t surplu s coul d financ e a lif e o f comfort , luxury , an d eas e ( v 19) Th e sayin g "relax , eat , drink , an d b e merry " represent s th e typical outloo k o f a hedonis t (cf . Hedrick , Parables as Poetic Fictions, 154-56) . Th e ric h man' s thought-process , however , is dramaticall y interrupte d b y Go d ( v 20) . Go d call s hi m " a fool " (aphrön) —tha t is , on e wh o "ha s sai d i n hi s heart : 'ther e is n o God' " (cf P s 14:1 , wher e aphrön is als o use d i n th e LXX) . H e is a foo l becaus e hi s ow n lif e is abou t t o b e "demanded " o f him , an d all hi s good s wil l the n pas s int o othe r hands Th e illusio n o f ownershi p h e ha s maintaine d wil l b e shattered Th e thing s h e ha s regarde d a s "his " wil l b e "his " n o more . Eve n hi s "soul " o r "life " (psuchē, ν 19) , whic h h e ha d calle d "mine " an d planne d t o pampe r indefinitely , is th e selfsam e "soul " o r "life " (psuchē) tha t is suddenl y reveale d a s a loan , no t a possession , an d require d fro m hi m ( v 20) .

Th e commen t wit h whic h th e stor y is rounde d of f i n vers e 21 , "S o it is wit h thos e wh o stor e u p treasure s fo r themselve s bu t ar e no t ric h towar d

God, " crystallize s it s messag e b y pointin g t o th e contras t betwee n "storin g u p treasures " fo r oneself , a s thi s ma n did , an d bein g "ric h towar d God. " Th e latte r phras e is bes t take n a s referrin g t o act s o f generosit y expresse d t o others , wit h sharin g one' s bount y wit h th e poo r bein g th e equivalen t o f givin g t o Go d (cf Pro v 19:17) Th e ma n i n th e stor y is mad e a warnin g exampl e — no t s o muc h o n accoun t o f hi s sudde n deat h o r anythin g tha t migh t li e beyon d death , bu t becaus e o f th e searin g word s tha t tea r hi s dream s t o shreds

W e mis s th e forc e o f th e stor y if w e se e th e ric h ma n as bein g especiall y wicked Commentator s sometime s describ e th e character s o f th e parable s i n ver y luri d colors , an d s o the y becom e figure s tha t th e piou s lov e t o hate . Bu t th e poin t here , a s i n man y anothe r tale , is no t tha t thi s ma n wa s a monster , bu t tha t h e is typica l — tha t is, typica l o f a clas s o f peopl e an d typica l o f a whol e socia l system . Hi s thought-processe s ar e normal The y encapsulat e th e whol e basi s o f a n exploitative , agraria n societ y tha t seek s contro l ove r lan d an d want s t o us e surpluse s t o finance luxury . The y ar e thought-processe s tha t exclud e Go d an d othe r peopl e — wh o both , alike , inevitabl y reasser t themselve s a t th e end

Th e stor y is all th e mor e powerfu l fo r bein g s o restrained Jesu s doe s no t launc h int o a tirad e abou t th e wickednes s o f th e system H e propose s n o manifest o abou t th e redistributio n o f wealth . Th e tacti c is actuall y mor e subversiv e an d mor e radica l tha n that Fo r wha t Jesu s doe s is t o pric k th e bubbl e o f a self-satisfie d sens e o f ownership . I n effect , h e say s t o th e peasants : "Th e ric h wil l find ou t soo n enoug h tha t the y don' t contro l eve n thei r ow n lives Don' t b e foole d int o aspirin g t o b e lik e them. "

Tw o thing s nee d t o b e notice d abou t Jesus ' teachin g i n thi s parable , particularl y a s tha t teachin g is expresse d i n th e contex t o f th e Israelit e cultur e o f tha t day First , hi s word s ar e propheti c words Th e thoughtfu l woul d se e i n the m a challeng e t o th e whol e system . Fo r wit h God' s rebuk e o f th e ric h man , everythin g tha t h e represente d i n th e societ y o f tha t tim e wa s calle d t o account A t th e sam e time , however , hi s word s ar e ver y practica l words . Jesu s wa s steepe d i n th e Wisdo m traditio n o f th e Scriptures , whic h exalte d common-sens e instructio n a s somethin g God-give n an d portraye d obedienc e a s no t onl y righ t bu t als o th e bes t an d safes t cours e o f action . Indeed , a s Wisdo m teaches , disobedienc e is folly .

Jesus ' refusa l t o adjudicat e i n a n inheritanc e disput e entaile d neithe r a dismissa l o f th e ric h a s irretrievabl y wicke d no r a detachmen t fro m th e problem s o f th e poor O n th e contrary , hi s word s calle d fo r a respons e tha t

wa s immediatel y possibl e fo r bot h ric h an d poor . The y mus t awake n t o th e illusor y natur e o f ownership Eve n th e poo r wil l fin d thei r securit y onl y i n God , no t i n clothing , food , o r drin k (cf . 12:27-31) .

Thi s messag e wa s no t new . Th e parabl e ca n b e rea d a s a transmutatio n int o stor y for m o f th e poetr y o f Psal m 4 9 (se e esp w 11-14,16-17 ) o r th e teachin g o f Sirac h 11:18-21 , wit h thei r emphase s o n th e inevitabilit y o f deat h an d th e foll y o f trustin g i n wealt h o r envyin g th e wealthy . Anothe r interestin g precurso r is 1 Enoch 97:8-10 , whic h speak s o f th e injustic e tha t accompanie s grea t wealth . Bu t Jesus ' stor y bring s th e messag e int o sharpe r focus Somethin g strikin g happene d i n Jesus ' stor y t o a typica l ric h man : Go d spok e t o him !

4 . Th e Parabl e o f th e Shrew d Manage r (Luk e 16:1-13 )

I n Luke' s Gospel , Jesus ' tellin g o f th e Parabl e o f th e Shrew d Manage r t o hi s disciple s i n 16:1-1 3 follow s immediatel y o n th e heel s o f th e Parabl e o f th e Prodiga l Son , whic h h e tol d t o hi s detractor s i n 15:11-32 Furthermore , ther e is a n interweavin g o f commo n theme s i n thes e tw o parable s (cf Bailey , Poet and Peasant, 109; Donahue , Gospel in Parable, 167) S o w e ma y assum e fro m it s connectio n wit h wha t goe s befor e i n chapte r 15 tha t Luk e intende d hi s reader s t o understan d thi s parabl e o f th e Shrew d Manage r a s par t o f Jesus ' defens e concernin g th e compan y h e keep s (cf 15:1-2) , whic h h e set s ou t i n 15:3-16:13 . An d havin g addresse d th e Pharisee s an d scribe s directl y i n 15:3-32 , Jesu s is portraye d i n 16:1-1 3 a s turnin g t o hi s disciple s an d warnin g the m a s t o wher e t o loo k an d no t t o loo k fo r example s o f righ t behavior .

I n a sometime s desperat e searc h fo r "spiritual " message s i n th e parables , th e socia l situatio n embedde d withi n thi s seemingl y difficul t parabl e ha s frequentl y bee n downplayed . Th e commentato r wh o ha s don e mos t t o redres s thi s imbalanc e is Willia m Herzo g (cf . hi s Parables as SubversiveSpeech), an d muc h o f wha t follow s is indebte d t o hi s treatment . Th e stor y o f th e parabl e is as follows : A n estat e manage r is accuse d o f squanderin g hi s ric h employer' s good s ( v 1). Linguistically , th e balanc e is slightl y i n favo r o f viewin g th e aoris t passiv e ver b dieblēthē ("h e wa s accused" ) a s signalin g a fals e o r slanderou s accusation . Middleme n then , a s now , wer e vulnerable , an d especiall y s o give n th e cutthroa t natur e o f th e oppressiv e syste m withi n whic h the y worked . The y wer e unpopula r wit h

4

th e peasant s becaus e the y collecte d th e landlord' s tribute , whic h include d a cu t fo r themselves Bu t the y coul d als o arous e th e suspicion s an d resentmen t o f thei r master s if the y bega n t o loo k to o powerfu l o r wealthy . Furthermore , peasant s strugglin g t o surviv e migh t wel l mak e troubl e betwee n a manage r an d a landlor d a s a rus e t o improv e thing s a bi t fo r themselves

N o part y woul d hav e operate d i n a worl d o f mora l ideals . Rather , wha t is reflecte d i n th e stor y tol d b y Jesu s is simpl y brut e oppression , o n th e on e hand , an d a battl e fo r survival , o n th e other

I n suc h a worl d ther e is nothin g surprisin g abou t th e "justice " wit h whic h th e accuse d manage r is treated : h e mus t han d ove r hi s accoun t book s an d is summaril y fire d ( v 2) . Th e manager' s respons e show s th e harshnes s o f th e choic e wit h whic h h e is face d — a harshnes s t o whic h mos t moder n reader s o f th e parabl e hav e generall y bee n rathe r insensitive Fo r diggin g an d beggin g wer e th e activitie s o f da y laborer s wh o ha d bee n drive n of f th e famil y parce l o f land As a bureaucra t h e woul d no t hav e bee n abl e t o compet e fo r wor k wit h thos e wh o ha d labore d all thei r live s o n th e land . An d hi s reluctanc e t o be g shoul d no t b e see n a s sinfu l pride , but , rather , a n apprehensio n o f th e los s o f all huma n dignit y — whic h coul d heral d onl y a beggar' s fat e o f impoverishment , disease , an d deat h (cf . 16:20-22) Fo r onc e ou t o f hi s jo b h e woul d all to o easil y sin k "int o th e clas s o f expendables " (Herzog , ibid., 242) S o hi s lamen t "Wha t shal l I do? " (ti poiesö o f ν 3 ) carrie s wit h i t a clea r ton e o f nea r despair .

Hi s pla n o f actio n is probabl y t o b e understoo d agains t th e backgroun d o f wealth y estat e owner s usin g merchant s t o sell thei r goods . Th e fac t tha t hi s master' s debtor s coul d write , togethe r wit h th e size o f thei r debts , suggest s tha t the y wer e mor e likel y merchant s tha n peasant s (cf . Herzog , ibid., 249-50) . Suc h salesme n woul d receiv e th e surpluse s o f th e bi g estate s an d promis e th e landowner s a monetar y retur n o n wha t wa s sold Th e retur n promised , however , wa s no t onl y th e pric e o f th e commodit y a t th e tim e o f its sal e bu t include d als o a hidde n interes t rate , whic h wa s kep t hidde n becaus e o f th e Jewis h prohibitio n o f usury . Th e deb t woul d the n b e state d simpl y i n term s o f a quantit y o f produc e (cf . w 6-7) .

Th e manager , whos e jo b it wa s t o negotiat e thes e contract s wit h th e merchant s o n behal f o f hi s wealth y employer , is picture d a s secretl y changin g th e contract s wit h the m i n suc h a wa y a s t o cance l th e hidde n interes t du e hi s employer . Thi s woul d giv e th e merchant s wit h who m h e deal t mor e opportunit y t o profi t fro m th e transaction , fo r the y coul d retai n th e "interest " portio n themselve s — or , a t least , coul d hav e greate r scop e t o

tak e thei r ow n cut . Thi s interpretatio n is supporte d b y th e differenc e i n th e proportio n o f deb t tha t is cancele d i n th e cas e o f th e tw o merchant s mentioned , wher e th e interes t is highe r fo r good s wit h mor e ris k attache d t o them . Thu s fo r th e deb t o f oil , whic h coul d hav e bee n adulterated , fifty percen t is cancele d ( v 6) ; whil e fo r th e deb t o f wheat , it is onl y twent y percen t ( v 7; cf . Herzog , ibid., 255) .

Wha t wa s th e manager' s logi c i n this ? It is probabl y onl y a somewha t sentimenta l idea , a s Herzo g rightl y observes , t o thin k tha t h e hope d t o live of f th e gratitud e o f th e merchant s h e ha d thu s benefited . Woul d shar p businessmen , operatin g o n lo w profi t margins , hav e ha d muc h tim e o r inclinatio n t o sho w suc h generosit y — especiall y whe n the y woul d soo n realiz e tha t th e manage r wit h who m the y ha d deal t ha d jus t bee n sacke d fo r maladministration ? Rather , th e clu e seem s t o li e i n th e fac t tha t thi s manager , like th e manage r referre d t o i n 12:44, ha d bee n give n considerabl e authority . Hi s remissio n o f th e interes t owe d would , therefore , reflec t wel l o n hi s employer Fo r th e merchant s woul d b e pu t i n a relationshi p o f furthe r indebtednes s t o th e landowner , an d th e landowne r woul d b e laude d fo r hi s generosit y position s th e landowne r woul d no t wis h t o renounce Th e result ? Eithe r th e landowne r woul d reinstat e th e manager , wh o ha d prove n himsel f t o b e a skille d public-relation s man , or , a t th e ver y least , h e woul d recommen d hi m t o others An d th e "homes " int o whic h th e manage r hope d t o b e welcome d ( v 4 ) should , therefore , b e see n no t a s place s wher e h e migh t receiv e endles s hospitalit y i n exchang e fo r doin g nothing , bu t a s th e larg e household s o f th e ric h wher e h e migh t ge t a jo b h e coul d d o well

Th e manager' s plan , it seems , pai d off . Hi s maste r "commends " hi m fo r hi s "shrewdness " ( v 8) . H e recognize s i n hi s employee' s action s th e skil l o f simultaneousl y benefitin g hi s employer , hi s clients , an d himself Th e manage r ha s wo n popularit y fro m other s fo r hi s maste r and , mor e importantl y fo r hi s ow n situation , ha s reminde d hi s maste r o f hi s ow n usefulness , fo r h e ha s regularl y accumulate d th e hidde n interes t o n hi s master' s behal f (cf . Herzog , ibid., 257) . An d thoug h h e ha s bee n tricke d b y hi s employee , th e estat e owne r canno t hel p bu t admir e suc h quick-wittedness

I n th e master' s prais e o f th e manager , th e narrativ e implicitl y commend s th e maste r an d explicitl y set s fort h th e shrew d manage r a s a n example Caugh t i n th e mids t o f a n oppressiv e system , th e manage r finds hi s ow n wa y ou t o f a crisi s b y mean s o f a n ac t o f justic e tha t benefit s th e far-fromwealth y merchant s (cf Herzog , ibid., 258 , se e als o Daube , "Neglecte d Nuance s o f Exposition, " 2335 , an d Bindemann , "Ungerecht e al s Vorbilder?, "

963ff.) . Fo r th e cancellatio n o f illega l interest , s o fa r fro m bein g a n ac t o f "unfaithfulness " t o hi s master , actuall y turn s ou t t o b e a n ac t o f faithfulnes s t o Go d tha t challenge s th e inheren t abus e o f a n exploitativ e economy . Man y reader s o f thi s parabl e hav e bee n unabl e t o see th e manage r i n an y wa y as bein g exemplary , simpl y because , notwithstandin g hi s shrewdness , h e is s o clearl y a shar p operator . Bu t othe r parabl e characters , too , ar e portraye d a s bein g a t th e sam e tim e bot h self-intereste d an d righ t — as , fo r example , th e prodiga l so n i n hi s decisio n t o retur n (cf Luk e 15:18-19) , th e judg e i n hi s verdic t delivere d unde r pressur e (cf . Luk e 18:4-5) , an d th e custom s office r i n hi s ple a fo r merc y (cf Luk e 18:13) Th e teachin g o f Jesu s generall y presuppose s no t a n ethi c o f selfles s motivation , bu t th e conjunctio n o f righteousnes s an d one' s ow n bes t interest s — a s highlighte d als o i n Israel' s Wisdo m tradition So ther e is n o nee d t o resor t t o tortuou s argument s abou t iron y i n th e word s o f 16:8b , "th e childre n o f thi s ag e ar e mor e shrew d i n dealin g wit h thei r ow n generatio n tha n ar e th e childre n o f light, " o r i n th e exhortatio n o f 16:9, "Mak e friend s fo r yourselve s b y mean s o f dishones t wealth , s o tha t whe n it is gone , the y ma y welcom e yo u int o th e eterna l homes " — a s if Jesu s mean t th e opposit e o f wha t h e seem s t o hav e said No r nee d w e evacuat e th e stor y o f its detail s o r it s socia l resonance s b y saying , wit h Joachi m Jeremias , tha t th e parable' s sol e poin t ha s t o d o wit h th e man' s shrewdnes s i n a tim e o f crisis , whic h is th e onl y prope r respons e o f ever y perso n t o th e urgen t messag e o f th e kingdo m (cf . Parables of Jesus, 182) . I t remains , however , t o commen t briefl y o n som e o f th e difficultie s tha t th e tex t o f 16:1-1 3 appear s t o rais e agains t ou r readin g o f th e parable . Fo r if th e manage r is mean t t o b e exemplar y no t onl y i n hi s skillfulnes s bu t als o i n th e substanc e o f hi s action , wh y is h e the n calle d a manage r "o f unrighteousness " (tes adikias) i n vers e 8? Firs t w e shoul d not e tha t thi s phras e denote s a n ordinar y "ma n o f th e world, " no t a perso n o f specia l wickednes s (cf . Ellis, Luke, 199) . Bu t particularl y w e mus t se e th e connectio n betwee n thi s descriptio n an d th e judg e "o f unrighteousness " (tes adikias) i n 18:6 (cf . Bindemann , "Ungerecht e al s Vorbilder?") . Th e judg e is presente d a s a ma n o f fe w scruples , bu t on e wh o nevertheless , unde r pressure , reache s a jus t verdict Th e designatio n "unrighteous, " therefore , refer s no t t o th e actio n tha t bring s eac h stor y t o a climax , bu t t o th e genera l characte r o f th e judg e an d th e manage r a t th e outse t — or , perhap s mor e accurately , t o a genera l perceptio n o f thei r characters

Indeed , thi s is a poin t wher e it is possibl e t o detec t a touc h o f iron y i n th e stor y o f th e shrew d manager Lik e th e ta x collector s o f 15:1 , h e —

along , o f course , wit h hi s maste r — is u p t o hi s eye s i n shad y financia l dealings , th e like s o f whic h th e Pharisee s viewe d wit h disapproval H e regularl y handle s "th e mammo n o f unrighteousness " (16:9 ; cf . "th e unrighteou s mammon " o f 16:11 , whic h Jeremia s translate s "tainte d money " [Parables of Jesus, 46]) Yet surprisingl y suc h a person , eve n thoug h caugh t u p i n th e mids t o f "unrighteousness, " ca n ac t rightl y an d eve n b e imitated . I t is exactl y thi s kin d o f iron y tha t hover s ove r Jesus ' word s o f Luk e 5:32 , " I di d no t com e t o cal l th e righteous , bu t sinner s t o repentance"—tha t is, th e iron y o f ho w certai n group s identifie d themselve s ove r agains t others .

So th e disciple s ar e exhorte d t o loo k t o "th e son s o f thi s world " a s examples , rathe r tha n t o "th e son s o f light " (16:8) . Christians , o f course , hav e regularl y shrun k bac k fro m th e forc e o f thi s exhortation . Bu t i t make s goo d sens e withi n ou r readin g o f th e parabl e suggeste d above Self-style d "son s o f light " — lik e th e sectarie s a t Qumran , wh o use d th e phras e "son s o f light " o f themselve s (cf 1Q M 1); o r th e Pharisees , wh o see m t o hav e take n ove r fo r themselve s th e propheti c designatio n " a ligh t fo r th e nations " (cf . Isa 42:6 ) — ar e no t t o b e trusted . Instance s o f wisdo m an d obedienc e ca n b e foun d close r t o hand , eve n amon g thos e ver y type s wh o wer e despise d b y th e so-calle d "son s o f light. "

Bu t wha t o f Jesus ' injunctio n i n 16:9: "Mak e friend s fo r yourselve s b y mean s o f dishones t wealt h [literally , 'th e mammo n o f unrighteousness'] , s o tha t whe n i t is gone , the y ma y welcom e yo u int o th e eterna l homes" ? Again , idealis t reading s hav e tende d t o mis s th e thrus t o f thi s exhortation , wit h man y moder n reader s bein g suspiciou s abou t th e ide a tha t mone y ca n bu y friends . Bu t though , indeed , th e structure s o f thi s worl d ar e unjust , ther e remain s stil l th e possibilit y o f a creativ e an d prope r us e o f th e world' s unrighteou s mammon . Bonaventur e (1221-74) , th e Francisca n philosopher , educator , an d commentato r o f th e Middl e Ages , recognize d suc h a positiv e motivatio n i n th e shrew d manager' s actions , an d s o propose d tha t th e manage r sough t b y hi s action s t o mak e friend s amon g hi s fello w underling s rathe r tha n t o gai n mone y fo r himsel f b y whateve r mean s (cf . hi s In sacrosanctum Jesu Christi Evangelium secundum Lucam Elaborata Ennaratio, ad loc.). Lik e th e "faithfu l an d shrewd " manage r o f 12:42-46 , h e benefite d — no t bullie d — hi s fello w servants Mone y will , o f course , on e da y b e "gone" ; i t wil l "fail " (i n contras t t o "th e treasur e tha t doe s no t fail " o f 12:33) Th e transactio n tha t opene d th e doo r wil l b e forgotten . Bu t huma n friendship , th e manage r knew , is mor e permanent . Th e horizo n her e is no t otherworldly . A n earl y textua l varian t i n 16:9

8

replace d "whe n it is gon e (eklipç)" wit h "whe n you ar e gon e (eklipēte)," thereb y usurpin g a referenc e t o th e impermanenc e o f mone y b y a referenc e t o people' s death s — whic h is th e sens e tha t becam e enshrine d i n th e Lati n Vulgate . Thi s is, however , a n erroneou s shif t o f meaning , whic h ha s bee n compounde d b y viewin g th e adjectiv e "eternal " (aiönious) i n a n exclusivel y other-worldl y sense . Bu t th e "eterna l homes " mentione d a t th e en d o f thi s vers e likel y signif y "th e tabernacle s (tas skēnas) o f th e Ag e t o Come. " The y probabl y allud e t o th e ancien t feas t o f tabernacle s tha t wa s associate d wit h th e remissio n o f debt s ever y seve n year s (cf . Deu t 31:10) . So )esu s shoul d b e understoo d a t th e en d o f vers e 9 t o b e referrin g t o th e hospitalit y o f thos e wh o respon d her e an d no w t o gesture s o f forgiveness .

Th e saying s o n bein g "truste d wit h ver y little, " "dishones t wit h ver y little, " an d "servin g tw o masters " i n 16:10-13 , thoug h abl e t o stan d o n thei r own , are , therefore , no t s o ill-fitte d t o th e precedin g parabl e a s ha s ofte n bee n thought Th e manage r is, indeed , a n exampl e o f on e wh o wa s "faithful " i n a "ver y little " thing , a n everyda y dealin g ( v 10) , i n handlin g "unrighteou s mammon " ( v 11) , an d i n carin g fo r th e possession s o f someon e else ( v 12) I n hi s cancelin g o f hidde n interes t h e no t onl y foun d a wa y o f escap e fro m hi s ow n problems , bu t hi s actio n als o resulte d — howeve r motivate d b y self-interes t — i n bein g faithfu l t o God' s covenan t a s i t concern s usur y an d justic e fo r th e poor

I n Luke' s portrayal , th e manage r contrast s wit h th e Pharisees , who , despit e thei r protestation s t o th e contrar y (16:15 ; 18:11) , neglecte d i n thei r action s th e basi c feature s o f justic e an d th e lov e o f Go d (11:42) Th e reward s hel d ou t i n 16:10-1 2 ar e privilege s o f th e Ag e t o Come , bu t the y ar e no t t o b e viewe d a s entirel y otherworldly . Th e trus t o f a maste r referre d t o i n vers e 10, th e "tru e riches " mentione d i n vers e 11, an d th e possessio n o f propert y spoke n o f i n vers e 12 ar e no t t o b e gaine d b y one' s neglec t o f th e humdru m responsibilitie s o f lif e — or , b y som e affecte d antagonis m t o "tainte d money " — bu t ar e t o b e attaine d throug h creativ e faithfulnes s withi n th e present , unjus t socioeconomi c system . Th e manage r di d no t tr y t o serv e bot h Go d an d mammon , a s vers e 13 warn s against H e gaine d n o profi t fo r himself . H e onl y secure d hi s reinstatemen t t o th e onl y positio n i n whic h h e coul d possibl y survive An d h e di d s o courageously , wit h hi s actio n entailin g puttin g Go d befor e hi s mammon-obsesse d master

Lik e th e Parabl e o f th e Ric h Fool , thi s stor y offer s a provocative , thoug h quit e understated , mora l challeng e tha t is bot h propheti c an d practical I t is propheti c becaus e th e characte r praise d subvert s a n unjus t

system . Bu t it is practica l becaus e i t suggest s no t a gran d blueprin t fo r revolutionar y actio n i n th e future , bu t somethin g tha t a n ordinar y perso n unde r pressur e ca n d o her e an d now . Fo r t o remi t debt s — and , especially , t o cance l interes t — is no t onl y just , bu t i t open s u p a futur e o f ne w possibilities Eve n a ric h maste r ca n softe n hi s approach , an d s o ther e is a messag e inheren t i n thi s parabl e fo r thi s typ e o f perso n a s well . Wha t Jesu s ha s give n u s i n th e Parabl e o f th e Shrew d Manager , therefore , ar e typica l character s foun d i n strikin g pose : a hard-presse d middl e manage r an d a possessions-obsesse d estat e owne r — wit h bot h bein g used , thoug h i n differin g ways , a s example s o f wisdo m an d justice

5 . Th e Parabl e o f th e Ric h Ma n an d Lazaru s (Luk e 16:19-31 )

Th e Parabl e o f th e Ric h Ma n an d Lazaru s i n Luk e 16:19-3 1 is se t a s a warnin g t o th e Pharisee s abou t th e danger s o f th e lov e o f money , whic h wa s a lov e the y denie d bu t secretl y embrace d (16:14) . Lik e th e Parabl e o f th e Shrew d Manager , whic h it follow s i n chapte r 16, it present s a pictur e o f th e huma n cos t o f preoccupatio n wit h wealth . Wherea s th e stor y o f th e manage r implie d a happ y conclusio n o f huma n reconciliation , wit h mone y fadin g int o th e background , thi s tal e portray s blea k alienatio n bot h i n thi s lif e an d beyond .

Th e openin g descriptio n o f th e ric h ma n an d Lazaru s i n verse s 19-2 1 is no t a n exaggerate d picture , bu t a star k portraya l o f th e kin d o f societ y tha t wa s familia r t o Jesu s an d hi s hearers O n on e sid e o f th e ornamenta l gatewa y live s th e ric h magnat e i n luxur y an d self-indulgence , wit h ostentatiou s attir e brough t b y merchant s fro m distan t parts . O n th e othe r sid e lie s th e beggar , th e unclea n an d "expendable " Lazarus , whos e onl y coverin g is hi s sores , whic h ar e licke d b y th e dogs ; an d wh o long s for , bu t fail s t o satisf y hi s hunge r with , th e piece s o f brea d use d b y th e ric h househol d a s napkin s (cf . Oesterley , Gospel Parables, 205) . Th e stor y tell s o f n o actio n b y eithe r man . Th e firs t even t is th e deat h o f Lazarus , wh o remain s unburied , closel y followe d b y tha t o f th e ric h man , wh o is give n a prope r burial Th e remainde r o f th e narrativ e unfold s i n anothe r world . Simila r tale s fro m antiquit y ar e extan t toda y (cf . Bauckham , "Th e Ric h Ma n an d Lazarus : Th e Parabl e an d th e Parallels") Th e parable , o f course , assume s conventionall y accepte d detail s abou t th e afterlife . It s mai n concern , however , is no t wit h th e nex t world , bu t wit h thi s one .

0

Lazaru s is carrie d t o th e boso m o f Abraham , whil e th e ric h ma n languishe s i n th e torment s o f Hade s (v v 22-23) Th e ric h ma n the n speak s ( v 24) . H e call s Abraha m "father, " presumin g o n a famil y relationshi p — thoug h befor e hi s deat h h e ha d no t recognize d Lazaru s as bein g equall y Abraham' s child No w Abraha m wa s a figur e o f legendar y hospitalit y i n Judaism . S o ther e is a n iron y here , fo r th e ric h ma n wa s wealth y a s Abraha m ha d been , bu t lacke d hi s generosity H e want s Lazaru s t o cros s ove r a grea t gul f t o alleviat e hi s torture , eve n thoug h h e ha d neve r s o muc h a s opene d hi s ow n gat e t o hi m i n life . Abraham' s respons e is no t unkind : h e return s "father " wit h "child " ( v 25) Bu t h e point s ou t th e justic e o f th e reversa l i n th e tw o men' s condition s — and , ominously , speak s o f th e grea t gul f tha t no w lie s betwee n the m ( w 25-26) .

Th e ric h ma n the n appeal s t o Abraha m o n behal f o f hi s fiv e brothers , askin g tha t Lazaru s b e sen t t o war n the m ( w 27-28) H e thu s reveal s hi s awarenes s o f th e justic e o f hi s ow n fate . Abraham' s laconi c response , however , is tha t the y alread y hav e all th e warnin g the y nee d — tha t is, i n th e word s o f Mose s an d th e prophet s ( v 29) Bu t th e ric h ma n persists : Surel y someon e returnin g fro m th e dea d woul d convinc e them ! ( v 30) . No , say s Abraham : "I f the y d o no t liste n t o Mose s an d th e prophets , neithe r wil l the y b e convince d eve n if someon e rise s fro m th e dead " ( v 31) .

Th e story , therefore , stresse s th e freigh t o f urgenc y wit h whic h huma n decision s i n thi s lif e ar e invested . Deat h confirm s thos e decisions . I t doe s no t overtur n them No r wil l a n apparitio n fro m beyon d deat h chang e heart s an d mind s tha t ar e se t i n disobedienc e t o th e la w o f God . I t was , i n particular , th e ric h man' s self-impose d separatio n fro m a fello w human , wh o wa s a poo r chil d o f Abraham , tha t becam e a fixe d gul f betwee n blis s an d torment . So i t is th e Lazaruse s o f thi s lif e t o who m hi s brother s mus t pa y attention , no t a Lazaru s fro m anothe r world

Th e parabl e is all th e mor e powerfu l fo r it s restraint . Th e ric h ma n an d Lazarus , i n life , ar e simpl y pictured . The y d o nothing . Wha t migh t appea r a s a n excessivel y hars h treatmen t beyon d deat h — for , wha t ha d th e ric h ma n done ? — turn s ou t t o b e th e righteou s verdic t o f Go d o n th e wa y thing s are Perhap s mor e tha n i n an y othe r parable , th e character s her e ar e type s wh o represen t th e pole s of a n unequa l society , a societ y tha t is unde r judgment . Th e strikin g featur e i n thi s stor y is no t s o muc h abou t somethin g tha t on e o r th e othe r o f the m ha d though t o r done , bu t th e portraya l o f thei r divers e destinie s — whic h portraya l is s o unlik e th e conventiona l pictur e o f riche s a s a toke n o f divin e blessing

Th e Parabl e o f th e Ric h Ma n an d Lazaru s is, therefore , lik e th e tw o othe r parable s w e hav e considered , fo r i t ha s bot h a propheti c an d a practica l message . Prophetically , obscen e injustic e is hel d u p fo r all t o behol d an d denounce . I t is reveale d t o b e temporar y — thoug h th e yawnin g gul f betwee n huma n being s i n whic h tha t injustic e ha d bee n expresse d is show n t o persis t eve n beyon d death . Th e ric h ma n ha s pu t himsel f outsid e th e famil y circl e o f "father " Abraham An d if hi s brother s continu e i n th e sam e ways , the y wil l d o s o too

O n th e practica l level , however , th e wa y o f wisdom , whic h is als o th e wa y o f obedience , lie s clos e a t hand Th e rich , lik e th e poor , hav e Mose s an d th e prophets . The y shoul d liste n t o them . Th e poo r ar e encourage d t o pu t thei r hop e i n God' s justice . Bu t th e sobe r realis m o f th e parabl e need s her e als o t o b e noted , fo r th e reversa l doe s no t tak e plac e unti l afte r death

A s i n th e Parabl e o f th e Ric h Foo l o f 12:13-21 , n o quic k solutio n is her e propose d t o th e proble m o f povert y — though , o f course , i t is implie d tha t if th e ric h ma n o r hi s brother s woul d hav e take n heed , th e situatio n coul d hav e bee n change d overnight . I t is productive , i n fact , t o rea d thi s parabl e wit h Psal m 7 3 a s a backdrop , wher e th e temptatio n o f th e godl y t o env y th e stat e o f thos e wh o ar e wicke d an d luxuriantl y ric h is overcom e throug h a glimps e — whic h wa s give n t o th e psalmis t whe n h e entere d th e sanctuar y o f Go d (cf ν 17) — o f thei r ultimat e fate

6 . Th e Ancien t Context s o f th e Parable s

Eac h o f th e thre e parable s w e hav e considere d present s a suggestiv e inciden t a s a n example . The y war n th e poo r agains t th e allur e o f wealth . Yet the y als o summo n th e ric h t o repentance . The y hol d i n tensio n a propheti c an d a practica l vision . N o fals e hop e o f a n immediat e releas e fro m povert y is offered . Rather , the y proclai m tha t if th e ric h a s wel l a s th e poo r wer e t o obe y God' s word , ultimat e liberatio n fo r all woul d b e o n its way. Bu t mor e need s als o t o b e sai d her e wit h regar d t o th e ancien t context s o f thes e parables .

In the Narrative of Luke

A compariso n o f th e languag e o f thes e parable s wit h th e languag e o f LukeAct s a s a whol e highlight s th e presenc e o f Luke' s han d i n th e recountin g o f

thes e stories . I n particular , thes e thre e parable s reflec t th e evangelist' s intens e concer n wit h povert y an d wealth The y demonstrat e how , contrar y t o appearances , th e poo r ca n b e blesse d (6:20-21 ) an d th e ric h ar e i n dange r (6:24-25) . Becaus e o f th e context s i n whic h the y ar e found , thes e parable s ar e permeate d b y a sens e o f divin e purpose An d the y offe r no t onl y example s fo r living , bot h negativ e an d positive , bu t als o encapsulat e th e goo d new s itself — tha t is, the y proclai m tha t a certai n patter n o f life is possible , a s wel l a s good , fo r all kind s o f people , eve n fo r societ y a s a whole

Luk e i n hi s tw o volume s give s a prominen t plac e t o th e sharin g o f good s b y th e earlies t Christia n communit y (cf esp Act s 2:44-45 ; 4:345:12) . Luk e T. Johnso n ha s argue d tha t a n attitud e towar d riche s function s i n Luke-Act s a s a metapho r fo r faith-commitmen t t o Jesus , an d tha t th e portraya l o f th e Pharisee s i n Luk e 16:1 4 a s "lover s o f money " owe s somethin g t o suc h a stylize d presentatio n (cf . hi s Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts). Bu t i t shoul d als o b e recognize d tha t late r generation s o f Christian s hav e "spiritualized " muc h o f Jesus ' teachin g concernin g wealth , whil e Luk e seem s t o hav e preserve d i n quit e a litera l fashio n a trul y genuin e emphasi s o f Jesu s o n it s righ t use

Ther e ar e othe r parable s i n Luke' s Gospe l wher e litera l wealt h is a n ofte n unnotice d sub-them e — suc h as th e Goo d Samarita n (10:30-37) , th e Los t Sheep , th e Los t Coin , an d th e Los t So n (15:1-32) , th e Wido w an d th e Judg e (18:1-8) , an d th e Pharise e an d th e Ta x Collecto r (18:9-14) Furthermore , Luk e present s Jesu s a s announcin g "th e yea r o f th e Lord' s favor, " whic h is a tim e t o le t th e oppresse d g o fre e (4:18-19) . Thus , althoug h indebtednes s ca n b e use d a s a metapho r fo r sin , w e ough t no t thereb y underpla y Jesus ' messag e regardin g economi c an d socia l forgivenes s a s it is presente d i n Luke' s Gospel An d thi s is th e messag e tha t appear s i n th e manager' s discover y o f a wa y ou t o f oppressiv e practice s i n 16:1-8 , whic h is analogou s t o th e liberatio n o f Zacchaeu s i n 19:1-10 .

In the Earliest Christian Communities

Luke' s presentation s sugges t tha t th e parable s o f th e Ric h Foo l i n 12:16-2 1 an d th e Shrew d Manage r i n 16:1- 8 wer e clarifie d fo r th e earl y Christian s b y th e admonition s o f 12:15 , 2 1 an d 16:9-1 3 (possibl y als o 16:8b) . I t is , however , a fals e logi c an d ba d literar y criticis m t o clai m tha t th e hortator y materia l o f thes e verse s wa s foreig n t o th e intentio n o f Jesus . Indeed , all

3

thre e parable s i n thei r entiretie s bea r th e mark s o f Luke' s hand . Nonetheless , i t is legitimat e t o assum e tha t a rea l continuit y exist s betwee n th e exemplar y forc e o f th e parable s fo r Jesus ' hearer s an d a simila r forc e fo r Christian s afte r Easter .

Warning s t o poo r believer s agains t emulatin g th e oppressiv e practice s o f th e rich , a s wel l a s warning s t o th e ric h no t t o oppres s th e poor , continue d t o b e necessar y amon g th e earl y Christians , a s w e se e particularl y i n th e Lette r o f Jame s (se e esp . 1:9-11 ; 1:27-2:17 ; 4:13-5:11) . Th e phras e "eve n if on e shoul d ris e fro m th e dead " (oud' ean tis ek nekrön anastç peisthēsontai) o f 16:31 — whic h resonate s wit h languag e use d i n connectio n wit h Jesus ' ow n resurrection , whethe r tha t languag e come s fro m earl y Christia n traditio n o r is a produc t o f th e evangelist' s wordin g provide s a natura l bridg e fro m a stor y o f hard-heartedness , whic h Jesu s tol d t o hi s hearers , t o a stor y tha t reflect s th e continuin g hard-heartednes s an d unbelie f o f man y afte r h e himsel f ha d bee n raise d fro m th e dead .

In the Ministry of Jesus

Th e reading s I hav e offere d fo r thes e thre e parable s si t wel l wit h a n understandin g o f Jesu s a s a socia l prophet , whic h is a perspectiv e tha t is supporte d toda y b y man y historica l studies . Thoug h thes e parable s woul d als o fi t th e pictur e o f Jesu s a s bein g Israel' s final prophet , wh o herald s th e nation' s ultimat e crisis , the y d o no t themselve s asser t suc h a view . Th e presenc e o f deat h i n th e firs t an d thir d o f thes e parable s could , o f course , b e take n t o hin t a t judgmen t i n a wide r sense , wit h th e hop e fo r hospitalit y i n th e secon d suggestin g a ne w ag e feasting . A t th e sam e time , however , it shoul d b e note d tha t i t is th e deat h of a n individua l perso n o r person s tha t is depicte d i n 12:13-2 1 an d 16:19-31 . Furthermore , th e manager' s hop e i n 16:1- 8 is a ver y earth y one .

Th e on e phras e tha t ha s unambiguou s overtone s o f a fina l ag e expectatio n is "th e tent s o f th e Ag e t o Come " i n 16:9 Thi s verse , however , coul d b e a Luka n (o r earlier ) glos s — thoug h eve n if tha t b e so , th e ide a o f a n "ag e t o come " shoul d no t b e confuse d wit h notion s o f a somewha t immateria l "heaven. " Bu t howeve r th e phras e "th e Age t o Come " cam e abou t an d is t o b e understood , th e thre e parable s wit h whic h w e ar e her e concerne d ca n fittingly b e rea d a s thre e summon s t o repentanc e i n Jesus ' challeng e t o Israe l — wit h thi s tria d o f parable s settin g ou t practica l example s

o f wha t Jesus ' messag e mean s fo r bot h th e ric h an d th e poor . I n effect , it seems , th e messag e o f thes e parable s is closel y simila r t o Joh n th e Baptist' s earth y response s t o thos e wh o sough t hi s counse l (cf . Luk e 3:10-14) . Suc h a n interpretatio n contrast s wit h tw o othe r interpretation s tha t hav e bee n popula r i n recen t decades O n th e on e hand , Joachi m Jeremia s ha s treate d thes e parables , lik e all th e othe r parable s o f Jesus , a s simpl e illustration s o f th e kingdom , whic h wa s comin g i n judgmen t an d grac e — an d o f th e respons e tha t i t required Th e significanc e o f th e specifi c detail s o f thes e parable s wa s s o minimize d tha t eve n Lazarus' s povert y wa s regarde d a s bein g purel y incidenta l (cf Jeremias , Parables of Jesus, 186: "Jesu s doe s no t wan t t o commen t o n a socia l problem") O n th e othe r hand , Domini c Crossa n ha s offere d u s a versio n o f Jesu s th e existentialis t (cf . Crossan , In Parables) an d Bernar d Scot t ha s presente d Jesu s a s a socia l radical (cf . Scott , Hear Then the Parable). Bot h o f thes e constructions , however , underpla y th e practical , moral , an d exemplar y dimension s o f Jesus ' stories Th e former , tha t propose d b y Jeremias , doe s thi s b y assimilatin g thes e storie s t o Jesus ' proclamatio n o f th e kingdo m a s see n throug h a Paulin e lens , an d so , despit e protestation s t o th e contrary , inevitabl y allegorize s them . Th e latter , a s argue d b y Crossa n o r Scott , underplay s th e practical , moral , an d exemplar y dimension s b y preferrin g eithe r a philosophica l o r sociopolitica l framewor k fo r th e parable s rathe r tha n a theologica l framework .

Th e versio n o f th e Parabl e o f th e Ric h Foo l i n th e Gospel of Thomas, Logio n 63 , lack s a mora l conclusion , an d s o man y scholars , includin g Crossan , regar d it a s bein g mor e authenti c tha n th e versio n i n Luke' s Gospe l (se e th e summar y o f opinion s i n Scott , Hear Then the Parable, 130) . Introduction s an d conclusion s t o th e parable s ar e ofte n dismisse d toda y a s bein g inauthenti c b y th e us e o f th e pejorativ e labe l "moralizing. " Bu t it is a strang e sor t o f literar y idealis m o r theologica l fastidiousnes s tha t shrink s fro m allowin g Jesu s t o explai n parable s o r mak e mora l pronouncements As Luk e himsel f shows , heightenin g th e mora l impac t o f th e parable s is perfectl y compatibl e wit h thei r bein g th e bearer s o f goo d news . I n particular , thes e thre e parable s o n povert y an d riche s proclai m tha t returnin g t o Go d is possibl e fo r all kind s o f people .

7 . Moder n Context s fo r th e Parable s

In Theological Discourse

Th e fondnes s fo r seein g figure s i n th e parable s as analogue s fo r Go d (e.g. , "th e master " o f 16:1) , whic h existe d withi n th e Christia n churc h fro m earlies t times , ha s i n ou r da y bee n widel y abandoned . Bu t a n appreciatio n o f th e realis m o f Jesus ' storie s mus t no t caus e u s t o overloo k th e presenc e o f Go d a s th e guaranto r o f th e orde r o f lif e tha t the y present Hi s speec h t o th e foolis h farme r i n 12:2 0 ("Yo u fool ! Thi s ver y nigh t you r lif e is bein g demande d o f you An d th e thing s yo u hav e prepared , whos e wil l the y be?" ) is n o alie n intrusio n int o th e story . Likewise , Go d is th e on e wh o stand s behin d th e ric h employe r o f 16:1 — not , o f course , a s th e subjec t o f th e story , fo r who m th e employe r is a mer e code , bu t as th e maste r o f all masters , jus t a s h e is presen t i n 18:1- 8 a s th e judg e o f th e judge s (cf . Psal m 82) . An d h e is th e undoubted , thoug h unmentioned , autho r o f judgmen t i n th e stor y o f th e ric h ma n an d Lazaru s i n 16:19-31 Thes e thre e parables , i n fact , appea l no t t o a realit y onl y latel y sprun g o n th e worl d throug h th e arriva l o f Jesus , bu t t o a n unchangin g orde r tha t is continuall y sustaine d b y a Creato r God

Thes e parables , however , shoul d no t b e presse d int o servic e a s fodde r fo r a doctrin e o f th e afterlife . As w e hav e seen , th e climacti c wor d o f Go d spoke n t o th e foolis h farme r i n 12:20 is spoke n whil e th e ma n is stil l alive Likewise , th e languag e use d i n commendatio n o f th e shrew d manage r i n 16:8- 9 is this-worldly ; whil e th e stor y o f th e ric h ma n an d Lazaru s i n 16:1931 adopts , rathe r tha n asserts , traditiona l view s o f th e nex t world Nonetheless, ther e is a n urgenc y abou t eac h stor y tha t serve s t o poin t u p th e importanc e o f righ t decision s her e an d now I t is a n urgenc y tha t is reminiscen t o f th e earthy , this-worldl y stanc e o f muc h o f th e Ol d Testament . Th e thrus t o f thes e storie s is tha t peopl e nee d no t — i n fact , must not—wait fo r deat h t o find th e wa y t o tru e persona l an d communa l well-being Ou r interpretatio n o f thes e thre e parable s ha s distance d itsel f fro m tha t o f Joachi m Jeremias , wh o foun d the m t o b e simpl y expression s i n vivi d languag e o f th e call t o respon d t o Chris t i n repentanc e an d faith . Instead , w e hav e highlighte d thei r mora l an d socia l implications Yet thes e parable s d o connec t o n a deepe r leve l wit h Paul' s teachin g concernin g justification , a s wel l a s wit h th e root s o f th e concep t o f justificatio n i n th e Ol d Testament . Fo r the y presen t t o huma n being s wh o ar e immerse d i n thi s world' s unjus t structure s — perhaps , i t migh t seem , hopelessl y compro -

mise d eithe r a s victim s o f th e syste m o r a s it s operators , or , sometimes , simultaneousl y bot h — th e possibilit y o f actio n tha t is wis e an d right Thu s jus t a s Pau l wa s quit e sur e tha t peopl e d o no t nee d t o wai t unti l the y ar e perfectl y uncompromise d b y th e worl d befor e the y ca n enjo y a relationshi p wit h Go d an d expres s i t i n righ t action , s o Jesu s point s u s i n thes e parable s t o th e meanin g o f a working , earth y faith . Th e argumen t o f bot h Jesu s an d Paul , i n fact , a s biblica l scholarshi p ha s increasingl y com e t o recognize , wa s no t abou t fait h versu s actio n o r actio n versu s faith , bu t abou t th e potentia l inclusio n of all sort s an d condition s o f peopl e withi n th e on e peniten t peopl e o f God

In Social Application to Contemporary Society

Wit h respec t t o th e applicabilit y of thes e thre e parable s o f Jesu s t o contemporar y society , perhap s tha t ca n bes t b e show n b y citin g significan t issue s raise d i n tw o article s b y tw o contemporar y an d respecte d journalists . Th e firs t articl e is b y Simo n Jenkins , wh o write s i n The Times (Apri l 11, 1998 ) a penetratin g revie w o f a televisio n documentar y b y Roge r Graef , Keeping It in the Family. Th e documentar y concerne d a disturbed , hyperactiv e chil d o f parent s wh o wer e separated , unemployed , alcoholic , an d sometime s violent Jenkin s use s th e stor y a s a n illustratio n o f th e shee r miser y tha t moder n "famil y life " ca n be :

Th e character s wer e desperat e i n ever y sense . . . . Lackin g th e diversio n an d self-estee m of a job , the y endure d th e claustrophobi a of nuclea r familie s i n counci l houses , an d too k it ou t o n eac h othe r an d thei r children . The y wer e wha t middle-clas s viewer s woul d call "awfu l people.".. . Wha t wen t wron g wa s no t a n absenc e of value s o r policy It wa s tha t tw o peopl e foun d the y coul d no t live togethe r o r offe r securit y t o a child... You ma y love you r chil d an d ach e t o b e see n as a responsibl e parent , yet whe n yo u fou l it up , all th e hobgoblin s of politic s an d religio n descen d o n yo u an d call yo u evil. Thes e peopl e ar e n o help . The y ca n resor t t o preaching , bu t the y neve r tell yo u wha t t o d o whe n yo u ar e at you r wits ' end

Bu t tha t is precisel y wha t Jesu s di d d o i n thes e parables ! To thos e i n hopeles s situation s h e offere d hop e an d practica l advice . No t policies , pa -

tronizing , o r empt y promises , bu t th e encouragemen t t o trus t i n Go d an d no t los e a generou s spirit . Hi s follower s shoul d g o an d d o likewise . An d if the y ar e rich , the y shoul d as k themselve s abou t thei r complicit y i n a societ y tha t ha s nurture d suc h hopelessness , an d ho w the y ca n chang e it .

Th e othe r articl e suggest s a globa l application . Jerem y Seabrook , i n The New Internationalist (Octobe r 1997) , write s o f th e ric h North' s expor t o f consumeris m t o th e South :

Throughou t recorde d tim e a majorit y of th e world' s peopl e hav e bee n

tormente d b y povert y o r b y th e fea r of poverty , b y want , hunge r an d insecurity . Consumeris m promise s no t onl y tha t the y wil l b e release d fro m thi s ancien t bondage , bu t als o tha t the y ca n by-pas s a bar e sufficiency , a fruga l security , an d brea k throug h int o th e satisfactio n of limitles s desire . .. . Consumerism' s greates t weaknes s is tha t it eliminate s othe r fundamenta l need s — fo r example , th e nee d t o provid e fo r ourselve s an d th e nee d t o creat e an d t o d o thing s fo r eac h othe r Reclamatio n of ou r huma n power s ha s t o b e th e objectiv e of peopl e bot h i n th e Nort h an d i n th e South

A centra l thrus t o f Jesus ' rhetoric , a s w e hav e seen , is precisel y t o war n th e poo r agains t bein g lik e th e rich Eve n a peasan t famil y o n th e brea d lin e shoul d no t ge t possessiv e abou t thei r patrimony . A manage r discover s tha t doin g somethin g fo r other s tha t is withi n hi s limite d powe r wil l giv e hi m a "fruga l security, " whic h is all h e requires . H e ha s n o nee d t o imitat e th e tactic s o f a graspin g superior . Mos t piercingl y o f all , eve n a begga r shoul d no t drea m o f bein g lik e th e unseeing , uncarin g potentat e a t whos e gat e h e lies . Jesu s urge s u s t o se e tha t all hav e enough . Bu t h e als o warn s u s tha t havin g to o muc h ca n destro y tha t humanity-in-relationshi p tha t is ou r greates t treasure . Hi s word s ar e a s relevan t fo r th e globa l villag e a s fo r th e Palestinia n one .

Selecte d Bibliograph y

Bailey , Kennet h E Poet and Peasant: A Literary Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke. Gran d Rapids : Eerdmans , 1976 . Through Peasant Eyes: More Lucan Parables, Their Culture and Style. Gran d Rapids : Eerdmans , 1980 .

8

Parables on Poverty and Riches

Bauckham , Richar d J. "Th e Ric h Ma n an d Lazarus : Th e Parabl e an d th e Parallels, " New Testament Studies 3 7 (1991 ) 225-46 .

Bindemann , Walther . "Ungerecht e al s Vorbilder ? Gottesreic h un d Gottesrech t i n de n Gleichnisse n vo m 'ungerechte n Verwalter ' un d 'ungerechte n Richter', " Theologische Literaturzeitung 11 (1995 ) 95670 .

Crossan , Joh n Dominic . In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus. Sa n Francisco : Harpe r 8c Row , 1973 .

Daube , David . "Neglecte d Nuance s o f Expositio n i n Luke-Acts, " i n Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II . 25. 3 (1984) , 2329-56 .

Donahue , Joh n R . The Gospel in Parable: Metaphor, Narrative and Theology in the Synoptic Gospels. Philadelphia : Fortress , 1988 .

Ellis , E. Earle . The Gospel of Luke (Ne w Centur y Bibl e Commentary) . Rev. ed . London : Marshall , Morga n 8c Scott , 1974 .

Hedrick , Charle s W . Parables as Poetic Fictions: The Creative Voice of Jesus.

Peabody : Hendrickson , 1994 .

Herzog , Willia m R., II . Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed. Louisville : Westminster/Joh n Knox , 1994 .

Jeremias , Joachim . The Parables of Jesus. Rev. ed . London : SCM , 1963 , trans . S. H . Hook e fro m Die Gleichnisse Jesu, 6t h ed . (Göttingen : Vandenhoec k & Ruprecht , 1962) . Firs t publishe d 1947 .

Johnson , Luk e T. The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts (Societ y o f Biblica l Literatur e Dissertatio n Series , ed . H . C . Kee an d D . A . Knight , 39) . Missoula : Scholars , 1977 .

Oesterley , W . E . O . The Gospel Parables in the Light of Their Jewish Background. London : SPCK , 1936 .

Scott , Bernar d Brandon . Hear Then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus. Minneapolis : Fortress , 1989 .

Sellew , Philip . "Interio r Monologu e a s a Narrativ e Devic e i n th e Parable s o f Luke, " Journal of Biblical Literature 111 (1992 ) 239-53 .

CHAPTE R 11

Parables o n Prayer

(Luke 11:5-13; 18:1-14)

WALTE R L . LIEFEL D

THER E ARE THRE E PARABLES of Jesus o n praye r in th e Synopti c Gospels , wit h all thre e of the m appearin g in Luke: th e Parabl e of th e Frien d a t Midnigh t (11:5-8) , th e Parabl e of th e Persisten t Wido w (18:1-8) , an d th e Parabl e of th e Pharise e an d th e Tax Collecto r (18:9-14) . Connecte d wit h th e stor y of th e frien d a t midnigh t ar e tw o shor t paraboli c saying s abou t asking , seeking , an d knockin g (11:9-10 ) an d abou t a son' s request s of hi s fathe r (11:11-13) , whic h we will consider , as well, wit h tha t parable . Luke's presentatio n of thes e thre e parable s an d tw o saying s is consisten t wit h hi s interes t o n prayer , as see n throughou t hi s Gospe l an d Acts. Indeed , thes e parable s an d saying s bea r th e evangelist' s ow n stamp But thi s fac t shoul d no t preclud e a n acceptanc e of the m as bein g genuinel y fro m Jesus an d faithfull y interprete d b y Luke . Parable s cr y ou t fo r a context If we shoul d denud e the m fro m thei r canonica l wraps , w e woul d the n nee d t o propos e som e othe r context s an d som e othe r meanings . Th e firs t parabl e will b e given her e th e mos t attention , an d th e last on e th e least . Thi s is partl y becaus e of th e complexit y of th e lexical issues in 11:8 an d partl y becaus e som e o f th e discussio n regardin g th e latte r tw o parable s will hav e alread y bee n anticipate d i n dealin g wit h th e first .

1 . Th e Frien d a t Midnigh t (Luk e 11:5-8 )

"Then h e said t o them , "Wh o amon g yo u ha s a friend , an d h e goes t o hi m at midnigh t an d says, 'Friend , len d m e thre e loaves of bread , 6 becaus e a frien d of min e o n a journe y ha s com e t o me , an d I have nothin g t o set befor e him. '

7 "The n th e on e insid e answers , 'Don' t bothe r me . Th e doo r is alread y locked , an d m y childre n are wit h m e in bed I can' t get u p an d give yo u anything. ' 8I tell you , thoug h he will no t get u p an d give hi m th e brea d becaus e h e is his friend , yet becaus e of th e man' s boldnes s h e will get u p an d give hi m as muc h as h e needs. "

The Literary Context of the Parable

Luk e ha s se t th e Parabl e o f th e Frien d a t Midnigh t i n th e contex t o f a n extende d presentatio n o n praye r i n 11:1-13 Th e fou r part s of thi s sectio n hav e i n commo n a n emphasi s o n the nature of the God t o who m Christian s pray Th e firs t par t i n verse s 1- 4 contain s th e Lord' s Prayer Althoug h Luke' s placemen t an d wordin g o f th e Lord' s Praye r is differen t fro m Matthew's , a mai n poin t i n commo n wit h Matthew' s versio n is th e us e of th e ter m "Father. " Thi s carrie s wit h it a n assuranc e o f th e basi s o n whic h Go d wil l answe r ou r prayer s — tha t is, becaus e h e is loving an d caring. Th e portraya l o f Go d i n th e secon d par t o f thi s section , i n verse s 5-8 , is i n th e parabl e itself , whic h is th e focu s of thi s study . Th e thir d par t o f thi s sectio n i n verse s 9-1 0 calls fo r actio n o n th e par t o f a petitioner : asking , seeking , an d knocking . Bu t still th e focu s is no t o n th e petitioner ; rather , it is o n the God who is faithful and consistent in his response. Th e petitione r coul d no t b e guarantee d a n answe r if Go d wer e no t faithful . Th e fourt h par t in verse s 11-1 3 portray s th e wisdom an d kindness of a fathe r wh o gives goo d gift s t o hi s children . Th e emphasi s throughou t thi s section , therefore , is o n Go d wh o receives petition s i n praye r an d wh o wil l surel y hea r an d answer . Th e firs t component , th e Lord' s Prayer , an d th e last , th e wis e father , ar e linke d b y reference s t o a father . Th e secon d component , th e parable , an d th e third , th e invitatio n t o ask , seek , an d knock , hav e i n commo n reference s t o th e petitione r takin g th e initiativ e — an d doin g s o wit h th e expectatio n of a n answer .

1

Th e stud y o f th e Parabl e o f th e Frien d a t Midnigh t i n th e contex t o f

Luke' s Gospel , however , als o invite s attentio n t o th e Parabl e o f th e Persisten t Wido w i n 18:1-8 . Severa l point s o f compariso n hav e bee n note d betwee n thes e tw o parables . Th e mos t obviou s on e is tha t th e perso n t o who m th e petitio n is brough t is a t firs t reluctant , bu t tha t th e petitio n is eventuall y granted . Ther e is als o a strikin g verba l similarit y i n th e saying s o f th e ma n i n bed , wh o replie s "Don' t bothe r me " (me moi kopous pareche, 11:7) , an d th e judge , wh o act s "becaus e th e wido w keep s botherin g me " (dia ge to parechein moi kopon, 18:5) .

Suc h similaritie s invit e th e suppositio n tha t ther e wa s a connectio n betwee n th e tw o parable s i n th e ora l traditio n and/o r i n Luke' s redaction Thi s supposition , however , ca n lea d t o th e wron g conclusio n tha t th e tw o parable s wer e intende d — eithe r b y Jesu s o r b y Luk e — t o teac h exactl y th e sam e lesson Th e contex t o f th e parabl e i n 11:5- 8 probabl y stem s fro m th e petitio n fo r dail y brea d ( v 3 ) i n th e Lord' s Prayer , whic h immediatel y precede s it , whil e th e contex t o f th e parabl e i n 18:1- 8 is th e nee d fo r vindicatio n durin g a lon g perio d o f waiting . Bu t if th e interpretation s w e wil l offe r o f thes e tw o parable s ar e correct , th e nee d fo r continue d praye r i n th e circumstanc e tha t prompte d th e parabl e o f 18:1 - 8 doe s not carr y th e implicatio n tha t importunit y is alway s a necessar y elemen t i n prayer . Therefore , Luke' s inclusio n o f thes e tw o parable s i n 11:5- 8 an d 18:1- 8 — while , indeed , the y ma y posses s som e simila r feature s — doe s no t mea n tha t th e on e interpret s th e other , a s is commonl y assumed .

The Social Context of the Parable

Th e socia l contex t o f th e parabl e i n 11:5- 8 is, lik e tha t o f th e othe r tw o parable s o n prayer , clearl y i n view . I t wa s i n accor d wit h th e custom s o f th e da y tha t a visito r b e heartil y welcome d an d b e provide d wit h foo d an d lodging . Hospitalit y continue d t o b e a n importan t virtu e i n th e earl y churc h an d wa s a qualificatio n fo r elder s (cf . 1 Ti m 3:2 ; Ti t 1:8) . A centur y later , th e satiris t Lucia n o f Samosat a tol d o f th e Cyni c preache r Peregrinu s wh o professe d Christianit y fo r a while , benefite d fro m th e legendar y hospitalit y o f Christians , an d the n returne d t o Cynicis m (Lucian , The Passing of Peregrinus). A majo r socia l contex t o f th e parable , therefore , is th e cultur e o f hono r an d shame , whic h is a matte r t o whic h w e mus t retur n later .

2

The Form of the Parable

As t o its form , th e stor y o f th e parabl e ha s som e o f th e characteristic s typica l o f mos t parables I t is a n extende d metapho r wit h a narrativ e movement . Th e focu s is o n tw o mai n character s an d thei r dialogue . Th e "la w o f en d stress " is see n i n th e respons e o f th e ma n i n bed , whic h is unexpected . Th e parabl e draw s th e heare r int o th e actio n wit h th e words , "Wh o amon g you? " (NI V an d NRSV : "Suppos e on e o f you") . Becaus e o f it s positiv e outcome , wit h th e realizatio n o f hope s an d potential , i t coul d possibl y b e considere d clos e t o th e categor y o f a "comic " parable , a s propose d b y Da n O Vi a (The Parables [Philadelphia : Fortress , 1967] , 145-76) .

Bu t thi s is a narrativ e withi n a dialogue Th e onl y actio n outsid e o f th e dialogu e is th e midnigh t wal k o f a ma n ove r t o hi s friend' s house . Th e res t o f th e actio n take s plac e withi n th e dialogue : a recitatio n o f th e unexpecte d arriva l o f a guest , wh o is als o describe d a s a friend ; a referenc e t o th e guest' s journe y leadin g u p t o thi s visit ; an d th e consternatio n o f hi s hos t a t no t bein g abl e t o provid e th e mea l require d a s par t o f one' s customar y hospitality . Th e dialogu e continue s wit h th e rathe r abrupt , thoug h no t unreasonable , respons e o f th e sleep y ma n i n be d describin g hi s circumstances Th e conclusio n o f th e stor y is als o no t par t o f th e parabl e narrativ e a s such . Rather , i t come s i n th e word s attribute d t o Jesu s ( v 8) : " I tel l you , thoug h h e wil l no t ge t u p an d giv e hi m th e brea d becaus e h e is hi s friend , ye t becaus e o f th e man' s boldnes s (NIV ; o r 'importunity, ' NRSV ) h e wil l ge t u p an d giv e hi m a s muc h a s h e needs. "

Wha t is presente d i n thi s parable , therefore , is a n extende d metapho r a graphi c one , bu t on e wit h th e externa l framewor k o f a narrativ e bein g minimal Ther e is als o n o characte r delineation , a t leas t a t th e beginning Th e desir e o f th e hos t t o provid e fo r hi s gues t is normal , a s is als o th e reluctanc e o f th e ma n i n be d t o ge t up All o f this , however , is i n contras t t o th e characte r description s o f th e "unjust " judg e an d th e "persistent " wido w i n 18:1-8 .

Dominical Status and Lukan Redaction

If thi s wer e no t a n authenti c parabl e o f Jesus , whic h wa s preserve d essentiall y i n it s origina l form , it woul d b e difficul t t o conceiv e ho w i t aros e i n th e earl y churc h (unless , o f course , becaus e o f it s similaritie s wit h th e stor y

abou t th e persisten t widow , it is t o b e viewe d a s onl y a spinof f fro m tha t parable) Bu t while , indeed , suc h a n ac t o f hospitalit y a s represente d i n th e parabl e woul d no t hav e bee n unusual , it is har d t o conceiv e o f thi s particula r comple x o f circumstance s a s havin g bee n create d b y th e earl y Christia n community Th e them e o f hono r an d sham e tha t underlie s th e stor y wa s no t on e o f suc h concer n t o th e earl y churc h tha t it woul d hav e motivate d th e developmen t o f a stor y lik e this Mor e likely, i t ma y b e assume d tha t ther e wa s a lively interes t amon g th e earlies t believer s i n Jesu s i n th e Lord' s

Prayer , an d tha t an y parable s an d saying s o f Jesu s tha t relate d t o tha t praye r wer e treasure d an d include d i n thei r ora l traditions Furthermore , i t ma y b e assume d man y suc h storie s an d saying s woul d hav e bee n customaril y repeate d togethe r b y th e tim e Luk e becam e awar e o f them .

I t is eas y t o postulat e tha t Luk e foun d th e Parabl e o f th e Frien d a t Midnigh t i n wha t ha s sometime s bee n calle d "L " o r hi s specia l source Th e Trave l Narrativ e o f 9:51-19:2 7 an d th e Las t Suppe r o f 22:7-2 0 (esp . w 1520 ) giv e evidenc e o f a sourc e tha t wa s use d b y Luk e bu t no t b y eithe r Mar k o r Matthew , an d whic h containe d narrativ e materia l a s wel l a s saying s o f Jesus . Bu t anothe r source , whic h wa s als o use d b y Matthe w an d is commonl y identifie d a s "Q " (i.e. , Quelle o r "source") , is perhap s als o supporte d b y a compariso n o f Luk e wit h Matthew .

O n th e basi s o f comparison s betwee n th e stor y o f th e Frien d a t Midnigh t o f Luk e 11:5- 8 wit h tha t o f th e Persisten t Wido w o f Luk e 18:1-8 , a s wel l a s th e "answe r t o prayer " materia l o f Luk e 11:9-1 3 wit h Mat t 7:7-11 , Davi d Catchpol e ha s propose d a reconstructio n o f Q tha t woul d se e man y o f th e praye r passage s o f th e Gospel s havin g bee n earlie r joine d togethe r tha t is, no t onl y th e Lord' s Praye r o f Luk e 11:1- 4 (an d it s paralle l i n Mat t 6:9-13 ) an d th e othe r praye r text s o f Luk e 11:5-1 3 (wit h postulate d parallel s i n Luk e 18:1- 8 an d Mat t 7:7-11) , bu t als o suc h a n extende d passag e a s foun d i n Mat t 6:25-3 3 an d Luk e 12:22-3 1 (cf . hi s " Q an d Th e Frien d a t Midnight ' ") . Bu t whil e suc h a comple x o f praye r text s migh t ver y wel l hav e bee n brough t togethe r i n earl y Christia n tradition , th e questio n mus t b e aske d a s t o how an d why th e evangelis t Luk e sorte d ou t thi s materia l i n hi s Gospe l a s h e did Furthermore , Catchpole' s reconstructio n involve s a n interpretatio n ofth e parable s o f Luk e 11:5- 8 an d 18:1- 8 tha t no t onl y bring s th e two , i n thei r canonica l forms , int o conflic t wit h eac h other , bu t als o interpret s th e us e o f th e Gree k nou n anaideia differentl y fro m ou r understandin g (a s propose d below) .

Ther e is n o treatmen t o f Luk e 11:5- 8 i n The Parables of Jesus: Red Let-

4

ter Edition, whic h wa s authore d b y Rober t W . Funk , Bernar d Brando n Scott , an d Jame s R . Butt s (Sonoma , CA : Polebridge , 1988 ) an d represent s th e wor k o f th e Jesu s Seminar . No r is ther e an y explanatio n fo r tha t omission . Rober t Fun k an d Ro y W . Hoover , however , i n thei r late r boo k entitle d

The Five Gospels (Ne w York : Macmillan , 1993) , repor t o n th e attitud e towar d th e Parabl e o f th e Frien d a t Midnigh t b y th e "Fellows " o f tha t semina r a s follows :

Th e Fellows decide d thi s anecdot e probabl y originate d wit h Jesus, althoug h Luke ha s obscure d its origina l meanin g b y adaptin g it t o th e contex t of prayer . H e make s it cohere , i n othe r words , wit h th e Lord' s prayer , whic h precedes , an d wit h th e comple x of saying s tha t follows . Th e burde n of th e whol e sectio n is tha t if on e is persisten t i n prayer , Go d will respond . (327 )

Thu s w e ar e tol d tha t th e Fellow s o f th e Jesu s Semina r assigne d a hig h degre e o f authenticit y t o th e parabl e itself , whic h the y interprete d (rightly , I believe ) i n term s o f "th e honor/sham e cultur e o f firs t centur y Palestine, " bu t tha t the y decide d (wrongly , I suggest ) tha t "th e origina l poin t o f th e anecdot e an d th e Luka n contex t clash " (ibid., 328)

Withou t enterin g int o all o f th e issue s involve d i n th e decision s o f th e Jesu s Seminar , w e nee d her e onl y not e tha t th e charg e tha t Luk e "obscure d th e origina l meaning " assume s tha t th e evangelist' s understandin g is tha t "i f on e is persisten t i n prayer , Go d wil l respond. " Bu t th e "whol e section " o f Luk e 11:1-1 3 doe s no t teac h persistence . Thi s coul d b e rea d int o th e sayin g abou t knockin g i n verse s 9-10 , bu t th e knockin g is no t sai d t o b e repeated . Furthermore , Luk e is wel l awar e o f th e honor/sham e cultur e o f hi s da y (cf . Β. J. Malin a an d J. H . Neyrey , "Hono r an d Sham e i n Luke-Acts, " i n The Social World of Luke-Acts, ed . J. H . Neyre y [Peabody : Hendrickson , 1991] , 25-65) . So on e woul d expec t tha t an y redactio n o n th e par t o f th e evangelis t woul d hav e feature d thi s them e rathe r tha n clashe d wit h it . I n short , th e assumptio n b y th e Fellow s o f th e Jesu s Semina r tha t th e parabl e is t o b e accepte d a s a n origina l parabl e is t o b e commended , bu t thei r negativ e judgmen t o n Luke' s framewor k is not .

The Story of the Parable

Th e stor y o f th e Frien d a t Midnigh t start s wit h a n invitatio n fo r th e heare r t o identif y wit h th e perso n "i n th e middle, " tha t is , wit h th e hos t o f a midnigh t gues t wh o is hi s friend . Th e hos t mus t someho w procur e brea d fo r hi s guest , an d s o h e make s hi s appea l t o anothe r "friend. " Th e heare r is therefor e place d i n th e rol e o f a petitione r intercedin g fo r someon e else Thi s woul d mak e th e ma n i n be d represen t God , whic h immediatel y set s u p stati c i n th e communication Th e questio n the n arises : Doe s th e parabl e teac h tha t a n unresponsiv e Go d mus t b e prodde d an d pressure d ("importuned" ) int o responding ?

Th e hos t come s a t midnight I t was , o f course , customar y t o g o t o be d no t lon g afte r dark , fo r oi l lamp s di d no t facilitat e muc h lat e nigh t activity So bein g awakene d a t midnigh t woul d hav e bee n late r i n th e slee p cycl e tha n is th e cas e today Ther e is, however , n o referenc e t o knocking Thi s is mentione d i n th e sayin g tha t follow s th e parabl e ( v 9) , bu t suc h lou d knockin g a t midnigh t woul d hav e bee n inappropriat e i n th e story

Furthermore , i t is importan t t o not e tha t ther e is n o referenc e t o an y repeate d request s — a fac t tha t reduce s th e possibilit y tha t th e purpos e o f thi s parabl e is t o encourag e persistenc e i n prayer Th e hos t immediatel y begin s hi s petitio n an d th e narratio n continue s withi n th e dialogue . Th e openin g wor d "friend, " wit h th e sam e wor d bein g use d fo r th e guest , put s th e reques t o n th e basi s o f friendship . Bu t th e ma n i n be d refuse s t o respon d o n tha t basis . Thre e loave s ar e requeste d a s a gestur e o f kindnes s t o th e guest Villager s woul d kno w wh o ha d bake d tha t day

Th e narrativ e withi n th e dialogu e vividl y portray s th e inne r scen e o f a sleepin g family , wh o wer e probabl y togethe r o n a ma t an d wit h th e doo r secure d b y a woode n ba r thrus t throug h tw o ring s — all o f whic h set s u p th e improbabilit y o f a response . Th e reaso n th e ma n doe s provid e th e brea d i n spit e o f all thi s is surprising I t is expresse d i n th e phras e "becaus e o f hi s shamelessness" ( ten anaideian autou, o r "hi s boldness " o r "hi s persistence") . Ther e ar e tw o linguisti c problem s her e i n vers e 8 : (1 ) th e meanin g o f th e nou n anaideia, whic h is a hapax legomenon i n th e Ne w Testament , an d (2 ) th e referen t o f th e pronou n autou ("his") , whic h is eithe r (a ) th e hos t a t th e doo r o r (b ) th e ma n i n bed

The Noun anaideia and Pronoun auto u

It ma y seem , a t firs t glance , rathe r curiou s tha t interpreter s hav e traditionally translate d th e nou n anaideia i n tw o diametricall y oppose d way s — on e tha t render s th e wor d positively , usuall y translatin g it as "importunity " o r "persistence, " an d th e othe r negatively , translatin g it a s "shamelessness. " Th e preponderanc e o f linguisti c evidenc e ha s favore d th e negativ e meaning , bu t it ha s seeme d difficul t t o accommodat e suc h a n understandin g t o a parabl e o n prayer . Som e optio n othe r tha n "shamelessness " ha s seeme d almos t necessar y t o mos t interpreter s if th e parabl e is t o hav e a meanin g tha t ca n b e easily graspe d an d applied . A mor e recen t suggestio n (discusse d below ) is "avoidance of shame, " whic h acknowledge s th e negativ e elemen t of shame , bu t put s it i n a positiv e light .

Reader s o f Englis h an d Germa n Bible s hav e gotte n use d t o th e idea o f "importunity " o r "persistence, " as expresse d i n th e followin g versions :

Donay Version: "importunity " (whic h is probabl y dependen t o n th e Lati n phras e propter inprobitatem, varian t improbitatem);

Luther : "Zudringlichkeit" ;

King James Version: "importunity" ;

Twentieth Century (1900-1904) : "persistence" ; Weymouth (1909 , 1912) : "persistency " (wit h th e amazin g footnote : "Th e primar y sens e of thi s wor d is 'impudence, ' bu t it woul d b e ridiculou s alway s t o translat e word s accordin g t o thei r origina l meaning") ;

New King James: "persistence" ;

Revised English Bible: "hi s ver y persistence" ; and , NRSV: "persistence. "

The Message, whic h is a paraphras e b y Eugen e Peterson , is wort h notin g fo r it s vivi d presentatio n of th e ide a o f persistence : "I f yo u stan d you r ground , knockin g an d wakin g all th e neighbors , he'l l finall y ge t u p an d ge t yo u whateve r yo u need. "

However , wit h lexicon s suc h as Liddell-Scott an d Baue r pointin g towar d a negativ e meaning , an d wit h th e severa l article s an d commentarie s proposin g "shamelessness, " som e recen t translation s (bu t no t all ) ar e evidencin g a change :

WALTER L LIEFELD

NIV: "boldness, " wit h th e alternat e "persistence" ;

New American Standard: "persistence, " wit h th e margina l alternativ e readin g "shamelessness" ;

New Living Translation: "s o hi s reputatio n won' t b e damaged, " wit h th e alternative s "i n orde r t o avoi d shame " an d "becaus e o f [your ] persistence. "

Joachi m Jeremia s include d th e parable s o f "th e Friend " an d "th e

Widow " togethe r i n a chapte r h e happil y entitled : "Th e Grea t Assurance "

(The Parables of Jesus, trans . S. H . Hook e [London : SCM , 1963] , 146-60) . H e considere d 11:5- 7 t o b e on e rhetorica l question , wit h vers e 7 no t "describin g a refusa l o f th e request , bu t rathe r th e utte r impossibilit y o f suc h a refusal. " So by separatin g verse s 7 an d 8 h e wa s abl e t o concentrat e o n th e ma n i n bed , rathe r tha n o n th e importunit y o f th e visitor However , h e retaine d th e ide a o f importunit y eve n thoug h h e attempte d t o plac e thi s readin g i n th e settin g o f "orienta l hospitality. " H e allowe d th e optio n o f th e ma n i n be d actin g "tha t h e ma y no t los e fac e i n th e matter " {ibid., 158)

Kennet h Baile y i n Poet and Peasant (1976) , buildin g o n hi s genera l cultura l orientatio n an d hi s suppositio n tha t th e underlyin g Aramai c wor d mean t "sens e o f shame, " argue d fo r anaideia a s bein g forme d fro m th e nou n aideia, whic h mean t "shame, " an d th e so-calle d "alph a privative, " whic h function s t o negat e th e wor d i n questio n — thereb y bringin g abou t an-aideia, whic h woul d the n mea n "avoidanc e o f shame. " An d h e understoo d thi s characterizatio n t o appl y t o th e ma n i n bed

A s Baile y understoo d matters , i n tha t cultur e aideia, "shame, " wa s a virtue . I t di d no t mea n bein g ashame d fo r som e wrongdoing . Rather , it suggeste d a n appropriat e modest y an d conformit y t o socia l standards Anaideia, therefore , mean t a lac k o f thi s prope r sens e o f shame , tha t is, "shamelessness. " I n thi s contex t Baile y though t tha t t o d o somethin g o n accoun t o f shamelessnes s mean t tha t on e wa s doin g it t o avoid tha t shamelessness . I n contrast , Dunca n Derrett , i n a n articl e o n "Th e Frien d a t Midnight : Asia n Idea s i n th e Gospe l o f St Luke " (1978) , argue d tha t anaideia mean t th e shamelessnes s o f th e petitioner , wh o approache d hi s neighbo r wit h boldness , an d thu s wit h a sens e o f urgency .

Howar d Marshal l i n hi s commentar y o n th e Thir d Gospe l suggeste d tha t ther e ar e "tw o possibl e lesson s i n th e parable" : on e is th e contras t betwee n Go d an d th e reluctan t householder ; th e other , "a n encouragemen t t o g o o n praying , despit e th e lac k o f a n immediat e answer " ( Luk e [1978] ,

462) . Marshall' s wa y o f statin g matter s avoid s makin g th e parabl e teac h tha t importunit y is necessar y fo r securin g a n answe r t o prayer A t th e sam e time , however , i t leave s spac e fo r th e possibilit y o f continue d praye r whe n necessary , a s is th e cas e wit h th e wido w i n Luk e 18.

Everet t Huffar d i n hi s articl e o n "Th e Parabl e o f th e Frien d a t Midnight : God' s Hono r o r Man' s Persistence? " (1978 ) propose d tha t anaideia mean t t o remai n blameless . Ala n Johnso n i n a n articl e entitle d "Assuranc e fo r Man : Th e Fallac y o f Translatin g anaideia b y 'Persistence ' i n Luk e 11:58 " (1979 ) argue d tha t it mean t avoidanc e o f sham e — thoug h h e acknowledge d th e difficult y tha t thos e no t familia r wit h ancien t Nea r Easter n custom s hav e wit h th e concep t o f th e avoidanc e o f shame Bot h Huffar d an d

Johnso n applie d th e characterizatio n t o th e ma n i n bed . Charle s Talbert , lik e Marshall , observe d tw o possibl e lesson s i n th e parable : th e first, tha t w e shoul d b e persistent ; th e second , a "ho w muc h more"stor y showin g th e contras t betwee n Go d an d th e reluctan t neighbor , wit h Go d bein g fa r mor e eage r t o answe r (cf hi s Reading Luke, 132)

Davi d Catchpol e i n " Q an d 'Th e Frien d a t Midnight' " (cite d above ) objecte d t o finding a doubl e meanin g i n th e parable , specificall y rejectin g Marshall' s proposal Tw o o f hi s reason s ar e tha t suc h a procedur e is wron g i n principl e an d tha t " a decisio n mus t b e mad e concernin g whethe r th e petitione r o r th e perso n petitione d is th e focu s o f interest " ( ibid., 408) . Th e first o f hi s reason s call s fo r a revie w o f principle s fo r interpretin g parable s tha t goe s beyon d ou r scop e here . As fo r Catchpole' s secon d reason , certainl y th e wor k o f exegesi s is a continua l decision-makin g proces s regardin g matter s havin g t o d o wit h grammar , language , cultura l backgrounds , an d s o on . Nevertheless , som e factor s i n th e text s themselve s li e beyon d certai n recovery Furthermore , i t is no t alway s certai n tha t w e shoul d rul e ou t multipl e foc i i n a passage . An d t o complicat e matter s further , listenin g t o pronoun s i n an y narratio n ca n b e somewha t confusin g whe n ther e ar e repeate d reference s t o "he, " "she, " "his, " "her, " "them, " an d "their. "

Josep h Fitzmye r i n hi s discussio n o f "Th e Parabl e o f th e Persisten t Friend " i n hi s Luk e commentar y illustrate s th e difficult y o f assignin g th e pronoun s i n a tex t t o thei r prope r referents H e reject s th e interpretatio n offere d i n 193 4 b y Anto n Fridrichsen , whic h ha s bee n accepte d b y man y recen t scholar s — tha t is , tha t his i n vers e 8 attribute s th e matte r o f shamelessnes s t o th e ma n i n bed . "Tha t interpretatio n fails, " Fitzmye r notes , "becaus e th e autou, 'his, ' tha t modifie s anaideia ha s t o b e understoo d i n th e sam e sens e a s th e autou wit h th e precedin g philon, 'hi s friend, ' a referenc e

t o th e beggin g neighbor " ( Luk e 912 , citin g K. E. Bailey , Poet and Peasant, 119-3 3 i n support) Yet other s hav e take n th e opposit e position Th e effec t o f th e variou s effort s t o incorporat e th e ide a o f "shamelessness " alon g wit h th e lingerin g ide a o f "persistence " is see n i n th e wor k o f Joh n Donahue , wh o speak s o f "persistence " wit h "overtone s o f shameles s boldness " ( Gospel in Parable, 187) .

Thre e forme r student s o f min e hav e worke d extensivel y o n thi s problem Crai g Blomber g i n Interpreting the Parables (1990 ) concisel y survey s th e issues . H e acknowledge s th e grammatica l difficult y o f determinin g whethe r th e pronou n "his " o f vers e 8 b refer s t o th e ma n wh o ask s fo r brea d o r th e householde r i n bed Bu t h e opt s fo r th e former , an d s o read s th e tex t "becaus e o f th e man' s [i.e. , th e friend's ] importunit y [or , 'persistence']. " Furthermore , h e propose s tw o lesson s i n th e parable : th e lesso n o f "bold , unabashe d forthrightnes s i n prayer, " bu t als o tha t "Go d wil l provid e fo r th e need s o f hi s peopl e eve n mor e generousl y an d willingl y [tha n th e ma n i n bed] " (ibid., 276)

Gre g Spencer , anothe r forme r student , ha s writte n "A n Exegetica l Stud y o f th e Luca n Concep t o f Perseveranc e i n Prayer : Men' s Persistenc e o r God' s Honor? " a s a master' s thesi s a t Trinit y Evangelica l Divinit y Schoo l i n 1993 . On e o f hi s contribution s is a n exhaustiv e surve y o f anaideia usin g th e IBYCU S searc h resource . H e observe s tha t "i n all th e reference s o f th e wor d anaideia fro m th e 1st centur y AD t o th e 3r d centur y AD, 5 2 ou t o f 6 0 occurrence s ar e clearl y negative , 8 ar e ambiguou s an d 0 ar e positive " (ibid., 34) An d Klyn e Snodgrass' s carefu l analysi s o f th e linguisti c evidenc e i n hi s articl e "Anaideia an d th e Frien d a t Midnight " (1997 ) make s it no w impossibl e t o conclud e anythin g othe r tha n tha t th e ter m anaideia is t o b e understoo d i n a thoroughl y negativ e sense

Willia m R . Herzo g I I i n Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed (1994 ) too k th e discussio n o f anaideia further . H e propose d a n extensio n o f th e meanin g o f anaideia, suggestin g tha t i n "severa l instance s th e wor d seem s t o refe r t o greed. " H e cite s 1 Sa m 2:2 9 (LXX) , Sirac h 23:6 , an d Isa 56:1 1 i n suppor t o f suc h a n extende d meaning Bu t h e als o see s "anothe r cluste r o f meaning s [that ] describe s attitude s tha t challeng e sociall y constructe d boundarie s o r behavior s an d tha t brea k thes e establishe d barriers " (ibid., 212-13) I t is impossibl e t o summarize , le t alon e evaluate , Herzog s wor k withou t describin g hi s sociologica l theories Hi s approach , however , ca n b e see n i n th e followin g tw o quotations :

Th e Tora h wa s th e sourc e of boundar y drawing , an d i n th e interest s of protectin g Jerusale m elites an d th e Templ e hierarchy , th e retainer s of th e elite s an d th e Templ e recodifie d th e Tora h throug h th e ora l tora h so tha t th e boundarie s woul d b e draw n alon g "purity " lines .

Becaus e "friendship " ha d becom e entangle d i n th e we b of patron-clien t loyalties , it coul d n o longe r b e appeale d to But boundary-breakin g hospitalit y wa s somethin g else! (ibid., 213 , 214 )

Unfortunately , th e potentia l valu e o f suc h a stud y lose s sigh t o f th e Luka n contex t o f th e Parabl e o f th e Frien d a t Midnight , particularl y it s relevanc e t o th e Lord' s Praye r — t o sa y nothin g o f its possibl e earlie r settin g i n Q

Nonetheless , a s I understan d him , Herzog' s approac h woul d accommodat e m y ow n conclusion s (a s i n th e followin g paragraph) , bu t woul d tak e the m i n a differen t directio n beyon d an d awa y fro m a contextua l application

Personally , I lea n towar d applyin g th e nou n anaideia an d th e pronou n autou t o th e petitioner , bu t se e tha t onl y a s a mean s o f directin g attentio n t o th e ma n i n be d wh o wil l dea l wit h hi s friend' s "shamelessness " an d vindicat e it Th e ma n i n be d too k th e actio n h e di d a s th e righ t wa y o f dealin g wit h th e anaideia o f th e petitioner I f h e ha d refused , no t onl y woul d th e opprobriu m o f shamelessnes s hav e remaine d o n th e petitioner , bu t it woul d als o hav e reste d o n th e ma n i n be d — and , indeed , o n th e whol e village Th e entir e stor y ha s t o d o wit h hono r an d shame I t start s ou t wit h th e hos t actin g honorabl y t o provid e fo r th e midnigh t guest , continue s wit h th e hos t the n actin g i n a shamefu l manne r towar d th e ma n i n bed , an d conclude s wit h th e latte r dealin g wit h tha t sham e i n a n honorabl e way . Thi s is consisten t wit h th e actio n o f Go d wh o honor s hi s ow n nam e whe n hi s peopl e dishono r it (cf . Eze k 36:22-23) .

The

Teaching of the Parable

W e conclude , therefore , tha t Jesus ' disciple s woul d hav e understoo d thi s stor y a s teachin g tha t the y coul d approac h Go d confidently , eve n brashly , i n a wa y tha t migh t offen d th e sensibilitie s o f others . I n a cultur e o f hono r an d shame , wha t is a t issu e is no t necessaril y wha t is morall y righ t o r morall y wron g bu t wha t is acceptabl e o r unacceptabl e amon g one' s peers . Th e disciple s ca n approac h Go d i n a shameles s way , bu t the y ca n d o s o onl y be -

caus e Go d himsel f wil l "cover " fo r thei r sham e whe n h e act s i n accordanc e wit h hi s ow n honor .

A s w e rea d th e parabl e toda y i n its Luka n context , matter s becom e eve n mor e clear . Th e Lord' s Praye r begin s wit h th e reques t tha t God' s nam e b e honored . Th e Lord' s Praye r als o deal s wit h th e provisio n o f brea d fo r th e day . S o w e ca n approac h Go d knowin g tha t h e ha s alread y invite d praye r regardin g hi s hono r an d regardin g dail y provisions . Th e basi s is God' s Fatherhood . Furthermore , followin g th e parable , verse s 9-1 0 assur e u s tha t Go d wil l b e consisten t an d faithfu l i n respondin g t o ou r asking , seeking , an d knocking . The n verse s 11-1 3 sho w u s tha t a fathe r act s wisel y an d kindl y a s h e respond s t o th e request s o f hi s children . Th e whol e passage , therefore , is teachin g u s abou t God : H e is (1 ) a lovin g Father , wh o (2 ) wil l uphol d hi s ow n hono r an d wil l no t le t u s b e ashame d whe n w e pray ; h e (3 ) wil l b e consisten t an d faithful , an d h e is (4 ) a wis e an d kin d Fathe r i n hi s response .

2 . Th e Persisten t Wido w (Luk e 18:1-8 )

'The n Jesus tol d hi s disciple s a parabl e t o sho w the m tha t the y shoul d always pra y an d no t give up 2 H e said : "I n a certai n tow n ther e wa s a judg e wh o neithe r feare d Go d no r care d abou t people . An d ther e wa s a wido w i n tha t tow n wh o kep t comin g t o hi m wit h th e plea , 'Gran t m e justic e agains t m y adversary. '

4 "Fo r som e tim e h e refused . Bu t finall y h e said t o himself , 'Eve n thoug h I don' t fea r Go d o r car e abou t people , yet becaus e thi s wido w keep s botherin g me , I will see tha t sh e get s justice , s o tha t sh e won' t eventuall y wea r m e ou t wit h he r coming!' "

"And th e Lord said , "Liste n t o wha t th e unjus t judg e says. 7 An d will no t Go d brin g abou t justic e fo r hi s chose n ones , wh o cr y ou t t o hi m da y an d night ? Wil l h e dela y doin g anythin g fo r a lon g time ? SI tell you , h e will see tha t the y get justice , an d quickly . However , whe n th e So n of Ma n comes , will h e fin d fait h o n th e earth? "

The Literary Context of the Parable

Th e contex t o f th e Parabl e o f th e Persisten t Wido w i n Luk e is quit e differen t fro m tha t o f th e Parabl e o f th e Frien d a t Midnight . Fo r wherea s th e

forme r parabl e is precede d an d followe d b y teaching s o n prayer , th e them e o f praye r doe s no t appea r i n th e contex t o f th e parabl e here Instead , thi s parabl e is linke d wit h Jesus ' eschatologica l teaching s i n 17:22-3 7 — whic h teaching s wer e a majo r concer n o f th e evangelis t Luke , a s ha s bee n particularl y recognize d sinc e th e wor k o f Han s Conzelmann

Followin g a brie f interchang e betwee n Jesu s an d th e Pharisee s abou t th e natur e o f th e kingdo m i n 17:20-21 , Luk e present s i n 17:22-18: 8 th e firs t o f Jesus ' tw o eschatologica l discourse s i n hi s Gospe l (th e othe r bein g i n 21:5-36 , wit h parallel s i n Mar k 13:1-3 7 an d Mat t 24:1-42) . Thi s firs t discours e is frame d b y reference s t o th e comin g o f th e So n o f Ma n i n 17:2 2 ("Th e tim e is comin g whe n yo u wil l lon g t o se e on e o f th e day s o f th e So n o f Man , bu t yo u wil l no t se e it" ) an d 18:8 b ("Whe n th e So n o f Ma n comes , wil l h e fin d fait h o n th e earth?") , whic h functio n rhetoricall y a s a n inclusio. Th e sombe r moo d o f th e discours e — a s see n i n th e mentio n o f Jesus ' suffering s an d rejectio n (17:25) , th e detailin g o f people' s evi l behavio r durin g th e tim e o f Noa h (17:26-28) , an d frequen t allusion s t o judgmen t (17:27 , 29 , 32 , 33) , whic h culminat e i n a gruesom e depictio n o f vulture s gatherin g ove r a dea d bod y (17:37b ) — is picke d u p i n th e nee d o f bot h th e wido w an d th e elec t fo r vindicatio n (18:3 , 7, 8a) .

I n additio n t o th e prominenc e o f praye r i n Luke' s theology , whic h wa s note d abov e i n connectio n wit h th e Lord' s Prayer , th e Parabl e o f th e Frien d a t Midnight , an d th e tw o additiona l praye r Saying s i n 11:1-13 , ther e ar e severa l othe r Luka n characteristic s tha t appea r prominentl y i n Luk e 18 On e is th e expressio n t o "tell " a parabl e (cf . w 1 an d 9) , whic h appear s mor e frequentl y i n Luk e tha n i n Mar k o r Matthew . Anothe r is th e appearanc e i n vers e 1 o f th e infinitiv e o f th e Gree k particl e dei, "i t is necessary " (th e translatio n "should " o f NI V is weak) , whic h Luk e use s i n th e firs t passio n predictio n o f 9:2 2 (cf th e equivalen t expression s mellei i n th e secon d predictio n o f 9:4 4 an d telesthēsetai i n th e thir d o f 18:3lb-33 ) an d elsewher e throughou t hi s Gospe l i n suc h text s a s 2:49 ; 4:43 ; 12:12 ; 13:14,33 ; 19:5; 21:9 ; 22:37 ; 24:44 . Th e adjectiv e tes adikias wit h referenc e t o "th e unjus t judge " i n vers e 6 — tha t is, t o a judg e characterize d b y injustic e — appear s i n th e sam e for m i n Luke' s portraya l o f "th e shrew d manager " i n 16:1- 9 (se e esp ν 8) Furthermore , th e introductio n t o th e parabl e o f th e persisten t wido w i n vers e 1 an d th e closin g wor d o f applicatio n i n vers e 8 bot h involv e issue s o f th e nearnes s o f th e parousia ove r agains t a n extende d perio d o f waiting , whic h is wha t Conzelman n trie d t o addres s i n hi s theor y tha t Luk e wa s attemptin g t o explai n a n allege d "delay " o f Jesus ' parousia.

A t th e sam e time , ther e ar e word s i n verse s 6b- 7 tha t ar e no t characteristicall y Luka n — a fac t w e wil l shortl y discus s i n dealin g wit h th e for m histor y o f th e parable . Vers e 8b , "Bu t whe n th e So n o f Ma n comes , wil l h e fin d fait h o n th e earth?, " is though t b y man y t o b e a Luka n addition . Thi s is possible , thoug h ther e is n o pressin g reaso n t o assum e it (unless , o f course , on e ha s alread y decide d tha t verse s 6 b an d 7 ar e no t t o b e considere d par t o f th e origina l parable) . Howar d Marshal l note s tha t "th e sayin g itsel f is unexceptiona l a s a teachin g o f Jesus, " an d ye t wisel y conclude s tha t "i t is no t necessaril y Lucan " (Luke, 670) . Vers e 1, however , is introductory , an d s o presumabl y Lukan . Furthermore , i t need s t o b e observe d tha t th e similarit y o f th e phras e use d b y th e judg e i n vers e 5, "t o kee p botherin g me " (parechein moi kopon), an d th e word s o f th e ma n i n be d i n 11:7 , "don' t bothe r me " (me moi kopous pareche), sugges t eithe r a rathe r exac t translatio n o f a n Aramai c expressio n o r consistenc y i n Luke' s editing , o r both . I n short , th e evidence s o f Luke' s editin g d o no t requir e th e conclusio n tha t h e force d th e Parabl e o f th e Persisten t Wido w i n 18:1- 8 t o fit a n

eschatologica l context . Ever y parable , o f course , need s som e context . Bu t i n spit e o f th e similaritie s tha t exis t betwee n th e parable s i n 11:5- 8 an d 18:1-8 , w e d o wel l t o wor k wit h th e context s Luk e provide s rathe r tha n go beyon d th e evidenc e i n othe r directions

The Form of the Parable

Ther e ar e severa l significan t difference s i n th e for m o f th e Parabl e o f th e

Persisten t Wido w fro m tha t o f th e Parabl e o f th e Frien d a t Midnight . Th e narrativ e is no t relate d within th e dialogue , a s it wa s i n 11:5-8 I n fact , ou r parabl e her e doe s no t contai n dialogue , bu t is, rather , a soliloquy . Th e socalle d "la w o f en d stress, " o f course , is similarl y operativ e here , an d th e outcom e is unexpecte d an d outrageous Likewise , th e focu s is o n jus t tw o peopl e (th e balanc e o f emphasi s bein g a matte r o f interpretation) . Bu t th e character s ar e mor e sharpl y define d i n thi s stor y abou t a wido w an d a judg e tha n i n th e stor y abou t a hos t an d a ma n i n bed . An d th e character s o f thi s stor y ar e a t opposit e end s o f th e socia l continuu m i n term s o f power , whic h is a fac t tha t no t onl y is importan t t o th e stor y itsel f bu t als o add s t o it s interes t an d memorability .

Dominical Status and Lukan Redaction

Th e settin g o f thi s stor y abou t a wido w an d a judg e is clearl y Palestinian , wit h bot h character s fittin g int o th e socia l lif e know n t o Jesus Th e Jesu s

Semina r gav e th e parabl e a "pink " rating , meanin g tha t "Jesu s probabl y sai d somethin g lik e this " — thoug h the y considere d verse s 1 an d 6- 8 t o b e

Luke' s editoria l invention s (cf R W Funk , B B Scott , an d J R Butts , The Parables of Jesus: Red Letter Edition [Sonoma , CA : Polebridge , 1988] , 41) .

If thi s parabl e ha d bee n give n b y Jesu s a s a n encouragemen t durin g a perio d o f persecution , i t is eas y t o se e wh y it woul d hav e bee n preserve d b y th e earl y churc h an d eventuall y selecte d b y Luke . Ther e is n o reaso n wh y it s positio n i n Luke' s Gospe l coul d no t reflec t a n origina l associatio n wit h Jesus ' eschatologica l teachings Peopl e throughou t biblica l histor y — an d sinc e — hav e "waited " o n Go d i n time s o f trouble . Fo r Luk e t o us e thi s parabl e t o addres s suc h a circumstanc e woul d hardl y hav e bee n differen t fro m Jesus ' origina l intention . An d a s fo r th e closin g comment s i n verse s 6-8 , thei r plac e i n th e traditio n an d editin g ar e assesse d variously . On e migh t ventur e t o sa y tha t an y attemp t t o pee l the m awa y fro m th e origina l parabl e an d t o construc t thei r histor y differentl y mus t involv e considerabl e speculation

Th e mai n difficult y i n construin g thi s sectio n a s a n origina l whol e is th e tensio n betwee n God' s dela y (o r patience) , whic h is a n acknowledge d them e i n Luke' s Gospel , an d th e assertio n tha t th e elec t wil l ge t justic e "quickly " ( v 8a) . If thi s is Luke' s wa y of glossin g ove r th e expectatio n o f a n imminen t parousia b y substitutin g th e ide a o f a n interi m period , i t is a clums y wa y o f doin g it Bu t if thi s is a tensio n tha t is i n accor d wit h Jesus ' teaching s elsewher e i n th e Gospel s — a s well , o f course , wit h God' s way s i n histor y a s portraye d elsewher e i n th e Bibl e — ou r tas k is no t t o adjus t ou r theor y o f transmissio n an d redactio n bu t t o correc t ou r theolog y an d it s application . Tha t doe s no t mea n tha t w e mus t se e th e entir e framewor k o f th e parabl e a s par t o f th e origina l parable Rather , suc h a n approac h suggest s tha t th e framewor k o f th e parabl e doe s no t confron t u s wit h a sever e disjunctio n cause d b y Luke' s suppose d misunderstandin g an d misapplicatio n o f Jesus ' story

WALTER L LIEFELD

The Story of the Parable

A s w e approac h th e interpretatio n o f thi s story , w e not e tha t severa l o f it s aspect s ar e rathe r obscure Wa s th e judg e Jewish ? Wa s th e wido w appealin g t o a Hellenisti c court ? Wh o wa s he r adversary ? Wa s sh e withou t relatives ?

Wa s th e cas e abou t th e inheritanc e du e he r a s a widow ? Ho w larg e wa s th e "town" ? (Luk e refer s t o it twic e a s a polis.) Wa s ther e som e reaso n t o stat e tha t bot h th e judg e an d th e wido w wer e fro m th e sam e town ? Wh y di d th e woma n no t offe r a bribe ? Wa s sh e destitute ? Wh y di d sh e persis t i n pressin g he r case ? Wh y di d th e judg e no t simpl y gran t he r reques t a t th e outset ?

If h e feare d n o one , coul d h e no t hav e simpl y rule d i n he r favo r t o begi n with ? Wer e th e judg e an d th e wido w adversaries , o r friends , or , a t least , o f th e sam e socia l class? A questio n eve n mor e pertinen t t o th e interpretatio n is: If th e judg e ha d n o fea r o f Go d an d n o "respec t fo r people " (NRSV) , wh y woul d h e worry , a s on e interpretatio n proposes , abou t hi s reputation ? Suc h question s hav e bee n discusse d i n detai l mos t recentl y b y Willia m Herzo g i n hi s Parables as Subversive Speech (215-32) The y nee d no t all , however , b e answere d i n orde r t o construc t a n interpretation .

Som e aspect s o f th e situation , however , ar e clea r enough Widow s wer e marginalize d an d vulnerabl e (cf 1 Ti m 5:3-1 6 fo r th e respons e o f th e church) . Thi s woma n di d no t hav e t o b e ol d o r physicall y debilitate d t o b e a t a sever e disadvantage Th e fac t tha t ther e wa s a n adversar y mean t tha t th e judg e wa s no t dealin g wit h a financia l matte r tha t affecte d onl y her . Th e adversar y doe s no t figur e i n th e structur e o f th e parable , bu t h e certainl y doe s i n th e assume d backgroun d o f th e story An d th e positio n an d characte r o f th e judg e ar e clearl y delineated .

Jesu s wa s paintin g th e pictur e wit h bol d stroke s t o emphasiz e th e differenc e betwee n th e character s an d th e magnitud e o f th e woman' s effec t o n th e judge Tha t doe s no t impl y tha t th e scen e o r actio n is distorted If it wer e a n impossibl e situation , th e parabl e woul d hav e ha d les s authenticity ; bu t if th e woman' s actio n an d th e judge' s respons e wer e no t outrageous , th e parabl e woul d hav e ha d les s impact Withou t an y furthe r detai l bein g given , w e kno w tha t trut h wa s o n th e widow' s side . Furthermore , wit h Herzog , w e ca n probabl y assum e tha t he r actio n o f goin g beyon d th e bound s o f wha t wa s customar y wa s don e s o a s t o brin g th e teaching s o f th e Tora h abou t car e fo r widow s t o bea r o n th e situatio n (cf . ibid., 230-32) .

Th e widow' s persistenc e ha d alread y becom e a n afflictio n t o th e judge , bu t h e fear s tha t "eventually " o r "a t th e end " (eis telos) sh e wil l "wea r

m e out " (hupâpiazç me). Thi s ver b coul d refe r t o a blo w b y a boxer . I t is questionable , however , tha t w e shoul d infe r fro m thi s tha t h e wa s afrai d tha t sh e woul d i n som e wa y physicall y brutaliz e him . Is Jesu s paintin g a scen e s o comi c an d outrageou s tha t a judg e is afrai d o f bein g physicall y attacke d b y a widow ? Th e fac t tha t th e ver b coul d als o mea n t o giv e someon e a "blac k eye " i n a metaphorica l sens e ha s le d t o th e possibilit y tha t thi s judg e wa s afrai d o f losin g hi s reputation . Bu t if h e alread y feare d n o one , ho w coul d thi s b e so ? I t is probabl y better , therefore , t o interpre t th e widow' s action s an d th e judge' s respons e i n th e contex t o f a cultur e o f sham e an d hono r — tha t is, t o se e implie d i n th e stor y th e scenari o tha t if sh e cause s hi m t o b e know n a s someon e wh o ignore s a wido w i n need , suc h sham e coul d overbalanc e an y self-bestowe d "honor " tha t h e cherishe s o f bein g a "toug h judge. "

The Teaching of the Parable

It woul d see m tha t eac h characte r i n th e parabl e o f 11:5- 8 an d th e parabl e o f 18:1- 8 — bot h th e petitione r an d th e on e bein g petitione d — is intende d t o dra w th e hearer/reader' s attention A t th e sam e time , th e ultimat e focu s i n bot h parable s is o n th e respons e o f th e secon d figure By mean s o f a lesser-to-greate r argument , w e lear n tha t if eve n th e ma n i n be d o r th e unjus t judg e respond s i n spit e o f thei r reluctance , w e ca n certainl y coun t o n Go d t o respond .

Bu t wherea s i n th e midnigh t scen e persistenc e is no t a factor , i n th e judicia l scen e i t is o f utmos t importance . Th e woma n need s vindication . Th e situatio n is prolonge d an d headin g towar d a clima x (recallin g th e phras e eis telos, "eventually " o r "a t th e end") . S o th e "elect " cr y "da y an d night. " Thi s elemen t o f prolongatio n ha s surface d i n th e Parabl e o f th e Persisten t Wido w a s bein g significant , an d s o th e natura l questio n no w is whethe r Go d wil l tak e a lon g tim e t o brin g justic e o r vindicatio n t o thos e sufferin g i n th e perio d describe d i n 17:22-37 .

A furthe r questio n tha t relate s t o th e conclusio n i n vers e 7 is th e meanin g o f th e interrogativ e claus e kai makrothumei ep' autois (NIV : "Wil l h e kee p puttin g the m off?") . Th e connectiv e kai ca n hav e severa l nuance s (suc h a s "and, " "ever, " "although, " o r eve n represen t a differen t meanin g i n th e underlyin g Aramaic) . Also , th e ver b makrothumeö ("hav e patience, " "pu t off, " "wait" ) ca n hav e severa l meaning s relate d t o th e ide a o f waiting ,

WALTER L LIEFELD

suc h a s delayin g o r bein g patien t o r forbearing . Eve n th e referen t o f ep' autois ("fo r them" ) is no t completel y certai n (cf . Marshall , Luke, 674-75 , fo r a n analysi s o f th e variou s propose d interpretations) . Give n th e vocabular y an d gramma r — couple d wit h th e fact s tha t (1 ) Go d promise s vindication , (2 ) a perio d o f waitin g seem s inevitabl e give n th e context , (3 ) th e referenc e seem s t o b e t o th e elect , an d (4 ) par t o f th e answe r is "quickly " — th e questio n o f vers e 7 b shoul d probabl y b e read : "Wil l Go d dela y doin g anythin g fo r a lon g time? " Vers e 8a provide s th e answer : No , Go d wil l ac t "quickly " (en tachei). Bu t thi s expressio n "quickly " function s no t t o measur e th e spee d o f God' s respons e i n "rea l time, " bu t t o complet e th e stron g contras t wit h th e judge' s methodica l an d deliberat e delay . Th e questio n the n turn s i n vers e 8 b fro m ho w Go d act s durin g th e waitin g perio d t o ho w th e hearer s an d reader s respond , an d whethe r the y wil l endur e wit h respec t t o th e faith : "However , whe n th e So n o f Ma n comes , wil l h e find fait h o n th e earth? "

3 . Th e Parabl e o f th e Pharise e an d th e Ta x Collecto r (Luk e 18:9-14 )

9To som e wh o wer e confiden t of thei r ow n righteousnes s an d looke d dow n o n everybod y else, Jesus tol d thi s parable : '""Two me n wen t u p t o th e templ e t o pray , on e a Pharise e an d th e othe r a ta x collector "Th e Pharise e stoo d u p an d praye d abou t himself : 'God , I than k yo u tha t I a m no t like othe r peopl e — robbers , evildoers , adulterer s — o r eve n like thi s ta x collector I2I fas t twic e a wee k an d give a tent h of all I get.'

' "Bu t th e ta x collecto r stoo d at a distance H e woul d no t eve n loo k u p t o heaven , bu t bea t hi s breas t an d said , 'God , hav e merc y o n me , a sinner. '

14"I tell yo u tha t thi s man , rathe r tha n th e other , wen t hom e justifie d befor e God Fo r all thos e wh o exal t themselve s will b e humbled , an d thos e wh o humbl e themselve s will b e exalted. "

The Context of the Parable

A s wit h th e Parabl e o f th e Persisten t Widow , Luk e preface s th e Parabl e o f th e Pharise e an d th e Ta x Collecto r wit h a n introductio n t o guid e th e

reade r t o its significance . An d a s d o th e tw o parable s jus t discussed , thi s parabl e als o feature s tw o stron g figures . Bu t th e introductio n o f thi s parabl e draw s attentio n particularl y t o th e firs t figure , wit h a referenc e t o thos e wh o ar e self-righteou s an d loo k dow n o n others . Nonetheless , th e conclusio n i n vers e 14b , whethe r par t o f Jesus ' sayin g o r Luke' s addition , refer s t o bot h attitude s — t o bot h self-exaltatio n an d self-humbling . I n Luke' s introductor y formula , "Jesu s tol d thi s parable, " th e reade r is informe d tha t thi s is onl y a stor y an d no t abou t tw o actua l people . Bu t it ha s becom e s o familia r tha t moder n reader s ofte n forge t thi s an d d o no t allo w fo r paraboli c exaggeration . Jesus ' origina l hearers , however , woul d hav e know n thes e tw o character s well , an d probabl y woul d hav e bee n eage r t o hea r exaggerate d description s — muc h a s theologica l conservative s an d theologica l liberal s toda y all-too-ofte n lik e t o hea r an d tel l storie s abou t thei r heroe s an d villains . Bu t Jesu s reverse d thei r roles , an d s o bot h hi s word s o f condemnatio n an d hi s word s o f commendatio n woul d hav e com e a s a surpris e t o hi s origina l hearers . Thos e o f u s wh o rea d Luke' s accoun t i n late r time s ar e no t a s knowledgeable , an d s o ca n easil y mis s th e forc e an d shoc k o f th e origina l telling Mor e tha n that , man y o f u s wh o hav e rea d Luke' s Gospe l hav e onl y negativ e attitude s towar d th e Pharisee s an d war m feeling s towar d repentan t ta x collectors

Dominical Status and Lukan Redaction

Th e originalit y o f thi s parabl e ma y see m a foregon e conclusion , an d th e tracin g o f an y for m histor y unnecessary . Bu t some , i n particula r th e Fellow s o f th e Jesu s Seminar , conside r bot h th e for m an d framewor k o f thi s stor y t o b e a constructio n stemmin g fro m th e latte r par t o f th e firs t century , "whe n th e rivalr y betwee n Christianit y an d Judais m produce d considerabl e acrimony " (Funk , Scott , an d Butts , The Parables of Jesus: Red Letter Edition, 56) . Th e judgmen t o f Luis e Schottrof f ("Di e Erzählun g vo m Pharisäe r un d Zöllne r al s Beispie l fü r di e Theologisch e Kuns t de s Uberredens, " i n Neues Testament und christliche Existenz, ed . H . D . Bet z an d L. Schottrof f [Tübingen : Mohr , 1973],439-61 ) thatthi s is a caricatur e o f th e Pharisee s is ofte n cited , eithe r wit h disapprova l (e.g. , Marshall , Luke, 678) , or , les s often , wit h approva l an d eve n a s a stron g cas e (e.g. , F. G . Downing , "Th e Ambiguit y o f 'th e Pharise e an d th e Toll-Collector', " 8486) .

WALTER L LIEFELD

Bu t whil e caricature ca n impl y unfairness , exaggeration (a s jus t noted ) is no t onl y permissibl e bu t t o b e expecte d i n a parabl e suc h a s this . W e nee d no t assum e tha t Jesus ' intentio n wa s t o criticiz e Pharisee s an d commen d ta x collectors , bu t t o contras t tw o attitudes . An d instea d o f doin g thi s abstractly , Jesu s make s u p a stor y an d select s tw o well-know n types , on e religiou s an d on e not , t o facilitat e th e descriptio n an d th e shockin g conclusion .

The Teaching of the Parable

To interpre t th e Parabl e o f th e Pharise e an d th e Ta x Collecto r i t is important , first , t o observ e th e Pharisee' s attitude : tha t h e wa s confiden t o f hi s ow n righteousness Thi s attitud e o n th e par t o f certai n Pharisee s ha d alread y bee n condemne d b y Jesu s i n Luk e 16:15 , "Yo u ar e th e one s wh o justif y yourselve s i n th e eye s o f people , bu t Go d know s you r hearts. " Suc h a n attitud e is als o familia r fro m Paul' s confessio n i n Phi l 3:4-6 , wher e h e list s th e reason s h e ha d fo r puttin g confidenc e i n th e flesh Bu t als o i t need s t o b e note d tha t wit h suc h a n attitude , th e Pharisee s looke d dow n o n others Thei r confidenc e i n themselve s calle d fo r a n objec t o f scorn , an d thi s is a rol e fo r whic h th e ta x collecto r wa s a n idea l candidate

Jesu s portray s th e ta x collecto r i n a n attitud e o f repentanc e i n orde r t o giv e th e li e t o th e Pharisee' s assumption . Whil e reader s o f Luke' s Gospe l kno w tha t Jesu s wa s strongl y criticize d fo r hi s associatio n wit h "sinners, " thos e wh o criticize d hi m coul d hav e bee n pu t o n th e defensiv e if the y objecte d t o on e o f th e sinner s repentin g i n th e shado w o f th e Jerusale m temple . Fo r th e Pharise e t o g o hom e unjustified , however , woul d hav e bee n unthinkable , eve n thoug h th e hypocris y o f som e Pharisee s wa s caricature d i n Jewis h literatur e o f tha t period . Geral d Downing' s extensiv e researc h int o example s o f prayer s o f bot h genuin e an d fals e penitence , whic h h e presse s int o servic e t o discredi t th e ta x collector' s praye r (cf . "Th e Ambiguit y o f 'th e Pharise e an d th e Toll-Collector'") , needs , indeed , t o b e take n int o consideration . Bu t thos e example s mus t no t b e allowe d t o distrac t ou r attentio n fro m th e foca l poin t o f th e stor y i n Luke : tha t wha t is missin g fro m th e Pharisee' s prayer , bu t wa s presen t i n tha t o f th e ta x collector , wa s confessio n an d repentance .

4 . Conclusio n

Thes e thre e parable s o f Jesu s o n praye r hav e portraye d Go d a s (1 ) th e on e wh o wil l maintai n hi s hono r an d no t allo w u s t o b e ashame d i n approachin g hi m i n praye r (Th e Frien d a t Midnight) , (2) th e on e wh o wil l no t hesitat e t o vindicat e thos e wh o cr y t o him , thoug h h e ma y see m t o b e delayin g (Th e Persisten t Widow) , an d (3 ) th e on e wh o accept s th e prayer s o f thos e wh o com e wit h confessio n an d repentanc e (Th e Pharise e an d th e Tax Collector) A n explicatio n o f ho w on e can , lik e th e ta x collector , b e "justified " ha d t o wai t unti l afte r Jesus ' deat h an d resurrection .

Selecte d Bibliograph y

Bailey, Kennet h E Poet and Peasant: A Literary Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke. Gran d Rapids : Eerdmans , 1976

Blomberg , Crai g L Interpreting the Parables. Downer s Grove : InterVarsity , 1990

Catchpole , Davi d R " Q an d 'Th e Frien d a t Midnight ' (Luk e xi.5-8/9), " Journal of Theological Studies 3 4 (1983 ) 407-24

Cranfield , C E B "Th e Parabl e o f th e Unjus t Judg e an d th e Eschatolog y o f Luke-Acts, " Scottish Journal of Theology 16 (1963 ) 297-301

Derrett , J Dunca n M "La w i n th e Ne w Testament : Th e Parabl e of th e Unjus t Judge, " New Testament Studies 18 (1972 ) 178-91

"Th e Frien d a t Midnight : Asia n Idea s i n th e Gospe l o f St Luke, " i n Donum Gentilicum, ed E Bammel , C K Barrett , an d W D Davies Oxford : Clarendon , 1978

Donahue , Joh n R The Gospel in Parable. Philadelphia : Fortress , 1988

Downing , F Gerald "Th e Ambiguit y of'th e Pharise e an d th e Toll-Collector ' (Luk e 18:9-14 ) i n th e Greco-Roma n Worl d o f Lat e Antiquity, " Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54 (1992 ) 80-99

Fitzmyer , Josep h A The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV. Garde n City : Doubleday , 1985

Green , Joe l B The Gospel of Luke. Gran d Rapids : Eerdmans , 1997

Herzog , Willia m R., II Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed. Louisville : Westminster/Joh n Knox , 1994

Huffard , Everet t W "Th e Parabl e of th e Frien d a t Midnight : God' s Hono r o r Man' s Persistence?, " Restoration Quarterly 21 (1978 ) 154-60

WALTER L LIEFELD

Johnson , Ala n Ε "Assuranc e fo r Man : Th e Fallac y o f Translatin g anaideia b y 'Persistence ' i n Luk e 11:5-8, " Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22 (1979 ) 123-31 .

Marshall , I . Howard . The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Exeter : Paternoster ; Gran d Rapids : Eerdmans , 1978 . Snodgrass , Klyne . " Anaidei a an d th e Frien d a t Midnigh t (Luk e 11:8), " Journal of Biblical Literature 11 6 (1997 ) 505-13 .

Talbert , Charle s H . Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel. Ne w York : Crossroad , 1982 .

CHAPTE R 1 2

Strange Neighbors an d Risky Care

(Matt 18:21-35; Luke 14:7-14; Luke 10:25-37)

SYLVI A C . KEESMAA T

I T IS TEMPTIN G whe n readin g th e parable s o f Jesu s — especiall y whe n readin g hi s parable s abou t th e forgivenes s o f debt , welcomin g a n outcast , o r lovin g a n enem y — t o begi n b y ferretin g ou t th e contex t o f th e origina l hearer s o r th e situatio n o f th e earl y church , bu t t o leav e a consideratio n o f ou r ow n contex t a s th e las t ste p — with , perhaps , th e insertio n o f tw o paragraph s o r s o a t th e en d o f th e exercis e tha t mak e som e vagu e connection s t o ou r contemporar y world . Ther e ar e goo d reason s fo r thi s impulse . Afte r all , on e canno t understan d wha t Jesu s wa s reall y sayin g withou t knowin g hi s contex t an d tha t o f hi s listeners . I t is als o a safe r wa y t o rea d th e parables , fo r i t ensure s tha t engagemen t betwee n a tex t an d it s contex t d o no t becom e to o uncomfortabl y clos e t o ou r ow n world .

Suc h a reading , however , doe s a disservic e bot h t o th e text s themselve s an d t o th e word s o f hop e an d challeng e tha t the y spea k t o th e problem s facin g u s as individuals , as churches , an d as societies . So I wan t t o begi n thi s articl e wit h a brie f reflectio n o n som e feature s of ou r contemporar y contex t tha t se t th e stag e fo r a n engagemen t betwee n thes e text s an d ou r world . I will the n explor e th e meanin g o f thes e parable s i n Jesus ' contex t — althoug h ou r ow n worl d will always b e there , lurkin g i n th e background . Finally, I wan t t o conclud e wit h consideratio n given , onc e again , t o som e broade r connections .

1 . Ou r Contemporar y Context : Settin g th e Stag e

Th e parable s w e wil l b e dealin g wit h her e ar e th e parable s o f th e Unforgivin g Servan t (or , th e Forgivin g King ) i n Mat t 18:21-35 , th e Banque t i n Luk e 14:7-14 , an d th e Goo d (o r "Compassionate" ) Samarita n i n Luk e 10:25-37 .

Al l thre e o f thes e parable s rais e issue s tha t ar e pressin g i n ou r worl d today . Th e first deal s wit h matter s havin g t o d o wit h forgivenes s an d debt ; th e second , who m w e welcom e wit h graciou s abundanc e t o ou r tables ; an d th e third , a n enem y who m w e no t onl y hat e bu t als o find immora l an d repulsive

I t doe s no t tak e muc h imaginatio n t o se e ho w thes e theme s ar e playe d ou t i n ou r contemporar y contexts . Tak e th e issu e o f debt . O n a globa l level , les s develope d countrie s pai d ou t ove r $2. 9 trillio n (US ) i n principa l payment s o n thei r debt s t o th e Nort h betwee n 1981 an d 1997 Thi s is abou t $1. 5 trillio n (US ) mor e tha n — i n fact , doubl e — wha t the y receive d i n ne w loans Fo r ever y dolla r tha t norther n countrie s provid e i n ai d t o les s develope d countries , ove r thre e com e bac k i n th e for m o f deb t servicing . Th e fund s t o servic e thes e debt s ar e diverte d fro m basi c services : health , nutrition , clea n water , education , an d housing Indeed , cutback s i n suc h area s ar e require d b y th e lendin g countrie s fo r furthe r ai d (cf . Canadia n Ecumenica l Jubile e Initiative , A New Beginning: A Call for Jubilee).

Close r t o home , o f course , th e payin g dow n o f ou r nationa l deb t is centra l t o th e platform s o f mos t o f ou r politica l parties , wit h simila r economi c cut s t o socia l services

Bu t tha t is no t all , fo r w e live i n a cultur e wher e th e etho s o f forgivenes s is no t generall y accepte d o r welcomed . Suc h a n unforgivin g cultur e is ofte n reflecte d i n ou r churches , wher e schis m is mor e prevalen t tha n unity Fo r instance , th e churc h I gre w u p in , whic h is itsel f th e resul t o f a schis m earlie r thi s centur y i n Holland , ha s recentl y ha d a grou p spli t of f onc e again An d I d o no t nee d t o sa y muc h abou t th e lac k o f forgivenes s i n ou r persona l live s an d th e violenc e an d fragmentatio n tha t it create s fo r eac h o f us W e kno w tha t realit y to o well Wha t d o Jesus ' parable s sa y t o suc h loca l an d globa l contexts ?

O r tak e th e issu e o f welcomin g th e outcas t an d graciousl y sharin g ou r abundanc e wit h them Wh o ar e th e one s who m w e d o no t wan t t o invit e int o ou r churche s becaus e the y wil l threate n th e purit y o f th e community ? Wh o ar e th e one s who m w e d o no t wan t t o shar e ou r wealt h wit h becaus e the y d o no t deserv e it? Wh o ar e th e one s who m Jesu s is callin g u s t o

Neighbors and Risky Care

invit e t o th e communio n table , th e one s w e woul d no t wan t t o si t wit h o r expos e ou r childre n to ? Wh o ar e th e one s who m w e ar e sur e d o no t deserv e t o shar e ou r abundanc e becaus e the y canno t pa y anythin g — thos e to o schizophrenic , o r to o homeless , o r to o deepl y entrenche d i n welfare ?

Wha t d o Jesus ' parable s hav e t o sa y t o thi s societa l ethos ?

O r tak e th e issu e o f ou r enemy I n spit e o f so-calle d globalization , w e continu e t o se e a n escalatio n o f tribalis m an d nationalis m i n ou r world . Ethni c cleansing , racia l genocide , thes e ar e th e realitie s tha t fac e u s dail y a s w e loo k a t th e papers An d a s immigratio n level s continue , thes e ar e th e issue s tha t w e wil l fac e mor e an d mor e i n ou r neighborhood s an d i n ou r Christia n communities Ho w d o w e dea l wit h pluralis m withou t hatin g other s wh o ar e differen t tha n w e are ? Ho w d o w e lov e thos e whos e identit y is tie d u p wit h a wa y o f lif e w e fin d repugnant , bot h morall y an d otherwise ? Ho w d o w e lear n t o lov e ou r enem y a s a neighbor ? Wha t word s o f hop e d o Jesus ' parable s hav e fo r thes e perplexin g an d pressin g problems ? Whe n on e put s th e problem s i n thes e ways , it become s apparen t wh y Jesu s spok e i n parable s rathe r tha n b y mean s o f suc h command s a s "You r neighbo r is anyon e yo u mee t i n need, " o r "Lov e you r enemy, " o r "Forgiv e on e another. " Thes e comple x politica l an d socia l realitie s ar e deepl y roote d i n th e worldvie w o f ou r cultur e — i n ou r assumption s abou t mone y an d success , i n ou r fear s abou t ou r ow n security , an d i n situation s o f scarcit y rathe r tha n abundance . An d th e realitie s o f th e firs t centur y wer e n o les s complex

I n suc h contexts , th e parable s o f Jesu s d o fa r mor e tha n merel y sugges t a fe w way s t o chang e one' s behavior . Rather , Jesus ' parable s fundamentall y reorde r an d reshap e reality . The y functio n t o creat e a worl d fo r Jesus ' hearer s tha t present s a challeng e t o th e prevailin g worldview Fo r i n tellin g thes e parables , Jesu s is creatin g a ne w worl d fo r hi s hearer s — th e worl d o f th e ne w kingdo m tha t h e is inaugurating As h e invite s hi s hearer s t o ente r int o th e storie s o f hi s parables , h e is invitin g the m t o ente r int o tha t worl d an d s o t o joi n hi m i n th e ne w kingdo m an d it s vision . Furthermore , h e is callin g fo r a fundamenta l renunciatio n o f wh o the y ar e — a repentance , if yo u wil l — an d a fundamenta l reorientatio n i n ho w the y vie w th e world . An d s o w e hav e befor e u s thre e parables : th e Unforgivin g Servan t o f Matthe w 18, th e Banque t o f Luk e 14, an d th e Compassionat e Samarita n o f Luk e 10.

2 . Th e Parabl e o f th e Unforgivin g Servan t (Mat t 18:21-35 )

"Ho w ofte n shoul d I forgiv e m y brothe r if h e sin s agains t me? " ask s Peter "As man y a s seve n times? " (Mat t 18:21) . "No t seve n times, " answer s Jesus , "bu t seventy-seve n time s [or , perhaps , 'sevent y time s seven'] " ( v 22) . Th e exac t number , o f course , is no t th e issu e here Fo r bot h "seventy-seven " an d "sevent y time s seven " ar e enormou s numbers . I n th e Ol d Testamen t th e numbe r seve n is th e numbe r o f fulfillmen t and , mor e importantly , th e numbe r o f Sabbath Ever y seve n year s debt s ar e t o b e forgive n (cf . Deu t 15) . An d ever y seve n time s seve n is th e yea r o f Jubilee , whe n slave s ar e t o b e free d a s wel l (cf . Le v 25) . I n fact , freein g fro m slaver y i n th e ancien t worl d wa s a matte r o f deb t forgiveness , sinc e on e becam e a slav e if on e wa s unabl e t o pa y one' s debts . A n emphasi s o n "sevent y time s seven, " therefore , woul d evok e th e sabbatica l forgivenes s o f Israel' s past . Also , i t need s t o b e recognize d tha t i n th e firs t centur y th e languag e o f th e forgivenes s o f sin s wa s a languag e tha t spok e t o th e deepes t hope s o f th e people , fo r it wa s a languag e tha t signale d thei r retur n fro m exil e (cf Wright , Jesus and the Victory of God, 268) . Whe n Jesu s forgav e th e sin s o f thos e wh o cam e t o hi m fo r healing , h e no t onl y undermine d th e authorit y o f th e templ e priest s (wh o wer e th e onl y one s authorize d t o perfor m th e sacrifice s tha t resulte d i n forgiveness) , h e als o evoke d th e grea t promise s o f th e daw n o f God' s ne w ag e a s foun d i n Israel' s Scriptures All thre e o f th e grea t visionar y prophets , Isaiah , Jeremiah , an d Ezekiel , describ e God' s restoratio n o f th e peopl e i n term s o f a retur n t o th e land , wher e the y wil l experienc e safety , fruitfulness , an d forgiveness Th e languag e use d is tha t o f a ne w exodus , fo r i t is i n th e exodu s tha t Go d ha s portraye d hi s wa y o f dealin g wit h thi s waywar d peopl e a s bein g throug h forgivenes s (cf . Exo d 32-34) .

Thu s th e descriptio n o f th e ne w covenan t i n Jeremia h 3 1 end s wit h th e affirmatio n tha t "the y shal l all kno w me , fro m th e leas t o f the m t o th e greatest , say s th e Lord ; fo r I wil l forgiv e thei r iniquit y an d remembe r thei r si n n o more " ( v 34) . Similarly , i n Jeremiah' s visio n o f restoration , Go d proclaims :

I will brin g [to Jerusalem ] recover y an d healing ; I will hea l the m an d reveal t o the m abundanc e of prosperit y an d security I will restor e th e fortune s of Juda h an d fortune s of Israel , an d rebuil d the m as the y wer e at first I wil l cleans e the m fro m all thei r guil t of si n agains t me , an d I wil l

forgiv e all th e guil t of thei r sin an d rebellio n agains t me . An d thi s cit y shal l b e t o m e a nam e of joy, a prais e an d glor y befor e all th e nation s of th e eart h wh o shal l hea r of all th e goo d tha t I d o fo r them ; the y shal l fea r an d trembl e becaus e of all th e goo d an d all th e prosperit y I provid e fo r it . (33:6-11 )

An d whil e Ezekie l record s th e magnificen t visio n o f sprinklin g clea n wate r o n th e peopl e an d givin g the m a hear t o f fles h fo r thei r hear t o f ston e (Eze k 36:25) , Isaia h prophesie s a servan t wh o wil l mak e man y righteou s b y bearin g thei r iniquitie s (Isa 53:11-12) . Al l o f thes e passage s wer e centra l t o first-centur y expectations The y ar e echoe d no t onl y i n th e Gospel s bu t als o throughou t Paul' s letter s (cf Keesmaat , Paid and His Story). Likewise , th e action s o f th e rebel s wh o too k ove r th e templ e durin g th e Jewis h revol t indicat e tha t thei r expectation s o f God' s ne w kingdo m include d th e forgivenes s o f debt Fo r on e o f th e firs t thing s tha t thos e rebel s di d wa s t o bur n th e existin g record s o f deb t i n th e templ e treasur y (cf Josephus , War 2.426-27) So whe n Jesu s bega n no t onl y t o forgiv e sin s bu t als o t o proclai m forgivenes s a s a definin g characteristi c o f th e kingdo m an d thos e withi n it , hi s hearer s woul d undoubtedl y hav e understoo d th e fulfillmen t o f God' s grea t promise s i n th e term s foun d i n bot h th e Tora h an d th e propheti c literature

I n suc h a context , therefore , it is n o surpris e tha t Jesu s launche d int o a parabl e abou t deb t i n respons e t o a questio n concernin g forgiveness "Th e kingdo m o f heaven, " h e says , "ma y b e compare d t o a kin g wh o wishe d t o settl e account s wit h hi s servants " ( v 23) . Notic e tha t th e contex t her e assume s tha t th e kin g wil l b e dealin g wit h all o f hi s servants . Bu t h e begin s th e proces s o f accountin g b y first dealin g wit h a servan t wh o owe d hi m te n thousan d talent s ( v 24) .

Considerin g th e fac t tha t Herod' s annua l incom e wa s nin e hundre d talent s an d tha t al l th e taxe s collecte d i n Galile e an d Pere a togethe r amounte d t o onl y tw o hundre d talent s annually , te n thousan d talent s woul d b e equivalen t t o million s o f dollar s o f deb t (cf . Ringe , "Solidarit y an d Contextuality, " 203) . Th e number , i n fact , is s o astronomica l tha t it woul d hav e bee n impossibl e t o repay . Thus , sinc e th e servan t coul d no t pay , hi s maste r ordere d hi m sol d — tha t is, th e ma n alon g wit h hi s wif e an d childre n wer e t o b e sol d int o slaver y ( v 25) . Bu t whe n th e servan t promise d th e impossible , t o tr y t o pa y of f th e debt , th e kin g ha d compassio n an d release d hi m an d forgav e hi s multimillion-dolla r deb t ( w 26-27) .

SYLVIA C KEESMAAT

Th e situatio n o f a n impossibl y hig h deb t wa s on e tha t wa s altogethe r to o commo n i n th e firs t century A s a numbe r o f studie s hav e shown , th e heav y burde n o f taxatio n i n first-centur y Israe l ensure d tha t man y farmer s los t thei r lan d an d therefor e thei r income . Furthermore , no t onl y wa s deb t common , bu t th e impossibilit y o f emergin g ou t o f i t wa s increasingl y commo n a s well .

Israel' s Torah , o f course , demande d tha t deb t b e forgive n ever y seve n years Bu t som e o f th e Pharisee s ha d se t u p a lega l fictio n calle d prozbul, whic h enable d th e holde r o f a deb t t o giv e th e deb t ove r t o th e courts . Becaus e th e deb t wa s the n n o longe r a persona l debt , i t di d no t hav e t o b e forgive n i n th e sevent h year On e o f th e reason s give n fo r thi s la w wa s tha t creditor s wer e no t lendin g i n th e sixt h year , sinc e the y kne w tha t th e nex t yea r the y woul d hav e t o forgiv e thei r loan O n th e fac e o f it , therefore , findin g a wa y aroun d deb t forgivenes s supposedl y opene d u p credit . Th e en d result , however , wa s th e perpetuatio n o f deb t i n th e land , fo r suc h a la w lead s t o increase d incidenc e o f foreclosur e rathe r tha n forgivenes s (fo r th e relevan t texts , se e Neusner , Rabbinic Traditions, 1.217-22) .

So Jesu s se t u p a scenari o her e tha t was , o n a n initia l hearing , entirel y plausibl e an d believabl e fo r first-centur y Jews The y kne w all-too-wel l ho w suc h storie s woul d unfol d i n thei r ow n situations : a lor d o r landowne r decide s t o settl e hi s account s an d foreclose s o n hi s debtors ; thos e wh o ow e hi m mone y en d u p losin g thei r lan d — wit h th e resul t tha t th e debtors , alon g wit h thei r wives , sons , an d daughters , en d u p becomin g slaves .

Incredibly , however , i n Jesus ' kingdo m thi s stor y turn s ou t differently . Th e servan t beg s an d plead s fo r time . Surprisingly , wha t is grante d hi m is releas e fro m slaver y an d a tota l forgivenes s o f hi s debt . Comin g afte r all thos e sabbat h numbers , th e overtone s ar e unmistakable Thi s is a kin g wh o proclaim s Jubile e fo r hi s servant . Afte r all , th e sabbat h an d jubile e legislatio n o f Deu t 15 an d Lev 2 5 wa s fo r precisel y thi s sor t o f situatio n — fo r a n impossibl y hig h deb t tha t coul d no t b e pai d off Jesus ' hearer s woul d hav e heard , wit h eve r increasin g joy , tha t th e kingdo m Jesu s proclaime d was , indeed , a fulfillmen t o f th e Mosai c law Jubile e wa s finall y bein g enacted !

Th e story , o f course , coul d hav e continue d b y recountin g furthe r detail s abou t th e king Afte r all, w e hav e bee n tol d tha t th e kin g wishe d t o settl e account s wit h all o f hi s servants Presumably , therefore , h e continue d t o dea l wit h hi s othe r servant s a s h e ha d deal t wit h th e first, proclaimin g a graciou s releas e an d forgivenes s beyon d anyone' s wildes t expectation s o r

hopes . Bu t tha t is no t wher e th e stor y goes , fo r it s actio n shift s t o th e forgive n servant

No w tha t th e forgive n servan t ha s experience d thi s grea t jubile e even t — no w tha t h e ha s discovere d tha t th e worl d o f hi s lord' s kingdo m is on e o f graciousnes s an d forgivenes s — ho w wil l h e live i n tha t kingdom ?

No w tha t h e ha s discovere d th e tru e natur e o f th e lor d h e serves , wil l he , i n turn , displa y tha t natur e t o anyon e else? Havin g discovere d th e graciousnes s tha t is a t th e hear t o f thi s kingdom , wil l h e live ou t thi s "econom y o f grace " himself ? Well , yo u kno w th e answer Th e forgive n servant , comin g upo n a fello w servan t wh o owe d hi m a fe w hundre d denarii , whic h is approximatel y te n thousan d dollar s i n today' s terms , refuse s t o cu t hi m an y slac k whe n h e canno t pa y an d throw s hi m int o priso n ( w 28-30) . Thi s forgive n servan t ha s no t gotte n th e point . H e ha s no t figure d ou t tha t no w h e lives i n a kingdo m tha t operate s b y completel y differen t rules , b y a completel y differen t law , an d s o h e act s a s thoug h h e wer e stil l i n th e ol d regime T o pu t it i n th e term s o f Israel' s Scriptures , thi s servan t is actin g a s thoug h h e is stil l i n Egyp t rathe r tha n th e promise d land Hi s failur e t o forgiv e someon e els e shock s hi s fello w servant s — som e o f whom , presumably , hav e als o jus t ha d thei r debt s forgive n — an d a s a resul t the y repor t hi m t o th e kin g ( v 31) . Hi s fina l punishmen t is fa r wors e tha n hi s origina l enslavemen t woul d hav e bee n ( w 32-34) . So , say s Jesus , you r heavenl y fathe r wil l d o t o yo u if yo u d o no t forgiv e you r brothe r an d siste r fro m th e hear t ( v 35) .

Wha t kin d o f a worl d doe s th e stor y o f thi s parabl e create ? On e tha t is fa r beyon d th e expectation s o f mos t first-centur y Jews , bu t mayb e no t beyon d thei r wildes t hopes . Fo r jus t a s th e languag e o f forgivenes s speak s o f th e restoratio n o f th e peopl e an d God' s presenc e wit h the m onc e again , s o th e languag e o f deb t forgivenes s highlight s th e fac t o f a ne w orde r i n whic h economi c liberatio n is t o b e experience d an d th e peopl e ar e t o b e slave s n o more Suc h a hop e o f wide-rangin g forgivenes s wa s deepl y roote d i n Israel' s Scriptures .

Sadly , th e interpretatio n o f thi s parabl e throughou t th e centurie s ha s tende d t o driv e a wedg e betwee n th e forgivenes s o f sin s an d th e forgivenes s o f debts Th e argumen t ha s ofte n bee n summarize d lik e this : "Th e Jewis h peopl e o f Jesus ' da y expecte d a Messia h wh o woul d releas e the m fro m bondag e t o th e Roman s an d forgiv e all thei r debts Jesus , however , proclaime d a mor e radica l messag e tha n the y coul d imagine , sinc e h e proclaime d forgivenes s o f sin rathe r tha n mer e monetar y debt . I n pinnin g

thei r hope s o n th e forgivenes s o f monetar y debt , th e Jew s sho w ho w mistake n the y wer e i n thei r thinking. " Th e en d resul t o f suc h a dualisti c readin g o f th e gospe l messag e — an d o f suc h a misreadin g o f first-century Judais m — is tha t man y reader s o f thi s parabl e hav e bee n abl e t o separat e th e forgivenes s o f sin s an d th e forgivenes s o f debts , a s if th e forme r is a Christia n concer n an d th e latte r is not .

Bu t th e evidenc e o f Israel' s Scripture s an d th e Christia n Gospel s is entirel y otherwise I n fact , throughou t th e Ol d Testamen t an d th e stor y o f Jesus ' ministr y thes e tw o feature s ar e alway s intertwined . I n Israel' s Scriptures , forgivenes s o f si n an d redemptio n fro m slaver y wer e th e hallmark s o f God' s dealin g wit h hi s covenan t people Moreover , forgivenes s o f deb t wa s centra l t o ho w suc h forgivenes s an d redemptio n wer e t o b e manifeste d i n th e communit y tha t Go d calle d togethe r t o bea r hi s image

I n th e yea r o f Jubilee , a s w e note d earlier , ther e wa s t o b e a tota l economi c leveling , whic h wa s t o involv e bot h th e releas e o f slave s an d th e retur n o f land s t o thei r origina l owners . Slaver y an d th e los s o f lan d were , o f course , almos t alway s th e resul t o f debt Suc h law s wer e roote d i n Israel' s memor y o f God' s redeemin g action : becaus e Go d release d hi s enslave d peopl e fro m Egyptia n bondage , s o Israe l is calle d t o imag e Go d b y bein g a slave-releasin g communit y (cf Deu t 15:15) I n th e ne w covenan t realit y t o whic h Go d call s hi s people , forgivenes s is t o exten d fa r beyon d th e persona l spher e o f lif e t o th e socia l an d economi c sphere s a s well Fo r no t onl y doe s God' s covenanta l reig n proclai m a radicall y ne w wa y o f bein g i n ou r "spiritual " lives , God' s reig n als o proclaim s a ne w beginnin g sociall y an d economically On e canno t proclai m th e reig n o f Go d an d no t practic e tha t reig n i n ever y are a o f life .

Whe n Nehemia h returne d t o th e lan d wit h th e Israelite s wh o ha d bee n exiled , it becam e clea r tha t thi s issu e o f indebtednes s wa s on e tha t wa s threatenin g th e ver y fabri c o f thei r community S o Nehemia h proclaime d tha t all takin g o f interes t wa s t o sto p an d all debt s wer e t o b e forgive n — tha t is, all fields, vineyards , an d oliv e orchard s wer e t o b e restore d t o thei r origina l owner s (cf Ne h 5:1-13) Shortl y thereafter , whe n th e peopl e pledge d themselve s onc e agai n t o th e covenant , ther e wer e fou r mai n thing s tha t the y pledge d themselve s to : (1 ) n o intermarriage , (2 ) n o buyin g o n th e Sabbath , (3 ) th e givin g o f tithes , an d (4 ) th e forgoin g o f crop s an d th e forgivenes s o f debt s ever y sevent h yea r (Ne h 10:28-39) . Clearl y th e forgivenes s o f deb t wa s see n a s a definin g characteristi c o f wha t it wa s t o b e th e peopl e o f God .

Thos e wh o cam e int o contac t wit h Jesu s see m t o hav e interprete d hi s

messag e i n jus t thi s way . Zacchaeus , fo r example , o n receivin g Jesu s int o hi s home , promise s t o giv e hal f o f hi s possession s t o th e poo r an d t o retur n fourfol d anythin g h e ha d take n throug h cheatin g (Luk e 19:1-10) . Th e ric h

youn g ma n is tol d t o sel l all tha t h e has , giv e th e mone y t o th e poor , an d follo w Jesu s i n orde r t o inheri t eterna l lif e (Mar k 10:17-31) . An d bot h

Matthe w an d Luk e i n thei r telling s o f th e Lord' s Praye r explicitl y lin k th e forgivenes s o f monetar y deb t an d th e forgivenes s o f sin . Matthe w doe s thi s b y recordin g th e prayer : "Forgiv e u s ou r debts , a s w e forgiv e ou r debtors " (opheiletas) —commentin g o n thi s petitio n i n term s o f th e forgivenes s o f sin s (paraptomata). Luke , eve n mor e strikingly , records : "Forgiv e u s ou r sin s (hamartias), fo r w e forgiv e all wh o ar e indebte d (opheilonti) t o us. "

Th e Gree k wor d use d fo r deb t i n bot h o f thes e text s is on e tha t mean s a n economi c debt . Th e forgivenes s o f sins , therefore , is linke d explicitl y t o th e forgivin g o f economi c debts .

Th e earl y church , too , seem s t o hav e interprete d Jesu s i n thi s way . Th e experienc e o f Jesus ' follower s a t Pentecos t is sai d i n Act s 2:44-4 7 t o hav e resulte d i n newl y baptize d believer s sellin g all tha t the y ha d i n orde r t o shar e wit h thos e i n need Ther e is her e a n economi c levelin g tha t is full y consisten t wit h th e inten t o f Jubilee An d Paul' s cal l t o a n economi c sharin g amongs t th e churche s is roote d i n th e sam e etho s (cf esp 2 Co r 8 an d 9 ; se e als o Jas 1:27; 2:15)

Clearly , then , Jesu s ha s tol d a stor y tha t draw s deepl y fro m th e Scripture s o f Israe l an d tha t highlight s th e fac t tha t th e centra l feature s o f th e ne w ag e hav e dawne d — tha t is, th e forgivenes s o f sin s an d th e forgivenes s o f debts Moreover , i n tellin g thi s stor y h e ha s draw n hi s listener s int o thi s ne w worl d o f forgivenes s an d describe d a realit y tha t the y mus t eithe r accep t o r reject Bu t ther e ar e othe r dimension s t o th e realit y o f th e kingdo m tha t ar e eve n mor e radica l tha n wha t ha s bee n articulate d here Le t us , therefore , mov e o n t o ou r nex t passage

3 . Th e Parabl e o f th e Banque t (Luk e 14:7-14 )

Th e Parabl e o f th e Banque t i n Luk e 14:7-1 4 als o draw s o n th e hope s an d expectation s o f Israel Bu t i t subvert s an d undermine s thos e expectation s i n a totall y unexpecte d way Le t u s se t th e contex t an d spel l ou t th e parable Jesu s ha s bee n invite d t o dinne r a t th e hom e o f a prominen t Phari -

1

SYLVIA C KEESMAAT

see . Whil e there , h e launche s int o a criticis m o f thos e ver y peopl e wh o ha d show n hi m hospitality . Her e h e is, th e gues t o f a leadin g Pharisee . Bu t h e is s o lackin g i n graciousnes s tha t h e tell s thos e gathere d a parabl e tha t seem s t o undermin e all o f th e protocol s o f hi s host' s dinne r etiquette . I t is a strang e parabl e o f od d reversal : Fro m no w o n you r attitud e a t a banque t is t o b e tha t o f th e least , th e lowest . I n a socia l settin g wher e ran k — especiall y a t a commo n mea l — confirm s one' s socia l statu s i n th e community , suc h advic e woul d hav e bee n regarde d a s absolutel y crazy . I t woul d completel y undermin e one' s positio n i n th e community .

Jesu s the n continue s t o addres s hi s hos t an d thos e a t th e tabl e a s follows :

Whe n yo u give a luncheo n o r a dinner , d o no t invit e you r friend s o r you r brother s o r you r relative s o r ric h neighbors , i n case the y ma y invit e yo u i n return , an d yo u woul d b e repaid . Bu t whe n yo u give a banquet , invit e th e poor , th e crippled , th e lam e an d th e blind An d yo u will b e blessed , becaus e the y canno t repa y you , fo r yo u will b e repai d a t th e resurrectio n of th e righteous , ( w 12-14 )

Remembe r t o who m Jesu s is her e talkin g — t o a leading , respecte d Pharisee Now , on e thin g w e kno w abou t th e Pharisee s is tha t the y wer e a grou p withi n first-centur y Judais m wh o attempte d t o brin g holines s t o Israe l b y keepin g i n thei r ow n live s th e law s o f purity , especiall y a s the y pertaine d t o table-fellowship , t o eatin g together . Consequently , th e presenc e o f sinner s o r othe r "unclean " peopl e a t th e tabl e woul d threate n th e ver y purit y tha t th e Pharisee s wer e tryin g t o maintain Becaus e s o muc h depende d o n suc h a mea l — tha t is, th e purit y an d holines s o f th e natio n itsel f — suc h threat s carrie d fa r mor e weigh t tha n a mer e breac h o f etiquette . Th e ver y statu s an d futur e o f th e nation , a s the y viewe d it , wa s a t stake .

So wha t wer e som e o f thes e rule s o f purity ? Well , on e i n particula r is relevan t t o thi s passage . I t ca n b e foun d i n Le v 21:16-20 :

Th e Lor d spok e t o Moses , saying : "Spea k t o Aaro n an d say: 'N o on e of you r offsprin g throughou t thei r generation s wh o ha s a blemis h ma y approac h t o offe r th e foo d of hi s God . Fo r n o on e wh o ha s a blemis h shall dra w nea r — on e wh o is blin d o r lame , o r wh o ha s a mutilate d face , o r a lim b to o long , o r on e wh o ha s a broke n foo t o r a broke n hand , o r a

hunchback , o r a dwarf , o r a ma n wit h a blemis h i n hi s eyes o r a n itchin g diseas e o r scab s o r crushe d testicles'."

Thes e ar e th e one s wh o wer e no t permitte d t o offe r th e Lord' s foo d b y fire. The y were , however , permitte d t o ea t o f th e food , unles s the y wer e als o i n a stat e o f ritua l uncleanness .

Anothe r indicatio n o f stringen t requirement s fo r meal s ca n b e foun d i n th e Manua l o f Disciplin e o f th e Dea d Sea Scrolls A t Qumra n th e participant s i n suc h a mea l sa t accordin g t o rank . Gentile s wer e excluded , a s wer e all imperfec t Jews . N o on e wa s allowe d wh o wa s "smitte n i n hi s flesh , o r paralyze d i n hi s fee t an d hands , o r lame , o r blind , o r deaf , o r dumb , o r smitte n i n hi s fles h wit h a visibl e blemish " (lQS a 2.11-12 ; trans . G . Vermes , The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 2n d ed [Harmondsworth , Middlesex : Pengui n Books , 1975] , 120) .

I t is no t entirel y clea r whethe r th e law s foun d i n Le v 2 1 o r th e Qumra n Manua l o f Disciplin e wer e applie d b y th e Pharisee s t o thei r tabl e fellowship Wha t is clear , however , is tha t th e Pharisees ' stringen t requirement s fo r mea l preparatio n an d eatin g ensure d tha t mos t o f thei r fello w Jew s — especiall y thos e wh o wer e wantin g i n som e wa y — woul d hav e bee n exclude d fro m tabl e fellowshi p wit h them

I n suc h a context , Jesus ' comment s woul d undoubtedl y hav e bee n see n a s bein g mor e an d mor e offensive Fo r no t onl y doe s h e begi n b y criticizin g th e behavio r o f hi s hos t an d fello w dinne r guest s b y pointin g ou t thei r selfishnes s i n seekin g th e bes t seats , h e the n goe s o n t o criticiz e th e fac t o f thei r presenc e an d t o sugges t a n entirel y differen t gues t list . Moreover , no t onl y is i t a differen t gues t list , i t is on e tha t include s peopl e wh o woul d b e mos t likel y t o defea t th e whol e purpos e o f th e mea l — tha t is , peopl e wh o woul d b e o n th e lis t o f "thos e wh o ca n defil e th e sanctuary. "

Suc h defilemen t wa s precisel y wha t th e Pharisee s wer e tryin g t o avoid

Bu t tha t is no t all Fo r a hol y mea l tha t wa s prepare d b y clea n hand s an d eate n b y a hol y peopl e woul d anticipate , fo r a first-century Pharisee , th e eschatologica l banque t tha t Go d wil l se t befor e hi s peopl e whe n the y ar e restore d i n th e land An d s o jus t a s deb t relie f an d forgivenes s wer e importan t part s o f Israel' s expectatio n fo r God' s ne w age , s o is als o a tim e o f abundan t foo d an d feasting

A fe w obviou s passage s com e t o mind . Ps 23: 5 is on e suc h passage , wher e a banque t is prepare d i n th e fac e o f threa t an d a n enemy Likewise , Isa 25:6-9 , wher e a banque t is se t fo r all th e nation s — though , o f course ,

enemie s ar e t o b e excluded , a s vers e 10 tell s n s i n speakin g abou t Moabite s bein g trodde n dow n i n a dun g pit ! An d ther e ar e a hos t o f othe r Ol d Testamen t passages , includin g som e w e hav e alread y discussed , tha t spea k abou t a n abundanc e o f grai n an d win e i n God' s comin g ag e o f restoration .

Joel , fo r example , say s tha t "th e threshin g floors shal l b e ful l o f grain , th e vat s shal l overflo w wit h win e an d oil " (2:24 ; se e als o w 18-27) , and , strikingly , tha t "th e mountain s shal l dri p swee t win e an d th e hill s shal l flow wit h milk " (3:18) Employin g th e sam e imag e o f th e mountain s drippin g wine , Amo s goe s farthe r an d evoke s th e imag e o f th e on e plowin g overtakin g th e reaper , an d th e treade r o f grape s overtakin g th e on e wh o sow s th e see d (9.13) Suc h image s o f overabundanc e ech o Le v 26:5 , wher e a n abundanc e is promise d a s a resul t o f obedienc e t o Torah .

Again , i n Isa 55: 1 th e call o f Go d is this : "Ho , everyon e wh o thirsts , com e t o th e waters ! An d yo u wh o hav e n o money , come , bu y an d eat ! Come , bu y win e an d mil k withou t mone y an d withou t price. " Notic e especiall y tha t thi s foo d is fo r thos e "withou t money. " I t is abundanc e fo r thos e wh o canno t bu y win e an d mil k themselves Je r 31:1 4 promises , "M y peopl e shal l b e satisfie d wit h m y bounty" ; Eze k 34:2 9 promise s tha t th e peopl e wil l "n o longe r b e consume d wit h hunge r i n th e land. " An d i n tha t magnificen t passag e quote d earlie r fro m Ezekie l 36 , Go d connect s forgivenes s an d abundance : " I wil l sav e yo u fro m all you r uncleanness , an d I wil l summo n th e rai n an d mak e it abundan t an d lay n o famin e upo n you I wil l mak e th e frui t o f th e tre e an d th e produc e o f th e field abundant , s o tha t yo u ma y neve r agai n suffe r th e disgrac e o f famin e amon g th e nations " (v v 29-30 ; cf Ho s 2:21-23) .

Althoug h no t all o f thes e passage s ar e talkin g specificall y abou t a banque t tha t is se t fo r th e people , the y all highligh t th e importanc e i n Israelit e expectation s o f God' s abundan t offerin g o f foo d an d win e fo r hi s peopl e i n th e ne w age . Jesus ' action s of eatin g an d drinkin g an d providin g foo d fo r th e hungr y (cf Mat t 14:13-21//Mar k 6:30-44//Luk e 9:10-17 ; Luk e 7:31-35 ; Joh n 6:1-13 ; Mat t 15:32-38//Mar k 8:1-9 ) would , therefore , hav e undoubtedl y draw n t o min d thes e promise s o f God' s abundanc e i n th e eschatologica l age

Wha t woul d thi s hav e mean t fo r thos e Pharisee s wh o wer e eatin g an d drinkin g wit h Jesus ? I t is clea r tha t suc h a group , b y it s emphasi s o n th e significanc e o f meal s a s a preparatio n fo r th e comin g kingdom , woul d hav e bee n awar e o f thes e propheti c text s an d hav e bee n attemptin g t o wor k withi n th e symboli c worl d tha t the y present

Bu t it is als o clea r tha t Jesu s

Neighbors and Risky Care

wa s completel y underminin g thei r expectation s b y insistin g tha t th e comin g eschatologica l banque t wil l consis t no t onl y o f th e holy , bu t als o wil l includ e th e outcast s o f societ y — tha t is, thos e foun d i n th e street s an d th e lanes , a s th e followin g parabl e o f th e Weddin g Banque t i n 14:15-2 4 (esp .

ν 21 ) make s clear

I n effect , Jesu s is saying : God' s ne w ag e ha s dawned ; th e kingdo m ha s arrived ; an d th e peopl e wh o ar e enjoyin g m y banque t ar e no t thos e wh o wer e expected . Indeed , thi s parabl e o f 14:7-1 4 follow s shortl y afte r a passag e tha t state s tha t no t everyon e wh o expect s t o ente r th e feas t wil l b e abl e t o d o so ; tha t man y wil l com e fro m eas t an d west , fro m nort h an d south , t o ea t i n thi s kingdom , bu t tha t th e las t wil l b e firs t an d th e firs t wil l b e las t (cf 13:22-30) So als o th e Parabl e o f th e Weddin g Banque t o f 14:15-24 , whic h follow s ou r passage , end s wit h th e assertio n tha t "non e o f thos e wh o wer e invite d wil l tast e m y dinner " ( v 24) .

Th e implication s fo r thes e Pharisee s ar e clear If the y wis h t o partak e i n Jesus ' ne w kingdom , the y nee d t o b e willin g t o joi n th e banque t wit h all kind s o f peopl e who m the y ha d neve r expecte d t o si t a t tabl e with Tha t is all i t wil l take Bu t fo r thi s group , tha t is perhap s th e hardes t requiremen t o f all . Eve n th e forgivenes s o f debt s woul d b e easie r tha n sittin g an d eatin g a mea l wit h peopl e wh o ar e no t worth y — wit h peopl e wh o ar e no t whol e o r healthy , o r wit h peopl e wh o ca n contribut e nothin g t o th e meal .

Th e messag e o f th e Parabl e o f th e Banque t is uncompromising God' s ne w kingdom , whic h is takin g for m aroun d th e ministr y an d perso n o f Jesus , is on e wher e God' s abundanc e is extende d t o thos e wh o woul d see m b y thei r ver y presenc e t o defil e th e whol e meal . Thi s parabl e offer s a worl d wher e th e ancien t expectation s o f hono r an d sham e ar e completel y overturne d — a worl d wher e reversal s o f th e mos t uncomfortabl e sor t ar e enacted . If th e Pharisee s wan t t o b e a par t o f thi s world , the y nee d t o b e willin g t o ea t wit h th e "riffraff " an d t o ris k tha t God' s abundanc e is fo r thos e wh o woul d neve r expec t it .

Th e decisio n t o welcom e Gentile s int o th e Christia n community , a s recorde d i n Act s 15, is th e mos t radica l evidenc e tha t th e earl y churc h too k th e inclusiv e natur e o f Jesus ' messag e seriously Fo r Gentile s wer e widel y regarde d b y first-centur y Jew s t o b e deepl y immora l (cf. , fo r example , Ro m 1:18-32 , whic h is commonl y see n as a standar d Jewis h diatrib e agains t Gentiles) . Thu s fo r Jewis h Christian s t o welcom e Gentile s int o thei r fellowshi p was , indeed , t o welcom e peopl e the y woul d hav e leas t expecte d t o b e par t o f th e ne w kingdom

SYLVIA C KEESMAAT

I t is clea r tha t earl y Christia n communitie s ofte n ha d considerabl e struggle s regardin g ho w t o understan d an d embod y thi s ne w kingdo m establishe d b y Jesu s (cf. , e.g. , 1 Co r 11:27-3 4 o n eatin g together ; als o Ga l 2:11-1 4 o n Pete r an d th e Gentiles) . Nonetheless , i t is equall y clea r tha t th e earl y Christian s cam e t o appreciate , i n larg e measure , th e radica l implication s o f th e worl d tha t Jesu s calle d hi s kingdom . Eve n so , w e hav e no t ye t deal t wit h th e mos t radica l dimensio n o f thi s ne w kingdo m tha t Jesu s proclaimed .

4 . Th e Parabl e o f th e Compassionat e Samarita n (Luk e 10:25-37 )

I n som e ways , th e Parabl e o f th e Goo d (or , better , th e "Compassionate" ) Samarita n o f Luk e 10:25-3 7 ha s bee n s o domesticate d tha t is har d t o se e anythin g ne w i n it . I t ha s bee n s o domesticate d tha t eve n th e Jesu s Semina r think s tha t Jesu s reall y di d tel l thi s stor y — though , o f course , i t doesn' t believ e th e parable' s contex t i n Luke' s Gospe l t o b e authentic . I woul d lik e t o argue , however , tha t no t onl y is th e contex t o f th e parabl e authentic , bu t tha t tha t contex t actuall y provide s th e ke y t o th e parable' s meaning . Th e contex t is this : a lawye r stoo d u p t o tes t Jesus . "Teacher, " h e said , "Wha t mus t I d o t o inheri t eterna l life? " ( v 25) . No w le t u s b e clea r abou t wha t th e lawye r wa s asking . H e wa s not asking , "Ho w ca n I ge t t o heave n afte r I die? " Rather , th e questio n o f inheritin g eterna l lif e is a questio n abou t havin g a shar e i n th e comin g o f God' s ne w age . I t is a questio n abou t God' s ne w kingdom . I t is a questio n abou t resurrectio n fro m th e dead : "som e shal l awak e t o everlastin g lif e an d som e t o sham e an d everlastin g contempt " (Da n 12:2) . An d resurrection , o f course , wa s th e classi c descriptio n o f Israel' s restoratio n i n th e lan d (cf . Ezekie l 37) . Throughou t th e Scripture s o f Israe l it is clea r tha t obedienc e t o Tora h is centra l fo r th e inheritanc e o f th e lan d (cf. , e.g. , Le v 26:3-13 ; Deu t 30:15-20 ; Eze k 36:22-38 ; 37:24-28 ; se e als o Psalms of Solomon 14:1-2 , 910) . I t is als o clea r tha t th e inheritanc e o f th e whol e o f th e eart h wa s par t o f Israel' s eschatologica l expectatio n (cf . Eze k 36:8 , 12; Sirac h 36:10 ; Jubilees 22:14 , 15; 32:19 ; 1 Enoch 5:7) , whe n Go d woul d forgiv e hi s people' s transgressio n an d rene w hi s covenan t wit h the m (cf . Jubilees 22:14 , 15) . Ultimately , then , th e lawyer' s questio n wa s a questio n abou t th e sor t o f kingdo m tha t Jesu s wa s inaugurating Is it on e wher e eterna l life , an d in -

heritanc e i n th e land , is roote d i n God' s Torah ? Is i t on e tha t fulfill s th e eschatologica l hop e o f a ne w covenan t wit h God' s peopl e Israel ? Is Jesu s reall y proclaimin g somethin g tha t is consisten t wit h God' s promise s t o Israel ?

Unlik e th e othe r place s wher e thi s questio n is aske d i n th e Gospel s (cf . Mar k 12:28-31 ; Mat t 22:34-40 ; Luk e 18:18) , her e Jesu s turn s th e questio n bac k o n th e lawyer . Jesu s say s t o him , "Wha t is writte n i n th e law? Ho w d o yo u read? " ( v 26) Th e lawye r answer s wit h a quotatio n fro m th e Shema: "Yo u shal l lov e th e Lor d you r Go d wit h all you r heart , an d wit h all you r soul , an d wit h all you r strength , an d wit h all you r mind " (th e latte r is a n additio n t o Deu t 6:50) ; an d h e add s a quotatio n fro m Lev 19:18 : "You shal l lov e you r neighbo r a s yourself " ( v 27) . "Yo u hav e give n th e righ t answer, " say s Jesus ; "D o thi s an d yo u wil l live " ( v 28) Th e lawye r ha s hi s answer : th e kingdo m tha t Jesu s proclaim s is on e firml y roote d i n th e Scripture s an d la w o f Israel .

Bu t th e lawye r doesn' t sto p there H e take s th e matte r further Fo r "wishin g t o justif y himself , h e sai d t o Jesus , 'An d wh o is m y neighbor?' " ( v 29) W e nee d t o remembe r tha t wheneve r w e rea d th e Englis h wor d "justify " w e ar e readin g a translatio n o f th e sam e wor d i n Gree k a s th e wor d w e translat e "righteousness " — or , i n thi s case , "bein g mad e righteous. " A bette r translation , therefore , thoug h somewha t mor e awkward , woul d b e "wishin g t o find himsel f righteous , h e sai d t o Jesus , 'An d wh o is m y neighbor?' "

Wh y woul d thi s lawye r wis h t o b e righteous ? I n first-century Judaism , an d indee d throughou t th e biblica l tradition , i t is th e righteou s wh o wil l participat e i n God' s ne w age . I t is th e righteou s wh o wil l ente r th e kingdom ; i t is th e righteou s wh o wil l inheri t eterna l life . So th e questio n o f whethe r th e lawye r is righteou s is closel y linke d t o hi s first questio n o f ho w t o inheri t eterna l life .

Th e questio n o f wh o shoul d b e accepte d a s a neighbo r wa s apparentl y muc h discusse d i n first-century Judaism . Accordin g t o mos t mainstrea m text s o f th e time , th e concep t "neighbor " shoul d definitel y includ e one' s fello w Jews , bu t no t necessaril y g o beyon d Jews . I n fact , som e text s mak e i t clea r tha t one' s hel p shoul d not exten d beyon d th e bound s o f th e Jewis h peopl e — definitel y no t t o "sinners " (i.e. , Gentiles) , sinc e t o hel p sinner s woul d b e t o condon e thei r sin s (cf . Sirac h 12:1-7) .

Th e questio n wa s a ver y rea l on e i n first-century Judaism . Bu t i t als o ha d certai n expecte d answers Jesus , however , respond s t o th e lawyer' s

questio n i n a n unexpecte d wa y i n hi s Parabl e o f th e Compassionat e Samaritan , whic h begins : "A ma n wa s goin g dow n fro m Jerusale m t o Jericho , an d fell int o th e hand s o f robbers , wh o strippe d him , bea t him , an d wen t away , leavin g hi m hal f dead " ( v 30) . W e ar e no t tol d if th e ma n wa s Jewis h o r not , althoug h th e assumptio n o f th e stor y seem s t o b e tha t h e was All w e ar e tol d is tha t h e fel l int o th e hand s o f robber s (Greek : lēstoi, "highwaymen ; bandits") , wit h quit e disastrou s results

No w highwayme n woul d no t necessaril y hav e bee n withou t th e sympath y o f man y Jewis h peasants . Suc h group s o f bandit s ofte n consiste d o f peasant s themselves , wh o wer e unabl e t o pa y of f thei r debt s o r provid e fo r thei r families , an d s o turne d t o robbin g travelers Ofte n th e spoil s o f thei r robberie s wer e channele d bac k int o th e loca l village s an d resulte d i n benefit s fo r others Th e presenc e o f highwayme n was , i n fact , widesprea d a t thi s time , an d the y eventuall y becam e a n importan t facto r i n th e Jewis h revol t agains t Rom e i n A.D. 66 . So Jesus ' hearer s woul d probabl y hav e hear d i n th e parabl e a stor y o f wha t wa s fo r th e da y a fairl y commo n occurrenc e o n th e seventeen-mil e roa d tha t descende d throug h th e deser t fro m Jerusale m t o Jericho

Th e patter n o f violenc e o f thes e highwaymen , however , is somethin g tha t Jesu s explicitl y condemn s i n Luk e 19:45 , wher e h e overturn s th e table s i n th e templ e an d utter s th e followin g wor d o f judgment : "I t is written , 'M y hous e shal l b e a hous e o f prayer, ' bu t yo u hav e mad e it a de n o f robber s (lēstoi)." I n s o saying , Jesu s suggest s tha t th e ver y hear t o f Israe l ha d becom e a haun t o f lēstoi o r robbers . And , o f course , Jesu s is presente d i n th e Gospel s a s havin g bee n crucifie d betwee n tw o lēstoi, on e o n eac h side

Bu t th e plo t o f Jesus ' stor y thickens : "Now , b y chanc e a pries t wa s goin g dow n tha t road ; an d whe n h e sa w him , h e passe d b y o n th e othe r side . S o likewis e a Levite , whe n h e cam e t o th e plac e an d sa w him , passe d b y o n th e othe r side " ( w 31-32) . Ther e ar e goo d reason s wh y suc h behavio r o n th e par t o f th e pries t migh t no t hav e surprise d Jesus ' hearers Fo r i n orde r t o b e abl e t o accep t th e people' s offering s an d offe r sacrific e i n th e temple , a pries t coul d no t ris k th e contagio n o f uncleanness . Th e ma n i n th e ditc h was , afte r all , probabl y nake d an d unconscious Thi s mean s tha t ther e wa s n o wa y t o tell , i n th e firs t instance , if h e wa s Jewis h — o r even , i n th e second , if h e wer e stil l alive .

Accordin g t o Torah , contac t wit h a corps e resulte d i n th e mos t seriou s typ e o f ritua l uncleannes s tha t on e coul d contract I t too k seve n day s t o purif y onesel f fro m th e uncleannes s o f a corpse , wit h th e burnin g o f a

re d heife r bein g require d a s par t o f th e proces s (cf . Le v 19) . A priest , i n fact , wa s no t t o defil e himsel f wit h a corpse , excep t i n th e cas e o f th e deat h o f hi s mother , father , son , daughter , brother , o r virgi n siste r (cf . Lev 21:1-4) . I t ma y be , therefore , tha t thi s pries t wa s takin g th e mos t pruden t path . Fo r if thi s ma n turne d ou t t o b e dead , hi s templ e servic e woul d hav e bee n impossibl e t o carr y out .

Simila r concern s hel d fo r th e Levite , whos e tas k wa s t o accep t tithe s fro m th e peopl e (cf Ne h 10:37-38) Touchin g a corps e woul d als o hav e mad e hi m rituall y unclean , an d s o prohibite d hi m fro m templ e service , unti l h e coul d complet e th e seven-da y ceremon y fo r purification . I n addition , th e Levit e probabl y too k hi s cu e fro m th e priest' s actions Fo r whe n travelin g suc h a treacherou s road , a travele r i n th e Middl e Eas t woul d hav e ascertaine d wh o els e wa s o n th e roa d no t onl y b y lookin g ahead , bu t als o b y lookin g fo r th e track s o f previou s traveler s an d inquirin g a t village s o n th e way . An d if th e pries t ha d bee n travelin g i n th e opposit e direction , the y woul d hav e passe d o n th e roa d (cf Bailey , Through Peasant Eyes 46) Bu t eithe r way , th e Levit e coul d hav e surmise d tha t th e pries t ha d passe d b y th e ma n withou t helpin g him , an d so , possibly , hav e use d th e priest' s actio n (or , inaction ) a s a guid e fo r hi s own

O n anothe r level , o f course , Jesu s tol d thi s stor y i n a contex t wher e ther e wa s considerabl e tensio n betwee n Jewis h peasants , o n th e on e hand , an d th e priesthoo d an d templ e aristocrac y i n Jerusalem , o n th e other . Hi s portraya l o f th e action s o f th e pries t an d th e Levit e woul d hav e serve d t o confir m th e animosit y hi s listener s alread y ha d towar d Jerusalem . O n a social level , therefore , th e poin t coul d b e easil y drawn : Th e pries t an d th e Levit e di d no t help ; the y d o no t concer n themselve s wit h th e pligh t o f th e peasant s a t an y time !

I n suc h a rhetorica l contex t i t is clea r wher e th e stor y shoul d g o next . Th e her o shoul d hav e bee n a Jewis h peasant , wh o wa s travelin g nex t o n th e roa d and , i n spit e o f hi s lac k o f persona l resources , helpe d th e ma n wh o wa s robbed , beaten , an d lef t t o di e b y th e bandits . Bu t i n hi s ow n inimica l fashion , Jesu s completel y overturn s th e expectation s o f hi s hearers Fo r th e nex t perso n t o com e alon g is a Samarita n ( v 33a)

No t muc h need s t o b e sai d abou t Jewish-Samarita n relation s i n th e firs t century Animosit y betwee n th e group s wen t bot h ways Samaritan s wer e classe d b y Jew s i n th e sam e categor y a s Philistine s an d Edomite s (cf Sirac h 50:25-26) . The y ha d eve n bee n accuse d i n Jewis h traditio n o f secretl y enterin g Jerusale m durin g a Passove r seaso n an d defilin g th e templ e

SYLVIA C KEESMAAT

b y strewin g huma n bone s "i n th e porticoe s an d throughou t th e temple " (cf . Josephus , Antiquities 18.30) . An d withi n Luke' s narrative , th e Samaritan s hav e alread y rejecte d Jesu s a t th e outse t o f hi s journe y t o Jerusale m (cf . Luk e 9:53) . So b y introducin g a Samarita n int o th e story , Jesu s wa s probabl y pickin g ou t a perso n wh o wa s considere d b y hi s audienc e t o b e on e o f th e mos t odiou s character s possible . I t is , therefore , all th e mor e strikin g tha t Jesu s goe s o n t o describ e th e Samarita n i n way s tha t coul d onl y hav e heightene d th e offensiv e natur e o f th e story . For , i n th e first instance , h e speak s o f th e Samarita n a s havin g compassion o n th e ma n ( v 33b) . I n Israel' s Scripture s th e confessiona l statemen t abou t Go d tha t occur s mos t ofte n is th e on e take n fro m Exodu s 34:6-7 :

Th e Lord , th e Lord , a Go d compassionate an d gracious , slo w t o ange r an d aboundin g i n steadfas t love an d faithfulness , keepin g steadfas t love fo r thousands , forgivin g iniquit y an d transgression s an d sin , bu t wh o b y n o mean s will clea r th e guilty (See also Ne h 9:17, 32; Pss 86:15; 103:8; 111:4; 112:4; Joel 2:13; Jona h 4:2. )

God' s compassio n an d graciousnes s ar e depicte d i n th e Jewis h Scripture s a s (1 ) th e basi s fo r God' s deliveranc e (cf Pss 40:11 ; 51:1 ; 69:16 ; 77:9 ; 79:8 ; 102:13 ; als o Isa 63:15-16) ; (2 ) th e basi s fo r God' s remembranc e o f hi s peopl e (cf Deu t 4:13 ; 2 Kg s 13:23) ; (3 ) th e basi s fo r God' s forgivenes s (cf Ps 78:38 ; 1 Kg s 8:50 ; Isa 49:13 ; Ho s 2:21-23 ; Mi c 7:19 , a s wel l a s mos t o f th e reference s i n th e first parenthesi s above) , and , mos t importantly , (4 ) centra l t o th e restoratio n an d reconciliatio n o f Go d wit h hi s peopl e (cf Ho s 2:19 ; Zec h 1:16; als o Zec h 12:10) . Thi s languag e is carrie d ove r int o th e portrayal s o f th e ministr y o f Jesus , wher e w e rea d tha t h e ha d compassio n o n th e peopl e an d bega n t o hea l the m (Mat t 14:14 ; 20:34 ; cf Mar k 1:41 ; Luk e 7:13) ; tha t h e ha d compassio n an d bega n t o teac h the m (Mar k 6:34) ; an d tha t h e ha d compassio n an d fe d the m (Mat t 15:32//Mar k 8:2) Oddl y enough , i n Luk e th e wor d occur s i n onl y a fe w places : i n th e accoun t o f th e raisin g o f th e widow' s so n (cf . 7:13) , i n ou r passag e her e (cf . 10:33) , an d i n th e descriptio n o f th e fathe r whe n h e see s hi s prodiga l so n returnin g hom e (cf 15:20) . Clearly , it s us e i n th e parable s o f th e Compassionat e Samarita n an d th e Prodiga l So n mus t hav e ha d quit e a stron g effec t i n identifyin g th e character s o f th e Samarita n an d th e fathe r wit h Jesu s an d eve n Go d

himsel f — whic h would , undoubtedly , hav e bee n totall y unacceptabl e fo r Jesus ' origina l hearers

Bu t matter s ge t worse . Fo r Jesu s the n describe s th e Samarita n a s on e wh o bind s u p th e wound s o f th e man , afte r havin g poure d oil an d win e o n the m ( v 34a) . Again , thi s explicitl y echoe s th e languag e use d o f Go d i n Israel' s Scripture s a s th e on e wh o bind s u p th e wound s o f hi s peopl e (cf. , e.g. , Isa 30:26 ; 61:1 ; Je r 30:17 ; Eze k 34:16 ; Ho s 6:1 ; Ps 147:31) Likewise , th e us e o f oi l an d wine , whil e medicinall y helpfu l i n softenin g th e traveler' s wound s an d purifyin g them , echoe s wha t th e pries t an d Levit e woul d hav e offere d o n th e altar Thus , overtone s o f sacrificia l lov e ar e unmistakabl e i n th e story : it is th e Samarita n wh o pour s ou t th e tru e offerin g acceptabl e t o

Go d (cf Bailey , Through Peasant Eyes, 50)

Kennet h Baile y point s ou t tha t th e Samarita n di d fo r th e ma n everythin g tha t th e pries t an d Levit e shoul d hav e done , bu t di d not H e bind s u p th e man' s wounds , whic h wa s th e ver y leas t th e Levit e shoul d hav e done . H e put s th e ma n o n hi s ow n donkey , whic h wa s th e ver y leas t th e pries t shoul d hav e don e (remembe r tha t th e pries t a s a membe r o f th e uppe r clas s woul d likel y hav e bee n o n a donkey) . An d h e take s th e ma n t o a n in n an d pay s fo r hi s immediat e an d continuin g care , thereb y explicitl y counterin g th e action s o f th e robber s wh o ha d robbe d hi m an d lef t hi m fo r dea d ( w 34-35) .

I t is importan t t o remembe r tha t Samaritan s als o followe d Torah , an d s o th e sam e ris k o f defilemen t fro m touchin g a dea d bod y wa s presen t fo r thi s Samarita n a s wel l — wit h suc h ritua l "uncleanness " extendin g als o t o hi s animal s an d merchandise . Furthermore , h e riske d retaliatio n fro m th e man' s family . Fo r i n situation s o f violence , wher e reveng e wa s commonl y taken , a n enem y (eve n on e wh o helps ) coul d easil y becom e th e objec t o f a family' s revenge . I n addition , th e robber s migh t stil l hav e bee n lurkin g aroun d th e plac e watchin g fo r othe r travelers A Samaritan , wh o probabl y ha d mor e tha n on e anima l an d som e merchandise , wa s a prim e target . Thu s th e ris k o f violenc e wa s hig h fo r th e Samaritan . Jesus ' questio n t o th e lawye r a t th e en d o f th e stor y reveal s ho w h e completel y ha s revolutionize d th e origina l question , "Wh o is m y neighbor? " "Whic h o f thes e three , d o yo u think , wa s a neighbo r t o th e ma n wh o fell int o th e hand s o f th e robbers? " ( v 36) . Th e lawye r replies , "Th e on e wh o showe d hi m mercy " ( v 37a)

Notic e tha t th e lawye r doe s no t respon d b y sayin g "th e Samaritan. " Th e identificatio n o f th e on e wh o showe d merc y a s bein g a Samarita n is s o

odiou s tha t th e lawye r seem s no t t o b e abl e t o nam e him . Fo r thi s Samarita n wa s no t onl y a n enemy , h e wa s a particularl y hate d enemy An y self-respecting , piou s Je w i n a ditc h woul d rathe r b e lef t fo r dea d tha n b e helpe d b y suc h a person . I t is a s if Larr y Flynt , o f Hustler magazin e fame , ha d picke d yo u u p b y th e sid e o f th e road , softene d you r wound s wit h th e massag e oi l h e use d fo r hi s eroti c parties , an d cleanse d the m wit h th e win e tha t flowe d a t thos e parties Th e Samarita n embodie d thi s sam e kin d o f mora l revulsion If , i n fact , th e ma n i n th e ditc h ha d bee n conscious , h e woul d probabl y hav e refuse d hel p fro m suc h a hate d enemy .

I n thi s context , Jesus ' questio n is startling : "Whic h o f thes e thre e wa s a neighbor? " Th e questio n suggest s no t s o muc h tha t th e lawye r is t o b e a neighbo r t o hi s enemy , bu t tha t h e is t o allo w a n enem y t o becom e a neighbo r t o him Bu t th e questio n als o implie s tha t h e is t o follo w th e exampl e o f hi s enem y i n learnin g wha t it is t o b e a neighbor !

Ther e is, however , mor e tha n thi s t o th e parable For , remembe r tha t th e parabl e is se t i n th e contex t o f a questio n abou t th e comin g o f God' s rul e an d ho w th e lawye r ca n b e a par t o f tha t kingdom As w e hav e see n fro m th e previou s parables , God' s worl d is a worl d wher e forgivenes s i n th e broades t sens e o f th e wor d is central . I t is a kingdo m o f unexpecte d reversals , wher e th e lowes t member s o f Israe l ar e th e one s welcome d th e mos t enthusiasticall y t o th e feast . An d now , a s th e Parabl e o f th e Compassionat e Samarita n teaches , it is a kingdo m wher e th e boundarie s hav e bee n draw n eve n wide r wher e th e mos t odiou s enem y is discovere d t o b e one' s neighbor , capabl e o f suc h unexpecte d goodnes s tha t thos e wh o wan t t o b e righteou s mus t follo w th e action s o f thos e the y mos t despise Tha t is th e startlin g impossibilit y o f thi s parable . I n orde r t o b e righteous , th e lawye r is calle d t o g o an d d o th e like s o f wha t a n immora l Samarita n woul d d o (cf . v 37b) .

5 . Som e Observation s an d Conclusion s

Jesu s wa s preachin g suc h a radica l redefinitio n o f th e kingdo m o f Go d i n thes e parable s tha t it is n o wonde r tha t certai n peopl e bega n t o see k way s t o kil l him . Hi s messag e presente d a threa t t o everyone . To wealth y landowners , wh o ha d n o desir e t o forgiv e th e debt s o f thei r slaves ; t o th e Pharisees , wh o wer e concerne d abou t th e holines s o f Israe l an d th e purit y o f th e nation ; t o priest s an d Levites , wh o coul d no t ris k losin g thei r templ e position s throug h possibl e uncleanness ; t o th e averag e Jewis h peasant , wh o

Strange Neighbors and Risky Care

coul d no t imagin e tha t righteousnes s woul d b e exemplifie d b y immora l heretics , who m the y mus t no w no t onl y lov e bu t als o emulate Thi s is th e worl d tha t Jesus ' thre e parable s created : on e o f profoun d jo y an d liberatio n fo r slaves , debtors , th e poor , th e crippled , th e lame , th e blind , an d th e hate d — bu t als o on e tha t wa s a profoun d threa t fo r th e wealthy , th e landowners , th e prestigious , th e healthy , an d th e acceptable .

Whic h bring s us , o f course , t o th e questio n o f ou r plac e i n suc h a world Ho w d o w e respon d t o Jesus ' radica l redrawin g o f boundaries ? Wher e d o w e fi t i n thi s story ? Ho w doe s it becom e ours ?

On e thin g is clear : Ou r ver y clai m t o b e follower s o f Jesu s place s u s firml y o n th e lis t o f thos e wh o shoul d b e mos t challenge d an d threatene d b y Jesus ' parables Thi s is ofte n har d fo r u s t o comprehend , fo r th e context s ar e s o different W e live i n a muc h large r world , a globa l world , wher e th e debt s peopl e suffe r fro m mos t ar e nationa l no t personal , wher e a lac k o f forgivenes s result s i n nuclea r detonation s i n Asia , wher e thos e wh o can' t retur n ou r dinne r invitatio n live no t onl y i n ou r citie s bu t ar e concentrate d i n th e south , an d wher e ou r mos t odiou s enemie s ar e no t onl y i n som e othe r natio n bu t als o nex t door I n suc h a context , wha t doe s Jesus ' messag e proclaim ? Ho w d o thes e parable s invit e u s t o repentanc e an d t o live i n suc h a radica l kingdom ? Wh o ar e we ? Ar e w e peopl e who , i n spit e o f th e forgivenes s o f ou r debt s (bot h "spiritual " an d "economic") , continu e t o insis t o n paymen t fro m other s — whethe r tha t b e holdin g a grudg e i n ou r home s o r churches , o r holdin g th e debt s o f other s individuall y o r nationall y ove r thei r heads ? O r d o w e practic e God' s graciou s forgivenes s i n ou r churches , homes , an d world , joinin g i n wit h initiative s tha t see k t o forgiv e th e debt s o f poo r peopl e an d th e poores t nations ? Ar e w e proclaimin g thi s ne w worl d o f radica l forgivenes s o r denyin g it?

O r ar e w e peopl e who , invite d t o th e banquet , insis t o n ou r prope r plac e a t th e table , arguin g tha t we'v e worke d har d t o ge t wher e w e are ? D o w e resen t providin g foo d fo r thos e wh o don' t deserv e it , th e "riffraff " o f society , wh o ar e to o poo r t o mak e a contribution ? D o w e invit e onl y thos e wh o deserv e t o participat e i n ou r abundanc e an d ou r feasts ? O r d o w e proclai m a differen t kingdom , a differen t world , wher e all ar e welcome , regardles s o f abilit y o r status , t o shar e i n th e abundanc e w e hav e t o offer ? D o ou r churche s mode l wha t i t is t o shar e ou r abundanc e wit h thos e wh o hav e less? Is suc h a n economic s o f generosit y eviden t i n ou r churc h budgets ? I n ou r investmen t portfolios ? D o w e proclai m a kingdo m wher e th e banque t

is onl y trul y complete whe n th e poor , th e sick , th e outcast s ar e bein g fe d a s well ? D o w e proclai m a worl d wher e God' s abundanc e is extende d t o all , withou t discrimination ? O r d o w e den y suc h a world ?

D o w e respon d t o Jesus ' Parabl e o f th e Compassionat e Samarita n wit h a refusa l t o le t th e identit y o f th e on e wh o showe d merc y pas s ou r lips , becaus e h e is s o repugnan t t o us ? D o w e live i n fea r o f defilemen t fro m thos e abandone d an d vulnerable , fro m th e unclean ? Ar e w e piousl y afrai d o f bein g hampere d i n th e "real " wor k o f th e Lord ? Ar e w e afrai d tha t if w e help , if w e ris k pollution , w e to o migh t b e attacke d — if no t b y robbers , the n perhap s b y ou r brother s an d sisters ? D o w e aver t ou r eye s a s w e wal k dow n th e stree t an d cros s t o th e othe r side ? O r d o w e driv e b y i n hermeticall y seale d automobile s s o tha t w e d o no t actuall y hav e t o encounte r th e sigh t o f th e on e o n th e sid e o f th e road ?

O r ar e w e willin g t o b e despise d a s th e enemy , eve n a s w e pou r ou t ou r resource s an d tim e an d ver y selves? Ar e w e willin g t o bea r th e blam e o f th e situatio n i n th e firs t place ? Ar e w e a peopl e willing , i n th e end , t o bea r a cross ? D o w e proclai m a worl d o f suc h radica l compassio n an d healing ? O r d o w e den y it?

I n a worl d o f cripplin g internationa l debt , whic h is literall y pai d wit h th e live s an d healt h o f th e poores t o f th e poo r an d th e sacrific e o f th e world' s ecosystems , thes e parable s proclai m a radicall y alternativ e worl d characterize d b y Jubilee I n a worl d i n whic h th e ver y trut h o f th e gospe l is continuall y undermine d b y scandalou s schis m an d enmit y i n th e church , Jesu s tell s storie s tha t ca n onl y b e hear d an d understoo d whe n th e listenin g communit y is prepare d t o b e permeate d b y a compassio n tha t manifest s itsel f i n graciou s forgiveness .

Th e worl d foun d i n thes e parable s is on e i n whic h th e mos t marginalize d i n ou r societ y — th e homeless , th e mentall y ill, AID S victim s ar e th e guest s o f hono r a t Jesus ' banquet An d th e stor y o f a despise d enem y becomin g a compassionat e neighbo r offer s a kingdo m o f embrac e i n th e fac e o f th e violen t exclusio n tha t characterize s th e triba l conflict s an d ethni c cleansing s tha t wrea k havo c throughou t ou r world Thi s is th e kingdo m tha t Jesu s invite s u s t o i n thes e parables . D o w e dar e ente r it?

I n th e end , wha t thes e parable s mea n fo r u s toda y ha s everythin g t o d o wit h ho w w e respon d t o Jesus ' comman d t o th e lawyer Whe n h e say s t o us : "G o an d d o likewise, " d o w e regar d ou r sacrificia l participatio n i n th e ne w worl d o f th e kingdo m as a profoun d threa t o r a s a deep-seate d jo y i n th e graciou s abundanc e o f ou r God ?

4

Selecte d Bibliograph y

Bailey , Kennet h E. Poet and Peasant: A Literary Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke. Gran d Rapids : Eerdmans , 1976

. Through Peasant Eyes: More Lucan Parables, Their Culture and Style. Gran d Rapids : Eerdmans , 1980

Capon , Rober t Farrar . The Parables of Grace. Gran d Rapids : Eerdmans , 1988

Fitzmyer , Josep h A . The Gospel According to Luke, vol . 2 . Ne w York : Doubleday , 1985

Keesmaat , Sylvia C Paul and His Story: (Re)Interpreting the Exodus Tradition. Sheffield : Sheffiel d Academi c Press , 1999 .

Koenig , John . New Testament Hospitality: Partnership with Strangers as Promise and Mission. Philadelphia : Fortress , 1985 .

McDonald , J Ia n H "Rhetorica l Issu e an d Rhetorica l Strateg y i n Luk e 10.25-3 7 an d Act s 10.1-11.18, " i n Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, ed S E Porte r an d T H Olbricht Sheffield : Sheffiel d Academi c Press , 1993 , 59-73 .

"Th e Vie w fro m th e Ditc h — An d Othe r Angles : Interpretin g th e Parabl e o f th e Goo d Samaritan, " Scottish Journal of Theology 149 (1996 ) 21-37

Neusner , Jacob The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees Before 70, 3 vols . Leiden : Brill , 1971 .

Ringe , Sharo n H "Solidarit y an d Contextuality : Reading s o f Matthe w 18.21-35, " i n Reading from This Place. Vol . 1: Social Location and Biblical Interpretation in the United States, ed . F. F. Segovi a an d M . A . Tolbert Minneapolis : Fortress , 1995 , 199-212

Sanders , E. P. Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE-66 CE. London : SCM ; Philadelphia : Trinit y Pres s International , 1992 .

Volf , Miroslav Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness and Reconciliation. Nashville : Abingdon , 1996 .

Wilder , Amo s N . "Stor y an d Story-World, " i n The Bible and the Literary Critic. Minneapolis : Fortress , 1991 , 132-48

Wright , N . Thomas . The New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis: Fortress , 1992

. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis : Fortress , 1997 .

CHAPTE R 1 3

"Everyone Wh o Hears These Words of Mine": Parables o n

Discipleship

(Matt 7:24-27//Luke 6:47-49; Luke 14:28-33; Luke 17:7-10; Matt 20:1-16)

MICHAE L P . KNOWLE S

NOTWITHSTANDIN G TH E enormou s volum e an d complexit y o f moder n parable s research , an y discussio n o f specifi c parable s mus t begi n wit h th e simpl e observatio n tha t thei r purpos e is essentiall y pragmatic Nowher e is thi s cleare r tha n i n th e cas e o f parable s tha t specificall y focu s o n discipleship Fo r whethe r a t th e level o f thei r origina l audience , i n th e contex t o f th e Gospe l writer s an d th e audience s fo r whic h the y wrote , o r as the y appl y t o audience s o f a subsequen t age , parable s ar e intende d t o provoke , t o challenge , an d t o elici t a concret e respons e t o Jesus ' invitatio n t o discipleship

A parabl e is a n extende d metapho r tha t typicall y illustrate s significan t feature s o f God' s characte r an d conduct , an d set s ou t consequence s fo r huma n conduct , b y referenc e t o commonplac e feature s o f everyda y experience Th e compellin g appea l o f parables , however , derive s fro m th e fac t tha t thei r familiarit y — dealin g wit h suc h commo n matter s as farmers , rulers , seed s an d weed s — is ofte n confounde d b y unexpecte d reversal s o r outcomes Th e listene r (o r reader ) is draw n b y th e powe r o f a goo d story , onl y the n t o discove r tha t th e narrativ e lead s hi m o r he r i n unexpecte d direction s o r t o unanticipate d conclusions .

Th e approac h take n here , i n concer t wit h a variet y o f commentator s today , is tha t th e meanin g o f an y give n parabl e nee d no t b e limite d t o a singl e mai n point . Whe n the y wan t t o mak e a singl e point , teacher s (Jesu s amon g them ) ten d t o favo r th e precisio n o f propositiona l language : "Yo u hav e hear d i t said,.. . bu t I sa y t o you" ; "Wheneve r yo u pray , d o no t b e lik e th e hypocrites, " an d s o on . Th e purpos e o f parable s is, t o b e sure , generall y didactic . Bu t it woul d b e a mistak e t o sugges t tha t th e restriction s o f propositiona l speec h mus t alway s appl y t o th e languag e the y employ . Rather , it is th e natur e o f narrativ e i n genera l an d o f metaphori c languag e i n particula r t o b e resonan t an d allusive , suggestin g a rang e o f possibl e meanings . Th e parable s t o b e examine d belo w eac h addres s specifi c issues . An d the y asser t on e o r tw o mai n premises . Bu t the y d o s o wit h all th e richnes s o f a well-tol d story , invitin g th e interprete r t o explor e variou s secondar y o r supportiv e meaning s tha t ar e suggeste d b y th e story' s specifi c details . Broadl y speaking , parable s mov e fro m th e familia r (base d o n depiction s o f huma n experience ) t o th e unfamilia r (conveyin g assertion s abou t God) , an d bac k t o th e familia r agai n (implyin g consequence s fo r presen t conduct) . Thi s proces s wil l becom e eviden t i n eac h o f th e followin g parable s o f discipleship : th e Parabl e o f th e Tw o Builder s (Mat t 7:24-27//Luk e 6:47-49) ; th e paire d Parable s o f th e Towe r Builde r an d th e Warrin g Kin g (Luk e 14:28-33) ; th e Parabl e o f th e Unworth y Servan t (Luk e 17:7-10) ; an d th e Parabl e o f th e Laborer s i n th e Vineyar d (Mat t 20:1-16)

1 . Th e Parabl e o f th e Tw o Builder s (Mat t 7:24-27//Luk e 6:47-49 )

I n bot h Matthe w an d Luke , th e Parabl e o f th e Tw o Builders , whic h is a parabl e abou t "foundations " an d th e fat e o f structure s buil t o n them , illustrate s th e contras t betwee n thos e wh o hea r th e word s o f Jesu s an d ac t o n them , o n th e on e hand , an d thos e wh o hea r bu t fai l t o act , o n th e other . Likewise , i n bot h Gospel s thi s parabl e occur s a t th e en d o f paralle l block s o f teachin g materia l — a s th e conclusio n o f Matthew' s Sermo n o n th e Moun t (Mat t 5:1-7:29 ) an d a s th e conclusio n o f Luke' s Sermo n o n th e Plai n (Luk e 6:20-49 ) — thereb y pressin g hom e th e urgenc y o f a n obedien t response . Th e difference s betwee n th e portrayal s o f thi s parabl e ar e largel y matter s o f narrativ e detail . I n th e simple r narrativ e structur e o f Luke' s

Gospel , tw o individual s ar e depicte d wh o choos e t o buil d o n a floodplain (translatin g th e Gree k ho potamos o f 6:4 8 i n it s litera l sens e a s "th e river") . Th e on e builder , knowin g th e dange r o f th e location , carefull y excavate s th e sit e t o bedrock , lays ston e o n stone , an d s o establishe s a structur e tha t wil l b e stron g enoug h t o withstan d th e onslaugh t o f seasona l flooding . Th e othe r builder , however , exercise s n o suc h foresight , bu t erect s hi s hom e carelessly , o r i n haste , o n sand . Th e risin g rive r carrie s th e structur e away , "an d th e rui n o f tha t hous e wa s great. "

I n Matthew' s mor e comple x narrativ e structure , th e house s tha t ar e buil t fac e no t one , bu t thre e consecutiv e threats : rain , floods , an d wind . Matthe w als o specifie s wha t is merel y implici t i n Luk e — tha t is, tha t th e tw o builder s ar e a "wis e man " an d a "foolis h man, " respectivel y (i n bot h cases , anēr, "male") . Th e explici t reference s t o "wise " an d "foolish " builders , togethe r wit h th e gende r specificit y o f th e story , sugges t tha t thi s parabl e anticipate s tha t o f 25:1-13 , th e Parabl e o f th e Wis e an d Foolis h Bridesmaids , wher e th e wis e ar e likewis e distinguishe d fro m th e foolis h b y thei r foresigh t an d provisio n fo r futur e need .

Whil e th e genera l inten t o f th e Wis e an d Foolis h Builder s is clear , a t leas t tw o question s remain : To who m is th e parabl e addressed? , and , Wha t situatio n o f crisi s migh t th e floo d represent ? Fo r th e majorit y o f interpreters , th e floo d represent s eithe r th e trial s an d difficultie s o f dail y lif e o r th e "Grea t Trial " o f final judgment Th e first schoo l o f though t take s it s cu e fro m th e grea t fourth-centur y Christia n diplomat , preacher , an d bisho p Joh n Chrysosto m (c 345-407) , fo r who m th e rai n an d flood s represen t "al l th e ills i n ou r lif e tha t anyon e coul d mention, " wherea s th e roc k o n whic h th e hous e is founde d is Christia n doctrine , "settin g on e abov e all th e wave s o f huma n affairs " (Homily 24.3) A simila r ethica l emphasi s (althoug h usin g th e metapho r o f a tre e rathe r tha n a building ) is foun d i n a parabl e attribute d t o Rabb i Eleaza r be n Azaria h (c 90-13 0 CE), wh o wa s a n approximat e contemporar y o f th e evangelis t Matthew :

H e whos e wisdo m is mor e abundan t tha n hi s works , t o wha t is h e like?

To a tre e whos e branche s are abundan t bu t whos e root s ar e few ; an d th e win d come s an d uproot s it an d overturn s it , a s it is written , He shall be like a tamarisk in the desert and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness [Jer 17:6]. Bu t h e whos e work s ar e mor e abundan t tha n hi s wisdom , t o wha t is h e like? To a tre e whos e branche s ar e fe w bu t whos e root s ar e many ; so tha t eve n if all th e

wind s i n th e worl d com e an d blo w agains t it, it canno t b e stirre d fro m its place , as i t is written , He shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreads out his roots by the river, and shall not fear when heat comes, and his leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall it cease from yielding fruit [Jer 17:8]. ( Mishnah Aboth 3:18)

O n suc h a n ethica l readin g — which , i t shoul d b e noted , th e paralle l draw n fro m Rabb i Eleaza r be n Azaria h suggest s woul d hav e bee n entirel y appropriat e t o a Palestinia n Jewis h contex t — th e Parabl e o f th e Tw o Builder s affirm s tha t th e disciplin e o f a righteou s an d obedien t lif e is sufficien t t o sustai n th e piou s i n time s o f adversit y an d affliction

Bu t a numbe r o f contextua l indicator s als o poin t t o th e appropriatenes s o f a n eschatologica l reading Fo r a start , th e mentio n o f a destructiv e floo d recall s th e tim e o f Noah , i n keepin g wit h th e rabbini c principa l tha t th e origin s an d end-tim e o f creatio n mirro r on e anothe r (or , a s i n th e Germa n formula , Urzeit = Endzeit). Jesu s himsel f is portraye d a s emphasizin g thi s correspondence : "Fo r a s th e day s o f Noa h were , s o wil l b e th e comin g o f th e So n o f Man Fo r a s i n thos e day s befor e th e floo d the y kne w nothin g unti l th e floo d cam e an d swep t the m all away , s o to o wil l b e th e comin g o f th e So n o f Man " (Mat t 24:37-39 ; cf Luk e 17:26-27) Furthermore , th e Matthea n contex t o f th e parabl e — particularl y th e accompanyin g materia l o f 7:13-2 3 (not e esp th e expressio n "o n tha t day " o f ν 22) , bu t als o it s parallel s wit h th e Parabl e o f th e Wis e an d Foolis h Bridesmaid s i n 25:1-1 3 — convey s unmistakabl e eschatologica l overtones . An d reference s t o "foundations " an d buildin g metaphor s tha t appea r elsewher e i n th e Ne w Testamen t consistentl y impl y fina l judgmen t (e.g. , 1 Co r 3:10-15 ; Co l 1:23; Ep h 2:19-20 ; 1 Ti m 6:18-19 ; 2 Ti m 2:19) .

On e o f th e implication s o f th e Parabl e o f th e Tw o Builder s seem s t o b e tha t i n matter s o f faithfu l discipleship , appearance s ar e ofte n deceiving . Th e inheren t strengt h o r instabilit y o f th e tw o house s remain s hidde n unti l th e momen t o f crisis , a t whic h poin t th e wort h o f th e builder' s metho d is quickl y revealed . A simila r principl e is operativ e no t onl y i n th e Parabl e o f th e Bridesmaid s bu t also , implicitly , i n suc h divers e parable s a s th e Sowe r an d th e See d (Mar k 4:3- 8 par.), th e Talent s (Mat t 25:14-30) , th e Pound s (Luk e 19:11-27) , th e Shee p an d Goat s (Mat t 25:31-46) , an d th e Ric h Ma n an d Lazaru s (Luk e 16:19-31) . An y on e o f thes e parable s migh t illustrat e th e Paulin e injunction : "Therefore , d o no t pronounc e judgmen t befor e th e time , befor e th e Lor d comes , wh o wil l brin g t o ligh t th e thing s

no w hidde n i n darknes s an d disclos e th e purpose s o f th e heart " (1 Co r 4:5)

Bu t th e specifi c focu s o f thi s parabl e is, firs t o f all , o n th e teachin g o f Jesus , an d then , concurrently , o n th e respons e tha t hi s teachin g demands

Implie d her e is no t onl y th e remarkabl e assertio n tha t th e acceptanc e o r rejectio n o f Jesus ' word s entail s eschatologica l consequences , bu t als o tha t Jesu s possesse s th e authorit y t o comman d suc h obedience Jesus ' insistenc e o n "thes e word s o f mine " (Mat t 7:24,26//Luk e 6:47,49 ) implie s a n authorit y beyon d eve n tha t o f Israel' s prophets Indeed , hi s tellin g o f th e parabl e aptl y illustrate s th e mor e prosai c editoria l commen t tha t follow s i n Mat t 7:28-29 : "No w whe n Jesu s ha d finishe d sayin g thes e things , th e crowd s wer e astonishe d a t hi s teaching , fo r h e taugh t the m a s on e havin g authority."

Th e Matthea n presentation , moreover , include s a t leas t on e additiona l featur e o f note Fo r th e languag e o f "buildin g o n th e rock " (oikodomēsen .. . epi ten petran) o f 7:2 4 anticipate s tha t o f Peter' s commissionin g i n 16:18 : "O n thi s roc k I wil l buil d m y church " (epi tautç tç petrçi oikodomêsô mou ten ekklēsian). I n bot h passage s th e premis e is muc h th e sam e — tha t is, tha t eve n th e greates t afflictio n ("th e gate s o f Hell " i n 16:18 ) wil l no t prevail Fo r Matthew , i t seems , th e poin t is no t simpl y tha t Jesu s an d th e obedien t followe r eac h buil d o n soli d foundations . Thes e tw o formulation s als o recal l — and , indeed , provid e a counterpoin t t o — th e traditiona l Jewis h concep t o f th e templ e a s havin g bee n founde d o n a roc k tha t stand s a t th e gatewa y t o bot h heave n an d th e underworld . Thu s i n th e contex t o f Jesus ' ministry , th e Parabl e o f th e Tw o Builder s convey s a challeng e t o "buil d a house " o n a foundatio n equivalen t t o tha t o n whic h God' s ow n hous e is se t (wit h th e Hebre w nou n beth, "house, " referrin g t o bot h kind s o f structures)

Eve n mor e t o th e point , sinc e Matthe w an d Luk e probabl y wrot e i n th e immediat e aftermat h o f th e fal l o f Jerusale m an d th e destructio n o f its templ e — th e cit y an d "house " o f Go d — the y doubtles s bot h coul d attes t t o th e fact , t o quot e Luke , tha t "th e rui n o f that hous e wa s great. " Th e historica l contex t o f th e evangelists ' ow n day , therefore , suggest s tha t thos e wh o acte d (o r faile d t o act ) o n Jesus ' word s woul d hav e alread y face d a crisi s o f testing , a crisi s tha t onl y thos e wit h secur e foundation s coul d withstand

To whom , then , wa s th e Parabl e o f th e Tw o Builder s likel y addressed ? Ther e is nothin g i n th e parabl e t o indicat e a n audienc e othe r tha n tha t

suggeste d b y it s context s i n Matthe w an d Luke . Togethe r wit h th e sermo n o f whic h i t is part , th e parabl e is directe d i n th e firs t instanc e t o "th e disciples " (Luk e 6:20) . Yet i t is als o give n "i n th e hearin g o f th e people " (Luk e 7:1 ; cf . Mat t 5:1-2 ; 7:28-29) . I n othe r words , th e parabl e speak s t o an y an d all wh o wil l hea r (o r read ) Jesus ' teaching , an d i t is t o the m tha t th e tempora l an d eterna l consequence s o f a n appropriat e respons e is presse d home . Discipleship , therefore , is firs t an d foremos t a matte r o f positive , obedien t actio n — actio n tha t turn s ou t t o b e foundationa l fo r life , bot h i n th e presen t ag e an d i n th e ag e t o come .

2 . Th e Paire d Parable s o f th e Towe r Builde r an d th e Warrin g Kin g (Luk e 14:28-33 )

Fro m th e buildin g o f house s w e tur n t o th e buildin g o f a tower . Th e compariso n is no t arbitrary , fo r i n Luke' s Gospe l th e vocabular y o f "layin g a foundation " (themelios theinai) is uniqu e t o th e tw o parable s o f 6:47-4 9 an d 14:28-30 Thus , wherea s Matthew' s languag e pair s th e wis e an d foolis h builder s (7:24-27 ) an d th e wis e an d foolis h bridesmaid s (25:1-13) , Luke' s languag e juxtapose s th e buildin g o f house s (6:47-49 ) an d th e buildin g o f a towe r (14:28-30)

Commentator s usuall y agre e tha t th e paire d parable s o f "th e Towe r Builder " an d "th e Warrin g King " hav e alway s belonge d together , an d wer e no t juxtapose d a t som e late r stag e i n th e transmissio n o f earl y Christia n tradition . The y begi n wit h a challeng e t o th e audience : "Wh o amon g you? " I n th e Gospe l tradition , Jesu s is ofte n depicte d a s usin g thi s rhetorica l devic e t o comman d assent Fo r example , h e asks : "Wh o amon g yo u woul d no t rescu e thei r livestoc k o n th e Sabbath? " (paraphrasin g Mat t 12:11/ / Luk e 14:5) Th e answe r is obvious So h e concludes : "O f ho w muc h mor e valu e is a huma n bein g tha n a sheep ! Therefor e i t is lawfu l t o d o goo d o n th e Sabbath " (Mat t 12:12) . Th e questio n "Wh o amon g you? " is intende d t o elici t agreemen t fro m th e heare r a fortiori — tha t is , give n th e logica l necessit y o f th e anticipate d response , ho w muc h more , b y implication , mus t th e lega l o r spiritua l corollar y apply

Th e contex t o f thes e tw o parable s i n Luke' s Gospe l allow s fo r littl e ambiguit y a s t o eithe r thei r meanin g o r thei r intende d audience Larg e crowd s wer e accompanyin g Jesus . Perhap s fearin g tha t the y ha d faile d t o gras p th e radica l natur e o f God' s reign , o r it s drasti c implication s fo r disci -

pleship , Jesu s issue s a blunt , twofol d challenge : Whoeve r doe s no t hat e th e member s o f hi s o r he r ow n famil y "canno t b e m y disciple, " an d whoeve r doe s no t tak e u p hi s o r he r ow n cros s — tha t is, is no t prepare d t o di e — "canno t b e m y disciple " (Luk e 14:25-27) . Th e parable s tha t follo w illustrat e hi s point

I n th e first , someon e set s ou t t o buil d a tower . Wil l tha t perso n no t recko n i n advanc e whethe r h e possesse s sufficien t resource s t o complet e th e task ? Otherwis e th e would-b e builde r wil l rea p th e mocker y an d scor n o f th e onlookers . I n th e second , a kin g contemplate s th e cos t o f goin g t o war , weighin g th e chance s o f a successfu l campaig n agains t a n opponen t wh o command s a n arm y twic e th e siz e o f hi s own . If hi s force s ar e insufficien t t o ensur e victory , wil l h e no t negotiat e term s o f surrender ?

Th e secon d parabl e heighten s th e imager y i n a t leas t tw o ways . Th e subjec t o f th e firs t is, a t leas t rhetorically , an y on e o f th e listener s ("Whic h of you, desirin g t o buil d a towe r . ..") ; wherea s i n th e second , th e protagonis t is a kin g — a ma n o f wealth , stature , politica l an d militar y power Th e secon d parabl e als o present s a mor e drasti c consequence Fo r if th e towe r builde r risk s mocker y an d shame , th e kin g stand s t o los e hi s army , hi s kingdom , perhap s eve n hi s life "S o therefore, " conclude s Jesus , "whoeve r o f yo u doe s no t renounc e all tha t h e o r sh e ha s canno t b e m y disciple. "

Th e rol e tha t on e assign s t o th e towe r ha s a significan t impac t o n th e meanin g o f th e passag e a s a whole , sinc e archaeologica l evidenc e allow s fo r a numbe r o f possibilitie s (cf "Towers " i n The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. , ed . D . N . Freedma n [Ne w York : Doubleday , 1992] , 6.622-24) . If th e towe r wa s t o b e simpl y a dwellin g place , the n th e builder' s ridicul e an d sham e is compounde d b y hi s inabilit y t o establis h a settle d existence H e an d hi s famil y mus t continu e t o live i n tents , a s transient s an d nomads . Yet isolate d ston e house s o f thi s sor t were , i t seems , comparativel y fe w i n Palestine . Alternatively , if th e towe r wa s t o serv e a n agricultura l purpose , the n th e parabl e suggest s tha t th e builder' s prid e ma y b e overtake n b y hi s poverty Tower s ofte n functione d a s lookout s fro m whic h a shepher d woul d guar d hi s floc k o r a farme r hi s vineyar d (cf . Mar k 12:1 par.). The y als o serve d a s storehouse s t o safeguar d th e frui t o f th e harvest I n eithe r case , th e builde r discover s tha t despit e hi s dream s o f agricultura l plenty , h e lack s enoug h field stone s — fre e fo r th e takin g thoug h the y migh t b e — t o buil d himsel f a tower

Th e apparen t complexit y o f th e buildin g process , however , wher e th e foundatio n mus t first b e laid , doe s no t favo r a simpl e fiel d structur e bein g

her e i n view . A s a thir d option , therefore , i t shoul d b e note d tha t ancien t tower s frequentl y serve d a militar y an d defensiv e functio n (cf th e Towe r o f Siloa m referre d t o i n Luk e 13:4) . Suc h tower s neede d t o b e eithe r sufficientl y stron g t o withstan d a n enem y onslaugh t o r sufficientl y hig h t o affor d a vie w fro m afar

O n thi s latte r interpretation , th e builder' s inabilit y t o complet e th e tas k agai n reflect s hi s lac k o f resources , no t t o mentio n hi s lac k o f foresight . Perhap s h e coul d no t affor d th e mason s o r th e stone . Perhap s h e foun d hi s authorit y insufficien t t o compe l hi s subject s t o complet e th e tas k (whic h woul d accoun t fo r thei r scorn) I n an y event , h e come s t o realiz e tha t hi s resource s ar e unexpectedl y lacking . Moreover , a militar y interpretatio n o f th e towe r intensifie s th e parallelis m withi n th e doublet Fo r i n th e parabl e o f th e tower , th e builde r is expectin g a n enem y assaul t an d s o take s measure s t o protec t himself , thereb y assumin g a defensiv e posture . I n th e subsequen t parabl e th e warrin g kin g contemplate s initiatin g a battle , an d thu s assume s a n offensiv e stance .

Bot h parable s envisag e a comin g crisis , a tim e o f testing Th e logi c o f th e narrative , however , suggest s tha t i n bot h instance s th e "crunch " come s i n th e mids t o f discipleship , a s par t o f a proces s tha t is stil l underway , rathe r tha n a t som e mor e distan t en d point . Luk e appear s t o favo r parable s wit h a midpoin t crisi s — suc h a s th e Prodiga l So n (15:11-32) , th e Shrew d Manage r (16:1-13) , an d th e Persisten t Wido w an d th e Unjus t Judg e (18:1-8 ) — wherea s i n th e Matthea n parable s th e crisi s ofte n come s a t th e end I n an y event , thos e wh o hea r mus t no t onl y see k t o follo w an d obey , bu t mus t conside r carefull y th e cos t o f doin g s o (cf Luk e 13:24) .

Withou t pressin g th e detail s o f th e narrativ e to o hard , i t is no t difficul t t o se e i n thes e paire d parable s tw o differen t aspect s o f discipleship . As A M Hunte r ha s observed : "I n th e first parabl e Jesu s says , 'Si t dow n an d recko n whethe r yo u ca n affor d t o follo w me. ' I n th e secon d h e says : 'Si t dow n an d recko n whethe r yo u ca n affor d t o refus e m y demands' " ( Interpreting the Parables, 65) O n th e othe r hand , an y difference s i n emphasi s betwee n th e tw o parable s appea r t o b e overpowere d b y th e forc e o f Jesus ' concludin g pronouncement : "So , therefore , whoeve r o f yo u doe s no t renounc e all tha t h e o r sh e ha s canno t b e m y disciple. "

Th e renunciatio n o f all o f one' s possession s is consisten t wit h Luke' s emphasi s o n th e demand s o f discipleship , althoug h th e degre e o f commitmen t tha t suc h a tota l renunciatio n implie s ha s le d som e t o as k whethe r

thi s requiremen t wa s originall y directe d onl y t o th e inne r cor e o f disciples . Bu t if Luke' s narrativ e contex t serve s a s an y guide , suc h a n explanatio n is unnecessary . Rather , i n th e manne r o f Joshu a insistin g "Yo u canno t serv e th e Lord , fo r h e is a hol y God " (Jos h 24:19) , thereb y bearin g witnes s agains t th e possibilit y o f Israel' s apostasy , Jesu s i n Luke' s Gospe l seek s t o dissuad e hi s listener s fro m to o eas y a vie w o f discipleship . Simila r challenge s com e quickl y t o han d throughou t th e Luka n portrayals , howeve r hars h the y ma y soun d t o moder n ears I n 9:57-62 , fo r example , t o on e wh o offer s allegiance , Jesu s hold s ou t onl y th e prospec t o f homelessnes s ( w 5758) ; i n respons e t o filia l piety , h e replies , "Le t th e dea d bur y thei r ow n dead " ( w 59-60) ; an d rathe r tha n allowin g fo r famil y leave-taking , Jesu s declare s a prospectiv e discipl e unfi t fo r th e kingdo m ( w 61-62) .

Th e conclusio n i n th e tw o parable s o f 14:28-3 3 is similarl y uncompromising Jesus ' poin t is tha t eithe r followin g hi m o r refusin g t o follo w wil l cos t one' s all . Th e issu e facin g hi s hearer s (an d Luke' s readers ) is no t on e o f ris k management , o r eve n o f bein g willin g t o forsak e "hous e o r wif e o r brother s o r parent s o r children , fo r th e sak e o f th e kingdo m o f God " (18:29) . Rather , losin g all appear s t o b e unavoidabl e i n an y case . Th e onl y questio n is whethe r on e wil l los e all a s a followe r o f Jesu s an d fo r th e sak e o f God' s reign , o r a s on e wh o refuse s t o follo w an d obey . Which , i n othe r words , is th e mor e promisin g cours e o f action ?

Th e event s o f Jesus ' ow n life , a s wel l a s thos e o f th e evangelist' s day , bea r ou t th e logi c o f suc h a n assertion . I n retrospect , thes e paire d parable s mus t b e se t agains t (1 ) th e controvers y tha t Jesus ' ministr y ha d alread y begu n t o evoke , (2 ) th e emergenc e o f officia l opposition , an d (3 ) th e increasin g likelihoo d tha t judicia l consequence s woul d soo n ensue . Whateve r difficultie s migh t awai t th e disciple s i n a late r day , Jesus ' ow n imminen t destin y clearl y justifie d th e nee d t o renounc e earthl y bond s an d obligations Wer e thi s no t enough , th e narrativ e detai l o f a n overwhelmingl y superio r forc e risin g t o mee t th e challeng e o f a weake r kin g coul d no t hav e faile d t o recall , onc e again , th e recen t foll y o f th e Jewis h insurrectionist s (cf Luk e 19:41-44)

Luke' s audience , o f course , wa s predominantl y Gentil e an d Hellenistic , if no t actuall y Roman . Nonetheless , contemporar y politica l development s withi n th e Roma n empir e ampl y underscore d th e poin t tha t th e follower s o f Jesu s o f Nazaret h coul d b e face d wit h th e nee d t o renounc e all . Luke' s ow n community , i n fact , ma y hav e face d th e threa t o f materia l los s o n accoun t o f thei r confessio n o f Jesus , rathe r tha n Caesar , a s Kyrios,

"Lord. " Thes e tw o paire d parables , therefore , woul d hav e ha d grea t significanc e fo r thos e tha t th e evangelis t addressed . Bu t also , becaus e o f a current , widesprea d perceptio n tha t Christia n discipleshi p is a "low-risk, " "low-cost " endeavor , thes e tw o parable s pos e a tellin g challeng e t o th e

Wester n Churc h today . Se t i n an y o f thes e historica l contexts , bot h th e parable s themselve s an d Jesus ' persona l exampl e mak e th e cos t o f faithfu l discipleshi p unmistakabl y clear .

3 . Th e Parabl e o f th e Unworth y Servan t (Luk e 17:7-10 )

Th e Parabl e o f th e Unworth y Servan t i n Luk e 17:7-1 0 bear s severa l ke y resemblance s t o th e paire d parable s o f th e Towe r Builde r an d Warrin g King It , too , is uniquel y Lukan ; it challenge s th e audience , "Wh o amon g yo u .." ; i t is apparentl y addresse d t o disciple s (cf 17:1 , 5) ; an d it present s th e condition s o f discipleshi p i n a decidedl y uncompromisin g manner

Th e situatio n tha t thi s parabl e describe s is simpl e enough N o servan t (o r "slave, " sinc e th e Gree k nou n doidos encompasse s bot h possibilities ) ca n expec t t o serv e hi s o r he r ow n need s first Rather , i t is th e essenc e o f servanthoo d (no t t o mentio n slavery ) t o plac e th e requirement s o f one' s maste r abov e one' s own , howeve r inconvenien t doin g s o ma y be Th e same , Jesu s implies , is tru e o f discipleship

Th e rhetorica l geniu s o f th e parabl e lies i n it s adoptio n o f differen t perspective s o n th e situatio n t o mak e it s point . Th e firs t thre e verse s assum e th e perspectiv e o f th e maste r — or , rather , the y invit e th e listene r t o assum e suc h a perspective :

Wh o amon g yo u havin g a servan t plowin g o r keepin g sheep , will say t o hi m whe n h e come s i n fro m th e field , "Sit righ t dow n t o eat" ? Will h e no t say t o him , "Mak e m e somethin g fo r supper , an d whe n yo u ar e ready , serv e it t o m e unti l I hav e eate n an d drunk ; an d afterward s yo u ca n hav e you r meal" ? Doe s h e owe th e servan t anythin g fo r havin g don e wha t wa s aske d of him ? (17:7-9 )

Th e translatio n "mak e m e somethin g for supper" reflect s th e us e o f th e ver b deipnein, whic h refer s t o servin g th e mai n mea l o f th e da y — tha t is , th e deipnon o r principa l mea l eate n i n middl e t o lat e afternoon

I t is wel l withi n a servant' s jo b descriptio n t o prepar e an d serv e hi s

master' s mai n meal . No r is th e maste r i n an y wa y indebte d t o th e servan t fo r havin g complete d hi s dail y chores Vers e 9, whic h is ofte n translate d "Doe s h e thank th e servant, " ca n b e literall y rendere d "Doe s h e [th e master ] hav e charis towar d th e servant? " Whil e "thank " is a n appropriat e translatio n (a s i n 1 Ti m 1:12; 2 Ti m 1:3) , i t doe s no t conve y th e ful l forc e o f th e question : Ha s th e servan t foun d charis — tha t is, grace , favor , o r credi t i n th e master' s eye s fo r havin g serve d a s expected ?

Doe s th e maste r ow e th e servan t anything ? O f cours e not ! Bot h th e absurdit y o f th e questio n an d th e synta x o f vers e 9 indicat e tha t n o rightminde d employe r woul d ac t i n suc h a manner . Question s i n Gree k ca n b e worde d t o anticipat e eithe r a positiv e o r a negativ e response Th e questio n pose d i n vers e 9 is emphaticall y o f th e latte r variety Accordingly , an y rightminde d listene r woul d b e expecte d t o agre e tha t servant s simpl y serve , an d tha t ther e woul d b e n o poin t i n anyon e thinkin g otherwise

Havin g thu s wo n agreemen t fro m th e audience , vers e 10 spring s th e rhetorica l tra p — n o longe r assumin g th e perspectiv e o f th e master , bu t addressin g th e audienc e a s servant s o r slaves : "S o to o wit h yon, whe n yon hav e don e all tha t yo u hav e bee n commanded , say, 'W e ar e unworth y servants ; w e hav e onl y don e wha t wa s require d o f us.' " If the y agre e fro m th e perspectiv e o f th e master , ho w muc h mor e mus t Jesus ' hearer s (an d Luke' s readers ) agre e if the y ar e reall y onl y servants An d if suc h servic e an d submissio n ar e require d i n huma n relationships , ho w muc h mor e ar e the y require d i n ou r relation s wit h God , wh o is th e heavenl y Maste r (whos e agenc y is implie d grammaticall y b y th e us e o f th e passiv e voice) , an d i n ou r obedienc e t o all tha t Go d commands .

Notwithstandin g Jesus ' controversie s wit h certai n Pharisee s o f hi s da y — an d contra som e stereotype s o f Judais m tha t hav e arise n amon g Christia n commentator s — thi s parabl e affirm s a foundationa l principl e o f piet y tha t seem s t o hav e bee n curren t amon g man y o f Jesus ' contemporaries Th e outloo k i n questio n is exemplifie d b y a n aphoris m recorde d a t th e ver y beginnin g o f th e "Saying s o f th e Fathers " (Pirqe Aboth), whic h is th e oldes t sectio n o f th e Talmud , an d is attribute d t o Simeo n th e Just , wh o is sai d t o hav e live d i n th e thir d centur y BCE: "B e no t lik e slave s wh o serv e th e maste r fo r th e sak e o f receivin g a reward , bu t b e lik e slave s wh o serv e th e maste r not fo r th e sak e o f reward , an d le t th e fea r o f heave n b e upo n you " ( Mishna h Aboth 1:3; cf als o th e sayin g attribute d t o Johana n be n Zakkai , a first-centur y CE rabbi , i n Mishnah Aboth 2:8 : "I f yo u hav e accomplishe d muc h i n Torah , clai m no t meri t fo r yourself , fo r t o thi s en d yo u

wer e created") . Th e piet y o f th e earlies t Jewis h sages , therefore , declare d tha t sinc e Go d is God , Israel' s obedienc e mus t b e a matte r o f divin e initiativ e an d huma n obligation , rathe r tha n on e o f huma n initiativ e an d divin e obligation .

An d thi s is th e poin t o f th e propose d repl y i n Jesus ' parable : "W e ar e unworth y servants ; w e hav e onl y don e wha t wa s require d o f us. " Commentator s diffe r o n th e meanin g o f achreios, whic h ca n b e translate d a s eithe r "worthless " o r "unworthy. " Th e firs t optio n seem s t o ru n counte r bot h t o th e logi c o f th e situatio n (fo r th e servant' s labor s prov e hi s worth ) an d t o th e genera l teno r o f Jesus ' ministr y (abov e all , hi s opennes s t o socia l outcasts , cf . Luk e 19:10) . Th e secon d option , o n th e othe r hand , appear s mor e appropriat e i n it s suggestio n o f a lac k o f merit , o r a n inabilit y t o comman d th e master' s (God's! ) favor . Fo r nothin g is du e a servan t fo r havin g don e wha t wa s expected . O r t o quot e Joh n Calvin :

Th e objec t of thi s parabl e is t o sho w tha t all th e zeal manifeste d b y u s i n dischargin g ou r dut y doe s no t pu t Go d unde r an y obligatio n t o u s b y an y sor t of merit ; for , as w e ar e hi s property , so h e o n hi s par t ca n owe u s nothing ( Harmon y on Matthew, Mark, and Luke 2.194 )

Joh n Drur y note s tha t man y o f Luke' s parable s deriv e thei r "vivacity " fro m a n "adventurou s handlin g o f hierarchica l relationships : fathe r an d son , stewar d an d lord , plaintif f an d judge , maste r an d servants " ( Parable s in the Gospels, 151) . Suc h parable s begi n wit h th e assumptio n tha t th e divine-huma n relationshi p is similarl y hierarchical , the n procee d t o revers e conventiona l expectations . Th e parabl e o f th e Watchfu l Servant s i n 12:3538 , fo r example , conclude s wit h th e unthinkable : th e master , havin g returne d hom e fro m a weddin g celebration , seat s th e servant s an d serve s them . Jesu s late r applie s thi s reversa l t o himself : "Wh o is th e greater , th e on e wh o recline s a t table , o r th e on e wh o serves ? Surel y th e on e wh o reclines . Yet I a m amon g yo u a s on e wh o serves! " (22:27) . Th e remarkabl e featur e o f th e Parabl e o f th e Unworth y Servan t her e i n 17:7-10 , however , is tha t it offer s n o suc h reversal . Rather , th e maste r insists , i n thoroughl y conventiona l fashion , o n obedien t submissio n — wit h Jesu s insistin g i n vers e 10 tha t n o les s obedien t submissio n is du e t o God . Take n b y itself , th e firs t hal f o f th e parabl e denie s th e followe r an y rol e i n settin g th e term s o f discipleship . Thi s applie s a s muc h betwee n Jesu s an d hi s disciple s a s betwee n Israe l an d God . An d th e secon d hal f denie s th e

possibilit y tha t servic e fo r Go d is intrinsicall y meritorious . But , i t mus t b e asked , t o who m is suc h a n admonitio n addressed ?

I n Jesus ' da y th e rol e o f a discipl e wa s no t simpl y t o learn , bu t als o t o ac t as a servant A disciple' s servic e involve d performin g a variet y o f essential , ye t menial , task s fo r th e teacher . Thu s tw o o f Jesus ' disciple s fetc h a donke y fo r hi m t o rid e o n (cf . Luk e 19:29-35) , an d Pete r an d Joh n prepar e th e Passove r mea l (cf Luk e 22:8-13 ; als o 8:3) Onl y responsibilitie s considere d degradin g wer e exclude d (whic h probabl y explain s Joh n th e Baptist' s comment s i n Luk e 3:16)

Yet Jesus ' disciple s ar e portraye d a s sometime s thinkin g tha t thei r associatio n wit h thei r maste r allowe d the m som e specia l status , o r someho w accrue d t o thei r benefit . Thus , fo r example , the y ar e presente d a s attemptin g t o kee p a non-discipl e fro m usin g Jesus ' nam e (Luk e 9:4 9 par.), seekin g specia l favor s fro m Jesu s (Mar k 10:35-3 7 par.), an d arguin g amon g themselve s a s t o whic h o f the m wa s th e greates t (Luk e 22:2 4 par.). Insofa r a s th e disciple s ac t a s servant s t o Jesus , th e inten t o f th e Parabl e o f th e Unworth y Servan t ma y wel l b e t o poin t ou t tha t suc h servic e doe s no t constitut e a clai m o n hi s favor , muc h les s a clai m o n God' s favor . An d withou t wishin g t o impos e th e Christolog y o f subsequen t ages , th e parabl e allow s fo r a creativ e ambiguit y a s t o th e identit y o f th e landowner , wh o mayb e eithe r Go d (a s Jewis h piet y woul d anticipate ) o r Jesu s (a s th e disciple s migh t expect ) or , mor e remarkabl e yet , both .

Th e continue d existenc e o f slaver y a s a socia l institutio n sustain s th e relevanc e o f servanthoo d a s a metapho r fo r Christia n discipleship , and , i n turn , contribute s t o th e parable' s ongoin g currency Wel l beyon d hi s ow n day , Paul' s word s appl y alik e t o slav e an d free : "Whoeve r wa s calle d i n th e Lor d a s a slav e is a free d perso n belongin g t o th e Lord , jus t a s whoeve r wa s fre e whe n calle d is a slav e o f Christ " (1 Co r 7:22 ; cf Ro m 6:22 ; Ga l 3:23-47 ; Ep h 6:6 ; 1 Pe t 2:16 ; not e tha t Pau l an d othe r earl y Christia n leader s als o applie d th e metapho r t o themselves , Ga l 1:10; 1 Co r 9:19 ; Jame s 1:1) Similarly , th e Paulin e emphasi s o n unmerite d grac e (e.g. , Ep h 2:8-9 ) an d hi s metaphorica l appea l t o "redemption " (e.g. , Ro m 3:24 ; Ep h 1:7; cf . 1 Co r 6:20 ; 7:23) , whic h ma y reflec t th e slav e marke t (cf Anchor Bible Dictionary 6.655) , len d furthe r suppor t t o th e parable' s uncompromisin g descriptio n o f discipleship : tha t discipleshi p is no t self-determined , an d tha t on e is no t compensate d accordin g t o one' s merits , bu t o n som e othe r principle

4 . Th e Parabl e o f th e Laborer s i n th e Vineyar d (Mat t 20:1-16 )

Fro m parable s uniqu e t o Luk e w e tur n t o a parabl e uniqu e t o Matthe w — an d her e on e tha t supplie s precisel y th e kin d o f unexpecte d reversa l tha t th e Parabl e o f th e Unworth y Servan t faile d t o provide . Fo r i n th e Parabl e o f th e Laborer s i n th e Vineyar d o f Mat t 20:1-16 , worker s hire d a t differen t hour s throughou t th e da y expec t t o b e compensate d proportionately ; bu t muc h t o thei r astonishment , the y all receiv e th e sam e wage .

Thi s parabl e ha s enjoye d (o r suffered ) a lon g histor y o f imaginativ e exegesis . A s interprete d b y Irenaeu s (c . 130-200) , wh o ha d bee n instructe d b y Polycar p an d wa s fro m abou t 178 th e Bisho p o f Lyons :

Th e firs t call t o th e worker s represent s th e beginnin g of th e create d world , whil e th e secon d symbolize s th e Ol d Covenant Th e thir d call represent s Christ' s ministry . Th e lon g laps e of tim e i n whic h w e no w live is th e fourt h call, whil e th e fina l call symbolize s th e en d of time ( Against Heresies 4.36.7 )

Orige n o f Alexandri a (c 185-254) , th e greates t scholar , teacher , an d write r o f hi s day , wa s eve n mor e specific :

Th e firs t shif t of worker s signifie s th e generation s [fro m Adam ] t o Noah ; th e second , thos e fro m Noa h t o Abraham ; th e third , thos e fro m Abraha m t o Moses ; th e fourth , thos e fro m Mose s t o Joshua ; th e fifth , thos e u p t o th e tim e of Christ . Th e householde r is God , whil e th e denariu s represent s salvation . ( Commentar y on Matthew 15.32)

A t th e sam e time , Orige n offere d a "deepe r an d mor e mystical " interpretation , namel y tha t th e variou s hour s o f callin g represen t th e variou s stage s o f huma n lif e {ibid., 15.36) . Viewe d i n thi s way , Joh n Chrysosto m o f Antioc h (c . 347-407) , wh o i n hi s latte r year s wa s Bisho p a t Constantinople , declare d tha t th e parabl e teache s tha t eve n i n ol d ag e it is no t to o lat e t o dra w nea r t o Go d (Homily 64:3-4) .

Reformatio n exegesis , o n th e othe r hand , largel y rejecte d th e Churc h Fathers ' searc h fo r allegorica l meaning s i n th e mino r detail s o f th e parables . Commentin g o n th e worker s an d thei r labors , Calvi n insiste d tha t Christ' s "on e ai m [is] continuall y t o incit e hi s peopl e t o kee p going" ; yet ,

also , tha t th e parabl e demonstrate s th e sovereignt y o f God : "H e pay s thos e who m H e ha s calle d th e rewar d whic h seem s goo d t o Him " ( Harmon y on Matthew, Mark, and Luke 2.264-67) .

Bu t separat e identitie s fo r eac h grou p hire d a t th e variou s hour s — tha t is, a t si x an d nin e A.M., a t noon , an d a t thre e an d five P.M b y Wester n reckonin g — ar e rendere d unlikel y b y tw o considerations . First , th e referenc e t o th e vineyard , whic h wa s a stoc k metapho r fo r Israe l (cf . Isa 5:1-7 ; Je r 12:10 ; Mar k 12:1-1 0 par.), make s it probabl e tha t all o f th e laborer s ar e t o b e understoo d a s Jewish , an d no t bot h Jewis h an d Gentil e (a s woul d b e require d fo r the m t o represent , collectively , th e entir e histor y o f salvation) Second , resolutio n o f th e narrativ e require s onl y tw o groups , "th e first " an d "th e last, " rathe r tha n th e litera l fiv e mentione d earlier . Paymen t t o thos e hire d a t th e variou s midda y hour s is omitte d t o avoi d an y diminishmen t o f th e intende d contras t betwee n thos e wh o though t the y ha d earne d mor e an d thos e wh o kne w the y deserve d less . Th e imag e o f th e twelft h hour , a t whic h tim e paymen t is rendered , is a stoc k metapho r fo r fina l judgment . An d i n th e contex t o f Matthew' s Gospel , thi s eschatologica l dimensio n provide s a possibl e explanatio n a s t o wh y th e apparentl y shortsighte d landowne r need s t o retur n s o man y time s fo r additiona l laborers . Quit e simply , h e need s eve r mor e worker s becaus e th e fina l ingatherin g prove s s o muc h mor e plentifu l tha n eve n h e coul d hav e imagined . Th e situatio n perfectl y illustrate s Jesus ' admonitio n t o th e disciple s i n 9:37-38 : "Th e harves t is bountiful , bu t th e laborer s few So be g th e Lor d o f th e harves t t o sen d ou t worker s int o hi s harvest. " Fo r i n th e logi c o f th e kingdo m an d it s proclamation , th e fe w scattere d seed s hav e generate d suc h a disproportionat e increas e tha t th e landowne r mus t tak e extraordinar y measure s t o gathe r i n th e ful l yield . Thos e hire d las t ar e pai d first . The y receiv e a denarius , whic h wa s th e standar d wag e fo r a ful l day' s manua l labor . Bot h thi s reversa l i n th e orde r o f paymen t an d th e amoun t pai d ar e essentia l t o th e creatio n o f tensio n — no t jus t i n term s o f labo r relations , bu t als o i n term s o f th e tensio n inheren t i n th e narrativ e o f th e parabl e itself ! Fo r havin g toile d all da y long , thos e stil l waitin g i n lin e naturall y expec t som e kin d o f bonus As the y se e it , natura l justic e require s a proportiona l syste m o f recompense . Bu t th e landowne r insist s o n fulfillin g th e exac t term s o f thei r contract , whic h wa s t o pa y the m wha t h e considere d "just " ( dikaios , ν 4 ) — tha t is , a ful l day' s wag e (cf . w 2 , 13) .

So whe n th e grumbler s accus e th e owne r o f unfairness , th e onl y in -

justic e i n th e situatio n is thei r ow n selfishness . Henc e th e appropriatenes s o f th e owner' s challeng e (whic h is altogethe r obscure d b y mos t translations) : "I s you r ey e evi l becaus e I a m good? " Th e earlies t worker s hav e receive d thei r jus t reward . Bu t the y sho w themselve s t o b e estrange d fro m th e large r graciousnes s o f th e on e wh o ha d engage d thei r services Therefor e th e landowner' s word s impl y dismissal : "Tak e wha t is your s an d go. "

Distinctiv e feature s o f thi s Matthea n parabl e emerg e i n compariso n wit h th e followin g frequently-cite d (althoug h considerabl y later ) rabbini c parallels . A n anonymou s Tannaiti c parabl e o f th e thir d centur y CE (a t th e earliest ) comment s o n th e statemen t "An d I wil l hav e regar d fo r you " o f Le v 26: 9 a s follows :

It is like a kin g wh o hire d man y laborers . An d alon g wit h the m wa s on e labore r tha t ha d worke d fo r hi m man y days All th e laborer s wen t also H e said t o thi s on e specia l laborer : " I will hav e regar d fo r you . Th e others, wh o hav e worke d fo r m e onl y a little, t o the m I will give smal l pay You, however , wil l receive a larg e recompense. " Even so bot h th e Israelites an d th e people s of th e worl d sough t thei r pa y fro m God . An d Go d said t o th e Israelites : "M y children , I wil l hav e regar d fo r you Th e people s of th e worl d hav e accomplishe d ver y littl e fo r me , an d I will give the m bu t a smal l reward You, however , wil l receive a larg e recompense. " (Sifra o n Lev 26:9; cf Ecclesiastes Rabbah 5.11.5 )

Fro m a simila r scenario , thi s parabl e derive s a conclusio n exactl y opposit e tha t o f Jesus ' Parabl e o f th e Laborer s i n th e Vineyard , fo r i n th e rabbini c parabl e th e faithfu l withi n Israe l ar e rewarde d i n proportio n t o thei r piety . Mor e closel y resemblin g th e parabl e i n Matthew' s Gospe l is th e following , whic h is sai d t o hav e bee n tol d b y Rabb i Zeir a a t th e funera l o f Rabb i Abu n be n Hiya , wh o die d abou t 32 5 CE a t a relativel y earl y age :

It is like a kin g wh o hire d man y laborers . Bu t on e wa s outstandin g i n hi s work . Wha t di d th e Kin g do? H e too k hi m away an d walke d u p an d dow n wit h him Whe n i t wa s evening , th e laborer s cam e t o receiv e thei r pay, an d h e gave him , wit h them , th e ful l amoun t of hi s wage . The n th e laborer s murmure d an d said , "We hav e worke d th e whol e day, an d thi s ma n ha s worke d onl y tw o hours. " The n th e kin g said , "Thi s ma n ha s don e mor e i n tw o hour s tha n yo u hav e don e i n th e whol e day." So ha s Rabb i Abu n learne d mor e i n th e Law i n twenty-eigh t year s tha n a clever

studen t coul d hav e mastere d i n a lifetime . (Jerusalem/Palestinian Berakoth 2:8, cf. Song of Songs Rabbah 6.2.6 )

Eve n here , however , th e emphasi s is o n th e laborer' s abilit y t o accomplis h muc h i n proportionatel y les s tim e tha n th e othe r workers , whic h is i n lin e wit h th e rabbini c dictum : "Som e obtai n an d ente r th e kingdo m i n a n hour , whil e other s reac h it onl y afte r a lifetime " ( Babylonia n Abodah Zarah 17a) . Rabbini c doctrine s o f meri t an d grac e wer e multifaceted , jus t a s the y hav e bee n i n muc h o f Christia n theology O n th e on e hand , saying s suc h a s thos e o f Simeo n th e Jus t an d Johana n be n Zakkai , cite d above , emphasiz e th e centralit y o f divin e grace . O n th e othe r hand , on e mus t weig h suc h opinion s a s tha t o f Rabb i Tarfo n (c 50-12 0 CE), a contemporar y o f th e evangelis t Matthew : "I f yo u hav e studie d muc h i n th e Law , muc h rewar d wil l b e give n you ; an d faithfu l is you r taskmaste r wh o wil l pa y yo u th e rewar d o f you r labor " ( Mishna h Aboth 2:16 ) — o r tha t attribute d t o Rabb i Akiba , th e leadin g rabb i o f th e earl y secon d centur y CE: "Th e worl d is judge d b y grace , ye t all is accordin g t o th e exces s o f works " ( Mishna h Aboth 3:16 ; cf . als o furthe r statement s attribute d t o R . Akib a i n Mishnah Aboth 3:1 7 an d t o R Hanania h be n Akashy a i n Mishnah Makkoth 3:16) By comparison , Jesus ' parabl e doe s no t focu s o n issue s o f wage s o r "merit " per se, bu t use s the m onl y a s a narrativ e vehicl e fo r emphasizin g th e owner' s — whic h is t o say, God' s — unmerite d generosity Perhaps , a s well , ther e ar e overtone s i n Jesus ' parabl e o f Go d havin g compassio n o n thos e wh o canno t otherwis e mak e adequat e provisio n fo r themselves .

I n it s for m i n Matthew' s Gospel , th e mora l o f th e stor y is tha t "th e las t wil l b e first , an d th e firs t last " (cf . esp . ν 16) . Thi s ha s le d t o speculatio n tha t th e parabl e refer s t o Jew s an d Gentile s — or , perhaps , t o Christian s o f Jewis h an d Gentil e origins , respectively Or , keepin g matter s strictl y withi n Israel , perhap s it shoul d b e see n a s referrin g t o scribe s an d Pharisees , o n th e on e hand , i n compariso n t o sinner s an d socia l outcasts , o n th e other Certainl y Jesus ' notoriou s familiarit y wit h "sinners " earlie r i n Matthew' s Gospe l ha d give n ris e t o scor n an d indignatio n o n th e par t o f th e religiou s authoritie s (e.g. , 9:10-11 ; 11:19) Ta x gatherer s an d prostitute s coul d hardl y commen d themselve s wit h piou s works . Yet Jesu s seem s t o hav e welcome d suc h marginalize d person s readil y enough .

I n th e Matthea n Parabl e o f th e Tw o Son s (21:28-32) , wh o ar e calle d t o wor k i n thei r father' s vineyard , Jesu s conclude s b y declarin g t o th e "chie f priest s an d elder s o f th e people " ( v 23) : "Truly , I sa y t o you , th e ta x

collector s an d th e prostitute s g o int o th e kingdo m ahea d o f you " ( v 31) . Likewise , a referenc e t o sinner s an d outcast s suit s no t onl y th e centra l moti f o f "good " an d "evil " i n th e Parabl e o f th e Laborer s i n th e Vineyar d (cf . ν 15) , thereb y emphasizin g th e owner' s perspectiv e o n wha t is "just " o r "righteous " (cf w 4 , 13) , bu t als o th e eleventh-hou r laborers ' ow n explanatio n o f wh y the y hav e "stoo d idle " all day : "Becaus e n o on e ha s hire d us. "

So whil e th e latte r laborer s themselve s attes t tha t n o on e els e though t the m capabl e o f accomplishin g anythin g useful , th e owne r replies : "Go , even you (kai humeis), int o th e vineyard " ( v 7) .

Bu t howeve r fittin g suc h a n interpretatio n ma y be , w e mus t no t overloo k th e fac t tha t th e prover b abou t "th e first " an d "th e last " i n Matthew' s Gospe l no t onl y conclude s th e parabl e o f 20:1-16 , bu t als o appear s i n 19:3 0 — an d so , i n effect , introduce s it: "Man y wh o ar e firs t wil l b e last , an d th e las t wil l b e first. For (a n explanator y us e o f th e conjunctio n gar) th e kingdo m o f heave n is lik e a landowne r " (19:30-20:1) I n 19:3 0 th e prover b is applie d t o disciple s wh o hav e abandone d all t o follo w Jesus . I t suggest s tha t thos e wh o hav e nothin g wit h whic h t o commen d themselve s ca n ye t loo k forwar d t o a ric h recompens e i n God' s kingdo m (s o 19:2729) . An d if thi s is th e meanin g o f th e Parabl e o f th e Laborer s i n th e Vineyar d a s well , the n th e disciple s ar e portraye d a s thos e wh o hav e bee n hire d las t i n th e da y an d rewarde d mor e o n th e basi s o f God' s generosit y tha n o n th e basi s o f thei r ow n accomplishments .

Yet a thir d interpretatio n is als o possible , base d o n th e fac t tha t th e disciple s di d no t alway s shar e th e generosit y o f spiri t exhibite d b y thei r maste r (cf. , e.g. , Mat t 19:13-14) Perhap s it wa s th e disciple s wh o fel t tha t the y ha d "labore d lon g an d born e th e hea t o f th e day " i n th e servic e o f thei r rabbi . Particularl y if th e disciple s wer e liabl e t o a n inflate d sens e o f thei r ow n importance , th e Parabl e o f th e Laborer s i n th e Vineyar d migh t hav e serve d t o redirec t thei r attentio n t o th e graciou s generosit y o f thei r teache r a s th e onl y basi s fo r thei r ow n presen t standing I n a sense , however , th e sam e lesso n applie s t o all thre e comparison s — whethe r "th e first " an d "th e last " b e understoo d a s referrin g t o "Pharisees " an d outcast s generally , t o "Pharisees " an d th e disciple s o f Jesus , o r t o disciple s wh o ha d followe d Jesu s fo r longe r o r fo r shorte r period s o f time , respectively . Fo r i n th e end , th e identit y o f th e laborer s is les s importan t tha n th e characte r o f th e landowner , an d wha t i t implie s abou t th e characte r o f God . I n eac h case , th e parabl e illustrate s contrastin g perception s o f th e laborers ' relationshi p t o th e master . Thos e hire d

firs t ar e give n wha t "belong s t o them " — tha t is , thei r wage s ar e thei r due , fo r the y hav e earne d them . Bu t th e owner' s resolutio n o f th e matte r point s t o a deepe r truth : tha t th e fulfillmen t o f hi s contrac t wit h th e remainde r o f th e worker s is base d les s o n thei r right s tha n o n his righ t t o b e graciou s an d "just " ( v 4) . An d this , a s demonstrate d tim e an d agai n b y th e historie s o f bot h Israe l an d th e church , is th e differenc e betwee n a contrac t an d a covenant .

5 . Conclusio n

To som e extent , all o f Jesus ' parable s addres s question s o f discipleshi p — tha t is, the y all concer n issue s o f ho w on e shoul d live i n respons e t o God' s reign Th e Parabl e o f th e Tw o Builder s i n Mat t 7:24-2 7 an d Luk e 6:47-4 9 insist s o n th e nee d fo r obedien t action , portrayin g i n dramati c fashion , a s well , th e consequence s o f a failur e t o act Th e paire d Parable s o f th e Towe r Builde r an d th e Warrin g Kin g i n Luk e 14:28-3 3 pres s th e matte r further , assertin g tha t discipleshi p wil l cos t one' s all But , accordin g t o th e Parabl e o f th e Unworth y Servan t i n Luk e 17:7-10 , obedien t servic e doe s no t accru e t o one' s merit Rather , a s i n th e Parabl e o f th e Laborer s i n th e Vineyar d o f Mat t 20:1-16 , th e maste r offer s th e sam e rewar d t o thos e wh o hav e serve d littl e a s t o thos e wh o hav e serve d long Why ? Because , t o expan d anothe r metaphor , th e kingdo m is characterize d b y th e characte r o f th e King : God' s reign , whic h obedien t discipleshi p acknowledges , is characterize d i n it s entiret y b y God' s ow n graciousnes s an d generosity . Nor , finally, ca n w e omi t fro m consideratio n Jesus ' ow n rol e a s th e teache r an d telle r o f parables . Man y i n hi s origina l audience , w e ar e told , hear d a certai n divin e authorit y i n hi s words . The y perceive d somethin g o f God' s ow n voic e i n th e storie s tha t h e told . Other s reacte d t o wha t the y perceive d a s a pretensio n t o authority . An d tha t sam e rang e o f option s remain s ope n t o thos e wh o encounte r — or , mor e accurately , ar e encountere d b y — Jesus ' parable s today .

I n keepin g wit h recen t discussion s tha t focu s o n a philosoph y o f language , it is helpfu l t o approac h th e parable s o f Jesu s recorde d in th e Synopti c Gospel s a s instance s o f "performativ e utterance " — tha t is, a s word s tha t inten d t o effec t th e realit y o f whic h the y speak . Fo r th e parable s stil l carr y wit h the m a challeng e t o hea r th e voic e o f Jesu s i n th e word s o f th e evangelists , an d t o hea r i n Jesus ' word s th e voic e o f God . Ho w individua l

"Everyone

reader s hea r thes e word s — an d whos e voic e the y hea r withi n the m — is , precisely , a questio n o f discipleship .

Selecte d Bibliograph y

Bailey , Kennet h E. Through Peasant Eyes: More Lucan Parables, Their Culture and Style. Gran d Rapids : Eerdmans , 1980

Blomberg , Crai g L. Interpreting the Parables. Downer s Grove : InterVarsity , 1990 .

Crossan , Joh n Dominic In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus.

Ne w York : Harpe r & Row , 1973

Danby , Herbert . The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes. London : Oxford , 1933

Drury , John The Parables in the Gospels: History and Allegory. Ne w York : Crossroad , 1985 .

Funk , Rober t W Parables and Presence. Philadelphia : Fortress , 1982

Gundry , Rober t H . Matthew: Λ Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution. Gran d Rapids : Eerdmans , 1994

Hagner , Donal d A Matthew (WB C 33) , 2 vols Dallas : Word , 1993 , 1995

Hunter , A . M . Interpreting the Parables. London : SCM , 1960 .

Jeremias , Joachim The Parables of Jesus, trans S H Hooke 2n d rev ed Ne w York : Scribner's , 1972 .

Jones , Ivo r H The Matthean Parables: A Literary and Historical Commentary (NovTSu p 80) . Leiden : Brill , 1995 .

Kissinger , Warre n S. The Parables of Jesus: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography. Metuchen , NJ , an d London : Scarecrow , 1979 .

McArthur , Harve y K., an d Johnston , Rober t M . They Also Taught in Parables. Rabbinic Parables from the First Centuries of the Christian Era. Gran d Rapids : Zondervan , 1990 .

Sider , Joh n W Interpreting the Parables: A Hermeneutical Guide to Their Meaning. Gran d Rapids : Zondervan , 1995 .

Via , Da n O. , Jr The Parables: Their Literary and Existential Dimension. Philadelphia : Fortress , 1967

Index of Subjects

A11egorization/A11egorizing, 3-5 , 7-8 , 910, 20-21 , 26-28 , 46-47 , 88-89, 93, 97, 98-99, 105, 110-13, 116, 299

Allegory/Allegorical, 6-8 , 10, 12-13, 14, 16, 20, 31-32, 35, 38, 41, 42-43 , 4648, 60, 62, 70, 81, 89, 93, 98-99 , 105, 110-13, 114, 158, 167, 171, 182, 186

Analogy, 11, 20, 38, 45, 162, 178

Antinomianism , 208- 9

Anxiety, 221

Artisti c Approaches , 12-13, 27-28 , 39

Authorit y of Jesus, 28, 73-74, 84-85, 89, 146, 290, 304

Banality, 22-2 6

Celebration , 201, 205, 211-1 3

Character/Characterization , 217-19 , 227, 230-31 , 243, 254, 256-57, 259

Chea p Grace , 199-201, 206 , 214

Comi c Parables, 13, 243, 25 7

Compassion , 211-12 , 214, 267, 280, 284

Death , 231,234 , 236

Debt/Debts , 263-64 , 267-71 , 273, 275 , 278, 282-8 3

Definitio n of Parable, 26-28 , 47-49 , 5354

Discipleship, 192, 220-21 , 286-30 5

Dreams , 62, 66

Eschatologica l Context , 9-10 , 15, 253, 255

Eschatologica l Scenario , 119-20, 14142, 164-65, 177-95, 211, 214, 276-77 , 288-89 , 300

Exampl e Parables, 7, 15, 26, 30-31, 3334, 45-46 , 47,219 , 234-3 5

Existentia l Approaches , 11-13, 34-38 , 235

Exodus/Ne w Exodus , 266-6 7

Fable, 31, 41, 54-55, 57, 60-61 , 63, 66, 99

Forgiveness, 199-200, 211-13 , 214-15 , 229, 263-65 , 266-71, 273-75 , 282-8 4

Generosity , 221, 231

Gospel of Thomas, 9, 14, 15, 18, 23, 96, 132, 133, 138, 139, 143, 235

Grace , 206-7 , 209 , 212, 214-1 5

Greco-Roma n Parables, 6, 19, 39

Greed/Covetousness , 221, 250-5 1

Highwaymen , 278

Historical Approaches , 6-8 , 9-10, 17, 27-28

Holiness/Holy, 202-3, 206, 272-73, 275, 282

Holiness Code , 202- 3

Honor-Sham e Motifs , 242, 244-45, 248, 251-52, 257, 261, 275

Hospitality, 212, 214, 229, 231, 242-44, 248, 272

Hyperbole , 18, 117, 184-85

Illogical/Unexpected/Exaggerated Scenarios , 24, 69-70, 95, 188-89, 205, 206, 246, 254, 260, 271-72, 279, 28182, 295-96

Interest/Cancellatio n of Interest, 22930, 233, 264, 270

Irony, 227-28, 231

Jesus Seminar , 140-41, 244-45, 255, 259, 276

Jewish Origin s of th e Parables, 7, 1619,34 , 39

Joy/Rejoicing, 201, 205-6, 108-9, 21011,213,214-15 , 283-84

Jubilee, 229, 233, 264, 266, 268-71, 284

juridical/Judgmen t Parables, 58-61, 6566, 151-75, 177-95, 204, 231, 234, 236, 289-90

Kingdom/Kingdo m of Go d (Heaven) , 10, 64, 67-69, 72-74, 82-83, 96-98, 131, 133-36, 137, 139-40, 141, 145, 184, 214-15, 227, 235, 253, 265, 26769, 271, 274-75, 276-77, 282-84, 291, 294, 300, 303-4

"L" (Luke's Special Narrativ e Source) , 207, 244

Lament , 60 Literary Approaches , 13-16, 34-38

Little Flock, 220 Little Ones , 191-93

Lord's Prayer, 241-42, 244, 252-53, 271

Lost/Loss, 201,205-11,21 3

Love, 199-200, 213, 214, 229, 263, 265, 283

"M " (Matthew' s Special Narrativ e Source), 103

Marginalized/Marginalization , 203, 205, 263, 264-65, 272-73, 275, 283-84, 302

Message of th e Parables, 100,122-23 , 134-36, 142-44, 144-46, 155, 157-58, 162, 172-75, 183, 189, 191-93, 19495, 214-15, 232-38, 251-52, 258, 260, 282-84, 290-91, 294-95, 298, 303-5

Messianic Banquet/Eschatologica l Feast, 10, 156, 164-65, 188, 273-75, 282, 284

Messianic Secret, 95-96

Metaphor , 6, 8, 13-14, 16, 23, 31, 33-37, 47-48, 61, 115, 243, 286-87, 300 Miracles vis-à-vis Parables, 85-87

Myth , 14

Neighbor , 277-7 8

Ol d Testamen t Parables, 39-41, 52-62, 65-66

Pairing Parables, 201

Palestinian Agricultura l Practice, 104, 132

Paradox, 14, 20, 92

Perseverance/Persistence, 205, 242, 245, 247-51, 256-57

Pluralism , 265

Polyvalence, 20-22, 23, 27, 134-35, 14445

Poor, The, 207, 214, 219-24, 229, 23235, 238, 271-72, 283

Postbiblical Parables, 63-66

Poverty, 217, 222, 232-33, 235 Prayer, 240-61

Proverb, 40, 42, 52-53, 88, 115, 132 Purification , 278-79

Purity-Impurity , 202-3, 214, 278-79, 281-82

Purpos e of th e Parables, 90-93, 104-5

"Q " (Logia o r Sayings Source), 113, 115, 137-43, 153, 155, 163, 207, 244, 251

Rabbinic/Tannaiti c Parables, 18-19, 5152, 64-65, 66-72, 288-89, 301-2

Reader Response, 11-14, 18, 20, 34-35

Redemption , 270

Remittanc e of Debt , 230, 233

Repentance, 201, 205-6, 208-9, 210-11, 213, 214-15, 217, 219, 234-36, 26061,265 , 283

Restoration/Reconciliation , 201, 205, 209, 211-13, 214, 230, 274, 280

Resurrection , 211, 231, 234, 261, 272

Reversal, 209-10, 231, 272, 275, 276, 282, 286, 297, 299-300

Rich/Wealthy, The, 219-24, 232-35, 238, 283

Riches/Wealth, 217, 221-22, 230-33, 235

Riddle, 32-33, 40, 43, 47, 52-54, 58-59, 88, 92

Righteous/Righteousness , 277, 289, 303

Saying, 53, 94-96

Shamelessness 247-51, 261

Shema, 277

Shocking/Surprisin g Metaphors , 13334, 137, 140-41, 205, 218, 221, 259

Simile, 6, 8, 13, 31-32, 35, 42-43, 4 7

Similitudes, 7, 44

Slavery, 268, 270, 283, 298

Social Prophecy, 234

Socioeconomi c Situation s of Antiquity , 218-19, 221-27, 229-30, 242, 246, 256

Sociopolitical Approaches , 24-26

Solomo n an d Parables, 73-74

Story Parables, 44-45, 47

Structura l Parallels in Luke, 126-27, 207

Structuralis t Approaches , 15-16

Symbol, 12

Table Fellowship, 202-3, 206, 212-13, 214-15, 272-73, 275

Taunt , 40, 43, 5 3

Tower, 291-9 3

Tragic Parables, 13

Uncleanness/Ritua l Defilement , 273-74, 278-79, 281, 282, 284

Index of Moder n Authors

Abegg, Jr., M . G „ 63, 75

Albright , W F., 146

Allison, Jr., D. C., 105, 123, 153, 191, 195

Bailey, K. E., 17, 201, 208, 210 , 215, 224, 238, 248, 250, 261, 279, 281 , 285, 305

Barclay, W„ 146

Barton , S. C., 206, 216

Bauckham , R J., 230, 239

Beare, F W „ 186, 195

Beavis, Μ. Α., 31, 39, 49, 92, 100

Bindemann , W., 226, 227, 239

Black, M., 8, 10, 140

Blomberg , C. L., 3, 8, 20, 21, 28, 68, 73, 74, 123, 250, 261, 305

Bonhoeffer , D., 199-201, 215

Bornkamm , G., 14

Boucher, M. , 8, 16, 27-28 , 29, 100

Brosend , W. F., II, 49

Brown , R., 8

Bugge, C Α., 16

Bultmann , R., 33-34, 49

Butts, J. R., 141, 146, 245, 255, 259

Capon , R F., 285

Carlston , C . Ε., 28, 146

Carson , D Α., 191, 195

Carter , W., 123

Catchpole , D. R., 244, 249, 26 1

Chilton , B. D., 68, 74, 208, 21 6

Conzelmann , H., 25 3

Cook , E. M. , 63, 75

Cra n field , C . E. B., 261

Creed , I M., 171

Crossan , J D., 14-15, 20, 235, 239, 305

D'Angelo , M R., 207

Dahl , Ν . Α., 123

Danby , H. , 305

Daube , D., 226, 239

Davies, W. D., 105, 123, 153, 191, 195

Derrett , J. D. M. , 17, 100, 248, 26 )

Dodd , C H., 6, 8-10 , 12, 14, 29, 33-34, 49, 100, 146

Donahue , J. R., 28, 37, 49, 202, 216, 224, 239, 250 , 261

Downing , F G., 259, 260, 261

Drury , J„ 8, 74, 100, 201 , 206, 209-10 , 216, 297, 30 5

Dschulnigg , R, 28

Dunn , J„ 202 , 216

Ellis, E., 171, 227 , 239

Eslinger, R L„ 34, 49

Evans, C Α., 19, 74

Feldman , Α., 18

Fiebig, P., 7,16-1 7

Fitzmyer, J Α., 141, 146, 249, 261, 285

Flusser, D., 18, 29

Flynt, L. 282

Ford, M., 8, 20

Fowl, S Ε., 215, 216

France, R. T., 146, 177, 195

Freire, P., 24

Fridrichsen, Α., 249

Fuchs, Ε., 11-12, 29

Funk, R W., 13-15, 20, 29, 141, 146, 245, 255, 259, 305

Garland , D Ε., 195

Gerhardsson , Β., 54, 74, 89, 100, 105, 123

Graef , R., 237

Green , J Β., 204, 211, 213-14, 216, 261

Greswell, Ε., 28

Gundry , R H., 191, 192, 195, 305

Hagner, D. Α., 123, 146, 191, 195, 305

Hauck , F., 53-54

Hedrick , C . W., 23-24, 26, 222, 239

Heil, J P., 103, 123

Hendrickx , H. , 25

Hermaniuk , M., 8

Herzog, W R., II, 24-25, 26, 218-19, 221, 224-27, 239, 250, 251, 256, 261

Hooker, M D., 87, 100, 146

Hoover, R W., 245

Huffard , E., 249, 261

Hunter , A M., 293, 305

Jenkins, S., 237

Jeremias, J„ 6, 8-10, 18, 23, 29, 34, 49, 92, 101, 111, 140, 141, 143, 146, 171, 175, 188, 190, 195, 227, 228, 235, 236, 239, 248, 305

Johnson , A F., 249, 262

Johnson , L T., 233, 239

Johnston , R. M., 18, 305

Jones, G. V., 3, 12-13, 20, 28, 29

Jones, I H., 123, 305

Jones, L. G., 215, 216

Jiilicher, Α., 6-8,10 , 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30-32, 49, 99, 203, 219

J üngel, E., 11-12

Keesmaat, S C., 267, 285

Kingsbury, J. D., 12, 28, 123 Kissinger, W S., 3, 12, 29, 305 Kittel, G., 54

Kjargaard , M . S., 49

Klauck, H K., 7-8 , 46, 49 Koenig, J., 285

Ladd, G. E., 106, 123, 195

Lambrecht , J., 28, 108, 123 Lane, W L., 147

Lash, N. , 200,21 6

Lewis, C S., 208

Linnemann , E., 11-12 Luther, M., 5

MacKinnon , D., 203-4

Malina , B J., 207, 216, 245

Mann , C. S., 146

Manson , T. W., 54, 68, 74, 92, 101 Marcus , J., 101

Marshall, I H., 123, 168-69, 248-49, 254, 258, 259, 262 Marshall, I H., 147

Martens , A. W., 153

M eArthur , H K„ 18, 305

McDonald , J. I. H., 285

McFague TeSelle, S., 35, 49

Mclver, R K., 111, 123-24

Meier, J. P., 49 Merkel, H., 155

Morgenthaler , R., 126

Moule , C F D., 147

Mueller, J R., 64-65, 74

Neusner , J., 68-69, 268, 285

Neyrey, J H., 245

Oesterley, W. O. E., 18, 75, 219, 230, 239

Patte, D., 21

Pautrel, R., 67, 75

Perrin , N., 3, 10, 12, 16, 22, 29

Peterson, E., 247

Price, R., 25-2 6

Ricoeur, P., 14

Ringe, S. H., 267, 285

Robinson , S. B., 64-65, 74

Sanders, J. Α., 58, 75, 208, 285

Schottroff , L., 259

Schweizer, Ε., 131, 147, 186, 195

Scott, Β. Β., 22-23, 24-25, 29, 141, 146, 235, 239, 245, 255, 259

Seabrook , J., 238

Seilew, P., 239

Sider, J. W., 8, 16, 305

Simon , U., 55, 75

Siverns, L E., 49

Snodgrass , K., 250, 262

Spencer, G., 250

Stacey, W D., 87, 101

Stein, R H. , 3, 29, 44, 49, 147, 191, 195

Steinmetz , D., 5

Stern , D., 18-19, 73, 75

Talbert, C. H., 126-27, 147, 249, 262

Taylor, T., 99

Telford, W R., 101

Thiselton , A. C., 12

Tolbert, M Α., 20-21, 37, 50

Vermes, G., 273

Via, D. O., 12-13, 15, 20, 22, 25, 29, 243, 305

Volf, iM„ 285

Wailes, S. L„ 5, 29

Weder, H., 8, 16

Wenham , D., 124, 191, 195

Westermann , C., 36, 50

White , R., 204

Wilder, A N., 285

Willis, J T., 58

Wise, M O., 63, 75

Wittig, S., 22

Wright , N T., 266, 285

Yee, G Α., 58

Young, Β. H., 18, 75

Index of Scripture an d

Othe r Ancient Literature

12:22-23 40, 53 4:14 97 OL D TESTAMENT 14:8 40 4:21 97 APOCRYPH A

15:1-5 [6-8] 32,4 1 ch . 7 62 16:44 40, 53 7:9-28 190 Tobit 17:1-24 133 7:14

17:2 53 12:2

17:2-10 [11- ludit h 21] 32,40,41,58-5 9 Hose a ch. 12

17:22-24 141 2:21-23 274, 280 17:23 97, 140, 141 2:19 280 Wisdo m of Solomo n 18:2-3 40, 53 6:1

19:1-9 41, 59

19:10-14 9:10 154, 171 41, 60 Sirach 19:14 9:16 154 39 (Ecclesiasticus) 20:45-49 41

36:22-38

TH E NE W TESTAMENT

12:45 71 13:24-30 [3712:46-50 132 43] 32 12:50 192 13:27-28 189 ch . 13 103, 127, 130, 13:31-33 44, 193, 131, 187, 194 136-38

13:1-2 102 13:32 97, 138-39, 13:1-23 129, 136 141, 143 13:1-52 1.02-23 13:33 44, 136, 138-39, 13:3b 128 142-43

13:3b-8 133 13:34-35 44 13:3-9 102, 103-4 13:35 103 13:3-23 103-8 13:36 102-3 13:3-35 103 13:36-43 47, 54, 13:4 106, 128 108-13, 190 13:5 107 13:36-52 103 13:6 107 13:41 190 13:7 107, 128 13:42 188 13:8 103, 107, 128, 13:43 104 130, 131, 133, 13:44 4, 15, 44, 136, 187 185 13:9 104, 128 13:45 15 13:10-13 102 13:45-46 44, 136 13:10-15 108 13:47-48 [4913:10-17 104-5 50] 32 13:11 102, 105, 134 13:50 188 13:1l-12 a 102 13:52 43-44

13:11-17 186 13:53 177 13:12 94, 131, 189 ch . 14 126 13:13-15 106, 135 14:13-21 274 13:15 130 14:14 270 13:17 159 14:17 163 13:18 105, 130 14:21b 164 13:18-23 102, 104, 15:3-6 205- 6 105-8 15:4-6 205 13:19 106-8, 134 15:7-9 151 13:19-22 135 15:11 42 13:20 106-7 15:12 151 13:21 107, 187 15:13 152 13:22 106-7 15:14 33 13:23 106-8, 187 15:32 274, 280 13:24 71 ch 16 126 13:24-30 9, 47, 54, 96, 16:18 290 102-3, 108-13, 16:25 42 136, 190 16:25-26 186

18:21

18:21-35 67, 263-71, 282-84 18:22 266 18:23 267 18:23-34 [35] 32-33 18:23-35 41, 46 18:24-27 267 18:28-35 269 19:1 177 19:13-14 303 19:16-22 174 19:23-24 107 19:27-20:1 303 20:1-15 70 20:1-15 [16] 33 20:1-16 30,33,34,41 , 45, 48, 286-87, 299-304 20:2 184, 300 20:4 300, 303-4 20:7 303 20:13 300, 303 20:15-16 302 20:34 280 21:1-10 47 21:12-17 152 21:12-20 154 21:15 303 21:17 161 21:18-22 152, 159 21:19 163 21:23 153, 302

21:23-27 152, 157, 162

21:23-22:4 6 153

21:28 155, 156

21:28-31 158

21:28-31a

[31b-32] 33

21:28-32 152, 155, 162, 166, 174, 172, 302

21:28-22:1 3 166

21:28-22:14 151-75

21:31 156-58, 302-3

21:32 156-58, 162

21:33 155

21:33-46 152, 158-62, 166-67, 174

21:34 158-59, 163

21:34-36 159

21:35 164

21:36 163

21:37 156, 160

21:39 160

21:40 159-60, 164

21:41 158, 160-61, 164

21:42 159-61, 167

21:43 154, 156, 158, 161, 172

21:44 158, 161

21:45 153

21:45-46 162

22:l-2 a 163

22:1-10 67

22:1-14 7, 152, 162-68, 174-75, 181, 184

22:2 155-56, 163

22:3-6 163

22:3-10 163

22:4-7 163-64

22:7 154, 164

22:8 164

22:8-10 156, 163, 16465

22:9-10 165

22:11-13 163, 165 22:11-13 [14] 33 22:13 188

22:14 163, 165-66

22:15-40 153

22:17 156

22:23 153 22:34 153 22:34-40 277

22:41 153 22:42 156 23:23 174 23:29 159

23:29-36 154

23:34-35 159

23:34-36 107 23:37 159 ch. 24 178

24:1-42 25 3 24:2 177 24:3 177, 180

24:10-11 182 24:14 106 24:19-13 107 24:32-33 30 24:35 177

24:36 177-78, 180 24:37-39 289

24:42-51 194 24:43 178, 181

24:43-51 178, 194 24:44 178

24:45-46 193 24:45-51 67, 178, 180 24:46 189 24:48 179 24:48-51 185 24:51 188 chs. 24-2 5 177-78, 180, 194 ch 25 178, 188 25:1 178

25:1-12 [13] 33 25:1-13 9,41 , 178,

25:1-46 177-78 25:4 193 25:5 179 25:8-12 185 25:10 188 25:12 183 25:13 182 25:14-20 30 25:14-30 9, 33, 45, 67, 178, 183-89, 194, 289 25:16-17 193 25:21 67, 183, 188 25:23 188 25:24 183 25:25 185 25:26-27 183 25:27 185 25:28 183, 188 25:29 94, 132, 161, 179, 183, 189 25:30 188 25:31-46 178, 189-94, 289 25:32-33 190 25:34-35 191 25:35-40 193 25:37-39 190 25:41-42 191 25:44 190 25:46 191 26:1 177 26:66 156 27:25 173 28:10 192 Mar k 1:1 82 1:15 82, 172, 206 1:41 280 2:1-22 84 2:19-20 80

7 180-83, 194, 288-89

2:20 181 4:14 93, 133

2:21-22 42, 80 4:14-20 88-89

2:23-28 84 4:15-19 93, 135

2:27 74 4:18-19 207, 23 3 ch 3 132 4:21 95

3:1-19 84 4:21 [22] 32

3:13-19 135 4:21-22 30, 33, 44

3:20-21 132 4:21-23 79, 95

3:20-35 84, 89 4:21-25 94-96, 129, 131

3:23-25 42 4:21-32 83

3:23-26 [27] 32 4:22 95

3:23-27 80 4:23 95, 98, 131 3:31-35 132 4:23-24 94 ch 4 16, 84-85, 102- 4:24 95, 98 3, 127, 130-31 4:24 [25] 32

4:1 102 4:24-25 95-96

4:1-9 95, 129 4:25 94, 95-96, 131, 4:1-10 83 161, 189

4:1-20 79, 87-94, 96, 4:26 71, 82 128-29, 135 4:26-29 9, 30, 33, 44, 4:1-32 83 79, 96-97,135 , 4:1-34 80-100 187

4:2-9 54, 102 4:26-32 96-98 4:3 90, 91, 105 4:29 97

4:3-8 133 4:30 39, 83 4:3-8, par . 289 4:30-32 44, 79, 96-97, 4:3-9 47 103, 135, 1374:3-9 [13-20] 32 39, 143

4:5-7 128 4:33 49

4:8 103, 106, 128, 4:33-34 44,51,9 8 130-31, 133 4:35 103 4:9 89-91, 95, 98, 4:35-41 85 128-29, 131 4:35-8:2 6 86 4:10-12 6, 86, 88, 90- 4:40-41 91 93, 102, 104 4:41 86 4:10-20 129, 131 5:1-20 85 4:11 82, 93, 134 5:21-24 85 4:11-12 92-93, 95, 98 5:34 91 4:11-20 83 5:25-34 85 4:12 89, 91-92, 95, 5:35-43 85 130, 135 6:3-44 86 4:13 89, 91, 130, 135 6:4 42 4:13-20 47, 54, 87, 93- 6:14-16 86 94, 102 6:30-44

8:14-21 86-87, 91 8:22-26 86-87 8:27-33

10:14-15

10:17-31

10:23-25 82-83 10:28-31 83 10:32 91 10:32-34

10:35-37, par 298 10:35-41 91 10:46-52 87 10:47-48

ch. 11

11:1-10 85 11:11 84

11:12-25 84

11:27-33 84, 89 ch 12 85

12:1, par 153, 292

12:1-9 [10-11] 32

12:1-10, par 300 12:1-12 38,70,81,84 , 89, 158 12:9 160-61 12:12 162-63 12:13 163

12:13-17 84

12:18-27 84

12:28-31 277 12:28-34 85 12:34 82

12:35-44 84 ch . 13 83-85, 178 13:1-37 253

13:28 39

13:28 [29] 32

13:28-29 33, 44,8 1 13:33-37 81

13:34 [32-33, 35-37] 32 12:34 83 14:3-9 91 14:25 82 14:32-42 91 14:47 91 14:50 91 14:58 43 14:66-72 91 15:39 82, 91 15:43 82-83

Luke chs. 1- 2 129

1:5-2:52 139 1:26-56 132 2:5-7 132 2:19 132 2:22 132 2:25-35 207 2:33-35 132 2:36-38 207 2:39 132 2:41-51 132 2:49 213,25 3 2:52 139 3:9 170 3:10-14 235 3:16 298 4:14-9:5 0 126 4:16-30 209 4:23 33, 39, 42, 47 4:24 136 4:43 136,213,25 3 5:27-32 202 5:30 202 5:32 203, 228 5:35 181 5:36 207 5:36-38 44 6:12-16 136 6:20 221,29 1 6:20-21 23 3 6:20-49 287 6:24-25 23 3 6:27-36 21 3 6:37-38 95 6:38 94, 132 6:39 42 6:47 290 6:47-49 286-91,30 4 6:48 288 6:49 290 7:1 291 7:13 211,28 0 7:16 136 7:29-30 157 7:31-35 274 7:36-50 214 7:39 136, 202 7:41-42 [43-47] 33

7:41-43 44, 48 ch 8 130 8:1 125, 127, 130, 136 8:1-15 129 8:2-3 130 8:3 298 8:4 130 8:4-15 125, 127-36 8:5-7 128 8:5-8 133 8:8 127-28, 130-31, 136 8:10 125, 134 8:11-15 127-28,134 8:15 127, 130-31, 136, 146 8:16-18 94, 127, 129, 131-32 8:18 127, 130, 132, 136, 189 8:19-21 127, 132 8:21 127, 130, 131, 136 8:22 131 8:23-25 132 8:32-33 210 9:10-17 274 9:22 213, 253 9:22-26 129 9:43-48 129 9:44 253 9:49, par . 298 9:51 137, 139 9:51-56 168 9:51-13:2 1 137 9:51-19:27 126, 137, 139, 168, 244 9:51-19:44 201 9:53 280 9:57 168 9:57-62 294 9:62 42 ch. 10 265 10:1 168

10:13 172

10:21-22 90 10:25 276

10:25-37 207, 263-65, 276-84

10:27-29 169

10:29-30 277-78

10:30-35 31, 41, 46, 48

10:30-35 [36-37] 33

10:30-37 4, 33, 169, 233

10:31-32 278 10:33 211, 279-80

10:33-36 280-81

10:37 45, 281-82

10:38 168

10:38-42 207 11:1 255

11:1-4 241, 244

11:1-13 241, 245, 253 11:3 242

11:4 271

11:5-7 248

11:5-7 [8] 33

11:5-8 31, 186, 24052, 254, 257, 261

11:5-13 244

11:6-8 255

11:7 242,254,257-5 8

11:8 240, 243, 246, 248, 250, 255, 258

11:9 246

11:9-10 169, 240-41, 245, 252

11:9-13 244

11:11-13 169, 240, 252

11:31 73 11:32 136 11:33 94, 96, 132 11:42 229 11:53 168 12:1 220, 222

12:2 94, 132 12:4 220 12:6-7 221 12:12 25 3 12:13 220, 22 1 12:13-21 210,217-24 , 232-38 12:14 221 12:14-15 169 12:15 221,23 3 12:16 222 12:16-20 [21] 33 12:16-21 31, 33,46 , 169, 23 3 12:17-19 222 12:20 218, 222,23 6 12:21 222-23, 233 12:22-31 221, 244 12:27-31 224 12:32 220 12:32-34 22 1 12:33 33, 228 12:35 169 12:35-38 44, 297 12:35-38 [40] 33 12:35-48 180 12:39 44 12:39 [40] 33 12:42-46 228 12:44 226 12:48 186 12:49-59 169 13:1-5 169-71 13:1-9 169 13:2-5 170 13:4 29 3 13:5 171 13:6-9 5, 45, 151-75, 152, 168-72, 175 13:10-21 203 13:14 253 13:16 213 13:18 71, 125

13:18-19 125, 127, 137, 138

13:18-21 137-44, 138 13:19 97, 139-41 13:20-21 125, 127, 13739 13:21 139, 142 13:22 137 13:22-30 169, 275 13:22-17:10 137 13:24 293 13:25-27 [2830] 33 13:32-33 43 13:33 168,213 , 253 13:34-35 169 ch. 14 265 14:1-11 203 14:1-14 206 14:5 291 14:7-11 46 14:7-14 10, 213, 26365, 271-76, 282-84 14:8-10 [1 1] 33 14:12-14 272 14:13 206 14:15-24 7, 45, 67, 70, 162-66, 16768, 174-75, 202, 206, 275 14:16-21 163 14:18 202 14:18-20 164 14:21-22 163-64 14:23 163 14:25-27 292 14:25-33 203 14:25-35 206 14:28-30 291 14:28-30 [33] 33 14:28-33 286-87, 29195, 304 14:31-32 [33] 33

32 0

14:34-35 202

ch . 15 201, 203

15:1 220, 227

15:1-2 169, 201-2, 209, 213, 224

15:1-3 201-2

15:1-7 204-6

15:1-32 199-215, 233

15:2 202, 206, 220

15:3 44, 207

15:3-7 44

15:3-32 220, 224

15:3-16:13 224

15:4 208

15:4-6 [7] 33

15:4-7 201

15:4-10 30, 33

15:5-7 201

15:6 208

15:7 157, 201, 206, 208, 211, 213

15:8 208

15:8-9 [10] 33

15:8-10 44, 201, 207-9

15:9 201, 208

15:9-10 201

15:10 157, 201, 206, 208, 211, 213

15:11-24 209

15:11-32 30, 33-34, 41, 45, 47-48, 7172, 201-2, 20914, 224, 293

15:12-13 210,21 3

15:16-17 210 15:17 212

15:17-20 208 15:18 201, 211-12

15:18-19 211, 227

15:20 211,28 0 15:21 208, 211 15:22 211

15:23-24 201, 209, 212 15:24 157, 201, 210

15:25 212 15:25-32 209 15:28 212 15:28-30 201 15:29-31 212-1 3 15:31-32 209 15:32 201,210,21 3 16:1 224,23 6 16:l-8 a [8b-13] 33

16:1-8 41,45 , 201-2, 233-34 16:1-9 25 3 16:1-13 217-20, 22430, 232-38, 29 3

16:2-3 225 16:3-4 210 16:4 226

16:6-7 225-2 6 16:8 219,226-28,23 3 16:8-9 236 16:9 227, 228-29, 234

16:9-13 23 3 16:10-13 229 16:11-13 228, 229 16:14 220, 230, 23 3 16:15 206, 212, 229, 260

16:16 97, 136 16:19-21 230 16:19-31 31, 33, 46, 217-20, 23038, 289 16:20-22 225 16:22-23 231 16:23-31 218 16:24-31 231 16:31 234 17:1 295 17:5 295 17:6 97 17:7-9 295 17:7-9 [10] 33

17:7-10 44, 67, 286-87, 295-98, 304 17:9-10 296-97 17:11 168 17:11-19:27 137 17:20-21 253 17:20-37 180 17:22 253 17:22-37 253, 257 17:22-18 :i5 253 17:25 213, 253 17:26-27 289 17:26-29 253 17:32-33 253 ch. 18 249 18:1 169, 253-54 18:1-8 45, 207, 233, 236, 240, 24244, 252-58, 261, 293 18:2-5 186 18:2-6 [1, 7-8 ] 33 18:3 253 18:4-5 210, 227 18:5 242, 254 18:6 227 18:6-7 253-54 18:8 180, 253-54 18:9 206,214 , 253 18:9-14 46, 202, 207, 233, 240, 25860, 261 18:9-14a [9, 14b] 33 18:10-14 31, 33 18:11 229 18:13 227 18:14 157, 259 18:18 277 18:29 294 18:31 168 18:31b-33 253 18:31-34 127 18:35 168

Jame s 1:1 1:9-11 1:27 1:27-2:17 2:15 4:13-5:1 1

1 Peter 2:7 2:16 Revelation 21:23

NAG HAMMAD I TEXTS

Gospe l of Thoma s

Logion 5 132

Logion 6 132

Logion 8 15

Logion 9 133

Logion 20 138, 139, 143

Logion 33 94, 96, 132

Logion 41 132

Logion 63 235

Logion 96 138

CHURC H FATHERS

Irenaeu s (130-200) Against Heresies 4.36.7 299

Orige n (185-254)

Commentary on Matthew 15.32 299

Commentary on Matthew 15.36 299

Epiphaniu s (315403) Against Heresies (Panarion) 64,70.5-17 64-65

Chrysosto m (345407)

Gospel of Matthew, Homil y 24.3 288

Gospel of Matthew, Homil y 64.3-4 5,299

Augustin e (354-430)

Quaestiones Evangeliorum 2.19 4

Aquinas , Thoma s (1225-1274)

Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians 4:7 4

Calvin , Joh n (15091564)

Harmony on Matthew, Mark, and Luke 2.194 297

Harmony on Matthew, Mark, and Luke 2.264-67 299-30 0

GREEK AN D ROMAN

AUTHOR S

Aristotl e (384-322 BC)

The Art of Rhetoric 2.20 31

The Art of Rhetoric 1.406b 35

Quintilia n (AD 3595)

Institutio Oratoria, 8.6.8 35

Lucian of Samosat a (AD 120-200) The Passing of Peregrinus 242 RABBINIC LITERATURE

(Listed in Traditiona l Jewish Order )

Mishna h Sotah ("Suspected Adulteress") 9:15 51-52

Baba Kamma ("Firs t Gate" ) 7:7 71

Baba Metzia ("Middl e Gate" ) 3:10 185 Makkoth ("Stripes" ) 3:16 302

Aboth ("Sayings of th e Fathers") 1:3 296-97

Aboth ("Sayings of th e Fathers") 2:8 296-97

Aboth ("Sayings of th e Fathers") 2:16 302

Aboth ("Sayings of th e Fathers" ) 3:16 302

Aboth ("Sayings of th e Fathers") 3:17 302

3

Aboth ("Sayings of th e Fathers" ) 3:18 288-89

Babylonia n Talmu d (Gemarah )

Rosh ha-Shanah ("Ne w Year") 17b 67,7 1

Ketuboth ("Marriage Documents" ) 111b 114

Kiddushin ("Sanctification" ) 61b 72

Baba Kamma ("Firs t Gate" ) 82b 71

Baba Metzia ("Middl e Gate" ) 42a 185

Sanhédrin ("Courts" ) 91a-b 64-65

Abodah Zarah ("Idolatry" ) 17a 302

lerusalem / Palestinia n Talmu d (Gemarah )

Berakoth ("Benedictions" ) 2:8 301-2

Midrashi m Genesis Rabbah 41.1 63

Genesis Rabbah 71.6 [on Gen 30:1] 72

Gen Rabbah 98.6 [on Ge n 49:8] 72

Leviticus Rabbah 4.5 64-65

Leviticus Rabbah 13.4 [on Lev 11:2] 72

Deuteronomy

Rabbah 2.24 [on Deut 4:30] 72 Ecclesiastes

Rabbah 5.11.5 301 Ecclesiastes

Rabbah 9.8.1 67 Song of Songs

Rabbah 1.1.8 73 Song of Songs

Rabbah 6.2.6 301-2 Lamentations

Rabbah 1.7.34 72

Midrash Proverbs 16:11 67

Othe r Texts an d Collection s

Sifra ("Book" ) Leviticus [on Lev 26:9] 301

Sifra ("Book" ) Leviticus 194 [on Lev 18:1-30] 68

Sifre ("Books") Deuteronomy

53 [on Deut 11:26] 71

Sifre ("Books") Deuteronomy

345 [on Deut 33:4] 72

Sifre ("Books") Deuteronomy

352 [on Deut 33:12] 72

Mekilta ("Measure" ) on Exod 15:1 64

Mekilta ("Measure" ) on Exod 20:2 67,6 8

Mekilta ("Measure" ) on Exod 14:5 71

Seder Elijah Rabbah 28 69

Semahot 8:10 67

Aboth de R. Nathan 14.6 67

Pesikta Rabbati 44.9 72

Targu m

Neofiti on Gen 32:11 72