Parables of Jesus (U136-001)

            There are numerous sayings which either the biblical texts call parabole (mashal in Hebrew) or modern scholars identify as parable-like or parabolic sayings.  A number of these are listed in the Parables Handbook on p. 162 and their texts given on pp. 179f.  They do not strictly tell a story but these sayings provide images, metaphors or similes that the gospel writers find useful and enlightening.

            In class we studied briefly the parabolic sayings of Mark 4:21-22 and 24-25, known as the "lamp" and the "measure."  Within their Markan context these sayings help Mark to further underscore the community's apocalyptic concerns.  The lamp addresses the critical issue of mission (light shining to all in the house) and of productivity (measure and reward).  At this point we focused considerably on how the sayings functioned in the broader context of Mark 3:21-4:35f (see earlier studies of parables from this Markan chapter). 

            Further we examined the crucial text of Matt 25:31-46 (the last judgment), a text which is hardly a parable but instead a composite judgment scene which brings Matthew's eschatological discourse to a climax.  In this passage Matthew addresses the issue of judgment as reward for acting as God does, i.e., showing love and mercy to humanity (see Deut 13:4 and passages on God's care for humanity) and for seeing christian morality as motivated by love for God, God's messiah Jesus, and personified in one's fellow believers (see 10:40; 18:5, 20).  Again we focused on the Matthean discourse of chapters 24-25 and its climax in the "last judgment" scene (here also you should refer to our earlier study of other parables from this Matthean discourse). 

            Lastly, two parabolic sayings found in Luke 7:31-8:3 would have been considered (time permitting), particularly the "children in the market place" (vv. 31-35) as commenting on the roles and activity of John and Jesus and "the two debtors" (vv. 41-43) as illustrating Jesus' mission to sinners and God's benevolent love for humanity (the latter was seen earlier on day 10).  Here the sayings were to be situated within their larger Lukan context of 7:1-8:3.

            Other parabolic sayings are used in the gospels and serve the writers' goals and strategies in communicating with their intended audiences.  Parables and parabolic sayings are teaching tools for speakers and writers, not the least of whom are well represented by Jesus of Nazareth and his chroniclers: Mark, Matthew, and Luke--Thomas, at best, presents a few interesting footnotes for the study of parable usage in the early church and some nice clues for our study of parable interpretation.

            Note: parable exam on Monday (4/3/06).  Same format as earlier "parable" exam.  Note also, the exam will cover only the parables seen since the last exam, i.e., from 3/10, #s 13 through 21.

            The parable of "the wicked tenants" is well known, its story familiar to NT readers or church goers, since it appears to be a mini-gospel or a telling of the story of Jesus' death in an indirect and overtly polemical way.  Of course the indirectness stems from the parable's very nature as a parable (a story about tenants that is understood [by some] as referring to Jesus' fate), and its polemical character owes to the context in which it appears; see particularly Mark 12:12 where the Jewish authorities' reaction is described: "when they realized that he told this parable against them, they wanted to arrest him...."

            The Story.  This parable appears in all three Synoptics (Mark 12:1-12; Matt 21:33-46; and Luke 20:9-19) in essentially the same context, i.e., Jesus' Jerusalem ministry, following his entry into and cleansing of the temple and in the context of repeated encounters with the Jewish authorities.  The story also appears in the Gospel of Thomas (65).  The story is straight-forward enough: a man sets up a vineyard and leases it to tenant farmers prior to leaving the country.  At harvest time the man attempts to collect his produce, but rather than pay up the tenants rough up the servants sent.  In an attempt to reestablish his authority the man sends his son but he is killed by the tenants who desire to take over the vineyard.  At this point various elements are added either to transform the story into a parable (question about the reaction of the owner and even the response--Mark 12:9) or to comment further on its possible application (the response about destruction of tenants, giving of vineyard to others, and especially the scriptural text about the cornerstone and the polemical statement cited concerning the Jewish authorities).

            Some Cultural Observations.  Rather than proceed, as we did in class to the difficulties presented by the parable, we might briefly note a few cultural items.  Absentee landlords were a common phenomenon in a country like Palestine, where many Jews of the Diaspora had holdings in their homeland.  The sending of collection agents at harvest time would have resonated with real life experience, even the sending of a son who would presumably represent more officially the father's interests.  Further, in legal terms one would understand the situation as an attempt by tenants or squatters to establish fact, i.e., create a legal situation by seizing and claiming unowned property, particularly in the context of an absentee landlord, who resides out of the country--his heir is not dead.  Other features could be investigated (see Boucher in PH, 157--especially the non-burial of the son as an "ultimate indignity").

            Finally two other cultural notes, both involving the use of the Jewish scriptures, are in order.  1) In Christian terms (Christianity is about the kerygma: Jesus' death and resurrection) one would note that a story that ends with the death of the son, especially if hearers identified this son as Jesus, would lead almost inevitably to the need to expand the ending to include a reference to the resurrection--note that Thomas does not possess such a reference.  In fact Mark adds a text about the rejected cornerstone (= Ps 118:22-23) to suggest that the risen Jesus is now the community's centerpiece.  Clearly this was a christian addition at some point in the tradition's development.  2) It will be noted that in the Markan and Matthean versions, not only did the landowner plant a vineyard but (in Markan terms--v. 2) he "put a fence around it, dug a pit for the wine press, and built a watchtower."  This embellishment is clearly influenced by the Isaian "song of the vineyard" (5:1-2).  Importantly neither Luke nor Thomas show this OT influence.  Additionally, later verses of the "song" (vv. 7-8) probably led to allegorizing interpretation concerning produce.

            Some Initial Problems.  Not only does the parable and even its story show traces of possible editing (influence of Isaiah on planting of vineyard and hint about the theme of resurrection), there are other important clues to basic changes.  1) The number of envoys and their treatment varies in all versions.  The most basic, that of Thomas (2 servants and a son, i.e., 3 envoys), is the most clearly folkloric and probably original .  Seemingly tradition has witnessed many changes, already in Mark (3 servants, others, plus a son), and Matthew (2 embassies rather than single servants plus a son), and Luke (3 servants and a son).  Seemingly the authors are historicizing the story --see their treatment of the "wedding feast or dinner" (day 6 ).

            Another likely change is the addition of "beloved" in characterizing the landowner's son (Mark 12:6).  This is probably a Markan addition since that title appears at 1:11 and 9:7 in the address by the heavenly voice.  Further one notes the change concerning the son's death outside the walls as in Matthew and Luke rather than inside as in Mark--the former allow the story of Jesus' death to influence their version of the story.

            More important are the two following questions.  Who is responsible for the question at the end of the story: "what will the owner do?"  Is it Jesus or later tradition? And especially who responds and what is the expected response?  Is this a challenge on Jesus' part to the religious establishment and the dispossession of the Jewish authorities?  A second question concerns Jesus' predicting his own death, but without reference to the resurrection.  Both or either seem unlikely.

            The Jesus Level.  We should logically turn to the Jesus level at this point, and the crucial issue is: did Jesus tell the parable about his own death and the disinheritance of Israel or did the early community create the story?  Either is possible and, at first blush, demands some basic conclusion, choices, or presupposition about the historical Jesus and the early church.  Perhaps we could approach the issue in another way.  What category would this parable fit into: the fourth about readiness and repentance (see Boucher) or the third about challenge--the acceptance of God's agent son?  In the latter case one might argue for an autobiographical use whereby Jesus might have viewed his ministry as the climax of God's dealings with humanity.  Thus an agent son, logical for the story as the owner's alter ego, would then have been seen as God's agent personified in Jesus' life and claims of special sonship (see the Jesus tradition's use of "abba father"); from there, there developed a story about Jesus the son, who meets his destiny in Jerusalem, a story that becomes a subtle, mini-life of Jesus.  One might even see here Jesus' gradual realization that growing opposition to his message and mission was not going to end peacefully.  Finally, one should probably reject as Johannine (John 3:16) the assertion by Donahue (54-55) that the parable is theological in intent, since it speaks of a certain type of owner who would send his own son and thus suggest that God, in Jesus, sends humanity its ultimate gift.  This is indeed a difficult parable, especially on the Jesus level.

            We now turn to the Interpretations of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and Thomas. First, Mark.  Jesus is in Jerusalem in the Markan story.  He has driven out the money changers (11:1a), has declared the temple barren (like a fig tree without fruit--11:12f & 20f).  He is then made to confront the Jewish leaders in five successive controversy stories concerning his authority and teaching.  It is within this series that Mark chooses to situate the wicked tenants parable.  In this context the parable serves in Mark as a mini-gospel, or a mini-story of Jesus' life and role.  Clearly, for Mark, who likely edited "son" to "beloved son" and added the "cornerstone" saying at the end of the parable (12:10), Jesus is the son who is killed by the wicked tenants (the gospel implies that Jesus is aiming at the Jewish leaders--v. 12).  Beyond telling the narrative about Jesus' death as God's agent, Mark also addresses, as would be expected, the community's apocalyptic  concerns.  Thus, the community of Mark would be the new tenants (v. 9), tenants who are expected to be productive in ethical and missionary terms, whether as fruitful soils, through mission to all nations, or in following Jesus on the road to mission.  The last mentioned, Jesus, is to be the amazing cornerstone of the movement or church and the one that will lead them in mission.  Finally, this new structure, the vineyard is promised God's protection despite troubles (see 13:9-11), troubles that many in the community nonetheless interpret as signs of the endtime (chapters 13 generally and 4:17).

            Secondly, Matthew.  While the Matthean context (21:1-23:39) is quite similar to and in fact derived from the Markan narrative, it is in fact quite different in tone, focus, and content.  The entire section is addressed to and the tone elevated as controversy with the Jewish authorities.  The initial Jerusalem ministry is given considerably more to Jewish opposition (see 21:12-17) and the questioning of Jesus' authority by the Jewish leaders.  Thus the first controversy story about John the Baptist and Jesus (21:23-27), borrowed from Mark (11:27-33) leads to three parables about Jewish issues, the first "the two sons" from the community's oral tradition (21:28-32), the second "the wicked tenants" from Mark (12:1-12), and a third "the marriage feast" from the Q-Source (22:1-14).  After these parables the remaining Markan controversies are added (there follows an entire chapter of "woes" against the scribes and Pharisees).  The parables themselves address Jewish-christian relations, morality, and refer to authority figures and the various responses of subordinates: whether sons, tenants, or invitees in the two sons, the wicked tenants, or marriage feats, respectively.  Again we are confronted with the Matthean community's dialogue or polemics with the "synagogue across the street"--see Donahue, Parable, 85f.  These parables, including the wicked tenants, afford the Matthean author a number of opportunities to focus on Jewish history whereby the community hears about itself as the new Israel, the one who said "yes" to God's invitation but also it allows for the sad realization that many (those "wretches" of v. 41) are dispossessed and punished.  They realize too that they are the new tenants of the vineyard. But one notes that the new tenants are warned that they are required to give the householder "the fruits in their seasons" (v. 41).  The Jewish-christian community is the nation that is to produce the fruit which the original tenants did not--there is of course a warning that they too can be dispossessed if they do not produce in their turn.,

            Thirdly, Luke.  This Gospel follows Mark closely in its use of the wicked tenants (20:9-19).  Again one encounters Jesus in a controversy context, after his lament over the city and entry into the temple area (19:28f).  Also within this context one finds the tenants parable as a further elaboration of Jesus' story, his role in God's plan, and Jesus as a sign of contradiction and division for Israel (see 2:34--the crowds believe but the authorities do not: 19:47, 48; 20:5-6, 19).  Other minor modifications allow Luke to stress favorite themes such as the tragedy of Jewish refusal (vv. 16 and 18) and the responsibility of the Jewish authorities for Jesus' death (20:14f and 19).

            Fourthly, Thomas.  A Gnostic reader would see in the story of Jesus a number of clues that would lead to a Gnostic reading, whether the "good man" or householder as a description of the High God and the vineyard as the earthly domain that generally rejects the revealer son of the "good man."  Additionally the believer is warned (and the non-Gnostic is invited) not to reject the bringer of salvific knowledge as did the wicked tenants.

            Thus a complex, edited story has served a number of gospel writers to tell the story of Jesus as a means to address their respective communities' needs and situations.  How much of the basic story goes back to the Jesus level is hard to say, but it is plausible to conjecture that Jesus told a story about an owner who, after repeated failures to get paid in produce, sends his special, "power-of-attorney bearing servant" in a crisis situation. Such a story of warning, seeking a change of mind on the part of rebellious employees, would have led either to a historicizing telling of the story as leading to death as in Jesus' life or to have actually hinted at the tragic ending of such a situation and the punishment of the perpetrators.  Regardless, the story in its present written form and setting shows much evidence of editing and allegorizing and indeed historicizing.  In its present, various versions the parable is and functions as a mini-gospel.

            Once again several reasons can be cited for studying these parables together.  On the one hand, they are all Lukan in origin and so will allow us to focus more fully on important Lukan themes and, on the other, they all belong to the "challenge" category (see Boucher's discussion).  In Luke, while all three appear within Jesus' journey to Jerusalem (as do most Lukan parables), they are placed in considerably different contexts and are used to underscore a variety of thematic nuances.

            The Friend at Midnight (11:5-8): story, Lukan usage, and Jesus level. a. This is the story of an inopportune friend, someone who attempts to borrow bread late at night.  It is inconvenient for the friend, as friend even, to grant the request, but does so to get rid of this persistent individual.  In cultural terms it is important to note that the request is urgent owing to the important context of hospitality and the initial refusal despite the crucial note about friendship.  Further, the note about the locked door (the layout of the home) and the repose of the children suggests that the father is positioned in front of the door as guardian and that it will be most inconvenient and that he would wake everyone to get the requested item.

            An added note should be made here concerning the story's use (also true for the "widow and unjust judge") of "from lesser to greater" logic ("a minore ad maius"), "if this lesser one does...how much more the greater one will do."

            b. The Lukan context is familiar (see day 10 on the "good Samaritan") for it relates to the lawyer's question about "inheriting eternal life" and Jesus' response (from the Torah) concerning the two all-important commands about love of God and of neighbor (see 10:35f).  Luke directs attention first to "love of neighbor" (10:29f--the "good Samaritan"), and after inserting a short episode concerning Jesus' role (listening to the Lord's word as the "better thing"--see "Martha and Mary story of 10:38f), Luke directs attention in an extended and complex way to the "command" regarding God (11:1-13).  So the immediate context is that of the believer's relation to  God.  Luke focuses immediately on the issue of prayer, prayer to God.  It is at this point that Luke inserts the famous Q passage, the "Lord's prayer" (11:1-4) which is followed by two further passages, first the parable under consideration about necessity or persistence of prayer (the "friend at midnight"--11:5-8) and then a series of sayings about searching and asking, sayings which address the issue of
efficacy of prayer (11:9 13).

            What then does Luke intend by the use of this parable?  After having insisted that Jesus is the revealer of God's secrets (10:21-24) and having presented his teaching on prayer to God and on the needs of neighbor and believer, Luke then speaks about God's nature as one who listens to prayer.  In view of the parable of the "friend at midnight" or of the "inopportune friend," as it is also called, it is clear that Luke insists that God is more a friend than a friend or more a parent than a parent.  The believer is told to "pray," to "ask" (11:2f, 9), and to rest assured that God ("your Father") knows what is needed and will give (the Spirit) to those who ask (v. 13).  The believer must persist in asking, being assured that even if a friend might, owing to inconvenience, be reluctant to respond, how much more likely is God, who desires nothing more, will respond to human requests (use of "from lesser to greater" logic). Luke then uses this parable at this point to insist on one further, important characteristic of prayer to and love of God for those who follow Jesus.

            c. See treatment below where the "friend" and the "widow" parables will be examined together for their meaning on the Jesus level.

            The Slave's Wages (17:7-10): story, Lukan usage, and Jesus level. a. This is a short parable about a servant or slave's duty.  In what is apparently a small household, a servant does both field and house work.  After having done the former, he still has responsibilities to attend to; he must do housework in the guise of serving the master at the evening meal. His work is not finished until he has fully accomplished his duties.  Though tired he still is a servant who has duties to accomplish.  Servants are simply called upon to do their duties; one neither becomes a servant of one's servants nor does one thank servants for doing their duty.  The issue simply is that of the nature of the relationship between master and servant.  The servant's job is that of being a true or perfect servant.

            b. Once again one must seek the more general Lukan context, namely Jesus' teaching, while on his Jerusalem journey, about the use and misuse of wealth, especially 16:1-17:10 (see already day 15 on the "unjust manager"), which provides repeated statements about true riches and responsibility.  The more immediate context (17:1f), however, is even more crucial for the Lukan interpretation.  Jesus speaks to his disciples about discipleship as doing one's duty (including the handling of wealth).  They are not to be the occasion of sin for others (17:1f--this a negative expression of "love of neighbor"--indeed even God is requested "not to lead" the believer "into temptation"--see 11:4).  Additionally, they have the duty to forgive (vv. 3f--even more than 7 times a day--Matt 18:21-22) and must have a robust faith (vv. 5f).  Ultimately, they are called upon to obey God in the manner of servants doing their duty toward and responding to the will of God, their master.  At this point it is not the theme of call or even joy that are the focus of the Lukan Jesus but rather the simple statement of the servant's duty toward the ultimate master.

       c. In the teaching of Jesus (though not seen in class), this short servant-master story seemingly addresses the human response to the divine call or initiative.  The human being's job is that of responding to the challenge of being a servant.  It is the nature of the servant to perform a duty toward the master.  Thus, the servant is paid (so the title: the "servant's wages") or rewarded for doing a job and has no claim to the master's special gratitude.  Servants are expected to do their job.  So Jesus applies this parable to the kingdom; servants or believers are called upon in obedience to do their job vis-a-vis the kingdom.  The call to the kingdom makes one a "servant of the kingdom" and so requires a response on the part of the one called.  We must therefore conclude that the kingdom operates on the level not of merit but of gratitude or response to the call.

            The Widow and the Unjust Judge (18:1-8): story, Lukan usage, and Jesus level.  a. A powerless or poor widow seeks justice from a merciless, unsympathetic judge who, to get rid of this persistent client, grants her justice or a favorable hearing.  The judge is type-cast, of course, for he fears neither God nor humans and the widow is a favorite scriptural example of the poor and marginalized.  Additionally, the story is not about the judicial system (how to wear down an unjust judge) but about the attainment of justice through persistence.

            b. The Lukan context for this last parable is provided by the final segment of Jesus' Jerusalem journey (17:11-18:30--see day 9 on the "Pharisee and tax collector"--Luke 18:9-14).  After a series of statements about the kingdom (necessity of faith, kingdom as present, and the coming of the son of man), Luke presents two parables on the topic of prayer and the kingdom (the "widow" and the "Pharisee and tax collector").  Jesus introduces the topic by insisting that his followers "pray always and not lose heart" (18:1).  The "widow" parable is given as an example of persistence in prayer.  Luke's point is that, if persistence in prayer can move even an unjust, cold-hearted judge, how much more will it move God, who listens "to his chosen ones who pray to him day and night (18:7), to grant justice to believers.  In hard times especially (when the going gets rough), one must persist in prayer, for God is just and responds to persistent prayer.  One should note too, for Luke, that one's attitude at prayer also makes a difference--this is the point of the following parable, the "Pharisee and tax collector"--there is a need for humility or proper attitude "before God."

            c. The Jesus level for both the "friend at midnight" and the "widow" (as above--not seen in class--note that all three parables represent the third category) illustrates the principle of "from lesser to greater," i.e., if a friend, parent, or judge might have reasons for refusing a request, there is no way that God, who is faithful, would refuse.  For both parables the message is that the proper human response before God (in view of the kingdom) is persistence in prayer and faith in God's justice.  God knows and will give what is needed (God indeed is a bountiful God--see Luke 11:13).  Not all the inconvenience in the world (the friend), not self preservation (the judge) will deter God's response to prayer or request; God responds and is motivated out of bountiful love.  So the presupposition of both stories is that God gives to those who need and the response expected is the believer's activity, i.e., the believer only need ask "with persistence."  God's activity both requires a human response and guarantees a divine answer.

            Conclusion on the three parables and the Jesus level.  One presumes here a loving, compassionate God who creates humanity and knows what they need (they are made according to God's likeness and image--see Gen 1:26-27) and gives to those who ask.  Believers must ("wages") relate to God as creator or master (response) and must persist in asking for what they need (not "want": "friend" and "widow"--see also the "Lord's Prayer"--'"give us each day our 'necessary bread'").  Thus we might read Luke 12:30-31 (see parallels in Matt 6:32-33): "your Father knows that you need [all these things].  Instead, strive for his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well."

            The choice of these two parables is motivated by several factors, not the least being that they both belong to  Boucher's first category and another by the occasion these parables provide for a further study of Mark 4, Matthew 13, and Luke 13.  For the latter, it should be noted that we have already looked, several times, at these Synoptic chapters in studying other parables.  But now that we have had ample opportunity to grasp the methodology and to appreciate more fully the importance of context in interpreting the parables at the written level, this is a good opportunity to look at important passages for all three Synoptics and to appreciate more fully their use of these parables and more generally to understand either their purpose for writing (important to review here as we saw in class today) or a theme of major concern for a given author.

            1) The "seed growing secretly": the story, the context, and Mark's interpretation.  This is one of three seed parables Mark uses in chapter 4: the "sower," the present parable, and the "mustard seed."  Once again we are dealing with an agricultural story which involves sowing, growing (stages: stalk, head, full grain), and the harvesting process (activity once again/sickle).  The unique feature of this story however is the fact that the seed grows in some mysterious way despite the inactivity or the lack of awareness on the sower's part.  There is clearly an emphasis here on the dynamism of the growth process for not only is it stated that the sower goes about his business and is unaware of this agricultural activity, but even that the earth produces of itself.  So there is in this story a number of promising elements (for someone who wishes to use the parable to teach): activity/inactivity/activity, overall process (as in other seed parables), and dynamism (as in "yeast" parable).

            The Markan context once again is chapter 4 and its revealing structural features.  As noted in earlier lectures (see days 4 and 8) the parable chapter is so arranged as to underscore the central function of vv. 13-20, namely, the allegorical "interpretation of the sower" which dwells on the community's problematic situation (we tried to "intuit" it during today's class and not depend too much on my handout and its diagram).  In this way the "sower" provides elements for Mark's discussion of the community's problems, elements (different soils) which are developed in the "explanation" or allegory.  Thus, the author knows that the community is interpreting its bad times or persecution as signs of the endtime or apocalyptic return of Jesus (see 13:5f).  By means of the various parables and parabolic sayings Mark insists that the insider or believer (see the development of the insider/outsider theme in 3:21f; 4:10-12, and 33-34) must or should understand the following.  a) The sowing process involves different types of soils (don't be surprised at negative and positive yields--in fact much of this is related to the community in the "explanation or allegory of the sower").  b) By means of the saying about the lamp and measure Mark has the opportunity to insist on the theme of mission (light shining, use of one's measure --> see 13:10 about preaching the good news).  c) Each of the seed parables underscore further the concept of harvest and therefore the crucial importance of mission.  d) In the "mustard seed" the insider is sent an urgent warning: do not fall away despite the meager appearance of the kingdom's beginning, for there will be a great shrub and at that time one will be able to appreciate the great results of the vast mission (symbolism of the birds).  e) In this context then what does the "seed growing secretly" add to Mark's message to the beleaguered, straying community?  By means of this story Mark insists that the great harvest will come after the sowing and growth, for there is a dynamism in this process.  Indeed there is a plan and one must not hurry or force it.  Even the master sleeps or seemingly does not seem involved.  This is a sign of divine dynamism--the labor is found in the sowing and harvest. At present all seems quiet and uneventful, but don't be deceived.  Despite meager appearances there is growth that will lead to a great harvest, so do not fall and "keep your nose to the grind" as you work in and for the kingdom.  Hope the above summarizes some of today's discussion.

            2. The "seed growing secretly" and the Jesus level.  This story should be listed with the parables of the first category, namely, about the coming and nature of the kingdom.  Like the other seed parables this one speaks of the kingdom's coming, initially as a small reality, but beyond that it also describes how it comes: small beginnings --> process of growth --> over time --> climax in the harvest.  Additionally, its growth is mysterious and its dynamism unmistakable and beyond human activity.  The seed is sown and, in God's hands, the rest is inevitable.  Whether this parable, in Jesus' hands, alludes in an autobiographical way to Jesus' ministry and would amount to a self-defense is debatable (see Boucher's comments on this). What is most impressive here, in light of the story itself, is the mysterious presence, character, and growth of God's kingdom and the confort and assurance this should give to the believer.

            3. The "yeast": the story, its Matthean and Lukan contexts and respective interpretations.  a) A homely image taken from the kitchen and bread making, it speaks of the dynamism of yeast, as well as its hidden character, as it affects the dough.  The yeast is at work, though hidden, and its affect is proportionally revolutionary.  The story characteristically stresses the hugh amount of dough and the resulting vast amount of bread.  Note the further contrast in Thomas 96 between "little yeast" and "large loaves."

            b) The Matthean context is well known since we have from Day 4 considered a number of parables from chapter 13 (the "sower," & its "explanation," the "wheat and weeds" & its "explanation," the "mustard seed," the "treasure" and the "pearl," and finally the "fishnet").  In each case it was important to discern whether the given parable was placed by Matthew in the first part of the parable discourse (so addressed to the crowds) or in the second part (and so to the disciples--see vv. 36f).  In the present case, the parable of the "yeast" occurs in the first section of the speech and forms a pair with the "mustard seed" (one should note that Matthew also uses a parallel pair in the second part of the discourse: the "treasure" and the "pearl"--vv. 45-46).  It is addressed more generally then to the crowds (containing disciples) and focuses on the issue of outsiders.  While the "mustard seed:" speaks, in this same context, about the inevitable goal of the planting (grand tree with branches for the birds), that is, a harvest that will occur despite refusals and because of acceptance, the parable of the "yeast" suggests a different point.  The kingdom grows despite appearances, for God is at work.  The yeast represents the dynamism of growth which even human failures and apparently meager results cannot prevent.  Like the dough the kingdom will grow, will expand.  In more concrete terms, Matthew suggests that there is hope for unbelieving Israel (I did not mention this in class), or at least that God's plan makes sense and, like yeast hidden in the mass of dough, is at work and will be successful.  There is consolation then for the Jewish christians of the community and exhortation for all believers as they look to the future, final arrival of the kingdom.

            c) The Lukan context as we saw in studying Luke's use of the "mustard seed" (see day 4) is that of the present nature of the kingdom as seen in Jesus' ministry (we did not really get to do Luke, so what the heck--here goes).  Once again Jesus, while on his Jerusalem journey, addresses the crowds (12:54-13:21).  The speech is basically a call to conversion.  After a pointed call to repentance, expressed as a second chance (see 13:1-9 & discussion of day 16 of the "barren fig tree"), Luke turns to the issue of the present kingdom.  Already in the ministry of Jesus "wonderful things" (13:17) are happening, things that indicate that the kingdom has already begun.  God's power is evident in Jesus' healing of the "crippled woman" (13:10-17) and in the nature itself of the kingdom.  For the latter point (ie. the nature of the kingdom), two parables are presented: in vv. 18-19 the "mustard seed" promises great results, despite small beginnings and in vv. 20-21 the "yeast" speaks of a hidden power or dynamism that is already at work in the present.  The kingdom has begun and its power, though hidden and not easily detected, is at work.  Luke's readers will know of course that the teaching and mission of Jesus will have had tremendous results in their day as the Jesus movement  (chronicled in the Acts of the Apostle) spread throughout the Roman empire.  The disciples, in Luke's story about Jesus (the Gospel), are called upon to read the signs of the kingdom's presence as they walk with Jesus on the way to Jerusalem.  They are called upon to have faith, to believe in small beginnings, in the hidden activity and dynamism of God's power at work already in the kingdom.

            d. The Gospel of Thomas (96) deserves at least a short note, even if not seen in class.  Thomas speaks here of "the Father's kingdom," a term which for the Gnostic would refer not to a malevolent or evil divine being (or creator god) but to the "good God" or Father of Jesus.  Further, there is here, as in other parables, a contrast between small and large (little yeast and large loaves).  Lastly, one might stress Thomas' ethical concerns as underscored by the final warning--Gnostic believers must live in the world but with great care as they await full incorporation into the kingdom.

            4) The "yeast" and the Jesus level.  Here is another parable that probably deals with the nature of the kingdom.  The story is brief and its potential clear: yeast hidden in a large batch of dough will result in a humongous amount of bread.  There is in this story a presumption that the end result is already present or potentially present in the hidden beginnings.  This is a feature seized upon by Luke to stress the kingdom's present character.  The dynamics of the story however point to a more fundamental issue, that of hidden, dynamic activity.  For Jesus it is the divine dynamism of the kingdom that is seemingly the issue.  The kingdom is hidden and inevitable, like yeast in a batch of dough.  It is coming; it is growing, as we speak.  The kingdom is not about revolutionary change or growth (there were other, revolutionary notions about the messianic kingdom), but about hidden, gradual, even inevitable growth as God's power is let loose (we as christians would add) through the activity of Jesus and future disciples.  Once again Jesus would be using a female image (see the "lost coin") to describe God's activity vis-a-vis the kingdom.

          Hope these observations are meaningful and less stressful, as class probably was.  There is a need to review why each gospel was written, for usually that evangelist's use of a parable is related to that purpose or some other major theme.  Also reread the parable--with new eyes!

            Two short Lukan parables are the object of these brief observations (as you read these observations think once more of the methodology you need to follow in discussing the parable you choose for your take-home exam on parable interpretation).  The two parables we are here dealing with are first of all short stories (the "rich fool" and the "barren fig tree," 12:16-21 & 13:6-9, respectively) used by Luke to develop topics already treated at some length, namely inheritance and security, respectively.  The "rich fool" is a well-known story about a rich man who builds barns to store a bonanza crop as stored goods for many years.  However, at the moment of anticipated merriment reality emerges in the form of sudden death.  In the case of the "barren fig tree" one is confronted by an equally well-known fig tree story involving an owner who desires to get rid of an unproductive tree (after the standard three years of preparatory growth).  The gardener intervenes and proposes fertilization as a second chance; after this the tree will be cut down if it is still unproductive.

            The two parables have character.  One indulges in interior dialogue (the rich man with his soul) and the other employs dialogue between the master and the servant.  Additionally, the first is grandiose in character (crops, barns, many years along with an Epicurean touch) , while the second is more homey (a fig tree, fruit to eat, 3 years, and waste of soil).  Both however hint at eschatological or endtime realities, whether condemnation in death or judgment as being cut down.  Both also deal with food and possible merriment, one as hoped-for merriment which is cut down by death, the other as hoped-for enjoyment of fruit which fails to materialize.

            Lukan context and interpretation.  As usual the parables are situated in the Lukan journey (9:51f), indeed in the first segment of the journey (9:51-13:21--see already discussion of day 10).  The two are placed by Luke in two successive sermons, the "rich fool" in a discourse about discipleship and possessions (12:1 --> vv. 16-21) and the "barren fig tree" in a discussion of interpretation of the signs of the time (12:54 --> 13:6-9).

            a. The "rich fool" of Luke must be read especially in light of the three verses that introduce the parable.  There Luke presents a dialogue between someone in the crowd and Jesus about possessions, greed, inheritance, and more particularly about abundance and the meaning of life (12:13-15).  The parable is situated at this point (vv. 16-21) to emphasize that one must be rich toward God (see conclusion of v. 21).  The parable in other words, along with its introductory remarks about possessions, introduces a series of admonitions to the disciples: "do not worry" (22f), it is God's "good pleasure to give" (32f), etc; in short, be dressed, be ready (vv. 35, 40).  One's attitude toward possessions is a major concern for the Lukan reader and the "rich fool" is employed to address once again a favorite theme: God, possessions, and the kingdom.

            b. The "barren fig tree" also appears in a uniquely Lukan context, namely, that of false security.  After presenting a parable about readiness (12:54f--"going before a judge"), Luke introduces two examples of people who are caught unawares by an unexpected tragedy (13:1-3 and 4 5).  The believer might easily be fooled, as people generally are, that when there is no tragedy all is well.  This is false security, the Lukan Jesus insists; witness the tragedies that befell the innocent Galileans and Jerusalemites.  The parable of the "barren fig tree" is inserted at this point to insist that lack of tragedy or judgment in one's life is not to be interpreted as divine approval or blessing but rather as a second chance, a chance to repent and be productive.  One must focus on the present; that is what a second chance is all about, according to Luke.  Indeed, Luke will proceed in the following paragraphs (13:10f) to insist that there are already, in Jesus' ministry, signs of the beginning of God's reign, whether the healing of the sick (13:10-17) or the dynamism of divine activity among believers (parables of the "mustard seed" and of the "yeast"--13:18-19 and 13:20-21, respectively).

            A note on Thomas (63).  In the Gospel of Thomas the parable lacks context but seemingly is a straight-forward, severe statement against dependence on possessions.  The rich man even deceives himself in thinking that with all his possessions he will now "lack nothing."  For Thomas the material person as opposed to the Gnostic relies on possessions rather than on knowledge.

            Jesus level.  The two parables under consideration belong to Boucher's fourth category; that is,  they are calls to repentance or to be ready.  Further, they insist that one's attitude toward life must depend on one's goal.  a) The first parable, the "rich fool," describes people whose joys are the center or goal of their lives.  Their goal is to "eat, drink, and be merry."  There is no other motivation and they can perhaps subscribe either to the Epicurean goal ("for tomorrow we die") or to the perennial "fool" of Hebrew tradition ("the fool says in his heart, there is no God"--Ps 14:1).  In either case the attitude, whether intellectual or practical, is there is no God to depend on, no one to judge, to give or take away.  Yet the story denies this lack of wisdom, for the only future one has is with God, who rewards and punishes, who gives second chances (see below) and who gives gifts for proper use.  Perhaps one should cite a saying of Jesus (used by Luke at 12:34): "where your treasure is there your heart will be also"--one's goal or end in reality determines how one values things.

            b. The second parable, the "fig tree," is clearly a call to repentance.  It is a classic example of a second chance given by the owner, God in Jesus' view.  There is a warning about lack of productivity but there is in the story itself a time factor or delay of decisions or judgment.  Such a clue points to the interpretation as being a call for justice tempered by mercy.  There will be judgment but judgment itself is a call to action.  Note one could focus here on the characters involved and see the roles of God and Jesus and even of the fertilization as applying to Jesus' agency and ministry.

            The kingdom of God demands a proper attitude; it provides a call to repentance, to wise action, and especially to present soberness.  It is not the "eat, drink, and be merry" of the Epicurean which should motivate one's attitude toward the kingdom but another Roman proverb which should focus the believer's motivation: one must seize the moment (carpe diem) of God's call.

            Imagine: you thought you would die tonight (the "rich fool"), but at the last moment you are given another day or chance (the "barren fig tree").  The kingdom is like that. 

            Several Lukan parables will be the object of our observations, all three listed under category 3 (the challenge of the kingdom) by Boucher and used in two different contexts by Luke.

            The Unjust Manager in its Lukan usage.  The story reports accusations of mismanagement and fraud by a manager or steward who will therefore be dismissed from his position.  The story proceeds to show how this unjust manager will prepare for a jobless future.  To achieve this goal he will lower the amounts owed his master to ingratiate himself with the debtors--this clever or shrewd maneuver is praised by the master (we here presume that the "master" of v. 8a is the "rich man" of the story or parable and does not refer to Jesus).

            Important economic and moral notes should be underscored here.  On the one hand, the economic reality envisions ways to avoid usury or charging interest.  The master is to receive payment in kind from the loans, whether fifty jugs of olive oil or eighty containers of wheat.  The steward, before the start of the story, had already performed his dishonest deed by overcharging the clients.  But confronted by his discovery and imminent dismissal, he lowers the amounts (he reduces not the real but the added principal/interest), thereby correcting his dishonest action. His bleak future calls for a radical, present solution.  On the other hand, the story carefully stresses not dishonest gain but the radical correction of dishonest activity.

            Luke employs this risky financial imagery during the Jerusalem journey as Jesus discourses on the theme of rejection and acceptance (13:22-17:10).  It is particularly at the end of this long section, 16:1-17:10, that Jesus turns his attention to the "use and misuse of wealth."  Much of this section is about riches, whether parables about "rich men" or sayings about God and wealth, the Pharisees as lovers of money, or servants and their responsibilities (expressed in monetary terms).  The "unjust manager" is situated by Luke at the very beginning of this section (16:1-9) and is addressed to the disciples.

            Within this overall context of wealth, Luke uses this particular parable to underscore the shrewd use of wealth under one's control; the issue is one of use or abuse of wealth.  Indeed, Luke will comment immediately after the parable on the key to its understanding.  See 16:10-11: if one is faithful in or over a little, especially the wealth of others, then one can be "entrusted with true riches."  Luke is adamant, christians must engage or deal with wealth (described as dishonest wealth or mammon) not flee from it.  Christian disciples must live in the world in full confrontation with economics but still remain faithful to God while doing so.  One must be shrewd even in its use, for one must not be a slave to wealth (see v. 13).  Luke concludes in 16:13 that while one uses wealth one must act shrewdly and remember that God comes first, for one "cannot serve God and wealth."  Indeed Luke adds in v. 9 that one must use wealth as a means to gain entrance to  God's "eternal houses."

            Jesus' reason for using the "unjust manager."  One might begin by speaking of the parable's classification--it is a parable of challenge.  The story of an unjust, soon to be unemployed, steward is an apt analogy for a listener who is confronted by kingdom preaching.  Jesus' listener is told that prudence or shrewdness is needed to remain in God's good graces, especially in extreme situations.  Like the worldly-wise manager, the servant of the kingdom has a duty and it calls for shrewdness, intelligence , and wise action in view of the kingdom.  Like the manager the believer must act wisely, i.e., with the goal of being "welcomed" or cared for at judgment time.  Jesus' hearers are told, just as humans generally act out of self-interest in view of their well-being, so servants of the kingdom must be motivated by pending judgment and act wisely in preparation.  The parable implies that time is given and action is required, for despite unwise action vis-a-vis the kingdom, one must and still might act with prudence or shrewdness in view of ultimate judgment.

            Perhaps 16:8b, taken in a positive sense, is a commentary on the original message of the parable, namely, that the children of light must be as shrewd in dealing with the kingdom as are the children of this age in dealing with their own generation.

            Finally, a few words on the twin parables: the 'tower builder" and the "warring king"  (Luke 14:28-32), texts we did not study in class--I give their explanation here for your edification.  Two short stories are used by Luke in a short discussion about the cost of discipleship (see PH 170-71).  The first uses architectural, the second military imagery.  Both are concerned with proper behavior in their respective domains. The first speaks of using proper means to build a tower or face general ridicule; the second of employing proper resources to win a war or face foolish defeat at the hands of a superior opponent.  The two parables seem to focus on motivation; one by dwelling on reputation, the other on consequences.  The Lukan context is that of discipleship (particularly in the context of table fellowship throughout chapter 14).  The one who wishes to follow Jesus (14:26) must count the cost.  Here, Luke has Jesus warn the hearer not to say "yes" too readily or lightly, for discipleship may mean or involve suffering and certainly demands much.  Discipleship is serious business; it requires total commitment.   Unwise failure is just as bad in its consequences as is rejection (see Luke 9:62 where fitness for the kingdom of God is described as putting one's hand to the plow and not looking back).

            These two short parables in the preaching of Jesus would also have addressed the theme of challenge for they are about self-testing.  They require that listeners estimate the "cost" of making the "treasure" their own.  In Jesus' preaching also this would amount to a word of caution to the eager.  Commitment is a serious and demanding thing and it offers two-edged consequences: rejection is terrible and commitment is either successful and wonderful or it is foolhardy and disastrous.  The kingdom demands total commitment; it should have priority or else the consequences are disastrous.  So these short parables, in Jesus' preaching, are about ultimate challenge and also about serious warning, for the challenge of the kingdom demands more than verbal, even enthusiastic commitment.  It requires a wise commitment to and a total marshaling of one's resources in view of God's kingdom.  Like the builder and like the king believers are committed to proper, wise activity in view of eschatological judgment.

            Since for pedagogical purposes the "lost sheep" parable (see day 2) was separated from its Lukan companions, the "lost coin" and the "lost sons," it seems only appropriate here that we stress the need to study these as a group, both in our study of Luke and of the Jesus level, since their plot dynamics and their usage, whether by Luke or by Jesus, point to such a need.

            Literary and cultural introduction.  Though in our class session we started directly with the Lukan context and the subsequent Lukan interpretation, we will here follow our usual procedure by starting with literary and cultural considerations.  The "coin," like the "sheep," parable presents a simple story, namely, that of a woman who loses and finds one of her precious silver coins.  As the sheep imagery spoke of the man's work world, so that of the coin addresses that of the woman's world, namely, the home.  The reaction and activity of the woman parallels that of the shepherd on finding and bringing home his lost sheep--some scholars conclude that Luke or early oral tradition is responsible for the creation or partial formation of this parable as a parallel to the "lost sheep."  One should note, however, that there exist a number of such parallel parables in the Jesus tradition.

            The second parable for our study (the third in Lukan terms) is in effect a double story about two different sons.  Though one usually only hears about the unforgettable first son who is characterized as the "prodigal son" (see title above), there is an equally engaging second son, actually an older brother, who is the subject of the second part of the parable.  The two are very different and their stories are parallel narratives rather than constituents of a unified story.  In fact only the father figure is constant, a fact which has led many, probably correctly, to use a title such as "the loving or merciful father" for the parable.  The title however would blur the important theme of "lost" items--perhaps one should speak of "the lost sons."  The story of the first part is picturesque: a young man (the younger son) renounces his patrimony, wastes his possessions, falls into destitution and, in desperation, seeks to return home.  While an important issue is the son's need not his repentance (this is a plot feature), the focus of the story is the father's joy and compassion.  The second part of the story depicts the elder son's reaction to his lost brother's return.  It is an unhappy situation and he refuses to accept his father's bountiful love for the wayward son.  Again of paramount importance is the father's joy and the open character of the ending--we do not know what the elder brother decided to do.

            Note, so far all we have are three "simple-to-complex" stories, that of a shepherd and his lost sheep (see earlier), that of a woman and her lost coin, and that of a father with his two unforgettable sons.  We have isolated these stories and will comment further on some important cultural features needed for a better understanding of the stories.  So far we have not attempted to interpret the stories.  Only after or as we examine their contextual use, Luke's placement and use of these in chapter 15, will we began the process of discerning the Lukan interpretation of these stories.

            One could reflect for a moment on the cultural features needed here to understand more fully the two domestic stories (the stories, not the interpretation, thus far).  In the case of the "coin" story one should probably view the monetary pieces as forming part of the woman' dowry, a type of jewelry set worn on special occasions--it would be priceless from the woman's point of view.  Additionally, the parable reflects the domestic setting of peasant homes which have virtually no light sources, thereby necessitating the lighting of a lamp in order to search the dark corners of the small dwelling.  In the case of the longer parable a number of cultural features merit some attention.  The story presumes the legal rights of inheritance (the son asks for "what is coming to him," i.e., his share of the estate).  When he returns, after giving up all his rights, the father restores his patrimony, symbolized by the robe, the ring, and the shoes.  Further, the following cultural note should be stressed--a proud Jewish man is reduced to feeding pigs (a clash between kosher and non-kosher realities).  The young man is presumed to have left his country (Israel) for a far away country in the Diaspora.  Also, there is the imagery of the banquet with its messianic and joyful connotation.  Finally, one should note another instance of the Lukan tendency to contrast female and male characters, first a male shepherd, a woman householder, and two sons and a father, the latter of whom clearly expresses the feminine characteristics of emotion and compassion.

            Lukan context and interpretation.  Again one must speak of Jesus' Jerusalem journey and his teaching along the way.  In a long section about reception and rejection and more particularly about the theme of discipleship and its character and demands (13:22f), Luke devotes an entire chapter to Jesus' ministry to the lost (chapter 15).  The chapter itself is sandwiched between considerations of fellowship or meals with Jesus (chapter 14) and considerations about the use and misuse of wealth as this relates to discipleship (chapters 16 and 17).  So chapter 15 must be considered both in its more general and its more immediate context.  a) Jesus' teaching at or about meals in chapter 14 prepares precisely for the accusation at the beginning of chapter 15 (vv. 1-2) that he associates and eats with sinners.  The issue is not only his ministry and care for sinners but also the nature of discipleship as fellowship symbolized by the meal, the breaking of bread together.  Also the concerns about wealth in chapters 16-17 will be reflected at various points in each of the parables of chapter 15: the shepherd and his valuable flock or the woman and her priceless, limited coins (they certainly do not wish to lose so valuable an asset) or the son who abuses his wealth and another who takes it for granted.  So much for the more general context.

            b) The more immediate context concerns lost objects or persons as symbolic of sinners or people alienated more generally from God.  The latter is Luke's more immediate concern.  The three parables are told, in Luke, to defend Jesus' ministry to such "lost" people. Indeed, the first two verses of the chapter merit being quoted at this point:
                        1Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him. 2And the
                        Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, 'This fellow welcomes sinners
                        and eats with them.'
Immediately there follow 3 parables: the "lost sheep," the "lost coin" and the "lost sons" (see discussion above of the title for this last parable).  These are presented in defense of Jesus' association (or fellowship) with and ministry to sinners.  The parables have a decidedly Christological purpose, i.e., they defend Jesus Christ's role as one who seeks the lost in God's name.  In the "sheep" as well as the "coin" parable, Jesus is the one who seeks and finds; he is the shepherd and the woman.  In this case, while remembering what we said about the Lukan interpretation of the "sheep" parable (see day 2), we turn our attention more fully to the "coin" parable.  The woman will not leave a rock unturned (so to speak) to find or recover her lost, valuable silver coin.  She will not simply search throughout the dark house but will light a lamp, search carefully, even sweeping in ever nook and cranny "until she finds it."  Luke wishes to apply as many of these features as possible to Jesus' ministry to the lost (i.e., sinners according to vv. 1-2 and 10).  These details are intended as reflections on the arduous character of Jesus' travels and labor in preaching to and seeking out those who are lost.  The story, in the Lukan version of the "lost sheep" and in the present story, continues by stating how the finder rejoices in a social way (with friends and neighbors) over the successful search.  Again Luke's insistence is on success and earthly and even heavenly joy over the finding of the lost or the repentance of the sinner (note how Luke adds the theme of "repentance" in the conclusion of the parables--there is no indication of "repenting" in the stories or parables themselves).  The story defends Jesus' activity and calls into question the reaction of those who disapprove (the Pharisees and Scribes in the gospel story and any would-be disciple who would later question the community's ministry to the poor, the outcast, the flagrant sinner).  Indeed, it insists that joy is the only normal reaction to such recovery.  Luke then adds that this joy is even more imperative since it is both human (social) and divine or heavenly (Luke adds a saying about "joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents"--v. 10; contrast this statement with the troublesome ending of the "sheep" parable in v. 7).

            We not turn to the longer parable, that of the two "lost sons or brothers" (vv. 11-24 and 25 32).  As noted earlier the picturesque telling of the first half of the story has captured the imagination of generations of Christian and other readers (also writers and painters--see the unforgettable story by Andre Gide).  The story has also encouraged much allegorizing and spiritual conjecture.  The basic story is that of a son who gets lost (the details on how this occurred are many: taking his share of the inheritance, renouncing his family and country, and, by implication, his ethnic and religious culture) and who, after much dissipation and hardship (again the details are many: distant country, dissolute living, famine, feeding pigs, extreme hunger), decides to return home.  Much is made in popular culture of his return, upon which his father welcomes him home with a restoration of his status and with a celebration.

            The shorter second part recounts the reaction of the elder son to the return of his lost brother.  Here too there is a certain amount of detail and drama (return from the field, the sounds and sights of celebration, and even the indirect report about his brother's return and the welcome by his father).  The refusal is further underscored in a dialogue between the elder son, and the father, the former contrasting the activity of the sons and the latter insisting on the father's love for both, whether the dutiful but sad son or the needy but profligate brother.  The final note again is that of  "necessary" joy for the return of the lost son and an open invitation to the elder son to do likewise.

            How then does Luke use this dual parable?  In the context of Jesus' ministry to the lost or sinners one can only stress that the lose of the young son, no matter how reprehensible, is no cause for his abandonment by the father.  Indeed, his return, no matter how unmerited, is the object of the father's joy.  The focus is on the father's welcome and joy on his son's return (the return of the sinner to the Father's house).  But there is also the added reaction of the elder dutiful but self-righteous son who cannot or will not understand a father's love and compassion whether in relation to his own experience or that of unmerited welcome of his prodigal brother.  Luke returns in this parable to the dual themes of 15:1-2, the welcome and fellowship offered sinners and the vehement, critical rejection of this by religious figures.

            There is need for a further observation.  While in the first two parables, those of the "sheep" and of the "coin," a good case can be made for identifying the main character or searcher with Jesus, in the parable of the "two sons" one is led to see the father figure as a loving, compassionate, and, indeed emotional, God-figure who loves even profligate and joyless creatures.  Luke has passed imperceptibly from defense of Jesus' role in finding the lost (the shepherd and the woman) to that of God (the loving father) who sends Jesus as agent to bring forgiveness and to seek repentance.

            So Luke has come full circle in thematic terms.  1) First, the theme of meals and fellowship.  Having stressed the importance of meals and banquets and their relation to fellowship, it is no surprise that the Jewish authorities, in Luke, accuse Jesus of not only preaching to sinner but also having fellowship with repentant sinners.  Now at the end of chapter 15 we must note, not only that the sheep is brought back and the coin found and the son welcomed but that each parable adds a note or hint about fellowship: the shepherd and the woman call friends together and celebrate and the father prepares a magnificent feast "of fellowship" for his returning son.  Additionally, the elder son refuses to join in this fellowship and is invited to share in his father's joy.  2) Secondly, the great concern about riches which will be a preoccupation in chapters 16 and 17 is already an important feature of the parable series: a man whose riches are greatly related to the finding of a lost sheep (one hundredth of his wealth), a woman whose possessions or dowry would be decimated by one-tenth if the coin were lost, and a father whose sons either squander their possessions or take their patrimony for granted.  Luke interrelates imagery, parables, and message for readers of Jesus' sermons as he moves on his journey to Jerusalem.

            The Jesus level. Briefly, in the interest of time and in view, especially of our interviews on interpretation methodology, I will discuss briefly the major features of the Jesus level as it relates to these two or indeed three parables.  Once again we are dealing with the theme of kingdom as grace or gift (see Boucher's second category, as well as the reasons given for such a classification).  Each of these parables addresses the finding of the lost, their return, and the unmerited welcome they receive.  In Jesus' preaching (just imagine) there is the fundamental issue of God's boundless love; God creates; God gives; and God wants even the wayward to return home.  God is the shepherd who has lost a sheep or a woman who can not find her precious coin.  God is like a wealthy person who will not permit the waste or lost of wealth. But God is also a loving parent who, as a parent, extends a loving hand to its wayward and to its less-than-joyous children.  It is God's nature (also that of the creature?) to offer welcome to the lost: "we had to celebrate and rejoice."  We can imagine Jesus' teaching about a loving parent who runs to a returning, wayward child and also one who pleads with a loveless, dutiful sibling.  In God's love (or in the kingdom) there is love and there is room for both: welcome and love for the unworthy and reciprocal love for the faithful.  As children of a loving God, humans must respond in kind toward God and toward God's loving activity toward others.

            A final note regarding the Jesus level.  In telling these parables one can see the principal themes of these parables as relating to lost, finding, and joyful return and welcome.  Also in the last, one notes the criticism of those who do not welcome the returnees.  Beyond this one might appreciate all the deeply Jewish and cultural features of the last parable, features which would be at home in the teaching of a Jewish prophet who is preaching to the Jewish crowds and authorities.  Giving up of one's patrimony, culture, and religion is tantamount to abandonment of God and the covenantal relationship.  So low does the young son fall that he is reduced to the ironic feeding of pigs.  Even these non-kosher creatures (pigs) are more fortunate (he would have gladly eaten the pods they were eating) than a Jew who has renounced his identity and his culture, let along his God.  Could Jesus have chosen a more picturesque description of one who is lost, one who is described in Jewish terms?  Other such features could be examined.

            Both Jesus and Luke, therefore, made use of simple stories to preach or to teach, the one about God's love and gracious activity toward humanity, the other about Jesus' role in extending God's love to the wayward and the holy. One could then apply many of these themes and lessons either in a Lukan sense (of believers imitating Jesus' concerns and activity among the lost) or in a way more related to the Jesus level (of readers expounding on a world view which focuses on life and creation as gifts of a loving God).  "Meaning then" can clearly provide an excellent basis for "meaning now."

            Finally, the above is long, not because I did not have the leisure to make it shorter (thanks Blaise Pascal) but because I wish here to focus as much as possible and as clearly as possible on the methodology of the interpretation process.  Again, to understand Luke's meaning one must focus on chapter 15 (and beyond) and to focus on Jesus' meaning, one should begin with the categories so often mentioned (both the classification and the profound and complex themes they represent).  Methodology, here, is so crucial.  Enjoy the reading and the meditation.

           We have here another Matthean parable but a more complex one taken from the world of business or even labor relations.  It is situated in a section immediately following the community discourse of chapter 18.  It is a simple yet complex story of five groups hired by the owner of a vineyard: those hired in the morning, at nine, at noon, at three, and at five (literally: those hired at the first, third, sixth, ninth, and eleventh hours).  The story then involves an entire work day (including the 12th hour when the workers are paid) and focuses on the dialogue at the end of that day regarding payment of the laborers who worked in the vineyard.  Some are disgruntled; but there is a pointed defense of the honesty or just character of the owner and of his generous treatment of those who had labored for less than a whole work day.

            One could spend some time here, as is often done, on the arguments pro and con about the fairness of the story or its stark reversal of expectations.  Nonetheless, the story opens with a careful insistence on the drawing up of an agreement (a "usual daily wage" for a day's work--see note: a denarius).  The story itself insists that justice or honesty is not the issue.  The parabolic story seemingly has two foci or points of emphasis: one that underscores the master's generosity and the other that stresses the reaction (and its logic) of those hired at the very beginning of the work day.

            Cultural observations.  Beyond what has been said above about fairness, it is clear that this is a story about day laborers, about hard work and minimal pay.  But it is also about reality and the hard life of harvest time.  Vintage time has come and the owner must muster all the laborers he can get to meet the urgency of harvest.  In more literary terms, the reversal of payment (beginning with the last hired) serves to underscore, in narrativae terms, the expectations and grumbling of the first hired.

            Matthean context.  From 19:1 to 20:16 one detects a relatively unified block of material which focuses on the kingdom (even your NRSV edition indicates this in the printing of the text).  19:1-5 addresses the concerns of the married and their commitment to the kingdom.  Marriage, divorce, or celibacy must be viewed in relation to the kingdom which must be the believer's priority.  Thus the little child is given as a model of the ideal believer, i.e., one who depends and trusts entirely on its parents (an image of God and the trusting believer).  Another unit of text (19:16-26) focuses on riches and the kingdom.  This is the story of "the rich" man who desires eternal life but walks away sadly because he is unable to make the kingdom his priority.  Jesus' response to this episode (regarding the camel and the eye of a needle) stresses that no amount of riches can obtain the kingdom; only God can make such a thing happen.  Matthew pursues further the issue of riches by focusing, through Peter's question, on the concept of renunciation for the kingdom (giving up for or choosing the kingdom as priority--19:27-30).  Disciples or believers are promised a hundredfold in this life for what they give up for the kingdom and eternal life in the future.  Matthew ends the discussion immediately prior to the "laborers" parable by noting that when it comes to God and the kingdom there is an inevitable reversal: the first will be last and the last first.  Thus, the saying about reversal, as well as the theme of riches, prepare for the parable and its message.  The parable of the "laborers" tells the story of some who are hired first and then are paid last. Further it stresses the theme of riches and the relation of these to work, reward, and the kingdom (the parable begins "the kingdom of heaven is like...").

            The context provided by Matthew stresses the danger or difficulties which riches present to the believer.  Jesus reminds the listeners nonetheless that "all things are possible for God" (19:26).  In addition Matthew stresses the supplementary theme of reversal both as a literary device and as a constituent of the parable's message.  The verse immediately preceding the parable and that immediately following stress the theme of reversal.  Already in 19:27f Matthew has noted that maltreatment and persecution, though a distinct possibility for the disciple, is nonetheless an advantage in view of the kingdom since reversal is the norm.  The least in terms of power and of wealth in this world (those who give up things and follow Christ--the powerless, the poor) will be the first in the kingdom (and the first last).  Such a view affects work, riches, and status in the kingdom.

            It is in this context that Matthew places the "laborers" parable.  It is indeed about first and last-comers, about those who have withstood the heat of the day and those who have barley  "broken a sweat."  The story is heard by disciples, those who have been long-standing (perhaps the older Jewish Christian members) workers in the "Lord's vineyard" as well as those who have come much later.  In terms of the parable the new-comers are just as welcome as the old-timers; but what happens when the time comes for remuneration?  The gift-quality of the late-comers' salary and the hard-earned nature of the earliest workers' pay seem to raise a major issue for the listener, an issue which is expressed in the parable as grumbling on the part of the latter.  The discussion (in the parable) that ensues concerning justice, mercy, and dissatisfaction is meant to provoke a discussion of a more profound and pointed nature for the Matthean community.  The parable is meant as a warning that disciples must not fight about the measure of reward due each, i.e.  which is first in honor, position, or merit.  The early call to discipleship, leadership, time, or work does not entitle believers to calculate degrees of reward in term of "heat of the day" or "equal" pay.  The reward that believers will get (see 19:28-29) is related to the nature of the kingdom.  The parable then is meant, in Matthew, to shed light on a community fight about who joined the community early or late or more particularly it sheds light on the role of Jew and Gentile within the Matthean Church.

            The Jesus level.  Again one might consult Boucher's categories for a clue to Jesus' use of the "laborers" parable; namely, it is about grace or gift.  A part of the story is about the gift-character of the late-comers' salary.  God, like the owner, treats all equally; God freely gives to all.  But one might look more carefully at the dynamics of the story.  There are two parts: one which addresses the theme of free gift on the part of a generous owner (20:15) and one which condemns the complainers who object to the owner's generosity.

            The parable, on the Jesus level, then is about God's mercy; it is about a God who bestows mercy on the hapless (those whom no one would hire--20:7).  At the same time it rebuffs the proud claim of merit.  Both parts are an attempt to explain gift, mercy, or grace.  The parable demonstrates the overflowing generosity of God's love and also ignores the claims of human merit and works.  In Jesus' teaching there is the probable following application.  The first hired, like those invited to the banquet, are the chosen people.  They are the religious figures of the Jesus story who, in the parable, are treated justly, but ironically are less than insightful in understanding that invitation and choice (even their own) is a gift.  Indeed, they seemingly resent the generous owner for being generous.  The last-comers are less worthy types, sinners, Jesus' associates, even Gentiles.  These are the people, in the parable, who have received a generous salary, or in more theological terms have received God's gift.

            One should again note Boucher's claim (p. 93) concerning this category of parables: "The parables discussed in this chapter have three main points: they portray God's boundless love and mercy; they justify Jesus' mission to sinners; and they rebuke Jesus' critics who cannot understand or affirm God's love for all."

            Again one should note how the same story or parable ("the laborers in the vineyard") is used by Matthew to address an ecclesial or community situation (riches or reward for Jesus' followers) but used by Jesus, presumably, to address a theological or kingdom issue (kingdom as gift).

Parables: The Weeds (Its Interpretation) & the Fishnet
(Matthew + Thomas--day 13)
(3/10/06)

            The two parables for consideration, along with the allegorical application of the first (and allegorical conclusion of the second), are found in Matthew chapter 13; the two parables also appear in Thomas (57 and 8, respectively).

            The "wheat and weeds"--13:24-30.  The first is frequently called the parable of the "wheat and weeds" and is basically an agricultural story about a planting of good seeds which, unfortunately, also bears weeds.  The source of this bad seed is identified as an enemy and the decision (expressed through dialogue) is made by the master to have the reapers separate the wheat and weeds only at harvest.  It is at this time that the wheat is stored and the weeds burned.  This basic story is used by Matthew in a complex way, see below, and also by Thomas in a rather traditional way.  The complexity of Matthew owes not only to the context provided (parable in first part of speech & "explanation" in the second) but also to the use of an allegorical "explanation of the w/w" (an endtime scenario of the Son of Man separating the righteous and evildoers).

            The "fishnet"--13:47-50.  Matthew employs the second parable noted above, this time a fishing story wherein a seine net gathers all in its path, whereupon the good and bad catch is sorted out on the shore.  To this short parable Matthew seemingly adds a brief allegorical interpretation in the form of a conclusion (vv. 49f), one similar in effect to the "explanation of the w/w" (even bearing the identical formula about the "weeping and gnashing of teeth").  Thomas employs a similar story and focuses on wisdom (see below).

            The cultural features of both the agricultural and fishing stories lend to their typology for contrasting the good and the bad as well as the sorting of these at the end of the process.  In the first case there are eager servants but in both cases the allegorical applications designate the ones who do the sorting as angelic, endtime figures.

            Matthean context and interpretation.  Once again we find ourselves in the parabolic discourse of chapter 13 (where we have already seen four parables on previous class days).  The parable of the "w/w" occurs in the first part of the speech and so is either addressed to or is about outsiders.  Its allegorical "explanation" however is presented later to the disciples alone (see v. 36).  The "fishnet" also is placed in the second section of the discourse and so is meant to address insiders.

            One must recall again that chapter 13 has as a major concern a focus on insiders and outsiders, especially the Jewish-Christian community of Matthew and the Jews who have not accepted Jesus.  In light of this the "w/w" is addressed to a mixed group of outsiders and insiders and so focuses on the mixed reception of the Messiah.  Some accept and others do not.  This is a picture of the present reality.  There is the possibility of conversion, for God's part is yet to come.  Jesus the master invites in view of the end.  Matthew's interpretation is more nuanced however since there follows later an allegorical "explanation" of this parable.  It is particularly the note of judgment (more in a more sense) and the eschatological character of the "explanation" which predominates.  There is a warning issued to insiders and especially, in light of this parabolic story, a warning about precipitous judgment of evil (pulling plants out too early).

            Note: it is on the basis of such observations that a modern reader should proceed to apply the meaning of the parable to the contemporary Church--thus not only meaning then and meaning now, but, in relation to the latter application of the pertinent themes and lessons to a (our) later situation.

            To the above message one must add the insights to be drawn from the "fishnet" parable.  Insiders are again reminded that the ingathering of people into the kingdom (a large seine collects all in its path) takes place prior to the final sorting out.  Whether one enters by chance or by design (the "treasure" and the "pearl") there is a mixed group that coexists as it awaits the final, future judgment or sorting out.  Matthew no doubt wishes to stress the mixed character of the community ("corpus mixtum") as owing to the nature of the process (note further that the kingdom consists of a mixture of old and new--see 7:52).

            The "weeds" and "net" of Thomas (we only referred briefly to this in class but see also the class handout).  The two parables bear rather traditional interpretations in Thomas.  The story of the first points to the mixed character of the human context (the mixture of good and evil or of Gnostic and unenlightened souls).  The second likewise speaks of the mixed situation but stresses the element of wisdom which characterizes Gnostic thought: a wise fisherman who recognizes the large/good (Gnostic) fish and rejects the useless, little fish.  The latter is a story about salvation offered the Gnostic by the Gnostic redeemer.

            The Jesus level.  Both parables in the preaching of Jesus are about the arrival or nature of the kingdom--one can deduce this a priori by consulting Boucher's categories in PH, but especially in Boucher packet given in class, or by considering the dynamics of the stories in relation to what we know about Jesus' kingdom preaching.

            These stories are about the mixed character of fish being caught or the crop in progress.  They are applied to the mixed world where God's invitation is extended. Thus, they are possibly a defense of Jesus' association with and ministry to sinners (that ministry the reader must presume is part of Jesus' God-given task).  Indeed, God's goal is not the production of a pure messianic community, at least not through the separation of good and evil, but a call to kingdom, to hope for conversion, and to realism of life in the world.  While some might want or demand a pure community in a purified land, it is seemingly Jesus' teaching that his ministry is a time of mercy, of forgiveness for sinners, and of second chances--Jesus works now to gather, to invite; God's job will emerge at the end.

            The parable which is variously called the "talents" and the "pounds" is an excellent example of a parable which has been greatly modified in the process of transmission and yet, like that of the "wedding feast" or "great supper or banquet" from Matthew and Luke respectively (there is a version also in Thomas 64), it shows that even a parable from Q underwent, probably in the hands of various communities, substantial adaptation, enough for some scholars to conclude that there existed multiple editions of Q.  In the case of the Matthean version a rich man simply goes on a long journey and returns for an accounting of his servants' activity, while in the Lukan version the man has become a nobleman who goes to a distant country to obtain royal power despite overt opposition and returns not only for an accounting but also to deal with those who opposed him.

            The versions of the story nonetheless retain enough basic features for both to present a similar plot dynamic: varying amounts of money entrusted to several servants, who are expected to turn a profit for their master.  The monetary denominations (talents and pounds) vary greatly, as do the amounts given each servant.  Also the exchanges between the master and servants vary greatly between the Matthean and Lukan versions; even the rewards given ("many things" and "cities") merit some attention.  Other cultural details (e.g., burying money or wrapping it up in a piece of cloth) and redactional activity (Lukan use of a Herodian story to render the parable more politically and christological a propos) can be noted and would merit some exegetical attention in relation to the interpretation of each version (see Boucher, pp. 146f for more details).

            Matthew's point of view.  The parable is situated by Matthew in the final great discourse, indeed an eschatological context which nonetheless stresses the delay of the end and the need for watchfulness and proper behavior in view of final judgment.  Matthew has just spoken of the servants who are faithful or unfaithful in view of the master's absence (24:45-51) and of the maidens who wisely anticipate the bridegroom's delay (25:1-13) and now addresses moral readiness or more particularly genuine productivity (or trading and successful business activity) while the master is gone.  The master is clearly meant to suggest Jesus' return as judge, a scene in effect which follows immediately in the judgment scene (25:31-46).  There is reward for the responsible ones; they are to enter into the joy of their master.  There is no doubt that this for Matthew is a parousia parable.

            Some have asked whether the positive activity of the first two servants is not meant to reflect the Matthean Jewish-Christian response to the world mission and the third irresponsible servant would point to contemporary Israel's refusal to be a "light to the world" (in Isaian terms) and buries its gift instead.  There is no doubt however that there is a general message here for Matthew's community: use your talents or money in trust in view of judgment.  Indeed, Matthew, by means of expanded dialogue after the first and second exchange, lends stress on both the positive (two positive responses) and the negative responses to responsible behavior.

            Luke’s point of view.  This evangelist has taken over the parable to convey a similar message, namely, productive activity in view of Jesus' return, but the context, nuance, and focus are somewhat different.  Jesus is again on his final, climactic journey and is arriving in Jerusalem.  Thus, 19:11 is crucial for reading the following parable.  By referring back to the immediately-preceeding Zacchaeus story ("as they were listening to this"), Luke intends to connect the theme of "salvation today" of that story to a question by the disciples about whether "the kingdom of God was to appear immediately."  Luke takes a circuitous route to answer that question.  Luke wishes to stress that the kingdom is both present ("it is among you"--18:21) and yet still to come ("your kingdom come"--11:2).  Despite the false apocalyptic hopes of many who think it is coming already in a spectacular way, it is operating in the lives of believers, in the present activity of the Son of Man (see 19:1,10) and yet it is basically a future reality.  There is to be present joyful and responsible activity and an even more joyful entry into the kingdom.

            The parable for Luke, in its present context, is about the present and future nature of the kingdom.  That kingdom is inextricably related to the servants' present activity for and in control of the master's affairs.  While Jesus is away (i.e., the prince who is gone to the divine throne in view of a triumphant, princely return), the servants are the masters of the prince's domain.  In economic and political terms (trade and business on the one hand and the control over many cities on the other) the participation in and arrival of the kingdom is already a reality, but, Luke warns, it is not yet complete for the master will return not only as judge who rewards but also as judge who punishes severely.  This little Lukan vignette is in actuality a foretaste of the Acts of the Apostles--Jesus is gone and the disciples must carry on in view of his return.

            And Jesus?  Again a parable is probably addressed to the crowds and the Jewish elite about God's activity (let me stress here that Jesus addressed a real audience of Palestinian Jews).  Israel has received God's trust or money and, in banking terms, must without fear conduct the master's business that he might reap benefits through active trading (vv. 13, 15, 23--following the Lukan text). God has chosen a people who are to be active in a world of God's making, but in negative terms, the third servant's fearful inactivity warns against a sterile religion that is characterized by exclusion and lack of mission.  Indeed, the gift or money in trust will be taken away (see the "wicked tenant" parable) and given to others.  So, is the parable about challenge (the first two servants) or about repentance (the 3rd servant)?  Is it a parable of warning about proper attitude or receptivity (last category), or is it especially about productivity and the challenge of the kingdom (the previous category)?  We might end the discussion in this case with questions rather than with answers or might, in agreement with Boucher, insist that the story's focus on the third figure and its failure (see discussion of "full exchange" in both Matthew and Luke as regards the third figure) points to a warning and a call to repentance and readiness.  Here you might review the meaning of the fourth category. 

            A well-known story about helping one's neighbor, the "good Samaritan," is an unforgettable parable about duty, responsibility, and love of neighbor.  All have repeatedly heard about the characters of this short narrative: a victim who needs help, religious people who pass him by, and an outcast Samaritan who overcomes his own ethnic aversion to help this Jewish victim.  Also one hears of the dangers of the wilderness, of the great medicinal and monetary care given the victim by the traveler (a costly affair by all standards for such a lonely voyager).  If one also looks carefully one notes the anti-clerical humor of the story that both pokes fun at the religious types who have no room in their perspective for mercy and lovingly speaks of an enemy who, instead of abusing, helps his defenseless, social adversary.

            Lukan text.  Once again Jesus is on his Jerusalem journey.  The textual subunit speaks of an unsuccessful Samaritan mission (9:51f), speaks also of Jesus revealing God's secrets, and focuses on a question about gaining eternal life (10:25).  Jesus then reveals God's secrets, drawn from the Torah (Deut 6:5 & Lev 19:8), that eternal life depends on absolute love of God and humane love of neighbor.  Both major issues are addressed: love of God in 11:1f and of neighbor in 10:29f by means of the story of the "good Samaritan."  Luke presents Jesus the teacher as the one who interprets the Torah by means of a dialogue on eternal life.  The parable in question focuses on love of neighbor, indeed, a debate about the meaning of  "neighbor."  At the time in question it was readily accepted by the rabbis that, while one had a profound duty toward one's neighbor, that term referred to fellow Jews.  The lawyer of the story launches into a casuistic discussion of the definition of the term: "who is my neighbor"?  Jesus' response or definition, by means of a parable, is that a neighbor is "one in need," even beyond one's ethnic group.  As Boucher would insist, the discussion is that love needs "not limits but opportunity."  So for Luke Jesus is the teacher of God's secrets, the true interpreter of the Law, one who reveals God's secrets.   So, in light of this, one should, like Mary, choose the better part and sit at the Lord's feet (see Martha and Mary story immediately following, 10:38-42).

            The Jesus level.  One can readily see this parable as one that expresses the challenge presented to those who accept God's invitation (see category # 3).  The human response to God's love involves a challenge, even a challenge beyond one's perceived duties.  Perhaps one might express the logic in this way: God's love requires love in return, both love of God and of one's neighbor.  As God loves the unlovable so must the believer love those in need.  In this particular case one might add that even divine law, the scripturally-sanctioned regulations for priests and Levites in relation to their temple duties, does not override the duty to love God and neighbor.  Even divine law cedes to the demands of love.  Love of God and neighbor supersede religion and duty--this can be and often is a radical prophetic challenge to institutional religion and formalized social custom.

            The application both then and now is far ranging and seemingly radical--take it if you can!

            It is my goal in this "observation" first to apply the method in a most brief and direct way and then, also briefly, to make a few observations about "meaning," especially application of meaning.  At the same time I would remind you of the comments made about Luke's journey--> the five successive, shortening sections of Jesus' journey to Jerusalem.

            The Lukan context.  As Jesus marches toward Jerusalem, teaching his disciples and the crowds, he addresses in this section of the journey (17:11-18:30) the major theme of God's kingdom.  He speaks of faith and the kingdom, of the kingdom as a present reality, its relation to the Son of Man and judgment (eschatology), and then focuses on several issues that impact one's view of the kingdom: prayer (two parables, including that of the "Pharisee and the tax collector"--18:9-14), child-like dependence on God, and riches.

            The Lukan story and its interpretation.  Two unforgettable characters are presented: a religious, but proud Pharisee and a sinful, but self-effacing tax collector.  We have here two cultural types whose perception is both interesting and confusing (one prefers the latter but with much hesitation--issues of human achievement and effort on the one hand and of "negative" virtue on the other).  Luke is sure to point out that the issue is not one's religious duties or achievement but one's relation to and trust in God (even if expressed in negative terminology).  The kingdom is about one's trust in God not in self (see v. 9).  Just as Jesus prays often to God (see Donahue 191f) so must the believer.  One must be like the little child in one's total dependence on God (see following pericope: vv. 15-17).

            Jesus' meaning.  For Jesus the meaning would be similar but one would discern not a Lukan context regarding "trust in self" but rather one would note the dynamics of the story which underscores the activity's temple setting--the "two men went up to the temple to pray."  (Of course one should remember one of the few known things about Jesus' attitude toward the temple; in the episode about the "cleansing of the temple," Jesus insists that it be a "house of prayer"--see Luke 19:45-48 and its Synoptic parallels.)  This parabolic story is about God, God's gift and the human appreciation of the nature of "gift."  In an interesting use of typology the story employs both a positive activity (a Pharisee's religious deeds) as a negative, boastful statement of one's self-righteous attitude toward God and others and a negative activity (a sinner's lack of religious deeds) as a positive, self-effacing statement of one's repentance for offending both God and neighbor.  Nothing is beautiful about sin or about boastful self reliance and disdain.    In Jesus' speech the point is that one character recognizes divine gift and the other does not (indeed does not seem to need such a gift).

         Perhaps the parable of the "two debtors" (Luke 7:41-43--placed within the story of a woman who anoints Jesus' feet), both in its Lukan (Christological) and in its Jesus (theological) setting, would serve as a fitting conclusion to this discussion (we treated this short parable briefly in class).  Ironically, in this beautifully used story, the one who owes more seems to love more or appreciate more the cancellation of debt. Thus, for Luke there is here clear justification of Jesus' ministry to the poor and to the sinner (see "lost sheep" parable of chap 15).  Also for Jesus "it is out of the depth of poverty that one understands the depth of God's goodness" (Boucher 99).

            Issue of Application.  Parables are told by a speaker or employed by a writer to inform or to reform hearers or readers (see definition of parable, seen in first days of course and of treatment of parables).  Luke uses the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector to discourse on Jesus' kingdom teaching (see the topics of 17:11-18:30).  In this case the emphasis is upon "prayer and the kingdom."  Not only does one pray "may your kingdom come" ("Lord's Prayer"--see Luke 11:2) but one must approach or treat the issue of kingdom with humility (it is a gift) and total openness to and dependence on the giver.  So in the Lukan context the issue is the importance of and attitude in prayer, an  activity which Jesus repeatedly engages in and recommends to his disciples.  Such an attitude allows for growth and a real relationship with God and with Jesus.  So the application of the lesson of the parable being studied is quite challenging--it focuses on the need for, nature of, and attitude in prayer.  Prayer is less about "give me" and more about "thanks for the gift(s)" and of course about the basic insights one derives from this fundamental mindset concerning gift/kingdom/prayer.  On the Jesus level too it is the hearer's attitude toward the gift and giver that is paramount.  Recognition and appreciation of "gift" changes one's entire attitude both toward the giver and toward created reality.  Gifts are to be accepted with gratitude and joy and used in productive activity.  Both Luke and Jesus told/used this parable to influence the hearer/reader.  There should be no surprise that the application focuses on issues of fundamental concern to the audience and should foster proper attitudes toward these.  Application then leads the reader to insights and activity far beyond the original parable, insights and activity nonetheless which are suggested/demanded by the parable in question.

          Next time we will turn our attention to the famous Lukan parable, "the good Samaritan"--try to discern both the Lukan context for the written level and the proper category for the Jesus level.

            Much can be done with this very well-known story, the sowing of seeds that results, despite obvious loss of much seed, in a harvest of varying degrees.  The goal of this exercise is a detailed, systematic look at the process we have been using to discern the various uses of Jesus' parables by the gospel writers (or written level) as well as the possible use and meaning of these short stories in the teaching of Jesus (or Jesus level).

            Introductory steps.  One begins of course by isolating or distinguishing the basic story from its present context(s).  One must read the text and establish the basic facts of the story: a sower sows seed on four types of soil: on the path, over rocks, among thorns, in good soil.  Only the last, the productive soil, yields a harvest which is described in various percentages.  In each of the Synoptics there follows an extended commentary or allegorical "interpretation" of the seed parable: Mark 4:13-20 and parallels.

            In a more leisurely context one might indulge in extensive redaction analysis, i.e., compare the various versions, especially Matthew and Luke with Mark and perhaps the three Synoptics with Thomas--a gospel parallel was given in class of the Synoptic versions of the parable and its "interpretation."  There are a number of minor and more noteworthy differences between the versions: Marks speaks of a yield of "thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold," Matthew of "100, 60, 30," and Luke only of "a hundredfold."   Mark focuses on the productive process: the seed not only fell into good soil and brought forth grain but it also "grows up and increases and yields."  Matthew certainly simplifies and retains only the first part of Mark's statement, while Luke, in the "interpretation" focuses on those who "hear the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bear fruit with patient endurance."  Other differences could be noted, differences that would further underscore a given writer's interpretation: Mark's emphasis on "trouble or persecution" (4:17), Matthew's use of  "100, 60, 30" twice as a warning to the "new Israel" and also the stress on "understanding" as the operative term for good soil (see 13:19 and 23), and Luke's focus on "response" as being indicated by the addition twice of the term "believe" (8:12 and 13) along with the conclusion about "holding fast...to the word in...the heart" (v. 15).

            Additionally one could focus here on the agricultural presuppositions required for understanding the short seed parable: broadcast sowing of seed and cultivation, the appearance of paths, stony and thorny areas in the arable field.

            Lastly and more importantly is the examination of the literary or plot context where each written version is situated and the role this context plays in interpreting a given writer's use of the parable.

            Mark's context and interpretation.  We examined Mark's parable chapter (chapter 4--day 5) while studying the "mustard seed."  There as here the operative key is the centrality of the "interpretation" of the parable.  The allegorical commentary on the "sower" parable (4:13-20) is clearly the midpoint and thus focus of the parable series.  Mark addresses the insiders or members of the community, first with a parable about different types of soils and then applies these plot characteristics to the community's situation: some in apocalyptic fashion are tempted away by the demonic forces at work (4:15), others because of "trouble or persecution" withdraw in apocalyptic isolation, and still others are more interested in the lure of a better, richer life than in the rigors of discipleship and missionary challenge.  Mark advises the community not to be taken in by false apocalyticism.  They instead are to be good soils that bring about a great harvest.  They are to trim their lamps and show them to the world (4:21).  They are to focus on the harvest (13:10).  The parable and its use in Mark serve as instruction to those who do not understand (4:10, 13), as a warning to those who are tempted (vv. 3, 9), and as a challenge to confidence, perseverance, and action to those who persist as good soil, everyone according to their own measure (4:24-25--see also the percentages of harvest).  The parable chapter of Mark (vv. 1-2, 11, 26, 30) teaches many things about the kingdom, things that a troubled, apocalyptically-oriented community needs to hear.

            Matthew's context and interpretation.  The context of the Matthean parable also has been examined previously, twice in fact (days 5 and 7 while dealing with the "mustard seed" and the "treasure" and "pearl").  Again the context is one of rejection and acceptance, a theme which speaks intimately to the Jewish-Christian readers.  Just prior to and involving chapter 13, Matthew has adroitly shown how different "human" soils have reacted to Jesus' preaching.  In 12:14f and often the reader hears of the Jewish authorities who reject and oppose Jesus; in 12:46-50 again the reader notes that his own family does not believe in him; in 13:2f the crowd of outsiders comes to him without real comprehension; but in 13:11f and 36f the disciples or insiders are declared "blessed" (see v. 16).  Thus, Matthew is interested in types of soil, both the negative ones (rejection) and the fourth, positive soil (acceptance).   There is a contrast here for Matthew's readers, despite much refusal (negative soils) there is/will be an abundant yield.  The operative key for Matthew is "hearing and understanding" the word of the kingdom (13:19).  Note that Matthew, in contrast to Mark (4:13), presents the disciples in a positive light, thus as eminently good soil.  There is a warning to the "new Israel" that its yield could become increasingly negative, in effect, renouncing its status as productive/good soil.  One must "bear fruit and yield" (13:23).

            Luke's context and interpretation.  The Lukan context is new to our study.  Chapter 8:1-21, dependent in large measure on Mark 4, is nonetheless a new construct whose major thrust seemingly is the reception of the good news and its productivity.  Luke sets the stage by insisting that Jesus' preaching was received both by the "traditional" male disciples or twelve and by women disciples (8:1-3).  There follows the parable of the "sower" (vv. 4-8), the Markan material on acceptance and reception (9-10), the Lukan version of the "interpretation" (11-15) and the interesting series of Markan sayings about production, mission, and manifestation of one's productivity (vv. 16-18).  Following this series of statements about productivity (each with Lukan emphases on ":producing,"  story about Jesus' family (Mark 3:31-35) form its Markan setting before the parable chapter to the end of this literary block to emphasize further that Jesus' true family or believers "are those who hear the word of God and do it."  The underlined terms are added by Luke to underscore the theme of productivity.  For Luke then the parable of the "sower" serves as an illustration of the evangelical process: preaching, receiving, producing.  Luke is aware of the failures of the bad soils but, ever the optimist, is most interested in the success of the good news that is sent to all flesh and is destined to reach the ends of the earth.

            For help in examining the meaning of the various gospel writers, see Donahue's discussion in Gospel.

            A note on Thomas.  It is difficult to discern the peculiar emphasis or interpretation of Thomas.  First, there is no accompanying "interpretation" which allegorizes the story and applies it to the Gnostic community.  Secondly, there is no added context provided by adjacent sayings.  And thirdly, the story is very close to the basic plot of the Synoptic versions.  One could speculate about the meaning of the "full hand," "root to earth and ear to heaven," the introduction of the "worm," or the emphasis on "good earth" and "good fruit brought forth up to heaven."  Even the percentages of harvest are different: 60 and 120.  At best one might focus vaguely on the author's Gnostic, meditative reflection on the human condition and salvation.  Admittedly, this is not insightful.

            Oral level or the activity of the early Church.  See your class handout--we mentioned this briefly in class.  It is particularly the existence of the allegorical "interpretation" of the "sower" (see a further example in Matthew 13 of the "interpretation" of the "wheat and weeds") which points to the activity of early preachers in using texts from the Jesus tradition, particularly parables, to address specific community situations.  In this case the different types of soils allowed a variety of applications of a psychological (why people accepted, refused, or gave up), moral (judgment, production, responsibility), or exhortatory kind (encouragement, exhortation, hope).  Thus, the tendency as noted by form critics long ago was a move away from Jesus' eschatological preaching to the more immediate concerns of the contemporary Church.  A problem for us in this instance is the uncertainty of what is Markan in the "interpretation" and what is more traditionally drawn from contemporary oral resources.

            The Jesus level.  Again since we have no concrete context to guide our interpretation or suggestions for such, we are led once again to focus on two factors.  1) The dynamics of the story: a simple agricultural story about someone who sows seed on different types of soil; some are unproductive, some fruitful.  The story itself suggests a number of possible avenues: stress on the abundant harvest (as in the "mustard seed" and the great bush or tree) and so eschatological nature of the kingdom, stress on the apparent (initial) lack of productivity (3 negative soils and only one good soil) but a great harvest of various, extraordinary yields (like the "mustard" also--only a small, insignificant seed is seen but a great shrub/true is assured); stress on the growth as expressed in the Markan version and so focus on the ministries of Jesus and/or the disciples.   2) Appeal to general notions of Jesus' teaching--expressed in schematic form in Boucher's categories.  Jesus would be preaching about the coming or nature of the kingdom (i.e., inauspicious beginnings) or its appearance but, as in nature, there is the promise of a great harvest.  In this case one could apply this autobiographically to Jesus' ministry: there are apparent obstacles and reversals (bad soils).  So as he addresses his message to the crowds or perhaps his disciples, many might have wondered about his mission and its relation to God's kingdom.  The parable would be told to give hope: the great harvest will come for there is fertile soil and God guarantees an extraordinary harvest.  Finally, in addressing the Jesus level always consult Boucher's categories and her discussion of the pertinent parables; see Parables Handbook.

            Some overall comments.  Study of the parables can be a complex but rewarding enterprise.  When one turns to the Jesus level one must realize that these are parables "of" and not primarily "about" him.  They speak about how or when the kingdom comes, about what is required of those who are invited.  They teach that the kingdom comes; they speak about what is required of those who are invited; ultimately that God's invitation is a gift that requires a loving response.  The parables on this level may even speak of Jesus' role as God's agent who announces the kingdom.

            When one turns to the gospel level one discovers a variety of contexts for the numerous parables found there.  Generally they address the intended community's situation (the need for courage and mission in Mark, making sense of the Jewish Messiah's reception or rejection in Matthew, or discussing the wide range and true meaning ("truth") of Jesus' teaching for a Gentile audience in Luke).  In both cases one can speak of meaning (what Jesus or various evangelists might have meant when employing a given parable for an intended audience) and significance (the light these parables shed on the kingdom, the relevance they have even now for the extended reader).  In conclusion, it is a good literary principle to insist that only by truly understanding the (intended) meaning(s) of a parable ("meaning then") can one discover its genuine significance or "meaning now."

             The above is long but I have done this in order to show you how complex or how simple the process can be--these Gospel writers are complex and their texts offer many variations and nuances for interpretation; and of course the Jesus level is always a challenge especially if one wishes to spend time on the cultural background and on the categories.  Anyway, good luck with the reading of the parables.

            Study of one short parable, with only one version (Matt 25:1-13) allows us to concentrate more fully on the method being followed and on the different nuances to be found regarding the parable's use in Matthew's Gospel and on the Jesus level.  This situation will also allow us to look at how "not to interpret" parables, how to focus on the dynamics of the story itself, and how it is necessary to appeal to contemporary culture for a better understanding of the parabolic story.

            The basic story.  Whatever the details of the plot, the parable of the "ten bridesmaids" nonetheless is a story of contrast between wise and foolish activity.  The story clearly labels the character thus: "five were foolish and five were wise." In going out to furnish light for the bridegroom's procession and on being delayed for some time (even with a momentary snooze), the procession finally arrives and the welcoming shout can only be greeting by the foolish with the realization that they lack the necessary oil.  The wise are not only wise because they brought sufficient oil in view of a possible delay, but they also know what it takes to accomplish their task vis-a-vis the bridegroom.  The wise enter and the foolish can only, belatedly, try to buy oil for their lamps--but too late for entry into the banquet.  The story ends with a moral and indeed eschatological application.

            Such a retelling of the story is lengthy and can only underscore the many plot details and their potential for allegorizing.  Indeed, one could focus on various plot features which should be viewed merely as plot devices: the delay, the sleep during the delay, the hour of midnight and the shout of announcement, the hint about sharing oil, the insistence on buying/acquiring one's own oil, being ready to enter the banquet, the shutting of the door, the request: "Lord, Lord, open to us," or the theme of  "I do not know you."  Each of this long list of plot devices and themes could open up the way, at various levels, to further thematic development or (allegorical) application to the audience or readers.  Despite these multiple nuances it is nonetheless clear that the story focuses on the wise or foolish activity of the lamp-bearing bridesmaid and their respective access to the wedding banquet.  The end of the story voices a reproach to the unwise and there follows a clear eschatological warning in the final verse.

            The Matthean context and interpretation.  This parable, along with several others allows Matthew to expand at great length Mark's eschatological discourse (chap 13).  In effect Matthew chapters 24-35 are a greatly expanded version of Mark's anti-apocalyptic discourse, a new discourse which employs important eschatological themes to focus on Christian activity, responsibility, and morality in view of coming judgment (see end of chap 25, vv. 31f on the "last judgment").  Matthew, in the words of Jesus, warns the community about the Son of Man's coming in judgment, of the need to be watchful and ready, and especially, in thiscase, to be vigilant or watchful in view of the delay of the parousia.  Several other parables in the same discourse (the "faithful/unfaithful servant" or the  endtime judgment.

            Within the context of delay of the parousia and of Jesus' (the bridegroom's) return (also called the Son of Man earlier in the discourse), Matthew focuses the community's attention on the interim period and the need for readiness.  The maidens stand for the community members as they prepare for the end.  In this case there is tension concerning the temporal elements, for the parable story itself does not seem to accuse those who fall asleep[ (all do) but the conclusion warns all readers to "keep awake."  Clearly the first element is a plot device to provide a reason for the lack of oil on the part of the foolish.  The delay is not the fault of the maidens but preparation for such eventualities is nonetheless the responsibility of the light bearers.  The uncertainty of  "the hour or day" calls for wise action on the part of believers.

            It has been suggested by some that Matthew the Jewish Christian is underscoring here the Christian concern about the endtime and Jesus' return.  This was a controversial issue for most contemporary Jews who shied away from apocalyptic thought and categories in light of the recent destruction of Jerusalem as a result of apocalyptic and revolutionary fervor on the part of the Jewish population.  This would have been another issue of debate between Matthew's Jewish-Christian community and the "synagogue across the street."

            The Jesus level.  In tackling this level of interpretation one would do well to recall that in Jewish thought and literature God is often presented as bridegroom while Israel is the bride (true of the prophets Isaiah [62:5], Jeremiah, and especially Hosea--note that in the NT [Matt 9:15/Mark 2:19] Jesus is the bridegroom).  A story, involving contemporary wedding customs (the processional, nighttime accompaniment of the bridegroom to his home where the bride is waiting) serves to underscore God's invitation and gift to human subjects.  God gives; God (the bridegroom) comes and the issue of the story is the readiness of the human subject to welcome the divine guest.  The story, in Jesus' teaching, is about disposition, or here being prudent and prepared.  God's coming is a momentous event, an event that spells salvation for the good/the prepared and disaster for those who lack wisdom.  Unfortunately for all, God's day comes like a "burglar at night" (see 24:42-44).  Those who are unprepared will surely meet disaster.  Again one might note the different
focus between the Matthean and Jesus levels.  In the first case the bridegroom is Jesus who returns as Son of Man for judgment; in the second the bridegroom is most probably, in Jesus' teaching, God who comes to inaugurate the messianic banquet or the establishment of the divine reign (see Isa 62:5 again for image of God as bridegroom).

            A final note on Boucher's categories, especially the 4th: "repentance or readiness" (see handout, pp. 132f).  The parables of this category (including the "ten bridesmaids") focus on proper disposition, readiness, or a call to repentance.  God gives but the human subject must be willing and ready to receive.  So these parables are about life lived in the real world, about wisdom or work done responsibly, i.e., work done as a  response to divine gift and with an eye cast on future judgment.

            Today we studied two short parables, three verses in toto, yet verses whose stories are well known, probably because of their shortness but certainly because of their vividness and their pedagogical potential--we also did our study in record time and before a record low number of class members (how about Fridays?).  These two mini stories appear in Matthew alone among the Synoptics and in a greatly redacted version in Thomas.  In Matthew's case, as well as Thomas the stories are about the kingdom and underscore the theme of finding, whether accidentally or intentionally.  In Matthew one hears of joyfully selling all and buying either the land with its treasure or the pearl of great price.   In Thomas the story of the pearl is embellished by the Gnostic's disdain for merchandise and a moral saying parallel to a Q saying about treasure, while that of the treasure underscores the pessimistic view the Gnostic has of unenlightened humanity.

            The basic story.   First a farmer finds a treasure in a field, reburies it and acquires the field after gladly selling all he has for that purpose.  Then a pearl merchant realizes his great quest by finding a pearl of great value.  He too acquires the pearl with the proceeds of the possessions he has sold.  Indeed, the retelling of the bare story is longer than the original!  Thomas presupposes similar stories which have been modified for Gnostic coloring.

            The Matthean Context and Interpretation.  These kingdom parables find their general Matthean context in the fact that Israel has rejected while Matthew's community has accepted the Messiah's invitation.  This general setting lends poignancy to Matthew's parable discourse.  As seen earlier (see day 4 and the discussion of the "mustard seed"), Matthew, with the help of Mark 4, devotes a lengthy chapter to Jesus' words in parables.  The discourse has two settings: vv. 3-35 addressed to the crowds and vv. 36-52 recited to the disciples in private (read v. 36 again).  In the first section we already encountered the  parable of the "mustard seed" (we have not looked at its doublet the "yeast") and in the second we now encounter the double parable of the "treasure" and the "pearl."  The first is addressed to everyone and is about Israel's refusal seen in light of the future kingdom (the great shrub/tree).  The second addresses insiders, those who have accepted the Lord's invitation.

            In the context just described Matthew recites two short parables about two types of people, both the poor who accidentally find and choose to acquire the great treasure and the rich who find or reach the goal of their quest and now possess the "pearl of great value."  These various discoverers are asked to consider the value of what they possess, to reconsider or renew their commitment to the kingdom.  They have already made a momentous choice or decision.  They may have paid dearly for their choice (abandonment of family and culture?) but more importantly have they made the choice with joy, the joy of discovering and choosing the most important thing/person in their lives?  So they are exhorted to appreciate joyfully what they have (see 13:52).  The last point is particularly momentous in light of what Matthew says in 13:20, that many received the word with joy, on the one hand, and that now, on the other, the love of many "grows cold" (24:12).

            A Few Comments on Thomas.  In the case of the "pearl" one must seek an interpretation with some similarity to that of Matthew but with some added, Gnostic nuances.  In this case "the merchant is prudent" or wise and so "gets rid of his merchandise," a symbol of the evil character of matter.  The author adds to the parable a saying, originally from Q, about valued treasure.  In the case of the "hidden treasure" the author repeatedly underscores the non-Gnostic's penchant for ignorance and lack of wisdom.  Generation after generation of humans are blind, drunk or fully unaware of the divine spark they have buried in the matter of their being.  Finally, one lucky soul finds the treasure and puts it to good use or (using "forbidden" imagery) profits from his newly found wealth (which one presumes is the rich life of Gnostic realization).

            The Jesus Level or Jesus' Meaning.  In methodological terms, one can only use two basic factors for discovering Jesus' meaning.  On the one hand, one must imagine Jesus' preaching about the kingdom, the fact that an invitation is sent out to the listener and a response is elicited or demanded.  On the other, one must look at the basic dynamic of the two stories: namely the priceless value of the object (i.e., the kingdom as priceless gift) and the solicited decision of the finder.  Indeed, these two short parables (whether underscoring the accidental or intentional, the poor or the rich character of the finder) resemble other parables which speak of decision, commitment or challenge (see Boucher chap 8 on the 3rd category: the challenge of the kingdom, pp. 112 and also same page on the cultural background of the two parables).  They speak of cost, the demands, the claims which God's reign make on the finder.  Indeed, there are risks involved in following one's wisdom and opting for decisive action.  Choice and commitment can be threatening to one's stability or the status quo, but there is joy in choosing what one needs or wants most in life.  There is a call here, on Jesus' part, to place the choice of the greatest treasure, the most valuable pearl, the most important thing in one's life, to place this choice at the very center of one's concern, of one's commitment, indeed of one's being.  Everything must take its meaning from this one central priority.  Jesus' meaning concerns the challenge to fundamental or total commitment.  It is the treasure, the pearl that must be the center that gives meaning to everything else in one's life.  God's reign is like that.  God gives or offers; the human being must accept for the enterprise to succeed.  Further, that great treasure/pearl or divine gift must be accepted as the absolute that prioritizes the rest of one's being and activity.  Jesus' preaching here is about God's concern for humanity, about the human being's response to the divine initiative, and about the effect this response has on human relations.  Again, the radical character of Jesus' preaching comes to the fore.

            Finally, one might ask: what is the difference in this case between the meaning of the two parables in Matthew and the proposed Jesus level?  In the first case, Matthew has an ecclesiological focus--somehow the treasure, the pearl, the kingdom is related with joyful, complete commitment lived within the Christian community.  In the second case, Jesus' meaning would have a theological focus--Jesus is speaking of God's kingdom, God's call, indeed the joyful return of God's children to a loving Parent.  One could discuss at greater length the difference here between an ecclesial and a theological focus in view of the gripping stories of the hidden treasure and the pearl of great value.

            The parable of the "feast/dinner/banquet" is an interesting one on several counts, not the least of which is the stark difference which exists between the versions.  Thus the considerable differences between Matthew and Luke (even the titles are suggestive: "the marriage feast" as opposed to "the great dinner") have led many to posit different, written editions of Q.  The contexts of the meal in the two do suggest such a conclusion.  Beyond this, however, one encounters even more basic differences: 3 embassies in Matthew and Luke and only two in Thomas.  Other differences are more subtle and may involve redactional rather than source considerations (e.g., the number and types of excuses).

            The basic story.  Thomas' two embassies (one to invited guests, followed by excuses, and a second to non-worthy types) suggest an original parable with two embassies only (as pointed out in class).  Indeed, Matthew seems to have added an embassy (v. 3) prior to the traditional embassy + excuses (vv. 4-9), while Luke seemingly inserts an added embassy between the two traditional embassies, one addressed to a favorite Lukan audience: "the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame" (our p/c/b/l--vv. 21b-22).  In each Synoptic a case can be made for the addition of a third embassy.  Matthew, on the one hand, adds a first embassy to underscore repeated invitations by God to the chosen people (note Matthew speaks of "slaves" in the plural) as well as repeated refusals, climaxed by the great refusal of the time of Jesus.  This is Matthew's version of salvation history (note also the reverence to the destruction of Jerusalem in v. 7; see below).  Luke, on the other hand, after speaking of the first refusal by the Jewish establishment, expands the embassies to include one to the lowly crowds (the sinners and less worthy types in Palestine), and then modifies the (now) third embassy ("into the roads and lanes") to suggest that, not only unworthy types (sinners and the lowly) are being admitted, but those beyond Israel, the Gentiles.  In this case, Thomas is seemingly closer to the original, typological story about the invited who decline and the uninvited who are graciously brought in.

            The context of each parable and an immediate interpretation. a. Matthew 22:1f.  We have already seen (see observations on the "two sons"--day 3) that Matthew assembles three (+ a fourth) parables that deal with Jewish-Christian issues: the "two sons,": the "wicked tenants," and the "marriage feast" (the last receives a further commentary by the addition of a brief "robe" parable and concluding comments: 22:11-14).  The Matthean context is clearly Jesus' vehement exchange with the Jewish authorities who object to the "triumphal entry" and its surrounding activity and discussion.  In fact at the end of the "wicked tenants" parable (21:45-46) the authorities acknowledge that the parables are explicitly directed at them.

            What then does Matthew intend by the addition of still another parable on the community's relationship to Israel?  The Jewish-Christian Matthew is interested in underscoring various features of salvation history or the mutual relationship between God and Israel.  God has sent many "servants or slaves" in the past to Israel with a covenantal invitation (come to the heavenly banquet).  Matthew underscores the fact that both Jewish and Christian envoys (2 embassies) have approached the invitees but have been rebuffed, have been "argued out of existence," or have been mistreated or even killed (Matthew dwells here on the typology of the rebuffed and mistreated prophets--like Jeremiah especially--see contrast between Matt 16:14 and Mark 8:28).   After the second embassy there is even a judgment pronounced against Israel that God, in the guise of the king, has destroyed Israel's holy "city" (v. 7--reference to the war of 70 AD).  God the king has set up a banquet for Jesus his Son and the invitees have failed to come.  So Matthew turns to subsequent events, the turning to less worthy types, the good and the bad (a major theme in later Matthean parables) to enter the banquet room.  Matthew then turns to the new reality, the Jewish-Christian community (with its Gentile members as well--see the other parables).  It is a mixed group; it represents God's messianic banquet through out this long discussion with "the synagogue across the street."  This parable, along with the others, seeks to focus on various aspects of God's overall plan for human salvation, a plan that biblically focuses on Israel.

            Lastly, to bring this treatment of Matthew's interpretation to a close we need to discuss the parable of the "robe" (Matt 22:11-14--we did not reach this point in class) and the issue it raises, for Matthew reiterates an important theme which some in the community might easily forget: entry into the community does not guarantee participation in the messianic banquet.  The "robe" parable is intended as a final warning (like the conclusion of the "wicked tenants" about produce) that the new guests must meet the demands of the kingdom, symbolized by proper dress (the "wedding robe").   Note that in terms of plot the "robe" does not fit in as neatly as it should since it is only logical that people who, in the story, are forced off the streets to come in to the banquet (see Matt 22:10) would not have proper dress, i.e., a "wedding robe" to attend a marriage feast.  In this case the "robe" loses its logical setting in the plot and becomes a symbol for a productive, moral Christian life.  If one does not have proper behavior or produce one does not belong in the banquet hall.  Membership does not suffice; living what one is or believes is necessary.  Such are the demands of discipleship or membership (see Donahue, 95).  Thus the "robe" adds a warning to the Matthean community--God gives but also demands in return.

           b. Luke 14:15f.  Once again in Luke, Jesus is on his climactic journey to Jerusalem and is teaching his disciples as he marches toward his destiny (9:51f).  Luke employs in chapter 14 a well known Greek setting, the symposium, as the context for the "great dinner" parable.  In effect chapter 14:1-24 involves "table-talk" both as setting and, in this case, as content.  In meal contexts Luke questions the motivation of both self-seeking guests (7-11) and hosts (12-14) and addresses the outwardly pious by calling into question their lack of concern for humans (1-6) and God (15-24).  It is the last mentioned that is illustrated by the use of the "great supper" parable.  Indeed, the remainder of Luke 14, though introducing a change of locale focuses further on the demands of discipleship.

            What then does Luke intend by the use of the "great supper" parable in the context of chapter 14 and Jesus' extended teaching to his disciples?  In more general terms Luke is interested in discussing the demands of discipleship: care for others, proper motivation for action, genuine concern for God and commitment to God's demands, as warning against hasty enthusiasm (25-35).  In more particular terms, as regards this parable, Luke is interested in the Gentile reader's awareness that salvation history has profound lessons.  God's plan for Israel involves a repeated invitation that requires a response on Israel's part (1st embassy--note that missionaries in Acts repeatedly go to the synagogue), but it also involves a concern for the outcast (2nd embassy--note Jesus' ministry to the lost--see chapter 15 of Luke), and, Luke emphasizes, includes a place for all flesh (3rd embassy--the Gentile missions; see Luke chapters 9 and 10).  These various embassies touch upon the demands of discipleship: a warning to Israel that there are no excuses for evading the requirements of the kingdom (see further below), and an ironic commentary that it is the poor, the crippled, the blind, the lame, as well as the outcasts of humanity that respond to God's loving invitation; but it is a warning also to the new invitees that being a religious person requires more than appearances and more than hasty enthusiasm; one must be like Jesus: one must carry the cross and follow him (see 14:27).  Indeed, one must not only appear religious, one must show concern for God's loving invitation.

            Note: the Lukan text (and probably less the original parable) is influenced by the Deuteronomic observation about the demands of holy war.  Few are exempt (the builder of a new house, the planter of a new vineyard, and a newly engaged soldier) from the demands to answer the call to battle for Israel.  In this case, Luke's Jesus insists that not even the excuses (sanctioned in Scripture) for holy war exempt one from the absolute demands of God's kingdom (see Deut 20:1-9; see also class handout--a topic we did not treat in class).  Note that the threefold excuses, parallel to those of Deuteronomy, are unique to Luke.

           c. Thomas 64--this was not seen in class of course.  In this particular case we have more context to assist us in our interpretation of Thomas, for the two sayings that precede and follow the "banquet" parable are both about the danger of possessions (the "rich fool" and the "wicked tenants" -- numbers 63 and 65 respectively--see Parables Handbook, pp. 183-84).  Additionally, while the parable retains a two-embassy structure (see earlier discussion), it nonetheless shows clear signs of "Gnostic" redaction.  The extension of the more formalized socio-economic character of the excuses (finance, real estate, catering, and rentals) shows not only social evolution of early communities and their greater participation in the material realities of the time but also prepare for the parable's conclusion: "the buyers and the merchants shall not come into the places of my Father."  This conclusion reflects the Gnostic's sense of the dangers or corruption of material reality, the need to avoid these, and the utter incompatibility between the material and the spiritual.  There is also a hint here of divine knowledge as a gift to believers.

           The Jesus level.  Again one might speak of an original parable about invited guests who find excuses (even justifiable ones--see Deuteronomy 20 above) and about a later embassy to less worthy types.  Like other parables of this type, those treated by Boucher in chapter 7 under "grace or gift of the kingdom" (see Boucher handout 92f and especially 107-110), this one has a double focus.  The primary point addresses "salvation as gift," for the "unworthy" types (the ones invited after the refusals) are presented as meriting nothing; their gaining entrance to the banquet is purely a gift.  As outsiders (not part of the social world that gets invited to a formal, regal, wedding banquet) they are, at this point, given access to the banquet hall.  The secondary focus is a warning to official Israel--they are called to repent and even learn that salvation (the original invitation) is a gift both to Israel (with demands for productivity) and to "unworthy" types (the theme of demands/ challenge will be treated in other parables--see Boucher 110).  The parable, seemingly, is addressed both to official Israel, God's covenant partner, and to others who are less fortunate.  To both groups God's invitation, in different circumstances and with different demands, is a gift from a loving Parent.  Religion has a different focus when seen,  through Jesus' eyes, as the response of a grateful creature toward a loving Creator--both creation and salvation (re-creation or new creation) are gifts from a gracious God and the creature, according to the nature of gift, must respond in gratitude (see Boucher's third and fourth categories and our treatment of later parables).

          For our next class we will examine the short double parable, "the treasure and the pearl" from Matthew and Thomas.  We will deal immediately with the interpretation of the written and Jesus levels.  Read the stories and especially the Matthean context (chapter 13, the parable chapter--already on day 5--review this) and the proper category from Boucher's list (third category--see the pertinent material in the Boucher handout).  Consult also Donahue on the "treasure and the pearl."  Hope the method is becoming encreasingly clearer.

            Rather than give an extensive exegetical discussion of the "mustard seed" parable as a summary of what went on in our class session, I will instead give a brief summary of the conclusions reached in our exegetical study and will present these in a methodological sequence.  The conclusions offered for each author's use of the parable of the "mustard seed," as well as that of  the Jesus level, will offer crucial, pertinent insights regarding that interpretation rather than an extended development and application.  Instead the longer treatment will have to remain as a memory of our class discussion or require you to consult bibliographical references: Donahue's treatment of the parable on the gospel level (see Gospel) and that of Boucher and my own on the Jesus level (see the Parables Handbook, but especially the Boucher handout).

            One finds 4 versions of the story (noted above); each version maintains that the "mustard seed" is a metaphor for the kingdom.  Each presumes the following basic story: a (small) mustard seed is sown, becomes a (large) shrub/tree with branches that provide either nests or shade for birds.  Already from the outset one notices that the story can provide the following typology: a) smallest to largest --> so contrast, b) small to large --> so growth, or c) present and future --> already and not yet.  Any or all of these contrastive features would be available to a speaker, preacher, or writer who wishes to use this parable.

            Briefly one should note the similarities and differences between the 4 versions, similarities and differences which point to a use of Mark by Matthew and Luke as well as the probable influence of the Q version on these last mentioned versions (note the reference to "tree" and nests "in its branches" as well as the "cultivated" land for both as opposed to Mark's "shrub" and nest "in its shade").  Also one might wish to see the influence of canonical Matthew on a later version of Thomas (see "kingdom of heaven").  Also one might wish to see some differences as owing to redaction: Matthew combines "shrub" and "tree," speaks of "kingdom of heaven," and changes Mark's "on earth" to a more agricultural statement, "in his field."  Luke probably retains a double question from Q and changes Mark's "on earth" to a more urban and urbane statement, "in the garden."

            We begin with the written level.  We turn then to Mark's context (see handout 5/3 #1) and interpretation.  Mark's version is found in a parable chapter where Jesus the "strong man" (see 3:22f and 4:35f) is teaching insiders and outsiders, revealing to them the mysteries of the kingdom in parables (see 4:10; note, the "insider/outsider" theme is crucial to Mark, for often the one considered an "insider" [a disciple/a member of Jesus' family] is the one who does not understand or rejects him, while those considered "outsiders" [the crowds, a certain scribe (12:34)] are the ones who listen and accept Jesus' words).  Mark constructs the chapter so that at the center is the allegory on the "sower" (4:13-20--we will return to this in our study of "the sower" parable) which elaborates on the community's terrible situation, a situation which makes them or many of them think that the end of the world is near and that Jesus will soon return as Son of Man or warrior and judge (see Mark 13).  The parable of the "mustard seed" is used in this context (with much detail to be teased out of this usage, detail which we do not have time to develop) to indicate to insiders (the community of Mark) that while some are tempted away or discouraged by persecution, suffering, and hard times (4:13-20; that is, to become apocalypticists or fall away completely), the readers must listen to Jesus (the "sower" parable) and continue to be good soils (4:3 9), because, among other reasons, the kingdom (like the mustard seed)  begins and now is small but will, like the mustard plant/shrub, become a great reality in the future (so will the seeds of the "sower" provide a great harvest: 4:8).  Don't be discouraged, says Mark, for the kingdom (witness the "mustard seed") promises you the audience a future great reality and you must participate in the process for the good news must be preach to all nation before the end (13:10; 16:7), when the birds of the air will make their nests and find shade in that great shrub which is the final manifestation of the kingdom.  I would note that the "shade" of Mark's shrub may give a slight hint that the kingdom provides, proleptically, some protection or consolation to Mark's beleaguered, suffering community.

            We now turn to Matthew's context, usage, and interpretation.  The "mustard seed" of Matthew is used in the third great speech/discourse (chap 13) where Matthew has made use of most of Mark 4 and greatly expanded the parable material with Q and oral (M) tradition and created a second part to the parable speech (see handout 5/3 #2).  The first part (vv. 3-35) is addressed to the crowds (including the disciples--so insiders and outsiders) and so is a public speech.  The second part (vv. 36-52 where Jesus withdraws from the crowd and instructs the disciples) is addressed to insiders.  It should be emphasized that the "mustard seed" fits into the first part, the public part, so either it is addressed in part to outsiders (and insiders) or concerns "outsider" issues.  Further, Matthew chapter 13 finds its context (especially following chapter 12) in relation to the themes of acceptance and rejection of the kingdom (the different soils of the earlier parable and allegory: the negative ones (the Jewish authorities, the crowds, the family ofJesus) and the positive ones (the disciples).  But one must realize that Matthew's Jewish-Christian community, while insisting that it is the "true Israel," is puzzled and wonders why outsiders (particularly the non-Christian Jews) have rejected Jesus (note that Paul, the great Jewish-Christian apostle and writer, has a very similar discussion in Romans 9-11).  Matthew then is interested in the Jewish-Christian (and other) believers' reaction and advises them: be patient and tolerant toward non-believers (especially their fellow Jews) for the "kingdom of heaven" (Matthew's terminology) is like the mustard seed: it has a small beginning (what the community now sees) but in God's good time it will have great results (a great shrub that becomes an [even larger] tree)--see Matthew's version of the story.  So the parable, in Matthew, is told to believers about their reaction and attitude toward outsiders, but the parable the "mustard seed" is also an invitation and opening to Jewish outsiders.

            So we turn to Luke's version (we did not really analyze this material though we did offer some comments about Luke's interpretation).  Luke's parable is found within Jesus' long journey to Jerusalem (9:51f) where he is teaching his disciples and various crowds as he marches toward his destiny.  More immediately the "mustard seed" is found within a long sermon (chapters 12-13) concerning Christian and general response to present reality, i.e, living in a world with uncertain conditions and within an indeterminate time frame.  The community of Luke, i.e., the disciples following Jesus in the story of Luke, are wondering how the realities (real, possible, and even imagined) of persecution, possessions, and the endtime (and its temporal problems) are related to the kingdom of God.  A look at the contextual outline of Luke 12-13 (see handout 5/3 #3) would indicate that the first part of the Lukan sermon by Jesus addresses the disciples on the call for response to persecution, possessions, and preparation for the parousia or Jesus' return (12:1-53).  The second part of the sermon, addressed to the crowds (including the disciples), is an overall call to conversion: first, regarding the signs of the times, especially the endtime (12:54-59--there is a parable here about going before the judge: 12:58-59), secondly, a general call to repentance (13:1-21).  This last part itself is further devoted a) to those who believe that, if there is no trouble in their lives at present, there is no need for repentance (vv. 1-9--Luke has Jesus respond that, instead of complacency, one should see the time before the end as a second chance--see the "fig tree" parable: vv. 6-9--we will study this later) and b) a reassurance to all who hear Jesus that the "wonderful things" (see v. 17) of the kingdom have begun in Jesus' ministry (vv. 10-21), for example, the healing of a "crippled woman (vv. 10-17--God's presence is already being felt by those who believe).  Then, in conclusion, Luke has Jesus discourse on the nature of the kingdom by reciting two parables ("the kingdom of God is like")--both parables speak of small signs or beginnings but much promise for the future: the "mustard seed" (18-19) that speaks of the promise of great results and the "yeast" (20-21) that speaks of dynamism and growth that has already occurred.  Luke therefore uses the "mustard seed" to motivate proper Christian belief and behavior in view of a probably-distant parousia.  The Christian is to live in the present, real world but with the promise or hope that among the "wonderful things" that have already begun through Jesus one can look to the future, coming kingdom (or great tree) to motivate one's present activity and dedication.  The kingdom has indeed begun in the ministry of Jesus but, as indicated by the mustard parable, the end is in the distanct future (see the Lord's Prayer: "may your kingdom come" in Luke 11:2).

            What should we say about Thomas?  (This is a part we did not cover at all.)  Well, the parable is relatively simple and while it may indicate the influence of the canonical Matthew, it provides few contextual or redactional clues as to its interpretation.  Probably one simply needs to draw from it a standard Christian or in this case a general Gnostic reading.  The "small seed," ironically, is the gnosis or knowledge which the believer receives.  Thus, the last mentioned (the believer) would be a combination of the "cultivated earth" on which the seed/knowledge falls and the "great branch" that is produced.  There is then a further, probably missionary note, that the branches "become a shelter for the birds of heaven."  I assume that the writer is insisting that Gnostic souls become or can become the source of Gnostic awakening for others.

         Lastly, we come to the Jesus level.  What would Jesus have meant by the use of such a parable?  There is some debate about the possibilities and what follows is perhaps the generally-accepted scholarly suggestion.  Background and reading for this discussion will be found in Boucher handout, 69f, notably Boucher's discussion of the "coming of God's kingdom"--the first of the four important categories to understand Jesus' parable usage.

         As noted at the beginning of this observation one needs to isolate the basic story which Jesus would have used in preaching.  In this story about a minute seed that grows into a huge bush or tree, one detects a number of points of emphasis: contrast between small and large, emphasis on growth or equally a contrast between an unimpressive present and a promising, wonderful future.  Does this parable, in Jesus' teaching, speak about the nature or process of growth that the future kingdom is undergoing or is it meant to emphasize the sureness of the great, grand result (the final inbreaking of God's reign)?  One can consult Boucher (69f) about the biblical teaching concerning the kingdom, especially how it has humble beginnings and slowly moves to grand results.  Remember the diagram I drew on the board in class (Oh computer graphics, where are you when I need you?): a small seed, over time, becomes a large tree.  That is the way things are in agriculture.  The speaker would be saying: the kingdom is like the growth of the mustard seed: from a tiny seed to a large shrub/tree.  Jesus teaches that it is so with the kingdom--faith leads the believer to trust in Jesus and his teaching and so to have confidence (this is what hope means).

         Lastly, I would add that while this parable might have been applied by Jesus to the general notion of how one must have faith to see the coming of God's kingdom in the present probably unimpressive signs, particularly those of Jesus' own preaching, it is possible that Boucher is right in suggesting that there is perhaps an autobiographical note to be detected here:
                     "The Jews expected the reign of God to be glorious and universal; little of this was
                    evident in Jesus' ministry, which was small, beset by failure, unpromising.  Yet it is
                    precisely in such humble beginnings that God's reign, which will include Gentiles
                    as well as Jews within its scope, is inaugurated.  Even a shrub as impressive as
                    the mustard plant giving shelter to birds has its beginning in a tiny seed."  Further,
                    one might add: "God's reign is already breaking in with the words and works of
                    Jesus but has not yet fully come" (80).
So we would have here "an exciting glimpse into Jesus' self-understanding" (82).

            Whether a glimpse into Jesus' self-consciousness, a note of self-defense in view of his own claims to be God's agent or as part of his general teaching about the "coming of God's reign or kingdom," we have in the parable of the mustard seed a powerful source of motivation of how believers are to relate to the kingdom: "may your kingdom come," "give us what we need," and we know that it will be a reality beyond our wildest dreams.  So great is this confidence that we (the extended reader, like the past, intended reader) have, that we can go about the business of doing the Father's will.  Again, the insights of parable study!

            Today's class was an exercise, a review, and an implementation of our method of parable interpretation.  As an exercise it was an opportunity to go through the entire process (see PH 188), from a consideration of the basic facts or story to an examination of the context of the various parable versions and various cultural and literary considerations that might arise.  Next we focused on the contexts of reach written version, whether the immediate setting of the parable or its more general context within the part of the gospel where it appears. After having examined the contexts we then proceeded to discuss each writer's use and interpretation of the parable under consideration.  Next we hoped to focus on the Jesus level and to try to discern the possible "setting" and meaning of the parable in Jesus' mission and teaching--of course we did not complete part of the process for the two parables in question.

            As a review the class period became an opportunity to employ the parables seen during the two previous sessions, the "sheep" and (to a less degree) the "two sons" parables, the former as found in Matthew, Luke, and Thomas, and the latter as preserved only in Matthew.  While in class we repeated many of the ideas seen on days 2 and 3, and here, in these observations, I will dwell instead on the overall process, one more time.  As an implementation of the method, the class offered us an opportunity one more time to go through the entire process and to examine the function or purpose of each step taken.

            Thus, we begin by insisting on proper use of bibliography, especially the biblical text as found in an "academic" bible (preferably an NRSV--critical text and even footnotes are important), as found in the PH (in synoptic or parallel layout), or as found on the daily handouts.  Also we stress that review of the purpose and interests of each gospel writer is important (see chapters in PH on each gospel).  Lastly, I repeat once more that our two text books, Donahue and Boucher (as a class handout or packet), focus on the written and Jesus levels, respectively.

            So we present briefly a summary of our discussion and suggest review of this material from time to time in conjunction with PH, p. 188.

            1. Search for and establishment of the basic facts of the story and its use as a parable.  Since a parable is a story and since the various versions of Jesus' parables have undergone various changes in oral transmission and redactional activity, we found it necessary to isolate the basic (and structural) features of the stories in question, whether the shepherd and his lost sheep or the father and his "no-yes" saying sons.  In the case of the latter we needed to decide on the parameters both of the story and of the parable, whether it included vv. 31a, 31b, and even 32.  Also for the latter we note (here though not in class) that some manuscripts reverse the order of the sons' replies, from the one who says "no" to the opposite.  Also we noted that in this parable the following question and self-incriminating response of the hearer is a common parable feature.  As regards the "sheep" story or parable we noted that the conclusions of the versions are considerably different and do not extend the parable or story but provide varying applications of the story (see more detail on handout 4/3).

            2. A Study of the Context and Details.  a) Once again we examined the immediate and more general setting of the parable in each writer, namely the extended community speech context of Matthew's chapter 18, Luke's parable chapter (15) which deals with "lost" things and their christological implications.  The Gospel of Thomas, as expected, provides no real context.  For an extended review of the context where the  "sheep" parable appears in Matthew and Luke, see notes for day 2.  The same process was mentioned for studying the "two sons" parable, namely its setting in Matthew chapters 21-22 as one of three parables that deal specifically with Jewish-christian issues (see notes for day 3).

            b) We also emphasized the importance of the unique details and emphases of each version, whether "stray or lost," "mountains or wilderness," or "if he finds and until he finds" for the "sheep" parable, or features of Matthean versus non-Matthean vocabulary and other redactional activity in the case of the "two sons" parable (especially "kingdom of God" in stead of "kingdom of heaven," and the importance of "truly I say to you").

            3. Some Cultural Observations.  For the first time, formally, we address the possible cultural background of these parables, particularly the importance of sheep/shepherd imagery for ancient Jews, especially as it is found in the Old Testament (see Ezekiel 34 for the "sheep" parable--we did see this in class and a rereading of that chapter is most enlightening for a reading of the parable generally and Matthew in particular).  The Jesus tradition on several occasions employs such imagery to speak of Jesus and his ministry. The parable of the "2 sons" may suggest echoes of the stories of Genesis concerning Adam's/humanity's and Israel's responses to God (Genesis chapters 2-3 and 12).

            4. Parable Interpretation on the Written Level.  By focusing more fully on the context within which the parables find themselves we renewed our discussion of the "sheep" parable as it is used by Matthew, Luke, and Thomas (see day 2)--the first ecclesial, the second christological, and the third gnostic in intent.  The context and peculiar details served as clues to the author's interpretation and probable nuances.  The same can be done for the "two sons" parable; we conclude, logically, that Matthew probably addresses contemporary Jews who have said "no" to Jesus' invitation to the kingdom and implies that they, like the first son, can change their minds and consequently "do the will of their father" (see discussion of day 3).

            5. Parable Interpretation on the Jesus Level.  Though a certain amount of time was spent here to underscore the nature of this endeavor, the avenues available to reach this more speculative goal, and, in effect, discuss Jesus' interpretation for the two same parables, we ran out of class time--nonetheless I will spend some time here in this observation to focus more on the Jesus level, Boucher's four categories, and the use/meaning of the parable on the Jesus level.  Remembering that parables are by nature stories that are used to explain less well-known realities (i.e, parables are stories used as metaphors or similes), we noted that the basic story becomes the means for reaching this interpretation.  In effect one begins with the basic story or plot of the parable and seeks to situate it into the "general setting" of Jesus' teaching about God's kingdom--we will return to this often, namely both that the story provides clues and safeguards for interpretation and that the basic teachings of Jesus are essential for understanding his use of parables.

            The above having been said, it was noted with emphasis that, at present, our best avenue for interpreting parables at the Jesus level resides in the use of M. Boucher's classification of the Synoptic parables into four categories (originally in PH, pp. 115f, now in the class handout pp. 69f; see a list of the parables according to her four categories on pp. 161 and 162 of the PH):
                                God's part:         1) coming/nature of God's reign or kingdom (chap 6)
                                                                    2) grace or gift of God's reign (chap 7)
                                        human part:      3) challenge/demands of the kingdom or discipleship (chap 8)
                                                                    4) call to repentance or openness to the kingdom (chap 9).
It was noted further that Boucher classified both the "sheep" and the "2 sons" parables in the second category: "parables of God's grace."  Both parables seemingly derive from Jesus' teaching about God's kingdom (i.e., reign or rule) as based on, reflecting, or teaching about God's love for humanity.   For the first parable (the sheep) it is suggested that God is the shepherd/owner of the sheep who seeks the lost; while in the "2 Sons" parable one is to see God as giving nay-sayers a second chance to do their duty.  The latter parable, in Jesus' teaching probably also warns those who say "yes" but do not follow through on their promise or who simply do not understand or accept God's graciousness to sinners.  The call of, gift to, or forgiveness of sinners (or humanity generally) is a major feature of God's relationship to humanity.  These parables are also germane to Jesus' activity on God's behalf.  But they also offer a warning to hearers who do not appreciate the nature of divine gift but rely on human effort rather than divine mercy and love for life, its meaning, and goal.   (Read the introduction to Boucher chap. 7 (PH, pp. 127f/92f).

            We will return to these methodological considerations later.  At this point, I would note that the proper interpretation of Jesus' parables must address the complex settings, uses, and meanings of these as they are now embedded in the many stories, used as parables, about the one who seemingly was a consummate user of parables to teach his disciples and the crowds.

            On this day our goal is the interpretation of one parable and to focus our attention, in methodological terms, on the levels of interpretation, first, the written level (Matthew only in this case and only in passing for the class period) and secondly, on the Jesus level (what Jesus would have intended by the use of such a parable--this of course was the focus of our study today).

            Today in class I do not feel I was very focused in my explanation of the parable itself, so I will give special attention to the process and to the explanation of the parable.  Once again we must isolate the bare essentials of the story: a man has two sons, the first of whom refuses to work in the vineyard but later does so, and the second of whom agrees to work but does not.  There then follows a question (which did the father's will) and an answer (the first).  The story then is about the difference between "saying and doing." But immediately one notices that several additions follow the basic story.  Perhaps even v. 31a ("which of the two...the first") is an addition; also v. 31b (about "tax collectors & prostitutes...ahead of you"), and certainly v. 32 (about John's preaching being accepted by tax collectors and prostitutes and not the addressees).  Also, one should note that there are serious textual problems (not seen in class owing to time but indicated on the class handout) since some important manuscript (and some modern translations) reverse the responses of the sons: the first says "yes but does not" and the second says "not but does"--the reverse of the standard order.  The order of events certainly would affect interpretation (who is first and who second in the typological story?)  Nonetheless, the story lends itself to typology and reaction/ judgment and application, the very features that would make the story appealing to a speaker in the first place.

            We now turn to Matthean interpretation (we did not spend much time here in class though I constantly referred to Matthew's use of this parable and two others in chapters 21 and 22 to focus on Jewish issues).  First we consider the more general context of the “2 sons.”  Chapters 19-23 of Matthew (material between two major speeches: chaps 18 and 24-25) are a disparate section of the gospel where Jesus performs various acts and speaks on several occasions as he approaches Jerusalem, enters, and in the present situation has a series of encounters with the Jewish authorities following his triumphal entry into Jerusalem and into the temple.  Matthew borrows a series of 5 "controversy stories" from Mark 11:27-12:37, a series which is interrupted in Mark by the stark parable "the wicked tenants" (Mark 12:1-12).  Matthew retains all 5 "controversy stories" and the parable but now adds two new parables, one before the Wicked Tenants and one after it.  The interesting thing about this new group of parables is that all three deal with Jewish-Christian issues: the "2 sons," the "wicked tenants," and the "wedding feast" (with the "robe": Matt 21:28-22:14).   Matthew the Jewish-Christian writer expands greatly the Jewish-Christian themes (found already in Mark), for the controversy between Jesus and the Jewish authorities now specifically addresses various facets of the Matthean community's relation to historical and contemporary Israel.

            As one addresses in an even more focused way the immediate context of the "two sons" parable, one
notes important Matthean clues to proper interpretation (these data are given on your handout, thought not really seen in class).  A favorite Matthean phrase in v. 31a ("doing the will of [the] father") points to the Matthean concern that non-Christian Jews do the will of the Father by reversing their decision and that they do the Father's will by accepting Jesus as the promised Messiah ("doing the will of the Father" is usually used by Matthew in discipleship contexts--Matthew may well have edited and not added v. 31a).  Indeed, the added saying about John and his rejection by Jesus' contemporaries also points to an outreach by the Matthean community to fellow Jews.  As Donahue would insist (Gospel, 88-89--one of your text books), the Jewish characters are admonished to be like the first son, that is, despite their initial "no," nonetheless to do the will of the Father by changing their minds and believing in Jesus.  The parallel between John and Jesus is further underscored (see the Lukan parallel in 7:29-30) and suggested by the story about John's and Jesus' authority (just prior to the "2 sons" parable) as John preached, was arrested, and killed, so was Jesus.  Also as John and Jesus were rejected by the Jewish leaders but both accepted by the outcasts and sinners, so now Matthew appeals to the synagogue across the street (see Donahue, pp 85f) to be like the first son, indeed like the first son's typological heirs, the tax collectors and prostitutes and change their initial "no" and now to accept Jesus the Jewish Messiah.

            What however would we say about the Jesus level?  Once one removes the probable accretions or additions (v. 32) one can focus on the parable which contrasts an initial "no" with a meaningless "yes." It then allows the proper answer and commentary of v. 31 to become clearer.  The "first and the second" typology of the story finds its counterpart in the commentary: sinners (repentant "nay-sayers") enter the kingdom "ahead of you" (those who say "yes" but do not produce or act accordingly).  The original story refers typologically to humanity's refusal to act according to God's will (concretized in the story of Adam's sin or refusal) and to the Gentiles' second chance in saying "yes" now to the Father's will by accepting Jesus' invitation (again concretized in the response of sinners, tax collectors, prostitutes).  The same story refers also to Israel's original "yes" to God but its refusal to accept God's Messiah in Jesus, i.e., to do the Father's will by accepting the Father's agent.

          Thus, on the Jesus level the parable addresses God’s boundless love in allowing those who are unlovable, those who say "no," to have a second chance (whether Gentiles or sinners more generally).  The parable is about God's love for sinners and perhaps also a defense of Jesus' mission to sinners.  But at the same time the parable addresses in criticism those who object both to God's love for sinners and Jesus' mission to them.  There is irony here: those who "think they are holy," who believe "they have earned God's love" are also the ones who object to God's infinite, unmerited, boundless love and mercy to those whom they consider less or not worthy at all.

          Finally, I would point out that much of the above discussion will be greatly clarified by a review of the following categories (see Parables Handbook, pp. 115f/69f--see Boucher handout):
                                         the coming of God's reign (Boucher, chap 6)
                                         the grace/love of God's reign (chap 7  -->  "2 sons" belongs here)
                                         the challenge of saying yes/of discipleship (chap 8)
                                         the call to repentance or acceptance, openness to the call (chap 9).
These categories and their themes will greatly clarify the parables and their meaning on the Jesus level (we will refer to these categories for each parable to be seen in the future--so read and keep your Boucher handout close at hand).  The "2 sons," which fits in the second category (grace--Boucher chap 7) might best be described in Boucher's words:
                The parables discussed in this chapter have three main points: they portray God's
                boundless love and mercy; they justify Jesus mission to sinners; and they rebuke
                Jesus' critics who cannot understand or affirm God's love for all.
So the "2 sons" parable on Jesus' lips probably focused primarily on God's love, or the divine gift of grace to humans who do not merit God's love but are given it as a parent does a child or as God giving sinners and even outsiders a second chance.  It speaks of a gift of love even as a second chance to those who have already said "no." But it has a secondary note as it addresses a warning to those who either refuse or do not understand God's graciousness--many parables in this category have a primary and a secondary point (more on this later).

          Conclusion: what we have tried to clarify are two levels (that of Matthew and that of Jesus) with two quite different meanings (one addressing the Jewish-Christian situation of the early community and another addressing the great love God has for humanity, even those who are seemingly the least worthy).  Such insight is the potential of studying "the parables of Jesus."   Again I would stress that method is very important here, even if only used in a rudimentary way. 

          For our next class we will review our overall method: focus on the story/parable, turn to the written context (furnished by the gospel writers) and its (often-multiple) interpretation, and then lend our attention to the Jesus level (use of Boucher's four categories--PH 115-60/69-159--whole Boucher handout) and its interpretation.  We will make use of the parables seen thus far: the ewe lamb (day 1), the stray/lost sheep (day 2), and the two sons (day 3).  Reread these stories/parables and we will go through the interpretive process (see PH 188) one more time before we begin in earnest our study of the parables.

           On this day our goal was twofold: a first step in investigating a method or schema to interpret parables and an examination of one parable (the "sheep" parable).  In effect, we intended to use this parable to examine one major aspect of parable interpretation, namely, the importance of context for the interpretation of a Gospel parable, whether this context be immediate or more general.  Though the schema is graphically displayed in your Parables Handbook (p. 188), it nonetheless merits further explication.

            Our focus was on the written level of parable interpretation (not that of the early, oral period nor that of Jesus--more on these later) but that of the written text, namely Matthew, Mark, and Luke.  In the present case we are studying the appearance of the "sheep" parable in Matthew & Luke (the Q-Source) and even in Thomas.

            1) First we isolated the basic story--the common story contained in Matthew and Luke (we could have considered Thomas here): a man has 100 sheep; one is lost, and he sets out to find it.  He rejoices once it is found (there is an added saying in both versions about the one and the 99 others--this is clearly an early lesson drawn from the story)--see the verso of the class handout: there the story is told as a parable not just as a story--see #4.

            2) Next we looked at the general and immediate contexts of each parable usage.  a. Matthew who creates five major, crucial speeches for Jesus devotes one to community issues.  It is in this one, chapter 18, that the "sheep" parable is employed.  A careful look at the chapter shows that it forms part of a long discussion about the importance of "little ones," especially those who go "astray" (a term Matthew prefers to Luke's "lost").  The "little ones" in a definite sense are the "greatest in the community" or rather they are so important that one cannot or must not mistreat them (Matt 18:1-9), for receiving a little one is receiving Jesus.  In a positive sense one (leaders and other members of the community) must be shepherds who go out to seek the stray sheep or little ones who have gone astray.  Yes, Peter (the Matthean Jesus seems to say), your job is to forgive, to seek the lost brothers and sisters (even 7 X 70); you and your fellow Christians are the shepherds; God is the one who is to judge (see 18:21-22).  The remainder of Matthew chapter 18 is about the
community's treatment of strays (even confrontation, reconciliation or censure--see vv. 15-20).  The context of Matthew's "sheep" parable is an ecclesial (or church) one; the parable is used to underscore the community's duty to be shepherd to the flock, particularly to the wayward.  (Note that much else could be said about Jewish influence on Matthew's telling of the "sheep" parable, particularly Ezekiel 34; see handout, p. 1 Notes).   Thus we have used context to provide the Matthean interpretation.

            b. Luke employs this parable in chapter 15.  Jesus is on his journey to Jerusalem (9:51f) and is teaching his disciples about many things.  In this case one finds three parables about "lost" things: a sheep (3-7), a coin (8-10), and two "lost" brothers (11-24 & 25-32).  These parables are particularly focused on Jesus since from other passages in Luke (19:10: "the Son of Man...seeks out and saves the lost") and in the introduction to chap 15 (vv. 1-2) we hear that Jesus' role is to seek the lost, the poor, the dispossessed, in short "the poor, the crippled, the blind, the lame": (7:21-22; 14:14, 21, etc).  Vv. 1-2 are crucial for an understanding of why Luke uses the "sheep" parable at this particular point, right after the following:
                    "Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him.  And the Pharisees and the
                    scribes were grumbling and saying, 'This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them' (Luke 15:1-2).
From the immediate context then one knows that sinners are coming to Jesus (sinners & tax collectors are listening to him and eating with him) and the religious establishment (Pharisees & scribes) objects to this--the Messiah according to some traditions was to come to gather a holy community (not a collection of sinners).  Luke responds to this seemingly common accusation against Jesus' unorthodox approach to the kingdom by reciting the "sheep" parable.  Jesus, God's agent, has as mission to seek God's lost sheep.  Jesus is the shepherd, the lost are sinners whom he is committed to seek in his Father's name and the religious establishment are the other sheep, people who should rejoice on the finding of the lost sheep.  Note that Jesus the humane Messiah even places the lost sheep on his shoulders for its return (v. 5).  The theme of seeking the lost, in greater complexity, will continue in the following "lost" parables of chapter 15 (coin and 2 brothers).

            c. The Gospel of Thomas (# 107) also has a version of the "sheep" parable, one that focuses on the size of the stray sheep, the effort expanded by the shepherd, and his preference for this sheep.  Each of these features can be explained by Gnostic concepts: the Gnostic believer is the ultimate concern of the shepherd/revealer.  After going astray the sheep is now found, saved, and beloved.  (We only hinted at some of these ideas in class).

            3) The context of each (especially Matthew 18 and Luke 15) then has led to a proper interpretation (already expressed above) of each writer's use of the parable.  Matthew uses Jesus' parable and other materials to address community or ecclesial issues throughout chapter 18.  Luke on the other hand is intent on defending Jesus' ministry to sinners, outcasts, and more generally the undesirable.  The reading of Thomas is greatly fecilitated by a knowledge of Gnosticism.

            I might end by noting three issues not raised in class.  a) If you would look at part 4 of page 1 (day 2 handout), you would see a reference to the Jesus level.  In effect we have dwelt entirely during today's class with the written level (Matthew, Luke, and Thomas).  A question we did not raise yet at this point is the following: what would have been Jesus' meaning in using this "sheep" parable?  While some suggest that Jesus' meaning would have been roughly what it is for Luke (i.e.: a Christological one--Jesus would have been defending his ministry to sinners and outcasts), I suggest that the shepherd, in Jesus' preaching, is God,.  The meaning would be theological instead, since Jesus would be preaching about "God's kingdom" and God's desire to reach those who are lost.  I believe that the "two sons" parable, later in chap 15 of Luke, also suggests this as it focuses not on the two sons but on the seeking/rejoicing father.  See discussion of Boucher in PH, 131-133 (originally--Boucher handout, pp. 101-07) for the Jesus level and in Donahue, Gospel, 172-73 & 147-49 for the written level.

            b) A second issue I raised in varying degrees was the variation between the Matthean and Lukan versions of the "sheep" parable.  Apart from using the terms "astray and lost" (respectively), one finds that the shepherd leaves the 99  "on the mountains" in Matthew and "in the wilderness" in Luke.  Other differences: Matthew says "if he finds it," "truly I tell you," and ends with a statement about "the Father in heaven" and speaks of the "little ones."  The mountain theme may reflect the influence of Ezekiel 34 and the other terms and themes are favorites of Matthew (see for example Matthew's version of the Lord's Prayer: "our Father in heaven"--6:9).  Luke prefers the wilderness geography of the original Palestinian context but focuses on the shepherd's activity: "when he has found it," "lays it on his shoulders," "gathers friends and neighbors" to rejoice, and repeats terms about finding the lost sheep.  Clearly, the concern here is about the humane Jesus who not only does the Father's will but lovingly seeks and welcomes the lost ones.   These are primarily redactional issues.

            c) I did not discuss the hyperbolic statement about "more joy" over the one found than over the ninety-nine that never got lost or went astray (note that Thomas has no such statement, only Matthew and Luke).  The meaning must be sought in a Semitic exaggeration: so great is God's joy over one "penitent or returnee" that it cannot be compared to anything, not even joy over the 99 others.  For example, we can say of a minor, last-minute event that "it made my day," when in effect many episodes during that day will have contributed to a euphoric sense about a "great day."  The expression must not be taken literally as though God loves (repentant) sinners and does not care for (or cares less for) those who are righteous or holy.  We will discuss the issue at greater length when we study the "two brothers" parable of Luke 15 (see day 14).

            See class handouts for the texts and contexts of the Matthean, Lukan, and Thomas version of the "sheep" parable.

            Note, I encourage each of you, even in pairs or groups, to stop by to discuss the methodology and issues being seen in class--do this early so that our future study of individual parables will be a happy and even easy process, once you see what parable interpretation is all about.

            Our objective was to examine three parable complexes and focus on their stories--in effect we focused on the first ("the ewe lamb," and briefly on the third--"Honor your Father" and the third will be seen more at length later as we study Luke's parables).  We isolated the stories from their contexts to see them as stories, originally that were inserted in a given context: the "ewe lamb story/parable" was inserted into the biblical history of David (2 Samuel 11-12), that of the "Pharisee and Tax Collector" into Jesus' long journey to Jerusalem (Luke 18:9-14),  and that of the "son who insults his father" was used within an ancient Jewish sermon based on the book of Deuteronomy.  The stories can be and indeed were probably isolated items that writer or preacher used  (see Parables Handbook, p. 185 or “handout” for copy of texts).

            In the first case, the parable or story is used in the story of David to illustrate God's displeasure at his immoral, disgusting conduct (this is done by the author of 2 Samuel who is telling the story of King David).  The story is expertly used, indeed enhanced with pathos (the moving description of the lamb as a beloved pet), to demonstrate David's repentance when confronted by his unacceptable behavior.  David’s behavior is like that of the rich sheep owner.  Further, the story is told so expertly, that to the character in the story (David) it fits well into his sense of justice/injustice (he condemns the behavior of the rich owner) and yet is so imprecise that the character does not initially see the story as applying to himself (the comments of the prophet are necessary for the lesson to reach home--the reader of the biblical story no doubt has put the stories together and knows already what Nathan intends).  The parable is or acts like a metaphor: the story of David is indeed that of the rich owner--not literally, especially not point by point (e.g. the lamb is killed but the woman involved lives to become David's wife, etc).  The story of the rich owner is close enough for David in the story and the reader of the Second Book of Samuel 11 to see how well the parable/metaphor applies.  The parable is an extended metaphor--instead of a word or phrase one finds a story that acts as a comparison of the thing or person being described.  Instead of a "screaming headline" (a regular metaphor) we have "David as a murderous, greedy sheep owner, " one worthy of condemnation.

            In the third case, the story of "the son who insults his father" is a standard statement of family wisdom: a parent deserves “honor” as parent and provider of the child and should receive this honor.  If however one cannot or will not render what is due at least one should, out of fear, do one's duty toward one's parent--this is proverbial wisdom.  The preacher applies this wisdom to Israel's relationship, indeed historical relationship to God.  God, as parent, is to be praised for past benefactions ("I have chosen you"), but if not for those then at least for eschatological reasons (fear the loss of divine reward in the future).  Note that the Jewish preacher is commenting on Deut 32:6 ("Do you thus repay the Lord, O foolish and senseless people"-- "'foolish people' in regard to the past and 'senseless' in regard to the future").

            In the case of the "Pharisee and Tax Collector," see day 10 of "parable study."

            So our focus on this first day is on the nature of the parable--it is a story that is used as a simile (a similitude), as a parable (a parable proper) or as an exemplary story (an example given to illustrate a point or claim).  The similitude which speaks of recurring events and draws an explicit comparison (like, as), uses the present tense and usually wishes to inform (a tree puts out leaves- every Spring).  The parable instead speaks of past events (usually fictive stories), uses the past tense and often attempts to reform or at least give insight--it calls for a response on the part of the hearer/listener (a man planted a vineyard).  The exemplary story is described above.  Of importance here then is that a parable is either an extended simile or metaphor--a story whose function is to inform or reform a reader/listener by comparing (or illustrating in the case of an exemplary story) a less well-known person, thing, or activity to well-known, indeed proverbially accepted wisdom expressed through the story.

            Our focus then has been on the parable as story (and how it functions)--we also spent some time (indirectly) discussing figures of speech to be able to understand more fully what a metaphor and simile are and how they are used.  That done, in future classes we will examine the crucial importance of the context of the story for understanding what the speaker or writer wishes to say by means of these parabolic stories (this is the written or Gospel level--next class or class # 2--use especially of the Donahue book).  At a further remove we will also consider the different levels of meaning of various parables: what the gospel writers intended or suggested (written period: Mark, Matthew, Luke and also Q and Thomas), less clearly how the early Church during its formative years used various parables (oral period), and finally, with some creativity and meditative analysis, what Jesus meant by employing various parables (historical level--see day or class 3--use especially of the Boucher handout or packet).

            See your class handouts for the text of the parables in question.

            Reading: see Lambrecht and Donahue in Parables Handbook, pp. 29-40 & 41 46 for this and the next 2-3 classes.   In preparation for the second day (on the "stay/lost sheep"), please read and examine the various versions of this "sheep" parable in Matt 18:12-14 and Luke 15:4-7 (in your NRSV and PH 168); also contrast the version of Thomas (#107) in PH p. 184.  Lastly and even more importantly consult the "interpretive schema" for interpreting parables on p. 188 of your PH.

            Welcome to the study of the parables.  Having studied the Synoptic gospels (the sources of the parables) at some length, along with the Q-Source and the Gospel of Thomas briefly,  we now turn to the main topic of the course.  We will study the various parables found in the Jesus tradition to examine their meaning as used by the various gospels (the written level--including Thomas), even as used by the early church prior to the usage of the evangelists (the oral level--even in the Q-Source), and, with much conjecture, as used by Jesus during his career of preaching.  We will focus first on the parable form, trying to formulate a clear description of what parables are and how they have been used in the gospel tradition (including all three levels).  Please read the parables before class, be ready to dig into each gospel to see what their contextual use is (bring your Bibles alwalys), and then be  ready to speculate about their meaning in Jesus' kingdom preaching (the Jesus or historical level).

            You might begin by reading a very good, brief introduction to parables in your Parables Handbook, pp. 41-45 ("The Parables of Jesus" by J.R. Donahue).  Good luck in trying to discern the "meaning then" (on several levels) so that with time you might, with some confidence, be able to deal with the "meaning now" of these fascinating little stories, which ultimately derive from Jesus' teaching.  Properly examined and interpreted, these little stories will inform, challenge, and even reform the "extended reader."