Did you have a hard time interpreting the parable?
The mashal part of the parable (verses 31-32) is ambiguous for a very specific reason.
Part of the problem is that Westerners believe this is a complete parable, attempting to solve it as it sits:
31 He presented another parable to them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field; 32 and this is smaller than all {other} seeds; but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants, and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches."
Every ancient Hebrew reader/hearer would've known this to be only half of the equation. It's the reason the disciples asked Jesus why He was speaking to them in language that couldn't be understood. Each Hebrew acquainted with parables knew full well that they came in two parts. There was a mashal, e.g., Matthew 13:31-32. There was also a nimshal, or an explanation, that went with the mashal.
Even for some Westerners, the understanding that it is virtually impossible to interpret this without a nimshal (explanation originating from the author) is evident. Yet, because Matthew chose to omit the explanation for this one - or so it appears - we think we must interpret it to the best of our ability. This is a mistake. It's a mistake of terrible proportions.
There are seven kingdom parables or mysteries as Jesus Himself called them. When He gave the nimshalim to the disciples for the first two - and as Matthew chose to record them - they were very detailed and covered each aspect of the mashal (see Parables of Sower and Wheat and Tares and their given explanations in Ch. 13. Examine the detail of each explanation).
Notice too, that the disciples needed an explanation, further demonstrating that His speech was enigmatic. And are the five remaining meshalim (Mustard Seed, Leaven, Hidden Treasure, Pearl, and Good and Bad Fish) any less cryptic and difficult than the first two?
If we are to realize that the other five kingdom parables are like the first two then we must also realize that we need explanations for them as well. It certainly appears to the 21st C. reader that the Apostle has not seen fit to include them.
The Parable of the Mustard Seed is only the mashal-half of the equation. Would Matthew leave his first century reader without this ultra-important piece of the puzzle?
The mashal alone has too many different specifics to be simply guessed at. That method won't work. And the reason for this is simple. One needed to become a disciple of the Rabbi to get to the explanation, to get to the meaning of the mashal. The mashal part of the parable was exclusionary, it was generally impenetrable. It was privileged information.
It was the essence of the nominal Master and disciple relationship. Each and every Rabbi had teachings that were reserved for their own inner circle, their devoted disciples. Jesus in this regard differed not from his contemporaries.
And by supposedly leaving out the other five nimshalim (explanations), let me assure you, Matthew knew exactly what he was doing.
Comments