A NOTE ON THE MATTHEAN VERSION OF THE STORY OF THE MUSTARD SEED:

A PARABLE OF CONTRAST

A RESEARCH PAPER
PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF
LOYOLA SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SUBJECT
MATTHEW: A GOSPEL FOR A COMMUNITY BETWEEN TRADITION AND FUTURE
BY:
FR. ANDREW T. ORIBIANA
31 OCTOBER 2009

REV. FR. BORIS REPSCHINSKI

PROFESSOR

1
 INTRODUCTION

Mustard seeds from Palestine have been an object of interest for me ever since I

have seen samples of them brought by one of our Scripture professors in a class. It

opened my mind to the fact that my perception of what is written in the Gospels could

be significantly different from what the evangelists would want to convey or actually

meant. In the Philippine context, mustard (mustasa in Tagalog from the Spanish,

mostaza) is a green leafy vegetable that grows not taller than one foot. The size of its

seeds is not notably smaller from the rest of the vegetables’ seed that we grow in our

gardens. Then what could be so significant about this minute grain that it deserves

mention in the Sacred Scriptures?

In this particular oeuvre I would like to take the opportunity to widen my

comprehension of the import of the Parable of the Mustard Seed as I plunge into the

field of scholarly research. I had once written a paper about the Parables of the Mustard

Seed in the linear structure of Mark’s Gospel. This time, I would like to examine The

Parable of the Mustard Seed, using the Synoptic Gospels, but focusing especially on

Matthew.

The Kingdom of God has also been one of my interests since I stepped up in the

Theologate and so with this endeavor, I hope to gain not just insights about the

Kingdom of God but also acceptance, love and devotion to it through the magnificent

light that the tiny Mustard Seed will impart.

2
 I. THE MATTHEAN STORY OF MUSTARD SEED: A PARABLE

The story in Mt 13:31-32 is regarded and plainly called by some authors like C.H.

Dodd, R. T. France and D. G. Hare as ‘Parable of Growth’.1 ‘Contrast Parable’ is yet

another term applied by authors like J. R. Donahue and J. Marcus to characterize this

story about the mustard seed.2 Frederick Bruner classifies this passage as ‘Little Power

Parable’.3 The different titles used by the authors mentioned are valid, but the author of

this work would like to simply call Mt. 13:31-32 simply as ‘Parable of the Kingdom’ or

‘Parable about the Kingdom of Heaven’4 up to this point, as this is what is explicit and

clear from the text itself. “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed…”. Ultimately,

whether the parable speaks about growth, about contrast or about power, such

emphasis will only be a category that is hoped to shed more light on the Kingdom of

God. A. J. Overman, looking at a wider context, asserts that the parables in the Gospel

of Matthew are “primarily parables of the kingdom of heaven.”5 J. Nolland directs us to

the more conspicuous data in ch. 13 of Matthew’s Gospel that what the evangelist really

1
See, e.g. Charles Harold Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1961),
152; Richard Thomas France, The Gospel according to Matthew (Michigan: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing
Company, 1985), 228; Douglas R. A. Hare, Matthew: Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and
Preaching (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1993), 156.
2
See, e.g. John R. Donahue and Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Mark, Sacra Pagina Series, vol. 2
(Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 2002), 171; Joel Marcus, The Mystery of the Kingdom of God ( Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1986), 211.
3 nd
Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew a Commentary. The Churchbook Matthew, vol. 2, 2 ed. (Michigan:
2
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004 ), 33.
4
Although some authors would use the other terms such as growth, contrast or power, they are one in
placing their discussion of the parable under the ‘Kingdom of Heaven/God’. In this work, the author will use the
terms ‘Kingdom’, ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ (which is peculiarly Matthean) and ‘Kingdom of God’ synonymously. See
Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution (Michigan:
2
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994 ), 261.
5
J. Andrew Overman, The Gospel According to Matthew: Church and Community in Crisis (Pennsylvania:
Trinity Press International, 1996), 188.

3
does is liken ‘something about the Kingdom of God’ to different situations or objects

mentioned in the parables.6

From what has been mentioned above, we can see that the Matthean version of

the story has been unanimously considered as a parable7 primarily perhaps because

this is clearly stated in its introduction, “He then put before them another parable...” (Mt

13:31).8 But what do we mean by parable? C. H. Dodd in his book The Parables of the

Kingdom gives us a simple but widely accepted definition of a parable as “a metaphor or

simile drawn from nature or common life, arresting the hearer by its vividness or

strangeness, and leaving the mind in sufficient doubt about its precise application to

tease it into active thought.”9 Using this definition, let us examine the story under study.

The Matthean story of the mustard seed avers, “The kingdom of heaven is like a

mustard seed that someone took and sowed in his field; it is smallest of all the seeds, but when

it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that birds of the air come and

make nests in its branches.”10 From an examination of the text itself, Mt. 13:31-32 is

clearly a simile as it presents in a narrative manner a comparison between the Kingdom

of Heaven and the sowing of a mustard seed. This is signaled by the word ‘like’ (o`moi,a)

which is characteristic of a simile. The sowing of a mustard seed is a picture coming

from a farmer’s life; from the experience of Jesus’ audience especially in the rural life of

6
John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew A Commentary on the Greek Text (Michigan: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 2005), 550.
7
It is specified that what we are dealing with in this particular sentence is the Matthean version of the
story. This is so because the Markan version has been classified by competent authors under a category other than
‘parable’ (in the strict sense of the word). A discussion on this matter will be found on the second section of this
work as the author compares the Matthean and Markan versions of the story.
8
If we look into its parallel in Luke, the story is introduced by the phrase “He said therefore,” Lk 13:18
(NRSV) and the Markan version a simpler “He also said,” Mk 4:30 (NRSV).
9
Dodd, Parables of the Kingdom, 5.
10
Matthew 13:31-32 (NRSV).

4
Israel. This story left the hearers (and still leaves its readers until these present days)

with the question as to what the preacher exactly meant by the comparison drawn. Any

conclusion drawn from and any lesson discerned on the story seem indefinite as the

entire reality of the Kingdom remains unknown. However, under the criteria given by

Dodd, we can safely say that indeed Mt. 13:31-32 falls under the category of a parable.

Dodd himself classified it as one, calling it a Parable of Growth.

Another definition of parable against which we can evaluate Mt. 13:31-32 is the

one given by Madeliene Boucher. It states, “we may define the parable, then, as a

tropical narrative which functions as religious or ethical rhetorical speech.”11 By

‘narrative’ Boucher meant “the form of story-telling, such as we have in short stories,

novels, fairy tales, fables and parables”.12 By ‘tropical’ she meant ‘figurative’ or ‘a

meaning in addition to the literal’. The last part of her definition, ‘religious or ethical

rhetorical speech’, is the third in the list of four possible purposes of a particular speech.

By using Boucher’s definition, we can make the following statements about the story

under study. First, it is narrative in form as obvious from the verb tenses used. And it

carries a meaning other than the literal that serves the purpose of teaching, convincing

or persuading13 the hearers about a certain aspect of the Kingdom of Heaven. The

validity however of these conclusions will only be clearer as we move on in our

discussion of the ‘parable’.

11
A thorough discussion of the element she used in her definition can be found in the first three chapters
of her book. See Madeleine I. Boucher, The Parables, New Testament Message 7 (Delaware: Michael Glazier Inc.,
1981), 39.
12
Boucher, The Parables, 22.
13
Ibid., 32-33.

5
 Robert H. Stein reminds us however, that in defining a parable, we should take

into consideration the meaning of parabolē during the time of our Lord in his particular

sitz im leben.14 And we will discover that parabolē or mashal in our Lord’s time has a

much wider meaning than the ‘twentieth-century parable’. In the Old Testament and/or

the New Testament, a parable (mashal or parabolē) can refer to a proverb, simile, or

riddle.15 At any rate, whether we use the definition proposed by Dodd, the more

technical one given by Boucher or the definition of parable during Jesus’ time, we can

safely say that Mt 13:31-32 is in fact a parable. However, we should be aware that since

the late 19th century the parables in the Gospels had been classified under three types:

a) similitude, b) parable (in the narrower sense), and c) exemplary story. Boucher

explains that the lack of another term for the narrower type of parable resulted in

deplorable confusion.16 In her book, Boucher presents the differences among the three

types of parables. A similitude is the shortest of the three and it relates, in a very brief

manner, a recognizable recurring experience in people’s lives. A parable differs from

similitude in length, which is usually longer and more detailed, and in the kind of story it

narrates, which is a fictional one-time occurrence. Exemplary story, as its name

suggests, is a story that presents a specific case (an example) that demonstrates a

general principle, the best known and most beautiful example being the Parable of the

Good Samaritan.17 Looking back once again on the Matthean version of the story, we

14
His suggestion is in consonance with Dodd’s and Jeremias’ principle that call the readers’ attention to
the original context of the parables. See Boucher, The Parables, 34.
15
Boris Repschinski, The Controversy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew: Their Redaction, Form and
Relevance for the Relationship Between the Matthean Community and Formative Judaism (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 22.
16
Boucher, The Parables, 17.
17
Ibid., 20-21.

6
can clearly see that the way it is related corresponds to the second classification.

Hence, the story in Mt 13:31-32 is a parable both in the wider and the narrower sense.

A. The Nub of the Parable

J. Nolland was so keen to observe in the Matthean version of the Parable of the

Mustard Seed that nothing has been mentioned about ‘the intermediate development’ of

the seed.18 D. Hare like Nolland also believes that the parable does not speak of

growth.19 R. T. France explicitly stated that from the text itself ‘the point of the

comparison is not the seed’ either.20 It is then appropriate to ask at this juncture, “What

then is the main point of the parable? What occupies the greater part of it?”

Most of the Matthean scholars agree in saying that the most important element of

the parable under consideration is the amazingly sharp contrast between the grain of

the mustard seed and the grown plant from it. Different authors used different binaries

to express this contrast, R. T. France used the binaries ‘unimpressive beginnings--huge

extent’21 and ‘hidden beginning--triumphant climax’22; F. D. Bruner, ‘littleness of the

means--largeness of the end’23; D. R. A. Hare, ‘initial state--final state’24; D. E. Garland,

‘small beginning--surprising end results’25; J. P. Meier, ‘small, unpromising beginnings--

18
Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 552.
19
Hare, Matthew: Interpretation, 156.
20
France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 228.
21
Ibid.
22
Ibid., 229.
23
Bruner, Matthew. A Commentary, 33.
24
Hare, Matthew: Interpretation, 156.
25
David E. Garland, Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel (New
York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1993), 149.

7
full, triumphant expansion’26; D. Senior, ‘insignificant beginning--flourishing

conclusions’27. Raymond Brown has his own way of expressing the contrast in the

following words, “The point of the parable of the mustard seed is the sudden, surprising

shift from the near invisibility of the kingdom to its full grandeur and its universal, all-

embracing hospitality.”28 However these interpretations do not go unchallenged. The

significance of the ‘contrast’ is put into question ‘on the grounds that the Q version of

the parable does not mention the tiny size of the seed.’29 But Boucher explains that the

proverbial smallness of the mustard seed is surely implied in the Q version as reflected

by its appearance in Mt 17:20 and Luke 17:6.30 Moreover, she posits that the contrast is

also implied from the hyperbolic conclusion used, obviously, to stand in contrast to the

seed.31

Matthew’s version of the parable, in the observation of the author of this oeuvre,

placed its sole emphasis on the great difference between the alpha and the omega of

the mustard plant even to the point of exaggeration on both extremes. It is noticeable

that every single word in verse 32 contributes to the contrast that exists on the tiny seed

and the grown ‘tree’. The accent on the contrast between the initial and final states of

the mustard plant is facilitated by the Matthew’s use of explanatory clauses o]

26
John P. Meier, Matthew (Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1980), 148.
27
Donald Senior, Matthew, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998),
154.
28
Raymond Brown and others, eds., The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Bangalore: Theological
Publications in India, 1998), 656.
29
Boucher, The Parables, 74.
30
Ibid., 74. “They [the Jews] apparently could not imagine anything smaller [than the grain of mustard
seed.] This is obviously a contemporary Palestinian feature. Jesus used it and called attention to the contrast
between beginning and end.” See Herman Hendrickx. The Parables of Jesus: Studies in the Synoptic Gospels (UK:
Geoffrey Chapman, a division of Cassell Ltd., 1986; reprint, Makati: St. Paul’s Publication, 1987), 34.
31
Boucher, The Parables, 74-75.

8
mikro,teron me,n evstin pa,ntwn tw/n sperma,twn and auvxhqh/| mei/zon tw/n

laca,nwn evsti.n. The former highlights the minuteness of the seed while the latter

underscores the greatness of the plant that has grown. Again it should be stated that

the mustard seed was proverbially tiny.32 However, it should be clarified that the

mustard seed was not literally the smallest known seed.33 The attempt of Matthew to

widen the contrast between the tiny seed and the grown plant is more obviously shown

when he stated that the seed becomes a tree (kai. gi,netai de,ndron). R. T. France

writes that Matthew’s use of the word ‘tree’ could be ‘a deliberate exaggeration’;

although it is possible that Matthew could be talking about the black mustard (brassica

nigra) which grows as high as five meters.34 But he did not stop there; Matthew even

allows the birds of the air to make their nest on its (mustard tree’s) branches35 thus

making clearer the point of the parable, i.e., the great contrast between the tiny seed

and the great tree. To achieve the contrast, Matthew borrowed from Mark the statement

‘the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds’, and from Q he borrowed the statement ‘the
36
mustard seed becomes a tree’. “Neither statement is literally true, but the customary

hyperbole serves to sharpen the point of the parable: contrast.”37 From the foregoing

32
Aside from Mt 17:20, one may confer m. Tehar. 8:8; m. Nid. 5:2. See Richard Thomas France, The Gospel
of Matthew (Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007), 527.
33
France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 228.
34
France adds, “…the point of the parable does not depend on its botanical accuracy: parables often
exaggerate for effect.” The tree being mentioned in this Matthean parable is opined to have its reference and
‘designed to evoke’ Dan 4:12, 21.” See France, The Gospel of Matthew, 527. Donald Senior gives us the additional
information that this kind of mustard grows rapidly. See Senior, Matthew, 154.
35
Nolland clarifies that “A good-sized mustard plant might be large enough for nesting birds, but given
that the plant is an annual and comes to maturity at varying times, it is unlikely actually to attract nesting.” See
Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 551.
36
Meier, Matthew, 148. Matthew’s conflation of Mark and Q will be discussed in a lengthier way on the
next section of this work.
37
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 527.

9
discussion, the nub of the parable is clearly the contrast and the author of this paper

feels it safe to call the Parable of the Mustard Seed as a Parable of Contrast.

The author of this work believes that if the emphasis of the parable is on the

ability to grow or the power to grow, the parable should have been stated in a different

manner, spending more words to describe the process that the seed should have

undergone.

B. The Purpose of the Parable

The consequent and inevitable questions at this point are “What did Jesus intend

to convey in emphasizing the contrast in this parable?”; and “What was Matthew’s

purpose in incorpotating this parable in his work and highlighting the contrast?”.

Let us try to answer the first question by surveying how some authors understand

the meaning behind the ‘contrast in the Matthean Parable’. For Donald Senior, ‘the

parable, as an image of the kingdom of heaven, suggests that the mission of Jesus,

judged to be insignificant by his opponents, will ultimately triumph.’38 F. D. Bruner on a

similar note, suggests that historically, Jesus used the parable to teach about the future

‘glorious vindication’ of his ‘little ministry’.39 The opinion of R. T. France is almost similar

to that of Senior and Bruner. For France, in spite of the indecisive and unreceptive

response to Jesus and his message as evident in chs. 11-12 of Matthew’s Gospel,

Jesus would like to assure his listeners that God’s purpose will surely arrive at its

38
Senior, Matthew, 154.
39
Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary, 33.

10
triumphant realization.40 And God’s purpose has something to do with the Kingdom

Jesus was preaching about. From what these authors have said, we can say that the

stress on contrast asks for confidence, from the part of disciples, as regards Jesus’ little

gospel. Luz holds on the position that the parable had been told to teach the disciples

about courage.41 The parable is an assurance of the ultimate success of Jesus’ ministry:

a success that goes naturally with its having been sown on the ground.42 “The

beginning already guarantees and in some sense generates the outcome.”43

Let us now consider the second question at the beginning of this section before

we form our conclusion as to the message of the parable. In the context of Matthew’s

community, we can propose just as Senior did, that the parable is particularly addressed

to the Matthean community which in itself had experienced oppositions from its

adversaries but has already started to flourish and could expect for a brighter future.44

A. J. Overman gives us almost the same manner of interpreting the parable in view of

the Matthean community with the following words,

Although the Matthean community constitutes a minority in their setting- theologically and

politically, and almost certainly is the claim of these two short parables [mustard seed and

leaven]. In time, the community of the kingdom of heaven will grow and fulfill its hopes and

the claims it makes about Israel’s future. To Matthean detractors or those with doubts, this

would sound like wishful thinking. But this helps supporters gauge their expectations.

These parables encourage them to look for signs of the kingdom in subtle and

40
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 526.
41
Meier, Matthew, 87.
42
France presupposes in this parable an impatience on the part of the disciples to see the complete
annihilation of all that is opposed to God’s kingdom. See France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 229.
43
Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 552.
44
Senior, Matthew, 155.

11
 inconspicuous events. Small gains and very minor victories, in light of these parables, can

now be interpreted as a little more growth on the part of the kingdom of heaven. This is

how all movements who view their struggle as one of good against evil have had to
45
interpret their impact on the world.

Luz, on his part, assumes that Matthew and his community, in writing this parable

thought not about the Kingdom of God as Jesus did, but about their tiny church.46

Understood in this sense, the mention of ‘the birds of the air’ nesting on the mustard

plant’s branches47 opens up to the interpretation that probably ‘the birds’ refer to the

Gentiles. Hence for C. H. Dodd, the parable--in its entirety-- portrays the flocking of the

Gentiles into the kingdom and for J. Jeremias, it foreshadows the same reality.48

On a kind of third level of interpretation, Luz and Bruner combined the first two

ways of understanding the parable. In his own scholarly search Luz concluded that the

Parable of the Mustard Seed teaches that ‘it is Jesus’ own work as laid out and initiated

in the Gospel of Matthew that will become the biblical Tree of God” and that ‘the hope of

the church is that in the end there will be a World Tree for all human beings.49 F. D.

Bruner suggests that Luz’s conclusion is perhaps the same with what Hilary saw early

on in history that the World Tree refers to Jesus himself, and, in particular, his cross

45
Overman, Church and Community in Crisis, 201.
46
Ulrich Luz, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, trans. Bradford Robinson (Cambridge: University
Press, 1995), 87.
47
“Matthean authors mostly, proposed that the image of a great tree, as in the ancient world, is ‘a symbol
of a strong and flourishing kingdom’ as can be deciphered from Judg 9:7-15; Ps 80:8-11; Ezek 17:23; 31:5-6; Dan
4:10-12. The birds in this parable represent the nations gathered under the protection of the empire as Ezk. 31:6;
Dn. 4:20-22. But the language of the parable is closest to that of Dn. 4:21 (Theod.).” See Senior, Matthew, 154. In a
kingdom-of-heaven context the image of the power and scope of Nebuchadnezzar’s rule is fitting, but so is the
image of the mighty cedar from a small shoot in Ez. 17:22-23 (as a promise of the restoration of monarchy after
the Babylonian judgment). Cf. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 228. “In any case, the emphasis is on what is
provided for the birds in the way of security.” See Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 551.
48
Beare, The Gospel according to Matthew, 307.
49
Bruner, Matthew. A Commentary, 36.

12
transformed into resurrection (cf. Luz, 2:335).50 Moreover, Bruner, quoting Hunzinger

(TDNT 7:290-291), believes that the biblical World Tree symbolizes the end which ‘will

be glorious, earth-filling and Gentile-embracing.51

II. THE PARABLE OF THE MUSTARD SEED: A SYNOPTIC COMPARATIVE

APPROACH

The Parable of the Mustard Seed has three canonical versions. Aside from Mt

13:31-32, we can also find it in Mk 4:30-32 and Lk 13:18-19. In addition to these three,

there is also a version that can be found in #20 of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas.52 The

version in the Gospel of Thomas reads, “The disciples said to Jesus, ‘Tell us, what the

Kingdom of Heaven is Like?’ He said to them, ‘It is like a mustard seed, smaller than all seeds.

But when it falls on plowed ground, it puts forth a large branch and becomes a shelter for the

birds of heaven’.”53

In this section of the paper, however, we will limit the comparison between Matthew and

Mark and between Matthew and Luke.

50
Ibid.
51
Ibid.
52
In 1946, this Gospel was found near the modern town of Nag Hammadi, located in upper Egypt. It was
included among dozens of manuscripts from an ancient Coptic monastic library. It is said that the manuscript is
th
not earlier than the 4 century but the contents are surely older. There has been “a lively controversy at present
over the question whether the Gospel of Thomas is a writing which is based on a Coptic translation of the Synoptic
Gospels, or whether the Gospel of Thomas is based on a tradition entirely independent of the Synoptics, in which
case some of its sayings may be more authentic than those now found in our canonical Gospels. The debate
centers particularly around the parables as Thomas records them.” See David L. Dungan and David R. Carthlidge,
Sourcebook of Texts for the Comparative Study of the Gospels: Literature of the Hellenistic and Roman Period
Illuminating the Milieu and Character of the Gospels (Montana: Society of Biblical Literature, 1971), 177. What is
peculiar about this version is that the parable has been spoken by the Lord in answer to a question of the disciple.
J. Jeremias said that such an introduction is characteristic of the Gospel of Thomas. It is also an interesting thing to
note that the twin or pair parables of mustard seed and leaven are separated in the Gospel of Thomas. See
Hendrickx, The Parables of Jesus, 45.
53
Dungan, Sourcebook of Texts for the Comparative Study of the Gospels, 180.

13
 A. Matthew, The Conflator

There are different positions as to how the different canonical versions had been

formed and what seems to be the more original version. Augustine proposed that Mark

condensed Matthew and then Luke drew on both. Griesbach believed that Luke edited

Matthew and then Mark condensed both. For Farrer, Matthew expanded Mark and then

Luke drew on both. In this work, however, we will follow the still more convincing

position based on the Two Source Hypothesis which most Matthean scholars take to be

the most credible. Such a position holds that Matthew and Luke independently edited

Mark and Q. Q, in the Two Source Hypothesis, refers to the individual sources of

Matthew and Luke other than Mark. The Q version of the parable is based on a careful

comparison of Matthew and Luke. H. Hendrickx presents a reconstruction of the Q

version, a fifth and hypothetical form of the Parable of the Mustard Seed, in the

following words, “What is the kingdom of God like? And to what shall I compare it? It is like a

grain of mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field and it grew and became a tree,

and the birds of the air made nests in its branches.”54 Based on the correspondences we

can see on the three canonical versions, the author of this work goes with the position

that Matthew conflated Mark and Q.55 We hope that the following comparisons that will

be drawn would somehow cement the conclusions we have already made on the first

part of this work and would serve as proof to the position Matthew fused the Markan

and Q versions.

54
Hendrickx, The Parables of Jesus, 32.
55
Hendrickx suggests that the peculiarities found in the Matthean version is the result of Matthew’s
conflation of his Markan and Q sources. See Hendrickx, The Parables of Jesus, 32.

14
 B. The Story of the Mustard Seed: A Markan Similitude but a Matthean Parable

The author of this work believes that there are several important changes that

Matthew has done in the Markan version. First is in the form itself of the story. The

Markan version of the Story of the Mustard Seed, according to scholars, is not a parable

(in the narrower sense) but a Gleichnis (“similitude”). H. Hendrickx describe a

‘similitude’ in the following words, “a common experience, of what often and usually

happens: when the mustard seed is sown upon the ground….when it grows up…when it

puts out large branches…This is all something which regularly happens.”56 The Markan

version of the parable goes,

“He also said, ‘With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable will we

use for it? It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of

all the seeds on earth, yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all

shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in it

shade’.”57

In the Matthean version, what we have is a ‘specific, past story: it tells of a specific

case’.58 In this respect, we can say that Matthew followed the Q version in using aorist

tense (although he did not write in a straight aorist in the entire parable) and not the

present tense as Mark has done. Such use of aorist tense made Matthew’s version a

parable in the strict sense of the word.

The introductory formula of the Matthean version is also quite of interest and

display a significant alteration. Mark’s version begins with a tautology, a double question

56
Ibid., 31.
57
Mark 4:30-32 (NRSV).
58
Ibid.

15
(Mk 4:30), in the way rabbinic parables are occasionally introduced.59 According to H.

Hendrickx, the detailed introduction of Mark is ‘thoroughly Jewish’ and indicative of the

more original contrast structure of the Markan version.60 Matthew, in his version, chose

to have an introduction (Mt. 13:31) that is characteristically Matthean with the phrase

o`mi,a evsti,n (is like). There seems to be an attempt, on the part of Matthew here to

detach from what was customarily Jewish. This is perhaps one of the evangelist’s way

of reacting on the persecution that the Matthean community was experiencing. Or

perhaps this is to make the story more welcomed for and more welcoming to the

Gentiles and for those who are not familiar with the Jewish culture.

Another significant change done by Matthew is by substituting Mark’s o]j o[tan

sparh/| evpi. th/j gh/j with his o]n labw.n a;nqrwpoj e;speiren evn tw/| avgrw/|

auvtou/. In this clause, we can point several revisions done by Matthew that somehow

give us a clearer picture of the message that the evangelist would like to convey. F. W.

Beare, however, sees this revision not as improvement because according to him,

Matthew changed the simpler and better ‘when it is sown in the earth’ with the

strenuous ‘which a man took and sowed in his field’.61 We should, therefore, assert that

this change was not simply intended for grammatical purpose but for a more weighty

reason. It is then appropriate to examine the changes Matthew wrought on this

particular part of the story.

59
The second part of the double question, however, is used to make the question more precise. H.
Hendrickx opined that even the kai. e;legen that goes before the Mark’s double question is not characteristically
Marcan. See H. Hendrickx, The Parables of Jesus, 34. Joel Marcus, on his point of view, believes that Mark used the
double question to emphasize “the difficulty in speaking about the kingdom of God, which is mysterious (cf. Mk
4:11) and not readily apparent (cf. Mk 4:3-8, 14-20).” See Marcus, The Mystery of the Kingdom of God, 209.
60
Hendricks, The Parables of Jesus, 34.
61
Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew, 306

16
 First, while the Markan similitude expressed no human agent, Matthew added an

“a;nqrwpoj” who took the trouble to sow a single mustard seed.62 This gave Matthew a

chance to make the style of this parable conform to the narrative style of the preceding

parables63. This addition opens up for interpreting the parable in connection to Jesus

Christ, ‘a man’ mentioned in v. 37 of the same chapter. The same addition then could

also have denoted ‘God’s action in the world’.64 In this particular section of the parable,

Matthew’s addition of the word labw,n gives him a chance to draw a parallelism

between ‘the man’s taking a mustard seed here and the woman’s taking leaven in v

33c’.65 Matthew, instead of placing the verb spei,rw in the subjunctive mood chose to

have it in the indicative mood. Gundry clarifies that this particular change is a sign of

Matthew’s clear and specific intention in incorporating this parable in his work. With the

use of the indicative mood, the parable could have referred to Jesus’ ministry and ‘work

of establishing God’s kingdom in history’.66 Matthew’s use of the Greek avgro,j (a ‘field’

cultivated for agriculture) instead of a simple gh/ (‘earth’, ‘land’ or ‘ground’) goes with his

intention. The word ‘field’ creates the link of the Parable of the Mustard Seed with the

Parable of the Tares, where we can establish that the ‘man’ refers to Jesus, the Son of

Man (cf. Mt. 13:37) and the ‘field’ is the world (cf. Mt. 13:38).67

The other significant changes Matthew has done with the Markan version

underscore the magnitude of the kingdom. From Gundry’s work, we can get the

62
Hare, Matthew, 156.
63
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 526.
64
Hare, Matthew, 157.
65 nd
Robert H. Gundry, A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution, 2 ed.
(Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994), 266.
66
Ibid., 264.
67
Ibid.

17
following list of such changes: “(1) Matthew’s substitution of “it has grown” for Mark’s

second and redundant “it has been sown”; (2) The replacement of kai, with the typically

Matthean combination me,n … de, (15, 1); (3) The omission of Mark’s avnabai,nei kai,

and advance mei/zon tw/n laca,nwn (larger than the herbs) to an emphatic first

position; (4) The taking of “all” from “the herbs” in order to transfer the grown mustard

plant out of the class of herbs; (5) The replacement of Mark’s “and it forms large

branches” with “and it becomes a tree”; and, (6) The extension of Mark’s allusive

quotation of Dan 4:9, 18 (12, 21) to include the previously replaced branches.”68

Through these changes we can reckon that the greatness of the kingdom Matthew

speaks about is all embracing; including “a large number of professing disciples, true

and false.” 69 Gundry concludes that both in Jesus’ intent and Matthew’s understanding,

the birds mentioned at the last part of the parable stand for all the nations of the world.70

The other changes that we can find in the Matthean version can be considered

no longer as improvements but simply as refinements of Mark’s verbosity.71 Examples

of these less significant changes include (1) Matthew’s use of conjunctions instead of

Mark’s relative pronouns, rendering Matthew’s parable more flowing, and (2) Matthew’s

elimination of Mark’s repetition of evpi. th/j gh/j.

C. The Story of the Mustard Seed: Lucan and Matthean Parable

68
Ibid., 266-267.
69
Ibid., 267.
70
Ibid.
71
Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew, 306.

18
 At the outset of this section, let us immediately present and read the Lucan

version of the story. “He said therefore, ‘What is the kingdom of God like? And to what should

I compare it? It is like a mustard seed that someone took and sowed in the garden; it grew and

became a tree, and the birds of the air made nests in its branches’.”72And before we go to the

details of the changes done by Matthew on the Lucan version, it would be appropriate to

start with the assertion that what we are dealing with this time is a comparison between

two parables. Luke’s version is a straight story in the aorist (labw,n, e;balen, hu;xhsen,

evge,neto and kateskh,nwsen) while Matthew started with aorist but followed Mark’s

present tenses later in the parable (labw,n, e;speiren, auvxhqh/|, gi,netai and

kataskhnou/n). This would, however, be enough for us to make an assertion that both

Luke and Matthew recorded a story, i.e. a parable that relates a particular instance.

Recalling that Mark’s similitude used the present tense ( avnabai,nei, gi,netai, poiei/

and kataskhnou/n), we can assert once again with Streeter, Schmid and Schulz that

Matthew conflated Luke (or Q-Luke) with Mark.73 It will be noticed that in the following

discussion, both of these Matthean sources will be mentioned.

Right at the very introduction of the parable, we can see a difference between the

Q-Lucan and Matthean versions. Luke, like Mark, has the double question; Luke’s

double question however is preceded by e;legon ouvn (‘he said therefore’, Lk 13:18)

72
Luke 13:18-19 (NRSV).
73
Michael D. Goulder, Luke: A New Paradigm (England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 568. Dupont,
however, would challenge the conflation theory by positing that the Markan form is earlier than the Q-Lucan
version. For Dupont the Q-Lucan version is the one that has dropped some of the elements from the more original
Markan version. Dupont’s position however is not convincing at all.

19
which links the parable to the miracle story in vv. 10-17.74 We notice here, that Matthew

would not really take the double question, even if such introductory would appear in

both of his sources. We should say once again that he introduced his parable by simple

writing o`moi,a evsti.n h` basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/n (‘the kingdom of heaven is like’), a

characteristically Matthean form.

Matthew chose Mark’s spei,rw (to sow) over Luke’s ba,llw ([simply] to throw,

put or cast). M. D. Goulder opined that the terms used by Luke such as ba,llw and

kh/pon are indications that Luke is less familiar of Jewish law.75 Hence, we can

understand why Matthew, who is also familiar with the Jewish ways, followed Mark in

this section of the parable.

Again, Matthew preferred to follow the Markan source over Luke in providing the

smaller-than-all-seeds/larger-than-all-vegetables explanatory phrases. While Luke

showed no concern for this contrast, Matthew formulated his parable to make this

contrast more conspicuous. As what we have said above, this could have been done to

be an encouragement to the community of disciples who might have been doubting

where Christ’s ministry would end.

In connection to this, Dupont proposes that the Q-Lucan form “has dropped the

smallest/greatest line in favor of the ‘tree’ because by his time the Church has already

become a world-wide organism, like the world-tree in Ezekiel 17 and 31, and Daniel

4.”76 Goulder, on his part, similarly thinks that the Q-Lucan form of the parable was ‘a

74
Ibid., 564.
75
Ibid., 567.
76
Ibid., 568.

20
later development of the Marcan form of the mustard seed, made by a Christian who

had witnessed the worldwide expansion of the Church.’77

On the one hand, Luke’s immediate mention of tree in his version could be an

indication of his attitude of not explicitly looking beyond the situation described. On the

other hand, Matthew’s version reveals his attitude of looking beyond the situation of the

mustard seed and how he assessed the Church during his time. Kingsbury in his book,

The Parables of Jesus in Matthew, wrote:

(It had become) impossible, from Matthew’s standpoint, to say that the presence of the

Kingdom in the world was as insignificant as a mustard seed. At the same time, the

mustard seed had not yet become a ‘tree’…Although Matthew’s Church was certainly still

awaiting the final manifestation of the Kingdom of God (‘it becomes a tree’), it was none

the less even now a conglomerate of both Jews and Gentiles. Hence, while the ‘process

of growth’ was by no means complete, Matthew already sees the Old Testament prophecy

(v. 32d) being fulfilled.78

Aside from what has already been mentioned, there seems to be no other

significant changes that Matthew has done in the Q-Lucan version. Like Luke, Matthew

retained the twin parable, that of the leaven79, right after the Parable of the Mustard

Seed.

77
Ibid., 569.
78
Hendrickx, The Parables of Jesus, 42.
79
Hendrickx explains that this ‘twin’ of the Parable of the Mustard Seed, which is Parable of the Leaven
might have been unknown to Mark but seems to go always as pair in tradition. He added that this twin parable,
one of what a man did and another of what a woman did, is a striking feature of the tradition of the teaching of
Jesus.’ See Hendrickx, The Parables of Jesus, 45.

21
 To sum up the comparisons done, we may say that Matthew followed Luke in

using a narrative form (and hence making his version a parable in the strict sense), and

followed Mark in stating the sizeable contrast between the small beginning and the

great closing stage of the mustard seed. This simply shows that the Matthean version

can indeed be called a ‘Parable of Contrast’. And the highlighted contrast, on

Christological and Ecclesiological levels of interpretation, asks for patience and courage

on the part of the disciples for the glorious end that is in store for Christ’s ministry and in

store for Christ’s faithful followers.

CONCLUSION

The parable chapter of Matthew, which contains the Parable of the Mustard

Seed, appears between the controversy stories in ch. 12 and a conclusion about the

rejection that Jesus would experience from the people of his home town. Davies and

Allison propose a three-part structure of ch. 13 (1) The Parable of the Sower (13:1-9)

and the its interpretation; (2) The Parable of the Tares (13:24-30), together with the

“complementary” Parables of the Mustard Seed (13:31-32) and Leaven (13:33) and

[their] interpretation; and, (3) The Parable of the Treasure together with the

“complementary” Parables of the Pearl (13:45-46) and the Net (13:47-48) and [their]

interpretation.80 From the interpretations of all these units we can find the overarching

theme of Matthew about Jews not coming to faith in Jesus. While the first unit gives ‘the

hardness of heart of the people’ as primary reason and ‘the malicious ploy of Satan’ as

the secondary reason for the rejection Christ has experienced, the Parable of the
80
Garland, Reading Matthew, 144-145.

22
Mustard Seed, together with the parable of Tares and Leaven, seem to attribute this

lack of response ‘to the inglorious nature of the advent of the kingdom before the

consummation.’81 The ending verses of chapter 13, vv.57-58 once again affirm the

theme of rejection that is present in the entire Matthean gospel. The parable chapter

serves as a response to the theme that appears from the beginning of Matthew’s

gospel, i.e., the rejection that Jesus would experience from his own people. The

message and location of the Parable of the Mustard Seed particularly tries to remedy

the growing impatience of the disciples who await Christ’s triumph.

The parable chapter also opens up for the discussion about Discipleship and the

Ethic of Two Ways. From the text, we can notice that the disciples did not ask Jesus

about the meaning of the parables; instead what they asked about is the reason why

Jesus would speak in parables. Implicitly, we can glimpse at the fact that they already

understood the parable but are hesitant or would not act accordingly.82 Against this

context, the Parable of Mustard Seed gives the disciples the push to do God’s will and

spread Christ’s message however insignificant their efforts and accomplishments may

seem.

The same message of the Parable of the Mustard Seed seems appropriate even

against the background of persecution that the Matthean community may have been

experiencing. All their sacrifices, the Parable of the Mustard Seem assures, will result

ultimately in the worldwide spread of the Kingdom. In this Christological and

81
Ibid., 148-149.
82
Garland reiterated this point by saying that , “In Matthew’s presentation, Jesus’ parables are not brain
teasers intended to stump people. There is nothing hard to understand about the parables unless one’s mind is
already hardened to the truth. Jesus begins to “speak” (not teach) in parables to the crowds (13:3), not to prevent
them from understanding, but because they do not understand (13:13). The separation between those who do and
do not understand has therefore occurred before Jesus speaks in parables.” See Garland, Reading Matthew, 147.

23
Ecclesiological background, the parable asks from the disciples and the Matthean

community, respectively, not only patience in waiting and courage in working for what

they know is right, but also the ability to see beyond what is tangible.

In the context of Mission, the Matthean version of the Parable of the Mustard

Seed calls for continuous determination from his community to make possible the

growth of the World Tree that is welcoming even to the Gentiles. The parable shows a

church that is struggling but is sure to win; staggering but eventually will be able to

stand tall and flourish. God has already done his part, the disciples, ‘the believers’

would have to do theirs and trust that what Christ has started will end victoriously. The

Kingdom of God inaugurated by Christ’s coming will in the eschatological times prove

itself to have conquered the world; a very tiny seed that has grown indeed as a tree.

And hopefully such event should not make any follower of Christ regret.

+ AMDG

24
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beare, Francis Wright. The Gospel According to Matthew. New York: Harper & Row
Publishers, San Francisco, 1981.

Boucher, Madeleine I. The Parables, New Testament Message 7. Delaware:Michael

Glazier Inc.,1981.

Brown, Raymond E., J. Fitzmyer, and R. E. Murphy. The New Jerome Biblical
Commentary. Bangalore:Theological Publications in India,1990.

Bruner, Frederick Dale. Matthew a Commentary, 2nd ed. Michigan: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 2004.

Dodd, Charles Harold. The Parables of the Kingdom. New York: Charles Scribner’s
Sons,1961.

Dungan, David L. and D. R. Carthlidge. Sourcebook of Texts for the Comparative Study
of the Gospels:Literature of the Hellenistic and Roman Period Illuminating the
Milieu and Character of the Gospels, Sources for Biblical Study 1. Montana:
Printing Department, University of Montana, 1971.

France, Richard Thomas. The Gospel According to Matthew. Michigan: William B.

Eerdman’s Publishing Company,1985.

____________.The Gospel of Matthew. Michigan:William B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company, 2007.

Garland, David E. Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the

First Gospel. New York:The Crossroad Publishing Company,1993.

Goulder, Michael D. Luke: A New Paradigm, Journal for the study of the New
Testament Supplement Series 20. England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989.

Gundry, Robert H. Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under
Persecution, 2nd ed. Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,1994.

Hare, Douglas R. A. Matthew: Interpretation A Bible Commentary for Teaching and

Preaching. Louisville: John Knox Press,1993.

Harrington, Daniel J. The Gospel of Matthew, Sacra Pagina Series, vol.1. Minnesota:
The Liturgical Press,1991.

Hendrickx, Herman. The Parables of Jesus: Studies in the Synoptic Gospels. Makati:
St. Paul’s Publication,1987.

25
Luz, Ulrich. The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew. Translated by J. Bradford
Robinson. Cambridge:University Press,1995.

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

Meier, John P. Matthew. Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1980.

Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew A Commentary on the Greek Text. Michigan:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005.

Overman, J. Andrew. Church and Community in Crisis: The Gospel According to

Matthew. Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International,1996.

Repschinski, Boris. The Controversy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew:Their Redaction,

Form and Relevance for the Relationship Between the Matthean Community and
Formative Judaism. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000.

Senior, Donald. Matthew, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville:

Abingdon Press,1998.

26