Chapter Thirteen

1-9. Parable of the sower. — 10-17. The purpose of parables. — 18-23. Explanation of the parable of the sower. — 24-30. Parable of the weeds. — 31-32. Parable of the mustard seed. — 33. Parable of the leaven. — 34-35. Prophecy concerning teaching in parables. — 36-43. Explanation of the parable of the weeds. — 44. Parable of the treasure hidden in a field. — 45-46. Parable of the merchant seeking fine pearls. — 47-50. Parable of the net. — 51-52. Conclusion of the figurative discourse. — 53-58. Time in Nazareth.

Matthew 13:1. That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat beside the sea. (Compare Mark 4:1). This verse precisely defines the place where the first parables of Christ were spoken—this is the Sea of Galilee, although it is not called by name. The account of the teaching in parables follows in Matthew in the same order as in Mark, and in the same connection. But Luke presents the parables of the sower (Luke 8:4 ff.), the mustard seed, and the leaven (Luke 13:19-21) in a different connection. Christ departed from the house in Capernaum, heading toward the Sea of Galilee, entered a boat, sat in it according to the custom of the Jewish teachers of that time, and began to speak to the people in parables. A great crowd of people gathered on the shore, which was conveniently able to gather here, because although the lake is surrounded by mountains, they dip down abruptly directly into the water only in places, leaving especially on the western shore more or less wide and sloping shore areas. The number of listeners was sometimes so large (Luke 5:1) that they pressed in on the Savior. Perhaps in the present case He did not at first wish to enter the boat and entered it only out of necessity. This is suggested by the expressions of Matthew and Mark, that He first “sat by the sea” and only then moved into the boat. In the ancient world we know of no other examples of such preaching from a boat. But it is certain that this was very convenient both for Christ Himself and for the people listening to Him. On the western shore of the lake the mountains recede from it into the interior of the land about 7-10 versts, and thus a fairly level place is obtained. The parables spoken by the Savior were the first. The evangelist evidently presents them as the first, whereby, according to Trench, the parable of the sower appeared as a kind of introduction to this new method of teaching which the Divine Teacher had not used until then. This is evident both from the question put to the disciples afterward: “Why do you speak to them in parables?” (verse 10), and from the answer of Christ, in which He justifies this new method of teaching and the purpose which was intended thereby.

Matthew 13:2. And great crowds gathered about him, so that he got into a boat and sat there; and all the crowd stood on the beach. (Compare Mark 4:1; Luke 8:4). As stated above, the Savior apparently wished to preach on the shore, as this is precisely what the words of the previous verse indicate: “sat by the sea.” Only when a crowd gathered to Him did He enter the boat and sit in it. This explains why the verb “sat” is used twice—once in each of the first two verses. Mark also has the same sense of speech, who says that the Savior began to teach “by the sea,” but when the crowd gathered, He entered the boat and sat (sat?) on the sea. Matthew omits Mark’s expression “on the sea.”

Matthew 13:3. And he taught them many things in parables, saying: “A sower went out to sow; (Compare Mark 4:2; Luke 8:4). The word “parable” from its Greek derivation (παραβολή) means “placing alongside,” “comparison,” “likeness” (but scarcely—“example”). This term denotes such speech in which an abstract truth, whether moral or spiritual, is explained by means of various events and phenomena in nature or in life. Thus, for example, the thought that a man should help his neighbors is expressed in the parable of the good Samaritan, the thought of God’s love for a repenting sinner in the parable of the prodigal son. If these thoughts were not expressed by means of vivid images, they would be commonplaces and soon forgotten. But it is known that a similar method of revealing general truths by means of images and comparisons is also used in fables. Are the parables of Christ like fables? And if not, what is the difference? Between a fable and a parable there is resemblance, but only external. As in a parable, so in a fable various objects of nature (for example, weeds, mustard seed, and so forth) are taken for comparison, and even animals (for example, sheep, swine in the parable of the prodigal son, dogs in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, etc.) are sometimes used. Therefore, some likened the parable to the fable and said that it was the same thing. But even a simple, cursory, and general glance at parables and fables can show that a parable is not at all what a fable is. This general view can be confirmed by examining some details. In a fable, if, for instance, animals act, they are always brought to the foreground; in the parables of Christ their role is always secondary. In a fable, in all that animals or objects of nature (for example, trees) say and do, one must always understand the speech and actions of people, because otherwise one would have to attribute to objects of nature what never happens in reality (for example, when animals or plants speak). In parables, similar images always remain perfectly natural, and the actions of animals or plants in the strict sense cannot be referred to people, and the fact that animals or plants would ever speak is not mentioned in the New Testament parables. Finally, a fable in general is a fiction, and usually an entertaining one; for the clarification of moral truths in parables, actual events in nature and life are usually taken. We say “usually” because this does not seem to happen always. While one can agree that in figurative speech, for example about the Last Judgment, the separation of sheep from goats is an image that could correspond to reality, that is, an image not invented, it is difficult to think that in the parable of the creditor and the unmerciful servant (Matt 18:23-35) the amount of the debt in ten thousand talents (60,000,000 denarii, a denarius being approximately 20 kopecks, that is, 4 g in silver equivalent), which the king gave to one of his servants, was not invented for the purpose of clarifying the truth about the enormous debt of man to God. The parable of the wicked husbandmen (Matt 21:33-41) raises similar questions—is this account real or invented, if one ignores its application? The circumstance that some images in parables are supposedly invented has given occasion to define the word “parable” (concerning the Gospel parables) thus: “A parable is such a form of speech in which by means of a fictitious narrative, nevertheless plausible and borrowed from ordinary life, abstract truths, little known or moral in nature, are presented.” Alford defines a parable thus: “It is a serious story, within the bounds of probability, of some deed, pointing to some moral or spiritual truth.” Some exegetes consider pointless the attempts to define precisely what a parable is and how it differs from all other forms of speech. Some think that every parable is a kind of allegory. In a parable something is spoken of which has its own natural meaning, but on the other side of this natural meaning, sometimes covered by it and sometimes revealed, another subject is understood. All these definitions may be suitable, however, perhaps only for clarifying what a parable is in general, but not for the parables of the Savior. We must firmly establish the truth that the Savior did not speak falsely. In considering parables this is evident not only from the fact that His parables have enormous life significance, but also from the fact that no one ever objected to His parables—that He was preaching fiction, fantasizing, or exaggerating something. This is absolutely necessary for understanding the parables of the Savior. In them there is always taken some real event, taken from human life or from nature and even from the world of animals and plants. If any subdivision of parables is possible, they can be divided only into general and particular. In general parables an account is given of some real event, so frequently and usually that fiction cannot be in question. Such are, for example, the parables of the sower or the mustard seed. In particular parables the events are, so to speak, individual, and most likely it can be assumed that they occurred only once. Such is, for example, the parable of the good Samaritan or the laborers in the vineyard receiving equal wages for their work. It is quite possible to suppose that these parables were based on actual facts. It is more difficult, as we said, to suppose them in parables such as, for example, the wicked husbandmen or the unmerciful servant. However, who can guarantee that such cases did not exist in the reality of that time? And at that time there were people who possessed colossal wealth. Thus, in all parables we can find a fully corresponding reality and non-fictitious characterization of the time, life, customs, and manners. But it is remarkable that in recounting real events, the Savior never mentions real persons and the time of occurrence of real events, and only twice (in the parable of the good Samaritan and the Pharisee and the tax collector) points out the place of their occurrence, and then in completely general expressions. Thus, all the parables of Christ appear before us, so to speak, completely anonymous. If, for instance, the parable speaks of a king, he is never called by name. From the parables, in any case, it is evident that Christ knew life extremely well and saw in it what others do not see. A peculiarity of the highest and richly gifted people lies in the fact that they see more than other people, and Christ possessed this ability in the highest degree. In presenting real events, He applied them to the moral realm with such discernment as is inaccessible to and uncharacteristic of ordinary people. The parable comes closest, perhaps, to the type, image, or prefigurement, with only the difference that a type is usually the real expression of an idea, whereas a parable is verbal. But everything said in no way prevents the assertion that in different parables there is encountered an artistic combination of different real events and circumstances, which serves as the expression of special, artistic, and ideal truth. When, for example, an artist paints a picture of a sunset, he combines in it observations made at various times, under various circumstances, and in different places, and thus produces an ideal picture, faithful to reality in all particulars, but rising above it by virtue of the idea which, of course, may not be borrowed from real natural life. This is not fiction, but an artistic combination of idea with external images borrowed from reality itself, and such a combination is itself reality, but mental, ideal, lofty, and artistic. The seven parables set forth in the chapter of Matthew under consideration form one whole and relate to one subject, the kingdom of God and its development; in verse 53 it is clearly indicated that they were spoken at one time. The first four of these parables were apparently spoken to the people from the boat (the explanation of the parable of the sower was inserted here); the last three—to the disciples in the house. The first parables are connected by the formula “another parable,” and at the beginning of the last three it is said: “again like.” According to the accounts of the evangelists Matthew and Mark, not everything, however, was spoken in parables, but “many things.” “For,” remarks Jerome, “if Christ spoke everything in parables, then the people would have dispersed, having received no benefit for themselves. Clear Christ mingles with heavenly, so that on the basis of what the people understood, he might draw their attention to what they did not understand.”

Matthew 13:4. And as he sowed, some seeds fell along the path, and the birds came and ate them up. Matthew 13:5. Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they did not have much soil, and immediately they sprang up, because the soil was not deep. Matthew 13:6. But when the sun rose, they were scorched; and since they had no root, they withered away. Matthew 13:7. Other seeds fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them. Matthew 13:8. Other seeds fell on good soil and brought forth grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty. (Compare Mark 4:8; Luke 8:8). In Palestine at present, wheat yields a harvest of 12-16 times the seed, but barley often yields 50 times, and millet, which is eaten mostly by the poorest classes, sometimes yields 150 or 200 times. But the yields apparently were better in the time of Christ than now. “A hundredfold yield in the East,” says Trench, “is not an unheard-of thing, though it is generally mentioned as something extraordinary.” In Luke (Luke 8:8) simply: “it brought forth fruit a hundredfold,” with the sizes of the smaller harvests omitted.

Matthew 13:9. Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear! (Compare Mark 4:9; Luke 8:8). In the same way as in (Matt 11:15), in Matthew is omitted (according to some readings) “to hear,” which is found in Mark and Luke. Thus the literal translation is “whoever has ears, let him hear” (Tertullian: qui habet aures audiat).

Matthew 13:10. Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables? (Compare Mark 4:10; Luke 8:9). It is very difficult to decide exactly when the disciples came to Christ and proposed this question to Him. If it had been in the boat, it would be difficult to explain προσελθόντες—having come, rather than “having come” as in the Russian translation. Furthermore, Christ had pronounced only one parable, the first, which is set forth by all three evangelists. But the disciples ask: “Why do you speak to them in parables,” and asked Him about parables (Mark 4:10; the Russian translation, where the singular “parable” is used, is incorrect). But in Luke the singular: “What would be the meaning of this parable?” Thus, to understand how it was in reality, the question would need to be transposed, supposing that it was given after the pronouncement of the other parables also set forth in chapter 13. Finally, Mark clearly says that the question was proposed by the disciples to Christ at the time when they remained alone (κατὰ μόνας; in the Russian translation: “when he was alone without the people”). The most probable supposition is that the conversation of the Savior with the disciples took place after the figurative speech was concluded and He went out with them from the boat or withdrew with them in the boat to some other place. In Mark (Mark 4:10 cf. Mark 4:34) this is stated somewhat more clearly. The question of the disciples apparently shows that the Savior had only recently begun this special method of teaching, at least in its most fully developed form. The evangelist Matthew, as is noted, was not generally inclined to be careful about the chronological order here. According to Alford, the question about the parable of the sower was proposed during a pause in the Savior’s teaching, not when He entered the house (verse 36).

Matthew 13:11. And he answered and said to them, “To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. (Compare Mark 4:11; Luke 8:10). The fact that these words were here an answer to the question of the previous verse is indicated by “answered and said to them” (ἀποκριθείς). The words of Christ show that His teaching set forth in parables contained “mysteries,” that these mysteries were not accessible to a broad circle of Christ’s listeners even after the explanations which He gave to the disciples; but to the latter they could be understood even without explanations, though after them they became even clearer. The word “mysteries” does not express the fact that the parables themselves were incomprehensible. It was used by the Greeks to designate certain secret teachings, rites in religion and what was connected with it. No one was admitted to these mysteries except the initiated; the initiated themselves were obliged to keep these mysteries secret. Thus, while being mysteries for outsiders, they were not so for the initiated. Verses 10, 11, and 14 are explained in Irenaeus (Adversus haereses, IV, 29). “Why do you speak to them in parables? The Lord answers: because (quoniam) it has been given to you to know (cognoscere) the mystery of the kingdom of heaven; but to them I speak in parables, that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not hear (understanding, might not understand), that there might be fulfilled in them the prophecy of Isaiah, saying: Harden (did harden) the heart of this people and deafen (did deafen) their ears and close (did close) their eyes. But blessed are your eyes, because they see what you see, and your ears which hear what you hear.”

Matthew 13:12. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. (Compare Mark 4:25; Luke 8:18). “Whoever has”—both in Russian and in Greek—is a subordinate clause without a main clause, although the speech is completely correct and understandable. This is nominativus absolutus (see comments on Matt 12:36). Similar expressions are found in (Matt 25:29) in the parable of the talents. This may have been a proverb, expressing a general truth with regard to worldly and spiritual blessings. Examples of when those who do not have lose what they do have are common and well known. Our Russian proverb “where it is thin, it tears” expresses the same thought. In the Gospels, of course, it is only about spiritual matters. “What people had is taken from them, because they do not have what they should have.” The disciples possessed a greater capacity and receptiveness to the new teaching and therefore could acquire more than the rest of the people. Augustine interprets the expression “whoever has” in the sense of utitur—uses, and applies it to preachers. A preacher who preaches divine teaching to others does not feel a lack of teaching and of the words he speaks and preaches, but if someone does not use the teaching, then even the meaning of what he said becomes obscured and leaves him.

Matthew 13:13. Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, and they do not understand; (Compare Mark 4:11-12; Luke 8:10). A preliminary reference to (Isa 6:9) will be considered in the next verse. The meaning of the verse on the surface appears clear, because everywhere and in all places there are many people who, seeing, do not see and, hearing, do not hear. But the question—how does this prove the necessity of speaking precisely in parables? It is possible to think that Christ’s thought was as follows. An abstract truth, though having important significance for the kingdom of heaven, is not accessible to the popular mind. Therefore, it requires the embodiment of this abstract truth in certain images, which would make it closer to the people, open his eyes and unseal his ears, interest him, and thus prompt him to strive for understanding and further truths, symbolically and figuratively represented in the parable. In this, apparently, Christ’s words differ from those of the prophet Isaiah. The parallel expressions of Mark and Luke indicate the purpose (ἵνα), “why all things are in parables.” It is best to explain this verse by presupposing here a reference by Christ to His previous teaching, which not only was not correctly understood by many people of the people (which is entirely possible, since many of the truths preached by Him, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount, are even now not understood by everyone), but also by more developed people—the scribes, and by the latter especially, as is evident from the previous chapter. These people, not understanding the teaching of Christ, are called by Mark (Mark 4:11) ἐκεῖνοι οἱ ἔξω—the outsiders, and by Luke (Luke 8:10)—οἱ λοιποί, the others. They are spoken to in parables because “seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear,” and according to Mark and Luke—so that, seeing, they might not see, and so forth. This speech of Christ is full of profound meaning. To such people, who, seeing, do not see and, hearing, do not hear, one could say nothing, because speech for them, owing to their incomprehension, is useless. But He speaks even to them—in parables. Briefly, the meaning can be expressed thus: if they do not wish to understand, they will not understand even parables. But if they somewhat wish to understand, then they will understand at least the parable. If they wish to understand more, then under the cloak of the parable they will see that it reveals the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 13:14. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which says, ‘You will keep on hearing, but will not understand; And you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive;’ (Compare Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10). Isa 6:9-10 in a literal translation from the Hebrew: “Go and say to this people: You hear and hear, and do not understand; and you see and see, and do not perceive. Make the heart of this people gross and their ears heavy (hard of hearing) and close their eyes, that they may not see with their eyes, nor hear with their ears, and their heart may not understand, and they may not be healed.” God here gives Isaiah at his calling the command to preach to a people that sees poorly and hears heavily. The speech of the prophet was to make the heart of this people even more gross, their eyes even more blind, and their ears—more deaf, so that the people would not turn and would not receive healing, and this because by their sinfulness they do not wish to see and hear anything. The people are like a hopeless criminal, untouched by any speech, yielding to no persuasions. Therefore, inattention to the speech of the prophet serves for the people itself as one of the punishments. This speech will not be saving for the people, but will serve as a means for their judgment and condemnation. In their defense the people cannot claim that they were told nothing. Such is the meaning of Isaiah’s original speech, now applied by the Savior to the Hebrew people. And this is understandable if we pay attention to Christ’s earlier condemnations, especially in (Matt 11:16-24) and (Matt 12:25-37), where the Savior spoke without parables. For inattention to His words and unwillingness to fulfill them in deed, He now proclaims judgment to people whose heart has become hardened and callous, announcing their judgment.

Matthew 13:15. For this people’s heart has become dull, and their ears are hard of hearing, and they have closed their eyes; so that they might not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them. (Compare Mark 4:12—the text is greatly shortened). The literal translation of this verse from the Greek (according to some readings) may be thus: “For has become dull (fattened) the heart of this people, and with their ears they have heard heavily, and their eyes they have closed, that they may not see with their eyes and not hear with their ears and not understand with their heart and not turn, and I will heal them.” Heart, ears, and eyes—these three words appear subsequently in reverse order. “Heart” at the beginning is placed first, at the end—last. From the heart corruption spreads to the ears and eyes, through the eyes and ears health returns to the heart.

Matthew 13:16. But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear, (Compare Luke 10:23—in a different connection and altered form of expression). This saying was probably repeated. Members of the body here are used instead of persons, that is, instead of: “You are blessed who see,” and so forth.

Matthew 13:17. For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it. (Compare Luke 10:24). Here is meant the prophets in general, who proclaimed the Coming Savior and, of course, themselves desired to see Him. A good explanation of this verse comes from Jerome: “Here there seems to be something opposite to what is said in another place. Abraham, your father, longed to see the day of Mine; and he saw it, and rejoiced. But Jesus Christ did not say that all the prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see, but many. Among many it might happen that some saw and others did not see, although this passage is dangerous to interpret in the sense that there is a certain difference among the merits of the saints. Therefore, Abraham saw it in mystery, but did not see it face to face. But you see it near and have your Lord.” Cf. Heb 11:13.

Matthew 13:18. Listen then to the parable of the sower: (Compare Mark 4:13; Luke 8:11). Literally: “Therefore, you listen to the parable of the sower.” There is no word “meaning” in the original, and in the Russian translation it is emphasized. From the insertion of this word the real meaning of the verse does not change.

Matthew 13:19. When anyone hears the word about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart—this is what was sown along the path. (Compare Mark 4:15; Luke 8:12). In Matthew is omitted what is said in (Mark 4:14; Luke 8:11) (the second half of the verse). The account of the Savior’s speech by all the synoptists is different. Literally in Matthew: “anyone hearing the word about the kingdom and not understanding, the evil one comes...” This kind of speech is called anacoluthon (inconsistent), and it is used here for greater expressiveness. The speech without anacoluthon would be thus: the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in the heart of anyone hearing the word about the kingdom and not understanding. Further in the Russian translation: “this is what was sown along the path.” This is a departure from the image, because it is not a man, but seed that is sown. The Russian translation, however, accurately expresses the meaning of the Greek speech: οὖτός ἐστιν ὁ παρὰ τὴν ὁδὸν σπαρείς. But instead of the words, “this is he sown along the path” there should have been, “this is what was sown along the path” or “such is the soil along the path, on which was sown.” The same holds in the following verses. But such phenomena are usual in Eastern speech. An attempt was made to avoid the difficulty by relating the word οὖτος to λόγος. But such an explanation does not accord with verses 20, 22, 23. The meaning of the speech, however, is clear. Seed is one and the same everywhere and for all, but seed does not grow without soil, and soil does not produce without seed; the growth or loss of seed is the result of the convenience or inconvenience of the soil. It should be noted that throughout this explanation of Christ to His parable, the former parable speech is repeated everywhere with explanatory additions.

Matthew 13:20. And the one sown on rocky ground—this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; Matthew 13:21. yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away. Matthew 13:22. As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. (Compare Mark 4:18; Luke 8:14). According to John Chrysostom, “the Savior did not say: the world, but: ‘but the cares of the world’; did not say: riches, but: ‘the deceitfulness of riches.’ Therefore, let us blame not the things themselves, but the corrupted will. One can have riches and not be deceived by them, and live in this world and not be oppressed by its cares.” By “the cares of the world” should be understood the ordinary human anxieties and concerns in their struggle for existence, which are characterized by different circumstances and are carried out by means of different methods in different ages. For ἀπάτη, cf. 2 Thess 2:10; Heb 3:13.

Matthew 13:23. But the one sown on good soil—this is the one who hears the word and understands it, and who indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty. (Compare Mark 4:20; Luke 8:15). Some, including Augustine, understanding by “fruit a hundredfold” martyrdom, said that by “fruit sixty” is meant the state of Gospel poverty, and “thirty”—the keeping of the commandments in general. The best interpretation of this passage among the ancient interpreters belongs to Euthymius Zigabenus, who correctly understands the words of Christ in a general sense. By fruit a hundredfold the Savior meant, according to Zigabenus, the perfect fruitfulness of virtue; sixty—the average, and thirty—the weak. That this interpretation is the best is seen from the fact that in the same general sense the evangelist Luke also sets forth the explanation by the Savior of His parable: “And that on good soil, these are the ones who, when they hear the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bear fruit with patience” (Luke 8:15).

Matthew 13:24. He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field; When and to whom was this parable spoken? To the disciples alone, or also to the people? The most probable supposition is that in the teaching to the people there was a break while the Savior spoke with the disciples, explaining the parable of the sower to them. And then He spoke again with the people. “Comparable to a man,” that is, comparable to the circumstances which are set forth in detail below; “it is as if among a man” and so forth. Such a construction is found in (Matt 18:23) and in other parables of Matthew. Ὡμοιώθη—the usual introduction to parables in later Jewish literature: “A parable—to what is it comparable? To that...” All the parables in Matthew not found in Mark begin with the formula ὡμοιώθη or ὁμοῖα ἐστί, except (Matt 25:14-30), where the parable begins with a simple ὥσπερ—a beginning also common in Jewish parables.

Matthew 13:25. But while everybody was asleep, an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and then went away. Much has been said about the meaning of ζιζάνια (weeds). According to Zahn, this is apparently a Semitic word, denoting a noxious plant resembling wheat. Zahn finds confirmation of his words in the words of John Chrysostom ὃ καὶ κατὰ τὴν ὄψιν ἔοικε πῶς τῷ σίτῳ (apparently resembles wheat). But a reliable botanical determination of this word has not yet been made. Probably it is lolium temulentum (intoxicating darnel, cockle) or some kind of ergot (claviceps purpurea), which appears not only in rye but also on many other plants, among them wheat. Jerome, who lived in Palestine, says that the Gospels refer to lolium. The fruit of this plant “is more bitter,” says Thomson, “and when eaten alone or even mixed into ordinary bread, it causes dizziness and often acts as a strong emetic. In short, it is a strong narcotic poison, and must be carefully winnowed and separated from wheat grain by grain.” Before it ripens, this plant so strongly resembles wheat that it is often left until it ripens.

Matthew 13:26. And when the grain sprouted and bore grain, then the weeds appeared as well. Matthew 13:27. And the servants of the householder came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where, then, have the weeds come from?’ Matthew 13:28. He answered, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ Matthew 13:29. But he said, ‘No; for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along with them. Matthew 13:30. Let both of them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Collect the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’ Already the ancient interpreters disputed about how to fulfill this commandment of the Savior concerning weeds in human life. Never, says Jerome, should one have communion with those called brothers, but who in reality are adulterers and fornicators. If the uprooting before the very time of harvest is forbidden, then should some be expelled from our midst? Augustine addresses this question in part: if any Christian living in the bosom of the Church should be convicted of some sin that brings anathema upon him, then let it be pronounced only when there is no danger of schism appearing. If the sinner does not repent and is not corrected by repentance, then perhaps he himself will depart and of his own volition will separate himself from church communion.

Matthew 13:31. He put before them another parable, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that someone took and sowed in his field, Matthew 13:32. It is the smallest of all the seeds, but when it has grown, it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches. Black mustard both in wild and in cultivated state often reaches a height of 8-12 feet, and birds often perch on this plant, small birds that flit about on its thin branches, pecking at the seeds which they love.

Matthew 13:33. He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed in with three measures of flour until all of it was leavened. (Compare Luke 13:20-21). It is commonly thought—and this opinion is correct—that in the preceding parables the external growth of the kingdom of heaven is depicted under the images of seed and the obstacle in the way of its spread under the image of weeds. In the parable of this verse and further ones, however, are depicted the internal force and influence on people of the kingdom, its internal growth. First, this is depicted under the image of leaven, which a woman, in order to bake bread, put into three measures of flour. The image is so usual and familiar to all that it does not require explanation. “Three measures”—three sata (σάτα τρία). A sata is a Hebrew measure (otherwise “seah”), constituting one Hebrew ephah, equal to one and a half Roman modi—approximately 13 liters, according to an ancient Talmudic determination, such a measure in which 432 eggs could be placed.

Matthew 13:34. Jesus told the crowds all these things in parables; without a parable he told them nothing, (Compare Mark 4:33-34). In Mark this is set forth thus: “And with many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it. Without a parable he did not speak to them, but he explained everything in private to his disciples.” Instead of “he did not speak to them,” as in the Russian translation (οὐκ ἐλαλει), some on the basis chiefly of the Sinaitic and Vatican codices read: “he spoke nothing to them” (οὐδὲν ἐλάλει). If we accept even this last reading, the negation can be considered not absolute but relative in this case, and it means that at that time or usually Jesus Christ did not speak anything without a parable, but not always. If, however, someone should wish to accept this negation in an absolute sense, then he should understand under παραβολή, in a broader sense, in general a mysterious, enigmatic speech. To the crowd insensitive to higher truths, Jesus Christ always spoke enigmatically. He was never completely clear to it.

Matthew 13:35. so that what had been spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled: ‘I will open my mouth in parables; I will proclaim what has been hidden from the foundation of the world.’ In the superscription of Psalm 77, from which this testimony is taken, the name of Asaph is mentioned. Like Asaph and various other persons, they were called prophets along with David. In 2 Chr 29:30 Asaph in Hebrew is called “ha-hozeh,” and the Seventy translate this word as ὁ προφήτης: according to some readings, in the original instead of “prophet”—“prophet Isaiah” (perhaps in error?).

Matthew 13:36. Then Jesus, having dismissed the crowd, went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying: Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field. Matthew 13:37. He answered them: The one who sows good seed is the Son of Man. Despite all its apparent simplicity, the verse presents insurmountable difficulties, which are occasioned precisely by this simplicity. The question arises: if the explanation given to the disciples is so simple and clear, why was it not also given to the common people? We do not know the actual reasons for this. It is more likely to suppose that the explanation has an eschatological character; here the Son of Man is mentioned as the future Judge, and all this would have been incomprehensible to the common people. Explanations of any parables to the people do not occur in the Gospels. As in other cases, here there are many allegorical interpretations, belonging chiefly to ancient commentators. By the men who sleep (verse 25), church teachers were understood, and it was said that he who is placed at the head of the Church should not sleep, lest by his negligence the enemy, the man, sow weeds, that is, heretical dogmas. Or it was thought that here is spoken of heresies that will continue until the end of the age. But such interpretations, of course, do not relate to verse 37. Under the good seed is clearly seen the proclamation and teaching belonging to the Son of Man.

Matthew 13:38. The field is the world; the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom, and the weeds are the sons of the evil one. Explaining this place, Trench says that the meaning of such apparently simple words as “the field is the world” gave occasion for the most bitter disputes, such as have not occurred concerning any other text, except perhaps where the mystery of the Eucharist is spoken of. This expression in antiquity was much cited in Donatist disputes. The Donatists insisted that the Savior by “field” meant not the Church but the world, and said that wicked people might be tolerated in the world but not in the Church. Augustine insisted to the contrary, maintaining that the Lord did not regard the contemporary state of the Church as wholly free from evil. That Christ called the field the world (field is the subject, and world is the predicate), this can scarcely be doubted; but further on he speaks of the Church, in which exist both good seed and weeds. He says nothing about weeds being destroyed and annihilated by those who consider themselves holy. The words “let both grow together until the harvest” (verse 30) show that the weeds will exist until the end of the world and the establishment of a new kingdom, though they are of τοῦ πονηροῦ—of the evil one. Here the masculine gender τοῦ πονηροῦ is used.

Matthew 13:39. The enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. John Chrysostom remarks: “When he sows, he sows himself; but when he punishes, he punishes through others, namely through the angels.” The expression “end of the age” in the Gospels occurs only in Matthew and also in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb 9:26—of the ages). But it is found in Jewish, especially apocalyptic, literature. The reapers are distinguished from the servants who reported to the owner of the field what the enemy—the man—had done. If the servants are people, then the reapers are angels.

Matthew 13:40. Therefore as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of this age. The thought expounded here is explained in more detail in the following verses. The images are taken from the customary harvesting of grain.

Matthew 13:41. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all lawbreakers. The expression “out of his kingdom” should be interpreted to mean that when the Son of Man comes, his kingdom will also come. At the time of this future coming, the weeds will be finally removed from his kingdom. In verses 41 and 43 the kingdom of the Son of Man and the kingdom of the Father are distinguished. There is no need to suppose that the kingdom of the Son of Man comes only at the end of the world (cf. Col 1:13), although until then it might be considered incomplete (cf. Matt 25:34). Rather, both here and in 1 Cor 15:24 is expressed the thought that the Son in the end “will deliver his kingdom to God and the Father.” Then the righteous will “shine like the sun.”

Matthew 13:42. And they will throw them into the fiery furnace; there people will weep and gnash their teeth. The expression “fiery furnace” occurs in Matthew only twice, here and in verse 50 (cf. Rev 1:15). All these and similar expressions undoubtedly indicate a judgment so severe that the Lord came down from heaven and tasted all the torments of death in order to deliver people from even the knowledge of the mystery of suffering, which is expressed in the words: “there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Matthew 13:43. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let those with ears to hear, listen! Explaining this place, Theophylact says: “Since the sun of righteousness is Christ, the righteous will then be illuminated like Christ, for they will be as gods.” Some heretics drew strange conclusions from the words of Christ and thought that in the resurrection our body will be transformed into a sphere and will resemble the body of the sun. Origen held such an opinion. But here it is not said that the righteous will become suns, only that they will shine like the sun. Spiritual light is of course what is meant. The prophecy refers to the future, and therefore to interpret it in any precisely defined form would be premature.

Matthew 13:44. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid, and from joy concerning it goes and sells all that he has, and buys that field. The translation is precise but not sufficiently grammatical, for one can guess from the meaning that “which” refers to treasure, not to the nearest word “field.” The same applies to “it.” In this verse is introduced a man who unexpectedly and without effort finds treasure hidden in the earth on another’s field. This and the following parable reveal more the nature of the teaching about the kingdom than indicate its spread, as in the preceding parables. The gospel message about the kingdom is so attractive that a man gives all he has to hear it. The parable of the treasure hidden in the field is found only in Matthew.

Matthew 13:45. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking good pearls. Matthew 13:46. Finding one precious pearl, he went and sold all that he had and bought it. In verse 45 the plural (pearls), in verse 46 the singular (one pearl). A merchant goes seeking many pearls and finds them; among them appears one that is more valuable than all. Jerome remarks that here in different words is set forth what was said in the preceding parable. The good pearls that the merchant seeks are, according to Jerome, the law and the prophets, and the most precious pearl is knowledge of the Savior and the mysteries of his suffering and resurrection.

Matthew 13:47. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net cast into the sea and gathering fish of every kind. Matthew 13:48. When it was full, they drew it up on the shore and, sitting down, gathered the good into vessels, but threw out the bad. In thought and form the parable is a variant of the second parable of the weeds (verses 30, 40–43). The fishermen who cast the net into the sea are scarcely different persons from those who draw the net to land and separate the good from the bad. “Good” is in no way a superlative and does not equal optimos. The parable of the net is found only in Matthew.

Matthew 13:49. So it will be at the end of the age: the angels will come out and separate the wicked from among the righteous. Matthew 13:50. And they will throw them into the fiery furnace; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Grammatically, both in the Greek text and in the Russian translation, the word “them” refers to “righteous,” but in meaning it should refer to “them,” of course, to the wicked. Only the third parable of the second series is partially explained.

Matthew 13:51. And Jesus asked them: Have you understood all these things? They say to him: Yes, Lord. Jesus Christ was also ready to explain the remaining parables to the disciples. But they understood them, if not completely, at least correctly.

Matthew 13:52. He said to them: Therefore every scribe trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old. The word “therefore” (διὰ τοῦτο) some relate to the preceding teaching in parables generally: “since I have told you how the parables should be understood, then you should know that every scribe” and so on. Others relate διὰ τοῦτο to the preceding question of the Savior: “because I asked, since each scribe” and so on. According to Augustine, διὰ τοῦτο relates only to the parable of the treasure (verse 44). But most naturally, as with most commentators, διὰ τοῦτο relates to the immediately preceding answer of the disciples. The sense of all this discourse may be understood from the following paraphrase: “since you say that you have understood all this, therefore I tell you that not I alone, but every man who has made the truths of the kingdom of heaven his own can be likened to his master, namely me, and can use for explaining new truths both old and new.” This thought is clarified by an image where a spiritual master, that is, a spiritual teacher, is compared to an ordinary householder who, when needed, takes from his storehouse both old and new things and uses them as occasion requires. In the parables of Christ one can distinguish new and old. The old is the familiar images which he used: sower, seed, weeds, treasure, pearls, and so on. The new belonged to him and was at that time understood only by the disciples—these are new moral truths explained in the parables. He points here therefore simply to the new method of his teaching, which must be adopted by every scribe trained for the kingdom of heaven, to build the new on the basis of the old, which is well understood and known to all.

Matthew 13:53. And when Jesus had finished these parables, he went away from there. (Cf. Mark 6:1). From the following verse it is evident that Jesus Christ went to his own country; by the word “country” is usually understood Nazareth. So consider John Chrysostom and many others. The further narrative in Matthew and Mark is similar to the narrative of Luke (Luke 4:16-30), but the numerous details communicated by Luke are omitted in the first two evangelists. The evangelist, as Augustine remarks, does not conduct his narrative here in sequential order. The identity of the narratives of Matthew and Mark with Luke (Luke 4:16-30) is denied by some and recognized by others; in the latter case, it is said that exact chronological order is observed only in Luke. To determine in what order the actual events occurred is here extremely difficult. After the discourse in parables, Mark relates the journey to the eastern shore of the lake and the healing of Jairus’s daughter. But Matthew has already recounted this in chapters 8 and 9; now he omits the narrative of these events and continues with Mark 6:1-6.

Matthew 13:54. And coming to his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said: Where does this one get such wisdom and mighty works? Matthew 13:55. Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? (Cf. Mark 6:3). Concerning the brothers and sisters of the Savior, see John 2:12; Matt 12:46 and parallel passages; Matt 13:55-56 and parallel passages; John 7:3 and following; Acts 1:14; Gal 1:18-19; 1 Cor 9:5. James (not of Alphaeus nor of Zebedee) was afterward bishop of the Church of Jerusalem, and after him his third brother Simeon (see Eusebius of Caesarea, “Ecclesiastical History,” III, 11). According to the testimony of Hegesippus in Eusebius (III, 32), he suffered under Trajan and the consul Atticus, ending his life “in nearly the same death as the Lord himself” at the age of 120 years. This was in the ninth year of the reign of Trajan, that is, in 107 AD. If so, then Simeon was 11 years older than the Savior. The grandsons of the fourth brother Judas were brought before Domitian and released by him. Concerning the second brother of the Savior, Joseph (as in the Russian translation), nothing is known except the name itself, unless one takes into account the general information about the brothers of the Savior (see the citations above). The name Joseph itself is written in various ways: Ἰωσήφ, Ἰωάννης, Ἰωσῆ (ς), genitive Ἰωσῆτος, as in Mark (Mark 6:3). The most reliable reading in Matthew is Ἰωσήφ, and in Mark Ἰωσῆτος (genitive). Even less is known from the Gospel about the sisters of the Savior. They are mentioned only in Matt 13:56; Mark 3:32, where they are not named. Between the expressions “son of the carpenter” (Matthew) and “carpenter” (Mark) there is no great difference, and one can scarcely say that the first designation is “more respectful.” The expression of Mark “carpenter” found an echo in later writers; compare Celsus in Origen: ἦν τέκτων τὴν τέχνην. Origen denies that Jesus Christ is called “carpenter” (τέκτων) anywhere in the Gospels. Justin (Dialogus cum Tryphone, 88): τὰ τεκτονικὰ ἔργα εἰργάζετο, ἐν ἀνθρώποις ὤν, ἄροτρα καὶ ζυγά (Christ “performed the work of a carpenter, being among men—ploughs and yokes”). To the word “carpenter” some manuscripts add “of Joseph.” The correct reading in Mark appears to be ὁ τέκτων ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας.

Matthew 13:56. And his sisters—are they not all with us? Where then did this one get all this? According to Theophylact, the Savior had two sisters, who were called Mary and Salome, according to other sources—Esther and Tamar. The expression πρός ἡμᾶς εἰσίν means: “live here with us.”

Matthew 13:57. And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them: A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house. (Cf. Mark 6:3-4). This is a proverb that was in use among the people at that time and is generally true, though not always. John the Baptist, as well as Isaiah, Elisha, Daniel, and others, were greatly honored. But in general, life shows that we “love the stranger and despise the neighbor.” In Matthew the discourse is similar to that in Mark, but somewhat abbreviated.

Matthew 13:58. And he did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief. (Cf. Mark 6:5). From this it is evident that some miracles were performed by the Savior even in Nazareth. John Chrysostom asks: for what reason did he perform few miracles? So that they would not say: “Physician, heal yourself” (Luke 4:23); so that they would not say: you are hostile to us and a stranger and you despise your own; so that they would not say: if you had performed miracles, then we would have believed in you. From this point forward in Matthew’s Gospel, the grouping of material becomes closer to Mark.