Joel B. Green, “Narrative Criticism,” in Methods for Luke (Methods in Biblical Interpretation; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010) 77. For a more extensive study of narrative criticism, see Mark Allan Powell, What Is Narrative Criticism? (Guides to Biblical Scholarship; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990).

Joel B. Green, “Narrative Criticism,” in Methods for Luke (Methods in Biblical Interpretation; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010) 77. For a more extensive study of narrative criticism, see Mark Allan Powell, What Is Narrative Criticism? (Guides to Biblical Scholarship; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See, for example, Mary Ann Tolbert, Perspectives on the Parables: An Approach to Multiple Interpretations (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979).

See, for example, Mary Ann Tolbert, Perspectives on the Parables: An Approach to Multiple Interpretations (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Mikeal C. Parsons, “ ‘Allegorizing Allegory’: Narrative Analysis and Parable Interpretation,” PRSt 15 (1988) 147-164, here 158-159.

Mikeal C. Parsons, “ ‘Allegorizing Allegory’: Narrative Analysis and Parable Interpretation,” PRSt 15 (1988) 147-164, here 158-159.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Brad H. Young, Jesus and His Jewish Parables: Rediscovering the Roots of Jesus’ Teaching (New York: Paulist, 1989) 105.

Brad H. Young, Jesus and His Jewish Parables: Rediscovering the Roots of Jesus’ Teaching (New York: Paulist, 1989) 105.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 31-35.

Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 31-35.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Liebenberg, Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 83.

Liebenberg, Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 83.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Ibid., 157. For further discussion of metaphor theory, see also George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980).

Liebenberg, Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 98; cf. 154-155. Another way to explore this topological explanation for the process involved in metaphors may be the notion of orientation, in which a parable about the kingdom, for example, orients the hearer toward the kingdom through a particular example, illustration, or aspect of life and culture common to the hearer.

Liebenberg, Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 98; cf. 154-155. Another way to explore this topological explanation for the process involved in metaphors may be the notion of orientation, in which a parable about the kingdom, for example, orients the hearer toward the kingdom through a particular example, illustration, or aspect of life and culture common to the hearer.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Ibid., 105.

Cf. Green, “Narrative Criticism,” 93-94. Mark L. Bailey (“The Parable of the Mustard Seed,” BSac 155 [1998] 449-459, here 450-51) proposes doubt and encouragement as two potential reasons for the usage of the parable of the mustard seed in Matthew 13.

Cf. Green, “Narrative Criticism,” 93-94. Mark L. Bailey (“The Parable of the Mustard Seed,” BSac 155 [1998] 449-459, here 450-51) proposes doubt and encouragement as two potential reasons for the usage of the parable of the mustard seed in Matthew 13.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Liebenberg, Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 309.

Liebenberg, Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 309.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

G.R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986) 122; Green, The Gospel of Luke, 518. As a “twin” with the parable of the leaven, Snodgrass (Stories with Intent, 219) says, “One should not assume that parable twins are necessarily identical. They may well be ‘fraternal’ twins and make similar but not identical points.” Luke’s inclusion of πάλιν in 13:20 seems to argue in favor of viewing the parables, at least for Luke, as connected and in response to the same narrative situation, namely the healing on the Sabbath.

G.R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986) 122; Green, The Gospel of Luke, 518. As a “twin” with the parable of the leaven, Snodgrass (Stories with Intent, 219) says, “One should not assume that parable twins are necessarily identical. They may well be ‘fraternal’ twins and make similar but not identical points.” Luke’s inclusion of πάλιν in 13:20 seems to argue in favor of viewing the parables, at least for Luke, as connected and in response to the same narrative situation, namely the healing on the Sabbath.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

John J. Kilgallen, Twenty Parables of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke (Subsidia Biblica 32; Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2008) 72-73. Liebenberg (Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 315 [emphasis original]) attempts to argue that the “whole crowd, for the first time since Luke 9:43-44 is judged to react positively to the ministry of Jesus” in 13:17b, but it seems highly unlikely that the negative context of Luke 13 (and Luke 12) is itself negated by the response of the crowd in 13:17b. It seems more likely that the crowd, as is typical in other instances in Luke (e.g., 9:43; 11:14), enjoys what Jesus is doing but does not fully understand it. The disciples are said to have “rejoiced” at Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, but so also is Herod when he saw Jesus in Luke’s passion narrative (23:8). Joy does not equate comprehension and genuine faith as the parable of the sower (8:13) and the disciples’ disbelieving joy after the resurrection reveal (24:41).

John J. Kilgallen, Twenty Parables of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke (Subsidia Biblica 32; Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2008) 72-73. Liebenberg (Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 315 [emphasis original]) attempts to argue that the “whole crowd, for the first time since Luke 9:43-44 is judged to react positively to the ministry of Jesus” in 13:17b, but it seems highly unlikely that the negative context of Luke 13 (and Luke 12) is itself negated by the response of the crowd in 13:17b. It seems more likely that the crowd, as is typical in other instances in Luke (e.g., 9:43; 11:14), enjoys what Jesus is doing but does not fully understand it. The disciples are said to have “rejoiced” at Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, but so also is Herod when he saw Jesus in Luke’s passion narrative (23:8). Joy does not equate comprehension and genuine faith as the parable of the sower (8:13) and the disciples’ disbelieving joy after the resurrection reveal (24:41).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

François Bovon, Luke 2: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 9:51-19:27 (ed. Helmut Koester; trans. Donald S. Deer; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013) 296, 299-300; John T. Carroll, Luke: A Commentary (The New Testament Library; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2012) 286-287.

François Bovon, Luke 2: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 9:51-19:27 (ed. Helmut Koester; trans. Donald S. Deer; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013) 296, 299-300; John T. Carroll, Luke: A Commentary (The New Testament Library; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2012) 286-287.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Tolbert, Perspectives on the Parables, 43-44.

Tolbert, Perspectives on the Parables, 43-44.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Liebenberg, Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 124.

Liebenberg, Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 124.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Ibid., 225-226, here 225; cf. Bovon, Luke 2, 298-299.

Ibid., 225-226, here 225; cf. Bovon, Luke 2, 298-299.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Cf. Rudolf Schnackenburg, God’s Rule and Kingdom (trans. John Murray; New York: Herder and Herder, 1963) 155. Note that ὅλον was often used to denote the κόσμος, a notion that would make sense here in the context of the parable. Charles A. Anderson, Philo of Alexandria’s Views of the Physical World (wunt ii 309; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011) 91-92.

Cf. Rudolf Schnackenburg, God’s Rule and Kingdom (trans. John Murray; New York: Herder and Herder, 1963) 155. Note that ὅλον was often used to denote the κόσμος, a notion that would make sense here in the context of the parable. Charles A. Anderson, Philo of Alexandria’s Views of the Physical World (wunt ii 309; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011) 91-92.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Cf. Liebenberg, Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 292. Certainly some uses of “trees” in the ot were wholly positive, e.g., those in the creation account (Genesis 1-2). Warren Carter (“Matthew’s Gospel, Rome’s Empire, and the Parable of the Mustard Seed (Matt 13:31-32),” in Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu: Methodische Neuansätze zum Verstehen urchristlicher Parabeltexte [ed. Ruben Zimmermann and Gabriele Kern; wunt 231; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008] 181-201, here 198) states, “. . . the image of the tree in which birds nest also evokes various narratives in the tradition concerning trees and nesting birds that depict the establishment of God’s reign. . . . This link has ben frequently noted, but what is often overlooked is that God’s purposes are presented in these traditions by other trees, not the mustard seed. These trees symbolize the power and rule of nations and their kings, sometimes sanctioned by God and sometimes strongly opposed by God. Either way, it is significant that in these traditions, all the trees/empires are subjected to God’s sovereignty.”

Cf. Liebenberg, Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 292. Certainly some uses of “trees” in the ot were wholly positive, e.g., those in the creation account (Genesis 1-2). Warren Carter (“Matthew’s Gospel, Rome’s Empire, and the Parable of the Mustard Seed (Matt 13:31-32),” in Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu: Methodische Neuansätze zum Verstehen urchristlicher Parabeltexte [ed. Ruben Zimmermann and Gabriele Kern; wunt 231; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008] 181-201, here 198) states, “. . . the image of the tree in which birds nest also evokes various narratives in the tradition concerning trees and nesting birds that depict the establishment of God’s reign. . . . This link has ben frequently noted, but what is often overlooked is that God’s purposes are presented in these traditions by other trees, not the mustard seed. These trees symbolize the power and rule of nations and their kings, sometimes sanctioned by God and sometimes strongly opposed by God. Either way, it is significant that in these traditions, all the trees/empires are subjected to God’s sovereignty.”)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Liebenberg, Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 292.

Liebenberg, Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 292.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Liebenberg, Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 292.

Liebenberg, Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 292.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Cf. Carter, “Matthew’s Gospel, Rome’s Empire,” 200.

Cf. Carter, “Matthew’s Gospel, Rome’s Empire,” 200.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 377.

Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 377.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 324; cf. Schellenberg, “Kingdom as Contaminant,” 527-529.

Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 324; cf. Schellenberg, “Kingdom as Contaminant,” 527-529.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 231.

Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 231.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Schellenberg, “Kingdom as Contaminant,” 538-541.

Schellenberg, “Kingdom as Contaminant,” 538-541.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 231-232.

Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 231-232.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Bovon, Luke 2, 300-301. Note also that the focus here is on the leaven and not the woman as in Gos. Thom. 96.

Bovon, Luke 2, 300-301. Note also that the focus here is on the leaven and not the woman as in Gos. Thom. 96.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Liebenberg, Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 316.

Liebenberg, Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 316.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation