The Parable of the Mustard Seed

By Mark L. Bailey

[Mark L. Bailey is Vice President for Academic Affairs, Academic Dean, and Professor of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.

This is article four in the eight-part series “The Kingdom in the Parables of Matthew 13.”]

The parables of the mustard seed and of the leavening process are much briefer than the parables of the sower and of the tares and are sometimes called similitudes. The parable of the mustard seed is recorded in Matthew 13:31–32; Mark 4:30–32; and Luke 13:18–19. It is the only parable that all three Synoptic writers called a parable of the kingdom.

In Mark and Luke Jesus introduced the parable by asking two questions (Mark 4:30; Luke 13:18). In Matthew the parable is introduced as another in a series with the phrase, “He presented [παρέθηκεν, ‘placed before’] another [ἄλλην] parable” (Matt. 13:31). Matthew then changed from “the kingdom of heaven may be compared [ὡμοιώθη],” which was used in verse 24, to the formula that characterized the remaining five parables of this chapter, “the kingdom of heaven is like.” This formula, using the present tense with the comparative, is typical of Matthew.[1] Matthew and Luke contain the same narrative form of the parable, but Matthew and Mark emphasized the contrast between the small beginnings and the great fulfillment. Donahue observed, “The three evangelists freely adapted an original parable to their own purpose.”[2]

The Setting

In Matthew and Mark the temporal and geographical settings are the same as those of the parables of the sower and the tares. The verbal continuity with the previous parables includes the catchwords of “sowing,” “seed,” and “field.” As for the literary setting in Matthew, this parable is the third one that revealed the mysteries of the kingdom, and the first of two with themes of growth rather than planting.

The structure of the parable of the mustard seed in Mark is chiastic:

“when [it is] sown”

“upon the ground”

“it is smaller than all the seeds”

“upon the ground”

“when it is sown.”[3]

The chiasm’s central section with the focus on smallness fits the theological perspective of Mark’s paradoxical “servant” theme. In Matthew, rejection of Jesus resulted in the extension of the message of the kingdom to the outcasts and Gentiles. In Luke the theme of Gentile inclusion is presented throughout the book, with the extension of the gospel being justified by the Jewish rejection. In Luke 13:18–21 the parables of the mustard seed and of the leavening process immediately precede Jesus’ warning to Israel that she was in danger of being shut out of the kingdom while believing Gentiles could find their portion at the “eschatological table” with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Since Luke included these two parables in his travelogue (9:51–19:37), which records Jesus’ final approach to Jerusalem, they must have been told by Jesus at least twice. One of His purposes in giving instructions to the disciples on the journey from Galilee to Jerusalem was to prepare them for their future ministry in light of His impending ascension from Jerusalem (9:51).

The Need or Problem Prompting the Parable

Various explanations of the circumstances that prompted this parable have been given.

Doubt or Disappointment

Some believe the reason for the parable was the doubt or disappointment felt by the disciples when the kingdom did not come as expected as a grand demonstration of power.[4] “If this is the case in this parable, the smallness of the mustard seed corresponds, in the outlook of Jesus’ listeners, to a certain disappointment in the face of reality which seems to them insignificant. .. compared with the impressive images suggested by the thought of the realization of the kingdom of God.”[5] Wenham agrees: “The probability is that through this parable Jesus was once again addressing the doubts of those who had difficulty in recognising [sic] the kingdom of God in His ministry.”[6 ]Hill says the reason for the parable is to “answer those who are surprised to see the Kingdom of God ‘sown’ in the world with so little power.”[7] Morris has called this problem the danger of being “hypnotized by size.”[8] On the other hand Kingsbury sees in this parable Matthew’s attempt to speak to the problem of the delay of the Lord’s return in the early Christian community.[9]

Encouragement

It seems that Jesus told this parable to assure His followers that what He was doing was connected to the kingdom of heaven. The parable’s emphasis on growth would have encouraged those who were responding to and proclaiming the message of the kingdom. The minority response reflected in the first parable and the mixture of “kingdom sons” in the second parable suggest that Jesus was addressing the question of whether the kingdom of heaven in which Jesus and the disciples were involved would be “successful.” Since the parable of the mustard seed (and also of the leaven) relates to growth, the question might be raised, To what extent will this phase of the kingdom of heaven grow?

The Narrative Structure and Details

The Matthean version of this parable includes a summary statement of a man sowing a mustard seed in his field (13:31) and then a two-part statement within a μέν and δέ construct by which the size of the small seed contrasts with the large size of the full-grown plant. Dods believed this parable emphasizes three facts about the kingdom: its present apparent insignificance during the ministry of Jesus, the vitality of the growth in the present age between Jesus’ two advents, and its grandeur in the future.[10] However, the grammatical structure is more suitable for a twofold analysis: the seed in its small beginnings and the plant in its final growth. The supporting details of the narrative include the nature and size of the mustard seed, the place of the planting, and the description of the fully developed plant.

The Nature of the Seed

The mustard seed was a black seed called the Sinapi Nigra, grown in the fields to produce a sharp tangy spice from its grains and greens from its leaves.[11] The word “grain” (κόκκος) by itself denotes a seed or even a pine cone.[12] Σίναπι is the normal Greek designation for the mustard plant. Michael Zohary, an Israeli botanist, describes the plant as “an 

annual herb with large leaves clustered mainly at the base of the plant. Its central stem branches abundantly in its upper part and produces an enormous number of yellow flowers and small, many-seeded linear fruits.”[13] This plant was useful for the cultivation of both mustard oil and colza oil.[14]

The Small Size of the Seed

According to Hunzinger it takes 750 mustard seeds to weigh one gram.[15] While Dodd questioned the authenticity and veracity of the description of the mustard seed in its smallness,[16] Sproule has offered a more than adequate validation of the description.[17]

Mare maintains, with Sproule, that the term μικρότερον (Matt. 13:32) serves for the comparative and not just the superlative use in the New Testament, depending on the context.[18] Robertson makes this observation: “The comparative form, therefore, has two ideas, that of contrast or duality (Gegensatz) and that of the relative comparative (Steigerung), though the first use was the original. Relative comparision is of course, the dominant idea in most of the NT examples, though as already remarked, the notion of duality always lies in the background.”[19]

It may also be argued that proverbial language, like phenomenological language, is acceptable as understood and is not subject to the charge of error for lack of scientific measurement. While botanically the smallest of all seeds is the orchid seed, the smallest of the garden plants (λαχάνων) is the mustard seed.[20]

Alford has argued that the mustard seed was used proverbially of anything small.[21] While there is no reference to the mustard plant in the Old Testament, the small size of the mustard seed was proverbial in other Jewish literature.[22] The smallness of the seed was also proverbial at the time of Christ, as other passages attest (Matt. 17:20; Luke 17:6). The mustard seed and its ultimate growth was proverbial for the great growth of the kingdom of heaven.[23] The mention of the smallness of the seed indicates that the contrast between the plant’s small beginning and its disproportionately large end is part of the emphasis in the parable.

The Place of Planting

Whether there is significance to the variations between the three Gospels as to where the seed was sown is difficult to ascertain. Matthew wrote that a man sowed the seed “in his field” (13:31); Mark described the seed as “sown upon the soil” (4:31); and Luke spoke of the seed as one that a man “threw into his own garden” (13:19). The fact that a single seed of mustard was sown in the field rather than in the garden may highlight the hostile environment in which no one would expect growth.

The fully grown plant

The growth of the plant is emphasized by the position of the phrase “larger than the garden plants” (μεῖζον τῶν λαχάνων) before the verb “becomes” (γίνεται) in Matthew 13:32. Earlier dispensational interpretators have seen in the size of the mustard plant a negative statement about the character of the kingdom of heaven. The height of the plant was seen as a mutation or aberration of the normal, thus projecting a negative quality to the kingdom of heaven.However, even today mustard bushes in Israel often grow to a height of eight to twelve feet.[24] Thomson tells of having uprooted “a veritable mustard tree which was more than twelve feet high.”[25] In both Matthew and Luke the plant grew to become a “tree” (δένδρον). That the mustard seed could grow into a larger plant than might normally be expected in one season of growth is also found in a Jewish source attributed to J Peah (7:4), in which a mustard tree is said to be large enough for a man to climb as one would climb a fig tree. In the Old Testament, trees are an image of great kingdoms with worldwide impact.[26] Kingsbury says the size of the mustard tree suggests miraculous results that only God could produce.[27] Mention of the plant’s size may also simply show its adequacy for birds to build nests in it.

The Significance of Nesting and Shading

In a full-grown mustard tree, birds nest in its branches. Jeremias suggests that κατασκηνόω (“nest, dwell”) was an eschatological term evoking the image of the great end-times ingathering.[28]

Manson points out that “birds of heaven” are a stock symbol for the Gentile nations,[29] as seen in Ezekiel 17:23; 31:5-6; and Daniel 4:12, 21, which refer to the success of Assyria and Babylon or to the future restoration of Israel. Apocalyptic literature (e.g., 4 Enoch 90:30, 33, 37) and rabbinic literature (e.g., Midrash Ps. 104:12) show that birds symbolize Gentiles who were seeking refuge with Israel. Some have also suggested possible connections with Psalms 80:8–13 and 104:12.[30]

While the imagery for Gentile powers can be argued in all the above passages, Ezekiel 17:22–23 is the closest parallel to Jesus’ parable, since the tree there represents the people of God rather than a Gentile power. The worldwide fulfillment of God’s kingdom blessings is implied by the reference to the birds nesting in the branches. “This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I myself will take a shoot from the very top of a cedar and plant it; I will break off a tender sprig from its topmost shoots and plant it on a high and lofty mountain. On the mountain heights of Israel I will plant it; it will produce branches and bear fruit and become a splendid cedar. Birds of every kind will nest in it; they will find shelter in the shade of its branches” (NIV).

Like the small cedar twig the restored kingdom will reach international proportions. However, since the parables in Matthew 13 concern a phase of the kingdom program before the ultimate restoration of Israel, McArthur’s observation may also have some merit. “Yet it is conceiveable that the dependence is not on any one Old Testament text but rather on phraseology which had become familiar through the scriptural passages but which had been cut loose from specific contexts.”[31]

Thus Jesus’ allusion to these Old Testament passages would show that what He was doing was consistent with what God had promised Israel. The ultimate end of the “sprig” will be worldwide manifestation of the kingdom on the mountains of Israel.

Central Truths in Relationship to the Kingdom

Scholars differ in their views on the central analogy in the parable. Suggested possibilities range from the small beginnings to its glorious consummation.

Providential Care and Timing of the Kingdom

Carlston holds that the background of the Old Testament and the parabolic change from the small seed to the larger plant speaks of God’s providential care in establishing His kingdom.[32] Carlston draws support from the subject of sovereignty in Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Dan. 4:25–26, 32). Kingsbury finds an element of truth in the uncertain timing of the kingly rule of God. “It is at least possible that this parable contains something of a warning to the effect that the precise timing for the unveiling of the end-time Kingdom lies solely in the hands of God. .. so God will determine when the time is ripe for the coming of His great Realm.”[33]

Redefinition of the Kingdom

Funk argues for a more metaphorical view. “The kingdom Jesus sees as breaking in will arrive in disenchanting and disarming form: not as a mighty cedar astride the lofty mountain height but as a lowly garden herb.”[34] For him the kingdom is “not a towering empire but an unpretentious venture of faith.”[35] He says the purpose of the parable was to transform the face of Israel’s hope from an external reordering of an Israelite empire into faith in Jesus.[36] His interpretation is undoubtedly colored by his denial that Israel will have a political kingdom in the future.

Insignificant Beginning of the Kingdom

Some hold that the major issue in this parable is the insignificant beginning of the kingdom. Jeremias states, “Out of the most insignificant beginnings, invisible to the human eye, God creates His mighty Kingdom, which embraces all people of the world.”[37] He says the parable affirms God’s miraculous power in the face of doubts that the kingdom could issue from Jesus’ mission and His unreputable band of disciples. The mention of the seed’s smallness indicates that the contrast between the small beginnings and the disproportionate growth is part of the point of the parable.[38] However, does the element of contrast sufficiently account for the parable? The reference to the birds in the branches seems to argue for more.

Realization of the Consummation

For others the size and sheltering characteristics of the full-grown plant are most important. According to Dodd the parable has little to do with an insignificant beginning and incredible growth. The parable pertains instead to the capacity of the tree to afford shelter for birds.[39] He states, “That multitudes of the outcast and neglected in Israel, perhaps even of Gentiles, are hearing the call, is a sign that the process of obscure development is at the end. The kingdom of God is here: the birds are flocking to find shelter in the shade of the tree.”[40] Dodd fails to mention that Jesus’ first-advent ministry was the time of planting, and that the parable assumes the need for growth before a future culmination will occur. Dodd’s realized eschatology is read into the parable to such an extent that growth in the parable is lost.

The Continuity of the Kingdom

Others argue for a continuity between the seed and the plant. According to Carson, Jesus was “saying that there is a basic connection between the small beginnings taking place under His ministry and the kingdom in its future glory.”[41] Since Jews, familiar with the Old Testament, would have expected the kingdom in its greatness, Carson suggests that point did not need emphasis. For him, Jesus needed to communicate that the kingdom would begin small.[42] Beasley-Murray also argues for continuity. “The single event, the single object, is the coming of the kingdom in its totality, beginning and end, and whatever may lie between.”[43] Similarly Morris addresses the subject of continuity. “There is also the thought of the continuity between the seed and the grown plant; it is from the mustard seed and that seed only that the mustard plant grew. So it is from Jesus and His little band that the mighty kingdom of heaven would emerge. And if we can reason from the connection with all the nations in the Ezekiel passage (31:6), there will be representatives of all peoples in the kingdom.”[44]

These five views all seem too simplistic. They each fail to consider the parameters of that phase of the kingdom Jesus spoke of. The insignificant beginning cannot refer to the Davidic kingdom, for it already had a glorious history before it was interrupted by the times of the Gentiles. While there is both contrast and continuity between the kingdom’s small beginning and its mature consummation, the focus of the parable seems to be on the extensive growth of the kingdom.

A Suggested Alternative

In response to those who tend to emphasize either a totally “realized eschatology” or a rigidly “consistent eschatology,” Schnackenburg strikes a balance. The parable, he says,

should not be employed to substantiate a wholly present or a wholly future concept of the reign of God but just that polarity between the beginning and the end, between sowing and harvest, between the unobtrusive present and the full future revelation of the glory of God’s rule and kingship. There is also a continuous unbroken relation between “now” and “then,” not because of any immanent process due to earthly forces, but through the intervention of God who manifests in the works of Jesus the kingly rule which one day will be shown forth in all its splendor. What happens in the present, despite every failure and opposition, is a promise of the future triumph.[45]

That Gentiles will be reached with the message of the kingdom is in keeping with the promise of the future. “Many shall come from east and west and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 8:11). McArthur states, “The primary emphasis would have been either on the certainty that the ministry [of Jesus] would produce a great result, or on the glorious universal nature of that result.”[46] With McArthur, it seems best to say that the emphasis is one of contrast between the small seed and the larger tree.[47] The contrast between the plant’s beginning and its growth was to inform the multitudes and the disciples that despite a small beginning, the kingdom in its present phase will result in glorious proportions—growth in which people of all races from all over the world will experience the blessings of the kingdom of heaven. The humble beginnings and seemingly small effects begun in Jesus’ ministry are not inconsistent with the future manifestation of the kingdom of heaven in which the absolute and worldwide sovereignty of God will be demonstrated and consummated. Therefore one of the mysteries of the kingdom is that the phase of the kingdom that was inaugurated by Jesus has been planted humbly but will have a glorious manifestation in the future, embracing both Jews and Gentiles alike. The tree and bird imagery suggests the extent as well as the nature of the kingdom in its culminating stage. Its impact will be universal, and its participants will manifest its international flavor.

The Intended Appeal for the Audience

For Jesus’ disciples the parable was given as an encouragement that despite the kingdom’s small beginning and the opposition to His message, they were to have part in something that eventually will reach worldwide proportions. Like the rest of the Gospel of Matthew this chapter shows that the mission in the intervening period of growth is to be directed toward all nations (Matt. 28:19).

The parable of the mustard seed challenged Jesus’ hearers about their misconceptions that the kingdom of God could not come through Jesus’ humble presentation of Himself. This parable explains that what was happening with Jesus and His disciples did not conflict with Israel’s glorious future as anticipated in the Old Testament imagery of the tree branches and the nesting birds. To reject Jesus would be to reject the salvation available in Him and to forfeit one’s place in the kingdom of heaven.

Members of the early Christian church, for whom Matthew recorded this parable, were encouraged not to be scandalized by the apparently small beginnings of Jesus’ ministry or the relatively few who find salvation through His message. “The parable continues to be an encouragement in contexts where the work of Christ is still as small as a mustard seed.”[48]

Applications to modern-day readers of the parable include the following. First, whatever God is doing is significant in light of His ultimate plans. Second, “the activity of God, not the plausibility of the evidence, guarantees that great ending.”[49] Third, one needs to share the Savior’s heart for the lost of the world.

Notes

1. The same construction is used in Matthew 13:33, 44, 45, 47; and 20:1.
2. John R. Donahue, The Gospel in Parable (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 37.
3. See Mary Ann Tolbert, Perspectives on the Parables: An Approach to Multiple Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 80–81, for a comparison of Marcan versions of the structures of the seed growing secretly (Mark 4:26–29) and the mustard seed (4:30–32). This structure might explain the enigma of the grammar, too quickly criticized by some such as John D. Crossan, In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), 45.
4. Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, trans. S. H. Hooke, 2d ed. (New York: Scribner & Sons, 1954), 149. Also see Nils A. Dahl, “The Parables of Growth,” Studia Theologica 5 (1951): 140.
5. Herman Hendrickx, The Parables of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986), 37.
6. David Wenham, The Parables of Jesus (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1989), 54. One could still hold to the offer of the kingdom rather than the inauguration of the kingdom and make the same observation. Thus the doubts would relate to the recognition of the identity of Christ as the King and His right to receive the kingdom from His Father.
7. David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible (London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1972), 233.
8. Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 351.
9. Jack Dean Kingsbury, Matthew 13: A Study in Redaction Criticism (Richmond, VA: Knox, 1969), 83.
10. Marcus Dods, The Parables of Our Lord (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1890), 50.
11. C. H. Hunzinger, “σίναπι,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 7:288.
12. James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1930; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 352.
13. Michael Zohary, Plants of the Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 93.
14. H. N. Moldenke and A. L. Moldenke, Plants of the Bible (Waltham, MA: Chronica Botanica, 1952), 59.
15. Hunzinger, “σίναπι,” 288.
16. C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (New York: Scribner & Sons, 1961), 153.
17. John A. Sproule, “The Problem of the Mustard Seed,” Grace Theological Journal 1 (Spring 1980): 37-42.
18. W. H. Mare, “The Smallest Mustard Seed: Matthew 13:32, ” Grace Theological Journal 9 (1968): 3-11.
19. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), 668 (italics his).
20. The verb λαχαίνω means “to dig,” and therefore relates to plants that are intentionally planted, rather than those that might grow wild. The noun used in verse 32 may refer to herbs or vegetables.
21. Henry Alford, The Greek New Testament, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1958), 1:144.
22. See m. Toharot 8:8; m. Niddah 5:2; and m. Nazir 1:5.
23. Herman L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrash (Munich: Beck, 1922), 1:669.
24. Gustaf Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina (Hildesheim: Olms, 1964), 2:293; Karl E. Wilken, Biblishes Erleben im Heiligen Land (Lahr-Dinglingen: Schweickhardt, 1953), 1:108. and G. E. Post, “Mustard,” in Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings et al. (New York: Scribner & Sons, 1902), 3:463. Also see Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 220.
25. W. M. Thomson, The Land and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 183.
26. See Judges 9:15; Lamentations 4:20; Ezekiel 17:23; 31:6; and Daniel 4:11–12.
27. Kingsbury, Matthew 13, 81.
28. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 147–48.
29. T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939), 133, n. 1.
30. In view of this background information it is surprising that Carlston says this identification of the birds with Gentiles was a later addition by the church (Charles E. Carlston, The Parables of the Triple Tradition [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975], 160).
31. Harvey K. McArthur, “The Parable of the Mustard Seed,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33 (April-June 1971): 203.
32. Carlston, The Parables of the Triple Tradition, 159.
33. Kingsbury, Matthew 13, 83.
34. Robert W. Funk, “The Looking-Glass Tree Is for the Birds,” Interpretation 27 (January 1963): 7.
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid., 8-9.
37. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 149. Archibald M. Hunter makes a similar statement: “Unimaginable endings from unremarkable beginnings is the point of the Mustard Seed” (The Parables Then and Now [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971], 45).
38. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 149–50.
39. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, 153.
40. Ibid., 154.
41. Don Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:318.
42. Ibid.
43. George R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 124.
44. Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 352.
45. Rudolph Schnackenburg, God’s Rule and Kingdom, trans. John Murray (New York: Herder and Herder, 1963), 159.
46. McArthur, “The Parable of the Mustard Seed,” 209.
47. Ibid.
48. Wenham, The Parables of Jesus, 54.
49. Carlston, The Parables of the Triple Tradition, 162.