New Test. Stud. vol. 31,1985, pp.

277-282

SHORT STUDIES

THE OMOIO~ WORD-GROUP AS INTRODUCTION

TO SOME MATTHEAN PARABLES

It is well known that the parables of Jesus as recorded in the Synoptic

Gospels have, as far as their openings are concerned, two basic forms. In
the first, Jesus simply plunges into the narrative or comparison without
ado, beginning with a noun in the nominative. This sort of introduction is
preferred by Luke (7. 41; 10. 30; 12.16; 13.6; 14.16; 15.11; 16.1,19;
18. 2, 10; 19. 12) but is also found in Matthew and Mark (Mark 4.3 par.;
12. 1 par.). In the second, Jesus uses the word 'like' in some form, and the
parable often begins with a noun or pronoun in the dative. This second
category may be preceded by a question: e.g. 7LVL OjlOLWUW 71]V {3auLAEiav
70U (}EOU; (Luke 13. 20; cf. Mark 4.30 f.); but whether the question is ex-
plicit or not, the parable itself begins with one of five 'like' expressions: we;
(Mark 4. 31; 13. 34), WarrEp (Matt 25. 14), oJ..l.ou)e; eunv (Matt 11. 16; 13.
31, 33, 44, 45, 47, 52; 20. 1; Luke 6. 49; 12. 36), OJ..l.OLw(}r,uE7aL (Matt 7.
24,26; 25. 1) or WJ..l.OLW(}T/ (Matt 13. 24; 18.23). All of these forms have
a recognizable Aramaic Zeunderlying them, itself an abbreviation of several
longer formulae; and neither the Aramaic nor the Greek may legitimately
be translated, 'It is like ... ', but 'It is the case with ... as with .. .'.1 Thus,
strictly speaking, WjlOLW(}T/ ri {3auLAEia TWV ovpavwv dv(}pwrrV? urrEipavn
K7A. (Matt 13. 24) should not be rendered 'The kingdom of heaven is like
a man who sowed etc.' - the kingdom of heaven is not like a man! - but
something like, 'The kingdom of heaven is like the case of a man who sowed
etc.', i.e. 'It is with the kingdom of heaven as with a man who sowed etc.'.
All this is common knowledge. Less frequently noticed is the variety of
tenses which Matthew alone uses to introduce parables of the second cat-
egory. Like the other Synoptic evangelists, he can use the future active to
raise the formulaic question preceding some parables: TWL of. OjlOLWUW 71]V
')'EvEav 7aV7T/V; (11. 16); and like Luke he uses opou)e; eunv to introduce
some parables (11. 16; 13. 31,33,44,45,47,52; 20.1). But only he uses
the aorist passive WjlOLW(}T/ (13. 24; 18. 23; 22. 2) and the future passive
OpOLw(}r,uE7aL (7. 24, 26; 25. 1). Does he attach any significance to these
alternative forms?
By and large, the question is overlooked in the commentaries, mono-
graphs, and journal literature. Jeremias points out that opou)c; eunv is most
distinctively Greek, for 'while OJ..l.OLw(}r,uE7aL, WJ..l.OLW&r7 refer to a previous
subject which is about to be described, OJ..l.OLOe; eunv often gives the er-
roneous impression of an identification';2 but he does not discuss any
278 D. A. CARSON

possible significance attaching to tlie tense of the finite verbal forms.

Occasionally some attempt has been made to explain the aorist passive
WIlOLw()77 - e.g. it is considered a 'gnomic'3 or an 'effective' aorist,4 or in
some older literature it is thought to be evidence that the parable was
formulated by someone earlier than Jesus ('the kingdom of heaven was
likened etc.');5 but the future passive is not so amenable to 'solutions' and
is more frequently ignored.
The best approach seeks to explain both tenses. A few scholars have
proposed what seems the right tack. 6 They suggest, almost in passing, that
OIlOLw()r]oEraL points to the future ('the kingdom of heaven will be like . .. ')
and WIlOLW()77 to the past ('the kingdom of heaven has become like . .. ').
The rest of this note seeks to put that interpretation on a solid footing by
considering evidence not normally discussed in this connection.
The verb OfJ.OU)W occurs fifteen times in the New Testament: Matt 6. 8;
7.24,26; 11. 16; 13. 24; 18. 23; 22.2; 25.1; Mark 4.30; Luke 7.31; 13.
18,20; Acts 14.11; Rom 9.29 (citing Isa 1. 9); Heb 2.17. The textual
variants are for the most part unimpressive. The most interesting is found
in Matt 7. 24, where many witnesses prefer 0IlOLWOW aurov to OlloLw()r]-
OEraL; but the latter is strongly attested in diverse and early MSS, whereas
the case for the former is weakened by the reasonable assumption that it
is an assimilation to the active future of Luke 6. 47, lJ1roOei~W VfJ.LV rLvL
EorLv OIlOW<;. From this list of the occurrences of 0IlOLOW, several things
stand out: (1) There is much higher frequency of the verb in Matthew
than in any other New Testament book. This fact could count either nega-
tively or positively toward the thesis being tested: negatively, in that the
high frequency in Matthew makes it intrinsically more likely that a variety
of forms of the verb will appear, without the need to attach too much
significance to them; positively, in that a favourite verb in the hands of a
skilful writer like Matthew, known for his subtle nuances, is more likely to
yield valuable insights into his understanding when there are enough occur-
rences to provide some measure of control. The issue cannot be decided in
advance. (2) All occurrences of 0IlOLOW in Mark and Luke are active and
transitive, and belong to the 'question' part of the second category of par-
able introductions: 'To what shall I liken . .. ?' The only parallel in Matthew
is 11. 16 (= Luke 7. 31 [=Q?]). Matthew does not preserve this verbal form
as it is found in Mark 4.30 = Luke 13. 18 (cf. Matt 13.31), nor as it is
found in Luke 18. 20 (cf. Matt 13. 33). (3) The remaining New Testament
uses of 0IlOLOW can be divided into two groups: those which introduce
Matthew's parables, using WIlOLW()77 or OIlOLw()r]oEraL, and those not used
in connection with parables at all. All of the latter are passive in form; and
their meaning is quite unambiguous:
Ma tt 6. 8 1117 ouv OlloLw()ijrE auroL<;· i.e. 'do no t be like them', not 'do
not be likened to them'.

J
 THE OMOIO~ WORD GROUP AND MATTHEAN PARABLES 279
Acts 19. 11 of ()eoL O/lOLw(}EV7f:e; dv(}pwrroLe; KarE{3'T]UaV rrpoe; v/liie;. NIV:
'The gods have come down to us in human form' - lit.
'having become like men', not 'having been likened to men'.
Rom 9. 29 (Isa 1. 9) we; "L-08o/la av €"(EV7W'T]/lEV KaL we; rO/loppa av
W/lOLW(}'T]/lEV i.e. 'We would have become like Sodom and
we would have been like Gomorrah' (NIV).
Heb 2. 17 O(}EV W¢€LA.EV Kara rravra rOLe; d8EA.¢OIS o/loLw8ilvaL i.e.
'F or this reason he had to be made like his brothers in
every way.'
The point of listing these passages is to demonstrate what the lexica
affirm, viz. that the verb does not have a normal but a deponent passive.
One might expect the active voice, 'I liken X (acc.) to Y (dat.)' would
generate the customary passive structure, 'X (nom.) is likened to Y (dat.)';
but in fact the passive voice of this verb loses any sense of 'to liken' i.e.
'to compare': it does not mean 'to be likened' or 'to be compared with'
but simply 'to become like' or 'to be like'. This is so not only in the New
Testament, but in the LXX and Hellenistic literature.
If we may apply these results to o/loLw(}izuEraL and WJ.1OLW(}'T] , then we
must conclude it is unlikely these forms are telling us what the kingdom
'will be compared with' or 'has been compared with', but what it will be
like or has become like.
This works out neatly in the six relevant passages. The aorist passive
introduces the parable of the tares (13. 24), in which, even though there is
mention of the eschatological 'harvest', t~e focus remains on the mixture
of wheat and tares at present. The kingdom of heaven has (already) become
like this. Similarly in the parable of the unmerciful servant (17. 23): the
kingdom has become like the situation in which a servant may be forgiven
much and yet not be forgiven: such a person will be called to account.
Clearly the consummated kingdom will not be like this situation: if any-
thing, it is paralleled by the final accounting. Again, the kingdom of heaven
has become like the case of a king who prepares a ' ledding banquet for his
son (12. 2), invites many people who offer empty excuses, and ultimately
brings in others from the streets. By contrast, the verb in the future passive
is used exclusively in connection with the kingdom at its consummation.
In 7. 24, the person who hears and obeys Jesus' words will be like (i.e. on
the day of judgment) the man who builds on a firm foundation. Similarly
for the converse (7. 26). The last instance of the future passive (25. I)
points to the apocalyptic advent of the kingdom at the end of the age: it
will be like ten virgins who etc. (In this last instance, Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich
[both editions] notes that the future tense includes 'a glance at the Par-
ousia'.)
It appears, then, thaI. W/lOLW(}'T] and oJ.1oLw(}izuEraL frame the eschato-
logical significance of the kingdom parables they introduce. But to be quite
280 D. A. CARSON

certain this is so, it should also be demonstrated that there is no instance of

O/lOL(J<:; Eunv where, in the light of the foregoing, one might have expected
W/lOLW()17 or O/lOLw()1]UETaL. And this appears to be the case. Twice O/lOUJC;
Eunv introduces comparisons that are not kingdom parables, and are there-
fore not relevant to the present discussion (11. 16; 13. 52). Of the six
remaining instances (13. 31, 33, 44, 45, 47; 20. 1), however, each a king-
dom parable, five obviously focus primary attention neither on the present
aspect of the kingdom nor on its future, but on its organic wholeness (13.
31,33), its intrinsic worth (13. 44,45) or its essentially gracious nature
(20. 1). The one possible problem is 13. 47 (introducing the parable of the
net). In arguing that the parable must be separated from its interpretation,
some have seen a reference in the parable itself (vv. 47 f.) to the present
sorting and missionary activity of Jesus' disciples (= fishermen), which the
interpretation of the parable (vv. 49 f.) transforms into a last judgment
scene. If the introductory formula refers only to 13.47 f., one might have
expected W/lOLw()17; if to the whole, with emphasis on the last judgment,
one might have expected O/lOLw()1]UETaL I suspect both approaches are in-
adequate. Arguments for dividing the parable from its interpretation are
not strong. The fishermen pull the net up on the shore when it is full (OTE
E1rA17Pw()17): this would be an extraordinary metaphor for continued mission-
ary witness. And are Jesus' disciples anywhere commissioned to throw out
7(i ua1rpd? Nor is it legitimate to detect in the catching of the fish the acti-
vity of the church, and in the sorting of the fish the eschatological division -
any more than it is legitimate in the parable of the tares to distinguish
between the harvesting and the final separation of weeds and wheat. Hill's
contention that the interpretation is inappropriate because a 'furnace is
hardly the place for bad fish'7 misses the mark; for the description of the
furnace (v. 50) refers not to fish but to that which the fish symbolize, viz.
the wicked. They are thrown into the 'furnace', a fairly standard apoca-
lyptic image for hell. If Hill's objection carries weight, he will equally have
to object that tares, when burned (13. 42), do not weep and gnash their
teeth. If, then, the parable and its interpretation belong together, does this
mean the focus is so oriented to the future that O/lOLw()i7uETaL should have
been used to introduce this parable? No; for unlike 25. 1 ff., for instance,
this parable is not about the last judgment, with sharp warnings regarding
the need for preparedness, but about the situation that exists when the
last judgment takes place: there are 'good' fish and 'bad' fish, and only the
final sweep of the net and resultant sorting is adequate to distinguish be-
tween the two. In other words, the parable is not wholly concerned with
the kingdom perceived to be already inaugurated but now delayed, nor
with the kingdom as it is heralded by the last judgment, but with the more
conceptual question of the relation between the two; and for this o/lOWC;
Eunv seems admirably suitable.
 THE OMOIO~ WORD GROUP AND MATTHEAN PARABLES 281
Thus, in none of the passages with OJ.lOWC; eanv is it obvious that any-
thing would be gained by using either wJ.loLw8f/ or oJ.loLw8ilaeraL. This
confirms that whenever wJ.loLw8f/ or oJ.loLw8ila€TaL is used, a specific
eschatological orientation to the ensuing parable is presupposed by the
evangelist.
Three reflections on these observations are in order: (1) The long-
standing debate regarding just how much realised or inaugurated escha-
tology is found in the First Gospel must take these things into consider-
ation. Exegesis must make room not only for a combination of realised
and future eschatology but also for a Matthew who is self-consciously
aware of the difference, and is thoughtfully playing on it. This is perhaps
more evident in those instances where Matthew is not presenting M material
(viz. 22. 2 = Luke 16. 16; 7.24 = Luke 6. 47 f.; 7.26 = Luke 6. 49; and
compare 25. 1 with Luke 12. 35 f.); for then it becomes necessary to ex-
plain why only the First Gospel offers these distinctive verbal forms. That
all of these belong to Q material (however Q be conceived), with none from
Mark, may be coincidental; but in any case, it is difficult to think that
Matthew's differences are accidental and redactionally unimportant. (2) If
this interpretation of wJ.loLw8f/ and oJ.lOLw8ila€TaL in Matthew is sustained,
it contradicts the thesis of Margaret Pamment 8 that in Matthew 'the king-
dom of heaven' always refers to the future kingdom, in contradistinction
to 'the kingdom of God' which is realised (e.g. 12. 28). Her thesis is forced
in any case: for instance, it handles 11. 11 f. poorly, and ignores compo-
sitional subtleties, such as the fact that although both John the Baptist and
Jesus preach that ii'Y'YLK€V iJ (3aaLf....€ta TWV ovpavwv (3. 2; 4. 17), yet the
former does so in the context of his mission as one preparing the way for
the Lord (3. 3), and the latter in his capacity as the light that has already
dawned on the Gentiles (4. 12-16). If this paper is substantially correct,
'the kingdom of heaven' is presumed inaugurated at least in 13. 24; 18.23
and 22. 2. (3) It goes beyond the evidence to state, with Kingsbury, that
Matthew uses the aorist passive 'to indicate that the Kingdom of Heaven,
from his vantage point (emphasis mine), is a present reality and already
has a certain history behind it'. 9 Quite the contrary: he uses the aorist
to affirm that Jesus claims the kingdom has already dawned in his own
mission, and therefore failure to recognize it in Jesus' day was already a
mark of spiritual hardness. Whether Matthew's witness is believed or judged
anachronistic is, of course, another matter. D. A. CARSON

NOTES
[1] 1. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, tr. S. H. Hooke (London, 1963) 100 L; E. Beyreuther,
G. Finkenrath, in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. C. Brown (Exeter,
1976), vol. 2,50; M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples (Rome, 1963), §65.

-_._-- - ----- - -
282 D. A. CARSON

[2] Parables, 101, n. 53. [3] So Zerwick, Biblical Greek, §256.

[4] A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research
(Nashville, 1934) 835.
[5] Cf. references in John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Valley Forge, PA,
1886) 294 f.
[6] Ibid., 295; C. A. Bugge, Die Haupt-Parabeln Jesu (Giessen, 1903) 128; G. Strecker, Der Weg
der Gerechtigkeit: Un tersu chung zur The%gie desMatthaus (G6ttingen, 1962) 214 ff.; J. D. Kings-
bury, The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13: A Study in Redaction-Criticism (London, 1969) 66 f.
(7] David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (London, 1972) 238.
[8] The Kingdom of Heaven According to the First Gospel', NTS 27 (1980-1) 211-32.
[9] Parables, 67.