Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

THE MISSION OF JESUS §12.6
within the Jesus tradition itself. The most plausible is the parable of the prodigal
son, who repents and returns from 'a far country' (Luke 15.11-24). 434 But the
grand narrative of return from exile proves inadequate to explain the second half
of the parable, where the refusal of the elder brother to accept the younger clearly
works with the different motif of contrasting pairs. 435 And Wright hardly
strengthens his case by giving a pivotal place to the parable of the sower (Mark
4.2-8 pars.). 436 The problem is not that an allusion to the idea of the returnees
from exile as seed being sown (again) in the land is farfetched. 437 It is rather that
planting and fruitful growth are metaphors of much more diverse application 438
and that the parable's imagery of different soils and outcomes more naturally invites
a different line of thought and application from that of return from exile. 439
The calling of twelve disciples certainly evokes thought of eschatological restoration
or renewal of Israel (the twelve tribes), 440 but if 'return-from-exile theology'
was a prominent feature of the rationale, 441 it is surprising that so little is
made of it. 442 And the first petition of the Lord's Prayer ('May your name be
434. Wright, Jesus 125-31.
435. See above, n. 347, and further below, §13.5. As the corollary to his reading of the
parable Wright (Jesus 127) infers that the elder brother would have been identified with the Samaritans
(who objected to the return of the exiles to Judea), in complete disregard of the setting
indicated by Luke (the parable was addressed to Pharisees' objection to Jesus eating with 'sinners',
Luke 15.1-3).
436. Wright, Jesus 230-39.
437. Jer. 24.6; 32.41; Hos. 2.23; Amos 9.15 (cited by Wright, Jesus 232-33 n. 128).
438. Of the passages cited by Wright, consider Jer. 31.27 and 4 Ezra 8.41; the parable
could have evoked the classic reminder of God's part in the agricultural process (Isa. 28.23-26;
for the imagery of fruitful growth see, e.g., BAGD, karpos 2, karpophoreö 2); at one point
Wright himself assumes the identity of 'seed' and 'word', as the (later) explanation invites (Jesus
238), but he seems unconcerned that the explanation attached to the parable (which he includes
with the parable itself) shows no awareness of Wright's 'controlling story' (Mark 4.13-
20 pars). See further below, §13.1.
439. See also Liebenberg's criticism of G. Lohfink's somewhat similar interpretation
that it is people who are sown, ignoring the basic structure of four groups of seeds (Language
363-68, referring to G. Lohfink, 'Die Gleichnis von Sämann [Mk 4:3-9]', BZ 30 [1988] 36-69;
also 'Die Metaphorik der Aussaat im Gleichnis vom Sämann [Mk 4,3-9]', in Studien zum
Neuen Testament [Stuttgart: KBW, 1989]).
440. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism 98-102; see further below, §13.3b.
441. Wright, Jesus 430-31; Evans, 'Exile' 317-18. Even so, the thought would be of the
outcasts of Israel restored to the land and reunited with those already living there, not that the
latter were still in exile.
442. On the imagery of 'the lost sheep of the house of Israel' and of Israel as a scattered
flock (without a shepherd) see below, §13.3h. The dominant motif in Luke 13.28-29/
Matt. 8.11-12 is that of eschatological reversal (above, §12.4c) rather than of the return of
the Jewish dispersion (pace Sanders, Jesus and Judaism 219-20; Allison, Jesus Tradition in
Q 176-91).
476