To your point:

So if it says “faith like a mustard seed” it isn’t the same parable and therefore incongruous, but Ezekiel is connected. I get it.

Here is what he says:

He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”
If it was “faith like a mustard seed”, I think this would indicate a direct tie back to the parable (which may – or may not- have chronologically occurred before this event). But it says ‘faith as small as a mustard seed’ (going to its size rather than its likeness).

This could (and very possibly for the disciples would) refer back to his previous usage of the mustard seed. It is not the parable, itself, though.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that the parable doesn’t contain a message about the power of faith (either in the OP or in the comments). I see the likelihood that there is additional meaning being culled from the illustration.

The truth is you get easily frustrated when I or others do not come around to your side. So when you claim I am plugging my ears or my comments are stupid is that your idea of “edifying”.

I do get too easily frustrated – some times more than others – though I try not to post much when I find I’m feeling that way.

My language was out of line, you are correct, and I am sorry…

Yep, you are very different – a breath of fresh air. The truth is you get easily frustrated when I or others do not come around to your side. So when you claim I am plugging my ears or my comments are stupid is that your idea of “edifying”.

I never called anyone’s comments stupid. I guess my perspectives do not fit into the edifying category, I would not want anyone to stumble. I mistakenly assumed the post was about the interpretation of parables, I did not realize you could not respectfully disagree without being called “contrary” or “hung up on birds” or other things.

Carry on with the echo chamber.

He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”

But that’s not even the same parable, is it?

My point is, you’ve been harping on Jerry’s citation of the birds since #2, but you’ve never offered any support to this argument (aside from an erroneous reference to a non-parallel parable), so that by #22 you’re still saying the same thing, in both cases with uncharacteristically faulty logic (A is about B, so it cannot be about C, as well…), so that when you say “It is not related to the parable about faith,” your statement has no more weight than if you’d gone ahead and added “…because I said so…”

Now – with the ref. to birds in the mustard bush/tree – one possible interpretation is that the similarity in language is incidental/accidental, with no significance. To say it’s a possible interpretation is a valid to point.

However, the more you read Jesus’ words and those of his disciples, you find that they are very economical with their words (unlike some of us, particularly me), and that within that economy, they refer back to specific parts of Scripture – often w/o calling it out specifically – to fully make their point. They expected their audience to make the connection, which they could do because so many of them knew the Scriptures by heart.

So, I would suggest that it is far more likely that the addition of the language about the birds – using two specific phrases from the same OT text – precisely because it does not seem to be at the core of the short parable – is likely to be significance. How so? That is a good debate that I think would be far more edifying that arguing for Scriptural ignorance and making definitive declaratory claims of a negative that cannot be proven.

The OP was how to interpret parables – I thought. I will go back to sticking my fingers in my ears. I appreciate your condescending decription of my participation. You have accomplished your mission of being different than the ODMs.

Disagreement = fingers in ears. What a joke. Carry on with the open and respectful exchange.

Jerry – Please tell me why Matthew 20 says nothing about birds even as Jesus uses the mustard seed in the exact same way.

There is no reference in Matt 20 to the mustard seed parable at all. It is in Matt 13, and it mentions the birds of the air, just as do the other two synoptic accounts (Mark 4, Luke 13).

Jerry – The reference in Ezekiel deals with the Assyrian nation and its power and the huaghtiness of Pharoah, and both of them being brought down by God. It deals with the pride of man and the power of God. It is not related to the parable about faith.

I would disagree with you, as well, Rick.

Jesus uses two phrases in this parable which are identical to the opening of Ezekiel 31 – and which conceptually continue in the other parables surrounding this. It is not uncommon for Jesus’ parables to have multiple applications and layers of meaning. We’ve covered remez on this site multiple times, and I’d agree w/ Sproul and Jerry that this is a pretty obvious tie to Ezekiel.

NOW – what we make of the tie and how to understand it may be a good discussion – but sticking your thumbs in your ears and asking everyone to play the part of stupid sheep (by pretending it’s not there) is, well, just stupid…

I’m not sure why you’ve become such a recent and ardent supporter of idiotarianism… It seems like, recently, you’ve decided to ignore the basic point of OP’s & discussion, opting out for majoring in the minors, instead.

Was Ez 31 dealing with Egypt & Assyria? Yes. Does that prevent it from being referenced and borrowed in one of Jesus’ teachings to point to something else? No. He did it all the time. As did his disciples. That is one of the ways in which they used Scripture in teaching – both Jesus and his contemporary teachers.

In Hosea 11:1, was the prophet referring to Israel or Jesus? Hosea makes it clear he is talking about Israel. Matthew, however, borrows this and says it was a prophecy about Jesus (which, I would note, is surprising as a ‘proof-text’, as it was not seen by anyone else as a messianic prophecy, so Matthew’s inclusion of it as such is rather interesting…)

“And you are being quite stubborn in your efforts to miss my point.”

As are you mine.

I am speaking here of a principle of hermeneutics. I’m not even approaching the actual interpretation yet. My point in bringing in Ezekiel is that Scripture interprets Scripture–I think we agree on this.

I hate birds.