JETS 51/1 (March 2008) 59–85

EXILE AND THE PURPOSE OF JESUS’ PARABLES

(MARK 4:10–12; MATT 13:10–17; LUKE 8:9–10)

douglas s. mccomiskey

Jesus’ statement regarding his use of parables (Mark 4:10–12; Matt 13:10–
17; Luke 8:9–10) has always been a challenge to scholars because it contains
a cluster of difficult exegetical and theological issues, which are especially
intense in Mark 4:10–12. For example: What is the “secret” of the kingdom
of God? How is it “given” to the disciples? What are the lines along which
Jesus divides disciples from “those outside”? What is the function of the
Isa 6:9–10 quotation in his argument? and, perhaps the most important and
difficult question: Does he desire that certain people not be saved? Various
types of responses have been offered, especially for the last question. We will
first sketch the solutions to the last question in broad strokes to demonstrate
the need for a new proposal, and the remainder of the article will present a
new proposal with discussion that covers all of the questions asked above
and more. Our focus throughout will be primarily on Mark’s version of the
pericope, but we will cover Luke’s and Matthew’s thoroughly as the issues
in those texts parallel or supplement those in Mark. Thorough evaluations
of the various proposals are available in the literature, which the reader is
encouraged to consult, but for brevity’s sake we will devote the vast majority
of space to the presentation of a new proposal that avoids many of the weak-
nesses inherent in the other offerings. 1
The contention of this article is that, contrary to the standard approaches
to Jesus’ purpose statement, Jesus adopts a meaning for Isa 6:9–10 virtually
identical to the original meaning in Isaiah. The fundamental differences are
that Jesus applies the passage to his own ministry and speaks the words
at a different stage of salvation history. The first difference is significant.
Jesus attributes an Isaianic character to his own preaching. Certainly the
words of Isa 6:9–10 originally applied to the prophet Isaiah and, I would

* Douglas S. McComiskey is professor of New Testament at Ridley College, 160 The Avenue,
Parkville Vic, 3052 Australia.
1
For useful discussions of the different views on the issues, see Mary Ann Beavis, Mark’s
Audience: The Literary and Social Setting of Mark 4.11–12 (JSNTSS 33; ed. David Hill; Sheffield:
JSOT, 1989) 69–86; Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 198–204; R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek
Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) 193–201; Heikki Räisänen, The “Messianic Secret”
in Mark’s Gospel (Studies in the New Testament and Its World; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1990)
81–87; and Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26 (WBC 34a; Dallas: Word, 1989) 209–12.
60 journal of the evangelical theological society

suggest, not to Jesus. 2 Nevertheless, it is legitimate for Jesus to employ the

quotation as a means of declaring that his preaching bears the identical
function as that of Isaiah’s. Perhaps Jesus saw himself as an antitype to
Isaiah. Regarding the different stage of salvation-history, it will be shown
that the time frame referred to in Isa 6:9–10 itself, especially in the broader
context of the book, may encompass the messianic period. If so, the disjunction
is insignificant, even non-existent, because God’s word in the passage would
be intended for rebellious Jews from Isaiah’s day through to Jesus’ day and
probably beyond. Accordingly, Jesus’ preaching had essentially the identical
function and audience as Isaiah’s, but at a later time. If the view briefly de-
scribed above, and developed throughout this article, is correct, most of the
tensions that interpreters of Mark 4:10–12; Matt 13:10–17; and Luke 8:9–10
struggle with are resolved.

i. review of previous proposals

Jesus’ quotation of Isa 6:9–10 in the purpose of parables passages raises
the question of whether he desired some people not to be saved, which is really
the central exegetical issue. One general approach to this matter has been
to soften the meanings of ªna (Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10) and mhvpote (Mark 4:12;
Matt 13:15). For example, “in order that” becomes “with the result that,” and
“lest” becomes “unless” or “perhaps.” With this reading, preaching in parables
has the result that people do not perceive or understand, but there is hope
that they might turn and be forgiven.3 In other words, Jesus may not intend
to obscure his message, but this is the result, unless the hearer repents
and receives salvation. Indeed, ªna may sometimes take this sense when the
context demands it, but mhv p ote with the subjunctive does not appear to
allow a softer sense. The fundamental sense of this grammatical construc-
tion in every instance in the lxx is aversion. What is introduced in the
mhvpote + subjunctive clause is considered disadvantageous, something to be
avoided. In the large majority of cases, the text explicates action (to be) taken
to avoid the disadvantageous possibility expressed in the clause, and where
action is not explicated it is implied. In every case, mhvpote + subjunctive
may be interpreted as having the meaning “lest” with the sense “for the
aversion of.” 4 Interestingly, the same holds true for possibly every instance
of this construction in the NT (Matt 4:6; 5:25; 13:15; 15:32; 25:9; Mark 4:12;

2
Sensus plenior would allow (though not require) the divine intent behind the words to apply
to both Isaiah and Jesus, hence potentially avoiding the issue. The position espoused here is that
sensus plenior is not necessary for Jesus to apply the passage legitimately to himself.
3
T. W. Manson introduced this approach in The Teaching of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1935) 75–80. R. T. France takes a nuanced approach to this position, stating,
“While it may not be legitimate to claim that in Mark ªna can mean ‘with the result that’ . . . , the
force of the quotation cannot be far from that sense” (Gospel of Mark 199).
4
There are about 87 instances of the construction in the lxx.

One Line Short

 exile and the purpose of jesus’ parables 61

Luke 4:11; 12:58; 14:8, 12; 21:34; Acts 5:39; 28:27; Heb 2:1).5 In the instances
in Greek literature where BDAG suggests that the meaning of mhvpote is
“perhaps,” either the construction is not mhvpote + subjunctive, or the meaning
actually need not be softened from “lest” to “perhaps,” as in Sir 19:13. Gundry
writes, “we should reject attempts to evade the telic ªna, ‘in order that’; for
the combination with mhvpote, ‘lest,’ comes as close as possible to insuring
the telic meaning . . . . The changes made by Matthew and Luke make it
apparent that they did not see a way of softening the telic meaning apart
from dropping the mhvpote-clause as well as making earlier changes.” 6 Craig
Evans provides ample argument for the telic force.7 In summary, it is prob-
ably best to adopt the telic sense in Mark 4:12 (and Matt 13:15).
Some scholars soften the harshness of Jesus’ quotation by suggesting that
Mark’s ªna is shorthand for the introductory formula, ªna plhrwqhÅ (“in order
that it might be fulfilled”). 8 Accordingly, the quotation of Isa 6:9–10 is not
an explanation of why he told parables, but a “commentary on the contem-
porary situation in which the purpose of God was coming to fulfillment.”9
It was not that Jesus told parables to conceal the truth. It was simply that
people did not understand his parables. Mark 4:11–12 is, in effect, Jesus’
lament at the failure of the great majority to hear, in the sense to under-
stand, what he was saying. Matthew 18:16 is typically cited as the single
other example of this use of ªna, but there the meaning is not fulfillment of
a prophecy but obedience to an OT command. The category is completely dif-
ferent. Furthermore, under this view the mhvpote clause (“lest . . .”) becomes
a clumsy appendage with no real meaning for its new context.
Blomberg does not apparently seek to soften the grammar (at least he
does not comment on it), but presents what he believes to be the essential
meaning Jesus draws from the quotation. He observes,
A speaker or writer who has a viewpoint he wishes his audience to accept that
it does not currently hold will seldom succeed by means of a straightforward
explanation of his position. Rather he has to think of some innocuous method
of introducing the subject, while at the same time challenging his listeners to
think of it in a new way. A carefully constructed allegory may well accomplish
what its nonmetaphorical, propositional counterpart could never do. 10
Quoting T. F. Torrance, he amplifies, “Jesus deliberately concealed the Word
in parable lest men against their will should be forced to acknowledge the

5
If 2 Tim 2:25 is mhvpote + subjunctive (mhvpote d∫n au˚to∂Í oJ qeo;Í metavnoian), then the construction
can possibly mean “perhaps.” However, Westcott and Hort take 2 Tim 2:25 as mhvpote + optative (cited
in A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research
[Nashville: Broadman, 1934] 996), which quite naturally has the meaning, “perhaps,” as in the only
other instance in the NT, Luke 3:15. See BDAG. The lxx does not have this optative construction.
6
Gundry, Mark 202.
7
Craig A. Evans, To See and not Perceive (JSOTSup 64; Sheffield: JSOT, 1989) 92–99.
8
See, e.g., William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1974) 159.
9
Ibid.
10
Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990) 54.
62 journal of the evangelical theological society

Kingdom, and yet He allowed them enough light to convict them and to
convince them.” 11 As will be seen later, this reasonably coheres with the
Isa 6:9–10 quotation in its Gospel contexts, but it misses on one important
point. The mhvpote clause conveys the idea of the divine avoidance of forgive-
ness (“lest . . .”). Blomberg seems to argue the opposite. Moreover, would God
forgive persons who are forced against their will to acknowledge the kingdom?
Blomberg does not adequately respond to these challenges.
C. E. B. Cranfield represents another solution. 12 He writes, “If . . . the
ªna is given its proper final force, its significance is that the fact that the
secret of the kingdom of God, in accordance with O.T. prophecy, remains
hidden from many is something that is within the purpose of God.” 13 On
mhvpote, he prefers the meaning “unless,” based on the possibility that Jesus
used the Aramaic word dîlema’, or the meaning “perhaps,” which sense for
mhvpote is found outside the NT; though he admits that the Hebrew of Isa 6:10
must mean “lest.” 14 In this case, Jesus allows the possibility of forgiveness.
There are some difficulties, however, with this proposal. First, Jesus imports
a dramatically different meaning to the Isaiah text from its original sense.
Although this is certainly possible, it is best to determine if the original
intent is acceptable in the new context. Second, if Jesus intended the mean-
ing “perhaps,” there are more clearly synonymous Greek words available
to communicate this: for example, aßra, taca, tucovn, ≥swÍ, and mhvti. Also, as
above, extrabiblical Greek literature may not support the softened meaning
for mhvpote + subjunctive.
Joel Marcus takes ªna and mhvpote with their full force and sees the with-
holding of forgiveness as judicial, a keeping from salvation specifically of
Jesus’ opponents who have already hardened themselves.15 This view does
not account well both for the absence of opponents in this scene (Mark 4:1–
34) and for the fact that Jesus spoke predominantly in parables even to the
favorable crowds. 16
N. T. Wright provides the final type of proposal that we will examine.17
For Wright, Jesus believes that the Jews are still in exile, but to say so
openly would incur their wrath and intensify their opposition. Therefore,
in numerous parables he merely implies that the Jews are in exile. When we
take into consideration the theme of Isaiah 6—exile—the purpose of parables

11
Ibid. 55 (emphasis added).
12
C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Saint Mark (CGTC; Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1959) 155–58.
13
Ibid. 156.
14
Ibid.
15
Joel Marcus, Mark 1–8 (AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 301–7. Rikki E. Watts arrives
at a similar conclusion by positing effectively three groups, with the uncommitted crowd neither
“inside” nor “outside” (Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark [WUNT 88; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997]
184–210). His view suffers much the same weaknesses as Marcus’s and depends on overly subtle
audience criticism.
16
For a related approach with similar problems, see M. E. Boring, Mark: A Commentary (NTL;
Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006) 127–28.
17
N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God 2;
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 236–39.
 exile and the purpose of jesus’ parables 63

pericope must be viewed in this light. Accordingly, Jesus’ intent behind speak-
ing in parables is largely to proclaim the exile yet avoid intensified opposition.
Wright is correct in noting the importance of the exile theme, but Isa 6:9–
10 in context is not about secrecy but about clarity.18 We will comment more
thoroughly on this later. Furthermore, he does not explain the grammar of
Mark 4:12, or why Jesus might wish some not to be forgiven.
We have not demonstrated the inadequacies of the above proposals on all
the issues of the text, just the crucial one. This should be enough to show
the need for another proposal, one that both accounts for the grammar in a
natural way without too readily softening ªna and mhvpote and understands
the Isaiah passage in an appropriate manner. We will now begin to explore
the building blocks of a new proposal that should meet these requirements
and resolve several other issues in the text that will be noted as they become
important to the discussion.

ii. the literary context and meaning of isaiah 6:9–10

Jesus grounds the purpose for his speaking in parables in the Isaianic
commission statement of Isaiah 6. Any attempt to understand Jesus’ intended
meaning must grapple with the meaning of the quoted passage in its original
literary and historical contexts. Indeed, Jesus could have attributed different
meaning to the words of Isa 6:9–10 than one might glean in reading Isaiah
in its own right, in a sense borrowing the words for his own distinct purpose.
However, until a reasonable understanding of Isa 6:9–10 in its literary context
is determined, it will be difficult to evaluate how Jesus in fact treats the text.19
The commission of Isaiah the prophet, chapter 6, follows a lengthy section
of indictment and judgment against Judah and Jerusalem, punctuated by
expressions of hope. The overall tone is gloomy despite these glimmers of
hope. The people have persistently rebelled against God, and his patience has
reached its limit. Already the theme of exile has been introduced (5:13)20
and will be reiterated shortly (6:12;21 and from the perspective of return from
exile, 11:11, 12, 16). Into this setting God sends Isaiah to preach.

18
See J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah (Leicester, UK: InterVarsity, 1993) 79.
19
François Bovon only minimally considers the Isaiah passage in his discussion of the Lukan
parallel (Luke 1 [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002] 311–13).
20
See Motyer, Isaiah 71; John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33 (WBC 24; Waco, TX: Word, 1985) 61;
Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12 (Continental Commentaries; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 201–2;
John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986) 160;
Walter Brueggemann, Isaiah 1–39 (Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville: Westminster John
Knox, 1998) 52; Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001) 47; John
Goldingay, Isaiah (NIBC; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001) 53–54; C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch,
Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, repr. 1982) 171.
21
It is broadly accepted that Isa 6:12 refers to the exile. See, e.g., Motyer, Isaiah 79; Watts,
Isaiah 1–33 76; Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12 274; Keil and Delitzsch, Isaiah 202. Some commentators
see a reference to exile, but attribute it ex eventu to a later editor: R. E. Clements (Isaiah 1–39
[NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980] 78), who provides no argument for the conclusion; and
Joseph Blenkinsopp (Isaiah 1–39 [AB 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000] 223), who bases his decision
merely on the third person reference to Yahweh.
64 journal of the evangelical theological society

The message given to the prophet and its intended result are startling.
He is to “tell this people: ‘keep on listening, but do not perceive; keep on
looking, but do not understand’ ” (Isa 6:9), 22 and the result of Isaiah’s preach-
ing will be to “render the hearts of this people insensitive, their ears dull, and
their eyes dim, lest they see with their eyes, hear with their ears, under-
stand with their hearts, and repent and be healed” (6:10).
:w[dtAlaw war warw wnybtAlaw [wmç w[mç hzh µ[l trmaw ˚l rmayw 9
:wl aprw bçw ˆyby wbblw [mçy wynzabw wyny[b haryAˆp [çh wyny[w dbkh wynzaw hzh µ[hAbl ˆmçh 10
The imperative followed by its cognate infinitive absolute for both [mç,
“hear,” and har, “see,” in verse 9 produces an intensified imperatival force.23
Additionally, “the inf abs following its cognate finite verb indicates contin-
uation of the action.” 24 Therefore, most probably the wording of the MT is not
a description of the people, though they were indeed already hardhearted
(Isaiah 1–5). It is a divine command that judicial hardening take place over
a period of time, and to a degree well beyond what was already the case.25
God directly addresses Isaiah again in verse 10, where he affirms the effect
that the prophet’s preaching is to have on the people’s ears and eyes. He is to
harden them. In the light of God’s hardening of Pharaoh and others in the
OT, we need not reject the possibility of such intent here. Perhaps the most
difficult issue arises, however, in verse 10b. The complete dulling that must
occur through Isaiah’s proclamation is divinely accomplished lest they see,
hear, understand, repent and be healed. Unlike in the case of Pharaoh,
where divine hardening had an immediately obvious function, the release of
the Israelites, here the immediately expressed function is the withholding
of repentance and healing from the Israelites. This is indeed a surprising
intention on God’s part, and Isaiah himself finds it astounding (Isa 6:11).
The crux interpretum is the Hebrew conjunction ˆp, “lest.” We may say for ˆp
in the MT what we said above for mhvpote + subjunctive. In every instance,
what is introduced in the ˆp clause is considered disadvantageous, something
to be avoided. 26 In the vast majority of instances, the text specifies action
(to be) taken to avoid the disadvantageous possibility expressed in the ˆp
clause, and where action is not explicated it is implied. In every case, ˆp may
be interpreted as having the meaning “lest” with the sense “for the aversion

22
All English scripture quotations are from the nasb unless otherwise stated.
23
W. Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (GKC; ed. E. Kautzsch and A. E. Cowley; 2d ed.;
Oxford: Clarendon, 1910) 343. The commentaries frequently note or assume this. See, e.g., Keil and
Delitzsch, Isaiah 199; Motyer, Isaiah 79; Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–18
(NICOT 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965) 255; Childs, Isaiah 56. Wildberger notes the impera-
tives but prefers to see them as a characterization of the people rather than a command to be
enacted. He argues that God is still addressing Isaiah in 6:9b, and the change in addressee at
verse 9b is merely formal (Isaiah 1–12 271). This argument appears to demand greater literary
simplicity than is typically observed in Isaiah.
24
Watts, Isaiah 1–33 69, citing GKC § 113r.
25
Interestingly, the lxx softens the passage by translating the imperatives with indicatives,
thus transforming it into a description of the people.
26
There are about 88 instances in the MT.

One Line Long

 exile and the purpose of jesus’ parables 65

of.” 27 Aversion naturally excludes the possibility that in Isa 6:10 ˆp means
“perhaps” in the positive sense that Judah might repent and be healed.
In fact, BDB, TWOT, and NIDOTTE never offer “perhaps” as a possible
meaning. 28 According to the Hebrew wording of this passage, God simply
does not want the people to repent. Isaiah’s preaching empowered by God is
the action that avoids the people’s repentance. It appears that the ultimate
function of the hardening is to ensure that the exile, now ordained by God
as the just punishment for Judah’s sins, necessarily occurs. The merciful char-
acter of God would require that he relent if the people repented; but his just
intent was to punish, and hardening is the means of avoiding any possibility
of averting the exile. Most commentators, driven by the force of ˆp, place the
responsibility of this final hardening on God, who is nevertheless justified
because of the persistent, willful hardness of the people. 29
A vital point about Isa 6:9–13 that is fundamentally important for our
treatment of Jesus’ quotation is that the repentance and healing mentioned
in verse 10 is not about individual salvation. The reference is to corporate
hardening, corporate repentance and corporate healing. As Delitzsch puts it,
Israel had delivered itself up through its continued obstinacy in sinning. And
consequently the Lord now proceeded to shut the door of repentance against
His people. Nevertheless He directed the prophet to preach repentance, because
the judgment of hardness suspended over the people as a whole did not preclude
the possibility of the salvation of individuals. 30
Indeed, there were faithful, “saved” Jews who went into exile, for example
Daniel and his associates. One contention of this article is that Jesus was
not inferring individual salvation in his quotation, but corporate exile in the
Isaianic sense. We will develop this later.
The severity of the pronouncement in Isa 6:9–10 is mitigated somewhat
in verses 11–13 by a limit to the duration of the hardening:
Then I said, “Lord, how long?” And He answered, “Until cities are devastated
and without inhabitant, Houses are without people And the land is utterly
desolate, The LORD has removed men far away, And the forsaken places are
many in the midst of the land. Yet there will be a tenth portion in it, And it will
again be subject to burning, Like a terebinth or an oak Whose stump remains
when it is felled. The holy seed is its stump.
Jeremiah expresses the idea of limit in more clear terms, seventy years
(25:11–12; 29:10), but this refers strictly to physical exclusion from the land

27
BDB lists the types of implied actions present in all the instances where an avoidance action
is not explicit in the context. When these are considered, one may reasonably translate every
instance of ˆp in the MT as “lest” in the sense of “for the aversion of ” (William Gesenius, A Hebrew
and English Lexicon of the Old Testament [ed. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs;
Oxford: Clarendon, 1906] 814–15).
28
BDB 814–15; Victor P. Hamilton, “ˆP< , ” TWOT 2.726–27; and Allan Harman, “Particles,”
NIDOTTE 4.1035–36.
29
Childs thoroughly and lucidly argues this point (Isaiah 56–57). See also Brueggemann,
Isaiah 1–39 61–62; Oswalt, Isaiah 1–39 189; Watts, Isaiah 1–33 75; and Keil and Delitzsch,
Isaiah 200–201.
30
Keil and Delitzsch, Isaiah 201.
66 journal of the evangelical theological society

(and only a fraction of the exiles did in fact return from their dispersion
even by NT times). Isaiah’s terminus ad quem for Judah’s punishment
appears to extend well beyond this timeframe (6:9–13). Specifically, the con-
cept of exile extends chronologically to the messianic period in the picture of
the remnant returning from exile when the Messiah is active (Isa 11:10–1631;
49:1–13; 51:17–53:12; 60–61; cf. Jer 23:1–8; Mic 2:12–13; 4–532). 33 There is
perhaps a cryptic hint as early as Isa 6:11–13 that Judah’s hardness and exile
will endure into the messianic period. God responds to Isaiah’s question,
“How long?” 34 The hardness would last at least until the people are exiled
(vv. 11–12). Brueggemann sees only “termination” of Jerusalem in the oracle
and not exile. 35 However, although the language employed in these verses is
difficult, the majority of scholars see deportation, exile, as clearly in view.36
Will the divine hardening continue beyond the completion of the deportation
and devastation of the land? Verse 13 furthers the description of God’s pun-
ishment of the people during which they will remain hardened, but in terms
that have raised much debate. There is yet another burning, a stump in the
land, and a holy seed. 37 Several commentators understand the imagery as

31
For the view that these verses refer to the return of the remnant under the Messiah, see
Oswalt, Isaiah 1–39 286–87.
32
For exegesis that demonstrates these portions of Micah to speak of the return of the remnant
under the Messiah, see Thomas Edward McComiskey, The Covenants of Promise: A Theology of
the Old Testament Covenants (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985) 18–45.
33
What about the “return” under Ezra/Nehemiah? It appears either that Isaiah’s conception of
the exile was not merely physical (displacement from the land and lack of agricultural productivity,
etc.), but also spiritual (see, e.g., Isa 6:9–13; 8:12–22; and perhaps 10:21), or that the true return
at best had its beginnings under Ezra and was ultimately to a spiritualized land and/or an ex-
panded land encompassing the world (e.g. Isa 2:1–4; 54:3; 61:4–9).
34
There is virtual unanimity among commentators that Isaiah is asking how long the hardening
will last. Brueggemann, however, suggests that “[t]he question does not want an answer about
length of suffering, but it suggests that God is unfair or inattentive, and the speaker . . . deserves
something better from God” (Isaiah 1–39 61). This hardly seems likely given that God’s response
to Isaiah regards duration.
35
Brueggemann, Isaiah 1–39 61–63.
36
See Keil and Delitzsch for a fairly thorough argument in favor of exile (Isaiah 201–2). See
also Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12 274; Motyer, Isaiah 79; Young, Isaiah 1–18 263; Clements, Isaiah 1–39
78; and Watts, Isaiah 1–33 76. Interestingly, the Targum of Isaiah makes it explicit in 6:13 (The
Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes [The Aramaic Bible 2; trans. B. D.
Chilton; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1987] 15).
37
Watts perceives in the holy seed a picture of the returning exiles as “a continuing reminder
of the nation that was now dead and of the reason why it was destroyed” (Watts, Isaiah 1–33 76).
In other words, the last temporal reference in Isa 6:11–13, Isaiah’s terminus ad quem for the
hardening, is the physical return of the exiles. He bases his conclusion mainly on two thoughts.
First, he believes that the “holy seed” [rz (çdq) of 6:13 refers back to what he sees as a self-
description of the returnees in 4:3 as “holy” (çwdq). It is doubtful, however, that “holy” is a self-
reference in 4:3, and the verbal repetition is far from decisive. Second, Watts translates htbxm in
6:13 as “monument,” a monument to destruction (Isaiah 1–33 68, 76). Yet, in the context of the
tree imagery of 6:13, htbxm is better translated “stump.” A different approach to 6:13 is preferable.
Brueggemann is happy to see in this verse “an enigmatic trace of assurance” that points vaguely
beyond the exile, an assurance that the Gospel writers saw as parallel to the hope of Christ (Isaiah
1–39 62–63).
 exile and the purpose of jesus’ parables 67

an affirmation that God’s people will not be obliterated by the judgment, but
will continue in some form ultimately into the messianic period, with Motyer
and Goldingay referring also to Isa 11:1–12:6. 38 Perhaps the question of
whether Isa 6:13 is a subtle messianic allusion cannot be conclusively decided.
If it is such an allusion, then at this early stage of Isaiah the duration of
the people’s hardening is associated with the advent of the Messiah. This is
the view espoused here, but it is not essential to our overall argument, only
helpful.
An examination of the interplay between the command to harden the
people (Isa 6:9–10) and God’s response to Isaiah’s question about the duration
of the hardening (Isa 6:11–13) may shed some light on the duration of the
elements of punishment associated with the hardening in verses 11–13. It
seems reasonable to assume that God’s punishment of the people was not
merely to consist of hardness of heart. The hardness was also to achieve
an end, the punishment intended by God. Verses 11–13 explain not only the
duration of hardness but they also present the intended end of that hard-
ness, devastation of the land and exile. Spiritual hardness is intended to bring
exile and devastation, and that hardness is to endure throughout the period
of exile and devastation depicted in these verses. Accordingly, if verse 13
indeed does refer to the messianic period, then the spiritual hardness that
justifies the punishment likely must remain into that period. This concurs
with the passages from Isaiah noted earlier that show the faithful remnant
returning in conjunction with messianic activity.

iii. the nature of the exile and its termination

in the old testament
Important to our understanding of how Jesus employs Isa 6:9–1039 is his
conception of the exile, namely its nature and closure. Unfortunately, the
vast majority of comments on Jesus’ citation of this text fail to recognize or
accept the association of the text in Jesus’ mind with the exile and punish-
ment of Isa 6:11–13. His theology of the exile would certainly be influenced
by the OT and would at least have points of contact with the theology of his
contemporaries. Obviously, the theme of exile in the OT and first century
Judaism is massive in its own right. 40 We will only attempt a summary of

38
Keil and Delitzsch, Isaiah 203; Motyer, Isaiah 79–80; Goldingay, Isaiah 62; Young, Isaiah 1–18
265 n. 54. Wildberger refers to “the eschatological community” and “the future time of salvation”
without specific reference to the Messiah (Isaiah 1–12 275). I assume that he means the messianic
period.
39
I believe Jesus interpreted the passage in the light of its context within Isaiah and not as an
out-of-context proof text.
40
Numerous volumes specifically on the exile are available. See, e.g., Ralph W. Klein, Israel in
Exile: A Theological Interpretation (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); Lester L. Grabbe, ed.,
Leading Captivity Captive: ‘the Exile’ as History and Ideology (JSOTSS 278; ed. David J. A. Clines,
Philip R. Davies and John Jarick; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998); Daniel L. Smith-
Christopher, A Biblical Theology of Exile (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002); P. R. Ackroyd, Exile
68 journal of the evangelical theological society

elements that are directly relevant to the subject at hand. In the present
section, we will very briefly analyze the theme of exile in the OT. In the next
section we will briefly discuss the exile theology of first century Judaism.
Within the prophetic books that deal with the Babylonian and Assyrian
exiles, several components to the state of exile are identifiable. Each of the
ones treated here has an antithetical component in the prophesied state of
restoration. These antithetical pairs are deportation from the land vs. return
to the land, removal of economic and political blessing vs. bestowal of such
blessing, 41 and suppression of spiritual vitality vs. rejuvenation of spiritual
health. Naturally, exile involves deportation (e.g. Isa 5:13; 6:11–12; 27:8;
32:9–14; Jer 13:19, 24; Ezek 5:10; Hos 9:3; Amos 5:27; 7:11; Mic 1:2–2:11),
and restoration obviously involves return to the land (e.g. Isa 27:12–13; 32:15–
20; Jer 33:7; Ezek 34:11–13). Deportation, however, is not the entirety of
exile. Within the prophets, exile, as one would expect, entails the removal of
economic and political blessing (e.g. Isaiah 5; 32:9–14; Jer 13:18; Hos 11:5),
though God does permit the people to achieve limited prosperity in exile (e.g.
Jer 29:1–7, Daniel). Restoration entails bestowal of superlative economic and
political blessing that exceeds what they experienced before (e.g. Isa 2:1–5;
30:23–26; 41:11–20; 54:1–17; 60–61; Ezek 36:8–15, 33–38; Amos 9:11–15;
Zech 8:1–17). In order to initiate the exile, God suppresses the spiritual
vitality of the people, what little was there in the first place (e.g. Isa 5; 6:9–
13; 29:10; Amos 5:21–24; 8:7–12). Restoration then brings vibrant, corporate
spiritual health (e.g. Isa 2:21–31; 30:19–22; 31:6–32:8; 35:5–10; 55:1–13;
60–61; Jer 31:27–34; Ezek 36:16–32; Hos 14:4). It is our contention that not
all (if any) of the aspects of the promised restoration are fulfilled before the
appearance of the Messiah, and that the OT actually pictures the exile’s
closure in association with the Messiah’s activity.
When waves of Jews returned to their land (e.g. Ezra, Nehemiah, Second
Temple period), of the three components of exile discussed above, one might
suggest that God fulfilled his promise before the messianic era regarding
their physical return. After all, the prophets envisage only a remnant being
restored to the land (Isa 10:20–22; 11:10–16; Jer 23:1–8; 31:7–10; 43:5; Amos
9:11–15; Mic 2:12–13; Zech 8:6–8; cf. Ezra 9:8, 13–15; Hag 1:12, 14; 2:2).
Whether these migrations ever fulfilled the prophecies is debatable, but
physical return is only a portion of the restoration promises of God. In the
light of passages like Isa 11:10–16; Jer 23:1–8; and Mic 2:13, there is clearly
a remnant of exiles that will return during the activity of the Messiah, and

and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B. C. (OTL; Philadelphia: West-
minster, 1968); Daniel L. Smith, The Religion of the Landless: The Social Context of the Baby-
lonian Exile (Bloomington, IN: Meyer-Stone Books, 1989); and James M. Scott, ed., Exile: Old
Testament, Jewish and Christian Conceptions (Leiden: Brill, 1997).
41
John Bright includes these under the term “national hope” (A History of Israel [3d ed.; Phila-
delphia: Westminster, 1981] 429). Although we could well treat economic and political realms
separately, they are coupled in this article for brevity. Peter R. Ackroyd uses similar categories
(Exile and Restoration).
 exile and the purpose of jesus’ parables 69

this may either be the culmination of God’s promise of return or a separate

type of return within the broader concept of restoration.
Obviously, exile devastated the Jews economically and politically as a
nation, the second component of exile noted above. Unlike the return to
the land, however, the prophesied abundant economic and political blessing
is never even approximately realized. 42 This fact further supports the con-
tention that the exile (as a theological whole) is not fully completed by the
time of Jesus.
Not only are the vast majority of Jews still scattered throughout the inter-
testamental and NT periods, and the land politically and economically domi-
nated by others, but also the returnees themselves are never corporately
faithful to their covenant God. Ezra and Nehemiah chronicle the rather per-
vasive social ills that arise even with the first returnees. The Qumran lit-
erature depicts (albeit from a radical perspective) a backslidden nation still
exiled and under the condemnation of God. Even the Gospels paint a somber
picture of the spiritual health of corporate Israel, especially its leaders. In
fact, never do the Jews as a corporate body attain the spiritual vitality
prophesied with respect to their return from exile. 43 Indeed, the close of
the exile is a process that concludes in association with messianic activity.
Micah 5:1–5a is a helpful example. The prophet sees Israel as abandoned until
the Messiah appears and the remainder of the remnant is gathered, including
Jews and Gentiles. 44
Brant Pitre poses the most developed challenge to our view. He argues
that the exiles of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms should be viewed
separately, with the exile of Judah concluded by the first century and that
of Israel continuing, so that Jesus could not rightly consider his Palestinian
contemporaries as still exiled. 45 He bases this on the definition of exile as
“expulsion from the land.” 46 When it is remembered both that when Cyrus
allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem it meant that the northern tribes
could return, and that some people from the northern tribes did return
with the southern returnees, then Pitre’s distinction is hard to maintain.47
Apparently, none remained “expelled,” but the vast majority chose not to

42
See Bright, History of Israel 429; N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God
(London: SPCK, 1992) 268–72; and T. R. Hatina, “Exile,” Dictionary of New Testament Back-
ground (ed. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000) 348.
43
N. T. Wright argues these points in several locations throughout People of God.
44
See Bruce K. Waltke’s exposition (Micah [The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository
Commentary 2; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993] 706–7). See also T. E. McComiskey, who notes about
Mic 5:1–5a that “the future deliverance of God’s people is presented in this way because the
prophets saw the Captivity as continuing, in a sense, till the coming of the messianic King”
(“Seventy ‘Weeks’ of Daniel” 428–30).
45
Brant Pitre, Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile: Restoration Eschatology and
the Origin of the Atonement (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005) 31–40.
46
Pitre, Jesus 39.
47
See H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC 16; Waco, TX: Word, 1985) 32. Williams
also observes that “there is an almost unbearable contradiction between God’s promise of freedom
in the land and the present subservience of the people to foreign kings” (lii).
70 journal of the evangelical theological society

return. A case could be made that since many prophetic restoration texts
have God appealing to the Jews to return to God and the land (e.g. Isa 31:6;
44:22; 48:20; 52:11–12; 54:6; Jer 3:14; 4:1; 31:21; 50:8; 51:6; Zech 2:6–7;
10:8; cf. Jer 24:7; Hos 5:4; 6:1; 12:6; 14:2; Joel 2:12–13) that those who have
returned in the physical sense, but not the spiritual, have not actually re-
turned from exile. This would account for the majority of Jesus’ Palestinian
contemporaries. On a further point, Pitre rightly observes that the prophets
predominantly depict the restoration as involving both northern and southern
tribes together, and often in a period of eschatological messianic activity.48
Interestingly, however, he never explains adequately why Judah needs to
return at that time when, by his definition, their exile had already con-
cluded. Throughout the book, he contends also that the gathering of the
twelve tribes occurs after a period of messianic tribulation beginning with
John the Baptist and extending to the parousia. 49 This conflicts with our
view that the restoration was already in process during Jesus’ incarnate
ministry. A serious weakness in his argument is the very frequent appeal to
prophetic texts as depicting part or all of the sequence “messianic tribula-
tion (of Messiah and/or saints), then perhaps parousia, then ingathering of
the twelve tribes (and perhaps Gentiles),” when most of these texts more
naturally suggest the sequence (or part thereof) “exilic tribulation (Assyrian/
Babylonian), then gathering of Judah and Israel concurrent (if the chronology
is clear) with messianic activity.” 50 In other words, he often interprets texts
that portray the suffering of the Jews in their pre-messianic exile as eschat-
ological. There are also several important passages that appear difficult for
his view and that receive no substantive comment.51 Finally, his position does
not account well for passages like Isa 65:8–25 that speak of a return of Judah
at a time of messianic activity and with no reference to Israel’s return. Why
would only Judah’s restoration be mentioned if they had already returned?
As I will argue below and more thoroughly elsewhere, it seems best to view
the return of a few generally unfaithful people in the Ezra-Nehemiah era as
either a failed return or as merely preparatory to a later, authentic return
through the Messiah Jesus. Jesus’ compatriots in Palestine, though in the
land, would be considered either as part of a nation (both kingdoms) still

48
Pitre, Jesus 36–38.
49
Pitre, Jesus; see especially chaps. 3 and 4.
50
See in Pitre (Jesus), e.g., on Isa 11:10–12, cf. Rom 15:12 (pp. 342–44); 34:4–5, 13; 35:6–10;
13:9–19; 14:1–2 (pp. 334–36); 49:5–6 , cf. 2 Cor 6:2 (pp. 416–17); 52:7–15, cf. Rom 15:21 (pp. 256–59);
53:4–12 (pp. 416–17); Jer 30:3–9 (pp. 230–31); Ezek 5:8–14 (pp. 319–21); 37:1–28 (pp. 342–44);
Mic 5:2–4 (pp. 229–31); 7:5–15 (pp. 208–9). These passages constitute the majority of his evidence
for his proposed sequence of events; yet, he rarely ever interacts with the interpretations of other
scholars. There is no space here to demonstrate that most commentators differ with Pitre’s inter-
pretations, but see for example the comments on these passages by John N. Oswalt (Isaiah 1–39;
and The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66 [NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998]); J. A. Thompson
(The Book of Jeremiah [NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980]); Daniel I. Block (The Book of
Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24 [NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997]; and The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters
25– 48 [NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998]); and Bruce K. Waltke, Micah.
51
E.g. Isa 10:20–22; 27:7–13; Isa 40:1–11; 48:20–49:13; 52:11–15; Jer 23:1–8; Ezek 34:11–24;
and Hos 1:11.
 exile and the purpose of jesus’ parables 71

scattered in exile, or as still exiled in the sense that they have not yet
entered the kingdom of God, the true resolution to their loss of kingdom in
the exile.
A note on the prophetic concept of land would be helpful. Thomas
McComiskey demonstrates that in the prophets, the land to which only
righteous Jews are promised to return after exile (e.g. Isa 60:21; 62:4) is
sometimes expanded through the concept of Gentile inclusion to encompass
the world (e.g. Isa 2:1–4; 54:3; Amos 9:12; Mic 4:11–13; 5:4–6, 8–9), the
acquisition of which land will be achieved by the Messiah (Mic 5:2–4). This
expansion is reflected in Paul’s discussion of Abraham in Romans 4 (e.g. v. 4)
and Galatians 3 (e.g. v. 8).52 Certainly, the concept of the new heaven and new
earth in Revelation 21 fits this scheme of global inheritance. This perspec-
tive encourages the view that true restoration from the Assyrian/Babylonian
exile was never to be merely to the old, limited physical land, but to the
world, perhaps with the Promised Land somehow central. Luke-Acts, with its
focus on Jesus and Jerusalem, and the expansion of the gospel to the nations,
accords well.
In the light of the above discussion, it seems best to view the exile in its
full theological sense as continuing into the NT period. Our analysis of the
components of exile noted above suggests that God’s promises about the state
of the people after the exile (in terms of location, politically, economically,
spiritually) are not fulfilled before the advent of the Messiah. There must be
more to come. 53

iv. second temple and first-century jewish perspective

on their relationship to the old testament exile
Recent studies of the Second Temple Jewish understanding of their
position before God mesh remarkably well with the biblical perspective pre-
sented above. 54 The evidence suggests that a significant representation of
Jews believed that the nation was still in exile. It is more likely, however,
that Jesus founded his exile theology on the OT (and his innate divine
knowledge) rather than on the theological beliefs of his contemporaries,

52
McComiskey, Covenants of Promise 48–55.
53
For a somewhat similar depiction, see David W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus
(Biblical Studies Library; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000) chap. 4.
54
Hatina states, “During the Second Temple period, many in Palestine still considered them-
selves as being in exile because they were under foreign rule, which was an indication to the
faithful that Yahweh had not yet returned to Zion (Ezra 9:8–9; Neh 9:36).” He continues, “The
underlying reason why many Jews saw themselves as still remaining in exile was their assumed
perennial state of sinfulness (Bar 1:15–3:8; 1 Enoch 89:73–75)” (“Exile” 348–49). Regarding the
few number of Jews who actually returned, see the variety of Second Temple texts noted by Craig
A. Evans, including Tob 14:5: “But God will again have mercy on them, and God will bring them
back into the land of Israel; and they will rebuild the temple of God . . . . After this they all will
return from their exile” (“Jesus and the Continuing Exile of Israel,” in Jesus and the Restoration
of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N. T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God [ed. Carey C. Newman;
Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1999] 87–91).
72 journal of the evangelical theological society

which to his thinking would not necessarily have divine basis. No doubt he
was aware of these beliefs and communicated with the people in a manner
that connected with those beliefs; but if he were merely reflecting popular
exile theology, there would be no particular authority behind the teaching
except where it coincidentally concurred with the truth. Under this presump-
tion, the value of studying first-century Jewish thought is not to determine
what Jesus believed, although it does help us to flesh this out, but to clarify
the common theological language and set of ideas that Jesus took advantage
of in communicating with his audiences. Accordingly, it is not essential for
our argument to prove that the Jews believed they were still in exile, only that
Jesus believed it; but if the former can be proven, then it serves to confirm
the likelihood that Jesus entertained if not employed the idea. Our discus-
sion need only be brief and, for brevity here, we will depend on the analysis
of others.
The most influential recent work on Second Temple Jewish belief that the
nation remained in a state of exile is that of N. T. Wright.55 Certainly, there
are scholars who anticipated or propounded this view many years earlier,
such as John Bright; 56 but Wright has produced the most thorough defense.
Indeed, he has his critics on this thesis. 57 For example, Pitre argues that
Wright’s treatment of the exiled Jews as a single group is wrong because only
the northern tribes remained in exile, not the southern; and he argues that
Wright consequently ignores the geographical aspect of exile, spiritualizing
it, in order to have Jesus’ Palestinian contemporaries still exiled.58 How-
ever, see my responses to Pitre above that answer the latter concern and
show the former to be unnecessary. Wright also has his supporters.59 There
is inadequate space here to evaluate thoroughly the scholarly discussion on
the issue, so a brief summary of the evidence mustered by Wright and others
will suffice.
Wright offers a précis of the historical circumstances for the Jews from
the demise of Babylon to the Roman occupation. He notes that, apart from the
brief period of independence after the Maccabean revolt, the nation never
was politically independent. What is more, even in the autonomous century

55
Wright defends his thesis that most Jews believed that they were still in exile both in People
of God (268–72, 299–301) and in Victory of God (xvii–xviii, 126–27, 203–4). For similar views,
see Scot McKnight, A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999); Hatina, “Exile”; Evans, “Continuing Exile of Israel”; Daniel G. Reid,
“Jesus: New Exodus, New Conquest,” in God is a Warrior (ed. Tremper Longman III and Daniel
G. Reid; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995) 91–118; and Scott, ed., Exile.
56
Bright suggested in the 1959 edition of A History of Israel that the promised post-exilic
restoration of Israel was incomplete and that Second Temple Jewish eschatology cast the ful-
filled restoration in the form of a new age, perhaps a messianic age. He develops this argument
throughout chapter 12 and in the epilogue of the third edition of 1981.
57
See, for example, Maurice Casey, “Where Wright is Wrong: A Critical Review of N. T.
Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God,” JSNT 69 (1998) 95–103.
58
Pitre, Jesus 31–40.
59
See C. A. Evans’s evaluation (“Continuing Exile of Israel”).
 exile and the purpose of jesus’ parables 73

following the revolt, the political circumstances were far from what was
anticipated under the restoration. 60 Wright states, “The ambiguity of the
subsequent years, in which the heirs of the successful revolutionaries ruled
as priest-kings, did not dim the sense of the victory of their god, but created
the same sort of puzzle that was left after the so-called ‘return from exile’:
a great vindication had occurred, but it now seemed as though there must be
yet another one still to come.” 61
If this is an adequate summary, then the Jews of this period could justi-
fiably consider the prophetic promises of national autonomy following the
captivity to be unfulfilled, or at least only partially fulfilled. Jewish literature
from the return from captivity to the time of Jesus somewhat regularly reflects
this perspective, and to this we now turn.
N. T. Wright discusses a range of Jewish texts that speak in terms that
suggest implicitly or explicitly that the nation is not yet restored from exile,
or that it is finally being restored in the community from which that text
emerges. These include Neh 9:36–37; 4QDa 1:3–11; Tob 14:5–7; Bar 3:6–8;
and 2 Macc 1:27–29.62 Relating importantly to Pitre’s contention that the exile
of Judah ended at the decree of Cyrus and that Jews in Palestine would not
consider themselves still in exile, Wright cites CD 1:3–11 as a text that depicts
Judah still in exile long after the era of Ezra-Nehemiah.63 Wright concludes,
“Not until YHWH acted decisively to change things and restore the fortunes
of his people would the exile be at an end. At the present time, the covenant
people themselves were riddled with corruption, still undeserving of re-
demption.” 64 Whether one agrees with all of his interpretations, he has
indeed established something of a case.
VanderKam notes that there are two streams in Jewish apocalyptic lit-
erature regarding the duration of exile, “a specific limited, historical period,
one with a beginning and an end separated only by a few decades,” and “an
ongoing condition that extends to the present time of the authors and beyond
to the final judgment.” 65 Three of his texts of the second type add to Wright’s
list, 1 Enoch 93:1–10; 91:11–17; T. Levi 16–17; and Jub 1:7–18. 66 VanderKam
sees these types of texts as either presuming the physical, historical return
of the Jews or acknowledging it and then extending the non-physical “con-
dition” further in time. 67 This is reasonable, but there is no clear reason in
these texts not to see the physical state actually extending into the eschaton.
It would simply require that the authors have interpreted the “return” in
the Ezra-Nehemiah era as invalid or not conclusive.

60
Wright, People of God 157–61.
61
Ibid. 159.
62
Ibid. 268–72. Evans and Hatina provide an additional sixty or so texts (Evans, “Continuing
Exile of Israel” 78, 80–91; and Hatina, “Exile” 349).
63
Wright, People of God 269–70.
64
Ibid. 272.
65
Willem C. VanderKam, “Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature,” in Exile: Old Testament,
Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (ed. J. M. Scott; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 91.
66
Ibid. 95–96, 100–104. On the 1 Enoch text Pitre concurs, adding Israel to Judah (Jesus 43–47).
67
VanderKam, “Exile” 94–104, 109.
74 journal of the evangelical theological society

It is naturally difficult to determine what most Jews believed from

extant documents, because individuals who may or may not have repre-
sented popular belief wrote them. One also may not be persuaded about the
relevance of certain texts marshaled by scholars in defense of the view.
Nevertheless, there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate at least a strong
undercurrent of belief that the nation was still, in some sense, in exile. This
conclusion is more than sufficient for our thesis that Jesus asserts, to some
degree in concert with Jewish belief, that Israel remains in exile.

v. exile in the teaching of jesus

The purpose of this section is not to explicate precisely what Jesus taught
about or presumed in his teaching regarding the exile, however useful that
would be. For brevity’s sake, we will demonstrate simply that Jesus signif-
icantly incorporated exile theology into his teaching. This will provide ground-
work for our contention that Jesus based his quotation of Isaiah 6 on exile
theology. In other words, if Jesus clearly shows an interest in exile theology
elsewhere, then it is reasonable to assume that he could have it in mind in
Mark 4:10–12 and parallels.
Craig Evans delineates several ways in which exile theology forms part
of the foundation for Jesus’ teaching and actions. His strongest two points
are as follows. First, the appointment of twelve apostles may symbolize the
reconstitution of the twelve tribes of Israel. Second, in the temple scene of
Matt 21:12–13, Jesus’ direct application of Isa 56:7, drawn from a section of
Isaiah on restoration from exile, indicates his belief that that eschatological
time had arrived. 68 We shall build on his foundation by briefly examining
several quotations by Jesus of OT texts with the exile theme.
One such instance is where Jesus quotes Mic 7:6 (“For son treats father
contemptuously, Daughter rises up against her mother, Daughter-in-law
against her mother-in-law; A man’s enemies are the men of his own house-
hold.”) in Luke 12:53 and Matt 10:35–36. This verse in Micah resides in a
passage that justifies the Assyrian exile. 69 Micah 7:4–6, specifically, expects
deep family division to occur in conjunction with God’s punitive visit (˚tdqp),
namely the inception of the impending exile. 70 The passage that follows
(Mic 7:7–20) anticipates restoration from that exile and forgiveness for the
sins that demanded it. 71 In both Luke and Matthew Jesus quotes Mic 7:6 to
support his mission statement, that he came to bring division. In Luke, the
context of the quotation from Mic 7:6 is a lengthy eschatological discourse
within which Jesus states his mission on earth (Luke 12:49–53). Here, the
chronological component of Jesus’ eschatology provides further means to
discern how he understands his connection to the passage in Micah. Just as

68
Evans, “Continuing Exile of Israel” 77–100.
69
See Waltke, Micah 747–48.
70
Ibid. 747–49.
71
Ibid. 754–64.
 exile and the purpose of jesus’ parables 75

in Micah (7:4), family division occurs in conjunction with God’s visitation.72

For Jesus, this very visitation includes the incarnation (Luke 12:49–59), but
also the parousia and the associated consummation of the kingdom, which
Jesus speaks of earlier in the discourse. It appears, then, that he perceives
himself as one who causes family division as expected by Micah in conjunction
with divine punitive visitation, which in Jesus’ scheme involves himself and
culminates in the parousia. Further in line with Micah (7:13), Jesus envisages
restoration (from exile) in the consummated kingdom following the parousia.
My contention is that Jesus believed the punitive visitation of God in the OT
exile was continuing, with the added significance now of his own divine
presence. Forgiveness of the personal sins that contributed to the corporate
exile is available in Jesus, through whom one exits exile and enters the
kingdom. The full restoration expected by Micah must be experienced only
after the full period of punishment that extends from the OT exile through
the judgment at the parousia. In other words, Jesus explains his part in the
chronological scheme of Micah, a scheme where familial division extends
from the Assyrian invasion to the restoration that occurs throughout the
church age and ultimately at the parousia. 73
If Jesus’ conception of eschatology and his place in it resembles the above
description, then his quotation and application of several other OT exile
passages may be seen as direct (referring to a single salvation-historical
period extending from the captivity through the incarnation) rather than
merely analogous (comparing his own salvation-historical period with that
of the exile). We will discuss just a couple more of these to illustrate. One
example is found after Jesus gives mission instructions to the twelve, when
John the Baptist asks Jesus whether he is the “Coming One,” the Messiah
(Matt 11:1–3). Jesus responds (Matt 11:5) with a strong verbal allusion to,
virtually a quotation of, Isa 35:5–6a (“Then the eyes of the blind will be opened
and the ears of the deaf will be unstopped. Then the lame will leap like a
deer”). Oswalt believes that Isa 35:1–10 encompasses three or more sep-
arate concepts: “a literal return from exile, a millennial kingdom, a spiritual
condition to which these statements bear a typological reference, etc.”74 Need
these concepts in fact be entirely separate? If, as argued in this article, the
close of the exile is a process and not a punctiliar or brief event, then all
three may legitimately be incorporated together. How so? The physical return
appears at the beginning of the lengthy process and is only anticipatory of
things to come. Those who step out of exile through faith in Christ prolep-
tically receive spiritual blessing akin to, but only a foretaste of, what will be.
Finally, the kingdom is consummated, and Isa 35:1–10 is fully realized. In

72
Pitre attempts to place the familial discord that Micah refers to purely in the messianic
period. Micah clearly sees it commencing with the Assyrian invasion. Pitre also suggests that the
restoration of Mic 7:8–18 would begin after the period of familial discord, yet there is nothing in
the text to require that sequence. The refrain, “in that day” (7:11, 12), allows for overlap. Pitre,
Jesus 208, 259–61. See also Waltke, Micah 745–64.
73
See Waltke’s discussion of Mic 7:1–13 (Micah 745–58).
74
Oswalt, Isaiah 1–39 620–21.
76 journal of the evangelical theological society

other words, the single intended fulfillment of the marvelous description of

restoration from exile in Isa 35:1–10 may occur gradually or in stages such
that there appear to be separate fulfillments that are in fact aspects of the
one progressive fulfillment.
Another instance of a quotation with the protracted exile/restoration
theme is Isa 29:13 (lxx) in Mark 7:6–7, “This people honors me with their
lips, but their heart is far away from me. But in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the precepts of men” (par. Matt 15:8–9). Jesus states
that Isaiah was prophesying about the Pharisees and teachers of the law that
Jesus was addressing (Matt 15:7). He equates his audience with the very
people whose insincerity, according to Isaiah, resulted in the devastation and
exile of the prophet’s era. 75 If Jesus (and the Jewish leaders) held to the con-
tinuation of the exile, then his quotation would naturally imply the exiled
state of the Jewish leaders and would not be anachronistic. The leaders would
merely be a subset of a chronologically much larger group.
Other OT quotations by Jesus that apparently engage the protracted
exile/restoration theme are Isa 29:13 (lxx) in Mark 7:6–7 (par. Matt 15:8–9);
Isa 56:7 in Mark 11:17 (par. Matt 21:13; Luke 19:46); Dan 7:13 in Mark 13:26
(par. Matt 24:30; Luke 21:27) and Mark 14:62 (par. Matt 26:64); Dan 7:21 in
Mark 13:26 (par. Matt 24:30; Luke 21:27); Zech 13:7 in Mark 14:27 (par. Matt
26:31); Isa 61:1–2 (lxx) in Luke 4:18–19; Isa 53:12 in Luke 22:37; Hos 10:8
in Luke 23:30; and Isa 54:13 in John 6:45. We must, however, move on.
If the reader is interested in an extensive treatment of exile theology in
Jesus’ teaching and actions, N. T. Wright provides this throughout Jesus
and the People of God. 76 His arguments are often quite general and involve
insufficiently tested assertions that could be countered by equally strong
opposing assertions (which is possibly a consequence of the massive scope of
the book), but he is regularly persuasive. Unfortunately, he does not offer
substantial comment on the OT quotations of Jesus, but his chosen line of
argumentation is quite useful. 77

75
The immediate context of Isa 29:13, namely 29:1–16, does not explicitly mention exile,
but focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem and the spiritual blindness of its people. Captivity,
however, is introduced in 28:13. (For the view that 28:13 refers to the captivity, see Edward J.
Young, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 19–39 [NICOT 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969] 280). So the
reader knows in advance that Ariel’s (Jerusalem) destruction, described in chapter 29, involves
captivity.
76
Wright, Victory of God. See especially pages 126–29, 226–27, 243, 248, 363–64, 428–30, 436,
445–46, and 470.
77
Hatina, “Exile” 349–50, helpfully summarizes Wright’s conclusions on the exile in the teaching
and activities of Jesus:
According to Wright, Jesus understood himself to be the Messiah who had come to liberate
Israel from its continuing state of exile (“the present evil age”) and bring it into a state
of restoration (“the age to come”). He came as a messiah who not only represented the
people of Yahweh by taking on himself the suffering of the nation in the tradition of the
Jewish martyrs and the wrath of disobedient Israel but also enacted their liberation from
exile by intentionally dying in order to achieve victory over Satan, who constituted the
true enemy of Israel. The result is a renewal of the covenant, the forgiveness of sins,
the coming of the kingdom of God and the fulfillment of Israel’s original mission to be a
servant people who are a light to the world.
 exile and the purpose of jesus’ parables 77

From the evidence above, Jesus engages in exile theology to a degree that
makes it exceedingly reasonable to expect that he could be expressing it in
Mark 4:10–12 and parallels.78 We are now prepared to draw together all the
threads of our discussion so far into a new understanding of Jesus’ statement
regarding the purpose of his parables.

vi. a new proposal

We have covered much ground and examined perhaps all of the pieces
necessary to assemble adequately a new proposal, aside from direct com-
ment on the purpose texts, which will follow shortly. Throughout the article
I have been careful to speak tentatively where necessary. While assembling
the proposal in this section, I will assume the factuality of earlier tentative
conclusions to demonstrate with less verbal clutter (statements such as “If
Jesus believed . . .”) that the proposal is coherent and fits the exegetical and
theological data of the passages on the purpose of Jesus’ parables and their
contexts.
Isaiah is commissioned in chapter 6 to preach the mind of God to his
people with such clarity that their already rebellious hearts will harden
still further. 79 God’s purpose is to justify the punishment of exile for the full
duration justly required by their incessant rebellion. The punishment will
endure not just until the decree of Cyrus, but at least until the advent of the
Messiah.
The OT typically portrays the exile as more than physical captivity. It
additionally involves politico-economic and spiritual components. The witness
of relevant OT texts and history is that restoration from all three components
is at best partial by the first century. Even the returns following Cyrus’ decree
either failed to be valid because of continued unfaithfulness, or they were only
preparatory or perhaps initial. Therefore the OT exile in its full theological
sense continues. Accordingly, consistent with Jewish reasoning exemplified in
Hebrews 4, God’s promise of restoration remains open for those who “return”
in the manner God stipulates because the promise has never been “cashed in.”
Many Jews of Jesus’ day believe that they are still in exile because
they recognize that God’s restoration promises are not fully realized. Jesus
draws this theological perspective from the OT and employs it in his teaching
as common ground with his audiences. This is particularly evident in his
frequent quotation from OT texts with strong exile theology. He applies these
texts to his audiences not indirectly but as though they are specifically in-
tended for them. This is not a mere pesher technique that may violate the
original meaning of the OT passages because, in fact, the original meaning
legitimately incorporates the Jews of Jesus’ day. Indeed, the prophets foresee

78
There is much to commend in this position, but there are also some points for good contention.
A good case can be made that approximately one quarter of the OT passages from which Jesus
quotes in the four Gospels has the exile as a major theme.
79
See Motyer, Isaiah 79.
78 journal of the evangelical theological society

a lengthy process of restoration from exile that begins at the physical return
from captivity and continues through to the conclusion of the Messiah’s
restorative ministry at the consummation of the kingdom, and the Jews cor-
porately remain rebellious and exiled throughout this period.
On one occasion of Jesus’ teaching in parables, after the disciples realize
his propensity to use them, they ask him about the matter. Not surprisingly,
his response engages the theme of exile and employs an OT quotation heavily
laden with that theme. Now we must approach the purpose of parables texts
directly. Our purpose is not to exegete them comprehensively, but only suf-
ficiently to demonstrate that exile is the governing theology for a proper
understanding of Jesus’ intention. 80
Mark specifies that the twelve and others with them approach Jesus after
the parable of the sower (4:10). Matthew and Luke use the more general
“disciples,” probably intending the same group (Matt 13:10; Luke 8:9). In
Mark and Matthew, Jesus is asked about the “parables,” whereas in Luke
he is asked about the “parable.” Consequently, we should expect Jesus’ re-
sponse in Mark and Matthew quite naturally to cover his reason for using
the parabolic genre. In Luke, we expect the answer to clarify the individual
parable of the sower. All three Gospels, however, provide both Jesus’ para-
bolic theory and his explanation of the parable. Jesus probably recognizes that
their question, whatever the precise form, actually involves both elements.
In fact, there appear to be sufficient points of contact between the parable
of the sower and Jesus’ theory of parables such that a question about the
parable of the sower deserves comment about the use of parables in general.
First, the parable depicts Jesus distributing the “word,” in other words his
teaching. The parable theory is about Jesus’ use of parables, his preferred
method of teaching. Second, according to the parable, Jesus indiscriminately
disseminates teaching to people who respond variously, but ultimately most
of them negatively. In the theory, parables are told to the crowd, who is gen-
erally characterized as hardened to the teaching. Third, the minority who
respond favorably in the parable produce a crop, which in the Prophets is
stock imagery for the restoration (kingdom) community (e.g. Isaiah 27; 55:10–
13; 60:21; 65:21–22; 66:20; Jer 31:27–28; 36:29–30). In the theory, the few
disciples around Jesus are described as in the kingdom (see the argument
below), though admittedly there would be saved individuals in the crowd.
The parallels between the parable and the theory will become clearer as we
progress.
The opening of Jesus’ answer has received much attention because of the
variation in wording across the Synoptics.
Mark 4:11 uÒm∂n to; musthvrion devdotai thÅÍ basileÇaÍ touÅ qeouÅ: ejkeÇnoiÍ de; to∂Í eßxw
ejn parabola∂Í ta; pavnta gÇnetai (“To you has been given the mystery
of the kingdom of God, but to those who are outside everything is
in parables”)

80
For a comprehensive exegesis, see Joel Marcus, The Mystery of the Kingdom of God (SBLDS
90; ed. Charles Talbert; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986).
 exile and the purpose of jesus’ parables 79

Matt 13:11 o§ti uÒm∂n devdotai gnΩnai ta; musthvria thÅÍ basileÇaÍ tΩn ou˚ranΩn,
ejkeÇnoiÍ de; ou˚ devdotai (“To you it has been granted to know the
mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been
granted”)
Luke 8:10 uÒm∂n devdotai gnΩnai ta; musthvria thÅÍ basileÇaÍ touÅ qeouÅ, to∂Í de; loipo∂Í
ejn parabola∂Í (“To you it has been granted to know the mysteries
of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is in parables”)
We shall make a few observations.
Notice that Mark says, “the mystery (sg.) of the kingdom . . . has been
given,” and Matthew and Luke read, “given to know the mysteries (pl.) of the
kingdom.” The word “mystery” is important here. We can safely abandon any
idea of conscious dependence on or direct reference to the mystery religions.81
Rather, it likely has the Semitic sense (which has some degree of overlap
with the Hellenistic sense) of “divine plans or decrees, often passed on in
veiled language, known only to the elect, and usually relating to eschato-
logical events.” 82 Here it probably refers to God’s plan of entry into the
kingdom through Jesus.
Before discussing the pluralizing of musthvrion, a comment on dÇdwmi is
beneficial. Many commentaries note that the reader more expects a mystery
to be revealed (a˚pokaluvptw), or something akin to this, rather than to be
“given.” Matthew and Luke insert gin∫skw for clarification. Although there is
nothing to say that “give” cannot be used to mean “reveal,” there is perhaps
a better reason for the presence of dÇdwmi. If Jesus merely intends that the
disciples have some degree of an intellectual grasp of the kingdom, then one

81
See W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Chapters 1–7
(ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988) 389; and D. A. Carson, Matthew (EBC 8; Grand Rapids: Zon-
dervan, 1984) 307. An interesting study of the term musthvrion in the Hellenistic and Semitic mi-
lieus is A. E. Harvey, “The Use of Mystery Language in the Bible,” JTS 31 (1980) 320–36.
Harvey argues convincingly that although the term probably obtained a technical sense early in its
usage in the mystery cults, and that aspects of that sense may have remained attached to it in
other contexts, the mere use of the term in those other contexts does not infer direct contact with the
mystery cults. The word with its multifaceted nuances overlapped with shades of meaning desired
even by writers who had little or no knowledge of the mystery cults, and so was in such instances
used with no intention of allusion to or dependence on the cults. He notes that along with the
Hellenistic sense of the term exists the “Semitic” sense. The distinction he observes is that in the
Greek sense “the mystery is something which, by definition, is never to be spoken or revealed;
only the initiates have access to it” (p. 330); or, in other terms, it is “an esoteric philosophical
discipline, accessible by its very nature only to an inner group” (p. 336), whereas in the Semitic
sense the mystery is “a secret design, known only to God, which is due to be revealed to certain
privileged individuals” (p. 329). R. E. Brown holds that all instances of the term in the NT are of
the Semitic kind (The Semitic Background of the Term “Mystery” in the New Testament [Phila-
delphia: Fortress, 1968] 69), but Harvey concludes that some carry the Hellenistic sense in addition
to the Semitic, such as in the purpose of parables passage. Harvey’s distinction in meaning is
perhaps too subtle to be particularly useful. Brown may well be right in his conclusion “that, con-
sidering the variety and currency of the concept of divine mysteries in Jewish thought, Paul and
the New Testament writers could have written everything they did about mysterion whether or not
they ever encountered the pagan mystery religions. ‘Mystery’ was part of the native theological
equipment of the Jews who came to Christ.” (Mystery 69).
82
Carson, Matthew 307.
80 journal of the evangelical theological society

would expect a term appropriate to intellectual understanding. But if he

intended the broader sense of understanding accompanied by actual ex-
perience of the kingdom, then dÇdwmi is eminently suited. A mystery, in the
NT sense, is sometimes something that may be experienced, whether con-
sciously or not, such as Christ’s presence in the believer, Gentile inclusion,
and salvation through the gospel (see e.g. 1 Cor 2:6–10; 15:51–52; Eph 1:9–
10; 3:1–9; 5:25–32; 6:19; Col 1:25–27; 2:1–7; 4:2–4). It would not have been
entirely sensible for Jesus to say that an experience is revealed, but it is
sensible to say that an experience is given. One may object that Matthew
and Luke add gin∫skw, which lends a cognitive sense to the concept. E. D.
Schmitz, however, observes that in classical, lxx, and NT usage, experience
is fundamental to the sense of gin∫skw, even when the knowledge referred
to is theoretical. 83 He states, “In the OT, as with common Gk. attitude,
knowledge is derived through the senses; the thing to be known must
present itself to the senses and so let itself be known . . . . The concepts of
knowing in Gk. and Heb. thought largely coincide, and for both experience
through the senses is fundamental.” 84 Furthermore, theoretical knowledge
may be gained through non-sensory experience. 85 He concludes that apart
from cases where there is anti-proto-Gnostic polemic, the NT concept is drawn
from the OT. 86 Indeed, there is probably no better word in NT Greek for
the verbal idea “to experience.” With these things in mind, it is natural for
Matthew and Luke to “clarify” Mark by inserting “to know.” Mark asserts
tersely that the disciples have been given (dÇdwmi) their experiential presence
in and knowledge of (musthvrion) the kingdom of God. Matthew and Luke ex-
pand the statement, explicating the concept of experience with the sense
resident in the word gin∫skw. 87 If all of this is close to correct, then the
phrases, “given the secret of the kingdom,” and “given to know the secrets of
the kingdom,” mean essentially the same thing, with the plural emphasizing
the multi-faceted nature of kingdom experience.
Next, Jesus contrasts the experience of the disciples with others. Mark
reads, “but to those outside everything is in parables”; Matthew has, “but to
them it has not been given”; and Luke, “to the rest [?] in parables” (my
translations). My proposal is that we should generally construe the contrast
between insiders and outsiders along the lines of exile, given the rich exile
theology in the immediate and broad contexts provided by each Gospel, given
Jesus’ interest in exile theology, and given the prominent kingdom theme
(the kingdom being that which you enter when you leave exile) in the purpose

83
E. D. Schmitz, “Knowledge (gin∫skw),” NIDNTT 2.392–406.
84
Ibid. 395. Schmitz notes the purpose of parables passages as among the extremely rare
instances of apparently theoretical knowledge implied by gin∫skw. He lists three others (Col 1:26;
2:2; and Rom 6:6), but explains how experience is implied in these through the concepts of relation-
ship and obedience (p. 401). He neglects to observe that the concept of experience rests comfortably
in the purpose of parables passages as well.
85
Ibid. 392–93.
86
Ibid. 398–401.
87
Carson, emphasizing the giving (revelation) of the content of the secret / mystery, nevertheless
does note the experiential nature of the kingdom’s presence (Matthew 307).

One Line Long

 exile and the purpose of jesus’ parables 81

of parables passages. The disciples, who are a group of individuals who have
been given the experience of the kingdom (i.e. essentially all members of this
group are no longer in exile, Judas excepted), are distinguished from those
“outside” the group of disciples, “the rest,” “them.” The distinction is not
between those who are in the kingdom and those who are not, because there
would certainly be those in the crowd who were true followers of Jesus.
Rather, the distinction is between a group of individuals who are indeed in
the kingdom (the disciples) and a mixed group representative of the broader,
exiled Jewish community (the crowd). 88
We are now ready to examine Jesus’ comment on the role of parables
in the distinction he has just drawn. Notice that the contrast Jesus draws
between the two groups is not strictly along the lines of who understands
the parables, unless Jesus and/or the evangelists are carelessly mistaken.
It is often observed that in the Synoptics disciples and non-disciples grasp
the parables to varying degrees, from little to near fully. Furthermore, Jesus
does not define the distinction between the groups in terms of whether he
speaks parables to them or not. In all three Synoptics Jesus relates parables
to disciples and non-disciples alike. We should not read Jesus as saying in
Mark, “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God; but those
who are outside get everything in parables (end of sentence),” as though the
disciples do not get parables. Jesus says, “those who are outside get every-
thing in parables so that . . . .” The quotation from Isaiah that follows declares
the crowd, representative of the Jewish nation, to be in a state of exile. The
contrast Jesus envisages is primarily in the state of the two groups, and
consequently the manner in which he speaks to them. 89 The disciples are in
the kingdom, and the crowd as a generic entity is exiled, and parables are
most appropriate for their state. (We will say more on the appropriateness
of parables shortly.) In terms of the parable of the sower, the disciples are
not soils that need sowing, but the crowd is just that. Matthew seems to
confirm this emphasis on the state of people in his insertion of 13:12 before
the Isaiah quotation, “For whoever has, to him shall more be given, and he
shall have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall
be taken away from him.” In this saying, action is taken based on the state
of the person, not vice versa. The same is true of Matthew’s addition at

88
The Matthean wording in 13:11 allows this distinction but more seems to ignore the presence
of saved people in the crowd, creating a more radicalized difference between the two groups.
Employing this distinction also resolves the tensions in Mark’s account that Michael D. Goulder
both notes and unsuccessfully attempts to resolve by different means while still positing that Mark
was muddled (“Those Outside [Mk. 4:10–12],” NovT 33 [1991] 289–302).
François Bovon comes close to this by suggesting that the distinction is between Christians and
Israel. This, however, does not account for the mixed nature of “the others,” to whom Jesus speaks
in parable, some of whom would be followers of Jesus (Luke 1 311–13).
89
If one objects that the word musthvrion in the context predisposes the reader to think mainly
in terms of the manner of Jesus’ communication, a mysterious manner, R. E. Brown’s observation
about the structure of Mark 4:10–12 is relevant. He notes that musthvrion is not parallel to para-
bola∂Í, and after a brief analysis concludes “that the musthvrion has no intrinsic connection with
the parabolic form of teaching” (Mystery 34).
82 journal of the evangelical theological society

13:13, “Therefore (dia; touÅto) I speak to them in parables; because (o§ti) while
seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they under-
stand.” 90 Jesus uses parables because of the state of the people. Immediately,
Matthew further confirms their exiled state in Jesus’ statement that Isa 6:9–
10 is fulfilled in them (Matt 13:14–15).
If the state of the people in the two groups is Jesus’ focus in the purpose
of parables section, and if Jesus bases his communication with people on their
state, then the quotation of Isa 6:9–10 would primarily define the Jewish
crowd as exiled and, based on that, would explain why Jesus spoke in
parables to the crowd. The fact that he used parables with the disciples is
not a significant issue, because he also explained parables to them and taught
them without parables. Indeed, the disciples do not question why he used
parables with them. Consistent with our discussion of the OT quotations
above, Jesus here considers Isaiah’s exile-worthy audience literally to extend
to his own time and legitimately applies the passage directly to the Jews of
his day.
Now the question arises of why parables are the chosen form of commu-
nication. This question has received much scholarly attention, but we will
not review the proposals. Rather, we will show what our discussion above
recommends. Craig Blomberg argues rightly that the evangelists portray the
crowds as understanding Jesus’ parables. His contention is that parables
subtly bring people to a decision on sensitive matters and more effectively
so than direct speech. Contrary to the view of some scholars, he sees the
parables not as primarily obscuring, but as clarifying.91 This fits the picture
of Isaiah’s ministry where the clarity of his message was to harden the
hearts of the people even further, far enough to maintain their exile for
the duration that God had determined. 92 It is reasonable to note, as many
do, that most people failed to understand the parables fully due to lack of
faith. Even the disciples needed further explanation (Mark 4:34), though they
generally understood (Matt 13:51). This partial understanding also resulted
from Isaiah’s ministry. But Jesus does indeed make his teaching on the
kingdom accessible to his audiences. If we take a˚kouvein, “to hear” (Mark 4:33)
in the Semitic sense of comprehension (and perhaps personal engagement),93

90
In the NT, in dia; touÅto . . . o§ti constructions where the o§ti clause does not supply the content
of speech, it provides the ground of the dia; touÅto clause.
91
Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables 53–55. The few parables that are particularly confusing
to most modern readers (e.g. Luke 16:1–13) were probably more clear to the original audience/
readers (see Luke 16:14) because they were more culturally attuned to the concepts and termi-
nology than we are.
92
N. T. Wright correctly identifies the exilic theological context and content of the purpose of
parables pericopes and the correspondence between Jesus’ ministry and Isaiah’s; but he unfortu-
nately misses the correspondence between the clarity of Isaiah’s communication and Jesus’. Rather,
he takes Jesus’ quotation of Isa 6:9–10 to mean that Jesus wishes to obscure his teaching that the
Jews are still in exile in order to avoid conflict with his opponents, in line with Wright’s view on
the Messianic Secret (Victory of God 236–39).
93
On the Semitic sense of the word found in NT usage, see W. Mundle, “Hear, Obey (a˚kouvw),”
NIDNTT 2.173–78.

One Line Long

 exile and the purpose of jesus’ parables 83

Mark appears to affirm that the crowds understood to some degree when he
summarizes, “And with many such parables He was speaking the word to
them, so far as they were able to hear it” (kaqøÍ hjduvnanto a˚kouvein), “hearing”
having the Semitic sense of understanding. If Jesus sees himself as con-
tinuing Isaiah’s proclamation of God’s mind to a people who are generally
still rebellious, still nationally in exile, and he does so with the same intent
of maintaining their general hardness and consequent exile, then the para-
bolic form of speech must particularly serve this function. (We need not infer
that Jesus desired unanimous hardness.) Isaiah 28:9–13 informs us that the
people complained that the prophet’s message lacked complexity and sophis-
tication, that it seemed like teaching for children; but actually it was the
very word of God, more sophisticated and complex than at first sight.94 Isaiah
30:8–11 further shows that Israel rejected Isaiah’s message because they
wanted pleasant teaching without the “Holy One of Israel” confronting them.
In the parabolic genre, Jesus chooses a form of communication that has re-
markably deceptive complexity and sophistication while being the very word
of God. Parables sound like teaching for children. Their message, far from
being pleasant, often declares the majority of his audience to be yet outside
the kingdom (e.g. the parable of the sower) and/or under divine judgment.
Jesus may well have chosen the parabolic genre and the content of his
message to bear the same function and yield the same results as Isaiah’s
proclamation. 95 It was to harden the hard but call the responsive to return
to God, in a sense creating/clarifying the faithful remnant. 96 Accordingly,
parables, with their special capacity to bring people to the point of decision
where the person must either harden or soften, are the perfect mode of teach-
ing for a crowd mixed with respect to its responsiveness to God (parable of
the sower). They are less essential, but still very appropriate, as a mode of
teaching for those who have already responded favorably, as with the dis-
ciples. This distinction in appropriateness matches the distinction drawn in
Mark 4:11–12.
It is essential to note that in our proposal the portion of Isa 6:10 that
speaks of God’s desire not to heal/forgive does not refer to individual
salvation. 97 God’s intent according to Jesus is to maintain the corporate
exile of the Jews through continued hardening in response to Jesus’ teach-
ing. Isaiah 1 speaks of the reason for Israel’s punishment in broad terms of
rebellion. According to Isa 1:19–20, general obedience would bring healing.

94
Motyer, Isaiah 231–32.
95
Indeed, Isaiah employs many parables, usually non-narrative. Some of Jesus’ recorded parables
are probably founded directly on Isaiah’s imagery (e.g. Mark 12:1–12 par. on Isa 5:1–7; Matt 12:29
on Isa 49:24; Matt 25:35–36 on Isa 58:7). It is possible that he even took the idea of preaching in
parables from his reading of Isaiah.
96
For a thorough study, see Gerhard F. Hasel, The Remnant: The History and Theology of the
Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah (Andrews University Monographs; Studies in Religion 5;
Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1974) 216–348, but especially 394–403. Hasel sees
the preaching of Isaiah as playing a role in the formation of the holy/faithful remnant. He also
understands the remnant to be fundamentally eschatological in Isaiah.
97
Mark, Matthew, and Tg. Isa. have “forgive,” the MT has “heal,” and Luke omits that portion
of the verse.
84 journal of the evangelical theological society

Were the Jews, anytime from Isaiah to Jesus, to repent corporately, God
would in his merciful character have to terminate the exile (which was con-
tingent on their continuing rebellion) before its predetermined duration and
bring restoration (healing/forgiveness) to them corporately. To do so would
perpetuate the failed old covenant order (see Jer 31:32), postpone the advent
of the Messiah, and delay the prophesied inclusion of the Gentiles in the
messianic period, among other adverse consequences. Under Jesus’ ministry,
a corporate response of behavioral purity, rallied in the people by a Jesus who
fit their messianic expectations, might remove the rebellion that caused the
exilic punishment, but it would not be the faith response to the Messiah that
God had determined was necessary for salvation under the new covenant.
This makes sense of how Jesus could say through quoting Isa 6:10, taking
ªna (Mark 4:12) and mhvpote (Mark 4:12; Matt 13:15) with their full final force,
that he spoke in parables with the intent that those outside be hardened,
“lest” (aversion) they be forgiven corporately. Taking the corporate line
above, consistent with the Isaianic sense, means that Jesus was simply not
talking about individual salvation when referring to healing/forgiveness;
but individual salvation is indeed involved in the context. Jesus considers
the disciples individually out of exile, part of the faithful remnant, in the
kingdom. The only means of creating this distinction in Jesus’ theology is by
individually becoming his follower. (Note the individuality of gathering from
exile in Isa 27:12–13; Jer 3:14; and 51:6.) Therefore, the individual is restored
from the continuing exile, which began centuries ago, through following
Jesus. In the consummated kingdom, when the entire remnant intended by
God is gathered and restored, both Jews and Gentiles, all the yet unfulfilled
aspects of God’s restoration promises will be fully realized, physically, politico-
economically, and spiritually.
In summary, Jesus speaks to the crowds in a manner appropriate for exiled
people who must remain in exile for God’s salvation-historical plans to be
fulfilled and who must be individually driven to a response by a “divisive”
form of teaching. Those who return to God through heeding Jesus’ call indi-
vidually step out of exile and into the kingdom. Nevertheless, the remaining
Jews (and, generically speaking, both kingdoms) are still in corporate exile.
In this view, the “return” from exile occurs gradually until it is completed at
the consummation of the kingdom when the faithful remnant is fully gathered.

vii. conclusion
When the meaning of Isa 6:9–10 is understood in its OT context and that
understanding brought to the quotation of the passage by Jesus in the purpose
of parables pericopes, a much more satisfactory interpretation results than
the standard ones. Rather than Jesus taking the passage out of context and
applying it either to the concept of individual salvation (which drives many
scholars to save Jesus from the idea of desiring some not to be saved), or to
his supposed attempt to obscure his message from the Jewish leaders, instead
he is declaring that most Jews are still corporately in exile. Jesus divides
his audience into two groups: disciples of Jesus, who as a group are restored
 exile and the purpose of jesus’ parables 85

from exile (at very least the spiritual component) and are in the kingdom,
and the crowd, who as a group (spiritually mixed) are still fundamentally
characterized by corporate exile, and his employment of parables suits this
division, especially with respect to the crowd. Individual salvation only
relates as the means by which the individual may be restored from exile.
This position avoids the difficulties resident in other proposals (such as
asserting grammatically unnatural translations), is theologically compatible
with Jesus’ theology and with OT theology, and appears not to introduce new
difficulties. Furthermore, for the student of the Gospels it flags the impor-
tance of the “restoration from exile” theme in Jesus’ teaching.
Our study has important implications for broader biblical research, and
these will be traced only briefly here. The eschatological scheme espoused
above, that the Assyrian/Babylonian exile continues until the consummation
of the kingdom of God, with no valid or conclusive physical return yet having
occurred, and that a Jew exits this exile by entering the kingdom (in a sense
proleptically) through faith in the Messiah, provides a provocative frame-
work for understanding many NT and OT eschatological passages. In line
with this, the fact that the scheme is inherent in many of the prophets from
whom Jesus and the evangelists draw (Acts 2:17–26 is particularly relevant)
means that the various “Isaianic New Exodus” approaches may have only
detected a subset of what is happening in the restoration theology of the re-
spective NT books. 98 For OT scholarship, this eschatological scheme suggests
that there is no need to see certain prophetic restoration texts as having two
separate referents, historical restoration and eschatological, but rather one
long period of restoration. Finally, with respect to our understanding of
Jesus’ use of the OT, there is less need to see typological fulfillment in
Jesus’ interpretations of OT texts, especially whenever this eschatological
scheme applies (e.g. Isa 61:1–2 in Luke 4:18–19).

98
For example, Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark, and Pao, Acts. These approaches cer-
tainly demonstrate some degree of authorial awareness of the Isaianic New Exodus (INE). How-
ever, they fail to note both that the eschatological scheme espoused in this article is common in the
prophetic literature, and that several themes that they designate “Isaianic” are found throughout
the prophets, even in those that are quoted or alluded to in the NT books under their examina-
tion. The better theme to highlight is perhaps “the prophetic theology of restoration from exile”
rather than the “Isaianic New Exodus.” These INE approaches are often quite selective of their
data from Isaiah and frequently see ever so subtle exodus motifs when they need them. Commen-
tators on Isaiah are usually much more conservative in the identification of exodus allusions in
Isaiah and in the estimation of their significance, even in the most important section of Isaiah
for INE proponents, Isaiah 40–55 (66). See, e.g., Oswalt (Isaiah 1–39 and Isaiah 40–66); Motyer
(Isaiah); and even Watts, who strongly acknowledges the Isaianic New Exodus but makes relatively
little of it (Isaiah 1–33 and Isaiah 34–66). INE approaches often involve nudging data, emphasizing
the incidental, and drawing convoluted thematic connections between Isaiah and the NT book.
Additionally, there are many narratival, historical, and non-Isaianic reasons for the various
phenomena that they observe, yet they do not address them. Finally, they apply very few controls
that limit subjectivity and encourage confidence that their observations are authorially intended.
Nevertheless, they have broken important new ground.