Matthew 13:44 reads: > The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which someone found and hid; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. One is intrigued by the step-by-step action of the finder. He could have easily taken the treasure. That prospect leads one to believing that there was some law which defined the ownership of a treasure, both legal and moral. (These days it usually goes to the Government, whoever be the one who finds it, and whatever be the place it is found in!). Are there any studies into the legal system prevailing at the time of Jesus that defined the ownership of a treasure ?

In [Matthew 25:1-12](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A1-12&version=ESV) we read about ten young ladies (a bridal party) eagerly awaiting the arrival of the groom. Five of them run out of oil and have to go buy more, missing the groom's arrival and thus be excluded from the wedding feast. The groom is universally seen as representing Jesus, the women are seen as representing individual believers, and the oil is generally seen as representing God's grace. (See [my analysis](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/20227/10092) on the parable and especially the symbolism of the oil.) A surface reading would seem to indicate that all the women were nominally believers in Jesus, but someone of them did not properly prepare for his arrival (i.e. for their death or Jesus' Second Coming). This would suggest that there is more to salvation than faith alone - an aspect that can be "bought". How do *sola fide* adherents explain this passage? A good answer should cite published commentary by notable advocates of salvation by faith alone.

Some say that Matt 24:40-41 is referring to a Rapture with the righteous Church removed first. But Jesus said very plainly that in the end time after the tribulations the angels will come and gather the Tares from the wheat first. So if you are taken first you are a Tare and will be cast into Hell to be burned. Tares are church goers who are not saved but of the evil one. Only then are the righteous people dealt with. I can't see how people could still interpret Matthew 24:40-41 with the Rapture idea? What am I missing? How do they interpret these passages in a consistent manner? >Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. (Matthew 24:40-41) >As therefore the tares are gather and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the End of this World...Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. (Matthew 13:40-43)

In Matt 16:24 Jesus tells His disciples to pick up their crosses and follow Him. How would the apostles have understood what He was saying? He spoke these words before He was crucified, so the mention of a cross is a bit strange to me. The Greek word is "stauros" or "stauron" which means an upright stake. Jesus does tell the apostles in verse 16:21 what would shortly come to pass (His crucifixion) but the verse doesn't make any mention of crucifixion. We could surmise that Jesus told them that He would be crucified and the text just doesn't explicitly mention it, that could be a reasonable explanation, but what if He didn't give them those details? It creates a dilemma of sorts. I'd be interested in hearing how other people understand this passage.

The Gospels record many parables spoken by Jesus, often used to teach moral or spiritual truths. Some of these, like the parable of the prodigal son or the good Samaritan, contain vivid, lifelike details. This raises the question: Were these stories based on actual historical events and people known to His audience, or were they entirely fictional narratives created to convey deeper lessons? I’m curious how different traditions or scholars interpret this — are there clues in the texts or historical context that suggest one view over the other?

A disciple asked Jesus why he used parables and in response he told him. >He replied, "The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, 'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand. Luke 8:10 Why reveal it to the disciples directly but reveal it in parables to others?

This is in response to the disciples asking why Jesus teaches in parables: > He said to them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those outside, everything is in parables, so that although they look they may look but not see, and although they hear they may hear but not understand, so they may not repent and be forgiven." -Mark 4:11-12 New English Translation Why does he say this? Why is he teaching at all if his intent is actually that the people not see, not understand, and not repent. It seems troubling.

In Luke 15 , Jesus gives one parable of a man that lost 1/100 sheep, and rejoiced when that sheep was found. And another parable of a woman who lost 1/10 silver coins, and rejoices much when she finds her lost coin. In order for something to be "lost", it must be in one's possession at some point beforehand; and these parables confirm that in the sense of salvation. So, in regards to this, I have a two part question: Will all that are "lost" be saved? And in what sense were we previously in the Father's possession? Is there any scripture that talks about this? I know my 2nd question could mean those who had previously come to God, but have fallen away, and came to God *again*, but I think He is particularly talking about those who have not yet come to God. I think this could be clarified when Jesus says He came to seek that which was lost in relation to a Chief tax collector.

We read in Matthew 22, on the **Parable of the Wedding Feast**, in Verse 6, the king's servants deputed to bring the invited, are killed by the invitees. That is not something which happens in normal course. Jesus was, in fact, referring to the Prophets killed by those to whom they had preached. One wishes to know who those prophets and the circumstances leading to their death were.

The First Reading and the Gospel Reading of Roman Catholic Holy Mass for October 8th have a parable each on the vineyard. The first one is Isaiah 5:1-7 which speaks of wild grapes that grew on good vines. In the second one from Matthew 31:33-43, Jesus speaks of the unfaithful caretakers who go to the extent of killing the son of the master. The settings of the parable from Matthew are the same as those of Isaiah. But the climaxes are different. Jesus gives a twist by including himself as a character of the parable, which was not there in Isaiah. Are there any comparative studies involving the parables of the vineyard, as presented in Isaiah and Matthew? Inputs from scholars of any denomination are welcome.

To extend this [previous question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/11384/69) , what about the text of the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man indicates whether it should be considered a parable or an "actual" account?

We read in Matt 16: 6-12 (NRSVCE): >Jesus said to them, “Watch out, and beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” They said to one another, “It is because we have brought no bread.” And becoming aware of it, Jesus said, “You of little faith, why are you talking about having no bread? ........... Then they understood that he had not told them to beware of the yeast of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. In the days of Jesus when dry yeast was not in vogue, people preserved a small portion of leavened dough, for use on a subsequent occasion. This is clear from the Parable of the Yeast in Mtt 13:33: > He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed in with three measures of flour until all of it was leavened.” If the woman needed one measure of yeast for three measures of flour, it would not have been in the form of dry yeast we have these days, but of leavened dough set apart from previous baking. Now, leavening was considered good because it gave taste and softness to the bread and increased its shelf life. There were two options available to the breadmaker: he/she could refresh the leaven day after day by preserving the leavened dough of the most recent baking. Alternatively, one could preserve a large portion of leavened dough from the first day of baking say, Sunday and use small portions of it for leavening the flour through the full week. That would make the leaven too sour for want of renovation, but it would still act as a leavening agent. The Pharisees and Sadducees clearly showed scrupulous adherence to the Old Law which Jesus wanted to supplement with the New Law. Jesus' way of referring to the yeast, was meant to expose the confrontation. In the literal sense, he was referring to the fermented dough that had been kept too long, but it was still being used as a leavening agent. My question therefore is: Did Jesus have in mind the tradition of preserving of leavening agent, while speaking of the Pharisees' Yeast? Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

How do Protestants who believe in predestination interpret "plant" in [Matt 15:13](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2015%3A13&version=ESV) : > He answered, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. Should the plants be understood as *expression* seeds (similar in concept to The Parable of the Sower, [Matt 13:1-23](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13%3A1-23&version=ESV)) or *people* seeds (Parable of the Weeds, [Matt 13:24-30](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13%3A24-30&version=ESV)) ? - a) If the plants refer to v9 (vain teachings) and v18-19 (evil thoughts being expressed) then is Jesus saying all of these **thing** seeds (works?) will be burned up when tested (Proverbs 17:3, 1 Corinthians 3:15, etc)? - b) If the plants refer to vv. 8 & 14 (false and blind leaders, **people** seeds) then what is the significance of the phrase in v. 13 I have marked in bold: "Every plant that my heavenly Father **did not plant** will be pulled up by the roots" ? Would this be the same as Matt 13:24-29 (Parable of the Weeds) where God plants some people, and the Enemy plants others, but only God can tell them apart and has the authority to separate them? How do Protestants who believe in predestination apply these 2 parables in connection to the ideas of Predestination & Free will and the Elect/Called/Chosen?

A question that isn't really that important, however, it comes to my mind every time I read some Scripture verses. If the Mosaic Law forbids the consumption of pork meat, why do we see a pig farmer mentioned in the parable of the prodigal son, and some demons begging Jesus to send them in pigs (and it is mentioned that a swineherd man is taking care of them)? I know that Jesus states that nothing from outside (food) is unclean, or that no food is unclean unless you think is unclean, however, He told these parables to Jews so it means it was a common practice to keep pigs as livestock, and the swineherd that was taking care of the pigs, didn't know that Jesus announced that no food is forbidden. So the question is why did Jews at that time raise pigs if they don't eat pork, and pigs don't really have any other utility than consuming (maybe pork skin was used for shoes, however, this doesn't make it worth raising a pig to take its skin and to throw the meat away).

My question is NOT about how [soul sleep](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mortalism) advocates interpret Luke 16:19-31 -- that's an exegetical question that has already been asked [elsewhere](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/59681/50422) . Rather, my question is about understanding, from the soul sleep perspective, why God would, in His providence, let a parable like [the rich man and Lazarus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_man_and_Lazarus) be part of the canon, knowing in advance that it would mislead so many people to the wrong conclusion (that the dead are conscious). God, being omniscient and all powerful, surely knew that millions of Christians would take elements of the parable at face value and would wrongly conclude that the spirit of a person remains conscious after death. Why would God let an inspired parable mislead so many people like that? _______ Related questions: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83011/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83846/50422 Similar question, but about a different controversial topic: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83092/50422 _____ #### Am I asking a [loaded question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question) ? From Wikipedia: *"A loaded question is a form of [complex question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question) that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt)."* My question certainly has an assumption, namely, that Luke 16:19-31 has led possibly millions of Christians to conclude that the dead are conscious. Is this assumption controversial? I don't think so. Whenever I've asked people for the biblical basis for the dead being conscious, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is easily in the top 3 most cited passages (see for example [here](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/25699/38524) , [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/89009/50422) and [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/89016/50422)) . Similarly, the [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_man_and_Lazarus#Afterlife_doctrine) on the parable says: > **Most Christians believe in the immortality of the soul** and particular judgment and see the story as consistent with it, or **even refer to it to establish these doctrines like St. Irenaeus did**. Therefore, the assumption is warranted, and thus the question is not loaded. _______ UPDATE: user 'Hold To The Rod' has recently made a very solid case [here](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/74082/38524) for viewing the setting of the parable as realistic, including supporting quotes from a copious number of ante-Nicene Fathers who openly advocated a conscious intermediate state. In the same line, I also suggest the curious reader to take a look at the questions https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89518/50422 & https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89140/50422 . This reinforces the premise of my question: if Soul Sleep is true, then the early Church was **MASSIVELY** misled.

>23Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” [Matthew 19, NIV](https://www.biblehub.com/niv/matthew/19.htm) A plain reading of this verse suggests that it is impossible for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. Are there any denominations or prominent theologians that believe that the rich cannot enter heaven or the kingdom of heaven? (Admittedly, what I call the "plain" reading appears to be an uncommon understanding of this verse—but I'm not asking about that here, since it has already been covered in [other](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/14426) [questions](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/24899).)

Luke 19:17 occurs in the Parable of the Ten Minas (which has strong similarities to the Parable of the Talents). Jesus says > "His master replied, ‘Well done, good servant! Because you have been > faithful in a very small matter, you shall have authority over ten > cities.’" How does the Catholic Church understand this authority of the good servant - is it something that is happening now (as, for example, there are patron Saints of countries), or is this a reference to (the correlate of) cities in the resurrection, and so the good servants don't have this authority as of now?

Matthew 25:1-12 (ESV): > “Then the kingdom of heaven will be like **ten virgins** who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom. 2 **Five of them were foolish, and five were wise**. 3 For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them, 4 **but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps**. 5 As the bridegroom was delayed, they all became drowsy and slept. 6 But at midnight there was a cry, ‘Here is the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.’ 7 Then all those virgins rose and trimmed their lamps. 8 And the foolish said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ 9 **But the wise answered, saying, ‘Since there will not be enough for us and for you, go rather to the dealers and buy for yourselves.’** 10 And while they were going to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast, and the door was shut. 11 **Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, ‘Lord, lord, open to us.’** 12 **But he answered, ‘Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.’** How do Christians apply the Parable of the Ten Virgins to their lives? How do they make sure that they are one of the wise virgins and not one of the foolish? Are there any denominations that teach in a concrete and practical way *"how to keep one's lamp full of oil"* (verses 3-4) and *"how to be known by the Lord"* (verse 12)?

Why do some people believe that the 7 kingdom parables (Matt 13:3-52) and the 7 churches of revelation (chapter 2 and 3) represent the same things? What textual support is there for this? And which Christian groups or writers teach this?

In the parable of the Prodigal Son, Jesus narrates : "Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living" (Lk 15:13) But, when the prodigal son returns home to a warm welcome, his elder brother comments to his father :".. when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!". One is amused by the remarks of the elder son with reference to the off-home stay of his younger brother, which in fact, was not the narrative given by the story-teller (Jesus). My question is: was Jesus intending to bring out the degeneration of relations over property and wealth by 'making' the elder son speak harshly of the younger one ? Are there some commentaries available on this subject ?