It is argued that Jesus was wrong here because there are smaller seeds in existence, like the orchid. But the Greek word here is mikros, and it does not merely have size in view. For example, it is also used in Luke 9:48:

> And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.

Obviously, Jesus did not mean here that he who was smallest in size would be greatest. So we suggest that the mustard seed description is not an evaluation of size at all (or exclusively), but an evaluation of worth - which is a matter of personal judgment that is quite acceptable and cannot be charged as erroneous.

Two other objections may crop out of this one. First, some versions refer to the mustard as a "shrub" but the word here is lachanon, meaning a vegetable or an herb. (Rom. 14:2 "For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.")

A second objection is that mustard becomes a tree. Of course, the scientific classification schemes of modern botany were not yet invented -- classification was by appearance and function, not by biology. In that regard, the mustard plant of Palestine (Sinapis nigra) could grow to a height of several (2-6) feet and be considered a tree -- if not by the scheme of modern science (Is a bonsai a "tree"?), then assuredly by the descriptive classification scheme of the ancients.

Critics often struggle with the suggested translation, asking in what sense mustard is the "least" of seeds compared to weed seeds, and how the seed is useless if it grows into something great. Such objections fail to understand the contextualizing frame of honor and shame. When the movement started by Jesus began, it had no honor in its social setting. It was not ascribed any honor, nor did it have any characteristics that others would regard as honorable. It was a movement founded by someone (Jesus) who would have been regarded as deviant. It is in that sense that the evaluation is one of worth rather than size. In contrast, an analogy of size makes no sense at all. The kingdom of heaven is not a physical object that you can apply a measuring device to. The analogy refers rather to the accrual of honor which would be obtained through the validating event of Jesus' resurrection and the movement's gradual rise to prominence.

Some critics consult a Strong's concordance to insist that lachanon can absolutely mean "shrub." The primary flaw in this logic is the confusion of categories: the category "shrub" is relatively modern and it is anachronistic to think that the Greeks had a specific word that equalled the modern category, "perennial woody plant." In contrast, the Greeks certainly would have had words for basic food types like "herb" and "vegetable". Note furthermore that the same word is used in Luke 11:42 to say that the Pharisees tithed mint and rue and "all manner of herbs". Finally, standard lexicons define the word as meaning a garden herb or vegetable.

Furthermore, the objection against defining a "tree" by ancient rather than modern standards presumes that Jesus would use a modern classification scheme to express what a "tree" was to 1st-century peasants, which fails to account for the necessity of communicating within the cultural and linguistic framework of the original audience.