What can I say about the parables of Jesus? “Much in every way!” Jesus was not the only teller of parables of his time; his are just the most enduring. They are either a simple (e.g. the parable of the mustard seed), or an extended (e.g. the parable of the father who had two sons) , metaphor. They do not so much give information about, but allow participation in, the Kingdom of God. They are not teaching illustrations. They often tease out, or shock, the mind in order to convey the reality of the kingdom. Parables do not spell out the reality they are conveying: allegories spell out the reality, often in great detail. Allegories are often parables that have gone to seed: they become a code which is to be cracked and then thrown away. Our current chapter in Mark gives an example, the allegory of the seeds. (Who would have ever thought that the Satan is the birds that came and ate the seeds?) St Augustine shows agility for interpreting parables allegorically that beggars belief.
Parables can be echoes of the voice of the historical Jesus and also exercises in the history of interpretation, interpreting away the troubling voice of Jesus. Some parables tell us more about how parables were used at the time of the writing of the gospel; this neither shocks nor worries us.
In recent times, the “Chicago School” of Norman Perrin, John Donahue, Mary Ann Tolbert, John Dominic Crossan, Bernhard Brandon Scott and Robert Funk have been our most helpful guides into the parables.
From a pervious era, CH Dodd has given a definition of parables that is still a good starting point for discussion:“A metaphor or simile drawn from nature or common life, arresting the hearers by its vividness or strangeness and leaving the mind in sufficient doubt about its precise application to tease it into active thought” (The Parables of the Kingdom, p. 5)
Like Mark chapter four, Matthew 13 is not a “Parables 101”course. On the contrary, it contains some of the most difficult text to read intelligently.
13:1-23; the parable of the soils
The parable (13:1 – 9)
The same seed is broadcast over four different types, or qualities, of soils. The parable is not about seed, or for that matter about the sower who disappears from the story after the first sentence, but about the soil where the seed falls. This is reinforced in the explanation. The parable will serve to explain the various receptions of the preaching of the Kingdom. This will be reinforced by the explanation of the reason for speaking in parables.
We notice several things: (i) The rocky ground receives the greater attention; (ii) There are three explanations for the lack of success; (iii) Peter will receive the sobriquet “Rocky” from Jesus. (Do you see where this is heading?) (iv) Matthew has changed the number and sequence of the growth (100, 60, 30) from what he found in Mark (30, 60, 100). The Gospel of Thomas has 60, 120; (v) The parable ends without explanation, like a good joke!
The reason for speaking in parables (13:10 – 17)
How are we to explain the various paths between seeing and believing (to use a Johannine distinction)? How is it that some understand (13:51) and some were just astounded (13:54)? This mystery continues to exercise Matthew’s group as it had those before and after them. What Matthew passes on from Mark is a clarification of Mark’s ambiguous “in order that” (hina clause). Now there is no suggestion of a determinism whereby Jesus teaches in parables so that those who are “outside” will not be able to perceive and understand and turn and be forgiven. In Matthew there is now no suggestion that Jesus was setting out to obscure things. The fact that as a result of Jesus speaking in parables, some people just “do not get it” is a part of the “mystery” hidden in the plan and purposes of God that will be revealed at a later date. We make choices that effect our future: other people make different choices. None of us is locked into the choices we make. There is no determinism here.
The explanation of the parable of the soils (13:18 – 23)
The allegory lines up two lists (A, B, C, …& a, b, c, …) and draws lines of correspondence (A corresponds with a, B with b and so on.) once these (often bizarre and non-intuitive) correspondences have been made we have cracked the code; the parable can be thrown away. It has no further use; we have the real kernels and the husks can be dispensed with.
In contrast, the worth of the parable is in the ongoing process it takes us through whereby we see the real world in a new way.
Allowing for parables being multivalent, having more than one meaning, the allegory presents the view that the parable of the sower can, as the allegory of the seeds/soils does, explain the mystery of the preaching of the Kingdom. One such explanation of the attention given to the rocky soil (“… not much soil, …no depth of soil, … no roots …) is that it is a paradigm for the impetuous but shallow behavior of Peter (“Rocky1”)
13: 24 – 30, 36 – 43; the parable of the planted weeds
The parable of the planted weeds (13:24 – 30)
This second agricultural parable addresses a comparable problem; how are insiders to react to the problem of a lack of response, or a negative response, from those who hear the preaching of Matthew’s group. How could this come about? Here it is seen as a negative planting rather than the inevitable result of different soils. Patience is counseled: there will be a sorting out at an appointed time.
The explanation of the parable of the planted weeds (13:36 – 43)
The unanimous conclusion of the Parables Seminar was that this allegorizing was the activity of Matthew’s group. The allegorized code is very clear: A is a and B is b. “The field is the world, and the good seed are the children of the kingdom; …” The problem is how is it that some fellow Jews accept the preaching of the Kingdom and others reject it.
13: 31 – 50; several short parables
The parable of the mustard seed (13:31 – 32)
This parable of Jesus has gone in several directions: maybe they all work and are therefore all true.
The Gospel of Thomas (“it is like a mustard seed, the smallest of all seeds. But when it falls on tilled soil, it produces a great plant and becomes a shelter for birds of the air.”) is the clearest of the four telling of the parable and may represent a parody of Ezekiel’s metaphor of the noble and lofty cedar tree (Ez 17:22-23)
The parable of the leaven (13:33)
There are several points of pain in this “one-liner”:
- The Kingdom on heaven is leaven. It was leaven and not yeast. Yeast is domesticated and lives in a jar in the fridge. Leaven was strange and evil and a symbol of moral corruption. It must be hunted down and expelled from the house before the feast of Unleavened Bread. Paul uses it as a metaphor for the rot and decay that has spread through the Galatian community; his use is akin to the proverb “one rotten apple spoils the whole barrel”.
- The woman hides the leaven. She does not knead it into the flour, she hides it, she is sinister in her actions
- Three measures of flour. Does the measure equate with a (heaped?) tablespoon or with a sack? The best guess put it at an amount that would make a hundred loaves or more. More significant is that this phrase (“three measure of flour”) is associated with a epiphany Abraham and Sarah entertain the three visitors, one of whom is the Lord (Gen 18:6). Gideon prepares to meet the angel of God (Jud 6:19). Samuel’s mother brings food for his dedication at the Temple. (1 Sam 1:24). Negativity gives way to a surprise presence.
- Until all is leavened. Whatever she was hiding it for has now had its way with the huge mass of flour. We have a giant loaf that befits a children’s story.
- All of this, the corruption, the impurity, the secrecy; all this negativity, is put before us as a metaphor of the kingdom
- A contemporary Jewish hearing of the parable sees the contrast between the leavened and unleavened bread as between the splendid and the insipid. Even in the midst of hardship we can receive a token of the love of God. The woman’s task is to nurture her family and ensure that things don’t get too dark for them. She sneaks in a little leaven. (Rabbi Johanna)
The parable of the treasure hidden in the field (13:44)
The Kingdom of Heaven is the treasure hidden in a field. A man found it, he hid it, he sold all, he bought the field. Where does that leave him?
- Why was treasure hidden in fields? In the face of the ever-present reality of war and robbery, it was simply the safest place to store it. The location was often kept such a secret that in time the treasure became lost. Thus, discovering a “treasure trove” was not an uncommon experience
- What was involved in the person “selling all that he had”?It indicates that this character was almost certainly a peasant farmer. Ancestral land was involved in the “all” and thus the extended family was involved. Land is not a commodity: the land is the family and the family is the land. He thus cuts himself off from his world and makes himself materially and spiritually vulnerable
So, he finds hidden treasure, he covers it up, he goes and sells all and then buys the field. What do we know?
- He is setting out to dupe the owner of the field. There is really no other explanation of his act of covering up the treasure
- Having seemingly gotten away with his scurrilous plan, he now has nothing in the world - except the piece of land where he has re-hidden the treasure”
There is an extensive literature involving treasure trove stories from the Mediterranean world, particularly stories from early Jewish literature. (See Finding is the First Act by Dominic Crossan)
- If the treasure shows signs of being intentionally planted in the ground, e.g. stacked, or in a pot, then it is not ownerless. If it is scattered randomly about then it is ownerless
- This stash is not ownerless, and in such cases the find is to be declared and the owner sought
- Sometimes, stories show that a good, upright, pious finder might get to keep some of the find
- Sometimes, stories show that it is OK to defraud a scoundrel or a fool
- Certainly the popular playground rule “finders keepers, losers weepers” does not operate here.
The man’s action of re-hiding the treasure shows us that he does not rate his chances of being granted ownership if he goes down the route of announcing his find. He elects to play the part of the rogue
- If the treasure belongs to the finder by right of finding then buying the field is unnecessary.
- If the treasure does not belong to the finder, then buying the land, as this fellow does, is scurrilous
- The man has totally boxed himself in
- He cannot realize anything of his “windfall” as that would expose him, he would be “outed”
- He cannot afford not to – he has nothing else, no plan B
He chooses to go it totally alone: no preparation, no training in the way of wisdom and virtue, no forethought, no family, no morality. He owes no one anything, he will share nothing with anyone, he will play the entrepreneur. There is narcissism in finding: it can lull us into thinking “it’s all about me!”
- He has lost our support as readers
- There are no concluding comments about virtue being rewarded with prosperity and happiness
- The parable of Jesus gives us no indication that we are to excuse the fellow.The parable shows the dark, corrupting side of the Kingdom
The parable of the pearl (13:45 – 46)
The merchant is out looking for the perfect pearl. Finding it is not a surprise. He ends up with a single asset, the priceless pearl. He is asset rich and cash poor. How will he meet his cashflow crisis? This is the corrupting power of the Kingdom. The “Hymn of the Pearl” is a Gnostic poem. The Gospel of Thomas comes out of a Gnostic background and, surprise surprise, it also has this parable: “The Kingdom of the Father is like a merchant who had a consignment of merchandise and who discovered a pearl. That merchant was shrewd. He sold the merchandise and bought the pearl alone for himself.”
The parable of the net (13:47 – 50)
A variation on the mixing of the weeds and the wheat within the field of the church. In the present case it is the good /fresh fish that are sorted into the pots and the undesirable/the rotten that are thrown away. The original parable could have begun and ended with verse 47. We probably remember the sorting of the sheep and the goats from our first encounter with 25:31ff. Good Matthew stuff!
13:51 – 58 Conclusion to the parables discourse
I am left wondering as to whether there is an intentional contrast between those who have understood these things and those who are his hometown folk who take offense at him and do not honor him.
Have you understood these things? (13:51 – 53)
“These things” are the parables. These understanding ones are those to whom it has been given to understand the mysteries of the kingdom and to whom more is given (13:11ff). In contrast to those who hear the parables but who do not listen and do not understand (13:13), these ones are blessed because their eyes see and the ears hear (13:16). Eminent amongst them is Matthew, the scribe who has been trained (mathe teuein) for the Kingdom. From his treasures he selects and hold up both the old and the new.
Have you not understood? (13:54 – 58)
A Matthean doublet (cf. 12:46 – 50) that includes, or brackets, the parable teaching. The true family of the teacher Jesus are those who understand the parables
We have now come to the end of this discourse.
