Category Archives: Scripture

Understanding Parables

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time.  The opening description in 13:3 and the concluding transitional comment at 13:53 indicate that Matthew considers everything in between to be parables, including v. 52. Thus, although commentators have liked to find exactly seven parables in the chapter, Matthew apparently considered the concluding picture of the scribe to be a parable as well, a parabolic concluding picture on the use of parables.

The picture comes as an elaboration of the disciples’ affirmative response to Jesus’ question. They claim to understand. These words added to Mark are to make clear that, for Matthew, understanding is not an optional element of discipleship.

Matthew understood that parables were constructed from a “treasure”  of conventional metaphors, in which, for example, “king” or “father” customarily point to God, “harvest” or “accounting” to eschatological judgment, and such.’“ Both Jesus and Christian scribal teachers did this. The uniqueness of Jesus does not consist in the invention of radically new images, but in the surprising use to which they put the repertoire of familiar images. Vocabulary and style, as well as theology, indicate that

Matthew affirms both the old and the new (see 9:17). Like a skilled scribe, he brings out of his storehouse the treasures of his Jewish past (Scripture, stock of traditional imagery, perspectives, and concerns), as well as older Christian tradition (Mark). But he does not merely repeat the past. Alongside the old but introduces the new, presenting the old in a new light. Reclaiming it for the new situation in which he finds himself, seeing all things in the light of the Christ event and the coming of the kingdom.  Even the unexpected order of “new and old” may be important: it is the new that provides the key to the appropriateness of the old, not vice versa.

Image credit: The Pearl of Great Price, by Domenico Fetti, 17th century |Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Bilddatenbank | Public Domain

The Net Cast Widely

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time. “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net thrown into the sea, which collects fish of every kind.” The net pictured here is a large dragnet, usually about six feet deep and up to several hundred feet wide, positioned in the lake by boats and requiring several men to operate (hence the plurals of v. 48). The picture is realistic, portraying an ordinary event with no surprising twists: The net brings in “every kind” of both good and bad fish, which are then sorted, the good being kept and the bad thrown out.

Whatever the original meaning of the parable, Matthew’s own ecclesiastical application already appears in the telling of the parable itself. The bad fish are called “bad” (rotten, sapra). Clearly the fish are fresh-caught so “rotten” seems inappropriate. The same word was used four times previously in Matthew’s description of bad “fruit” (works) presented by Christians. There it is easier to assess.

It is likely that “bad” refers to fish that lack the fins and scales noted in Leviticus 11:9-12. If the fish caught were eels or the Galilee catfish (eel-like in appearance), they would be forbidden fish. Of course, the fish could be too small or simply considered poor in taste. Hence the need for the sorting.

This parable then, like that of the “Wheat and Weeds.,” is one of judgment. It echoes not only the separation and destruction of the wicked, but also the motif of a mixture of good and bad until the time of final separation. The dragnet is inevitably indiscriminate in what it catches. As long as the fish remain in the lake, and indeed in the net, they remain undifferentiated. It is only when they come up for final scrutiny that some will be preserved and others destroyed

The Parable of the Net Explained

This interpretation is very like that of the parable of the weeds, vv. 36-43. Like the preceding interpretation, it concentrates entirely on the fate of the wicked, whose destiny is to be cast into the furnace of fire, with weeping and gnashing of teeth—all typical Matthean language for eschatological judgment, but not appropriate to fish, which are buried or thrown back into the water, not burned. The interpretation, allegorical as it is, does not represent the net to be the church, the fishers to be evangelists, etc. Matthew seems intentionally to forego the obvious opportunity to relate the parable to the story of the call of the fishers in 4:18-22. The parable is not a picture of evangelism, “fishing for people,” but a parable of final sorting and separation. [Boring, 1994, 314]

Image credit: The Pearl of Great Price, by Domenico Fetti, 17th century | Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Bilddatenbank | Public Domain

Two Parables

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time. “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant searching for fine pearls. When he finds a pearl of great price, he goes and sells all that he has and buys it. Matthew apparently intends the parable of the treasure to be interpreted together with the parable of the pearl, which immediately follows. The two parables do have common features: (I) In each case only a brief vignette of a crucial situation is given, without enough details to evaluate them as realistic stories. The interpreter should, therefore, be wary of filling in the gaps from pious imagination, but concentrate on what the parable does, in fact, portray.

(2) The primary common feature is surely central to the meaning of each: The protagonist goes and sells everything for the sake of the one thing. This is the action of both the plowman and the merchant. This movement of the story as a whole is to be compared with the kingdom of God, for the kingdom is “like” neither the “treasure” of v. 44 nor the “pearl” of v. 45, but in each case somehow like the story as a whole. In each case, the protagonist acts with the single-minded response of the “pure in heart.” From the story in Mark 10:17-31, Matthew and his community had long known of the kingdom’s demand of “all,” and of one who had failed (cf. esp. Mark 10:21, where selling everything and giving it to the poor is connected with true “treasure”).

R.T. France [France, 2007, 541] notes that the two parables are also different: (1) The plowman is doing his regular work, not looking for or expecting anything special, when he comes upon the treasure quite by accident. The merchant is actively seeking, knows what he is looking for, and still finds something beyond all his expectations. The kingdom can become real in either way (cf. 9:2, 22). (2) The great joy of the plowman is emphasized, but is altogether absent from the merchant. This does not mean that the merchant’s selling everything in order to obtain the pearl was joyless, but it does mean that (subjective) joy is not the main point of either parable. (3) What the merchant did, although it may not have measured up to everyone’s understanding of common sense, was unquestionably legal. The same cannot be said of the plowman, whose action may have been questionable, both legally and morally (we are not given enough details to know for sure). The disposition of buried treasure found on someone else’s property was widely discussed in Roman legal discourse. Some of Matthew’s readers may have expected a law-abiding plowman to have reported his find to the owner of the field rather than cashing in on it himself. Sensitive contemporary readers may wonder about the ethics of cheating the owner of the field out of his treasure, even if it was perfectly legal. The story does not legitimize the man’s actions. Jesus was certainly able to use questionable actions of characters in his parables to picture the urgency of acting to gain the kingdom while the opportunity is there (cf. Matt 12:29’s use of breaking-and-entering imagery, and more subtly, Luke 16:1-13).

In the story of the pearl, there is no moral or legal question at all, but still a surprising and provocative action. In the first-century Mediterranean world, the pearl was often a symbol of the highest good (as diamonds sometimes are in modern Western culture). Thus salvation is pictured in the Gnostic “Hymn of the Pearl” as the finding and safe return of a pearl lost in an alien land. Some scholars see both the parable of the treasure and the parable of the pearl as advent/reversal/action, expressed in the parallel sets of verbs in vv. 44 and 45-46: finds/sells/buys.” The advent of the kingdom, sought for or not, brings about a reversal of values, leading to the crucial action that obtains the new. This action, puzzling and out of step with those who live by the old values, is central in each of these parables. [France, 2007, 541]

Image credit: The Pearl of Great Price, by Domenico Fetti, 17th century |Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Bilddatenbank | Public Domain

Hidden Treasure

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time. “The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure buried in a field, which a person finds and hides again, and out of joy goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.” Buried treasure is the stuff of popular stories in every age and while out “pirates” no longer sail the Seven Seas we seem content with stories of lottery winners. Given Israel’s location at the crossroads of major powers to the north and east and to the south (Egypt) there is a long history of wars and rumors of war playing out upon the promised land.

“Buried treasure” was a realistic possibility. Before banking was generally established, to hide wealth in the form of coins, metals or jewels in a jar or box in the ground was a recognized way of securing it, especially in times of crisis; the famous Copper Scroll from Qumran Cave 3 lists the locations of huge caches of precious metals and other buried treasure. But consider Mt 25:25, where a talent of gold is buried. The “talent” was equivalent to almost 20 years of daily wages and would have been a “treasure” worth finding.

In the face of a rumor of war or war itself, a family might well bury their valuables. If no one survived the battles or sieges, there was indeed buried treasure to find. There were also rabbinic guidelines for what one did when finding such treasures. Even if you were the rightful owner of the land, you were obligated to make a reasonable search for the rightful owner of the buried valuables. Failing to find the original owners, the land owner could rightfully take possession of the treasure.

Presumably in this story the current owner of the field was unaware of it. The finder (presumably a worker employed by the land-owner) really has no immediate rights to the treasure even after he legally purchased the land. But he understands what is at stake and sells all that he may obtain the treasure. Many commentators have noted that it is the same with humanity – we have no right to salvation – it is an unmerited gift from God – so when it comes, grab it without hesitation or qualm.

It seems that the man’s action is dictated by pure self-interest, as would be the person who opts for the kingdom of heaven. The “sacrifice” of all that is sold is no hardship: it is done out of “delight,” not out of a sense of obligation. Once the kingdom of heaven is truly understood, nothing else can compare with it in value. One should also noted the OT theme of wisdom as being like hidden treasure (Prov 2:4; Job 28; cf. with a rather different twist, Sir 20:30). [France, 2007, 541]

Image credit: The Pearl of Great Price, by Domenico Fetti, 17th century |Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Bilddatenbank | Public Domain

More Parables

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 17th Sunday of Ordinary Time. We continue to listen to more parable from the Gospel of Matthew. Again we are presented with a doublet: the hidden treasure and the pearl of great price.

Matthew 13:44-52 44 “The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure buried in a field, which a person finds and hides again, and out of joy goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. 45 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant searching for fine pearls. 46 When he finds a pearl of great price, he goes and sells all that he has and buys it. 47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net thrown into the sea, which collects fish of every kind. 48 When it is full they haul it ashore and sit down to put what is good into buckets. What is bad they throw away. 49 Thus it will be at the end of the age. The angels will go out and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth. 51 “Do you understand all these things?” They answered, “Yes.” 52 And he replied, “Then every scribe who has been instructed in the kingdom of heaven is like the head of a household who brings from his storeroom both the new and the old.”

These two parables are unique to Matthew, following immediately upon the parables of the mustard seed and the yeast, and, in some cases, a narrative about Jesus’ use of parables.

Parable of the SowerMatthew 13:1-9Mark 4:1-9Luke 8:4-8
Reason for ParablesMatthew 13:10-15Mark 4:10-12Luke 8:9-10
Interpreting the SowerMatthew 13:18-23Mark 4:13-20Luke 8:11-15
Purpose of ParablesMark 4:21-25Luke 8:16-18
Parable of the WeedsMatthew 13:24-30
Parable of the Mustard SeedMatthew 13:31-32Mark 4:30-32Luke 13:18-19
Parable of the YeastMatthew 13:33Luke 13:20-21
Jesus’ Use of ParableMatthew 13:34-35Mark 4:33-34
Interpreting the WeedsMatthew 13:36-43
Parables of Hidden Treasure and Pearl of Great PriceMatthew 13:44-46
Parable of the NetMatthew 13:47-50
Parable of Treasure New and OldMatthew 13:51-52

There is some discussion among scholars whether these parables were shared publicly or only given in private to the disciples. There is some support that since these unique parables follow a private explanation of the Parable of the Weeds without indication of a change of scene or audience, the simplest explanation is that somewhat a change of pattern, Jesus is preaching to the disciples. Many scholars also point to the similarities between these parables with that of the Weeds and the Net, then suggesting they are doublets meant to drive home Jesus’ point.

In any case, our gospel continues the themes of the kingdom parables which began with the start of Chapter 13. The first two parables (Hidden Treasure and the Pearl) continue the development of the theme of whole-hearted response with which the parable of the sower concluded. The third parable (the Net) is closely related to the parable of the weeds, and emphasizes again the division which the preaching of God’s kingdom brings.

The “day of parables” ends with a saying that expresses well the ideal to which the evangelist aspired: “Then every scribe who has been instructed in the kingdom of heaven is like the head of a household who brings from his storeroom both the new and the old.” The disciples need to understand the radically new act of God in Christ in the light of the Old Testament tradition. Such a person understands the relation between the new (Christ) and the old (Jewish tradition).

Image credit: The Pearl of Great Price, by Domenico Fetti, 17th century |Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Bilddatenbank | Public Domain

The Mustard Seed and Yeast

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 16th Sunday in Ordinary Time. In this post we move away from the parable of the “Weeds among the Wheat.”

31 He proposed another parable to them. “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that a person took and sowed in a field. 32 It is the smallest of all the seeds, yet when full-grown it is the largest of plants. It becomes a large bush, and the ‘birds of the sky come and dwell in its branches.’” 33 He spoke to them another parable. “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed with three measures of wheat flour until the whole batch was leavened.” 

The mustard seed is an annual herb whose incredibly small seeds produce a plant that is normally 2 to 6 feet in height (possibly as tall as 10 feet) but it would not be mistaken for a tree. I mention “tree” because in the Greek the word dendron is used, which typically means “tree” but can refer to a large bush. So where the NAB ops for “becomes a large bush” other translations opt for “becomes a tree.” There is a case to be made for both. The tree motif reflects the symbol of the imperial tree found in representations of empires including the apocalyptic imagery of the Kingdom of God (see Ps 104:12, Dan 4:9, Ezek 17:23). It is imagery that persisted into the medieval age and appears in St. Bonaventure’s’ Tree of Life which birds of the sky come to dwell.

Some folks comment that Jesus is lampooning the apocalyptic view of the Kingdom. Perhaps, or rather continuing with the idea presented in the wheat/tares parable, the presence of the Kingdom here and now can be overlooked in its smallness and simplicity. One should remember the King of Kings entered Jerusalem on a donkey rather than a warhorse.

In the parable about the “yeast that a woman took and mixed with three measures of wheat flour ” Many commentaries focus on the yeast as a symbol of evil being mixed to the “wheat flour” of the proclamation of the Good News of the Kingdom. The word that is used (zymē) is better translated as “leaven.” The most typical course of making bread was to insert into the new dough a small amount of old, fermented dough reserved from the previous baking; it is this “leaven” (or sourdough) rather than “yeast” proper which the woman is here using. Our translation takes the Greek enkryptō and translates it as “mix” which is a viable translation. Equally viable is “hide” which is used in many modern translations. Retranslated, the passage becomes “leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of wheat flour.” I would suggest that this translation is more aligned with the meaning of the other parables.

The three measures of flour (about 60 lbs) is an exaggerated amount, but even a small bit of leaven can have a great effect.  The kingdom of Heaven might be insignificant when one considers the leaven, but the end result is mighty and wondrous.

There is much debate over the meaning of these two short parables. Some Christians believe that the imagery of the parables is meant to portray the presence of evil within professing Christendom. This is due primarily to an understanding of the Kingdom of Heaven as a “mystery” encompassing Christendom, understood as organized Christianity. Christendom as a whole contains evil elements mixed with the good, so both parables are usually viewed as picturing that evil. The birds nesting in the mustard tree are unbelievers. It is also pointed out that yeast is often a symbol of evil (Exod 12:15, 19; Matt 16:6, 11–12; 1 Cor 5:6–8; Gal 5:9; but see Lev 7:13–14; 23:17) and asserted that the parable of the yeast portrays the growth of evil within Christendom. This view of the parables is often held in conscious opposition to a view which understands the images of the growth of the Kingdom in the two parables as indicating the ultimate conversion of the world to Christianity before Christ returns.

There is good reason to disagree with the view that emphasizes the presence of evil. First, its understanding of the Kingdom of Heaven as the mystery of evil within Christendom between the two comings of Jesus is doubtful. Rather, the Kingdom in Matthew is the rule of God, inaugurated through the words and works of Jesus and consummated at his return. Second, it is very doubtful that straightforward statements that compare the Kingdom of God to yeast or to mustard seed should be understood as a portrayal of evil. After all, it is the growth of God’s rule, not Satan’s, which is being portrayed. One need not assume that birds or yeast must always be viewed as biblical symbols for evil—consider that the imagery of a lion portrays Satan in one context and Jesus in another (1 Pet 5:8; Rev 5:5). The parables of the mustard seed and the yeast speak of the deceptively subtle yet dramatically significant growth of God’s Kingdom. Despite frequent fruitless responses to the Kingdom message, it does bear much fruit in many cases (13:23). Even John the Baptist may doubt its advance, but it is advancing just the same (11:1–6). The strong man is being bound, and his goods are being plundered (12:29).

While some may view this advance of the Kingdom over-optimistically, others view the present age too pessimistically because they do not acknowledge that the Kingdom was inaugurated and began its advance during the earthly ministry of Jesus. It may presently seem as insignificant as a mustard seed, but it will eventually be the largest tree in the garden. Its growth may be as imperceptible as the influence of yeast in a loaf of bread, but in the end it will be pervasive throughout the earth. The use of humble symbols like mustard seeds and yeast is appropriate for God’s humble servant who does not cry out in the streets (12:19) and who rides into Jerusalem on a donkey, not a stallion (21:1–5). The majority of scholars hold that these parables portray a contrast between the present reality and the ultimate destiny of the Kingdom. That which is now humble will be glorious. The realization that God is already at work and that there is a unity of the ultimate with the present should give all believers hope.

Image credit: Parable of the Weeds among the Wheat, attributed to Isaac Claesz. van Swanenburg, 1590 – 1610, Public Domain

Our Impatience with the Weed

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 16th Sunday in Ordinary Time. The landowner (God) is quite patient and accepts that there will be “weeds” among the harvest – it is the lot of the human enterprises. Some people do not/will not/cannot hear the Word sown in their lives. The laborers in the parable are quick to want to eradicate the poison. I think history has shown that we reach beyond our calling – not to simply point out error – but to extinguish the source and root of that error. In the first centuries of the Church, when some of the epic battles over theological orthodoxy and heresy were waged, executions were not part of the Church’s response. There might be condemnation, banishment and loss of position, but people were not put to death. Yet a millennia later the island nation of England has its book of Protestant and Catholic martyrs as witness to our human reaction to “weeds” among us, despite the Gospel message.

Patricia Datchuck Sánchez nicely summarizes this point:

In marked contrast to the forbearance and patience of God, there is a tendency among his creatures to distinguish, discriminate and, all too often, to disparage and even to dispose of one another. Differences which are perceived as a measure of weakness or a diminishment of personal worth have unfortunately proven to be sufficient impetus for provoking some of the darkest periods in the history of humankind.

In an effort to separate “good” from “bad”, or the law-abiding from the insurgents, Claudius forced a separation and commanded all Jews to leave Rome (ca. 49-50 C.E.). Centuries later, Jews would be similarly expelled from Spain (1492). Later yet, and in an act of unique horror, Adolf Hitler attempted to definitively separate and annihilate every Jewish person in order to construct what he perceived to be a superior race. When he was finally stopped in 1945, only 3,000,000 out of a population of 9,000,000 Jews in Europe remained alive. Millions of non-Jews were also killed during the third Reich, their only crime being the fact that they were judged as different and therefore lesser than their persecutors.

During the Middle Ages (ca. 1150 C.E.), formal investigative tribunals were established with an eye to safeguarding the integrity and authenticity of the faith. But when Pope Innocent III declared heresy a capital time in 1199 C.E. and when the Fourth Lateran Council (1215 C.E.) provided secular punishment for heretics, all manner of cruelty and injustice ensued. Inquisitors were ruthless in their prosecution of those whose ideas ranged anywhere from the truly heretical to the merely diverse. Those alleged to be heretics had no rights; they were forced to prove their own innocence without benefit of counsel.

Similar attempts at separating those judged to be orthodox from those who were not resulted in the infamous witch trials which swept Europe from the thirteenth to the early eighteenth century and crossed the Atlantic to take hold in the Americas in the seventeenth century. Religious intolerance perpetrated the torture and deaths of actual practitioners of black magic, necromancy, etc. as well as others who were accused simply because they happened to have red hair, or who, because of nervousness may have stumbled through the Lord’s Prayer.

Segregation and separation of peoples because of their different ideas, or social mores, has been a blight on the visage of humanity for centuries.

Image credit: Parable of the Weeds among the Wheat, attributed to Isaac Claesz. van Swanenburg, 1590 – 1610, Public Domain

Two Sowings

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 16th Sunday in Ordinary Time.  One should note that this parable of the “Weeds among the Wheat” is explained in Mt 13, outside our gospel, but closely placed:

36 Then, dismissing the crowds, he went into the house. His disciples approached him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.” 37 He said in reply, “He who sows good seed is the Son of Man, 38 the field is the world, the good seed the children of the kingdom. The weeds are the children of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.

40 Just as weeds are collected and burned (up) with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all who cause others to sin and all evildoers. 42 They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears ought to hear. 

The identification of the allegorical characters is not hidden, but what is the intention of the parable as a whole, especially as it pertains to the decision by the Master to leave the wheat and the darnel untouched until the harvest? I would suggest that the meaning may well be connected to the unique element of this parable: there are two sowings.

In the parable of the “Sower and the Seed” (vv.3-9) There is one sowing with seed, a symbol of the good and potent word of God, which generates believers, and the issue is “What kind of soil are you?”  But in the parable of the “Weeds Among the Wheat” there are two sowings, and the question is “Are the good seeds sown by the householder/Jesus? Or are you the toxic seed sown by the enemy/Satan.  This is an expression of a Matthean view of two kingdoms: of heaven and of the world.

The parable of the “Weeds Among the Wheat” points out the presence of the kingdom in the world: children of the kingdom must coexist with children of the evil one in this world until the end. As mentioned above, this reinforces the themes of on-going conversion (understanding, action, joy, perseverance in suffering brought about by tribulation or persecution, and ultimately bearing fruit superabundantly “in the world,” that place where anxiety and the lure of riches choke the word and it bears no fruit (v.22).

There are scholars who hold that Matthew’s unique use of the parable speaks primarily to the idea of a community of believers in which true and false disciples coexist – a theme not unknown to Matthew’s gospel. As R.T. France [2007, 532]  notes: “See for instance the recruitment of “bad as well as good” guests to the wedding feast…with the result that one of the new invitees had subsequently to be thrown out (22:11–13). The wicked will be picked out “from among the righteous” (13:49). There are false prophets who are wolves dressed up as sheep (7:15–20); there are those who call Jesus “Lord, Lord” with apparent sincerity, but who do not belong to him (7:21–23); there are foolish as well as wise bridesmaids, waiting and sleeping together until the bridegroom arrives (25:1–12); there is a son who sounds more loyal than his brother, but who ultimately fails to deliver (21:28–32). All these passages are peculiar to Matthew, and more could be added.”

As interesting as that might be, here the field is identified as the “world” which indicates that the concern is wider than just what happens inside the Church. Within the “world” believers and unbelievers continue to exist side by side even after the proclamation of the kingdom of heaven and Jesus’ assault on the kingdom of Satan. Then and now some disciples find this a bit unsettling and a little baffling. Where is the kingdom and a new order promised by Jesus? It does not seem to be much of a kingdom when opposition continues unabated? The parable answers that question by a call to patience, directing attention away from the current situation to the coming judgment, when it will be made plain who are the true people of God and who are the “children of the Evil One.” God is not in a hurry, and we must be prepared to wait for his time.

Image credit: Parable of the Weeds among the Wheat, attributed to Isaac Claesz. van Swanenburg, 1590 – 1610, Public Domain 

Weeds Among the Wheat

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 16th Sunday in Ordinary Time. This parable is unique to Matthew and unlike the other evangelists who also tell a pericope of the “Sower and the Seed,” Matthew’s use and placement of this unique parable seems to serve as a reinforcement of the themes of on-going conversion “in the world” that place where anxiety and the lure of riches choke the word and it bears no fruit (Mt 13:22).

The passage opens: “He proposed another parable to them. “The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a man who sowed good seed in his field.” (13:24).  What we translate as “proposed” is more literally translated from paratithēmi meaning “to set before.” While the word is sometimes used to mean presenting or teaching laws (in the Greek language OT, Septuagint LXX), it is more typically used in the LXX and NT for serving a meal. R.T. France [2007, 525] suggests that it might mean the more straightforward “propose” but given its use in a parable, the idea of “serving a meal” may be more appropriate in that the listener will not be “spoon fed.” If they want to garner the fuller, deeper meaning from the parable, they are going to have to “chew on it a while.”

The opening of the parable might lead some readers astray: “The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a man.” It is a standard means of comparison (cf. 7:24; 13:31, 33; 18:23; 22:2; 25:1; 11:16) and reflects a standard Jewish idiom for “It is this way with the kingdom.” In other words, the “way” is the entire parable, not simply a man who sowed good seed in his field (13:24).  Yet the man is not unimportant in the story.  Unlike the person in the “Sower and the Seed” who may be a worker, a farmer, a hired hand, or the land owner; here in this parable, the  man who sowed good seed in his field is clearly the householder (v.27) who is the Master (v.27) and who has his enemy (v.25). The man’s authority suits him as an analogy for God. Both rabbis and Greek philosophers employ a householder as an analogy for God.

Given the agrarian character of much of ancient life, it should not surprise us that fields and harvests figure prominently as settings in parables. How the images are used is not standard but garner meaning from their use in context. In Matthew’s use, context is provided by the earlier parable’s use of the soil in vv.3-9 (The Sower and the Seed). In an apparent re-emphasizing of those earlier themes, it may be that the land represents the “soil” of the people of God for whom Jesus came to bring salvation.  In other words, the kingdom of heaven.

Two key figures in the parable are the enemy and the weeds. The weeds are probably darnel, a poisonous plant related to wheat and virtually indistinguishable from it until the ears form. To sow darnel among wheat as an act of revenge was punishable in Roman law, which suggests that the parable depicts a real-life situation. Who would do such a thing?  Only an enemy or rival.

With early signs of the infestation, it was perhaps possible to uproot the weeds before their roots were entangled with those of the wheat – something the servants seem willing to propose (v.28). A light infestation of darnel could be tackled by careful weeding, but mistakes would easily be made (v.29). In the case of a heavy infestation the stronger roots of the darnel would be tangled with those of the wheat, making selective weeding impossible.

After the wheat and darnel were grown, they were easily distinguished and reapers could gather the darnel, which did have one use: given the scarcity of fuel, it would be burned.

Image credit: Parable of the Weeds among the Wheat, attributed to Isaac Claesz. van Swanenburg, 1590 – 1610, Public Domain

Why do people not believe

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 16th Sunday in Ordinary Time. As we covered in the previous post we have moved from the missionary commissioning of the Twelve with the warning that things will not always go well for them. This is part of the message in Matthew 10 and 11. While Matthew 12 is not part of the Sunday cycle of readings, it is covered extensively in the weekday readings – as we covered previously.

Chapter 12 tells how widespread is the opposition (or resistance) to Jesus’ saving message: Pharisees, the people, and perhaps even those closest to Jesus – his disciples and family.  Signs of power and healing only lead to requests for more signs. Why do people not believe? Is there any explanation for the condition of things we have arrived at by the end of Matthew 12? Indeed there is; the explanation begins with simple words: “A sower went out to sow” (13:3)

Matthew 13 is a “day of parables.” The parable of the sower is spoken in public to great crowds (vv. 1–3), but its explanation and the teaching about parables are spoken only to the disciples (vv. 10–11). More parables are then spoken to ‘the crowds’ (v. 34), but the crowds are again left behind (v. 36), and the second explanation and further parables are spoken to the disciples in ‘the house’ (which Jesus had left in v. 1). The unresponsive crowds are thus clearly distinguished from the disciples to whom alone explanation is given, and this distinction is spelt out in vv. 11–17.

This short section of the Gospel according to Matthew presents a quick succession of parables:

  • Weeds among the Wheat (vv.24-30)
  • Mustard Seed (vv.31-32)
  • Yeast (v.33) – At this point Jesus leaves the crowd and speaks only to the disciples when he explains the parable of the weeds in the field (vv.36-43)
  • The Treasure, the Pearl, and the Net thrown into the Sea (vv.44-50) – 17th Sunday reading.

Last week’s gospel, the parable of the “Sower and the Seed,” began Jesus’ explanation of why people would resist or refuse the word of the Kingdom of heaven (13:19). This “word” is an expression that encapsulates all the proclamations, deeds and miracles given to the people that they might believe (Mt 8-9).

Although our gospel text does not seem to indicate the audience, v.34 (All these things Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables) does make it clear that the hearers are not the disciples alone, but that the crowd is again an active participant. Given the disciples’ question: “Why do you speak to them in parables?” (v.10) and the fact that Jesus is again speaking in parables, it is clear that a larger audience is present.

Image credit: Parable of the Weeds among the Wheat, attributed to Isaac Claesz. van Swanenburg, 1590 – 1610, Public Domain