Matthew 13:1-23

 The Mystery of the Kingdom – The Parables

In the preceding chapters, Matthew had carefully assembled a list of incidents and observations – centring mainly on doubts about Jesus, and open attacks on him – to serve as the basis for reflection on the mystery that had been unfolding.  Why did people respond so differently to the invitation to join God’s Kingdom? What was the Kingdom? Why the urgency to change?

Matthew 13:1-9     The Foundational Parable – The Sower

Matthew’s reference to house was awkward – he had spoken consistently of crowds listening to Jesus – but his concern was not locality (as it so often was with Mark). In this section he would draw heavily on Mark (as Luke had done).

Within the culture, sitting was the formal posture adopted by teachers.

In the Gospels, parables are stories taken from life that at some stage become untrue to life.  They were not told in order to illustrate and clarify a point, but to puzzle, and so encourage further thought.  Usually they were intended to carry only one message, but that message was sufficiently uncertain to make those who were interested continue wondering.  Any conclusions they reached would be the result of their own further reflection, and, consequently, more likely to be remembered. Yet the wondering would often continue, as further experience shed more light and raised new problems requiring deeper insight.

Jesus’ reference to the hundredfold may have carried echoes of Jacob’s first planting in the land that, later, would become the “Promised Land” of his descendants.  Jacob’s hundredfold was a figure symbolic of the abundance of the blessings awaiting them:

In all probability, when Jesus told the parable, he referred to the irrepressible vitality and unexpected superabundance of the seed – the message of the Kingdom.  Whatever about a certain inevitable wastage, the eventual outcome was unthinkably exuberant – the hundredfold!  The parable was, almost certainly, about the harvest, not about either the sower or the soil.  Nor was the emphasis on the unsuccessful yield of some of the seed – mentioned simply as a narrative device to build up expectation – but on the final outcome of abundance, and consequently of joy.  Jesus’ probable meaning was that the Kingdom of justice, freedom and wholeness would happen.  It would be wonderful, and it would be God’s doing.  Life in the present might be difficult for disciples, and for people in general; nothing much might seem to be happening; but the coming of the Kingdom was inevitable: Blessed are the poor in spirit..., those who mourn..., who hunger and thirst for justice....

Matthew 13:10-17     Interlude – The Purpose of Parables  

The disciples’ question was a natural one.  It certainly exercised the minds of the early communities of disciples.  Matthew (following Mark) was not sure, but he listed four reasons.

First reason:

The answer that Matthew put on the lips of Jesus was not really satisfactory.  He drew on what Mark had already said in his Gospel, but he obviously found Mark’s explanation unsatisfactory and in need of re-working.  

The problem facing the community was clear enough: why did they respond to what was to them so clear and wonderful – the advent of God’s Kingdom in and through Jesus – while others, with the same opportunities, remained either indifferent or hostile?

Matthew’s use of the passive voice was the Semitic way to refer respectfully to God’s action.  Not finding any satisfactory answer, they concluded that God must have been responsible.

Mysteries are not secrets but truths that are never fully explored or understood.  Their truth is not hidden – just too rich and complex to be definitively grasped by limited human minds.

Second reason:

This floating saying of Jesus could be understood ambiguously in Mark.  Matthew used it to comment on a common experience.  People with wisdom and a sense of wonder are keen to receive more, and in fact learn to go more and more deeply into the truth of the Kingdom.  Those without wisdom or wonder distract themselves with other matters and close themselves off from discovering more.  They fail to appreciate – and become careless about – even what they have.

Third reason:

Mark had stated that the reason Jesus spoke in parables was precisely in order to conceal the meaning from non-disciples so that they would not understand. Matthew corrected Mark’s reading by simply stating that Jesus spoke in parables simply because non-disciples were not interested in seeking out the truth.  

People are not interested in answers to unasked questions.  Jesus’ hope was that the parable might stimulate sufficient interest to get them to begin to question, and in the process to reflect on their experience.  He hoped that they would gain insight and, to use the words of Isaiah, which Matthew would quote immediately, might understand with their hearts and be converted,and I would heal them.

Fourth reason:

The response of people had its scriptural precedent.  Following the lead given by Mark, Matthew drew on an observation made centuries before by Isaiah [6:9-10].

Isaiah spoke in sadness.  Jesus’ use of parables reflected hope.

In Mark’s Gospel, even the disciples did not understand.  Jesus’ disciples drew whatever hope they had from the hope in the heart of Jesus.  Matthew’s approach was more encouraging.  The disciples of Matthew’s community drew from their certain faith in the resurrection of Jesus.  They may not have seen the historical Christ, but in faith they knew the risen Christ.

Matthew 13:18-23     Parable of the Sower – Allegorised

The point of a parable is not immediately obvious; perhaps is never totally clear or exhausted.  Nevertheless it can stimulate reflection based on experience, which leads, over time, to insight.  As experience changes, the insights gained through reflection can vary along with them.

Already by the time of Mark’s Gospel, the early faith communities had reflected on the parable in the light of their experience and had come up with insight.  They had interpreted the parable as an allegory, where the various details have their separate applications – an allegory with a moralistic conclusion. (Most commentators agree that Jesus did not shape his parables as allegories.)

The early community allowed the parable to throw light on what had happened to and among themselves, as well as to illustrate the various ways that people responded to Jesus’ word in Jesus’ own time.  The differences of response were due to people’s varying reception of God’s word of the Kingdom. From being originally encouraging and motivating, the interpretation had become moralistic, with the focus on fruit – a favourite preoccupation of Matthew.

Matthew called the parable The Parable of the Sower, yet, after the introductory sentence, the sower did not figure any further in the story!   Perhaps, Jesus would have called it The Parable of the Seed.

The tradition had identified four categories of hearer, reflecting the four soil conditions:

• those who did not understand (not intellectually, but with their hearts);
• those who are tripped up when faced with trouble or persecution;
• those who allowed worldly concerns and the attraction of wealth to choke the word and lessen its effect;
• those who understood the word (allowed it to connect with their hearts).

The first category fitted the crowds.  The second may have applied to former disciples within the Christian community.  The third would be illustrated later in the narrative by the young rich man [19:16-22].  Matthew hoped that the present members of his community would be numbered in the fourth category.

Next >> Matthew 13:24-43