For many of us, the “Parable of the Sower”—or “farmer” as we’ve just heard it—is pretty familiar . . . it’s in all three of the synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. A farmer goes out to sow seed, and scatters it about. Given the scattering, seed falls on all sorts of different kinds of soil. The results vary, depending on the soil. And then we hear that the seed is the word of God, and different people hear it differently. And there is something about yielding 100-fold, 60-fold, and 30-fold. That was certainly the whole of my understanding of the parable as I was growing up.
And then I took Jack Sanders’ New Testament class at the University of Oregon. Now, I’d been taking New Testament before at my other undergraduate school: Northwest Christian College (of Waylighters’ fame). The approach to the Bible was different between the two schools, one from a more scientific/critical perspective, the other from a more faith-based perspective. Dr. Sanders, representing the former, rocked my world, and my reading of this parable forever, when he asked the class, “Do you notice anything odd about the parable and the explanation?” Silence, as we all bent over our Bibles trying to “notice anything odd”. After a moment (it seemed like hours), he jumped back in and said, “The explanation doesn’t fit the parable.”
What? Wait just a biblical minute!
“The explanation doesn’t fit the parable?” Dr. Sanders went on to suggest that the parable, as we have it, suggests that it is about the farmer, who scatters seed, and the seed does or doesn’t grow. The implication, given the 30, 60, 100-fold yield of the seed, is that regardless of our accuracy in sowing the seed, God will ensure growth! So, “sow with assurance”. The explanation, on the other hand, is about people (that is, the different kinds of soil), and how they do, or don’t, receive the word of God (that is the seed). And, the implication is that if the soil isn’t receptive . . . well, that could be baaaad.
As I said, my parable-world was rocked! I’d always heard the parable—with the explanation—as we heard it this morning. I’d never thought there were any other ways of hearing it. I mean, Jesus explained what he meant! Wasn’t that enough? But, if the explanation doesn’t fit the story, then there’s a problem. And, I admit that, after than class, I pretty much quit thinking about the parable. Every time I’d read it—whether in Morning Prayer or having to preach on it—I’d tune out the explanation . . . Dr. Sanders’ voice in my head: “The explanation doesn’t fit the parable.” Well, I caution you . . . don’t hold on to the idea that an explanation doesn’t “fit” the parable—especially if it means that you never listen to it again!
A parable, as Frederick Buechner put it, is “a small story with a large point”. He goes on to assert that “with parables and jokes both, if you’ve got to explain it don’t bother” (Wishful Thinking: A Seeker’s ABC. Harper SanFrancisco, 1993; 80-1, emphasis added). Well, either Buechner was wrong, or there’s something else going on in our reading. I don’t believe Buechner was wrong. So there must be something else going on in our reading.
Did you notice that our reading from Matthew was not continuous? In other words, we read the first nine verses of chapter 13, and then skipped to verse 18. And maybe some among you wondered why we skipped verses 10-17, and/or what was in them. That is always a question I ask in these circumstances (and “because the Lectionary told us to” is a very unsatisfying answer!). Sometimes the skipped verses contain some relatively irrelevant stuff—like a bunch of “begats” and obscure names. Other times, like today, however, the skipped verses might help a lot!
Our reading this morning began with Jesus heading to the “lake”—probably the Sea of Galilee—followed by “large crowds”. And he taught the crowd in parables (13.1-2). And the first parable he taught began, “A farmer went out to scatter seed . . .”, that is, the parable we heard this morning. After he concluded the story with “Everyone who has ears should pay attention” (v 9), what we didn’t hear was that “Jesus’ disciples came and said to him, ‘Why do you use parables when you speak to the crowds?’ Jesus replied, ‘Because they haven’t received the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but you have” (10-11).
Notice a couple of things: first, the audience has changed. The parable was given to the crowd, and then, Jesus’ audience shrank to his closest followers. And, second, the explanation of the parable is given to that small group who were wondering about how Jesus taught: “Consider then the parable of the farmer” (13.18). In other words, the explanation was only given to the disciples. That detail is missing from our lectionary selection this morning.
“So what does that mean to us?” I can hear you asking! “Aren’t we Jesus’ disciples? Not just part of some crowd!” Well, we’re a bit of both. We're part of the large group, hearing the parable. And, probably, as with most parables, we left, after hearing this story, a bit confused. We may be wondering about the apparent incompetence of the sower: “Why didn’t he plow the field and sow the seed directly?” We may just be wondering why this healer was, all of a sudden, telling stories . . . and then challenging us to figure out their meaning.
I imagine the disciples were thinking the same things. The difference is, of course, that they could ask Jesus about it. They don’t—at least in Matthew’s re-telling—ask Jesus directly about the meaning of this parable, but about Jesus’ use of parables in general. And Jesus takes the opportunity to apply this parable to a larger issue: how their mission had been going in Galilee. Up to this point, Jesus had been traveling around teaching and healing. Many folks had begun to follow him, some were faithful, others, simply curious. The religious leaders had, for the most part, either dismissed or opposed him. ALL heard the same message, but the reaction was different. “Why?” was probably a point of discussion among Jesus and the twelve. The parable of the sower, and how various “soils” receive “the word about the kingdom”, was a helpful explanation at that time, and in that context, under those circumstances.
So is it the only explanation? The crowds didn’t hear it—only the disciples did (according to all three Gospels). The crowds—without that explanation—are left scratching their heads. And, they’ll come up with their own explanations, given their own circumstances. THAT is something Dr. Sanders didn’t make clear to us students (or if he did, I was so stunned I didn’t hear anything else that day). No explanation exhausts a true parable . . . and we are free to take it further. Some possibilities for this morning.
So, what’s the overall parable about? Well, it’s about a sower (perhaps somewhat incompetent) who casts seed . . . even into wasteful places. Or maybe the sower is simply like nature itself, “sowing” seed— over-abundantly, indiscriminately, heedless of where it might fall? Does that, then, make the parable about evangelism? Perhaps. Certainly there’s encouragement to “scatter seed” broadly, without much regard for where it will fall, or whether it will be received. Once the sower/evangelist has released the seed, his/her job is done. But, notice, the parable provides a word of grace, affirming that there are circumstances beyond our control over what the sowing produces. And there’s encouragement in the knowledge that some of the seed will produce incredibly abundantly: “Hope springs eternal”, they say. Evangelize away; don’t sweat the results!
Perhaps it’s about different kinds of soil? Are we as individuals—even as disciples—the soil? If so, what kind of soil are we? Are we different kinds of soil on different days—as I suggested earlier, circumstances or context dictate how we hear. Is it about hearing the message, and what happens after the message is heard? Are we so “shallow”that sometimes that the “word” bounds off of us? Are we initially enthusiastic, but without deep internal conviction? Are we so plagued by thorns—the concerns of this world—that we can’t accept what God has placed before us? I’m all of those things at different times. Hopefully, sometimes, I’m rich soil, ready to receive the word and able to let it bear fruit.
Might not the seed, the “word of the kingdom” vary. We may hear challenge in the Baptismal Covenant’s “Will strive for just and peace among all people and respect the dignity of every human being?”. How will we respond? What kind of soil are we? We may hear challenge in a summons to “come away and rest awhile” (Mk 6.31). How will we respond? What kind of soil are we?
The possibilities for interpretation are numerous . . . and, perhaps, challenging. In my case, based on how I heard the word from Dr. Sanders, the seed of this parable was eaten long ago by birds before it could even sprout. I fell afoul (pardon the pun) of the idea that one interpretation—even if it came from Jesus—was the only possible interpretation. There are certainly others. Listen again to the parable, set aside the “given” explanation.
A farmer went out to scatter seed. As he was scattering seed, some fell on the path, and birds came and ate it. Other seed fell on rocky ground where the soil was shallow. They sprouted immediately because the soil wasn’t deep. But when the sun came up, it scorched the plants, and they dried up because they had no roots. Other seed fell among thorny plants. The thorny plants grew and choked them. Other seed fell on good soil and bore fruit, in one case a yield of one hundred to one, in another case a yield of sixty to one, and in another case a yield of thirty to one.
You have ears. What do you hear?
Amen.