“Have you understood all these things?” Jesus asked. [The disciples] said to him, “Yes” (Mt 13.51)
At the end of a discourse containing seven parables, two of which the disciples had to have explained, they assert that they had “understood all these things”. I bet not. More likely they didn’t want to admit that they were still uncertain! But they answered, perhaps like little kids when asked if they’ve done their chores, “Yes” (with their fingers crossed behind their backs). And I have to wonder whether or not Jesus guessed their uncertainty, giving them another, rather opaque, instruction: “every legal expert who has been trained as a disciple for the Kingdom of heaven is like the head of a household who brings old and new things out of their treasure chest” (13.52). I would imagine they were left scratching their heads; biblical scholars throughout history have struggled to figure that one out!
As I’ve suggested over the last several weeks, Jesus’ parables are not “easily understood”. They are not “thou shalt’s” or “thou shalt not’s” or pithy proverbs. They are “small stories with large points” (Frederick Buechner, Wishful Thinking: A Seeker’s ABC. Harper SanFrancisco, 1993: 80). . . or maybe even better, “small stories with several possible large points”. Trying to narrow them down, as far as I’m concerned, robs us of our imagination‚ or, in “religious language”, limits the ability of the Holy Spirit to speak to us—either as a congregation, or as individuals.
We began, a couple of weeks ago, by looking at the “Parable of the Sower”. I admitted that I had been somewhat “led astray” by a professor who pointed out that the given explanation to that parable didn’t “fit” the parable itself. His “answer” effectively stopped me—for decades—from looking further into what value the story might hold for me. And it wasn’t until quite recently that I was able to move past that brick wall, and to understand: (a) that there was a context behind the telling of the parable and Jesus’ explanation of it, but (b), even Jesus’ own explanation didn’t exhaust the parable.
You remember the parable: a sower sows seeds that fall on different kinds of ground, with varying results. Jesus probably explained that story to his disciples to help make sense of the mixed results their work had accomplished in Galilee. Everyone had heard the same word (that is, received the same “seed”), but not everyone accepted it in the same way (if at all). But that “mixed reception” shouldn’t stop evangelistic efforts. That explanation makes sense, especially as Matthew is telling his version of the “Jesus story”. But, as I mentioned, the “ground” upon which the seed falls may also represent our varying abilities—depending on circumstances—to hear what the Spirit is saying to us, as individuals. Very different interpretations; both quite valid.
Last week we looked at another parable and explanation: the parable of the Wheat and Tares: a farmer sows wheat, and an enemy sows tares. “What to do?” the farm-hands ask? “Leave them alone and separate them at the harvest,” the farmer answers. While that parable could also be interpreted in the context of the Galilean mission, it can point to our mixed nature too (we are both saints and sinners at the same time), Matthew’s explanation turns the story into one of the last judgment. Again, very different interpretations, reflecting different circumstances.
Both of those parables were part of Jesus’ teaching about the “Kingdom of Heaven” (or “Kingdom of God” in Mark and Luke). The expectations were great among the Jews of the day that the Messiah was going to establish a realm where Israel would be restored, and “all would be right with the world”. When Jesus began proclaiming the “nearness of the Kingdom”, and gathering his followers, I have to imagine that their trust—their faith—in him was great enough that they were willing to “leave everything and follow,” as Peter told Jesus a bit later (Mt 19.27). They were willing—perhaps eager—to say “Yes,” because of their possible roles in that new realm; remember that James and John wanted seats at Jesus’ right and left hands in the Kingdom (Mk 10.37).
Yet, as the experience of Jesus and and his disciples unfolded, Jesus’ followers quickly realized that not everything was going to go as they had anticipated. “Was our hope misplaced?”, they wondered. Jesus’ answer—as suggested in all of the “parables of the Kingdom” in Matthew 13—was that their hope wasn’t necessarily “misplaced”, but, perhaps, unrealistic. They seem to have expected something big, and universal—not an unusual expectation for what the Messiah was believed to usher in. Jesus, even in these parables, has to teach them that their expectations were mis-founded; the Kingdom may be more intimate.
Today, we heard five more parables, all beginning: “the Kingdom of heaven is like”. Put within the context of Jesus trying to help his disciples re-conceptualize what the outcome of his mission was all about, they make good sense . . . I think! Hear them in that context:
A mustard seed (13.31-33), smallest of all seeds, will eventually grow so large that birds will nest. That is, the Kingdom will start small, but will become so large it cannot be ignored. Yeast (13.33)—actually better to think of it as sourdough starter—isn’t bread itself, but it will influence its environment—a bushel of wheat—to such an extent that the environment itself is changed! Jesus tells his disciples: “The Kingdom will not happen as you expect it: cataclysmically. It is “surprising, stealthy and subversive” (https://tinyurl.com/3tsrrd4e).
The next two parables—of the treasure hidden in a field, and the “pearl of great price”—point to the surpassing value of being part the Kingdom . . . a value so great that priorities are re-evaluated. Again the Kingdom won’t happen universally, or cataclysmically . . . but it will be a Kingdom of choice. Citizens of that realm will give up everything to gain entry (much as Peter asserted).
In the fifth parable, the net holding many kinds of fish, Matthew picks up one of the themes from the Wheat and Tares, and takes it a bit further. There will be a mixture of folks in the community, just as wheat and tares would grow together. Unlike the wheat and tares, however, there is no possibility for separation until the “net” is drawn in—i.e., at the last judgment. In any event, however—as with the wheat and tares—be patient and leave the “separating” decisions to God.
In the context of Jesus trying to explain the realities of the Kingdom to his impatient followers, all of these parables (and interpretations—regardless of who did the “explaining”) made sense. But, as I asked several weeks ago, “Do they exhaust the meaning of the parables?”. And, I believe, the answer is “No.” Just as the various seeds/soil, or the mixture of good and bad can apply to us individually, at different times, so, too, can the last five have different meanings.
For example, can the parables of the mustard seed and leaven be applied to us as individuals? For example, perhaps something is planted in us early in life that lies dormant until the right conditions (or circumstances) occur, at which time we finally “get it”, pieces of life fall into place, and we have a greater understanding of our purpose?
Or, who is the subject, in the parables of the treasure in the field, or the “pearl of great price”? Is it just about us, and how we might readjust our priorities “obtain” the Kingdom? Or, are we the pearl, or the treasure—that God wants so much that God would do anything—like becoming human‚ to bring us into the Kingdom?
In the explanations of the Wheat and Tares, or the net with diverse fish, are we able to be patient, or, in the words of Jesuit priest and geologist, Teilhard de Chardin, to “trust the slow work of God” (https://www.ignatianspirituality.com/prayer-of-theilhard-de-chardin/)—to transform the world, the church, or our own lives, despite the presence of “contrary folks”?
It has been some two thousand years since Jesus asked his disciples, “Have you understood all these things?” They answered “Yes” . . . and perhaps they did understand what he was telling them about the nature of the Kingdom. But I would hope that they, and we, didn’t think that Jesus’ stories were only meant for that time and that place. Through parables the Holy Spirit can work on us at deep level, if we don’t let any one interpretation steal their “surprise, stealth, or subversiveness”.
Jesus suggests that the Kingdom of heaven is like mustard seed, a pearl, a treasure, wheat and tares”. Given your experience, to what might would you compare the Kingdom of heaven? How would you finish the sentence, “The Kingdom of heaven is like . . . .”?
Amen