Tell me more ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 2 down vote favorite

My parish priest uses the example of Matthew 13:18-23 to explain that this one explanation of the parable of the sower was the one that Matthew, wanted to put in his Gospel to drive home some particular point, but Jesus Himself, did not explain His parables when preaching - so there are many interpretations that the listeners (and us) would go home with.

So, does it fall within the scope of a valid understanding of the Bible, that Jesus' parables have different meanings according to ones station in life?

I'd like a Catholic answer, but any decent answer that doesn't start out by negating the premise of the question (which I don't totally understand and therefore cannot defend) would be acceptable.

share|improve this question
Yes, but I'm not sure how to word this in an answer. I believe the idea behind parables is to not have a single answer - but to have many answers which to reflect on. – user1054 Aug 27 '12 at 18:30
If you want to write about how the parable of the sower could have one explanation that Jesus gave to the disciples, which they seem to have desired to have recorded, as well as a seemingly nebulous anagogical understanding of that parable, I'd appreciate it. In fact, anything non-obvious I'd definitely appreciate! – Peter Turner Aug 27 '12 at 18:33
I don't disagree with the concept that one story can be used in different ways. But I'm a little confused. Doesn't Jesus explain his Parable at the end of the passage? Verse 18 says "Listen then to what the parable of the sower means". Based on the context Jesus is still talking at this point, so he does explain it doesn't he? – Greg Jan 2 at 3:16
@greg He explained it to His disciples, but not to the crowds. In any event, I think my priest was saying that this was Matthew doing the explaining to his congregation, not Jesus' exact words. But, I don't want to put words in my priest's mouth, I just want to know where that idea comes from. – Peter Turner Jan 2 at 13:59
@PeterTurner If Jesus explains a parable and it is recorded, then that is the main explanation isn't it? I think the English in the NIV and ESV would both suggest that it is Jesus' words in verse 18, not Matthew's. Jesus starts speaking in verse 11 ("He [Jesus] replied") and continues to speak until the end of 23. The NIV Red Letter bible (where Jesus' words are highlighted in red) also marks verse 18-23 in red. While the translators could be wrong, I would want pretty good evidence to go against them. – Greg Jan 2 at 19:31

2 Answers

up vote 0 down vote

Is it POSSIBLE for a parable to have two meanings? Sure, the idea is not inconceivable.

The idea that a writer or speaker could have more than one point in mind when telling a story isn't particularly radical.

But the parables are all very short. How much meaning can you cram into a couple of paragraphs? Do you have any examples of two different meanings that could reasonably be derived from the same parable? I can't think of any off the top of my head.

share|improve this answer
All scripture can be understood in light of the 4 senses of scripture (literal, metaphorical, moral and eternal). The parable of the sower is literally good advice for farmers, is a clear metaphor for the kingdom of heaven, is a good moral tale about what kind of ground you want to cultivate in yourself and is a foretaste of the apocalypse, since all the plants will eventually die, but only some will fulfill their purpose. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm wondering if there's more than one moral (not necessarily contradictory morals) – Peter Turner Aug 28 '12 at 13:03
1  
Mmm, I'm afraid I disagree. The parable of the sower is surely not intended to be advice for farmers. It assumes some things about farming as a basis for the metaphor, but if the audience didn't already know or readily accept that, then the whole point about different kinds of hearers would be lost. Jesus would first have had to convince the audience that, e.g. seeds don't grow well in rocky soil, before he could use that as a basis for the analogy. I sincerely doubt any farmer has ever read this parable and said, ... – Jay Aug 30 '12 at 8:48
1  
"Zounds! I shouldn't try to plant seed in a weed-patch! I never thought of that!" Likewise, the parable says nothing about all the plants eventually dying. There is no indication that Jesus had any such point in mind. Just because Jesus compared people who hear the Gospel to plants doesn't mean that you can take literally ANYTHING that is true of plants and apply it to people who hear the Gospel. That parable has one clear message: to discuss the different reactions people have to hearing the Gospel. – Jay Aug 30 '12 at 8:51
up vote 1 down vote

This is a great question that opens the discussion of what the nature of scripture actually is. Your priest sounds like a thoughtful and well-educated man and he's pushing you to think more critically about this biblical passage.

What you are describing is based off of the work The Parables of Jesus by Joachim Jeremias. The Basic premise is that the Gospel parables, in this case the parable of the sower, represent different "layers" of tradition. The theory goes that the parable itself likely is an authentic saying of Jesus—which was left open to interpretation (cf. "He who has ears, let him hear") However, when the Gospels were written (here probably the parallel in Mark 4) an additional "layer" was added to help explain the parable to those hearing the gospel read aloud. In this case the "explanation" is labeled the "Early Church" layer, because the it represents how the early church interpreted this particular saying. Of course the Matthew passage is basically the same, Mark was probably just written first, but that doesn't mean both authors had to use the story to make the same rhetorical points in their gospels.

The issue of authorial intent and its role in determining church doctrine is a touchy issue. However, since you ask for a Catholic answer, I would hasten to add that this fits well within the Catholic tradition—that is, Catholic dogma has always been and continues to be an active and living tradition informed by the scriptures, but not to the exclusion of reason, nor previous tradition.

The Bible is just the very earliest part of this traditioning process.

N.B. I'm not Catholic.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.