Pondering the Parables

REFLECTIONS ON THE PARABLES OF JESUS
BY FR. BERNARD CAMIRÉ, S.S.S.

From the Bulletin of Saint Jean Baptiste Catholic Church, New York City

ª

This parable begins with a rhetorical question: "Who, then, is the faithful and wise servant . . .?" which sets the tone for this and the two parables that follow (25:1-13 and 24:14-30).  Since the parable makes evident who the faithful and wise servant is, the question is actually directed to the hearers, summoning them to answer the question in light of the lives they lead.

A master of the house, upon departing for some reason, puts a servant in charge of the proper distribution of food to the household.  Two ways of carrying out the charge are described.  In the first, the master returns and finds the servant doing as he was instructed; he is described as "blessed."  (We note that in Matthew’s Gospel "blessed" suggests divine favor, and not mere happiness.)  The servant is then put in charge of all of the master’s property.

In the second instance, the servant is described in greater detail.  His interior deliberations about his master’s return are revealed; also, he becomes abusive toward his fellow servants and behaves irresponsibly in other matters.  When his master returns unexpectedly, he is punished severely and ejected from the household.

In its original and simplest form, the Parable of the Faithful and Wise Servant may have been directed by Jesus to the Jewish leaders of his time.  Jesus’ hearers would have been familiar with the Scriptural image of official spiritual leaders as "servants."  The parable, then, is spoken as a warning to them that the time of reckoning is near and will reveal whether they have been faithful to the trust placed in them.  Deliberate resistance to the message of Jesus, in whom the kingdom of God has dawned, will result in exclusion from that kingdom.

It is possible that Matthew’s narration of this parable reflects concerns that were particular to the Christian community of his time.  This would seem to be substantiated by a number of elements found in the parable.  For example, there is reference to a "faithful and wise servant."  The concept of "faithfulness," in the sense of being reliable, is frequently found in association with leadership in the early church, especially in the letters of Saint Paul (1 Cor 4:17; Eph 6:21; Col 1:7).  Also, there are references to the task of distributing food at the proper time and to the drunken conduct of the unfaithful servant.  Such references call to mind that food and "eating" sometimes serve as metaphors in the New Testament for teaching and learning (Jn 6:25-33; 1 Cor 5:11; 6:10; 11:21) and a disqualifying characteristic for pastoral leadership (1 Tm 3:3; Ti 1:7).  The wicked servant in the parable, then, exemplifies unfaithful leadership in the Christian community.

In this perspective, Matthew has allegorized an original parable of Jesus and addressed it to leaders of the Christian community who behave irresponsibly by failing to administer properly the goods of the community and exercise faithful oversight of its material and spiritual sustenance, and by abusing fellow Christians.  In this way, Matthew is interested less in the events that will accompany the return of Jesus than in giving instruction to church leaders as they await the second coming.

This parable, however, should be read as having application to all members of Christ’s church.  The opposite of a Christian life lived in fidelity and charity and in eager expectation of the glory and joy that will accompany the face-to-face meeting with Christ is a carefree attitude about life’s responsibilities and the committing of sin, especially serious sin.  A terrible spiritual delusion would be to think that we shall have ample time to put things aright before the Master returns.  All of the Christian life must be a constant preparation for the Lord who "will come on an unexpected day and at an unknown hour."

January 6, 2008
The Parable of the Wedding Feast (Matthew 22:1-14)

This parable of Matthew is also found in Luke (14:16-24), but in a form that reflects Luke’s particular theological concern.  In both versions, the parable has to do with a man who prepares a feast to which guests had been invited.  However, when the announcement is sent out that the feast is about to begin, those invited offer various excuses.  In response, the man giving the feast substitutes for the invited guests people chosen haphazardly.

In Matthew’s Gospel, the banquet is pictured as a marriage feast given for a king’s son.  The opening scene of the parable was very much in accordance with Jewish custom.  When invitations to a great feast, like a wedding banquet, were sent out, the precise time was not indicated.  It was only when everything was ready that servants were sent out to inform the invited guests that it was time to come.  We see this procedure reflected in our parable; however, when the guests were actually summoned they refused to come and even acted shamefully.

The original perspective of the parable would appear to be the rejection of Jesus’ message by most of his contemporaries and their substitution by the motley group that made up the following of Jesus.  A double focus is discernible: a vindication of Jesus’ openness and offer of forgiveness to tax collectors and sinners while the Jewish leaders (the invited guests) express rejection of him; also, a warning that failure to act when the decisive moment comes (the actual summons to the feast) brings exclusion from the banquet.

A word must be said about a verse within the parable that seems strangely out of place ― a verse that likely was not part of the parable as Jesus told it, but an interpretation by Matthew.  That verse concerns the king who, enraged by the mistreatment and murder of his servants, sent troops who destroyed the murderers and burned their city.  Matthew, who wrote his Gospel sometime after 80 A.D., appears to be making a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem by the armies of Rome in 70 A.D.

Also, we should make mention here of something else that is particular to Matthew ― his conclusion to the parable, which is not found in Luke.  Actually, these concluding verses are a little parable within a parable: the story of a guest who appears at a royal wedding feast without a wedding garment and is therefore ejected.  This idea of a parable used to conclude another parable would explain and soften somewhat the jarring effect we are left with.  How would poor guests, gathered in from the thoroughfares without a previous invitation, be expected to be wearing proper attire?  Their treatment by the king would seem to be unfair.

In the Parable of the Wedding Feast, we note that some of the originally invited guests refused the king’s invitation in order to attend to matters that were not bad in themselves: to look after the administration of a livelihood or to attend to business.  This reminds us that we must never be so busy with the things of daily living ― work, social involvement, recreation ― that we neglect the things of God; never so responsive to the clamor of the world that we do not hear the gentle invitation of the voice of Christ.

Fundamentally, this parable is about God’s gratuitous invitation to live in his grace, to partake of the lavish banquet of his loving favor.  The originally invited guests and, even more so, those who were invited in from the thoroughfares had no claim whatever on the king.  The invitation extended to them came from nothing other than the king’s open-hearted and generous hospitality.  So it is with us humans and God’s munificent offer of grace in Jesus Christ.

Finally, the parable’s conclusion invites us to reflect that prior to the final judgment, the church will necessarily be composed of both the good and the bad; however, that will not be true of the "eternal banquet" with God.  Those who respond to God’s invitation, both the good and the bad, must have something other than a "Yes, Lord" to bring them to the judgment; they must be clothed with grace and with the deeds expected of a Christian disciple.

This parable, peculiar to Matthew, is rather simple in character and has none of the elements of surprise and paradox that we associate with the other parables of Jesus.  A father asks one of his sons to go and work in the vineyard.  The son refuses at first, but then has a change of heart and goes to work in the vineyard.  The father, who knows only of his first son’s refusal, goes to his second son and makes a like request of him.  The man immediately agrees to the request but does not go to work.

Jesus then asks the chief priests and elders of the people: "Which of the two did his father’s will?"  After they give the obvious answer, Jesus lays before them the parable’s application: "Tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you."  Jesus then recalls the ministry of John the Baptist whom "when (he) came to you in the way of righteousness, you did not believe . . .; but tax collectors and prostitutes did."

A key to interpreting this parable is to be found in the question that Jesus puts to the chief priests and elders: "Which of the two sons did his father’s will?"  The son who says "Yes" to his father but then does not go to work as requested is contrasted to the son who rejects the Father’s request but subsequently goes to work.  The parable, in its original form, could have been meant simply to highlight the difference between saying and doing in living the faith that one professes.  However, the addition of verses 31-32, where Jesus describes the reaction of the chief priests and elders to the Baptist’s preaching, gives the parable a more specific application.  The two sons represent, respectively, the religious leaders who prided themselves on their external religious observance but lacked genuine interiority, and the outcasts of Jewish society who responded positively to John’s call to repentance and change of heart.  By their answer to Jesus’ question, the religious leaders pronounce a condemnation on themselves.  However, Matthew, as he recounts this parable, may have in mind the Jewish religious leaders of his own day.  He does not despair of them; on the contrary, though they may resemble the second son who said "Yes" but did not obey, they are now summoned to that life and truth by the Gospel.  They can still say "Yes."

Perhaps in the two sons of the parable we can see two contrasting groups of people in the Christian community.  There are those who, like the second son in the parable, seem to speak a ready "Yes" to God, but their profession is better than their practice.  They give a great exterior display of religious piety and fidelity, but interiorly they lack a genuine appreciation and assimilation of the spirit and ideals of Christ’s Gospel and of the teachings of his church.  On the other hand, there are those who at one time, and perhaps even for a lengthy period, strayed widely from Christ and his church; but at some point they were deeply touched by grace and underwent a profound conversion.  Their reconciliation with Christ and his church was perhaps without exterior drama and fanfare, and they endured the continuing suspicions and calumnies of their "pious" coreligionists.  These people may be regarded with disdain and go about the living of their faith in quiet humility, but they are the ones who truly do the will of their Father.

Finally, our parable reminds us that mere promises cannot replace true performance; fine words cannot substitute for genuine deeds.  The son who said he would go to work in the vineyard and then did not, showed the outward marks of courtesy toward his father, calling him "Sir," a term of respect, but it was a courtesy vitiated by disobedience.  On the other hand, the son who at first refused to go to work but subsequently went demonstrates how basic obedience can, to a degree, make up for a lack of courtesy and respect.  Both sons have something to teach us.  The Christian way is in the actual performance of God’s will and not simply in promise; and the ideal in giving obedience to God’s will is in assenting to it with reverence and readiness.

October 28, 2007
The Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16)

Far from depicting an imaginary situation, this parable describes something that occurred frequently at particular times in Palestine, namely, the practice of hiring day-laborers for occasional work.  Soon after the grape harvest ripened toward the end of September, came the rains.  If the grapes were not gathered in before the rains fell, the harvest was ruined.  Since getting the harvest in was a race against time, any available laborers were welcome, even if only an hour of work was all they put in.

Like the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant, this parable can be seen as a drama that unfolds in several acts: the hiring of workers at various times of the day; the paying of wages at the end of the day; and a dénouement, the dialogue between the landowner and the grumbling workers.  The narrative of the parable holds a few surprises, the first of which is the fact that the landowner, rather than his steward, goes out from morning till evening to recruit laborers. Important to note, also, is the fact that all the laborers agree, explicitly or implicitly, to a just wage, a denarius.

A second surprise is anticipated when the payment of the laborers is reversed; normally those who had worked the full day would be the first to receive their wage.  Then, the truly shocking surprise appears: the landowner, portrayed as both just and generous, pays those who were hired last, at early evening (the "eleventh hour"), the same amount as those who were hired at dawn.

The parable concludes with a dialogue between the landowner and the disgruntled workers.  The landowner’s countering response to their complaint is threefold: 1. he did them no injustice; 2. he is free to do as he wishes with his money, namely, to be generous to those hired last; 3. he questions the attitude of the disgruntled, "Are you envious because I am generous?"  The parable is then capped with the famous saying: "Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last" ― a saying which, according to some Scripture scholars, may be an interpretive addition to the parable, making the point that in the reign of God "the first," the Jews or Jewish Christians, have no advantage over "the last," the Gentiles.

The Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard can be interpreted within a narrow or a broader perspective.  In the first perspective, the parable looks to the early disciples, perhaps even to Jesus’ closest disciples, the Twelve.  We are to understand that an early call to discipleship has no relevance to status in the kingdom of God.  Whenever it should happen that we are called to the kingdom, we are admitted to full participation.  The kingdom does not become the "possession" of those who were first called by Jesus, not even of those who designated to hold positions of prominence or authority.

An interpretation of our parable within a broader perspective looks to God’s saving and generous intervention in regard to those who might be seen as outside the bounds of God’s care.  The justice of God is not to be measured against human justice.  Divine justice, for example, forgives our unpayable debts and summons us to forgive others without limit as an expression of gratitude.  If we do otherwise, we risk the judgment pronounced on the unmerciful servant (Mt 18:21-35).  Like the complaining laborers, we are challenged by mercy and goodness to move beyond our stringent sense of justice.

God’s ways are not our ways.  God reverses the categories of value and worth that we tend to erect to separate ourselves from others.  The Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard invites us not only to renounce any attitudes of resentment where the gift of God’s grace to others is concerned, but even to rejoice with all who are the beneficiaries of God’s great generosity.

September 23, 2007
The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Matthew 18:23-35)

The Parable of the Net, which is peculiar to Matthew, reiterates motifs from the parable concerning the wheat and the weeds: the kingdom of God, in its present manifestation, includes both the good and the bad; but at the "close of the age" the righteous will be separated from the wicked.  Again, Jesus sets before his audience the tasks of everyday life to provoke reflection on spiritual realities.

In Palestine, in ancient times, there were two principal methods of fishing.  The first method involved the use of a hand-net that was cast from the shore.  When a school of fish was in sight, the fisherman skillfully threw out his net and allowed its leaded circumference to strike the water’s bottom.  The net with its catch was then drawn to shore.

The second method, the one referred to in this parable, was the dragnet, also called a seine.  The seine-net was a very large oblong net having floats at the top edge and weights at the bottom.  Certain members of a fishing group would stand on the shore paying out the net, while others in a boat would lead the other end of the net round in a circle till the circle was closed, the boat returning to the point of departure.  At rest in the water, the net hung in a vertical position.  Then, with its bottom first brought tight to prevent the fish from escaping, the net was pulled in.

The use of the dragnet was very familiar to at least several of Jesus’ disciples.  They themselves had frequently employed this fishing technique; they were practiced at drawing the squirming catch to shore and then sorting it.  Fish without scales and fins, forbidden as food by the Levitical law, were discarded; edible fish were set aside to sell.  The disciples were, no doubt, struck by the aptness of Jesus’ imagery to describe the event of God’s kingdom.

Two great lessons are set before us in this parable.  Firstly, a dragnet, by its nature, cannot discriminate in regard to the fish caught.  As the net makes its way through the water, it is bound to draw in all kinds of fish.  This image reminds us that the church, the instrument of God’s kingdom on earth, is bound to be a mixture of many kinds of people, the good and the bad, the fervent and the lukewarm, the productive and the ineffectual.  This parable is a strong reminder that we must resist the notion of a church composed exclusively of the "perfect" and "worthy."  As we had occasion to say when considering the Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds, in its present stage the kingdom of God, in its earthly manifestation, the church, is necessarily a mixture of the good and the bad.

Secondly, the parable teaches that the time of separation, the bad from the good, will eventually come ― a time of judgment when the just and the wicked will be sent to their respective designations.  However, that separation and judgment is not the responsibility of humans but of God.  For the present, it is the church’s task to invite, welcome, instruct, and exhort all who will come in; and, of course, rebuke those of its members who stray (Lk 17:3; 1 Tm 5:20).  Final judgment, however, must be left to God.

Finally, we should be aware that no parable does justice to all the facts and complexities of life.  No concept of predestination can be drawn from the image of the dragnet that gathers into itself both the good and the bad, the good to be saved, the bad to be thrown away.  We humans are endowed with the God-given gift of freedom; we can choose to live or refuse to live for him who draws the net.

July 8, 2007
The Parable of the Precious Pearl (Matthew 13:45-46)

This parable concerning the pearl of great price is twin with that of the hidden treasure, but it has significant differences.  The "hero" in the Parable of the Hidden Treasure was not a man of means ― he had, out of necessity, to sell all his possessions to buy the field ― whereas the merchant in search of fine pearls was, apparently, a relatively wealthy individual, and perhaps a connoisseur of pearls.  The plowman did not expect to find anything, but the merchant was on the lookout for a surpassing jewel.  Yet, the focused truth of the parable is the same: it is worth every effort to come into possession of it.

In the ancient world, pearls had a certain fascination for those who could afford them.  Pearls were prized not only for their money value but also for their beauty.  People found pleasure in handling a pearl and admiring its luster.  Perhaps the fascination of this jewel stemmed, in part, from the fact that it originated in far-off places like the shores of the Red Sea, which for the people of Palestine at the time of Jesus was the main source of pearls.  A merchant, however, might scour the markets of quite distant lands in search of a pearl of surpassing beauty.

It is quite suggestive that Jesus would compare the kingdom of heaven to a pearl.  To the people of the ancient world, a pearl was, as we said, a greatly prized possession, something of value, beauty, and delight.  So the kingdom of heaven, in a far surpassing way, is a reality of value, beauty, and delight.

To possess this reality, to live within its actuality is to open one’s mind, heart, and soul lovingly to the will of God.  This means that the giving of one’s will and life to God does not entail anything that is grim, gloomy, and agonizing; it is, rather, a thing of satisfaction and blessedness.

Beyond the discipline, the sacrifice, the self-denial, the "cross" that every true follower of Jesus must shoulder, there lies the supreme goodness, truth, and beauty that is to be found nowhere else.  There is only one way to bring peace to one’s heart, truth to one’s mind, joy and beauty to one’s life, and that is to open one’s self absolutely to the will and love of God.

Suggestive, also, is Jesus’ reference in this parable to "a pearl of great price."  There are other pearls, but only one pearl of great price.  In other words, there are many fine things in this world and many things in which a person can find goodness, beauty, and delight.

Such things, for example, can be found in knowledge and intellectual exploration, in literature, art, and music.  They are to be found in human relationships and close friendships as well as in the service of one’s fellow men and women.  All such things are sources from which it is possible to derive an experience of goodness, beauty, and delight; but they pale before the supreme goodness, beauty, and delight of God’s kingdom.

In both the Parable of the Hidden Treasure and the Parable of the Precious Pearl, the protagonist "goes and sells all that he has" to obtain his great discovery.  The renunciation involved, however, is not without a joy and satisfaction in finally possessing the treasure and the precious pearl.  With these parables, Jesus assures his original disciples, and us, that our renunciations for the sake of attaining "the kingdom of heaven" will have their reward.

June 17, 2007
The Parable of the Hidden Treasure (Matthew 13:44)

With this installment of Pondering the Parables, we move from the Gospel of Mark to the Gospel of Matthew.  In contrast to Mark, Matthew has a great number of parables, many of which are impressive narratives wherein human actions and decisions engage the hearer.  Matthew loves the grand scale; for example, the treasure and the pearl exceed all value (13:44-46), and the ten bridesmaids are the retinue for a rich man’s daughter (25:1-13).  Also, Matthew exhibits a fondness for "end of time" imagery to underscore the crucial life decisions occasioned by the teaching of Jesus.  The stakes are heaven or hell, darkness, weeping, and gnashing of teeth.  Dramatic interaction, imaginative language, and religious awe provide the grand setting of the theological world Matthew wishes to convey.

A striking thrust in the Parable of the Wheat among the Weeds, a parable peculiar to Matthew, is the contrast between the householder who waits until the harvest and the servants who are eager to root out the weeds at first sight.  Also, the parable contains the paradox that the action of the enemy, which was meant to harm the owner of the field, ends by benefiting him in as much as the weeds are used for fuel.

The series of pictures within this parable was familiar to the people of Palestine.  The weed in question was the bearded darnel, a vegetation curse against which farmers had to labor.  In its early stages, the bearded darnel resembled wheat so closely that it was impossible to distinguish the one from the other.  It was only when they had grown to maturity that it became possible to tell them apart.  By that time, however, their roots were so intertwined that the darnel could not be pulled out without tearing up the wheat with them.  But the two had to be separated because if the darnel, a poisonous plant, were ground up with the wheat, it contaminated the flour; and any bread made with such flour caused nausea if eaten.

The picture of a man deliberately sowing darnel in the field of an enemy is by no means far fetched.  Such a thing was actually done out of personal vengeance, and it was considered a crime for which Roman law prescribed penalties.  Even today, in certain countries of the Near East, one of the direct threats a man can make to an enemy is: "I will sow bad seed in your field."

For all its simplicity, the parable is one of the most practical ever told by Jesus, and contains important lessons.  The refusal of the householder to allow his servants to separate the wheat from the weeds, while they were still growing, is a warning to the disciples, and of course to us, not to attempt to anticipate the final judgment of God by a definite exclusion of sinners from the kingdom.  In its present stage, that kingdom ― we must think, here, of the church also ― is composed of the good and the bad.  It is not to be thought of as a community of the pure or righteous only.

The parable clearly conveys the truth that though evil individuals may seem to thrive in this world and be exempt from indications of divine judgment, judgment will indeed come when God will separate the sinful from the good (Mt 25:31-46).  Until then, there must be patience and the preaching of repentance; there must be mercy, forgiveness, and the refusal to judge and condemn.

May 5, 2007
The Parable of the Doorkeeper (Mark 13:33-37)

The Parable of the Doorkeeper brings us to the last of the parables found in the Gospel of Mark.  The parable, as originally spoken by Jesus, was probably a simple exhortation to watchfulness in the face of the advent of God’s kingdom.  Some Scripture scholars, however, believe that in his recounting of the parable, Mark intends an allegory about the life of the Christian community between the resurrection and the final coming of Jesus.

By the phrasing of the introductory verse (13:33) and by the addition of important details, Mark gives a distinctive meaning to this parable.  He begins with Jesus’ words: "Be watchful!  Be alert!  You do not know when the time will come."  These very first words link this parable with three other places in Jesus’ "end of time" discourse where Mark, in effect, warns his community to be observant and to exercise watchful care in light of the final coming of Jesus that was thought to be imminent.

Mark compares the life of his community to a situation where a man, later identified as "lord of the house" (13:35), goes on a distant journey.  This is intended as a metaphor for the absence of Jesus before his final return.  Before the lord of the house leaves on his journey, he entrusts his authority to his servants and in particular to the doorkeeper.  This imagery makes us recall that Jesus’ first appearance in Mark’s Gospel is as one who possesses a new teaching with authority (1:22, 27) and as the "Son of Man" who has power to forgive sin.  When Jesus issues his call to his disciples, he bestows power on them.  Also, we should note that the parable’s description of the servants placed in charge not only reflects early Christian usage, such as we find in the letters of Saint Paul, but also recalls Jesus’ command to the disciples to be servants of all, after the example of the Son of Man who came not to be served but to serve (10:45).  The power of authority, in Mark’s community, is to be expressed in service.

The brief indication that the lord of the house leaves the servants with power, "each with his work," has wider significance.  The phrase initially suggests that there are different tasks to be performed in the community even though they all share the same power.  We have, here, a perspective similar to Saint Paul’s description of different gifts and different ministries, all inspired "by one and the same Spirit" (1 Cor 12:4-11).  The tasks entrusted to the servants in the parable are both received from the lord of the house and carried out on his behalf.  From this, we conclude that tasks within the Christian community include both service within the community as well as missionary activity.

Approaching the parable from the angle of allegory, the household language used by Mark links this parable with other parts of his Gospel.  Mark reveals a number of places where significant events take place in a "house," such as healings and private instructions to the disciples.  Worthy of note, also, is the fact that "house" is a designation for the community itself.  Mark also uses household and family imagery to describe doing the will of God, as in 3:31-35 where those who do the will of God are seen as Jesus’ new family; also, in 10:28-31 the disciples who have left all to follow Jesus receive a new family along with houses.  Since we know from other passages of the New Testament, e.g., 1 Cor 16:19, that the first Christian meeting places were "house churches," we may assume that Mark’s community was such, and that our parable is an allegory of Christian life centered in house churches prior to the return of Jesus.

The Parable of the Doorkeeper has enduring significance for us Christians.  We simply do not know the day of the Lord’s return into our life (through personal death).  Whatever our position in Christ’s church, whether that of "doorkeeper" or of simple "servant," we must exercise spiritual watchfulness and application to our tasks.  Jesus’ concluding command must continually resound in our ears: "I say to all: ‘Watch!’"

April 29, 2007
The Parable of the Fig Tree (Mark 13:28, 29)

The Parable of the Fig Tree and the Parable of the Doorkeeper (Mk 13:33-37) conclude Jesus’ discourse concerning his return at the end of the world.  The discourse is a final testament of Jesus before his passion and death.

The illustration in the parable that concerns us here is the budding fig tree.  In Palestine, the fig tree is distinguished from other trees by completely shedding its leaves in winter, so that its first budding is a sign of the return of summer which comes quickly after a short spring.  The significance of the example chosen by Jesus, the fig tree, is due to its predictability.  In contrast to the fig tree, the almond tree may often flower prematurely and have its flowers withered by a late frost.  In recording this parable of Jesus, the evangelist Mark is exhorting his community, a community expecting the final and even imminent coming to Jesus, to be watchful, observant, and persevering in faith.

The discourse of Jesus, which concluded with the parables of the Fig Tree and the Doorkeeper, began with a prediction that the temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed (13:2) ― a prediction that precipitated a double question by the disciples: "When will this be, and what will be the sign when these things are to be accomplished?" (13:4).  In the first major section of Jesus’ discourse, traditional "end of time" motifs ― wars, earthquakes, plagues, and famines ― are taken up.  These motifs are meant to signal the end of history; and that period is to be characterized by persecution and the profanation and destruction of the temple (13:9-23), after which there will be cosmic disturbances preceding the return of the Son of Man in order to gather the elect from the ends of the earth (13:24-27).

Mark narrates this discourse of Jesus in view of problems that were alive in his community.  Mark does not want his community to view the wars, civil disturbances, and persecutions that preceded the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. as the sign of the return of Jesus, as some claimed.  These things, as Jesus himself foretold, are only the antecedents to the end (13:7, 8) and the end will come only "after that tribulation" (13:24).  Mark counters those in his community, or individuals known by his community, who interpreted the destruction of the temple as the final days and claimed that in some way Jesus had returned and that his power and authority were being manifested (13:21, 22).  Mark uses the concluding parables to counter such claims with a proper understanding of the "end of time" and a perspective on life in community prior to the return of Jesus.

With the Scripture passage that we have just cited, Mark wishes to present a balanced understanding of the end of time and the Lord’s return.  Mark simply declares that the consummation of time and history, when the Son of Man will return, is as near as the summer after the budding of the fig tree ― no more than that.  In contrast to an enthusiasm that would claim that the "end time" has arrived and that Christ has returned, Mark says that the words of Jesus cannot be invoked to determine the precise day and hour of his return (13:32).  That precise day and hour must remain unknown to us; but that the Lord Jesus will return is as certain as the return of summer after the budding of the fig tree.  Christians, then, are to await the Lord’s return with great assurance and faithful vigilance.

This parable is actually a "hybrid," a cross between a parable and an allegory.  Though not all the details of the story have an inner meaning, they reveal such a meaning more than usual.  This is so because Jesus was employing images, situations, and facts that were part and parcel of Jewish thought and experience.

The story that Jesus narrates concerns something that could well happen in the Palestine of his day.  The country had much labor unrest and many absentee landlords.  The owner of the vineyard that is described might be someone who had sought a more comfortable location than Palestine.  If the owner followed the law, the first time for collecting the rental would be five years after the planting of the vineyard.  In such a case, the rental was paid in kind.  It might be a fixed and agreed percentage of the crop, or it might be a stated amount, irrespective of what the crop came to.

The persons and other details of the narrative are quite easily identified.  The owner of the vineyard is God, and the vineyard itself the people of Israel ― a picture with which Jews were perfectly familiar.  In the Old Testament, it is vividly depicted in Isaiah 5:1-7, a passage from which some of the details and language of our parable are taken.  This vineyard was fully equipped.  There was a wall to mark out boundaries, to keep out robbers, and to defend it from the assaults of wild animals.  There was a winepress, in which the grapes were crushed with the feet, and a wine vat into which the pressed-out juice flowed.  There was also a tower in which the wine was stored and the tenant farmers took shelter, and from which was kept watch for robbers at harvest time.

The tenant farmers represent the religious authorities throughout the history of the Jewish nation.  The servants sent by the vineyard owner stand for Israel’s prophets; also, the term servant is applied both to Moses (Jos 14:7) and to David (2 Sm 3:18).  The son is Jesus himself, the one who is seized, taken outside the vineyard (Jerusalem), and killed.

The parable contains such a wealth of truths that we can dwell on only a few of them here.  For one thing, the parable reveals the generosity, the trust, the patience, and the justice of God.  The vineyard was equipped with everything necessary to make the work of the tenant farmers easy and profitable.  Overall, human life and creation reveal the abundance of God’s gifts.  The owner of the vineyard went away and left the tenant farmers to tend to the vineyard themselves.  God trusts us enough to make our own way through life with much freedom of action.  Moreover, the owner gave the tenant farmers many chances to pay the debt they owed; he treated them with a patience they little deserved.  Finally, humans may take advantage of God’s patience, but in the end comes judgment and justice.

Central to the parable, however, is what it says about Jesus.  In the context of the parable, Jesus regarded himself not as one of the "servants" but as the "son."  Jesus was not in the succession of Israel’s prophets, but was God’s Son, his last and final word spoken to his people.  The parable was a deliberate challenge to the Jewish authorities because it contained the unmistakable claim of Jesus to be the Messiah.  Besides, the parable tells us that Jesus knew that he was to die violently.  The cross did not come to him as a surprise.  He knew that the way he had chosen could have no other ending.

Lastly, the parable tells us that Jesus was sure of his ultimate triumph.  He knew that his mistreatment and death would not be the end but that after the rejection would come the glory.  Jesus, "the stone which the builders rejected" (Ps 118:22), became the cornerstone.  He who was regarded as insignificant to human beings has become the foundational reality of the world’s re-creation.  This foundational reality was, in the eyes of the New Testament writers such as Luke, Paul, and Peter, Jesus in his salvific dying and rising.

With this parable, Jesus, who represents God as the one who longs for a loving response from us humans, summons us to a conversion, and warns us of the consequences of rejecting God’s continued behest to us.  The parable invites us to think of ourselves as the vineyard workers, confronted by a God who, in his Son, continually seeks us, but one whom we are capable of rejecting.

February 11, 2007
The Parable of the Mustard Seed (Mk 4:30-32)

There are in this parable two pictures that every Jew of Jesus’ day would readily recognize.  First, in Palestine a grain of mustard seed, though not the smallest of seeds, stood proverbially for the smallest possible thing.  This very small seed did in fact grow into something like a tree, attaining a height of seven or eight feet.  Also, birds were very fond of the little black seeds of this shrub, and a cloud of birds hovering over and settling on a mustard plant was a common sight.

Second, in the Old Testament one of the most common ways of describing a great kingdom was to depict it as a tree; and subsidiary nations within it were said to be like birds finding shelter within the shadow of its branches (Ez 17:22ff; 31:1ff).  The figure of a tree with birds in its branches stands for a great kingdom and the many nations that form part of it.

In comparing the kingdom of God to a tiny mustard seed, Jesus is telling his hearers, and especially his disciples, that they must not be daunted by small beginnings.  Even the kingdom of God begins by producing a small effect; but if that effect is repeated many times over, it will become very great.  Jesus’ small band of disciples, called upon to announce and promote God’s kingdom according to Jesus’ teaching and example, were people of ordinary social status and of limited means; yet, the cumulative effect of their small but dedicated efforts would ultimately produce an amazing result.  Jesus’ disciples are to understand that the kingdom of God must begin in a very small and almost hidden manner, but its eventual growth will be greatly disproportionate to its beginnings and will bring forth surprising results.

Christian history offers an astonishing commentary on this parable.  The church, the historical embodiment of God’s kingdom, had a tiny beginning: the work of an obscure itinerant preacher named Jesus and of a small group of disciples, twelve very ordinary men; and yet, this small entity has become "the greatest of all shrubs."  No limits can be set on the accomplishments of a small group of individuals whose lives are imbued with the grace of the kingdom, possessed by the Spirit of God, and dedicated utterly to the person of Christ.  For nearly two thousand years, we see in history the divine impulsion upon humanity and the world.  We can see the tiny beginnings in Saint Paul, journeying to Athens and Rome; face to face with the overwhelming intellectual and political powers of his time.  We can see it also in the church’s great missionary saints: Patrick, Boniface, Cyril and Methodius, Isaac Jogues, Junipero Serra ― to name only a few.

Jesus’ Parable of the Mustard Seed was evidently given to reassure his disciples that the apparently meager results of his preaching and ministry are no measure by which to judge the greatness of the kingdom of God that he proclaims.  The growth of this kingdom is of God’s determination and providence, but that it will grow and come to realization is certain.

From our historical vantage point, we are heartened to see Christ’s church, the temporal expression of God’s kingdom, implanted in every part of the world and encompassing every race and nationality.  Also, like the birds of the parable, we delight in having spiritual nourishment, protection, and refreshment in the "shade" of his church.

January 14, 2007
The Parable of the Seed Growing Slowly (Mk 4:26-29)

Here we have a parable that is found only in the Gospel of Mark.  It is also the first parable that Mark explicitly calls a kingdom parable.

Like the Parable of the Sower, this parable admits of several points of interest in its interpretation.  There is an initial contrast between the inactivity of the farmer who simply scatters the seed and then returns to the rhythm of this daily activities and the dynamic activity of the seed.  The description of the seed as sprouting and growing, without the farmer knowing how, suggests that the central thrust, here, is the mystery of growth.  On the other hand, as verse eight states: the earth yields fruit "of its own accord" ― which underscores the power of the earth and the seed.  The final verse of the parable announces that the ripening of the grain is the signal for the harvest to begin so that no time should be lost: "he wields the sickle at once."

As has been said, the text of the parable lends itself to a wide range of interpretive possibilities, and through the centuries Christians have articulated many interpretations.  Some commentators have placed the emphasis on the harvest, suggesting that the conclusion of time and history is realized in the coming of Jesus.  Others have stressed the contrast between the inactivity of the farmer and the certainty of the harvest.  In other words, it is a parable of assurance that the final "end of time" realities (appearance of Christ, judgment, etc.) begun in the ministry of Jesus are manifesting themselves, and nothing can be done to hasten their arrival.  Still other commentators have suggested that the parable was meant to counter a zealot-like impulse to hasten the arrival of God’s kingdom through the use of force; but patient waiting, and not violent activity, brings the harvest.

As in the Parable of the Sower, a lulling effect is conveyed by the picture of the farmer who follows the natural rhythms of life ― sleep and rising, night and day ― juxtaposed with the rhythms of the growth of vegetation: "first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear."  This rhythmic balancing recalls the rhythms of times in the book Ecclesiastes, "a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted" (3:2); there is God’s time and human time.  In Jesus’ parable, these times inter-sect when the grain is ripe and the harvest has come ― an image with strong overtones of end-of-time judgment.  Now is the time for the rhythm of nature to cease and for the farmer to take action.

With this parable, Jesus offers a simple proclamation of God’s kingdom.  He invites his original hearers, and us, his present-day hearers, to connect with the images he sets before them ― to see their daily lives mirrored in the parable.  God’s activity and power have their times and rhythms, and human activity cannot control or hasten their manifestation.  On the other hand, we are summoned to think of a new time when God’s reign and season of grace may intersect with our lives and shake up their ordinary and tranquil rhythm.  Then is the time for immediate and generous response on our part.

December 17, 2006
The Parable of the Sower (Mk 4:3-8)

We begin our consideration of the parables of Jesus with the first of six parables found in the Gospel According to Mark, the Parable of the Sower.  We have here a little narrative that paints a rather simple and idyllic picture.  In what seems a haphazard manner, a sower goes out into a field and scatters seed.  The parable describes the failure of three sowings: that which fell on the path and was devoured by birds; that which landed on rocky ground and was scorched by the sun because it had no roots; and that which dropped among thorns and was eventually choked.  One-fourth of the seed, however, yields a harvest that is not only bountiful but also extraordinary, since a tenfold yield was a very good harvest indeed.

This is a parable that lends itself to various interpretations.  Some Scripture scholars maintain that its common designation, Parable of the Sower, is the least apt, because the sower is simply mentioned and does not appear as a dramatic character.  He does not rejoice in the bountiful harvest nor does he order it to be harvested.  Neither is it a parable of the seed as such, since it is the same seed that lands on four different locations.

Concentration on different aspects of the parable has yielded some fruitful interpretations.  Some commentators point out that since a very good harvest emerged from the seed sown on rich soil, Jesus is proclaiming that now is the time to reap the fruit of the harvest.  Others call attention to the difference between the time of sowing and that of the harvest as well as to the discrepancy between the three failures and the great harvest.  So then, in this parable Jesus is assuring his disciples that what God has begun in his ministry, despite some failures, will have ultimate success.

A close examination of the movement and images of the parable yields another and perhaps more exact interpretation.  The first three sowings are shown in their temporal progression.  Each begins with a mention of the seed itself; then proceeds to the situation that the seed encounters (path, rocky ground, thorns), and concludes with the failure of the seed to mature.  The parable creates a dramatic effect, not by simply listing the three failures in contrast to the one great harvest but by depicting a progression in the growth of the seed.  The description of the three failures first builds up the hearer’s expectation, and then shatters it.  This is the rhythmic progress of nature ― a fact that can lull the hearer into a sense of resignation about the way things unfold in nature.  But then, the description of the successful sowing explodes with verbs of motion: the seed fell, brought forth grain, grew up, increased, and yielded thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold.

The contrast between a 75% failure and an extraordinary harvest suggests that there is no comparison between the expectation people have concerning God’s kingdom and the final glorious reality and effect of that kingdom.  Jesus’ teaching about the kingdom and his activity on its behalf is something that overturns the way in which we feel that life normally operates and the usual patterns it follows.

With the Parable of the Sower, Jesus wished to move his listeners to open their hearts generously to the word of God and to expect wonderful things from the in-breaking of God’s kingdom ― a kingdom of truth and life, holiness and grace, justice, love, and peace ― into their lives and into human history.  He wishes to do the same in our regard for our hearing the parable of the sower.

December 3, 2006
Introduction

The parables of Jesus are passages of Scripture that we hear proclaimed with some frequency in the Gospel reading at Mass as the liturgical year unfolds.  And, of course, in our personal reading of the four Gospels, we inevitably come upon them ― and sometimes in quick succession.  The parables of Jesus, short fictitious narratives that make a moral or religious point, have perhaps struck us in a variety of ways.  Possibly they stirred our imagination, or confirmed a personal conviction, or caused us to reflect on a particular point.  Then again, perhaps they left us somewhat bewildered.  If that was their effect, they probably kindled within us a desire to deepen our understanding of them and to penetrate their meaning.  That desire, perhaps, was present but never carried through for one reason or another.  In the coming months, in this column, I would like to explain that fascinating portion of New Testament Scripture that is the parables of Jesus.

Background Information
Before we delve into Jesus’ parables as such, it would be useful to say a few words about the parable as a device in literature in general and in Scripture.  The English word parable is from a Greek word whose root connotation signifies the placing of things side by side for the sake of comparison.  As we learned in our high school literature class, comparisons fall into two general categories: the simile and the metaphor.  In a simile, one thing is likened or compared to another of a different kind for the purpose of illustration.  Often in a simile, we find the word "like" or "as"; for example, in the Gospel of Matthew we hear Jesus say, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites.  You are like whitewashed tombs" (23:27).  This colorful method of describing something is quite common in our everyday speech.  On the other hand, metaphor is a compressed simile in which one thing is identified or equated with another, or else the qualities of one thing are directly ascribed to another.  In Matthew 5:13-14, for example, we hear Jesus exclaim: "You are the salt of the earth . . . you are the light of the world."  This figure is more literary than the simile and is frequently found in poetry.

The more elaborate forms of illustration that we find in the parable and the allegory are really expansions of the basic figures.  A parable is a developed simile in which the story, while fictitious, is true to life, differentiating a parable from a fable.  An allegory is a developed metaphor prolonged into a continuous narrative.  Ideally, the parable is distinct from allegory.  In the parable, the details and characters have no hidden meaning, the important thing being the lesson of the story.  But in practice, as a number of Gospel parables show, the traits of allegory are often present in a parable.

Jesus, the Storyteller
Jesus was a master storyteller, knowing how to make use of illustrations from daily life that attracted his hearers’ attention.  Outdoor scenes of farming and shepherding, indoor scenes in simple one-room houses, laborers and merchants at their workplace, children in the marketplace, wild and domestic animals, lamps and wineskins, harvests, fields, trees, and flowers ― all figured in parables narrated with vividness and color.

Jesus employed well the techniques of storytelling.  One of these was the "rule of three," according to which it was customary to have three characters with the point of illustration lying in the third.  We find this, for example, in the parable of the three servants entrusted with the talents (Mt 25: 14-30), and the three individuals who pass the man who fell among robbers (Lk 10:30-36).  Another technique is that of direct discourse; characters talk aloud to themselves so that the hearer may find out what is in their minds.  We have an example of this in the parable of the rich fool (Lk 12:16-21) and of the Pharisee and the publican (Lk 18:9-14).

The Purpose of Parables
Finally, we may ask: what was the purpose of Jesus’ parables?  The overwhelming evidence of the Gospels is that the parables were spoken by Jesus to give his message greater intelligibility and appeal.  If at times particular parables left individuals uncomprehending, blinded in mind and heart (Mk 4:1-12), it was more because these individuals refused their piercing challenge than because they could not be intellectually understood.

Having provided this all too brief background, we are now ready to delve into the parables narrated in the Gospels.  Our hope is that in the coming months we shall be enlightened intellectually and enriched spiritually for our pondering the parables of Jesus.

Home