Encountering the Sower

Mark 4:1-20

DONALD H. JUEL
Professor of New Testament Theology
Princeton Theological Seminary

The parable of the Sower is problematic not because of its obscu-

rity but precisely because of its utter clarity. The uneasiness the
parable provokes will be settled only by a word from God, encoun-
tered in a community in which the gospel is preached and the
sacraments celebrated.

IP • his century has witnessed such significant development in the interpretation

I of the parables that a student might wonder if interpreters are reading the
mJLm same texts. The differences between Jülicher and Jeremías, on the one hand,
and Funk and Wilder, on the other, are striking. One group is more interested in knowing
the intent of the author, the other in the power of the story to work on hearers. It is never-
theless remarkable how clearly the historical paradigm has dominated scholarship for the
last century. Even interest in how parables "work" can be focused on the past, given the con-
viction still shared by many that the primary job of the biblical scholar is to indicate what
the material meant to another audience at another time and place.
It is a different matter to ask what a parable "means" —to study in order to know how
the story will play in the present. Pastors have a stake in precisely such a question.1 How do
parables bear on a particular contemporary setting? Historical information may prove use-
ful—perhaps even necessary—in understanding the story, but its value is to assist contem-
porary readers in their full "appreciation." Meaning must furthermore be understood to
include affect. Parables do more than communicate information. They must "teach, delight,
and move" an audience, to borrow Augustine's language. The literature of the Bible, in this

^ee P. Keifert, "Mind Reader and Maestro: Models for Understanding Biblical Interpreters," WW 1 (1981)
153-68; and D. Juel, "The Strange Silence of the Bible," Int 51 (1997) 5-19.
274 Interpretation JULY 2 0 0 2

case a parable, intends to engage readers, not just instruct them. Propositions might suffice
for instruction. These short narratives do more.

WHAT SHALL WE READ?

It may seem strange even to pose such a question. Our "text" is the parable of the
Sower in the Gospel of Mark, which includes the parable, a question from the disciples, and
Jesus' interpretation of the parable (4:3-20). Interpreters have felt free, however, to omit
some of the verses from the text to be interpreted—and not on text-critical grounds. With
the dramatic increase in the use of the lectionary among preachers across denominational
boundaries, it is more than a little significant how the common lectionary shapes reading
practices. For many years, the parable of the Sower has been read only in its Matthean
form. The lectionary has offered readers the possibility of reading only the parable (Matt
13:1-9; Mark 4:1-9) or the parable and its interpretation (Matt 13:1-9, 18-23; Mark 4:1-9,
4:13-20). Jesus' first response to the disciples' question includes some difficult words about
seeing and understanding, and these verses are omitted (Matt 13:10-17; Mark 4:10-12).
The result is a text that does not exist in the Bible—particularly misleading when worship-
pers see the lection in printed form on a single page and may not even recognize that they
are reading an abridgment.

On what grounds does one commend a reading of the parable that omits verses? The
practice will seem more reasonable to those initiated into the mysteries of biblical scholar-
ship. It seems so reasonable, in fact, that its propriety is never even questioned by many
interpreters. There are reasons for the decisions, even if they are not stated. Close reading of
the passage in Mark, for example, discloses some grammatical infelicities. In the parable
itself, Jesus speaks of a farmer who plants seed. The noun "seed," singular or plural, is never
used. Reference is made to batches (of seed), for which either a relative pronoun is used
(ho) or the pronoun "other" (alio in 4:5, 7; alia in v. 8). In each case, the pronouns are
neuter singular (except the last, which is a neuter plural). The focus of the little story is the
planting of each batch and a brief report of its fate.

In the interpretation of the parable, four demonstrative pronouns are employed to

refer back to the story ("these are the ones," 4:15, 16; "others," v. 18; "those," v. 20). In each
case, however, the pronouns are masculine plural. Further, in the allegorical explanation,
Jesus identifies what is sown as "the word" (v. 15). Yet while in each of the four scenarios
the antecedent of "these are the ones who" is supposedly the seed, the interpretation views
them as receptors:
These are the ones on the path where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately
comes and takes away the word that is sown in them (v. 15).

Not without considerable awkwardness, the parable of the Sower thus becomes the parable
of the Four Kinds of Soil.

Why the grammatical awkwardness? Most scholars have been convinced by explana-
PARABLES Interpretation 275

tions drawn from a reconstructed history of tradition: while the original parable was about
a farmer and four batches of seed, the parable was reinterpreted to be about the soil—i.e., a
story about various sorts of reception. It is not difficult to imagine how the change in set-
ting to congregational preaching and teaching might have occasioned the shift. We find in
the present Gospel of Mark, according to such a reconstruction, both the signs of editorial
activity and remnants of earlier sources.

Editorial activity may also explain the strange shifts in 4:10-13. After Jesus tells the
parable, the scene shifts to another time when Jesus is "alone" with an inner circle ("those
who were around him along with the twelve" [v. 10]) who ask him about "the parables." His
somewhat cryptic response about
secrets and concealment in w. 11-12
is followed by what appears to be a I T h e so-called promise of the story soon
direct response to a question about a begins to take on another character, provok-
particular parable: "And he said to ing anxieties without offering any way of
them, 'Do you not understand this | silencing them.
parable? Then how will you under-
stand all the parables?' " (v. 13).
According to v. 10, however, the dis-
ciples have not asked only about this parable but about "the parables." Again, the awkward-
ness can be accounted for in terms of an editorial process that includes not only the addi-
tion of an allegorical explanation to Jesus' parable but the insertion of a general statement
about Jesus' reason for choosing parables as a means of discourse—sometimes called
"Mark's parable theory," since it is the editor and not Jesus who is apparently responsible
for the "text" in its present form.2

This fairly complex set of observations and interpretive moves serves as a warrant for
offering readers a choice of what to read. What readers are not told is that these scholarly
proposals represent suggestions about other settings in which the parable is to be read.
Jeremías and those impressed by his arguments set out to locate the parable of the Sower,
like the other parables, within a reconstructed ministry of Jesus to understand "his" inten-
tion. For such readers, subsequent interpretation of the parable—including its allegorical
exposition and the editing that has combined the parable and explanation with a general
statement about parables—is a distortion of "the text" and thus must be excluded. The
Jesus Seminar has inherited this legacy, and the results of their historical reconstruction
agree largely with Joachim Jeremías: Jesus most likely told the parable of the Sower in a
form closest to that in the Gospel of Thomas; the "hardening theory" and allegorical expla-

2
Interpreters like Jeremías are willing to attribute the sense of the whole passage to Mark even while believing
that the cryptic statement about the use of parables may represent some form of an actual saying of Jesus (J.
Jeremías, The Parables of Jesus, trans. S. H. Hooke [New York: Scribners, 1963] 13-18).
276 Interpretation JULY 2 0 0 2

nations are later additions.3 Even Amos Wilder, a more sophisticated student of rhetorical
forms who has been as responsible as anyone for increased appreciation of the artistic and
the affective aspects of figurative speech in the New Testament, speaks of "the parable" as
the opening verses and of the following verses as distortions:
Inadequate interpretations of the parable are certainly connected with inattention to its literary fea-
tures. If it is not read as a distinctive form or artistic whole, alien motifsfroma wider context in the
gospel or the chapter are introduced. So one is carried into illegitimate allegonzation (from the sequel,
Mark 4:13ff.), or into the search for some esoteric teaching (Mark 4:11-12) 4

The decision to provide alternative settings within which to read the parable of the
Sower, in other words, is not without some justification. The unlikelihood of a convincing
reconstruction of a "setting in the life of Jesus" within which to locate the parable does not
mean the task itself is unjustified.5 Why would interpreters expend such effort to bypass the
scriptural setting for the parables? While the parables may have been told by Jesus in a con-
text quite different from that suggested in Matthew, Mark, or Luke, and while the parables
may have functioned differently in a collection of Jesus' sayings without a narrative frame-
work, they have come to us within distinct scriptural settings. Scholarship clearly reflects
deep suspicions about the scriptures and the scriptural setting and has proposed a variety
of reconstructed settings as alternatives.

Without investing here in an elaborate defense, I have chosen to read the parable in its
scriptural setting—which includes the grammatical infelicities as well as the larger setting
within the narrative.6 This is not to deny the value of historical reconstruction for appreci-
ating the form of the scriptures available to contemporary readers. It is rather to take seri-
ously the narrative context in which the parables now function. If one is to be suspicious, it
is perhaps scholarship that should be subjected to scrutiny. It is not impossible that one ele-
ment in the motivation of scholars to omit sections of the parable is discomfort with what
is said. The "text" we will interpret is Mark 4:1-20.

WHAT SHALL WE LISTEN FOR?

I can recall visiting modern art galleries with my wife, an artist, standing somewhat
puzzled before a canvas covered with drips of paint forming no recognizable figures. I

3
R Funk, et al., The Five Gospels The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (New York Macmillan, 1993)
190-93
4
A Wilder, Jesus' Parables and the War of Myths Essays on Imagination in the Scriptures (Philadelphia. Fortress,
1982) 91 In his introduction, Wilder defends his abandoning the literary setting of the parable from charges of
histoncism "The point is that 'what is written,' in the case of texts like these, is profoundly referential and does not
belong only to some detached 'story world' " (31) Wilder obviously does not see the same rhetorical power in the
narrative as in the isolated parables.
5
Famous efforts at such historical reconstruction have been made not only by Jeremías but by C H Dodd, The
Parables of the Kingdom (London· Nisbet, 1935), and Ν A Dahl, "The Parables of Growth," in Jesus in the Memory
of the Early Church (Minneapolis· Augsburg, 1976) 141-66
6
We ought not be naive in speaking too confidently about the "scriptural setting," since the biblical text will
always remain a reconstruction from existing manuscript evidence There is a difference, however, between select­
ing among manuscript options and reconstructing hypothetical settings for the passages
PARABLES Interpretation 277

wanted to do more than look at the painting. I wanted to appreciate it. For that, I had to
make a beginning. What, I would ask, should one look at first? I have had the same experi-
ence with atonal music. What does one listen for?

This analogy may prove useful for reading texts. There are many interesting features of
the parable of the Sower. Where shall we begin? It makes a difference if our interpreting
begins with an actual hearing of the parable.

Sensitive readers are good companions in appreciating a good story. "Why the strange
manner of farming?" some of my students familiar with farm life will ask. The farmer seems a bit
careless with his seed. Modern farmers are far more careful and efficient, planting only the right
number of seeds at precisely the right depth, with the proper insecticides and herbicides to
prevent loss. Commentators provide help by suggesting that ancient farming techniques
were perhaps not so backward because the soil was plowed after the seeds were planted.
Perhaps. It is still of note that the story does not seek to minimize the reality of risk and
even waste that modern farmers try to prevent. The farmer in our story is not overly cau-
tious. He throws seed everywhere, apparently confident there will be a harvest in spite of
the losses.

Following this thread can lead to productive discussions. Those who have read Mark's
narrative may note that the action of the farmer parallels Jesus' ministry. He is not cautious
about where he preaches and on whom he invests his time. Religious people and his own
relatives are not convinced that his activities have anything to do with the coming kingdom
of God. His relatives believe he may be "beside himself" (3:21,31-32); the religious author-
ities wonder if he is possessed (3:22). The little circle with whom he surrounds himself is
not terribly promising. But that carelessness about companions may be precisely the point:
"Those who are well have no need of a physician but those who are sick. I have not come to
call the righteous but sinners" (2:17). It may be that Jesus knows precisely what he is doing
and that, despite all the apparent waste, the harvest will come.

If the parable describes how it is with the Kingdom and not only with Jesus, perhaps
the same careless abandon should characterize the church's ministry—speaking gracious
words without carefully calculating the potential for success in the face of daunting chal-
lenges to growth. The interpretation is not without justification. The gospel story will pre-
pare for a time when Jesus is gone and when the task of preaching the gospel to all nations
will be entrusted to his followers (13:10).

In its scriptural setting, however, the parable is interpreted as having to do with differ-
ent sorts of reception. Perceptive readers will usually be curious about the allegorical inter-
pretation. The seed stands for the word. The focus becomes the different sorts of soil and
the situations in which the seed is given a chance to produce. In the first, Satan (the birds)
snatches the seed, and the soil produces nothing. In the second, lack of depth in the recep-
tors results in promising signs but no staying power when persecution (the scorching sun)
comes. In the third setting, there is some growth, but the concerns of this world (weeds and
thorns) choke off the plants and there is no yield. Only in the "good soil" is the seed
278 Interpretation JULY 2 0 0 2

received with faith and only here does it enjoy success.

Those with a literary bent and some knowledge of the gospel story that follows may
point out how the interpretation of the parable seems to serve as foreshadowing. The Devil
and unclean spirits are busily at work, even if occasionally interrupted by Jesus. The image
of the seed sprouting quickly in shallow soil may offer a glimpse of the disciples' perfor-
mance. They will not fare well when persecution comes—disciples at whose head is one
named "Rock." There is at least one rich man whose possessions make it impossible for him
to follow Jesus (10:17-22). The only group not clearly represented in the story are those of
the good soil, unless we are to understand these as the few simple people, like the woman
with a hemorrhage, who come to Jesus in trust. If that is the case, the narrative leaves
unclear what future they will have and what this has to do with the bountiful harvest
promised in the parable.

If an audience is not protected from the story world by historicizing interpretations

and is allowed to respond more personally to a hearing of the parable, listeners may begin
to speak of the allegory not only as a description of how it is in the story but of how it
actually is in the Kingdom. "What kind of soil are we?" someone will ask, as though the
parable were directed to contemporary hearers. The parable, particularly when read aloud,
has an immediacy that makes such a discussion seem appropriate. Discussion will most
likely focus on the distractions that seem to choke off growth in faith. As an interpretation
of our experience, the parable seems plausible. And with the turn of the discussion to our
own experience, the conversation will almost inevitably drift toward the hortatory. With the
question "What kind of soil are you?" driving the sermon, the preacher moves inexorably to
concluding exhortations: Be good soil! Be receptive. Don't let your life be overrun by busy
schedules and concern for wealth. Become the sort of person in whose life the word of God
may find a place to grow and flourish and produce.

The familiarity of such a reading of the parable is no evidence of its appropriateness. I

recall the first time one of my students questioned such a reading. She had grown up on a
farm. How strange, she noted, that we use the image of soil to exhort people to change. Soil
is a passive image. A farmer who began every day exhorting his fields to produce would
seem a fool. The soil awaits activity it cannot generate. How, she asked, do we turn this
parable into exhortation?

The question is quite appropriate. Jesus' parable includes no imperatives—except for

the command to "listen" (4:9). The parable simply describes how things are. And how is it
with the Kingdom? The Kingdom is like a tiny seed that, once planted, will become an
enormous shrub (w. 30-32). It is like a farmer who plants, then can only wait for the
growth to occur until the harvest arrives (w. 26-29). Or it is like a field in which there are
numerous threats, numerous setbacks—but still a bountiful harvest.

What does such a portrait of the Kingdom have to do with any particular audience? What
does it have to do with you? When the question begins to sink in, disquiet stirs. Uncertainties
begin to sprout. What if we find ourselves in one of the unproductive scenarios? What prospects
PARABLES Interpretation 279

are we given that things will change? The parable does not speak of changing soils, only of the
certainty of the harvest. The promise means little, however, unless there is some prospect of being
part of it. The so-called promise of the story soon begins to take on another character, provoking
anxieties without offering any way of silencing them.

Interpretation does not solve the hearer's disquietude, though the efforts are often
ingenious. Common, for example, is a psychological reading of the parable in which the
allegory speaks not so much about the kingdom of God as about the various states in which
individual believers may find them-
selves. At various points in our lives
we may be less than deeply commit-
ted; at other times we may be dis-
under control, listeners are left at the mercy
tracted by various concerns. The
goal, of course, is to be productive in of God without any way of controlling how
the end. But such a reading of the the encounter will turn out.
parable does not settle anything. In
fact, it just makes the problem clear-
er. What control do we have over the outcome—particularly if the basic image in the story
is soil? What prospect does the story offer that we can change anything? Attempts to make
the outcome somehow dependent upon our decision about what sort of soil we will be
seem little more than power moves. What are we to make, for example, of the activity of
Satan who snatches the seed before it can germinate? With what weapons is the soil fur-
nished to protect against such an attack? Interpreters will argue that the parable must pre-
sume hearers are responsible for what happens in their lives, implying that they have a
choice about such matters. What some have termed the "hidden imperative" in the story is
nothing of the sort, however. It is an attempt to rein in a situation that threatens to get out
of hand.

While the parable can be studied as an event within the ministry of Jesus or as a feature
of Mark's narrative, the parable can also be heard as a word for us. And when it is, it awak-
ens disquiet.

HARDENING

Of course the most difficult verses are the ones omitted in the lectionary (w. 10-12).
When he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about the
parables. And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for
those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that 'they may indeed look, but not per-
ceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiv-
en.' "

Jesus tells parables, he explains to his disciples, so that people will not understand. His dis-
ciples, insiders chosen by Jesus, get secrets and explanations. Outsiders get truth in veiled
form so that they will be unable to penetrate the secrecy.
280 Interpretation JULY 2 0 0 2

The efforts of interpreters to bring these verses under control border on desperation.
One strategy is to understand "outsiders" as those who have placed themselves outside
through unbelief. Consider the comment of John Donahue·

I would claim, then, that the distinctions between those around Jesus and the outsiders is not
between called disciples and the crowd, nor is it between Jews and Christians, but it is a distinc-
tion between those who will understand the true meaning of discipleship and those who will
not "Inside" and "outside" are existential, religious categories, determined by the kind of response
one makes to the demands of Jesus One of the great paradoxes m Mark is that Peter, the one first
called (1 16-17), who stands at the head of the Twelve (3 16), in his final appearance in the
Gospel, goes "outside," where he denies that he ever knew Jesus (14 68-71) 7

The comment about Peter, coupled with the performance of the rest of the disciples, hardly
instills confidence that there are any insiders, and it surely does not make Jesus' words any
more palatable

Or consider the view of Mary Ann Tolbert:

Thus the division between those who are given the mystery, the insiders, and those who hear rid-
dles, the outsiders, is not a simple opposition of disciples versus crowds, instead, it is an opposi-
tion of categories those who do the will of God and those who do not, those who have ears to
hear and those who have not The same parable will be heard differently by these two groups, for
outsiders will not understand, because they are outsiders, and insiders will understand because
they are insiders The parables, like Jesus' healing and preaching ministry in general, do not force
people outside or pull people inside, they simply reveal the type of ground already present8

Whether "keeping people outside" is different from "forcing people outside," Jesus says he
chooses his form of discourse so that outsiders will not understand and repent If Jesus, as
God's agent, cannot change anyone, Mark's story seems little different from those that
imagine humans to be at the mercy of Fate By the end of the story, as Tolbert imagines it,
everyone is "outside " Thus, the story offers no hope

Perhaps the most extraordinary effort to escape the plain meaning of the text is
Jeremias's famous argument that the Greek word mëpote in Jesus' statement ("lest they
turn") is a mistranslation of an Aramaic original that he is able to reconstruct from a later
targum of Isaiah 6 (only with great difficulty) What Jesus meant is that he is telling para-
bles "unless" people turn and are forgiven 9 Such an interpretation implies that the present
text of Mark is simply wrong and cannot mean what it says. The interpreter must thus pro-
vide another passage to be read as the scripture.

Much more interesting is to observe how the passage works on actual readers As
Robert Fowler points out, Jesus' disclosure to his disciples obscures matters for readers,
turning them—us—into outsiders through a strategy of "intentional opacity"·

7
J Donahue, The Gospel in Parable (Philadelphia Fortress, 1988) 43-44 (emphasis original)
8
M A Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel Mark's World in Literary Historical Perspective (Minneapolis Fortress, 1989)
160-61 (emphasis original)
9
Jeremías, Parables, 13-17
PARABLES Interpretation 281

The disciples are said to have been given privileged access to the secret (mysterion) of the
Kingdom of God For outsiders (tois exo), however, everything (ta panto) is in riddles
(parabolais) On the one hand, the disciples are said to be insiders, supposedly able to see
through Jesus' puzzling parabolai On the other hand, an outsider is anyone who has not
obtained access to the secret This contrast raises problems for the reader Most troubling per
haps is the clear indication that the disciples themselves do not in fact understand the parables,
which is implied by their call for a clarification in 4 10 Only slightly less troubling is the realiza
tion that must come to every reader at this junction, if only unconsciously, that because the read
er does not possess this touted "secret of the kingdom of God," the reader must therefore be an
10
outsider

And readers do notice Ordinary words on a page of an ancient text get through The
more sophisticated the reader, the more potent the effect Two of the finest readers of texts,
Frank Kermode and Meir Sternberg, find these verses extraordinarily offensive Kermode
dedicates his Genesis of Secrecy to "those outside," with reference to 4 12 u Sternberg identi­
fies this line from Mark as typical of New Testament (Christian) literature that excludes, in
contrast to the Hebrew scriptures, which he insists employ literary strategies that are invit­
12
ing Their interpretations indicate that they take Jesus' words to be descriptive not only of
some ancient situation but of the way the Bible actually functions it excludes some while it
includes others And both these scholars take offense

So, in fact, do most readers Some still turn to exegetical method in hopes that it will
solve the problems The presence of the allusion to Isaiah 6, for example, is often cited as a
way of understanding Jesus' strange words God's call of Isaiah, however, is of little help in
relieving the problem of the "hardening " The prophet's call includes a promise that his
preaching will not result in repentance but will in fact only make things worse It will hard­
en those whose eyes and ears God has closed

Our text makes a remarkable claim It suggests that stories like the parable of the Sower
that speak only of promises and not of requirements may be heard differently Some will
hear the stories as promises and will take heart, others will hear them as demands and take
offense The Bible proposes that Jesus' words are capable of hardening people against the
possibility of faith And the actual experience of the parable in classes and congregations
bears out the claim When interpretation fails to bring the text under control, listeners are
left at the mercy of God without any way of controlling how the encounter will turn out
And almost without exception, they become unsettled and angry "That sounds like predes­
tination " Or, "If that's the way it is, I suppose I'd prefer to be on the outside, with those
who are not included " Or again, "I will not believe in a God who hardens " The comments
are typical of discussions among readers of all sorts—including well-educated, sophisticat­

ion \γ Fowler Let the Reader Understand Reader Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark (Harrisburg, Pa
Trinity
n
Press International 2001 [1991]) 169 Thanks to Trinity for making this monumental work available again
F Kermode The Genesis of Secrecy On the Interpretation of Narrative (Cambridge Mass Harvard University
Press,
12
1979)
M Sternberg The Poetics of Biblical Narrative Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington
Ind Indiana University Press 1985) 48-49
282 Interpretation JULY 2 0 0 2

ed listeners—for whom the ancient words of the parable are intolerable. If they cannot be
retranslated, deleted, or ruled out for some good scholarly reason, there appears no alterna-
tive but to disbelieve.

WHAT THEN SHALL WE SAY?

The parable of the Sower, together with Jesus' explanation for choosing this form of
discourse, is a problem not because of its obscurity but precisely because of its utter clarity.
It is oppressive not because it makes excessive demands. In fact, it makes none. The para-
ble—simply a few words from an ancient text—is a problem because it awakens awareness
that the coming of the kingdom of God is not something over which we have any control.
The parable, like the others in the chapter, promises a glorious time of fulfillment. But like
the others it offers no way that even insiders can guarantee a place in the schema. Jesus
speaks about the kingdom of God. His parable seems to leave us at his mercy as one who
obscures and reveals. And if the kingdom is God's, it leaves us finally at the mercy of God. If
there is nothing we can do about hastening the harvest or even guaranteeing a place for
ourselves, everything depends on what God will do.

It should be clear why it is so important to establish the setting within which the para-
ble of the Sower is to be read. If the parable is unsettling, if it raises questions with no
prospect of our being able to solve them, it will succeed only in alienating and frustrating
interpreters. If the parable were the end of the story, there would be only scandal and
offense. The God we encounter in the parable is one we cannot manage—and cannot
endure. The question is what else there is to say—what else God may have to say or do. The
parable of the Sower by itself offers little promise. But it may prepare readers for more.

The very next verses in Mark offer some prospect for hope.
He said to them, "Is a lamp brought in to be put under the bushel basket, or under the bed, and
not on the lampstand? For there is nothing hidden, except to be disclosed; nor is anything secret,
except to come to light. Let anyone with ears to hear listen!" (4:21-23).

Secrecy is a strategy, apparently, that has some goal. The time of clarity will come. Perhaps
there will be a time when people can see and hear in ways that will be productive and fruit-
ful. There is reason to read on to see how the planting will turn out.

It is important to understand how the parables work and where their promise lies. If
this rendering of the parable of the Sower in any way approximates what happens when it is
heard and interpreted, it should be apparent that the parable should not be confused with
Christian proclamation. It is difficult to imagine a situation in which the parable by itself
could be experienced as promising. In fact, that some might hear this parable as a confir-
mation of their status as "insiders" or "elect" is even more unsettling. There is no direct
address of a contemporary audience, no promise to any particular listeners that they ought
to regard themselves as favored to live productive and fruitful lives. And if hearing the para-
ble causes offense at God, it offers no act of reconciliation with the One whose sovereign
PARABLES Interpretation 283

rights we can only resist.

Such an address will not come in the scriptural narrative at all. The story Mark tells
ends with matters still up in the air. Jesus cannot be shut up in the tomb, but we are left
with frightened women who say nothing to anyone. The whole gospel awaits a speaking
that will occur only beyond the confines of the narrative. But of course that is precisely the
speaking in which we have an investment, the only speaking that will actually make a differ-
ence. The uneasiness the parable provokes will be settled only by a word from God. The
parable can serve as good news only if the scriptures authorize another activity in which
God addresses someone in particular with a promise of a place at the great harvest feast.

The gospel prepares for just such an address through the agency of preachers and
through sacraments in which gracious words become visible for particular people. Jesus
promises that "the gospel must first be preached to all the nations" (13:10). The promise
that the story of the woman who anointed Jesus will be told "wherever the gospel is
preached" (14:9) only emphasizes the importance of this particular activity. Jesus' last meal
is remembered within the liturgy of the church in anticipation of the eating and drinking in
the Kingdom, and this context is crucial for how the parable can function. It makes a differ-
ence that the parable of the Sower is read within the context of a whole gospel narrative,
and it makes at least as great a difference that it is read within a community in which the
word is preached and the sacraments administered.

IS IT TRUE?

It is obviously possible to read the New Testament without raising questions about
truth and truthfulness. In fact, the discipline of biblical studies has flourished by restricting
interpretation to matters of meaning and meaningfulness. Some have been uncomfortable
with such a situation, however. Those interested in reading the parable of the Sower as Jesus
intended can relate the question of its truthfulness, at least in part, to historical matters.
Did Jesus really speak this parable? If so, can we know the precise words and context?

Interestingly, the truthfulness of the parable in its narrative setting cannot be assessed.
The Gospel of Mark concludes before the promised End ("The end is not yet" [13:8]). Only
the future will determine if the little analogies drawn from agricultural life shed any real
light on the kingdom of God. In the meantime, the truthfulness of the parables for those
who hear the scriptures as words for them will depend on the ability of the parables to shed
light on the life of faith. Truthfulness comes to focus on the character of God. Can we
afford to trust the One in whose hand the future lies? Is there a reason to imagine that we
can live at the mercy of God—and that in so doing we will live richer, more productive
lives? That depends on God's coming to us to accomplish reconciliation and deliverance
that are not within our power. It is the testimony of the church that God does indeed come
and that Jesus' plantings will ultimately flourish. For us, the truthfulness of the parable
must remain to some degree an open question.