Lectionary: Proper 11
Text: Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43
Literary and Historical Contexts
These three
weeks – last week, today, and next week – the gospel texts go through the
parables that are recorded in Matthew chapter 13. One way to read them is to
take each one as an isolated parable, self-contained and interpreted within
itself. Additionally, a couple of them have interpretations that are offered:
the parable of the Sower which we heard last week, and the parable of the weeds
found in today’s reading.
But if we
zoom out and look at how this gospel writer has arranged the narratives around
chapter 13, we can find some possible reasons for this textual and literary
arrangement and perhaps some interpretive keys as well.
Chapter 12
is a series of narratives about how religious experts and even his birth family
had conflicts and misunderstandings about Jesus. Chapter 13 ends, after the
parables, with Jesus’ rejection by his hometown, Nazareth. From a historical
perspective, this could reflect what was being experienced by the community to
whom Matthew wrote. It is then, quite likely that the parables as recorded
through Matthew, addressed and offered answers to some of the questions that
may have been strong in the minds of one of the early Christian communities.
Here I want
to offer some thoughts on the interpretations that are found alongside the
parables. According to the text, it is Jesus who explains his own parables
after his disciples ask about them. And many scholars accept that these
explanations come from Jesus. But there are other scholars who question that
view. They suggest that it was the gospel writer who provided these
interpretations as coming from Jesus. Since the author of the gospel of Matthew
was separated from Jesus by four or more decades, he may have been writing down
a tradition that had become attributed to Jesus.
Some reasons
to think that the interpretation given may not be originally from Jesus include
1) that the interpretation fits too neatly, and 2) the interpretation is too
allegorical rather than parabolic. Generally, parables were told to raise
questions and to discomfort, to cause listeners to think, and offer multiple
interpretations.
Whether the
interpretations found in Matthew 13 are originally from Jesus or not ultimately
does not matter too much, except when they stop us from pondering over them for
additional meanings. The interpretations do fit with giving answers to the
historical question of why Jesus and his gospel was rejected by so many who
heard it.
With some of
the preceding literary and critical background out of the way, let us investigate
today’s text about the parable of the weeds.
Thinking About Parables
This is
another of the parables that I recall hearing in sermons and in children and
youth classes. You may have had the same kind of experience. Therefore, it is
easy to kind of skim over it, saying, “Uh huh, yup,” and content that we know
what it says. It is so familiar, as is the interpretation of it given some
verses down. We know how the parable reads and what it means. Or do we?
I began
preparation for this sermon by going through several commentaries, and of them
there were two that offered suggestions for an interpretation of the parable
that pretty much is the opposite of the interpretation given in the Matthean
text.[1]
At first, I thought this interpretation was bonkers and couldn’t see how it
could be derived from the parable’s text. But then I got into the “weeds” (so
to speak) about the weed that is the likely one described in the parable. And
from there I looked at the next two, short parables following today’s and
realized, hmm…, yes…, the alternative interpretation is completely
nontraditional and seems totally crazy, but…, not so crazy and fits
thematically and literarily where the parable is placed among the other ones.
If we take the perspective that the interpretation that is offered in the text
is not the only one or the only correct one, it opens multiple other
possibilities.
That’s the
general thought process I had. Now let’s get into some specifics.
Thinking About Weeds
 |
| Wheat |
For some
reason, perhaps because I heard this story many times growing up, and those
early impressions still are the most prominent in my mind; when I hear or read
about the weeds in this parable, I think of normal, everyday weeds most of us
are familiar with. They are still annoying, frustrating, and take work to dig
out, but that pales in comparison with the weed that is the most likely one
found in this parable.
 |
| Bearded Darnel |
I figuratively
went into the “weeds” to learn about the weed of this parable. What most scholars
believe this weed is, is the one known as the bearded darnel. It is a
truly fascinating plant.[2]
What I found explains some of the specific details found in the parable.
For
instance, why does it take so long for the slaves to discover that there are weeds
mixed with the wheat? Because the darnel looks exactly like wheat until the
unripe stalks of fruit open up at the same time as the wheat. Then the two
plants become identifiable. And by then the roots of the wheat and weeds are so
intertwined that it is impossible to dig up the weeds without also digging up
the unripe wheat.
The sorting
could only happen after they are harvested, and the good stalks sorted out from
the darnel. The wheat stalks have a straight fruit while darnel stalks have
fruit that develops in small alternating clumps. Modern sorting machinery is
able to automatically separate the wheat, but it was previously a tedious job done
by hand.
The darnel is
a weed that has fully adapted to infiltrating cultivated wheat crops. It cannot
exist on its own. It must be planted alongside the wheat by humans. It is also
interesting to note that oat and rye were found by humans because they too, required
human cultivation. However, they were found to be useful to humans and thus
their adaptation worked out quite well.
Darnel, on
the other hand, is mostly harmful to humans. It does have properties that can
cause intoxication – dizzy, off-balance, and nauseous – in small amounts. In
larger amounts it is fatal. This small amount is known to have been
deliberately introduced into ancient and medieval brewing to obtain their
effects and increase the intoxication from drinking a beer, for instance. There
is at least one scholar who argued that because it was impossible to fully
eradicate the presence of darnel from wheat, that medieval baked goods were to
some degree, intoxicating, and therefore, “European peasantry lived in a state
of semi-permanent hallucination.”[3]
Sort of like the “special” weed brownies that we might find down the
street today.
If you ever
encounter the surname Darnell, it is quite probable that one or more of
their ancestors had cultivated the darnel plant for its properties, to be added
intentionally in brewing beverages or to baking.
Why did I
just spend a rather lengthy digression bringing you details about the bearded
darnel? Because 1) it occupies a grey area between potentially useful and
harmful; 2) it was something that was a part of the normal wheat planting
process to have some darnel just accompanying the wheat; and 3) it starts out
unnoticed but then it becomes quite obvious. Each of these three observations
can alter the allegorical interpretation that is found in the Matthew text. And
I think that ancient societies knew these things about wheat and the bearded
darnel, including the hearers of the parable.
I am taking
the interpretation suggested by the two commentators mentioned earlier, turning
upside-down the traditional interpretation. This interpretation takes the
position that the householder or the farmer represents the landowners of
society, those who hold power and privilege; those who control the political
and economic powers. The “good” seed then, is only “good” from their
perspective. They sow the good seed to maintain the status quo, with their
power and privilege, but for those who are not part of the upper class, the
good seed is bad, for it means continued poverty and injustice. One of the
commentators mentioned earlier writes,
“On the other hand, perhaps the field in this parable is a
metaphor not for the church as much as for the world. The farmer then might
stand not for God but for the prevailing social and economic structures of
Jesus’ day, even the Roman Empire itself, and the ‘enemy’ is instead Jesus,
whose preaching, teaching and healing are God’s invasion of the old world with
the empire of heaven. If so, Jesus is here, as in the Beelzebul controversy,
the one who is stronger than Satan and ties him up in order to plunder his
house (12:29), and the farmer represents the social, political, and economic
forces that oppress God’s people. Although the world opposes the church, it
will not be destroyed. God will save it and judge its enemies.”[4]
The second
commentator adds another facet to this interpretive perspective, writing,
“Individual Christians are sown as subversive ‘weeds’ in that field.”[5]
I mentioned
earlier that I thought this interpretation was crazy and untenable, but as I
read through the parable with the information about the darnel weed in mind, it
became more plausible.
The first
place that raised a question for me was when the householder says that “an
enemy has done this.” Although the hearers, as an outside observer, know this
based on what has already been described, on what basis does the householder
claim this? If the weeds were a normal, if undesired part, of all wheat fields,
how could the householder claim that an enemy has intentionally planted the
weeds? In my mind this opened the possibility that a simplistic, straightforward
allegorical interpretation, while permissible, may not be the only one
available.
And then I
read the next two short parables (which is part of next week’s gospel reading).
The first parable is about a mustard seed, where a tiny seed mysteriously grows
into a large shrub that allows birds to nest in it, becoming an integral part
of the ecosystem. The second parable is about yeast that is added to dough,
mysteriously grows and permeates the entire dough and becomes an inseparable
part of it.
Both
parables share themes of mysterious origins, growth, and becoming integrated
into its environment. And then I realized that the same themes could be found
in the parable of the weeds: the sowing that happens in secret, the mysterious
growth, the reveal of the extent of the growth that isn’t apparent until close
to the end, how it becomes inextricably intertwined with the environment, and
the confounding of the entire process – these are all themes in the parable of
the weeds that are shared with the next two parables.
And it was
at this point that I became convinced that a very different, upside-down
interpretation is quite plausible and can be supported by the literary context:
where perhaps “good” may sometimes be merely a label that is given to something
that is used to justify beliefs and actions; where the householder/farmer and
the land represents the oppressive status quo; where the “enemy” is actually
good; and the “weed” represents the secret, mysterious, and the intertwining
nature of the gospel that is found in the subsequent two parables.
The point of
all this is not to dismiss the traditional, allegorical interpretation, or to
declare that the alternate interpretation is better. Rather, I offer it to suggest
a way to break out of years of prior hearing, experience, and tradition; to challenge
our assumptions, and to hear parables as they were originally meant to be heard
– to raise questions, to challenge beliefs, and to disquiet and discomfort its hearers.[6]
If parables only serve to confirm our beliefs and settle us, perhaps we have
not read them sufficiently well. If what I learned this week and offered to you
today provokes and challenges us, then I think the parable has done what it is
meant to do.[7]
[1]
Feasting on the Gospels: Matthew, Volume 1. WJK Press. “Exegetical
Perspective” and “Homiletical Perspective” on Matthew 13:24-30.
[2]
Wheat's
Evil Twin Has Been Intoxicating Humans For Centuries - Gastro Obscura
(atlasobscura.com) – https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/wheats-evil-twin-has-been-intoxicating-humans-for-centuries
[3]
Ibid.
[4]
Feasting on the Gospels: Matthew, Volume 1, p. 1009.
[5]
Ibid., p. 1015.
[6]
The back page of the Petersburg Lutheran Church bulletin for July 23, 2023 includes
yet another way of interpreting the parable of the weeds. See 07.23.2023-bulletin.pdf
(petersburglutheran.com) (https://www.petersburglutheran.com/hp_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/07.23.2023-bulletin.pdf)
[7]
For an extended discussion of these ideas, see the “introduction” in Short
Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi, by Amy-Jill
Levine.
No comments:
Post a Comment