Introduction
So, three things to start.
The first is that Jesus is talking to an unspecified crowd in this moment. In 4:10, it says, “When he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about the parables.” We don’t know if these are some of the people he’s healed. We don’t know if they’re religious leaders. We don’t know if they are followers who have been around him a while or are brand new to the following. And maybe that helps us to feel more represented in this mix. We can just be part of this small gathering. And that’s what makes this next part so brilliant in Mark’s crafting.
The second starting point is that we have jumped over a really important part. It’s the part where Jesus says why he’s speaking in parables. And as I mentioned in my commentary last week, in Mark’s Gospel, Jesus says, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that ‘they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven (4:11-12).’”
Mark is indicating that the parables are not necessarily for greater understanding. In fact, quite the opposite. They are here for confusion.
Need more convincing? In the lines just before our text today he says, “Pay attention to what you hear; the measure you give will be the measure you get, and still more will be given you. 25For to those who have, more will be given; and from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.” This line could be more convoluted actually. It could be translated as: “Pay attention to what you hear; the measure you measure will be measured, and still more given.”
In and of itself, this is sort of a parable. Is it saying what the NRSV suggests that they more you give, the more you get? Or is ‘more being given’ actually the emphasis? So, that it’s saying, ‘you will not be able to understand it all because you no matter how much you give (or how big your measuring implement) you won’t be able to receive it all?’
The brilliance is that we who are on the inside, who are supposed to be receiving the secrets of the kingdom (4:11), have no idea what’s going on with these.
And that leads to my final first thought. I hate giving singular interpretations of parables for sermons. Because I think by their nature (and by Mark’s purpose), the parable immediately rejects that. Let anyone with ears to hear listen (4:23). Well, we’re all gonna hear this very differently if we’re all listening.
So, setting the stage: 1) we have two parables 2) an unknown diverse crowd 3) and intent to understand but with no specific answer/meaning that is described in the end.
What do we preach?
The ‘Agrarian’ Parables
I think one of the methods of preaching texts like these is to do one or two things. First, we describe 1st century Palestine as more of an agrarian society and they would have a better understanding of things than us. Or second (kind of inversely), we describe ourselves as less agrarian and having no understanding of what’s really going on here. I think both of these have some value, but I also think both are somewhat myths.
First, while I think there was greater understanding of the necessity of agriculture and planting in 1st century Palestine, I don’t think every person would automatically have a great understanding in all that is needed for it. We all do our taxes in the 21st century but how many of us actually have any idea what’s happening there? Or so many children go to school, but how many of us know how much preparation it takes the teachers and aides to develop a lesson plan? There were also different jobs and occupations back then. And those informed how people saw the world.
How would the four fishermen (Simon Peter, Andrew, James, and John) hear these agrarian parables? How would religious leaders hear these parables knowing some of the symbolism of great cedar trees of Lebanon being the images of power but mustard “trees” just being invasive shrubs? How would a farmer hear scattering seeds without intentional cultivation afterwards? How would THEY respond to the kingdom of God being an invasive bush?
Now blow this up for a second. Jesus may be talking to THESE folks, but Mark isn’t. Mark is crafting this story for Jews who’ve just experienced diaspora and destruction in Jerusalem. Mark is writing for Gentiles who didn’t grow up in Palestine at all. And with this being an oral story that passes on and on, suddenly, his parable is being told to stonemasons, carpenters, and potters who are Jews, Greeks, or from all over. It could be heard by Roman soldiers, Greek intellectuals, and those of other faith traditions. It would have been heard by those who owned land and those who worked the land. There would have been regions that were harder to grow in and those regions that were considered bread baskets.
We often talk about different interpretations for us today, but we lump 1st century followers together. ‘They were all agrarian and just had a better understanding.’ Malarky. Yes, there would have been a specific understanding about some of these things. But this was confusing from the start. There were different interpretations from the start. Based on occupation, geographical location, societal leanings, there is no way that there was any consensus on interpretation.
And that helps us to lean into the broadness of this teaching style. Mark, in particular, avoids allegorical parables. These are supposed to be wide open and broadly interpreted.
Preaching Possibilities
It’s not about Jesus’ interpretation but listening to each other’s
Of course, we can talk about the contrast of the great Cedar trees of Lebanon and the mustard shrub. Of course, we can talk about and give context to the absurdity of planting a seed and leaving it without any cultivation. But those aren’t interpretations, and they wouldn’t have been interpretations for 1st century folks either.
So how do we allow these parables to inform us as individuals and as a collective community?
One person’s shelter is another person’s invasive nuisance. One person’s hope that growth happens regardless is another person’s insult because they carefully cultivate and care for every plant they grow every day of their life. How do we reconcile these different perspectives?
Maybe it’s not about Jesus’ interpretation (or a right interpretation) but it’s actually about listening to each other’s interpretations.
Hear then an example:
In high school, one of my favorite teachers was my history and government teacher. Most students had different history teachers throughout high school, but for whatever reason, my schedule dictated that I would have this teacher 3 out of my 4 years in high school. He taught me World History, AP US History, and AP Government.
He always wanted us to explore the depths of the unknown. In World History he wanted us to dive deeply into the perspectives and traditions of other cultures and other religions. In US History, he wanted us to explore the motives, perspectives, and possibilities of those who founded and developed this country. And in AP Government, he wanted us to truly understand the arguments of politicians, political pundits, and policy makers.
His passion and curiosity for the subjects, generated passion, and curiosity from us. About the subjects, yes, but also about him.
In our AP Gov class, he would allow us to explore and debate political theory and political ideology to better understand the perspectives of the politicians we were following. Flawlessly he would switch from debating as a liberal democrat with one of us, to debating as a moderate independent with another, to a conservative republican with another.
Because his debate platforms and performances were so accurate, we had no idea what his true political opinions were. So, for weeks and weeks, many of us would conspire together to come up with arguments that would force him to reveal his true political leanings. But we could never trip him up.
Finally, one of my fellow classmates was so flustered that they burst out in class, “Mr. G. what are you? Republican? Democrat? Green Party? Please tell us?”
A little caught off guard, my teacher smiled at us and looked around the classroom, seeing that we were all on the edge of our seats, waiting for this answer.
“What do you all think?” he said. A chorus of answers rang out, “Libertarian! Republican! Democrat!”
Finally, we all quieted down. Silence filled the room. You could have heard a pin drop.
My teacher stood there with a grin on his face. He held the silence for a long moment. And said, “Well, I must be doing my job.”
And he continued to teach.
The class groaned and slumped back into our seats.
Mr. G never told us his political affiliation, for obvious and good reasons. But later in the year, he explained that of course he has his own political ideology and party. But he teaches the way he does because in hearing and understanding the perspectives of other people, you can identify what it is that is most important to them. And by doing so, you can find avenues toward common ground and progress.
In hearing and understanding.
What I learned from Mr. G is that in engaging in certain types of conversation and/or debate, you learn what is important to people. You learn how to honor what people are passionate about. You learn how to explore what people are missing in their lives: hopes, dreams, and sometimes literal necessities.
Maybe we need to honor the hard work of the farmer and laborer who work to cultivate every plant. Maybe we need to honor the people who long to live in a region where scattering seed would in fact lead to access to food without importing. Maybe we need to honor the people who need shade and shelter. Maybe we need to honor the deep traditions and images that have given us hope in moments of disaster or turmoil.
Parables give us a chance to hear what people’s hopes, passions, concerns, and troubles are. And in learning those things, we get to be in greater conversation with them. Do we have ears to listen to one another?
Micah Krey 
Leave a comment