T’was brillig, and the slithy toves
did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogroves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
If you remember your Lewis Carroll and his Through the Looking Glass, you’ll recall Alice asked Humpty Dumpty for his interpretation of this poem called, “Jabberwocky.” I’m not, however, going to ask you what it means. So, why would I begin today’s reflection by quoting a poem which needs a personal interpretation? I did it in an attempt to let you feel as puzzled as the disciples of Jesus might have felt some two thousand years ago.1
Just as you hear the words of “Jabberwocky” without really understanding them, the followers of Jesus heard him without understanding his words. But unlike Humpty Dumpty, who made up the meaning of words to suit his own pleasure, Jesus tried to give his companions an explanation which might bring them nearer to the Kingdom of God. Yet, there is still difficulty for us, some twenty centuries later, in truly understanding what he meant. This is, then, to be the focus for today’s reflection: How do we make sense out of the parables of Jesus?
First of all, what is a parable? Many Christians would say they are stories Jesus used in order to get his followers thinking about the Kingdom of God. There is nothing wrong with that answer. Except, it suggests Jesus originated the idea of teaching with parables. But he didn’t. The parable was a common form of teaching used by all rabbis. It’s said there are some two-thousand rabbinic parables. So, why did rabbis use parable stories?
The answer to this question relies upon another set of questions. How do you feel when you hear a parable of Jesus? Do you hear a story in which you see yourself in a new light? That’s the real purpose of a rabbinic parable: a story where the listener concludes that what is being talked about really applies to him, even though he did not originally think the point of the story affected him at all.
A parable is a very real story, one you can personally identify with. It’s not a fable or fairy tale with talking animals and impossible situations. There are other kinds of literary devices which are not really “parables.” Allegories are one. When Jesus speaks about himself and says, “I am the vine and you are the branches,” he’s using an allegory, not a parable. Along with allegories, there are also similes. During the next few weeks, we’ll hear quite a number of them in the Gospel readings. In each case, Jesus tries to tell us something about the reign of God. Things such as:
“The reign of God is like a mustard seed …
“The reign of God is like yeast …
“The reign of God is like buried treasure …
“The reign of God is like a merchant’s search for fine pearls
“The reign of God is like a dragnet thrown into a lake …
“The reign of God is like the head of a household who can bring from his storeroom both the new and the old.”
Usually, Jesus does not try to explain his stories. In fact, some scholars maintain Jesus, himself, did not explain any of his parables, including today’s parable about the seed, but the interpretation was added by the early Christian community when the Gospel stories were written down.
Actually, if you are familiar with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, you may be confused by the interpretation you heard in today’s reading. A few moments ago, we all heard the familiar parable about the sower who went out to sow some seed and the different soils where it fell. In order to interpret the meaning of this story, we might all agree the sower is God. But what about the seed? Your immediate response might be the “seed” is “the word of God,” and we are the “soil.” How many of you believe this is what Jesus said when he gave the interpretation we heard a few minutes ago?
Well, you would be correct, if the Gospel reading had been the one taken from either the book of Mark or of Luke. In Chapter Four of Mark’s Gospel, when the disciples ask for an explanation, the response of Jesus is: “What the sower is sowing is the word.” And in Chapter Eight of Luke, the response of Jesus is: “This is the meaning of the parable. The seed is the word of God.” But today’s reading is from Matthew’s Gospel. Here the response of Jesus is: “the seed along the path is the man who hears the message about God’s reign without understanding it. The seed that fell on patches of rock is the man who hears the message and at first receives it with joy … but falters. (The seed) sown among briers is the man who hears the message … but (things of this world) choke it off. (And finally … the seed) sown on good soil is the man who hears the message and takes it in. He it is who bears a yield a hundred- or sixty- or thirty-fold.”
So, what is the “correct” interpretation? What is the seed? What is the soil? Do you see yourself as the seed, actively growing, maturing, struggling to survive, yielding fruit? Or do you see yourself, and others, as the passive soil with different environmental conditions, so that what becomes of the word of God, the seed which falls upon you, is not really up to you? After all, if you are rocky soil, how can you become good soil? Or must the soil, indeed, remain passive? Can the rocks be pulverized, and their rich nutrients be released so that the seed, the word of God, can grow within your spirit?
And what about the sower? Is this really God, the Father? Does he scatter his seed willy-nilly, not caring where it lands? Why would he knowingly scatter it on the path where birds can consume it? Why on the rocks or among thorns? He doesn’t seem like a very efficient farmer.
What is the effect of the wind? Do external forces control where the seed falls? If you are the seed, what responsibility do you have for your own choices? Are you controlled by those around you? By the events of your life? Could it be that you, rather, than God, are the sower? And the seeds are your own actions, what you do, or fail to do?
The people who lived some two thousand years ago had a completely different idea of agriculture than we do, today. There was no concept of simple crop rotation, for example. The idea of using different fields every few years for crop rotation, did not come into practice until the Middle Ages. Fertilizer was manure obtained directly from the source, not the right ratio of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and other trace minerals. Does that mean, that in order to interpret the parables of Jesus, we must continue to think like men and women of the first centuries of the Christian era?
A few minutes ago, I began this reflection with “Jabberwocky,” with words which have strange sounds. Instead, I could have said: “It’s about four o’clock in the afternoon — the time when you begin broiling things for dinner, and the active, slimy creatures, which look like a hybrid of a badger and a lizard with a corkscrew head, were tumbling like gyroscopes and poking holes in the grass around a sundial.” Instead, I said: “t’was brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.” To interpret the line, I used the meanings given by a silly character called Humpty Dumpty.
For some people, the parables of Jesus may be as confusing as Jabberwocky. And some might ask for a straightforward interpretation of what each word means. They seek a so-called “correct” or literal meaning for the words. So, finally, what is the “correct” interpretation for this parable about sower, seeds and soil, or for that matter, what is the “correct” interpretation of any parable of Jesus?
For one thing, it’s not any interpretation I might give. It may not even be one the early Christian community gave when the Gospels were written down. The only “true” interpretation of a parable comes from what is revealed in your own heart.2
You must put yourself in the presence of God. You, yourself, must respond to what you hear. You, yourself, must be changed by that response. But you need not do this alone. You have the help of God.
Listen once more, to the first reading we heard from the book of the prophet Isaiah who spoke to us about the help of God in our lives: “Just as from the heavens, the rain and snow come down And do not return there till they have watered the earth, making it fertile and fruitful, giving seed to the one who sows and bread to the one who eats, so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me void, but shall do my will, achieving the end for which I sent it.”3
Fifteenth Sunday in Ordinary; July 15, 1990
Is 55:10-11; Rom 8:18-23; Mt 13:1-23
- At this time there were several members of the congregation who had a hearing impediment. Each Sunday they sat in the first pew, directly in front of the homilist. An interpreter sat facing them and used ASL to sign all of the Mass, including the homily. As I began today’s homily, I noticed the interpreter was having a problem. Afterwards, I inquired how she signed the opening lines. Her reply: “I signed I couldn’t understand anything he’s saying and just waited until I could.” Afterwards, I gave an advance copy of my homilies to her!
- Not everyone agrees with this point of view. The following day I received a letter stating: “Dear Mr. Camerino: Last evening, my husband and I heard your Homily during 5:30 Mass, and I was frankly shocked by the phrase with which you chose to end your ‘reflection.’ To paraphrase that particular remark would be something like the fact that each of us ‘may interpret Scriptures within our own hearts’ or words to that effect. First of all, I don’t believe that our Church has suddenly or even gradually endorsed self-interpretation of the Scriptures. From my own knowledge, I believe self-interpretation of Scriptures is a major tenet of the Protestant persuasion and one of their major objections to the Catholic Faith. I was always taught that the Magisterium, Theologians, priests, and people otherwise trained in Catholic Theology were those to whom we the laity looked for the Holy Mother Church’s guidance in interpretation of Scripture. To me, your remark is heretical. I was so distracted and shocked, I couldn’t concentrate on praying.
“However, nothing should surprise me anymore during Mass in CGS. Every week an innovation is attempted with the express purpose to distract the faithful from prayer and contemplation. I found your remark very offensive, and I left church very sad indeed. I am sad because so many good Catholic people have only the Homily on Sunday as their guide for their Faith, and remarks such as yours only serve to mislead. Many people do not read or educate themselves. I am fortunate because I am a well-educated woman, and I also keep myself informed through much reading of sound Catholic material. Do you realize that many people in those pews hear what you say and take it to heart? Your position enables you to be a teacher, and your word is taken to be true. What you said last night was false, period.
“I shall continue to pray for a return to Orthodoxy in this parish even though my family and I are moving out of state. I look forward to the move with great joy because I am returning to a place where true Catholic orthodoxy is still alive. God bless you. Sincerely, [MEL]” - However at least two members of the congregation seem to have gotten something positive from the homily. At that time the parish made use of Homily Resource Teams (HRTs). Each HRT had about five or six members who met with the homilist for a reflection on the Sunday Scriptures several weeks before the homily was to be given. Following the homily, another HRT would offer written comments about the presentation. The question form stated: “The feedback on the homily is descriptive (‘what I heard’); it is not evaluative (‘what I liked or didn’t like’) or judgmental (‘this was good,’ ‘that was not good’). So in a descriptive way please answer the following questions … 1.) What was the message you heard in this homily? 2.) What connection(s) were there between the homily and the gospel and scripture readings? 3.) What connection or application to your life did you see or hear in the homily? 4.) Please add any other comments that you want to make about the homily.”
Two responses were received for this homily. A.) “1.) We are the seed – able to provide zero or 30-fold or 100-fold. The power to do so is not so much our own as it is the Lord working in us (as rain works and produces what it is supposed to). 2.) Explicit attention/explanation of parable in gospel and inclusion of Old Testament reading to highlight message. 3) We are the seed – we have a proactive role rather than a passive one. It is up to us to make sense of the parable rather than passively accept some explanation from others or dismiss parable as jabberwalky. 4.) Jabberwalky was a powerful illustration to make/support the point. Hit a key issue head-on: what is the seed? The word of God? Us? Was there a reference to eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear? I could have missed this but it tied to your focus: that we ourselves have responsibility to make sense of parable and then be productive.” [K] B) “1.) Understanding of parables is a personal thing. It is our response to a parable that is important. 2.) The ‘seed’ can be the word of God or the seed can be man or the seed can be our action – what we do with it after hearing the parable. 3.) I feel much better about my response to the parables after hearing your homily. I now understanding (sic) that having a different response and understanding of a parable at different times in my life or in reading of a parable is OK. [MS]”