The Flower Seeds and the Pots is based on Luke 8:5-8.
This was the first parable I retold, rather than just updated. I was writing a book which had a modern Jesus preaching in a modern London. It became very obvious, very quickly, that Jesus wouldn’t tell a parable based on First Century Middle Eastern farming practices to a bunch of modern East Enders – not if they had no previous experience of hearing it. The meaning of the parable would stay the same; the props and setting would be reset.
Jesus’ Own Interpretation
This is one of the few parables which records Jesus’ own interpretation (Luke 8: 10-15). The seed is the preacher’s word. The seeds are planted in places that represent the types of people who hear it.
That’s a big help in retelling. It suggests that the two things that need keeping are the seed itself and the different types of soil. Jesus doesn’t mention details like the sower being a farmer, sowing a crop. He seems unconcerned whether the listener interprets ‘a farmer’ as God, Jesus, or any disciples. Likewise, a farmer’s crop is life-sustaining – but that seems to be an extra detail.
Interpreting with Suspicion?
The academic approach is to use a technique called ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’. ‘Hermeneutic’ just means ‘interpretation theory’ and interpreting with suspicion is often fine. For example, I might suspect that a biblical translation into English isn’t the best choice possible. Or I might think that a male Gospel writer might miss things a woman might pick up on. Overused, however, treating everything ‘with suspicion’ leads to doubting everything and trusting no one. This is a state of mind that can be just as false to reality as believing everything automatically and trusting everyone.
Interpreting with Generosity
My default assumption towards the Gospels is to use a ‘hermeneutic of generosity’. Broadly, this means that I assume the writers were honest and well-meaning unless there’s evidence against it. I’ll assume they were writing a truthful biography of Jesus according to Greek/Roman conventions. The reason they wanted to tell everyone about Jesus is that they, in turn, believed Jesus was telling the truth.
Jesus’ Own Interpretation?
Interpreting with generosity means that my default assumption is that – yes, Luke recorded Jesus’ interpretation, rather than, say, putting an early church interpretation into Jesus’ mouth. Evidence to support that comes from Paul. In 1 Corinthians 7:10-12 Paul is very careful to distinguish between his own opinion and something Jesus had said.
In addition, the interpretation of the parable appears in Mark and Matthew as well as in Luke. This suggests it was considered an important example of a parable interpretation – probably, because it was Jesus’ own explanation.
Differences Between the Three Versions
There are small differences between the version told in Luke and the versions in Mark and Matthew. With Luke, the first seed gets trampled on as well as eaten. There’s no mention of shallow roots for the second seed (though those shallow roots are explicitly mentioned in the interpretation). The third seed grows up with the thorns, rather than being choked out before it can grow. There’s only one multiplier for the good seed (a hundred times), but Mark and Matthew use a triple multiplier (thirty, sixty, even a hundred times).
None of the differences really affect the main interpretation – though the image of the evil one trampling on the word, before taking it away, is rather nice. They’re the sort of small variations you’d expect if a parable was told more than once. People heard – and repeated – slightly different versions. Alternatively, there might be one original version, first passed down by word-of-mouth. The main focus of the parable is being accurately retold; the little flourishes vary.
Why Flowers?
Jesus’ interpretation suggests that any adaptation/retelling must keep the seeds (the word) and the different depths of soil (reception).
The crop in the parable is life-giving – the ‘word’ turns into ‘life-sustaining food’. It would certainly be possible to change the crop into some kind of food grown by urban flat-dwellers (usually tomatoes).
I went for flowers. Why? Because the image of someone discovering that they now have loads of flowers in their flat felt joyful. In the Galilee of Jesus’ time, an enormous food crop would be a source of joy and delight. We won’t starve this year! Yippee!
Our present culture, on the other hand, has so much food available that a couple of hundred tomatoes could easily feel like a bit of a problem. If we already have more than enough food, what do we do with hundreds of tomatoes? Tomato chutney? A tomato soup party? Give them away to a homeless shelter?
Instead of the enormous crop being the joyful end to the parable-story, it becomes the hook for a new story. There might be times when a reteller wants that, but I wanted to keep to the ‘feel’ of the original parable. The same main points, the same joyful ending, but recast as if the parable was being told for the very first time in Twenty First Century London.
So the seeds grow into flowers, which give our spirit life.
Previous parable: Outside the Gate (Luke 16:19-31)
Next parable: The Persistent Widow (Luke 18: 2-8)
Leave a Reply