In the book of Matthew Jesus says "That is why I speak to them in parables; for they look without seeing, and listen without hearing or understanding" (13:13). When a potential convert is "listen"ing without "hearing" they are being passive. In order to truly understand the words of Jesus active engagement is required. The parables provide this opportunity for those who listen to Jesus to figure out what he means when he uses imagery to represent the requirements of following God's word, This oblique approach is echoed when Jesus says "I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things kept secret since the world was made" (13:35). He is promising to be indirect on purpose.
This occurs with the wedding parable and the parable about the laborers and the vineyard, as well as others. With these stories it is up to the reader to make the associations that the imagery suggests and determine in what ways to interpret them. However, on three occasions (the parable about where the seed falls, the parable about the darnel,and the instructions about how it is alright to eat without washing one's hands first) Jesus tells a parable and then proceesds to explain it. In doing so Jesus undermines the stance that it is up to the reader to come to their own conclusions; the morals of these stories are provided. However, there is a tension between parts of the lessons that are explicitly laid out by Jesus and information that is left to the readers to fill in for themselves.
Most of the lessons function as metqaphor, a dynamic in which only one aspect of the representational image is relevbant to the corallary oiutside the story; but there is an instance of allegory, a dynamic in which multiple aspects of the representational image are relevsant to the corollary outside the story. The second seed in thesower parable "fell on rocky ground, where it had little soil, and it sprouted quickly because it had no depth of earth; but when the sun rose it was scorched, and as it had no root it withered away" (13:5-6). The "rocky ground"can be seen as a hostile environment, where a person's faith is not encouraged to flourish. In such an interpretation there is non defect in the seed; the failure is external to the seed. But Jesus explains the imagery this way: "The seed sown on rocky ground stands for the person who hears the word and accepts it at once with joy; it strikes no root in him and has no staying-power, when there is trouble or persecution on account of the word he loses faith (13:20-21). According to Jesus the failure occurs when the faith of the person "strikes no root in him," not because the person's faith is subject to an invalidating environment. To be an allegory to the "rocky ground"would have to indicate more than one aspect of it's representational quality.It could be a shallow faith and a hostile enviroinment, for example. To be a metaphor only one aspect of "rocky ground" has to have a corollary outside of the story. Jesus provides evidence that the language is metaphorical when he specifically defines the corollaries of the story and lets the reader know which aspect of the corollary is significant, By strictly confining the interpretation that the reader is supposed to engage in Jesus demonstrates that this is metaphor and not allegory. He does this by saying "strikes no root in him". That is the consequence/aspect of "rocky griund" that is important to Jesus.
Jesus repeats this process. He says "Some fell among thistles, and the thistles grew up and choked it" (13:7), then proceeds to explain that "The seed sown among thistles represents the person who hears the word, but worldly cares and the false glamour of wealth choke it, and it proves barren (13:22). In these verses the dynamic is indentical to that of the previously cited verses. Corollaries are identified and their meaning is specifically defined in limited terms.\
The fourth part of this parable functions somewhat differently. Jesus says "And some of the seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop, some a hundredfold, some sixtyfold, and some thirtyfold (13:8). His explantation of this statement is "But the seed sown on good soil is the person who hears the word and understands it; he does bear fruit and yields a hundredfold, or a sixtyfold, or thirtyfold (13:23). In this case Jesus retains language that is not necessarily literal; he only unpacks it so much, The "crop" and "fruit" can operate on a literal level; a reward of having a strong faith may be agricultural sucess. The "crop" and "fruit" may also represent the results of proselytism (a seed grows a plant, and the new plant also has seeds) or children ("seed" has long been slang for sperm and children of those in the faith would be raised in the faith and also become followers). These are but two of the aspects of the term "seed, " other readers may identify more. The multiplicity associated with "seed" , and its associated terms "crop" and "fruit" which are echoed in the parable and the explanation, elevates this portion of the story to allegory,
Because there is an allegorical element to this parable Jesus does not completely abandon the idea that the reader has to actively figure out the meaning of the story. The "crop" and "fruit" images are key to understanding that Jesus will assist the reader, but only to a point. The final leap, the ultimate understanding, still requires the reader to bring their interpretive skills to bear on the story. This is also at play in the parables that are not explained.It is left to the reader to determine if the imagery functions as metaphor or as allegory, The wedding parable contains this language: "Look! I have prepared this banquet for you" (22:4). The "banquet" can be read as the material support that one's faith will provide, it can also be read as the spiritual satisfaction to be found in faith. Reading it either way engages it as metaphor, reading it both ways simultaneously engages it as allegory. This is not to say that reading it as allegory is a superior stance. The task for the readcr is to determine when to read images as metaphors and when to read images as allegories; this struggle makes the parable rich in interpretive tension. Allegories can be read as possesing multiple aspects of the imagery in question; at what point does the reader cease to find potential corollaries significant?
