Matthew 13:23

ἀκούων καὶ συνιείς. The specific feature of the fourth and alone satisfactory type is not brought out either in Mt. or in Mk. but only in Lk. by his happy phrase: ἐν καρδίᾳ καλῇ καὶ ἀγαθῇ. The third type understands (Mt.) and receives into the heart (Mk.), but the fourth in addition receives into a clean, i.e., a “good and honest,” heart. ὃς δὴ : δὴ occurs here for the first time in Mt., and only a few times altogether in the N. T., but always with marked expressiveness. According to Passow and Baümlein (Grammatik, § 669, and Untersuchungen über G. Partikeln, p. 98), connected with δῆλος in origin and meaning, and signifying that the thing stated is clear, specially important, natural in the given circumstances. ὃς δὴ here = who, observe, or of course. Given such conditions, fruitfulness certainly results. καρποφορεῖ, bringeth forth fruit such as is desired: ripe, useful. ὁ in last clause may be pointed either ὁ μὲν, ὁ δὲ (T. R.) or ὃ μὲν, ὃ δὲ (W. H [81]). In the former case the meaning is: this man brings forth 100 fold, that man, etc.; in the latter, ὃ is accusative neuter after ποιεῖ, and refers to the fruit. Opinion very much divided, sense the same.

[81] Westcott and Hort.

This interpretation of the Sower raises two questions: Was it needed? Does it really explain the parable? which is in effect to ask: Does it proceed from Jesus? As to the former: could not even the general hearer, not to speak of the Twelve, understand the parable well enough? True, no hint that it related to the kingdom was given, but, as already remarked, that might go without saying. Jesus had all along been using similitudes explaining His meaning rather than needing explanation. Then parabolic speech was common even in Rabbinical circles, a source at once of entertainment and of light to hearers. In Mt.'s report the disciples do not even ask an explanation, so that that given comes on us as a surprise (Holtz. in H. C.). Christ's audience might at least carry away the general impression that He was dissatisfied with the result of His ministry, in many cases in which His teaching seemed to Him like seed cast on unproductive places. It might require further reflection, more than the majority were capable of, to comprehend the reasons of failure. Self-knowledge and observation of character were needed for this. As to the interpretation given, it has been objected (Weiss, Jülicher, etc.) that it is allegorical in method, and that, while going into details as to the various persons and things mentioned in the parable and their import, it fails to give the one main lesson which it, like every parable, is designed to teach; in short, that we cannot see the wood for the trees. As to this it may be remarked: (1) There is a tangible difference between allegory and parable. Allegory and interpretation answer to each other part by part; parable and interpretation answer to each other as wholes. (2) Christ's parables are for the most part not allegories. (3) It does not follow that none of them can be. Why should the use of allegory be interdicted to Him? May the Sower not be an exception? That it is has been ably argued by Feine in Jahrbücher für Prot. Theologie, 1888, q. v. (4) The exclusion of so-called allegorising interpretation may be carried to a pedantic extreme in connection with all the parables, as it is, indeed, in my opinion, especially by Weiss. Thus we are told that in the saying “the whole need not a physician,” Jesus did not mean to suggest that He was a physician but only to hint the special claims of a class on His attention. But the question may be asked in every case: What was the genesis of the parable? How did it grow in Christ's mind? The Sower, e.g. ? Was it not built up of likenesses spontaneously suggesting themselves now and then; of Himself to a sower, and of various classes of hearers to different kinds of soil? In that case the “allegorical” interpretation is simply an analysis of the parable into its genetic elements, which, on that view, have more than the merely descriptive value assigned to them by Weiss. (5) As to missing the main lesson amid details: is it not rather given, Eastern fashion, through the details: the preaching of the kingdom not always successful, failure due to the spiritual condition of hearers? That is how we Westerns, in our abstract generalising way, put it. The Orientals conveyed the general through concrete particulars. Jesus did not give an abstract definition of the Fatherhood of God. He defined it by the connections in which He used the title Father. That Jesus talked to His disciples about the various sorts of hearers, their spiritual state, and what they resembled, I think intrinsically likely. It is another question whether His interpretation has been exactly reproduced by any of the Synoptists.