First, it makes sense to observe the parable without its interpretation, that one might discern the effect it may have had on first hearing (and also because it is the only portion from this section that is universally accepted as belonging on the lips of the historical Jesus). It should be noted that ‘seed’, both in Greek and Hebrew (as well as archaic English), carries linguistic currency as “offspring”. The image of scattering ‘seed’ across varied and hazardous ‘lands’ may well have conjured up an image of Abraham’s descendants scattered throughout the earth in the ‘dia-spora’ (literally: through-seed). It might appear to these hearers that the different ‘lands’ were various places where the Jews had taken up residence.

Being eaten by birds and choked by thorns are both images used liberally in the Old Testament in description of the exile, the former referring to birds picking the flesh from corpses of the slain, and the latter to the state the untended land would fall into, or the troubles besetting those under God’s judgment, clearly relating back to the curse of Genesis 3. Thorns are also used in a parable in Judges 9 to refer to an unworthy king and possibly pretenders to the throne in Psalm 118 (which, interestingly, Jesus and the evangelist seem to have thought was central to his identity: Luke 13:25, 19:38, 20:17 and parallels; also Acts 4:11. Wright, 1996). It is not unthinkable that there was an implicit jab at the illegitimate Herodian dynasty, perhaps Caesar, and possibly even the chief priests, though the argument is weaker on the last count. There was certainly precedent for such protest, though it was often violently silenced unless coded in symbolic language (many such counts are recorded in Josephus, both in ‘The Jewish War’, and ‘Antiquities’; J. Julius Scott; Wright, 1992; Bruce Chilton).

It is unusual that Luke has ‘on the rock’ as one of the bad places to be, as the rock is usually a symbol for refuge in the Old Testament, and is often used as a divine title. Luke could be making a cryptic reference to Psalm 118 again, but that would make little sense. Matthew and Mark’s ‘rocky ground’ make more sense, as this was (and is) generally seen as a typical obstacle to farming. It seems safe to assume that Luke means essentially the same thing, though it is a little strange that he would obscure Mark’s clear language. The idea of having no moisture could be referring to lack of Torah knowledge, as in Isaiah 5:24 and elsewhere. The ‘good land’ would, perhaps, conjure up thoughts of Israel, where it was believed the true remnant would grow up. It is odd that those who do not attribute the rest of the pericope to Jesus never consider such interpretation. Strangely, their interpretations often follow very closely the the traditional reading, that Jesus is referring to his own message as the seed (See Crossan and Chilton).

Those who follow Jesus are commanded to contemplate this parable (v. 8) and are apparently perplexed. The above interpretation does not appear to match the facts. Indeed, things grow worse in Israel by the day as political tensions mount and occasionally boil over. Jesus answers their query, initially, with a quotation of scripture, Isaiah 6:9. The use of this scripture has been the source of much vexation. Why would Jesus try to teach in a way that is not understandable? Well, we may gain some understanding in the knowledge that Jesus wanted his disciples to contemplate the things he was saying. Those who don’t think about it will have no chance to understand Jesus’ message, but those who think and ask (the disciples) are rewarded for their trouble. However, if we take a closer look at the immediate context in Isaiah, a whole world of meaning opens up. It appears that this parable may have been part of a Midrash on Isaiah 6:9-13. This is a passage about Israel being subject to judgment until nothing is left but a stump, and that stump is the holy ‘seed’ in the ‘land’ (v. 13). Jesus here points to judgment on the land, and the remnant can only be grow out of that destruction. This is the way Isaiah’s message works, and is being worked in Jesus (which is a regular theme for the evangelists, see particularly the Birth Narratives, and Luke 4:21).

But that is not the end. The greatest plot twists are yet to come: The seed, contrary to all prior indications, is not first and foremost the remnant. Rather, it is the Word of God. There is one place in the Old Testament where all of these themes are brought together clearly, though not in precisely the same way.

Isaiah 55:9-13 reads:

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, 11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

12 "For you shall go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and the hills before you shall break forth into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. 13 Instead of the thorn shall come up the cypress; instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle; and it shall make a name for the LORD, an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off." [ESV]

Here we find, elusively tied together, the sower and seed, the thorn bushes, the Word of God, and the restoration of Israel. Here, the Word of God is the agent, on a mission to bring back God’s people. But in Jesus’ parable, ironically, the word, is not always fruitful. Instead, it is dependent upon the quality of the soil. In a third twist the soil does not turn out to be various foreign nations, but it is a matter of motives, agendas, rather than illegitimate rulers; and spiritual influences rather than scavengers of war, as in the sermon on the plain (Luke 6: 17-49) and Jesus’ temptation (Luke 4:1-13). Those without a root may still, however symbolize those who don’t have the correct interpretation of the Torah and prophets (which Jesus and the Pharisees both claimed to offer; See Wright, Chilton, and Vander Laan). So, in the end the true remnant would be identified by the way it handled the Word of God (notice the parallel in 6:46). This must be why Jesus said "The one who has ears for listening must listen." The right kind of hearing is what separates God’s true people from the rest, the fertile root from the the burnt tree. Jesus has told what appeared to be a typical story of Israel, but he has redefined most of the key elements, as he often does in his parables.

It is also useful to note here that the ‘seed’ image could relate directly to the Messiah, in the sense of ‘David’s seed’ or ‘Eve’s seed’ in Genesis 3. That being the case, it is also interesting to notice how closely Jesus connects himself and his actions to the fulfillment of God’s word. It is likely that Jesus is not so much referring to his own message here, but primarily the message of the prophets, which is reaching it’s fulfillment in him. It is not so far from this line of thinking into the kind of full-blown logos doctrine one finds in John 1. Though there is still a little way to go, it would appear that this is the inevitable destination of such an interpretation.

In summary, the thrust of the parable is an explanation of Isaiah 6:9-13. Yes, some people are doomed to unbelief and destruction (i.e. destruction of Jerusalem and Israel), because that is what God has planned as the road to restoration. However, there is a way out, and it involves, as Moses and the Prophets said all along, proper reception of God’s Word/Message (which Jesus apparently claimed to be summing up in himself), and is hindered by various means. This runs in contrast to the agendas set by other groups, which revolved around land, revolution, ethinc identity markers, and competeting interpretations of God’s Word which support these agendas (see especially Wright, 1992). A fine example of subversive storytelling (of which Wright is so very fond ) with profound Christological underpinnings. Of course, this may raise enormus and important questions about why God’s restoration was worked out through the destruction of the nation, but that is outside the scope of this passage (though it is touched directly by Paul, I think, in Romans chs. 9 to 11)