College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

Matthew 13:1-9

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

I. THE OCCASION
TEXT: 13:1-9, 18-23

(Parallels: Mark 4:1-9; Mark 4:13-20; Luke 8:4-8; Luke 8:11-15)

On that day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.

And there were gathered unto him great multitudes, so that he entered into a boat, and sat; and all the multitude stood on the beach.

And he spake to them many things in parables, saying,

II. THE MESSAGE
A. PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN KINGDOM PROCLAMATION

1. THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER AND THE SOILS

Behold, the sower went forth to sow, 4 and as he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the birds came and devoured them: 5 and others fell upon the rocky places, where they had not much earth: and straightway they sprang up, because they had no deepness of earth: 6 and when the sun was risen, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. 7 And others fell upon the thorns; and the thorns grew up and choked them: 8 and others fell upon the good ground, and yielded fruit, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty, 9 He that hath ears, let him hear.

18 Hear then ye the parable of the sower. 19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the evil one, and snatcheth away that which hath been sown in his heart, This is he that was sown by the way side. 20 And he that was sown upon the rocky places, this is he that heareth the word, and straightway with joy receiveth it; 21 yet hath he not root in himself, but endureth for a while; and when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, straightway he stumbleth. 22 And he that was sown among the thorns, this is he that heareth the word; and the care of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful. 23 And he that was sown upon the good ground, this is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; who verily beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

How does this parable show that more than the objective presentation of truth is necessary in order to convert a person to Jesus?

What does the parable teach about the power and effectiveness of the Word of God?

c. What does the parable suggest about the limitations of the power of God's Word?
d.

Does this parable prove that a person has to be honest and good before he can actually accept the Gospel and grow in it? I thought that it was the Gospel that makes people honest and good, not that they had to be good and honest before they could accept it. Explain.

God promised that His Word would not return to Him void, but would accomplish the purpose for which He had sent it (Isaiah 55:10-11). But is it not true in this parable that many, many people made void God's Word in their own case by letting other things destroy its influence? Also the elders-' traditions make void God's Word (Matthew 15:1-20). How would you go about harmonizing God's declaration (Isaiah 55:10-11) with this seemingly contrary teaching found in the parable of the Sower?

How do you account for the fact that there seems to be a boat handy just when Jesus needs it? Whose boat might it have been? Why would Jesus need it here in this incident; i.e., what tactical use of it did He make?

When Jesus gives an interpretation along with His parables, what are we to do with it? But when He does not explain a parable for us, what are we to do? What were His disciples expected to do with a parable for which He gave no immediate explanation?

When do you think the Apostles began questioning Jesus for further information regarding the meaning of His parables?

Do you think that the people represented in the first three classes described are personally responsible for the condition of their heart at the time of their hearing the message of Christ? Why?

Do you think Jesus is here condemning the various things that fill a person's life, which somehow hinder him from producing a fruitful life for God? What are your reasons for thinking this?

What is the difference in definition between good and honest, as descriptive of the proper sort of heart Jesus is seeking? (Luke 8:15)

What is so deceitful about wealth?

What is the care of the world? Do you think that Jesus means: the care, or desire, for the world? Or does He mean the world's cares, that is, that which the world worries about? Or is there another possibility?

How is it that even those who do accept God's Word in a good, honest heart do not even produce the same results? Why should Jesus have to stress this point, after defining so sharply the difference between the hearts of those who, for whatever reason, do not produce fruit, and those who do? What is so important about even this latter distinction (v. 8) that helps us to understand the basic nature of the best, most faithful followers of Jesus?

To what would you attribute the fruitfulness of the fourth class of people? State in several ways exactly what it means to have a good and honest heart.

When Jesus describes the Gospel as producing in good hearts sometimes thirty-, sixty- and hundredfold, do you think that He was stating His ideal, i.e., the goal He wished to reach in human lives, or do you think that He was stating a fact, making a true observation about what He knew would be the result?

How does the short parable narrated in Mark 4:26-29 about the Seed Growing By Itself qualify, or aid in the correct understanding of the Parable of the Sower and Soils, as well as that of the Weeds?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

That same day Jesus walked out of the house, sat beside the sea and began to teach. Such a very large crowd of people from town after town was gathering about Him that He boarded a boat and sat in it on the lake of Galilee. The whole crowd stood on the beach listening as He taught them many lessons in story form. During the course of His instruction He said.
Listen! A farmer went out to sow his seed. While he was sowing, some grain fell along the path and was walked on by people who passed, and the birds came and ate it up. Other seed fell on rocky ground where there was not much soil. Immediately that grain sprouted, since the soil was not deep. But as it grew, the sun rose and withered it. Since there was no root, it withered away, because it got no moisture. Other grains fell among brambles. These thorns grew up with the good grain and choked it with the result that this too yielded no grain. Other seed fell into rich soil and brought forth grain, growing up and increasing and yielding a crop. Sometimes it produced thirty times what was sown, sometimes sixty times what was sown, sometimes even a hundred.
And as He was saying this, He practically shouted, If you have ears to hear with, then listenpay attention!
Later, His disciples began questioning Him regarding the meaning of this story. He answered, You have certainly understood this illustration, haven-'t you? How would you go about interpreting all the rest of these stories? Listen then to the explanation of the story about the sower. The meaning is as follows: the seed stands for the Word of God. The sower, then, is someone who broadcasts the message. The people along the path when the message is preached are those who, when they hear the news about the Kingdom of God, do not understand it. Satan, the evil slanderer, comes immediately to snatch away the Word implanted in their mind, to prevent their believing it and being saved by it. This is the meaning of the ground which was sown with seed along the path.
In a similar way, the rocky ground which had been sown represents those people who, when they hear the message, immediately welcome it joyfully. However, since they have no deep-rooted convictions within them, they believe, but, consequently, last only for a little while. Then, when trouble comes or persecution arises because they followed the Word, they immediately fall away.
What seed fell among brambles illustrates those people who hear the Gospel, but as they go about their business, the worries of the present age, the deceitful seduction of wealth, the desire for other things, and life's pleasures all contribute to choke out the influence of the Word in their life. Thus, they either prove completely unproductive, or else their character does not mature.
By what was broadcast on good soil I meant those people who hear the message, understand it, accept it and hold it fast in an honest, good heart. In fact, they patiently produce the character that the Gospel in them must bring forth. They produce in some cases thirty times what they received, sometimes sixty times, and in other cases, even as much as a hundred times!

SUMMARY

It was the same day Jesus had held a vigorous discussion with the Pharisees and scribes over the true source of His power when He cast a demon from a blind, dumb demoniac, the same day that Jesus-' work had been interfered with by His family and friends, that He went out to the beach where He taught the congregated crowds from a boat. His first story described the limitations that the individual qualities of men's hearts impose upon the effectiveness of God's Word: some reject, stifle, or else accept the influence of God's Word in their individual case in direct proportion to their character and their willingness to let God have His way.

NOTES

I. THE OCCASION OF THE SERMON: THE OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW

Matthew 13:1 On that day (En tê heméra ekeìne) is the expression whereby Matthew establishes a definite link between the Sermon in Parables and the events immediately preceding: the interference of Jesus-' relatives, and, probably, also, the psychological motivation for that interference: the accusation levelled by religious leaders that He worked in secret agreement with Satan. (Cf. Matthew 12:46 and parallels; Mark 3:19-21)

Redaction criticism would see this verse as merely a literary device having absolutely no historical value whatever, because it was invented by the anonymous editor of Matthew's Gospel, intending thereby to create a smooth connection between otherwise disconnected materials. (See also on Matthew 13:53,) But as has been noticed in the introduction to this chapter, Matthew gives the deliberate impression that he is recording one, unified discourse presented in the presence of Jesus-' disciples with only one major change of locale carefully noted (Matthew 13:36). It should occasion no surprise that he establish also the time, place and circumstance in which that discourse occurred. On the basis of what theory of authorship of this Gospel are we warranted to reject as unhistorical these circumstantial details, when the Gospel itself was already circulating either in Aramaic or Greek at a time when not only eye-witnesses still lived who could contradict any of these details if mistaken, and when enemies of the faithboth heretics and persecutorssought justification for their rejection of the orthodox message believed and taught by the early Church contained therein? If we must conclude with these modern critics that the phrase On that day or any other connector used by Matthew is unhistoricalthat is, that for some reason, the facts if really known are quite differenton what basis may we receive as genuinely historical ANY other supposed fact reported by Matthew, as, for example, the resurrection?

The situation on that day, then, is charged with high tension by four basic elements which must be understood before the Sermon in Parables can be rightly seen in its proper perspective:

Growing opposition from the authorities (Matthew 12:22-45)

Worried family and friends of Jesus (Mt. 3:19-21; see especially notes on Matthew 12:46-50)

Increasingly greater crowds or curiosity seekers neither disposed to think with Jesus nor ready to accept clear teaching. (See notes on Matthew 13:10-17; Matthew 13:34-35.)

Disciples to prepare, revelations to give them before the crisis of Calvary, deadlines to meet.

On that day Jesus went out: Nothing stops Him: no interruptions by well-meaning kinfolks, no hard-faced opposition, no misunderstanding friends can hinder Him from pouring out the revelations He had come to earth to share! If the above-mentioned connections are all solid, then the house is probably His Capernaum home to which He returned from His Galilean tour (Luke 8:1; Mark 3:19 b) and in which took place the healing of the blind and dumb demoniac and the fierce discussion with the calumnious Pharisees.

Jesus. sat by the sea side as He had done before (Mark 2:13). Notice how naturally the situation evolved: having left the house with His close disciples, Jesus found a suitable position along the lakefront where He could be comfortably heard by a small group of listeners. His lesson had no sooner gotten underway when the number of new faces around the listening circle got to be too great for the limited teaching situation. In fact, Mark and Luke assure us that the crowd began to swell surprisingly quickly, not merely with local towns people from Capernaum out promenading along the beach, but people kept coming together from town after town (Mark 4:1; Luke 8:4)! This made His words impossible to follow because of the confusion created by the unavoidable whispering, pushing and squirming into a hearing position, as the ones in the back probably complained about not being able to hear.

Matthew 13:2 And there were gathered unto him great multitudes, so that he entered into a boat, and sat; and all the multitude stood on the beach. It is not enough that Jesus has just battered His way through a forest of Pharisean arguments and come out victorious, even though the scribes themselves remain of the same opinion still. Here are perhaps hundreds of well-wishers and curious folk out for an afternoon walk with no television for their diversion. Instead of going down to the station to watch the trains come in, or gathering at the local football stadium, these Jews of another age stroll down to the waterfront to muse over the latest pronouncements of the budding rabbi from Nazareth. In general, or at least formally, they are committed to follow God's teaching wherever it might lead, but no doubt many of them have no specific interest in taking Jesus-' message personally or even too seriously, This audience is fundamentally friendly to Jesus, but not at all committed to Him as LORD enough to let Him rule. If they link Him with the long-anticipated Messianic Kingdom of God, they probably do so only in terms of their own popular notions about it. If there is to be any ruling done, Jesus will just have to do it their way, or they will not play along with it! (Study John 6:14-66.)

The first step Jesus takes is to get this milling mob under psychological control. It is impossible to teach anyone anything while thoughtless people are trying to make their own personal petitions for help and healing. Jesus-' solution, so simple and so effective, was to get into (Peter'S?) boat and have him shove off a short distance from the beach. (Cf. Luke 5:1-3) This gave Him an excellent speaker's platform from which He could easily be heard, and, at the same time, it made the crowds keep their distance unless they wanted to get wet. (Cf. Mark 3:9-10)

Matthew 13:3 a And he spake to them many things in parables. In the light of this uneasy situation, it would appear nothing short of incredible that Jesus should meet this extraordinary challenge by telling a string of seemingly harmless little stories. Parables, as the anglicized Greek word implies, are comparisons between two things, one definitely known which serves as a basis of comparison by which the other, which is set along side it, is to be understood. (parabolè, from para-ballein, to compare, Arndt-Gingrich, 616; see introduction to chapter 13 for further notes.) The many things in parables, as the introductory words of most of the illustrations say, are various aspects of the Kingdom of God, the one subject described through this entire discourse, however, seen from different points of view. Usually, a parable is a short story which, by means of its comparison, illustrates or clarifies a concept. But, as will be seen from our present examples, Jesus-' parables represent that concept obscurely, hence require interpretation for anyone not already perfectly familiar with the thing being described. Parables, as such, are not new in Jesus, since many such illustrations appear in His teaching before this. (Cf. Matthew 5:13-16; Matthew 6:22-23; Matthew 6:26-30; Matthew 7:24-27; Matthew 9:15-17; Matthew 10:29-31; Matthew 11:16-19; Matthew 12:25-26; Matthew 12:29; Matthew 12:43-45)

CLEAR TEACHING PREVIOUSLY GIVEN

As will be noticed in each pair of parables that follow, Jesus is merely restating in parabolic form information that was implicit in His previous teaching, notably that of the Sermon on the Mount. From this standpoint, He is not really offering completely new revelations for the person who had eyes to see the implications of what the Lord had there suggested.
But who on earth really saw all that? The impression He made on His audience then was one of astonishment at His authority and doctrine. But is it probable that even the most intimate, most alert disciples fully appreciated the heights and depths of that grand discourse? That enormous declarationeven as it stands in its quite probably edited form in Scriptureis massive! And if WE are just now growing to understand it after centuries of study by the predecessors upon whose shoulders we stand to get a better look, should we imagine that the multitudes, or even the Twelve, with minds filled with quite other notions about the coming Kingdom, should have been able so quickly to sound its depths and scale its heights or so instantly perceive the truth about the intentions of God for His Kingdom? This is highly doubtful.
And yet, from a historical perspective we can admit that the general outline of the Kingdom was there all the time, clear and right on the surface. With the notes on each pair of parables there has been included also an indication as to how the truth of those parables had already been anticipated in the Sermon on the Mount.
On this basis, then, it is possible to understand why these parables would have actually communicated meaning to some disciples, because, however unconsciously, they had really been over this ground before. These stories would actually communicate more knowledge in the sense that each would extract some principle implicit in the Sermon on the Mount (and in any other previous teaching of which that message is but a classic example), and hold that principle up for closer examination. The result is genuine progress in the revelation about the Kingdom.

THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER IN PREVIOUS TEACHING

If in that great Sermon on the Mount Jesus says that the truly blessed do not depend for their happiness on outward conditions with which contentment in a material kingdom is associated, but rather upon a condition of HEART which causes them to be poor in spirit, mourning, meek, famished for righteousness, merciful, pure in heart, peaceable, reviled sufferers for Jesus-' sake, we are warned at the outset that the Kingdom of God is designed to include and satisfy only those whose hearts are honest and good, unpreoccupied with other concerns. Further, if the Kingdom morality is one not merely of achieving standard Pharisaic goals, outward compliance with religious practices such as fasting, alms-giving and prayer, calculating self-interest, etc., if it is not merely superficial bending to divine revelations, if it is rather a morality of the conscience and a purity of heart that produces real piety, real love for others, then it becomes increasingly clear that the Kingdom itself is going to be found only in those whose hearts are honest and good. Again, if the fundamental function of the Kingdom's citizens is to be salt to the earth and light to the world, it follows that one must expect an abundance of worldlings needing the proclamation of this Kingdom Gospel, many of whom would remain unconvinced. The continued presence of evil in the world will be noticed under the Parable of the Weeds, but hints of it in the Sermon on the Mount indicate that reactions to the Kingdom's proclamation would be varied, exactly as taught by the Parable of the Sower. Else, how could there be any persecutors (Matthew 5:10-12), or enemies (Matthew 5:21-26; Matthew 5:38-48), thieves (Matthew 6:19-21), dogs and swine (Matthew 7:6), or false prophets (Matthew 7:15 ff)? And even more clearly, if in the Last Day even charismatic disciples of Jesus must face condemnation for evil works then not even the former habit of calling Jesus Lord, Lord can be substituted for doing the will of the Father (Matthew 7:21-23). This fact warns that not every disciple who begins the Christian life will finish acceptably. Even in the description of false prophets, the emphasis is on the kind of heart that produces good or bad fruits as the case may be. (See on Matthew 7:17-20.) Finally, the genuine freedom enjoyed by each individual to determine how or whether the Word of God will influence his belief and conduct is implicit in the totally unmanipulated decision which of the two ways open to man he will choose (Matthew 7:13 f).

II. THE MESSAGE (13:3b - 13:50)
A. THE PROBLEM INVOLVED IN PROCLAIMING THE KINGDOM: VARIED REACTIONS TO TRUTH
1. THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER AND SOILS
a. THE COLD INDIFFERENCE OF A CLOSED MIND

Matthew 13:3 b The picture is that of a farmer walking through his field with a grain-sack over one shoulder. As he walks he broadcasts seed-grain right and left. This free throwing, naturally, allows grain to fall wherever it will, although most of it would probably fall onto the good ground. Nevertheless, because no paved farm-to-market roads criss-crossed the country laying out the land in neat checkerboard squares, people beat paths through the fields (Cf. Matthew 12:1). On this hard, beaten path on which nothing would take root or grow, the seed lay exposed to the feet of passersby (Luke 8:5). The essential characteristic of this kind of soil is the fact that it remains precisely the same after the sowing as itwas before: as if it had never known the sowing. In fact, not a seed penetrated its asphalt-hard surface. Rather, hungry birds quickly snatched them up.

Matthew 13:18 Hear then ye the parable of the sower. It is important to remember here that Mark 4:10; Mark 4:13 definitely places this explanation following the dismissal of the crowds, a fact which effectively keeps this information private. Matthew's inclusion of this interpretation at this point in his narrative, as suggested in the Introduction, is not intended to intimate that it was told at this point, but solely to aid the reader.

At this point in the narrative, before Jesus explains the parable, He draws attention to its typical character: Do you not understand this parable (of the sower)? How then will you understand all the parables? (Mark 4:13) The evident purpose of Jesus-' question is to stimulate the disciples to begin developing their ability to interpret parables or any other instruction that, from their standpoint, was not clear either because of the form in which it was given, or because their own preconceptions blocked their grasp of its concept. But what did He mean?

Regarding the form: does He mean to introduce a rule by which to interpret other parables? If so, the point should not be missed that Jesus-' own illustration of His, method of interpretation is allegorical, even though some uninterpreted parables seem to have only one point of comparison. (See introduction to Chapter Thirteen.)

Regarding the content: is He saying that a grasp of the Parable of the Sower is absolutely fundamental to an adequate comprehension of the content, or message, of the other parables? That is, before one can see that evil will remain in the world until judgment (cfr. Parable of the Tares and of the Dragnet), even after the beginning of God's Kingdom in the Church, he must see that the proclamation of God's Kingdom will coerce no one to enter it, This absolute freedom to accept or refuse the Word of God will, of course, mean a very small beginning because of the limited, local proclamation of that message, and because its, influence can spread only gradually throughout the world by means of its power to persuade men to submit to God's rule (Parable of the Mustard Seed and of the Yeast). Likewise, to see why some accept the Word of the Kingdom and why many do not is to be prepared to understand how God's Kingdom could be a sudden, unexpected, joyous discovery worth any sacrifices to obtain it (Parable of the Hidden Treasure). Again, the appreciation of the excelling value of the Kingdom is only explicable if lesser values in life are allowed to remain, among which the individual, remains absolutely free to choose (Precious Pearl). According to this view, then, the Parable of the Sower explains why Jesus chose to proclaim the Kingdom as He did: God intends to leave absolutely inviolate the human freedom to choose. This foundational fact stands in the background of all the stories which follow.

Hear then ye the parable of the sower. Even as the Lord draws a striking contrast between the unreceptive crowds and the willing disciples by the use of emphatic pronouns (see on Matthew 13:16-17), so also here He underscores that difference: Here YE! The blessing He pronounced upon the disciples for their genuine experience of God's revelation (Matthew 13:16) is proportionate to the extent that they truly understand what is going on. This is why He not only explains the story to them, so it would certainly become revelation, but He also calls attention to the fact by ordering: You, then, listen to the meaning of the parable!

Jesus entitles His story the parable of the sower, as if the sower were to be the main interest, but His explanation of the illustration lays great stress on the kinds of terrain in which the Word is planted, while the sower himself plays no significant roleespecially in the explanation. It would be truer to say that the sower actually disappears, while primary emphasis is placed on the soils. In fact, whereas each separate part of the story begins with mention of the seed, the very distinctions in types of soil draws immediate attention to the cause for the various types of ground's yielding as many kinds of harvest from the identically good seed faithfully sown by the same sower. None the less, with good justification Jesus entitles His story the parable of the sower, because, by so doing, He draws attention to what would otherwise escape notice, because of the great attention given to the kinds of soils. In the Parable of the Seed Growing By Itself (Mark 4:26-29) He will give special attention to the power of the seed to accomplish its work. In that of the Weeds He will place more emphasis on the sower, identifying him there as the Son of man. But here, surprisingly, the sower is deliberately left unidentified except to style him generally as one who sows the Word of God (Mark 4:14; Luke 8:11). With this kind of introduction the Lord helps us to see that the problems involved in proclaiming the message of the Kingdom, the Word of God, are those to be faced by ANY proclaimer of that message. Whether it is Jesus Himself who proclaims the Kingdom, or whether it is His ambassadors who preach the Word (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:18-20; Matthew 10:40; Luke 10:16), the hindrances that impede it, as well as the causes that facilitate it, must be understood.

Matthew 13:19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, he stands in the unique, glorious position of one who can know the plans of God. Thus, he is thoroughly responsible for what he does with the information given. The seed is the word of God (Luke 8:11, cf. 1 Peter 1:22-25; James 1:18; James 1:21). So, anyone who admits the premise that Jesus-' message is none other than the proclamation of God's Kingdom would be in a position to understand it, because, if it were not clear to him, he could trust Jesus to explain what was not clear. So the expression, any one hears the word. and understands it not, does not refer so much to intellectual capacity, as it speaks of a moral attitude which is the key to understanding the first basic response to the message. Such an individual, upon hearing the message, immediately loses any real grasp on it, because he did not really understand it at all. But since that message is the identical Word that produces the finest results in someone else, the fault cannot be in a message intellectually beyond the capacity of the former. Why should this take place? How could any man be so absolutely hard that any message about the problems of the spirit, about concern over sin or about hope of redemption would be absolutely unintelligible and without meaning? As Trench (Parables, 30) has it, here is a man who has exposed his heart as a common road to every evil influence of the world, till it has become hard as a pavement. Dulled conscience, jaded sentiments, perverse will, prejudiced intellectall contribute to his inability to comprehend. (Cf. Hebrews 3:13, hardened by the deceitfulness of sin; Ephesians 4:17-19) This mind could also be closed by prejudice, unwillingness to be taught, pride or fear of new truth.

But not the least of the causes of his loss are the external influences that go to work immediately upon the individual while he is still listening to the Word: then cometh the evil one and snatcheth away. From such a person it is an easy snatch, because he left the Word lying around on the surface of his life where anyone or anything could remove it. He made it no part of his thinking. Since Jesus spoke of several birds devouring the grain, one would have expected Him to interpret them as many impersonal temptations. Instead, the birds are the evil one, Satan (Mark 4:15), the devil (Luke 8:12). Jesus is not embarrassed by modern theories that would eliminate Satan as a personal, evil adversary. (See on Matthew 4:3.) Likewise, Paul feels the human nakedness of the unarmed individual, exposed to the attacks of the evil one. (Ephesians 6:10-18 where note how he, too, speaks of the various methods, methodeias, of the devil, the principalities, the powers, the world rulers of this present darkness, the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Nevertheless, for Paul, there is still but one unspeakably malicious and personal enemy who actively pursues the seduction of men and women to lead them away from a sincere devotion to Christ. Cf. 2 Corinthians 11:3; 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12) The Lord makes it obvious from this first parable that no view of the Messianic Kingdom can be adequate that makes no account of a real, personal devil dedicated to hindering its progress at every step. This fact warns all starry-eyed dreamers, who expect the proclamation of the Kingdom to be crowned with instant success, that even the free, malevolent activity of God's enemy will be tolerated until the final victory (Cf. Matthew 13:28; Matthew 13:39).

Luke's addition to the parable, the Word was trodden underfoot (Luke 8:5), though not interpreted by the Lord, might suggest that, in the same way that the seed cast on the path lay exposed to be trod upon by any who crossed the field that way, so the Word, too, was no sooner heard than it got literally trampled in the stampede of other thoughts crowding the life of this person, regardless of the origin of these thoughts. In this case, the Word, considered as a new thought, never had a chance. While the man in Luke 12:13 ff could well be an illustration of the thorny soil, his callousness to spiritual reality makes him a good example of this one too. In fact, while Jesus is pouring His heart out to get men's mind off of their earthly concerns long enough to let God have His way in everything, this individual can think of nothing else but the injustice of his brother and his own part of their family inheritance! Herod Antipas wavered back and forth from an interested listener of John the Baptist to his plotting murderer (Cf. Matthew 14:5 and Mark 6:20). The Word of God, no matter who preaches it, just can never penetrate the surface of a mind paved over with indifference to truth, dulled by complacency and protected by prejudice. Not even Jesus Christ can get through to a man like that!

b. THE SUPERFICIAL ENTHUSIASM THAT DOES NOT COUNT THE COST

Matthew 13:5 The picture here is of shallow topsoil covering a slab of rock, because if it were soil mixed with rocks, the seed would have found little difficulty finding a crack between the stones to reach down into good humus, were that the case. The point of the apparently rich soil covering the layer of rock is its deceptive superficiality, a fact that leads naturally into the interpretation.

Matthew 13:20 Some easy, surface culture softens some people, making them seem open-hearted and good prospects for conversion. In fact, upon hearing the message, they receive it immediately with joy. There is real joy in knowing that we have been forgiven, real rapture in the assurance that God has adopted us. Many genuinely admire Christ, truly appreciate the beauty of holiness and sound the depths of clear emotions, but mistake all this for faith, for attachment to Jesus, for depth of godliness and for patient maturity. They receive the word readily, because it is objectively good and desirable (Hebrews 6:5). There seems to be a poignant contrast underlying Jesus-' double use of straightway: He. straightway with joy receives it. straightway he stumbles, of this type of individual who begins to make splendid progress but is hindered (Cf. Galatians 5:7), Perhaps he accepted the Gospel without weighing its consequences for the rest of his life. (Cf. the scribe in Matthew 8:19 and notes; 1 Thessalonians 5:21). Easily converted by the arguments of the moment, he was just as easily disposed to change under other tensions or on the basis of other arguments (Cf. John 5:35; Mark 6:20; Luke 4:22; Luke 4:29). The shallow-minded person with no strength of character, no long-range goals, a creature of the hour, has few convictions that can override momentary difficulties or outlast shortlived whims. (Contrast 2 Corinthians 4:1 to 2 Corinthians 6:10; esp. 2 Corinthians 3:4; 2 Corinthians 3:12; 2 Corinthians 4:7; 2 Corinthians 4:13; 2 Corinthians 4:16; 2 Corinthians 5:6; 2 Corinthians 5:11). During periods of great revival, many easily get on the bandwagon, but apostacize when their Christianity is put to any real tests (Cf. Hebrews 3:12). The fault lies not with the seed, but entirely with the soil, not with the Word, but with the lack of depth in this impulsive person who can go for the Gospel or Jesus or the Church, like he would go for any other fad, and then reject it as quickly, because something else has caught his fancy. It was to this kind of mentality that Jesus had to address His stern challenge of the high cost of discipleship, in order to get people to consider the cost before plunging into the life of a disciple and then failing to finish (Luke 14:25-33).

Yet he has no root in himself: does this expression mean to say that (1) he has in himself, i.e., in his life, no roots sunk down into, and taking nourishment and stability from, other things outside himself? or (2) that he has no roots sunk down deep in his own psychological make-up. Are the roots to be thought of as subjective, objective or both? When we examine a man's subjective constitution, we find the traditions that form his conscience and the sentiments that fire his emotions. Even if these are an integral part of the man that makes him what he is, their cause of stimulus is outside of him in the teaching he has received from his parents and society, and in his reactions to it and them. So, even here, we have the combination: a subjective reaction to an objective reality, and the ground in which his roots would have been planted. But, Jesus declares, He has no roots, no well-trained conscience that can keep his duty clear in the face of doubts and contrary desires, no disciplined will to hold him steady under anti-Christian persecution, no practice at governing his emotions and desires, and no intellect used to facing truth and reality wherever and however it comes. (Contrast Hebrews 10:32-35; 2 Corinthians 4:17-18; Ephesians 3:17; Colossians 2:7; Matthew 7:25.) He lacks, in short, the very things that would have made him tenacious under fire. Result? He endures for a while (proskairos estin). The time-limit is not indicated, leaving each disciple to ask himself: At what point am I? Faithful until death is the demand (Revelation 2:10).

And when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word. a person under pressure must decide whether his cause is worth the trouble to die for or not. Jesus knows that too many would wait until they are put under pressure to consider this, since their initial decision was not properly weighed. If our decision to follow Christ is well taken, we need not die a thousand deaths with the arrival of each single tormenter or temptation to quit (Cf. Luke 8:13). What would it take to tempt you to deny the Lord? Many who might actually rise to the challenges of a heroic martyrdom in the arena or suffer in the flames at the stake, forget the treacherous peril of sneers, scoffing and laughter, and to stoop to cursing and denial of their Lord. Ironically, serious opposition can produce precisely the opposite reaction: push some men back into a corner with their back to the wall and they will hold all the more tenaciously to the position for which they are being thus maltreated (Cf. 2 Samuel 17:8; Jeremiah 26:12-15; 1 Kings 22:1-28). But the difference lies in each individual's gut-level attitude toward his chosen position. That is, does his spirit really dominate his flesh, and does the Lord really govern him? At any rate, it is the same trouble, pain and persecution, the same lack of clothes and food, the same plundering of property, the same threats of death, for one Christian as for the other (Cf. Hebrews 10:32 ff; -Romans 8:31-39). So the fault lies, once again, not in the inquisitory fires, but in the quality of the material tested thereby (Cf. 2 Corinthians 4:7-12; 2 Corinthians 4:16 to 2 Corinthians 5:10; 2 Corinthians 6:4-10; 2 Corinthians 7:3; 2 Corinthians 7:5; 2 Corinthians 8:2; 1 Corinthians 3:10-15; 1 Peter 1:3-9; James 1:2-4. See Special Study Temptation, Vol. I, pp. 143-152.). None the less, the trial or persecution must be because of the Word, not because of one's own mistaken opinions or limited views of that message. (Acts 14:22; 2 Thessalonians 1:5; see notes on Matthew 5:11.)

The only saving of this superficial enthusiast from this shallow rootlessness is to give this new convert some roots. Where is the new Christian who does not want Jesus to abide in him, who does not desire to bear fruit to the Lord's honor? Let the rich strength of the words of Jesus become part of his thinking, the source of his power, the guidance for his prayers and the stimulus to his obedience, and his initial joy need never fade! (John 15:1-11; Ephesians 3:14-19; Colossians 2:6-7.) Let him learn quickly that he has been predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son of God who was persecuted for righteousness-' sake and ended up on a cross (Romans 8:29)!

c. THE PREOCCUPIED INDIVIDUAL: TOO BUSY, DOUBLE-MINDED

Matthew 13:7 What will grow thorns will also grow wheat! Here is soil with real potential, but already occupied: it could produce a great harvest, but is growing a jungle, Upon the thorns (or, among thorns, as Mark and Luke have it) zooms in on the real problem: the areas into which this portion of the seed fell were already occupied, already committed. Is there a suggestion here also that the productive power of the ground for a given year is limited, so that the ground itself, like the human heart, can support only a certain concentration of strength-consuming growth beyond which point comes exhaustion and failure?

Matthew 13:22 Is this man a Christian? It is significant that the only apostolic use of a similar figure mentioning well-watered, cultivated land producing thorns as eventually worthless, near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned, is intended to describe Christian people who have once been enlightened, have had a taste of the heavenly gift, have received the Holy Spirit, have experienced the goodness of God's word and the spiritual resources of the age to come. (Hebrews 5:11 to Hebrews 6:12; Hebrews 10:32-39; Hebrews 12:12-15). There is no denying that the thorny heart is that of a Christian, once a child of God by faith in Jesus Christ, but now in danger of falling away for many reasons before arriving at maturity. Although Jesus does not state outright that the man with the preoccupied heart had actually accepted the Word, as in the case of the superficial convert, this is a fair assumption in light of these factors:

The crescendo of reactions to the message rising from total indifference up to genuine faith among which the thorny heart is put after the shallow heart which had actually received the Word with joy, would lead us to see this individual as a Christian.

The nature of the ground represented here, while crowded with other stronger growths, can also receive the seed and permit it to start growing.

Luke's expression: but as they go on their way (poreuòmenoi, Matthew 8:14) indicates that the choking out of the good fruit of God's Word in their lives would have occurred sometime after they had heard it but before they normally would have arrived at maturity. It takes time to suffocate the Word, if it is going to be done by cares, pleasure, wealth, etc. So this happens gradually as these go through life, but before they reach the goal.

Even the thorns needed time to grow up with the seeds (Luke 8:7).

In short, here is an individual unable to concentrate his entire life on God, i.e., he cannot consecrate (concentrate) it to make it wholly (holy) His (Cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 1 Thessalonians 4:3). His good intentions to make an honest, all-out, positive response to Jesus and begin the life of faith are frustrated, since divided loyalties usurp his highest loyalty and so strangle his spiritual life. He is a careless dabbler in many, not immoral things, in fact, easily justifiable, reasonably good things. But his inattention to priorities permits these other preoccupations to ease out of its first place his one great preoccupation: the service of God. The little boy who prayed in a Christian service camp: And, Lord, thank you for those boys and girls who concentrated their lives today, accidentally said more truth on the subject of holiness than most preachers can say on purpose! Here again, Jesus drives home the point: Only the pure in heart will see God. (See notes on Matthew 5:8.)

PALTRY PANACEAS AND PERENNIAL PREOCCUPATIONS THAT PREJUDICE PRODUCTION

What are these previous commitments that impede this man's spiritual growth? As will be noticed from the hindrances themselves, these various preoccupations may all be found in the same individual in varying degrees in some unbeatable combination, or, too, one or more single preoccupations will be more accented in a given person, bringing about his downfall. (See the Special Study on Temptations, Vol. I, pp. 143-152, for more notes on this conflict of desires.)

Cares of the world (he mérimna toû aiônos, or, as Mark has it, hai merimnai), because of the problem of the subjective versus the objective genitive, is handily ambiguous here: (1) The worry connected with the times, those into which one's life is cast (Lenski, Matthew, 521); (2) the cares which the world worries about. Jesus had already warned against the insidious paganism involved (Matthew 6:19-34), Martha was an easy target for this seduction (Luke 10:38-42). We, like her, get worried and bothered about so many relatively necessary things and commonly neglect the one thing really imperative. The toil and fatigue of being always on the job, always plodding, gives no leisure for concerns of the spirit. Our head buzzes with our minute-to-minute problems and our schedule is full up. Within themselves, each single care is no sin, and may even be justified in Scripture (Cf. 1 Timothy 5:8; Ephesians 4:28; Matthew 15:4-5; 2 Corinthians 12:14; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-13). The idolatry begins, however, when the individual seeks first the solution to these cares and then relegates the Kingdom-quest to whatever time, interest and strength is left. (Contrast Matthew 6:33.)

Lest anyone feel himself above these cares, let him count how many great things for God he intends to do before he dies, but whose daily business of living has such a grip on him that he is left simply too tired to think about these goals. Is our life so crowded that we never quite have time to get around to them? This is why the Lord dedicated so much soul-searching preaching to this single human concern: the Christian and the cares of this world. While there may be a definite ethnic undertone to the Parable of the Great Banquet and the Lame Excuses (Luke 14:15-24; Cf. Matthew 22:1-10), the excuses given by those originally invited reveal their real preoccupation and what they really wanted out of life.

Delight in riches, or the deceptive seduction that comes from wealth, or the false glamour of wealth. The reason for these varied translations lies in the word apàte, rendered by Rocci (196): 1. deception, fraud, betrayal; 2. trick, artifice; 3. diversion, pastime; and enjoyed deception, said of theatrical spectators. Arndt-Gingrich (80) mention: 1. deception, deceitfulness; seduction; deceit; 2. pleasure, pleasantness that involves one in sin. NT texts using this word are: Matthew 13:22; Mark 4:19; Ephesians 4:22; Colossians 2:8; 2 Thessalonians 2:10; Hebrews 3:13; 2 Peter 2:13; the verb apàtao occurs in Ephesians 5:6; 1 Timothy 2:14; James 1:26, where it can mean deceive, cheat, mislead, 2 mid. enjoy oneself, live pleasurably. The more talent a man has, the more the world demands his service and the more money he can make, the more he can be deceived into believing that this world's goods are the real wealth (Cf. 1 Timothy 6:6-10). Whether we possess wealth or merely long for it, it embroils us with promises to satisfy which it cannot keep. Remember wealth's seduction of the rich young ruler (Matthew 19:16-30). Demas fell for this trap, too (2 Timothy 4:10). Judas Iscariot had his hand in the cash register, too (John 12:6). Just as surely as Jesus knew there would be some smart boys who would attempt to serve God and Mammon (Matthew 6:24), so here too He sounds the warning: either wheat or thorns will be the produce of one heart, but not both!

Let not the poor suppose that they are somehow exempt from this temptation, merely because they have so little as never to be free from their daily cares! They too may envy the advantages that wealth provides their richer neighbors, and, consequently, embroil themselves in the same greedy grasping for just a little bit more. Even the well-fixed gentry may presume their cares to be over, only to find it hard for them to enter into God's Kingdom (Matthew 19:16-26).

The deception lies in the hope that one's nervous quest of wealth need not destroy his faith. Should not he use his talent for making money? While he reasons this way, the bonds of slavery to his sources of wealth harden into steel. Death or judgment catches this man still dreaming that at any minute he can free himself from his financial ties. It all begins with an eagerness to acquire it, develops through a proud confidence in what wealth can do, matures in the resolve to hold and increase the gains. He perfects a flexible honesty and that hard-nosed inhumanity called business is business. Ironically, Jesus was most exasperated with people who were so bent on acquiring money that they remained blind to the true wealth. They do not see that all worldly riches are borrowed goods given into man's administration, and, sooner or later, must be returned to their rightful Owner for a final accounting. The sage Preacher of Ecclesiastes saw wealth with the disguise removed, and he cried, Vanity! This is a realistic picture of a life spent without God and Christ.

The desire for other things (Mark 4:19 hai perì tà liopà epithumìai). As noted in the Special Study on Temptations (Vol. I, pp. 147ff), the word desires (epithumia) may or may not have an evil connotation, a fact extremely important here. Is Jesus defining covetousness? Pleonexia, usually rendered covetousness, as its etymology reveals, means have-more-ishness, hence greediness, insatiableness, avarice, covetousness. (Arndt-Gingrich, 673) This is that selfish ambition that drives for wealth, position, status, recognition, certainly, but it is more. Paul succeeded in sorting out for himself the one essential ingredient in life, and dropped everything else, however desirable it might once have been, (Study Philippians 3:13 in context.) He felt so keenly the danger in desiring just a little bit more that he called covetousness by its right name: IDOLATRY (Colossians 3:5; Ephesians 5:5), Perhaps the printed liturgy for this religion is a full-illustrated sale catalogue of the products of American industry, its sacrifices are made on the easy-payment plan. Many get so bogged down in the hard-labor burden of keeping up the easy payments, that the husband is forced to hold down two jobs, and the wife must seek extra work away from the home, all in the name of the desire for other things.

The pleasures of life (Luke 8:14) Is this another name for the desire for other things? Is it not rather that unadulterated hedonism frankly unabashed by its own luxuriating in the good things of life?

While it may seem that each of these preoccupations is quite distinct from each otherdoes it not ring strange to hear of pleasures, the luxuries of the affluent, mentioned as thorns in the same context with the daily, crushing struggle of the poor man to live?yet there are several unifying characteristics of everyone in this class that justify Jesus-' including these divergent tendencies in one group. Some, for instance, see a logical progression in this series of thorns: ANXIETY about things essential to one's existence leads to activity that will produce WEALTH, which, in turn, will make possible enough comforts to create a taste for JUST A BIT MORE until one's absorbing interest turns into unashamed living for PLEASURE. Whether this ascending (descending?) progression is intended by Jesus or not, wherever a man finds himself absorbed or obsessed at any of these levels, he is in trouble (Luke 21:34-36).

Another unifying characteristic of this class is the double-mindedness of everyone in it. It is evident from Jesus-' emphasis that to have any harvest at all, much less a bountiful one, the choice must be faced: either thorns or no harvest at all, or only good seed and a harvest with no thorns. These are those individuals whose interests vacillate between God and anything else, and, at this point, it really does not matter WHAT else. These doubt and hesitate about their conflicts of interest. (Cf. James 4:8; James 1:8 dìpsuchos; irresolute, vacillating, uncertain) They are neither totally confident that God can be their all in all, nor that earth's cares and pleasures can satisfy. So they wander incessantly back and forth between these two poles, struggling to harmonize the irreconcilable demands of the flesh and those of the Spirit (Cf. Galatians 5:16-26), rather than reconcile themselves to choose. How they need Elijahs to challenge them to a decision: How long are you going to waver between the two sides? If the Lord be God, follow Him. But if __________ (you fill in the blank) be a god, follow him then! Whether the real dependence of everyone in this class reveals itself in religious doubts or not, they are in reality idolaters who seek the supply of all that satisfies life's needs in something else, anything else, other than the living God. They may trust God, but with inward reservations and divided loyalties (Cf. James 1:5-8). John, also heard this message, indicated the this-worldliness of these thorns: Do not set your heart on this world or anything in it. Anyone who loves the world cannot love the Father at the same time. In fact, the whole world system with its primitive desires, its enticements, and its pride in one's possessions, does not derive from the Father, but from the world itself. Further, this world and its passions is already on the way out, whereas the man who does what God desires, will last forever (1 John 2:15-17).

Here are some tests that help reveal whether these thorns are crowding out the Word in us:

How much of my income is budgeted for (1) Upkeep, (2) Recreation, (3) Savings and investments, (4) the Lord's work?

Can I consciously recall the content of the last Bible study or sermon I heard? What was the text studied? How was it developed? How was it applied? What was my personal reaction to it?

What proportion of my time may be actually said to be dedicated to learning what God wants me to know and do?

How easy is it for other things to interfere with my commitment to serve the Lord in the specific ways He has indicated?

Add also the questions listed at Matthew 6:21 (Vol. I, p. 375).

d. THE GOOD, HONEST PERSON

Matthew 13:8 Since ancient writers speak of harvests even more abundant than these more modest yields indicated here by Christ, nothing should be affirmed in the application about the rarity of the highest degrees of spirituality (Cf. Genesis 26:12). Trench (Notes, 32) cites Herodotus as saying that two hundredfold was a common return in the plain of Babylon, and sometimes three hundredfold occurred (Cf. Thomson, The Land and the Book, Vol. I, 116f). Here is ground relatively free from previous growths, broken up, and ready to receive the seed-grain.

Matthew 13:23 Is single-mindedness, or whole-heartedness, in Jesus-' mind here? In contrast to all the foregoing, this person puts God's Kingdom first, last and always, because his heart is neither impervious, nor previously committed, nor superficial. Consider his composite qualities taken together, since it is not possible to argue that any one of these qualities alone distinguishes these individuals, since all are essential to a successful harvest of righteousness:

He hears the Word (Matthew 13:23; Cf. Romans 10:14-15)

He understands it, in contrast to the indifferent (Matthew 13:23). Plummer (Luke, 222) thinks that katéchousin (Luke 8:15), paradéchontai (Mark 4:20), and sunieìs (Matthew 13:23) may all be equivalents of the same Aramaic verb, meaning to take in. However, it is well to note the important differences of shading in the Greek verbs actually employed by our Gospel authors. Here, therefore, suniemi speaks simply of comprehension of what is said. (Contrast Matthew 13:13-15; Matthew 13:19; cf. Matthew 13:51; Matthew 15:10; Matthew 16:12; Matthew 17:13; Luke 24:45; Ephesians 5:17)

He accepts it. (Mark 4:20; cf. James 1:21) This is a separate step beyond comprehension, since many reject the message BECAUSE they comprehend it and what it will cost them should they accept it (Cf. Acts 16:21; Acts 22:18).

He holds it fast. (Luke 8:15; Cf. 1 Corinthians 11:2; 1 Corinthians 15:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; Hebrews 3:6; Hebrews 3:14; Hebrews 10:23) He knows that unless he does, he can drift away from it (Hebrews 2:1-4).

In an honest and good heart. (Luke 8:15) It may be justly surprising to learn that a Gospel geared to make men good should produce fruit only in hearts that are pictured as already good before receiving the message. Nevertheless, even before examining the meaning of the terms, one should expect that, in the foregoing observation, the word good is used in two different ways. That is, Jesus-' intended target for the Gospel is to make men perfect like God, not relatively good. (See on Matthew 5:48.) So, even as soil may be described as good for the purpose for which it is sown, so we may speak of a person as a good prospect for the Gospel, although we are affirming nothing about the absolute goodness of his character or about what the Gospel will eventually produce in him. So it is that an unregenerated mind may be termed good ground for the Gospel, since it is specifically addressed to just such a mind. When a man has a sensitive conscience that accepts no easy justifications and an intellect that loves truth no matter the cost, he is honest and good. These are folks whose minds are not already filled with false notions about God and goodness, and so are ready to receive anything Jesus wants to tell them, or else they hold their prejudices lightly and so can be relieved of them. They view their vested interests as only a stewardship from God, and are happy to seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and their pleasure is always to find pleasure in what pleases God.

Honest and good kalòs kaì agathòs), it is true are two separate adjectives, but, when taken together, they may become a fixed phrase, sometimes written kalòs kàgathòs, and are not intended to be broken up or considered as single descriptives. From the classical Greek point of view, Rocci (961, also 4) sees this combination as meaning: respectable, honest; complete in every sense; excellent; virtuous and cultured; beautiful and precious;. excellent in every way.

(However, Arndt-Gingrich, 401 and 3, see these two as separate qualities. Nevertheless, even English has a similar idiom in which good and. followed by an adjective is but the reinforcement of the normal value of that adjective, e.g., good and ready, good and tired good and angry. In these cases we affirm nothing about the relative goodness of the person so described, because we intend only to emphasize the second adjective, as in the combination: When I become good and tired, I cannot think well. Nothing is affirmed here for the Greek expression on the basis of the English idiom, except to point out the possibility of the Greek combination of two adjectives united by and used to express one concept.)

Trench (Notes, 32) sees this description honest and good as referring to

... a receptivity for the truth. One (division of men) was of the false-hearted, who called good evil, and evil good, self-excusers and self-justifiers, such as were the Scribes and Pharisees for the most part. The other class were sinners too, but yet acknowledging their sins, and having no wish to alter the everlasting relations between right and wrong. Such were the Matthews and the Zacchaeuses. Nathaniel would be yet a more perfect specimena man of simple, earnest, truthful nature, who had been faithful to the light which he hadwho had not resisted God's preparation for imparting to him His best gift.

He produces fruit. (Cf. John 15:1-16; James 1:22-27) Note that it is fruit, not proven sterilty and indifference; fruit, not an abundance of promises and withered leaves; fruit, not immature or incomplete production however far advanced it might be; but ripe, harvestable fruit that proved the ground to be good. Further, fruit is the proper, natural product of the seed. The Gospel seed will produce only Gospel fruit in the sense that, when we think, speak and act in harmony with the Word, and because of our desire to obey the Word, we are bearing fruit. We bear fruit when we do as the Lord teaches us. (Study John 14:15; John 14:21; John 14:23; John 15:6-7; John 15:10; John 15:12; John 15:14; John 15:17.) Our actions and new thought patterns, reoriented in conformity with the Word received in our heart and life, are nothing short of the activity of the very Spirit of God at work to produce His fruit in us! (See 1 Peter 1:22-23; 1 Peter 1:25; James 1:18; James 1:21; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18; Galatians 5:5; Galatians 5:13-24; Romans 8:9-11; Philippians 2:12-13.)

Fruit. some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. There is no indication in the text whether Jesus approves or disapproves of these differences in results. Argument for each could be made as follows:

If He approves of the varied harvest, then Jesus is taking into account individual differences; even good hearts do not all produce alike. He does not expect the same level of performance from all His different disciples, because they are precisely thatDIFFERENT. (Cf. Romans 12:3-8; Matthew 25:14-30; 2 Corinthians 8:11-12.) But He does expect them to produce to their own individual capacity. (Colossians 1:28; 2 Peter 1:3-4; 1 Corinthians 4:2; Matthew 25:15; 2 Corinthians 8:3; 2 Corinthians 8:5; 2 Corinthians 8:8; 2 Corinthians 8:12; 2 Corinthians 9:5-7). Their very difference justifies no false comparisons or easy justifications for inadequate production (Cf. Galatians 6:1-10; 2 Corinthians 10:12; 2 Corinthians 10:18).

If He disapproves, these differences reveal themselves as part of the larger problem as to why the Word receives different treatment in the heart of different hearers. In this case, one must not be satisfied to bear only thirtyfold or sixty, in the same way that one must not allow himself to remain infested with worldly preoccupations or pleasures of life. To change the figure, as the Lord's vine, we can be pruned to bear much more fruit than we actually do (John 15:1-5; John 15:8; cf. also Luke 13:6-9). Any diversity in our own consecration or in our understanding of the Word will result in a harvest of righteousness dissimilar to that of others. Consider James 3:18 in its context Matthew 3:13-17 addressed to Christians who must make their own that true, heavenly wisdom that is pure, peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without uncertainty or insincerity. Paul encourages the rich to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous (1 Timothy 6:17 ff). But since all such production must necessarily be relative to one's opportunities, his inclination to respond positively to each situation, his understanding of God's will in each case, etc., his reaction will obviously differ. The net result is a series of reactions which comprise the life of each individual, which, when measured comparatively with that of others, will appear to vary from a hundredfold to sixty to thirty.

While it may be that the Lord is happy to recognize individual differences among His disciples, can He be satisfied with less-than-perfect concentration on, and obedience to, His Word? Since it is the Word which is sown (Luke 8:11), it is the Word which grows to maturity. Paul, besides rejoicing that the word of the truth, the gospel which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growingso among yourselves, from the day you heard and understood the grace of God in truth, prayed also that the Colossians be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, to lead a life worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God (Colossians 1:3-14). While the Word itself may be a fixed quantity, our grasp of it and obedience to it certainly is not (Cf. Ephesians 1:15-19; Ephesians 3:14-19; Ephesians 4:11-16; Philippians 1:9-11).

e. CONCLUSION TO THIS PARABLE ON HUMAN FREEDOM

Matthew 13:9 He that hath ears, let him hear. (See notes on Matthew 11:15; Matthew 13:43; Cf. Revelation 1:7, Revelation 1:11, Revelation 1:17, 26, 29; Revelation 3:6; Revelation 3:13; Revelation 3:22.) But ears are standard equipment! This observation turns us aside to consider the fact that, although everyone normally is furnished with a pair of ears, he may not actually be listening with interest and understanding to Jesus. Consequently, his ability to grasp the kind of Kingdom of God that Jesus is revealing depends greatly upon the concentration of his heart, upon his attitude, upon what he wants in life, because all these determine greatly whether he will be convinced by the truth when he hears it. This aphorism with which He concludes the simple narration about the Sower, Seed and Soils should prevent people's supposing that this story has no deeper meaning. It warns them to look beneath the surface, if they would not be merely mystified by it. It is significant that, according to Mark 4:3, Jesus introduced this parable with the verb akoùete:

If translated as an indicative question, Jesus is stirring up the sleepy-minded: Are you listening?

If translated as an imperative, Jesus orders: Pay attention! Either way, He helps men to see that the real point of His story is to show how vitally each individual's concentration affects how the Word is received and retained (Cf. Mark 4:24-25; Luke 8:18).

This simple, oft-repeated invitation is so very urgent, because -so much depends upon its proper understanding. DETERMINISTIC PREDESTINATION IS JUST NOT TRUE, because it sees God as sealing the inexorable fate of the damned or the unchangeable bliss of the saved, irrespective of their individual choices. Jesus cannot make such an unlimited invitation, unless menall menare genuinely free to hear His message and be changed by it, and so be saved. This whosoever-type exhortation, further, means nothing, unless men, after listening to Him, can freely choose not to accept it, and so be damned. So, God's grace is really free to all and proceeds from unbounded goodness, but He will not violate human liberty in order to force His grace upon man. Without further cultivation the terrain remains what it was. There is a sense in which God cultivates the soil in the attempt to help it to produce (Cf. Romans 2:4; Luke 13:6-9). However, this is not a cultivation that manipulates the free will of the person determined not to respond. The goodness of God aims to reach the sentiments of the person, but does not touch his will at all. Man always retains the keys to his own free will and remains lord of his own destiny. Not even the loving effort of fellow Christians to help him bear fruit can force him to choose something he does not want (Cf. Hebrews 6:4-6). This concept becomes even clearer when we remember the conditions that made each of the four hearts what they are:

The first heart did not understand the Word, but he was perfectly free to ask for further explanations from Jesus.

The superficial hearer believed for a while, therefore he could have believed a while longer, growing ever stronger in the faith, even to the point where he could withstand the scandal of persecutions and temptations to quit.

The preoccupied person, suffocated by worldly cares, by the deception of wealth, by the ambition for other things and by the pleasures of life, was perfectly free to die to the slavery to all this, suffer the consequences, but, in so doing, enjoy the life that is real.

Whereas the good heart depicts a generally honest person, this good character notwithstanding, he could let himself be drawn into the same deceptions that capture and destroy the other (Hebrews 2:1-3 a; Matthew 3:12-13; Matthew 10:32-39; Matthew 12:15-16).

So the will of each individual remains absolute lord of his own choice. Trench (Notes, 33) puts it as follows:

The disciples might have been in danger of supposing that these four conditions of heart were permanently fixed. This warning. obviates the possibility of such a mistake, for it tells us that according as we hear and receive the word, so will its success bethat even for those who have brought themselves into an evil condition, recovery is still, through the grace of God, possible. For, whilst it is true that there is such a thing as laying waste the very soil, yet, on the other hand, the hard soil may again become softthe shallow soil deepthe soil beset with thorns clear.

The marvel of this unfeigned, deep respect that God has for human freedom is His unhesitating willingness to take the risk involved in letting His divine Truth be rejected because of ignorance, misunderstanding, temptations, weakness of character that leaves the individual with no convictions capable of conquering temporary difficulties, persecutions, trials, etc., and because of that selfishness which expresses itself in the usual cares of the world, delight in riches, greed and pleasure! But God thinks that this risk is well worth taking, since He longs for men who freely choose to be His sons, not robots who could do no other.

MATERIALISTIC DETERMINISM IS JUST NOT TRUE EITHER. If Jesus-' warning means to reveal anything important about man, it shouts in this unphilosophic way a final answer for all philosophers to hear: man is no machine, no part of a greater universal Machine comprising the universe as we know it. Man is not conditioned to walk lock-step with mechanical processes that force him to be what he is, for which conduct he is fundamentally not responsible, not culpable.

Therefore, let no man excuse himself, pleading irresponsibility for disobedience on the ground that he is helpless against the inclinations of his own deeply-ingrained characteristics. If he will but listen to Jesus, the Lord can help him to change all that through that radical transformation whereby he harmonizes every part of his being according to the new, living reality before Him in Jesus. He can really be born again! (John 3:3-5; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:22-23). Weak men can be made strong! What is a Savior for, if He be unable to free the enslaved, hearten the hopeless and turn the shallow-hearted into dedicated disciples who are deeply rooted and firmly established in the Lord (Cf. 2 Corinthians 1:21; 1 Peter 5:10).

He that hath ears, let him hear! Lest we be proud because of our privileged position, and in order that we might better appreciate the mental blocks in the minds of Jesus-' hearers, blocks that hindered their comprehension of messages that seem now so simple to us, let us begin to recognize some of our own! With all due respect to all unfortunate people on earth, how would you react to Jesus were He to live in your town, if you discovered that He were physically ugly? Do we not usually imagine the Lord as the very picture of our ideal of manly beauty? How would you react to Him, were you to find that He could not qualify for membership in the American cult of handsome jet-set young men? Think about Isaiah 52:13 to Isaiah 53:3 before answering. Here is where some so-called faith reveals itself for the personality cult it really is. If his loveliness were altogether spiritual glory, would you have any difficulty following Him?

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS MULTIPLE-IMPACT PARABLE?

Is it that Jesus intended gently to remove from His hearers-' thinking the erroneous concept of a materialistic kingdom that batters its way to conquest by force of arms? Does He wish to imply that God's Kingdom does not intend to win its victories in this way? Does He want us to understand that the success of His program will depend upon the painfully slow process of planting truth in people's hearts, patiently waiting until it grows and bears fruit? If so, this story speaks directly to those disciples troubled about clouds on Jesus-' horizon, because this outline of His program includes the clouds and spells out His ultimate plan for victory.

Or is it His design to apprise the disciples of the difficulties to be expected by any proclaimer of the Word, in the sense that they must be prepared to face these four kinds of response? If so, it must not be assumed that He thinks that 75% of their work will ultimately fail or be lost. After all, the good ground is represented as consisting of three different qualities, as opposed to the three qualities of soil that failed to produce good fruit. So, His lesson is this: the Gospel herald, since he cannot anticipate the judgment of God, must not try to calculate when to be cautious or try to choose terrain so cautiously that he evangelizes some people and rejects others as unfit. There can be no preselected prospect lists for his evangelism, for how could he possibly foresee, at the time of his first attempts to evangelize them, which people would be fruitful and which not? Let him be as generous in broadcasting as was Jesus the Chief Sower Himself! This requires a strategy of open evangelism only. No farmer expects every single seed to produce a bumper crop, but this does not keep him from sowing widely, confident that a harvest will come. (Study 1 Corinthians 9:19-23; Romans 1:13-16.) Jesus simply pictured several types of hearers without indicating the relative percentages involved in each group. If the Lord of the harvest did no more than this, who are we to identify the persons involved in each group and refuse to evangelize those in the first three groups?

Or is His desire to drive each single hearer to examine the character of his own heart? Even now, before judgment, Jesus would have us see the final fate of the Word in us, so that we can examine how we even now respond to it. According to Jesus, then, the chief business of the listener is not to speculate about the varying causes behind the momentous differences in hearers, nor decide the proportionate results of Gospel proclamation, nor worry how much of it is ultimately unfruitful, nor wonder whether more abundant spiritual growth is more common than less abundant growth. Rather, each one is to answer the one burning question: What kind of a person are YOU? Are you producing anything at all? Are you for Jesus Christ, or in your attempt at an unaligned neutrality, are you against Him? The question: Lord, will those who are saved be few? has only one answer: What is that to you? Go all out to be among the very best! (Cf. Luke 13:23-30; John 21:20-23.)

A brilliant psychological effect of Matthew's placement of the disciples-' questioning Jesus about His method immediately after the Parable of the Sower is the underlining of a truth many unbelievers often miss: whether a person will be convinced by the truth or not, often depends, not so much on the weight of the evidence, as upon his mind-set, his philosophy, his desires, his traditions, etc. People just imagine the human brain as a delicate scale that will register conviction according to the weight and sufficiency of the evidence, thus leaving the individual somehow unresponsible for his beliefs. Nevertheless, by His repeated warningsListen!. He that has ears, let him hear!. Take heed how you hearJesus holds each listener personally answerable for his response to truth. (Ironically, this same position is taken by the unbelievers themselves when they too hold a man responsible for his beliefs, by criticizing a Christian for remaining one, when surely he would have seen the falsity of Christianity, were his mind not clouded by his desire for security, etc.)

FACT QUESTIONS

On what day did Jesus teach this sermon in parables? Study the closer chronological connections found in the parallel passages to gather the various facts that occurred that day.

Out of what house did Jesus probably walk to go down to the seashore to teach? On what other occasions is this house mentioned?

Explain the fact that Jesus sat in the boat to teach the people. Could He not have stood quietly in the boat to deliver the same message? Why sit?

Is Jesus-' use of parables in this incident an entirely new method of teaching for Jesus? Why do His disciples ask Him about the method?

What is a parable as Jesus uses that word in this story? How does a parable, as defined today, differ from an allegory?

In what does the interpretation of this parable consist? How are we to decide what the point is? What is the surest way of learning the meaning of this, or any, parable?

Identify in this parable the following:

The sower

The scorching sun

The seed

The rocky places

The way side

The thorns

The birds

The good ground

Explain the purpose for the expression: He that has ears, let him hear, as a proper conclusion to the parable itself and as a key to the understanding of its meaning.

Explain how persecution arises because of the word. What word? How because of the word?

10.

Summarize the total message of this single parable without specific reference to the details.

11.

What other parable(s) have more or less the same point of emphasis or same information about God's Kingdom as revealed in the Parable of the Sower?

2. THE PARABLE OF THE GRAIN THAT GROWS BY ITSELF (Mark 4:26-29)

Several comments are in order regarding our insertion of this exclusively Marcan parable into this commentary on Matthew's version of the Great Sermon in Parables. Immediately three major objections present themselves.
First, and most obvious, is the fact that Mark does not relate this parable in any contextual way to the other stories having similar symbols, i.e., soil, seed(s), sower, harvest, etc., since he inserts the Parable of the Lamp and its explanation between the Parable of the Sower and this story of the Seed Growing By Itself. This fact notwithstanding, it appears that Mark, like Matthew, does not aim to indicate a strictly chronological continuity between the various parts of his version of this sermon, a supposition based on the staccato style of Mark's introductory words with which he prefaces each speech of Jesus: And he said. (kaì élegen). The expression is so general as to leave his final result as almost, if not absolutely, devoid of strict chronological connection. (Cf. Mark 4:2 where the very looseness of his arrangement is clearly introduced. Note especially in Greek: 4:10, 11, 13, 21, 24, 26, 30.) This observation would permit us to consider Mark's parable in a freer (looser) context to ascertain its meaning.

A second objection to consideration of the parable at this point is the fact that Jesus did not interpret this story, hence furnished no clue to its relationship to the rest of the sermon, unless, of course, it be thought to continue or develop a thought mentioned in the Parable of the Lamp immediately preceding it. Consequently, any interpolation of Mark's parable into Matthew's arrangement for the purpose of discovering its meaning is purely arbitrary, hence any interpretation based upon any such systematization must be held lightly if not with outright suspicion. And yet, despite the force of these sound hermeneutical principles, another rule of interpretation must be considered: the very literary affinities this parable shares with both that of the Sower and that of the Tares, evident in the use of many of the same symbols (however with different shadings and emphases), should give us pause before categorically denying any relationship whatever. In fact, two interesting patterns in the Sermon suggest themselves to the reader of all three Synoptics:

Jesus apparently told two stories to reinforce each point, even if certain details of each member of the couplet give the major point a slightly different twist. (See the revised outline at the beginning of this chapter.) However, Matthew's version of this discourse includes no direct companion to the Parable of the Sower. Is it possible that Mark's Parable of the Growing Seed IS its mate?

Matthew himself, while usually keeping these couplets together, as in the case of the Mustard Seed and Yeast Parables, or in that of the Hid Treasure and Precious Pearl Parables, does, in fact, separate the Parable of the Weeds from that of the Dragnet, even though these stories illustrate fundamentally the same point despite some individuality of details. So, if Matthew can separate stories of similar import, why cannot Mark?

These considerations, of course, leave open the possibility that the very similarity of symbols could be a clue to parallel ideas involved in all three illustrations taken from the field, since, as we have seen, order in the transcription of the stories is no serious objection to their consideration together or the supposition of their similarity of teaching.

A third objection to considering this parable in connection with that of the Sower arises from an exclusive interpretation that sees only Jesus as the Sower in all three field parables. Whereas He IS the Sower par excellence, and is even specifically so identified in the Parable of the Weeds (Matthew 13:37), the precise identity of the Sower in both the Parable of the Sower and in that of the Growing Seed is left completely out of consideration. Since there is no compelling reason to believe the Parable of the Tares to have been told first chronologically, with the result that its identification of the Sower as Jesus should be thought to be normative for the others, and since the Synoptic authors are agreed that the Parable of the Sower with its anonymous sower probably came first, it is better to regard the positive identification of the sower in the Parable of the Weeds as a special feature of that story alone, and not necessarily to be read back into the field parables preceding it. Therefore, the appropriateness of the Parable of the Growing Seed as a parallel to that of the Sower is not at all hindered by the anonymity of its chief protagonist, the farmer who broadcasts the seed. Rather, his very anonymity argues that he is not to be so strictly identified with Jesus. So, as was noted at Matthew 13:18, although the point of the story may touch Jesus-' work, and the sower intended COULD symbolize Him in general, nevertheless it may not refer to Him so exclusively. Although some details of the story might apply to Him, it does not follow that all details must, especially since certain characteristics, affirmed of the farmer in the Growing Seed Parable, are unworthy of our Lord (Mark 4:27). Not all that is affirmed of the farmer in the story may be said of Jesus, because, considered as a symbol, the farmer may actually represent anyone who, like Jesus, broadcasts the Gospel.

As will be noted later, this parable develops Jesus-' thoughts regarding the problems involved in proclaiming the truth of God's Kingdom, a fact which (if we have correctly understood its meaning) renders it a proper parallel to that of the Sower, and so to be inserted at this point.

TEXT: Mark 4:26-29

26 And he said, The Kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed upon the ground, 27 and should sleep and rise night and day, and the seed should sprout, he knows not how. 28 The earth produces of itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. 29 But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest is come.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Why should we consider this parable in context with that of the Sower?

What further information does this story add to the total revelation of the Kingdom of God presented in this sermon by Jesus?

If Jesus did not furnish the key to the interpretation of this parable, how must we go about arriving at its meaning?

Why mention the passage of time in this parable, i.e., the farmer's sleeping and rising night and day, as well as the time required for the development of the harvest? What does this indicate about the parable's main point?

How far should each detail in this illustration be pressed?

PARAPHRASE

At another point in His great sermon in parables Jesus gave another illustration: The great Messianic Kingdom may be illustrated by a farmer who broadcasts seed in his field. Then he goes on about his regular business, sleeping well every night and rising to work each day. The seed itself sprouts quite independently of the farmer's ken and concern, because the earth produces automatically according to its own law and order: first, the blade, then the stalk with the green head, and finally the fully mature headed-out grain. Only at the time of the dead-ripe harvest does the farmer once more intervene by beginning instantly the reaping.

SUMMARY

The Kingdom of God and the truth of its proclamation are already perfectly suited to accomplish their appointed tasks in the human heart, without recourse to artificial, humanly-devised means to make them function. Nevertheless, their own proper development requires time so that the desired results be realized according to the norms and schedule for its completion.

NOTES

A. THE PRINCIPLE FACTS of the parable:

The story intends to illustrate the Kingdom of God, but to what aspect of it does Jesus refer?

to the Messianic Reign of the Christ?

to the government of God in the individual disciple?

to the Kingdom of God realized in the Church?

to God's government of the universe?

to the Kingdom perfected at the close of the present age?

to all these concepts collectively?

It may be that Jesus is including most of these concepts of the Kingdom, since Jewish expectation, with its cosmic eschatology surrounding the Messiah's coming, would tend to mingle these various expressions into one overall concept of God's Kingdom. Further, as will be seen later, the main emphasis of this parable may be rightly applied to each of these concepts.

2. The farmer:

that scatters seed upon the ground, a reminder of the Parable of the Sower;

that sleeps tranquilly (sleeps by night), because he is confident that he has done all that is humanly possible to provide suitable growing conditions for the seed he has sown, and because he is confident in the vitality of the seed itself.

that rises by day to go calmly about his daily business during the time when he must necessarily await the natural development of the harvest.

that knows not how the seed should sprout and grow. Making the seed grow is none of his immediate concern, because he could not interfere with the normal laws of its life if he wanted to, The farmer may know a great deal about the value of preparing the ground before sowing, about fertilizers, about proper rain and sun, as well as about the removal of weeds and other harmful growth in competition for the strength of the soil. These are not the elements of the seed's germination and growth about which he is ignorant, for his farm organization can do much to prepare for and follow up his own sowing and set up the conditions favorable for a good harvest. But all his organization and any anxiety about the harvest cannot make the plants grow. This comes from the life within the seed itself.

3. The seed:

that is sown upon the ground:

that sprouts and grows automatically (the earth produces of itself). It is the earth of itself, not the farmer, that produces in its own good time and according to the laws of development inherent in the soil, rains, sun and seed, totally independently of all human efforts to force the seed to grow or bring it to maturity for the final harvest. Farmers the world over can control many factors by cultivating the soil, by sowing each crop in its proper season, etc., but if the earth did not spontaneously produce of itself when sown, all would be useless. Sometimes unforeseen factors enter in to ruin the crop: new plant diseases, insect plagues, unusual weather conditions, etc., and farmers have fought these enemies of their crops for millennia. Why? Because the basic assumption behind all their efforts is that, if they are successful in controlling the controllable, the earth will produce of itself, because the seed and the soil are made for each other. No special adaptation or manipulation is required, since good seed faithfully sown in reasonably good soil will produce the desired harvest.

that matures according to its own natural laws and schedule of development:

(1) first the blade

(2) then the ear, or head of grain (stàchus)

(3) then the full grain in the ear.

4. The harvest:

that must be begun at once, because the time of the harvest is come.

that must begin only when the grain is ripe, not when human impatience dictates.

B. SOME LESSONS SUGGESTED BY THIS STORY:

Whereas it would seem, on the basis of the teaching in the Parable of the Sower and Soils, that the effectiveness of the Word of God is contingent upon the quality of the soil/heart in which it is planted, leading to the natural however erroneous, conclusion that human effort is required to force the seed Word to grow and produce, this Parable of the Growing Seed corrects that impression. It teaches that, as in the natural world such effort is as unnecessary as it is impossible, so in the Kingdom of God, all artificial attempts at manipulation of spiritual growth must give way to humility, patience and gratitude.

Gonzalez-Ruiz (Marco, 121) reminds that

... the kingdom of God is a divine enterprise. While accepting human collaboration, it must always remain above every human attempt to force the progress of its operation. The parable, with its confident awaiting the arrival of the harvest, is directed against all attitudes that would force the coming of the Kingdom or even construct it outright, by national revolution, like the Zealots would have it, or by obedience to an absolute legal discipline, like the Pharisees demanded, or by precise calculations on the time of the end, as the apocalyptists dreamed it. The Evangelist opposes all this with an openness to the future that awaits what God Himself will do.
In fact, to Him alone belong the initiative and spiritual direction of the Kingdom. Western Christians are notorious for their confidence in human organization and what it can do to bring about greater spirituality, the arrival of the Kingdom of God on earth, and other worthwhile spiritual goals. Organization can help to sustain pre-existent life, but HOW LITTLE LIFE organization can produce! Trench (Notes, 101) correctly sees that Our Lord's object. is pointedly to exclude the continuous agency of the sower, i.e., of the same kind as he exercises at the first. Human effort, however well intentional or organized, just cannot force or manipulate spiritual growth into the likeness of God.

He who proclaims the message of the Kingdom, and, as a consequence, produces a bridgehead for the Kingdom in the individual Christian, and, collectively, in the Christian congregations, must not expect to see immediate results of his work, shortly after completing it. In fact, as is the case with every worthwhile enterprise, time is needed to let things mature, and the more important it is, the more time is needed, so also is the case with the Kingdom of God. Jesus is announcing that even the Word of God requires time to extend the influence of God's good government in men's hearts.

He who proclaims the Gospel of the Kingdom must have confidence in the message he announces, because this Word is capable of producing the desired results without ulterior updating or other manipulation by the disciples to make it more effective. How striking is the contrast between our exaggerated confidence in human methods, human philosophies, human organizations, etc., and Jesus-' confidence in the power of His Word in the human heart! This is easily judged by His own procedure: He too came to earth to bring spiritual life to light through the Gospel (2 Timothy 1:10). Everything that Jesus accomplished Himself or achieved through His supernaturally-endowed Apostles to establish His Truth in the world is all part of one stupendous sowing. Then, He too left the seed to grow spontaneously by itself. He will not break into the present world order until that glorious miracle of His second coming, His resurrection of all the dead to judgment and His bringing the present age to a halt before His throne. BUT IN THE MEANTIME Jesus is not personally present in the world encouraging the growth of the Gospel in the human heart. True, His Spirit is the unseen power at work helping the Word to produce its effect in men's hearts, but His Spirit leaves men entirely masters of their own will. (See notes on Matthew 13:9.) Jesus is now literally gone from the earthly scene, having firmly planted His Word and His Church in the world. Although the Church is always faced with possible extermination by persecutions and apostacy, yet Jesus has never visibly or personally returned to earth to extricate her from her torments. His confidence in the power of His Word to accomplish the work for which He set it forth has dictated a hands off policy. (Cf. Paul's confidence in the Word of God: Acts 20:32; Romans 1:16.) For almost two millenia now, Jesus-' confidence in the vitality of His Word and its power in the human heart has let Him go on unhurried and unworried about other business (Cf. John 14:2-3; 1 John 2:1-2; Hebrews 1:2-3; 2 Peter 3:3-15 a). Then, when the earth harvest is ripe, He will make His second and final appearance during this epoch of earth's history to complete the marvelous task inaugurated at His first advent. Can we too, like Jesus, resist the temptation to modify or manipulate or otherwise mutilate our message, hoping for better, speedier results?

The Kingdom of God and its Gospel and the human heart are already adapted perfectly to one another. Consequently, no modification of either can be considered essential to make the Word of God more effective in converting the heart, or to make it possible for the heart to receive it more easily.

No changes in the Gospel can be justified on the basis of a supposed need to update the message to make it relevant, as if its Author had not already perfectly adapted it to the needs of men of any century, any nation, any culture, any class!

No revamping of the inborn simplicity of God's Kingdom can be defended, that would organize new ecclesiastical structures to manipulate spiritual growth or accelerate the maturation of the plan of God, as if the divine means indicated in the Word itself for the realization of that plan should be thought to be inadequate!

Nor does man himself have to be specially adapted to the Gospel or somehow readied for the Kingdom of God through man-made schemes for better health, higher educational advantages or more general welfare, before the Gospel can operate in his heart or before he can respond positively to it, as if the King's message were not already addressed to Man in any social condition!

What a tragedy that the Church herself has never perfectly learned that, in the period intervening between sowing and reaping, the crop must be let alone, without insisting on speedy maturation or hasty harvesting of immature fruit! What is objected to here is none of the God-given means for edification and encouragement of spiritual growth in the individual and in the Church, but rather all those artificial, humanly devised means that express a Boanergean desire for fire from heaven and a Zealot's violent impatience with God's means and schedule for bringing in the Kingdom.

God's procedure for establishing and developing His Kingdom proceeds by stages according to fixed, orderly laws of spiritual development until the time chosen by God for judging the final results, This fact prohibits a priori any hasty, negative judgments about the present reality or incomplete condition of God's Kingdom on earth. Any short-sightedness on the part of Christ's followers could lead only to disappointment, doubt and unbelief, because anyone who looks at the present world condition and presumes this state of affairs to be the finished product, must pronounce it a hopeless chaos and God's Kingdom a failure! (Remember the impatience of John the Baptist? Matthew 11:3 or worse still, the scoffing question: What has happened to his promised coming? (2 Peter 3:4). Instead of leaping to this unfounded conclusion, men must understand that the faith of Jesus Christ, both in the individual follower and in the Church in the world, develops according to those orderly principles that govern the progress of truth in the human mind from one stage of maturity to another, and from one person to another.

The only haste manifest in the parable is seen when the harvest is come: at once he puts in the sickle (euthùs apostéllei to drépanon). This urgency stands out in contrast to the slow passage of time for the farmer between his sowing and the harvest, that time in which the grain matured, that time in which the farmer was helpless to hurry the crop's development. So, the Church too cannot anticipate the judgments of God. It is only when the last fulness of time will have arrived, that things will be brought rapidly to their natural conclusion (Revelation 10:6).

Any impatience toward the means by which God has chosen to develop His rule on earth is completely out of place, as also every expression of self-reliant zeal that would abbreviate God's schedules by inventing and imposing on the Church and world artificial structures and means, rather than be content with those designed and desired by God.

C. NEW ATTITUDES INDICATED:

A PATIENCE that awaits the maturing of God's program according to the laws of life planned in His design (Cf. James 5:7-11). John Brown (PHC, XXIII, 149) urges:

A man may be converted in a moment of time; but after he has turned right round, the development of that life must needs take many long years of discipline before it reaches the height for which God intended it. Salvation means not merely delivering a man from sin, from every evil thing, but building him up to all nobleness; not merely the putting aside of what is weak and sinful, but the attainment of all that is noble and true; and is always the work of time. You can make a man a present of some material things in a moment, but you cannot give him patience purity. humility, in a moment of time. Faith gets grip and strength through stress of suffering; wisdom is the child of experience. We can never do without any of the intervening stagesnever expedite the processes of God either in nature or in grace.

We can no more pray, Thy Kingdom come and expect God to answer instantly by giving us a fully mature Kingdom, because to do so would violate man's will and his freedom to choose the Kingdom, than we can pray, Give me patience and give it to me now! for the same reason.

A HUMILITY that admits its own inability to produce spiritual life, because this is neither its function nor responsibility. We may plant and water, but God makes the plants grow (1 Corinthians 3:7). This humility is content that the Word should grow and bear fruit however embarrassing be its ignorance of the process by which God's Word will eventually accomplish in the world that purpose for which He sent it forth (Isaiah 55:10-11). After all, our ignorance of the psychological operations of His Word in people is nothing new, nor is our incomprehension of the final fulfillment of God's plans (Cf. 1 Peter 1:10-12; Matthew 24:36-51).

A GRATITUDE that we may go cheerfully about our taste without the burden of an undefined, unlimited responsibility, since we know that the ultimate success of men's conversion and the development of God's Kingdom is not under our control. We may be grateful that the power is of God and not of ourselves (2 Corinthians 4:7). After having faithfully declared the whole counsel of God and done everything in our power to evangelize the world and provide suitable growing conditions for spiritual maturity, we can depend on God, thankful that the final victory is in His hands.

A SELF-DISCIPLINE in the face of temptation to demand immediate results, instant growth and measurable progress in terms of dollars and cents, numbers, institutional power and financial holdings, to the probable spiritual damage of the little ones in our care. Here is a self-discipline that refuses to criticize God because He seems to delay the fulfillment of His promise, a self-discipline that knows that He is patient toward you, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the Day of the Lord will come. (2 Peter 3:9-10).

A LOYALTY and a CONSTANCY on the part of the disciples in proclaiming faithfully and vigorously the Gospel as the ONLY MEANS to foster the many necessary social revolutions for the enduring happiness of man, confident in the wisdom of God that chose to use this very means. Rather than promote the Kingdom by Maccabean methods and views that can do it nothing but violence and embarrass its King, rather than endeavor to speed up the arrival of the Kingdom by organizing imposing ecclesiastical superstructures that manipulate the Church, rather than attempt social betterment by means that bypass faithful Gospel proclamation, rather than substitute political freedom for a biblically-defined liberation from guilt of personal sin, the Church of Jesus Christ is to be constant in preaching the Word of her divine Lord, confident that His Word, given time, will bring about the results HE desires, because it is HIS Kingdom, not hers, that she desires to promote.

HOW UNMESSIANIC!

The cooler heads in Palestine certainly did not share the Maccabean fervor for revolution now!, especially those elements most interested in Hellenizing (= paganizing) the population. Education and culture had long been moving toward cultural syncretism even before the time of Christ, But with the exciting preaching of John the Baptist that heralded the near arrival of the Kingdom of God, there was revived in Israel the almost-forgotten hopes for national greatness in a Jewish Kingdom of God. Excited masses turned to Jesus of Nazareth hoping that, sooner or later, they might seize Him to make Him their King. Every day Jesus talked and men listened for some word, some clue that would indicate zero-hour for which they had so long dreamed. Here, as elsewhere in this great sermon (see on Matthew 13:30-33), Jesus opts, however, for gradualism and a patient utilization; of God's means until He should have completed His program to bring in the long-awaited Kingdom. Not only would the hard-core Zealots and card-carrying Assassins have been disappointed by this parable of Jesus, but also all those pious, less openly political sympathizers with those nationalists, would have been left baffled, asking, What kind of a Kingdom of God does He think to represent anyway?

FACT QUESTIONS

What phase or phases of the Kingdom of God are represented by this parable?

What factors indicate whether this parable is to be understood as an allegory or as a one-point illustration?

For what mistaken attitudes among Jesus-' original hearers is this parable an antidote and corrective?

Demonstrate the logical relationship between this parable and others delivered the same day by Jesus.

Identify the main point of this illustration of God's Kingdom.

Continues after advertising

BibliaPlus

College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

Matthew 13:1-9

Old Testament

New Testament