“The much more important matter is what it means to think like a Christian about the nature and workings of the physical world, the character of human social structures like government and the economy, the meaning of the past, the nature of artistic creation, and the circumstances attending our perception of the world outside ourselves. Failure to exercise the mind for Christ in these areas has become acute in the twentieth century. That failure is the scandal of the evangelical mind.” ~Mark A. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind
This past year I read through Ron Sider’s small book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience: Why Are Christians Living Just Like the Rest of the World?
Nothing about it surprised me, really. The church, especially the evangelical church has similar demographics as does the non-Christian world around it when it comes to materialism, sexuality, divorce, and racism. Actually, on the race card, evangelicals score worse, much worse. What crossed my mind was that we’d hear more about how bad we evangelicals are with divorce (the most quoted by the way by preachers!) and then how bad we are sexually (the second most quoted). I figure we’d hear the parts of Sider’s book that talk about how materialistic we are and how we are as much so as our unchurched neighbors—and I have, over and over again. But it is interesting that I never hear—still have never heard—that our materialism subtracts from our ability to minister and serve the poor—which is the context Sider gives this issue in his book. The implied comments as utilized by church leaders is more about how evangelical materialism is a reproach, not against our wastefulness in terms of money that could be spend on helping the poor, but on giving to the Church or Christian ministries. Lastly, I have not heard on peep about Sider’s evaluation on how evangelicals are doing with racism. By the way, we don’t do well, in fact “the whole thing sinks.”
Sider points out that the results of a published survey in 1989 (Gallup) determined which groups of people were more or least likely to “object to having black neighbors.” The survey said, “Catholics and nonevangelical Christians ranked least likely to object to black neighbors” and that “Baptists and evangelicals were among the most likely groups to object to black neighbors.” Sider points out that white evangelicals are far more likely to perpetuate racism in society than to do things to reduce it. Further more “White conservative Protestants are more than twice as likely as other whites to blame lack of equality (e.g., income) between blacks and whites on a lack of black motivation rather than discrimination.” Sider goes on to write:
“Evangelicals may have some good biblical theology [perhaps not!, my comment] about the body of Christ, where there is neither Jew nor Greek, black or white. But if they do not work out this theology in practice, such that white evangelicals welcome black neighbors and work to end racist structures, then, as was made clear…the whole thing stinks.”
This is the concluding post to The parable of the Sower who sows.
He began to teach again by the sea and such a very large crowd gathered to Him that He got into a boat in the sea and sat down; and the whole crowd was by the sea on the land. And He was teaching them many things in parables, and was saying to them in His teaching, “Listen to this! Behold, the sower went out to sow…
The reality painted in the parable
In the story thus far (chps 1-3), Mark has made it plain that his narrative revolves around three interrelated themes:
- Jesus Christ, the Son of God (1:1, 3:11; cf. 4:41);
- His Gospel (i.e., the Word about the Gospel of the Kingdom of God; 1:1, 14-15; cf. 4:11);
- His activity (i.e., His sowing the Word of the arrival of the Kingdom of God; 1:16-3:12).
This is clear from the bookend references to Jesus as the Son of God in 1:1 and 3:11. The summary of Jesus’ mission in 1:14-15 affirms this theme and, at the same time calls the reader to further understand our discipleship relationship to Jesus and our commitment to His mission:
Now after John [the Baptist] had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
Mark clearly sets out his narrative of Jesus’ activity, moving from popularity to potential arrest, and even His own family thinking He had “lost His senses” (3:21). In the end, we are left with the supposed “insiders” of the Jewish world declaring Jesus to be possessed of Satan. The reality of Jesus and His mission being painted for us is, to say the least, not productive and at the worse, failing. Then we move into a series of strikingly similar parables of failure and mysterious growth (chp 4). We are disposed not to see the similarities because we isolate the parables from their place in the narrative and treat them as independent, containing their own word. But once returned to the context, these parables amplify Mark’s theme.
Furthermore, rather than concentrating on the soils as ends in themselves, they are simply the places where the Sower sows his seed—where Jesus proclaims His Word of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. One would think that the Master-Sower would be wise and know something about farming, about sowing seed. But that is not the picture painted by Jesus and recorded by Mark. No. The Sower is seen as lavishly spreading His seed, almost carelessly, in places that appear to be unproductive and produce poor results. Why is He not more careful with His seed? Why is some wasted on the beaten-down paths? Why is He spreading seed on rocky and thorny ground? He looks unwise, unskilled. He should know better than to waste His seed. Three-fourths of the places where the Sower sows His seed offer only a failed crop. But what looks like an unpromising beginning is vindicated by the three-fold, bumper crop of fruit producing “thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold” (vv 8, 20).
This parable paints the reality of discipleship and the disciple-sower’s shared mission in the Gospel of the Kingdom of God and of Jesus Christ, the Son of God: obstacles will arise, God will seem unwise in how He works, the mission will appear a failure, yet there is the promise that vindication will come, a plentiful harvest will eventually emerge.
But there is more to “hear”
The parable is not only about trusting in the Master-Sower and the promise of a plentiful harvest, it is also indicative of the nature of Jesus’ mission and the nature of discipleship. The disciples—those with “ears to hear”—are expected to carry on the same mission in the same way: disciples are to sow the Word of the Gospel indiscriminately, lavishly, even on ground that is shallow, rocky and thorny. Disciples are to follow the Master-Sower into places where, by all appearances seem improper and unripe for a plentiful harvest. The lamp of the light of the Gospel is not to be put under a basket (4:21). We are to hear that nothing is hidden (i.e., the mystery of the Gospel), but that it will eventually be revealed (i.e., the promise of the plentiful harvest, the victorious Kingdom of God).
Careful what you “listen to”
Following Mark’s rhetorical and narrative clues, hearing the parable of the Sower who sows and heeding the warnings should cause our ears to perk up at the restatement of “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear” in 4:23. Jesus is repeating his caveat, His warning. In light of our interpretation of the parable of the Sower who sowed, we should hear the warning in 4:24-25 with a new, profound respect:
And He was saying to them, “Take care what you listen to. By your standard of measure it will be measured to you; and more will be given you besides. For whoever has, to him more shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him” (24-25).
The command to “listen” (to “hear”) is repeated (v 24). The reference to “measure” links us back to the farming and sowing metaphors. He who sows sparingly will reap sparingly. In other words, the one who hears this parable will sow lavishly; the disciple-sower will measure out more seed to spread, carelessly, abundantly, without regard to where He is sowing. The more the disciple-sower measures out his seed, the more will be given (harvest?; reward?); and the one who does not spread seed lavishly will come up deficient, lacking (“outside?”). Perhaps, even unforgiven (see warning in v 12), for the warning is not for the “soils,” but for those who are to “hear” the parable and following the Master-Sower.
The remaining two parables
The remaining two parables in chapter 4 support this interpretation and understanding of the parable of the Sower who sows. The first follow-up parable describes the Kingdom of God like a man who casts seed (his responsibility), but yet discovers that seed sprouting and growing and producing a crop outside of his control. Mark records Jesus’ words:
And He was saying, “The kingdom of God is like a man who casts seed upon the soil; and he goes to bed at night and gets up by day, and the seed sprouts and grows--how, he himself does not know. The soil produces crops by itself; first the blade, then the head, then the mature grain in the head. But when the crop permits, he immediately puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come” (vv 26-29).
The nature of the Kingdom of God is further portrayed and its significance to discipleship is enhanced in the last parable in chapter 4:
And He said, “How shall we picture the kingdom of God, or by what parable shall we present it? It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the soil, though it is smaller than all the seeds that are upon the soil, yet when it is sown, it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and forms large branches; SO THAT THE BIRDS OF THE AIR can NEST UNDER ITS SHADE” (vv 30-32).
This parable enlarges how we are to understand the Kingdom of God and the mission of sowing. Jesus draws upon an Old Testament text from Daniel that described the protective nature of God’s rule and how the king of Babylon’s kingdom was to parallel that same protectiveness for its citizenry. This parable of the seeming small, modest appearance of the work of the Kingdom of God parallels and is similar to the wasteful, seeming careless spread of the seed (spread of the Word). Then, like the plentiful three-fold harvest, the portrait of the Kingdom here is one of expansiveness, far-reaching. The spread of the Kingdom, although small in appearance, will eventually encompass many who will find protection, safety, and nurture within its domain.
Wasteful sowing, bad soil, and surprising harvests (Mark 5)
Keep reading. Listen to what comes next after the sowing parables. Chapter 5 offers a continuation of the “sowing” theme, that is, the spreading of the Gospel of the Kingdom through Jesus’ own activities. We leave the sowing parables with the disciples asking, “Who is this that commands the winds and the waves?” Mark leaves the question unanswered, but readers know the answer:
The One who “hushes” the elements is the Son of God, the miracle-working Teacher, the Master-Sower.
Knowing this, we are moved to the other side of the “sea” (5:1ff). This chapter contains three vignettes, highlighting Jesus’ ministry: the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God (as summarized in 1:14-15). The chapter 5 stories portray the Master-Sower sowing the Gospel, and doing so in what appears to be bad, unpromising soil.
Immediately after the parables and the unanswered question of the disciples (v 41), Jesus and His disciples are confronted by a man with an unclean spirit. This man and the place where he comes from represents, no doubt, very bad soil: Gentile territory, pig farming (which is anathema to the Jews), dwelling among the dead (i.e., “among the tombs,” v 3), and demon-possessed. Nothing geographically, culturally, or demographically indicates good soil. Yet, the seed through Jesus’ presence and authority is made known and, to our surprise, there is a harvest. The man is healed, and publicly seen as “clothed in his right mind.” (Could this be a rhetorical slight to those who think Jesus both possessed and out of His mind as portrayed in 3:20-27?). The once demon-possessed man is now called to be an “insider” to “report the great things the Lord has done” (v 19); the former man of the tombs is now a sower of seed. Yet, there are “outsiders” who present obstacles to further sowing, demanding that Jesus “to leave their region” (v 17). Nonetheless, sowing continues through the new “insider” (v 20).
The remaining two stories (seed, planting, soil, and growth) are concerned with a dead child whom Jesus raises and a woman with a hemorrhage who touches Jesus in order to be healed. Both stories are encounters with things unkosher, bad soil—death and disease. Jesus, the Master-Sower, who continues His sowing activities, touches the unclean and the unclean touch Him.
Placed in the flow of Mark’s narrative flow, these accounts of Jesus’ ministry become more clear as to their purpose. They show the nature of Jesus’ mission and the activities of His sowing—that which the disciple-sowers are now called to understand and imitate.
What is its to “hear” the parable of the Sower who sows
Simply put: the one who “hears” the parable of the Sower who sows becomes a disciple-sower. We are called to waste a little seed, no, a large measure of seed on all types of ground. The “soils” are not for us to determine. We will be surprised that good soil will be found in places where seed is wasted on ground that appears bad, potentially unproductive. “Outsiders” who have harden hearts will not join in the sowing, especially any sowing on ground that looks to be infertile. “Insiders” sow in places where “outsiders” live, encountering untouchables, death, and disease, in places that are culturally and demographically challenged. “Insiders,” those who “hear” the Master-Sower’s call, will intentionally consider sowing on what appears to be bad soil as Jesus did (Mark 5). “Outsiders” will seek to protect their territories and protect their established religious and political systems that ensure their appearance as “insiders,” but, in reality, they are not. “Those who have ears to hear” respond to Jesus’ call of discipleship, namely a commitment to the Master-Sower and to imitate His sowing activities as disciple-sowers.
© Chip M. Anderson, March 2005, Words’nTone Rough Cuts
Bible quotes are from the NASB, unless otherwise noted
full Mark 4 Rough Cut...
This is part 2 of the June 25, 2007’s Rough Cut, The parable of the Sower who sows. Tomorrow, part 3 will conclude this Rough Cut.
He began to teach again by the sea and such a very large crowd gathered to Him that He got into a boat in the sea and sat down; and the whole crowd was by the sea on the land. And He was teaching them many things in parables, and was saying to them in His teaching, “Listen to this! Behold, the sower went out to sow…
Jesus’ ministry-activities & preaching vs. reactions
The next section of the narrative helps us see how Jesus and His message (i.e., the sowing) faired in its first, beginning stage. Quickly Jesus moves into his Galilean ministry, portrayed as a teacher-healer. Between 2:16-3:12, Mark’s storyline focuses on Jesus’ activities and audience reaction and responses. At this point it is good to visualize the reactions of his audiences:
1:16-20: A good start
His call, “come follow me,” is good enough: “Immediately they left their nets and followed him…Immediately He called them; and they left their father…and went away to follow Him” (vv 18-20).
1:21-28: A good response; spreading everywhere
Jesus teaches and the crowds “were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (v 22). He casts out demons and “They were all amazed, so they debated among themselves, saying, ‘What is this? A new teaching with authority!’” (v 27). And, Mark tells us that “Immediately the news about Him spread everywhere into all the surrounding district of Galilee” (v 28).
1:29-45: Very popular
Jesus heals and continues to cast out demons. “Whole” cities gather to hear and see this new rabbi-teacher-healer (v 33). In a short while “Everyone” is looking for Him (v 37). Jesus’ popularity has risen so much that he “could no longer publicly enter a city, but stayed out in unpopulated areas” (v 45b). Nonetheless, the crowds keep coming to Him “from everywhere” (v 45c).
2:1-13: The good beginning takes a turn for the worse
After returning home and hearing He has arrived, “many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room, not even near the door” (v 2). Note Jesus is “speaking the Word” (v 2c) to them, that is the Sower is sowing His seed. Jesus forgives a paralytic. Some of the scribes in the crowd ask in their hearts, “Why does this man speak this way?”, accusing Him of blasphemy (“only God can forgive sins,” v 7). Although the crowds still seek to see and listen to Jesus, the seeds of doubt are beginning to sprout.
2:14-27: The religious leaders question everything Jesus does
The crowds continue to find Jesus appealing, but the fact that He heals lepers and eats with tax-collectors (i.e., “sows His seed”) begin to trouble the scribes of the Pharisees (the one’s originally charged with knowing the word, i.e., the seed of the Old Testament). They see Jesus sowing His seed with “the sinners and tax collectors” (i.e., bad soil?) and ask His disciples, “Why is He eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners?” (v 16). Apparently they didn’t like the soil on which Jesus was sowing His seed. Afterward, the Pharisees are disturbed that Jesus’ disciples didn’t fast (v 18). And then to make matters worse, Jesus and His disciples eat grain on the Sabbath. The Pharisees point out, “why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” (v 24).
3:1-12: Those who should be sowing the Word have hardened hearts
Jesus’ popularity has ebbed away, especially among the religious leaders, to the point He knows they are just waiting to accuse Him of everything from blasphemy to law-breaking. The warm reception that began in chapter 1 has melted, finally leaving Jesus “grieved at their hardness of heart” (v 5). Soon the “Pharisees went out and immediately began conspiring with the Herodians [who were normally their opposition and religious enemies] against Him, as to how they might destroy Him” (v 6). Yet despite the antagonism, the multitude from Galilee, Judea and Jerusalem continue to follow Jesus, and even those from “outside” Jerusalem, that is “Idumea, beyond the Jordon, and the vicinity of Tyre and Sidon” [places of historic-anti-YHWH sentiments, and “outsiders”].
One long section that gives us a clue for understanding
The divisions of verses and chapters, sometime forced on the text, can make us fragment the Gospel narrative into small parts, where the vignettes and individual teachings (and parables) can take on a life of their own, often lifted from the context and unrelated to the flow of the narrative. The tendency to see and read the Gospels in this fragmented way makes the individual stories and teachings disjointed and unconnected to their larger context. “Hearing” the Gospels this way can cause us to miss hearing God’s Word through the Gospel narrative.
It is important to note, Mark probably wanted his listening and reading audience to hear 1:1-3:12 as one long and related section.
1:1: “Jesus Christ, the Son of God” |----| 3:11: “You are the Son of God”
It begins with the announcement that Jesus Christ is the “Son of God” (1:1) and ends with unclean spirits (i.e., demons) acknowledging, “You are the Son of God” (3:11). We’re let in on the secret. The demons knew it. The disciples apparently did not. The crowds enjoy the spectacle of a new teaching-healing Rabbi, with new authority, sowing His seed (i.e., preaching the gospel of the Kingdom), especially among “outsiders.” And as a result, those who are supposed to be on the “inside” begin to be threatened.
Mark 4, after the parables, ends with a question that brings us back to Mark’s introductory statement (in 1:1) and the demon’s acknowledgement (in 3:11). After watching Jesus “hush” the storm and calm the waves on the sea, the disciples ask:
“Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?” (v 41).
Mark continues his theme that he began in 1:1. Remember, as readers of the story we know what the disciples and religious leaders did not know. We know that the natural answer to the disciple’s question is
“This is Jesus Christ, the Son of God…the teacher-healer Rabbi, the Sower of the parables…”
Appointing the twelve future “sowers” and a little wasted seed
Mark 3:13-35, the section before Mark 4, introduces the chosen twelve who will make up the apostles, the sent ones, who are charged with carrying on and repeating the mission and message of Jesus (i.e., the future “sowers”). This is significant because Jesus appoints the twelve to be with Him (i.e., indicating a discipleship relationship) in order to send them out to preach (i.e., the sowing; cf. 1:14-15). Judas Iscariot, the one who betrays Jesus, is also among the chosen twelve (3:19). We know the story too well, and as a result we gloss over this as we read the names of the twelve apostles (for we know them by heart). The reference to Judas as the one “who betrays Him” is a harbinger of the parable where the sower appears to waste his seed on ground that will not produce fruit. Some of the seed Jesus sows will indeed be wasted!
“Outsiders” and “insiders”
Finally, we read that in Jesus’ own hometown and among His own family, there is disappointment, accusations, and charges of satanic possession. The groups who oppose Jesus and who are making the accusations are made up of “His own people” (3:21) and “scribes” (v 22). The “scribes” ought to have been “insiders” who were responsible for sowing (the OT Word of promise), but instead have hardened hearts, opposing the Sower and are now cast as “outsiders.” And there is no doubt, Mark has placed even Jesus’ own family (i.e., “His people”) among those who are “outsiders” who do not get—that is, understand—His mission. Mark is setting us up for the forthcoming warning that follows the parable of the Sower who sows: First he let’s us know Jesus’ own family came to “take custody of” Jesus because they thought “He had lost His senses” (v 21) and, then, in vv 31-35, he defines family:
Then His mother and His brothers arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him. A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.” Answering them, He said, “Who are My mother and My brothers?” Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He said, “Behold My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.”
We are being prepared to hear the parable of the Sower who sows, and, as well, Jesus’ caveat, the warning and explanation to those who are supposed to be His “insiders”:
As soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about the parables. And He was saying to them, “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables…” (vv 10-11).
Further tension and conflict is set in motion as Jesus, the Master-Sower defines who is “inside” and who is “outside.” The preliminary qualification and dividing line is “Whoever does the will of God,” these are in “inside.” And in the parable, one’s standing is further defined: the who understands the parable of the Sower and His sowing, which is the mystery of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.
And to make matters more tense, Mark actually indicates there is the potential that even the “disciples” can be “outside.” Even among His own “insiders” there is the potential for “wasted seed,” poor, unproductive soil. This is a warning to the listeners and readers of Mark’s gospel story: we need to evaluate whether we are “outsiders” or “insiders.” Insiders do the will of God; outsiders do not. Insiders, like the Master-Sower, understand and sow the Word of the Gospel of Kingdom of God; outsiders do not.
© Chip M. Anderson, March 2005, Words’nTone Rough Cuts
Bible quotes are from the NASB, unless otherwise noted
Part 3 tomorrow… full Mark 4 Rough Cut...
He began to teach again by the sea and such a very large crowd gathered to Him that He got into a boat in the sea and sat down; and the whole crowd was by the sea on the land. And He was teaching them many things in parables, and was saying to them in His teaching, “Listen to this! Behold, the sower went out to sow…
I have had enough, and I can’t take it anymore! If I hear one more time that the parable of the Sower in Mark 4 (and Matthew 13) is about me and my heart, or about the different types of hearts in sinners, I am going to scream!
Can you tell I am bothered a slight bit regarding this rather simplistic and erroneous interpretation and application of this all-to-familiar parable? Well, I am. And you should be, too. If for anything, this particular parable is important to get right, for it comes with a caveat, a caution:
And He was saying, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” As soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about the parables. And He was saying to them, “To you has been given the mystery of the Kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, SO THAT WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY NOT HEAR AND UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN” [Isaiah 6]. And He said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How will you understand all the parables?” (vv 9-13).
Don’t dismiss “hearing” for superficial word-play
The preacher or Bible study leader or Sunday School teacher misses the mark when we are told that this text reveals the human psychology, implying that the parable asks, “What kind of soil are you?” The Word of God from this most important parable is sacrificed upon the altar of popular sermonizing. Good exegesis, even a rough cut exegesis of this text, is dismissed for the superficial attraction to word-play: Soil is the human condition, the type of soil is the human heart. This is not only poor exegesis, it misses the word God wants us to hear and our application will move us away from obedience to the parable’s intended purpose. We miss an opportunity to further our discipleship. And reflecting on the caveat in vv 9-13, I fear what we, as Christians and a Christian community, lose.
There are plenty of verses and passages that reveal the nature of man. The parable of the Sower in Mark 4 (and Matthew 13) is not one of them. Popular, flippant interpretations of this text are worse case examples of turning a text on its head: a worse case example of spiritualizing and making an allegory out of a metaphor. This method of interpretation is all too common from the pulpit and among popular Bible studies. It is dismissive of the total parable and the Marken context, and is revealing of our own hard hearts and the misunderstanding of the nature of discipleship.
This Rough Cut will seek to re-listen to this familiar parable and hear the emphasis of its context, so we may heed Mark’s point of including the parable in his Gospel.
Mark doesn’t hide his purpose for writing
Right away, in his introductory remarks, Mark informs us of his intent, that is, why he writes and what we are to hear, to understand:
The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God (1:1).
The parable of the Sower affirms Mark’s declarative, introductory statement and further helps the reader to understand the nature of discipleship and our relationship to the mission of Jesus. Just listen as Jesus commands in 4:3: “Listen to this! Behold, the Sower went out to sow.” And then, listen again as Jesus interprets his own parable: “The sower sows the word” (v 14).
This parable is about the Sower (i.e., “Jesus Christ, the Son of God,” 1: 1) and about His sowing the Word (i.e., spreading “the gospel of the kingdom of God,” 1:14-15; cf. 1:1). Although we learn about the realities of the mission field and the potential responses to the sowing of the seed, the parable in Mark 4 focuses our attention on Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the arrival of the Kingdom of God (cf. 4:11), and the reality of discipleship.
First off, soil can’t be commanded to change
Jesus describes, metaphorically in parable form, four places in which His seed is sown and then gives His interpretation of those places. I refrain from calling the places “soil” at this point in order to help move the emphasis off the “soil” and on to the sowing (the point and emphasis Mark gives).
In vv 3-4, Mark records Jesus’ words: “Listen to this! Behold, the sower went out to sow; as he was sowing…
The metaphor: “…some seed fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate it up” (v 4).
Jesus’ interpretation: “These are the ones who are beside the road where the word is sown; and when they hear, immediately Satan comes and takes away the word which has been sown in them” (v 15)
The metaphor: “Other seed fell on the rocky ground where it did not have much soil; and immediately it sprang up because it had no depth of soil, and after the sun had risen, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away” (v 5-6).
Jesus’ interpretation: “In a similar way these are the ones on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy, and they have no firm root in themselves, but are only temporary; then, when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately they fall away” (v 16-17).
The metaphor: “Other seed fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked it, and it yielded no crop” (v 7).
Jesus’ interpretation: “And others are the ones on whom seed was sown among the thorns; these are the ones who have heard the word, but the worries of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful” (vv 18-19).
The metaphor: “Other seeds fell into the good soil, and as they grew up and increased, they yielded a crop and produced thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold” (v 8).
Jesus’ interpretation: “And those are the ones on whom seed was sown on the good soil; and they hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold” (v 20).
The soil in the parable is passive. It is what it is: shallow, rocky, weed/thorn infested, or good. And it should be noted that there is no command, “Soil, change what kind you are!” Nor is there any hint that Mark or Jesus is asking the question, “What kind of soil are you?” You can look all you want, but this text does not explicitly nor does it beg this question about soil or your heart or the heart of the sinner, i.e., those to be evangelized. Plainly, the text simply implies that the Sower is sowing his seed on these four soils, and he is doing so indiscriminately, lavishly, almost carelessly. All the while it looks unpromising, as if there is little potential for growth, until the end where a bountiful—three-fold—harvest is realized.
Listen! Hear!
It has already been noted, there is no command related to the soil or any command for you or those to be evangelized to change soil type. The only commands are found in verses 3 and 9:
V 3: “Listen to this!”
V 9: “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
These commands are, not for the soils (i.e., those who are the objects of the sowing), but for the disciples, followers of Jesus, the Sower. Apparently “hearing” this parable is important to discipleship. The parable is framed with bookend commands to “hear” (vv 3 and 9). The disciples are commanded to listen, to hear the parable (“he who has ears to hear, let him hear”). In fact, Jesus’ caution and quote from Isaiah centers on the importance of “hearing” (vv 9-12). The Isaiah context is also worth noting: these words were given to the Israelite community, confronting their idolatry and disobedience.
Borders of the sea
The “sea” forms the borders in chapter 4. Mark commences this teaching pericope with “He began to teach again by the sea” (v 1) and ends it with the story of Jesus calming the “sea” (vv 35-41). Jesus begins in a boat and ends in a boat. Chapter 4 opens with Jesus in a boat, pushed off slightly from shore, as a Master-teacher, preaching to the crowds who had gathered on shore; Mark 4 ends depicting the Master-teacher commanding the elements. At the end, His disciples, who didn’t “understand” the parable (vv 10-11), see the wind and the waves obey Jesus’ command and, then, raise the question,
“Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?” (v 41).
This helps Mark’s listening and reading audience (i.e., “us”) to know that the contents of the chapter and the parables are about Jesus, the Master-teacher, the Master-Sower, the One in control.
Put the parable in its context—the narrative flow of thought
As discussed in previous Rough Cuts, keeping the text under consideration (in this case Mark 4) in its context is of utmost importance for hearing and understanding a text. This is especially true of the Gospels. Isolating the stories, parables and teachings from their place in the narrative flow of thought can lead away from the storyteller’s intentions. Although with much that is similar, we know that each Gospel writer was selective of the topics, stories, vignettes, and teachings for each of their Gospels. We also know that, although there is some basic historic-chronological order to each of the Gospels, the writers also choose where and when the vignettes and teachings appear in his narrative flow.
Simple word studies are not sufficient, especially within a Gospel narrative. Exegeses of the text (i.e., the parable) must include particular attention to narrative flow (which is inspired by the way) and the text’s juxtaposition to other texts in order to hear God’s Word through the text. The author gives us markers—rhetorical clues—to help us know his intention and to hear his particular emphasis. Catching these clues will shed amazing light on the text and offer fresh ways to hear—hopefully—the original intentions of the writer.
We start with the obvious: Mark begins his story with a thematic assertion, a declaration:
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (v 1).
As mentioned above, this declarative statement underscores Mark’s intention for writing. Unlike the other synoptic Gospel-writers (Matthew and Luke), Mark cuts to the chase, leaving out the birth and genealogical settings of Jesus’ entrance into the world. A theological statement (i.e., “it is written”) and Jesus’ baptism follow this poignant opening declaration. This gospel of Jesus Christ is somehow connected to God’s purpose and is a fulfillment of God’s promise to show up (in person). Mark briefly mentions the wilderness story, probably to further connect his Gospel to the Isaiah reference of a “voice crying in the wilderness” quoted above (cf. v 3). In verse 14, Mark begins a ministry thread with a summary announcement:
“The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (v 14c).
Mark starts his narrative with a declaration that what we are about to read concerns the beginning of the Gospel (v 1). And then, prior to beginning his section on Jesus’ ministry, Mark offers a summary of Jesus’ preaching and mission. This is the obvious: Mark’s Gospel narrative is about the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and a description of what Jesus preached (i.e., the content of His Gospel and its accompanying activities).
© Chip M. Anderson, March 2005, Words’nTone Rough Cuts
Bible quotes are from the NASB, unless otherwise noted
Part 2 tomorrow… full Mark 4 Rough Cut...
“Of all organizations on the earth, the church should be the most inclusive one. Jesus made it so. Going into the highways and byways, He invited the tax collector, the prostitute, the leper, the beggar, the widow, the sick, the criminal, and the formerly demon-possessed into the kingdom of God. Based only on the affirmation of His lordship and a repentant heart, those the status quo of society often rejects are the very ones who become kingdom representative.
“Everything Jesus said and did confirms the inclusion of a sordid group that few of us would pick for leadership or membership. His disciples were mostly ordinary guys: an uneducated fisherman, a tax collector, and a couple of squabbling brothers. He even called the ‘betrayer’ into the circle of apostles and allowed him to carry the money. The Teacher crossed gender, racial, moral, and economic boundaries in His clear effort to include ‘whosoever’ at the banquet table. Ironically, it was not the religious leaders He embraced at all. In fact, more often than not, they were the ones He chastised, called hypocrites, and rejected as having any clue of the Father’s real business. Even more insulting to them, He used the ‘least of these’ to teach the religous ones what the kingdom was all about.
“In response to Jesus’ rejection of the religious standard of the day, they were inflamed with anger that a penniless widow could teach them about giving, a sick woman could be as important as the synagogue leader, or a greedy tax collector could be worthy of salvation. How could a half-breed Samaritan be the hero of a kingdom story, especially compared to the rabbi and scribe, who were pegged as the bad guys? Indeed, this revolutionary had cut them to the bone and challenged the foundation of their religion. Not only did He undercut their prestige, but He placed the trolls of their society in a place of honor” (Jimmy Dorrell in Trolls & Truth
, pp 76-77).
A few weeks ago a good friend of mine from my former church gave me a book in which he inscribed, “Hey, Chip—I hear you’re involved with another bridge…” The church my family currently attends is called “The Bridge,” a name appropriate to the mission of the church (to be a bridge to God and to each other) and of the city the church is found, Bridgeport, Connecticut. The title of the book is, Trolls & Truth: 14 Realities About Today’s Church that We Don’t Want to See. The bridge connection is that the author, Jimmy Dorrell, is the Pastor of The Church Under the Bridge. Back in 1992 Dorrell, his wife, and a student from Baylor decided to get to know some of the homeless sleeping under a bridge in Waco, TX. For a few months they were invited by the homeless men to lead a small Bible study on Sunday mornings right there under the bridge. The group grew to include more homeless folks, as well as other low-income people and a few community residents. But after a couple of years they began to see that God was doing something more than just allowing a small Bible study under I-35 at South 4th and 5th Streets in Waco, TX. In 1998 a core group laid out a vision, core values, and a basic leadership structure—and thus The Church Under the Bridge was born. You can read the adopted motto on the T-shirts of many who attend this unique church:
“…black, white and brown, rich or poor, educated in the streets or in the university, all serving the same God.”
The book, Trolls & Truth, is about people who found The Church Under the Bridge, and how they got there. I thought the above long quote is representative of the material you’d find in the book, but also a poignant reminder that the Church—that’s the capital “C” Church, expressed through local churches—is a unique social institution that is supposed to reflect the interests, values, and mission of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. Dorrell recognizes that it is not easy to be a biblical church of inclusion. He writes, “…as any strategist will tell you, when a church decides to be an inclusive church, getting there can be a challenging road” (79). But here’s the catch, nonetheless, “The unbelieving world quietly observes the social patterns of the church” (83). I am part of The Bridge, mainly, because the pastor and the small flock that attends are attempting to be a place where all types of people in the urban and surrounding suburban communities can worship together and serve God, each other, and the community. It can be messy.
Dorrell also writes, “…these same neopagans often discount the validity of the church because they see little difference in their socioeconomic patterns than the civic club” (83). That’s the point to many of the stories in Trolls & Truth, namely that the non-Christian community watches the church and often sees the opposite of what they preach, habits and structures, and acceptance contrary to what they know about Jesus and the Gospel stories. Often they are just mini-special interest groups that form for social fellowship—and mutual complaining about how bad the culture is, or how backslidden America has become [my aside commentary, not necessarily Dorrell’s].
I have been concern for some time now that our cognitive (word- and talk-centered) approaches to evangelism and witness have allowed us to sidestep our biblical responsibility to be concerned about the communities that surround us and excuse us from serving their needs, especially the marginalized among and around us. Even the author writes, “A church living out this new order of fellowship inherently becomes evangelistic to the world” (84). I do believe, and even more so now, that social action is more than just a form of evangelism, but as a church participates and facilitates social action (i.e., the meeting of the needs of the marginalized and advocating for them in the public square) it acts out the presence and reality of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. Perhaps the fourteen realities Dorrell writes about in this book will help churches see that their realities don’t often match the reality of the Kingdom.
Problem of the Wineskins: Church Renewal in a Technological Age
by Howard A. Snyder. Intervarsity Press (June 1975)
When I was a young minister-in-training, I actually got in trouble for reading this book—and for passing it on to others. It was radical then and it’s radical now. I handed these books out to everyone willing to read it back in my Bible College days. In fact, a church board member of one of the first churches I belonged to in the 80’s carried one of the copies I handed out into a board meeting only to be greeted by the Pastor, “You’ve been hanging around Chip again, haven’t you?” Worth reading again. It will help you think about church and how much our church structure hinders or helps us from carrying out kingdom objectives. Snyder will challenge you to think “out of the box” with regard to your faith, church-life, and community.
“No man can bear witness to Christ and to himself at the same time. No man can give the impression that he is clever and that Christ is mighty to save.” ~James Denny
There will always be a clash between those who take the bible seriously and those who want to legalize Gay marriages. For the most part, State after State, referendum after referendum, the general population has voted against allowing Gay marriage. Civil unions under the law seem somewhat acceptable, but such law passes because it doesn’t normally have to go through the public voting process. The issue is rising again as we approach the election cycle, and especially the Presidential party primaries. The debate and subject are in the news a lot, or so it seems. As someone who takes the bible seriously and believes it contains prohibitions for same-gender sexual relationships, I take a different tack in why I do not believe that same-gender marriage should be equal under the law as a marriage traditionally defined as being between a man and a woman. I certainly do not believe that the argument is one of civil rights akin to the race issues our country deals with, nor is the matter an equal-access-under-the-law issue. First and foremost, the issue—socially and dare I say biblically—is one of foundation: the reason a society sanctions marriage in the first place. If it is just definitions that are seeking to be changed, I actually understand that debate. Why simply go with the traditional definition of a marriage rather than a different one, one, let’s say, that allows for the marriage of same-gender individuals? For me that’s a jump in the debate, a shifting away from the foundations of what makes things good or bad, moral or immoral. Yes, of course I can cite bible verses—but I believe there are other means to judge or measure the foundation of a social structure. In this case, marriage. As far as I know, the foundation of marriage as a social institution has been the best interests of children, their nurture and protection. Throughout the ages, it has been the exception that marriage could be child-less or defined without the inclusion of children (or at least a child). What is being shifted in our current debate over the legalization of Gay marriages is that our society is changing the foundation from a relational one to a sexual one. Those seeking to change the laws to allow same-gender marriages are saying it is their sexual desires that should form the basis for the social structure of marriage. It is their sexual desires that need protection and nurture rather than children. They exchange the well-being of children for their selfish sexual desires. I am not necessarily for civil unions of same-gender individuals, but at least that does not change the societal foundation that children are more important than an individual’s or group’s sexual preferences. Changing our definition of marriage speaks of what is important to a society. I am surprised that my more liberal friends are not the first to speak out against such a shift, for they are the ones who typically advocate for the child (well, at least they say so). There is nothing neutral about changing the definition of marriage. To exchange the family forming institution where the child’s interests is foundational to a sexually oriented institution where the adult sexual interests are foundational will have rippling effects for society both in its laws and in its habits.
It was nine school years ago that I escorted my five year old daughter to her first day of kindergarten. She didn’t cry. I did. Yesterday she had a yellow cap and gown covering a nice purple dress and walked the aisle to receive her eighth grade diploma. This time she cried. She had made good friends. Become well respected. And she has a hard time saying good-bye. It was an emotional day. I cried a little, too. I was very proud. The moment was wrapped with a long history: first as a single father, trying my best for my daughter; then in a blended family with three siblings for Amanda. Nine years. And in one moment, my daughter was now an entering High School freshman (and my stepson, as well). Amanda had done well—a top student, well respected by her peers and teachers (One of the highest science grades ever!). A father couldn’t ask for more.
I think the guest speaker had some wise words to share. She was a former Ms. Connecticut, a former TV anchor, and a graduate of the same school, Multicultural Magnet, just like my two eighth graders. She said she was voted most shy. She told the graduates, “Don’t let the labels of others define you.” She reminded them of what she acknowledged as already known by them, that there are things in High School that will hinder their success: drugs, girls, boys, alcohol—they all shouted back to her question. She told them that it has been proven through many studies that the one thing, the top reason that will either help them to overcome the bad obstacles that will mar them or provide the environment to allow them to hinder them—the friends who they hang out with. I thought what she said next was pivotal: “How do you tell who your real friends are?” She said, “Do they have your best interest in mind, at heart?” She continued, “Does that boy have your best interest at heart? How about that girl?” I have watched others over the years find out that there will be friends who will like partying with you; friends who will like that you’re pretty, or hot; friends that like having you around for money or sex or some other self-interest. I have said to other teenagers, where will these so-called friends be when you’re not succeeding later? The one’s you let distract you from grades and good behavior and from time well invested—will they be there to help you when it becomes tough to get into college, or worse. I don’t have to mention worse. Not that every 2007 graduating senior there yesterday will take that advice, but I suspect many will. And as for my daughter, of course I pray like crazy, but I also so know how she had turned down friends and was willing to be alone because they didn’t have her best interest in mind. And, then I saw that she made the best of friends with whom she was able to share best interests. As she put it, “To cover each other’s back.” I know that High School and the teen years bring more reasons to pray, but I believe Amanda will—because she already has—taken Ms Connecticut’s advice to heart. I am so proud of my daughter.
“In the end, while evangelicalism was seeking to guard faith in Scripture, it was her readiness to be impressed by pragmatic arguments, and by alleged success, by quantity rather than quality, that did so much to deprive her of true authority and strength” (Ian Murray, Revival and Revivalism
, p 383).
In Revival and Revivalism: The Making and Marring of American Evangelicalism, Ian Murray reviews the history of evangelical Christianity between 1750 and 1858. This book is a must read for contemporary Christian leaders. Books on self-help, life coaching/coaches, ten-steps to church growth, and leadership styles are pushed upon pastors to read by those in church leadership, as well as promoted by our consumeric Christian marketers. But now of these books will help the minister to think theologically about their place in history. Nor, will such populist books that promote our well-being expose the flaws and fallibility of current market-driven church growth and church life. Murray helps us to think logically and reasonably about how we have come to the place in the Christian ministry where pragmatism and utilitarian thinking is the foundation for church life and ministry. He does not cover the period between 1859 and 2007, but Revival & Revivalism will portray the foundation for much of contemporary evangelicalism. Murray writes, “Our understanding of God’s ways in history is far too fallible to make providence the test of what is truth.” As Church life here in America is becoming more and more a shadow of American life, promoted through American entrepreneurialism and capitalisms, and gained through marketing and business praxis, it would be good for the American evangelical pastor to understand his or her roots in the history of evangelicalism. Shedding light on our past might help us to see why we are exchanging the foundation of Scripture to determine the life of the church for Americanism and self-help. If church life and thinking theologically matters to you--and it should as a pastor or church leader--read this book.
The New Testament presents the Christian community as one that is in exile (e.g. 1 Peter 1:1; 2:11). Its home is elsewhere. Its citizenship, heaven (Phil 3). Herein lies a conflict for the modern Christian, and dare I say, contemporary church life. We feel at home and rather comfortable in our modern skin and do not feel as if we are in exile. We are like the exiles of Judah, who stayed in Babylon rather than return to Israel after the captivity had ended. As a grad-school professor once said, “They had businesses, families, and roots in Babylon now. ‘We’re comfortable, thank you’.” How a church views its role in a community can shift away from Biblical foundations, such as “Go and make disciples of all nations” and “Be in the world, not of the world.” God instructed Jeremiah, “Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will have welfare” (29:7). Perhaps we cannot seek the welfare of the city God has sent us as exiles, because we don’t think of ourselves as exiles and are more concerned as to how to make ourselves and our churches more comfortable, more at home here and now. Our energies go to making us feel at home in our community, more attractive to outsiders, and as American as we possibly can. Just a thought.
There is no remembrance of earlier things;
And also of the later things which will occur,
There will be for them no remembrance
Among those who will come later still. (Eccl 1:11)
Almost everything fades--especially our memories. The fifteen minutes of fame comes and goes. Worse, as someone said at our growth group, it is apparent that we don’t learn from our collective body of knowledge and experience. I said, “Yeah, you would think that after all these years we’d get it: greed is bad, hatred is bad, stealing is bad.” But—we don’t learn. The writer of Ecclesiastes wrote on this centuries ago. The endless cycle of human history where one closes God out of the picture is doomed to repeat its sins over and over. Steve Turner, an English poet wrote:
History repeats itself.
Has to.
No-one listens.
One Sunday morning, during worship, I watched and listened to our wonderful children’s choir, knowing full-well that they were singing words beyond their time. But words of hope, nonetheless. They sang, “Give us pure hearts, give us clean hands, let us not lift our soul to another” (based on Psalm 24). The only way to keep from this endless cycle of repeating sins generation after generation is for these children to discover, early, these words in their youth. No wonder the aged writer of Ecclesiastes began his conclusion:
Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come and the years draw near when you will say, “I have no delight in them” (Eccl 12:1).
We must learn from our history, or our children will forget.
I am not so naïve to believe that there is only one way to interpret Scripture. Well, okay, I’ll also admit I do believe there is only one way to do it rightly. I mean, there are numerous approaches to interpretation posited by all sorts of people and groups. You have feminist hermeneutics. There are various ethnic approaches to understanding the Bible. You have dispensational hermeneutics, covenant hermeneutics, and Pentecostal hermeneutics (and more). You can find reader-response and postmodern approaches. There are so many different ways of interpreting that to posit only one way seems arrogant, narrow-minded, and simply naïve. However, each approach—hermeneutic is the big 50-cent word—has liabilities and strengths that must be considered. Agreed, each perspective can offer hearing a text in a way that might be hindered by one’s own perspective. But in the end, it is what does the text say? What was the author’s intended meaning? What did the author actually mean for us to hear?
My issue is not that “reading” the text from a certain vantage-point or perspective, or even ethnic and cultural background does not have some merit. My concern is, there must be a way to say is this interpretation good or bad, right or wrong, poor or legitimate, or even worth considering? I say there is—simple, grammatical-historical exegesis of the text. We expect the same approach to what we say and write every day. Any overarching approach, i.e., hermeneutic, that is placed over one’s reading of Scripture will color what the original authors intended their audience to hear. But it is digging at, digging out really, what the author intended that counts. Let me offer a few reasons why I think good exegesis that attempts to get at what the original author was intending his readers and listeners to hear is a good thing for the Christian community.
- It makes the foundation the same for everyone—the text. Nothing hidden. No working agenda by the interpreter. Not even the audience gets to replace the foundation. The text is the one common denominator that makes it fair, reasonable, and accessible for everyone.
- Sound exegesis prohibits interpreters, especially church leaders, to have spiritual upmanship, that is superiority over others. The interpreters of Scripture, especially preachers and Bible study leaders, have a lot of power, and if they end up giving an interpretation—no matter how charismatic or tickling-to-the ears it is—that another, the hearer, cannot get, or cannot see without their interpretative prowess, that is spiritual illegitimacy.
- Good exegesis and faithful exposition of the text of Scripture dissuades spiritual despotism. Enough said on this one, for it is cousin to number 2.
- Learning to let the text speak keeps the interpreter humble and accountable, and lets the audience hear for themselves what God is saying in and through His Word. Anything else but sound exegesis and faithful exposition of the text of Scripture means the audience will be learning more about the preacher or Bible study leader than God’s Word, and will be defining the Christian life by a man (or a woman).
- Show your audience how you got your interpretation, even if they end up not believing it, or agreeing with you, it helps them to see its not your message you are trying to deliver and proclaim, because they will see where you got it, how you arrived at it from the text.
These are only a few good reasons to do the work of exegesis as you seek to render an interpretation and call people to hear God’s Word.
“When churches have reduced Christianity to tired and predictable moralizing, a sound understanding of the Scriptures is a powerful antidote ...The first question is not, ‘what should we do?’ but ‘What has God done, and what is God doing?’ This is the way the Bible works.” ~Anthony. B. Robinson