New Thoughts (1/27/07-2/3/07)
All three of the Synoptic Gospels cover this parable, and they report it almost identically. There are some minor differences in describing the setting into which the parable was spoken. Luke adds one new element to the description of what becomes of seed on the road. Then, there is the conclusion regarding the good soil, which all three record differently. So, what shall we make of these differences? As to the setting for the event, I don’t think much need be said at all. Each of these writers gives us some different details about it. Luke, for instance, seems more interested in where people were coming from than where they found Jesus. There is nothing in this, though, to suggest disagreement over when or where this teaching transpired.
The first real difference is, as I said, that part about the seed on the road. Matthew and Mark found it sufficient to make note of the way the birds would come and eat this seed, which had no way to sink into the hard-packed soil. By the time Luke has learned of this parable, the point of that seed being trampled under foot has arisen. Much has been made of this late addition in scholarly circles. It is proof, they suggest, that the text of the Gospels is not quite as reliable as we might like, in terms of its representation of what Jesus really said. Let us maintain, however, the opinion that while there are indeed four writers, and many more sources, involved in the writing of the Gospels, there remains one Author. Let us start from that point, and assume innocence unless we have clear proof of the opposite.
One thing that would seem to be reasonably certain is that both Matthew and Mark are written from more or less direct input from Apostolic sources. Matthew can be supposed to be the work of Matthew Levi. Mark is generally believed to have been a record of Peter’s memory of events. Whether or not Matthew was working with Mark’s Gospel already before him or not makes little difference. He is still an independent entity, free to correct anything that he recalls differently, or to expand on things he recalls more fully. Luke, on the other hand, presents more of an investigatory report. He was not there, nor was the Apostle he is most closely associated with. He had to take some time, asking around amongst those in Israel who had been witness to these things, gathering information like a good news reporter and correlating this with what he could learn from the things Matthew and Mark had written.
To that end, it hurts nothing to admit that Luke writes from a ‘later source’. Where Matthew and Mark are reflecting the recollections of the Apostles, pulled from their own memories, it is entirely possible that what Luke heard included a bit of addition. One would hope, after all, that those who had ears and listened were also able to see how this applied to situations they faced later. As the Church faced its first persecution at the hands of their own countrymen, it would not be surprising to find that the members of the Church turned back to the things they had been taught by the Christ for their strength. Taken aback by this terrible reaction by God’s own people, it would not be unnatural to consider this parable, particularly as Jesus had later explained its meaning. The Apostles had doubtless taught on both the parable and its point on occasion. As people faced this new and threatening situation, as they saw men like Stephen ‘trampled under foot’ as it were, it would not be shocking that they would see how this parable applied to such a threat. As they related their memories to Luke, it would be natural to include this understanding to tale, even though it came later. For, it came from the same parable.
The last difference in the accounts remains, however, the most glaring difference, even if it should prove to be less meaningful. Matthew presents the increase obtained from the good soil in descending order of magnitude. He starts with that which bore the greatest harvest, and moves downward toward that which produced ‘only’ thirty times its value. Mark chooses to work in the opposite direction, beginning with that lesser return and moving up to that which bore ‘as much as’ a hundred times the value. Luke chooses to report no progression of result whatsoever, and is satisfied to point out only the hundredfold return. What can we make of the differences in these conclusions? I suspect they tell us more about the writers, perhaps about the target audiences of those writers, than anything else.
From the writers’ perspective, I can see Peter’s personality coming through in the ascending description of that crop. It also fits the general progression of the parable nicely. Having started with seed that did nothing, we moved to seed that at least grew for awhile, then to seed that grew longer. Now, having arrived at the seed that grew to maturity, he simply keeps the progression going as the size of the yield grows larger. This would be a pretty natural progression of thought for a fisherman. Of course, the matter should end at the point of greatest harvest.
Matthew, on the other hand, comes from a different background. He was a tax-collector, whose living depended on the returns he brought to his boss. He must collect and return a fixed value in tax revenue to this boss of his, and whatever he might obtain beyond that point constituted his pay. In such a trade, it would be natural to go after the ‘big fish’ first, if he could satisfy that boss of his with two or three calls, then he could easily be done for the week by the fourth. If he instead went for the lesser payments, he would have to labor far longer and harder to obtain the same result.
The difference in perspective between Matthew and Peter comes in part from the nature of their experience. Peter’s employment could only be planned in part. He could not determine with certainty where those big fish would be, so he labored until he found that big catch that would top off the boat. Matthew’s job allowed for a more prepared approach. Their different backgrounds gave them a different sense of that final progression in the parable. Whatever order Jesus may have applied when He spoke, their tendency would be to recall that message in the way that best fit their understanding. Certainly, none of the meaning is lost by this transposition of the yields.
Indeed, in Luke’s text we see only that ultimate value of the hundredfold return. There is no progression at all. Luke was not calling forth this parable from his own memory, so we cannot so easily attribute this difference to his background and training. The physician in him would likely have found those details of interest, and might well have teased over the significance of their order. They are like symptoms to him. However, he is not culling his own memories, but the memories of others. Over time, even as they have seen how that least effective of seed was not only gobbled up, but also trodden down, so, too, they have recognized that the progression of harvest was not critical to the point. The fact that the harvest from the good seed so thoroughly overbalanced the losses was the key to this matter, and that is what they had held onto in their recollections. It may well be that over time, they had found that useless arguments arose over the sequence of the harvest, whether increasing or decreasing order. Perhaps they had taken to heart another point that Paul brought forth, teaching that such haggling over nits, as it were, was not a useful endeavor for the Christian. Cut to the chase, get to the point, and hold onto that! Focus on what matters.
If there is a distinction to be drawn as regards the intended audience of these three writers, I am not fit to explore it well. Perhaps the progression that Matthew presents would be a more natural flow of ideas for his Jewish audience, and that of Peter more natural to the Roman. As for Luke, he is seeking to write with precision. He is also Greek, from a land known for its learning. Perhaps that progression, no matter which way it was presented, seemed to him a clutter that masked the point. Of course, all of this can only be conjecture on my part, so let me leave this matter behind me and move on.
While Matthew and Luke say simply that Jesus poke in parables, Mark makes the point that He was teaching in parables. He is speaking those parables to anybody within range of His voice. He does not insist on prepayment from those in attendance, nor do we know of Him passing the hat for a free-will love offering after the fact. He speaks freely to all who care to attend. His teaching, however, is reserved for those who hear. In that understanding of events, we have three rather interesting Greek words to consider. First, there is the nature of teaching, edidasken. Teaching, as Zhodiates describes it, is speaking with the definite intention of influencing the understanding of those who hear. This brings us to the distinguishing mark of the student. They hear, akouetoo. A quick glance at that word makes clear the connection to our concept of acoustics. In this context, though, the one who hears, hears in order to understand. Again, I owe thanks to Zhodiates for the definition.
Catch the connection there. The teacher speaks so as to influence understanding, and the student hears attentively, making an effort to gain that influence on his understanding. Not all in that crowd on shore necessarily fit the description of the student. Some were casual observers. Some were simply chasers after wonders, after novelty. The words of Jesus, then as now, were available for all. His voice was audible to everybody on that shoreline. After all, if you have ever been near a lake, particularly at night, you know how well sounds carry over the water. Jesus was displaying magnificent wisdom in choosing such a setting to speak. There would be no issue hearing His words. The issue, where there was an issue, would lie in the effort put into that hearing. His students would seek to understand. The rest would just nod at the obvious.
Considering the means that Jesus chose, then, we come to the parable, parabolais, a method designed to impart understanding, but only to the attentive and earnest listener. It was a method familiar at the time. It was a method totally unlike the didactic approach we are perhaps more familiar with. The modern lecturer is more often than not simply laying out the facts, providing the outline and filling it in. It is a rare teacher whose teaching requires thought and effort on the part of the student. It’s all impartation, pouring in facts and figures and formulae.
When Jesus taught, it was a different matter. It still is. The parable was designed to guide the thinking student to its point, but not without thought and effort. They would need to consider what point He was making. Looking at the parable that is set before us here, the immediate point is obvious. Yes, much seems wasteful in the agricultural methods of that era. Yes, it is clear enough that much of what is sown never produces a thing. It is just as clear (by the simple fact of there being food for the nation) that enough of that seed does produce to more than outweigh the losses.
The casual listener might walk away thinking about how he might improve that process. The student, though, who is truly hearing what Jesus has to say, is forced to ponder on the message, to chew on it, to seek understanding as to what He is truly getting at. That student will be aware that what Jesus says is intended to impart a spiritual truth. He will be aware that what Jesus says is said by way of providing understanding of higher matters. He will not immediately grasp just what that matter is, but he will know it is there to be grasped. He will have to mull over what he has heard, really consider the example he has been given, and seek out the application. Jesus does not just hand that information out. He requires effort from His students. He requires engagement.
We should understand, then, that the parable is not so much about obscuring the truth that is taught as it is about engaging the student in the process of understanding. Even the Greeks understood that beyond a certain age, simply stuffing data into the student’s head was no longer effective. There is a period in our development where such means of imparting knowledge are effective, but very soon it becomes necessary to connect more fully with the student if they are to learn. If they are not engaged in thinking about the information that crosses their senses, then that information does no more than cross. It follows that proverbial path in one ear and out the other. The parable is designed to engage. It is designed to make the lesson stick precisely because it required deep thought and consideration to grasp its meaning.
At the same time, it is designed to give a clear illustration of its deeper truth, once it has been grasped. When once we know what the seed represents, and who the sower represents, the very obviousness of the illustration ought to stick with us as being equally obvious and applicable to that higher matter.
In a more classical sense, the word from which we draw ‘parable’ was also a military term. It was descriptive of the way two ships in battle would draw up side by side. If one reads of those old naval battles, he will find that this form of side by side battle was the most brutal of contests. In a very real way, it would compare ship to ship and crew to crew, showing which was the better, for only one was going to come away from such a comparative contest.
As Jesus teaches this parable, he intends to influence His disciples’ understanding. As they listen, they intend to make the message He is imparting a part of themselves. Thus is the Teacher’s intention fulfilled, for as He influences their understanding, He is seeking to shape their will by His knowledge.
Understand this: Teachers today are still in the business of shaping the will of their students, for better or for worse. It is about as likely to find a teacher without an agenda as it is to find a newsman without a bias. It may be intentional or not, but it will be there. To teach is to have an agenda. Jesus had an agenda. He sought to shape the will of His disciples after the will of the Father. The cultural tide that we find opposing us today is largely there because the opposition has learned this lesson. The great issue with public schools is that they have become organs for shaping the children of this nation into a people willing to be dependent upon the State. The agenda of a Christian school certainly ought to be to shape children into people knowingly dependent upon God. Such a people will know better than to depend upon such faulty structures as State or politics. Such a people will know how to be free, for they are shaped as children not of the State, but of God.
Do you realize that it is exactly such shaping of a people that lent strength to the American Revolution? At root, it was the knowledge of a Higher Authority, and the recognition that no man, no King, nobody, could place himself above that Authority. It was the knowledge that man was indeed possessed of a free will, albeit one that had been enslaved to sin’s mastery for too long. It was the knowledge that this slavery need not be suffered to continue. It was, in a very real sense, a solid understanding of God and Christ, intentionally imparted through godly teachers seeking to fashion a godly society, that provided the energy and will to break from England. This is not to say that every Minuteman was devout. That is hardly the case. But, the impetus for liberty, the very understanding of liberty, can be lain at the door of the Church. In a very real way, the Great Awakening that swept through the colonies swept the colonies out of the English Empire.
The establishment of public schools, particularly along the lines we have them now, is as much an attempt to prevent a repeat of that impetus as anything else. We have taken on the Prussian model, designed to provide obedient soldiers, not thoughtful citizens. We have settled for an industrialized educational system, more intent on making productive workers than effective thinkers. There is no danger of revolution in such a people. They are about as capable of revolution and liberty as the drones in a bee’s nest. If they can’t think, they can’t think of improvement. They cannot perceive that things are not as they ought to be. They will not strive after a better way.
Jesus also has an agenda. He aims to make loyal, righteous citizens for the kingdom of heaven. He teaches with that intent. He seeks to shape the will of all who hear or read His words. He does so by the way His words inform us.
When we read that the disciples found it necessary to approach Jesus for an explanation of this parable, our first reaction is that they must have been a bit dim. After all, isn’t the point pretty obvious? Thinking about the nature of parables, though, it strikes me that the issue was more likely that as they thought on this lesson they could see any number of possible applications. If that were the case, their question to Jesus may have been posed more with the intent of making certain they had drawn the correct lesson from that teaching. That is a dimness we could all stand to participate in!
I suspect that the main point of this parable was as clear to them as it is to us. Obviously, He is pointing out that as wasteful as the efforts of the sower may seem, they still produce more than enough for him. That’s fine. However, the application we see for this lesson will depend greatly on how we interpret the sower and the seed. If we see the sower as representative of God, we might perhaps view the seed as man. In that light, I would be thinking in terms of the failings of man, how so few are righteous – none, if one hears God’s accounting of it – and how so many may do good for a time, but then fall into sin. Following that line of thought, the seed in good soil could be representative of Christ and His disciples, a distinct minority amongst the throng of mankind. Then, this becomes a promise that their righteousness will accomplish much.
If the sower is Jesus, then the seed becomes His teaching, and He is really doing nothing more than describing that crowd on the shore. Some will not even be bothered to listen to what He is saying. Some will hear it and get it, but will ignore the point. Others will try and live as He teaches for awhile, but will get drawn back into their daily habits. Only a few will really lay hold of His teaching, but these will make up for the losses.
If the sower is the disciple, then the seed becomes his own efforts for the kingdom. In that light, the parable becomes an encouragement to the worker. Your efforts may seem to be for naught, but keep going. That which takes hold by your labors will more than make up for all the losses.
Any one of these interpretations has merit. Any one of them reflects sufficiently what Scripture has taught to be a reasonable understanding. Any one of them might be the theme of a sermon one could reasonably think to preach with this text before him. Is it really unreasonable, then, that they came to Jesus and asked what His intended meaning was? The parable was designed to make men think, and these men had been thinking. I have no doubt they thought hard upon that parable before they came to Jesus. I really don’t think they were so thick that they couldn’t come up with anything to learn from it. I think they were sufficiently wise (by God’s Holy Spirit) to find out what they were supposed to learn from it.
Let us take this lesson to heart. Where our tendency is to read a passage and assume the first meaning or application that comes to mind, let us be more diligent to discern what God is really trying to tell us. It happens all the time. We read a passage, and we see that rhema word quality to it. It is speaking right to where we are at just then. We should be checking, though, to make sure our present situation hasn’t colored our understanding of that word! We should engage our thinking rather than our excitement. If I consider the setting of that passage, does it really fit with the meaning I am taking from it? Or, am I looking for my own answer and bending Scripture to fit?
We tend to want our God to speak to us in simple, unambiguous words. We want to hear from Him in a fashion that allows for no doubt, no possibility of misunderstanding, and preferably, no possibility of failing to obey. God, however, is not in the habit of blessing the sluggard. I think this applies to our mental practices as well as our industry. To stop at the instant impression of a passage, particularly in those moments when we are desperate to hear an answer, is to risk hearing only our own heart. And our heart, if we will hear God on it, is desperately wicked, constantly deceiving. If it’s not convincing us we’re doing better than we are, it’s convincing us we’re doing worse than we are. When we fall into such casual ways with Scripture, we are no longer reverencing our God. Worse, we are making of His Holy Word a game akin to laying out the tarot cards. We are not studying. We are not hearing God. We are playing at divinations, and God has proclaimed such practices an abomination in His sight! How much worse when we attempt to drag His own gift to us into the process? No! Let us be determined not to hear His word lightly. Let us be determined not to presume upon His word, but to put in the effort to hear truly and to truly hear. Let us be taught by Him with the intention of learning, of allowing His teaching to shape our will after His own.
As I noted, understanding the sower would seem to be the key to understanding the point correctly. To that end, it would be well to begin by looking to see what the Scriptures offer on the subject. Two passages in particular come to mind, one of which would have been known to those who stood to hear Jesus that day. The other reflects how a student of the Scriptures would seem to have incorporated this parable into his own thinking. Let’s start with what was available to them.
Isaiah wrote as God declared it to him: God’s word is like the rain and the snow which water the earth. Thus does He cause the plants to grow and to bear fruit, and that fruit provides both seed for the sower and bread for the hungry (Isa 55:10-11). What strikes me is that God is not the sower. Apart from Him, we can see that the sower would have nothing to sow, nor would the harvester have anything to harvest. It is the water of God’s word that brings growth. It is the Living Water, the Christ our Lord that causes the growth. In that same passage, we have the powerful promise that God’s Word accomplishes His purpose. Where He waters, growth will come and fruit will abound!
In this image from Isaiah there is also the idea of the earth which is watered. Earth is often used as a description of man. Man was made from the earth, and to the earth he is returned at his death. To a people so dependent upon the conditions of the land for their survival, an understanding of how that land’s condition related to its fruitfulness would be only natural. Of course, experience has shown them that hard earth bears poorly, being unreceptive to the seed. Of course, they would know that even with the best of land, the harvest was dependent upon the watering God provided in the early and the latter rains. All was timed to get the benefit of these necessary waters. So, looking at this passage, we see where the water that brings the harvest is coming from, and we have a sense of what the earth signifies. What we don’t have yet is a key to the sower or his seed. We really ought to have some sense of what that seed will be, I suppose, given Who comes to water, and Who is the Water.
Paul provides us with an answer in the second passage I have in mind. Writing to the Corinthians, he declares that this same God who supplies seed for the sower and bread for food (a clear reference to what Isaiah had written) would also supply and multiply their seed and (key to our understanding) increase the harvest of their righteousness (2Co 9:10). Well, a harvest of righteousness can only be had of one seed. One cannot plant corn and expect to harvest potatoes. It won’t work. Likewise, one cannot plant seeds of sin and rebellion and expect to harvest righteousness and sanctity. Neither would we expect that God would be going out of His way to provide us with the seeds of sin. How could we suspect the One who cannot abide even the presence of sin in His vicinity to be providing sin to His people? It cannot be! No, He is the provider of the Seed of Righteousness, the Seed promised to Abraham, and He sends forth the Word, the Living Water, His only Son to water that seed, and ensure its growth.
Now, the Scriptures also remind us that God sends the rains on righteous and unrighteous alike, causes the sun to shine on both the obedient and the rebellious. Let it be understood, then, that He gives a degree of light, of understanding, to every man. The Water waters all the earth, but it is the seed that is in the ground that determines what will grow, and it is the condition of the ground that determines how well it will grow. The Water is not to be blamed for the results.
We now have a sense of the seed to add to our sense of the soil, but we are still lacking an answer to the question of who the sower is. Again, Paul will provide our answer. I was reminded of this particular passage this morning, as God would have it, by the words of Pastor Sanford. Paul wrote to that church, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused the growth. The one who plants is nothing. The one who waters is nothing. God, who causes the growth is everything. The planter and the waterer are united in their efforts, and each will receive the worth of his labors, for both labor jointly with God, and you are His field” (1Co 3:6-9). Well, now, there is the key to hearing what the Word has spoken! You and I, who seek to declare His kingdom are the sowers.
We sow the seeds of His righteousness which, as He chooses, He will water. Notice that we who sow are likewise the vessels by which He waters His seeds. Notice as well that those fields we are sowing into and harvesting from are not our own, but His. For the most part, we are but hired hands, brought in by the Owner to do the work, and Paul reminds us that we will be well rewarded for our efforts, even if the land is not our own.
With all these pieces in mind, consider the picture that is being placed before us. We are sent to sow seeds of righteousness, or to water what others have planted before us. God has already said that He sends His waters on both the good and the bad. Here, Jesus points to the sower, to us, and shows us how we are to do our job. Like God’s watering, we are to be liberally indiscriminate in casting our seed about. The condition of those to whom we declare God’s goodness is not to be our concern. The receptiveness of our hearers to His words is not to be our concern. We are not to make the attempt to determine how fruitful our efforts will be before we expend the effort. Both in planting and in watering, then, we must be willing to give to whomever comes to us. What we have in Jesus’ example here is exactly what He is calling for. He didn’t hand pick an audience for this message. He offered it to everybody who had come to listen. What would become of it in those various ears is a different story.
The picture Jesus paints, it should be noticed, doesn’t really depend on the sower, the seed, the water or the sun. It’s all about the soil. What condition is that soil in? Even when He shows us the thorn fields, we can look to the soil as the issue. Well, here is a place for our involvement! We are so determined to have had some part in our salvation, so determined to know that it wasn’t entirely up to God. Here’s our part. What shape is our soil in? Have we allowed sin to come and bake our soil to a crusty plain that no seed can penetrate? Have we allowed our habits to walk upon us for so long that our soil is as a well-traveled road? Or, is there a stony heart just beneath the skin, so that while the things of God may tickle us for a moment, they never really sink in? Is a good message no more to us than pleasing speech? Is the church service no more than an entertainment? For all that, what have we been doing as far as tending to our condition? When we see the weeds of the old life coming up, do we pull them out by the roots or just leave them to grow? There is a dire warning here: If sin is allowed to grow again, grow it will, and it will – because of our fallen nature – grow to the point that the righteousness that was planted in us will be choked off.
We cannot in any way take credit for the seed that has fallen upon us, nor can we take credit for the fruit that grows. Truly, the only thing we can take credit for in the course of our sanctification is failure. We can so treat our fields that the best of seed and the most abundant of waters will produce nothing. On the other hand, however well we have tended ourselves, however hard we have worked at doing good, it will come to nothing if the Seed of Righteousness has not been scattered upon us and the Water of the Word poured out. Wow! There are just a ton of messages to be found in this parable! Here is a warning to the Christian soloist who turns from fellowship. Where is the Water of the Word? How will your seed grow without water?
Fundamentally, though, I see this parable as a word of encouragement for those who would be going out to preach the Seed of the Word. It is a message of hope for the laborers. Look, He says, you are going to be declaring this Gospel to all manner of folk, and most of the time it’s going to look like a waste of time. Probably half the people who hear you will reject your words out of hand. You’re going to meet a lot of folks who will seem all excited as you’re talking, but you’ll never see them again, never hear of them in the kingdom. You’re going to know the disappointment of disciples that seem to be growing well, but then return to their old ways. Paul would experience this in the person of Demas, who, having preferred this present life, deserted him (2Ti 4:10). But, in spite of all this, Jesus declares a word of hope. The seed that reaches good soil will more than make up for all that went for naught. Think about it! The seeds that those disciples planted are still bearing fruit today. What other farmer can make such a claim?
What Jesus spoke to those first disciples is still just as applicable for us today. If it seems that the majority of those we talk about the Gospel with reject it or walk away from it, that is only to be expected. It’s not a comment on your talents as a sower, nor is it a condemnation upon the seed you sow. No, the problem is in the soil. Everything that could be done to by any other means was done. There was seed, water, sun – all the makings of life, but the soil was simply worthless for growing. Oh, but don’t be discouraged! Don’t give up! Don’t you dare even to look for that better soil to do your work in. Do your work in the fields that the Master has given you to work in. Cast your seed far and wide. Yours is not to seek out the prepared soil so that your labors will look better to you. Yours is to sow without prejudice, for you cannot tell the condition of the soil as well as you think. That thorn-choked land didn’t look much different from the good land until things started to grow. Just cast, and know that He Who orders all things according to His good pleasure will bring about a great harvest to His glory from your labors.
This brings me back to the thought I had in mind when selecting the key verse. The key to the whole message is that the sower went out to sow. The results, although important to the story, are not the issue we need to attend to. In fact, the parable is largely designed to get our eyes off of what appear to be the results. For us, the important matter is that we must go out to sow. If we will not sow, the condition of the soil will not matter, the availability of the seed will not matter. Whither God sends His sun and rain will not matter. Seed that stays in the sack cannot produce no matter how good the conditions. It can only rot.
Of course, our efforts will be equally fruitless if God is not with us in the effort. That should not be a worry for us, though. God has called us to this labor. He everywhere urges us to not only get going on what needs to be done ourselves, but also to pray that more will join us. The harvest is near, but the laborers are few. Oh, that harvest is near indeed! But, the bounty of the harvest is as dependent on those who sow as it is upon those who reap. If we, the sowers, do not go out to sow, it will be a meager harvest that the later laborers bring in.
One last thing I would consider is a matter that would probably not have been conceivable to those who first heard this parable. I could be wrong about this, I suppose, but I don’t think they would have been familiar with the hybrid crops that we know today. These are crops that can grow for only one season, because they have been so manipulated that they will bear no seed. You will not find such a thing described in this parable because no such crop would have existed in their day. For us, though, I think it might be worthwhile to consider how such a crop would fit into this parable.
One thing we can say is that a seedless plant is a plant with no future. It may bear fruit, but it cannot bear seed. It may feed the hungry for a moment, but it is of no use for supplying next year’s provisions. Now, we know the hybrid plant grows from seed like any other. It may not produce seed, but it began with seed. It is neither the plant’s fault nor the soil’s fault that seed will not grow. The plant can only be what grows from the seed that was sown. The soil cannot hope to make a sterile plant fertile by its influence. Bad soil may kill the planting, but the best of soil cannot make such a change as would be needed to bring seed from seedless stock. It remains true that only God can close the womb, and only God can open it.
The problem with seedless hybrids lies with the seed that was sown. If we are to draw an application from this, that is where we must look. What is it about that seed that makes it produce plants with no future? Surely, as God provides the seed to the sower, that seed has in it the germ of life. We shall not fault the Creator for the seed He has given. He has promised that seed not just as something to cast hither and yon, but as the means of provision. The seed is for bread, and in this spiritual sense, the bread is the Bread of Life. The Seed is the Word of God. What, then, can make the fruitful seed unfruitful in this way? Was it in the delivery? Perhaps. Certainly, when the message of the Gospel is placed in the mouths of unbelieving preachers, it must have an impact on what is heard. The Gospel as it is preached in, for instance, a Universalist church may come from the same pages we read, but the admixture of other belief systems and unbelief systems renders the message powerless to penetrate the soil of men’s minds. However well tilled that soil, seed like this cannot produce.
No, I think the image leads us to a different problem. The problem of the seedless plant is neither with the seed nor the sower. A seedless plant has grown. It has life within itself. It has heard the message of salvation and responded to that message. Yet, it has not been willing to look beyond itself. Many believers fall into this category, sadly. We have appropriated the promise of God, we have ‘found Jesus.’ We have accepted the atonement for our sins and the relief that accompanies that redemption. But, we have not so fallen in love with our Lord and Savior that we share His compassionate concern for those around us who have not received what we have received. We have the Life within us, and yet we have no interest in imparting that same Life to others. We may be careful in weeding the land in our immediate vicinity, but we are not so willing to help the plant next to us free itself of those same weeds. We are satisfied in thinking our own soil is well prepared and tended, but we have no concern for seeing that hardened path next to us transformed into productive land. We have the Life within us, but we make it sterile in our lack of love. How can this be? Where is our concern for those who come after? What heritage is there for a seedless plant? There is none. We may get to heaven, but surely we will be amongst those who arrive as it were, with the smoke of the fire still upon them! What expectation have we for a ‘well done, good and faithful servant,’ if we have brought no return for His great investment in us.
He planted the seed that has brought us Life. He has seen to it that our soil would be well prepared to receive that seed, and He has seen to it that the sower of the seed would cast some our way. He has watered us well, and sent workers to keep those weeds at bay, lest we succumb. He has watched tenderly as we grew from the fragile sprouting of new growth to mature trees. He has ensured deep roots to keep us strong and the light of His love to keep us fresh and green. Oh, but came a day He went to a certain fig tree that ought, by all signs, to have been bearing fruit and seed. Finding none, He cursed the tree and in a day, the life that had been vested in that tree was drained and gone. Jesus teaches often on the expectation of return. He provides talents as a kingdom investment, and He expects the kingdom to enjoy a healthy return on what He has invested. Where He has invested the seed of His Word, He surely expects to harvest even a hundredfold.
I don’t see that He has a great deal of use for hybrids. Adding our own thoughts and ideas to His Word does not make for better seed. It makes for hybrid seed, plantings that will not bear life. It is the pure Gospel spoken plainly and purely that will bring harvest. It is the pure Gospel seed that will grow in the heart of its hearers in such abundance that it must pour out a rich bounty of seed to continue growing.
