Articles From Our Bulletins
The Sower: Have We Missed the Point?
Disclosure statement: Despite our efforts to the contrary, we all have our biases and tendencies that influence our perceptions and conclusions. Therefore, I’m starting this article with a couple of mine that undoubtedly influence it: 1) Parables were not meant to conceal anything from anyone- “He that has ears, let him hear” (Matthew 13:9) certainly seems to support this conclusion; 2) Parables generally have one primary point to their primary audience (those to whom originally spoken); and, 3) Therefore, if we (the secondary audience) would have hears to hear and understand Jesus’ parables, we must carefully consider the primary audience to whom they were originally given to discern their primary point; otherwise, we end up reaching conclusions and making points of application that Jesus didn’t actually intend. Such conclusions and applications may, or may not be, valid and even Scripturally supported in other passages, but are not really the point or application(s) Jesus was making in the particular parable under consideration. “So, what does it matter as long as these points or applications are supported in/by other Scriptures?” one might well ask. Just this: if we get carried away with a multitude of possible points of considerations and applications that can be made from a parable, we might well miss the primary point or application Jesus is actually making. For instance…
Have you ever wondered why so many say that the Parable of the Sower could also be called the “Parable of the Soils”? I realize that Jesus didn’t title all of His parables- but did you know that He did this one? “Hear then the parable of the sower,” Matthew 13:18. Now ask yourself why we would consider naming it something other than what Jesus did? Could it be that the primary point(s) of application(s) that we “hear” and “see” in and from the parable differ from the one(s) Jesus was making?
I don’t deny that we can learn about differing soil-types as Jesus, in His explanation, included some details in these regards. But look closely and consider: what is the one consistent feature in each of these four soil-types (beside the road, rocky places, thorny, and good), cf. vv.19,20,22,23? It isn’t what distinguished the differing soil-types from one another, or even why they were different. It was that the Sower sowed good seed on them all.
Could it be that we’ve been so busy studying differing soil-types, what distinguishes one from another, and how best to “cultivate” or “prepare” the poor ones to make them good, that we’ve missed the point that such really isn’t our job or purpose? The Master Sower sowed seed on them all.
No effort was made to distinguish one from another, and thus “target” the good soil to prevent wasting seed on the bad ones. Neither was there any effort to till/break-up the beside the road (hard) ground, remove rocks from the rocky ground, or pull thorns from the thorny ground in order to prepare these poor quality soils in anticipation of the seed. If these are the points we should be making from this parable, why didn’t Jesus simply say so in His explanation? But He didn’t. Instead, He emphasized that seed was sown all of the soil types represented in the parable, cf. vv.19,20,22,23. The sower didn’t prejudge the type of soil, or attempt to improve them to make them ready for the seed. He just sowed.
“But if this so, why did He go into details describing the differing soil types?” That’s a good question that deserves an equally good answer. But let me ask a couple of questions to provide that answer:
- What made these soils hard, rocky, thorny, or good?
- Was this determination of their type made before or after the seed was sown on them?
Was it not their response to the seed after it was sown on them that determined their relative worth and potential? The sower neither made nor used such determinations of their quality prior- He just sowed the seed and allowed each soil to determine its own value by how it responded to the seed. That’s what made them good and productive, or otherwise. So, how can we talk of tilling ground, removing rocks and thorns before we even know whether or not the ground is good (since such is determined by response to seed)? Just sow the seed indiscriminately- that’s what the Sower did. The soil types, and their value to the owner of the field, are determined by their response to the seed after it has been sowed, not before. Hard ground can be broken up by the seed, cf. Acts 2:36-37ff; those with “no firm root in themselves” can become deeply rooted in faith through the seed, cp. Matthew 16:21-23 and John 21:15-19; and those infested with thorns of worries of the world and the deceitfulness of riches can overcome and become productive when the seed is sown in them, cf. Luke 19:1-10. Beyond these things and at best, the descriptions of the soil types are given to explain why the seed was not productive in them, not why it shouldn’t be sown on them.
The bottom line is this: We are not responsible to save the seed from being wasted on poor soil (and thus become soil-testers instead of seed-sowers); we just allow the seed to do its job (cf. Romans 1:16) by sowing it everywhere. After all, isn’t that what the Sower did?
From the very outset of Jesus’ public ministry, the scribes and Pharisees thought He was wasting seed on the “tax-gatherers and sinners,” Matthew 9:10-11. Jesus explained that such simply wasn’t the case, Matthew 9:12-13, but they didn’t get the point. Parables help to explain, with simple earthly stories, divine truths that haven’t been understood, Matthew 13:13. Let’s beware lest we become all too much like those scribes and Pharisees in missing the point: the gospel, and the salvation it brings through Jesus Christ, is for all.
- Sower_Have_We_Missed_the_Point.pdf (92.44 kB)
