Sowing and Growing

A Sermon preached on 16 July 2023 (Pentecost VII) at St. Augustine’s, WI and St. Christoph, MZ

Genesis 25:19-34, Romans 8:1-11, Matthew 13:1-9, 18-23

Over the next few weeks, we will hear a whole series of parables in our Gospel readings from Matthew. Jesus is in Capernaum, on the shore of lake Galilee, where Peter came from. The house Jesus leaves to go down to the beach to teach might even have been Peter’s. The first parable is most often called the Parable of the Sower, that’s what Jesus calls it in his explanation. It could also be called the Parable of the Seed or the Soil. We will have a look at all three perspectives! 

The parable occurs in all three synoptic gospels. Matthew uses it to begin his set of parables about the kingdom. In Mark (chapter 4) it is followed by more parables with a focus on growth, and in Luke (chapter 8) it is embedded in a section in which the disciples have been sent out to proclaim the kingdom. So, it seems to serve to help them overcome any disappointment that their message sometimes falls on deaf ears! This is of course not the only use of the seed image in Scripture. Later in this chapter (Matthew 13:31-32) Jesus will compare the kingdom to a mustard seed, and in John’s Gospel (12:24) Jesus uses the image of a seed or grain of wheat – as a symbol of resurrection: “Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.”

In 2 Esdras (one of the books of the Apocrypha), the author declares that just as not all the seeds a farmer sows survive or put down roots, so not all people will persevere to eternal life, (2 Esdras 8:41) a comparison that itself bears a strong resemblance to Jesus’ parable, but without the generous sowing and scattering!

You would be amazed at the things theologians and Biblical scholars argue about! There is a great debate about whether in the ancient world ploughing preceded sowing (which is the modern practice) or followed it (which seems to be what is happening here, if the farmer ploughed at all), or even if ploughing both preceded and followed the sowing! While we are at it, let’s also discuss how many angels fit on a pinhead! The point of the parable is that the seed fell in different places – and the parable would lose its point if those different places were all later ploughed, because then they would become the same. What we do know about agricultural practice in those days, and what makes sense, is that the seed was thrown and therefore would land both in expected and in unexpected places.

Is the parable about the sower, or about seed or the soil? All three perspectives have something to offer and can teach us something.

Who would the sower be? God, Jesus, or those Jesus sent out to preach, teach, and heal in His name? Jesus could certainly be talking about himself, and he will certainly experience the sort of reactions to the word of the kingdom that he describes. More about that in a moment. But it seems more likely to stand for anyone sent to share the word of God, to spread the Good News. The sower’s motivation is to have a good harvest and to trust in the power of the seed to grow, and so it is scattered generously: the seed falls where it falls. For a sower of the word that means not pre-judging who might be more receptive (or more worthy) and therefore not restricting our mission to a particular group, nationality, ethnicity, gender, or orientation! And just as the sower does not only sow within the boundaries of his field, so we cannot only proclaim the Good News within these walls. As St. Paul writes in 2 Corinthians (9:6): “The point is this: the one who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and the one who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.”

Another thing to note is that the focus is not on the one who sows / proclaims, but on the one who receives. If we focus on the sower, then this becomes a call both to trust in the power of God’s word as well as a call to humility, not to make ourselves too important! To quote Paul again, this time from 1 Corinthians (3:6) “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So, neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.”

If we look at the parable from the point of view of the seed, we note that fruit from the good soil more than makes up for any seed that might be considered to have been wasted. The yield – 30-, 60- or even hundredfold – is fantastic. Usually it would be 5-fold, at best 15-fold if all the conditions – soil and weather - were optimal. It is also always the same seed that is being scattered, any difference in yield is due to the soil. And so, if the word of the kingdom is not accepted, that does not mean that the message needs changing, that it needs to be made more comfortable. We don’t need a “prosperity gospel” replacing a call to serve, share and sacrifice, and we do not need an “exclusionary gospel” replacing a call to seek and serve Christ in all persons. We just need to carry on, patiently and faithfully, and visibly preaching transformation.

And finally, to the soil, to those who receive the word. The seed that is God’s word takes root and bears fruit only when it has an impact on the lives of those who hear it. To hear and understand the word is to want to live a life of discipleship. Not everyone who hears the word can and does, at least not at once.

We find examples for each of the groups that Jesus’ identifies in his interpretation of the parable within Scripture. In John’s Gospel we meet those who hear and do not understand in those disciples who said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” and who “turned back and no longer went about with him.” (John 6:60, 66) Judas would also be a classic example for “the evil one having come and snatched away what is sown in the heart.” (Matthew 13:19) When I hear rocky ground I think of Peter – Petrus, the rock, who did fall away and denied Jesus three times “when trouble or persecution arises.” (13:21) Judas would also be a good example for someone “distracted by the cares of the world or lured by wealth” (13:22) as would the rich young man who wanted to follow Jesus, but: “When the young man heard this word, he went away grieving, for he had many possessions.” (Matthew 19:22)

These reasons are also all relevant today, perhaps even more so. Where there is no idea of the divine and no spiritual awareness, there is no soil to take root in. Where there is no depth, just superficial and brief enjoyment, there is no time for the roots to grow. With so many things to worry about, and so many more desires than life in Jesus’ day offered, it is much easier to be overwhelmed.

The Good News is that everyone gets a second chance, actually we get as many as we need and want. The sower does not sow only once, the sower goes out to sow every season. That’s another reason why we should not give up proclaiming the Good News of the Kingdom of God. Circumstances can change, and we can change them. The seed might not have taken root or lasted long the first time, but we might still have made that person more receptive for the next time they hear the gospel – or see it lived out. Peter repented and was forgiven. Paul changed from being a persecutor of Christians to an apostle for Christ.

The image we get from this parable is that the kingdom of God is a place of overwhelming and constant generosity and abundance, and that generosity does not just apply to the yield or growth, but also to the sowing, which is as extensive, and plentiful, and as frequent as is necessary. God gives the growth! Amen.

A test too far?

A Sermon preached on 2 July 2023 (Pentecost V) at St. Augustine’s, WI and St. Christoph, MZ

Genesis 22:1-14, Romans 6:12-23, Matthew 10:40-42

After last week’s story about the banishing of Ishmael, this week we heard about the near sacrifice of Isaac. I really feel I should be calling in Claudia Watson, our safeguarding officer, and I do hope that the Sunday school is not using the story today. The three Abrahamic religions – Islam, Judaism and Christianity - that share this story certainly interpret it in very different ways.

For one thing, most Moslem scholars identify the son with Ishmael rather than Isaac. And in the Qur’an, when Abraham tells his son about the vision, his son agrees to be sacrificed for the fulfilment of God's command, and no binding to the altar occurs. According to the Surah 37:102-105: “And when he reached with him [the age of] exertion, he said, ‘O my son, indeed I have seen in a dream that I [must] sacrifice you, so see what you think.’ He said, ‘O my father, do as you are commanded. You will find me, if Allah wills, of the steadfast.’ And when they had both submitted and he put him down upon his forehead, We called to him, ‘O Abraham, You have fulfilled the vision.’ Indeed, We thus reward the doers of good.” Eid al-Adha, the Feast of Sacrifice honouring the willingness of Abraham and his son to submit to God’s command is (coincidentally) being celebrated this weekend, from June 28 – July 2.

For our Jewish brothers and sisters this event is called Akedah, the binding.  The traditional Jewish interpretation is that Abraham demonstrates his total love of God by being willing to sacrifice the most precious thing in his life, the son for whom he has been waiting for so many years. More recent commentators argue that “Isaac's death was never a possibility – not as far as Abraham was concerned, and not as far as God was concerned. God's commandment to Abraham was very specific, and Abraham understood it very precisely: Isaac was to be "raised up as an offering", and God would use the opportunity to teach humankind, once and for all, that human sacrifice, child sacrifice, is not acceptable.”[1]

In his interpretation, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, who Linda also likes to quote, goes even further:

“In the ancient world, up to and including the Roman empire, children were considered the legal property of their parents. … Under the Roman principle of patria potestas, a father could do whatever he wished with his child, including putting him to death. … It is this principle that underlies the entire practice of child sacrifice, which was widespread throughout the pagan world. The Torah is horrified by child sacrifice, which it sees as the worst of all sins. It therefore seeks to establish, in the case of children, what it establishes in the case of the universe as a whole, the land of Israel, and the people of Israel. We do not own our children. God does. We are merely their guardians on God’s behalf. Isaac belongs to neither Abraham nor Sarah. Isaac belongs to God. All children belong to God. …. God does not want Abraham to sacrifice his child. God wants him to renounce ownership in his child. That is what the angel means when it calls to Abraham, telling him to stop, ‘You have not withheld from Me your son, your only son.’ … The Torah ultimately seeks to abolish all relationships of dominance and submission.”[2]

In the New Testament, the Letter to the Hebrews interprets the near sacrifice as a sign of faith: “By faith Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac. He who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son, of whom he had been told, ‘It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named after you.’ He considered the fact that God is able even to raise someone from the dead—and figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.” (Hebrews 11:17-19)

Hebrews points to another important Christian interpretation, that this event points to Christ, to the Cross, and to the Resurrection:  The wood that Abraham puts on his son’s shoulder prefigures the wood of the cross that Jesus carries. In both cases we have a father who is willing to sacrifice his only son. Isaac and Jesus are both described as sacrificial lambs: Abraham replies to Isaac that "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." (Genesis 22:8) When John the Baptist saw Jesus coming toward him, he said "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world!" (John 1:29). The binding symbolises the Crucifixion and the last-minute stay of sacrifice is a type of the Resurrection.

So, is it “all’s well that ends well?”  What remains of course is the very disturbing imagery of the binding of Isaac, and even with the happy end, the question, why did God so nearly take away what God had given? Why did God put these two aged parents – Abraham and Sarah – through so appalling a test?

I am not sure I have the definitive answer to that question. We can argue that Abraham always trusted God to make the impossible possible and knew that he would get his son back, but how did Isaac feel when Abraham bound him “and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to kill his son”? (Gen. 22:9-10) At least in the Islamic interpretation, Abraham tells his son about the vision and the son then agrees.

I don’t think we can really enter the mindset of people for whom, as Rabbi Sacks contends, child sacrifice was an accepted reality and for whom it was normal for gods to order someone – or some group of people – to be killed. Rabbinic literature argues that the Bible speaks in human language, imperfectly and using concepts and ideas from the context of the times in which they were written down. Just as, in the Letter to the Romans, we heard Paul using the institution of slavery as an example to explain how in Christ we are transferred from one master – sin – to another – God. At the same time Paul is clearly so embarrassed by this analogy that he feels he must apologise for it “I am speaking in human terms because of your natural limitations.” (Romans 6:19) When we try and discern God’s will for us in the Bible, when we struggle to understand how a passage like this can still be relevant for us today, we are sometimes, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians (13:12), seeing through a glass, darkly, for now we know only in part.

But even if we have understandable problems with the setting of the story, its teaching, its core message can still be valid. For some interpreters, as we have heard, it was a sign of submission / total love / true faith. For others it was about a radical change in society’s customs and practice. For us as Christians it does also point forward to the time when God offers God’s only son as the one and only sacrifice to set us free from sin. Traditionally, Mount Moriah, the site of Isaac’s binding, is identified with the Temple Mount, in Jerusalem. When we read “on the mount of the Lord it shall be provided,” (Gen. 22:14) we think of that hill outside of Jerusalem where God provided a saving example of true, suffering love and a way over overcoming evil and death.

And it is also about choices. God had chosen Abraham and provided him the means to become the father of many nations. Abraham had already chosen God when he left his home and family. Would Abraham still choose God now that God’s promise of a son and heir had been fulfilled? Would he dedicate his life and his family to God and God’s greater purpose or to his own? Against all odds and instincts Abraham chooses to trust in God and to believe that God will not betray the promise God had made. And so, like Jacob, Moses, Samuel, and Isaiah after him, when God calls his answer is “Here I am.”

Amen.

---

[1] Rabbi Ari Kahn see https://outorah.org/p/21996

[2] https://www.rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/vayera/the-binding-of-isaac-a-new-interpretation/