Comments on: The Sower (Part 2)

By: David L

David L — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:23:05 +0000

That professor would certainly claim to be a Christian, and I have no reason to doubt his claim, but his way of reading the Bible was very minimalist, I even asked him if he believed that Isaiah 53 was pointing to Jesus and he reluctantly said yes, but not like we think it does…he said that “fulfillment” of a prophesy means something closer to “overflowing”. In other words, he said, yes, Jesus was born of a virgin, but that was not a fulfillment of Isaiah 7, Mahar Shalal Hash Baz was a fulfillment of Isaish 7, Jesus was a kind of “overflowing” of the prophesy about Hash Baz. I personally think that his view is actually the opposite of a good interpretation, Jesus is the Fulfillment and Hash Baz was perhaps more incidental, even though Hash Baz was contemporary

By: GerardoR

GerardoR — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 03:21:15 +0000

Was this prof Christian? Scripture certantly seems to have a very cyclical pattern. I think revelations is an excellent example of this. It deals with events that have passed, events that were passing and events that will pass. In fact, many people see the Mass as fulfilling the events in revelations (present view) and yet, they still hold that revelations refers to things that happen in the past, and things that are to come. This cyclical pattern actually makes a lot of sense when we consider that God see’s all time as now. To him, the future and past are now.

By: David L

David L — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 02:50:42 +0000

Yeah, I also had one sort-of-famous Old Testament prof at seminary (Ben W was in that class with me) who made the argument that unless the NT explicitly quotes or references an OT prophesy, the OT prophesy was only meant for the people who were contemporaries of the prophet. I disagreed with him on that, and so I asked in class, "isnt it possible for prophesies to have two fulfillments? An immediate one and a future one?" He said "No way. A prophesy only has one fulfillment." He then went on to say that the son who is to be born in Isaiah 7 can only mean Mahar Shalal Hash Baz and not Jesus! To me, that is too limiting of a hermenutic! Not to mention it actually was a virgin in the NT who bore Christ who is indeed God with us! I certainly understand that historical context is crucially important, but we also must see the whole counsel of God as pointing to Christ because Christ says it does!

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 22:37:06 +0000

Hi David, I think I’m pretty much on board with you about this. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and a tent peg is just a tent peg. I also think that there is room for allegorizing, and that to some extent Scripture itself leads us to do this. For instance, Jesus’ body is the temple (John 2:21). All the old testament sacrifices point to Jesus’ ultimate sacrifice, so that for example a lamb can become a figure for Jesus. The rock with the water coming out of it in the wilderness is also Jesus (1 Cor 10:4). So while I think there need to be constraints (and have been trying to make some initial efforts at suggesting some), I wouldn’t want to just quash imaginative allegorizing either. After all, Jesus Himself taught in parables! What’s up with that? Why didn’t He just say what He wanted to say straight up?

By: GerardoR

GerardoR — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 22:21:36 +0000

Hi David,
I am not saying I agree nor disagree with a particular interpretation or method of interpretation. I am saying that I think it is very interesting all the allegory that went behind much of the way the Church fathers interpreted the scripture. Heck I am surprised the Church fathers even read the bible to begin with *wink*
I do however, like certain allegories they saw into particular passages like the spear in Jesus side. There has always been a profound mystery surrounding that event to me. But your right, this kind of allegorizing can be tricky and hard to know with certitude if it is true. Well put.

By: David L

David L — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:15:38 +0000

We still must be careful, first and foremost to understand the author’s intent instead of simply allowing our imaginations to run wild. A bible teacher from the mid 20th century named M.R. DeHaan was infamous for this practice. He said the the tent pegs for the tabernacle were really representative of Christ and his passion for the following reasons: 1) They were half in the ground and half out of the ground representing Christ’s death and resurrection. 2) They were made of non-rusting metal representing the eternality of our salvation. 3) They were “pierced” through the tabernacle “skin” just like nails pierced Jesus. and on and on.

I have a big problem with this kind of interpretation because by that same kind of imagination hermenutic I could come up with a hundred other “meanings” for what the tent pegs might represent. For instance, I could say that they represent Christ being tethered to the earth, or maybe they represent Christ’s glory because they are shiny, or maybe they represent the sharpness of the Word because they are pointy!

No, personally, I think the tent pegs were for making sure the tabernacle did not blow away in the wind and thats all. And while Christ does say that the whole Bible testifies about him, I dont think that is an invitation to eisegete into the text

By: Darren Gruett

Darren Gruett — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 17:45:18 +0000

I agree that it is the “parable of parables.” Often times when I start a new Bible study group I begin with this vital, foundational story.

By: GerardoR

GerardoR — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:42:44 +0000

Hi Andy,
Then again, there seems to be a pretty close link between hearing the good news and embracing the
ich leads to what seems to me a fruitful ambiguity around the term “word” so that it can refer to Jesus’ teachings or to Jesus Himself, the Word of God. If so, is it too much of a stretch to say that the evil one prevents people from “receiving” Jesus?
But again, maybe this is all taking it too far. I am probably overthinking the essential message of the parable that many accept the message but few produce good fruit and endure till the end. How do reformers interpret the good fruit?
Is it stretch to say that the evil one prevents people from “receiving” Jesus? No, not at all. I guess I just dont like the prevention part being expressed by eating. =)
Andy, I would be happy to send you an email. What is your email adress? This is a great article by the way. Very thought provoking. I have been doing lexio devina so this analysis really helps.

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:37:02 +0000

I remember reading St. Augustine on allegorizing in connection with Song of Songs (can’t remember what the actual work was called… this was some years back now). His idea was that allegorizing is legitimate so long as elsewhere in Scripture you can find stated plainly whatever truths you reach via the allegorizing. That strikes me as a good limiting principle, and one that obviously didn’t stifle Augustine’s imagination any.

Regarding the birds of prey link to Gen 15, I think it’s an interesting link, but am not sure how far it can go unless we find some other parallels to the Abraham situation (e.g. connection to hardness of heart, and to some elements of the seed-growth idea). I’m not saying this couldn’t be done, but only that to my mind the more fruitful (interesting/aesthetically pleasing?) meaning-links are the ones that map multiple elements from one setting to another.

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:29:13 +0000

Gerardo, I think this is a good point – any interpretation has to answer to the constraints of the actual parable itself, and as you say a difficulty with seeing Jesus as the seed arises when we try to understand what Satan “taking away the word” from those along the path might refer to.

Then again, there seems to be a pretty close link between hearing the good news and embracing the source of it, which leads to what seems to me a fruitful ambiguity around the term “word” so that it can refer to Jesus’ teachings or to Jesus Himself, the Word of God. If so, is it too much of a stretch to say that the evil one prevents people from “receiving” Jesus?

I would personally like very much to hear your take on John 6:63, and how this text gets viewed by Roman Catholics in relation to communion and related subjects, since for me it has always appeared to provide some resistance to taking the utmost literal view of the bread and wine as body and blood of Christ (transubstantiation). But I haven’t looked into this very deeply, and so would be interested in knowing what you’re thinking. If you want to avoid spidey senses you could always just send me an email about it.

By: GerardoR

GerardoR — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 03:03:30 +0000

Andy and John,
I have some trouble seeing the seed as Jesus. I mean, surely we hear lots of language about Jesus being the word, and that we must sow Jesus in our heart. But it is also true that there is a difference between hearing the good news and embracing the source of good news. There seems to be an agreement that God is the sower, but the idea that Jesus is the seed troubles me given the message that birds of prey eat the seed.

I mean, maybe we are not meant to take it that far, that is fair. But I am nonethless troubled by the implications that Jesus is eaten up by evil through our refusal to listen to the gospel. It seems more comforting (to me atleast) to suggest that Jesus himself is the sower and the seed is the “good news.”

I am tempted to comment on your point regarding the interpretation of the word “Spirit” in John 6:63 but I wont. I am afraid DavidL might be lurking somewhere just waiting to pounce. He has incredible reformer spidey senses that tingle at the mention of anything related to Catholic church.
I say this in good spirits DavidL. =)

By: GerardoR

GerardoR — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 02:30:23 +0000

John, I was going to make a similar comment about the Church fathers. I was shocked to read you saying the exact thing that was on my mind. Scary.

Yeah, I am amazed by the early Church fathers great use of allegory as well. However, I wonder about the differences between expounding the meaning behind a parable and allegorical interpretations. Because many of the early Church fathers saw great allegories not in the parables of Jesus, but in his life itself.

Take for example Mark 1:7 “After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.”
St. Gregory the great interpreted the sandals made from dead animals as representing mankind dead to since. once Christ clothed himself with our nature in the incarnation, the miracle proved so profound that not even John was able to unfasten or explain this mystery of God-made-man.

I find allegory in Jesus ministry quite fascinating as many of the Church fathers saw every little detail in the gospels as meaning something more. Not that they didnt think the account of Jesus life was real, but that they thought it was revealing more than what was on the words. Lets take another example that is a favorite of mine: the spear through Jesus side. Did this literally happen? The Church Fathers would say, absolutely. But there is a more deeper mystery behind this, namely the birth of the Church from Jesus’ side just as Eve came from the side of Adam.

Hence, many of the Church Fathers allegorizing (is that a word?) I think encourages us to look beyond the immediate meaning of many of the events in the gospels. Meaning that is not limited to the present understanding but can try to remind us of events in the past and in the future.

Andy, you mentioned the birds of prey that eat up the seed (satans desire to precent the seed from taking root in us). I have often wondered if Jesus was playing off the events in Genesis chapter 15:10-11 when the birds of pray tried to prevent the pact the Lord was making with Abraham (our Father of faith).

By: Andy

Andy — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:12:28 +0000

Hi John, thanks for your comment. You raised alot of points in so few words! I think the idea of multiple fulfillments / applications of OT Scripture emerges right in the NT authors themselves. When we read the gospels we have to admit that there are some pretty creative interpretive moves being made to show how Jesus fulfilled OT Scripture. Matthew 1-2 has some great examples. Besides the famous virgin/maiden issue surrounding Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 (Mt 1:23), Matthew uses Hosea 11:1 to explain Jesus’ family’s sojourn in Egypt, and says that Jer 31:15 is fulfilled in Herod’s slaying of the infants (Mt 2:17-18). Is it likely that this was what Jeremiah was thinking about when he penned these words? And you can find this sort of creative application of OT Scripture all over the NT writings. So it the early church fathers and reformers who saw things this way were actually following in a pretty well-attested tradition.

As for your suggestion about seeing Christ as the True Seed, I think this actually makes alot of sense if you read the parable “canonically” or at Level 3. What gets sown according to Mark? The word (logos) of God. Then think about Jn 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word (logos)” and Jn 1:14 “And the Word became flesh.” On this interpretation, the Sower (whose identity Mark does not disclose in his interpretation) would be God, who is at work sowing Jesus His Son into the world. And this makes sense in view of broader Christian teaching, since the point of getting Jesus’ words into us is actually to get Jesus Himself into us. John 15:4 says, “Remain in me, and I will remain in you.” and then verse 7 says, “If you remain in me and my words remain in you….” In this context I’m always impressed (and a bit disconcerted) by what Jesus says in John 6. After telling His disciples to eat His flesh and drink His blood, He then turns around and says “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life” (6:63)!

We can then also put all this together with the way God describes the effect of His word in the world in Isaiah 55:10-11, “As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.”

On a view that sees the Holy Spirit as in some way the “author” of Scripture (alongside or behind the human authorship process), these sorts of connections can really start coming together as we wonder, did the Mind of God have all this in mind when the individual authors of the various writings that make up our canonical Scriptures penned their works? I personally find this really exciting and I love drawing connections like this. But at the same time, I want to make sure to keep some measure of self-control and know when I’m going overboard.

By: John Y

John Y — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:05:41 +0000

Thanks for this post. What I’ve found interesting is how the early Church Fathers seem to do a lot more allegorizing with Scripture than those of us from the Reformed tradition are used to. I agree with your approach toward the parables, but I’m still thinking of whether and when we might consider Level 3+ ways of interpreting Scripture. Calvin however had this concept of multiple fulfillment in which Scripture could fulfill on multiple levels, (immediate historical context, future historical fulfillment for Israel, even more future historical fulfillment for the Church, and perhaps something even more eschatological fulfillment in the Endtimes). I’m wondering if the Parables also serve this multiple fulfillment as well, though I’m sort of cautious about this level of interpretation right now. For example, one can make an argument that the seed in the Parable finds its “fulfillment” in the True “Seed” (Kernel of Wheat) in Christ. This is sort of the Level >2 interpretation that some of the early Church Fathers might have made with a passage like this, though I’m not sure if they specifically made this interpretation with the Seed. Trying to give an example of the allegorizing some of them were doing with the Scriptures.