The time in which the prophet Amos lived was a time of peace and prosperity. But, the prophet could hear God roaring like a lion — in anger.
Amos the prophet was certain that there was a God to whom the nations must give account. There was a moral judge of the world. No doubt this was a growing realization among the people of Israel. The God they worshiped was not a localized god — not simply their God, but the God of all the nations. YHWH was the God to whom all the nations were accountable. So, in these verses, the prophet begins with this notion: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will call the nations to accountability.
For many years now I have had a this personal website on the Internet.
I have decided it’s all coming down. There are a lot of reasons for that — which I’d rather not go into right now. The material here will go back up on the Internet in some form — but I’m not sure what and where just yet. My web hosting is paid through December, so the transition can be slow. But, I’ve known for years that I need to abandon that particular project.
(Sermon Presentation files for this passage can be found at: Patreon.)
It is important to see this parable as part of the larger category of Kingdom Parables, that begin in this chapter. In the Gospel of Matthew, there seems to be a clear turning from the clearer Kingdom teaching of (for example) the Sermon on the Mount to the strategy of teaching by parable.
These parables are not simple homespun illustrations from everyday life. They are very often startling or absurd stories — given to make a point. We have all become so familiar with them that they no longer startle us. So, preachers need to deliberately look for strange or startling elements to re-connect with them. Jesus may be showing us how different the ways of the Kingdom are to the ways of the world. Look for that. Also: look for the main point of the parable. Some of Jesus’ parables in the Gospels (like this one, actually) do have elements of allegory. But, don’t assume its an allegory.
So, while the Parable of the Sower does not itself mention the idea of the Kingdom of God, it should be viewed as being one of the parables that have this theme. Anyway, the idea of the Kingdom of God is the main theme of Jesus’ teaching in the Gospel of Matthew.
Some people object to the idea of the “Kingdom of God” because it is archaic, and represents a tyrannical form of government, and because it smacks of patriarchy. This kind of issue is part of the whole task of taking ancient materials from another culture and trying to relate them to our won day and age. It is important to stress the ways God’s Kingdom is different than historic Kingdoms. Jesus took the familiar and gave it new meaning. God is not a tyrant. The Kingdom of God does not more forward by force, but by grace.
“That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat beside the sea. Such great crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat there, while the whole crowd stood on the beach.” — Matthew 13:1,2 NRSV.
Our attention is drawn here to Jesus’ popularity. It was necessary for him to get into the boat to be able to address the whole crowd. The sea served as his PA system.
Καὶ ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς πολλὰ ἐν παραβολαῖς…. — Matthew 13:3a
“And he told them many things in parables….” — Matthew 13:3a
John Wesley (1703–1791)
John Wesley remarks:
This way of speaking, extremely common in the eastern countries, drew and fixed the attention of many, and occasioned the truths delivered to sink the deeper into humble and serious hearers. At the same time, by an awful mixture of justice and mercy, it hid them from the proud and careless. In this chapter our Lord delivers seven parables; directing the four former (as being of general concern) to all the people; the three latter to his disciples.
These remarks are helpful as long as we remember the surprising or shocking elements Jesus included in his parables. As Wesley says, their goal was both to reveal and to conceal. The word παραβολή suggests a comparison (“a placing one thing by the side of another” — Mounce Greek Dictionary). Preachers who expound this passage can emphasize the contrast between God’s ways and (what are often) human ways.
“…saying: “Listen! A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seeds fell on the path, and the birds came and ate them up. Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they did not have much soil, and they sprang up quickly, since they had no depth of soil. But when the sun rose, they were scorched; and since they had no root, they withered away. Other seeds fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them. Other seeds fell on good soil and brought forth grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. Let anyone with ears listen!’” — Matthew 13:3b-9 NRSV.
Seed is valuable to a farmer. No farmer would sow seed on the path, on rocky ground, or among thorns. Ideally, the farmer prepares the soil for the sowing of the seed. But, the Kingdom Christ came to inaugurate is different than that. Christ sows the seed of his message everywhere. See: Matthew 4:17: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” His concern and kindnesses were for everyone. See Matthew 11:4–5: “Jesus answered them, ‘Go and tell John what you hear and see: he blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them.’” Similarly, in the book of Acts, Jesus’ ministry is characterized this way: Acts 10:38 “…God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; how he went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.”
So, this is the way of the Kingdom of God. We don’t first prepare the soil, we spread the seed wherever we go. We don’t wait for people to become worthy before we do them good. We spread good seed in what appears to be unlikely places.
Alexander Maclaren comments:
Dr Alexander McLaren (1826-1910).
It is folly to sow on the hard footpath, or the rocky ground, or among thorns; but Christ and His servants have to do that, in endless hope that these unreceptive hearts may become good soil. One lesson of the parable is, Scatter the seed everywhere, on the most unlikely places.
The parable alludes to the reality that many of Jesus’ hearers are not receptive. It’s as if he had said: “I think quite a few of you out there are not ready to receive this message I have to give.”
Nevertheless, there are some who are receptive — and they prove fruitful, beyond expectation. This is how the Kingdom of Christ advances.
“Hear then the parable of the sower. When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what is sown in the heart; this is what was sown on the path. As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; yet such a person has no root, but endures only for a while, and when trouble or persecution arises on account of the word, that person immediately falls away. As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the lure of wealth choke the word, and it yields nothing. But as for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.” — Matthew 13:18-23 NRSV.
Here is the official explanation, where Jesus explains the allegorical elements of the parable: what is the intended meaning of the various “soils” in the story.
The message is essentially life-transforming if one hears it and understands it. It is transforming in and of itself. But, various conditions render the word ineffective. Jesus here is implying that the crowd he is addressing is not heeding the message. Maybe they have too much going on in their lives. Maybe they don’t allow the word to take root.
In and of itself the Kingdom teaching is transformative. Faith allows it to be transformative in the individual’s life. And, when the word takes root, the results are extraordinary: “in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.” The older commentaries were very concerned to show how such a harvest was credible — but, that’s because they were still seeing the parables as “simple illustrations from everyday life” — and not the surprising stories about the way of God’s Kingdom.
So relate this back to both (1.) Jesus’ call to repentance in light of the coming of God’s Kingdom (Matthew 4:17), and (2.) Jesus’ instruction on the way of the Kingdom (Matthew 5-7). The preachers role here is to make the obscurity of the parable plain for the hearer.
This is a good basis for an evangelistic message: Hear and Heed God’s Message through Christ — it will change your life!
A FREE GIFT FOR PREACHERS:
Head over to my (temporary, I think) Patreon page to find a Presentation file for preaching on this passage. It is available in both Power Point (.pptx) or Open Document (.odp) formats. You will find this same article — scroll to the bottom and download the file you wish to use.
Question: What do we do with the fact that there have been billions of people who died before Christ came to be among us on this earth? Or what about those who never learned about the saving power of Christ? How is it fair that these never had a chance for salvation? What guidance do the Scriptures give us on this issue, and what has the historic Church said about it?
For many years I have been fascinated by the Wesleyan theological tradition — which happens to be the theological tradition of the United Methodist Church and many other denominations. And in studying this, I discovered that the historic Methodist approach to this issue is a bit different from the ideas commonly heard in the evangelical world today.
What if Christianity is not primarily about what you believe but about what you live? What if its not about your opinions but your choices? What if the Final Judgement before God is about how you lived your life, not what religious opinions you espoused — or even what religious experiences you had? What if our actions are more important than our words? What if what God really wants are people of compassion and patience and peace (in fact, a community of people committed to those ideals)? What if the most important expression of our faith is not a Doctrinal Statement signed but a life well lived, under the Lordship of Christ? What if the real evidence of faith is “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control” (Galatians 5:22, 23)? What if God wants us to be making this world a better place — and we’ve spent our days hiding in our churches? What if the real scandal of Christianity is the huge gap that lies between our Biblical and theological knowledge, and the actual lives that we lead from day to day?
How did the clergy role manage to develop from preacher to pastor to CEO? And, is this a good thing?
John & Charles Wesley
The early Methodists, clearly saw the preaching role as of foremost importance. John Wesley was a preacher. Yes, he was certainly an organizer as well, but preaching was foremost. He traveled on horseback all over England preaching — often several times a day. Charles Wesley was a preacher. Adam Clarke was a preacher — his commentary on the entire Bible was a side project. All his learning was in the service of preaching.
Yes, the early Methodists believed in the value of “visiting house to house” but it’s clear from the way they talk about it, that they meant teaching from house to house — including the instruction of children. It was an extension of the preaching role.
The early Methodist preachers in this country were evangelists, who rarely stayed in one place for long. The leadership and (what we think of as) pastoral roles had to be fulfilled by lay leaders and class leaders and others in the local church. The task of preaching was too important — the circuit riding preacher needed to be on the move, spreading the Word to new people.
Older churches in the revivalistic model had Sunday morning services, Sunday evening services and midweek prayer services. Then there were revival meetings — often twice a year — and camp meeting in the summer.
But, somewhere along the line, clergy developed from being primarily preachers to being primarily pastors. The emphasis shifted from spreading the Word to tending the flock. Someone more knowledgeable than I might be able to say when this shift began and why.
But, here the focus shifts. It’s not about winning new people, or deepening the commitment and knowledge of the church people — it is taking care of the people you have. The emphasis now turns to meeting the needs of people — the church that does it the best has the best ministry. Attention turns inward.
It’s not that preachers can’t be pastors or pastors can’t be preachers — the issue is which role is uppermost. Which is most important? I remember an otherwise a very fine United Methodist bishop exhorting the clergy at Annual Confereence that people would forgive them their poor sermons if they truly demonstrated that they loved them. (And in my cynicism I mentally replied: “Well, you’ve never been to my house. I guess I can forgive you nothing.”) In this paradigm preaching is not important — the clergy person needs to be an excellent care-giver — and this is what will strengthen the church.
But, then the focus shifted again as people said that clergy needed to be primarily leaders. Now the insights began to come from the business world. Preacher / Pastors, now needed to be trained in organizational management. This, it was claimed, was the great deficiency in Seminary training — no classes in leadership!
Now the uppermost image was the Chief Executive Officer. The clergy person was a leader, teaching others to lead. The clergy had been reading the wrong books. The books that would be most helpful to them would be the same books that were most helpful in the business world.
And the expectations are now piled up on each other — preacher, pastor, CEO. I have read some people who say that this is the most challenging era in which to serve in the ordained ministry — the expectations are too high, and too complex. How likely is it that one person will be gifted and effective in all these areas? And, which is most important?
Maybe now that so many churches are declining and dying — and so few young people are (quite understandably) going into ordained ministry — it is time to take a new look at this. Has the church been killing itself? Yes. Of course, it has — there is simply no one else to blame.
Maybe a newer, more missional, paradigm will arise — maybe it already has. I’d like tho think so. And as the old sinks under the weight of its growing expectations and plummeting effectiveness — maybe some people will remember again how important it is to tell the story of Jesus in compelling and life changing ways. Maybe they will find the ways to do it. Maybe something good will arise out of the rubble of the failing church.
Psalm 135 is essentially a Psalm of praise. We are called into praise from the very opening “Hallelujah” (praise Yah).
It is a song of worship and it calls us into an attitude of worship. As Adam Clarke says: “It is an exhortation addressed to the priests and Levites, and to all Israel, to publish the praises of the Lord.”
The opening verses are an exhortation to worship. Verses 3-5, and 6, 7 extol God’s greatness. Verses 8-12 remind the people of Israel of God’s saving acts in their history: their deliverance from Egypt and the defeat of legendary kings. Then, they are called again to praise.
Remembrance has a significance for our faith. It is good to recount for ourselves the answered prayers we have experienced — and the unexpected blessing of God on our lives. The Bible is a book of remembrance: recounting the deeds of the Lord God in times past, as a way of illuminating our lives in the present. We know God through what God has done. For Christians, it is the story of Jesus — before any other — that calls forth our praise. And, so it is that in this psalm, the remembrance of God’s deliverance in the past, calls forth praise.
I remember the morning (many years ago) when Psalm 135 became memorable to me. I started reading and meditating on this psalm on a stormy morning. There was a thunderstorm raging outside. And, I slowly read these lines: “He it is who makes the clouds rise at the end of the earth; he makes lightnings for the rain and brings out the wind from his storehouses.” (v.7 NRSV) So, now, when I read this again, I am reminded of that morning.
But, for now, let’s begin at the beginning. Notice how it starts.
There is a lion roaring, but only the prophet can hear. I said that the opening editorial note in the book of Amos (1:1) already raises an issue for me. The issue is: Who speaks for God? It may not be the person we thought was authorized to do so. Which also brings to mind another question: ‘To Whom (if anyone) does God speak?’” The prophet is the one who sees what others do not. There is an interesting detail in the way Amos 1:1 tells us about this prophecy: Amos spoke what he saw. “The words of Amos… which he saw….” Amos conveyed the sense of what he saw. But, in Amos 1:2 it is more a matter of what he heard:
The very opening words of the book of the prophet Amos raise a question for us. The question is this: Who Speaks for God?
The scholars often remind us that the prophets were people who spoke for God. Thus, they were primarily forth-tellers, not primarily fore-tellers. It is a point that needs to be repeated often. The word prophet does not mean “someone who predicts things.” It really means “someone who speaks the Word of God.” The prophets enabled the people to hear what God was saying to them at their own particular place and time in history.
For some reason, in the popular mind, prophesy has become connected with prediction. When popular preachers speak of what they call “Bible Prophesy” they are most often referring to Bible Apocalyptic: like the highly symbolic material in the book of Daniel or the book of Revelation. But, this is not the heart of prophesy. The heart of prophesy is: “Thus says the LORD.”
