26 He also said, “This is what the kingdom of God is like. A man scatters seed on the ground. 27 Night and day, whether he sleeps or gets up, the seed sprouts and grows, though he does not know how.28 All by itself the soil produces grain—first the stalk, then the head, then the full kernel in the head. 29 As soon as the grain is ripe, he puts the sickle to it, because the harvest has come.”
The passage begins by identifying the saying as a simile for the, "kingdom of God". Many modern readers interpret the kingdom of God as being about, "Heaven", a literal realm beyond our perceived universe where the consciousness of those God favours reside after death. But, this would be a foreign concept from Greek and Egyptian mythology for Jews of this period and is not one found in the Tanakh, the Hebrew Scriptures. For them, the phrase would be identified in either of two ways, either in eschatological terms relating to the expected "new age", or in a more immediate and general way to God's reign on earth in terms of humanity's allegience to God's authority by acting out God's will.
Bruce M. Metzger in his book, The New Testament: It's Background, Growth, and Content, discusses this twin aspect of the kingdom of God in the sayings of Jesus in the Gospels. Jewish eschatological doctrines found in writings of the time saw the world as in the "end times" on the cusp of God's new age where God would raise a messiah of the line of David to reestablish Israel as a nation, rebuild the Temple, and take the throne to lead Israel and the world into God's new age of justice and peace. These doctrines about the end of the current world were particularly attractive during the Jewish revolts against their Roman occupiers and after the Roman destruction of the Temple.
The other Jewish understanding of the kingdom of God came from references in the Tanakh to God's dominion and reign rather than a future physical realm. This is the perspective that is given in many of the sayings of Jesus in the Gospels. God's sovereignty is manifest when people do or express God's will and nature in the present moment. Jesus is given as telling the Pharisees that the tax collectors and sinners that followed John the Baptist's instructions in social equality "are entering" the kingdom before them (Matthew 21:31). To the Teacher of the Law who answered him on which of the commandments is the most important, he states that the man "is not far" from the kingdom of God.(Mark12:34)
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingship_and_kingdom_of_God
The parable we are looking at then is about the manifesting of God's will and nature in the world. Jesus is given as starting this analogy by talking about a man scattering seed on the ground. In the Parable of the Sower at the beginning of the chapter, Jesus interprets the seed in that story as, the "word" (λόγον logon: a word, speech, divine utterance, analogy).
In the previous post looking at that parable, I talked about how I interpreted this partly to refer to Jesus' message to this point in this Gospel. Jesus is given as starting his ministry preaching a continuation of the message of John the Baptist, telling the people to "repent", to change their thinking and direction in terms of social justice; fairness, sharing with others, and caring for the disadvantaged. As the Gospel progresses, the message includes radical inclusion based on a vision of a primarily loving and compassionate God where all are welcome and equal participants in the people of God and no one is excluded or sanctioned.
In the last post I tried to better define the seed, "the word", as it seemed to be expressed in the Parable of the Sower and the metaphor of the lamp earlier in the chapter. It would seem to be more than a message in terms of a doctrine, or a set of beliefs, and may be viewed as more of a perspective as well as the quality and type of nature that this perspective produces. If the perspective (at least in part) is that God is primarily loving and compassionate in an extravagant and unrestricted manner, then it both calls for and produces imitation of the same quality in ourselves and for that quality and nature to spill out, like light from a lamp, in what we say and do to others.
To the Jewish audience, "the word", would also carry a sense of power and active force. Words were seen to have a power of their own. Curses and blessings were viewed as having physical effects on the world around them. This would be especially true for God's word. Although the text does not explicitly identify this word as God's, I think that it is strongly implied. As such, the word would be viewed as having creative and active force. In the Genesis stories, God speaks and the universe comes into existance and order is created out of chaos.
So let's return to the simile made in the text:
The parable we are looking at then is about the manifesting of God's will and nature in the world. Jesus is given as starting this analogy by talking about a man scattering seed on the ground. In the Parable of the Sower at the beginning of the chapter, Jesus interprets the seed in that story as, the "word" (λόγον logon: a word, speech, divine utterance, analogy).
In the previous post looking at that parable, I talked about how I interpreted this partly to refer to Jesus' message to this point in this Gospel. Jesus is given as starting his ministry preaching a continuation of the message of John the Baptist, telling the people to "repent", to change their thinking and direction in terms of social justice; fairness, sharing with others, and caring for the disadvantaged. As the Gospel progresses, the message includes radical inclusion based on a vision of a primarily loving and compassionate God where all are welcome and equal participants in the people of God and no one is excluded or sanctioned.
In the last post I tried to better define the seed, "the word", as it seemed to be expressed in the Parable of the Sower and the metaphor of the lamp earlier in the chapter. It would seem to be more than a message in terms of a doctrine, or a set of beliefs, and may be viewed as more of a perspective as well as the quality and type of nature that this perspective produces. If the perspective (at least in part) is that God is primarily loving and compassionate in an extravagant and unrestricted manner, then it both calls for and produces imitation of the same quality in ourselves and for that quality and nature to spill out, like light from a lamp, in what we say and do to others.
To the Jewish audience, "the word", would also carry a sense of power and active force. Words were seen to have a power of their own. Curses and blessings were viewed as having physical effects on the world around them. This would be especially true for God's word. Although the text does not explicitly identify this word as God's, I think that it is strongly implied. As such, the word would be viewed as having creative and active force. In the Genesis stories, God speaks and the universe comes into existance and order is created out of chaos.
So let's return to the simile made in the text:
This is what the kingdom of God is like. A man scatters seed on the ground.At first I thought the man was meant to represent God, but that's not what the text says. The "kingdom of God" is like a man, a man who scatters seed on the ground. So the comparison is being made to explain something about the, "kingdom of God", the manifestation or expression of God's nature and will by humanity in the world.
Given the study and reflections just done, here is my awkward interpretation of this first line. God's sovereignty, which is manifest when people speak or act in accordance with the nature and will of God, spreads "pockets" of God's creative and dynamic nature with the potential for growth.
God's sovereignty, which is manifest when people speak or act in accordance with the nature and will of God, spreads "pockets" of God's creative and dynamic nature with the potential for growth.
And, just to keep on track, remember that the nature and will of God that the Gospel gives Jesus as presenting is primarily loving, generous, compassionate and inclusive. When we speak or act in ways that reflect this nature, we are manifesting, or embodying the kingdom of God, bringing reality under God's authority and "kingship". When we do this, we are not only revealing the kingdom, but are spreading, or scattering the, "word", the dynamic force of God's nature, that when interacting with people can become an influence on their hearts and minds that can later result in those individuals reflecting and acting out this nature themselves.
So, when God's nature, or character, reveals itself in people’s lives, either through the beauty and generosity of nature, or through the loving words or actions of others, it, "plants a seed", that may or may not grow into expression of that same nature and produce a "harvest", of similar word and action as that spirit takes root and grows. This is what I see as an interpretation of the rest of the saying. Once the nature of God, love, compassion, and inclusion, are planted through its scattering, it is up to the individual heart to accept it and let it take root and flourish. Those who spread this seed can not expect or control a harvest from each grain, but must trust that some will land in soil that will let it grow.
This perspective leads to me thougts about charitable giving for the poor and disadvantaged. The reseach shows that those with the least wealth give a higher percentage of their income to charity than those with greater wealth and that the wealthy tend to give to charities that do not directly benefit the poor while at the same time taking advantage of tax credits which donors with lower incomes do not.
One of the most surprising, and perhaps confounding, facts of charity in America is that the people who can least afford to give are the ones who donate the greatest percentage of their income. In 2011, the wealthiest Americans—those with earnings in the top 20 percent—contributed on average 1.3 percent of their income to charity. By comparison, Americans at the base of the income pyramid—those in the bottom 20 percent—donated 3.2 percent of their income. The relative generosity of lower-income Americans is accentuated by the fact that, unlike middle-class and wealthy donors, most of them cannot take advantage of the charitable tax deduction, because they do not itemize deductions on their income-tax returns.
Last year, not one of the top 50 individual charitable gifts went to a social-service organization or to a charity that principally serves the poor and the dispossessed.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765578735/Studies-try-to-find-why-poorer-people-are-more-charitable-than-the-wealthy.html?pg=all
You may ask what this has to do with the passage at hand. But, think about why those with less money give a higher percentage to the disadvantaged than those with greater wealth. I suspect that it may in many cases be a case of, "paying it forward".
Individuals of lower income may have been more likely to have received charity or "unearned", unexpected assistance themselves at different points in their life and have been inspired to do the same. I would also hazard that those of lower income are more likely to come from backgrounds of less advantage and have lived closer to the edge economically and are more likely to see their present means as being subject to "fortune" and circumstances rather than strictly merit.
Those of greater economic means are conversly more likely to have come from a background of advantage and privilege where they have not experienced the same type of generous unexpected acts to meet their basic needs. There can be an attitude of entitlement and having earned what they have where the opportunities created by family wealth and connections that allowed them access to good schools, tutors, and job opportunities are not appreciated. They may view their good fortune in picking a career or going into a line of business that is doing favourably in the current economy as due to their own ability and superiority.
Paul Piff, a doctoral student at UC Berkeley, led a series of reseach experiments on altruistic giving by people of different socioeconomic classes. These are some of his observations from an artcle on his research:
People who have a lower income are always wary of possible threats to their precarious position, Kraus says. They are always on the lookout for negative emotions.But such awareness makes people more generous. "Because you notice other people in need a lower class person may say, 'I know what it is like to be in need. We need to help those other people out. It is wrong to turn a blind eye,'" Kraus says.And without the constant threat to financial, social and familial survival, middle and higher income people just don't notice things.
Piff and his colleagues argue that the poor may feel more compassion because they are more connected to those around them, psychologically and socially.
We can put some of these observations in context with the simile about the kingdom of God in our passage. When people experience generosity and compassion which they consider unmerited or unearned, the same qualities may grow within them and shine out in similar acts. They also may feel greater connection and ownership in a community, dare I say, a, "kingdom".
No comments:
Post a Comment