Written some time ago for a Seminary Newsletter
Since the middle of January the resource I use for research, production and delivery of studies, sermons, and articles has been sitting somewhere on a technician’s bench in that mysterious land of computer repair. This has left me quite frustrated because in that computer’s hard drive is the accumulated knowledge of about 1.2 gigs of information that is needed on almost a daily basis.
Denied access by what ever gremlin inhabits my computer, the specter of several various deadlines approaching, I naturally reverted to pre-computer human ingenuity and searched some of my old papers coming up with the following: A philosophical treatise employing the scientific method for Mark 4:3-8.
For those who have not yet experienced Dr. Mekonen’s philosophy class this article might be interesting to note, file away, but not appropriate because as we all know his memory is long and accurate.
As to my memory, I found I had written three different papers on this subject from three different perspectives: the inductive, deductive and scientific. I wonder which I submitted? Certainly not all three, but I’m not known for being succinct. Unknown to “them” I have heard more than one professor quietly complaining of the volume of papers I submit to the projects assigned. I am going to have to ask Professor Cox why I do that. Its probably some deep-seated compulsion rooted in insecurity brought on by the advent of computers. Since I’m rambling , I’m still having nightmares from my experience of typing “The Life of the Messiah” during the era of mechanical typewriters. As I recall my copy was at least 2” thick of typewritten pages. So much for the good old days. Of all the material I produced “back then” I prized that work most. It represented a lot of loving work about Yahshua. It was irreplaceable and I still had and utilized my copy until the “Flood of the Century,” 1993, took it.
Read on, have fun, the peace and joy of the Lord be with you as you continue, learn, and walk in His will! Lets analyze.
The Parable of the Sower: Mark 4:3-8
(Transmission: The Scientific Method)
I. Yahshua in His wisdom in Mark 4 does not define the subject of the parable prior to his delivery, for example: “Sown seed is like unto the Word of YHVH.” In other parables He does identify the subject, and we can only conclude it was not so in this instance in order to teach us (the reader today) a deeper truth. If the subject had been stated the audience would most assuredly have linked up the statements with the subject thereby clarifying the meaning of the parable. Of course it is later clarified for the disciples revealing to us a profound truth.
(1) (Situation which generates the problem) Listen! A farmer went out to sow his seed.
(2) (Observation of relevant facts) (a) As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. (b) Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had not root. (c) Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants, so that they did not bear grain. (d) Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up, multiplying thirty, sixty, or even a hundred times.
(3) (formulation of the problem) Why does some seed whither and die, fail to take root and not multiply and why does other seed take root and multiply?
(4) (Use of previous knowledge) (a) exposed path; seed destroyed (b) shallow soil in rocky; seed destroyed (c) among thorns; seed destroyed (d) good soil; seed takes toot and multiplies
(5) (Formulation of a hypothesis) Only seed sown on good soil will take root.
(6) (Deduction from the Hypothesis) If seed is sown on good soil it will take root and multiply.
(7) (Conclusion) Seed sown on good soil will take root and multiply thirty, sixty, or even a hundred times.
II. Yahshua employed “midrash”(creative exegesis) of the Second Temple era in stating scriptural truths. In this instance he was address a multitude of probably largely uneducated people and it appears his audience was not prepared by the Holy Spirit to grasp the truth demonstrated by the parable. H is midrash was structured in a progression of principles from simpler an more fundamental to more complex and derivative to establish truth in a way that should have been fairly obvious to Jewish peasants. However, a clue to His of what was to them a complex midrash is given in verse ten. Not everyone is given the understanding necessary to receive the Word. He was speaking of the Word of YHVH and the many complexities inherent in the receiving of it. The message then and now is: we as sowers shall fulfill our commission by proclaiming the “Good News” without regards to the status of the recipient and the Ruach HaKodesh shall fulfill His by the preparing of hearts.
May we fulfill our commission.