If the tree had to bring forth its own fruit, without any efforts from the man who tends it, then the Sermon on the Mount would have been unnecessary, nor would any of Jesus’ moral teachings have any weight, for they all call his listeners to concrete action.
"...the Sermon on the Mount would have been unnecessary, nor would any of Jesus’ moral teachings have any weight, for they all call his listeners to concrete action."
Addendum to my previous comment.
The heart of man can be compared to an orchard of apple trees, some of which bear good fruit, some bear bad fruit, some don't produce at all. The Sermon on the Mount and Jesus' moral teachings are directives to the orchardist to prune, cut back, graft in, water, and, in general, to tend his heart so as to make the entire realm more pure, pleasant to the eye, and producing good fruit.
It takes concrete action to keep an orchard. Without constant, concentrated effort, it rapidly reverts back to its "sinful" nature, wild, unkempt, and overgrown with branches which grow nothing but leaves.
So it is with man and the Sermon on the Mount is the pruning saw.
"If the tree had to bring forth its own fruit, without any efforts from the man who tends it,..."
This simply doesn't make sense. An apple tree does not need any input from a man to grow apples. It just does, according to its own kind--wild, wormy, small, and sour, although that is not always the case. Human effort and ingenuity takes what already is and makes it better: more tasty, more palatable, more appealing, more productive.
This is the way it has been from the very beginning. God told Adam and Eve to bear children and to work their habitat, dressing and keeping it. Even though the Garden of Eden was sinless, it was untended and wild--until man was brought into the picture. The introduction of sin did not eliminate that directive, but it did make it more difficult.
There is a story about a man who was working in his flower garden one day when the local preacher walked by and made a comment about how lovely it looked because God and the gardener had worked it over. The man simply said, "You should have seen what it looked like when God was doing it alone."
Does God need our help? Absolutely not! Does God give us the opportunity and the means to improve our environment? Absolutely, yes!
Roger, this may be a question of mixed metaphors or some such, although your comment from a botanical point of view is clear. MHA is making a point connecting the tree to the Kingdom to the teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. Yes, a bit muddled...
One of my difficulties in working through this book - or any theological book - when it touches on doctrinal matters (often, the relationship of faith and works), is to figure out "if" I will present the author's view, and if so, how to present it - keeping in mind that it may not conform with my understanding.
I think if Jesus doesn't define the elements of the parable it is best to leave them unidentified. I think the over all point of both parables is to show how the kingdom of God grows. First, it can't be explained by human observation. The growth of the kingdom is inherent to the seed and the earth. There is nothing here saying human effort is or isn't involved. Of course Christians make decisions and undertake action, but even this is a result of the spiritual work going on behind the scenes. Humans can see the results of the growth, but we can't understand what is going on in the spiritual plain.
The second, I think it is easier to understand. It is talking about how the kingdom starts out small in number and influence but grows to a large number and influence over time. Exactly as we see in history as you said above.
"...the Sermon on the Mount would have been unnecessary, nor would any of Jesus’ moral teachings have any weight, for they all call his listeners to concrete action."
Addendum to my previous comment.
The heart of man can be compared to an orchard of apple trees, some of which bear good fruit, some bear bad fruit, some don't produce at all. The Sermon on the Mount and Jesus' moral teachings are directives to the orchardist to prune, cut back, graft in, water, and, in general, to tend his heart so as to make the entire realm more pure, pleasant to the eye, and producing good fruit.
It takes concrete action to keep an orchard. Without constant, concentrated effort, it rapidly reverts back to its "sinful" nature, wild, unkempt, and overgrown with branches which grow nothing but leaves.
So it is with man and the Sermon on the Mount is the pruning saw.
Yes, this!
"If the tree had to bring forth its own fruit, without any efforts from the man who tends it,..."
This simply doesn't make sense. An apple tree does not need any input from a man to grow apples. It just does, according to its own kind--wild, wormy, small, and sour, although that is not always the case. Human effort and ingenuity takes what already is and makes it better: more tasty, more palatable, more appealing, more productive.
This is the way it has been from the very beginning. God told Adam and Eve to bear children and to work their habitat, dressing and keeping it. Even though the Garden of Eden was sinless, it was untended and wild--until man was brought into the picture. The introduction of sin did not eliminate that directive, but it did make it more difficult.
There is a story about a man who was working in his flower garden one day when the local preacher walked by and made a comment about how lovely it looked because God and the gardener had worked it over. The man simply said, "You should have seen what it looked like when God was doing it alone."
Does God need our help? Absolutely not! Does God give us the opportunity and the means to improve our environment? Absolutely, yes!
Roger, this may be a question of mixed metaphors or some such, although your comment from a botanical point of view is clear. MHA is making a point connecting the tree to the Kingdom to the teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. Yes, a bit muddled...
One of my difficulties in working through this book - or any theological book - when it touches on doctrinal matters (often, the relationship of faith and works), is to figure out "if" I will present the author's view, and if so, how to present it - keeping in mind that it may not conform with my understanding.
I think if Jesus doesn't define the elements of the parable it is best to leave them unidentified. I think the over all point of both parables is to show how the kingdom of God grows. First, it can't be explained by human observation. The growth of the kingdom is inherent to the seed and the earth. There is nothing here saying human effort is or isn't involved. Of course Christians make decisions and undertake action, but even this is a result of the spiritual work going on behind the scenes. Humans can see the results of the growth, but we can't understand what is going on in the spiritual plain.
The second, I think it is easier to understand. It is talking about how the kingdom starts out small in number and influence but grows to a large number and influence over time. Exactly as we see in history as you said above.
https://thecrosssectionrmb.blogspot.com/2024/09/christians-nations-and-their-relations.html