Matt 13:24 the wheat and the tares

[ttruscott]

Do you believe that all our sins are equal in Adam and gernerally our salvation is from the condemnation for our sins here on earth?

Let's discuss how the parable of the wheat and the tares impacts these ideas...

Mat 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

The points for discussion:

Are the wheat reborn tares?

Whose 'fault' is it that the tares are sown in the field?

Why must the wheat live with the tares and suffer them?

What changes so that the angels may now bundle the tares to be burnt?

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

Gee, and I thought this was goingt to be somewhat controversial, generating comments and opposing concepts et al.

Doesn't anybody want to deny that some sinners are not to be saved?

Doesn't any body want to support or deny that sinners are sown into the earth with their place in eternity already set?

Or suggest how they could be set in eternity before birth?

And / or how it relates to our free will and GOD's love?

Hmmmmm......?

Peace, Ted

[puddleglum]

Gee, and I thought this was goingt to be somewhat controversial, generating comments and opposing concepts et al.

You would probably generated a lot of controversy if you had given us your answers to these questions.

Doesn't anybody want to deny that some sinners are not to be saved?

The Bible clearly teaches that some sinners won't be saved.

Doesn't any body want to support or deny that sinners are sown into the earth with their place in eternity already set?

Or suggest how they could be set in eternity before birth?

Their place in eternity is known because God is omniscient and knows who will believe the gospel and who will reject it.

And / or how it relates to our free will and GOD's love?

By nature all of us start out as tares because we have all sinned and deserve God's wrath.

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
(Ephesians 2:1-3 ESV)

God showed his love by sending Jesus to be a sacrifice to atone for our sins. We are free to accept or reject the forgiveness God offers as a result of that sacrifice. Those who accept it are reborn and become wheat.

[ttruscott]

...

By nature all of us start out as tares because we have all sinned and deserve God's wrath.

...

Ahhh, that is my point:

we are all sinners but we are born as one of two groups: wheat or tares. To think some tares become wheat goes against the tenor of this parable.

And I see two readily visable sinful groups these could be: non-elect sinners and elect sinners.

People unsuccessfully morph this parable in two ways: making the wheat reborn tares which is not implied in the least or by making "sown" into something besides being born, which also fails scrutiny.

Making a set of verses to be the opposite of what is written to account for a pet theological theory is bad hermeneutics.

Peace, Ted

[puddleglum]

we are all sinners but we are born as one of two groups: wheat or tares. To think some tares become wheat goes against the tenor of this parable.

And I see two readily visable sinful groups these could be: non-elect sinners and elect sinners.

Whether or not this is true is irrelevant as for as this parable is concerned. It begins with the fact that there are two classes of people: those who serve God and those who serve Satan. It says nothing at all about whether they became part of these groups as a result of predestination or their own choice. The point of the parable is to describe their final end, not their origin.

Making a set of verses to be the opposite of what is written to account for a pet theological theory is bad hermeneutics.

It is also bad hermeneutics to try to support a pet theological theory by quoting something which is about an entirely different subject.

[ElCodeMonkey]

Methinks you have the message wrong.

The man sowing seed is Jesus. He sowed good seed (i.e. preached a good message). An enemy (e.g. anyone speaking otherwise) came and inserted bad seed into the message that Jesus originally preached. The seeds, when planted into the fields of people generate wheat or tares (good people or bad people).

Thus, the message of the Kingdom of Heaven (not to be confused with "heaven" itself) is currently corrupted. It contains two different seeds. Depending on which message you adhere to, you turn into either wheat or a weed.

[ttruscott]

Methinks you have the message wrong.

The man sowing seed is Jesus. He sowed good seed (i.e. preached a good message). An enemy (e.g. anyone speaking otherwise) came and inserted bad seed into the message that Jesus originally preached. The seeds, when planted into the fields of people generate wheat or tares (good people or bad people).

...

You school me on the meaning when Jesus told me told me to understand that the good seed are the PEOPLE of the kingdom and the tares are the people of the evil one sown by the devil and the field is not people but the world: Matt 13:37 He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil.

Why don't you look at this parable with fresh eyes and without the distortions you have been taught to 'fit' these ideas into a pre-made theology? I mean that who should I believe, Christ or your Sunday School teacher?

Ask why, when Jesus says the seeds are two kind of people, you must insist it means tow kinds of ideas, good ones or bad ones AND why, when He tells us the field is the world, it must be changed to mean the field is people?

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

Methinks you have the message wrong.

The man sowing seed is Jesus. He sowed good seed (i.e. preached a good message). An enemy (e.g. anyone speaking otherwise) came and inserted bad seed into the message that Jesus originally preached. The seeds, when planted into the fields of people generate wheat or tares (good people or bad people).

Thus, the message of the Kingdom of Heaven (not to be confused with "heaven" itself) is currently corrupted. It contains two different seeds. Depending on which message you adhere to, you turn into either wheat or a weed.

I'm being led to ask also: Accepting these verses to be true: Matt 13:27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ 28 “ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ 29 “ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest.

if the seeds are ideas, then:
1. How can the good ideas, the gospel, be uprooted by the destruction of the anti-Christ ideas coming too soon? Does not the gospel destroy paganism and atheism in the hearts of the called? This is meaningless when applied to the gospel.

2. Why does the gospel have to co-exist with pagan and anti-Christian doctrines?

3. The time of the harvest would imply the time of maturity of the gospel - which is already perfect and 'mature', without blemish nor failing...it does not need any maturing.

Such is the foolishness of orthodoxy caught in their need for a GOD who creates sinners in Adam due to their bias in favour of our being created on earth rather than pre-earth in sheol.

<sigh>

Peace, Ted

[ElCodeMonkey]

You school me on the meaning when Jesus told me told me to understand that the good seed are the PEOPLE of the kingdom and the tares are the people of the evil one sown by the devil and the field is not people but the world

If you look at the parable just prior to this one, you'll find it to be rather similar. Still a sower and still sowing seeds. In this one, The seeds are the word of the Kingdom and they are still sown by the messenger (Jesus). The next parable follows in suit of this one in order to play off of it. He sowed all this good seed (the message of the Kingdom) and sure, some was on the wayside, in the thorns, etc, but in the end he planted good seed.

Now, it continues on to say that an enemy sowed tares. Now, imagine that I said I was sowing roses. Would you expect that I'm planting already bloomed rose bushes? No, you expect I'm planting seeds that grow into roses. Otherwise, I'd say that I'm planting roses as opposed to sowing them. The enemy was sowing tares thus he was not simply planting tares but rather spreading seeds. This is also clear because it wasn't known until it sprung up as written in the passage. So we can agree that in both instances it was seed that was sown. It said that the tares (not the bad seeds) are the children of the wicked one and it would only make sense that it would consistently be referring to the wheat (i.e. that which comes from the good seed but not the seed itself) are the children of the Kingdom.

Saying that the field is the world can easily be taken as "the people of the world." For example, if I were to say that the world is crazy, it should be clear that I speak of the people inhabiting it and not the planet itself. In fact, John 1:10 will give this exact usage by saying "the world knew him not".

Good seed germinates into wheat. Bad seed germinates into tares. The wheat and the tares themselves are people but the seed from which they grew is what made them good or bad. It should also be known that "tares" is a very specific word. It doesn't merely mean a "weed" or the like. It's a plant that looks exactly like wheat in shape, height, leaves, etc. It mimics wheat entirely except in that it is black. It is also poisonous to eat. The Jews even called it "Degenerate Wheat".

So this is just it: Jesus planted a good word about the Kingdom which should produce goodly people of the kingdom (wheat). Someone planted other seed amongst it which creates people who appear similar but indeed are not. This similarity is key as to why the tares cannot be bundled up until the proper time. It's perhaps easy enough in a literal field to tell which is good and which is bad, but it was too difficult to tell the people apart so both were allowed to grow together.

When the time is right, the "messengers" (usually left untranslated as the Greek word "angels"), will begin to separate the good from the bad. From the parable standpoint, it only makes sense to separate the wheat from tares, but in the real world standpoint, the seeds themselves will be separated as well. Trying to separate these seeds early on after it was sown may have been detrimental to the true message such that people would reject all seed since it was so riddled with lies. But once people start to be more accepting and rational about it, it becomes more plausible to separate.

Being the fact that the message of the Kingdom is now a conglomeration of good and bad seed, it is necessary to separate the two in order to continue growing wheat as opposed to tares. In the end, you know a tree by its fruit.

Why don't you look at this parable with fresh eyes and without the distortions you have been taught to 'fit' these ideas into a pre-made theology? I mean that who should I believe, Christ or your Sunday School teacher?

I'm sure you will find my interpretation rather fresh. I have not been taught it by anyone but rather came to the conclusions during my own studies.

[ttruscott]

You school me on the meaning when Jesus told me told me to understand that the good seed are the PEOPLE of the kingdom and the tares are the people of the evil one sown by the devil and the field is not people but the world

If you look at the parable just prior to this one, you'll find it to be rather similar. Still a sower and still sowing seeds. In this one, The seeds are the word of the Kingdom and they are still sown by the messenger (Jesus). The next parable follows in suit of this one in order to play off of it. He sowed all this good seed (the message of the Kingdom) and sure, some was on the wayside, in the thorns, etc, but in the end he planted good seed.

An octopus in a fish tank is still not an fish... proximity is fairly meaningless, eh?

Now, it continues on to say that an enemy sowed tares. Now, imagine that I said I was sowing roses. Would you expect that I'm planting already bloomed rose bushes? No, you expect I'm planting seeds that grow into roses. Otherwise, I'd say that I'm planting roses as opposed to sowing them. The enemy was sowing tares thus he was not simply planting tares but rather spreading seeds. This is also clear because it wasn't known until it sprung up as written in the passage.

Ok, so far...

So we can agree that in both instances it was seed that was sown. It said that the tares (not the bad seeds) are the children of the wicked one and it would only make sense that it would consistently be referring to the wheat (i.e. that which comes from the good seed but not the seed itself) are the children of the Kingdom.

Seed was sown, correct. But a seed of an apple IS an apple and a seed of wheat IS wheat while the seed of the darnel is darnel...seeds sown refers to the seed of conception of a human person, some are people of the kingdom, some of the devil.

If you mean that the seeds are all the same but became wheat or darnel after they shoot up and can be seen, I must disagree. It is illogical. They may be shown to be wheat or tares after they shoot up but there was no change in them...good seed was sown and the enemy sowed in bad. Period.

Saying that the field is the world can easily be taken as "the people of the world." For example, if I were to say that the world is crazy, it should be clear that I speak of the people inhabiting it and not the planet itself. In fact, John 1:10 will give this exact usage by saying "the world knew him not".

This is very agreeable, seeds sown among the people of the world, except for the first, eh? Then the world has to be the earth of dirt.

Good seed germinates into wheat. Bad seed germinates into tares. The wheat and the tares themselves are people but the seed from which they grew is what made them good or bad. It should also be known that "tares" is a very specific word. It doesn't merely mean a "weed" or the like. It's a plant that looks exactly like wheat in shape, height, leaves, etc. It mimics wheat entirely except in that it is black. It is also poisonous to eat. The Jews even called it "Degenerate Wheat".

Wowser, no argument with this at all. I can even name the goodness, their election, and the badness, their being reprobate, of these separate groups of seed. No Cain / tare pew warmer can be identified (usually) and they certainly are poisonous.

So this is just it: Jesus planted a good word about the Kingdom...

<biiiiiiig sigh> and you were doing so good to... Jesus told us straight out, the good seed are the people of the kingdom. Not the words of the kingdom, not the ideas of the kingdom but the people of the kingdom. Where else are the people of the kingdom ever thought to be words, and ideas or the gospel?

Matt 13:Matthew 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

In itself it would naturally be understood of persons, in accordance with the meaning of "tares." But what is its relation to the following clause, for this latter cannot be merely tautological? There are two answers:

(a) The two phrases bring out different aspects under which the persons are regarded. They, as "sons of the evil one," are both stumbling blocks to others ("the sons of the kingdom"), and also active workers of lawlessness (vide infra). They sin against men (cf. Matthew 24:24b) and against God."

...and them that do iniquity; that do nothing else but iniquity; and who, though they profess to be religious persons, are secretly, or openly, workers of iniquity; and are even doing iniquity, in and whilst they are professing religion."

How can these workers of iniquity suddenly become an anti-gospel message? Your meaning garbles the whole story.

...

This similarity is key as to why the tares cannot be bundled up until the proper time. It's perhaps easy enough in a literal field to tell which is good and which is bad, but it was too difficult to tell the people apart so both were allowed to grow together.

So, please enlighten me - just who can't tell the good seed from the tares, the angels or GOD HIMself? It is the angels who will harvest them, not us humans. You place human deficiencies on the angels or GOD HIMself because you need that for your interpretation to make sense yet doing so makes nonsense out of it all.

It must be obvious that the angels knew who the tares were when they asked about rooting them out and that the "no, lest you tear the good seed up with them" (which is absolutely meaningless if it refers to ideas and words. Absolutely!) must refer to something else... and that can only be that this good seed is evil in HIS sight; they are sinners liable to be damned if the damnation happened before they are mature. How can the gospel be evil? How can the good words of Christ be judged and rooted up with the evil ones who DO iniquity? None of this has any sense at all -

When the time is right, the "messengers" (usually left untranslated as the Greek word "angels"), will begin to separate the good from the bad. From the parable standpoint, it only makes sense to separate the wheat from tares, but in the real world standpoint, the seeds themselves will be separated as well. Trying to separate these seeds early on after it was sown may have been detrimental to the true message such that people would reject all seed since it was so riddled with lies. But once people start to be more accepting and rational about it, it becomes more plausible to separate.

Now suddenly GOD and HIS angels can tell the wheat from the darnel? Ummm... The time of the harvest is the time of the maturity of the wheat and since it saves them from judgment, it refers to their maturity into holiness.

I'm sure you will find my interpretation rather fresh. I have not been taught it by anyone but rather came to the conclusions during my own studies.

At least read some commentaries eh? Get some broadness of perspective that doesn't totally mangle the meanings of things? What you claim only sounds good until you think about the meanings of how words and ideas can't be treated like people and that Our Lord said seeds are people.

Peace, Ted