The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The Wheat and the Tares

Mmmm. Looks like propaganda for the Jehovah’s Witnesses to me, Obadiah. As are your other two posts :confused: . Posting links to someone else’s blog, on threads that have been dormant for five months and two years respectively, is bound to raise people’s suspicions about your motives in coming here.

This is a forum for discussing ideas around Christian Universalism. And other stuff, of course. If you are interested in giving us your perspective on that we’d be glad to hear it.

Cheers

Johnny

Well, people do show up to read old threads on occasion (and this one isn’t overly old by forum standards). :slight_smile:

I’m not entirely sure why someone would create a whole new blogspot account to write one article, but it’s a free internet. :wink: To be clear, the article was written almost two years ago, so “Obadiah” wasn’t responding to the thread here by doing so.

We do pray to the Holy Spirit to help us understand scriptural testimony, Oba, but thank you for the reminder, and for the link to your own opinion (or the report about some other people’s opinions) about what they think the HS was saying to them about this parable. Like any other human (ourselves included), you and the others are using human reasoning about the data you have, or think you have, to infer the meaning and implications of the data – unless you (or they) are claiming to be merely repeating by direct plenary inspiration what the HS is telling you. In which case you should be willing to grant that without solid demonstration of your-or-their prophetic authority, people ought not to accept such claims from you or them.

Still, readers are welcome to compare for themselves how accurately and validly different people account for the scriptural data, and your article is (for whatever it is worth) an example to check.

We would of course prefer for posting members to have actual discussions here in relation to the threads they are commenting on; but life is often busy and if you’ve already worked on the topic somewhere I can understand wanting to just point back there and moving along. To be honest, I kind of prefer that to you spending no more time copy-pasting your article here without actually trying to discuss anything: that way readers can choose whether or not they want to spend time on your work.

(After all, fair’s fair: I did something similar myself up earlier in the thread! :laughing: )

Greetings,
Thank you for your kind words Jason. Yes I did write the Wheat or Weeds article a while back. I came across this forum recently when I was looking on Google for the “kings of the earth”, based on an article I had recently read. After coming here I browsed this Christian site to see what other subjects there were here. When I saw the one on the Wheat and the Tares, I couldn’t resist letting people know what I found in scriptures on the wheat and weeds. Jesus did clearly say the seed was the “word” and your “heart” (not the physical one of course) was where the seed was sown.
. So comparing all the Gospel accounts on the subject of seeds and heart, as well as world, will help to give a clearer understanding. Holy Spirit is of course what helps most.
Nevertheless, the scriptures cannot be nullified, so the word as Jesus says in Mark is the seed that the farmer sows and the heart is where he sows it. My article on Wheat or Weeds has all the scriptures in it to show all of this.
As to JW propaganda…no… this is not that. I will never direct people there. Jesus does not need an organization. I was in the organization of JWs for over 30 years and it took me that long to “wake up” with God’s help to get out of it. If you were truly aware of what JWs teach (currently…because they keep changing) then you would know that my understanding is not in agreement with their doctrines. I was disfellowshipped for disagreeing with the official doctrines and sharing my findings with other members. (I lost my own children due to the “shunning” that follows this disfellowshipping. This causes a heartbrake that cannot be fully described) I chose truth over family. I value Bible research and thinking not mind control, and I don’t believe that might makes right. I don’t believe any men have the divine right to dictate what truth is. (Independent of the scriptures.) All Organizations have the potential for corruption and abuse of power. I am searching for “The Truth”, not man’s opinion. If you have a love of the truth, God and Jesus will help you to find it. If you pray for it. Once again I thank you Jason, for your balanced view here. No one is obligated to look for truth, but it is there. Jesus said the truth will set you free. It set me free from allowing men to dictate “what is truth”. Paul speaks about this subject in Galatians. He did not get his Gospel from men, nor did he try to please men.

Agape, and may you keep progressing in truth.
Obadiah

Jesus says this in regard to a previous parable in Matt 13 (paralleled elsewhere), but not in regard to the wheat and the tares: Jesus clearly says the good seed are the sons of the kingdom and the weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the field is the world. (Nor are these details obscure in the Greek texts, or in other ancient language texts so far as I know.) The text, so far as it goes, does not say that wheat seeds can turn into weeds (“can turn bad and so can be viewed as no better than a weed”), nor that they do; much less does it say that God’s word can turn into weeds when sown in the heart! – which would seem to be the result of simply conflating ideas between two parables here.

A conflation of ideas runs against what Jesus “clearly says” here while He is explaining the parable. What I mean is that it is not a matter of simply looking up what Jesus or the Bible “clearly says”, or words with completely different meanings wouldn’t have to be substituted.

I don’t say that because I’m unsympathetic to the attempt – ideologically I would prefer for Jesus to be talking about sowing the word in a persons heart instead of sowing children of the kingdom in the world here. Since that very evidently isn’t the case, then I’m obliged to work with what’s actually there, rather than substituting for it. Adding in details from elsewhere can certainly help flesh out the meaning (and maybe illustrate that Jesus was only trying to make a limited point or two here which should not be construed as testimony constraining against fairly obvious meanings elsewhere), but I don’t find that substituting meanings back and forth is the best way to proceed with this material.

It happens, for example, that there are direct contextual clues (including by reference to OT scripture) that the furnace isn’t intended for, and doesn’t represent, hopeless punishment; I can point to those without having to make a term/idea substitution.

I do certainly agree that the “sons of the kingdom” mentioned in this parable aren’t some special elect who are immune from falling – no moreso are the tares immune from being saved from their sins. Jesus Himself warns earlier in GosMatt about “sons of the kingdom” being thrown into the outer darkness (i.e. into the situation equivalent to the furnace in this and the related fishing parable) and those previously outside the kingdom (equivalent to the tares in this parable, or the bad fish in the nearby related parable) coming in. In fact, Jesus hints pretty strongly about the chief ground for the sons of the kingdom being thrown outside! – because in their hearts they don’t really want those outside to come into the kingdom, too!

(Also, I appreciate your numerous examples demonstrating that most of what Jesus has to say in condemnation is aimed at misbehaving servants of His – even the ones He calls sons or servants of the evil one are obviously supposed to have been His servants. The apostles themselves are not immune from such warnings, and the only two people actually called “Satan” in the Gospels are Satan and the apostle Peter! That has to be taken seriously as a judgment warning; but just as obviously it doesn’t necessarily involve a hopeless condemnation.)

None of this extension and comparison of principles requires that the figures in this parable be something other than what Jesus explained them to be. But I (and many other people here) certainly would agree that the parable, when read in conjunction with other information, is not intended to refer to two classes of people who are immune from shifting from one class to another.

On the same principle, that the scriptures cannot be nullified, the sons of the kingdom as Jesus says in Matthew is the seed sown by the farmer, and the world is where he sows it. If a concept substitution is attempted one way, it can be attempted the other way just as easily, unless there are good reasons for inferring only one direction of substitution, and then good reasons for the substitution to go in one direction rather than another. But then there must be good reasons for inferring a term substitution was meant by Jesus at all, rather than Jesus using a similar metaphor to talk about two somewhat different ideas (and so the two uses of the same imagery shouldn’t be pitted against one another). I don’t think this has been established in your article yet.

For what it’s worth, Oba, we do have several members here who also regard this parable as being about wheat and weeds sown in a person’s heart. But (so far as I recall) they don’t shift back and forth between metaphorical applications on this, so that the end result is a world of people who have let one kind of seed grow in their hearts instead of the other. Rather, they follow their metaphorical substitution out to the end, where God gathers up and destroys the evil (weeds) out of the heart (field) of the person at the judgment.

Also, while I don’t go that route for this parable, I do agree (as most other members here) that the wheat threshing metaphor mentioned by John the Baptist is intended to refer to purification of the soul from evil, through disciplinary punishment where necessary. There are strong connections to this notion in John’s reference to Malachi 4 (with important lead-ins from Mal 3), which also includes the language about chopping down and burning the tree: it’s meant to be purgative and remedial, not hopelessly punitive. (This by the way would apply by extraction to Jesus’ own remarks about trees being threatened with destruction – it wasn’t hopeless punishment over here, and so doesn’t refer to hopeless punishment over there.) You may find that connection helpful if you decide to update your work.

I especially appreciated your connection of threshing to tribulation; I think many other readers here will find that interesting, too.

While you did work hard to compare this parable to other scriptural parables about seeds and heart, you didn’t include a comparative reference to the “world” in your article at all. The only time you even use the word is when you write, “Certainly if you just look at the condition of the world it is evident that Satan still rules it.” Breaking the connection to Jesus’ identification of the field as “the world” in this parable doesn’t help your explanatory case any; and you can see that keeping that meaning in the account is important, or you wouldn’t have written that doing so will help to give a clearer understanding. Leaving that important detail out of the account, cannot help but obscure a proper understanding of the parable by proportion of its omission.

I don’t want to sound like I’m being harshly critical of your attempt. I’m intrigued by the idea of multiple overlapping and interlacing metaphorical applications to one parable’s details (partly because this seems to be how Biblical prophecy often works). I just don’t see yet that this kind of interpretation is called for in regard to this parable. And even if I did see that, I would never try to promote it over-against other interpretative attempts by claiming this is a “clear” or “simple” matter of just reading what the scriptures say here – especially when your attempt completely leaves out one of the major important details.

(Possibly you did write that material and thought you had posted it, but something happened and you posted your article in pieces and got distracted and missed including that piece; thus explaining why you seem to think you included it when commenting on your article for us.)

Not really my concern of course – we ourselves might be regarded as a “propaganda” site, and any apologetic thrust could be labeled as that by someone who doesn’t accept it, so I’m not overly quick to throw that out as a charge – but this may be of interest to Johnny: many people here can sympathize from personal experience about being disenfranchised, even to an extent of emotional terrorism, and I know Johnny is especially not fond of that.

This is not something I have personally had to worry about yet, and I try to be charitably understanding about why groups do so. Still, losing your children over it is a grief I can only approximately imagine, and I know it would be harder to be charitable toward those who instigated that break.

(To those who haven’t read Obadiah’s article yet, he has structured it as a criticism of JW leadership; and I really think many readers here will at least be able to sympathize with Oba’s frustration at them. Actually, his language and condemnations of them remind me a lot of several members when talking on this topic. :slight_smile: )

Peace and strength to you, and may you also keep progressing in truth, walking according to what light you can see from the Holy Spirit, looking for more light thereby.

Hi Obadiah

I’m sorry to hear of your troubles with your family and the JWs. Your experience is the only evidence that is needed to expose them for the cruel cultists they are.

All the best

Johnny

Thank you Johnny. I know that the “man of lawlessness” will be revealed by Jesus in his own good time. I’ll leave that to him.

Thanks Jason. I appreciate your view. I am not looking to convince anyone to change their view. We all will be accountable to God individually. (Rom 14: 10, 12) I am just telling people what I see in the scriptures. As for me, when looking at the seed being the word,( Luke 8:11) , I couldn’t help but notice that Jesus sows the truth (God’s word John 17:17) and Satan of course sows the lie. (John 8:44) Now in ( Matthew 13:23-30) Jesus describes the Kingdom of the Heavens is like a man who sowed “good seed” (Truth) in his field. Satan his enemy (and ours) sows weeds (seeds of lies) right there in among the seeds that Jesus has just sowed. When I combine this with Marks account and the other Gospels like (Luke 8:15 …which tells us the seed stands for those with a good and noble heart) it leads (me) to the conclusion that the seeds are what is planted not a full grown wheat or weed. (1 Cor 15:37) If both seeds are planted in our hearts then both seeds can grow. It is up to us which ones we will let flourish. There is a growth process. (Mark 4:26, 27, 28, 29) There are other scriptures also. If we let the weed seeds take over in our own heart then what happens to the good seeds of truth? The article explains my take on it. I know this is not new stuff.
I have many beliefs based on the scriptures that I have found over the years. Not of my own accord of course. For instance I believe Jesus will return in the flesh and be on earth to make all things new as Revelation says. I wrote an article about it on my blog site called “Jacobs Ladder”. I believe that the Watchtower Organization fullfills the prophecy on the Wild Beast of Revelation 13…another article called “Revelation 13 The Wild Beast Exposed”. I know my writing style leaves a lot to be desired, but I am basically a man unlettered and ordinary, not a professor. God chose the foolish ones did he not? (1 Cor 1:27)
There is an ongoing battle between the truth and the lies between Jesus and Satan …
I wrote a very interesting article called “Armageddon”. Not your usual take on it I might say.
(I did not post the links here because if anyone wants to read them they can…They can be found by going to Google and type in Obadiah Blogs Welcome….there is a list of 13 or so articles there…fourth post down or you can look at my profile on the right side…view more articles). There is a mouseover for scriptures and a Bible selection tool, as well as a Google Translator (Speaking in tongues…LOL). All of this did not come easy for me, as I was never computer savvy. I am learning though. (I still have trouble putting those similey faces in LOL) Anyway, I am quite busy in life, so I don’t get around to forums as much as I used to. Thank you for letting me talk here. It has been difficult losing so much family and former “friends” due to the shunning factor.

Thanks again. Agape Obadiah.

For those who haven’t read his article, that’s a pretty good summary of it in Oba’s first paragraph. :slight_smile: Obviously more details can be found at the article itself.

The summary also accurately represents how much he deals with the field being the world in his article. :wink:

I still think this needs properly accounting for, Oba. Skipping over a major detail in Jesus’ own explanation cannot be anything other than a problem in interpretation. Consider it an opportunity, provided by the Holy Spirit, for revision and improvement.

Thanks for the suggestion Jason,
It seems that I assumed the “world” and the “field” did not need clarification, so I did as you said.

I revised the article and for any who wish to view the revision they can go here:
wheatorweeds-obadiah.blogspot.com/

Here is the revision for you to examine if you wish.
**Those individuals with a potential to grow into wheat (A son of the Kingdom) can turn bad and so can be viewed as no better than a weed. Much depends on which seeds they cultivate in their hearts.

In Matthew chapter 13 Jesus says that the field is the “world”. However, when comparing all the Gospel accounts it is clear that the “seed / word” is planted in the hearts of mankind. The seed stands for the person it can become, it is symbolic of the individual. Jesus is not literally sowing a “person”. (1 Corinthians 15:37)** The field is the world. Mankind lives in the world and can be affected by the seeds of Satan and his dominion, or we can respond to the word/seeds of Jesus and God. Jesus says to all of us, “come be my follower”. We all live in the world. If two “brothers” go to the same “church”, hear the same sermons, read the same bible, and attend the same bible study groups, then both are having the word /seed sown in their hearts. You may meditate on it well and nourish that word, however the other brother may not have the same heart condition. As the scriptures say "Satan’s birds come and snatch away the seeds that were sown in the heart. Or depending on the condition of the soil of your heart, thorns will choke out the word. If your heart’s soil is shallow the word/seed will grow for a while, but then when persecution comes it will not flourish. Now combine this with the the scripture in Matthew saying that the “enemy” / Satan, comes along and sows his seeds right in there next to the ones that Jesus has sown. The picture begins to become more clear. The context is not only the verses around a scripture, or the Chapter itself. The entire Bible can be looked at as the context. I believe the Bible is like a puzzle of a thousand pieces or so. When you pour the pieces out on the table it can seem overwhelming. The only thing that can help us to put the entire picture together is prayer for Holy Spirit.
(Thank you for suggesting that I revisit this article)

       Even ones "chosen" by God, can prove in the end...that they did not follow God with a complete heart.

May the God of peace be with you and may we all continue to grow in the word of the Lord.
Agape, Obadiah

I recently had a change of mind concerning this parable. I used to think it referred to human bad seed before the millennium kingdom. It didn’t fit correctly and now I believe it to be at the end of the millennium kingdom and the Tares I no longer believe to be human. I believe them to be counterfeit humans somehow created by Satan when he is released for that “little season”. What’s a counterfeit human you ask?
I have no clue but fallen angels can make themselves look like almost anything they want so maybe it’s them.
I’d be interested in any opposing or supporting view to this as I am not convinced myself.
I’m standing on one leg on a boat in a storm with this one.
Interesting topic!

A though occurred to me, while reading some EU materal, that bears a* wider hope *in the relation to this parable. It has been theorized by ECT proponents that a majority of the world will die and find themselves in hell, with estimates in the 90-95% range. But THIS parable, at the very least, suggests that the range be closer to 50-50%, in that the wheat and the tares growing together would be at least be of equal share. But even that wouldn’t make agrilogical sense if the gardener was competent enough to ensure that the *majority *of the crop was wheat, uninhibited by the tares, particularly when we learn that the one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man! (Agrilogical? Did I just make up a new word?) I would be hard pressed to believe that the Son of Man would only sow 5-10% of the good seed, seeing that He would take *full advantage *of the field within His care, whilst the other 90-95% would be the bad seed as sown by the wicked one. Indeed, if anything it would be the other way around.

I think the Lord a better farmer than that. :slight_smile:

While I was finishing up Dr. R’s tome (commentary to follow someday over in its thread when I get around to it :wink: ), I noticed that the Christian universalists (and those very close to them) tended to treat the wheat and tares parable like the wheat and chaff parable, as noted way upthread: wheat and tares are good seed and bad seed in the individual heart.

I still can’t say I find that fits the details without doing violence to key points of Jesus’ own explanation, but I thought I should confirm that major doctrinal interpreters did go that route for several early centuries. :slight_smile:

Fascinating thread… I agree with Jason. But I must admit it is possible we are missing something so obvious that will one day be made plain to us. The whole ‘wailing and gnashing of teeth’ statement can be interpreted as suffering or anger, in my opinion. It could even be both. But, if anger, it sure seems to me that this could have already been fulfilled.

Jesus has some very hard sayings. Part of this was by design, but part of it is because we were brain-washed to believe certain doctrines of men. That alone skews how we read the parables, in my opinion.

Yes, I realize this is an old thread - BUMP! :slight_smile:

You know, I have often thought about this. I often wonder, perhaps Hitler wasn’t human. Perhaps half the people in the world are not human. I don’t know. Sure, it seems like a totally far out concept, but the only person we know to actually be human is our self. Everyone else could be an angel, demon, etc… Again, far out there, but we don’t know. Paul seems to think many have entertained angels and that alone gives this theory SOME credibility.

I think the tares can be interpreted in a couple of ways, but I favor the interpretation that the tares are the sons of the wicked one – and who would those be? Doesn’t Jesus say not many pages earlier that Satan is the father of lies? Could it be the tares are LIES? We have certainly had our share of false doctrines sown into the field of the church, and like tares they weaken the crop – like tares it’s hard to tell them from the wheat – like tares, they are toxic and if eaten, can kill. Like tares, they must be carefully separated out and destroyed, and the sowing of an enemy’s field with them is an act of war. Like tares, the lies have been insidiously sown into our Father’s field, and while He will not endanger the wheat by having them removed until the harvest is ready, He has been rooting them out little by little through the years. Is the terrible and terrifying, demonic (imo) doctrine of ect next to go? I HOPE so. I DO.

Jesus illustration using sheep and goats may throw some light here too. So much of our Lords teaching was quite black and white. I sometimes think that I am actually a “shoat” as there have been times when I have been able to help Jesus brothers and sisters in need but the others when I have passed by on the other side so to speak to my shame. Struggling with sin as Paul elaborates on in the major section of Roman ch 7 helps In my perception of this. My overall thoughts having read most of this thread are that Jesus words about wheat and tares finds application across the history of the Church and today also In our hearts and lives. Lies, self interest, fears, errors the list goes on. perhaps this is why so much of the NT is devoted to helping to deal with such - watch out for the wolves etc! The shared experiences of pain and suffering we have shared in this thread is testimony to the effect of tares in the field. So this is no academic consideration alone.v :unamused:

Amen to this. Though when I do a self assessment, I tend to become even more conflicted. For example: I was just praying today and reflecting on my life. While I don’t live an ‘evil’ life in general, I still have evil thoughts from time to time. That in itself is enough for me to say ‘I am wicked, please purify my heart’ and yet, I look around and these are struggles that everyone in Christendom (and elsewhere) claims to have. If that is case, then we are all doomed if this is black and white. I do not know of anyone supremely righteous besides Christ.

George MacDonald in some ways helped me out a bit in this regard, as ‘God is easy to please, hard to satisfy’ and ‘is there no keeping but a perfect keeping?’ and so I did have to think. For instance, when Jesus said ‘if you love me, keep my commands’ when I read that, I tend to think keep = perfectly keep. And as much as I want to perfectly keep them, I know it is not possible. Perhaps in theory, but not in practicality. But then one can be in a constant state of ‘Do I love Jesus?’ - I perfectly understand why some people chose to be agnostic. It can and does bring a certain peace in life. Though I’d prefer a personal revelation from God myself.

Bottom line is that I am not totally evil, nor totally good. I am somewhere there within. That makes it impossible for me to be lumped with the Righteous, in my mind. But again, perhaps I think the Lord a hard master? If so, woah to me!

Ha! ChrisB :wink:

That is the parable of the various small but mature herd animals, and the immature (baby) goats if you want to be accurate. :laughing:

Baaaa! :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

I’ve just been watching this sermon called ‘‘Intoxicating Spirits’’. It’s here:

tsdowntown.com/sermon-media-library

If you scroll down the page you’ll see it (it’s the one with a picture of ‘Family Guy’. I know it’s long, but it’s amazing, and Peter touches on the Wheat and the Tares. :smiley:

I’m kinda late to the fray, but I trust that my attempt to make a case will be instructive to someone. My firm conviction is that the seeds in this parable definitely do not represent humans or any other sentients. First and foremost, we mustn’t fail to notice what Jesus says after he has finished the parable’s interpretation–"… He who has ears, let him hear." (Matthew 13:43) As far as I can tell, every time Jesus says that is after speaking in metaphors. “He who has ears, let him hear,” occurs for example in Matthew 13:9 after He has told the Parable of the Sower, in Matthew 11:15 after saying John the Baptist was the Elijah to come (which everyone except believers in reincarnation would agree needs a further interpretation) or in Luke 14:35 after talking about salt losing its saltiness (which if taken literally is nonsensical, I’ve never been good at chemistry though, so what do I know?) Taking this into account, I think it’s not a stretch to say that the exposition provided by Jesus is a parable in itself. Now, what could “sons of the Kingdom/evil one” be if not people? Others have correctly pointed out that Devil is called the father of lies in John 8:44, therefore his sons could be lies. But even God is said to have non-living children–“Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.” (James 1:17, NASB)

If we want to hear a solid universalistic reading of Jesus’s interpretation in question, it might be wise to turn to the patron saint of Christian Universalism. In the Book X of Commentary on Matthew, Origen says, “… whatsoever good things are sown in the human soul, these are the offspring of the kingdom of God and have been sown by God the Word who ‘was in the beginning with God,’ (John 1:2) so that wholesome words about anything are children of the kingdom. But while men are asleep who do not act according to the command of Jesus, ‘Watch and pray that you enter not into temptation,’ (Matthew 26:41) the devil on the watch sows what are called tares— that is, evil opinions— over and among what are called by some natural conceptions, even the good seeds which are from the Word. And according to this the whole world might be called a field, and not the Church of God only, for in the whole world the Son of man sowed the good seed, but the wicked one tares—that is, evil words—which, springing from wickedness, are children of the evil one. And at the end of things, which is called the consummation of the age, there will of necessity be a harvest, in order that the angels of God who have been appointed for this work may gather up the bad opinions that have grown upon the soul, and overturning them may give them over to fire which is said to burn, that they may be consumed. And so the angels and servants of the Word will gather from all the kingdom of Christ all things that cause a stumbling-block to souls and reasonings that create iniquity, which they will scatter and cast into the burning furnace of fire. Then those who become conscious that they have received the seeds of the evil one in themselves, because of their having been asleep, shall wail and, as it were, be angry against themselves; for this is ‘the gnashing of teeth.’ (Matthew 13:42) Wherefore, also, in the Psalms it is said, ‘They gnashed upon me with their teeth.’ (Psalm 35:16) Then above all shall the righteous shine, no longer differently as at the first, but all ‘as one sun in the kingdom of their Father.’ (Matthew 13:43) … Daniel, knowing that the intelligent are the light of the world, and that the multitudes of the righteous differ in glory, seems to have said this, ‘And the intelligent shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and from among the multitudes of the righteous as the stars for ever and ever.’ (Daniel 12:3) And in the passage, ‘There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differs from another star in glory: so also is the resurrection of the dead,’ (1 Corinthians 15:41-42) the Apostle says the same thing as Daniel, taking this thought from his prophecy. Some one may inquire how some speak about the difference of light among the righteous, while the Saviour on the contrary says, ‘They shall shine as one sun.’ I think, then, that at the beginning of the blessedness enjoyed by those who are being saved (because those who are not such are not yet purified), the difference connected with the light of the saved takes place: but when, as we have indicated, he gathers from the whole kingdom of Christ all things that make men stumble, and the reasonings that work iniquity are cast into the furnace of fire, and the worse elements utterly consumed, and, when this takes place, those who received the words which are the children of the evil one come to self-consciousness, then shall the righteous having become one light of the sun shine in the kingdom of their Father. For whom will they shine? For those below them who will enjoy their light, after the analogy of the sun which now shines for those upon the earth? For, of course, they will not shine for themselves. But perhaps the saying, ‘Let your light shine before men,’ (Matthew 5:16) can be written upon the table of the heart, according to what is said by Solomon, in a threefold way; so that even now the light of the disciples of Jesus shines before the rest of men, and after death before the resurrection, and after the resurrection until ‘all shall attain unto a full-grown man,’ (Ephesians 4:13) and all become one sun. Then shall they shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” Obviously, Origen is not fazed by this parable at all. On the contrary, he sees a proclamation of the eventual perfection of the whole humanity at the end of it! Speaking of the phrase “shine as the sun,” I can’t help but reference the song Embers by Owl City which includes it too. The author, Adam Young, is a Christian and also a universalist apparently since this beautiful song is basically a celebration of God’s fire.

In case anyone thought Origen was alone in taking “the sons” to be “the lies/truth”, here’s an excerpt from the Chapter X of On the Resurrection by Athenagoras (133–190)–"… the refutation of falsehood is less important than the establishment of truth; and second in order, for it employs its strength against those who hold false opinions, and false opinions are an aftergrowth from another sowing and from degeneration." He mentions “another sowing” only in passing, but what else could it refer to but the parable we’re discussing? Moreover, the context suggests he’s talking about the sowing of lies as its aftergrowth is false opinions. However, there is another allegorical interpretation in the early church. St. Gregory of Nyssa, a univeralist with a reputation for orthodoxy, or rather his sister St. Macrina the Younger according to Gregory’s On the Soul and the Resurrection stated–“Now we think that Scripture means by the good seed the corresponding impulses of the soul, each one of which, if only they are cultured for good, necessarily puts forth the fruit of virtue within us. But since there has been scattered amongst these the bad seed of the error of judgment as to the true Beauty which is alone in its intrinsic nature such, and since this last has been thrown into the shade by the growth of delusion which springs up along with it (for the active principle of desire does not germinate and increase in the direction of that natural Beauty which was the object of its being sown in us, but it has changed its growth so as to move towards a bestial and unthinking state, this very error as to Beauty carrying its impulse towards this result; and in the same way the seed of anger does not steel us to be brave, but only arms us to fight with our own people; and the power of loving deserts its intellectual objects and becomes completely mad for the immoderate enjoyment of pleasures of sense; and so in like manner our other affections put forth the worse instead of the better growths),—on account of this the wise Husbandman leaves this growth that has been introduced amongst his seed to remain there, so as to secure our not being altogether stripped of better hopes by desire having been rooted out along with that good-for-nothing growth. If our nature suffered such a mutilation, what will there be to lift us up to grasp the heavenly delights? If love is taken from us, how shall we be united to God? If anger is to be extinguished, what arms shall we possess against the adversary? Therefore the Husbandman leaves those bastard seeds within us, not for them always to overwhelm the more precious crop, but in order that the land itself (for so, in his allegory, he calls the heart) by its native inherent power, which is that of reasoning, may wither up the one growth and may render the other fruitful and abundant: but if that is not done, then he commissions the fire to mark the distinction in the crops.” I believe Macrina is essentially saying that the tares are misdirected passions removal of which would be destructive to us because they’re inseparable from the passions put to a good use.