The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The Wheat And The Tares

Which doesn’t fit Arminianism.

Whereas on the other hand, the other traditional (Calvinistic) interpretation puts all responsibility on Satan, leaving God surprised that it happens. Which doesn’t fit Calv notions of God’s sovereignty at all; and those actually in the kingdom shouldn’t be hopelessly lost if Calvinism is true (although Arminians would interpret that as meaning someone actually in the kingdom can hopelessly lose their salvation. But not for anything they did, only for what they couldn’t help being, which goes back to Calv theology again.)

When I see a weird mix of details like that, I tend to expect from experience the parable is more about warning people who think they’re servants of God that they had better watch out, and less about teaching some us vs. them scenario.

And on one harmonization theory, Jesus had switched over to this parable after Pharisees had been willing to violate their own principles to declare that the concept of God saving someone whose latter state is worse than his former, is of the devil. That’s the poison being analogically condemned here, with threats of punishment.

But the disciples weren’t getting it yet, either, or they wouldn’t have had to have the parable explained to them: an explanation that turns out to have serious problems for any theory of hopeless damnation, even though on the surface it appears to be evidence for it. But whatever the parable was warning about, its obscurity to the apostles meant they were actually on the side of the darnels! But that was hardly a hopeless condition for the apostles.

Btw, usually Tom ought to be the one to have first shot at answering a question posed to him in Tom’s “Questions” category. :wink: But he’s often busy elsewhere, so we’ve kind of gotten into a habit of trying for him. We mean no disrespect to Tom at all.

Yep, only the highest respect for Tom, a man of grace and wisdom!

:laughing: Oh yes, it IS in Tom’s category. :blush: I always just look at the active topics. But yes – he did say he was going to be busy with other things for a while, as I recall.

Cindy,

Here is an interesting observation on the weeping-and-gnashing-of-teeth issue: In the original (or as close as we can get to it) Greek text, the first word in the phrase is βρυγμός (brygmos) which Strong defines as “a gnashing of teeth,” but oddly the second word, ὀδούς (odous) means “a tooth”. So essentially what we have is, “weeping and gnashing of teeth tooth,” an obvious redundancy. And here is the rub: there is a second definition of brygmos: “snarling, growling: in the sense of biting.” In Jerusalem’s city-dump at Gehenna, a place the Jews would find utterly repulsive (rightly), dogs would roam around looking to eat what food there was to be had, and as they would fight over the pickings, they would snarl and gnash their teeth at one another. So the weeping would be caused by a person being thrown into the dump, a place of the worst dishonor, and the other part would be the “snarling, growling tooth” of the ravenous dogs.

I would give credit where credit is due to this line of thought, but I can’t remember its origin.

~Thomas

I think this is key to insights on this passage. As I understand it this passage answers to the eschatological expectations Jesus forewarned of on Israel’s coming horizon as per the Roman-Jewish wars of Ad66-70.

Those who clung to the self righteousness of OC existence as opposed to heeding Jesus’ covenant renewal cry of “love thy neighbour” [the true expression of loving God [b]Mt 25:40] would duly perish Lk 13:3-5; Jn 8:21, 24] in Israel’s old covenant demise… becoming a cursed byword “gehenna” – none other than Israel’s the lake of fire. Such a fiery end was ONLY pertinent to THIS LIFE, not beyond. It was this gruesome coming end that Paul sought to “save some of themRom 10:1; 11:14].

Cindy,

You touched on the idea here, and I would agree, that the fire spoken of is metaphorical. It is so easy to get in the habit of listening to the subtle but rigid traditional interpretations of these texts kicking around in our brains (could this be one role of the accuser?) Much of our thoughts about the world are informed by such tradition, but lest we make the mistake of taking the Bible to be always literal, we should not forget that Jesus’ second language was metaphor! In the case of this parable, it bears noting that it is a parable, and not a literal description.

I love your insight into the meanings of the Jewish sacrifice as compared to our own sacrifice and purification. You are right on target there. Thanks for that.

I am glad you couldn’t sleep. God is good - all the time!

Peace.
Thomas

Thanks, Thomas :slight_smile:

I cannot believe some people are 100% wheat destined for heaven, while others are 100% weed destined to burn. It’s neither just nor realistic.

It’s perfectly possible to walk both North and East simultaneously. (The result will be a journey North-East.) The Northerly part of this walk will be 100% North, the Easterly part 100% East. There is nothing Northish about East, or Eastish about North. They are mutually exclusive spacial dimensions.

In the same way, it’s perfectly possible for me to be 100% good and 100% evil simultaneously (because good and evil are mutually exclusive moral dimensions, just as North and East are mutually exclusive spacial dimensions.) The resultant addition of heaven and earth, light and dark, sheep and goat, wheat and weed, good and evil is what we call… human.

If you prefer, plot “good” on the x-axis and “evil” on the y-axis. Every human thought, word and deed lies somewhere on this plane. In Christ’s unique case, every thought, word and deed lay perfectly on the x-axis.

Our job as Christians is to move ever closer to the x-axis.

The above analyses have merit. Darnel seeds can never develop into wheat. It is biologically impossible. Consequently, if seeds represent persons, there is no possibility of repentance among persons developing from darnel seeds. Because that can’t be correct, maybe the seeds of wheat and darnel represent something else.

I think a possible answer lies in Matthew 13:19 from a different but related parable.

When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. . . .

This verse seems to establish that it is the person’s heart that receives the seeds. Thus, seeds represent the good and the bad in each person. And it would be the bad in us that is burned up, not the entirety of us–a conclusion quite compatible with Universalism.

However, Matthew 13:38 then seems incongruous.

. . . and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one;

Here the seeds are said to be equivalent to persons, even though Arminianism would then lead one to doubt the clear connotation of this verse that repentance among those represented by darnel is impossible.

Nobody said this would be easy!

Of course, that’s “IF” you take “sons of the kingdom” to speak of people, individuals, rather than metaphorically, or could we say antropomorphically, speaking of that which is the natural product of evil in one’s heart. The “children” of wrong beliefs and wrong attitudes are wrong actions. The “sons of the kingdom” are the good and lasting things we do with our lives. It’s a parable, and parables by their very literary nature are meant to be interpreted metaphorically. Judgment, I believe, will burn the Hell out of us all, purifying us for and by the presence of the Truth; wood, hay, and stuble will be burnt up and even the gold and silver will be purified!

Yes, that’s possible. The only other time the term *sons of the kingdom *is used in the Bible, though, it refers to people (Matthew 8:12).

This is true. However though Jesus refers to the Pharisees’ “father” as the devil, almost in the same breath, He refers to the devil as the father of lies. Therefore, one could say his offspring are lies. Metaphors and symbolism aren’t always used the same way in scripture. Take yeast; Jesus uses it at least on one occasion as a symbol for the growth of the Kingdom of God (IMO) where the woman hides the yeast in a lump of dough and it permeates the whole in time.

Episcopalian priest, theologian and all-round genius Robert Farrar Capon has a great take on this parable. For Capon, Jesus’ primary lesson here is one of theodicy - nothing less than a scriptural ‘answer’ to the so-called Problem of Evil. Says he:

“The parable’s main point, in short, is not eschatological redress of wrongs, but present forbearance of them.”

Pulling up the weeds - eradicating evil - simply isn’t an option because, as Allan has pointed out, the evil is inextricably intertwined with the good in all of us.

Capon again: “The only result of a truly dedicated campaign to get rid of evil will be the abolition of literally everybody.”

And so God’s response to evil is to forgive it, to let it be, at least for this present age. Capon is very good on the way the original Greek rendering of the text would have resonated with the early Greek speaking Christians in a way it does not for us. For the Greek word used at the beginning of Matthew 13:30 and translated in English as ‘let’ in the phrase “let both grow together until the harvest”, aphete, is the same word translated as ‘forgive’ in the Lord’s Prayer in the line “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us”.

Capon does go on to admit an eschatological dimension to the parable, but he wisely points out the context in which this must occur. His argument here is highly germane to the wider UR argument:

“Take, for example, the question of whether we are in a position to discuss the meaning or even the possibility of ultimate human rejection of the reconciliation. To be sure, Scripture says clearly enough that the sovereign, healing power of Jesus can and will be refused by some. I have no problem with that. What I do object to, however, are the hell-enthusiasts who act as if God’s whole New Testament method of dealing with evil will, in the last day, simply go back to some Old Testament “square one” - as if Jesus hadn’t done a blessed or merciful thing in between, and as if we could, therefore, skip all the paradoxes of mercy when we talk about the Last Day and simply concentrate on plain old gun-barrel justice.”

In other words, all eschatological judgement will take place against the backdrop of Christ’s reconciling sacrifice. His incarnation, death and resurrection will be a massive ‘game changer’ in ways we may not yet fully appreciate.

All the best

Johnny

That’s really a profound understanding of that passage. Thanks for sharing it Johnny. And we can certainly see in history that any person or group who set themselves about the task of eradicating evil ended up only causing more evil, destroying the good and the bad. I find it’s much better to light a candle than to curse the darkness! And little gets under my skin more than “heresy hunters” or “defenders of the truth”. Let’s focus on seeking the kingdom of God and His righteousness and let God worry about others. I’m reminded of what Rabbi Gamaliel told Saul - to let the Christians alone. If what they taught was of man it would not last, but if what they taught was of God, Saul would find himself actually fighting against God. That’s good stuff Johnny, thanks again for sharing. We’ll also let God separate out, judge the good and the evil in His time and way, which is far beyond us.

Wow, Great post, Johnny! And I also greatly appreciate your exposition on it, Sherman:

Thanks so much, both of you. I never saw it in quite that way, and it really helps to open this passage up to me! Seriously – Thanks!

I think Jesus’ parables are probably my favourite things in the Bible. They are so simple and yet so complex. So easy to remember yet so hard to understand. And like an onion you can keep peeling away the layers and find new meanings underneath.

I think you guys would really dig Capon. Sherman, you’re definitely on his wavelength - one of his big things is how God consistently refuses to achieve His purposes through the exercise of what Capon calls ‘right-handed power’, hence neither should we. He who lives by the sword and all that :smiley: .

I confess that sometimes Capon’s hermeneutics are a little too stretched, a little too off the wall - even for an errantist non-literalist revisionist über-liberal like me! But most of the time he’s bang on. And very funny too.

If you’re interested, his book on the parables is called Kingdom, Grace, Judgement: Paradox, Outrage, and Vindication in the Parables of Jesus. A superb book.

Cheers

Johnny

Matthew 13, where the parable of the wheat and the tares is described, concerns the kingdom of heaven, as can be seen repeatedly from its verses.

11 Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted.

19 "When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one on whom seed was sown beside the road.

24 Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, "The **kingdom of heaven **may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field.

31 He presented another parable to them, saying, "The **kingdom of heaven **is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field;

33 He spoke another parable to them, “The **kingdom of heaven **is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three pecks of flour until it was all leavened.”

38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one;

41 "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness,

43 "Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

44 "The **kingdom of heaven **is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid again; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.

45 "Again, the **kingdom of heaven **is like a merchant seeking fine pearls,

47 "Again, the **kingdom of heaven **is like a dragnet cast into the sea, and gathering fish of every kind;

52 And Jesus said to them, “Therefore every scribe who has become a disciple of the **kingdom of heaven **is like a head of a household, who brings out of his treasure things new and old.”

The kingdom of heaven is not the same as heaven, for there is violence in the kingdom of heaven but not in heaven (Matthew 11:12 From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force).

Thus, the kingdom of heaven seems to involve life on earth. So, is this concern about the application of Matthew 13 to the ultimate fate of all humans misplaced?

One thing to note, is that the word isn’t for the lost but for God’s own people. The wicked being of his own.I see it as a separating of the people of God for the first resurrection millenial rule. The fully formed mature wheat becoming the ‘huios’ sons. The balance or tares going to the 2nd resurrection and gehenna fire judgement in the LOF to be purged until they are refined with the rest of mankind. :sunglasses:

One of the interesting things about passages commonly used to affirm ECT, they are almost always couched in metaphorical, hyperbolic, parabolic, apocalyptic phraseology that is not meant to be taken literally, but meant to illicit an emotional response and communicate broad moral messages. On the other hand passages that seem to affirm UR are often presented in phraseology that is meant to be taken much more literal and specific.