The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The Wheat and the Tares

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#24

All poignant answers and I appreciate the insight. Yet I still have to point out that nowhere in the parable, or in the progression of the ‘harvest’ therein, is there any indication that the tares turn into wheat (or vice versa, for that matter).
Nor is the argument that the wheat and the tares are just of different shades of ourselves seem to bear out, for again I must stress that in the interpretation Jesus gives it clearly states that there are two factions of children at play here.

A parable isn’t meant to be absolutely inflexible. Just because Jesus doesn’t talk about tares turning into wheat doesn’t mean they don’t – the whole kingdom is about repentance and being born again (…and three thousand souls were added to their number that day…"). Tares are constantly turning into wheat. The parable doesn’t say it, but we know it to be true because the kingdom is like this. It started out with none, and souls are constantly added. In modern politics and culture we talk about “the rich and the poor” as if they are a static group of people. Not true. When we say “the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer” it doesn’t mean that there is a fixed group of people “the rich” and another fixed “the poor” and they increase and decrease. In life we start out quite a bit poorer. In our 20’s with a new job and a low wage we tend to be closer to “the poor”. By the time many people are in their 50’s they have had promotions and raises and they tend to be in “the rich”. Also by fate, you could be “the rich” and a terrible thing could happen and you find yourself among “the poor”. They are not static groups - they are constantly changing. So are the wheat and tares.

#25

so what do we say then? i think if we’re going to stick with the likely view that the tares are people just as we are, we still have to balance it against the rest of the Bible…

this is one parable, it can’t supercede every other part of the Word that argues for restorative wrath being wielded by love for the sake of the object of wrath.

i think we’re making it too complicated. this is merely saying that God will sort out the evidoers. justice will be done, we can take comfort/warning from that…but mostly comfort, as the rest of the word talks of restoration and “fair togetherness” as Jason is fond of saying :slight_smile: it’s just that the full judgement and removal of bad people etc would damage the faithful at this time. maybe this is also saying then that God is aware of the perfect time for every act, and therefore we must be patient for this as we are for His return.

parables are meant to be a picture of something that is hard to understand with temporal minds, not the whole.

#26

who sows the tares? the adversary
what are the adversaries children? lies, he is the father of lies
tares are lies

#27

Well we must take comfort that no matter what punishment the sinner goes through at the end of the age, God is still love, his purpose is still corrective, and that the judge of all the earth will do right. Jesus used many parables that seem to contradict (though in truth they don’t) Ultimate Reconciliation, and we should never shrug them off, but this particular one is not without hope.

I continue to look at the final verse as a prophecy of all one day being justified,

"Then the just will shine out as the Sun in the Kingdom of their* Father." **

*Romans 5:18

**Acts 17:29, Ephesians 4:6

#28

Just sitting back eating my popcorn…

So no one is going to show up and give a Preterist take on this one huh? :slight_smile:

I’ve seen some very convincing arguements from that perspective on this exact parable.

Anyone? No one? Hmm. :confused:

Going back to eating my popcorn then. :sunglasses:

1 Like
#29

The following pretty much sums up my understanding of what Christ had in mind when he gave this parable: Hell and the "End of the Age"

I’d only add that the “devil” or “evil one” who sowed the “weeds” should probably be identified as that which is figuratively identified as a “serpent” in Genesis 3: the deceptive and “crafty” desires of the flesh, which, when yielded to, lead to sin and an antagonism to what is good and true (May I have feedback on my CU drafts? (see last 5 paragraphs).

#30

I was thinking the same thing myself, ISIA.
Thanks for that link to your previous post on this Aaron.

I think the preterist view neatly answers this one, assuming that the Wheat and Tares are (or rather, were) distinct individuals.

#31

So, are we to allow the lies that are in our own hearts and the lies of others to grow together with the truth?

Matt

#32

Sherman, can you or anyone else please elaborate as to weeping and gnashing of teeth indicating repentance and terrible, angry remorse in this parable (or others, for that matter). When Cain was confronted by the LORD for murdering Abel he mourned his own punishment. Easu found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears. Also, the rich man (Dives?) lamented his fate but did not appear to give any indication of repentance. In each of these examples it appears that the transgressors only show sorrow for their condition, not what they’ve done. There are multitudes of men and women in prisons today who readily confess to their crimes, acknowledge that they belong in prison and hate their punishment but have no sense of remorse or contrition. Prior to my becoming a Christian I had a few dust ups with police and the court systems. While I was greatly enraged / saddened / frustrated with my situation, I wasn’t truly repentant even though I knew I was guilty. I was more pissed that I had been caught. I know that I can not presuppose that my own experience is indicative of every single human that has ever existed, but it still seems to be Biblically based.

Matt

#33

Hi Matt –

Just want to say that I really appreciate the grace of your posts – I don’t know any Calvinists; but you are a good advert for Calvinism.

I find it difficult to put Cain, Esau and Dives in the same boat as characters all showing a sort of resentful rage rather than true remorse at their crimes.

God banishes Cain form his presence to live in exile in the land of Nod – but the ways I see his tears are s if he is a child who has done something in a frenzy and hardly knows what he has done – but with the awful realisation he is made to bear responsibility – as Adam and Eve also are as they are banished from the Garden. But God protects Cain from revenge killing by putting a mark on him; so this is not a clear cut story of damnation.

With Esau – yes he cries his tears but this time there is no murder and Jacob and Esau are in the end reconciled without any revenge killing.

Dives – the fictional character from Jesus’ parable does actually at least show concern for his friends and one early Universalist – a disciple of Origen - interpreted this as a sign of hope. Even in hell God is present in the virtue of compassion that Dives shows and this would outlast the scene of wrath. Perhaps this last gloss on scripture is a long shot – but I still don’t think that any of these three examples necessarily fit tidily together as types of resentful rage instead of remorse/repentance.

In terms of criminal justice – there is much evidence to show that criminals actually do feel remorse and want to make amends where a process of restorative justice is tried. Where they fully face their victims, and hear their victim’s stories and are required to make restitution. It doesn’t always work – there are people who are simply sociopaths – but it works a lot more that when people simply undergo retribution by the state. And I guess this is an appeal of PSA – this requires a person to confront what they have in a sense done to God and what God has done for them.
Blessings

Dick

#34

Hi Dick, hope your Lenten season is going good. Thank you for your kind words. You too are a great rep for your position. I’ve recently started a couple of other threads and don’t have time to respond to this one right now, but I just wanted to acknowledge your post! Take care of yourself and hopefully I can come back to this one soon :wink:

Matt

#35

I continue to look at the final verse as a prophecy of all one day being justified,

"Then the just will shine out as the Sun in the Kingdom of their* Father." **

Amen, I finally registered to this forum just to make that point. After the tares make their trip through the furnace, THEN THEIR RIGHTEOUSNESS will shine through. The wheats righteousness is already apparent, it’s not shining because the tares are finally out of the way, no the tares have now been made righteous by the refiners fire and shine along with the wheat, or have been made into wheat or however you want to say it!

Thanks everyone on this site for sharing your hearts, I’ve been reading along for awhile and have been extrembly blessed and encouraged to discover this site. I had practically given up on the whole “God Thing” in my heart because I just couldn’t understand hell and all of the trailing effects of that theology. This is the God that I want to share with my neighbours! To be able to do so while still having Gods word as my foundation is truly awesome, thanks again!

1 Like
#36

Ha, just noticed this thread is over a year old!
*edited to say,
Never mind, was looking at jaxxens join date, feel free to delete this post

#37

I’d just add that historically this parable has been a favourite for those Christians who have advocated religious tolerance. Unlike normal Jewish apocalyptic that speaks of a separation of the righteous and unrighteous at an imminent judgement (and could be used to urge the Sons of light against the Sons of Dark in violent conflict in the here and now) this parable speaks of the good and the bad being entwined together in the middle times before the judgement. It is for God to judge and not for us. Both Erasmus in his ‘Annotations to the New Testament’ and Roger Williams of Rhode Island in his ‘Bloody Tenant’ used the parable to argue against the persecution of heretics and for tolerance of difference in the Church. Likewise Milton in his ‘Areopagitica’ used the parable to argue for a free press – truth has nothing to fear from error and error is multiplied in attempts to suppress it.

Blessings

Dick

#38

AThousandHills,

Thanks so much for your encouragement and the edification you’ve offered!

And Dick,

Very cool – I never knew that. (There are a lot of things I never knew!) :wink:

Love, Cindy

#39

Sadly for the UR perspective, there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that weeds / tares / chaff gets refined in a furnace :open_mouth: If Jesus had used gold or silver in this parable, the UR argument would not be so completely untenable, but in point of fact He doesn’t refer to silver or gold, but rather sons of the evil one to be cast into a fiery furnace, where there’ll be weeping and gnashing of teeth. It will only be when the sons of the wicked one, all law-breakers and things that cause sin are removed that the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father, which He has prepared for them from before the foundations of the world.

Matt

#40

Hello Matt –

Well this is a parable – and you’ll not get unanimity here because all we share is an interest in universalism – rather than doctrinal coherence. As far as I can see the wheat are the offspring of God, the tares the offspring of Satan – this we know because Jesus interprets it. The two are entangled feeding from the same soil – so they are not obviously separate. That’s a new idea that the disciples have t grasp – different from say the teachings of the Zealots and the Qumran sect; and I think it is very important not to miss this. So the central teaching of this parable is not that there is to be a judgement and a separation – this was not news to Jesus’ audience. It is that the judgement is at harvest time. Of course Universalist will see in the burning of the tares a metaphor for a refinement of the wheat – the darnel chokes the wheat and stunt its growth; also it’s not good to eat. So this still can be seen as a metaphor for painful refinement as the God seed and seed of the enemy is separated in a way that runs through the centre of all of us. Also I note that Chaff burns quickly – so it takes a lot to see this as a metaphor of Eternal Conscious torment; a believer in ECT has to look elsewhere for convincing proof texts.

But most of all I am convinced that the central message of this parable is that the process of sifting and judgment is God’s process – only at the harvest will the Righteous be revealed in full glory. It’s sifting is not for us to engage in now – or we will fall into wrath. Every tradition of Christianity is flawed and has its dark side as well as its lighter side. I think Calvinism today has learnt much from those Christians who did advocate tolerance – and you too can be grateful to them because they have in a way enabled you to be a Calvinist and also to be the very likeable, witty and compassionate man that you so evidently are.

The thing about historic Calvinism is that it has often been so intolerant and infused with persecuting zeal – seeking to found the purified community of the elect now rather than leaving judgement later to God. When this impulse has been brought under control by other factors I think we see the best in Calvinism – but there are some very bad things in the wide history of Clavinism.

I cannot judge Calvin or Calvinists in the past – but I cannot ignore that past when Calvinists try to persuade me that somehow the light shines in Calvinism in ways that it does not in the wider Church. Calvin was a man of his times – but so was Castellio who opposed him and argued for tolerance. The burning of Michel de Servetus for Unitarianism is still something to be reckoned with. Yes Calvin wanted him beheaded when he proved impenitent rather than burned slowly over green wood as actually happened – but as Tom Talbott says in TILOC there is much evidence to show that Calvin entrapped him in the first place. Calvin also encouraged the killing of Anabaptists in a huge way – and early Calvinists killed huge numbers of Anabaptists (I say this as an Anabaptist sympathiser).

Calvin’s last commentary was on the Book of Joshua and it was Calvinists who overturned any idea of just war theory and showed no mercy against the people they subjected – and there are stories of Calvinist chaplains urging soldiers on to total slaughter when the commanders of troop urged restraint –in Ireland for example. Roger Williams rebuked John Winthrop for his genocidal wars against the Native Americans and rebuked all persecutors as under the judgement of God – he was a moderate Calvinist - his Calvinism had been tempered by the teachings of the Universalist Seeker sect in England.

And the idea of the elect as a separated people has lead to colonial abuses like apartheid (whereas I South Africa Anglican incarnationalism always with a splash of universalism sustained the hope of Black Christians). I understand that the Dutch Reformed church in South Africa has done mush soul searching in bringing their teachings into line with values of universal human rights. Of this I’m glad – Gregory of Nyssa he Universalist did this in the Fourth century and argued against slavery on the basis of the teleological dignity of all in the universal reconciliation.

All of this takes me back to the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. Yes Calvinism has a strong doctrinal base and fine tradition of learning and education has much to give the universal Church. But Calvinism has also learnt about how to live with others in the time of the wheat and tares from the wider Church. And I hope we can continue to learn from each other – and not revive old factions.

None of this is to say that I’m in any way bringing up Straw Men or trying to make out that Calvin and Calvinism are wicked. Indeed I found Marilynne Robinson’s essay on Jean Cauvin in The Death of Adam - which is sympathetic without being proselytising - very welcome. I think we UR bods do always need to reflect upon not being over reactive against ECT versions of Calvinism – just because these are at the opposite end of the spectrum to our beliefs. At the same time there must be ways of trying to express difficult truths about history etc, without trying to offend. Origen was held up by Erasmus as the most temperate and kind debater. When the Pagan Celsus mocked his Christian beliefs and laughed them to scorn, he did not retaliate in kind, or see dark meanings everywhere in Census’ words. Instead he replied with gentle wit - ‘You cook for the elite with refined palates; we cook for the masses’. I want to follow Origen’s example (at least in this matter :laughing: )

Blessings

Dick

#41

I would say that this is a parable concerning what it will be like at the ‘end of the age’, as spoken of in verses 39 and 40. The Wheat and the Tares is obviously the parable, but Jesus’ explanation of it in verses 37 through 43 is obviously a prophecy of what was to come at the end of the age, namely the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The parable of the Fishing Net and it’s explanation in Matthew 13:47-50 is similar to the Wheat and the Tares in its scope. Are their any hints within these parables of “eternal conscious torments” after the end the “world”? Not one. It merely states there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth in the fiery furnace at the end of the age (αἰῶνός), not that this weeping and teeth gnashing would last forever. Jerusalem and the lands around it were to be turned into its own garbage dump, Ga Ben Hinnom (Gehenna), when the Son of Man returned with his angels to gather the elect (Matt. 24:31) and weed out the wicked for judgement.

A Preterist interpretation of this parable, and the parable of the Fishing Net, fits perfectly within the context of an impending judgement to come on that generation of Israel. But when would this judgement come? When they (the disciples) see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing in the holy place (Matt. 24:15). Indeed, Saint Paul describes this desolating abomination as the ‘man of lawlessness’ who sets himself up in God’s temple (2 Thessalonians 2:3,4); he is the man doomed to destruction. This doom was brought upon Jerusalem and its Temple in the year AD 70, and has little to do with a literal destruction of the physical universe at the end of time. As I said above, there is no indication that such destruction would last forever, as God promises that All Israel will be restored (Romans 11:25-32).

#42

Good morning Matt. I’m sorry that I didn’t respond to this sooner; I missed it. You are correct that there are plenty of examples of people refusing to accept responsibility for their sins, blaming others, and even accepting that they are guilty, hating the punishment and upset the got caught but not remorseful or repentive. And the purpose of the phrase “weeping and gnashing of teeth” is to highight that punishment for sin will be bad, something to be avoided. When highlighting the negative ramifications of sin, one always appeals to the worst-case-scenario at the least, and often uses hyperbole, overstatement to illicit a positive emotional response. And such phrases being hyperbole certainly fit the style of the passages. I mean, few think that Jesus really meant to cut off one’s hands or pluck out one’s eyes to stop sinning. Jesus was using hyperbole to make the point that we need to do all we can to live holy, get sin out of our lives. He wasn’t speaking literally, but hyperbolically.

I find it funny that people want to take warnings of doom and gloom literally, but the passages affirming UR they take as hyperbole or generalizations, even though the literary context of the doom and gloom passages are full of metaphor and hyperbole, and the passages affirming UR tend to be literal, explicit, not metaphorical or hyperbolic.
I suppose in short, as I think about it more, I’d say I’m reading “repentance” into the “weeping and gnashing of teeth” phrase because ultimately I think that when we are all faced with the absolute truth and freed from the deception of evil, we’ll see just how much evil we’ve participated in and, well, our weeping will be full of repentance. And from experience, when I’ven encountered the judgment of God, and faced the truth concerning my own wickedness and evil, it resulted in terrible, heart-renching weeping and repentance.

#43

This seemed like a good excuse to add an entry to my Exegetical Commentary (with a link back here for more discussion). :slight_smile:

Among other things, I point out in detail that Jesus does make direct reference in the parable of the wheat and the weeds to the purpose of the furnace being purgative and salvific (thus also the furnace of the parable of the good and bad fish), even though He doesn’t spell it out for the disciples. In typical rabbinic style He quotes the first part of a scripture, expecting them to contextualize the rest of it; if they don’t, the meaning could be obscured from only the portion quoted alone and they’ll be dishonored as poor students!

In typical Synoptic style, He’s also criticizing His own apostles for having attitudes similar to those of the Pharisees, whom He has just previously lambasted with the sin against the Holy Spirit, and because of whom He had recently switched over to parables.