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!) 
Love, Cindy
Sadly for the UR perspective, there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that weeds / tares / chaff gets refined in a furnace 
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
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 
)
Blessings
Dick
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).
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.
This seemed like a good excuse to add an entry to my Exegetical Commentary (with a link back here for more discussion). 
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.
I should probably add that I’m not yet finished commenting on Matt 13 and its Synoptic parallels. Some of the connections are very interesting although not immediately obvious: for example, Mark and Matthew report the parable of the mustard seed here, but Luke reports it shortly before his account (unique to his Gospel) of the man who came to Christ asking if only a few were being saved–and being rebuked for thinking such a thing, with language echoing Matt 13 and parallels! “You shall be standing outside” being told to stay outside because the Lord doesn’t know where you, the man asking the question, are from, and being ordered to depart as a doer of non-fair-togetherness, weeping and gnashing teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and those coming from east and west and north and south reclining at the table in the kingdom of God but you being outside.
Notably, this warning is very similar to that launched against “the sons of the kingdom” in Matt 8, previous to what Jesus says in Matt 13!
Anyway, that’s over in Luke; there is a hill of material still to dig through and report on in Matt 13 and its parallels in GosMark and GosLuke.
Greetings, I just found this post.
The scriptures have the answer to our questions. We need to pray for Holy Spirit to help us the hear the answer.
Here is an article on the “Wheat or Weeds”. Please mouse over the scriptures especially. Without them it is merely another opinion.
Article: wheatorweeds-obadiah.blogspot.com/
I hope you enjoy the perspective that the scriptures give.
Agape, Obadiah
Mmmm. Looks like propaganda for the Jehovah’s Witnesses to me, Obadiah. As are your other two posts 
. 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).
I’m not entirely sure why someone would create a whole new blogspot account to write one article, but it’s a free internet. 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! )
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. )
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. 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.
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.
While I was finishing up Dr. R’s tome (commentary to follow someday over in its thread when I get around to it ), 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.
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!