Christs parables

Originally posted by vistesd
Just be straightforward, ToO: is the parable referring to the first or second birth?

Again, in the parable, the righteous (the wheat) are sewn as the righteous, and the wicked (the tares) are sewn as the wicked--[b]and remain so. There is no room, in this parable, for change or perfection. Period. (As long as the wheat and tares stand for actual sewing--under the clear terms of the parable.

Look carefully at the terms of the parable.[/b]

It's a loaded question.

The parable (in its entirety) is not referring to either.

Not that I believe that all of the following should necessarily be read into this parable, but for simplicities sake imagine this:
Everyone is born as a "tare" (with "the flesh" as the seed).
Some are "born again" as "wheat" (with "the spirit" as the seed).

You know, I keep hoping that you will "Look carefully at the terms of the parable". Perhaps it will help if you ask yourself what questions the parable is primarily concerned with answering?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
(Matthew 13:24-30) Another illustration he set before them, saying: “The kingdom of the heavens has become like a man that sowed fine seed in his field. While men were sleeping, his enemy came and oversowed weeds in among the wheat, and left. When the blade sprouted and produced fruit, then the weeds appeared also. So the slaves of the householder ca ...[text shortened]... p, then go to gathering the wheat into my storehouse.’”

To what does Christ refer to and why?

Its not a biblical case for growing weed is it 🙂 ?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
It's a loaded question.

The parable (in its entirety) is not referring to either.

Not that I believe that all of the following should necessarily be read into this parable, but for simplicities sake imagine this:
Everyone is born as a "tare" (with "the flesh" as the seed).
Some are "born again" (with "the spirit" as the seed) as "wheat".

You k ...[text shortened]... you ask yourself what questions the parable is primarily concerned with answering?

Jesus gave many parables. I believe it is because no single analogy or parable is good enough to be able to incorporate all the ideas of the kingdom of heaven. So there is no need in trying to read more than Jesus has explained into the parable.

The Instructor

Originally posted by e4chris
Its not a biblical case for growing weed is it 🙂 ?

Sounds to me like God wants to 'burn' it all himself. 😠

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Sounds to me like God wants to 'burn' it all himself. 😠

what have you been smoking? 😵

Originally posted by e4chris
what have you been smoking? 😵

The security at Jesus' wheat fields is pretty lax. For a cool fiver, the guard let me sneak in through a hole in the fence. I even smoked some with him after I brought it back.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Jesus gave many parables. I believe it is because no single analogy or parable is good enough to be able to incorporate all the ideas of the kingdom of heaven. So there is no need in trying to read more than Jesus has explained into the parable.
The Instructor

And where is the discussion of the poor weeds who, despite a great longing to be wheat, are thrust aside and burned alive? :'(

It’s not a matter of relative strength among attributes; it’s a matter of an attribute needing to be understood in terms of God’s essence. God’s righteousness, for example, must be an expression of God’s essence as agape, regardless of whatever might otherwise be said about righteousness. We are limited in how we are to read any/all such attributes and activities of God, once we accept (if we do accept) that the qualitative nominative predicate in 1st John entails a statement of God’s essence. That means we need to interpret (an re-interpret, if necessary) other terms and texts in that light—even if it goes against what we have believed and assume.

I am going to assume that you are making a grammatical case, appealing to New Testament Greek language technicalities, to make a theological case that about God judging with fire.

I am not sure what that case is you are making. The teaching of the tares and wheat is so crystal clear, I'm not sure what effect your analysis has on a straightforward reading in English.

Other places reveal "the kindness and severity of God" (Rom. 11:22).

His love is kind. His judgment can be sever. In the parable we see both at work together. The love and kindness cause the wheat, as sons of God, to shine in the kingdom of their Father as the sun -

"Then the righteous will shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of their Father." (Matt. 13:43a)

And the severity of judgment is displayed upon the tares -

"And will cast them into the furnace of fire. In that place there will be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth." (v.42)

Therefore, the consuming fire must be an expression of agape; likewise light.

If you are trying to eradicate God's retributive judgment by swallowing up all of God's actions as agape love it will not work.

It may be arguable that the " consuming fire " that God is in Hebrews 12:29 could be either curative or retribution. I would not deny that Hebrews 12:29 could be saying God the consuming fire is there in reference to disobedient children of God for whom eternal salvation has already been settled in the affirmative.

Yes, indeed I would say God's love is surely behind His discipline of His own children. But as I showed in another thread there are those who become a curse to God. They have become unable to redeem and beyond reach of any response to God's love.

"Go away from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." (Matt. 25:41)

Some who were under God's love will be cursed to go into eternal life. And "eternal fire" verse 41 is exactly the "eternal punishment" of verse 46.

"And these shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (v.46)

The former are beyond remedy, beyond correction with no hope of redemption and no hope of reconciliation with the God who is love. Certainly to them God as a consuming fire is not curative. Do you agree ?

(Remember that judgment is neither the verdict nor the sentence, even in a juridical (pardon/punishment) model of salvation; in the healing model, it is diagnosis.)

I think you are obfuscating here quite much. I mean you are making overly intricate a biblical matter which is quite clear cut so that even a 2nd grader could grasp it.

If you read Matthew 13:42,43 and you have a reaction of fear such that you do not want to be a tare, then you have gotten the right meaning.

If you read Matthew 25:41,46 and the thought of being one of the goats there rather than one of the sheep there causes you to tremble with terror, then you have gotten the right reaction.

Needless to say, simultaneously, if the thought of God being love warms your heart towards God, and the thought of being one of His sheep or one of His wheat or "sons of God" thrills you, then you have gotten the right interpretation.

The reader may have BOTH reactions together SIMULTANEOUSLY and be completely justified that the passage is understood.

Ie. "Behold the kindness and severity of God." (Rom. 11:22)

It is not the tumors that weep, it is the patient that is undergoing the treatment. (Okay, I used a physical affliction, whereas hamartia is a psychological/spiritual affliction.)

In the PARABLE, in the EXPLANATION that Jesus Himself gives of His teaching it is the weeping and the gnashing of teeth of the PEOPLE who are thrown by the angels into the furnace of fire.

Does the saved Christian sometimes weep in the process of sanctification ? Yes. Do the eternally saved sometimes weep in the process of transformation and conformation ? Yes they do.

But in THIS particular teaching the weeping is for pure punishment. And the gnashing of teeth is perhaps the frustration of self blame or maybe mere hopelessness.

God is the God of eternal encouragement to the saved. I have wept under His transforming hand at times. But I did not gnash my teeth in seething anger because God is a God of hope and eternal encouragement.

"Now no discipline at the present time seems to be a matter of joy, but of grief; but afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been exercised by it." (Heb. 12:11)

This is the grief under the curative discipline of a loving Father to perfect His sons.

Probably that is not what is indicated in the tares being thrown into the furnace of fire. And it certainly is not the case of the goats going away cursed into the eternal fire of eternal punishment.

The explanation, as well as the parable seems clearly metaphorical—or do you believe that there are (wholly righteous) seeds that are “sons of the kingdom”, and (wholly wicked) seeds that are “sons of the evil one?

I am not completely sure what you are asking me here.

If in reading the parable, the thought of being a righteous son causes you to come to Christ then you have definitely gotten the right meaning of the teaching.

If in reading it, the thought of possibly being a tare or counterfeit son of God fills you with concern, then you have gotten the right meaning.

In both cases the reaction should drive you to the Lord Jesus Christ to be justified positionally and made righteous dispositionally as well. The teaching should urge the reader to come to Jesus. And if already knowing Jesus should encourage Him to get to know Him deeper still.

He is the one who pronounces who is righteous according to His standard of righteousness and who is not.

Do you take “sons” literally or metaphorically? Do you ascribe to Calvinistic double predestination? [I mean those as serious questions, not just rhetorical or argumentative ones.]

Sons of their Father means that they have His life. The begetting Father has begotten them by imparting His Spirit into them. They have been born of a life imparting Father and share His life and nature but not His Godhead.

The Triune God is dispensed into the sons. And the sons are in the process of maturation. This is why the master of the house tells the servants not to try to separate out of the world the tares from the wheat. They may make a mistake during this time of them growing together. It is not always easy for Christians to tell counterfeit Christians.

At the end of the age the angels will do the job without mistake. And the sons of God themselves ripen and mature into a harvest of growth in that divine life.

Now having said that I would add - in context of the whole book of Matthew, the righteous who enter into the kingdom of the heavens there may be rewarded at different levels. But that is another matter.

Here it simply says the righteous will shine in the kingdom of their Father. Elsewhere in the same book we see the servant with ten talents awarded in one way and the servant with five talents awarded in another way. So this entering into the kingdom of the heavens in Matthew is mostly related to entering into the millennial kingdom of 1,000 years.

At that stage there are rewards of different levels for those sanctified righteous ones who are given to enter into that age.

"Therefore whoever annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of the heavens; but whoever practices and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens." (5:19)

Notice, you have here one who is least in the kingdom of the heavens and one who is called great in the kingdom of the heavens. Both however are in the kingdom of the heavens.

So there are degrees of reward in the millennial kingdom. And there are also degrees of discipline to the saved. But in the parable of the wheat and tares this detail is not covered. It is just a general statement that the sons of God will shine in the kingdom of their Father like the sun. This is general.

I’ll think about your “future worlds”, but remember—the need to either destroy or punish eternally means that God is unable to heal the affliction. It also means that people must be in full knowing consciousness, with no impairment of their consciousness due to hamartia.

I'll respond to this in another post. This post is long enough.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote]It’s not a matter of relative strength among attributes; it’s a matter of an attribute needing to be understood in terms of God’s essence. God’s righteousness, for example, must be an expression of God’s essence as agape, regardless of whatever might otherwise be said about righteousness. We are limited in how we are to read any/all such attributes an I'll respond to this in another post. This post is long enough.

I wrote this but it confuses me. It was very late.

Some who were under God's love will be cursed to go into eternal life. And "eternal fire" verse 41 is exactly the "eternal punishment" of verse 46.

It is a typo. I meant to write this:

Some who were under God's love will be cursed to go into eternal [fire.] And "eternal fire" verse 41 is exactly the "eternal punishment" of verse 46.

Here it simply says the righteous will shine in the kingdom of their Father. Elsewhere in the same book we see the servant with ten talents awarded in one way and the servant with five talents awarded in another way

This I wrote but it is not quite accurate.
If compared to the sister passage about the pounds on Luke it may be assumed that different degrees of reward are there in Matthew also.

In Luke one servant is to reign over ten cities.
The other servant is to reign over five cities.

And I did not say anything about "double predestination" of Calvin because I would have to go study exactly what is meant by that.

That means we need to interpret (an re-interpret, if necessary) other terms and texts in that light—even if it goes against what we have believed and assumed,

simply brilliant.

Our take (Jehovahs Witnesses) is that it is prophetic of a foretold apostasy, in which true teaching would be mixed with false the result being true Christians (wheat) and false ones (weeds) Paul himself alludes to this,

(Acts 20:29, 30) I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.

(2 Timothy 4:3) For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
It's a loaded question.

The parable (in its entirety) is not referring to either.

Not that I believe that all of the following should necessarily be read into this parable, but for simplicities sake imagine this:
Everyone is born as a "tare" (with "the flesh" as the seed).
Some are "born again" as "wheat" (with "the spirit" as the seed).

You k ...[text shortened]... you ask yourself what questions the parable is primarily concerned with answering?

Now, I'll consider that.

Originally posted by vistesd
Now, I'll consider that.

Let me know what you come up with.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
That means we need to interpret (an re-interpret, if necessary) other terms and texts in that light—even if it goes against what we have believed and assumed,

simply brilliant.

You JWs need to redefine and reinterprete many things.

The Instructor

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Our take (Jehovahs Witnesses) is that it is prophetic of a foretold apostasy, in which true teaching would be mixed with false the result being true Christians (wheat) and false ones (weeds) Paul himself alludes to this,

(Acts 20:29, 30) I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with t ...[text shortened]... with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled.

The apostasy for the Jehovah's Witnesses came by way of the Millerites, Charles Taze Russell, and Joseph Rutherford down through the Watchtower Society of today. However, this was just a rekindling of the Arian apostasy or heresay of long ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Apostasy

The Arian Crisis

YouTube

The Instructor