Tag Archives: Gospel of Matthew

Together in the Field

17 Monday Apr 2023

Posted by in Studies

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Hello and welcome-or welcome back-to Renaissance Woman where, this week, I am continuing to look at the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares.

I do apologize to anyone who has come across this post as your first on Renaissance Woman.  I do try to make each post stand on its own while at the same time building on everything that has come before.  This post does not stand on its own.  I would recommend reading last week’s post, The Seed Sown, before this one or there are going to be references that will make little sense. 

There are two main schools of interpretation when it comes to this parable.  The first says the wheat and the tares are two different kinds of people within the church.  They sit side by side in the pews and are indistinguishable one from the other until Jesus returns and His angels send the tares to the fire and gather the wheat into the barn.  The second disagrees with the first only in the location of the wheat and the tares.  The field is not the church, they say, but the world.  The wheat and tares represent believers and unbelievers which occupy the same world until Jesus returns and His angels send the tares to the fire and gather the wheat into the barn.

I can look at both interpretations and see where they are coming from.  If the wheat and tares are indistinguishable one from the other then it would make sense that Jesus is describing the church.  After all, can’t the argument be made that the difference between believers and unbelievers is obvious?  And yet, Jesus Himself interprets this parable in Matthew 13:36-43 and clearly says “the field is the world” and “the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom but the tares are the sons of the wicked one” so that ought to prove the second interpretation is the correct one.

I have come across a third interpretation put forward by a woman named Dora Van Assen which suggests the parable is a description of what happened in the Garden of Eden.  God created all things, including Adam, and saw it was all very good.  As God fellowshipped with Adam in the garden, He was planting His good thoughts and spiritual understanding in Adam’s mind.  But then, the Serpent came slithering and whispering into the garden and planted evil thoughts and understanding.  Both types of thoughts occupied the same field i.e. the mind of Adam.

This interpretation is very different from anything I have ever heard preached within the confines of Churchdom and it does not appear to be supported by Jesus’ interpretation.  But then, did Jesus truly make this interpretation or was it inserted into the manuscripts at a later date?  I found this assertion made when I looked up the parable in the Abingdon Commentary.  The copy I have was published in 1929 and states that “all scholars reject the genuineness of the explanation in vv. 36-43…”  I mentioned last week my skepticism antennae quivered at “all scholars” because I cannot think of one subject where all scholars are in agreement. 

I went searching for this assertion of “all scholars rejecting” the interpretation given in those passages and could not find a reference.  That doesn’t mean that there are not scholars rejecting said passages just that it has been difficult for me to find them over the last week.  I am thus left with a single resource stating the interpretation given for this parable in verses 36-43 is not genuine and, since our Bible warns against accepting the testimony of a single witness, I am shelving this.  I’ll keep my eyes and ears open and may circle back to it but, for now, will proceed in the acceptance of Jesus’ interpretation.

If Dora Van Assen’s interpretation relied on Matthew 13:36-43 not being genuine, I would dismiss it out of hand.  It does not.  Her interpretation is shared in an article by J. Preston Eby (linked below) and neither make mention of these passages not being genuine.  Both, in fact, treat them as being absolutely genuine.

Dora Van Assen writes, “Some may object to this interpretation of the tares, because Jesus in His explanation of the parable used the words, the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one’ (Mat. 13:38). That does sound as if they are two different kinds of people.  And indeed they are!  If we will just stop for a moment and think this through, we must admit that God is an invisible spirit, and Satan is likewise invisible spirit.  Neither of these produce flesh and blood children of their own!  The new creation is formed in a people who are ‘renewed in the spirit of their mind.’ So the term ‘children’ must be taken as a metaphor.  The Holy Spirit deals with men in their minds and thoughts, and Satan can only attack man in his mind, giving false ideas and imaginations.  These thought-pictures are often called ‘brain children.’ And these determine what manner of man a man is!”

I am (so far) inclined to accept Dora Van Assen’s interpretation.  She points out that the tares never become wheat and the wheat never become tares.  If the wheat and the tares do indeed represent two different kinds of people, there is no hope for the tares.  They are similar in appearance to wheat but cannot ever convert into wheat.  If the interpretations stating the wheat and the tares are the converted and the unconverted or believers and unbelievers, then does it not follow that evangelism is the greatest exercise in futility?  You can share the gospel with another person until you are blue in the face but, if they are indeed a tare, all your sharing is for nothing because they cannot and therefore will not ever respond. 

If though, Dora Van Assen’s interpretation is correct and the wheat and tares are symbolic of thoughts occupying the same field of a person’s heart and mind, then the good seed is there and you can share the gospel in the hope that your words are water falling on that good seed.  I find her interpretation to be far more hopeful than any other I have come across.  But then, it wouldn’t matter how much I liked and preferred it if she was the only source of such an interpretation.

She is not.  I found her same thoughts echoed in the Commentary on this parable found in Barclay’s Daily Study Bible where I read: “It may well be said that in its lessons this is one of the most practical parables Jesus ever told.  It teaches us that there is always a hostile power in the world, seeking and waiting to destroy the good seed.  Our experience is that both kinds of influence act on our lives, the influence which helps the seed of the word to flourish and to grow, and the influence which seeks to destroy the good seed before it can produce fruit at all.  The lesson is that we must be forever on our guard.”

Earlier in this post, I asked if the argument couldn’t be made that the difference between believers and unbelievers was obvious.  I want to include one more quote from the Barclay’s Daily Study Bible: “it (the parable) teaches us how hard it is to distinguish between those who are in the Kingdom and those who are not.  A man may appear to be good and may in fact be bad; and a man may appear to be bad and may yet be good.  We are much too quick to classify people and label them good or bad without knowing all the facts.”  This is something valuable to keep in mind.

I will continue looking at this parable next week but do want to add this as my closing thought: I find interpreting the parable of the wheat and the tares as thoughts resulting from spiritual influences has a direct correlation to the passage in Ephesians describing the armor of God.  We believers are to take the helmet of salvation.  A helmet’s purpose is to protect one’s head and I see a clear picture of the necessity to guard our minds from attack.  But then, that is a subject worth many more weeks’ focus and so I will sign off with this prayer:

May the peace that surpasses all understanding, the peace that belongs entirely to Jesus which He has freely given to us, guard each of our hearts and minds every moment of every day.

Amen.

Unless noted otherwise, all Scriptures are quoted from The Holy Bible, New King James Version, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee, 1982

References

Matthew 13 – Barclay’s Daily Study Bible – Bible Commentaries – StudyLight.org

KINGDOM BIBLE STUDIES: THE FIRSTFRUITS, THE HARVEST, AND THE VINTAGE by J. Preston Eby (godfire.net)

Tares (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)

What Does Tares Mean? Bible Definition and References (biblestudytools.com)

Tares – WebBible Encyclopedia – ChristianAnswers.Net

Eiselen, Frederick Carl, The Abingdon Bible Commentary, Abingdon Press, Nashville •New York, 1929, Page 977

The Seed Sown

10 Monday Apr 2023

Posted by in Studies

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Image by Petra from Pixabay

Hello and welcome-or welcome back-to Renaissance Woman where, this week, I am taking a look at the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares found in Matthew 13:24-30:

“Another parable He put forth to them, saying: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went on his way.  But when the grain had spouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared.  So the servants of the owner came and said to him, “Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field?  How then does it have tares?”  He said to them, “An enemy has done this.”  The servants said to him, “Do you want us then to go and gather them up?”  But he said, “No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.  Let both grow together until the harvest and at the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.” ‘ “

There are two major interpretations of this parable but, before I get to them, a brief lesson on tares.  The consensus is that this passage of scripture is referring to the darnel or Lolium temulentum.  It is a weed that grows among grain, especially wheat.  The grains resemble those of wheat and, since they are difficult to separate by sifting, are often sown with wheat and grow with it in the same field.  Since the darnel is poisonous, no one deliberately sows tares in a field but tares are difficult to distinguish from wheat as the two look similar until they come to full fruition.  Then it becomes easy to separate wheat from tares, to discard what isn’t fit for consumption, and to preserve the desired harvest. 

The sower in this parable made no such mistake.  The parable states he sowed “good seed”.  The poisonous seed was sown by an enemy but presence of the tares wasn’t discovered until the grain had sprouted and produced a crop.  I read that tares will often share the same root system as wheat and they are impossible to remove from a field without damaging the wheat.  It is best to let them both continue to grow together until the time of harvest so none of the wheat is lost. 

What does this parable mean?  There is an explanation given later on in the same chapter of Matthew.  In verse 36, Jesus’s disciples come to him and ask him to explain the parable of the tares of the field and he answers, “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man.  The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one.  The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels.  Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age.”

Now onto the two interpretations of this parable.  The first says this parable speaks of believers and unbelievers within the church, sitting side by side in the seats with each other, indistinguishable from each other until Jesus returns and His angels separate the tares from the wheat.  The second interpretation disagrees with the first and says no, the field is clearly the world as stated by Jesus Himself in Matthew 13:38, therefore; this parable is speaking of the righteous and unrighteous living together in the world until the end of the age when Jesus returns and His angels separate the tares from the wheat.

There is a third interpretation of this parable which was new to me when I first read it so I feel safe in assuming none of you have heard it either.  It is found in J. Preston Eby’s Candlestick to the Throne study series # 173 entitled The Firstfruits, The Harvest, and the Vintage.  In this study, Mr. Eby quotes a woman named Dora Van Assen who wrote not only on the tares and the wheat but the wheat and the chaff.  I couldn’t remember exactly what was said so I got the teaching out and refreshed my memory.

One of the first lines that caught my eye was, “The wheat and the tares did not convert one another!  Wheat was wheat, the tares were tares, both growing up together just like the wheat and the chaff, until the time of harvest.”  This caught my attention because, in an article on Tares, which I found on the Jewish Virtual Library site and is also linked below, I had read the same thing.  Despite the similarities in the grains and immature stalks, wheat does not ever become a tare and a tare does not ever become wheat.  I read on.

“…I saw this was not a parable on soul-saving, nor was it an exhortation to scare the heathen or sinning Christians in the church into a conversion, but it was a parable dealing with the inner thought life of the believer himself.  In the context around the parable we find that Jesus was uttering, ‘things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world’ (Mat. 13:35).  In other words, by this parable, He was explaining in parabolic form something which had taken place from the beginning! I believe He was referring to what had happened in the Garden of Eden when sin entered into the plan of God.  There we find God fellowshipping with Adam in the cool of the day.  Certainly God was not standing there in bodily form any more than He comes in bodily form when we commune with Him and hear His voice.  By the Spirit God was planting His good thoughts and spiritual understanding in the mind of Adam.  But, while Adam was not aware of it, the adversary also came into the garden and whispered and planted evil thoughts and carnal understanding, causing a duality within, which led him to fall into a carnal mind.  This dual mind of both good and evil was a split personality within man, each capable of bringing forth a harvest of a certain kind of man (Romans 8:6).  The battlefield is in the mind!”

I found this interpretation absolutely fascinating and, the more I looked at the other parables, it isn’t as farfetched as it might at first seem.  There’s another Parable of Sowing at the beginning of Matthew Chapter 13 where the seed fell by the wayside and were devoured by birds, some fell on stony places and had no root so withered away, some fell among thorns and were choked, and some fell on good ground.  I don’t know of any interpretation that doesn’t acknowledge the “ground” mentioned here is a picture of the human heart.  I can thus consider the idea that the “field” mentioned in the Parable of the Wheat and Tares is the human mind (and heart-the Hebrew people did not separate the two “as a man thinks in his heart” [Proverbs 23:7]).

But, doesn’t Matthew 13:38 clearly say the field is the world and both the good and bad seeds are children?  Yes, it does but I just read something interesting about this passage.  The Abingdon Bible Commentary states, “All scholars reject the genuineness of the explanation in vv. 36-43 on the ground of its stilted style, and because the interpretations of successive details are mechanical; moreover, the presence of popular and conventional apocalyptic expressions, and the title Son of man, used of the earthly life of Jesus in v. 37 and then of his Messianic glory in v. 41 stamp it as secondary in character” (Abingdon, p. 977).

The moment I read “all scholars” I was skeptical.  There wasn’t one scholar publishing around 1929 who attested to the validity of this passage?  ALL scholars reject their genuineness?  Even so, I couldn’t help rereading the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares thinking, “what if the explanation isn’t correct?”  As I did so, I realized Dora Van Assen’s interpretation made sense.  Still, I cannot accept any interpretation that relies on other parts of scripture being declared invalid.  Does Dora Van Assen’s interpretation of this parable rely in discarding Matthew 13 verses 36-43?  It does not!  Which I will demonstrate in next week’s post.

Until next week, I pray for each of us-including myself-that the Holy Spirit continues to open the eyes of our hearts and grant us the gift of discernment as we face each new day.

Amen.

Unless noted otherwise, all Scriptures are quoted from The Holy Bible, New King James Version, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee, 1982

References

Tares (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)

What Does Tares Mean? Bible Definition and References (biblestudytools.com)

Tares – WebBible Encyclopedia – ChristianAnswers.Net

KINGDOM BIBLE STUDIES: THE FIRSTFRUITS, THE HARVEST, AND THE VINTAGE by J. Preston Eby (godfire.net)

Eiselen, Frederick Carl, The Abingdon Bible Commentary, Abingdon Press, Nashville •New York, 1929

Strong, James, LL.D., S.T.D., The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville Tennessee, 1990

Let’s Put A Pin in That

23 Tuesday Aug 2022

Posted by in Walking in the Way

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Hello and welcome to another post on Renaissance Woman.

I do intend to move on to looking at the Hebrew letter Mem but, before I do that, I have come across another side path I have found it necessary to take.  I hope to be back to my main study track next week but we’ll have to see how it goes.

In last week’s post, I wrote; “The call to all mankind now is ‘Come!’” and included the scripture references Matthew 11:27-29, John 7:37-38, and Revelation 22:17.  To these three I ought to perhaps have added John 12:32 which says, “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself” which is a spectacular scripture I would love to hear more teaching on as I have only come across one.  There are other passages of scripture I could include but I think these four make clear that the call to return to the heart of God does go out to all mankind.  Perhaps though, as you read last week’s post, a passage popped into your head and you wondered, if it is true the call to Come! is to all mankind, then what does this passage mean?  It certainly popped into my head but I did not have the space to address it in last week’s post.  I am doing so this week and thus my brief foray down this side path.

The passage that popped into my mind was Matthew 22:14: “For many are called but few are chosen”. It is Jesus’ closing statement to the parable of the Marriage of the King’s Son.  You can read the parable in Matthew Chapter 22 verses 1-14 but, briefly, it is this: A king has arranged a marriage for his son and he sends his servants out to call those who were invited to the wedding.  The invited ones were not willing to come so his servants went to them a second time telling them all was ready.  Again, those invited refused to come.  Some busied themselves with tasks and others abused and killed the servants.  The king is angry and, after dealing quite harshly with those invited, tells his servants to go out and gather all they could find and bring them to the wedding.  The servants do so and verse 10 says “both bad and good” were brought to the wedding hall.  The king comes out to see the guests and finds one man who did not have on a wedding garment.  The king asks how the man managed to get in without a wedding garment and the man has nothing to say.  The king tells his servants to “bind him hand and foot, take him away, and throw him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (verse 13).  Then, Jesus ends the parable by saying “For many are called, but few are chosen.”

I read through the parable and found the act of choosing was all on the side of both those invited and those gathered by the servants.  The parable is not describing auditioning for the kingdom of heaven as in the call goes out and so we come with our very best ideas of what we think the caller wants and then he decides if we get the part or not based on how close we came to the ideal.  In describing Jesus’ statement in verse 14, the Abingdon Bible Commentary says, “This is a detached saying.  By it Jesus could only have meant that while many hear the word calling to repentance it is only a few who respond to the call.”1  I have a quibble with the word “repentance” but I’ll address that in a bit.  I do see that whether or not one was chosen was based on how they responded.

There is so much to be learned from this parable but I don’t want to stray too far from the main path of my Isaiah 45:7 study.  I will thus put a pin in this parable and will perform an in depth study at a later time.  In this post, I want to look at the responses of the various parties and especially at the one man who was found without a wedding garment.  Those who were of the invited ones chose not to come.  Those gathered from the highways by the servants came but would have had no time to procure a wedding garment.  Both the Abingdon Commentary and the commentary on this parable in The Passion Translation point this out.  The Passion Translation says, “Those invited to come from the streets had no opportunity to buy wedding clothes.  This wedding robe is a picture of the garment of righteousness that grace provides for us.  The man without the wedding garment had one provided but he didn’t want to change into new clothes.  A change is necessary, for our King provides garments of white linen for us to wear, our wedding garments” and then references Isaiah 52:1, Revelation 19:8 (TPT).2

Ellicot’s Bible Commentary describes how this providing of a wedding garment was a custom of the day: “The framework of the parable probably presupposes the Oriental custom of providing garments for the guests who were invited to a royal feast.  Wardrobes filled with many thousand garments form part of the wealth of every Eastern prince (6:19; Jas. 5:2), and it was part of his glory (II Kings 10:22), to bring them out for use on state occasions.  On this assumption, the act of the man who was found “not having a wedding garment” was one of willful insult.  The “wedding garment” is nothing less than the “holiness” without which no man shall see the Lord (Heb. 12:14), and that holiness, as in the framework of the parable and in the realities of the spiritual life, Christ is ever ready to impart to him who truly believes”.3

I don’t know about you but, whenever I come across scripture references used to back up a statement, I look them up.  As I looked at the scriptures referenced in Ellicot’s Bible Commentary, I did not see that providing a wedding garment was indeed an ancient custom.  That cannot be inferred from those specific scriptures.  I checked through my history books and could not find a reference to that custom.  My history books do have examples of garments being given as gifts and there are examples of this in scripture as well.  (See Genesis 45:22, 2 Kings 5:22, Esther 8:15).  The internet did not help me as I searched for examples of kings providing wedding garments.  I was unable to find one but I did find that this was indeed a custom is a belief almost universally held.  That’s good enough for me at this moment.  I will continue to look into it-and if anyone does know of a reference, please let me know-but, for now, I put a pin in that as well.

That the wedding garment was provided is, I think, inferred by the parable.  That the man was expected to be in a wedding garment is clear and, when questioned, the man had no defense.  If there had been any way to appease the king, no doubt the man would have done so.  I accept the servants offered a garment to the man and he refused.  Vincent’s Word Studies speaks on the man not having a garment saying, “It is hardly possible to convey the subtle sense of the negative particle to the English reader.  A different word for not is used in the preceding verse, expressing an outward, objective fact which attracted the king’s notice.  The man had not a wedding garment.  When the king addresses the guest, he is thinking not so much of the outward token of disrespect, as of the guest’s mental attitude toward the proprieties of the occasion….It implies, as Dr. Morison observes, that the man was conscious of the omission when he entered and was intentionally guilty of the neglect.”4

Both the Abingdon Commentary and The Passion Translation point out the universality of the king’s call.  The Passion Translation says, “Many are called.  This can be understood to be a Semitic figure of speech that universalizes the invitation.  See also Matt. 20:28” (TPT)5 while the Abingdon Commentary says, “The deep universal note of the gospel sounds forth clearly in this parable.”6  I am fascinated by the fact that Matthew’s gospel says “both good and bad” were brought to the feast.  There was no distinction between the guests.  The right to stay and enjoy the king’s celebration was based entirely on whether or not they chose to wear the appropriate garment.  Just what is this garment?

I concur with all of the writers I’ve read who say it is the garment of Jesus’ righteousness.  I do not concur with those who speak of this garment as something external to us.  I hear teachers saying things along the lines of, “God doesn’t see your sin because He sees you through his Son” like we believers are wearing Jesus suits and that makes us acceptable to God.  God doesn’t see our sin because the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7).  The parable is not explicit but I think washing is implied.  If those the servants brought in from the highways had no time to procure a wedding garment, neither would they have had time to bathe.  I cannot imagine a wedding garment would have been put over smelly stinking skin and then the guests sent in to the feast where their aroma would fight it out with the aromas of the food the king had had prepared.  I think this parable points to the fact that we are cleansed by the blood of Christ and we are presented to Him glorious, without spot or wrinkle or blemish by the washing of water by the word (Ephesians 5:26-27).  Not only are we cleansed but clothed in fine linen which is the righteous acts of the saints: not self-righteousness which is as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6) but the righteousness we now are in Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21). 

The call is to each one of us and it is not to repentance.  The fact that the Greek word metanoia has been translated “repentance” in our Bible is, I think, a travesty.  Repentance at its core means to do penance over and over and over and anyone caught in that loop does not know the truth: that Jesus Christ has put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself and did so one time for sins forever.  (Hebrews 10: 26, 10:12, 7:27).  Instead of repentance, metanoia! Change your mind! That Jesus Christ did live and die and rise again thus putting away sins is not dependent on our belief.  It was done long before any of us lived though He acted as and for all mankind and we living today were included.  The life it is possible to live is ours because Jesus our Saviour is self-giving love and whether or not we believe it doesn’t change what is.  However, it is impossible to live in the freedom that is ours in Christ Jesus without believing it.  Let’s remove the pin and no longer keep this life in Christ something to think about at a later time.  Heed His call!  Respond! Ask the Holy Spirit to open your eyes and change your mind!  Come and live a life where there is no guilt or condemnation.  Walk according to His Spirit rather than the flesh because the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made us free from the law of sin and death! (See Romans 8:1-2) 

That is something to celebrate!

  1. Eiselen, Frederick Carl, Edwin Lewis, and David G. Downey, editors., The Abingdon Bible Commentary, The Abingdon Press, Inc., Nashville • New York, 1929, Page 988
  2. Passion and Fire Ministries, The Passion Translation, 2020 Edition, Broadstreet Publishing Group, LLC, 2020, Page 65
  3. Ellicot, Charles John, Ellicot’s Bible Commentary, Zondervan Publishing, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1971, Pages 733-734
  4. Vincent, Marvin R., D.D., Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, Volume I, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts, Pages 120-121
  5. Passion and Fire Ministries, The Passion Translation, 2020 Edition, Broadstreet Publishing Group, LLC, 2020, Page 65
  6. Eiselen, Frederick Carl, Edwin Lewis, and David G. Downey, editors., The Abingdon Bible Commentary, The Abingdon Press, Inc., Nashville • New York, 1929, Page 988

Unless noted otherwise, all Scriptures are quoted from The Holy Bible, New King James Version, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee, 1982

More Reading on the Wedding Garment:

The Wedding Garment (gracegems.org)

He Got Kicked Out Of The Wedding! – Michael A. Verdicchio (confidenceandjoy.com)

My previous post on our thoughts being our garments:

https://renaissancewoman.blog/2022/06/20/hey-what-are-you-wearing/