# The Wheat and the Tares (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43)



## cultureshock (Feb 2, 2006)

I have often heard the parable of the wheat and the tares used to justify the "mixed multitude" view of the church. While I agree with that position on the basis of other passages, I cannot figure out, for the life of me, why this parable is used to support that doctrine. Recently, I heard R.C. Sproul use it this way, so I was prompted to post here:

When Jesus explains the parable in Matt. 13:38-39, he says that the field that contains wheat and tares is, not the church, but the _world_. And the good and bad seed will be separated on the last day.

In light of this, why is the text so persistently used to support the mixed multitude view of the _church_? Did Augustine use it that way, or someone else, and that is why Reformed commentators continue to do so? Or is there something I'm missing exegetically?

Also, as a secondary question, if the parable indeed refers to the world as a mixed multitude, rather than the church, what do all you postmillenarians do with this passage?

Brian


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 2, 2006)

Well... it is a _wheat_ field, after all, and not a tares-field.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 2, 2006)

The Question:



> _Originally posted by cultureshock_
> 
> if the parable indeed refers to the world as a mixed multitude, rather than the church, what do all you postmillenarians do with this passage?




The Answer:



> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Well... it is a _wheat_ field, after all, and not a tares-field.







I personally love to use that passage to demonstrate postmillenialism. The great majority of the world's population will be saved. They will be predominantly wheat, not tares.


----------



## cultureshock (Feb 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Well... it is a _wheat_ field, after all, and not a tares-field.


Bruce, ok, but since when can the word "kosmos" mean "church"? I'm not seeing the connection. Could you explain where you're going with this? As I read it, Jesus seems to be talking about the "world" in the sense of the created world of men, including believers and unbelievers. You may be able to make that conclusion, and even be right, but I just don't see it in this passage.

Joseph, I think it's a stretch to infer from this parable the proportion of believers to unbelievers at the end of the age, even a general proportion such as "most" vs. "few". Because parables communicate analogically, it should not be expected that every aspect of the analogy has a referent in reality. Maybe postmil can be shown from other passages, but this connection is sketchy at best, in my opinion.

Brian


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 3, 2006)

> Maybe postmil can be shown from other passages, but this connection is sketchy at best, in my opinion.



But when you combine all the passages....


----------



## pastorway (Feb 3, 2006)

this passage cannot be used to say the field is the church. The field is the world. Period. It is poor hermenuetics to then make inferences about the church, in fact, it is ignoring context, language, and the intent of the passage.

It is just as bad as Arminian churches using Rev 3:20 for evangelism - "Behold I stand at the door and knock...."

But there at least it IS the church! 

[Edited on 2-3-06 by pastorway]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 3, 2006)

Who here said it was the church?


----------



## pastorway (Feb 3, 2006)

nobody.....I was just sayin'........


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 3, 2006)

Ok then.

The debate then seems to be that it can't reflect postmill thought. Any more to say in that regard?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 3, 2006)

I disagree with those who say it's not a good postmil passage.

It would have been just as easy for Jesus to say that there was a huge tare field, and that God planted some wheat here and there in it.

It would not have been any more difficult for Jesus to have portrayed it as a field predominantly containing tares, rather than predominantly containing wheat.

Jesus had two choices: call it a wheat field, or call it a tare field.

I believe Jesus made the correct choice.



For those who disagree, the burden of proof is on them. You would need to exegetically demonstrate why Jesus *had* to call it a wheat field, not a tare field, even though calling it a "tare field" would have presumably been more accurate regarding the percentage of the redeemed.



[Edited on 2-3-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## cultureshock (Feb 3, 2006)

Joseph, like I said before:


> _Originally posted by cultureshock_
> Because parables communicate analogically, it should not be expected that every aspect of the analogy has a referent in reality.


I would suggest that you are reading too deeply into the analogy.

It seems to me that Jesus' point is a simple one about reserving judgment (the uprooting) for God on the last day.

Brian


----------



## pastorway (Feb 3, 2006)




----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by cultureshock_
> Joseph, like I said before:
> 
> 
> ...




And I would suggest that you are (unintentionally) demeaning Christ's ability as a teacher.

He could have easily made the same point about judgment being reserved for the last day, while talking about it as a "tare field" instead of as a "wheat field". 

Therefore, the main point of the parable (eschatological judgment) has no bearing on why Jesus chose the "wheat field" analogy instead of the "tare field" analogy.

If you are correct about most people going to hell, then Jesus picked a poor analogy here, when He could have picked a much better one that would have still served His main purpose. Thus, you are unwittingly accusing Jesus of being a poor teacher.

Please note: I am saying that you are doing this unintentionally, not willfully.


----------



## Dan.... (Feb 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> I disagree with those who say it's not a good postmil passage.
> 
> It would have been just as easy for Jesus to say that there was a huge tare field, and that God planted some wheat here and there in it.
> ...



Following your logic, it cannot be a support for Post-millennialism. To be a support fot Post-millennialism, He would have needed to say that it was first a "tare field", that _over an extended period of time became_ a "wheat field", although some tares remained until the end. To start off with a [predominately] wheat field (using your logic) would mean that the "golden age" was already in effect and the the majority of the world was already Christian.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> 
> Following your logic, it cannot be a support for Post-millennialism. To be a support fot Post-millennialism, He would have needed to say that it was first a "tare field", that _over an extended period of time became_ a "wheat field", although some tares remained until the end. To start off with a [predominately] wheat field (using your logic) would mean that the "golden age" was already in effect and the the majority of the world was already Christian.



Wrong. 

The wheat are not Christians. Rather, they are the elect (who of course eventually become Christians).

The field represents people over all time, compressing all of redemptive history onto a single "field". And that field consists mostly of wheat, not tares, because the majority of all people over all time are elect, and will go to Heaven. 

The non-elect living in the past are a drop in the bucked compared to the elect yet to come.


Plus, as was stated earlier, Christ's main point was to point out the reservation of judgment until the last day. Had he gotten into greater detail and made it a "tare field that becomes a wheat field", then that _would_ have detracted from his main point.





[Edited on 2-3-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Feb 3, 2006)

Are there really fields dedicated to the production of tares?

The option that Jesus could have used Wheat field or Tare field seems rather alleged. It sounds the same as if we are arguing that He could have used "grass field" or "weed field". Regardless if there exists fields full of weeds, does anyone refer to a field in such a manner? Does a farmer intentionally dedicate a field to the production or weeds or in this case, tares?

I could see an "option" being presented if Jesus was talking about Wheat and Corn, so Him using the designation of a wheat field over a corn field would be indeed relevant, but in this case, unless tare fields were just as common back then as a wheat field, the designation of the field type seems irrelevant.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> unless tare fields were just as common back then as a wheat field, the designation of the field type seems irrelevant.



Chris,

Tare fields _were_ common back then, just as they are common today. 

ANY field not currently being farmed is a tare field. Fields don't grow mostly wheat unless they are specifically cultivated to do so. 

And it is even common for regularly farmed fields to be tare fields once in a while . . . when they are being left to lie fallow.

If postmillenialism were false, then it would have made a LOT more sense for Jesus to say something like this:


"The world is like a field full of weeds, not being cultivated at all. Then a farmer comes and drops some wheat seed among the weeds. Someone then asks, 'should we pull the weeds so the wheat can grow without competition?' And the farmer answers, "no, just let 'em both grow together until harvest time.'"

But of course no farmer would do this. Rather, a farmer does cultivate the field, and makes sure that it is predominantly wheat. God is a good farmer, not a bad one. He doesn't have a whole field just to mainly grow weeds. He plants lots of wheat, because He wants wheat. And overall, there are some weeds, but when all is said and done, it isn't a weed field.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Feb 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> ...



Joseph, I am not necessarily saying that Postmillennialism is false. I am questioning the use of such an argument stating that Jesus had the option of two descriptions of the field He was referring to. I can believe that tare fields were common and are common today, but what I question is the designation of such fields. It is common for people to call a field full of wheat, a "wheat field." But it is not so common to see a field full of weeds or tares and call it a "weed field" or a "tare field."

If such a designation is or was as common as "wheat" or "grass" is common in describing a field, then fine, but in my experience the designation is not common language - at least today.


----------



## cultureshock (Feb 3, 2006)

Look, you guys are missing the point. Jesus calls the field the "world". So how does that come to be interpreted "church" in many Reformed commentators? And should it?

Brian


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Feb 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by cultureshock_
> Look, you guys are missing the point. Jesus calls the field the "world". So how does that come to be interpreted "church" in many Reformed commentators? And should it?
> 
> Brian



Eschatologically speaking, the world is the Church's Canaan or promised land.


----------



## cultureshock (Feb 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> Eschatologically speaking, the world is the Church's Canaan or promised land.



Ok, that I can agree with, theologically. But is that the point of this passage? (This is the _exegetical_ forum, after all)

If so, justify _exegetically_.

Sorry, I don't mean to split hairs, but I did post this in the exegetical forum, and not the theological forum, for a reason.

Brian


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Feb 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by cultureshock_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> ...



I don't think that is the point of the passage. Jesus said there are sons of God and sons of the devil together in the world. In the end, the sons of God will all be gathered and the sons of the devil will be burned up. Until that time the world will consist of both.

This passage is not talking about the local church. Jesus is talking about the world in which the church (consisting of visible Israel) is part of. Within this mixed world the visible church will reside with evil until the day the world is rid of all sons of the devil and only consists of sons of God.


----------



## cultureshock (Feb 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> I don't think that is the point of the passage. Jesus said there are sons of God and sons of the devil together in the world. In the end, the sons of God will all be gathered and the sons of the devil will be burned up. Until that time the world will consist of both.
> 
> This passage is not talking about the local church. Jesus is talking about the world in which the church (consisting of visible Israel) is part of. Within this mixed world the visible church will reside with evil until the day the world is rid of all sons of the devil and only consists of sons of God.



Ok, yeah, this is in line with my conclusions so far. Therefore, if you and I are right about the point of this passage, then it is wrong for commentators to use it to support the "mixed multitude" view of the church.

Brian


----------

