The Parable of the Wheat & the Tares & its Explanation

[One Bad Pig]

The problem is in saying this you treat the image of the tares being seperated from the wheat, but not the image of the tares being burnt up. Sure, the fire is not necessarily literal, but the result must in some way be the same in the metaphor and in reality (and the result in the metaphor is that the tares are completely destroyed. It's essentially the same image as Malachi 4, where the wicked are burned like chaff, leaving neither root nor branch. The image is that what is being burnt will be no more.)

Well, the image is that what is being burnt will be reduced to ashes. I'm generally skeptical of taking apocalyptic imagery literally. We know that the soul continues even after the body perishes (2 Pet 1:14), and I would hope that being burned up by fire in this life would not preclude resurrection. If nothing else, the volition of the wicked would seem to be entirely destroyed, leaving them no capacity for wickedness.

[KingsGambit]

Coming from an annihilationist viewpoint, I actually do not see the apocalyptic and parabolic statements of destruction to be the strongest argument for the doctrine, though it is notable that this is one of the most common referents for the end of the wicked. One could easily interpret, say, the Malachi 4 passage as referring to the end of the wicked's reign/power/actions on Earth. There are a few NT passages (2 Peter 3:7 and Jude 1:7) that are better for the advancement of this kind of argument because they seem more literal in their statements, but I won't derail the thread by going into detail about those here.

[AndrewManuel]

Ok. Thanks for the clarification.

They are like the tares in that they are separated from not-tares, gathered together, and thrown into fire [though the fire in the case of the wicked is not necessarily literal].

Comprehensible for those who thought they were righteous, certainly. I'm not so sure the wicked would accept such judgment as inevitable until it actually started.

Well, the image is that what is being burnt will be reduced to ashes. I'm generally skeptical of taking apocalyptic imagery literally. We know that the soul continues even after the body perishes (2 Pet 1:14), and I would hope that being burned up by fire in this life would not preclude resurrection. If nothing else, the volition of the wicked would seem to be entirely destroyed, leaving them no capacity for wickedness.

I don't think anybody is taking these metaphors literally (a metaphor is by definition is not litteral), but the metaphor needs to be interpreted, and we do seem to have images of total destruction here.

We do indeed know that the righteous and the wicked will be ressurected, and I personally believe that this passage speaks of what happens to the wicked at judgement after this ressurection (it would make little sense to see it as referring to this life, as the righteous and the wicked die in the same way at the end of our current life). It's at this moment that the wicked are thrown into the lake of fire, described as the second death, and it is this second death Jesus speaks of when Jesus says in Matthew 10:28 to fear Him who can destroy body and soul in Hell (the word 'destroy' here is always used elsewhere in the synoptic gospels to mean 'kill' when one person acts on another, and it would seem nonsensical for Jesus to say to fear Him who can but won't destroy the body and soul of the wicked in Hell).

[The Remonstrant]

I think we can all agree that the righteous are in some way like the wheat and the unrighteous like the tares (not litterally so, but metaphorically). So, in your opinion, in what way exactly are the wicked like the tares?

They are like the tares in that they are separated from not-tares, gathered together, and thrown into fire [though the fire in the case of the wicked is not necessarily literal].

The problem is in saying this you treat the image of the tares being seperated [sic] from the wheat, but not the image of the tares being burnt up. Sure, the fire is not necessarily literal, but the result must in some way be the same in the metaphor and in reality (and the result in the metaphor is that the tares are completely destroyed. It's essentially the same image as Malachi 4, where the wicked are burned like chaff, leaving neither root nor branch. The image is that what is being burnt will be no more.)

AndrewManuel:

I essentially agree. In message #6 above, under the heading "The Parable of the Wheat & the Tares & Jesus' Explanation Revisited", I commented

In Matthew 13 Jesus' explanation of the parable of the wheat and the tares establishes the purging of stumbling blocks/causes to sin and lawless persons from the kingdom (vv.36-43). To say that these will be cast into a fiery furnace at the end of the age is simply another way to say they will be done away with. The furnace of fire (13:42a) need not be understood literally. Most likely it should not. If stumbling blocks/causes to sin are said to be thrown into a furnace we must understand the fire depicted by Jesus as in some way symbolically serving the function of destroying evil and cleansing the kingdom of all that is vile or contrary to the rule of God. A literal fire is simply not required. However, the image or the symbol of fire means something. It symbolizes the end of sin and sinners in this text, not their perpetuation in torment (as in ECT).¹

Regarding "the furnace of fire" Jesus speaks of in his explanation of the parable of the wheat and the tares and the parable of the nets (13:42,50), Kim Papaioannou observes, "It is drawn almost verbatim from Daniel 3:6."² Unless we are given good reason to believe otherwise, the fiery furnace in Matthew 13:42 should be understood in keeping with the usage of the concept in Daniel. Keeping this in mind, it is clear that the purpose or function of the furnace of fire in Daniel is to destroy or annihilate anything thrown in its path. Similarly, in Matthew that which is discarded in the fiery furnace must be done away with. This conclusion is only strengthened once we take into consideration the immediate context of the parable and Jesus' interpretation thereof. At harvest time, wheat is to be gathered in order to be preserved in the barn and weeds gathered in order to be burned up, thus purging the master's field³ (13:30). When Jesus interprets the parable, we learn the following:

1. At the end of the age, the righteous ("the wheat") will be separated from the unrighteous ("the weeds").
2. The righteous will be saved, the unrighteous—and all stumbling blocks/causes to sin—destroyed.

In other words, the kingdom will be thoroughly cleansed of all that is opposed to the reign of Christ and the Father.

The relative "literalness" of the fire imagery is actually of little import to the discussion. I made it clear in message #6 and the opening post above that this is a non-issue even from an annihilationist perspective. Imagery of tares being consumed by fire at harvest time and lawless persons being cast into a furnace of fire at the end of the age both convey total, irreversible destruction. Practically speaking, it does not matter whether the wicked are literally burned up in a real fire. Supposing we are to understand the furnace of fire in a metaphorical or figurative sense, it serves as a symbol denoting the end of sin and sinners (13:40-42). Either way, the unrighteous will be done away with once and for all at the end of the age. The point remains: Whereas Matthew 13:24-30,36-43 comports well with final annihilation, it does not sit comfortably alongside the conventional understanding of final punishment understood as endless conscious torment.


Notes

¹ Emphasis added.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ts-Explanation

² K. Papaioannou, The Geography of Hell in the Teaching of Jesus: Gehenna, Hades, the Abyss, the Outer Darkness Where There Is Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2013), p.204.

³ John the Baptist provides us with a similar analogy to the parable of the wheat and the tares earlier in Matthew's Gospel. The preservation of wheat is likened to those escaping God's wrath and the burning up of chaff to the destruction of the unrepentant in 3:12: "His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (NASB).

[RBerman]

OBP, how can it matter how many parts the wicked are composed of? This parable, and its specific interpretation by Jesus, tells us repeatedly that the wicked will be burned up while the good are "stored away". The emphasis on this burning up is repeated and stressed, while the idea that the righteous are stored is amplified to mean that they will be glorified.

Nothing in this passage can justify the idea that some part of the wicked will survive the burning; and elsewhere we see the specific point that the burning in hell has the power to destroy both body and soul.

It's one thing to hold an interpretation of imagery lightly; it's another thing entirely to insist, as you do, on holding Christ's interpretation of imagery lightly, and casting scorn on people who attempt to read it.

I don't think anyone would use this parable to "justify the idea that some part of the wicked will survive the burning." It's not intended to speak to that issue at all, any more than the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20) is intended to teach that there are only five classes of workers in God's labors. I agree with OBP's assessment that one cannot derive actual support for annihilationism from this text, though one can certainly read it from an annihilationist perspective.

[The Remonstrant]

I don't think anyone would use this parable to "justify the idea that some part of the wicked will survive the burning." It's not intended to speak to that issue at all, any more than the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20) is intended to teach that there are only five classes of workers in God's labors. I agree with OBP's assessment that one cannot derive actual support for annihilationism from this text, though one can certainly read it from an annihilationist perspective.

I find the dismissal rather convenient. The problem is that we are not dealing with the parable of the wheat and the tares standing in isolation. Comparing the parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16) to the parable of the wheat and the tares is not comparing like with like (other than the fact that both happen to be parables). Jesus provides us with a detailed explanation of the latter (13:36-43), but not the former. The parable of the wheat and the tares is a kingdom parable that relates to the consummation of all things when Christ returns, the day of judgement, the separation of the righteous from the unrighteous, &c. According to OBP's interpretation (message #2 above), the only significance of the parable and its interpretation by Jesus seems to be that we cannot know who will be included in the kingdom and who will not prior to judgement day (i.e., who is in and who is out). Unfortunately, much of the parable's explanation is rendered extraneous according to this understanding (which is extremely problematic, to say the least).

[RBerman]

I find the dismissal rather convenient. The problem is that we are not dealing simply with the parable of the wheat and the tares standing in isolation. Comparing the parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16) to the parable of the wheat and the tares is not comparing like with like (other than the fact that both are parables). Jesus provides us with a detailed explanation of the latter (13:36-43), but not the former. The parable of the wheat and the tares is a kingdom parable that relates to the consummation of all things when Christ returns, the separation of the righteous from the unrighteous, &c. According to OBP's interpretation (message #2 above), the only significance of the parable and its interpretation by Jesus seems to be that we cannot know who is will be included in the kingdom (i.e., who is in and who is out). Unfortunately, much of the parable's explanation is rendered extraneous according to this understanding (which is extremely problematic, to say the least).

The bottom line is that the debate currently occupying this thread is not one which can be settled by appealing to the text of this specific parable. It's a larger systematic issue which must be brought to the text in order to figure out which details are of what significance. Not surprisingly, as one who holds to the orthodox doctrine of Hell, I find it interesting that Jesus stresses that those thrown into the furnace are experiencing distress. He could have emphasized non-existence, but he doesn't. Prove that mean I'm right and you're wrong about the larger question. No; it's a larger question. All I can say for certain is that Jesus' explanation is entirely compatible with (and even friendly to) the orthodox doctrine of Hell, which I took to be OBP's larger point.

[The Remonstrant]

The bottom line is that the debate currently occupying this thread is not one which can be settled by appealing to the text of this specific parable. It's a larger systematic issue which must be brought to the text in order to figure out which details are of what significance. Not surprisingly, as one who holds to the orthodox doctrine of Hell [i.e., endless conscious torment], I find it interesting that Jesus stresses that those thrown into the furnace are experiencing distress. He could have emphasized non-existence, but he doesn't. Prove that mean I'm right and you're wrong about the larger question. No; it's a larger question. All I can say for certain is that Jesus' explanation is entirely compatible with (and even friendly to) the orthodox doctrine of Hell, which I took to be OBP's larger point. [Emphasis added.]

I find it somewhat amusing that you would cite Matthew 13:42 (cf. 13:50) as evidence indicating the lost will undergo "distress" in the furnace of fire. As I explained at some length in the opening post above, the phrase "weeping and gnashing of teeth" denotes the acute sadness and anger of those excluded from the kingdom. Based on the usage of this phrase elsewhere¹ and the preceding verse describing the unrighteous being gathered out of the kingdom (13:41), the likelihood that Jesus employed the expression in order to convey ongoing anguish inside the fiery furnace is slim. Again, I have already anticipated this common objection to the annihilationist view and addressed it at some length in the opening post. Hitherto, it has been left unacknowledged.

Lastly, I'll end this message with a relevant quote from David Powys:

[T]he "weeping and gnashing" is consistently the vexed response of those who find themselves excluded from the Kingdom, whether this exclusion is phrased in terms of exclusion from relationship (8:12; 22:13; 25:30) or exclusion from life (13:42,50; 24:51). . . . The ἐκεῖ ('there') calls for comment. It could refer to a special place of punishment or remorse, and if this were a permanent place it might suggest that the reaction is a continuing one. This is not the natural sense of the expression ἐκεῖ. The natural meaning is that those rejected, standing at the closed door, as it were, and realizing that many others have been admitted, will be overcome by anguish there in that moment of realization. . . . Further, there is thus no reason necessarily to see in this expression the implication of unending anguish.²

Notes

¹ Matthew 8:12; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30; Luke 13:28.

² D.J. Powys, ‘Hell’: A Hard Look at a Hard Question: The Fate of the Unrighteous in New Testament Thought ([Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1997] Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2007), p.283.

[RBerman]

Like the overwhelming majority of theologians, I do not find your assessment of the "slim likelihood" to be convincing. You may be in the severe minority because everyone else is blinded by a spurious tradition. But then again, maybe you're actually wrong.

[The Remonstrant]

Like the overwhelming majority of theologians, I do not find your assessment of the "slim likelihood" to be convincing. You may be in the severe minority because everyone else is blinded by a spurious tradition. But then again, maybe you're actually wrong. [Emphasis added.]

The Almighty Appeal to Tradition

Yes, well, it may be that you are actually wrong, RB. Perhaps we're both wrong. Perhaps all persons without exception will eventually be reconciled to God. Perhaps everybody has been wrong about everything at all times in all places. Who knows?

Facetiousness aside, it may well be that you have not found my theological evaluation "convincing". Honestly, based on our past exchanges this comes as no surprise. You are already set in your views. Nevertheless, as of yet neither you or your compatriot have seriously engaged the arguments enumerated above (particularly messages #1, #6 and #23) or the quotations from Powys and Papaioannou addressing the expression "weeping and gnashing of teeth" and its proper meaning in Jesus' explanation of the parable of the wheat and the tares. Those who may be approaching this topic from a more neutral, less dogmatic, stance will not likely be impressed by either your or One Bad Pig's treatment of Matthew 13:24-30,36-43 thus far. Ironically, you have both dismissed key arguments and proceeded as though unscathed in the debate/dialogue without providing any serious counterarguments to those proffered in the opening post and subsequent messages in this thread (OBP in particular).

RBerman, when you speak of "the overwhelming majority of theologians" supporting your belief in endless conscious torment (ECT), you appear to be simultaneously making an appeal to the majority¹ and an appeal to authority.² You are doing anything but strengthening your case by making sweeping appeals to the relative popularity or acceptance of a particular belief in the history of the church, past or present—especially as a Protestant. You may refer to ECT as "the orthodox doctrine" (cf. message #22) and "the historic teaching" (emphasis mine) all you wish, but the truth of a particular doctrine is not determined by its number of adherents. The jab regarding Protestant annihilationists currently being in "the severe minority" amounts to little more than a veiled appeal to prejudice, accomplishing nothing toward actually advancing your case or rebutting mine.

Having seen you engage in the doctrine of final punishment extensively in the past, I have observed that your theological method appears to render your belief in unending torment completely unfalsifiable.³ You seem to hold tradition in tandem with Scripture as a kind of co-equal (or near co-equal) source for determining truth. In this particular exchange you have cut to the chase a few messages in by appealing to the majority and tradition ("the overwhelming majority of theologians") in one fell swoop. I find that extremely telling.

I will close with two quotations from Edward Fudge that I believe to be quite fitting for the occasion.

If we ever begin to suppose that ecclesiastical tradition outweighs scriptural teaching in authority, Protestants ought all to line up and apologize to the pope of Rome. Evangelicals in particular claim to honor the final authority of Scripture. How we handle the topic of final punishment just might show whether we really mean those words or whether they are simply pious talk.⁴

Some people do not commit to a particular human creed, but they are still bound by an unwritten "creed" based on their own church tradition. The enforcers of unwritten creeds are often as diligent and effective protectors of doctrine as are the guardians of unwritten creeds. Even an unwritten creed can exert enormous power. On both sides of this issue the proof is in the pudding.⁵

Notes

¹ "Argumentum ad populum" (Wikipedia.org):

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

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

² "Argument from authority" (Wikipdia.org)

Argument from authority (Argumentum ab auctoritate), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common logical fallacy.

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence.

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

³ Unfalsifiable (Wiktionary.org): "(relating to a statement or argument) not able to be proven false, but not necessarily true."

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unfalsifiable

⁴ Edward William Fudge and Robert A. Peterson, Two Views of Hell: A Biblical & Theological Dialogue (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p.182,183.

⁵ Ibid., p.202.

[RBerman]

I don't see anything new here, Rem, so I have no new response. I still find your position an inadequate exegesis of either this particular Scripture or the whole of God's Word on this topic.

[The Remonstrant]

I don't see anything new here, Rem, so I have no new response. I still find your position an inadequate exegesis of either this particular Scripture or the whole of God's Word on this topic.

Those on the Fence

Again, as I said above (message #25), this comes as no surprise. I am not concerned with personally convincing you that your view is exegetically deficient. Everyone is free to believe as they wish. The persons I am concerned with are those sitting on the fence, those who do not have a dog in this fight. In other words, my concern is primarily with those on the outside, those who have not already made up their minds on this topic, those who are open to accepting whatever position they believe best aligns with Scripture regardless of whether it conflicts with some majority consensus. When persons who are of this mindset happen upon a thread like this they can only go away severely disappointed after having witnessed the lackluster responses thus far affirming endless conscious torment (ECT) and denying final annihilation. They will take note how advocates of one side of the dialogue have introduced red herrings and alien ideas to the discussion in a vain attempt to short-circuit the exchange (as in the "material"/"immaterial" anthropological distinction¹) and made sweeping appeals to tradition and authority in order to dismiss the opposing view. Largely, that's all it has been, hasn't it? A series of short messages containing quick dismissals from the "traditionalist" side of the fence. Ironically, you are only diminishing the strength of your position by employing tactics of this sort.

In whatever days, weeks, months and years are to come, unbiased evangelical-Protestants will come upon threads like these and take note of the ineffectual responses offered by advocates of ECT in defense of their position. "Traditionalist" responses like those witnessed in a thread like this thus far will inevitably lead open-minded Protestants toward annihilationism, not away.


Note

¹ See message #5 and my subsequent response (#6) above.

[RBerman]

Again, as I said above (message #25), this comes as no surprise. I am not concerned with personally convincing you that your view is exegetically deficient. Everyone is free to believe as they wish. The persons I am concerned with are those sitting on the fence, those who do not have a dog in this fight. In other words, my concern is primarily with those on the outside, those who have not already made up their minds on this topic, those who are open to accepting whatever position they believe best aligns with Scripture regardless of whether it conflicts with some majority consensus. When persons who are of this mindset happen upon a thread like this they can only go away severely disappointed after having witnessed the lackluster responses thus far affirming endless conscious torment (ECT) and denying final annihilation. They will take note how advocates of one side of the dialogue have introduced red herrings and alien ideas to the discussion in a vain attempt to short-circuit the exchange (as in the "material"/"immaterial" anthropological distinction¹) and made sweeping appeals to tradition and authority in order to dismiss the opposing view. Largely, that's all it has been, hasn't it? A series of short messages containing quick dismissals from the "traditionalist" side of the fence. Ironically, you are only diminishing the strength of your position by employing tactics of this sort.

In whatever days, weeks, months and years are to come, unbiased evangelical-Protestants will come upon threads like these and take note of the ineffectual responses offered by advocates of ECT in defense of their position. "Traditionalist" responses like those witnessed in a thread like this thus far will inevitably lead open-minded Protestants toward annihilationism, not away.

1) It sounds like your purpose in this thread is primarily to promote your own firmly-decided belief, rather than to dialogue from a position of near-neutrality yourself. Is that a fair assessment?

2) You raise a valid point that if only one side of a debate is heard, that side will tend to win the minds of the undecided by default. At the same time, it doesn't seem like a good habit to turn every thread on a specific topic (e.g. the annihilationist perspective on the Parable of the Weeds) into a rehashed debate on the more general topic (e.g. the theological merits of annihliationism as compared to the orthodox doctrine of hell). You've had your say on the parable at hand, and I can see why you see it that way, given your perspective. But I don't share your perspective, and I don't feel obliged to reiterate why in every single thread in which the topic arises. However, if the past is any indicator, some new, actually undecided personal eventually will arise and ask the general question in a thread dedicated to that topic, and then you and I will have the opportunity to present our respective perspectives on the general topic.

[The Remonstrant]

1) It sounds like your purpose in this thread is primarily to promote your own firmly-decided belief, rather than to dialogue from a position of near-neutrality yourself. Is that a fair assessment?

You are correct that I am quite firmly convinced of annihilationism at this point, yes. When I first began (re)engaging the issue toward the second half of 2012, I was more open to the conventional understanding of endless conscious torment than I am today. But I would have to abandon the teaching if I discovered the doctrine to be false according to the Scriptures. (I personally don't hinge the teaching on a particular text or even a small batch of texts, but the overall thrust of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek New Testament. In this respect, I can understand your appeal to systematic theology above.)

2) You raise a valid point that if only one side of a debate is heard, that side will tend to win the minds of the undecided by default. At the same time, it doesn't seem like a good habit to turn every thread on a specific topic (e.g. the annihilationist perspective on the Parable of the Weeds) into a rehashed debate on the more general topic (e.g. the theological merits of annihliationism as compared to the orthodox doctrine of hell).

You are right. I honestly don't wish to go beyond the title of this thread ("The Parable of the Wheat & the Tares & its Explanation").

You've had your say on the parable at hand, and I can see why you see it that way, given your perspective. But I don't share your perspective, and I don't feel obliged to reiterate why in every single thread in which the topic arises.

No, that's fair. I don't expect you to.

However, if the past is any indicator, some new, actually undecided [person] eventually will arise and ask the general question in a thread dedicated to that topic, and then you and I will have the opportunity to present our respective perspectives on the general topic.

Perhaps I'll compile a select bibliography for both views and post it up on T-Web at some point for those interested in engaging in independent research. Strangely, to the best of my knowledge, there seems to be an unfortunate dearth of recent material in support of ECT (I'm not being facetious here).

[The Remonstrant]

OBP, how can it matter how many parts the wicked are composed of? This parable, and its specific interpretation by Jesus, tells us repeatedly that the wicked will be burned up while the good are "stored away". The emphasis on this burning up is repeated and stressed, while the idea that the righteous are stored is amplified to mean that they will be glorified. [Emphasis added.]

paladin:

This is an excellent observation. Unfortunately, I failed to call attention to this contrast in the opening post, but touched upon it later (cf. message #19 above). I will quote the relevant portion of the message below:

At harvest time, wheat is to be gathered in order to be preserved in the barn and weeds gathered in order to be burned up, thus purging the master's field³ (13:30). When Jesus interprets the parable, we learn the following:

1. At the end of the age, the righteous ("the wheat") will be separated from the unrighteous ("the weeds").
2. The righteous will be saved, the unrighteous—and all stumbling blocks/causes to sin—destroyed.

In other words, the kingdom will be thoroughly cleansed of all that is opposed to the reign of Christ and the Father.

Similar to Matthew 13:30 and 40, John the Baptist likens the preservation of wheat to the salvation of the righteous and the destruction of chaff to the end of the wicked in 3:12 (cf. Luke 3:17).