Matthew 13:24....the world, or the church?

[The Rogue Tomato]

If people didn't insist on a wonky definition of  "church", the question wouldn't even make sense.

Please give us your definition of church vs a wonky definition of church.

rsc2a already said it, but I'll give you the definition of church (not my definition, the definition):  Ecclesia (translated as "church") means "called out [ones]". 

When one says, "to the called out in Ephesus", it's just like saying "to the women in Chicago".  The individual message may be directed to a sub-group in a location, but the definition of ecclesia itself still refers to the whole body of Christ. 

Ecclesia never means a building, or a club with membership rules, or a 2-hour service that you "go to". 

By the way, this definition proves that Matthew 13:24 etc. could not possibly refer to the church, even if Jesus hadn't plainly explained what the parable meant.  The called out are the called out.  If you blend in the people who are not called out, then they are no longer the called out.

So a local visible group?

Do you have someone in mind who defines it as a building or a service? Because I don't know anyone who does...

See reply above.

 

[Mathew Ward]

If people didn't insist on a wonky definition of  "church", the question wouldn't even make sense.

Please give us your definition of church vs a wonky definition of church.

rsc2a already said it, but I'll give you the definition of church (not my definition, the definition):  Ecclesia (translated as "church") means "called out [ones]". 

When one says, "to the called out in Ephesus", it's just like saying "to the women in Chicago".  The individual message may be directed to a sub-group in a location, but the definition of ecclesia itself still refers to the whole body of Christ. 

Ecclesia never means a building, or a club with membership rules, or a 2-hour service that you "go to". 

By the way, this definition proves that Matthew 13:24 etc. could not possibly refer to the church, even if Jesus hadn't plainly explained what the parable meant.  The called out are the called out.  If you blend in the people who are not called out, then they are no longer the called out.

So a local visible group?

Do you have someone in mind who defines it as a building or a service? Because I don't know anyone who does...

See reply above.

So how do you know all the folks that gather together with you are all called out?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

So how do you know all the folks that gather together with you are all called out?

What does this have to do with anything?  I don't know. 

There's the church, which refers to what people call the church universal (which is actually redundant), that is, the body of Christ.  And then there's a local assembly, which may or may not be entirely populated with members of the body of Christ. 

When Paul addressed the called out at {location}, his message was for the called out at {location}.  No doubt the message fell on the ears of those who were not among the called out.  But to that, I say, so what? 

You have shown a pattern of avoiding the issues by asking a bunch of irrelevant questions.  I'm not going to bite anymore this time, so if your questions are met with silence, you know why. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

Jean The Simpleton Calvin

Ha ha, look at LAMER trying to play the Scholastic by citing authorities.

We're being trolled.

No trolling going on here, just a sincere question to see where folk fall on the issue.  Like asking a Cal/Arm question.  There's bound to be heat and disagreement, but hashing it out is what we do.  But apparently unlike Barnes, you are unwilling to throw your god Jean under the bus.

 

[ALAYMAN]

If people didn't insist on a wonky definition of  "church", the question wouldn't even make sense.

Please give us your definition of church vs a wonky definition of church.

A called out body of redeemed believers vs. a place you go on sundays for...

Does this "called out body of redeemed believers" ever meet in a geographical location?  If so, just assume that is the context for the question in the OP.

 

[rsc2a]

If people didn't insist on a wonky definition of  "church", the question wouldn't even make sense.

Please give us your definition of church vs a wonky definition of church.

A called out body of redeemed believers vs. a place you go on sundays for...

Does this "called out body of redeemed believers" ever meet in a geographical location?  If so, just assume that is the context for the question in the OP.

Cars are sometimes put in barns,  but it would be really stupid to define cars by appealing to that fact.

 

[ALAYMAN]

If people didn't insist on a wonky definition of  "church", the question wouldn't even make sense.

Please give us your definition of church vs a wonky definition of church.

A called out body of redeemed believers vs. a place you go on sundays for...

Does this "called out body of redeemed believers" ever meet in a geographical location?  If so, just assume that is the context for the question in the OP.

Cars are sometimes put in barns,  but it would be really stupid to define cars by appealing to that fact.

You and mater fail to understand.  I don't care about the physical structure, but rather the meeting and purpose of the local ekklesia.  Matter of fact, I just made that very point twice in teaching situations this past week.  Now, quit dodging the question.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

If people didn't insist on a wonky definition of  "church", the question wouldn't even make sense.

Please give us your definition of church vs a wonky definition of church.

A called out body of redeemed believers vs. a place you go on sundays for...

Does this "called out body of redeemed believers" ever meet in a geographical location?  If so, just assume that is the context for the question in the OP.

Cars are sometimes put in barns,  but it would be really stupid to define cars by appealing to that fact.

You and mater fail to understand.  I don't care about the physical structure, but rather the meeting and purpose of the local ekklesia.  Matter of fact, I just made that very point twice in teaching situations this past week.  Now, quit dodging the question.

Let it go.  You have already embarrassed yourself on this.  It's painful to watch you make it worse. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

Let it go.  You have already embarrassed yourself on this.  It's painful to watch you make it worse.

Peewee, with retorts like that it's no wonder that the kids on your middle school debate team made you captain.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]You and mater fail to understand.  I don't care about the physical structure, but rather the meeting and purpose of the local ekklesia.  Matter of fact, I just made that very point twice in teaching situations this past week.  Now, quit dodging the question.
[/quote]

Alayman: Is this parable about the world or the church?

rsc2a: That question doesn't even make sense. "What does the color red taste like?"

Alayman: You fail to understand. Let me repeat my question while implying you are an idiot: "What does the color red tastes like?"



Again I say...


Alayman: Is this parable about the world or the church?

Jesus: It's about the world.

Alayman: But this super, dooper commentator said...

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]You and mater fail to understand.  I don't care about the physical structure, but rather the meeting and purpose of the local ekklesia.  Matter of fact, I just made that very point twice in teaching situations this past week.  Now, quit dodging the question.

Alayman: Is this parable about the world or the church?

rsc2a: That question doesn't even make sense. "What does the color red taste like?"

Alayman: You fail to understand. Let me repeat my question while implying you are an idiot: "What does the color red tastes like?"



Again I say...


Alayman: Is this parable about the world or the church?

Jesus: It's about the world.

Alayman: But this super, dooper commentator said...
[/quote]


"Implying"?  I'll elucidate better from now on.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]You and mater fail to understand.  I don't care about the physical structure, but rather the meeting and purpose of the local ekklesia.  Matter of fact, I just made that very point twice in teaching situations this past week.  Now, quit dodging the question.

Alayman: Is this parable about the world or the church?

rsc2a: That question doesn't even make sense. "What does the color red taste like?"

Alayman: You fail to understand. Let me repeat my question while implying you are an idiot: "What does the color red tastes like?"



Again I say...


Alayman: Is this parable about the world or the church?

Jesus: It's about the world.

Alayman: But this super, dooper commentator said...
[/quote]

Not only that, but the second super dooper commentator is Calvin.  I guess ALAYMAN wants to be a Calvinist now. 

 

[Dunkard]

Jean The Simpleton Calvin

Ha ha, look at LAMER trying to play the Scholastic by citing authorities.

We're being trolled.

No trolling going on here, just a sincere question to see where folk fall on the issue.  Like asking a Cal/Arm question.  There's bound to be heat and disagreement, but hashing it out is what we do.  But apparently unlike Barnes, you are unwilling to throw your god Jean under the bus.

Seriously? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0WvJrEuJTk

 

[ALAYMAN]

Seriously? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0WvJrEuJTk

Another clown joins the funny farm with a non-answer.

 

[Bob H]

Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
(Mat 13:36-43)

Albert Barnes
Mat_13:30
Let both grow together - They would not spoil the true wheat, and in time of harvest it would be easy to separate them.
Our Saviour teaches us here:
1. That hypocrites and deceived persons must be expected in the church.
2. That this is the work of the enemy of man. They are not the work of Christianity any more than traitors are of patriotism, or counterfeiters are of the proper effect of legislating about money. They belong to the world, and hypocrisy is only one form of sin. The Christian religion never “made” a hypocrite, nor is there a hypocrite on the earth whose principles and practice it does not condemn.
3. That all hope of removing them entirely would be vain.
4. That an “attempt” to remove them altogether would injure real Christianity, by causing excitements, discord, and hard feelings even among Christians.
5. That Christ will himself separate them at the proper time. There is no doubt that it is the duty of the church to keep itself pure, and to cut off gross and manifest offenders, 1Co_5:4-5; but the Saviour refers here to those who may be “suspected” of hypocrisy, but against whom it cannot be proved; to those who so successfully imitate Christians as to make it difficult or impossible for man to distinguish them.

I guess ALAYMAN didn't have ears to hear.  Either that, or he doesn't know what context means, so he doesn't bother to read more than a few isolated verses.

I could cite dozens of others, but as usual with you, it ain't worth my effort.

Wow.  So Albert Barnes can't read more than a few isolated verses at a time, either. 

So now we have an explanation by Albert Barnes, and we have an explanation by Jesus.

Let's see... Albert Barnes... Jesus.... Albert Barnes.... Jesus... oh, it's so hard to choose.

I would guess if you don't like Barnes' explanation then you won't like James Montgomery Boice's either. But then again he's a cal also.


""God's kingdom is not the world in general, so any interpretation based exclusively on the phrase "the field is the world" should be suspect. Again, what is the point of the devil planting children "in the world" if all that means is that the devil's children and God's children live side by side? At best that is self-evident. Besides, if that is what Jesus means, the parable is not even stating the situation in the best way. If the field is the world rather the church, it would be more correct to say that the devil's people are in the world already and that it is Jesus, rather than Satan, who plants His seed among that which is already growing. It would be Jesus who does the new thing, not Satan. However, as Jesus tells the story, the point is what Satan is doing, and that is something done after Jesus has already sown the seed. In other words, the devil places counterfeit Christians among true believers to hinder God's work. So that is the real message, and whether the field is the world or the church is actually irrelevant. The point is simply that the devil is going to bring forward people {whether in the church or out of it} so much like true Christians, though they are not Christians, that even the servants of God will not be able to tell them apart.""

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I would guess if you don't like Barnes' explanation then you won't like James Montgomery Boice's either. But then again he's a cal also.

Should it surprise me who here prefers the words of commentators over the very words of Jesus?  No, I guess not. 

 

[Ransom]

No trolling going on here, just a sincere question to see where folk fall on the issue.

Yep. Every bit as sincere as every other time you pull the same trick.

But apparently unlike Barnes, you are unwilling to throw your god Jean under the bus.

You mean, for example after I've already contradicted his interpretation before you even posted it?

Learn to read, LAMER.

 

[Dunkard]

From the Bible Bibles Commentary: "13:38  The field is the world. It is important to emphasize that the field is the world, not the church....

And determining what perspective should be taken on the interpretation of the passage isn't merely about counting noses of commmentators, or saying "my theologue is bigger than yours", but it is foolhearty to not observe that the controversy isn't anything new.

I'm really not sure what your point here is in this conversation. First, you start off trying to prove your point by appealing to Barnes. Then, when other commentaries disagree, you say it "isn't about counting noses of commentators", and then shortly after that you begin quoting other commentators. Are you trying to count noses or are you not?

Also, it's not "foolhearty".

 

[Mathew Ward]

So how do you know all the folks that gather together with you are all called out?

What does this have to do with anything?  I don't know. 

There's the church, which refers to what people call the church universal (which is actually redundant), that is, the body of Christ.  And then there's a local assembly, which may or may not be entirely populated with members of the body of Christ. 

When Paul addressed the called out at {location}, his message was for the called out at {location}.  No doubt the message fell on the ears of those who were not among the called out.  But to that, I say, so what? 

You have shown a pattern of avoiding the issues by asking a bunch of irrelevant questions.  I'm not going to bite anymore this time, so if your questions are met with silence, you know why.

What issues have I avoided?

 

[Mathew Ward]

If people didn't insist on a wonky definition of  "church", the question wouldn't even make sense.

Please give us your definition of church vs a wonky definition of church.

A called out body of redeemed believers vs. a place you go on sundays for...

Does this "called out body of redeemed believers" ever meet in a geographical location?  If so, just assume that is the context for the question in the OP.

Like the church of God at Corinth?

So is there application of this parable in any specific church today? Of course there is.

It would not make a difference if this assembly of wheat and tares met in a big building (like a church building) or a small building (like a house).