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

[The Rogue Tomato]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]The usual understanding of the position that says the church is in view in the parable...

...ignores the explanation offered by Jesus.
[/quote]

Yeah, but...

"38 The field is the world"

That's so vague.  It could mean anything. 

 

[Mathew Ward]

So those are the only non Christians in the church, those that are "shtupping his mother"?

Is that really your position?

No, that's your intentional misrepresentation of my position.

If the field is the church, then Jesus is teaching his disciples that they should let God sort out the wheat from the tares at the end of days. Was Paul disobeying when he told the Corinthians to purge the immoral people from the congregation immediately?

Was the person that sinned wheat or tare?

If he was wheat then your question is moot, because Paul was not giving instruction to go against God's teaching.

 

[Bob H]

Two questions. Since the field/world is inhabited with believers and unbelievers {saved/unsaved},

Why does Satan have to plant tares when there's already unbelievers there/here?

and

Is there any significance at all that Satan planted the tares within the wheat field itself?

 

[Ransom]

The usual understanding of the position that says the church is in view in the parable would mean that while the darnels are seemingly identical (frauds and hypocrites) we should be patient.

The "usual understanding" would be that if the Son of God explained his own parable, that would settle the matter.

 

[Ransom]

Two questions. Since the field/world is inhabited with believers and unbelievers {saved/unsaved},

Why does Satan have to plant tares when there's already unbelievers there/here?
and
Is there any significance at all that Satan planted the tares within the wheat field itself?

It's a parable, so generally speaking it has a single point to make. If you try to interpret the significance of every character and plot point, you wind up with allegory.

 

[Mathew Ward]

Sub -

Generally,  I would agree with you in this point. The problem here it's that the idiom feeds an incorrect understanding of what the church is,  a very common misunderstanding that affects how those in the church live their everyday lives.

When folks ask me what I do and/or where I work I tell them I am a pastor and i work for Eastland Baptist Church. I guess I need to tell them I don't work for the building or pastor the building  but the folks who assemble there, with all of the misunderstanding.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Sub -

Generally,  I would agree with you in this point. The problem here it's that the idiom feeds an incorrect understanding of what the church is,  a very common misunderstanding that affects how those in the church live their everyday lives.

When folks ask me what I do and/or where I work I tell them I am a pastor and i work for Eastland Baptist Church. I guess I need to tell them I don't work for the building or pastor the building  but the folks who assemble there, with all of the misunderstanding.

Don't you think an associate pastor should be able to recognize a figure of speech and still not allow it to poison his understanding of what church means in scripture?  Shouldn't such a simple concept be a prerequisite for teaching others? 

 

[Bob H]

Two questions. Since the field/world is inhabited with believers and unbelievers {saved/unsaved},

Why does Satan have to plant tares when there's already unbelievers there/here?
and
Is there any significance at all that Satan planted the tares within the wheat field itself?

It's a parable, so generally speaking it has a single point to make. If you try to interpret the significance of every character and plot point, you wind up with allegory.

Ransom, do you got Craig Bloomberg's book "Interpreting the Parables"? {It lets you read a few pages}


http://books.google.com/books?id=sTtbVUIDesAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[subllibrm]

Sub -

Generally,  I would agree with you in this point. The problem here it's that the idiom feeds an incorrect understanding of what the church is,  a very common misunderstanding that affects how those in the church live their everyday lives.

When folks ask me what I do and/or where I work I tell them I am a pastor and i work for Eastland Baptist Church. I guess I need to tell them I don't work for the building or pastor the building  but the folks who assemble there, with all of the misunderstanding.

Don't you think an associate pastor should be able to recognize a figure of speech and still not allow it to poison his understanding of what church means in scripture?  Shouldn't such a simple concept be a prerequisite for teaching others?

I admitted to using "church" in a figurative way and both you and rsc2a said that is bad. So now if I call it a figure of speech (instead an expression or idiom) it is now okay? I am so confused.

"Honey, I will be in late tonight. I have an elder board meeting at that building where the ecclesia meet on Sunday."  ???

 

[Recovering IFB]

If Jesus said "world" in vs. 38, why is this even an issue?

 

[rsc2a]

If Jesus said "world" in vs. 38, why is this even an issue?

Because if the plain sense makes sense...oh, never mind.

 

[rsc2a]

Sub -

Generally,  I would agree with you in this point. The problem here it's that the idiom feeds an incorrect understanding of what the church is,  a very common misunderstanding that affects how those in the church live their everyday lives.

When folks ask me what I do and/or where I work I tell them I am a pastor and i work for Eastland Baptist Church. I guess I need to tell them I don't work for the building or pastor the building  but the folks who assemble there, with all of the misunderstanding.

Don't you think an associate pastor should be able to recognize a figure of speech and still not allow it to poison his understanding of what church means in scripture?  Shouldn't such a simple concept be a prerequisite for teaching others?

I admitted to using "church" in a figurative way and both you and rsc2a said that is bad. So now if I call it a figure of speech (instead an expression or idiom) it is now okay? I am so confused.

"Honey, I will be in late tonight. I have an elder board meeting at that building where the ecclesia meet on Sunday."  ???

Let us say that there was a large percentage of the population who heard "airplane" every time you used the word "vehicle". Now you could use the word vehicle to describe any number of things: cars, trucks, boats, skateboards, horse carts, and even airplanes. But that didn't matter...for these people, they heard "airplane" every single time. In fact, not only did they hear "airplane" but whenever these people were told to go to the vehicle, they got down their luggage and packed as if for a week long trip, even if they were only taking the car to the grocery store.

Let us also say there was another large percentage of the population who heard the word "vehicle" and thought it meant cars and trucks and boats and skateboards and horse carts and airplanes simultaneously and that these were functionally the same thing, so much so in fact that one could talk about riding in a car, and these folks would picture them on a sailboat or in a rickshaw because they could not distinguish between the two. These people were not intellectually capable of separating these ideas because they sincerely understood "vehicle" to mean all of these things at once.

Now for the question: would it be best to continue to use the word "vehicle" when discussing boats or trains, or would it be better to use the narrower term so as to avoid reinforcing these incorrect understandings of the word "vehicle"?

 

[Mathew Ward]

Sub -

Generally,  I would agree with you in this point. The problem here it's that the idiom feeds an incorrect understanding of what the church is,  a very common misunderstanding that affects how those in the church live their everyday lives.

When folks ask me what I do and/or where I work I tell them I am a pastor and i work for Eastland Baptist Church. I guess I need to tell them I don't work for the building or pastor the building  but the folks who assemble there, with all of the misunderstanding.

Don't you think an associate pastor should be able to recognize a figure of speech and still not allow it to poison his understanding of what church means in scripture?  Shouldn't such a simple concept be a prerequisite for teaching others?

I do understand what church means in Scripture.

So for example...

So when Jesus said tell to the church in Matthew 18:17 he meant tell it to the whole body of Christ?

Or would it be more along the lines of how a local church handled it in Corinth?

Remember you said...but the definition of ecclesia itself still refers to the whole body of Christ. 

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Sub -

Generally,  I would agree with you in this point. The problem here it's that the idiom feeds an incorrect understanding of what the church is,  a very common misunderstanding that affects how those in the church live their everyday lives.

When folks ask me what I do and/or where I work I tell them I am a pastor and i work for Eastland Baptist Church. I guess I need to tell them I don't work for the building or pastor the building  but the folks who assemble there, with all of the misunderstanding.

Don't you think an associate pastor should be able to recognize a figure of speech and still not allow it to poison his understanding of what church means in scripture?  Shouldn't such a simple concept be a prerequisite for teaching others?

I do understand what church means in Scripture.

So for example...

So when Jesus said tell to the church in Matthew 18:17 he meant tell it to the whole body of Christ?

Or would it be more along the lines of how a local church handled it in Corinth?

Remember you said...but the definition of ecclesia itself still refers to the whole body of Christ.

You're really beginning to bore me.  Are you ever going to answer my question?  What exactly have you elucidated with your hermeneutics that was not already made clear by saying the field is the world?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]I do understand what church means in Scripture.

So for example...

So when Jesus said tell to the church in Matthew 18:17 he meant tell it to the whole body of Christ?

Or would it be more along the lines of how a local church handled it in Corinth?

Remember you said...but the definition of ecclesia itself still refers to the whole body of Christ. [/quote]

When Jesus told the Twelve to "go therefore and make disciples of all nations...", did He mean for them personally to go to all nations?

 

[Ransom]

Ransom, do you got Craig Bloomberg's book "Interpreting the Parables"? {It lets you read a few pages}

I don't, and the fact that I can read a limited number of pages on Google Books doesn't help me understand your point, so perhaps you could make it?

 

[Ransom]

If Jesus said "world" in vs. 38, why is this even an issue?

Apparently, John Calvin knew better.

 

[Ransom]

When Jesus told the Twelve to "go therefore and make disciples of all nations...", did He mean for them personally to go to all nations?

Well, I'm sure he actually meant to go to the church.

 

[subllibrm]

Sub -

Generally,  I would agree with you in this point. The problem here it's that the idiom feeds an incorrect understanding of what the church is,  a very common misunderstanding that affects how those in the church live their everyday lives.

When folks ask me what I do and/or where I work I tell them I am a pastor and i work for Eastland Baptist Church. I guess I need to tell them I don't work for the building or pastor the building  but the folks who assemble there, with all of the misunderstanding.

Don't you think an associate pastor should be able to recognize a figure of speech and still not allow it to poison his understanding of what church means in scripture?  Shouldn't such a simple concept be a prerequisite for teaching others?

I admitted to using "church" in a figurative way and both you and rsc2a said that is bad. So now if I call it a figure of speech (instead an expression or idiom) it is now okay? I am so confused.

"Honey, I will be in late tonight. I have an elder board meeting at that building where the ecclesia meet on Sunday."  ???

Let us say that there was a large percentage of the population who heard "airplane" every time you used the word "vehicle". Now you could use the word vehicle to describe any number of things: cars, trucks, boats, skateboards, horse carts, and even airplanes. But that didn't matter...for these people, they heard "airplane" every single time. In fact, not only did they hear "airplane" but whenever these people were told to go to the vehicle, they got down their luggage and packed as if for a week long trip, even if they were only taking the car to the grocery store.

Let us also say there was another large percentage of the population who heard the word "vehicle" and thought it meant cars and trucks and boats and skateboards and horse carts and airplanes simultaneously and that these were functionally the same thing, so much so in fact that one could talk about riding in a car, and these folks would picture them on a sailboat or in a rickshaw because they could not distinguish between the two. These people were not intellectually capable of separating these ideas because they sincerely understood "vehicle" to mean all of these things at once.

Now for the question: would it be best to continue to use the word "vehicle" when discussing boats or trains, or would it be better to use the narrower term so as to avoid reinforcing these incorrect understandings of the word "vehicle"?

Well there you have it. People in general are too stupid to be able to distinguish contextually between "my church just called a new pastor",  "I won't be able to take you up on that golf date, I have church Sunday morning" and "I left my bible at the church". If only they could tell the difference.

Therefore brethren, seeing as you are surrounded by such a cloud of idiots, put aside every temptation to use a word in more than one context.

 

[Mathew Ward]

Sub -

Generally,  I would agree with you in this point. The problem here it's that the idiom feeds an incorrect understanding of what the church is,  a very common misunderstanding that affects how those in the church live their everyday lives.

When folks ask me what I do and/or where I work I tell them I am a pastor and i work for Eastland Baptist Church. I guess I need to tell them I don't work for the building or pastor the building  but the folks who assemble there, with all of the misunderstanding.

Don't you think an associate pastor should be able to recognize a figure of speech and still not allow it to poison his understanding of what church means in scripture?  Shouldn't such a simple concept be a prerequisite for teaching others?

I do understand what church means in Scripture.

So for example...

So when Jesus said tell to the church in Matthew 18:17 he meant tell it to the whole body of Christ?

Or would it be more along the lines of how a local church handled it in Corinth?

Remember you said...but the definition of ecclesia itself still refers to the whole body of Christ.

You're really beginning to bore me.  Are you ever going to answer my question?  What exactly have you elucidated with your hermeneutics that was not already made clear by saying the field is the world?

I've come to expect you to change your position (idiom is wrong, figure of speech is ok) like a politician and to avoid answering questions like a politician.

Maybe you should run for office.  ;D