Can a tare become saved?

[PinSeeker]

Sigh...

Yes, God is the One who helps us do the good works that he has prepared for those who choose to repent and believe unto salvation. Jesus said that apart from Him, we can not bear fruit (John 15:5). We need the Spirit of Christ to give us the strength to do what God has for us to do. And through Him, we can do all things that God has for us to do (Philippians 4:13.

Good... agreed... (of course)...

But, it does not say that we can not repent and believe in Him apart from Him doing that for us.

Again, it depends on the sense in which you mean 'cannot.' You may or may not "LOL" again, but 'cannot' can be understood in two very different senses...

a) 'cannot' in the wooden sense of being mentally and/or physically incapable of something, or

b) 'cannot' in the sense of not being able to bring oneself to do that something because of an insurmountable... free will, actually... inclination to do the opposite.

Because of your over-emphasis on man's free will, you cannot... see what I did there? <smile> ...escape sense 'a' above.

Repentance and faith involve us acknowledging that we can't save ourselves and can't do anything worthwhile apart from Christ.

Not sure what you mean by this, really. Repentance and faith are what they are... repentance is a forsaking that which is displeasing to God and turning to Him for pardon and sanctification, and faith is God's assurance and conviction given to us... worked in us... of things hoped for and not seen. We repent because we know we can't save ourselves or stand on our own merit, sure, but that is because been born again of the Spirit; otherwise we would regard any need for repentance or a savior foolishness. At any given time, it is because of the state of our own heart. And yet again, you and I have saving faith because God has given it to us ~ again, He has assured us... revealed Himself to us, as He did Peter (Matthew 16:16-17). Thus, we believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

As I have said over and over again (and not just to you) it IS about our will and whether it is free or not...

I KNOW. <smile>

Free will implies that we are fully capable of deciding between two viable options.

Agreed, of course... although it could be several viable options, not just two... but yes, two in this case... So, but in a human, experiential sense, the will is always free; we always make the choices we want to make, sometimes because we really want to choose one over the other(s), but sometimes because choosing the one is... less unattractive... than the other(s). In that sense, yes, the will is always free.

But, yet again, this issue in this case is really our heart ~ at any given time the state/condition of our heart, not our will, because, SI (again, as I have said over and over again), our heart... who and what we are at the core of our being... ~ is what drives our will.

The thing you're actually arguing for is autonomy. The only autonomous... entity... in God's universe is God Himself.

What is amazing to me is that Calvinists will acknowledge that all people are capable of choosing to glorify God and be thankful to Him or not without God having to give us a new heart in order to make that choice (Romans 1:18-21). It's hard to deny that when it says that no one has any excuse for not glorifying God and being thankful to Him. Yet, somehow, people are able to make a decision like that without having to be given a new heart to do so, but they cannot also make a decision on whether or not to repent and put their trust in Christ without having to be given a new heart to do so. How does this make any sense?

If one first acknowledges the two different, mutually exclusive senses of 'cannot' (see above) and then acknowledges that the correct sense is b.) not being able to bring oneself to do something because of an insurmountable free will inclination to do the opposite, then it's not hard. <smile>

How is it even possible for someone who is supposedly "totally depraved" to have the ability to glorify God and be thankful to Him while having no excuse for not doing so, but at the same time they have no ability to repent and believe without God giving them a new heart first?

The issue here seems to be your... "understanding"... of the true concept of total depravity and what you mean by "having no ability." I could say more, but I'll just offer here what Moses says ~ "the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Genesis 6:5) ~ and what Jeremiah says ~ "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)...

You don't get it.

Okay, well, I say you don't. Actually, I think you do, you just cannot... again, wee what I did there? ...bring yourself to accept it. And I understand that.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No. You think about it from your own... place.

It's not up to you to decide who is thinking rationally and objective or not.

Not so. By "using your brain," I meant to... well, turn off your own personal biases and predispositions. Not even close to calling names.

LOL. Who do you think you're kidding with this nonsense? Why can't you just be honest? Why is that so hard for you?

Okay, but who cares?

I don't. Do you?

But he can do what he wants, can he not? You get angry and indignant when posters "tell you what to do" (as if they really do that anyway...), don't you? I mean really, who cares? Who cares? Who. Cares. Let it go, man.

LOL. He cared enough to put in his input and I cared enough to say it's not his business. You are highly overestimating how much I care about it, which is very little.

But you can take all the personal jabs you want, yeah? <smile>

Not what I said at all. Wow.

Ah, "discuss"... Weeeeellllllllllll... <chuckles>

You are making it clear that you're not interested in that, so I think we need to just end this "discussion" soon.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Everyone has this opportunity to repent and live. As Paul says in Romans 1:19-20, what can be known about God is plain to all, even unbelievers, because God has shown it to them... God's invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So no, I believe (again) quite the opposite of what you way I believe here.

So, you believe everyone has a legit opportunity to repent and continue living their lives physically, but you don't think everyone has the opportunity to repent unto salvation. It's interesting how you don't bother to clarify what you mean. Why would God only care about people repenting just so they can continue to live physically for awhile longer, but not give them the opportunity to repent unto salvation?

Ah, the NIV. Yes, I knew you quoted Scripture, I just wasn't sure what version. So the NIV... which I like, by the way... is a bit unclear there, which is why I quoted the same verse from the ESV... which I like (at least concerning that verse) better... <smile> ...because it is clearer: "I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and does injustice, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered, but in his injustice that he has done he shall die." What the NIV says there in Ezekiel 33:13 is not "wrong," but there is a lack of clarity and faithfulness to the Hebrew there; the ESV (and the NASB ~ "When I say to the righteous he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but in that same iniquity of his which he has committed he will die.") are much better English translations there.

Huge eye roll here. Moving on....

I did. We agree on it; yes, God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. What is there to disagree on about that? It is what it is. But I will say this, that death of the wicked satisfies God's perfect justice. The only question there is, regarding any one person, does he or she have a Savior Who satisfies God's justice on his or her behalf... or not?

Again, you have so much trouble being honest. You know that my point was that God wants everyone to repent unto salvation rather than people remaining in their wickedness and dying in their wickedness. You do not believe that God wants everyone to repent unto salvation because if that was the case then everyone would be saved since you believe that repentance unto salvation is something that God gives to people and that people don't choose to do without God giving it to them.

No, again, that's only... in your own words... how it seems to you. And I get it. The way I would state this is, God gives repentance to those He has predestined ~ from before the foundation of the world ~ to be conformed to the image of His Son. The others, even while desiring they would come to knowledge of the truth, because they have actively exchanged the truth for a lie, He gives up to their own selfish passions and desires., even enduring them with such great patience.

Here is where Calvinism makes no sense whatsoever. You believe that He, from the foundation of the world, purposely made it so that His desires can't possibly come to fruition. Explain how this makes any sense at all. How can He genuinely want people to repent and come to knowledge of the truth when He knows that they can't because it was His choice from the foundation of the world as to who would repent or not? That doesn't even begin to make any sense. Not even a tiny bit.

All do, eventually, according to their own heart. Without fail. "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there without watering the earth and making it bear and sprout, so will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; it will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it" (Isaiah 55:10-11).

That has nothing to do with someone's ability to see how weak they are and how unable they are to be righteous. That has nothing to do with one's ability to recognize and acknowledge that they are a sinner who can't save themselves and need Jesus to save them instead. What you're talking about is one's ability to do good works and to act righteously in a consistent manner. No one can do that without the Holy Spirit's help. But, that doesn't have anything to do with who is able to repent and believe or not.

Nope. But He does know that they will not...

According to your doctrine, He knows they CAN NOT repent because He PURPOSELY did not give them that ability and opportunity to do so. Yet, He still somehow wants them to do so? No, that makes no sense at all.

They will only repent if He gives removes their heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh.

In that case why does He say that He wants the people to repent and believe who He knows can not repent without Him doing that? It seems to me that your doctrine makes God out to be very insincere.

Because of Adam's fall, this is the natural state of all mankind; we are all, from birth, even conception, children of wrath.

No, not from birth. Nowhere does scripture teach this. Will all people eventually sin at some point because of an inherited sinful nature? Yes. But, do people sin from birth? Absolutely not. How can a newborn sin? Ridiculous. Calvinism sometimes throws logic completely out the window. No, God's wrath is not on newborns or younger children. That is utterly ridiculous. Paul made it clear that he was not dead in his sins until he became aware of them and never taught that people are dead in sins from birth.

Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

But then there is grace, which God gives to those to whom He chooses to give it.

Nope. He graciously offers salvation to all people and then requires all people to choose whether to accept it or not.

Titus 2:11 (NIV): For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.

Or, if you prefer, from the ESV...

Titus 2:11 (ESV): For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,

Why does He give it to some and not to others? Well, as Paul says, "who are (any of us), O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles..." (Romans 9:20-24).

You are taking this scripture out of context. Note verse 24 there. The context of this passage is in relation to anyone questioning God about saving Gentiles rather than just Jews or Israelites and is not about someone questioning why God purposely gives salvation to some while withholding it from the rest. You are interpreting this passage in such a way that contradicts all the scriptures which say that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world and that God wants everyone to repent and to be saved.

 

[grafted branch]

Contextually:
A tare cannot become wheat or vise versa, And wheat, prior to maturation, is just about indistinguishable from a tare until the harvest. So much so, that prematurely removing the tares will also uproot the wheat - Matthew 13:29

Yes, I absolutely agree a tare can’t become wheat in reality and that should be the context in which we examine the parable.

Some of my thoughts were that the enemy sowed the tares when men slept is when John 9:4 takes place.

John 9:4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.

In Matthew 13:37 the word “soweth” is a present tense verb so the Son of man was sowing at that time (prior to the cross).

After the enemy sowed, he went his way. I would say that points to a one time or limited time event and not an on going action. I would place the sowing of the Son of man as taking place prior to the cross and Satan sowing, perhaps, until Pentecost when the light of the Holy Spirit came.

That puts the wheat and tares taking place on the Jews with the Gentiles not being in view, as you pointed out. And I agree with the wheat being those who accept the gospel and the tares as those who reject the gospel, both growing together and both being zealous for the law until that which decayed and waxed old vanished.

in this case, if the Romans came a destroyed Jerusalem and the temple within 1 to 3 years after Christ ascended to heaven?

Well, I think Satan was bound from destroying Jerusalem. As far as I can tell Jerusalem could’ve been destroyed just after the cross and the OT scriptures in Daniel would’ve remain true. It seems those in Revelation 6:10 ask how long because all was fulfilled but the destruction, however in Revelation 6:11 there were fellow servants and brethren that still had to be killed as they were which needed to be fulfilled.

So I would say the command to allow both the tares and wheat to grow together really has a two fold purpose, an attempt to pull tares early on meant that it wasn’t possible to fully distinguish between gospel believing Jews and non-gospel believing Jews, as this would uproot wheat and also the tares were used to prevented (kill) some of the wheat from growing until the harvest.

Maybe God’s long suffering not willing that any should perish (for that generation) meant that some zealous believing Jews were allowed to continue because they eventually would see the old covenant was invalid while others had to be killed earlier than the harvest or they would’ve remained zealous and not fled when Jerusalem was surrounded? Luke 5:39 No man also having drunk old wine straightaway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Again, it depends on the sense in which you mean 'cannot.' You may or may not "LOL" again, but 'cannot' can be understood in two very different senses...

a) 'cannot' in the wooden sense of being mentally and/or physically incapable of something, or

b) 'cannot' in the sense of not being able to bring oneself to do that something because of an insurmountable... free will, actually... inclination to do the opposite.

A "free will" inclination that someone cannot possibly overcome to make any other "choice" but to not repent and believe? Your definition of "free will" makes no sense at all because "free will" implies that a person is fully capable of making a choice between at least two options. In your view, there is no choice in the matter for man. Those God predestined will repent and believe and those He did not will not. I don't know why you pretend as if man has "free will" and a "choice" in salvation when that is not the case in your doctrine.

Because of your over-emphasis on man's free will, you cannot... see what I did there? <smile> ...escape sense 'a' above.

LOL. There's the LOL you were looking for, but it just came a little later than you might have expected. I do not over-emphasize man's free will. At least I acknowledge that man has free will in the sense of what free will actually implies. There is nothing "free" about your version of free will because in your understanding of it, each person can and will only do one thing (repent or not) rather than legitimately being able to choose between two options. No matter how you want to define free will, you do not believe that man has any choice when it comes to salvation. You will probably try to deny that, but it's clearly true in your doctrine.

Not sure what you mean by this, really. Repentance and faith are what they are... repentance is a forsaking that which is displeasing to God and turning to Him for pardon and sanctification, and faith is God's assurance and conviction given to us... worked in us... of things hoped for and not seen. We repent because we know we can't save ourselves or stand on our own merit, sure, but that is because been born again of the Spirit; otherwise we would regard any need for repentance or a savior foolishness.

Nowhere does scripture teach that a person would always regard any need for repentance or a Savior to be foolish without being born again. Jesus called sinners to repentance, not the righteous. When you are born again you have been made righteous, so Jesus calls those who have not been born again to repent. Jesus said sinners are sick and in need of a physician.

Matthew 9:9 And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. 11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? 12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. 13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Are those who are sick able to recognize that they are sick? Of course! Are they able to call on a physician for healing? Of course. So, if we take Jesus's analogy to heart here, then we should understand that lost sinners are able to recognize that they are spiritually sick and able to call on the Great Physician for spiritual healing. That has nothing to do with an act of righteousness or earning one's own salvation. It's just the opposite of that.

I know Calvinists emphasize God's sovereignty (so do I) and they emphasize that we are not saved by works (so do I), but man having free will to choose whether to repent and believe or not, without God making that choice for him, does not violate God's sovereignty and does not mean we are saved by works of which we can boast. Someone humbling themselves and acknowledging that they are sinners and need Jesus for salvation is the opposite of boasting.

At any given time, it is because of the state of our own heart. And yet again, you and I have saving faith because God has given it to us ~ again, He has assured us... revealed Himself to us, as He did Peter (Matthew 16:16-17). Thus, we believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

God did not give us saving faith and scripture never teaches such a thing. We are reponsible to choose how to respond to the gospel and to the Holy Spirit speaking to our hearts. Many people resist that and God makes everyone responsible to choose. As Joshua said, we need to choose this day who we will serve (Joshua 24:14-15). God doesn't make that choice for us.

Agreed, of course... although it could be several viable options, not just two... but yes, two in this case... So, but in a human, experiential sense, the will is always free; we always make the choices we want to make, sometimes because we really want to choose one over the other(s), but sometimes because choosing the one is... less unattractive... than the other(s). In that sense, yes, the will is always free.

But, yet again, this issue in this case is really our heart ~ at any given time the state/condition of our heart, not our will, because, SI (again, as I have said over and over again), our heart... who and what we are at the core of our being... ~ is what drives our will.

The thing you're actually arguing for is autonomy. The only autonomous... entity... in God's universe is God Himself.

<huge eye roll> I don't know why you pretend as if man has free will to choose between two viable options when it comes to salvation when that is cleary not what you actually believe.

The issue here seems to be your... "understanding"... of the true concept of total depravity and what you mean by "having no ability." I could say more, but I'll just offer here what Moses says ~ "the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Genesis 6:5) ~ and what Jeremiah says ~ "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)...

What verses like those mean is that all people are sinners and can't help but sin, but notice that Jeremiah, like Jesus, says that man is spiritually sick. Someone who is sick is capable of acknowledging as such which is what God wants all people to do. He wants all people to acknowledge that they are sick (sinners) and not able to save themselves and to acknowledge that only Jesus can save them. No one is so totally depraved that they can't acknowledge their sins.

Clearly, even you understand that despite man's supposed "total depravity" God expects everyone to glorify Him and be thankful to Him because of recognizing Him as the Creator by what He has made (Romans 1:18-21). And Paul said that no one has any excuse for not glorifying God and being thankful to Him because of how He made Himself plain to everyone. Yet, despite agreeing about that, you can't bring yourself to also acknowledge that no one has any excuse for not repenting and having faith as well. Not sure how someone can glorify God and be thankful to Him without repenting and having faith, for one thing.

But, the point is that you think all people are able to believe in God and to glorify Him and be thankful to Him without any excuse for not doing so, but you think people are not also held responsible to repent and believe in Christ. You can't try to claim that no one has any excuse for not repenting and believing in Christ when, at the same time, you say that people are only able to do so if God gives them repentance and faith. That is a great excuse for not repenting and believing if you are simply not able to do so without God giving it to you. Your doctrine makes God responsible for people not repenting and believing rather than man being responsible for it because your doctrine makes the choice to repent or not completely up to God and not up to man.

Okay, well, I say you don't. Actually, I think you do, you just cannot... again, wee what I did there? ...bring yourself to accept it. And I understand that.

Yes, I see what you did there. You are so clever. What I cannot accept is Calvinist doctrine.

 

[ewq1938]

Well, when we consider the parable of the wheat and the tares - prematurely uprooting the tares may uproot the wheat as well (matthew 13:29). This seems to be an agricultural reference as to how wheat and tares may look very similar prior to the harvest.

One can only tell wheat from a tare by the fruit produced. In agriculture that's physical fruit but in people, the fruit is the result of what they do whether good or bad.

It could be possible that the falling away reveals in a sense who the tares are, and not necessarily that the wheat has fallen away?

Christians will fall away from Jesus to a false god/false jesus. If we apply the metaphor of wheat to Christians and tare to the unsaved, then wheat can become tares. One might say they were never really wheat but it's all symbolic language.

 

[claninja]

Yes, I absolutely agree a tare can’t become wheat in reality and that should be the context in which we examine the parable.

Some of my thoughts were that the enemy sowed the tares when men slept is when John 9:4 takes place.

John 9:4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.

In Matthew 13:37 the word “soweth” is a present tense verb so the Son of man was sowing at that time (prior to the cross).

After the enemy sowed, he went his way. I would say that points to a one time or limited time event and not an on going action. I would place the sowing of the Son of man as taking place prior to the cross and Satan sowing, perhaps, until Pentecost when the light of the Holy Spirit came.

That puts the wheat and tares taking place on the Jews with the Gentiles not being in view, as you pointed out. And I agree with the wheat being those who accept the gospel and the tares as those who reject the gospel, both growing together and both being zealous for the law until that which decayed and waxed old vanished.

So in vs 24, the word "having sown" is a verbal participle, which means it acts more as an adjective. Its an aorist active participle in the dative case. While aorist can often, but not always, indicate the "past", its aspect is one of completion (and not continuous). So it renders it as "the kingdom of heaven is likened to a man-who-sowed good seed......"

In vs 37, again its a verbal participle, but this time - present participle active in the nominative case. The article "the" is modifying this present participle, which makes it a "noun phrase" - "the one who is sowing". This does not mean that the verb participle "sowing" should be understood as a present continuous action by the master because again, its a verbal participle acting as a noun phrase. "the-one-who-is sowing the good seed is the son of man".


Grammatically and contextually, the sowing of the good seed and the sowing of the bad seed are one time events. Interpretively, however, it can probably be stretched. But Pointing out John 9:4 is really interesting. It seems that the event of the son of man sowing good seed, refers to Jesus' ministry.

Now, I'm curious if the falling away is, in part, a revealing of the tares as time moved on closer to the harvest?

So I would say the command to allow both the tares and wheat to grow together really has a two fold purpose, an attempt to pull tares early on meant that it wasn’t possible to fully distinguish between gospel believing Jews and non-gospel believing Jews, as this would uproot wheat and also the tares were used to prevented (kill) some of the wheat from growing until the harvest.

Exactly. A premature destruction of jerusalem by the romans, would have destroyed both christian and non christian jew in the earliest phases of the church.

 

[claninja]

One can only tell wheat from a tare by the fruit produced. In agriculture that's physical fruit but in people, the fruit is the result of what they do whether good or bad.

If wheat refers to all righteous of mankind in general and tares refer to all unrighteous of mankind in general, why would removing the unrighteous prematurely, also hurt the righteous, if this harvest refers to the 2nd coming at the end of the age?

Christians will fall away from Jesus to a false god/false jesus. If we apply the metaphor of wheat to Christians and tare to the unsaved, then wheat can become tares. One might say they were never really wheat but it's all symbolic language.

I mean Then they were never really wheat. They may have looked like wheat for a time, but they were not. Only wheat goes into the barn and only tares are burned

 

[claninja]

Matthew 12:34

• "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh."

The Generation of vipers, the wicked generation, the generation of evil exists since Cain, even unto today. It is the family of Satan, the wicked and perverse generation. It never meant only those people living at the time of Christ. And this generation shall not pass until all be fulfilled. Therefore, the Wheat and the Tares grow together until Christ's coming--which wasn't AD 70.

Genea means generation, as in group of people living at the same time:

• 3. the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 1:48 (πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί); ; Philippians 2:15; used especially of the Jewish race living at one and the same period: Matthew 11:16; Matthew 12:39, 41f, 45; Matthew 16:4; Matthew 23:36; (Strong's Greek: 1074. γενεά (genea) -- Generation)

 

[TribulationSigns]

Genea means generation, as in group of people living at the same time:

• 3. the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 1:48 (πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί); ; Philippians 2:15; used especially of the Jewish race living at one and the same period: Matthew 11:16; Matthew 12:39, 41f, 45; Matthew 16:4; Matthew 23:36; (Strong's Greek: 1074. γενεά (genea) -- Generation)

LOL, you purposely left out family.

It is the spiritual FAMILY (genea) of Satan that spans from Cain to the last unbeliever of Humankind. All men, women, and children of the same time period! Their family will come to an end when all things prophesied will be fulfilled, when they will be thrown into the Lake of Fire.

 

[claninja]

LOL, you purposely left out family.

It is the spiritual FAMILY (genea) of Satan that spans from Cain to the last unbeliever of Humankind. All men, women, and children of the same time period! Their family will come to an end when all things prophesied will be fulfilled, when they will be thrown into the Lake of Fire.

That’s not how lexicons work.

 

[TribulationSigns]

That’s not how lexicons work.

It was in Strong's, yet you insisted it's not how lexicon works because you don't like it when it disproves your doctrine. LOL!

It is His Word, so the Lord judges, and I am comfortable with it.

 

[grafted branch]

So in vs 24, the word "having sown" is a verbal participle, which means it acts more as an adjective. Its an aorist active participle in the dative case. While aorist can often, but not always, indicate the "past", its aspect is one of completion (and not continuous). So it renders it as "the kingdom of heaven is likened to a man-who-sowed good seed......"

In vs 37, again its a verbal participle, but this time - present participle active in the nominative case. The article "the" is modifying this present participle, which makes it a "noun phrase" - "the one who is sowing". This does not mean that the verb participle "sowing" should be understood as a present continuous action by the master because again, its a verbal participle acting as a noun phrase. "the-one-who-is sowing the good seed is the son of man".


Grammatically and contextually, the sowing of the good seed and the sowing of the bad seed are one time events. Interpretively, however, it can probably be stretched. But Pointing out John 9:4 is really interesting. It seems that the event of the son of man sowing good seed, refers to Jesus' ministry.

Thanks for looking at the Greek on the word “sowing” I’ll update my notes on that so I can be more accurate the next time.

Now, I'm curious if the falling away is, in part, a revealing of the tares as time moved on closer to the harvest?

I think so.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

1 Timothy was written some time between 63-66 AD and 1 Thessalonians was written between 49-51 AD. I would say there was an event that the Holy Spirit expressly, explicitly, and specifically let those Christians know about and they were anticipating for quite a few years for it to happen. When 1 John 2:19 says they went out from us … that they might be made manifest, I would say that was the event that the Holy Spirit spoke expressly to them about and when it literally occurred that was the manifestation they were looking for.

I certainly wouldn’t argue against anyone who puts the revealing of the tares at the 1 John 2:19 event of those who went out from us. And who knows, they could’ve “went out from us” over a period of several weeks or months (or maybe years, IDK) just like plants wouldn’t all bear their fruit at the exact same time.

Matthew 13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

we all were tares at one time

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If wheat refers to all righteous of mankind in general and tares refer to all unrighteous of mankind in general, why would removing the unrighteous prematurely, also hurt the righteous, if this harvest refers to the 2nd coming at the end of the age?

Jesus defined the wheat as the children of the kingdom of heaven and the tares as the children of the devil (Matthew 13:38-39). All believers are children of the kingdom and all unbelievers (unrepentant sinners) are children of the devil (1 John 3:8-10).

God's determination of who are the wheat and who are the tares is based on who the children of the kingdom are and who the children of the devil are at the end of this temporal age. From God's eternal perspective He already knows who will end up as wheat (children of the kingdom) and who will end up as tares (children of the devil). The parable is about who are wheat and who are tares at the end of the age, regardless of one's spiritual status before the end of the age comes. No tares should be pulled up until the time comes at the end of the age that God determined that He will not give people the chance to repent any longer.

By pulling up all who are currently children of the devil (tares) before the right time, the angels could be pulling up those who would later repent if given more time and would become children of the kingdom (wheat). Jesus instead wants the angels to allow things to play themselves out in the world until the end of this temporal age at which point it will be clear who is saved and who is not with time having run out for the children of the devil (sinners - 1 John 3:8-10) to repent.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

we all were tares at one time

Correct. And that is because tares are defined as the children of the devil and other scripture defines children of the devil as lost sinners, which we all were before being saved.

Matthew 13:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; 39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

1 John 3:8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. 10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

 

[grafted branch]

we all were tares at one time

The wheat was sown first then the tares. Who’s the wheat if everybody was a tare at one time?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The wheat was sown first then the tares. Who’s the wheat if everybody was a tare at one time?

when did the wheat become wheat.

were they born that way, or did something happen to them?

 

[grafted branch]

when did the wheat become wheat.

were they born that way, or did something happen to them?

My view is that the seed was the word of God, in a different parable, in Luke 8:11, the seed is the word of God. So the seed (word of God) that was sown by the Son of man only produces wheat. Satan sowed a false gospel that only produces tares.

 

[claninja]

It was in Strong's, yet you insisted it's not how lexicon works because you don't like it when it disproves your doctrine. LOL!

It is His Word, so the Lord judges, and I am comfortable with it.

Strongs exhaustive concordance contains 1-2 word glosses of Greek words in regards to how the KJV translates it into English , not exhaustive contextual definitions. Even strong, in the preface of his dictionary, stated that his definitions are brief and further use of a lexicon should be used to determine word meaning.

Additionally, strongs doesn’t seem to have genea defined as family:

• Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
  age, generation
  From (a presumed derivative of) genos; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons) -- age, generation, nation, time.

Did you mean to say you are using thayer’s lexicon?