The Ones Who Are Left…

[Davy]

Okay, here’s a thought. And I preface it with the warning that it IS just a thought, I’m not trying to claim it’s true or inspired by God, and I’m not hoping to stir a great deal of angst among folks who think I’m nuts…I could be, I’m just noodling through something…but I thought it was an interesting thought, and one that sort of hit me as I was reading my bible, so…

Matt 13 gives us the parable of the weeds, and the explanation of it:


Matthew 13:24-30
The Parable of the Weeds
[24] He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, [25] but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. [26] So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. [27] And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ [28] He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ [29] But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. [30] Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, “Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”

Matthew 13:37-43
[37] He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. [38] The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, [39] and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. [40] Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. [41] The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, [42] and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. [43] Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

While I acknowledge that this will be argued against by Dispensationalists, who would claim a two stage ‘return’ of Christ…which would put, in their mind, this ‘end of the age’ event at his last coming, I argue it doesn’t actually give us permission to insert or assume that. And yes, we could go elsewhere and continue the argument, but that is not my current goal. Here, in the text, we are told rather clearly that BOTH people groups are being allowed to ‘grow’ until the end of the age. At which point, the angels are sent out to gather…to reap the law-breakers and sinners, and throw them into the furnace. It’s then that the ‘righteous’ will inherit the Kingdom of their Father.
My interest, in specific, was caught when I was reading this passage:


1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
[16] For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. [17] Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

This passage is, without a doubt, talking about the ‘Rapture’. The event where Christians are ‘caught up’…gathered to be with Christ. Regardless of how or when you understand this event, it’s clearly there. But…huh. The dead in Christ go first. And then we who are alive. WHO ARE LEFT. After reading the parable of the weeds, I’m suddenly wondering if Paul is being at all literal here. If the parable can be taken at all seriously, then we might be able to say that at that future time, living Christians will witness the ‘harvesting’, or ‘reaping’ of sinners from the face of the earth. And once that has happened, then they will be gathered to meet the Lord.
It could, even understanding what is happening, be quite a daunting prospect.
Of course, it all could happen within seconds of one another, who truly knows.
But, like I said, it was interesting to me.

It's sad that I have to keep saying to brethren and sisters to study their Old Testament Books along with The New Testament Books. Your ideas on the gathering to Christ make me assume you've never read or not understood the Zechariah 14 prophecy about Christ's future return.

Did some pastor tell you the fib that all the Old Testament Books are dead history?

Once I was asked by an acquaintance to do a Bible study at his house, and it wound up being his father's house, with his parents and his brother and his wife. I didn't realize they had been debating this very subject, because they were going to different denominational Churches.

I opened the Zechariah 14 Chapter and covered it all. NONE... of them had ever read it!

What Zechariah 14 shows is this...
1. On the "day of the Lord", which is the final day of this present world, Jesus brings ALL the saints with Him to the Mount of Olives east of Jerusalem.
2. Jesus' feet touch down upon the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem. That means ON THE EARTH.
3. The River of the waters of life then manifests ON THE EARTH.
4. The leftovers of the nations that came upon Jerusalem on the last day are then required to come up to Jerusalem from year to year to worship The KING, The Lord of hosts, and keep the feast of tabernacles.
5. The nation that refuses to come up to Jerusalem from year to year will have no rain upon their lands.

NONE... of that is happening up in the clouds.

Thus what Apostle Paul was teaching in 1 Thessalonians 4 about the gathering to Christ is about Jesus bringing the 'asleep' saints with Him when He comes, and then He gathers up His elect that are still alive, and they ALL go with Him to Jerusalem ON EARTH to begin His "thousand years" reign with His "rod of iron" over the nations. He comes in the clouds, not to reign or live in the clouds.

The "tares" of Matthew 13 are not destroyed until the GWT Judgment at the end of the future "thousand years", as written in Revelation 20. The Matthew 13 parable must agree with Rev.20, and it does. The parable just does not go into the detail that Rev.20 does. Many prophecies given prior to Christ's Book of Revelation are like this, only giving a portion of the events of the end. 1 Corinthians 15:23-28 does the same thing. It does not mean to build a whole doctrine around those previous Scriptures. It means ALL of God's Holy Writ must be considered, like put ALL the pieces together as a whole, and only then... can we know what a Scripture prophecy is about.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

And, as for the other reference…I’m not sure I see the connection. Christ’s statement that no one takes his life…he lays it down, is a declaration of both power and status, but also of intent and love.

You said “I’m not sure I see the connection” “Christ’s statement that no one takes his life…he lays it down, is a declaration of both power and status, but also the intent and love.”

this is kind of long but that is what I thought also, as it being absurd to connect no man takes his life…he lays it down …but does He not connect it in?
Luke 17:33: "Whoever seeks to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.

Luke 17:34 : "I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left.

Luke 17:35: "There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken and the other will be left.

Luke 17:36 : "Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left."

‘two men will be in the field’ from the parable you quoted the “field is the world”. You said “Christ’s statement that no one takes his life…he lays it down, is a declaration of both power and status(overcoming the field?), but also the intent and love.” agree but is there no connection in fear not for I have overcome the world? Could the same be said Fear not for I have overcome the field? In He left “good seed” which remains and is that not the topic of “sowing” and “reaping”? 1 John 3:8-9 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. [9] Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Is “his seed remains in him” good seed? In the field you will have tribulation but fear not for I have overcome the field; Galatians 4:19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,

what a question, a question I have also because it makes no sense “where, Lord?” Luke 17:37: And answering they said to Him, "Where, Lord?" And He said to them, "Where the body is, there also the vultures will be gathered."

He doesn’t stop there but goes into the unrighteousness judge: I’ve never noticed what the topic is “Give me legal protection against my opponent” is being cried for, to the point of “wearing out” the unrighteous judge:
Luke 18:1: Now He was telling them a parable to show that at all times they ought to pray and not to lose heart,

Luke 18:2: saying, "In a certain city there was a judge who did not fear God and did not respect man.

Luke 18:3: "There was a widow in that city, and she kept coming to him, saying, 'Give me legal protection from my opponent.'

fear not for I have overcome the world?

Luke 18:8: "I tell you that He will bring about justice for them quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?"
Then He says To hear what the unrighteous judge says, and says “I tell you that He (God) will bring Justice for them that cry “quickly” … “quickly” even so come…

but He doesn’t stop there but goes in to “thank you that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this man (tax collector) beginning it with “two men” went
Luke 18:9 Lexicon: And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt:

Luke 17:33: "Whoever seeks to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

I’ve heard a few people’s take on this verse, but I’m not sure I’ve ever been truly satisfied with them. I think, like you’ve put here, my only response is: ?
I don’t know.

I guess the question for me pertaining to the topic of “the ones who are left” …is Saul/Paul and where did Saul go? And why Paul said
I am crucified with Christ: ‘nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.’ Galatians 2:20

 

[bbyrd009]

I’ve been good, thanks. You?

doin ok…love the avatar!

 

[bbyrd009]

The problem I have currently is…okay, fine. But…where does the summation of them lead?

Knowledge brings sorrow

i suggest that they are intentional puzzles, meant to be worked out—but that the solutions will force a loss of bias in one, or to put that another way, the truth is not going to be so pleasant. Two men in a bed is almost surely you (divided), for instance

 

[bbyrd009]

Here, in the text, we are told rather clearly that BOTH people groups are being allowed to ‘grow’ until the end of the age. At which point, the angels are sent out to gather…to reap the law-breakers and sinners, and throw them into the furnace. It’s then that the ‘righteous’ will inherit the Kingdom of their Father

fwiw i suggest that whenever you are dealing with a passage that seems “rather clearly” you first toss out all of your previous assumptions; those are almost surely not quite exactly “people” as would i agree make perfect sense to us on initial reading (us being so “wise”), but likely something else!

Also when is the “end of the age?” Why cant that just be “when you have died?”
Dont we all, basically, embibe some “tares” (psychoactive, mind-altering) ideas and then eventually “weed them out,” (or not?) So while i dont know of course, they might be more like “peoples’ frame of mind” or something

 

[bbyrd009]

The weeds are the sons of the evil one, [39] and the enemy who sowed them is the devil

”The tares are the (drunk) ideas of the spirit of deception” maybe

 

[Naomi25]

Scripture is very clear, the harvest is the end of this world, verse 41 is the "Second Coming" verse 42 represents the "Final Judgement" of the wicked to the Lake Of Fire, verse 43 the righteous inherit the "Eternal Kingdom" (The End) it's that simple.

Matthew 13:38-43KJV
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.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 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;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Yeah. I think I pointed that out.

 

[Naomi25]

Yes. But the only way it all fits is to question WHERE a verse fits, in time. Is it before our gathering together, after our gathering together, after the tribulation, during the tribulation, before or after the millennium? Yes, we do all have bias and I have seen where every eschatological view makes mistakes in the timeframe of some verses in order to fit it into their bias.

It is a fact that some verses state removal of the righteous first and other verses state removal of the wicked first. And the only way to reconcile them is to see that for both to be true, they have to be speaking of different timeframes.

Instead of arguing which verse is correct, assume they are both correct and work outward from there. I don’t mean you, you don’t argue. You just want to see it fit together.

But…what if our very notions ON things such as ‘the tribulation’ or ‘the millennium’ are faulty? Not altogether wrong, but not quite right. Think of it this way, when navigating, if someone is off just by a fraction, no big deal starting off, but by the time they’ve travelled a long way, they are a long, long way from where they wanted to go. If we read things in scripture that lead us to believe that there will be a time of increased persecution at the end, or a specific kingdom, but we get the reasons or references slightly wrong, we might end up a long way from what was intended in scripture.
I’m not claiming to have the answer, I’m just chewing on it.
As far as the timing issue goes…that’s tricky. I think we need to be cautious in WHERE we are reading timing references. And, I’m aware some of my Amil bias might be coming through here, but it still seems somewhat logical to me. You see, in a book like Daniel, you have clear references in his prophecies to events that will unfold in the years and centuries right after Daniel…before Christ. And yet, at some seemingly undefined moment, it jumps forward to what can only be the end. We have scenes right out of Revelation 20; thrones are present, books are opened and judgment is made. The Antichrist figure shows up to persecute God’s ‘saints’ and be struck down and judged by Christ’s return. So, we have a clear example of time being…stretched for prophetic purposes. In Revelation we see certain events being described that (while I know will be disagreed with) can only be repeated. There are several times when it can only be described as a theophany…we see a crescendo of judgment events, increasingly violent and terrible, which culminate in ‘the end’, a great earthquake, peals of thunder…that sort of thing, exactly what was seen on Mt Sinai when God ‘came down’. We see no real explanation in other NT books for this, especially in light of Rev 19, when Christ returns to wage war. Unless they’re perhaps one and the same. But…do these link up with the ‘gathering’ return? Who knows? The lack of mention of it at all in Revelation is conspicuous.
My point being, trying to judge the timing of particular events by adding passages that also come from books where time is often stretched or possibly repeated, fogs the issue somewhat. Peter tells us outright that time is not for God what it is for us. Who knows what he will do…what he CAN do. Who’s to say that at the moment the ‘age’ ends, he drops the curtain of time itself, and it no longer has any meaning. All Christians throughout our time are experiencing the final resurrection at the moment we experience the end of the age, because in the ‘no time’ realm, its one and the same?
Again, interesting to think about, but no real way to biblically prove it. But, like I said before, I am not comfortable with a lot of the ‘half’ answers I get from the current ‘accepted’ systems.

 

[Naomi25]

....seems you have a focus ...OUT OF CONTEXT...

It may very well be that the intent of the phrase ‘those who are left’ is not what I was musing on. I never claimed it must be. I never claimed it a thought bought to me by God. It was, I thought clearly articulated, a side thought I found interesting, worthy of chatting over to see what others thought. It’s certainly not something I am “focused on”. If a conversation board cannot be a place where conversation happens about what we read in scripture, what is it then? Perhaps we ought to just go back to soap boxing? And arguing? Surely that cannot become the people of God?
That was my only intent.

.
....Son of Man, DID NOT CALL them UP.
.....Christ, DID NOT CALL them UP.
.....The Lord, DID NOT CALL them UP.
.....The Son of Man, DID NOT meet them.
......Christ, DID NOT MEET them.
......The Lord, DOES MEET THEM....
......NOT ON EARTH.
......IN the CLOUDS, they GO.
......IN the AIR, they meet.

IN CONTEXT...the Son of man Returns TO EARTH.
IN CONTEXT...the Lord DOES NOT "return", but rather "descends" and meets SAVED MEN, IN the CLOUDS/AIR.

NOT a duel, "return"...NOT the 'same' place.

Yeah, forgive me, but I just don’t follow your logic chain here, or the point you’re driving at.

 

[Naomi25]

It's sad that I have to keep saying to brethren and sisters to study their Old Testament Books along with The New Testament Books. Your ideas on the gathering to Christ make me assume you've never read or not understood the Zechariah 14 prophecy about Christ's future return.

Did some pastor tell you the fib that all the Old Testament Books are dead history?

Okay. Should I return the favour and begin our conversation by making an assumption about you and attempting to shame you? Very well done.
No, I do not believe the OT is ‘dead history’…far from it. I believe the more we dig into the OT and the culture of those who wrote it, the better equiped we will be to understand scripture itself. The bible has a dept and richness that only reading the NT through Western centred eyes misses.
Having said that, lets discuss Zach 14. Yes, it does discuss some remarkable events, does it not? One would be hard pressed to deny it speaks about Christ’s return. Like Revelation, it does not speak of a Rapture, or an instant departure of the wicked, swept away by angels to their doom.
The problem for you is this: while we cannot dismiss the OT, neither can we dismiss the NT. And there are passages in the NT that DO speak of both righteous and unrighteousness being taken in just such manners.
So, since you have such disdain for those of us who would be pleased with open discussion about such things, and since your understanding is obviously superior to ours, please, enlighten us on how these two marry with harmony.

 

[Naomi25]

You said “I’m not sure I see the connection” “Christ’s statement that no one takes his life…he lays it down, is a declaration of both power and status, but also the intent and love.”

this is kind of long but that is what I thought also, as it being absurd to connect no man takes his life…he lays it down …but does He not connect it in?
Luke 17:33: "Whoever seeks to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.

Luke 17:34 : "I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left.

Luke 17:35: "There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken and the other will be left.

Luke 17:36 : "Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left."

‘two men will be in the field’ from the parable you quoted the “field is the world”. You said “Christ’s statement that no one takes his life…he lays it down, is a declaration of both power and status(overcoming the field?), but also the intent and love.” agree but is there no connection in fear not for I have overcome the world? Could the same be said Fear not for I have overcome the field? In He left “good seed” which remains and is that not the topic of “sowing” and “reaping”? 1 John 3:8-9 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. [9] Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Is “his seed remains in him” good seed? In the field you will have tribulation but fear not for I have overcome the field; Galatians 4:19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,

what a question, a question I have also because it makes no sense “where, Lord?” Luke 17:37: And answering they said to Him, "Where, Lord?" And He said to them, "Where the body is, there also the vultures will be gathered."

He doesn’t stop there but goes into the unrighteousness judge: I’ve never noticed what the topic is “Give me legal protection against my opponent” is being cried for, to the point of “wearing out” the unrighteous judge:
Luke 18:1: Now He was telling them a parable to show that at all times they ought to pray and not to lose heart,

Luke 18:2: saying, "In a certain city there was a judge who did not fear God and did not respect man.

Luke 18:3: "There was a widow in that city, and she kept coming to him, saying, 'Give me legal protection from my opponent.'

fear not for I have overcome the world?

Luke 18:8: "I tell you that He will bring about justice for them quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?"
Then He says To hear what the unrighteous judge says, and says “I tell you that He (God) will bring Justice for them that cry “quickly” … “quickly” even so come…

but He doesn’t stop there but goes in to “thank you that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this man (tax collector) beginning it with “two men” went
Luke 18:9 Lexicon: And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt:

Luke 17:33: "Whoever seeks to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.

The notion that Christ has overcome and we are not to fear is certainly a biblical one and we ought to apply it. But…I’m not certain I would connect these verses or parables/teachings simply because of certain phrases (like field) used. Parables ought not, I believe, to be picked apart down to the micro-level, and the meaning of individual words applied to other stories or teachings. That’s not their intent…their intent is to tell the story/moral for THAT parable. Take, for example leaven. It’s mostly used to describe unwanted traits…but Christ actually uses it in Matt 13:33 to describe the kingdom of heaven, how it began in a small way and grew, and will continue to grow….he used it as a good thing. So…we can’t take leaven and apply it everywhere. We need the context of the specific passage. So, in Luke 17:36, I’d suggest it simply means two men were working in the field when the event happened. If it was specifically referring to ‘the world’, as the parable of the weeds, why specify the two verses before it? Where they not also “in the field”? No, they were respectively in bed and grinding at the wheel. This parable is about people going about normal everyday tasks when something unexpected befell them (judgment). That is the purpose for THIS parable.

I truly appreciate how you always see biblical connections and deep meaning and hope in all your read. And, I have to say, that just because I often disagree, or don’t get where you’re going or see what you see, doesn’t mean that I don’t appreciate it!

 

[farouk]

But…what if our very notions ON things such as ‘the tribulation’ or ‘the millennium’ are faulty? Not altogether wrong, but not quite right. Think of it this way, when navigating, if someone is off just by a fraction, no big deal starting off, but by the time they’ve travelled a long way, they are a long, long way from where they wanted to go. If we read things in scripture that lead us to believe that there will be a time of increased persecution at the end, or a specific kingdom, but we get the reasons or references slightly wrong, we might end up a long way from what was intended in scripture.
I’m not claiming to have the answer, I’m just chewing on it.
As far as the timing issue goes…that’s tricky. I think we need to be cautious in WHERE we are reading timing references. And, I’m aware some of my Amil bias might be coming through here, but it still seems somewhat logical to me. You see, in a book like Daniel, you have clear references in his prophecies to events that will unfold in the years and centuries right after Daniel…before Christ. And yet, at some seemingly undefined moment, it jumps forward to what can only be the end. We have scenes right out of Revelation 20; thrones are present, books are opened and judgment is made. The Antichrist figure shows up to persecute God’s ‘saints’ and be struck down and judged by Christ’s return. So, we have a clear example of time being…stretched for prophetic purposes. In Revelation we see certain events being described that (while I know will be disagreed with) can only be repeated. There are several times when it can only be described as a theophany…we see a crescendo of judgment events, increasingly violent and terrible, which culminate in ‘the end’, a great earthquake, peals of thunder…that sort of thing, exactly what was seen on Mt Sinai when God ‘came down’. We see no real explanation in other NT books for this, especially in light of Rev 19, when Christ returns to wage war. Unless they’re perhaps one and the same. But…do these link up with the ‘gathering’ return? Who knows? The lack of mention of it at all in Revelation is conspicuous.
My point being, trying to judge the timing of particular events by adding passages that also come from books where time is often stretched or possibly repeated, fogs the issue somewhat. Peter tells us outright that time is not for God what it is for us. Who knows what he will do…what he CAN do. Who’s to say that at the moment the ‘age’ ends, he drops the curtain of time itself, and it no longer has any meaning. All Christians throughout our time are experiencing the final resurrection at the moment we experience the end of the age, because in the ‘no time’ realm, its one and the same?
Again, interesting to think about, but no real way to biblically prove it. But, like I said before, I am not comfortable with a lot of the ‘half’ answers I get from the current ‘accepted’ systems.

Hi @Naomi25 Seems like the tribulation of John 16.33 and that of Matthew 24.21 are two distinct things...

 

[Naomi25]

I guess the question for me pertaining to the topic of “the ones who are left” …is Saul/Paul and where did Saul go? And why Paul said
I am crucified with Christ: ‘nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.’ Galatians 2:20

I would say it has something to do with this verse:

Ezekiel 36:26-27
[26] And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. [27] And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

God makes us anew…spiritually first. There will come a time when he will make us anew physically.

 

[farouk]

I would say it has something to do with this verse:

Ezekiel 36:26-27
[26] And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. [27] And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

God makes us anew…spiritually first. There will come a time when he will make us anew physically.

@Naomi25 Such a lot in Ezekiel, right?

 

[farouk]

Matthew 24:41-43 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. [42] Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. [43] But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

have to wonder about “the one shall be taken, and the other left” when He said “No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself” in John 10:16-18 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. [17] Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. [18] No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Hi @VictoryinJesus Interesting that in verse 21, there is reference to a unique future event....can shed light on the rest of the chapter...

 

[Naomi25]

doin ok…love the avatar!

Thanks.

.
Knowledge brings sorrow

i suggest that they are intentional puzzles, meant to be worked out—but that the solutions will force a loss of bias in one, or to put that another way, the truth is not going to be so pleasant. Two men in a bed is almost surely you (divided), for instance

I’d…agree with the first…maybe not with the second. Yes, I think we are supposed to attempt to noodle these things out, and yes, they ought to (if we honestly attempt to apply them) help us loose some of our biases….but…I don’t think God’s word is ever meant to leave us divided. Keep us coming back to him, searching for his truth and glory, yes. Divided? No, not so much.

fwiw i suggest that whenever you are dealing with a passage that seems “rather clearly” you first toss out all of your previous assumptions; those are almost surely not quite exactly “people” as would i agree make perfect sense to us on initial reading (us being so “wise”), but likely something else!

Also when is the “end of the age?” Why cant that just be “when you have died?”
Dont we all, basically, embibe some “tares” (psychoactive, mind-altering) ideas and then eventually “weed them out,” (or not?) So while i dont know of course, they might be more like “peoples’ frame of mind” or something.

Interesting thoughts. And I can’t say that you are wrong. However, there is biblical precedent for the ‘sons of the kingdom’ and ‘sons of the devil’. John 8:44 calls the Pharisees “sons of the devil. Acts 13:10 Paul calls the magician a ‘son of the devil’. 1 John 3:10 tells us it is ‘evident who are the children of God and who are the children of the devil’. And the imagery of God being our ‘father’ is rife within scripture.
I mean…we could also argue for them being ‘sons of God’…the fallen angelic beings. But…within the context of the parable I doubt it. With some shoe-horning perhaps, but ‘people’ feel more natural.
The ‘end of the age’ idea is also interesting. Why can’t it be the same? If you die and are immediately within God’s realm, are you not unaffected by time? Who’s to say the moment they ‘wake up’ in Christ’s presence is not the ‘moment’ that the age ends?
I don’t know that that will fundamentally change the passage though, would it?
If it WERE just when individuals died…how then do we explain the fact that ALL the plants (weed and wheat) are to grow together UNTIL the ‘end of the age’. Of course, logically and physically there ARE “plants” dying all the time throughout that. But I suppose if one were to take the parable as its written, you would still, perhaps, conclude that ‘the field’ (world) goes on until the harvest? Which undeniably, it does.

.”The tares are the (drunk) ideas of the spirit of deception” maybe

I suppose those could certainly be included. But…if you’re implying that it will ONLY be drunken IDEAS and the spirit of deception that will be burned….I’m not quite sure I can agree with that. Not just because of this parable, but because of everything else in scripture that speaks of final judgment.

 

[Naomi25]

@Naomi25 Such a lot in Ezekiel, right?

Huge book! Amazing!

 

[Naomi25]

Hi @Naomi25 Seems like the tribulation of John 16.33 and that of Matthew 24.21 are two distinct things...

You could definitely argue that. John seems to be speaking of general tribulation. Matt specifically calls what he’s speaking of as ‘great tribulation’.
I think most Christians (unless they’re Post-mill or Preterist) recognise that the world is going to go out with a bang, rather than a whimper. Things are going to get worse before Jesus ends things. How, specifically…well, therein lies the rub.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

But…I’m not certain I would connect these verses or parables/teachings simply because of certain phrases (like field) used. Parables ought not, I believe, to be picked apart down to the micro-level, and the meaning of individual words applied to other stories or teachings. That’s not their intent…their intent is to tell the story/moral for THAT parable

“But…I’m not certain I would connect these verses or parables/teachings simply because of certain phrases (like field) used.”

honestly I’m disappointed (not in you but myself) that “field” became the focus because that wasn’t my intention. I wasn’t trying to simply connect parables because of ‘in the field’ but only noticed it after what really caught my attention … ‘whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.’ Which to me seems an odd way to lead in to ‘one shall be taken and the other left’ don’t you think?