Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Paul]

Ray just answered a question of mine via e-mail. Should I reply with a "thank you?" I realize he gets loads of e-mails and might not want a million "thank you"s.

[Roy Monis]

Ray just answered a question of mine via e-mail. Should I reply with a "thank you?" I realize he gets loads of e-mails and might not want a million "thank you"s.

Well Paul

I do think it is the least you can do, a little appreciation for the unbelievable hard work he is putting into it I'm certain would be a very welcome change to all the abuse he is having to absorb. 

God bless you brother in our joint walk in Christ. 

Love in Christ Jesus.

Roy UK     

[joyful1]

okay, Paul...LOL! You've got me curious....
what was your question
and what was his answer,
if I may be so bold as to ask?
Joyce

[EKnight]

I think a short thank you would be good.  Nothing too lengthy and don't expect a reply because he is inundated with emails.

Eileen

[Paul]

okay, Paul...LOL! You've got me curious....
what was your question
and what was his answer,
if I may be so bold as to ask?
Joyce

 

Is Matthew 13 a parable?

In verses 36 to 42, Jesus seems to be explaining the parable in verses 18 to 30. He takes all the things in the parable and says they represent real things (the angels, the world, the devil, etc.,) so it seems like he's being literal.

[37]: The sower is the Son of man; [38]: the field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the tares are the children of the wicked one; [39]: The enemy that sowed the tares is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; the reapers are the angels;

[40-42:] The process of gathering up the tares and burning them represents the angels gathering up all things that offend and do iniquity, at the end of the world, and throwing them into a furnace of fire.

Dear Paul: But notice in the explanation that you stated yourself:  "and throwing them into a furnace of fire." We know for sure that this "furnice of fire" is not a LITERAL furnace of fire--it too is figurative languge--symbolic, spiritual.
God be with you,
Ray

[EKnight]

Paul,

I see your point.  Jesus takes the figurative language used in the Parable and then puts them in literal terms.  So, I don't get how the fiery furnace is not literal when everything else appears to be??? 

Did you understand Ray's answer?  I don't.

Eileen

[hillsbororiver]

Hi Folks,

Please try to keep in mind the entire bible is indeed a parable. Even things that are truly literal and appear to be straight forward and physically applicable to our present reality really do have deeper spiritual truths contained within them.

Eze 17:2  Son of man, put forth a riddle, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel;

Have you ever explained or "fleshed out" one analogy with another analogy?

(Herman you are you are a "diamond in the rough." Herman asks "what do you mean?" What I mean is you are a work in progress, an unfinished gem.)
 
Are real people actually tares or wheat or both? Is the Kingdom really a bunch of plants with actual roots growing in literal soil?

Is God really a literal consuming fire? Or is Paul actually speaking a parable here as well?

Heb 12:29  For our God is a consuming fire. [Also see; Deu 4:24 & Deu 9:3]

Peace,

Joe

[Roy Monis]

Paul,

I see your point.  Jesus takes the figurative language used in the Parable and then puts them in literal terms.  So, I don't get how the fiery furnace is not literal when everything else appears to be??? 

Did you understand Ray's answer?  I don't.

Eileen

Dear Eileen and Paul

I'm not sure about it but I think I can follow what Ray is about, so let me give my opinion on it.

Jesus does indeed give a literal explanation of what the various parts of the parable represent. So let us examine it; 37 And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, 38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; 39 and the  enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. 40 “So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. 41 “The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness." (Matt.13:37-41).

1)..The sower is the Son of Man. 2)..The field is the world. 3)..The good seed are the sons of the kingdom. 4)..The tares are the sons of the evil one. 5)..The enemy is the devil.  6)..The harvest is the end of the age.  7)..The reapers are the angels.

Jesus gives this explanation only to those with eyes to see and ears to hear, His disciples the chosen, but it isn't explained to the multitude. For what the multitude are told we have to go back to the parable, the sons of the kingdom are the chosen, the tares are the sons of the evil one, the harvest is the end of the age. The reaper goes out and collects the symbolic chosen and gathers them into the barn, and he collects the symbolic tares and casts them into the fire. Few are chosen but the many are not. That's what it boils down to. 

It is the symbolic wheat and tares that are gathered and either stored or burned that is being spoken of and not the literal.

I don't know whether I have done a decent job at trying to explain it, but that's how I see it and it appears to be quite clear. Whether it is right or not I don't know but I am open to correction.

God bless you brother and sister in our joint walk in Christ. 

Love in Christ Jesus.

Roy UK     

[EKnight]

Explanation of the Parable of the Weeds Matthew 13:36-42

Then dismissing the crowds, he went into the house.  His disciples approached him and said, "explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field."  He said in reply, "He who sows good seed is the Son of Man, the field is the world, the god seed the children of the kingdom. The weeds are the children of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the endo of the age, and the harvesters are angels.  Just as weeds are collected and burned [up] with fire, so will it be at the end of the age.  The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all who cause others to sin and all evildoers. They [his angels] will throw them [those that cause others to sin and evildoers] into the fiery furnace, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.

So Jesus says this is this or this (in the parable) IS this, and this IS this but when he gets to the fiery furnace, that is the one thing he doesn't change and leaves that as figurative or symbolic???  I don't know about that.

Eileen

[Roy Monis]

Dear Eileen

We must understand that His disciples were no different to the multitudes outside at that moment in time because they hadn't been given the Holy Spirit as yet. So in the explanation He is talking to His disciples in private which is in the literal for them to understand, but when He went outside and addressed the multitudes He had to do it in a parable so they wouldn't understand.

Now do you see it?

God bless you sister in our joint walk in Christ. 

Love in Christ Jesus.

Roy UK     

[EKnight]

I understand that when he spoke to the multitudes that he spoke in parables so that they couldn't understand.  I understand that when he spoke in parables that even his apostles didn't understand.  But when he explained the parable to the apostles in private he now tells it to them "literally", therefore, how is the "fiery furnace" not literal when the angels were literal the Son of Man is literal, the Devil is literal, the world is literal but when we get to the "fiery furnace" this is still figurative/symbolic?

I guess I am not explaining my question very well.

Eileen

[ciy]

[37]: The sower is the Son of man; [38]: the field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the tares are the children of the wicked one; [39]: The enemy that sowed the tares is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; the reapers are the angels;

[40-42:] The process of gathering up the tares and burning them represents the angels gathering up all things that offend and do iniquity, at the end of the world, and throwing them into a furnace of fire.
 
No the Son of Man is not literal. He is the sower. 
The field is not literal.  The field is the world.
The good seed are the children of the kingdom.
The tares are the children of the wicked one.
ETC.

Our flesh (the beast within) which is given strength by the dragon (satan or the evil one) and is enmity to God is of the wicked one.  All of our carnality (lust of flesh, lust of the eyes, pride of life) will be consumed either in this age and become Children of the Kingdom or it will be consumed in a spiritual lake of fire in the age to come which in the parable above is exampled by using "a furnace of fire" that is used to burn up trash or anything unusable like tares or weeds.

God has an awesome plan.
CIY

[EKnight]

So you are saying that when Jesus (in private) explained the parable of the wheat and tares he was still speaking figuratively?  So when he said the harvesters are Angels, and the field is the world, and the sower is the Son of Man (harvesters, field and sower were used in the parable to the multitudes) then (Angels, the World and Son of Man used in Jesus' explanation of the parable) are still yet figurative?

In other words, both the parable and Jesus' explanation of the parable to the apostles are figurative?

Eileen

[OBrenda]

Cy,

Is it your understanding that the good seed and the tares are intergrated inside us? And at the harvest this will all be sorted and seperated in side us, and the carnal yucky stuff goes to the furnace.  And the Godly part returns to God?

Or are the wheat & tares the saved and unsaved individuals, the called and the chosen??

[Paul]

EKnight, you have the same inquiry I have; and it's a good one. However, I'm inclined to believe Ray's answer that the furnace of fire--alone--is figurative, and I'll try to explain why. The furnace of fire is oviously the Lake of Fire--and we all know Ray's explanation for the Lake of Fire. For example, we know the Devil, who's thrown into the Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:10) is a literal being; but we know, from Ray's teachings, that the Lake of Fire itself isn't literal. So, the Bible combines the literal with the symbolic, even in same contexts. Here's another example of this:

Genesis 3:14:  "And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:"

We know that the Garden of Eden, where this took place, is a literal place (Gen. 2:10-14). We also know Satan is a literal being. But the dust represents man (Gen. 3:19). This is a parable showing God commanding Satan to hunt mankind until the end of the world.

[EKnight]

Alleluia Paul!!

I was just about to give up on this thread.

Eileen

[Paul]

 

[ciy]

Jesus is explaining the parable to the disciples to show that it is a parable.  He is not explaining it to the multitudes.  The multitudes will not understand it. 

Like Ray says all the bible is spiritual and is actually happening inside of you.  This parable is what is going on in the world but the main point is that it is going on within you.  The revelation of Jesus Christ is within, so are all of the Words of the bible.  The physical first then the spiritual.  The bible is a parable.

CIY

[Stevernator]

Also the book of Daniel comes to mind. Arcturus made a great point in a thread that inspired me to read Daniel. In it, three Jews were thrown in a furnace of fire but they were not hurt by it since they had trusted their lives to God rather than submit to iniquity.

Revelation 2:11
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death.

[mharrell08]

Hello All:

I thought of Ray's paper on Spiritual Truths (http://bible-truths.com/twelve.htm) when I saw people posting how Jesus 'explained' the parables to his disciples. Well not exactly and here's an excerpt from Ray paper:

The multitudes did not understand Jesus’ parables; the Scribes and Pharisees did not understand Jesus’ parables; the hundreds of disciples did not understand Jesus’ parables, and as unbelievable as it may sound, not even the APOSTLES understood Jesus’ parables. Now get ready for another shock:

Not only did none of the above including the Apostles themselves, understand any of Jesus’ parables, but they did not understand the parables after Jesus EXPLAINED the parables! And how is such a thing even possible? Well, get ready for an even greater shock:

The reason they didn’t understand the parables even after Jesus explained them, is because Jesus explained His parables WITH ANOTHER PARABLE! That’s right, Jesus explained the parables that the Apostles themselves didn’t understand, by another parable, which they also did not understand.

In Matt. 13:10, we read, "And the disciples came, and said unto Him, Why speak you unto them in parables?" In verse 11 Jesus said it is given to His disciples to understand (but He didn’t say WHEN it was given for them to understand), and then in verse 12 Jesus says:

    "For whosoever has, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever has not, from him shall be taken away even that he has."

In other words, another parable. Jesus explained the first parable that they didn’t understand with another parable, which they did not understand.

A little later:

    "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 sows the good seed is the Son of man: the field is the world…,"

Etc., etc., which is nothing more than yet another parable to explain a previous parable.

Jesus does not explain "the children of the kingdom," "the children of the wicked one," "the devil," "the reaper angels," "the end of the world," "The Son of man," "furnace of fire," "the kingdom of their Father," anymore than He explained what the first version of the parable was, and therefore, He had to add this to the end of His explanation: "Who has ears to hear, let him hear." But none there had "ears to ear," as we shall now see conclusively proven.

Hope this helps,

Marques