Matthew 13:36-43
Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples approached him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man; the field is the world, and the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the weeds are the children of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the 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 causes of sin and all evildoers, and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let anyone with ears listen!”
Another explanation.
What always strikes me as interesting is when an explanation to a parable is separated from the parable itself. In the case of the parable of the sower (which becomes the parable of the soil), for instance, the parable and its explanation are separated by a short discourse on parables and the way they confuse as much as edify their hearers. In this case, the parable of the wheat and the weeds is separated from its explanation by several parables that, as we saw, suggest that the kingdom of God is somewhat dangerous, even rather subversive, and probably not what we were expecting.
My question in these situations is always the same: how do these intervening moments or events change how we read the explanation? Are we to hear this rather straightforward explanation (as explanations are wont to be) as more discourse on the surprising nature of the kingdom of God? Are we being prepared to listen to it more deeply and not jump to conclusions, as we had to do with the earlier parables about mustard and yeast? Or is something else at work?
I don’t know for sure. But it occurs to me that while the explanation to the parable of the weeds and wheat is fairly clear on one point – God will sort out right from wrong and draw the children of the kingdom to heaven and punish those who follow the devil – our role in all of this is rather vague. It throws me back to the parable itself, when the servants asked whether they should pull up the weeds and the master said no for fear they would damage the wheat. So also, I conclude from the explanation, sorting out between who is of the kingdom and who is not is finally not my job, not our job, but only God’s job and responsibility. And given how, in the intervening parables, the kingdom is portrayed as rather surprising, even subversive, it warms me that I may be rather surprised by who is drawn in and who left out.
Could it be that not only are we not to take matters of judgment into our own hands, but we are also to entertain the possibility that we can’t tell who are the wheat and who are the weeds? That we might unintentionally confuse God’s criteria with those of the world? Jesus begins his teaching ministry, after all, by calling blessed not those who appear blessed in the eyes of the culture – the winners, we might say – but rather those the world considers losers. So also, perhaps, this parable not only promises that God will sort things out in the end, but warns that only God can make such judgments and therefore invites us to open minds and hearts in the meantime. Perhaps the person we are sure is a weed in fact is one of those blessed by God, and perhaps those who are most confident of God’s judgment will themselves be surprised by the depth and breadth of God’s mercy.
Prayer: Dear God, open our hearts that we may be surprised by your grace and see your children in the faces of all those we meet. In Jesus’ name, Amen.
Post image: “Gloomy Day,” by Pieter Bruegel the Elder (1565), Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.
Recent Comments