The Wheat Among Weeds: Christ's Call to Faithful Endurance

In episode 465 of The Reformed Brotherhood, hosts Tony Arsenal and Jesse Schwamb explore Jesus's parable of the wheat and tares (weeds) from Matthew 13. This thought-provoking discussion examines Christ's startling teaching that good and evil will always coexist within the visible church until the end of time. The brothers carefully unpack the theological implications of Jesus's command not to separate wheat from weeds prematurely, challenging our natural tendency to judge others while offering wisdom about God's sovereign plan for final judgment. This episode wrestles with difficult questions about church purity, assurance of salvation, and how believers should approach the reality of false professors within Christ's church—providing biblical guidance for faithfully enduring in a mixed communion.

Key Takeaways

• The Coexistence of True and False Believers: Jesus teaches that the visible church will always contain a mixture of genuine believers and false professors until the final judgment.
• The Danger of Premature Judgment: Christ explicitly warns against attempting to completely purify the church before the harvest (end of age) because doing so would damage the wheat (true believers).
• Proper Biblical Interpretation: Unlike some parables, Jesus provides a detailed allegorical explanation of this parable—the sower is Christ, the field is the world, the good seed represents believers, and the weeds are the sons of the evil one.
• The Challenge of Discernment: One of the most difficult theological pills to swallow is that it's often impossible to perfectly distinguish between true and false believers.
• Final Judgment as God's Prerogative: The separation of wheat from weeds is reserved for the angels at the end of the age, not for current church leaders or members.
• The Reality of False Assurance: Some professing Christians may have false assurance of salvation while genuinely believing they are saved.
• The Importance of Theological Integrity: Public theologians and pastors have a moral responsibility to be transparent about their theological convictions and changes in their beliefs.

Deeper Explanations The Difficult Reality of a Mixed Church

Jesus's teaching in the parable of the wheat and weeds directly challenges our natural desire for a perfectly pure church. By instructing the servants not to pull up the weeds lest they damage the wheat, Christ is establishing an important ecclesiological principle that will hold true until His return. This means that no matter how rigorously we apply church discipline or how carefully we examine profession of faith, we will never achieve a perfectly pure communion this side of eternity. The visible church—which can be understood as those who profess faith and are baptized—will always include both true and false believers. This reality should cultivate humility in how we approach church membership and discipline. Jesus isn't suggesting that all attempts at church purity are wrong (as other Scripture passages clearly call for church discipline), but rather that perfect purification is impossible and attempts at achieving it will inevitably damage true believers. This teaching directly refutes movements throughout church history (like Donatism) that have sought absolute purity in the visible church.

The Problem of Discernment and Assurance

One of the most challenging aspects of this parable is Christ's implicit teaching that true and false professors can appear nearly identical, especially in their early development. Like tares growing alongside wheat, false believers can profess orthodox doctrine, participate in church life, and exhibit what appears to be spiritual fruit. This creates profound implications for how we understand assurance of salvation. As Tony notes, while "assurance is the proper and rightful possession and inheritance of every Christian," there's also the sobering reality of false assurance. Some may sincerely believe they are saved when they are not, raising difficult questions about self-examination and spiritual discernment. This doesn't mean believers should live in perpetual doubt, but rather that we should approach assurance with both confidence in God's promises and healthy self-examination. True assurance must be grounded in the finished work of Christ rather than merely in our experiences or behaviors, while false assurance often lacks this proper foundation. The brothers wisely note that final judgment belongs to God alone, who perfectly knows who belongs to Him.

Memorable Quotes

"The visible church is set before us as a mixed body. Maybe everybody else's churches, but certainly not my church, like the one that I actually go to on the Lord's day. So it seems like there might be this shocking statement possibly that he has for us, whether you're Episcopalian or Presbyterian or independent or Baptist or Christian life assembly, whatever it is, that no matter what we do to purify the church, our churches, we're never gonna succeed in obtaining a perfectly pure communion." - Jesse Schwamb

"I think that's what I find shocking. It is like a massive statement of reality that is at equal points totally sensible. And other times we would think, 'well, surely not in the church Lord, like of all the places, like aren't we talking about a kind of purity of your people?' ...and what I think he's striking at, which I do find a little bit wild, is that Jesus is essentially saying, at least to my ear, anything we try to do, even the purest preaching of the gospel, is not gonna prevent this in every age of the church." - Jesse Schwamb

"I'm affirming that assurance is the proper and rightful possession and inheritance of every Christian." - Tony Arsenal

Full Transcript

Jesse Schwamb: Welcome to episode 465 of The Reformed Brotherhood. I am Jesse.

Tony Arsenal: And I'm Tony. And this is the podcast with ears to hear. Hey brother.

Jesse Schwamb: Hey brother. Guess what? It looks like you and I are taking another trip back to the farm on this episode.

Tony Arsenal: Yes. For a couple episodes.

Jesse Schwamb: For a couple episodes. Yeah.

[00:01:01] Exploring Jesus' Parables in Matthew 13

Jesse Schwamb: Because what, Jesus will not stop leading us there.

We're looking at his teachings, specifically the parables, and we're gonna be looking in Matthew chapter 13, where it seems like, is it possible that Jesus, once again has something very shocking for us to hear? That is for all the ages. 'cause it seems like he might actually be saying, Tony, that good and evil will always be found together in the professing church until the end of the world.

Like in other words, that the visible church is set before a mixed body. I mean. Maybe everybody else chose churches, but certainly not my church, like the one that I actually go to on the Lord's day. So it seems like there might be this shocking statement possibly that he has for us, whether you're Episcopalian or Presbyterian or independent or Baptist or Christian life assembly, whatever it is, that no matter what we do to purify the church, our churches, we're never gonna succeed in obtaining a perfectly pure communion.

Could that possibly be what Jesus is saying to us? I don't know what we're gonna find out.

Tony Arsenal: We are. We are gonna find out.

Jesse Schwamb: It's gonna be definitive. And if now that makes sense. If you don't even know why we're looking at Jesus' teachings, you could do us a favor even before you go any further. And that is just head on over in your favor, interwebs browser to or reform brotherhood.com, and you can find out all of the other episodes, all 464 that are living out there.

There's all kinds of good stuff, at least we think so, or at least entertaining stuff for you to listen to. And when you're done with all of that in a year or two, then we'll pick it up right back here where we're about to go with some affirmations or some denials.

[00:02:39] Affirmations and Denials

Jesse Schwamb: So Tony, before we figure out what Jesus has for us in Matthew 13, in the parable of the weeds, or the tears, or the tears in the weed, what gets all of that?

Are you affirming with, are you denying against,

Tony Arsenal: I am denying. First of all, I'm denying whatever this thing is that's going on with my throat. Sorry for the rest of the episode, everyone. Um, I'm denying something that I, I think it is. How do I want to phrase this? Um, maybe I'll call it theological integrity, and maybe that's too strong of a word, but maybe not.

So the listener who's been with us for a little while will remember that a while back. Um, you know, we've, we've talked about Matthew Barrett and he was a Baptist, uh, who's heavily involved in sort of the theology, proper controversies. He wrote Simply Trinity, which is just a fantastic book. He was a teacher or a professor at Midwestern, um, Baptist Theological Seminary.

And he recently, um, uh, converted is not the right word. I hate calling it a conversion when you go from one faithful Bible tradition to another. But he recently, um, changed his perspective and joined the Anglican Church. And at the time I kind of, you know, I kind of talked about it as like, it's a little bit disappointing, like the reasons he cited.

[00:03:57] Theological Integrity and Public Disclosure

Tony Arsenal: Where I'm bringing this into a matter of sort of theological integrity. And it's not, it's not just Matthew Barrett. Um, there's other elements of things going on that I'll, I'll point to too is it's often the case when someone who is in some form of professional theological work or professional vocational ministry, that as they start to change perspectives, um, there comes to be like an inflection point where they should notify whoever it is that they are accountable to in that job or vocation, uh, uh, and then do the right thing and step down.

Right? And so with Matthew Barrett, um. He continued to teach systematic theology at a Baptist Theological Seminary, which has a faith statement which he was obligated to affirm and hold in good faith. He continued to teach there for quite some time, if, you know, when he, when he published the timeline and he's the one that put all the timelines out there.

So it's not like people had to go digging for this. Um, he continued to teach under contract and under that, that faith statement, um, for quite some time after his positions changed. I remember in college, um, sim very similar situation, one of my professors, um, and I went to a Baptist college. It was a General Baptist college.

Um, one of my professors became Roman Catholic and for quite some time he continued to teach without telling anyone that he had converted to Roman Catholicism. Um. And I think that there's a, there's a, a level of integrity that public theologians need to have. Um, and it, it really makes it difficult when something like this happens to be able to say that this is not a moral failing or some sort of failure.

Um, you know, James White has jumped on the bandwagon very quickly to say, of course we told you that this was the way it was gonna lead. That if you affirm the great tradition, you know, he was very quick to say like, this is the road to Rome. And I think in his mind, um, Canterbury is just sort of one, one stop on that trip.

Um, it becomes very hard after the fact to not have this color and tarnish all of your work before. 'cause it starts to be questions like, well, when, when did you start to hold these views? Were you writing, were you, were you publicizing Baptist theology when you no longer believed it to be the truth? Were you teaching theology students that this is what the Bible teaches when you no longer thought that to be true?

Um. Were you secretly attending Anglican services and even teaching and, and helping deliver the service when you were, you know, still outwardly affirming a Baptist faith statement. And the reason I, I'll point out one other thing, 'cause I don't want this to be entirely about Matthew Barrett, but there's a big, uh, hub glue going on in the PCA right now.

Um, a guy named Michael Foster, who some of our audience will probably be familiar with, um, he and I have had our desktops in the past, but I think he and I have come to a little bit of a, of a uneasy truce on certain things. He, uh, went to work compiling a, a list and there's some problems with the data, like it's, it's not clean data, so take it for what it's worth.

But he compiled a list of. Every publicly available church website in the PCA. So something like 1800 websites or something like that. Huge numbers. And he went and looked at all of the staff and leadership directories, and he cataloged all the churches that had some sort of office or some sort of position that appeared to have a, a woman leading in a way that the Bible restricts.

And that more importantly, and starting to say it this way, but more importantly, that the PCA itself restricts. So we're not talking about him going to random church websites and making assessments of their polity. We're talking about a, a denomination that has stated standards for who can bear office and it's not women.

Um. So he compiled this and people in the PCA are coming out of the woodwork to basically defend the practice of having shepherdess and deacons. There was one that he cataloged where, um, the website actually said, uh, that was the pastor's wife and the title was Pastor of Women. Um, and then as soon as it became public that this was the case, they very quickly went in and changed the title to Shepherd of Women or Shepherdess of Women or something like that.

So it's, it's really the same phenomena, not commenting, you know, I think we've been clear where we stand on the ordination of female officers and things like that, but not that all that withstanding, um, when you are going to be a part of a body that has a stated perspective on something and then just decide not to follow it, the right thing to do the, the upstanding morally.

Uh, in full of integrity move would be to simply go to another denomination where your views align more closely. PCA churches, it's not super easy, but it's not impossible to leave the PCA as an entire congregation and then go somewhere like the EPC, which is the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, which still on the spectrum of things is still relatively conservative, but is in general is in favor of, uh, female officers, elders, and diegans.

So I, I think, you know, and you see this with podcasters, there was the big, there was a big fu and Les became a Presbyterian, and then when Tanner became a Presbyterian on the pub, I think it is, um, incumbent on people who do any form of public theology and that that would include me and Jesse when our views change.

There comes a point where we need to disclose that, be honest about it, um, and not try to pretend that we continue to hold a view that we don't be just because it's convenient or because it might be super inconvenient to make a change. I don't even want to pretend to imagine the pressures, uh, that someone like Matthew Barrett would face.

I mean, you're talking about losing your entire livelihood. I, I understand that from an intellectual perspective, how difficult that must be, but in some ways, like that kind of comes with the territory. Same thing with a pastor. You have a Baptist pastor or a Presbyterian pastor. It can go both ways, I think.

I'm more familiar with Baptist becoming Presbyterians. I don't, I don't see as many going the other direction. But you have a, a Baptist pastor who comes to pay to Baptist convictions and then continues to minister in their church for, I've, I've seen cases where they continue to minister for years, um, because they don't, they don't have the ability to now just go get a job in a Presbyterian context because there's all sorts of, um, training and certification and ordination process that needs to happen.

Um, so they just continue ministering where they are, even though they no longer believe the church's state of, you know, state of faith statement. So that's a lot to say. Like, let your yes be yes and your no be no, and when we really all boil it down. So I think that's enough of that. It, it just sort of got in my craw this week and I couldn't really stop thinking about it.

'cause it's been very frustrating. And now there are stories coming out of. Doctoral students that, um, that Barrett was teaching who have now also become Anglican. Um, so, you know, there starts to be questions of like, was he actively pros? I mean, this is like Jacob Arminius did this stuff and, and like the reform tradition would look down on it, where he was in secret in like sort of small group private settings.

He was teaching convictions very different than the uni. I'm talking about Arminius now. Not necessarily Barrett. He was teaching convictions very different than the, the stated theology of the university he taught for, and then in public he was sort of towing the line. You have to ask the question and it is just a question.

There's been no confirmation that I'm aware of, but you have to ask the question if that was what was going on with Barrett, was he teaching Baptist theology publicly and then meeting with, with PhD students privately and, and sort of convincing them of Anglican theology. I don't know. I'm not speculating on that, but I think it, the situation definitely right, brings that question to mind.

It forces us to ask it. Um, and had he. Been transparent about his theological shifts sooner than that may not be a, a question we have to ask. Um, the situation may not be all that different, but we wouldn't have to ask the question.

Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, that's totally fair. I mean, disclosure is important in lots of places in life and we shouldn't think that theological dis disclosure, especially like you're saying among our teachers, among our pastors, it is a critical thing.

It's helpful for people to know when perspectives have changed, especially when they're looking to their leaders who are exhibiting trust and care over their discipleship or their education to express that difference. If there's been a mark, change it. It's worth it. Disclose, I'm guessing you don't have to over disclose, but that we're talking about a critical, we're talking about like subversive anglicanism, allegedly.

Yeah. Then. It would be more than helpful to know that that is now shaping not just perspective, but of course like major doctrine, major understanding. Yeah. And then of course by necessary conviction and extension, everything that's being promulgated or proclamation in the public sphere from that person is likely now been permeated by that.

And we'd expect so. Right. If convictions change, and especially like you're talking about, we're just talking about moving from, especially among like Bible believing traditions, just raise the hand and say loved ones, uh, this is my firm conviction now.

Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. I think if someone walks up to you and says, do you think that we should baptize babies?

And you're like, yeah, I think so. Then you probably shouldn't be teaching at a Baptist seminary anymore. Like, seems like a reasonable standard. And that seems to be what happened, at least for some period of time. Um, you know, and, and it, that's not to say like, I think, I think there are instances where the church, a given church or um, or a university or seminary or, or whatever the situation might be, can be gracious and recognize like, yeah, people's perspectives change and maybe we can find a way for you to continue to finish out the semester or, you know, we can bridge you for a little while until you can find a new, a new job.

Um, you know, we'll, we'll only have you teach certain courses or we'll have a guest lecturer come in when you have to cover this subject that is at variance and like, we'll make sure we're all clear about it, but it doesn't seem like any of that happened. And that's, um, that's no bueno. So anyway, Jesse.

What are you affirming and or denying Tonight?

[00:13:43] Music Recommendations

Jesse Schwamb: I'm just gonna go with something brief. I suppose this is an affirmation of me. I'm saying that like somewhat tongue in cheek, but maybe it's, wait, I'll rephrase. It's because this will be more humble. I'm affirming getting it right, even more than I thought.

So I'm just gonna come back to the well and dip it into something that I mentioned on the last episode. So the keen listener, the up-to-date listener might remember. And if you're not up to date, uh, just let this be fresh for you. It'll, and I, it's gonna be correct because now I have posts, you know, I'm on the other side of it.

I've clear hindsight. I am affirming with the album Keep It Quiet by Gray Haven, which I affirmed last week, but it came out on the same day that the episode released. And since you and I don't really like record in real time and release it like exactly as it's happening, I only did that with some, a little bit of reservation because I only heard they only released three songs in the album.

And I thought I was overwhelmed that they were, they were so good that I was ready to jump in and loved ones. Oh, it, it turns out. I was so correct and it was, it's even better than I thought. So go check it out. It's Grey, GRE, YH, and they are, this is the warning, just because I have to give it out there and then I'll balance it with something else for something for everybody here today.

So, gr Haven is music that's post hardcore and metal core. You're getting two cores for the price of one, if that is your jam. It has strong maleic sensibilities. It's very emotional, it's very experimental. But this new album, which is called, um, again, keep It Quiet, is like just a work of arts. It real like the guitar work is intricate haunting, lovely, and it's bold, like very intentional in its structure and very el loose in its construction.

It's got hook driven melodies and it's got both heart and soft. It really is truly a work of art. So if you're trying to, to put it in your minds, like what other bands are like this? I would compare them to bands like, every Time I Die, Norma Jean, let Live Hail the Sun. If you just heard those as combinations of words that don't mean anything to you, that's also okay.

No worries. But if you're looking for something different, if you're looking for something that's maybe gonna challenge your ear a little bit, but is like orchestral and has all of these metal core post hardcore, melodic, textured movements, there's no wasted notes in this album. It's really tremendous. If that's not your thing.

I get, that's not everybody's thing. Here's something else I think would be equally challenging to the ear in a different way. And that is, I'm going back to one other album to balance things out here, and that's an album that was released in 2019 by Mark Barlow, who I think is like just. So underrated.

For some reason, like people have slept on Mike Barlow. I have no idea why he put together an album with Isla Vista Worship called Soul Hymns, and it's like a distinct soul and r and b album of praise with like these really lovely like falsetto, harmonies. It's got these minimalistic instrumentation, warm keys, groove oriented percussion, like again, like these false soul driven melodies.

It's contemplative. It's got a groove to it. This is also equally a beautiful album for a totally different reason. So I think I've given two very book-ended, very different affirmations, but I think there's something for everybody. So my challenge to your loved ones is you gotta pick one or the other.

Actually, you could do both, but either go to Gray Havens, keep it quiet, or go to Mike Bellow's Soul hymns. I do not think you will be disappointed. There's something for everybody on this one.

Tony Arsenal: Yeah, I, it was funny because as you were saying the names of those bands, I literally was thinking like Jesse could be speaking Swahili and I wouldn't know the difference.

And then you, you, you know me well, yeah. Uh, I haven't listened to Gray Haven. Uh, I probably will give it a couple minutes 'cause that's how it usually goes with songs that meet that description. Uh, I can always tell that the music that Jesse recommends is good from a technical perspective, but I never really, I never really vibe with it.

So that's okay. But I mean, lots of people who listen to our show do so check that out. If, if you ever. Want a good recommendation for music. Jesse is the pers so much so that he can recommend amazing music before it's even available and be a hundred percent correct, apparently. That's right. So

Jesse Schwamb: affirm with me everybody, because turns out I was right.

Uh, it was easy to be correct when of course I had all of that fair sightedness by being able to listen to those. Yeah, those couple of songs, it, this is a kind of album. Both of these, both of these albums. When I heard them, I reacted audibly out loud. There are parts of both of 'em where I actually said, oh wow.

Or yeah, like there's just good stuff in there. And the older you get, if you're a music fan, even if you're not, if you don't listen to a lot of music, you know when that hook gets you. You know when that turn of melody or phrase really like hits you just, right. Everybody has that. Where the beat drops in a way.

You're just like, yes, gimme, you make a face like you get into it. I definitely had that experience with both of these albums and because. I've listened to a lot of music because I love listening to music. It's increasingly rare where I get surprised where, you know, like sometimes stuff is just like popular music is popular for a reason and it's good because it's popular and it follows generally some kind of like well established roots.

But with these albums, it's always so nice when somebody does something that is totally unexpected. And in these, I heard things that I did not expect at all. And it's so good to be surprised in a way that's like, why have I never heard that before? That is amazing. And both of these bands did it for me, so I know I'm like really hyping them up, but they're worth it.

They're, they're totally worth it. Good music is always worth it.

Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. I, uh, I think that is a good recommendation. I will check those out because, you know, you're a good brother. I usually do, and I trust your judgment even though it, you'll like the second one. Yes. Hopefully. Yeah. Yeah.

Jesse Schwamb: You'll like the second one.

Second one is like, just filled with praise and worship. And like, if, if you're trying to think, like say, here's how I'd couch the proper atmosphere for Mark Barlow's soul hymns you're having, you know, it's, it's a cold and chilly. A tal evening, the wind is blowing outside. You can hear the crisp leaves moving around on the pavement and the sun has gone down.

The kids are in bed, the dinner dishes are piled up in the sink. But you think to yourselves, not tonight. I don't think so, and you just want that toneage to put on. You want that music as you dim the lights and you sit there to just hang out with each other and take a breath. You don't just want some kind of nice r and b moving music.

You don't want just relaxing vibes. You want worshipful spirit filled vibes that propel your conversation and your intimacy, not just into the marital realm, but into worship and harmony with the triune God. If you're looking for that album, because that situation is before you, then sol hymns is the music you're looking for.

Tony Arsenal: See, I'm gonna get the, I'm gonna get the recommendations backwards and I'm gonna sit down with my wife with a nice like evening cup of decaf tea and I'm gonna turn the music on. Yes, it's gonna be like, yes. That was me screaming into the microphone. That was not good for my voice. Well, the good news is it's gonna, it's gonna wake the kids up.

That's, I'm gonna sleep on the couch. That's, it's gonna be bad. That's,

Jesse Schwamb: honestly, that's also a good evening. It's just a different kind of evening. It's true. So it's just keep it separated again, uh, by way of your denial slash affirmation. Tony disclosure, I'm just giving you proper disclosure. Everybody know your music KYM, so that way when you have the setting that you want, you can match it with the music that you need.

So it's true. Speaking of things that are always worth it.

[00:21:30] Parable of the Weeds

Jesse Schwamb: I think the Bible's gotta be one of those things.

Tony Arsenal: It's true.

Jesse Schwamb: And this is like the loosest of all segues because it's like the Sunday school segue into any topic that involves the scriptures. We're gonna be in Matthew 13, and how about we do this?

So this is one of these parables and in my lovely ESV translation of the scriptures, the, we're just gonna go with the heading, which says the parable of the weeds. You may have something different and I wanna speak to that just briefly, but how do we do this, Tony? I'll hit us up with the parable and then it just so happens that this is one of the parables in the scripture that comes with an interpretation from our savior.

It's true. How about you hit us up with the interpretation, which is in the same chapter if you're tracking with us, it's just a couple verses way. Does that sound good?

Tony Arsenal: Let's do it.

Jesse Schwamb: Okay. Here is the parable of the weeds. Jesus puts another parable before them saying The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sewed good seed in his field.

But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sewed weeds among the weeds and went away. So when the plants came up and bork rain, then the weeds also appeared, 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?

He said to them, an enemy has done this. So the servant said to him, then, do you want us to go and gather them? Then he said, no. Lest in gathering the weeds, you root up the wheat along with them, but let them 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.

Tony Arsenal: Alright, so then jumping down. To verse 36. We're still in Matthew 13, he says, then he left the crowds and went into the house and his disciples came to 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 is the sons of the kingdom.

The weeds are the sons 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 the angel. Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age, the son of man will send his angels and they will gather out of his kingdom, all that, all causes of sin in all lawbreakers and throw them into the fiery furnace.

It is that in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their father. He who has ears let him hear.

Jesse Schwamb: So let me start with just like a little bit of language here, which I've always loved in this passage because where else in like the contemporary context, do you get the word tear?

Yeah. Aside if you're like using a scale, and that's a totally different definition. I like this. I like the word tear. It force, it forces to understand that what's common to our ear, why that's being used, it often is translated weed. Here's just like my, my little like linguistic addition to the front end of our discussion and is the reason I like it is because here does have a specific definition.

If like you were to look this up in almost any dictionary, what you're gonna find is it's like a particular type of weed. It's actually like an injurious weed that is indistinguishable in its infant form from the outgrowing of green. So I like that because of course that is exactly why. Then there's all this explanation of why then to not touch anything in the beginning because one, it causes damage to it looks like everybody else.

I just thought I'd put that out there as we begin our discussion.

Tony Arsenal: Yeah, yeah. You know, I, um, I am a homeowner and I don't own the land that I'm on, but I'm responsible for the land that I'm on. And we have this really gnarly weed problem. There's this, uh, sort of floor growing, uh, carpeting weed called, uh, I think it's called like a carpeting knob, head weed or something like that.

Some really descriptive thing. And I went out there the other day and there's really nothing you can do about this other than to rip it up. But I went out there the other day to start to pull some of it up and it totally wrecks the yard. Like it totally pulls up the grass, it destroys the sod. And when you're done, this is why it's kind of nice that I don't have, I'm not responsible for the land as I'm not gonna have to pay to resod the land.

But when you're done pulling up this weed, you have to resod the whole place. You have to regrow all the grass because it, first, it takes over for the grass, and then when you rip it up, it rips the roots of the grass up as well. And so this parable, um, on one level is immediately obvious, like what the problem is, right?

The situation is such. That the good, uh, the good sower, right? He's a good sower. He knows what he's doing. He understands that simply ripping up the weeds. Even if you could distinguish them right, there's this element that like at an early stage, they would be very difficult, if not impossible to distinguish from, uh, from wheat.

Even if you could distinguish them, you still wouldn't be able to pull up the weeds and not do damage to the grain. And so we, we have this sort of like, um, conflict if you wanna follow like literary standards, right? We have this conflict and as we come to sort of the climax of this, of this plot is when all of a sudden we see that, that the problem needs a resolution and there is a resolution, but it's not necessarily what we would think it would be.

Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, I think that's what I find shocking. It is like a massive statement of reality that is that like equal points or equal times totally sensible. And other times we would think, well why surely not in the church Lord, like of all the places, like aren't we talking about a kind of purity of your people, the very people that you're assembling together, the chief of which is Christ and the apostles being the building stones and Christ of course being the cornerstone.

And I, I think that's what I find and I wonder the people hearing this, if they thought like, well, surely Lord, that not be the case like you are bringing in and ushering in this new kingdom. Isn't this new kingdom gonna be one of absolute purity? And, and what I think he's striking at, which I do find a little bit wild, is that Jesus essentially saying, at least to my ear, anything we try to do, even like the purest preaching of the gospel, is not gonna prevent this in every age of the church.

The same state of the things that's existed in that is in the time of the early fathers. In the first century, and the church as it stands right now in the land and the time of the reformers, and of course with the best ministers at this hour right now and on your next Lord's day, and everyone after that, there is always and ever will be a visible church or a religious assembly in which the members are not all wheat.

Yeah. And then I like what you're saying. It's this idea that. There's a great harm that's gonna come about if you try to lift them up because you cannot tell. So, and this is what's hard, I think this does influence like how we interact with people online. Certainly how we interact with people in our own congregations, but we are going to have no clear convicted proofs.

We might only have like probable symptoms if we're really trying to judge and weigh out to discern the weeds from the weeds, which at most can only give us some kind of conjectural knowledge of another state. And that is gonna sometimes preemptively judge cause us to judge others in a way that basically there's a warning against here.

It, it's, it's not the right time. And ba I think mainly from the outside where I find like this parable coming together, if there's like maybe a weird Venn diagram of the way Christians read this and the way unbelievers hear this, the overlap between them is for me, often this idea of like hypocrisy and you know.

When people tell me that the church is full of hypocrites, either like Christian or non-Christian, but typically that's a, a, you know, statement that comes from the non-Christian tongue. When people say that the church is full of hypocrites, I do with a little bit of snark, say it's definitely not full of hypocrites.

There are always room for more in the church and, and there's like a distinction of course between the fact that there is hypocrisy in the Christian or whether the Christian is in fact or that person is a hypocrite. So like when I look through the scriptures, we see like Pharaoh confessing, we see Herod practicing, we see Judas preaching Christ Alexander venturing his life for Paul.

Yeah, we see David condemning in another, what he himself practiced and like hezeki glorifying and riches Peter. Doing all kinds of peter stuff that he does, and even all the disciples forsaken Christ, an hour of trouble and danger. So all that to say, it goes back to this like lack of clear, convicted proofs that I think Jesus is bringing forward here, but only probable symptoms.

And I'm still processing, of course, like the practicality of what you're saying, Tony, that in some ways it seems like abundantly clear and sensible that you should, you're, you're gonna have a problem distinguishing. But our human nature wants to go toward distinguishing and then toward uprooting sometimes.

And the warning here is do not uproot at the improper time. And in fact, it's not even yours to uproot because God will send in the laborers to do that at the time of, of harvest. And so there will be weeds found among the wheat. It's just like full stop statement. And at the same time it's warning, do not go after them now.

Tony Arsenal: Yeah, I, I'm sure this, um, I, I'm sure this will spill over into a second conversation, but we, I think we have to talk a little bit about the interpretation here before we, before we even like talk more about the parable itself, because if you're not careful, um, and, and. I need to do a little bit more study on this, but it, it's interesting because Matthew almost seems to want you to sort of blend these parables together a little bit.

Jesse Schwamb: Yes.

Tony Arsenal: Right. These, these, there's three, um, there's three, maybe four if you count the parable of the treasure in the field. But there's three agricultural parables that have to do with sowing seed of one, of, one way or another. And in each one the seed is something different. And I, it almost seems to me. And then on top of that, the parables are like interwoven within each other.

So like right smack in the middle of this, we have the parable. Uh, is given. Then the next parable of the mustard seed, which we're gonna talk about in a future episode, is given, and then the explanation of this parable of the tears is given. Um, and so we have to talk a little bit about it and sort of establish what the seed is, because we just spent three weeks talking about the seed in the par of the sower.

Um, or the parable of the, of the soils. And in that parable, the seed was the word of God in this parable. And this is where I think sometimes, um, and again, this is like the doctrine of election in parable form, right? Yes. I think sometimes we read this and we, we misstep because the seed is not, uh, is not the word of God in this.

The seed is the believers.

Jesse Schwamb: Yes.

Tony Arsenal: Right. So the good seed is sewn into, uh, into the field, which, you know, I think maybe there'll be some, we, we can save this for, for next week. But a little sneak peek is, it's not always clear exactly what the field is. Right. And I think we often, we often talk about the field as though it's the church that doesn't necessarily align a hundred percent with how Christ explains the parable.

So we'll have to, we'll have to talk through that a little bit. I affirm that it is the church in, in a, a broad sense. Um, but, but the, the way that Christ explains it slightly different, but the, the seed is sewn into the world. The sons of the kingdom of heaven are sowed into the, into the world. And then the seed of the enemy, the bad seed, is the sons of the devil that's also sewn into the world.

And so these two seeds grow up next to each other. If we think about the seed here as though it's the word of God, rather than the, the actual believers and unbelievers that elect in the ate, we're gonna make some missteps on how we understand this because we're not talking about, um, the, the seed being, you know, doctrine being sewn into the world.

And some of it grows up good and some of it grows up bad or good doctrine and bad doctrine. We're talking about the believers themselves.

Sorry, Jesse is mocking my rapid attempt to mute before I cough, which I, I did. That was pretty good.

Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, that was, that was pretty good. Listen, this is real. Podcasting is how it goes. Yeah, I'm with you. Thank you for pulling out that distinction. 'cause it is critical. We, we have some overlap of course, with Jesus being really ascribed as the farmer, the son of man, right.

He's sowing this good seed, but not the word. It's believers or the sons of the kingdom. And it is into his field, which is the world. Part of that world of course, is necessarily the church, right? But while everybody's sleeping, this enemy, the devil, he comes, he sows weeds or unbelievers, the sons of the evil one among this weed, they grow, go up together.

And of course, like if I were servants in this household, I'd ask the same thing, which was like, should we get the gloves out? Yeah. Just pull those bad boys out. Like and, and so again, that's why I find it very so somewhat shocking that. It's not just, you could see like Jesus saying something like, don't worry about it now because listen, at the end of all time when the harvest comes, uh, I'm gonna take care of it.

Like it's just not worth it to go out now. Right. That's not entirely The reason he gives, the reason is lest they uproot the wheat by mistake. So this is showing that the servants who are coming before Jesus in the parable, in this teaching here to really volitionally and with great fidelity and good obedience to him to want to please him to do his will.

He there, he's basically saying, you are not qualified to undertake this kind of horticulture because you're just not either skilled enough or discerning enough to be able to do it right.

Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. And you know, I think, um. Maybe just a word of meth methodology too. Um, this parable also flies in the face of all of the, like, parables are not allegories, kind of kind of people.

Um, and this is, we talked about this in our introductory episode. You have to take each parable for what it's worth, this parable very much is explained like a traditional allegory, right? Right.

[00:35:39] Understanding the Parable's Symbols

Tony Arsenal: It's got, it's got several different elements and Christ goes through and the first thing he does is tell you what each element represents, right?

The sower is the son of man, the field is the word. The good seed is the sons of the kingdom of the weed. It's like, he's like clicking down all of the symbols and then he explains how all of it works together and like a good, all like a good allegory. Once you understand what each element and each symbol is, the rest of it actually is very self-explanatory, right?

When you understand who's what in the parable. The outcome and the sort of the punchline writes itself as it were. And I think this is one of those parables that we would do.

[00:36:18] Challenging Our Sensibilities

Tony Arsenal: I think we would do well to sort of let marinate a little bit because it does challenge a lot of our sensibilities of what, um, what is real in the world, what is real in terms of our interaction with the world, right?

What's real in terms of the role of unbelievers in the life of a Christian, um, whether we can identify who is or isn't an unbeliever. Um, I think we, you know, I, I'm not one of those people that's like, we should assume everyone's a Christian. And I'm certainly not one of those people who's like, we should assume nobody is a Christian.

But I think there are a lot of times where we have figures either in public or people in our lives. Like personal acquaintances that have some sort of outward appearance. And, and that's like the key here that that distinction between weeds is a, is not a great translation as you said. Right. Because right.

That distinction between wheat and weeds, to go to my analogy, like it's very clear what is grass and what is this like carpeting, knob weed. Like there's no, there's no doubt in my mind, which is the weed and which is the grass. Um, that's not what we're talking about here. And so it does, it does say here, I mean, it implies here that it's not going to be easy to distinguish the difference between exactly.

The, a son of the kingdom and a son of the evil one. And I think that's a, that's a. A theological pill that is very difficult to swallow. Yes.

[00:37:43] Personal Reflections on Identifying Christians

Tony Arsenal: Because a lot of us, um, and this goes back to like what I, what we were saying in the last, the last parable, A lot of us were reared in our Christian faith on sort of this idea that like, you can check your fruit or you can check other people's fruits and you can determine, you can easily identify who's a Christian and who's not.

I remember when I was in high school, you know, I got, I was converted when, when I was 15 and, um, I got to high school and it felt very easy to me to be able to identify the people who were play acting Christianity and the people who were real Christians. That felt like the most natural thing in the world to me.

Um, it, it's an interesting story, but one of the people that I was absolutely sure was not a Christian. That he was just doing kinda civic Christianity. He was in confirmation 'cause his parents wanted him to. Um, and I had good reason to believe that at the time he was very worldly. He, he, um, did not seem to be serious about his faith at all.

There was good reason to make the assessment that I did. And then I ran into him on Facebook like 15 years later and he's a pastor at the Lutheran Church and he's, you know, he loves the Lord Jesus Christ. And he would not explain it as though he had a later conversion story. It's not as though he would say like, well yeah, in high school I pretended to be a Christian.

And then, you know, I got through college and uh, I really became like I got converted. He would, would grow this, or he would explain this as slow, steady growth from an immature state that knew the facts of the gospel and in a certain sense trusted that Jesus was his savior and didn't fully understand the ramifications of that.

I mean, who did at 15 years old? Mm-hmm. Um. And, and that it was a slow, steady growth to the place that he's in now.

[00:39:21] The Difficulty of Distinguishing Believers

Tony Arsenal: So I, I think we should take seriously, and maybe this is the takeaway for this week at least, and we can, we can talk about it more, is we should take seriously the fact that the Sons of the Kingdom and the Sons of the evil one in this parable are not only inseparable without doing damage, but in many ways they are not easily distinguishable.

Jesse Schwamb: Right. On.

Tony Arsenal: Um, and that, that's a baked into the parable. And I think we do spend a fair amount of time and I, I'll. I'll throw myself on on this. You know, this, we, I'm not just saying we, um, we as a genuine statement, like I have participated in this. I'm sure that I still do participate in this sometimes intentionally.

Other times, uh, subconsciously we spend a fair amount of time probably in our Christian lives trying to figure out who is a Christian who's not. And it's not as though that is entirely illegitimate, right? The, the, as much as we kind of poke at the, the, um, workers in this who sort of are kind of chumps, right?

They're sort of like the idiots in this. They, they don't seem to know how this happened. They propose a course of action that then the master's li