I appreciate your attempts to set me straight, really, I am glad for the challenge. But I cannot help believing that you are incorrect in your interpretation. Whether the word is collect of gather, to me it is moot. The tares are collected and tied in bundles,in order to be cast into the fire, the fire doesn't come to them they go into the fire. The Lord's own words give the interpretation-
Matthew 13:41-42
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,
42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
They are collected and thrown into the furnace of fire, this is clearly their eternal condemnation. This is not my interpretation but the Lord's own. Please show me where in scripture stumbling blocks and those who commit lawlessness are cast into the furnace of fire that is not coincident with the judgment of the wicked and their eternal condemnation?
Revelation 20:13-15
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.
14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Those cast into the lake of fire would include the stumbling blocks and lawless ones correct?
The whole point to the parable is that as long as there are mortals inhabiting the earth the wicked will reside among the righteous. But one day the wicked will be removed from among the righteous, they will no longer have any place in the kingdom of God.
Your interpretation that the tares are left standing in the field to be burned makes no sense at all. Have you ever tried to burn weeds out of the grass? People where I live on occasion deliberately set grass fires to kill grass. The problem is that the weeds grow right back, and in short order the grass does too. No farmer would burn weeds in a standing field, the seeds would not necessarily be destroyed, but they would risk polluting the field with the scorched seeds of the very thing they are trying to eradicate.
The collecting clearly is a pulling up because the servants were not allowed to "collect" them in the first place because they would risk upsetting or uprooting the wheat in the process.
Matthew 13:28-29 (parenthesis mine)
28 “And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’( συλλέγω [sullego ])
29 “But he said, ‘No; for while you are gathering( συλλέγω [sullego ]) up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them.
If by collecting as you say they are left to stand, why would collecting them uproot the standing wheat? It makes no logical sense.
There's that word "clearly" again - and you are ignoring verse 38 which says they are first burned in the field of this world.
It says nothing of the kind, where do you see that??
Matthew 13:38
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;
Subsequent to the first Resurrection is the second. At that time, all the dead (there are no living people left, the universe will be destroyed at the end of the Millennium) will be collected and they will be separated as the second parable of the fish indicate. It is only at this time that the wicked are thrown into the Lake of Fire.
Collected? And Separated? My point exactly.... The fact that there are no mortals remaining has nothing to do with it. The collection is a resurrection, all the dead are resurrected:
John 5:28-29
28 “Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,
29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.
Two kinds of resurrection, one to life and one to judgment.
Also why would you interpret the same result for the tares and the bad fish as meaning different things? You say the burning of the tares is this:
The tares are burned in the field.
The field is identified as the world as the first explanation of the parable, v 38.
and
The tares first are subject to an earthly, physical destruction beginning on the Day of the Lord -
The end for the tares according to the parable:
Matthew 13:42
42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
while you claim the burning of the bad fish means:
Subsequent to the first Resurrection is the second. At that time, all the dead (there are no living people left, the universe will be destroyed at the end of the Millennium) will be collected and they will be separated as the second parable of the fish indicate. It is only at this time that the wicked are thrown into the Lake of Fire.
The end for the bad fish according to the parable:
Matthew 13:50
50 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
How is it possible that the burning of the tares is a different kind of burning than the fish, when the result in both parables is virtually identical?
I would suggest that you are interpreting the parable in order to fit your own ideas regarding the resurrection of the righteous.
RT
, RT.
IMO, its condescending and rude. I concur, RT.
