098
TARES
TAEES
harvesters of v.^" (cf. v.^^) are different from the servants, although this is merely implied here, and is first made perfectly clear only in the explana- tion. It is absolutely necessary to avoid the mingling of the kernels of the darnel and the wheat, lest the bread be poisoned. This may be effected (a) by weeding, (b) by carefully picking out the stalks of darnel one by one from the cut grain, probably the former here (cf . vv.^"- ^^ ffvWe^are, avW^^wfj-ev), or (c) by sifting (after threshing) with a sieve so constructed as to allow the smaller darnel seeds to fall through, while retaining the larger wheat. All three methods are used in Palestine to-day. The weeding would trample down the grain, to be sure ; but, as to-day in America, it would rise again enough to be cut by the sickle, always used in Palestine ; cf. Dt IG^ 23-5, Mk 4=^ Rev W^-^^. It is probable that to, a-KavdaXa in v.*i is to be taken personally as in 16^^. The TrdvTa, not repeated before tous rroLouvras, seems to include both under one vinculum ; up to this time all, both tares and wheat, have been interpreted as persons (v.^^) ; and, finally, only persons are subject to the final judgment (v.^'^).
The correct interpretation of this parable flows directly from its historical setting. It is a stage in the development of the Kingdom which allows itself to be described [Cofj-onhd-q, v.^**) by the story of the Tares. The men addressed, whether the Twelve or the multitudes, were Jews, with the common Jewish ideas of the Messianic Kingdom, and these ideas Jesus was engaged in modifying and spiritualizing. The Sower had been a parable of disillusionment, disclosing that the success of the Messianic Kingdom would not be so universal or immediate as they had fondly imagined, that its method was to be preaching and not cataclysm, that it depended for its spread on its reception in human hearts. The Tares is equally a parable of disillusionment. John the Baptist had at least, publicly and prevailingly, described the Messiah as coming for judgment (Mt 3^""'^), and this was in perfect accord with the popular anticipation that the Messianic reign would begin with a judgment (Schurer, HJP il. ii. 163-168, 181). But Jesus had not shown any indication of being such a judge, nay He had taken quite another course (Mt 1215-21), so that doubt came into the mind even of John the Baptist (IP"^-). For the inauguration of the Messianic reign with a judgment the disciples were eagerly looking. 'On that day' (13^) of the parables, or at least a short time before it, the Pharisees had shown their true colours by charg- ing that Jesus cast out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of the demons (12^^"*^) Jesus had indeed given them a solemn warning (v.*^), but no light- ning stroke had destroyed them, and the disciples were disappointed. Their spirit, described in the question of \.^^, was later expressed by James and John (Lk gs"-). 'Lord, wilt thou that we bid fire to come down from heaven and consume them ? ' In this parable Jesus teaches them that the judg- ment which they momentarily expected, the separa- tion of the sons of the Kingdom, and the sons of the Evil One, shall surely come, not now, but at the end of the age, and that meantime the wicked shall con- tinually spring up among the righteous. This is to be expected, and is to be borne with patience. The parable therefore discloses the fact that, in- stead of being victorious at one stroke, the progress of the Kingdom is to be continually hindered and hampered (cf. to, cr/cdvSaXa, v.^^), till the consumma- tion of the age.
This interpretation leaves unanswered those questions about Church discipline which have made the parable an ecclesiastical battle-ground for centuries, because the parable has nothing to do with such controversies. (1) The field is not
the Church, but the world of men (v.^), the Mes- siah's world which He is sowing, just as it is in the Sower, the Mustard Seed, and the Leaven. (2) The Kingdom is not the Church, but the Messianic Kingdom of Jewish expectation. It is extremely doubtful if the Kingdom ever = the Church, certainly never the visible, organized Church. (3) There was no background for the idea of 'Church,' much less of Church discipline, in the disciples' minds at this time, It is only at Csesarea Philippi (16^'^) and afterwards (only 18"), that Jesus begins to introduce that idea in a very rudimentary way, by what Aramaic word we know not. (4) If the parable refers to Church discipline, it forbids it in toto, while the parable of the Net on a similar interpretation makes it impossible. It is idle to say that it proliibits only the exclusion of masses, and permits that of the very bad, or inculcates a general attitude of mind towards Church discipline. (5) All men are to appear at the Judgment, not merely professing Christians (25»i.32) (6) The Apostles did not so understand the parable, for they insisted on Church discipline (1 Co 52- 13, 2 Co 25-11, 2 Th 3«- 1^, Rev 2"-i6- ^o-^s ; cf. Mt 1815-20). Tije history of the interpretation of the parable shows that such a use of it was first made by Cyprian during his bishopric (248-258), in support of his theories of the Church. Tertullian, a half century earlier, may have held it. Origen (b. 182, d. 250) knew of this interpretation, but rejected it. Irenaeus knew nothing of it. (7) Last and most important, such an interpretation ignores the historical situation, Avould have been a riddle to the disciples (cf. Bruce, Parabolic Teaching, p. 43), a prophecy with no root in the present ; it takes no account of the emphasis in Christ's inter- pretation, and of His omission of the servants' question and the master's answer therein (cf.