SEARCH THE ARCHIVE

? SEARCH TIPS
Exact phrase, enclose in quotes:
“keyword phrase here”
Multiple words, separate with commas:
keyword, keyword

In The Banner of July 11 and also of July 18, the Rev. Ghysels writes about the parable of our Lord which is commonly called the parable of the Wheat and the Tares.

He writes as follows:

“Our Lord’s warning against judging—his counsel to let wheat and tares grow together till the harvest comes, does not preclude the necessity of self-judging and self-criticism. We must not let them grow together in our own life. We must exterminate the weeds, the sooner the better.

“Neither does his warning preclude the necessity of mutual discipline. Even if we may not judge one another, we may correct one another. Parents correct their children, friends correct friends, ministers correct members, teachers correct scholars, older people correct younger ones, wiser people correct the unwise. In fact, this is our duty as Christians. As the Bible says in Hebrews 10: “Consider one another, to provoke unto love and good works!”

“One rather remarkable thing about the tares in the Master’s field is that they can through the gospel and by the grace of God be changed from tares to wheat. And the wheat that is already such can become a better variety. And this should be our constant endeavor—to make the tares wheat, and the wheat better!”

And at the close of the second meditation on this parable, he concludes:

“We need to remember that in the kingdom of God we do not subscribe to the fatalism that says, “Once tares, always tares.” Tares can become wheat and wheat can be much improved!”

In connection herewith I would like to ask the Rev. Ghysels a few questions.

First, do tares ever become wheat? Are not the parables true earthly pictures? If they are not true earthly pictures, what, then, shall determine their exegesis?

Second, is not your exegesis impossible? Where do you read that tares may become wheat?

Thirdly, is not your exposition (?) of this parable a denial of election and reprobation? Imagine, if you will, that the preacher may proceed from the viewpoint that all may become wheat?

Fourthly, did you not create an anti-climax in your concluding remark? Is it not clear from your standpoint that you ought to have concluded thus: Tares may become wheat and wheat may become tares?

Fifthly, do you hot see that all this belongs not in the churches that call themselves Reformed, but that it properly belongs among the Methodists, the Remonstrants and the Arminians?

I would conclude that this parable teaches that tares remain tares even until the end of time, and that they shall be destroyed. And the wheat remains wheat and is gathered into the barns of God at the day of the great harvest.