Matthew 13: 24-30; 36-43
Jesus was surrounded by religious/political circles whose membership required strict conformity. The Zealots were gaining strength and their agenda was set in concrete. The Qumran community insisted on the rigid obedience of all members and the Pharisees demanded strict observance of the Law (as interpreted by their own leaders).
Clearly, Jesus did not accept such attitudes. Matthew’s Gospel asserts that there was opposition to Jesus’ message and in chapter 11:12 Jesus says, From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and men of violence take it by force. In such a world, how can the Kingdom of God, envisioned by Jesus, function when violence is inflicted on it? Must fire be met with fire? Many must have thought that there was no place for a tax collector or Zealot in Jesus’ fellowship. Matthew 13 appears in such a context.
The chapter opens with the parable of the sower who sows in potentially unfruitful places. He knows that, by village custom, he is not allowed to plow the village path (which cuts through his property) and thus some seed, along the edge of the path, will be eaten by birds. The underlying rock is close to the surface in places and, in others, seeds from thorny weeds blow in from the neighbors’ fields. In such places there is little hope of any crop. The farmer could choose to wall off the unproductive areas of his land and leave them untilled. Instead, he scatters seed on all his fields in spite of critical impediments to plant growth.
A few verses following the conclusion of the parable, Jesus tells the story of the net that was thrown into the sea gathering “fish of every kind” and only “when it was full” were the fish sorted; not before. At the close of the age the angels will separate “the evil from the righteous” (Mt. 13:47-50).
Between these two parables is the parable of the wheat and the tares. The agricultural practices behind this story are simple and authentic to traditional farming in the lands east of the Mediterranean. The landowner (who has slaves to do the work) “sowed good seed in his field.” At night, “while they were sleeping” an enemy planted zizania (KJV: tares) in the same field. The translation “weeds” is not strong enough. In the entire New Testament, the Greek word zizania appears only in this story. The Syriac is zizone and the Arabic term is ziwan. The Greek is most likely a transliteration of the Semitic original.
Every contemporary farmer knows about ziwan. I have seen it for sale in traditional village markets. It is harvested and fed to chickens and pigeons. In a sack it resembles wheat but the grains are a little smaller and it is pale gray in color. While growing, the plant is indistinguishable from wheat. By the time the grain-filled heads appear it can be identified, but then it is too late to remove from the field without destroying the wheat. Once it infests a field, zizone is very hard to eradicate. At harvest the wheat and the zizone can be distinguished both before and after threshing. To be sure that no mistakes are made, the harvested crop is checked carefully, grain-by-grain, by women who pick out all the ziwan. It is a slow, labor-intensive process. In hard times some farmers sell “kameh mizwen” (wheat mixed with ziwan).
This mixture is cheap but: buyer beware! Eating bread with ziwan in it can bring on “dizziness, sleepiness, nausea, diarrhea, convulsions, gangrene, and sometimes death” (Hastings, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, Vol. II, p. 697). Abraham Rihbany, a Syrian/ Lebanese Christian, remembers eating such bread and describes his symptoms as “dizziness … nausea and a state much like seasickness.” By introducing this severely noxious plant into the parable, Jesus makes the point that he is discussing a poison, not simply a plant that robs moisture and nutrients from the soil. Its source is cosmic; “an enemy” (the devil) has planted it. That enemy imitates the farmer. Both of them engage in sowing – one for health the other for sickness.
Ziwan can grow to a height of four feet and its stalks are saved and tied into bundles for transport to the farmer’s home for use as fuel. The master’s servants/slaves are surprised at the evidence of zizania growing in the field. They believed their master had given them pure seed to sow. Those same servants offer to pull out the zizania and are told, wisely, to have patience. For the sake of the health of the remainder of the crop, the zizania must be left until harvest. Thus, the life-giving wheat and the death-causing zizania continue to grow together until harvested.
The problem facing the discerning reader is to deal with both the parable and the interpretation of it that appears in Matthew 13: 36-43. The parable focuses on the present where the two varieties of plants are allowed to remain in the field until harvest. The interpretation of the parable focuses on the future harvest and the separation of good wheat from the “stumbling blocks” and “the evil doers” who will be thrown into the furnace.
The much debated phrase, “The field is the world,” appears in the interpretation of the parable where the good wheat is not even mentioned. The focus is on the zizania, which will eventually be destroyed by fire.
The Donatists of North Africa, in Augustine’s day, used the phrase, “the field is the world,” to support their demands for a pure Church. They argued that, in the world, the two grow together but, in the Church, only wheat could be allowed. Augustine countered that both clean and unclean animals were housed in the ark, goats and sheep graze in the same pasture, grain and chaff are stored in the same barn and tares and wheat are found in the same field. The pure were known only to God and would be separated at the end of history.
Our task as 21st century readers is to respect both the parable and its interpretation and to prevent either from silencing the message of the other. The phrase, “the field is the world” forms part of the interpretation and yet is surely not the whole story. In the parable the good seed is sown, grows to maturity, is harvested, and then identified as healthy wheat and placed in the master’s barn. Do the faithful achieve all their spiritual maturity “in the world”? The fellowship of the community of faith is important and is involved in these good things. Thus, the parable focuses on the place where such growth occurs (the fellowship of faith). The interpretation looks at the wider world, which, at the end of history, stands under a universal judgment.
To allow the futuristic focus of the interpretation to control the parable with its emphasis on the present is not fair to the parable. The initial story is a call for patience in the present that allows God to make the final judgment as to what is wheat and what is zizania. The rain falls on the just and the unjust and the sun shines on both.
On the other hand, to affirm the parable, with its focus on the present, and deny the future judgment recorded in the interpretation is also a grave error. There is a just God and there is a day of judgment which Mt. 25: 31-46 indicates will hold some surprises.
At the same time, Matthew’s Gospel discusses Church discipline. The brother who will not listen to his fellow believer, to a small group, or to the Church, is to be treated as a “Gentile and a tax collector” (Mt. 18:17). That is, the faithful are to look on such a person as a lost sheep who needs to be found and taken home. (The parable of the lost sheep is in the text just before the discussion of church discipline.) The wayward one is not to be driven outside the camp and stoned. Rather he/she is to be sought after, just as a good shepherd searches for a lost sheep.
The long and tortuous question as to how much of the content of this parable and its interpretation can be traced to Jesus and how much to Matthew and/or his source is beyond the scope of this brief article. But both are found in the canon as it stands and selecting a “canon within a canon” is surely a temptation to be avoided. As Hultgren has rightly noted, the parable focuses on patience in the present while the interpretation of the parable looks to the future with its judgment and warning (Arland J. Hultgren, Parables of Jesus: A Commentary, p. 302).
I have long since abandoned what I now understand to be a misguided inner compulsion to “iron out” such texts and bring logical consistency to them. Surely the parable (vs. 24-30) and the interpretation (vs. 36-43) can be permitted their individual integrity. Peter was not dismissed after his denial, and yet Matthew 18 and I Corinthians 5 remain in the New Testament. As Hultgren concludes, “Both patience and warning are canonical themes” (Hultgren, 302). The first occurs in the present and the second is set in the end times.
May we, with Solomon, pray for and be granted wisdom. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear.
Kenneth E. Bailey, Th. D. is an author and lecturer in Middle Eastern New Testament Studies, New Wilmington, Pa.
