Ping.
Fine subject and all.
But I am curious regarding references to “the Weeds and the Wheat”.
Is there some logic or research that went to this phrasing -vs- the traditional and more accurate “the Wheat and the Tares” ?
First of all, the latter expresses the proper order of this teaching. Wheat sown first.
Also, tares (Strong’s: darnel) are not just any generic weed. And, in my opinion, the generic “weeds” references could tend to emphasize the burden of them. Whereas “tares” emphasizes the falseness (Strong’s: false grain).
There are many burdens in this world, not all of them evil. However, the tares of Matt 13 are planted with evil intent and represent falseness sown amongst truth. It is toxic if partaken and in the end produces no nurishing fruit/grain.
I’m not wise enough to determine if ESV has been dumbed-down for English readers and perhaps I’m just being too danged picky. But personally, it was to some extant the word ‘tares’ in the KJV that made me more curious about the meaning of the parable and enticed me to study it further. As a gardener, had I seen the word ‘weeds’ instead, I would have immediately associated it with a recognizable burden, but it likely would not have prompted me to open the Strong’s to reveal the more accurate definition.
Again, I’m not saying I’m qualified to make this determination. But, it feels like an example of translators or denominations changing text to somehow make it more lazily digestible for whatever audience by making it less true.
If that happens to be the case, especially if intentional, then the fruit of it would be both toxic and ironic.
This one for example - what about the "good seed" that was choked and even destroyed by the "weeds?"
Surely the Lord knows which are weeds and which are weeds, yet He allows the weeds to prosper and the wheat to be killed?
"Free Will" is nice, but not if you're a victim of some evildoer's Free Will.