On the illustration of the wheat and the weeds, I think there is an important aspect that often gets overlooked.
Jesus said “the field is the world” (Matthew 13:38), but he also explained that the “fine seed” are the sons of the Kingdom — real, anointed Christians.
Historically, those “sons of the Kingdom” were not left scattered in isolation. From the beginning, they were gathered into congregations (Acts 2:42, 47). So although the field is the world, the wheat became identifiable especially within the Christian congregation.
Then comes the key point:
Jesus said the enemy would oversow weeds among the wheat — not in a separate field, but among them.
That matches what later happened. After the apostles, false Christians and corrupt influences entered inside the congregation itself (Acts 20:29–30). So the coexistence of wheat and weeds is not just in the world in general, but in the very sphere where Christians are found.
That helps explain something important:
. The presence of error or corruption does not automatically mean the absence of genuine Christians
. Both can exist together for a period of time
Now, regarding “quit mixing in company” (1 Corinthians 5:11–13), that instruction is very specific. It deals with clear individual wrongdoing, not with abandoning the entire congregation where both wheat and weeds are present. If that text meant complete separation from any imperfect congregation, then in practice it would require leaving every congregation — including those in the first century, which also had serious problems.
But Jesus’ instruction in the illustration was very explicit:
“Let both grow together until the harvest” (Matthew 13:30)
And he identifies the harvest as the conclusion of the system of things — the moment when the separation is finally carried out.
So the picture that emerges is this:
. The wheat are real Christians, gathered and active
. The weeds are counterfeit Christians, introduced by Satan
. Both develop side by side over time
. And the definitive separation is not done progressively by humans, but decisively by Christ at the appointed time
That perspective has made me reflect on the difference between dealing with specific wrongdoing (which Scripture clearly commands) and assuming that the entire presence of imperfection means we must separate completely
Bible lover “The presence of error or corruption does not automatically mean the absence of genuine Christians
. Both can exist together for a period of time
Now, regarding “
quit mixing in company” (1 Corinthians 5:11–13), that instruction is very specific.
It deals with clear individual wrongdoing, not with abandoning the entire congregation where both wheat and weeds are present. If that text meant complete separation from any imperfect congregation, then in practice it would require leaving every congregation — including those in the first century, which also had serious problems.
But Jesus’ instruction in the illustration was very explicit:
“Let both grow together until the harvest” (Matthew 13:30)”
—— —
There is more to the scripture in its observance and meaning. “Letting” the two grow together does not rule out division, or the need to stay together. One should check inferences in translations and in common understanding, rather than choose for themselves, a doctrinal inference to suit their understanding. If you apply the word “let” as translated from Greek it shows this common fault in understanding:
- [eaō (ἐάω)] (Strong's 1439): Means to permit, allow, or "let be". It often implies allowing something, sometimes with hesitation - or as a choice to leave something alone.
As with Jerusalem, in 70CE. the point of departure is critically discerned according to awareness, maturity, insight and spiritual tolerance. The two cannot co-exist. Where does “not eating with that one…” apply? At the point of applicable insight. There are standards to be observed. This is not a matter of instruction alone, but one of discernment. The standard is not one of compromise by association.
Insofar as the harvest is concerned; to whom does the harvest belong? Jehovah. Likewise, so do the hearts of those following Him. They have a conscience to discern and to follow, and the expectation that we do. The test, ultimately, is “whom do you serve?” Does the scripture infer that an abused child stays in the congregation when they have to endure the presence of that one? Then where does the offence against Jehovah also stand where the very people that speak in His name, side against the righteous victim and approve of their abuser?
There is an illustration to be gained by having the righteous and the unrighteous “grow” together because it heightens the colour of the example in its meaning when the two are divided. But there is no suggestion that those whom make it their business to study and discern the truth should stay together endure it. The thematics of the Bible need to be reflected beyond the word to its meaning surely? “It’s is written…” means understand it in its entirety. The examples are clear: association, manners, insight, humility, love, in empathy, understanding, reflection, activity, honesty in purpose. In other words, a matter of discerning according to understanding. Jehovah judges us as individuals.
Though these examples in discernment exist to a degree in congregations -though it is difficult to see it flourish -the over riding command is to obey the gb or face being thrown out. So what of those that are thrown out by those who “shepherd” the flock, rather than those within the flock - think about it - where do they go? And why do some stay - and for what, whom, and why?
You infer that it’s correct, no matter the abuses of mind and body, faith and lack of understanding, to stay within the congregation for the very reason that the problem has emerged, that those whom suffer under it should endure until the harvest. When does a harvest ripen? The stoney ground, the dry ground, and the right soil springs to mind. It depends upon the weather too. What is the purpose of the harvest? To gather the fruits of the Labour. The illustration of the weeds and the wheat is a picture of what it will be like, not the
reason for the harvest and the harvest signifies life and the Word - salvation. Which is more important? To drag one’s self down, deny themselves the food of the Word that makes the harvest grow, to remain unfed and starved of faith, or to search for where it may be found? Do we not wish to grow in faith, or to stagnate as a pimo?
For some, it is clearly preferable to stay and that is understandable given the emotive issues to hand. The scriptures as a whole does indeed infer a measure of understanding within that realm, but equally, it is an endurance unwise for those that can not or will not tolerate the abuse of Jehovah’s truth. The key meaning in the scripture infers, as far as I can see, the choice. “Let……”. To let, to allow. It gives freedom to leave and for the truth of the Word for the individual to arise, to be demonstrated, to avoid any misunderstanding in judgement, to give the waverer the full opportunity to declare their intent of heart. It does not infer that one must stay within the congregation otherwise, surely it would say so as the commandments do. “Thou shalt not….”. The phrase “to let,” equally allows the same choice for the unfaithful to show their opposition to Jehovah. Why do they stay? To oppose. To destroy. Those that love Jehovah are scattered. They are scattering now. It’s a choice.
One might like to examine the benefits of leaving too. Personally I have learnt infinitely more about Jehovah here and can claim enough understanding to “see” Jehovah for myself. Something I never had in watchtower. I don’t feel alone in that either.
Cambridge dictionary :
“Let”
- Permission: "Let them go to the party."
- Opportunity: "Let the children play outside."
- Allowance/Non-prevention: "Don't let him upset you."
- Proposals (Let's/Let us): "Let's go home."
- Giving Access: "Let them into the room."
- Hypothesis: "Let
a
equal
b
."
Cambridge Dictionary +4
Synonyms for "Let" (Allow/Permit Context):
- Allow
- Permit
- Authorize
- Give permission/the go-ahead
- Tolerate
- Consent to
Cambridge Dictionary +2
Alternatives in Context:
- "Let them do this" can be replaced by:
- Allow them to do this.
- Permit them to do this.
- Authorize them to do this.
- Enable them to do this (in the sense of making it possible).
