Matthew 13:38
Tuesday, 14 October 2025
The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. Matthew 13:38
“And the field, it is the world. And the good seed, these, they are the sons of the kingdom. And the weeds, they are the sons of the evil” (CG).
In the previous verse, Jesus began His explanation of the parable of the darnel, explaining that the One sowing good seed is the Son of Man. He continues with, “And the field, it is the world.”
The word kosmos is used. It signifies an orderly arrangement. By implication, it thus speaks of the world. However, that can be the world as the globe, the inhabitants of the world, the state of the world (as in “they are not of the world”), etc.
Jesus’ parable goes far beyond a single field or the several fields of a landowner. As such, it would explain why the parable would not be understood without really thinking things through, and maybe not at all.
When evaluating such things, the human mind will make images of what is happening, such as in the sowing of a field. To expand out to the entire world takes a real leap in thought. Jesus continues, saying, “And the good seed, these, they are the sons of the kingdom.”
Having already heard the explanation of the parable of the sower, the imagery here is understandable. The seed reflects people. Obviously, if the sower wants a good harvest, he will sow good seed. The same would be true with Jesus. He will only bring forth that which is good. However, “And the weeds, they are the sons of the evil.”
Pretty much every translation adds in the word “one,” saying, “sons of the evil one,” “wicked one,” etc. This is a correct thought, but it is not a true rendering. It only uses the adjective as a descriptor. Hence, italicizing it is appropriate. Jesus will continue the explanation in the next verse.
Life application: There is a standard method of interpreting Scripture that has been set forth for eons: “Let Scripture interpret Scripture.” In other words, when something is recorded in the Bible, the way to interpret it, first and foremost, is to let the explanation of it be what the Bible says about it.
For example, the story of Sarah and Hagar is recorded in Genesis. For almost 1500 years, it was “just a story” with a meaning that was not understood. Scholars would give their ideas about why it was included in Scripture, normally ensuring that it was understood that the line leading to the Jewish people was highlighted as the true line, chosen of God.
This is not incorrect, but it is incomplete. There are exacting details in the narrative that could have just been left out, and that premise would still be understood. But every word of Scripture has a particular reason for being there.
Only in the coming of Christ and the introduction of the New Covenant is the reason for the story understood. Paul gives a brief explanation of it in Galatians 4, stating “which things are symbolic” in verse 4:24. As Paul has given the explanation under the inspiration of God, we do not need to look for any other explanation for the story. We are thus letting Scripture interpret Scripture.
This is true with incense. In both testaments, incense is explicitly stated as being a metaphor for prayer (see Psalm 141:2 and Revelation 5:8). Therefore, we don’t need to speculate about its set typology when looking at the times when incense is mentioned in the Bible.
In Exodus, great detail is given concerning incense. Understanding that it signifies prayer, the meaning of all of those details becomes evident and can be properly analyzed. This is true with something found in the parable of the darnel. In this verse, Jesus said, “And the field, it is the world.”
Therefore, because Jesus has explained what the field signifies (in Hebrew, sadeh means field), we don’t need to go anywhere else to understand what is being seen in the typology of a given passage. All we need to do is consistently stick to what Jesus has said.
Unfortunately, translations may fail to translate sadeh as field at times, or they will translate something else as field from another word that actually has a different meaning. Therefore, we can make errors in our figuring out typology by trusting in a given translation that has failed to be consistent. An example would be Genesis 32:3 –
“And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his brother unto the land of Seir, the country of Edom” (KJV).
The KJV failed to translate sadeh as field, instead rendering it “country.” The NKJV followed that translation, but they thankfully footnoted it as “field.” If one were to read only the KJV, he would never know that it was a faulty rendering of the word. If he were attempting to typologically explain the passage, his explanation would be faulty because of the already faulty translation.
Therefore, when doing an analysis of a passage, attempting to understand what it means, 1) first and foremost, let Scripture interpret Scripture, 2) be consistent in your typological meanings, (if you are to divert from a particular typology, you must have a valid reason for doing so), 3) don’t trust a single, faulty translation (like the KJV), and expect proper results. Check with the original. It is not difficult to do, and it will keep you on a sounder, surer path of properly explaining the passage.
Lord God, may we be careful with Your word, never making stuff up in order to provide an explanation that we want. Rather, may we go where You are leading as we carefully evaluate the set purpose and intent that You have for each passage. Amen.
