How does Matthew 13:28 challenge the concept of a benevolent God allowing evil? Text and Immediate Context “He said to them, ‘An enemy did this.’ The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and gather them?’ ” (Matthew 13:28). Jesus is answering the servants’ bewilderment over tares (weeds that mimic wheat) sprouting among the crop the master sowed. The verse is nestled in the Parable of the Weeds (vv. 24-30, 36-43), delivered after the Parable of the Sower and before several kingdom parables that explain God’s present patience and future judgment. The Core Challenge If God is perfectly good and sovereign, why does He tolerate the flourishing of evil (“tares”) in His “field” (“the world,” v. 38)? Matthew 13:28 exposes the tension but also supplies the divine answer: evil’s origin is not in God but in “an enemy,” and its temporary coexistence with good serves redemptive purposes until the harvest. The Identity of the Characters • Owner: “the Son of Man” (v. 37) – benevolent Creator, sowing only good seed. • Field: “the world” (v. 38) – God’s ordered creation (Genesis 1:31). • Good Seed/Wheat: “sons of the kingdom” – redeemed people. • Tares: “sons of the evil one” – those aligning with rebellion. • Enemy: “the devil” (v. 39) – personal source of moral evil (cf. John 8:44). Scripture consistently assigns moral evil’s origin to creaturely rebellion (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:12-17; Genesis 3), never to God, preserving divine benevolence. Divine Benevolence and Sovereign Permission God’s permission is not passive neglect but purposeful patience (Romans 9:22-24; 2 Peter 3:9). The temporary coexistence: 1. Provides opportunity for repentance (Acts 17:30). 2. Displays God’s long-suffering and mercy (Exodus 34:6). 3. Allows the full maturation of evil, exposing its futility before final judgment (Revelation 14:15-20). Free Will and Moral Agency Love demands real choice (Deuteronomy 30:19; Joshua 24:15). God created rational beings capable of genuine obedience or defection; meaningful moral development presupposes that risk. Behavioral studies on moral agency confirm that virtue only becomes robust when freely chosen amid alternative options. Eschatological Resolution: The Harvest The master restrains immediate eradication to prevent collateral damage to immature wheat roots, illustrating God’s protective care for His people during history’s mixed conditions. Judgment is reserved for “the end of the age” (Matthew 13:39-43), guaranteeing ultimate justice and vindication of divine goodness. Instrumental Good in Present Suffering • Sanctification: Trials refine faith (James 1:2-4). • Providence: “In all things God works for the good of those who love Him” (Romans 8:28). • Evangelism: The contrast between good seed and tares highlights the gospel’s urgency. Christ’s Cross and Resurrection: Definitional Proof of Benevolent Sovereignty God entered human suffering, bore evil’s consequences, and triumphed historically through a bodily resurrection. Multiple attested, early, enemy-admitted facts—empty tomb, post-mortem appearances to individuals and hostile witnesses (e.g., Saul of Tarsus)—anchor divine benevolence in verifiable history (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). If God leveraged the quintessential injustice (crucifixion) for infinite good (salvation), He can likewise overrule lesser evils. Creation Analogy: Wheat and Tares in a Designed World Botanists note that darnel (Lolium temulentum) closely imitates wheat until head formation—an apt natural analogy embedded by the Creator. Such irreducibly complex mimicry underscores intelligent design, not purposeless accident. Geological layers containing edible wheat fossils alongside weed seeds in near-Flood-era sediment (consistent with a young-Earth timeframe) illustrate this mingling since early post-Fall history. Psychological and Behavioral Insights Adversity catalyzes moral growth; longitudinal studies show that individuals who volunteer in crisis relief develop higher empathy. Evil’s temporary presence, therefore, can foster righteous character that would otherwise remain dormant, aligning with Hebrews 12:11. Moral Law Evidence for Creator’s Goodness Objective moral outrage against evil presupposes a transcendent moral lawgiver (Romans 2:14-16). Naturalistic frameworks cannot supply obligatory “oughts,” whereas a benevolent God coherently grounds them. Modern Miraculous Attestation Documented medical recoveries—such as instantaneous remission of confirmed glioblastoma following intercessory prayer (peer-reviewed case reports, 21st century)—demonstrate that the same God who will one day uproot evil occasionally previews that future in present healings. Addressing Objections • “Why create at all?” Love by nature shares existence (Isaiah 43:7). • “Why not intervene constantly?” Constant intervention would obliterate freedom and the possibility of love, collapsing history into immediate judgment, which God postpones for mercy. • “Why allow innocent suffering?” Scripture reckons future glory to “far outweigh” present pain (Romans 8:18), a claim substantiated by Christ’s resurrection and promised believer resurrection. Practical Application 1. Trust: The Owner sees every tare; His timing is perfect. 2. Persevere: Do not become tares by responding to evil with evil (Romans 12:21). 3. Witness: Use the present mixture to point others to coming judgment and available grace. Summary Matthew 13:28 neither indicts God’s benevolence nor His sovereignty. It attributes evil to a personal enemy, affirms God’s purposeful patience, guarantees eventual justice, and invites trust grounded in the historical resurrection of Christ. The parable harmonizes theological, philosophical, scientific, and experiential data into a coherent answer: a loving Creator permits temporary evil to serve redemptive ends, but He will finally uproot it without harm to the righteous, vindicating His perfect goodness forever. |
    |