The Parable of the Ten Virgins Explained

[Absolutely]

Does that really matter?

It should.
does changing things seem acceptable?

 

[iTheophilus]

It should.
does changing things seem acceptable?

The Word of God is the Word of God, whether a teaching is in Mathew or Hebrews or Revelation. Do you understand what I mean?

 

[Absolutely]

The Word of God is the Word of God, whether a teaching is in Mathew or Hebrews or Revelation. Do you understand what I mean?

The op

you are posting in the thread of the 10 virgins, and now are we to assume you are not making a point in mat 25,using other chapters?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

no "bridesmaids" in mat 25. It says "virgin" in the greek

Okay, but not once in the "singular" as you put it here.



As I see it, it would be comparable to the following passage:


6Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever,

and justice is the scepter of Your kingdom.

7You have loved righteousness

and hated wickedness;

therefore God, your God, has anointed you

above your companions with the oil of joy.c

8All your garments are fragrant

with myrrh and aloes and cassia;

from palaces of ivory the harps make you glad.

9The daughters of kings are among your honored women;

the queen stands at your right hand,

adorned with the gold of Ophir.

10Listen, O daughter! Consider and incline your ear:

Forget your people and your father’s house,

11and the king will desire your beauty;

bow to him, for he is your lord.

12The Daughter of Tyre will come with a gift;

men of wealth will seek your favor.

13All glorious is the princess in her chamber;

her gown is embroidered with gold.

14In colorful garments she is led to the king;

her virgin companions [plural] are brought before you.

15They are led in with joy and gladness;

they enter the palace of the king.

16Your sons will succeed your fathers;

you will make them princes throughout the land.

17I will commemorate your name through all generations;

therefore the nations will praise you forever and ever.


--Psalm 45

 

[JTB]

The King originally invited Israel to the wedding, but they made excuses and declined,
and even murdered the messengers.... so the King sent His servants to invite everyone.

Luke 14:15–24

1 Once again, Jesus spoke to them in parables: 2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3 He sent his servants to call those he had invited to the banquet, but they refused to come.

4 Again, he sent other servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner. My oxen and fattened cattle have been killed, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’

5 But they paid no attention and went away, one to his field, another to his business.
6 The rest seized his servants, mistreated them, and killed them.

7 The king was enraged, and he sent his troops to destroy those murderers and burn their city. 8 Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited were not worthy. 9 Go therefore to the crossroads and invite to the banquet as many as you can find.’

10 So the servants went out into the streets and gathered everyone they could find, both evil and good, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.

11 But when the king came in to see the guests, he spotted a man who was not dressed in wedding clothes. 12 ‘Friend,’ he asked, ‘how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’

But the man was speechless.

13 Then the king told the servants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

14 For many are called, but few are chosen.”

That didn't really answer the question.

The King knew Israel, well enough to invite them to the feast. But when they dallied, He then turned them away saying I don't know you.

So how does one claim not to know someone they knew well enough to previously invite?

 

[JTB]

STRONGS NT 3933: παρθένος
παρθένος, παρθένου, ἡ,
1. a virgin: Matthew 1:23 (from Isaiah 7:14); Matthew 25:1,7,11; Luke 1:27; Acts 21:9; 1 Corinthians 7:25, 28, 33(1 Corinthians 7:34)

If you click on those references and transcribe "bridesmaids" in place of "virgins" it does not fit.

no "bridesmaids" in mat 25. It says "virgin" in the greek

Well you got me there, I used bridesmaids instead of virgins. Mea culpa.

Still doesn't answer the question tho, which remains the same no matter which term you use.

How do you claim to not know someone you obviously previously knew?

 

[Absolutely]

Okay, but not once in the "singular" as you put it here.



As I see it, it would be comparable to the following passage:


6Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever,

and justice is the scepter of Your kingdom.

7You have loved righteousness

and hated wickedness;

therefore God, your God, has anointed you

above your companions with the oil of joy.c

8All your garments are fragrant

with myrrh and aloes and cassia;

from palaces of ivory the harps make you glad.

9The daughters of kings are among your honored women;

the queen stands at your right hand,

adorned with the gold of Ophir.

10Listen, O daughter! Consider and incline your ear:

Forget your people and your father’s house,

11and the king will desire your beauty;

bow to him, for he is your lord.

12The Daughter of Tyre will come with a gift;

men of wealth will seek your favor.

13All glorious is the princess in her chamber;

her gown is embroidered with gold.

14In colorful garments she is led to the king;

her virgin companions [plural] are brought before you.

15They are led in with joy and gladness;

they enter the palace of the king.

16Your sons will succeed your fathers;

you will make them princes throughout the land.

17I will commemorate your name through all generations;

therefore the nations will praise you forever and ever.


--Psalm 45

Ok yes
i misspelled it

 

[Absolutely]

Well you got me there, I used bridesmaids instead of virgins. Mea culpa.

Still doesn't answer the question tho, which remains the same no matter which term you use.

How do you claim to not know someone you obviously previously knew?

I think "know" in mat 25 with the virgins is used in the "intimacy" thingy.

Mary did not "know" joseph. As in the marriage bed

 

[ewq1938]

How do you claim to not know someone you obviously previously knew?

This happens even today. You can have a friend who does something really bad or risky etc and you tell them, "I thought I knew you but I guess I don't." or some variant of the same concept. It's also related to when a son does something bad and father says, "You are no longer a son of mine!"

 

[JTB]

I think "know" in mat 25 with the virgins is used in the "intimacy" thingy.

Mary did not "know" joseph. As in the marriage bed

But if you used know in that sense they wouldn't be virgins any more.

 

[JTB]

This happens even today. You can have a friend who does something really bad or risky etc and you tell them, "I thought I knew you but I guess I don't." or some variant of the same concept. It's also related to when a son does something bad and father says, "You are no longer a son of mine!"

That is certainly plausible.

 

[ewq1938]

But if you used know in that sense they wouldn't be virgins any more.

That alone does not affect virginity.

 

[JTB]

That alone does not affect virginity.

Know as in to be 'intimately' connected (as in having done the dirty deed)? Is that not the very definition of a virgin?

 

[Runningman]

Well you got me there, I used bridesmaids instead of virgins. Mea culpa.

Still doesn't answer the question tho, which remains the same no matter which term you use.

How do you claim to not know someone you obviously previously knew?

If someone ever knew someone then they were known at some point and possibly still known presently. Jesus said "I never knew you" and if we take that literally then if you have ever been known by Jesus then you wouldn't be turned away.

 

[iTheophilus]

The op

you are posting in the thread of the 10 virgins, and now are we to assume you are not making a point in mat 25,using other chapters?

The subject is the same, though.

 

[ewq1938]

Know as in to be 'intimately' connected (as in having done the dirty deed)? Is that not the very definition of a virgin?

That meaning is not related to what Christ said to the foolish virgins.

 

[Amanuensis]

The information would come from God.



Nope, he knew of the last of the 7 trumps and that Christ would return at that time. John was shown this later but it's the same info from the same source.



The only audience that matters is one who will be alive when that last trump sounds.

The 7th trump of Rev is the same last trump Paul speaks of because that's when the dead in Christ are raised along with his second coming.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
1 Thessalonians 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Here we have the second coming associated with a trumpet, and the dead in Christ rising, and the rapture.

Co 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
1Co 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.


And here we have a trumpet called the last trump, and the dead in Christ being raised. This clearly is at the second coming as the other verse makes clear. The dead in Christ rise and Christ returns. So all we have to do is find out which end times trumpet Christ returns in:

Rev 11:13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.
Rev 11:14 The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.
Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
Rev 11:16 And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,
Rev 11:17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.
Rev 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Here we have the end of the Tribulation, and the sounding of the last of the 7 trumps. Though not explicitly mentioned here, I think the language does highly imply Christ's second coming is at this time. The second coming is directly tied to the time for wrath:

Rev 6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
Rev 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
Rev 6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?


We see this wrath in greater detail here:


Rev 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Rev 19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Rev 19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
Rev 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
Rev 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
Rev 19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
Rev 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
Rev 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

So, the "last trump" is the same as the last of the 7 trumpets of Revelation and it is when Christ returns, the dead in Christ rise and the rapture all take place.

Your opinion that Paul's reference to the Last Trump while writing to the Corinthians in 54 AD was concerning a revelation given to Paul (but not explained to the Corinthians) before John saw his vision and wrote about it in 95 AD means that the Corinthians received a letter referencing a "Last Trump" of which they had no way of understanding since Revelation was not yet written and a 7th Trumpet of Revelation was not known.

This would be a method of interpreting scripture that violates the rules of hermeneutics. Some of those rules would be in the form of asking the questions; "what did Paul intend when he said these words, (Last Trump) and where else in scripture are such things mentioned, and since no explanation is given it suggests that he assumed his readers knew of what he was referring to since he mentions it without further explanation.
He mentions it without explanation, not making it the main point, but throwing it in, as if it was a descriptive part of the event (parousia) and something already known and understood by his readers.

This could not be a reference to a book that had not yet been written (Revelation) and of which none of the visions in that book had yet been seen by John much less Paul.

To insist that Paul was referring to what John saw, when John had not yet seen it, is somewhat of a belligerent approach to forcing an interpretation to fit a previously committed position at the cost of violating normal reading comprehension rules much less biblical hermeneutics.

I am going to have to go with a HARD NO on this statement having to do with any of the trumpets in Revelation which had not yet been written and could not have been understood by the readers of the Corinthian Letter.

There is not a Ghost of a chance they could have understood it that way. And if they could not have understood it that way it is not possible that this is the correct interpretation according to the most basic rules of hermeneutics.

One of the most important rules of hermeneutics is "How would those whom Paul was writing to have understood it?" And since they could not have understood it to reference anything in Revelation because Revelation had not yet been written then it is not possible that it could be the intended meaning Paul had. You must abandon this idea and reanalyze the correct interpretation based on something else in the OT that Paul could have been referring to.

And one more point. It is not possible for you to prove your very erratic opinion that Paul had received the same visions that John got 40 years later after Corinthians was written. That is a wild idea on your part that has no basis in fact and would be rejected by every well read scholar of the scriptures. You're just making that up. It should not even be convincing to you.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ Yeah, that's one reason why I point out the way Paul uses the word "trumpet" elsewhere in his own writings:

"And indeed if the trumpet gives an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle?" - 1Cor14:8

 

[ewq1938]

It is not possible for you to prove your very erratic opinion that Paul had received the same visions that John got 40 years later after Corinthians was written.

I have already proven that the two trumpets written about are the one and only last trump. "last trump" is as last of 7 trumps, when sounded signals the second coming. It's obviously two references to the same trumpet. Your disagreement is irrelevant.

 

[Amanuensis]

I have already proven that the two trumpets written about are the one and only last trump. "last trump" is as last of 7 trumps, when sounded signals the second coming. It's obviously two references to the same trumpet. Your disagreement is irrelevant.

Then you are saying that you believe that the Corinthians had an understanding about 7 trumpets from Revelation before Revelation was written? Are you saying that Paul wrote this reference Last Trump and that the Corinthians did not understand it? You must answer that question or you have not honestly dealt with the interpretation. Did the Corinthians understand it or not? If they understood it as the same as the 7th trumpet in revelation how could they have known this? Paul did not explain it.

Simply repeating your theory about how the 7 trumpets of Revelation fits nicely in your own mind does not answer the question. How could the Corinthians have had this idea in their minds that you have?