Menu

They Were All Virgins

R
roadsign

“…ten virgins... took their lamps
and went out to meet the bridegroom.” Matt. 25:1

The parable of the ten virgins is about two groups of people who are nearly identical:

They were all virgins. They had never surrendered their bodies to a man. They had never defiled their souls by compromising with the world, or selling themselves to the faulty religious systems of the day. They reserved themselves for one Man – their Husband. None of them had forgotten who they were, to whom they rightfully belonged. They were all waiting for him to come and get them, trusting that they were ready for him. And so they set out on the journey of life, to meet him, completely expecting him to come and get them at any moment. They were all virgins.

But the ten virgins comprised two distinct groups - with one big difference between them: One group had oil and the other did not.

There are also two main groups of people within the household of God. On the surface, they may be quite imperceptible; but in the end it makes an eternal difference. One group has the Holy Spirit and the other does not. In the end, those who enter heaven are the ones with the Spirit, that is, the Spirit of Christ who is our Life – birthed within his people.

Many professing Christians go through life living vicariously off of the faith of others. They enjoy the benefits of the Spirit, the showers of blessings. They feel very much a part of the family of God – united with those who actually do have the Spirit. These people feel very secure in their illusion. They can talk the talk, act the act. They can tell you what’s wrong with the JW’s, PDL’s, WOF’s, RC’s, and the XYZ’s. They keep away from all that, and stay close to where the Oil is flowing. But they do not have their own Oil.

On the final day all the blessings - that is, the light and warmth from of the Oil won’t do them any good. On that Final Day, they will no longer be able to look to the church, or anyone else and beg: “Give us some of your oil, our lamps are going out.”

Here are some personal questions for each of us to ask ourselves:

Am I a a wise virgin - and have the Oil?
How can I tell?

Am I deceived - a foolish virgin - dependent on someone else’s Oil rather than my own?
How do I tell?

What light does Scripture reveal to all of us regarding this subject?

Diane

E
enid

Concerning your questions after your article, to know if we are wise or unwise.

1 Cor 3v16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

We should know. If not, then verse 18 tells us, 'Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among
you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.'

This speaks in terms of worldly wisdom. However,
if we can be deceived by worldly wisdom, how much more by church attendance, reading the word, praying. Didn't the Pharisees do those things? Yet, they were living in hypocrisy. Don't be deceived. That is the opening admonition in this text.

Hebrews 5v14 tells us 'But solid food belongs to those who are of age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Discernment is needed to guard against going cold in the things of God. Don't leave your first love.

God bless.

S
sermonindex

"But the ten virgins comprised two distinct groups - with one big difference between them: One group had oil and the other did not."

I am persuaded that you are starting from a wrong understanding consequently you will draw a wrong conclusion. Try this out for a beginning senario:

They all [10] had white robes signifying salvation. They all [10] had oil, signifying the Holy Spirit. Now what does Paul say [to the born again]except,"Do not quench the Spirit" 1 Thes. 5:19 (NASB-U)

See where your thinking takes you with that view on things.

;-)

I
InTheLight

Am I a a wise virgin - and have the Oil? How can I tell?

I think a lamp speaks of the testimony of Jesus. For me to testify of someone, I must have first hand knowledge of them, hearsay will not do. To me this speaks of a living, vital relationship with Christ through the Spirit. How can I tell? I think Romans 8:14-16 is a good way to test. Those verses show that the sons of God walk in an upward path, an outward expression, and an inward peace.

Also, the foolish virgins lamps have gone out, indicating they were once lit. I think these are those who started in the spirit and tried to finish in the flesh. The testimony was there at one time.
And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.
(Mat 25:8)

In Christ,

Ron

E
enid

Romans 8v9 tells us 'But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ he is not His.'

Either you have the Holy Spirit or you don't.

As it says in Galatians 3v3 'Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?'

These virgin were called foolish. They had not taken care of their salvation.

We can start off right and finish wrong.

Let's be wise. God bless.

O
OverSeer

ormly wrote:

I am persuaded that you are starting from a wrong understanding consequently you will draw a wrong conclusion.

Just as you have done dear brother. The Bible clearly says that the five foolish "took [b]no oil[/b] with them" (Matthew 25:3).

And from your wrong understanding you conclude:

They all [10] had white robes signifying salvation. They all [10] had oil, signifying the Holy Spirit.
Not so according to the Bible. They did not all have oil and when the five foolish "trimmed their lamps" their lamps went out = they had form without fuel! These five do not represent "loss of salvation" but they represent false Christians who hold to a form of godliness but have denied its power.

We should never change what God's word says to make it fit our doctrine - we should change our doctrine to make it fit God's word.

The Text: Parable of Ten Virgins
How they are alike:
1.\tAll had been invited to the banquet – they were all anticipating a banquet when the bridegroom came. These people had heard the gospel invitation
2.\tAll had responded positively to the wedding invitation. This is demonstrated by the fact that they are waiting for the bridegroom’s appearance
3.\tAll were part of what we would call the visible church. They had joined the fellowship of those who were waiting for the Lord.
4.\tAll believed in the return of the Lord.
5.\tAll got drowsy and fell asleep while the bridegroom was delaying.
6.\tAll trimmed their lamps – they all thought that they were light bearers.

How they are different:
1.\tFive were foolish and five were wise
2.\tThe foolish took no oil for their lamps; the prudent took oil in flasks along with their lamps.
3.\tThe five prudent went in with the bridegroom to the wedding; the five foolish were locked out of his presence.

This is a picture of those who have a form of godliness but deny its power. They have form (lamps) but no fuel (oil).
This is a picture of those who profess faith but do not possess faith. They are powerless professors of the faith.
This is a picture of those who did not do what the Bible tells us to do – “Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves” (2 Corinthians 13:5) and “Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you” (2 Peter 1:10).
This is a picture of those who responded to a false gospel of philosophical humanism and wanted to be saved from hell but had no interest in being saved from sin. Again they did not do what the Bible tells us to do – “Contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. For certain persons have crept in unnoticed…ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness” (Jude 3-4).
This is a picture of those still in the dark although they appear to be in the light.

What are you basing the certainty of your salvation on?

Grace and peace
Olan

P
philologos

We have to be careful not to try too hard to map every part of a parable to a truth. Allegories are like that but not parables. These 'virgins' were simply 'young women' and thoughts of 'separation' to their one man does not come into this parable.

The bridegroom in question will only have one bride, ever.

S
sermonindex


OverSeer wrote:
ormly wrote:
I am persuaded that you are starting from a wrong understanding consequently you will draw a wrong conclusion.

Just as you have done dear brother. The Bible clearly says that the five foolish "took [b]no oil[/b] with them" (Matthew 25:3).


But they did have oil in their lamps, correct?

What does that tell you? Oil repesents the Holy Spirit.... How is it they had some?

;-)


Not so according to the Bible. They did not all have oil and when the five foolish "trimmed their lamps" their lamps went out = they had form without fuel! These five do not represent "loss of salvation" but they represent false Christians who hold to a form of godliness but have denied its power.

We should never change what God's word says to make it fit our doctrine - we should change our doctrine to make it fit God's word.

I'm sure you have much scripture to support your "fitted" doctrine?


:-o

O
OverSeer

But they did have oil in their lamps, correct?
According to you - but not according to the Lord Jesus! The oil wasn't taken in the lamps - it was taken in flasks and the foolish didn't take [b]any[/b]!
I'm sure you have much scripture to support your "fitted" doctrine?
Yep! That's how God "fitted" it for me - SCRIPTURE - "[b]All[/b] scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for [b]doctrine[/b], for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).

Grace and peace
Olan

S
sermonindex

They didn't take extra oil, my friend, extra. That is inferred if not stated.


"Then [b]ALL those virgins arose, and [u]trimmed their lamps[/u][/b]. And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for [b]our lamps are gone out."[/b] Matthew 25:7-8 (KJV)

I accept your apology in advance.

:-o

O
OverSeer

They didn't take extra oil, my friend, extra. That is inferred if not stated.
It is not inferred and most surely isn't stated - even a blind man can see that!
Then ALL those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.
How does trimming their lamps infer that they had at one time had oil but didn't take any extra? It doesn't! The trimming of a lamp speaks of preparing the wick for lighting. But a prepared wick is no good without proper fuel - "Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said unto the wise, 'Give us of your oil; [i]for our lamps are gone out[/i]'" (Matthew 25:7-8). The wick was lit but it didn't burn long - "our lamps are gone out" - not because they ran out of oil but because they "took no oil with them" (25:3).
I accept your apology in advance.
None given until proper exegesis proves otherwise. Eisegesis http://www.creationists.org/eisegesis.html is an unacceptable approach for Scripture interpretation.

Grace and peace
Olan

S
sermonindex


OverSeer wrote:
They didn't take extra oil, my friend, extra. That is inferred if not stated.
It is not inferred and most surely isn't stated - even a blind man can see that!
Then ALL those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.
How does trimming their lamps infer that they had at one time had oil but didn't take any extra? It doesn't! The trimming of a lamp speaks of preparing the wick for lighting. But a prepared wick is no good without proper fuel - "Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said unto the wise, 'Give us of your oil; [i]for our lamps are gone out[/i]'" (Matthew 25:7-8). The wick was lit but it didn't burn long - "our lamps are gone out" - not because they ran out of oil but because they "took no oil with them" (25:3).
I accept your apology in advance.
None given until proper exegesis proves otherwise. Eisegesis http://www.creationists.org/eisegesis.html is an unacceptable approach for Scripture interpretation.

Grace and peace
Olan

Then I leave you to your willful ignorance :-(

O
OverSeer

Ormly wrote:

Then I leave you to your willful ignorance

Whose? Mine or yours? :-)

Grace and peace
Olan

P
philologos

'Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out'" (Matthew 25:7-8). The wick was lit but it didn't burn long - "our lamps are gone out" - not because they ran out of oil but because they "took no oil with them"

The tenses would tend to support this. It is not 'our lamps have gone out' but 'our lamps are going out'. Robinson's Word Pictures comments: When the five foolish virgins lit their lamps, they discovered the lack of oil. The sputtering, flickering, smoking wicks were a sad revelation. ...but then I don't think this oil or its absence has anything to do with the Holy Spirit. It is simply an illustration of unpreparedness.

S
sermonindex

...but then I don't think this oil or its absence has anything to do with the Holy Spirit. It is simply an illustration of unpreparedness

Yes... And?

Are you trying to say there are no Spiritual implications? Then why the likening of this to the Kingdom of God?

You guys are starting to give me pause.

S
sermonindex


OverSeer wrote:
Ormly wrote:
Then I leave you to your willful ignorance

Whose? Mine or yours? :-)

Grace and peace
Olan

Apparently your ability to read is more lacking than I supposed....nor can you make distinctions.

M
mamaluk

I don't think I should bring in another school of interpretation. ( Which says that this parable is not to be interpreted with the Church in mind but rather Israel. ) However, this is one of the rare threads where I actually can agree with everyone's insight so far, from Roadsign's..

Since this is a parable, I see the "2-edgedness" of the Word here which teaches me both in:

- Spiritual implication - as an admonition to preparedness or watchfulness in our walk towards the future.

- Soteriological discernment- as an distinction between tares and wheat, sheep and goats, wise and unwise, true of false believers..


As Ron mentioned
"We have to be careful not to try too hard to map every part of a parable to a truth. Allegories are like that but not parables. These 'virgins' were simply 'young women' and thoughts of 'separation' to their one man does not come into this parable."

A parable can tolerate plural applications, can it not?

Btw, none of you appears to me as willfully ignorant ! :)

O
OverSeer

Ormly wrote:

Apparently your ability to read is more lacking than I supposed....nor can you make distinctions.
Actually it is you dear brother who can't make distinctions. I spoke of being corrected by exegesis instead of being destroyed by eisegesis. All that you have offered so far is eisegesis. I knew that you were saying that you were leaving me to "my willful ignorance" (my ability to read may go farther than you think) but in your statement you offered no hint that you would engage in exegesis which I am more than happy to engage in with any willing saint. Therefore, although you believe that I am deceived or at least ignorant, you offer no sound reasoning from the scriptures to make a defense in support of your interpretation. So not only do you leave me to my ignorance, you leave me to yours also!

Grace and peace
Olan

PS. The parables are for the purpose of revealing the mysteries of the kingdom to those who have received the truth and for concealing the mysteries to those who have rejected the truth (see Matthew 13:10-13).

From Matthew 24:32 - 25:46, Jesus was giving parables of the end-times that explained the mysteries of the kingdom up to His coming. The parable of the ten virgins explains the counterfeit Christians among the true Christians and how they (counterfeit Christians) hold to a form of godliness (lamp bearers) but have denied its power (no oil). For further explanation see 2 Timothy 3:1-5 for a description of the apostate church members of the last days - those signified by the foolish virgins.

S
sermonindex

The analogy speaks for itself, requiring no further "indepth" study.. I stand by my remark that you can't read nor make proper distinctions.
They all had oil IN their lamps when they set out.

O
OverSeer

Ormly wrote:

The analogy speaks for itself, requiring no further "indepth" study..
You speak for yourself and have no further scripture to support your eisegesis http://www.creationists.org/eisegesis.html
They all had oil IN their lamps when they set out.
"They that were foolish took their lamps, [b]and took no oil with them[/b]" (Matthew 25:3). What part of "took no oil with them" do you not understand? Even by implication it is obvious that they did not set out with oil in their lamps because the lamps were not being used until the cry that came at midnight (v.6). Instead of being out and about as light bearers, "they all slumbered and slept" (v.5). Pretty hard to burn out your oil when you are sleeping and your lamp isn't lit!
They all had oil IN their lamps when they set out.
Would Jesus tell us that they took no oil with them when they did? No! This is a classic case of eisegesis - reading into the text what isn't there in order to support an existing belief or understanding!

Grace and peace
Olan

T
tinluke

Not sure if this would apply, but the Lord gave me a great teaching on this very subject about a year ago. I actually think it's quite simple.

We all know that right NOW is the midnight hour. We've all heard the call go out and we're waking up. The wise virgins are the ones who go to JESUS. He is the only ONE who can fill our lamps to the very top!! Abundance comes from HIM and HIM alone. Anything else is insufficient to say the least. The foolish virgins go to others for their oil. They go to "snakeoil salesmen" and others who are selling imitation oil. The "fake" oil burns out almost as soon as they receive it. That is why when the Bridegroom comes they don't have any oil. Only the oil that comes from HIM is everlasting!!

T
tinluke

Just another thought... Jesus is not coming back with a measuring rod. He isn't going to say "Well your lamp is nice and full and yours isn't." He is coming back for those who know HIM and love HIM.

S
sermonindex


OverSeer wrote:
Ormly wrote:
The analogy speaks for itself, requiring no further "indepth" study..
You speak for yourself and have no further scripture to support your eisegesis http://www.creationists.org/eisegesis.html
They all had oil IN their lamps when they set out.
"They that were foolish took their lamps, [b]and took no oil with them[/b]" (Matthew 25:3). What part of "took no oil with them" do you not understand? Even by implication it is obvious that they did not set out with oil in their lamps because the lamps were not being used until the cry that came at midnight (v.6). Instead of being out and about as light bearers, "they all slumbered and slept" (v.5). Pretty hard to burn out your oil when you are sleeping and your lamp isn't lit!
They all had oil IN their lamps when they set out.
Would Jesus tell us that they took no oil with them when they did? No! This is a classic case of eisegesis - reading into the text what isn't there in order to support an existing belief or understanding!

Grace and peace
Olan

They took no EXTRA oil consequently their lamps WERE IN NEED OF SOME.

Would Jesus tell us that they took no oil with them when they did? No! This is a classic case of eisegesis - reading into the text what isn't there in order to support an existing belief or understanding!

No, you are demonstrating a classical, poor, rendering of a text to support a particular bent..

From Phillips:

[i]25:1-13 - "In those days the kingdom of Heaven will be like ten bridesmaids who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were sensible and five were foolish. The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. But the sensible ones brought their lamps and oil in their flasks [b]as well[/b].[/i]

From the Amplified:

[i]1THEN THE kingdom of heaven shall be likened to ten virgins who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom.
2Five of them were foolish (thoughtless, without forethought) and five were wise (sensible, intelligent, and prudent).

3For when the foolish took their lamps, they did not take any [extra] oil with them;

4But the wise took flasks of oil along with them [also] with their lamps.[/i]

Be that as it may, how does one "trim" a lamp that, in your estimation, is not lighted?

C'mon, common sense in this should be sufficient.

Not only that but the important thing is, this pertains to the kingdom of God/heaven. Alter it as implied and you strip it of its true significance for the new born of Christ.

:-(

S
sermonindex


tinluke wrote:
Just another thought... Jesus is not coming back with a measuring rod. He isn't going to say "Well your lamp is nice and full and yours isn't." He is coming back for those who know HIM and love HIM.

And the proof of that will be revealed to Him as what?

:-o

R
roadsign

Wow, interesting to return and see how a discussion developed – quite different from what was on my mind.

I read some good comments in my Matthew Henry, but have chosen not to go there. At this point I’d rather try to grasp what Jesus is trying to say to a general group of people, not to the Bible experts who have commentaries, including magnifying glasses with which to read them. Rather than zoom in, I’d like to zoom out and see how this passage falls into the general Biblical narrative of Jesus’ teachings about the future.

Absorption in fine details can be like a group of Bible students on the Titanic discussing the finer theological aspects of ‘When the Roll is Called Up Yonder’ when “Up Yonder” is in five minutes. Without an understanding of the bigger picture, you might get sunk.

Philologos said:

We have to be careful not to try too hard to map every part of a parable to a truth. Allegories are like that but not parables. These 'virgins' were simply 'young women' and thoughts of 'separation' to their one man does not come into this parable.

but then I don't think this oil or its absence has anything to do with the Holy Spirit. It is simply an illustration of unpreparedness.


A few of the ideas I expressed came from a friend who heard them in a sermon. I’m glad someone here is nudging us back to balance. I’ll pass your word on. I admit, if I were to rewrite the initial post, it would be quite different, including the title. Yet – I do feel that the various ideas can be drawn from other Biblical passages – chiefly that there will be many who are trying hard to make it into the kingdom, are righteous people, look very Christian, hang out with the ones who have the Spirit, and live a vicarious faith - by faith in the faith of true Believers. However, when the night comes, they will not be able to endure – because they don’t have what it takes, specifically the Spirit of Christ as their life-source.

In my Bible I have highlighted what I feel are the key verses in Jesus’ teachings about the future:

“Only those who endure to the end will be saved.” Matt. 24:13 It is futile to belabor the dead-end OSAS discussion, when such words as these are repeated over and over again in the Word. If in the end you don’t have what it takes (Oil/Spirit), you won’t be able to endure the darkness. And you won’t get into heaven. And it is very possible to be deceived about one's standing with God. Many are! That fact is Biblical.

The coming judgment is a very important theme – along with an absolute finality of time and space – all that is created: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. Mat. 24:35


In the Bible, I find no hint of any second chance after Christ's return – no time after the Christians are supposedly secretly whisked away for the unconverted to repent. It is dangerous to build theological buffers into God’s Word. One can fail to recognize this pitfall when he is too absorbed in lesser details.

…. That’s just a few thoughts for now..

Diane

S
sermonindex


roadsign wrote:
Wow, interesting to return and see how a discussion developed – quite different from what was on my mind.

I read some good comments in my Matthew Henry, but have chosen not to go there. At this point I’d rather try to grasp what Jesus is trying to say to a general group of people, not to the Bible experts who have commentaries, including magnifying glasses with which to read them. Rather than zoom in, I’d like to zoom out and see how this passage falls into the general Biblical narrative of Jesus’ teachings about the future.

Absorption in fine details can be like a group of Bible students on the Titanic discussing the finer theological aspects of ‘When the Roll is Called Up Yonder’ when “Up Yonder” is in five minutes. Without an understanding of the bigger picture, you might get sunk.

Philologos said:

We have to be careful not to try too hard to map every part of a parable to a truth. Allegories are like that but not parables. These 'virgins' were simply 'young women' and thoughts of 'separation' to their one man does not come into this parable.

but then I don't think this oil or its absence has anything to do with the Holy Spirit. It is simply an illustration of unpreparedness.


A few of the ideas I expressed came from a friend who heard them in a sermon. I’m glad someone here is nudging us back to balance. I’ll pass your word on. I admit, if I were to rewrite the initial post, it would be quite different, including the title. Yet – I do feel that the various ideas can be drawn from other Biblical passages – chiefly that there will be many who are trying hard to make it into the kingdom, are righteous people, look very Christian, hang out with the ones who have the Spirit, and live a vicarious faith - by faith in the faith of true Believers. However, when the night comes, they will not be able to endure – because they don’t have what it takes, specifically the Spirit of Christ as their life-source.

In my Bible I have highlighted what I feel are the key verses in Jesus’ teachings about the future:

“Only those who endure to the end will be saved.” Matt. 24:13 It is futile to belabor the dead-end OSAS discussion, when such words as these are repeated over and over again in the Word. If in the end you don’t have what it takes (Oil/Spirit), you won’t be able to endure the darkness. And you won’t get into heaven. And it is very possible to be deceived about one's standing with God. Many are! That fact is Biblical.

The coming judgment is a very important theme – along with an absolute finality of time and space – all that is created: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. Mat. 24:35


In the Bible, I find no hint of any second chance after Christ's return – no time after the Christians are supposedly secretly whisked away for the unconverted to repent. It is dangerous to build theological buffers into God’s Word. One can fail to recognize this pitfall when he is too absorbed in lesser details.

…. That’s just a few thoughts for now..

Diane




And as to how all that pertains to the virgins and the kingdom of God is what?

G
ginnyrose

Diane wrote:

Absorption in fine details can be like a group of Bible students on the Titanic discussing the finer theological aspects of ‘When the Roll is Called Up Yonder’ when “Up Yonder” is in five minutes.

Diane, mind if I be a tad bit irreverent here? When I read this it made me laugh!! The analogy is so true!

Mind if I expand a tad bit on it? While they were spitting hairs, all of a sudden the ship started to sink and what did they say? That it was scientically impossible?

ginnyrose

I
InTheLight

Yet – I do feel that the various ideas can be drawn from other Biblical passages – chiefly that there will be many who are trying hard to make it into the kingdom, are righteous people, look very Christian, hang out with the ones who have the Spirit, and live a vicarious faith - by faith in the faith of true Believers. However, when the night comes, they will not be able to endure – because they don’t have what it takes, specifically the Spirit of Christ as their life-source.

This brings to mind these verses...
Lo, this is the man that made not God his strength; but trusted in the abundance of his riches, and strengthened himself in his wickedness. But I am like a green olive tree in the house of God: I trust in the mercy of God for ever and ever. I will praise thee for ever, because thou hast done it: and I will wait on thy name; for it is good before thy saints.
(Psa 52:7-9)
David was like a green olive tree, aware of his anointing and the continuous flow of oil. This is the kind of anointing we need. We have so many tapes and books and teachings, even on this very site, and they are wonderful. But we need to find our own anointing and sink our own deep roots. Taking part in the anointing of others is a blessed thing but if we're going to stand in the hour of crisis we must have our own resource.

Another example I think of is in Genesis 28-29. Jacob had to venture out on his own and learn to trust in the Lord. He had lived previously in the overflow of Abraham and Isaac's anointing, now he had to move beyond that. The God of his fathers had to become HIS God.

In Christ,

Ron

P
philologos

David was like a green olive tree, aware of his anointing and the continuous flow of oil. This is the kind of anointing we need. We have so many tapes and books and teachings, even on this very site, and they are wonderful. But we need to find our own anointing and sink our own deep roots. Taking part in the anointing of others is a blessed thing but if we're going to stand in the hour of crisis we must have our own resource.

[color=0000ff]“Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took [u]their[/u] lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. They that were foolish took [u]their[/u] lamps, and took no oil with them: But the wise took oil in their vessels with [u]their[/u] lamps.” (Matt 25:1-4 KJVS)[/color]

Surely one of the things that this parable is drawing attention to is personal responsibility. Edersheim speculates that the 'foolish virgins' may have been expecting to replenish their lamps from the 'communal supply' at the venue for the wedding.

'anointing' isn't the language I would personally use in this context but the point is well made.

R
roadsign

but we need to find our own anointing and sink our own deep roots. Taking part in the anointing of others is a blessed thing but if we're going to stand in the hour of crisis we must have our own resource.

To me this best reflects my initial thought when I read the parable - referring to our need for the Spirit-giving Life.

The Christian resources available to us are much like the pillar of fire and the cloud, the manna in the desert, the oil. They are an indication that our Lord is/has been working among us, and shining his glory - but they don’t carry us across the Jordan.

Ormly asked:

as to how all that pertains to the virgins and the kingdom of God is what?

The kingdom of heaven is all about God’s mercy towards mankind. He is not willing that any should perish. And that’s why Jesus told the parables. It seems like most of them were especially addressed to those most resistant to divine mercy – those who were convinced that they were ready to meet their Maker – those foolish virgins. Each one of us must at some point face the naked truth about our own spiritual neediness - apart from any vices.


all of a sudden the ship started to sink and what did they say? That it was scientically impossible?

They were correct, but only partially: They did not think about the possibility of icebergs. In their blindness, they didn’t bother to install enough life rafts.

Today many have no clue about ancient wedding practises, but they know something about the present world. The Titanic is a very appropriate divine picture lesson for our modern society: Have your own “life preserver”, and don’t count on someone else’s.

I wonder what other pictures lessons God has placed in our world. After all, he is not willing that any should perish.

Diane

S
sermonindex


roadsign wrote:
but we need to find our own anointing and sink our own deep roots. Taking part in the anointing of others is a blessed thing but if we're going to stand in the hour of crisis we must have our own resource.

To me this best reflects my initial thought when I read the parable - referring to our need for the Spirit-giving Life.

The Christian resources available to us are much like the pillar of fire and the cloud, the manna in the desert, the oil. They are an indication that our Lord is/has been working among us, and shining his glory - but they don’t carry us across the Jordan.

Ormly asked:

as to how all that pertains to the virgins and the kingdom of God is what?

The kingdom of heaven is all about God’s mercy towards mankind. He is not willing that any should perish. And that’s why Jesus told the parables. It seems like most of them were especially addressed to those most resistant to divine mercy – those who were convinced that they were ready to meet their Maker – those foolish virgins. Each one of us must at some point face the naked truth about our own spiritual neediness - apart from any vices.


all of a sudden the ship started to sink and what did they say? That it was scientically impossible?

They were correct, but only partially: They did not think about the possibility of icebergs. In their blindness, they didn’t bother to install enough life rafts.

Today many have no clue about ancient wedding practises, but they know something about the present world. The Titanic is a very appropriate divine picture lesson for our modern society: Have your own “life preserver”, and don’t count on someone else’s.

I wonder what other pictures lessons God has placed in our world. After all, he is not willing that any should perish.

Diane

Too new agee for me.. :-(

R
rookie

Brother Olan wrote:

Instead of being out and about as light bearers, "they all slumbered and slept" (v.5). Pretty hard to burn out your oil when you are sleeping and your lamp isn't lit!

Matt. 25:1 “Then the kingdom of heaven shall be likened to ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2 Now five of them were wise, and five were foolish. 3 Those who were foolish took their lamps and took no oil with them, 4 but the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. 5 But while the bridegroom was delayed, they all slumbered and slept.

Matt. 25:6 “And at midnight a cry was heard: ‘Behold, the bridegroom is coming; go out to meet him!’ 7 Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps. 8 And the foolish said to the wise, “Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’


This section of Scripture speaks of time and it's passage. All are virgins whose lamps had flame. Then we find in Scripture that all fell asleep until the time appointed by the Lord. And then after the passage of time the virgins are awakened. And what does Scripture say then in verse 8?

..."Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out."

So according to Scripture the lamps of the foolish virgins burned over a passage of time.

Do you hear what Scripture teaches brother Olan?

In Christ
Jeff

O
OverSeer

Brother Jeff wrote:

..."Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out."
So according to Scripture the lamps of the foolish virgins burned over a passage of time.

Philologos wrote:

'Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out'" (Matthew 25:7-8). The wick was lit but it didn't burn long - "our lamps are gone out" - not because they ran out of oil but because they "took no oil with them"
The tenses would tend to support this. It is not 'our lamps have gone out' but 'our lamps are going out'. Robinson's Word Pictures comments:
When the five foolish virgins lit their lamps, they discovered the lack of oil. The sputtering, flickering, smoking wicks were a sad revelation.
The point of the Lord's parables of the end-times is "be ready/prepared." This is a sad picture of those who have form (lamps) but not fuel (oil) as also described in 2 Timothy 3:1-5 which describes the majority of church members of the last days. Were the lamps going out because they were burning out over a passage of time or because when they rose and lit their wicks they had no oil? If the first case is true then they were unprepared by not bringing "extra oil." If the second case is true then they were unprepared by bringing "no oil." In either case they were unprepared for the coming of the bridegroom.

Grace and peace
Olan

S
sermonindex

The point of the Lord's parables of the end-times is "be ready/prepared." This is a sad picture of those who have form (lamps) but not fuel (oil) as also described in 2 Timothy 3:1-5 which describes the majority of church members of the last days. Were the lamps going out because they were burning out over a passage of time or because when they rose and lit their wicks they had no oil? If the first case is true then they were unprepared by not bringing "extra oil." If the second case is true then they were unprepared by bringing "no oil." In either case they were unprepared for the coming of the bridegroom.

Grace and peace
Olan

I thought the point was that they no oil at all either in their lamps and nor in a separate flask.

Indeed, having oil in the lamp and having it run out or run low has special significance especially when applying this to the Spirit filled Christian --- and I believe it does speak of the Spirit filled Christian who is found wanting; the ones who do not seek intimacy with the Father but rather believe their own religious way is sufficient, quenching the very Spirit who calls them ---- then comes the day they find out their mistake and their need for Oil.

:-(

O
OverSeer

Indeed, having oil in the lamp and having it run out or run low has special significance especially when applying this to the Spirit filled Christian --- and I believe it does speak of the Spirit filled Christian who is found wanting;
:-(
and I believe it does speak of the Spirit filled Christian who is found wanting; the ones who do not seek intimacy with the Father but rather believe their own religious way is sufficient,
You are describing a counterfeit Christian (which this parable is also describing) not a true Christian. What true Spirit-filled Christian believes his or her [b]own religious way is sufficient[/b]?

By the way, this goes against the grain of those who believe that nothing can snatch the believer out of the hands of the Son or the Father but that they can willingly walk out. According to this parable there was a rude awakening that revealed improper preparation - but no willing walking away! They were lost and didn't even know it until it was too late!

then comes the day they find out their mistake and their need for Oil.
If the only way to lose salvation is to willingly walk out of God's hand then the person that has done that surely knows it! These didn't, even by your own admission.

Grace and peace
Olan

S
sermonindex


OverSeer wrote:
Indeed, having oil in the lamp and having it run out or run low has special significance especially when applying this to the Spirit filled Christian --- and I believe it does speak of the Spirit filled Christian who is found wanting;
:-(
and I believe it does speak of the Spirit filled Christian who is found wanting; the ones who do not seek intimacy with the Father but rather believe their own religious way is sufficient,


You are describing a counterfeit Christian (which this parable is also describing) not a true Christian.

Not in the least, my friend. I don't see them at all as "counterfeit" nor do I see the parable teaching that view. The parable makes no such distinction therefore you arrive at that viewpoint from your doctrinal teaching. Calvinism, I suppose. It must be seen that the word "foolish" can apply to the saved as well as the unsaved.

What true Spirit-filled Christian believes his or her [b]own religious way is sufficient[/b]?

Many I know whom I would consider, by their thinking, to be UN-re-birthed into Jesus Christ; compromised by their own secular ambitions. One foot "in" --- one foot "out} and quite content because of Calvinist doctrine. Are they saved? I guess so -- I won't judge that.

By the way, this goes against the grain of those who believe that nothing can snatch the believer out of the hands of the Son or the Father but that they can willingly walk out. According to this parable there was a rude awakening that revealed improper preparation - but no willing walking away!

Oh!! Who is the writer speaking to here:

[i]"How shall we escape, if we [b]NEGLECT[/b] so great salvation ......"[/i] Hebrews 2:3 (KJV)


They were lost and didn't even know it until it was too late!

Sorry, but that's not what the white robes, lamps filled with oil, signify.

then comes the day they find out their mistake and their need for Oil.
If the only way to lose salvation is to willingly walk out of God's hand then the person that has done that surely knows it! These didn't, even by your own admission.

Is salvation the issue here? --- or rather being the Bride of Christ. I believe the latter.

Opens up a new bucket of worms, doesn't it? ;-)

What say you?

Orm

A
allhavsinned


Ormly wrote:

Is salvation the issue here? --- or rather being the Bride of Christ. I believe the latter.

Opens up a new bucket of worms, doesn't it? ;-)

What say you?

Orm

Are you saying that there are different types of Christians, the ones who are Spirit filled and part of the Bride, and the others who are not filled and don't enter in (the door was shut with them outside) but still make it to Heaven?

Your to-ing and fro-ing over weather there was oil originaly in the lamps is leading to a bigger issue which you hinted at here. Is ther a Bride and also something else (less than)? or do these people lose their oil and therefore their salvation altogether.

To put it another way- what becomes of the foolish virgins?

This is a genuine question, one I have been wondering over for a while now and never really get's spoken about, you see I have never been 'filled' with the Spirit as I have seen others, I am without oil, when I put it to people they say 'well get filled then' but i have tried praying for Him, been prayed for, hands laid on, shouting for Him (Proverbs 2). I've been told I have Him, that 'there's something blocking Him', I'm up to receiving Him by faith which sounds ok but it's not very definite when I see people who are obviously filled.
So if Jesus comes tonight, will I be out there looking for oil and miss Him? Then what?

I welcome any answers but please, no opinions without backing them up with scripture.

ste

S
sermonindex


allhavsinned wrote:

Ormly wrote:

Is salvation the issue here? --- or rather being the Bride of Christ. I believe the latter.

Opens up a new bucket of worms, doesn't it? ;-)

What say you?

Orm

Are you saying that there are different types of Christians, the ones who are Spirit filled and part of the Bride, and the others who are not filled and don't enter in (the door was shut with them outside) but still make it to Heaven?

Your to-ing and fro-ing over weather there was oil originaly in the lamps is leading to a bigger issue which you hinted at here. Is ther a Bride and also something else (less than)? or do these people lose their oil and therefore their salvation altogether.

To put it another way- what becomes of the foolish virgins?

This is a genuine question, one I have been wondering over for a while now and never really get's spoken about, you see I have never been 'filled' with the Spirit as I have seen others, I am without oil, when I put it to people they say 'well get filled then' but i have tried praying for Him, been prayed for, hands laid on, shouting for Him (Proverbs 2). I've been told I have Him, that 'there's something blocking Him', I'm up to receiving Him by faith which sounds ok but it's not very definite when I see people who are obviously filled.
So if Jesus comes tonight, will I be out there looking for oil and miss Him? Then what?

I welcome any answers but please, no opinions without backing them up with scripture.

ste

Yes STE, I am alluding to something more than salvation. Jesus spent 3+ years speaking about it and made strong appeal in John 17. Though others may wish to comment also let me offer this paper up that I have posted before and see where it takes you in your thinking:

JESUS CHRIST, THE BAPTIZER


“THERE WAS A MAN SENT FROM GOD, whose name was John. .. . The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.... And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
“And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining upon him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
“And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God” (John 1:6, 29, 32—34).
Every one of the four Gospels spells out John’s declaration, “I indeed baptize you with water; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.” When the Pharisees asked, “Why baptizeth thou?” he replied, “That he should be made manifest.. . therefore I am come baptizing with water” (John 1: 25, 31). Furthermore, John assured them that he was sent to baptize with water (vs. 33). It was his ministry. This fact was recognized to such an extent that he became known as “John the Baptist.”
I doubt whether one could find a ten-year-old in Christendom that has not yet learned about John the Baptist. All through the ages, generation after generation, men have learned of this great prophet, but they know him by what he did and not by what he said or prophesied. Yet we know that he was both prophet and baptizer.
In recent times I have been astonished to find that very few Christians have ever heard that Christ is the baptizer in the Holy Ghost. They know Him as the Lamb of God, as Saviour; and as the Son of God, our Lord; but they are unfamiliar with the fact that He was announced to the world as the One to whom God gave the ministry of baptizing with the Holy Ghost.
Jesus Christ is both Saviour and Baptizer. We have no doubt that He is as much the Saviour today as when He died on Calvary as the Lamb of God. Even so, He is still the Baptizer in the Holy Spirit as much as He was when He commenced this ministry on the Day of Pentecost, for He is the “same, yesterday, today and forever.”
I have just traveled in seven countries and addressed over 300 ministers belonging to seven of the major classical Protestant churches. During these three months I have read a great variety of ecclesiastical writings, touching upon almost every subject and event between Easter and Pentecost. From Ascension to Pentecost. I have listened to many radio talks in several languages. Not once did I hear a minister, see in a paper, or hear over the radio any mention that Christ baptized with the Holy Spirit. In conversations many that questioned me or spoke to me expressed some surprise at my strong emphasis upon the message that Christ is the Baptizer in the Spirit. I have heard much about the work of the Spirit, about receiving the Spirit, and even about the coming of the Spirit, but nothing is ever said about being baptized with the Spirit.
The first intimation in history that a baptism with the Spirit was a possible event in the life of a human being came from John the Baptist. However, he did not announce the experience but rather the one who gave such an experience. He announced that the Baptizer was coming. He clearly states that God had told him that Christ would be the Baptizer with the Holy Ghost. He also assures us that the image for this act of Christ was his own act of baptizing in the river. From the very beginning, therefore, all John’s converts fully expected an experience that would be as overwhelming as their baptism in the river. These converts had an encounter with the baptizer and not with water or even the river. What they were to expect was an encounter with the Baptizer in the Holy Spirit and not with the Spirit or with the work of the Spirit in their lives.
For every baptism there must be an agent to baptize, and an element with or into which to baptize, and finally a candidate to be baptized. Such a candidate must present himself and ask for baptism. Then there must be a total and complete surrender to the baptizer and not to the element in which he baptizes. The baptism in the Holy Spirit is an encounter with Christ, the Baptizer. The candidates are those who have already had an encounter with Him as the Lamb of God, the Saviour, who took away all their sin and made them worthy temples of the Holy Spirit.
The disciples who left John and followed Christ that He might baptize them with the Holy Spirit discovered that He was full of the Spirit. They saw His miracles to prove it and heard His word to confirm it. Then He gave them power and authority to cast out devils and heal the sick, but that was not the baptism in the Spirit that they expected. Finally they saw Him weak and as a Lamb led to the slaughter, and He opened not His mouth. He died on the cross and was laid in the tomb, and no one had been baptized in the Spirit. What about John’s prophecy? Was it all mythical or mystical?
In the evening of that first Easter day of Resurrection, He suddenly and unexpectedly appeared in their midst. Then He breathed on them and said, ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” This was after He had explained, “As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.” But how did His Father send Him? First He came, born of the Spirit (Luke 1:35), and then He was endued with the Spirit (Luke 4: 1) to commence His earthly ministry. So here the disciples became the very first members of a new body, the church. He breathed eternal life into them. Calvary, the all-effective altar of God, had dealt with the sin question, and those who were dead in trespasses and sin now could receive the life-giving, regenerating Holy Spirit. This was for them the occasion where they were baptized into one body by the Spirit (I Cor.12:13).
But John said that God had said that Jesus would baptize with the Spirit, not that He would give the Spirit. I wonder how these disciples thought and felt about all these strange things? However, a few weeks later Jesus again spoke to the same men to whom He had said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” Now He confirms John’s message. He says to them, “John truly baptized with water: but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence” (Acts 1: 5). Here Christ accepts and confirms the same image that God had given to John, a baptism in water and a baptism in the Holy Spirit—indeed a river baptism, but the river of life must first begin to flow upon earth.
Several predictions were confirmed on the Day of Pentecost. The Father gave the promised Holy Ghost, who was heard as wind and seen as fire. Jesus began to baptize in the Spirit and fire. The immediate consequence of this baptism was that the candidates began to speak with other tongues as Jesus had promised (Mark 16: 17). Then the Holy Spirit began to convict of sin, righteousness and judgment as Peter preached to the multitude (John 16:8). But the record says, “They were all filled {overflowed] with the Holy Ghost, and [of which was] they began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts2:4).
It seems that from this very day onward much more emphasis was given to the experience of the disciples than to the act of Jesus the Baptizer, and the whole controversy began to revolve around glossolalia—speaking with other tongues—which was the very simple consequence of this baptism in the Spirit. The Holy Spirit was the gift and tongues was the consequence. These tongues were a manifestation of the Holy Spirit and not a manifestation of the ecstasy of the human spirit. Speaking in tongues by the Holy Spirit or, as Paul puts it, “Praying with the Spirit,” is an act of the Holy Spirit upon the human spirit which transcends the understanding (I Cor.14: 14, 15).
Thus it seems clear that on the day of Pentecost the spirit of the disciples was baptized into the Holy Spirit and their bodies were filled with the Holy Spirit—overflowed with the Holy Spirit. The fact that they commenced to speak “with the Spirit” was proof of this overflowing.
In our day many pray for an infilling, an experience, instead of seeking the Baptizer. They ask the Holy Spirit to fill them when they should be asking Christ to baptize them. The baptism will produce the filling. This filling of the body by the baptism of the human spirit into the Holy Spirit produces an overflowing (see John 7:38) which causes the vocal organs to go into action and speak a language that is unknown to the candidate. He may be fully aware of what he is doing but does not know what he is saying (I Cor.14:14).
On the day of Pentecost God gave the Holy Spirit and Christ then baptized His followers into the Spirit, and they began to speak with other tongues as the spirit gave them utterance (Acts 2:4). About 10 years later, according to Acts 10:44—46, when the Apostle Peter dared to preach to the Gentiles for the first time (Acts 11:19), these same Gentiles received exactly the same experience that the apostles and the disciples of Christ had on the day of Pentecost. The record says, “And they of the circumcision [Jews] were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God” (Acts 10:46). The Jewish Christians in Jerusalem objected to all this. (Acts 11:2). Then Peter in his defense said, “And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 11: 15, 16). In other words, it was the same Baptizer who baptized into the same element, with the same consequences. The consequences were what convinced the Jewish Christians that the experience of the Gentiles was valid, for they heard them speak with tongues (Acts
10:46).
From this record it is quite clear that during the first decade Peter and the church in Jerusalem believed that Jesus is the Baptizer in the Holy Spirit and that “speaking with tongues” was the immediate consequence or confirmation of this baptism. During this last decade in our time the Christian world has become more conscious of the Holy Spirit and many are reaching out for His power and a charismatic ministry. However, it seems to me that unless the church once again lifts up Christ as the Baptizer, many will seek the blessing from the Holy Spirit and fail to find it because He will always honor Christ.
To get the baptism in the Spirit everyone must seek an encounter with the Baptizer, who began this ministry on the day of Pentecost when He truly came back in the Spirit to baptize His disciples. He is the same, yesterday, today and forever (Heb.13:8).

David Duplessis .......[Mr. Pentecost]


Orm

R
rookie

I have never been around oil lamps before, so I did a little research and found this explanation in expedia...

In ancient Greece and Rome, lamps were fueled by olive oil; in ancient India, by ghee; in ancient Persia, by petroleum that was found oozing freely from the ground.

Olive oil lamps continued in wide use in countries around the Mediterranean Sea well into the 19th century, with the lamps being mass produced out of metal (most commonly brass or bronze), but otherwise little changed in design from lamps of some 2,000 years earlier. In 1780 the Argand lamp was invented and quickly replaced the ancient form. It was, in turn, replaced by the kerosene lamp in about 1850. In small towns and rural areas these continued in use well into the 20th century. The light given by an olive oil lamp is significantly brighter than a candle, but significantly less than the Argand lamp or the kerosene or paraffin burning lamp.

So olive oil was used in the time of Jesus's teaching.

To trim a lamp requires that one cut the burnt end off and shape it according to the type of flame one desires. So then tying in this procedure with what Jesus is teaching. The following occured.

First we know the 10 virgins went out with lamps in hand to meet the bridegroom.

Matthew 5:

“Then the kingdom of heaven shall be likened to ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.

The bridegroom was delayed and the virgins fell asleep.

5 But while the bridegroom was delayed, they all slumbered and slept.

Then the bridegroom's arrival was announced...

Matt. 25:6 “And at midnight a cry was heard: ‘Behold, the bridegroom is coming; go out to meet him!’ 7 Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps.

At this point all the virgins cut the burnt end of the wick off and lit their lamps.

Then the foolish cried...

8 And the foolish said to the wise, “Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’

So then all ten lamps were lit and five of the virgins were witnessing the event of their lamps going out.

So then, can one assume that when Jesus began this teaching that the virgins went out with their lamps lit? And that while they slumbered the lamps went out because the level of the oil dropped below the end of the wick?

Or did they leave at day light and expected to be out beyond the fall of darkness?

I believe they all left with oil in their lamps, but the five foolish ones did not prepare for the length of the journey, otherwise the remaining part of the parable does not align with what made the virgins foolish.

Darkness surrounds the light. If one looses the light how will he or she find the door to that was open for a time and now shut.

In Christ
Jeff

P
philologos

Everyone may not be familiar with the works of Alfred Edersheim but this quotation comes from his momumental two volumes [url=http://philologos.org/__eb-lat/book507.htm]The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.[/url]

Another archæological inquiry will, perhaps, be more helpful to our understanding of this Parable. The 'lamps' - not 'torches' - which the Ten Virgins carried, were of well-known construction. They bear in Talmudic writings commonly the name Lappid, but the Aramaised from the Greek word in the New Testament also occurs as Lampad and Lampadas.3 The lamp consisted of a round receptacle for pitch or oil for the wick. This was placed in a hollow cup or deep saucer - the Beth Shiqqua4 - which was fastened by a pointed end into a long wooden pole, on which it was borne aloft. According to Jewish authorities,5 it was the custom in the East to carry in a bridal procession about ten such lamps. We have the less reason to doubt that such was also the case in Palestine, since, according to rubric, ten was the number required to be present at any office or ceremony, such as at the benedictions accompanying the marriage-ceremonies. And, in the peculiar circumstances supposed in the Parable, Ten Virgins are represented as going forth to meet the Bridegroom, each bearing her lamp.

The first point which we mark is, that the Ten Virgins brought, presumably to the bridal house, 'their own6 lamps.' Emphasis must be laid on this. Thus much was there of personal preparation on the part of all. But while the five that were wise brought also 'oil in the vessels'7 [presumably the hollow receptacles in which the lamp proper stood], the five foolish Virgins neglected to do so, no doubt expecting that their lamps would be filled out of some common stock in the house. In the text the foolish Virgins are mentioned before the wise,8 because the Parable turns to this. We cannot be at a loss to interpret the meaning of it. The Bridegroom far away is Christ, Who is come for the Marriage-Feast from 'the far country' - the Home above - certainly on that night, but we know not at what hour of it. The ten appointed bridal companions who are to go forth to meet Him are His professed disciples, and they gather in the bridal house in readiness to welcome His arrival. It is night, and a marriage-procession: therefore, they must go forth with their lamps. All of them have brought their own lamps, they all have the Christian, or say, the Church-profession: the lamp, in the hollow cup on the top of the pole. But only the wise Virgins have more than this - the oil in the vessels, without which the lamps cannot give their light. The Christian or Church-profession is but an empty vessel on the top of a pole, without the oil in the vessels. We here remember the words of Christ: 'Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father Which is in heaven.'9 The foolishness of the Virgins, which consisted in this that they had omitted to bring their oil, is thus indicated in the text: 'All they which [aitineV]10 were foolish, when they brought their own lamps, brought not with them oil:' they brought their own lamps, but not their own oil. This (as already explained), probably, not from forgetfulness - for they could scarcely have forgotten the need of oil, but from the wilful neglect, in the belief that there would be a common stock in the house, out of which they would be supplied, or that there would be sufficient time for the supply of their need after the announcement that the Bridegroom was coming. They had no conception either of any personal obligation in this matter, nor that the call would come so suddenly, nor yet that there would be so little interval between the arrival of the Bridegroom and 'the closing of the door.' And so they deemed it not necessary to undertake what must have involved both trouble and carefulness, the bringing their own oil in the hollow vessels in which the lamps were fixed.

We have proceeded on the supposition that the oil was not carried in separate vessels, but in those attached to the lamps. It seems scarcely likely that these lamps had been lighted while waiting in the bridal house, where the Virgins assembled, and which, no doubt, was festively illuminated: Many practical objections to this view will readily occur. The foolishness of the five Virgins therefore consisted, not (as is commonly supposed) in their want of perseverance - as if the oil had been consumed before the Bridegroom came, and they had only not provided themselves with a sufficient extra-supply - but in the entire absence of personal preparation,11 having brought no oil of their own in their lamps. This corresponds to their conducts, who, belonging to the Church - having the 'profession' - being bridal companions provided with lamps, ready to go forth, and expecting to share in the wedding feast - neglect the preparation of grace, personal conversation and holiness, trusting that in the hour of need the oil may be supplied out of the common stock. But they know not, or else heed not, that every one must be personally prepared for meeting the Bridegroom, that the call will be sudden, that the stock of oil is not common, and that the time between His arrival and the shutting of the door will be awfully brief.

For - and here begins the second scene in the Parable - the interval between the gathering of the Virgins in readiness to meet Him, and the arrival of the Bridegroom is much longer than had been anticipated. And so it came, that both the wise and the foolish Virgins 'slumbered and slept.' Manifestly, this is but a secondary trait in the Parable, chiefly intended to accentuate the surprise of the sudden announcement of the Bridegroom. The foolish Virgins did not ultimately fail because of their sleep, nor yet were the wise reproved of it. True, it was evidence of their weakness - but then it was night; all the world was asleep; and their own drowsiness might be in proportion to their former excitement. What follows is intended to bring into prominence the startling suddenness of the Bridegroom's Coming. It is midnight - when sleep is deepest - when suddenly 'there was a cry, Behold, the Bridegroom cometh! Come ye out to the meeting of Him. Then all those Virgins awoke, and prepared (trimmed) their lamps.' This, not in the sense of heightening the low flame in their lamps, but in that of hastily drawing up the wick and lighting it, when, as there was no oil in the vessels, the flame, of course, immediately died out. 'Then the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are going out. But the wise answered, saying: Not at all12 - it will never13 suffice for us and you! Go ye rather to the sellers, and buy for your own selves.'

This advice must not be regarded as given in irony. This trait is introduced to point out the proper source of supply - to emphasise that the oil must be their own, and also to prepare for what follows. 'But while they were going to buy, the Bridegroom came; and the ready ones [they that were ready] went in with Him to the Marriage-Feast, and the door was shut,' The sudden cry at midnight: 'The Bridegroom cometh!' had come with startling surprise both to the wise and the foolish Virgins; to the one class it had come only unexpectedly, but to the other also unpreparedly. Their hope of sharing or borrowing the oil of the wise Virgins being disappointed, the foolish were, of course, unable to meet the Bridegroom. And while they hurried to the sellers of oil, those that had been ready not only met; but entered with the Bridegroom into the bridal house, and the door was shut. It is of no importance here, whether or not the foolish Virgins finally succeeded in obtaining oil - although this seems unlikely at that time of night - since it could no longer be of any possible use, as its object was to serve in the festive procession, which was now past. Nevertheless, and when the door was shut, those foolish Virgins came, calling on the Bridegroom to open to them. But they had failed in that which could alone give them a claim to admission. Professing to be bridesmaids, they had not been in the bridal procession, and so, in truth and righteousness, He could only answer from within: 'Verily I say unto you, I know you not.' This, not only in punishment, but in the right order of things.

The personal application of this Parable to the disciples, which the Lord makes, follows almost of necessity. 'Watch therefore, for ye know not the day, nor the hour.'14 Not enough to be in waiting with the Church; His Coming will be far on in the night; it will be sudden; it will be rapid: be prepared therefore, be ever and personally prepared! Christ will come when least expected - at midnight - and when the Church, having become accustomed to His long delay, has gone to sleep. So sudden will be His Coming, that after the cry of announcement there will not be time for anything but to go forth to meet Him; and so rapid will be the end, that, ere the foolish Virgins can return, the door has been for ever closed. To present all this in the most striking manner, the Parable takes the form of a dialogue, first between the foolish and the wise Virgins, in which the latter only state the bare truth when saying, that each has only sufficient oil for what is superfluous. Lastly, we are to learn from the dialogue between the foolish Virgins and the Bridegroom, that it is impossible in the day of Christ's Coming to make up for neglect of previous preparation, and that those who have failed to meet Him, even though the bridal Virgins, shall be finally excluded as being strangers to the Bridegroom.

3. Jer. Yoma 41 a, line 24 from top. 4. Kel. ii. 8. 5. See the Arukh, ad voc
6. The better reading in ver. 1. and again in ver. 7, is not autwn 'their,' but eautwn.

7. The word autwn in ver. 4, 'their vessels,' is probably spurious. In both cases, as so often, the 'improving' copyists have missed the deeper meaning.

8. In ver.2, according to the better reading, the clauses should be inverted, and, as in ver. 3, 'the foolish' first mentioned.

9. St. Matt. v. 16. 10. quæcunque, eæ omnes quæ.
11. So especially Goebel, to whom, in general, we would acknowledge our obligations.
12. Mhpote. See Grimm, ad voc. But it is impossible to give the full force of the word.

13. The better reading is ou mh, which double negation I have rendered, for want of better, by 'never.'

http://philologos.org/__eb-lat/book507.htm
Edersheim indicates that these were a kind of combination of oil lamp and torch. The were affixed to a long pole to be hold aloft and had a built in reservoir to hold the oil. Edersheim says that this attached reservoir is what is being referred to as a 'vessel'. The language would support this. The Greek translated vessel here is capable of a wide range of translations and 'reservoir' would certainly be one of them.

BTW I am not the 'philologos' whose website this comes from. :-)

S
sermonindex

Darkness surrounds the light. If one looses the light how will he or she find the door to that was open for a time and now shut.

In Christ
Jeff

"Return to your first love"

;-)

S
sermonindex

The personal application of this Parable to the disciples, which the Lord makes, follows almost of necessity. 'Watch therefore, for ye know not the day, nor the hour.'14 Not enough to be in waiting with the Church; His Coming will be far on in the night; it will be sudden; it will be rapid: be prepared therefore, be ever and personally prepared! Christ will come when least expected - at midnight - and when the Church, having become accustomed to His long delay, has gone to sleep. So sudden will be His Coming, that after the cry of announcement there will not be time for anything but to go forth to meet Him; and so rapid will be the end, that, ere the foolish Virgins can return, the door has been for ever closed. To present all this in the most striking manner, the Parable takes the form of a dialogue, first between the foolish and the wise Virgins, in which the latter only state the bare truth when saying, that each has only sufficient oil for what is superfluous. Lastly, we are to learn from the dialogue between the foolish Virgins and the Bridegroom, that it is impossible in the day of Christ's Coming to make up for neglect of previous preparation, and that those who have failed to meet Him, even though the bridal Virgins, shall be finally excluded as being strangers to the Bridegroom.

Sortta makes the case for intimacy per John 17, doesn't it? After all, how can one be a bride without feelings of intimacy and expection of great actual love from her lover. In my mind this shuts the door on the nominal passion-less Christian who thinks a magic wand will be passed over him/her on that day, the day when Christ receives unto Himself His Body, His Bride, His Church.

:-D

R
rookie

Brother Ormly wrote:

"Return to your first love"

John 8:12 Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”


The olive oil speaks of this Scripture....................................

Zech. 4:1 Now the angel who talked with me came back and wakened me, as a man who is wakened out of his sleep. 2 And he said to me, “What do you see?”

So I said, “I am looking, and there is a lampstand of solid gold with a bowl on top of it, and on the stand seven lamps with seven pipes to the seven lamps. 3 Two olive trees are by it, one at the right of the bowl and the other at its left.” 4 So I answered and spoke to the angel who talked with me, saying, “What are these, my lord?”

Zech. 4:5 Then the angel who talked with me answered and said to me, “Do you not know what these are?”

And I said, “No, my lord.”

Zech. 4:6 So he answered and said to me:
\t“This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel:
\t‘Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,’
\tSays the LORD of hosts.
7 \t“Who are you, O great mountain?
\tBefore Zerubbabel you shall become a plain!
\tAnd he shall bring forth the capstone
\tWith shouts of ‘Grace, grace to it!” ’ ”

Zech. 4:8 Moreover the word of the LORD came to me, saying:
9 \t“The hands of Zerubbabel
\tHave laid the foundation of this temple;
\tHis hands shall also finish it.
\tThen you will know
\tThat the LORD of hosts has sent Me to you.
10 \tFor who has despised the day of small things?
\tFor these seven rejoice to see
\tThe plumb line in the hand of Zerubbabel.
\tThey are the eyes of the LORD,
\tWhich scan to and fro throughout the whole earth.”

Zech. 4:11 Then I answered and said to him, “What are these two olive trees—at the right of the lampstand and at its left?” 12 And I further answered and said to him, “What are these two olive branches that drip into the receptacles of the two gold pipes from which the golden oil drains?”

Zech. 4:13 Then he answered me and said, “Do you not know what these are?”

And I said, “No, my lord.”

Zech. 4:14 So he said, “These are the two anointed ones, who stand beside the Lord of the whole earth.”

According to Scripture who is "Lord of the whole earth...............................................................................


God Bless

In Christ
Jeff

S
sermonindex

John 8:12 Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”

It seems to be that if I follow hard after my "first love", I will remain in the Light as He is. Since He cannot compromise this, not being in the Light of Him is highly probable if I have many loves.


;-)

S
sermonindex

allhavesinned said

This is a genuine question, one I have been wondering over for a while now and never really get's spoken about, you see I have never been 'filled' with the Spirit as I have seen others,
I am without oil,
I'm not sure on what you base either of these statements. If you continue to make space - a place for the Lord to dwell and rule in your life - called 'abiding' in Him - His life will flow through you and you will produce the fruit of the Spirit naturally (Gal 5:22, 23)..... Well, maybe we all have to set our hearts and minds to this, but, what I mean is, the process of producing fruit is subject to our Father (the husbandman) trimming the branch which represents our life and waiting patiently for the normal cycle of growth to occur. We have to be patient too.

The most important thing is your relationship with [u]sin[/u] - that you recognise the need to be delivered from it through faith in the work of Jesus Christ - His life, death and resurrection. You trust His blood to be sufficient to cleanse you from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:7,

John 3
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21 [b]But he that doeth truth cometh to the light[/b], that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.)


You must be set on pleasing the Father by doing His will. There is a severe warning in these verses, which should make us all wary of equating outward signs of the gifts of the Spirit, with 'salvation'.

(NKJV) Matthew 7:21
" Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, [b]but he who [u]does the will of My Father[/u] in heaven[/b].

22 "Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'


Not everyone who has been baptised in the Spirit speaks in tongues.... so you can't use that as a reason to believe you have [i]not[/i] received the Holy Spirit yourself....

In fact, if you do a search on 'filled with the Holy Ghost', you'll see it happens to the same people several times..... We are to be [b][i]'being filled'.[/i][/b] (There is a thread on the differences.... have you ever read it?)


I know your post contains a serious question about the fate of the virgins who were shut out of the marriage feast. I think 'and the door was shut' speaks for itself. The foolish virgins were on the wrong side of it. Their lust to be with the Bridegroom was not strong enough to cause them to be so prepared they could not [i]possibly[/i] miss His arrival.

There is a door open in heaven now. Jesus is the Door. Maybe you have been distracted by worries that He is not [i]in[/i] you, when all you need to do, is go through the Door, and hide yourself in Him?

S
sermonindex

His will is to love Him. When that truly happens, out of your belly will flow living water to others and a heavenly language for the Father, unknown to your human understanding.

That's fact --- not fiction.

;-)

O
OverSeer

Ormly wrote:

Sortta makes the case for intimacy per John 17, doesn't it? After all, how can one be a bride without feelings of intimacy and expection of great actual love from her lover. In my mind this shuts the door on the nominal passion-less Christian who thinks a magic wand will be passed over him/her on that day, the day when Christ receives unto Himself His Body, His Bride, His Church.
But you have overlooked that (1) all had been invited to the banquet (2) all had responded positively to the wedding invitation (3) all were part of what we would call the visible church - they had joined the fellowship of those who were waiting for the Lord (4) [b]all had some affection and even love for the bridegroom[/b]- Ten virgins...took their lamps [i]and went out to meet the bridegroom[/i] (5) all confessed Jesus as their Lord (v.11) (6)all believed in and were in some sense waiting for Jesus' second coming.
Here in your statement you call these "nominal passion-less Christians". In other words you are calling them counterfeits. The word nominal means - "being such in name only; so-called." Did you read the rest of the article that philologos posted explaining that the five foolish had no oil at all? They had form (lamps) but no fuel (oil) and the overall context of Scripture supports this view - see 2 Timothy 3:1-5 and allow Scripture to interpret Scripture and you will not go wrong!

Ormly wrote from the Amplified Bible:

3For when the foolish took their lamps, they did not take any [extra] oil with them;
In the introduction to the Amplified Bible it says, "Brackets [ ] contain justified clarifying words or comments [b]not actually expressed in the immediate orginal text[/b], as well as definitions of Hebrew and Greek names" (pg. viii).

Grace and peace
Olan

S
sermonindex

Ormly wrote from the Amplified Bible: Quote:


3For when the foolish took their lamps, they did not take any [extra] oil with them;


In the introduction to the Amplified Bible it says, "Brackets [ ] contain justified clarifying words or comments not actually expressed in the immediate orginal text, as well as definitions of Hebrew and Greek names" (pg. viii).

Grace and peace
Olan

Sure, I understand that. I also understand that they gotta it right and you didn't. Hmm, I wonder what the problem might be?
:-(

More on the rest of your remarks soon.

S
sermonindex

I wrote:

Sortta makes the case for intimacy per John 17, doesn't it? After all, how can one be a bride without feelings of intimacy and expection of great actual love from her lover. In my mind this shuts the door on the nominal passion-less Christian who thinks a magic wand will be passed over him/her on that day, the day when Christ receives unto Himself His Body, His Bride, His Church.

Overseer responded:

But you have overlooked that (1) all had been invited to the banquet (2) all had responded positively to the wedding invitation

………Yes


(3) all were part of what we would call the visible church - they had joined the fellowship of those who were waiting for the Lord (4) all had some affection and even love for the bridegroom-

………nothing self-serving, of course.

Ever consider equating any of this with the parable of the “wedding banquet” where there was one who didn’t wish to wear his wedding garment? He was in the assembly of believers, wasn't he? -- -- called along with the rest.

Ten virgins...took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom (5) all confessed Jesus as their Lord (v.11) (6) all believed in and were in some sense waiting for Jesus' second coming.

…. Yes?

Here in your statement you call these "nominal passion-less Christians".

…..yes

In other words you are calling them counterfeits.


….no, not in their estimation, thanks to Calvin. ……. Perhaps willfully ignorant, conveniently so for their own compromised, falsely understood, well being; understanding given them by the once saved always saved crowd. I real dilemma for lasting revival, to be sure.

The word nominal means - "being such in name only; so-called."

….yep.


Did you read the rest of the article that philologos posted explaining that the five foolish had no oil at all?


…… yes. I didn’t agree with him, either.


They had form (lamps) but no fuel (oil) and the overall context of Scripture supports this view –


Its too obvious that it doesn’t. Why don’t you see that?

see 2 Timothy 3:1-5 and allow Scripture to interpret Scripture and you will not go wrong!


I read it. Now how you think any of that applies is beyond me.


:-?

O
OverSeer

I said:

In other words you are calling them counterfeits.
Ormly said:
….no, not in their estimation, thanks to Calvin. ……. Perhaps willfully ignorant, conveniently so for their own compromised, falsely understood, well being; understanding given them by the once saved always saved crowd.

Brother Ormly, counterfeit Christians do not know that they are counterfeit Christians. The Bible says, "But evil men and [b]imposters[/b] will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and [b]being deceived[/b]" (2 Timothy 3:13). In "their estimation" they are genuinely saved. They believe in Jesus (another Jesus), they have received a spirit (a different spirit), and they have received a gospel (a different gospel)(see 2 Corinthians 11:4). Therefore they have had "an experience" in the name of "Jesus" which has effected a "counterfeit new birth". Satan counterfeits the activity of God and because He does there are tares (children of the devil -weeds that look like wheat/counterfeit wheat) among the wheat (children of God). All of the book of 1 John is a contrast and comparison of counterfeit Christians (children of the devil) to true Christians (children of God) - a book written so that you can know for sure that you belong to God and not to the devil through his counterfeit false gospel.

I didn't ask you if they were calling themselves counterfeit; I asked you if you were calling them counterfeits. You used the word "nominal" when speaking of them and to use the word "nominal" is to call them counterfeit because they are such in name only, in other words "so-called" Christians.

To not understand that there are counterfeit Christians (tares) [b]among[/b] the true Christians (wheat) is to leave you no room except to believe that the counterfeits were at one time genuinely saved who lost their salvation when the Bible is clear that they were [b]never[/b] saved. "They went out from us, [b]but they were not really of us[/b]..." (1 John 2:19) and "And then I will declare to them, '[b]I never knew you[/b]; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness" (Matthew 7:23). Your understanding of the parable of the tares would have to be understood that the enemy (the devil) sowed tares "beside" the wheat instead of "among" the wheat which is what the Bible declares - "his enemy came and sowed tares [b]among[/b] the wheat" (Matthew 13:25). Even the Amplified Bible says, "But while he was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed darnel (weeds resembling wheat) among the wheat, and went on his way."

This is the same truth taught in the parabe of the Ten Virgins, the same truth taught in 2 Timothy 3:1-5 (holding to a form of godliness although they have denied its power), and the same truth taught in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 and all of 1 John.

I read it. Now how you think any of that applies is beyond me.
:-(

By the way, there are tenants of Calvinism that I do not hold to and do not agree with. 8-)

Grace and peace
Olan


S
sermonindex

how do we expect people to get saved when we haven't given them the cross of Christ and taught them about the ressurrection from the dead?

Your question would have me condemn them with my answer. Sorry, I'm not ready to do that.

I have stated before that I make the distinction
between just being saved by the Blood of Jesus and the intimate relationship made available to us from before the foundation of the earth through being re-birthed in Christ, or by the deposit of the very Life Christ within us. "Many are called but few are chosen". Are the ones not chosen condemned to Hell? They can even be from among the re-birthed who have exhausted the "Oil in their lamps" and have no extra. No, I don't think so, but God knows the circumstances surrounding each of the souls He rejects, doesn't He?


;-)

S
sermonindex


Ormly said

I have stated before that I make the distinction between just being saved by the Blood of Jesus
I know, and I wanted to ask you about this, particularly now you've used the phrase '[i]just[/i] being saved by the Blood of Jesus'.

I realise that one's perception of one's relationship with God [i]should[/i] change as one lives in the Spirit, but I don't see how this represents a greater degree of [b][i]salvation[/i][/b], or in any way [i][b]changes[/i][/b] [u]the basis[/u] on which one has a relationship with God of any kind.

You appear to be categorising those who know the Lord by some private system of your own - that's one point - but the thing I particularly would question further, is your clearer statement (at least, strongly implied), that 'being saved by the Blood of Jesus', is not [i][b]enough[/i][/b], as foundation for His deeper work in their life.

Lastly, it was not 'just' the Blood of Jesus.... I hope you didn't mean it to sound as if His Blood was a minimal offering by which some people merely scrape into His life?

S
sermonindex


dorcas wrote:

Ormly said

I have stated before that I make the distinction between just being saved by the Blood of Jesus

I know, and I wanted to ask you about this, particularly now you've used the phrase '[i]just[/i] being saved by the Blood of Jesus'.

I realise that one's perception of one's relationship with God [i]should[/i] change as one lives in the Spirit, but I don't see how this represents a greater degree of [b][i]salvation[/i][/b], or in any way [i][b]changes[/i][/b] [u]the basis[/u] on which one has a relationship with God of any kind.

You appear to be categorising those who know the Lord by some private system of your own - that's one point - but the thing I particularly would question further, is your clearer statement (at least, strongly implied), that 'being saved by the Blood of Jesus', is not [i][b]enough[/i][/b], as foundation for His deeper work in their life

I don't mean to imply there is a relationship at all. Because I say the sinners prayer for the forgiveness of sins, by confessing Christ as Savior and though the issue is immediately satisfied, is not His Lordship a thing that is continually tested? Have you read the parable of the sower lately?

Paul said,
"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his". Romans 8:9 (KJV)

Being saved by the Blood of Jesus doesn't mean one is born again.... I.e., IMHO, It just means the Blood has cleansed from sin, the one who comes to Him.

For instance the disciples were saved BEFORE they were born again. How come? Jesus went to the cross, shed His Blood, saving them because of it and then He appeared to them in John 20.22 and indwelt them. That's two different things Jesus did for them. That was their new birth experience after they were saved. That was when His Spirit came into them and Spiritual relationship became a reality. Now, what does "becoming His" imply if we compare the indwelling that makes it so with the Blood of Himself that made it possible to be so. We see two different necessary happenings for our benefit and for His sake.
I can almost see the new birth experience as by invitation only. How bad do we want to be invited if we know our sins are forgiven and believe we are heaven bound and living our lives as we wish is OK? Remember, we are constantly told God's Grace is greater than our sin by sermonizers who have never become engaged to Christ. Would you like to compare notes on who we know attend church faithfully but yet never read their Bibles or speak His name outside of it? When there is relationship there is conversation, there is desire to know.

Lastly, it was not 'just' the Blood of Jesus.... I hope you didn't mean it to sound as if His Blood was a minimal offering by which some people merely scrape into His life?

Indeed, His Blood is the most precious sustance given to [shed for] man. However, there is no mere scraping into His life. His Life must come into us that His Blood becomes our life. This is the intention and conclusion of redemption.

We, of all the people who ever lived, have this priviledge as no other, i.e., to be as He is. cf John 17.


Nice inquiry. Hope I satisfied some issues.

:-D

S
sermonindex


Hi Ormly,

That was their new birth experience after they were saved.
I don't believe they were 'saved' before they had received the indwelling spirit (and I don't believe they received the indwelling Spirit before Pentecost - just for the record).

In John 17 Jesus says that He has kept those whom the Father gave Him. I believe this, the baptism of repentance under John the Baptist, their receiving temporary power to cast out demons and heal, are all available today, but don't 'save' a person, even though those steps may be very close together or spread out over many months or years.

For more of how I see things, you need to think carefully about what happens in the natural, regarding pregnancy and birth. Unless a neonate receives breath from the air around him outside the womb in the light, he is considered 'born dead' ('still'born). All the maternal oxygen passing only two cell walls away from his bloodstream in the womb, doesn't give him independent life. We know not what he looks like (One's personal identifier is the face.) nor do we observes signs of potentially permanent [i]independent[/i] (from the mother) life. Yet, from within the womb, he can hear from a very early stage and his [EDIT:] being [EDIT end] is overshadowed by his mother's (and father's), thus influencing very deeply much of what he [i][b]may[/i][/b] become..... one day.

S
sermonindex

For the record and not of opinion: "Indwelling", John 20.22; The "coming upon", Pentecost. That's unarguable and must be the reference point for any accurate understanding of the New Testament.

8-)


Also, those whom Jesus set free from the grave were justified before Jesus ever indwelled anyone. His Blood made peace with God on their behalf. Dwell on that a bit before saying they needed indwelling to be saved..... and if they didn't neither does anyone else who has faith in God demonstrated by their life aside from hearing of the Lord Jesus.

The indwelling, the born again experience per John 20.22, is for the saved and is intended for intimacy with the Father, per John 17.

"Many are called, few chosen"

O
OverSeer

Ormly wrote:

Quote:
how do we expect people to get saved when we haven't given them the cross of Christ and taught them about the ressurrection from the dead?
I was wondering where that quote came from. Did someone PM you or did I miss it in this thread? If someone did PM you and you refer to it then we at least deserve the opportunity to know that it was from a private message. Or else I (I have to speak for myself and not everyone else) can only conclude that you are using a fallacy of logic known as a "red-herring." http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Grace and peace
Olan

S
sermonindex


OverSeer wrote:
Ormly wrote:
Quote:
how do we expect people to get saved when we haven't given them the cross of Christ and taught them about the ressurrection from the dead?
I was wondering where that quote came from. Did someone PM you or did I miss it in this thread? If someone did PM you and you refer to it then we at least deserve the opportunity to know that it was from a private message. Or else I (I have to speak for myself and not everyone else) can only conclude that you are using a fallacy of logic known as a "red-herring." http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Grace and peace
Olan

What I type here is of me. No PM or IM quotes. However, are you sure I posted that remark? Can you refer me to that post so I can correct it?

:-)

O
OverSeer

Ormly wrote:

What I type here is of me. No PM or IM quotes. However, are you sure I posted that remark? Can you refer me to that post so I can correct it?
The post was done 2006/10/3 at 17:20 in this thread. I wasn't sure if you were changing the subject or responding to someone else. Thanks in advance for the clarification.

Grace and peace
Olan

P
philologos

edit:

Moved to [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=12607&post_id=98575&order=1&viewmode=flat&pid=98306&forum=36#98575]OT indwelling.[/url]

S
sermonindex


OverSeer wrote:
Ormly wrote:
Quote:
how do we expect people to get saved when we haven't given them the cross of Christ and taught them about the ressurrection from the dead?
I was wondering where that quote came from. Did someone PM you or did I miss it in this thread? If someone did PM you and you refer to it then we at least deserve the opportunity to know that it was from a private message. Or else I (I have to speak for myself and not everyone else) can only conclude that you are using a fallacy of logic known as a "red-herring." http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Grace and peace
Olan

Since that quote can't be attributed to me perhaps you might review this post. It seems something is missing that you mean to be refering. :-)

M
MSeaman

Quote:

OverSeer wrote:

Ormly wrote: Quote:

how do we expect people to get saved when we haven't given them the cross of Christ and taught them about the ressurrection from the dead?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was wondering where that quote came from. Did someone PM you or did I miss it in this thread? If someone did PM you and you refer to it then we at least deserve the opportunity to know that it was from a private message. Or else I (I have to speak for myself and not everyone else) can only conclude that you are using a fallacy of logic known as a "red-herring." http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Grace and peace
Olan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Since that quote can't be attributed to me perhaps you might review this post. It seems something is missing that you mean to be refering. end of quote


[size=small][color=009900]perhaps that quote was from a different thread altogether?[/color][/size][size=small][color=009900]dohzman said it in the "to the sidewalk preachers" thread.[/color][/size]

S
sermonindex


Hi Ormly,

It's probably easier for me to say I don't understand your last post to me, than to pretend that I do. It might help me to pick up the threads if you could explain how you understand the following verse:

(NKJV) John 16:9
"of sin, because they do not believe in Me;


Thanks.

O
OverSeer

Ormly wrote:

Since that quote can't be attributed to me perhaps you might review this post. It seems something is missing that you mean to be refering.
I did review this post and this thread and the thread "To the sidewalk preachers" and this is what I found.

On 2006/10/3 at 14:17 Dohzman posted in reply: To the sidewalk preachers. His last statement in his post was

So how do we expect people to get saved when we haven't given them the cross of Christ and taught them about the ressurrection from the dead?
To which you, Ormly, quoted
how do we expect people to get saved when we haven't given them the cross of Christ and taught them about the ressurrection from the dead?
and replied
The cross was already given. Our job is to reveal it to humanity. Those who look for the hope of eternal life will recieve the message of it.... and the message is more than you put forth as being all. Simple as that.
This was on 10/3 at 14:26. Please take careful note of the time-frames.

Then on 10/3 at 17:20 in the thread "They were all virgins" you posted Dohzman's statement again and gave a completely different response than you did to Dohzman

Your question would have me condemn them with my answer. Sorry, I'm not ready to do that.
And
I have stated before that I make the distinction
between just being saved by the Blood of Jesus and the intimate relationship made available to us from before the foundation of the earth through being re-birthed in Christ, or by the deposit of the very Life Christ within us. "Many are called but few are chosen". Are the ones not chosen condemned to Hell? They can even be from among the re-birthed who have exhausted the "Oil in their lamps" and have no extra. No, I don't think so, but God knows the circumstances surrounding each of the souls He rejects, doesn't He?
On 10/3 at 13:36 you quoted my statement refering to the foolish virgins
In other words you are calling them counterfeits.
To which you replied
no, not in their estimation, thanks to Calvin.
This is totally illogical and is a fallacy known as a "red-herring" http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html You totally changed the point of the statement and then added a smoke screen "thanks to Calvin."

Now: why did you quote Dohzman again in this thread (a different thread) without any reference to who made the statement and give a different response than you did just three hours earlier? Red-herring?

The reference to the quote and the response to the quote are yours - all can clearly see that by examining both threads. Walk in the light as He is in the light or else you have no intimacy with the Father per John 17.

Grace and peace
Olan

S
sermonindex


OverSeer wrote:

The reference to the quote and the response to the quote are yours - all can clearly see that by examining both threads. Walk in the light as He is in the light or else you have no intimacy with the Father per John 17.

Grace and peace
Olan

Indeed, I see that. I can give no answer for it nor why it should appear in two different threads. I get up right early in the morn, sometimes 3 AM. Perhaps I began too early to sort things out that day. It could have been that the copy and paste wasn't cleared out.

One thing is for sure, I didn't contradict myself so perhaps you might want to consider using your "red herring" accusation for "crab bait".
;-)

O
OverSeer

Ormly wrote:

Indeed, I see that. I can give no answer for it nor why it should appear in two different threads. I get up right early in the morn, sometimes 3 AM. Perhaps I began too early to sort things out that day. It could have been that the copy and paste wasn't cleared out.
Yes, I have seen where you have posted some of your posts early in the morning. However the problem here has nothing whatsoever to do with the early hour because your post was at 17:20 which was 5:20pm EST.
One thing is for sure, I didn't contradict myself so perhaps you might want to consider using your "red herring" accusation for "crab bait".
It's not an accusation - just a statement of truth - you use the "red-herring" fallacy in the majority of your posts which I have read.

Grace and peace
Olan

S
sermonindex


OverSeer wrote:
Ormly wrote:
Indeed, I see that. I can give no answer for it nor why it should appear in two different threads. I get up right early in the morn, sometimes 3 AM. Perhaps I began too early to sort things out that day. It could have been that the copy and paste wasn't cleared out.
Yes, I have seen where you have posted some of your posts early in the morning. However the problem here has nothing whatsoever to do with the early hour because your post was at 17:20 which was 5:20pm EST.
One thing is for sure, I didn't contradict myself so perhaps you might want to consider using your "red herring" accusation for "crab bait".
It's not an accusation - just a statement of truth - you use the "red-herring" fallacy in the majority of your posts which I have read.

Grace and peace
Olan

Since I have been clear in argument to you, I must question your ability to understand what you read. I would like to have made that simply a matter of lack of insight you experience instead but I feel you are pushing this to a level that is challenging my integrity. Simple understanding and common courtesy would prevent that.

Perhaps you would like to explain what a "red herring" is that you see in my posts? --- or perhaps they are analogies that go over your head?

S
sermonindex


Hi Ormly,

Overseer has not been rude to you and I've appreciated his clarity. He is seeking clarity in your posts, and I would agree this is lacking.

Without doubt, you know what you mean, and perhaps people who know you would follow, but there is a need in any forum to explain more than the key point - to give your key points a context - that is, a [i]relevant[/i] context, both to the preceding posts, and to your thinking, for the sake of [u]our[/u] understanding.

You said

or perhaps they are analogies that go over your head?
This was an unnecessary dig. Ideally, you will come to see that such digs don't improve conversation and no-one else is entertained by them.


Now, I am wondering whether you are going to respond to my response to your post to me, which I said I don't understand?

Please note, I said I don't understand it, because the only way I could reply otherwise to make sense of it, would have been to make a load of assumptions about other aspects of your belief system.

I tried to make your post comply with the rest of scripture, and couldn't, so I decided to abandon the attempt and ask you another question.

I am hoping that if you answer, including your reading of John 16:9 into the points you were trying to make, I will be wiser about what you believe. At the moment, that's all I'm hoping, and interested to know.

S
sermonindex


dorcas wrote:

Hi Ormly,

That was their new birth experience after they were saved.
I don't believe they were 'saved' before they had received the indwelling spirit (and I don't believe they received the indwelling Spirit before Pentecost - just for the record).

In John 17 Jesus says that He has kept those whom the Father gave Him. I believe this, the baptism of repentance under John the Baptist, their receiving temporary power to cast out demons and heal, are all available today, but don't 'save' a person, even though those steps may be very close together or spread out over many months or years.

For more of how I see things, you need to think carefully about what happens in the natural, regarding pregnancy and birth. Unless a neonate receives breath from the air around him outside the womb in the light, he is considered 'born dead' ('still'born). All the maternal oxygen passing only two cell walls away from his bloodstream in the womb, doesn't give him independent life. We know not what he looks like (One's personal identifier is the face.) nor do we observes signs of potentially permanent [i]independent[/i] (from the mother) life. Yet, from within the womb, he can hear from a very early stage and his [EDIT:] being [EDIT end] is overshadowed by his mother's (and father's), thus influencing very deeply much of what he [i][b]may[/i][/b] become..... one day.

---- Hmmm? You have your way of looking at things, I have mine. I have the scriptures to support my view, you do not. With that, who am I to believe?

S
sermonindex

I have the scriptures to support my view, [b]you do not[/b].
As I said earlier, your intepretation of John 20:22 IS arguable, but it's been discussed in other threads so often, I'm not going to rake it over, here.

As for me not having scripture to support my view, it sounds as if you've never considered the amazing similarities between the natural and the spiritual..... You might be surprised.

Then, there is John 3:1 - 15.... and 36: (Young)

he who is believing in the Son, hath life age-during; and [b]he who is not believing the Son, shall not see life[/b], but the wrath of God doth remain upon him.'

Jesus said we MUST be born again. What does this mean?


By the way, I'd still like your take on John 16:9 - how you read it?

S
sermonindex


dorcas wrote:
I have the scriptures to support my view, [b]you do not[/b].
As I said earlier, your intepretation of John 20:22 IS arguable, but it's been discussed in other threads so often, I'm not going to rake it over, here.

Indeed, if you haven't see the light by now surely I won't affect anything. It will take more than me.

As for me not having scripture to support my view, it sounds as if you've never considered the amazing similarities between the natural and the spiritual..... You might be surprised.

Then, there is John 3:1 - 15.... and 36: (Young)

he who is believing in the Son, hath life age-during; and [b]he who is not believing the Son, shall not see life[/b], but the wrath of God doth remain upon him.'

Sounds new agee to me. Herein may lie the problem. Change translations.


Jesus said we MUST be born again. What does this mean?

Oh no,, You tell me.

By the way, I'd still like your take on John 16:9 - how you read it?

I'll give you my take if you give you give me your's on Gal.2.20.

S
sermonindex

I'll give you my take if you give you give me your's on Gal.2.20.
I'm not prepared to play tig.

I asked a genuine question because your post about 'indwelling' on p6 didn't make any sense to me.

This is also why I asked what Jesus meant by 'born again'.

If you don't have answers, that's ok.

Sounds new agee to me. Herein may lie the problem. Change translations.
Sorry again! I'd like you to explain what sounds 'new agee'.

Are you suggesting Young's translation is 'new agee'?

Please clarify which of what you quoted, sounds 'new agee'.

Much appreciated. Thanks.

S
sermonindex

I'm not prepared to play tig.

Nor do I enjoy chasing rabbits..

S
sermonindex

Question: Do you believe the foolish virgins were putting the "Bridegroom" first in any of their thinking? Do you believe they were really anxious to see him?

:-o

This discussion is archived and closed to new replies. Start a new discussion to carry the subject on.
Archived
1 of 73 posts

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate