10 Virgins: are half “lost”?

[AllanS]

Let me expand, I assume the parable is meant to reinforce the urgency of coming to Christ now, whilst it’s relatively easy (as opposed as getting to a closed door and having to go via hell ).

"But he replied, ‘I tell you the truth, I don’t know you.’

This intrigues me. Jesus uses this phrase a few times. How can it be that the bridegroom, Christ himself, doesn’t know who they are? How hard could it be to recognize them?

Darkness is unreal, being the absence of light. In the same way, evil is unreal, being the absence of good. God knows all there is to know about the real, but there is nothing to know about the unreal. (Not even God can tell me what a vacuum is, because a vacuum is nothing.)

Good and evil are mutually exclusive. They operate in different dimensions. If my best thoughts are tainted with evil, doesn’t this mean I can resolve myself into two components at spiritual right-angles at every point of my psyche? If so, I would be a creature of light and a shadow of darkness, simultaneously. My evil self, “sin living in me” (as Paul called it) would be unreal, just as darkness is unreal. Could this be why God doesn’t know it, or where it comes from?

[Luke]

Sorry the tongue sticking out smilie was meant to indicate I was using hyperbole too

Let me expand, I assume the parable is meant to reinforce the urgency of coming to Christ now, whilst it’s relatively easy (as opposed as getting to a closed door and having to go via hell ).

But the parable does a some sense of finality about it, rather than: “the door is currently closed and you’ll have to take the long around but you’ll get there eventually.” I don’t see that in the parable, it needs to be imported from somewhere else.

[SLJ]

But the parable does a some sense of finality about it, rather than: “the door is currently closed and you’ll have to take the long around but you’ll get there eventually.” I don’t see that in the parable, it needs to be imported from somewhere else.

That’s true, Luke. However, the idea that the door never will open again is also not in the parable and must be imported from elsewhere. All we see from this parable is that they don’t get in to the marriage feast–what happens later is left unsaid.

Sonia

[AllanS]

At face value, the parable teaches 1) the absolute importance of punctuality 2) the ethic of not sharing 3) God has poor eyesight and has bad hearing 4) God is nervous of strangers 5) God has no problem locking out young girls and leaving them to the dangers of the darkness while He and his mates have a good time inside.

So, assuming this set of conclusions is unacceptable, we must dig deeper. For me, the pivotal question is : How is it possible that God, who knows all things that can be known, doesn’t know who they are? What can they possibly be, if God himself doesn’t know.

[Luke]

That doesn’t quite follow Allan, you could draw farcical and apparently literal conclusions from almost any statement and argue they are the intended meaning.

Neither does the path of discovering the inner meaning bear much fruit without some sort of clear interpretative framework/context. For example the page ripped from an unknown novel can only provide a degree of meaning.

[Aaron]

Since everything Christ says in Matt 25 is part of an unbroken discourse that began at the beginning of the previous chapter, how one understands the parable of the ten virgins depends largely, I think, on how one understands Matt 24. In another thread (Matthew 24:1-35) I try to show that the subject in chapter 24 is Christ’s coming in judgment at the overthrow of the nation of Israel in 70 AD. This, I believe, is the context of the parable under consideration. The word “then” in v. 1 refers us back to what Christ had said previously about “the coming of the Son of Man” (which Christ prophesied would take place before that generation passed away - Matt 24:34; cf. 10:23; 16:27-28). Understood in light of Matt 24, the foolish virgins most likely represent those early Jewish followers of Jesus (or at least those who, at some point, professed to be his disciples) who did not remain faithful during the 40-year period between Christ’s earthly ministry and his coming at the “close of the age.” Whether they perished in the overthrow of Jerusalem or not, they were undoubtedly put to shame at this time rather than vindicated (or “glorified”) with those disciples who continued faithful until the end.

So whatever one thinks the post-mortem fate of the “foolish virgins” is, I don’t think it can be determined from this context.

[git]

Wow! First off, I appreciate the walk through the garden you have here. I see you have the tree of life centrally displayed and adorned. I have been properly astonished at the doctrine. Thanks. I know what the people of JC’s time must have felt.

Secondly, I’d like to tell you that what I know of the bible is what I have read for myself, so I understand I may be a bit off, but man, it’s the wildest book I have ever read, and I read alot, or listen. So…it excites me to talk with people who have somehow come to the same conclusion I came to the first time I read it for myself. When I used to listen to what an organization said about the bible, it always seemed fearful, confusing, and full of alot of bad news. Somehow, I never heard any good news, though I listened and listened. Then one day, about 10 yrs or more ago, my brother, a 7th day adventist like faith, and me, a hardcore KJV fundamental baptist faith, were arguing which faith was correct, finally, after many weeks meeting and arguing, looked each other in the eye, and said, - lets read 1 chapter as if we had never read it before, and when we met the next night, we both looked each other in the face, and said, -everybody is already saved!

Though I didn’t quite know all the intimates (and I know, I still don’t), I could see the big picture, then when I started digging, good god, the sight was unbelievable and has had me mesmerized ever since. Didn’t know such a place like this existed, looked around 5 or so years ago, but just tried again a week ago, and here I am. Sorry about the long intro, but didn’t see another place to do it.

The 10 virgins, good topic, I love AllenS perspective in the matter, as Paul and Jesus was real big on the duality of each individual, flesh and spirit, new and old man, good man and evil man, new and old wine, new and old agreement, ect.

As Aaron pointed out, when the greatest tribulation to ever hit an area in the world has hit, the tribulation of 70ad, destruction of the temple and jerusalem, the time the master of the house has come to take an account of the servant of the house,- at this time the kingdom of heaven will be like these 10 virgins. JC told his disciples to tell all Israel that the kingdom of heaven is at hand, it is here. It seems to me that this parable is speaking of this time when the master of the house, God, came and took the care of his household away from the violent and drunken servant, of the physical covenant, physical Israel, and gave it unto his loving and nurturing servant, of the spiritual covenant, the life giving spirit, of his true family, JC

This parable seems to be about those who are invited into this marriage feast of the bridegroom, which represents entering into the kingdom of heaven. Those who believe the message of Christ, have oil with their lamps, and are brought in. Those who do not believe the message of Christ, those life giving words, have no oil for their lamps, they have only the flesh, so are not allowed to enter into this kingdom of God, though it be all around them. Sad, but part of the overall plan of God, for light to shine out of darkness. Then, of course, the parables right below this one are also examples of how the kingdom of heaven is at this time, which seems to be today. Those who have the oil of truth, who have become alive now, enter in, those who are still believing the lie, who still eat of the fruit of good and evil, they are on the outside, weeping and gnashing their teeth.

Has nothing to do with the after life that I can see. Just what happens here on earth. Though the kingdom of heaven be at hand, and it’s gates are wide open, and it’s high priest says come freely drink of it’s living water, most are in outer darkness, weeping, and wailing, and gnashing their teeth because they received not the love of the truth. And the truth is simple, at least the truth that I apprehended, or which apprehended me, that God is our Father, he is spirit, and just like he is , so are we, spirit, not flesh. Me believing that message doesn’t make it true, he is still my Father whether I believe it or not, I got a room in his house whether I believe it or not, JC is up there getting it ready for me. When it is done, he’s coming back for me. So he says, and he did arise from the dead like no other.

Or, maybe, I should lay off the herb bearing seed.

[Paidion]

Exactly. No scriptures.

Here is one that has been widely applied to getting out of hell, not only in our day, but in early Christianity:

Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny. Matthew 5: 25,26

[Alex_Smith]

Welcome git. I’m glad you found us here and I hope you continue to be encouraged by our forum. Feel free to participate as much as you like

Sorry about the long intro, but didn’t see another place to do it.

The is an Introductions section down the bottom under Social Hall, but it’s ok, most people miss it so I’m thinking I should make it more prominent

[Luke]

So whatever one thinks the post-mortem fate of the “foolish virgins” is, I don’t think it can be determined from this context.

That’s arguable, I think it’s problematic your so quick to abandon the parable’s context. Since the beginning of chapter 23 Jesus has been talking about the end times, including judgement. Furthermore in the very next parable, just as in the parable of the ten virgins, the end result is Hell (25:30). To reduce these chapters to simply a description of the fall of Jerusalem steam rolls all sorts of other themes and ignores the return of Jesus at the end of chapter 25.

[Sherman]

It would seem odd that the final meaning of the parable is actually contrary to the surface/literal meaning of the parable! So when Jesus “I tell you the truth, I don’t know you” (Matt 25:12) he actually means “I’m just pretending to shut the door on you.”

Hi Luke, it seems you’re interpreting this passage to speak of some form of judgment to come where God seperates people, one from another; but that’s not necessarily the correct interpretation. The passage is a parable, a physical example of a present spiritual reality. In the present, if we are not diligent to be prepared (educationally, physically, spiritually, relationally, financially) when opportunities come our way we will miss out on them and miss out on the “party”, some of the good things that the Lord wants to do in our lives. We’ll miss out on some good things in this life and even potentially the life/age/world to come. When an opportunity is gone, it’s gone; the door is shut.

I suppose one can interpret the parable as people being separated into those who will make it into heaven vs. those who do not but such not only misses the message of the parable for our present lives, but it also makes salvation based upon how good we are as opposed to how good God is. I believe though that salvation is based on how good and faithful God is, not how good and faithful we are. While we were enemies, Christ died for us. Salvation is based on the goodness, faithfulness of God as revealed in the atonement, not on our goodness or faithfulness, I believe.

These parables, I believe, are meant to teach us how to live in the present - to be faithful leaders if God gives us leadership responsibililties, to be diligent to be ready to take advantage of opportunities he might bring our way, to be faithful with whatever talents, gifts, blessing He has given us, and to seek to be socially mature and serve others around us. These are all principles for present day living. We do not know the day or hour the Lord is coming and our focus doesn’t need to be consumed by that; rather, we should be focused on being faithful today, loving today, watchful today, serving others today. Some people get so caught up worrying about tomorrow that they miss opportunities today, miss treat people today, and bury their talents today.

[Luke]

Why is the parable an illustration of a present spiritual reality? Given that Jesus is in that larger section talking about his return it seems odd to make the parable only about our present reality.

I agree that the parable on it’s own is incomplete, works aren’t the basis of our salvation. Although our faithfulness is part of the means that God uses to save us.

I think it’s interesting that Universalism requires these parables where one group gets saved and the other group doesn’t, to be present or not about salvation. I think it demonstrates that Universalism isn’t as straightforward as saying it’s Orthodox Christianity with only one key difference. It actually requires a different interpretation of a growing slab of scripture. (But that’s more of a wider reflection and not aimed at you!)

[Sherman]

Why is the parable an illustration of a present spiritual reality? Given that Jesus is in that larger section talking about his return it seems odd to make the parable only about our present reality.

First note that Jesus is originally warning of the destruction of Jerusalem and signs for the disciples to watch out for in regards to that. But as to the coming of the Lord, no one knows what day that is. The question we should ask is what did the phrase “coming of the Lord” mean to the 1st century Jew, Jesus’ immediate audience? I believe that in this, Jesus is not speaking of His second coming; He had not even been crucified yet. Rather, the coming of the Lord was a way of referencing the Lord coming in Judgment whether that was personal or corporate, like with Noah and his generation.

The Judgment of the Lord comes when least expected and thus we need to live in such a way that we are ready for it whenever it comes, however it comes. And in reality, the judgment of the Lord is a present spiritual reality; it is an eternal reality. It is through the judgment of the Lord that we come to acknowledge our sin and repent, our need of forgiveness and cry out for it, our desperate plight and cry out for salvation! The judgment of the Lord brings change and deliverance from evil, personally and corporately! It often results in much weeping (sorrow) and gnashing of teeth (bitter regret and even anger at one’s self). I don’t know about you, but I’ve encountered the present spiritual reality of judgment a few times; and each time resulted in a major change in my life; I was changed in the very core of my being!

I agree that the parable on it’s own is incomplete, works aren’t the basis of our salvation. Although our faithfulness is part of the means that God uses to save us.

I think it’s interesting that Universalism requires these parables where one group gets saved and the other group doesn’t, to be present or not about salvation. I think it demonstrates that Universalism isn’t as straightforward as saying it’s Orthodox Christianity with only one key difference. It actually requires a different interpretation of a growing slab of scripture. (But that’s more of a wider reflection and not aimed at you!)

Accepting in faith the many scriptures that affirm the salvation of all humanity does significantly change one’s perspective on many things, and does encourage one to understand scripture differently than what has been handed down by tradition. For me it has changed my focus from worrying about me or any of us getting into heaven; rather, I seek the growth of the kingdom of God in the present. Instead of praying about people getting into heaven (that is settled by the blood), I pray and seek heaven getting into people in the present for that is dependent upon our faith and obedience. Instead of my faith being all wrapped up in “some day”, it’s about “today”, living right today, loving God and people today, treating people right today! So not only do I have faith in the blood of Christ for myself, but I have faith in the blood of Christ for everyone. Instead of salvation being about us getting into heaven some day, it’s about heaven getting into us today. This is the day of salvation, Now is the time to embrace both the judgment and salvation of the Lord. Judgment is for us all, and judgment is based on how we actually live, not on just what we believe or profess to believe. And the Lord’s judgment can invade our lives at any time, personally or corporately; and it usually comes when least expected!

And btw, I did not change my understanding of these passages because I believe UR. I actually began a study of Hell and judgment to 1) counter the concept of UR that seemed to be affirmed in the UR passages and 2) to shore up my traditional belief in Hell. But as I studied Hell, I noted 1) not one word in the Hebrew or Greek text of scripture correctly interprets as Hell. And 2) that the passages that warn of the wages of sin do not warn of endless torture, but of death and destruction.

Then I started studying the passages on judgment and found 1) that judgment is for us all, believer and unbeliever alike. And 2) that judgment in scripture is consistently connected to how we actually live, how we treat others, what we do with the revelation and blessings of God, etc.; and it is not about just what we believe. And 3) judgment is meant to bring positive change, whether it’s corporate or personal. Paul even speaks of turning a brother over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, but so that his spirit might be saved!

Why am I so focused on the “present”? Because Paul notes that it is “God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the **present **evil age” (Gal. 1:3-4)! Yes, accepting in faith that Jesus truly is the savior of all humanity, especially (not only) we who believe (1 Tim. 4:10) does result in one understanding scripture from a different perspective. Yes, accepting in faith that salvation for us all is truly by grace and not by works does result in one understanding scripture from a different perspective. When we face judgment, we face the unshaded truth concerning how we live, our attitudes, our beliefs, our deeds, and our life styles. And frankly, the fire of this truth burns the hell out of us all! It has and is and I trust it will in me and you! Judgment is fiery, terrible, and we should live in such a way as to recognize that it can come at any time - resulting in reward and punishment!

[Aaron]

Luke wrote:
That’s arguable, I think it’s problematic your so quick to abandon the parable’s context. Since the beginning of chapter 23 Jesus has been talking about the end times, including judgement. Furthermore in the very next parable, just as in the parable of the ten virgins, the end result is Hell (25:30). To reduce these chapters to simply a description of the fall of Jerusalem steam rolls all sorts of other themes and ignores the return of Jesus at the end of chapter 25.

The “end times” of what? Not redemptive history, but the Old Covenant age. That age came to a close with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD, which is the judgment Christ was referring to when he warned the Pharisees of his generation, “How are you to escape being sentenced to Gehenna?” See Matt 23:32 and especially vv. 36-38. It is this judgment, and no other, that Christ has in view throughout the “Olivet Discourse.” Nowhere in these chapters is Christ referring to a future judgment at the “end of time” involving every person who has ever lived. If you’re still waiting for Christ to “come on the clouds of heaven” and to “sit on his glorious throne” (Matt 24:30; 25:31) then I’m afraid you’ll be waiting for all eternity, because this took place at Christ’s ascension (see Dan 7:13-14), and its fulfillment was made known to the world through the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Matthew 24:1-35

Just a chapter prior to the one under consideration, we read that Christ told some of the religious leaders of the Jewish nation that, upon their filling up the measure of their fathers’ sins, their “generation” would be severely punished (Matt 23:32-36; cf. 1 Thess 2:16; Isaiah 65:6-7). There is no other generation in view here but the one Jesus is addressing. It is significant that the word translated “generation” (genea) is consistently used by Christ elsewhere to refer to his first-century c…

Preterism and the Judgment of the Goats

I just thought this thread [on the judgment of the goats] needed a little more preterist representation, so here’s my contribution. [:mrgreen:] Christ’s words in chapter 25 of Matthew’s Gospel are part of an unbroken discourse that began at the beginning of the previous chapter - which itself is but the continuation of a subject begun at the end of chapter 23. It is not until chapter 26, v. 1, that we are told Christ “finished all these sayings.” There is no indication that Christ ever departs…

[Luke]

Sherman

The question we should ask is what did the phrase “coming of the Lord” mean to the 1st century Jew, Jesus’ immediate audience?

No we shouldn’t, otherwise we should ask about the meaning of every single NT word for every single 1st Century Jew and in some situations every single 1st Century Gentile, let along every single reader at every single point in history (that’d get silly pretty quickly). Extra-biblical information should not determine our exegesis, it might be helpful in illustrating a passage but never to determine our interpretation, otherwise we can just chuck out the sufficiency of Scripture.

Also isn’t it interesting that though you want to make an eternal claim (everyone will be saved in the future) you also want to keep a parable of Jesus that actually talks about the future focused on the present! That seems like a contradictory approach.

Aaron

The destruction of Jerusalem did not end Judaism nor did it end the old covenant, if we can even talk in terms of ending the old covenant. Jesus fulfilled the old covenant in his obedient life, death and resurrection. If there was an end to the old religious system is was when the temple curtain was torn. The danger with the Preterist position is that everything has to be compressed into events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem.

Clearly when Jesus talks about the final judgement where the sheep are separated from the goats at the end of chapter 25 following both the parable of the virgins and the parable of the talents (both of which are without entirely happy endings), he is not talking about the destruction of Jerusalem. Prophecy, like a landscape has both the foreground and the background in view at the same time, although occasionally on aspect in particular will be emphasized such as the length of Israel’s Babylonian captivity. But in this section the context is the end times; verse 31 gives it away ““When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne,” who then goes on to divide humanity. (It’s a tough chapter for universalists, making it set before 70AD requires some fancy theological gymnastics.)

[AllanS]

But in this section the context is the end times; verse 31 gives it away ““When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne,” who then goes on to divide humanity. (It’s a tough chapter for universalists, making it set before 70AD requires some fancy theological gymnastics.)

It’s a tough chapter for you too. It seems that what separates sheep from goats isn’t faith, but works. What dooms them isn’t what they believe, but what they do. Even more peculiar, both the sheep and the goats are surprised by the verdict. But if the sheep are Christians who already know the parable, why would they be surprised?

That’s not the end of the difficulties. What if a goat says, “Hey. I did give someone a glass of water. In 1942.”

The Judge now has a problem. It turns out this particular fellow is 50% goat, and 50% sheep. What will happen now? Only two alternatives are on offer. Whatever the judge does will be unjust.

Understanding sheep/goat as Jew/Gentile or Gentile/Jew doesn’t work for me. Nor does it work if it represents believer/unbeliever, or good person/bad person. However, if the separation of sheep from goat represents the separation of good from evil within every individual, this* does* work.

The evil me, the part that’s resisted God at every move, will be torn away. It will be painful. The real me, God’s child, the part that always has responded to his voice, will enter God’s presence with relief (At last!), astonishment (I’m free from my body of death!)and great joy. The evil me will curse God until its dark and shadowy form is filled with God’s fire, and the absolutely non-existent will cease to exist absolutely (to paraphrase Gregory of Nyssa).

[Aaron]

Hi Luke,

You said:

The destruction of Jerusalem did not end Judaism nor did it end the old covenant, if we can even talk in terms of ending the old covenant. Jesus fulfilled the old covenant in his obedient life, death and resurrection. If there was an end to the old religious system is was when the temple curtain was torn.

The author of the letter to the Hebrews (which was probably written about 68 AD, if not earlier) would, I think, disagree with you on this. In Heb 8:13, we read: “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” It is true that when Christ died the Law of Moses lost its divine sanction and was no longer obligatory for Jews (as was signified by the miraculous tearing of the curtain). But the old covenant still “lingered on” beyond this pivotal event in redemptive history, and did not completely “vanish away” until Jerusalem fell and the temple was destroyed in 70 AD.

The danger with the Preterist position is that everything has to be compressed into events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem.

And the danger of the Futurist position is that it must ignore or undermine the reality of past fulfillment.

Clearly when Jesus talks about the final judgement where the sheep are separated from the goats at the end of chapter 25 following both the parable of the virgins and the parable of the talents (both of which are without entirely happy endings), he is not talking about the destruction of Jerusalem. Prophecy, like a landscape has both the foreground and the background in view at the same time, although occasionally on aspect in particular will be emphasized such as the length of Israel’s Babylonian captivity. But in this section the context is the end times; verse 31 gives it away ““When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne,” who then goes on to divide humanity. (It’s a tough chapter for universalists, making it set before 70AD requires some fancy theological gymnastics.)

Where in the context is this judgment called “the final judgment?” And is it your position that Jesus is not presently sitting on his “glorious throne” beside the “Ancient of Days” and ruling as Lord of all? Do you see the fulfillment of Daniel 7:13-14 as being yet future?

As far as this being a “tough chapter for universalists,” many universalists (myself included) would beg to differ! Would you be interested in interacting with what I’ve written on it? The thread is linked in my last post, and I’d love to get some critical feedback.

[Sherman]

Sherman

The question we should ask is what did the phrase “coming of the Lord” mean to the 1st century Jew, Jesus’ immediate audience?

No we shouldn’t, otherwise we should ask about the meaning of every single NT word for every single 1st Century Jew and in some situations every single 1st Century Gentile, let along every single reader at every single point in history (that’d get silly pretty quickly). Extra-biblical information should not determine our exegesis, it might be helpful in illustrating a passage but never to determine our interpretation, otherwise we can just chuck out the sufficiency of Scripture.

Understanding the Context, who Jesus was speaking to, when he was speaking to them, and what He was speaking about is not “extra-biblical information”; rather, it’s just giving due diligence to understand the text in its context. I assume you’ve heard “A text without a context is a pretext.” And a pretext is an assumed meaning that often misses the author’s intended meaning.

Furthermore, I believe that the meaning of every single word of scripture is important, especially understanding what it meant in its original language and context (historical, cultural, and authorial). Such is important in helping us understand what the author meant.

Also isn’t it interesting that though you want to make an eternal claim (everyone will be saved in the future) you also want to keep a parable of Jesus that actually talks about the future focused on the present! That seems like a contradictory approach.

Actually, I’m not appealing to this scripture to affirm that all are saved; you are appealing to this scripture to affirm the certainty of damnation for some. I’m simply pointing out that the literary and cultural context indicates that the parable of the 5 wise and 5 foolish virgins was not meant to convey the concept of the certainty of damnation. Rather, it is meant to illustrate Jesus’ previous point concerning the suddenness of judgment. Judgment comes suddenly like a bridegroom coming late in the night. Judgement as in the destruction of the world in Noah’s time came suddenly. In like manner, the destruction of Jerusalem will come suddenly and those who believe Jesus should live accordingly, watchful for signs of the fulfillment of that prophecy.

Jesus is also speaking of the day of the Lord, “what day the Lord will come”. On this side of the cross and ressurection people often “assume” (errantly imo) that Jesus is speaking of His second coming; but of course, when this was spoken He had not yet even been crucified. Thus, assuming that Jesus was speaking in a language that the disciples understood, it behooves us to seek to understand what the phrase “the day the Lord will come” meant to them. Based on other similar phrases in the OT, I believe He was speaking of the Lord coming in judgment, breaking into our lives in judgment unexpectedly. And the passage is meant to encourage us to live watchful and ready for such judgment. And of course, when judgment comes, if we’re not prepared, we’ll miss out. Does this mean we’ll miss out on heaven? Does this mean that love fails, that Jesus fails to save some of humanity? Does this passage affirm the reality of endless torture? Of course not.

Sadly, because people misinterpret this passage to be speaking of salvation and a warning of hell, some think salvation is based on works and not on grace. And others affirm that we can have no security at all in the salvation of Christ because at any moment, if we’re not ready and the Lord comes, we’ll miss out and go to hell. But of course, that’s not what this parable is about.

People believe in Hell and thus read Hell into many passages of scripture. St. Jerome even misinterpreted “infernum” INTO his Latin Vulgate 110 times. This KJV corrected 56 of these, only retaining 54 mistranslations of Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, and Tartaroo as Hell. The NKJV corrected 24 more of these mistranslations, only having the mistranslation Hell in it 32 times. And most modern translations correct even more of these and only have the mistranslation Hell in them 12-14 times. And a few get it right and do not have the mistranslation Hell in them at all, 0 times! But I’m getting off topic.

This parable does not warn of Hell, nor does it affirm the certainty of damnation of anyone. It’s purpose is to illustrate the suddenness of judgment, the coming of the Lord in the judgment. I believe though that we can apply this principle to our personal lives, recognizing that the Lord intervenes in our lives often suddenly, bringing judgment. I’ve experienced this and am the better for it. I’ve encountered the judgment of the Lord, it’s terrible medicine but it works good in us. And it certainly came suddenly and unexpectedly.

[Luke]

Allan

A final judgement of works produces no dramas, we’re saved on the basis of Christ’s good works and obedient death. Although I think, although this might sound Dante-esque, crowns and rewards await some and mere arrival in God’s presence awaits others.

It sounds very dualistic Allan to say there’s good and evil in every person. Surely man is inclined to evil as sparks fly upwards, saying people have some good in them goes against the continual rebellious grain of humanity from Adam to the Anti-Christ.

Aaron

… But the old covenant still “lingered on” beyond this pivotal event in redemptive history, and did not completely “vanish away” until Jerusalem fell and the temple was destroyed in 70 AD.

Woah there, do you see what you’ve done, you’ve read the fall of Jerusalem into the vanishing away from Hebrews 8. Why doesn’t the author of the letter to the Hebrews just directly mention Jerusalem? (By the way you’ve set an impossibly late date for Hebrews, given the ongoing temple sacrifices up until 70 AD (After Jesus Volume 1, p106, Barnett).) If your operating from the assumption that the fall of Jerusalem completes all apocalyptic prophecy then you’ll read that idea into all sorts of other passages, but this shows you’ve let extra-biblical evidence wrongly shape your interpretation.

Sherman

Context is not whatever we like outside the text, it is the surrounding verses and chapters. What’s this due diligence business? Sola Scriptura says Scripture alone (correctly interpreted through the church) has authority and the Sufficiency of Scripture holds that the text itself not extra-biblical evidence is paramount.

Actually, I’m not appealing to this scripture to affirm that all are saved; you are appealing to this scripture to affirm the certainty of damnation for some. I’m simply pointing out that the literary and cultural context indicates that the parable of the 5 wise and 5 foolish virgins was not meant to convey the concept of the certainty of damnation. Rather, it is meant to illustrate Jesus’ previous point concerning the suddenness of judgment. Judgment comes suddenly like a bridegroom coming late in the night. Judgement as in the destruction of the world in Noah’s time came suddenly. In like manner, the destruction of Jerusalem will come suddenly and those who believe Jesus should live accordingly, watchful for signs of the fulfillment of that prophecy.

You want it say all sorts of things about judgement except what happens to people! Let the parable speak it tells us what happens to the other five ‘virgins’.

[Aaron]

Hi Luke,

You wrote:

Woah there, do you see what you’ve done, you’ve read the fall of Jerusalem into the vanishing away from Hebrews 8. Why doesn’t the author of the letter to the Hebrews just directly mention Jerusalem? (By the way you’ve set an impossibly late date for Hebrews, given the ongoing temple sacrifices up until 70 AD (After Jesus Volume 1, p106, Barnett).) If your operating from the assumption that the fall of Jerusalem completes all apocalyptic prophecy then you’ll read that idea into all sorts of other passages, but this shows you’ve let extra-biblical evidence wrongly shape your interpretation.

It’s true that it must be inferred from this text that the old covenant “vanished away” in 70 AD, but I believe there are other texts in Scripture that support this position. And since the judgment of 70 AD put an end to that which was central to the old covenant (e.g., the sacrificial system), it seems reasonable to me to believe that it would have been understood by the early Christians as “vanishing away” at this time. But my main point was that the old covenant was not understood by the author of Hebrews as having ended with Christ’s death. It had not yet “vanished away” when the letter to the Hebrews was written. Do you agree with this?

As far as the dating of Hebrews, while I’d be fine with accepting an earlier date than 68 AD if that’s the scholarly consensus (I did say “about 68 AD, if not earlier”), how would 68 AD be “impossibly late?”