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 
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 
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.
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.
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!)
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!
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!
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.
Sherman
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.)
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).
Hi Luke,
You said:
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.
And the danger of the Futurist position is that it must ignore or undermine the reality of past fulfillment. 
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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’.
Hi Luke,
You wrote:
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?”
Oops, my bad re your dating, I totally retract my accusation that you were arguing for a late date, I swear I had 86AD in my head! 
While I agree the end of the sacrificial system is significant, I think vanishing away refers to a more gradual process that began before Jesus arrived (removal of the Ark) and is still dissipating (presence of Judaism today). I wouldn’t want to collapse the end of the old Covenant into just the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD.
I was enjoying reading through this thread.
I got well over half way through and I’m not sure if someone already mentioned this, but this parable reminds me a lot of the sheep and the goats in regards to the groom saying, “I don’t know you.” It’s just like the goats to whom God will say, "I never knew you, " and precisely because they did not feed people.
This parable, if it’s like that one, is making a big deal of what we do and the oil would have to be something related to how we treat others? Then it would follow that to be prepared for the groom’s coming is to be going about God’s bussiness of caring for others, perhaps? If we aren’t we can expect a wake up call and a door shut in our face with a reply of, “Do I know you?” To be shut out is like to be cut out, like a dead branch. It’s God’s judgement of the unfaithful.
Of course, this judgement does not have to indicate that the door will never be open again, just that God is in the process of dealing with the sin in a harsh, effective way. I’m hoping that the fact that the gates of heaven never close is a really good sign and reason for hope.
Have to amend this…I do see that there is some discussion about the sheep and goats. I thought someone had to have picked up on this too. The language is so similar.
I’ve always wondered about this too. But, I figure God knows the criteria for which he is searching and doesn’t need to get technical about every instance. It’s not like he’s Santa Claus in keeping a tally and checking his list twice, but he knows who’s been naughty and nice or who still needs some work. ???
I’ve never heard this interpretation. It’s interesting to consider a new point of view.
Hi Amy,
Paul seems to say something similar in Roman 7.
“For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do… Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it… What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!”
Paul sees himself as having two natures simultaneously. He is both in Adam and in Christ. The Paul-in-Adam loves sin and opposes God. The Paul-in-Christ hates sin and serves God. Paul longs for the day when the two natures are severed forever. The evil Paul will be utterly destroyed by God, leaving the real Paul, the Paul-in-Christ, behind.
This makes sense of many passages like “God works all things together for those who love him”, and “God has compassion on those who fear him.” Does this mean God has no compassion on most (since most don’t fear him), or that he works for the good only of the few who love him? Surely not. But if there is something born of God in every person, and this part fears Him and loves Him by nature (whether they quite realize it or not), then of course God’s love will work for the good of that part of that person. In the same way, God’s wrath will be working towards the destruction of the evil part in every person.
Jesus rejects the wicked, saying “Depart from me. I don’t know you.” But supposing one of them replies, “Hey! Course you know me! I’m Billy Bogger, from Wogga Wogga.” “Ah,” says Jesus, “Yes. I do remember now… Billy Bogger…”
God can know only that which is real. God can tell me what light is (photons etc) but he cannot tell me what darkness is. Darkness, being the absence of light, isn’t actually something. It’s nothing, and not even God knows what nothing is. Now if evil is the absence of good just as darkness is the absence of light, evil is also nothing. Not even God knows what it is. So when he destroys the evil in me, God will say to my shadowy Adam-self, “Away from me, you who are cursed, into the fire. I do not know you.”
“This is the end of our hope, that nothing shall be left contrary to the good, but that the divine life, penetrating all things, shall absolutely destroy death from existing things.” Gregory of Nyssa.
AllanS, thanks for explaining more of your thoughts. I like and agree with Gregory of Nyssa’s hope.
I’ve not heard your perspective before. I have tended to see that we have two natures and the sin nature needs to be dealt with. I also have tended to believe that God works for the good of all of us since at one time or another we all have been astray, not loved God. God somehow sees fit to value us.
About the people he tells, “Depart from me I never knew you,” I’ve always thought that it was not that he did not know who they were, but that he was repudiating their behavior and bringing judgement since their acts had testified against them. It is interesting that we can be very mixed bags, though scripture seems to indicate that, as Christians, we are to be different than the world that does not know God.
I see the parable the same way AllanS does, not only as it correlated the separation of the sheep and goats, but the wheat and the tares… even the “two” in one bed, , the “two” in the field, the “two” grinding at the mill… where one is take and the other left… I see all of these in relation to the dividing of the spirit from the flesh, the old man from the new man, the outward man from the inward man, the natural man from the spiritual man, the first man from the second man, the first Adam from the Last Adam…
lots of interesting points of view.
for me, it’s simply that we have Paul saying “all” are saved by Christ, and we have Jeremiah saying “The Lord does not cast off forever.”
these are pretty clear statements, and so strongly put that i’d hesitate not to interpret any other scripture on the “end” by their light.
if that’s the case, then He’s warning that the 5 foolish virgins will miss out on something, but not that they’re forever doomed.
i don’t think that follows from the context, and i also think there’s a severe danger (as stated) of making this salvation by works, not by grace, so that many should boast.
i think instead it’s saying generally that our sin nature will be burnt away (sort of like AllanS says) but also that those who persist in these ways and don’t follow God’s plan for our way of life will be subject to chastisement.
but then, God chastises those He loves…
for me, this all flows back into the realms of academia, working out the mechanics, but the truth remains as clearly stated by Paul, John, Jeremiah, etc, not to mention the meta-narrative of the whole Bible.
I must have missed this back when it was originally written. Sorry for the late reply.
Actually, the Context intails not only the Literary Context (the surrounding verses and chapters), but the Culture, the History, and the Author are also elements of the Context. The “due diligence” buisness that I speak of is doing the research of the text’s culture, history, author, audience, literary style and literary context that is helpful, even necessary in understanding a passage. These are necessary to arrive at an informed interpretation of the passage. Without them, well, “A Text without a Context is a Pretext.” There is much more to Context than only the literary context.
And btw, I do not affirm “Sola” Scriptura, rather “Prima” Scriptura. I believe that scripture should be our primary foundation for faith and doctrine, but affirm also the roles of Reason, Tradition, and Experience. Concerning extra-biblical material, such often helps us understand the language, culture, history, and audience related to the text; it is not “paramount” as you say, nor have I claimed such. But I do believe that extra-biblical material is very helpful in understanding the text of scripture.
I’m simply doing my best to understand the message of the parable, based on its context and not read into it something that it was not meant to communicate. It’s very easy to “read into” parables much more than the parable was every intended to illustrate. This parable was intended to illustrate the suddeness of the coming of the Lord in judgment. That principle was most applicable in that literary context to the prophecied destruction of Jerusalem, but it is also very applicable to judgment coming to us individually and in the life to come. The point of the parable is clearly communicated when Jesus said, “Watch therefore for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming.” To use this parable to somehow prove that Jesus fails to save some of humanity is to misuse this passage, I think.
Concerning what happens to the five foolish virgins, that is part of the story, but not the stated point, moral of the story. Can this same story illustrate other points, other morals? Yes, it can. But Jesus told it to simply illustrate the importance of living ready to face the Lord in judgment. There are many “truths” that one can hear through this story, but the passage, as recorded, was not meant to communicate these many “truths” but to illustrate the one truth declared in the passage. This is a good example of the difference between exegetical and eisegetical interpretation of parables. Of course, there is also, what I call, prophetic interpretation of such parables; this is where God speaks something to you personally through the passage, one that is true, but one that is not the exegetical message of the passage.
For example, the parable of the Sower exegetically speaks of how different people either receive, reject, loose, or allow the Word of God to have minimal effect in thier lives. But God showed me clearly that I personally have all four types of ground in my heart: good and receptive ground, ground harded by tradition, ground consumed with worry and fear, and ground that has stones (issues that need addressing, healing, deliverance). And through prayer, worship, and fellowship I open my heart to God to break up the hardened ground, to burn off and dig up the thorns, and to dig out the rocks, so that an increasing amount of my heart is good and receptive to and productive in the Word of God.
But that was a personal revelation, a prophetic understanding and interpretation of the parable of the Sower, not an exegetical interpretation.
In like manner, God can speak much to people through the parable of the 5 wise and 5 foolish virgins, but in this case Jesus clearly stated the message of the parable is to affirm that the coming of the Son of Man would be sudden, unexpected.
A really good study to understand the cultural context of the parables – including this one - is ‘Jesus Through Middle Eastern eyes’ by Kenneth E, Bailey. I’m reading it and enjoying it at the moment. Of this parble he usefully informs us that -
Starlight and moonlight are generally sufficient to light the way in the clear air of the Midle East. But women, young and old, always carry lamps. Their reputation, and in some cases, heir personal safety, depends on the lamps. For young unmarried women to move around in the dark without carrying lamps is unthinkable! What might they be doing in the dark and with whom (given this was and, in rural parts, still is an honour/shame culture)? Also, with a lamp, no one can harass them unseen. I have observed that village women do not carry such lamps conveniently close to the ground (like a flashlight) so that they can see in the street. Instead they carry the lamp directly in front of their faces so that all can witness who they are and where they are going.
Another fascinating insight he gives is that Ibn al-Tayyib – an eleventh century Syrian Christian scholar living in a culture not changed much since the time of Jesus – tells us that it took ten Jewish males to form a company for the celebration of the Passover, and he claims that ten males were required for a valid wedding ceremony. Thereby this parable has ten women. Ibn al – Tayyib implies that by choosing ten women, Jesus is trying to compensate for the gender gap in the religious culture of his day. The worth and equal dignity of women is clearly affirmed by this story.