Additional responses to the "virgins" article:
From New Mexico:
> People are going to have to think about this for awhile because of paradigm paralysis. Also if it helps I think the parable of the talents also fits in here. We were told in wcg that ministers had a double portion of spirit--this was a reinterpretation of what God meant by double blessings. (My husband) and I discussed the subject of how much spirit people receive about a year and a half ago. I came to the conclusion that we all start out with the same amount or God would be a respecter of persons. I think (WARNING this is a PERSONAL OPINION ALERT) that the parable of the talents is in fact speaking about what we do with the spirit after we receive it. Those who bury it are those who want other men to tell them what the bible says and will not use the spirit within them. The rest are those who do their own studying and are in various ( grades if you will) levels of learning. . . .
---------------------------------------------
From near Houston, Tx:
Someone questioned whether the oil represents the Holy Spirit.
We responded:>>We haven't found a scripture that states the HS is oil. The instances we find relate the HS to water. Maybe we just missed something????? So show us the scriptures please.
Houston wrote back:
Hi back!
I will say **point taken**, I can't find a scripture either.
Oil was used many times to sanctify, set a part, or make holy something.Response:
Yes, but I don't think anyone is "anointed" at baptism, are they? The Spirit is to be received by anyone who repents, and is baptized, and has hands laid on him/her. I don't recall oil being used at baptism. It isn't mentioned in any of the scriptural accounts of baptism.You wrote:
Since the HS is what **really** does this, isn't the oil a type of the HS.Response:
I believe that it's the Father who does the setting apart or sanctification,the power of His Holy Spirit. I don't see the HS setting someone apart by it's own initiative as if it operated independently of the Father. You wrote:
>I know this isn't cut and dry, but it is something to consider.Response:
It's what the cog's have always taught. But we can't find any basis for it. That concept helps support hierarchy in that one must be "ordained" to a higher level and that once ordained, he/she automatically enjoys a higher "spiritual level" as if the Father's Spirit were part of some "pyramid" retailing organization. The anointings in scripture were to positions of higher responsibility, as a king, a priest or for healing. It was a ritual, same as Christ taking spit and mud and putting it on a person's eyes to heal blindness.
The implication made by the cogs is that different quantities of the Holy Spirit are limited to specific offices. Until you're ordained (by men) you could not or can not be as spiritual as your pastor. That regardless of the truth or of understanding, the pastor had more HS than you did. And that those above him had more HS than he did. Therefore truth and understanding could come only through a corporate headquarters and only through your pastor.
But scripture says understanding comes directly to you from the Father, through the HS. He may use men or literature to get it to you, or he may use only your personal study and prayer. He is not restricted to using others to give you any of the gifts. The corp.orgs. would have us believe that all good things come only out of HQ. "Can any good thing come out of the local area?" to paraphrase the Jews of Jerusalem in Christ's time.For the corp. orgs., using the oil to represent the HS solved two problems at once.
1) It supported the imagined spiritual hierarchy as we explained above.2) It also prevented questions arising by saying that the oil represented "understanding".
The corp. orgs. cannot continue to exist in their typical form, without "unity". Their definition of unity is that people obey without questions, because questions cause division, as we have seen.
We, non-corp. types, know that it's not a spirit of rebellion that causes the questions, but the differences in understanding that cause the questions. For the corp. orgs. to admit that there can be "differences in understanding" greatly weakens their whole pyramidal structure of authority.
The corp. orgs. pretended (and we also did, while in them) to have "unity" of understanding of all doctrine. This charade was enforced by the threat of disfellowshipment and the fear of the tribulation. If we were aware of a difference of understanding, we blamed ourselves for "not understanding" and "trusted" the Father to inspire our leaders in the truth. But the Father never promised to do that. Instead He repeatedly warned us to "not trust any man", including a "brother" which includes the ministry. . . . [See Jer. 9:4 and Mi. 7:5].So the analogy that oil=HS, supported the hierarchy and prevented the question of different understandings, or of different levels of understanding.
Having different levels of understanding contradicted their version of "everyone speaking the same thing". When Christ said he came "not to bring peace but to bring a sword and to set brother against brother," etc., his statement can apply to our differences with unconverted physical relatives, which is what the corp. orgs. taught. But it also applies to our spiritual brothers, who differ with us over doctrines, administrations, names, calendars, timing, evangelism, and so on.
Christ was a prophet. He told us this would happen. It had to, in order for us to "prove" our own works, not just the works of those over us. People are making their choices. Some are taking the easy way of letting others do their thinking for them, along with their praying, studying, and drawing close to the Father. Hence the warning, "let him who thinks he stands, take heed, lest he fall." (1 Cor. 10:12).
But we're getting away from the subject. :-)You wrote:
>3 They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:Response:
Someone else on (one of the forums), perhaps (. . . ), recently explained the Jewish wedding customs. The lamp (2985 lampas, lamp, light or torch) contained some oil. If not, they would have gone to the sellers then, not at midnight. The wise virgins also took a "vessel", (aggeion, from aggos, a pail, a receptacle, vessel). Verse 4,"the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.You wrote:
>These people were not truly converted, not sanctified, their vessel was
>empty. Their light wasn't able to shine.Response:
In verse 8, the foolish say, "for our lamps are gone out" (margin has "going out"). According to the parable, their lamps had been giving light and were in the process of going out. And they knew they needed more and they wanted more. Otherwise, we must say that we may be rejected for not having enough of the HS. This alone contradicts the analogy of oil representing the HS.You wrote:
Do you say that these people had the HS but Christ **did not know them**? Can you demonstrate this from the scriptures. Show me someone that without a doubt has the HS and Messiah says "I don't know you."Response:
Okay.
Rev. 3:14-20 "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things says the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish you were cold or hot.
So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue you out of my mouth.
Because you say, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and know not that you are wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked;
I counsel you to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that you may be rich; and white raiment, that you may be clothed, and that the shame of your nakedness do not appear; and anoint your eyes with eyesalve, that you may see.
As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock; if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.""you are neither cold nor hot" -- the foolish virgins, are virgins, not harlots, they are with the wise virgins, not down the road in the mainstream church, nor even down the street in the "other" cog. It says they are in the same location, but spiritually, we could say all the cogs are in the same approximate spiritual location.
"I will spue thee out of my mouth" -- from an intimate relationship to complete rejection.
"I am rich and have need of nothing" -- "I do not need any further understanding than what I already have"
"(you) knowest not that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked"-- all symbolic of a lack of knowledge, and understanding. (see Proverbs, and major prophets)
"behold I stand at the door" -- there's a door separating the foolish from the bridegroom and the wise.
"if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him and will sup with him and he with me." --
The responsibility is ours if we fail. Christ knocks on the door, He calls everyone to the wedding, but some want to come on their own terms, such as not seeking understanding from the source, rather than from the "oil merchants."
A Laodicean attitude is to say "I have need of nothing", "I have no need to study for myself, the ministers will tell me what I need to know. I have no need to go to the Father for understanding, the ministers will give it to me. I have the HS, I have a "lamp" the Bible, I have ministers to explain it to me, therefore, I need nothing else. My "oil" (understanding) is sufficient for me to find the bridegroom."If the Holy Spirit was the missing element, why are the Laodiceans considered a "church"?
If the "oil going out" symbolizes the Holy Spirit, then why do they bother trying to return to the bridegroom and gain entrance?
And why would the Father counsel the Laodiceans to "buy gold tried of the fire" suggesting that they still have a chance to enter life (the marriage)?
The Laodicean attitude is a lack of understanding, not a lack of the HS. They don't understand their own lack of zeal, but they are not "cold", completely without any understanding. The little understanding they have, came to them as a gift of the Father, through the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is a gift from the Father. Understanding is a gift of the Father through the HS. We "receive" the HS or we don't, it's not something that we acquire by degrees. We seek understanding on a daily basis or not, but acquiring it is by degrees.The Christian "world" understands the "lamp" to explain Christ as Savior.
The seventh day churches understand the Sabbath command and the RCC's lack of authority to change it.
The cogs understand the spirit of the laws and the validity of the letter of the laws.
Some, outside of the cogs, understand the evils of hierarchy.Notice the pyramid is inverted, the more understanding, the fewer there are who possess it.
Col. 1:9- "For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that you might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;
10 That you might walk worthy of the Lord
12..the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of he saints in light
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:"Notice "all" understanding, indicating the possibility of some having only "partial" understanding. References to the HS, refer to "it", a single unit, not something obtainable in varying amounts.
As you quoted, the Word (scripture) is the "lamp". And through the HS, the Father can give us understanding. We can have the "lamp" and the HS but, if we do not "seek understanding" (Pro.), then we are "the foolish virgins".
But if you find something to indicate otherwise, we'd like to see it. :-)
. . .(Additionally:)
The Holy Spirit is equated to "living waters" in Jn. 7:38-39The source of living waters is "the Lord" Jer. 17:13, Jn. 4:10,14
In looking up scriptures discussing "oil, anointing, anointing oil, and ointment", we can find no reference to "baptism".
The formula for "holy anointing oil" is given in Ex. 30:22-33. This "oil" was used to anoint the articles for the tabernacle and the Priests. It was not to touch any man's flesh, except the priest's!.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From South Africa:At 09:32 AM 4/30/98 +0200, you wrote:
>Hi Mel
>
>On the subject of the ten virgins, you might like to think about this
>speculation. The virgins (sex unspecified) are there as observers,
>bridesmaids, best-men, and not there to marry the groom. Support for this
>idea is what John the Baptist quoted saying "He that hath the bride is the
>bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth
>him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy
>therefore is fulfilled" (John 3:29). It was customary for the groom to have
>many best men accompany him at the wedding. Maybe the virgins are "friends
>of the bridegroom" not the bride.Response:
Thanks for your comments. They sent me back for another look. :-)"You are my friends if you do whatsoever I command you." Jn. 15:14
Friends of the groom wait with the groom while friends of the bride wait
with her, and normally it's according to gender. But in our case, the
"groom" isn't here, He's at the throne of His Father. As you mentioned,
New Jerusalem is called "the bride" and it comes down from "heaven", so
it's not here, either.That would explain why there is no "bride" mentioned in this parable.
As for gender, if our society didn't have double standards, "virgins"
wouldn't be considered a female "thang", (or appellation). Christ, in giving
the parable, never said they were female. He doesn't say they are "with" a
bride (female), so why assume gender? He, unlike mankind, isn't a
respecter of gender. :-)You wrote:
>Maybe the virgins are "friends
>of the bridegroom" not the bride.Response:
Yep!God called Abraham "my friend", not "sugarbabe" Isa. 41:8
He spoke to Moses face to face as to a "friend" Ex. 33:11
Christ called the disciples, "friends" (in lieu of calling them servants)And Christ said there is "no greater love" than laying down one's life
for his "friends" Jn. 15Anyway, the article is about what the "oil" is, and is not, and why it
makes a difference to those involved and to those who teach that it is the
H.S. :-)You wrote:
>When we Christians are invited to the wedding feast, I wonder whether it is
>as the bride (as we have always assumed) or as guests and best men,
>bridesmaids etc.Response:
There are references comparing the "group" as a bride, but Rev. 21:2
says the bride is New Jerusalem.You wrote:
>As pure speculation, maybe it is Jerusalem which is the bride. Rev 21:2
>states "and I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God
>out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband".Response:
Some sources say that the virgins would "accompany" the bride to the
groom's home.
That would parallel with those resurrected and changed, rising in the air
to meet him and accompany him back to His residence, earth.
The bride, New Jerusalem, is described as "coming down" in Rev. 21:2Isa. 51:17 says "Awake, awake, stand up, O Jerusalem"
52:2 says "shake thyself from the dust: arise, and sit down, O
Jerusalem;"Sounds like a resurrection, doesn't it.
"and sit down, O Jerusalem;"
To the marriage supper?
Isa. 52:1 "Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on they
beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city."Sounds like a preparation of a bride.
Rev. 21:3 says "the tabernacle of God is with men," (men= Strong's 444,
anthropos, man-faced, a human being)So there are humans alive, after the New Jerusalem comes, in verse 2.
It would appear that the "New Jerusalem" (aside from being a location,
and a "new" city as opposed to the existing one) would apply to those
resurrected to spirit and those alive and changed to spirit, which rise in
the air to meet Christ, and return with Him to the Mt. of Olives at Jerusalem.Hmmmmmmm. Seem like it was always being promoted (in the cogs) as
expensive new office buildings and mansions.Isa. 52:9 "..sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem; for the Lord
hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem."If He "redeems" buildings, then it must be true, what I saw graffitied
on an overpass in Arkansas, circa '50s, "JESUS SAVES"...S &H Green Stamps"Jer. 3:17 says, "At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of
the Lord:"Perhaps, aside from a chair to sit on, we are also considered His
"throne".An "inspired" (?) marginal note, [or is that, "marginally inspired
note"] from a college class, says, "He will be all over the city." I
think, at the time, I may have envisioned "Big Brother" ala' George Orwell,but
just now, I thought I saw a Budda figure, "flattening the pyramid", ...help someone
stop me..... ;-)You wrote:
>When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do you always assume that that
>someone wants to marry you, or do you not assume that you are invited as a
>guest, or possibly bridesmaid or best man?Response:
Perhaps the terms used are a reminder of individual responsibility in
the relationship, as contrasted to a "group" responsibility, which seemed
to me to be the emphasis over the years.The phrase "a personal relationship with God" still stirs up
anti-mainstream nausea for me, but beyond it's being a hackneyed slogan by
mainstreamers, it is part of the virgin parable, when "the Lord" says to
some, "I don't know you".That's why understanding the symbolism is important, IMHO. And that's
why the article was written. For those who may have assumed that the "oil"
is the H.S., read the article and then think again. :-)
Articles SiteMap Humor TopicGuides StudyGuides ContactUs Copyright M.H. and G.H. 1998. All rights reserved.
