Our Response
to Frank Nelte's article,
"The 5 Foolish Virgins of Matthew 25"
Frank Nelte posted on his website @: http://www.halcyon.com/doug/nelte/bible/5virgins.htmlThe 5 Foolish Virgins of Matthew 25
Author: Frank W. Nelte
You wrote:
In Matthew chapter 25 we find the parable of the 10 virgins, 5 of them being "wise" and the other 5 being "foolish". The 5 wise virgins represent the Philadelphian Christians prior to Christ's return. The 5 foolish virgins represent the Laodiceans at that same time.Over the years the Church of God has had many preconceived ideas about the events surrounding the return of Jesus Christ. Many assumptions have been taken for granted. This has unfortunately prevented people from understanding this section of Scripture correctly. If we want a correct understanding of this parable, then we need to read exactly what it DOES say without reading our preconceived ideas into this passage.
Our response:
We agree regarding the avoidance of preconceived ideas, however, this article doesn't seem to reflect that standard.You wrote:
Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. (Matthew 25:1)The 10 virgins represent ALL those in God's Church who are expecting the return of Jesus Christ.
Our response:
Aren't we dealing with "preconceived ideas" here? About who and what the "church" is? About "church eras"? That there's only one group considered to be "the church"?
Below, the author says, "There are two distinct and different groups here."You wrote:
Notice verse 2:
And five of them were wise, and five [were] foolish. (Matthew 25:2)This is clearly a CONTRAST. Whatever attribute the "wise" have, the "foolish" clearly lack. There are two distinct and different groups here. So let's examine the word "wise" first.
In the N.T. there are 3 different words that refer to being wise. The best-known one is "SOPHOS", which is used 22 times and always translated "wise" in the KJV. Another word is "SUNETOS", which is used 4 times in the N.T. and is always translated as "prudent". The third word is "PHRONIMOS", which is used 14 times and in the KJV is always translated as "wise". This word comes from "PHREN", which means "understanding". So "PHRONIMOS" properly means "correct perceptions, good understanding". In Matthew 25:2 this word "PHRONIMOS" is used, meaning that the 5 virgins have correct perceptions and good understanding. The 5 foolish virgins will be the opposite to this.
Our response:
We appreciate this additional proof, which we had overlooked, showing that the oil is "understanding". By "definition", the difference between the two groups is "understanding", not a lack of the Holy Spirit. This contradicts the article's conclusions. (This is contradiction # 1.)You wrote:
The word translated as "foolish" in this verse is "MOROS", an adjective. It is used 13 times in the N.T.; 7 times by Christ in the gospel of Matthew and 6 more times by the apostle Paul. Of the 4 gospel writers only Matthew records this word. And he quotes Jesus Christ as using it. Notice how Christ used this word elsewhere:But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou FOOL ("moros"), shall be in danger of hell fire. (Matthew 5:22)
This is the first time this word is used. Here Christ intended it to convey something MORE SERIOUS THAN 'RACA'! Clearly Christ meant something a lot more serious than the flippant way we today are inclined to use the word "fool". Notice also that people with this attribute are in danger of ending up in the lake of fire. The next place where Christ used this word is Matthew 7:26 ...
And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them
not, shall be likened unto a FOOLISH ("moros") man, which built
his house upon the sand: (Matthew 7:26)
Here Christ used the word to describe those who HEAR the truth of God, but don't respond to it. Would God give His Spirit to people described in this verse? Certainly not! In this verse it talks about more than just a lack of wisdom or understanding; here we have a refusal to really submit to God from the heart.Next Christ used the word twice in chapter 23 to refer to the Pharisees in verses 17 and 19 as ... "You FOOLS ("moros") and blind ...". This is also not a reference to a lack of intellectual ability on the part of the Pharisees, but a refusal on their part to really see and acknowledge the truth.
The remaining 3 uses by Christ are all in chapter 25, in verses 2, 3 and 8, in the parable we are examining.
So when we look at the 4 places where Christ used this word "moros" outside of this parable, we find that it refers to:
- people who are in danger of the lake of fire;
- people whose spiritual lives don't have a solid foundation;
- people who are blind, religious hypocrites.
To none of these three categories will God give His Holy Spirit!Our response:
-According to Paul, all people, including those with the HS, are still in danger of the lake of fire (1 Cor. 9:27).
-According to scripture, we are to "all" take heed of where we "stand", because of the risk of not having a solid foundation (1 Cor. 10:12).
-Many of us have known people who have previously demonstrated the fruits of the Holy Spirit, but who have since, shown themselves to be "blind, religious hypocrites".In the parable of the talents, He gave talents to all, even the "servant" who got only "one". But he didn't use that "one talent" and is therefore cast into "outer darkness" (Mat.25:18,30).
Having received the Holy Spirit, is no guarantee that we can not fall away, or that our spiritual lives are acceptable to Him, or that we cannot become "blind" or be "hypocritical".
The statement above implies that one would already be "righteous", "spiritually mature" and "be saved" before receiving the Holy Spirit. This is backwards from the gospel Christ delivered, saying He came to save "sinners".You wrote:
So ... which of these three meanings do you think Christ had in mind when He used the word "moros" here in Matthew chapter 25?? Where do we get the idea from that in this parable "moros" means nothing more than being "a little foolish" or "lacking a little understanding"?Our response:
As the article pointed out above, the difference, by "definition" is "understanding". (Contradiction # 1, cont.)You wrote:
Christ is telling us that these 5 "foolish" virgins are in danger of the lake of fire, they have built their spiritual lives on a foundation of sand and they are spiritually blind hypocrites ... these are the only meanings this word has in Christ's vocabulary!Our response:
Christ is not limited to scriptural vocabulary. We should not limit Him, or limit ourselves to a "theology of grammar", contributing to "strifes of words" (1 Tim.6:4).You wrote:
Christ explains further in the next verse ...They that [were] foolish took their lamps, and TOOK NO OIL WITH THEM: (Matthew 25:3)
It is absolutely dumbfounding to me how people can read this verse and then use their HUMAN REASONING to conclude: "YES, BUT ... they took 'some' oil with them in their lamps".
Our response:
Just because we don't agree, doesn't prove our beliefs are from "human reasoning" while the author's are from divine revelation. This is something we had not seen before in this author's articles. Does he now claim that all his beliefs are true and that all who disagree with him are relying on "human reasoning" or is that true only for this article?You wrote:
Jesus Christ said in plain language: "THEY TOOK NO OIL WITH THEM!"; yet people reason: "well, they MUST have had some oil ...".Our response:
Why take an empty lamp to an "expected" nighttime meeting? By tradition, the bridegroom came about midnight. Christ said he would come as "a thief in the night". If the lamp was empty, what were they planning to do with it?You wrote:
What else would you have expected Jesus Christ to say in order to get you to believe that He really meant "NO OIL"?! Would you expect something like this:"Hey, for all you dudes out there who think that I mean they had at least A TEENY WEENY BIT OF OIL hidden in their lamps, I really mean what I have said! NO OIL ... you know, zilch ... nothing ... zero ... nieto ... nix ... not even a drop! You get what I mean?"
If you don't believe that Christ meant exactly what He said in Matthew 25:3, then you have HARDENED YOUR HEART, just as Israel did "in the provocation" (Hebrews 3:8). You wouldn't provoke God, would you ... as you continue to mutter under your breath: "well, as far as I am concerned, they OBVIOUSLY MUST have had some oil in those lamps ...", mutter, mutter?!
Our response:
Insults and personal ridicule don't prove one's point.If, "I take a chain saw to the woods but do not take any gas with me.", would you suppose that I am carrying an 'empty' chain saw to the woods? What would be the purpose in carrying an 'empty' chainsaw? Would you expect that either I "know", or I "believe", that there is 'sufficient and usable' fuel in the tank to accomplish my purpose in "going to the woods"?
If, "I take a chain saw to the woods and take gas with me in my vessel.", would you understand that I am carrying a separate fuel container? Would you understand that I am prepared, in case I need more fuel to finish my task? Just because I take additional fuel in a separate vessel, would you assume that the chain saw was empty?
Would you knowingly take an empty chain saw "into the woods" expecting to "borrow" gas from another woodcutter, after you arrive there?You wrote:
Who is it that inspires you to believe that Christ meant something He didn't say (i.e. He meant they had some oil even though He didn't say so) and He didn't mean what He did say (i.e. He did say they took no oil with them but He meant that they did in fact take some oil)? If that is the twisted reasoning you believe, then you are just as blind as the Pharisees were.Our response:
Once again, insults don't prove one's point and neither does implying "inspiration" from a wrong source.You wrote:
GOD MEANS WHAT HE SAYS!In the Greek of the N.T. there are two main words used for negation:
- the word "ou" denies ABSOLUTELY, CATEGORICALLY, DIRECTLY and
OBJECTIVELY;
- the word "me" denies INDIRECTLY, HYPOTHETICALLY, SUBJECTIVELY,
ACCORDING TO SOMEONE'S OPINION OR PREFERENCE.Christ used the word "ou" when He said "they took NO oil with them" ... absolutely and categorically! You can check Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament for an exposition of these two Greek words of negation. You will find a synopsis of this dictionary in the computer ONLINE BIBLE version 6 as well.
In verse 2 Christ was making a contrast! The contrast is not that 5 virgins take a lot of oil and the other 5 only take a little oil. The contrast, if you are prepared to believe Jesus Christ,. . .
Our response:
This equates the author's understanding (that "oil is the HS"), with Christ saying "the oil is the HS", but Christ nowhere says that. In fact, it's not found anywhere in scripture. The analogy used for the Holy Spirit (the "spirit of life") is "water" (Jn. 7:37-39, Jn. 4:10,14, Rev.22:1,17).You wrote:
. . . is that 5 took some oil and the other 5 didn't take any oil. That's what Christ explains in verses 3-4. The wise therefore have "correct perceptions and good understanding". The foolish are the opposite to this ... their perceptions are incorrect and they have no understanding.
Our response:
Yes. The difference, the "lack of sufficient quantity and quality of oil" is referring to "understanding". This true statement contradicts the article's conclusions. (Contradiction #1 cont.)You wrote:
Therefore they are spiritually blind, they have built on sand and they are in danger of the lake of fire.Our response:
The article says the foolish are "in the church" and "they have no understanding". How many "brethren" have you met "in the church" who had absolutely "no understanding"?
Even if there was someone present with "no understanding", he would, by definition, not be "in the church". (Contradiction #2)You wrote:
NO ONE WHO HAS ANY "OIL" (IN ANY AMOUNT!) IS IN DANGER OF THE LAKE OF FIRE!Our response:
Paul said he was still at risk(1 Cor. 9:27; 1 Cor.10:12).
Those saved include: "He who endures to the end", not "he who endures until he receives the Holy Spirit"!!!
This amounts to "once saved, always saved".You wrote:
You either "have" some oil or you don't ... there is no such thing as just having "too little oil"!Let's continue with verse 4 ...
But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. (Matthew 25:4)
Here we have the contrast. The wise took something with them ... they took "vessels" in which to carry the oil! For the foolish in verse 3 no vessels are mentioned ... THE ONLY THING MENTIONED IS THAT THEY HAD A LAMP!
Our response:
Elsewhere, the article says the virgins are the "vessels". Here it says, the wise have "vessels" but the foolish apparently don't. Either the "vessels" are separate containers, or not, but we can't have it both ways in the same argument, just for the convenience of our personal opinion. (Contradiction #3.)You wrote:
Now understand the symbolism very carefully:A) "the oil" represents the Holy Spirit;
B) "the lamp" represents the Word of God (incl. the LAW of God);
C) "the vessel" represents "the person", the true believer.Note! "The lamp" NEVER represents the person of the true believer! And "the vessel" NEVER represents the Word of God! Can you understand this?
Our response:
Now the article says the "vessel" is only the "true believer". (Contradiction #3 cont.)
If the foolish don't have any HS, what are they doing with the others? Why are they there while the rest of the "world" isn't? Why aren't they with the rest of the "world"?You wrote:
Now where does the Holy Spirit reside ... in the Word of God?? ... or in the person of the believer?? Can you not see that it is IMPOSSIBLE to carry the Holy Spirit within the Word of God (within "the lamp"); that the Holy Spirit MUST reside within the person of the believer (within "the vessel")?Our response:
So how does one, at midnight, take the Holy Spirit out of one's self and put it into the "lamp", the "word of God", at that time? The parable breaks down when we try to force our "preconceived ideas" into it. (Contradiction #4. Here the "oil" cannot occupy the Bible (lamp). Below, the articles says, it is "poured into" the lamp (Bible).)You wrote:
Do you still need "milk" or are you ready for "strong meat"? (Hebrews 5:12)Our response:
For the third time, insults do not prove one's point. Repeated insults do not indicate love.You wrote:
God's Spirit must come into the true believer, the "vessel" of the Holy Spirit. He, in turn, then has to USE the Holy Spirit to put God's laws, as revealed in the Bible, into living practice in his life; he has to pour some oil from his vessel into the lamp to make it work!Our response:
Above, the article says, the Holy Spirit doesn't "reside" in the "word". But here, it's saying it can "occupy" (be poured into) the word (Bible). (Contradiction #4 cont.)
The analogy breaks down quickly, when we try to force "preconceived ideas" into the text.
[The need to have the Holy Spirit to understand the Bible is a separate subject unless one insists on holding onto the "preconceived idea" of the oil representing the Holy Spirit.]You wrote:
The law only has meaning in the presence of individual beings ... in the absence of any "vessels" there is no purpose to any oil within the lamp. Of itself the law of God doesn't contain any "oil"; the law is merely a statement of the rules of conduct between different individual beings. It is THE ACTIONS of these individual beings that give life or light to the law!Our response:
This appears quite contradictory to scripture.
God exists. His law is his nature. It existed before man, because He existed before man. The Spirit is His Spirit. One cannot separate His law from His Spirit, unless one can "dissect" God. How would one "dissect" a being who describes himself in the form of an active verb, "I am"?These statements say that there "is no purpose" to God's Holy Spirit, without mankind. If He destroyed us all, would His Spirit no longer exist?
These statements say that "the law of God doesn't contain any Holy Spirit". Perhaps the author considers the "law" as nothing more than symbols on a page. If we realize that His law is His nature, and His Spirit is His Power, then they are inseparable.
These statements also say that our "ACTIONS"...give...light to the law". However, scripture says "thy word is a lamp unto my feet" (Psa.119:105). Sounds like the author has it backwards.
Having read other, more acceptable articles by the author, we expect the problem here is primarily one of "forcing" this parable to conform to the "preconceived idea" that the oil is the Holy Spirit.
You wrote:
How can you believe that the "oil" resides in the law of God? And EVEN IF there was some "oil" in the law of God (in "the lamp"), how can you possibly equate "the lamp" with "the person of the believer"?Our response:
These are statements of mis-direction. We have not heard anyone propose that the oil is in the law. But if the author believes that the oil is the Holy Spirit and that the HS is God's spirit residing in us, then his own argument indicates that we are the lamps. But he argues elsewhere that we are just "vessels", temporary storage containers that do not use the oil to produce light.You wrote:
Christ used THREE symbols here ... oil, lamp and vessel; and these three are NOT interchangeable.Our response:
We count numerous symbols here: lamp, oil, vessels, wise virgins, foolish virgins, bridegroom, darkness, marriage, being locked out, sellers of "oil", buying and selling of "oil",the "cry", midnight, being "asleep", preparing to "wait", being part of the wedding party, going "out", the answer of the "wise" to the "foolish", watching, the door being shut, the foolish being "unknown" to the groom, plus the "statements" of all those involved. We discuss all of these in our article.
None of these need to be "interchangeable".
However his article, by contradiction #3, interchanges the vessels and the wise virgins. Also, by contradiction #2, the article says that the Laodiceans and "the world" are interchangeable, as neither possess the Holy Spirit.You wrote:
"The vessel" represents the person, not "the lamp".Our response:
But earlier, the author said:
The wise took something with them ... they took "vessels" in which to carry the oil!
(Contradiction #3 cont.)If the "wise" took something "with" them, and that "something" was their own bodies, then how did the "foolish" not take their bodies with them? Again, the parable breaks down when "forced" to conform to "preconceived ideas". (Contradiction #3 cont.)
In the parable, the "vessels" are separate from the "virgins". This fact reflects the culture of that time period.
"When such lamps were being carried about it was customary in NT times for the bearer to attach a small container of olive oil to one finger by means of a string. Then if the lamp needed to be replenished at any time an adequate supply of oil was readily available (cf. Mt. 25:1-13)." (Source: The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Vol.2, "Oil", pp.1110-1111, Inter-Varsity Press, England, 1980. Bibliography included.)
You wrote:
Therefore "oil within the lamp" cannot represent "Holy Spirit within the person".Our response:
We agree completely. But this contradicts the article's conclusions. (Contradiction #5)You wrote:
Yet you are still locked into your totally unsubstantiated opinions, right?Our response:
Why the accusations and repeated insults?
Anyway, we are not the ones who brought "preconceived ideas" to this discussion. :-)
Since the understanding that the "oil" is "understanding", is new to us, we are not the ones facing the "unlearning" here.You wrote:
You are a living example of what Mr. Armstrong said many times: "It is many times more difficult to unlearn error than it is to learn the truth in the first place." So, can you learn to read Matthew 25 without reading your own ideas into Christ's words? That's a tall order, isn't it? Specially since you probably STILL have a gut-feeling that your own understanding must somehow be correct after all.Our response:
Not everyone attempts to convert or educate people by continually insulting them or by arrogant condescension.
Since this article is on the author's website, it appears that he is determined to ridicule, insult and attack every reader who doesn't agree with him.You wrote:
It is precisely because they did not have the Holy Spirit within their bodies, that "no vessels" are mentioned with the 5 foolish virgins. The "vessels" were there alright, but there wasn't anything in them ... so there was no point mentioning them.Our response:
Earlier, the author implied that the foolish didn't have "vessels", saying:"Here we have the contrast. The wise took something with them ... they took "vessels" in which to carry the oil! For the foolish in verse 3 no vessels are mentioned ... THE ONLY THING MENTIONED IS THAT THEY HAD A LAMP!"
This is contradiction # 5.
You wrote:
The "vessels" were there alright, but there wasn't anything in them ... so there was no point mentioning them.Our response:
LOL (laughing out loud) Then why did Christ mention the foolish at all? If the only distinction here is the basic difference between the "called" and the rest of the world, why bother. Did anyone think the whole world was invited or even wanted to go to the place of safety? Do those without the Holy Spirit even want to be in the same weekly fellowship as the "called"? How many in your fellowship, do not have the Holy Spirit? Why are you fellowshipping with them? Why are they fellowshipping with you?You wrote:
Continue the analogy: all 10 of them went out to meet the "Bridegroom" during the day. During the day you don't burn a lamp!Our response:
I wouldn't. But then, not all cultures are the same.
"In ancient times, as at the present day, it was customary to keep the household lamp continually alight, hence the figure in 1K 11:36, 2K.8:19; conversely, the putting out of the lamp of the wicked (Job 18:6, Pro. 13:9) denotes their utter extinction." (Source: Dictionary of the Bible, Ed. by Hastings, 1909, "Lamp", pp. 527-528.)The parable doesn't say that they arose to "light" their lamps as one would "light a candle" (Mat.15:5). When wicks burn for a long time, they must be "trimmed", cut off, so they don't smoke. That's why, while they "all" are "trimming" their lamps, the foolish are discovering that their lamps are "going out".
You wrote:
You save the oil until it gets dark! There is no point burning away all the oil during the daylight hours! You don't do that even if you DO have a lot of oil! In many cases "the lamp" was a type of dish. The reason you carried the oil in a "vessel" was because if you carried it in the lamp-dish for any period of time, you were likely to spill it and thereby waste the oil.Our response:
The "open" lamp-dish was used from the Middle Bronze Age (2200- B.A.) until the Persian period (587-330 B.A.). Beginning in the Hellenistic Period, lamps for light are "closed" in the classic "genie" style.
"According to Bliss (BMExe. 130), 'by Seleucidan times [327 B.A.] the open lamp appears largely to have given way to the closed lamp.' (a) The earlier specimens of this type consist of a circular bowl closed at the top, with the exception of a round opening for pouring in the oil, with a flat or concave base." (Sources: Dictionary of the Bible, Op. Cit., p. 528; Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Op. Cit., Vol.3, "potter, pottery", pp.1248-1254; Vol. 1, "archaeology", pp.93-102.)
The "closed top" lamp was in use for over 300 years prior to the time of Christ.You wrote:
So during the daylight hours there was no discernible difference between the wise and the foolish virgins ... both groups had "lamps" in their hands, both groups themselves individually represented the "vessels".Our response:
But elsewhere, he says only the "true believer" are "vessels". Contradiction # 6.You wrote:
Outwardly they looked similar. They had similar actions in their lives. But only the one group had the necessary ingredient to make the lamp "work".Our response:
Again, why carry a lamp around in the daytime, unless you plan on being out after dark??? Why carry an empty lamp, to an expected nighttime meeting???
In the Jewish culture of the First Century AD, an additional "vessel" was used to carry oil for the lamp.You wrote:
When it got dark, they were all tired and went to sleep (verse 5). That's the Church of God today! We are at that precise time right now!Our response:
We see much evidence by people's actions, that many are now awake, some are just beginning to awake, and others sleep on, mumbling "preconceived ideas" to themselves as they dream of WCG days gone by.You wrote:
Then comes verse 6 ...And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom
cometh; GO YE OUT TO MEET HIM. (Matthew 25:6)What do you mean ... "GO OUT to meet Him"? WHERE are they supposed to go? This isn't talking about meeting Christ in the clouds. This is speaking about going to the "place of safety".
Our response:
Again, "preconceived ideas"?
You wrote:
As it turns out, only 5 of them go there.Now comes verse 7 ...
Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.
(Matthew 25:7)Now ALL 10 OF THEM do something. What do they do? They "trimmed" their lamps. That translation is based on the customs that prevailed in England in 1611 AD when this was translated. The Greek word for "trimmed' is "ekosmêsan", the Aorist Active Indicative of "kosmeô" (from which we get the word "cosmetic"). This word "kosmeô" means: put in order, made ready, arranged.
Our response:
Exactly how much "arranging" or "making ready" does an empty lamp require??? Especially when, according to the author, they already knew their lamps were empty???Earlier, the author said:
"... he has to pour some oil from his vessel into the lamp to make it work!"Then the author said that only the wise virgins are the "vessels".
This scripture was not written in 1611, it was translated into English in 1611. These words were not added by the translators.
Wycliffe translated this from Greek and Latin in the 900's AD long before the "lamps" used in the 1600's. In England of the 1600's, the primary lighting was candles.
The scripture says they "all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps". Seems some insist on "what the verse says" only when it's convenient for their argument.
Why would the foolish trim "empty" lamps??? Why would they even try???You wrote:
The lights had all been out while they all slept. "Sleeping beauties" don't provide much light!So what did they do when they "put in order and made ready" their lamps?
Why, they poured fresh oil into the dish of the lamp, trimmed the wick and
lit it. Quite simple isn't it. The foolish ASSUMED there was oil in their
lamps. IT IS WHEN THEY TRY TO LIGHT THEIR LAMPS THAT THEY DISCOVER >THEIR LACK OF OIL!Our response:
The scripture makes no distinction between two groups in regard to "put in order and make ready", it says "all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps".
Earlier, the author said :
" ...he has to pour some oil from his vessel into the lamp to make it work!"Since "all arose", what were the foolish doing while the wise were pouring oil??
Earlier the author wrote:
In many cases "the lamp" was a type of dish. The reason you carried the oil in a "vessel" was because if you carried it in the lamp-dish for any period of time, you were likely to spill it and thereby waste the oil.Our response:
The parable says that five are foolish, but it doesn't say they are retarded. If they were smart enough not to carry "open dishes" (according to the author) of oil in the daytime, why were they stupid enough to attempt to light an empty lamp???You wrote:
That is when the lamps of the wise virgins light up ... precisely because they have added some oil out of their vessels to the lamps. And that is when the lamps of the foolish virgins refuse to light up because there is only a wick but no oil.Response:
The foolish could be called "half-wicks". ;-)You wrote:
It is only when it is time to go to the place of safety that the foolish virgins recognize that they are missing something.Our response:
Earlier, the author said they were purposely carrying empty "dish" lamps, so as to not spill the oil. Now they "suddenly discover, lo and behold, the open dish is empty"!? Contradiction # 7.You wrote:
So then they try to get what they lack ...And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for OUR
LAMPS ARE GONE OUT. (Matthew 25:8)THIS IS IT! THIS IS THE VERSE AROUND WHICH WE HAVE BUILT OUR WHOLE
PREVIOUS EXPLANATION!The key, supposedly, is that the verb "can also be translated as 'going out' (as the KJV margin implies)", thereby allowing the explanation that some oil MUST have been there to start with. That all sounds very nice, but that's not how it goes!
The Greek verb used here is "sbennuntai", the Present Passive Indicative of "sbennumi", which means: to quench, to extinguish, to put out. The Indicative mood presents a simple statement of fact. The Present tense does the same thing ... present a simple statement of fact. It is the present tense, not the continuous present.
In plain English, the foolish virgins are saying: "... our lamps ARE EXTINGUISHED, ARE PUT OUT, ARE QUENCHED" ... and the indicative mood means this statement is a fact! They do not say or imply:
"Would you believe it, girls, but our oil has lasted RIGHT UP TO THIS MOMENT and it is RIGHT NOW starting to flicker like it wants to go out. If only the bridegroom had come 30 minutes earlier, everything would have been hunky-dory. As it is, can't you girls just give us just a little bit of your oil?"
Our response:
So just how does something unlit (since it's empty), get "extinguished" or "put out", or "quenched"???
The foolish do not say, "our lamps are empty".You wrote:
If the bridegroom had come two hours earlier or if He comes two hours later; they are still in exactly the same predicament. They have NO OIL because they didn't have any in their vessels to start with.
The reason they NOW notice their deficiency is because they try to light the wick ... but without any oil in the dish the flame doesn't really "take".Earlier, the author wrote:
"In many cases "the lamp" was a type of dish."Our response:
The author doesn't know or doesn't bother to explain about the other "cases" in which the lamp was not a "type of dish", for instance if someone were to "go" somewhere, which type of lamp would they take, a candle or a flashlight? Both give light, but one is designed for portability while the other isn't.
The author is "suggesting" that they took "dish" lamps because that type would more likely be carried empty in the daytime. Why would someone expecting a "midnight cry" prepare by taking an "inside" type of lamp. As we explained above, the open-dish lamp was a 300 years-old antique by the time of Christ.The author said above:
"...they NOW notice their deficiency..."Our response:
Earlier, the lamp was carried empty on purpose, but now it's a revelation, a sudden realization, that they have a lack of oil. The sudden discovery, only makes sense, if the container was closed, and if it was expected to have had oil in it. Contradiction # 8.
You wrote:
The wise virgins are doing exactly the same thing, lighting their wicks. And because they have oil, therefore their lamps "take".Understand another symbolism: there is absolutely NO WAY that we can let our lights shine when we "slumber" and "sleep". There is no way that the virgins "sleep", but their lamps burn on brightly! It is impossible to have good works while we slumber and sleep. When they awake out of their sleep, all 10 of them have to light their lamps, but only the 5 wise can do so.
So now the wise virgins, preparing to go to the place of safety, reply ...
Our response:
The parable says "marriage" not "place of safety".You wrote:
But the wise answered, saying, [Not so]; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. (Matthew 25:9)The wise virgins KNOW how and where they got their oil.
Our response:
Yes, and we discuss this at length in our article regarding the ten virgins on our website.You wrote:
And this they explain to the foolish virgins; that there is a way to get oil. The advice is the same as that which Christ gives to the Laodiceans ...I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and [that] the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. (Revelation 3:18) It is: GO AND BUY!
Revelation chapter 3 makes clear that this "buying" has to be from God. It is only God who has "the oil" to give.
Our response:
In effect, the author is saying that the wise are "telling" the foolish to "Go into the tribulation!"
But the foolish don't go out to seek the "tribulation", but to seek "sellers" of oil. Now who seeks to "buy and sell" the Holy Spirit???
Perhaps they were going out to buy tickets for the tribulation? (sic)
You wrote:
Now comes verse 10 ...And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. (Matthew 25:10)
There are several things we should notice in this verse. Firstly, notice that they do take this advice! They make an effort to really "go and buy". THAT IS GOOD!
Our response:
We notice:
1)They go to the wrong place to "buy". How is that "good"?
2)They buy some "oil", even though no one is "selling" the Holy Spirit" How is their buying possible, much less "good"?
3)They do "buy" some "oil", but if "oil" is the HS, they why aren't they admitted at the door? They are shut out. How is that "good"?You wrote:
The wise virgins "go into some place" and then "the door is shut", cutting
off access to "this place".In our English translation the verbs are all presented in the past tense. But in the Greek text the past tense is not used for these verbs. Notice ...
- "came" is "êlthen", the Second Aorist Active Indicative;
- "went in" is "eisêlthon", also 2nd Aorist Active Indicative;
- "was shut" is "ekleisthê", the Aorist Passive Indicative.Notice that all 3 of these verbs are in the Aorist tense (Aorist and Second Aorist are identical in meaning). I have explained this tense in great detail in my 29-page paper "ARE YOU ALREADY SAVED?". Briefly, we have no equivalent for this tense in English. In biblical Greek this tense considers the concept of the verb without regard for past, present or future time. In the N.T. the two Aorist tenses are used 12043 times, representing over 41% of all verb occurrences in the Greek text. Many hundreds of these are translated into the English text as either present
tense or as future tense. It is always THE CONTEXT in which the Aorist tense is used that leads English translators to decide whether to use the past or the present or the future tense.By using the Aorist tense in this verse, Jesus Christ was emphasising WHAT is going to happen without regard to WHEN it would happen, something we cannot really express in the same way in English. Christ was emphasising that He (the Bridegroom) is going to come, that some people will be ready to enter in with Him and that a door is going to be shut. The exact timing for these events Christ chose not to highlight.
Our response:
Sounds like the author just expressed it "in English". It also sounds like what we read in the KJV, without benefit of the Greek conjugation. We are grateful to learn that the Greek conjugation does confirm what we understood the English to say.If "Christ chose not to highlight it", then it is apparently not critical for our understanding. In any case, he said "the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth" (Jn. 16:13).
You wrote:
Now there is "no door" that is going to be shut when we speak about the actual marriage supper that will take place at Christ's return. And there [c]ertainly will not be anyone who could "knock" on such a door. That event will be attended by EVERY spirit being on Earth (except for Satan and the demons,who will be bound by then). That event (the marriage supper) will be on the spirit level. Who knows whether it will even be visible to human eyes since it will be spirit beings celebrating? We can only speculate.Our response:
The "preconceived ideas" here include: 1)the Laodiceans are shut out of the "place of safety" in Mat. 25; 2) the marriage supper of Rev. 19 is after the Tribulation; 3) that Mat. 25 does not relate to Rev. 19; and 4)that the "marriage" gathering of Mat. 25 is not the same as the "marriage supper" of Rev. 19.
We are not disagreeing with #1 or #2, but we are still looking at #3 and #4 since they share so many elements, e.g. an absence of light, the bridegroom, merchants (seller's of oil), and deception (foolishness), as shown in Rev.18:23 which immediately precedes chapter 19.We are not all called at the same time, converted at the same time, recipients of the HS at the same time, resurrected at the same time, or changed at the same time. On what basis do we believe that the marriage supper is a one-time-event-for-all?
Just wondering.You wrote:
The door being shut after the wise virgins have entered, is a reference to access to the place of safety being sealed off from anyone else. It will be shut because others would really LIKE to be there for protection. Perhaps there is some significance in that here it says that those who are ready go in with Him "to the MARRIAGE" (no "SUPPER" is mentioned here); where in Revelation 19:9 it says:And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed [are] they which are called
UNTO THE MARRIAGE SUPPER OF THE LAMB. And he saith unto me, These
are the true sayings of God. (Revelation 19:9)Anyway, let's look at the next verse ...
Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to
us. (Matthew 25:11)It is interesting to note that there is an "AFTERWARDS"! This cannot be "after the marriage SUPPER". By then all the Laodiceans will have died in the tribulation.
Our response:
Where does it say all Laodiceans "die" in the Tribulation??? Death doesn't "buy" salvation, so what are they "buying" by being alive in the Tribulation? If death doesn't "buy" you anything, why would it be necessary for them to all die then? If they "all" die, then who comes "out" of the tribulation?You wrote:
And if they had indeed gone and bought oil, then they would have died in the faith; and therefore they should really end up at the marriage SUPPER after all,Earlier, you wrote:
"that this "remnant" are the foolish virgins who went and bought oil and from then on "keep the commandments of God" (i.e. there is now OIL in their lamps)"Below you wrote:
" it seems to imply that they have found some oil"Our response:
So either they "did buy oil", or they "did not buy oil", or "perhaps they bought oil", but we can't use all three, just to prove an argument.
According to the parable, they did buy oil. According to the parable, they were at the door, wanting in. But the bridegroom refuses them entrance.You wrote:
as Christ said to Laodicea ...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. (Revelation 3:20)In this verse we also have a reference to a "door" before entering into
the marriage supper ... but in this case it is Christ who is knocking.When the "other" virgins come (verse 11 does not use the word "foolish"),
it seems to imply that they have found some oil.Our response:
Yes. If they could have gone to the bridegroom without the oil, they wouldn't have gone to "buy". If they hadn't bought any, they still couldn't have gone to meet the bridegroom. The fact that they have found the "door", shows that they bought something.
Since they now have "some oil" and if the oil were the Holy Spirit, how can Christ say "I don't know you". Below, the article says they do have "oil", or "the Holy Spirit". (Contradiction #6.)You wrote:
They are still called "virgins". If they have acquired some oil, then they will not be turned away from salvation.Our response:
But they do have oil, and they are being turned away.You wrote:
There is no way that God will refuse salvation to anyone to whom He grants His Holy Spirit.Our response:
The parable indicates that they did, indeed, go "buy" their "oil" from "those that sell" (plural, so it's not God). Is it possible to "buy" the Holy Spirit??? Scripture says it's a "gift".
Paul said he was "still" at risk. The parable of the talents indicates that you can end up in "outer darkness".
In effect, the author is saying, "once saved, always saved."You wrote:
However, what God would withhold from some is physical protection at the place of safety, because their repentance was too late to be taken to that protection. Therefore they would be a part of "the remnant" of those who were granted that protection.And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with
THE REMNANT OF HER SEED, which keep the commandments of God, and
have the testimony of Jesus Christ. (Revelation 12:17)The "remnant" pictured here in Rev. 12:17 has God's Spirit, yet they are
not granted that physical protection at the place of safety.Our response:
Earlier, the article said they didn't have the Holy Spirit.
(Contradiction #6 cont.)You wrote:
It seems to meWe note:
Opinion alert!!!! The following is the author's personal opinion.You wrote:
that this "remnant" are the foolish virgins who went and bought oil and from then on "keep the commandments of God" (i.e. there is now OIL in their lamps)Our response:
Here the author agrees that the foolish did "buy" oil. Why, if they now have the Holy Spirit, did Christ shut them out? And, from whom did they "buy" the Holy Spirit?
(Contradiction #6 cont.)You wrote:
and they have the testimony of Jesus Christ.In this sense Matthew 25:12 says ...
But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.
(Matthew 25:12)As far as access to the place of safety is concerned, Christ says: "I
don't know you". He does not say: "I NEVER knew you", nor does He say:
"DEPART FROM ME, YOU THAT WORK LAWLESSNESS" ...And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from
me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:23)
Matthew 7:23 is a different and stronger rebuke than in Matthew 25:12. Doing evil (i.e. working iniquity) is not really the issue in Matthew 25. Matthew 25:12 isn't really a rebuke.Our response:
Earlier, the author explained the difference between two Greek words, both meaning "no", asking in effect, "What part of "NO oil" don't you understand?"Now, he makes a distinction between "I don't know you." and "I don't know you." by reading the following into the text:
It is really more a matter of: "You also want to get into the place of safety? Well, who are you? I don't know you. You waited too long to come to real repentance to be granted such protection. Since you didn't really commit yourself to Me and My way earlier, you now have to prove yourself under extremely difficult conditions. If you hold fast under such conditions, then I will also come to know you."So much for this parable of the 10 virgins. Some things are still debatable, I suppose. But the one point that should be clear by now is that up to the separation from the Philadelphians, the Laodiceans don't really have any oil!
Our response:
Another "Preconceived idea": That there are only two "groups" or "eras" in existence now, or at the end. The fact is, the group which some have called "Sardis" is still alive and doing a work and keeping the Holy days. The fact is there are attitudes existing among sabbathkeepers today, reflecting all of the seven churches.You wrote:
If they did have some oil, then Christ would not have told them to go and buy some oil.Our response:
Christ doesn't tell them to "go and buy". The "wise" tell them.You wrote:
They could have said: "But we've still got a bit left."
Our response:
If they had no oil, their lamps would not have been "extinguished" as the article explained above. Their lamps would never have been lit to begin with.You wrote:
They could also have said: "We know where to get oil, since we have bought some before, which is now running out. It's just that we haven't shopped for any oil LATELY."Our response:
When the wise told them to "go, and buy", they didn't have to ask "who?" or "where" and as their trip was successful,(returning with oil), they already knew "who and where".You wrote:
Realize this: as long as there is oil in a lamp, it is going to burn. Even when there is only VERY LITTLE oil, it is still going to burn! When the flame goes out, it is because there is NO OIL left, not because there is only a very little oil! The idea of "going out" would only apply if there is nothing to burn but the wick only.Our response:
Earlier, the article said they carried the lamps empty, on purpose, and unlit in the daytime. Now it says the lamps are unlit, because they never contained any oil. (Contradiction #7)According to the first argument, the foolish purposely didn't have the HS in themselves, so that they wouldn't "spill" it. Apparently the wise were willing to risk "spilling" it. This causes a breakdown in the parable, by forcing the meaning.
According to the argument, the foolish ask the wise to "share" the Holy Spirit with them. Yet it makes more sense to ask them to share their "understanding".
According to the argument, the wise tell the foolish to go "buy the Holy Spirit", "from those that sell" (the Holy Spirit). Yet it makes more sense to tell them to go "buy" doctrinal understanding from those who "make merchandise" of brethren, by "selling" tapes and literature in exchange for tithes and offerings.
You wrote:
In this parable all 10 virgins went out during the day time. They all took unlit lamps with them, which they intended to light when darkness arrived.Our response:
If they carried the lamps empty, on purpose, where did the foolish expect to get oil, since only the wise had vessels, or "were vessels"? (Contradiction #3 cont.)You wrote:
But only 5 of them took a supply of oil in their vessels. The other 5 virgins were "empty vessels". This only becomes apparent when all 10 of them prepare to light their lamps.The description of the Laodiceans in Revelation 3:17-18 is as clear a description of an unrepentant and unconverted group of people as you can expect to find anywhere in the Bible.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have
need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and
miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou
mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed,
and [that] the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint
thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. (Rev. 3)Our response:
Yet they are the Laodicean "church", as opposed to the rest of the "world". The difference is that they have the Holy Spirit. If that weren't the case, then the Laodiceans would include all the rest of the world.
They have an "angel" Rev. 3:14.
They are not "cold", verse 15.
He talks to them about "overcoming", verse 21. (Just as he mentions it to the other six "churches" 3:12, 3:5, 2:26, 2:17, 2:11, 2:7.You wrote:
People who don't see the true self, have not come to a real repentance.Our response:
That's the lesson of Job.You wrote:
The problem is not what they ARE! The real problem is what they DON'T KNOW and what they DON'T SEE! That, more than anything else, reveals their lack of real repentance.Another clue that this group does not have God's Spirit at the time from which this group is viewed is this:
Of all 7 eras this is the only one that has NOTHING GOOD mentioned ... not even a whisper or hint of some good points. Now when people have God's Spirit, there is always at least SOMETHING good about them ... otherwise God's Spirit would simply not reside in them. All 6 of the other eras have at least something good and positive mentioned ... even for Sardis there is the one ray of light with ... "Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. (Revelation 3:4)
But nothing good appears in the message to Laodicea. The reason is: when people don't have God's Spirit, then there simply is nothing good that God can find in them.
Our response:
"Nothing good"? Look at Rev. 3:15, "I know thy works, that thou are neither cold..."If they were "cold", they would be included with the rest of the "world". God acknowledges their "works". Those "works" separate them from the rest of the "world". They are a "church" that is producing "works". Otherwise, there is no point to this seventh group. Without the HS, they would have no "works".
Rev. 3:15 "...thou art (not) hot." Why would God expect anyone without the Holy Spirit be hot? How could anyone be "hot" without the Holy Spirit???
Verse 17 shows that they "think" they're "hot". Just as the foolish virgins think they're equal in every way with the wise. Yet the "world" doesn't think itself "equal" with us, they think they're far above us.You wrote:
It should also be clear that Revelation 12:17 views the same group of people as Revelation 3:15-18, but at a somewhat later point in time. If you want to tie Matthew 25 in with these accounts in Revelation, then Matt. 25:1- 9 refers to the timing of Rev. 3:15-18; and Matt. 25:11 ties in with Rev. 12:17.Frank W. Nelte
Our response:
Mat. 25:12 says "I know you not" while Rev. 3:15 says, "I know thy works".
The Laodiceans are told in effect, "I know your works, come back later.", while the foolish virgins are told in effect, "I don't know you at all." The foolish virgins are not invited back later.Mel Horne
1999
Articles SiteMap Humor TopicGuides StudyGuides ContactUs Copyright M.H. and G.H. 1999. All rights reserved.