Wise and Foolish Virgins

To understand the parable of the 10 virgins, one would have to understand the marriage customs of the Bible times.

The host of the wedding, either the groom or his father, provided all that was needed.

The father of the groom provided a dowry to the father of the bride to show his son could provide for the bride financially.

The groom had to build a house for living quarters before the marriage would take place.

The father of the groom or the groom provided all necessities to be associated with the wedding, including: Wedding Garments, food and drink, torches... whatever was to be used in the wedding
was paid for by the father of the groom or the groom himself.

 

You might want to recheck the verse here. I know you don't really seem to care about what the Scriptures actually say, but others are, and you might want to check the verb to correct the error of your thinking. "Arrayed" or "clothed" is an aorist, middle, subjunctive verb. The subject is doing the action that affects the subject, and it's an event, and it may or may not happen.

So, to her it was granted that she may array herself in in fine linen.

Then, the fine linen is the righteousness of the saints. It doesn't say, the righteousness of "Christ".

 

You are correct that the point of the story is that they were unable to enter the bridegroom's house.

Once you realize they had to have had some oil in order for their lamps to be going out, then you are prepared to discuss what it means to be unable to enter the bridegroom's house.

If you think that means unsaved, then salvation (or lack thereof) is based on works, and in this case, they had it and then lost it. Unless, you're one of those who think they were only "a little saved", but it didn't quite take ahold. (I have encountered this viewpoint in the Baptist church.)

If they show the saved versus the unsaved, then the parables are basing spiritual salvation upon works, or the Jesus was not competent enough to frame parables in such a way that works were not involved.

Or, they are about something other than the saved versus the unsaved.

 

It seems that you have quoted a definition from Strong's and not even looked at the word itself.

Let's take a look at the word, shall we?

δικαιωματα

This word can be nominative or accusative, but, guess what?

It's plural.

Period.

No matter how much you wish it weren't, to make it fit your tradition, it's plural.

This holds true in both the TR and the NA.

The only way that you could not see a plural there is by choice.

 

I thought Christ was the righteousness of the saints. You have righteousness that is not from him?

 

Can you perish if you don't have life?

Do you, Linda, believe that spiritual salvation is secure or can be lost?

 

So, was Adam's bride his entire body?

Was Isaac's bride his entire family?

 

Isaiah 64:4 tells us our righteousness is as filthy rags. Why would the Lord want us to put on filthy rags to be presented to Him?

It has been pointed out that the man who did not put on wedding garments was bound hand and foot and cast into outer darkness. You can choose to present yourself to Christ in your own righteousness, I will trust His righteousness alone.

 

When one makes claims to the effect that we must be clothed in not only Christ's righteousness, but also the righteousness of the saints, one is saying Christ's blood is not all sufficient.

That one is showing that they have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof.

 

No more than this one:

 

Ah, they must be filthy rags made from the best fine linen... :laugh: :thumbs:

 

You're the one who keeps wanting to apply this to spiritual salvation, yet the man "camest in hither". He's in there. I guess that Jesus just couldn't come up with a good analogy again, huh?

I use this analogy quite a bit, except that when you're pointing the finger, you're trying to get someone to examine themselves. The three pointing back mean that you need to examine yourself, as well.

It doesn't mean that you don't need to point at the homosexual, who is sinning; it means to make sure that you're not committing some great sin, or to make sure you're not condoning homosexuality in some latent way, or something else.

It doesn't mean that you don't need to point.

John the baptizer pointed his finger and lost his head because of it. Jesus pointed at false teachers quite regularly, and they crucified him for it. Should they have not pointed?

 

It's not really two states, per se, but it is talking about two different events: Salvation and the Kingdom rule.

One involves works, the other involves the finished and perfect work of Jesus on the cross.

 

Let me ask you a question: "Righteousness" is plural; if it's talking about Christ, why would it be plural? Is there more than one Christ?

Most translators, since it is plural, interpret it as "righteous acts", but some translators interpret it as "righteous awards".

If it's talking about Christ, why is it plural?

 

J.Jump... i am surprised at you now. you just contradicted your whole argument right there.

from that statement there i can then say that "the only people that can not even be prepared are unsaved individuals."

in you saying what you said in the above quote. you put yourself in the position that the foolish were unprepared. which i believe you have stated that the foolish were unprepared.

but also in saying what you said in the above quote. you insinuate that the unprepared are unsaved. which alludes to the notion of "the foolish virgins were unsaved because they were unprepared."
---

im surprised no one else picked that up. or i just missed someone's repsonse to it.
---

so which is it J.Jump?
----

SFIC said earlier as well something like "for us to understand the meaning of the parable of the ten virgins we need to understand jewish marriage customs" or something to that effect.

i agree. to a degree.

there is one thing we must all understand before we could even start to try and understand any other parable. let me quote a bit of scripture here.

"And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?"

Jesus speaking there to the disciples saying that if they did not know the meaning of this particular parable how would they know the meanings of all parables?

now this is why i keep refering back to this particular area of scripture - to this parable. because we need to understand its meaning before we can understand any of the other parables.

listen to the next verse.

"The sower soweth the word."

Mark 4.

 

really. do you have proof of that?
what kind of word is in the following verses? a double plural? could be.

Righteous = God. God is Just. its an attribute.
Righteousness = God. God's Righteousness. Righteousness is an attribute...

what about the following verses?

Isaiah 64:6 - But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Ezekiel 33:13 - When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.

Daniel 9:18 - O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy name: for we do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies.

i think that word "righteousnesses" is a plural of righteous works. no? i dont know really. correct me with valid proof.

 

gekko,

Since we are missing something according to JJump and HoG, and righteousness is a plural, then surely you must be correct when the scripures say righteousnesses must be a double-plural.

LOL
Those two really need to spend more time studying God's Word.

I am sure God laughed at man's ignorance in times past, but is now calling all men everywhere to repent.

 

Yes, in one simple, concise word:

δικαιωματα

 

I've proved you wrong, with one simple, concise word, and you think we need to spend more time studying?

I've done this on more than one occasion. All it takes is one simple, concise word to show that you are ignorant on a particular subject... You don't see the beam in your own eye, brother!

When I am unsure of something, I admit it. When you are proven directly from Scripture that you are wrong, then Scripture must mean something besides what it actually says.

One of my former seminary teachers made a quote that really sticks out right now, in this discussion: "How can I teach anyone Greek when they don't even comprehend English?"

δικαιωματα

σβεννυνται

Once again, I will ask you a simple question that you have refused to answer and I will add one more to it:

Do you understand what a present tense verb is?

Do you comprehend what a plural noun is?