Wise under the Law

[Randy Kluth]

In the parable of the 10 virgins, there were 5 wise virgins and 5 foolish virgins. Jesus was giving this parable to his Disciples while they were still under the Law of Moses.

I believe the virgins were being depicted as bridesmaids instead of as brides because under the Law, the hoped-for marriage of Israel with God would only be consummated in the NT era. And so, the wise virgins would only succeed in becoming wives when they are portrayed in a NT context, and ultimately when that marriage is consummated at the resurrection.

I say this because some Christians furiously insist that the Law had only a negative connotation, telling us we're sinners and can't do anything good apart from Christ. Well, before Christ came, the Law was designed precisely so that Israel could do good, despite the fact they could not elude the curse of sin, which is death. The Law had a good purpose in providing Israel with righteousness and with the accompanying hope of achieving Eternal Life when Messiah came.

The Law, specifically, was designed to enable a continuing relationship between God and Israel. Without Law, Israel could not please God and could not long remain in His presence.

And so, the Law had a very good purpose in providing temporary covering for Israel's sins while they followed God's standard of righteousness. Though the Law reminded them of their sin and that they cannot overcome the curse of sin, they did have hope that they would eventually arrive at the Messianic Kingdom and live forever.

So the wise virgins were only servants under the Old Covenant, slavishly following God's laws and rituals to keep themselves connected to the bridegroom until they could qualify as brides. In the OT era, these serving virgins were portrayed as Israel waiting for their Messiah at his 2sd Coming, because In biblical prophecy, Israel is finally restored as a nation at his 2nd Coming.

Matt 25.“At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2 Five of them were foolish and five were wise. 3 The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. 4 The wise ones, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. 5 The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep."

Under the Law both wise and foolish grow "drowsy," because all are afflicted with the Sin Nature. But the wise actually do business on behalf of their work for the bridegroom, which is obedience under the Law.

It is the "oil" of faith, demonstrated in works of faith, that enables them to overcome the effects of their drowsiness. In the NT era, this "oil" has become a deposit of the Spirit, guaranteeing our inheritance at Jesus' Coming. It is the Spirit who enables us to live in Christ and do the works of Christ.

But the aim for these serving virgins was not simply to do business, or to buy oil, but rather, to see the marriage consummated. For Israel it was the establishment of a better and final covenant that enables the virgins to become "brides."

Getting oil was merely to remain focused on the need for a lasting covenant. In the OT that was by obeying the Law in faith. Under the NT it is obeying the commands of Christ and "staying ready."

 

[grafted branch]

And so, the wise virgins would only succeed in becoming wives when they are portrayed in a NT context, and ultimately when that marriage is consummated at the resurrection.

Some people will argue that the body of Christ is not the bride of Christ. One argument is that OT Israel is the bride and Gentiles/remnant are the body. OT Israel being betrothed, with the marriage and consummation happening when the times of the Gentiles ends and all Israel is saved (they all become one body).

If believers are the temple and the Spirit dwells in us already as 1 Corinthians 3:16 says, what else would a consummation mean? I consummated my marriage with my wife some years ago, and when I make decisions I think about her and how it will affect her, just as much as how it will affect me, her spirit is in me.

It would seem as though our marriage with Christ has happened, the two have already become one flesh. Ephesians 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Some people will argue that the body of Christ is not the bride of Christ. One argument is that OT Israel is the bride and Gentiles/remnant are the body. OT Israel being betrothed, with the marriage and consummation happening when the times of the Gentiles ends and all Israel is saved (they all become one body).

If believers are the temple and the Spirit dwells in us already as 1 Corinthians 3:16 says, what else would a consummation mean? I consummated my marriage with my wife some years ago, and when I make decisions I think about her and how it will affect her, just as much as how it will affect me, her spirit is in me.

It would seem as though our marriage with Christ has happened, the two have already become one flesh. Ephesians 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

What are your thoughts on this?

You bring up excellent points, and this is precisely what I've been thinking about for some time. The covenants, both OT and NT, were in fact symbols of a marriage, as if already consummated. However, in the course of time it became apparent that the Old Covenant "marriage" was headed for a "divorce."

There are some interesting statements about it. I think Isaiah asked the question, "Are you really divorced when I plan to restore you to myself? Where is your divorce certificate? I think it got lost somewhere!"

"I plan to undo the divorce that the Law was always destined to result in. When the rebels in Israel finally force through the failures that the Law revealed in Israel, that Covenant would fail. But I will restore you," says the Lord. My paraphrase.

So indeed, both under the Law and under the New Covenant marriage seems to be consummated simply by saying, "I do." However, we read that nothing is really finalized, in the ultimate sense, until things are revealed in full splendor at the 2nd Coming. At least that seems to be how Revelation portrays it, as a future "wedding."

In sum, the legal engagement is already in place simply by mutual commitment under a reasonable covenant. But the regalia remains to be seen at an actual wedding in the resurrection, in the state of physical immortality.

The big difference, of course, between OT and NT marital "documents" is in the status with respect to atonement. The Law was a "band-aid" atonement, as I like to say. It was a temporary fix until the New Covenant could come and establish a permanent atonement for the sins that disrupt our relationship with Christ.

The NT is all about legal permanency, whereas the Old Covenant was understood to fall short of permanent atonement. Fallible priests could never oversee an atonement that provided perfect atonement. But Christ, belonging to a different, infallible priesthood, could in fact oversee a perfect atonement, leading to an unbreakable marriage.

That's why the Church is viewed as the Body of Christ because legally we have been permanently attached to Christ. Sin is no longer a legal impediment to our "married" status to him. OT Israel could never have said that, since they had to be regularly purified by an atonement that was never complete under that system.

 

[grafted branch]

You bring up excellent points, and this is precisely what I've been thinking about for some time. The covenants, both OT and NT, were in fact symbols of a marriage, as if already consummated. However, in the course of time it became apparent that the Old Covenant "marriage" was headed for a "divorce."

There are some interesting statements about it. I think Isaiah asked the question, "Are you really divorced when I plan to restore you to myself? Where is your divorce certificate? I think it got lost somewhere!"

"I plan to undo the divorce that the Law was always destined to result in. When the rebels in Israel finally force through the failures that the Law revealed in Israel, that Covenant would fail. But I will restore you," says the Lord. My paraphrase.

So indeed, both under the Law and under the New Covenant marriage seems to be consummated simply by saying, "I do." However, we read that nothing is really finalized, in the ultimate sense, until things are revealed in full splendor at the 2nd Coming. At least that seems to be how Revelation portrays it, as a future "wedding."

In sum, the legal engagement is already in place simply by mutual commitment under a reasonable covenant. But the regalia remains to be seen at an actual wedding in the resurrection, in the state of physical immortality.

The big difference, of course, between OT and NT marital "documents" is in the status with respect to atonement. The Law was a "band-aid" atonement, as I like to say. It was a temporary fix until the New Covenant could come and establish a permanent atonement for the sins that disrupt our relationship with Christ.

The NT is all about legal permanency, whereas the Old Covenant was understood to fall short of permanent atonement. Fallible priests could never oversee an atonement that provided perfect atonement. But Christ, belonging to a different, infallible priesthood, could in fact oversee a perfect atonement, leading to an unbreakable marriage.

That's why the Church is viewed as the Body of Christ because legally we have been permanently attached to Christ. Sin is no longer a legal impediment to our "married" status to him. OT Israel could never have said that, since they had to be regularly purified by an atonement was never complete under that system.

In Matthew 22:1-14 is the parable of the wedding banquet. In verse 10 the wedding is furnished with both good and bad guests. In verses 11-13 the guy without the wedding garment is bound and cast out.

I’ve seen where some people have suggested this is where Satan is bound, and the wedding ceremony or regalia as you put it, takes place while Satan is bound.

What do think about this idea, is Satan bound while the wedding takes place?

 

[Randy Kluth]

In Matthew 22:1-14 is the parable of the wedding banquet. In verse 10 the wedding is furnished with both good and bad guests. In verses 11-13 the guy without the wedding garment is bound and cast out.

I’ve seen where some people have suggested this is where Satan is bound, and the wedding ceremony or regalia as you put it, takes place while Satan is bound.

What do think about this idea, is Satan bound while the wedding takes place?

Well, if I'm to be consistent I would have to suggest, 1st of all, that the parable is still being told under Old Covenant circumstances. It was a marriage, for sure, since a marriage is determined by the reality of a covenant. But it could not have, at that time, been fully consummated in the NT sense, since the Law was destined to fail.

So as real as the Old Covenant was to Israel, that "marriage" had to be consummated by Christ himself. And that is what he was suggesting under this Covenant, that he was initiating a change, becoming himself the bridegroom and Israel the bride.

Those invited are not then portrayed as the "bride," but only as "guests," because they are still under the Law. I do believe Satan was *defeated* at the Cross, at the transition point from Old Covenant to New Covenant because Christ has been able to make his Covenant with us permanent. Satan wanted to use our Sin Guilt to put us where he is, in a place of perpetual separation from God. Satan is all about independence from God, and does not in any way want to encourage our "marriage" to God!

So yes, Satan was defeated at the cross. But I don't associate this with his being bound during the Millennium. That is part of the Amil/Premil debate.

 

[grafted branch]

Well, if I'm to be consistent I would have to suggest, 1st of all, that the parable is still being told under Old Covenant circumstances. It was a marriage, for sure, since a marriage is determined by the reality of a covenant. But it could not have, at that time, been fully consummated in the NT sense, since the Law was destined to fail.

So as real as the Old Covenant was to Israel, that "marriage" had to be consummated by Christ himself. And that is what he was suggesting under this Covenant, that he was initiating a change, becoming himself the bridegroom and Israel the bride.

Those invited are not then portrayed as the "bride," but only as "guests," because they are still under the Law. I do believe Satan was *defeated* at the Cross, at the transition point from Old Covenant to New Covenant because Christ has been able to make his Covenant with us permanent. Satan wanted to use our Sin Guilt to put us where he is, in a place of perpetual separation from God. Satan is all about independence from God, and does not in any way want to encourage our "marriage" to God!

So yes, Satan was defeated at the cross. But I don't associate this with his being bound during the Millennium. That is part of the Amil/Premil debate.

Ok, I’m not trying to debate the binding of Satan but in the wedding banquet parable the wedding is first furnished with guests, then the king comes in to see the guests, and then finally the man without the garment is bound.

I think most (or at least some) Amill place the banquet being furnished as a present day reality with Satan currently being bound. However the parable has the banquet being furnished first. I don’t think Amill would agree that the man bound in Matthew 22:13 represents Satan.

As you say, the guests aren’t the bride, the guests are still under the law. The parable has the guests being both good and bad, same as the 10 virgins, but in the parable those who were initially bidden to the wedding didn’t come and in Matthew 22:7 they are destroyed and their city is burned up (70AD ?).

It almost seems as though the parable is out of order and should have the banquet being furnished prior to the city being burned up but that’s not how it is portrayed.

In verse 7 when the king heard of it, he then destroyed them. In verse 11 the king comes and sees the guests. I think some preterist may see verse 7 and 11 occurring at the same time with the man in verse 12, without the garment, representing those who initially rejected the call.

When do you see the gathering of those in the highways in Matthew 22:10 starting? Before the cross, after the cross, after 70AD, or something else?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Ok, I’m not trying to debate the binding of Satan but in the wedding banquet parable the wedding is first furnished with guests, then the king comes in to see the guests, and then finally the man without the garment is bound.

I think most (or at least some) Amill place the banquet being furnished as a present day reality with Satan currently being bound. However the parable has the banquet being furnished first. I don’t think Amill would agree that the man bound in Matthew 22:13 represents Satan.

Right, nobody would see the bound man as Satan--he is one who does not meet the standards of the Kingdom of heaven. Let me explain, once again, how I see this parable and parables like it. They are depicting the coming of the Kingdom of God at Jesus' 2nd Coming. And they are suggesting how one must live in order to qualify for a future life in that Kingdom.

However, when Jesus told these parables in the OT era, while the Law was still in effect, he used figures that depicted the OT conditions. Israel consisted of servants under the Law, and not yet eternally-atoned for children. The bride was what they were called to be, but the marriage feast/wedding was future.

In the NT era, we, God's People, are still servants, but servants of Christ, and permanent children of God, the very body of Christ in whom dwells, permanently, the Spirit of God. The legal work is finished, but the wedding is still future.

As you say, the guests aren’t the bride, the guests are still under the law. The parable has the guests being both good and bad, same as the 10 virgins, but in the parable those who were initially bidden to the wedding didn’t come and in Matthew 22:7 they are destroyed and their city is burned up (70AD ?).

Yes, all Israel was called, but not all were chosen. Being under the Law was no guarantee that all in Israel would successfully obey the Law, or fulfill its terms. Some would be "thrown out," not being adequately prepared for the future marriage.

They would not be utilizing the symbols of the Covenant properly, as they were to be used in their own time. The oil and the right clothing were necessary instruments of preparation, whether in the OT or in the NT.

They represented faith that produced the righteousness of regeneration. Spiritual regeneration has been both OT and NT--Nicodemus was told he should've known about being "born again" during the era of Law! Spiritual Regeneration is the same thing as Spiritual Renewal, which is essential if anybody is to operate consistently by faith in God's word.

It almost seems as though the parable is out of order and should have the banquet being furnished prior to the city being burned up but that’s not how it is portrayed.

The parable is not designed to be perfectly aligned with the timeline of the coming Kingdom. It is designed to show the crucial issues and the consequences of not preparing for the Kingdom.

Being invited to the banquet is like being evangelized and offered Heaven. Accepting that is doing righteousness by faith, and not by immediately entering into the marriage feast in Heaven!

The parables are not providing chronologies or actual sequences of the events they are depicting. They are stories designed to symbolically portray matters that must be resolved in the actual realities they represent.

 

[Randy Kluth]

In Matthew 22:1-14 is the parable of the wedding banquet. In verse 10 the wedding is furnished with both good and bad guests. In verses 11-13 the guy without the wedding garment is bound and cast out.

I’ve seen where some people have suggested this is where Satan is bound, and the wedding ceremony or regalia as you put it, takes place while Satan is bound.

What do think about this idea, is Satan bound while the wedding takes place?

No, the fake banquet attendee is bound and removed. It is being treated like a criminal act, which is indeed what people are when they pretend to be Christians but actually takes the Lord's name in vain. I'm not talking about swearing, but about saying, "Lord, Lord," when there really is no faith involved. It is a pretend Christianity as well as an effort to insert worldliness into true Christianity.

Satan is bound at the 2nd Coming to enable the Reign of Christ's Kingdom for a thousand years. Yes, I'm Premillennial. Satan is not bound now--it is obvious that he is not bound now because he is causing lots of trouble for the world and for the Kingdom of God. Christians are succeeding at advancing the Gospel, but only coupled with opposition and suffering.

 

[Gottservant]

Death is wise, in the eyes of the Law (selah).

I don't understand what the contention of this thread is: not being chosen by the bridegroom is like dying?

 

[strepho]

Matthew chapter 25 . Parable of 10 virgins.
Jesus taught about end time's. Five virgin's had truth. They studied the bible. They didn't worship satan as antichrist near future.

The five foolish virgin's are biblically illiterate. They lack knowledge. This group worshipped antichrist near future. They wouldn't crack open bible.

Isn't it interesting. In Jeremiah chapter 5 :1 God is asking if anyone deals honestly in truth.

5:3. They refuse correction. God sent the prophets over and over. Saying, obey voice of the Lord God. Thier ignorant people who could care less about God's word. When false brethren tailor's God's word, they like camel in heat run to the wind bag preachers. Get the picture.

5:7 . Some Christian people enjoy their spirtual whore houses. Listening to traditions of men and false doctrine. Thier ears are pricked just right.

God won't listen to their prayers and bless them. How ironic !!

5:9 . Shall not I avenge myself on such a nation as this ?
Near future, when the majority worship antichrist. At the 7th trump, Jesus will them, Get out of My sight, I never knew you !!. Matthew chapter 12 cross reference.

5:11. Both judah and Israel have been unfaithful to God. Listening to false preachers and going to spirtual whore houses. God's Truth isn't good enough!!.

5:13. Wind bag prophet's. And some people love being lied to. Some churches tell their congregations. You don't have to understand old testament. It show's the Ignorance of some pastors and preachers.

5:21. Hear this , you foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see. Who have ears but do not hear.

In 2 thessalonians chapter 2 . God has been sending strong delusions on those who love not the truth. It's spirt of stupor. God will help them believe a lie, when satan as antichrist comes 6th trump.

I gave cross reference.

Majority are biblically illiterate. Near future they will worship antichrist. Documentation, revelation chapter 13 .

Some people would have fake shepherds who RUB them just right !!.

Psalm chapter 9 . Those who worshipped antichrist near future, will go to sheol. It's holding place for the spirtualty dead or wicked until judgement day. It's awful place.

 

[ewq1938]

I believe the virgins were being depicted as bridesmaids instead of as brides because under the Law, the hoped-for marriage of Israel with God would only be consummated in the NT era.

The bridegroom doesn't come as a surprise at midnight to collect maids...he comes for his bride, or in this case multiple brides. A man could have multiple wives. Even God had two wives at one time (metaphorically speaking).

 

[grafted branch]

Right, nobody would see the bound man as Satan--he is one who does not meet the standards of the Kingdom of heaven.

I know that there are some people who do think the man bound in Matthew 22:13 is Satan being bound. This may not be a widely accepted view but I’ve heard it being discussed in the past.

An interesting thing is that the man being bound is called “friend” in Matthew 22:12, which is the same word Jesus called Judas when he betrayed Him in Matthew 26:50.

However, when Jesus told these parables in the OT era, while the Law was still in effect, he used figures that depicted the OT conditions. Israel consisted of servants under the Law, and not yet eternally-atoned for children. The bride was what they were called to be, but the marriage feast/wedding was future.

I agree, it’s important to know that these parables were not written to people who were already in the new covenant.

The parables are not providing chronologies or actual sequences of the events they are depicting. They are stories designed to symbolically portray matters that must be resolved in the actual realities they represent.

I also agree here, sometimes there are things that don’t always seem to line up but we know they are true, for example Jesus is both the Lamb and the shepherd. This doesn’t fit an actual, literal earthly situation, a lamb will never be a shepherd.