OLIVET DISCOURSE #15

PARABLE OF THE TEN VIRGINS

Matthew 25:1-30

At this point Mark and Luke have ended their version of the discourse, but Matthew continues and gives the parable of the ten virgins. This is appropriate for two reasons: First, of the three Gospel writers, Matthew is the only eyewitness and original listener of the discourse. Second, Matthew is writing to the Jews, and the discourse has particular relevance to the nation of Israel. Israel, not the church, is the one who will go through the time of Jacob’s trouble (Jeremiah 30:7), otherwise known as the tribulation. Jeremiah specifically says it is a tribulation “for” (Hebrew: sarah) Jacob, and applies directly to national Israel.

Matthew at this point returns to the time element. He beings with the word “then” (Matthew 25:1). It denotes a continuation of the chronology that was discontinued in Matthew 24:31, although he continues to teach in the form of parables. These parables bring us a new application about the second coming of Christ. The preceding parables centered on the unexpectedness of Christ’s coming and the need for readiness by those who believe. Now Matthew centers upon the reason for readiness: judgment. The idea of judgment is the keynote of this whole chapter. First, is the judgment of Israel. This judgment is taught and illustrated in the first two parables. J. Dwight Pentecost captures the essence of this event:

“Christ now resumed His revelation of the chronology of prophetic events for Israel. He taught that following His return (Matthew 24:30) and the regathering of the nation Israel to their land (v. 31), the nation would be brought under judgment (25:1-30).”[1]

Afterward, Matthew deals with the judgment of the Gentiles (25:31-46), the final event preceding the Millennial kingdom.

THE PARABLE AND ITS BACKGROUND

The parable is that of ten virgins, five who are wise; five foolish. The wise took extra oil for the lamps; the foolish did not bring any reserve. They left to meet the bridegroom, but he was delayed. They waited, but fell asleep. Awakened by the announcement of his coming, the five foolish realized they were out of oil. They tried to borrow some, but could not, they left to buy oil. When the five foolish returned and tried to get in, the Lord replied he did not know them and refused to open the door so they could enter.

The parable comes from the marriage custom of the time in the Middle East. There were three states of the wedding. First, the parents agreed upon the marriage of their children and the dowry would be paid. Second, the bridegroom accompanied by his friends would go to the bride’s house to claim her as his own. Third, on the return home, friends would join the wedding party to participate in the marriage feast that was held at the bridegroom’s home. This custom forms the background of the parable.

INTERPRETATIONS OF THE PARABLE

A number of interpretations exist concerning the ten virgins. Albright and Mann say that the parable is “capable of almost infinite variation in interpretation.”[2] A major factor for this is that “almost every detail of the parable lends itself to allegorical treatment.”[3] However, one should remember that a parable’s purpose is to provide one chief point of comparison. To make an important point or allegorical point of every detail may well destroy the original intended purpose.

Dispensational interpretations can be classified into two basic headings: Those who see the meaning in the church of this dispensation; others see it representing Israel.

The Church View.

This view holds that the virgins represent the religious people in the church of this dispensation. This is held by Gaebelein and presented in his commentary. He says this parable “must be looked upon as referring first all to the beginning of this Christian age.”[4] The wise virgins are the true believers, and the foolish are only professing Christians, unsaved but religious people in the church. The major reason for this view is the reference to oil. Oil is a common representation for the Holy Spirit. Since the church is indwelt with the Holy Spirit, it is reasoned that this parable must be speaking to the church.

This view has two major problems:

• First, this view separates the parable from the context of the discourse. The disciples hearing this parable would not have put it in the context of the church. At the time they knew nothing about the Church, the Body of Christ. It was still a mystery (cf. Eph. 3:1-10). The context is clearly the second coming of Christ, not the rapture of the church. There is no reason to separate it from the context of the second coming. We must keep the interpretation within the correct context.
• Second, the word “then” refers not to the church, but the last day events of Israel and the kingdom. Tasker notes:

“although the first word in verse 1, “then” (tote), is often in this Gospel merely a transitional particle…it would seem that it should here be construed in a temporal sense, the reference being to the day that has played such a large part in the previous section. So Knox rightly renders, ‘When that day comes, the kingdom of heaven will be like….’ ”[5]

The subject is the kingdom of heaven. That phrase refers to the earthly kingdom of Christ, not the Church, the body of Christ.

• Third, this parable could not picture the rapture of the church. The rapture of the church was still a mystery that had not yet been revealed. The church of this present dispensation had not been revealed, let alone its rapture to the heavenly kingdom. Besides if this were a picture of the rapture, only the wise virgins would go out to meet the Bridegroom, for only the saved go to meet Christ. No unsaved meet Him at the rapture. This picture is inconsistent with the rapture, but not the second coming. At the second coming both the wise and unwise (saved and unsaved) meet the Lord; the saved (wise) go into the kingdom.
• Fourth, the answer given to the unwise virgins about not knowing them is very similar to the statement in Matthew 7:21-23. The context there is clearly that of entering the earthly kingdom of Christ. Those who only make lip service to faith, even though they did miracles in His name, are denied entrance, because they did not have a relationship with Christ (“I never knew you”). That is also the context and the event spoken of here in the parable.

The Israel View.

The Israel view is consistent with the context of the parable. This view contends that the virgins represent the nation Israel at the time of the second coming of Christ. The five wise virgins are true believers; the five foolish are professors, but not true believers. This is verified by the following facts:

• First, it continues the same theme as the preparedness for the Lord’s return. We have here the same application as given earlier—“Watch, therefore, for ye know not the day nor the hour” (Matthew 25:13 cf. 24:36). The end time motif and the context are the same as in the preceding parables and discourse.
• Second, the phrase “kingdom of heaven” never refers to the church. It is used concerning the earthly kingdom of Christ. The words “will be like unto” is a future passive form of the verb “to compare,” meaning comparable. The coming of Christ to set up His kingdom on earth is associated with the ten virgins.
• Third, the parable illustrates the truth that after the second coming and regathering of His people, God will judge Israel to see who will enter His kingdom. The wise (saved) will enter, the unwise (unsaved) of Israel will not enter; the door will be shut.

The truth of this event is predicted by the prophet Ezekiel. In Ezekiel 20:33-39 we read of God restoring Israel to the land. Then God will cause the nation to “pass under the rod” of judgment. Unbelieving Israel will not enter the land for the Kingdom blessing (20:38). Believing Israel will enter the land and the kingdom blessing (20:40-44). This prophecy awaits fulfillment after the tribulation.

Therefore, in this parable the theme of being prepared for Christ’s return continues, but a new element is added. The new development is the reason for being prepared; judgment. Those who are not prepared will not enter. This parable teaches that there will be a judgment of those at the second coming who will not be prepared.

LESSONS FROM THE PARABLE

There are three distinct lessons from this parable concerning the second coming of Christ:

• First, the necessity of being prepared for the coming of the Bridegroom.
• Second, this preparedness cannot be borrowed. It is each individual’s responsibility to be prepared for His coming.
• Third, being unprepared brings banishment from the kingdom. The door was shut!

---

[1]  J. Dwight Pentecost, THE WORDS AND WORKS OF JESUS CHRIST, 407.

[2]  W.F. Albright, C.S. Mann, MATTHEW, 301.

[3]  A.M. McNeile, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW, 528.

[4]  A.C. Gaebelein, THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, 528.

[5]  R.V.G. Tasker, MATTHEW, 231.

JOHN THE BAPTIST / Part 1

A study of Matthew 3:1-12

1. What John Preaches (3:1-4).

It is interesting that Matthew opens this section with the words, “in those days.” It is a very general term to say the least in the context. Hagner says that it “is not specific, it does indicate a special time.” [WBC:MATTHEW, 47] However the phrase is connected to the days in which Jesus lived in Nazareth. A.T. Robertson points that this phrase “usually occurs at the transition in the narrative….” [GRAMMAR, 708] Thus, it may be simply a transitional phrase to introduce a new subject. Morris says that it “may be an example of the use of “that” to indicate without precision some time in the past (cf. 24:38; Luke 2:1, etc), or perhaps better Matthew means ‘in those crucial days’ or ‘in that critical time.’ ” [MATTHEW, 51] While the phrase may be general, it speaks historically. It speaks of the days when John the Baptist was ministering. However, the emphasis of the verse is not on the time, but on the person and activity of John the Baptist. John is a very popular name, as seen from the fact there are a number of Johns in the New Testament. John is called “the Baptist” seven times in Matthew, and places emphasis on John’s activity of baptizing. It identifies which John we are talking about. However, we must not allow his title as Baptist to obscure his purpose. His main thrust of ministry is not baptism, but the announcement of judgment being near with the coming of Messiah/King. His main purpose was to prepare the way for the coming of Messiah.

John the Baptist appeared and preached in the wilderness of Judea near the mouth of the Jordan River, not the Temple nor in Jerusalem. He is Christ’s forerunner (cf. John 11:9-12). In a real sense, John is a true forerunner, in that he precedes Christ in His birth, in His appearance, and in His death. 

John the Baptist came with Elijah’s spirit and power to turn hearts to God (Luke 1:15-17). He came to preach. To preach (kerysso) means to act as a herald, to proclaim or publish.  John came to publish the coming of the King and His kingdom. He was like the servants of the king who were sent ahead to smooth out and straighten the road in preparation for the King to come.  He was Messiah’s advance man. His message was clear and simple: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Matt 3:2). This consisted of two things:

First, it was a message of repentance. The word repent is the Greek word metamorphoo, compound word meaning after (meta), and the mind, or the way of thinking (noeo), thus a change of mind. It has the meaning to change one’s mind, opinion, feeling, or purpose. It is a present imperative, a voice of command. Baker notes that “the word etymologically means after-thought. It refers to reconsidering or changing the mind after an action has taken place.” [DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY, 411.]The word does not mean to feel sorry (contrast lupe meaning grief or sorrow). That idea has come in because of the Latin rendering. In Latin it was rendered as “to exercise penitence” (penitential agere), a word that suggests grief, sorrow, distress, but not necessarily change. One can feel sorry and not change either his mind or his actions.  It should also be noted that sorrow can, and often is, a part of the change of mind. As Chafer comments, “It is doubtless true that often sorrow leads to repentance, but the sorrow as such is not repentance (cf. 2 Cor. 7:9).” [Repentance,” BIB-SAC, April 1952, 131]. The emphasis of the word is on the mind, not feeling or emotion. The object of repentance is not always identified or given in Scripture (Acts 20:21), however, it is generally toward God or sin (Acts 20:21, Acts 8:22). Repentance is central to faith and a relationship with God for Jews. The context in which the word is used indicates the direction one must change his mind. Repentance is that conscious change of attitude (mind), both spiritual and moral, regarding God, on the one hand, and sin, on the other.

Repentance is not limited or equated always with personal salvation, nor is it a onetime event. “New Testament repentance is not confined to the unsaved or the moment of conversion. It may take place repeatedly within Christian experience, whenever there is a need for it” explains Hodges. [ABSOLUTELY FREE, 143] This is important to understand. In Matthew, the call of repentance is to the people of Israel to return to the covenant relationship with God. Baker reminds us, “What most students fail to recognized is that Israel as a nation was in covenant relationship with God, a relationship shared by no other nation in history.” [ACTS, 27-28]. This is clearly a prophetic theme, for it is common in the Old Testament for the nation to be called back to God (cf. Joel 2:2; Isa 55:7; Ezek. 33:11, 15). In Deuteronomy 28 is the principle of how God would deal with the covenant people. Obedience brought blessing; disobedience discipline. Deuteronomy 30 indicates that discipline would not be lifted until they “turned” back to God. Israel is not being called to repent to become a covenant people; they were already a covenant people. They were being called to repent because they had wandered away from God as a nation. John’s ministry is in conjunction with the principles of the Old Testament. Repentance was an adjustment of those who are already in covenant relation to God. Thus, this call to repent is a call to harmonious relations with God by a people who are already under the covenant. Repentance is foremost a message needed by the nation. Chafer says, “It is possible to be under the provisions of an unconditional covenant and to fail for the time being to enjoy its blessings because of sin. When sin has cast a limitation upon the enjoyment of a covenant and the covenant, being unchangeable, still abides, the issue becomes, not the remaking of the covenant, but the one issue of the sin which mars the relationship.” [SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, 3:375-376] Thus, the call Israel is to repair their disastrous breach with God. During the time of Christ, they were being called back into fellowship with God within the covenant. Repentance was essential and available.

Second, Matthew clearly declares the reason John preached repentance was that “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” This statement is important, thus we cannot overlook it.  Two things demand our attention:

1. What is the meaning of the kingdom of heaven? The term is clearly related to the prophecy of Daniel. The origin of the phrase is from Daniel 2:44, which declares that “God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all the kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.” This is clearly not a kingdom in heaven, but one that comes from heaven and is set up on earth. It is when the God of heaven sets up His kingdom on earth. McClain notes: “since this divine Kingdom comes from “heaven” to destroy and supplant kingdoms existing on earth, it is apparent that we have here a clear correspondence of ideas between Daniel’s prophecy and Matthew’s terminology.” [GREATEST OF THE KINGDOM, 279]. Daniel 713-14 describes this kingdom coming at the coming of the Son of Man. Clearly, the term kingdom of heaven refers to the same kingdom that is described in Daniel. It is the earthly kingdom anticipated and prophesied by the Old Testament prophets. Toussaint [BEHOLD THE KING, 274-303] gives these reasons why it is evident that Daniel’s kingdom and John’s declarations are the same:
    
   First, neither John nor Christ made any new explanation of the kingdom being different from that of the Old Testament prophets.
   
   Second, it is seen in the restriction of the message to the Jews exclusively (Matthew 10:5-6).  In the Old Testament, the reality of this kingdom is contingent upon its reception by the nation of Israel. If this is a spiritual kingdom only, why is this necessary?
   
   Third, the anticipation of a literal kingdom on earth was held by the disciples, which Jesus never indicated that they held a mistaken notion (Matthew 20:20-21).
   
   Based upon simple logic, the kingdom in view cannot be the church since the church was still a mystery (Eph 3:1-10). Toussaint correctly says: “The only conclusion at which one can arrive is that the proclamation of John refers to a literal, earthly kingdom in fulfillment of the Old Testament promises and prophecies.” [BEHOLD THE KING, 62].  It cannot be simply God’s universal reign over the hearts of man, or exclusively a spiritual kingdom. The significance of the announcement that it is “at hand” loses its impact, for the rule of God in the heart had been recognized among the people of God since Old Testament times (Psa. 37:31; 103:19).
   
   
2. This kingdom is “at hand.” What does that mean? The Greek word used is a perfect tense of eggiken, which means to draw near or literally “has come near.” The word clearly means something is near, but has not arrived. Johnson notes that, “the perfect tense, with its indication of an action in the past with present continuing results, points to the approach of the kingdom in the approach of the King. He is now here, and, therefore, the kingdom is now near.” [“The Message of John the Baptist,” BIB-SAC, January 1956, 35].
   
   It is to be noted that while the King is present, the kingdom is near, but not in actual operation on earth. The reality of the establishment of the kingdom could not be set up until the King and his Kingdom were accepted, nor could it be accepted until it was offered. There is no indication of an offer of the kingdom during the Gospel period. This is because the events of the cross had to take place before the offer. This is evidenced in and by prophecy (sees Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Daniel 9, and Zechariah 13), which explicitly declare that the glory follows the suffering of Christ (Zechariah 12:10, 13:6). We read of no real offer of the kingdom until after the cross in Acts 3:19-21. Peter clearly makes an offer of the kingdom at Pentecost. It is an offer to the nation of Israel offering their national hope of restoration. As Baxter writes of this verse:
   
   …is it not equally clear that these words of Peter utter the promise that the Lord Jesus would return, and the times of restoration set in without delay, upon the repentance and conversion of Israel? Here is the fact, clearly stated, that had there been a national repentance and acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Christ, on the part of Israel, the second advent of Christ in power and glory would have taken place then and there. Never was a more direct promise given. [THE STRATEGIC GRASP OF THE BIBLE, 311]
   
   Israel rejected the Messianic King in the Gospels and the offer of the Messianic Kingdom in the book of Acts. During the Acts, we see the fall of Israel and the rise of the Church, the Body of Christ. Baxter says there are three pivotal events of rejection: The stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:57-60), the outbreak against Paul (22:22), and the going out to the Gentiles (28:28). [GRASP, 311] He calls the stoning of Stephen “the final indictment of the nation.” [GRASP, 312]. At that point they resisted the ministry of the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51). This is the final nail in the coffin of rejection. Israel rejected God the Father by rejecting the message of the prophets, they rejected Christ at the cross, and they rejected the Holy Spirit at the stoning of Stephen. In the case of John the Baptist, they permitted his death; in the case of Christ, they demanded his death; and in the case of Stephen, they murdered him. This is a clear progression of rejection. With Stephen, their rejected was complete. At this point, God brings in a new apostle, Paul, to reveal the mystery that was hid from ages past, and to declare the message of grace to all without distinction (cp Eph 3:1-11). It is a mistake to take John’s message and apply it to the church today. Gaebelein warns:
   
   The Gospel of Grace is something different. It was not known then; it could not be fully made known and preached until after the death, the resurrection, the ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit. To preach the Gospel of Grace from the words of John the Baptist, “Repent, for the kingdom of the heaven has drawn nigh,” would be misleading. Still it is being done throughout Christendom. [MATTHEW, 64].
John the Baptist came in fulfillment of the Word (3:3). Isaiah had predicted one coming in the wilderness to make ready the way of the Lord. Matthew links John the Baptist to that prophecy of Isaiah 40:3, quoting the Septuagint (LXX). He identifies John as that coming one who would announce Christ is coming, and prepares the way. In John 1:23, the Baptist says of himself: “I am the voice….” He evidently knew that he fulfilled the prophecy. The emphasis here, and in the Gospels, is placed on the voice, for it is the message that is important, not so much the messenger. His work is to prepare the way for Yahweh. Clearly, Matthew, as well as the New Testament, sees Jesus as the Yahweh (Lord) of the Old Testament (compare Exodus 13:21 and 1 Cor. 10:4, Isa. 6:1 and John 12:41; Psa. 102:25-29 and Heb. 1:10-12).   
The physical appearance of this messenger is unorthodox to say the least. He came not in priestly robes, even through he was a son of a priest, and was of the priestly tribe. He wears a garment of “camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist” (Matt. 3:4). While this is typical clothes of poor people and those cut off from the mainstream of society, it links John with Elijah (2 Kings 1:8).  He was an outdoorsman. According to Matthew 11:14 if they would receive John, he would be the Elijah who was to come. However, he was rejected, so it appears that one will come in the future to fulfill this to Israel (Malachi 4:6). His diet consisted of “locusts and wild honey.” Four kinds of locust were permitted as food to be eaten by man, according to Leviticus 11:22. Such a diet is common in the extreme regions of the area. An old Arabian saying says “One should not argue about taste.” Hendriksen points out that “those who enjoy shrimp, mussel, oyster, and frog-legs should not find fault with those who eat the locust.” [MATTHEW, 200].