Questions about the Wedding Parable of Matthew 22

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The Wedding Parable of Matthew 22:

Matthew 22:1 And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said: 2 "The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, 3 "and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. 4 "Again, he sent out other servants, saying, 'Tell those who are invited, "See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding." ' 5 "But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 "And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. 7 "But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. 8 "Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. 9 'Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.' 10 "So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests. 11 ¶ "But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. 12 "So he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless. 13 "Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' 14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."
Questions:


Who is the King?
Who is the Son?
Who are the servants?
Who are the guests that rejected the invitation?
Who are the guests brought in from the street?
Who is the guest without a garment?
Who is the bride, and why is she not mentioned?

The first two questions are rather obvious - God the Father and Jesus. The rest of the answers don't seem so obvious ... especially the seventh.

And remember, this parable was told long before the Gospel went out to the Gentiles, so it seems anachronistic to suggest that any of the players in the story refer to them. None of the folks Christ was speaking to would have thought any of them were Gentiles.

[throwback]

Questions:

Who is the King?
Who is the Son?
Who are the servants?
Who are the guests that rejected the invitation?
Who are the guests brought in from the street?
Who is the guest without a garment?
Who is the bride, and why is she not mentioned?

The servants would appears to be the apostles and prophets sent to tell the people God's message.
The invited guests seem to be those Jewish leaders and there fathers that Jesus spoke of in the following chapter in verses 29 thru 36.
The guest brought from the streets are likely a reference to the same group of outsiders (tax collectors and whores) spoken of in chapter 21 verses 31 and 32. In addition verse 9 seems to indicate that this group was inclusive of the lost of Israel as well as people of the nations.
As far as the guest without a garment, GUESS would be someone who wishes to make it into the Kingdom without properly acknowledging the Son, but that is just a guess I cannot prove or back up with much evidence.
As far as the bride is concerned, though she is not mentioned, can't we reasonably conclude that exist because in order for there to be a wedding feast there must be both a bride and a bridegroom?

Here's a question I have: When is/was the wedding banquet? This is an area where I may lean with the futurists...........

[CWH]

The Wedding Parable of Matthew 22:

Matthew 22:1 And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said: 2 "The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, 3 "and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. 4 "Again, he sent out other servants, saying, 'Tell those who are invited, "See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding." ' 5 "But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 "And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. 7 "But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. 8 "Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. 9 'Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.' 10 "So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests. 11 ¶ "But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. 12 "So he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless. 13 "Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' 14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."
Questions:


Who is the King?
Who is the Son?
Who are the servants?
Who are the guests that rejected the invitation?
Who are the guests brought in from the street?
Who is the guest without a garment?
Who is the bride, and why is she not mentioned?

The first two questions are rather obvious - God the Father and Jesus. The rest of the answers don't seem so obvious ... especially the seventh.

And remember, this parable was told long before the Gospel went out to the Gentiles, so it seems anachronistic to suggest that any of the players in the story refer to them. None of the folks Christ was speaking to would have thought any of them were Gentiles.

The parable is not difficult to interpret from the Futurist's point of view. The context is about many are called but few are chosen to enter into the kingdom of God. It goes like this:

2 "The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, 3 "and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come.
The kingdom of God is like an arranged marriage in heaven in which God will get His angels and His people to seek people (the Jews) to come into the kingdom of heaven but they were not willing to come.

4 "Again, he sent out other servants, saying, 'Tell those who are invited, "See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding."
God also sent his people, priests, apostles, missionaries to encourage those (Jews) who are eligible for the kingdom of God by letting them know that everything has been well prepared to accept them into the kingdom of heaven.

5 "But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 "And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them.
But those who were eligible for the kingdom of heaven (the Jews) were ignorant or were more interested with their own daily life on earth and even persecuted and killed the apostles, priests and missionaries.

7 "But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
But God was angry that they killed His people, apostles, priests and missionaries who were sent to invite them into the kingdom of heaven and He sent his angels to punish them in revenge.

8 "Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. 9 'Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.'
God said that since those eligible are not worthy for the kingdom of heaven then invite all including the Gentiles into the kingdom of heaven

10 "So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests.
So God's people and angels gather all both good and bad(repented) into into a hall in heaven until it was full.

11 "But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. 12 "So he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless.
When God was doing His judgement, He saw a group of Christians who manage to get into the heaven hall but however were not pure and did not do His will. These Christians who claimed to love God were stunt to see God questioning them.

13 "Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' 14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."
These false Christians who confess to love God were thrown into punishment.

This is related to Matthew 7:

13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.........
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’


May God lead us through the narrow gate, Amen :pray:.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The parable is not difficult to interpret from the Futurist's point of view. The context is about many are called but few are chosen to enter into the kingdom of God. It goes like this:

2 "The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, 3 "and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come.
The kingdom of God is like an arranged marriage in heaven in which God will get His angels and His people to seek people (the Jews) to come into the kingdom of heaven but they were not willing to come.

4 "Again, he sent out other servants, saying, 'Tell those who are invited, "See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding."
God also sent his people, priests, apostles, missionaries to encourage those (Jews) who are eligible for the kingdom of God by letting them know that everything has been well prepared to accept them into the kingdom of heaven.

5 "But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 "And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them.
But those who were eligible for the kingdom of heaven (the Jews) were ignorant or were more interested with their own daily life on earth and even persecuted and killed the apostles, priests and missionaries.

7 "But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
But God was angry that they killed His people, apostles, priests and missionaries who were sent to invite them into the kingdom of heaven and He sent his angels to punish them in revenge.

8 "Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. 9 'Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.'
God said that since those eligible are not worthy for the kingdom of heaven then invite all including the Gentiles into the kingdom of heaven

10 "So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests.
So God's people and angels gather all both good and bad(repented) into into a hall in heaven until it was full.

11 "But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. 12 "So he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless.
When God was doing His judgement, He saw a group of Christians who manage to get into the heaven hall but however were not pure and did not do His will. These Christians who claimed to love God were stunt to see God questioning them.

13 "Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' 14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."
These false Christians who confess to love God were thrown into punishment.

This is related to Matthew 7:

13 'Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.........
21 'Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’


May God lead us through the narrow gate, Amen :pray:.
What about these verses:

Matt 22:5 "But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 "And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. 7 "But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies [Romans led by Titus], destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city [Fulfilled in 70 AD].

Seems to fit pretty well with the Preterist understanding.

[Brother Les]

The Wedding Parable of Matthew 22:

Matthew 22:1 And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said: 2 "The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, 3 "and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. 4 "Again, he sent out other servants, saying, 'Tell those who are invited, "See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding." ' 5 "But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 "And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. 7 "But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. 8 "Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. 9 'Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.' 10 "So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests. 11 ¶ "But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. 12 "So he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless. 13 "Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' 14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."
Questions:


Who is the King?
Who is the Son?
Who are the servants?
Who are the guests that rejected the invitation?
Who are the guests brought in from the street?
Who is the guest without a garment?
Who is the bride, and why is she not mentioned?

The first two questions are rather obvious - God the Father and Jesus. The rest of the answers don't seem so obvious ... especially the seventh.

And remember, this parable was told long before the Gospel went out to the Gentiles, so it seems anachronistic to suggest that any of the players in the story refer to them. None of the folks Christ was speaking to would have thought any of them were Gentiles.

Who is the King? Father God of the Trinity
Who is the Son? Jesus/Messiah of the Trinity
Who are the servants? OT Prophets and John the Baptist
Who are the guests that rejected the invitation? Carnal Leadership and their unElect followers of Ephraim and Judah
Who are the guests brought in from the street? Elect of Ephraim and followers of the Jewish, 'The Way'
Who is the guest without a garment? the text says 'good and bad' came, but it seems that only one guest is cast out. ie. the High Priest of the OC.Who is the bride, and why is she not mentioned? The Bride are those that came to the wedding, though good and bad, they were dressing in the blood of the lamb. This is the Election of Ephraim (bad?) and of Judah (good?)

All of the Covenantal Promises were given to Israel and all of the Parables are About Israel, no exception as far as I can tell.

[CWH]

What about these verses:

Matt 22:5 "But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 "And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. 7 "But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies [Romans led by Titus], destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city [Fulfilled in 70 AD].

Seems to fit pretty well with the Preterist understanding.

It's absurd to even think that God's armies destroy His own people and burn up His own city. Were the Romans who destroyed Jerusalem God's armies? And the king is not Titus but God. And where in the Bible did it says AD 70?


"But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies [Romans led by Titus], destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city [Fulfilled in 70 AD]

Who is the King? Father God of the Trinity
Who is the Son? Jesus/Messiah of the Trinity
Who are the servants? God's people who serves God such as apostles, priests, missionaries.
Who are the guests that rejected the invitation? The unbelieving Jews.
Who is the guest without a garment? The Christians who did not do the will of the Father in heaven They are called friend because they were Christians but who did not wear the garment of covenant with God (wedding garment = pure covenant)
Who is the bride, and why is she not mentioned? Not mentioned because the event has yet to come. The bride are those who managed to make it into the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 25:1 “At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like [B]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.



Be thou my Wisdom and thou my True Word, Amen. :pray:

[Brother Les]

Ram
Matt 22:5 "But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 "And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. 7 "But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies [Romans led by Titus], destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city [Fulfilled in 70 AD].

Seems to fit pretty well with the Preterist understanding.



It's absurd to even think that God's armies destroy His own people and burn up His own city. Were the Romans who destroyed Jerusalem God's armies? And the king is not Titus but God. And where in the Bible did it says AD 70?

Ram
"But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies [Romans led by Titus], destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city [Fulfilled in 70 AD] Who is the King? Father God of the Trinity
Who is the Son? Jesus/Messiah of the Trinity
Who are the servants? God's people who serves God such as apostles, priests, missionaries.
Who are the guests that rejected the invitation? The unbelieving Jews.
Who is the guest without a garment? The Christians who did not do the will of the Father in heaven They are called friend because they were Christians but who did not wear the garment of covenant with God (wedding garment = pure covenant)
Who is the bride, and why is she not mentioned? Not mentioned because the event has yet to come. The bride are those who managed to make it into the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 25:1 “At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like [B]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.



Be thou my Wisdom and thou my True Word, Amen. :pray:



You seem to have two conflicting answers. You said,


It's absurd to even think that God's armies destroy His own people and burn up His own city. Were the Romans who destroyed Jerusalem God's armies? And the king is not Titus but God. And where in the Bible did it says AD 70?

You infer that God will not destroy his own people and burn up His city..... God in the pasted had destroyed Samaria/Ephraim and had sifted them to the nations for their rebellion. They were all of 'Israelites' (Gods People) and yet He destroyed them. Like wise with Jerusalem and the unbelieving Jews, they rejected the invitation and were destroyed for their rebellion. The Jerusalem from below was no longer Gods 'city'for it is as Sodom and Eypt and Babylon (out of Babylon can the Rabbinical Babylonian Talmand that went against Gods Laws and became mans laws), it is the Jerusalem from above that is Gods city. Why would you even think to elude that Titus may be thought of as 'the king'? Titus was the 'son' of a king, Vespasian, in the flesh and did his bidding. But it also seems that Titus did the will of God in destroying Gods adversaries in the people, the place and the temple that persecuted The Sect of The Way, ie Christians.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

What about these verses:

Matt 22:5 "But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 "And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. 7 "But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies [Romans led by Titus], destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city [Fulfilled in 70 AD].

Seems to fit pretty well with the Preterist understanding.
It's absurd to even think that God's armies destroy His own people and burn up His own city. Were the Romans who destroyed Jerusalem God's armies? And the king is not Titus but God. And where in the Bible did it says AD 70?

Actually, the true absurdity is your ignorance of the Bible. God used the Assyrians to destroy the ten northern tribes, and then used the Babylonians to destroy his city Jerusalem and his own Temple in 586 BC.

And your question "Where in the Bible does it say 70 AD?" is painfully moronic. The dating system based upon "AD" did not exist at the time the Bible was written. I can't believe anyone could ask such an absurd question, let alone repeat it after being corrected. What is going on? Do you delight in appearing stupid? Is that your purpose in life?

[Bob May]

The Wedding Parable of Matthew 22:

Matthew 22:1 And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said: 2 "The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, 3 "and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. 4 "Again, he sent out other servants, saying, 'Tell those who are invited, "See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding." ' 5 "But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 "And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. 7 "But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. 8 "Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. 9 'Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.' 10 "So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests. 11 ¶ "But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. 12 "So he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless. 13 "Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' 14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."
Questions:


Who is the King?
Who is the Son?
Who are the servants?
Who are the guests that rejected the invitation?
Who are the guests brought in from the street?
Who is the guest without a garment?
Who is the bride, and why is she not mentioned?





1. The Father in heaven.
2. The Son, Jesus Christ.
3. The prophets and the apostles and disciples and anyone that brings the good news of salvation by Grace.
4. Those who will not hear the message of grace.
5. Those who accept the message of grace. They are both bad and good because they understand that it is not by their own righteousness that they are accepted but by God's which is a free gift.
6. The guest without a garment has not put on Christ. But this person has attained by his own efforts and spiritual practices an awareness of altered states, other realities not apparent to "normal senses."
When asked how he got there "He was Speechless." That is the answer to how he got there. Practicing "stopping the internal dialog" and meditation, etc.
This will make a person aware of other "realities" but without a guide (Jesus and his doctrine) it will become a very chaotic state of mind where messages cannot be trusted, where reaffirmations are constant and there is no "filter" or doctrine that leads through the chaotic mess. Weeping and gnashing of teeth is the result of being in this "outer darkness."
7. We are the bride. We are not mentioned because we are the readers (or hearers) of this parable. The marriage supper has been occuring since the Gospel was first preached and so we as members of the body of Christ have not been fully washed as yet. We have not even all been born as yet, so we have not fully arrived as yet.
We are guests until we come to the full realisation of Christ in us the hope of Glory.



The first two questions are rather obvious - God the Father and Jesus. The rest of the answers don't seem so obvious ... especially the seventh.

And remember, this parable was told long before the Gospel went out to the Gentiles, so it seems anachronistic to suggest that any of the players in the story refer to them. None of the folks Christ was speaking to would have thought any of them were Gentiles.

It doesn't matter whether they thought that the parable was speaking about Gentiles or not. Or whether or not they understood the parable completely. In fact, I have been reading the same parables for years and still get more and different understanding from them all of the time.
But God and Jesus knew the Gospel would go out and that you and I and everyone since Jesus first spoke it that everyone would read it would do so. It was written for us.

There is truth in applying this parable to both first century Jews and religious leaders and to us since those days. The city being destroyed is the doctrine or "filter" through which our view of reality is dictated to our minds. We cannot think past this doctrine. That was the first century Jews and it is us also. The old city must be destroyed. The New City is built by God. Our Doctrine must be that of Christ to make it to becoming the bride fully clothed as we should be clothed, in Christ.
The restoration of all things happens because of and not until we bring all thoughts into submission to Christ.
That is the doctrine of Jesus as shown in the parable of the sower. He plants the seeds, we are the ground and then we see something has grown,..we knoweth not how.
With the doctrine of Christ as our filter of Reality, we become the bride of Christ. And it all "comes down out of heaven" exactly like when Peter realized who Jesus was.
Flesh and blood does not reveal this city to us, but the Father in heaven. He supplies the feast.

[Mike]

The only reasonable way to decide this is by vote. I'll go first:


Who is the King? Me
Who is the Son? Me
Who are the servants? Ex-girlfriends
Who are the guests that rejected the invitation? Ex-girlfriends
Who are the guests brought in from the street? strippers
Who is the guest without a garment? ex-girlfriend/stripper
Who is the bride? Jennifer Love Hewitt


Ok, here's a serious answer. I think the King and the Son are both the Messiah. The servants are everybody. The guests that reject the invitation are the messiah's friends and family-members (rejected at home). The guests brought in from the street are everybody else. I think the bride is mankind in general. When the people accept the Messiah it is like Jesus marrying the entire human race. I think...

[Beck]

Questions:

Who is the King?
Who is the Son?
Who are the servants?
Who are the guests that rejected the invitation?
Who are the guests brought in from the street?
Who is the guest without a garment?
Who is the bride, and why is she not mentioned?

The first two questions are rather obvious - God the Father and Jesus. The rest of the answers don't seem so obvious ... especially the seventh.

And remember, this parable was told long before the Gospel went out to the Gentiles, so it seems anachronistic to suggest that any of the players in the story refer to them. None of the folks Christ was speaking to would have thought any of them were Gentiles.
__________________


Who are the servants? Those that are sent [Prophets and Apostles].
Who are the guests that rejected the invitation? chief priest and Pharisees
Who are the guests brought in from the street? a nation of people.
Who is the guest without a garment? a person of self righteousness [Pharisees]
Who is the bride, and why is she not mentioned? The point of the parable wasn't to introduce the bride, but those that are called.

I believe Jesus in many of his parables of the kingdom of Heaven speaks of these elements. As in the pervious parable of the Householder where there was and vineyard left to his husbandmen. At the end Jesus said that the kingdom shall be taken from you and given to a 'nation' that brings forth fruits of repentence. The cheif priest and Pharisees understood that Jesus was refering to them.

My question to you Richard would be...Would you see the 'nation of people' as Ephraim?

[heb13-13]

What about these verses:

Matt 22:5 "But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 "And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. 7 "But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies [Romans led by Titus], destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city [Fulfilled in 70 AD].

Seems to fit pretty well with the Preterist understanding.

It becomes a timeless statement for every generation when "armies" are the Powers of Darkness.

City is the congregation of the unrighteousness.

Guests without garments are thieves, robbers and murderers.

John 10:1Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

John 10:8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

The thief comes to murder.
John 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy (murderers): I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

The Garment is the robe of righteousness, part of the Garments of Salvation.

Isa 61:10 I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.

The GARMENTS of SALVATION are JESUS CHRIST.


Rom 13:14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

Kindly,
Rick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

What about these verses:

Matt 22:5 "But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 "And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. 7 "But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies [Romans led by Titus], destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city [Fulfilled in 70 AD].

Seems to fit pretty well with the Preterist understanding.
It becomes a timeless statement for every generation when "armies" are the Powers of Darkness.

City is the congregation of the unrighteousness.

Guests without garments are thieves, robbers and murderers.

John 10:1Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

John 10:8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

The thief comes to murder.
John 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy (murderers): I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

The Garment is the robe of righteousness, part of the Garments of Salvation.

Isa 61:10 I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.

The GARMENTS of SALVATION are JESUS CHRIST.


Rom 13:14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

Kindly,
Rick
Hey there Rick,

I understand your interpretation. It makes perfect sense from a Christian perspective. I understood things in much the same way when I was a Christian. If we receive the Bible as the Word of God then of course it only makes sense that he would have written it with many - indeed, an infinity of - of different layers of meaning. That's what made the book so fascinating. So mesmerizing. So addictive. So amazing. It became a treasury of divine wisdom to those with "eyes to see."

But such interpretations have little to do with the question of what the text actually states because each person can freely overlay whatever concepts they like upon the text and come up with anything - prophecies of alien invasion or whatever. So when debating the meaning of the text, we need to set aside our personal speculations long enough to ask "What does the text actually say, if anything?" And that's the real issue - if we are free to make the text say anything we want, then we must admit that it doesn't actually say anything at all. Case in point: Did Christ come in the flesh? Is that literal? Then why not his prediction about the coming destruction of the Temple? And if that was fulfilled in the first century, what right do we have to make up other "spiritual" and "timeless" interpretations? The mere fact that we can make them fit nicely with our doctrines does not mean that those interpretations were intended by God.

Great chatting, as usual.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Who are the servants? Those that are sent [Prophets and Apostles].
Who are the guests that rejected the invitation? chief priest and Pharisees
Who are the guests brought in from the street? a nation of people.
Who is the guest without a garment? a person of self righteousness [Pharisees]
Who is the bride, and why is she not mentioned? The point of the parable wasn't to introduce the bride, but those that are called.

I believe Jesus in many of his parables of the kingdom of Heaven speaks of these elements. As in the pervious parable of the Householder where there was and vineyard left to his husbandmen. At the end Jesus said that the kingdom shall be taken from you and given to a 'nation' that brings forth fruits of repentence. The cheif priest and Pharisees understood that Jesus was refering to them.

My question to you Richard would be...Would you see the 'nation of people' as Ephraim?
I think your answers are correct - except with regards to the Bride, since it seems the Bride must be identified as the Guests. This makes me think that we shouldn't try to push the allegory to far or it will break down.

As for "Ephraim" - we've gone over that before in another thread. The "nation of people" is the Church, the Body of Christ. Peter speaks of the Church as a "holy nation" and a "nation of priests."

[Charisma]

Questions:

Who is the King?
Who is the Son?
Who are the servants?
Who are the guests that rejected the invitation?
Who are the guests brought in from the street?
Who is the guest without a garment?
Who is the bride, and why is she not mentioned?
The first two questions are rather obvious - God the Father and Jesus. The rest of the answers don't seem so obvious ... especially the seventh. Hi Richard and all,

I have a few thoughts to add. I would like to preface them by saying that I've never made a study of different constructs (such as Preterism or Futurism, which seem to be mentioned frequently in BibleWheel Forum), so if my comments seem to fall into one of them, or another, I would like you to know that I haven't written them to promote either of the above, or those which may arise from time to time (such as Calvinism), to name but one other. My aim has been to try to get to know the Bible so that I can cross-reference the thought (God's thoughts are higher than ours.) and pictures used to convey thoughts, which are made understandable (to me at least) by the Holy Spirit. Until I had His help, I found the Book dry, boring, and incomprehensible. Really, I did!

1. The king is God the Father

2. The son is His Son Jesus Christ

3. The servants in the first instance are those who willingly serve Him. In the parable we see them following His instructions, consulting Him, obeying Him again and again until He is satisfied with the fruit of their labours

4. The guests that rejected the invitation are those of Israel who chose not to recognise the Messiah when He came

5. The guests brought in from the street are first of all those in Israel who were watching for the Messiah, who recognised that prophecy about Him was being fulfilled, or, recognised Him by His works, and not only followed for a blessing, but believed in Him. Since Acts 13:45 - 49, these have been joined by an increasing company of Gentiles who believe.

6. The guest without a garment is interesting. Obviously, he had a legitimate invitation, but instead of wearing the host's gift of new clothing which accompanied the invitation, he chose to wear his own clothes. Perhaps he thought they were better (fancier) than what the king had offered him.

Someone earlier said 'self' righteousness. That may be part of it, or, a coat of pride? (Maybe they are similar in someways!) This guest reminds me of a sermon Carter Conlon preached at Times Square Church, called 'Surviving the Family Reunion' - where certain young individuals decided to gate-crash an event somewhat like a wedding (in respect of those present). http://media.tscnyc.org/mp3/20090405S1.mp3

7. Isn't it fair to assume that if the king's son is being married, he is being married to - the bride? Yet, neither she nor the groom are present. They are preparing themselves at separate locations. When it's time for the bride to appear, the bridegroom will fetch her in - to the feast.

Joel 2:16 '... let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet.

Psalm 19:5 ' [the sun] as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, [and] rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.

Jeremiah 2:32 Can a maid forget her ornaments, [or] a bride her attire? yet my people have forgotten me days without number.


And remember, this parable was told long before the Gospel went out to the Gentiles, so it seems anachronistic to suggest that any of the players in the story refer to them. None of the folks Christ was speaking to would have thought any of them were Gentiles.While this is true, and the court of the Gentiles was separated by a wall to keep them from where Jewish men and women could enter, any Gentile who was willing to go through the necessary rituals could become a Jew. Then, he, his wife and children, would be accepted just as if he had been [I]born into an ethnically Jewish family. Phil Goble describes what they had to go through, within his chapter on baptism: http://www.afii.org/tevilah.pdf.


What about these verses:

Matt 22:5 "But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 "And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. 7 "But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies [Romans led by Titus], destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city [Fulfilled in 70 AD].

Seems to fit pretty well with the Preterist understanding. Maybe. But Jerusalem seems far too alive and well today, for that to be the end of the story. Not only is the time of the Gentiles of which both Jesus, and later Paul (Romans 11), spoke, not yet 'fulfilled', but regarding things which even Jesus Himself could not share with them, we have these very important verses:

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you. 15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew [it] unto YOU. 16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

I have heard someone suggest this promise was only for the disciples, but that is difficult to justify to anyone who has received the Holy Spirit, who's ocusing his spiritual ears to hear from God.

Beck suggested:

Who are the guests brought in from the street? a nation of people.If the word 'nation', relates to a common denominator in one's birth origin with that of others, and IF the other guests are a 'nation', they may be those who have been 'born from above' - both Jew and Gentile - whose hearts have been circumcised, as Paul said:

Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

5. The guests brought in from the street are first of all those in Israel who were watching for the Messiah, who recognised that prophecy about Him was being fulfilled, or, recognised Him by His works, and not only followed for a blessing, but believed in Him. Since Acts 13:45 - 49, these have been joined by an increasing company of Gentiles who believe.

And that brings up the point that I was thinking about when I began this thread. The inclusion of the Gentiles in the parable is anachronistic because the Gospel had not yet gone out to them at the time Christ spoke. I see a similar anachronism in the "Great Commission" at the end of Matthew:

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations [ethnos], baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
The word "ethnos" is often translated as "gentiles" and though it does not necessarily mean "non-Jew" it usually does. So why would Jesus give this command before the revelation of Pentecost? How would his disciples have understood what he was saying? This makes me doubt that these words are an authentic record of what Jesus really said. It seems more likely that they were added much later, after the doctrine of the Gospel going to the Gentiles was fully developed.



7. Isn't it fair to assume that if the king's son is being married, he is being married to - the bride? Yet, neither she nor the groom are present. They are preparing themselves at separate locations. When it's time for the bride to appear, the bridegroom will fetch her in - to the feast.

Joel 2:16 '... let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet.

Psalm 19:5 ' [the sun] [is] as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, [and] rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.

Jeremiah 2:32 Can a maid forget her ornaments, [or] a bride her attire? yet my people have forgotten me days without number.

But I still don't know the identity of the bride. Does not the Bible teach that the Bride is the Church (Believers) and do not the guests represent the believers? This seems to imply that the parable can only be taken "so far" before it breaks down.




And remember, this parable was told long before the Gospel went out to the Gentiles, so it seems anachronistic to suggest that any of the players in the story refer to them. None of the folks Christ was speaking to would have thought any of them were Gentiles.
While this is true, and the court of the Gentiles was separated by a wall to keep them from where Jewish men and women could enter, any Gentile who was willing to go through the necessary rituals could become a Jew. Then, he, his wife and children, would be accepted just as if he had been born into an ethnically Jewish family. Phil Goble describes what they had to go through, within his chapter on baptism: http://www.afii.org/tevilah.pdf.

Yes, Gentiles could convert and become Jews. But that has nothing to do with the idea of the Gospel going out to the Jews, so it still seems quite anachronistic to think that the "guests" represent the Church made up of Jews and Gentiles united in Christ. But this probably isn't a problem. We can just say that the "Guests" represent the "Church" which would later include both Jews and Gentiles.




What about these verses:

Matt 22:5 "But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 "And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. 7 "But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies [Romans led by Titus], destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city [Fulfilled in 70 AD].

Seems to fit pretty well with the Preterist understanding.
Maybe. But Jerusalem seems far too alive and well today, for that to be the end of the story.

Not only is the time of the Gentiles of which both Jesus, and later Paul (Romans 11), spoke, not yet 'fulfilled', but regarding things which even Jesus Himself could not share with them, we have these very important verses:

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you. 15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew [it] unto YOU. 16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

I have heard someone suggest this promise was only for the disciples, but that is difficult to justify to anyone who has received the Holy Spirit, who's ocusing his spiritual ears to hear from God.

Unfortunately, "the times of the Gentiles" is not defined in the Bible, so it's anybody's guess what it really means, and as such, it does not form a firm foundation for any "end times" speculations.

The things that Jesus had yet to say through his spirit probably refers to the writing of the New Testament. If it refers to things that individuals think God has told them, as when they say "The Lord told me that ..." then it doesn't mean much of anything since those kinds of "words of knowledge" are very unreliable.

And as for Jerusalem being "alive and well" - I don't think we're talking about the same "Jerusalem." The Biblical "Jerusalem" died during the time of Jacob's Trouble in the first century. I don't have any reason to think that the modern secular state of Israel is any kind of "continuation" of the Biblical Jerusalem, especially if the prophecies relating to its destruction were fulfilled in the first century. That's the big problem with popular "end times" theology - they have to reinvent the first century. They need a re-vived Roman empire to re-desolate the re-built temple. They even invent the idea of a "second coming" of Elijah to precede the second coming of Messiah. Everything get's doubled ... but the funny thing is that the prophecies in the Bible are not doubled. It says nothing about any "re-built" Temple, but this is one of the most common things taught by "end times" teachers.

So where do you stand on all this "end times" stuff Charisma? Have you thought it through yet? Do you have a position?

Great chatting,

Richard

[heb13-13]

Hey there Rick,

I understand your interpretation. It makes perfect sense from a Christian perspective. I understood things in much the same way when I was a Christian. If we receive the Bible as the Word of God then of course it only makes sense that he would have written it with many - indeed, an infinity of - of different layers of meaning. That's what made the book so fascinating. So mesmerizing. So addictive. So amazing. It became a treasury of divine wisdom to those with "eyes to see."

But such interpretations have little to do with the question of what the text actually states because each person can freely overlay whatever concepts they like upon the text and come up with anything - prophecies of alien invasion or whatever. So when debating the meaning of the text, we need to set aside our personal speculations long enough to ask "What does the text actually say, if anything?" And that's the real issue - if we are free to make the text say anything we want, then we must admit that it doesn't actually say anything at all. Case in point: Did Christ come in the flesh? Is that literal? Then why not his prediction about the coming destruction of the Temple? And if that was fulfilled in the first century, what right do we have to make up other "spiritual" and "timeless" interpretations? The mere fact that we can make them fit nicely with our doctrines does not mean that those interpretations were intended by God.

Great chatting, as usual.

Richard


Hi Richard,

Fair enough, I see where you are coming from. This is a wonderful exercise so thanks for letting me give it another try.

Questions:

1. Who is the King? God the Father
2. Who is the Son? Jesus Christ
3. Who are the servants? Agree with Beck and Charisma. Prophets, Apostles, all who willingly follow and obey Him. I would include the Bridegroom, Jesus, Himself. Even though He was a Son, He was also a Servant. Jesus, who is speaking, has to be included in the list of "servants".

Isa 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

4. Who are the guests that rejected the invitation? Agree with Charisma. Those of Israel that reject the Messiah.

5. Who are the guests brought in from the street? The street is the world, the nations.

Isa 55:5 Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the LORD thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee.

6. Who is the guest without a garment? Those who think that their own works please God and do not have faith in Jesus Christ which then is accounted to them as true righteousness.

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

7. Who is the bride, and why is she not mentioned? The Bride is mentioned! Just like Jesus was included as one of the Servants, the Bride is all of the guest that have accepted the invitation and received proper garments. (robes of righteousness)

Paul, speaking to the Gentile church, that they are part of the Bride.
2Co 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

and...

Rev 21:9b ...Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

Rev 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

All the best,
Rick

P.S. I am always open to correction. It is one of the primary ways I learn.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

Fair enough, I see where you are coming from. This is a wonderful exercise so thanks for letting me give it another try.

Questions:

1. Who is the King? God the Father
2. Who is the Son? Jesus Christ
3. Who are the servants? Agree with Beck and Charisma. Prophets, Apostles, all who willingly follow and obey Him. I would include the Bridegroom, Jesus, Himself. Even though He was a Son, He was also a Servant. Jesus, who is speaking, has to be included in the list of "servants".

Isa 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

4. Who are the guests that rejected the invitation? Agree with Charisma. Those of Israel that reject the Messiah.

5. Who are the guests brought in from the street? The street is the world, the nations.

Isa 55:5 Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the LORD thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee.

6. Who is the guest without a garment? Those who think that their own works please God and do not have faith in Jesus Christ which then is accounted to them as true righteousness.

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

7. Who is the bride, and why is she not mentioned? The Bride is mentioned! Just like Jesus was included as one of the Servants, the Bride is all of the guest that have accepted the invitation and received proper garments. (robes of righteousness)

Paul, speaking to the Gentile church, that they are part of the Bride.
2Co 11:2For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

and...

Rev 21:9b ...Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

Rev 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

All the best,
Rick

P.S. I am always open to correction. It is one of the primary ways I learn.




Your answers make good sense to me. The inclusion of the gentiles simply would not have registered with the first hearers, but would have made sense in hindsight.

And I agree that the bride must be the guests if we assume that this parable must cohere in every detail with the rest of the Bible. But I think that's probably forcing things beyond their intended meaning. The "bride" in this parable probably does not represent anything. If she does, then she represents that guests, but then we ruin the parable since it would be absurd to have a group of guests at the wedding also be the bride. Therefore, I conclude that there is no "bride" in this parable, and none was intended.

That's just my take on it - I too am open to correction on all things. Good to have another friend with the same attitude! It makes for very good conversation.

Richard

[heb13-13]

Your answers make good sense to me. The inclusion of the gentiles simply would not have registered with the first hearers, but would have made sense in hindsight.

And I agree that the bride must be the guests if we assume that this parable must cohere in every detail with the rest of the Bible. But I think that's probably forcing things beyond their intended meaning. The "bride" in this parable probably does not represent anything. If she does, then she represents that guests, but then we ruin the parable since it would be absurd to have a group of guests at the wedding also be the bride. Therefore, I conclude that there is no "bride" in this parable, and none was intended.

That's just my take on it - I too am open to correction on all things. Good to have another friend with the same attitude! It makes for very good conversation.

Richard

Yes, in that respect it does not make sense. Traditionally, we don't invite guests to our son's wedding and then expect our son to commit open and rampant polygamy in front of everyone, but then the Bible is far from anything traditional.

A wedding is mentioned which implies a bride, but yes the bride is not mentioned. No argument there. If we are talking about hearers present at that time and not the present day readers, then yes, they probably would not have put 2 and 2 together about the Old Testament prophecies of the Gentiles. And even if they would have thought about that, they would not have linked it up with a Bride, Bridegroom and a Wedding.

Very enjoyable, but you still perplex me on some other things (not to worry, we'll get to them). :alien011:

I have found you to have a good sense of humor which is always a necessity in theological discussions. If we take ourselves too seriously, we are easily offended.

Cheers,
Rick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Very enjoyable, but you still perplex me on some other things (not to worry, we'll get to them). :alien011:

I have found you to have a good sense of humor which is always a necessity in theological discussions. If we take ourselves too seriously, we are easily offended.

Cheers,
Rick
I'm really looking forward to discussing the things that "perplex" you.

And I'm glad you recognize my sense of humor. It can sometimes go "past" a person and by the time I finish explaining, the point has been lost.

[heb13-13]

I'm really looking forward to discussing the things that "perplex" you.

And I'm glad you recognize my sense of humor. It can sometimes go "past" a person and by the time I finish explaining, the point has been lost.

Oh, I have absolutely not missed your sense of humor. :rofl:

A little levity is needful when discussing serious subjects with all kinds of people, eh?

Ok, got a few more questions for you on another thread but first need to run some errands.

Bye for now,
Rick

[Charisma]

Hi Richard, and thanks for your reply.


And that brings up the point that I was thinking about when I began this thread. The inclusion of the Gentiles in the parable is anachronistic because the Gospel had not yet gone out to them at the time Christ spoke.Please let me explain why I don't agree. :)

Paul's thesis in Romans covers that Abram was a Gentile when he believed God and his faith was accounted to him for righteousness. Only then did he receive the sign of circumcision. Additionally, God had promised that through Abram all the nations of the earth would be blessed, which Paul calls God preaching the 'gospel' to Abraham:

Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.


Then there are all the references to the Gentiles being mentioned by the prophets, backed up by Jesus' own reference to 'other sheep' in John 10. The concept of one fold and one Shepherd was already in the Old Testament, and by its very mention suggests there was more than one fold at some time. (It's late here and I won't take time to search out references, but if you're not familiar with them, I will supply them in another post.)

There are also several references to 'not my people' in the Old Testament, which sometimes mean Jews, but sometimes Gentiles. Phil Goble's point that a Jew had never had to be baptised before John Baptist's ministry, is that John's message was 'you Jews are now as unclean as Gentiles'. By implication, the Jew's position of supposed superiority was thus undermined even before Jesus began His ministry.

The promise that Gentiles will receive 'the blessing of Abraham' was well known down through many centuries, in Israel, and is identified by Paul in Galatians 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

The Jews did their best to ignore the promises of God to save Gentiles too, beginning with God's word to Eve in Gen 3. Certainly, the disciples had no insight whatever until after Jesus opened the scriptures to them after His resurrection.

But it was not until Pentecost that the apostles began to be able to pull scripture together with real understanding, beginning with Peter's amazing exposition of David's prophetic ministry and David's natural and spiritual relationship to Christ.

I realise there are no 'Gentiles' in there, but if you look at the last sentence of Peter's sermon in the Temple in Acts 3, you can see that he prophetically used the word 'first' (as Paul did later), while it also being clear that Peter had no understanding until after his vision on the roof at Joppa. Even while in Cornelius' house, he was unprepared for a group of Gentiles to be baptised in the Holy Spirit, and had to work out what it meant doctrinally, afterwards.
Does not the Bible teach that the Bride is the Church (Believers) and do not the guests represent the believers?The Bible does teach that the Bride is the Church, and yes, the guests represent 'believers'.

I think you're assuming that all 'believers' are Christians. That might raise the question of whether all 'Christians', are 'believers', which might also raise the question of whether all Christians who really do know the Lord, are part of the Bride.

Food for thought!

Let's rewind to the Old Testament. Back then the only way a Gentile could become a 'believer', was by becoming a Jew through the ritual. These are all described as 'servants' in both the Old and the New Testament. They were justified by 'faith', because they were justified by keeping the whole law.

In the New Testament, 'faith' in Christ's death and resurrection should bring a 'believer' into birth 'from above' - the adoption of sons.

The question is then, will there be sons and servants as guests at the marriage? Is every son of God part of the Bride, or does it depend on the maturity reached by a son?

The following verses are a few of the obvious ones which link these ideas, and may not answer all the questions I asked. What do you think?

Hebrews 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; 2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses [was faithful] in all his house. 3 For this [man] was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. 4 For every house is builded by some [man]; but he that built all things God. 5 And Moses verily [was] faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; 6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

Numbers 12:7 My servant Moses [is] not so, who [is] faithful in all mine house.

Galatians 4:1 Now I say, [That] the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; 2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: 4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.


Thus, while there are Jewish and Gentile Christians through the circumcision of the heart joined by faith to the New Covenant, there are only servants in the Old Covenant.

In the Old Testament there are many fathers and sons, who teach us about the relationship God wants with His spiritual children, but none of those [I]natural sons are 'sons of God' as in the New Covenant.

Hebrews 2:10 For it became him, for whom [are] all things, and by whom [are] all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified [are] all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

[Beck]

I think your answers are correct - except with regards to the Bride, since it seems the Bride must be identified as the Guests. This makes me think that we shouldn't try to push the allegory to far or it will break down.
Well that would be pushing the allegory to far.



As for "Ephraim" - we've gone over that before in another thread. The "nation of people" is the Church, the Body of Christ. Peter speaks of the Church as a "holy nation" and a "nation of priests."

I like going over things again don't you? :pop2: I was just wanted your feed back in that you said,
And remember, this parable was told long before the Gospel went out to the Gentiles, so it seems anachronistic to suggest that any of the players in the story refer to them. None of the folks Christ was speaking to would have thought any of them were Gentiles.


In knowing that's what it would ultimate would mean. Jews [Judah] and Ephraim [Israel] becoming one nation. In the case of Ephraim as [nations] or Gentiles.

How else would they have understood Isaiah writting of Zion travailing to brith a nation at once? Are the likes of Ezekiel's two sticks becoming one stick? They must have understood that to mean the total restoration of all the children of Israel. Their perception of a 'nation' could have been the out cast of Israel what would have being willing to accept the invitation. Seem as you said their perception would haven't been of Gentiles coming into the kingdom.

Bu then again Jesus spoke of the Centurion's faith not so found in Israel. Jesus had already annouced to them that many like the Centurion would come and sit down with Abraham and Isaac, but the children of the kingdom shall be casted out into outer darkness. (Matthew 8:10-12)

[Richard Amiel McGough]

As for "Ephraim" - we've gone over that before in another thread. The "nation of people" is the Church, the Body of Christ. Peter speaks of the Church as a "holy nation" and a "nation of priests."
I like going over things again don't you? :pop2: I was just wanted your feed back in that you said,


And remember, this parable was told long before the Gospel went out to the Gentiles, so it seems anachronistic to suggest that any of the players in the story refer to them. None of the folks Christ was speaking to would have thought any of them were Gentiles.

In knowing that's what it would ultimate would mean. Jews [Judah] and Ephraim [Israel] becoming one nation. In the case of Ephraim as [nations] or Gentiles.

How else would they have understood Isaiah writting of Zion travailing to brith a nation at once? Are the likes of Ezekiel's two sticks becoming one stick? They must have understood that to mean the total restoration of all the children of Israel. Their perception of a 'nation' could have been the out cast of Israel what would have being willing to accept the invitation. Seem as you said their perception would haven't been of Gentiles coming into the kingdom.

Bu then again Jesus spoke of the Centurion's faith not so found in Israel. Jesus had already annouced to them that many like the Centurion would come and sit down with Abraham and Isaac, but the children of the kingdom shall be casted out into outer darkness. (Matthew 8:10-12)
Yes, I like going over things a second or third time so we can refine our understand. Indeed, we are often only working out the basic outline the first time we discuss a topic. I didn't mean to suggest we should never revisit that question again!

As for how the OT prophecies would have been understood by the Jews, that's pretty obvious. Some would have insisted they must be fulfilled "literally" while others would see fulfillment in various symbolic ways. Case in point, Paul identified God's promise to "dwell with his people" as fulfilled in the Church as the true (spiritual) Temple. I always felt that the fulfillment of those prophecies in Christ and the church as primary evidence of the supernatural inspiration of the prophecies. It all fit together too well. All these little details. Why did Melchizedek bring forth bread and wine thousands of years before Christ instituted the Eucharist? Things like that always impressed me as evidence of a superintending mind.

Getting back to your question about "Ephraim" - I still don't understand your basic thesis. If the "Ephramites" have been absorbed into the Gentiles, they no longer exist as a genetic group. So there are no "hidden Ephaimites" to "return." God himself could not "find" them because they do not exist. It's simple population dynamics. If they've been "living as Gentiles" for a hundred generations, then they have interbred with Gentiles to such an extent that they would be genetically indistinguishable. And essentially every Gentile would now have ancestors that could be traced to Ephraim, so everyone would be "of Israel" just as much as everyone has an ancestor from every other people group.

Bottom line - it seems to me that the idea of "Jews" and "Gentiles" and "lost tribes of Israel" makes no sense at all. They simply do not exist in a genetic sense.

Great chatting!

[Beck]

Yes, I like going over things a second or third time so we can refine our understand. Indeed, we are often only working out the basic outline the first time we discuss a topic. I didn't mean to suggest we should never revisit that question again!

That's great I hope you don't get tired of me bounding this topic off you again. :yo:



As for how the OT prophecies would have been understood by the Jews, that's pretty obvious. Some would have insisted they must be fulfilled "literally" while others would see fulfillment in various symbolic ways. Case in point, Paul identified God's promise to "dwell with his people" as fulfilled in the Church as the true (spiritual) Temple. I always felt that the fulfillment of those prophecies in Christ and the church as primary evidence of the supernatural inspiration of the prophecies. It all fit together too well. All these little details. Why did Melchizedek bring forth bread and wine thousands of years before Christ instituted the Eucharist? Things like that always impressed me as evidence of a superintending mind.

It's pretty obvious that there where two ideas or concepts, but it seems that the spiritual fulfillment would prevail. In the time of Christ darkness still prevailed which many could not see nor understand the fulfillment.



Getting back to your question about "Ephraim" - I still don't understand your basic thesis. If the "Ephramites" have been absorbed into the Gentiles, they no longer exist as a genetic group. So there are no "hidden Ephaimites" to "return." God himself could not "find" them because they do not exist. It's simple population dynamics. If they've been "living as Gentiles" for a hundred generations, then they have interbred with Gentiles to such an extent that they would be genetically indistinguishable. And essentially every Gentile would now have ancestors that could be traced to Ephraim, so everyone would be "of Israel" just as much as everyone has an ancestor from every other people group.

Bottom line - it seems to me that the idea of "Jews" and "Gentiles" and "lost tribes of Israel" makes no sense at all. They simply do not exist in a genetic sense.

Great chatting!

I didn't mean that they as a group or tribes would be restored/returned, but that is the idea. Isaiah prophesied that the children of Israel would return from Assyria like a second exodus. The children of Ephraim was to be as the sand of the sea. Now in many interpretations of 'sea' it denotes as nations or Gentiles. To say that Ephraim is to be restored so that Judah and Ephraim would become one nation that would mean in inclusion of Gentiles.

I'm not sure if Judah or the Jews or let me say the Pharisees would be inclined to except Ephraim back into the kingdom? Isn't that the implication of Luke 16:19-31 of the Rich man and Lazarus?

So when Jesus spoke of the 'nation' in Matthew 21 it was speaking of the nation that was made of Jews and Ephriam or Gentiles. Whether or not the people understood that it seems if they didn't. But even Christ disciples at times didn't understand, even at the end they where asking about the restoration of Israel.

Great chatting these things again with you.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard, and thanks for your reply.

Please let me explain why I don't agree. :)

Let you? Are you kidding? I'd complain if you didn't! :thumb:

That's one of the primary purposes of this forum.



Paul's thesis in Romans covers that Abram was a Gentile when he believed God and his faith was accounted to him for righteousness. Only then did he receive the sign of circumcision. Additionally, God had promised that through Abram all the nations of the earth would be blessed, which Paul calls God preaching the 'gospel' to Abraham:

Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.


Then there are all the references to the Gentiles being mentioned by the prophets, backed up by Jesus' own reference to 'other sheep' in John 10. The concept of one fold and one Shepherd was already in the Old Testament, and by its very mention suggests there was more than one fold at some time. (It's late here and I won't take time to search out references, but if you're not familiar with them, I will supply them in another post.)

There are also several references to 'not my people' in the Old Testament, which sometimes mean Jews, but sometimes Gentiles. Phil Goble's point that a Jew had never had to be baptised before John Baptist's ministry, is that John's message was 'you Jews are now as unclean as Gentiles'. By implication, the Jew's position of supposed superiority was thus undermined even before Jesus began His ministry.

The promise that Gentiles will receive 'the blessing of Abraham' was well known down through many centuries, in Israel, and is identified by Paul in Galatians 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

The Jews did their best to ignore the promises of God to save Gentiles too, beginning with God's word to Eve in Gen 3. Certainly, the disciples had no insight whatever until after Jesus opened the scriptures to them after His resurrection.

But it was not until Pentecost that the apostles began to be able to pull scripture together with real understanding, beginning with Peter's amazing exposition of David's prophetic ministry and David's natural and spiritual relationship to Christ.

I realise there are no 'Gentiles' in there, but if you look at the last sentence of Peter's sermon in the Temple in Acts 3, you can see that he prophetically used the word 'first' (as Paul did later), while it also being clear that Peter had no understanding until after his vision on the roof at Joppa. Even while in Cornelius' house, he was unprepared for a group of Gentiles to be baptised in the Holy Spirit, and had to work out what it meant doctrinally, afterwards. The Bible does teach that the Bride is the Church, and yes, the guests represent 'believers'.

I think your general approach makes very good sense. It is clear that there are many prophecies about the inclusion of the Gentiles in the OT, but I'm not sure that the Jews prior to Christ would have been able to recognize them as such. And I also doubt that the the inclusion of the Gentiles in the promise of Abraham was "known down through many centuries, in Israel." I don't see how that idea follows from what Paul wrote, because he did not merely say that they were included in the promises, but that would be "justified by faith." I am not aware of this being a teaching was "known down through many centuries in Israel." I would tend to think that the Jewish understanding was that the Gentiles would be "blessed" because Israel as a nation would rule the world under Messiah.



I think you're assuming that all 'believers' are Christians. That might raise the question of whether all 'Christians', are 'believers', which might also raise the question of whether all Christians who really do know the Lord, are part of the Bride.

Food for thought!

For the purpose of this discussion, I was referring to "believers" and "Christians" as "true believers." We should probably start another thread if you want to pursue the question about how to discern between "true believers" and "false believers" or whether there is such a thing as a "true believer."



Let's rewind to the Old Testament. Back then the only way a Gentile could become a 'believer', was by becoming a Jew through the ritual. These are all described as 'servants' in both the Old and the New Testament. They were justified by 'faith', because they were justified by keeping the whole law.

I don't understand your statement. Paul contrasted justification by faith with justification by keeping the whole law. How can you say that they are the same thing?



In the New Testament, 'faith' in Christ's death and resurrection should bring a 'believer' into birth 'from above' - the adoption of sons.

The question is then, will there be sons and servants as guests at the marriage? Is every son of God part of the Bride, or does it depend on the maturity reached by a son?

The following verses are a few of the obvious ones which link these ideas, and may not answer all the questions I asked. What do you think?

Hebrews 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; 2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses [was faithful] in all his house. 3 For this [man] was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. 4 For every house is builded by some [man]; but he that built all things God. 5 And Moses verily [was] faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; 6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

Numbers 12:7 My servant Moses [is] not so, who [is] faithful in all mine house.

Galatians 4:1 Now I say, [That] the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; 2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: 4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.


Thus, while there are Jewish and Gentile Christians through the circumcision of the heart joined by faith to the New Covenant, there are only servants in the Old Covenant.

In the Old Testament there are many fathers and sons, who teach us about the relationship God wants with His spiritual children, but none of those [I]natural sons are 'sons of God' as in the New Covenant.

Hebrews 2:10 For it became him, for whom [are] all things, and by whom [are] all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified [are] all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
I don't follow you are getting at. It seems that you are suggesting that the "bride" is a group of "mature" Christians. Some sort of "elite" group who are better than other Christians? Is that what you meant?

I'm very glad you are making the effort to explain why you disagree.

Great chatting!

Richard

[gilgal]

What about these verses:

Matt 22:5 "But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 "And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. 7 "But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies [Romans led by Titus], destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city [Fulfilled in 70 AD].

Seems to fit pretty well with the Preterist understanding.
I explained this in another thread. Actually Arnold Fruchtenbaum a Futurist Messianic teacher agrees as I do that part of it was fulfilled in 70 AD. But what comes after the destruction of the city and Temple?

I think the same applied in the Olivet discourse. It begins with the destruction of the temple and ends with the coming of the Son of Man (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21). But in Mark it mentions the abomination of Desolation after the destruction of Herod's Temple. Is it because it will be rebuilt?

[throwback]

The servants would appears to be the apostles and prophets sent to tell the people God's message.

The invited guests seem to be those Jewish leaders and there fathers that Jesus spoke of in the following chapter in verses 29 thru 36.

The guest brought from the streets are likely a reference to the same group of outsiders (tax collectors and whores) spoken of in chapter 21 verses 31 and 32. In addition verse 9 seems to indicate that this group was inclusive of the lost of Israel as well as people of the nations.

As far as the guest without a garment, GUESS would be someone who wishes to make it into the Kingdom without properly acknowledging the Son, but that is just a guess I cannot prove or back up with much evidence.

As far as the bride is concerned, though she is not mentioned, can't we reasonably conclude that exist because in order for there to be a wedding feast there must be both a bride and a bridegroom?


It is my understanding that ANE people, specifically the children of Israel had a wedding tradition of the groom and his bride showing up at the wedding feast together after having consummated their union.
With this being the case, I find it very likely that no one mentioned in this story is the bride and that the bride is represented by a group that the bridegroom came for and snatched away PRIOR to the banquet.

[gilgal]

It is my understanding that ANE people, specifically the children of Israel had a wedding tradition of the groom and his bride showing up at the wedding feast together after having consummated their union.
With this being the case, I find it very likely that no one mentioned in this story is the bride and that the bride is represented by a group that the bridegroom came for and snatched away PRIOR to the banquet.


Matthew 22:1 KJV - And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
Matthew 22:2 KJV - The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
Matthew 22:3 KJV - And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
Matthew 22:4 KJV - Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and [my] fatlings [are] killed, and all things [are] ready: come unto the marriage.
Matthew 22:5 KJV - But they made light of [it], and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
Matthew 22:6 KJV - And the remnant took his servants, and entreated [them] spitefully, and slew [them].
Matthew 22:7 KJV - But when the king heard [thereof], he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

Now this is where the scripture contradicts our Teleevangelicals and futurists:


Matthew 22:8 KJV - Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
Matthew 22:9 KJV - Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
Matthew 22:10 KJV - So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
Matthew 22:11 KJV - And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
Matthew 22:12 KJV - And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
Matthew 22:13 KJV - Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast [him] into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Matthew 22:14 KJV - For many are called, but few [are] chosen.

They take this as the rapture. It's true that the blood of Jesus makes our garment pure. But as mentioned in Jude and the other epistles that there are people in the church who are not pure. Or the parable of the wheat and the tares where during the harvest or judgment day they will be separated. But no rapture.

So I'm no Preterist and no Futurist but a bit of both http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif

But I'm thinking that the people who have crept in unawares were spies as mentioned in Galatians desiring Christians to get circumcised and give a heavy burden on them but don't know Jesus Christ nor his gospel at all. They are members for political reasons or for personal gain...

[Charisma]

Hi Richard,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.


Let you? Are you kidding? I'd complain if you didn't!Okay. That's good. :)


I think your general approach makes very good sense. It is clear that there are many prophecies about the inclusion of the Gentiles in the OT, but I'm not sure that the Jews prior to Christ would have been able to recognize them as such. And I also doubt that the the inclusion of the Gentiles in the promise of Abraham was "known down through many centuries, in Israel." I don't see how that idea follows from what Paul wrote, because he did not merely say that they were included in the promises, but that would be "justified by faith." I am not aware of this being a teaching was "known down through many centuries in Israel." I would tend to think that the Jewish understanding was that the Gentiles would be "blessed" because Israel as a nation would rule the world under Messiah. I said ‘down through many centuries’ for two reasons. The chronological first is, that when the law was given, Gentiles who would be circumcised (after leaving Egypt), were to be allowed to partake of the Passovers in the wilderness. At least, that’s how I read Deuteronomy’s references to Gentiles being able to be included under the law with the Hebrews.

The second reason is that the Law was a long time before Isaiah, who was at least a thousand years before Christ. That is ‘many centuries’. The fact that later, Jews moved away from encouraging[/Ii] Gentiles into Judaism, doesn’t mean the religious authorities were unaware that a Gentile [I]could become a Jew - thereby being ‘justified by faith’ under the Old Covenant - in the same way as Abraham the Gentile, before, had been ‘justified’ by believing God’s word to him. After the New Covenant was in place, the circumcision of the heart also brings Gentiles to become Jews - ‘inwardly’.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding which bit of what I said you think would not have been well known in Israel? If so, I’m sure you’ll speak up ;).

I completely agree that even after Pentecost, the disciples were not looking for Gentiles to be baptised in the Spirit, except for, at the end of his first post-Pentecost sermon in the Temple, which Peter concludes prophetically: 26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.’ I wonder if Peter thought about that, afterwards…

For the purpose of this discussion, I was referring to "believers" and "Christians" as "true believers." We should probably start another thread if you want to pursue the question about how to discern between "true believers" and "false believers" or whether there is such a thing as a "true believer." I wouldn’t wish to start a new thread, but the matter of maturity does come in somewhere along the line because the picture is of marriage. In Matthew 7:20 – 24, Jesus defines maturity comprehensively in terms of bearing good fruit, and, doing the will of His Father. However, a babe-in-Christ can fulfil these criteria, but there are criteria.

In the Old Testament, the word ‘holy’ has to do with being separated for a sole purpose, and this is an essential quality for the bride-to-be. She has to have set her heart on Christ – to the exclusion of all other loves. Although I referred (in my earlier post) to maturity in sonship, (which doesn’t seem to fit with wooing!) nevertheless the son must have His Father’s interests as his first priority, to grow in trustworthiness. In both cases, the Father loves the son anyway, just as Christ loves the Church anyway, but this in no way implies compromise on either the Father or the Son’s parts. In particular, those whose robes are spotless, are those who have laundered them in the blood of the Lamb. (Rev 7:14, Eph 5: 27 That he [Christ] might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.)


It seems that you are suggesting that the "bride" is a group of "mature" Christians. Some sort of "elite" group who are better than other Christians? Is that what you meant? I’ve begun to answer these question above, partly.

It seems to me it’s not possible for one Christian to know for sure how serious another Christian is about being part of the Bride, except from pointers which Jesus gave like those in Matthew 7, and verses such as ‘out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh’, which tell their own story quite apart from observations of behaviour. Therefore, just as only I can repent for myself and no other, each believer needs to have his or her heart fixed on knowing God for themselves, beyond any possible compromise. But that is a matter between themselves and God alone.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

You are most welcome! It is a joy to be discussing this with you.


I said ‘down through many centuries’ for two reasons. The chronological first is, that when the law was given, Gentiles who would be circumcised (after leaving Egypt), were to be allowed to partake of the Passovers in the wilderness. At least, that’s how I read Deuteronomy’s references to Gentiles being able to be included under the law with the Hebrews.

The second reason is that the Law was a long time before Isaiah, who was at least a thousand years before Christ. That is ‘many centuries’. The fact that later, Jews moved away from encouraging Gentiles into Judaism, doesn’t mean the religious authorities were unaware that a Gentile could become a Jew - thereby being ‘justified by faith’ under the Old Covenant - in the same way as Abraham the Gentile, before, had been ‘justified’ by believing God’s word to him. After the New Covenant was in place, the circumcision of the heart also brings Gentiles to become Jews - ‘inwardly’.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding which bit of what I said you think would not have been well known in Israel? If so, I’m sure you’ll speak up ;).

I agree with everything you have said. I had thought that you were implying some explicit Jewish tradition relating to the inclusion of the Jews. We agree that it is in the OT.

But one point of fact: It is generally accepted that Isaiah wrote around 750 BC. We know this from the chronology of 2 Kings 19 which mentions him.



I completely agree that even after Pentecost, the disciples were not looking for Gentiles to be baptised in the Spirit, except for, at the end of his first post-Pentecost sermon in the Temple, which Peter concludes prophetically: 26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.’ I wonder if Peter thought about that, afterwards…

That is curious. It could be "prophetic" or it could be a anachronism accidentally introduced by Luke who was writing long after the inclusion of the Gentiles. This seems likely, given that we have the same anachronism in Matthew 28:19 when Jesus told his disciples to "go and teach all nations (ethnos/Gentiles)" before they new anything about their inclusion.






I think you're assuming that all 'believers' are Christians. That might raise the question of whether all 'Christians', are 'believers', which might also raise the question of whether all Christians who really do know the Lord, are part of the Bride.

For the purpose of this discussion, I was referring to "believers" and "Christians" as "true believers." We should probably start another thread if you want to pursue the question about how to discern between "true believers" and "false believers" or whether there is such a thing as a "true believer."
I wouldn’t wish to start a new thread, but the matter of maturity does come in somewhere along the line because the picture is of marriage. In Matthew 7:20 – 24, Jesus defines maturity comprehensively in terms of bearing good fruit, and, doing the will of His Father. However, a babe-in-Christ can fulfil these criteria, but there are criteria.

In the Old Testament, the word ‘holy’ has to do with being separated for a sole purpose, and this is an essential quality for the bride-to-be. She has to have set her heart on Christ – to the exclusion of all other loves. Although I referred (in my earlier post) to maturity in sonship, (which doesn’t seem to fit with wooing!) nevertheless the son must have His Father’s interests as his first priority, to grow in trustworthiness. In both cases, the Father loves the son anyway, just as Christ loves the Church anyway, but this in no way implies compromise on either the Father or the Son’s parts. In particular, those whose robes are spotless, are those who have laundered them in the blood of the Lamb. (Rev 7:14, Eph 5: 27 That he [Christ] might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.)

I understand that there are totally fake Christians, but I still wonder if you are saying that there are "degrees" of being Christian? Are you saying that some Christians will be saved, but not part of the "Bride" so in effect there are two classes of Christians? Was that your point?




It seems that you are suggesting that the "bride" is a group of "mature" Christians. Some sort of "elite" group who are better than other Christians? Is that what you meant?
I’ve begun to answer these question above, partly.

It seems to me it’s not possible for one Christian to know for sure how serious another Christian is about being part of the Bride, except from pointers which Jesus gave like those in Matthew 7, and verses such as ‘out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh’, which tell their own story quite apart from observations of behaviour. Therefore, just as only I can repent for myself and no other, each believer needs to have his or her heart fixed on knowing God for themselves, beyond any possible compromise. But that is a matter between themselves and God alone.
I agree that no one can "know" the heart of another on these things, but I would likewise question if anyone can "know" their own heart either. How do you know you are not deceiving yourself? Doesn't this kind of thinking sound a bit like the Pharisee who said "God, I thank you that I am not like other men --robbers, evildoers, adulterers -- or even like those immature Christians who are not worthy to be your Bride!"?

Great chatting, as always!

Richard

[Charisma]

Hi Richard,

Take it easy on that road, now. :yo:

I have a half written reply to complete, but in the meantime, on the matter of what was known about the Gentiles in relationship to the Jewish promised Redeemer, in Israel, I happed upon these verses.

Luke 2:25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name [was] Simeon; and the same man [was] just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. 26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. 27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, 28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, 29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: 30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, 31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; 32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.


This is what I meant by common knowledge.

Blessings to you.

[Charisma]

Hi Richard :)

Okay. Here's the half!

On re-reading how far I’d got with my reply, it seems enough to present without further addition at this time. Possibly I will add other thoughts in a fresh post.


It is a joy to be discussing this with you.
I'm enjoying it, too.


I had thought that you were implying some explicit Jewish tradition relating to the inclusion of the Jews.I think you meant 'Gentiles', here; yes?


But one point of fact: It is generally accepted that Isaiah wrote around 750 BC. We know this from the chronology of 2 Kings 19 which mentions him.Okay. Thank you for refining my knowledge. :)


That is curious. It could be "prophetic" or it could be a anachronism accidentally introduced by Luke who was writing long after the inclusion of the Gentiles.Hmm. I had forgotten that Luke wrote Acts. However, given the oral tradition, and the word-for-word agreement between other parts of the gospels, I would not be quick in assuming Luke had added something to Peter’s words, for if 'first' was added as an historical explanation to the reader, it does not detract from Peter’s general exposition to his listeners.

I want to take one of your previous comments with a later one. Earlier in your post you had said, 'We agree that it is in the OT'. Then you use the thought that Luke may have added something, to justify a contradictory view of Christ's command recorded by Matthew, saying,

This seems likely, given that we have the same anachronism in Matthew 28:19 when Jesus told his disciples to "go and teach all nations (ethnos/Gentiles)". 'before they new anything about their inclusion'. ??

How can you even begin to suggest that Gentiles had no idea God had promised to deliver them? Such a view is entirely limited to a latter Jewish mindset, and not at all consistent with the revelation of scripture (by which I mean its record of God’s word to the whole of mankind). For instance, we have Job, the Elamite's famous and wide-ranging declarations about God and creation, some of which, I believe, are prophetic.

In an earlier post I referred to Jesus' words in John 10 (but I didn't quote them). Here they are:
16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and]one shepherd.

I believe that when He said that, He was referring to this (and other prophecies):

Isaiah 56:1 Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation [is] near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. 2 Blessed [is] the man [that] doeth this, and the son of man [that] layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. 3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I [am] a dry tree. 4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose [the things] that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices [shall be] accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. 8 The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather [others] to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.

There is, also, in the Law, the fact that a Jewish man could marry a Gentile wife, despite it being high on the 'not recommended' list of a Jewish parent. As long as the legal requirements for so doing were adhered to these would include: a daughter of the enemy - Delilah, or, a prisoner of war (Deu 21:10 – 14), a slave (Exo 21:7 – 11), a prostitute - Rahab, a near-kinswoman - Ruth. These women became included under the Law, being one flesh with their husbands, and were also protected by specific provisions for divorce.

When Boaz spoke to Ruth, he beautifully expressed God's attitude to Gentiles through Israel: 2:12 The LORD recompense thy work, and a full reward be given thee of the LORD God of Israel, under whose wings thou art come to trust.

As it happens Boaz's mother was Rahab, who had given the spies insight to the 'Gentile' understanding: 9 And she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you. 10 For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that [were] on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed. 11 And as soon as we had heard [these things], our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he [is] God in heaven above, and in earth beneath. 12 Now therefore, I pray you, swear unto me by the LORD, since I have shewed you kindness, that ye will also shew kindness unto my father's house, and give me a true token...' Joshua 2.

That young business woman knew how to close a deal! But my point is more that the word about God had been revived locally in the Gentile population. Remember too, that these were Canaanites (mainly), named after one of Noah's grandsons. I believe they knew their history ;) .