Vol 01 - Parable of the Virgins

Parable of the Virgins

Matthew 25:1-13. - Whether the lamps had gone, or were only going out, makes no real difference as to the grand teaching of the parable; and, as far as this goes, either the one or the other is quite compatible with the absence of oil. The statement that the foolish "have some oil" is most objectionable: not a word implies it; nay, what is said both by the wise virgins and the Lord would imply the reverse, even if we had not the plain and positive declaration that the foolish "took their lamps and took no oil with them." Why might not wicks be lit, and relit, without oil? I agree that " are going out" is a more correct rendering than the ordinary version; but it in no way shows that the virgins had oil, or that they were more than professors without the Holy Ghost, though responsible for and designated according to the position they assumed. As to the unconverted being called "virgins," there is no more difficulty there than in the "servant" of the preceding parable. In either case they took that place, and were judged accordingly. There are Christians who love Christ’s appearing in the midst of much ignorance as to its details. There are professors who talk much of the Second Advent, and hold it to be premillennial. But I assuredly believe that the former, if they are alive and remain till the coming of the Lord, will be caught up to meet Him, and that the latter, if they abide unregenerate, must have their portion outside, where shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. As unfounded is the idea that τάγματι in 1 Corinthians 15:23, means " company," " band," " regiment," while fully admitting of course that such is a frequent signification in profane authors. But here the context is decidedly adverse, whether τὸ τέλος be applied to the wicked dead, or to Christians uninstructed in the, Lord’s second coming and kingdom. All or most of the versions at all known and accurate (as the Syriac, Vulgate, Beza, Luther, De Wette, Diodati, Martin, Ostervald, the Lausanne, etc.) seem to agree with the authorized version in giving " order." Indeed, the way in which our Lord’s resurrection is introduced appears to me of itself to exclude such a translation; for His resurrection is the first step, which perfectly agrees with " order," but not with " company." Again, such a view necessitates the harshest possible construction of " the end" (τὸ τ6έλος), which, by a figure, must be tortured to mean the good (or bad) who are raised then; whereas, in truth, it is most plain that "the end" is really after the kingdom is given up, and, a fortiori, subsequent to all judgment. The white-throne judgment of the dead is one of the closing acts of the kingdom, after which cometh " the end." Lastly, it would be incongruous to suppose that after " they that are Christ’s " rise, another regiment of Christ’s should remain to rise. Not a class, but an epoch, is meant by "the end; " an epoch subsequent to the resurrection of the wicked and their judgment.