The Parable of the Ten Virgins does not refer to the church
- Thread starter ZNP
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I am not the one changing virgins into bridesmaids.Forget?
No, I didn't forget about ANY of this.
Rather, I have. ALREADY thoroughly exegeted the warnings of Matt 24 and conclusively proven how they resoundingly support the commentary of Matt 25 that intentionally follows.
Try and keep up will you. And please try and remember what has been posted thus far.
Did I mention that you and ZNP are suffering a truly epic wipeout on this thread.
Truly, it is a cringeworthy spectacle to behold.....
Maybe get the basics straight before some self appointed victory march.
How embarrassing friend.
Changing the parable is error.
Claiming to be better than everyone is juvenile
Really lame friend.
BTW, I noticed you did shy away from unpacking the ones taken/left of mat 24.
Maybe you never noticed that it has the same ratio of those left behind ( 50%).
Study up on it and get back to me.
You sound confused. Let me help you:
Matthew 25 concatenates with the preparatory vicissitudes of step #12, not #10.
Matthew 25 is NOT the Nissuin (נִישּׂוּאִין) – Taking the Bride.
There is not any TIME expended between the SHOUT and the rapture.
Nissuin (נִישּׂוּאִין) – Taking the BrideThe groom comes suddenly and takes the bride to the father’s house.
This completes the marriage legally.
Chuppah (חֻפָּה) – Bridal Chamber / CanopyThe couple enters the chuppah, symbolizing the consummation and union.
Traditionally associated with a seven-day bridal chamber period.
Seudat Nissuin (סְעוּדַת נִישּׂוּאִין) – Wedding FeastThe marriage supper or celebratory banquet with guests.
Here let me help you:
The Bride:
- properly prepared - shout/trumpet - REMOVED from the earth to the 7 year honeymoon at the Father's house.
Harpazo!
10 virgins (bridesmaids):
- shout - properly prepared - REMAIN on earth to enjoy festivities.
Wedding feast!
Here let me be more precise:
Nothing in Luke 21 speaks to the actual rapture.
In the framework of teachers like Chuck Missler, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, and traditional dispensationalism, **no, Luke 21 is not viewed as speaking to the rapture.**
In fact, keeping the rapture entirely separate from the Olivet Discourse is considered vital to their entire prophetic model.
The rationale for why Luke 21 (and the parallel discourses in Matthew 24 and Mark 13) does not address the imminent, pre-tribulational rapture includes:
* **Different Audiences and Programs:** Dispensational scholars emphasize that the teachings on the Mount of Olives (and Jesus' public teachings in Luke 21) are directed primarily toward **Israel and the Jewish remnant**, focusing on earthly national trials, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the physical Second Coming to establish the earthly kingdom. Conversely, the rapture (revealed later through the Apostle Paul in texts like 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15) is presented as a distinct mystery concerning the Church (the Body of Christ).
* **Signs vs. Imminency:** The defining characteristic of the rapture is its **imminency**—it can happen at any moment without required preceding signs. By contrast, the entire purpose of Luke 21 and Matthew 24 is to outline a sequence of visible, historical, and cosmic **signs** (such as armies surrounding Jerusalem, cosmic disturbances, and geo-political conflicts) that must unfold. If the text were speaking of the imminent rapture, detailing warning signs for believers to look for would contradict the concept of an unannounced, signless event.
* **The "Times of the Gentiles":** Luke 21 explicitly highlights a protracted chronological placeholder—the "times of the Gentiles"—during which Jerusalem remains trodden down. Teachers like Missler view Luke's emphasis as charting historical and geopolitical eras (culminating in the distant Second Advent) rather than pointing believers toward the sudden, private snatching away of the Church.
For these commentators, mixing the descriptive, sign-heavy trials of the Olivet Discourse with the sudden, imminent hope of the Church's rapture is precisely what creates interpretive confusion.
Here let me be more precise:
Nothing in Luke speaks to the rapture.
But in Luke alone, these verses interject the near future persecutions of new Jewish believers noted in Acts.
[Luk 21:12-19 KJV] 12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute [you], delivering [you] up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake. 13 And it shall turn to you for a testimony. 14 Settle [it] therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer: 15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist. 16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and [some] of you shall they cause to be put to death. 17 And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake. 18 But there shall not an hair of your head perish. 19 In your patience possess ye your souls.
Here let me be more precise: 36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.
1. Watch Ye is a direct reference to watching and not being caught unaware at the Lord's return.
2. Accounted worthy to escape is a direct reference to Harpazo, which is to be snatched out of the way of certain destruction.
3. To stand before the Son of Man is a direct reference to being found faithful and receiving a reward at the Lord's coming.
Of the people you are "referencing" the only one I would listen to is Chuck Missler. If you want to share a message of his directly related to Luke 21:36 I would be interested, otherwise that is just noise.
I have done a quick search for Chuck Missler's commentary on Luke 21:36 using AI. Not claiming it is comprehensive, but I have not been able to locate anything that would support referencing him as saying Luke 21:36 is not about the rapture.
Either provide one of the very many videos of Chuck Missler speaking on Luke 21 to support your assertion or admit this is simply more bad scholarship on your part.
Here let me be more precise:
The disciples were admiring the massive, gold-adorned foundation stones of the Herodian Temple, and Jesus effectively stopped them in their tracks by prophesying its total destruction.
This single prediction is what triggered the disciples' anxiety. They walked across the Kidron Valley in silence, sat down on the Mount of Olives, and only then asked their famous questions (e.g., "When shall these things be?").
Matthew and Mark: One Verse Only
For Matthew and Mark, you are exactly right. The 70 A.D. destruction is mentioned in that single catalyst verse as they are leaving the Temple.
Once Jesus sits down on the Mount of Olives and begins His actual discourse, Matthew and Mark's accounts completely skip the 70 A.D. destruction and fast-forward directly to the future End Times and the Great Tribulation.
Luke: Expanding on 70 A.D.
This is where Luke diverges. While Luke does include the single catalyst verse (Luke 21:6) at the Temple, he is the only Gospel writer who records Jesus returning to the topic during the actual discourse to explain how it will happen.
Later in the chapter, Jesus dedicates a specific block of text to the 70 A.D. Roman siege:
Luke 21:20-24 (KJV): "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains... For these be the days of vengeance... And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."
Therefore, while all three Gospels record the initial trigger warning in a single verse, only Luke circles back during the sermon to provide the tactical details of the 1st-century Roman invasion.
Again, I quoted Luke 21:36, this is irrelevant. You can use this as context, and if you have a quote from Chuck Missler on verse 36 that would be welcome, but otherwise, waste of time. Everyone knows that many of these verses can be directly tied to 70 AD, we also know that there is no new thing under the sun and that which has been is that which shall be, which is why a prophecy directly related to 70 AD can also give us insight into the end of the age as well as the start of the age. Also stop flooding your posts with garbage from AI. No one reads them. Short, concise, directly responding to the question at hand, otherwise everyone simply skips it.
Here let me help you:
The mystery Church is only (beginning to be) revealed in John. NOT LUKE as you wrongly insist.
In Matthew, Mark and Luke, the disciples asked about:
The destruction of the Jewish Temple.
The sign of His coming.
The end of the age.
All of this pertaining to National and ethnic Israel.
This is the key. So there is zero mystery Church rapture in these three Gospels, it is only somewhat revealed in John, which in fact purposefully has no Olivet discourse cited and is only speaking comfort to the Church the Bride.
Only in John is the mystery Bride BEGINNING to be revealed!
This is the exact linchpin of this entire theological framework:
Within the dispensational model taught by Missler and Fruchtenbaum, this is the grand design behind how the four Gospels are structured.
They view the Gospel of John as the critical transition point where God's focus shifts from the national program of Israel to the newly introduced mystery of the Church.
Here is how they break down exactly what you just synthesized:
### 1. The Intentional Omission
It is no accident that John completely bypasses the Olivet Discourse.
* The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) document Christ offering the Messianic Kingdom to Israel, Israel rejecting it, and Jesus detailing the resulting tribulation and judgment that will fall upon the nation (the Olivet Discourse).
* John, writing decades later (likely after 70 A.D. when Jerusalem was already destroyed), has a completely different focus. His Gospel zeroes in on the deity of Christ and the intimate, new relationship He is forming with believers. Because the Olivet Discourse is strictly Israel's prophetic timeline, John simply leaves it out.
### 2. The Shift from "Signs" to "Comfort"
The contrast in tone between the two discourses is deliberate and jarring:
* **The Mount of Olives (The Synoptics):** Jesus tells the Jewish remnant to look for **signs** of judgment—wars, earthquakes, fleeing to the mountains, and cosmic terror. The tone is intense warning and physical survival.
* **The Upper Room (John):** Jesus tells the foundational members of the Church to look for **comfort**: *"Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me."* He introduces a concept found nowhere in the Old Testament: leaving earth to go to the Father's house, preparing dwelling places, and returning—not to set up an earthly kingdom—but to take believers *to where He is in Heaven*.
### 3. The Beginning of the "Bride" Mystery
As you noted, John 14 is where the mystery of the Bride of Christ is first planted as a seed. Missler and Fruchtenbaum teach that Jesus is explicitly changing His vocabulary here, utilizing the specific language of a **first-century Jewish betrothal**.
* In an ancient Jewish wedding, the groom would pay the purchase price (the cross), seal the covenant with a cup of wine (the Last Supper), and then leave his bride to return to his father's house.
* He would spend an unspecified amount of time building an addition to his father's house (preparing a place). The bride did not know the day or the hour of his return; she simply had to wait in a state of readiness and purity.
* When the father deemed the chamber complete, the groom would return for his bride with a shout, snatch her away, and take her back to his father's house for a seven-day wedding feast (which they map to the seven-year Tribulation happening simultaneously on earth).
By the time the Apostle Paul writes his epistles decades later, he takes this precise "seed" planted in John's Gospel and fully unpacks it into the doctrine of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture and the
Bride of Christ.
What is the Bride doing outside of her father’s house, waiting for the Groom so she can accompany her Groom to her house where she is also waiting. How can teh same person be in two places at the same time? Both in the Father’s house and also on the streets outside the Father’s house ?