10 virgins- why were they foolish?

[Pyreaux]

On 5/26/2023 at 1:40 PM, MustardSeed said:

I recently heard it suggested that we re- examine our assessment of the 5 “foolish” virgins.  Rather than teach and believe that they are foolish because they come unprepared, instead to believe that they are foolish, because they believed the fear mongering of the self righteous other five. The so-called foolish virgins were there. They had oil in their lamp. They stayed overnight. They were doing all of the same things the others were doing, the only difference is that they did not have extra oil.  
Had they trusted in the bride groom he would most likely have shared his light with them, because their hearts were in the right place.  
This would change the moral of the story to be, rather than scarcity and panic around am I good enough, to

“show up, do the work, and trust God to do the rest”. 
Do you think there’s any problem with, what is in my opinion, a more gentle version of Jesus? 

why were they foolish?

In this metaphoric engagement party, only the groom's father who knew the exact date or hour that he would allow his son to go get his bride, so you must wait patiently for the groom to arrive. Once there he'll lead the bride in a procession back to his Father's house. So, you must be prepared. In the parable, the groom arrived late and half of the wedding party was not prepared for it, and had to go buy more oil for their lamps, and so they arrived late at the wedding celebration, and so were turned away at the door as strangers.

Be prepared for the "unknown" day and hour of Jesus' Second Coming (or your death), so "keep watch!" (the watch tower is the temple). The foolish virgins are people who have accepted the bridegroom, but did not prepare themselves for the day they'll meet God, they were lazy. Their foolishness seemed self-inflicted in nature, not the self-righteousness of the wise.

[MustardSeed]

13 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

why were they foolish?

In this metaphoric engagement party, only the groom's father who knew the exact date or hour that he would allow his son to go get his bride, so you must wait patiently for the groom to arrive. Once there he'll lead the bride in a procession back to his Father's house. So, you must be prepared. In the parable, the groom arrived late and half of the wedding party was not prepared for it, and had to go buy more oil for their lamps, and so they arrived late at the wedding celebration, and so were turned away at the door as strangers.

Be prepared for the "unknown" day and hour of Jesus' Second Coming (or your death), so "keep watch!" (the watch tower is the temple). The foolish virgins are people who have accepted the bridegroom, but did not prepare themselves for the day they'll meet God, they were lazy. Their foolishness seemed self-inflicted in nature, not the self-righteousness of the wise.

This is the narrative we have always discussed.  

[Pyreaux]

34 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

This is the narrative we have always discussed.  

What other narrative isn't going beyond the parable? Is there not a clear line between being "wise" and prepared to 'endure' to the end and being "proud" of the ability to 'toil'. The self-righteous who may think they are "wise" is not addressed in the parable, but Jesus often speaks against the "righteousness of the Pharisees" of outward righteousness as being non-salvific, but humbling ourselves and cultivating a faith that can sustain us in our darkest hours.

[MustardSeed]

37 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

What other narrative isn't going beyond the parable? Is there not a clear line between being "wise" and prepared to 'endure' to the end and being "proud" of the ability to 'toil'. The self-righteous who may think they are "wise" is not addressed in the parable, but Jesus often speaks against the "righteousness of the Pharisees" of outward righteousness as being non-salvific, but humbling ourselves and cultivating a faith that can sustain us in our darkest hours.

That is a correct principle. 
What I am suggesting is that for me who struggles at times with my relationship with the Savior, I need fresh eyes on lessons that have in the past been discouraging to me. I want to do good. I want to be good. I want to do the right thing. I want to be excepted by the Savior. I don’t always feel that way when I attend church and I am told to think this way or think that way. Sometimes a new view of an old parable that has been unsettling for me can help me get to a place where I feel differently about Jesus Christ, and it is motivating for me. 

[Pyreaux]

6 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

That is a correct principle. 
What I am suggesting is that for me who struggles at times with my relationship with the Savior, I need fresh eyes on lessons that have in the past been discouraging to me. I want to do good. I want to be good. I want to do the right thing. I want to be excepted by the Savior. I don’t always feel that way when I attend church and I am told to think this way or think that way. Sometimes a new view of an old parable that has been unsettling for me can help me get to a place where I feel differently about Jesus Christ, and it is motivating for me. 

Have you considered that the "foolish" are the self-righteous? Ill-prepared for hard times that comes upon us all, because they haven't yet experienced true spiritual hardship, a day when the blessings of righteousness stop coming, when the groom is late? While those who are "wise" perhaps weren't always wise, having many nights foolishly ran out of oil in the past, and it served to teach them to at least be wise on those nights that are most important to them, if not all?

Edited May 30, 2023 by Pyreaux

[MustardSeed]

Just now, Pyreaux said:

Have you considered that the "foolish" are the self-righteous? Ill-prepared for hard times that comes upon us all, because they haven't yet experienced true spiritual hardship, a day when the blessings of righteousness stop coming, when the groom is late? While those who are "wise" perhaps weren't always wise, having many nights often foolishly running out of oil in the past, and it served to teach them to at least be wise on those nights that are most important to them, if not all?

Of course. My entire life the foolish are just bad to the core. 

[Pyreaux]

5 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Of course. My entire life the foolish are just bad to the core. 

Then perhaps I don't understand the discussion, with a softer interpretation of Jesus here, In what way would the "self-righteous" be truly among the five "wise virgins"? Can the self-righteous be made "wise" by association? Or in the opinion of the congregation? The congregations of the earth are all tainted, the wheat and tares must grow together, and only in the end will we visually see the difference when the reaper comes.

Edited May 30, 2023 by Pyreaux

[MustardSeed]

19 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Then perhaps I don't understand the discussion, with a softer interpretation of Jesus here, In what way would the "self-righteous" be truly among the five "wise virgins"? Can the self-righteous be made "wise" by association? Or in the opinion of the congregation? The congregations of the earth are all tainted, the wheat and tares must grow together, and only in the end will visually see when the reaper comes.

 

True. Thanks

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

What other narrative isn't going beyond the parable?

Sometimes we lack the context of the times and misinterpret the parable. It's not going on beyond the parable, it's trying to see if one understood it right.

3 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Is there not a clear line between being "wise" and prepared to 'endure' to the end and being "proud" of the ability to 'toil'. The self-righteous who may think they are "wise" is not addressed in the parable, but Jesus often speaks against the "righteousness of the Pharisees" of outward righteousness as being non-salvific, but humbling ourselves and cultivating a faith that can sustain us in our darkest hours.

 

[manol]

On 5/26/2023 at 1:40 PM, MustardSeed said:

Do you think there’s any problem with, what is in my opinion, a more gentle version of Jesus? 

Absolutely not!

A litmus test I have found useful goes like this: God is good, God is fair, and God is no respecter of persons, and any line of thinking which leads to a different conclusion is either based on incomplete or incorrect information or has a misconception in it somewhere.

So if a particular interpretation of the Parable of the Ten Virgins results in the conclusion that Christ is not good or not fair, then imo somewhere along the way there has been a mistake.

On 5/27/2023 at 4:58 PM, MustardSeed said:

I have a deep need to see the savior as safe to feel motivated to keep trying.

Consider this: "Perfect love casts out fear." Therefore if something does not cast out fear, and especially if it engenders fear, then it is not perfect love. Therefore any interpretation of this or any parable or teaching which engenders fear has a mistake somewhere along the way.

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

What I am suggesting is that for me who struggles at times with my relationship with the Savior, I need fresh eyes on lessons that have in the past been discouraging to me. I want to do good. I want to be good. I want to do the right thing. I want to be accepted by the Savior. I don’t always feel that way when I attend church and I am told to think this way or think that way. Sometimes a new view of an old parable that has been unsettling for me can help me get to a place where I feel differently about Jesus Christ, and it is motivating for me. 

The core teaching of this parable seems to be that there is something essential required in order to be fully in the presence of Christ, and this something essential, symbolized by oil, cannot be “given to you” by someone else. Imo the “oil” is one's own direct relationship with Christ, the lack of which would explain why the bridegroom told the foolish virgins “I know you not”. In other words, imo really “knowing Christ” is what matters above all else.

And, don't worry about the fate of the foolish virgins.  There is a good shepherd who will seek them out wherever they may have gone and will bring them home. 

 

Edited May 29, 2023 by manol

[The Nehor]

If we are taking apart the parable around specifics what kind of lamp oil merchants sell their oil at night? Maybe the foolishness of the virgins was going to “them that sell” and thinking anyone would be there that late.

[MorningStar]

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So how are you supposed to fill them?  Who would design anything like that?  . Just carry a filler thingy?

 

[Nevo]

On 5/26/2023 at 3:32 PM, MustardSeed said:

This parable gives me (and others) so much anxiety.

If it's any consolation, one of the leading NT scholars of the last 50 years, Msgr. John P. Meier, doubted that this parable went back to the historical Jesus.

The parable appears only in Matthew, so it lacks multiple attestation. Moreover, Meier observed, "a good number of the M parables evince what one might call a strong Matthean redactional tone, coloration, or theology."

He elaborated further:

"Commentators on Matthew's Gospel regularly underscore key themes that are typical of Matthew's theology: the definitive separation of good and evil at the last judgment, the severity of that final judgment as a motive for good conduct in this present life, the consequent emphasis on stringent moral activity, total commitment, and constant vigilance . . . . Such typically Matthean themes are prominent in many of the M parables (e.g., the Wheat and the Weeds, the Fish Net, the Unmerciful Servant, the Two Sons, the Guest without a Wedding Garment, and the Ten Virgins), making a claim of authenticity still more difficult to demonstrate. . . . The dreaded judgment of non liquet looms in the near distance. In the end, even if we peel away everything that comes from Matthew or his M tradition, what are we left with? Indeed, is there anything left?" (John P. Meier, Probing the Authenticity of the Parables, vol. 5 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus [AYBRL; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016], 195–196).

In a footnote, Meier quotes Karl Donfried, who concluded that the parable of the Ten Virgins "does not stem from the historical-Jesus level but was created by Matthew on the basis of certain traditions that he received" (Donfried, "The Allegory of the Ten Virgins (Matt 25:1–13) as a Summary of Matthean Theology," Journal of Biblical Literature 93 [1974]: 415–28, quoted in Meier, Probing the Authenticity of the Parables, 215n10).

Meier himself characterized the parable as "a parable with strong Matthean redactional traits, if not a Matthean creation" (Meier, 262).

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, Nevo said:

If it's any consolation, one of the leading NT scholars of the last 50 years, Msgr. John P. Meier, doubted that this parable went back to the historical Jesus.

The parable appears only in Matthew, so it lacks multiple attestation. Moreover, Meier observed, "a good number of the M parables evince what one might call a strong Matthean redactional tone, coloration, or theology."

He elaborated further:

"Commentators on Matthew's Gospel regularly underscore key themes that are typical of Matthew's theology: the definitive separation of good and evil at the last judgment, the severity of that final judgment as a motive for good conduct in this present life, the consequent emphasis on stringent moral activity, total commitment, and constant vigilance . . . . Such typically Matthean themes are prominent in many of the M parables (e.g., the Wheat and the Weeds, the Fish Net, the Unmerciful Servant, the Two Sons, the Guest without a Wedding Garment, and the Ten Virgins), making a claim of authenticity still more difficult to demonstrate. . . . The dreaded judgment of non liquet looms in the near distance. In the end, even if we peel away everything that comes from Matthew or his M tradition, what are we left with? Indeed, is there anything left?" (John P. Meier, Probing the Authenticity of the Parables, vol. 5 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus [AYBRL; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016], 195–196).

In a footnote, Meier quotes Karl Donfried, who concluded that the parable of the Ten Virgins "does not stem from the historical-Jesus level but was created by Matthew on the basis of certain traditions that he received" (Donfried, "The Allegory of the Ten Virgins (Matt 25:1–13) as a Summary of Matthean Theology," Journal of Biblical Literature 93 [1974]: 415–28, quoted in Meier, Probing the Authenticity of the Parables, 215n10).

Meier himself characterized the parable as "a parable with strong Matthean redactional traits, if not a Matthean creation" (Meier, 262).

Though the Psalmic, Proverbial and Talmudic themes contrasting the "wise" from the "foolish" remains a highly common trope. Here's a very similar parable about foolish unprepared wedding guests from the Babylonian Talmud:

"Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said the following story as a parable to this lesson: The situation is comparable to a king who invited his servants to a feast and did not set a time for them to come. The wise among them adorned themselves and sat at the entrance to the king’s house. They said: Is the king’s house missing anything necessary for the feast? Certainly, the king could invite them at any moment. The fools among them went to attend to their work and said: Is there such thing as a feast without the toil of preparing for it? While the feast is being prepared, we will attend to other matters.

Suddenly, the king requested that his servants come to the feast. The wise among them entered before him adorned in their finest clothes, and the fools entered before him dirty. The king was happy to greet the wise ones and angry to greet the fools. The king said: These wise servants who adorned themselves for the feast shall sit and eat and drink, but these fools who did not adorn themselves for the feast shall stand and watch. There is a similar outcome for people who think that their day of death and judgment is far away and do not prepare themselves for it." (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 153a)

Edited May 30, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Thinking]

If there weren't 5 "foolish" virgins, then we wouldn't have a parable.

[Kenngo1969]

Certainly, I don't simply want to add my voice to a[n] "all is well in Zion, yea, Zion prospereth, all is well" chorus, or to an, "He will justify committing a little sin, and if it so be that we are guilty, we shall be beaten with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the Kingdom of God" chorus.  However, I think it is important to understand who will not be able to "abide the day of His coming."

While some in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may be Pharasiacal in their approach; may be hypocritical; may say, "Lord, I thank Thee that I am not as other men are ..." rather than, "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner," and so on, and thus, may have reason to question whether they will be ready and, therefore, how they will fare at His coming (caveat lector: if the shoe fits ...), the vast majority of reasonably righteous Latter-day Saints, whatever chastening they may be called upon to endure to receive further necessary refinement, will fare reasonably well.  Remember, even Terrestrial people will be able to abide the day and will be on the earth after His Coming.  It is only the Telestial who will be swept off.

[Tacenda]

16 hours ago, Nevo said:

If it's any consolation, one of the leading NT scholars of the last 50 years, Msgr. John P. Meier, doubted that this parable went back to the historical Jesus.

The parable appears only in Matthew, so it lacks multiple attestation. Moreover, Meier observed, "a good number of the M parables evince what one might call a strong Matthean redactional tone, coloration, or theology."

He elaborated further:

"Commentators on Matthew's Gospel regularly underscore key themes that are typical of Matthew's theology: the definitive separation of good and evil at the last judgment, the severity of that final judgment as a motive for good conduct in this present life, the consequent emphasis on stringent moral activity, total commitment, and constant vigilance . . . . Such typically Matthean themes are prominent in many of the M parables (e.g., the Wheat and the Weeds, the Fish Net, the Unmerciful Servant, the Two Sons, the Guest without a Wedding Garment, and the Ten Virgins), making a claim of authenticity still more difficult to demonstrate. . . . The dreaded judgment of non liquet looms in the near distance. In the end, even if we peel away everything that comes from Matthew or his M tradition, what are we left with? Indeed, is there anything left?" (John P. Meier, Probing the Authenticity of the Parables, vol. 5 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus [AYBRL; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016], 195–196).

In a footnote, Meier quotes Karl Donfried, who concluded that the parable of the Ten Virgins "does not stem from the historical-Jesus level but was created by Matthew on the basis of certain traditions that he received" (Donfried, "The Allegory of the Ten Virgins (Matt 25:1–13) as a Summary of Matthean Theology," Journal of Biblical Literature 93 [1974]: 415–28, quoted in Meier, Probing the Authenticity of the Parables, 215n10).

Meier himself characterized the parable as "a parable with strong Matthean redactional traits, if not a Matthean creation" (Meier, 262).

This is why I don't trust anything in the bible

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This is why I don't trust anything in the bible

I don't exactly trust that man's opinion based on what few examples in Matthew of a non-historic Jesus, he says because of his works-based statements in the Sermon on the Mount, it just seems very weak. In any case, the flaw in your reasoning is you think whether you can trust anything in the Bible has anything to do with the man's opinion or even the actual faulty condition of the Bible itself. Truth in it is to be decerned with the Spirit by its own prescription, so I assume what you should rather say is the Spirit just doesn't speak to you, least of all when reading the Bible, and this is why you don't trust anything in the Bible. A far more reasonable statement. I can't see doubting the everything in the Bible no matter what supernatural forces tell me.

Edited May 30, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Pyreaux said:

I don't exactly trust that man's opinion based on what few examples in Matthew of a non-historic Jesus, he says because of his works-based statements in the Sermon on the Mount, it just seems very weak. In any case, the flaw in your reasoning is you think whether you can trust anything in the Bible has anything to do with the man's opinion or even the actual faulty condition of the Bible itself. Truth in it is to be decerned with the Spirit by its own prescription, so I assume what you should rather say is the Spirit just doesn't speak to you, and this is why you don't trust anything in the Bible. Far more reasonable statement. I can't see doubting the everything in the Bible no matter what supernatural forces tell me.

I guess my issue is using God's name for someone's benefit such as lust (concubines & polygamy), control over women (don't even need a list, it's throughout the Bible), killing (saying God killed women and children probably gives someone control), story telling such as parables and not making sure to delineate between the two so not having a clear factual picture.

Man made religions aren't good and are cults usually, from the leaders that start them. 

 

[Tacenda]

Started to listen to this podcast: https://atlastshesaidit.org/episode-140-does-that-scripture-mean-what-you-think-it-means-a-dance-with-the-ten-virgins/

Intro here:

Every church goer has probably heard more lessons about the wise and foolish virgins than they can count. Why do Latter-day Saints love to talk about this parable so much? And why do we seem to be so attached to one interpretation of it? In Episode 140, Susan and Cynthia try to shake up the same old conversation about this story—and the women in it—by asking a few new questions, and imagining new answers.

[Saint Bonaventure]

18 hours ago, Nevo said:

If it's any consolation, one of the leading NT scholars of the last 50 years, Msgr. John P. Meier, doubted that this parable went back to the historical Jesus.

The parable appears only in Matthew, so it lacks multiple attestation. Moreover, Meier observed, "a good number of the M parables evince what one might call a strong Matthean redactional tone, coloration, or theology."

He elaborated further:

"Commentators on Matthew's Gospel regularly underscore key themes that are typical of Matthew's theology: the definitive separation of good and evil at the last judgment, the severity of that final judgment as a motive for good conduct in this present life, the consequent emphasis on stringent moral activity, total commitment, and constant vigilance . . . . Such typically Matthean themes are prominent in many of the M parables (e.g., the Wheat and the Weeds, the Fish Net, the Unmerciful Servant, the Two Sons, the Guest without a Wedding Garment, and the Ten Virgins), making a claim of authenticity still more difficult to demonstrate. . . . The dreaded judgment of non liquet looms in the near distance. In the end, even if we peel away everything that comes from Matthew or his M tradition, what are we left with? Indeed, is there anything left?" (John P. Meier, Probing the Authenticity of the Parables, vol. 5 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus [AYBRL; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016], 195–196).

In a footnote, Meier quotes Karl Donfried, who concluded that the parable of the Ten Virgins "does not stem from the historical-Jesus level but was created by Matthew on the basis of certain traditions that he received" (Donfried, "The Allegory of the Ten Virgins (Matt 25:1–13) as a Summary of Matthean Theology," Journal of Biblical Literature 93 [1974]: 415–28, quoted in Meier, Probing the Authenticity of the Parables, 215n10).

Meier himself characterized the parable as "a parable with strong Matthean redactional traits, if not a Matthean creation" (Meier, 262).

A little context here, that may or may not be helpful.

Father Meier, in his Marginal Jew volumes, set out to understand who Jesus is if one sets aside Christian tradition. There is evidence about who Jesus was from Christian tradition, of course, but if one sets that aside, what does one have?

Father Meier was a priest whose work was in the main channels of historical-critical work. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger remarked that Father Meier's work showed both the virtues and the shortcomings of a historical-critical approach.

I won't saddle this thread with a discussion of the virtues and shortcomings of historical-critical approaches, such as those of Meier and Ehrman, but I will put a thread up on this topic at some point, with points that I believe to be especially relevant for Latter-day Saints. 

[Tacenda]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If we are taking apart the parable around specifics what kind of lamp oil merchants sell their oil at night? Maybe the foolishness of the virgins was going to “them that sell” and thinking anyone would be there that late.

I think it's similar to LDS storing up food storage. If their neighbors didn't do it, stinks for them. But I do know members that share and I know members that have a gun at the helm if needed.

[Pyreaux]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I guess my issue is using God's name for someone's benefit such as lust (concubines & polygamy), control over women (don't even need a list, it's throughout the Bible), killing (saying God killed women and children probably gives someone control), story telling such as parables and not making sure to delineate between the two so not having a clear factual picture.

Man made religions aren't good and are cults usually, from the leaders that start them. 

So, the lines don't move, wrong is always wrong? Is God not a moral authority? A morality according to his definition, and not necessarily yours? If I defined moral good as making things better by increasing the amount of good things and decreasing the amount of bad things, then to always reject the orders given by leaders or supernatural beings on the mere basis of rigid lines of morality that fails to consider that what makes a moral true or justifiable is its overall positive contribution, would be a mistake. Is killing always wrong, even in cases where one might save other lives by killing? Your list of whole classes of actions as always bad is a mistake because the effects of actions differ when they are done in different contexts and morality must focus on the effects, in both the short and long term. Whenever people can do the most good by violating a rule rather than obeying it, they should violate the rule. There is no reason to obey a rule when more well-being can be achieved by violating it. Like Adam's transgression to bring death and new life. When Nephi kills Laban to save a nation. When Matthew's Jesus broke the Sabbath, normally a good anti-exploitation law to enforce, in order to do good, to heal, despite the Jew's moral outrage like saying, "wrong is wrong always, and that the end does not justify the means". Sometimes, it does.

Edited May 31, 2023 by Pyreaux

[jonah747]

On 5/26/2023 at 2:40 PM, MustardSeed said:

Do you think there’s any problem with, what is in my opinion, a more gentle version of Jesus?

It wasn't gentle in how the bridegroom responded to the 5 foolish virgins.

[Vanguard]

23 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Every church goer has probably heard more lessons about the wise and foolish virgins than they can count. Why do Latter-day Saints love to talk about this parable so much? And why do we seem to be so attached to one interpretation of it? In Episode 140, Susan and Cynthia try to shake up the same old conversation about this story—and the women in it—by asking a few new questions, and imagining new answers.

I don't understand why there would be an issue with continually referring to the parable? And the interpretation that we are so 'attached to' should be that we should be about the business of building our trust in the Lord and gaining our own understanding/appreciation of that dynamic rather than relying inordinately on another's understanding/appreciation. Why is that now in need of a 'shake up'?

I have no problem with looking for new ways of understanding parables. But why the energy behind thinking differently of this one?