I did answer to quickly regarding those passages in Matt. not paying good attention. I do believe the parable is speaking about the kingdom, and those being invited into the kingdom.Originally Posted by John146
We will have to take it up another time though from here, check your reps
<--Bluebird of Happiness
...............
My favorite scripture: Malachi 3:16
"Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name!" (Every time we speak of the Lord, or even THINK of him--its written down in a book of remembrance!)
Posting Freak
Yep . . . the bride must suffer to be accounted worthy of the Kingdom until the return of Christ indeed:
II Thess. 1
3We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brethren, as is only fitting, because your faith is greatly enlarged, and the love of each one of you toward one another grows ever greater;
4therefore, we ourselves speak proudly of you among the churches of God for your perseverance and faith in the midst of all your persecutions and afflictions which you endure.
5This is a plain indication of God’s righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering.
6For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you,
7and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire,
8dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
9These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,
10when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—for our testimony to you was believed.
Grace and peace,
Billy-brown 2
I Peter 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus
That would mean the guests with wedding garments would include us, would it not? We are among those who were invited into the kingdom, are we not?
I'm sorry for your situation at home, but you had time to respond to other posts in other threads yesterday so I'm not sure why you wouldn't have time to respond to my questions here as well. If you're going to claim that the guests with wedding garments on in that parable (Matt 22:1-14) are not part of the bride of Christ you should be able to back that up, but so far you have not done that.We will have to take it up another time though from here, check your reps
I think you will notice that my responses are not getting very in depth.
As far as parables go, they are not a time line, they are presented to bring forth truths regarding the kingdom of God, and they were spoken to a Jewish audience to bring forth concepts about the kingdom. To use them to demand the Bride and the guest are all one entity simply does not hold up against the remainder of what is given that is prophetic in regards to definite events.
Looking closely, while these parables are teaching that God desires to bring the people into the kingdom, we are also told that the Father had arranged a wedding, and now was seeking guest for that wedding. To say that the Bride and the guest are the same ones goes against all we know about weddings.
The leaders of Israel, the priests, the ones who should have understood their own prophecies were the very ones refusing their promised Messiah, so, as Christ said, it was the poor and meek that He went to then. These parable simply are not intended to be doctrinal about the Bride of Christ, but are bringing forth truths regarding the kingdom and God's desire to invite people into His kingdom.
I was trying to be polite and explain my lack of ability at the moment to participate at the level needed, which I appreciate your level of digging into it all. I did not just want to walk off without some explanation, I was only trying to be polite because we have a good bit of history here posting, thats all.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus
I don't need in depth answers. Please just tell me briefly who exactly you believe the guests with wedding garments on represent in Matt 22:1-14 with a brief explanation of why that is.
In order to make a convincing argument here you would need to tell me exactly who the guests with wedding garments on represent, regardless of timing. Can you do that? So far you have not done so. If you don't know who they represent, just say so. If you do have an opinion on who they represent then please share it with me.As far as parables go, they are not a time line, they are presented to bring forth truths regarding the kingdom of God, and they were spoken to a Jewish audience to bring forth concepts about the kingdom. To use them to demand the Bride and the guest are all one entity simply does not hold up against the remainder of what is given that is prophetic in regards to definite events.
This is the problem. You are thinking that it's speaking of a normal wedding. It is not. At a normal wedding is the bride millions or billions of people? At a normal wedding do guests without wedding garments on get cast into outer darkness? It's a parable. It's not a literal wedding that takes place, it's speaking of God the heavenly Father making a wedding for His Son. Why should we think that's just like a normal wedding? It's not. So, it doesn't have to abide by the normal rules of a wedding between one man and woman on earth where the bride and guests are obviously not the same. In this case, the bride is comprised of the guests with wedding garments on (but the guests without wedding garments on are cast out and not allowed to be wedded to the bridegroom). In this case the guests are being invited to be married to the bridegroom and not to watch the wedding. The guests represent people who have been invited to enter into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. You and I will be among the guests. And we will have our wedding garments on because we believe in Christ and therefore will be married to Christ while others who maybe say they believe in Him but haven't surrendered their lives to Him will be cast out.Looking closely, while these parables are teaching that God desires to bring the people into the kingdom, we are also told that the Father had arranged a wedding, and now was seeking guest for that wedding. To say that the Bride and the guest are the same ones goes against all we know about weddings.
I get really tired of people trying to claim that parables can not be used to support doctrine. That is absolutely false. They teach doctrinal truth every bit as much as other scripture. That parable is about people being invited to the wedding of Christ, is it not? How can we think that we couldn't learn anything about the bride of Christ from that parable when it's all about the wedding of Christ? What this parable shows us is that to be invited to the wedding of the Lamb is to be invited into His kingdom. Who are those in His kingdom except those who are part of His bride?The leaders of Israel, the priests, the ones who should have understood their own prophecies were the very ones refusing their promised Messiah, so, as Christ said, it was the poor and meek that He went to then. These parable simply are not intended to be doctrinal about the Bride of Christ, but are bringing forth truths regarding the kingdom and God's desire to invite people into His kingdom.
Well, was that the real explanation for not answering my questions or is it more that you haven't really studied the parable (Matt 22:1-14) real closely up to this point and therefore are not prepared to give a detailed understanding of it? If you are going to continue to claim that the bride and guests can't be the same you need to be able to back that up but you haven't done that. You have yet to explain exactly who the guests are with wedding garments on. You said it is those who are invited to the kingdom? Haven't we been invited to the kingdom? Why would the guests with wedding garments on not include you and me?I was trying to be polite and explain my lack of ability at the moment to participate at the level needed, which I appreciate your level of digging into it all. I did not just want to walk off without some explanation, I was only trying to be polite because we have a good bit of history here posting, thats all.
Have the Bride and the guest all the same. I don't. I have given explanation but if it doesn't suit you then that's fine too.
Take my effort to explain myself and be polite any way you choose.
<--Bluebird of Happiness
I must have missed the explanation..........
My favorite scripture: Malachi 3:16
"Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name!" (Every time we speak of the Lord, or even THINK of him--its written down in a book of remembrance!)
Even so, come, Lord Jesus
Have you explained exactly who you believe the guests are and what the difference is between who the guests represent and who the bride represents? If so I haven't seen it. Can you repost it or tell me the post number where you explained that?
I'm not trying to be difficult and I know you're being polite and I appreciate that. But all I'm trying to do is get you to answer my question. If you make a claim that the bride and guests with wedding garments on aren't the same then you should be able to plainly tell us who exactly you think the guests represent in Matt 22:1-14 and why they are not part of the bride.Take my effort to explain myself and be polite any way you choose.
Senior Member
Gen 24:67 And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.
the marriage of the Son and his bride, retrieved by the servant(holy spirit)
then...
then what does the father do.....
Gen 25:1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
Gen 25:2 And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.
Gen 25:3 And Jokshan begat Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim.
Gen 25:4 And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah.
Then in culmination
Gen 25:5 And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.
Exactly and of course types can be used to support or show doctrine through repetition of pattern, people throw types out the window as quick as they throw parables out the window if it doesnt line up with their doctrinal positionI get really tired of people trying to claim that parables can not be used to support doctrine. That is absolutely false. They teach doctrinal truth every bit as much as other scripture. That parable is about people being invited to the wedding of Christ, is it not? How can we think that we couldn't learn anything about the bride of Christ from that parable when it's all about the wedding of Christ? What this parable shows us is that to be invited to the wedding of the Lamb is to be invited into His kingdom. Who are those in His kingdom except those who are part of His bride?
those in his kingdom except the bride? well the wife(other wife now) or the woman(who now is faithful) is during the 1000 yr period.
As I have repeatedly said. The Church did not begin until Pentecost, the Church is the Bride. As I already quoted John the Baptist using the terminology friend of the groom. So whoever it may be, the OT saints, those of the GT, those who survive the GT, whoever of those could be the guests.
But if weddings have a Bride that is the guest at her own wedding, ok, do that. Find other passages, pick it apart, never mind the fact that the Bride did not exist prior to Pentecost. I do not have to take the verses you provide and do anything with them. I have already presented verses and the reason I disagree. The Church, the Bride, did not exist prior to Pentecost. So I have plainly told you, more than once. You don't like my answer that is fine, but I have given you an answer!
What, me worry?
I wonder who was spoken of in this passage, if not the OT church?
This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt, Saying unto Aaron, Make us gods to go before us: for as for this Moses, which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.
(Act 7:38-40)
"Church" is simply a name for those called to serve the Lord.
Posting Freak
Yep . . . this ^^^^. . . which would include indeed all of these in this scripture passage below--Old Testament as well as New Testament people of faith:
And the "blood of the Lamb" in this passage:Heb. 11
39And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised,
40because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.
covers all of them . . .Rev. 12
10b . . . “Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night.
11“And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death.
And therefore, Satan has been cast out already . . .
Yep . . .
Grace and peace,
Billy-brown 2
I Peter 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
It says that it was Christ in the wilderness with Israel. And the application toward proving that nothing changed with Pentecost is taking the passage out of context and meaning. The point was that Christ was eternal, Christ was with Israel, this same Christ being the promised Messiah.
Christ Himself said upon the Gospel He would, not had been, building the Church. Christ is also the one who said that unless He went away, the Comforter would not come, and it is Christ who told the disciples to await Him(Holy Spirit) in Jerusalem. Christ could not begin to build His Church until after His death and resurrection, and the Holy Spirit could not come until Christ ascension.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus
It's easy to say that but you have to be able to back that up. Where have you really backed up the idea that the church only consists of those who have been saved since Pentecost? I don't see that taught anywhere in scripture and I haven't seen you post any scripture that teaches that. Let me ask you this. Would you agree that the church consists of those who Christ died for and whose sins are covered by His blood?
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
John the Baptist is one person and a very unique and exceptional one. How does something said about him prove anything about anyone else? Also, at the time He was called the friend of the groom it was right before he said about Christ "He must increase, but I must decrease" (John 3:30). Being part of the bride of Christ requires one to be submitted to Christ so I believe John the Baptist was doing that at that point and then became part of the bride of Christ.As I already quoted John the Baptist using the terminology friend of the groom.
Whoever it may be? That is hardly a compelling argument. You can't even tell me who the guests are and you expect me to take whatever you say about the guests seriously? You don't even really know what Matt 22:1-14 is about and yet you somehow have a strong opinion on who the guests are, or at least who they are not?So whoever it may be, the OT saints, those of the GT, those who survive the GT, whoever of those could be the guests.
In this case that's exactly what we see portrayed in Matt 22:1-14. That parable is not about a literal wedding, it is a symbolic representation of the offer of salvation and it shows the differences between those who reject the offer, those who accept it and embrace it, and those who accept it and show interest but do not fully embrace it. The guests with wedding garments on are those who accept the offer of salvation. It so happens that the bride of Christ consists of those who accept the offer of salvation as well so that's why the guests with wedding garments on are part of the bride of Christ.But if weddings have a Bride that is the guest at her own wedding, ok, do that.
Where is the scripture that teaches that the bride did not exist prior to Pentecost?Find other passages, pick it apart, never mind the fact that the Bride did not exist prior to Pentecost.
No, of course you don't have to, but it would be nice if you did. But I can see now that you really don't have any understanding of what Matt 22:1-14 is all about. I don't see how you can think you know who the guests represent (or don't represent) when you are not able to even explain what the parable is about.I do not have to take the verses you provide and do anything with them.
I haven't seen any verses that say the church did not exist prior to Pentecost.I have already presented verses and the reason I disagree. The Church, the Bride, did not exist prior to Pentecost.
Plainly? No. I disagree. But if you feel you've answered my question then so be it.So I have plainly told you, more than once.
If you think so, fine. But I was hoping you would give an exegesis of Matt 22:1-14 but I can see now that you cannot do that. Without knowing what the parable is about how can you know who the guests in the parable represent?You don't like my answer that is fine, but I have given you an answer!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks