Prophecy for the Endtime

Generally speaking, God cuts me a lot of slack. By which I mean he shows me a lot of things that he wants me to teach, but when he speaks to me he usually allows me to choose from among several, which one I want to write about.

But there are times when God tightens up. Or as we might say in Glasgow, ‘God has been nipping my ear’. That’s an idiom that speaks of a kind of nagging scenario - you know the sort of thing I mean:

“My wife’s been nipping my ear about cutting the lawn.”

“The boss is nipping my ear about that contract.”

“My mother’s been nipping my ear about her birthday coming up.”

As an idiom it tends to address those responsibilities we have been avoiding that now require our immediate attention. And God has been nipping my ear for some time over an issue I have wanted to avoid. I’ve even been pretending not avoid it by telling other people that my God has been nipping my ear.

That’s a cleverly convoluted device we often resort to as a way of concealing our procrastination, by offering our acknowledgement of a problem only as a substitute for actually doing anything about it

I’ve told my wife; I’ve told my senior pastor; I’ve told numerous others: “God’s been nipping my ear about the ten virgins”.

I should have known better, because whenever God is as unrelentingly insistent as that about a thing, we might as well give in, because he is eternal and will always outlast us anyway.

 

Well, they are mentioned in Matthew 25:1-13, but that isn’t all that God wants me to relate, because it is a parable that Jesus framed in a very particular context. That’s why, in this article, we shall look not only at the Parable of the Ten Virgins, but at the wider context in which it stands. We shall look at not only what it means but why Jesus placed it where he did and how it relates to the wider context of his teaching, because it is a parable for our day - the Endtime.

One of the most famous of Jesus’ teachings was the one that he gave during the last week prior to his crucifixion - a teaching that begins with the Olivet Prophecy, which is why I think of the following teachings as the Olivet Parables.

What makes this a message for our time is something God told me latterly last year, which was:

Twenty-eleven won’t be like Twenty-ten. It will be marked by a dramatic increase in political turmoil and economic instability, and greater and more frequent natural disasters.

That wasn’t the most exciting news and I didn’t say too much about it. It’s not an enormously popular message and even when it comes to pass not many people nowadays would be that impressed. So what?

But it wasn’t long before I saw what God meant. 2010 hadn’t been a great year for many, but 2011 quickly did indeed begin to show signs of huge political turmoil and economic instability, and when the second major earthquake in five months hit Christchurch, New Zealand, I was convinced. Then, Boom! Japan was devastated - only four days after a fellow minister prophesied major cataclysm.

Many Christians joined the dots and concluded that this was God’s judgement on the Japanese. But from what I understand from Scripture, it was not. Rather, it was noting more than a minor adjustment. Think about it: Of all the world’s earthquakes, fully one third occur in Japan, and of all the major nations that could have been hit by one this large, Japan is by far the best prepared and best equipped to minimise loss of life.

God was not exacting judgement, but showing mercy, by allowing a complacent and indifferent world what can happen when he withdraws just a fraction of his protection from it. But would anyone pay attention?

What is happening right now is merely the run up to Apocalypse. It’s not the end, but God’s warning that the end is closer than most believers imagine, and time for a complacent and indifferent Church to experience a reality check. Nevertheless, I really didn’t want to share this message this soon. But God remained relentless.

If not now - When?

If not you - Who?

You see, the problem with much of the Church today is lack of balance. Either it preaches prosperity and peace but very little about judgement, or else it majors on a form of apocalyptic teaching that either frightens the stuffing out of believers or attracts the derision of sceptics.

One of the most marked characteristics of Christianity over the centuries has been its susceptibility to misinterpretation of the Scriptures. And one of the most marked characteristics of the Church has been its tendency to swerve from one extreme to another. There always seem to be two main areas of error that stray from Biblical orthodoxy, such as Grace mistaught as License or Obedience mistaught as Legalism.

Then there is the Calvanist Once-saved-always-saved position versus the ultra-Arminian Cough-once-in-church-and-its-gone extreme. This is a question we shall return to and examine in more detail later.

And what about the Rapture? - How many Christians have been sold the pup that we’re all going to do the Star Trek trick when Jesus sneaks in surreptitiously and snatches his saints away before things get nasty.

After all, it’s all in the Bible, isn’t it?

Well, let’s see if any of it is. Or if Jesus had something quite different to say. And that’s something I tend to emphasise, because something I often notice when people react to my various teachings, is that when something in the Bible upsets some, they almost inevitably get upset with me.

So let me just caution readers to take out their Bibles, open them at Mathew’s Gospel and run their fingers over the page.

Is the ink dry? - Yes?

Good - then that suggests that I didn’t just run it off on a printing press in my back room ten minutes ago. It’s Holy Canon: the Word of God: the Holy Scriptures - and I didn’t write any of it.

Nor would I make any apology in any case, because Jesus gave his ministers stern warning about courting popularity at the expense of the truth.

 

Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers did according to these things to the false prophets.

Would that more preachers had taken a leaf out of the police service’s book, because when I was sworn in as a constable we declared that we would uphold the Queen’s peace…

…Without fear or favour, malice affection or ill-will.

Whereas, it seems to me that a lot of today’s teaching is predicated on what is most popular, what will draw the biggest, or attract the most money.

Whatever happened to Paul’s admonition to Timothy to ‘rightly divide the word of truth’ (2 Timothy 2:15).

And what on earth happened to sound teaching, like Matthew 7:13-14? It’s so well known it’s proverbial, but just about everyone has heard the expression, ‘Keep on the strait and narrow’.

It derives from Jesus admonition to his disciples, that the way into God’s Kingdom was strait and narrow.

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Unfortunately, that is something that is seldom taught nowadays. But such was the power and grandeur of the Authorised Version of the Bible we now more commonly call ‘the King James Version’, that many of its 1611 idioms have remained ingrained in the public psyche ever since - and this is one of them. Although, in so saying, I would also add a related point of interest.

That the King James is arguably the most faithful English translation of the original Greek and Hebrew, can be a good thing, but it can also lead to misunderstanding as English usage has evolved a great deal in 400 years.

A lot of people are guilty of describing its Jacobean language as Old English, but I am sorry that that is just rubbish. The 1611 Authorised Version may be written in antiquated English littered with archaisms, but it is merely an antiquated version of Modern English.

Old English has been dead for nigh on a millennium and was the language of the Anglo-Saxons. If you want an example of Old English, check out this version of Matthew 6:9-13, which many call ‘the Lord’s Prayer’ and see if you find it as easy to understand as the 1611 version:

Fæder ure, þu þe eart on heofonum, si þin nama gehalgod.

Tobecume þin rice. Gewurþe ðin willa on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.

Urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us to dæg.

And forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum.

And ne gelæd þu us on costnunge,

ac alys us of yfele. Soþlice.

Now, let me remind you how it reads in 1611 English:

Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom,

and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

Okay, so it’s not everyday parlance, but it’s hardly Old English!

That being said, what did Jesus mean when he told us to enter the kingdom of God by the strait and narrow? Well, for one thing, he didn’t say it was straightforward. The word he chose, we have translated as strait - not straight - which is how it tends to be understood when quoted orally.

Here it is in a more up-to-date version:

Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

This is tough teaching, because Jesus is actually saying that most people miss it, because they don’t walk the narrow path, between the broad plains of error. Like the examples I gave earlier.

Nor is it the only time that the New Testament warns against lackadaisical slackness. Even Paul - the apostle of Grace - was tight on this teaching.

Behold, then, the kindness and severity of God: On those having fallen, severity. But on you, kindness, if you continue in the kindness. Otherwise, you will also be cut off.

This was actually Paul addressing New Covenant believers who thought themselves superior to their Jewish brethren who were wedded to a legalistic adherence to the Law, which they derided as legalism because they were under grace. In fact, Paul made it very clear that that is not what he taught. Because, the moment we think ourselves superior to others because of what we know or what we do, we are in fact guilty of legalism.

No, says Paul, grace doesn’t mean looking down our noses at anyone, but nor does it mean that we just throw God’s standards of holy living aside because we are saved by grace and not by our own performance.

God’s standards have not changed and sin in still sin. Lying is still lying, coveting is still coveting, and adultery is still adultery.

But if Legalism is out, and License is out, where does that leave us? It leaves us in the middle ground of the strait and narrow, which at long last brings us to Jesus’ Olivet Prophecy.

This is so called because Jesus delivered it to his disciples on the Mount of Olives. But Scripture also tells us when he delivered it, which as on Monday the 1^st of April, 30 AD.

How do we know? - Because, as I explain in my article ‘Diligently Seeking God: Dating Jesus’ life and ministry’, we can calculate that Jesus made his triumphant entry into Jerusalem on the Sunday immediately before his crucifixion on Wednesday the 3^rd of April, 30 AD. That would make the Sunday the 31^st of March, and we know that he delivered the Olivet Prophecy the following day.

You can follow the chronology from Matthew 21:1-10 (referring to his triumphal entry) and verse 10 (referring to the next day), which continues through to the Olivet Prophecy which he gave in response to the following question from his followers.

Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple.

 

But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."

 

As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"

What Jesus said next is among the most scary and apocalyptic teachings in the whole Bible, but his intention was not to scare or terrify his listeners, but to warn them.

Imagine if you went to step in a lift and someone cried out

“Stop! That lift’s broken.

If you take another step you’ll fall down the shaft and be killed”.

Is that warning intended to frighten you, or to save you? Much of the Church today would commend that we say nothing rather than risk frightening anyone.

Thank God that Jesus was not so reticent.

So let’s look at what Jesus told his disciples would occur at the end of the age.

And Jesus answered them, "See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and they will lead many astray.

 

And you will hear of wars and rumours of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet.

 

For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places.

 

All these are but the beginning of the birth pains.

One of the main mistakes many Christians make is to misidentify the kind of situation we now see in the world as ‘The End of the Age’, when Jesus goes to pains to emphasise that this is not the case at all. But what comes next, really puts cat among the pigeons for many with whose theology Jesus’ carefully directed words are entirely incompatible.

 

"Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake.

 

And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another.

 

And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray.

 

And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold.

 

But the one who endures to the end will be saved.”

I have heard many and various ingenious explanations as to why we should dismiss these words of Jesus Christ, which do not mean what they say. Maybe he wasn’t speaking about Christians. But that’s exactly who he was talking to - his disciples.

All right, then, so maybe he was talking to them, but not to us.

Well, he is specifically addressing their enquiry about the end of the age.

Ah, but surely that meant the Fall of Jerusalem, not today.

Wow! - That’s really stretching it, as we shall soon see.

And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

 

"So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

 

Let the one who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house, and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak.

 

And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days!

 

Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath.

 

For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be.

 

And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.

 

Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!' do not believe it.

 

For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.

 

See, I have told you beforehand.”

Of course, we can see similarities here with events that accompanied the Fall of Jerusalem, in 70 AD, but this is an example of prophetic dualism, where prophetic events have parallels, types and shadows around the time the prophecy is given, of which much later events are the antitype.

The fact is, Jesus made too many predictions of specific events that have not yet come to pass for us to be ‘deceived’, as he warned - as we are just about to read.

“So, if they say to you, 'Look, he is in the wilderness,' do not go out. If they say, 'Look, he is in the inner rooms,' do not believe it.

 

For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

 

Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.”

If nothing else, this should jolt us out of any complacency that Jesus is talking about soon-coming events rather than his Second Coming. This directly counters the secret rapture rubbish that has infested the Church for the better part of two hundred years, with Jesus making it abundantly clear that his return will be an event witnessed by everyone.

And this is a point on which the Apostle Paul was in full accord.

I'm telling you a mystery. Not all of us will die, but we will all be changed.

 

It will happen in an instant, in a split second at the sound of the last trumpet. Indeed, that trumpet will sound, and then the dead will come back to life. They will be changed so that they can live forever.

Brothers and sisters, we don't want you to be ignorant about those who have died. We don't want you to grieve like other people who have no hope.

 

We believe that Jesus died and came back to life. We also believe that, through Jesus, God will bring back those who have died. They will come back with Jesus.

 

We are telling you what the Lord taught. We who are still alive when the Lord comes will not go into his kingdom ahead of those who have already died.

 

The Lord will come from heaven with a command, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet call of God. First, the dead who believed in Christ will come back to life.

 

Then, together with them, we who are still alive will be taken in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. In this way we will always be with the Lord.

 

So then, comfort each other with these words!

This is speaking of what many Christians call the Rapture. And, Yes! I believe in it, because it is scriptural. What I do not believe, however, is in the distorted teaching that changes the order of events to suit our personal preferences at the expense of the Word of God.

Jesus is going to return, and his saints are going to ascend into the sky to meet him. And it is going to be highly visible and extremely noisy! Because not only Paul, but Jesus mentions the trumpet call.

The problem with the duff doctrine doing the rounds for so many years, is the timing, which Jesus is extremely clear about.

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

 

Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

 

And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.”

Apparently ‘all the tribes of the earth will mourn’ when they see Jesus return. Can you imagine being Richard Dawkins or some other prominent atheist, liberal theologian or notable sceptic, when Jesus makes his dramatic appearance and you realise you’ve been entirely wrong.

But when did Jesus say it would happen - Immediately before the resurrection of the saints, which is immediately after the tribulation.

That pretty much covers the Olivet Prophecy, but Jesus not stop there. He continued on by recounting four parables:

The Parable of the Fig Tree;

The Parable of the Two Servants;

The Parable of the Ten Virgins;

And the Parable of the Talents.

So, let’s continue, and see their relevance to the preceding prophecy.

"From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.”

Remember, this was Monday; the same day that Jesus had cursed the fig tree that bore no fruit and died from the root up. The fig tree speaks of Israel, and also of the unfruitful Church, because among trees the fig is possibly unique inasmuch as it bears fruit before it sprouts leaves. So, a fig tree in leaf makes a promise of harvest, which is why Jesus cursed the one that could not feed him, as it symbolised the religious hypocrisy he had come to Jerusalem to confront.

Now, he is using the fig as an analogy of the signs of the times. When you see all this, it is time.

And the generation he says ‘will not pass away’ is the Endtime generation who will see these events through, from beginning to end.

 

"But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

 

For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

 

For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

 

Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left.

 

Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left.

 

Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.

 

But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into.

 

Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.”

This must be among the most frighteningly misused scriptures in the whole Bible, which doctrinal desperation has caused teachers to turn on its head, because totally contrary to the whole context here, Jesus‘ warning that ‘two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left, and two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left’, has been shamelessly co-opted to support the false Rapture agenda.

Yet, put those verses back where they belong and we see that Jesus is speaking not about some Rapture of the Righteous, but of the wicked being taken out. This is judgement, not rescue.

 

"Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time?

 

Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes.

 

Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions.

 

But if that wicked servant says to himself, 'My master is delayed,' and begins to beat his fellow servants and eats and drinks with drunkards, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know and will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

This speaks volumes of what Jesus says he expects to find when he returns.

He expects to find ministers who have been teaching their flock the truth, but also false teachers who have taught complacency and disregard for God’s Word and God’s Law. And this is where Jesus’ admonition to walk along the strait and narrow comes in. Neither is Jesus nor am I advocating legalism, which is self-reliance on our own performance, or teaching that God’s grace may be earned. That’s an abomination and an abrogation of the New Covenant, which is ratified in Jesus’ Blood alone.

What Jesus criticises is the distortion of grace that we generally call License, which claims that the New Covenant dispels any need to live by God’s holy standards. We all slip and make mistakes; we all sin from time to time. In that sense, sin is not issue because sin was deal with at the Cross.

But the Law in the New Testament is used in two distinct ways: As a synonym for the Old Covenant, and also as a shorthand for God’s righteous way of living.

We no longer rely on the Ten Commandments for our righteousness. But that does not mean that God’s standards have slipped, because the same apostle Paul who so vehemently argued against our trying to obtain our righteousness through the Law, also endorsed it.

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. "Honour your father and mother," which is the first commandment with a promise, "that it may be well with you, and you may be long-lived on the earth".

This refers to the Fifth Commandment, as found in Exodus 20:12, while the promise mentioned is that of Deuteronomy 5:16. So Paul had no problem with the Law - in its place - which is as a moral guide to righteous living, and not a reward system to earn salvation.

But here he also recognises the danger of abandoning or ignoring those very standards. Or, as Jesus put it:

 

Truly I say to you, Until the heaven and the earth pass away, in no way shall one iota or one point pass away from the Law until all comes to pass.

Therefore, whoever relaxes one of these commandments, the least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of Heaven. But whoever does and teaches them, this one shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.

 

For I say to you, If your righteousness shall not exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of God, never!

In full context, Jesus is contrasting the perfection of the Law with our self-righteous attempts to keep it.

That won’t fly he says, but neither will it do to teach that God’s standards are in any way lessened. Because if we unilaterally reduce God’s standards we devalue the very salvation that Jesus purchased for us with his Blood.

Under the New Covenant, sin is no longer an act of mere rebellion or disobedience - it is an act of ingratitude. Because of Chirst's finished work, the Law can no longer demand our perfect performance, because God's Son has already satisfied that standard on our behalf. But neither does God expect the Church to distort that truth into an excuse to discard righteousness altogether and live like the devil.

Strait and Narrow, indeed!

 

Following the Olivet Prophecy, we see Jesus shift emphasis, from what he said would happen in the world, to how we are to respond in these last days.

He warns that the times would be discernable but not predictable. That just as the fig tree portends a season of harvest, so will Endtime events herald the Last Days.

He also contrasts the faithful and evil servants, whose respective characters he defines in terms of whether or not they were prepared for his return.

But the ending of Chapter 24 brings at last to the Parable of the Ten Virgins.

“Then the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom.

 

Five of them were foolish, and five were wise. For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them, but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps.

 

As the bridegroom was delayed, they all became drowsy and slept. But at midnight there was a cry, 'Here is the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.' Then all those virgins rose and trimmed their lamps.

 

And the foolish said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.'

 

But the wise answered, saying, 'Since there will not be enough for us and for you, go rather to the dealers and buy for yourselves.' And while they were going to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast, and the door was shut.

 

Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, 'Lord, lord, open to us.'

 

But he answered, 'Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.'

 

Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.”

Once again in keeping with the general theme here, Jesus is talking about preparedness and questioning whether we are ready.

Notice that the text does not describe the five maidens as bridesmaids. Had they been so, their parents would have been responsible for all their needs, and so they would not have run out of oil. Also, had they been bridesmaids, they would have been official guests and so would not have been shut out of the wedding venue.

So Jesus is telling us that they are responsible for obtaining their own oil and although welcome, were not mandatory guests.

Nor, however, does this mean they were uninvited, but that their invitations were open on their own recognisance - The choice as to whether to turn up or not was theirs. And this accords with the Arminian view of salvation, which says that God is no respecter of persons, which does not mean he has no favourites (for all who accept his free favour become his favourites) it means only that no-one is compelled to acept.

And notice as well that the Bridegroom arrived at midnight - when it was completely dark, speaking of the depth of moral darkness in the world immediately preceding Christ's return.

What then of the oil? What does that signify?

In my view, the answer is simple, in that those who had little oil were deemed foolish, whereas those who had plenty were called wise.

Oil and wisdom are both personified in the Bible as the Holy Spirit. He at once our Comforter, our Advocate and our Teacher - and most specifically (in Acts 6:3) 'the Spirit and of wisdom' - who speaks to us and makes it possible for us to hear the Voice of the Word of the Father.

He is also something of a Matchmaker who facilitates our relationship with Jesus Christ, so it is no wonder that those damsels who were lacking in oil were not only stupid but unaware of the imminence of the Bridegroom's arrival, and when they eventually did turn up at his house for the wedding feast, they were told that he did not know them.

These are all failings attributable to any believer who does not avail themselves of God’s Holy Spirit.

Jesus disin't accuse them of being harlots, so they were not unbelievers, but were nonetheless guilty of complacency and their lackadaisical attitude rendered them unprepared.

So much for salvation being our meal ticket to heaven.

But surely, we cannot lose our salvation?

We'll discuss that question shortly, but if we were to believe a large section of the Twenty-First Century Church, that would be so. But is it what Jesus says?

Maybe that’s why he concludes this section of teaching with the Parable of the Talents.

"For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property.

 

To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away.

 

He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more.

 

So also he who had the two talents made two talents more.

 

But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money.

 

Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them.

 

And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.'

 

His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.'

 

And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.'

 

His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.'

 

He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.'

 

But his master answered him, 'You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed?

 

Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest.

 

So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents.

 

For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.

 

And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

I remember reading these last two parables and being shocked to find Jesus employing two terms that elsewhere refer unambiguously to damnation.

This, of course, is not the view of some, like the eminent Calvinist apologist, Dr H. L. Ellison, who writes of the Parable of the Ten Virgins:

“This is no story of eternal destiny decided by the Coming. The foolish have lost something but need not be lost themselves”.

And of the Parable of the Talents he says:

“There is no suggestion of the eternal fate of the third servant; like the foolish maidens he has lost something…” and “no special darkness is meant [by the ‘outer darkness’]”

This is a predictable Calvinist stance, since Calvinism presupposes that man has no free will to repudiate the decretive will of God, and the elect are not merely ‘once saved, always saved’, but were always so from eternity.

This is the point where we must digress momentarily into what is virtually an essay within an essay, for which I apologise. However, I did promise earlier that we would return to examine more closely the theological divide that exists between Arminianism and Calvinism in the Reformed Church. And as hard as my regular readers may find it to believe, I do try to minimise the amount of theology in my articles as much as possible by avoiding being unnecessarily academic. But regretfully, some basic explanation is necessary here if we are understand the scriptures relating to the Olivet Discourse.

The two main theological positions are named after their progenitors - Jean Calvin and Jacobus Arminius. However, even these differing strains have become so splintered centuries of internal re-interpretation, that they now tend to be more labels of convenience than strict definitions of belief.

So, at the risk of extreme over-simpliflification, I shall attempt to confine this discussion to the central issue in this case, which is the doctrinal divide over ‘eternal security’ - the question of whether a believer ‘once saved’ remains ‘always saved’. Or, to put it another way, whether ‘once saved’, it is impossible for him to lose that salvation. And, in the context of the wider discussion, there is absolutely no point in sweeping that question under the carpet.

At the same time, we need to be careful not to allow the fact that we may draw different conclusions to become a reason to draw battle lines, because we are exhorted to be united in the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13), even when we are divided on opinion.

Calvinists argue that God is sovereign and his eternal will and purpose are both immutable and irresistible. This is slightly complicated by the fact that God in fact has two wills - or two ways of willing:

His revealed will and his secret will, or his effectual will and his preceptive will. For example:

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Calvinists thus distinguish between what God would wish to be, and what he insists must be.

This principle is then extrapolated to demonstrate that while man is free to accept or refuse God’s general grace, he is not truly free to refuse God’s saving grace. Thus, while all men may defy God and commit sin, those whom God has predestined to election to eternal life cannot resist his grace.

Arminians totally agree that God is indeed sovereign, but differ substantially as to how they believe God exercises that sovereignty. Most Arminians consider that predestination better describes the way in which God’s eternal omniscience is satisfied inasmuch as he already knows those things that are yet future to his temporal creation.

In other words, God knows whether we ‘make it’ or not, because ‘He is, and He was, and He is to come’ (Revelation 1:4, 1:8 and 4:8), not because he directly meddled or intervened in the choice we made with the offer he gave us.

As a result strict Calvinism believes not just in ‘Once-saved-always-saved’ - from the time a believer makes his conscious choice to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour - but in ‘Once-saved-always-saved’, having been fore-ordained from eternity, making the elect's salvation an irresistible inevitability predicated solely on Devine fiat.

Arminians regard this as a contradiction of the very freewill that they argue the Bible reveals that God granted to man. And therein lies the doctrinal difference, which is not whether God is sovereign, but over how he chooses to exercise that sovereignty.

It is, of course, much more involved than that, and there are a myriad shades of variation across the doctrinal continuum, but those are the basics.

Lest I misrepresent anyone else's theology, allow me to offer my own interpretation, which is that God exercised his incontestable sovereignty to grant man true and absolute freewill, thereby limiting himself. This is not as fantastic as it sounds when we consider just two particular instances, in Hebrews and Mark‘s Gospel.

For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Here we see an omniscient God who choses to forget our sins and iniquities in clear contradiction of his eternal omniscience. However, if we consider that God cannot lie, cannot die, cannot deny himself, or contravene his holy righteous character (indeed, it has been estimated that there are at least 32 things that god cannot do) then it is clear that God’s sovereignty works within self-imposed parameters. In none of these respects is God limited by anyone or anything outwith himself and his own determination. In other words, we cannot limit God, but he can.

But Jesus said unto them, "A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house." And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

 

My take on Calvinism is that it mirrors Islam’s ‘Inshallah’ - ‘God wills it’, which is a form of fatalism that I regard as antithetical to Biblical revelation.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is a Gospel of grace and of hope, whereas fatalism - the philosophy of ‘que sera, sera’ - is devoid of any hope, although not of wishful thinking. This is because, if we have no influence over whether we or anyone else can be saved, then evangelism is not only redundant but a mockery, since everyone’s salvation or damnation is a foregone conclusion which can neither be fostered nor hindered by human agency.

If you will forgive my argumentum ad absurdum (which is at the argumentational extreme) the ultimate expression of Calvinism would be that Father God is actually the Godfather - who makes his elect an offer they can’t refuse, while refusing all others the same offer which they cannot accept.

It is a contortion of logic that must conclude that we might as well retire to a darkened room with a pistol and blow our brains all over the walls, because nothing we can do can rob us of our salvation and nothing we can offer can possibly save those predestined to Hell.

The fact that so many self-professed Calvanists have such a heart for the lost and an enthusiasm for evangelism more than suggests to me that they don’t really believe that.

Indeed, even for a Calvinist to presume to criticise my objection is a contradition in terms, since I have no choice but to write this. So, for him to object is therefore evidence that he believes he has a choice that I do not possess, to subvert the will of God, or that God enjoys arguing with himself. Either way, like the Muslim, his objection is predicated on a self-defeating argument.

 

Flip side of the coin

The problem with Arminianism, however, is that it opens quite a different can of worms. Namely, that if man is free to choose the narrow way to Salvation, he is equally free to choose to depart from it and take the broad road to destruction.

And, like Calvinism, Arminianism has it extremes, some of which fall little short of Pelagianism and salvation by works, both of which completely abrogate grace and are once again anathema and antithetical to the Gospel.

Then there are the hybrid doctrines that try to accomodate elements of both positions but end up a mishmash of wishful thinking that makes us free to choose salvation but incapable of repudiating it thereafter - What I call the Berlin Wall Option: You can get in easily enough, but you will never get out.

Then there is the Calvinist Doomsday Weapon, which is to accuse Arminians of being crypto-Roman Catholics, with its unfortunate implication that Roman Catholics are not Christians simply by virtue of the fact of being Roman Catholic.

That’s a particularly uncomfortable position for any Reformed believer to adopt, since Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk, while Jean Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli and John Knox were all Roman Catholic priests.

Whether a Roman Catholic is a Christian or not is not dependent on whether they are members of the Roman Catholic Church, but on whether they have a living relationship with Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.

There are plenty of hypocrites to be found on Protestant pews without scouring for fresh fields in which to point the finger.

Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier, these arguments should never be drawn up as battle lines and however deeply we may disagree, as brothers and sisters in Christ we cannot afford to become divided over them.

 

The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people.

 

But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.

 

As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

 

To be fair, I don’t actually know who tops the league table of name-calling in this debate but, so long as we accept the fundamentals of the faith, it’s okay to disagree - even over relatively major points.Controversy is not a sin, but an opportunity to learn how to disagree without fighting.

Indeed, Scripture records some quite significant disagreements that took place in the early Church without the Body of Christ getting too bent out shape about it.

 

And when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

 

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.

And after some days Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us return and visit the brothers in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are."

 

Now Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work.

 

And there arose a sharp disagreement, so that they separated from each other. Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and departed, having been commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

 

But before everyone else flounces off in a thorough huff, I thought you’d like to know some of those who have taken opposite sides in this debate, whose names you might recognise.

Arminianistic....................................Calvinistic

John Wesley......................................Charles Spurgeon

Charles Wesley..................................Martin Lloyd Jones

William Booth....................................Ian Paisley

Billy Graham......................................Robert Charles Sproul

David Pawson.....................................Robert Morris

Stephen Houston................................Joseph Prince

Andrew Wommack

You may note that I term these gentlemen Arminianistic and Calvinistic rather than as strictly Arminian or rigidly Calvinist. This is because both sides of the argument have their extremes, whereas most believers occupy a niche along a spectrum.

But as for those listed, their ministries can speak for themselves and I draw inference only from each man’s professed teachings which fall to a greater or lesser degree into the general categories described.

For example, Andrew Wommack teaches that it is possible for a man’s heart to be progressively hardened by habitual sin to where he eventually repudiates his faith and thereby loses his salvation. That’s basically an Arminian position.

Joseph Prince, however, argues the exact opposite, and I have even heard him say that ‘Freewill is not all its cracked up to be’. Classic Calvinism.

And, while I must concede that my own view accords with Andrew Wommack‘s in this regard, it would be a foolish man who libelled as heretics any of those listed, simply due to aspects of doctrine that they teach on which we might disagree. Indeed, there are various points of theology on which I frankly disagree with each one of them.

But it has been my observation and experience that God is far less fussed by our imperfect theological insight than we are, and in general, Christians on both sides of the divide are substantially agreed on the essentials of the faith.

No teacher can teach with conviction that which he does not sincerely believe. But neither can he teach with integrity unless prepared to concede that he could be mistaken.

As we can see from the names listed, a person's effectiveness in serving God owes much more to how much he or she loves God, elevates Christ and honours the Holy Spirit than to the perfection of their doctrine. Or as the apostle Paul put it so succinctly:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

 

And in all my years spent in courtrooms as a police officer, if I learned nothing else it was that you don’t have to be right to win an argument. You only have to be ruthless enough to crush your opponent at all costs.

However, returning to our main discussion, Jesus’ language presents an impediment to this view when we compare his response to the foolish virgins with that of the Master in another parable.

 

And while they were going to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast, and the door was shut.

 

Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, 'Lord, lord, open to us.'

 

But he answered, 'Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.'

 

Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.”

 

I also have a problem with Ellison's idea of the ‘outer darkness’ having no special meaning besides it being night time, because we see the expression used again in Matthew 13:42.

 

Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'

And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

It may be possible to conclude that in these two instances Jesus is expressing very similar ideas, even though it is hard to accept what they appear to imply, which is that those who have been saved (and may even be doing works we would normally consider operative through the power of Holy Spirit, such as prophesying, casting out demons and performing miracles) may yet be lost?

Even to the Arminian mind that seems harsh, yet all the things mentioned in the second scripture are normally facilitated by the baptism in the Holy Spirit, and it is impossible to be baptized in the Spirit unless one is already first saved.

There is one disparate nuance between them, however, which is the Greek word used for ‘know’ in Matthew 25:12 - οιδα (oida), and ‘knew’ in Matthew 7:23 - εγνων (egnón).

Whereas oida carries the sense of ‘I don’t recognise you’, egnón is closer to, ‘I never got to know you…’ which in the context connotes I see as something closer to the bitter hurt of an unconsummated marriage:

We got engaged; You said the words; We exchanged the rings…Then I came home to an empty bed…And we never got to know one another.

That is not barely scraping into the Kingdom; it's bowing out of it altogether.

...And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

 

Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age.

The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

So, are we to assume then, that there are two places of 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' - one in Hell and another in Heaven?

To be blunt, these are only two among several instances where Jesus’ uses the phrase ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’, and I see no reason to assume that he in using it again here to suggest anything other than damnation.

Remember the context of the whole Olivet Discourse - both Prophecy and Parables - which is Jesus’ response to his disciples initial query, in Matthew 24:3,

"Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"

And it is this that suggest to me a reason for the apparent lack of opportunity to make any amends and repent.

 

Whether we subscribe to a Calvinist or Arminian position, or some intermediate stance, is somewhat academic, since Jesus makes clear that we have a lot to lose if we disregard his solemn warning, however we interpret these scriptures. Suffice it to say, therefore, that the negative consequences Jesus describes in his Olivet Discourse are to be understood to be avoided at all cost.

And the way to do that is not by getting bogged down in interdenominational argument and theological dispute but to be watchful for his Coming and prepared for it at all times.

I earnestly believe that God’s unrelenting insistence that I write about the Parable of the Ten Virgins and the context in which it is set, is for a reason.

Time is running out faster than most of the Church seems to suppose, as major economies implode and the Middle East disintegrates into chaos. And, in what remains of 2011, there is ample time for sudden nuclear conflict or unanticipated chemical or biological terrorist attack on a major power.

Yet God never invokes judgement or removes his hand of protection without first giving some kind of warning, and we would do well to be mindful that his warnings today relate more than ever to Endtime events and Jesus’ caution to his followers in every age, to avoid the two great dangers to our Faith: Compromise and Complacency.