Ecclesiology – Page 3 – No Other Boast

Drink Beer and Watch the Church Grow or Why Deacons? (Acts 6:1–7)

“But we will devote ourselves to prayer and the ministry of the word.” —Acts 6:4

The church has legitimate physical needs that are being neglected. The apostles don’t deny this, but they say they’re not going to give up their time for it, and, this pleases the church. Certainly, they did lead the church so that the seven are chosen to deal with the problem, but the church is pleased by the apostle’s word as a whole.

Protestants have forgotten what they protested; what they should be protesting. The Roman priests devoted themselves to everything but prayer and the ministry of the Word. Much of what they did should have been the responsibility of deacons. John Eck was a defender of Catholicism who squared off against Luther in debate, but he knew this much:

He [the cleric] should focus on the ministry of the Word of God and entrust the worldly things to the deacons, [city] servants and local government, as the apostles did in this passage. Now, however, our own prelates turn the matter upside down. Whatever spiritual matters there are is too much for them. …If they are supposed to preach, then they shove forward some monk. If they are supposed to absolve a distressed sinner, then there is the confessor. However, whatever concerns gold, money and interest, that we must bring to ‘my most merciful lord.’

Many evangelical pastors neglect the ministry of prayer and the Word because they too are more concerned with money and empire building. In contrast, Derek Thomas comments,

It is fascinating to observe that the church agreed on the need for preaching. In an age when Christians desire ‘less preaching and more programs,’ it would be well to observe the opposite in the early church. These Christians felt the need to prioritize a Bible-based instructional ministry to feed their souls and instruct them in the way of truth.

The reason deacons were installed in the church was so that the Word would continue to be proclaimed unhindered. It is good to want deacons because you love the body and want their needs to be provided for. It is better to primarily, though not exclusively, to want deacons so that the Word can go forward without encumbrance to the glory of Christ’s name and the growth of the church. Because deacons were appointed, and the twelve were able to devote themselves to prayer and the Word, “the word of God continued to increase, and the number of disciples multiplied greatly (Acts 6:7).”

Advising against those who wanted to use physical means, such as smashing alters and destroying images, to advance the Reformation, Luther warned,

Give men time. I took three years of constant study, reflection, and discussion to arrive where I now am, and can the common man, untutored in such matters, be expected to move the same, distance in three months? Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused. Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shalt we then prohibit wine and abolish women? The sun, the moon, and stars have been worshiped. Shall we then pluck them out of the sky? Such haste and violence betray a lack of confidence in God. See how much he has been able to accomplish through me, though I did no more than pray and preach. The Word did it all. Had I wished I might have started a conflagration at Worms. But while I sat still and drank beer with Philip and Amsdorf, God dealt the papacy a mighty blow.

Fellow pastors, may this be our uncompromising glory, “I did no more than pray and preach. The Word did it all,” and praise be to God for men of good repute, full of the Spirit and wisdom, who for love of the church and God’s Word, free us to do so.

Tis the Soloist, not the Choir (1 Timothy 6:3–10)

Often it’s said that truth divides, but just as often this is misunderstood. When a church gets antsy under a humble pastor, one who’s placing himself under the Word, and tells him to quit preaching doctrine because it’ll divide the church, it’s they who are the enemies of unity. Truth divides, but it doesn’t divide the church. It divides sheep from goats. Jesus said His sheep hear His voice. When Jesus’ words are taught, and animals start scattering, the church isn’t being divided, but purified.

Have there been clumsy shepherds who unwittingly whack the sheep with the Sword causing them to stray? Guilty as charged. But in such an instance, it wasn’t the truth that divided, but the ham-fisted handling of it. Have immature sheep strayed when they should’ve stayed? Certainly, but clarity on that in a bit. For now, neither one of those things should keep us from affirming the truth, that truth unites, and false teaching divides.

Paul tells us in Ephesians 4:3 to be “eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” The command isn’t to make unity, but to maintain it. For the church, unity is, and the unity that is, is in Christ. Paul elaborates, “There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all (Ephesians 4:4–6).” This oneness is reality for the church. Maintaining unity means living out this reality. Teaching concerning this reality, so that one can live it out, is called doctrine. True unity cannot be had without doctrine. Deny these truths and you deny the glue of the Spirit by which He bonds the church together.

So, when the immature Christian leaves the church because true doctrine is being taught, what’s really happening is that some previously inculcated lie is being exposed. It wasn’t the truth that destroyed unity, but the lie. Achan has been hiding something, and the truth is exposing it. Truth may purify, but it doesn’t divide.

The only unity the church has, is unity in Christ—unity in truth. Anything else is just an illusion. “Unity” in indifference doesn’t count. Say two peewee baseball teams meet for the last game of the season. One team has lost every game and not one player wants to be there. Each of them is thinking of something different they’ll do after the game. Concerning the game, win or lose, they don’t care. They all have the same spirit, but no one comments “Wow! They’re so unified.” The second team has won every game that season, and they want to make it a perfect season. They’re unified. The church isn’t to be a collective of people singing, “I don’t care,” but “Jesus is Lord!” This is the tune of the church. Doctrine is music ed. False teaching attempts to alter the song. Saying truth divides is like saying that playing the right notes divides the orchestra. No! Tis the fat-headed, glory-craving, improvising virtuoso soloist who rebels against the Composer/Conductor. You can’t improve this song. Different not only divides, it defaces.

Water, Chop, Plant (1 Timothy 5:17–25)

Timothy is a tree farmer. The species “elder,” calls for special notice, so Paul instructs Timothy to water the good, chop the bad, and test the saplings. So simple, but, alas, this arboreal wisdom doesn’t translate to ecclesiological wisdom, or, in other words, we’re naturally better tree farmers than elder farmers.

Here is a good tree, what are we to do with it? Many Christians think, “Leave it be. Don’t want to mess it up.” There are two plants, one is thriving, and one is dying. So they put all their efforts into the bad tree, a tree that any unbiased arborist could see was beyond hope. What happens? Now they have two dead trees. Water the good tree and you get more good fruit. Water the bad tree and you get more rottenness. It is true that if there is no water, there will be no fruit, but it isn’t true that if you just keep watering, then there will be fruit. When a tree is bad, more water won’t make it good. Therefore, following “no water, no fruit,” the second lesson of spiritual dendrology is “no fruit, no water.”

If the tree is bad, chop it down. Of course, first you check to see if pruning and fertilizing might suffice. But if an elder persists in sin after you’ve lovingly sought his repentance, he is to be publicly rebuked. The reverse is regrettably frequent. Satan loves to redirect the water that the good is worthy of, channeling it to the bad. The honor good elders deserve is directed to the bad; the rebuke the bad deserve, he heaps on the good. Petty accusations weigh down the good, while the sinful elder is not only overlooked, but honored as if here were no mere elder, but an apostle. The church was founded on the apostles, grand redwoods of grace and revelation, he isn’t one, by a long shot, but they treat him as though he were. This isn’t without reason. The only way such a poser’s ministry could carry any clout is if his word was regarded as the Word, because they bear no resemblance otherwise. He has to play an apostle because he is so far from them. Such a tree makes for putrid fruit, but excellent fire wood (Matthew 7:15–20).

Finally, there are saplings that potentially could be either good or bad. Saplings are to be slowly and thoroughly tested, so as to ensure that good trees are planted, because, honestly, chopping is painful and hard work. Whereas chopping is an occasional work, planting is to be a continual work. No one wants to chop. We should want to plant. Unfortunately, many don’t value planting because they don’t value trees. They don’t value trees because they’ve invested too much in bad trees and are sick of rotten fruit. Score have only experienced a dark forest of spiritual leadership bearing fruit that leaves you in your deadly slumber. Further, say you wanted to plant some good saplings, sadly, many Christians have never seen one, so how are they to recognize them? Aha! Paul has given Timothy the identifying markers. The arborist’s check list is in 1 Timothy 3:1–7. There Paul tells Timothy what a good tree looks like. He looks like Jesus.

Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
but his delight is in the law of the Lord,
and on his law he meditates day and night.

He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season,
and its leaf does not wither.
In all that he does, he prospers.
The wicked are not so,
but are like chaff that the wind drives away.

Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,
nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous;
for the Lord knows the way of the righteous,
but the way of the wicked will perish.

—Psalm 1

Appreciating One Sunset and Cultivating Another One (1 Timothy 5:1–16)

First Timothy, like all the Bible, is a two edged sword. The instructions written to Timothy are also written for the church. If we could translate the last sentence of the book into Texan this would be clear, “Grace be with y’all.” This means when Paul tells Timothy to let no one despise his youth, but to set them an example, that the church isn’t to despise Timothy’s youth if he sets them an example. Maturity in the faith, not in years, is the better instrumentation to observe and keep from crashing.

But just because a church is to value maturity over age doesn’t mean that the church is to disregard age altogether. Again, Timothy is instructed on how to relate to those older than him, notably when he has to confront them due to some sin. But, in so doing, Timothy is setting the Ephesians, and us, an example of how the church should relate to those older and younger.

Timothy is to treat those older as a father or mother. Paul was Timothy’s father in the faith (1 Timothy 1:2). In between all the lines of 1 Timothy you can read Timothy’s love for Paul. Imagine that Timothy saw a sin in Paul, a sin Paul was blind to, can you hear Timothy’s respectful, humble tone? Timothy also had a model of faith in his mother and grandmother (2 Timothy 1:5). How Timothy would approach his mother, to whom he was so indebted, is how he ought to treat older women in the church?

We live in an age that idolizes youth and has forgotten the dignity of age. Proverbs 16:31 tells us that “Gray hair is a crown of glory; it is gained in a righteous life.” Here is the general principle, when you see a seasoned gray head, it often got there by being less a fool than other heads, and gained wisdom in the process. We’re fools for treating glory as faded goods to be discarded. The elderly are treated as dead weight or a detriment, when, they are really a blazing sunset that we should pause and appreciate, for the blaze will soon be gone and the world will be a darker place for the setting.

The old are to be looked up to, but the young are not to be looked down on. Concerning those younger than him, Timothy is to see them as peers. God is our Father. We are all sinners saved by grace, brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. When you see someone younger in sin, don’t give them a scolding, but speak with them as one who knows the discipline of the Father as a good thing.

Here is a good principle for us all, for this sword is two edged eternally, look up to those older than you, across to those younger than you, and down upon none.

Awful Deacons (1 Timothy 3:8–13)

Ever try to define a word, a word you thought you knew really well, a word you use all the time, only to find yourself dumbstruck? This can be because you know the meaning so well. For instance, try to define “it.” You may stutter, but your usage likely indicates that you undertand “it” perfectly well. I’m afraid that this isn’t the case with the word “deacon.” The word is part of our churchy parlance, but, as Inigo told Vizzini, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what yo think it means.” When a definition is readily offered most often the description better fits an elder. “Whereas the office of overseer is often ignored in the modern church,” writes Benjamin Merkle, “the office of deacon is often misunderstood.”

Why are we so confused? “How Sweet and Aweful is the Place,” may be my favorite hymn. It would be a mistake to understand the meaning of that title according to today’s usage of “aweful.” The word meant awesome, which is yet another word lying on its death bed. “Deacon” suffers a similar malady. We read our modern traditional idea of deacon back into the Bible, instead of reading the Biblical idea into our churches.

“Deacon,” in reference to the office, only occurs three times in the New Testament (there is a fourth instance that I believe should also be translated deacon, but that would require another, and much longer post). It occurs twice in 1 Timothy 3, and if you’re hoping for the their instance to be more illuminating, I’m afraid you’ll be disappointed. “Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons (Philippians 1:1 ESV).” After you survey every explicit mention of deacons in the New Testament you are left with the predicament of knowing that deacons should be, but not what they should do.

But, though the word in reference to the office is only used three times, the noun is used another twenty-nine times in a general sense, most often translated “servant.” For instance, Jesus is said to be a deacon in Romans 15:8. Further, the verb form is used thirty-seven times. Jesus is said to deacon, that is, to serve us in Matthew 20:28. The word originally refers to one who waits tables, and with that our ears perk up when we read Acts 6 in regards to the problem of hellenistic jewish women being neglected in the early church. “And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve [deacon] tables (Acts 6:2 ESV).” The seven chosen to serve the church are never called deacons, but it is what they do, and I believe that the division between the twelve who minister in word and prayer, and the seven who minister to the physical needs of the body, is the same division we see in regards to overseers and deacons.

So what is the distinction between the two offices? What are their respective tasks? Overseers oversee, and deacons deacon. Or, in an attempt to be more clear, yet, at risk of being misunderstood, we could say overseers oversee souls, whereas deacons deacon bodies. The only thing I mean by that language is that overseers look after the souls of their flock, whereas deacons serve the physical needs of the flock. The church needs both offices, and not some conflagration or hybrid of the two. She needs multiple elders, and multiple deacons, and when she has them, the church is a wholesome family, well ordered, well behaved (1 Timothy 3:16, Titus 1:5).

Knowing What You Should Know (1 Timothy 3:1-7)

Questions beget questions. 1 Timothy 3:1–7 gives us the qualifications for what the KJV terms “bishops.” What is a bishop? Modern translations help in well communicating the original meaning with the word “overseer.” What is an overseer? When was the last time you heard it clearly communicated who the overseers were in your church? When Paul lists the qualifications for elders in Titus he goes on to call them overseers. Overseers are elders. Does that help? What is an elder? An elder is a pastor. Overseer, elder, pastor—all are the same office.

Diabolically perhaps, many churches uses the least common terms in the Bible, and have abandoned the most common. As a result, the Scriptures sound foreign to us. There should be a ready, one-to-one correspondence when we read about overseers and elders such that we exclaim, “I know (experientially) that,” or “I should know that!” What should be domestic, is alien, and we are like sheep without a shepherd for it. Pastor (shepherd) is only used one time as a noun in Scripture to indicate this office (Ephesians 4:11), and even then, it isn’t a proper title but a metaphor. Elder and overseer, those are the titles (by the way, “minister” and “preacher” don’t officially count either). Shepherding is the chief metaphor, teaching, the essential job skill. That this is so is seen in the following passages (all emphasis are mine):

“Now from Miletus he [Paul] sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church to come to him. …he said to them…‘Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock [this be shepherding language], in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood (Acts 20:17–18, 28 ESV).’”

“So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly (1 Peter 1:5–7 ESV).”

Two things seem especially pertinent: 1. There are multiple elders in a singular church, 2. Overseers oversee souls.

The task of shepherding the flock isn’t to be done alone. Without exception, the pattern in the New Testament is that churches are to be shepherded by a plurality of elders. This was true of the church at Jerusalem (Acts 15:22), Ephesus (Acts 20:17), Philippi (Philippians 1:1) the churches in the towns of Crete (Titus 1:5), the churches that Peter wrote to (1 Peter 5:1), the churches that Paul planted (Acts 14:23), the churches that James wrote to (James 5:14). Shepherds are to look after their own souls as well as the flock’s. Shepherds need other shepherds to help look after the flock, but also to look after them. They need other overseers to oversee their souls for the sake of the flock’s souls.

Overseers oversee. They do not oversee the church as though she were an organization, a company, a business, a non-profit, a trust, or a charity. They oversee souls. Why did the early church esteem the office of overseer so that a “trustworthy saying” spread through the churches calling it a “noble task” (1 Timothy 3:1)? Why are they not esteemed so today? Because too many look at their leaders as professional managers, visionary CEOs, program developers, entertainers, charismatic personalities and dynamic communicators, whereas the early church knew their elders the way a sheep knows its shepherd. They knew their overseers’ feeding, leading, guarding, and knowing of their souls.

When you know this truth, you then read through the Scriptures and either know that you know (again experientially) this, or know that you should know this shepherding of your souls. And that leads to this final wowzer of a thought: as a regenerate church member, there is no bigger decision you make in the church, than who the elders of that church are, or, as a Christian, the biggest factor to consider when joining a church is who the elders are that you will entrust your soul to.

Tolle Lege: Evangelism

Readability: 1

Length: 114 pp

Author: Mack Stiles

Here is an excellent book on evangelism for the whole church, which is the only kind of evangelism that should be. The church is God’s program for evangelism and the gospel is the power of God to salvation. In Evangelism you’ll find simplicity and sanity concerning what has too often, unnecessarily, been complicated and done insanely.

Evangelism is teaching the gospel (the message from God that leads us to salvation) with the aim to persuade. If a church does not understand biblical evangelism, over time that church will be subverted. If we don’t practice healthy evangelism, the dominoes start to fall:

The focus of preaching and teaching turns to living a moral life, not a gospel-centered life.

Non-Christians are lulled into thinking that they are okay in their lost state.

Christians think that non-Christians are believers because they made a superficial outward commitment.

The church baptizes those who are not believers.

The church allows non-Christians into membership.

Eventually, non-Christians become leaders in the church.

A church becomes a subculture of nominalism.

Unbiblical evangelism is a method of assisted suicide for a church, so there is much at stake in getting evangelism right.

WTS Books: $11.16 Amazon: $11.73

Headship Is (1 Timothy 2:8)

When there are problems in the church, start with the men. When there are problems in the church, men are always responsible for them; either because they caused the problem, or failed to address it. If men haven’t caused the problem, they must deal with it. If problems are not dealt with in this way, you intensify your problems. When men have failed in the church and women have stepped in to fill the void, this hasn’t solved any problems, but caused larger ones. When women lead it doesn’t help men be men, and thus, it doesn’t help women either. Women can’t help men to be men when they try to be men.

Men are women’s biggest problem (outside their own sin), but right behind men is feminism. Have feminist and egalitarians championed some righteous causes. Certainly. But this wasn’t because they were feminists. Did Nazi scientists make breakthroughs beneficial for mankind? Certainly. But this wasn’t because they were Nazis. Feminism is problem for women because it amplifies men being a problem for women.

We have so feminized the church that it is as attractive to men as a feather boa. Men failed, women stepped in, and now there aren’t any men, only mothers and boys, mothers who perpetuate the boyhood of boys. The women do while overgrown boys sit on their duff playing video games. Oh, but their video games without x-rated material, supervised by upright mothers! Right.

The reason why a disregard for gender fundamentally fails is because headship is. When Scripture speaks of husbands being heads of their wives, it doesn’t come as a command, but as a statement of fact.

“For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior (Ephesians 5:23 ESV).”

“But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God (1 Corinthians 11:3).”

Headship is stated as an indicative fact, not an imperative command. Irrevocably, men dominate. That is to say they have a headship that affect all that is under them. Douglas Wilson gets at this well,

“Because the husband is the head of the wife, he finds himself in a position of inescapable leadership. He cannot successfully refuse to lead. If he attempts to abdicate in some way, he may, through his rebellion, lead poorly. But no matter what he does, or where he goes, he does so as the head of his wife. This is how God designed marriage. He has created us as male and female in such a way as to ensure that men will always be dominant in marriage. If the husband is godly, then that dominance will not be harsh; it will be characterized by the same self-sacrificial love demonstrated by our Lord—Dominus—at the cross. If a husband tries to run away from his headship, that abdication will dominate the home. If he catches a plane to the other side of the country, and stays there, he will dominate in and by his absence. How many children have grown up in a home dominated by the empty chair at the table? If the marriage is one in which the wife ‘wears the pants,’ the wimpiness of the husband is the most obvious thing about the marriage, creating a miserable marriage and home. His abdication dominates.”

In conclusion, let me say a few words to ward off any naysayers and gender benders. First, if you erase male/female distinctions you open the door wide to homosexuality and transgender endorsement. Second, if you have a problem with submission, you have a problem with the godhead as seen in 1 Corinthians 11:3. Third, just as in the godhead, having different roles in which one submits to the other does not mean that men and women are not equal in value, dignity, and worth any more that the Son is less God or less worthy of worship than the Father. Finally, I leave you with Chesterton’s short poem, “Comparisons.”

If I set the sun beside the moon,
And if I set the land beside the sea,
And if I set the town beside the country,
And if I set the man beside the woman,
I suppose some fool would talk about one being better.

The Sheep’s Wool (Matthew 25:31-46)

When Jesus separates the sheep and the goats pronouncing judgment upon them, neither one is shocked by the destination, but the reasoning given. The sheep are blessed for the ministered to Jesus in His need, whereas the goats are cursed because they failed. But we shouldn’t mistake this for saying the sheep merited their destination.

The decisive grounds upon which the sheep and goats are divided is that one is comprised of sheep and the other of goats. The deeds of mercy act as an outer mark that identifies the sheep. They are the evidence, not the grounds. Some similar language about those who eat sheep may help.

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. —Matthew 7:15-20 (ESV)

The eating of sheep does not make one a wolf; the being a wolf means an appetite for sheep. The bearing of good fruit does not make one a good tree; the being a good tree means bearing good fruit.

The King/Shepherd says, “All sheep may enter,” and then He turns to you and says, “Come, for you are covered with wool.” The wool didn’t make you a sheep. The last thing any sheep will say on that day is, “I got in by the wool on my baaack, baaack, baaack. Yes this wool, I did it.” If so, an interrogation would commence. “Were you always a sheep? Who then transformed you into a sheep? Who gave you the only food, and water (the Spirit and the Word) that then can cause such wool to grow? Who gave you health and life so that the wool could grow? Who protected you and led you beside still waters so that the wool could grow?” The Shepherd gets all the credit. When He says, “Come for you are full of wool,” He is saying, “Look at what I did. See. This one is mine.”

What is the distinctive wool specifically mentioned here are a mark of those who are the Good Shpeherd’s? Love for the church. Shouldn’t we as Christians love all who are destitute? Certainly. Is that the point of this text. By no means. “The least of these,” are “my [Jesus’] brothers.” This language echoes Matthew 10:40-42 and Matthew 18 where the “little ones,” are Jesus’ little ones, His disciples.

One evangelical pastor wrote a popular book titled They Love Jesus but Not the Church. He had some legitimate criticisms of the church, but he missed it with his title. You cannot love Jesus and not love the church. If you fail to love the church, you do not love Jesus. You are a goat.

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. …If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother. —1 John 4:7-8, 20-21

Getting all Dressed up for Nothing (Matthew 25:1-13)

“Of course that guy is out,” we say of the wicked servant (Matthew 24:48-51), but the ten virgins cause us to think much more soberly. They cause us to think like the disciples. When Jesus warned that one of them would betray Him, none responded, “I know, that guy!” Instead they asked, “Is it I?” When we look at the five foolish virgins we are graciously startled that “be ready,” isn’t a message for them. “Watch!” isn’t a command for outsiders, but a message for those “inside” the church, for those who think they will be inside the feast, for those who think they are inside the ark of Christ protected from the flood waters of God’s wrath.

The wicked slave played a slave of the master, but proved himself to be an enemy. The wicked slave despises Jesus’ coming, whereas foolish virgins are deceived concerning his coming. The veneer is different, but the same kind of rotten wood meant for the fire underlies both. The wicked don’t sing, “We’ll Work till Jesus Comes,” but drunkenly belt, “We’ll Party while Jesus Is Gone.” They don’t so much believe in Jesus’ return as His absence. The virgins keep themselves pure for the party. They don’t party with the drunkards like the wicked slave, but they don’t party for the wrong reasons. Underneath all the religiosity is still a heart that loves something else.

To illustrate let’s switch back from the wedding entourage to the bride herself, for that is what the ten virgins show us. Theologians speak of the visible and invisible church. The visible church is the church as man sees it, wheat and tares. The invisible church is the church as God sees it. In other words, there is the church as she appears, and the church as she truly is. The reasons we have ten virgins instead of one bride is to prevent this metaphor from making the bridegroom sinful by polygamy, or from getting weird with a bride with split personalities and then further from being gruesome as the bridegroom splits his bride in two keeping only the desirable part. Jesus has one true bride and some girls are getting all dressed up for nothing. Many a bride have been ecstatic on their wedding day for it to be borne out later that their joy had nothing to do with the bridegroom. She loved the idea of herself of being married, or of stability, or of status, or an idea of her husband that was not her husband. But Jesus’ true bride is no gold digger, no trophy-husband seeker, no self-glorifying status seeker. She does not think that the day of His return is her day, but rejoices that it is all about Him.

The Bridegroom is no fool. Fools can fool others, even themselves, but they cannot fool Him.