Well said. The more I just look at the context, the more I think the birdesmades idea is either disingenuous or just not well thought out.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Meat Virgins or bridesmaids
- Thread starter Paulsen
- Start date
For someone who knows Greek, is it possible that gamous (Strongs 1062) is just saying marriage in verse 10 and not marriage feast? That changes the connotation a lot.
"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."
Matthew 25:10 ESV
"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."
Matthew 25:10 ESV
Culturally, I suspect they are one and the same.
Linguistically...
So it is used for both, which is another way of saying they are the same thing.
It is possible the word is used to refer to two separate things (I'm not a Greek scholar) but the same word is used for both indicates at least that historically they were one and the same or closely connected); even if they later diverged. Some of this is our cultural bias. We have wedding dinners after the wedding itself. But that is a side effect of church weddings. Put differently a marriage-festival is a wedding.
Last edited:
I also find it interesting that the five foolish return and are seeking the bridegroom, wouldn't a bridesmaid be looking for the bride? And the fact that he answers the door. This makes sense at his home but not a feast where he is an honored party. The whole story they are catering to him, they are doing nothing in service of a bride, more like "groomsmaids" than "bridesmaids" the way the parable reads (which is another way of saying they are, in reality, his women).
I had an online YouTube discussion with someone who tried to use v 14 as proof that these were bridesmaids. When I spoke with Dr. William luck on the phone, he seemed to agree with that notion. I think this notion originated with Chuck Missler, whom I greatly respected. One such problem I see with that notion, is the idea that the chapter has anything to do with a wedding. It looks more like a coronation to me. You can certainly conclude that it is about a wedding, if you read certain translations of that chapter, but most translations don't leave you with that impression.
I think it is always referring to the act of starting a marriage. Every single instance very clearly speaks about a wedding, the only exception being Hebrews 13:4 (check the lexicon entry @rockfox posted). This also would make sense as "getting married is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled", so it may not be an exception at all. That consistent reading is also very interesting to ponder.
I am rather reluctant to assign a possible second meaning to the word based solely on a single verse - but if it is used in secular classical Greek writings to refer to the state of marriage, that would obviously lend much more weight to the reading.
@frederick, is this fair, or have I missed something important?
the virgins her companions that follow her shall be brought unto thee.
With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into the king’s palace.
Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth.
The kings daughter is just their ticket to the family. Earlier in the chapter she is exhorted to forget her fathers house, but this section changes from singular to plural. All of them are to regard the children that will come in stead of their fathers company.
Even if this understanding is wrong re: the virgins, there is still the issue of the mention of this daughter of tyre along with the queen who is standing at the kings side when she is brought to him.
So it looks like you are saying that this is indeed a wedding Psalm, but that the virgins don't merely accompany the bride, but are in fact, plural brides. It is clear that this Psalm is referenced as a Messianic fulfillment in the Book of Hebrews, or perhaps a prototype of the Messiah, and there are some seemingly inescapable questions in Christ's parable that one would have to rely on this passage, in order to address some of them, but I don't see all of those questions addressed in this Psalm, in a way that would make these virgins, merely bridesmaids, as opposed to co-brides. Here is Matthew Henry's commentary where they conclude that it is a wedding, to one female, of course: https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/psalms/45.html
Sorry I can't look into this for you as I'm away from my office for a few weeks.
Definitely a wedding psalm, of at least the daughter of the king of Tyre to a man who has a queen at his right hand. As to whether or not the accompanying virgins have to marry as well, I’m not sure I’d be that dogmatic about it, but I’d certainly say that it was an option.
So this could be bridesmaids? Is it possible that that was in fact a regular custom to have bridesmaids at the time of Christ, even if only in a royal setting? Even if it were, I still think there are serious problems with identifying those virgins as bridesmaids, if the parable is to make any sense.
Psalm 45 is a beautiful Psalm.
Consider it in the context of ownership: if the virgins are handmaids that belong to the princess, then by extension they will belong to the king once the princess belongs to the king, but she has some weight in the matter. (Think about other handmaids that were given to a man in scripture by the woman they serve) Recall their joy and gladness as they enter the palace of the king. These girls have just recieved a huge social promotion through their connection to this bride. From the greater society's perspective the wedding is with the princess, and will increase prosperity and peace, but from the perspective of these girls they now belong to the king! The pomp and circumstance may not be directed at them, but the blessing of this moment is not lost on them. They now may have an opportunity to produce a son for the king themselves! That's huge for them. So the way I am reading it, they are both "maids of the bride", and because they are, they are in their own right brides. They will probably never have their own wedding feast in the individual sense, they are delighting in their collective salvation.
I think the parallel here may be gentile believers. I am one of them, not worthy to eat at the table with the children, but just so overjoyed to receive the crumbs that fall to me. (The gentile woman whom I paraphrase here coincidentally said this in the region of Tyre). Trying to read into the Psalm a wedding with multiple brides each on their own pedestal misses the lesson of humble gratitude of these glad virgins and the contentment of being led as you enter the palace of the king.
The key word to identifying the potentiality for these virgins to produce sons is the plural word "fathers" in verse 16. Since every person has only one father, this clearly identifies multiple daughters that are producing sons.
A side note, the bowing in verse 11 reads to me like reverencing in the theistic sense but also as a sexual euphemism in the physical sense: "and the king will desire your beauty. Since he is your Lord, bow to him." Maybe reverence and sex are much more connected than we think?
Consider it in the context of ownership: if the virgins are handmaids that belong to the princess, then by extension they will belong to the king once the princess belongs to the king, but she has some weight in the matter. (Think about other handmaids that were given to a man in scripture by the woman they serve) Recall their joy and gladness as they enter the palace of the king. These girls have just recieved a huge social promotion through their connection to this bride. From the greater society's perspective the wedding is with the princess, and will increase prosperity and peace, but from the perspective of these girls they now belong to the king! The pomp and circumstance may not be directed at them, but the blessing of this moment is not lost on them. They now may have an opportunity to produce a son for the king themselves! That's huge for them. So the way I am reading it, they are both "maids of the bride", and because they are, they are in their own right brides. They will probably never have their own wedding feast in the individual sense, they are delighting in their collective salvation.
I think the parallel here may be gentile believers. I am one of them, not worthy to eat at the table with the children, but just so overjoyed to receive the crumbs that fall to me. (The gentile woman whom I paraphrase here coincidentally said this in the region of Tyre). Trying to read into the Psalm a wedding with multiple brides each on their own pedestal misses the lesson of humble gratitude of these glad virgins and the contentment of being led as you enter the palace of the king.
The key word to identifying the potentiality for these virgins to produce sons is the plural word "fathers" in verse 16. Since every person has only one father, this clearly identifies multiple daughters that are producing sons.
A side note, the bowing in verse 11 reads to me like reverencing in the theistic sense but also as a sexual euphemism in the physical sense: "and the king will desire your beauty. Since he is your Lord, bow to him." Maybe reverence and sex are much more connected than we think?
So it could be that the virgins in the parable that Jesus spoke, were in fact concubines. 
I don’t think there was a hierarchy in the Matthew account. It would be eisegesis to conclude concubinage when the groom could have more than one legal wife.
In fact, the more I think about it, there is no possible way that the story of the virgins could have been concubinage. Everything points to a free women marriage.
Flesh that out a bit more. I would like to see good solid arguments to bolster this argument.
Biblical “pilegash” Concubinage
- Father delivers the young lady
- No immediate consumation
- Lives in the household as a servant until converted to a wife
- Unlikely to be a big/public ceremony/feast
- Groom collects the bride
- Bride is responsible to be ready at a moments notice with lamp lit
- Typically a very public festival/feast
- Consumation is imminent
- Followed by a public unveiling/introduction as a wife.
You are right to connect this to reverence.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7812.htm
bow (5), bow ourselves down (1), bow yourselves down (1), bow down (21), bowed (16), bowed in worship (1), bowed themselves down (2), bowed down (14), bowing (1), bowing down (1), bows down (1), did homage (1), down in homage (1), homage (1), lie down (1), paid homage (3), prostrate (2), prostrated (13), prostrating (1), weighs it down (1), worship (47), worshiped (31), worshiping (3), worships (2).
Various versions of that verse in Psalm 45 use different of those word translations.
Reverence is commanded of women in the NT. Modern translations often try to hide it by translating it respect but it is a verb not a feeling. Also means venerate. It is someone of a mystery to me what actions that would entail. I've figured out that in those days 'kneel in reverence' was a thing. Bowing or curtsy would be other forms.
I don't think this is a sexual euphemism but it is very much related to sex. Do images searches for kneeling women and you won't find many images with cloths on. This also has very strong biological tie-ins...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordosis_behavior
In all mammals it indicates receptivity to sex.
Yeah, I don't think there is much in common between the parable and the Psalm apart from a plurality of virgins and a wedding. The parable is a warning, the Psalm is a celebration and worship/praise.
I get the intent of what you are saying @Verifyveritas76, however my understanding is that a "free woman marriage" is something of an oxymoron - No one is ever free. The concubine discussion gets so confusing because we want to compare slave and free when both wife(his woman) and concubine belong to a baal. In the faith, you either belong to sin and death or belong to the Lord, but there is freedom in Christ, yet submission comes first. Similarly, if a wife(woman) thinks she doesn't belong to her husband then she is a slave to her own idolatry, she still isn't free.
The only difference I can see between a wife and a concubine is inheritance, and this seems to be the key. The difference lies not in the what, but is inferred in the why: A wife receives an inheritance via her offspring because she is devoted to the purpose and vision of her husband; they receive it so that they can continue to carry out the patriarch’s God-given purpose after his death.
While a concubine does serve her husband during his lifetime, her priorities or maturity preclude her from furthering her husband's calling after his death. She may have entered the family as a maidservant or captive, have been taken in as a widow, orphan, or come from abandonment or poverty. She has all the rights and responsibilities as any other wife(woman), but not an inheritance de jure. This is simply because in all these situations her ability to function as a wife (his woman) could not necessarily be predicted from the reputation of her father, it had to be proven by her.
A concubine can become a wife and be given an inheritance if she later proves her assimilation to her husband's purpose, it is not necessarily a permanent title (e.g. all twelve sons of Israel receive a blessing and inherit). Inheritance follows responsibility; obedience to your lord reaps delegated authority from him.
We read a beautiful statement in Hosea 2:14-17 that describes this transition: "Therefore, behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak tenderly to her. And there I will give her her vineyards and make the Valley of Achor a door of hope. And there she shall answer as in the days of her youth, as at the time when she came out of the land of Egypt. "And in that day, declares the Lord, you will call me 'Ishi/My Husband,' (my man, a term of endearment) and no longer will you call me 'Baali/My Husband.' (my owner - a term of deference). For I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth, and they shall be remembered by name no more."
The point of this is not that God is no longer a Ruler and Owner, but that his people have assimilated to his will and live for his glory to the point where ownership is not a stumbling block to them and they can truly just enjoy him. It is a distinction in what we call him, how we relate to him, not in who he is. This is the threshold between a concubine and a wife. It is something both earned through obedience of the woman, and called forth through love from the husband. This is how we can be both slaves to Christ and freed in him. "For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave."
Notice God's purpose to remove the names of the other Baals. When we stumble over the lordship of God or husband, we cannot cast it aside without serving someone or something else - often our own selves; a quest for "freedom" will always result in slavery to another, and one whose yoke is not easy, and burden not light. But when we answer to God, as a true wife to her husband, the other masters and idols are removed.
So the reality of whether a woman is free or not resides in her heart, the title is otherwise irrelevant. She is freed through submission but in bondage when exercising her will outside of her husband's purpose. The same goes for your faith.
True ownership without submission is impossible. When you submit, you assert the ownership of the one you submit too. When you disobey that same person, you claim independence from them (but always submission to something else: sin, self, idol).
How does a husband (or Christ) love his wife as his own body if she functions like she doesn’t belong to him? He may love her, but it cannot be as his own flesh if she is not his own. She will be missing out on the fullness of his love. The same can be said for all those in Christ "because we are members of his body" Eph 5:30.
So from both those passeges, we can loosely attempt to identify inheritance by heart status from the virgin's actions, and concubinage does not seem to be in view in either. In the Psalm, they come underneath the king with joy and gladness, and will be given sons, which prophetically alludes to inheritance, so I would identify them as future wives. In the parable, the wise virgins show their commitment by bringing extra oil, so they have a heart for the groom's purpose and could also be considered wives. The foolish are locked out, so that's that.
I get the intent of what you are saying @Verifyveritas76, however my understanding is that a "free woman marriage" is something of an oxymoron - No one is ever free. The concubine discussion gets so confusing because we want to compare slave and free when both wife(his woman) and concubine belong to a baal. In the faith, you either belong to sin and death or belong to the Lord, but there is freedom in Christ, yet submission comes first. Similarly, if a wife(woman) thinks she doesn't belong to her husband then she is a slave to her own idolatry, she still isn't free.
The only difference I can see between a wife and a concubine is inheritance, and this seems to be the key. The difference lies not in the what, but is inferred in the why: A wife receives an inheritance via her offspring because she is devoted to the purpose and vision of her husband; they receive it so that they can continue to carry out the patriarch’s God-given purpose after his death.
While a concubine does serve her husband during his lifetime, her priorities or maturity preclude her from furthering her husband's calling after his death. She may have entered the family as a maidservant or captive, have been taken in as a widow, orphan, or come from abandonment or poverty. She has all the rights and responsibilities as any other wife(woman), but not an inheritance de jure. This is simply because in all these situations her ability to function as a wife (his woman) could not necessarily be predicted from the reputation of her father, it had to be proven by her.
A concubine can become a wife and be given an inheritance if she later proves her assimilation to her husband's purpose, it is not necessarily a permanent title (e.g. all twelve sons of Israel receive a blessing and inherit). Inheritance follows responsibility; obedience to your lord reaps delegated authority from him.
We read a beautiful statement in Hosea 2:14-17 that describes this transition: "Therefore, behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak tenderly to her. And there I will give her her vineyards and make the Valley of Achor a door of hope. And there she shall answer as in the days of her youth, as at the time when she came out of the land of Egypt. "And in that day, declares the Lord, you will call me 'Ishi/My Husband,' (my man, a term of endearment) and no longer will you call me 'Baali/My Husband.' (my owner - a term of deference). For I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth, and they shall be remembered by name no more."
The point of this is not that God is no longer a Ruler and Owner, but that his people have assimilated to his will and live for his glory to the point where ownership is not a stumbling block to them and they can truly just enjoy him. It is a distinction in what we call him, how we relate to him, not in who he is. This is the threshold between a concubine and a wife. It is something both earned through obedience of the woman, and called forth through love from the husband. This is how we can be both slaves to Christ and freed in him. "For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave."
Notice God's purpose to remove the names of the other Baals. When we stumble over the lordship of God or husband, we cannot cast it aside without serving someone or something else - often our own selves; a quest for "freedom" will always result in slavery to another, and one whose yoke is not easy, and burden not light. But when we answer to God, as a true wife to her husband, the other masters and idols are removed.
So the reality of whether a woman is free or not resides in her heart, the title is otherwise irrelevant. She is freed through submission but in bondage when exercising her will outside of her husband's purpose. The same goes for your faith.
True ownership without submission is impossible. When you submit, you assert the ownership of the one you submit too. When you disobey that same person, you claim independence from them (but always submission to something else: sin, self, idol).
How does a husband (or Christ) love his wife as his own body if she functions like she doesn’t belong to him? He may love her, but it cannot be as his own flesh if she is not his own. She will be missing out on the fullness of his love. The same can be said for all those in Christ "because we are members of his body" Eph 5:30.
So from both those passeges, we can loosely attempt to identify inheritance by heart status from the virgin's actions, and concubinage does not seem to be in view in either. In the Psalm, they come underneath the king with joy and gladness, and will be given sons, which prophetically alludes to inheritance, so I would identify them as future wives. In the parable, the wise virgins show their commitment by bringing extra oil, so they have a heart for the groom's purpose and could also be considered wives. The foolish are locked out, so that's that.
I am not buying bowing down as a reference to sex. The Bible is pretty explicit with regard to that topic, and outside Song of Solomon, I don't recall seeing poetic language used to describe it.