Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | The dress code of the day? | Matt 22:11 | Wild Olive Shoot | 156283 | ||
“Many a time the question has been asked: "What was the wedding garment?" It is a question which need not be curiously pried into. So many answers have been given that I conclude that if our Saviour had intended any one specific thing he would have expressed himself more plainly, so that we would have been able, without so much theological disputing, to have understood what he meant. It seems to me that our Lord intended much more than any one thing. The guests were bidden to come to the wedding to show their respect to the king and prince; some would not come at all, and so showed their sedition; this man came, and when he heard the regulation, that a certain garment should be put on, comely in appearance and suitable for the occasion, he determined that he would not wear it. In this act of rebellion, he went as far in opposition as they did who would not come at all, and he went a little further, for in the very presence of the guests and of the king he dared to declare his disloyalty and contempt. Alas, how many are willing enough to receive gospel blessings, but they are still at enmity with God and have no delight in the only Begotten Son. Such will dare to use the forms of godliness, and yet their hearts are full of rebellion against the Lord. The wedding garment represents anything which is indispensable to a Christian, but which the unrenewed heart is not willing to accept, anything which the Lord ordains to be a necessary attendant of salvation, against which selfishness rebels. Hence it may be said to be Christ's righteousness imputed to us, for alas, many nominal Christians kick against the doctrine of justification by the righteousness of the Saviour and set up their own self-righteousness in opposition to it. To be found in Christ, not having our own righteousness, which is of the law, but having the righteousness which is of God by faith, is a very prominent badge of a real servant of God, and to refuse it is to manifest opposition to the glory of God, and to the name, person, and work of his exalted Son. But we might with equal truth say that the wedding dress is a holy character, the imparted righteousness which the Holy Spirit works in us, and which is equally necessary as a proof of grace. If you question such a statement, I would remind you of the dress which adorns the saints in heaven. What is said of it? "They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." Their robes therefore were such as once needed washing; and this could not be said in any sense of the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ; that was always perfect and spotless. It is clear then that the figure is sometimes applied to saints in reference to their personal character. Holiness is always present in those who are loyal guests of the great King, for "without holiness no man shall see the Lord." Too many professors pacify themselves with the idea that they possess imputed righteousness, while they are indifferent to the sanctifying work of the Spirit. They refuse to put on the garment of obedience, they reject the white linen which is the righteousness of saints. They thus reveal their self-will, their enmity to God, and their nonsubmission to his Son. Such men may talk what they will about justification by faith, and salvation by grace, but they are rebels at heart, they have not on the wedding dress any more than the self-righteous, whom they so eagerly condemn. The fact is, if we wish for the blessings of grace, we must in our hearts submit to the rules of grace without picking and choosing. It is idle to dispute whether the wedding garment is faith or love, as some have done, for all the graces of the Spirit and blessings of the covenant go together. No one ever had the imputed righteousness of Christ without receiving at the same time a measure of the righteousness wrought in us by the Holy Spirit. Justification by faith is not contrary to the production of good works: God forbid. The faith by which we are justified is the faith which produces holiness, and no one is justified by faith which does not also sanctify him and deliver him from the love of sin. All the essentials of the Christian character may be understood as making up the great wedding garment. In one word, we put on Christ, and he is "made of God unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption."†– C.H. Spurgeon Spurgeon, Charles. "The Wedding Garment." Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit. Blue Letter Bible. 18 Apr 2001. 21 Aug 2005. http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/charles_spurgeon/sermons/0976.html WOS |
||||||
2 | The dress code of the day? | Matt 22:11 | CDBJ | 156287 | ||
Greetings WOS, Thank you for the address from good old CHS, I am very fond of all his works, to say the least. Would it be a safe assumption then, as a result of the answer that you shared of Spurgeon’s, that you don’t have the answer to my question as well? It is evidenced that I am fitting into the Long pattern of those that have gone before me. Case and point, Spurgeon stated, “Many a time the question has been asked: "What was the wedding garment?" It is a question which need not be curiously pried into†It seems as though those of the past, in Spurgeon’s day, were dissuaded and given an answer that neither answered their question, and they were made to look as though they were foolish for asking. Archeology is constantly finding new evidence that tell us about ancient historical biblical situations. Is it being ludicrous to think that the answer to my question need not be curiously pried into just because no one seems to have a concrete answer yet? I wonder if searching for the truth could be construed a noble thing to do now a days, or is it considered more noble just not to pry? I hope you know I’m being facetious? Let me say this just for the record; I perfectly understand the heavenly side of the story, Matt. 22: 4 -14, it’s the earthly side that I am having trouble with. I will be clothed, in the day of wedding feast of the Lamb, with the rightness of the Lamb of God. And the righteous robe of God is something that I could never personally buy, nor afford. And I will never be worthy of wearing it, but for the precious Son of God, Jesus the Christ, and what He did for me. 2 Cor. 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Now with all that said and done! Does any one have any “historical records†stating that the Kings of old actually “provided†coverings or outer garments for their guest at wedding feast? The heavenly examples of the outer garments are the robes of the saints, provided by the Father, at the wedding feast of the Lamb; we won’t be standing there in our own self righteousness but that of our King which He has provided for us in Christ! Have a great day, CDBJ |
||||||
3 | The dress code of the day? | Matt 22:11 | Wild Olive Shoot | 156290 | ||
"Does any one have any “historical records†stating that the Kings of old actually “provided†coverings or outer garments for their guest at wedding feast?" Is the Bible not historical enough for you? The fact that it was mentioned is evidence that it was practiced, otherwise, why mention it if the audience had no idea what it referred to. I’m sure there were some kind of garments provided by some. I apologize. I guess I just don't understand the concern outside of what Christ was trying indicate and get across to those whom He was speaking to. I’ll stay out of the conversation. WOS |
||||||
4 | The dress code of the day? | Matt 22:11 | CDBJ | 156336 | ||
Hi WOS, Don’t count yourself out so fast, it’s really no big deal, I was just wondering just how far the analogy could actually worked out on the humanistic side of the equation; but as Kalos pointed, out a parable doesn’t necessarily always have to qualify in all the point mentioned in the parable. There might have been a plausible answer to my question that I wasn’t cognizant of, so I ask the question! It just didn’t come out like I intended. I am always putting my mouth in gear before my brain is in motion! I really didn’t mean for anyone to lose any sleep over the question. Here is a good one for you that I noticed today while at church today. We know that Christ never ask us to do anything that we can’t possible do; with that in mind, check out the following, Luke 9:13 But he said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they said, We have no more but five loaves and two fishes; except we should go and buy meat for all this people. This I realize this is purely hypothetical, but do you think the disciples may have had the power from Christ to feed the people in attendance that day, the same way that Jesus did? They had just returned from an execution of miraculous power, that Christ had given them to the degree that they were astounded at what God was actually doing through them. Luke 9:46 Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest. There is no biblical answer for this question, just speculations and the laws of probable cause. Example, if A then B, if B then C and so on. Have a great day, CDBJ |
||||||