Thoughts on the Parable of the Ten Virgins (Matthew 25:1-13) – from Blickenstaff, Marianne (2005), ‘While the Bridegroom is With Them’: Marriage, Family, Gender and Violence in the Gospel of Matthew, London and New York: T&T Clark International
Blickenstaff argues that the image of the Bridegroom is an ambiguous one in Matthew and that, although it often tends to be identified with Jesus, Matthew’s Bridegroom figure actually seems to be bound-up with violence. The Bridegroom variously symbolizes division between family members, nations, the faithful and the world, the faithful and mainstream religious authorities, the faithful and the disciples of the other teachers, and the Bridegroom and his own disciples (Blickenstaff 2005:87). This echoes Hebrew Bible readings whereby bridegrooms tend to appear in stories where they are either the perpetrators or the victims of extreme violence (Blickenstaff 2005:11). Although readers today tend to assume that any biblical king, judge or bridegroom represents God, Matthew’s original readers would have been just as likely to recognize such figures as weak or cruel tyrants (Blickenstaff 2005:5). A feminist reading which attempts to challenge violent and retributive streams in the gospels (Blickenstaff 2005:7) will, then, seek a resisting or subversive figuring of stories such as the Parable of the Ten Virgins.
The Bridegroom in this story does not seem to fit with a broader picture of Jesus. He is harsh and rude, and the five “wise” bridesmaids whom he accepts are “self-righteous, cold, and unwilling to help others in need” (Blickenstaff 2005:79). The implication that the bridesmaids should have brought extra oil, and that those who did not are to suffer because of it, seems to go against the Matthean Jesus’ earlier injunction to the disciples that they should not carry an extra cloak but should rely on the hospitality of others (Blickenstaff 2005:79, 96). Blickenstaff thus suggests that it is salient to make a resistant reading of the passage; perhaps the “foolish” virgins are actually the innocent, the ones who need care, and the bridegroom and “wise” bridesmaids are examples of how not to do it:
“A resisting reading asks if the virgins should want to enter this wedding feast, and if so, why? Perhaps… entrance into the wedding feast is a dangerous thing. Rather than joining the judgmental and boorish bridegroom at his exclusive wedding feast, the ten virgins might aspire to belonging to Jesus the bridegroom’s fictive family, where those who do the will of the Father in heaven (7.21-23) know to share when someone asks and to open the door when someone knocks (7.7-11)” (Blickenstaff 2005:87).
This particular parable also sets up division between the two groups of women and incites division between the reader and at least one of the virginal sub-groups, either the one called wise if one feels sympathy for the foolish, or the ones called foolish if one wishes to emulate the wise (Blickenstaff 2005:90).
Blickenstaff argues that this is, in many respects, a very odd picture of a wedding. No-one is behaving as might be expected of them, as etiquette dictates that they should behave. The bridegroom is so late that the bridesmaids have fallen asleep, and is unapologetic when he does arrive. He exercises emotional violence over the foolish bridesmaids by excluding them (Blickenstaff 2005:80). There is no bride mentioned at all (Blickenstaff 2005:82) – Blickenstaff notes that some ancient copyists found this so strange that they added one into the story. The host of the wedding has not seen fit to provide enough oil for all the guests, thus negating the duty of hospitality (Blickenstaff 2005:96). This wedding is, in short, a place of separation and judgement (Blickenstaff 2005:81). Blickenstaff argues that this reflects the afamilial ethos of Matthew’s gospel, saying,
“The five virgins’ exclusion from the wedding feast is not eternal damnation but a predictable casualty of the formation of the Matthean fictive family: traditional family ties enhanced by weddings are disrupted. The resisting reader does not expect the wedding to be joyful and inclusive, but an occasion for separation and violence” (Blickenstaff 2005:81).
She adds,
“The door of the wedding hall represents a barrier between those who are ‘inside’ or ‘outside’ Jesus’ fictive family and may show that it is not being unprepared but being unrelated (or related in the wrong way) that excludes the five ‘foolish’ virgins” (Blickenstaff 2005:85).
In other words, she claims, Matthew’s gospel is about not becoming embroiled in worldly concerns such as marriage and economic biological family ties. Blickenstaff draws links with the people in the days of Noah, who were “marrying and giving in marriage until the flood swept them away” (Blickenstaff 2005:97). These things are likely to separate one from the Kingdom, for one’s loyalties will be divided. Matthew’s Jesus has stressed that new marriages should not occur, for the end times are near; this may be why the women are portrayed as virgins, for this demonstrates that they themselves are not married (Blickenstaff 2005:86). Blickenstaff says, “Perhaps the point of the parable is that waiting for a bridegroom is a waste of time. For Matthew, ‘real’ weddings are no longer important” (Blickenstaff 2005:97). Overall, then, the “wisdom” of the “wise” virgins is an ambiguous wisdom, a wisdom which is not incontrovertibly good or desirable. Actually, just as their wisdom is not real wisdom, so this wedding feast is not the real Kingdom of Heaven (Blickenstaff 2005:93), for in the Kingdom a shepherd goes after one lost sheep and all celebrate when it has been found. Such celebration could not occur whilst half the sheep were shut outside the fold (Blickenstaff 2005:94).
Despite all this, however, Blickenstaff concludes that it is not possible entirely to divorce the image of the bridegroom in this parable from that of Jesus (Blickenstaff 2005:108). She says,
“At the same time the resisting reading holds, the parable still evokes allegorical associations. Connections between the ‘bridegroom’ and Jesus can be resisted, but not completely avoided. The parable simultaneously warns the reader that this ‘wedding feast’ may not be the Kingdom of Heaven, while it also warns of the final judgement when not all who cry ‘Lord Lord’ will get in. These ambiguities serve to keep the reader from complacency, and so meet Matthew’s interest in keeping his community and his readers disciplined, always wondering, evaluating, and unsure if they will be ‘in’ or ‘out’ of the feast” (Blickenstaff 2005:108-9).
Susannah Cornwall
