ECT Rev 3:20

[nikolai_42]

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Rev 3:20

1. What door is Jesus knocking on?
2. Is there any importance to the fact that He is knocking? Is this just a rap on the wood?
3. Is this (and, more broadly, the other letters to the churches) a practical application of what we read in Luke 12 :

Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning;
And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately.
Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.
And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants.
And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through.
Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.
Luke 12:35-40

 

[revpete]

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Rev 3:20

1. What door is Jesus knocking on?
2. Is there any importance to the fact that He is knocking? Is this just a rap on the wood?
3. Is this (and, more broadly, the other letters to the churches) a practical application of what we read in Luke 12 :

Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning;
And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately.
Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.
And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants.
And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through.
Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.
Luke 12:35-40

The verses you quote from Lk are to do with the second advent of our Lord whilst Rev. 3:20 is more to do with present day service.

Laodicea was a busy, prosperous church, at least in their own eyes and it was all leaves and no fruit. The Lord was outside and they were so wrapped up in themselves they hadn't even noticed that He'd left and was knocking to be re-admitted!

The lesson is self explanatory.

Pete

 

[nikolai_42]

The verses you quote from Lk are to do with the second advent of our Lord whilst Rev. 3:20 is more to do with present day service.

What makes you say that? I ask, in part, because in Luke 12:36, the following injunction is given :

And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately.
Luke 12:36

What is there of the visible return of Jesus that requires any man to do anything? In what context of the second coming is Christ even knocking? Rather, it seems this is being directly realized in the Laodicean church as Christ is knocking and the Spirit is saying "open up" to the church (thus the "their lord" of Luke 12:36) and a call to "open unto him immediately".

I used to look at that passage the way you were saying, but this verse seems to be very strong in suggesting that it is not talking about the return of Christ in a visible, bodily way (though I don't say it is totally unrelated) but rather that He comes in judgment to His own.

Or is there something I'm missing?

Laodicea was a busy, prosperous church, at least in their own eyes and it was all leaves and no fruit. The Lord was outside and they were so wrapped up in themselves they hadn't even noticed that He'd left and was knocking to be re-admitted!

The lesson is self explanatory.

Pete ��

I would then ask where it indicates He was ever there? Rather, it seems to me a more nominal church that wants to have the name of Jesus for comfort and convenience. If Christ's sheep know His voice, it sounds very much (as I read it now) like He is calling His own out of a church with no real testimony of faith - just the accoutrements of it.

But this is why I'm asking...because I read it much the same way you did for a long time.

 

[DAN P]

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Rev 3:20

1. What door is Jesus knocking on?
2. Is there any importance to the fact that He is knocking? Is this just a rap on the wood?
3. Is this (and, more broadly, the other letters to the churches) a practical application of what we read in Luke 12 :

Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning;
And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately.
Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.
And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants.
And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through.
Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.
Luke 12:35-40

Hi and just who's door is Jesus standing at ??

Is Jesus Omnipresence and can be STANDING at everyone's door ??

Is Jesus STANDING at everyone's door ?? Do not think so !!

I believe that Israel is the door !!

The verb " I will come in " IS in the Future tense , so when does that happen , at the Great Tribulation ?

The verb I will SUP , is also in the Future tenses so this happens in the Yet future !!

The verb " open " is controlled by bthe Subjective Mood and we will see a PURGING of Israel in the Great Tribulation !!

As far as SUPPING " that will take place in the Millinnial Kingdom as recorded in Matt 26:17 and verse 29 !!

dan p

 

[revpete]

What makes you say that? I ask, in part, because in Luke 12:36, the following injunction is given :

And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately.
Luke 12:36

What is there of the visible return of Jesus that requires any man to do anything? In what context of the second coming is Christ even knocking? Rather, it seems this is being directly realized in the Laodicean church as Christ is knocking and the Spirit is saying "open up" to the church (thus the "their lord" of Luke 12:36) and a call to "open unto him immediately".

I used to look at that passage the way you were saying, but this verse seems to be very strong in suggesting that it is not talking about the return of Christ in a visible, bodily way (though I don't say it is totally unrelated) but rather that He comes in judgment to His own.

Or is there something I'm missing?



I would then ask where it indicates He was ever there? Rather, it seems to me a more nominal church that wants to have the name of Jesus for comfort and convenience. If Christ's sheep know His voice, it sounds very much (as I read it now) like He is calling His own out of a church with no real testimony of faith - just the accoutrements of it.

But this is why I'm asking...because I read it much the same way you did for a long time.

We have to be very careful of eisegesis, that is the opposite of exegesis. Eisegesis is reading something into the text that is not there. This is done by making tenuous connections with other scriptures which have nothing to do with the main verse or verses.

In the Luke verses The Lord is speaking metaphorically. The message is to His people ie the Jews. The Lord is using very Jewish language even though this account is the gospel for the Gentiles.

The assembly in Laodicea was in what is today Turkey and was composed mainly of Gentiles and thus the passage in Luke is completely removed from them and requires eisegesis to bring them together.

Remember the Luke verses are before the Christian Church was born. To connect them with a Christian assembly is dangerous at best, no matter how interesting it may be to do so.

Pete

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

What makes you say that? I ask, in part, because in Luke 12:36, the following injunction is given :

And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately.
Luke 12:36

What is there of the visible return of Jesus that requires any man to do anything? In what context of the second coming is Christ even knocking? Rather, it seems this is being directly realized in the Laodicean church as Christ is knocking and the Spirit is saying "open up" to the church (thus the "their lord" of Luke 12:36) and a call to "open unto him immediately".

I used to look at that passage the way you were saying, but this verse seems to be very strong in suggesting that it is not talking about the return of Christ in a visible, bodily way (though I don't say it is totally unrelated) but rather that He comes in judgment to His own.

Or is there something I'm missing?



I would then ask where it indicates He was ever there? Rather, it seems to me a more nominal church that wants to have the name of Jesus for comfort and convenience. If Christ's sheep know His voice, it sounds very much (as I read it now) like He is calling His own out of a church with no real testimony of faith - just the accoutrements of it.

But this is why I'm asking...because I read it much the same way you did for a long time.

There is nothing that says he was in them and then left.

Laodecia is the last state of the man before Christ comes in to Him.

People assume that Christ is in them from the time they begin to believe.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

We have to be very careful of eisegesis, that is the opposite of exegesis. Eisegesis is reading something into the text that is not there. This is done by making tenuous connections with other scriptures which have nothing to do with the main verse or verses.

In the Luke verses The Lord is speaking metaphorically. The message is to His people ie the Jews. The Lord is using very Jewish language even though this account is the gospel for the Gentiles.

The assembly in Laodicea was in what is today Turkey and was composed mainly of Gentiles and thus the passage in Luke is completely removed from them and requires eisegesis to bring them together.

Remember the Luke verses are before the Christian Church was born. To connect them with a Christian assembly is dangerous at best, no matter how interesting it may be to do so.

Pete

What is dangerous to do, is to disconnect them from yourself.:think:

 

[nikolai_42]

We have to be very careful of eisegesis, that is the opposite of exegesis. Eisegesis is reading something into the text that is not there. This is done by making tenuous connections with other scriptures which have nothing to do with the main verse or verses.

In the Luke verses The Lord is speaking metaphorically. The message is to His people ie the Jews. The Lord is using very Jewish language even though this account is the gospel for the Gentiles.

Then let me simply ask how the Lord would speak about His return (visibly) in terms of knocking and waiting for the door to be opened to Him by His people (whoever they are)? Regardless of who it is, you did say the Luke 12 passage had to do with His second advent. And when I read on, the very next question asked (by Peter) is this :

Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?
Luke 12:41

It seems to me fairly plain that He is speaking to those who look for Him - those who BELIEVE in Him :

And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?
Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;
The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
Luke 12:42-46

It seems to me that this is right in line with the verse in Hebrews :

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Hebrews 9:28

The assembly in Laodicea was in what is today Turkey and was composed mainly of Gentiles and thus the passage in Luke is completely removed from them and requires eisegesis to bring them together.

When Jesus makes a prophetic statement in Luke 12, how is it eisegesis when that is applied to the same sort of terminology as used in Revelation? Jesus doesn't make any stipulation as to geography or some racial group - rather He is speaking to those that believe (in even the most minimal sense). As it says in Revelation, "As many as I love, I rebuke...". He is making a promise that looks to be very similar to what He told the disciples in Luke 12. I don't see how that is eisegesis.

Remember the Luke verses are before the Christian Church was born. To connect them with a Christian assembly is dangerous at best, no matter how interesting it may be to do so.

Pete

I honestly don't see how that applies. Especially since it was Jesus who said (to Peter, again) that He would build His church on the foundation of Peter's confession. The only way it can be seen dangerous (that I can see) is if it counters a presupposition (again...like I had until I reread it again recently).

 

[jamie]

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Rev 3:20

1. What door is Jesus knocking on?

Jesus is knocking on the door of the mind. Some peoples minds are closed to spiritual learning.

The lukewarm Laodiceans did not know they were spiritually wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Rev 3:20

Jesus' sharp rebuke is tough love (Rev. 3:19), "for whom the Lord loves He reproves, even as a father corrects the son in whom he delights" lights" (Prov. 3:12; cf. Heb. 12:6). Jesus' reproof is His warning knock on the door, summoning those with "ears to hear" to jump to attention as servants ready to greet their Master on his return (Rev. 3:21).

As Jesus' warning of his coming "like a thief" had alluded to his teaching in Luke 12:39-40, so here His standing at the door and knocking looks back to the same context: "Be like men who are waiting for their master when he returns from the wedding feast, so that they may immediately open the door to him when he comes and knocks" (Luke 12:36). In Luke 12 and in Revelation 3 the stress falls on the privilege of awaiting servants who heed His knock and welcome His entrance: the master will serve dinner to his servants (Luke 12:37) and will dine with them (Rev. 3:20). This dinner is the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:9).

Jesus' knock is not that of a homeless traveler, standing outside the locked door of a human heart, seeking shelter. Rather, Jesus is the master of the house, and He will burst through the door in sovereign judgment (James 5:9). The Laodiceans cannot avert His arrival by ignoring His knock, but their response to His warning will determine whether His entrance brings them the joy of the banquet or the exposure of their shame.

AMR

 

[nikolai_42]

Jesus' sharp rebuke is tough love (Rev. 3:19), "for whom the Lord loves He reproves, even as a father corrects the son in whom he delights" lights" (Prov. 3:12; cf. Heb. 12:6). Jesus' reproof is His warning knock on the door, summoning those with "ears to hear" to jump to attention as servants ready to greet their Master on his return (Rev. 3:21).

As Jesus' warning of his coming "like a thief" had alluded to his teaching in Luke 12:39-40, so here His standing at the door and knocking looks back to the same context: "Be like men who are waiting for their master when he returns from the wedding feast, so that they may immediately open the door to him when he comes and knocks" (Luke 12:36). In Luke 12 and in Revelation 3 the stress falls on the privilege of awaiting servants who heed His knock and welcome His entrance: the master will serve dinner to his servants (Luke 12:37) and will dine with them (Rev. 3:20). This dinner is the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:9).

Jesus' knock is not that of a homeless traveler, standing outside the locked door of a human heart, seeking shelter. Rather, Jesus is the master of the house, and He will burst through the door in sovereign judgment (James 5:9). The Laodiceans cannot avert His arrival by ignoring His knock, but their response to His warning will determine whether His entrance brings them the joy of the banquet or the exposure of their shame.

AMR

Is there any sense of pre-return judgment implied in His words? Since Laodicea is long gone as a city (and the Laodicean church with it), can this be considered an intermediate coming in the sense of pruning or certain time allotted that particular church?

I may be unclear and it seems as though I'm making it an either/or situation. I wasn't trying to do that, but it was more the reading of Luke 12:36 that made me think this could be something in which the Laodicean church is given a finite (though unkown) amount of time to repent or find its place on earth gone (as appeared to happen...). There is final judgment, but is there any possibility this is temporal as well?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The seven churches are case studies in the conflict that confronts all churches in all the world at all times.

Not only does Our Lord walk among the churches (Rev. 2:1), but also He is coming to the churches in two senses.

To some He threatens a coming that will intrude into their present life in history with severe mercy and loving discipline. If they will not repent, He will come to remove a church's candlestick or to wage war against the Nicolaitans. These comings, which occur through Christ's providential rule and the Spirit's work, are real visitations by the risen Lord with real effects in the church's life and witness in the world, even though they are not that final coming in which "every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him" (Rev. 1:7).

To other churches Jesus' promised coming is that bodily, glorious appearance from heaven that will bring the church's life and witness in the world to a climax. That will be an arrival so public that none can ignore it. The promise of this coming must motivate the faithful to hold fast what they have "until I come" (Rev. 2:25;3:11). Though distinct in timing and visibility from each other, Jesus' providential idential comings in history and His final coming at the end of history are related. His comings to purify His church foreshadow His coming to purge his creation of all who defile it.

AMR

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

The Laodiceans cannot avert His arrival by ignoring His knock, but their response to His warning will determine whether His entrance brings them the joy of the banquet or the exposure of their shame.

AMR

True he will burst through the door.

However all of our shame is exposed at that time.

Nobody will be exempt.

Then he will share his reward, not ours with us.

It is on God when this happens, and it can happen here and now and has.:think:

 

[nikolai_42]

The seven churches are case studies in the conflict that confronts all churches in all the world at all times.

Not only does Our Lord walk among the churches (Rev. 2:1), but also He is coming to the churches in two senses.

To some He threatens a coming that will intrude into their present life in history with severe mercy and loving discipline. If they will not repent, He will come to remove a church's candlestick or to wage war against the Nicolaitans. These comings, which occur through Christ's providential rule and the Spirit's work, are real visitations by the risen Lord with real effects in the church's life and witness in the world, even though they are not that final coming in which "every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him" (1:7).

To other churches Jesus' promised coming is that bodily, glorious appearance from heaven that will bring the church's life and witness in the world to a climax. That will be an arrival so public that none can ignore it. The promise of this coming must motivate the faithful to hold fast what they have "until I come" (Rev. 2:25;3:11). Though distinct in timing and visibility from each other, Jesus' providential idential comings in history and His final coming at the end of history are related. His comings to purify His church foreshadow His coming to purge his creation of all who defile it.

AMR

Thank you AMR. You have said it much more clearly than I did (and probably could have!)

 

[jamie]

Since Laodicea is long gone as a city (and the Laodicean church with it)...

The Revelation of Jesus Christ is for the end times. The seven churches represent symbolically seven spirits in the end time church.

The seven churches are not the only symbols used in Jesus' Revelation.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

The Holy Spirit, which is the Spirit of Christ, seeks to save men. When saved, the Holy Spirit indwells the born again believer. The Laodiceans are fake Christians, like the virgins without oil in their lamps of Matthew 25. Any unsaved, the Lord is spiritually knocking on the door, drawing men to Him (it is a GREAT, wonderfully poetic analogy, as only the mind of God could), His Spirit seeking to save that which is lost, as in John 12:32, but we must repent and believe the gospel, accept the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved, to be born again. We must "open the door" to His knock, truly believe the gospel. Otherwise, the Lord is standing outside the spirits of those unregenerate, precisely like knocking on the door of our hearts, that is our core spiritual being, seeking for us to open the door and receive Him, receive His Spirit by repentant faith in the gospel, have communion with Him via the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the new birth, which is precisely like dining with Him, as opposed to leaving the "Guest" outside, knocking, and thereby being just a churchy fake He will vomit, if they don't repent of their delusional, carnal religion of the world, that doesn't really save. The verse is within the context of the problem with the Laodicean "church" having a form of religion, but not being of truly repentant faith. God is not mocked, unrepentant, lip service faith no faith.

The New Testament is actually filled with all sorts of warnings to fake Christians, such as the tares in a congregation, the legalists, the proud, the self willed and self sufficient, all types who are not really repentant towards God, though they may even sing in the choir. Any time a minister is preaching, he is preaching to a mixture of saved and unsaved, in the very congregation. This is why there are so many warnings and admonitions in scripture teachings. Much of what is said would not have to be said, if the whole congregation were actually born again.

 

[revpete]

Then let me simply ask how the Lord would speak about His return (visibly) in terms of knocking and waiting for the door to be opened to Him by His people (whoever they are)? Regardless of who it is, you did say the Luke 12 passage had to do with His second advent. And when I read on, the very next question asked (by Peter) is this :

Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?
Luke 12:41

It seems to me fairly plain that He is speaking to those who look for Him - those who BELIEVE in Him :

And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?
Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;
The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
Luke 12:42-46

It seems to me that this is right in line with the verse in Hebrews :

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Hebrews 9:28



When Jesus makes a prophetic statement in Luke 12, how is it eisegesis when that is applied to the same sort of terminology as used in Revelation? Jesus doesn't make any stipulation as to geography or some racial group - rather He is speaking to those that believe (in even the most minimal sense). As it says in Revelation, "As many as I love, I rebuke...". He is making a promise that looks to be very similar to what He told the disciples in Luke 12. I don't see how that is eisegesis.



I honestly don't see how that applies. Especially since it was Jesus who said (to Peter, again) that He would build His church on the foundation of Peter's confession. The only way it can be seen dangerous (that I can see) is if it counters a presupposition (again...like I had until I reread it again recently).

I was speaking in terms of the historical context, I apologise if that was not made clear. There is of course a principle that all Christians are to be watching and ready for our Lord's return. The point I was making is that there is no connection between Rev. 3:20 and the Luke verses. As explained the subject in Rev. 3:20 is Christian service and the danger of man centred service as opposed to serving The Lord in sincerity and truth. While the Luke passage deals with His second advent. Some of the terminology may be similar but the subject is different and the danger comes in making a connection on the basis of terminology alone. If all exegesis were based on terminology we would be able to make connections all over scripture and come up with any doctrines our imaginations could conceive as cults do.

Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?
Luke 12:41

Unto us, meaning the disciples or even to all, meaning to all that were gathered, historical context again: Lk. 12:1

The Lord uses the Jewish custom of a wedding when speaking about His second advent:

Luke: 12. 36. And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately.

It was the custom that the bridegroom would prepare the marital home (Jn. 14:2,3) and then return for his bride by knocking at her door.

Thus the two passages are unconnected apart from employing similar terminology.

Pete

 

[nikolai_42]

I was speaking in terms of the historical context, I apologise if that was not made clear. There is of course a principle that all Christians are to be watching and ready for our Lord's return. The point I was making is that there is no connection between Rev. 3:20 and the Luke verses. As explained the subject in Rev. 3:20 is Christian service and the danger of man centred service as opposed to serving The Lord in sincerity and truth. While the Luke passage deals with His second advent. Some of the terminology may be similar but the subject is different and the danger comes in making a connection on the basis of terminology alone. If all exegesis were based on terminology we would be able to make connections all over scripture and come up with any doctrines our imaginations could conceive as cults do.

Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?
Luke 12:41

Unto us, meaning the disciples or even to all, meaning to all that were gathered, historical context again: Lk. 12:1

The Lord uses the Jewish custom of a wedding when speaking about His second advent:

Luke: 12. 36. And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately.

It was the custom that the bridegroom would prepare the marital home (Jn. 14:2,3) and then return for his bride by knocking at her door.

Thus the two passages are unconnected apart from employing similar terminology.

Pete

But what does the servant "...open(ing) to him immediately.." have to do with the Second Coming of Christ? The parable clearly rests on the servant opening the door for the lord of the house. It seems to me to be just as dismissive to discount wording as being important because it doesn't fit a broader, more general concept as it is to insert ideas to fit a broader, more general concept. So when I read about this immediate opening, that word became more prominent - as though to ask why include it?

I also note (now) that the idea that this is the bride opening the door for the bridegroom is read into the text (at least from the English reading). Never is the term bride used and Jesus is referred to here as returning from the wedding - so it is only implied (again, from the English) that the bride is opening up. Rather, the terms "servant" and "lord" are consistently used to explain the relationship. So would that not then mean that saying this is the bride opening for the bridegroom is somewhat eisegetical by plain definition?

I'm not trying to be combative here. I know that when I read the passage myself in years gone by I would basically gloss over it and read it at what I can only say is a "high level" - not paying closer attention to the actual words being employed here. But when certain terms are used that more than imply something that doesn't fit with the doctrine of the return of the Lord (the Lord waiting for the servant to open), it seems like muddling things (to me) to say that that is just Jesus trying to be consistent with the practice of the day. If He used that as a parallel or parabolic illustration for His return, then surely - when He specifically refers to the servant opening the door for the Lord (who is knocking) - we can treat those details as being just as important to that to which He is referring.

So in all candor, to my eyes the grabbing on to the tradition but stopping short of applying the details - is suspect.

I will say that the addition of the "goodman and the thief" certainly serves to underscore the surprise of His coming - but as Jesus goes on, His emphasis of the servant and the Lord seem to me to place some import on the servant's actions in "opening immediately".