FrankForum (Frankness IS Forum)

This thread will be solely for attempting to solve two issues:
#1 what 'outer darkness' means | what 'gnashing of teeth' means
a) potentially immature believers who aborted their kingship
b) potentially unsaved (automatically aborts kingship)
c) potentially a mix of both (believers who aborted their kingship, unbelievers automatically abort their kingship)

I think the following things are important to know before continuing:
#1 Outer darkness is only mentioned in the 'royal parables'
#2 Weeping and gnashing of teeth (nervousness / aftershock) are always mentioned in conjunction with outer darkness, but also appear in other places *without* being prefixed with outer darkness
#3 Unbelievers are not royal priests "training as kings" (they do still have an inheritance, though)
#4 Salvation is permanent
#5 The meaning of "light" / "darkness" can either be literal or figurative, or both simultaneously (figurative in that light = bible doctrine / darkness = absence of bible doctrine or false doctrines)
#6 Some believers will be elected as 'kings' based on Bible doctrine maturity and time clocked in with 1 John 1:9
#7 Inheritances will be shifted around based on who rejects them (either by unbelief or spiritual immaturity). Everyone is *supposed* to get only their inheritance, but since not everyone accepts it, it'll have to be readjusted
#8 the 'four types' of human disposition as outlined by Christ:

• Type 1: unsaved (luke 8:12)
• Type 2: saved, unbelieving believer (luke 8:13)
• Type 3: saved, perpetual carnality (luke 8:14)
• Type 4: saved, getting Bible doctrine and clocking in w/ 1 John 1:9 (luke 8:15)

#9 It could be possible for believers to get [no] inheritances (aborted kings) which is the same "portion" of unbelievers in that they automatically have none. Both aborted their kingship but in different ways, so to speak.

Note: this thread will not be dedicated to 'debating' why the above points are true. That can be done in other threads / discussed elsewhere. If you honestly must draw sword, create a different thread and quote the offense.

The statements will be quoted and a pro / con analysis given. Pro will be championing the meaning(s) to refer to someone who is saved, but receives no inheritances. Con will be championing the state of being unsaved. Unless otherwise stated. The point of this is to 'prove' which side the verses are on. Then determining what exactly outer darkness and weeping & gnashing of teeth will have to be performed.

---Outer Darkness verse group I--- Pro:

• Since the "sons" in question are sons of the kingdom, they are believers as per Matthew 13:38
  Quote:
  Matthew 13:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the sons of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one
  Matthew 13:38 ὁ δὲ ἀγρός ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος, τὸ δὲ καλὸν σπέρμα οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας· τὰ δὲ ζιζάνιά εἰσιν οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ πονηροῦ,
• Since this parable in context with Christ mentioning the Centurion's belief, it could be argued that this is for maturity and not unbelief (because the Centurion was *already* a believer)

Con:

• Everyone could be considered a 'potential' son of the kingdom including unbelievers (but this contradicts Matthew 13:38 so I cannot deem this interpretation correct)
• Since this parable pops up right with the Centurion-- whose emphasis was on belief, it could be argued that those who don't believe are the sons sent to outer darkness, however as noted above the Centurion was 'already' a believer... and it would be a very odd way to explain salvation.
• 'Weeping and gnashing of teeth' is also used in conjunction with unbelievers | but who says that believers won't experience the same feelings as unbelievers on judgment day?

---Outer Darkness verse group II--- Pro:

• Many being 'called' but 'few chosen' cannot be referring to salvation. You're not 'chosen' for salvation, you either believe or don't, and being 'called' means you wouldn't have the Word taken out of your mouth before you believed-- otherwise that would be supporting calvinism and the lordship salvation simultaneously, yikes.
• Not wearing a 'wedding garment' in the midst of guests who were both good and bad, doesn't seem to align with being unsaved; it does hint towards preparation though (which is aligned perfectly with 'the race' of kingship)
• 'many called, few chosen' is referring to electing kings-- many believers / few believers chosen as kings, which supports the passage isn't referring to unbelievers (also even supported more in Matthew 20, see below)

Con:
Can't think of any... asides from 'weeping and gashing of teeth'

In Matthew 20:12, the labourers were demanding that their compensation (inheritances) weren't enough to those who worked less than them! And then Christ ends it with "many called | few chosen". In supporting Matthew 22 it would make zero sense if we were to say this was for salvation: since an unbeliever wouldn't even have the inclination to labour in the Word, nor would they receive anything for (not) labouring in the word. It gets more interesting if we say this is a contrast between believers who spent a lifetime in cafeteria Christianity versus someone who studied in 1 John 1:9 and became so much more with less time. N.B. Verse 15 is interesting because that would mean people are arguing God's judgements; and you know they will

---Outer Darkness verse group III--- I view the talents as the inheritances, and if the believer doesn't grow then their inheritances get shifted over. This could also apply to the unbeliever's inheritance (automatically) being shifted over, too. Although, the parable seems to be targeting those who weren't interested / didn't do anything rather than address the point to believe.

Now let's see if the parallels in Luke 13 would be related (if it is, then it would seal the deal that this would either be exclusively to unbelievers or both): Pro:

• 'Outer Darkness' not mentioned
• The 'sons of the kingdom' aren't being cast out of the kingdom, but into outer darkness
• Those who were being sent into outer darkness *already had a talent* to being with. We could argue that to even 'get' a talent you must first believe, otherwise you have zero potential; but what you do with that potential is what counts.

Con:

• Same parallels with the others, both in 'weeping and gnashing of teeth', but also seeing Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (AIJ).
• They're being sent out of the kingdom
• Context is in response to "are there few that be saved", alluding to salvation

Pro:

• There's a distinguishing between the [bad] servant and the hypocrites. We could say that both simply have no inheritances (and as a result are experiencing nervousness and aftershock from *that* alone).
• If this is a salvation passage to ascribe those who are unsaved, it would be sort of odd: especially since Christ's audience are the disciples / it's also referencing the pre-tribulation rapture simultaneously as well... (which on a completely off note could support the theory of declined interest in the Word-- if the [bad] servant is saved)
• we could say that the servant mentioned is not a 'son of the kingdom', but the analogy of wealth potential is still there.

Con:

• Both the servant and the hypocrites are experiencing 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' when outer darkness isn't mentioned

In conclusion, there's some crossover here and there-- but rather dangerous crossover.

If the 'outer darkness' individuals (includes 'sons of the kingdom') are unbelievers, this would challenge salvation being variable. It also challenges the analogies present to represent learning Bible Doctrine and how it affects your kingship; which is a problem since it adds a lot of information in this interpretation. Since variable salvation / works salvation / earning salvation / lordship salvation is an *INVALID* doctrine, there has to be a dichotomy of believers that are saved experiencing "weeping and gnashing of teeth" and being in "outer darkness" -- but *not* the lake of fire. Another would be that 'inheriting the kingdom' verses are not related to salvation but maturity; people in works salvation always use them the same as 'entering the kingdom' (which is wrong-- completely different Greek words being used, oh well).

But what about Rev 21:4 Well, it's true God will have the provisioning to remove sorrow. But this is primarily a focus on contrasting from the [pain] on life in earth with problems associated to physical biology VERSUS your ressurection body and how much better it will be. Even someone who aborts their Kingship will live happier than they ever have on earth. But the fact still remains there will be jealousy and shock once God rearranges the inheritances and people realize what they've missed out on-- oh, not 'really the inheritances but learning God. The closer you are to God the closer you are to inheritances MERELY AS A BYPRODUCT.
Also, keep in mind this verse is referring to post bema. You bet your roasted peanuts everyone is going to be nervous and hit hard with reality on the bema (judgment day). IN THE END there is a very good potential for people to be happy, but since a soul has volition, it is technically impossible for God to enforce you how to act.

With that said, this is a fairly radically different interpretation than typical Christanity (the doctrine of the royal priesthood is almost forgotten for whatever reason even though Paul keeps talking about it nonstop). But it's the one that makes most sense to me since you would have to ignore a lot of these verses and not see how they all [must] fit together.

Now let's try to solve outer darkness and weeping and gnashing of teeth as to what they MEAN.

From my assessment so far, it would seem 'outer darkness' is reserved for believers exclusively, because if it's NOT then it causes contradictions that I can't solve. Well, let's see... the 'sons of the kingdom' who didn't grow up, well that means they wouldn't inherit: (notice the emphasis on the relationship between God and yourself in accordance with inherit; so if you don't inherit this would affect that relationship).
My current theory about 'outer darkness' is because God is both the literal and figurative light, those in outer darkness are distanced from God in the sense they never grew up in doctrine (which is a form of "darkness"). There has to be more to it and that's probably wrong, but that's the best I can do so far.

Weeping and gnashing of teeth seems to affect both believers and unbelievers with the one thing in common: that they both get no inheritances and lose theirs.
Weeping would be a result of "aftershock" (certain things probably won't HIT most people until they meet God face-to-face; such as the notion that after you die you'll be existing for 'an eternity'). Gnashing of teeth is indicative of nervousness / anxiousness. Some people grind their teeth from being stressed out, too.

What about Jude 1:6 "Under darkness" is not the same from "outer darkness". Also notice that this is referring to angels that are literally kept under darkness until judgement day (outer darkness is post judgment day). So we could say that the 'lake of fire' will definitely be far from being 'outer darkness' since... Nebuchadnezzar's furnace probably couldn't generate the same amount of light and heat to match it.

Any thoughts on this greatly appreciated since I'm still crunching the information through. I probably need to REALLY move myself to do a full writeup on the royal parables to get a better picture.

Thank you so much for writing this. The subject has been on my mind for the past few days now. My apologies for throwing your last thread off topic. These doctrines are so interconnected that its hard to stay focused on one single subject.

I've come to agree with you and Brainout, the outer darkness has to be reserved for lazy believers who didn't invest their talents.

One question I have is Jesus said on a few occasions, 'they will be thrown into outer darkness, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth'.

Does that mean, "OVER THERE, is a place for weeping and gnashing of teeth"?

Or is that to say that weeping and gnashing of teeth will come about after discovering their loss?

I would assume that weeping and gnashing of teeth is just the initial shock, and that those believers would have to get over it. I mean to live in bitterness is sin, and there isn't supposed to be sin after resurrection. The same goes for jealousy.

I'm thinking for the outer darkness dwellers of heaven, there will be temporary weeping and gnashing of teeth, but then life will go on in the outer darkness.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Anonynomemon, you don't have to worry about 'offtopic', for the very reason you cited, intertwinedness (neologism). No mods here to monitor that, and I refuse. It's your guys' forum just as much as mine.

As for your questions, I can't speak for hupostasis' answer, but mine is (so far, will likely change) that 'outer darkness' is not literal for the believer, ever. It's a metaphor for missed soul illumination. So that everyone's happy, no one's bitter, though there is wailing at the JSC temporarily. But the ending result is that some are far away from Him, and in that sense it ties to 'outer darkness', kinda like living on Pluto rather than earth where the New Jerusalem will be*. That's the closest to literal 'outer darkness' as maybe it gets, physical distance. For the promise is that ALL will know Him, Jeremiah 31:31-34, explained further re Church's role in Heb 8:8-12 through 10:15-17 (reversing the order of mind and heart).
===
*Well, all of the eternal universe is new, not just Earth and Jerusalem, Rev21-22.

In Matt 25:30 " there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth".

The Greek looks like this:
ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων.

The nomination masculine singular article "ὁ" is used to focus on the "the outer darkness". Does this indicate that the outer darkness is a place reserved specifically for weep/gnashing? If so, that implies that a level of shame will continuously haunt these believers, rather than it being limited to an initial shock.

To be honest this is a bit unsettling. I don't see how this could be taken too literally since it is a parable, but at the same time, it seems that the parable was designed to shock those who read it.

PS my Greek isn't too good, so I'm hoping someone here knows it better than I do.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Anonynomemon, Your Greek is just fine. I was thinking of that very problem when writing to you. So that's why I don't think the analogy for the believer is an exact parallel. That's why I commented using Pluto.

This isn't a proper answer to your question, but rather an endorsement of it. There are many issues to resolve. Seems like hupostasis did well to organize the listing of the biggest issues, and did well in organizing the approach for resolution, at least an initial approach. Will be interesting to see what you and he come up with, what others come up with, and if I can contribute, I will.

Frankly this is really key to so many other doctrines, it's worth the time. For centuries, Christianity has been puerile, restricting everything to saved/unsaved, but Bible never does that. There are tandem issues and should be, ONCE saved. For surely if one goes to hell for never believing, shouldn't there be an analogous loss for never growing up?

So then how do we define that, and where is the Scripture to support it, what are the rhetorical styles it uses to explain the relevant parallels, doctrines, etc?

I'm thinking that this same principle should exist in OT as well. I mean is Bema exclusively for the Church? Even if it was, Israel was supposed to be Bride, so the OT should have some material on this too.

It seems like Jesus used the terms outer darkness and weeping/gnashing as technical terms, as if the reader was expected to know exactly how to interpret the relevant parables. I'm sure something will turn up when God is ready.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

I don't think Matthew 20 is in regards to unbelievers, for four reasons:
#1 unbelievers aren't B.D. labourers at all. They don't do anything in the Word (in the same sense you don't have a talent as an unbeliever, so too you don't labour in the Word). Both groups were 'labouring' and being rewarded for it, and equally at that (despite their "unequal" actions).
#2 I don't think unbelievers would be contesting anything at all, if they were assuming a 'different god' or didn't believe that a "deity" could exist, they wouldn't concern themselves with an inheritance since it would be a foreign concept. BUT, let's say it is revealed to them (and it will be), then maybe we could say that they would affix [their] "works" to apply for it. But then... they never believed so they're not saved... so it wouldn't even matter as they'd be going to the lake of fire anyway...
#3 verse 16 brings up "many are called, few are chosen" - if we say that Matthew 20 is in regards to unbelievers, then we're ALLOWING the interpretation of that phrase to apply to salvation, and it cannot. Nobody is ever 'chosen' for salvation in an election.
#4 in the analogy the labourers claim "you have made them equal to us", if these were unbelievers, us as believers are equal to unbelievers? That's quite terrifying in terms of salvation.

So I have no choice but to say it has nothing to do with unbelievers. With that said, the only leeway that would allow it in my mind is the fact that we could say unbelievers are disputing God's judgment (but again, the analogy was about labour and the unequal labourers being equalized, and then Christ's ends it with "many are called, few are chosen" and of course last are first / first are last-- which I've always viewed as the inversion of status, so a super believer on planet earth who is a nobody becomes a somebody, and a somebody on planet earth becomes a nobody in new jerusalem or the lake of fire.
So... verse 16 and 12 would have to be *disconnected* from everything that was said prior, which would be weird (to me).
I don't think it's *GOD* literally doing the throwing, it's the believers themselves. If they neglect doctrine (i.e. an unbelieving believer) God is giving them what they ultimately want. Which may or may not involve a slight disconnect; because if you don't have Bible Doctrine, that affects your relationship.

But then we have to deal with the notion of what *is* it exactly:
A) wholly a 'mental' attribute (lack of doctrine)
B) a literal place reserved in the kingdom of heaven (separating yourself from God as 'far as that can possibly be' in heaven)
C) Both

I'm under the impression it's both; because the individuals in outer darkness get some sort of 'issue' with themselves when seeing AIJ and the great feast (that would be 'a' initiator-- perhaps the feast is going to operate with some principles on inheritances that I am unaware of; I doubt it would require an entry fee of X amount of doctrine). We could say they get cold feet and 'excuse' themselves, but I think that would be too plebeian of an answer.

It would make sense for the immature believers to annex 'outer darkness' to themselves before the feast has even started, but I'll have to think about it some more (and most importantly verify it). One key on understanding this is going back to where AIJ are mentioned in the context which seems to be referring to unbelievers.

We do know that both believers and unbelievers will experience "weeping and gnashing of teeth", I believe this will be temporary, because it seems to be mentioned for a specific event. So once the shock is over with then that's it (since the unbelievers experience it, it could be on the bema, obviously it's not related to being in the lake of fire). Since both groups (immature believers + unbelievers) don't get inheritances, we can 'assume' that's what the wailing is primarily for. It would *not* be physical pain (and if it was to be considered, Luke 16 blows that interpretation out of the water).

Outer darkness however... is different from weeping and gnashing of teeth. Unbelievers don't experience it and it happens post-bema (I think). I'll need to go through some more verses to verify. Especially the Greek, I've been doing this adhoc via English for brevity, but we really need to see the tenses.
Thanks for bringing it up, I need to compare the tenses in the Greek (since the weeping and gnashing of teeth may have subtle nuances lost in translation-- I'll review this information when I get back in a few hours. Thanksgiving (for us) is in a few days anyways, so may as well give "thanks" to God with some badly needed studying.

The OT provisions were discussed differently: Luke 19's version of the talents is an OT parable, idea of cities (so the parable was told more than once, varying it for the audience).

And, we gotta distinguish between Millennial rewards/promises/conditions versus eternal.

The many called few chosen verse has always been taken to mean unsaved (called) versus saved (chosen). Idea really that God chooses everyone be saved, but since only a few believe, then God's 'chosen' decree applies only to those who believe. This gets the Calvies in all kinds of trouble, but they don't understand Election. We are ALL elected in Christ. Whether we believe in Him or not, is our CONSENT, and if it doesn't exist, then the WILL is not executed (Hebrews 9). For the Death occurred, but the beneficiaries of the Will might not consent. That was law then, is still law today.

Okay, but now let's ask what kind of call is perhaps in view? Aren't we getting a new call to grow up with reference to our salvation? And if we say no to that, then our souls aren't saved by growing up, but juridically we still go to heaven? Isn't that too what James means? For he's talking about growing up and the implanted (so not unbeliever) Word to save the SOUL, not merely the juridics of residence post death. For doesn't my soul need saving from worldly thinking, even after my being is going to heaven?

So: Matthew 20 might be a believer explanation as hupostasis says, given the entire context. It's been traditionally taught as if Jewish upset over Church on the grounds that Jews came first, and Church is last. But maybe that's lame and even anti-semitic. Since it's a parable to the Kingdom of Heaven, its audience is not unbelievers.

Then there's the issue of James 2, which is also not about salvation, using the same analogy of idle day laborers, often mistranslated faith without works is dead, in James 2:20. But the Greek there is argos, not nekros, and is in parallel with nekros, in 2:17. So doesn't mean physically dead. So is James talking back to Matthew 20? He could be.

Notice how I'm not providing answers, just comments.

So I just noticed something interesting (which is why it's important to check OLT): "πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσιν κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί" is missing from manuscripts on verse 16.

Now we *know* it belongs to Matthew 22: So... before going any further, it's VERY odd that Matthew 22:14's phrase was either removed or 'tacked on' to Matthew 20:16 at some point. If it was added, it's either a scribal mistake or satan pulling some chains (or both). I believe that it has been added to Matthew 20:16, and since we can say that it's removed-- this actually gives more leeway to it referring to unbelievers. I guess there was good reason for my 'inner conflict' with Matthew 20; I shouldn't speak too quickly, but that's a fantastic diagnostic when finding what's Word and what's not.

On the flip side, since it IS on Matthew 22 (which deals with outer darkness), I think this gives "many called few chosen" less credibility to referring to 'save' and 'unsaved'. But I have just found that Luke 14 gives more insight into the 'feast' (really I should have already have known this but it's been awhile since I last read all of the gospels back-to-back):
What's WEIRD is that Luke 14:24 on the BGT yet again has "Πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσιν κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί" added to the end of this verse too! Except this time the traditional Bibles (KJV / DRB / GNV) never included it, the NIV obviously omits it automatically.

Huh... so now I'm utterly baffled why Matthew 20:16 and Luke 14:24 had Matthew 22:14 tacked onto them. At this point I don't think it's a scribal error because... these verses are providing continuity to something, and that 'something' is being scrambled. I'll have to put that aside for now and think on it. It also occurred to me the LLX may be involved, Christ could have been quoting it on some of this stuff (to "double mirror" both Greek and Hebrew).

Before I sector off into something else, I wanted to figure out two very important verses: Therefore, any verses dealing with being "thrust out of the kingdom" (or sent out) are PROBABLY indicative for unbelievers, because you need to BE at the feast to be saved; if you excuse yourself that's irrelevant (come to think of it, why would you be sent out of the kingdom to begin with and not just sent to the lake of fire immediately... is God giving the unbelievers a tour and then sending them out?). We will notice the outer darkness verses don't deal with being sent out of the kingdom or excluded from the feast. But this allows us to add one other element (at least for myself in understanding), unbelievers who are being sent "invitations" are being presented with the opportunity to believe. And if they don't respond to the invite of salvation by belief, they won't be at the feast (since I guess, being at the feast requires having believed). And that makes sense, feast or lake of fire.

***the puzzle piece I was missing was not allowing 'invite' to potentially refer to unbelievers. AND, this means 'outer darkness' can coexist with the feast. Now excuse me while I go parse some more verses, I need to see more of this in unison (for whatever reason BibleWorks and e-Sword are giving me some grief with searching up related terms).

Well, the CNTTS apparatus in BW9 will tell you what kind of error it is. Matt 20:16 addition is no earlier than 5th century that I could find in the list of mss having it. Remember, BW9 has many more than merely the BYZ, and some of these we can view as live mss facsimiles, not retyped. EDIT: same for the Luke passage. Nothing pre 5th century.

Maybe was a scribal margin note, I don't know. The copies with them aren't in the list of facsimiles we can view, to see where the insertion is. Maybe can google for it.

But the bigger issue is that office is being compared. Office of having the Word entrusted to you was Israel's irrespective of whether she was saved. Office of Word entrusted to Church can only be 'saved'. Cuz you're not even part of Church until saved.

The last, first referring to laborers might be technically for the office of getting the Word out. Israel didn't have to be saved, to do that. Church does, though surely there are many who call themselves Christians and probably believe it too, who aren't saved.

So if the analogy is to office, then you have a Type 5 with crossover perhaps with the previous four types. Example: Matthew 8 refs those who were supposed to get the Word out. Meaning, some among those who were supposed to get the Word out, were unsaved, since the category there was Israel.

So gotta separate office in your human disposition categs? Doesn't create an offense requiring a separate thread, but rather a refinement maybe needed in this one. For if office is what's in view, that would explain why saved/unsaved is not the primary focus so seems like it can go either way?

And maybe it can. For the same reason, but then there's the question Anonynomemon brought up about ho being used in Matt25:30.

If I go back as you did in your OP, hupostasis, and list Pro's and Con's for OFFICE, there's no undoing of the pro's and con's for the other types, but it's almost impossible to cite cons for OFFICE alone. Which means, maybe start there and see if parallelism yields more. You kinda started down that road first, when you likened it to aborted kingship, the idea being every human had an inheritance of kingship, which gets aborted if a) never believing He paid, or b) never growing up in His Thinking. So then everyone is called (kletos is same cognate for Election/Inheritance), but few 'chosen'(eklektoi, clever addition of prep ek, lit., called out from among, also used for Election).

So now what? I don't know. Suppose you could call the series a chain analogy, starting at the low end with unbelievers, who yeah do go to outer darkness literally, a place which is maybe part of the overall Hades/Torments Lake of Fire. For there's Tartarus, which is dark. So not every portion of all the territory for the unsaved, has to be hot with fire in it.

Since that would be a kind of beginning (the lowest) in a stepped chain, then would it be necessary to explictly remind everyone that heaven has no outer darkness place, but still some form of the analogy applies?

Then there are the contexts for the analogies.

• Lord, Lord, outer darkness and gnashing, Matt 7.
• Reclining at table with great believers, Matt 8.
• Landowner hiring daylabor, Matt 20.
• Then, prefaced by clear reference to Israel's job to herald the King in Matt 21, parable of the Wedding Feast, Matt 22, which itself is subdivided into those invited but making excuses (parallel in Luke 14), and the strawman who crashes the party improperly dressed.
• The stingy servant, Matt 25 (analogous to Bema or GWTJ), told also in Luke 19.

For sure if there are penalties for unbelievers, there have to be for believers, too. The offense is not handling The Word properly. Analogous to your OP, hupostasis, of aborted Kingship, this is an offense of trusted office. Unsaved/saved is a subcategory.

So I'm still stuck with the overvague idea that the believer who doesn't grow up in the Kingship office is far away from Him forever, as a minimum justice issue. Happy because sees the justice of that 'sentence' and accepts it; but not as in lalalalala kumbaya oh Roof!. Nor is it literally gnashing the teeth and wailing forever, but yeah at the JSC aka Bemata in 1 Cor 3 and Phili 3:18-19, won't be pleasant probably for any of us, for who among us has never failed Him, so lots of crying there.

And just thinking about how much I've been allowed to see in the meter, I'm petrified. Every day. Should not be allowed to live.

And, maybe that's the point of the stepped analogy, to show that no one gets away with anything, and the more you get the more you'll be held accountable for, and the more punished you can get, too.

There are OT prophecies on this too, keyword 'pierced', here: Num. 25:8; Jdg. 5:26; 9:54; Job 26:13; Ps. 22:16; 73:21; Isa. 14:19; 51:9; 53:5; Jer. 51:4; Hab. 3:14; Zech. 12:10; Jn. 19:34, 37; Acts 2:37; 1 Tim. 6:10; Rev. 1:7

The Rev 21:4 future about no more sorrow tears pain death is after eternity begins. Yet again, this doesn't mean kumbaya. There's a satisfaction that comes from knowing justice is done, whether against you or anyone else. So too, there's no promise we'll have no effort expended: for if you love doing something, you can hurt quite a lot but will insist on calling it joy.

I agree with the 'type 5' category, of the unbeliever 'roleplaying' Christian. But they're still technically an unbeliever-- but perhaps that concept needs to be explored some more. Since the four types were explained in terms of 'no salvation' versus 'salvation + post spiritual life' / maybe the roleplaying christian concept is mentioned elsewhere because it had no place in Luke 8.
And the most 'shocking' statement of unbeliever roleplaying would be the fact satan is the epitome of it: I've been parsing a *lot* of verses, and will shortly relay all of my research, but one concept that stands out (and brushes with what you said about an "overlay" of kingship for *everyone* regardless of being a believer or unbeliever) hearkens to the first / last theme. Probably most people assume that this is referring to salvation, but I don't think it is-- because if it was, the "saved" would become "unsaved" and the "unsaved" would become "saved", due to the principle of inversion we can safely assume it's regarding the kingship.

And yes you are correct, I had to come to the conclusion that aborted kings and unbelievers get the 'same' inheritance which is no inheritance-- solely because of Matthew 24:51. The 'servant' is receiving the same "portion" which is no portion at all. If the servant *was* a hypocrite or unsaved to begin with, there would be no point of adding a distinguishing factor.

• Payment is done *starting* with the 'last' going to the 'first' (according to the parable)
• If payment 'starts' with the 'last', these individuals are going to therefore be 'first' (of inheritances)
• Kings are 'the last' (so they get 'paid out' first)
• Unbelievers / aborted kings are 'the first' (and subsequently the 'last' and potentially no inheritances remaining once these individuals are reached)

So get this... the unbelievers and aborted kings will get 'payment' -- and by the time their payment comes, there will BE NO inheritances left, so they get nothing (same payment). The horror of the individuals could result in the fact that BY THE TIME God gets around to them, they visibly see that there *are* no inheritances left. And somehow this is tied into Christ's 'great feast' (we can tell it is by the fact the feast occurs when everyone sits down at the kingdom... and also due to the fact Luke 14:24 was altered in the original language texts).

I would like to propose this doctrine as "the payment line". A few things have to be worked out though, notably WHY the kings are 'last' (as a result being the first), and why the aborted kings / unbelievers are 'first' (and as a result last). However, one crucial piece is resolved, and that is we can see this appearing in both kingship or 'unbeliever' passages-- because the aborted kings and unbelievers are "last".

Going back to Luke 14:24 and Matthew 20:16, we have to figure out how badly the context becomes damaged and how it's distorting Christ's feast and the payment line. If I had to assume right now, what that 'attempts' to do, is draw attention away on the fact that believers can abort their kingship; because nobody would suspect a thing if the "elect" are the "elect". Or, if that verse does refer to salvation (I haven't audited this enough to make a decision), then it would be blotting the context to key into salvation rather than kingship.

Perhaps unrelated, but God also refers to Himself as "the first and the last" (obviously to emphasize infinity).

hupostasis, you gotta get rid of thinking that the many called, few chosen is part of the passages in Matt 20 and Luke 14. The extra texts don't belong there. Not damaged, but just text put out of place. I don't know exactly how the error occurred, and since we can't see the mss facsimiles, we can't tell. But the text does not belong there, so you can't build your ideas on text not in the verse.

And since office precedes, then you have to make some kind of analogy chain. The saved person who doesn't mature still is saved, 'inherits' that much. But is inherited as part of the kings' portions, Isaiah 53:12's wa yahalleq shalal. So whatever would have been the stingy servant's 'portion' (metron) goes to the king on his behalf as shalal (booty, Hebrew equiv of metron).

So how does all that get reflected in the outer darkness and gnashing analogies? Gotta be a way to find the other elements of the analogy chain in Scripture...

I have not been claiming that those additions belong to the original text. I'm saying exactly the opposite that the text was added (damaged) specifically to Matt 20 and Luke 14 to sidestep the meaning. Same reason why "τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι" was added (damaged) to say THREE IN ONE, which sidesteps the "three and one" meaning.

If someone reads "τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι" when it's a wrong concept, they will have less of a chance to think of three and one.
If someone reads "πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσιν κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί" where it shouldn't be, they will have less of a chance to find out what the verses are saying without pollution.

So what may seem to be a mistake "out of place", may actually be satanically deliberate.
Outer darkness is interesting because it is literally stated, and then stated in the parables as a "quasi-parable" term. I will get to that on the upcoming post. The parables are a bit weird like that, in which they overlap in some non-parable verses.

Wow, alot of good brain food here.

I agree with Hupostasis here but why are the first (aborted) to be paid last and the last (kings) to be paid first?

I think its as simple as a righteous king putting the needs of the people before his own. As a result, the king recieves a level of honor and respect that the peasants do not obtain. Thats what Christ did. He made Himself last as King of Kings so that our need for regeneration could be put first, but Christ is glorified first, and the Church will recieve her payment last.

Most likely, the verses in question have had text added, but the best way to tell is to see if the text is metered, right? I mean they would theoretically stick out like a sore thumb.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Well, Anonynomemon, yeah maybe the text is metered, but here it's clear the phrases don't belong. I haven't had time to go through the meters. So far have only done each Chapter 1 of the NT, Genesis 1, Daniel 9, Psalm 90, Isaiah 53, and Magnificat (well, also Heb 11:1, but that was a no-brainer).

Last first is usually taken to mean Church as a whole, since the Church covenant is way higher than Israel's ever was. That's what Book of Hebrews is about. That last first might have other meanings too, well -- that also makes sense.

The underlying doctrine of last first goes back to Isaiah 54 and 55. The One they deemed lowest/last becomes the Cornerstone, and that's why Church grounded in the Age of the Gentiles, is also higher. He was rejected, so He orders Church and pays for her in advance, so Father decides her construction, and in the end she rules as Bride since Vashti wouldn't come.

None of that invalidates what you said. So to answer why, well: the poor we will have with us always, so someone's got to have the funds, and the kings get it, Isaiah 53:12, wa-et atsumim (the kings) ya halleq shalal: and to the mighty, He (Christ) shares out the people-booty. Greek LXX uses metron for shalal, which Paul uses for Bible Doctrine in Romans 12:1-3 and Eph 4:16, very clever. He's our booty too.

I've attempted to categorize the meanings, whether they're parables or not. Matthew 8 is not a parable, but the two parables which mention outer darkness quote it verbatim, meaning that they utilize terms not native to the parable (or is it the other way around?). It also should be kept in picture what's referring to kingdom on earth versus kingdom in heaven.
Comments:
The "sons of the kingdom" mentioned here are actually (presumably) are on planet earth. Here's the parables and the corresponding explanations from Christ:
Field = planet earth
Good seed = sons of the kingdom
Tares = unbelievers (sowed by satan)
Harvest = end of the world
Reapers = angels

Tares are eventually taken out of the kingdom on planet earth and sent to the lake of fire (which is called the 'furnace of fire' here, potentially to marry the tares analogy with the lake of fire). And then they "wail" and have super nervousness.

This goes back straight to Matthew 7 of course: The 'depart' however, doesn't necessarily have to refer to someone who is unsaved. In Matthew 7 it's emphasizing 'fruit' (Bible Doctrine), and of course not all believers mature. So the fact that maturity and being unsaved are hinted at simultaneously is linking this with that.
Here's the kicker, when God says "I never knew you", this scarily can also refer to someone who hasn't had any Bible Doctrine in their thinking; for to know God is to have Christ's thinking. Therefore, the 'depart from me' could be a neutral statement. And the aborted kings get the same "I never knew you" response, for it's true--they never knew God. Which is funny, because this adds so many more layers to the passage that you wouldn't normally consider.
The "lord lord" is also very close to what a spiritual baby would say: in a nutshell they're trying to give God [their] works and are reminding Him about their "genuine repentance" and how they made Him "the lord of their life" (which as we know, is total rubbish). The regular unbelievers wouldn't be claiming that sort of thing. So... the GRADIENT between type 1 and type 2 is extremely blurred. Your denominational ultra-religious "repent repent" Christian may potentially hit type 2 (since it's easier to get saved than it is to take a breath), but they'd still be just as washed up as type 1 religious individuals. AND, some of the "repent repent" Christians are type 1-- if they adhere to works salvation or "sinless perfection in the flesh".
Comments: I'm not sure why it's repeated again with a slightly different parable. Ending statement is exactly the same as Matthew 13:42 (In Greek that is, English Bibles can't seem to be consistent, shameful). Maybe the repetition is for emphasis?

The parallels of Matthew 13 with the concept of Matthew 7 start to get even more intertwined-- because it repeats the four types of Luke 8 and Mark 4... so the headlights are turned on explaining the 'close edge' of aborted kings and aborted unbelievers, along with going through the four types multiple times, and linking that all back to the kingdom on earth and the kingdom in heaven. Okay, so I sort of already mentioned some of this on the first post-- but it's way more interconnected than I had first anticipated.

So let's see how the plant ("sower") parables stack up in parallel, because they were designed to 'seen' at once. Part of God's character is to see everything at once, so the Bible reflects that. We will also need to take note at what changes, both in the sower parables themselves with the corresponding explanation, but also what Christ is tying into on each parable when stated at that given moment: because (in the case of Matthew 13) there are different concepts being merged together. You can't 'see' that unless you look at them all at once.

Mark will be RED
Matthew will be GREEN
Luke will be BLUE
(notice that this parable is mirrored "three" times)


Cluster Analysis Cluster 3:
Mark and Matthew are the same, Luke differs and adds that the seed was "trodden down" before the birds came and ate it.

Cluster 4:
Mark and Matthew are the same, Luke differs and says the sprouts withered from lack of water instead of being scorched by the sun

Cluster 5:
Mark differs in that it stated no fruit was produced, ever. Matthew is more discreet with *strangled*, but otherwise is the same with Luke.

Cluster 6:
Mark starts with multiplication of: 30 / 60 / 100
Matthew rearranges the multiplication: to 100 / 60 / 30
Luke only mentions multiplication of: 100

Cluster 7:
Mark and Matthew are the same, Luke adds more emphasis of Christ *shouting* 'let him hear'.

Cluster 8:
In Mark, the apostles are asking Christ what the parable means. In Matthew the disciples are questioning why Christ was telling the gnosis-unfilled crowd parables. In Luke the discples are asking Christ what the parable means.

Cluster 9:
**very important** Christ changes "kingdom of God" to "kingdom of heaven" in Matthew 13 versus the other two. And the explanation of course is that the parables are done because those on the outside (figuratively) wouldn't understand it anyways if it were said plainly-- which makes me think of Matthew 7:6 (which since Matthew 13 is calling upon Matthew 7:23 it would make sense). I am not sure if this is meant for unbelievers or unbelieving believers-- because it could go either way, and in Luke 8:10 it's hinting at unbelieving believers.

Cluster 10:
Mark states the planter is planting the Word / with Luke saing the seed *is* the Word of God.

Cluster 11:
Mark uses "satan" / Matthew uses "evil one" / Luke uses "devil". I am not sure the significance of the title changes since they're different in each one but referring to satan. Perhaps the character of satan is described differently (πονηρὸς, or sometimes translated in English as "evil" can refer to devoid of B.D.). Luke is also the most different of the three in that it says "in case they should believe and be saved", attesting to salvation.

Cluster 12:
Luke is the odd one out here with "ἀφίστανται". Withdraw makes the most sense to me, "fall away" is too religious for my blood. If you 'withdraw' you stop believing, but if you 'fall away' that adds some connotations such as your traditional view of "sin" and "evil" which is just not accurate. Most people 'withdraw' for mental reasons, not necessarily lascivousness.

Cluster 13:
Luke is the odd one out again. fruitless is changed to 'no fruit to maturity'. Luke also changes "choke the Word" to "choked with things of life".

Cluster 14:
As per cluster 6, the reverse ordering of Matthew 4 and Matthew 13 continue 30 / 60 / 100 vs 100 / 60 / 30. Luke is odd again with bringing forth fruit without a measurement. I still don't know what the reverse order of this signifies or why Luke ignores the measurements. Obviously all three are 'at once'.

Cluster 15:
Luke is the odd one out with a cautionary statement about how you 'hear' (I guess whether or not you metabolize the information presented). And then explains the whole talents principle over again-- those who have something, it grows. Those who do nothing, even what they have gets taken away-- even if it's nothing (which I'm still trying to figure out as that would be a double negative, maybe it's just for stressing).

Matthew 13 cluster context
Audience: potentially unbelievers and unfilled believers on the shore
Unique attributes:

• the audience being unreceptive to Bible Doctrine fulfills the prophecy of Esias (Matthew 13:14)
• additional parable of the wheat (believers) and tares (unbelievers) growing simultaneously (prefixed with "kingdom of heaven")
• additional parable of the mustard seed: being the 'least' and becomming the 'greatest', prefixed with "kingdom of heaven"
• additional parable of three measures of meal, prefixed with "kingdom of heaven"
• repetition of 'the kingdom of heaven is like'
• "And will cast them into a furnace of fire: there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth" is repeated twice
• Matthew 13:52 goes back to Matthew 7:20 (emphasizing teachers)

Mark 4 cluster context:
Audience: potentially re-filled believers as they were 'taught' by the parables, so they must have understood them-- when the twelve apostles didn't, initially?
Unique attributes:

• the audience is seemingly receptive to Bible Doctrine
• the twelve apostles didn't understand the parable at first when the audience on the shore potentially did ("he that has ears to hear, let him hear")
• 'kingdon of heaven' becomes 'kingdom of God' with growing analogies
• repeat of Christ sleeping on the ship to test the discples believing in B.D. (they failed the test and panicked instead of using 1 Peter 5:7, come to think of it that may be why Peter expounded on that doctrine so clearly since he too failed it)

Luke 8 cluster context:
Audience: potentially unbelievers and believers. Apostles are present with some disciples.
Unique attributes:

• the audience may have been receptive to Bible Doctrine but it's less clear. This time the discples (and not the apostles, presumably) had to ask what the parable meant. I'm guessing the apostles had already known it from Mark 4.
• again the event with the storm and Christ falling asleep, and them waking him up. I never realized how many times Christ did that. But it's important to note Christ repeats "where is your believing", so this is mirroring Mark 4.
• the man who is possessed with "legion"
• the man who had legion was sent back to his home area to 'teach'
• Christ asks the question "who touched me" when the woman touches him-- of course she was healed by the act of belief, and not necessarily the physical touch (explained in Luke 8:48)
• the famous phrase "only believe" is mentioned in Luke 8
• Christ renewed the biology and re-imputed the soul to the maid (similarly what was done with Lazarus)

Okay, now let's analyze the few remaining verses that aren't repeated equally in three but two or one: Mark 4:12 is very... uhhh unusual in the Greek. The stressing on "see see see" and "hear hear hear" is rather surprising since it's fairly muted in English. Furthermore, 'hamartia' is missing in some manuscripts. English translations BUTCHER this verse, which might be ironic.
When we go to Matthew 13:15 it's even more interesting due to "ἐπιστρέψωσιν", which I believe should be translated as 'return' there. Because I think there were a lot of believers there who suffered from 'mind lock' and weren't being refilled (and potentially being spiritually immature).
The ending of Luke 8:10 sort of belongs with these two verses as well, but it doesn't expound as much.
I am not sure why Matthew excludes this, it may be from Matthew 13:16 where the only reason why the doctrines are not understood is due to them not being refilled.

Unique statements of Mark: This was a backhand from Christ-- we can tell because, if you don't get the parable of the planter, then you won't understand anything else being unfilled.
Mark 4:21 is actually going straight back to Luke 8:16, so I guess it's less of a unique statement.

Unique statements of Matthew: Verse 13:17 stresses the uniqueness of the Church age and supports the fact that Abraham would have died to have been in it (although I won't get into that farther if nobody gets it).


I'm ending this bit here, the Word 'Planted' parables are important for what's coming next. There's no way getting around it (trust me, I tried to compromise), and we have to see them all at once and what they're adding / removing / stating simultaneously / stating simultaneously modified.

Ok, so in light of all that has been discussed in this thread thus far, what about the Vinedresser in John 15? Here we see the fuitless branches cut off, dried out, and cast into the fire in bundles. There are only two possibilities I see:

1) Burned branches are aborted kings (believers) who stopped abiding in Christ (or never went further than salvation). In this case, the fire would be the bema.

2) The burned branches are non-believers who are cast into the Lake of Fire. In this case, we are all branches in the vine (believers and non-believers alike) since Christ paid for all of our sins; and the dead branches are those that chose to never abide in Christ.

If #1 is true, then the fire is an exaggeration just like the outer darkness and place of weeping/gnashing. I mean aborted or not, all believers have to go through bema, not just the dried branches.

If #2 is true, then the fire only refers to Lake of Fire.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Golly, I forgot about that. Great point, Anonynomemon. This might be our smoking gun. John uses menw to mean being in a state of spirituality, 1 John 1:9 used, in all his writings (Gospel, letters, Rev): just search on the root in Bibleworks to see that. So here analogy is made to being out of fellowship, and being an unbeliever. Wow. That would support what hupostasis has been writing up.

Are there any other passages like this? I got work to do now can't look anything up until the weekend.

I didn't notice it before, but verses 3 and 7 confirm that the branches have to be believers:
1) cuz they're made clean by the Word.
2) cuz only prayers made in fellowship are answered.

The fire statement seems to utilize the same shock factor as the weeping/gnashing, but I think this is where Paul got 1 Cor 3:14-15.
Then look at 2 Cor 5:12-14
Compare the above to: Both 2 Cor 5:14 and John 15:8-9 illustrate the idea that fruit is produced by abiding in Christ's Love.

So Paul seems to tie it all together.

*****
I'm seeing a dichotomy here. The same way that Joel 2 was duplicated for the Church in Acts 2, the Baptism of Fire seems to be duplicated for the Church at Bema. While the Baptism of Fire is really to remove non-believers/tares, in a like manor, the Bema fire will remove the tares/carnal works (wood, hay, and stubble) of the believer.

Is the Bema Seat unique to the Church, or will all believers of all dispensations have to face Bema too?

I would think everyone would have to face Bema.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

You actually beat me to it, I was going to bring up the "yes as though by fire". That's when Paul goes through God measuring the type of works in your life (whether you relied on your OWN works -- wood / hay / stubble -- versus the works God did in you via epignosis + refilling, which of course is tied to having time clocked in with 1 John 1:9, can't have God's works in you without it). So, the "Lord Lord" people are going to have wood hay and stubble since they relied on their own works "didn't we cast out demons / do works in your name" etc.

Everyone goes on the bema because God is the "universal judge". All actions have to be judged and everyone has to be 'repaid' for anything wrong that happened. Believer or unbeliever. If there *wasn't* a universal judge, I would have an issue with existence because that would mean that unjust things in life would always remain. What kind of world would that be, where wrongdoings are never repaid?
Now, how the process will operate I'm not entirely sure (because you have the whole issue of unbeliever / aborted kings / kings who grew). Obviously there's the inheritances for the believers, but I am not sure how the unbelievers will be repaid if they're going to the lake of fire inevitably. If we are to assume they can 'believe' at any second, even while on the bema, then it would make more sense. God could say "here's your compensation" and it would be up to them to believe and accept, or still reject and go to the lake of fire out of negativity instead.

Hebrews 1:7 was a verse that was perplexing me for other reasons, but now I am curious with the phrase "...ministers flame of fire".

@ Hupostasis

Yeah, I knew that all works would be Judged, but for some reason I never put 2 and 2 together. The Bema seat and the White Throne Judgement are both judgements of our works. Makes sense now, and the "ministers flame of fire" statement does support that.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Rethinking the excellent issues y'all pose. Matt 13, Mark 4, and Luke 8 = seed parable. Most agree it's on reception of Word, whether Gospel or post-salv doctrine.

What's not known/discussed enough:

• Matthew writes in 30 AD,
• Mark in the Year of the Four Emperors, likely Dec 69 just after Vespasian's accession, maybe on the Lord's Birthday (Chanukah); and
• Luke in-between, in 58 AD (same year as Ephesians went out, just after Paul imprisoned); when the Lord should have been age 58 but was age 61 (in Paul's own Anno Domini meter).
• I did meter videos on all three books, so you can see those in vimeo. Master list of the NT meters is here (use 'htm' instead of pdf if you have Bibleworks or don't need to see the Greek).

So that helps us understand why the wording differs.

• Matthew's focus is King and Kingdom, with the King being Rejected, so has a Jewish focus.
• Luke, who writes next, builds his entire Gospel around the Magnificat (which I showed in the videos), to explain the changeover to Church (since Mary ends the Magnificat with Christ age 56, at which point only 40 years remained to the Mill, switching the meaning of 56 and 40 meters).
• Mark, writing last, focuses on why Titus is investing Jerusalem when he writes (maybe Vespasian had not yet become Emperor (Dec 69), still have to hone down the month Mark writes).

So notice:

• The 'unaltered' or 'base' idea is in Matthew.
• Luke updates it for Church, adding 'trampled under foot' (8:5), and 'no moisture' (8:6), and omits the lesser yields (so the percentage of growing believers is MUCH smaller, 1 in 100 the only ratio used); the rest of the changes seem explanatory and parallel for Church to understand (verse 12, adding 'be saved', verse 13, 'believe for awhile', verse 14 'fruit to maturity').
• Mark omits the Luke changes until repeating Luke's no-cover-lamp, nearly repeats Matthew verbatim but leaves out Matthew's wheat and tares -- which makes sense, as it's JERUSALEM which is surrounded by armies when he writes, so that historical fact illustrates the wheat-and-tares prophecy currently true: Mark needn't mention it, allowing the silence to punch.
• So Mark reorders Matthew's Isaiah quotes in Mark 4:12, which was originally a prophecy about how Samaria and Judah would be trampled by armies (Isaiah 6:9, 43:8, Jer 5:21 Eze 12:2). Read verses 12-13 aloud as if an actor giving an 'aside' to the audience, to get the impact -- then resume v.14 as if re-enacting the 'scene' of Christ telling the story.

All writers leave off quoting Matthew 13:12-17, so the reader is expected to understand that's its meaning. Well, Luke puts Matt13:12 at the end, in Luke 8:18 (so if Israel messed up, here's why so we Church better learn from that or we too will be cast out in history).

So why not John? Well, he writes using menw (to abide, remain, wait on and wait for, etymology of a wife waiting for her husband to come home, culturally-loaded word). Building ON the seed parable, starting in Chaps 14-17, which are all about Church as Bride of Christ. He's the Seed, we are the branches, so no longer just seeded but implanted (James), so now it's a growth and crop question, not whether we are in the Vine positionally.

John writes in 77 AD, seven years after Temple Down per his own meter, as shown in these videos (with the associated Word docs, as always, in the vid descriptions).

Of course, what I just wrote can and should be debated, not quickly believed; analysis needs a lot more testing. It adds a dimension to this question of 'outer darkness' and 'wailing and gnashing' -- the dimension of DOWN HERE ON EARTH, not merely when dead. Idea of being thrown out in history.

Obviously there would be eternal parallels, but even down here there should be some.

Doesn't mean that if you have all the goodies of this life you are spiritual. Does mean that your impact on history is negative. Which, as kings in training, should also be an issue.. right?

PS: this practice of 'interpretative quoting' is common in all literature. You take a well-known passage (here, Matthew's) and CHANGE keywords to make NEW parallels. Doesn't mean that if quoting Christ, He didn't say those things. Instead, they each 'pick' among the repetitions of the same parable He told, to make their points now. But the problem is, to tell when they actually are quoting Him, or whether they are commenting ON what He said, via the Holy Spirit's 'update'.

We do this all the time in speech. Like, we say 'Got Christ?' to play on the famous 'Got Milk?' or 'Windoze' instead of 'Windows' or 'Shiite' to mean the other word with only one i and no e, stuff like that. This is the same technique employed in the Gospels, but the theologians and other academes don't recognize it, but instead are really silly, thinking the copies are supposed to be identical and even (really really insanely) thinking Mark's Gospel is first or that all the writers borrowed from some unknown source (so the Holy Spirit is chopped liver or shiite).

Pretend, for the sake of argument, that we are to interpret the Seed Parable via Matt13:12-17, and hence the whole Lord Lord thingy in Matt7-8, as well as the talents, outer darkness and gnashing metaphors:
Parallels are having and not having, seeing and not seeing, hearing and not hearing. Object? Him. The Word. Seeing Him, Hearing Him.

Result parallels: having, get more; not having, get taken away. Seeing, see more; not seeing, see less; hearing, hear more; not hearing, hear less. Not seeing or hearing, get taken away -- specifically in the contexts of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, taken away by war (first Samaria, time of Isaiah, Sargon/Sennacharib; then Judah, time of Nebuchy -- killed, sold to slavery, etc).

Salvation first means ransoming, deliverance from disaster, so it has dual application, hence in end Hebrews 10 the reminder 'he who endures to the end will be saved' is talking about Temple Destruction, not saved-to-heaven.

For Hebrews is written piggybacked on Mark, following his Gospel outline, also in Year of the Four Emperors and also piggybacked on Peter and Jude. So written to believers, not unbelievers, backdrop is Matt 24:13, parallel Mark 13:13 being fulfilled (Jerusalem is surrounded by armies when Hebrews is written, the siege loosely started in 66 when Nero dispatched then-merely-general Vespasian, and ended 9th Av 70 AD under Titus, Vespasian's son).

Okay, so then the four types get bifurcated into 'now' and 'eternal'. For you can wail now or later. You can be burned now or later. You can wail a short time or a long one, burn a short time or a long one. And, so too: seeing, hearing, getting, losing, etc. A kind of spectrum from a low of no and nothing, to all and everything.

For the #1 thing everyone harps on, is WORKS. But Bible harps on WORD. So if your 'works' are WORD, you saw and heard. If your 'works' are good deeds, then you didn't see didn't hear. For you can't work and see and hear at the same time. To see and hear, you really need to do NOTHING ELSE.

So the world is truly incensed that its works don't count. Whether believer or unbeliever, everyone stresses EARNING, not LEARNING. Yet we all know that doing apart from first learning -- and you dang well better do nothing until you learn, who wants an ignorant surgeon, Heb 4:12 -- yet we forget the long downtime learning even JESUS went through, 30 years? Doing nothing?

So two issues then become paramount: a) taking the training hence long downtime learning not earning, since this is an EXPERTISE at handling WORD (royal mind, not peasant body); and b) once trained, handling that Word well.

Which then one HAS so gets MORE, and one HEARS so SEES so BLESSED and UNDERSTANDS.

But if no Word, but works, burned because has NOT so gets taken away, DEAF and BLIND so CURSED and understands nothing.

So to stress works is to deprecate Word. As if it weren't something requiring a lot of downtime and RESPECT to LEARN. Yikes.

Children hate learning.

So look how scary: we learn and learn and learn. But the world earns and earns and earns. All that earning gets burned up, 2Pet3:10-18 (esp. v.18). So how burned up will those people be, that all their earning, earned nothing? No wonder they won't believe.

So same for others who are saved but earning. All that time and effort wasted.

So how scary, we merely learned which only God can enable in the first place, so we do nothing at all but inherit it all? How unfair is that? More reason they won't believe.

Yet how provable: a good lawyer/doctor makes 1000 times as much as a grocery clerk. The lawyer/doctor's training takes 10 years or more. The grocery clerk can work without even a high school education. Every decision a lawyer/doctor makes, has a huge impact on many people. The grocery clerk's decisions can be impactful, but in general? To only a few. The lawyer/doctor's MISTAKES are also huge, versus a grocery clerk's. For to whom much is given, much is expected.

So how am I using Word in all my daily thoughts and activities? That's what a lawyer does, essentially. Living by a code 24/7, for the job is always 'on' when you're a professional. That was true for Israel, much more now for Church. So if we treat our role as if were were Brother Foot grocery clerks...

Need to kill myself now.

@ Brainout

Wow, that's all very sobering, and a lot to think about.

Since the outer darkness and weeping/gnashing thing is paralleled to hell, how far does that parallel extend?

For believers, weeping/gnashing is peasantry. For non-believers, its Lake of Fire...

But, assuming there is no deadline on salvation, could a peasant theoretically learn their way out of the outer darkness and into the Light? Rewards would have already been distributed, so they would be living in the Light, but not as a king.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

I bolded your query, below. Don't know the answer. Still not satisfied that I know the extent of the analogy of 'outer darkness' (lit., the darkness outside) and wailing/gnashing, for believers. Like you, I'm reminded of no more sorrow no more tears in Revelation -- but that verse is about the eternal state.

It's possible to be content with suffering, and surely God is.. because He experiences ALL, all the time. But is there post-Bema suffering if a believer who didn't grow up? Lower understanding, yes. Lower status, yes. But I've always ASSumed it more like a Brave New World where the believer creates his own status as Epsilon or Gamma or Delta or Beta, by refusal to learn. Now I'm not so sure how it works.

So to your query about whether someone can ADVANCE IN RANKS post-Bema, I don't know. Wouldn't that be a necessary freedom, too? So your question is valid, and I don't know the answer.

So are you implying that you believe the outer darkness might be a Millennial phenomenon only?

Look at 1Cor 15 Christ reigns for 1000 years, then makes His enemies His footstool (presumably 50 years). Then "comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father, WHEN HE HAS ABOLISHED ALL RULE AND ALL AUTHORITY AND POWER."

So what if the outer darkness is only during the Millennium, at which point, all aborted kings will be preparing for equality in the Eternal State by learning what they neglected? All the while, the king believers enjoy their blessings under Christ.

This would make the outer darkness more of a study hall/detention center.

Just a thought.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

My replies are in blue, interspersed within your quote below.
Just watched this Twilight Zone Episode. If you've got Prime, it's free and adds another dimension to the putative definition of 'outer darkness' and 'gnashing'.

Hey guys, what if we've got the context all wrong? I mean the principle is pretty well understood, but why did Jesus spend so much time on this subject in Matt 24 and 25. Lets remember why Jesus even started talking about it in the first place.
Jesus is telling His disciples about the Second Advent. This was before His death, therefore there was still a possibility that the Church Age would not have happened, therefore, no Rapture mentioned.
Who are these servants that the Lord leaves in charge?
Daniel 11 shows two classes of people: those who have understanding and will lead the people, and the hypocrites. Maybe Jesus is updating Daniel 11:32-35 with Matt 24:45-51. If so, these people are believers (productive and useless) who are waiting (or not) for the Second Advent.

The Parable of the Ten Virgins paints the same picture. Jesus returns and takes the wise into the wedding feast, but the foolish are left out.

Same illustration with the Parable of Talents: productive servants get rewarded, the stingy one is placed in outer darkness.

From that point, Jesus speaks on the Baptism of Fire in Matt 25:31-46 (sheep vs goats).

What is the common thread in all of this? The Second Advent.

If you are an obedient servant, you will watch for His return. If you are not, then He will come when you least expect it.

I think we found our Bema event for the Tribulation believers. This isn't for the Church. You might be able to apply the same principle to the Church, but taken at face value, this is for Tribulation believers. Hit me like a ton of bricks.

I think this also explains Matt 22:10-14 (the wedding feast). If the Church is the Bride, then the guests have to be the obedient Tribulation servants who's robes are white (Rev 7:14).

Look at Rev 19: Sound familiar? As in "MANY ARE CALLED, FEW ARE CHOSEN!

***UPDATE***
These are the characters in Matt 22 The servants are the 144,000. The ones gathered from the streets are believers. Of the believers, the ones in garments are the "good" and the ones without garments are "evil". The original people who were invited but didn't attend must have been those who rejected the gospel during the first 42 months of the Tribulation. Its not until the Abomination of Desolation that people begin to believe (other than the 144,000) Rev 9: Its after the Abomination that the 144,000 begin to be killed off. Again, this goes back to Daniel 11.
Wow, I need some sleep. Interested in seeing where this conversation goes in the morning.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Okay, let's first remember that had there been no Church, the whole timeline was exactly predictable:

• The Lord would have still died on the Cross, but age 40, which would have been 56 years before the Mill was supposed to begin: Mary uses that chronology in her Magnificat meter, and Paul follows it, but she REVERSES the 56 and 40, and he does too. You get the age 40 from all the Bible dates, were they properly added, so don't need the meter. And, even Sanhedrin 97-99 acknowledges that, so there is extra-biblical Talmudic recognition in at least that one other source.
• Absent Church, there still would have been Jewish leader opposition (Daniel 11:35ff, Isa 53:3,7-8), but there would have been enough PEOPLE believing in Him to constitute a nation that could go into the Tribulation and Mill.
• The falldown of the Temple would have then occurred, or maybe would be strung out, with the last 7 years being the Trib. The first 50 are GENTILE TIME (not part of the 490 because not Jewish Time), with the 3.5 overlap during the first half ot the Trib (50+3.5=53.5, payback on Abraham, which Mary was calculating, and that's why the Magnificat ends with Abraham). Again, you can get those values from Bible dates alone, the meter agrees but it is separate.

So in all events, Matt 24-25 would still play the same way, but different timing if Church. What's different, is that there's no Rapture, absent Church. So obviously absent Church, there'd be no 144,000, since that's a Church-changed condition.

So absent Church, the Day of the Lord (1000 years from David's Crowning to Messiah's Birth, 1050 years from Abraham's maturation to David's Crowning, all provable separately from Bible dates as well as meter).. is Predictable, and yeah they are supposed to be watching, counting every year as indeed have been since Genesis 1: ergo the meter, so they could be ON TIME and READY.

I did a table on the Bible Time Distances using the Bible's own expressions of years-from (not BC/AD) given in the Bible. If your browser fonts are overriden, the table comes out really well online in Comic Sans MS, click here and allow it time to load (printed format is 150 pages, yikes). The bigger worksheet is here, and the verses used to construct it begin here.

Yeah, I know about the detour from the original plan, and the exact number 144,000 is not mentioned elsewhere in OT, but I think Daniel 11 and Matt 22 together describe the role that these believers fill. So maybe the original plan was not for exactly 144,000 witnesses, but I do think their office is revealed in OT. To be honest, I don't think much of what Revelation teaches after chapter 4 is any different from the OT prophecies (accept for the mention of the Church here and there in heavenly cut scenes).

So Matt 24 & 25 can still be read as if Church never happened, in my opinion, and I think it makes more sense that way too.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Yeah, d'accord. Which still leaves the question of a Jewish Bema: seems that would have still been 2nd Advent. It's just now later than scheduled...

Yes. Second Advent would most definitely be Jewish Bema. But, as you have repeatedly stated; in OT, gentile believers were naturalized into Israel's covenant, so wouldn't Jewish Bema include gentiles too? Yet Revelation makes distinction between Israel and the Great Multitude.

Furthermore, pre-Israel gentiles are resurrected with the DRY BONES too, so is it JEWISH BEMA or PRE-CHRIST BEMA?

Pre-Christ makes more sense to me, but that's my initial, 'knee jerk' reaction...so to speak.

Still, this doesn't tell us exactly what the outer darkness is, where it is, how long it lasts, or if its anything more than an exaggeration.

However, I'm still willing to bet my bottom Federal Reserve Note that the answer to Outer Darkness and Weeping/Gnashing is waiting for us in OT.

Aside from Church, when have Jesus' words not reflected OT? How else would His audience have known what He was refering to?

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Oh, yeah. All who believe in Him during Trib and Mill become 'Jews' no matter what they are prior. Same as during Church, all who believe in Him become 'Church', and all who believed in Him during the age of the patriarchs were 'Jews' no matter what they were prior. Now before the patriarchs, there were only Gentiles, so weren't called anything special, except whether they believed in Him or not.

So yeah, pre-Israel gentiles resurrected too, gentiles in OT in general who believed resurrected, OT believers would be their moniker en toto

And yeppers, I'll agree that our Outer Darkness answer is in the OT. But where? Guess we'd have to do a Word search on skotos.

EDIT: look at Luke 17:24ff, ties to Zech 14. I'm sure somewhere in there and in Eze37 et seq are what we're looking for, but I still don't know what rhetorical style to expect. I am sure the Greek search terms will be quotes/snippets from the OT, which then might lead to others.

Am still trying to get the 'flow of Luke's arrangement of text from Luke 16-19. Overall he aligns the timing to the Magnificat, but I'm not sure how this content is aligned. It's tracking Matthew, but not in the same order (similar to how Luke 4 changes the order versus Matt 4, to use keywords to lead to his next point). I don't know why, yet.

@ Brainout

Not seeing anything that really ties directly to outer darkness in those verses. Could you elaborate on what caught your attention?

On a different subject, something in Zech 14 did catch my eye, and it took me back to Daniel 9.
Do you see what I mean?

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

@ Brainout

I found some interesting passage about darkness:
This was part of Hannah's prayer. Not sure if the "wicked" are supposed to be non-believer or just stingy servants. Possibly both. In Matt 24:49-5, Jesus did say that the servant who "eats and drinks with drunkards" would be cut to peices when He returned. If they are servants, then they must be believers, right? Here Hannah says that those who are His adversaries will be broken to peices. Very similar wording.

So, now my question is, will the Tribulation believers who refuse to grow up be executed by Christ when He returns? Perhaps sin unto death?
This is Eliphaz's reply to Job. It seems very poetic. Again, not sure if he's talking about non-believers or fools in general. I highlighted some familiar diction.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Yeah, that's part of it. Zechariah Chapter 14 begins the 2nd Advent, and goes from there. Should be parallel with Ezekiel 37ff. Might not be so clear in English, and of course the metering will matter a bunch. Someone I know is working on Zech 14 meter, but had to put it aside. Might be a year or two before the parallels work out, but there are a lot of synonyms for wailing, gnashing, darkness, and especially OUTSIDE versus INSIDE (i.e., the Temple).

That paragraph tells you nothing. Sorry, I need more time to think! But what you have below, yes: ties. The Ezekiel portions about burying the dead, one taken and one left (or is that Zechariah, I forget), about the prophets, soo many passages. Just start reading in tandem, Zech 14 then Eze37, see what happens, as they are parallels.

Clearly 'darkness' has a broader reference point. Again, this isn't enough to be conclusive, but does help to establish semantic range. My answer to you is too vague, but I need a smoking gun rhetorical style. Don't know where to find it, yet.

@ Brainout

Compare Job 15:30 to John 15; about the useless branches being dried up and burned. Then compare Matt24:49-51 to Hannah's prayer. The more I look at it, I get the feeling that darkness is a gerneralized symbol for death (physical, spiritual, etc). For that reason, darkness could mean both Sheol or sin unto death. Notice in Matt 24:49-51, Jesus cuts the wicked servants to pieces.

So now I'm thinking, when Christ returns, the surviving believers who refused to grow will be killed (darkness/death/cut asunder), the surviving believers who produced fruit will be resurrected to inherit cities with the dry bones, and the believers who converted at the last minute enter into Millennium unresurrected. These are the ones who weep for the sudden realization that they pierced Messiah with their prior negative attitudes. The Millennium is their time to grow.

It seems resurrection is a prerequisite for kingship (Rev 20), and the Talent Parable is primarily for Tribulation believers.

Make sense?

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Well I'm trying to figure out what the significance behind *outer* darkness (or more literally in the Greek, darkness of outer, if I recall) is. Darkness generally refers to chaos or devoid of B.D., but it's the *outer* prefix which is causing the curve ball.
The 'cutting asunder' could be a subtle reference to Hebrews 4:12, Luke 22:38. After all, the Word slices you. Physical slicing generally doesn't imply progress and never gets anyway (John 18:10), especially since being sliced physically has no profit.

As to 'outer darnkess' occurring on planet earth or new jerusalem-- there were some verses that implies it occurs in new jerusalem, and also during the bema.

'Cut to pieces' Greek verb there is figurative, diochotomew, and is not used in the OT, but unfortunately is translated the same way in the OT with other verbs, often verbs which mean to cut up and scatter. So we can't say the surviving believers who didn't grow will be killed. Nor can we say the surviving believers who did grow will be resurrected then, since they didn't die yet. Looks instead like all who survive are just plain still alive, going into the Mill. But there is a Baptism of Fire, so all the unbelievers go off the earth.

@ Brainout

Yes, I see what you mean. Hannah uses yehhathu which I guess should be translated 'taken down'. These English translations can be very misleading. I'll have to be more careful to check everything with the Hebrew and Greek next time.

I'm still looking for references of darkness in OT, but I'm also very interested in Eliphaz's statement about the branches being burned up.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Dang, I forgot to comment on Hannah. Mary's Magnificat quotes her. I covered it in the videos, but you can see the chart of quotes both she and Zacharias who quotes Mary make to Hannah on page 21, here. They are 2nd Advent references, and Zachy baby even extends his meter (which I first missed) to play what-if-2nd-Advent- doesn't-occur-on-time. Which Mary was doing, too. Point is, they were playing with the same idea as you are, maybe. But it will be a long time before I can get back to the 2nd round of debugging my initial pass on those texts.

This is what's driving me wild: everything seems related.

Yeah, hupostasis, I think the exzw is key, 'outer'. As in outside, not included, not part of the inner circle, not enlightened, peasant, in the outfield, not part of the elite. So 'darkness' would have the larger spatial connotation. At the Father's table, far away from the Head.

In some manner it just has to be true. If the unbeliever has his own Home Alone because he didn't want to be with God, then so too the believer who never learns His Word but instead elected religiosity, human approbation, the crowd, etc. For both are electing ABSENCE and DISTANCE from God, but intimacy with whoever and whatever else they like. Wouldn't be heavenly if you didn't get what you wanted.

And so it is down here also: you work hard at ONE THING you do well. The rest is just logistical support. You end up being valued for that ONE THING. And, you wanted that ONE THING, or you'd have picked something else. So a lot of women pick looking good or being nice or being skilled in some feminine thing. Or, being skilled in some masculine. For men, the same idea. And thus, they earn their place in society, their sense of self-worth, of value, meaning, purpose; when they die, that ONE THING is what will be remembered of them.

But who picks learning God as that ONE THING? Almost no one. So how does one place in Heaven? By that ONE THING, learning God. Outside of that ONE THING, well.. then outside. Not, inside.

For if I do a good deed for you and you for me, what has that to do with God? So why should He reward either of us, for what we do for each other? Verily, we have our reward in this world. Outside of God.

Logic and many verses corroborate all that; but how do we prove 'outer darkness' isn't merely what so many claim, a paradigm of hell/Lake of Fire (which wouldn't be dark at all, literally).

Whoa, so Zachariah made some speculations as to how the Second Advent might be delayed? Did any of his speculation parallel Paul's what if's?

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

LOL Paul's what-ifs derive from Mary and Zecharias, who ended his soliloquy at syllable 301, playing on Daniel's prayer of 308, subtracting 7 guess why. I've only just started posting the Mary Revisited videos, but that link has the ones I've posted thus far. (Can't remember where the rest of them are, computer died and I got to find them amid the backups.)

It's really complicated, and that link above puts you in the middle so it might not make sense to listen starting there. Mary's meter ends at 40 years to Mill with Christ age 56 rather than the expected ending at Him age 40 when He was supposed to die, with 56 years left to go until Mill, the long-told schedule since Psalm 90 which Moses wrote in his dying year (same year as he penned Genesis).

So why did she reverse the order? Then came Zechy baby six months later, playing on her meter, which ended at 217 rather than 231 (=Dan 9:24-27 meter, minus 14 hahaha).. Zechy takes it to 301, which is 84 farther, just as Moses used 84 as the Decree meter in Psalm 90 (which Isaiah splits into 2 42's, to mimic his own Isaiah 1:1 meter for when he was called by God).

So notice the math: she takes Time to 40 years before the Mill. Zechy's addition takes you to 44 years after the Mill was supposed to start, as if he knew the 4-year Varro (like our BC/AD) error, would become law (it was only being debated, at the time, became law under Claudius). Why? Because they like we noticed the ambiguity in Daniel 9:26, how 9:27 is disjunctive. Unlike us, they knew there was a 50-year scheduled hiatus for the Harvesting of the Gentiles. Hence 50+7 = 50+6 to seven it for meter, number of days between beginning of Passover to Pentecost, from Pentecost to 9th Av (which turned out to be the actual timeline Titus used to take down 2nd Temple, starting the assault ON Passover, 70 AD).

See what I mean by everything is related? So how to separate out the parts and track the threads?

Hey guys,

I just remembered this. Came across it unexpectedly a few weeks ago, but its useful here, so have at it. Its not a final answer but it takes us to the source....even the root.
God formed the light (yathzer) from a pre-existing source (His own nature) and created the darkness (bara)...which He created from nothing.

So God made provisions for free will.

For non-believers: total separation

For aborted kings: outer darkness.


Why did He do this?
God is the only God. And you choose your own level of involvement in the relationship with Him.

Talk about interconnection. Thank God we have the opportunity to LEARN the truth, for if we suddenly just knew it, we would probably implode, explode, and revert back into a self destructive singularity.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

So now we're back to proving that 'outer darkness' is dual-entendre.

This may or may not be considered controversial, but here its is:

What if we define the basic Hebrew word for darkness "hhoshekh" by its Paleo-Hebrew pictographic value?

Hhet=Outside
Shin=Division
Khaf=Open

So the "hhoshekh" could be defined as 'the outside area that divides, in the open'.

I've used this method to define "hashamayim" as the 'divides\consumed waters'. I feel that this is consistent with the idea that the universe was flooded with water prior to it's restoration.

I used this chart as my reference:
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/files/alphabet_chart.gif

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Wow, that's a really good idea. Not sure you want to use Jeff's site for everything, sometimes he really gets it wrong; can't help but like him though. But hoshek's meaning, yeah.

Here's TWOT. Link will be handy for looking up other words.

It's bundled in Bibleworks. So this paragraph in it is interesting, I bolded the most relevant text

Yeah, I like Jeff's site for its resources and to play around with some of his ideas, but I also like to let context mold the definition along with pictographic value. I don't think it works in every case, but the technique works especially well with prefixes, suffixes and dramatic root words.

Take Breshith for examples:
Beth=within
Rosh=the head/beginning
Thau=plural

So I read it as "within the beginning of all things".

I think ancient Hebrew was designed to be self explanatory or at least interactive.

_________________
HEB 4:12
The word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and marrow, and is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart.