FrankForum (Frankness IS Forum)

Yeah, Koran does the same thing in many Suras, with three letter prefixes, each used the same way. You know Arabic is a cousin of Hebrew.

That got me curious to see if the LXX used it: Apparently the LXX only uses ἐξώτερον once, and that's in Ezekiel 41:15 to describe the 'outside porches' of the court. So the outside is still the outside, and the darkness is still having no to little doctrine (for both new jerusalem and the lake of fire are devoid of physical darkness). But figuring out where the *outer* is and whether or not it's temporary or indefinite. Unfortunately I have a strong suspicion that the 'wailing / gnashing of teeth' is temporary, but the 'outer darkness' is indefinite, or at least as "indefinite" as the person lets it, like the lake of fire...

Here are the verse groups that spawned the parallels with the 'word planted' parables, and their corresponding contexts:
**advanced notice, I'm going to skip putting the Greek since I don't have the time at the moment and want to churn through this quickly**

==literal | kingship / maturity | kingdom in new jerusalem== Matthew 8:12 is important since it's NOT being used in a parable but as a literal statement. Whereas the other two statements are mention in parables... so its a pseudo-parable. Which makes me think of Luke 16 since the first part is a parable and the second part isn't (but it's written in a way that the 'easily enticed' will demand that the whole thing is a parable).

==literal | kingship / maturity | kingdom in new jerusalem== ==literal | kingship / maturity | kingdom in new jerusalem== ==parable== (kingship?) ==pseudo-literal== ==literal== (sheep = saved / goats = unsaved) (ties into John 10:16) ---
And here's some that start to become muddled, and not just in one manner. You have the problem of parables / non-parables phasing in and out, and then you have the problem of it directly and indirectly referencing salvation while simultaneously hinting of spiritual maturity.

==parable== (kingship?) ==pseudo-literal== ==literal== (salvation? the polloi contradiction) Here's the problem. The parable starts out with a dinner and a marriage (which hints back to the Lord's supper-- as much of this seems to do). Then the wedding starts with many guests gathered, some of which were sub-optimal, as the guests that were supposed to come did not (that sort of hints at Israel). But then there *was* a man who came to the wedding (he didn't have to and could have ignored the invitation like the first batch of guests) but didn't wear appropriate clothing to the wedding and was sent out to outer darkness, which is not wholly a parable since Christ repeats that statement in a non-parable, and then ends with the non-parable statement of many called, few chosen-- which Brainout's stance is that it refers to salvation (but the problem I'm having is that the rest of it doesn't seem to refer to salvation especially since it was JUST talking about aborted kings-- as such I'll refer to it as the "polloi contradiction"). So either Matthew 22:14 doesn't refer to salvation and the entire thing is focused on kingship, or it does and it is linking salvation with the kingship. I suppose salvation IS a prerequisite-- but the issue is, it's out of place. Soon as you say "yeah well they're going to go into outer darkness while they wail and have a fit of nervousness-- oh and... many are called but few are chosen".
Ah, well it could go like this...
Since it is in Matthew, it most likely is referencing Israel and then later Church having to pass over to the gentiles.
The invitations could be linked to salvation (whether you 'believe' or not is saying 'yes' or 'no' to the invitation). Then wearing wedding clothes or not could indicate maturity. And finally, Matthew 22:14 could be a double-whammy, poking fun at both "the elect" AND "the electED". Because... you can be part of "the elect" and not be elected as a king...

And now for its brother parable in Luke 14
==parable== (salvation?) ==literal== (unsaved?) So, Luke 14 in stark contrast to Matthew 22 seems to straight up identify this with unbelievers without the grey areas, for, unbelievers won't be at the Lord's supper. Now is it possible for the aborted kings to be excluded by God at the supper? I think they are 'required' to go but can excuse themselves. The context of Luke 14 is rather interesting, however... Christ talks about earthly kings, and also when you invite others for dinner, how they will invite you as well to 'repay' the honour.

==literal / kingdom in new jerusalem / salvation or kingship?== I'm going to say this is New Jerusalem and not the kingdom on planet earth, but I could be wrong.

This one is really confusing because, it doesn't seem like unbelievers are being referenced. For starters, unbelievers generally would not make those claims (it seems to be referring to Christians specifically, obviously they know who "Lord" is). Traditionally I attributed this to the "type 5", or the roleplaying Christians who never believed.
But is the 'depart from me' the same as 'sent out of the kingdom'. If you're not entering, I'm pretty sure that means you're unsaved (Matthew 7:21), and as Matthew 8:12 shows the sons *of the kingdom* are in outer darkness specifically. So if you're not in outer darkness (ironically) you wouldn't be part of the Kingdom. I'm going to stick with the view that this is referring to 'type 5' roleplaying Christians who never believed. But the fact that they're being referenced in a 'kingdom' scenario is fascinating.
I also don't know why this one now has 'first are last, last are first', especially since the context is more about salvation than the others.

Midway through all of this I found some rather pertinent verses in Revelation 19: Now I'm wondering if I got it wrong and the Lord's supper will occur down on planet earth pre-new jerusalem. Revelation 19:10 is an interesting verse to be included in amidst all of this, as deals with maturity (worshipping in spirit / worshipping only Christ -- else no profit, etc).

There is more but I'm getting impatient and will leave it at this.

@hupostasis: there's a lot to chew over in your post! The Ezekiel 41 hapaxlogomena will be important. Temple inner versus Temple outer is a big metaphor in the OT. The so-called hall of the Gentiles. So analogy of 'outer' probably refers to that. Except, maybe in the eternal state, the outer folks are the aborted kings, no distinction as to Jew or Gentile.

Bear in mind that the analogy for eternity, is that the believers are the Temple. So this huge emphasis since Exodus on Tabernacle and Temple, is ultimately talking about the Temple the temple depicts, and we become Him. So wouldn't we too be 'arranged' like parts of a building? Just thinking out loud here, so much more has to be threshed out.

As for the OT covenant not having a 'kings' title, well who cares. Surely Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, etc. are part of the inner circle just as much as any CA 'kings'. I don't know whether 'king' always and only means a higher status, versus any OT hero. Isaiah 53:12 uses 'atsumim', usually translated 'great ones' without distinction as to title, but NT uses 'kings'. Will they only be Church, with that title? And if 'yes', does that negate the level of the title with anyone in the OT? Who knows, and frankly who cares. Lambast me if I'm being too flippant, k.

Inner versus outer should matter, as the access and frequency of seeing Him should be something everyone wants.

'Darkness' too as a generalized meaning with nuances per group targeted.

As for the Wedding parable, the usual interpretation is that the friends are saved Jews, the Bride is Church, and the guy who comes in without the proper attire is unsaved. But improperly attired yet at the wedding: is he crashing the wedding and if so how would God be allowing that; or if a believer and should be at the wedding but improperly attired so must leave -- how? For guests were given special clothing to wear. That was custom then. So how not a believer, if there at all? We could say lacking the Doctrinal clothing, but why would that bar a believer, since all Church is Bride, not merely attendee?

So I don't actually have a personal stance on it, except to say it's the parallel to Esther story. Many of the details I can repeat from Thieme or some other pastor, but some of the interpretations seem 'off'. But can I prove yet, something better? No.

Maybe it's better to aggregate the portions which alike use 'outer' and 'darkness' to each other? In the above tally and in the OP, we now have Ezekiel 41:15, Matt 8, 22, 25, maybe Luke 13. Idea to take one analogy/figure at a time.

Doctrines are never isolated, but to find the 'thread' of 'outer darkness' should be a matter of searching on the usage of the words and their synonyms, pan-Bible. That is easy to do with today's technology, so likely there will be disagreement with past 'scholarship', which knew to do this kind of search, but couldn't do it as quickly, so would have missed stuff. Frankly it's a miracle they got as much right as they did.

So notice: in Ezekiel 41:15, the parallel Greek exzwteron is used for hatzer, though the Hebrew means 'court', which by definition is something 'inside'. But in the Hebrew, hatzer is looking inward. You infer the outward (hutz, in Hebrew) as anything NOT inside.

So now compare Ezekiel 42:1 (which uses hutz) and 20 (last verse in Chapter). The 'outer' is much bigger, and what? It separates the holy from the profane (lit. hebrew, 'common'). So that presents a problem, too. Isn't ALL Church 'holy'? And if Lake of Fire is a separate universe -- and we know it is -- then what is left to be 'profane'?

'But brainout, this is a Millennial passage', someone will say. Quite right. Yet is it not parallel? If so, to what?

Maybe I should just stop typing, as I keep throwing up roadblocks without solutions.

Okay:
Friends = Jews
Bride = Church
Guy without wedding clothes = unsaved
individuals who killed the servants = ???
individuals who never showed up = ???
Guests who are 'bad' = ???
Guests who are 'good' = ???
Significance of burning up the murderers and the city = ???

Matthew 22:7 is of interested with "burned up" (but I am too lazy to check OLT).

I'm going to play the devil's advocate, if the Matthew 22 parable is for salvation and the guy without wedding clothes was the unsaved guy who showed up... uhhh...
#1 why would a random "unsaved" guy showed up, that doesn't make a lot of sense
#2 how come in Luke 14 when the parable in an alternative form is repeated, the "wedding crasher" guy is omitted (the wedding itself is omitted), yet the parable uses the same language
#3 if the wedding crasher is unsaved, where does that place those who *never showed up that were supposed to*
#4 where does it place the other guests and why does it say "good and bad" (too lazy to check the OLT on that as well)
#5 so many other 'object variables' are ignored in this analogy
#6 the wedding crasher guy is being sent to outer darkness, so... that's conflicting with Matt 8:12.

Matthew 22:11-13 are the 'bad eggs' of the parable. If these verses were not in there, we could safely assume the whole parable is about salvation and be done with it. It doesn't *need* the wedding crasher, because we could say those who simply didn't show up are the ones who are unsaved... after all, the first batch of individuals invited didn't come and some killed the servants that went to notify of it. But the guy who DOES come to the wedding unlike those who **killed the servants** is the one who is unsaved? I guess we could say they're both unsaved, but then why bother making a parable with this many 'layers'. Going back to the 'word planted' analogies, lordship salvationists look at all four types and say all three are 'unsaved' with only the last type being 'saved'-- effectively making the different 'layers' useless. So I feel a bit similar towards this parable.
Hmmmm...

Maybe I'll bother to see what other pastors say about it and the parallels to Esther since they (presumably) would have an answer to the extant conflicts. But maybe they don't even bring out outer darkness. After all I came at the parable with outer darkness in mind, and never read it otherwise without focusing on that.

But... Matthew 13:40, when that parable is used -- it doesn't say the tares are being thrown into outer darkness! It's just too odd of a phrase to say that refers to the lake of fire.

You bring up really good points, hupostasis. I have no answer to resolve them. Generally I see the whole as you do, but we do have to resolve the inconsistencies. For whatever we claim some one part means, the other parts seem to contradict. Since the Bible is not to blame, only our limited understanding can be at fault. So the answer to the seeming contradictions is in Scripture.. somewhere.

Ergo the suggestion we just handle one of the rhetorical analogies at a time, viz. 'outer' coupled with 'darkness'. Once we're sure of that one's meaning (if we can be, absent cracking the rhetorics of the rest), then we can proceed. At least, that's how it seems..?

@ Hupostasis

Don't know if you read this post or not, but I think it will answer some of your questions, so for that reason I will quote my own post below.

Basically the ones who rejected INVITATION are non-believers of Tribulation. The ones who are CALLED are all Tribulation believers, but the FEW CHOSEN are matured believers. Its all quoted below.

_________________
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

Maybe if you'd also separate out the concepts and deal with them one at a time. For example, how do you know parse kletos from eklektos? Not that I disagree, but the usual interp is that kletos would include unsaved, but eklektos only means saved.

Parallelism surely is happening here, but on what levels and how do we prove them? So I'm thinking that you guys keep on making such excellent posts with many related concepts inside. Maybe we need to parse out the verses or keywords one or two at a time? Or maybe I'm too slow on the uptake and my brain is out....

@ Brainout

***Hebrew comes to me more naturally than Greek, but I'm not an expert by any means in either. So please let me know how right or wrong I might be.***

Check out John 6:44. I think its definitely a salvation verse. Are the highlighted words related? Just looking at them, they seem similar in meaning and spelling but I could be wrong.

My idea is, you must be called/drawn by Father to reach Christ...just as you must be called/invited to reach the Son's wedding. In the case of Matt 22, the first group to be invited didn't respond (ignored the Father's call to salvation). So the invitation was expanded to the random people. In the second invitation, both the well dressed and the ragged come to the wedding, therefore they are both saved (no works needed). Yet Christ kicks out the ones in rags. Christ won't revoke salvation, but He will reject our works. Human works are (as filthy) rags, but spiritual fruit are white robes.

A way to test this is to find all passages that legitimately cite "many called, few chosen" and plug in my 'Tribulation Believer Theory'. See if it clarifies or complicates the message. The Wedding Feast is eschatological, and so are the servants in Matt 24 and 25. To me, that may not be a smoking gun, but the barrel is really warm.

Look at Matt 22:3's "call". It's the same idea as John 4:66, only the parable seems to be more formal, as in a wedding invite, whereas John 4:66 is more direct; depicting a person being lured into salvation.

_________________
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, well if Hebrew is more natural, use it.

John 6:44's 'draw' means to draw a sword from a scabbard, really. So has nothing to do with will. Even if I will to be saved, I can't be. Even if I don't will to be saved, I can't be. God has to do the work. So that part, fits with what you're saying on a different tack.

Yeah, To know whether it's merely warm or the gun, we gotta find corroborative verses. OT or New, doesn't matter.

I tried to do a search for key words like, 'called', 'invited', 'elect', 'wedding', 'bridegroom', and I've found that all of Jesus' parables seem to be unique to the Gospels only. In OT, you will find certain 'buzz words' here and there like I highlighted in Job and Hannah's prayer (regarding the darkness and such), but the parables are only pieced together in the Gospels. That makes sense, for if you truly understand the OT, you understand how Jesus tied it all together in the parables.

So I doubt we will find a direct references to "outer darkness", "many called/few chosen", "weeping/gnashing of teeth", etc in any one place in OT/NT. Instead, the reader is expected to know the general meaning of darkness, what it means to be called, why the few are chosen, and how those elements function in the parables.

So while OT and NT prophecies have direct references to each other, parables are much more scattered.

At least thats what I'm finding. Maybe its not new to you guys, but that just hit me. We have to find how the prophecies are anchored to the parables, and more importantly; why? Thats what I tried to do with my 'Tribulation Believer Theory', but I realize that more is needed.

That's all for now. My head is swimming and I need a real night's sleep.

_________________
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, how the prophecies are anchored to the parables.

So let's look up OT prophecies on each of the keywords, like 'outer', 'outside', 'darkness', 'called', etc. Just do searches and see if God throws out any specific ones for attention.

Or am I off in thinking that's a way to proceed?

Just a quick preliminary comment while on my 15 min break:

My theory is that outer darkness is specifically for the disobedient and stingy servants of Matt 24 and 25. That's why I'm so enthusiastic about the idea that they are believers who are kicked out of the party.

During the Millennium, I think Church will be royal servants from the King of kings down to the royal janetorial team, but I don't think outer darkness can be used to accurately described low level Church members.

One speed bump that I see coming is who would Christ HAVE BEEN returning with at His Second Advent to hold the banquet, had He died on time?

If Israel is bride in first scenario, then that poses a problem. For Christ would be returning TO bride rather than WITH bride. Do you see where this is going?

So Cross+50+7 was old schedule. Was there supposed to be a rapture of the Bride at the end of the 50, before the Tribulation could start? That would make sense. Believing Israel during 50 years (and prior?)are Bride, surviving Tribulation believers would be potential banquet guests.

Does the meter reflect any of 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.

My replies are in blue, interspersed within your quote below.

The problem is that in revelation the people going through torment and TRYING to kill themselves because they *refuse* to believe: So 'believers' and 'tribulation' go together as good as oil and water (from my analysis). If some DO believe during tribulation, they will be excluded from the 'seeking suicide', so they wouldn't be a part of the tribulation. Part of the whole point of the tribulation is to get people to believe. Very similar situation with Noah and the Nephilim come to think of it (except even more variables were at play with Satan distorting the human gene pool, and also something to do with "human spirit" but I don't know anything about that doctrine yet so it makes no sense to me, but makes sense as to what would make the nephilim different).
Hmm.. but what about these verses, which are generally attributed to the rapture (unless I'm not considering other variables): That's the problem I have with Matthew 22:13, while 'many are called but few are chosen' is indicative of a salvation verse (although I don't take it as a *pure* salvation verse, brainout may), wedding crasher defies it as outer darkness is not related to salvation (directly). It can't solely refer to salvation because then it would mean salvation demands maturity-- instead of maturity being a (potential) byproduct of salvation.
This is me being me, but I dislike the "obedient servant" phrase because of Romans 5:19. We can barely keep our belief (not 'faith') let alone "obedience". I suppose an obedient servant could be a *result* of the only one who was obedient. But since 99% of people will read "obedient servant" as an action YOU must do (obedience), I'd avoid it. Matthew 24:45 refers to a 'pistis doulos', which of course is because we have no obedience to offer and we barely have belief.

My interpretation of the following is a bit different: I'm also approaching it with a bit of parable context. I think it's more akin to that when you die (either as an aborted king or an unbeliever) you're likely to not know 'what's coming'. Without Bible Doctrine you *can't* know what's coming. And if you don't know what's coming, the fact that you have an inheritance 'on-the-line'. So it seems to be playing more at what people don't know; and the fact that outer darkness is now a foreign concept to our generation, perhaps the irony is paying itself.

I think you might be on to something with the advent, in the sense of KNOWING (GINOSKEI). If you're an unbeliever or aborted king, you're potentially at the same state of not knowing. And "not knowing" but "being saved" is a bit more unstable than being "not knowing" and "unsaved".
(note: Luke 10:22 seems to be a bit odd in English, particularly the second verse, ginoskei is only used ONCE in the verse)
If we continue down on in Matthew 24: KJV gets it better than the NIV with "portion" instead of place. The doctrine of the inheritances implies that inheritances will be shifted, so if you have your inheritance taken away from you, that's the same as the unbeliever's portion who automatically has it severed. Going back to verse 50, the servant doesn't know when the lord returns because the servant potentially doesn't KNOW anything about the lord. SO when the lord does return, the servant has no idea about his portions shifting around.
I couldn't figure out which Hebrew word was mirroring MEROS in Ecclesiastes 5:18, it may be useful to use the LXX as an interposing dummy to see what Hebrew words the LXX translators thought correlated to the Greek.


To get a clearer picture of what's happening, a mind map is going to have to be created, as well as tracking some of the key terms (light / darkness is at play, along with knowing / not knowing-- which it seems like Matthew 24:50 is going back to Matthew 7:23-- for both aborted kings and unbelievers, since they have the same portion. But notice, the unbelievers are never referenced to be in outer darkness). And, the LXX will be fairly useful to see if any of these terms are going back to the Hebrew (if only BibleWorks had more Hebrew manuscripts).

@ Hupostasis

Matt 24 was written before Jesus was killed 7 years early, so the rapture is not metioned at all, since Church Age is Plan B.

The "one taken" while grinding at the mill is the non-believer taken by the Baptism of Fire/anti-rapture at 2nd Advent.

During the Trib, there will be three classes of people:
1)Non-belivers: tares
2)Obedient believers: accepted guests at banquet (white robes)
3)Disbedient believers: kicked out of banquet due to filthy clothes

Everyone is invited, some anctually go to wedding feast (believers), few have matured enough to dine in.

More later. Its all in Luke 14 and Matt 24 & 25 parables of servants.

_________________
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 would like to point out again that Luke 14:24 is actually damaged, so the "for many be called, but few chosen" shouldn't be there with that verse (I almost forgot that it had been added after you started re-quoting it). So Revelation 19:9 and Luke 14:24 are not linked to "many called / few chosen" in their natural state.

Also I remember reading somewhere about being at the Lord's supper as a requirement if you're saved.

EDIT: looks like some of it was in Luke 13:28-30. You need to be in the kingdom to be a "son of the kingdom" (and a "son of the kingdom" can still be in outer darkness while being in the kingdom). So if you're not in the kingdom and not at the supper, you're unsaved.

@ Hupostasis

Yeah. I know about the added text in Luke 14. I'll elaborate later when I have more time, but notice that Luke 14's setting is at a casual sabbath feast, not a wedding. Yet Jesus makes two feast lectures: one about wedding feasts, and one about common feasts.

The wedding feast is about matured believers vs unmatured believers, and their ranks of honor. So last will be first and first, last. But I still believe that Matt 22 teaches that total loser believers will lose even what little status they do have and they will be kicked out (not a loss of salvation, that can't happen). What little they had was an invitation and a reserved seat, but due too filthy garments they are unfit to attend. Again, I believe this is specific to the surviving Tribulation guests.

The common feast is saved vs unsaved. He said invite the poor for the can't pay you back. Thats our possition in salvation. God offers grace knowing that we can't repay.

_________________
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.

Notice here that Jesus is at a saturday dinner.
Who knows what saturday it is? But it must be a big deal since Pharisees were trying to claim seats of honor. So Jesus then addressed them with a wedding feast parable which teaches that, the humble will be exulted and the arrogant will be brought low.

The wedding feast fits the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. ONLY BElIEVERS are there and they are sorted by their spiritual maturity.

Now Jesus talks about general feast celebrations (different than a wedding). First advice, then a parable. He was telling us to express the same kind of grace towards others as God has extended towards all the world. We are not invited to general feasts/fellowship with God (salvation) because of our works or personal sense of honor. Salvation is offered to us because we can't pay God back...because He loved us first.
Now Jesus backs up His advice with spiritual wisdom (the commodity of Heaven). Many peoble have been extended invitation to a great feast (but not a wedding feast), but they wouldn't come. The Gospel is the invitation, those who choose not to believe reject the invitation of the Gospel. They turn down salvation.
***Note:THERE IS NO MENTION THAT "MANY ARE CALLED BUT FEW ARE CHOSEN". That is unique to a wedding parable in Matt 22 and a similar mention in Rev 19.***

No one who rejects this invitation will dine with Christ at any feast...not as a guest of honor or as a commoner. We know that in the Millennium, EVERY BELIEVER will celebrate Booths. So this is an 'everyone-who-will-come' event unlike a wedding which is for family. Wedding guests must have nice cloths.

So we have:

General Feasts: the entire believing populace.

And a Wedding Feast: for certain levels of honor...but in Matt 22, we will see that those who have nothing but an invitation (no shirt, no shoes, no service), will have their seat taken away.

_________________
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, Anonynomenon: but ALL believers between Pentecost and Rapture are Church, and all Church is Bride of Christ, Eph 5:22-32. And even in the wedding parable, present at the feast are friends of the Groom. So now what?

Now the Wedding Feast Parable of Matt 22.
Here we have the Wedding Feast Parable, introduced by the Bridegroom Himself. Per Rev 19, this is a very specific event that will happend when Christ returns to earth. The Bride in the day this parable was spoken, was supposed to be Israel, but Church became the Bride instead (due to Israel's rejection of Christ). The Father/King of the Bridegroom is none other than God the Father Himself. It is the Father who sends the invitation of the Gospel, and expects those who come to the Feast, to come dressed properly.

It is God's desire for all to be saved and for all to grow in faith, but as the parable teaches, not all will elect God's will for their lives. God's servants (the 144K) are sent to witness to the world during the first 3.5 years of the Tribulation. Rev 9:21 shows that they reject this second invitation. No one saved aside from the 144K during first half of Tribulation. A second time, God sends out the invitation, and again they turn it down, but this time, some of them begin to kill the 144K servants of God. This is the second half of the Tribulation which is a blood bath that lasts 42 months (1,260 days).
When God hears about the negative response He sends Christ and armies to destroy those who rejected the invitation. Notice that the Father is the one who KNOWS when to send His Son to destroy the enemy ("no man knows day or hour but Father alone). So by the time the Second Advent has cleansed earth, the Wedding Feast is ready. So the servants are sent to gather the belivers left alive, BOTH GOOD AND BAD, to attend the feast.

***SMOKING GUN ALERT: At this point, the tares/non-believers are burnted away by Baptism of Fire. The only people left are a variety of (good and bad) believers who survived the Tribulation. This Parable is to be applied to Matt 24 & 25. It updated Daniel 11 & 12 and, Rev 19 shows end result (blessed of the chosen believers).
There will be guests who are more matured than others, but there will be some that have no level of maturity. They have a place in the feast, but nothing good to wear. So what they still have (their reserved spot in Wedding Feast) is taken away and they are kicked out of the Wedding Feast completey. They are left in the outer darkness where they will cry bitterly and grind their teeth until the feast ends. Why is it dark? It could be because earth was literally completely destroyed on the Day of the Lord. I would expect a lot of clean up would be needed.
Many invited and will attend, but few will be chosen to stay. Rev 19:9 updates Matt 22 by stating that those who are chosen are blessed. Rev 19 assumes that you know "many are called but few chosen" per Matt 22. Revelation is a summary of Bible.
Then after Rev 19:9 introduces the beginning of the Wedding Feast, Rev 19:11 shows us the Return of Christ, with God's armies, to destroy those who rejected the invitation Matt 22:7.

If this isn't a smoking gun, then I honestly don't know what else could be. The characters are there. The parables are tied directly to each other and prophecies, and I hope I have shown that accurately.

_________________
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 have our characters:

Father God is King

Son of King is Christ/Bridegroom. He will inherit the Millennial Kingdom as King of kings.

Servants of Father are 144K of Israel.

Bride is entire body of Church (could have been Israel).

Friends of groom are OT saints and Israel as failed bride. Christ has no hard feelings towards first love (forgiveness). They arevthe actually attendees at the wedding. These are the great multitude of Jews and Gentiles alike who survived the Tribulation. The are friends of Groom too since they had to Abide in Christ/know mind of Christ to produce fruit.

So some of the friends of Groom are resurrected and some are still sinners.

So those who are weeping and gnashing teeth in outer darkness aren't friends of Christ, since they didn't get to know Him.

_________________
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.

@Hupostasis Luke 13:28-30 is indeed about salvation, but it doesn't mention anything about a Wedding or Outer Darkness. Those people who Christ does not know are the same non-believers who will be cast into the Fire in Matt 25:46 for not "feeding, clothing, or visiting the least" of the believers. They will be weeping and gnashing teeth (an idiom for anxiety and frustration) because they are being kicked out of the kingdom (not wedding) into hell (not outer darkness). So I don't see anything to indicate that all believers MUST attend the Wedding Feast.

The good and evil servants in matt 24:43-51 are the same good and bad believers who are invited to the Wedding Feast, only yet to be sorted. They are servants of the Masters house just like in the Parable of Talents, therefore they are all believers.

The Tribulation of 3.5+3.5 years reflects Moses' prayer in Psalm 90: "give us as many good days as bad days".

In the first 3.5 years, the 144K are saved and the non-believing world is tormented to motivate faith, but for 42 months, they will not listen. Then when the quake happens at the Abomination (mid-trib), 7,000 will instantly be saved, and the 144K along with many others will be hunted.

3.5 good years for believers while non-believers suffer

3.5 bad years while believers are hunted down.

Again, there isn't even a slight hint about the Rapture in any version of the Olivet Discourse. If there is, then please elaborate.

The 'Day and hour that no one knows' is the Second Advent, because that is what Jesus stresses throughout the whole thing. The Tribulation will have a few HOURS shaved off for the Elect (so that Wedding Feast can begin before Millennium officially begins). If Jesus' return catches you by suprise, its because you weren't counting 1,260 days from the point that the Two Witnesses are killed by Apollyon.

This all has multiple layers of spiritual application for all believers of all dispensations, but first you need to find its most literal meaning, and the only way to do that is connect the parables to the prophecies. That is what I have attempted, and so far its unlocking a lot of things I didn't understand before (more than I am prepared to explain properly in this discussion).


First get the timing of Matt 24 & 25 right, then link those prophetice passages to the parables. Its the only way in my opinion.

_________________
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.

FYI, just reading what you both say for now. Am still thinking through what rhetorical search diagnostic makes most sense. Thus far, 'the darkness outside' or just 'outside' and then 'darkness'. But you both bring up so many other valid points I'm not sure what to think next. So if I seem silent, it means I'm reading and thinking over what y'all say.

@Brainout
That's ok. Got more coming up: minas, talents, 10 virgins...

_________________
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 & Hupostasis

Not sure how to progress with this, but I'd like to see how the Parables of Minas, Talents, and Ten Virgins fit in together with my theory. Again, this is assuming that the outer darkness is specific to the darkened earth outside the wedding feast. I believe it was Jeremiah who said the Second Advent would make the earth desolate and void ("thohu wabohu" to be specific).

Both Matt 24 and 25 repeat the warning to watch for the return of the Son of Man. So we know that Matt 24 & 25 are about waiting for 2nd Advent, NOT Rapture.

In Luke 19, the citizens who conspired against the returning King are kill upon His arrival, so that fits better with Tribulation Saints rather that Church Age.

And I feel that I've established a strong frame of reference with my above posts for the timing and setting of the Wedding Feast and Matt 22 + Luke 14.

So we have Parable of Minas in Luke 19, where 10 servants are put in charge of their master's finances, yet only 3 servants are highlighted just like in Parable of Talents.

Unlike the Parable of Talents, in Minas, each servant recieves the same 10 minas.

Yet, in Talents, each servant is given according to his ability...so what does a talent represent vs a minas. We all have individual and unique spiritual gifts, but we all have the same opportunity to mature. Assuming this is all in reference to Tribulation saints, this must tell us that they can all reach full maturity potential, but they all have different ways to fulfill God's protocol plan.

Church Age believers are King-priests (kings rule kingdoms/nations, not cities), yet, the mature TRIBULATION BELIEVERS who multiply their minas are awarded cities to rule. So maybe we are the kings of nations ruling over mayor/governors who are still (unresurrected) sinners. That emphasizes the need for king-PRIESTS. We will be ruling over believing sinners who have authority over a mix of believing and non-believing sinners.

Now lets look at the Parable of Virgins in Matt 25. There are 10 virgins, just like there are 10 servants in Minas. This time, instead of money, its oil. They are all invited to the Wedding Feast and they are waiting for it, so they are all believers. Therefore the oil must represent Bible Doctrine converted to Epignosis. Epignosis is the oil that will fuel the light until the Bridegroom arrives. The ones who didn't bring enough oil didn't have enough doctrine to sustain spiritual growth. In the last minute, the foolish ask for oil from the wise, but that would put the wise in a deficit. Does this mean the foolish believers will be asking for a crash-course bible study that would threaten to distract the wise from their duty???

I'm just thinking out loud here. That's why its all so disorganized. Feel free to jump in.

_________________
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, that's a good set of points for a framework. Gotta think them over a bit. Will respond more later.

It has come to my attention that the Mormons have their own 'spin' on Outer Darkness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_wo ... r_darkness
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/hell?lang=eng

Basically it's reversed to directly refer to hell (they don't seem to use the lake of fire or hell-- but rather outer darkness exclusively to umbrella it). From a satanic reversal perspective, this offers some hints.

We KNOW it's not hell, and it's being reversed into hell along with all of the corresponding variables for it to be such. So if we reverse it back: it's NOT hell, it's NOT reversed for unbelievers, it's NOT a literal 'place'.

Just thought I'd bring it up, since I wasn't aware satan gave this phrase special "cover-up" attention.

Interesting. Good points you make, as usual. Still, what if the term is both literal and yes is for the unsaved, but also analogous for the saved? Anonymenon thinks it's literal for some among the saved too, whereas I'm in the middle, seems more a spatial thing, like the heart of the new universe is the New Jerusalem (Rev 21), but there are backwater sections (far far away from the center). So it seems to me the abdicating/loser believers who are the many, will be usually there, excepting the entourages accompanying the kings toward the center.

Which makes me think the spatial quality of the heavenly kingdoms/'cities' is concentric, showing inner circles, then more outer, and subdivided, one 'king' per subdivision. The ancillary territory in the universe, under control likely of key kings (or in federation) are like colonies, and 'outer'. Like this:




That's just a guess. It just hit me while typing, so as usual feel free to dispute. To me this whole doctrine is chilling, and if you've heard me talk in the God Deeds audio series you know I don't like this doctrine. Too bad: God's right, I'm wrong.

Chilling, because it goes something like this: Okay, believer, you didn't want to be near my Son and His Word, but near your friends and your works and your false doctrines: so you now get what you wanted, forever. FAR AWAY from My Son, and near the backwaters of the universe among your many friends who loved works and false doctrine like you did.

Happy, but like children. I can't bear that idea. The only way around it is Matt 4:4 as much as possible, for that's voting to be near HIM. Why else want even to go to heaven?

@Brainout

Actually, since our last discussion on Matt 22 in the Three Salvations thread, I'm back to square 1. But it can still be both literal (temporarily) and figurative (potentially permanent).

_________________
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, well I'm sorta back to square one as well, for the same reasons. Seems to me the analogies in Matt8, 22, 25 deal with whether we did our 'job' in 'getting the Word out'. So 'we' in the OT is 'Jews', whether believing in Him or not, viz., Levites did not need to be saved, to be priests; they only had to be of the right tribe and without certain blemishes. So in the NT, only believers can be priests, but not learning Word has to have at least the stingy servant ramification...

We also need to determine whether the people in blemished cloths (in Matt 22) are believers or not.

I think they are. In that case, outer darkness could reflect the soul...that is if robes represent souls.

But then that puts lowest members of Church in outer darkness too, so that poses a contradiction (unless a double standard can be justified--I think not).

_________________
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 clothing is a standard of dress. Being dressed in Christ, Gal 3:27, being dressed in the Groom's provided Clothing. That verse shows it's a result of salvation. Positional. Paul's equating salvation with the clothing. So the guy in his own clothes at the wedding, isn't saved.

So the analogy seems to be, that if your soul is still in its own clothes, the soul didn't get saved per James 1:21 (taking off your clothing because you got God's Wisdom in the previous verses) ..but juridically you are saved, so now you're in heaven alright.. but at its outer regions. Precisely because you cannot go to hell?

That sounds correct, so in Matt 22, outer darkness would mean exclusion from the Wedding Feast for believers in bad clothes.

But, the Church/Bride is a body of souls. Even the lowest of the Church can't be excluded from the Feast, right? So the outer darkness of Matt 22 pertains to non-Church loser-believers.

_________________
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, it's commonly stated with some sense, that Church entire is in the Wedding Feast. We are indeed all there in Rev 4:1, sea of glass. But the Wedding feast happens later. On Earth. Rev 19:9, says "Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb."

Okay, so maybe not all the Harem gets invited to attend its own wedding? I'm just thinking out loud, back to square one.

So then at least in Mat 22's case, outer darkness is the literal darkness of earth as a result of Yowm Yehwah, but being left in that temporary darkness reflects the condition of their souls...literal as a result of spiritual. That makes the most sense to me in this specific case.

_________________
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 don't know it would be as a result of Yowm Yehwah nor would it be Earth being dark itself, since the Wedding Feast takes place after He arrives, and His Arrival is full of light when it should be night, Zech 14:7.

Yeah, didn't think about Zech 14. I guess outer darkness would best be described as a distance from God like we initially guessed. If we go by the pictographic translation of 'hhoshekh', then the word for darkness would come from the figurative concept of segregation and distance to describe the physical absence of light.

I've been playing around with pictographic translations, they seem to be pretty consistent. Might be thread worthy.

_________________
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.

pictographic translations? You mean Benner's ideas?

Yeah, its Benners idea, but I don't use any of his definitions, I just try to figure it out myself.

_________________
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, well you need Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, then. I don't think any of the online copies of his book will have pictures of that chart ('downloadable copy, here).

Mine is hardback, 1909. In one of my KJVOB videos, I spent time proving edwardpf123 didn't know Hebrew (and Jeff helped do that too). That link's video description explains why, but for your purposes its import is different: it has other links to Hebrew materials which might help you in your quest.

Every now and then I get bored and pick the first bible passage that comes up when I google "biblehub". In this case, it was Romans 2. I'm assuming that Romans 2 is addressing believers, and verses 5-11 are about Bema. We know that Bema will be an unpleasant experience as we watch our works of hypocrisy being judged and burned away, but Romans 2 calls it the day of wrath and revelation. When we refuse to use 1John 1:9, we store up wrath for ourselves at Bema. So it looks like on top of intense scrutiny, we will also be recieving punishment.

Now we all fail to remain in fellowship from time to time. That explains why some recieve more minas/talents/cities than others. However, when a believer is cast into darkness and weeping/gnashing, this is like the worst punishment possible. According to the Parables, those who recieve this wrath had no profit returns at all. They didn't even bank the money for easy interest. They are the only ones to recieve this level of wrath. These would be believers who never use 1John 1:9.

I guess this is what we've been discussing the whole time, but wow, this really just hit my. I've toured the local churches in my locality and none of them ever once mention 1John 1:9. That is possibly 99.99% of believers today never Rebounding. I hope that statistic is wrong.

*****
Notice the term, "every soul of man who does evil", this is a soul-salvation issue...maybe tying it to dirty garments of Matt 22.

_________________
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.

Really good passage and yeah, you're right, it ties to our topic well. The quotation ties to Psalm 62 and Prov 24, Matt 16:27, Job 34:11, slew of verses in the TSK* database.

Yeah, Thieme called the non-use of 1John1:9 the 'law of double punishment' in the 1992 Spiritual Dynamics series. I've got the notebooks so could find out exactly where he started teaching that, it's on the spine of one of the notebooks, if you want me to locate it.
. .
Notice how it all ties to 1Cor, esp. Chapter 3, 15. Paul actually wrote that first, according to his meter. Romans was written 56 AD and 1Cor, 18 months prior (assuming I didn't screw up the meter, lol).

But isn't it's a stretch to assume yet, "However, when a believer is cast into darkness and weeping/gnashing, this is like the worst punishment possible."

Again, since that phrasing is first used for the unsaved, even though logically it follows we saved have to have a parallel fate if we don't grow up in Him (for only He can cause the growth, so non-growth can only be due to rejection just as the unbeliever rejects) -- even though there is some kind of parallel fate, we can't yet say IN WHAT WAY it is parallel.

For like you and hupostasis and others noted prior, in heaven there is no more sorrow, etc.

Doesn't say no struggle. And, even down here, there are struggles we all like (for example, the struggle to type in these daft forum boxes).

*Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, database available in BW and many places on the web.

Well, the only reason I say that is because in Talents, the only ones to lose what was given to them (and have it given to the topgun) was the one who did absolutely nothing with the talent. So it's like that servant hit rock bottom. In my opinion, thats what outer darkness seems to be, rock-bottom of heaven.

_________________
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 "no more sorrow" does have somewhat of a minor contradiction with "wailing and gnashing of teeth".

Therefore we have the following options:
#1 IF both are related: the wailing and super nervousness occurs PRIOR to going into new jerusalem
#2 the wailing and nervousness is not related to "sorrow"
#3 [or] sorrow is linked to having biology on earth and problems associated with earth

I'm going with #2 (previously I was going with #3)

Again, we gotta prove that, hupostasis. Wailing and gnashing are not a minor contradiction, either.

Not saying there's no version which is true. That's the rub: if the unbeliever goes to hell for never believing, then there has to be a parallel of some other but like meaning for believers.

BELIEVING THE WORD is an ongoing need, for spiritual development, but the Word in question, is no longer merely the Gospel, once saved. It's the whole of Bible Doctrine.

So if I don't learn it, I'm not believing. If when I learn I limit that learning, I'm not believing. If I learn and learn and learn but don't live on it, again limit that believing.

Same 'crime'. So there must be a punishment. But, my guess is we then realize how just the punishment and are NOT unhappy as a result. There is contentment at receiving justice, even when that justice is against you. That's my guess, so far.

Perhaps an analogy can be drawn between Pisgah and outer darkness. Moses was not allowed to enter the Land because he disobeyed God by striking the stone. When Moses pleaded with God, God told Moses to look at the Land from the mountain. Moses desired to enter the Land, but accepted God's judgement. Perhaps contentment by justice?

Also what about Rev 21:24? New Jerusalem is for the Bride (so that must include ALL of Church), and it looks like it will provide light for the earth. But what does it mean when it says, "The kings of earth do bring their glory"????
Does this mean earthly kings will be able to visit New Jerusalem? If so, then aborted kings would have to watch from afar, wondering what its like. Same idea for the Wedding Feast; some are let in, some wish they could get in. And again, same for hell; some are saved, but nonbelievers wish they were in heaven (if only they would just believe).

I also noticed that Rev 21:24 has added text, which is interesting.

_________________
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.

Here's the text variances for you:

Wow, thanks for posting that. One version says that kings will bring their glory to New Jerusalem, while the other tries to be all inclusive (including aborted kings).

Its amazing how so many of the verses related to this topic have been added to. Kinda looks like Satan trying to hide doctrine from us, don't you think?

The contrast is very telling.

_________________
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, okay. Yeah, that ties to 1 Cor3 maybe, where everything got burned up but the person is saved.