Outer Darkness?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

People like Darby, Nee & Lee, Calvin once had their place. They rejected traditions of men & looked at scripture & asked, "What does it mean?" But their question really was, "What does it mean to me?" Now we're beginning to ask, "What did this mean to Jesus, to John and Peter and Paul, to first-century readers?" We must be a little more cautious with our assertions. But I find them to be rewarding questions to ask.

As an example, if you consider what "outer darkness" meant without consulting supporting documents like the Book of Enoch, your answer will be short. Yes, it's not scripture, I know, but is cited by scripture (Jude) and is probably referenced by Jesus in passages like Lazarus and the rich man, and "an evil spirit goes out of a man and travels through waterless places seeking rest". The fact that copies were found at Qumran, and that the Ethiopian churches preserved copies is significant. It was part of the conversation, and informed the understandings of things like judgment, reward, and "many stripes". People like John Darby and Watchman Nee lacked such resources. We do not.

Interesting . . . Please elaborate more - what do you see as the meaning of "outer darkness?"

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Interesting . . . Please elaborate more - what do you see as the meaning of "outer darkness?"

To go back to my point - the question is not, "What do you see as the meaning" today any more than what Calvin saw in the 16th century or Darby in the 19th. The question is, "What did this term mean in 1st-century Judea?" There are two reinforcing lines of inquiry. In one, we look at the word or phrase or concept. The actual idea conveyed - remember that Jesus was a rabbi, a teacher, as well as a prophet. In parables he was a rabbi.

I've gone into this at length with 'ekklesia' - Jesus didn't invent a term wholecloth in Matt. 16. See, e.g., the LXX of Psalm 1 and Psalm 22 (cf Heb 2:12).

So don't expect anyone to spoonfeed you; if you want answers, you'll have to dig. But that's where contemporary scholarship comes in.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

To go back to my point - the question is not, "What do you see as the meaning" today any more than what Calvin saw in the 16th century or Darby in the 19th. The question is, "What did this term mean in 1st-century Judea?" There are two reinforcing lines of inquiry. In one, we look at the word or phrase or concept. The actual idea conveyed - remember that Jesus was a rabbi, a teacher, as well as a prophet. In parables he was a rabbi.

I've gone into this at length with 'ekklesia' - Jesus didn't invent a term wholecloth in Matt. 16. See, e.g., the LXX of Psalm 1 and Psalm 22 (cf Heb 2:12).

So don't expect anyone to spoonfeed you; if you want answers, you'll have to dig. But that's where contemporary scholarship comes in.

No, I was asking what you, personally, thought was the meaning of outer darkness.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

No, I was asking what you, personally, thought was the meaning of outer darkness.

To me, outer darkness is separation from God.

Scripture shows us 3 falls: the fall of Satan, the fall of man, and the fall of the angels. Note that Genesis 6 occurs after Genesis 3. And this isn't extraneous to the Christian's mind because both Jude and 2 Peter spent time on the cause and consequences of the third fall. If you want to peer into darkness, read those chapters. "When light becomes dark, how great is the dark!"

Loren Stuckenbrucks book on the fall of the angels is really enlightening.

It is all about one thing - obedience. The Son loved the Father and obeyed, and the Father delighted in the Son and and raised him to glory.

Jesus dealt with all 3 falls. Most people I talk to only are aware of the first two. But to ascertain unseen realms as Jesus and his disciples might have - then clarity and dimension begin to emerge. Suddenly everything has its imperative, holistic sense. As you do, so it will be done to you. It's so simple even a Galilean fisherman can grasp it. And yet a Pharisee is in awe of its brilliance.

Do not do unto others as they do to you; rather do unto others as you would have them do. Outwardly, not much will change, at least in the beginning. But inwardly it is the difference between heaven and hell. I believe it is our path across that great gap. "And where I am going, you know the way."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

To me, outer darkness is separation from God.

Could we say more specifically that outer darkness is separation from God during the wedding dinner of His Son?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Could we say more specifically that outer darkness is separation from God during the wedding dinner of His Son?

Wedding feast = 1000 year reign?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Could we say more specifically that outer darkness is separation from God during the wedding dinner of His Son?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Wedding feast = 1000 year reign?

The important thing for me as a Christian is to separate what is "truth" with what is "interpretation".

What is objective "truth" for the Christian believer: 1) God raised Jesus from the dead on the third day; 2) God loved the world so much that He sent His only begotten Son; 3) If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, you will be saved; 4) &c, &c, &c.

To me that is "Truth". A teaching, or interpretation, is on the meaning of a parable, or the "rapture" versus the "tribulation". Those are our hermeneutical or narrative overlays.

Even my "There are 3 falls in scripture" (post #329) is an interpretation. There maybe more than 3 falls. . . and the Genesis 6 story, even though seemingly alluded to in Jude v.6 and 2 Peter 2:4, is not necessarily the same as the "one third of the stars" swept down by the dragon's tail in Revelation 12:4. We may connect the proverbial dots, or find 'correlation' as Evangelical says, but that is our personal interpretation, not truth.

I've already said why I think the "1,000 years of darkness" is unsatisfactory for me. Evangelical admits it's a theological bandage to bridge the gap between "OSAS" and "Arminianism". Arguably preferable to either of them, but "recovered truth"? A stretch. My main issue is that the two NT sections (Hebrews 2 & 1 Cor 10) covering the fall of the Israelites in the Wilderness doesn't answer what happened to Moses. If falling in the Wilderness means eternal perdition, why is Moses on the mountain with Jesus in the gospels? If it means "dispensational punishment" then why does Moses skip the 1,000 years of "summer school"? God is not a respecter of persons; if Moses gets transformed by the age of the gospels, then others may be as well. And if the OT Israelites are, why not the Christians?

Secondly, 1,0000 years of "wailing and gnashing of teeth" seems somewhat arbitrary and not like the God seen in the Bible. Evangelical says "same time, different severity" for the punishment. Perhaps, perhaps not. That is an interpretation, not truth.

And Drake says that I'm supposed to offer an alternative. No, I'm not. I'm not supposed to give a definitive interpretation of every Bible verse. I've already stated what I believe to be the truth - see above. To some extent I'm willing to live with the unknown. And that doesn't mean we "disregard judgment" if we say that we don't have to systematize our parables. It just means that we want to make up our own mind, our own way. Why did Nee get to read all those books and pick his understanding, and we don't? What if we don't want to be spoon-fed someone's private interpretation as our 'reality'?

On to Lazarus and the Rich Man, and Outer Darkness. Interestingly, the Rich Man is "in torment" and yet we're told that "he lived luxuriously" on earth. How are those commensurate? Because in both, the RM was separated from God. His wining and dining was to cover the fact that inside he was miserable, separated from his Creator. When he was dead, the wine was gone and bare torment was left. In both cases (alive on earth and dead in Hades), the separation and darkness was the same.

And it makes no difference to me whether the Lazarus and the RM is a "true story" or a "Parable". In either case there is a message. And the message of Scripture is consistent.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Loren Stuckenbrucks book on the fall of the angels is really enlightening.

Thanks. But only Prosperity Preachers can afford his books.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks. But only Prosperity Preachers can afford his books.

It's called "Interlibrary Loan".. most libraries have them. The book is widespread enough that most libraries have one in their network.

Also Annette Yoshiko Reed did a book on the fall of the angels. Not as good but still readable.

The alternative is either: 1) to pretend this subject is irrelevant (and ignore Jude and 2 Peter and Genesis 6); 2) to find yourself on a website where they are telling you about the Annunaki and alien giants; or 3) to listen to some home-brewed Protestant or post-Protestant teaching like Lee put out. Or didn't, as the case may be. You know, the old Calvinist "this means that" stuff.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

It's called "Interlibrary Loan".. most libraries have them. The book is widespread enough that most libraries have one in their network.

Also Annette Yoshiko Reed did a book on the fall of the angels. Not as good but still readable.

The alternative is either: 1) to pretend this subject is irrelevant (and ignore Jude and 2 Peter and Genesis 6); 2) to find yourself on a website where they are telling you about the Annunaki and alien giants; or 3) to listen to some home-brewed Protestant or post-Protestant teaching like Lee put out. Or didn't, as the case may be. You know, the old Calvinist "this means that" stuff.

I have both the hard and Kindle copies of "Fallen Angels - and The Origins of Evil - Why the Church Fathers Suppressed the Book of Enoch and its Starling Revelations." by Elizabeth Prophet.

And yes, most Christians won't touch the subject. I find it fascinating.