Popular View of Hell Unknown in the OT

[ronharvey]

Originally Posted by crakjak

The Popular Concept of Hell Unknown to the Old Testament

Before we move to the gospel's teaching on hell, we want to think further concerning that the word gehenna (popularly mistranslated hell, as we'll see) didn't occur in the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint. Let's take a few paragraphs to let the significance of that fact soak in. In previous editions of this material, I merely remarked that prominent Old Testament characters like David and Abraham never heard the term or its equivalent. They were never threatened with eternal torment in hell or heard anything like our popular concept now. However, Gehenna's absence in the Old Testament is a much more serious omission than that. (The concepts in this section are suggested by Thomas B. Thayer in his 1855 Edition of Origin and History of the Doctrine of Endless Punishment.)
Before the Mosaic Law

Adam and Eve in the Garden

When God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, he never mentioned the concept of eternal torment to them. Read for yourself-it's just not there. Don't you think it strange that as human history began on this planet, while God explained which tree they could not eat of, that he didn't give the parents of all mankind some kind of warning about eternal punishment, if there was potential for it to be in their future, and the future of all their posterity?

Most of us think eternal torment will engulf the vast majority of mankind, nearly all of Adam and Eve's descendents, yet here's a father, God, who didn't warn his children of the potential of what might befall them. What would you think of a father who told his young child not to ride his bike in the street, and if he did, he would get a spanking. Suppose he also planned to roast him over a roaring fire for fifty years? After he spanked him, would you think him a just father for not warning his child? Can you think of an apology or a defense for him? Yet to Adam and Eve, the father of all mankind failed to mention a much greater punishment than the death they would die the day they ate of the forbidden tree. Was this just a slip of the mind on God's part, to not mention at all the interminable terrible woes that lay ahead for the vast majority of their descendants? No, God announced to them a tangible present punishment the very day they committed the sin: “In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” They found that the wages of sin was death.

Cain and Abel

The same is true with Cain and Abel, a case of murder of a brother. Surely, we would think that God might roll out the threat of eternal torment that Cain was to receive as a warning to all future generations. In the whole account, there's not a hint, not a single word on the subject. Instead, Cain is told, “And now art thou cursed from the earth...When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.” Again, Cain received an immediate, tangible physical punishment administered, with absolutely no warning of future eternal torment. Like Adam, Cain heard none of the dire warnings preached from pulpits of the fiery wrath of God, tormenting his soul throughout eternity.

Now, if Cain were to receive such punishment from God without warning, would God be a just lawgiver and judge to impose additional, infinitely greater punishment with no word of caution whatsoever? In Gen. 4.15, God said, “Therefore, whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him seven-fold.” If, with no warning, Cain was going to receive eternal fiery torment, would those who killed him receive seven times endless fiery torment?

I'm not making light of endless torment, I'm just pointing out that it's remarkable that God hadn't said a word about it thus far in the Bible story.

Noah and the Flood

When we come to Noah and the flood, God noted that “every thought of man's heart was only evil continually,” and that “the earth was filled with violence, and all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.” If not before, wouldn't this be the ideal time to reveal eternal torment ahead for nearly all inhabitants of the earth? If any circumstances warranted such punishment, this would be the time, would it not? However, Noah, “a preacher of righteousness,” didn't threaten endless punishment to evildoers. If warnings of such punishment serve to turn man aside from his evil way, surely this would have been the time to have revealed it, but there's nary a whisper of it. Instead, they were destroyed by the flood, a physical, tangible punishment for their sin, with absolutely no warning of endless torment. Nor was there such a warning when mankind inhabited the earth again after the flood. One word from God might have set the world on an entirely different course. Surprisingly no such word was given.

Sodom and Gomorrah

We could go on with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the physical destruction of the cities and their inhabitants, with not even a rumor of endless future torment that we probably think they unknowingly faced. What would we think if our government passed a new law with a huge fine as the punishment, but when a guilty party was found, he paid the fine, but also had to serve endless torment that the citizens had no warning of? What kind of judge explains the law and known penalty, while carefully concealing a much more awful penalty? What would the penalty of a few thousand dollars matter in a case where he was also going to be tormented horribly and endlessly? Yet the popular concept is that the Sodomites were sent into such a judgment.

We could go through the accounts of the builders of the tower of Babel, the destruction of Pharaoh and his armies, and Lot's wife, yet we would notice the same thing. All these received a temporal physical punishment, with no mention of an infinitely greater torturous punishment awaiting them in the future.

Was this teaching deliberately excluded from the record, or did it never belong? We know that it isn't there. Neither the word gehenna nor the concept of endless torment was given in the millennia before the giving of the Law of Moses. From the creation to Mt. Sinai, there was simply no insinuation of it in the entirety of human history up to that time. By the conclusion of this study, we'll see that God never had a plan of inflicting such dreadful torment on the people of his own creation.

Excerpts from Samuel Dawson's: "Jesus Teaching on Hell"

I cannot say I completely understand your position on the subject but would be glad to give a synopsis of what I understand.

NOTE: I will need to look it up again but I believe the Septuagint does use the word Hades where Sheol appears in Hebrew.

Jesus did refer to Gehenna in the NT, one can cross reference that to Tophet in the OT (See my thread on "What Hell do you mean")

1. The OT was plain that the punishment of the wicked is death.
2. The world outside those of the covenant has no promise of a resurrection.
3. The resurrection would produce two types of expectations: those who will die again (After their Judgment) and those who will inherit eternal life.
4. The wicked will be cast into a lake burning with fire and brimstone and annihilated from existence (The second death).
5. Those outside of the covenant never rise again: they remain dead.

This is my brief take on the subject.

Ron

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I am not kidding by any means. We can never ascertain God's potential for anything and make a doctrine out of the ramifications, since His nature is unfathomable. As caring and loving as He is, He hates the least sin more than we hate the greatest sin, if they can measured. He has more love than anyone can imagine but he also has more anger than anyone can imagine.

Where in scripture do we understand that God hates sin more than he loves? God created us in His image, as a born again Spirit-filled believer I can not fathom casting away one of my children, or ever giving up on them. If I am created in His image and am filled with His Spirit, should I be able to ascertain something of his nature? Is it possible that I could be more loving than God?

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by ronharvey

I cannot say I completely understand your position on the subject but would be glad to give a synopsis of what I understand.

NOTE: I will need to look it up again but I believe the Septuagint does use the word Hades where Sheol appears in Hebrew.

Jesus did refer to Gehenna in the NT, one can cross reference that to Tophet in the OT (See my thread on "What Hell do you mean")

1. The OT was plain that the punishment of the wicked is death.
2. The world outside those of the covenant has no promise of a resurrection.
3. The resurrection would produce two types of expectations: those who will die again (After their Judgment) and those who will inherit eternal life.
4. The wicked will be cast into a lake burning with fire and brimstone and annihilated from existence (The second death).
5. Those outside of the covenant never rise again: they remain dead.

This is my brief take on the subject.

Ron

Maybe this can expand your take on the subject:

"Hell" Is Not an Old Testament doctrine:

Popular myth : Hell is an established Biblical doctrine that is in the Bible from start to finish. This is not true! Two thirds of the Bible (the Old Testament) does not mention Hell at all. ("Sheol," the Old Testament word that is sometimes translated as Hell, only means "grave" by definition, and it is where everyone in the Old Testament went when they died--good or evil, Jew or Gentile). Thus the Old Testament does not contain the concept of Hell!

Think about it...

If Hell is real, why didn't God make that warning plain right at the beginning of the Bible? God said the penalty for eating of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was death- -not "eternal life" in fire and brimstone.

If Hell is real, why wasn't Cain warned about it, or Sodom and Gomorrah , or any of those who committed the earliest recorded "sins?"

If Hell is real why didn't Moses warn about this fate in the Ten Commandments or the Mosaic Covenant consisting of over 600 laws, ordinances, and warnings? The Mosaic Law simply stated blessings and cursings in this lifetime.

If Hell is real, why are its roots in paganism, rather than the Bible? Many nations surrounding Israel in the Old Testament believed in Hell-like punishment in the afterlife, for they served bloodthirsty and evil "gods," while Israel simply taught the grave (sheol) and a hope of a resurrection. If Hell is real, why was the revelation of it first given to pagan nations, instead of God's covenant people? Did God expect Israel to learn about the afterlife from the Pagan Gentiles? If so, why did He repeatedly warn Israel to not learn of their ways?

If Hell is real, why did God tell the Jews that burning their children alive in the fire to the false god Molech, (in the valley of Gehenna ) was so detestable to Him? God said that such a thing "never even entered His mind" (Jer. 32:35). How could God say such a thing to Israel , if He has plans to burn alive a good majority of His own creation in a spiritual and eternal Gehenna of His own making?

**FACT: The King James Bible erroneously translates the word "Sheol" as Hell a total of 31 times in the Old Testament, thus setting a foundation for that doctrine in the New Testament as well as the majority of Bible translations to follow the KJV. Even so, most new translations have completely eliminated Hell from the Old Testament, as honest and better scholarship has demanded. The Jewish version of the Old Testament (the Tanakh) has no concept of Hell in it. The importance of this fact cannot be over-emphasized. If a doctrine does not appear as seed form in the books of the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms, it cannot fairly be taught as a major biblical doctrine, if indeed it can be taught as biblical at all!

Aiken

[ronharvey]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Maybe this can expand your take on the subject:

"Hell" Is Not an Old Testament doctrine:

Popular myth : Hell is an established Biblical doctrine that is in the Bible from start to finish. This is not true! Two thirds of the Bible (the Old Testament) does not mention Hell at all. ("Sheol," the Old Testament word that is sometimes translated as Hell, only means "grave" by definition, and it is where everyone in the Old Testament went when they died--good or evil, Jew or Gentile). Thus the Old Testament does not contain the concept of Hell!

Think about it...

If Hell is real, why didn't God make that warning plain right at the beginning of the Bible? God said the penalty for eating of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was death- -not "eternal life" in fire and brimstone.

If Hell is real, why wasn't Cain warned about it, or Sodom and Gomorrah , or any of those who committed the earliest recorded "sins?"

If Hell is real why didn't Moses warn about this fate in the Ten Commandments or the Mosaic Covenant consisting of over 600 laws, ordinances, and warnings? The Mosaic Law simply stated blessings and cursings in this lifetime.

If Hell is real, why are its roots in paganism, rather than the Bible? Many nations surrounding Israel in the Old Testament believed in Hell-like punishment in the afterlife, for they served bloodthirsty and evil "gods," while Israel simply taught the grave (sheol) and a hope of a resurrection. If Hell is real, why was the revelation of it first given to pagan nations, instead of God's covenant people? Did God expect Israel to learn about the afterlife from the Pagan Gentiles? If so, why did He repeatedly warn Israel to not learn of their ways?

If Hell is real, why did God tell the Jews that burning their children alive in the fire to the false god Molech, (in the valley of Gehenna ) was so detestable to Him? God said that such a thing "never even entered His mind" (Jer. 32:35). How could God say such a thing to Israel , if He has plans to burn alive a good majority of His own creation in a spiritual and eternal Gehenna of His own making?

**FACT: The King James Bible erroneously translates the word "Sheol" as Hell a total of 31 times in the Old Testament, thus setting a foundation for that doctrine in the New Testament as well as the majority of Bible translations to follow the KJV. Even so, most new translations have completely eliminated Hell from the Old Testament, as honest and better scholarship has demanded. The Jewish version of the Old Testament (the Tanakh) has no concept of Hell in it. The importance of this fact cannot be over-emphasized. If a doctrine does not appear as seed form in the books of the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms, it cannot fairly be taught as a major biblical doctrine, if indeed it can be taught as biblical at all!

Aiken

Actually, translating Hades and Sheol Hell is not erroneous.

The Old English word "hell" meant to BURY something e.g. "helling potatoes."

Ron

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Where in scripture do we understand that God hates sin more than he loves?

I never said He does. But where in scripture does it say he hates sin less than he loves?

God created us in His image, as a born again Spirit-filled believer I can not fathom casting away one of my children, or ever giving up on them.

Jesus called people children of the devil and not God. The fact is that sinners are not his children. So he is not casting any of His children away, but neither is he sending anybody else to hell. They are going there of their own accord and He is bidding them to use their free will (not focring them) to stop going there.

If I am created in His image and am filled with His Spirit, should I be able to ascertain something of his nature? Is it possible that I could be more loving than God?

It has nothing to do with that sort of assuming. It has to do with God being so great that we are in actuality kidding ourselves if we think we can put Him beneath a microscope and claim to know His nature.

That is the reason the Jews simply never ever delved into studying His nature. They felt it was an insult to analyze God. Just let Him be God and let Him do what He chooses, and let's not try to predict anything that is not plainly stated in scripture. If He wanted us to know about it, He would have plainly stated it and not left it to conjecture.

We can imagine the possibilities, but that is all. Leave it with imagination and hope for the best as best as we can imagine correctly (which we will find is so lacking we will be embarrassed one day), and let things work out the way God will work them out. There is far too much truth plainly written in scripture to delve into and spend our time with than to try to imagine what He may or may not due according to what we think His nature is.

I say these things because for a few years I did what I now consider was wasting my time studying and thinking and proposing things the scriptures simply NEVER emphasized.

I was actually bored at the thought of the cross. I mean, I thought, how much can a guy learn about the cross? Jesus died for our sins and rose again. Okay. Got that one down. Other topic, please? But then revelation understanding hit my Spirit and the works of the cross so captivated everything I thought about that even prophecy came to fall under the canopy of the work of the cross! From then on I vowed to never delve into things the bible did not emphasize. So then I looked for what Christ and the apostles stressed. Walking after the Spirit, Spirit leading, Christ and Him crucified -- and not surmisings about that cross but what the in-depth teachings actually said about it.

The fate of people's eternity was nowhere near as emphasized in every possible scenario as much as simply learning to deny self now and let His Spirit lead. Everything else falls into the shadows.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I never said He does. But where in scripture does it say he hates sin less than he loves?



Jesus called people children of the devil and not God. The fact is that sinners are not his children. So he is not casting any of His children away, but neither is he sending anybody else to hell. They are going there of their own accord and He is bidding them to use their free will (not focring them) to stop going there.



It has nothing to do with that sort of assuming. It has to do with God being so great that we are in actuality kidding ourselves if we think we can put Him beneath a microscope and claim to know His nature.

That is the reason the Jews simply never ever delved into studying His nature. They felt it was an insult to analyze God. Just let Him be God and let Him do what He chooses, and let's not try to predict anything that is not plainly stated in scripture. If He wanted us to know about it, He would have plainly stated it and not left it to conjecture.

We can imagine the possibilities, but that is all. Leave it with imagination and hope for the best as best as we can imagine correctly (which we will find is so lacking we will be embarrassed one day), and let things work out the way God will work them out. There is far too much truth plainly written in scripture to delve into and spend our time with than to try to imagine what He may or may not due according to what we think His nature is.

I say these things because for a few years I did what I now consider was wasting my time studying and thinking and proposing things the scriptures simply NEVER emphasized.

I was actually bored at the thought of the cross. I mean, I thought, how much can a guy learn about the cross? Jesus died for our sins and rose again. Okay. Got that one down. Other topic, please? But then revelation understanding hit my Spirit and the works of the cross so captivated everything I thought about that even prophecy came to fall under the canopy of the work of the cross! From then on I vowed to never delve into things the bible did not emphasize. So then I looked for what Christ and the apostles stressed. Walking after the Spirit, Spirit leading, Christ and Him crucified -- and not surmisings about that cross but what the in-depth teachings actually said about it.

The fate of people's eternity was nowhere near as emphasized in every possible scenario as much as simply learning to deny self now and let His Spirit lead. Everything else falls into the shadows.

I actually appreicate this post, Michael, though we may disagree on what is "..actually said", I do believe simplicity is a virtue.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by ronharvey

Actually, translating Hades and Sheol Hell is not erroneous.

The Old English word "hell" meant to BURY something e.g. "helling potatoes."

Ron

Correct: as in burying in the grave, yes Hades and Sheol is certainly properly translated as the grave as you described from the Old English. Yet, not hell as in the traditional sense.