Paul’s Summation (3)
“Behold, his soul is puffed up, it is not upright within him, but the righteous shall live by his faith.” Habakkuk 2:4 ESV
Righteous – What does it mean to say, “He is righteous”? Would you answer, “That means he has a right relationship with God”? Answers like this are common among Christians, but maybe not so common among Hebrews. That’s because the Hebrew word tsaddiq takes a little different direction. Its first occurrences in Scripture are associated with the role of judges. In other words, tsaddiq describes honest, truthful, legitimate legal decisions. Tsaddiq is conformity to a standard. Whether that standard involves human relationships or physical properties (like weights and measures), the basic idea behind tsaddiq is alignment with a known ethical and moral measuring rod. In the Hebraic worldview, this measuring rod is not merely a cultural norm. It is a measuring rod set by God’s revealed instructions for living. In other words, God’s standard is Torah. This is why there is no distinction in Torah between spiritual expectations and civil regulations. Torah is the standard for all human behavior in the Hebraic world. In the tribal cultural of Israel, to be righteous is to be in conformity with Torah.
“Wait a minute!” you complain. “Are you saying that righteousness doesn’t depend on Jesus? Are you telling me that all I need is to conform to the Law? What about forgiveness? What about being saved?” OK, OK. One at a time. If righteousness is conformity to Torah, then we all have a problem. We have all disobeyed. That’s Paul’s point when he quotes Habakkuk. God’s word through Habakkuk reiterates the standard. None of us have met it. Therefore, we need help. We need a way to meet the standard in spite of our disobedience. Yeshua’s sacrifice exonerates us. We are released from the death sentence. We are rescued. But that doesn’t mean Torah no longer applies. It is still the standard. As we shall see, the man whose life is measured by Torah lives by his “faith” (we still have to understand what this word means). It doesn’t say that he dies by Torah. It says he lives by Torah. Once the guilt associated with his past disobedience has been overcome, he is able to live by the standard.
The biblical view is that tsaddiq applies equally to everyone, rich or poor, high or low, slave or free. It applies to all nations in all circumstances in every time. Why? Because Torah reflects the character of God and in this created universe, God’s standard is the only standard. This biblical claim was the reason the Romans hated Judaism. Judaism’s exclusivity, its intolerance toward any other cultural standard, was abhorrent to the liberalism of Rome. It is still abhorrent today. The implication that all other measuring rods are inadequate or false incites non-believers to intense animosity. But the Bible doesn’t really care. It presents one uniform message. God sets the standard. Men either accept that standard or they do not. Those who do not are outside the Kingdom.
If tsaddiq is a description of living in accordance with God’s instructions (Torah), then where did the Christian idea of living apart from Torah originate? No one will argue that tsaddiq means anything except conformity to God’s standard. So how did we decide that the standard no longer applies? When did tsaddiq become a synonym for “forgiveness without a measuring rod”?
Topical Index: tsaddiq, righteous, Torah, Habakkuk 2:4
Can you clarify what you mean by Torah, some believe it’s the first five books in the Hebrew Bible, some argue it’s the ten commandaments – what dou you believe is the appropriate defenition.
Many regards
Technically, Torah is the first five books, but by the first century, the word was used to cover all of the Hebrew Scriptures. Torah was NEVER limited to the 10 commandments since they are merely summaries of the instructions (as is obvious not only from Moses’ elaboration but also from Yeshua’s elaboration in Matthew).
If by the word “Torah”, we mean teaching/ instruction can’t we then rightly include the Brit Chadasha (New Testament) into our broad definition of Torah, since it both teaches and instructs and is both claimed and proclaimed as”inspired”?
We – the messianic community – can include the Brit Chadasha, but it wouldn’t have been used that way in the first century.
“This biblical claim was the reason the Romans hated Judaism. Judaism’s exclusivity, its intolerance toward any other cultural standard, was abhorrent to the liberalism of Rome. It is still abhorrent today. ”
When in Rome, do as the Romans do…didn’t that bring judgment for the children of Israel? With regard to replacement theology, shouldn’t that send a shiver up many a Christian’s spine?
The exclusivity of Israel’s claim didn’t bring judgment on the children of Israel. It was their failure to live by this claim that resulted in the captivity. And Rome’s failure to understand the truth of the claim had the same effect. So it is today. As we drift more and more toward “tolerance,” we risk more and more the same judgment.
In so much as the Saducces apparently liked the status of hierarchy and became too schmoozy with the Roman government, they (Sadduces) were blind to the reality of what was taking place. They were forfeiting The Messiah for the power and privilege they had come to expect. They lived well above the ones they were supposed to serve and used what appears to be dishonest tactics to destroy their “competition”. In this way, they were no different (in certain ways WORSE) than the Roman government.
Overall, how could the Romans be expected to see the Light when shown darkness, such as the example of Israel’s leadership during that time? Blurred vision leads to blurry lines.
Just some thoughts.
Interesting also how the Sadduccees were ‘biblical reductionists’. They upheld Torah, but specifically the parts that backed up their priestly authority. So the eyes of the Sadduccee is only and continually drawn to the parts of scripture that back up their position.
Isn’t this also the case with our modern church?
After all, if one does not believe in resurrection, go for it…the one with the most toys/status/power/authority wins!
Yes, I view today’s turmoil in the US over constitutional correctness as one of judgment for the hypocrisy of talking about its validity but stepping all over it to promote political agendas. Skip wrote recently about mocking the poor…I see this lack of regard for the laws of the US as mocking Torah, since many claim Judeo/Christian principles used the commandments as the basis for the legal system. And I view all of this as the result of theology gone awry. Nothing new under the sun.
Tseddiq or Tsaddiq? Two spellings same word?
Intolerance of my previous ‘culture’ was what brought me to Christianity. My own experience and the scriptures themselves witnessed to the vanity of my ‘cultural norms’.
If we avoid lust, then we will also (without any need for a written law) avoid physical acts of adultery. The letter of this law is still valid.
If we do not covet, then we will (without any need for a written law) not steal.
This law is also valid in the letter.
If we are not angry at our brother, we will (without any need for a written law) not murder.
Again, the letter is valid.
Keeping the spirit of the law has thwarted these sins at their very source.
Everyone (I hope) agrees it would be wrong to ignore any of God’s commands. So I’m not fighting against God’s laws. I, in fact, love them.
Respectful question:
Can’t we say the old is removed from the dimensions of space/time and transferred into the spiritual dimension of attitude and interpersonal relationships?
Don’t we as parents make/prompt our kids to say “thank you”, –but so much more delight when the day comes that it springs from their little hearts?
Reply to the question about transferring into the spiritual dimension. Where does the idea of a “spiritual dimension” come from? Do you find it in the Tanakh, separate from manifestation in the physical? Does the concept of a spiritual dimension tend to lead us to think of it as superior to the physical or push us toward an implicit dualism? If the human being is nephesh, ONE embodied person, then what does a “spiritual dimension” mean? The conceptualization of the world as divided between physical and spiritual is a reflection of the Platonic idea of the world. We speak this way today because we have incorporated this dualism into our very language, but I am not sure you can point to any Scriptural basis for it in Hebrew. Reflections of the heavenly reality are not the same as a dualism between the spiritual and the physical.
I tremble to reply, — please keep in mind I am sincere, so will yet speak once more.
Back at creation, the body is clay from the earth –fashioned wonderfully and magnificantly–, but still like a peice of pottery to serve in, and the soul is a spark of the Divine. The soul leaves the clay behind and returns to God who gave it, the body returns to dust. That seems separate — tho they mix all our lives with instincts, emotions, will, and mind.
Best example in my life: Sometimes (often) my dumb body doesn’t want to get up early to pray, but my spirit does want to speak to our Father, so we wrestle and (sadly) sometimes one wins and (yay!) sometimes the other.
Seems separate to me and I do not like Plato. uugggh, I hope you don’t tell me it is.
*excerpt from Hebrew4Christians.com 🙂
Opening the door of the heart is a picture of the Spirit of God indwelling the believer, and this image also coheres with the idea that part of Aleph (God) is joined with Dalet (broken humanity) to form the fifth letter; hey.
Thank you for your patience with my questions. I mean that.
Everything on this blog is important, so don’t feel the least bit concerned about sharing. I am quite sure many others are also struggling with understanding the Western paradigmatic view on body and soul. Here’s the first step in getting an Hebraic view. Try reading the Genesis passages WITHOUT the preconceived idea of a body-soul dichotomy. Genesis simply says that “dust” (not clay, and there is a reason for this) is gathered together and God breathes the breath of life into it. The dust has no particular value prior to God’s action, but there is no Man formed without it. The Man does NOT exist apart from this “dust.” He isn’t a “spark of the divine” encased in a body (that is a very Greek – Platonic idea). He just ISN’T until God brings the breath of life to the dust. From this the rabbis suggest that when we die, the breath returns to God and the dust returns to the earth and we CEASE TO EXIST. We do not exist as if we “own” the breath of life that animates us. We don’t own it. It is God’s and is always God’s even though we have it on loan. When we die, our dust returns to the dust as all dust does but we do not exist as some sort of “soul” spirit. We just simply stop being. We “sleep in the ground” until the day comes when God resurrects us AS ANIMATED BODIES again.
The concept of the immortality of the soul is a Babylonian pagan idea that was adopted by Greek philosophy in the 5th century BC. If we had time (and a lot of it), we could trace this idea back to its formation and discover that it is NOT biblical, even though it becomes part of the thought of Judaism as a result of Hellenistic influence. From Greek philosophy it finds its way into Christian thinking through the early Church fathers (who were heavily influenced by Plato). I provide a quote from Jacques Ellul about this (which will later be part of a TW).
“Hebrew thought was sown in a field nourished by Greek thought and Roman law. [in a footnote] A familiar example of the mutation to which revelation was actually subjected is its contamination by the Greek idea of the immorality of the soul. I will briefly recall it. In Jewish thought death is total. There is no immortal soul, no division of body and soul. Paul’s thinking is Jewish in this regard. The soul belong to the “psychical” realm and is part of the flesh. The body is the whole being. In death, there is no separation of body and soul. The soul is as mortal as the body. But there is a resurrection. Out of the nothingness that human life becomes, God creates anew the being that was dead. This is a creation by grace; there is no immortal soul intrinsic to us. Greek philosophy, however, introduces among theologians the idea of the immortal soul. The belief was widespread in popular religion and it was integrated into Christianity. But it is a total perversion. Everything is not now dependent on the grace of God, and assurance of immortality comes to be evaluated by virtues and works. All Christian thinking is led astray by this initial mutation that comes through Greek philosophy and Near Eastern cults. . . . belief in the soul’s celestial immortality arose in the second half of the fifth century B.C. on the basis of astronomy. Pythagorean astronomy radically transformed the idea of the destiny of the soul held by Mediterranean peoples. For the notion of a vital breath that dissipates at death, for belief in a survival of shades wandering about in the subterranean realm of the dead, it substitutes the notion of a soul of celestial substance exiled in this world. This idea completely contaminates biblical thinking, gradually replaces the affirmation of the resurrection, and transforms the kingdom of the dead into the kingdom of God.”
Thank you so much for claryfying – I am currently doing a Bible college essay on this exact topic and listening to your teaching on Heschel. I have come across a number of views which don’t seem to be grounded in scripture – for instance, the idea of the soul’s immortality and ‘transmigration of the soul’ / or reincarnation even amongst a Jewish messianic community, along with Kabalistic thought most likely culminating in the middle ages.
When I read the passage in the Bible about Saul consulting the witch to summon the prophet ‘Samuel’ – are we to understand that the summoned spirit was not Samuel’s – I personally lean towards this explanation.
And when David referred to his dead child from Bathsheba, he said, ” But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.” this seems to suggest that – there was an understanding that there is recognition/awareness of identity in the resting place, Sheol? what are your thoughts on this one?
many regards
“In death, there is no separation of body and soul. The soul is as mortal as the body.” When I read the Scriptures, I see many of them that contradict what Ellel is saying. Such as when Jesus said: “Do not fear them who can kill the body, but cannot kill the soul”. Or Paul when he talks about being “absent from the body, at home with the Lord.”, or “I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better.” Also Stephen when he says “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” upon his death by stoning, and for that matter, the Lord Jesus Himself when he said “Into your hands I commit my Spirit” when His earthly body expired. These are just some of them I can think of offhand. Also, assuming the rich man and Lazarus is a parable, would Jesus speak of conciousness after death if such a thing wasn’t reality. I have doubts that He would.
Also Jesus seems to be correcting Martha’s thinking with the response: “He that believes in me, though he were dead, yet he shall live, and whosoever lives and believes in me shall never die.”
Personally I don’t think I would know the difference if I was instantly translated to heaven upon death, or thousands of years from now after ceasing to exist and being re-created. I would just close my eyes at death, and open them at the resurrection. Either way I have a heavenly hope, and that will always be a comfort to me. Jesus has said, ” I go to prepare a place for you”.
Good examples for further discussion. First, I would be very careful about reading what Yeshua says from the GREEK texts. We know he didn’t teach in Greek and we know that Greek has NO single word that captures what nephesh means in Hebrew, so right away we have a translation problem. If you back-translate to Hebrew, you might get something very different in the statements from Yeshua.
Secondly, Paul shares the same linguistic problem. He write in Greek but thinks in Hebrew, and just like the word hesed, there is no Greek equivalent for nephesh in Paul’s letter either. Paul is NOT a dualist, so we need to explore what Paul intends to say as if it were Hebrew translated to Greek, and not simply rely on the implicit Greek dualism in the “body-soul” distinction.
Stephen’s comment is easily read as an expression of nephesh, since “spirit” (ruach) has close parallels with nephesh. It is not logically necessary to read Stephen’s statement as an endorsement of the body-soul dualism. Exactly the same argument can be made about Yeshua’s remark from the cross.
Next, a parable is a PARABLE, not a doctrine.
And finally, even if Yeshua is correcting Martha, he does not correct her implication that the next time she will see her brother is at the resurrection. What he corrects is her belief that there is no hope for her brother now that he is dead. Obviously, Yeshua cannot mean that “I am the resurrection” is the same as “you will never physically die.” Lazarus died. So did Martha. “You shall never die” must have another application, that is, death is not permanent. But this is true even if I believe that I will be resurrected at the last day. It does not require that I must instantly be transported to heaven at the moment of my death.
I am sure there is a lot more to discover about all this. I had no idea it would spark just debate. Perhaps that alone is worth considering. Why is it that we are so concerned about holding on to this “instant paradise” idea? Does it really matter to the dead if the next moment of consciousness is the moment of standing before the throne? It seems to matter to us a great deal? Why?
WOW! I am stunned to say the least, (similar to being hit by a 2X4 or a huge truck.) I lie not.
So the subject of 2 Cor.5:1-8 is NOT about dying and immediately being in the
presence of the Lord?
Who are the 10,000s of saint coming back with Him? (Jude 1: 14-17)
I always hoped they were those who had fallen asleep safe in His arms, but are they the angels of Dan. 7: 10 and Matt. 25: 31?
Who are the souls under the altar that cry out to be avenged? Rev. 6: 10
They are apparently in heaven and apparently not with a body?
Worst of all then this means we die, (Gen. 2:16-17) and the saved are not exempt from the sting of death? Death is NOT a shadow, looks like the real thing, but is merely a shadow? (Ps. 23) I know everyone dies, but I thought it merely looked like death and eyes closed here opened in heaven.
I did re-read Genesis like you said. I have not been able to breathe for about 10 minutes, –exaggeration, but rather seems like.
Dorothy,
I can assure you there are answers to ALMOST all of your examples. However, you must also keep in mind that there are a slew of other verses that also don’t make sense with the idea of an inherently immortal soul. Once the years of conditioning that ‘grandma is looking down on us right now’ are removed – there are less text-gymnastics involved in soul death, than in believing in an inherently immortal soul.
Before you work up to Saul/Samuel and the rich man and Lazarus. There are other texts that help in the interpretation of those stories.
Did we expect to have ALL the answers? That wouldn’t be like Scripture. There are always more questions than answers. Paradox is part of Scripture because Scripture is NOT systematic theology. It is history. The question is “what did the Jews believe in the first century?”, not “what do we believe in the 21st century?”
Yes, I meant to add to my questions about the rich man and Lazarus in Luke, please do expalin
2nd Cor. 5 – Whether you have no consciousness for seconds or thousands of years — the next thing you would know would be the resurrection. No conflict here.
Jude 1:14 – Yes, angels. There is biblical precedent for these being angels, and most of the translations say “holy ones”.
Revelation 6:10 – Is probably the least straightforward, but the whole section is highly symbolic and if taken literally than we are faced with an interesting ‘martyr storage area’ under the alter. Also, as defined in Genesis,.. dust + breath = a living soul. So, ‘soul’ is an interchangeable term for ‘person’,… person with a body, that is.
Starting in the Garden of Eden, the devil’s lie had to do with mortality. “You shall surely not die.” If the soul is inherently immortal, than the devil was right. No-one really dies, they just live forever in one condition or another. But who grants immortality? Only God.
1 Corinthian 15:53 – “For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.”
Why must this mortal ‘put on’ immortality?? Because the immortality was not there before.
There is a lot more if you are interested – this is only scratching the surface.
Also, you should know that I am not representing Skip in any way. This is just one man’s opinion based on my studies, but I think I do have some stuff in common with Skip’s view.
Parables are not doctrine. They are stories designed to make a point. What is the point of this parable? The obligation for compassion. Can we extract a doctrine of heaven from this parable? Does the parable of the good Samaritan teach us that we should take wounded people to desert inns and dress their wounds with oil?
The transfiguration of Moses and Elijah?
Elijah was translated so there is no issue with him visiting Jesus. Moses’ body was ‘contended’ for by Michael the Archangel and his grave was never found, so there is a good argument that he was resurrected. This is not without precedent also:
Matthew 27:52,53 – “The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised ; 53 and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.”
In fact, this verse suggests that the saints had NOT gone to heaven yet.
But transfigurations do not depend on the presupposition of heaven. Did Moses and Elijah die?
Heaven is not real, Hell is just a figment of your fertile imagination, the word of God is not true, Satan never did exist, the church is not body and bride of Christ, Jesus Christ is not coming again to receive the ones, including those who are dead to Himself in the clouds, Heaven is a myth, angels don’t exist and yes, I’m the son of a sea cook!
~ But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, (included the ones that just poured out of my mouth) -they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment ~ (Matthew 12.36)
Day of judgment? No. – that to is so -“what?” All the thousands of saints since the (yes, bodily) resurrection of Yeshua from the dead are all deceived.
Now that we’ve all had our moment of insanity- I suggest we get back on track and diligently study the scriptures, for the written word describes the Living Word in great detail.
One last word for whatever students of the Bible remain:
~ You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to Me! ~ (John 5.39)
~ So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal ~ (2 Corinthians 4.18)
~ Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. ~ (1 Timothy 1.17) Amen
And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven . . . ? 2 Kings 2: 11
Enoch who walked with God and was not . . .? Gen. 5: 24
These were translated. I don’t think anything that’s been said argues against God taking some people directly to heaven. Isn’t this what he will do at His 2nd coming?
Are some people “translated” into the presence of God? Apparently so. Does this mean everyone who dies immediately enters God’s presence?
We talked about the thief on the cross the other day. Who knew he’d be back so soon?
Luke 23: 42-43 what did Jesus mean when the thief (who did say he was up there for what he had done, vs 41) asks to be remembered:
“Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!” 43 And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”
The grave is not paradise.
https://skipmoen.com/2012/02/21/a-comma-here-a-comma-there-2/
This deals with that verse. Sorry, I don’t know how to hyperlink.
oh, it did it automatically, nice.
When we discussed this verse before, we noted that there is no punctuation in the Greek text. The placing of the comma is the decision of the translator. Furthermore, we should note that the phrase was spoken in Hebrew, not Greek. Therefore, we need to back translate (without the punctuation). Hebrew idioms play a role here. And so does the meaning of the word “today.” But the final consideration must be consistency with the rest of Scripture. Recall that Yeshua and Martha have a similar conversation just prior to the crucifixion. Martha responds with an answer that demonstrates the thinking of that time. “Yes, I will see my brother again at the Judgment Day.” She doesn’t respond, “I will see buy brother in heaven when I die.” Martha believes that her brother has gone into the ground and will be resurrected on Judgment Day.
mmm, back to the scriptures, so it was Samuel: 1 Sam 28 – I stand corrected
“When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out at the top of her voice and said to Saul, “Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!”
The king said to her, “Don’t be afraid. What do you see?”
The woman said, “I see a spirita coming up out of the ground.”
“What does he look like?” he asked.
“An old man wearing a robe is coming up,” she said.
Then Saul knew it was Samuel, and he bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground.
Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?”
she was afraid because she did not expect to see Samuel, but indeed she did as the text says.
What Skip has shared is well appointed. It is truth even though I am NOT a bible scholar. Dead means dead until the day of redemption. The theif did NOT ask to go to heaven but asked to be remembered WHEN CHRIST CAME IN HIS KINGDOM.
There is so much to be seen and ONLY THE LORD can open the eye of the seeker of Righteousness. Much may be discussed that I may not understand but what Skip has taught here on the answering part I am well informed. GIRLS take it to heart… it is true. This heaven bit and just dying to get there is not TRUTH.
2 Corinthians 11:14 – “But I am not surprised! Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.”
Leviticus 19:31 — “‘Do not turn to mediums or spiritists ; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God.”
This was not necessarily Samuel, but in disguising himself and trying to trick the medium, Saul was himself tricked by a disguised devil or demon. The fact that the demon spoke the truth also should not be taken too proof that it was actually Samuel, since Balaam and even some of the demons that Jesus encountered testified correctly.
There may be other explanations, but verses such as Ecclesiastes 9:5,6 would then suggest that the Samuel situation was the exception to the rule, and not the normal state of affairs:
“For the living know they will die ; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten. Indeed their love, their hate and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun. “
Thank you Gabe, God Bless you – I take you point that the Samuel incident may have been an exception.
Re. Ecclesiastes, some may argue the author of the book is somewhat satirical at some points – personally, I need to do some more study on this one.
Thank you Skip for posting, this has indeed encouraged me in my study of the scriptures.
Agreed. That scripture alone would not be sufficient to form a doctrine, but there are others that point towards the same concept.
Why do never find the phrase “immortal soul” in the bible? It’s not just a translation issue.
~There was a certain man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate full of sores, and desiring to be fed the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table, moreover, the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried. And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, “Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, “Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receiveth thy good tidings, and likewise Lazarus evil things: But now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that they which would pass from hence to you, cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.” Then he said, “I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldst send him to my father’s house: For I have five brethren: that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.” Abraham said unto him, “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.” And he said, “Nay, father Abraham: But if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.” And he said unto him, “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.” (Luke 16:19-31)
Isn’t this interesting… ONE has rose from the dead and no one listens to Him either! -Amazing! Read the 14th chapter of the book of John. Maybe there are some who will believe..
~ I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life ~ (John 5.24)
~to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in Me ~ (Acts 26.18)
This from a blind lady.. one who could not see but nevertheless knew her Savior…
Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine!
O what a foretaste of glory divine!
Heir of salvation, purchase of God,
born of his Spirit, washed in his blood.
This is my story, this is my song,
praising my Savior all the day long;
this is my story, this is my song,
praising my Savior all the day long.
Perfect submission, perfect delight,
visions of rapture now burst on my sight;
angels descending bring from above
echoes of mercy, whispers of love.
Perfect submission, all is at rest;
I in my Savior am happy and blest,
watching and waiting, looking above,
filled with His goodness, lost in his love.
This is my story, this is my song,
praising my Savior all the day long;
this is my story, this is my song,
praising my Savior all the day long.
Now I belong to Jesus,
Jesus belongs to me,
Not for the years of time alone,
But for eternity.
Carl, thank you for all your comments that encourage not only Skip but many others who read the devotion of the day. thank you for ALL the hymns that you post..love it.. Keep on keepin’ on.. love IN CHRIST.
Skip,
How is it going? I am going to jump in the debate. Gabe and I shared lot on this subject back on January of this year. You can find it on your teaching: https://skipmoen.com/2012/01/23/nyquil-sheol/
One thing it seems you have not acknowledged is in Yeshua’s use of Abraham’s bosom in the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazar/Lazurus, why would He use this concept of the afterlife if it did not have an affinity with the people He was talking to? I get it that it was not a doctrine, and I recognize that it was not the point of the parable. At the same time, why does it seem you will not recognize that parables will use common expressions that will be recognized by the people He is teaching? To be fair, you need to at least recognize this.
Good point. I’ll have to think about this. Of the top, Hengel shows that by the first century certain Greek concepts had already influenced Jewish thought. One of those was the immortality of the soul. Ellul’s remark is that in the Tanakh there is no concept of the immortal soul, but that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t part of the thinking of first century Judaism. I’ll have to look into this more.
There is one point that seems to be a paradigm issue here. In Hebrew thought, we humans do not OWN our souls as if at birth we are given a soul that is uniquely and permanently ours. That is a Greek idea. The Hebrew view is that the “breath of life” is imparted to us but it is, and always has been, God’s alone. It is HIS breath of life, not ours. Therefore, when we die, the breath of life no longer animates us and, since it is His, it returns to the giver, just as the body returns to the source from which it came – the dust. The introduction of the Greek idea of a permanent “soul” is foreign to the Genesis view of “return to source.” The Genesis view is balanced (measure for measure). Both aspects of human being are “borrowed” and both return to their original state. This, of course, means that God resurrects all at Judgment from the original material source and animating source. Later Christian concerns about how the atoms of the original body can be put back together are no longer an issue.
Hebrew thought did not share the ancient Near-Eastern views of Egypt, for example. In Egypt, preservation of the body was an attempt to overcome the dissolution of the physical because of the belief that the PARTICULAR physical body was essential for after-death experience.
Finally, when we try to understand the Hebrew idea of after-death conditions, we need to look at the whole Tanakh and the teachings of the NT, not pick out some particular verse that may or may not appear to support alternate views. Therefore, for example, David’s remark about his dead child may not be used to support an argument that opposes other teaching. This means that we may in fact have verses that could be read in different ways but the task is to find a way to read ALL the verses in one consistent way. And by the way, this just might not be possible since Scripture does contain paradoxes.
Thank you, all, for just an enthusiastic discussion with so many great comments. I learned a lot – and it isn’t over. Imagine how great it will be to debate these issues when we all wake up on that Day.
One last question for this one – if anyone has time (I raised this earlier)
When David referred to his dead child from Bathsheba, he said, ” But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.” this seems to suggest that – there was an understanding that there is recognition/awareness of identity in the resting place, Sheol.
I think the description of the infant son of David does speak of David joining the infant after death. I am not sure you can show that that means immediately or at the time of the resurrection. I tend to think that it is speaking of immediately after because it does not mention waiting until they both rise, but rather like the baby is somewhere, waiting for him, and identifiable. I would be interested to know more about it myself.
I would be interested in knowing what the translation possibilities are for the verse “Do not fear those who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul, since there is no one Greek equivalent for nephesh in Hebrew. If body and soul live and die together, then the best translation of nephesh would possibly be “physical life”. But then Yeshua would be saying, “Do not fear those who can kill the body but cannot kill the physical life”. This seems totally redundant.
Also, Paul does not mention “soul” in either of the verses I quoted above: “absent from the body”, or “depart and be with Christ, which is far better.” How could being dead or unconccious (which is it anyway?) be better by far? Where is the time gap here? And if Stephen or Jesus’ existence ended with physical death, i.e. “spirit” (“pneuma” in the Greek?) then it seems there would be no person, spirit or otherwise, for God to receive.
I agree also with Brian’s point above about the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. In other parables, Jesus uses illustrations, that althought they didnt really happen, they are all situations which could happen, otherwise how would the listeners relate?
I agree about Martha stating that she believed that once Lazarus died, the next time she would see her brother is the resurrection at the last day. And it does seem that Jesus’ correction was to tell her that she wouldn’t have to wait until then because He was about to raise Lazarus right in front of her eyes. But that still doesn’t explain the second part of His answer “whosoever who lives and believes in me shall never die.” If this meant that Lazarus was indeed dead in body and soul, why not say” he who lives and believes in me will not stay dead?” Another translation issue?
I am currently starting to read N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God. He takes some similar views as Skip does on these issues, so I expect I will have a clearer picture of the development and meaning of the immortal soul doctrine and how it influenced the Bible translations afterwards.
As I said, personally it wouldn’t matter to me if there was a time gap between my awareness of dying and my next concious experience of being with God in a resurrected state. Why do people want to hold onto the idea of “instant heaven and fellowship with God”? Maybe the desire is on God’s side. If there is an intermediate state ( and that has not been disproven by any means), maybe it is because God desires to have fellowship with us in those thousand years between our death and resurrection. But it is hard to have fellowship with a pile of dead dust.
I haven’t read NT Wright on this, so please let me know what he concludes.
I will. It’s an 800 page read, so it will take a while for me to wade through it. But it covers this subject very thoroughly from what I have skimmed so far.
Skip,
I have recently finished N.T. Wright’s latest book: How God Became King. I read the book quickly and enjoyed it very much. I know your list is long . . . you may have to wait for that Day when you wake up to read it! 🙂
“Why do people want to hold onto the idea of “instant heaven and fellowship with God”? Maybe the desire is on God’s side.”
Maybe its because eternity is set in our hearts, it may be one of the ways God has made us like Himself. Death is an un-natural state of being, we weren’t supposed to have to endure it, we can’t get used to the idea although that is all we have ever known; life goes on for awhile, then death ends it. Our time runs out. Time runs out for a being created with eternity in their heart — sin’s penality is very grevious! Might it not have been part of Jesus dread/revulsion of enduring the cross, the nasty taste of death . . .? Just wondering how you or Skip view this thought.
I know that some have taught that since we are made in God’s image, that we are eternal, not intrinsically but dependent on God for our continued existence. I have to do a little research to come up with definite Scriptural support for some of that idea. It’s a tough question.
Jesus was very grieved when Lazarus died and He wept. I believe He was grieved over death itself and it’s taking of his friend’s life, even though He knew he could restore his friend’s life. So it would make sense to me that He could choose to continue that fellowship with Lazarus immediately after Lazarus died (the second time), rather than wait however much time there would be until the resurrection. And it also makes sense that since as believers we are rescued from sin’s penalty that we would not be separated from fellowship with God by death as the rest of the world would be. Yet our bodily resurrection is definitely spoken of as being at a future time, as the body is figuratively asleep. We all have to endure the taste of death as Jesus did. But thanks be to God, we are delivered from the second death, the one that is everlasting.
But this made me think of another passage at the end of Romans eight.
This passage states that death is one of those things that can’t separate us from the love of God which is ours in Christ Jesus. God would keep loving us, of course, under any scenario. But if we are dead or unconscious between death and resurrection, we would be unable to experience His love, and would then in a sense be separated from it by death. So that might be yet another reason for continued consciousness after death in God’s presence.
One aspect of this discussion that seems to be present in most of the comments is the idea that being asleep in the grave is somehow a terrible thing – that is EXTENDS the time between our physical demise and the presence of God. But this is only true for the LIVING, since the dead do not experience ANY temporal expanse. As far as they are concerned, if the Jewish idea is correct, they simply go to sleep and IN THE VERY NEXT INSTANT, wake up in God’s presence. WE are the only ones who struggle with the intervening time. And that, of course, raises the issue about how we understand time itself. If we are Greek – linear time – people, this will seem like a travesty, a separation, etc. But if we have an Hebraic worldview, “a thousand years is as a day,” then the temporal frame changes. This might change a great deal of the discussion. Perhaps we first need to examine what we are thinking about the nature and structure of time before we can make headway with this issue about the “soul”.
I am looking forward to having unlimited time to learn about all these things! 🙂
First you might sleep on it 🙂
Ecc. 3: 11 –He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into mans heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.
Of course, how could I not remember that beautiful passage! Must have been too long a workday.
Oops, misspelled conscious a few times! Also meant “thousands” of years in the second to last sentence, not exactly one thousand (although it could be!)
Skip, If I accept the premise that man is bipartite creature then I would agree with your conclusions regarding the separation of body and soul at death means that we cease to exist. However I find Rav Shual continually reminding us that we are tripartite beings consisting of body, soul and SPIRIT. Shaul prays in I Thes: 5:23 that our whole spirit, soul and body be preserved blameless at the coming of the Lord showing that there is a triunity of man and in Hebrews 4 :12 it speaks of the dividing of the soul from the spirit clearly distinguishing the two. My understanding is that in the garden it wasn’t that YHWH just breathed into us His breath to give us life (which when removed returns to Him-though it does), but in that breath He has given us a spirit which now animates us and is eternal and cannot die. It is the nephesh -the whole man- that Yeshua has come to redeem; but just as both prophet s Jeremiah and Ezekiel spoke of – not just the need of a new heart and new spirit – but the receiving of both at the new birth -a new heart which is our mind, will and emotions (soul) and a new spirit which is our life-both now and hereafter. Yes, the soul must grow and be daily renewed to come into maturity and be like Him. It is our spirit -united with Him in the heavenlies-that is allowed to have ascendancy over both our soul and body in the here and now-for now. How all this plays out in the current discussion I’m not sure, but my sense is that upon death this our new spirit of Messiah goes to be with YHWH the body goes back to dust awaiting a new glorified spiritual body at the resurrection-like unto Yeshua’s. As to the soul? My sense ( I know you want proof texts) is that upon death our spirits receive a temporary spiritual body in order that the soul has expression until we receive our glorified body. How else do you have the martyred in Revelation crying out under the alter “how long O Lord“? (such an expression requires both body -a tongue and voice; and soul-will and mind to form the thought) and the many other examples given by other people in this debate.
No doubt you will point to a pagan influence to my thinking , which may be so. I admit to having inherited lies, falsehoods and things of which there is no profit (Jer. 16:19), but after pointing out the pagan influences from which I need to repent or be delivered, please explain how you deal with the spirit of man.
As to the so called parable of Lazarus and the rich man I don’t count that it is a parable as no parable ever name names -it is always a sower, or a certain man, or a unnamed person-never a named individual such as Lazarus.
While I’m willing to be corrected, I haven’t yet seen sufficient cause up to this point to make me reconsider my theology. While what the various rabbis in the first century or before thought on the matter of body/soul are more relevant than Plato, et al., if I’m to follow a 1st century Rabbi in this matter it would have to be Shaul whose revelations on this matter seem to me to be clear-at least up to a point- then it as clear as mud. Michael