Heaven and Hellenism

[Timotheist]

Here is an item that I am sure many who left the LC has had to come to grips with: that the teachings about death and resurrection from Sheol is a doctrine about the afterlife that is the minority view among the mainstream denominations of today.

Most teach an immediate destiny of heaven or hell, with the resurrection kinda thrown in as an afterthought.

When I decided to start going to church again after a long dry spell, it became very important to me to research this particular topic (among others) in order to decide just what it is I believed.

The following three posts presents the results of my research. The first is an intro, the second gets a little deeper, and the third is a long article that presents the bulk of my research.

You may want to get a cup of coffee before reading the third one.

(The articles are extracted from a larger set of articles that I had once envisioned as a website project. I will post them here mostly uneditted.)

I hope these will be a help to those who were once in the LC and now find themselves wondering about this topic.

Yours in Christ Jesus,

[Timotheist]

It is important to define explicitly what I mean by the term "Mainstream Gospel". This term undoubtedly brings to mind vastly different definitions depending upon the backgrounds and denominational ties of the individual readers. So this page is devoted to expressing MY definition of the term. Of course, you as a reader may have your own definition for the term, and that is certainly fine with me. I am just defining my use of the term so that I may communicate to you effectively.

My definition of the term is based on MY Christian experience. I have been exposed to several denominations and have read some about others. Enough to get the gist of what each group is about. It would be naive to state that I know EVERYTHING about even ONE of these denominations. That is why I prefer to not "name names" when it comes to singling out a particular denomination, and saying "this group believes this or that". But I have one exception to this rule, simply because of its historical importance.

I suppose that every denomination that I ever met with may be classified as "Protestant" at the top level. A Protestant denomination, using the dictionary definition of the term, denotes any Christian movement that separates itself from the Roman Catholic Church. And here is my take on what is the top-level difference between the Roman Catholic and the typical Protestant denomination.

The Division over the Doctrine of "Purgatory"

Purgatory, as defined in one dictionary, is "a state or place after death for the expiation of sins by suffering". The classical Roman Catholic view of the afterlife is that a sinful believer must go through a time of penance before being allowed into heaven, and that true "saints" would bypass this stage and go directly to heaven. The damned, of course, would go directly to hell for eternity.

The Church of England split from the Roman Catholic Church was undoubtedly politically motivated. But there was also a debate that was popular at the time, and that was over the doctrine of Purgatory. Since it was argued that the Blood of Jesus cleansed a sinner from all sin, then why need a Purgatory?

The question was a good one, and thus my top-level, mainstream, definition of what a Protestant believes: there is no Purgatory, only heaven and hell. The believer's go to heaven and the rest go to hell.

Now I realize that there are some "Protestant" denominations today who would disagree with this classification. But I am only using the term in a simplified, historical, sense. There have been many splits over doctrine over the years, and they were NOT spawned by a debate over Purgatory. And not all Protestant denominations accept the "only heaven or hell" scenario that I laid out.

The "Christian Culture" of Today

But it cannot be denied that today's Christian culture, on the surface, is heavily weighted by the "only heaven or hell" gospel. Just look at the popular literature and culture that define Christianity in America today. Literally centuries of history and tradition paint a picture, even in the mind of an unbeliever, of what the typical Christian's hope is: a blissful eternal life in heaven where we will join our loved ones who have gone before us.

Now the secular view of going to heaven or hell is not based on belief or unbelief: it is based on whether one is "good" or "bad". A person who does more good than bad is supposed to go to heaven. Jokes about St Peter at the Pearly Gate paint a picture where one is judged based on good deeds, and only allowed into heaven if one is "good enough" to get Peter's approval. The rest go to hell, which is commonly described as a hot place where the bad are incessantly tortured (by Satan or his demons) for the way they chose to live.

To me it is kind of obvious that the secular view is a twisted blend of the Roman Catholic requirement which called for penance for bad deeds, but with hell and Purgatory combined into one entity.

How Most Protestants Preach Against the Christian Culture

Of course the Bible teaches that we are saved by grace, not by works or deeds. So the typical Protestant denomination is forced to focus on this point as the main feature of the gospel, in order to counter the cultural belief which is that salvation is based on good deeds.

The result of this counter-culture gospel is an over-simplification of the Gospel of the Kingdom. For the Gospel of the Kingdom clearly states that there are consequences for our sinful actions, but the Purgatory model is NOT correct in describing what these consequences are.

Further Division Among the Protestants

So this is where we find ourselves today. There is a basic flaw with the "Christian Culture" picture of salvation, and as a result, there is a basic flaw with the over-simplified "Mainstream Gospel" that counters it. Therefore the defining characteristic that separates many denominations is the debate over this question: "If we are saved by grace and not by works, then what is the consequence of sin for the believer?" Without "naming names" here are just a few of the top-level modifications to the Protestant gospel that I have heard over the years which address this question:

There is NO consequence for sin if only you believe. All the believers will go to heaven.

You can lose your salvation through sinning, and be denied entrance to heaven, even if you believe.

Entry is based on belief, but your "place" in heaven is determined by your works.

There is a "summer school" (but NOT called Purgatory) where a sinning Christian can do "make-up" work before being allowed into heaven and be considered an equal.

ALL of mankind will ultimately be saved and allowed into heaven.

We have absolutely no way of knowing today who will go to heaven, because it is entirely up to God's selection. (Even our belief does not really matter).

Now I am not going to criticize these items on an individual basis. Instead, I want to present the results of my research into this subject. What I have come to learn is that the Gospel of the Kingdom is much more complex than both the Christian Culture or the Mainstream Gospel. And that you pretty much have to back up and start over, going much further back in church history than the Protestant/Catholic split and start in the Bible and go forward from there.

Note to the reader: if this topic interests you, then be sure to read the Full Length Articles entitled "The Mainstream Gospel Today" and "The Origins of the Mainstream Gospel".

[Timotheist]

A Note to the Reader

When I first decided to do this website, I told myself that I would try my best to avoid offending anyone of Christian faith. Thus it is with a strong sense of caution that I write this article and the sequel article "Origins of the Mainstream Gospel".

I do not pretend that what I am setting forth in this article will be well accepted by many who read it. In fact, some of you may take strong objection to it, in spite of my attempts to introduce the material cautiously. So let me preface this article by stating that I have no other motive than to try and open the eyes of the American Christian movement of today to recognize deeper truths about the Gospel we believe in, and to recognize the parts of the gospel preached today that I feel are in error.

These errors I speak of are not what I would call critical errors. But the oversimplification inherent in the Mainstream Gospel is dangerous for two reasons:

It tends to make the church-going believer "lukewarm".

It is made somewhat unbelievable to the seriously seeking due to its "too good to be true" flavor.

The Gospel of the Kingdom is indeed "good news", but it should also serve as fair warning to us. We need to have the proper balance of both the love of God and the fear of God. Not the fear of the second death, but the fear of being found short of receiving certain rewards that are promised to those who "overcome".

So read on, dear brother or sister in the Lord, and try to keep in mind that my motives are pure. You will not find on this website a plea for money, or even a recommendation of a particular denomination. I just want to help in my own way to return the full Gospel of the Kingdom to the minds and words of every seeking Christian.

Tim(otheist)
September 2002

If you have not already done so, please read the brief introductory article Defining the "Mainstream Gospel" before reading further.

Introduction

I will assume that you have already scanned through at least Part I of the Short Paper Series which defines the basic timeline the Gospel of the Kingdom. In as few words as I can manage here is a summary of the timeline:

Today, the Throne of God is in heaven, and Jesus is at the Father's right hand.

Jesus, in order to ascend to heaven, first passed through death, descended to Sheol, and then was raised from the dead.

We also, if we should die before the Lord comes, must follow the same path as Jesus. First we will descend to Sheol.

Sheol is described as a place of comfort (Paradise) for some and a place of torment (Hades) for others. Just because one is in Hades does not mean that one is unsaved.

We (the believers) will be resurrected when the Lord returns. This is the first resurrection, where Christ will come to gather His own, including those of OT Israel.

We will be judged, and many of us will rule and reign with Christ for 1000 years on this earth as the Servants of God. The rulers will be reigning over the "sheep" of the Nations who are blessed by the Father to enter this Kingdom.

A fewer number of us will be joined to the Lamb as His Bride. This is the topmost reward, reserved for the most holy of His Servants.

But some of us will cast into Outer Darkness, a temporary prison for the discipline of the wicked, lazy Servants. Just because one is in the Outer Darkness does not mean that one is unsaved.

After the 1000 year Millennial Kingdom, which we called the Kingdom of the Son, Satan will be judged along with those who are part of the second resurrection. Anyone whose name is not written in the Book of Life will suffer the second death.

A New Heaven and a New Earth will be created. The Throne of God will finally descend from heaven and reside with the Bride, the Holy City New Jerusalem. The Servants of God will reign over the living Nations for eternity. This will be called the Kingdom of the Father.

This timeline is somewhat complex, to say the least. But this timeline stands up under serious scrutiny of the Holy Scriptures. Our salvation is much more than simply believing in the Son for the remission of sins: we must also be sanctified by the Holy Spirit, transformed to the point where we cannot sin, if we want to be "pure and spotless" before the Father. And the Bible makes it clear that suffering is a key part of the sanctification process:

HEB 12:1 Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance, and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3 For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you may not grow weary and lose heart. 4 You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin; 5 and you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons,
"MY SON, DO NOT REGARD LIGHTLY THE DISCIPLINE OF THE LORD,
NOR FAINT WHEN YOU ARE REPROVED BY HIM;
6 FOR THOSE WHOM THE LORD LOVES HE DISCIPLINES,
AND HE SCOURGES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES."
7 It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?

So Christ did indeed die for our sins, and that results in eternal life for us. But to have the utmost reward requires discipline, the purification of our souls. This is the sanctification that we must pursue as Christians today.

Exposing the Core of the Mainstream Gospel

The natural man in us does not like the idea that we need to be disciplined in order to be holy, blameless before the Father. Therefore the Mainstream Gospel places most of its emphasis on the redemption of our sins by Christ on the cross. And in doing so, the Mainstream Gospel does not stress enough the need for sanctification. It simplifies the Gospel of the Kingdom to only the part that is called out in John 3:16:

JN 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."

But in the New Creation, even the Nations will have eternal life. Eternal life is a free gift from God, not requiring anything from us in the form of works. From the foundation of the world, God selected who would participate in His Kingdom. But God has not assured us that all of us will be married to the Lamb: that reward is reserved for the most holy of God's people. This truth makes us uncomfortable.

Thus, the Mainstream Gospel prefers to put emphasis on eternal life as the goal of our salvation, instead of just the beginning. And the Mainstream Gospel simplifies the timeline of the afterlife to one of going to heaven or hell, dividing us into the "saved" and the "unsaved", the "believers" and the "unbelievers".

We are taught that if we believe, then we have the assurance of eternal life, as if that were the goal. But God wants something more than a group of Nations with eternal life. He wants to live among us, and the only way to accomplish that is to have a "holy ground", a place on the Earth that can withstand His awesome presence. That place is the New Jerusalem, the Bride of the Lamb. She not only is outwardly cleansed by the Blood of the Lamb, she is also inwardly cleansed by the sanctifying oil of the Holy Spirit.

Sanctification is not a process that happens without our attention. We must achieve it by setting our mind on the Spirit, and thus putting to death the unholy flesh. The Blood of Christ is an atonement for our sin, but we need to be radically changed to put away the potential to sin. This change is illustrated by Paul as follows:

2CO 3:18 But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

If we "behold" the Lord, then we will be transformed into the sinless image of the Son by the sanctifying work of the Spirit. But this requires a conscious effort on our part. The Mainstream Gospel recognizes that sanctification exists, but it does little to promote the notion that we have to make it happen. It does little to warn us of the consequences of our failure to pursue sanctification.

Instead, the Mainstream Gospel says that to get to heaven, you simply must believe. "Works" is a dirty word in the Mainstream Gospel. We don't like to work. So the Mainstream Gospel stresses another aspect of the Gospel of the Kingdom to a fault:

RO 3:24 [we are] justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

It is true that we cannot inherit eternal life by following the Law. "Justification by faith" means that God considers our belief as "righteousness". But this is only an outward form of righteousness. God will not condemn His Servants to the second death because of their sins. Therefore Paul went on to say:

RO 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! 16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.

But in the same letter, Paul says that to be sanctified, we must be slaves of righteousness. Justification gives us the outward appearance of holiness, but sanctification gives us our inward reality of holiness. We should not be satisfied with being only justified by faith. We must also be sanctified by pursuing the fruit of righteousness.

Where is this lesson in the Mainstream Gospel? It is in practice not present, since the promise of heaven is assured to all who believe. Our faith is our only justification. Our works do not get us into heaven, but our belief does. Jesus did it all for us, and we do not have any reason to fear. In fact, the Mainstream Gospel encourages us NEVER to fear, quoting verses like:

RO 8:15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!"

but at the same time conveniently ignoring other verses like:

RO 11:19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you. 22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

By comparing these two passages we can see what we should fear and what we should not fear. We should not fear the second death, but we should fear the consequences of not remaining faithful as Servants to our Master. We must become slaves to righteousness.

The Mainstream Gospel has the tendency to bypass the sanctification process in its teaching. They wrongfully extend the concept of "forgiveness of sins" to "putting to death the sinful nature". Christ accomplished the first with his crucifixion. The Spirit will accomplish the second, but with varying degrees of success.

1TH 5:23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

If only Paul's prayer for Thessalonica would be carried out in everyone of us! But alas, the Spirit cannot complete His work without our cooperation:

RO 8:3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace.

What is "Hell"?

The Mainstream Gospel, in its basic form, does not recognize Sheol, the Outer Darkness, or even the New Creation. "Heaven" is stressed as the eternal destiny of the saved, and "hell" is the destiny of the unsaved. And most variants of the Mainstream Gospel teach us that we go to one of these two places immediately upon our deaths.

But the Gospel of the Kingdom stresses the New Creation as the eternal destiny, with God the Father living among those of the New Earth as our King forever. But this will not occur immediately upon death: it will only happen after the Kingdom of the Son finishes its purpose and the old creation is destroyed.

"Hell", in my opinion, is a word that should not even be in the Bible. The word conjures up images of red devils with forked tails and pitchforks led by Satan torturing the human souls that he "owns". But Satan is not the ruler of the underworld, Satan is the current ruler of THIS world. He has no power over Sheol. Therefore I wish that the word were stricken from the English translations.

Depending on which English version that is examined, "hell" is a translation of several words. "Gehenna" is most often translated as "hell" (even by the NASB), and it is a synonym for the Lake of Fire. But other words, including "Sheol", "Hades", and "Tartaros" are commonly translated as "hell". But NONE of these are synonyms for the Lake of Fire.

This results in VERY confusing passages like this one from the KJV:

REV 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.

So in the KJV, is "hell" the place that holds the dead until judgment, or is it the place of judgment itself? Alas, this confusion is only brought about because the KJV also translates "Hades" as "hell", as it does here.

Of course for many Protestant generations here in America the KJV was the only accepted translation of the Bible. In fact, for many people, the use of another translation was discouraged. This fierce loyalty was the result of the zeal of the early Protestant movement. So the development of the Mainstream Gospel in America suffered from the use of a poor translation. It is only a fairly recent phenomenon that the lay person is encouraged to pursue his/her own research. Today we have sophisticated tools that make the history of the church and its development easily available to all who have the desire to research it.

It is with such tools that I have become a fledgling theologian on my own. I have not had formal education in such matters, but I have the tools available to research things on my own. And one of the very first things I did with my software when I bought it was to analyze the KJV. You see, I had been told about the "Hades" flaw when I was first introduced to the NASB version. Not knowing which version to trust, I embarked on my own discovery. And as you can see, I tend to side with the NASB as being the fairest in its translation. I came to this conclusion after spending much time comparing the Greek and Hebrew texts with the English translations.

Now I must make it very clear that I am no expert on Hebrew or Greek. But with the tools we have today, we can single out a word we are interested in, perform a concordance search using that word, and read the English context around that word. In most cases, then, it is very simple to ascertain the meaning of a word.

Analysis of the King James Version

1. History
(Source: NIV Bible Dictionary, Zondervan Press)

The first known English version of the Bible was translated by John Wycliffe in 1382. Before that time, the Bible was commonly available only in the Latin language. Wycliffe translated his Bible from the Latin instead of from the original text. His motivation was partly that of breaking the stranglehold of the Roman Catholic Church, whose clergy were the only authorized interpreters of Scripture. He was later called the "Morning-star of the Reformation."

Seven other English translations were made over the next few centuries until the KJV was published in 1611. All of these versions were done apart from the Pope's permission, and there were attempts made by the Roman Catholic Church to squelch this rebellion. But the Church of England by that time was powerful enough to "authorize" the KJV.

Between 1611 and 1870, there were no serious challenges to the KJV. But in 1870, there was an attempt to revise the KJV. There were two versions that came out as a result of the debates at that time: the English Revised Version (ERV) came out in 1885, and the American Standard Version (ASV) was published in 1901. The New American Standard Bible (NASB) was published in 1971 as a revision to the ASV. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) which is commonly used today in Catholic churches, also came from a revision of the ASV.

Another version gaining in popularity today is the New International Version (NIV) published in 1978 and revised in 1984.

Of course today there are many versions available, but many still like to use the KJV, if for no other reason that it has apparently withstood the test of time.

2. OT Content

In comparing the KJV with the other English versions derived from the ASV, the most striking difference is in the way the KJV translates "Sheol" and "Hades". Apparently, as a way of "protesting" the doctrine of Purgatory, the scholars of the day purposely translated these words in a way to obscure the truths about Sheol in favor of the Mainstream Gospel. With the zeal of having the sense of being in the right in defiance of the Catholic regime of the day, they did a strange thing to these two words.

In the OT, the word "Sheol" was translated as "hell", but only if the context suggested an unbeliever's fate. For example:

PS 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell [Sheol], and all the nations that forget God.

PS 55:15 Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into hell [Sheol]: for wickedness is in their dwellings, and among them.

But when one of God's chosen people died (or spoke of dying), the word "Sheol" was translated as "grave":

GE 37:34 And Jacob rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his loins, and mourned for his son many days. 35 And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down into the grave [Sheol] unto my son mourning.

JOB 14:13 O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave [Sheol], that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!

Thus the KJV encouraged the doctrine that the unsaved immediately went to "hell", their eternal destiny, upon their deaths. When in fact the OT stated that ALL who died went to Sheol. The OT was also consistent in stating that there would be a future day of judgment, when the dead would be raised from Sheol. Thus, the time in Sheol is clearly before the judgment.

3. NT Content

In the NT, however, the KJV consistently translated "Hades" (but along with "Gehenna" and "Tartaros") as "hell". This introduced a strange inconsistency with the OT. Now BOTH the wicked and the righteous were described as going to hell:

LK 10:15 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell [Hades].

AC 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell [Hades], neither his flesh did see corruption.

So Christ went to "hell" when he died, but OT saints did not? One common explanation given by the Mainstream Gospel is that Jesus only went to hell in order to conquer it. Otherwise, He would have gone to heaven along with the OT saints.

The KJV, by having these inconsistencies in translation, hid the truths about Hades and the Gospel of the Kingdom from many an English Bible reader. It was not until the ASV was published in 1901 that the truth about Hades was somewhat recovered. But of course what happened as a result of the introduction of the ASV was that denominations began to take sides on this issue.

But for the last 100 years, the ASV has had a gradual impact. Slowly but surely, pockets of minority denominations have rediscovered this basic truth. It is sad that today there are still so many organizations who adamantly oppose this reformation.

Evidence of Earlier Debate

The debate over Hades is in fact much older than 100 years. Jonathan Edwards wrote a sermon entitled "Absent From the Body" in 1747 (over 250 years ago). The main thrust of the sermon is a presentation that defended the primary feature of the Mainstream Gospel: that once dead, the believer goes directly to heaven to be with the Lord. Within it lies a very interesting passage:

"And thither it is that the souls of departed saints are conducted, when they die. They are not reserved in some abode distinct from the highest heaven; a place of rest, which they are kept in, till the day of judgment; such as some imagine, which they call the Hades of the happy: but they go directly to heaven itself."

So here we see clear evidence of a debate over Hades as being the abode of the dead before our resurrection. The tone of the text seems to indicate that the term "Hades of the happy" is a derogatory term Edwards and his peers used to belittle what they believed to be a false doctrine.

It is interesting to study Jonathan Edward's works. "Absent from the Body" and "Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God" are a pair of sermons that any Mainstream Gospel adherent should be familiar with. The first defends the doctrine of an immediate ascent to heaven, and the second describes an immediate descent to hell. Of course Edwards used the KJV for all of his quotes.

For those who are interested in an analysis of these two sermons, and how they portray so many of the interpretations required to support the Mainstream Gospel, check out the paper "Defending the Mainstream Gospel".

A Common Mainstream Gospel Compromise

As a result of continued debate over the years, a sort of compromise has surfaced in most of the commentaries of today's Mainstream Gospel adherents. Many now recognize that the OT Israelites did indeed go to Sheol upon their deaths. This is certainly seen by me as a step in the right direction. But they still maintain that the NT believers go to heaven to be with the Lord upon their deaths. The assertion is that when Jesus Christ rose from Sheol, he took the OT saints with Him to heaven, leaving the unsaved remainder to await their resurrection and judgment (which of course, all would fail).

The main passage of Scripture that is used to support this assertion is taken from Paul's letter to Ephesus:

EPH 4:8 (KJV) When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

The interpretation is that the OT saints are the "captives" that Christ took with Him to heaven upon His ascent. This verse is often used to back up a belief that Paradise itself, while once being a part of Sheol, was thus exalted to heaven. So now Paradise is in heaven. Coupled with this is a VERY common interpretation that Paul identified Paradise as being in heaven when he wrote:

2CO 12:2 (KJV) I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth 4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

I have already pointed out elsewhere in this website that "caught away" is a more literal translation than "caught up". Paul was not identifying the same trip twice: he was mentioning TWO trips, or at least two legs of the same trip. One was to the highest realm of creation, and the other was to the lowest. What a vindication for Paul's position as an apostle!

And in a close examination of the context of Eph 4:8, we see that Paul was concentrating on the existence of spiritual gifts. He only quoted this Psalm to support that doctrine, and did not say anything about what the "captivity captive" phrase meant.

Thus to interpret this verse as claiming that Christ took the OT saints with him to heaven is putting meaning into the passage that Paul did not intend.

I would challenge you to do your own research in this area. Do not take my word for it. See if you can find a verse that states in clear terms that when we die, we go to heaven at that moment. Then see how many verses you can find that state that our hope is in the resurrection of the dead when Christ returns:

JN 6:40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

JN 14:2 "In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. 3 "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.

ITH 4:15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

This is what Paul meant when he said he would rather be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. Paul did not contradict himself by claiming the dead would see the Lord before their resurrection.

Another common compromise made by the Mainstream Gospel is that, when confronted with the resurrection of the dead, the assertion is this:
When we die, our spirits go to heaven to be with the Lord. At the resurrection, we will return with Jesus and be reunited with our souls and put into our new bodies.

This interpretation is indeed closer to the truth, but the assertion is made that our "consciousness" goes with the spirit instead of the soul. But alas, our soul is the entity that encapsulates our minds, our awareness. Our spirit is simply the life given to us by God. Upon our resurrection, the life-spirit will be returned to us. (More on this in the sequel article.) But in the meantime our souls will reside in Hades until the second coming of the Lord.

MT 16:18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.

Praise the Lord for this promise. Not even Hades will keep Christ from building His Bride. He has the keys to the gates of Hades, and He will come again to unlock those gates. Then we will be resurrected from the dead and be with the Lord forever!

Analysis of the NIV Version

Before closing this paper, let us examine how the NIV version addresses Sheol, Hades, and the use of "hell" in its translation.

1. History

The NIV Bible is the most recent major translation in popular use today. It was published in 1978 and revised in 1984. The translators were very aware of the differences between the KJV and the various offspring of the ASV version, and they knew of the basic challenges to the Mainstream Gospel.

So how did they decide to handle this controversy? Well read on to find the disappointing (to me) answer.

2. OT Content

Most of the time, the NIV translates "Sheol" as "the grave". But it is not consistent. Various other renderings include "death", "realm of death", and "depths of the grave". These are used when "the grave" does not fit the context.

The translation seems to be rubbing out the existence of Sheol as a place by translating the word differently. Thus, the NIV seems to be purposefully avoiding the doctrine of Sheol as the holding place of the dead. By the generalization of the term, the controversy is avoided.

3. NT Content

But in the NT, the NIV changes its stance on the way it translates "Hades". Here is the confusing breakdown:

MT 11:23 -- Capernaum will go down to "the depths"

LK 16:23 -- But the rich man is in "hell"

AC 2:31 -- And Christ spent three days in "the grave"

But in Revelation, Hades is "Hades"

So the NIV is better than the KJV, but it ultimately sides with the Mainstream Gospel. By rubbing out the existence of Sheol, and confusing the translation of Hades, the NIV text is in support of the "heaven or hell" aspect of the Mainstream Gospel.

Conclusion

This paper reveals to us how the Mainstream Gospel was introduced and developed in America through the failure of the KJV to be consistent in its translation. And I have showed you some evidence that the truths about the Gospel of the Kingdom are gaining recognition, especially as exhibited in the NASB version of the Bible.

But as is often the case, I one day looked over my research and I began to second guess myself. What if I (and a minority of others) are wrong and the majority is right? Is it right for me to challenge 2000 years of Christian history? Claiming, as I have done, that the "truth" has been hidden from so many generations?

Thus I decided to go on a much more difficult quest. If the Mainstream Gospel is wrong, then I needed to show from where it originated. If Paul and the early Christians indeed looked forward to resurrection as a release from Sheol, then where and when did the church go astray?

A summary of that quest, and its disturbing conclusions, are found in the article "Origins of the Mainstream Gospel".

[Timotheist]

This is the sequel to the article "The Mainstream Gospel Today". I would encourage you to review that material before you read this article.

Introduction

In the last article, I showed you some of the fundamental differences between the Mainstream Gospel and the Gospel of the Kingdom (as presented in this website). The most striking difference is the strange, apparently unbiblical, assertion that the dead in Christ go immediately to heaven, whereas the unbelieving descend immediately into "hell". In this basic form, the Mainstream Gospel ignores Sheol as the common holding place of the dead until the resurrection. This oversimplification of the Gospel places the promise of a resurrection into confusion. And in its crudest form it implies that there is no future judgment for the people of God. Or at least the fear of judgment is lessened to the point that many Christians live most of their lives as if they were not going to be judged.

I also showed you the apparent source of this confusion among the English speaking countries of the world. The KJV translators, for reasons of their own, decided to change the renderings of the words Sheol and Hades in order to promote the Mainstream oversimplification.

I have suggested that the KJV translators did this in reaction to the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, in which people who did not confess their sins to an ordained Catholic priest would have to do penance before being allowed into heaven. A common myth of that day was that St Peter, as the holder of the keys to heaven, would decide who would enter heaven or not. Such was the assumed authority that the Catholic church of that day exerted over its converts.

Understandably then, England, as an act of rebellion against the Roman regime, produced the KJV as the "authorized" Bible for the Protestants. In this version, Sheol is not a place at all. Rather, the righteous are simply buried, but the unrighteous go into "hell". To interpret the Hebrew word "Sheol" as a literal place would have given the doctrine of Purgatory credibility.

Now this interpretation of history is at least plausible if not accurate, but the question of where the Mainstream Gospel originated from remains to be answered. I do not believe the KJV translators carried out a conspiracy. It was simply a manifestation of what they thought the Scriptures were telling them. They, like any translator, chose to interpret Old and New Testament passages in a way that fit their assumptions. Thus, they had already been exposed to the Mainstream Gospel, and they simply supported it in their translation.

So I began the quest to determine the origin of the Mainstream Gospel. I was interested to see how it developed to the point that the Church of England would make such a grievous, long-lasting, error.

My Method for Research

It is perhaps an annoying trait of mine to some that I insist on digging things up for myself. I choose not to take anyone's word for something just because of their credentials. I have the inquisitive mind of the engineering scientist. I like to prove theories for myself.

The first step in my research was an exercise that proved very useful to me. I pretended that I was picking up the Bible for the very first time. I read the entire Bible over the course of a year, reading the books in historical order, rather than the published order. While doing this, I asked myself very basic questions, attempting to pretend that I did not already know the answers:

Who is God?

Why did He create Man?

What is heaven, and how is it described?

What is the relationship between God and Man?

Why do we die, and what happens after death?

When is the promise of a resurrection first mentioned?

Where is it promised that we will see heaven?

etc.

Then, after reaching the end of the New Testament, I decided to find what other sources of literature of the times were available. I discovered and read the Apocrypha and its history. I noted with interest why such works were discounted as non-canonical. Then, I discovered and read much of the Ante-Nicene Fathers collection of Christian literature dating from the first century AD and forward. I also have an edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica that I used to trace political history as well as learn about various religions and their beliefs.

And slowly but surely, the origins of the Mainstream Gospel came to light. So without further ado, allow me to present the results of my research to date.

A History Lesson

In order to understand how the Mainstream Gospel came about, we have to first review the history of world events. We will start with the captivity of Israel in Babylon and work our way through the New Testament to the establishment of the Roman Catholic church as the official religion of the Roman Empire.

1. Babylon to Calvary

Historians date the Babylonian takeover of Judah to about 586 BC. Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed, and Judah found themselves without the center of worship that was a necessary feature of their worship. They found themselves enslaved as in the days of Egypt.

Jeremiah and other prophets of the day spoke of a return to Jerusalem and the emergence of s Judean King as the ruler of Israel and all the nations. During this exile is when most of the prophecies about the coming Messiah took place.

Eventually Persia replaced the Babylonian Empire as the recognized world leader. King Cyrus allowed the Jews to return to their homeland. The restorations of Jerusalem and the temple were begun. Under much opposition by Samaria the temple was finally finished in the year 516 BC. Thus ended the 70-year exile predicted by Jeremiah. But where was the Messiah?

Not many years after this point in time, the Old Testament as we know it ends, more the 400 years before the coming of the Christ. But during this period Judaism as a religion underwent a dramatic series of changes.

This was because of the Greeks. Alexander the Great stormed through the Middle East, and conquered Jerusalem in 332 BC. The Greeks ruled over the Jews until the Roman Empire took over in the year 63 BC, just before the birth of Christ.

The Jews at first prospered under Greek rule. To an extent, they enjoyed religious freedom, but with it came a price. The Greeks, who reveled in their mythology and culture, would not leave the Jews to themselves. They studied the Law and the Prophets, and encouraged the translation of them into the Greek language.

This version of the Bible, called the Septuagint, was a mixture of authentic Hebrew scripture and other, more recent, works that were not Scripture. In addition to having these questionable works, the translation of the original Hebrew was not very good. These two features of the Septuagint helped in producing divisions among the Jews. The educated minority of Jews argued the validity of the later material, whereas the uneducated majority could not tell the difference.

Also during the Greek occupation there arose social class distinctions among the Jews. The priesthood became the wealthy ruling class, and were the willing pawns of the Greeks. They believed in and promoted the Greek culture from which they benefited. This process of introducing Greek myths and culture into a target culture is called "Hellenization". Some of these upper class priests eventually came to be known as the Sadducees during the days of Christ Jesus.

The Pharisees were primarily middle class Jews who rejected Hellenization on religious principles and were opposed to the Sadducees on social and political grounds.

Much of the literature written in the days of the Greeks was permeated with Hellenistic myths and philosophy, even if the authors were Jews promoting Judaism. These questionable works that were considered Scripture at the time but later proved to be Hellenistic in nature are called the Apocrypha by Christian historians. The tarnishing nature of the Hellenistic influence is the primary reason why these works do not exist in our Bible today. But a minority portion of these works were considered canon by the Jews. These are commonly available in English and are included in some versions of the Christian Bible (most notably in the NRSV).

2. Calvary to Rome

During the life of Jesus, the Roman Empire was just getting started. They adopted Greek mythology and evolved it and translated it into the Latin tongue to fit their purposes. The use of the Greek language by the common people gradually gave ground to Latin, but not for a very long time. The Hellenistic Age is said to span from about 300 BC to 300 AD.

So the early churches suffered from this long period of change and confusion. At first Rome tolerated Christians and Jews, but then persecuted them severely. Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 70 AD by Titus of Rome, and many Christians were persecuted and martyred for their beliefs.

The literature of the period presents a confusing clash of Judaism, Greek and Roman mythology, and Christianity. Social interactions were common, and many ideas from each religion were borrowed and adopted into the others. Divisions and sects abounded in each camp. The writings of Paul to the various churches in different regional areas attest to this confusion. Paul anticipated the straying of Christians from "sound doctrine":

2TI 4:1 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths.

One such "Christian" sect of historical note are the Gnostics. More is probably known about Gnosticism than any other religion of the day besides Christianity and Judaism. This is because the Gnostics produced reams of literature of their own. From what we can see from their writings, they attempted to blend Judaism, Christianity, and mythology into one religious system, believing that inspiration was not given to just one people, but to many. Appealing to philosophers and other intellectuals, Gnosticism centered around the search for knowledge ("gnosis") and wisdom ("sophia"). Thus Gnosticism represents the epitome of Hellenism, a grand blend of all knowledge and culture.

Ironically it seems that the Gnostics actually helped Christianity define itself and help its spread and acceptance. In the early 300's Constantine the Great, the first Roman Emperor who professed himself a Christian, made Christianity the official religion of the empire, and Gnosticism faded along with the rest of Greek and Roman mythology.

By then Latin was the official language and the first "authorized" Latin version of the Bible, the Vulgate, was published in the year 405.

But by then Christianity had strayed very far from the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Because of the changes from Hebrew to Greek to Latin, it was very difficult for the average person to learn the truth. Most of what the Christians believed was an oral tradition that was handed down from generation to generation and influenced by Hellenism, Gnosticism, and simple ignorance. In addition, the Roman Catholic church became more concerned with politics than with doctrine, due to its status as the state religion. Christianity was in serious need of reformation.

3. The Reformation to Date

Eventually, Latin evolved into many dialects as the Roman Empire expanded and faded. Roman Catholicism attempted to keep control of Christianity by preventing the translation of the Bible into other languages. After a period of time Latin was used only by the Catholic priests who alone were "qualified" to read and understand Scripture.

The Reformation period marks the beginning of the recovery of the truth. Because of the advent of mass publishing, hints of the truth about the true Christian gospel began to surface. And the reformation continues today.

So this is how the Mainstream Gospel stands today. It can be classified as a "reformation in progress". Many of the truths of the Gospel of the Kingdom have been restored. But we still have more ground to cover.

Hellenistic Religions

The results of my research suggest to me that the origin of the doctrine that the elect ascend immediately to heaven dates all the way back to even before the life of Christ. This doctrine comes directly from Greek mythology, from the beliefs of the Hellenistic religions.

There were a wide variety of beliefs among the Greeks, but the Encyclopedia Britannica defines the following as the most common feature among these various Hellenistic religions:

The characteristic religion of the Hellenistic period was dualistic. Man sought to escape from the despotism of this world and its rulers and to ascend to another world of freedom. Hellenistic man saw himself as an exile from his true home, the Beyond, and he sought for ways to return. He strove to regain his place in the world beyond this world where he truly belonged, to encounter the god beyond the god of this world who was the true god, and to awaken that part of himself (his soul or spirit) that had descended from the heavenly realm by stripping off his body, which belonged to this world.
The Greeks viewed this earth and our flesh as a prison from which we must escape. This earth was established by a lesser, less-than-omnipotent god, and this explained why the world contained suffering, evil, and death. The Greeks desired a life after death in order to be finally free from the confines of the physical world.

But there was a catch: the gods would only allow those into the Beyond upon whom they looked favorably. To the Greeks, only the "wise" were expected to receive this reward, whereas the "foolish" would be sent to the nether world to be tortured by either the god Hades himself or one of his cohorts.

The gaining of wisdom was cherished by the Greeks as the means of their salvation. Again, according to the Britannica:

... if one could determine how this creation came into being, one could reverse it or overcome it and be saved.

So to the Greeks, the gods were attracted to wisdom. And in many of the Hellenistic religions, the path to the heavenly realm was often gained as a result of the test of ones's wisdom after they died. Others considered wealth as an indication of wisdom, so that many Greeks were buried with coins in their mouths to pay for passage over the river Styx.

Hellenism Meets Judaism

When the Greeks analyzed the Hebrew Scriptures and the oral tradition of the Jews, they saw several things that clashed with their view of the afterlife. From the way the Septuagint was translated and from reading the Apocryphal writings of the period, we can identify five important contradictions (for this discussion) between Judaism and Hellenism.

1. The Clash Over Sheol as a Temporary Place for all the Dead

The Greeks considered the test of one's wisdom and the subsequent reward to be performed instantly upon death, whereas the Hebrew Scriptures told of a place called Sheol where ALL of the dead went upon death.

Part of the way to deal with this "error" on the part of the Jews was to translate the word "Sheol" as "Hades" in the Septuagint. This led to the eventual thinking that Sheol/Hades was a place to be avoided. But the Apocryphal writings of those "stubborn Jews" shows that Judaism took a hard line on Sheol as a place for all the dead in spite of it being called Hades in the Greek language (quotations from the NRSVA Apocrypha):

TOB 13:2 For he afflicts, and he shows mercy;
he leads down to Hades in the lowest regions of the earth,
and he brings up from the great abyss,
and there is nothing that can escape his hand.

WIS 16:13 For you have power over life and death; you lead mortals down to the gates of Hades and back again.

But not all of the Apocryphal writings seem entirely consistent in this regard:

PRSI 21:9 An assembly of the wicked is like a bundle of tow,
and their end is a blazing fire.

PRSI 21:10 The way of sinners is paved with smooth stones,
but at its end is the pit of Hades.

In this passage, we see a little confusion on the part of the author: he seems to confuse Hades with the post-judgment eternal fate of the sinner.

2. The Clash Over Paradise

The Greeks had to suggest an alternative to Sheol/Hades for the immediate afterlife of the "wise". They found the answer in the story of Adam and Eve.

In the Septuagint, the word "garden" was translated as "paradiso", and Paradise was introduced as the alternative to Sheol/Hades. But instead of Paradise being a physical place on earth, the Greek version of Paradise was heavenly. To die and go to Paradise was to enter the presence of the Most High God.

The Greeks pushed the idea that the Garden of Eden was actually a celestial place from which Adam and Eve were removed when they transgressed. But the Apocryphal writings of the Jews show us that they did not take to this very well at all. They were willing to accept the name "Paradise" as a term for a future description of the post-judgment afterlife, but not the immediate destination of the saved:

2ESD 7:32 The earth shall give up those who are asleep in it, and the dust those who rest there in silence; and the chambers shall give up the souls that have been committed to them. 33 The Most High shall be revealed on the seat of judgment, and compassion shall pass away, and patience shall be withdrawn. 34 Only judgment shall remain, truth shall stand, and faithfulness shall grow strong. 35 Recompense shall follow, and the reward shall be manifested; righteous deeds shall awake, and unrighteous deeds shall not sleep. 36 The pit of torment shall appear, and opposite it shall be the place of rest; and the furnace of hell shall be disclosed, and opposite it the paradise of delight.

Here the author is distinguishing between the immediate afterlife and the final destiny. Before the resurrection, the dead are in the "pit of torment" or the "place of rest". But afterwards, the destiny will be the "furnace of hell" or the "paradise of delight". Elsewhere in this book, later on in chapter 7, the places of torment and rest are describing the pre-resurrection Hades (discussed later in this paper).

But this Apocryphal work also shows the influences of the heaven-seeking Hellenists.

2ESD 4:7 And he said to me, "If I had asked you, 'How many dwellings are in the heart of the sea, or how many streams are at the source of the deep, or how many streams are above the firmament, or which are the exits of Hades, or which are the entrances of paradise?' 8 perhaps you would have said to me, 'I never went down into the deep, nor as yet into Hades, neither did I ever ascend into heaven.'

So here the author implies that Paradise is a celestial place, whereas the Hebrew Scriptures never promise any eternal destiny other than a Godly Kingdom on a new earth.

3. The Clash over a Future Earthly Kingdom

Which brings us to the third clash between the Jews and the Greeks. Isaiah's description of the eternal destiny coincides with John's vision in Revelation of the New Creation.

ISA 66:22 "For just as the new heavens and the new earth Which I make will endure before Me," declares the LORD, "So your offspring and your name will endure. 23 "And it shall be from new moon to new moon And from sabbath to sabbath, All mankind will come to bow down before Me," says the LORD. 24 "Then they shall go forth and look On the corpses of the men Who have transgressed against Me. For their worm shall not die, And their fire shall not be quenched; And they shall be an abhorrence to all mankind."

But earthly kingdoms, especially ones where the Jews will be in charge, were looked upon as incorrect doctrine by the Greeks. This clash was certainly inspired more by prejudice than anything else. The Greeks scoffed at the idea that a Messiah would come and take the world away from their awesome might and give it to the Jews.

And in their minds the idea was also foolish for religious reasons. Since the physical world was viewed with disdain, the idea of an earthly kingdom under heavenly rule was ridiculous. The Greek idea of the afterlife was to leave this world and to never look back.

4. The Clash Over the Separation of Spirit and Soul

Most of the Jews understood from the Scriptures that the human spirit and the soul separated from the body at death. The spirit, which is simply the "breath", or "life", given to the man by God, returns to God at death. But the soul, which is the personality of the man, his consciousness, goes to Sheol to await resurrection. The spirit is pure because it is God's breath, but the soul is impure, the part of man that sins. The soul is not worthy of heaven without the process of salvation and sanctification. Here are the primary Old Testament passages that state that the spirit of a man is from God and that it returns to God immediately upon death:

JOB 33:4 The Spirit of God has made me,
And the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

JOB 34:14 "If He should determine to do so,
If He should gather to Himself His spirit and His breath,
15 All flesh would perish together,
And man would return to dust.

ECC 12:7 then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.

This final passage hints that the resurrection of the dead occurs when the Spirit is once again sent forth:

PS 104:29 Thou dost hide Thy face, they are dismayed;
Thou dost take away their spirit, they expire, And return to their dust.
30 Thou dost send forth Thy Spirit, they are created;
And Thou dost renew the face of the ground.

But many verses tell us that the soul of a man does indeed go to Sheol, e.g.,

PS 49:15 But God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol

And since there is not a single verse that speaks of a man's spirit going to Sheol, the inference is that a man's spirit is the life given to him by God, and that life returns to God at death. Then God will give the man's spirit back to him at his resurrection. So the Jews rightly believed that the soul cannot live apart from the spirit, and that the body cannot live apart from the soul. The resurrection of the dead is a reunification of the body, soul, and spirit.

The Hellenists believed only in two parts to man's being: the physical and the spiritual. The separation of spirit and soul was a foreign doctrine to them. The Hellenists, with some degree of success (as we will shortly see), convinced people to regard the spirit and soul of a man as one entity. But many Jews adhered to the concept, because it was part of the teaching regarding the resurrection of the dead.

5. The Clash Over the Resurrection of the Dead

To most of the Greeks, the thought of a resurrection from the dead (to an earthly kingdom or otherwise) was absolutely ludicrous. Why would someone actually desire to be put back into this restrictive physical world after finally having been freed from it? The physical world was viewed as corrupt, but the spiritual world was seen as ideal.

The Greeks looked upon the physical body with utter disdain. The soul was imprisoned in the flesh, and the duty of the Greek was to seek the way out. Once free, the soul moved on to its eternal destiny and the body simply dissolved into nothingness, to be remembered no more.

In fact, in looking over these clashes between the Jews and the Greeks, the doctrine of resurrection was the root cause of all five differences. Since the Jews believed in a resurrection from the dead and a future judgment of mankind, this necessitated the need for there to be a Sheol for all the dead apart from the eternal destiny. And for the soul to be restored to life required the spirit and soul to be reunited. And the result of a physical resurrection from the dead naturally coincided with the expectation of an earthly kingdom.

Thus, if the Greeks could have just won the battle with the Jews over the resurrection of the dead, then they would have won the war. The Jews would have been completely Hellenized, chasing after Greek gods and seeking wisdom as a means of salvation.

New Testament Evidence of the Resurrection Argument

The Jewish Apocrypha does not budge on the doctrine of resurrection. However, the New Testament writings tell of a specific sect of the Jews who did not believe in the resurrection:

AC 23:6 But perceiving that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, "Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!" 7 And as he said this, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. 8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.

Historical record of the Sadducees is limited. They apparently were a short-lived sect at the time of Christ. Josephus, a Jewish historian, undoubtedly used this quote from the Acts to state his opinion that the Sadducees did not believe in any afterlife whatsoever. But history also describes the Sadducees as being active Hellenists. Therefore, there is a growing belief that Josephus was wrong in this judgment of the Sadducees, and that they did believe in an afterlife after the manner of the Greeks.

This view makes more sense when one reads the Biblical narrative of the Sadducees. They are consistently identified as rejectors of the resurrection doctrine. Consider that if they were not believers in any afterlife whatsoever, then surely the New Testament authors would have stated that as the foremost Sadducee heresy.

It is very interesting to read the famous discourse between Jesus and the Sadducees in light of this history:

MT 22:23 On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Him and questioned Him, 24 saying, "Teacher, Moses said, `If a man dies, having no children, his brother as next of kin shall marry his wife, and raise up an offspring to his brother.' 25 "Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother; 26 so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh. 27 "And last of all, the woman died. 28 "In the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven shall she be? For they all had her."

The Sadducees, as active Hellenists, were getting at the very core of the Greek criticism of the Hebrew Scriptures and Judaism. Now Jesus could have replied in several ways, quoting the myriad Old Testament references to the promise of a resurrection from Sheol and the future judgment. But Jesus responds in a strange, unexpected, way:

29 But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God. 30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31 "But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken to you by God, saying, 32 `I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living." 33 And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.

From this exchange we have insight into one of the Sadducee's main arguments against the resurrection. It is a fact that the Law (the books of Moses) do not explicitly mention the resurrection from the dead. The Sadducees certainly must have used this fact as grounds against the doctrine of resurrection. So as a convenience they were willing to accept the Law as canon, but discounted the rest of the Old Testament. So Jesus, already knowing of these arguments, actually showed how the books of Moses are in support of the doctrine of the resurrection (but in a subtle sense). He also assured the Sadducees that angels do exist, and that men will become "like angels" after the resurrection.

Before moving on, recall the description of the Sadducees given in Acts:
For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.
Not much is known about the Sadducee's stand on "angels", and even less about what the author meant about them not believing in "a spirit". But I would guess that it had to do with the Greek debate with the Jews over the separation of spirit and soul. But these last two aspects of what the Sadducees believed or not was secondary to their disbelief in the resurrection.

From these exchanges and from historical accounts, I submit to you, the reader, that the Sadducees did indeed believe in an afterlife, but they did not believe in a future resurrection. And since they did not believe in the resurrection, they believed that a soul/spirit was going to ascend directly to "Paradise" upon their deaths, instead of descending to Sheol.

Hellenism And Christianity

I have laid the foundation for an argument that the doctrine of an immediate ascent to heaven, thus bypassing the time in Sheol and denying the resurrection, has its roots in the Hellenistic beliefs of the Greeks. To be sure, when one reads the New Testament in this light, the facts are that the Christian apostles, like the Pharisees, exerted much effort on defending the resurrection of the dead. And it is the preaching about the resurrection that got them into trouble.

They defended the resurrection doctrine to some of the Jews:

AC 4:1 And as they were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple guard, and the Sadducees, came upon them, 2 being greatly disturbed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead.

And to the Greeks in Athens:

AC 17:18 And also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him [Paul]. And some were saying, "What would this idle babbler wish to say?" Others, "He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,"--because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection.

...AC 17:32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer, but others said, "We shall hear you again concerning this." 33 So Paul went out of their midst. 34 But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.

Even to members of the Church in Corinth:

1CO 15:12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

...16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

And to other individuals:

2TI 2:16 But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, 17 and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and thus they upset the faith of some.

The Church in Thessalonica was so confused, that Paul even had to tell them the basics about death and resurrection:

1TH 4:13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve, as do the rest who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

And here is the epitome of passages on the resurrection of the dead. This is Paul's answer to a very common question in his day (as we will see later):

1CO 15:35 But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?" 36 You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; 37 and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. 39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

The New Testament also supports the separation of soul and spirit upon death when it describes the crucifixion of Jesus. Three of the gospels specifically mention that Jesus' spirit left Him upon His death, and that it went back to the Father:

MT 27:50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.

LK 23:46 And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into Thy hands I commit my spirit." And having said this, He breathed His last.

JN 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head, and gave up His spirit.

Yet Peter asserted in Acts 2:25-32 that Jesus' "soul" went to "Hades" before His resurrection. Surely Stephen was aware of this distinction between soul and spirit as he was being martyred:

AC 7:59 And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!"

That at the resurrection of the dead the spirit returns to a person is supported by:

LK 8:54 He, however, took her by the hand and called, saying, "Child, arise!" 55 And her spirit returned, and she rose immediately; and He gave orders for something to be given her to eat.

That Paul recognized a difference between soul and spirit is exhibited by:

1TH 5:23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

There should be no confusion over what the Bible says about death and resurrection, soul and spirit. Yet confusion persists today. How often I have longed for a verse from Paul that says in no uncertain terms, "My soul is going to Hades to wait for the return of my spirit", or "I, like Christ, will not ascend to heaven until after my resurrection". But of course if there were such statements in our New Testament, church history would have taken a much different path. It is only by the lack of such definitive statements that allows one the possibility of interpreting the following as an assurance of an immediate ascent to heaven:

2CO 5:1 For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven; 3 inasmuch as we, having put it on, shall not be found naked. 4 For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed, but to be clothed, in order that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge. 6 Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord.

even though just four verses later we have:

10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

An analysis of this passage in the context of Paul's other writings tells us that the "dwelling from heaven" is an allusion to our resurrected body. And that we will not be clothed with this body until the resurrection. Before that time, we are "naked", spending our time in Sheol waiting for this clothing, waiting for the mortal to "be swallowed up by life". The first body is physical, earthly, but the second body is spiritual, heavenly. The first body is dirt, the second is pure, incorruptible, and eternal, like that of the angels.

Now let us move on to other literature written after the teachings of Christ and the apostles, and see how these works reflect the conflict between the Greeks and the Jews, and between the Greeks and the Christians.

First Century Jewish Literature: 2 Esdras

2 Esdras, a work found in the Jewish Apocrypha (and has already been quoted in this paper elsewhere), is suspected to have been written after the resurrection of Jesus Christ by a converted Jew (or by a Christian posing as a Jew). Nevertheless, this work was considered authentic by the Jews of the period.

Much of 2 Esdras reads as a question and answer session whereby the author gets to ask an angel of the Lord any question he wants. Thus it contains rather lengthy discussions on the afterlife. Here is the key question of interest to this discussion:

2ESD 7:75 I answered and said, "If I have found favor in your sight, O Lord, show this also to your servant: whether after death, as soon as everyone of us yields up the soul, we shall be kept in rest until those times come when you will renew the creation, or whether we shall be tormented at once?"

You can sense in this question the confusion over the New Testament revelation by Jesus about Hades as a place of torment. The author will attempt to explain how souls can be "in torment" before their resurrection and subsequent judgment. This is why I think the author addresses such torment first:

2ESD 7:78 "Now concerning death, the teaching is: When the decisive decree has gone out from the Most High that a person shall die, as the spirit leaves the body to return again to him who gave it, first of all it adores the glory of the Most High. 79 If it is one of those who have shown scorn and have not kept the way of the Most High, who have despised his law and hated those who fear God-- 80 such spirits shall not enter into habitations, but shall immediately wander about in torments, always grieving and sad, in seven ways.

In this passage we see at least two Hellenistic influences. The first is that the author fails to recognize the difference between soul and spirit. The author confuses the Old Testament revelation that the human's spirit returns to the Father, while the soul enters Sheol. So what he did here was to suggest that the "spirit" first goes to heaven, but only briefly, and then goes to one of two places to await resurrection, either to a place of rest or a place of torment.

Secondly, by referring to God as the "Most High", he is following a practice common in his day. The term is a legitimate term for God first mentioned in Genesis. But to the Greeks, the most high god was NOT Jehovah. (This will be discussed in more detail later.) By referring to Jehovah as the Most High God, the Jews were defending their God to the Greeks.

But having noted these two things, let us move on to see how he justifies the existence of torment in Hades:

81 The first way, because they have scorned the law of the Most High. 82 The second way, because they cannot now make a good repentance so that they may live. 83 The third way, they shall see the reward laid up for those who have trusted the covenants of the Most High. 84 The fourth way, they shall consider the torment laid up for themselves in the last days. 85 The fifth way, they shall see how the habitations of the others are guarded by angels in profound quiet. 86 The sixth way, they shall see how some of them will cross over into torments. 87 The seventh way, which is worse than all the ways that have been mentioned, because they shall utterly waste away in confusion and be consumed with shame, and shall wither with fear at seeing the glory of the Most High in whose presence they sinned while they were alive, and in whose presence they are to be judged in the last times.

Now I will not pretend to defend this author's "revelation" as truth, but it does provide much insight into the doctrinal struggle of the period. Going on, the author describes the fate of the righteous:

2ESD 7:88 "Now this is the order of those who have kept the ways of the Most High, when they shall be separated from their mortal body. 89 During the time that they lived in it, they laboriously served the Most High, and withstood danger every hour so that they might keep the law of the Lawgiver perfectly. 90 Therefore this is the teaching concerning them: 91 First of all, they shall see with great joy the glory of him who receives them, for they shall have rest in seven orders. 92 The first order, because they have striven with great effort to overcome the evil thought that was formed with them, so that it might not lead them astray from life into death. 93 The second order, because they see the perplexity in which the souls of the ungodly wander and the punishment that awaits them. 94 The third order, they see the witness that he who formed them bears concerning them, that throughout their life they kept the law with which they were entrusted. 95 The fourth order, they understand the rest that they now enjoy, being gathered into their chambers and guarded by angels in profound quiet, and the glory waiting for them in the last days. 96 The fifth order, they rejoice that they have now escaped what is corruptible and shall inherit what is to come; and besides they see the straits and toil from which they have been delivered, and the spacious liberty that they are to receive and enjoy in immortality. 97 The sixth order, when it is shown them how their face is to shine like the sun, and how they are to be made like the light of the stars, being incorruptible from then on. 98 The seventh order, which is greater than all that have been mentioned, because they shall rejoice with boldness, and shall be confident without confusion, and shall be glad without fear, for they press forward to see the face of him whom they served in life and from whom they are to receive their reward when glorified."

So here we see the author desperately defending Sheol/Hades as the temporary abode of the dead, complete with both the place of rest guarded by angels, and the area of torment for others. In this respect, he is consistent with the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16. Where he is inconsistent is where he asserts that the spirit/soul ascends to heaven to be exposed to God's glory before the resurrection.

2 Esdras is admittedly a flawed piece of literature, and should not be used to defend doctrine. But the work is of interest, and it should not be discounted completely out of hand. As in many other works of the period, there are elements of truth buried in them. We must be thankful that we have the inspired writings of Paul and the original apostles available to us.

Early Christian Authors

1. Preface

The New Testament writings of Paul and the other apostles are only a tidbit of the reams of literature that the early Christians wrote in defense of the gospel: first to the Greeks, and later to the Gnostics.

All of the quotations in this section are taken from the Ante-Nicene Fathers Collection, which is a fairly complete compilation. I believe for the most part that the collection is free from bias, as the compilers wanted to simply document the history of the church fathers, both good and bad. But notably missing is the Gnostic literature of the period. Information about Gnosticism must be gained from other resources, but one can certainly read probably more than they would ever want to read about it from the apologies of Iranaeus, some of which is quoted herein.

As a preface to this section, please take my word that I took a truly unbiased stance when I began the perusal of this material. The way I am presenting it in this paper (with my conclusions already in place) was NOT the mindset that I had when I began the research. Certainly my motivation was to see how the Mainstream Gospel came to be prevalent among the church leaders, but I was willing to let this material convince me that I was way off base with my original Biblical research.

If my prior Biblical research was wrong (and believe me when I say I wish it was), and the early Christians did indeed expect to go to heaven immediately upon death, then other literature from the period would attest to this. But if I am right, and this doctrine originated from Greek mythology, then literature from this period would first show a strong debate with the Hellenists, followed by a gradual decline toward the Mainstream Gospel. Sadly, this scenario is exactly what I uncovered as I researched the literature.

But I would encourage you to read this material for yourself, and to make up your own mind about what it says. The material is readily available to PC users for key-word searches. In fact, it is through such key-word searches as "Hades", "heaven", "hell", "paradise", and "resurrection" that I put together the following material.

Keep in mind that I am not deliberately masking information from you in an attempt to sway your opinion to mine. But for the sake of space (and your patience), I am definitely not showing you everything that I found. Yet I am trying to be fair in showing you the ratio of both supportive material and otherwise.

But I will have to say that this search proved to me more than anything else that the Mainstream Gospel's doctrine of an immediate ascent to heaven or descent into hell is in error, ultimately indefensible by the Bible and these other authors.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers collection spans the first four centuries of Christian history leading up to the Nicene Council ordered by Constantine the Great. Many of the authors were apologists (defending Christian doctrine to skeptics), and it is these authors who provide the most insight into the beliefs of the early Christians. One thing that struck me as very interesting was the instant recognition of Paul's letters as sources to be quoted. He is often referred to as simply "the apostle". Thus very early on, the epistles of Paul were cherished as equal to Scripture by these authors.

The following material is organized in historical order (as determined by the compilers of the collection). Each section covers the work of an individual author. And each author's work was scanned using key-word searches to see if they addressed any of the following questions:

The immediate destiny: Hades for all or heaven/hell?

Entrance into heaven expected at any other time?

Resurrection of the believers discussed?

What is Paradise?

Mention of the Millennial Kingdom?

Mention of a New Heaven and a New Earth and the Eternal Kingdom?

Many of the lesser authors are skipped over, but only because they are either not adding to the discussion, or they did not address the questions with enough certainty to be included.

2. Clement (~30-100 AD)

We have one epistle from Clement to the church in Corinth. This Clement is believed to be the same Clement who Paul referred to in Philippians 4:3.

In scanning over this lengthy letter, we see the main theme is an exhortation to return to unity. He, like Paul, implored those in Corinth who were striving to be great to repent from promoting their own various theories about the Gospel. And, like Paul, he defended the hope of a future resurrection:
Let us consider, beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future resurrection, of which He has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead.

... For [the Scripture] saith in a certain place, "Thou shalt raise me up, and I shall confess unto Thee;" and again, "I laid me down, and slept; I awaked, because Thou art with me;" and again, Job says, "Thou shalt raise up this flesh of mine, which has suffered all these things." Having then this hope, let our souls be bound to Him who is faithful in His promises, and just in His judgments.

And in another place, he mentions Hades (but not by name) as a place of rest for the "godly" (the quote is probably a paraphrase of Isa 26:20):

All the generations from Adam even unto this day have passed away; but those who, through the grace of God, have been made perfect in love, now possess a place among the godly, and shall be made manifest at the revelation of the kingdom of Christ. For it is written, �Enter into thy secret chambers for a little time, until my wrath and fury pass away; and I will remember a propitious day, and will raise you up out of your graves.�

Regarding heaven, Clement never mentioned heaven as a place to be desired. In fact, Clement possessed a view of heaven as being an imperfect place:

What then? Shall a man be pure before the Lord? or shall such an one be [counted] blameless in his deeds, seeing He does not confide in His servants, and has charged even His angels with perversity? The heaven is not clean in His sight: how much less they that dwell in houses of clay, of which also we ourselves were made!

Clement gives us a perspective that complements the Scripture. Jesus declared that this heaven would pass away, and that a new heaven would be created. This new heaven would be one without the blemish of fallen angels. So Clement had a reason for not desiring this heaven. He, like the other Christians, looked forward to a new heaven and a new earth.

Unfortunately, this letter from Clement does not address much else from our list of questions. So let us move on to later works.

3. Polycarp (~ 65-155 AD)

We have one short epistle from Polycarp to the Philippians, in which he exhorted them to refute false doctrines:

"For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist;" and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan. Wherefore, forsaking the vanity of many, and their false doctrines, let us return to the word which has been handed down to us from the beginning.

Unfortunately, Polycarp does not explicitly name these heretics. But the list of heresies is consistent with that of the Hellenists. Clement and Polycarp establish a pattern that I found to be common among these early Christians. Almost every one of them vigorously defended the hope of the resurrection from the dead as a key part of the Christian faith. And the later authors had no problem naming names.

4. Justin Martyr (~ 110-165 AD)

Justin Martyr was a prolific writer, and he was the first Christian apologist. He defended the Christian gospel to both the Jews and the Greeks. It is this man's work, along with Iranaeus (coming up next) that we get the most insight into not only what the early Christians believed, but how these beliefs differed from the Hellenistic beliefs prevalent at the time.

The work Dialogue of Justin discusses much about the expectation of the Millennial Kingdom. For example:

And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place.

This work also contains a very disturbing passage which is germane to our discussion:

For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, ... who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees � are Jews � But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.

This statement confirms what Paul hinted in his epistles: that there was a sect of Christians even in these early times that disbelieved in the resurrection. But this passage goes further to explain what Paul did not: this sect believed that they would go directly to heaven upon death, thus bypassing the path of resurrection, a Millennial Kingdom, and a future judgment.

Herein we see proof that there were once a group of Christians that went against the teachings of Paul and the other apostles. They would rather believe that they would go to heaven directly, and they joined the Greeks in denying the resurrection. This was surely partly inspired by the doctrinal fights between the Christians and the Jews. Apparently, many ignorant Christians joined the Greeks and Romans in denouncing that a Jewish King would once again rule the earth. So Justin found himself simultaneously defending the resurrection and the coming Millennial Kingdom in which Jerusalem (the destruction of which was already ancient history) would be restored.

Found among the fragments of a lost work on the resurrection is this little gem, which confirms that the Christian believed in three parts of man, rather than two, and that this concept is linked to the resurrection of the dead:

The resurrection is a resurrection of the flesh which died. For the spirit dies not; the soul is in the body, and without a soul it cannot live. The body, when the soul forsakes it, is not. For the body is the house of the soul; and the soul the house of the spirit. These three, in all those who cherish a sincere hope and unquestioning faith in God, will be saved.

Another passage of interest is found in the Address to the Greeks. Here Justin is trying to show the fallacy of the Greek's disbelief in the resurrection:

Here Plato seems to me to have learnt from the prophets not only the doctrine of the judgment, but also of the resurrection, which the Greeks refuse to believe. For his saying that the soul is judged along with the body, proves nothing more clearly than that he believed the doctrine of the resurrection. Since how could Ardiaeus and the rest have undergone such punishment in Hades, had they left on earth the body, with its head, hands, feet, and skin? For certainly they will never say that the soul has a head and hands, and feet and skin. But Plato, having fallen in with the testimonies of the prophets in Egypt, and having accepted what they teach concerning the resurrection of the body, teaches that the soul is judged in company with the body.

The works of Justin Martyr paint a picture of a man struggling to define the Christian faith against three fronts: the Jews, the Greeks, and an as yet unnamed Christian sect (the Gnostics) who were apparently influenced by the Greeks.

I would recommend that you read Justin's works, especially if you are interested in how he put forth his arguments to the Jews and to the Greek philosophers.

5. Iranaeus (~ 120-202 AD)

Iranaeus was very familiar with Justin Martyr's works and he took up the fight where Justin left off. Iranaeus is my favorite author from the period. By reading his arguments against the Greeks and against the growing Gnostic sect of Christians, one gets a fairly complete picture, although very complex, of the damaging Hellenistic influences on Christianity.

One reason the Gnostics were so successful in infiltrating Christianity was that they promoted a reasonable premise that divine revelation was made to all people of all faiths. So the Gnostics blended Christian doctrine and the Hellenistic view of things, thus making the two indistinguishable to the unlearned. What must have attracted many to this movement was that it may have been initially more successful in "converting" Romans and Greeks to "Christianity" than the pure gospel did. But thanks to those like Iranaeus, we have a written record that survived to pass on the truth.

The writings of Iranaeus reveal the mind of an intellectual, one who was very aware of what the Christian faith was all about. He was also very educated on the various Gnostic sects. Reading his material requires concentration, much of it of only historical interest. But embedded in these pages are some very important tidbits that help us to see how the Mainstream Gospel evolved.

Gnosticism was a complex blend of Greek mythology, Jewish, and Christian thought. The result was a patently unbiblical view of the Creator. The Demiurge, as he was called, was a renegade god who fashioned the world to feed his own ego. The world he created was an imperfect world. Salvation, then, was a process by which one would break free from the evil clutches of the Demiurge.

The Gnostic version of the Adam and Eve story maintained the serpent was the hero who convinced men to eat from the tree of Knowledge (gnosis). The result of this was indeed death, but death for someone who had obtained true knowledge meant that one would be freed from the physical world, and then ascend upward beyond the realm of the Demiurge.

The Gnostic version of heaven was that it had seven layers, with the Demiurge occupying one of the lower levels. The enlightened Gnostic's victory over the Demiurge was described by Iranaeus as being aided by a female deity:

This mother they also call Ogdoad, Sophia; Terra, Jerusalem, Holy Spirit, and, with a masculine reference, Lord. Her place of habitation is an intermediate one, above the Demiurge indeed, but below and outside of the Pleroma.
This Sophia (Wisdom) was the source of salvation to the Gnostic. She would ultimately bring them to the highest (seventh) heaven:
When all the seed [Gnostics] shall have come to perfection, they state that then their mother Achamoth [or Sophia] shall pass from the intermediate place, and enter in within the Pleroma, and shall receive as her spouse the Savior, who sprang from all the Aeons, that thus a conjunction may be formed between the Savior and Sophia, that is, Achamoth.

Thus we see how the immediate ascension into heaven for the dead probably evolved from the Gnostic version of salvation.

Demonstrated here is a nefarious combination of truth and myth that made Gnosticism an enticement to those who were unlearned in the Scriptures. Remember that the majority of the middle class at this time were almost illiterate. So they were ill-equipped to buck against the Hellenistic tide.

Iranaeus had much to say about such heresies, but let us move on. He made a very important point as to why the doctrine of an immediate ascent to heaven was contrary to the gospel:

Since, again, some who are reckoned among the orthodox go beyond the pre-arranged plan for the exaltation of the just, and are ignorant of the methods by which they are disciplined beforehand for incorruption, they thus entertain heretical opinions. For the heretics ... not admitting the salvation of their flesh ... affirm that immediately upon their death they shall pass above the heavens and the Demiurge, and go to the Mother (Achamoth) or to that Father whom they have feigned. Those persons, therefore, who disallow a resurrection affecting the whole man, and ... remove it from the midst [of the Christian scheme], how can they be wondered at, if again they know nothing as to the plan of the resurrection? ... [They say] the Lord Himself, in whom they profess to believe, did not rise again upon the third day; but immediately upon His expiring on the cross, undoubtedly departed on high, leaving His body to the earth.

Iranaeus then countered an argument that was put forth by the Gnostics: that Christ never went to Hades at all when he died. And in so doing, he made an important point that applies to the Mainstream Gospel promoters of today:

If, then, the Lord observed the law of the dead, that He might become the first-begotten from the dead, and tarried until the third day "in the lower parts of the earth;" then afterwards rising in the flesh, so that He even showed the print of the nails to His disciples, He thus ascended to the Father; - [if all these things occurred, I say], how must these men not be put to confusion, who allege that "the lower parts" refer to this world of ours, but that their inner man, leaving the body here, ascends into the super-celestial place? For as the Lord "went away in the midst of the shadow of death," where the souls of the dead were, yet afterwards arose in the body, and after the resurrection was taken up [into heaven], it is manifest that the souls of His disciples also, upon whose account the Lord underwent these things, shall go away into the invisible place allotted to them by God, and there remain until the resurrection, awaiting that event; then receiving their bodies, and rising in their entirety, that is bodily, just as the Lord arose, they shall come thus into the presence of God. "For no disciple is above the Master, but every one that is perfect shall be as his Master." As our Master, therefore, did not at once depart, taking flight [to heaven], but awaited the time of His resurrection prescribed by the Father, which had been also shown forth through Jonas, and rising again after three days was taken up [to heaven]; so ought we also to await the time of our resurrection prescribed by God and foretold by the prophets, and so, rising, be taken up, as many as the Lord shall account worthy of this [privilege].

Iranaeus also put forth the Millennial Kingdom in its proper perspective in the plan of salvation that God laid out for us:

Inasmuch, therefore, as the opinions of certain [orthodox persons] are derived from heretical discourses, they are both ignorant of God's dispensations, and of the mystery of the resurrection of the just, and of the [earthly] kingdom which is the commencement of incorruption, by means of which kingdom those who shall be worthy are accustomed gradually to partake of the divine nature, and it is necessary to tell them respecting those things, that it behooves the righteous first to receive the promise of the inheritance which God promised to the fathers, and to reign in it, when they rise again to behold God in this creation which is renovated, and that the judgment should take place afterwards.

Once you read the works of Iranaeus, you will wonder how Gnosticism ever became confused with Christianity. Eventually Constantine helped to pretty much wipe out Gnosticism as a credible religion: in fact, he made Gnosticism illegal. But sadly, the effects of it can be readily seen in the writings of the later Christians. Gnosticism died out, but it is still with us today in the form of the Mainstream Gospel.

Today, the Mainstream Gospel does not deny the resurrection of the dead, but it is still in error when it claims that the soul goes to heaven upon death. The most popular explanation I have heard is that the soul will descend from heaven to rejoin the body at the resurrection. But this in denial of the Scriptures regarding the separation of soul and spirit. And more importantly, as Iranaeus so eloquently put it, the gospel exhibits a misunderstanding of the process laid out for us that will "discipline us beforehand" and make us grow "accustomed" to being in the Father's presence. This is the sanctification process that the Mainstream Gospel adherents to not generally accept today.

Regarding Paradise

Not much was written about Paradise by the early Christian authors. But what was written reveals an element of confusion. This confusion was probably fueled by a recognition that the concept of Paradise as a place other than the eternal destiny stepped too close to what the Hellenists were describing as their version of the afterlife. Also the confusion was in part due to the simple lack of definitive information on the subject in the New Testament writings.

As a result of this, I decided to give that subject a separate paper all its own. The results of that research are found on this website by the title The Paradise Enigma.

Conclusion

There are many other authors who deserve mention, but it was not long after these two men that one begins to see the slide of Christianity into apostasy. The apologists of the like of Martyr and Iranaeus eventually gave way to people like Clement of Alexandria (153-217), who wrote:

Raise your eyes from earth to the skies, look up to heaven, admire the sight, cease watching with outstretched head the heel of the righteous, and hindering the way of truth. Be wise and harmless. Perchance the Lord will endow you with the wing of simplicity (for He has resolved to give wings to those that are earth-born), that you may leave your holes and dwell in heaven.

Dear reader, after having gone through this research, I am saddened by the state of Christianity today. If it was simply a matter of not understanding the immediate afterlife, then I would not be so bothered. But the Mainstream Gospel, as I see it, lures people into a sense of complacency regarding their faith. Simply put, there is not enough fear to balance the joy. We have become like undisciplined children, who when disciplined, resent our Father for doing so. The lack of maturity among Christians in America today is obvious. Most of the messages aimed at the congregation of born again believers stress only the expectation of blessings today and a blissful existence in heaven tomorrow. Somehow the myriad of verses that warn us of our responsibilities have been sort of swept under the carpet.

I do not know how many times I have heard that when Christ said "It is finished", the interpretation is that we have no responsibility whatsoever. But, while Christ did indeed accomplish our redemption, and with that came the free gift of eternal life, the act of sanctification is an ongoing process, covering both this age and the next. Christ, in a sense, is just getting started. He will not be truly finished until He has built His pure and spotless Bride.

In closing, let me make one request of you. If you have been convinced that what I have written is mostly true, then here is what I want you to do. Do not verbally challenge your fellow brothers and sisters regarding what they believe. Instead, speak in positive terms. Change your everyday Christian language from speaking of the hope of heaven to that of the resurrection. When and if anyone questions you out of interest, then share with them first the Gospel of the Kingdom before slamming them with something that might shake their faith. Use wisdom in deciding who you would share this paper with.

If you are one who does not accept what I am saying, then please do not take offense. I am just trying to help the reformation move along in the way I feel it needs reforming. But whether I am right or not is beside the point. Just look at Christianity today and agree with me on one point: something needs to change. Too many people live their lives as Christians in name only. The "God" they want is someone who is simply there to give them whatever they ask for. Someone who keeps them out of trouble, and blesses them out of a love that does not expect anything in return. But while God does indeed love us, He will require more from us than we would readily care to admit. And an expectation that we will all go to heaven upon death as equals only helps to make us lukewarm.

My prayer goes out to all who read this paper and the other items on my website: that if nothing else, this material sparks in you a desire to seek what it is that God wants from us, instead of the other way around.

Tim(otheist)
October 2002

[SpeakersCorner]

Timotheist,

I skimmed your posts, reading carefully at points. I will go back and re-read later more thoroughly. But what I believe you have concluded is -- and I hate to put it in such stark terms here -- that Witness Lee got it right. But lest I derail your thoughtful piece let me comment on an omission in your posts which I found interesting: the parable of the ten virgins.

For me, this has always been a very helpful way to see these matters. We see the two classes of virgins -- wise and foolish -- the symbolic view of death and dying (getting drowsy and sleeping), the two items each carried (lamp and vessel), the resurrection at the last trump, the rekindling of the lamp with previously obtained oil as the fuel, the foolish virgins self-judgment, the strange place called "outer darkness," the wedding, the shut door, the sellers of oil in the resurrection marketplace, and more.

No matter how one interprets this parable, he should at the least be convinced that the afterlife is no simple matter.


SC

[Timotheist]

SC,

You are right that my research sides with WL and the Plymouth Brethren on this topic.

I am not one to be supercritical of the LC's basic doctrines. I am on record at the other forum of being thankful for my exposure to WL's teachings. My objections are mostly about the practices of the LC.

I too appreciate that deep truths are revealed in the 10-virgin parable. The topic did not come up in these papers, but I do address the parable in detail in another article.

Yet I do not want to try the patience of the owners of this website by posting a bunch of "Timotheism".

To the owners/moderators:

I probably should have asked permission before posting articles of such length. If I acted presumptively then please forgive me. I will understand and not take offense if you decide to remove the large postings.

[Timotheist]

Forum.

To put these articles into the context of this website, I would like to hear from other ex-LC members who have struggled with this particular topic.

Are you now in a denomination who teaches the heaven/hell gospel? If so, which of these categories best describes you:

A: I have purged myself of the LC teaching on this subject and now have no problem with idea that my soul will go to heaven when I die. (And your articles are baloney... you need help)

B: I accept the death/Sheol/resurrection gospel, but I generally keep this to myself in order to not rock the boat at my church.

C: I accept the death/Sheol/resurrection gospel, and I look for chances to share this gospel with others.

D: None of the above (please elaborate)

Personally, I am a combination of B and C, which causes me to live a sort of dichotomous life. There is the Tim who goes to church, and there is the Tim who, outside the church, will seek out and fellowship with those who are more like-minded. Whenever I find someone who shows signs of being receptive of hearing what I have to say, then I will try to 'convert' them.

I do this because I believe that the heaven/hell gospel tends to make Christians lukewarm (as I described in the articles).

But that means that the "church Tim" tends to drift off into his own thoughts during the services, and he is not thoroughly engaged. This bothers me because I feel that I am not being honest with the members of my church, that I am hiding my true self from them. I also feel guilty at times, that I am hiding my light under a basket.

Yours in Christ,

[aron]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

... in the NT, the NIV changes its stance on the way it translates "Hades". Here is the confusing breakdown:

MT 11:23 -- Capernaum will go down to "the depths"

LK 16:23 -- But the rich man is in "hell"

AC 2:31 -- And Christ spent three days in "the grave"

But in Revelation, Hades is "Hades"

Interesting how we translate the Bible so that it matches our concepts. We "fit" the Word to make it "right" with how we think/hope/wish things are to be.

I have seen this discussion before, elsewhere, but now it is beginning to dawn on me that this is not merely the shadings of semantics.

Mr. T, I am glad you've done this work, and presented it before the reading public. Many thanks.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

Interesting how we translate the Bible so that it matches our concepts. We "fit" the Word to make it "right" with how we think/hope/wish things are to be.

I have seen this discussion before, elsewhere, but now it is beginning to dawn on me that this is not merely the shadings of semantics.

This particular issue is the main reason I have never used the NIV and have steered others away from it whenever I felt it appropriate to offer an opinion on the topic. Of course, it's always difficult to explain why there is a problem in this regard. It's usually only appreciated as a superficial issue - "I call it 'hell' and you call it 'Hades' - what's the difference?" They do the same regarding "heaven" vs. the New Jerusalem which is why I always point them to Gal. 4:26 and hope they struggle with it.

And, just to keep things tracing back to the forum's purposes, it was Lee who first taught me the word "Hades" way back when. I had never heard of anything other than "hell" before I met the folks from the Local Church.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by YP0534

And, just to keep things tracing back to the forum's purposes, it was Lee who first taught me the word "Hades" way back when. I had never heard of anything other than "hell" before I met the folks from the Local Church.

For the record, me too! And I will always thank the LC for getting me started in my Christian life.

Interestingly, there are a few denominations out there who teach against the heaven/hell mainstream. We mentioned the Plymouth Brethren already. The denominations based on Herbert Armstrong's ministry are another.

Some other 7th day adherents as weill. Except for the Plymouth Brethren, these have other things in common with the LC:

1) They are often labeled as cults or nearly so by the mainstream
2) They have the tendency to state they are the true church.
3) They are legalistic.

In the "good ol days" of the LC, the legalism was not so prevalent. But it seems that man's nature is to become legalistic if one is blessed with truth.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Interestingly, there are a few denominations out there who teach against the heaven/hell mainstream. We mentioned the Plymouth Brethren already. The denominations based on Herbert Armstrong's ministry are another.

I've got another one:
The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that their people will "Live forever in paradise on planet earth!" because they believe in a physical resurrection rather than "going to heaven."

Kind of interesting that those who more or less fully throw off the bonds of tradition and orthodoxy all end up with the same conclusions on this topic.

[aron]

Thanks very much for this work, Timotheist. It is exactly the kind of material that I like to chew on. I think about these things a lot. The interplay of Greek and Hebrew thought is worth considering.

Unfortunately I work very slowly, so any reply of substance will have to wait, probably about 5 years at my pace! But it is nice to know there is something here for me to reference. I commend you for your labor.

I have slowly evolved into what one non-christian acquaintance of mine terms as "what comes around goes around".

If you forgive, you will be forgiven. If you curse, you will be cursed. If you don't forgive, neither will your Heavenly Father forgive you. If you show mercy, mercy will be shown to you.

The gospels repeat this over and over again, in various ways, both positively and negatively. It is even included in the so-called 'Lord's Prayer': "Forgive us our trespasses as we have forgiven those who trespass against us."

I am very interested in how different strains of thought influence one another over time. Plato's central point to me is that the seen world is temporary, and the 'world of forms' is the real and unchanging reality behind the tangible ephemera we now experience. Paul, I think, references this when he says that the things seen are not real, but the unseen things are real (2 Cor. chap. 4). Paul also said he was speaking as a Greek to win the Greeks. See his quotation of the Greek poet in his speech at the Agora in Acts chapter 17 as another example.

My point about "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is that whatever conceptual terms we fashion to make sense of the universe/Scriptures/teachings we've been presented with, it must still conform to this simple reality:

"As you have done to others, so it shall be done to you"

[Timotheist]

Aron,

Thanks for the kind words, and I hope you benefit from my research.

Along the lines of your post, I often wonder what the Lord was really saying here:

JHN 20:22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."

The second sentence is not a passage you hear many sermons on.

[cityonahill]

Hey Tim...otheist,

I really appreciate your post. I myself have grown up with the heaven/hell doctrine...I believed this way for quite sometime now until recently.
My previous knowlege of the roman catholic purgatory made me critical of the idea that there was something else before eternal heaven and hell...Mind you, the Reformers had good reasons for throwing doubt on the 'Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory' as that Romish doctrine had then become a source of controlling the saints...(offering money to buy oneself out of purgatory..)

After studying, I came close the same conclusion as you, and I believe when we die we don't immediately wake up in heaven or hell instantly. However, I still believe it is a gray area that will not be clearly defined until we leave this world! I believe by absolutely defining things that are gray areas in scripture, history, and theology, there is a danger of making the same mistakes of those before us. An example would be how WL took this idea too far by creating his own doctrine of the "overcomer"...as a means to promote his own "higher" heaven, making the same mistakes as the 'romish doctrine' before him. While they required money, WL required "proper" methods and practices...I know it is not a completely fair comparison. I'm just arguing that while I agree with your post against the absolute doctrine of heaven and hell, I also disagree with absolutely defining the after-life through the "overcomer" doctrine as WL did.

[aron]

Originally Posted by cityonahill

... I still believe it is a gray area that will not be clearly defined until we leave this world! I believe by absolutely defining things that are gray areas in scripture, history, and theology, there is a danger of making the same mistakes of those before us.

An example would be how WL took this idea too far by creating his own doctrine of the "overcomer"...as a means to promote his own "higher" heaven, making the same mistakes as the 'romish doctrine' before him... while I agree with your post against the absolute doctrine of heaven and hell, I also disagree with absolutely defining the after-life through the "overcomer" doctrine as WL did.

The failure of Lee was not in overdefining a gray area. I don't believe he defined it enough. The failure was pretending that his definition was definitive.

I would encourage to saints to "fire away" and define to their hearts content. Just don't commit the error of thinking you have "laid hold" of the truth. At best you are merely a stepping-stone to the next person. The LSM error is the same as Rome's in that they say "Stop here; the definition process is finished. The interpretation process is closed."

I love what Timotheist has done. I just think it is tentative, and inconclusive, as we all are. Only Christ is at the finish line.

[cityonahill]

Originally Posted by aron

The failure of Lee was not in overdefining a gray area. I don't believe he defined it enough. The failure was pretending that his definition was definitive.

I would encourage to saints to "fire away" and define to their hearts content. Just don't commit the error of thinking you have "laid hold" of the truth. At best you are merely a stepping-stone to the next person. The LSM error is the same as Rome's in that they say "Stop here; the definition process is finished. The interpretation process is closed."

I love what Timotheist has done. I just think it is tentative, and inconclusive, as we all are. Only Christ is at the finish line.

hey,
I think that pretending ones definition is definitive IS in a sense overdefining it...(sorry you misunderstood)
I also think Timotheist has put together a great article. I agree with it...my critique wasn't of his article, rather of WL's and the RC's system of controlling who goes where.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

...I hope you benefit from my research.

Along the lines of your post, I often wonder what the Lord was really saying here:

JHN 20:22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."

The second sentence is not a passage you hear many sermons on.

Yes, I have benefitted from your research. I especially like the portions from 2 Esdras and from Irenaeus. Irenaeus has long been a favorite of mine, and these thoughts of his inspire me because he was trying to think logically. I endeavor to do the same. It is important to believe, obviously, and to love the Lord and others, but also it is important to use one's noggin. I much appreciate Irenaeus in this regard.

Your passage from John 20 is one I haven't "gotten hold of" yet in my thinking. I know we should forgive others; then how do we 'retain the sins' of any? It is important to me, though, because it does touch on the reciprocity I pointed out in my "Do unto others" verses, and also because it links the relations between people, both believer and not (note the word "any"), to the judgment of God. Very important.

Thanks for your labor on this subject. I will attempt to treat it more in full, as you have done, in the next couple of weeks, as time permits. Peace to you.