1 Peter part five

We are at 1 Peter 3:7. The author has just finished expounding on how slaves should obey their masters and wives should submit to their husbands, even the bad ones. Now we arrive at the message to husbands. Husbands are not told to submit but to be considerate and respectful to the wives as weaker partners and co-heirs of "the gracious gift of life." Is that earthly life or eternal life? Why should husbands treat their wives well? So it won't hinder their prayers!

Finally, says the author, they should all live in harmony, with love compassion and humbleness. Sounds okay. They should also not "repay evil with evil, or insult with insult." That's okay too. What should they do instead? Blessings for everyone! They bless other people so they can inherit a blessing. That would be lovely, if a blessing was actually a thing and not just magical mumbling.

In order to convince the readers to be good to everyone, the author quotes Psalm 34:12-16, "Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech. He must turn from evil and do good; he must seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the lord is against those who do evil." This is pretty much what the Psalm actually says. So, be a good person and god will hear your prayers. If you aren't, he won't. A simple carrot and stick philosophy.

Next, the author asks, "Who is going to harm you if you do good?" Boy, he is naive, isn't he? However, he says, "even if you suffer for what is right, you are blessed." Blessed. That lovely word that doesn't mean a whole lot but sounds like you won a prize. The readers are next told not to fear what "they" fear. Presumably the "they" is those who do evil. Instead, the readers are to set apart Christ as lord in their hearts. If  Jesus lives in their hearts, whatever that means in reality, it will provide them with something. Sort of?

The reader is always to be ready to tell people who ask the reasons for their strange beliefs, but they must be gentle and respectful, so no one can say anything mean about them. No fire and brimstone the first time they bring it up. Also, if no one asks, do they need to tell? The slanderers of  good christians should be ashamed of themselves. Anyway, "it's better, if it is god's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil." Really? Does it feel any different? I can see saying that it is better to do good than to do evil, but suffering is suffering. None of it is good. Why would it be god's will for any people, good or evil,  to suffer?

Because...Christ suffered. He was righteous, and he died to bring them, the unrighteous, to god. "He was put to death in the body but made alive by the spirit." In what sense was he actually alive? What does being alive by the spirit entail? Is it real life, or Memorex?

We will stop there because the next section is going to need its own separate post. Till next time.

1 Peter part three

We are now in chapter two of 1 Peter. The readers are told to rid themselves of "all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind." Worthy goals, I think, depending on how each vice is defined. The readers are also told to "crave pure spiritual milk" like newborn babies, so that they will grow up in their salvation. Funny, in Hebrews, the readers were told they needed to quit milk and eat solid food, so they wouldn't be babies forever, metaphorically speaking, of course.

Speaking of metaphors, we are heading into another one. This one is about Jesus being the precious living cornerstone of a spiritual house. He was rejected by men but chosen by god. The readers are also living stones in this spiritual house. Then the author mixes his metaphors and says the readers are also a holy priesthood making spiritual sacrifices to god, through Jesus.

The author's proof of this stony metaphor is a quote from Isaiah 28:16, "See, I lay a stone in Zion, (a tested stone) a chosen and precious cornerstone (for a sure foundation), and the one who trusts in him ("in him" is not in my version of Isaiah) will never be put to shame (in Isaiah, it's "dismayed" instead of "put to shame)." Differences in my bible's 1Peter quote and my bible's Isaiah passage are in parentheses. Notice that Isaiah does not actually refer to the cornerstone as if it were an individual. Also notice that this stone, which Peter wants to be Jesus, is a foundation cornerstone.

The author says this stone is precious to those who believe, but for unbelievers he has another quote, from Psalm 118:22. "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone." Wait a minute. This is also supposed to be referring to Jesus, but now he is a capstone! Which is it, cornerstone or capstone? Next, the author quotes Isaiah 8:14 "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." In Isaiah this particular stone is referring to Yahweh. The author of 1 Peter thinks it's supposed to be Jesus, but now Jesus is a nuisance rock, tripping people up. No matter which quote you use, Jesus appears to be compared to a rock of some kind. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

Stumbling on the rock is a consequence of disobedience. People who do that are just fulfilling their destiny. Ouch. But the readers, they are the chosen people, a holy nation, a people belonging to god. Again, is the author speaking to Jews or gentiles or a mix? It might be gentiles because next he says that god called them "out of darkness into his wonderful light." Once they were not a people, but now they are the people of god. Or, it could be Jews, because he calls them aliens and strangers in the world, who need to be a good example for the pagans. That's so the pagans  will glorify god when he finally comes for a visit. Seriously? I don't see that happening.

The readers are told to submit themselves "for the lord's sake to every authority instituted among men; whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him (the king) to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right." So much for christian civil disobedience. Here is good old fashioned authoritarianism.  It's god's will that by doing good (obeying the authorities) the readers will silence the gossip about them. (What is the gossip about them?) They are to live as free men, but not to use their freedom as a cover up for evil. How does that look in real life? They are to "show proper respect to everyone, love the brotherhood of believers, fear god, and honor the king." Even if he is a tyrant?

Till next time.

Hebrews part eighteen

We are now at Hebrews chapter thirteen, the last chapter. The end is in sight! In this chapter, the Hebrews are told to continue loving each other as brothers, because they might entertain angels without knowing it. They also need to remember those in prison and those being mistreated, as if it were they themselves suffering. What good will being remembered do for the people who are actually suffering?

The author goes on to say " marriage should be honored by all and the marriage bed be kept pure." That means nobody gets to have sex with a non spouse. Why? Because God hates adulterers and the sexually immoral. What is the difference between an adulterer and a sexually immoral person? I don't know, maybe they are the same thing. I was wrong when I previously wrote that Jesus said nothing about sex. He was clearly against adultery and lust.

The readers are also told not to love money. They need to be content with what they have, "because god has said I will never leave you or forsake you." (A quote from Moses to the Israelites in Deuteronomy 31:6) What good is god's invisible presence when you have no food or shelter or means to obtain it?

The Hebrews are also told to say with confidence, "The lord is my helper, I will not be afraid. What can man do to me." (Psalm 118:6-7) In case you didn't already know, man/mankind can do a lot of harm, to other people and property, in spite of a god who is supposed to be a helper. At many times, there are legitimate reason to be very afraid. It's almost like there is no god.

The readers are also told to remember their leaders who spoke the word of god to them.(Like maybe the author of this book?) The leaders are providing an example of life and faith that needs to be imitated. "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever." Amen. That means every believer should be living and believing the exact same way. "Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings." Like stories about crucified and risen saviors, who became invisible heavenly high priests, and sprinkle their invisible blood, making people have eternal life?

Next, the Hebrews are to that it is good for their hearts "to be strengthened by grace, not by ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those who eat them." Huh? First of All, what in tarnation is grace? How can it strengthen a heart?  Second, what do ceremonial foods have to do with anything? The author appears to be sharply veering right back into his  high priest and temple metaphor, or the heavenly reality of which that earthly stuff is a shadow. He speaks of people having no right to eat from the altar they minister at. Presumably he is talking about the earthly high priests.

Again, the author talks about the earthly high priest carrying the blood of animals into the holy place. He says the bodies of the animals were burned outside the city, after the sacrifice. Then the author somehow associates this with Jesus "suffering outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood." So, likewise the believers should bear the disgrace Jesus bore by being outside the city. (Presumably Jerusalem) They don't need the city, because they are looking for the enduring city that is to come. Hmm. This seems like the kind of thing outcasts might say.

I'm going to revise my ruminations and guess that this book may have been written before the fall of Jerusalem after all, in the infancy of Christianity.  It definitely appears to be pre synoptic gospels, and maybe even pre Paul.

Till next time.

Hebrews part sixteen

We are currently at Hebrews 11:32. The author does some name dropping here. He says Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jepthah, David, Samuel, and the prophets, all did amazing things because of faith. We are told about some of those recorded events. Go back to the old testament and read about each of those people. They also did some horrendous things, according to the stories. In fact a couple of them were pretty horrible people. The author also clearly alludes to Daniel but does not mention his name. But none of that matters, does it, because there is no reason to believe any of it actually happened. Yet again, if any of it did happen, it clearly was not because of faith in Jesus and a far distant resurrection.

Verses 35-38 describe tortures, persecutions, mistreatments,  and trials, endured for the gain of a better resurrection. Better than what? "These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised." What exactly was promised anyway? According to the author, "God planned something better for us (the Hebrews) so that only together with us would they be made perfect." Great. It took hundreds of years and immeasurable death, pain, and suffering, but God's had a plan that's coming together perfectly right now, as in 2,000 years ago. Maybe.

We are now in chapter twelve. I managed to escape faith in god. What about you? The author continues on by claiming all the aforementioned characters as witnesses to god's plan. That should be enough, he says, to make the readers throw off whatever is holding them back and run the race with perseverance. The goal: Jesus, "the author and perfecter of our faith." He was so looking forward to the pleasure of perfecting their faith that he endured the shame and pain of the cross. What's six hours  in trade for an eternity at the right hand of god? When the reader gets tired and loses heart, he can think about Jesus, who also endured opposition from sinful men. So waht if their pain lasts years instead of hours.

Now the Hebrews writer gets deadly serious. The readers haven't yet laid their blood on the line for Jesus. What's up with that? They've also forgotten Proverbs 3:11-12, which  addresses them as sons (them as in the readers, or the Hebrews of all time?). It says, " My son, do not make light of the lord's discipline and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the lord disciplines those he loves." Oh, but the author of Hebrews does not stop there. He adds one more bit that isn't in the Psalm, as though it is actually part of it. "And he punishes everyone he accepts as a son." My study bible states that the word punish here means "to whip." This is corporal punishment, from god, and is evidence that the Hebrew writer made stuff up to influence his readers into believing that hardships endured were a direct proof of god's love for them. He is prepping them for martyrdom.

The author continues on in this vein, declaring that god is treating them as his sons by disciplining them, because aren't all sons disciplined. Obviously the Hebrew writer must have been, because, according to him, discipline makes you a true son, not an illegitimate one. (We all know illegitimate children never get disciplined). What?! The author says we respect our human fathers for disciplining us. Maybe he did, but it is clear that is not universal. Nevertheless, to the author, that is proof we should obey "the father of our spirits" even more "and live!" (The implication being that we won't get eternal life if we don't.) Supposedly, just like our fathers, god disciplines us because he thinks it is for our own good. (I think a father's harsh discipline is usually for the father's own good.) We think discipline is painful when it is happening, but the author wants us to see the long term benefits. "It produces a harvest of righteousness and peace." For whom?

Verse twelve calls the readers weaklings with feeble arms and weak knees who need to walk on straight paths so they will be healed. This makes no sense in the surrounding context. However it appears to partly be a reference to Isaiah 35:3, which is part of an admonition to "be strong, do not fear; your god will come...with vengeance, with divine retribution...to save you." Now that makes more sense. Why didn't the author quote the whole passage? Maybe he didn't want to give them false hope. Instead he combined a small bit of it with another small bit from Proverbs 4:26 and made nonsense.    Till next time.

Till next time

Hebrews part twelve

We are at Hebrews chapter ten. The Hebrews are told, "The law is only a shadow of things that are coming-- not the realities themselves." Here we go again with earthly things being shadows of perfect heavenly things. Again the author goes over the previous necessity of regular earthly  sacrifices and how they were a shadow of christ's single sacrifice of himself.

In fact, the author claims christ said, "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. (Even though you mandated them.) Then I said, 'Here I am-- it is written about me in the scroll--I have come to do your will o god.'"

But Jesus never actually said that. Whoever wrote Psalm 40:6-8 did. My bible says it is a Psalm of David. Again, is the author of Hebrews suggesting Jesus is a reincarnation of David?  Also, the author of Hebrews left out a few parts of the original Psalm. There it claims god pierced the speaker's ears. Ear piercing was a sign that you were someone's slave. In this case David would be claiming to be god's slave. That's not in the letter to the Hebrews. Another thing: in verse eight of that Psalm, the writer says to god, "your law is in my heart." He looks on the law as the will of god, not a shadow of a greater reality. Nowhere in the Psalm is it said that the speaker (Jesus or David?) will be literally sacrificing his own body. That is the personal interpretation of the Hebrews writer.

The author goes on to say that after the christ made his one time sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of god. Again we are told about enemies becoming (Jesus or David's?) footstools. Again we are told that the holy spirit spoke in Jeremiah 31:33-34, when god says he will put his law in the Jews' hearts and minds, and forget their sins. Since they are forgiven, "there is no longer any need for sacrifice for sin."

So, now the brothers (Jews) get to enter the most holy place (the heavenly temple) by the blood of Jesus. Yay? Jesus's body has become the new living curtain into the holy place. Eww. The hearts of the faithful have been sprinkled (with Jesus's blood) to cleanse them from a guilty conscience. Is that invisible/metaphorical sprinkled blood? The author also mentions having their bodies washed with pure water. That seems to be a reference to actual water and bodies, so he must be referring to baptism. I think.

Next the readers are told to hold on to their faith, because of what they've been promised. They also need to "spur one another on to love and good deeds." (I'm sure it's figurative, but "spurring" sounds painful.) They also need to keep meeting together, even more as "the day" approaches. That day hasn't arrived yet, over 1,500 years later.

Also, no more sinning. (Define sin) If the readers keep sinning, jesus's sacrifice for sins will get used up and run out. That would make them enemies of god who will eventually be consumed by raging fire. After all, the law of Moses contained the death penalty, without mercy for sinners. How much worse should it be for those who "trample the son of god under foot?" This trampling of Jesus is obviously figurative, will the burning of sinners be as well? Sinners are treating the blood of the new covenant as unholy and insulting the spirit of grace. For shame! Uh, oh, don't forget, vengeance is god's and he will repay. "It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the lord." But don't worry, be happy.

Till next time.

Hebrews part nine

We are now at Hebrews 7:11. The author has just tried to convince us that Melchizedek is greater than Abraham, the Levites, and all Abraham's descendants. This is important to the author because he is trying to convince his readers that Jesus is a priest in the order of Melchizedek. That would make Jesus greater than all of them as well.

The author now tells us that the Levitical priesthood was not perfect. If it was, why would we need a another priest in the order of Melchizedek? Um. Why do we need one anyway? And who decided we needed one? As far as I can tell, this is of the author's own invention. The concept of Jesus as a high priest in the order of Melchizedek is found only in the book of Hebrews. In fact, the concept of Jesus as any kind of priest is found only in Hebrews.

1 Peter 2:5 and 9 mentions the body of believers as being a "holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices to god through Jesus christ." But that's not the same thing as what the author of Hebrews is saying, is it? Revelation 5:10 speaks of people of all nations being made into a kingdom of priests to serve god while they reign on earth. Revelation 20:6 speaks of the same thing and adds that these future priests of god are going to be the ones who were beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus. No high priest Jesus is mentioned.

The author of Hebrews goes on to say, "when there is a change of priesthood, there must also be a change of law."   Why? Because he says so. He goes on to say that it is clear that Jesus belonged to a tribe that  never served at the altar, the tribe of Judah. How does the author know this? What makes it clear? My study bible refers me to Psalm 11, which is assumed by christians to be a prophecy about the messiah, or Jesus. This Psalm speaks of the tribe of Judah and "the root of Jesse." It is interpreted as meaning a messiah that comes from the lineage of David. It is possible that this author presupposes Jesus was the messiah. Therefore, he must be of the Davidic line, if the Psalm was talking about the messiah. If you want to make scripture work for your pet belief, there is always a way.

According to the author, all this becomes clear if another Melchizedek like priest appears: "One who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life." But it doesn't hurt if we say he is from the lineage of David. Does all of this circular thinking make your head spin?

We go on to read that the old Mosaic law was weak and useless because it didn't make anything perfect. Could that be because there is no such thing as perfection? That old law is set aside and now there is a better hope. God swore, and will not change his mind, that someone is a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. Guess what, that someone is Jesus! Other priests died in office. Jesus lives forever, so he has a permanent priesthood. That way he can save everyone who comes to god through him, because he can intercede for them forever. And boy do they need it.

Jesus is not like other high priests. He is holy and sinless. He doesn't have to offer daily sacrifices for his own sins and the sins of the people (Jews). "He sacrificed for their sins once and for all when he offered himself." If I remember correctly, Jesus did not go willingly to his death. He had a change of heart near the end. At least according to Mark.

Chapter seven end with the author telling us  the law appoints high priests who are weak. God's oath about the priest in the order of Melchizedek came after the law. It appointed "the son, who has been made perfect forever." Or at least that is what is assumed.

As a reminder: I am using an NIV study bible. All opinions are my own, unless otherwise stated. Share this site if you think anyone you know might enjoy it.

Hebrews part seven

We are at Hebrews 5:7. The author tells us that when Jesus was alive he prayed super fervently to "the one who could save him from death" and his prayers were heard. Really? But he wasn't saved from death at all!

The author goes on to say that even though Jesus was a son, "he learned obedience from what he suffered." So, before he suffered, he wasn't obedient? Also, the author tells us that once Jesus was made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him." So, there was a time when Jesus wasn't perfect? There was a time when he was not the source of eternal salvation?

After all the suffering, obedience, and becoming perfect, god designated Jesus "to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek." In case you don't know about Melchizedek, read about him here. There are several possible reasons why Melchizedek is invoked here. One is that Jesus is obviously not a Levite and could not have become an earthly 2nd temple high priest in his day. Another is that the priestly order of Melchizedek seems to be legitimized by Psalm 110. So if Jesus was not a levitical priest, he must have been a Melchizedek kind of priest. That's logic. A third explanation is that this was written after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, and the levitical priesthood is pretty much defunct.

In verse 11, the author goes on to say that this stuff is hard to explain because the readers are dimwitted. By this time, they should be the ones teaching this stuff but they need to keep having it explained to them over and over again. They are like babies. They can't handle the meaty stuff, which is teaching about righteousness. The mature have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil. What do good and evil have to do with the doctrine of Jesus as high priest? Not only that, perhaps they can't retain understanding because it doesn't make sense when they go home and think about it.

We are now heading into chapter six. The author tells us we need to "leave the elementary teachings about christ and go on to maturity..." What were the elementary teachings? "Repentance from acts that lead to death, faith in god, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgement." Do any of those teachings need Jesus? Not as far as I can see. I think they all existed before Christianity came on the scene.

In verse four, the author goes on to say that if those who have once been enlightened by all the heavenly spiritual stuff fall away, they can't be brought back to repentance...(I can attest to the truth of that. I can't be brought back, because I no longer believe the nonsense.) .....because to their loss they are crucifying the son of god all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace." See what I mean about nonsense? You can't crucify a 2,000 year old dead man all over again. You can't subject him to public disgrace, he's not around to feel any shame. But his followers are. They are the ones who feel humiliated by those who "fall away" and reject the teachings about Jesus.

The author then compares those who believe to fertile land receiving the blessing of god in produce.  Those who don't believe  are compared to worthless land that produces thorn and thistles. "In the end it will be burned. " Burning land was/is a way of clearing it of unwanted growth. The Christ followers couldn't literally burn nonbelievers, so they had to be content with projecting the act into the future.

Till next time.

Hebrews part six

We are now at the beginning of Hebrews chapter four. Of course the original writings had no chapters and verses, so the text continues on about the subject of "god's rest." The author claims that the original promise of entering god's rest, to the Jews who didn't disobey, still stands. He conveniently passes over the general knowledge that the original promise was not speaking of some spiritual paradise. Could it be because, at the time the book was written, the majority of Jews were displaced from Canaan and needed to reinvent a definition of god's rest, so that it could still be true?

The message of god's rest (for the faithful Jews) is practically defined as the gospel message in verse 4:2! Those Old Testament Jews from Egypt didn't get anything out of the message because they didn't have faith! The people the author is writing to believe the message, so they will get to enter god's rest. All this has been prearranged since the creation. Didn't it say in Genesis that god rested on the seventh day? Some people get to enter god's rest, but not those disobedient people of old. That's why god spoke through David and told the people not to harden their hearts if they heard his voice. I don't know. Is it a good idea to listen to disembodied voices? How would you know if they were telling the truth?

The author of Hebrews goes on to say Joshua didn't give them rest , because god spoke about "the rest" again later, presumably in the Psalm previously referred to in chapter three. However, Joshua 21:40 says, The lord gave them (the Israelites) "rest" on every side, just as he had sworn to their forefathers. we go to Joshua 22:4, we see that three tribes got the "rest" god promised. Further on, in Joshua 23:1, we see the Israelites given "rest" from their enemies. What was the originally promised rest? Rest from enemies! See Deuteronomy 12:8-9, 25:19. However, in 4:10, the author of Hebrews equates it with rest from life's labor, just as god rested after working on creation.

The readers of Hebrews are told to make every effort to enter the rest through obedience. Obedience to who or what? Well, the next sentence says "the word of god is living and active. Sharper than any two edged sword... It judges thoughts and attitudes of the heart." Is this "word of god" the scriptures of the Old Testament? Or is it what the believers "hear" god saying to them?

In verse 14, we are back to reading about Jesus as a great high priest who has been through the heavens. It is spelled out here: Jesus is the son of god. Not only that, he can sympathize with our weaknesses because he was tempted in every way we are, but without sin. That means we can approach his throne and receive mercy. This is an allusion to literal lawbreakers having to stand before a king and receive his judgement, as was common in those days.

We now move into Hebrews chapter five. There we read about how high priests are selected and appointed to represent the people (Jews) in matters related to god. They offer sacrifices for sins and deal "gently" with the ignorant an those going astray. I bet. The priest isn't perfect, that's why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins as well as those of the people (Jews). High priests are called by god, just like Aaron was, they don't take the honor upon themselves. Hah! Isn't that just what they do, since there are no gods actually calling people?

Jesus also didn't take the high priesthood on himself. Didn't god say to him, "You are my son, today I have become your father." Well, technically, it was written by author of Psalm 2:7, who was writing about god installing him as king. There is no reason to believe a god ever said it, or that Jesus was the one said god was speaking to. Also, how does being told you are god's son make you the great high priest? The author of Hebrews has that covered. In another place (Psalm 110:4), god said, "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." That Psalm is labelled as a Psalm of David and reads like a promise from a god to a warrior king. What does it have to do with Jesus? Nothing, as far as I can see, except whatever the author of Hebrews finds in his imagination. A pinch of one Psalm and a dash of another makes a high priest named Jesus.

Hebrews part four

We are at Hebrews 2:5. Now the author quotes Psalm 8:4-6,  "What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor and put everything under his feet." He goes on to equate Jesus with the "son of man" who was made lower than the angels. (Is it possible for god's exact representation, Hebrews 1:3, to be lower than the angels?) Every thing is subject to Jesus, but the author did not see everything subject to him, yet. This is the first time the name of Jesus is mentioned. He doesn't seem to have quite the stature of the Son of god mentioned earlier. Are they the same person?

The author goes on to say Jesus is crowned with glory and honor, BECAUSE he suffered death. Did he not have glory and honor before he died? We are then told that by the grace of god Jesus tasted death for everyone. Ah grace, that undefinable something that is supposed to be good. This time it is responsible for a senseless death. Jesus tasted death for us, but we still must die. What good was that?
Well, according to verse ten, it brought many sons to glory. What happened to the daughters? Did they get any of the glory? What is glory exactly?

So,  according to Hebrews 2:10, god made the author of salvation (Jesus) perfect through suffering. Was he not perfect beforehand? Hmm. Next, we are told "Both the one who makes men holy (Jesus) and those who are made holy (other people?) are members of the same family. So, Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers." The proof of this is supposedly found in a quote from Psalm 22:22,  "I will declare your name to my brothers; in the presence of the congregation I will sing your praises."

Psalm 22 is supposed to be a Psalm of David. The whole Psalm is often claimed to be a prophecy about the christ. However, the Psalm author wrote it in the first person and appears to have been addressing god. The Hebrew author is suggesting that the Psalm is the words of the christ, written at least a few hundred years before Jesus was ever born. (Again, does he believe Jesus is the reincarnation of David?)Therefore, by some weird magic, the brothers mentioned in the Psalm can't be "the descendants of Jacob" mentioned later in the Psalm? They must be those people Jesus is making holy. And who are those people? I'm not sure that has been made clear yet.

In verse 13, the Hebrews author quotes a phrase that starts at the end  of Isaiah 8:17 and goes into the beginning of Isaiah 8:18. "I will put my trust in him. Here am I, and the children god has given me." The context is god speaking to and through Isaiah about the Israelites, from whom god is hiding his face. After the words that Isaiah says were from god, he gives his own statement of loyalty to god. That's what the first sentence of the Hebrew quote is. The children in the second sentence of the quote are Isaiahs own flesh and blood children, as can be seen in the beginning of Isaiah chapter 8. However, strangely enough, the Hebrews author attributes those word to Jesus! How can that be? Is Jesus also a reincarnation of Isaiah?

It's almost like the author of Hebrews flipped through the old testament, stuck his finger in, and declared verses to be the words of Jesus. Either that or he deliberately searched for passages to fit his narrative. Surely that can't be it.

More to come.

Hebrews part three.

I'm back. Somehow life goes on, even when your heart has been smashed into a million pieces by the inconceivable and unexplainable.

We continue on in Hebrews chapter one at verse ten. There the author makes a quote that he attributes to god speaking about the christ. "In the beginning, o lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands." First of all, this exact phrase does not seem to appear as is in the Old Testament. It appears to be a mash up of Psalm 8:6 and Zechariah 12:1. Second, the logic seems to be: if scripture is the word of god, and god is saying these things, and god appears to be talking to someone else. Who else could that someone be? Must be the christ!

Verse 11 contains a small piece of Isaiah 51:6, "they (the heavens) will wear out like a garment." Verse 12 is a reconstruction of Psalm 102:25-27, You will roll them (the heavens)up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed, but you remain the same, and your years will never end." Again, this is supposed to be the words of god speaking about the christ. I guess the writer couldn't admit to himself that the OT scriptures were not the words of god, but someone else talking about god.

Hebrews 1:10-12 is supposed to be a single quote from god, but what we find is words picked from multiple Psalms, Isaiah, and Zechariah. They are all sewed together to prove the author's point by seeming to be a cohesive unit. And who is going to know any better if they don't have access to scriptures?

In verse 13, the author tells us that god never told any angels to sit at his right hand until he makes their enemies into a foot stool, now did he? No, but he said that to someone in Psalm 110:1, which was supposed to have been written by David about someone called "the lord." Must be Jesus!! Hallelujah.

In verse 14, the author veers off course and says, "aren't angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" This must be so because, according to my study bible,  Psalm 91 implies it and the story of Daniel in the lion's den proves it. That's logic.

That concludes chapter one. Chapter two continues on with the angel theme. The readers are told to pay careful attention to what they've heard (from whom?) and not drift away. The message spoken by angels is binding and disobedience results in punishment that we can't escape if we ignore the message of salvation. Nice. What choice do we have?

So....about this message of salvation. We are not yet told exactly what is was, or who it came through. Maybe the author will enlighten us later, or maybe he thinks we already know. It was apparently first announced by "the lord" and confirmed by those who had heard him, whoever they were. Apparently the author was not one who personally heard him. I'm assuming that "the lord" here refers to the christ, because the next sentence says that god also testified to it by distributing miraculous signs and gifts. Not any more.

We will pause here. Till next time.

Hebrews part two

We are in Hebrews 1:5. The author is giving us old testament scriptures that show god telling some man he is gods son. We haven't actually been given Jesus's name yet, but it is assumed the reader knows who the author is referring to. The implication is that Jesus is god's son and that it was foretold in the Hebrew scriptures. We've read the first quoted scripture from Psalms and have seen that it is problematic as a foretelling of Jesus. It is most likely referring to David.

 Let's look at the next scripture given. It comes from 2 Samuel 7:14. "I will be his father, he will be my son." These words of god are coming from the prophet Samuel and being told to David, about David. In fact the rest of the verse reads "when he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men." Is god really also speaking of Jesus here?

The next Old Testament verse quoted is supposed to be about when god's first born came into the world (aka the birth of Jesus). Deuteronomy 32:43: "Let all god's angel's worship him." There is a problem with this sentence. It is not found in all the manuscripts of Deuteronomy, just one dead sea scroll and the Septuagint. It is obviously an addition. Not only that, when the phrase is put in context, the subject is god, not Jesus. The angels are worshipping god, not his son at all. There is no mention of god's son in Deuteronomy 32.

The author of Hebrews then goes off on a tangent. "Speaking of angels" he decides to include an Old Testament reference to angels, Psalm 104:4. "He makes his angels winds and his servants flames of fire." Even though this phrase has nothing to do with Jesus, it is interesting, in that the author has quoted this scripture differently than how it appears in the context of the Psalm. In  Psalm 104, natural elements are being created and used by god for his purposes. "He makes the wind his messengers and flames of fire his servants." He does not start with spiritual beings and turn them into forces of nature.   The author of Hebrews is clearly playing word games.

Back to the son. The author of Hebrews next quotes Psalm 45:6-7. "Your throne, o god, will last forever and ever, and righteousness ("justice" in my OT) will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore god, your god, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy." What in the world is the oil of joy? First of all, in context, this Psalm specifically states in verse one that it was written for the king who lived at that time. What king? We don't know, but nevertheless, an earthly king born in the lineage of David, long before Jesus. He is called a man in verse two. He is also called god in verse six.

Guess what, it was not  uncommon for kings in ancient days to be thought of as gods themselves. However, the same terminology was often used for gods and kings, even when the kings were not considered divine, such as "lord" and "master." This is terminology that was also used for Jesus in the New Testament. My study bible notes say that the king was probably called god as an honorific, because he was god's representative on earth. However, it is a false equivalence to assume that every king or revered person called god actually was a supernatural god. Not to mention, the same individual called god in the Old Testament Psalms was not in any way the same person as Jesus.

Did the Jews believe in reincarnation? Did they believe he was David reborn? Do Christians believe that? That's almost what they would have to believe in order to believe this Psalm is talking about Jesus. Otherwise, the author is just cherry picking phrases that he likes and applying them to his perception of who Jesus was. In fact, I am beginning to be convinced that is exactly what Jesus's followers originally believed. When he was called the son of god or the christ (anointed one), I think they knew very well that those phrases referred to King David, the king of the Jews.

Remember in Mark, when Jesus asked Peter who people thought he was. Peter replied "Some say
John the Baptist, some say Elijah." Jesus would have been a reincarnation to be John or Elijah. Peter
then told Jesus that he believed Jesus was the christ. Who would have been reincarnated then? David! No wonder Jesus told his disciples not to tell people about him. No wonder he was killed for claiming to be king of the Jews! That makes sense to me, what do you think?

Introduction to Hebrews and part one.

I think our next book to study will be Hebrews. I tried to do an in depth study of Hebrews a couple of times as a christian and gave up. I was using a Bible study guide before. It only confused me because there seemed to be a lot of speculation and subjective opinion. Let's see how it goes this time.

First, let's read what Wikipedia has to say about the book of Hebrews here.

Hebrews is called an epistle or letter because there is a postscript which sounds personal, mentions Timothy, and sends greetings to unspecified leaders from unspecified persons in Italy. However, there is no greeting or address from or to a specific person or church at the beginning of Hebrews. There is also no claim of authorship in the entire book. The mention of Italy seems to suggest authorship by Paul or his cohorts, which may be exactly what the author intended us to think. The main body of the text, before the postscript, ends with an amen, leading me to think that was the original ending. Multiple other authors have been hypothesized throughout the centuries. The author still remains unknown.

The date of the writing is also unknown, with speculations ranging from 63 CE on into the second century. The oldest existing manuscripts of Hebrews are fragments from the late second century-early third century.  The book appears to be directed specifically at Jewish christians.

The book begins by talking about how god spoke to the Hebrews of old through the prophets but in those "last days" he spoke through his son. (If those were the last days, what are these days?) Right off the bat, Jesus is identified as the son of god. He is the heir of all things. Why does god need an heir? Is he going to die? That's what heirs are for, right? They inherit the father's property upon his death. If the father is eternal, what happens to the heir?

Next we are told that the universe was made through the son. This is news. The son didn't appear in the first chapter of Genesis. Oh wait, next we are told the son is the "radiance of god's glory." Is he shiny? Maybe he is the light in "let there be light." Next we are told the son is the exact representation of god's being. What does that mean? Is he the spitting image of god? In what way? Is he a clone? Does god have a body? If not, did Jesus have a body? That is not clear yet. We are also told the son sustains all things by his powerful word. Again, what in the heck does that mean? How does he do that?

The text then assumes that we know how the son provided purification for sins, after which he sat at the right hand of god in heaven. Presumably, god and Jesus have bottoms to sit with and heavenly chairs to sit on, unless they sit on clouds. In this way the son became superior to the angels, because God never called any angel his son. How do we know god called anyone his son? Must we take them at their word? What if Jesus was actually a liar, or a lunatic? If someone today told you god spoke to him and told him he was god's son, what would you think? You and I both know you would think he is bonkers.

The text gives two old testament references for god calling someone his son. Let's take a look at them. The first is Psalm 2:7. Who wrote this? Nobody knows, but it is presumed to be David speaking. Who is it talking about? "God's anointed one" which is a phrase for the king god has sanctified to lead the Jews, presumably David. This is all about the king/David being called god's son and being given the nations as an inheritance. (Not only that, The psalm goes on to say he will dash them to pieces like pottery!) Is the writer of the book of Hebrews referring to David? Nope. He's referring to Jesus. Is Jesus going to dash the nations to pieces like pottery? Hmm. That psalm also goes on to say that kings better kiss the son or he might get angry and destroy them. Nice guy this son of god.

Mark part twenty-one

We are now at Mark chapter twelve. Jesus is speaking to the religious authorities in the temple. He tells a parable about a man who planted a vineyard, rented it out, and then went away on a journey. This man obviously represents god. The tenants represent the Israelites. When harvest time comes, the man sends servants to collect some of the produce. (It was common for tenant farmers to have to give a percentage of their crop to the landowner, just as the Israelites had been commanded to tithe.) As we have seen in other parts of the bible the servants represent the  prophets of yahweh. The servants in the parable were treated very badly by the farmers, even killed like John the Baptist. Eventually, the landowner sent his beloved son (aka Jesus), thinking they would respect him. Of course they did not, they killed him and threw him out of the vineyard.

Remember, Mark was written at least a couple of decades after the death of Jesus. So, the author already knows what has happened, if in fact Jesus did exist. Mark also very well could be putting words in Jesus's mouth as a literary tool, foreshadowing what was to come in the story. This book is written very much like a work of fiction. We go from one tall tale to the next, with very little sense of time.

Next Mark has Jesus saying that the owner of the metaphoric vineyard will come back, kill the tenants, and give the vineyard to others. If this is a literary foreshadowing of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, then this book was written after 70 CE. I assume it would be a retroactive prophecy, because I do not accept the existence of true foreknowledge. Then Jesus quotes Psalm 118:22-24 to the religious authorities. It says "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone (or cornerstone)." It appears that Jesus believes the passage is referring to himself being rejected but becoming foundational in some way.

The religious leaders assumed Jesus's parable referred to them. The text says they wanted to have him arrested but were afraid of the crowd. Later (How much later?), they sent some Pharisees and Herodians to try to trap Jesus into saying something which would condemn himself. They asked him if they should pay taxes to Caesar. If he said no, they could sic the Romans on him. If he said yes, the Jewish people might take offense and he would lose his following. Jesus was too clever for them. He asked them to give him a Roman coin and tell him whose picture was on it. They said Caesar's. Jesus then replied, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to god what is god's."

Next, came the Sadducees, who did not believe in a resurrection of the dead. They were justified in that non-belief, in my opinion, considering the Hebrew scriptures say next to nothing about resurrection. We know Jesus must believe in a resurrection. He has said the son of man will rise again after he is killed. The Sadducees reminded Jesus of the Old Testament teaching that if a woman became a widow and had no children, her husband's brother must marry her and produce an heir for his dead brother. They then tell a story of a widow who ended up marrying seven consecutive brothers without producing an heir for any of them. Then the woman died. The question asked of Jesus was, "At the resurrection, whose wife will she be?"

Jesus told them they were in error because they did not know the scriptures. "When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." However, this concept is not even found in the canon of Old testament scriptures. A similar idea can  be found in 1 Corinthians 15, leading to the possibility that Mark wrote his book after Paul had spread this teaching about resurrected bodies.

A very interesting note: My study bible ignores the fact that the idea of the woman with seven husbands most likely came from the book of Tobit.

Heaven part five.

We are now looking at the plural of heaven--heavens. Skimming through the references in Strong's concordance, it seems clear that the Ancient Israelites believed in multiple heavens in layers above the earth. Deuteronomy 10:14 says, "To the lord your god belong the heavens, even the highest heavens.." 1 Kings 8:27 says, "the heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain" god. The same is said in 2 Chronicles. Nehemiah 6 says Yahweh made all the heavens, even the highest heavens.

In Psalm 2, the one enthroned in the heavens laughs at the kings of the earth. In Psalm 18, Yahweh parted the heavens and came down, on dark clouds, with smoke pouring from his nostrils and fire from his mouth. "He mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the wind." Hail, thunder, and lightening, announced his presence. Pretty cool imagery. In a few Psalms, god is said to be above the heavens. In 68:4, Yahweh rides on the clouds in the NIV, he rides in the heavens in the KJV. The word translated clouds and heavens here is a totally different word, arabah,that usually refers to a desert, which is wierd. In 68:33, the NIV says Yahweh rides the ancient skies above. The KJV says he rides upon the heaven of heavens. Again, the word translated skies and heavens is the same root word shameh.

There are multiple passages in Psalms where the heavens praise Yahweh. They rejoice and declare his righteousness and glory. Many passages in the Old Testament with the word heavens are redundant. God made the heavens. The heavens are high. They have clouds, dew, rain, stars, birds, etc. Yahweh's right hand spread out the heavens in Isaiah 48:13.

I have come to a very interesting passage in Isaiah 66. It speaks of new heavens and a new earth. There will be no crying there. Infants will not die and people 100 years old will be thought young. They will be blessed and Yahweh will never harm them. This is specifically for the Israelites but Christians tend to co-opt it.

Jeremiah 10:11 tells us that the gods that did not make the heavens and the earth will perish from the earth and from under heaven, but not the god that made the heavens and the earth, Yahweh. (Sorry to break it to Yahweh, but his days are numbered as well.) When Yahweh thunders, the waters in the heavens roar, he brings the wind out from his storehouses.

In Ezekiel 1:1, the heavens opened and Ezekiel saw visions of god. After seeing a few surreal fantasy like creatures, at the end of chapter one Yahweh appears. He is sitting on a throne of sapphire. From the waist up he looks like glowing hot metal. From the waist down he was on fire. A brilliant light surrounded him and looked like a rainbow.  In Joel and Haggai, the heavens are shook. In Zechariah 6, four spirits of heaven, who stand in the presence of the lord of the whole world, look like chariots with horses. They head out to the east, south, north, and west, of course.

That's it for heaven/heavens in the Old Testament. What have we learned? The word/words heaven in the Old Testament are almost exclusively the same root  Hebrew word, shameh. That word is also translated as sky, air, and clouds in the NIV. Yahweh created the heavens/sky. He also lives there. (Where did he live before he created the heavens? ) At times he is said to be above the highest heaven or in the heaven of heavens. He's got a throne in the heavens and the earth is his footstool. From there he speaks, hurls lightening, sends hail, rain, dew, and winds which are stored there. Birds fly and clouds float in the heavens above. There are multitudes of spirit beings in heaven or the heavens which are often represented by the stars or are the stars, depending on which passage you read. One day there will be a new heavens and a new earth for the Israelites. I found nothing about people ever living an eternal life with god in heaven, if they believe in a messiah.

The New Testament is next.

Heaven part two

We continue on with the mentions of heaven in the Old Testament. They are still all the same Hebrew root, shameh, which refers to all the space above us, the atmosphere and outer space. This same word is also referred to as god's dwelling place.

In 1 Kings chapter 8, Solomon prays to Yahweh in heaven above. He has built yahweh a temple and it is being dedicated. Solomon acknowledges that god won't really dwell on earth because even the highest heaven cannot contain him. Nevertheless, Solomon asks yahweh to hear the prayers of the people from his dwelling place in heaven. He wants Yahweh to watch over them from heaven. This is the same heaven that Solomon says is shut up when there is no rain. For Solomon, yahweh is in the same place that the rains come from.

In 1 Kings 22:19, we can read a passage about the "hosts of heaven." The prophet Micaiah is telling Ahab the king of Israel that "I saw the lord sitting on his throne with all the hosts of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left." Then Yahweh speaks to the hosts and asks them which one of them will entice Ahab into a war where he will be killed. One of the spirits comes forward and volunteers for the job of being a lying spirit in the mouths of the king's prophets. This conversation supposedly happened in the same heaven that is the space above the earth. Apparently there is a throne and a bunch of spirits up there, besides yahweh. Just how crowded is heaven?

In 2 Kings, fire comes down from heaven, Elijah goes up to heaven in a whirlwind, and the stars of heaven were worshipped by Ahab. It was all the same heaven. The same heaven is in 1st and 2nd Chronicles, and Ezra. In Nehemiah, 9:6, the multitudes of heaven worship Yahweh. In Esther, heaven is conspicuously absent.

In Job 11:8, the mysteries of god are higher than the heavens. In 16:19, Job says he has a witness in heaven. In 22:12, god is said to be in the heights of heaven. In 26:11, the pillars of heaven tremble at gods rebuke. Just to show you that the bible translators know the word heaven is the same as the sky, look at verse 35:11 which talks about "the birds of the air." That word translated as air is the same word, shameh. In the KJV, that very verse says "the fowls of heaven" instead.

Now we move on to Psalms 11:4, which says Yahweh is on his heavenly throne. In 14:2, Yahweh looks down from heaven on the sons of men. In 20:6, he answers his anointed from his holy heaven. In 78:23-26, "he gave a command to the skies above and opened the doors of the heavens. He rained down manna for the people to eat, he gave them the grain of heaven. Men ate the bread of angels; he sent them all the food they could eat. He let loose the east wind from the heavens...he rained down meat on them like dust..." Angels have bread! In 89:5-7, we read "the heavens praise your wonders o lord, your faithfulness too, in the assembly of the holy ones. (Yahweh is not the only one up there.) For who in the skies above can compare with the lord? Who is like the lord among the heavenLy beings? In the council of the holy ones, god is greatly feared; he is more awesome than all who surround him." Fascinating stuff.

Psalm 113 places yahweh even higher than the sky. It says "...his glory is above the heavens. Who is like the lord our god, the one who sits enthroned on high, who stoops down to look on the heavens and the earth." That's really high!

More Abaddon and Abyss, plus Tartarus

Here are some more passages that link abaddon with sheol:

Psalm 88:10-12 says to god: "Do you show your wonders to the dead? Do those who are dead rise up and praise you? (Hmm. The writer of the Psalm doesn't know about the judgement day?) Is your love declared in the grave (sheol) your faithfulness in destruction (abaddon)? Are your wonders known in the places of darkness, or your righteous deeds in the land of oblivion?" The land of oblivion...That doesn't sound like the christian hell, does it?  If you read the whole of Psalm 88, you see that the author is afraid and feels like he is dead, " in the lowest pit, in the darkest depths." Those who lie in the grave are cut off from god's care and he forgets about them. Where is the concept of eternal life in this passage?  We've covered verses about pits in this series of posts about hell and punishment after death.  Those pits could be referring to abaddon.

Proverbs 15:11 says "Death (sheol) and destruction (abaddon) lie open before the lord, how much more the hearts of men." Proverbs 27:20 says "Death (sheol) and destruction (abaddon) are never satisfied and neither are the eyes of a man."

Going back to the word abyss, I find that, beside the book of Revelation, there are only two other appearances of the word abyss in the New Testament. One is found in Luke 8:31. This is the story of the demon possessed man who has many demons. "The demons begged Jesus repeatedly not to order them to go into the abyss." Jesus complies with the demons' request to be sent into some pigs. Then the pigs rush down a steep bank into the lake and are drowned. What happened to the demons then? Did they end up in the abyss anyway? Wasn't that kind of a dirty trick?

The other instance is in Romans 10:6-8, where the author says that righteousness based on faith does not ask who will bring christ down from heaven. Nor does it ask who will bring christ up from the abyss. Faith says that "the word" (christ) is near you, in your mouth and in your heart. In other words, people of faith don't focus on the physical location of jesus's body. They focus on faith and the statement of belief that god raised jesus from the dead. That will save them. From what? Not death. Everybody dies. Also, why would Jesus need to be raised from the abyss? Is that where Jesus went when he died? He wasn't raised directly from the tomb?

Finally, let's look at an interesting passage in 2 Peter 2:24 that says "God did not spare the angels when they sinned but cast them into hell, delivering them in chains to be held in gloomy darkness until their judgement." What makes this so interesting is the word translated into hell, in both the KJV and the NIV,  is actually the greek word Tartarus. This is the only occurrance of the word in the whole bible. At the time 2 Peter was written, Tartarus had been part of Greek mythology for at least seven hundred years. There was a Greek tradition that Tartarus was a "deep abyss that is used as a dungeon of torment and suffering for the wicked and as the prison for the titans" (Wikipedia) Isn't it interesting that the beast of Revelation emerges from the abyss and satan gets chained up in it? Is that the same abyss as Tartarus? Isn't it also interesting that 2 Peter calls this abyss  a holding place, like a prison,  of gloomy darkness? No fire. Judgement comes later.

Apparently some christians have tried to get around this obviously Greek synchretism and have said that the Greeks got  the idea of Tartarus from the Jews and stories of fallen angels being imprisoned. Which more likely came first, the Iliad or the Bible?

The Abyss or "bottomless pit"

Now let us look at the abyss in which Revelation 20 told us Satan was emprisoned for a thousand years. Upon further examination, I find the word abyss does not occur in the KJV. It uses the phrase "bottomless pit" in all the relevant Revelation passages. The greek word is abussos. Is a bottomless pit a real thing? Is that anything like a black hole?

In Revelation, the abyss is first found in chapter nine. There it is described in graphic detail. Let us bypass talk of angels, trumpets, and falling stars with keys. In this passage, the abyss is a locked shaft. When it is opened, so much smoke rises out of it that the sun and sky are darkened. (Sounds like a volcanic explosion) Out of the smoke comes stinging locusts. (Burning ash?) These locust's job is to torture those who do not have the name of god written on their foreheads, for five months. The torture will be so intense that people will wish they were dead.

These locusts are described as having human faces, women's hair, and teeth like lions. (I'm assuming women's hair means long hair, because hair is hair.) They have armor and sound like the thundering of horses and chariots in battle. Their tails have stings like scorpions. They have a king who is the angel of the abyss. His Hebrew name is Abaddon and his Greek name is Apollyon. As far as I can tell, the name Apollyon is not mentioned in Greeek literature and may be made up by the author of Revelation. He is definitely not the equivalent of Satan. Remember, Satan was imprisoned in the abyss in chapter 20. Now, who do you suppose created the abyss, Abaddon, and the torturing locusts? Ding, ding. Our friendly neighborhood deity, of course! If not him, who else? Which day of creation was that? Or did god need a torture chamber even before he produced human beings?

Revelation 11:7 talks about a beast (not Satan) coming up out of the abyss to wage war with some prophets and kill them. Rev. 17:8 also mentions this beast coming out of the abyss and going to his destruction. The word destruction  in that verse is from the greek root apoleia.  This word is found often in the New Testament and is translated in various versions as the words destruction, perdition, and damnation. These are all words that are used by Christians as synonymous with hell. Destruction (root apoleia) is where the wide path leads in Matthew 7:13.

Notice that the root word for destruction has a similar structure to the word Apollyon who is the king of the abyss. The author of Revelation tells us Apollyon is the Greek word for the Hebrew name Abaddon.  If you have been reading the bible along with me, you might remember that we have encountered abaddon before,  in the book of Job. The KJV and NIV translate abaddon in these passages as "destruction." You can find it in Job 26:6, 28:22, and 31:12. In Job, abaddon is also associated with sheol (translated as death). They are both underground. However, Sheol and Abaddon are not the same thing. Therefore, Hades and Abaddon are not the same thing either. Abaddon is never  translated as hell. Clear as mud?

 More to come.

Hell part 5

Next we will look at the Greek word Hades as translated into hell in the New Testament, in KJV English Bibles. It occurs twice in Matthew, twice in Luke, three times in Acts, and four times in Revelation. Even though Hades and Gehenna are both translated into hell, they are not the same place. In fact, Hades started out as the Greek god of the underworld, the place all people go when they die. When the ancients translated the Hebrew bible (What is now called the Old Testament) into The Greek bible called the Septuagint, they translated the Hebrew word Sheol into the Greek word Hades. Interestingly, the NIV retains the Greek word Hades and also uses "realm of the dead." It does not change the word to hell like it does Gehenna.  Other versions change the word to death or the grave instead. Read about the Christian views of Hades here. (Link)

As you can see from the above link, the different versions of christianity hold many differing beliefs about hell or hades. I can tell you that the church of christ denomination which I have attended for over forty years, teaches very little about hell. It has no sophisticated theology or doctrine of hell or hades. Basically, people are taught that if you do not believe the gospel and get baptized (essential) you go to hell, what they view as eternal damnation/separation from god, when you die. No ifs ands or buts. The beliefs about hell of most people in the pews is very simplistic.

Lets look at the verses with the Greek hades translated into the English hell in the KJV:
*Matt 11:23- here the city of Capernaum is being told it will go to hell (hades in the NIV)because it didn't repent after Jesus performed miracles there.
*Matt 16:18- this is the famous passage where Jesus tells Peter "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." (NIV-gates of hades will not overcome it.)
*Luke 10:15-This passage repeats the sentiment in Matthew 11:23 that Capernaum will go to hell.
*Luke 16:19-29 contains the parable of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar. In it a poor man dies and finds comfort "in the bosom of Abraham." A rich man, who apparently never helped the poor man, dies and finds himself in hell being tormented and burnt by flames. The rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus to give him water to cool his tongue, Abraham says the gulf between the two places is too great. The rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers to warn them of hell. Abraham says they already have the law and the prophets. If they don't believe them, they won't believe someone back from the dead. Hell here is hades in the NIV. Also, let us remember this is a parable not a story about a supposed actual event.
*Acts 2:25-36 contains part of Peter's sermon to a crowd, on the day of Pentecost, after Jesus was taken up into heaven. In it Peter quotes Psalm 16:10- "For thou will not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt though suffer thine holy one to see corruption." Peter claims that since David died and was buried he can't have been talking about himself, so he must have been prophesying about Jesus. Jesus supposedly did not remain in the land of the dead and his body did not rot. The NIV calls this hell Hades in Acts and Sheol in Psalms. I think it is also important to note that the word "holy" in both Acts and Psalms does not mean divine. It means righteous or pious.

In the next post, we will look at hell/hades in the book of Revelation.

Hell part 3

As we have seen, the Old Testament hell is actually sheol, which is not the same as the hell taught in christianity. It is the realm of the dead, the grave. It is underground or some nebulous place in the depths, "down below." It is often associated with a pit. The word pit associated with the grave or death in the Old Testament often comes from the Hebrew word "bowr." This word appears to have meanings associated with a hole in the ground that is a well or cistern, or a dungeon. The word pit  associated with death and the grave in the KJV  is also sometimes translated from the Hebrew word "shachath." This word has connotations of a ditch or a trap. Notice that these are all words associated with under the ground or holes in the earth.

Sometimes the word destruction is associated with sheol. Then, it is often from the word abaddon. They are often seen together as in "death and destruction." (Sheol and Abaddon) Abaddon appears to be a distinct part of hell, perhaps a bottomless pit. There is that word pit again.

Besides Sheol, the Old Testament does have a few descriptions of a punishment after death at some "end time," but it is not named as a particular place. Some christians claim these are descrptions of hell. Let's look at some of them.

First let's look at Daniel chapter 12: 1-2. "....at that time your people-everyone whose name is found written in the book-will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth  will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." Daniel is an apocalyptic/prophetic book, written anonymously, about 200 years before Jesus, according to many scholars. My NIV study bible says its writers think Daniel was written around the time period of its events, about 560 BC, at least partly by Daniel. I  have not studied the book of Daniel in depth, but this passage does appear to refer to an afterlife. The phrase "your people"  obviously refers to jews. Why do christians think it speaks to them? The book of Daniel was written by Jews for Jews. Also, in practical terms, what does it mean to awaken to everlasting shame and contempt?

The study bible references lead me from Daniel to another supposedly prophetic book, Isaiah. Again, this book was written by Jews, for Jews. In chapter 26, a future day of judgement is being sung about. In verse 11, Isaiah begs Yahweh to let the fire reserved for his enemies consume them. In verse fourteen we see Isaiah say that God's enemies are dead "they live no more." Yahweh "punished them and brought them to ruin." He wiped out all memory of them. This doesn't sound like a literal hell. In fact, from there the study bible leads me to Psalm 9:5 where the worse thing that can happen to the wicked is that they are utterly destroyed, their names blotted out, and the memory of them perishes. Really? Okay, being destroyed is totally the pits. We have only one life.  But once you are gone, so what if noone remembers you. You won't know.

Let us remember that Daniel, Isaiah, and Psalms are written in poetic and metaphoric language. They are trash talking about the enemies of the Israelites. I don't think these passages were meant to be doctrinal statements about what happens to nonbelievers in christianity.