Translate

Friday, January 27, 2023

Six Non-Essential Doctrines Connected to the Age of the Earth


The following is a critique of the "Six Essential Doctrines Connected to the Age of the Earth" presented in the article Does the Age of the Earth Matter to the Gospel? and the Is Genesis History? Bible study


1. God has accurately revealed the history of the universe and man’s role in it. To allegorize or de-historicize any of those historical events is to question the ability of special revelation to speak clearly about history.

A Christian can easily affirm the historicity of Genesis without affirming the Young Earth Creationist interpretative model. The majority of Old Earth Creationists affirm that Genesis 1-11 is historical. The disagreement between Old Earth and Young Earth interpretations of Genesis 1-11 lies in how best to interpret the six creation days (yôm [יוֹם]); the extent of the Great Flood; and whether or not the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are complete or telescoped for theological purposes (as we see in other biblical genealogies such as those found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke). Old Earth Creationists generally do not discredit the historicity of Genesis 1-11 or attempt to allegorize it.

For example: Dr. Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe) posits that the six creation days should be understood as six, consecutive ages (which is a primary, literal definition of the Hebrew word yôm). Conversely, Dr. John Lennox (johnlennox.org) believes the six days to be literal, 24-hour days marking particular points in history whereby God spoke a new facet of creation into existence. However, Dr Lennox believes that these days are not consecutive days of a normal Earth week, but are instead separated by a long, unspecified period of time. Both interpretations maintain that the creation days are literal and represent actual history, while at the same time countering the Young Earth Creationist claim that each of the six creation days are conservative, 24-hour days in a normal Earth week. 


2. God created the entire universe fully-functional in six normal days. To greatly extend the length of time and significantly alter events transforms the doctrine of creation into a slow, indirect, and death-filled process; this, in turn, transforms one’s view of God and His nature.

Extending the length of the creation days does not necessarily mean that one believes God's creative act to be a slow, indirect process. By this logic one could argue that God's redemptive plan is a slow, indirect process simply because God did not move to end Satan once and for all in Eden. If God is truly sovereign, then why bother waiting? If God could deal with sin on the spot in Eden, then why go through the incarnation or the agony of crucifixion and death?

God exists outside of our space-time and is not bound by the limitations of his creation. Nothing in God's plan happens early or late. Everything happens according to his plan, precisely when he means it to. The creation does not get to dictate how and when God created; we do not get to place limits on God by telling him that he could only create in six, literal days or that he had to create over billions of years. God is the creator of all. He could have created the universe however and whenever he wanted to. Our role as his creation is to submit to him, regardless of how long it took him to create the universe. 


3. God formed Adam and Eve in His image at the beginning, thereby ensuring His image would be reflected somewhere in the universe at every point in its history. If one places long ages before man’s creation, it means God’s image has been missing from creation for almost all of its history.

This is a bit of an odd statement, and more than a little concerning from a theological perspective. Even though humanity's role as God's image-bearers is vital to understanding our place in God's plan, it is not an essential element of the gospel. Nor is it a vital and/or necessary aspect of God's creative act in that the universe is (and was at the time of creation) capable of functioning quite well without us. The created universe is essential for human beings to exist, but we are not essential for the universe to exist.

Arguing that God needed to ensure that his image was reflected in the creation from the beginning implies that God created the physical universe and mankind specifically to make up for a deficit in his being–he needed to have something other than himself to reflect his image "at every point in history."

We must remember that the created universe was made, first and foremost, for God's glory according to his pleasure. He did not need to create anything at all. Nor did he need to create mankind to be his image-bearers–he chose to.

Furthermore, insisting that mankind had to be present from the beginning of creation in order to ensure that God's image would be reflected at every point in history downplays the fact that, according to the most literal, straightforward reading of the text, mankind was not created until day six. There were five whole days of creation in which there were no people to reflect God's image! If this were truly an essential element of Christian doctrine or the created order, then we would expect to find the creation of man on day one not day six!

Additionally, if we maintain that man's presence in creation was necessary in order for God's image to be reflected at all points in history, we must therefore also conclude that the universe was in some way broken for the first five days of creation as God's image was absent from creation until day six. Obviously, the creation was incomplete before the creation of Eve (ie. God's final creative act). But this in no way implies that the creation was incapable of functioning without the presence of a divine image-bearer.

Of course, the necessity of having something and/or someone to reflect God's image at all points in history is not an essential doctrine of Christianity, the gospel, or the Bible overall. Which is what makes this particular argument for the Young Earth interpretation so odd. 


4. God cursed the creation as a result of Adam’s sin, bringing death and corruption into a very good world. To say that there were billions of years of corruption and death before Adam’s sin means God created a universe filled with death. This not only changes one's view of the fall, but of the nature of our redemption in time.

The debate over whether or not animal death was a part of God's original creation lies in how to interpret Paul's use of "the world" (kosmon [κόσμον]) in Romans 5:12. Does Paul here mean that sin and death entered into the created order through Adam? Or is Paul using kosmon the same way it is used in Romans 12:2 and John 3:16 to refer to the inhabitants of the Earth (ie. mankind)?

Nowhere in Scripture does it explicitly say that God cursed the creation with death on account of Adam's sin. (The Bible also does not explicitly say that animals died prior to the fall of man.) Romans 5:12 clearly states that death spread to all humans because all humans sin. Likewise, Romans 8:19-23 says nothing of the creation itself being cursed with death on account of Adam's transgression. Instead, we find that the creation was subjected to frustration (mataiotēti [ματαιότητι]) and decay (phthoras [φθορᾶς]), not death and decay. (To be fair, the New Living Translation does insert the word death into Romans 8:21 even though the word is absent in the Greek.) 

The word mataiotēti can also be translated as futility or vanity (as seen in the Interlinear Bible produced by Hendrickson Publishers). This seems to be an allusion to what we see in the Book of Ecclesiastes which emphasizes the futility of a life lived apart from the knowledge of God.

Pathoras, the word translated as decay in Romans 8:21, can also mean corruption, or rottenness. Again, in the greater context of Romans, Paul seems to be referring to moral and/or spiritual corruption and the broken world-system(s) created by fallen human beings (ie. kosmon) rather than the whole of creation itself. Romans 8:19-23 would therefore seem to have less to do with physical death and more to do with the spiritual consequences of sin, given the overall context of Romans itself.

One final point of note is that Genesis 1 does not claim that the original creation was perfect. God declared the creation to be "very good" (meod towb [מְאֹ֑ד ט֖וֹב]). (You will notice that the original article makes a subtle note of this as well, though it does not go out of its way to draw attention to the distinction.) 

God did not say that his creation was perfect, blameless, without blemish, spot or defect (tamim [תָּמִים]). He said that it was very good. Yet many people throughout history have attempted to shoehorn perfection into the text. After all, how could a good and perfect God create anything less than perfect?

However, when we impose our understanding of perfection onto God's claim that the creation was good, we are essentially judging God and his creation by our definition of what we think perfection should look like (ie. Heaven and/or the New Creation described in Scripture) rather than submitting to God's definition of what he found to be "very good" (that is: operating according to his will, plan and purpose).

If God gave an imperfect creation his stamp of approval and we attempt to change what God said in order to imply that everything was perfect according to our definition of perfection, then we are essentially telling our creator what he can and cannot do with his creation, rather than letting him define his own terms. 

We must also remember that God created Satan and the angels who fell with him, as well as Adam, Eve and every other human soul, with the capacity to sin. They were not perfect in the same sense that God is perfect. Furthermore, anything God creates will naturally be less than he is in some respect simply due to the fact that God created the creation. A creature and/or creation cannot be equal to or greater than its creator–it will always be less than the one who created it. This is the nature of the creator-creature relationship. 

All that to say, if God were to say that animal death was acceptable as part of his plan for this creation, then who are we to tell God that he is wrong for creating such a world? God is the creator–he can do whatever he wants to do however he wants to do it. He could have created a perfect world without the possibility of sin or any sort of death. Or he could have created a world where animal death was an essential mechanism for a balanced and life-sustaining ecosystem just as easily. Likewise, humans could have been created innately immortal or humans could have been created with the capacity to die if they were ever to sin and break fellowship with God (the later case seems to be the more likely scenario given what we see in Genesis 3:22-24).

In many respects, this topic in particular speaks volumes in regards to our fallen nature. We who worship and revere God hold his character in high regard. Yet, in our pious zeal, we may actually find ourselves guilty of judging God by our own flawed standards. It is therefore crucial for us to recognize that God's ways are not our ways and his thoughts are not like our thoughts. We must let God be the judge of what is and is not good, rather than ourselves. 


5. God judged the entire world with a global flood, killing all land creatures, birds, and people. The idea of a local flood not only violates the history revealed in special revelation, but it denies the past reality of global judgment in space and time, thereby casting doubt on the universality of the judgment to come.

The theological bedrock of a historic flood is universal judgment and deliverance. The flood need not be global to be universal, so long as all human beings (ie. the only physical beings capable of committing sin due to their role as God's image-bearers) aside from Noah and his family perished. 

Additionally, we must also allow for the possibility that the total destruction language found in the flood account could be Ancient Near Eastern hyperbole. We find similar examples of total destruction language used throughout Scripture (particularly in the context of divine judgment) as well as in extra biblical sources. 

Again, the historicity of the flood and the authority of Scripture (Special Revelation) is not in doubt. The question is whether or not the flood should be interpreted as a global event given the ancient cultural and literary context of Genesis.


6. God providentially controls every moment of time and history, starting with the first creation and the fall, guiding it to redemption in Christ, and ushering everything toward the new creation. If the timeline of the universe is not the timeline of the Bible, then God’s providence is emptied of its meaning and purpose: it takes responsibility for billions of years of emptiness, silence, and death.

God's sovereignty and providence are not dependent on a young creation.  

As previously stated, God could have ended evil in the garden. But he didn't. He allowed history to play out as it has according to his will. If God allowed for billions of years to pass before the creation of man, who are we to challenge his methods? 

God is absolutely sovereign and in complete control of his creation–no matter how old or young the universe might be. His sovereignty is not dependent on the age of the universe. To argue such would be to lessen one's view of God by limiting him and his divine attributes in direct proportion to the age of his creation. This also creates a false dichotomy wherein one is forced to choose between belief in a sovereign, personal God or a deistic God based solely on the age of the universe; a young universe equals a powerful, sovereign God whereas an old university equals an impotent God, who is all but absent from his creation. 

All that to say, belief in an old earth does not (or at least should not) change one's view of God's character, providence, or divine nature. Likewise an old earth does not threaten the core doctrines of Christian theology or the gospel message. The theological foundation of the Genesis creation account is that God created the universe. The particulars of how and when he created remain open to discussion. The most important thing to remember is that it was God who created.



Sunday, December 19, 2021

A Statue of the End Times Beast?

   



Is this statue, gifted to the United Nations by the Mexican government, an image of the End Times Beast from Daniel 7:4 and Revelation 13? There are some who certainly think so. However, this conclusion, while sincere, may be premature.

If one reads Daniel 7 and Revelation 13 in context, several things come to light. First and foremost being the fact that both Daniel 7 and Revelation 13 record visionary experiences that are highly symbolic in nature. The beasts described in both visions do not describe literal creatures. Rather, they are symbolic representations of human rulers and/or empires (Daniel 7:15-18).


Second, while this statue does share some similarities with the beast in Daniel 7:4 (i.e. a beast resembling a lion but with eagle’s wings) this beast is only the first of four beasts described in the vision and represents the Neo-Babylonian Empire of Nebuchadnezzar II (ca. 605-562 BC). The second beast (Daniel 7:5) represents the Medo-Persian/Achaemenid Empire (ca. 550-329 BC). The third, four-headed beast (Daniel 7:6) describes the Macedonian Empire of Alexander the Great, which was divided among four of Alexander's generals following his death in 323 BC. The fourth and final beast (Daniel 7:7-14) pertains to the Roman Empire and future Empire of the Antichrist. (We find additional prophecies describing the succession and conflicts between these ancient empires and kings in Daniel 2, 8, 11 and 12.)


“After this, while I was watching in the night visions, suddenly a fourth beast appeared, frightening and dreadful, and incredibly strong, with large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed, and it trampled with its feet whatever was left. It was different from all the beasts before it, and it had ten horns. While I was considering the horns, suddenly another horn, a little one, came up among them, and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. And suddenly in this horn there were eyes like the eyes of a human and a mouth that was speaking arrogantly.”

~Daniel 7:7-8 (CSB)


This leads to my third and final observation: Neither the fourth Beast of Daniel 7 nor the Beast of Revelation 13 (i.e. The Antichrist’s Empire) are described as winged beasts.


“And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads. On its horns were ten crowns, and on its heads were blasphemous names. The beast I saw was like a leopard, its feet were like a bear’s, and its mouth was like a lion’s mouth. The dragon gave the beast his power, his throne, and great authority. One of its heads appeared to be fatally wounded, but its fatal wound was healed.
“The whole earth was amazed and followed the beast. They worshiped the dragon because he gave authority to the beast. And they worshiped the beast, saying, ‘Who is like the beast? Who is able to wage war against it?’”

~Revelation 13:1-4 (CSB)


Keeping in mind the symbolic nature of these visions and their cultural context, the Antichrist’s Empire seems to be a composite of the empires that have come before it, and will have some elements in common. This is also alluded to in Daniel 7:11-14.


“I watched, then, because of the sound of the arrogant words the horn was speaking. As I continued watching, the beast was killed and its body destroyed and given over to the burning fire. As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was removed, but an extension of life was granted to them for a certain period of time.”

~Daniel 7:11-14 (CSB)


So then, is this statue an image of the Beast from biblical prophecy? In light of the textual and historical evidence, I'm inclined to believe that it is merely a statue and nothing more.



See Also:













Saturday, May 30, 2020

Is the Bible Perfect?





    Over the years God has given me the opportunity to discuss Christianity and the Bible with a number of individuals from a wide array of beliefs and religious backgrounds. In that time, one of the most common objections to Christianity that has been presented to me has been the issue of biblical inerrancy and the infallibility of God's Word. On more than one occasion, people have rejected the Bible as God's Word simply because it was written by human authors. "How," they often ask, "could the bible be the word of God when it was written by men and changed over time?"
    This objection is essentially based on the premise that in order for the Bible to be God's Word it would therefore need to be written by God Himself and would likewise need to be absolutely perfect, containing no errors, additions or variation between manuscripts.


    When positing this argument, the skeptic's case against the Bible appears solid. After all, the Bible is comprised of 66 books written by approximately 40 different authors over a span of about 1,400 years. This is no secret, and even most Christians will acknowledge this as a fact of history. What some Christians will not concede however, is that the manuscripts of the Bible do in fact contain "errors" and interpolations. 

    A popular slogan today is that the New Testament contains over 400,000 errors. However, what many skeptics don't realize is that this figure is based on a comparison between the entire collection of ancient New Testament manuscripts—totaling well over 5,000 documents in all. Of the 400,000 alleged errors within these documents, 99% of them are simply variations in spelling, word order or expansions of piety. (ie. The name "Jesus" expands to become "The Lord Jesus Christ" in later manuscripts.) The remaining 1% of variations contain some of the more serious interpolations. 
    For example, it is doubtful that the long and short endings of the Gospel of Mark (Mark 16: 8-20) and the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11) were part of the original gospels. The long and short endings of Mark seem to have been added in later centuries by scribes attempting to give Mark's gospel a less abrupt ending. That said, while it is unlikely that these divergent endings were part of the original document, none of the information presented by the additions is inherently false or even at odds with the rest of the Bible. In fact, the additional details found in the long and short endings of Mark can all be found in the other three gospels and the Book of Acts. This seems to suggest that these other New Testament works were used as sources by later scribes to created a more fluid summary at the end of Mark.

    The story of the woman caught in adultery only appears in about 12 ancient manuscripts and does not always appear in the same place within John's gospel, or even in John's gospel exclusively. However, the story does remain unaltered wherever it is found in the New Testament manuscripts. This has led many scholars to conclude that this event did in fact occur during the life and ministry of Jesus, but that it was not part of the original document. Rather, the evidence suggests that this story was an oral tradition within the Christian community that later scribes wanted to preserve. Since the Gospel of John concludes by stating that there were many other things Jesus said and taught that were not written down (John 20:3021:25) it makes sense why this particular story eventually found its way into the John's gospel even though it was not part of the original document.
 
    In any case, through carefully investigating the alleged errors in the Bible, one can clearly see that any interpolations were done out of a desire to preserve something of great importance to the early Christians, and were not clandestine attempts to change the meaning of the text. There was nothing nefarious or dishonest about it. Furthermore, every interpolation or disputed passage in the biblical manuscripts is clearly noted in modern translations, thus making it incredibly difficult for the skeptic to maintain their position that the "Church" is actively trying to deceive its members. (If you are trying to deceive people, you don't usually make it a point of habit to declare your deception to your audience!)
 
    So then, does the existence of interpolations, spelling mistakes and copyist errors prove that the Bible and Christianity are false? Hardly. Even skeptical scholars like Dr. Bart Erhman acknowledge that "essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament." 
    Therefore, the only so-called doctrine threatened by variations within the biblical manuscripts is the ridged, literalistic belief that the Bible is absolutely perfect. But is this belief biblically founded? Do Christians really believe that the Bible is absolutely perfect, or is it the skeptic that believes that the Bible was literally written by the hand of God and has been perfectly preserved, word-for-word from the day it was written until now?

    If one believes that the Bible is true, then one must also believe that the Bible changed over time. 1,000 years before Christ, the entire Bible consisted of no more than 11 books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua and Judges; possibly Ruth, Job, and First and Second Samuel. Since much of the Bible is descriptive (describing historical events as they happened) rather than prescriptive (prescribing a moral code of conduct for one to live by) we would expect the Bible to change over time as history unfolded. Likewise, the New Testament wasn't finished until about AD 70. Most of the New Testament is made up letters written to the Churches between AD 40 and AD 64. The earliest gospels were written after the Book of James and Paul's letter to the Galatians between AD 45 and AD 55, which means that there were Christians and Churches before there were gospels.
   When dealing with the issue of Bible translations the changes are even more apparent. For example, every word in the King James Bible written in italics marks a place where an English word was added to the text in order to make the translation easier to read. Likewise, punctuation and quotation marks, verse numbers and chapter headings are all latter additions, and are not present in the original text.
    Add to this the previously addressed issues of interpolations and manuscript variants and you will soon realize that it is logically impossible for a Christian to maintain the position that the Bible has not changed over time. Which is why so few Christians actually hold to this belief. Instead, we find that it is the skeptic who must assume that the Bible is perpetually unchanging in order to support their objections.

    If the Christian must admit that the Bible has changed over time as a matter of historic necessity, what impact does this have on the Christian claim that the Bible is the Word of God? 


    As it happens, there are only two instances in the entire Bible where God literally wrote something Himself. The first time we find God writing something down is in Exodus 24:12 when He instructed Moses to climb Mount Sinai and receive the Ten Commandments. The second time God physically wrote something is found in Daniel 5 when a hand appeared and wrote a pronouncement of judgment on the wall of King Belshazzar's palace. Aside from these two occasions—and their various reiterations—God did not physically write anything else. Naturally this raises the question of what Christians mean when they say that the Bible is the Word of God. Are they speaking literally or figuratively?

    Much of the confusion over the authorship of the Bible stems from a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Within Christianity, God is not a monad. (ie. One person existing as one being.) Instead, the Judeo-Christian God exists as three distinct, eternally co-equal persons with in a single divine being: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) and God the Holy Spirit. Each person of the Godhead is unique and distinct from each other in person, yet one in nature. God the Father is fully God, but is not the Son or Holy Spirit. The Son is fully God but is not the Father or the Spirit. And the Holy Spirit is fully God, but is not the Father or the Son. It is this third person of the triune God—the Holy Spirit—that Christians believe is responsible for the authorship of the Bible.
   According to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 all Scripture was inspired by God. The word used in the Greek is theopneustos (θεόπνευστος) and literally means: "breathed out by God." Thus, it is the Christian belief that it was God's Spirit who stirred the hearts and minds of the Bible's human authors and inspired them to write down those truths that God wanted to convey in their own words. God did not "possess" them or force them to write the Bible like someone channeling a demonic spirit. Nor did God literally write the Bible himself. Instead God used regular people, shepherds and fishermen; kings and cup-bearers; priests, tent-makers and tax-collectors, each with their own personal experiences and writing styles to write down a single, unified message spanning over 1,400 years of history. In this sense the Christian view of the Bible is that it is a work of dual authorship written by the Holy Spirit working through human authors. Additionally, the Christian position on devine inspiration does not promote the view that our modern, printed Bibles were themselves inspired by the Holy Spirit. Rather, the Christian position states that the original autographs of the Scriptures were inspired. Therefore, it is the goal of Bible translators and textual critics to ensure that the Bibles in our possession today accurately reproduce the original autographs as closely as possible, so that the message of God's Word remains true to the original.
 
    So once again, it is the skeptic who must maintain a pretext in order to justify their objection. The skeptic must believe that God literally wrote the Bible with His own hand in order to justify their skepticism toward Christianity, when in fact Christianity makes no such claim.

    Finally, there is the issue of the inerrancy and infallibility of God's Word. If the Christian recognizes that the Bible has changed over time and was written by human authors inspired by the Holy Spirit, how can they believe that the Bible is without error or fault?
    Again, this objection is nothing more than a gross misrepresentation of what Christians believe. Christians do not view the physical matter of the Bible as holy. The paper and ink is just that: paper and ink. Likewise, the words themselves are also seen as fallible. (As previously noted, there are spelling mistakes in the ancient manuscripts.) What Christians mean when they say that the Word of God is inerrant or infallible is that the message of the Bible is completely true, without fault or error. There is a fundamental difference between information and the medium by which that information is stored and transmitted.
    For example, the information in the article you are currently reading came from my brain. It was transmitted through my body via electrical impulses in my muscles to the keyboard on my computer. The information was then converted into electrical signals again which were then interpreted by my writing software and converted into a digital display before being uploaded to the internet. If you have printed this article, then that digital medium has also been converted into a physical medium as paper and ink. Regardless of how you are reading this article, the information presented changed form many times before it reached your brain. Yet the message was faithfully preserved and understood by you when you read it.
    Similarly, there is more than one way to write down a particular thought or idea. I could say, "I am going to the store for some milk." Or I could say, "I'm out of milk. I guess I am going to the store today." Likewise I could say, "I am getting milk at the store today" or say simply, "I'm running to the store to get some milk." In each of these cases, the truth that I am going to go to the store to get milk today can be deduced even though the words themselves are different.
    This is a very simple explanation for what Christians mean when they say that the Bible is the Word of God. There is a difference between believing that a book is the inerrant and infallible Word of God and saying that the information contained within the book is the inerrant and infallible Word of God. The later claim being made by Christianity, while the former is the position of the skeptic.

    In conclusion, Christians do not believe that the Bible is perfect. At least, not in the same way that the skeptic does. The skeptic is required to believe that the Bible was literally written by God; that the paper and ink are themselves holy, perfect, without flaw or error, and that the biblical manuscripts have been perfectly preserved, word-for-word and letter-for-letter from the time they were written until now in order to object to the Christian's belief in the infallibility and inerrancy of God's Holy Word.
    The Christian however is free to acknowledge the fact that the Bible was written by human authors and that there are variations within the ancient manuscripts without abandoning their belief in the inerrancy and devine inspiration of the Scriptures. As a book, the Bible itself is finite and fallible. But the Word of God within its pages is eternal, true and without flaw.



 
See Also: 







Additional Resources to Watch:












Tuesday, May 19, 2020

The Myth of Hell





    In The Myth of Heaven I began to address some of the misconceptions and myths surrounding eternal life and what heaven is in the Christian worldview. Of course, one can not address the Christian concept of heaven without also addressing the doctrine of hell.

    To be fair, no one really likes to discuss hell. The majority of people, including most Christians, would much rather talk about heaven! This innate sense of revulsion when addressing the reality of hell has lead many to reject the Biblical teachings of hell altogether, while still others have adopted a skewed belief in hell that is far from accurate.

    When thinking of hell, most people envision a subterranean cavern filled with fire and brimstone, where evildoers and sinners burn forever and are tortured night and day for all eternity as punishment for all their wrongdoings in life. Other, more comical interpretations depict hell as a realm ruled by Satan himself and populated by little red devils with pitchforks and the spirits of those who would not bow to God's oppressive rules, where revelry and self indulgence continues for all eternity. In both extremes, the iconography surrounding hell can be traced back to Greco-Roman paganism.

    According to ancient Greco-Roman beliefs, a person's ghost-like spirit—their psyche (ψυχή)—continued to live on after death with no memory of its previous life, and would go on to dwell forever in one of three places: Elysium, the Asphodel Fields, or Tartarus.

    Elysium was to the Greco-Roman pagans what most people today think of as heaven—a paradise of everlasting bliss and contentment. However, quite unlike the popular view of today which holds that good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell, entrance into Elysium was not dependent on one's moral goodness. Rather, Elysium was reserved only for the most heroic individuals of classical mythology and those closest to the gods. That said, following Alexander the Great's campaigns in the east, some Greeks began to incorporate a form of reincarnation into their religious beliefs. According to this view, a person's soul could chose to be reborn after death. They would remember nothing of their past life and could only be re-born as a human after 3,000 years of death and re-birth as lower animals. If a person's soul went through this 3,000 year cycle of death and re-birth three times, they could potentially earn enough merit to gain entrance into Elysium where they would remain for all eternity.

    In contrast to the heroes and demigods of Elysium, souls who were average or mediocre, being neither utterly evil nor having achieved great renown for themselves through acts of heroism and bravery, would be doomed to wander the dismal, sunless lands of the Asphodel Fields forever. While the most wicked souls of all would be thrown into Tartarus, the fiery subterranean chasm where the Titans were imprisoned and where human souls would burn forever in rivers of lava as devine retribution for their evil actions.

    In any case, the ever-fluid Greco-Roman afterlife was a realm governed entirely by arbitrary judgments based on a system of virtue, merit and reward. A person's deeds in life determined where their soul would dwell and the degree of punishment or reward they might receive—even though they retained no knowledge of themselves or their past life. The Greeks and Romans, as well as those Jews belonging to the Sadducee sect of Judaism, did not believe in a bodily resurrection of the dead. (Mark 12:18-27Acts 23:6-10) Instead, a person's mortal body was seen as simply a vessel for their soul. However the traditional Jewish belief was that a person's being was comprised of both body and soul. Being made in the image of God, both body and soul were seen as equally necessary for a person to be complete. Upon death, a person's soul would depart their body and return to God. But the body would not be abandoned in the grave forever. Instead, the hope of the Jew, and later the Christian, was in the physical resurrection of the dead at the end of days. (Job 19:25-27, Daniel 12:13John 11:17-27)
    According to Judeo-Christian thought, in the resurrection the bodies of all who have died will be raised to life never to die again and will be rejoined with their souls to spend eternity either in heaven with God or in hell based on their relational standing with God in life. (Romans 4:1-8) Those counted as righteous will be raised to everlasting life and their good deeds in life will be judged and rewarded accordingly. (1 Corinthians 3:10-17) Likewise the unrepentant and the wicked will also be raised from the dead to be judged and sentenced according to the evil they have done and the sins they have committed. (Daniel 12:1-4Revelation 20:11-15) This concept of a physical resurrection of the dead and a final judgement was unique to the Jewish culture in the First Century and was completely unknown to the Greeks and Romans. (Acts 17:16-34Acts 26, 2 Corinthians 5)

    That being said, there are uncanny parallels between the ancient Greco-Roman religion and Roman Catholic teachings on the nature of the soul and the afterlife. Most people in the west are unaware of the fact that they have unwittingly adopted the Greco-Roman belief that the soul is separate from the body and that the body is merely a vessel for the soul to discard on its way to heaven. Likewise, the doctrine of Purgatory in Catholicism mirrors the Asphodel Fields in Greco-Roman mythology as an abysmal place in between heaven and hell. This synchronization of pagan ideas has created a tradition of merit-based salvation within Catholicism that is completely at odds with the Biblical teaching that salvation comes by grace through faith alone, and is not a reward for the good things we have done in life. (Ephesians 2:8-9Hebrews 10:10-18)
    Furthermore, much of the iconography of hell made popular during the Middle Ages and Renaissance bears a striking resemblance to descriptions of Tartarus found in classical Greco-Roman mythology. Therefore we must ask ourselves: is the modern idea of hell as a pit of fire, brimstone and endless torture what the Biblical authors where trying to convey to their readers? How did people in the First Century understand the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament within their cultural frame of reference?

    Like many modern writers, the authors of the New Testament used terms and figures of speech that were familiar to their audiences. Some even quoted from extra-biblical writings in order to emphasis a particular point they were trying to convey. (ie. The Apostle Paul quotes Greek poets in Acts 17:27-28, and Jude quotes from the extra-biblical Book of Enoch when writing to Jewish Christians in Jude 14-15.) This means that in some cases it is entirely plausible that the Jewish authors of the New Testament occasionally used language and terminology from Greco-Roman culture in order to convey spiritual truths to people born outside of the Jewish frame of reference. 
     
    For example, in 2 Peter 2:4 the Apostle Peter uses the word tartaroó (ταρταρόω) to describe a place where some of the spiritual beings who joined Lucifer (Satan) in his rebellion against God are being held until the Day of Judgment. This is the only occurrence of Tartarus, or any variation of Tartarus, found in the Bible. 
   
    Hades
(
ᾍδης) in its various forms, is used a total of 11 times in the New Testament when referring  to the "place of the dead," "death," or "the grave" and is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word sheol (שְׁאוֹל) which occurs 65 times in the Bible.

    When speaking to his Jewish followers about God's righteous judgment, Jesus used the word
Gehenna (γέεννα) to describe hell as a place of eternal destruction where "maggots never die and the fires never go out." (Matthew 9:42-48) To the average reader, Jesus' use of Gehenna is unremarkable. But to the Jew living in First Century Israel, this real-world location was historically significant and carried with it deep cultural connotations.
        Before the Babylonian Exile (ca. 587 BC.) the Valley of Hinnom (Which is translated as Gehenna in Greek.) was the sight of child sacrifice and pagan worship in the southern kingdom of Judah. (2 Chronicles 28:1-333:6Jeremiah 7:3119:2-6) When King Josiah ascended to the throne of Judah following the assassination of his father Amon, he began a series of sweeping religious reforms in an attempt to turn the people of Judah back to worshiping Yahweh. (2 Kings 22-23:30) As part of his reforms, Josiah ordered that the pagan altars in the Valley of Hinnom be defiled so that no one would ever sacrifice their children there again. (2 Kings 23:10)
    From that time onward, the Valley of Hinnom was used as a garbage dump by the residents of Jerusalem. Gehenna was literally a hellish place where fires smoldered without end and filled the air with smoke and the odor of death, decay and burning refuse. By the time of Christ, Gehenna had become synonymous with eternal destruction, God's judgment of the wicked, and ceremonial uncleanness in the Jewish culture.
    In all, Gehenna is used to describe hell 12 times in the New Testament
   
    Additionally, the Book of Revelation makes 6 references to a place called the Lake of Fire which Jesus described as a place of final judgement prepared for Satan and his demons in Matthew 25:41

    The Greek wording in this case is far less ambiguous than some of the other words translated as hell in English, and refers simply to a lake (λίμνη) of fire (πυρός). In truth, it is the Lake of Fire that is hellthe final judgement of Satan, his demons, and the unrepentant humans they have deceived and led to their ultimate ruin. Everything prior to this final act of judgment is merely temporary.

    That said, much confusion has arisen over the centuries due to the fact that some English Translations have done a great disservice to the text of Scripture by translating nearly all of these unique terms as hell, when the true meaning of the words in question are in fact much more nuanced.

    Not only did Jesus teach that hell was a place of unquenchable fire, smoke, and endless destruction and death, he also referred to hell as a place of darkness where there would be "wailing and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 8:5-1213:34-4313:47-5022:13-1424:45-5125:14-30Luke 13:22-30

    Some have interpreted this verse to mean that those in hell will be in such extreme physical torment that all they can do is gnash their teeth in pain. And this may certainly be true. However, to the Jews living at the time of Christ, the act of snarling or gnashing ones teeth at someone was a way of showing disrespect, animosity or deep anger towards a particular person or thing. (Psalm:35:14-1637:12112:10Lamentations 2:16Acts 7:51-57)
    With this in mind, Jesus seems to be describing hell as a place where people will be filled with unspeakable grief and remorse and yet continue to show nothing but disrespect and utter contempt for God even in the midst of their anguish. The reality of hell as a place of deep emotional torment is further emphasized by Jesus in his parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. (Luke 16:19-31)
    In the story, Jesus tells of a rich man and a beggar named Lazarus who both die and go into the afterlife. Lazarus is taken to paradise by the angels while the rich man is sent into Hades. There, the rich man can see Lazarus and Abraham but cannot cross over to where they are. Calling out to Abraham, the rich man says that he is "in anguish in flames." However his choice of words reveal a much deeper meaning that is not immediately apparent in English.
    The Greek word translated as anguish in this passage is odynōmai (ὀδυνῶμαι). Odynōmai only appears once in the Bible and refers specifically to deep personal anguish, emotional pain, mourning, or anxiety. In essence, the anguish experienced by the rich man in Hades is an all-consuming sorrow.   

    Additionally, the Greek word for flame(s) in this passage is phlogi (φλογὶ) and occurs only one other time in Acts 7:30 when Stephen recounts the story of God speaking to Moses from the burning bush. Therefore, the flames experienced by the rich man in this parable could conceivably be understood as a representation of the Shekinah glory of God and not literal flames at all. 
    God's holiness is described as an unquenchable fire in Deuteronomy 4:24 and Hebrews 12:28-29, and could be lethal to humans who approached in an unworthy or careless way. (Leviticus 10:1-5) The unquenchable fire from God described in the Old Testament also behaved differently than normal fire. In 1 Kings 18:30-38 the fire from the Lord burned up not only flammable materials but also inflammable materials including water, dirt and stone. 
    God's presence was also described as a pillar of cloud and fire in Exodus 13:21 and Exodus:40:38And a ceremonial fire was to be kept burning on the alter of Yahweh at all times symbolizing the presence of God among His people. (Leviticus 6:12-13This vivid imagery of God's presence is echoed in Acts 2:1-4 when the Holy Spirit appeared as "tongues of fire" on the Day of Pentecost.
    That said, fire also symbolized God's righteous anger and judgment of sin and wickednessas in the real-word example of Gehenna. Further support for this powerful symbolism is found in passages like Deuteronomy 9:1-3Isaiah 30:33 and Jeremiah 7:20. Burning coals were similarly used as a metaphor for deep personal shame. (Proverbs 25:21-22Romans 12:19-21) So a more literal interpretation of hell is equally plausible.

     In support of the traditional interpretation of hell, the rich man in Jesus' parable does state that he is in "a place of torment" in Luke 16:28. However, in the Greek, the word for torment is basanos (βάσανος) which can mean either "sickness" or "to examine by torture." Additionally, basanos originally referred to a touchstone used by ancient goldsmiths to test the purity of gold. Within the greater context of the passage, the "torture" experienced by the man in the story could very well be understood as both physical and psychological

    To have ones innermost sins exposed to the glory and holiness of an infinitely perfect God while still in an unrepentant state, without the hope of forgiveness and reconciliation would be a terrible fate indeed. It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Hebrews 10:29-31) Yet this is exactly what the Bible describes as hell: a place of eternal anguish and torment, where one is permanently restrained and separated from God. 

    It was to save us from this eventuality that Jesus came and died in our place. Even though he was innocent, Jesus was beaten until he was hardly recognizable as human, mocked and ridiculed; despised and rejected by his own people. Abandoned and alienated by his closest friends and family he was led to a hill outside Jerusalem and crucified like a criminal, ceremonially unclean and symbolically separated from God and His people. (Deuteronomy 21:22-23, Isaiah 53, Hebrews 13:11-15)

    Jesus' death on the cross painted a vivid picture of the seriousness of sin and where a life of sin will ultimately lead us: to a permanent separation from God. Yet he died for us. By taking our sins upon himself as the man Jesus Christ, God's infinite justice could be satisfied within Himself so that His infinite love and mercy could be extended to anyone who would repent, turn to Him and believe. 
    Just as Jesus' death represents the cost of sin and the doom of all mankind apart from grace, so too Christ's resurrection represents the future resurrection of the dead and the new life made available to all mankind through faith in Jesus the Messiah. (1 Corinthians 15:14-23)

    In summary, while hell may not be a place of literal fire and brimstone, like Gehenna in this world or Tartarus in Greco-Roman mythology, this in no way diminishes the utter horror of what hell is. Hell is not a place where evil people and sinners are tortured by demons for all eternity. Nor is hell the kingdom of Satan. The Biblical hell is a place of final judgement for rebel humans and spiritual beings alike. A place of eternal separation from God, utterly devoid of all goodness and relationship, where one remains fully conscious of what one has lost, longing for God yet hating Him; consumed by sin, regret, and the agonizing knowledge that you are forever lost. In this regard, the reality of hell is far worse than many people realize. But the reality of heaven is far better than any one can fully comprehend!