THEORIES ON THE AMBIGUITY OF BAPTIST ARTICLES OF FAITH

    For the third time, someone has contacted me concerning many Baptist articles of faith, and why they seem so confusing to us today. A reader asked me about my articles " Sunday School Unions In The History of the Pleasant Grove Baptist Association" as well as "David Benedict's History - Another View".

   In both of these articles, it is mentioned that many old Baptist articles of faith are interpreted as being Calvinistic as defined today, yet at the time they were written they were not necessarily seen as such by those who originally adhered to them. In this article, I will attempt to explain why this is the case, and how some Baptists interpreted "calvinistic phrases". The confusion which came from many articles of faith, is also one reason (I believe) that the Campbellites refused to have them. 

   All historical Baptists that I know of, clearly stated that the Scriptures alone are the final authority for doctrine and practice. However, all Baptist associations usually adopted articles of faith (now known mostly as "Statement of Faith). Many individual churches also had them, even if they were part of a larger association of Baptists, yet some were content on simply using articles or confessions of the larger body. Many associations who adhered to the Philadelphia Confession, also adopted their own more concise Articles of Faith. The same is true today. Some churches in the Southern Baptist Convention simply use the "Baptist Faith and Message" (BF&M), while other SBC churches adopt their own articles or statement of faith. Why the variance? Because some churches and associations within the SBC wish to make a clear statement of being non Calvinist, while others wish to be clear that they are Calvinists. Many who use the BF&M see it as too ambiguous, but others like the ambiguity because there are both Calvinists and non Calvinists within the same association. Churches that belong to the SBC may adopt any statement so long as it does not contradict the BF&M. For instance the BF&M has no opinion on end times views, so there are Amillenials, Premillenials, Post, Pre Trib, Mid Trib, Post Trib and NO Trib views. However the BF&M is clear about eternal security, so Free Will Baptists would be excluded from the SBC. I think this may have also been true in the 18th and 19th centuries, more than is thought by many historians. 

   The next thing to remember, is that certain words may have the sound of a certain view to us today, but Baptists have always been people of the Book, so many Baptists, both then and now refuse to refrain from using words that are "Bible words". So terms like "predestination", "election", "foreknowledge" are all words found in Scripture, so there was no reason to refrain from using them in their eyes. Baptists were the first to say "Bible words for Bible things" which the Campbellites later adopted as well. Very few Baptist articles of faith use the word "trinity" for example, because that word isn't found in the Bible. Yet all articles and confessions clearly teach the concept.

   As an example, let's take the word "predestination". Some Baptists saw this as God actively controlling all that comes to pass, while others saw it as all that God would foresee coming to pass, and by not intervening to change what He foresaw, He had determined that those things would happen by refusing to change it or intervene. Some would see individuals as being predestined, while others would say that your predestination does not begin until you believe the Gospel. Some see predestination as corporate (the Church), so one could choose whether or not to be a part of the corporate body, without changing the fact that the thing predestined would still come to pass. As an example, the Eastern District PB's, the Hiwassee PB's and the Original Tennessee PB's all have a phrase in their Articles of Faith that says "We believe in election according to the foreknowledge of God".  A Calvinist might see Calvinism in this phrase, while a non Calvinist might not. The Calvinist would think to himself "those God knew (loved) before hand are predestined by Him to eternal life". The non Calvinist would think "Election is the process decreed by God and all those who place their names on the ballot will be elected because God has already cast His "vote" in favor of any who willingly place their names on the ballot of God's grace." To them, this in no way takes away their belief that those not elected could have placed their names on the ballot, but refused to do so, even tho they may have been called, yet they refused God's call (conviction). Most Calvinists would deny that a non elect person would ever come under "conviction", but not all.

   Now if you are a Baptist historian who has no knowledge of a certain group, but only had their articles of faith, look at this article of faith from the Bethel Association of United Baptists, and ask yourself how you would interpret such an article. 

"13. We believe converted, born-again believers in Jesus Christ must be faithful in their stewardship until death or until the Lord returns in order to be eternally saved. (Matt 10:22,24,13; Mark 13:13; I Cor. 4:2; Rev 2:10,22:14)."

 This article certainly is meant to convey "perseverance". Would you say this article describes it as a Calvinist or as an Arminian view? Does this sound as though the Bethlehem Association believes a believer is eternally secure, or does it sound as though salvation may be lost? United Baptists hold to eternal security, yet when I presented this article to a Free Will Baptist, who had no knowledge of what group it belonged to, he viewed it as being in total agreement with what the Free Will Baptists believe. So you can see how a sloppy historian may group the United Baptists in with Calvinists or Arminians based on his own perception of how he views it, and not necessarily based on how the group itself means it to be understood. If I preached that "repentance" was required for salvation, one person may see repentance to mean that someone must walk away from sin in order to be saved, while another may see that you merely see your sin for what it really is, which causes you to know beyond doubt that you have no hope unless Christ saves you. "Repentance" sometimes means "to have a change of mind" and sometimes it means "to turn around". I believe the former, that the repentance that is required, means you know without a doubt, you have no hope of saving yourself, because you have no power to turn from sin, until AFTER you have been born again. Once born again however, you must "repent" everyday, or turn from the flesh on a daily basis, but the failure to do so will not cast you into a lost state, but will most certainly cast you into broken fellowship with the Father, who will indeed discipline the child of God. The "perseverance" within a saint is that constant reminder of who you belong to, and a desire to do His will. But the will of the flesh is also present, and just one step away from God's will places you in a position to heed whatever the flesh desires. The true believer however, will never forget whose child he is, and his conscience will be tormented until he returns to fellowship, or until the chastisement of God brings him to repentance or even death.

   The next question I was asked was how could a non Calvinist interpret articles that most see clearly as Calvinistic, such as the Articles of Faith of the Pleasant Grove Association, which is non calvinist, yet may have been at one time, this is unclear. Now however they are not, yet use articles of faith that sound very Calvinistic to many, me included. So how do the Pleasant Grove Association churches interpret these articles? I will attempt to "explain" how a non Calvinist could see these articles. I will focus on the three articles which one could question.

Article 3 states "We believe in the fall of Adam and the imputation of his sin to his posterity in the corruption of the human nature and the impotency of man to recover himself by his own free will and ability." The non Calvinist could say that by the phrase "corruption of the human nature" means we inherit imperfection just as a baby inherits defects because its mother drank while pregnant, without being guilty of the mother's sin. So the non Calvinist might say that Adam's fall caused the whole human race to become corrupted and defective without necessarily being counted guilty of Adam' s sin. They would say each person is held guilty of their own sin, and not the sin of their father, as stated in Ezekiel 18:20. This corruption does ensure that we will sin, because of our weakness, thus "imputation", but the fathers guilt is not necessarily transferred to us. Calvinists believe we inherit not only a nature inclined to sin, but we are actually held guilty of Adam's sin because he is the federal head of the human race. Officially, the Catholic Church and her daughter churches still affirm that we are born guilty, hence infant baptism, which "washes away Adam's guilt". At one time, these churches did teach unbaptized infants go to hell, but most have back tracked on that belief. Some Calvinists do affirm that many who die in infancy go to hell, because they are "born guilty", and Augustine did teach this belief.. Some Calvinists reject the idea of infants being in hell, but still affirm that all are born guilty.  (Non Calvinists are divided on the issue of whether we inherit Adam's "guilt", but none would take it to the point that an infant could go to hell). 

Article 4 states "We believe in the everlasting love of God to His people and the eternal election of a definite number of the human race to grace and glory, and there was a covenant of grace and redemption made between the Father and Son before the world began in which their salvation is secure and they in particular are redeemed." A non Calvinist could say of course the Father and Son agreed that Christ would die for us before the foundation of the world, because He knew we would fall. Thus the covenant of grace had already been decided. Also, because the Father and Son always knew who the bride of Christ would be (the Church), that God has an everlasting love for her, yet the corporate body of the Church is still open to all who willingly believe. Also, since God knows when time will end, the number of the elect is already fixed, because none can come to Him after the final judgement. Even tho I was raised in a non Calvinist Baptist church, my pastor used to always say, "when the last lost one comes, it's all over. Is He waiting for you?" The phrase "they in particular are redeemed" is one that appears in almost all Calvinist articles of faith, yet to a non Calvinist, it could be taken to mean, that while Christ did atone for the sins of all, the "particular" ones are those that believe. The non Calvinist would see this word as synonymous with "especially". This (to them) echoes the meaning of 1 John 2:2 which says "He is the propitiation for OUR sins (particularly, especially) and not for OURS only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Article 6 states " We believe that all those chosen in Christ will be effectually called by the spirit and power of God so that they shall persevere in grace and not one of them be finally lost." A non Calvinist would agree that to be "chosen" in Christ, one must be effectually called. But they would also say "many are called, but few are chosen", which to the non Calvinist means many who fall under conviction of sin will willingly refuse God's offer of salvation, but those who accept it, come into a GROUP that has already been chosen, the corporate body or the Church. The bride has been chosen or the "team" has been chosen to win, but anyone is free to join that team. Their acceptance or refusal of God's offer to be on His team does not in any way negate the victory that the team will one day win, which has already been decided. If the non Calvinist were writing this article to convey what a Calvinist means, he would say "We believe the ONE chosen in Christ..." to refer to the belief that God singularly chooses who will be saved.

   Now is it wise to promote Articles of Faith that one must constantly have to explain? Not in my opinion. But many Baptists of the 19th century were so worried that they might be thought of as "Arminian", that they used language that many Arminians would not use. Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries were in the extreme minority about the eternal security of the believer, as all churches, except the Presbyterians (Reformed/Congregational), were Arminian. The Baptists (except for the Free Wills) wished to be clear that they were not Arminian. Even the calvinistic Baptists wished to distance themselves from the Covenant Theology taught by Reformed churches, hence their rejection of infant baptism, and the rejection of a "church" replacing Israel. Over the years, many non Calvinist Baptists would get more clear in how they stated what they believed, but they would always refuse to do away with words clearly found in Scripture. 

   Many Baptist confessions, such as the New Hampshire Confession, uses the word "our" as way of speaking of those who are already saved and in the church. In this way, both the Calvinist and non Calvinist could agree "whose" sin is covered without causing dissension between those who accept general atonement versus particular atonement. Notice how it states the following:

"We believe that the salvation of sinners is wholly of grace; through the Mediatorial
offices of the Son of God; who by the appointment of the Father freely took upon him OUR
nature, yet without sin; honored the divine law by his personal obedience, and by his
death made a full atonement for OUR sins;"

So the Calvinist could see this as an expression of limited atonement, but the non Calvinist could see this as an agreement among those already saved, that we have laid claim to that atonement for ourselves. If a non Calvinist wanted to go further, he could add "but not for ours only, but the sins of the whole world". If a Calvinist wanted wanted to go further, he could add "in particular".

   In the end, we should be clear about what we believe, while also being clear of what views we can fellowship, while not necessarily embracing. Too much ambiguity leaves room for charlatans to sneak in and preach a doctrine we don't believe, and causing havoc in the church. I for one, would not be too detailed about end time views, as that is not super important to me, even within the same church, yet another church may find dispensationalism or the denial of it so important, that they would include a specific end time view.

  When stating what we believe in statements or articles of faith, confessions, etc, we need to be very clear in my opinion. No room should be left for someone to sneak in and try to take over a church. If your church is fine with more than one view, spell out the views that you are willing to accept, and be clear that those who have differing views will never be excluded from teaching or holding positions within the church. Many Baptist associations in the 1700's and 1800's  who were majority Calvinist, were indeed willing to accept churches which did not hold those views. They adopted statements that said "the teaching that Christ tasted death for every man shall be no bar to communion" as a footnote to their articles of faith, which were calvinistic. 

   I suspect that if you could go back in time to the early 1800's, the average person could discern very little difference between a Calvinist and a non Calvinist Baptist preacher when hearing them. I suspect that many associations, while stating what they believed, were more concerned about preaching the Gospel than in splitting hairs. Why else would a Regular Baptist Association accept a church like those started by the Campbells, knowing full well they did not accept many articles stated in the Philadelphia Confession? Why else would some Separate Baptist associations who were largely non Calvinist, merely state their belief that one must believe and accept the Gospel to be saved, while never stating who is to be saved? Even among the Free Will Baptists, the variance is not as large as many historians portray them. Are the major differences? Yes, of course. But the Free Will Baptists are just barely over the border into Arminianism. Most of them do not believe salvation can be lost as easily as is portrayed by those who write about them. The ones I know, do not believe salvation may be lost due to a long period of backsliding as most Arminians do. They believe one must formally and consciously renounce faith in Christ, after of course, a period of sin and rebellion against God. Notice this statement in their articles of faith.

"We believe  there are strong grounds to hope that the saved will persevere unto the end and be saved because of the power of divine grace pledged for their support."

   It almost seems they are leaving the door open on the eternal security issue. If you omitted the words  "there are strong grounds to hope" then the rest of the article could be included in any other Baptist confession. 

   In closing, let me just say that we need to go beyond what our eyes read before making a determination about others' beliefs. Especially to those of us who value history, we must be diligent to not automatically see what we want to see, or what has been told to us by others. If you love history, you should also love the truth, even if it is not what we had hoped it would be. After all, history is a study of the past, and does not negate or nullify what we may now believe. People in the past have been wrong. People in the future at times, will be wrong. For the present though, we cannot control those things, but we can control our pursuit of truth, proclaim what we believe the Scripture to teach, and leave the rest in God's sovereign hands.

  

THE ANCIENT GODS HAVE RETURNED

    As the world continually descends into chaos and evil, we must conclude that forces that we have not experienced before are at work. Yes we have always had to fight Satan and his minions, but today we face this evil on a level not seen in centuries. BUT the world has seen this level of evil before. However, now that the world has grown smaller because of technology, this evil has encompassed the whole planet at one time.

   The recent murders of Christian children by a person who was "transgender" at Covenant Christian School, shows how evil and low this force is.  This person deliberately targeted a Christian school and it's children. This person had been playing a video game created by another trans person, which allows players to "kill" anti-trans persons, including priests and ministers (you get extra points for that). And just who is it that stands against this evil? Christians.

   A "Day of Vengeance" was planned by the trans community. There was no public mourning for the children and their adult loved ones. There was no outrage over the "hate crimes" committed against Christians. Instead, Christians were vilified because this trans woman had been taught the truth by Christians.

   The shedim (Hebrew for demon) who were behind all the false gods of the ancient civilizations, have as their primary goal death. Not always bodily death, but death of the personhood of those they possess, death of their gender, their personality, their dreams. The possessed person becomes a danger to himself and others. The shedim were behind the gods of the ancient world from Persia, to Egypt, to Rome and everything in between. They were behind the gods who demanded the sacrifice of infants who were burned to death on brazen altars.With the rise of Christianity, the shedim who were behind the false gods were cast out of western civilization for the most part. Even during the dark days where Catholicism reigned, there was still enough truth and light of Christ, that the shedim could not rule as they had before. Remember that false gods ruled the whole world before Jesus came, except for a tiny speck of land we call Israel. Any culture that has cast off these demons, and then turn away from God, allowing them to come back, faces a bleak future. Whenever demons are cast out, and allowed to return, they come back with a vengeance, and their revengeful focus will be upon those who who had cast them out, namely, Christians. 

   One of the gods which have returned, is the "enchantress", also known in Sumeria as Inana, and Greece as Hermaphroditus and Ishtar in Mesopotamia, and Checomecoatl in the Aztec empire,that ancient god who turned women into men, and men into women. Her cult had various names, but perversion and prostitution were always practiced in her temples. Her male priests had their sex organs cut off and dressed as women. Her holy month was June, where parades were held by pride filled demoniacs. Sound familiar? In Luke 8:26-39, Jesus cast out demons from a man, and while the man was thankful, the town asked Jesus to leave. They were evidently more afraid of being changed by Jesus, than they were fearful of the demons.  The demoniac man dwelt in the hollows and caves, and attacked anyone who came by. Demon forces seek out dark places both spiritually and physically when possessing a person. The name of the shooter at Covenant School was Audrey Hale. "Hale" means "one who dwells in the hollows, the caves".

   As anyone knows, whether Christian or not, the satanic number is 666. Audrey Hale killed 6 people, the 3 adults were all around 60 years old, and I see 666. The children were all aged 9. Satanic forces like to invert symbols both to deceive and to mock. When you take the ages of the 3 children and invert them it is another 666. Maybe I read too much, Maybe I've seen too many movies. But maybe I am correct.

Beliefs about the Afterlife (xx)

"For man goes to his eternal home, 

And the mourners go about the streets." 

(Eccl. 12: 5)

In this chapter we will continue to examine Ecclesiastes chapter nine and the statements therein about the dead knowing nothing, nor having any activity in Sheol. On the surface of Ecclesiastes chapter nine it seems that Solomon did not believe in a conscious existence of spirit in the afterlife and is thus against the bible which teaches it, and against what he elsewhere wrote in Ecclesiastes. 

In the previous chapter we noticed some of the texts in Ecclesiastes that seemed to affirm a conscious spirit existence after death. However, although we cited 11: 9, 12: 1, 6-7, 13-14, we did not cite the above. The spirit or soul of a human, when he or she dies, departs the body and "goes to" a different dwelling place, to an "eternal house." That is what the above text (12: 5) seems clearly to affirm. So, why does Solomon seem to contradict that belief in Chapter nine when he says "the dead know nothing," etc.? 

We mentioned the leading views of the passage in the previous chapter and we are still considering the question as to whether Solomon is stating a truth, or a falsehood. As stated previously, many bible teachers believe that Solomon is giving the common perspective of men who only believe in what they can see and discover by reason and logic and not expressing his own belief. That is my view.

Further, if what he says is said by way of sarcasm, satire, cynicism, or "tongue an cheek" manner of speech, then we can assume that Solomon believed the very opposite of what the words say. 

If he is merely giving propositions for study or debate, which to my view is likely, then we cannot assume that what he said is in fact what Solomon himself believed to be true, or determine which side of each question he will conclude is correct. From what perspective, then, does he speak? Sometimes, I think, he is speaking for pro and sometimes for con, and sometimes speaking as the debate judge (or decider of the case or question), allowing some propositions while dismissing others of the disputants, and then rendering a decision on the question in dispute. 

As an introduction to the perspective of the author, or of "the preacher," let us look at some excellent observations from Enduring Word Bible Commentary (See here - emphasis mine):

"The Book of Ecclesiastes is one of the most unusual and perhaps most difficult to understand books of the Bible. It has a spirit of hopeless despair; it has no praise or peace; it seems to promote questionable conduct. Yet these words of the Preacher show us the futility and foolishness of a life lived without an eternal perspective."

The difficulty with understanding Ecclesiastes is a failure to interpret what is said in context, from failure to see how it often describes what a human thinks when he or she looks at the world around him or her and then tries to "make sense of it." This is the human perspective. There is also the divine perspective seen in Ecclesiastes at times and in contexts for certain words and statements. It is all about what is seen done "under the sun." It does not deal with the things seen in other worldly places, such as heaven, Sheol, or the spiritual (non physical), for they are not "under the sun." Sheol is in the heart of the earth, heaven is beyond the sun. 

There are also times when the narrator gives us his "stream of consciousness," his mental deliberations, the mental weighing of pros and cons, and dialogues between perspectives of various human groups and kinds of individuals. Perhaps, certain sections in Ecclesiastes are mere lists of propositions he has investigated. Perhaps we could call Ecclesiastes "the dialogues of Solomon" (or "the Preacher"). He is chiefly talking to himself, but also to those who hear him tell his story.

Said the same commentary:

i. The question in Ecclesiastes isn’t about the existence of God; the author is no atheist, and God is always there. The question is whether or not God matters. The answer to that question is vitally connected to a responsibility to God that goes beyond this earthly life. 

The question of whether there is an afterlife is behind much of the discussion in Ecclesiastes. However, Solomon does say things that seem to be made outside of the context of God and providence. 

Said the same commentary:

ii. “He does believe in ‘God,’ but, very significantly, he never uses the sacred name ‘Lord.’ He has shaken himself free, or wishes to represent a character who has shaken himself free from Revelation, and is fighting the problem of life, its meaning and worth, without any help from Law, or Prophet, or Psalm.” (Maclaren) 

 

iii. In the search for this answer, the Preacher searched the depths of human experience, including despair. He thoroughly examined the emptiness and futility of life lived without eternity before coming to the conclusion of the necessity of eternity. 

 

iv. “We face the appalling inference that nothing has meaning, nothing matters under the sun. It is then that we can hear, as the good news which it is, that everything matters – ‘for God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.’” (Kidner) 

v. “What, then, is the purpose of Ecclesiastes? It is an essay in apologetics. It defends the life of faith in a generous God by pointing to the grimness of the alternative.” (Eaton) 

 

Said the same commentary:

"Vanity of vanities: The Preacher begins his sermon with his first conclusion (though not his ultimate conclusion). Looking at life all around, he judges it to be vanity – nothing, useless, meaningless."

Thus, it seems to me, what Solomon said in Ecclesiastes chapter nine is simply a record of the workings of his mind and a list of the propositions (or questions) he analyzed.

Said the same commentary:

i. We see from the first two verses that Solomon wrote this from a certain perspective, a perspective that through the book he will expose as inadequate and wrong. Most all of Ecclesiastes is written from this perspective, through the eyes of a man who thinks and lives as if God doesn’t matter.

Solomon speaks as pro or con when giving us the ruminations of his mind on each question and thus acts as a moderator of the mental debate and subsequent narrator of the debate. He would consider both affirmative and negative, and things in terms of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. If this is so, then when Solomon says "the dead know nothing" he may be giving us the antithesis or the proposition or question to be debated. 

Said the same commentary:

iii. Therefore Ecclesiastes is filled with what we might call true lies. Given the perspective “God does not matter,” it is true that all is vanity. Since that perspective is wrong, it is not true that all is vanity. Yet Solomon makes us think through this wrong perspective thoroughly through Ecclesiastes.

Say Ray Stedman, who we cited in the previous chapter, said (See here): 

"The word can mean "preacher," but I think it is much better translated as "debater" or "arguer," and as you read this book you will see that it is a series of arguments set forth as man views the world around him."

He is a man examining philosophies of life and records the "back and forth" of his thoughts, and sometimes speaks "as a man," as Paul said - "I speak as a man" (Rom. 3: 5); And, "I speak after the manner of men" (Rom. 6: 19); And, "I speak after the manner of men" (Gal. 3: 15); And, "Say I these things as a man?" (I Cor. 9: 8).

Likewise we say similar things about our speech and the way we phrase things as when we hear people say 1) "to use a common expression" or 2) "in a manner of speaking" or 3) "as people generally say."

Dr. Albert Barnes on Rom. 3: 5 said (Commentary):

"I speak as a man - I speak after the manner of human beings. I speak as appears to be the case to human view; or as would strike the human mind."

In Ecclesiastes Solomon is sometimes speaking in this manner.

Myer's Commentary similarly says:

"Paul remarks parenthetically that he says this according to a human standard (Bernhardy, p. 241), after the fashion of ordinary humanity, quite apart from his own higher standpoint of divine enlightenment, to which the idea expressed in that question would be foreign, and speaking only in accordance with mere human reason."

Solomon writes much in the character of a man of reason, as a humanist, as a secularist, as an existentialist, as a Sophist, or Epicurean, as one who believes that this life is the only thing that matters and that obtaining as much pleasure in life is the highest virtue. Idea of God or gods, the afterlife, or the supernatural, are but slightly considered by such men of the world, for such things give them little pleasure or advantage. 

The Scientific Method or Philosophic Look

"All this I saw, as I applied my mind to everything done under the sun." (Eccl. 8: 9)

Solomon says he studied everything. He was the quintessential scientist and philosopher. As such he made some conclusions and gave us his stream of consciousness on life's most important questions, telling us how he logically came to those conclusions from his observing and contemplating what he could see happening "under the sun." Observation and reasoned analysis of the physical, psychological, and social worlds cannot prove nor disprove that there is life after death, nor the existence of angels and disembodied human spirits, and such things. Reason is insufficient. Wrote the apostle Paul:

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened." (Rom. 1: 20-21 nkjv)

So, what did Solomon (or any other man doing as Solomon) conclude about the world around him? He does reason to a belief in the existence of God and his power, wisdom, and rule from observing the cosmos and the behavior of men. He mentions God and things about him throughout Ecclesiastes. Notice these words from chapter one:

"And I set my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all that is done under heaven; this burdensome task God has given to the sons of man, by which they may be exercised." (Eccl. 1: 13)

I think the latter part of this text should be put in parentheses. Keep in mind that in the Hebrew and Greek languages of the bible there is no punctuation. Such punctuation as we use in English are added to the text where it is thought necessary to help properly interpret or translate the text. The punctuation is not inspired and in all translations there are instances where the punctuation is not helpful but hurtful. Consider how a lot of meaning and interpretation occurs for where to put the comma in the words of Christ to the thief on the cross to the right of Christ - "I say unto you today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23: 43) Does a comma go anywhere? Most translations put it before "today" while some others put it after it. Every instance of parentheses in the bible is added by the translator and is not in the original writings. In the above text where there is a semicolon we should perhaps change to the beginning of a parenthesis and remove the comma so that it looks like this:

"And I set my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all that is done under heaven (this burdensome task God has given to the sons of man by which they may be exercised)."

He will look at the world and all that "happens under the sun" just as do "scientists" of all branches of science, to gain knowledge of the world and of all events and happenings. And, for what purpose will he investigate the physical world? The world of ideas or of the mind or psyche? So, what is meant by a hunger for or interest in learning about everything being a "burdensome task" or "sore travail" (KJV)? 

Most humans have a hunger or "thirst for knowledge." What does the bible say about that? That Solomon had something to say about it is evident in Ecclesiastes. What did he say about it?

It was a thirst for knowledge that moved Eve to desire the fruit of the forbidden tree, which is called a "tree of knowledge," of both "good and evil." The serpent teased her with a promise of such wisdom and knowledge that would make her a divinity, like God. Such a tempting idea still lives on in the philosophy of "Gnosticism." Scientific knowledge and research about the physical world or world of the mind (or soul or of human behavior), to be profitable and good, must have a proper motive, right means, and right purpose or end in mind. To do it for the reason that motivated Eve would be an instance of "vanity and vexation of spirit," of being meaningless. The apostle Paul had a lot to say about the wrongful pursuit of knowledge, especially in his Corinthian epistles. Knowledge without love, he says, profits nothing. 

Further, Solomon realized that there is no way that anyone can know it all. There are so many branches of science, that even if a man became expert on one, he cannot be expert in all. What advantage is knowledge of the world? Though the means of much good, it has also been the means of much evil. Is it best to spend all one's time learning new facts about the world? Or is amusement better than musement much of the time? Is all that time in study worth it? Notice Solomon's testimony on this:

"When I applied my heart to know wisdom and to see the business that is done on earth, even though one sees no sleep day or night, then I saw all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun. For though a man labors to discover it, yet he will not find it; moreover, though a wise man attempts to know it, he will not be able to find it." (8: 16-17)

Even if a man spent every minute of his life studying the world and obtaining knowledge of everything, so much that he neglects sleep and amusement, how is he bettered? Does he not end up saying how he has come to realize that he has only scratched the surface when it comes to knowing all there is to know? 

Notice these observations of Solomon: 

"He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end. I know that nothing is better for them than to rejoice, and to do good in their lives, and also that every man should eat and drink and enjoy the good of all his labor—it is the gift of God. I know that whatever God does, It shall be forever. Nothing can be added to it, And nothing taken from it. God does it, that men should fear before Him. That which is has already been, And what is to be has already been; And God requires an account of what is past." (3: 11-15)

So, in two passages in Ecclesiastes we have Solomon concluding that no one man can "find out," or fully comprehend all things. He also made this conclusion:

"As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things." (Eccl, 11: 5 NIV)

There is simply so much to know that no man, no matter how knowledgeable, can comprehend it all. So Solomon says:

"No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all their efforts to search it out, no one can discover its meaning. Even if the wise claim they know, they cannot really comprehend it." (vs. 17)

What did Solomon learn by his study of physics and all the sciences? What were his philosophical conclusions from his reasoning upon the observable facts? His "outlook on life"? From what perspective does Solomon write or make his observations? As a man who is relying upon his own intellect and reason upon things he can observe? Or, as a man relying upon God to make sense of it all for him?

Beliefs about the Afterlife (xix)

The body sleeps, the soul does not. Texts which say that a person is asleep mean that the body is asleep, and not in mere appearance. The body (more particularly the brain) is no longer conscious, no more alive, no more in possession of life force. This is not true of the spirit (or soul). 

In this posting we will begin a look at some of the leading texts that seem to indicate that the dead are not conscious in soul or spirit in an Underworld of spirits. We cannot look at them all. The ones that speak of a person being asleep have already been addressed. We need not look, therefore, at all the numerous passages that speak of a dead person being asleep. 

Let us begin with Solomon and his statements in Ecclesiastes. Those who believe like the Sadducees, or in "Soul Sleep," affirm that there is no consciousness in the afterlife for departed spirits. They love to quote from Ecclesiastes, especially from two verses in chapter nine where Solomon says "the dead know not anything" and "there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave (Sheol) where you go." Let us examine more closely the words and their context. Wrote Solomon:

"For all this I considered in my heart even to declare all this, that the righteous, and the wise, and their works, are in the hand of God: no man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before them. 2 All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous, and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not: as is the good, so is the sinner; and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath. 3 This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead. 4 For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. 5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun...10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave (Sheol), whither thou goest." (Eccl. 9: 1-6, 10 kjv)

We can summarize the words and categorize the verses above as follows:

1-3 The same fate – death – awaits everyone. 

4-6 Death deprives humans of everything in life. 

7-10 Enjoy life while it lasts. 

Major Interpretive Views

1. No knowledge or activity on the earth, in the land of the living, in the physical world. Life is different in Hades, both for the body and the spirit. What is said is true of the body and brain, not of the soul or spirit. Thus it is seen as saying (paraphrase) - "the dead know not anything so far as their physical bodies are concerned, and know not anything about what is happening in the world of the living." 

2. Solomon states what observation of the world and human experience, without a revelation from God, deduces or induces, what conclusions it makes about such based upon science and logic. In other words, Solomon states what some people infer, or conclude, not what he believes. Or we may say that he gives the humanistic or man centered explanation of life and death, and of the afterlife. He cannot speak about what he does not see or discover by study and careful observation. He therefore does not affirm an afterlife, and like the Sadducees, does not confess a belief in the existence of spirit beings or of a immaterial world. 

3. Of course, there is that view that says that the verses affirm that the souls of men do not survive the death of the body, but die as the body or sleep. It says that the verses teach that there is no consciousness after death, that no man has an immortal soul or spirit which survives the death of the body. 

We should reject number three for the passages we have studied so far disprove what the Ecclesiastes verses seem to affirm. Dives was not unconscious when he was in Hades in his disembodied spirit, nor were Abraham and Lazarus. Both the torment and speech of Dives and the comforts and joys of Lazarus show that the dead do know much when they have died. Are we to conclude then that Solomon contradicts Jesus and the other writers of the holy scriptures who teach contrary to Solomon? First, let us see how Solomon seems to contradict Solomon (or himself). Let us see where he seems to affirm life after death, and of a conscious state of existence for ghosts of departed people.  

Solomon On Life After Death

"You who are young, be happy while you are young, and let your heart give you joy in the days of your youth. Follow the ways of your heart and whatever your eyes see, but know that for all these things God will bring you into judgment...Remember your Creator in the days of your youth." (Eccl. 11: 9; 12: 1)

"Remember him—before the silver cord is severed, and the golden bowl is broken; before the pitcher is shattered at the spring, and the wheel broken at the well, and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it." (12: 6-7)

"Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil." (12: 13-14) 

Though it is possible for these passages to be interpreted so as to align with the soul sleep doctrine, yet I believe that they do show that Solomon did believe in God and in the afterlife (thus in the immortality of the soul). The spirit departs the body when the body dies and goes where? It "returns to God who gave it." That is true of every man, both righteous and unrighteous. When the departed spirit stands before God, it is either sent to Heaven or to Hell (or to one of the sides of Hades for OT peoples). This is what Paul had in mind when he said "It is appointed unto man once to die, but after this the judgment." (Heb. 9: 27) This judgment occurs when the naked soul appears before God at death and is given its eternal status. 

Solomon, like many of the writers of the Old Testament scriptures, did not have as clear an understanding of the afterlife as do people who lived with access to the New Testament scriptures. They essentially said the same thing, as we have seen. Recall the words of Isaiah 14 about how Lucifer and the king of Babylon were received by the inhabitants of Sheol as an example. Solomon's affirmation of the immortality of the soul or spirit is not as forceful as other old testament authors. There is not much said about it in his Proverbs either. Consider also another factor in why the old testament did not elaborate more on the conscious state of the dead, such as what is stated in the Abstract of a book titled "Life with Yahweh After Death: How the Psalter’s References to Life After Death Cohere" by Bill Tackmier (Concordia Seminary, St. Louis - See here). In it we find these words in the same direction (emphasis mine):

"This dissertation demonstrates how seven Psalms passages that refer to life beyond death reflect a single, coherent view of postmortem existence held in ancient Israel. Although it has been argued by some over the past hundred years that four of the passages (Pss 6:6; 30:10; 88:10–12; and 115:17) reflect a time when Israel either did not believe in an afterlife or had a very limited view of postmortem existence, this dissertation argues that the seven passages are muted expressions of afterlife belief — muted so as not to be confused with beliefs among Israel’s neighbors that the dead could speak to the living. The psalmists, like many in ancient Israel, opposed the cult of the dead practiced throughout the ancient Near East. The three other psalms examined (Pss 16, 49, and 73) focus on how the individual believed he would go on to an existence of eternal bliss with Yahweh without reference to other deceased persons sharing that existence. The psalmists do not deny that such a community of the dead existed, but they appear to avoid addressing the topic since Israel was often tempted to practice the cult of the dead, which involved offering sacrifices to the dead and soliciting their counsel and guidance from beyond the grave. The dissertation first surveys the cult of the dead as practiced by Israel’s neighbors, then surveys how the rest of Hebrew Scripture cautiously handles the topics of afterlife and the cult of the dead, and finally examines exegetically the seven Psalms references to show that the psalmists are affirming belief in a continued postmortem existence with Yahweh, but one in which the dead were unable to communicate to the living either Yahweh’s praises or his counsel."

That seems like a good reason why the ancient Hebrew scripture writers did not speak at length about the spirit world of Sheol. I also think that more revelation was always being given on that subject.

Consider also that Solomon believed what David his father believed. David, as we have seen, did believe in life after death and the immortality of the soul, and did not believe in soul sleep. 

He would have believed what Moses believed too. In Psalm 90, written by Moses and called a "prayer of Moses the man of God" (vs. 1), he said:

"The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away." (vs. 10 kjv)

What flies away in death? Not the body. It is the spirit that returns to God who gave it. As we noted in the first chapters, the Egyptians often had hieroglyphs which showed a bird flying from a corpse as a symbol to convey the same idea of the soul or spirit leaving the body and going to Sheol, or to Heaven. The Hebrew word means to "fly swiftly away like a bird, as this word signifies" (Poole's Commentary). "The immortal spirit wings its way into the eternal world,"  says Clark's Commentary. 

The fact that the people of Israel often involved themselves in necromancy also shows that they believed that the ghosts (spirits) of the dead had a conscious existence in the spirit world. Why would you try to communicate with non-existent or unconscious spirits?

Further, as we have observed before, it was commonly said of the righteous, when they died, that they were "gathered unto their people." For a list of those several old testament passages see (here). Such language shows that people expected to be consciously joined with their relatives when they died, and this is true with both righteous and unrighteous. 

Consider also these words from the Psalmist (presumed to be king David): "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints." (Psa. 116: 15) I don't think it could be precious to the Lord if death extinguished the persons of his people. 

"Although a wicked person who commits a hundred crimes may live a long time, I know that it will go better with those who fear God, who are reverent before him. Yet because the wicked do not fear God, it will not go well with them, and their days will not lengthen like a shadow." (Eccl. 8: 12-13)

It seems to me that there is an implied belief in the afterlife in these words. It is not always better in this life for the righteous than for the unrighteous. Solomon even grieves over this fact and can't make sense of it. Good people often suffer more than bad people and die young while the wicked grow old. Job also spoke of the same distressing phenomenon. Recall the story of Lazarus and Dives. Who fared better in this life? Though Lazarus did not fare well in this life, compared to Dives, yet he fared better when death came to both, for Lazarus, being righteous, went to the place of the blessed, and "prolonged his days" in the world to come, for he inherited eternal life.

The Speaker's Perspective

From what perspective does Solomon or The Preacher speak of death? Perspective is important. Consider that a person standing above the earth's north pole and looking down would say the earth is spinning counter clockwise but while standing below the south pole would say it turns clockwise. Both are right though what they say is totally different. 

Oftentimes, Solomon speaks of a man who is only believing in what he can see and reasonably conclude. Other times he speaks as a man who has been taught by the unseen, namely God, in ways not observable to the physical eye but discernible by the inner eye of mind and spirit. If this is so, then what he says in chapter nine may be an expression of the way things appear to him, looking at things from the standpoint of the man who only believes in what he can see and conclude by logic and reason.

Wrote Albert Barnes in his Commentary (emphasis mine):

"Solomon here describes what he sees, not what he believes; there is no reference here to the fact or the mode of the existence of the soul in another world, which are matters of faith."

The view I take is very similar to this. But, more on that shortly. Got Questions web page also says something similar (see here, emphasis mine):

"The key to understanding the statement “the dead know nothing” is found in the theme of the book of Ecclesiastes. Ecclesiastes is written specifically from an earthly perspective. The key phrase, repeated throughout the book, is under the sun, used about thirty times. Solomon is commenting on an earth-bound life, “under the sun,” without God. His conclusion, also repeated throughout the book, is that everything from that perspective is “vanity” or emptiness (Ecclesiastes 1:2)...The last clause of Ecclesiastes 9: 6 indicates that the writer confines his observations on the dead to their portion in, or relation to, this world."

Many things that Solomon says in Ecclesiastes are falsehoods because Solomon speaks for the man who believes that this life is all there is, and that there is no afterlife. He speaks often from the perspective of a cynic, skeptic, agnostic, materialist, etc. 

He also speaks sarcastically, or as an infidel might speak. He also uses satire, and as in sarcasm, a man must be interpreted to mean exactly the opposite of what he says; And, if a man read the words, and did not know they were sarcastic or satirical, then he would be led to take them as declarative statements of truth. If I go outside in awful weather and say "nice weather we are having today," no one knowing the context would say I really meant it as a statement of truth or fact. 

Said bible teacher Ray Stedman (See here - emphasis mine):

"The book of Ecclesiastes, or "the Preacher," is unique in scripture. There is no other book like it, because it is the only book in the Bible that reflects a human, rather than a divine, point of view. This book is filled with error. And yet it is wholly inspired. This may confuse some people, because many feel that inspiration is a guarantee of truth."

If this is true (that Ecclesiastes has errors), and it is, then we must be able to discern which are true and which are errors. Doing this is often the hard part. I believe that "the dead know not anything" is not a truth proposition. If it is saying something about the body and brains of the deceased, then it is true. Thus, one of the first decisions the bible student will have to make upon the passage is to decide whether Solomon is stating a truth or a falsehood. If it is decided that he is stating a truth, it still does not necessarily support the soul sleep doctrine for it may be true relative to the physical intellect. However, I rather think Solomon is stating a falsehood or a topic of discussion (the latter being my view, though either is quite plausible). For example, let us notice these words:

“A feast is made for laughter, wine makes life merry, and money is the answer for everything.” (Eccl.10: 19)

So, is money the answer to everything? No. Do men think it is? Yes. There are other similar statements in Ecclesiastes. The above statement is said today by people, but say rather "money talks." That is true, relatively speaking, though not absolutely. The bible is full of statements that say in essence - "your money will not help you." Further, does wine make one happy in life? Well, again, yes and no. It seems to me that the words above are more a topic for discussion than a statement of absolute truth. But, more on that as we progress in our thoughts. Consider also that many things said by Job's friends and counselors were falsities.

Said Stedman 

"Because of its remarkable character Ecclesiastes is the most misused book of the Bible. This is the favorite book of atheists and agnostics. And many cults love to quote this book's erroneous viewpoints and give the impression that these are scriptural, divine words of God concerning life."

It is certainly used by those who deny the immortality of the soul and of a conscious state of the dead, by those who believe in soul sleep or annihilationism. 

Said Stedman 

"But right away in its introduction this book is very careful to point out that what it records is not divine truth. It presents only the human view of life. You'll find that over and over, throughout the whole course of Ecclesiastes, one phrase is repeated again and again: "under the sun," "under the sun." Everything is evaluated according to appearances alone-- this is man's point of view of reality and is utterly exclusive of divine revelation. As such, Ecclesiastes very accurately summarizes what man thinks...it is written from a humanistic point of view."

This is very important to understand. The same with discerning sarcasm in scripture. Many err in interpreting certain biblical statements because they fail to understand that the speaker is speaking sarcastically. (See Job 12: 2 as an example) So, we must decide whether statements like "the dead know not anything" are statements of fact, or are instances of sarcasm, or satire, or simply a stated proposition for discussion. 

Said Stedman 

"Then in chapter 9 he examines the world's value judgments and points out again that they all come to the same thing..."

So, is Solomon stating what he believes is true or what appears to be true to men who believe only in what they can see and explain? That is a priority in a discussion of what he says.

Said Stedman 

"Here he says, "You see these men who say, like Benjamin Franklin, 'Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise' and 'A penny saved is a penny earned'. All these things," he says, "have an aura of wisdom about them -- but they don't really work. I have seen times when the race was not to the swift and the battle didn't go to the strong nor bread to the wise nor riches to the intelligent. It doesn't always work. I have seen some very stupid rich people." So these worldly values and judgments are not accurate, and they too all end in death..."

I think this is so true of Ecclesiastes in several places. Whether it is the case in chapter nine is yet for us to more fully examine. It certainly is more plausible than to conclude that Solomon is affirming what the soul sleepers say about his words. 

In the next chapter we will continue our look at Solomon's words in this chapter.

Beliefs about the Afterlife (xviii)

As promised earlier we will give further evidence to show that "sheol" cannot be strictly a reference to the grave, to the place where a dead body is placed. Sometimes the grave is the thing focused upon when sheol is spoken of, for that is the place of the dead when focus is upon the body of a person. But, when the person's inner person is the focus, sheol is the place of departed spirits. Though both the place of the body and the place of the spirit are called sheol, yet they are but subdivisions of the same world, as we have previously asserted. Further, there was another word that was the foremost used to refer to the grave, the Hebrew word "queber." 

Sheol is found 64 times in the old testament. If we look at each of those passages to see what we can discover about the usage of the word, what would be our definition of it?

Sheol is translated “hell,” “grave,” and “pit” (KJV). It simply means "place of the dead" or "unseen world of the dead," or something similar. If we would substitute the words "place of the dead" in every place where Sheol is used, it would be better understood. Further, the above words (which are intended to give the English translation of the Hebrew word and idea) can refer either to the grave, where the body is concealed (unseen) after burial, or to the spirit world, which is invisible to mortal eyes. It is a place where people "go" when they die.

As we stated in earlier chapters, Sheol may refer either to the grave or to what is below the grave, to the place of departed spirits. When the body is the subject, Sheol denotes the grave, the place where the body or bodily ashes are located. When the soul or spirit is the subject or focus, the grave is not meant, but rather the place of departed spirits. 

For instance, when I think of my beloved father, who departed this life several years ago, I sometimes think of him as in the grave of a cemetery near Trenton, Ohio, a place where other relatives are buried. I also think of his body, his face, his facial gestures, his physical features, and can almost hear his voice. However, most of the time I am thinking of his spirit (soul or psyche or pneuma), his inner self, I am picturing him with Christ in conscious bliss in Heaven. Further, I can both say in truth 1) "father is buried in the cemetery in Trenton" and 2) "my father is with the Lord in Heaven." I can also affirm that his physical brain is no longer living, thinking, or conscious, but I can also affirm that his disembodied spirit has intellect, thinking ability, consciousness and self awareness. We may also, similarly, think of the wicked dead as being in the grave and also in the place of departed wicked spirits. 

As was indicated in previous chapters, in our diagrams of how Christ and the old testament writers described the realm of Sheol, we saw how Sheol (Hades) was a divided place with sections or compartments, much like what we see in prisons among men. We also mentioned how the Latin word "limbus" denoted what was the outer limb or boundary of Sheol or Hades. 

Further, when the grave was referred to as Sheol, it is often viewed as the entering point of Sheol, the gates, door, or mouth of Sheol. I therefore envision the grave as the uppermost section of Sheol, the place where the body died and the spirit departed becoming the mouth or entry gate for entering the place of the dead. The psalmist speaks of “bones” being “scattered at the mouth of sheol.” (Ps. 141:7, kjv). Isaiah says "sheol has enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure." (Isa. 5: 14) "Mouth" denotes the "opening" into the Underworld of Sheol. God asks Job - "Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?" (Job 38: 17) So, rather than believing in two kinds of Sheol, one for the body and one for the soul, I rather think they are two sections of Sheol. Therefore "Sheol" and "Hades" do not mean "grave" only. The most important thing to emphasize is the fact that - 

The Lazarus Story Defines Sheol

The teaching of Christ in Luke 16 about the state of the dead in Hades is the right interpretation of what the Old Testament scriptures taught about the afterlife. That is why I introduced it early on in this series on the afterlife and discussed it in some depth. 

Clearly, by the teaching of Christ, Sheol or Hades is a place where both righteous and unrighteous souls go, and that each group has a designated place within the Underworld, and that the place of the righteous is Edenic and paradisaical, a place of festivity, joy and comfort, and that the place of the wicked is one of suffering. This story thus denies the teaching of the Sadducees for it teaches an afterlife where the spirits of the dead go and dwell when they leave their human bodies. It shows that Sheol does not refer strictly and only to the grave, to the place where the dead body is buried.  

In "Hell, Sheol, Hades, Paradise, and the Grave" by W. Edward Bedore, Th.D. we have an excellent apologetic writing wherein Bedore shows that it is an error to say that "Sheol" or "Hades" refers strictly to the grave. Let us notice some of the things he says therein. Says Bedore: (See here - emphasis mine)

"Hades is the New Testament equivalent of the Old Testament word Sheol. The Greek and Hebrew words speak of the same place, the present Hell. However, this is problematic because Sheol has been translated “grave” as often as it has “hell” and some have mistakenly taught that Sheol and Hades are only references to the grave rather than Hell. This erroneous teaching leads to the denial of the existence of an immediate or present Hell. The false doctrine of soul-sleep, and other ideas that teach the unconscious state of the dead between death and resurrection, spring from this error."

Said Bedore further:

"The common word for “grave” in the Old Testament is queber. Of the sixty-four times it is used, it is translated “grave” thirty-four times, “sepulcher” twenty-six times, and “burying place” four times. Queber is used five additional times as part of a place name, Kibroth-hattaavah, which means “graves of lust.” As we said earlier, Sheol is found sixty-four times, being rendered “grave” thirty-one times, “hell” thirty-one times, and “pit” three times."

Obviously translators realize that Sheol cannot be limited in meaning to the grave. 

Said Bedore:

"A comparison of how Sheol and queber are used reveals eight points of contrast that tell us that they are not the same thing. 

1. Sheol is never used in plural form. Queber is used in the plural 29 times. 

2. It is never said that the body goes to Sheol. Queber speaks of the body going there 37 times. 

3. Sheol is never said to be located on the face of the earth. Queber is mentioned 32 times as being located on the earth. 

4. An individual’s Sheol is never mentioned. An individual’s queber is mentioned 5 times. 

5. Man is never said to put anyone into Sheol. Individuals are put into a queber by man (33 times). 

6. Man is never said to have dug or fashioned a Sheol. Man is said to have dug, or fashioned, a queber (6 times). 

7. Man is never said to have touched Sheol. Man touches, or can touch, a queber (5 times). 

8. It is never said that man is able to possess a Sheol. Man is spoken of as being able to possess a queber (7 times). 

(These eight points of comparison are adapted from “Life and Death” by Caleb J. Baker, Bible Institute Colportage Ass’n, 1941). From the differences between how Sheol and queber are used in Scripture, it is obvious that they are not the same thing."

So, are Sheol and Queber synonyms? I think not. Though both are sometimes translated into English as "grave," they are not the same. The grave is but the opening entry hall of greater Sheol. 

Said Bedore:

"Words associated with queber are quabar and qeburah. Quabar is a verb meaning to bury or to be buried and qeburah is a noun meaning a grave or place of burial. The use of these related words helps to reinforce the difference between queber and Sheol, as they clearly have to do with the grave as a burial place, while Sheol does not."

That is what I have concluded also in my study of the words and ideas. Sheol and Hades occasionally can be translated "grave" but not always. Queber, however, always means "grave" where the body goes. Sheol and Queber are not used interchangeably.

Said Bedore:

"While we have not exhausted the subject by looking at every passage that Sheol is found in, it is clear from these examples that Sheol is not simply the grave but is located at the center of the earth and is the abode of the souls of the unrighteous dead who are awaiting their resurrection unto condemnation. It is equally clear that those in Sheol/Hades are not in an unconscious state of existence but are quite aware of what is going on around them. There is memory, recognition, and communication there."

Again, this is what we have seen is the teaching of the holy scriptures.

Said Bedore:

"While Paradise is not now a part of Sheol/Hades it will be mentioned here because it was located in Sheol/Hades at one time. Before the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ everybody who died went to Sheol/Hades, which was at that time divided into at least two compartments. One was a place of torment while the other was a place of blessing, which was referred to as Abraham’s Bosom (Lk. 16:22-25). As we mentioned before, Tartarus may be a specific place in Sheol/Hades."

This is what we have also seen in the previous chapters.

Said Bedore:

"We know that Jesus Christ went “into the lower parts of the earth” (Eph. 4:9), that is to Sheol/Hades, “in the heart of the earth,” for three days and nights while his body was in the grave (Mat. 12:40). The Lord Jesus told the repentant thief that he would join Him in Paradise that same day (Lk. 23:42,43). This tells us that Paradise was located in Sheol/Hades at that time. We believe that this was the same place referred to as Abraham’s Bosom in Luke 16. However, after Jesus Christ rose from the dead He ascended to the Father, taking the saints who were in Abraham’s Bosom to heaven with Him. Thus, He took “captivity captive” (see Eph. 4:8-10)."

That is what I have become convinced is the teaching of scripture, except that I don't believe that Abraham's Bosom was Paradise proper.

Said Bedore:

"That Paradise was moved to heaven is confirmed to us by the Apostle Paul who speaks of a man who was “caught up into Paradise” where he “heard unspeakable words” (II Cor. 12:3,4). With Jesus Christ’s work complete, the believers who had been confined to Sheol/Hades were now taken to Heaven to wait in God’s presence until the time of their resurrection to enter His Kingdom on Earth. Since that time, at death all believers go to Paradise in Heaven to await the time of their resurrection." 

While I do not say that "Paradise was moved to heaven," believing that Paradise and the "third heaven" have always been the same, I do rather say that the place known as "Abraham's Bosom," though not Paradise, yet was Edenic and paradisaical.  It is like saying some place on earth is "heavenly," meaning that it is not Heaven proper, but like heaven.

In Genesis 37: 35 Jacob said, "For I will go down into the grave (Sheol) unto my son mourning."

From this text we can see how Sheol cannot mean grave, and so is a mistranslation and misleading. Jacob's son, for whom he mourns, is Joseph who Jacob believes (by the lie his other sons told to him) has been devoured and eaten by wild beasts. So, Joseph did not have a grave and so Jacob could not have meant grave (or place where his body lay). He must mean "the place of departed spirits," or the Underworld. 

Said John Gill in commentary upon this verse (emphasis mine):

"...the meaning is, not that he would by any means hasten his own death, or go down to his son in the grave, strictly and literally taken; since, according to his apprehension of his son's death he could have no grave, being torn to pieces by a wild beast; but either that he should go into the state of the dead, where his son was, mourning all along till he came thither..."

Thus, in the story of the rich man (Dives) and Lazarus, Dives is said to have died and been buried and then "in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torments," and we can say that the body of Dives had been buried in the grave (Queber) but his disembodied spirit was in the Underworld of departed spirits of the dead and of fallen angels (Hades and Tartarus).

When king David realized that his infant son had died (for which he had been fasting and praying for healing of his infant son) he said to those around him:

"But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” (II Sam. 12: 23)

This is similar language to that of Jacob in regard to Joseph. It can hardly be interpreted to mean that David thinks of being joined to his son in the graveyard. The idea of once again conversing with his son, though in the Underworld, was expected and longed for. 

Beliefs about the Afterlife (xvii)

In this chapter we will look at some of the objections that theologians and bible believers raise against the idea that Christ descended into the Underworld of Sheol or Hades. So, why do some have reluctance to believe that Christ went to Hell as the Apostles Creed affirms?

Objections & Reluctance

As we stated in an earlier chapter, it ought not to be shocking that Christ would be present in Hades because God is in Hell (Sheol) said the Psalmist:

"Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there." (Psa. 139: 7-8)

Further, many people resist believing that Christ went to "hell" because that word carries a meaning today, in the minds of most people, that it did not have in the first century, nor in the old testament time period. Words change meaning over time, and secondary meanings of words become predominant and primary. Further, there is the question of denotation and connotation when it concerns the meaning of words. 

Christ "going to hell" does not denote or connote that he was a wicked man, nor that he was punished and tormented in the flames of Hell, though that is the common connotation of the words "went to hell" for most people today. But, as we saw in earlier chapters, when "hell" is the translation of the Hebrew word "sheol" or the Greek word "Hades," it does not mean "place of torment" but "the place of the dead," or "the Underworld," etc.  

Many Protestants find it difficult to believe the Christ descended into Hell (Sheol, Hades, or the Underworld of departed spirits) because they think it upholds the false doctrine of "Purgatory" and a kind of "Limbo" where people can be saved in the afterlife who died in their sins. But, as we have seen, Christ' going to Hades does not infer such false ideas. 

Some think that the promise of Christ to the thief on the cross, "today you will be with me in Paradise" shows that he did not go to Hades. However, this is no real objection for many Christians, and church fathers, believed in the fact that old testament children of God went to the side of Hades (Underworld) where the righteous were gathered ("limbus patrum") , seeing "Abraham's Bosom" as equivalent to "Paradise." 

The word "paradise" (in Greek "paradeisos") is of Oriental origin, say the word scholars, and Strong says it signifies "a park, i.e. (specially), an Eden (place of future happiness, "paradise")." It was a word used by several cultures and languages and denoted a happy and beautiful place. 

Even if we believe that old testament believers went in spirit directly into heaven, and not to Sheol, this still would not disprove that Christ descended there. The dead ones in the prison of Hades who were preached to, said Peter, were the ones who were like Dives, on the tormenting side of Hades. So, if he did not remove any righteous souls from the Underworld, there was still reason and purpose for Christ descending to that place.  

Some think that the words "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit," also spoken by Christ while upon the cross and moments before he died, show that he went to the Father in spirit and thus did not go to the Underworld. But, this argument does not disprove the thesis, for Christ went both to the Father (in the most holy place when he presented his blood for atonement), as we have seen, and also went to Hades, as we have also seen. Christ went to both Heaven and Hell when he died. Paradise is wherever Christ is. As long as the thief was with Christ, he was in paradise. 

Some object to the idea that Christ descended to the Underworld because it seems to uphold the idea that people may be saved after they have died lost and think there is no good reason for Christ to go there, believing that all suffering for sin was finished on the cross. These objections we have shown to be unconvincing. The fact is clearly stated in scripture that Christ went to Hades or Sheol and tells us something of the reason why. 

We have also discussed the case of Enoch and Elijah, two old testament period prophets who went to heaven and shown how their cases do not disprove that old testament peoples died and went to Sheol, both saved and lost. We have seen how the Hebrew idea of the Underworld was as Jesus taught in the lesson of Lazarus and the rich man (Dives). Such lesson shows that both righteous and unrighteous go to the same Underworld and that the difference lay in each being in opposite sides of Hades, one being a side of festivity and freedom from all ills, and the other a place of torment and loss of all good. 

We have also stated that we do not believe that old testament believers could not go to heaven because of sin but because Christ must have the preeminence, or be the first in all things. As old testament believers were saved "on credit," as it were, based upon the promise and covenant, so they could have gone to heaven for the same reason, and no doubt was the reason why Enoch and Elijah may have gone there. 

In conclusion I would like to cite from the great English Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon. What he says in these citations are what I have contended for in this part of our series that deals with the death of Christ and his experience in the afterlife and in the Underworld.

Said Spurgeon:

"It may be well here to remark, that the word translated “hell,” though it may be rightfully referred to the region of lost and damned spirits, yet need not be restricted thereto. The word is “Hades,” which signifies the dwelling place of spirits, and so it may include both heaven and hell; no doubt it does include them both in many places, and I think in this. Our Lord then hath the keys of heaven, and hell, and death." (sermon "Christ with the Keys of Death and Hell" here) 

The part of the Underworld where Lazarus was carried by the angels was heavenly, but not heaven proper. Likewise it was paradisaical though not paradise proper.

Said Spurgeon: 

"As if to prove that he had the keys of the grave, Jesus passed in and passed out again, and he hath made free passage now for his people, free entrance, and free exit. Whether, when our Lord died, his soul actually descended into hell itself we will not assert or deny; the elder theologians all asserted that he did, and hence they inserted in the Creed, the sentence, “He descended into hell,” meaning, many of them, at any rate, hell itself."

Spurgeon said he would not assert nor deny that Christ went to Hades. However, his numerous statements on the point show that he was more in favor with the view I have espoused.

Said Spurgeon:

"It was not till Puritanic times that that doctrine began to be generally questioned, when it was, as I think rightly asserted, that Jesus Christ went into the world of separated spirits, but not into the region of the damned. Well, it is not for us to speak where Scripture is silent, but why may it not be true that the Great Conqueror cast the shadow of his presence over the dens of his enemies as he passed in triumph by the gates of hell? May not the keepers of that infernal gate have seen his star, and trembled as they also beheld their Master like lightning fall from heaven? Would it not add to his glory if those who were his implacable foes were made to know of his complete triumph? At any rate, it was but a passing presence, for we know that swiftly he sped to the gates of heaven, taking with him the repentant thief to be with him that day in Paradise. "

I do believe Christ went to all compartments of the Underworld. Though Spurgeon did not fully endorse that point, he confesses that there is no good reason to deny it. 

Said Spurgeon:

"Jesus had opened thus the grave by going into it, hell by passing by it, heaven by passing into it, heaven again by passing out of it, death again by rising from it into this world, and heaven by his ascension. Thus passing, and repassing, he has proved that the keys are at his girdle. At any rate, by his achievements, by his doings, he hath won for himself the power of the keys."  

I don't think that Christ merely "passed by" the Underworld but actually went there. 

Thorny Ground Hearers

"And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection." (Luke 8:14)

“And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them...He also that received seed among the thorns is he that hears the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful.” (Matt. xiii. 7, 22) 

"And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful." (Mark 4: 19)

In the parable of the sowing of the seed (in the three Synoptic Gospels), the "seed" was symbol of the "word of God." The broadcast "sowing" of the seed was symbol of the spreading of the word of God via preaching (orally or in writing). The four kinds of ground (soil type) were symbols of four kinds of hearts that people have who have the word of God communicated to them. 

The first, the "wayside ground" hearer, is one who hears the word but doesn't understand nor accept it as truth, and is therefore never saved. That is like seed falling upon a hardened path. The seed never finds a secure place in good soil. 

The second, the "shallow ground" hearer, is one who initially believes with joy and excitement the word, but when things get tough for being a believer (persecution and loss), he falls away and no longer believes, and is a "leaves only" or fruitless believer, a hypocrite. 

The third, the "thorny ground" hearer, hears (receives) the word of God or the Gospel and also becomes a professing believer like the shallow ground hearer. Both have some growth of the seed in their hearts and lives. The problem with the shallow ground is that it is stony and has not much depth of soil, hence there is no room for a root system (foundation). The thorny ground however does not have this problem. The problem with that kind of soil is that it is overgrown with weeds, with briars and thorns, and so the seed becomes "choked." In the scriptures, this kind of soil was called "fallow ground." It was unplowed and uncultivated land, full of briars and thorns, and other weeds, and hence we read "break up your fallow ground and sow not among thorns." (Jer. 4: 3) 

The fourth, the "good ground" hearer has neither of these problems, and produces fruit, lasting vegetation. The good soil is fertile soil, soil that has been ploughed, and the weeds removed thereby. It is the symbol of a "good and honest heart." The heart (soil) of the other three were not good nor honest. Therefore, none of them were ever truly saved. 

Do we see these four types of people in the crowds who heard the Lord communicate the word of God (or broadcast the seed)? Who heard the apostles and first evangelists? Do we not see them in the visible church? Yes, yes, and yes. But, how can we say that wayside ground hearers become members of the church, seeing that they represent people who never believed the word? We see that fulfilled in the case of those churches who baptize infants into the membership of the church (many of whom never come to believe the word). 

Every person who has heard or read (received in one way or another) the word of God and the good news of it and has not believed it, but rejected it, is a wayside hearer of the word, whose heart is not "good and honest." They are known as atheists, agnostics, irreligious, secularists, infidels, etc. 

Every person who has heard the saving word of God and believed it with delight but who later rejected it when persecution and loss came to those who believed is a stony ground hearer. They are called "apostates" and known in scripture as "hypocrites." They are "false (pseudo) brothers" (Gal. 2: 4). 

Every person who has heard the word of God and become a professed follower of the Lord but who greatly neglects his duties to the Lord, becomes worldly, slothful in religion, is a thorny ground hearer. Practicing the Christian faith is not uppermost with this kind of professing Christian. Other pursuits are deemed more important to this kind of Christian than spending time in prayer, meditation, reading and studying God's word, assembling with other believers, sharing the word of God with others, helping the poor, etc. 

The thorny ground hearer is also a hypocrite (see Matt. 23) and "false brother" (Gal. 2: 4), a "wicked and slothful servant." (Matt. 25: 26) We also see this kind of professing Christian filling the pews of many churches. Demas was one of these kinds of believers. Of him Paul wrote: "Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present evil age."  (II Tim. 4: 10)

Let us focus on the problems with the thorny ground believer. In the texts at the heading, we see that the seed is "choked" or suffocated, that it is overcome by the thorns, briars, and weeds. Rather than the growth from the good seed choking out the weeds, it is the other way around. It would be wonderful if we could sow seed in unplowed weedy ground and it would do well, that it would choke out the thorns! 

The good ground hearer has not only rich soil, and deep, but has been plowed and stones and weeds removed. Many bible teachers have seen how the plowing of the heart and its preparations for seed correspond to that conviction of sin that is produced by the law of God upon the conscience. This is what is lacking however in the thorny ground hearer/believer. Both the thorny ground and shallow ground hearers are what we might called "half-hearted" believers. Or, perhaps as "double minded." 

What Crowds Out The Word?

1. Cares Of This Life

2. Deceitful Riches Of This Life

3. Pleasures Of This Life

4. Lust Of Other Things

When I think of how many professing Christians are thorny ground hearers, I think first of myself, how I have been like him at certain times in my life, in times when I devoted little time and effort in the things of God, when I was too much involved in work, business, pleasures and amusements, etc. Thankfully, those times are few. Let us make some general observations on each of the four things mentioned above as being equivalent to weeds, briars, and thorns in the parable.

 

Cares Of This Life

To have concerns about things in life is normal. But, to allow them to become heavy burdens, anxieties and worries, so that they distract us from holy things, from doing the will of God, is to let them become thorns to choke out the seed of the word of God and become entirely fruitless. It saddens me to think of all the times in my life where fretting and worrying robbed me of communion with God and his people. It also saddens me to see people in my own family who are like the thorny ground hearer. "They profess to know God, but in works they deny him." (Titus 1: 16) They profess to believe the word of God, but they know little of it, little read and study it. 

The church has many thorny ground hearers who put little effort into the religion of Jesus Christ. They rarely read the word of God. They never really study it or meditate upon it daily. They would rather be worldly amused than to muse upon the word of God. They may go to church every Sunday, but most of this class only go on special days, like Easter Sunday. They do not regularly pray, but only pray occasionally, perhaps only a few times before they go to sleep or when they have some pressing need. There is little prayer for others, for there is little to no faith in prayer. 

Deceitful Riches Of This Life

The church has always had members who allowed their desire for riches to choke out whatever interest they have in God, Christ, and the word and religion of Christians. Jesus taught that it was easier for a camel to pass through a needle's eye than for a rich man to be saved and enter the kingdom of God. (Mark 10: 25: Matt. 19: 24) Solomon counseled on the deceitfulness of pursuing wealth at the expense of losing communion with God and eternal life. He said "labor not to be rich." (Prov. 23: 4) Paul also warned of the same when he said 

"Command those who are rich in this present age not to be haughty, nor to trust in uncertain riches but in the living God, who gives us richly all things to enjoy. Let them do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to give, willing to share, storing up for themselves a good foundation for the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life." (I Tim. 6: 17-19 nkjv)  

The thorny ground Christian professor or church member who is ensnared by the evil pursuit of earthly wealth and fame is losing everything of real value. He or she has placed a higher value on earthly treasures than on heavenly. They become workaholics, but not in working for the Lord. Their inordinate time spent working to make money takes away from time spent in doing the things of God, in being a good husband and father (or good mother and wife). The life of such people is fruitless. They will not be saved but only reveal that they have not a good and honest heart. Jesus said "you cannot serve God and Mammon." (Matt. 6: 24)

Pleasures Of This Life

So many thorny ground hearers of the word, professing Christians whose hearts are more like weedy ground than like fertile cultivated land, are choked out of life, of real prosperity. David said that the person who meditates in God's law day and night is the one who prospers (Psalm 1), but this is just what the thorny ground hearer does not do. No, he esteems the "pleasures of this life," of this world, far more than the pleasures of the life and world to come. One of the signs of the last days is that the people will be "lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God." (II Tim. 3: 4) Again, worldly amusement is prized far more than musing over the things of God. The "thought time" of this type of professor is rarely spent in heavenly things, or in the word of God. The thought time is rather spent in thinking about making money, how to have bodily pleasures, how to have fun and be amused and entertained. Anxious thoughts too fill up the mind rather than joyful thoughts about God and his word. 

Notice how it is the riches and pleasures "of this life" that are warned against. They are set in contrast to the riches and pleasures of the life that is to come, and in the riches and pleasures that believers now enjoy as they live in communion with God, walking with him and pleasing him. Thorny ground believers are they who have their hearts and minds focused upon the world and its culture whereas the good ground believers have their hearts and minds focused upon Christ and the world to come, they being not worldly but other worldly. James warned these kinds of hearers of the word, saying "know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." (James 4: 4) The apostle John also wrote:

"15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world. 17 And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever." (1 John 2:15-17)

Lust Of Other Things

So many things choke out the word heard and received by the thorny hearted professors. We could talk at length about each of them. 

The salvation of our souls is serious business. There is no business or enterprise more important. Winning and obtaining Christ and his salvation, and enjoying heaven's riches, must be the most important thing to us or we are lost. 

What is keeping you from the word of God? What is keeping you from doing his will? Jesus said "why call you me Lord and do not the things which I say?" (Matt. 7: 21) He also advised:

"But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Matt. 6: 20-21)

On what is your heart, thoughts, and affections most fixated?