Hades and the Bible

[FaithfulPilgrim]

Lately, I have been particularly interested in the study of the afterlife.

It is a popular belief that immediately after death, a person is judged by God and then goes to either heaven or hell.

Supposedly, some uses of the word "hell" is actually Hades, the holding place for all dead souls. Revelation mentions that at the Final Judgment.

Some of the Early Church Fathers affirm Hades and base it on the non-canonical book of Enoch. Despite not being canon, some early Christians seem to have accepted its credibility.

Many sources I have read say that Jesus led the righteous souls out of Hades after His death and is now just a temporary holding place for the unrighteous. What verses are used to promote this?

The only problem I see with this is that if we are already in heaven after we die, and Hades is now reserved for the unsaved, that means we have already been judged. Wouldn't that make the Final Judgment redundant?

 

[alex2165]

Faithul wrote:

“Many sources I have read say that Jesus led the righteous souls out of Hades after His death and is now just a temporary holding place for the unrighteous. What verses are used to promote this?”



I would like ask you a question, what sources you have read? Definitely not the Bible, because in the Bible no such thing as someone has been pull out of Hades, Gehena Abbadon, Sheol, which are all indicated same place – Hell and taken to Heaven. There is not a single verse or even a clue in the Bible that it actually ever happen.

Hell is the permanent place separating the evil and unclean souls from the godly souls, just like on Earth we separate criminals from the rest of society.

I would recommend for you to read all the places related to Hell in the Bible and in this way it will be much clear for you what Hell actually means and how unclean souls perishes there.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It seems there is a confusion between where souls go after they die, and the final judgement. Scripture uses different words to refer to these places. (It may matter if one looks at Scripture that was translated intermediately into Latin, since Latin does not have as many terms as the Greek - I'm not positive about this though - we simply use the Greek.)

There is also Scripture that mentions Christ preaching to the souls in Hades, and "leading captivity captive", etc.

Edit: my apologies, not sure how I landed in this forum, but I have removed the rest of my post explaining more, since it might not be appropriate here.

God be with you all.


(ETA: one more thing - we do not consider the book of Enoch as canonical - afaik only some parts of the Oriental Orthodox do. Everything I know from the early Church fathers is not based on the book of Enoch. Just wanted to be clear that I'm not endorsing that, nor is it necessary to do so.)

 

[twin1954]

Lately, I have been particularly interested in the study of the afterlife.

It is a popular belief that immediately after death, a person is judged by God and then goes to either heaven or hell.

Supposedly, some uses of the word "hell" is actually Hades, the holding place for all dead souls. Revelation mentions that at the Final Judgment.

Some of the Early Church Fathers affirm Hades and base it on the non-canonical book of Enoch. Despite not being canon, some early Christians seem to have accepted its credibility.

Many sources I have read say that Jesus led the righteous souls out of Hades after His death and is now just a temporary holding place for the unrighteous. What verses are used to promote this?

The only problem I see with this is that if we are already in heaven after we die, and Hades is now reserved for the unsaved, that means we have already been judged. Wouldn't that make the Final Judgment redundant?

Depending on the context the word either means the grave or Hell. Paul clearly tells us that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, 2Cor. 5:8.

The state of the reprobate rather unclear actually. I personally think, and I stress think as it is my opinion and not worth hearing, that the reprobate probably go into a state of unconsciousness and wake to the judgement. The idea of a "holding place" is far to close to the idea of purgatory.

 

[shakewell]

Lately, I have been particularly interested in the study of the afterlife.

It is a popular belief that immediately after death, a person is judged by God and then goes to either heaven or hell.

Supposedly, some uses of the word "hell" is actually Hades, the holding place for all dead souls. Revelation mentions that at the Final Judgment.

Some of the Early Church Fathers affirm Hades and base it on the non-canonical book of Enoch. Despite not being canon, some early Christians seem to have accepted its credibility.

Many sources I have read say that Jesus led the righteous souls out of Hades after His death and is now just a temporary holding place for the unrighteous. What verses are used to promote this?

The only problem I see with this is that if we are already in heaven after we die, and Hades is now reserved for the unsaved, that means we have already been judged. Wouldn't that make the Final Judgment redundant?

Here are the 11 occurrences of hades in the New Testament. The KJV renders it "hell" 10 times and "grave" once.
Matt. 11:23 ("hell" KJV)
Matt. 16:18 ("hell" KJV)
Lk. 10:15 ("hell" KJV)
Lk. 16:23 ("hell" KJV)
Acts 2:27 ("hell" KJV)
Acts 2:31 ("hell" KJV)
1 Co. 15:55 ("grave" KJV)
Rev. 1:18 ("hell" KJV)
Rev. 6:8 ("hell" KJV)
Rev. 20:13 ("hell" KJV)
Rev. 20:14 ("hell" KJV)

The passage in Acts 2 refer to the grave where David's body saw corruption but Jesus' body didn't see corruption. (David himself, of course, was in the presence of the Lord all those years). In Luke 16 hades is a place of fiery torment, contrasted with the comfort of Abraham's bosom. In 1 Corinthians 15 it's the grave that has no victory over the saints after our resurrection.
EDIT: I had said that only the unsaved go before the great white throne. But after thinking about it, that might not be so.

 

[rstrats]

twin1954,
re: "Paul clearly tells us that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, 2Cor. 5:8."



Actually, he doesn't. He merely says that he would rather be with the Lord than be with his body.

 

[Jamesbong]

Luke chapter 16's rich man, after his body dies, has gone to Hades. From here, we can see the immortality of soul. On the other hand, the beggar Lazarus has gone to paradise. In the past, the Christians should either have lived like the beggar Lazarus, or died martyrs.
In Revelation 6:9~11, you can see that the martyrs are under the altar. They will be resurrected at the Second Coming of the Lord to receive the reward of reigning in the Millennial Kingdom with Christ for a thousand years (Rev 20:6). The martyrs will take part in the First Resurrection.
The people who were not martyrs will not rise in this time, but they will be raised after the Millennial Kingdom, in the White Throne Judgment.
On the other hand, there is a mention of "Second Death." Of course, the soul is immortal, but the death of the physical body is the first death, and the soul going to Hell is the Second Death.

I'll stop here for now before the post gets too long to be legible.
I'll post a link to a video that can answer a lot of your questions.

 

[twin1954]

twin1954,
re: "Paul clearly tells us that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, 2Cor. 5:8."



Actually, he doesn't. He merely says that he would rather be with the Lord than be with his body.

It depends on which translation that you are using. Actually the Greek can be translated either way. But there is no doubt that what Paul is saying implies at the very least, but I believe plainly says, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

 

[twin1954]

Luke chapter 16's rich man, after his body dies, has gone to Hades. From here, we can see the immortality of soul. On the other hand, the beggar Lazarus has gone to paradise. In the past, the Christians should either have lived like the beggar Lazarus, or died martyrs.
In Revelation 6:9~11, you can see that the martyrs are under the altar. They will be resurrected at the Second Coming of the Lord to receive the reward of reigning in the Millennial Kingdom with Christ for a thousand years (Rev 20:6). The martyrs will take part in the First Resurrection.
The people who were not martyrs will not rise in this time, but they will be raised after the Millennial Kingdom, in the White Throne Judgment.
On the other hand, there is a mention of "Second Death." Of course, the soul is immortal, but the death of the physical body is the first death, and the soul going to Hell is the Second Death.

I'll stop here for now before the post gets too long to be legible.
I'll post a link to a video that can answer a lot of your questions.

Dispensational hoop jumping.

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus isn't about teaching anything about the afterlife. To build a doctrinal stance based on it concerning the afterlife is to misuse and abuse the passage.

 

[rstrats]

twin1954,

re: "It depends on which translation that you are using."



Which translations say: "... to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord," ?

 

[twin1954]

twin1954,

re: "It depends on which translation that you are using."



Which translations say: "... to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord," ?

They all do by implication. But you are correct that none of them say it exactly. My bad. Though I didn't actually quote the passage I only gave the reference.

I didn't actually look at the Greek on it until you brought it up. My fault for assuming from memory and the way I have always read it without thinking. I am corrected and will never quote the passage that way again.

 

[rstrats]

twin1954,

BTW, would that mean that the unsaved dead are not absent from the body?

 

[twin1954]

twin1954,

BTW, would that mean that the unsaved dead are not absent from the body?

Of course not. Paul is writing to the church in Corinth, believers not unbelievers. That is why I stated that the state of the reprobate is unclear. Though I do not hold to the JW doctrine of soul sleep.

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #9 on Page 1, twin1954 stated:

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus isn't about teaching anything about the afterlife. To build a doctrinal stance based on it concerning the afterlife is to misuse and abuse the passage.

In the light of that, Pedrito would like to ask twin1954, in a non-confrontational manner, three things:
1. What does he understand the parable to mean?
2. When did he reach that understanding?
3. What led him to reach that understanding?

Pedrito offers his thanks in advance.

 

[twin1954]

In Post #9 on Page 1, twin1954 stated:


In the light of that, Pedrito would like to ask twin1954, in a non-confrontational manner, three things:
1. What does he understand the parable to mean?

Parables are meant to teach and illustrate one thing being taught by our Lord. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is meant to teach the necessity of faith. The rich man depended on his riches and Lazarus had nothing but faith in God.

2. When did he reach that understanding?

Many years ago.

3. What led him to reach that understanding?

The Spirit of God opening up the passage to me. Then by checking with other men of God in order to check my own understanding.

Pedrito offers his thanks in advance.

You're welcome.

 

[rstrats]

twin1954,

re: "The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is meant to teach the necessity of faith...Lazarus had nothing but faith in God."



Maybe he did, and maybe he didn't. The verse doesn't say.

 

[Pedrito]

Pedrito thanks twin1954 for his comments in Post #15 on Page 1.

However, Pedrito, like rstrats, would like to ask for some clarification regarding the statement:

The rich man depended on his riches and Lazarus had nothing but faith in God.

The reason actually given in the Luke 16 passage for the parabolic destinations of the rich man and the poor man, is (Verse 25):

But Abraham said, Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things. But now he is comforted and you are tormented.

One happened to be rich. One happened to be poor. Now the roles are reversed.

There seems to be no mention of faith there at all.

Is that not true?

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

Pedrito thanks twin1954 for his comments in Post #15 on Page 1.

However, Pedrito, like rstrats, would like to ask for some clarification regarding the statement:


The reason actually given in the Luke 16 passage for the parabolic destinations of the rich man and the poor man, is (Verse 25):


One happened to be rich. One happened to be poor. Now the roles are reversed.

There seems to be no mention of faith there at all.

Is that not true?

Just because that one particular parable does not mention faith, but the sum of the OT and NT is salvation by faith in Christ, why would you question if faith is needed? - I don't see or understand your point of view.

 

[twin1954]

Pedrito thanks twin1954 for his comments in Post #15 on Page 1.

However, Pedrito, like rstrats, would like to ask for some clarification regarding the statement:


The reason actually given in the Luke 16 passage for the parabolic destinations of the rich man and the poor man, is (Verse 25):


One happened to be rich. One happened to be poor. Now the roles are reversed.

There seems to be no mention of faith there at all.

Is that not true?

First of all the Lord never dealt with physical things but with spiritual things. He was speaking, according to the context, to some Pharisees who were covetous, verse 14. If you go back to chapter 15 you will see that it follows a series of parables given to the Pharisees and scribes. They were murmuring that He received publican and sinners. The whole point in all of these parables was to show them that their religion and trust in their righteousness and riches were of no value.

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus was to show them the need of faith instead of riches. The rich man looked to his riches but poor Lazarus was so very poor all he had was to depend of God's grace by faith. While it may not say so directly it certainly is clear from the context and because of whom the Lord was speaking to. It isn't just something I came up with from the top of my head.

 

[Ringo84]

I just have a hard time believing in hell at all. It makes no sense to me that for refusing to toe the theological line in a finite life time, you're sent to eternal damnation, with absolutely no chance for redemption.

It's not that I don't believe that the guilty are punished for their sins, but there is a major contradiction between a God that is said to be infinitely forgiving and eternal damnation.
Ringo