Salvation in the Old Testament

[Grumpy Old Man]

While I haven't read all of the Old Testament, I've read quite a lot of it. In my readings I've noticed that God prefers to offer the obedient "long life". In the Law God frequently states that if people obey the Commandments then they will have long, blessed lives in the promised land. Throughout the works of the Prophets this is a similar trend - obedience will give you long life. What I didn't notice in the OT was a promise of eternal life (nor the threat of eternal damnation). In the Law, people were threatened with death, not hell.

Yet, when we turn to the New Testament, the promise of eternal life is offered to the believer, while an eternity in hell is given to the unbeliever.

I've been trying to understand this discrepancy and I honestly can't come up with any good answers. I know the Old Testament mentions "sheol", which is generally understood to simply mean death. And very little is mentioned of heaven in the Old Testament (some visions by Eziekel and Isaiah are the only stuff I've read).

So why did Jesus start offering people eternal life when, according to the Old Testament, just a long life sufficed? Also, how can we believe hell is a real place when there is no mention of it in the OT?

 

[zaksmummy]

Its partly to do with terminology - You will notice that God often says "and they shall be cut off from amongst the people", this means that God will cut them off forever, in effect into "damnation".

When the prophets spoke in the OT they always spoke of a time when the Messiah would come and there would be eternal peace. Judaism calls this the "final redemption". Different schools of thought developed as to what this means. The Sadducees did not believe that there was an after life or eternal life because the OT does not specifically talk about it.

The Pharisees however, did believe that there was an eternal life, eternal rewards and punishments etc, and it was this view that Jesus had (obviously because he knew exactly what was "on the other side") and this is the way he taught, in the Pharisaical style.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Its partly to do with terminology - You will notice that God often says "and they shall be cut off from amongst the people", this means that God will cut them off forever, in effect into "damnation".

All the scholars and study notes I've read on this phrase refer to "being cut off from the people" as a death sentence. I generally understood it to mean that if a person disobeyed the law in some way then they were taken outside the "camp" and put to death (usually by stoning).

 

[drich0150]

While I haven't read all of the Old Testament, I've read quite a lot of it. In my readings I've noticed that God prefers to offer the obedient "long life". In the Law God frequently states that if people obey the Commandments then they will have long, blessed lives in the promised land. Throughout the works of the Prophets this is a similar trend - obedience will give you long life. What I didn't notice in the OT was a promise of eternal life (nor the threat of eternal damnation). In the Law, people were threatened with death, not hell.

Yet, when we turn to the New Testament, the promise of eternal life is offered to the believer, while an eternity in hell is given to the unbeliever.

I've been trying to understand this discrepancy and I honestly can't come up with any good answers. I know the Old Testament mentions "sheol", which is generally understood to simply mean death. And very little is mentioned of heaven in the Old Testament (some visions by Eziekel and Isaiah are the only stuff I've read).

So why did Jesus start offering people eternal life when, according to the Old Testament, just a long life sufficed? Also, how can we believe hell is a real place when there is no mention of it in the OT?

Before the Greeks ruled the known world, concepts like eternity were not pondered or scrutinized by a sect/philosophers of the population. God knew this and phrase or spoke through his prophets in a way for His children to understand. For example Is not eternal life a long life? and Hell is still indeed to be considered death. we see this acknowledgment in the NT as in the old. what was added is a better understanding of what Spiritual death looks like.

 

[elman]

While I haven't read all of the Old Testament, I've read quite a lot of it. In my readings I've noticed that God prefers to offer the obedient "long life". In the Law God frequently states that if people obey the Commandments then they will have long, blessed lives in the promised land. Throughout the works of the Prophets this is a similar trend - obedience will give you long life. What I didn't notice in the OT was a promise of eternal life (nor the threat of eternal damnation). In the Law, people were threatened with death, not hell.

Yet, when we turn to the New Testament, the promise of eternal life is offered to the believer, while an eternity in hell is given to the unbeliever.

I've been trying to understand this discrepancy and I honestly can't come up with any good answers. I know the Old Testament mentions "sheol", which is generally understood to simply mean death. And very little is mentioned of heaven in the Old Testament (some visions by Eziekel and Isaiah are the only stuff I've read).

So why did Jesus start offering people eternal life when, according to the Old Testament, just a long life sufficed? Also, how can we believe hell is a real place when there is no mention of it in the OT?

Ezekiel 18 says the righteous shall live and not die and the wicked will die and not live. This is not talking about long life and it is not talking about physical life and death because it says we kill our own soul with our own sin and after we do we can turn from wickedness to righteousness. If it were talking about killing ourselves physically we would not be able to turn from wickedness to righteousness. When it says we will live and not die, it cannot be talking about physical death because both the righteous and the wicked die physically.

 

[Brenda Morgan]

The promise in the Hebrew Scriptures has always been "RESURRECTION."
Ezekiel 37:12-14
12 Therefore prophesy and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves, My people; and I will bring you into the land of Israel. 13 Then you will know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves and caused you to come up out of your graves, My people. 14 I will put My Spirit within you and you will come to life, and I will place you on your own land. Then you will know that I, the LORD, have spoken and done it,” declares the LORD.’”

Daniel 12:2
2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.

Notice the similarity of Jesus' own words...
John 5:28-29
28 Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, 29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.

But the wicked Roman Catholic theologians have sold Christianity a false theology......claiming that man has an immortal soul which goes to Heaven or Hell at death making the promise of a resurrection meaningless.

 

[zaksmummy]

All the scholars and study notes I've read on this phrase refer to "being cut off from the people" as a death sentence. I generally understood it to mean that if a person disobeyed the law in some way then they were taken outside the "camp" and put to death (usually by stoning).

Maybe Ive have read more into it than is there, but surely if their crimes were so bad that they had been cut off in life, I would say that they have also been cut off in death as well.

 

[Timothew]

All the scholars and study notes I've read on this phrase refer to "being cut off from the people" as a death sentence. I generally understood it to mean that if a person disobeyed the law in some way then they were taken outside the "camp" and put to death (usually by stoning).

Thanks, that is interesting to me in my current study (or obsession) of death.

The greek word kolasis means "cut-off" or "pruned", but it is always translated as "punishment". One form of kolasis (kolasin) is used in Matthew 25:46, These will go away into eternal kolasin. . .
What you are saying about being cut off from the people being a death sentence fits in well with what I am studying about eternal torment in hell. (Actually that there is no eternal torment in hell, ET is a greek mythological insertion into christianity and has no place in biblical christianity.)

 

[razeontherock]

So why did Jesus start offering people eternal life when, according to the Old Testament, just a long life sufficed? Also, how can we believe hell is a real place when there is no mention of it in the OT?

Jewish understanding grew considerably from Moses to Christ. As Zaksmummy has said, Sadducees believed in no resurrection. what she didn't mention is they got ousted from power in 70 AD, since they were in charge of Temple worship. Pharisees were in charge of Synagogue worship, and were left in power by default with the destruction of the temple.

What does that tell you?

Also, at Christ's death when the Temple veil was torn from top to bottom, it revealed that the inside of the Most Holy Place was EMPTY. And had been for hundreds of years. (IIRC, that Temple never had the Ark of the Covenant?)

What does that tell you?

Certain things really aren't left open for our "theological interpretation." That ana a picture paints 1,000 words ...

 

[Brenda Morgan]

Jewish understanding grew considerably from Moses to Christ. As Zaksmummy has said, Sadducees believed in no resurrection. what she didn't mention is they got ousted from power in 70 AD, since they were in charge of Temple worship. Pharisees were in charge of Synagogue worship, and were left in power by default with the destruction of the temple.

What does that tell you?

Also, at Christ's death when the Temple veil was torn from top to bottom, it revealed that the inside of the Most Holy Place was EMPTY. And had been for hundreds of years. (IIRC, that Temple never had the Ark of the Covenant?)

What does that tell you?

Certain things really aren't left open for our "theological interpretation." That ana a picture paints 1,000 words ...

The veil were between the "Holy Place" and the "Most Holy Place."
Only those who had access to the "Holy Place" would know if the veil were torn.
According to Lightfoot's commentary based on Jewish writings there were two parallel veils, one cubit apart, that separated the Holy from the Most Holy in the Temple built by Herod.

 

[GrayAngel]

The commandments were given for the benefit of the quality of our lives. By following God's commandments, the Jews (and we) avoid getting in trouble. But respecting our parents, for example, we avoid the damaging effects of a damaged family structure. By avoiding murder, we don't have to worry about the retaliation of others or the punishment of our government (though the judicial system does make mistakes).

Eternal life was offered to the Jews as well as Christians. You can find evidence throughout the OT of the belief in an afterlife. It's not something new that Jesus invented.

The difference was that the Jews had to offer sacrifices on occasion to pay for their sins: a symbol of what Jesus would later do for us. But their sacrifices were weak and temporary, and they did not reunite them with God.

Some believe, and I am currently of this position, that the Jews did not initially go to Heaven, but that they instead went to a similar place called Paradise, where they waited for the Christ to die, thereby granting them access to God's kingdom. In the NT, after Christ died, the dead rose from their graves, which may have be evidence for this.

 

[razeontherock]

Eternal life was offered to the Jews as well as Christians. You can find evidence throughout the OT of the belief in an afterlife.

Job knew this, and it is the oldest book of the Bible.

Some believe, and I am currently of this position, that the Jews did not initially go to Heaven, but that they instead went to a similar place called Paradise, where they waited for the Christ to die, thereby granting them access to God's kingdom. In the NT, after Christ died, the dead rose from their graves, which may have be evidence for this.

Scripture affirms this:

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 1 Peter 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;"

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

But the wicked Roman Catholic theologians have sold Christianity a false theology......claiming that man has an immortal soul which goes to Heaven or Hell at death making the promise of a resurrection meaningless.

What do you mean?

 

[razeontherock]

Actually those 2 ideas which she paints as being separate, blend together quite well. (And I am certainly no fan of Catholicism)

 

[Timothew]

Actually those 2 ideas which she paints as being separate, blend together quite well. (And I am certainly no fan of Catholicism)

What do you mean?

If I have an immortal "soul", why would I need to be resurrected to life? The resurrection would be meaningless. And if being a disembodied soul in heaven is as great as everyone claims, why would I want to be resurrected? It would be less than meaningless, it would be a step backwards.

However this speculation is derived from the premise "I have an immortal soul". What if I don't have an immortal soul? What if "I am a living soul" is a more biblical premise? Then when I am dead, I am no longer a "living soul". When I look at it this way, the resurrection becomes meaningful. The resurrection to life is the only way to have life at all. So the resurrection becomes the most important thing, and Christ who was resurrected and who resurrects us becomes the most important person.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

What do you mean?

If I have an immortal "soul", why would I need to be resurrected to life? The resurrection would be meaningless. And if being a disembodied soul in heaven is as great as everyone claims, why would I want to be resurrected? It would be less than meaningless, it would be a step backwards.

However this speculation is derived from the premise "I have an immortal soul". What if I don't have an immortal soul? What if "I am a living soul" is a more biblical premise? Then when I am dead, I am no longer a "living soul". When I look at it this way, the resurrection becomes meaningful. The resurrection to life is the only way to have life at all. So the resurrection becomes the most important thing, and Christ who was resurrected and who resurrects us becomes the most important person.

Yes, I've had questions about this as well. When I was a Christian, we were taught that when we die we go to heaven (unbelievers go to hell). But, we also, somehow, hang around waiting for this great white throne judgement. Apparently we're all judged at this great white throne and then we go back to heaven or hell. Now, one would presume that if they died and entered heaven or hell then they had already been judged. So why the need for the great white throne theatrics? Also, after this throne judgement God apparently remakes heaven and earth. Do we live on this new earth, or stay in heaven as dead people?

 

[Timothew]

Yes, I've had questions about this as well. When I was a Christian, we were taught that when we die we go to heaven (unbelievers go to hell). But, we also, somehow, hang around waiting for this great white throne judgement. Apparently we're all judged at this great white throne and then we go back to heaven or hell. Now, one would presume that if they died and entered heaven or hell then they had already been judged. So why the need for the great white throne theatrics? Also, after this throne judgement God apparently remakes heaven and earth. Do we live on this new earth, or stay in heaven as dead people?

Yes, This is why (I think) not many should presume to teach. Then people who are ignorant wouldn't teach falsehoods. The false teachings become stumbling blocks.

 

[razeontherock]

Yes, I've had questions about this as well. When I was a Christian, we were taught that when we die we go to heaven (unbelievers go to hell). But, we also, somehow, hang around waiting for this great white throne judgement. Apparently we're all judged at this great white throne and then we go back to heaven or hell.

This is where typical western Churches (churchianity) diverges from the Bible.
The great white throne of judgment is NOT for those "whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life," but the dead are judged there. Believers have an entirely separate Judgment.

There is speculation as to whether there might be any sort of "round trip" for those who enter Life, leaving "heaven" (as it were) to show up for Judgment, and then going back. Either that or we die and are buried, awaiting resurrection seem to be the 2 big camps.

Now, one would presume that if they died and entered heaven or hell then they had already been judged. So why the need for the great white throne theatrics? Also, after this throne judgement God apparently remakes heaven and earth. Do we live on this new earth, or stay in heaven as dead people?

I often refer to the cardboard cutout Monty Python used to depict the "man in the sky" for this sort of religious idea. There are no dead people in heaven. Next, being born again, we are Judged already. There is good reason to believe some will live in the new earth, some will live in the new heaven, others will live in New Jerusalem, and still others will populate the heavens. And we have no reason to believe anyone will be stuck in any one of those for Eternity, but we may have the ability to pass from one to the other. What the Gospel tells us, is these things are up to Jesus.

 

[GrayAngel]

Yes, I've had questions about this as well. When I was a Christian, we were taught that when we die we go to heaven (unbelievers go to hell). But, we also, somehow, hang around waiting for this great white throne judgement. Apparently we're all judged at this great white throne and then we go back to heaven or hell. Now, one would presume that if they died and entered heaven or hell then they had already been judged. So why the need for the great white throne theatrics? Also, after this throne judgement God apparently remakes heaven and earth. Do we live on this new earth, or stay in heaven as dead people?

After we die, our faith (or lack thereof) determines where we go. But then there's a judgement for Hell and a judgement for Heaven. The judgement for those in Hell is punishment based, but the judgement for Heaven is based on rewards. Both are judged by their actions, and both are for the purpose of making things right.

Many people have an objection to unbelievers (what they call "good people") being given the same treatment as murderers, rapists, etc. But the Bible teaches that Hell will be worse for some than for others, so everyone is not given the same treatment.

The judgement for believers, however, is something we look forward to. The first century Christians welcomed persecution (not that they looked for trouble) because they believed that God would reward them for everything they suffered for Jesus' name.

Also, my understanding of the New Heaven and New Earth is that they are the same thing. Jehovah's Witnesses will tell you that believers who weren't lucky enough to get access into Heaven will live in a separate place called the "New Earth." This is one of many things they're wrong about.

 

[razeontherock]

What do you mean?

If I have an immortal "soul", why would I need to be resurrected to life?

I missed this question before. In context, it was stated that the concept of an immortal soul was at odds with resurrection. I point out they are harmonious; we either continue, or we don't. I realize Timothew is an annihilationist, but that doesn't alter the fact that continuing on is consistent with Scripture, and resurrection.