The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Earliest church writings on the state of the dead.

Lots of opinion out there.

In order to understand what spirits under the alter, you need to define spirit.

SPIRIT simply means living, or that which gives life, and is alive.

Back to the original topical request:

Several of the books I’ve been reading over the past year or so indicate that 1st century Judaism (roughly speaking) had a wide variety of concept on the state of the dead; and that early Christianity picked up on this (outside the texts of the canon).

However, a consensus emerged in orthodox Christianity fairly quickly, based on various scriptural indications of Christ’s descent to preach to and/or free the dead in hades, that the dead (significant numbers of them if not all of them) were at least partially conscious after death.

The first part of this book collects primary sources indicating how and why this doctrinal consolidation happened: [.

Hope that’s helpful, Catherine! (Although it may not be helpful in the way you were hoping for. Sorry if so.)Christ the Conqueror of Hell: The Descent Into Hades From an Orthodox Perspective](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0881410616)

Hmm, I get the impression it means more than that. But I may be wrong… :confused:

That’s appreciated Jason.

Is it possible that ‘nephesh chayah’ is different in the Torah than in the Hebrew version of the OT ? I’ve no idea but the following is intriguing:
rooster613.blogspot.co.uk/2011/0 … art-i.html
(see point no. 4, but I’m not relying on it)

I’ve also remembered what my first source was - it was found on this forum and it’s well worth a listen:

God bless you in your search Catherine.

Catherine,

I’ll try to figure out what books I was reading elsewhere that indicated a more-or-less-1st-century divergence of opinion on the topic (within Judaism and/or Christianity), since it’s likely they’re more freely accessible to the public for download; but I’m going to be super-busy at work for the next few days I expect.

Pilgrim,

I appreciate your linguistic explorations in this thread, too. :slight_smile:

Hi Pilgrim, I had a quick look at the link to Rooster’s blog and as soon as I see ‘Kabbalah’ I hear warning bells go off. I’ve only read negative stuff about Kabbalah. They sound like they’ve mixed lots of mystical weird stuff into Judaism??? ‘Rooster613’ says that the first mention of ‘nephesh chayah’ is in Gen 2:7 and so I rechecked Gen 1:20 and the only difference between the two, is that in Gen 2:7 ‘nephesh’ has ‘le’ in front of it. I’m not sure if this makes a big difference. I’ll check this and come back to you- I know a man who will know the answer… :smiley: ).

Jason, I appreciate any help you can give us, if your time allows… :smiley:

Darn it! I was going to message Jeff Benner of the Ancient Hebrewe Research Centre, but he’s on a Sabbatical at the minute. He would have known all about ‘nephesh’ etc and what the difference was between the Hebrew of those two Genesis verses. I’ll keep looking though… :sunglasses:

I recall “le” is just a preposition meaning something like “to” the noun it prefixes.

The two phrases are otherwise consonantly identical, with very slight vowel differences that I’m sure mean something grammatically but I’m not even remotely good at Hebrew. The NIV super-literal confirms that the Lamed consonant is a only a preposition, though (they translate as “into-living”): whatever the two words are for nephesh, they’re close grammatic cognates. The lamed is irrelevant for purposes of this inquiry I think. (Green’s superliteral ignores its presence altogether anyway.) I suspect the slight vowel differences amount to singular at Gen 2:7 and plural at Gen 1:20.

NIV translates the final clause of 2:7, “and-he-became the-man into-being living”, but I suspect “into-breath living” would work, too.
1:20, “let-them-teem the-waters creature breath-of living

Green’s superliteral 2:7, “and became the man a soul living
1:20, “let swam the waters (with)-a-swarmers having soul living

Concordant Hebrew superliteral, 2:7, “and•he-is-becoming the•human to•soul living” LNPhSh CHIE
1:20, “they-shall-roam the-waters roamer-of soul living” NPhSh CHIE

I’ve provided the Westminster Leningrad Codex transliteration of the phrases in question with the Concordant Hebrew superliteral, as noted above: the two words are consonantly identical aside from the preposition Lamed.

In conclusion, the term at 2:7 does show up at 1:20. I don’t think the grammatic vowel distinctions are going to amount to any significant difference of meaning between the two verses.

(However, for God’s sake definitely keep pinging the Ancient Hebrew guy!–I know next to nothing on the topic of even modern Hebrew. :smiley:)

The same term shows up again one verse later at 1:21,

U•IBRA
and•he-is-creating

ALEIM
Elohim

ATH
{unknown/silence/pause?}

E•ThNIM
the•monsters

E•GDLIM
the•great-ones

U•ATh
and•{unknown/silence/pause?}

KL
every-of

**NPhSh
soul

E•ChIE
the•living**

E•RMShTh
the•moving

Exactly the same term, although arguably the meaning is a bit different as the phraseology pairs “living” with “moving” as a set of descriptions for nephesh. So in English we would translate it more like “every soul that is living that is moving” or “…that which lives, that which moves” or “every soul, living, moving”, rather than “every living soul moving”. It doesn’t seem like a linked technical term here, is what I mean. If not, then it may not be back at verse 20 either where describing the same kind of things.

Ecclesiastes 3:21
Who knows the spirit of man, whether it goes upward, and the spirit of the beast, whether it goes downward to the earth?

Ecclesiastes 12:7
Then shall the dust [out of which God made man’s body] return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to God Who gave it.

SPIRIT = the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.

syn. = life, mind, consciousness, essence

I understand; however it is a fair point, I think, to note that anyone else writing on this subject, scholar or no, early Christian or no, is going to end up being an appeal to a lesser authority than the scripture itself. I personally think it’s quite clear that the dead are actually completely dead (no soul sleep; this is a misunderstanding of what the soul is) until the resurrection. Otherwise, what’s the purpose of the resurrection(s)? It’s true that the spirit returns to God who gave it upon physical death, but the spirit really has no consciousness of its own.

Thanks for your comments on this Jason, and I will keep trying with Jeff Benner. :smiley:

Good verses to contemplate. ‘Life force’ seems to fit these verses.

Melchizedek, I lean towards your understanding of ‘spirit’. On Sunday, the ‘sermon’ was based on the account of Jairus’s daughter. After the service, my friend came up to me grinning and said ‘see, the little girl is described as ‘sleeping’, not aware still in a paradise place. Jesus gives her back her life’. I grinned back and said 'exactly, hence why is Jesus called the Resurrection and the LIfe? If we’re still ‘alive’ after we die, then what’s the point of it all? The little girl’s spirit left her and Jesus effectively put the spirit back into her to bring her back to life.

I will note that conceptually, the point of a physical resurrection even if the spirit is still alive and consciously functioning somewhere, is the same point as physical existence in the first place. :wink:

God loves Nature, gives His life for it (or for Her), will bring Nature to perfection apart from sin, apparently will even resurrect the natural system somehow. A physical resurrection is a validation of that love of God for His creation.

In shorter: if it’s worth doing to begin with, it’s still worth doing when associated problems are overcome. (I could be more technical about the issues involved, but they’d still fit that general precept.)

I messaged ‘Rooster’s’ blog and he has kindly replied. He says regarding the ‘le’ in Gen 2:7:
‘‘In Genesis 2:7 the extra L’ you refer to indicates motion towards something, in accordance with God breathing a soul INTO the primal Adam. And he BECAME a “living soul” which indicates that his essence is not the physical animal body that simply “has life” but a higher spiritual existance.’’

To see his full reply to me, see:
blogger.com/comment.g?blogID … 1866438559

I’ve not managed to read any ‘ancient’ sources yet, but all the modern sources seem to agree that there was a mixture of beliefs and so it seems impossible to know for sure what the correct teaching is. I’m not so bothered now about which position is right, (although I favour the position that the bible teaches that the ‘dead know nothing’ and hence why we need to be resurrected at a future time). Even if the dead are still conscious, I don’t believe that God will torment people forever and so I have more peace about all this. I think I’m going to consign this subject to that of the trinity ie leave it in God’s hands. I’m not sure if God even exists, I’m not sure if He’s a trinity, I’m not sure if man has a separate imaterial ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’, and I’m not sure if God will save ALL humans who have ever existed. The list goes on and on and is very wearisome to my soul (whatever that is :wink: ). All I can cling to is that ‘all will be well’ and I hope we’re all included in the ‘all’… :smiley:

I’m not sure if this has been pointed out already.The Earliest Creeds of the Christian Faith .

Several versions of post mortem evangelism position were popular in the early church and were advocated by such noteworthy theologians as Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus and Ambrose. It is also significant to note that the idea of Christ descending into hell is found in the two earliest ecumenical creeds of the church, the Nicene and the Apostles Creed). ~Source : Across the Spectrum, Gregory Boyd .

I don’t know that I would disagree with that in principle; but the key exegetical point would be (and so far as I know the tradition the key point has always been) God breathing the nephesh of humanity, distinct from other nearby uses of the word. The important distinction isn’t the “to/toward” preposition, although naturally its useage there fits the special situation.

Similarly, the word for “become” isn’t the key point–the other souls didn’t exist pre-etenally as living souls, they must have become living souls, too. But not (apparently) by God breathing their nephesh into them. (I say ‘apparently’ because I don’t recall for sure that the scriptures only talk about the breath from God in relation to humanity later. If not, then the breath wasn’t the special distinction per se either; but if so then it’s the breath, not the “into” or even the “becoming” that specially counts.)

What any of that has to do with whether all souls only sleep before resurrection or not, I have no idea. :wink: God specially created human souls (and even animal souls, whatever their other distinctions are) in the first place, so if God wants them to be conscious post-mortem but pre-resurrection, then they will be; and if not, then not; or if in some mixture, then that’s how it will be.

Weny, thanks for your input. I’ll check that out. :smiley:

Jason, what you say makes sense. :sunglasses:

Evidence of belief in post mortem salvation in the early church also comes in the incredibly moving account of the martyrdom of St Perpetua (martyred in 203). While in prison awaiting martyrdom Perpetua had a vision of her little brother Dinocrates, who had died unbaptized from facial cancer at the early age of seven. She prayed for him and later had a vision of him drinking from a baptismal font and then restored - happy and healthy, his facial disfigurement reduced to a scar.

Perpetua’s reputation as a martyr posed difficulties for St Augustine in the fifth century. Augustine – who taught that the unbaptised are all damned – had to reject the authority for her vision. He also found her suspect because she was a young mother at the time of her martyrdom – Augustine was only comfortable with the idea of virgin martyrs (because of his dualistic abhorrence of the sexual act). One of the most moving parts of Perpetua’s account – taken down by a scribe in the prison as she spoke though the bars – is her distress and concern over her own infant child missing his mother’s comfort and milk, which only abates when she feels reassured that Christ will look after the child.

Anyway Perpetua obviously believed in the possibility of post mortem salvation/healing for her non-Christian, dead little brother.

Blessings

Dick