@@davidjanbaz7728. Trent Horn is not a loving Christian with his attacks on Protestants. He does not believe! John 4: 20-21. He is far from as compassionate as Dr. Ortlund.
…Your favorite Protestant who you believe WILL burn in hell for all eternity, regardless of how passionately he professes that Christ is the Lord. Which is a fundamental doctrine of Roman Catholicism, AND orthodox Catholicism. If you don’t believe that EVERY “Christian” that doesn’t bow to your EXACT flavor of Catholicism is damned, then you aren’t Catholic. Heck, according to the 2nd council of Nicaea, you YOURSELF are currently committing an anathema simply by interacting with us (for the fact that we refuse to kiss the feet of statues). Bit sick, isn’t it?
@@NP-vk8de Trent is very mild for an internet apologist. He was also very polite in his debates with protestants. I think he can be a little bit Superior at times, but i don't think that's a reason to say such things.
For a fire has flared in My anger, And it burns to the lowest part of Sheol, And devours the earth with its yield, And sets on fire the foundations of the mountains. ~ Deut 32:32 I think this verse shows that Sheol is more than just a hole in the dirt where you place a body. There is an understanding that it is a place of the dead, that has layers and depths to it.
The easiest way to prove the afterlife in the Torah is by considering what God said to both Aaron and especially Moses when they died. Moses died alone in the land of Moab after going up Mount Nebo and no one knows where his grave even is. However, God told him that he would be "gathered to your people" after he died (Deut. 32:50). This being 'gathered with ones people' in death must here be regarded as beyond the physical gathering in a tomb with other relatives. For how could God tell Moses he would be "gathered to his people" when Moses died alone with no one else nearby. This suggests to me that there is a spiritual gathering together of people after death, and I think the rest of Scripture makes clear that this place is sheol.
Luke 20:34-38 Luke 20:37-38 "“Moses even indicated in the passage about the burning bush that the dead are raised, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead but of the living, because all are living to him.”"
I brought this scripture up "......God is not the God of the dead...." to a JW and he said "Well, God's thinking about you is the same as you living and God thinks about everyone." 🤦🤦🤦
Great video Gavin! One extra potential piece of evidence. The midwives in exodus one choose to disobey the pharaoh out of fear of the Lord. Disobeying the pharaoh could bring about death. However, Douglas Stuart points out in the NAC that the midwives had a great fear for judgment from God in the afterlife and held that judgment as greater than what pharaoh could do in this life.
It should not be surprising for Christians that there were many Israelites who had wrong beliefs about the afterlife, most of Israel couldn’t even stay away from polytheism and worshipping idols.
Is it not a little peculiar that in those times when the Lord God spoke with his people directly (Joseph, Moses, Joshua, the Judges, etc) that He did not once assure any of them about their salvation in the life to come? Or, in the reverse case, threaten Hell as punishment for their disobedience?
@@Michiganman800 did we watch the same video? Gavin cited Genesis 5 about God ‘taking’ Enoch, which is itself an ambiguous statement, but that was it. This was the one and only piece of scripture he cited which is traditionally understood as being written before Israel was ruled by kings (from Adam up through the Judges).
@@paulallenscards the video I watched appeared to be special pleading for the afterlife (via ad hoc sophistry centered on, "See, doesn't this nicely fit the expected pattern of progressive Divine revelation of something deep in our religious instincts?") to get the audience to double down on an afterlife-based Pascalian Wager
When we feel lost and confused in this difficult world we should remember that every OT saint felt that way too. Too often we forget that they didn't know how the story would end. They couldn't. God hadn't revealed it yet. But as Paul says of Abraham in Romans"faith was accredited to him as righteousness." Abraham had unaswered questions and doubts, but he was given enough to believe. It shouldn't surprise us that he had to trust God. We are just further along in the story.
Glad to see you all normal and stuff. I love your material Gavin and vis a vis love you as a Christian brother and hold you in the highest regards for your undying commitment to the Body of Christ
Mitch Chase's book "Resurrection Hope and the Death of Death (Short Studies in Biblical Theology)" was super helpful in seeing resurrection very early on within the canon.
I really appreciate this video! Only recently had I encountered this claim that the Old Testament and ancient Israelites didn’t teach a concept of the afterlife, and I was uncertain how to respond. Thanks for highlighting these points!
Fascinating, important, and very well done! Thank you for mentioning the Book of Job. My favorite example from it is chapter 16, especially versus 13-17, but don't skip the opening lines and imagery. :)
I thought of a cool verse showing there's an afterlife in the Torah. I even think someone has used this one before? It goes: *I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.*
I remember a passage from the Talmud where they speak of the phrasing of Abraham being “gathered to his people” or “placed with his ancestors”when he was not physically buried in his homeland with them as being indicative of an afterlife
Hi Gavin, love your stuff. PLEASE would you do a talk on the idea of the gebira in the Old Testament and its links to the RC belief that Mary is the Gebira and as such Queen of Heave. God bless
And Jesus put it simply “And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.”” (Matthew 22:31-32, ESV) Thank you for the video brother Gavin.
I think the Anastasis icon explains nicely early Christian understanding of this. The righteous were all in Sheol until Christ rescued them. I love the picture of Christ bringing Adam & Eve up from Sheol.
How can they say that no one believed in the afterlife? They came out of Egypt, where they built pyramids and cities for the glory of Pharaoh in the afterlife.
I try to remind myself that today we have the benefit of the New Testament through which more truth was revealed. The example of Enoch, the message to Moses from The Burning Bush of “I AM” and references to GOD as the GOD of Abraham, Issac and Jacob seem to be indications of a broader perspective about our states of existence.
David said he took comfort in knowing he would see his dead baby again. Ps 23 "Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me, and afterwards I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever." Samuel was "in existence" when Saul seanced him up. Jesus reminded Nicodemus and the religious Jews that "they did error" on the Scriptures regarding marriage, afterlife, born again, legalism and ultimately the Messiah. God is the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, the God of the living." Jesus John 11"I am the resurrection, he that believes on Me shall never die"
Couldn’t he just saw his baby again when they resurrected? The spirit being Samual is pretty dubious. And the rest does point to a resurrection but not as a “soul” in heaven.
Remember in the case of Elijah, the men in that passage had concluded that God casted Elijah upon a mountain or valley. The chariot created a whirlwind (tornado) which swooped him into “heaven” but that could simply mean the sky. The purpose was that Elisha would not leave his master. And remember in 2 Chronicles 12-15 Elijah wrote a letter to King Jehoram. This was about 10 years after his whirlwind ride.
Quite obviously if you read chapter 1 and 2 Elijah was in conflict with the king who wanted to arrest him. The king is in power, in heaven. The king took up Elijah to this heaven by the “fire” (power) of the horses and chariots of Israel, I.e his armed forces, hence “chariots of fire”. Elisha is very upset about it and cries out that God failed them, and tore his clothes. Come on people, it isn’t that hard to decode the idiom and phrases and follow what’s going on!
I freely admit, I would like to continue living after death. I don’t find it remotely plausible, but I totally get the existential motive for hope and belief in resurrection. As for the historical question, even though I’m more on board with critical scholarly reconstructions than you are, I broadly agree with your conclusion. Wouldn’t it be surprising for there to be absolutely no concept of an afterlife in the OT? Belief in an afterlife has been common throughout history.
A fascinating note is that although Samaritan Scriptures don't contain the Jewish Prophets, Samaritans still developed a belief in the resurrection, paradise, and a coming Messiah. See John 4 specifically for clear evidence for belief in a Messiah/Taheb figure. While it's difficult to determine exactly when the doctrine of resurrection began within Samaritanism, the fact that such an idea is derived solely from the Books of Moses within the Samaritan system shows that the concept of resurrection (and a Messiah!) can be organically deduced from the Pentateuch alone, and is not simply an innovation of Second Temple Jewish literature.
Thank you for the concise and biblical argument for ancient Israel believing in the afterlife! In a similar vein of thought, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about John Crowder's biblical, moral, theological, historical/patriarchal, and Christological arguments that "hell is a severe, corrective, and restorative reality" (video: Hell & Apokatastasis - The Consuming Fire Episode 1 of 10 - The Jesus Trip with John Crowder). May God bless you in your work for Jesus!
Just because the biblical authors believed x doesn’t mean that God endorsed x. Even if x is mentioned or referred to in the bible. This makes it unsafe to make arguments about the afterlife teachings of the bible based on the assumptions about what they meant by or understood about the afterlife that they mentioned or referred to. It appears that there are and always have been many different and conflicting ideas and assumptions about death and the afterlife both in the ancient world and among the people of God including the biblical writers. The Old Testament does however make some clear affirmations that the dead are dead and no longer know anything or do anything. They can’t praise YHWH. They can’t hear the prayers of the living, and even if they could, they have no power to answer them or provide any help. And that they don’t come back, they rise not. Like water poured out on the ground they cannot be gathered back. Unlike a tree cut down, a man will not spring up and grow back. The good the bad, the wise and the foolish, are alike in death, they go to the same place. Those who are born dead or miscarried are the same as those who life’s a full life. The slave and his master are the same. Death is the great leveller. All men die, no one escapes. And none come back. This teaching and understanding forms the basis for further teaching about the death and resurrection of Israel as a nation, as a covenant people, as a body, e.g. the valley of dry bones in Ez. 37. This material should not be misunderstood as claiming individuals will have new physical life after death at the resurrection, or that they are conscious while waiting for it.
The OT had a notion of the afterlife - it was called resurrection. Same as in the NT. Resurrection and eternal life is always portrayed as the hope of the righteous/saved. But a disembodied floating around as a ghost is never taught. There are a few verses that if you start with the presupposition of a disembodied ghostly existing could be interpreted that way, but those same verses can be interpreted other ways just as easily, if more more easily. So I just don't think a disembodied ghostly afterlife is what any Biblical author spoke about.
Didn’t Martha at the death of Lazarus say to Jesus “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day”? John 11:24. She was a devout Jewish lady wasn’t she?
Quick question? Did ancient Israel believe in a bodily resurrection? If not, then why did Joseph make the sons of Israel swear to take his bones to the promised land after he died? (Genesis 50:25) Then reading Hebrews 11:13-16 speaks about the patriarchs dying in faith, seeking a heavenly city whose builder is God. Although it is not explicitly said, we can assume that, in conjunction with the mentioned Job passage from the video, that some of the Israelites did believe in a bodily resurrection (of course this is disputed later by the Sadducees). And of course, the famous passage where Jesus says that God is the God of the living, not the dead (He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob).
Dr. Ortlund, thanks for the video. In relation to your particular understanding of progressive revelation, do you hold to the view that Dr. Fuller did, for example, that the when it comes to the Old Cov and New Cov that it’s a continuum and not a contrast?
Doc Ortlund, would you consider changing the format of slides so that the Scripture and other citations aren't covered by the video control bar when paused? 😅 I suppose others may have had the same problem. 🤷♂ Thanks
The "What if it's true?" segment is SUCH effective evangelism! QUESTION: Has Gavin made a video that centers on that angle, or one that includes it and would be better suited for sharing with nonbelievers, evangelistically, than this one?
Could you make a video further talking about some peoples’ claims that Zoroastrianism influenced the biblical writers during the Babylonian exile? I’ve heard some people claim that but I’ve also heard other claims that it actually went the other way: that Zoroastrianism was much more of a polytheistic religion initially that was influenced in a monotheistic direction later on by westerners in the 19th century.
Great video. Do you think the book of Enoch has any validity? I don’t know much about it but it seems to me that if it were cannon, it would bridge a lot of the apparent gaps in OT afterlife theology and the NT. Thoughts?
For those who walked with God in ancient times, to be close to him in this life offered the assurance of something more, even if they didn't understand completely what that would mean. Since we have the resurrection of Christ in the body as our exemplar, so do we have the Spirit's assurance of resting in his grace after leaving this body behind, until the end of this age and the resurrection of the righteous to glorified bodies.
That's not what the Bible teaches though, because Heb. 11 clearly states that none of the faithful inherited eternal life yet. Put the traditions and personal beliefs aside and look at what _God_ says. Traditions and personal beliefs don't determine the truth. _God's Word is truth_ (Jhn 17:17)!
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 I don’t see how Hebrews 11 contradicts anything I said. What “I believe” is because of what Scripture teaches not in spite of it. After he was crucified the Son of Man was three days in the heart of the earth. [Matt 12:40]. There he preached to the spirits in prison [ 1 Peter 3:19] who had left their proper dwelling place [Jude 1:6; 2 Peter 2:4] and committed great atrocities in the eyes of God [Genesis 6:1-4]. After proclaiming victory he freed the righteous dead from Abraham’s bosom to ascend with Him in his resurrection to be with the Father.
Peter wrote in 1 Peter 3:19 that Jesus "preached to the spirits in prison" through the power of God's Spirit and that these spirits had been disobedient. "Spirits" refers to angels. Which angels disobeyed? Biblical history shows that Lucifer initially rebelled against God, at which time he became "Satan" or the opponent of God (Isaiah 14:12-14; Ezekiel 28:12-16). He subsequently drew a third of the angelic creation into mutiny against God (Revelation 12:4). When these formerly righteous spirits rebelled, they became demons. We learn more about these spirits and their "prison" in 2 Peter 2:4. The word translated "hell" in this verse is from the Greek word tartarus, which doesn't mean "hell" in the way that people today commonly think of it. Rather, it means a place of restraint-that is, a prison. These fallen angels turned from their purpose of serving God and humanity (Hebrews 1:13-14); their rebellion reduced them to hatred and bitterness toward God and His holy purpose for humanity. Their place of restraint is this earth, until God deals with them further in the future. Putting this information together with 1 Peter 3:20, Jesus apparently confronted these rebellious spirits at the time of Noah's Flood. The Bible doesn't reveal why He did this.
The idea that an afterlife originated with a specific empire, or group, seems unlikely. Especially knowing that the resurrection would make clear it's a sound idea. I would image the idea is as old as imagination.
That's a really good point. Just because one culture focuses on an idea doesn't mean no one else thinks about it. But I wouldn't be surprised if contact with different cultures led to a refinement of certain ideas. I think we see this in the early Church. Varoius heresies force the leaders to push back on bad doctrine.
@@riverjao Wrong, Ephesians 4:8-11 when Jesus led captives in his train During the three days of his death he led Abrahams bosom into heaven. 2 Peter 2 says he ascended into hell at his death and this cross references the Ephesians passage above how he Descended, and ascended into heaven and then he gave gifts, spiritual gifts to men, so why would we need spiritual gifts after this world is over? We wouldn’t. He told the thief on the cross today you will be with me in paradise.! We were told what we die we will so forever be with the Lord Jesus, when we meet him, we will not be separate ! At the Stoning of Stephen Jesus stood up as to welcome Stephen To heaven acts 7-8 Jesus says “well done, good and faithful servant” Study the Ephesians passage
@@riverjaoParadise like the murderer on the Cross ✝️ . That's an afterlife that will be added into Heaven after Jesus Atonement on the Cross when Jesus Atonement actually forgives their SiN. The sacrifices just covered their SiN and prevented judgment until Jesus Atonement payed the Full price for SiN. Past, present and future.
My understanding was that all went to Sheol and as you say had the hope, if vague, that Christ would rescue them for future resurrection. Keeping in mind the word Jesus used for what he was about to do in the Transfiguration was literally "exodus."
Acts 23:8. The pharisees did. David did, as he spoke often about resurrection. Daniel was told he would see God on the last day. Isaiah prophesied of the millennium.
Saul spoke to a demon disguising itself as Samuel. The witch clearly tells Saul that the spirit came from the ground(1 Sam. 28:13), the same place Jude mentions as the place that God used as a prison for demons(Jude 6). Ecclesiastes says that everyone's spirit returns to God when they die(Ecc. 3:21) and that they have no awareness when they die(Ecc. 9:5), so it clearly wasn't the real Samuel. Dead ppl can't talk.
My very tentative interpretation is that the afterlife itself was objectively different in OT ("Abraham's Bosom" being the best one could expect) and that, through/after the atonement, the believers of OT times could be taken to a more desirable afterlife and that believers no longer go to "Abraham's Bosom". I am not confident in that view though, I just think it is one possible view that may or may not best harmonize what the Bible teaches and my current leaning. I would take this idea with a grain of salt, I am not even confident in it. I have more confidence in saying that it appears to me that while Scripture certainly seems to AT LEAST hint toward an afterlife in the oldest OT books[for those with the faith and hope to see], I see no problem with supposing that many of the hebrews didn't pick up on it and may have been uncertain about an afterlife. Remember that some of the most profound teachings in the Bible, only became clear to believers in hindsight. The Bible prophesies God's incarnation, but I suspect that even some/most of the OT prophets did not connect the dots and were not expecting the incarnation. I wouldn't blame them because the incarnation is an astoundingly wonderful thing that would be a shock even to a prophet. I think that David and Isiah might have been privileged with revelation of the incarnation, maybe shown things that even other prophets might not have had revealed to them. I remember that Ecclesiastes comes across as agnostic about afterlife in at least one place Ecclesiastes 3:19-22 "Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?” So I saw that there is nothing better for a person than to enjoy their work, because that is their lot. For who can bring them to see what will happen after them?" This doesn't bother me, it is not the scandal that some people might think it is. I just feel privileged to live in a time where God has made the hope for an afterlife crystal clear to us just as the prophecies of the Incarnation have been made clear to us in hindsight.We could possibly even say that the prophesies of the Incarnation have been made clear, but only in hindsight. If God has to make all wonderful things clear to us in order for Him to be faithful, then we must conclude that He was unfaithful to the OT believers and unfaithful to those of us[like me] who did not even see the teaching of the incarnation in the Bible until God opened my eyes to it. I am sure there are more wonderful things He will show us in the future. I don't understand the entitled mindset that God is required to make every spiritual or theological thing clear to us. I understand being disturbed by God keeping things ambiguous for people if we are assuming that these cases of ambiguity stood in the way of their salvation, but it seems like a huge stretch to me to assume that the believers in OT times had to believe in afterlife to be saved, Christians are required to believe because we have been given more revelation and clarity than believers of OT times. They were deprived of the New Testament. I am sure that if you went to heaven and asked the believers of OT times how they feel about God depriving them of clear revelation of the incarnation and afterlife, none of them would complain or accuse God of unfaithfulness! They would praise God for His wise and loving plans.
But concerning the dead, that they rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. You are therefore greatly mistaken.”
Psalm 1 [1] Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; [2] but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night. [3] He is like a tree planted by streams of water, that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers. [4] The wicked are not so, but are like chaff which the wind drives away. [5] Therefore the wicked will not stand in *_the judgment,_* nor sinners in the *_congregation of the righteous;_* [6] for the Lord knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish. What is the judgement? What, the assembly of the righteous? Try to answer this without any understanding of the last times with judgement that separates just and unjust into two ways of bliss or destruction.
Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him." Hebrews 11:5 adds: "By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, 'and was not found, because God had taken him'; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God." Some erroneously jump to the conclusion that Enoch was taken up into heaven, but notice the Bible nowhere says this. It simply says that God "took him." It does not specify where he was taken. Jesus Christ later states in the Gospel of John that "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). One of the points He makes is that one passage of the Bible cannot contradict another passage. This same Gospel of John reveals a startling fact very pertinent to this matter: "No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven" (John 3:13). Clearly, Jesus Christ was the only human being who had ascended into heaven. The phrase "who is in heaven" lets us know that this was written by the apostle John after Christ's return to heaven. So even as late as this statement, no human being-and that includes Enoch-had ascended into heaven. We later read about Enoch's fate in Hebrews 11:5: "By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, 'and was not found, because God had taken him'; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God." The word rendered "taken" can also mean "transferred elsewhere." And the New American Standard Bible says this was done "so that he would not see death"-a better translation than "did not," as we know from the same chapter of Hebrews that he died. Notice in verse 13 the summary given of all of the men and women of faith listed here, including Enoch: "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth" (Hebrews 11:13). So Enoch definitely died as well as all the rest. How, then, can it be that Enoch was transferred elsewhere so he wouldn't see death? God doesn't give us all the details of what happened, but a few scenarios have been proposed that do not conflict with the fact that Enoch died as the Bible says. It may be that God transported Enoch elsewhere to keep him from being killed at a certain time-perhaps protecting him from martyrdom at the hands of angry persecutors who didn't like his announcement of coming divine judgment (see Jude 14-16). God likewise supernaturally transported Elijah and Philip to other places on earth (see 2 Kings 2:11; Acts 8:39). On the other hand, we should observe that Enoch died young for his time-at age 365 while those before and after him lived into their 800s and 900s. Because of this, some speculate that God "took him" from life prematurely so that he would not have to live out his remaining centuries in a miserable world (compare Isaiah 57:1-2). His next moment of consciousness will be the resurrection. In this case, "so that he would not see death" would refer to his not having to experience the process of dying-his life ending instantly. Still others, putting the likelihood of Enoch experiencing persecution together with his early death, have concluded that Enoch was murdered-martyred for his preaching. Enoch being taken and not found would then refer to God removing his body and burying it-as happened with Moses (Deuteronomy 34:5-6). In this case, Enoch being taken or transferred so that he would not see death is taken as separate matter-that of him being spiritually converted, transferred from the world's ways to God's way of living, so that he would not see ultimate death in the lake of fire (compare Colossians 1:13; John 8:51). Again, we don't have enough details to know exactly what is intended. But we do know that Enoch did not skip death and go to heaven. He died, and no human being has ascended to heaven except Jesus Christ.
Maybe the question is framed incorrectly? The idea of an afterlife can be presented erroneously as the ultimate destiny is heaven and hell with no concept of a resurrected/ redeemed creation. Framed incorrectly it is harder to find precedent in the Scriptures because an unbiblical notion should be harder to prove biblically. If, however, the afterlife is framed correctly as abundant life as creation dwelling with the Creator - sharing in the life and love of the eternal God - a new heavens and a new earth - then it becomes a lot easier to demonstrate biblically. Creation and Eden become pointers to ultimate reality, the idea of living eternally, whether death absent, are right there. The concept of losing and needing to regain the dwelling is God's presence starts in Eden, continues with Abraham directed by God to a better place with an eternal inheritance of generations. It's seen too in the image of the tabernacle and later temple, in a new place, the promised land. Then there is the faithfulness of God in keeping His promises even though people died without receiving the fullness of them. Even just the eternal, good nature of God Himself, all of these point towards eternal life and inheritance as sons of a perfect Father. The idea of a 'one and done' life is more abberant here. So I think we have not be dragged into a false conception of the 'afterlife'. As a last side note, the idea of an alternate dimension of some sort is required by the existence of God Himself, and the angels. The physical and spiritual interact at every point of the biblical story. We should not be surprised that human existence should also touch both aspects of reality. The question, instead, should be how.
To ransom the righteous from sheol is not talking about raising individuals from actual physical death (e.g. Ps 49). Sheol is already taking men before they die, as they fall in and face death. To be ransomed from sheol is, most of the time, to be saved from that impending death, and for one's life to be extended. Sheol is also the collective destination of the people and of God's people Israel. They died a spiritual death, through breaking the covenant and being judged and exiled and destroyed. It was from this collective national death that Israel was to be ransomed by the resurrection which is "the hope of Israel" (Acts. 28:20), the "hope in the promise made by God to our fathers, to which our twelve tribes hope to attain ... that God raises the dead" (Acts. 26:6-8). This was the one hope of Paul (Eph 4:4), that his brothers according to the flesh would not remain alienated from God (Rom. 9:1-5) but would instead enjoy "life from the dead" by means of their acceptance of the gospel (Rom. 11:15). It is in fulfilment of Hos. 13:14's ransoming from the power of sheol that Paul taught in 1 Cor 15, which would be when the problem of Israel's spiritual death would be taken care of, the death of Hos. 13 "When Ephraim spoke, there was trembling; he was exalted in Israel, but he incurred guilt through Baal and died." That death of Israel was because YHWH had torn her (Hos. 6:1) and slain her by the mouth of his prophets (Hos. 6:5), which death would be taken care of by her resurrection in Christ "on the third day" (Hos. 6:2), which Paul quotes in 1 Cor. 15:3-4. This resurrection of Israel, or more exactly "the dead ones" of Israel in 1 Cor. 15 would take place in fulfillment of Is. 25:6-8, at the great wedding feast of the Lamb, when death is swallowed up in victory (1 Cor. 15:53-55). This would be fulfilled when the power of the Law of Moses, the strength of sin, would be removed (1 Cor. 15:56). This would be fulfilled when "the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed" i.e. at the destruction of the Second Temple, made with hands (2 Cor. 5:1-4). At this time, the old Israel would not be ransomed from sheol, she would not rise to heaven (power), rather she and her towns would descend to Hades (i.e. sheol) (Mat. 11:20-24). At this time, the temple made with hands would be destroyed (Mark 14:58), and the great wedding feast would take place but Old Israel would miss out and be put to death by YHWH (Is. 65:13-15; Mat. 8:10-12; 22:1-14) at the destruction and judgement of "Babylon" (Rev. 19:1-9), the "Great City" where the Lord was crucified (Rev. 11:8).
I don't know any ancient religions without some form of "Afterlife" theories or beliefs. Not sure if Zoroastrianism really had that much influence considering even without the Judaism or Christianity, many religions developed rudimentary concepts of Heaven and Hell. If you examine, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese mythos, they are remarkably similar to the Christian concepts.
Love this topic. From Luke 20: 37 But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’[b] 38 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”
Seems quite strange that the earliest books of the old testament decided infinite bliss or infinite suffering for infinite time after death shouldn't be mentioned in unambiguous terms and often indicates contrary. I guess eternal fate after death is a side note though compared to earthly gains...
Probably because the whole idea of an eternal spiritual heaven, and hell isn't the perminant solution/salvation/damnation that the judo/Christian texts present The final deal in both judeasim, and Christianity is a bodily ressurection where everyone is essentially returned to an eden state of no death. So why would God make emphasis on revelation that isn't even what is going to happen? The grave/sheol/death is a temporary state of the universe due to sin, I'm the end everyone will be bodily ressurected and in their physical bodies spend eternity in the new heavens, and new earth or in ghenna. You aren't in some spirit realm forever in Christianity, or judeasim.
If there is a positive afterlife for the righteous, and if this afterlife was granted to righteous people who had less revelation from God than came later, then doesn't this mean that admittance into the afterlife cannot possibly depend on correct theology? If a person could be righteous before it was possible to have a Christian conception of God, then doesn't that mean that a modern person could also be righteous with an ignorant conception of God?
@@JadDragon he's talking about the idea that you have to believe the right propositions about the right figures using the right names as a prerequisite for Heavenly admission. IMO, that idea is the natural hopelessly divisive consequence when religion directs its focus to something as speculative as the Afterlife
Their righteousness was based on a faith regarding the promise of the Messiah, which is the equivalent of our faith in Christ as the way to be made righteous before God. None of us have correct theology, as we all have flaws in our thinking and cannot possibly correctly grasp God. I’m not sure what you’re trying to hint at, though.
Yes. Yes they did. I mean, where do you think they believed Elijah and Enoch went? When Jesus told the story of the poor man and Lazarus, "Abraham's bosom" was notcdonething the Jews did not understand. Otherwise, an explanation would've been given alongside it. In fact, in ancient times every people believed in some kind of afterlife. I think the idea of there being nothing is a more recent phenomenon.
Hey Gavin, can you please do a video about the Tree of Knowledge? The story of Eden bothers me, because it feels like God intentionally set up Adam and Eve to fail.
It may be the case that he did. Though not in a malevolent way. To explain further it may be actually practically impossible to create truly free beings like ourselves who never choose to sin. To have freedom of will also requires freedom of choice, and not just any choices, but important ones as well. If you create beings with the capability of free will, but only ever give them one option so that the cannot excersize said free will then you have functionally eliminated that free will. And they are not actually choosing the right choice, but rather you are only giving them 1 option. Adam and Eve had to have the real possibility, and option to choose an evil choice for their free will to mean anything, thus the tree they are forbidden to eat from must always be in reach and it must always be possible for them to choose to eat from it. Otherwise if that is not possible, they are not choosing to do the right thing of their own accird,but are boxed in having no other option than to not eat of it.
God did not set them up to fail. It was quite the opposite, actually. God educated the both of them about the 2 trees, and He didn't allow Satan to approach either one of them until their basic education was complete. God specifically told them not to eat the fruit from the tree of human reasoning, and He told them that they would die if they did so. God always gives ppl the tools they need to succeed. Their failure comes from not listening to Him.
In light of the Jews turning the bronze serpent Moses made into an idol, the implication exists that Satan wanted to influence the Israelites into turning Moses' corpse into an object of worship as well.
It shouldn't really be surprising that there was disagreement among the Ancient Israelites about the nature of (or even existence of) the afterlife. If they had a unified and obvious consensus, then it's really weird that the gospels would parenthetically explain that the Sadducees didn't believe in the afterlife. If no ancient Jews believed in the afterlife, then that's just wasted words, it wouldn't have been necessary for the author to add that detail. And the existence of a group of ancient Jews who didn't believe in the afterlife precludes the Jews from being doctrinally united on a belief in it.
I have never understood the argument that theres bo afterlife in the OT or Torah when it's so clear. Jesus lives! ♥️ and is God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
If there is no afterlife, where did Enoch go to? Why did God tell Moses from the burning bush “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”. The patriarchs were dead yet God speaks of them in the present.
A present tense verb doesn’t need to have a presently existing object. If I met a friend of my grandpa I would say “I’m Bob’s grandson” using the present tense since I am present, even though he died 8 years ago.
Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him." Hebrews 11:5 adds: "By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, 'and was not found, because God had taken him'; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God." Some erroneously jump to the conclusion that Enoch was taken up into heaven, but notice the Bible nowhere says this. It simply says that God "took him." It does not specify where he was taken. Jesus Christ later states in the Gospel of John that "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). One of the points He makes is that one passage of the Bible cannot contradict another passage. This same Gospel of John reveals a startling fact very pertinent to this matter: "No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven" (John 3:13). Clearly, Jesus Christ was the only human being who had ascended into heaven. The phrase "who is in heaven" lets us know that this was written by the apostle John after Christ's return to heaven. So even as late as this statement, no human being-and that includes Enoch-had ascended into heaven. We later read about Enoch's fate in Hebrews 11:5: "By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, 'and was not found, because God had taken him'; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God." The word rendered "taken" can also mean "transferred elsewhere." And the New American Standard Bible says this was done "so that he would not see death"-a better translation than "did not," as we know from the same chapter of Hebrews that he died. Notice in verse 13 the summary given of all of the men and women of faith listed here, including Enoch: "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth" (Hebrews 11:13). So Enoch definitely died as well as all the rest. How, then, can it be that Enoch was transferred elsewhere so he wouldn't see death? God doesn't give us all the details of what happened, but a few scenarios have been proposed that do not conflict with the fact that Enoch died as the Bible says. It may be that God transported Enoch elsewhere to keep him from being killed at a certain time-perhaps protecting him from martyrdom at the hands of angry persecutors who didn't like his announcement of coming divine judgment (see Jude 14-16). God likewise supernaturally transported Elijah and Philip to other places on earth (see 2 Kings 2:11; Acts 8:39). On the other hand, we should observe that Enoch died young for his time-at age 365 while those before and after him lived into their 800s and 900s. Because of this, some speculate that God "took him" from life prematurely so that he would not have to live out his remaining centuries in a miserable world (compare Isaiah 57:1-2). His next moment of consciousness will be the resurrection. In this case, "so that he would not see death" would refer to his not having to experience the process of dying-his life ending instantly. Still others, putting the likelihood of Enoch experiencing persecution together with his early death, have concluded that Enoch was murdered-martyred for his preaching. Enoch being taken and not found would then refer to God removing his body and burying it-as happened with Moses (Deuteronomy 34:5-6). In this case, Enoch being taken or transferred so that he would not see death is taken as separate matter-that of him being spiritually converted, transferred from the world's ways to God's way of living, so that he would not see ultimate death in the lake of fire (compare Colossians 1:13; John 8:51). Again, we don't have enough details to know exactly what is intended. But we do know that Enoch did not skip death and go to heaven. He died, and no human being has ascended to heaven except Jesus Christ.
So, maybe there wasn't much mention of the afterlife in the OT due to the souls of the righteous going to Abraham's Bossom as Christ had not yet died for their sins.
There wans't even Abraham's Bossom in the OT, it is most probably a development of the idea that the dead would join their ancestors. Since Abraham was Israel's patriarch, people though they would meet him, but where Abraham whet when he died? The this is that in the OT its very clear that God created human being to live on Earth, and there's no hope of life during death.
There is an indirect reference, at least according to Milgrom, in Leviticus. Milgrom alludes to it in his treatment of the dietary prohibition against eating port, explaining that part of the reason for doing so was the sacrifice of pigs in the worship of the gods of the underworld by Israel's neighbors. Ecclesiastes also speaks of divine judgement after death and I'm pretty sure the book is regarded as pre-exilic. None of this means that Ancient Israel had a neoplatonic vision of "heaven" understood as a realm distinct from the world where all is disembodied perfection. Even today Orthodox Jews believe in a resurrection to life in a perfected earth, a sort of global Eden, after messiah comes. Think Rev 21 where John describes it.
Enoch went to heaven in a body. Elijah in a body Moses was resurrected? Michael contending over his body Jesus didn't go to heaven until after his resurrection All explicit people going to heaven did so bodily. Except Moses, which is unclear, but is it unclear? Not really.
Baby, wake up. New Ortlund video just dropped
Amen!
I’m Catholic, and you are one of my favorite Protestants! Thank you for your work!
Trent Horn is my my favorite Catholic apologist.
@@davidjanbaz7728. Trent Horn is not a loving Christian with his attacks on Protestants. He does not believe! John 4: 20-21. He is far from as compassionate as Dr. Ortlund.
…Your favorite Protestant who you believe WILL burn in hell for all eternity, regardless of how passionately he professes that Christ is the Lord.
Which is a fundamental doctrine of Roman Catholicism, AND orthodox Catholicism.
If you don’t believe that EVERY “Christian” that doesn’t bow to your EXACT flavor of Catholicism is damned, then you aren’t Catholic.
Heck, according to the 2nd council of Nicaea, you YOURSELF are currently committing an anathema simply by interacting with us (for the fact that we refuse to kiss the feet of statues).
Bit sick, isn’t it?
@@NP-vk8de Agree. I also follow Trent and he is far from Gavin. I also see this towards people when you compare Catholics and Protestants.
@@NP-vk8de Trent is very mild for an internet apologist. He was also very polite in his debates with protestants. I think he can be a little bit Superior at times, but i don't think that's a reason to say such things.
For a fire has flared in My anger,
And it burns to the lowest part of Sheol,
And devours the earth with its yield,
And sets on fire the foundations of the mountains. ~ Deut 32:32
I think this verse shows that Sheol is more than just a hole in the dirt where you place a body. There is an understanding that it is a place of the dead, that has layers and depths to it.
I had the strangest dream last night. Dr. Ortlund became pope and Jimmy Aiken had to give him a papal hat.
lol =D. I'm reminded of the line in the 1994 movie "Angels in the Outfield", "It could happen."
😂😂
Gavin would certainly be a better Pope doctrinally than Francis lol/.
Was he wearing his cowboy hat?
Thank God Dr.Gavin is married with children. He's resoundingly disqualified from such bewitchment.
I’m a Catholic that really likes your work Gavin, keep it up!
The easiest way to prove the afterlife in the Torah is by considering what God said to both Aaron and especially Moses when they died. Moses died alone in the land of Moab after going up Mount Nebo and no one knows where his grave even is. However, God told him that he would be "gathered to your people" after he died (Deut. 32:50). This being 'gathered with ones people' in death must here be regarded as beyond the physical gathering in a tomb with other relatives. For how could God tell Moses he would be "gathered to his people" when Moses died alone with no one else nearby. This suggests to me that there is a spiritual gathering together of people after death, and I think the rest of Scripture makes clear that this place is sheol.
Luke 20:34-38
Luke 20:37-38
"“Moses even indicated in the passage about the burning bush that the dead are raised, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead but of the living, because all are living to him.”"
My browser says that this video came out 30 minutes ago, but that your comment was posted 8 days ago. How is that possible?
@@brendangolledge8312 he releases his videos early for members and patrons
I brought this scripture up "......God is not the God of the dead...." to a JW and he said "Well, God's thinking about you is the same as you living and God thinks about everyone."
🤦🤦🤦
The surrounding context of that passage is about the resurrection.
@@SpaceCadet4Jesusweird response but that’s basically only about the resurrection and not “souls” in heaven.
It is always so beautiful how you end with the gospel story. Thank you, as always, for this one! It was very insightful and interesting.
Can't believe you're still cranking out content. Thank you so much for all your hard work, this particular topic has interested me for some time.
Great video Gavin! One extra potential piece of evidence. The midwives in exodus one choose to disobey the pharaoh out of fear of the Lord.
Disobeying the pharaoh could bring about death. However, Douglas Stuart points out in the NAC that the midwives had a great fear for judgment from God in the afterlife and held that judgment as greater than what pharaoh could do in this life.
It should not be surprising for Christians that there were many Israelites who had wrong beliefs about the afterlife, most of Israel couldn’t even stay away from polytheism and worshipping idols.
Is it not a little peculiar that in those times when the Lord God spoke with his people directly (Joseph, Moses, Joshua, the Judges, etc) that He did not once assure any of them about their salvation in the life to come? Or, in the reverse case, threaten Hell as punishment for their disobedience?
@@paulallenscards
There were enough passages presented in this video alone to show that they probably had a basic implicit understanding of that.
@@Michiganman800 did we watch the same video? Gavin cited Genesis 5 about God ‘taking’ Enoch, which is itself an ambiguous statement, but that was it. This was the one and only piece of scripture he cited which is traditionally understood as being written before Israel was ruled by kings (from Adam up through the Judges).
@@paulallenscards the video I watched appeared to be special pleading for the afterlife (via ad hoc sophistry centered on, "See, doesn't this nicely fit the expected pattern of progressive Divine revelation of something deep in our religious instincts?") to get the audience to double down on an afterlife-based Pascalian Wager
@WayneDrake-uk1gg your special pleading is always fun to read.
Great video, Gavin. This is something that I have always wondered about and you did a great job addressing it.
When we feel lost and confused in this difficult world we should remember that every OT saint felt that way too. Too often we forget that they didn't know how the story would end. They couldn't. God hadn't revealed it yet. But as Paul says of Abraham in Romans"faith was accredited to him as righteousness." Abraham had unaswered questions and doubts, but he was given enough to believe. It shouldn't surprise us that he had to trust God. We are just further along in the story.
I like the wide range of faces Dr. Ortlund makes for each video thumbnail. Dope acting skills!
Love your final highlighting of "into heaven".
Five stars... but, too short! I could have sat around for a couple of hours listening to this topic. On a second re-wind, as a consolation. Thank you!
Yes, could have been longer. 15 minutes is short for Gavin.
Glad to see you all normal and stuff. I love your material Gavin and vis a vis love you as a Christian brother and hold you in the highest regards for your undying commitment to the Body of Christ
Such an interesting topic to cover thank you Gavin.
Mitch Chase's book "Resurrection Hope and the Death of Death (Short Studies in Biblical Theology)" was super helpful in seeing resurrection very early on within the canon.
Your videos are always excellent. Thank you
I really appreciate this video! Only recently had I encountered this claim that the Old Testament and ancient Israelites didn’t teach a concept of the afterlife, and I was uncertain how to respond. Thanks for highlighting these points!
Instant download. Thank you, Gavin.
Great work as always!
Fascinating, important, and very well done! Thank you for mentioning the Book of Job. My favorite example from it is chapter 16, especially versus 13-17, but don't skip the opening lines and imagery. :)
I thought of a cool verse showing there's an afterlife in the Torah. I even think someone has used this one before? It goes:
*I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.*
I remember a passage from the Talmud where they speak of the phrasing of Abraham being “gathered to his people” or “placed with his ancestors”when he was not physically buried in his homeland with them as being indicative of an afterlife
The older and more infirm i get, the more I look forward to being "gathered to my people."
Hi Gavin, love your stuff. PLEASE would you do a talk on the idea of the gebira in the Old Testament and its links to the RC belief that Mary is the Gebira and as such Queen of Heave. God bless
Beautiful! Cant wait for your book!
And Jesus put it simply
“And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.”” (Matthew 22:31-32, ESV)
Thank you for the video brother Gavin.
I think the Anastasis icon explains nicely early Christian understanding of this. The righteous were all in Sheol until Christ rescued them. I love the picture of Christ bringing Adam & Eve up from Sheol.
How can they say that no one believed in the afterlife? They came out of Egypt, where they built pyramids and cities for the glory of Pharaoh in the afterlife.
I try to remind myself that today we have the benefit of the New Testament through which more truth was revealed. The example of Enoch, the message to Moses from The Burning Bush of “I AM” and references to GOD as the GOD of Abraham, Issac and Jacob seem to be indications of a broader perspective about our states of existence.
Thanks Gavin! Very interesting
Interesting presentation. Thank you.
David said he took comfort in knowing he would see his dead baby again. Ps 23 "Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me, and afterwards I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever." Samuel was "in existence" when Saul seanced him up. Jesus reminded Nicodemus and the religious Jews that "they did error" on the Scriptures regarding marriage, afterlife, born again, legalism and ultimately the Messiah. God is the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, the God of the living." Jesus John 11"I am the resurrection, he that believes on Me shall never die"
Amen. The first thing i thought of was the end of Psalm 23. Also God took Enoch.
Couldn’t he just saw his baby again when they resurrected? The spirit being Samual is pretty dubious. And the rest does point to a resurrection but not as a “soul” in heaven.
Remember in the case of Elijah, the men in that passage had concluded that God casted Elijah upon a mountain or valley. The chariot created a whirlwind (tornado) which swooped him into “heaven” but that could simply mean the sky. The purpose was that Elisha would not leave his master. And remember in 2 Chronicles 12-15 Elijah wrote a letter to King Jehoram. This was about 10 years after his whirlwind ride.
Quite obviously if you read chapter 1 and 2 Elijah was in conflict with the king who wanted to arrest him. The king is in power, in heaven. The king took up Elijah to this heaven by the “fire” (power) of the horses and chariots of Israel, I.e his armed forces, hence “chariots of fire”. Elisha is very upset about it and cries out that God failed them, and tore his clothes. Come on people, it isn’t that hard to decode the idiom and phrases and follow what’s going on!
Why are many Christians afraid of the idea that an idea like "what happens after death?" changed thruout time as reflected in the Bible?
Excellent, as usual!
I freely admit, I would like to continue living after death. I don’t find it remotely plausible, but I totally get the existential motive for hope and belief in resurrection.
As for the historical question, even though I’m more on board with critical scholarly reconstructions than you are, I broadly agree with your conclusion. Wouldn’t it be surprising for there to be absolutely no concept of an afterlife in the OT? Belief in an afterlife has been common throughout history.
A fascinating note is that although Samaritan Scriptures don't contain the Jewish Prophets, Samaritans still developed a belief in the resurrection, paradise, and a coming Messiah. See John 4 specifically for clear evidence for belief in a Messiah/Taheb figure. While it's difficult to determine exactly when the doctrine of resurrection began within Samaritanism, the fact that such an idea is derived solely from the Books of Moses within the Samaritan system shows that the concept of resurrection (and a Messiah!) can be organically deduced from the Pentateuch alone, and is not simply an innovation of Second Temple Jewish literature.
excellent point
Nice vid, great job!
Thank you for the concise and biblical argument for ancient Israel believing in the afterlife!
In a similar vein of thought, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about John Crowder's biblical, moral, theological, historical/patriarchal, and Christological arguments that "hell is a severe, corrective, and restorative reality" (video: Hell & Apokatastasis - The Consuming Fire Episode 1 of 10 - The Jesus Trip with John Crowder). May God bless you in your work for Jesus!
It is a given that people in the OT believed in the afterlife since everone around them did.
Interesting topic. Thank you
Just because the biblical authors believed x doesn’t mean that God endorsed x. Even if x is mentioned or referred to in the bible. This makes it unsafe to make arguments about the afterlife teachings of the bible based on the assumptions about what they meant by or understood about the afterlife that they mentioned or referred to.
It appears that there are and always have been many different and conflicting ideas and assumptions about death and the afterlife both in the ancient world and among the people of God including the biblical writers.
The Old Testament does however make some clear affirmations that the dead are dead and no longer know anything or do anything. They can’t praise YHWH. They can’t hear the prayers of the living, and even if they could, they have no power to answer them or provide any help. And that they don’t come back, they rise not. Like water poured out on the ground they cannot be gathered back. Unlike a tree cut down, a man will not spring up and grow back. The good the bad, the wise and the foolish, are alike in death, they go to the same place. Those who are born dead or miscarried are the same as those who life’s a full life. The slave and his master are the same. Death is the great leveller. All men die, no one escapes. And none come back.
This teaching and understanding forms the basis for further teaching about the death and resurrection of Israel as a nation, as a covenant people, as a body, e.g. the valley of dry bones in Ez. 37. This material should not be misunderstood as claiming individuals will have new physical life after death at the resurrection, or that they are conscious while waiting for it.
LOVE THIS!
Great video!
Great video
Isn't Job often dated before Moses as well, and certainly long before the exile? Great video thanks
Yes. Job lived long before the time of Moses.
The OT had a notion of the afterlife - it was called resurrection. Same as in the NT. Resurrection and eternal life is always portrayed as the hope of the righteous/saved.
But a disembodied floating around as a ghost is never taught. There are a few verses that if you start with the presupposition of a disembodied ghostly existing could be interpreted that way, but those same verses can be interpreted other ways just as easily, if more more easily. So I just don't think a disembodied ghostly afterlife is what any Biblical author spoke about.
into heaven Where Jesus is. a very happy thing.
Do a video on the harrowing of hades
David thought he would see again the baby he and Betsheva had, who died so young.
Job 19 should put to bed the idea that a resurrection and therefore some kind of afterlife was known in ancient israel if not pre-israel
Great topic
Didn’t Martha at the death of Lazarus say to Jesus “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day”? John 11:24. She was a devout Jewish lady wasn’t she?
Yes, Martha was an Orthodox Jew, most likely of the Pharisaical variety since they believed in the resurrection.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779
Perhaps she was simply a ‘born again believer’? (John’s gospel Chap. 3). Being an Orthodox Jew never saved anyone!
Quick question? Did ancient Israel believe in a bodily resurrection? If not, then why did Joseph make the sons of Israel swear to take his bones to the promised land after he died? (Genesis 50:25) Then reading Hebrews 11:13-16 speaks about the patriarchs dying in faith, seeking a heavenly city whose builder is God. Although it is not explicitly said, we can assume that, in conjunction with the mentioned Job passage from the video, that some of the Israelites did believe in a bodily resurrection (of course this is disputed later by the Sadducees). And of course, the famous passage where Jesus says that God is the God of the living, not the dead (He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob).
Can not begin to hope in the ressurrection, if we have not first learnt to hope for abundant life on Earth.
C.S.Lewis, “Reflections on the Psalms” Chapter 4 is about this issue.
Hebrews 11:17-19. 1 Samuel 28. Elijah resurrected a child from the dead. Resurrection alone suggests an afterlife
That's not the Torah though
@@williamnathanael412that's Hebrew scripture though!
Torah just = first 5 books.
If resurrection suggests afterlife, birth suggests you existed before you were born.
@@everttonterra2572 resurrection literally is life after death, or afterlife. Now tell me how birth suggests you existed before you were born
Dr. Ortlund, thanks for the video. In relation to your particular understanding of progressive revelation, do you hold to the view that Dr. Fuller did, for example, that the when it comes to the Old Cov and New Cov that it’s a continuum and not a contrast?
Doc Ortlund, would you consider changing the format of slides so that the Scripture and other citations aren't covered by the video control bar when paused? 😅 I suppose others may have had the same problem. 🤷♂ Thanks
The "What if it's true?" segment is SUCH effective evangelism! QUESTION: Has Gavin made a video that centers on that angle, or one that includes it and would be better suited for sharing with nonbelievers, evangelistically, than this one?
Could you make a video further talking about some peoples’ claims that Zoroastrianism influenced the biblical writers during the Babylonian exile? I’ve heard some people claim that but I’ve also heard other claims that it actually went the other way: that Zoroastrianism was much more of a polytheistic religion initially that was influenced in a monotheistic direction later on by westerners in the 19th century.
1 Samuel seems to presuppose that unembodied human spirits persist in the identity they had prior to physical death …
Great video. Do you think the book of Enoch has any validity? I don’t know much about it but it seems to me that if it were cannon, it would bridge a lot of the apparent gaps in OT afterlife theology and the NT. Thoughts?
Love the appeal at the end... What if this is true?
For those who walked with God in ancient times, to be close to him in this life offered the assurance of something more, even if they didn't understand completely what that would mean.
Since we have the resurrection of Christ in the body as our exemplar, so do we have the Spirit's assurance of resting in his grace after leaving this body behind, until the end of this age and the resurrection of the righteous to glorified bodies.
I believe the righteous dead in the times before Christ's resurrection went to Abraham's Bosom (Paradise).
Agree completely with you. On a relevant note, I love videos about Abraham's Basham than Meghan Basham.
That's not what the Bible teaches though, because Heb. 11 clearly states that none of the faithful inherited eternal life yet. Put the traditions and personal beliefs aside and look at what _God_ says. Traditions and personal beliefs don't determine the truth. _God's Word is truth_ (Jhn 17:17)!
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 I don’t see how Hebrews 11 contradicts anything I said. What “I believe” is because of what Scripture teaches not in spite of it.
After he was crucified the Son of Man was three days in the heart of the earth. [Matt 12:40]. There he preached to the spirits in prison [ 1 Peter 3:19] who had left their proper dwelling place [Jude 1:6; 2 Peter 2:4] and committed great atrocities in the eyes of God [Genesis 6:1-4]. After proclaiming victory he freed the righteous dead from Abraham’s bosom to ascend with Him in his resurrection to be with the Father.
Peter wrote in 1 Peter 3:19 that Jesus "preached to the spirits in prison" through the power of God's Spirit and that these spirits had been disobedient. "Spirits" refers to angels. Which angels disobeyed? Biblical history shows that Lucifer initially rebelled against God, at which time he became "Satan" or the opponent of God (Isaiah 14:12-14; Ezekiel 28:12-16). He subsequently drew a third of the angelic creation into mutiny against God (Revelation 12:4).
When these formerly righteous spirits rebelled, they became demons. We learn more about these spirits and their "prison" in 2 Peter 2:4. The word translated "hell" in this verse is from the Greek word tartarus, which doesn't mean "hell" in the way that people today commonly think of it. Rather, it means a place of restraint-that is, a prison.
These fallen angels turned from their purpose of serving God and humanity (Hebrews 1:13-14); their rebellion reduced them to hatred and bitterness toward God and His holy purpose for humanity. Their place of restraint is this earth, until God deals with them further in the future.
Putting this information together with 1 Peter 3:20, Jesus apparently confronted these rebellious spirits at the time of Noah's Flood. The Bible doesn't reveal why He did this.
The idea that an afterlife originated with a specific empire, or group, seems unlikely. Especially knowing that the resurrection would make clear it's a sound idea. I would image the idea is as old as imagination.
That's a really good point. Just because one culture focuses on an idea doesn't mean no one else thinks about it.
But I wouldn't be surprised if contact with different cultures led to a refinement of certain ideas. I think we see this in the early Church. Varoius heresies force the leaders to push back on bad doctrine.
Doesn’t the OT talk about Enoch? If he didn’t die then where did he go?
And Elijah!
Heaven is where they went !
@@jjphank no. John 3:13.
@@riverjao Wrong, Ephesians 4:8-11 when Jesus led captives in his train During the three days of his death he led Abrahams bosom into heaven.
2 Peter 2 says he ascended into hell at his death and this cross references the Ephesians passage above how he Descended, and ascended into heaven and then he gave gifts, spiritual gifts to men, so why would we need spiritual gifts after this world is over? We wouldn’t.
He told the thief on the cross today you will be with me in paradise.!
We were told what we die we will so forever be with the Lord Jesus, when we meet him, we will not be separate !
At the Stoning of Stephen Jesus stood up as to welcome Stephen To heaven acts 7-8
Jesus says “well done, good and faithful servant”
Study the Ephesians passage
@@riverjaoParadise like the murderer on the Cross ✝️ .
That's an afterlife that will be added into Heaven after Jesus Atonement on the Cross when Jesus Atonement actually forgives their SiN.
The sacrifices just covered their SiN and prevented judgment until Jesus Atonement payed the Full price for SiN. Past, present and future.
My understanding was that all went to Sheol and as you say had the hope, if vague, that Christ would rescue them for future resurrection. Keeping in mind the word Jesus used for what he was about to do in the Transfiguration was literally "exodus."
"It's cryptic, but it's there."
Acts 23:8. The pharisees did. David did, as he spoke often about resurrection. Daniel was told he would see God on the last day. Isaiah prophesied of the millennium.
Saul spoke to the spirit of Samuel
Saul spoke to a demon disguising itself as Samuel. The witch clearly tells Saul that the spirit came from the ground(1 Sam. 28:13), the same place Jude mentions as the place that God used as a prison for demons(Jude 6). Ecclesiastes says that everyone's spirit returns to God when they die(Ecc. 3:21) and that they have no awareness when they die(Ecc. 9:5), so it clearly wasn't the real Samuel. Dead ppl can't talk.
My very tentative interpretation is that the afterlife itself was objectively different in OT ("Abraham's Bosom" being the best one could expect) and that, through/after the atonement, the believers of OT times could be taken to a more desirable afterlife and that believers no longer go to "Abraham's Bosom". I am not confident in that view though, I just think it is one possible view that may or may not best harmonize what the Bible teaches and my current leaning. I would take this idea with a grain of salt, I am not even confident in it.
I have more confidence in saying that it appears to me that while Scripture certainly seems to AT LEAST hint toward an afterlife in the oldest OT books[for those with the faith and hope to see], I see no problem with supposing that many of the hebrews didn't pick up on it and may have been uncertain about an afterlife. Remember that some of the most profound teachings in the Bible, only became clear to believers in hindsight. The Bible prophesies God's incarnation, but I suspect that even some/most of the OT prophets did not connect the dots and were not expecting the incarnation. I wouldn't blame them because the incarnation is an astoundingly wonderful thing that would be a shock even to a prophet. I think that David and Isiah might have been privileged with revelation of the incarnation, maybe shown things that even other prophets might not have had revealed to them. I remember that Ecclesiastes comes across as agnostic about afterlife in at least one place
Ecclesiastes 3:19-22
"Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?” So I saw that there is nothing better for a person than to enjoy their work, because that is their lot. For who can bring them to see what will happen after them?"
This doesn't bother me, it is not the scandal that some people might think it is. I just feel privileged to live in a time where God has made the hope for an afterlife crystal clear to us just as the prophecies of the Incarnation have been made clear to us in hindsight.We could possibly even say that the prophesies of the Incarnation have been made clear, but only in hindsight. If God has to make all wonderful things clear to us in order for Him to be faithful, then we must conclude that He was unfaithful to the OT believers and unfaithful to those of us[like me] who did not even see the teaching of the incarnation in the Bible until God opened my eyes to it. I am sure there are more wonderful things He will show us in the future. I don't understand the entitled mindset that God is required to make every spiritual or theological thing clear to us. I understand being disturbed by God keeping things ambiguous for people if we are assuming that these cases of ambiguity stood in the way of their salvation, but it seems like a huge stretch to me to assume that the believers in OT times had to believe in afterlife to be saved, Christians are required to believe because we have been given more revelation and clarity than believers of OT times. They were deprived of the New Testament. I am sure that if you went to heaven and asked the believers of OT times how they feel about God depriving them of clear revelation of the incarnation and afterlife, none of them would complain or accuse God of unfaithfulness! They would praise God for His wise and loving plans.
Well David knew he will never see Absalon again but he will be reunited to his baby with Bethsheba.
sounding like john henry newman there for a second.
But concerning the dead, that they rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. You are therefore greatly mistaken.”
Psalm 1
[1] Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; [2] but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night. [3] He is like a tree planted by streams of water, that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers. [4] The wicked are not so, but are like chaff which the wind drives away. [5] Therefore the wicked will not stand in *_the judgment,_* nor sinners in the *_congregation of the righteous;_* [6] for the Lord knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.
What is the judgement? What, the assembly of the righteous?
Try to answer this without any understanding of the last times with judgement that separates just and unjust into two ways of bliss or destruction.
I don’t think enoch shows there is a general afterlife. Just because a person was taken to where God is doesn’t mean others would go there
Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him." Hebrews 11:5 adds: "By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, 'and was not found, because God had taken him'; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God."
Some erroneously jump to the conclusion that Enoch was taken up into heaven, but notice the Bible nowhere says this. It simply says that God "took him." It does not specify where he was taken.
Jesus Christ later states in the Gospel of John that "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). One of the points He makes is that one passage of the Bible cannot contradict another passage.
This same Gospel of John reveals a startling fact very pertinent to this matter: "No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven" (John 3:13).
Clearly, Jesus Christ was the only human being who had ascended into heaven. The phrase "who is in heaven" lets us know that this was written by the apostle John after Christ's return to heaven. So even as late as this statement, no human being-and that includes Enoch-had ascended into heaven.
We later read about Enoch's fate in Hebrews 11:5: "By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, 'and was not found, because God had taken him'; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God." The word rendered "taken" can also mean "transferred elsewhere." And the New American Standard Bible says this was done "so that he would not see death"-a better translation than "did not," as we know from the same chapter of Hebrews that he died.
Notice in verse 13 the summary given of all of the men and women of faith listed here, including Enoch: "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth" (Hebrews 11:13). So Enoch definitely died as well as all the rest.
How, then, can it be that Enoch was transferred elsewhere so he wouldn't see death? God doesn't give us all the details of what happened, but a few scenarios have been proposed that do not conflict with the fact that Enoch died as the Bible says.
It may be that God transported Enoch elsewhere to keep him from being killed at a certain time-perhaps protecting him from martyrdom at the hands of angry persecutors who didn't like his announcement of coming divine judgment (see Jude 14-16). God likewise supernaturally transported Elijah and Philip to other places on earth (see 2 Kings 2:11; Acts 8:39).
On the other hand, we should observe that Enoch died young for his time-at age 365 while those before and after him lived into their 800s and 900s. Because of this, some speculate that God "took him" from life prematurely so that he would not have to live out his remaining centuries in a miserable world (compare Isaiah 57:1-2). His next moment of consciousness will be the resurrection. In this case, "so that he would not see death" would refer to his not having to experience the process of dying-his life ending instantly.
Still others, putting the likelihood of Enoch experiencing persecution together with his early death, have concluded that Enoch was murdered-martyred for his preaching. Enoch being taken and not found would then refer to God removing his body and burying it-as happened with Moses (Deuteronomy 34:5-6).
In this case, Enoch being taken or transferred so that he would not see death is taken as separate matter-that of him being spiritually converted, transferred from the world's ways to God's way of living, so that he would not see ultimate death in the lake of fire (compare Colossians 1:13; John 8:51).
Again, we don't have enough details to know exactly what is intended. But we do know that Enoch did not skip death and go to heaven. He died, and no human being has ascended to heaven except Jesus Christ.
Maybe the question is framed incorrectly? The idea of an afterlife can be presented erroneously as the ultimate destiny is heaven and hell with no concept of a resurrected/ redeemed creation. Framed incorrectly it is harder to find precedent in the Scriptures because an unbiblical notion should be harder to prove biblically. If, however, the afterlife is framed correctly as abundant life as creation dwelling with the Creator - sharing in the life and love of the eternal God - a new heavens and a new earth - then it becomes a lot easier to demonstrate biblically. Creation and Eden become pointers to ultimate reality, the idea of living eternally, whether death absent, are right there. The concept of losing and needing to regain the dwelling is God's presence starts in Eden, continues with Abraham directed by God to a better place with an eternal inheritance of generations. It's seen too in the image of the tabernacle and later temple, in a new place, the promised land.
Then there is the faithfulness of God in keeping His promises even though people died without receiving the fullness of them. Even just the eternal, good nature of God Himself, all of these point towards eternal life and inheritance as sons of a perfect Father. The idea of a 'one and done' life is more abberant here.
So I think we have not be dragged into a false conception of the 'afterlife'.
As a last side note, the idea of an alternate dimension of some sort is required by the existence of God Himself, and the angels. The physical and spiritual interact at every point of the biblical story. We should not be surprised that human existence should also touch both aspects of reality. The question, instead, should be how.
To ransom the righteous from sheol is not talking about raising individuals from actual physical death (e.g. Ps 49). Sheol is already taking men before they die, as they fall in and face death. To be ransomed from sheol is, most of the time, to be saved from that impending death, and for one's life to be extended. Sheol is also the collective destination of the people and of God's people Israel. They died a spiritual death, through breaking the covenant and being judged and exiled and destroyed. It was from this collective national death that Israel was to be ransomed by the resurrection which is "the hope of Israel" (Acts. 28:20), the "hope in the promise made by God to our fathers, to which our twelve tribes hope to attain ... that God raises the dead" (Acts. 26:6-8). This was the one hope of Paul (Eph 4:4), that his brothers according to the flesh would not remain alienated from God (Rom. 9:1-5) but would instead enjoy "life from the dead" by means of their acceptance of the gospel (Rom. 11:15). It is in fulfilment of Hos. 13:14's ransoming from the power of sheol that Paul taught in 1 Cor 15, which would be when the problem of Israel's spiritual death would be taken care of, the death of Hos. 13 "When Ephraim spoke, there was trembling; he was exalted in Israel, but he incurred guilt through Baal and died." That death of Israel was because YHWH had torn her (Hos. 6:1) and slain her by the mouth of his prophets (Hos. 6:5), which death would be taken care of by her resurrection in Christ "on the third day" (Hos. 6:2), which Paul quotes in 1 Cor. 15:3-4. This resurrection of Israel, or more exactly "the dead ones" of Israel in 1 Cor. 15 would take place in fulfillment of Is. 25:6-8, at the great wedding feast of the Lamb, when death is swallowed up in victory (1 Cor. 15:53-55). This would be fulfilled when the power of the Law of Moses, the strength of sin, would be removed (1 Cor. 15:56). This would be fulfilled when "the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed" i.e. at the destruction of the Second Temple, made with hands (2 Cor. 5:1-4).
At this time, the old Israel would not be ransomed from sheol, she would not rise to heaven (power), rather she and her towns would descend to Hades (i.e. sheol) (Mat. 11:20-24). At this time, the temple made with hands would be destroyed (Mark 14:58), and the great wedding feast would take place but Old Israel would miss out and be put to death by YHWH (Is. 65:13-15; Mat. 8:10-12; 22:1-14) at the destruction and judgement of "Babylon" (Rev. 19:1-9), the "Great City" where the Lord was crucified (Rev. 11:8).
I don't know any ancient religions without some form of "Afterlife" theories or beliefs. Not sure if Zoroastrianism really had that much influence considering even without the Judaism or Christianity, many religions developed rudimentary concepts of Heaven and Hell. If you examine, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese mythos, they are remarkably similar to the Christian concepts.
Love this topic. From Luke 20: 37 But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’[b] 38 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”
Seems quite strange that the earliest books of the old testament decided infinite bliss or infinite suffering for infinite time after death shouldn't be mentioned in unambiguous terms and often indicates contrary. I guess eternal fate after death is a side note though compared to earthly gains...
Who can understand why books decide what they do.
Probably because the whole idea of an eternal spiritual heaven, and hell isn't the perminant solution/salvation/damnation that the judo/Christian texts present
The final deal in both judeasim, and Christianity is a bodily ressurection where everyone is essentially returned to an eden state of no death.
So why would God make emphasis on revelation that isn't even what is going to happen? The grave/sheol/death is a temporary state of the universe due to sin, I'm the end everyone will be bodily ressurected and in their physical bodies spend eternity in the new heavens, and new earth or in ghenna.
You aren't in some spirit realm forever in Christianity, or judeasim.
If there is a positive afterlife for the righteous, and if this afterlife was granted to righteous people who had less revelation from God than came later, then doesn't this mean that admittance into the afterlife cannot possibly depend on correct theology? If a person could be righteous before it was possible to have a Christian conception of God, then doesn't that mean that a modern person could also be righteous with an ignorant conception of God?
Hopefully. Because, after all, we are all ignorant about God
What do you mean by correct theology?
@@JadDragon he's talking about the idea that you have to believe the right propositions about the right figures using the right names as a prerequisite for Heavenly admission. IMO, that idea is the natural hopelessly divisive consequence when religion directs its focus to something as speculative as the Afterlife
Their righteousness was based on a faith regarding the promise of the Messiah, which is the equivalent of our faith in Christ as the way to be made righteous before God. None of us have correct theology, as we all have flaws in our thinking and cannot possibly correctly grasp God. I’m not sure what you’re trying to hint at, though.
@@WayneDrake-uk1gg I'll wait for him to answer, thanks.
Yes. Yes they did.
I mean, where do you think they believed Elijah and Enoch went?
When Jesus told the story of the poor man and Lazarus, "Abraham's bosom" was notcdonething the Jews did not understand. Otherwise, an explanation would've been given alongside it.
In fact, in ancient times every people believed in some kind of afterlife.
I think the idea of there being nothing is a more recent phenomenon.
Hey Gavin, can you please do a video about the Tree of Knowledge? The story of Eden bothers me, because it feels like God intentionally set up Adam and Eve to fail.
It may be the case that he did. Though not in a malevolent way.
To explain further it may be actually practically impossible to create truly free beings like ourselves who never choose to sin.
To have freedom of will also requires freedom of choice, and not just any choices, but important ones as well.
If you create beings with the capability of free will, but only ever give them one option so that the cannot excersize said free will then you have functionally eliminated that free will. And they are not actually choosing the right choice, but rather you are only giving them 1 option. Adam and Eve had to have the real possibility, and option to choose an evil choice for their free will to mean anything, thus the tree they are forbidden to eat from must always be in reach and it must always be possible for them to choose to eat from it. Otherwise if that is not possible, they are not choosing to do the right thing of their own accird,but are boxed in having no other option than to not eat of it.
Bishop Barron has some great videos on genesis
God did not set them up to fail. It was quite the opposite, actually. God educated the both of them about the 2 trees, and He didn't allow Satan to approach either one of them until their basic education was complete. God specifically told them not to eat the fruit from the tree of human reasoning, and He told them that they would die if they did so. God always gives ppl the tools they need to succeed. Their failure comes from not listening to Him.
Why was there a dispute between Satan and Michael regarding Moses’ corpse?
In light of the Jews turning the bronze serpent Moses made into an idol, the implication exists that Satan wanted to influence the Israelites into turning Moses' corpse into an object of worship as well.
Please learn the difference between Jew and Israelite
What would a finite world look like if this isn’t it?
It shouldn't really be surprising that there was disagreement among the Ancient Israelites about the nature of (or even existence of) the afterlife. If they had a unified and obvious consensus, then it's really weird that the gospels would parenthetically explain that the Sadducees didn't believe in the afterlife. If no ancient Jews believed in the afterlife, then that's just wasted words, it wouldn't have been necessary for the author to add that detail. And the existence of a group of ancient Jews who didn't believe in the afterlife precludes the Jews from being doctrinally united on a belief in it.
13:05
Is that your cat? 😂
I have never understood the argument that theres bo afterlife in the OT or Torah when it's so clear.
Jesus lives! ♥️ and is God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
An example of progressive revelation are the Messianic prophecies, starting with Genesis 3, 15
If there is no afterlife, where did Enoch go to? Why did God tell Moses from the burning bush “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”. The patriarchs were dead yet God speaks of them in the present.
A present tense verb doesn’t need to have a presently existing object. If I met a friend of my grandpa I would say “I’m Bob’s grandson” using the present tense since I am present, even though he died 8 years ago.
Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him." Hebrews 11:5 adds: "By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, 'and was not found, because God had taken him'; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God."
Some erroneously jump to the conclusion that Enoch was taken up into heaven, but notice the Bible nowhere says this. It simply says that God "took him." It does not specify where he was taken.
Jesus Christ later states in the Gospel of John that "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). One of the points He makes is that one passage of the Bible cannot contradict another passage.
This same Gospel of John reveals a startling fact very pertinent to this matter: "No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven" (John 3:13).
Clearly, Jesus Christ was the only human being who had ascended into heaven. The phrase "who is in heaven" lets us know that this was written by the apostle John after Christ's return to heaven. So even as late as this statement, no human being-and that includes Enoch-had ascended into heaven.
We later read about Enoch's fate in Hebrews 11:5: "By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, 'and was not found, because God had taken him'; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God." The word rendered "taken" can also mean "transferred elsewhere." And the New American Standard Bible says this was done "so that he would not see death"-a better translation than "did not," as we know from the same chapter of Hebrews that he died.
Notice in verse 13 the summary given of all of the men and women of faith listed here, including Enoch: "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth" (Hebrews 11:13). So Enoch definitely died as well as all the rest.
How, then, can it be that Enoch was transferred elsewhere so he wouldn't see death? God doesn't give us all the details of what happened, but a few scenarios have been proposed that do not conflict with the fact that Enoch died as the Bible says.
It may be that God transported Enoch elsewhere to keep him from being killed at a certain time-perhaps protecting him from martyrdom at the hands of angry persecutors who didn't like his announcement of coming divine judgment (see Jude 14-16). God likewise supernaturally transported Elijah and Philip to other places on earth (see 2 Kings 2:11; Acts 8:39).
On the other hand, we should observe that Enoch died young for his time-at age 365 while those before and after him lived into their 800s and 900s. Because of this, some speculate that God "took him" from life prematurely so that he would not have to live out his remaining centuries in a miserable world (compare Isaiah 57:1-2). His next moment of consciousness will be the resurrection. In this case, "so that he would not see death" would refer to his not having to experience the process of dying-his life ending instantly.
Still others, putting the likelihood of Enoch experiencing persecution together with his early death, have concluded that Enoch was murdered-martyred for his preaching. Enoch being taken and not found would then refer to God removing his body and burying it-as happened with Moses (Deuteronomy 34:5-6).
In this case, Enoch being taken or transferred so that he would not see death is taken as separate matter-that of him being spiritually converted, transferred from the world's ways to God's way of living, so that he would not see ultimate death in the lake of fire (compare Colossians 1:13; John 8:51).
Again, we don't have enough details to know exactly what is intended. But we do know that Enoch did not skip death and go to heaven. He died, and no human being has ascended to heaven except Jesus Christ.
So, maybe there wasn't much mention of the afterlife in the OT due to the souls of the righteous going to Abraham's Bossom as Christ had not yet died for their sins.
There wans't even Abraham's Bossom in the OT, it is most probably a development of the idea that the dead would join their ancestors. Since Abraham was Israel's patriarch, people though they would meet him, but where Abraham whet when he died?
The this is that in the OT its very clear that God created human being to live on Earth, and there's no hope of life during death.
Could Sheol be proof of purgatory?
There is an indirect reference, at least according to Milgrom, in Leviticus. Milgrom alludes to it in his treatment of the dietary prohibition against eating port, explaining that part of the reason for doing so was the sacrifice of pigs in the worship of the gods of the underworld by Israel's neighbors. Ecclesiastes also speaks of divine judgement after death and I'm pretty sure the book is regarded as pre-exilic.
None of this means that Ancient Israel had a neoplatonic vision of "heaven" understood as a realm distinct from the world where all is disembodied perfection. Even today Orthodox Jews believe in a resurrection to life in a perfected earth, a sort of global Eden, after messiah comes. Think Rev 21 where John describes it.
Enoch went to heaven in a body.
Elijah in a body
Moses was resurrected? Michael contending over his body
Jesus didn't go to heaven until after his resurrection
All explicit people going to heaven did so bodily. Except Moses, which is unclear, but is it unclear? Not really.
Whether in the body, *or out of the body,* I do not know.
Guess Paul wasn't SDA.