destroy souls in hell?

[lynn]

Hi all, I'm glad you guys are here! :)

Question: by the elders of my church, I am being told that Matthew 10:28 shows that Gehenna was more than just the Valley of Hinnom because their souls would be destroyed there too.

Matthew 10:28 (Young's Literal Translation) And be not afraid of those killing the body, and are not able to kill the soul, but fear rather Him who is able both soul and body to destroy in gehenna.
In 70 AD the Pharisees’ bodies were destroyed in Gehenna, true, but were their souls also? :confused:

Thanks in advance for your answers. I really appreciate you all. I appreciate both your insights and your fellowship. :biggrinbounce:

Love,
Lynn

[goinliveinfive]

Appealing to nothing more than grammar I would have to say that it's not saying that souls WILL be destroyed. It simply says they CAN be destroyed. God CAN decide he's done with us and, with barely a thought, will all of creation away and not only would we cease to be, we would never have been in the first place. God CAN do a lot of things. What he CAN do and what he actually does are governed by His nature and the nature of his Covenant with humanity fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

Looking at it from the angle of Covenant Eschatology one could also conclude that this is yet another example of a warning of judgment on the Old Covenant and a call to repent. Either way it's not saying definitively that souls WILL be lost.

[Barry]

Hi all, I'm glad you guys are here! :)

Question: by the elders of my church, I am being told that Matthew 10:28 shows that Gehenna was more than just the Valley of Hinnom because their souls would be destroyed there too.

In 70 AD the Pharisees’ bodies were destroyed in Gehenna, true, but were their souls also? :confused:

Thanks in advance for your answers. I really appreciate you all. I appreciate both your insights and your fellowship. :biggrinbounce:

Love,
Lynn

Lynn,
Take a close look at Matt. 16:25. Notice that what is translated "life" is actually "soul".
What is meant by the destruction of the "soul"?
What is meant in Acts 3:23?

Now read 1 Cor. 1:28-29 and then 2:6.
What did Paul mean by the fact that no "flesh" would glory in his presence?
What did Paul mean by saying that the Princes of that world were coming to nothing.


This has been for me the hardest point to get across to churched people.
Our definitions are not those of Jesus and Paul.

Many did die in that Valley. But it is the validity of the OC life, the old covenant creature that perished in the end of the age as depicted in the Valley where the worm never dies.
The "worm never dies" means that it is in historical perpetuity. It is permanently recorded for all to see forever. (Ezk. 16:63)

The shame upon the independent glory of the flesh is permanent (Jer. 23:39-40).
Destroyed in the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

That context of life ended that all may be in all.


How does one lose their soul to find it? How does one lose a soul? What soul was lost and what soul was found?

Our definitions are not those of Jesus and Paul.
That is IMHO the problem.
Barry

[Paige]

Lynn,

From what I remember of this topic, soul is a covenantal term. The OC soul was destroyed. There are no more OC souls in existence today.

Most people define soul as one of three parts of human beings (the soul being something that is eternal)...Body, soul, spirit. I find fault with this and have not been shown scriptural backing for this belief, but rather it is another one of those things that has always been taught.

I think we have had threads on the topic of soul, but I'm not sure if they are here. They may not have carried over when we combined some forums into TG.

Barry, Ozark, Amie? Am I recalling correctly?

Paige

[Paige]

Ha Barry, we were posting at the same time! I knew you'd have something good to say :)

Paige

[Amie]

The Hebrew word "nephesh" is translated "soul" in the Old Testament. Nephesh is who a person is, the life inside us, our metaphorical "heart," and sometimes our "mind." It is a person’s identity, whatever "body" (metaphorical or literal) it is in.

The Hebrew words "rauch" and "nashamah" are generally translated "spirit, breath, wind, inspiration" in the Old Testament. Whether it is breath, wind, or inspiration, the spirit moves. It proceeds forth, even, from the soul or person.

These meanings do not change in the New Testament, they stay consistent.

I agree with Barry, the modern understanding of "soul" doesn't match with the understanding of "soul" that folks in the bible had; and I think that these are questions that can be reexamined in light of their understanding.

Paige, I know that we have talked about it here and there, but don't remember exactly where.

Amie

[ozark]

I agree with Barry, the modern understanding of "soul" doesn't match with the understanding of "soul" that folks in the bible had; and I think that these are questions that can be reexamined in light of their understanding.

Amie

I think that is the bottom line. Take for example Jesus' words in Luke nine:

Then He said to them all, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it. For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and is himself destroyed or lost? For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him the Son of Man will be ashamed when He comes in His own glory, and in His Father’s, and of the holy angels.

But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God."

Everyone was going to lose their life (soul). That loss either came through participation in Christ resulting in glory at the end of the age, or it came in judgment with shame. Either way the old creation perished.

[Barry]

Good point Doug and everyone.

"For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him the Son of Man will be ashamed when He comes in His own glory, and in His Father’s, and of the holy angels."

While the word meaning of "man" or "life" or "soul" will have its sense, the usage is covenantal.

The old covenant creature is a man of, a life of, and a soul of the old covenant.
The common threads are IMHO identity and shame and glory.

The old covenant life or soul bore an identity of an independent human glory. This relates to "justice of life" and "self-righteousness". That identity was permanently shamed.

If that soul was transformed into a Christ identity it was found, it it did not it was catastrophically lost. One became "ashamed" of their independent human glory or Christ was ashamed of them and then they were shamed in that glory at the end of the age.

We have a lot of trouble with comprehensive grace because we may not fully realize the impact of audience relevance. That is to say the Christ and the apostles often speak to the man of, the life of, the soul of the old covenant for what was about to happen to them as they were!

That is to say, that when we bring up common grace people would expect in retrospect for the Bible to focus more on a "you will be saved anyway" basis.
This expectation does not follow through however, because the bible is not about being saved anyway, it is about the end of the validity of an independent identity. And so people are for the most part spoken to as that identity in that glory that would perish and would come to shame for what it was.
IMHO this is the problem.
It is this expectation that does not take into account how strongly the scriptures deal with "identity" and "glory".

The person themselves would still be saved but through fire. By coming to nothing in what they were.

Barry

[davo]

Appealing to nothing more than grammar I would have to say that it's not saying that souls WILL be destroyed. It simply says they CAN be destroyed.
The "worm never dies" means that it is in historical perpetuity. It is permanently recorded for all to see forever. (Ezk. 16:63)
Everyone was going to lose their life (soul). That loss either came through participation in Christ resulting in glory at the end of the age, or it came in judgment with shame. Either way the old creation perished.
These are all good thoughts and make up a fair summary of what this passage means – certainly God CAN DO, but ability does not always equate to intentionality e.g., "For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones." Mt 3:9. And I believe there is a strong "historical" accounting or testimony to the old covenant's corruption of that which was lost.

I do think that another aspect of similar nature can be gleaned from Luke's parallel passage AND its wider context which often is overlooked in relation to this, which in turn I think gives a clearer picture yet of what Jesus was saying:

Lk 12:4-7 “And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him! “Are not five sparrows sold for two copper coins? And not one of them is forgotten before God. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.

Notice that these passages do not say "after death" as we typically read into it, but simply "after that" i.e., after being killed. You might think there is little difference but I believe there is subtle enough difference to not read into the passage what is NOT there.

To be cast into Gehenna was the lowest form of contempt, disdain and dismissal – apart from the rotting corps of dead animals and the other regular city refuge that was forever ablaze or crawling with maggots [worms], the only other thing of significance that was cast into the fiery heap was the bodies of slain criminals, many of which were Jews adjudged so and summarily executed by the Romans.

Thus to be "cast into Gehenna" was the ultimate rejection of someone's life, i.e., their removal or casting from the memory – or as in the movie "The Village" "those of which we do not speak". The wider context of these passages is that of the disciples facing possible persecution and thus potential loss of life, yet Jesus is telling them that "not one of them is forgotten before God". In other words, unlike the historical record that ends in the contempt of Gehenna, God's "called" are duly numbered and remembered, and will receive rewards according to what they have done in stead of suffering the loss that clinging to the old covenant mode of existence brought.

[lynn]

Thanks to you all! :biggrinbounce: You’ve given such good and thorough replies. And you’ve given them just in time for Sunday. ;)

Appealing to nothing more than grammar I would have to say that it's not saying that souls WILL be destroyed. It simply says they CAN be destroyed.
I agree, Goin. To say that God is able to destroy souls is like saying that with stones “God is able to raise up children to Abraham” (Mat. 3:9). In both ways the text does not state that God actually did it. This explanation is the most obvious. But for the literalist, like those leaders in my church, it is not adequate.

Barry, you said that our definitions are not those of Jesus and Paul. I agree. And I like the covenantial explanation, Barry. We Americans might say it like this: the “heart and soul” of the Old Covenant was destroyed. I want to study it further. Thanks, Barry. You’ve given me much to study.


Thus to be "cast into Gehenna" was the ultimate rejection of someone's life, i.e., their removal or casting from the memory – or as in the movie "The Village" "those of which we do not speak".

Exactly, Davo. That’s one of the ways I’d think I’d answer. To be cast into Gehenna was the opposite of being properly remembered with a proper burial. The term “white washed tombs” comes to mind. Egyptians had their pyramids, and Jews, their elaborate seplicars, but 70 AD’s judgment reduced the Pharisees’ burial to that not unlike animals, not even like common criminals. Humiliating.

Ozark, you’ve isolated the passage to the first century time frame. That’s powerful and irrefutable, IMO. Amy and Paige, thanks for talking about these things again. I very much appreciate you two. Your personalities work well together.

Well, I gotta go. We’re east coast, so it’s time for church.

What an oasis you guys are . . .

[Barry]

I do think that another aspect of similar nature can be gleaned from Luke's parallel passage AND its wider context which often is overlooked in relation to this, which in turn I think gives a clearer picture yet of what Jesus was saying:

Lk 12:4-7 “And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him! “Are not five sparrows sold for two copper coins? And not one of them is forgotten before God. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.

Notice that these passages do not say "after death" as we typically read into it, but simply "after that" i.e., after being killed. You might think there is little difference but I believe there is subtle enough difference to not read into the passage what is NOT there.

To be cast into Gehenna was the lowest form of contempt, disdain and dismissal – apart from the rotting corps of dead animals and the other regular city refuge that was forever ablaze or crawling with maggots [worms], the only other thing of significance that was cast into the fiery heap was the bodies of slain criminals, many of which were Jews adjudged so and summarily executed by the Romans.

Thus to be "cast into Gehenna" was the ultimate rejection of someone's life, i.e., their removal or casting from the memory – or as in the movie "The Village" "those of which we do not speak". The wider context of these passages is that of the disciples facing possible persecution and thus potential loss of life, yet Jesus is telling them that "not one of them is forgotten before God". In other words, unlike the historical record that ends in the contempt of Gehenna, God's "called" are duly numbered and remembered, and will receive rewards according to what they have done in stead of suffering the loss that clinging to the old covenant mode of existence brought.

That's what I would like to have said :clap2:

[davo]

Thanks Barry, actually yours and Dougs thoughts over time have helped me come to these conclusions, so :clap2: back to you :)

[Amie]

Lk 12:4-7 “And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him! “Are not five sparrows sold for two copper coins? And not one of them is forgotten before God. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.

Davo, are you still considering "hell" as temporal in considering this verse?

thanks,

Amie

[Lou]

If you take Luke 12 in its entirety it appears to be covenantal judgement on the Old Covenant economy.


8- 20 " Also I say to you, whoever confesses Me before men, him the Son of Man also will confess before the angels of God "But he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God. "And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven. "Now when they bring you to the synagogues and magistrates and authorities, do not worry about how or what you should answer, or what you should say. "For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say." Then one from the crowd said to Him, "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me." But He said to him, "Man, who made Me a judge or an arbitrator over you?" And He said to them, "Take heed and beware of covetousness, for one's life does not consist in the abundance of the things he possesses." Then He spoke a parable to them, saying: "The ground of a certain rich man yielded plentifully. "And he thought within himself, saying, 'What shall I do, since I have no room to store my crops?' "So he said, 'I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build greater, and there I will store all my crops and my goods. 'And I will say to my soul, "Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, [and] be merry." ' "But God said to him, 'Fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those things be which you have provided?


40 "Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect."

Imo with the parables and what is said Jesus is telling them that with His coming all the OC treasures would be worthless.
:2cents:

[davo]

Davo, are you still considering "hell" as temporal in considering this verse?Yes as in the "hell" in this verse is gehenna i.e., Jerusalem's fall. We've focused on the "after this" by reading it as "after death" and assumed it thus means ECT judgment in the ethereal realm etc, as opposed to the historical testament -- or the lack thereof in contempt.

[lynn]

Fortunately, the elder who’s been giving me a hard time had a schedule change so went a closer-to-him house-church group this Sunday. (Our church has about 30 families meeting in five homes, changing weekly.) Next week I’ll see this elder, though. :eek:
Yes as in the "hell" in this verse is gehenna i.e., Jerusalem's fall. We've focused on the "after this" by reading it as "after death" and assumed it thus means ECT judgment in the ethereal realm etc, as opposed to the historical testament -- or the lack thereof in contempt.Yes, Davo. What good news this is! :biggrinbounce: Gehenna's judgment is past. Because it’s such good news, truly I don’t know why people in my church are so resistant! But I must be patient. I know how long it took me to accept God’s being better than I thought He was. It reminds me of a Chris Tomlin song, “We have only heard the faintest whispers of how great You are!” \o/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPT-8zrWWJk
Take a close look at Matt. 16:25. Notice that what is translated "life" is actually "soul".
What is meant by the destruction of the "soul"?
What is meant in Acts 3:23?

Now read 1 Cor. 1:28-29 and then 2:6.
What did Paul mean by the fact that no "flesh" would glory in his presence?
What did Paul mean by saying that the Princes of that world were coming to nothing.
I’m trying to understand the covenantial interpretation, Barry, that “body” isn’t necessarily their fleshly bodies but the body, like the Law, the Law of the Old Covenant. And the “soul” wasn’t their individual consciousnesses but the remembrance of the OC, (something like that.) Ball park? :confused: Because my church’s elders still think so literally, I don’t think they will accept the covenantial interpretation. But I still personally want to understand it.

Appreciating 'yall,
Lynn :)

[Barry]

"Because my church’s elders still think so literally, I don’t think they will accept the covenantial interpretation. But I still personally want to understand it."

I don't think so ethier.
The point remains, how did one lose their soul so that they could find it?.
How did one deny themselves?
The point remains, how was Paul burried with Christ?
How did Paul die with Christ?

Why did Paul say, "you are not in the flesh but in the spirit"?
Why be literal only when one wants to?

IMHO this ties into the ego-centric-man study.

JMO, sis, always move forward and adavance in growth as you can when you can even if it is lonely.
Barry

[Amie]

The Hebrew word "nephesh" is translated "soul" in the Old Testament. Nephesh is who a person is, the life inside us, our metaphorical "heart," and sometimes our "mind." It is a person’s identity, whatever "body" (metaphorical or literal) it is in.

The Hebrew words "rauch" and "nashamah" are generally translated "spirit, breath, wind, inspiration" in the Old Testament. Whether it is breath, wind, or inspiration, the spirit moves. It proceeds forth, even, from the soul or person.

These meanings do not change in the New Testament, they stay consistent.



Lynn,

Maybe the above would be easier for a literalist to accept?

Amie

[Amie]

What would the people of that day then (specifically the "friends" that Jesus is addressing in Luke 12:4-7), see as so fearful about their "soul" being "cast into hell"?

Amie

[Barry]

What would the people of that day then (specifically the "friends" that Jesus is addressing in Luke 12:4-7), see as so fearful about their "soul" being "cast into hell"?

Amie

Physical death was not as bad as contempt to the "man of appearance".
The ego-centric man comes to nothing. Therefore no justification of life for that which is destroyed.
By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight.
Barry

[Amie]

Why would it be more frightening to Jesus's friends specifically, for the body of Israel to be dead and forgotten rather than just plain old dead?

What was important about the remembrance of Israel?

Amie

[davo]

What would the people of that day then (specifically the "friends" that Jesus is addressing in Luke 12:4-7), see as so fearful about their "soul" being "cast into hell"?Along with what Barry said it might also be that Jesus foresaw the real likelihood of falling away through the future persecution and thus the real potential for the loss of reward - however it was that those rewards played out.


Why would it be more frightening to Jesus's friends specifically, for the body of Israel to be dead and forgotten rather than just plain old dead?

What was important about the remembrance of Israel?All hope of resurrection would be lost -- the "hope" of the resurrection was the one thing Israel hung onto.

[Amie]

What then (and thanks for answering guys), was so frightening in their mind, about Israel not being resurrected? Do you think that would mean the utter rejection of humanity by God to them?

Amie

[lynn]

Thanks again, you all! :clap2:
What then (and thanks for answering guys), was so frightening in their mind, about Israel not being resurrected? Do you think that would mean the utter rejection of humanity by God to them?AmieGood question, Amy! I’d answer something like Davo's comment that the resurrection was their goal. Coming to mind are Ezekiel 37’s “dry bones” and Daniel’s “those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake” (Dan. 12:2), happening at the shattering of the power of the holy people (verse 8), meaning 70 AD, I think. And the “shattering” was not of all humanity but just of the unbelieving Jews, those not recognizing the time of their visitation.
The point remains, how did one lose their soul so that they could find it?.
How did one deny themselves?
The point remains, how was Paul burried with Christ?
How did Paul die with Christ?

Why did Paul say, "you are not in the flesh but in the spirit"?
Why be literal only when one wants to?Hard questions, Barry. I’ve had to ponder a while on those, trying to think “covenantially.” :scratch: I’ll try: they gave up their OC soul in order to embrace the NC. They were buried with Christ in that they acknowledged the fulfilling of the OC at the Cross, and the passing of the OC at the soon-coming parousia. These actions were done corporately, not individually. How'd I do? :confused:

In you all's opinion, what is covenantal theology? Could you give me a short definition?
What would the people of that day then (specifically the "friends" that Jesus is addressing in Luke 12:4-7), see as so fearful about their "soul" being "cast into hell"?AmieI’m clueless here, Amy. Perhaps “soul” would be the same as their physical bodies, IOW they would die and be cremated in Gehenna. What do you think? Davo said that this fate was the ultimate rejection of one’s life.
Imo with the parables and what is said Jesus is telling them that with His coming all the OC treasures would be worthless.
:2cents:That makes a lot of sense, Lou. (I got your joke! Putting the “two cents” with worthless is cute. Haha)
The Hebrew word "nephesh" is translated "soul" in the Old Testament. Nephesh is who a person is, the life inside us, our metaphorical "heart," and sometimes our "mind." It is a person’s identity, whatever "body" (metaphorical or literal) it is in.

The Hebrew words "rauch" and "nashamah" are generally translated "spirit, breath, wind, inspiration" in the Old Testament. Whether it is breath, wind, or inspiration, the spirit moves. It proceeds forth, even, from the soul or person.

These meanings do not change in the New Testament, they stay consistent.That’s over my head again, Amy. lol IMO, the Hebrew words’ definitions you gave seem similar to what my church’s elders would tell me, i.e. that individuals, not the corporate Jewish nation were in view. Surely I am not understanding you. Thanks for helping me understand.
Everyone was going to lose their life (soul). That loss either came through participation in Christ resulting in glory at the end of the age, or it came in judgment with shame. Either way the old creation perished.Do the rest of you agree with Doug here?

The reason I’m drawn to the covenantial explanation is that it places judgment in the first century only. Only upon those who were in covenant with God, the Jews, was God’s wrath poured out. I liked what Barry said about audience relevance:
We have a lot of trouble with comprehensive grace because we may not fully realize the impact of audience relevance. That is to say the Christ and the apostles often speak to the man of, the life of, the soul of the old covenant for what was about to happen to them as they were!

That is to say, that when we bring up common grace people would expect in retrospect for the Bible to focus more on a "you will be saved anyway" basis.
This expectation does not follow through however, because the bible is not about being saved anyway, it is about the end of the validity of an independent identity. And so people are for the most part spoken to as that identity in that glory that would perish and would come to shame for what it was.
IMHO this is the problem.
It is this expectation that does not take into account how strongly the scriptures deal with "identity" and "glory". Wow, Barry. That’s great! When you said “the end of the validity of an independent identity,” what did you mean? Does it concern the “ego-centric man”? Its ending sounds almost “cosmic,” that God is “all in all.” Is that what you mean?! If so, I like it!:9_cool:

[Barry]

Hi Lynn
IMHO everyone has good points and those points can be combined.
Doug (Ozark) and I have the same view on what you brought up (not to infer that it is unique to us).
The fact that one could chose to deny them-self, and lose their own soul to follow Christ, is a good evidence that Jesus is speaking of identity on some level.
Paul did this when he "died with Christ", when he was "buried with him" to identify himself with HIM.
Christ was the very image of the Father (express image if I remember correctly), and covenantal transformation was about re-identifying one's self with Christ.

So back to you questions.
I label the old identity as the ego-centric man. Like Adam that wanted a righteousness of his own through the knowledge of good and evil.

And so yes, my conclusion is that Adam's works were brought to both an end and a conclusion. And no one can be identified in Adam and his works any longer because Christ and the first-fruits changed it all.

Just a few thoughts on a very large subject.
Barry

[davo]

What then (and thanks for answering guys), was so frightening in their mind, about Israel not being resurrected? Do you think that would mean the utter rejection of humanity by God to them?I for one don't know IF those of historic Israel really had any firm concept of God's goodness being extended anywhere past Israel i.e., Yahweh was "Israel's God" -- it certainly was something that those of the new covenant had to come into e.g., Jesus' injunction that they were to go to none but the lost sheep of Israel... and Peter's vision in Act 10 etc.

The other point to remember is this -- until the resurrection, the departed remained locked up in Hades, both the righteous AND the unrighteous together -- only in the Parousia was Hades emptied and Heaven open to all that Hades had held.

[Amie]

I for one don't know IF those of historic Israel really had any firm concept of God's goodness being extended anywhere past Israel..

I don't think that I could be specific myself. If they strove to be "kings and priests" as a nation, they must have looked to functioning as such in service to someone though.

This reminds me of a conversation that Paige and I had where she brought up similar concerning the church (Who were they Kings and Priests to?).


The other point to remember is this -- until the resurrection, the departed remained locked up in Hades, both the righteous AND the unrighteous together..

How do you view "hades"? More and more it seems to me that it (it=biological death/the grave) was representative of the non-functioning nation of Israel.

Amie

[Amie]

The Hebrew word "nephesh" is translated "soul" in the Old Testament. Nephesh is who a person is, the life inside us, our metaphorical "heart," and sometimes our "mind." It is a person’s identity, whatever "body" (metaphorical or literal) it is in.

The Hebrew words "rauch" and "nashamah" are generally translated "spirit, breath, wind, inspiration" in the Old Testament. Whether it is breath, wind, or inspiration, the spirit moves. It proceeds forth, even, from the soul or person.

These meanings do not change in the New Testament, they stay consistent.

That’s over my head again, Amy. lol IMO, the Hebrew words’ definitions you gave seem similar to what my church’s elders would tell me, i.e. that individuals, not the corporate Jewish nation were in view. Surely I am not understanding you. Thanks for helping me understand.

Well, the "soul" (person/identity) is contained within a "body". That body can be our literal, biological body. Actually, it 'is' our biological body since our 'person' is stored there and finds identity there ;). That body could also be corporate. National Israel once existing in the "body of Moses", actually split into two bodies; the body of flesh (identified in Moses) and the spiritual body (identified in Christ; the "body of Christ").

Most definately, Israel existed in their biological bodies just like we do. They found identity therein, just like we do. That body however, was not separate from their covenantal body, any more than ours is. Loss of covenantal identity also lead to loss of personal identity.

For example they might say, "Well if I am no longer 'Pharisee, keeper of law, I'm no one". To gain new covenant, was the salvation of personal identity. It is the answer "You are a loved child of God." That example is on an individual level, and the fulfillment of the Old Covenant affected people individually, corporately, and as a whole imo.

Soldiers could kill the body but could never strip a person of their identity. God could kill the soul, and then cast it into gahenna (cast it off). It just seems to me that the concept of the removal of religion alone may not have been the big frightening thing -- but what they felt that religion meant. (Just knowing the New Covenant, considering what that meant is a huge thing to me.)

Did that make sense?

I agree with Doug that the old creation perished. Jesus was the "last" Adam (1 Cor 15:45). It would be interesting to explore in what way.


In you all's opinion, what is covenantal theology? Could you give me a short definition?

"Covenant theology" is the study of God's covenants. "Covenant eschatology" is: The study of last things in the framework of covenantal or redemptive history. A field of biblical theology developed by Max King since 1971 that considers Bible prophecy as fulfilled.

Amie

[Paige]

I don't think that I could be specific myself. If they strove to be "kings and priests" as a nation, they must have looked to functioning as such in service to someone though.

This reminds me of a conversation that Paige and I had where she brought up similar concerning the church (Who were they Kings and Priests to?).

Not sure if this is on point, but my thought is that Israel played a mediator role of sort between God and humanity (could Nineveh be an example of this?), but failed due to being dead in tresspasses and sin. The OT Prophets, IMO, would have been keenly aware of this condition (more so than the average Israelite).

Paige

[Amie]

Not sure if this is on point, but my thought is that Israel played a mediator role of sort between God and humanity (could Nineveh be an example of this?), but failed due to being dead in tresspasses and sin. The OT Prophets, IMO, would have been keenly aware of this condition (more so than the average Israelite).

Paige

That is my thought as well and is why I'm wondering if at least the leaders of Israel may have understood the impact if Israel was not resurrected..

Amie

[davo]

If they strove to be "kings and priests" as a nation, they must have looked to functioning as such in service to someone though.Well I think that is true back in their history for when they were first called -- but by Jesus' day I think they had become so self engrossed they forgot their mandate as kings and priests and hence that call was stripped from them and given to those who had ears to hear and eyes to see, i.e., those who could comprehend and thus apprehend the kingdom calling, thus those who were "born again".


How do you view "hades"? More and more it seems to me that it (it=biological death/the grave) was representative of the non-functioning nation of Israel.Yes I agree -- it was both, one being a metaphor of the other.

[Amie]

Well I think that is true back in their history for when they were first called -- but by Jesus' day I think they had become so self engrossed they forgot their mandate as kings and priests and hence that call was stripped from them and given to those who had ears to hear and eyes to see, i.e., those who could comprehend and thus apprehend the kingdom calling, thus those who were "born again".

Hmm, then only Jesus's friends will have received any assurance from the statement in Luke 12:4-7 because only they will have understood the full gravity of "gone and forgotten".

[davo]

Well I think that realisation was partly their message to Israel, as in:

Lk 13:3-5 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”

Mind you, I don't think even the disciples had a total grasp on it all, but they had enough of it [faith] for Jesus to work with.