OT saints before the cross?

[Brandan Kraft]

Where did OT saints go after they died? Did they descend into an "underworld", or did they go to heaven? I have my belief - what's yours?

[wildboar]

Heaven. Although the parable of the rich man and Lazarus can be taken too far if taken too literally, if we deny the conscious heavenly existence of the departed saint we turn Jesus parable into confused nonsense.

[disciple]

Where did OT saints go after they died? Did they descend into an "underworld", or did they go to heaven? I have my belief - what's yours?

the bosom of abraham, where ever that was

[Brandan Kraft]

OK, I agree Heaven / Bosom of Abraham. Both appropriate answers. I was just curious as I stumbled across a knowledgeable Christian (whom I love by the way because of his love of truth) who said sheol/hades or "underworld", sort of like a "limbo". Do you know how this teaching might affect the major doctrines of salvation?

[wildboar]

It really seems to depend which direction a person goes with the teaching. This teaching is popular both among Roman Catholics and dispensationalists. At the least it is a denial of the doctrine of eternal justification since the saints were not viewed as such until the the ressurection. It is based mostly on the teaching of Jewish mythology, Biblical texts are then used to try to support the teaching of mythology which can lead to many other errors. The appeal is often made to 1 Peter 3:18-20, but in this passage it is said that the Holy Spirit went on behalf of Christ to proclaim the victory of Christ to those who were disobedient at the time of Noah. I prefer to take it as referring to saints who were already in hell having the victory proclaimed as a further judgment upon them though I see the possibility of taking it as Noah preaching to those people before the flood. Regardless, the teaching that Christ went to Sheol to bring back the Old Testament saints who were stuck in limbo just isn't found there. Also key to their understanding, is the belief that paradise refers to this state of limbo. This is why they say that Jesus could say on the cross to the thief that today he would be with him in paradise(since by their understanding Jesus would spend some time in limbo first). The word paradise is used three times in the New Testament and it never seems to have the idea of limbo, in fact 2 Cor. 12:4 seems to equate heaven and paradise very clearly.

2 Corinthians 12:2-4 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago -- whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows -- such a one was caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I know such a man -- whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows -- 4 how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Revelation 2:7 "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God." '

[Ian Potts]

Also key to their understanding, is the belief that paradise refers to this state of limbo. This is why they say that Jesus could say on the cross to the thief that today he would be with him in paradise(since by their understanding Jesus would spend some time in limbo first). The word paradise is used three times in the New Testament and it never seems to have the idea of limbo, in fact 2 Cor. 12:4 seems to equate heaven and paradise very clearly.

2 Corinthians 12:2-4 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago -- whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows -- such a one was caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I know such a man -- whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows -- 4 how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Revelation 2:7 "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God." '

Just a thought about this point regarding paradise. Two of the texts you mention (2 Co 12:4 and Rev 2:7) presumably relate to the situation after Christ's resurrection/ascension so paradise would indeed be heaven because that is where Christ is now in His risen state.

Only the references regarding what is said to the thief on the cross would be troublesome to this view and require the understanding that paradise refers to the 'state of limbo', but the reference to it as paradise might only be at the time that Christ was going there ("this day"). ie. the thief was in paradise that day because he went with Christ, first to the place of limbo, and then later to heaven itself. Paradise being where Christ is.

[Ugly_Gaunt_Cow]

I stumbled across a knowledgeable Christian (whom I love by the way because of his love of truth) who said sheol/hades or "underworld", sort of like a "limbo"

I've spoken to a couple of people of who hold to the same opinion to some degree.

This is something I find myself questioning based on the following passages taken from first Samuel

1 Sam 28:7-25

Then Saul said to his servants, "Seek for me a woman who is a medium, that I may go to her and inquire of her." And his servants said to him, "Behold, there is a woman who is a medium at En-dor."

Then Saul disguised himself by putting on other clothes, and went, he and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night; and he said, "Conjure up for me, please, and bring up for me whom I shall name to you." But the woman said to him, "Behold, you know what Saul has done, how he has cut off those who are mediums and spiritists from the land. Why are you then laying a snare for my life to bring about my death?"

Saul vowed to her by the Lord, saying, "As the Lord lives, no punishment shall come upon you for this thing." Then the woman said, "Whom shall I bring up for you?" And he said, "Bring up Samuel for me."

When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice; and the woman spoke to Saul, saying, "Why have you deceived me? For you are Saul."

The king said to her, "Do not be afraid; but what do you see?" And the woman said to Saul, "I see a divine being coming up out of the earth." He said to her, "What is his form?" And she said, "An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped with a robe." And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and did homage.

Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?" And Saul answered, "I am greatly distressed; for the Philistines are waging war against me, and God has departed from me and no longer answers me, either through prophets or by dreams; therefore I have called you, that you may make known to me what I should do.".


Now, I'm confused about this because Samuel used the words "up from the earth". It's obivous his question isn't refering to being in "sheol" in the sense of hell. Seeing he was a prophet of God, I cannot find the rational of Samuel being sent to suffer.

What I do find puzzling is this:

How can someone, by way of magik, bring a living soul out from the spiritual realm of the kingdom heaven, or on the otherhand, bring one back from spiritual death; one that should be suffering eternal torment?

I'm trying to analyze both ends of the spectrum to gain a deeper understanding of the truths found in these verses.

Is it possible we rest or are held in the darkness of death (based on our legal standing before the coucil of God) until the last day?

[wildboar]

Gill makes the case that this was not actually Samuel and I am inclined to agree with him.

1Sa 28:12 - And when the woman saw Samuel,.... The appearance of him whom she took for Samuel; no mention is made of the methods she used to raise him, to check the curiosity of such as might be desirous to know them, and to prevent the imitation of them; though some think that Samuel, or the apparition, was seen before she made use of any, which surprised her; but this seems not so probable, and is only observed for the sake of an hypothesis; though it must be owned the word "when" is not in the text:

she cried with a loud voice; not so much frightened at what she saw, and the manner of his appearing, and as thinking the resurrection of the dead was come, as say the Jews (b), as what she feared would be the consequence to her, even death by the hand of Saul; for though he had sworn no punishment should come upon her, she might begin to fear she was not safe, perceiving who he was:

and the woman spake to Saul, saying, why hast thou deceived me? for thou [art] Saul: how she knew this is a question; it could not be by the appearance of Samuel, for it was Samuel she was to bring up; unless with Ben Gersom it can be thought that she understood him of another man, whose name was Samuel, and not Samuel the prophet; and so when she saw him, concluded he was Saul, because of the intimacy between them in his lifetime; but this is not probable, nor does it appear that she as yet knew who it was, but rather she was told by her familiar spirit, or by the apparition, so Josephus (c), that it was Saul that inquired of her; or she guessed at it by some gesture of the apparition to Saul, by way of homage and honour; and so Abarbinel thinks that the clause in 1Sa_28:14 respects not Saul's bowing to Samuel, but Samuel bowing to Saul; and so by this means the woman knew who he was.

(b) Pirke Eliezer, c. 33. (c) Antiqu. l. 6. c. 14. sect. 2.
1Sa 28:13 - And the king said unto her, be not afraid,.... Meaning not of the apparition, but of him; since he had sworn no punishment should come upon her, and he should inviolably observe his oath: for what sawest thou? for as yet Saul himself saw not anything, the woman being between him and the apparition; or she might be in another room with her familiar spirit performing the operations when Samuel appeared:

and the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth; a great personage, one of a majestic form, like the gods, or judges and civil magistrates, sometimes so called, as Kimchi and R. Isaiah rightly interpret it; and so the Targum,"I saw an angel of the Lord;''a person that looked like one; for not many came up with him, and particularly Moses, as say some Jewish writers (d).

(d) T. Bab. Chagigah, fol. 4. 8. Pirke Eliezer, c. 33.
and she said, an old man cometh up, and he is covered with a mantle; such as either priests or judges wore, and Samuel did in his lifetime:

and Saul perceived that it [was] Samuel; by the description she gave of him, by his age and apparel; for as yet it is not certain that he himself saw him, though it should seem as if he did by what follows: it is in the original, "that it was Samuel himself"; which seems to make for those who think the real Samuel appeared, and no doubt Saul thought it was really he himself:

and he stooped with [his] face to the ground, and bowed himself: either in reverence to Samuel, and from whom he hoped relief, and therefore was all obeisance; or he put himself in this posture, that he might listen and hear what should be said; it being a general notion that such spirits gave their responses whispering and muttering, Isa_8:19; though Abarbinel, as before observed, is of opinion, that this is to be understood of Samuel, that he bowed to Saul in reverence of him as a king; which does not so well agree with the connection of the words. Some have thought that it was the true Samuel, or the soul of Samuel, that appeared; so Josephus (e), and many other writers; but to this may be objected, that that would not have ascended out of the earth, but come down from heaven; and that it cannot reasonably be supposed that it was in the power of the witch, by the assistance of the devil, to fetch it from heaven; nor be thought that God would send it from thence on such an errand, to give Saul an answer, when he would not answer him by any prophet on earth, nor in any other way; and especially it seems quite incredible that he should send it at the motion of a witch, and through her enchantments, who, according to a law of his, ought not to live; whereas nothing could have given greater countenance to such a wicked profession than this: nor would the true Samuel have admitted such worship and homage to be paid him, as is expressed in this last clause, which angelic spirits have refused, Rev_19:10; though perhaps no more than civil respect is intended: but rather this was a diabolical spectre, or apparition, or the devil, that appeared in the form and shape of Samuel, and mimicked him; and was one of those deceiving spirits Porphyry speaks (f) of, that appear in various shapes and forms, and pretend to be gods or demons, or the souls of the deceased. Some (g) think all this was the cunning and imposture of the woman alone, or that she was assisted with a confederate, who acted the part of Samuel; but this is not probable.

(e) Ut supra. (Antiqu. l. 6. c. 14. sect. 2.) (f) De Abstinentia, l. 2. apud Grotium in loc. (g) See Webster's Displaying of supposed Witchcraft, &c. ch. 8. p. 166, &c.
1Sa 28:15 - And Samuel said to Saul, why hast thou disquieted me to bring me up?.... This makes it a clear case that this was not the true Samuel; his soul was at rest in Abraham's bosom, in the state of bliss and happiness in heaven, and it was not in the power of men and devils to disquiet it; nor would he have talked of his being brought up, but rather of his coming down, had it been really he; much less would he have acknowledged that he was brought up by Saul, by means of a witch, and through the help of the devil:

and Saul answered, I am sore distressed; in mind, being in great straits and difficulties, pressed hard upon by men, and forsaken of God, as follows:

for the Philistines make war against me; so they had many times, and he had been victorious, and had no reason to be so much distressed, if that was all: but he adds:

and God is departed from me: and therefore he feared he should be left to fall into their hands; and that he had forsaken him he concluded from hence,

and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: See Gill on 1Sa_28:6; he makes no mention of Urim, either because they were not with him to inquire by, being carried away by Abiathar when he fled to David, 1Sa_23:9; or, as the Jews say (h), through shame, he said nothing of the Urim before Samuel, as he took this appearance to be, because he had slain the priests at Nob, and because of this shame, they say, his sin was forgiven him:

therefore have I called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do; which was downright madness and folly to imagine, that since God had forsaken him, and would give him no answer, that a prophet of his should take his part; or when he could get no answer from a prophet of God on earth, that he could expect an agreeable one from one fetched down from heaven: one would be tempted to think that he himself believed it was the devil he was talking to, and whom he had called for under the name of Samuel, and expected to see; for from whom else could he expect advice, when he was forsaken of God, and his prophets?

(h) T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 12. 2.

[Brandan Kraft]

Gill makes the case that this was not actually Samuel and I am inclined to agree with him.

That hyper-calvie Gill is good for some stuff, eh Boar?

[wildboar]

That hyper-calvie Gill is good for some stuff, eh Boar?

I'll even read Roman Catholic scholars on the rare ocassions when they are worth reading I agree with Gill on many things.

When I first became interested in theology I came across men whom I tested with Scripture and agreed with the vast majority of what they taught. There were certain issues in eschatology and other areas in which I had not studied much and so I would often also take their position on these matters because I knew I agreed with them on other things. Theology is an organic unit, and so most often after I had studied such things I would still find myself in agreement with them. However, there were times in which I differed. I fear that many never make it to the point where they study the various matters for themselves and the interpretations of some men who preached a great deal of truth can become an idol for them. What I see ocurring all around me is people who idolize a certain person or favorite theologian and label him as the true-bearer of truth rather they explicitly state it or not. I've seen reformed people do it with Berkhof, in my own circles I've seen it done with Hoeksema. Once they read of a particular error of a theologian they become unwilling to read anything by that person. I believe this is foolish. There are certainly a great number of people which aren't worth reading, but there are some very learned men who come from a different background and perspective who have thought about matters very deeply who are. As of late, I have been very impressed with some things coming out of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. This doesn't mean I'm going to go rushing off to join my local WELS church, but I do think certain things can be learned from them. I've also found Isaac Chauncy a very interesting read, who nobody seems to know about. The fact is we must test everything we read from Scripture regardless of who the theologian is and we shouldn't give up reading such men because we are just as prone as they are to error, and I am convinced that a man by himself in a closet generally produces more error than anyone.

Gill is still a useful read because his error did not influence all of his theology and was not the focal point of his work. The same cannot be said of some of his successors which is why I don't find them as useful and of course Spurgeon went down a different road of error. I still find Spurgeon useful to read though, I just recognize he was a better preacher than a theologian and didn't think things through sometimes.

[Robert R. Higby]

The spirits brought up by mediums are generally demons and this is why scripture forbids such contact. Demons can certainly APPEAR to take on the form of departed humans.

On 1 Pet. 3:18-21--if the notion is simply that Christ preached to the antideluvians through Noah, we are left with an interpretation that renders Peter's words irrelevant. If that is all that was involved--I truly am convinced that he would never have selected this theme out of all the potential events in the OT.

Christ is Lord of heaven, earth, and hell. Do we believe this or not? If we do, we should have no problem with the fact that he went to hell and preached doom to eternally damned spirits that God sent to hell in the flood. God exalted Christ as Lord of all things in the event of his resurrection.