Tag: god

MORMON POLYTHEISM REVISITED

The following is taken from the monumental work titled The Incarnate Christ and His Critics: A Biblical Defense, authored by Robert M. Bowman Jr. & J. Ed Komoszewski, published by Kregel Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 2024, Part 2: Like Father, Like Son: Jesus’ Divine Attributes, Chapter 9: Monotheism and the Divine Attributes, pp. 177-184.

In my estimation this is THE best and most comprehensive exposition and defense of the biblical basis for the Deity of Christ. Every serious Trinitarian Christian student of the Holy Bible, apologist, and/or theologian must have this book in the library.

LATTER-DAY SAINTS: MANY PERSONAGES WHO ARE GODS

The LDS Church teaches a doctrine of God that is at the other extreme from the position of progressive Christianity. Whereas progressive Christians deny that God is a personal being, Latter-day Saints believe in a plurality of divine beings who are “personages,” that is, anthropomorphic individuals. We gave a brief account earlier (pp. 56–57) of the development of LDS theology from Joseph Smith’s beginnings to the present. Joseph’s earliest revelations were in most respects monotheistic, but by the end of his life he was teaching explicitly that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were three Gods, that they progressed to become Gods, and that we are the Father’s literal spirit offspring with the potential to become divine beings like him. Although there are in the LDS doctrine of God many theological issues of interest and even relevance we could address, here we will focus on the LDS belief in a plurality of Gods and its distinction between “Elohim” the Father and “Jehovah” the Son as two different Gods in the Old Testament.

Plurality of Gods

In 1842, Joseph Smith published initial installments of the Book of Abraham, a supposedly inspired translation of a text that the Genesis patriarch Abraham had written on one of the Egyptian papyri that the LDS Church purchased in 1835. The papyri were authentically ancient Egyptian papyri (though two thousand, not four thousand, years old), but the Book of Abraham was not an authentic translation of the papyrus on which it was supposedly based. This fact became clear when fragments of the papyri resurfaced in the 1960s and were translated by both LDS and non-LDS scholars.³⁴ What interests us here is that Abraham 4–5 is a revision of Genesis 1–2. The base text of the revision is clearly the KJV, but the passage has been extensively edited to teach a polytheistic account of creation, as the following excerpts illustrate (emphases added):

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (Gen. 1:1–3 KJV)

And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth. And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate, because they had not formed anything but the earth; and darkness reigned upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of the Gods was brooding upon the face of the waters. And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light. (Abr. 4:1–3)

The Book of Abraham changes “God” to “the Gods” not just in these verses but throughout Abraham 4–5. Notably, Genesis 1:26–27 is rewritten so that human beings are made in the image of the Gods: “So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them” (Abr. 4:27). In his final sermon, known as the Sermon in the Grove, Joseph attempted to prove this translation from the plural form of the Hebrew word ʾĕlōhîm.

I once asked a learned Jew, “If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?” He replied, “That is the rule with few exceptions; but in this case it would ruin the Bible.” He acknowledged I was right. . . . The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through—Gods.³⁵

The LDS Church has had for a long time a contingent of scholars who know this is nonsense. More than a century ago, LDS apostle James Talmage, one of the LDS Church’s most influential intellectuals, commented regarding the word ʾĕlōhîm: “In form the word is a Hebrew plural noun; but it connotes the plurality of excellence or intensity, rather than distinctively of number.”³⁶ Yet the LDS Church stands by Joseph’s interpretation of the word ʾĕlōhîm, at least in some of its literature. In its Old Testament curriculum manual, for instance, they assert that contrary to the view of “modern scholars,” Joseph “indicated the significance of the plural form,” quoting the Sermon in the Grove.³⁷ There are many reasons why we know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that ʾĕlōhîm in Genesis 1 functions as a singular noun and should be translated “God.” For the sake of space, we will mention just three reasons.

1. Hebrew uses plural nouns for a variety of reasons other than to express a numerical plural. It does this, for example, with ʾādôn, the Hebrew word for “lord,” which often occurs in plural forms in reference to a king, such as David (1 Kings 1:43, 47), or in reference to Yahweh (e.g., Ps. 8:1, 9). Biblical scholars generally agree that the plural ʾĕlōhîm in reference to God is another example of this usage.

2. In virtually all cases where ʾĕlōhîm in context means “God,” the verbs, other nouns, pronouns, and adjectives used with it are singular in form, not plural.³⁸ The point here is easy to understand. If you read a sentence saying “Elohim is good,” you know that Elohim in this sentence must be singular because the verb is singular (“is”). The same thing applies to expressions like “Elohim our Father” or “Elohimsits on his throne.” We see this use of singular words in relation to ʾĕlōhîm right in Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning God [ʾĕlōhîm] created the heavens and the earth.” The verb “created” in this verse (bārāʾ) is singular, not plural. This pattern continues throughout Genesis 1–2 in the Hebrew text wherever the word ʾĕlōhîm occurs.

3. The Hebrew Bible refers to Yahweh numerous times as ʾĕlōhîm. Whenever it does so, the word ʾĕlōhîm must mean “God,” not “gods.” But this leads to the second problem in LDS theology we need to address.

Jehovah and Elohim as Two Gods

There was a reason why James Talmage over a century ago pointed out that the Hebrew word ʾĕlōhîm was singular in meaning. By that time, the LDS Church had settled on the convention of using “Elohim” as a name for God the Father, while using “Jehovah” as a name for the Son Jesus Christ. Thus, Talmage immediately explained, “Elohim, as understood and used in the restored Church of Jesus Christ, is the name-title of God the Eternal Father, whose firstborn Son in the spirit is Jehovah—the Only Begotten in the flesh, Jesus Christ.”³⁹ This was not merely a naming convention, however; in LDS theology, Elohim and Jehovah are two different Gods. Again, Joseph Smith explicitly taught that the Father and the Son are two different Gods (and that the Holy Ghost is a third God). His statement on the matter in his very last sermon continues to be quoted in LDS Church publications:

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods.⁴⁰

As we saw was the case with Joseph’s interpretation of the word ʾĕlōhîm, the LDS distinction between Elohim and Jehovah as two different Gods (which, as just mentioned, developed decades after Joseph’s death) has proved difficult for LDS scholars to correlate with the Bible. If Jehovah had a God over him who was his father, where in the Old Testament is this God who was superior to Yahweh? Joseph Fielding Smith, an influential apostle who led the LDS Church briefly toward the end of his life (1970–72), offered the following explanation that Latter-day Saints commonly accept to this day:

The trouble with this explanation is that if Jehovah really were a God lesser in rank and glory than his father Elohim, one would expect that in Jehovah’s revelations to the patriarchs and the prophets throughout the Old Testament he would have spoken frequently about that greater deity. Not only are there no such statements in the Old Testament, what we find instead is an astonishing wealth of statements to the contrary. In what follows, we will use “Jehovah” to represent the Hebrew YHWH (Yahweh, commonly translated “the Lord” in English Bibles) and “Elohim” to represent the Hebrew ʾĕlōhîm (commonly translated “God”).

First of all, the Hebrew Bible pervasively identifies Jehovah as Elohim. It does this in many ways. Most commonly, it does so by referring to “Jehovah your Elohim” well over four hundred times, as well as in related references with other pronouns (“our Elohim,” “my Elohim,” and so on). We also find the compound name “Jehovah Elohim” or “Jehovah the Elohim,” references to “Jehovah, Elohim of Israel,” “Jehovah, the Elohim of ” various human figures (Shem, the patriarchs, David, Elijah, etc.), “Jehovah, Elohim of hosts,” and “Jehovah, Elohim of heaven” (or “of heaven and earth”). Besides these references, there are at least ten statements explicitly stating that Jehovah is Elohim (Deut. 4:35, 39; Josh. 22:34; 1 Kings 8:60; 18:21, 37, 39 [bis]; 2 Kings 19:19, cf. 19:15; Ps. 100:3). Some of these texts even state that Jehovah alone is Elohim. Here we will quote from the ASV, which uses “Jehovah” for the divine name YHWH:

Unto thee it was showed, that thou mightest know that Jehovah he is God [ʾĕlōhîm]; there is none else besides him…. Know therefore this day, and lay it to thy heart, that Jehovah he is God [ʾĕlōhîm] in heaven above and upon the earth beneath; there is none else. (Deut. 4:35, 39)…

that all the peoples of the earth may know that Jehovah, he is God; there is none else. (1 Kings 8:60)

O Jehovah, the God of Israel, that sittest above the cherubim, thou art the God [ʾĕlōhîm], even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth. . . . Now therefore, O Jehovah our God, save thou us, I beseech thee, out of his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou Jehovah art God [ʾĕlōhîm] alone. (2 Kings 19:15, 19; cf. Isa. 37:16, 20)

We find additional statements to the same effect elsewhere (again, quoting the ASV):

Wherefore thou art great, O Jehovah God: for there is none like thee, neither is there any God [ʾĕlōhîm] besides thee. (2 Sam. 7:22; also 1 Chron. 17:20). I am Jehovah, and there is none else; besides me there is no God. (Isa. 45:5, cf. 45:14)

. . . who hath declared it of old? have not I, Jehovah? and there is no God [ʾĕlōhîm] else besides me, a just God and a Saviour; there is none besides me. (Isa. 45:21).

Conservatively, there are well over 850 statements in the Old Testament identifying Jehovah as Elohim in the various ways we have just catalogued, averaging almost one per chapter. Not only are there many such statements in the Hebrew Bible, but they are spread throughout it in thirty-four of its thirty-nine books. It would not at all be an overstatement to assert that the primary message of the Old Testament is that Jehovah is Elohim.

In the light of this evidence, the only recourse would seem to be to question the integrity of the Old Testament. Indeed, that is what some Latter-day Saints do. Here LDS apologists have found some help from a maverick Methodist scholar named Margaret Barker. According to Barker, in ancient Israelite religion during the period of the first Jerusalem temple (Solomon’s), “there was a High God and several Sons of God, one of whom was Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel. Yahweh, the Lord, could be manifested on earth in human form, as an angel or in the Davidic king.”⁴² The “High God” might be called El or Elohim (“God”) or El Elyon (“God Most High”), but he was a God superior to Yahweh. “The original temple tradition was that Yahweh, the Lord, was the Son of God Most High, and present on earth as the Messiah.”⁴³ Here we have a scholarly construction of the origins of Christology that apparently lines up with LDS theology: Elohim as the Most High God and as the father of a group of “sons” (whom Latter-day Saints claim were the preexistent spirits of human beings), one of whom was Jehovah, later known as Jesus Christ.

The early Christians, Barker argues, drew on the First Temple traditions of the ancient Israelites in their view of Jesus, rather than on the monotheistic tradition that came to dominate Judaism in the Second Temple period. That monotheistic tradition was primarily the work of the “Deuteronomists,” Jewish scribes around the time of the Babylonian exile and thereafter who produced the passages in Deuteronomy and Isaiah that Christians commonly cite in support of monotheism.⁴⁴ Kevin Christensen, the main LDS apologist who has used Barker’s work to defend LDS theology, comments: “The same passages in Isaiah and Deuteronomy that are often used as proof texts for the strict monotheism of the Old Testament turn out to be for Barker evidence for a shift in Israelite theology during the exile.”⁴⁵

A full critique of Barker’s theory is beyond the scope of this book, but we can explain rather simply why it does not work as a support for LDS theology. First, the problems for the view cannot be limited to a few passages in Isaiah and Deuteronomy. Over 850 statements in thirty-four of the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament explicitly identify Jehovah as Elohim, and several books assert that Jehovah is the only Elohim (recall the texts we quoted above from Kings and Chronicles as well as Deuteronomy and Isaiah). Genesis and the Psalms also explicitly identify Jehovah as God Most High (El Elyon), the deity that Barker claims was the father of Jehovah and the other spirit sons: “Thou alone, whose name is Jehovah, art the Most High [ʿelyôn] over all the earth” (Ps. 83:18 ASV; see also Gen. 14:22; Pss. 7:17; 47:2; 97:9). All thirty-two occurrences of ʿelyôn in the Hebrew Bible as a title of deity are consistent with this identification of Jehovah as the God Most High. The one text that supposedly distinguishes Jehovah from Elohim or El Elyon is embedded, ironically, in Deuteronomy—in one of the most explicitly monotheistic passages in the Old Testament: When the Most High [ʿelyôn] gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But the Lord’s [YHWH] portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. (Deut. 32:8–9)

When the Most High [ʿelyôn] gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But the Lord’s [YHWH] portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. (Deut. 32:8–9)

This passage does not clearly distinguish Jehovah from Elyon; it makes perfect sense as saying, in Hebrew parallelism, that Jehovah the Most High allowed other nations to be dominated by “the gods” but reserved Israel (Jacob) for himself. In this same passage (the Song of Moses), Jehovah states:

“See now that I, even I, am he; And there is no god [ʾĕlōhîm] beside me.” (Deut. 32:39)

The theory that Elyon was a different deity than Jehovah entails that the “Deuteronomist” scribes skillfully edited out this idea from the entire Hebrew Bible, yet it somehow shows up in one statement in their signature book of Deuteronomy.46 Barker herself admits, “How such a ‘polytheistic’ piece came to be included in Deuteronomy, with its emphasis on monotheism, is a question we cannot answer.”⁴⁷

In effect, the LDS use of Barker’s theory turns the Old Testament upside down. The Old Testament consistently presents the monotheists as the good guys and the polytheists as the bad guys, the ones who corrupted Israel and who brought divine judgment on Israel. The LDS apologists claim that the polytheists were the good guys while the monotheists were the bad guys. Notice how different this theory is from Joseph Fielding Smith’s explanation for why it is so difficult to find a God above Yahweh in the Old Testament. Smith, assuming the general integrity of the Old Testament text, argued that after the fall Elohim the Father withdrew from contact with humanity and had his son Yahweh speak and act for him. Christensen claims that the Father was almost entirely erased from the Old Testament by apostate scribes. Neither theory holds up.

Finally, we should acknowledge the superficial appeal of the theory that Elohim and Jehovah are two different Gods for the LDS reading of the New Testament. As is well known, the New Testament authors most commonly use the title “God” (theos) for the Father and the title “Lord” (kyrios) for Jesus Christ. Since the Greek word theos is a common translation of the Hebrew ʾĕlōhîm while the Greek word kyrios is a common translation of YHWH, anyone who views the Father and the Son as two different deities will quite naturally infer that the Father is the deity called Elohim/God while Jesus Christ is the deity called Yahweh/Lord.

However, as we have seen, such an interpretation is at odds with the most fundamental teaching of the Old Testament, which is that Yahweh is Elohim. It is also at odds with the New Testament, which clearly accepts the identification of Yahweh as Elohim, at least in equivalent language in Greek. For example, Matthew, Mark, Luke–Acts, and Revelation all use the compound name “the Lord God” (Greek, kyrios ho theos) and related forms (“the Lord our God,” “the Lord your God”) as a designation of God (Matt. 4:7, 10; 22:37; Mark 12:29, 30; Luke 1:16, 32, 68; 4:8, 12; 10:27; 20:37; Acts 2:39; 3:22; Rev. 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7; 18:8; 19:6; 21:22; 22:5, 6). This is a stock designation for God in the Septuagint, appearing over nine hundred times (translating both YHWH ʾĕlōhîm and ʾădōnāy YHWH). The New Testament also quotes Old Testament texts in which the titles kyrios (representing YHWH) and theos (representing ʾĕlōhîm) are used for the same referent. These include the famous Shema, the Old Testament affirmation of Jehovah as Elohim (Deut. 6:4) that became the Jewish “creed” (Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:29, 30; Luke 10:27).

We conclude that the New Testament is just as “monotheistic” as the Old Testament. The distinction between God the Father and Jesus Christ the Lord cannot be explained biblically as a distinction between two of several or many different gods. The traditional Christian doctrine that there is one God who made the world and who is unique in his divine attributes (affirmed also in Judaism and Islam) is therefore securely grounded in the teachings of Scripture. There is no one like God—a point made over and over in the Old Testament (Exod. 8:10; 9:14; 15:11; 1 Kings 8:23; 1 Chron. 17:20; Ps. 86:8; Isa. 40:18, 25; 44:7; 46:5, 9; Jer. 10:6–7; Mic. 7:18). And yet, as we will see, the New Testament claims that Christ possesses the fullness of that unique divine nature (Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:3; see also John 14:7–10; 2 Cor. 4:4).

34. The LDS Church made no official statement on the translation problem until almost fifty years later, in a 2014 article on its website entitled “Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham,” at ChurchofJesusChrist.org (where one can also find the text of the Book of Abraham). The literature on the Book of Abraham, especially from LDS authors, is enormous. A representative introduction by a Latter-day Saint scholar is John Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU; Salt Lake City: Deseret, 2017). The best critical study is Robert K. Ritner, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition. P. JS 1–4 and the Hypocephalus of Sheshonq, with contributions by Marc Coenen, H. Michael Marquardt, and Christopher Woods (Salt Lake City: SmithPettit Foundation, 2011). Ritner, an Egyptologist at the University of Chicago, also wrote “‘Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham’—A Response,” The Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, 2014, answering the LDS Church’s website article. Ritner’s article is conveniently available along with other resources on the subject at https://mit.irr.org/category/book-of-abraham.

35. Smith, History of the Church, 6:475, 476.

36. James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, 6th ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1922 [orig. 1915]), 38. The book is currently on the LDS Church’s official website.

37. “Enrichment Section: Who Is the God of the Old Testament?” in Old Testament Student Manual: Genesis—2 Samuel: Religion 301, 3rd ed. (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2003), accessed online at ChurchofJesusChrist.org.

38. Genesis 20:13 (“And when God caused me to wander [hithʿû, plural verb]”) may be a rare exception (see also Gen. 35:7, “revealed”; 2 Sam. 7:23, “went”). The fact that these occurrences are rare and in theologically inauspicious contexts means one cannot use them to read a doctrine of plurality of Gods into the Bible.

39. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, 38; see also Joseph F. Smith et al., “The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles,” Ensign, April 2002, reprinted from Improvement Era, August 1916, 934–42.

40. Smith, History of the Church, 6:474; quoted, e.g., in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2007), 41–42; Chapter 47, “Doctrine and Covenants 121:11–46,” in Doctrine and Covenants: Student Manual: Religion 324 and 325 (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2017).

41. Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56), 1:27. LDS Church publications frequently quote this statement, e.g., “Moses 1:1–11,” in The Pearl of Great Price: Student Manual: Religion 327 (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2017). It is also quoted in Robert L. Millet, “The Ministry of the Father and the Son,” in The Book of Mormon: The Keystone Scripture, ed. Paul R. Cheesman (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1988), 44–72, accessed online at rsc.byu.edu.

42. Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 3, emphasis in original.

43. Margaret Barker, “Joseph Smith and Preexilic Israelite Religion,” BYU Studies Quarterly 44, no. 4 (2005): 79.

44. E.g., Barker, Great Angel, 28.

45. Kevin Christensen, “The Deuteronomist De-Christianizing of the Old Testament,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 16, no. 2 (June 2004): 69.

46. On Deuteronomy 32:8–9, see Michael S. Heiser, “Are Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut. 32:8–9 and Psalm 82?” Hiphil 3 (2006); “You’ve Seen One Elohim, You’ve Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism’s Use of Psalm 82,” FARMS Review 19, no. 1 (2007): 233–37.

47. Barker, Great Angel, 6.

FURTHER READING

YHWH: THE ONLY TRUE ELOHIM

MORMON GOD VERSUS THE TRUE GOD

WHO IS THE ELOHIM OF MORMONISM?, PT. 2

THE MORMON SATAN & PREMORTALITY

THE BIBLICAL GOD VERSUS THE MORMON GODS, PT. 2, PT. 2B

JOSEPH SMITH THE FALSE PROPHET DEBATE

NOTES FOR MORMON DEBATE

Daniel’s Son of Man: YHWH’s Angel? Pt. 3

JEREMIAH AND THE ARK

The book of 2 Maccabees states that the ark of the covenant was hidden by Jeremiah the prophet in a cave located on the mountain where Moses was allowed to see the land of Canaan before he died, namely Mount Nebo (cf. Deut. 32:48-52; 34:1-8). The exact location was meant to be unknown in order to prevent anyone from find the ark.

I now quote the relevant section from 2 Maccabees, which states this. I will be citing from the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE). All emphasis is mine.

2 One finds in the records that Jeremiah the prophet ordered those who were being deported to take some of the fire, as has been told, ²and that the prophet after giving them the law instructed those who were being deported not to forget the commandments of the Lord, nor to be led astray in their thoughts upon seeing the gold and silver statues and their adornment. ³And with other similar words he exhorted them that the law should not depart from their hearts.

⁴It was also in the writing that the prophet, having received an oracle, ordered that the tent and the ark should follow with him, and that he went out to the mountain where Moses had gone up and had seen the inheritance of God. ⁵And Jeremiah came and found a cave, and he brought there the tent and the ark and the altar of incense, and he sealed up the entrance. ⁶Some of those who followed him came up to mark the way, but could not find it. ⁷When Jeremiah learned of it, he rebuked them and declared: “The place shall be unknown until God gathers his people together again and shows his mercy. ⁸And then the Lord will disclose these things, and the glory of the Lord and the cloud will appear, as they were shown in the case of Moses, and as Solomon asked that the place should be specially consecrated.”

⁹It was also made clear that being possessed of wisdom Solomon offered sacrifice for the dedication and completion of the temple. ¹⁰Just as Moses prayed to the Lord, and fire came down from heaven and devoured the sacrifices, so also Solomon prayed, and the fire came down and consumed the whole burnt offerings. ¹¹And Moses said, “They were consumed because the sin offering had not been eaten.” ¹²Likewise Solomon also kept the eight days.

¹³The same things are reported in the records and in the memoirs of Nehemi′ah, and also that he founded a library and collected the books about the kings and prophets, and the writings of David, and letters of kings about votive offerings. ¹⁴In the same way Judas also collected all the books that had been lost on account of the war which had come upon us, and they are in our possession. ¹⁵So if you have need of them, send people to get them for you.

¹⁶Since, therefore, we are about to celebrate the purification, we write to you. Will you therefore please keep the days? ¹⁷It is God who has saved all his people, and has returned the inheritance to all, and the kingship and priesthood and consecration, ¹⁸as he promised through the law. For we have hope in God that he will soon have mercy upon us and will gather us from everywhere under heaven into his holy place, for he has rescued us from great evils and has purified the place.

¹⁹The story of Judas Maccabe′us and his brothers, and the purification of the great temple, and the dedication of the altar, ²⁰and further the wars against Anti′ochus Epiph′anes and his son Eu′pator, ²¹and the appearances which came from heaven to those who strove zealously on behalf of Judaism, so that though few in number they seized the whole land and pursued the barbarian hordes, ²²and recovered the temple famous throughout the world and freed the city and restored the laws that were about to be abolished, while the Lord with great kindness became gracious to them— ²³all this, which has been set forth by Jason of Cyre′ne in five volumes, we shall attempt to condense into a single book. ²⁴For considering the flood of numbers involved and the difficulty there is for those who wish to enter upon the narratives of history because of the mass of material, ²⁵we have aimed to please those who wish to read, to make it easy for those who are inclined to memorize, and to profit all readers. ²⁶For us who have undertaken the toil of abbreviating, it is no light matter but calls for sweat and loss of sleep, ²⁷just as it is not easy for one who prepares a banquet and seeks the benefit of others. However, to secure the gratitude of many we will gladly endure the uncomfortable toil, ²⁸leaving the responsibility for exact details to the compiler, while devoting our effort to arriving at the outlines of the condensation. ²⁹For as the master builder of a new house must be concerned with the whole construction, while the one who undertakes its painting and decoration has to consider only what is suitable for its adornment, such in my judgment is the case with us. ³⁰It is the duty of the original historian to occupy the ground and to discuss matters from every side and to take trouble with details, ³¹but the one who recasts the narrative should be allowed to strive for brevity of expression and to forego exhaustive treatment. ³²At this point therefore let us begin our narrative, adding only so much to what has already been said; for it is foolish to lengthen the preface while cutting short the history itself.

The Ark being hidden away, not be discovered, may be the fulfillment of what God had spoke through Jeremiah:

“And when you have multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, says the Lord, they shall no more say, ‘The ark of the covenant of the Lord.’ It shall not come to mind, or be remembered, or missed; it shall not be made again. At that time Jerusalem shall be called the throne of the Lord, and all nations shall gather to it, to the presence of the Lord in Jerusalem, and they shall no more stubbornly follow their own evil heart.” Jeremiah 3:16-17 RSVCE

Matt. 28:19 – Baptism In Whose Name?

Matthew 28:19 – Baptism In Whose Name?

James E. Snapp

“This is perhaps a case of late interpolation.” That was liberal scholar Rudolph Bultmann’s opinion of the words “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” in Matthew 28:19.

Earlier, in 1902, Frederick C. Conybeare – who might be considered the Bart Ehrman of his day – claimed in a detailed essay in The Hibbert Journal (and in 1901 in Zeitschrift fur Neutestamentlich Wissenschaft, pp. 275-288) that he had found patristic evidence against the genuineness of this phrase “so weighty that in [the] future the most conservative of divines will shrink from resting on it any dogmatic fabric at all.”

At this very moment, there are some in the Oneness Pentecostal denomination who similarly regard the threefold formula “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” as an early scribal corruption. The theological impetus for this position is not hard to find: throughout the book of Acts, Luke reports that the early Christians baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” (2:38), or “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (8:16), or “in the name of the Lord” (10:48); the use of a threefold declaration at baptism is never mentioned by Luke.

Some Oneness Pentecostals have attempted to resolve this apparent discrepancy by taking a theological step that is not far from – and perhaps indistinguishable from – the early heresy of modalism: they baptize without such a threefold formula, and insist that the name “Jesus” is the name of the Father, and the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Spirit. Others, while theologically greatly distanced from Bultmann and Conybeare, share with them a rejection of the authority of Matthew 28:19 on the grounds that the phrase “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” is not authentic. Some Islamic groups similarly reject the genuineness of this phrase.

Usually when a reading has the support of every Greek manuscript in existence in which a passage is extant – as is the case here at the end of Matthew – there is no text-critical issue and it is accepted as genuine, as a matter of course. Even Bart Ehrman – who has proposed (like Gordon Fee before him) that First Corinthians 14:34-35, despite having enormous manuscript support, contains a lengthy interpolation – recently wrote, “It is usually thought that Matt. 28:19-20 is referring to the practice in Matthew’s own community, some 50 years after Jesus’ death, not to the words Jesus himself actually spoke.” (Readers of such comments should understand that when Ehrman employs phrases such as “It is usually thought,” he means, “It is usually thought among my colleagues who deny supernatural events in general.”) Regarding those who, instead, claim to reject the phrase on text-critical grounds: what are their grounds?

Their go-to source is Eusebius of Caesarea, the influential and not-entirely-orthodox historian of the early 300s, best-known for his composition Ecclesiastical History. As Conybeare documented, Eusebius utilized Matthew 28:19 seventeen times in ways that indicate that his text of the verse read πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, that is, “As you go, make disciples of all nations in My name.” Part of Conybeare’s argument that this reading should be given exceptional weight is that Eusebius was stationed in Caesarea, where in the previous generation Origen had enlarged the library with his own manuscripts; thus, it may be reasonably thought that among the manuscripts accessible to Eusebius in the early 300s were some copies from the early 200s, earlier than any existing copies of Matthew 28:19.

Conybeare’s quotations from Eusebius may have initially appeared to justify his confident assertions, but he was quickly answered by J. R. Wilkinson in The Hibbert Journal in 1902, in the second part of an article titled, Mr. Conybeare’s Textual Theories (beginning on p. 96 of the journal issued in October of 1902, and on p. 571 of the digitally archived copy). Wilkinson granted that Eusebius used a text in which “in My name” was in the first part of Matthew 28:19, referring to disciple-making, but he reasoned that this does not imply that “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” was absent from the second part of the verse, referring to baptism. The textual critic Frederick Chase also wrote a response against Conybeare’s approach in 1905 in the Journal of Theological Studies (beginning on p. 481).

A comprehensive, and decisive, answer against Conybeare’s proposal appeared in 1923 in Bernard Henry Cuneo’s published dissertation, The Lord’s Command to Baptise: An Historico-Critical Investigation With Special Reference to the Works of Eusebius of Caesarea. Cuneo systematically scrutinized Conybeare’s quotations from Eusebius, one by one, along with other quotations, and showed that Eusebius, like some other patristic writers, tended to limit his quotations to the segments of Scripture that were relevant to the topic that he was discussing at a given point.

For example, Cuneo examples Eusebius’ statement in Ecclesiastical History 3:5 and considers the development of Eusebius’ argument in which the quotation occurs: Eusebius quoted Matthew 28:19a, not to say something about baptism, but to confirm a parenthetical point; in the course of describing the Roman siege of Jerusalem, he writes:

“. . . because the Jews continued to persecute His disciples, by stoning Stephen, beheading James the brother of John, and putting to death James the bishop of Jerusalem; and because they afflicted the other apostles so severely that they fled from Palestine and began to preach the Gospel to all the nations – imbued with the power of Christ who had said to them, “Going, make disciples of all the nations in my name” – and when all the Christians had left Jerusalem and fled to Pella, then the divine vengeance visited upon Jerusalem the crimes of which that city had been guilty against Christ and his disciples.”

In Demonstration of the Gospel 1:6, Eusebius wrote, “Our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Son of God, said to His disciples after His resurrection, ‘Go and make disciples of all the nations,’ and added, ‘Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.’” Here we do not see the middle of verse 19 because it is not pertinent to Eusebius’ present subject, whereas the beginning and end are pertinent.

Although this frugality may seem strange nowadays – that is, modern readers may understandably ask, “Why not just quote the whole verse?” – we ought to remember that nobody quoted from the New Testament in terms of chapter-and-verse divisions as we know them until the mid-1500s. Quoting only what needed to be quoted in order to support a particular point was common in ancient times; Eusebius shows the same tendency toward brevity in his quotations of Matthew 11:27, 16:18, etc.

Cuneo’s cumulative case is so effective that I recommend it to everyone who might encounter echoes of Conybeare’s argument; The Lord’s Command to Baptise is available online as a free download at Google Books. Archive.org also has a copy. Cuneo reminds readers about other patristic evidence in favor of the inclusion of the words “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” For example:

● Didache, chapter 7 (early 100s): “Concerning baptism, baptize thus: having first rehearsed all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. But if you have no running water, baptize in other water, and if you cannot in cold, then in warm. But if you have neither, pour water three times on the head ‘in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.’”

● Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, part 17 (c. 180): concluding a series of proof-texts supporting his contention that it was not a Christ-persona, but the Holy Spirit, who descended upon Jesus: “He said to them, Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

● Tertullian, De Baptismo, ch. 13 (c. 200): “The law of baptism was enjoined and its ritual prescribed. ‘Go,’ He says, ‘teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.’ The addition to this law of the regulation: ‘Except one be born again of water and spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven,’ bound faith to the necessity of baptism. Consequently from that time all believers were baptized.”

● Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum ch. 20 (c. 200): “He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost.”

● Hippolytus, Contra Noetum, ch. 14 (early 200s): “The Father’s Word, therefore, knowing the economy (i.e., disposition) and the will of the Father, that is, that the Father seeks to be worshipped in no other way than this, gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: ‘Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ And by this He showed that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly.”

● Acts of Thomas 9:4 (early 200s): “And the apostle, having taken oil, and poured it over their head, and salved and anointed them, began to say, ‘Come, holy name of Christ, which is above every name; come, power of the Most High . . . come, Holy Spirit, and purify their reins and heart, and seal them in the name of Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit.’”

● Participants at the Seventh Council of Carthage (257), which was focused on the subject of baptism, included

Lucius of Castra Galbae, who quoted Christ’s words from Matthew 28:18-19, including “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Munnulus of Girba, who stated, “our Lord says, “Go ye and baptize the nations, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Euchratius of Thence, who said that Jesus Christ, teaching the apostles with His own mouth, “has entirely completed our faith, and the grace of baptism, and the rule of the ecclesiastical law, saying, “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Vincentius of Thibaris, who, in addition to alluding to Mark 16:15-18, said that the Lord said, in another place, “Go ye and teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Cuneo also spent several pages showing that Eusebius of Caesarea was indeed the author of Against Marcellus (336/337) and A Letter to the Caesareans Concerning the Council of Nicea. In the second composition, Eusebius introduces and repeats his own creed, which, he says, was read at the Council of Nicea in the presence of Emperor Constantine:

“As we have received from the bishops who preceded us, and in our first catechisms, and when we received the holy laver [i.e., at baptism], and as we have learned from the divine Scriptures, and as we believed and taught in the presbytery, and in the episcopate itself, so believing also at the time present, we report to you our faith, and it is this:

“We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, by Whom also all things were made; Who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the quick and dead. And we believe also in One Holy Ghost.”

This is followed by an addition affirmation:

“Believing each of these to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, ‘Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ Concerning whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held previously, and we maintain this faith unto the death, condemning every godless heresy.”

In another composition, the rarely cited Syriac Theophania, Eusebius of Caesarea made a full quotation of Matthew 28:17-20 in Book IV, chapter 8: “After His resurrection from the dead, all of them [i.e., the eleven apostles], being together as they had been commanded, went to Galilee, as He had said to them. But, when they saw Him, some worshipped Him, but others doubted. But He drew near to them, spoke with them, and said, ‘All power in heaven and earth, is given to me of my Father. Go ye and make disciples of all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And teach them to observe all that I have commanded you. And, behold! I am with you always even to the end of the world.’ Observe now, in these things, the consideration and caution evinced by the disciples . . . .”

(In the same composition, which its translator, Samuel Lee, translated from a Syriac manuscript which had been obtained by Henry Tattam at the Monastery of the Blessed Virgin in the Nitrian Desert – a manuscript which Lee assigned to a period no later than the 400s – Eusebius explicitly quotes Matthew 28:19a with “in My name” as part of the text, saying in Book 5 chapter 46, “It was not that He commanded them, simply and indiscriminately, to go and make disciples of all nations, but with this excellent addition which He delivered, specifically, ‘in My name.’”)

            In addition to demolishing Conybeare’s case against the phrase “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” Cuneo offered an explanation for the presence of the words “in My name” in Eusebius’ text of Matthew 28:19a:  it is a simple harmonization drawn from Luke 24:47.
            This introduces a fresh subject:  the abundance of alterations, harmonistic or otherwise, that are clustered in the Gospels’ accounts of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances.  These passages were among the most-used parts of the Gospels in early church-services, and were thus especially vulnerable to early liturgical influence.  Here are a few examples:
            ● In the Peshitta version of Matthew, Matthew 28:18 features an insertion drawn from John 20:21; after the usual words of the verse, the Peshitta adds, “As the Father sent Me, so also I send you.” (Codex Θ also has this feature.)

● In the Alexandrian text of Luke 24:42, there is no mention of honeycomb. The words και απο μελσσίου κηριου could have been accidentally skipped due to early scribal inattentiveness; και follows κηριου in the next sentence. But another possibility is that these words – supported by Tertullian, the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, the Vulgate, the Armenian version, etc. – were removed intentionally to avoid incorporating honey into annual Easter-time worship-services.

● In Luke 24:43, after the usual statement that Jesus “took and ate in their presence,” several significant manuscripts – including K, Θ, Π*, and members of f¹³, as well as the Vulgate and, according to Tregelles, the Curetonian Syriac and the Armenian and Ethiopic versions, also say, “and gave the rest to them.” (Θ does not include “and.”) This phrase may have been added when and where the passage had been interpreted somewhat mystically – the fish in the narrative being seen as congruent to the presence of Christ, ΙΧΘΥΣ – and when this point was reached in the Scripture-reading in the worship-service, the celebration of the Lord’s Supper commenced.

● In Luke 24:36, after Jesus’ appearance in the midst of the disciples, He says to them, “Peace to you!” In a small number of Greek manuscripts (including uncials G and P), and in the Vulgate, Jesus says a bit more; He goes on to say, “It is I; do not be afraid.” These extra words – drawn from John 6:20 – are supported, according to the UBS apparatus, by the Vulgate, the Peshitta, the Harklean Syriac, the Armenian version, and by Ambrose and Augustine (in Contra Felicem Manichaeum). In addition, in Codex W, “It is I; do not be afraid” appears before “Peace to you.”

All these witnesses may echo early Easter-time liturgical arrangements of the blended-together Gospel-accounts. An early attempt to remove the intruding words appears to have gone too far; in several Old Latin manuscripts and in Codex Bezae, the entire phrase – “and said to them, “Peace to you” – is missing. (This is one of the “Western Non-interpolations” which appear in Luke 24.) Another possibility is that the phrase was skipped by accident.

The worship-services of the early churches had a detectable impact upon the text of the New Testament. But the impact of the text of the New Testament upon the early churches was far greater. As far as the use of the words, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” are concerned, there was one reason for the early Christians to use these words: they were attributed to Christ in every copy of the Gospel of Matthew.

FURTHER READING

Matthew 28:19: A Text Critical Investigation

Eusebius and the Trinitarian Baptismal Formula

The authenticity and implications of the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19

Matthew 28:19

Is Jesus the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

JOHN, JUDAISM & THE SECOND DEATH

John in Revelation speaks of the second death, which is the everlasting destruction that individuals experience after being cast into the lake fire:

“He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.” Revelation 2:11 Authorized King James Version (AV)

“And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years… And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.” Revelation 20:4-6, 10-15 AV

“But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Revelation 21:8 AV

The concept of the second death is also found in the Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible, commonly referred to as the Targumim. Here are some examples:

Let Reuben live in this world, nor die the second death which the wicked die in the world to come; and let his youths be numbered with the young men of his brethren of Beth Israel. [JER. Let Reuben live in this world, nor die the second death which the wicked the in the world to come; and let his youths be with the men in number.] (The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel On the Pentateuch With The Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum From the Chaldee, by J. W. Etheridge, M.A. First Published 1862, Deut. 33:6 [33-34])

אֲמַר נְבִיָא בְאוּדְנִי הֱוֵיתִי שְׁמַע כַּד אִתְגְזַר דָא מִן קֳדָם יְיָ צְבָאוֹת אִם יִשְׁתְּבַק חוֹבָא הָדֵין לְכוֹן עַד דִי תְמוּתוּן מוֹתָא תִנְיָנָא אֲמַר יְיָ אֱלֹהִים צְבָאוֹת:

The prophet said, with mine ears I was hearing when this was decreed from before the Lord of hosts, namely, that this your iniquity shall not be forgiven you till you die the second death, said the Lord, the God, the God of hosts. (Targum Jonathan on Isaiah, Isa. 22:14 https://www.sefaria.org/Targum_Jonathan_on_Isaiah.22.14?lang=bi)

הָא כְתִיבָא קֳדָמַי לָא אֶתֵּן לְהוֹן אַרְכָּא בְּחַיַיָא אֱלָהֵן אֲשַׁלֵם לְהוֹן פּוּרְעֲנוּת חוֹבֵיהוֹן וְאֶמְסוֹר לְמוֹתָא תִּנְיָנָא יַת גְוִיַתְהוֹן:

Behold, it is written before me: I will not give unto them prolongation in this life; but I will recompense unto them the wages for their sins, and deliver their bodies to the second death. (Ibid., Isa. 65:6 https://www.sefaria.org/Targum_Jonathan_on_Isaiah.65.6?lang=bi)

וְתִשְׁבְּקוּן שׁוּמְכוֹן לְקַיָמָא לִבְחִירִי וִימִיתְכוֹן יְיָ אֱלֹהִים מוֹתָא תִנְיָנָא וּלְעַבְדוֹהִי צַדִיקַיָא יִקְרֵי שְׁמָא אוֹחֲרָנָא:

And ye shall leave your name for a curse to my chosen: for the Lord God shall slay you with the second death, 10 and call His righteous servants by another name:

דִמְבָרֵךְ בְּאַרְעָא יְבָרֵךְ בֶּאֱלָהָא קַיָמָא וְדִמְקַיֵם בְּאַרְעָא יְקַיֵם בֶּאֱלָהָא קַיָמָא אֲרֵי יִתְנַשְׁיָן עָקָתָא קַדְמְיָתָא וַאֲרֵי מְסַתְּרָן מִן קֳדָמַי:

That he who blesseth in the earth shall bless by the God of the covenant, and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of the covenant; because, the former troubles shall be forgotten, and because they shall be hidden from before me. (Ibid., Isa. 65:15-16 https://www.sefaria.org/Targum_Jonathan_on_Isaiah.65.15-16?lang=bi)

Bring upon them distress, and they shall be like drunkards, so that they shall not be strong, and they shall die the second death and not live in the world to come, says the Lord. Jer. 51:39 (The Bible in Aramaic Based on Old Manuscripts Printed Texts [E. J. Brill, 1992 second impression], edited by Alexander Sperber, Volume III (3). The Latter Prophets According to Jonathan, p. 258; emphasis mine)

I will make her officials and her sages drunk, her governors, her deputies, and her warriors; and they shall die the second death and not live in the world to come, says the King, whose name is the Lord of hosts. Jer. 51:57 (Ibid., p. 259; emphasis mine)

The final example comes from some Aramaic MSS of Psalm 49:11, which contain a variant reading:

A number of MSS⁶¹ offer a variant reading:

For he sees men (who are) wise in wickedness… who die a second death… and are judged in Gehinnom.

Here the second death is identical with the judgment in Gehinnom. The wicked will perish and their riches will be given to the righteous… At the same time it can be said of these wicked that they will remain in their graces for ever (49:12) and will not participate in the resurrection (49:13). (Harry Sysling, Teḥiyyat ha-metim: the resurrection of the dead in the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch and parallel traditions in classical rabbinic literature [J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1996], pp. 221-222)

Interestingly, the Talmud indicates that God will deliver folks from hell (gehinnom), and that gehinnom itself will be terminated or wiped out:

פּוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּגוּפָן, וּפוֹשְׁעֵי אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם בְּגוּפָן — יוֹרְדִין לְגֵיהִנָּם וְנִידּוֹנִין בָּהּ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ — גּוּפָן כָּלֶה, וְנִשְׁמָתָן נִשְׂרֶפֶת, וְרוּחַ מְפַזַּרְתָּן תַּחַת כַּפּוֹת רַגְלֵי צַדִּיקִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעַסּוֹתֶם רְשָׁעִים כִּי יִהְיוּ אֵפֶר תַּחַת כַּפּוֹת רַגְלֵיכֶם״.

The rebellious Jews who have sinned with their bodies and also the rebellious people of the nations of the world who have sinned with their bodies descend to Gehenna and are judged there for twelve months. After twelve months, their bodies are consumed, their souls are burned, and a wind scatters them under the soles of the feet of the righteous, as it is stated: “And you shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet” (Malachi 3:21).

אֲבָל הַמִּינִין וְהַמָּסוֹרוֹת וְהָאֶפִּיקוֹרְסִים שֶׁכָּפְרוּ בַּתּוֹרָה, וְשֶׁכָּפְרוּ בִּתְחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים, וְשֶׁפֵּירְשׁוּ מִדַּרְכֵי צִבּוּר, וְשֶׁנָּתְנוּ חִיתִּיתָם בְּאֶרֶץ חַיִּים, וְשֶׁחָטְאוּ וְהֶחְטִיאוּ אֶת הָרַבִּים, כְּגוֹן יָרׇבְעָם בֶּן נְבָט וַחֲבֵירָיו — יוֹרְדִין לְגֵיהִנָּם וְנִידּוֹנִין בָּהּ לְדוֹרֵי דּוֹרוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְיָצְאוּ וְרָאוּ בְּפִגְרֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים הַפּוֹשְׁעִים בִּי וְגוֹ׳״.

But the heretics; and the informers; and the apostates [apikorsim]; and those who denied the Torah; and those who denied the resurrection of the dead; and those who separated from the ways of the Jewish community and refused to share the suffering; and those who cast their fear over the land of the living; and those who sinned and caused the masses to sin, for example, Jeroboam, son of Nebat, and his company; all of these people descend to Gehenna and are judged there for generations and generations, as it is stated: “And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have rebelled against Me; for their worm shall not die; neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh” (Isaiah 66:24).

גֵּיהִנָּם כָּלֶה וְהֵן אֵינָן כָּלִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְצוּרָם לְבַלּוֹת שְׁאוֹל מִזְּבוּל לוֹ״. וְכׇל כָּךְ לָמָּה — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁפָּשְׁטוּ יְדֵיהֶם בִּזְבוּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מִזְּבוּל לוֹ״, וְאֵין ״זְבוּל״ אֶלָּא בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בָּנֹה בָנִיתִי בֵּית זְבוּל לָךְ״, וַעֲלֵיהֶם אָמְרָה חַנָּה: ״ה׳ יֵחַתּוּ מְרִיבָיו״.

Gehenna will terminate, but they still will not terminate, as it is stated: “And their form shall wear away the netherworld, so that there be no dwelling for Him” (Psalms 49:15); that is to say, Gehenna itself will be worn away before their punishment has come to an end. And why are they punished so severely? Because they stretched out their hands against God’s dwelling, the Temple, and everything else that is sanctified, as it is stated: “So that there be no dwelling [zevul] for Him.” Dwelling [zevul] is referring here only to the Temple, as it is stated: “I have built You a house for dwelling [zevul] in” (I Kings 8:13). And about them Hannah said: “The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken in pieces” (I Samuel 2:10).

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אָבִין: וּפְנֵיהֶם דּוֹמִין לְשׁוּלֵי קְדֵירָה. וְאָמַר רָבָא: וְאִינְהוּ מִשַּׁפִּירֵי שַׁפִּירֵי בְּנֵי מָחוֹזָא, וּמִקַּרְיִין ״בְּנֵי גֵיהִנָּם״.

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avin said: And their faces on the Day of Judgment will be black and sooty like the bottom of a pot. And Rava said: And they shall include the most handsome, i.e., upstanding, of the people of Meḥoza, as Rava thought that even the most upstanding people of the city of Meḥoza were wicked, and they shall be called the people of Gehenna.

אָמַר מָר, בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: ״וְרַב חֶסֶד״ — מַטֶּה כְּלַפֵּי חֶסֶד, וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְהֵבֵאתִי אֶת הַשְּׁלִישִׁית בָּאֵשׁ״! הָתָם, בְּפוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּגוּפָן.

The Master said in the baraita above: It stated that Beit Hillel say: He Who is “and abundant in kindness” (Exodus 34:6) tilts the scales in favor of kindness, so that middling people will not have to pass through Gehenna. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “And I will bring the third part through the fire” (Zechariah 13:9), implying that there is a third group, which is sent to Gehenna temporarily? The Gemara answers: There, the verse is referring to the rebellious Jews who have sinned with their bodies.

פּוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּגוּפָן — וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ לֵית לְהוּ תַּקַּנְתָּא?! כִּי לֵית לְהוּ תַּקָּנָה — בְּרוֹב עֲוֹנוֹת. הָכָא — מֶחֱצָה עֲוֹנוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה זְכִיּוֹת, וְאִית בְּהוּ נָמֵי עָוֹן דְּפוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּגוּפָן, לָא סַגְיָא לֵיהּ דְּלָאו ״וְהֵבֵאתִי אֶת הַשְּׁלִישִׁית בָּאֵשׁ״. וְאִם לָאו, ״וְרַב חֶסֶד״ — מַטֶּה כְּלַפֵּי חֶסֶד. וַעֲלֵיהֶן אָמַר דָּוִד: ״אָהַבְתִּי כִּי יִשְׁמַע ה׳״.

The Gemara asks: Can the verse be referring to the rebellious Jews who have sinned with their bodies? But didn’t you say that they have no rectification? The Gemara responds: When do they have no rectification? When in addition to their having sinned with their bodies, the majority of their actions are sins. But here, the verse is referring to people for whom half of their actions are sins and half are meritorious deeds, and those sins include the sin of the rebellious Jews who sin with their bodies. It is not sufficient that they not be subject to the verse: “And I will bring the third part through the fire.” However, if their sins and meritorious deeds are equally balanced, and they did not sin with their bodies, He Who is “abundant in kindness” tilts the scales in favor of kindness. And about them, David said: “I love the Lord, Who hears my voice and my supplications” (Psalms 116:1). (Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hoshana 17a https://www.sefaria.org/Rosh_Hashanah.17a.3-8?lang=bi)

FURTHER READING

Are Hell and the Lake of Fire One and the Same Place?

OT References to Hell in the King James Bible