I’m pressing my luck using this series, but I want you to understand that even though at this point much of Claiborne’s argument is lost on me, I am trying hard to understand his point of view. I think he has many, many important things to say and that we should listen when we can and even when we cannot. So if I am arguing with you loudly during these posts it’s not because I necessarily disagree with you it is because I’m am speaking out loud my objections to what I read in order that others among us can help clarify what I may have missed.
So I press on in the hope that I might have a deeper understanding of the faith that I profess and cling to. Since the Lord has seen fit to silence my voice for now and prohibit me from entering the pulpit for a season, I think it best to learn to listen to those around me. This means reading books by authors I might not otherwise read (like Claiborne, or Lamott, or MLK). It’s all a part of the reshaping of my faith all over again for the first time ever. It happens about every ten years or so for me. So here’s today’s ‘whaddya think?’
Hell is not just something that comes after death but is something many are living in this very moment: 1.2 billion people groan for a drop of water each day; more than thirty thousand kids starve to death each day; and thirty-eight million folks are dying of AIDS. It seems ludicrous to think of preaching to them about hell when we would do better sitting at the well and asking them for a little water. We see Jesus spending far more energy loving people out of hell, and lifting people out of the hells in which they are trapped, than trying to scare them into heaven. And one of the most beautiful things we get to see in community here in Kensington is people who have been loved out of the hells they find themselves in–domestic violence, addiction, sex trafficking, loneliness.
[...]
…Jesus reassured Peter that the ‘gates of hell will not prevail against you.’ As adolescents, we understood that to mean that the demons and fiery darts of the Devil will not hit us. But lately we’ve done a little more thinking and praying, and we have a bit more insight on gates. Gates are not offensive weapons. Gates are defensive–walls and fences we built to keep people out. God is not saying the gates of hell will not prevail as they come at us. God is saying that we are in the business of storming the gates of hell, and the gates will not prevail as we crash through them with grace.
[...]
People sometimes ask if we are scare of the inner city. We say that we are more scared of the suburbs…As Shane’s mother says, “Perhaps there is no more dangerous place for a Christian to be than in safety and comfort, detached from the suffering of others.” We’re scared of apathy and complacency, of detaching ourselves from the suffering. (Jesus For President, 291, 292)
Whaddya think? There is much in these statements that I agree with entirely. But I want to know what you think. Later, if I argue with you, don’t get angry. Let’s learn together.
51 Comments(+Add)
I am in general agreement with all those quotes, but the quote which grabbed me was this:
When I embrace concepts and teachings from some emergents I risk losing my “orthodox” diploma. Just yesterday I was ruled as “not real” unless I refused to visit this “hate site”. I am so double minded! “lol”
1. I think that there is no hell on earth, there is nothing as terrible as hell on this earth. Whats even worse is that hell (holding place) is not as bad as the lake of fire, which Hell is cast into after the final judgment.
2. That being said, there are horrible things that happen on earth. Some of these things are a result of choices, others a result of government, others a result of war, all the result of the fall of our federal head, Adam.
3. I know what Claibourne thinks love is, and certainly giving water, bringing medicine, sending food, giving clothing are all examples of physically helping people. But the greatest love of all is sharing the Gospel message. Ultimately, we will all face death, and after this comes judgment.
4. Jesus at the well did not stop with asking for a glass of water. He exposed the woman’s deepest need. She was in need of salvation that only came from Christ. She could not save herself, nor could she justify herself. She was an outcast, and Jesus loved her and showed his love by revealing her real need and showing her the way to salvation. Anything short of that is not real love.
5. I still have to know, when one is loved out of domestic violence, sex trafficing, etc. does that include addressing the need of salvation, or is this just a temporal salvation from the scourge of this world?
If you are not convinced that there is a place of eternal punishment, then using the word “hell” as a euphemism is acceptable. But if there is such a place where unredeemed souls live forever in torment, then comparing even the worst circumstances on earth to that is unthinkable.
I suggest that even if there is such a place, it is impossible for any human to fully believe it, either in concept, or reality.
It’s possible that Clairebourne was trying to make a point about current suffering and not making an escatological statement.
It’s also possible that he believes both:
John, maybe you haven’t lived through any. Suffering ‘persecution’ on a beach in FLA during spring break doesn’t count.
Using the same word blurs the understanding. The word “suffering” is the Biblical word for earthly pain, but the word “hell”, even in religious and secular colloquialism, denotes a place beyond death. And if you assume there is such a place/existance, that truth trumps all earthly sufferings both in length and depth.
Here again we are faced with a very real and significant issue that seems to be waning in these later years. While it may be possible to deconstuct some parables and Biblical language as it applies to the general doctrine of hell, it cannot be completely dismissed throughout Scripture, and many universalists admit to its existence while denying any human habitation in the future.
But the earthly sufferings of people are real, and we cannot ignore them due to the hell trump card. Even in the early church believers were commanded to help the poor, and some of the Spiritual gifts were for healing. But everything must be viewed as threads to a divine quilt of redemption. They work together, not at the expense of one another.
So we cannot say, “I’ll preach the gospel and do what I can to help people in other areas.”
And we cannot say, “I’ll help suffering people and hope they see God in that”.
The first statement is crippled. The second statement is dead.
Jerry,
I have been through many miserable things because of my stand for Christ and despite it. Most were the result of my poor choices, my lack of being Christ-like.
But none can even compare to Hell.
To call these things hell on earth cheapens hell, and the very reality of it.
Hell is eternal, you cannot leave Hell. These things on earth are all temporary, and, in many cases, you can get relief!
Most were the result of my poor choices, my lack of being Christ-like.
as in, the way you “take your stand for Christ”?
Nathan,
What purpose was that comment meant to serve? In the spirit of our common bond in Christ, I ask you to treat Pastorboy as a brother in Christ and refrain from such personal insults in the future.
Neil
Rick (#6),
The word ‘heaven’ is used both for the place where God is and Jesus is sitting at his right hand, etc. as well as in the context of the kingdom of heaven (happening on earth). Can’t we have the same kind of reading with hell (the place of eternal suffering as well as the suffering that takes place on earth).
Corey
Here are my brief thoughts:
1. Hell:
- hell is not a place at all. Look at the OT – it is referred to as ’sheol’ which is the abode of the dead, to which ALL men go after death, good or bad. We await the resurrection. This same word, ’sheol’, is translated ‘hell’ in the NT.
- isn’t it curious that ‘hell’ is never once mentioned in any one of the epistles Paul wrote? Or in the book of Acts?
- The OT doesn’t refer to hell and neither do the NT writers, so we’re left with the Jesus who spoke very parabolically, often using the word Gehenna.
So, I get what he’s trying to say. Namely, that people on earth are suffering unbearable torments that we should not be indifferent about. And I agree with this point.
YET, the saving message of the gospel MUST be preached. Without this proclamation, the aspect of just relieving people’s temporary needs is futile. It is the soul that is the most in need.
I can agree with statement, but my issue in the definition of the Gospel and salvation. If all we offer people is the salvation of their eternal soul, this is not the entire Biblical view of salvation. In fact, I would say it’s a somewhat minor part of it.
When the prophets talked of God’s coming deliverance, they were not speaking of God rescuing the eternal souls of His people. They were talking of God being vindicated on earth, of all people seeing His Kingdom, and of His justice coming. So, of course this is a spiritual reality, but it is also a physical. It’s not an either/or thing.
A man is not either a spirit or a body. He is both. One could argue that in Jewish thought, in order for a soul to truly be a soul, it must have a complete body and a complete spirit. Salvation is holistic.
This is precisely the importance of the gospel: that souls be saved. That people be turned from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God. This is done one soul at a time.
To say this is a “minor part” is to drastically miss the mark. Where do you derive this thinking from scripture?
In the end, the kingdom of God will be firmly established on this earth – at the coming of Jesus and the restoration of all things.
The salvation of their eternal soul is a “minor part” of the gospel? I cannot believe that you meant this as it reads.
Perhaps I mistyped a bit by saying “minor” – I would rather say secondary or something like that.
What I’m saying is that the individualistic “fire insurance” or even “death avoidance” view of salvation kind of misses the point. The point isn’t so much what God will do for on an individual basis – as if God is ticket broker whom we make a deal with. The point is what God has been doing, what He is doing, and what He will do on earth. Salvation is His grand plan for the earth and His creation. And through the work of Christ on the cross, His resurrection, and the prompting of the Holy Spirit, we can choose to take part in or not. The choice is not just something that affects our eternal destination, but rather our whole life. So to make salvation just about where we go when we die attenuates much of the power of the Gospel.
The Kingdom of God has come, it is coming now, and it will come in fullness in the future.
Possibly the most stunning thing I’ve read in weeks. Unbelievable. Men, dead in trespasses and sin being brought to life in Jesus, a “minor part” of salvation…
Yes, but if I am not regenerated by the power of Christ, then what good is there in knowing that God will establish his kingdom on this earth for all eternity??? Salvation is the thing. This is what men are called to preach – “Repent and be reconciled to God!”
Everything ELSE is secondary to being reconciled personally to God through the atoning blood of Christ.
I am really surprised here Phil. Our “whole life” may last 70-80 years, and no doubt the gospel has a dramatic impact on us, but how can now compare to then? As the hymn-writer says, “When we’ve been there 10,000 years, bright shining as the sun…”
Read Hebrews 11. These men and women all saw the promises of God “afar off” and were persuaded in them. In effect, the temporary life meant little in comparison to the riches of eternal life in the presence of God.
No one is suggesting fire insurance. But the promise of eternal life, when realized through faith, is the foundation upon which we build. In short, the kingdom of God on this earth is the revelation of eternal life through Christ (Who is our life) working through and in those who believe and follow Jesus Christ.
I agree that we should not present hell at the exclusion of Christ and eternal life. When I got saved I was not concerned with hell.
And this is a good thing. I would expect though, that much, if not the vast majority, of Gospel preaching in the age of modernity employed the “Get Out of Hell Free” card as the primary motivator.
It may be another tangent, but the unfortunate legacy of modernity in the church is the tendency to walk an isle, check a set of beliefs, get my heavenly boarding pass, then sit and wait.
You’re missing my point to an extent, I believe.
When we present salvation as something people can buy into for a future reward, we are subtly (or perhaps not so subtly) making it an issue of what God is doing for that individual. We might as be saying, “God is making you an offer you can’t refuse! Little to no upfront investment with great rewards!” The fact is, though, that it’s not about what great rewards we will get in heaven or on the renewed earth, but rather being captivated by God’s awesome love and his character.
Perhaps I am sensitive to this because I grew up hearing songs like this:
How is that not making salvation all about my personal gain? Put up with enough this crappy earth for 70 years or so, and then I’ll get mine. That doesn’t inspire me to want to pray that God’s will is done here. It inspires me to daydream about my mansion in glory. It doesn’t instill a sense of awe in me of God’s wonderful plan of salvation for His creation. It really just makes it all about what God will do for me.
That is not Christianity; for salvation is not fire insurance alone, and it is not a guarantee of heaven alone.
We are already in the midst of eternity. When we are saved, it changes us starting today and begins a process in which we are molded into the image of Jesus Christ, In becoming Christlike, our flesh is gradually cut away and we begin to take baby steps into walking as Christ walked. This includes, obviously, how we deal with people- people who are in need (all of them) of the good news.
To preach the Gospel without accompanying works is ludacris, but to do works alone is simply bribery and short-sighted.
Phil, this is a classic case of false dichotomies as you are arguing against something that is not being presented here at all.
The perils of American Christianity.
In effect, throughout the ages it has been the promise of eternal life that has (almost singlehandedly) caused men and women to hazard their lives for the gospel and Jesus Christ. When the promise of eternal life is grasped in full, it makes this life seem paltry in comparison and shifts our eyes from ourselves to the cause of the one who saved us.
It was not my intention to necessarily accuse anyone here of simply offering “fire insurance” (although I do think some are treading that line – glances wearily at PB…)
The thing is that none of live in a cultural vacuum, and when we say something like, “YET, the saving message of the gospel MUST be preached. Without this proclamation, the aspect of just relieving people’s temporary needs is futile. It is the soul that is the most in need.” it may mean something to us, but I believe that most people who hear it still have in their head the transaction model of salvation that has dominated the airwaves of Christian radio and tv for the last 50 years. They automatically assume that we are simply offering them a way to avoid hell.
So unless we purposely change how we are communicating and really truly explain what salvation is, we will still see the fruit we have been seeing. Which is a large number of Christians who see salvation as little more than a get-out-hell-free card that doesn’t really speak to their everyday existence. I can’t remember where I read right now, but I read a phrase in a book that said, “your system is perfectly designed to give you the results you are now seeing”. So if we remain unwilling to change the way we are communicating the Gospel (or perhaps I should what we think is the gospel) our results will continue to be what they are. An incomplete Gospel will result in incomplete Christians.
On the one hand you have ngo’s feeding people and meeting purely physical needs that fall short of the spiritual need…
…and on the other hand you have things like this.
1,000,000 Souls
Both fall very short of the call to make disciples.
Neil – The danger of churches like 1st of Hammand is that they are professional sinner’s prayer manipulaters. And when someone says that prayer and in the future looks back at that encounter, many and probably most will see Christianity as a shallow religion that evangelizes via the same technique employed by the “Buy these steaks” people who peruse the neighborhoods.
That’s actually one of my pet peeves – I cringe when Christians use the term “saving souls”. To me it sounds like “collecting seashells” or something like that… Really, can we make the Gospel into any more of a commodity?
I see much truth in Mr. Claiborne’s mother statement.
I also see a kernel of truth in Pastorboy’s (not so charitable) comments. If preachers and “theologians” ever get to a point of teaching that angels, the devil, and hell, don’t exist; they have lost their faith.
RE 25 & 26
If you take/waste time reading the pdf’s attached to that site you will find an amazingly modernist approach to evangelism. As Rick said, it is very shallow… and as Phil said, they actual talk of the product – commodity and shallowness.
#24: yes, that is an absolute travesty.
These type of schemes are hatched by Satan, plain and simple. How absolutely devoid of the gospel.
Well, we are talking amongst ourselves right now. There is as much ignorance about what the gospel is today than ever before… So, we must be very clear when we are witnessing and speaking to unbelievers, avoiding jargon and the like. My point is that we should never shy away from the simple, saving message of Jesus Christ. Remember, it is God who saves and grants repentance.
Yes, salvation is being “sold” as a commodity by the likes of TV preachers like Benny Hinn and others. That is probably the biggest hindrance to the the truth of the gospel as the unbeliever sees right through that (though foolish “Christians” fall for it hook line and sinker).
But, we must still proclaim, live our faith and hope that the Lord will awaken whom he will.
#27: Brett, can you point to an instance which hell is referred to in the OT? How about the Book of Acts? After all, this was when the true gospel was being spread by the very apostles of Christ? How about in any of Paul’s letters?
I read the quote from Mr. O’Connor and am having trouble making any connection to how the absence of the threat of hell makes us like animals…. maybe it’s just me.
The truth is that the hell of the NT is simply the sheol of the OT… So, when death is finally swallowed up by life (at the return of Christ), death actually dies (the second death of Rev 20, lake of fire).
I hear you Phil. I firmly believe in salvation by GRACE; but maybe the rest of the poor sinners out there would be better off, if we concentrate on the serious business of saving our own souls.
Sorry for the un-original thoughts, but I’ve been reading a lot of Flannery lately.
@neil:
got it.
@PB:
sorry, that was a cheap shot. you were being open and honest.
#24
The irony is that they can’t save anyone.
The greater irony is that if they can save a million, why not 2 millions? 3 millions? Why not the whole world?
What is so fascinating to people about the number 1 million?
I hate that word and the number it represents.
Thanks Nathan.
Hello Paul C,
It’s been a while. Hope you and yours are doing well.
I’m not really sure what you mean here, but I’ll give you my understanding. The New Covenant didn’t really change reality or God’s creation; the New Covenant is a fulfillment of the Old Covenant. The 4 last things death, judgment, heaven, and hell remain. The New Covenant is the fulfillment of God’s promise 1st announced in Genesis 3:15.
It’s not a pleasant topic, but hell is hell no matter what you call it. It’s not like he was concerned with speaking the King’s English. Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” for those who to the end refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. Jesus proclaims that he “will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,” and that he will pronounce the condemnation: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!” He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. Scripture warns us that we shall be separated from God if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.
By the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”, may we all hope to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where “men will weep and gnash their teeth.”
#35: Good to talk to you as well Brett. Doing pretty well, though busy (just had baby #4 and started a church in the last month!)
What I’m saying is that the final destination of man is either life or death, not heaven or hell.
In the OT, the word ’sheol’ simply represents a place where ALL dead people go, good and evil, rich and poor, to await the resurrection at the end of the age. In not one instance where you hear or see any depiction of hell as you might have it in your mind.
Now, fast forward to the book of Acts. The options put before men were either life or death – not even once is the word hell used. Paul never once mentions hell. Either does James. Or John. It was simply not a concept taught. It was always eternal life or death.
This leaves us with Jesus’ references to ‘Gehenna’ which we know is the rubbish heap outside of Jerusalem. It was a vivid description of hopelessness without God. It is an unrecoverable state. Permanent. But the point is that all his references were parabolic.
Of course, the RCC has pounced on hell as a means to scare people into ‘hell avoidance’ as Phil put it. The Protestant church has gone wild with it to. It’s a great motivator, but false.
One question: why do you think hell never makes an appearance in Acts, any of Paul’s epistles and the like seeing as its such as necessary element?
The word hell is used in Acts 2.
BTW – Jesus described in detail a place of torture which He descirbed as everlasting.
“And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:”
“But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.”
“23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.”
“For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;”
“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.”
Look at the context. I was going to point this out – it actually works to bolster my position in the sense that it is from a DIRECT quote from the OT. This proves that the word ’sheol’ is the actual word used (not Hades). Peter is quoting a Psalm, but the NT translator chooses to use ‘hell’ instead of the real world ’sheol’.
#38:
My understanding is that the second death is unrecoverable (hence, “shall never be quenched”). Unlike the first death that we all resurrect from, the second death has no recovery whatsoever.
Notice here. Death, the grave, literally dies. Why? Death is swallowed up of life. The following verses (ch 21) speak of the new creation in which death has no place.
So again, Acts has no reference to a any of the apostles preaching about hell. Paul doesn’t preach about hell. It doesn’t appear even once in the OT. So we are left with Jesus’ parabolic language.
But even Jesus is abundantly clear in dozens of places that the final destination is NOT heaven or hell, but in fact, eternal life or death.
Here’s an honest question: if indeed hell is one of the two final destinations, as some are arguing here, why does it not appear in Acts, any of Paul’s epistles, the OT and other books?
Sorry, should read:
“So again, Acts has no reference to hell, neither do any of the apostles preach about hell.”
But there are literally hundreds of references to either life or death.
What’s more interesting to me is, in Jesus’ teachings, why people are sent to hell. In the passages Rick quoted, people go to hell because of their sinful deeds (unrighteousness, oppression of the poor, etc.). And in none of the passages is the answer out of hell “repent of your sins, believe in Jesus Christ and you shall be saved”.
Paul, congrats great news on the baby! It is tiring work raising the little ones, but other than loving my wife I’ve yet to receive a higher calling. Many blessings to you!
I’m not sure if the word appears there or not, and I agree that hell is not the central focus in Acts, or Paul’s teachings. Maybe because most of the Jews, gentiles, and pagans, he was preaching to had an innate sense of evil and eternal punishment. Maybe they were not like us modern enlightened folks, who have advanced beyond believing in silly myths about, sin, satan, and hell.
I don’t concede that Acts, or the epistles do not allude to hell and eternal separation from Christ:
2 Thes 1:7-9 … his mighty angels will come in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might
2 Cor 4:17-18 For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.
Act 3:20-21 Is one of many references in the NT of Christ’s fulfillment of the OT. The restoration that God’s prophets spoke about (1st in Gen. 3:15). Just as the one man gained “eternal death” for us, the one man Jesus Christ restored us to “eternal life”.
corey – I have always contended that justification by faith could be challenged without the Pauline epistles. Many of the parables seem tomake works the defining eternal issue. But Jn.3:16 and Jn.chapet 10 are exceptions.
But in the end, when Jesus gave the Great Commission, he spoke of preaching Him and making disciples and baptizing. He had a great platform for works at that point which He did not use.
Rick,
Agreed, but I think it’s not quite fair to use Jesus’ teachings to demonstrate the existence of hell without also at least taking into account what he says about who goes and why.
You are confusing 2 things here: hell (one) and eternal separation from Christ (two). Eternal separation from Christ is what we are discussing. Hell is simply the absence of life. When Jesus returns, many will be eternally separated from Christ (second death) and life will reign upon the earth forever and ever.
Hell (sheol or the place of the dead, where we all go at death, believer and unbeliever alike) will be destroyed. Again, death is nothing more than the absence of life.
You quote a lot of authors, and I suppose that’s good, but it would be better to build on biblical standard than the musings of men.
Jesus said, “He that believes in me shall never see death”. Taken in its entirety, Jesus does teach salvation by faith. But there are many other teachings that seem to present works as evidentiary.
Paul C,
I’m not confused.
I believe in the the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
You have given me an incoherent jumbling of bible verses and cryptic messages that has shown me nothing to the contrary.
#41
Unrighteousness brings about condemnation. Unrighteousness is all of our conditions.
The answer throughout the Gospels: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. The only way to do so is to repent- that is a change of mind (brought about by God) that leads to a change of direction (from the way you are currently walking, the broad road) through the narrow Gate (Jesus)
If you ‘accept’ Christ as some sort of get out of Hell free card, you are missing the point of the Gospel. We are quickened, regenerated by God, and the response is repentance towards Christ, and belief in Him alone.
This results in walking in His ways, which includes righteousness, and this is demonstrated by our actions towards people who are made in His image.
The result of not believing in Christ? Condemnation; the condition all children of Adam (our federal head) find ourselves in outside of Christ.
#45
Then Revelation 21
Brett, sorry for being ‘incoherent’.
I said you sounded confused because you were lumping ‘hell’ and ‘eternal separation from Christ’ as being one and the same. I would argue that those who reject Christ will be eternally separated from him in death. There is no ‘place’ such as hell where people go.
Again, from reading the OT, the gospels, the epistles and Revelation you see that it is a choice between life and death, not heaven and hell.
First there are a few errors in what you believe.
For example, when a man dies, he does not go to either heaven or hell. He is awaiting the judgment, which occurs at the return of Christ.
So, to me, that is a key hurdle to overcome first. It’s called the resurrection.
Even your Apostles’ Creed kind of hints at this: “and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.”
If they are already in heaven or hell, how does he then judge the dead? Quite simply, he will judge those who are alive at his return as well as those who have died throughout the ages.
Secondly, the offer of the gospel is eternal life. It is not heaven. The consequence of ignoring the gospel is death, not hell. This is consistent with the OT and NT.
In the OT, ’sheol’ was the word used as the destination of man once he died, and there he would await the judgment at the last day. It is simply the abode of the dead.
This is the state from which we’re resurrected.
As for hell, please show me where hell is mentioned in Acts? Paul’s epistles? John’s epistles?
It is only mentioned parabolically, such as in Jesus’ mentioning of Gehenna, some of his parables or in the symbolism of Revelation. It is not a doctrine.
Fast forward to today: hell is probably in the top 3 in terms of subjects covered and warned about from pulpits. Yet not even once do the apostles address it in the entire book of Acts? Not even once? How about a passing comment in one of Paul’s epistles? Not once does it appear, not even once, in the ENTIRE Old Testament.
Was it a NT creation of some sort?
If that doesn’t strike you as odd, I don’t know what would.
As Pastorboy correctly shows above:
Death actually dies – it goes into an unrecoverable state when life finally takes over at the establishment of the kingdom upon the earth. The curse is lifted and all that is left is life. Right now the grave has a sting and the death a victory, but it will not always be so.