The Evangelical Dictionary of World Religions

HADITH. Hadith (Arabic, “narrative”) is the body of oral tradition pertaining to the teachings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad. Although the Qur’an contains Allah’s revelations, Muslims believe the hadith contains all that Muhammad approved of, disapproved of, forbade, or did not forbid. Muslims believe that nearly all the hadith is merely the esteemed words of Muhammad, though a small portion (Qudsi) is sometimes said to be divine revelation, and Muslim theologians often ascribe the same authority to the hadith that they give to the Qur’an. They argue that Allah acted through Muhammad; therefore all of Muhammad’s words and actions were Allah working through him. In this way, Muslims have an authoritative pattern for all situations in life. In much of Islam, various collections of hadith are considered crucial for ascertaining the correct interpretation of obscure passages in the Qur’an and for deciding certain matters of Muslim conduct. The three major classifications of hadith are what Muhammad taught (qawl), the behavior of Muhammad (fi’l), and that of which Muhammad approved (taqrir). The vast majority of Muslims believe that the Qur’an directs them to obey all parts of hadith that have been shown to be authentic. The six-part hadith of Sunni Islam includes Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan al-Sughra, Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Sunan Abi Da’ud, and Sunan Ibn Maja (in some cases Sunan Muwatta replaces Sunan Ibn Maja). In Shi‘ite Islam, it is held that hadith transmitted by those who were loyal to Ali ibn Abi Talib (599–661) are more reliable than hadith lacking this pedigree.

Bibliography. G. Endress, An Introduction to Islam; R. Swarup, Understanding the Hadith: The Sacred Traditions of Islam; Thesaurus Islamicus Foundation, “International Hadith Study Association Network.”

R. L. Drouhard

HALACHA. The term halacha is a noun derived from the Hebrew root halach, meaning “to go” or “to walk.” Thus the derived meaning of halacha refers to a way of acting, a way of living, but living a life in conformity to specific standards. In Judaism the term is actually applied to all legal matters, not only to biblical requirements but also to rabbinic laws. Halacha should be distinguished from haggadah, a term for all the nonlegal material found in rabbinic literature. But halacha consists of the absolute rules that Jews must conform themselves to throughout daily life and practice.

One of the elements that differentiate the branches of Judaism from one another is their attitude and view of the halacha. For Orthodox Judaism, the halacha is absolutely binding and mandatory, and according to rabbinic teaching even rabbinic laws were not innovated by rabbis; rather, they came from Moses. Therefore, Moses is the originator of both the written law and the oral law that became known as the rabbinic law. Reform Judaism does not recognize halacha to be binding at all, believing that the halacha is a set of rules from the past, offering guiding principles that individuals and Jews may choose to follow or not. Conservative Judaism recognizes the halacha to be binding but follows a free form of interpretation and application of the halacha, less strict than the interpretation of Orthodoxy.

See also ORTHODOXY

Bibliography. K. D. Boa and R. M. Bowman Jr., Sense and Nonsense about Heaven and Hell; A. A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future; A. E. McGrath, A Brief History of Heaven.

R. M. Bowman Jr.

HEAVENLY MOTHER. In the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church, or Mormonism), the existence of a heavenly mother was described by apostle Bruce McConkie as “an unspoken truth” (516). It is “unspoken” in that she is not mentioned in the Bible or in any of the LDS scriptures (nor did Joseph Smith ever refer to her). The LDS idea that there is a “mother in heaven” is considered a logical conclusion based on the Mormon teaching that all human beings are born as spirit children of a heavenly Father before inhabiting the earthly bodies prepared for them by their earthly parents. Said McConkie, “The begetting of children makes a man a father and a woman a mother whether we are dealing with man in his mortal or immortal state” (516).

Twelfth LDS president Spencer Kimball wrote that men and women are made in the image of heavenly parents. “God made man in his own image and certainly he made woman in the image of his wife-partner” (25). According to Mormon apostle Neal A. Maxwell, “In other dispensations, the truths given to us through modern prophets about a Heavenly Mother were not stressed, so far as surviving records show, but in this dispensation the Lord gave us this doctrinal truth through a prophet, Lorenzo Snow, whose sister, Eliza R. Snow, expressed it in her hymn ‘O My Father’” (67). Snow’s hymn states, “In the heav’ns are parents single? / No, the thought makes reason stare! / Truth is reason; truth eternal / Tells me I’ve a Mother there.”

This notion was the basis of a controversy within the LDS Church in the early 1990s when Mormon feminists began to address their prayers to Heavenly Mother. In response leaders said such a practice was inappropriate, insisting that prayers must be directed only to “Heavenly Father.” Gordon B. Hinckley, while affirming the existence of “Heavenly Mother,” reasoned that since Jesus taught his followers to pray only to “Our Father,” Mormon women should follow his practice (97; emphasis original). It was an argument from silence.

Bibliography. G. B. Hinckley, “Daughters of God,” Ensign; S. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball; N. A. Maxwell, Things As They Really Are; B. R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine; L. Wilcox, “The Mormon Concept of a Mother in Heaven,” Sunstone.

W. McKeever

HELL, ORTHODOX AND UNORTHODOX CHRISTIAN VIEWS OF. Five Main Views. The doctrine of everlasting punishment, or hell, is a subdivision of systematic theology that falls under the general heading of eschatology, or the study of last things. In all of Christian theology, no issue generates more difficulty and controversy for Christians and non-Christians alike than theodicy, or the problem of evil. In particular the idea that a good, loving God would consign human beings to a fate of endless torment is considered by opponents to be both unjust and morally indefensible. In order to deal with the tremendous difficulty posed by the doctrine of endless punishment, people adopt one of five different viewpoints regarding the afterlife, four that are unorthodox and one that is orthodox: (1) there is no afterlife, (2) everyone will eventually make it to heaven (universalism), (3) unbelievers will get a second chance after death, (4) all unregenerate souls are destroyed at some point following death (annihilationism), and (5) hell is a place of eternal suffering (the orthodox view).

There is no afterlife. Two distinct worldviews embrace either the position that there is no clear evidence for an afterlife or that it does not exist. Agnostics claim that one cannot know with certainty whether there is life after death, a heaven or a hell. Atheists, on the other hand, contend that there is no life after death. They hold to a strict materialist view of existence.

Everyone will eventually make it to heaven (universalism). According to the doctrine of universalism, hell does not exist and all humanity will eventually be received into the kingdom of God. One of the issues that compel many to embrace universalism is the problem of evil. The fact that evil exists is self-evident, and a good God will defeat it eventually. However, the existence of hell, to which the unregenerate will be consigned for eternity, is the ultimate expression of evil and incompatible with the goodness of God.

This position is not new to Christianity but was embraced by the early church theologian Origen, who went so far as to say that even the devil will eventually be saved. Universalism is particularly common within the theologically liberal tradition, which embraces a pluralistic view of the world’s religions, arguing that the many faiths that exist contain truth and that God works through them to effectively bring adherents to himself. A more conservative form of universalism maintains that Christ’s death atones for everyone’s sins in such a way as to free all people from any punishment whether or not they hear or accept the gospel.

Universalism in general and pluralism in particular pose a serious challenge to the major doctrines of Christianity. The doctrine of original sin and its consequences and the need for redemption is unique to Christianity. If other religions are legitimate sources of truth that enable adherents to have a relationship with God for eternity, then the issue of original sin is irrelevant and salvation becomes just one of many concepts within the religious scheme of things. Christology is affected because only Christianity emphasizes the need for salvation in Christ before anyone can be reconciled to God.

Unbelievers will get a second chance after death. Clark Pinnock is a major proponent of the postmortem-second-chance position. His radical Arminianism is strongly opposed to the limitations of God’s mercy taught by Calvinists. God’s mercy is “wide,” and his love extends to all humankind, so much so that even in death the unregenerate are given a second chance to repent. Pinnock qualifies his position by stating that those who have heard the gospel and rejected it prior to death will be annihilated without the opportunity for a second chance. His approach makes allowances for those who have never heard or who have embraced a religious system that knows nothing of God’s redeeming work. Mormons espouse an elaborate doctrine of postmortem salvation in which virtually all people will receive their opportunity to hear the gospel in the spirit world. Eventually nearly everyone will be given immortality and will be saved in one of three heavenly kingdoms.

All unregenerate souls are destroyed at some point following death (annihilationism). Annihilationism is the view that at the final judgment the unregenerate will be utterly destroyed, ceasing to exist. Annihilationists agree that there must be punishment for sin, but they contend that the duration of the punishment is not eternal, for if it were, such a judgment on the wicked would be a flagrant violation of any reasonable understanding of justice and disproportionate to the nature and severity of the offense. Eternal punishment is also inhumane and cannot be reconciled with the notion of a morally good God. Annihilationists are not in agreement as to the immediacy of such destruction. Some believe the soul is immediately destroyed, while others believe there must be a period of suffering for sin before annihilation occurs.

Evangelical theologian John R. W. Stott is a major proponent of annihilationism. He believes the term “destroy” or “perish,” as used in Matthew 10:28 and John 3:16, is to be taken literally. In other passages where hell is referred to as fire (Matt. 3:12; 5:22; 18:9; Luke 3:17), eternal fire (Matt. 18:8; 25:41), or the lake of fire (Rev. 20:14–15), fire is not the cause of pain but the means by which the soul is destroyed, goes out of existence. The reference to smoke in Revelation 14:11 and 19:3 is evidence that destruction has taken place. Stott believes the concept of God’s justice militates against the doctrine of eternal punishment. Other annihilationists contend that the duration of the punishment of the wicked is based on their deeds. This ensures that justice is served in direct proportion to crimes committed.

Another aspect of annihilationism is conditional immortality, which denies the inherent immortality of mankind. Immortality is a gift of God that is granted only to those who have been redeemed. The exclusion of the unregenerate from immortality logically results in their annihilation—thus conditional immortality’s affinity with annihilationism. Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses are two well-known heterodox groups that adhere to the conditional immortality or annihilationist position.

Hell is a place of eternal suffering (the orthodox view). Annihilationism, universalism, postmortem second chance, and the denial that there is life after death are all alternatives to the orthodox view of hell, which states that at death the unregenerate will be consigned to everlasting torment as a consequence of their rejection of Christ. This has been the position of the church from apostolic times until the nineteenth century. Though there have been theologians who did not accept the traditional view (notably Origen and Arnobius), they were a very small minority. With the rise of nineteenth-century theological and biblical liberalism, alternative positions to the traditional view have steadily increased. A growing number of evangelicals find annihilationism and the possibility of postmortem regeneration more persuasive and emotionally, morally, and judicially defensible.

Hell in the Bible and Ancient Literature. Old Testament. The Old Testament does not present a well-developed doctrine of everlasting punishment. The most common Hebrew term used to describe the abode of the dead is sheol. It is used sixty-five times and can also be translated “grave,” “pit,” or “hell.” In the ancient Near East, both Israelite and non-Israelite cultures divided the universe into three distinct realms: heaven, where deity dwells; earth, the abode of the living; and sheol, where the dead reside. Some scholars embrace what is known as the compartmental view of sheol. The Old Testament saints went into limbo at death, awaiting the resurrection of Christ, and the wicked went into a separate place until final judgment.

Daniel 12:1–3 presents one of the most explicit descriptions of the postmortem state of the righteous and wicked. Their respective destinies are described thus: the righteous awaken to everlasting life, whereas the wicked to shame and everlasting contempt. There is no indication that the wicked will eventually be destroyed (annihilated) or eventually saved (universalism). The key term is “everlasting,” which may or may not refer to endless existence. It can mean long duration, implying there is eventually an end. In Psalm 90:2, it refers to God’s eternality, and Daniel uses it to describe the final state of both the righteous and the wicked. Logically, if the righteous live eternally, then the term must also refer to the eternal shame or contempt of the wicked.

“Hell” in Intertestamental Literature. The four hundred years between the Old and the New Testaments, known as the intertestamental period, witnessed the development of a rich body of Jewish literature, such as the Apocrypha, apocalyptic material, and most of the Jewish pseudepigrapha. Though not inspired material, these writings are of tremendous importance to understanding the historical development of rabbinic theology. Both the Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha provide clear teaching regarding the eternal state of the wicked.

Apocrypha. The apocryphal book of Judith describes the everlasting suffering of the wicked (16:17). Second Maccabees 7 refers to those who will be resurrected to everlasting life, whereas the wicked will be denied life. Ecclesiasticus 7:16–17 says the wicked will suffer fire and worms, a clear reference to ongoing torment in the afterlife. In 4 Maccabees 10:15; 13:17; 17:18; 18:23, the righteous will inherit eternal life and tranquility, but the wicked are cast into everlasting torment (9:9, 32; 10:11, 15; 12:18; 13:15; 18:5, 22. Second Esdras 7:32–36 gives another graphic description of the everlasting torment of the wicked.

Pseudepigrapha. Jubilees 36:9–11 says the wicked will go into eternal torment. In 2 Baruch 30:4; 44:12–15; 51:5–6; 59:2; 64:7–10; 83:8, evildoers are tormented forever by fire (44:13–15). Psalms of Solomon 3:11 reads, “The perdition of the sinners shall be forever.” The Ascension of Isaiah 1:3 says the wicked will be subject to “eternal judgments and the torments of Gehenna.”

New Testament. The New Testament has a more detailed, well-developed doctrine of hell. The four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John record Jesus’s teaching on hell and pending judgment. First, Jesus taught that hell is a literal place. In Matthew 5:21–30, Jesus addresses the problem of anger and immorality and their consequences. The issue here is the application of the law. Those who believed they were in compliance with the law by not literally killing another person or committing immorality outwardly were not vindicated from being murderers or adulterers. Jesus makes it clear that seething anger against another person or immoral desires constitute a violation of the law as if the actions were literally committed, and he warns that those who engage in such practices are in danger of being cast into hell. In 5:21–22 Jesus uses the word gehenna, which is the English rendering of the Greek word derived from the Hebrew Ge Hinnon, the Valley of Hinnon. This valley was a place where human sacrifices were offered to the false god Molech. Jesus uses it as a powerful metaphor to describe the terrible judgment of hell.

Clearly Jesus understood hell to be a real place; otherwise his warning is without merit (cf. also Matt. 23:15, 33). In Matthew 10:28, he warns his listeners about who should be truly feared. Those who are capable of killing the body are not to be feared; rather, it is God who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell.

Hell is a place of pain. In the parables of the weeds and of the dragnet (Matt. 13:40–43, 49–50), Jesus indicates the wicked will be judged with fire and then suffer greatly. He gives the same warning about people who cause children (little ones) to stumble, for they shall be cast into the fire that is eternal (18:1–9).

In contrast to the belief that the wicked are destroyed (annihilated at death), Jesus indicates hell is eternal in duration (Mark 9:42–48). One of the most graphic examples of the eternality of hell found in the Gospels is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31). Though some debate whether the story refers to real people, it does convey the idea that there will be eternal torment for the wicked.

In the writings of the apostle Paul, the doctrine of hell does not receive much attention, but Paul does say the wicked will be judged. In Romans 1:18 and 2:5, he speaks of the wrath of God, which is and will be revealed against the wicked. However, he does not address the specific nature of that wrath. In 2 Thessalonians 1:9, Paul does say that those who reject Christ will suffer eternal destruction, which is consistent with the teachings of Christ.

In Hebrews 6:1–3, the writer addresses the need to move beyond what are identified as elementary or beginning doctrines. He refers to both doctrinal issues and practices within the believing community. It is evident from this text that these teachings were considered basic to the Christian faith. One of the doctrines mentioned is eternal judgment, which indicates its importance to the collective body of doctrinal instruction.

No book of the Bible describes hell and eternal suffering more graphically than Revelation. In Revelation 14:9–11, John describes the fate of those who follow the beast and receive his mark. They will incur the judgment of God, which is torment with fire for all eternity. Those who are judged will never rest from their punishment. In Revelation 20:10, John says the devil, deceivers, the beast, and the false prophet will be cast into the lake of fire to be tormented eternally. In verses 14 and 15, death, Hades, and those not included in the book of life are also cast into the lake of fire.

The evidence presented in the Gospels, Paul’s Letters, the general epistles, and the book of Revelation shows that the wicked, along with the devil and demonic spirits, will suffer eternally.

With few exceptions, the writings of the church fathers on the doctrine of hell show that they agreed with what the Scriptures teach. They believed in the eternality of hell, that those who reject Christ will suffer forever, and that hell is permanent separation from God. The Epistle of Barnabas speaks of eternal punishment, as does Second Clement 5.5. In his First Apology, Justin Martyr says the wicked will be punished for eternity by means of an eternal fire. The Martyrdom of Polycarp refers to the fire that is eternal into which those who tortured the righteous will be cast. Tatian writes that the wicked will be given immortality in order to suffer eternal pain. In To Autolycus, Athenagoras refers to eternal punishments and those wicked people who will be consigned to everlasting fire. Irenaeus says the wicked will be damned forever in everlasting fire. In On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Tertullian describes hell as a place of eternal suffering. He rejects annihilationism as unreasonable, arguing that heaven and hell are equally eternal. Hippolytus describes hell as eternal, unquenchable suffering, where the worm continuously torments the body. Cyprian of Carthage says the souls and bodies of the wicked will be preserved for all eternity, suffering in unlimited agonies. Cyril of Jerusalem speaks of bodies of the wicked that will be fit for eternal suffering for their sins.

The most influential theologians in church history, such as Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Luther, all taught that the final judgment of the wicked would be eternal suffering by fire. In The City of God, Augustine defends the doctrine of eternal punishment against those who would repudiate it. He also argues that Origen’s position on the universal salvation of humanity is to be rejected. Aquinas, like Augustine, rejects the argument that the suffering of the wicked is temporary or in any way intended to be a purifying process. Regarding the magnitude of sin and its proper punishment, Aquinas observes, “Quantity of punishment corresponds to quantity of fault, according to Deuteronomy 25:2. Now a sin which is committed against God, is infinite: because the gravity of a sin increases according to the greatness of the person sinned against (thus it is a more grievous sin to strike the sovereign than a private individual), and God’s greatness is infinite. Therefore an infinite punishment is due for a sin committed against God” (Summa Theologica I-II, question 87).

Luther firmly believed in both the present and the future punishment of the wicked. He considered hell a reason to praise God, for it represented God’s ultimate exercise of justice against the wicked. The reality of hell and the eternal suffering of the wicked indicate the magnitude of humankind’s sin, the holiness of God, the seriousness and severity of Christ’s atoning work on the cross, and the great grace God bestows on those who are redeemed. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin says the doctrine of hell is so severe that human language cannot do justice to it. At best metaphors such as fire, weeping, gnashing of teeth, and darkness are used to give human beings a glimpse into the terrible consequences that befall those against whom the wrath of God is exercised.

In the modern period, Jonathan Edwards’s sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” has become a classic. His depiction of hell and the awful conditions that befall those who reject Christ so terrified those who heard it that people began falling to their knees seeking the mercy of God. Following in the tradition of Edwards, William G. T. Shedd wrote what has become a standard work on the doctrine of hell. His book The Doctrine of Endless Punishment presents a thorough biblical, historical, theological, and rational argument for the eternal suffering of the wicked.

The most striking criticism against the doctrine of endless punishment is that the doctrine is morally unacceptable and is inconsistent with a good, loving God. A number of arguments are offered in response to the moral objection. God’s holiness and goodness cannot be in conflict with each other, and both are who he is. God’s holiness defines his greatness and moral nature, and as Aquinas points out, sin against God is an offense against a being of infinite greatness, necessitating the greatest degree of punishment. God’s propositional revelation teaches that the wicked will suffer eternally. God is also perfect in his goodness, which means his goodness cannot contradict what he has revealed about the fate of the unregenerate in Scripture. It logically follows that the eternal suffering of the wicked is consistent with the goodness of God. Given the fact that human beings are finite and therefore morally imperfect and limited in understanding, they do not have the capacity to make perfect moral judgments regarding the ways God chooses to deal with the wicked either in this life or eternity.

Bibliography. K. D. Boa and R. M. Bowman Jr., Sense and Nonsense about Heaven and Hell; R. H. Charles, The Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, Pseudepigrapha; W. Crockett, ed., Four Views of Hell; E. Fudge and R. Peterson, Two Views on Hell: A Biblical and Theological Debate; P. Johnson, Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament; R. Morey, Death and the Afterlife; C. Morgan and R. Peterson, Hell under Fire; W. G. T. Shedd, The Doctrine of Endless Punishment; P. Toon, Heaven and Hell: A Biblical and Theological Overview; J. Walls, Hell: The Logic of Damnation.

S. J. Rost

HERESY, DEFINITION OF. Traditionally, heresy is adherence to false and soul-destroying opinions about primary Christian doctrines, having a wrong doctrine about God, Christ, or salvation. Not only is it wrong but to such a degree that it fundamentally undermines the essential orthodoxy of core articles of the faith. The Greek word of which “heresy” is a translation (hairesis) occurs nine times in the New Testament, with the related adjective hairetikos (from which we get “heretical”) occurring once. Hairesis originally had no negative connotation. It was used to refer very simply to a school of opinion or thought, and in particular to one or another of the schools of Greek philosophy. The same neutral meaning appears in reference to the major Jewish sects in the first-century Jewish writers Philo (On the Contemplative Life 29) and Josephus (Jewish War 2.118). The six occurrences of the word in the Acts of the Apostles (5:17; 15:5; 24:5, 14; 26:5; 28:22) refer to the different sects within Judaism: Pharisees, Sadducees, and the new sect, Christianity, and carry this same older nonpejorative sense. It is only in the remaining three uses of hairesis (1 Cor. 11:19 [NIV “factions”]; Gal. 5:20 [NIV “factions”]; 2 Pet. 2:1 [NIV “opinions”]) and the one use of the adjective hairetikos (Titus 3:10 [NIV “divisive”]) that we begin to see a more specialized meaning. Paul rebukes the Corinthians for being divisive when they say: “I belong to Paul,” “I belong to Apollos,” “I belong to Cephas,” “I belong to Christ” (1 Cor. 1:12). Later in the same epistle, he says, “I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval” (1 Cor. 11:18–19). The word translated “faction” here is hairesis. So far as Paul is concerned, the identification of the church with the body of Christ rules out all “parties” within the church. In the first chapter, he has countered with a question: “Is Christ divided?” Here in the eleventh, he follows with a discussion of the body of Christ and its essential unity. For Paul in this context hairesis parallels the English word divisions (schismata, schisms), which has appeared earlier in the same passage. The heresy Paul is concerned about involves not a specific false teaching but the factious or divisive propensity—with the sinful tendency, that is—to work at undermining the “unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). The same idea is present in Titus 3:10, where Paul commands us: “Warn a divisive person [a hairetikos anthrōpos] once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them.” Again the focus is not on false teaching but on divisiveness. In Galatians 5:20, hairesis is listed as one of the works of the flesh. Although the New King James Version translates the word as “heresies” there, the focus of Paul’s other uses of the term on factiousness and divisiveness rather than false teaching makes it better to translate the word as “factions,” following the New American Standard Bible.

Only in 2 Peter 2:1 do we encounter hairesis used in a way that clearly involves false teaching. Peter warns of “false teachers . . . [who] will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.” Here, as one standard New Testament Greek lexicon informs us, hairesis must mean something like “opinion,” hence “destructive opinions.” Yet even here we should not overlook the fact that the negative connotation resides not in the word hairesis but in the accompanying adjective that is translated “destructive.”

Strictly speaking then, heresy is not used in the New Testament in the same way that it later came to be understood in the church. This is to say not that the New Testament does not speak against false teaching but only that it does not use the term heresy standing by itself to describe it. That being said, there is a dimension to the New Testament usage, and especially Paul’s, that the church needs to recapture—namely, the relation of the word to the idea of sinful factiousness or divisiveness. The factious person (the hairetikos) often causes divisions in the church by means of an unhealthy appeal to some teaching or teacher. The teaching/teacher in question may be good or bad. The main thing is that the appeal results in an interruption of the unity of the body of Christ. In the case of the Corinthian church, for example, the appeal was to several teachers who were perfectly orthodox in themselves and who were in fellowship with one another (Paul, Apollos, and Cephas). It was only their self-appointed champions who were promoting factions. We are probably right in saying that the reason the term heresy quickly came in the post–New Testament period to refer to adherence to false teaching was that the earliest heretics (docetists and gnostics) were not only factious but were also false teachers. This in turn made it difficult for the church later on to know how to cope with internal strife based on differences in policy rather than doctrine (e.g., splits that began to occur in the third century over whether Christians who denied the Lord during persecutions ought to be let back into the church afterward). Using the term schism to refer to divisions over nonessentials and heresy for divisions over essentials has been a helpful distinction, though, again, not one directly sanctioned by the Bible. From a pastoral perspective, it is important to remember that one can sometimes be as heretical in the biblical sense by holding doctrines wrongly (i.e., using them to draw away a following after oneself) as by holding wrong doctrines. This is especially so when we’re evaluating groups that are basically orthodox in doctrine but have dominant charismatic leaders who exercise unhealthy and unbiblical types of control over their followers’ lives and consciences. The other side of this coin is dealing with people in the church who may believe false things but have no tendency toward divisiveness. Given the biblical emphasis, one should be careful not to rush to judgment in such cases since it is clearly one thing to believe something false but quite another to actively promote it.

Bibliography. H. O. J. Brown, Heresies; R. M. Enroth, Churches That Abuse; H. W. House, “With an Apology to Arius: When and How Should We Deal with Heresies and Heretics?,” Journal of Christian Apologetics; H. Schlier, “αἵρεσις,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.

R. V. Huggins

HERETIC. The word heretic comes from the Greek word hairesis, meaning “sect” or “party,” originally without negative connotations. However, in the New Testament, the word took on the meaning of someone who caused division, often by teaching false doctrine (Titus 3:10; 2 Pet. 2:1). As the history of the church progressed, heretic came to mean someone who denied an essential doctrine of Christian theology (and often taught those views), the definition that the word has had ever since.

Due to the interconnected nature of theology, for one to deny just one essential orthodox teaching is to become a heretic. For example, denying the Trinity means denying at least one essential attribute of Christ, God the Father, or the Holy Spirit.

True to the New Testament meaning of the word heresy, heretics often lead movements focused on moving their followers away from orthodox teaching, in this way promoting division. Throughout church history, heretics have been known as charismatic leaders with strong personal characteristics who are commonly able to persuade others to follow them. Arius, perhaps the most famous heretic, gathered so much support that his teachings threatened to become the official teachings of the church. To this day, there remain those loyal to Nestorianism, despite the teachings having been declared heresy over fifteen hundred years ago.

While the Protestant Reformation, in large part, led to a return to biblical doctrine, it also led to the resurgence of heretics. Those who would stray from orthodox theology became free to publicly teach their heresies, and people who wished to follow these heretics became free to do so. This has led to a rapid rise in the number of heretical groups. Following the ancient pattern, several large, contemporary groups holding heretical theology trace their founding to single personalities. Among these are Jehovah’s Witnesses, founded by Charles Taze Russell, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, founded by Joseph Smith. These two heretics account for over thirty million followers (as reported by their official publications), nearly 1.5 percent of all “Christians” worldwide (as defined as those who self-identify as Christians).

Bibliography. H. O. J. Brown, Heresies; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Statistical Information: Official 2007 Statistics about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”; H. Wayne House, “With an Apology to Arius: When and How Should We Deal with Heresies and Heretics?,” Journal of Christian Apologetics; P. Hunter, “Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents”; Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, “Membership and Publishing Statistics.”

H. W. House

HINAYANA. Hinayana (“lower or lesser vehicle” in Sanskrit) is a disparaging term used by Mahayana Buddhists to describe anyone who doesn’t accept Mahayana scriptures that elevate the bodhisattva ideal of universality and compassion as the path to “buddhahood.” The ideal in Hinayana Buddhism is the arhat, the enlightened disciple or perfected saint, who has attained enlightenment solely by his own efforts.

The only surviving Hinayana tradition is Theravada Buddhism—that is, the Buddhism of Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and of some Buddhists in Vietnam. Hinayana/Theravada is one of the three main divisions of Buddhism, along with Mahayana (the greater vehicle), and Vajrayana (the diamond vehicle). Hinayana Buddhism recognizes the authority of the Pali Canon and therefore is conservative, accepting the historical Buddha as the perfected master and rejecting the celestial metaphysics of Mahayana and the tantrism of Vajrayana.

Bibliography. J. Toula-Breysse, The Paths of Buddhism.

H. P. Kemp

HINDUISM. Among the five major world religions, Hinduism is perhaps the most ancient, multifaceted, and mysterious. The word Hindu derives from Old Persian Hindū, “Indian,” and from Sanskrit sindhu, “river,” specifically “the Indus River region.” The term Hinduism itself refers to the sum of the philosophical, religious, and cultural traditions, doctrines, and practices that have developed in India over millennia. It also implies that these varied streams sprang from a common source of authority: the Vedas, an expression of Indo-European religiosity.

The “polytheism” of Hinduism—with its “thirty million gods”—often leads to hasty conclusions about its beliefs and practices. It would be unfair to judge Hinduism solely by its early primitive beliefs. Over millennia Hinduism developed many different trends and major movements. The earliest documentable level is Vedic Hinduism, based on the traditions of the Indo-European people who migrated to India more than three thousand years ago. However, other sources of spirituality developed based on the Vedas, such as the Upanishads, wherein notions of karma, reincarnation, and yoga become prominent. Connected with the Upanishads, six classic schools of thought developed. Later, devotional forms became popular. Folk religion is widespread, and in some of the remote regions tribal religions still survive. In addition some Hindu thinkers have been influenced by the thousand years of contact with Islam and several hundred years’ contact with Christianity, particularly during the period of British rule. While no single universal creed is professed by all Hindus, Hinduism can be understood as a collective or umbrella term for the many forms of spirituality of Indian origin. The objectives of human life—moral living, prosperity, pleasure/love, and liberation—are seen as prominent themes, wherein the concepts of samsara (cycle of rebirth), karma, and the possibility of liberation play out. The concept of divinity is varied and extremely complex. Nearly every way of understanding god/gods and humans’ relation to the divine is found within Hinduism. Some modern Hindus believe that when worshiping their preferred deity (Ishta-devata), they are really worshiping the supreme deity or principle, whether in a henotheistic, polytheistic, or monistic (pantheistic) sense, but not all agree with such a view.

Ultimately, Hinduism can best be understood when it is examined historically and developmentally. Over centuries early observations and reflections gradually coalesced into complex systems of philosophy, practice, and ways of living.

Historical Context. In recent years, the study of Indian history has provoked controversies and reinterpretations. Archaeological discoveries at Mohenjo-daro, Harappa, and Saurashtra have resulted in fresh insights and revisions. One increasingly questioned interpretation is the Aryan invasion theory. It held that a people called Aryans invaded northern India in about 1500 BC, destroying a more sophisticated, ancient Indus civilization and forcing their warlike rule and religion on the indigenous peoples. The current theory, however, places the Aryans first in Persia and then in India as early as 4000–2500 BC.

Even with such a revision, the history of Hinduism may still be roughly divided into four epochs. Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind that the history of India is inexact (see Schmitthenner). To begin with, India as a political entity did not exist before the eighteenth century. Prior to that, the subcontinent was a mosaic of states and nomadic territories. Further, we lack extant historical documents earlier than the sixteenth century, and there are few archaeological remains before the fifth century AD. Therefore, caution is needed in reconstructing Indian history or the history of Indian literature and religion.

Conservatively speaking, the Vedic period was the earliest in Indian history. It extended from 2500 to 200 BC. During this era, the Vedas were composed (the Rig Veda, the oldest, at the beginning of the period; these were composed as oral texts and were not written down until the sixteenth century AD). Of the earliest Hindu scriptures, the four Vedas that we know today are the Rig, Yajur, Sama, and Atharva. Each book consists of four sections: Mantras (which are like hymns), Brahmanas (ritualistic and sacrificial duties), Aranyakas (advice on meditation for hermits), and Upanishads (the philosophical and spiritual discourses of forest-dwelling seers and sages). Hindus regard the Vedas as shruti (revealed scriptures).

During the second era, the epic period (approximately 200 BC–AD 500), several smritis (traditional texts) were composed. Philosophical doctrines were transmitted nonsystematically through imaginative literature, called epics: the Ramayana and the Mahabharata (probably the most popular of all Indian texts, the Bhagavad Gita, was composed in this period as part of the Mahabharata). Also written during this period, however, were treatises on ethical conduct and social philosophy (known as the Dharmashastras).

In the third era, the Sutra period (often dated AD 320–650 but with roots from around AD 100 and thus overlapping with the epic period), various schools of thought produced systematic treatises to establish their positions. Proponents set forth their doctrines coherently and logically through brief but often obscure aphorisms (sutras). Among these were the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali (ca. AD 150–200) and the Vedanta Sutra of Badarayana (ca. AD 200), also called the Brahma Sutra. During this time, the six basic systems of Hindu thought were organized and detailed, so much so that they contained sophisticated polemics against other systems. Note, however, that throughout the first millennium AD many of the Puranas, the legendary stories—part narrative, part theological—were also written.

Finally, during the scholastic period (approximately AD 650–1100), numerous commentaries on the original sutras were written. Layers upon layers of commentaries followed, each promising to elucidate an earlier commentary. Through some of them, subsystems were even devised. For the purposes of this article, the most prominent philosophers of this period were Sankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva. The scholastic period is said to have declined after the Hindus became the subjects of Muslim and English invaders.

A more positive view, however, finds in the postconquest era a reform period and a renaissance period. During the former, reformers like Kabir, Nanak, and Chaitanya composed a large body of devotional literature. The first two attempted to harmonize Islam and Hinduism, with Guru Nanak eventually founding Sikhism. Chaitanya founded a devotional movement, one branch of which is today’s ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness). In the renaissance period, from the eighteenth century on, certain teachers tried to synthesize the best of East and West, Hinduism and Christianity, in the face of mounting European and Christian influence. Notable figures included Raja Ram Mohun Roy, Debendrenath Tagore, and Keshab Chandra Sen, all leaders of the Brahmo Samaj Movement. Later, with similar goals, came Sri Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, and Mahatma Gandhi.

Finally, an overview of Indian history would be incomplete if it failed to mention some other achievements. Contemporaries of the ancient Greeks, Hindus excelled in several fields: mathematics, music theory, physics (atomism), anatomy, and medicine. The mathematics of the Hindus was superior to that of the Greeks, except in geometry, and they developed algebra independently of the Greeks. The Hindus also used the decimal system and invented zero. In medicine, as early as 600–500 BC, physicians precisely described ligaments and muscles; the lymphatic, nervous, and vascular systems; digestion; fetal development; membranes and tissues; even sutures. Around this time, Atreya concluded that the parent’s seed contains in miniature the whole parental organism. And Sushruta, who described numerous surgical procedures and instruments, performed the first skin graft and nose reconstruction.

Six Basic Viewpoints (Darshanas). Philosophy and spirituality have had a higher priority in the intellectual life of the Hindus than even science. These disciplines acquired still greater importance when the old Vedic religion was threatened by the non-Vedic-based philosophies that emerged from within India itself. The Charvakas, a strict materialistic school, arose briefly but soon retreated into obscurity. In the first millennium BC, the more serious threats came from Jainism and Buddhism. In response to these formidable challengers, Hindu philosophers quickly developed into excellent critical thinkers and organized their theories into defensible systems. Dogmatism alone, they realized, would no longer suffice; sound reasons were necessary. Out of this intellectual ferment, the “brahmanical systems” were born. In all, six basic systems, called “viewpoints” (darshanas), have been most influential in Hinduism. Although their chronologies remain uncertain, they provide a useful framework for understanding Hinduism further.

Nyaya. This system is noted for its logical realism. The word nyaya means “argument,” the way the mind is led to a conclusion. Now it has come to mean the science of right reasoning or proof of right knowledge. The first Hindu work to elucidate the principles of logic and rhetoric was the Nyaya Sutra, ascribed to Akshapada Gautama (300–200 BC). Across twenty centuries, this system produced a significant body of thought and literature. The other systems generally accept its rules of logic and proof.

Nyaya holds that the logical examination of the objects of experience is the surest way to secure right knowledge and pursue legitimate goals. It identifies four factors that assist or impede this effort: subject, object, consequent cognition, and means of knowledge. Through the means of knowledge, if they are logical, one apprehends accurately, grasps the truth that an infinite self (or subject) is the agent behind the mind, and obtains liberation from the grip of desire and ignorance. Thus Nyaya combines epistemology and metaphysics. Before Gautama, its exponents tended to be atheists; after him, theists.

More importantly, much like Aristotle, Gautama constructed a framework of logic within which thought and knowledge became pragmatic tools. He explained inductive and deductive inferences. He created a five-part syllogism consisting of proposition, reason, example, application, and conclusion. Moreover, not only did he set forth the principles of argument; he also dealt with propaganda devices and logical fallacies. This framework of investigation, along with its rich philosophical vocabulary, represents the chief contribution of the Nyaya system.

Vaisheshika. This system is referred to as “realistic pluralism” or “atomic realism.” Like Nyaya it is analytical. Because the word vishesha means “particularity,” the system is also called “distinctionism” because it focuses on the distinctions among really existent things. Its primary text, the Vaisheshika Sutra (600–300 BC), was written by Kanada, its founder. Similar in approach and metaphysics to Nyaya, Vaisheshika later embraced the Nyaya conception of God.

Vaisheshika—atomic realism and pluralism—acknowledges multiplicity in the world but concludes from it that all “things” consist merely of combinations of atoms. Forms are changeable and destructible; atoms are indestructible. Nothing exists but “atoms and the void,” nor are the movements of the atoms determined by the will of an intelligent deity. They are directed by impersonal force, “the invisible” (Adrishta). Later exponents located a world of minute souls alongside the world of atoms, with both being supervised by an intelligent Deity—an idea somewhat akin to the “preestablished harmony” of German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. The Vaisheshika system is all but extinct today.

Samkhya. Perhaps the oldest of these systems, Samkhya has been accepted, at least in part, by most other systems. The creation of Samkhya is attributed to the realist Kapila (700–600 BC), but the earliest extant text on the subject, the Samkhya-karika, is dated about the third century AD. This system is termed “evolutionary dualism” because it claims that the universe consists only of purusha (the knowing subject) and prakriti (the known object). The evolution of the universe unfolds from prakriti in a descent through layers of materiality. Because prakriti is unconscious, this evolution can only occur in the presence of the ever-conscious purusha. Because this system claims that there are multitudinous selves, in a state of either bondage or release, it has been said that reference to a supreme deity is unnecessary to Samkhya.

Samkhya posits several components to prakriti, although the system consists of far fewer categories than either Nyaya or Vaisheshika. Twenty-four sheaths (koshas) exist—for example, the intellect, “I-sense,” lower mind—descending from the subtle to the gross, from Mahat (the great one) through the mind and senses to the five elements: ether, air, fire, water, and earth. There are also three interplaying energetic qualities (gunas) that compose the created universe: purity (sattwa), activity (rajas), and inactivity (tamas). Everything in prakriti, including the empirical self (jiva), is bound; only purusha, the animating spirit, is free.

The goal is to search out and destroy all false identification with prakriti. A seeker effects his liberation by balancing in himself the three gunas and discriminating between prakriti (false self) and purusha (true self). The practices of virtue and yoga are essential to the process. Because self-restraint and self-mastery clarify and steady the mind, they are prerequisites for liberation. Properly understood, then, prakriti—assisted by the deluded “I-sense” (ahamkara)—prevents the soul from realizing the truth about itself. Ultimately, however, the release that is effected through discriminative knowledge is phenomenal only. The soul merely discovers that which it had always been from the beginning: purusha—pure, free, eternal. Thence follows, claims Kapila, “the complete cessation of pain.”

The Samkhya system was intended to help the bound one not so much to understand the world as to transcend it. Second only to Vedanta, this system has most deeply affected the Hindu mind. Later, Samkhya met its fiercest critic in Sankara (AD 788–820).

Yoga. Patanjali, who was influenced by Samkhya, first systematized yoga. Like Samkhya yoga requires discrimination between the subject and the object, witness and witnessed, purusha and prakriti. Although Patanjali composed the Yoga Sutras sometime before AD 400, yoga had already been mentioned as early as the Upanishads (between 800 and 300 BC). Apparently it even fascinated Alexander the Great, who was interested in the way the ascetic yogis bore up silently under pain. Today yoga is an essential part of the teachings of almost every sect in India.

Special features of yoga are that it is nonsectarian, practical, and experiential. In the system of Patanjali, the aspiring yogi is told that the goal is simply the liberation of the soul from the bondage of prakriti and karma. He is not urged to seek God, Ishvara, because Ishvara is merely one object on which the yogi may meditate to effect his liberation. Patanjali provides the method and leaves the role of God to others.

Most important to this system is the step-by-step practice of yoga as both means and method. By practicing the eight limbs of yoga (ashtanga), claims Patanjali, a yogi disassociates himself gradually from the body-mind and other material obstructions that prevent his liberation. After meeting certain ethical requirements (yama and niyama), the yogi attempts to master the disciplines of various positions but most importantly sitting still (hatha) and controlling his breath (pranayama), for hours if necessary. Next he practices withdrawing his five senses from sense objects (pratayahara) to gain control of his thoughts. Then, focusing his mind longer and longer on a single object, he learns to retrieve his mind when it wanders and restrain it when it resists, until his focus is unbroken. From concentration (dharana), the yogi progresses to meditation (dhyana), and from meditation to transcendental insight (samadhi), at which point he realizes that he is nothing but pure consciousness. In this way, the yogi secures his own liberation from worldly and bodily attachments and sorrows.

The image of the yogi in the Hindu mind holds not only an idealistic but also a romantic appeal, even for householder yogis. Ascetic wanderers (sadhus) and seers on dusty roads, under tamarind trees, and in quiet forest retreats have been common sights in India for centuries. They are symbols of freedom from bondage and care. They are mystics and experimenters par excellence, committed to abstinence, austerities, and ceaseless meditation, who doggedly seek firsthand experiences of the spiritual. In the end, whatever the yogi’s goal—self-knowledge, union with God, or supernatural powers (siddhis)—he believes that yoga can help him sever the root of ignorance, help him overcome his karma, and convey him to his destination.

Purva Mimamsa. This system is based on interpretative investigations of the early portions of the Vedas: the Mantras and the Brahmanas. Least important of the six systems, it is more religion than philosophy because it focuses solely on right conduct (dharma). In the main, it is an orthodox response to the excesses of philosophers who seemed to flout the authority of the Vedas. In particular Jaimini in his Mimamsa Sutra (ca. 400 BC) inveighs against the hypocrisy of Kapila and Kanada for granting the authority of the Vedas and then proceeding to ignore it. The human mind, to Jaimini, is too feeble to master the complexities of metaphysics. Reason deceives because it rationalizes its own desires and pride. Thus wisdom is to be found not in the mazes of logic but in the humble performance of the duties prescribed by scripture and tradition.

The Mimamsa Sutra thus concerns itself exclusively with moral duties and sacrificial rituals. To establish the validity of the Vedic injunctions and their promised rewards, Jaimini also investigates sounds, words, and semantics. In Mimamsa moral action itself is regarded as a powerful, invisible force (apurva) capable of shaping the world and human destiny. Action alone determines the quality of human life in the present incarnation, the afterlife, and future incarnations. Free will, ensuring the best results and rewards, assists in the accumulation of good results and nullification of bad ones. Therefore, the wise man, faithful to the injunctions of the Vedas, performs only prescribed actions and abstains from prohibited ones.

Liberation for the Mimamsaka is life in heaven, the ultimate fruit of moral action. Thus performance of dharma is considered sufficient to effect the detachment of the soul from the body-mind and its liberation. Jaimini acknowledges the reality of the Vedic deities but does not refer to a supreme Deity. In light of the power of the enjoined actions of the Vedas to secure liberation, Jaimini apparently saw no need to include God in his system. Although Purva Mimamsa made notable contributions in logic, dialectics, and epistemology, it is remembered mainly for its emphasis on dharma for dharma’s sake.

Uttara Mimamsa. In contrast to Purva Mimamsa, this system is based on interpretative investigations of the later portions of the Vedas, especially the Upanishads. Thus this school of thought is also called Vedanta because it interprets the religious and philosophical material at the end (-anta) of the Vedas. Badarayana (who lived sometime between 500 and 200 BC) wrote the earliest authoritative commentaries on the Upanishads: the Vedanta Sutra (or Brahma Sutra) and Sariraka Sutra. The former deals with the nature of Brahma (the creative force of the universe); the latter with the Atman (unconditioned self). In both Badarayana attempted to systematize and synthesize the often-contradictory teachings of the Upanishads. Because these works consisted of over 555 sutras of no more than two to three words each, subsequent interpretations were bound to vary and controversies to arise. Within the span of a thousand years, this system had subdivided into three main branches that continue to this day.

The first to gain ascendancy was Advaita Vedanta (nondualism). In the first millennium after Christ, this view was expounded by various commentaries and teachers, until the mantle came to rest on Sankara (AD 788–820). The greatest philosopher of Advaita, Sankara carried this system to its pinnacle. In this nondualistic Vedanta, the distinctive belief is that God (Brahma), who is “one without a second,” and the soul (Atman) are one. Realization of this truth is called self-knowledge (atmajnana).

Sankara developed his discussion around two categories, variously referred to as the one and the many, subject and object, and self (Atman) and not-self (anatma). Although the phenomenal universe is in a sense real, it is not, Sankara asserted, ultimate reality (Brahma). In fact, everything in it, including intellect and ego, is dependent on that ultimate reality. The truth, however, is that the embodied soul, the little separate self (jiva), is really that one eternal, undivided reality. Ignorance of this truth (avidya) persists as long as the ego sense (ahamkara) falsely identifies with the delusion of separateness and multiplicity. Because the jiva mistakenly superimposes the not-self onto the self, it suffers endlessly. The solution, according to Sankara, is the practice of discrimination (viveka). Once the soul fully identifies with Atman, with its true nature instead of with the not-self, Atman alone will then shine forth eternally. The liberated soul then declares, “I am Brahma” (aham brahmasmi), existing forever after as pure existence-consciousness-bliss (satchitananda).

Later, in reaction to the cold austerity of the Advaita school, Ramanuja (AD 1017–1137) established the Vishishtadvaita branch of Vedanta (qualified nondualism). Of course, Ramanuja had to refute Sankara. To this end, he delineated three, rather than two, main categories: God (Brahma), world, and selves. To Ramanuja these are real, forming a unity: God eternal, personal; the world of unconscious matter created, vitalized by God; each self eternally dependent on and subordinate to God. Ramanuja qualified Advaita by assigning to Brahma two forms—selves and matter—which nevertheless remained in essence and nature different from Brahma.

The three categories help to explain the beliefs and practices at the core of qualified nondualism. First of all, Brahma is the controlling self and power behind the world and selves. There is, however, no undifferentiated, nondual Brahma. God is personal, saguna (with qualities), rather than impersonal, nirguna (without qualities), as is the Brahma of Sankara. The world, according to Ramanuja, is not phenomenal. He rejects the notion that the world is merely an ignorance-born superimposition of the unreal on the real. Moreover, both before and after the soul is released through the grace of God from bondage, he or she persists eternally as a unique individual. Although the barriers to the truth are removed, the self is not dissolved into God. After liberation the self possesses an everlasting intuition of God. Both before and after liberation, the soul obtains true knowledge of God not by practicing some theory but rather by loving and worshiping God.

Then later, reacting to Sankara, especially, but also to Ramanuja, Madhva (1197–1276) established the dvaita branch of Vedanta (dualism). This branch differs from the other two in that it recognizes four basic dualities: between God and self, between selves, between selves and matter, between materials and substances.

With the background on the previous branches in mind, dvaita may be understood in summary form. God, identified with Vishnu, exists in perfection. Although he has a supernatural body, he transcends it, even while he is also immanent in the world and in the heart of every soul as its ruler. Each self, by nature, is blissful but suffers because past karma binds it to a material body. By becoming freed from impurities through the grace of God, the self ceases to incarnate. After liberation it exists as an individual who delights perpetually in the presence of God, always worshiping and adoring him. In any event, the divine will is always supreme. God determines who will be liberated into his presence and who will continue in bondage.

Modern Hinduism. Hinduism continues to flourish worldwide. The estimated number of Hindus in the world today is seven hundred million. Among Hindus throughout the world, and particularly in the West, Vedanta and Yoga remain ever popular, especially the modified, synthetic versions of Sri Ramakrishna and others who have attempted to harmonize and validate all “paths” to God. This broad-minded Vedanta has left its mark on nearly every form of Hinduism today.

Despite the rural Hindus who still worship local deities, three main sects seem to predominate wherever Hinduism is found—from India to Indonesia, South Africa to Fiji, Europe to America. Each is based on the preferred deity (Ishta-devata) of that sect. Less numerous are the Shaktas (devotees of the multiformed divine mother), whose origin may be traced to the tantra of the Middle Ages. More numerous are the Shaivites (devotees of Shiva)—often associated with the Shaktas—who have closer ties to the nondualisits and qualified nondualists of Vedanta. Even more numerous are the Vaishnaivites (devotees of Vishnu), whose origin may be traced to Madhva. In the West, Vaishnaivites are recognized as the Hare Krishnas. Vaishnaivites and other Vedantins have been most responsible, too, for introducing the idea of the avatar to the West.

Decades of Indian immigrants, not only Hindus but Sikhs, have been settling and thriving in Western countries. Scores of Hindu temples exist in the US—one or more in almost every state—and the UK. General interest in hatha yoga and Ayurvedic medicine remains high. Drawing Hindus together, the internet is now serving as an effective form of communication for those of the “diaspora,” as they term it. Currently many impressive websites addressing Hindu interests appear on the internet, with their numbers growing. Finally, among Hindu scholars, a renewed interest in Indo-Aryan archaeology and Sanskrit studies has been increasing. Hindus seem to be trying to reclaim their history and philosophy, for so long defined and managed by Western interpreters.

In India, meanwhile, the brightly colored pujas and melas, religious services and festivals, continue unchanged, with an Ishta-devata to suit every taste.

Bibliography. W. Durant, The Story of Civilization, part 1, Our Oriental Heritage; G. Feuerstein, The Yoga Tradition: Its History, Literature, Philosophy and Practice; D. Frawley, From the River of Heaven: Hindu and Vedic Knowledge for the Modern Age; J. J. Lipner, Hindus: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices; K. H. Potter, Presuppositions of India’s Philosophers; Swami Prabhavananda, The Spiritual Heritage of India: A Clear Summary of Indian Philosophy and Religion; S. Radhakrishnan and C. A. Moore, A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy; Walter Schmitthenner, “India and Rome,” Journal of Roman Studies; Ninian Smart, Doctrine and Argument in Indian Philosophy; S. B. Veylanswami, “In a World Where Men Are Labeled Good or Evil, the Hindu Vision Helps,” Hinduism Today, http://www.hinduismtoday.com/; H. Zimmer, Philosophies of India, edited by Joseph Campbell.

B. Scott

HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM. See BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, PENTECOSTAL VIEW OF

HOLY SPIRIT, BIBLICAL VIEW OF. Orthodox Christianity teaches that the Holy Spirit is the third member of the Trinity, fully God and coeternal with the Father and the Son. “The attributes of God are ascribed to him, such as life, truth, love, holiness, eternity, omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence; he does the works of God, such as creation, regeneration, resurrection; he receives honor due only to God; he is associated with God on a footing of equality, both in formula of baptism and in the apostolic benedictions” (Strong, 315).

The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. The Old Testament does not present the Holy Spirit in an explicit, theologically developed way. His presence throughout the Old Testament speaks mostly of his power and influence. This does not mean that the person of the Holy Spirit is absent. Old Testament references to the Holy Spirit are quite sufficient for developing a working understanding of his person and work. When these are coupled with New Testament references, it is clear that the totality of Scripture supports the view that the Spirit is the Third Person of the Trinity.

In Genesis 1:2, the Holy Spirit is actively involved in creation. Further references that give more detail about his work in creation include Job 26:13 (NIV “breath”), which describes the Spirit’s role in creating the heavens, and 33:4, where Job acknowledges that his existence is by the work of the Spirit of God. The word used for breath in Psalm 33:6 is also used in Genesis 1:2 for Spirit. When God speaks to Moses regarding the plan to build the tabernacle, he informs Moses that the master craftsman Bezalel is going to be empowered by the Spirit to accomplish the task. This will include filling Bezalel with wisdom, understanding, and knowledge in all areas of craftsmanship. In Numbers 11:16–17, God tells Moses to gather together seventy key men who will be called to assist him with the people of Israel. God will provide his Spirit for both Moses and the seventy, and the Spirit will provide divine assistance and guidance. Judges 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 13:25 describe instances where the Holy Spirit filled specific leaders (Othniel, Gideon, Jephthah, Samson) to enable them to accomplish important tasks. In Isaiah 63:10, 11, reference is made to the sins of Israel and how its behavior toward God grieved the Holy Spirit. The response of the Spirit to the sins of the people indicates that he is a person, not merely a force or power.

The Holy Spirit in the New Testament. The New Testament treats the person and work of the Holy Spirit far more extensively, which seems to fit the theological understanding of the procession of the Son from the Father, and the Spirit from the Son. In the Old Testament, God the Father is the primary member of the Trinity who is described. As we move into the New Testament, the Gospel accounts focus on the person and work of God the Son, revealing his interactions with both the Father and the Holy Spirit. In John 14–16, Jesus promises to send the Spirit, who will continue where Jesus leaves off. The book of Acts inaugurates the arrival of the Spirit and describes the work of the Spirit in the growth and development of the church, fulfilling the words of Christ when he indicated that a comforter would follow his ascension.

The Gospels present important information on the person and work of the Holy Spirit. The birth narrative in Matthew 1:18, 20 indicates that Jesus Christ is conceived in Mary’s womb by the Holy Spirit. This work of the Holy Spirit in the incarnation fulfills the Old Testament prophecy regarding the virgin birth of Christ, and he is born with a sinless nature. Luke 1:35 explains that the Holy Spirit will overshadow Mary, and she will give birth to the Son of God. Later, at Christ’s baptism, the Holy Spirit comes upon him and confirms his relationship with God the Father. Here we see a glimpse of the Trinity together: the Spirit coming upon Christ and the Father declaring his love for and pleasure in the Son. The Spirit leads Christ into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan (Matt. 4:1; Mark 1:12). Luke 4:1 points out that the Lord was full of the Holy Spirit and that upon his return from Jordan he was led by the Spirit into the desert to face temptation.

The Holy Spirit is very active in the ministry of Jesus. In Luke 4:14, 18, the power of the Spirit is with Christ, and he is anointed to preach the gospel. Matthew 12:18 says the Spirit will be upon Christ, who will proclaim justice to all the peoples of the earth. Jesus drives out demonic beings by the power of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:28). Matthew 12:31–32 describes the seriousness of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Much debate surrounds the exact nature of what is commonly called the unpardonable sin. Some say it has to do with accusing Christ of casting out demons by the power of Satan, equating the Spirit with the devil. Others believe the blasphemy is repeated rejection of the Spirit’s convicting work on behalf of the unregenerate. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is serious enough that it will not be forgiven (Matt. 12:31–32; Luke 12:10). Jesus indicates that the Holy Spirit is actively involved in the work of salvation. John 3:5–6, 8 states one must be born of the Spirit, and John 6:63 says the Spirit gives life. He also convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8–11). John 14 describes the impending departure of Christ, which causes the disciples grave concern. Christ has been their support, teacher, guide, and comfort. He promises them that they will receive another comforter (Paraclete), the Holy Spirit, who will be with them forever, the Spirit of truth. He will be both their helper and teacher and will enable them to remember the things Jesus taught them as well. The Spirit plays an important role in the evangelistic work of the disciples. He will clothe them with power (Luke 24:48–49) and testify about Christ.

In his postresurrection appearance to the disciples in Acts 1, Jesus is asked if the kingdom is going to be restored. He responds by telling them that the time of the restoration is not for them to know. In the meantime, the Holy Spirit will come upon them in due time and empower them to go and proclaim the gospel throughout Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria and to the ends of the earth. On the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit comes upon the disciples, empowering them with the ability to speak in tongues (languages of numerous nations). Peter preaches to the crowd, proclaiming the fulfillment of Joel 2:28–32 and the good news of Jesus Christ (Acts 2). The work of the Spirit in the beginning stages of the church in Jerusalem is evidenced by the conversion of three thousand souls who receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:37–41). The new congregation continues to be empowered by the Spirit, and the apostles perform many signs and wonders. The new congregation is deeply enriched by the Spirit’s work, and God adds more souls each day. The case of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1–11 reveals the severity of lying to the Holy Spirit. Their deaths as a result of their deception instill much fear in those who witness the incident, and it moves people to show respect for the ministry of the apostles.

The Deity of the Holy Spirit. The deity of the Holy Spirit is attested in a number of passages. In Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands his disciples to baptize new converts in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is early evidence of the Spirit’s equality with the Father and the Son, as set forth in a trinitarian formula. Ephesians 1:1–14 reveals a similar tight association between the persons of the Trinity. The Father elects/chooses us, the Son atones for sin, and the Holy Spirit seals us. In Acts 5:3–4, lying to the Holy Spirit and the severe consequences that follow reveal that both Ananias and Sapphira lied to God (v. 4). We are God’s temple and the dwelling place of God’s Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16), which equates the Holy Spirit with God. First Corinthians 2:10–11 says the Spirit searches the depths of God. To accomplish this, the Spirit would have to be omniscient and therefore equal with God.

Several passages attest that the act of regeneration is a work of the Holy Spirit. In John 3:3–7, Jesus explains to Nicodemus that he must be born again, specifically by the Spirit. Titus 3:5 is more explicit, stating that the Spirit both regenerates and renews us. The Spirit is actively involved in providing spiritual discernment so that the things of God can be accepted. In 1 Corinthians 2:14, Paul says the natural human being does not understand or comprehend the things of the Spirit of God, implying that the Spirit must first enable the unregenerate to apprehend the things of God before they can embrace them. The Westminster Shorter Catechism says the Spirit applies redemption, and the effectual calling unto salvation is the work of the Holy Spirit. The fact that the Spirit regenerates and renews indicates that he has a distinct role in bringing about the entire process of salvation, from the work of conviction of sin (John 16:8–11) to regeneration and justification. Second Thessalonians 2:13 says we have been chosen for salvation through the sanctification of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit separates us from the world and brings us into newness of life. Once the saving work is accomplished, the Spirit indwells us (Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19).

The Old Testament Scriptures are inspired by God, specifically, the Holy Spirit. Second Peter 1:20–21 says prophecy came not by human will but directly from the Holy Spirit, who inspired the words of human beings. Also 2 Timothy 3:16 says all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. The extent of the Spirit’s work in propositional revelation is total. The Scriptures’ accuracy and power are the work of the Holy Spirit. Illumination of the truths of God’s revelation comes by means of the Holy Spirit’s work in us.

The empowering work of the Holy Spirit on behalf of the universal church is manifested in the various gifts he gives to all believers. In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul describes the various gifts of the Spirit, noting that they are given for the purpose of building up the body. The gifts include wisdom, word of knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, prophecy, discernment of spirits, tongues, and the interpretation of tongues. These gifts are given not for personal benefit but for the edification of the body, into which the Spirit places the believer by means of Spirit baptism.

Early Controversies regarding the Holy Spirit. In an effort to protect Christianity’s monotheistic understanding of God, Monarchians taught a radical view of monotheism that diminished the identity of the distinct persons of the Godhead. Out of Monarchianism two related heresies developed: modalism (Sabellianism) and dynamic monarchianism (Adoptionism). Modalism taught that God was not three distinct persons who shared equally all of the essence of God, but rather that he manifested himself in three distinct modes. Thus in the Old Testament, God was the Father. In the New Testament, he manifested himself as the Son and then finally as the Holy Spirit. The early modalist heretic Sabellius expressed it in this manner: God is the Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the Holy Spirit in sanctification and regeneration.

The earliest direct attack on the deity and person of the Holy Spirit came from Arius, who also repudiated the deity of Christ in favor of a strict, nontrinitarian, monotheistic view of God. He argued that the Holy Spirit is a force, power, or energy that comes from God. The Council of Nicaea (AD 325) addressed Arius’s heretical view of the Trinity, not only rejecting his denial of Christ’s deity but also acknowledging the Holy Spirit. Given that the deity of Christ was the main issue, the Nicene Creed did not give explicit attention to the deity of the Holy Spirit but rather implied it. This weakness was addressed at the Council of Constantinople (AD 381), which settled the issue regarding the Spirit’s deity. Out of that council came the Constantinopolitan Creed, which states the following regarding the Holy Spirit: “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giver, Who proceeds from the Father, Who is worshipped and glorified together with the Father and Son, Who spoke through the prophets.” This creed effectively established a thoroughgoing orthodox view of the Trinity that left no doubt what the church believed regarding the three persons of the Trinity, thus effectively repudiating once again the Arian heresy and also other errors such as Monarchianism and its offshoots.

Controversies during the Reformation. Around the time of the Reformation, Faustus Socinus (Fausto Sozzini, 1539–1604), nephew of Laelius Socinus (Lelio Sozzini, 1525–62, the orthodox reformer), promoted antitrinitarian views. Regarding the Holy Spirit, the Socinians taught that the Spirit was merely a power or operation of God.

Conclusion. In spite of the aggressive efforts by heretical teachers to diminish the person and work of the Holy Spirit, the major branches of the church have historically maintained a firm grasp on the deity of the Spirit and his coeternal, coequal status as the third member of the Trinity. Orthodox teaching on the Spirit is derived from both the Old and the New Testaments.

Bibliography. G. Burge, The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Tradition; G. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence; W. Grudem, Systematic Theology; J. I. Packer, Keep in Step with the Spirit; “Sabellius,” in New World Encyclopedia, http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Sabellius?oldid=687583; A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology: A Compendium Designed for the Use of Theological Students; J. Walvoord, The Holy Spirit; L. Wood, The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament.

S. J. Rost

HOLY SPIRIT, MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which articulates the orthodox Christian understanding of God’s nature, may be stated as follows: There is only one true God, who within his eternal nature exists as three distinct persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—all of whom are coequal and coeternal. These persons are the one God. Hence all three persons may properly be called “God” either collectively or individually.

Obviously, the soundness of the trinitarian formula rests, at least in part, on whether the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit can be demonstrated from Scripture. In other words, for trinitarianism to be valid, the Bible must indicate that the Holy Spirit is not only personal but also deity. According to most heterodox groups, however, Scripture does not provide such information, or it provides information to the contrary.

Some groups, especially those influenced by Eastern philosophy, do not even recognize God as a personal being. Although they might mention a “Spirit” or “One Soul,” such references only allude to a kind of universal consciousness through which all life is united as one. This belief, called monism, asserts that all reality is reducible to a single unifying substance. Individuality is nothing but an illusion. Everything is part of a great cosmic One, which is variously referred to as the Reality, All, Mind, or Force. Such a notion, of course, excludes the possibility of any Holy Spirit existing separate from humanity.

Yet Scripture teaches that there is indeed a Holy Spirit utterly distinct from humanity. In the Old Testament, this Spirit is commonly spoken of as the “Spirit of God” (Gen. 1:2; Num. 11:26; 1 Sam. 10:10; 2 Chron. 24:20) or the “Holy Spirit” of God (Ps. 51:11; Isa. 63:10–11). The New Testament also mentions a “Holy Spirit” (Acts 19:6; Rom. 15:16; 1 Cor. 12:3; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 1:13; 1 Thess. 4:8).

Other heterodox groups, though they may accept the existence of the Holy Spirit, hold widely varying opinions on the subject. To Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Holy Spirit is “an invisible active force” by which Jehovah God accomplishes his will (Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 11); to Christadelphians, “the energy or power of God” (Mansfield, 15); to members of Freemasonry, a “Life-Principle” (Pike, 734); to Eckankar followers, God’s “Light and Sound” (1); to Church Universal and Triumphant adherents, the “seventh-ray aspect of the sacred fire [which] transmutes the cause, effect, record, and memory of negative karma” (Prophet, 9). But Scripture repeatedly paints the Holy Spirit in a radically different way.

First, many Old and New Testament passages ascribe to the Holy Spirit characteristics consistent with personhood—for example, feeling emotion (Isa. 63:10; Rom. 15:30; Eph. 4:30), possessing knowledge (1 Cor. 2:11), and having a mind (Rom. 8:27). Second, the Holy Spirit acts in ways that indicate personhood—for example, he teaches (Neh. 9:20; Luke 12:12; John 14:26), bears witness (John 15:26; Acts 5:32; Rom. 8:16), leads and guides (John 16:13), glorifies Christ (John 16:14), convicts hearts (John 16:8), intercedes for believers (Rom. 8:27), speaks and gives commands (Acts 8:29; 10:19–20; 11:12; Rev. 22:17), calls Christians into service (Acts 13:2), makes decisions (Acts 15:28), and exhibits self-control by not acting “on his own initiative” when doing so would conflict with the will of the Father and the Son (John 16:13).

Concerning the deity of the Holy Spirit, this too is clearly discerned in various ways from a number of biblical passages. Acts 5, for instance, tells the story of Ananias and his wife, Sapphira, who sell their property but are dishonest about how much they have profited from the transaction. Peter confronts the couple, saying: “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit?” (v. 3). Peter goes on to tell Ananias that in lying to the Holy Spirit, he actually had lied “to God” (v. 4). Additionally, it must be remembered that someone can only lie to another person. This passage, therefore, not only presents the Holy Spirit as God but also offers yet more proof that the Holy Spirit is not an impersonal force.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), unlike the aforementioned groups, actually does recognize both the personality and the deity of the Holy Spirit. However, LDS Church members, also known as Mormons, still err by identifying the Holy Spirit as an altogether different god existing in the cosmos. This places Mormonism in the category of polytheistic religions (belief in many gods), whereas Christianity is a monotheistic faith (belief in one God). Biblical passages militating against multiple gods include Isaiah 42:8; 43:10; 48:10–11. Even the demons readily concede there is only one God (James 2:19). A unique view found within some Mormon writings is a distinction between Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost, though there is no such distinction in the original texts of Scripture.

Another common misconception about the Holy Spirit involves the misdefinition of the term Holy Spirit as nothing more than an alternate expression for God the Father—that is, God is “holy” and God is “spirit.” Victor Paul Wierwille, founder of The Way International, advocated this belief despite verses like Isaiah 48:16 and 63:9–10, wherein God the Father is mentioned in conjunction with the Holy Spirit. Such passages show a clear distinction between the Father and the Spirit.

Finally, some within modalist groups (e.g., the United Pentecostal Church) claim that the Holy Spirit is simply a “mode” of operation that is assumed by God the Father in order to interact with humanity. According to modalism, a heresy traceable to Sabellius (third century AD), God is not three persons but only appears as such in order to manifest different aspects of his character. In other words, the Father became the Son, who became the Holy Spirit. But numerous biblical passages distinguish between all three persons, proving also that all three exist simultaneously (e.g., Matt. 3:16–17; John 15:26).