Jealous Is the Father of Evil and Darkness

The Sheol Edition: Death, Daniel, and the Locked Kingdom

By Diesel the Magus

Before accepting the later promise, examine the earlier portrait.

Before treating resurrection as an unchanged doctrine handed down from the beginning, read what the scriptures actually say about the dead. Before accepting Daniel as ancient predictive testimony, examine when its visions were composed. Before accepting religious authorities as custodians of heaven, read what Jesus says about their obstruction of entry.

This is the next part of my testimony. I identify Yahweh as the father of lies and the murderous father condemned in John 8:44. Here I examine another part of the record: the movement from the silence of Sheol to later resurrection expectation, and the authority claimed over access to the kingdom.

The textual witnesses establish the descriptions and disputes below. My judgment about deceptive authorship and my identification of Yahweh are the theological conclusions I draw from them.

1. Read the silence before reading the promise backward

Psalm 6:5 places the appeal for rescue on this ground:

“For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?”

The Hebrew term rendered grave is Sheol. The speaker’s argument is that death interrupts remembrance and thanksgiving. The passage is an appeal to remain alive, rather than an assurance of immediate heavenly worship. ^[1]

Psalm 115:17 makes the silence explicit:

“The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence.”

That is a textual portrait readers must encounter before importing the developed Christian picture of the righteous dead praising God in heaven. ^[2]

Psalm 88:10–12 asks whether the dead will arise and praise, whether faithfulness is proclaimed in destruction, and whether righteousness is known in a “land of forgetfulness.” The questions express the lament’s dread of death and separation. I let that lament retain its own voice. ^[3]

Silence. Forgetfulness. Praise cut off. These descriptions belong to the record of religion around Yahweh. They cannot be erased by placing a later answer over them.

2. The pit and the loss of hope for truth

Isaiah 38:18–19, in the song attributed to Hezekiah, contrasts the dead with the living who praise and transmit knowledge of divine faithfulness. Its wording about those descending to the pit is particularly striking:

“cannot hope for thy truth.”

That is the passage’s claim about the dead within its lament. Its narrative association with Hezekiah is not, by itself, a precise composition date for the song. The contrast between life and death, however, is directly available in the text. ^[4]

Ecclesiastes 9:5–10 develops the loss of participation in earthly life and describes Sheol as lacking work, planning, knowledge, and wisdom. It urges the living to act while they can. ^[5]

I will not describe these passages as though they already offer the same fully articulated expectation as Daniel 12. Their emphasis is the loss of life’s activities and relationships. That emphasis matters.

Sheol is the realm of the dead in this discussion. It is not simply another name for the later Christian picture of a fiery place of punishment. Nor do these particular passages exhaust every biblical view of death.

3. Daniel changes the picture—but its date matters

Daniel 12:2 presents an awakening from the dust with contrasting outcomes: everlasting life for some, shame and everlasting contempt for others. This is a clear statement of differentiated postmortem expectation. ^[6]

Now establish the chronology. Mainstream critical scholarship locates Daniel’s apocalyptic chapters in the crisis under Antiochus IV, approximately 167–164 BCE, despite their sixth-century narrative setting. Older tales contributed to the book; the visions’ dating is the point relevant here. ^[7]

The apparent ancient speaker and the historical period of composition must not be collapsed.

I consider the use of a false sixth-century identity to authenticate a later revelation deceptive. My accusation concerns that assumed authority. I am not calling the hope that death can be overcome itself a lie.

Pseudepigraphy names the authorship issue. Vaticinium ex eventu names the presentation of already known events as earlier prediction. I do not regard either term as an answer to my moral judgment about deceptive authentication.

In my reading, the borrowed antiquity gives the later message an authority it would otherwise have to establish on its own.

4. The contrast does not require erasing other evidence

Isaiah 26:19 also contains language of the dead living and awakening from dust. It belongs in the evidence. Daniel need not be declared the first conceivable appearance of resurrection language for the composition problem to remain. ^[8]

The stronger claim is precise: the biblical texts preserve different portrayals of death, and Daniel’s explicit resurrection expectation belongs to a late compositional setting in the critical reconstruction.

A late vision cannot become sixth-century evidence merely because the narrative places its speaker there. The doctrine’s value and the claimed provenance are separate questions. My indictment addresses the provenance used to authenticate it.

5. Acts preserves the fracture

Acts 23:6–8 depicts Paul identifying himself as a Pharisee and invoking resurrection in a divided council. The narrator explains the division: Sadducees deny resurrection, angel, and spirit; Pharisees affirm them. ^[9]

This is a surviving dispute within the New Testament’s own account. It prevents anyone from treating resurrection as an uncontested belief shared by all the authorities of the period.

The verse does not identify who first introduced resurrection or prove the Sadducees’ reasons for rejecting it. What it establishes is enough for this stage of the case: disagreement persisted over a doctrine later presented as central.

My chronology therefore places the witnesses beside one another: the silence and loss described in the Sheol passages; Daniel’s awakening and judgment; and the first-century dispute recorded in Acts.

6. Jesus accuses the custodians of obstructing entry

Matthew 23:13 directs an accusation at scribes and Pharisees:

“ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men”

The charge continues: they do not enter and prevent others who are entering from doing so. This accusation belongs to Jesus’s speech in the Gospel. ^[10]

Luke 11:52 brings knowledge into the indictment. The lawyers have taken away the key of knowledge, failed to enter, and hindered those entering. ^[11]

The custodians are accused of obstruction.

That is what I mean here by the locked kingdom: religious authority claiming to guard access while hindering people. I connect that accusation with the authority constructed through inherited texts and claimed ancient revelation. The Gospels do not explicitly say that Daniel’s composition caused the obstruction; that connection is my interpretation of the larger pattern.

7. The power behind the older profile claims responsibility

Exodus 34:14 supplies the designation Jealous. Isaiah 45:7 attributes the creation of darkness and what the KJV calls evil to Yahweh; calamity or disaster is the wording used in many other translations. Those are the textual foundations behind this article’s title. My use of father expresses my judgment of originating or authorizing agency; it is not a claim that the verse literally contains the title “Father of Evil.” ^{[24] [25]}

The census comparison also remains part of the case. Second Samuel 24:1 names Yahweh as the agent who moves David to number Israel; First Chronicles 21:1 names Satan as the agent who provokes the corresponding census. The parallel accounts assign the initiating role differently. I regard that reassignment as evidence of changing treatment of adversarial agency, alongside the changing expectations concerning death. ^{[26] [27]}

The Sheol evidence belongs beside the earlier moral indictment. The deity around whom these traditions developed is also portrayed as authorizing deception, hardening opposition, and commanding destruction.

Exodus 10:1–2 attributes Pharaoh’s hardening to Yahweh and gives a purpose: the display of signs and their retelling across generations. The same chapter describes the commanded darkness over Egypt. These are distinct actions within the narrative—hardening and physical darkness—rather than proof that physical darkness itself is moral evil. ^{[12] [13]}

Joshua 11:20 is especially direct about the narrator’s explanation: Yahweh hardens opponents so they engage Israel in battle, with their destruction and lack of favor identified as the outcome sought. I regard the attribution of that purpose as morally significant. ^[14]

Ezekiel 20:25–26 attributes to Yahweh statutes described as not good and ordinances by which people would not live, followed by defilement and desolation. Ezekiel 14:9 attributes the prophet’s deception to him before announcing destruction. ^{[15] [16]}

First Kings 22:19–23 portrays a lying mission receiving authorization in the heavenly council. Jeremiah 4:10 supplies a different kind of witness: the prophet complains that the people have been deceived with an expectation of peace while the sword threatens them. Jeremiah’s complaint must be identified as his accusation, rather than recast as a divine confession. ^{[17] [18]}

Amos 3:6 and Lamentations 3:37–38 likewise connect calamity with divine agency. Their KJV wording uses evil; calamity or disaster captures the destructive events in view. My charge of moral evil rests on my judgment of the specific actions, not on pretending one English word settles every question. ^{[19] [20]}

I hold the commissioner responsible for the commissioned act. I hold the commander responsible for the command. That is the principle behind my identification of Yahweh as a liar and murderer.

8. The Father is recognized through truth

John 8 challenges claimed paternity through character and conduct. Jesus denies his opponents’ knowledge of his Father, challenges their claim to God as Father, names the devil as their father, and describes murder and falsehood. Verses 54 and 55 place their claimed identification beside their denied knowledge. ^[21]

I identify the deceptive and murderous Yahweh profile with that lying father. That is my theological identification; John’s verse names the devil without spelling out the name Yahweh.

My positive recognition remains Ahura Mazda, described in the Gathas through the Father-of-Aša relationship. Cosmic Aša—Truth-Order—is the standard by which I recognize the Father. ^[22]

I do not need to place every later Zoroastrian teaching into the earliest Gathas to make that identification. Iranian eschatology has its own textual history, and proposed influence on Jewish resurrection expectation requires evidence beyond resemblance. My testimony rests on the Father-of-Aša relationship and the character comparison I have stated. ^[23]

9. The record I want readers to face

Witness	Evidence retained
Psalms, Isaiah 38, Ecclesiastes	Death described through silence, loss, and the cessation of praise or activity.
Daniel 12 and its critical dating	Explicit awakening and judgment in a text whose composition differs from its ancient setting.
Acts 23:6–8	A continuing dispute over resurrection and other doctrines.
Matthew 23:13; Luke 11:52	Religious authorities accused of hindering entry and withholding the key of knowledge.
Exodus, Joshua, Ezekiel, Kings	Hardening, destruction, and deception attributed to divine agency.
John 8 and the Gathic comparison	The character test through which I make my theological identification.

The silence is in the texts. The later awakening is in the texts. The dispute is in the texts. The accusation of obstruction is in the texts.

My judgment is that false ancient provenance must not be used to authorize a later message. My judgment is that religious custody does not confer ownership of the kingdom. My judgment is that deception and the murder of innocents do not become righteous through divine titles.

I identify Yahweh as the father of lies. I recognize Ahura Mazda as the Father of cosmic Aša.

I want the witness heard in his attributed words, the authors read in their historical settings, and the claimed custodians judged against the access they obstruct.

The earlier record must not be buried beneath the later claim.

— Diesel the Magus

Sources

Biblical quotations use the KJV. Source links include complete passages. Narrative setting, composition date, and later manuscript date are distinct; the article does not assign a precise date to every psalm or song. Its accusations concern attributed divine actions and religious authority, not inherited guilt of any people.