Part 1: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/03/defying-death-defense-of-doctrine-of.html
In the previous post of this series, I presented the positive case for soul sleep (the doctrine that the dead have no conscious experience) from scripture. However, I wasn’t able to present the comparatively little scriptural evidence that is often produced against soul sleep by those who believe the traditional model of the Christian afterlife. In this article, I will describe the arguments used against soul sleep, and show why these fail to contradict the clear biblical truth that those who have died are truly dead. The common view of the afterlife cannot be derived solely from the Bible unless a framework of Platonic philosophy is placed over the text.
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus
This is the most common objection raised against the idea of soul sleep. In Luke 16:19-31, Jesus presents a parable in which a rich man and a beggar named Lazarus die, and their souls go to Hades and the “bosom of Abraham” respectively. Does this not demonstrate conclusively that, after death, our consciousness does live on and that Hades is a place of conscious torment, rather than simply “the Unseen”? First, let’s take a look at what this passage actually says:
“And — a certain man was rich, and was clothed in purple and fine linen, making merry sumptuously every day, and there was a certain poor man, by name Lazarus, who was laid at his porch, full of sores, and desiring to be filled from the crumbs that are falling from the table of the rich man; yea, also the dogs, coming, were licking his sores. And it came to pass, that the poor man died, and that he was carried away by the messengers to the bosom of Abraham — and the rich man also died, and was buried; and in the hades having lifted up his eyes, being in torments, he doth see Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom, and having cried, he said, Father Abraham, deal kindly with me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and may cool my tongue, because I am distressed in this flame.
“And Abraham said, Child, remember that thou did receive — thou — thy good things in thy life, and Lazarus in like manner the evil things, and now he is comforted, and thou art distressed; and besides all these things, between us and you a great chasm is fixed, so that they who are willing to go over from hence unto you are not able, nor do they from thence to us pass through.
“And he said, I pray thee, then, father, that thou mayest send him to the house of my father, for I have five brothers, so that he may thoroughly testify to them, that they also may not come to this place of torment.
“Abraham saith to him, They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them;
“and he said, No, father Abraham, but if any one from the dead may go unto them, they will reform.
“And he said to him, If Moses and the prophets they do not hear, neither if one may rise out of the dead will they be persuaded.” (YLT)
First of all, it is important to recognize that this passage is a parable. In fact, it is the last of five parables that Jesus used to condemn the Pharisees: the parable of the lost sheep, of the lost drachma, of the prodigal son, of the unjust steward, and finally of the rich man and Lazarus. Like Jesus’ other parables, we must recognize that many, or most, aspects of this story are allegorical and do not describe real life. Otherwise, if it were to be understood completely literally, we would need to believe the following things:
1. That angels (“messengers”) physically carry the disembodied souls of dead people to paradise.
2. That some people’s souls will enter Abraham’s chest cavity after death (“the bosom of Abraham”).
3. That whether you go to torment or bliss after death is decided by whether you received good or bad things in life.
4. That those who are in paradise are able to see those in Hades being tormented.
I haven’t yet met a single Christian who believes in all four of these things, and very few that believe in even one of them. It is interesting, then, that the vast majority of Christians choose to believe that the aspect of conscious existence in the afterlife should be understood literally, whereas all other aspects of this parable are figurative. Instead, we should recognize that, like Jesus’ other parables, all aspects are allegorical for real-life events.
Keeping this in mind, and using Old Testament imagery as a guide, the correct interpretation of this parable becomes clear. Rather than being meant as an accurate depiction of the afterlife, it is meant to be a condemnation of priestly Israel and the Jewish religious leaders. The rich man, wearing priestly garments of “purple and fine linen” (Exod. 39:27-29), represents the Pharisees (and the Jewish people in general) who, being God’s chosen people, were spiritually rich and yet abused this authority. Like the patriarch Judah and the contemporary high priest Caiaphas, the rich man has five brothers. Similarly, the beggar named Lazarus represents the Gentiles, both of whom spiritually eat with the dogs (Matt. 15:22-26; Mk. 7:26-27).
This parable, therefore, is not about the state of conscious existence of the dead, but rather about how God is now rejecting His people the Israelites in favor of the Gentiles. The rich man (priestly Israel) has been rejected and cast into torments, in contrast to the spiritual richness that he had experienced previously, whereas the beggar (the Gentiles) has been exalted beyond his previous spiritual lowness. And it is very true that Israel was not convinced even when a man rose from the dead (v. 31), as they remained hardened even after the resurrection of both Lazarus and Christ. Therefore, this parable does not demonstrate the existence of a conscious afterlife prior to the resurrection, but allegorically represents the contrast between God’s treatment of Israel and the Gentile nations.
“Today you will be with me in paradise”
And he was saying, “Jesus, remember me when you may come to your kingdom!” And he [Jesus] said to him, “Verily I say to you[,?] today[,?] you will be with me in the paradise.” (Lk. 23:42-43)
This is another passage that is often used to argue against soul sleep, since Jesus tells the thief on the cross that they will be together in “the paradise” that very day. However, the adverb “today” could either modify the verb “say” or “be [in paradise]”; if the first, then it is not incompatible with soul sleep. Since there is no punctuation in the original Greek, the comma could be placed before or after “today”; both options are entirely possible.
Furthermore, when the surrounding context is considered, it is impossible that Jesus could have been with the thief in “the paradise” that very day. We are told in John 20:17 that Jesus had not yet ascended to the Father after His resurrection, and furthermore, Jesus went to Sheol/Hades upon His death (Ps. 16:10; Acts 2:27, 31) which is considered to be the place of torment in the traditional afterlife, not paradise. Thus, since Jesus did not Himself go to paradise on that day, the thief could not have been with Him there, and so the adverb “today” must modify the verb “say” rather than “be [in paradise].”
This is often countered by the assertion that to say, “Verily I say to you today,” would be redundant (since it could not be anything other than “today” that Jesus said it on). However, it was actually a common Hebrew/Aramaic idiom to emphasize the solemnity of a statement by adding the word “today” or “this day” (e.g., Deut. 4:26, 39, 40; 5:1; 6:6; 7:11; 8:1, 11, 19; 9:3; etc.). In fact, two such statements are made elsewhere in Luke-Acts:
“Consequently I testify to you in this very day that I am innocent of the blood of all.” (Acts 20:26)
“Concerning all that I am accused of by [the] Jews, King Agrippa, I have supposed myself happy, being about to defend myself before you today.” (Acts 26:2)
Thus, the most likely interpretation of Jesus’ words in Lk. 23:43 is that He was making the solemn declaration, “Verily I say to you on this day, that you will be with Me in the paradise.” He was not claiming that the thief would be with Him in paradise on that very day, for such an interpretation would contradict His clear statement that He had not yet ascended to the Father after His resurrection (Jn. 20:17). Instead, the thief would be in paradise on the day that Jesus “may come to [His] kingdom” (Lk. 23:42) — that is, at the resurrection of the saints. This passage, therefore, is not evidence against soul sleep.
Giving up the spirit
Despite the evidence presented in my last post that shows that, throughout scripture, people are considered to be represented by their (dead) bodies after they die, some people suggest that this is only the perception of those who are still living, and that they are actually represented by their spirit (or “breath of life”) which returns to God when they die (Ecc. 12:7). It is then argued that the following passages prove that believers enter the presence of God when they die:
When, then, Jesus took the sour wine, he said, “It has been finished.” And having bowed [his] head, he gave up the spirit. (Jn. 19:30)
Yet he being full of holy spirit, having gazed into the heaven, he saw [the] glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. And he said, “Lo, I behold the the heavens having been opened, and the Son of Man standing at God’s right”... And they were stoning Stephen, he calling out and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Now having fallen [on] the knees, he cried out in a great voice, “Lord, may you not put to them this sin.” And this having said, he fell asleep. (Acts 7:55-56, 59-60)
The first problem with this theory is that the human spirit is not conscious, and a consciousness (or soul) only forms when a body and spirit are combined (Gen. 2:7). The spirit is more like a ‘power source’ for the body which animates it [1], producing consciousness (for the best example of this, see Ps. 104:29-30; also Ps. 146:4; Jas. 2:26). Furthermore, because everyone’s spirit, whether righteous or wicked, returns to God when they die, this would mean that every single person enters paradise in God’s presence upon their death, which not a single Christian that I know would espouse.
However, there is an even greater problem with this theory. In fact, the two passages which are most often quoted in support of it - Jn. 19:30 and Acts 7:59 - actually work against it when put into context. Although Jesus gave up His spirit to God when He died on the cross, three days later He stated that He had “not yet ascended to the Father” (Jn. 20:17)! Jesus’ spirit cannot be identified with Jesus Himself, because while Jesus was dead, He was not with God, where His spirit was. Furthermore, immediately after we are told that Stephen gave his spirit to Jesus, we are also told that Stephen “fell asleep” and “devout men buried him” (Acts 7:60; 8:2). Was it Stephen’s spirit that fell asleep and was buried? Obviously not. Therefore, Stephen’s spirit was not Stephen himself, but merely the animating force which kept Stephen alive.
Therefore, the spirit cannot be identified with a person’s consciousness after death. Indeed, when God first spoke to Adam about his impending mortality and death, He told him, “You are dust and to dust you will return,” not “you are a breath of life given by me and to me you will return” (Gen. 3:19 cf. 2:7; Ecc. 12:7). Thus, the breath of life or spirit which returns to God upon death is not the person themself, but is the animating force which is given by God, apart from which a person is simply dead (Jas. 2:26).
To depart and be with Christ
For I know that this will turn out to salvation for me through your prayer and supply of the spirit of Jesus Christ, according to my eager expectation and hope that I will be ashamed in nothing, but in all confidence (as also always now) Christ will be magnified in my body, whether through life or through death. For to me, to live [is] Christ, and to die [is] profit. Yet if [I] live in flesh, this is [the] fruit of work to me. And what will I choose? I do not know! Now I am pressed from the two, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for [this is] much more excellent; yet to stay on in the flesh [is] more necessary because of you. (Php. 1:19-24)
This passage is considered by many to prove that, at death, believers continue to exist in a ‘disembodied’ state together with Jesus. But is this the best interpretation of Paul’s words? I would argue that it is not. According to my understanding of Paul’s testimony elsewhere in 1 Thess. 4:13-18, at the moment of death, a person loses consciousness - just as if they had “fallen asleep” - and their next conscious moment will be their resurrection at Christ’s coming. Paul’s death, from his perspective, would bring him immediately into the presence of Christ.
Thus, this verse is fairly equivocal on the issue of soul sleep, since whether soul sleep is true or not, the very next conscious moment after death (for the believer) will be in the presence of Christ. It is eisegetical to read the Platonic idea of the soul’s immortality into this verse when another, more biblical understanding is just as plausible.
To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord?
For we know that if our earthly house, the tent, may have been destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not hand-made, age-during in the heavens. For also in this we groan, longing to be over-clothed [with] our dwelling out of heaven. And if indeed [we are] having been over-clothed, we will not be found naked. For also we, the [ones] being in the tent, groan, being burdened, on which we do not wish to be unclothed, but to be over-clothed, that the mortal may be swallowed by the life.
Now the [One] having brought us about for this very [thing is] God, having given to us the pledge of the spirit, therefore [we are] always being of good courage and perceiving that, being in-home in the body, we are absent from the Lord (for through faith we walk, not through sight). Now we are of good courage, and are more pleased to be out-of-home out of the body, and in-home with the Lord. (2 Cor. 5:1-8)
Paul is often misquoted as saying that “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” This is taken to mean that it is possible to exist in a disembodied form together with Jesus. However, this is not actually what Paul says in this passage, and a proper understanding of this passage requires a full grasp of the metaphors which he uses to compare and contrast our current mortal body and our resurrection immortal body.
First, he describes the mortal body as an “earthly house,” a temporary tent which can be destroyed, and our future resurrection body as an “age-during house in the heavens.” He then moves into another metaphor, using verbs related to clothing, describing our resurrection as an “over-clothing” and our death as being “unclothed” and “found naked.” Notably, he states that “we do not wish to be unclothed” (i.e., die and be without a living body), which is incongruent with the traditional understanding of the following verses that sees him as extolling the ‘disembodied’ afterlife.
Finally, in verses 6 through 8, Paul moves back to the “houses” metaphor and begins using the Greek verbs ενδημεω (lit. “in-home”) and εκδημεω (lit. “out-of-home”) to describe a person’s relation to their mortal and resurrection bodies. He contrasts being in-home in the body and out-of-home away from the Lord with being out-of-home away from the body and in-home with the Lord. If taken out of context (as it so often is), this may seem to suggest that it is possible to exist in a disembodied form with Jesus.
However, in the context of the “houses” metaphor, it is clear that Paul is instead saying that, when we are out of the “earthly house” of our pre-resurrection body (our temporary tent), we will be in the “heavenly dwelling” of our resurrection body (our age-during house), with the Lord. This is the primary import of the verbs “in-home” and “out-of-home.” Thus, this does not contradict soul sleep - on the contrary, it provides further evidence that our hope is in the resurrection and not in any ‘disembodied’ afterlife.
The souls under the altar
And when he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of the [ones] having been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had held. And they were crying out in a great voice, saying, “Until when, O Master Holy and True, do you refrain from judging and avenging our blood from the [ones] dwelling upon the earth?” And white robes were given to each of them, and it was said to them that they will rest a little time, until their fellow servants may also be fulfilled, and their brothers, being about to be killed as also they. (Rev. 6:9-11)
This is the last remaining scriptural argument against soul sleep, and the strongest argument, since it is the only place in the Bible where apparently ‘disembodied souls’ are actually described. These souls are said to cry out for vengeance and be given robes to wear. First, I’d like to preface my interpretation of this verse by saying that a correct view of death must be able to harmonize all of scripture without contradicting any passage. So if anyone would like to build a doctrine of death and the afterlife solely on this passage, they would need to find a way to explain away the vast scriptural evidence for soul sleep.
Now, if we interpret this verse literally, we would have to conclude that the souls of these martyrs will be living at the time that this vision foresees, the opening of the fifth seal. However, near the end of the prophecy, it is said that the very same souls of the tribulation martyrs “come to life” at the first resurrection (Rev. 20:4), which is long after the events of the fifth seal. If their souls only “come to life” at that time, how could they possibly be alive in heaven prior to that point? Furthermore, is it really reasonable to believe that once a person is martyred, their soul resides underneath a giant talking altar (Rev. 16:7) in the throne room of God? And can a ‘disembodied soul’ wear physical clothing? All of these oddities and inconsistencies point toward the likely possibility that something more symbolic is going on in these verses.
To properly interpret the book of Revelation, we need to put it in its proper context. Throughout this prophecy, symbols from throughout the Old Testament are used, and are necessary to understand much of the prophecy’s significance. Otherwise, we would have to believe that Jesus is really a giant bloody lamb in the throne room of God, and that there will be a literal seven-headed beast rising from the sea with a woman on its back. But what context from the Old Testament can help us understand the “souls of the martyrs” underneath the altar? Consider the following:
1. We know from the book of Leviticus that “the soul is in the blood, and [God] has given it on the altar to make atonement” (Lev. 17:11 cf. 4:7). Likewise, in Revelation, the “souls” of the martyrs are found under the altar, and the white robes given to them symbolize atonement (Rev. 7:14).
2. Furthermore, in Genesis 4:9-10, Abel’s blood figuratively calls out for vengeance from the ground where it was spilled by Cain. This is paralleled in Revelation where the “souls” of the martyrs (which, per Lev. 17:11, are “in the blood”) call out for vengeance.
If we interpret Rev. 6:9-11 in light of these two Old Testament figures, then suddenly this whole exchange makes much more sense. The heavenly afterlife of martyrs is not confined to a sort of half-existence underneath a talking altar in God’s throne room - rather, the imagery of “souls” being underneath altars is a symbol of atonement, which also explains the “white robes” given to the martyrs. Furthermore, they did not literally come to life (even to cry for vengeance) at any time prior to when we are explicitly told that they came to life in Rev. 20:4 -- rather, their spilled blood, under the altar, figuratively cried out for vengeance just as the blood of Abel did (Gen. 4:9-10).
Therefore, even this passage, when interpreted using Old Testament imagery as with the rest of the book of Revelation, does not support the view that one’s soul can exist apart from one’s body. In fact, since we are told later that “the souls of those beheaded” only “come to life” at the “first resurrection” (Rev. 20:4-6), this rather supports the idea of soul sleep, seeing as the souls of these dead believers are not alive prior to the resurrection.
Conclusion
In contrast to the vast body of scriptural evidence for soul sleep, as presented in the first post of this series, there are really only six passages that can be used to argue for the traditional view of the afterlife. Furthermore, all six of these passages are actually compatible with the idea of soul sleep, or even support it, when closely scrutinized in their context. Therefore, the idea of a conscious existence between death and the resurrection cannot be derived from scripture alone; rather, it is taken from Platonic philosophy and the tradition of men (Mk. 7:8), and should be rejected.
______________________________
[1] One easily understood analogy for the body, soul, and spirit is to think of the body as an appliance, the spirit as the electric current which causes the appliance to run, and the soul as the fully working appliance. Neither the appliance nor the electric current can run by themselves; it requires both together. Likewise, neither the body nor the spirit are conscious by themselves; a consciousness (or soul) only appears when both are combined together.
No comments:
Post a Comment