I would agree that one can see physical death and a type or shadow of spiritual death and still believe in soul sleep. They need not even believe in soul sleep to believe that a physical resurrection is that to which “the resurrection of the dead” refers. I don’t think that anyone really has a problem seeing the natural as a “type” of the spiritual, whether they believe in soul sleep or not. That is not why I changed my mind about soul sleep. My mind was changed on other things first – and it was those changes that impacted my belief in soul sleep.
You claim that if soul sleep is not true than the scriptures give an “entirely misleading” view regarding the state of the dead. I’m not sure why you think that, except that it is currently the view that you hold – no doubt because you believe it is was is revealed in the word – but not all believers hold that view. So while you may also feel that those who do not hold that view are “misled” because they do not see what it is (you believe) the scriptures clearly teach about “the state of the dead”, I’d still have to disagree since, form the perspective of the living, everything that is said about the physically dead is true – they appear to “sleep”, there is “no work” and “ no knowledge” in the grave, etc, etc. How is all of that suddenly “not true” if the doctrine of soul sleep is “not true”?
Maybe the problem is that the doctrine of soul sleep goes way beyond that which IS SEEN and crosses over into that which is NOT SEEN, that which no man can see taking place (or not taking place) “in Sheol”, in an unseen realm? But if the “type” is the physical grave that contains a lifeless corpse and the anti-type is “the body of this death” that is “full of dead men’s bones”, whose throat is “an open sepulcher”, where does the natural end and the spiritual begin? Why would it be necessary to believe that “the state of the dead” goes beyond that which IS SEEN, when it comes to PHYSICALLY death?
You brought up Stephen. Stephen asked the Lord to receive his spirit before he “fell asleep”, how does that prove soul sleep or mislead anyone about the state of the dead? Seems to me that you find it misleading only because of all of the other things that you believe to be true – with regard to the “spirit” that returns to God and the “spiritual body” (etc) - that may not be.
But, as far as the “spirit” goes, just as I don’t believe that “death” or “the dead” mean the same thing every time they appear in scripture or “the flesh” means the same thing every time it appears in scripture…. neither do I believe that every time the word “spirit” appears in scripture that it means the same thing. Nor did I claim that the spiritual body lacks a body, even a body of flesh and bones. Where I differ with you is that you believe we HAVE a natural body and we WILL HAVE a spiritual body but not until after we physically die and are NO LONGER houses in this earthly tabernacle. I disagree, as I do not see “the resurrection of the dead” in relation to the physically dead – but see it as applying to the spiritually dead and the spiritually dead are living human beings who HAVE a natural body – even a body “of flesh and bones”. But all of those bodies of flesh and bones are part of “one” body, a “spiritual body” that is “the body of Christ” and (yes) that body is governed by the spirit of God - whether collectively or individually.
As I already said, I do not know what type of “body” we will have or what kind of “world” we will live in after we physically die. All I know is that we will be “ever with the Lord”. Some believe that there will be “a new heaven and a new earth” and that this refers to this physical world, in which we will continue to live as physical beings in glorified physical (yet immortal) bodies. I don’t believe that is “the new heavens and the new earth” of which the scriptures speak, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t believe that it is possible that we will continue to exist that way. I simply do not know. I do not believe that we are told anything about it.
You said:
Yet that is the exact opposite of what Paul said. Paul said our desire IS NOT TO BE “unclothed” BUT TO BE “clothed upon”, that MORTALITY might be swallowed up OF LIFE!! It’s not about physical death!! Our desire is not to physically die… or desire is to be “clothed” WITH CHRIST!! To PASS “from death unto life” by having Christ formed IN US (Christ in you, the hope of glory). This is when we receive “the adoption of sons” WHICH IS “the redemption of our body”. (Rom 8:23)
Christ comes the second time unto them that look for Him!! (Heb 9:28) And, yes, it is “at His coming” that death is destroyed. But that “coming” is not a single/universal/instantaneous event that is yet future. It may, very well, be a single/instantaneous/ event for those who “remain” when the time of “the end” comes. But those who have already passed from death unto life by having Christ formed in them) have already come to know the power of His resurrection, they have already experienced the coming/appearing/revelation of Jesus Christ and they have seen Him as His is!! And “as He is so are we in this world” – doing even “greater things” than those things which He did.
1Co 15:22-24 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
Every man is his own order doesn’t speak to me of a universal, single, on-time event for all!
No, I don’t believe that Christ was raised in His natural body. But, as I said before, neither do I believe that the physical body that He appeared in after His resurrection was intended to show us what ‘the spiritual body’ is. While He appeared in a physical body, He could also appear out of nowhere in locked rooms and even change His appearance. So the fact that He could appear in a physical/tangible body doesn’t prove anything other than the fact that He could appear in a physical/tangible body in a physical/tangible world. So IF that is the kind of world that we will live in for eternity then that will be the case for us, as well. I’m not saying otherwise. I’m simply saying that I do not “know” if that will be the case or not. And I do not believe that Jesus continues, even now, to have a physical body. I believe that He “came out from God” (spirit) and that He left the world to go back to the Father (spirit), that the Last Adam was made “a life-giving spirit” and that He now comes to dwell “in” men just as came (in the form of a man) to dwell “with” men. I believe Him when He said: “I will not leave you comfortless; I will come to you.” He “comes” as the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, the spirit of Truth.
When it comes to 1 Cor 15, where Paul compares the natural body (that which is sewn) to the spiritual body (that which is reaped), I understand it the way I do, not just because of what Paul says there, but because of how it correlates to the parable of the tares, which speaks of that which takes place “in the end of this world” (Mat 13), and Jesus’ response to the Sadducees concerning “the resurrection of the dead” when He said “in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven” (Mat 22), and what I believe about the book of Revelation, which also speaks of “the stars” who are “the angles of the churches” that makes me see the resurrection of the dead the way that I do. It’s about how all of these passages (and others) fit together, not what one might think each passage could mean when considered only by itself.
You see “Hades” as “the grave in general” and I see the grave as the type and “Hades” as “this world” (in general) and “the body of this death” (specifically). I see Jesus Christ as “the first-fruits of them that slept” in light of Jesus Christ being “the light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world”. It is only by Christ being formed “in us” that we (who sleep, who are dead in sin) can pass “from death unto life”. He is OUR LIFE and it is not until HE APPEARS (in us) that we “shall appear with Him in glory” (Christ in you, the hope of glory). Yes, God “hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him (Jesus) from the dead”. But that which is seen is meant to bear witness to that which is not seen. A shadow doesn’t bear witness of itself; it bears witness to the existence of that which is casting the shadow and we are told to compare spiritual things with spiritual. We are to be looking upon those things that are not seen…. not because they do not yet exist, but because we cannot see them with our natural eyes.
You said:
Well maybe you don’t like allegory, as much as you like the natural/literal interpretation but that is how I believe God speaks to us – in parables, in types and shadows, in similitudes…
Adam and Eve as figures of “Christ and the church”, Can and Abel as figures of “the first/natural man” and “the second/spiritual man” (as are Jacob and Esau), Seth as a figure of “the church” (given “instead of Abel” who was murdered by his brother, a figure of the first/natural man), Sarah and Hagar as “two covenants”, Abraham a figure of those who are justified by faith, Joshua as a figure of Christ. I could go on…
Paul spells out some of them, but far from all of them. So what you call “allegorical spin” is what I call “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” and “rightly dividing the word of truth”.
And if it is written: “After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.” (Hos 6:2) and also written: “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” (Joh 6:40) then I think I can reasonably say that “the third day” is the same as “the last day”. And since Jesus said to the thief on the cross: “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise” and paradise is where “the Tree of Life” is and those who overcome are given access to it (Rev 2:7) and it also when those who hear His voice and harden not their hearts enter into His rest (Heb 4:7-11), I think I can reasonably say that all of these “days” are speaking of the same “day”.
Not sure what you mean by bring Christ’s resurrection into it when this conversation took place with Christ prior to His crucifixion/resurrection. But if they said there is “no resurrection”, I would assume that they didn’t believed in either a physical resurrection or a spiritual one. What is of importance to me, though, is Jesus’ response which does not (as I understand it) speak of a physical resurrection.
It is clearly physical death that the Sadducees had in view, yes. And Jesus’ response was: “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” (Matthew’s account) I’ve already explain how I see that response so I won’t do it again here.
It makes no sense to you because you are counting physical death. Jesus was not counting physical death. Remember what He told Martha?
Joh 11:25-26 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
And while the apostles may not have been “in heaven” at the time Jesus spoke those words, that is exactly where they were when it came time for those words to be fulfilled:
Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
Eph 2:4-7 **But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. **
Col 1:12-13 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
Not in view? What do you believe the harvest that takes place at the end of the world is, then?
What happened to the physical city of Jerusalem in 70AD may have been the natural/physical fulfillment of prophesy, but it is certainly not the spiritual fulfillment, IMO.
And, as I understand it, “all who died in Adam” were “quickened together with Christ” when Christ was lifted up from the earth.
Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
See Eph 2:4-7 above. It was “when we were dead in sins” that we were “quickened together with Christ”. We have already been baptized into Christ death. (Rom 6) What we are striving to know is, as Paul points out, “the power of His resurrection” (Php 3) so that we can walk in the newness of life. (Rom 6)
Those who “live and believe” have been “raised from the dead” by the power of Christ in them and they “shall never die”. Physical death is not counted or Jesus lied when He told Martha: I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Or do you believe that when Jesus said: “though he were dead” He was talking about them being physically dead and when He said; “yet shall he live” He was talking about their future resurrection from physical death? Seems to me you would have to see it that way to believe as you do, but I certainly do not believe that Jesus was talking about physical death. We 'are dead" even while live and we pass “from death unto life” when we “believe”.
Abraham “believed” and it was accounted to him for righteousness. The author of Hebrew talks about the “faith” of Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sara… and
Heb 11:13-16 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.
As I see it, that city that is set on a hill and cannot be hid, that is the light of the world. That is why those who believe today (who “live” and “shall never die”) are said to “sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven”. (Mat 8:11)
As I see it, that which was manifest in this world, in these last days (Jesus, the Word “made flesh”, coming “into this world” to be “crucified in a place called the skull” and be buried in the heart of the earth until the third day when He was raised from the dead) is a physical manifestation of that which has always been true, even from the foundation of the world - taking place “within” men. It was “in our minds” that we “crucified Christ” (the Word of God) and were “made enemies” and it is our minds that need to be renewed… by the word of God, at the appearing/resurrection of Jesus Christ, by/though Whom we are “born again” and “resurrected from the dead”.
Maybe you can’t see it because you are seeing Jesus’ reply through the eyes of the Sadducees who asked about the resurrection of the dead in relation to physical death? But it was they who did “err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God”. And Paul speaks of “espousing” those to whom he ministered “as a chaste virgin to Christ”, does he not?
Yes.
How do you see them, then, since you see “the resurrection of the dead” as a postmortem event? If “blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection” and “the first resurrection” is not a postmortem event how can “the resurrection of the dead” be a postmortem event?
If you add to what is written, how would you prefer I point it out? Would you prefer I just overlook it? Would you, if it were me? Besides, I agreed with you that they were probably mocking Paul’s claims about Jesus being resurrected from the dead. That is not the part of what you said I had a problem with. But I’m not going to take the time right now to go back and find the post and figure out what it was. It’s already after mid-night. And I can’t believe I’ve only gotten half way through your post.
I agree with you that paradise would be useless to a person in a “spiritual-coma.” However, I don’t think there is good reason to believe that Christ was referring to the intermediate state of the dead in this verse. For my understanding of Luke 23:43 and some reasons why I don’t think Christ’s words support the view that the dead exist in a disembodied, conscious state, I encourage you to check out the following posts:
Any comments or critical feedback on the position being argued in these posts would be greatly appreciated!
I think it’s significant that nearly every time I’ve seen this passage raised as an objection to the view that death really is what it looks like to the living, it’s never explained or accounted for why these souls are said to be “under the altar” in the first place. Doesn’t it seem a bit strange to think that dead martyrs would literally be under a gigantic, talking altar (Rev 16:7) while crying out “with a loud voice” for God to judge and avenge their blood on “those who dwell on the earth?” Does anyone really read this passage and think that John is here giving us an actual glimpse into heaven? Is this the “paradise” that Jesus promised the dying malefactor on the cross? Heaven must be a pretty underwhelming place - and the “beatific vision” disappointingly unimpressive - if hanging out under altars and crying out for vengeance is what martyred saints spend their time doing.
Hopefully the above questions raise at least an inkling of doubt in one’s mind that this passage isn’t meant to be taken literally. But what then is John describing? What is the meaning of this passage? Well, the opening of the “fifth seal” in Rev 6 is part of an extended vision that John saw almost 2,000 years ago. Like the appearance of Moses and Elijah on the mount with Jesus (Matt 17:1-9), what John saw and heard was part of a subjective vision that took place in his mind. And what he’s seeing and describing in Revelation are symbolic of things which had already happened, things which were then unfolding, and things which were “soon” to take place in John’s day (Rev 1:1, 3, 19; 3:11; 22:6-7, 10, 12, 20). Being thus symbolic, the vision is not meant to be understood literally.
So who are the “souls under the altar” in John’s vision? Answer: they represent 1st century Christians who had been “slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne.” But why are they represented as being under an altar, and as crying out for God to avenge their deaths? Well, consider the following facts with which John and his Jewish readers would’ve been very familiar:
According to the Mosaic law, after putting some of the blood of a sacrificed bull on the horns of the altar of fragrant incense, they were to pour all the rest of the blood “at the base of the altar of burnt offering that is at the entrance of the tent of meeting” (Lev. 4:7).
We are further told that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” and that “the life of every creature is its blood; its blood is its life” (Lev 17:11-14, ESV). In these verses, the Hebrew word translated “life” (nephesh) is the same word translated “soul” elsewhere in the OT, and corresponds to the Greek psuchē (which is usually translated “souls” in the passage from Revelation under consideration).
We also know that, by personification, a slain person’s blood can be represented as if it is a conscious, talking entity: “And the LORD said [to Cain], ‘What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground’” (Gen 4:10; cf. Heb 11:4; 12:24).
So when we combine all of the above facts and read Rev 6:9-11 in light of them, the strange imagery of this passage begins to become much less enigmatic. It is the “souls” of the martyrs that John is seeing in his symbolic vision because the “soul” of a human or animal was said to be “in the blood” and was even identified with the blood (which, for the martyrs, had been shed). And the “souls” of these martyred saints were depicted as being “under the altar” because that’s where the blood of the sacrifices was poured according to Lev 4:7. And just like the blood of Abel was figuratively represented as “speaking” and “crying” to God, so the “souls” of the martyred saints are similarly being personified as well (likely appearing in John’s vision as having the bodily form of the once-living martyrs themselves). The entire scene John is describing in this passage is symbolic from beginning to end. There is nothing in this vision which remotely suggests that people can or do exist in a conscious, disembodied state after death. There is no more reason to understand the “souls” of dead people as being conscious and able to speak than there is to understand the blood of dead people as being conscious and able to speak (Gen 4:10; Heb 12:24), or the altar itself as being conscious and able to speak (Rev 16:7).
Having looked at Rev 6:9-11, we’re now in a better position to understand Rev 20:4-6, where the “souls” of those who’d been put to death by “the beast” (which I understand to refer to the Roman Empire and its ruling Caesar in John’s day) appear once again in John’s vision. This time they are represented as “coming to life” and reigning with Christ “for a thousand years.” So what is John speaking of here? Well first, it’s helpful to keep in mind that what John is describing in Rev 20:4-6 is part of the same figurative scene described in the previous 3 verses. And just as John wasn’t seeing a literal red, seven-headed dragon being bound by a literal chain and then being imprisoned in a literal abyss, so John is not describing a literal scene when he speaks of the “souls” of the martyrs coming to life and reigning with Christ. Recall that the souls of the martyrs had previously been crying out for God to avenge them, and that they were given “white robes” and told to “rest a little while longer until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.” What John is figuratively describing in Rev 20:4-6 is simply the fulfilment of what the souls of the martyred saints had been crying out for. The meaning being expressed by the figurative imagery of the souls of the martyred saints “coming to life” and “reigning with Christ for a thousand years” is simply that those 1st century Christians killed for their faith would be fully avenged and vindicated by God. John is no more describing a literal resurrection here than he was describing literal persons speaking from underneath a literal altar back in chapter 6. To put it another way, the scene described in Rev 20:4-6 should no more be understood as a literal description of literal events than the scene of the “woman clothed with the sun” in Rev 12:1-6 or the scene of the seven-headed beast rising up out of the sea in Rev 13:1-4. In each of these passages John is employing highly figurative, symbolic imagery to refer to 1st century events which were transpiring in his own day.
There’s no indication that David was anticipating a joyous reunion with his dead son in a conscious state of existence. David knew that his son was dead, and he knew that he would one day join his son in the grave where they would together “sleep with their fathers” and return to the dust from which they were made. The above words of David are meant to be understood as an expression of deep sorrow and grief, and not as reflecting the view that death is not really what it seems to be from the perspective of the living. It is only in hope of the resurrection that I believe death (the “last enemy”) can be viewed as introducing us into a future, conscious state of existence where we will be “with the Lord” and reunited with our loved ones (Phil 1:23; 3:20-21). And while I do think David had some hope that God was going to restore the dead to a living, conscious existence (Ps 17:15), it would still be many years before anyone could enjoy the kind of “living hope” to which Jesus’ followers were “born again” after his death and resurrection (1 Pet 1:3-4), when he brought “life and immortality to light” (2 Tim 1:10).
You speak of Sheol as “the realm of the dead.” That’s true in one sense, but I believe that to speak of “the dead” is to speak of whatever’s left after a person’s life/vitality (or “spirit”) departs from them and returns to God who gave it. IOW, it’s to speak of the body (James 2:26). So if Sheol is where “the dead” reside, then Sheol is wherever a person’s dead body (or the dust to which a person’s dead body has returned) resides. That is, Sheol denotes “the grave” in a general sense (and thus can be understood as denoting “the state of the dead”). As noted previously, the contents of Sheol are such as can belong only to the grave. We read of gray hairs (Gen 42:38; 44:29, 31), gray heads (1 Kings 2:6, 9), bones (Ps 141:7; Ezekiel 32:27), sheep (Ps 49:15), goods (Num 16:32-33), and swords and other weapons of war (Ezekiel 32:27). Worms and maggots are also spoken of as if present in Sheol (Job 17:13-14; 24:19-20; Isaiah 14:11).
Paul’s “tent” imagery simply emphasizes the fact that this mortal body is temporary and that we (i.e., the centres of consciousness/first-person perspectives that makes us who we are) belong in something more permanent and lasting. The “putting off” of one’s “tent” is figurative language meant to convey the idea that, at death, our sojourn on earth is over, and a new and permanent state of existence awaits us. But to “put off” our “tent” (i.e., to cease to live in this temporary body) doesn’t mean we then begin “living” as conscious, disembodied spirits in another state of existence. When we “put off our tent” we’re dead, and the dead know nothing. And since Paul undoubtedly expected his readers to understand that such “tent” language was figurative, and that he believed only what God had previously revealed to mankind concerning the intermediate state of the dead, I don’t think he anticipated his readers understanding his language to suggest anything that was inconsistent with this. Moreover, if Paul or any of the other apostles had been given further revelation on the intermediate state of the dead that was unknown by Moses and the Prophets, I believe they would have shared the new revelation they’d received in a way that we would expect new doctrine to be established and argued.
I don’t think the above passages to which you refer teach or suggest that man is, in fact, sentient after death. Rather, I believe they are consistent with what our own observation suggests - i.e., that it is the living - and not the dead - who are conscious, and that human consciousness depends on having a functioning brain. We know, for instance, that syncope (a temporary loss of consciousness) is due to a shortage of oxygen to the brain because of the temporary reduction of blood flow. But if people lose consciousness because of a temporary shortage of oxygen to the brain, it seems very much counter-intuitive to believe that a person whose brain has stopped functioning completely would be more conscious than a person who has simply experienced a temporary reduction of blood flow to their brain. If this were true, I believe it would have to be revealed to us by God. And since the idea that the dead are conscious is so contrary to all appearances, I think God would have to reveal this truth to the world in no uncertain terms. But rather than a clearly-revealed doctrine concerning the state of the dead, all we have in Scripture are a few texts here and there which (like the passage from Revelation 6) are anything but obvious in their affirmation that dead people are actually conscious in a disembodied state of existence. Not only this, but Scripture abounds with verses which seem to teach both implicitly and explicitly a view which is contrary to this view and entirely consistent with how death appears to the living. Consider, for example, the following texts:
In all the above texts, the view being assumed seems to be that death is exactly how it appears to the living (i.e., an event by which the conscious existence of human persons is terminated, putting man in need of a resurrection from this state if he is to be restored to a conscious, living existence).
By “the inner man” I understand Paul to mean “the mind.” And since I believe the “mind” refers to a function and activity of the brain (i.e., consciousness, intellect, attitude, etc.) , I’m not sure how it can be thought to exist “independently of the body.”
But we are not told that this happened to Korah or anyone else who went down to Sheol. Korah and his company went down to Sheol “alive” along with all their “goods” or material possessions (Num 16:30-33), which, to me, would only make sense if “Sheol” denoted the grave in general. While it makes good sense to say that Korah and his company (along with “all their goods”) went down “alive” to the place where their corpses would reside and ultimately return to dust, it makes little sense to say that they went down alive (along with “all their goods”) to an unseen spiritual “netherworld” of disembodied spirits/ghosts.
While it’s true that the text doesn’t say Samuel was raised to “bodily life,” it doesn’t say Samuel was in a non-living disembodied state, either. Assuming the medium actually saw Samuel, the medium describes him as having a physical, embodied form (i.e., as an “old man” wrapped in a “robe”). And the fact that Samuel is called a “god” by the medium doesn’t really prove anything either way, since Paul and Barnabas were mistaken for “gods” as well (Acts 14:11-12). If God had in fact temporarily restored Samuel to a living, embodied existence (with his mortal body being miraculously and dramatically re-created from within the medium’s “conjuring pit”), then I think his being described as a “god” by the medium would’ve been highly appropriate, since his appearing before the medium was obviously due to a supernatural power beyond that of any mortal man.
Moreover, if Samuel was actually present when he spoke to Saul, then it follows that he wasn’t in Sheol. And if he wasn’t in Sheol then what he was able to do while not in Sheol is no indication of what those in Sheol can or can’t do. And there is nothing said in Scripture about the dead being able to leave Sheol while remaining dead. To be in Sheol is to be in the state of death, and to be delivered from Sheol is to be delivered from death (Ps. 89:48). And in 1 Sam 2:6 we read the following in Hannah’s prayer: “The LORD kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up.” The Hebrew parallelism in this verse is clear: those who are killed are brought down to Sheol, and those who are brought to life are raised up from Sheol. If you believe Samuel had been raised up from Sheol to appear before the medium, then, according to what we read in 1 Sam 2:6, Samuel must have been restored by God to life. That is, if Samuel was actually present before the medium (and thus not in Sheol), then there is nothing in Scripture which suggests that he was still dead; rather, the implication would be that he had been (temporarily at least) brought back to life.
While I think the above view is more consistent with the rest of Scripture than the view that Samuel was in a “disembodied state,” I’m still inclined to believe that Samuel wasn’t actually present at all, but that the story is being narrated from the perspective of Saul (or rather, the men who accompanied Saul), and that the medium was deceiving him.
But how did Saul “know” it was Samuel? Not because he saw Samuel, but because of the description given by the medium. As far as the medium “realizing” it was Saul when Samuel was “conjured up” by her, I think it’s more likely that the medium knew it was Saul all along, and that she was merely feigning ignorance. And while it’s true that we’re also told that when the medium “saw Samuel” she “cried out with a loud voice,” the reader should keep in mind that deception was the medium’s forte, and that her livelihood would’ve depended on her ability to “put on a good show” and trick her clients into believing she could actually summon the “spirits of the dead” (the existence of which were believed in by the pagans of that day, as well as those Jews who’d been influenced by pagan beliefs), and that the ghosts she conjured up were actually present and speaking. To do so she would have to feign ignorance, surprise and shock all the time. She was also probably skilled in the art of ventriloquism, and could make it appear that the dead were speaking to the living from out of her “conjuring pit.”
So why would the text read as if Samuel had actually been conjured up by the medium if the medium was actually deceiving Saul, and Samuel was not actually there but unconscious in the grave? Answer: Because this was the perception of the person or persons who were originally narrating the facts of what happened. Recall that Scripture speaks of only four persons who witnessed (and thus could have recalled) what actually took place that night: Saul, the medium, and the two men who were travelling with Saul. And since the two men who were with Saul seem to be the most probable source of the information that appears in this part of the narrative, we may reasonably conclude that whoever wrote or edited the book of 1 Samuel simply included what had been recounted to them by one or both of the two men who witnessed what they thought had taken place (i.e., that a medium had actually conjured up the ghost of Samuel, and that Samuel actually spoke to Saul).
To this it may be objected that the editor of 1 Samuel would have altered the account to reflect his own beliefs if he did not think Samuel was actually present but rather believed that Saul and his companions had been duped by a crafty medium. But altering the account so as to make obvious the fact that Samuel wasn’t really there would have been thought superfluous by the editor if it was already obvious to him that Saul and his companions were mistaken for believing that the dead could communicate with the living. And if it was common knowledge among the Hebrew people (at least, among those who had not apostatized and embraced pagan views) that mediums had no supernatural power and that “the dead know nothing” (Eccl 9:5) then the editor would have seen even less need to alter the original account so as to explain to the reader what was really happening.
But this is assuming the very thing that needs to be proved - i.e., that there are “disembodied spirits/souls of men” in existence somewhere. If the Bible doesn’t sanction the view that there are any such disembodied entities in existence somewhere, then it would, of course, make little sense to speak of God miraculously giving anyone the ability to see them.
If God wanted Samuel to appear and speak to Saul then I think there’s good reason to believe that he would’ve had to temporarily raise Samuel from the dead for this to happen. And regardless of whether one believes Samuel had been temporarily resurrected by God or was a “disembodied spirit,” his appearance before the medium still would’ve required a rarely performed miracle on God’s part.
But assuming Samuel was present, it’s not necessary to believe he was present in a disembodied state. The text doesn’t say he was disembodied; this has to be inferred by those who already believe that human beings exist in a conscious, disembodied state after death. But again, I don’t think it’s necessary to believe that the medium saw Samuel at all, or that Saul actually conversed with Samuel. This section of the narrative is most likely from the perspective of the men who were with Saul, with the editor seeing no need to alter their account to explain that their perception was deficient (and if Saul and his companions held to the pagan view that mediums could conjure up the dead, and that the dead could communicate with the living, then their perception of what took place that night would have been very much influenced by this mistaken belief).
As far as the appearance of Moses and Elijah as recorded in the synoptic Gospels, Matthew is clear in his account that what the disciples experienced was a vision (Matt 17:9), which means it was most likely a subjective event rather than an objective one.
But when used as a metaphor for death, “sleep” (which is defined as “a natural and periodic state of rest during which consciousness of the world is suspended”) would be a highly appropriate word to convey the idea that the dead are not engaged in any kind of conscious activity (cf. Eccl 9:10).
I agree that man cannot be strictly identified with his body, but even so, Scripture seems to strongly suggest that man is constituted by his body, and that having a body is necessary to man’s personal existence.
Hi Aaron, I think you are on the right track. The body IS sin and death and light IS life. I am studying the possibility that the ancient understanding of God was through observation of nature. Hebrews 11:3 say’s clearly that the things that are seen are made from something which is not seen. In fact Heb. 11 tells us that all of the righteous obedience of Moses, Abraham etc did NOT lead to God’s promise fulfilled for them. Christ Himself lived His life in obedience to scripture, with the exact same knowledge that every one of us might glean from the Tanach. If we are to assume in our arguments that He is speaking from some Divine knowledge base, then He ceases to be a man and is some type of demi-god. If that is the case then He can no longer atone for the sins of man (since He is not a man at all). My point IS that Jesus, like Paul, gained His strength and developed His relationship with God through the exact same means as us. He prayed, studied hard, worked, and had a support network. He knew that God saw all, knew His needs, and loved Him; going to the cross with all the loneliness and uncertaintly that you or I would. Faith is not belief (although Paul sometimes gives that impression), but in fact is obedience to the laws and principles set in place by God, and the knowledge that however things pan out being in God’s presence is certain.
How does that make more sense when you can’t repent and live if you are already physically dead? But you can if you are dead only spiritually? Or are you claiming that your life is cut short, but not immediately, so you still have time to repent (some time between the time that you sinned and the time that you are going to die, which will be some time later)? That doesn’t make sense to me when it God told Adam that it was “in the day” that he sinned, he would die and we see in James that: “when sin is finished, it bringeth forth death”. The pattern remains the same. And even if physical death is in view it is still, as I see it, only the type. If Adam (man) was never immortal and “life and immortality” come only through Jesus Christ (the Last Adam/man) then physical death can never be said to be “the wages of sin”, can it? And Christ came to save us from “the wages of sin” (ie “death”), did He not?
If man was created mortal then physical death can not be “the wages of sin”; it is simply the result of man’s mortality, it is and has always been inevitable. So then even if that life is “cut short” (physically) due to sin, that is still only the type of a spiritual reality. It is sin that cuts us off from the presence OF GOD (LIFE) while we are still physically alive. And it is that “life” that is restored when we are quickened by the spirit of God. Christ came to save us “from sin and death” and the “death” that is the “wages of sin” is not physical death. To count physical death, you have to say that Adam/man needed to be saved even before he sinned… regardless of sin.
Glad that we agree, but I’m still not sure how we do.
I agree with you that Paul had already been “born again” and had already been “made alive in Christ”. But I disagree with you when you say that Paul was “still longing” to be clothed upon with his heavenly dwelling. Yes, Paul goes back and forth between talking about what we “have” and what we are “waiting for”. But, as I see it, it’s all a matter of perspective and when he speaks about those “which have the firstfruits of the Spirit” groaning within themselves “waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body” (in which he included himself), he includes himself because he is talking from the perspective of those who are still waiting for a fuller manifestation of the spirit, still waiting for Chris to be formed in them (as he speaks of elsewhere as well). He is not doing so because he (himself) is still waiting to be “delivered of the child” (he shows elsewhere that he had already “put away childish things”) or because he hadn’t yet received “the adoption of son” (he had) but because he was not counting it and was standing with them, encouraging them, just exactly as he did in Php3 when he spoke of “the resurrection of the dead” and said: “I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” He tells us (or “as many as be perfect”) to “walk by the same rule”. Why? As I see it, because we are not to bear witness of ourselves – or our witness is not true. Not even Jesus could bear witness of Himself. It was the Father who bore witness of Him.
Are you claiming that you cannot see “this world” (that Jesus was incarnated in) as “the abode of the dead” when “if one died for all, then were all we dead”? Are you claiming that Jesus was not “living” among “the dead”? What do you believe Psa 23 is talking about when David talks about walking through “the valley of the shadow of death”? Or Psa 57:4 which says: “My soul is among lions: and I lie even among them that are set on fire, even the sons of men, whose teeth are spears and arrows, and their tongue a sharp sword.”?
I know you don’t like “allegorical spin”, but….
Though the Word was made flesh, in Jesus if Nazareth, who died on the cross in a place called Calvary and was buried in a physical tomb and was raised again the third day…. all of those things which were SEEN (in these last days) reveal to us (are examples of) things that are NOT SEEN. Sinful man has “crucified” the word of God “in a place called the skull” (in our minds) since the beginning of time. And it is not until that “seed” (the Word of God) that is “buried in the earth” is restored to life by the power of God that man (who was buried in death with Him) is “resurrected from the dead”.
Well, “a natural body after (physical) death” is “a corpse”, Aaron. So I’m not sure how else you want be to describe the physically dead, even if you do not know whether or not God will use the same material from the natural body to form the spiritual body? Paul is still, according to you, talking about the physically dead (ie “corpses”). Though, I don’t believe he is.
Where does he say that? When Paul speaks about our desire not being to be unclothed, but to be clothed upon, you want us to believe that Paul is not claiming that we are not “unclothed” (die) FIRST, just that “that” is not our desire – or desire is to be “clothed upon” some time LATER (but still after being “unclothed”)? You want us to believe that when Paul speaks about desiring to depart and be with the Lord Paul did not actually believe that he would “be with the Lord” when he departed but only that it would be his “next” conscious awareness so would ‘seem immediate’ to him, even though it would not be?
It seems to me that it is you who has to stretch the meaning of words to make Paul say something other than what he seems to be saying in order to make what he says fit the doctrine of soul sleep. I get why you do that, I used to do it myself. But I believe that it’s wrong and is the result of focusing too much on the types and shadows and not enough on what those type and shadows are telling us about spiritual things.
I disagree. And I think that the only reason that you can say that is your very strong focus on the physical and the way that you almost seem to dismiss or gawk at anything said to be “spiritual” that cannot also be “seen”.
You mean the same way that you can convince someone else that the doctrine of “eternal torment” that they believe in is false just by presenting them with the all the “scriptural evidence” that you have against it - when all they can see is that those whose names are not found in the book of life will be “cast into the lake of fire” to be “tormented day and night forever and ever” and there can be no end to this because “scripture clearly says” (as you know :p) that they will “go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched” to suffer “everlasting punishment”?
And before you start mocking me for some supposed claim of “greater/superior revelation” (1) remember that I did not exclude myself when I said that revelation has to come from God and until it does come we are all in the same boat, thinking that we see correctly even when we do not and (2) you are making the same claim about yourself when you claim that your understanding is the correct one over everyone else’s who disagrees with you. It is the same boat that we all find ourselves in when discussing the scriptures with those who do not see/understand them the same way that we do. We can only see what we see and we can only present what we see. And we all believe that we are seeing things correctly or we wouldn’t believe as we do. So don’t act like you don’t believe that your own revelations are “superior” to mine and that it is me who is “blind” to the truths that you have and me who is waiting on further revelation from the Lord. You think I couldn’t have done the same things you did here and taken your comments about not being able to go against your “God-given senses” as a dig at my intelligence, if I wanted to “go there”? If you want to start getting personal, we can just end this conversation right now. I remember well my first/last visit to this forum and I’m not looking for a repeat with you. Especially when you are the one who “goes there” and then turns around and claims it’s the other person who did when you get it back “in kind”. I could be doing other things besides sitting at my computer for hours looking up verses and trying to answer questions from someone who I don’t believe is ever going to agree with me… because he, admittedly, sees much of what I say as a bunch of “allegorical spin”.
Seems I’ll always be “begging the question” unless I can point to something that is spelled out in black and white for you. But that’s not how I see the scriptures.
Easy for you to claim that I am “asserting” something that I never said, based on something that you believe but that was never said, either, but that I’m, apparently, supposed to know, anyway. But I am not going to sit here and argue with you over whether or not we continue to exist, except as men in physical bodies, when I don’t think that there is anything at all that I can point to that you don’t see some other way because of your focus on the physical, on what you can “see” with your natural eyes. If that is all that is required to understand spiritual things, the truths of God, then what need have we for the Holy Spirit? Anyone who can read should be able to understand the bible, just as most Christians claim when they point to what God “clearly said” about “eternal torment” or “the second death” being annihilation because the penalty for sin is “death”, etc, etc.
The Last Adam was made “a quickening spirit”. As I see it, the “spiritual body” is His body that we are all “members” of - being “joined together” by one Spirit.
Paul said:
1 Cor 15:36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
You want me to believe that Paul is talking about physical death when he said “except it die”, even though Paul said in his letter to the church at Rome:
Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken YOUR MORTAL BODIES by his Spirit THAT DWELLETH IN YOU.
Now maybe you see Paul as speaking about two different things in these verses, but I don’t. It is “this mortal” and “this corruptible” (which you don’t even see as the same, but I do) that need to be “quickened” and “raised from the dead”.
I didn’t say that it is always unseen.
Where/what do you think “heaven” is? And you have yet to prove your claims about Paul. Those claims are based solely on how you interpret Paul’s words. It is my contention that you are misinterpreting Paul’s words because of you focus in the physical. And because you are so focused on the physical you believe Paul was as well and interpret his words in light of that. But it was Paul who said we are to know no man after the flesh, not even Christ – though we once did; that we are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that the spirit of God dwells in us. And, yes, I get that we can either walk in the flesh or walk in the spirit, but we still live in a natural/physical body of flesh – but while you seem focused entirely on that fact, I’m not and I don’t believe we are supposed to be. I believe that we are supposed to be looking upon those things that are not seen, not that which is seen. And while you seem to think that this refers to looking upon those things that are not seen because they don’t yet exist and/or are yet future, I don’t. I believe they are “not seen” because they are spiritual/unseen in nature – but are made evident by those things that are seen.
I can tell you really like that word, but you have yet to prove that Paul believed that he was still waiting to be clothed with Christ, that he wasn’t just identifying with those whom he ministered to by putting himself in their place to be of encouragement to them when he spoke of those things that were “yet future” for those who have only “the firstfruits of the spirit”, those to whom Christ has yet “to come” (to be formed in). Didn’t Paul say that he “travailed in birth” AGAIN “until Christ to be formed” IN THEM? (Gal 4:19)
Flesh and bones cannot pass through walls. So the fact that Christ appeared in a body “of flesh and bones” after His resurrection doesn’t do anything to prove that the “spiritual body” is “a glorified physical body”. It only proves that Jesus, after His physical death and resurrection, had the ability to appear in a physical body in this physical world, even appearing in a locked room, in order to prove “the resurrection of the dead”. You seem to believe that this was done to prove a physical resurrection and our need to be saved from physical death, but I don’t. I see it as a type/figure of that which is spiritual, but that could only be made evident by that which “is seen”. And we see this pattern of spiritual truths being hidden in those things that “are seen” all they way back to Gen 1:1. As even “the heavens and the earth” that we can see reveal spiritual truths about that “the heavens and the earth” that are not seen.
You seem to prefer the word “figurative” over “spiritual” which may be why you object so much to my use of the word “spiritual” when I am referring to “spiritual” truths (that I don’t see as “figurative” though I see those things that are seen as “figures” of them), but I never claimed that Paul is not talking about the literal sun, moon and stars. The point is that those things are “figures” of something else – spiritual/celestial/heavenly bodies, right? Which has nothing to do with the literal sun, moon and stars, right? So why would you think that Paul is talking about “the literal stars” in a way that is not intended to be “figurative” of something else? Like our spiritual/celestial/heavenly bodies, which is what Paul is talking about, is it not?
According to Paul, death was abolished by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ. (1 Tim 1:10) I believe that the spiritual fulfillment of that is realized by us, individually, when Christ is resurrected/comes/appears “in us”. As I believe that the Word of God still lies “dead” and “buried in the earth” in all of those who still abide “in death”, who “sleep in Jesus” (or who are “dead in Christ”).
I did not say they are the same event. But I do see them as being related. Why would you think they are not related, when they both have to do with “the harvest” that takes place “in the end of this world”? Or don’t you see that as the context in both cases?
Exactly when do you see the separation of the wheat and tares, the sheep and goats, taking place in relation to Paul’s claim that the dead in Christ shall rise first, then those who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them and we shall forever be with the Lord?
No, I didn’t “beat Paul”. I believe you misunderstand Paul. I know that Paul had more than “the firstfruits of the spirit”. I know that Paul was “delivered of the child” and received “the adoption of sons”. And I know that because Paul relays to us his experience of being “a child” and how, when he “became a man”, he “put away childish things”. (1 Cor 13:11) And I know that Paul “travailed in birth” AGAIN “until” Christ be formed in them, those whom he referred to as “my little children”. (Gal 4:19) We are sealed by the holy spirit of promise when we first believe. (Eph 1:13) This is when I believe we receive “the earnest” or “the firstfruits” of the spirit. And, yes, we (at that time) “groaneth and travaileth in pain…. waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body”. We are “waiting for” Christ to be formed IN US – just as Christ was formed IN PAUL. And, though he “travailed again” WITH THEM while he waited for Christ to be formed IN THEM, he was not still waiting for the appearing of Christ himself. He had already experience that deliverance.
I believe that when we are “absent from the body” (walking in the spirit), we are “at home with the Lord”! Don’t you?
When we are “at home in the body” we are “absent from the Lord”, but what does that have to do with physical death or our having to die physically before we can put on our spiritual body? Paul is talking about those “in” this earthly tabernacle desiring to be clothed, rather than desiring to be unclothed. You’re trying to claim the opposite, that physical death (being unclothed) must come first, before we can be clothed upon. But Paul is talking about those who have “the earnest of the spirit” (being confident that when we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord) walking “by faith, not by sight”. But, he goes on to say: “We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord”. We do not have to die, physically, in order to “absent from the body” and be “present with the Lord”, Aaron. We only have to “walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit”. (Rom 8) Then we can see God “face to face” and know Him, even as we are known. (1 Cor 13:12)
I do not believe that Paul is talking about physical death here. Though I believe that is what he is referring to when he says “unclothed”, he is telling us that our desire is not to be unclothed, but to be clothed upon… as I see it, before we are “unclothed”… as you see it, after we are “unclothed” – perhaps even long after.
I only said that “even if he is” talking about physical death, he does say that being absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Though it is not written exactly that way, the two states are joined together by the conjunction “and” which says to me that if one is true (absent from the body) the other is true (present with the Lord). Seems, though, that you can get around that by claiming that one is not “absent from the body” just because they are physically dead? That wherever the body is, so is the person/soul? So, until the natural body is resurrection (or “changed” into an immortal/spiritual body) the person “sleeps” (along with their natural body). And I said that I don’t see how that can be so when a corpse is NOT MORTAL and it is THIS MORTAL that must “put on” immortality. But you get around that by claiming that “this mortal” refers only to those who are still physically alive at the time when the change comes and “this corruptible” refers to the physically dead. I disagree, but I am also sure that I cannot convince you to see it otherwise.
I’m not sure what you see being unclothed and naked as an “alternative” for, but I believe that we have all been “clothed”. It’s simply a matter of our coming to a knowledge of that truth and walking in it, otherwise we are still walking in the flesh and abiding in death (at home in the body and absent from the Lord).
So, before I even go to the trouble of making a list that demonstrates otherwise, are you telling me that you don’t know of a single instance in which either “sheol” or “hades” is used in the scriptures to refer to something other than physical death or the physical grave? And let’s say, for the sake of argument, that is what you are saying, are you also saying that it cannot be said that in every one of it’s occurrences there cannot be seen a parallel that relates to a spiritual truth that related to those who are physically alive?
I’ll agree that it is a parable, but I will not agree that it is irrelevant on those grounds. Both men in that parable “died”. One was “caught up by the angels to the bosom of Abraham” and the other was “buried” and found himself “in hell” (Hades) and he was absolutely, without a doubt, conscious! If that doesn’t prove to you that “Hades” (Sheol) can refer to something other than the physical grave or a place where the physically dead sleep, unconscious, until a future physical resurrection, I don’t know what will. You want me to believe that Jesus contradicts “the truth” of “soul sleep” in this parable and that’s “ok” because it’s a parable?
It most certainly is flawed, if the resurrection of the dead has nothing to do with physical death. And the fact that Paul was TORN between departing “to be with the Lord” and remaining in the flesh doesn’t indicate to anyone other than those who believe in soul sleep that Paul did not expect to be with the Lord immediately upon departing… not just that it would “seem” immediate to him, but that it would actually take place immediately. I cannot image Paul being TORN between departing and remaining (which he KNEW was more needful for them) if he also knew that departing really meant being unconscious until some time in the future. It’s like you are asking people to believe that Paul was so selfish that he almost preferred “soul sleep” to staying with those who he knew needed him only because he knew his next conscious experience would be with the Lord.
Well, I am sorry you cannot see how anyone can read this passage and disagree with your interpretation, but I do not understand Paul to be saying here that he had not attained unto the resurrection of the dead. I see him saying that he “counts himself” to have “not attained” and continues to strive for it “AS IF” he had not. And he tells “as many as be perfect” to “walk by the same rule”. You want me to believe that Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ, who wrote most of the NT was still dead in sin? And was writing to those who were more spiritually mature than he was?
Here is 2 Cor 3:18
2Co 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
Can you explain how Paul pointing out that “we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord” somehow indicates that Paul was still waiting for that change? Especially since you seem to believe that others were not, even though Paul was?
That doesn’t help. I still don’t know what you are talking about. Are you claiming that there is no life/consciousness in “the breath of life” or “spirit” that comes from God? And, even if that is the case, what would it mean if the story of Adam and Eve has nothing to do with the creation of a single man and a single woman, the first man/woman to ever exist, but is instead a parable that demonstrates how God enters into a relationship with mankind - already created and alive, physically, but unaware of their Creator?
Do you believe that God created a full grown man out of the dust of the ground who was unconscious until God breathed the breath of life into him and that God then put him to sleep and literally created a full grown woman from his rib/side, taking “the woman” out of “the man” and that it is from these two “first humans” that all men have come?
I can certainly see the parallel between “a lamp to my feet” and “a light to my path”… “my teachings” and “my commandments”…. “God” and “(man’s) Maker”…. “papyrus grow(ing) tall where there is no marsh” and “reeds thriv(ing) without water”…. “it gives away” and “it doesn’t hold”.
But I am still not sure how that answers my question or how it proves your point. Man can and does live (physically) without “the spirit of God” (the Holy Spirit, the spirit of Truth) but is only given “eternal life” when God sends forth “His spirit”. So God can take away “His spirit” from me, after it has been given, and I will “return to dust” after a spiritual truth (without dying physically) and/or God can take away “my breath” (that which give me physical life) and I will “return to dust” (physically).
So what makes you think that Job was talking about “the spirit OF GOD” when he said “MY breath”? That he wasn’t talking about that which gave him physical life (“my breath”) AND that which gave him spiritual life (“the spirit of God”)?
Job was holding fast to his righteousness all the while his friends were accusing him of being guilty of some sort of sin, saying that he brought his troubles upon himself because of some sin in his life that he refused to own up to or repent of. I mention this because I don’t know how you see Job, but I know some who echo Job’s friends and believe that Job was “self-righteous” - ignoring God’s testimony of Job (that he was “perfect and upright”). But if Job was “perfect and upright” it would make sense to me that Job had not only “the breath of life” that gives man (and beast) physical life but the spirit of God that gives man “eternal life”. So when he speaks of “MY breath” AND “the spirit OF GOD” I’m not convinced that he is saying the same thing two different ways.
So who do you believe Gabriel is since he had the appearance of a man and is even referred to as a “man”, given the distinction that you make between “angels” and “men”?
I believe that is when they will come to know that they have been saved and when they will experience their own salvation and begin to walk in it. But I do not believe that is “when” they were saved.
Because we were quickened together with Christ “even when we dead in sins” and it because we have been “planted together in the likeness of his death” that we know that we “shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection”. And “if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life” already having “received the atonement”.
Rom 5:8-11 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
Rom 6:3-11 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Gal 3:27-29 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Eph 1:3-10 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
Eph 2:4-8 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:13-22 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
So, while we know that he who endures to the end “shall be saved” and he who believes and is baptized “shall be saved” and whosoever calls on the name of the Lord “shall be saved”, etc, etc… I believe that these things speak of our own personal “experience” of “salvation”. But I believe that it is the death and resurrection of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, that “saved” me. And that is all about what He did – not anything that I did.
I already explained how I see that.
Not when Jesus spoke those words, but since then, yes.
I know that you see it as the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but even though I can see that as the natural fulfillment, I do not believe that was the spiritual fulfillment. I believe that the spiritual fulfillment takes place “within” at “the revelation of Jesus Christ” when we are “delivered of the child” and receive “the adoption of sons”.
Just because we have not yet “entered into” THE DAY of the Lord doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. For where does the Lord live? Does He not dwell “in the light”? We, who are “dead in sin” are “asleep” IN THE NIGHT/DARKNESS and we “enter into” THE DAY of the Lord (leaving THE NIGHT/DARKNESS behind) when we hear His voice and harden not our hearts and PASS “from death unto life” and become children OF THE DAY and children OF THE RESURRECTION… and are not (any longer) OF THE NIGHT. (1Th 5:4-10)
Scientifically speaking, we don’t sleep since all time is a quantum singularity and all time has began and ended at that point; so there is no time to sleep, it is only perceived by the physically living that the dead are ‘sleeping’ before the resurrection of the dead.
In fact, since there is no time except in the physical universe, the moment we die our spirit immediately returns to God who gave it; also, since there is no time except in the physical universe, we would also have already received our immortal bodies in the resurrection of the dead and presently be seated in heavenly place in Christ Jesus; also, since there is no time except in the physical universe, we simultaneously would literally be in two places at the same time (per say).
Very long posts, and I am tired so my responses will be short. Just a heads up.
Your argument in the links rests on the movement of a comma slightly to the right.
But none the less, I will take a look at this issue of commas - Truly I say to you ‘today on this day’] you shall be with me in paradise. I have written out “today” in long hand to make a point, extending it out to be “today on this day” for the sake of clarity.
The phrase “today on this day” is a fulcrum for a sentence that is like a scale in balance. In essence, it goes both ways at the same time.
a. Truly I say to you today = I am telling you today, right now, a “prediction”
b. Truly I say to you today = I am telling you that you will be with me today
When you put a. and b. together, you get something that goes along this line in long hand;
“Truly *| today you will be with me in paradise]”
It seems to me that even if you move the comma, the statement “today you shall be with me in paradise” still remains.
In summary…both are true.
Jesus did tell the thief on that day, and not the next day, or yesterday, that he would go to Paradise. But he also told him that he would be there that day.
I see little reason why an honest Paradise should be denied to the thief on the premise of a possible, and arguably (in favour against soul-sleep) misplaced comma.
Symbolism does not imply the thorough absence of reality.
Neither does a fatalistic interpretation (one extreme to another) behoove you in dealing with scriptures that are “literally symbolic” as I term it. When dealing with the altar, I see little reason why it shouldn’t talk. But just because it does talk, doesn’t negate the significance of its existence.
If you have a dream about yourself with talking hair that speaks swahili backwards - that does not negate the fact your hair exists when you wake up.
As for the state of the saints; It does not say that these saints are constantly and perpetually every heavenly day calling out for vengeance, as you will note in the verse - they are sent away from the altar, sent away from the meeting to rest. This in itself provides evidence enough that this is not a perpetual recurring event that describes the life of a saint in Heaven.
The point of this verse is not about giving a tour of Heavenly delights, the point of the verse is its point, which when boiled down is in tantamount; The saints in heaven calling out for the justice of God to be fulfilled on the earth.
The fact that they are in Heaven…and certainly “dead” as far as the earth is concerned, yet conscious cannot and should not be so lightly ignored, due merely to a doctrinal interpretation, arguable at best - but not settled in perfect stone as truth.
It is not meant to be understood as a perfectly nebulous, ambiguous vapour either. As for it having already happened - if this is what has already happened, then it is far more unimpressive, and anti-climactic than a talking altar and complaining saints.
(After having read the presented facts)
None of that negates the place of new testament saints being present with their Lord after having shed their body. I will now expound on that as follows.
Alright.
The life of a physical body yes, but men are not their bodies. Are Christians supposed to be their flesh? Are Christians their flesh? It would be a very dangerous mindset to think of our existential being (not just our mind, mind you…but our sentient, self-aware, image of God selves) - as being the heart, lungs, legs, testies, mouth, and etc body of flesh and bone. Paul when telling us that we should crucify the flesh, would be advocating a strange kind of suicide if that were the case.
Unless the being of a person, especially Christ, is not a material body.
It does little to negate consciousness apart from the material body altogether.
Yet, none the less they speak. Nothing remotely suggests they do not exist in an unconscious state either, far more so infact. Personally, I see little reason why a Christian whose life is in Christ (who is very much alive right now) should die.
Even under the interpretation that a person’s literal spirit (Life-essence, not their soul, which is their mind) is in their literal blood - our life is no longer in our blood, but it is in Christ’s blood, who will never die again.
When we shed our flesh, we go to Christ where we already are, being his body, which if you want to go into the issue of blood being the literal person of a person, it would be very easy to go into the fact that it is no longer our blood, but Christ’s eternally living blood that is now in our “veins”.
At last, the root! The preterist, vs. futurist issue…
I am not a preterist, but this is a position I am not inclined to debate, it proves of little use to me when ever I do so.
I see little reason why David wouldn’t be comforted with such a concept of being consciously able to experience time with his dead child. David’s hope wasn’t useless futility.
I think you misunderstand resurrection as being purely material, instead of pertaining to every area where death and sin have reared its ugly head. The resurrection is not strictly about reanimating the material body.
But I must point out; ““living hope” to which Jesus’ followers were “born again” after his death and resurrection (1 Pet 1:3-4), when he brought “life and immortality to light””
If this life is rooted or contained by the necessity of a material body, then it is impoverished in my opinion.
If Christ died to give us “mere hope” that we’ll live again thousands of years into the future (from the perspective of the early church most certainly, and especailly), instead of providing that actual life to be experienced here and now, and then continue doing so when we shed our body, and then receiving a new body upon the resurrection anyway…
Well, option b. the actual life, is far, far more appealing. Soul sleep in my opinion, is poor at best, the bare minimum that Jesus, that God, in all of his riches and power could provide by his sacrifice. Honestly, it doesn’t present very sufficiently the character of God giving abundantly the life he promised, if the life he promised is so significantly delayed so that Death can be the fate of those whose life is, or should, be in Christ already to begin with.
From what I can see, soul-sleep is just existential death (full and entire death of a person’s being, IE: Dead as Dead can be) by another name.
The children of God become no more than a pile of dead squirrels on the roadside. This is not a good witness on the character of God, or his promises, or his ability to fulfill them as he presents them.
Even in a general sense, this only expounds on the nature of Sheol, but not the existential nature of a person’s life-essence, or being first and foremost spiritual as God is, being in God’s image vs. a material, fleshy machine.
Or else, it could simply mean what it means…The body is a tent, and we are not our tent, and the dweller is not bound to his dwelling…though it behooves him to have one.
Still, it bothers me somewhat that all is symbol, or imagry to you, except for when it comes to a person’s essential existence, which you seem to define as being literally his material body - and then it is perfectly literal. It is a little displeasing, and makes it difficult to discuss the matter.
Very unappealing. That man is merely a machine. Worse though, that the children of God, which also are merely machines, are not actually, or practically alive in Christ - but dead as dead can be.
You only understand it that way because you neglect a fundamental part of who the inner man is; a spirit.
Man is made in God’s image, after God’s likeness. I doubt that God’s sentient existence, God who is spirit, is tied to a material body.
Num 16:33 They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation.
“…and they perished…”
Firstly, as far as Sheol is concerned, if you can be sentient in Sheol, then you don’t have to be brought back to “life” in order to speak from the unseen.
Secondly, you can’t claim that the medium was deceiving Saul, it isn’t written. That is pure conjecture.
The idea that Samuel wasn’t actually present by one means or another, is not what is written. It is conjecture plain and simple. It is written, and from a literal translation mind you;
1Sa 28:14 And he said to her, What [is] his form?' and she said,An aged man is coming up, and he [is] covered with an upper robe;’ and Saul knows that he [is] Samuel, and bows–face to you earth–and does obeisance.
Saul knew, Samuel was, and hence both Saul and Samuel spoke conversedly.
As for the dead knowing nothing;
Ecc 9:5-6 For the living know that they shall die, But the dead know nothing whatsoever; There is no further hire for them; Indeed remembrance of them is forgotten. Both their love and their hate as well as their jealousy have perished already, And there is no further portion for them for the eon In all that is done under the sun.
In context, this isn’t talking about the existential nature of a disembodied being’s ability to converse, remember, or otherwise exist. The phrase “under the sun” concludes the idea of the context, that as far as the dead are concerned with the goings on of the land of the living…they are not concerned at all, no more concerned about the land of the living than I am about the price of eggs in Russia. Yet, that does not negate their sentience.
And even still, Ecclesiastes is a book expressing the futility of life without God, the overall emphasis is not to be a manual or expose on the details of death’s hotel but that life without God isn’t life at all - As seen by the conclusion;
Ecclesiastes 12:13, “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.”
If the Bible doesn’t sanction the view that Samuel wasn’t even present at all, then it makes little sense in having it presented as such in its pages.
Under the idea that Samuel was temporarily raised, sure, but not bodily - this shows at the very least that disembodied existence is possible. But on the idea of it being a rare miracle, that doesn’t negate disembodied existence just because God did a “rare miracle”.
It doesn’t say he was embodied either, and it certainly implies the opposite. As for not believing that Samuel was even there - If this is the case then it is of little use to even use the scriptures at all in this debate, for the obvious reasons.
Christians must have so little to look forward to…
No more so than a man’s quality of life is greatly enhanced by not being an amputee. A body is important to a man’s existence, but his existence is not essential to the existence of his body, no more than God’s is. We are made in God’s image first and foremost, this has little to do with the body of flesh, which is “strongly suggested” by the Bible, to be very much deviated from God, being selfish, riddled with death, full of sin, selfishnes, unrighteousness, ungodliness, etc.*
I was in no way insinuating that you or anyone else here doesn’t hold Scripture in high regard. I was simply pointing out the fact that Gary seems to be a Biblical unitarian, and last time I checked, there weren’t many unitarians contributing to this forum.
That may be, but where else in scripture did Jesus ever use it?
In every other instance, Jesus said: “Verily, Verily, I say unto thee…{insert message}”.
He never said: “Verily I say unto thee today… {insert message}”.
So this would be the only time He did that.
On top of that, to move the comma in order to change what Jesus said to the thief on the cross is to miss the true import (IMHO) of what He is saying to ALL who are “crucified with Him”, which is “TODAY shalt thou be with me in paradise”. As it’s not about a 24 hour day, or even about that day 2000 years ago on which Jesus was crucified; it’s about WHEN we hear HIs voice and harden not our hearts.
TODAY, spiritual speaking, IS “THE DAY of the Lord”… as opposed to THE NIGHT which is as YESTERDAY when it is past.
As I understand it, we enter into “the day” of the Lord" (and PASS from death unto life) “today” when we hear His voice and harden not our hearts. Then we leave “the night” (darkness, death) behind (“as yesterday”), becoming “children of the day” and “children of the resurrection”.
Those words that Jesus spoke to the thief on the cross are just as important to us today as they were to that thief that day. Play with the comma and we fail to hear the whole message and the importance of what it being said.
I’m still curious about how soul sleep factors into the wages of sin if Adam/man has always been mortal? Wouldn’t that mean that even if Adam/man had never sinned he would have still needed to be saved from death? Which would mean that Adam/man reaped the wages of sin without sinning?
You may have missed my announcement, but I’m taking a short hiatus from the forum for a while. It might be another month or so before I start posting much again. Just wanted you to know that I’m not ignoring your posts or anything!
I have encountered people all my life that have preached soul sleep, while others in the same organization do not believe in this doctrine. As long as one believes in Jesus, I believe they will be ok. However, I don’t believe in soul sleep the way most people seem to explain this idea. I believe to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.
No one “moved the comma in order to change what Jesus said”. There are no commas in the Greek text, and no other punctuation either. Indeed the whole text was written in upper-case letters with no spaces between the words.
What happened was that Bible translators inserted a comma where they thought it should go.
It’s not odd that Jesus may have said, “I tell you today, you shall be with me in paradise.” Even in current English, we hear people say, “I’m telling you right now …”
Yes, plenty of people “quote” the words of Paul as “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” But Paul didn’t write that! If you look it up and read the statement in context, you might come up with a different interpretation.
If I were dying of asphyxiation on a cross with rail road spikes in my hands and feet after being beaten by Roman soldiers with their purposefully torturous whips, having my beard torn out, being slapped, spit on, abandoned by friends, reviled, jeered at, and having to carry a massive chunk of wood approx 110 pounds, up a large hill, after the fact of having been whipped and what not, nearly bled to death…and on top of this carrying the whole weight of the world’s sins on my shoulders as is often thought, and quite believable…
And if I were the Perfect Steward in all of this…
I don’t think I would be wasting my very difficultly gained breath with the sort of redundancy* that moving the comma entails. Quite frankly, it isn’t worthy of our Lord.
*[size=85](mentioning the obvious, the thief wasn’t an idiot I am sure; an idiot who wouldn’t have known that Jesus was talking to him right that second, and right on that day, he wasn’t talking to him next week to tell him he’d be in Paradise, that he was talking to him “today” is obvious; it makes much more sense that Christ would have been saying you will be with me in paradise “today on this day”, not “today on this day, which you already know is today, I tell you that you will be with me in paradise in about ten to thirty thousand years give or take”)[/size]
It’s simply a verbal reinforcement of conviction and emphasis! No one is suggesting that the thief wasn’t aware that Jesus wasn’t talking to Him at that moment…
This line of thinking is not productive for the denier of soul sleep however. For no one actually believes that Jesus even went to heaven that specific day do they? (recalling that on Sunday morning Jesus tells mary not to touch Him because he has not yet ascended to His Father…)
My best explanation?
Simply that this is a rhetorical flourish for emphasis of the certainty of Jesus’ promise.
PS full disclosure: my bias/conviction is *for *soul sleep and I’ve found Gabe’s defense of it quite sound.
but that is how I believe God speaks to us – in parables, in types and shadows, in similitudes…
