It is here that you’ve missed my point. If you were in Christ’s position I don’t think you would be “unclear” in your message, and I don’t especially think you’d tell a lie.
‘Truly I tell you today you will be with me in paradise.’
If I were the perfect steward, and I wanted to tell him that he would be with me in paradise “some day” I would have neglected the word “today” altogether. If I wanted him to know that he would be with me nigh immediately or very soon upon that very day - I would have put the word “today” to make it very clear.
Where ever Christ is, so is Heaven there.
I have little reason to believe that when Christ says a thing, he doesn’t mean it at its fullest and at its best interpretation. He is Truth…
It little glorifies God at all for his children who are supposed to be in Him, in the Life, in the Resurrection (things he calls himself, by his very own words) “now” - to be stuck to rot in the grave and be utterly defeated even temporarily (thousands of years…) by Death. To be defeated by Death even while being in The Life who said he’d never let them slip out of his fingers, and told them that they wouldn’t die (which I assuredly assume means their conscious identities and sentience will not rot in the grave) is a very poor gesture of believability on the part of Christ, and his statements.
If the only thing I have to look forward to when I die (shed this mortal tent) is (even if I don’t notice it) a hole full of dirt, worm food, and a rotting piece of flesh for my identity; then this is all been an exercise in futility and poverty.
Soul-sleep expresses to me that the whole of my existence is nothing more than being a complicated machine of material tissues ‘imputed’ to be “in the image of God”. This is repugnant to me for every reason that Atheism and Sadducee-ism is repugnant to me.
Hence for these reasons I’ve stated (out of my opinion, and understanding) I refuse to believe it.
Sorry Lefein; perhaps I have…
Interesting that in my reading last night Rob Bell (“Love Wins”) seems to be making (perhaps?) the same point you are (if I’m understanding you).
He’s trying to make the point that heaven is not so much about some other place over there but that at it’s core heaven is here and now and among us in His person. So there is a sense of the “present eternal” which is intense, real experience of joy peace love in this life and this side of death! And then of course as well as continuing in the age to come.
So that mental assent to follow Jesus and be part of His kingdom, that inner desire not to be separated from Him ever, does in a real way mark the beginning of “heaven” – and for that thief, heaven was not only future, but began right then in His presence.
Is that more along the lines of what you mean??
(That’s a different matter it seems to me than the soul sleep question which, as I say, Gabe has handled very effectively in my view…)
I too believe indeed that “Eternal Life” beings “now” not “later”.
Indeed.
Much closer.
Effectively, but anything can be explained effectively. That’s the power of interpretation and theological doctrine. ETC can be explained effectively (and has been in many a Christian’s experience) as can EU, even Annihilation, which explanation, or explain-ability of a thing doesn’t make it it necessarily bad, knowledge is important - but explanation of a thing just because it is explainable is not “meet to be consumed as my daily bread” if that makes sense, Life is yet the better tree to Knowledge. But what I am trying to deal with is not the theology, but the deeper things.
Soul-sleep means to me;
That I am separable from God, wholly, for even a moment.
My Eternal Life with Him that begins “now” is capable of cessation, wholly, even for a moment.
My body is the core of my being, I am no spirit or soul or light-ness like my Father, no ‘breath’ or sentient creative existence; I am a machine of material parts. I am more material dependent rather than God-dependent when it comes to my existence, in a direct way that is, and practically speaking. Since I would not be “feeding from Life” for my life-support when I shed the body, but I would have to have my body for life-support. I become “flesh-dependent” vs. “God-dependent”. My life is not hidden away with Christ, but in Sheol, in the dust where my body of dust is laying.
If I can be separated from God, wholly, even for a moment then I am capable of being dropped out of God’s fingers.
I was promised I would not “die” but have Eternal Life (which I understand to be a thing entered into in this age, and continued into the next).
Those things are terrors to me, and for many of the right reasons I feel. Explanation therefore, does little to assuage these, because these are terrors that are beneath all explanation for which a new direction away from the doctrine is called for. ETC is an example of a thing that can have every explanation applied to it, but the terror is still beneath the surface requiring a new direction away from the doctrine of it.
This is, and I apologise for it , the reason I am a little vehement about it…
If my soul sleeps, the next thing I will know after death is the resurrection. Whether it takes a microsecond or a million earthly years will make no difference from my point of view. But surely all talk of time is meaningless, since I very much doubt that God’s House runs on GMT. (BTW, this casts doubt on near-death experiences, which all seem to run on terrestrial time.)
But I do agree with Lefein. To cease to exist, even for a moment, would be to deny the unfailing love of God.
My claim is simply that, from the perspective of the living, death appears to end a human person’s living, conscious existence, and that this perspective would be false if death didn’t, in actuality, put an end to a human person’s living, conscious existence. Those who believe that the physically dead are actually conscious think Scripture does not affirm and sanction what our observation and experience seems to indicate, but rather reveals this to be a misleading perspective. But I don’t think there is any verse or passage in Scripture which reveals this perspective to be misleading or false. Rather, I understand Scripture to affirm and sanction what our observation and experience seems to indicate.
Wait, let’s back up. Previously you said:
Ok, when you speak of there being “no work” and “no knowledge” in the grave, you’re referring to Eccl 9:10. Correct? But there, Solomon is referring to the state of those who are in Sheol (which, in the KJV, is translated “the grave”): “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.” But if what Solomon is describing in this verse (as well as in Eccl 3:18-20 and 9:5-6) is “from the perspective of the living,” then how can you say that “Sheol” refers to that which is “NOT SEEN” and which “no man can see taking place (or not taking place).” And if (as you seem to be implying) “Sheol” refers to a state or realm of unseen, non-physical entities, then, according to Solomon, these entities neither work nor think nor have knowledge of anything.
As I’m sure you’d agree, it’s not literally true that anyone’s throat is an “open grave” or that the “venom of asps” is literally under anyone’s lips. Paul (and David, who he’s quoting) is employing figurative language to describe the moral state of those who are unrighteous. But I don’t see how the figurative imagery above has anything to do with whether or not the physically dead are able to do or know anything in a non-physical state of existence.
I wrote:
You replied:
I think you must have overlooked the word “when” in my above comment, because it implies that I believe there are at least some occurrences of the words Sheol/Hades in Scripture where the words are being used metaphorically (and I’m pretty sure I’ve acknowledged this elsewhere on this thread).
Regarding the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, you wrote:
If the story of Lazarus and the rich man is a parable and not a historical account of two men’s post-mortem experience, then how was Jesus contradicting the “truth of soul sleep” in telling it? Answer: He wasn’t.
If Stephen was just as conscious right after he died as he was while he was praying to God on behalf of those who were murdering him, then the perspective of the living would be false. If you or I had been present, it would’ve appeared to us that Stephen lost consciousness and didn’t regain it. We would’ve seen him lie motionless, and sometime afterwards we would’ve seen certain “devout men” carrying Stephen away to be buried (Acts 8:2). But I don’t see where it is revealed in Scripture that, appearances notwithstanding, Stephen was just as conscious right after he “fell asleep” as he was right before he “fell asleep.”
Notice also that it is Stephen who is said to have been buried. This is yet another example in Scripture of dead persons being identified with their dead body/dead remains. When Stephen’s body died, Stephen died. And when Stephen’s body was buried, Stephen was buried. Nowhere is it revealed or suggested by the inspired author that “Stephen” had left his physical body and was alive and conscious somewhere in another state of existence. No; what the “devout men” buried was Stephen (or at least, all that remained of him after he died).
Do you believe that the “one body” of which “all those bodies of flesh and bones” are a part is the literal body in which Christ left the tomb? Because when Paul speaks of our being members of Christ’s body I believe he’s using figuratively imagery, and does not mean we are literally members of the physical body with which Christ was raised. The literal body with which Christ was raised is a physical, tangible, flesh-and-bones body. And as you seem to agree, the physical, tangible, flesh-and-bones body with which Christ was raised is not his perishable, dishonourable, weak, natural body, but rather his imperishable, glorious, powerful, spiritual body.
But Paul tells us what type of body we will have: it will be an imperishable, glorious, powerful, spiritual body, like the body with which Christ was raised (1 Cor 15:42-49; Phil 3:20-21). That Christ’s resurrection is the pattern that our resurrection will follow is also, I think, evident from the fact that Paul speaks of Christ as “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Cor 15:20), and as the “first (prōtos) to rise from the dead” (Acts 26:23), which implies that Christ’s resurrection is the pledge of a future, general resurrection for all who die in Adam, and which is necessarily of the same kind or nature as Christ’s resurrection.
I think we’re in agreement that the “new heavens and new earth” does not refer to a future state of existence which is yet to come. I believe this is figurative imagery for the new covenant age under the reign of the Messiah, and that we’ve been living in the “new heavens and new earth” since Christ came in his kingdom in 70 AD. I would be interested to know your thoughts on this.
I’m not sure why you keep emphasizing that Paul said his desire was not to be unclothed but to be clothed upon, as if I didn’t believe that. That’s exactly what I do affirm: Paul’s desire was not to be “unclothed” (i.e., physically dead), but to be “clothed upon” at the resurrection, when that which is mortal will be “swallowed up by life.” In other words, I believe Paul’s desire was to be raised with the same kind of glorious, imperishable body with which Christ was raised, so that he could then “bear the image of the man of heaven” just as he bore “the image of the man of dust” (which refers to the “natural body” he possessed while he was writing to the Corinthians). But I don’t see any indication that Paul believed he would be clothed upon with his immortal, spiritual body before his “earthly home” was “destroyed.” What does Paul say in this passage which suggests to you that he expected to be clothed with his spiritual body before he physically died?
Again, my desire isn’t to physically die, either. My longing is to be with Christ in the resurrection, after my present “lowly body” has been fashioned anew to be like his “glorious body.” I can speak of looking forward to dying only insofar as death will, from my perspective, introduce me into that future state of existence when I, along with all of my loved ones, “will always be with the Lord.” Being with Christ after the resurrection will, I think, be “far better” than even the best moments of this mortal existence.
As far as equating Paul’s being clothed with his immortal body with his being “clothed with Christ,” it’s my view that Paul was already “clothed with Christ” when he was writing, for elsewhere he wrote that those who have been “baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal 3:27; cf. Rom 13:14). This was not, I don’t think, something for which he was “groaning.” And it is implied that Christ had already been “formed” in Paul in the sense of which he spoke in Galatians 4:19, for previously he wrote, “I have been crucified with Christ, it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me.” It could not be said that Christ lived in Paul if Christ had not already been “formed” in Paul. It was those members of the church in Galatia who desired to “be under the law” (Gal 4:21), and who had been “severed from Christ” and had “fallen away from grace” (5:1f.) who needed Christ to be “formed” in them. It was these for whom Paul was again in “the anguish of childbirth.” I don’t think he’s speaking of mature believers (such as himself) here. And as it seems reasonable to believe that Paul had already been clothed with Christ, and that Christ had already been “formed” in Paul (in the sense of which he speaks in Gal 4:19), I think we can reasonably conclude that the “redemption of our body” of which Paul spoke in Romans 8:23 refers to something different - i.e., that future event when death is destroyed and our “lowly body” will be fashioned anew to be like Christ’s “glorious body” (Phil 3:20-21; 1 Cor 15:42-49). That is, I believe our mortal, natural body will be “redeemed” when, at the resurrection, it is “fashioned anew” as an immortal, spiritual body. And I think Paul speaks of the resurrection as our “adoption as sons” because Jesus had taught that those who are raised from the dead and made “equal to angels” will be “sons of God, being sons of the resurrection” (Luke 20:36). While it’s true that all who believe are “sons of God” now (Gal 3:26; 4:1-7), in the resurrection all people will be “sons of God” in a sense that no mortal presently is.
I don’t think the coming referred to in Heb 9:28 should be understood as the same coming referred to by Paul in 1 Cor 15:23. The author’s not addressing every Christian who ever lived but those Jewish believers living in the 1st-century generation that saw the end of the old covenant dispensation and the establishment of God’s reign among his new covenant people.
The coming of Christ referred to in 1 Cor 15:23 is his coming to destroy death and subject all people to himself. And death, the last enemy, is going to be destroyed (or “swallowed up in victory”) “when the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality” (v. 54). And Paul seems to be speaking of all people here, both those who will have already physically died before Christ’s coming (who are said to “sleep”) as well as those who will still be alive on the earth at the time (v. 51). And this victory over death is going to be achieved “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.” If in this passage Paul’s not speaking of a future, instantaneous event that involves every human being who has ever lived, then I confess to being ignorant as to what Paul is talking about here.
There is nothing in this passage which suggests to me that it will be a single, instantaneous event for those who “remain” and are still alive but will not be a single, instantaneous event for all who will have died before this time. Paul says “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.” Paul is saying that not all of humanity will be “sleeping” when Christ comes to destroy death and subject all people to himself. Some will still be alive on the earth at this time. But all people - both those who will be “sleeping” at the time and those who won’t - will undergo a “change.” When the trumpet sounds, the dead will be raised imperishable and the living will be changed from mortals into immortals. Both the dead being raised imperishable and the living being changed into immortal beings is said to take place “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.”
I don’t see anything in Scripture which suggests that those who have “passed from death unto life” (in the sense that Christ speaks in John 5:24), and those in whom Christ has been “formed” (in the sense that Paul speaks in Gal 4:19) have undergone the instantaneous “change” from mortal/perishable to immortal/imperishable that Paul speaks of in 1 Cor 15. In neither John 5 nor in Galatians 4 is anything being said about anyone being raised with the kind of imperishable, glorious, powerful, spiritual body with which Christ was raised by God on the third day after his death.
When Paul says, “but each in his own order,” I don’t think he’s talking about a long progression or sequence of separate, individual resurrections taking place over the course of redemptive history from creation (or from the 1st century) onward. When Paul speaks of Christ as the “firstfruits,” I believe he’s alluding to the Jewish harvest, which had only two “orders”: 1) the “firstfruits” of the barley harvest (in which a sheaf was brought into the temple and then shaken by the priest toward the four quarters of the world as a dedication to God, and as evidence of the consecration of the whole harvest throughout the nation) and 2) the rest of the harvest, which would follow afterwards (see Lev 23:9-14). In accordance with this Hebrew imagery, Paul gives us only two specific “orders”: 1) “Christ, the firstfruits” and 2) “those who are Christ’s at his coming.” Christ, the first to have been raised from the dead never to die again, is the first in the “order” (or “rank”) among mankind (cf. Col 1:18; Rev 1:5), and is the pledge and consecration of the rest of the “harvest” to God. “Those who are Christ’s as his coming” are simply those of whom Christ is the “firstfruits,” and correspond to the general “harvest.” They are second in the order or “rank.” But of whom is Christ the “firstfruits?” Well previously, Paul wrote, “But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (vv. 20-22). From these verses it would seem that Paul had all of the dead in view - i.e., all who die prior to Christ’s coming. So if Paul has all dead human beings in view in vv. 20-22, then I think it’s reasonable to understand Paul to have the same category of people in view when he speaks of “those who are Christ’s at his coming.” Christ was raised as the “firstborn from the dead” and the “firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” nearly 2,000 years ago, and at some future time “those who are Christ’s at his coming” (i.e., those who will be found “asleep” when Christ comes to destroy death and subject all people to himself) will be raised as well.
I’m glad we’re agreed that Christ wasn’t raised in his natural body! But if it wasn’t Christ’s natural body that left the tomb, then what kind of body was it? Was it not an imperishable, powerful, glorified spiritual body? But if it was, then the imperishable, powerful, glorified, spiritual body with which Christ was raised was a physical, tangible, flesh-and-bones body. And if Christ’s imperishable, powerful, glorified spiritual body is physical and tangible, I think we can reasonably conclude that our imperishable, powerful, glorified spiritual body will be physical and tangible as well. And the fact that Christ, in his resurrected body, could “appear out of nowhere in locked rooms” doesn’t mean his body wasn’t (and isn’t) physical. If God can transform a mortal body into an immortal body in “the twinkling of an eye” then he can just as easily (and instantaneously) transfer a physical, flesh-and-bone body from one location on earth to another. Wouldn’t you agree?
And as far as Christ “changing his appearance,” in Luke 24:16 we’re told that the disciples on the road to Emmaus didn’t recognize Jesus because “their eyes were kept from recognizing him.” Similarly, in v. 31 we’re told, “And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him.” These verses do not suggest to me that the disciple’s failure to recognize Jesus was due to an objective change in Jesus’ physical appearance. The text seems to suggest that it wasn’t Christ’s physical appearance that was altered, but rather the subjective perception of Christ’s disciples.
No, I’m fine with allegory (which is defined as “the representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form”), and I can appreciate passages in Scripture that seem to have allegorical elements in them (e.g., the part of the Genesis narrative where we read of a deceptive, talking serpent). I just don’t think everything in Scripture is meant to be understood allegorically, and tend to be more cautious and reserved when it comes to interpreting something in Scripture in an allegorical fashion. For example, if Paul had not told us that the story of Sarah and Hagar “may be interpreted allegorically” (Gal 4:24), any allegorical application I might draw from this OT story would be done so very tentatively, and would not be considered as having much doctrinal importance (unlike, for example, the teaching that Christ came in the flesh, died for our sins, was buried, and was raised on the third day). The same goes for seeing “types” in Scripture (which is defined as “a figure, representation, or symbol of something to come, such as an event in the Old Testament that foreshadows another in the New Testament” - thefreedictionary.com/type).
Now, when Paul tells us “that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve,” I see no reason to understand his words allegorically. Nor do I see any reason to understand Christ as a type, or to understand his death, resurrection and post-resurrection appearances allegorically. In the NT Christ is represented as the antitype, fulfillment, and “substance” (in contrast with that which is called a “shadow”). And while Christ certainly taught in parables and often used figurative language, he is not himself a parable, allegory or figure (although, to be sure, he is symbolically depicted in Rev 1:12-16). Even when Paul employs figurative language that is derived from the historical facts of Jesus’ death and resurrection with reference to the new life of the believer (e.g., Rom 6:1-14; Col 2:12-13), it doesn’t mean the primary significance or meaning of Jesus’ death and resurrection is a figurative or typological one. I don’t see it taught that the primary reason for which Christ lived, died and rose from the dead was simply to provide believers with some helpful imagery by which we might better understand our freedom from sin, or to serve as a symbol or allegory by which spiritual truths might be more effectively communicated to us. Even if this was one of the reasons for which Christ was raised, it seems to me that it was of much less importance to the apostles than, say, authenticating Jesus’ Messiahship (Acts 2:22-36), or making Jesus Lord of both the dead and the living (Rom 14:9).
Similarly, when Paul speaks of some of those to whom Christ appeared after his resurrection as having “fallen asleep” by the time he wrote his first letter to the Corinthians, there is nothing in the context which suggests to me that Paul is speaking of anything other than literal, physical life and death. IOW, I believe the meaning he was trying to convey to his readers is that most of the five hundred brothers who saw Christ after his resurrection were still around and could thus testify to having seen the risen Christ, while some of the witnesses of his resurrection had died. I don’t see a “dual meaning” in Paul’s words here; rather, he seems to be simply stating a straight-forward fact that anyone acquainted with the reality of physical death could understand.
As far as the “spiritual things” of which Paul speaks in 1 Cor 2:13, Paul’s talking about the “things God has revealed to us through the Spirit” (v. 10), which, in this context, refers to “the things freely given us by God” (v. 12), which I understand to be “every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” given to those who believe on Christ and have been transferred by God to his kingdom (Eph 1:3; Col 1:12-13). And how do we receive these blessings? It’s not by understanding Christ’s death and resurrection in a figurative, allegorical way; it’s by believing that this event actually happened in history, and realizing the implications it has for oneself and for every human being who has ever lived or ever will live. Because Jesus died, was raised from the dead and made Lord of all, we can have assurance that all people - both those who are physically alive and those who have died - are going to be subjected to him and reconciled to God. And everyone who believes on Jesus as Lord and Savior of all will be reconciled to God and begin to enjoy deliverance from sin now, before Christ returns from heaven to destroy sin and death completely.
As far as “rightly dividing the word of truth,” wouldn’t this include discerning what was intended to be understood allegorically or typologically by the inspired writers, and what was not?
In John 6:40, those who are to be raised up by Christ on the “last day” are those who were given to him by God (v. 39) - i.e., all people (John 3:35; 13:3; Matthew 11:27; Luke 10:22; cf. Ps 2:8; Heb 1:2). But the “us” and “we” of Hos 6:2 do not refer to all mankind universally but rather to the people of Israel in Hosea’s day (who were presuming upon God’s mercy while they, as a people, remained unfaithful). And the “reviving” and “raising up” they were anticipating was, I believe, a national restoration.
Concerning the expressions “after two days” and “in the third day,” the NET Bible notes:
Some see Hos 6:2 as a prophecy of the literal, physical resurrection of the Messiah. This view is certainly possible, for when we consider Christ as being the ideal Israel (Isa 49:3), we may say that, in resurrecting him shortly after his death, God did for his faithful Son what he did not do for the unfaithful nation of Israel in Hosea’s day. But even when this verse is understood prophetically, it is Jesus’ physical resurrection (i.e., his being restored to a living, embodied existence after death) - not the resurrection of the nation of Israel or of mankind in general - which is to be understood as the subject and fulfillment of the prophecy. So I don’t think the “third day” on which Jesus was raised from the dead should be equated with the “last day” when all who have been given to Christ (i.e., all people) will be raised from the dead. Moreover, the third day on which Jesus was raised was the first day of the week, so reading the “last day” into Hos 6:2 doesn’t seem appropriate.
Again, Jesus was raised from the dead on the first day of the week nearly 2,000 years ago. That day came and went, and I don’t see anything in Scripture which suggests that Jesus’ resurrection on the third day should be understood as a type or allegory. It can’t prefigure the day of rest spoken of in Hebrews, because that is called a “Sabbath rest,” and Jesus of course wasn’t raised on the Sabbath. And I don’t think the Sabbath rest in Hebrews can be equated with the “last day” of John 6, since entrance into the Sabbath rest is clearly a conditional blessing (for the author of Hebrews warns his readers that they would not enter this rest if they fell away), whereas being raised by Jesus on the “last day” is not a blessing that could be secured by one’s belief or forfeited by one’s unbelief, for all who have been given to Christ by God will be raised by him at the sounding of the “last trumpet.”
So why is the day on which the resurrection takes place referred to by Jesus as the “last day?” Well we know that after the resurrection of the dead Jesus’ reign will end, and he will deliver the kingdom to God so that God may be “all in all” (1 Cor 15:21-28). Thus, if the dead are raised on the final day of Jesus’ reign then it would be appropriate to refer to this day as “the last day.” Another possibility is that Jesus calls this day the “last day” because it will be the last day that humans will be on the earth (as may be inferred from verses such as 1 Thess 4:13-18 and John 14:2-3).
As for Jesus’ promise to the thief, I don’t think the word translated “today” or “this day” has to be understood as indicating when the thief was to be with Christ in paradise; I think it’s more likely that Jesus was speaking idiomatically, employing a noted figure of speech with which he and the thief would have been familiar, and in a way that was most consistent with how Jesus normally declared things to people (i.e., using the “Truly I say to you” formula). So I think you’re ascribing more significance to the word “today” than is warranted.
Referring to the “this day” idiom you ask, “where else in Scripture did Jesus ever use it?” In asking this question the implication seems to be that it would be unlikely for Jesus to have been recorded as using an idiom only once during his earthly ministry. But does Jesus have to be recorded as using a noted Hebrew idiom more than once before we can believe he used it at all? Of course not. Moreover, if Jesus did use this idiom only once in his lifetime, I can’t think of a more appropriate occasion on which he could have used it, for the conversation he and the thief had shortly before they both died was undoubtedly one of the most solemn moments in the lives of both men. I should also add that, because there are no commas in the original manuscripts, your view requires “playing with the comma” just as much as mine does. And assuming those English translators who put the comma after “this day” rather than before it are familiar with the Hebrew idiom, I can’t help but think that doctrinal bias had a bigger influence on their decision than anything else.
Again, Acts 4:1-2 and 23:6-8 suggest to me that the kind of resurrection which the Sadducees were known for denying was the kind of resurrection of which Christ’s was a primary example. It is unlikely that a doctrine of resurrection which had nothing to do with physical life and death was even on their radar screen, either before or after Christ’s resurrection. Notice also that in all three synoptic accounts Christ’s confrontation with the Sadducees is introduced with the author informing the reader that the Sadducees denied the resurrection (Matt 22:23; Mark 12:18; Luke 20:27). What kind of resurrection were the Sadducees denying? From their question it is evident that the resurrection being denied by them was the restoration of the physically dead back to life: “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up children for his brother.’ Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother. So too the second and third, down to the seventh. After them all, the woman died. In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her” (Matt 22:23-28).
Now, we know from Christ’s response that he believed the Sadducees were in error for supposing that the doctrine of the resurrection involved the continuation of the marriage bond (v. 30), and for believing that this doctrine could not be reasonably inferred from the Torah (vv. 31-32). But Christ doesn’t say anything to indicate that he thought them mistaken for believing that the doctrine of the resurrection concerned those who were physically dead. When Christ says, “For in the resurrection…” it’s evident that he’s talking about the same kind of resurrection following physical death which Matthew and other Gospel writers tells us the Sadducees denied (v. 23). This becomes even more apparent in Luke’s account, when (after having been given a scenario in which eight people physically die) Christ says that those who attain to the resurrection of the dead “cannot die anymore” (Luke 20:36). When Jesus say that people in the resurrection “cannot die anymore,” it’s clear that he has in view the same kind of “death” that the woman and her seven husbands are represented as experiencing in the scenario provided by the Sadducees (i.e., physical death). And when he goes on to say, “But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed…” (v. 37), it’s clear from the context that he’s talking about the physically dead, for the belief of the Sadducees was that those who physically die are not raised from this state. It is this belief that Christ is opposing. When Christ says, “But that the dead are raised…” he’s not talking about those who are physically alive but “dead in sin.” Rather, he’s talking about those who, like the woman and her seven husbands in the scenario provided - and like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - had physically died. IOW, by “the dead” Christ had in mind those whose “earthly tent” had been “destroyed,” and who were thus in need of putting on their “heavenly dwelling.”
What do you think Jesus said to correct the Sadducees’ misconception that the resurrection had to do with physical death?
Just as Jesus is talking about two different kinds of deaths in Matt 8:22 and Luke 9:60, so Jesus is talking about two different kinds of deaths in Matt 22:29-32 and John 11:25-26. In the former passage Jesus is “counting” physical death as something from which we need to be saved, and in the latter passage he’s “counting” spiritual death as something from which we need to be saved. Jesus is telling Martha that he is not only the one who is going to raise the dead on the “last day,” he is also the one who gives “spiritual life” to those who are “dead” in their sins so that people may be “spiritually alive” for as long as they’re believing on him (John 5:24). But the fact that Christ is the source of “spiritual life” for all who believe does not negate the fact that he is also going to raise the dead at a yet-future time, and thereby abolish every form of death. Jesus was not trying to undermine Martha’s hope in a physical resurrection on the “last day”; he was simply trying to broaden her understanding of what he came to save humanity from. As great an enemy as physical death is (which apparently was great enough to bring Jesus himself to tears - v. 35), it is not the only enemy from which we need to be saved.
But Paul and the believers to whom he wrote were not literally sitting together in heaven with Christ; this is figurative imagery. Right? Literally speaking, they were on the earth. And when Paul speaks of people being “dead in sins,” he’s not talking about the same kind of death that is in view in Matt 22:23-32 or Luke 20:27-38. It’s a figurative “death” that is the “wages of sin,” and it’s a figurative death from which we are “made alive” when we believe.
Moreover, the “resurrection” of which Paul speaks here in Ephesians is something that had already taken place in the life of Paul; when Paul wrote to the Ephesians he was not still longing to be “made alive together with Christ” to “sit together in the heavenly places” in the sense spoken of here, for this was already a present reality for him. But Paul had not yet experienced the kind of resurrection that Christ experienced on the third day after his crucifixion. He had not yet been raised with an imperishable, glorious, powerful spiritual body and thus put on his “heavenly dwelling.” This is a resurrection for which Paul was still “groaning,” even after Christ had been “formed” in him, and even after he had been blessed with “all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.”
Well first, as you probably know, the word translated “world” in the KJV should be “age.” Second, Jesus doesn’t say the harvest takes place AT the close of the age; rather, he says the harvest IS the close of the age (v. 39).
But what “age” is in view? Answer: the age in which Jesus and his disciples were then living - i.e., the final age of the Mosaic dispensation. This age passed away in 70 AD when Christ came in his kingdom. At this time the “children of the kingdom” (faithful and true Christians) inherited the kingdom of God (God’s reign in and among his new covenant people) and entered into “age enduring life” (“glory, honor and peace” - see Rom 2:5-10) while the “children of the evil one” (unfaithful and false believers) were cast out of it and suffered “shame and age enduring contempt.”
Also, in a previous post I stated that I thought the “angels” spoken of in this passage were the apostles; what I should have said is that the “reapers” spoken of in John 4:35-38 were the apostles. While it’s true that the word “angels” sometimes does refer to mortal men, upon further reflection I’m more inclined to say the “angels” referred to in Matt 13:41 are probably supernatural agents who played a role during the tumultuous events leading up to and climaxing in the destruction of Jerusalem, and who are here represented as separating false and unfaithful Christians (i.e., those who merely professed faith in Christ without any corresponding life change) from true and faithful followers of Christ (i.e., those in whose hearts the truth of the gospel had actually taken root, and who had consequently submitted to Jesus’ Lordship).
So it’s your position that, when Christ was crucified, everyone who had ever lived (and ever will live?) was “made alive together with Christ” in the sense of which Paul speaks in Eph 2? Because it’s always been my understanding that what Paul’s talking about in Eph 2 takes place when a person comes to faith in Christ. While I believe Christ’s death was a necessary condition that needed to be met before all people could be drawn to him, I don’t see this universal drawing as taking place until Christ personally returns from heaven to subject all people to himself (Acts 1:10-11; 3:19-21).
But who are you talking about when you use the word “we,” above? It’s my understanding that when Paul says that God “made US alive together with Christ” he’s not speaking of mankind universally, but rather those who, like himself, had become believers in Christ. When a person who is “dead in sin” believes the truth of the gospel they cease to be “dead in sin” and are “made alive together with Christ,” and begin to “walk in newness of life.” This cannot be said of those who are in unbelief concerning the gospel.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean when you speak of physical death not being “counted.” Do you mean Jesus was minimizing its importance and significance, and regarding it as something of little or no consequence?
I’ve stated several times that I believe Christ came to save us from both physical death as well as a state of sinfulness and relational estrangement from God (which is often figuratively referred to using “death” imagery, as it is in John 11:25-26). While I believe Martha was correct for believing that her brother was going to be raised from physical death on the “last day” (v. 24), her understanding of the salvation that Jesus came to bring those who believe on him as the Messiah was apparently deficient. So in the above passage Christ is simply putting an emphasis on the salvation that can be enjoyed now by those who believe on him (i.e., salvation from sin and estrangement from God). In John 6:39-40 I believe Jesus is speaking of salvation from both physical death and “spiritual death,” while elsewhere (i.e., in his response to the Sadducees) Christ puts the emphasis on salvation from physical death (Matt 23:29-32; Luke 20:34-38). But since it was more common knowledge among 1st century Jews that there was going to be a physical resurrection, Christ didn’t place as much of an emphasis on this doctrine during his ministry, choosing instead to focus on salvation from “spiritual death” (which I believe is the present salvation that is “especially for those who believe” - 1 Tim 4:10).
It is my understanding that believers today are, in a figurative sense, “reclining at table” with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. These dead patriarchs are figuratively represented as dining in fellowship with believers living after the advent of Christ because these three men are representative examples of those who, although only able to greet the promises “from afar” in their day (Heb 11:13), possessed the same kind of living faith by which the Gentiles (those coming “from east and west”) may now enter into the kingdom of God and enjoy the Abrahamic blessing.
And I believe the desire of those deceased men and women of faith referred to in Hebrews will be realized at the resurrection of the dead, when they (along with all who die in Adam) will be made alive in Christ and ushered into the kingdom of God. But the living believers to whom the author of Hebrews wrote were in their day receiving the promises made to the OT saints, and had already come to the “heavenly city” (Heb 12:18-24) - i.e., the “kingdom of God.” Not only had they already begun to enjoy this new covenant blessing desired by the OT saints, and already received the “promise of the aeonian inheritance” (Heb 9:15), but they were soon to enter into an enlarged enjoyment of it when the kingdom of God came with power in 70 AD (at which time believers received the “kingdom which cannot be shaken” - v. 28; cf. 13:14).
I never denied that our spiritual union with Christ is spoken of in terms of a betrothal and marriage (one example being the verse you referred to in 2 Cor 11:2). But I deny that Christ has this in mind here (besides, I doubt it’s your view that resurrected people are no longer “betrothed” or “married” to Christ!). In his response to the Sadducees, Christ says that “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels of God in heaven.” Whatever kind of “marriage” that Christ is talking about in this passage, it is evident that it will be altogether absent from the resurrection state. But we don’t have to speculate on what Christ is talking about here, for it’s clear from the context what kind of “marriage” he has in view: the literal, divinely-sanctioned institution that exists for our benefit as mortal, sexual beings. IOW, Christ is talking about the same institution/relationship that Paul has in view throughout 1 Cor 7.
Sadducees: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother…therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be?”
Christ: “In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.”
There is absolutely no indication that when Christ spoke of marriage he meant something different than what the Sadducees meant when they spoke of marriage (and the same goes for “death”). And since this is the case, then Christ can’t be talking about this present state of existence when he says “in the resurrection,” because people are still being married and given in marriage in the sense of which the Sadducees were speaking.
Ok. But in Ephesians 5:14 I think we can reasonably infer that the “resurrection” that Paul is speaking of here was already an experiential reality for Paul and the believers to whom he wrote, for they had already been “made alive together with Christ” (Eph 2:5). While they were “once in darkness” they had since become “light in the Lord” (5:8-12). But in 1 Cor 6:14 Paul has in view a resurrection that was future for both himself and those to whom he wrote. Not only this, but in the context in which Paul speaks of Christ being raised and of our being raised up by God’s power, the emphasis is on the physical, embodied existence of human beings (vv. 13, 15-20). This fact seems to support my position that the resurrection he has in view here is the same kind of physical resurrection that Christ experienced on the third day.
It’s true that I see the “resurrection of the dead” spoken of by Paul in 1 Cor 15 (and elsewhere) as a post-mortem event in which every human being who ever lived and died will be raised with an imperishable, glorious, powerful, spiritual body. But I don’t think John has in view the same kind of resurrection in Rev 20:4-6. Rather, I understand John’s language in this passage as figurative imagery meant to convey the idea that those 1st century believers who were martyred under the beast regime would be avenged and vindicated at the time of the beast’s downfall. John’s focus in Rev 20:4-6 is, I think, much more limited in scope than Paul’s is in 1 Cor 15. I also believe Rev 20:4-6 was fulfilled in the 1st century, whereas I believe the resurrection of 1 Cor 15 is still future.
What leads you to believe that John is talking about the same “resurrection” in Rev 20:4-6 that Paul is speaking of in 1 Cor 15?
I originally wrote:
You responded:
To which I replied:
In light of your statement that the Athenians could have been mocking “the resurrection of Jesus” (which was a bodily resurrection) and your concession that they “were probably mocking Paul’s claims about Jesus being resurrected from the dead” your accusation that I was “adding to what is written” when I said the Athenians were mocking the idea of a bodily resurrection seems like something of an overreaction, and really doesn’t add much to the discussion, IMO. In Acts 17:31-32 we read, “’[God] has given assurance of this to all by raising [Jesus] from the dead.’ And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, ‘We will hear you again on this matter.’” So here are the facts: 1) Paul proclaimed to the Athenians that God had raised Jesus from the dead. 2) Jesus’ resurrection was physical. 3) We are told that “some” of the Athenians “mocked” when they heard of “the resurrection of the dead.” From these facts I think it can be reasonably inferred that the kind of resurrection which “some” of the Athenians considered something to be “mocked” was the kind of physical, bodily resurrection that Jesus had experienced. Do you agree or disagree with this inference? If you disagree, please explain. But if you agree, then don’t you think it’s possible that there might have been “some” in Corinth who had a similar negative attitude towards the idea of bodily resurrection as “some” did in Athens, and that the doctrine of a bodily resurrection would’ve perhaps been met with similar resistance in this largely Gentile city?
I’m claiming that the lives of those Israelites who committed sins deserving of death under the old covenant dispensation would’ve been “cut short” by God as a punishment for their sins. Frequently the Law of Moses threatened that any soul which disobeyed certain laws would be “cut off” or killed (e.g. Ex 31:14; Lev 17:10; 19:8; 20:6; Num. 15:27-31). And no, I don’t think this means that Israelites were immediately struck dead by God the moment they committed sins that made them worthy of a premature death.
Again, I see no indication that the “death” which Adam died on the day he sinned, and the “death” which Paul said is the wages of sin (as well as the “death” spoken of by James in the above verse), is the same death that is in view in Ezekiel 18.
Agreed! While God may cut someone’s life short as a punishment for sins committed, it’s not my position that the “death” which Paul says is the “wages of sin” refers to physical death.
Yep, that’s what I believe. Adam would’ve needed to be saved from physical death even if he’d never sinned. When Adam sinned he didn’t become mortal; he was already mortal when he sinned. When he sinned he was simply put in need of salvation from a different kind of “death” (i.e., what some might call a “moral,” “spiritual” or “relational” death). But the fact that Adam needed to be saved from this additional “death” after he sinned does not, I don’t think, negate the fact that physical death is also something from which he needs to be saved. After Adam physically died he returned to the dust from which he was made. And in this state he will remain for all time unless he experiences the kind of resurrection that Christ, the “last Adam,” experienced. Those who have physically died and returned to dust can be neither spiritually alive nor spiritually dead, so if Adam is to be spiritually alive he has to first be saved from physical death (i.e., the death he is said to have died at age 930).
You also wrote:
That’s correct.
No, because the “wages of sin” of which Paul speaks is not physical death (although a premature death may certainly be a consequence of sin).
In Rev 2:11 we read, “He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death.” But if the second death = being “dead in sins” then every person who has ever sinned has already been hurt by the “second death,” right? And when Christ tells the members of the church in Sardis that they are “dead” (Rev 3:1) was he saying they had been cast into the lake of fire, which is the second death?
So while Paul says he and those to whom he wrote were groaning in their earthly home/tent and longing to put on their heavenly dwelling, and that God had prepared them for this very thing and given them the Spirit as a “guarantee” (2 Cor 5:1-5), you say Paul wasn’t groaning in his earthly home or longing to put on his heavenly dwelling at all, because he’d already been “further clothed” with his heavenly dwelling. And while Paul says that he and those to whom he wrote were groaning inwardly as they waited eagerly for “adoption as sons, the redemption of our body” (Rom 8:23), and were saved in the hope that this was going to take place (vv. 24-25), you say Paul wasn’t groaning inwardly for this; rather, the hope in which he had been saved had already been realized.
Aside from the fact that Paul didn’t seem to mind pointing out the spiritual immaturity of some believers on other occasions (e.g., 1 Cor 3:1-3; Gal 3:1; 4:19-20) and saw no need to include himself as being an “infant in Christ,” or one in whom Christ had not yet been “formed,” it doesn’t seem like Paul had any problems with bearing witness to the fact that he had been “crucified with Christ” and that Christ was living in him (Gal 2:19-20), or that he (along with the believers in Ephesus to whom he wrote) had been “made alive together with Christ” and raised up with Christ and “seated with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus” (Eph 2:5-6). Although Paul was a deeply humble man (1 Cor 15:8-10; 1 Tim 1:15), he was bolder than most Christians are today in speaking of himself as one who had acquired a new, Christ-like character:
“So I always take pains to have a clear conscience toward both God and man.” Acts 24:16
“I urge you, then, be imitators of me. That is why I sent you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church.” 1 Cor 4:16-17
“Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.” 1 Cor 11:1
“For our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience, that we behaved in the world with simplicity and godly sincerity, not by earthly wisdom but by the grace of God, and supremely so toward you.” 2 Cor 1:12
“We put no obstacle in anyone’s way, so that no fault may be found with our ministry, but as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: by great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings, imprisonments, riots, labors, sleepless nights, hunger; by purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, the Holy Spirit, genuine love; by truthful speech, and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left…” 2 Cor 6:3-7
“But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.” Gal 6:14
“Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us.” Phil 3:17
“What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.” Phil 4:9
So for Paul to speak of himself as one who had not yet experienced the spiritual change you think he’d experienced seems somewhat “out of character” for him! It seems much more likely to me that Paul spoke of himself as if he hadn’t put on his heavenly dwelling yet because he hadn’t put on his heavenly dwelling yet. Had Paul been “adopted” in one sense? Certainly (Rom 8:14-17). But based on Paul’s words in Rom 8:23 I think it can be concluded that there was another “adoption” that had yet to take place in Paul’s life, and that this “adoption” was the redemption of his body (i.e., the fashioning anew of his “lowly body” to be like Christ’s “glorious body”).
But Jesus himself didn’t spiritually die by being born into a world in which spiritually dead people dwell, did he?
When I said I didn’t believe that Paul was talking about the resurrection of corpses in 1 Cor 15, I meant I didn’t think our corpses were simply going to reanimated (as was the case for Lazarus). But I do believe that the dead are corpses (or dust). Sorry for not being clearer.
Again, it’s my view that we are “unclothed” after our “earthly home” is “destroyed,” and that this is talking about physical death (and if I’m not mistaken, you’ve acknowledged this). So when Paul writes that his “burden” was not to be “unclothed,” it means he didn’t want to be physically dead. Death in and of itself had no appeal to Paul. Rather, Paul’s desire was to be “further clothed” with his immortal, “heavenly dwelling.” And when Paul says he and those to whom he wrote were groaning in their earthly home, and longing to put on their heavenly dwelling, it is implied that he had not yet put on his heavenly dwelling. So if Paul had not yet put on his heavenly dwelling, when did he expect to put it on? Answer: at the resurrection of the dead, when death is “destroyed” and “swallowed up in victory” (1 Cor 15:54) and when that which is mortal is “swallowed up by life” (2 Cor 5:4). This will not come to pass until “the perishable put on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality.” And we’re further told that this event is going to take place “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet” (v. 52). But when will this take place?
Well, we know that Paul understood it to be a future event, for he speaks of it as a future event in 1 Cor 15:50-54. And he is quoted in Acts as saying, “…I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there WILL BE a resurrection of both the just and the unjust” (24:14-15). In other words, the resurrection of both the just and the unjust was a future reality in which Paul hoped. And in 2 Cor 4:14 he writes, “…so we also speak, knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus WILL RAISE US ALSO with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence.” Paul also tells us that he and those to whom he wrote were awaiting Christ from heaven to fashion anew their “lowly body” to be like his “glorious body,” which would be accomplished by the same power by which Christ is going to subject all people to himself (Phil 3:21). And because death is the “last enemy,” it follows that when death is destroyed there will be no enemies left; all will have been subjected to Christ and God will be “all in all” (1 Cor 15:24-28). We’re further told in Heb 10:12-13 that, at the time this letter was being written, Christ was sitting at the right hand of God waiting until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. And in Acts 3:21 we’re told that heaven must receive Jesus “until the times of restoration of all things.” We’re also told that, at some future time, Jesus is going to come in the same way as his disciples saw him go into heaven (Acts 1:11). And Paul comforted the believers at Thessalonica with the promise that, when the Lord descended from heaven “with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God,” the dead would be raised and the living would be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, so that they would “always be with the Lord” (1 Thess 4:16-17). Similarly, Jesus promised his disciples that, at some future time, he was going to “come again” to take them to where he was going so that they could be together (John 14:2-3).
All of these verses refer to (I think) the end of Christ’s reign (i.e., the “last day”), just before Christ delivers the kingdom to God. But in Paul’s day they were still waiting for the age(s) of the Messianic reign to begin, so I think it’s unlikely that Paul expected the resurrection of the dead to take place during his lifetime. So while I believe that Paul knew he would die before Christ’s coming to raise the dead took place, it was not Paul’s desire to be dead. He wanted to be “at home with the Lord” (2 Cor 5:8; cf. 1 Thess 4:17; John 14:2-3). But I don’t see any indication that Paul believed he could be “at home with the Lord” while he was dead or “unclothed.”
Yes. I believe that from our perspective, dying will seem to introduce us into that future state of existence in which we will be “further clothed” and “at home with the Lord.” But it’s not death in and of itself that Paul was desiring, but rather that which would (from his perspective) take place immediately after dying - i.e., his being “with Christ.”
It seems to me that only those who are inclined to believe that the physically dead are conscious would think that Paul “seems to be saying” that he expected to be conscious and with the Lord while physically dead. But I don’t see anything in Paul’s words in Phil 1:23 that requires one to believe that Paul thought the dead were conscious. You can say I am “stretching the meaning of words” here, but if Paul was taking into account the fact that he would be unconscious while dead, and would have no experience of the passing of time between his death and resurrection, it would make sense for him to speak as he does. As soon as the dead are raised by Christ they are to be caught up together with those who are still alive to “meet the Lord in the air” (1 Thess 4:17). This future event is what I believe Paul had in mind when he spoke of being “with Christ” in Phil 1:23.
Just curious, but what would you say to someone who understood Phil 1:23 as follows:
“Paul isn’t talking about physical death or post-mortem realities here. To interpret Paul’s words in this way is to focus too much on types and shadows and not enough on what those types and shadows are telling us about spiritual things. When Paul says, ‘My desire is to depart and be with Christ’ he meant that it was his desire to depart from the ‘old man’ that he speaks of in Eph 4:22, and to attain the Christ-like perfection of which he speaks in Phil 3:11-15. To ‘depart and be with Christ’ is to have Christ formed in us in this life. Of course, Paul already was ‘with Christ’ when he wrote, but since he didn’t bear witness of himself he was speaking as if he hadn’t attained this yet.”
While you may not believe this to be a correct interpretation of this verse, is it all that different from the kind of interpretations you give of certain passages on which we disagree?
I’m sorry you misunderstood my remarks as a personal attack or dig at your intelligence. Any offense I may have caused was completely unintentional. My intention was simply to point out some of the weaknesses that I see in your position, not to mock you personally. Of course I think my own position is in some sense “superior” to yours, as is the case with everyone who is defending their position against an opposing one. And as far as me talking about going against my “God-given senses,” I’m not exactly sure what you’re referring to (a quote and context would be helpful), but I seriously doubt it was in any way meant to be a “dig” at your intelligence. As was the case with the comment I made to Gary (https://eu.ltcmp.net/t/should-we-form-universalist-congregations/86/1), I think you sometimes take things I write in the wrong way.
I said, “It’s like asserting…” I wasn’t claiming that you did assert this. I was using it as an example to try and make a point.
Since God is a moral, rational being who created us as beings capable of reasoning and moral judgment, it seems to me that the Holy Spirit’s role in helping us to “understand spiritual things” would include prompting us to use our reason and moral intuition when interpreting Scripture, and inclining us to reconsider interpretations of Scripture which are unreasonable and contrary to our moral intuitions, no matter how popular or deeply rooted in church tradition they may be. Agreed?
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you, but are you saying that the spiritual body of 1 Cor 15:44 is the one “body of Christ” referred to in 1 Cor 12:12-27? And if so, is it your view that we do not each individually possess a spiritual body of our own?
Yes, I do believe Paul is talking about two different things in Romans 8:11 and 1 Cor 15. Whereas in 1 Cor 15 I believe Paul has in view those who are physically dead when he speaks of the “resurrection of the dead,” the context of Romans 8:10-11 is that of the sanctification of believers in this life. God’s Spirit is said to “quicken” (or “give life to”) our “mortal bodies” when we, by the Spirit, “put to death the deeds of the body” (cf. v. 13). In doing so our mortal body is thus made the instrument of righteousness leading to sanctification, whereas it had previously been an instrument of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness. When Paul speaks of our mortal body being “dead because of sin” in v. 10 I believe he’s talking about our body (with its animal propensities and habits) being the slowest and most resistant part of us to fall under the governing power of the Holy Spirit. While our “spirit” is “willing,” our “flesh” is “weak,” creating a conflict within us that makes our full subjection to Christ a gradual process in this life rather than an instantaneous change. As I understand Paul, he is basically saying, that, even after the mind has been renewed and the disposition changed, the body is slow to respond to this spiritual change because of former sinful habits (i.e., what Paul elsewhere calls the “law of sin that dwells in my members” - see Rom 7:21-24). But for those who are setting their mind on the things of the Spirit rather than on the things of the flesh (see Rom 8:5-6), even this “body of death” - with all of its animal propensities and habits - will eventually be brought under the governing influence of the renewed mind.
Well, there’s the sky/atmosphere (which is seen during the day), there’s the vast expanse above the earth’s atmosphere (which can be seen at night), and then there’s the realm to which Christ ascended in his (physical) resurrected body, which is evidently above and beyond both the first and second heavens. This is, I believe, the “third heaven” of which Paul speaks in 2 Cor 12:2.
Moreover, there’s no indication that Christ had to discard his physical, tangible body in order to dwell in the “third heaven” before or after he ascended to there. So either Christ is dwelling in a realm that is completely unsuited to his physical, embodied nature, or heaven is a physical place that can be seen by physical beings who dwell there.
When do you think Jesus (who is the “firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep”) put on his “heavenly dwelling” (i.e., his imperishable, “glorious body”)? Was it before or after his mortal, “natural body” died?
Regarding a person “according to the flesh” has nothing to do with regarding them as a physical, tangible being. Paul’s not saying he no longer regarded people as physical, tangible beings. Christ was raised with a physical, tangible body, and had this truth been opposed in Paul’s day then I think he would’ve defended it just as he defended the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead when it was being challenged by some in Corinth. When Paul said that he no longer regarded people “according to the flesh” he probably meant that he no longer regarded people according to worldly standards and distinctions of race, class, social status, etc. What Paul says in 2 Cor 5:16 has nothing to do with the question of whether or not the resurrection body is physical, or whether or not man can consciously exist without a physical body.
And concerning the “things that are unseen” spoken of in 2 Cor 4:18, I see no reason to believe that the word “unseen” refers to that which is inherently invisible in the same sense that God’s attributes are said to be “invisible” in Rom 1:20. It seems evident to me from the context that Paul has in view the resurrection of the dead (see vv. 13-14) and the resurrection body (5:1). And the resurrection body is “unseen” because we haven’t been raised with it yet. The only resurrection body that exists and can be “seen” right now is Christ’s (which came into existence 3 days after his death). Until we acquire our “heavenly dwelling” and are “at home with the Lord,” we are said to “walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor 5:7). The implication is that we will not always “walk by faith” in the sense of which Paul speaks here. One day, that which is “unseen” will become “seen,” and what we presently hope for will be realized.
I do think the word “prolepsis” (i.e., speaking of something future as though already done or in existence) may describe Paul’s words in 2 Cor 5:1 when he says “we have…” Elsewhere Paul is clear that the resurrection of the dead is a future event (Acts 24:15; 1 Cor 15; Phil 3:20-21; 1 Thess 4:13-18), and that we will not be raised with our imperishable “spiritual body” until after the perishable “natural body” is “sown” like a seed that dies in the ground (1 Cor 15:35f.). The natural body and the spiritual body do not exist simultaneously. The natural body is said to be “first,” and “then the spiritual” (v. 46). But because it is so certain that we will ultimately “put on” our imperishable, spiritual body when the “last trumpet” sounds, Paul could say with confidence, “For we know that if the tent, which is our earthly home, is destroyed, we have a building from God…aeonian in the heavens.” On Paul’s words “we have…” the commentary by Jamieson, Fausset and Brown notes the following: “in assured prospect of possession, as certain as if it were in our hands, laid up ‘in the heavens’ for us.” Some other examples of prolepsis being used in Scripture can be found in Mt 18:17, Jn 14:16-17 (cf. 16:7), Jn 17:11 (cf. 16:28), Jn 17:24 (cf. v. 5), Rom 4:17, 2 Cor 5:19 (cf. v. 20), 1 Thes. 2:16 (cf. 2 Thes. 1:5-9), 2 Tim 1:10, 2 Tim 4:6, and Heb 2:8. In each of these verses, future realities are spoken of as if they were already present (or past) because of the certainty of their taking place.
(Another way of understanding this verse is that Paul is speaking of our resurrection bodies as being presently “in the heavens” because of the fact that they exist in a conceptual sense in the “storehouse” of God’s mind.)
Kind of like how a flesh-and-bone body can’t walk on water? It would seem to defy natural law, wouldn’t it? But really, we aren’t even told that Jesus passed through walls; this must be assumed. One doesn’t have to deny the physicality of Christ’s resurrection body in order to believe that he could suddenly appear (and just as suddenly disappear) before his disciples in a locked room. Wouldn’t you agree that God could just as easily transfer (or “teleport”) a physical, flesh-and-bone body from one location to another “in the twinkling of an eye” as he could transform a mortal body into an immortal body?
When you say that Jesus “had the ability to appear in a physical body in this physical world…in order to prove the resurrection of the dead,” you seem to be implying that Jesus wasn’t actually in a physical body when he appeared to his disciples in a locked room. But just prior to saying this you said, “…after His physical death and resurrection.” So do you think Jesus’ resurrection body was (and is) physical, or not?
Please explain what you mean when you speak of a “heavens and earth” that are “not seen.” Do you have in mind a place that exists in some non-physical dimension, and which is inhabited by non-physical beings? Will it always be “unseen” by human beings or is it simply unseen by human beings now?
If by “figure” you mean something that symbolically or metaphorically represents something else, then no, I don’t think Paul is using the literal sun, moon and stars as figures of the immortal body with which we are going to be raised. Paul introduces the literal sun, moon and stars into his argument to illustrate how the immortal body that is raised will differ in glory from the mortal body that is sown (if I say, “my immortal body will differ in glory from my mortal body like the sun differs in glory from the moon,” the sun and moon are not “figures” of my present and future body; I’m simply saying that the difference in glory between the sun and the moon is analogous to the difference in glory between my future and present body). So rather than having “nothing to do with the literal sun, moon and stars,” I think Paul’s analogy has everything to do with the literal sun, moon and stars.
2 Tim 1:10 is (I think) another good example of Paul speaking proleptically. In 1 Cor 15 it is evident that Paul understood the destruction of death as being a future event involving all people that had not yet taken place when he wrote. In his commentary, Albert Barnes notes on this verse, “That is, he has made it so certain that death will be abolished, that it may be spoken of as already done.”
For another example of prolepsis in this letter, see 2 Tim 4:6, where Paul declares, “For I am already being poured out as a drink offering…” Was Paul actually breathing his last as he was writing these words to Timothy? Of course not. But the sentence of death had already been passed upon him, and the time of his execution (when he “departed” from the land of the living) was so near that he could speak as if it had already come.
Ok, so when Jesus speaks of the “sons of the evil one” being “gathered out of the kingdom” at the “close of the age” and thrown into the “fiery furnace” (Mt. 13:36f.), you don’t think he’s describing the same event that Paul speaks of in 1 Thes. 4:13-18? Could you explain your position that Jesus and Paul are talking about two different (but related) events?
No, I don’t think the “close of the age” that Christ has in view in Mt 13:39 (which is what “the harvest” figuratively represents in his parable) is in view in 1 Thess 4:13-18. I believe the “close of the age” took place when Christ came in his kingdom at the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. While I do think Paul refers to this national judgment/coming of Christ elsewhere in this letter, I don’t think he has it in view in this particular passage (which I believe speaks of Christ’s personal coming at the end of his reign when he comes to destroy death and subject all people to himself).
I believe the separation of the wheat and tares/sheep and goats took place in 70 AD, and see 1 Thes 4:13-18 as describing an event that has yet to take place.
I believe you’ve misunderstood Paul’s words in Gal 4:19. There, Paul writes, “…my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you!” Paul doesn’t say he was in anguish “WITH THEM” (which would imply that they, too, were in the “anguish of childbirth,” although Paul doesn’t say this). This was a personal struggle of Paul’s; the Galatians did not share his “anguish.” Those to whom he’d originally preached the gospel had “fallen away from grace” and were “severed from Christ,” and Paul was longing for them to once again embrace the truth that faith in the gospel was sufficient, and that by seeking to be justified by the Mosaic Law they were submitting again to “a yoke of slavery” (5:1f.).
Again, in Romans 8:23, Paul counts himself as among those who were groaning inwardly while waiting for the “adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.” Similarly, in 2 Cor 5:2f. Paul counts himself as being among those who groaned in their “earthly home” (mortal body) and as “being burdened” to be “further clothed” with their “heavenly dwelling.” But does Paul say in Galatians 4:19, “WE are again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in US?” No, he says, “I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in YOU.” Paul did not count himself as one in whom Christ needed to be formed, or speak as if Christ hadn’t yet been formed in him. But he did count himself as being among those who, in hope, were waiting eagerly for “the redemption of our body” and who groaned in their earthly home and longed to put on their heavenly dwelling.
I believe Paul’s preference was to be absent from his mortal, natural body and at home with the Lord in his immortal, spiritual body, but I don’t see it taught in Scripture that this takes place at physical death.
How do you equate being “absent from the body” (2 Cor 5:8) with “walking in the spirit” (Rom 8:4; Gal 5:16, 25)? Paul was walking by the Spirit when he wrote but he certainly wasn’t “absent from the body.”
How am I “trying to claim the opposite?” I fully agree that Paul’s desire was not to be “unclothed” (to be physically dead) but to be “further clothed” (to be raised with an immortal, spiritual body). This is my desire as well. But the fact that Paul or anyone else has this desire doesn’t mean they believe they’ll be “further clothed” before physical death.
But as I understand you, AHF, you’re not only asserting that Paul expected to be “further clothed” before he became “unclothed” at death, but you’re going even further and claiming that Paul was already “further clothed” when he was writing to the Corinthians, and that he had already put on his “heavenly dwelling.” But Paul implies just the opposite in this passage and elsewhere.
It’s true that we don’t have to die physically in order to be “absent from the body” and “present with the Lord.” Paul reveals that those who will still be alive when the “last trumpet” sounds will be “changed” without physically dying (1 Cor 15:51-52; 1 Thess 4:13-18). But this implies that everyone else will have to experience this “change” sometime after their “earthly home” has been “destroyed.”
As you’ve asserted that Paul was already “absent from the body” and “present with the Lord,” you now seem to be claiming that Paul already saw “face to face” when he wrote. But Paul writes, “For NOW we see in a mirror dimly, but THEN face to face. NOW I know in part; THEN I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.” Notice how Paul speaks of seeing “face to face” as a future reality not only for those to whom he wrote, but for himself as well.
Ok, I think we are in agreement that to be “further clothed” with the “heavenly dwelling” of which Paul speaks in 2 Cor 5 (which is our imperishable, glorious, powerful, spiritual body) is to be “raised from the dead” in the sense of which Paul speaks in 1 Cor 15. So what did Paul have in mind when he spoke of “the dead” in 1 Cor 15? Did he mean those who are physically alive but “spiritually dead” in their trespasses and sins? Several considerations lead me to believe that Paul was speaking of those who are physically dead (i.e., those whose “earthly home” has been “destroyed”) when he speaks of “the dead” in this chapter.
Paul identifies “the dead” as the category of persons from out of which Christ was raised on the third day: “Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1 Cor 15:12). There is no indication that the expression “the dead” has two different meanings in this verse (e.g., the physically dead and the spiritually dead). Christ physically died on the cross, and on the third day he was raised from among the physically dead (i.e., those who had experienced the same kind of death that he experienced). Thus, the “resurrection of the dead” of 1 Cor 15 should be understood as the resurrection of those who have physically died - i.e., the resurrection of those whose “earthly home” has been “destroyed.”
Paul argues, “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised” (v. 13). From this statement may conclude that the kind of resurrection that Paul has in view in this chapter is the kind of resurrection that Christ wouldn’t have experienced if “there is no resurrection of the dead.” But what kind of resurrection did Christ experience? Answer: On the third day Christ was physically restored to a living, embodied existence. So if the kind of resurrection that Christ wouldn’t have experienced “if there is no resurrection of the dead” is a physical resurrection, then the kind of resurrection which Paul has in view in this chapter is a physical resurrection also.
Christ is said to be “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (v. 20). While “sleep” is sometimes used in Scripture as a metaphor for a deficient moral/spiritual state, it is more commonly used as a metaphor for physical death. Paul uses it in this sense several times in this chapter alone (vv. 6, 18, 51). And of course, Christ is not the firstfruits of those who have become “dead in sin,” because Christ was never dead in sin and was never made spiritually alive after being dead in sin. So when Paul speaks of “those who have fallen asleep” we should understand him to mean “those who have physically died.” Christ is “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” in the sense that he is the divine pledge that all who physically die will be raised to an immortal existence to “bear the image of the man of heaven.”
In vv. 29-32, Paul writes, “If the dead are not raised at all…why am I in danger every hour? I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day! What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’” When Paul said, “I die daily” he meant he was in daily peril of physical death, and continually exposed to this risk (see 2 Cor 1:8-9; 4:11-12; see especially 11:23-33; Rom 8:36). IOW, Paul lived in such a way that his “earthly home” was in frequent danger of being “destroyed!” Paul’s argument is that, if the dead are not raised (i.e., as Christ was raised), it would be foolish for him to live in such a way. When he quotes Isaiah, he’s saying that that if there is no resurrection of the dead, then, just like the doomed inhabitants of Jerusalem before the siege, we should focus all of our remaining time and energy on enjoying as much as possible the good things of life now, for at death it will all come to an end. But because of the resurrection, this life is not all we have.
In vv. 36 Paul writes, “You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.” And in vv. 42-44 he continues this imagery and speaks of the “spiritual body” as being “raised” after the “natural body” has been “sown.” When we read these verses in light of Paul’s statement in v. 36 it seems evident that Paul believed the natural body had to die before the spiritual body could be raised. The only exception to this rule is given in vv. 51-52 where Paul reveals to his readers that not everyone will be dead when the resurrection of the dead takes place. But those still alive at this time will undergo the same instantaneous “change” that will result in all people bearing the image of the man of heaven.
Being “unclothed” and “naked” is the alternative to being “clothed” with our mortal body (“at home in the body”) or “further clothed” with our immortal body (“at home with the Lord”).
I think I’ve demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the “resurrection of the dead” of which Paul speaks in 1 Cor 15 does, in fact, have to do with physical death. So if there is a flaw in my argument I don’t think it’s due to my being unable to accept that the “the resurrection of the dead has nothing to do with physical death.”
But I could easily respond to the above by saying, “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 reject the doctrine of soul sleep that Paul expected his consciousness to actually leave his physical body and go somewhere after he died.”
I think the last thing you say above (“only because he knew his next conscious experience would be with the Lord”) undermines your entire objection that my position makes Paul “almost prefer” unconsciousness to staying with those who he knew needed him. Paul’s desire was to “be with Christ,” and he knew that, upon losing consciousness at death, he’d find himself experiencing the very event he describes in 1 Thess. 4:13-18. So since we both agree that Paul believed his next conscious experience after dying would be “with the Lord,” how does my position make Paul “selfish” while yours doesn’t?
Concerning what I wrote on Phil 3:10-16, you said:
The “resurrection” and “perfection” of which Paul speaks in this passage is something Paul seemed to believe he hadn’t yet attained. If Paul actually had already attained it then I think he would’ve spoken of himself as being among those who had (just as in Eph 2 he speaks of himself as having been “made alive together with Christ” along with the believers to whom he wrote). And if (as I believe) Paul hadn’t yet attained this “perfection,” then I’m not sure what he could’ve said differently to more clearly convey this fact to his readers. I believe “perfect” in v. 12 means the highest attainment of Christian maturity, and “perfect” in v. 15
And no, I don’t think Paul was still “dead in sin” when he wrote to the Philippians. The “resurrection” and “perfection” of which he speaks in this passage is not a resurrection from being “dead in sins” but rather the attainment of a perfectly Christ-like character - i.e., being completely conformed to Christ’s moral image. While I have no doubt that Paul was closer to reaching this state than any other believer in his day, he had not yet attained it but was still “pressing on” to make it his own.
Paul’s speaking of a progressive attainment of Christian maturity/perfection in this verse. The ESV reads, “And we all, with unveiled face, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another.” This supports my interpretation of Phil 3:12-16. Paul had already attained a high degree of Christian maturity, and was certainly more mature than many of the Christians to whom he wrote. But he was not yet “perfect” in the sense of being fully conformed to the moral image of Christ. He and those to whom he wrote were still being “transformed.”
As for what you say about my believing that some weren’t waiting for a change while Paul was, I’m not entirely sure what you mean.
As I’m sure you’re aware, “life” and “consciousness” aren’t the same thing, and the words translated “life” in Scripture can convey different things (e.g., physical life and happiness/spiritual blessing). And as I’ve pointed out several times, the same goes for the words translated “spirit.” They can refer to the wind/a breeze (Gen 3:8; 8:1; Ex 10:13, 19; 15:10; Num 11:31; 2Sa 2:11; 1Ki 19:11; Job 1:19; 8:2; Ps 1:4; 55:8; 83:13; 107:25; Prov 25:14; Ecc 1:6; Isa 64:6; Jer 10:13; 51:1; Eze 1:4; 5:2; Dan 7:2; etc.), the life or vital power given to human beings and animals that is manifested through breathing (Gen 2:7; 6:17; 7:15, 22; Num 16:22; 1Ki 10:5; Job 7:7; 12:10; 15:30; Ps 104:29; 146:4; Eccl 3:19; 12:7; Jer 10:14; 10:17; 37:5; 51:17; Matt 27:50; Luke 8:55; 23:46; Acts 7:59; James 2:26; etc.), and that which pertains to the “inner self” of a person (e.g., their mind, consciousness, thought-pattern, feelings, mental disposition, etc.), and which is made known through a person’s actions and behaviour (Deut 34:9; Num 5:14, 30; 1 Sam 1:15; 1 Kings 21:5; Psalm 51:17; Prov 16:9, 18, 19; 29:11; Eccl 1:14; 7:9; Isa 11:2; 19:14; 61:3; Mark 2:8; Luke 9:55; John 3:6; 4:23-24; 11:33; 13:21; Acts 17:16; 18:5; Rom 2:29; 11:8; 1 Cor 2:11; 4:21; Gal 6:1; Eph 4:23; Phil 2:19; 2 Tim 1:7; 1 Pet 3:4; 1 John 4:6).
I understand the “breath of life” to be the vital power/vitality that is present in living human beings and animals and manifested in breathing. This is the “spirit” that is represented as “departing” from man at death and “returning” to God. Recall that rûach is the same word Solomon used when he declared that both man and beast have the “same breath” (Eccl 3:19) and that, at death, “the spirit returns to God who gave it” (12:7) While I don’t think human beings can be conscious and have thoughts without this “spirit” or vital power (for without it our brain would cease to function), I don’t think there is consciousness “in” the breath of life. It is not, I don’t think, a conscious, self-aware entity or thing that enters a human person at creation/conception (or whenever you think human life begins) and leaves a person at death to enjoy or suffer in another state of existence. Our vitality “departs” from us at death and “returns to God” only in a figurative sense (just as we’d say someone’s “life was lost,” or that a person “lost his mind”). It’s not literally something that can “go” anywhere; to say our “spirit” departs from us at death and returns to God who gave it is simply another way of saying that a dead person has stopped breathing.
But again, the word “spirit” does not refer exclusively to physical life/vitality. It often refer to the human mind, or to some function or activity of the mind (of which I’ve given several examples). But when it refers to something that makes humans and animals physically alive and is said to leave humans and animals at death, I don’t think it should be understood to refer to the mind. But since you seem to think that the “spirit” which is said to depart from humans and return to God at death is a conscious “thing” (for lack of a better word), do you think it was conscious before it entered man?
I’m fine with understanding the story of Adam and Eve as having non-literal, allegorical elements in it, but I do think Adam and Eve were actual human beings who existed in history (although I don’t believe they were necessarily the first human beings to ever exist), and that Adam committed a sin which resulted in negative consequences. So because I believe there is some historicity to the story and that it involved actual persons, I wouldn’t call the story a “parable.” And I think the Genesis account is very much consistent with the position that human beings are constituted by their physical bodies, and that both humans and animals require the “breath of life” in order to be “living souls” (without which we would alike cease to be “living souls”). We are told that Adam was destined to return to the dust from which he was made - and of course, dust isn’t conscious.
Job said, “…as long as my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils, my lips will not speak falsehood, and my tongue will not utter deceit” (27:3-4). Are you saying that it was “the Holy Spirit, the spirit of Truth” that was in Job’s nostrils? Perhaps this is your position, but it just seems really unlikely to me that Job thought the “spirit of Truth” was in his nasal passages. It seems much more likely to me that Job was simply using Hebrew parallelism here and conveying the same basic idea using slightly different words, just as he does in the very next verse (“my lips will not speak falsehood, and my tongue will not utter deceit”).
What makes me think this is the fact that Job said the “spirit of God” was in his nostrils. Job seems to be alluding to the “breath of life” that God breathed into Adam to make him a “living soul” as being the “spirit of God” that was in his “nostrils.” It’s the same “spirit” that Solomon said is in both humans and animals. This “spirit” is said to be “of God” because it was understood to be a gift from God, and to return to God at death. Note that Job says “my breath” in this verse, but in Job 34:14-15 the “breath” within him which kept him from returning to the dust is said to be God’s breath: “If he should set his heart to it and gather to himself his spirit and his breath, all flesh would perish together, and man would return to dust” (Job 34:14-15). As in Job 27:3, I believe Job’s talking about the same thing here. When he says “my breath” he’s simply putting the emphasis on the fact that it was possessed by him while he was alive; when he says “the spirit of God in my nostrils” he’s emphasizing the fact that the source of his life/vitality is God, and God can give it and take it away as he pleases.
My understanding is that Gabriel is an immortal, supernatural being who does God’s will, and I believe he is referred to as a “man” because his physical appearance is like that of an adult male human being. But that doesn’t mean Gabriel is a “man” in the sense of having descended from the first human beings to walk this planet and belonging to the species Homo sapiens.
If Jesus’ words weren’t being fulfilled when he spoke those words, when do you think his words began to be fulfilled?
So is it your view that the “close of the age” referred to in Mt 24:3 takes place in a spiritual sense every time a person becomes reconciled to God by faith in Christ? Or do you believe it takes place after a believer attains a certain degree of spiritual maturity?
I asked: “From what do you think all people have already been saved?”
You replied:
But Paul was talking about believers - i.e., those who have the “firstfruits of the Spirit” - when he spoke of those who have been “quickened together with Christ” and “reconciled to God” in Ephesians 2:4-8 and Romans 5:10-11. While the reconciliation of all people to God is certain to happen, it is not now a present reality. Only in a prospective sense can it be said that all have already been reconciled to God or subjected to Christ. While God loves everyone and Christ died and rose on behalf of everyone, most people live and die in their sins, relationally estranged from God. Until Christ returns from heaven to subject all people to himself, I believe the only way we can be justified and reconciled to God is by faith in the gospel.
Those who have been “baptized into Jesus Christ” and have been “planted together in the likeness of his death” are, I believe, those who believe that God raised Christ from the dead and have confessed that he is Lord (Rom 10:9-10). That is, Paul’s speaking of believers, for it is believers who have been “baptized into Jesus Christ” (see below).
Same thing here. Not all people are “Abraham’s seed.”
In this passage I don’t think Paul has all people in view until v. 10.
Who is Paul addressing above? Answer: believers. It is those who have believed on Christ as Lord of all - not every person without exception - who have been “brought near by the blood of Christ” and who are “no longer strangers and aliens” but rather “fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.”
How can someone be saved from being “dead in sin” if it’s not yet their own “personal experience” that they’ve been saved from this? To me, it would be like telling an alcoholic he’s already been saved from alcoholism while he’s still mired in his addiction.
In Titus 2:14, Paul says that Christ “gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.” In the next chapter, the apostle explains,
“At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy” (Titus 3:3-5).
How can people be “saved” in the sense of which Paul speaks above while still being “foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures?” Answer: they can’t. But this state of being “dead in trespasses and sins” is what Christ died to redeem us from. So those who are still in bondage to sin have not yet been saved by Christ. And according to John, “God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him” (1 Jn 4:9). He also wrote, “Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life” (5:12). To live through the Son and to have “life” is to be “saved,” is it not? But relatively few people alive today “live through” the Son and possess the “life” of which John speaks here, and the same could be said for those living in John’s day. If these people are to be saved (and I believe they will be), it will have to be at some future time.
Although one may not like the fact that a person is temporarily (not “utterly”) defeated by death when they die (death is called an “enemy” for a reason), it is, I believe, a scriptural fact. Scripture teaches that death will be destroyed/swallowed up in victory when the dead are raised by Christ on the last day. But if death is not defeated until the resurrection, then it means no one is victorious over death until they are made immortal. Even Christ was temporarily “defeated” by death on the cross, but death’s victory over Christ lasted only 3 days. We read that “God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it” (Acts 2:24). And it’s because Christ is the resurrection and the “firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” that we won’t be “utterly defeated” by death, either. Because Christ has “the keys of Death and Hades” (Rev 1:18), our being dead is only temporary; thus, death in no way detracts from God’s glory. Only if we were to remain dead forever would God’s glory be diminished.
When Christ said that those who believed in him wouldn’t die “to the age” (YLT) he was talking about the kind of death that Adam experienced on the day that he sinned, not the kind of death we are told Adam died at the age of 930. The “life” that is enjoyed by believers is a spiritual blessing; neither it nor the “death” of which Christ speaks in John 11:26 has anything to do with a loss or a continuance of conscious existence after physical death. Christ is not talking about anyone’s post-mortem destiny here or anywhere that “eternal life” is spoken of. When Christ said (speaking of believers), “I give them eternal life (zoe aionios, age enduring life), and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand” (John 10:28), he’s not talking about keeping believers from becoming unconscious when they die. If this is what Christ had in mind, then it would imply that only believers - and no one else - will be conscious after death. If it is only the “conscious identities and sentience” of believers that will “not rot in the grave,” then “soul-sleep” necessarily awaits everyone else (including infants, many mentally disabled people, and those who have never heard of Christ). But elsewhere Scripture teaches that the same post-mortem fate awaits all people (e.g., Eccl 3:16-20; 9:3-6, 10; 12:7). When man dies, he returns to his original condition (Gen 3:19), and believers are no exception to this. We are made from the dust just like everyone else.
And while I believe that those who have died are, in one sense, “no more” (Gen. 42:13, 36; Lam 5:7; Ps. 39:13; Matt. 2:18), they are still just as known and loved by God as they were before they were born. Even if no one else remembers a person after they die, God does. While they are no longer able to praise and worship him, those who die have not been forgotten by God. When the time comes, he will restore them to a living, conscious existence. As Paul said, not even death can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:35-39). Even while we’re dead and “asleep” in the grave waiting for our “renewal” to come (Job 14:10-15), God loves us with an infinite, unsurpassable love. So a believer who has died (or “fallen asleep”) has no more been snatched out of Christ’s hands than a believer who has slipped into a temporary coma. The only difference is that, in the former case, only a miracle can restore the person to a conscious existence (and of course this miracle will be performed by Christ on the “last day”). Only if there were no resurrection of the dead could it be said that those who have fallen asleep in Christ have “perished.”
Was God addressing a “who” or a “what” when he declared in Genesis 3:19, “By the sweat of your face you shall eat your bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return”? Was it not the conscious, sentient being named “Adam?” Or was he addressing Adam’s body only and not the conscious, sentient person himself? That would be absurd. God was clearly addressing the human person, Adam. So where is “Adam” now? If God’s words in Genesis 3:19 reveal anything about what happened to the person, Adam, after he died, they reveal that he returned to the dust. In other words, the conscious, sentient being to whom God once spoke returned to the elements from which he was made. The organ which gave Adam the ability to think and be self-aware (i.e., his brain) not only ceased to function but ceased to exist. The man identified as “Adam” in the opening chapters of Genesis is dead and no more. And if there is to be no resurrection, then death would render our existence pretty futile. If the dead are not raised at all, then I think you would be correct in saying that this has “all been an exercise in futility and poverty.” But thank God that death, the “last enemy,” is not the final end of anyone’s - including Adam’s - existence. Adam and all who die in him (i.e., those who bear the image of the “man of dust”) will live again and bear the image of the “man of heaven” (1 Cor 15:47-49).
Jesus’ disciples probably got a taste of “futility” when Jesus died and was buried in a tomb; they certainly weren’t sitting around rejoicing on the Sabbath that their deceased Lord was now in heaven sitting at the right hand of God in a disembodied state. Although they were probably familiar with the Greek idea of the immortality of the soul and of a disembodied “life after death,” the grim reality of death has a way of painfully reminding us of what we all instinctively know: death is the end of life, not a new beginning. It is an enemy. And it was not until the disciples learned of Jesus’ physical, bodily resurrection from the dead that their sorrow turned into joy (John 16:20-24). It was through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead that these men were “born again to a living hope” (1 Pet. 1:3).
When Paul sought to give encouragement to the Thessalonian believers so that they would not “grieve as others do who have no hope” (1 Thess 4:13) did he remind them of what they probably believed (or were at least familiar with) back when they were idol-worshipping pagans (1 Thess 1:9)? Did he remind them that their “soul” was immortal, and that those who had died were not unconscious (as they appeared to be) but just as conscious as they were before they died? Did he encourage them with the thought that when they died they would be reunited with those who had died before them in some ghostly, disembodied state of existence? Did he say (as so many Christians do today) “Your dead loved ones are in a better place now. They’ve gone home to be with the Lord.” No; he spends the next few verses speaking of the resurrection of the dead by Jesus Christ, which is an end-of-history event that is still future in our day! But why? I believe it’s because the hope of the resurrection was the only hope of a future life that Paul could give them. But it was all they needed, and it’s the only hope of a future life that anyone needs today. It is this hope (i.e., the hope of being raised by Christ on the last day to bear his image) that purifies us (1 John 3:2-3) The pagan idea that the dead are conscious in some kind of disembodied state of existence is a poor substitute for the hope of the resurrection, and tends to undermine and detract from this hope rather than magnify it as the truth that is so central to our faith as Christians.
Moreover, if you’re mistaken for believing that the dead are conscious, and you live out the rest of your days believing this to be an error, you’ll never know you were wrong until you are resurrected anyway. And by then, it won’t matter that you were wrong; you’ll be immortal and happy and part of the “all in all” that God is destined to become. But if, at that time, it won’t matter to you that you were wrong about “soul sleep,” I’m not sure why you should find the idea so “repugnant” now. Even if the dead cease to exist (temporarily, at least) and are in this sense “separated from God,” they’re not even aware of being “separated.” By the time those who die become aware of anything at all, they will (arguably) be even closer to God than they were before they died (at least, from their perspective).
It’s evident that you don’t think a creature constituted by a material body could be “like” God or bear his image. Elsewhere you wrote:
Would you say that all the non-human “living souls” that were created by God and which have the “breath of life” within them are simply “complicated machines of material tissues?” And that the only thing that really separates us from the animals is that there is “something” inside of us which leaves our body at death, but which doesn’t leave the body of every other “living soul” when it dies? If so, what is it? Elsewhere, you seem to suggest that it is the “spirit” which is said to “depart” from man at death that separates him from the beasts. But the “spirit” that is said to “depart” from us at death and return to God who gave it is the very same “spirit” that we share with the beasts. We are told that man and beast “have the same rûach (or “spirit”)” (Eccl. 3:19). This “spirit” that departs from man at death is simply the life or vitality (i.e., the “breath of life”) that is common to all “living souls.”
You wrote:
It’s true that death separates us from life, and thus, in one sense, separates us from the “living God.” The dead can neither praise, given thanks nor remember God: “The dead do not praise the Lord, neither do any that go down into silence” (Psalm 115:17). “For in death there is no remembrance of you: in Sheol, who shall give you thanks?” (Ps. 6:5) “Shall the dust praise you? Shall it declare your truth?” (Ps. 30:9) “Will you show wonders to the dead? Shall the dead arise and praise thee? Shall your loving kindness be declared in Sheol, or your faithfulness in destruction? Are your wonders known in the darkness, or your righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?” (Ps. 88:10-12). “For Sheol does not thank you; death does not praise you; those who go down to the pit do not hope for your faithfulness. The living, the living, he thanks you, as I do this day; the father makes known to the children your faithfulness” (Isai. 38:18-19).
But the dead know nothing, and are completely unaware of their condition. And God has not forgotten them; he loves those who have died just as much as when they were alive (and even, I think, before they came into existence).
What you speak of as “eternal life” (zoen aionion - the “life of the age” or “age enduring life”) has nothing to do, I think, with being conscious after death. When the age of the Messianic reign (to which the “life of the age” pertains) comes to an end, the “life of the age” will be replaced by an even greater blessing: a glorious, immortal existence in heaven, or “paradise,” with God being “all in all.” So not only is “eternal life” “capable of cessation,” I believe it will in fact cease when Christ ceases to reign and delivers the kingdom back to God (1 Cor 15:24-28).
Scripture often identifies dead individuals with their dead body, which would be inappropriate if we weren’t, in fact, constituted by our bodies. According to Scripture, after a man’s “spirit” (i.e., his life or vital power) “departs” from him and returns to God, it is the man himself who is said to “return to the earth” (Job 10:8-9; Psalm 90:3; 104:29; 146:4). But it is the man’s body that “returns to the earth,” not his “spirit” (which is said to “return to God who gave it”). Therefore, a human person is constituted by his body, and not by his spirit. Consider the following example: When Jesus died, his “spirit” returned to God, its source (Luke 23:46), and his body was buried in a grave (Matt 27:59-60). After his death, Jesus was always said to be wherever his body was, not where his “spirit” went (Matt 12:40; Acts 2:39, 13:29; 1 Cor 15:3-5). Therefore, it follows that Christ was and is constituted as a human person by his body, and not by his “spirit.”
The same is said of other people as well, such as David. In Acts 2:29 we read, “Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.” Similarly, Paul states in Acts 13:36, “For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep and was laid with his fathers and saw corruption.” Here we see that the person, David, is identified with what had been buried and ultimately "saw corruption" - not some disembodied “part” of David that is conscious somewhere within or beyond the created universe. Or consider Abraham’s wife, Sarah. After she died at age 127, Abraham refers to her as “my dead” (Gen 23:4). We later read that Abraham “buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah east of Mamre in the land of Canaan” (v. 19). Consider also what is said of Stephen in Acts 7. Notice that it is Stephen who is said to have been buried. When Stephen’s body died, Stephen died. And when Stephen’s body was buried, Stephen was buried. Nowhere is it revealed or suggested by the inspired author that “Stephen” had left his physical body and was alive and conscious somewhere in another state of existence. No; what the “devout men” buried was Stephen - which means “Stephen” was thought by the inspired author to be constituted by his body.
So were Jesus, David, Sarah and Stephen “body-dependent” or “God-dependent?” The answer is “both!” They were dependent on a living, functioning body to be alive and conscious, and they were dependent on God who, at every moment, sustains us. “In him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). In God’s hand is our breath (Dan 5:23). If God were to “gather to himself his spirit,” all flesh would “perish,” and we would alike “return to the dust” from which we were made (Job 34:14). We are thus “body-dependent” in a relative sense, and “God-dependent” in an absolute sense.
Adam was told that he would eventually return to the dust from which he was made. So when Adam ceased to be a “living soul” and became dust, was he “dropped out of God’s fingers?” Of course not. God never stopped loving Adam, and never stopped being his heavenly Father; Adam’s conscious existence was simply put on hold when he died. But death cannot separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus; that’s why death is going to be destroyed. In view of the resurrection, death is only a temporary interruption; it is not a permanent end to anyone’s conscious existence. How then can you say that my view of death means that we are capable of being “dropped out of God’s fingers?” In order for that to happen, God himself would have to die. But that would be impossible; Paul even tells us that God “alone has immortality” (1 Tim 6:16) - i.e., he is the only being who is immortal by virtue of his self-existent nature. And when God gave Christ “all authority in heaven and on earth” (Matt 28:18) he gave to him the “keys of Death and Hades” (Rev 1:18) so even if “soul-sleep” is true, there is nothing of which we need be fearful. Not only will we have no awareness of being dead, death is only temporary and is going to be destroyed.
Death is indeed referred to as the “king of terrors” in Job 18:4, and this is undoubtedly the case for many (if not all) who don’t have the hope of the resurrection. But since you and I have it, how can the idea of being unconscious during death be a “terror” to us? We won’t be forgotten by God; his love for us will not cease simply because we can no longer praise or remember him while we’re dead. When we die our life and conscious existence will simply be put on hold until the time comes for Christ to vanquish death and subject all people to himself so that God may become “all in all.”
Moreover, what is worse: being physically dead and thus temporarily unconscious, or being alive and conscious but spiritually separated from God (as is the case for all who are “dead in sin”)? Is it not the latter? When Christ spoke of believers passing from death into life, isn’t this the kind of “death” of which he was speaking?
Hi Allan,
I don’t think Scripture teaches that God’s unfailing love for a person begins when they begin to exist. Rather, I believe God has unfailing love for each and every individual even before they are born. But if this is the case, how then would it be denying God’s unfailing love to say that a person who has not always existed will, temporarily, cease to exist? If they were never again to be brought back into existence by God I would agree with you that one would have to deny his unfailing love for them. But there’s a huge difference between saying a person has temporarily ceased to exist and saying a person has permanently ceased to exist and will never live again.
You’ve made quite a hefty post, so I’ll just leave a quick summary and see to it when I can in fuller detail;
The argument is simply this.
If we (Christians) cease to exist even for a moment, we’ve slipped out of the fingers of Christ, which is simply not supposed to happen, which Christ promised wouldn’t happen.
Soul-sleep to me is the assurance of this cessation of existence, hence I refuse to believe it.
I was not brought up in a church to believe in soul sleep. The people in the churches I attended believed they went to heaven immediately after death. I came to the conclusion that this is false from reading the scriptures only. I, too, feared death because it was “going into nothingness”, I thought.
I was afraid of receiving surgery, thinking that the anesthetic would send me into nothingness. The surgeons didn’t tell me when I was going to receive the anesthetic. I was lying on a hospital bed in a room with several doctors and assistants. I looked at the clock. It was 2:00. Then I thought I heard a sort of faint ringing noise. I looked at the clock again. It was 4:00! I had no memory of anything while I was anestheticized. The surgery was over, and I had no memory of anything. There was literally “nothing” to fear. I think it will be the same after our death. With no consciousness whatever, we will be aware of nothing until we are raised to life in the resurrection — whether that takes place a year after we die, or ten thousand years! We really have to trust Christ to raise us back to life again. But if our souls are immortal, what does it matter whether our bodies are brought back to life or not. Why not be content with existence as a disembodied spirit for the rest of eternity?
By the way, doesn’t the following translation of Jesus’ words seems to be self-contradictory:
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” John 11: 25,26
If this translation is accurate Jesus says “Whosoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live.” Jesus recognized that some people who believe in Him will die! But He promises that He will live some time in the future. It sounds as if He is promising that if they die, they will be resurrected. But then He says, “… and he who lives and believes in me shall never die.” Of course, no one believes that He is promising that they will never die physically, but rather they will never die in some other sense. I suppose the idea is that they shall never lose consciousness after death.
But it seems rather odd that Jesus would use the word “die” in two entirely different senses in the same sentence!
Literally, the last phase say, “and he who lives and believes in me shall in no way die into the age.” I see two possibilities here.
Jesus is saying that if a living person believes in Christ he will not die into the next age, the Kingdom age which begins just after Christ’s return. For such a person will come alive again — be resurrected at Christ’s return.
“Into the age” refers to the “eternal age” which succeeds this temporal age. So that to die “into the age” would mean staying dead permanently. That won’t happen to those who believe in Him. They won’t stay dead permanently, but will be resurrected.
As a believer in universal reconciliation, I am inclined to the first option. But those who believe in the annihilation of non-believers might go for the second.
By the way consider the following passage:
Romans 6:9 We know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. ESV
The phrase translated “will never die again” in this verse has a completely different Greek construction from John 11:26. It is not “shall not die into the age.”
I just wanted to add for clarification (having seen it in Aaron’s reply to me also) I do not fear the “nothing”. I dislike what it will mean to enter it. For centuries at least, I will be separated (in truth, even if I don’t feel it) from God. And then there is the whole horror of God being a utilitarian lord over overglorified organic machines…
My conscience witnesses against it thoroughly.
For our souls being immortal and “why desire a body?” - I think the problem lies in seeing our resurrected body as a “necessity” to our existence, rather than like everything else; a pleasure, a gift, a beautifying gift, a very useful gift. On another road, perhaps a body completes our identity as we were created to be. “Something is missing without the body” - just because God created Adam “perfect” doesn’t mean that Eve had no good purpose in being made. Afterall, “it is not good for a man to be alone, I’ll make a helper for him” - why should it be that we could not be “perfect” and content as Adam was surely content, and yet not have a body as our gift?
The glorified body will be no constraint to our spirit, working with it - in contrast to our fleshly bodies which work in enmity to it. The body will be adorning, and beautifying, and magnifying to our True-natures. It need not be thought of as constraining to our spirits, but neither should we constrain our spirits to our bodies! As soul-sleep assuredly does…
ecc 12:7 and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
and reconcile = restore.
Just something I think about sometimes.
Perhaps here on earth is the only time ever that we are separated from God (and even then perhaps it is only in our minds.)
This is a good discussion.
I like reading all of the thoughts here.
The soul doesn’t sleep, it is only described as sleep because to us, time passes by as they are dead but we have the hope of the resurrection of the dead. The soul is or it is not, it is born and then it dies. The dust returns to the ground, the Spirit (Life) returns to God who gave it. Time is a created entity composed and existing in nature and physics, Spirit is and is not bound by nature or physics, therefore once a the soul returns to it’s elements (dust and spirit), time is not a constraint and no time passes between death back to life.
I would also like to point out the sheer universal truth that between pre-cross and post-cross there is a whole world of difference.
And reading through your posts Aaron, I apologise, but I can only say none of it made me the least bit comforted, let alone appreciative of the very idea of it. I despise soul-sleep to the core of my being and with every fibre of it. Every time I think about it, my innerness rails against it like it railed against Eternal Hell itself. Forgive me if I sound harsh, but I can only be honest about my distaste for any theory, even biblical theory, that reduces a child of God to a gashed piece of machinery made of meat, a theory that makes him thoroughly ugly; resembling nothing tangibly true of his maker who is Spirit, noble, beautiful, and high.
I personally believe, that once the body returns to the dust, and the Spirit returns to God who gave it, we are immediately resurrected in a new spiritual body. There is no time between life and death back to life, as Paul states it is a twinkling of an eye.
Since there is no need for sleep, as we are already seated with Him in heavenly places. As Jesus said, “In my father’s house are many mansions, I go to prepare a place for you, if it were not so, I would have told you.” Once the soul dies and the the nautral body returns to dust and the Spirit returns to the Father, we are immediately resurrected in heavenly places with a new spiritual body.
Until you’ve shown from Scripture that the temporary cessation of a living, conscious existence means that a human being has “slipped out of the fingers of Christ,” I can’t help but see this as an unsubstantiated assertion.
You and I were certain to exist just before we came into existence, and God knew everything about us and loved us with an unsurpassable love before we were even born. So in one sense, we were separated from God before we were born. Do you dislike this fact as well? Do you find it repugnant that you have not consciously existed for as long as God has loved you and known everything about you?
I should add that, in another sense, we are not separated from God, even after we die: “Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there” (Ps. 139:7-8). And of course, “Sheol” is the grave, where there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom (Eccl 9:10). So when (for example) Stephen was taken away to be buried (and note that it was Stephen who was said to be buried - Acts 8:2), God was there with him. Although Stephen was no longer aware of God’s presence in “Sheol” (for “the dead know nothing”), God was still there with him. And even after Stephen returned to the elements from which he was made, he still remained an object of God’s unfailing love, and will ultimately be restored to a living, conscious existence along with all who have died.
As for humans being “overglorified organic machines,” I prefer to think of us as “living souls” created from the elements of the earth who, in distinction from the rest of the creatures God created on this planet, bear God’s image. But are we said to bear the divine image because we are “living souls?” No, for non-human animals are referred to as “living souls” as well. Are we said to bear the divine image because we have a “spirit” that is said to depart from us at death and return to God who gave it? No, for non-human animals are said to have the same “spirit” (or “breath of life”) that was breathed into Adam, and which leaves all “living souls” at death. Does it have to do with anything that leaves our body at death and which exist in a conscious, disembodied state? No, for Scripture says nothing about such a thing. Is it what we’re made of that makes us different from the animals? No; both humans and animals are made of the same earthly elements, and both humans and animals return to the dust of the earth after death.
So what makes us different from the animals? In what does the divine image consist? I believe it is our unique capacity to be like God in a certain sense and represent him. After we are told that man was created in God’s image (Gen 1:27) we read, “And God blessed them. And God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (v. 28; cf. Ps. 8:4-8). And later God declares to his heavenly court, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil” (3:22). So what enables us to be like and represent God in the sense of which Scripture speaks? Some “part” of us that is immortal, and which leaves our body at death to suffer or enjoy in a disembodied state? No; again, Scripture says nothing about such a thing. Well what is it that enables you to have dominion over “all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the seas?” Is it not your wonderfully designed human brain? While our brain has the same general structure as that of other mammals, it is over three times larger than the brain of a typical mammal with an equivalent body size, and gives us the ability to do things that no other “living soul” created by God can do. Human beings are truly “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Ps. 139:14-16). But God used the same earthly elements to create us as he used to create every other “living soul,” and we are only alive and conscious because of the same “spirit” or “breath of life” that animates every other “living soul.”
Does your conscience also witness against Genesis 3:19 where God tells Adam, “By the sweat of your face you shall eat your bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return”? According to God, when Adam’s body returned to the dust, he returned to the dust.
Or does your conscience witness against Acts 8:2 where we’re told that devout men buried Stephen? Either these devout men buried Stephen alive, or Stephen was thought to be constituted by his dead body after his death.
As before (when you spoke of man as being either “body-dependent” or “God-dependent”), it’s not “either/or” but rather “both/and.” Our resurrected body is both a gift from God and it is necessary to our living, conscious existence as human beings. And I’m fairly sure you would say that man’s “spirit” (i.e., what you call the thing that you think leaves the body at death to suffer or enjoy in a disembodied state) is both a gift from God as well as necessary to our existence as conscious beings. Right?
It depends on what you mean by “spirit.” As I’ve said before, the Hebrew and Greek words translated as “spirit” (ruach and pneuma) can be used in more than one sense in Scripture. They can refer to:
The wind (Gen 3:8; 8:1; Ex 10:13, 19; 15:10; Num 11:31; 2Sa 2:11; 1Ki 19:11; Job 1:19; 8:2; Ps 1:4; 55:8; 83:13; 107:25; Prov 25:14; Ecc 1:6; Isa 64:6; Jer 10:13; 51:1; Eze 1:4; 5:2; Dan 7:2; etc.)
The life or vitality given to “living souls” that is manifested through breathing (Gen 2:7; 6:17; 7:15, 22; Num 16:22; 1Ki 10:5; Job 7:7; 12:10; 15:30; Ps 104:29; 146:4; Eccl 3:19; 12:7; Jer 10:14; 10:17; 37:5; 51:17; Matt 27:50; Luke 8:55; 23:46; Acts 7:59; James 2:26; etc.),
That which pertains to the “inner self” of a person (e.g., their mind, consciousness, thought-pattern, feelings, mental disposition, etc.) which is made known through their actions and behaviour (Deut 34:9; Num 5:14, 30; 1 Sam 1:15; 1 Kings 21:5; Psalm 51:17; Prov 16:9, 18, 19; 29:11; Eccl 1:14; 7:9; Isa 11:2; 19:14; 61:3; Mark 2:8; Luke 9:55; John 3:6; 4:23-24; 11:33; 13:21; Acts 17:16; 18:5; Rom 2:29; 11:8; 1 Cor 2:11; 4:21; Gal 6:1; Eph 4:23; Phil 2:19; 2 Tim 1:7; 1 Pet 3:4; 1 John 4:6).
Well to be honest, it actually wasn’t my goal to “comfort” you with the thought that after we die we return to the dust of the earth from which we were made. That’s no more a comforting thought than the idea that we are mortal and will one day die, or the fact that most of the people alive in Noah’s day drowned to death. These facts are not meant to comfort us. What is meant to comfort us, however, is the good news that Christ was raised from the dead and holds the keys of Death and Hades. As Lord of all, both dead and living, Christ is one day going to bestow upon every person who has ever lived a glorious immortality, and death (as well as the sting of death) will be no more. I don’t know about you, but I personally find a great deal of comfort in the truth of the resurrection of the dead, which I see as one of the most beautiful revelations in Scripture. I also think that the “comfort” you would give me in place of what I believe about the state of the dead is derived less from what Scripture teaches than from what you would prefer to be true. While I realize that your reasons for believing the way you do are at least partially based on your interpretation of certain verses in Scripture, much of your argument in these last few posts seems to me to draw most of its strength from an appeal to emotion (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion) rather than from sound reasoning or an appeal to the Biblical text.
I certainly understand your passion. I despise that which is false and contrary to Scripture “to the core of my being and with every fibre of it.” But that’s why I find your view regarding the state of the dead so unacceptable. The view that the dead are conscious is to me as unrevealed in Scripture and as detached from reality as the doctrine of an “eternal hell.” The doctrine that the dead are not really as dead as they appear to be is like biting into a shiny red apple only to discover it has a repulsive, writhing worm inside of it. While it’s certainly not utterly abhorrent to me like the doctrine of eternal torment is, your view just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Although it sounds nice and comforting at first, it just doesn’t “sit well” with me, because it seems not only inconsistent with reality as viewed apart from a divine revelation, but also inconsistent with divine revelation itself. To me, it reeks of paganism and the wishful thinking of those who, without the hope of the resurrection, are in denial of death (and please don’t misunderstand me here - I’m not saying you are without the hope of the resurrection, I’m just saying that the idea that the dead are conscious seems to have originated among those who were without divine revelation).
It’s difficult for me to avoid seeing your utter contempt for the view that man is constituted by his physical body as betraying a contempt for the wonderfully made physical body itself. If you saw the human body as “noble, beautiful and high” (or at least the highest of the created order) then I think you’d find the idea that man is constituted by it, and that his present identity is inseparable from it, much less disagreeable.
You speak of my theory as reducing “a child of God to a gashed piece of machinery made of meat.” But just so we can feel the full force of what you’re saying, let’s go even further. Any “theory” that reduces that which is “fearfully and wonderfully made” by God to nothing more than “dust” is surely a “theory” to be rejected, right? But of course it was God himself who, speaking to the first “living soul” to bear his image, said, “By the sweat of your face you shall eat your bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” Perhaps we should all complain against God for “reducing” mankind to “dust.”
, the reason I am a little vehement about it…
