Life, Death, and Resurrection in the
Pauline Epistles

EXCEPT IT BE FOR THIS ONE VOICE, THAT I CRIED STANDING AMONG THEM, TOUCHING THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD I AM CALLED IN QUESTION BY YOU THIS DAY.
Acts 24:21



The raising of Lazarus

For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. 2 Cor 5:1-9

In 2 Cor 5:1-9 it is generally held that 'tabernacle' refers to the physical body in which the soul dwells. Paul is believed to be desiring his resurrection body, knowing that while his soul is in his earthly body he is absent from the Lord. While I would agree that the 'earthly tabernacle' is indeed the body of flesh, and that Paul's sincere desire is for his resurrection body, I do not agree with the perceived implication forced into the text, that the body is merely a dwelling place for an 'immortal soul'.

The latter part of this passage is normally misquoted as 'To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord', in which it is believed to teach that when a man dies, his soul leaves his body and is immediately in God's presence.

First of all, where in the passage is there any mention of the soul or spirit leaving the body? Is it not strange that Paul would not have made mention of these if this is what he meant? Obviously Paul must believe that something dwells in an earthly tabernacle, and desires a heavenly one, but he does not say that it is the soul or the spirit; this must be implied by those who attempt to use this verse in support of their theories.

Second, the last part of the verse does not say 'to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord'. I have had numerous conversations with people who swear that the Bible says this when it simply does not. This can be illustrated from a document on the John Ankerberg web site which states:

Paul in 2 Corinthians 5 says for the Christian 'to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.' So when they die, their souls leave their bodies, their souls go to the presence of the Lord in Heaven, and that's where they stay in Heaven until Christ comes to Rapture the Church. He will bring their souls with Him out of Heaven down toward the earth. We are told that He will come with the blast of a trumpet, the trump of God, with the voice of the archangel.

You can see how an entire doctrine can be propped up simply by changing the word 'and' to 'is'. Paul says that he wishes to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Some will obviously feel that the meaning is the same regardless, but it isn't, and shows faulty logic and reasoning.

For example, let's say I go on a long road trip. While I'm driving home I get tired, start wishing I was home, and say to myself 'I know that while I'm in this car driving home, I'll not be in my bed relaxing. But I wish that I was rather, not driving home, and in my bed relaxing'. Does that mean that to 'not be in my car' I will of necessity be 'in my bed relaxing'? Of course not. It simply states a desire for a future sequence of events, but does not imply that the events would immediately follow each other.

This point of view also ignores the fact that vs. 3 and 4 talk about a condition that Paul does not want to be in; namely being 'found naked', which to the dualists would mean a soul without a body.

The contradiction should be obvious. Paul can not be saying in verse 8 that he desires to be absent from the body and immediately present with the Lord, when in verse 4 he says that his groaning is 'not that he would be unclothed'. When we get to the other verses above we will face this contradiction again if we try to force more into the passage than what it really says.

Let's approach the passage without preconceived ideas and see if we can land on solid and harmonious ground.

First, Paul is talking about our earthly body as a 'tabernacle' for something. If the tabernacle gets 'dissolved' God will give it (whatever that may be) a 'house'. We must first determine what 'it' is that dwells in the tabernacle, awaiting a house. So many people immediately presume that it has to be the immortal soul, but the text does not say that.

This is a perfect example where the key to understanding a verse lies in its immediate context, but the reader cannot see the proverbial 'forest for the trees' because they are so locked into their preconceived ideas of what must be true.

Consider the following:

1. Paul is talking about believers, not mankind in general.
    

2. Verse 4 talks about the believers groaning that we would get our 'house', so that 'mortality might be swallowed up of life'. This is an obvious reference to the resurrection where 'death is swallowed up in victory' and 'this mortal must put on immortality'. (1 Cor 15:53)
    

3. In verse 5 Paul says that God is the one who has 'wrought this selfsame thing (the resurrection to immortality) in us (i.e. believers) and that God has given to believers the 'earnest' (a down payment) by giving them the Spirit.

Now, keeping these things in mind, compare these thoughts with the following from Chapter 4 of 2 Corinthians:

But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us. We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. So then death worketh in us, but life in you. We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you. 2 Cor 4:7-14

What is the 'treasure in earthen vessels' that Paul speaks of? Is it the soul? No, no, no!!!! He specifically states that it is 'the life of Jesus...made manifest in our mortal flesh'. Who could possibly miss the application?

This is one place where our chapter and verse divisions do not help us out. The 'earthly house' at the beginning of chapter five is the same thing as the 'earthen vessel' of chapter four. The 'Treasure in the earthen vessel' in chapter four is the same thing that desires its 'house from heaven' in chapter five. It is not the soul, but the life of Christ in the believer which he bears about in his mortal body. It is the 'new nature', the 'new man' and in verse 17 Paul calls it the 'new creature'. In addition, the time frame is the same in both passages, being the time of the resurrection.

For those who would use this passage to teach an immortal soul, the question remains, what is the condition of being 'found naked' and 'unclothed' in vs. 3 and 4? The answer will be that it's the state between death and the resurrection where the soul is in heaven with Jesus, but awaiting the resurrection body. But this simply will not follow. It is amazing to me how many people are so quick to snatch this scripture from its context in order to prove a point, while at the same time, being totally unaware or careless, create numerous and inescapable contradictions elsewhere..

Ask yourself: In verses 3 and 4, what condition doesn't Paul want to be in?

3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.

4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

Then in verses 2 and 4, what condition is it that Paul desires?

2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:

4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

Finally, in verse 8, what condition does Paul desire?

8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

If in verse 8, Paul is saying that he is 'willing rather' to be absent from the body and immediately in God's presence before the resurrection, then why in verses 3 and 4 did he just tell you that this is a condition he clearly doesn't want to be in? At this point, let the reader FIRMLY grasp what he has just read. The apostle groans for his resurrection body; that is what he desires. On the contrary he DOES NOT groan that he would be 'unclothed' or 'found naked'; that is lose his earthly body. These are simple facts which are easily derived from the text, but they are read over so flippantly and so glibly. How can the careful reader fail to see that what Paul GROANS FOR is the resurrection, and what he DOES NOT GROAN FOR is losing his body? How can anyone believe that vs. 8 'willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord' can also be anything but the SAME THING Paul groans for in vs. 2 and 4; the resurrection? Who can fail to see that vs. 8 contains TWO things Paul wants?

1) Absent from the Body

AND

2) Present with the Lord

Paul doesn't want to be 'unclothed' or 'found naked' because that will only satisfy ONE of the above; 'absent from the body'.

He groans for his resurrection body because that's the ONLY way he'll get both 'absent from the body' AND 'present with the Lord'. How clear the truth becomes when drop our preconceived ideas and stop forcing concepts such as an immortal soul into a text where it doesn't belong!

As we have seen earlier , the passage is talking about the 'new man' and 'the new nature'. This is what tabernacles in this body, not the immortal soul. The new nature has no conscious existence outside of a body, it is a life which Christ holds in trust which he promises to give us at the resurrection. We currently have the 'earnest of the spirit' as a down payment and promise. The thing that Paul desires in verse 8, is the same thing he desires in verses 2 and 4: the resurrection. Paul wants to be absent from the body, and present with the Lord, but this can not happen until the resurrection, so in the mean time he would rather not 'naked', or 'unclothed'; that is, he doesn't want to die and sleep, awaiting the resurrection. He hopes to continue living, knowing that those alive at the second coming are promised that they will not 'sleep' but be changed instantly. He then states that we labor that whether we be present (alive when the Lord comes), or absent (sleeping in death), we may still be accepted of Him.

Consider the following verse:

...your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory Col 3:3-4

According to the above verse, when will we be with Christ in glory? If it isn't until he appears, then how can some teach that we immediately go to be with him at death? You see, we are given the Spirit in this life as a down payment and guarantee. In the current life it serves to bring forth within us the 'new man', the 'inner man' and 'new creature'. The new nature becomes our life. We are to die to self and let the 'new man' tabernacle in our earthly body as a 'treasure in an earthen vessel'. Should death take our physical life from us, this same Spirit, given as a down payment of a promise to come, hides our life in God with Christ, so that 'when Christ, WHO IS OUR LIFE, SHALL APPEAR, THEN shall ye also appear with him in glory.'

The unified testimony of scripture bears witness to this truth:

In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. John 14:2-3

Again, according to this passage, when will believers be with Christ? If they aren't received until he comes again, then how can he be receiving them all individually when they die? The theory that says that the conscious soul goes to Christ but the body only awaits the resurrection, completely breaks down here. Christ could not have meant, 'I go to prepare a place for your BODIES, and if I go I'll come again and receive your BODIES, even though you've been with me there for centuries. Such an interpretation wrests the passage and is nonsensical.

The scriptures are numerous and harmonious on this simple fact; that man does not have an immortal soul, but must await the resurrection. Every time we hit a resurrection passage, the teaching is clear. Observe again:

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 1 Thes 4:16-17

Notice the words 'and so shall we ever be with the Lord'. Paul is saying that it is by the event just described, the resurrection, that believers will ever be with the Lord. But how can that statement be true if millions were already with him before the resurrection?

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 1 Jn 3:2

According to this verse, when do believers get to see Jesus as he is? If the immortal soul goes to Jesus immediately at death, then why does John say here that we don't see him as he is until he appears?

And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:40

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:44

Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:54

In each of these verses, notice that Jesus did not say 'I will raise his body at the last day, although he himself will have been in heaven with me for a long time'. But this is exactly the way the dualists have to read the passage in order for it to fit with their 'immortal soul' theory.

Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. John 11:24

Notice Martha did not say 'I know his soul is in a much better place now, and that his body will rise again on the last day'. But again, that is exactly how the dualists must read the passage.

We see from all of the above, that Paul was not saying that he wanted to die, because he specifically states the matter: 'not that we would be unclothed', 'not found naked'. Nor is he teaching that 'to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord'. The conjunction 'and', which is frequently changed when quoting the text, proves to be the source of correct understanding. Paul doesn't want to be 'absent from the body' unless he can be 'present with the Lord' too. 'Absent from the body AND present with the Lord', is what he groans for, not merely 'absent from the body'. The resurrection is mentioned prominently because this is the only even at which that could take place. Let the reader firmly grasp these simple concepts as we move along in our study.

1) Paul GROANS for his resurrection body.

2) He DOES NOT GROAN to lose his earthly body

3) It is at the RESURRECTION that believers will be absent from the body AND present with the Lord.

Having seen thus far that 2nd Corinthians 5:1-9, will not teach what the dualists want it to teach, let's look at a similar passage in Philippians 1:21-25
 

TO DIE IS GAIN
 

For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you. And having this confidence, I know that I shall abide and continue with you all for your furtherance and joy of faith; Phil 1:21-25

Those who wish to teach that man has an immortal soul or spirit, believe they have found in this verse their greatest irrefutable proof. We hear over and over again that 'to die is gain' because Paul wanted to 'depart and be with Christ'. Admittedly, at face value, these verses appear to support that theory. But again, such an interpretation will also create many problems which are not easily explained away. Could it be that the verse is commonly misunderstood, and a solution can be found which does not produce contradictions elsewhere? I believe that is indeed the case.

First of all, the verse does not say that Paul expected his 'soul' or 'spirit' to depart from his body in order to be with Christ. Most will argue that, although this is not specifically stated, it is certainly the implication of the text. But consider; Paul uses the word 'soul' a total of nine times in his epistles, but never speaks of it departing from the body at death. He uses the word 'spirit' 134 times, but again never speaks of it departing from the body at death. What does this prove? That when you make an inference from Paul's writing regarding a 'soul' which departs at death, you use the word in a way he never did. Of course, this of itself proves nothing, but should serve to show us that we must not be careless in our approach to passages such as this.

This passage is usually quoted beginning at verse 21 as shown above; 'To die is gain'. If we take this statement by Paul at face value and abandon the context, a statement like this should be considered very strange in light of what we learned in our examination of the previous text (2Cor 5:1-8).

Similarly Paul says that he has 'a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better'. All the Greek texts here read 'very far better'. Than what? The dualists would answer; 'Than living in the flesh, because in death he can go and be with Christ although he will have to wait until the resurrection for his new body.' This answer, while seemingly plausible, creates for a us problem; namely that in 2nd Corinthians 5:3-4, this is the very condition Paul said he did not desire.

The common answer to this problem is to say that Paul is simply saying, that to be a disembodied soul without a body is not the most desirable thing, though still better than remaining in the flesh because even without the resurrection body, we get to be in Christ's presence.

This seemingly simple solution, will unfortunately prove to be too simple unless those who hold this view are willing to admit that Paul changed his mind somewhere between 2nd Corinthians and Philippians. The following table illustrates the problem:

The problem in the above should be obvious to anyone. If, as suggested, Paul is stating in Philippians 1:23 that to depart and be with Christ before the resurrection is far better than living in the flesh, then he most certainly has contradicted what he said in 2 Corinthians 5:2 and 3. Not only is he now saying that to be 'unclothed' and 'found naked' is desirable and tolerable, but 'very far better'! What could possibly account for such a reversal of teaching? Doesn't this strike anyone as being the slightest bit odd?

The problem here is very real, as anyone can deduce from studying various commentaries on these two passages. As was noted in the introduction, it is very easy to 'proof-text' anything out of context in order to try and prove a point, but when it comes to meaningful commentary where our teachings can easily checked for harmony and sound logic, things become a bit more difficult.

The Dakes Annotated Study Bible has lengthy comments on Philippians 1:21-23:

'To die is personal gain. Could there be any gain for man or God if one went into extinction of being, unconsciousness, or soul sleep? If so, what gain?'

'Having a desire to depart. This confirms the fact of the departure of one at death. Do men go into nothingness at death? If so then why desire to depart?'

'To be with Christ. Where is Christ? Is He extinct? Dormant? Unconscious in the grave? One thing is certain wherever He is there the believer will also be at death'

'Far better. What is far better? Would extinction of being, unconsciousness in the grave, going back to nothingness be better than to continue living in a body and winning souls for Christ?'

These are all legitimate questions which demand answers. Dake is adamant that Paul is talking about how much better off a Christian is when he dies. His addition of the word 'personal' before 'gain' in verse 21 is very interesting. It almost looks as if Dake had anticipated that some might think that Paul's death was gain to someone else besides himself. In fact, in seeing the need to supply the word 'personal' before 'gain', Dake answers his own questions. We'll examine this in detail a bit later. With such lengthy and numerous comments, one would think that Dake would surely have some explanation as to why Paul spoke of this intermediate time of death before the resurrection as 'naked', and something not to be desired. But turning to 2 Corinthians 5:3-4, Dake has NO COMMENT. In a study Bible with literally thousands of notes, and comments on almost every passage in the Bible, this seems just a bit odd; But the reason why should be clear. Having made Paul into deaths greatest advocate in Philippians 1:21-23, it surely must be a bit hard to explain why Paul calls the same condition in 2 Corinthian 2:3-4 'nakedness', and something he DOES NOT GROAN FOR. Does Paul desire to die or doesn't he, or is he just really confused? What explanation could he possibly give for such an apparent contradiction? Obviously he feels the safest course is to make no comment at all, and this is exactly what he does.

The 'Bible Knowledge Commentary' obviously sees the problem, and attempts to solve the apparent contradiction by making the 'unclothed' state the same as the 'earthly tabernacle' state:

'It seems clear that being in this tent and unclothed describe mortality while being clothed and possessing a heavenly dwelling depict immortality without specifying any intervening stages.'

Of course, this has to be done because they see that whatever it is that Paul is calling 'being unclothed' is something he doesn't want. If left to mean any intermediate state, it would clearly conflict with their teaching on Philippians 1:21-23 where they make Paul teach that death is to be preferred to living. They are honest enough to realize that if you make the 'unclothed' state 'death before the resurrection', then you are going to face problems when you get to 2 Corinthians 5:8, and again at Philippians 1:21-23.

The problem is, the logic which would seek to eliminate the 'intermediate stages' from 2 Corinthians 5 will not stand close scrutiny of the passage.

1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle (earthly body) were dissolved (no body), we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. (resurrection body)

2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: (resurrection body)

3 If so be that being clothed (resurrection body) we shall not be found naked (no body).

4 For we that are in this tabernacle (earthly body) do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, (no body) but clothed upon, (resurrection body) that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
2 Cor 5:1-4

It should be obvious that three states are clearly visible in the passage and not two! The argument that 'naked' and 'unclothed' are the same as 'this tabernacle' (i.e. the earthly body) completely breaks down at verse 4. Why would Paul make mention at all of being 'naked' and 'unclothed' if by that he meant the same thing as being in the 'earthly tabernacle'? Why the mention of not groaning for a state you're already in?

I think the verse should be clear to anyone, but it is interesting to note that the 'Bible Knowledge Commentary' feels the need here to get rid of the intermediate state which Paul doesn't desire. At least in this case it shows a desire to attempt to reconcile a problem that most people will never study enough to realize exists.

Turning to the 'Defenders Study Bible' we fare no better:

Commenting on 2 Cor 5:8:

'found naked. The period between one's death and resurrection, even though a blessed time of fellowship with the Lord (2 Cor 5:8), is compared to a state of nakedness, since the spirit/soul system, without its body or 'spiritual clothing', is awaiting Christ's return to earth'

'absent from the body. Even though being 'absent from the body' is not as good as being in the future resurrection body, it is still something to be anticipated by the Christian with joy, for 'to depart, and to be with Christ...is far better' (Philippians 1:23).'

This unfortunately just does not work, but once again it illustrates a problem that these commentators feel a need to address, that the average Christian may never consider.

 Paul says that we groan for our heavenly bodies, but not that we'd be found 'naked' or unclothed'. Paul says clearly that it's better to have the earthly body than none at all, but then made to teach in Philippians 1:21-23 that death is personal gain, and 'FAR BETTER' than 'living in the flesh'. The Defenders Study Bible solves nothing. It attempts to tone down the words to make the apparent contradiction in their theology less obvious.

I have taken the time here to examine these comments from others to show the difficulty in citing both these passages together (usually cross referenced in commentaries) as proof-texts for the 'immortal soul' theory. Those who would use these passages as a sure anchor for their beliefs can only do so fairly if they are willing to address the problems such a view creates. I will attempt to show that the passage need not cause any confusion at all. If anyone reading this should disagree with our conclusions, then the burden of proof rests upon them to show by scripture, and sound logic, how their teachings harmonize with the rest of the inspired Word of God.

'To die is gain'

What did Paul mean by this? We have looked at the comments from others who believe that Paul meant his death would be personal gain by going to heaven, but if we take a closer look at the verse, without extracting it from its context, an entirely different thought emerges:

But I would ye should understand, brethren, that the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel; So that my bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places; And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, According to my earnest expectation and my hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you. Phil 1:12-24

The sense of the verse should be clear; Life and death were of no consequence to Paul personally, as long as the cause of Christ was advanced. Whether in prison or free, whether people preached Christ of love, or in pretence, or in life or in death, Paul's main concern was that Christ and the gospel be advanced. He reasons that if his bonds had helped to further the gospel, what might his death do?

Is Paul saying here that to live means to advance the gospel and the cause of Christ, but to die would be better because he would personally gain from it? Where, at any point in this context, or in all of Paul's writings does he ever display such a selfish attitude? For Paul, to live is Christ, and to die is gain because of what he just told us in verse 20; 'so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death.'

We see that Paul isn't contradicting at all what he said in 2 Corinthian 5; namely that he did not desire to be found 'unclothed' and 'naked' (that is, to die before the resurrection). His desire was to further the cause of Christ by his life, and hope to be alive when Christ came back, but either way, by life or death, he wants Christ magnified.

But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.

We are struck by Paul's indifference. If to live is Christ, and to die is personal gain, then why the indifference? Wouldn't it be a bit out of character for Paul to here be saying that preaching the Gospel was no more important, or of the same importance as his own personal gain by getting what he wants?

There is no difficulty up to this point once we realize that Paul isn't talking about personal gain at all, but gain for Christ. If Christ could be magnified in his death as well as by his life, then it was of no consequence to him one way or the other; that is the clear sense of this passage.

For I am in a strait betwixt two

This phrase, at the beginning of verse 23, continues the sense of the above. It literally means that he is 'hard pressed', or 'constrained' between the two (living and dying). In verse 24, Paul is going to tell us why he feels that living is the more advantageous of the two:

Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.

He obviously feels that others need him personally. Even though Christ would be magnified either way, his ministry would make living of more advantage to others who Paul cared about. There isn't a selfish word anywhere in the passage.

For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:

It is the latter part of verse 23, shown here, that would seem to overturn the whole apple cart. Paul is either entirely confused and indecisive, or there is something in this passage that we are just not seeing. He has just told us that he doesn't know what to choose, and that he's hard pressed between life and death, and now he immediately follows by telling us something entirely different; that what he really wants is to die!

Notice, he doesn't merely say that 'to depart and be with Christ is far better', but that it is what he desires, and says so in the strongest possible language; for he literally 'longs for' and 'lusts after' it; this sense isn't completely clear in our English Bibles

Fut, for the sake of discussion, let's assume that Paul meant that he really desires, longs for, and lusts after his death. According to the popular teaching, his soul will depart and go to heaven to be with Christ, although he'll have to wait until the resurrection to get his new body. This very condition is what is alleged to be 'far better' than living in the flesh.

The first problem we are going to encounter is the one we have already discussed above. In 2 Corinthians 5 Paul says that we who are in the flesh do not groan that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon with our resurrection bodies, so that we would not be found 'naked'. Clearly, in 2 Corinthians 5, Paul says that living in the flesh is to be preferred to dying before the resurrection. Whatever conclusions we come to must deal with this problem without doing violence to the text. But this is by no means the end of our problems.

Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.
Col 3:2-4

According to this verse, when would we appear with Christ in glory? When do we get our life which is 'hid' with Christ in God? It explicitly states that we appear with him in glory when he appears; when He comes for His people in the resurrection. How could Paul go to be with Christ immediately at his death, and contradict himself here? Was Paul referring only to his body appearing with Christ in glory?

We have covered these points before, but they are important because they cut right to the crux of the issue. If you are going to use these verses to teach an 'immortal soul', how many times throughout the Bible do you have to read 'body' into passages where the word doesn't exist, and 'soul' into others where it also doesn't exist? In short, aren't you artificially manufacturing the very theory you are attempting to prove? When you read 'depart, and to be with Christ' you assume 'soul departs to be with Christ', but when you see 'THEN, shall we appear with Him in glory', you assume 'our bodies shall appear with Him in Glory to join our souls which are already there'.

Obviously, if we believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, without error, then whatever we believe must harmonize all the scriptures. But isn't there a better way to do this than the constant reading in of words and concepts which just aren't there? Let's look at just one more example of this kind of exposition:

Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: Acts 2:29-34

The meaning of this should be clear to anyone. Peter is describing how David prophesied about Jesus' resurrection as opposed to applying the passage to himself. His proof of this is that Christ's tomb is empty, and Christ has gone into heaven, but David is still in his grave and has not ascended into heaven. This reinforces the plain fact that the dead remain in their graves until the resurrection. How can it possibly be said that David is now in heaven, when this passage states that he isn't? But this is precisely what many do. They read 'David's body has not ascended although David's soul did'. Or they attach a different meaning to 'ascended' and suggest that it means, he went up, but not of his own power. But this destroys the force of the verse; David isn't ascended because he's still in the grave! The sheer number of passages where 'soul' and 'body' must be supplied in passages such as this, should say something to those who hold these views.

Personally, I need something a bit more substantial to lean on, and I am not comfortable forcing Paul, or Peter into an apparent contradiction.

Returning now to our text:

For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:

What we are actually seeing here, are not two options which Paul is considering (life and death), but three (life, death, and resurrection), although this is hidden in our English translation. Because most Bible translations are done by those who teach that man has an immortal soul, this belief will of necessity color their translation of a text. But let's examine the Greek text of this verse more closely:

Sunechomai de ek toon duo Teen epithumian echoon

I am pressed for between the two a longing having

eis to analusai kai sun Christoo einai polloo gar

for the return and with Christ to be much indeed

mallon kreisson

more better

This of course gives a much different meaning than 'to depart and be with Christ'. The main difference is in the clause eis to analusai. The word analusai, only occurs one other time in the New Testament.

Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning;And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return (Gk. analusai) from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately. Luke 12:34-35

This of course is in reference to Christ's second advent; the same event that Paul wrote elsewhere that he greatly longed for.

In Greek literature, analusai can be used as either 'depart', or 'return'. So what decides how it should be translated in Philippians 1:23? Simple; the bias of the translator. There is no good reason why Paul could not have said that his great longing was for the return of Christ as opposed to his own death. The reader should note in the Greek text above that the definite article 'the' appears before analusai, which points to a defined specific event; THE return. The reader will also notice that the definite article does not appear in our English translations. The bias of our translators has obviously affected how they have translated this verse because they already assumed that man has an immortal soul which can depart at death.

There is every reason to believe that Paul was referring to the RETURN of Christ, and not his death. Let's look again at our table, this time using our translation, 'for the return', and see how the passage harmonizes with 2 Corinthians 5:

Paul longs for the return of Christ, so he can be with Him. But because his longing is for something he can't immediately have, he is in a straight between living an dying. He knows that either by his life or death, Christ will be magnified ('to live is Christ, and to die is gain'), but because of the ministry, and those who need him, he concludes that to go on living is better.

This makes sense, it's allowable in the original language, it fits the context perfectly, and harmonizes all the problems that are created by placing a 'departing immortal soul' into the passage where no such language exists. 
 

IN THE BODY OR OUT OF THE BODY

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
2 Cor 12:2-4

In an earlier chapter we looked at a quote by Robert Morey concerning this passage:

'In 2 Cor. 12:2-4, he (Paul) could describe a person as being completely conscious while out of the body as well as when the person was in the body. The man in the passage did not cease to exist while out of his body. The man's transcendent soul or spirit could leave his body and ascend to the third heaven and be conscious in the presence of God.'

Does anyone see a problem with Morey's explication of this passage? Where does Paul say that he was out of his body? Where is anything said about the 'transcendent soul or spirit'? According to those like Morey, what happens to a man when that soul or spirit leaves the body? Isn't a man DEAD when that happens? Did Paul actually die and receive a resurrection? How quick people are to quote something to prove a point.

First of all, Paul does not say 'whether my soul and spirit stayed in my body, or left my body, I can not tell'. This is simply wishful thinking on the part of those like Morey.

Second, Paul says twice that he had no idea how he got the vision, but those like Morey claim to know. They tell us that his soul went to heaven. How come Paul didn't know this?

We don't need to read any more or any less into the passage than what's here. Some will obviously believe that Paul at least acknowledged the possibility of the soul existing outside of the body, but the text doesn't even say that.

We read about something similar happening to John in Revelation:

After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. Rev 4:1-2

Did John leave his body? Was he dead? No, he saw the vision 'in' or 'by' the power of the Holy Spirit.

Whatever Paul's experience was, it was so real to him that he couldn't determine whether it happened bodily, like Philip (Acts 8:39), or not. It may have been as Ezekiel was (Ezek 8:3), or John (Rev 4:2). He couldn't tell if he was transported bodily to heaven, or mentally ('without the body' as it reads in the Greek). The truth of the matter is just as Paul has stated it; only God knows, and we should be content with that.

Suffice to say that whatever Paul's experience was, it certainly does not help anyone prove the existence an  immortal soul. 
 

THE INNER MAN AND THE OUTER MAN
 

For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. 2 Cor 4:16-18

Here we have yet another passage where the dualists see 'soul' where there is none. Dualists see an 'immortal soul' in both the 'inner man' and 'the things which are not seen' which are eternal.

We have considered 2 Corinthians 4 briefly, earlier in this chapter. We have already seen that the inward man is not the soul. Consider again the entire context of this passage:

But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us. We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. So then death worketh in us, but life in you. We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you. For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God. For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. 2 Cor 4:7-18

The table on the following page helps to illustrate, by a series of contrasts, what Paul is talking about. Note the language used in this passage as well as others in which Paul uses similar language. See if you can spot an 'immortal soul' or even a 'soul' anywhere:

We simply can't make it much clearer than this. The 'inner' man is clearly not the soul, but the new nature which dwells inside the believer. This is a far cry from an 'immortal soul'. We are told to 'put on' the 'new man'. How do you put on something you would have already had? Paul calls the new nature, 'the mind with which I serve the law of God'.

Failure to discern this simple truth has led to so much confusion. No man, except the child of God, has this 'new nature', and even then, should he die, it does not continue conscious existence, but is held in trust by God, in Christ. (Col 3:2-4)

In this life, the 'new nature', the 'new man', the 'inner man', etc. can only manifest itself in our mind, our will, our emotions, our desires, etc. It is at war with the flesh, the lust of the eyes, the pride of life etc. But for now, that is the only dwelling place it has, even though the war it causes with the natural flesh causes us to groan, earnestly desiring our 'house from heaven'. Paul reasons that even though our physical flesh is perishing, the 'inner man' is renewed because it is the life of Christ, the mind of Christ, the desires of Christ, etc., which we see develop more and more.

There are only two ways the 'new creature' can have existence. Either in this body, where it is at war with the flesh, or in the resurrection body where it is consummated and made perfect. If the fleshly body should perish, it must 'sleep', until its life, which is hid with God in Christ appears on the resurrection morning.

These are simple facts, which any careful reader should be able to ascertain by comparing scripture with scripture. They establish the fact of the resurrection as an absolute necessity. Read carefully the words of Paul again:

For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 1Cor 15:16-20

It is obvious, that to Paul's way of thinking, he must establish the resurrection as an absolute necessity. If man has an immortal soul, then why is the emphasis always laid squarely on the absolute necessity of a resurrection as our hope? Why couldn't Christ just have suffered and died for our sins, and then returned to heaven as an immortal soul? Why did he have to rise from the dead? If those who die now are in a blissful state with Christ in heaven, then why the absolute necessity for the resurrection?

The answers are clear once we can establish firmly in our minds that man is not immortal in any sense. Christ came as the long awaited promise. Jesus said 'I am the resurrection and the life'. Whatever hopes were held out to mankind of a future life beyond the grave were embodied in Christ. Paul knew this, and reasons that if Christ is not raised, then those who are 'fallen asleep in Christ are perished'. That is, they're gone.. no hope, no life, no remedy, no return. In dying to the flesh, whatever life these people had was hidden in Christ, but if Christ is not raised, then all the faith, all the labor, the toil, the preaching, is all in vain. But Paul continues by saying that 'if in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.' Now please consider very carefully. What is Paul saying here? That if Christ is not raised, then we are the most miserable of all men, because we have no hope for a future life. The pagans at least had their teaching of an immortal soul, but if Christ, who is our life, who embodies all our hopes for a future life beyond the grave is still in the tomb, then we are utterly hopeless. The force and beauty of this passage simply can not be understood once you force an 'immortal soul' into the text.

The teaching that would make the 'new creature' and the 'inner man' into an 'immortal soul' is a fallacy. Every time we find the apostle talking about the hope for the dead, we find the resurrection in the same context.

But dualists like Morey insist:

'The New Testament authors clearly believed that man had a dual nature. They refer to the body as 'the outer man' and the soul/spirit as the 'inner man' in such places as Rom.7:22 and Eph. 3:16. The contrast is so clearly embedded in the mind of the Apostle Paul that he even described 'the outer man' as decaying while the 'inner man' or soul was being renewed day by day (2 Cor. 4:16).'

If ever it should be obvious to the reader that the teaching of an 'immortal soul' has to be read into the text where it doesn't exist, it should be here. Where in Romans 7:22 and Ephesians 3:16 does Paul make any mention of the 'soul/spirit'? Where in 2 Corinthians 4:16 does Paul call the inner man the 'soul'? The fact the Morey refers to the 'inner man' as the 'soul/spirit' betrays his own confusion of these two terms and how they are used. This absolute failure to discern truth from the immediate context in order to force a predetermined theology into a passage, to me, is quite shocking; but it serves to show the iron grasp this teaching has over people who will defend it at all costs

THEM ALSO WHICH SLEEP IN JESUS WILL GOD BRING WITH HIM

But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words. 1 Thes 4:13-18

In this verse, the dualists come full circle and complete their theology concerning the soul and the resurrection. Once again, in a passage where they should see the resurrection as the only hope and comfort for the dead, they see an 'immortal soul' where none appears in the passage.

Before commenting on the text, let's look at how the dualists read this verse in conjunction with the last four we have studied.

Paul said he couldn't tell whether he was 'out of his body' or not in order to get a vision, and he has an 'inner man' which doesn't perish.

From the above, they believe to have established, beyond any reasonable question, that Paul believed he had an immortal soul

Further, he says, 'To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord' (as it is commonly misquoted), 'To die is personal gain' (as it is thus interpreted), and he 'has a desire to depart and to be with Christ which is far better (as it is commonly translated).'

Here they believe to have established that to Paul, death is desirable. He must go immediately to the presence of Christ, because there would be no point in wishing for the grave. Here they unwittingly answer their argument; Paul doesn't wish to die, but they continue to have a 'death wish' for him anyway.

Because of the above, they reason that since souls are in heaven before the resurrection, then all passages pertaining to the resurrection of the dead, those that die, and those that 'sleep', must refer to the body only.

Finally, Since the dead are said to 'rise first', then the souls which are in heaven must descend with Christ to reunite with their bodies which are coming up from the ground. This is what they see in the phrase 'even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.'

Thus with confidence they firmly believe they have established from the scriptures the first lie ever told; 'And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die', creating a myriad of contradictions all along the way. Please consider carefully the following table:

The list of contradictory verses is by no means exhaustive, but should serve to impress upon the mind of the reader the type of careless exposition which is used when presenting these verses as proof texts for an 'immortal soul'.

Of course, as we have shown, there are no problems at all, except for the ones which are created by reading 'immortal soul' where it doesn't exist.

Paul never said his soul left his body at any time, he never called the 'inward man' an 'immortal soul', he was clear that death wasn't personal gain, he longed for the return (Gk. analusai) of Christ, not to depart, and he never said that to be absent from the body was to be immediately in God's presence.

On the contrary, he did say that with no resurrection we have hope only in this life, that immortality was something to be sought, that death was the power of the devil, that death is an enemy, that God had mercy on Epaphroditus by not letting him die, that he didn't want to lose his 'earthly house', that we appear with Christ when he appears, and that it is by the resurrection that we get to 'ever be with the Lord'.

It is the clear teaching of scripture versus the out of context proof-texts and inferences of those who wish to cling to the 'immortal soul'.

Let's now return to our 'proof-text'.

But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

Does this mean that Jesus is bringing the souls of those that 'slept' back with him for their bodies? Perhaps a very casual reading of the verse might give that impression, unless we inquire further.

First, why is it said that 'God' brings them with Jesus. If Jesus is the one descending, and God the Father is still in heaven, he wouldn't be 'bringing' but 'sending' them with Jesus.

Second is the question of whether the sleeping ones are brought down to earth, or up to heaven. Paul is making a comparison with Jesus' own resurrection. Because Jesus arose and ascended into heaven, so God will take the risen ones to heaven with him. Paul recognizes that the Father didn't bring resurrected ones at the time of Christ's resurrection, and thus he uses the future tense: 'them also which sleep… will God bring'  He can be said to bring them at a later time.

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 1 Cor 15:20-23

Also, the word 'in' which stands in the Greek text between 'sleep' and 'Jesus' is in the genitive case, and is more accurately rendered as 'through'. Because there is no punctuation in the Greek text, it needs to be determined which of the words, 'sleep', or 'Jesus', 'through' properly belongs to.

The evidence would seem to favor the latter. Nowhere else in the New Testament do we find the phrase 'sleep in Jesus', but many times we find 'through Jesus'.

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: Rom 5:1

And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. Rom 5:11

Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. Rom 8:37

But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Cor 15:57

Taking these two thoughts together, the verse would more properly be rendered:

For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep, God will, through Jesus, bring with him .

Once again we see nothing in the text that requires an immortal soul. Paul is comforting the Thessalonians concerning those who had died, so they are not as others who 'have no hope'. The answer to what gives hope, is the resurrection (which is always the case), not that the 'souls' have gone into heaven. If this is really what Paul meant, this would have been the ideal place to state the matter explicitly, but that is not the case.

He continues that we which are alive and remain until the Lord comes, shall not precede those that have fallen asleep. Why? Because they're already in heaven? This would be the perfect place for Paul to say so, but does he? No, we will not preceed the sleeping ones because 'the dead in Christ shall rise first.', then 'we which are alive and remain, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord'

Notice also, we are caught up 'together with them to meet the Lord'. The living meet the Lord the same time the dead meet the Lord; we meet Him 'together'.

Lastly, the words 'and so' in the Greek text are kai houto which literally means 'in this manner', with reference to what precedes it. So we see that Paul is teaching that it is by the resurrection that the living and the dead both get to ever be with the Lord, which would not be true if Jesus was receiving each one individually as they died. 
 

THE COMING OF JESUS
WITH HIS SAINTS

And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you: To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints. 1 Thes 3:12-13

Some people (very few actually) attempt to attach this verse with the previous text, and make these saints into those coming back for their bodies.

The Greek word for saints here is hagios which means 'holy ones'. It can be used of either angels, or holy men. By comparing this verse with a couple others, we can arrive at the correct interpretation.

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: Matt 25:31

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, Jude 14

In both of these passages, the myriads of holy ones coming with Jesus are angels, and that probably also the proper understanding of 1 Thes 3:13. 

However, it must be noted that it makes no difference whether this verse refers to men or angels because the first resurrection must precede the second coming.  The resurrection of the just occurs at the last or seventh trumpet of Revelation, which clearly precedes the second coming in Revelation 19.  Therefore it ios entirely possible that the 'saints' of 1 Thes 3:13 refers to men, although resurrected men.

In either case, the verse in no way helps to prove the immortality of the soul.
 

THE TIME OF MY DEPARTURE
IS AT HAND

For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.
2 Tim 4:6-8

At this point in Paul's life he knows he is going to die. We no longer see the indifference he displays in Philippians 1:23 where he was pressed between life and death, not knowing which to choose. The words here which are translated 'For I am now ready to be offered' are literally 'I am already being poured out'

As we would expect, some see an 'immortal soul' in verse 6 where Paul says that his 'departure is at hand'. Once again, there is no departing 'soul' or 'spirit' in the passage, and no mention is made of going to heaven. We need not read anymore into the text than what it simply states; Paul is dying, and he knows he is departing from this life.

As is the case every time Paul discusses hope for life beyond the grave, he once again points us here toward the resurrection:

'Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing'

This simply confirms everything we have learned. Paul did not expect to go immediately to be with Christ at his death. The fact that he mentions the hope of the resurrection here, at the time when his death is imminent, and nothing about immediately going to be with Christ should settle once and for all his expectations regarding death, and his hopes for future life.

This verse also helps us to check our conclusions by comparing it to another verse which we studied earlier; Philippians 1:23:

having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better

We reasoned that the standard interpretation here was not correct; that what Paul desired, was not his death, but some event whereby he could be with Christ, namely 'the return' (Gk. analusai).

The verse currently under consideration, shows that our conclusions were valid, and sound. If at this time, when Paul's death is imminent, he is about to go immediately to be the Lord which is 'far better'; indeed, if he were about to really see the fulfillment of the event he so greatly longed for in Philippians 1:23, then surely he would have made mention of it here, but that is simply not the case. Instead he looks once again toward the resurrection, and a day in which he will be with his Lord; the event, which in every case without exception, he so greatly desired.

CONCLUSIONS

Having examined some of the most common proof-texts so vigorously brought forth to teach man's inherent immortality, it is my hope that the reader has emerged from this study a bit wiser.

I hope to have established, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the apostle never penned these words with the intent with which they are usually cited. I would also hope, that those who still wish to use these as sure proof that Paul taught the immortality of the soul will feel the need to study deeper in order to solve the severe contradictions and problems inherent in such a belief.

Most of all, I hope to have established in the mind of the reader, just how important the resurrection was to Paul, and what a prominent place it held in his theology. The importance of the resurrection has been lost in most of modern Christendom, having been replaced by a 'heaven now' mentality. The battle cry to the lost world; 'If you died today are you 100% sure you'd go to heaven', is utterly foreign to New Testament language. The question would more appropriately be 'If you died today, are you 100% sure you'll have any future life at all.'

On Easter Sunday, when our churches are full, we are told how our Savior was raised from the dead, and how our entire faith hinges on this fact, but we are scarcely told why. We are almost never reminded just how very important the resurrection is to us as believers as our only hope.

We have shown in every one of the above passages, without exception, that Paul's great hope and longing, was not for death and heaven, but for the resurrection. In light of this, it would behoove each of to examine our own beliefs to see if it occupies such an important place in our own lives.
 

HOME   TOP   NEXT   PREVIOUS