CONTINUED CONSCIOUS
EXISTENCE
BEYOND DEATH?
The teaching of the immortal soul declares that every man has
a conscious continuous existence after the death of the body.
Most Christians assume that this is clearly taught in the Bible,
but careful study shows exactly the opposite. The passages which
teach that no part of man is immortal and that death is
unconscious nonexistence are clear and plentiful. On the other
hand, the teaching of the immortal soul relies on a few
proof-texts which are never explicit in teaching this doctrine.
Let's examine some of the clear statements of scripture regarding
the state of the dead.
For the living know that they shall die: but
the dead know not any thing, neither have they
any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Eccl
9:5
If some conscious part of a man survives the death of the
body, then how is it that according to the Bible, the dead know
nothing? This verse is in harmony with what we have learned so
far; that man as a living soul ceases to exist at death. Faced
with such a clear teaching as to the state of the dead, it is no
surprise that commentators will go to great lengths to show that
the verse does not really mean what it so clearly states.
An example of this can be found once again in the Dake's
Annotated Reference Bible. Commenting on Ecclesiastes 9:5 Dake
says:
'This is true so far as the body is concerned. They
do not know anything, and they are not conscious in the
least, for they came from dust, and return to dust; but the
souls and spirits of all men are immortal and continue in a
full state of consciousness between death and the
resurrection of their bodies...' pg. 673, col. 4
There is nothing in the text that even remotely allows for
such a conclusion. Presented with a plain statement that the dead
'know not anything', Dake makes a liar out of God and
insists that part of the man doesn't know anything, but part of
him (the real man in their view) still does.
The respected creationist author Henry M. Morris, in his
Defender's Study Bible has this to say concerning Ecclesiastes
9:5:
'This does not mean that there is no future life or
consciousness after death, but only that nothing more can be
done to earn heavenly rewards...' pg. 708
We have to ask; What is it in Ecclesiastes 9:5 that causes men
such as Dake and Morris to state the exact opposite of what the
text says? Clearly this text will not square easily with the
teaching that men are conscious after death. Passages such as
this are often ignored by proponents of the immortal soul theory
but why?
We can observe the same pattern when considering Psalms 6:5
For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the
grave who shall give thee thanks? Ps 6:5
If in death there is no remembrance of God, then how can
someone be in conscious existence with God? Dake however, once
again insists that a person can:
'Death claims only the body, not the soul and spirit
which are immortal. It is true that dead bodies do not
remember God, but the soul and spirit are not dust and
continue in consciousness after death to the body.'
ibid. pg. 550 col. 4
In direct contradiction to God's statement to Adam that
'Dust thou art', Dake insists that only the body is
meant, and man goes on living. The fallacy of his comments on
Psalm 6:5 should be obvious, for if only the body is meant, then
the verse is unnecessary, and entirely without meaning. It is obvious
that dead bodies do not give God thanks. The thought of the verse
is than in death, men can not, and do not remember God or give
him thanks.
Peter Ruckman's comments here are also interesting:
''There is no remembrance of thee' is an ideal
Jehovah's Witness 'annihilation' text to match
Ecclesiastes 9:5. Notice how the English of the 1611 (King
James text) corrects this heresy without resorting to Greek
or Hebrew. Study carefully Judges 8:34 and Hosea 8:4 with
Matthew 7:23 and Galatians 4:9. Observe that although God
knows everything and everybody and forgets nothing, He does
not 'KNOW' things with favor or approval and does
not 'REMEMBER' things ACTIVELY, at times. David is
saying that no one in the grave can 'remember' God
in the exact sense of the words that follow: 'who shall give thee thanks?'
Bible Believers Commentary on Psalms vol. 1, pg. 31
Notice first that Peter Ruckman admits that the text matches
Ecclesiastes 9:5 mentioned above, and dubs it 'an ideal
annihilation text'. By this he means that it obviously
teaches the non-existence of the soul at death. He then proceeds
to tell us, as Dake above, that the verse does not mean what it
says. Rather than resort to the simplistic solution of Dake (that
only the body is referred to), Ruckman goes on to erect an
elaborate teaching where, 'remembrance' and
'approval' don't really mean 'remembrance'
and 'approval' in an active sense. There is no need for
this type of straining of the English text unless you are
attempting to make it conform to a teaching you already assume to
be true. Peter Ruckman by admitting that the plain sense of the
verse teaches annihilation of the soul, shows us that he is doing
just that.
While I live will I praise the LORD: I will sing
praises unto my God while I have any being. Put not your
trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no
help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to
his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
Ps 146:2-4
This verse is in perfect harmony with everything we have
learned thus far. The soul (the entire being) dies, the body
returns to the earth and his 'thoughts perish'. Nothing
is said of the soul surviving the death of the body. Once again
Dake struggles to force the verse into his system of theology:
'As far as the body is concerned, the thoughts do
perish. When it dies and goes back to dust its very thoughts
perish i.e. it can not think anymore. The soul and spirit
leave the body at death, so it is impossible for the inner
man to continue thinking through the dead body of which it is
no longer a part. This has nothing to do however with the
continued thinking of the inner man and it can not be used to
prove that the soul and spirit are mortal. That they are
immortal is proved on pg. 270.' Dakes Annotated
Reference Bible pg. 616, cool 4
The honest reader must ask himself; Is there anything in Ps
146:2-4 and the phrase 'his thoughts perish', that
warrants such a conclusion? If there is an 'inner man'
that continues to think at the death of the body, then clearly
his thought do not perish, and the verse is meaningless.
Dake's insistence that the soul and spirit are immortal is
puzzling because, as we will see, the Bible never uses the words
immortal, and immortality of anyone or anything except God
himself, and a future state for believers which we do not now
possess. It appears at this point that Dake feels the need to
offer proof that the Bible elsewhere teaches something contrary
to what it appears to be saying in Psalm 146. He points us toward
a list of 25 'proof-texts' for the immortality of the
soul. It will be shown in a future section that each one of these
supposed proof-texts will in no way teach that part of a man
survives the death of the body. In fact, it will be shown that
each of these is in perfect harmony with the truths thus far
presented.
The Old Testament is relentless in failing to bend to the
notion of an immortal soul:
What profit is there in my blood, when
I go down to the pit? Shall the dust praise thee? shall it
declare thy truth? Ps
30:9
Let me not be ashamed, O LORD; for I
have called upon thee: let the wicked be ashamed, and let
them be silent in the grave. Ps 31:17
Shall thy lovingkindness be declared in
the grave? or thy faithfulness in destruction? Ps 88:11
The dead praise not the LORD, neither
any that go down into silence. Ps 115:17
Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do
it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor
knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. Eccl 9:10
For the grave cannot praise thee, death
can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot
hope for thy truth. The
living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day:
the father to the children shall make known thy truth. Isa 38:18-19
Some will argue that these passages, being all from the Old
Testament, have been superceded by the teachings of the New
Testament, and that the New Testament gives a clearer and more
complete revelation concerning the immortality of the soul and
the state of the dead. Our first question to this must be; Can a
clearer revelation ever be a contradiction? It is one thing to
clarify a teaching and another to flatly contradict it. The
common way around this problem seems to be the simplistic
solution offered by Finis Jennings Dake. You simply take all
passages which will not agree with your view and make them apply
to the body only.
In reality, there is no New Testament passage which would even
begin o contradict the Old Testament passage concerning the state
of the dead. They would only seem to cause difficulty
when read in such a way as to assume an immortal soul There are
however some New Testament passages which clearly teach that the
dead remain unconscious in their graves until the resurrection.
On of these can be found in the story of the raising of Lazarus:
These things said he: and after that he saith unto
them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake
him out of sleep. Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep,
he shall do well. Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they
thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. Then
said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.
John 11:11-14
Here Jesus uses sleep as a metaphor for death. This figure of
speech is used many times in the Bible. Death is compared to
sleep for obvious reasons. When a person dies the person being
unconscious appears to be sleeping. Also when a person is in a
very deep sleep he is not conscious of the world around him at
all. In this respect sleep is a perfect illustration of death. It
is very important to note that Jesus equates the person
of Lazarus with the body which is in the tomb. He tells them plainly 'Lazarus is dead', because obviously the metaphor
'sleep' wasn't plain enough. However, to those such as
Dake, this still isn't plain enough. Those who believe in an
immortal soul do not believe that Lazarus was really dead, but
that only his body had died. Why does Jesus never use such
terminology?
Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been
here, my brother had not died. But I know, that even now,
whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee. Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha
saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the
resurrection at the last day. John 11:21-24
Continuing from the above passage of scripture, Martha, the
sister of Lazarus expresses the grief of her brother's death to
Jesus along with her faith in believing that if Jesus had been
there he could have prevented Lazarus from dying. Jesus' reply to
Martha is very interesting; 'Thy brother shall rise
again'. We have to ask; Was Jesus merely referring to the
body of Lazarus? If Lazarus had a soul that went to be with God,
or to a subterranean paradise, then why is there no mention of it
here? Why wouldn't Jesus comfort Martha with the fact that her
brother was in a better place if that was truly the case?
Martha's reply 'I know he will rise in the resurrection
at the last day' is also interesting. Was Martha also only
referring to the body of Lazarus? No, Martha knew that her
brother was really dead, and that he would sleep in the grave
until the resurrection 'at the last day'. Notice the
absolute lack of modern thought and terminology. At our modern
Christian funerals we never say that the person is really dead,
only that they have set aside their body and moved on.
Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the
life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall
he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never
die. Believest thou this? John 11:25-26
The first thing to note here is that Jesus in no way rebuked
Martha for her comment that her brother would rise in the
resurrection 'at the last day'. Jesus states the he IS
the resurrection, that without him there could be no resurrection
at all for mankind, and no hope for life beyond the grave. Some
take these statements of Jesus to mean that the death Jesus was
referring to could not be physical death because obviously
believers in Jesus die every day. The problem with this
interpretation is that it introduces two meanings of the word
'death' into the context. We have already seen in John
11:11-14 Jesus compared the death of Lazarus to sleep, and no one
argues that he meant by this that Lazarus had died physically.
There is no reason to suppose that Jesus introduced a different
meaning for the word death in John 11:25-26.
The alleged problem here is solved when we consider the
context, and that Jesus' reply was in answer to Martha's
statement about the resurrection 'at the last day'. In
the resurrection those that are dead are raised ('though he
were dead, yet shall he live'), and those that are alive at
that time get resurrection bodies without ever dying ('and
whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die')
Notice how beautifully the scriptures are in harmony with this:
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. 1Thes 4:16-17
Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep,
but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of
an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and
the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be
changed. 1Cor 15:51-52
A comparison of these verses shows how well the word of God
points to the resurrection as the hope for the dead:
'Though he were
dead, yet shall he live'
'the dead in Christ shall rise first'
'for the trumpet
shall sound and the dead shall be raised incorruptible'
'And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never
die.'
'Then we which are
alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds'
'and we shall be changed'
Continuing the story of Jesus and Lazarus:
Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw him,
she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. When Jesus
therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which
came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled,
And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord,
come and see. Jesus wept. John 11:32-35
If, as so many teach, Lazarus had an immortal soul which went
to be with God, or some paradise, then why was Jesus so upset
here? Jesus wept because he knew that death, as mankind's
greatest enemy, had claimed another soul. Indeed he knew his
whole purpose for coming to earth was to buy back the life that
Adam had lost and free men from the power of death and secure the
hope of the resurrection from the dead. As a man, the truth of
this hit home because death had claimed the life of one of his
good friends.
Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister
of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he
stinketh: for he hath been dead four days. Jesus saith unto
her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe,
thou shouldest see the glory of God? Then they took away the
stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus
lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou
hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but
because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may
believe that thou hast sent me. And when he thus had spoken,
he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that
was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes:
and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto
them, Loose him, and let him go. John 11:39-44
Again, we are given no indication that Lazarus is anywhere but
in the grave. Jesus calls to the body 'Lazarus, come
forth', not 'return', 'come up' or
'come down'. After Lazarus is raised from the dead we
are told nothing about any 'afterlife' experience that
Lazarus had. At Jesus' command, God returned life to Lazarus and
restored his body which after four days in the tomb had already
begun to decay. At no time in the entire passage did Jesus ever
imply that Lazarus was anywhere but in the tomb, and never gave
any comfort or hope for Lazarus except the resurrection. This
story is clearly at variance with the popular notions concerning
the soul and the state of the dead.
The following two passages from the Book of Acts are also very
interesting:
Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of
the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this
babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of
strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the
resurrection. Acts 17:18
And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead,
some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this
matter. Acts 17:32
These two verses from the book of Acts deal with the Apostle
Paul's confrontation with the Greek philosophers on Mar's Hill.
They are of importance to our discussion because they deal with
death, the resurrection, and the way the pagan Greeks viewed
these topics.
It must be understood that the Greek philosophers had very
strong beliefs about life after death. It was Greek philosophy
which taught that man had a soul which survived the death of the
body and went on to a higher plane, or was re-incarnated into
another being.
This was in contrast to the Jewish hope of a resurrection from
the dead.
Writing for the Christian Resource Institute, Jirair S.
Tashjian elaborates on this:
'In contrast to Jewish and Christian ideas of
resurrection, Greek philosophers from the time of Plato
thought in terms of immortality of the soul. Human beings
were made up of two parts, body and soul. The body died and
decayed but the soul lived on forever. When Corinthian
Christians said, 'There is no resurrection' (1 Cor 15:12), they meant that
the body of Jesus turned to dust but his soul remained immortal'
This explains to us why when the Stoics and Epicureans heard
of the resurrection, 'some mocked', for they saw no
need for a resurrection. The pagan Greeks believed in the
immortality of the soul. If Paul's preaching also included this
belief, then why did they mock him?
Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead,
how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the
dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is
Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our
preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are
found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of
God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be
that the dead rise not. 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. 1 Cor 15:12-20
First Corinthians 15 is generally spokne of as the 'resurrection chapter' because of its detailed
discussion on this topic. The passage above will prove to be very
valuable in understanding death, the state of the dead, and their
hope for a future resurrection.
Paul shows the importance of Christ's resurrection and
proceeds to show that if Christ is not raised, seven things are
also true:
1) 'our preaching is vain'
2) 'your preaching is vain'
3) 'your faith is also vain'
4) 'we are false witnesses'
5) 'ye are in your sins'
6) 'they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are
perished'
7) 'we are of all men most miserable'
Such importance is attached to the resurrection because Paul
knew that if Christ was not raised, then Christ had ceased to
exist. Christ had preached that he was the resurrection, and
if Christ was not raised, then they were entirely without hope.
If Jesus had an immortal soul which survived his death, then why
the importance placed on resurrection of the body? If there was
no resurrection , the Christian faith was in vain.
The phrase 'they also which are fallen asleep in Christ
are perished' proves this to be so.
The Greek word rendered 'perished' is apollumi
(ap-ol'-loo-mee). The word is very strong and means 'to
destroy fully and completely'. Thayers dictionary of Greek
New Testament Words gives the following definitions for apollumi:
1) to destroy
a) to put out of the way entirely, to abolish, to put an end
to ruin
b) to render useless
c) to kill
What Paul is saying is, if there is no resurrection, then
those which are fallen asleep in Christ are gone totally with no
hope for a future life. To teach that Paul believed that man has
an immortal soul which survives the death of the body would
render the verse meaningless.
To Paul, the resurrection was the cornerstone of the Christian
faith, and the only hope for life beyond the grave. How different
this is from the teaching of most churches today. If the immortal
souls of humans go either to heaven or hell immediately at death,
then the resurrection is nothing more than an incidental. Nothing
makes this more obvious than a look at current Christian
literature
What could be more clear; the dead wait for the resurrection.
In answer to our original question 'Where are the
dead?' we have seen that the dead are neither in heaven, nor
are they in hell. The dead sleep in their graves until the
resurrection day. This is the harmonious teaching of both the old
and new testaments. Man, created a living soul, is a mortal being
which dies because of the sin inherited from our original parents
Adam and Eve. Upon death our bodies return to dust, our thoughts
perish, and we wait until the promised resurrection, which we are
assured of because '... now is Christ risen from the dead,
and become the firstfruits of them that slept.' 1 Cor 15:20
|