Consulting or calling up the dead

[RND]

I'm not answering for Steve. I just want to comment that I, (and I think RND also) do not believe in "soul sleep".

I disbelieve that there exists "souls" separate from the body, whether asleep or awake. I believe that when you're dead, you're dead. You don't exist. You'll stay dead until Jesus raises you to life.

Bingo! Bulls eye! and Home run!

[steve]

Hi Paidion,

You wrote:

So I wonder why Jesus would have used sleep as a figure of speech concerning death, if the dead are conscious.

Sleeping people are not unconscious. I would be equally curious as to why he would use the figure of sleep, if they were nonexistent? Sleeping people still exist—and even have dreams.

In what sense would they be asleep?

To the view of the earthly eye, the dead have the look of being asleep. However, they will get up again at the resurrection, which is another way that they are like people asleep—they are destined to wake up.

Your questions about why not just stay in heaven, and why look forward to a resurrection, are the same questions that I answered for RND. Once a person gets past the idea that "salvation is about me going to heaven!" and realizes that ultimate salvation is about God restoring His entire wrecked creation to its unfallen state, the need for resurrected bodies (as opposed to perpetually disembodied spirits) becomes clear enough. Paul says that the goal of our groaning is that we should ultimately be "further clothed." That is the ultimate goal of God and the reason for the resurrection. It does not mean that there is no interim state. It only means that our longing, like that of the whole creation, is for something that will not be fully realized in our individual entrance into heaven at death, but for the ultimate redemption of our bodies and the manifestation of the sons of God (Rom.8:19-23).

Suzana and Michelle,

I think your questioning how whole nations can be judged and rewarded en masse reflects a reasonable suspicion of the suggestion. The passage certainly does not require that "all nations" (ethnoi=Gentiles) be treated as complete political entities being judged for their national crimes or virtues, any more than "disciple all nations" means that the political nations will necessarily be discipled en masse as whole nations. It is quite reasonable to understand "all nations", in both contexts, as meaning "people of all ethnic groups."

Would a nation like ancient Rome be judged as a "goat nation" because of Nero's crimes against Christians, or as a "sheep nation" because of Constantine's good treatment of Christians? Would England be judged as a "goat nation" because of the crimes of Bloody Mary, and her martyring of Protestants, or as a "sheep nation" for the pro-Christian eras in its history? The histories of nations are too complex and checkered to allow any nation to be regarded as falling completely into either the sheep or the goat categories.

The dispensationalists are the ones from whom I first heard this "national judgment" interpretation, and they think the nations will be blessed or condemned by whether they treated the Jews well or not. The idea of whole nations being judged and sent into eternal fire or into eternal life—disregarding how many individuals within them do not deserve the fate of the rest, has never made sense to me, nor jibed with the rest of the teaching of scripture about every man receiving the reward of his own individual deeds (Matt.12:36; 16:27/ Rom.2:5-10 / 2 Cor.5:10 /1 Peter 1:17 / Rev.20:13).

The dispensationalists believe that this sheep-goat judgment determines which political nations will be permitted to survive into the millennium, and that this is not the final "great white throne" judgment of Revelation 20. Therefore, this judgment would not have to be exactly just, with reference to individuals' merits or demerits, since there will be another judgment, after the millennium, where those personal scores will be settled equitably. Unfortunately for this view, Jesus doesn't represent either the sheep or the goats as going into the millennium. They go, respectively, into "eternal life" and "eternal punishment." No thousand-year interim is envisaged.

Therefore, I cannot personally adopt the "nations-judged-as-nations" interpretation.

[mikew]

...snip...
Suzana and Michelle,

I think your questioning how whole nations can be judged and rewarded en masse reflects a reasonable suspicion of the suggestion. The passage certainly does not require that "all nations" (ethnoi=Gentiles) be treated as complete political entities being judged for their national crimes or virtues, any more than "disciple all nations" means that the political nations will necessarily be discipled en masse as whole nations. It is quite reasonable to understand "all nations", in both contexts, as meaning "people of all ethnic groups."

The passage seems to be about some sort of national borders, if the wording permits, since the sort of judgment described divides the nations as sheep and goats. If this was a division based on ethnic groups, then the passage would be saying that specific ethnic groups of people were the goats based on how they treated Christians. Maybe both of these options have the same difficulties though or may be essentially the same. For example if the Elamites treated Christians badly as a culture or a nation, then that culture or nation would go into obscurity for mistreatment of Christians.
The sheep and goats passage doesn't seem to be about individual people's salvation or demise because in the general idea of a hell fire punishment there normally is expected to be punishment of people who haven't come in contact with Christians. So those people who haven't come in contact with Christians then couldn't be guilty of not feeding, not giving drink or not visiting in prison.

But as I considered the last words of the passage, Matt 25:46...

Mat 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

Then the analysis becomes "complicated" again. Since, how can a nation or culture get eternal life? Previously the passage said that sheep would inherit the kingdom -- something plausible in my understanding.
I guess this passage forces some rethinking of ideas about eternal life, punishment, and nations. One or all of these ideas must be "modified" in order to find the logic of the passage.
One other point is that the sheep never become goats nor the goats change into sheep.

Would a nation like ancient Rome be judged as a "goat nation" because of Nero's crimes against Christians, or as a "sheep nation" because of Constantine's good treatment of Christians? Would England be judged as a "goat nation" because of the crimes of Bloody Mary, and her martyring of Protestants, or as a "sheep nation" for the pro-Christian eras in its history? The histories of nations are too complex and checkered to allow any nation to be regarded as falling completely into either the sheep or the goat categories.

I have treated this as a passage applicable to the first century, as to what nations would survive. Its interesting to consider that Daniel described some nations (or kings or political entities) as disappearing, but only coming to an end after some period of time.

Dan 7:12 As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.

One limitation in my theory is that I haven't looked into history to see whether there were nations (within the realm of the Roman Empire) that came to an end in first century events.

The dispensationalists are the ones from whom I first heard this "national judgment" interpretation, and they think the nations will be blessed or condemned by whether they treated the Jews well or not. The idea of whole nations being judged and sent into eternal fire or into eternal life—disregarding how many individuals within them do not deserve the fate of the rest, has never made sense to me, nor jibed with the rest of the teaching of scripture about every man receiving the reward of his own individual deeds (Matt.12:36; 16:27/ Rom.2:5-10 / 2 Cor.5:10 /1 Peter 1:17 / Rev.20:13).

Oh. The dispensationalist concept then is different from mine. I see the sheep and goat passage as addressing the existence of nations -- a determination whether the political (or cultural) entity would continue in existence.
My concept is along the line of thinking as seen in Matt 11:23

Mat 11:23 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day

In this verse, the descent into Hades suggests an end of the existence of Capernaum, going into oblivion. Then in contrast Jesus said that Sodom would have repented and still be in existence.
Now the city can be destroyed while Christians survive as can be seen in the instruction telling Christians to flee Jerusalem. (Now of course in a spiritual sense, the Christians could have slept yet still be with Christ, even if they stayed in a city totally destroyed.)

...snip...
They go, respectively, into "eternal life" and "eternal punishment." No thousand-year interim is envisaged.

Just wanted to say here that your mention of the "eternal life" of the sheep was what caught my attention. Now I am having to ask the question "How can a nation have eternal life?" Jesus said that eternal life consists of knowing God.

John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

[RND]

Sleeping people are not unconscious.

Conversely, dead people aren't "sleeping" they're dead. Fortunately, scripture tell us exactly what happens when we die.

The dead don't know anything:

Eccl 9:5 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. 6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

Eccl 9:10 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.

Psa 6:5 For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?

Psa 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. 4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

I would be equally curious as to why he would use the figure of sleep, if they were nonexistent? Sleeping people still exist—and even have dreams.

John 11:11 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. 12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. 13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. 14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

Steve, Jesus used a metaphor regarding Lazarus that unfortunately the disciples did not understand. They thought Lazarus was actually sleeping whereas Jesus knew that Lazarus was dead. Finally, Jesus had to be very blunt and direct with the disciples to let them know that Lazarus was indeed deceased. Notice Jesus did not say, "He is gone to paradise" or "He has gone to Abraham's bosom" just very simply "Lazarus is dead."

[steve7150]

Notice Jesus did not say, "He is gone to paradise" or "He has gone to Abraham's bosom" just very simply "Lazarus is dead."





Please note that the point that i was trying to make was that after Jesus's death the rules may have changed thus Jesus saying "truly i say to you, today you will be with me in paradise" plus Paul and Stephen's statements were after Jesus's death, Lazarus was'nt.
When Jesus said on the cross "it is finished" the OT law of the dead in the Lord being literally dead may have been one of the things that were finished.

[RND]

"...the rules may have changed..."

Please note that the point that i was trying to make was that after Jesus's death the rules may have changed thus Jesus saying "truly i say to you, today you will be with me in paradise" plus Paul and Stephen's statements were after Jesus's death, Lazarus was'nt.

Jesus wasn't taken up to heaven, ascended to the Father until Pentacost, a full fifty days after His death on the cross. Did the thief make it to heaven before Jesus?

When Jesus said on the cross "it is finished" the OT law of the dead in the Lord being literally dead may have been one of the things that were finished.

"...may have been..." isn't in my "theological" make-up Steve. I don't believe God the Father deals in "possibilities" or "maybe's" and I think the multitude of evidence in both Old and New regarding the state of the dead bear this out.

Hbr 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

[steve]

Actually, I had thought of quoting the Lazarus passage to establish the point, but decided that it was sufficiently established without it. Thanks for citing it. It points out that the sense in which the dead may be said to be sleeping is that they can be awakened, as Jesus said He would do with Lazarus.

The following are the standard proof texts for your position (apparently those who hold the view consider them to be the strongest in support of it):

Eccl 9:5 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. 6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

Eccl 9:10 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.

Psa 6:5 For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?

Psa 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. 4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

The use of these verses to prove the idea of unconsciousness after death reflects a naive and "flat" approach to interpreting Hebrew poetry and wisdom literature (from which all the passages are drawn). Wisdom literature (especially Ecclesiastes) is not intended to be a source of doctrinal truth. Proverbs, for example, is a collection of general observations of broad tendencies and of general cause and effect relationships. They do not state predictive absolutes, though, to a person unfamiliar with the wisdom genre, they might well appear to do so.

Ecclesiastes is a similar kind of book to Proverbs, with the exception that the observations recorded are said to have been those that Solomon saw and contemplated while in a period of life in which he was far from God (as described in 1 Kings 11:3-4). By the time Solomon wrote this book, he had returned to the Lord (see chapter 12), but he used this book to recount the emptiness of his experiences and musings which had been his while thinking as one "under the sun"—that is, not taking God sufficiently into account, but seeing things only from an earthly perspective. The result is his confession of reaching many incorrect conclusions during that period. For example, chapter nine (from which you draw some of your evidence) begins with the words, "I considered (at that early time in his life) all this in my heart..." Much of what he "considered in his heart" during those backslidden years was standard secular philosophy, but not good doctrine for believers—for example, the many times that he says that "there is nothing better for a man" than that he "eat and drink..." There certainly are "better" activities than this, according to the rest of scripture (including Matt.4:4, quoted from Deut.8:3). To use Ecclesiastes as a doctrinal source is to misuse it, and to invite a world of theological confusion.

As for the psalms, the words of the psalmists do not always represent God's words to us, but often, as in Psalm 6, the psalmists' prayers and expressions of their convictions to God. If the psalmist believed his praises to God would end with his death, he might be excused, even if he was incorrect. God had revealed nothing about immortality in the Old Testament times, and the expectation of the psalmist could have been as great a miscalculation as was Isaac's prediction of his impending death, in Genesis 27:2-4, or Obadiah's expectation that the Spirit of the Lord would take Elijah away before he could return with Ahab (1 Kings 18:12). In any case, the expression, "give thee thanks," in Psalm 6:5 is a Hebrew expression that often refers to public declarations of praise to God (e.g., 2 Sam.22:50/ Psalm 18:49; 35:18) . The psalmist might reasonably be declaring that, were he to die, his (oft celebrated) ministry of public proclamation would be terminated.

As for the statement in Psalm 146:3—"in that very day his thoughts perish," we need to consider the context to know what "thoughts" come to an end when a prince dies. First, of the many times that the Bible speaks of people's (and God's) thoughts, only in this case does this particular Hebrew word appear. It is not the ordinary word commonly used for thoughts. It's meaning would seem to require the context to interpret. Almost every modern translation renders the word as "plans" or "purposes" (e.g., NKJV, RSV, NIV, ESV, NLT). The idea in context is that you should not look to princes (or influential allies) for your well-being, since they die, as do all others, and any thoughts or plans they may have had to benefit you die with them. Better to trust in the immortal God, whose favorable plans can be carried out without the interruption of death. There is no necessity, then, of identifying the word "thoughts," in this context, with "consciousness."

[darinhouston]

Also, Justin Martyr made an interesting statement to Trypho and his companions:

If you have fallen in with some who are called ‘Christians’, but who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven, do not imagine that they ARE Christians.”

Now I know you don't consider Justin's writings as "authoritative". I don't ask you to do so. I ask you to consider them as you would the writings of any other Christian. He had a Greek background, but he didn't believe in souls going somewhere at death as in Greek philosophy. Justin had been schooled in the teachings of Plato, but he no longer believed Plato's teaching that people's souls at death were re-incarnated into the bodies of other people or animals. Nor did he believe as the gnostics to whom he referred, that when a person dies, his soul is taken to heaven. So what did Justin believe about the intermediate state, and where did he get that belief? I suggest he got it from the early Christian belief that people are not alive somewhere after death, but are truly dead until the resurrection.

Paidion, I haven't read the source of this statement, but from the excerpt out of context it sure seems to me that he could merely be making the point that those who believe our souls are merely taken to heaven (and, thus, they deny the resurrection) are not likely to be Christians.

[RND]

Actually, I had thought of quoting the Lazarus passage to establish the point, but decided that it was sufficiently established without it. Thanks for citing it. It points out that the sense in which the dead may be said to be sleeping is that they can be awakened, as Jesus said He would do with Lazarus.

"Awakened" on the "last day."

Jhn 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Jhn 6:44 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.

Just as Lazarus was "raised" from the dead, so too will all of those that are dead in Christ shall be raised on the "last day."

The use of these verses to prove the idea of unconsciousness after death reflects a naive and "flat" approach to interpreting Hebrew poetry and wisdom literature (from which all the passages are drawn).

I don't know that calling someone's view "naive" and "flat" is kind. Seems rather unnecessary frankly.

But Steve, I will briefly say this regarding the point you raised regarding the "poetic" and non-doctrinal application of the Psalms and Ecclesiastes. The verses quoted are in complete harmony with the entirety of scripture and not in opposition to it. Everything goes together like "peas and carrots." For example, Ecc 12:7 seems to be in perfect harmony with the narrative of the creation of life in Genesis 2 and painting the same picture. The account of Lazarus in John 6 seems to be in complete harmony with Jobs account of the death experience in Job 14, and in harmony with the accounts from Paul in 1 Cor. 15:50-53 and 1 Thess 4:13-17.

Jesus tells us that "no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven" which says to me that the only one that has (will) ascend to heaven is He that came from heaven. Peter plainly tells us in Acts that only Jesus has "God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death..." and that even "the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried..." and not "ascended into the heavens."

Each and every one of these accounts are in harmony with the Psalms and Ecclesiastes.

I think what is most interesting about this entire debate is that in each and every opportunity God had to add additional clarity and information regarding the state of the dead He never did. It would have been so much easier to have Lazarus tell the whole world in scripture what it was like being dead for four days, thus making such debates unnecessary. Could it be that God had provided enough evidence from the Old Testament to suffice? I think so. But hey, that's what I get for being "naive."

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that upon the death of Lazarus his "soul" departed his body and he flew off into paradise, Abraham's bosom or heaven or whenever the "good" die when the depart this world (Ever been to a funeral where the center of the ceremonies "isn't" in heaven?). Would it not seem to be the ultimate in cruelty for God, once Lazarus got the the "promised land" to tell him, "Don't get too comfortable. You gotta go back in a few days."? Now anyone can wax philosophical about doing what God asked and such but that isn't the point. The point is would it not be cruel to tell the runner of the race, once they get to the finish line, to turn around and run the race again?

If we wouldn't think of doing such a thing in our world, what makes anyone think that God does in His?

[steve]

RND,

You wrote:

I don't know that calling someone's view "naive" and "flat" is kind. Seems rather unnecessary frankly.

Is it more charitable to call another person's remarks "unkind"? I tried to think of more descriptive words to describe the kind of interpretation you were presenting—naive and flat were the most accurate that I could come up with. Can you tell me in what setting the words "naive" and "flat" might be used without being unkind? Or which words that convey the same thought are more charitable? Thin skin is not an asset in honest discussions about controversial subjects. There was no personal insult intended.

You wrote:

For example, Ecc 12:7 seems to be in perfect harmony with the narrative of the creation of life in Genesis 2 and painting the same picture.

Pending a final decision as to whether "ruach" is taken to mean "breath" or "spirit," it is difficult to say whether Ecclesiastes 12:7 supports your view or mine. Is it the "breath" that goes to God, or is it the man's "spirit"? If it is the spirit, then that would seem to fit my scenario. If it is only the breath that departs, then it is only a reference to the departure of life from the body, saying nothing about the question under dispute here.

You wrote:

The account of Lazarus in John 6 seems to be in complete harmony with Jobs account of the death experience in Job 14, and in harmony with the accounts from Paul in 1 Cor. 15:50-53 and 1 Thess 4:13-17.

You really ought to know better than to bring this point up again. I have made it plain that there is no difference of opinion between us as to the coming of a future resurrection—which is what the passages you list here refer to. The question of the interim state is an independent issue, unaffected by the belief in the resurrection, which we both (along with Christians of all time) share. From the number of posts that you place at this forum, and the frequent repetition of the same points, often in a single thread, I must assume that your time is less valuable to you than mine is to me. I do not write for hours as a mere diversion from boredom. Please do not make me repeat my points by simply repeating the same irrelevant arguments that have already been dealt with.

Jesus tells us that "no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven" which says to me that the only one that has (will) ascend to heaven is He that came from heaven. Peter plainly tells us in Acts that only Jesus has "God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death..." and that even "the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried..." and not "ascended into the heavens.

"

These are indeed interesting statements, since it is fairly agreed that both Enoch and Elijah were taken up to heaven prior to these remarks. I am inclined to believe that Jesus was saying that no one now on earth has ascended into heaven, so as to bring back a report of what God is like to us benighted men below. Only Jesus has that information from experience.

As for Peter's statement about David, he is clearly talking about David's body not having ascended to heaven (and no one would ever dispute this, and it has no affect on the doctrine here being considered), because his body can still be found in his grave. This is simply showing that the prophecies David wrote about his flesh not seeing corruption (Ps.16) and being seated at the right hand of God in heaven (Ps.110) were not fulfilled in David himself but in his descendent Jesus. That Jesus did physically ascend and David did not is Peter's point. Nothing is said for or against David's "spirit" having gone to heaven.

Each and every one of these accounts are in harmony with the Psalms and Ecclesiastes.

In your opinion they are in harmony—and they may well be able to be harmonized with your position, as, possibly, with others. The problem comes with introducing the verses that are not in harmony with your position, and which do not harmonize with your view of Ecclesiastes and Psalms. For example, the times that the Hebrew Bible refers to "the shades", or "the dead" (Heb. rephaim) lurking about in Sheol, and even talking to each other there (Job 26:5/ Isa.14:9, 15-17/ Ezek.32:21). I do not insist that these passages be taken literally (they are, after all, poetic), but I am saying the poetic books of the Old Testament do not present the uniform picture of the state of the dead that you suggest.

I think what is most interesting about this entire debate is that in each and every opportunity God had to add additional clarity and information regarding the state of the dead He never did. It would have been so much easier to have Lazarus tell the whole world in scripture what it was like being dead for four days, thus making such debates unnecessary. Could it be that God had provided enough evidence from the Old Testament to suffice?

First, I doubt if the giving of specific information about the state of the dead was as high a priority with God as it is to our curiosity. Second, "life and immortality" were "brought to light" (they had been obscure previously) by Christ (2 Tim.1:10). Third, we do not have any record of anything Lazarus said, either before his death, nor after his reanimation. Apparently John's objective was to focus on the teachings of Jesus, not of Lazarus. What Lazarus actually described about his experience must remain an undisclosed mystery to us.

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that upon the death of Lazarus his "soul" departed his body and he flew off into paradise, Abraham's bosom or heaven or whenever the "good" die when the depart this world (Ever been to a funeral where the center of the ceremonies "isn't" in heaven?). Would it not seem to be the ultimate in cruelty for God, once Lazarus got the the "promised land" to tell him, "Don't get too comfortable. You gotta go back in a few days."? Now anyone can wax philosophical about doing what God asked and such but that isn't the point. The point is would it not be cruel to tell the runner of the race, once they get to the finish line, to turn around and run the race again?

I don't see how the case would be different if Lazarus had finished his race, gone to his rest of unconscious existence (as in your view) and then been required to come back and run the race again. If it would seem unfair in one case, it would not be less so in the other.