Consulting or calling up the dead

[Paidion]

Paidion, Do you really think Paul would say "to die is gain" if he thought he would be laying in the grave for some undefined length of time? Honestly , you know that does'nt add up, therefore the only other realistic possibility is that if you are correct then Paul is wrong.

Steve7150, I have answered your objections, and don't know what purpose can be served in repeating the exercise ... but I will do so anyway. As far as Paul's individual consciousness is concerned he dies one moment, and immediately wakes in the presence of the Lord. So for him, to die is immediate gain ... the gain of his coming to life again in the resurrection. I fail to see your problem. I don't "know that does'nt add up". Exactly what is it, in your view, that doesn't add up? What difference would it make to him personally if he "thought he was laying in the grave for some undefined length of time"? Even though he were still lying in the grave, he would be unaware of it. However, I am sure his body has totally disintegrated by now ... but that is irrelevant. Paul is dead. No more Paul! Yet for Paul, "to die is gain". Why? Because death for Paul would lead to what would seem to him to be his immediate resurrection into the presence of christ.! The last thing Paul remembered was being about to be beheaded in Rome (if we can trust early Christian tradition). The next thing of which Paul will be aware is his resurrection (which will be over 2000 years later).

Now changing gears, in the parable of Lazarus and the Richman they both died and their bodies were presumably in the grave yet Jesus said "the angels carried Lazarus off to be in Abraham's bosum." What was carried off to be in Abraham's bosum? I think it was Lazarus's "inner man" or "spirit man", do you think it was his corpse?

Okay, if we're going to take the parable literally, let's suppose that Lazarus' spirit got carried off into Abraham's bosom. So what IS Abraham's bosom?

The word "bosom" usually refers to a woman's breasts. Wiktionary defines it this way:

bosom (plural bosoms)
chest, breast; the pectoral muscles and mammae of the human, especially the female human.
In the book The Scarlet Letter, the protagonist wears a red "A" on her chest, giving the author the excuse to mention her bosom 66 times.
The buxom wench had an ample bosom.

So in the parable, the word must have the less common meaning, and refer to Abraham's pectoral muscles. If Abraham were also a disembodied spirit, did he have pectoral muscles? But if he had already had a resurrected body, how did he contain disembodied spirits in his pectoral muscles? And did the rich man have eyes to see Abraham, and a tongue? Or if he was a "spirit man", or a "ghost" which modern man imagines as looking exactly like a physical body, having its various parts, but is yet immaterial, then how could his pain have been relieved by water ---- or if it could, how would the single drop of water which he asked for, help in any way?

But perhaps you say that "Abraham's bosom" didn't refer to Abraham's pectoral muscles, but rather the comfortable or paradise section of Hades where Abraham dwelled. Ah... but now you're getting away from the literal and into the figurative aren't you?

Some say this is not a parable but the description of an actual event. I find this incredulous.
First it is couched within five other parables. Secondly, like other parables, it had a lesson to teach, namely, that even if it were possible for one to return from the dead, the Jewish religious leader still would not believe.

The parable itself seems descriptive of a common Jewish belief of the day, concerning the afterlife. One may read a similar but more detailed description of the belief in the "Discourse Concerning Hades", attributed to Josephus. So Jesus used this common belief to bring out his lesson, though He wasn't proposing it as an actual event, in spite of the fact that He referred to one of the characters by name.

If this parable were a description of people going to heaven or hell, as some think, then it seems rather limiting to prescribe hell only for possessing riches, and heaven only for those who have suffered physical hardships in this life? Yet, is this not the reason, in the parable, that Abraham gave for Dives being in the place of anguish, and for Lazarus being in a place of comfort?

But Abraham said, "Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. Luke 16:25

So, it doesn't seem to make sense to take this parable as evidence for immediate consciousness following death.

[Paidion]

On Sunday I was studying the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25:13-46. Those on his right hand seem pretty surprised when the King tells them to come inherit the kingdom. Why the wonder? Wouldn't they have been tipped off if they had already spent time in heaven with him? That was my question on Sunday evening.

Perhaps Steve's observations answered your question satisfactorily.

I might add the following as a possible alternative:

Matthew seems to indicate that this will be a judgment of the nations, rather than a judgment of individuals. The opening words of the prophecy are as follows:

"When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. Matthew 25:31,21

His dividing the nations into two groups IS COMPARED to a shepherd dividing his sheep from the goats. I don't think one can conclude from the fact that this comparison is made, that the entire prophecy is symbolic. It seems to be a description of the actual intention of our Lord to so divide the nations into two groups at His coming. The criterion is whether or not they assisted His brethren in their need. Those who will have assisted His brethren will be rewarded, and those who will not have done so, will be corrected.

So the surprise of the nations who will be rewarded, is due to the fact that they will not have been aware that they will have done anything for Christ. They will probably scarcely be aware that their assistance to His brethren will be of such momentous import. Similarly the "goat" nations will not be aware of their neglect until our Lord points it out to them.

[RND]

Paidon, are you referring to the word "ethnos" in relation to the races, tribes or specifically gentiles as opposed to actual nations? Just looking for some clarification. In general, I find your take to be fairly reasonable.

[steve7150]

As far as Paul's individual consciousness is concerned he dies one moment, and immediately wakes in the presence of the Lord. So for him, to die is immediate gain ... the gain of his coming to life again in the resurrection. I fail to see your problem.




I don't really have a problem , i just thought the context of Phil 1 sounded like Paul was in some urgency about making a decision about either staying or going, within a moment of actual time, not preceived time but actual time.
However if you see it differently that's fine, have a great day brother.

[steve7150]

All these statements are simple and straightforward and mean what they say and say what they mean...

Even though I tend to agree with your position, I am not sure that we can very often make a statement like this on a topic that is this controversial among Christians. I believe that you are understanding those verses correctly, but people of the soul-sleep camp have scriptures that seem to teach their position as well. It is important to take each "proof text" (for any view) on a case-by-case basis, and consider whether, in light of other passages, it might plausibly be seen as people of other positions see it or not. Usually, when a topic has remained debatable among Christians as long as this one has, it is too simplistic to say that the scriptural evidence is straightforward. Settling upon a responsible conclusion, in such cases, usually requires the balancing of multiple scriptural considerations that exist in tension with each other. It would be fairly easy to get this matter wrong. While I agree with your position, I would not wish to minimize the ambiguity of the relevant biblical data.



I think i got a little frustrated about this Steve because i really do think Paul's statements are clear but so are the soul-sleep statements except they are from the OT therefore which ones have the final say?

[Paidion]

Paidon, are you referring to the word "ethnos" in relation to the races, tribes or specifically gentiles as opposed to actual nations? Just looking for some clarification. In general, I find your take to be fairly reasonable.

Yes, I was quoting a translation obtained from a Greek text which included that word. "Ethnoi" seems to mean "gentiles" in some context and "actual nations" in others. Second century Christians used the word in reference to non-Christians.

[Michelle]

Thanks for your answer, Steve. The parables sure spark a lot of discussion, as all good literature does, or so my daughter is always telling me.

Michelle,

You raise a good point that I had never thought much about.

I wonder how much of the sheep and goats parable is really supposed to correspond with any literal reality. I mean, it is a parable after all. There is a literal reality, of course, that is being represented—for example, that there will be a judgment, and that people will be judged by their works, and that these works are their works of charity and compassion, and that their destinies are markedly distinct...etc. The drama, however, may be entirely made-up to illustrate these points. After all, we have an entirely different drama depicting the same judgment in the parables of the minas and of the talents, where the characters do not have exactly the same lines.

Sometimes I think I want to take Jesus' parables way too literally, and other times I think I want to cram as many details between the lines as I can. Lately I've been kind of thinking that I may be missing the forest for the trees and the important message gets lost because I'm trying to shoehorn a doctrine in there that wasn't being addressed.

It is also possible that the "sheep" in the parable may be distinguished from "my brethren"—the latter being Christians, and the former being those who, while never becoming Christians, were loving and sympathetic to the Christian cause. If it were taken this way, then the sheep might not have been in heaven previously at all (I am personally open to the doctrine of "soul-sleep" for unbelievers, who have not obtained eternal life through faith in Christ). These non-Christians might very well be surprised to learn that, while they have not the same inheritance as the saints, they do have a welcome into the kingdom, and do not share the fate of the heartless and the cruel.

I am only speculating here.

Your speculation is pretty interesting, and I'm glad you shared it. Now I'll probably have to think about that idea for a couple of days...

[Michelle]

Thanks, Paidion. You also have given me something to ruminate on. I wonder how whole nations will inherit the kingdom or be cursed and sent into everlasting fire? Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

On Sunday I was studying the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25:13-46. Those on his right hand seem pretty surprised when the King tells them to come inherit the kingdom. Why the wonder? Wouldn't they have been tipped off if they had already spent time in heaven with him? That was my question on Sunday evening.

Perhaps Steve's observations answered your question satisfactorily.

I might add the following as a possible alternative:

Matthew seems to indicate that this will be a judgment of the nations, rather than a judgment of individuals. The opening words of the prophecy are as follows:

"When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. Matthew 25:31,21

His dividing the nations into two groups IS COMPARED to a shepherd dividing his sheep from the goats. I don't think one can conclude from the fact that this comparison is made, that the entire prophecy is symbolic. It seems to be a description of the actual intention of our Lord to so divide the nations into two groups at His coming. The criterion is whether or not they assisted His brethren in their need. Those who will have assisted His brethren will be rewarded, and those who will not have done so, will be corrected.

So the surprise of the nations who will be rewarded, is due to the fact that they will not have been aware that they will have done anything for Christ. They will probably scarcely be aware that their assistance to His brethren will be of such momentous import. Similarly the "goat" nations will not be aware of their neglect until our Lord points it out to them.

[Paidion]

I think i got a little frustrated about this Steve because i really do think Paul's statements are clear but so are the soul-sleep statements except they are from the OT therefore which ones have the final say?

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.

Paul makes a number of statements which indicate that that was the case IN HIS DAY.

For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised.
If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied.But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

If the dead are not raised, then why would those who have fallen fallen asleep (died) in Christ have perished? Would they not be happily going around enjoying the pleasures of heaven? If the dead are not raised, why would we have hope IN THIS LIFE ONLY. Why wouldn't we have hope as disembodied spirits enjoying heaven forever?

It certainly seems to me that Paul is saying that if the dead is not raised, then the dead in Christ have perished. They are not living anywhere, and if they are not raised at some future time, they are dead and gone forever.

I also notice the word “sleep” is frequently used in the New Testament for death. Our Lord Himself so used it. I wonder why this word would be used for death, if the dead are happily walking around in heaven fellowshipping with those who have gone before, or witnessing the events on earth, which is how some interpret the “cloud of witnesses” mentioned in Hebrews 12:1. They wouldn’t be sleeping would they?

John 11:11-14 Thus he spoke, and then he said to them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I am going to awake him out of sleep."

The disciples said to him, "Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he’ll be all right."

Then Jesus told them plainly, "Lazarus is dead.”

So I wonder why Jesus would have used sleep as a figure of speech concerning death, if the dead are conscious. In what sense would they be asleep?

I Cor 15:32 ...If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."

This surely sounds as if the dead are not raised, the Christian life is not worth living. We may as well eat, drink, and be merry like the rest of the world. But why would this be the case, if we took off for heaven at death as disembodied spirits?

Then Jesus declared:
John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

Four times in John 6, Jesus declares that He will raise His disciples on the last day.
Why didn’t Jesus say, “... and I will take him to heaven when he dies.”? What’s the importance of his being raised up? Surely, not much importance if it’s just a matter of attaching a body to the soul. But a great importance, if that is the only way a person is going to live again.

When is God going to bring us into the presence of Christ? Is it at the moment of our death? If so, why would Paul make the following statement?

2Co 4:14 knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence.

As I understand it, Paul was saying that we will be brought into the presence of the risen Jesus at the time that God will raise us from the dead.

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.

[Suzana]

Thanks, Paidion. You also have given me something to ruminate on. I wonder how whole nations will inherit the kingdom or be cursed and sent into everlasting fire? Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I was actually wondering the same thing. It's very puzzling the way this passage is worded, even if it was mainly symbolic.