Disembodied "paradise" vs. RESURRECTION:
One is made unnecessary by the other
Traditional view: Scriptures
Sheol
Gen.42:38-- "bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to sheol"
also 37:35, 44:29,31
Job 14:13 "Oh that thou would hide my soul in sheol, that thou would hide me"
Ps.88:3 "...my soul draws near to sheol"
--all obviously figurative. Says nothing of life in sheol
"Place of sorrows":
2 Sam.22:6, Ps.18:5-- "the sorrows of sheol encompassed me about; the snares of death [came upon/were round about] me"
Ps.116:3 "the sorrows of death compassed me, the pains [distress] of sheol got hold upon me"
--the idea of death (the grave) is "sorrowful" or "distressful". He's not saying he actually died and went to Sheol
"fully conscious"
Isaiah 14:9-17 account of fall of Lucifer
--v.9: inhabitants are "stirred up" at his arrival (and "see" him in v.16), which is later revealed
to be at the 2nd resurrection, when the (rest of the) dead actually are "stirred up", (Rev.20:10-13)
and Hades/Sheol is cast into Gehenna (v.14)
Ezek.32:21 "strong and mighty shall speak to him out of the midst of sheol with those who help
him; they are gone down..."
Figurative
Jonah 2:2 --belly of whale is figuratively pictured as a sort of grave or place of death
Other Scriptures used by various people:
Shadowy place of darkness:
Job 10:21, 22, Psalms 143:3, 7
All of these figurative or metaphorical passages are taken literally, while the clear sounding passage of Eccl.9:5-6 ("the living know they shall die, but the dead know not anything") is explained away as the view of the man "under the sun" ("the natural man"--Scofield). What was the view of the man under the sun, was that this was the end of it all, their love, hatred, envy, portions. etc. were "perished...for ever" (v.6).
There are also several other clear scriptures:
Return, O LORD, deliver me! Oh, save me for Your mercies' sake! For in death there is no remembrance of You; In the grave who will give You thanks? (Psalm 6:4-5)
Adrift among the dead, Like the slain who lie in the grave, Whom You remember no more, And who are cut off from Your hand. . . . Will You work wonders for the dead? Shall the dead arise and praise You? Selah Shall Your lovingkindness be declared in the grave? Or Your faithfulness in the place of destruction? Shall Your wonders be known in the dark? And Your righteousness in the land of forgetfulness? (Psalm 88:5, 10-12). Here we see this "land" people misunderstand is not some real conscious "abode", but purely figurative.
The dead do not praise the LORD, Nor any who go down into silence . (Psalm 115:17)
His breath goes forth, he returns to the earth; in that day, his very thoughts perish (Psalms 146:4)
For Sheol ["grave" KJV] cannot thank You, Death cannot praise You; Those who go down to
the pit cannot hope for Your truth. The living, the living man, he shall praise You, As I do this
day; The father shall make known Your truth to the children.(Isaiah 38:18-19)
The answer to all of these passages (and the seeming contradictions) is to keep in mind, that the
Old Testament writers did not have the full revelation on death and resurrection, so the state of
the dead was a sort of mystery that was not fully understood. This holds true for all the ancients,
Jew & Gentile alike. Just like non-Christians today: they can think of death as a conscious
heaven or hell, or as unconscious ("Rest in peace"), and then there is the expression "rolling over
in his grave", which is based on the assumption that the person is asleep, but can be 'stirred' by
something that happens among the living. So it is sometimes thought of as an "abode" of
conscious spirits, and other times they are portrayed as unconscious. God chose not to reveal
everything then, and inspired the OT authors to use the concepts they were familiar with. But it
still was not presented as absolute certainty. Looming behind all of these pictures of Sheol was
the universal question for that dispensation: "If a man dies, shall he live again?" (Job 14:14).
God's answer came in the New Testament!
Other common interpretations:
Sheol/hades consists of two distinct areas; one of torment for the wicked, and another, "paradise"
or "Abraham's bosom" for the righteous.
1Pet.3:18-20 "spirits in prison"
"For Christ also once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, indeed being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit; in which also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared (in which a few, that is, eight souls were saved through water)";
Similar is ch. 4:3-6 —"For the time of life which is past is enough for us to have worked out the will of the nations, having gone on in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, parties, carousings, and abominable idolatries. In these things they are surprised, that you are not running with them into the same excess of riot, blaspheming. But they shall give account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. For to this end the gospel was preached also to the dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the Spirit."
Many in the past have combined this with Christ's burial, and have posited a whole scenario of Christ "descending into Hell", which must have had two sections, "paradise" for the righteous, and a place of suffering for the wicked; and that Christ preached to its inhabitants, and even bringing the righteous (such as Noah) back up with him, to Heaven. Some parts of this are now rejected by various interpreters, but still these passages do appear as "proofs" that the righteous dead before Christ were alive in Sheol/Hades, and now they are alive in "Heaven". Others see the reference to Noah as referring to fallen angels, who existed back then as well as now. But fallen angels are not "sometimes" disobedient, and the other angels are never disobedient. It is useless to "preach" to either. In the context, above we see Paul is discussing unsaved people now (in his time, and of course it applies to our time as well), who taunt Christians for not living like them anymore. It was this same type of people in the "world" in Noah's time, who mocked as he built his ark to escape the coming judgment, and all soon perished. It was not those people in Noah's time who were being preached to by Christ, (unless you see Christ preaching to them through Noah) but just a comparison of the wickedness. The point is, Christ's message is being offered to these people in the world today, enslaved in the prison of sin and condemnation. This passage even seems to be a reference to (fulfilment of) the messianic prophecy in Isaiah 42:1-7 "Behold My Servant, whom I uphold; My Elect, in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit on Him; He shall bring out judgment to the Gentiles.
He shall not fail nor be discouraged until He has set judgment in the earth; and the coasts shall wait for His law. So says God, the LORD He who created the heavens and stretched them out, spreading out the earth and its offspring; He who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it. I the LORD have called You in righteousness, and will hold Your hand, and will keep You, and give You for a covenant of the people, for a Light to the Gentiles;
to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, those who sit in darkness out of the prison house".
This is even recognized in chain references. Sin is many times over referenced as both "prison" and "death".
Hanegraaf, in Christianity in Crisis, Harvest House, 1993 p. 396, uses this passage as a proof text of Christ descending to Hades to preach to the righteous in "paradise", but then his own Christian Research Journal (12-97 p.24,25) Luke Wilson, answering
Mormon doctrine of the salvation of the dead (a logical possibility with common interpretation
of the passage) shatters the idea. The passage suggests this happened after Christ was put to
death, and then made alive. And he ultimately shows from the Greek that this passage is
describing Christ's PROCLAMATION of victory which "took place in the context
of this journey". (though he takes the view that it was to fallen angels; though after the resurrection). In the notes he adds :"I do not believe 1 Pet.3:18 ff can properly be understood
in connection with the doctrine of Christ's descent into Hades during the time His body lay in the
tomb".
Continuing from Hanegraaf's interpretations in the ch. 14 notes on p.396:
"Jesus took righteous out of Hades (paradise, Abraham's bosom) and to the throne of God":
Eph.4:8.9 "...When he ascended up on high he led captivity captive and gave gifts to men (Now that He ascended [it means] He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth)"
--this is talking about His burial and resurrection, and the redemption from the curse of sin it
brought us. It says not a thing about carrying souls up to heaven (or "Abraham's bosom"), or carrying a whole section of
Hades itself up to Heaven as Hanegraaf next maintains.
"In fact, Paradise is no longer in hades, but now in the throne room of God":
2 Cor. 12:2—Paul's trip to the "third heaven" ("paradise")
--But Paradise is never mentioned in scripture as having ever been in Hades. There has never been any such positive association with Hades in the Bible. It was always the very opposite of Paradise. (Recall it's description as a "place of sorrows" in the scriptures earlier cited. It's either one or the other.)
This passage has always been used as proof of the idea that the soul "lives apart from" the body
at death. People see "in the body/out of the body", and right away snatch this up with out so
much as giving it a thought. Just look at the CONTEXT. This passage is not even talking about
death! Paul DID NOT DIE! Paul was either actually carried up to heaven "in the body", or it was a
VISION --"out of the body". And notice, no dead righteous are seen. This is poor eisegesis of
scripture.
"Abraham's bosom"
There has always been a dispute between the traditionalists and the Adventists and their offshoots, ("Millerites", collectively, including the JW's) as to whether the Lazarus and the Rich Man story is a "parable" (figurative), or literal. It is told in the midst of a series of parables, for one thing. The apologists insist that even if this is a parable, still, the rest of the parables deal with real life events, such as sowers and reapers, etc. But still, in those parables, the characters and other items are still figurative, representing different things; and in this one, what is shown are actual future occurrences (people being judged and then tormented in hell fire). If you look at the literature of those groups, it is NOT the fire they are symbolizing away! (The biggest thing people would want to do away with). But they do believe that the fire is literal. It's some of the other aspects of the story that are figurative.
Abraham's bosom, for instance. Was Lazarus literally carried into Abraham's chest? Or if you are going to admit some things are symbolic, does the Bible ever refer to a section of Hades ("paradise") as "Abraham's bosom"? No, but if you look at the real MESSAGE of this passage, Jesus is warning the Jews about their rejection of Him. They are represented by the rich man, and gentiles or Samaritans are represented by Lazarus. Compare him with the Canaanite in Matt.15:26,27. Gal.3:29 shows that these people can become "Abraham's seed" --an intimate relationship with him as HEIRS, represented by his "bosom".
This passage is summed up by what He told them earlier: (ch.13:28,29; here's Matthew's version: "Many shall come from the east, west, north, and south and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven [Lk.: "God"]; but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness; There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."(Matt.8:11,12). See also Matt.21:31. This parable was fulfilled, because later when Jesus actually did raise Lazarus from the dead, sure enough, the Jewish leaders (the rich man's "brothers") didn't believe. (John 11, 12).
And Abraham also represents God the Father. The Jews called him "their father", which Jesus said is only reserved for God (Matt.23:9), and here he is acting as sort of the judge of this man, (as well as the one who receives Lazarus into Heaven), when only God is the Judge; so he, like "the sower" and others, was being used to represent God. (All of the man's sins are not being reviewed here, but then all of his sins weren't the point of the passage). Nowhere are the righteous dead ever pictured talking to the unrighteous dead.
What is the fire the rich man saw in Hades? Well, where else is Hades ever mentioned in connection with fire? Once again, Rev.20:14, where Hades itself is CAST INTO the lake of fire! --AFTER the second resurrection. So the fire is the fire of Gehenna, not Hades, and his "lifting up his eyes" seems to picture his resurrection (actual word for word translation: "And in hades, lifting up the eyes of him, being in torments..."). Some will insist that this event must have been current (i.e. not at the judgment at the second resurrection) because the brothers still had opportunity to be saved. But the time element of the rich man is not what is important here. And note well, "eyes", and a "tongue" cooled by water. This is a physical BODY, not a "disembodied soul", or "spirit" in some mystical inbetween existence. Amazingly, people will insist on some disembodied existence before the resurrection, and then turn right around and use this passage to teach that "you'll have a suffering body in Hell" before the judgment! Still, if one insists this is a "spirit body", and it has all the properties of a physical body, (feeling pain, being recognized by and communicating to someone) then what is the resurrection for? It has also been suggested that the body parts are figurative ("word pictures"), but then, the Bible is using meaningless details. In that case, why condemn the Millerites for saying it's a parable?
People who believe Lazarus was in Heaven have even commented on how "cruel" it seems for God to take him out of the bliss of paradise and put him back in his old body ("resurrect" him-- John 11), and just attribute this to His "sovereignty" in resurrecting him to demonstrate His power (v.4). But actually, this is another strike against consciousness, and a big one at that! Lazarus is not portrayed as being yanked out of bliss back down to this cruel world (negative), but rather as being brought out of a sleep (positive). Lazarus himself does not complain about being brought back, neither does Jesus have to "console" him for participating in His harsh show. (It probably would be contrary to His nature to bring someone from His presence back into a decaying body in a fallen world. And remember, Paul did not die and see Heaven. The transfigured Moses and Elijah did not appear in their old decaying bodies).
The conjuring of the spirit of Samuel by the witch (1 Sam.28) would seem to be the biggest proof for the traditional view, but once again, he complains of being "disturbed", (as from a sleep) not brought down from bliss. In the cases of both him and the transfiguration, there is nothing in the doctrine of soul sleep to preclude the possibility that God can awake spirits (temporarily) before the resurrection for His purposes. So none of these examples are proof of immortal fully conscious souls constantly living out some disembodied existence. Still, the hope for them was yet to be presented, which we shall discuss now.
The Resurrection
Besides all of these arguments about the interpretation of various scriptures, the ultimate proof of unconsciousness in the first death is the central concept of our faith: the resurrection. In 1 Cor.15 it is pictured as our only hope. The scripture that should have ended this argument long ago is v.17,18: "If Christ is not risen, then your faith is futile... then those who have fallen asleep in Christ ARE PERISHED!" This does not suggest they would be trapped in a lower "paradise" on the nice side of Hades.
Just think; what would be the purpose of a resurrection otherwise? The way people describe this "waiting place" for both righteous and unrighteous, it is no different from after the resurrection, which would then be rendered nothing more than a unnecessary formality. If people could exist and enjoy heaven or suffer hell as "disembodied souls/spirits"; if that's actually the "real" person, then why wouldn't they just remain that way? Or why aren't the cartoons, comedies and other fictional works true: instead of two resurrections and judgements at definite times, their spirit "body" is instantly "resurrected" from the physical body and judged right then? These unbiblical views came about because the traditional view has completely obscured the resurrection. And in nominal Christianity, where the "spirit" resurrection has done away with the bodily resurrection, the Second Coming of Christ has gone with it! Everybody just dies and goes straight to heaven or hell—forever.
So the resurrection was God's answer to the old question of the dead living again. If the ancients were really certain about disembodied states, they would have put their hope in dying and joining their loved ones in Heaven (like the secularized West does) and been satisfied in looking forward to that. But no such hope is ever expressed in either testament, so that is not what God is teaching.
Even if you suggest that people could live without the body, but God is just "redeeming" His physical creation (otherwise, Satan would be winning a victory), still, there is no reconciliation with the above passage. We would all eventually meet our loved ones in "paradise", and this could hardly be described as "perishing". (And remember, it's His death that redeems us from eternal separation from God, not His resurrection, so life in the "unraised paradise" still could not be considered "perishing").
1 Cor.15 does go on to mention a "spiritual body" (v.40,44), but this is nothing other than the resurrection body, being "RAISED" after having been "sown" natural (death of the physical body). (Hanegraaf even explains this well in Resurrection, ch 6, Word Publishing, 2000) 2 Cor.5:1-8 and Phil.1:20-23 mention being "absent from the body and present with the Lord", and vice versa. But the Corinthians passage shows that this is actually another term for the resurrection; v.2:"we are CLOTHED with our HABITATION [margin: "dwelling"] which is from Heaven", when this earthly "house" (dwelling), or "tent", is destroyed. This is of course, the resurrection body. Paul further says that the hope is "not ...to be UNclothed (disembodied), but to be FURTHER clothed, (restored body) so that mortality (death) may be swallowed up by life". (v.4) Further proof, in v.10, he talks about the Judgment seat of Christ, where we receive the rewards for what we have done "in the body". Rather than proving that this is what the disembodied souls will be doing while "waiting" for their new bodies, it is shown in Matthew 16:27 that this judgment is after the return of Christ, (when the righteous are raised). It will be the same body, but being incorruptible, will be different. So Paul can describe it in these scriptures as being "out of the [present, corruptible] body".
It may be hypothetically possible for the unrighteous dead to be placed in a "holding place" to await the judgment (but then, once again, why resurrect them if they are already being punished?). But for the righteous dead, would they live in the presence of God as long as millennia, and then only be judged/rewarded at one point of time far in the future when everybody is resurrected?
Another verse I have seen quoted is Luke 20:37,8. Regarding Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: "He is
not a God of the dead, but of the living". But read the rest of it: "...for all live unto him". This is
showing God's eternality; His timelessness. This is also why Jesus could tell the thief "today" he
would be in paradise with Him. To the person dying, the resurrection is instantaneous, and God
also sees it as "now". And remember, His "Kingdom" (the "paradise" the thief asked for) is after
the resurrection. So in other words, "today" he would die, and then instantly be projected
forward to the time of resurrection when he would enter the kingdom of God.
More clear scriptural teaching:
Acts 2:29 "...the patriarch David...is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us today". What
would this matter if his "soul" were really somewhere else? V.34: "For David did not ascend into
the heavens...". This would rule out being in a section of Hades that Jesus carried up to Heaven.
The Adventists and Armstrong have pointed all these facts out time and time again, and they have never been answered, except for the traditional proof-texts and arguments, above, being reiterated.
God made man a tri-une BEING, (in His image), meaning that the way we were created is how we EXIST. Our person (soul and spirit) is held together in this physical realm by the body. That is why we have one. And that's why it must be resurrected after it dies and decays. Just like with God, you cannot take away one or more of the members and still have the entity.
Also, "sleep" is interpreted as simply referring to the body (being "dead"). But this doesn't make sense. "Sleep" refers to the person, the soul. So all the scriptures referring to death as sleep cannot be explained away like that.
That the immortal soul theory does away with the resurrection is proven by the statement I hear from pastors and teachers often that the soul&spirit is "the part of you that lives forever" —the "real you". But do you see what has happened? The RESURRECTION is completely eliminated! When the body is resurrected, it too will live forever. We teach that the body is just a "shell" or "casing", but the Bible describes the person as dying, and the person as being resurrected. But the traditional teaching has completely blended away the resurrection of the body into an eternal soul/spirit existence.
We dispute with the Jehovah's Witnesses about the "literal bodily resurrection" (since they believe the resurrection body will be spirit) out of one side of our mouths, and out of the other, we say that only the soul/spirit will live forever. What double talk!
Other double standards
Citing John 5:25, 28,9 "Those who sleep in the earth shall hear his voice...[and come forth]" ("If they can hear, they must be conscious"). But the resurrected in the passage include the righteous (those who rise "to life"-v.29) and this wouldn't make sense if they have already been "with the Lord", conscious. (Unless you're going to turn the trichotomy of man into a trinity like God and teach, essentially, that the body, soul and spirit are three separate 'persons' in man). So this pictures them as having been asleep and now waking to hear His voice, or better yet, being awaken by His voice.
We refer to death as "going into eternity" (a state beyond our time and space), yet still insist that
the dead then continue to perceive the same earth years, days, etc. as we do. (e.g.--if the apostle
John died around A.D. 100 , he counts exactly 1900 years in the presence of God). And thus, the
first death becomes the same as our eternal existence, and is treated as such. The resurrection
thus becomes completely unnecessary, and is often even left out of discussions/teaching on life
after the grave. (e.g.-- "only the soul lives forever") No wonder the nominals no longer believe in
it!
The following text was used on a web site to prove that "early Christians believed death was the separation of soul and body", and this is true, but notice what the writer actually says about the state of this "separated" soul!
177 AD Athenagoras the Athenian, Chapter XVI--Analogy of Death and Sleep, and Consequent Argument for the Resurrection.
And let no one think it strange that we call by the name of life a continuance of being which is interrupted by death and corruption; but let him consider rather that this word has not one meaning only, nor is there only one measure of continuance, because the nature also of the things that continue is not one. For if each of the things that continue has its continuance according to its peculiar nature, neither in the case of those who are wholly incorruptible and immortal shall we find the continuance like ours, because the natures of superior beings do not take the level of such as are inferior; nor in men is it proper to look for a continuance invariable and unchangeable; in as much as the former are from the first created immortal, and continue to exist without end by the simple will of their Maker, and men, in respect of the soul, have from their first origin an unchangeable continuance, but in respect of the body obtain immortality by means of change. This is what is meant by the doctrine of the resurrection; and, looking to this, we both await the dissolution of the body, as the sequel to a life of want and corruption, and after this we hope for a continuance with immortality, not putting either our death on a level with the death of the irrational animals, or the continuance of man with the continuance of immortals, lest we should unawares in this way put human nature and life on a level with things with which it is not proper to compare them. It ought not, therefore, to excite dissatisfaction, if some inequality appears to exist in regard to the duration of men; nor, because the separation of the soul from the members of the body and the dissolution of its parts interrupts the continuity of life, must we therefore despair of the resurrection. For although the relaxation of the senses and of the physical powers, which naturally takes place in sleep, seems to interrupt the sensational life when men sleep at equal intervals of time, and, as it were, come back to life again, yet we do not refuse to call it life; and for this reason, I suppose, some call sleep the brother of death, not as deriving their origin from the same ancestors and fathers, but because those who are dead and those who sleep are subject to similar states, as regards at least the stillness and the absence of all sense of the present or the past, or rather of existence itself and their own life. If, therefore, we do not refuse to call by the name of life the life of men full of such inequality from birth to dissolution, and interrupted by all those things which we have before mentioned, neither ought we to despair of the life succeeding to dissolution, such as involves the resurrection, although for a time it is interrupted by the separation of the soul from the body.
----------------------------
So according to this, the Millerites may be wrong in saying that the person "ceases to exist", but the traditionalists are wrong to assume, then, that the dead have all their senses —"the continuance of immortals", just like before death or after the resurrection (which once again is looked on as the real hope by this passage, but would be rendered unnecessary otherwise.). This interpretation also sheds further light on passages like Luke 20:37,8 and Rev.6:9-11. As the body is the receiver of all our senses in the world, so must it be resurrected for us to get them all back.
Even still, there is not complete consensus among traditionalists regarding the intermediate
state. It is generally spoken of as the time we shall enter eternal bliss and meet all our loved
ones, but now some teachers, seeing the inconsistencies with the scriptures teaching
Resurrection as our hope, are now saying we won't see each other; we'll just be in some sort of
fellowship with God. So it seems almost as if we won't have all our senses after all, but still, this
is not explained in detail. And of course, no scripture discusses all of this. Such shifting sands of
doctrine is sign that the theory is full of holes, and people are simply trying to patch it up hole by
hole, rather than reexamining the whole premise.
Other early fathers are quoted making statements showing belief in the immortal soul, but this
can be explained in that both Jews, with their incomplete revelation, and Gentiles/pagans, who had no revelation, almost universally assumed an immortality of the soul; but even after the NT revelation and the close of the canon, many people did not get the full implications of resurrection (replacing need for disembodied existence). So
they held onto their old beliefs. The influences of Gnosticism and Platonism at the time also
further elevated this.
Note: for the SECOND death, I believe there is consciousness, evidenced by the need for varying degrees of punishment (see Luke 12:46-49, Rev. 20:12, 13) The Adventists themselves are said to have unofficially modified their position to allow for a limited period of time of conscious suffering in the lake of fire. Such concession is sign of a weak position.