Soul Sleeping? What does scripture say happens to us when we die.

[massorite]

Ahwatukee,

Kind regards.

I was not referring to the maid that Jesus raised. I was referring to the woman (a disciple) that Peter brought back to life again in Acts 9:39-43. This raising from the dead happened after the Lord’s resurrection. If what many teach is true, regarding a believer who dies going to be immediately with the Lord, then we would have to conclude that Peter brought Tabitha down from heaven to this present evil world again.

That’s somewhat strange, would you agree?

The only way Tabitha could have gone to heaven is if her body had changed from flesh and blood to an incorruptable/immortal body.
Co 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
1Co 15:43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
1Co 15:52 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.
1Co 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
1Co 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
Mat 11:5 The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.
Which means that a who is raised from the grave/dead down from heaven would need to put back into a corruptible/mortal body after being changed from a mortal body to an immortal body. A incorruptible back into a corruptible body.
Folks it just doesn't work that way. nce we have put on an immortal and incorruptable body there is no going back to corruption.
That is why Tabitha was not brought DOWN from heaven. She was brought UP from the grave and there is no scripture that says anybody who has ever been raise from the grave is brought DOWN. They are always brought UP.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

When Jesus was resurrected, his body was resurrected. It was no longer in the tomb. The body was then glorified, or changed in composition to reflect spiritual characteristics. It was still a material body, but it was changed in terms of its characteristics. It is no longer perishable, but is imperishable. It is no longer in disgrace, but it is in glory. It is not a "spirit body" but is glorified.
Ok now we are coming to at least some kind of understanding. I agree.
See, the reality here is you don't even believe basic Christian teaching. Basic Christian teaching is that Jesus was bodily resurrected, and this body was changed or glorified. It was still a material body, but it had different characteristics that are fit to inhabit the New Heavens and New Earth.
No you are misunderstanding me. Just because I believe in soul sleep doesn't mean I don't believe in a material glorified body.
I do believe that it is the soul of the rich man and Lazarus that are in Hades. I never said that Lazarus wouldn't have a glorified body when they were raised from the grave. That would be contrary to scripture.
If I'm not mistaken you believe the righteous are asleep in Hades, as you conceive it, so Lazarus would be asleep in this scenario.
Yes that is exactly what I believe. Lazarus never says a single word through out the whole exchange between the rich man and Lazarus that the Lazarus in the parable and the Lazarus the Christ raised from the grave are one and the same Lazarus.
The fact that his body was no longer there is proof that the resurrection is bodily and not a spirit resurrection. Both Lazarus and the rich man had a body somewhere, so they are in a different situation than Jesus. Jesus' body was not in the tomb.
I agree. The body of Lazarus and the rich man were still in a tombs that were placed in after death. Rotting.

Well, here's what is confusing. You said that the bodies of those in Hades were similar to the body that Jesus had. You compared their bodies to his. Go back and read your words.

And, my response was, no, they would not be similar to Jesus' resurrection body, because their bodies would not be glorified resurrection bodies like his, assuming this account related to the intermediate state between death and the resurrection.

By the way, I am not totally convinced that the account is from the intermediate state. It could instead be related to the resurrection of the just and unjust. I am not convinced either way.

And, regarding "Paradise" being a compartment of Hades, I think that's false.

Why?

Paul related Paradise to the Third Heaven, which is the place of God's throne.

2 Corinthians 12:1-4 1 I must go on boasting. Though there is nothing to be gained by it, I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. 3 And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— 4 and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter.

So, Paul stated that this man (who I am convinced is Paul himself) was caught up to the third heaven. He equates this with paradise in the next sentence.

Therefore, I believe paradise and the third heaven is exactly the same place.

So, I don't believe in this "two compartment" view of Hades. It may have been the worldview of some Jews at the time, though. However, I don't believe Jesus is stuck in a compartment of Hades called "Paradise", but is interceding with the saints at the throne of God. I think Scripture is clear on this. And, the deceased saints are in his presence.

I know that your view (except for the soul sleep part) is a common belief, but I would not hold it myself.

And, by the way, Paul was inferring that he experienced this account, because he was addressing issues with regards to the genuineness of his apostleship. What he was inferring is that he experienced grand visions like this, and those were proofs of his discipleship..but at the same time he was being modest and referring to himself in the third person anonymously. I have done this myself concerning situations in my life.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

I never said that the body of Christ wasn't flesh. But I do say that the body of Christ was not the same kind of flesh that He died with. And I have never said that His resurrection wasn't physical. But I do maintain that the Body Christ had was a glorified body that was raised from the grave INCORRUPTABLE. Why ??? Because flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Proof that the body of Christ was not flesh and blood but instead was a glorified body is in Php. 3:20-21.
Php 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
Php 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.
Jesus after He was raised from the grave could walk through walls. He could disappear and reappear at will.
Joh 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
After Christ was raised from the grave he still had the open wounds in His hands and feet and thegapping hole in His side but He was no longer bleeding and offered to let Thomas put his finger inside of the wounds. He had no pain because of those wounds.
Joh 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
After Christ was raised from the grave He was able to change/alter His apparance so that He was unrecognizable.
Joh 12:36 While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.
1Co 15:52 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.
1Co 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
1Co 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
The body of Christ didn't see corruption because that was the will of God. But for the rest of us?? Our bodies of flesh rot and it is the soul which falls into a state of sleep until the resurrection when Christ returns.
SO AGAIN I SAY THAT THE FLESH BEGINS TO CORRUPT/ROT AT THE POINT OF DEATH AND it was the soul of the rich man that was suffering and it was the soul of Lazarus that was in the Bosom of Abraham.

This is the very reason I never look to commentaries to help me understand scripture.
"Jesus rose from the dead in the very same physical body in which He died.
Your guy Mr. Matt Slick made a major contradiction in his little commentary. Christ did not raise from the grave with the "very same physical body in which He died. Mr slick goes on to tell us that the body Christ had after He was raise from the grave was a glorified body and never see's his obvious mistake. A Glorified body is not the same kind of body as a body of flesh and blood.
The body Christ died with was a body of flesh and blood. But the body Christ was raised with was a glorified body not made of flesh and blood but looked like the same body He died with. A body of flesh can't walk through walls, have gaping wounds that don't hurt or bleed. Though Christ could eat fish the glorified body doesn't need food for survival.
But it is the body that all of us will have when we are presented to the Father as an acceptable gift by Christ in heaven after we are resurrected and meet Christ in the glory of God.

This resurrected, physical body was a glorified, spiritual body. The spiritual body is not merely "spirit." The spiritual body is the resurrected, glorified, physical body."

Luk 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Here is another contradiction. Christ tells us that his body is not a spirit body because a spirit body has no flesh and bones in the above verse. So who is correct?? Your guy Matt Slick or Christ??? Which is it??? A body of flesh and blood/bone as in the body Christ died with or a glorified body???
Your guy Matt Slick is all mixed up and you are quoting this guy as if he know what he is talking about. This makes you look bad if I can find the apparent contradictions you should have also seen them if you were paying close attention to what he was saying.

No, the problem is that you cannot understand the vocabulary he is using, and therefore are trying to correct him on something you don't know anything about.

The issue is this: Matt is making a distinction between "spiritual" and "spirit".

Heretics like Jehovah's Witnesses teach a "spirit resurrection". They claim that Jesus was simply turned into a spirit. This is NOT CORRECT. His physical body was raised, and then glorified. It is the same body, only changed in terms of its' characteristics.

So, Matt is using careful wording to address heretical individuals who teach false doctrine.

And, you are so shallow in terms of your exposure that you think you are in a position to correct him. He's dealt with a lot of cultists over many years and that is why he is careful in his terminology.

1 Corinthians 15 calls the resurrection body a "spiritual body" so if you have problems with his terminology, your problem is with Scripture itself. Yet, apparently you think you are in a position where you can write your own commentary and instruct others, and that is why you wouldn't consider seeing what another well-informed brother in Christ has to say about something.

By the way, I think I already covered this but you are too dense to pick it up. There's a difference between "spiritual body" and "spirit body" and Matt is well educated enough to know this.


1 Corinthians 15:42-45 42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
(ESV Strong's)

And, this is, many times, the state of affairs with guys on the Internet.

I have absolutely no problem with understanding the arguments that cultists try to make, and carefully framing language to address their falsehoods. I also have no problems reading the works of other well-educated brothers and learning from them. Notice that I said well-educated, not self-educated, prideful guys who have learned from others online and think they are in a position to correct others' theology.

So, to say it for the third time (?), there is a difference between "spiritual body" which is a phrase that is used in regards to the resurrection body, and a "spirit body". Matt carefully uses the right description in regards to this.

And, it is the same physical body, only glorified, which means changed in terms of qualities and composition. This change does not make it a different body. In fact, God's intention is to redeem the entire man, including the physical body. Glorified doesn't change the fact that it is the same body. It is the same body, only perfected and made incorruptible and suitable for the new creation.

So, there are no contradictions. The problem is that you are some kind of bible expert in your own mind, and you haven't socialized well enough to understand why others phrase things in a certain way. It is to deal with heretics such as Jehovah's Witnesses, and to correct false understandings within the Church.

But, I don't suppose I'm going to convince some guy like you of much. It's already apparent to me that you think you are the sum of wisdom, and able to instruct others, rather than to be instructed.

By the way, your mentality is very much similar to the mentality of the leader of the cult I followed as a young man. I would be very surprised if you're a member of a sound church.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

I never said that the body of Christ wasn't flesh. But I do say that the body of Christ was not the same kind of flesh that He died with. And I have never said that His resurrection wasn't physical. But I do maintain that the Body Christ had was a glorified body that was raised from the grave INCORRUPTABLE. Why ??? Because flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Proof that the body of Christ was not flesh and blood but instead was a glorified body is in Php. 3:20-21.
Php 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
Php 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.
Jesus after He was raised from the grave could walk through walls. He could disappear and reappear at will.
Joh 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
After Christ was raised from the grave he still had the open wounds in His hands and feet and thegapping hole in His side but He was no longer bleeding and offered to let Thomas put his finger inside of the wounds. He had no pain because of those wounds.
Joh 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
After Christ was raised from the grave He was able to change/alter His apparance so that He was unrecognizable.
Joh 12:36 While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.
1Co 15:52 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.
1Co 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
1Co 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
The body of Christ didn't see corruption because that was the will of God. But for the rest of us?? Our bodies of flesh rot and it is the soul which falls into a state of sleep until the resurrection when Christ returns.
SO AGAIN I SAY THAT THE FLESH BEGINS TO CORRUPT/ROT AT THE POINT OF DEATH AND it was the soul of the rich man that was suffering and it was the soul of Lazarus that was in the Bosom of Abraham.

This is the very reason I never look to commentaries to help me understand scripture.
"Jesus rose from the dead in the very same physical body in which He died.
Your guy Mr. Matt Slick made a major contradiction in his little commentary. Christ did not raise from the grave with the "very same physical body in which He died. Mr slick goes on to tell us that the body Christ had after He was raise from the grave was a glorified body and never see's his obvious mistake. A Glorified body is not the same kind of body as a body of flesh and blood.
The body Christ died with was a body of flesh and blood. But the body Christ was raised with was a glorified body not made of flesh and blood but looked like the same body He died with. A body of flesh can't walk through walls, have gaping wounds that don't hurt or bleed. Though Christ could eat fish the glorified body doesn't need food for survival.
But it is the body that all of us will have when we are presented to the Father as an acceptable gift by Christ in heaven after we are resurrected and meet Christ in the glory of God.

This resurrected, physical body was a glorified, spiritual body. The spiritual body is not merely "spirit." The spiritual body is the resurrected, glorified, physical body."

Luk 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Here is another contradiction. Christ tells us that his body is not a spirit body because a spirit body has no flesh and bones in the above verse. So who is correct?? Your guy Matt Slick or Christ??? Which is it??? A body of flesh and blood/bone as in the body Christ died with or a glorified body???
Your guy Matt Slick is all mixed up and you are quoting this guy as if he know what he is talking about. This makes you look bad if I can find the apparent contradictions you should have also seen them if you were paying close attention to what he was saying.

By the way, I want a specific answer to this question:

Why do you criticize Matt Slick for using the phrase "spiritual body" when the Bible ITSELF uses the phrase, in reference to the resurrection body?

1 Corinthians 15:42-45 42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (ESV Strong's)

And, I will repeat that Matt used the phrase "spiritual body"...he did NOT say "spirit body".

In this particular post, I don't want you to go off into some tangent.

I specifically want an answer concerning why you felt the need to criticize him for talking about a spiritual body when Scripture ITSELF uses this phrase.

If a person is reasonably educated in the doctrine of the bodily resurrection and those who deny it, like JWs, they know why Matt framed his explanations the way he did.

By the way, Matt has a MDiv, and he is formally trained in Greek. He knows the underlying Greek, and that it is indicating "spiritual body" (pneumatikos). Something can be "spiritual" without being "spirit". The exact nature of the resurrection body is not clear, but it is clear that it is the same body, which has been changed in a manner that is compatible with the new creation, which will appear as part of the redemption of all creation.

Anyways, at this point, my question is simple....why did you feel a need to correct him, when Scripture ITSELF refers to the resurrection body as "spiritual"?

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Your guy Matt Slick is all mixed up and you are quoting this guy as if he know what he is talking about. This makes you look bad if I can find the apparent contradictions you should have also seen them if you were paying close attention to what he was saying.

By the way, what is a massorite?

Is it possible you mean Masorete?

Masoretes were expert Jewish scribe-scholars.

If that's what you mean, then I would say you need to learn to spell

No self-respecting Masorete would have misspelled his own profession.

Maybe that's not what you mean, though.

If it, is that would make you look pretty bad.

 

[Micaiah-imla]

By the way, I think I already covered this but you are too dense to pick it up. There's a difference between "spiritual body" and "spirit body" and Matt is well educated enough to know this.

Please enlighten us, sir, With the utmost respect:

Where was Tabitha when she died (Acts 9:39-43). Peter brought her back to life again. Was she or was she not with Lord immediately after she died?

And if she was with the Lord in glory, Peter unresurrected her, right?

You have been in the faith 22 years longer than me. Please explain this to me, sir.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Here's a paper I found online which gives a good explanation of the "two compartment" view that the original poster is proposing.

Note that the original poster simply treats it as fact, while this author treats it as a speculative view.

The author particularly doesn't approve of the soul-sleep view that is being proposed here.

By the way, I really don't care about the views of some who don't want me posting well-researched works of others here. What makes you think YOUR opinions are better than theirs? Answer: pride, largely. I am willing to look at the well-researched works of other brothers from sound backgrounds, who know the original languages through formal training, and who are educated enough in church history to realize the history of heresies within the Church.

The condition is that they need to be well-educated believers from sound conservative Reformed seminaries, though. I don't listen to ill-educated people, or liberals, or non-Reformed believers. I'm also not fond of dispensationalists, although guys like John MacArthur can be trusted on most topics.

As I have said before, I've spent a good portion of my life listening to a know-it-all cult leader, and the attitudes of many individuals on Christian forums are not much better. They have a disdain for understanding systematic theology, biblical theology, and historical theology. I believe this stems from the prideful nature of man that seeks autonomy. He thinks he is the valiant defender of the truth, and is best equipped to discern it. He hasn't been well instructed in systematic theology, biblical theology, original language or church history, but somehow he has arrived in the position that his opinions cannot be questioned. God speaks closer to him, and he hears God better than anyone else, therefore he is the indisputable authority on Scripture.

I used to be like that, by the way. I know that I can be wrong on various topics. However, I have spent enough time studying core Christian doctrine that I can recognize where someone is off the path on those issues, or promoting their questionable view as indisputable fact.

 

[Micaiah-imla]

As I have said before, I've spent a good portion of my life listening to a know-it-all cult leader, and the attitudes of many individuals on Christian forums are not much better.

No answer on Tabitha then.

Fine.

Is it too much to ask a fellow believer a question in regards to our faith?

Have you been hardened by others?

I am open to any reasonable answers with scripture, not the word of men.

 

[Ahwatukee]

Ahwatukee,

Kind regards.

I was not referring to the maid that Jesus raised. I was referring to the woman (a disciple) that Peter brought back to life again in Acts 9:39-43. This raising from the dead happened after the Lord’s resurrection. If what many teach is true, regarding a believer who dies going to be immediately with the Lord, then we would have to conclude that Peter brought Tabitha down from heaven to this present evil world again.

That’s somewhat strange, would you agree?

Not really! Jesus brought Lazarus and several others back to life, as well. As did, Paul and Peter. We just don't know what those people experienced in between the death of the body and being brought back. As far as a the death of the body, the scriptures are clear about the spirit departing and going to be in the presence of the Lord, conscious and aware.

 

[Micaiah-imla]

the scriptures are clear about the spirit departing and going to be in the presence of the Lord, conscious and aware.

I do not agree with you. There are no scriptures that unambiguously, without a doubt, teach this. You have to go beyond scripture to teach this.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

There has been much confusion, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries about the condition and the location of one’s soul after death. The whole subject stresses the importance of the intermediate state. By the intermediate state is meant “that realm or condition in which souls exist between death and the resurrection” (L. Beottner, Immortality).

The Bible itself has very little to say about the intermediate state because the Bible stresses not the intermediate state but the ultimate state; that is, the return of Christ in His second advent and the new era that shall then begin. However, there are passages that do say something about the intermediate state for both the saved and the unsaved. The teaching on the intermediate state is clearer in the New Testament than in the Old Testament and a rule of Biblical interpretation is that the New Testament is the final criterion for interpretation of the Old Testament. The New Testament teaches that the intermediate state is a state of conscious existence for both the righteous and the wicked – for the righteous a state of joy; for the wicked a state of suffering(II Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23; II Cor. 12:2-4; Luke 23:43; Rev. 14:13; Luke 16:19-31).

Probably the best definition of the intermediate state is found in the Westminster Confession of Faith which says, “The souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies; and the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. Besides these two places for souls departed from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none.”

The Westminster Divines set forth a general teaching on the intermediate state and no one can argue with this general statement. However, the Bible may leave room for the Two-Compartment theory which deals with the state of souls before and after the death of Christ. NOTE: Dogmatism on the Two-Compartment theory would be wrong but it is set forth as a possible explanation of departed souls before and after the Cross.

THE TWO-COMPARTMENT THEORY

Introduction: There has been much controversy over the Two-Compartment theory, but it has been held by good Bible scholars. There is much Biblical support for it but not enough to be dogmatic on the subject.

Definition: The Two-Compartment theory states that the Old Testament saints’ and unbelievers’ souls after death went to a temporary abode called Sheol-Hades. Sheol-Hades was divided into two compartments – Paradise and Tartarus. Paradise 2 was the abode of the righteous, a place of joy and bliss, and Tartarus was the abode of the unrighteous dead, a place of punishment. At Christ’s death on the Cross, He descended into Sheol-Hades and declared His victorious death on the Cross to the unbelievers in Tartarus and took the Old Testament believers of Paradise with Him to heaven. Paradise was moved to heaven and Tartarus of Sheol-Hades remained the temporary abode of all unbelievers whether of the Old Testament or New Testament ages. Someday in the future Sheol-Hades will be thrown into the Lake of Fire forever. NOTE: This view has much scriptural support and also has the support of Roman Catholic theologians who teach the doctrine of Limbus Patrum, Roman Catholic theology holds that Old Testament believers at their death were gathered into a region called the limbus patrum, where they remained without the beatific vision of God, and yet without suffering, until Christ had accomplished His work of redemption. The word limbus is from the Latin, meaning fringe or outskirts, and the limbus patrum was one of the several compartments into which first Jewish theology and then later Medieval theology divided the unseen world. After His death on the Cross, and while His body remained in the grave, Christ is supposed to have descended to this region, delivered the souls held captive there, and led them in triumph to heaven (Beottner, Immortality)

Support for Two-Compartment Theory

Sheol and Hades: The word “sheol” probably means “to be hollow” and the NAS Bible called it the “nether world.” In the Old Testament the Hebrew word to designate the place of the souls of the dead is Sheol. Sheol is the abode of righteous men (Psa. 89:48; 88:3; Hosea 13:14) and of the wicked (Num. 16:33; Psa. 49:14; Job 21:13: Psa. 9:17; Proverbs 7:27; Deut. 32:33). God is sovereign over it (Deut. 32:22; Job 26:6). Men are conscious in Sheol for conversation takes place there (Ezk. 32:31; Isa. 14:9, 10). The Psalmist thought he would be kept out of the “lowest Sheol” (Psa. 86:13), indicating there might be a higher part of Sheol. Those who are truly saved are not to stay in Sheol (Psa. 49:15). NOTE: The key verses are Psalm 16:10 and Acts 2:27-31. Psalm 16:10 says Christ’s soul would not be left in Sheol and the New Testament quoting this verse in Acts 2:27-31 says Christ’s soul shall not be left in Hades; thus Sheol and Hades are one and the same place. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus tells us that they were conscious in Hades and a great gulf separated the two but they could communicate (Lk. 16:19-31). POINT: Sheol and Hades were the same place and both the wicked and the righteous were there. OBJECTIONS: (1) Sheol in the Old Testament may mean the grave (Gen. 42:38; 44:29-31) and is just a figurative way of speaking of death for both the righteous and unrighteous; (2) Sheol must refer to the state of death in the grave because it says man’s earthly good are in Sheol (Num. 16:29-33); this is figurative language for the grave and death; (3) In Psalm 16:10 and Acts 2:27-31 the words azab (loosen, relinquish, permit) and egkataleipo (desert, forsake) are used and it does not seem to teach our Lord’s soul was to go into SheolHades but that God would not “permit” or “desert” Christ’s soul into Hades, indicating He never went to Hades. NOTE: For those who reject the TwoCompartment theory, they feel that Sheol means primarily the grave and/or 3 punishment. Beottner says, “Briefly, we may say that the Old Testament Sheol usually means the grave, but sometimes the place of punishment, while in the New Testament, Hades and Hell usually mean the place of punishment but sometimes the grave.”

Sheol-Hades Has Two Compartments: Christ lived and died in the Old Testament dispensation and would naturally accept Old Testament theology that was correct. Christ taught that the Rich Man and Lazarus were both in Hades but one was in bliss and the other in misery (Lk. 16:19-31). Lazarus is said to have been in “Paradise,” a place of bliss for Old Testament saints (Lk. 16:25). Just before Christ died, He told the thief who believed, “Today, you shall be with me in Paradise” (Lk. 23:43). That very day the thief would be with Christ but Christ did not go to heaven until 40 days after His resurrection. The bottom half of Sheol-Hades is thought to be Tartarus, which was originally made to house wicked angels (II Pet. 2:4), but men who do not have Christ as Lord and Saviour cast their lot with the devil and his angels and thus experience God’s eternal judgment (Matt. 25:41). OBJECTIONS: (1) The Bible seems to teach that Paradise is equivalent to heaven (II Cor. 14:4; Rev. 2:7); (2) it seems as though the Old Testament saints were looking for heaven and not for some intermediate state of bliss called Paradise (Psa. 73:24; 17:15); (3) all Old Testament saints did not go to Sheol-Hades, for Enoch (Gen. 5:4) and Elijah (II Kings 2:11) were raptured.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Christ Descended Into Sheol-Hades:

At the time of His death (perhaps during the whole three days His body was in the tomb) Christ descended into Sheol-Hades. Because of His death, Christ went into “prison” (Tartarus) to proclaim to the Old Testament people (at least the pre-flood people), who rejected Him, His victorious death (I Pet. 3:18-20). We must assume that these Old Testament unbelievers were in Sheol-Hades, namely Tartarus. Another assumption is that Christ not only proclaimed His death to pre-flood rejecters but to all Old Testament saints. This proclamation was not to give rejecters a second chance but to proclaim that He was and is victor over sin, death, judgment, Satan and hell, making their misery more miserable. It is also stated that Christ descended “into the lower parts of the earth” before he ascended into heaven (Eph. 4:6-10). A the time He descended, He “led captive a host of captives” which could refer to the Old Testament saints who were in the Paradise section of Sheol-Hades. When He ascended, He took the Old Testament saints and the Paradise section of Sheol-Hades with Him and relocated it in heaven. Now Paradise is in heaven and that is why Paul could say that he was caught up into Paradise (II Cor. 12:4). This may be the time that Old Testament saints were made part of the Church, being then united to Christ. The Two-Compartment theory is consistent with the Apostle’s Creed which says, “descended into hell.” NOTE: The TwoCompartment theory may give some explanation to the resurrection that occurred at the time of Christ’s death (Matt. 27:51-53), although we cannot be dogmatic on this point. OBJECTIONS: (1) I Pet. 3:18-20 is open to another interpretation: Christ was made alive in the spirit and preached to spirits in prison; this happened before the flood, indicating that it was the same Spirit of Christ who spoke through Noah to the people of his day; (2) Eph. 4:6-10 and Matt. 27:51-53 are not clear passages and too many assumptions must be made

Christ Left Hades in Place: Sheol-Hades remained after Paradise was removed to heaven. In the New Testament, Hades almost always has reference to the place of the wicked dead who die. Tartarus, which is in Sheol-Hades, is the place where unbelievers go after this life because in unbelief they have cast their lots with the devil and his angels. Sheol-Hades (Tartarus) remains as a place of separation from God and punishment.

Hades to Yet Be Cast Into the Lake of Fire: All men, whether saved or unsaved, will be bodily resurrected. The saved will be resurrected to life and the unsaved to death (John 5: 28, 29). At the Great White Throne judgment unbelievers’ resurrected bodies will be united with their souls which have been in Hades, and at that time Hades and all unbelievers will be cast into the Lake of Fire forever (Rev. 20:14, 15)

DANGERS OF THE TWO-COMPARTMENT THEORY

Could Lead to a Form of Soul Sleep: One must be careful to maintain that SheolHades is a place where men are conscious. Jews and Roman Catholics who held to a type of Two-Compartment theory held that believers after death were in a dreamy, semi-conscious state, neither happy nor miserable, awaiting the resurrection of the body

Could Lead to a Temporary Judgment of Old Testament Unbelievers: Some who have held this view have said that when Christ went into Hades and proclaimed His victorious death, He set free all in Sheol-Hades, even the unsaved, and took them to heaven.

Could Lead to a Place of No Judgment: Liberal theology teaches that Sheol of the Old Testament is a place without moral distinction, and therefore without blessedness on the one hand or pain on the other. It was according to this view a dreamy sort of underworld of comparative inaction, darkness and silence. This lends support to a universalistic salvation

OPTION TO THE TWO-COMPARTMENT THEORY

Among Bible scholars, the most prominent view is to reject the Two-Compartment theory and see all the words for heaven and hell to be figurative, represent – the bliss of the saved and the punishment of the wicked

Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, Tartarus, Lake of Fire, Abyss under this view all refers to Hell. Sheol in the Old Testament refers to the state of death, the grave or hell. Paradise refers to heaven. NOTE: This is a far less complicated system but it does not seem to answer as many questions as does the Two-Compartment theory

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

These previous two posts are from a well-written article that I found online.

It is attached below.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Here's another one by the same author on soul sleep.

His name is Jack L. Arnold and he is a DTS graduate, so dispensationalists should be ok with him too

 

[Micaiah-imla]

These previous two posts are from a well-written article that I found online.

It is attached below.

I am not interested in theories of men. Just the plain teaching of scripture. I had hoped you would provide me one clear scripture that would explain the position of those who teach that all believers go to be immediately with the Lord upon death.

Be careful about these long, drawn out, and wordy theories.

A fools voice is know by multitude of words (Ecclesiastes 5:3).

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

I. INTRODUCTION

A. A Christian in the 20th century must have a good understanding of the intermediate state because cultists are swarming with their false teachings about death. By the intermediate state is meant “that realm or condition in which souls exist between death and the resurrection.”

B. Modern cultists are just a continuation of heretics who have been condemned by the Church for 2,000 years. It is important that we can spot heresy (false teaching) and refute it.

II. SOUL SLEEP

A. Definition: The advocates of soul sleep maintain that, after physical death, the soul continues to exist as an individual being, but in a state of unconscious repose. According to this doctrine the souls of the dead are sleeping in the grave, that is, in a silent world in which there is no knowledge, consciousness or activity. The soul is in a state of non-existence. The soul and body are not raised until the final judgment at which times the souls are recreated or restored and then the wicked and righteous are judged (Jn. 5:28, 29).

B. Advocates: The doctrine of the sleep of the soul seems to have a peculiar fascination for those who find it hard to believe in a continuance of consciousness apart from the body. In early church history this doctrine was held by a sect in Arabia called the Psychopannychia. At the time of the Reformation, some Anabaptists held to soul sleep. In the 19th century some Irvingites in England held this view. Today it is openly propagated by the Jehovah Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Seventh Day Adventists, the Christian Advent Church, etc. Probably the most ardent proponent is Herbert W. Armstrong. Soul sleep might also be propagated in one form or another by modern day Christian liberals.

NOTE: The historic church has consistently rejected any form of soul sleep and it has just been recently that it has received any great following.

C. Support: Men who hold to false teaching usually find support for it from the Bible, for the Bible can be made to support anything if a person or group does not consider all the verses on a subject.

1. The Bible Uses the World “Sleep”: Sleep is taught in the Old Testament to refer to physical death (Deut. 31:16; I Kgs. 22:50) and also in the New Testament (Jn. 11:11; Acts 7:60; I Cor. 15:6, 20; I Thess. 4:13, 14). There is one reference in the Old Testament to show that “sleep” refers to the physical death of both saved and unsaved (Dan. 12:2). POINT: A man’s soul and body both sleep after death in an unconscious existence.

OBJECTIONS:
a. The Greek word for sleep, komiao, means to lie down. The Greek word for “resurrection” means to stand up. Both of these words refer to the physical body and not to the soul of a human being.

b. When the Bible speaks of death as sleep, this is the language of appearance. It describes a person only as he appears from the human viewpoint, not as he really is. “In every instance in which the word sleep is used in connection with the dead, the context makes it clear that it applies only to the body” (Beottner, Immortality).

2. The Bible Seems to Teach that the Souls of Men Die: At first glance it appears that souls may die (Josh. 10:35; Psa. 33:19; 78:50; Ezk. 18:4; James 5:20; Rev. 16:3).

OBJECTIONS:
In each of these cases, the word “soul” may refer to the principle of life or to an individual person. Sometimes the word “death” when it is used with “soul” refers to spiritual death and not physical death.

3. The Bible Teaches Men are Unconscious After Death: Some passages seem to teach, especially in the Old Testament; that men are unconscious at death (Eccl. 9:5, 6, 10; Psa. 5:5; Psa. 115:17; Isa. 38:18, 19).

OBJECTIONS:

a. Again this is appearance language, being viewed from the perspective of the writer as he views death from a human viewpoint.

b. Some passages in the Old Testament seem to teach that there was conversation after death (Ezk. 32:21; Isa. 14:9-11) and Old Testament saints expected to go into the presence of the Lord (Psa. 17:15; 73:24; Prov. 14:32).

c. The Bible presents believers enjoying a conscious life in communion with Christ immediately after death (Lk. 16:19-31; 23:43; Acts 7:59; II Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23; Rev. 6:9; 7:9).

d. In Luke 16:19-31 it says the rich man could speak, feel pain, drink and had memory. He was fully conscious in Hades, and there is no evidence of soul sleep.

D. Scriptural Refutations of Soul Sleep

1. Matt. 17:1-3: Moses and Elijah who died hundreds of years before, came back through a miracle and talked with Jesus Christ. Moses and Elijah were not soul sleeping.

2. Luke 23:43: Christ promised the thief that he would be in Paradise with him that very day. The thief’s body went into the grave but his soul and spirit (immaterial part) went into the presence of God.

3. John 11:26: Christ promised that a Christian shall never die spiritually. If the believer has to go through soul sleep, then Christ lied. That part of man that can never die is soul and spirit.

4. Matt: 22: 31, 32: God is not the God of the dead but the living. He must be the God of all who have died in Christ and thus speaks of the “living” in terms of believers who are living physically or who have died and their souls and spirits are alive in His presence.

5. II Cor. 5:6, 8: The Bible teaches to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. This must refer to the soul and spirit of a believer. What reward would it be if the soul and spirit could not fellowship with Christ immediately?

6. Phil. 1:21-23: To die is to be in the presence of Christ. The body dies but the soul and spirit goes to be with Christ.

7. Acts 7:59: Stephen asked the Lord to receive his human spirit. He did not expect his human spirit to die and fall asleep.

8. Heb. 12:23: This refers to the Old Testament saints who have been given a position in the New Jerusalem. This certainly implies the conscious existence of their souls.

9. Rev. 6:9, 10: Tribulation saints who died are beseeching the Lord for vengeance. Their souls were not sleeping.

10. Rev. 7:9, 10: Tribulation converts praised the Lord after death. They were very much conscious.

E. Logical Refutation of Soul Sleep

1. Souls are Created: Souls are created by God (Gen. 2:7) – “man became a living being (soul).” The immaterial part of man was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). This would include the soul and because God is eternal the human soul is eternal, and cannot die physically like the body.

2. Souls are Separated from the Body: Those who teach soul sleep are confusing what is said of the body with what is said of the soul. Death is not extinction but only the separation of the soul from the body. The soul continues to exist, fully conscious and active, and at the resurrection this same soul, not a new one, is reunited with the body.

3. Illogic of Soul Sleep: First, how can a non-existent person be brought back into existence unless God does a recreation? The “recreation” took place at the new birth (II Cor. 5:17) where man’s total being, including his soul, was spiritually redeemed and made fit for heaven. Secondly, in what sense would a person be the same person who formerly lived? Thirdly, why should non-existent sinners be brought back into existence at all? Or why should they be brought back into existence only for the purpose of putting them out of existence a second time?

III. CONCLUSIONS

A. The scriptural evidence when taken as a whole most certainly favors a conscious existence of all souls of all men, saved and unsaved, after death. While soul sleep is an obvious diversion from the Bible, it is only a heresy in the narrowest sense. A person could be saved and hold to the doctrine of soul sleep, but it would weaken one’s viewpoint of the anticipation of death and may open the door to real heresies such as annihilation (eternal state of unconsciousness for the unsaved).

B. Historically, the Church has spoken out against the teaching of soul sleep. In the Forty-Two Articles of Edward VI, which preceded the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, the statement is made: “They which say that the souls of those who depart hence do sleep being without all sense, feeling or perceiving till the Day of Judgment, do utterly dissent from the right belief disclosed to us in Holy Scripture.”

C. For the sake of argument, let us assume that soul sleep is correct. Remember I reject soul sleep as Biblical. This doctrine does not destroy all anticipation of death. When one dies, he loses all consciousness but his next conscious moment will be in the presence of Christ. Soul sleep would be like real sleep. When one falls to sleep at night, he loses all sense of consciousness. During that time a person loses all track of time. A period of ten minutes, ten hours, or ten decades would pass during that time of unconsciousness. However, when one wakes up he is totally conscious.

 

[Micaiah-imla]

You know, if Jesus had said:

Man shall not live by scripture alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of man

Then all those theological (philosophies of men) articles you posted might have some legitimacy.

 

[Micaiah-imla]

5. II Cor. 5:6, 8: The Bible teaches to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. This must refer to the soul and spirit of a believer. What reward would it be if the soul and spirit could not fellowship with Christ immediately?

Lie.

The Bible teaches no such thing.

Paul expressed a desire we all have to RATHER be in heaven instead of in this present evil world.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Just another day at Christianchat..jousting windmills :

 

[Micaiah-imla]

You weren’t doing much chatting, my friend.

Just a lot of traditions of men being passed on by you.

No ill will on this side. But I hate every false way (Psalm 119:104).