A Case for Not Reading The Bible Literally

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I'm sure you can understand that the Greek word "sarx" in Phil 1:22 & 24 does not mean just "in the flesh" as in living in an earthly body, but also means living in accordance with the lust of the flesh.
Which puts doubt as to whether or not Paul is talking about death in 1:23.

Obviously there is no conscience, non-corporal entity that survives after the body dies. So both Phil 1:23 and II Cor 5:8 cannot be referring to such a thing.....
I don't think the appeal to σάρξ (sarx) gets you where you want to go contextually.
Certainly, Paul often uses sarx to refer to fallen human nature or living according to the flesh, but in Philippians 1 the contrast is between remaining alive and ministering to the churches versus departing and being with Christ.
In verse 22 he says, "if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour," and in verse 24, "to abide in the flesh is more needful for you." In both cases, "in the flesh" naturally refers to his continuing earthly life because his staying benefits the Philippians through ongoing ministry.

The problem is that verse 23 sits directly between those statements "having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better."
If Paul is not speaking about death or departure from this present life, what is he departing from?
The immediate context is his dilemma between continuing his earthly ministry and leaving it behind.

That said, I do agree with you on one important point: we cannot build an entire doctrine from two verses while ignoring everything else Scripture says about death and resurrection.
My hesitation is simply that your argument seems to assume that because you believe the dead are unconscious, Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8 must mean something else.
But those verses are part of the evidence that must be explained, not merely adjusted to fit a conclusion reached elsewhere.

So I don't think the debate is settled by proving sarx can sometimes mean living according to fleshly desires.
The question remains whether that is what Paul means here, and in Philippians 1 the surrounding verses seem to point toward the ordinary contrast between continuing life in this world and departing to be with Christ.
Whether that presence with Christ is immediate or viewed through the lens of the resurrection is the very issue under discussion.
 
I don't think the appeal to σάρξ (sarx) gets you where you want to go contextually.
Certainly, Paul often uses sarx to refer to fallen human nature or living according to the flesh, but in Philippians 1 the contrast is between remaining alive and ministering to the churches versus departing and being with Christ.
In verse 22 he says, "if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour," and in verse 24, "to abide in the flesh is more needful for you." In both cases, "in the flesh" naturally refers to his continuing earthly life because his staying benefits the Philippians through ongoing ministry.

The problem is that verse 23 sits directly between those statements "having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better."
If Paul is not speaking about death or departure from this present life, what is he departing from?
The immediate context is his dilemma between continuing his earthly ministry and leaving it behind.

That said, I do agree with you on one important point: we cannot build an entire doctrine from two verses while ignoring everything else Scripture says about death and resurrection.
My hesitation is simply that your argument seems to assume that because you believe the dead are unconscious, Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8 must mean something else.
But those verses are part of the evidence that must be explained, not merely adjusted to fit a conclusion reached elsewhere.

So I don't think the debate is settled by proving sarx can sometimes mean living according to fleshly desires.
The question remains whether that is what Paul means here, and in Philippians 1 the surrounding verses seem to point toward the ordinary contrast between continuing life in this world and departing to be with Christ.
Whether that presence with Christ is immediate or viewed through the lens of the resurrection is the very issue under discussion.
No, you still don't get it. I'm saying Phil 1:22-24 is talking about continuing to live a life of sin.
Paul is showing a desire to depart from that sinful life in order to minister to God's people.

The fact that the bible shows there is no sentient non-corporal being that exists after the body dies shows both Phil 1:23 and II Cor 5:8 cannot mean there is.

You are creating controversy/conflicts in scripture which are not reconcilable.
 
I agree that someone is misunderstanding the texts.
Where we disagree is which texts are controlling the interpretation of the others.

You believe the passages describing death as sleep, unconsciousness, and inactivity settle the matter so completely that 2 Corinthians 5:8 and Philippians 1:23 must be reinterpreted accordingly.

I am saying that those passages must be weighed alongside Paul's explicit statements, not over them.

The issue is not whether the dead are called asleep, because they plainly are.
The issue is whether "sleep" is intended to describe the appearance and condition of death from the perspective of this world, or whether it is intended to define the totality of a believer's existence between death and resurrection.

What I keep coming back to is that Paul does not merely say he wants the resurrection.
He says he desires "to depart, and to be with Christ, which is far better" (Phil. 1:23), and that to be "absent from the body" is to be "present with the Lord" (2 Cor. 5:8).
If those statements do not refer to being with Christ after death, then it seems to me that we still need an explanation for why Paul chose those words.

So I agree with you on one thing: either one interpretation is wrong, or both sides are misunderstanding something.
But I don't think the solution is to declare the discussion closed because one set of passages seems plainer to us.
The task is to find an interpretation that does justice to both the resurrection texts and the passages that appear to speak of fellowship with Christ after death. That is the very question under debate.
OMC:
I really like your ability to buttress 16th century and later Protestant theology as your framework for understanding the scriptures. However, I would make these observations:
There is no hell in the Hebrew Scriptures
The earliest written records of dying-and-rising gods and resurrection themes originate in ancient Egyptian and Canaanite religions (such as the myths of Osiris and Baal), while Zoroastrianism features the earliest apocalyptic visions of the dead rising en masse.
Mesopotamia: Babylonian and Sumerian traditions featured spring-related renewal myths, such as Ishtar and Tammuz (Du'ûzu), where figures returned from the underworld.
Cults surrounding dying-and-rising gods like Baal appeared early in historical records.
Hebrew Bible (Old Testament): Early accounts record specific miraculous revivals or resuscitations by prophets like Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings 17, 2 Kings 4), though a broader theology of general bodily resurrection developed later during the Second Temple period (influenced in part by Persian contact). The Jew having suffered existential threat by the Greeks after between 332-63 BC. came up with a postmortem punishment frustrated by their inability to retaliate against the anti-Jewish Greeks late during their occcupation.

The modern concept of hell evolved between 2nd through 5th centuries CE in the Mediterranean region (particularly through early Christian centers like Carthage, Alexandria, and Rome), building upon a mix of earlier Persian, Greek, and Second Temple Jewish ideas.

Zoroastrianism introduced an early binary afterlife featuring a last judgment separating the righteous from the wicked, which influenced post-exilic Jewish thought. Greco-Roman Fusion (1st–2nd Century CE): As Judaism and early Christianity interacted with Hellenistic culture, biblical concepts merged with Greek philosophical ideas of Plato regarding the immortal soul and subterranean realms like Tartarus.

Early church leaders like Tertullian (in Carthage) and Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE) firmly codified the doctrine of literal, endless conscious torment for unpardoned sinners.

There is one well known perspective of hell. Dante Alighieri’s Inferno is a pillar of the Western literary canon. A whirlwind tour of the nine circles of hell, the allegorical poem has had volumes of scholarship dedicated to unpacking its secrets. Its vivid, and often grotesque, imagery has inspired artists such as Sandro Botticelli, Auguste Rodin, and William Blake. It was even made into a video game.

Alighieri’s other two poems of The Divine Comedy, Purgatorio and Paradiso, explore the realms of purgatory and heaven, respectively. But they don’t receive the love, attention, and adoration of the hell-bound original. That’s because heaven is — let’s face it — a little one note. Hell is where the drama happens. Given its prominence in imagery and storytelling, it is surprising that hell doesn’t appear much in the Hebrew bible. In fact, most of its references to Satan’s scorching domain are the result of later translators mapping their views onto older, and quite distinct, concepts of the afterlife. This means hell, as we understand it today, is an afterlife the Hebrew biblical writers had no real conception of.

The resurrection as conceived by Paul is the the rise of the dead to greet Jesus as He comes back to earth to rule. Nobody evaporates to heaven. All return to earth to be with Jesus until the final judgement of all mankind.

We can trace the "modern" understanding" of the end times to John Nelson Darby (18 November 1800 – 29 April 1882) He was a Bible teacher, one of the influential figures among the original Plymouth Brethren and the founder of the Exclusive Brethren. He is considered to be the father of modern dispensationalism and futurism. Pre-tribulation rapture theology was popularized extensively in the 1830s by Darby and the Plymouth Brethren, and further popularized in the United States in the early 20th century by the wide circulation of the Scofield Reference Bible.

He produced translations of the Bible in German, the "Elberfelder Bibel", in French, the "Pau" Bible, the Dutch New Testament, and the famous and influential English translation (finished posthumously) based on the Hebrew and Greek texts called The Holy Scriptures: A New Translation from the Original Languages by J. N. Darby. It has furthermore been translated into other languages in whole or part. Darby resigned his curacy in protest. Soon afterwards, in October 1827, he fell from a horse and was seriously injured. He later stated that it was during this time that he began to believe that the "kingdom" described in the Book of Isaiah and elsewhere in the Old Testament was entirely different from the Christian church.

Over the next five years, he developed the principles of his mature theology – most notably his conviction that the very notion of a clergyman was a sin against the Holy Spirit, because it limited the recognition that the Holy Spirit could speak through any member of the Church. During this time (1827–28) he joined an interdenominational meeting of believers (including Anthony Norris Groves, Edward Cronin, J. G. Bellett, and Francis Hutchinson) who met to "break bread" together in Dublin as a symbol of their unity in Christ. By 1832, this group had grown and began to identify themselves as a distinct Christian assembly. As they travelled and began new assemblies in Ireland and England, they formed the movement now known as the Plymouth Brethren.

It is believed that John Nelson Darby left the Church of Ireland around 1831.[a] He participated in the 1831–1833 Powerscourt Conference, an annual meeting of Bible students organized by his friend, the wealthy widow Lady Powerscourt. At the conference, Darby publicly described his ecclesiological and eschatological views, including the pre-tribulation rapture. For about 40 years William Kelly (1821–1906) was his chief interpreter and continued to be a staunch supporter until his own death. Kelly in his work John Nelson Darby as I Knew Him stated that "a saint more true to Christ's name and word I never knew or heard of". Darby defended Calvinist doctrines when they came under attack from within the Church in which he once served. His biographer Goddard states, "Darby indicates his approval of the doctrine of the Anglican Church as expressed in Article XVII of the Thirty-nine Articles" on the subject of election and predestination. Darby is noted in the theological world as the father of "dispensationalism", whose eschatology was adopted and later made popular in the United States by Cyrus Scofield's Scofield Reference Bible.
 
No, you still don't get it. I'm saying Phil 1:22-24 is talking about continuing to live a life of sin.
Paul is showing a desire to depart from that sinful life in order to minister to God's people.

The fact that the bible shows there is no sentient non-corporal being that exists after the body dies shows both Phil 1:23 and II Cor 5:8 cannot mean there is.

You are creating controversy/conflicts in scripture which are not reconcilable.
I think that interpretation runs into serious contextual problems.
In Philippians 1:22-24, Paul is not contrasting a sinful lifestyle with a godly one.
He is contrasting continuing to live and minister versus departing.
Notice that remaining "in the flesh" is described positively: "to abide in the flesh is more needful for you" (Phil. 1:24)
If "flesh" here means a life of sin, Paul would effectively be saying that continuing in a sinful life is more necessary for the Philippians, which makes no sense in the context.
Instead, "in the flesh" is simply his ongoing earthly existence and ministry.

Likewise, the whole dilemma disappears under your reading. Paul says he is "in a strait betwixt two" (v. 23). What are the two options? The text itself presents them as:
Remaining alive and serving the churches.
Departing and being with Christ.
But if "departing" merely means turning away from a sinful lifestyle, Paul had already done that years earlier.
There is no real tension between those two options.

As for your statement that there can be no conscious existence after death because other passages rule it out, that is the very point under debate.
You keep using that conclusion to govern Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8.
I'm simply pointing out that those texts themselves have to be explained on their own terms.
Whether your explanation is correct or mine is correct, Philippians 1 does not naturally read as Paul choosing between a sinful life and a godly life.
It reads as Paul choosing between continuing his earthly ministry and departing to be with Christ.
The question is what that departure entails, not whether Paul is talking about abandoning a life of sin.
 
OMC:
I really like your ability to buttress 16th century and later Protestant theology as your framework for understanding the scriptures. However, I would make these observations:
There is no hell in the Hebrew Scriptures
The earliest written records of dying-and-rising gods and resurrection themes originate in ancient Egyptian and Canaanite religions (such as the myths of Osiris and Baal), while Zoroastrianism features the earliest apocalyptic visions of the dead rising en masse.
Mesopotamia: Babylonian and Sumerian traditions featured spring-related renewal myths, such as Ishtar and Tammuz (Du'ûzu), where figures returned from the underworld.
Cults surrounding dying-and-rising gods like Baal appeared early in historical records.
Hebrew Bible (Old Testament): Early accounts record specific miraculous revivals or resuscitations by prophets like Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings 17, 2 Kings 4), though a broader theology of general bodily resurrection developed later during the Second Temple period (influenced in part by Persian contact). The Jew having suffered existential threat by the Greeks after between 332-63 BC. came up with a postmortem punishment frustrated by their inability to retaliate against the anti-Jewish Greeks late during their occcupation.

The modern concept of hell evolved between 2nd through 5th centuries CE in the Mediterranean region (particularly through early Christian centers like Carthage, Alexandria, and Rome), building upon a mix of earlier Persian, Greek, and Second Temple Jewish ideas.

Zoroastrianism introduced an early binary afterlife featuring a last judgment separating the righteous from the wicked, which influenced post-exilic Jewish thought. Greco-Roman Fusion (1st–2nd Century CE): As Judaism and early Christianity interacted with Hellenistic culture, biblical concepts merged with Greek philosophical ideas of Plato regarding the immortal soul and subterranean realms like Tartarus.

Early church leaders like Tertullian (in Carthage) and Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE) firmly codified the doctrine of literal, endless conscious torment for unpardoned sinners.

There is one well known perspective of hell. Dante Alighieri’s Inferno is a pillar of the Western literary canon. A whirlwind tour of the nine circles of hell, the allegorical poem has had volumes of scholarship dedicated to unpacking its secrets. Its vivid, and often grotesque, imagery has inspired artists such as Sandro Botticelli, Auguste Rodin, and William Blake. It was even made into a video game.

Alighieri’s other two poems of The Divine Comedy, Purgatorio and Paradiso, explore the realms of purgatory and heaven, respectively. But they don’t receive the love, attention, and adoration of the hell-bound original. That’s because heaven is — let’s face it — a little one note. Hell is where the drama happens. Given its prominence in imagery and storytelling, it is surprising that hell doesn’t appear much in the Hebrew bible. In fact, most of its references to Satan’s scorching domain are the result of later translators mapping their views onto older, and quite distinct, concepts of the afterlife. This means hell, as we understand it today, is an afterlife the Hebrew biblical writers had no real conception of.

The resurrection as conceived by Paul is the the rise of the dead to greet Jesus as He comes back to earth to rule. Nobody evaporates to heaven. All return to earth to be with Jesus until the final judgement of all mankind.

We can trace the "modern" understanding" of the end times to John Nelson Darby (18 November 1800 – 29 April 1882) He was a Bible teacher, one of the influential figures among the original Plymouth Brethren and the founder of the Exclusive Brethren. He is considered to be the father of modern dispensationalism and futurism. Pre-tribulation rapture theology was popularized extensively in the 1830s by Darby and the Plymouth Brethren, and further popularized in the United States in the early 20th century by the wide circulation of the Scofield Reference Bible.

He produced translations of the Bible in German, the "Elberfelder Bibel", in French, the "Pau" Bible, the Dutch New Testament, and the famous and influential English translation (finished posthumously) based on the Hebrew and Greek texts called The Holy Scriptures: A New Translation from the Original Languages by J. N. Darby. It has furthermore been translated into other languages in whole or part. Darby resigned his curacy in protest. Soon afterwards, in October 1827, he fell from a horse and was seriously injured. He later stated that it was during this time that he began to believe that the "kingdom" described in the Book of Isaiah and elsewhere in the Old Testament was entirely different from the Christian church.

Over the next five years, he developed the principles of his mature theology – most notably his conviction that the very notion of a clergyman was a sin against the Holy Spirit, because it limited the recognition that the Holy Spirit could speak through any member of the Church. During this time (1827–28) he joined an interdenominational meeting of believers (including Anthony Norris Groves, Edward Cronin, J. G. Bellett, and Francis Hutchinson) who met to "break bread" together in Dublin as a symbol of their unity in Christ. By 1832, this group had grown and began to identify themselves as a distinct Christian assembly. As they travelled and began new assemblies in Ireland and England, they formed the movement now known as the Plymouth Brethren.

It is believed that John Nelson Darby left the Church of Ireland around 1831.[a] He participated in the 1831–1833 Powerscourt Conference, an annual meeting of Bible students organized by his friend, the wealthy widow Lady Powerscourt. At the conference, Darby publicly described his ecclesiological and eschatological views, including the pre-tribulation rapture. For about 40 years William Kelly (1821–1906) was his chief interpreter and continued to be a staunch supporter until his own death. Kelly in his work John Nelson Darby as I Knew Him stated that "a saint more true to Christ's name and word I never knew or heard of". Darby defended Calvinist doctrines when they came under attack from within the Church in which he once served. His biographer Goddard states, "Darby indicates his approval of the doctrine of the Anglican Church as expressed in Article XVII of the Thirty-nine Articles" on the subject of election and predestination. Darby is noted in the theological world as the father of "dispensationalism", whose eschatology was adopted and later made popular in the United States by Cyrus Scofield's Scofield Reference Bible.
I appreciate the historical survey, but I don't think it actually answers the exegetical question before us.
Even if I granted every point about Egyptian religion, Zoroastrian influence, Greek philosophy, Augustine, Dante, Darby, and Scofield, we would still have to ask: What did Paul mean when he wrote Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8?
Historical development can explain how doctrines have been understood, but it cannot by itself determine whether Paul's statements refer to conscious fellowship with Christ after death.
Likewise, I am not defending Darby, Scofield, dispensationalism, or a pre-tribulational rapture here.
Those are separate debates.
My appeal has been to Paul's words themselves.
If Paul desired "to depart and be with Christ," and if being "absent from the body" is being "present with the Lord," then those texts must be given an explanation that arises from their context.
Appealing to the history of later Christian doctrines does not tell us what Paul intended.
I agree that resurrection is central to Paul's hope.
In fact, 1 Corinthians 15 makes that undeniable.
But notice that this discussion began with whether an intermediate state exists, not with Darby's eschatology or medieval ideas of hell.
Those are different subjects.
A person can reject Darby's system entirely and still conclude that Philippians 1:23 refers to being with Christ after death.
Likewise, a person can reject eternal conscious torment and still disagree with soul sleep.
So I think the historical observations are interesting, but they don't really move the discussion forward.
The issue remains the same: what interpretation best accounts for the actual wording of Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8 while also doing justice to the resurrection passages? That's the question that still needs answering.
 
I think that interpretation runs into serious contextual problems.
In Philippians 1:22-24, Paul is not contrasting a sinful lifestyle with a godly one.
He is contrasting continuing to live and minister versus departing.
Notice that remaining "in the flesh" is described positively: "to abide in the flesh is more needful for you" (Phil. 1:24)
If "flesh" here means a life of sin, Paul would effectively be saying that continuing in a sinful life is more necessary for the Philippians, which makes no sense in the context.
Instead, "in the flesh" is simply his ongoing earthly existence and ministry.

Likewise, the whole dilemma disappears under your reading. Paul says he is "in a strait betwixt two" (v. 23). What are the two options? The text itself presents them as:
Remaining alive and serving the churches.
Departing and being with Christ.
But if "departing" merely means turning away from a sinful lifestyle, Paul had already done that years earlier.
There is no real tension between those two options.

As for your statement that there can be no conscious existence after death because other passages rule it out, that is the very point under debate.
You keep using that conclusion to govern Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8.
I'm simply pointing out that those texts themselves have to be explained on their own terms.
Whether your explanation is correct or mine is correct, Philippians 1 does not naturally read as Paul choosing between a sinful life and a godly life.
It reads as Paul choosing between continuing his earthly ministry and departing to be with Christ.
The question is what that departure entails, not whether Paul is talking about abandoning a life of sin.
I agree Phil 1:22-24 could be talking about being with Jesus after he dies.
But it is not a foregone conclusion that he will be with Jesus immediately AFTER death.
He already admitted in other texts this won't happen until the resurrection.
 
I appreciate the historical survey, but I don't think it actually answers the exegetical question before us.
Even if I granted every point about Egyptian religion, Zoroastrian influence, Greek philosophy, Augustine, Dante, Darby, and Scofield, we would still have to ask: What did Paul mean when he wrote Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8?
Historical development can explain how doctrines have been understood, but it cannot by itself determine whether Paul's statements refer to conscious fellowship with Christ after death.
Likewise, I am not defending Darby, Scofield, dispensationalism, or a pre-tribulational rapture here.
Those are separate debates.
My appeal has been to Paul's words themselves.
If Paul desired "to depart and be with Christ," and if being "absent from the body" is being "present with the Lord," then those texts must be given an explanation that arises from their context.
Appealing to the history of later Christian doctrines does not tell us what Paul intended.
I agree that resurrection is central to Paul's hope.
In fact, 1 Corinthians 15 makes that undeniable.
But notice that this discussion began with whether an intermediate state exists, not with Darby's eschatology or medieval ideas of hell.
Those are different subjects.
A person can reject Darby's system entirely and still conclude that Philippians 1:23 refers to being with Christ after death.
Likewise, a person can reject eternal conscious torment and still disagree with soul sleep.
So I think the historical observations are interesting, but they don't really move the discussion forward.
The issue remains the same: what interpretation best accounts for the actual wording of Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8 while also doing justice to the resurrection passages? That's the question that still needs answering.
OMC:
Well stated. As to Paul's perspective of life after death has at least two options.
In his later epistles, Paul uses language that strongly implies a believer transitions into the presence of Jesus immediately at the moment of physical death, bypassing any sense of a long, unconscious delay: Philippians 1:23: Paul writes about his personal dilemma between continuing his earthly ministry or facing execution, stating, "I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far." Corinthians 5:8: He expresses a clear temporal transition, writing that he prefers "to be away from the body and at home with the Lord."

Paul is also the primary architect of the New Testament doctrine of a future, eternal physical resurrection. In his earlier letters, his focus is overwhelmingly on the collective destiny of believers at the end of time: 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17: Paul describes the second coming (Parousia), noting that "the dead in Christ will rise first," and those who are alive will be caught up together with them. 1 Corinthians 15:51–52: He describes the ultimate, eternal transformation: "We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet."

There is always a danger of conformational theology based on selective scriptures especially when other scriptures by the same author paint a very different picture.
 
OMC:
Well stated. As to Paul's perspective of life after death has at least two options.
In his later epistles, Paul uses language that strongly implies a believer transitions into the presence of Jesus immediately at the moment of physical death, bypassing any sense of a long, unconscious delay: Philippians 1:23: Paul writes about his personal dilemma between continuing his earthly ministry or facing execution, stating, "I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far." Corinthians 5:8: He expresses a clear temporal transition, writing that he prefers "to be away from the body and at home with the Lord."

Paul is also the primary architect of the New Testament doctrine of a future, eternal physical resurrection. In his earlier letters, his focus is overwhelmingly on the collective destiny of believers at the end of time: 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17: Paul describes the second coming (Parousia), noting that "the dead in Christ will rise first," and those who are alive will be caught up together with them. 1 Corinthians 15:51–52: He describes the ultimate, eternal transformation: "We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet."

There is always a danger of conformational theology based on selective scriptures especially when other scriptures by the same author paint a very different picture.
Are these biblical texts lying? Or do they speak the truth?

Perpetual sleep, do not awake - Jer 51:57
Have no thoughts - Psa 146:4
Have no emotions, no knowledge, no wisdom - Ecc 9:5-6 & 10
Cannot praise God - Isa 33:18
King David has yet to ascend into heaven - Acts 2:29&34
Paul knew he would have to wait in the grave until Jesus comes to receive his crown - II Tim 4:6-8
So did Job - Job 19:26

This is just a partial sampling of what the bible says on the subject. There are many more.
Should we ignore all of them in favor of a definition of other verses that go against what these say?
 
Are these biblical texts lying? Or do they speak the truth?

Perpetual sleep, do not awake - Jer 51:57
Have no thoughts - Psa 146:4
Have no emotions, no knowledge, no wisdom - Ecc 9:5-6 & 10
Cannot praise God - Isa 33:18
King David has yet to ascend into heaven - Acts 2:29&34
Paul knew he would have to wait in the grave until Jesus comes to receive his crown - II Tim 4:6-8
So did Job - Job 19:26

This is just a partial sampling of what the bible says on the subject. There are many more.
Should we ignore all of them in favor of a definition of other verses that go against what these say?
No, we should not ignore any of those texts, and I don't think anyone is arguing that they are lying.
The question is what they are actually describing.
For example, Ecclesiastes repeatedly speaks of things "under the sun," describing the perspective of life in this world.
Psalm 146:4 speaks of man's earthly plans perishing.
Acts 2:29 and 34 establish that David had not ascended to heaven as the enthroned Messiah, a status reserved for Christ.
And 2 Timothy 4:8 clearly teaches that Paul's crown is awarded at Christ's appearing, which I fully affirm.
But notice that none of those texts directly says, "Therefore Paul cannot be with Christ before the resurrection."
That is the inference you draw from them.
In the same way, when I point to Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8, I am not saying they cancel the resurrection passages.
I am asking how your interpretation accounts for Paul's actual language.
If Paul expected absolute nonexistence or unconsciousness until the resurrection, then "to depart and be with Christ" is a very unusual way of expressing it.
So my answer is: the texts you cite speak the truth, and Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8 also speak the truth.
The dispute is not over whether Scripture is true, but over how these passages fit together.
You believe the former set governs the latter.
I am suggesting that any complete interpretation must explain why Paul chose language that, on its face, sounds like fellowship with Christ following departure from this life.
That remains the question I don't think the soul-sleep position has fully resolved.
 
No, we should not ignore any of those texts, and I don't think anyone is arguing that they are lying.
The question is what they are actually describing.
For example, Ecclesiastes repeatedly speaks of things "under the sun," describing the perspective of life in this world.
Psalm 146:4 speaks of man's earthly plans perishing.
Acts 2:29 and 34 establish that David had not ascended to heaven as the enthroned Messiah, a status reserved for Christ.
And 2 Timothy 4:8 clearly teaches that Paul's crown is awarded at Christ's appearing, which I fully affirm.
But notice that none of those texts directly says, "Therefore Paul cannot be with Christ before the resurrection."
That is the inference you draw from them.
In the same way, when I point to Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8, I am not saying they cancel the resurrection passages.
I am asking how your interpretation accounts for Paul's actual language.
If Paul expected absolute nonexistence or unconsciousness until the resurrection, then "to depart and be with Christ" is a very unusual way of expressing it.
So my answer is: the texts you cite speak the truth, and Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8 also speak the truth.
The dispute is not over whether Scripture is true, but over how these passages fit together.
You believe the former set governs the latter.
I am suggesting that any complete interpretation must explain why Paul chose language that, on its face, sounds like fellowship with Christ following departure from this life.
That remains the question I don't think the soul-sleep position has fully resolved.
Psa 146:4 says nothing about "earthly plans". You have added that into the text.
Acts 2:29 & 34 does not specify it is talking about David "as the Messiah". The text is all inclusive. King David has not yet (in any way, shape or form) entered into heaven. If he had then the text lied.

People should just read those passages for what they say instead of redefining what they want the texts to mean.
And that list is not all inclusive. There are many more such texts.

Look at in another way.
When you go to sleep at night I'm sure there have been some times when you've slept so deeply that upon awakening it has seemed to you that you had only just laid down and closed your eyes before you awoke. Even if 6, 8, 10 hours have passed it seems like no time has passed at all.

IF (big if here) Paul is talking about dying then going to heaven. The same thing would apply.
Even after approximately 2,000 have passed it would seem to Paul he had only died a split second ago before being awakened back to life again.
 
Psa 146:4 says nothing about "earthly plans". You have added that into the text.
Acts 2:29 & 34 does not specify it is talking about David "as the Messiah". The text is all inclusive. King David has not yet (in any way, shape or form) entered into heaven. If he had then the text lied.

People should just read those passages for what they say instead of redefining what they want the texts to mean.
And that list is not all inclusive. There are many more such texts.

Look at in another way.
When you go to sleep at night I'm sure there have been some times when you've slept so deeply that upon awakening it has seemed to you that you had only just laid down and closed your eyes before you awoke. Even if 6, 8, 10 hours have passed it seems like no time has passed at all.

IF (big if here) Paul is talking about dying then going to heaven. The same thing would apply.
Even after approximately 2,000 have passed it would seem to Paul he had only died a split second ago before being awakened back to life again.
I understand your argument, and I actually think the "deep sleep" illustration is the strongest form of the soul-sleep position.
If a person dies and has no conscious awareness of the passage of time, then from his perspective the next thing he experiences would indeed be the resurrection and being with Christ, even if thousands of years had passed historically.
Where I would still disagree is that this explanation is not derived from Philippians 1:23 itself; it is brought to Philippians 1:23 from your understanding of the other passages.
Paul does not say, "I desire to die, sleep unconsciously until the resurrection, and then be with Christ."
Rather, he says, "I desire to depart and be with Christ."
The soul-sleep interpretation explains that as an immediate subjective experience separated by an objective passage of time.
That is a possible explanation, but it is still an explanation of the text rather than the text's explicit wording.
As for Psalm 146:4, you are correct that the verse itself says: "His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish."
My mention of "earthly plans" was an interpretation of what the psalmist meant by those thoughts, not a quotation of the text itself.
Likewise, I agree that Acts 2:29 and 34 plainly say David had not ascended into heaven.
The question is whether Peter is making a statement about David's entire intermediate state or whether he is arguing that David had not ascended to the position of exaltation and kingship that belongs uniquely to the risen Christ. That is the interpretive issue.
So I do not think your sleep analogy is unreasonable.
My only point is that it does not eliminate the question raised by Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8.
Rather, it provides one proposed way of harmonizing them with the resurrection texts.
The debate remains whether that harmonization is the one Paul intended.
 
I understand your argument, and I actually think the "deep sleep" illustration is the strongest form of the soul-sleep position.
If a person dies and has no conscious awareness of the passage of time, then from his perspective the next thing he experiences would indeed be the resurrection and being with Christ, even if thousands of years had passed historically.
Where I would still disagree is that this explanation is not derived from Philippians 1:23 itself; it is brought to Philippians 1:23 from your understanding of the other passages.
Paul does not say, "I desire to die, sleep unconsciously until the resurrection, and then be with Christ."
Rather, he says, "I desire to depart and be with Christ."
The soul-sleep interpretation explains that as an immediate subjective experience separated by an objective passage of time.
That is a possible explanation, but it is still an explanation of the text rather than the text's explicit wording.
As for Psalm 146:4, you are correct that the verse itself says: "His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish."
My mention of "earthly plans" was an interpretation of what the psalmist meant by those thoughts, not a quotation of the text itself.
Likewise, I agree that Acts 2:29 and 34 plainly say David had not ascended into heaven.
The question is whether Peter is making a statement about David's entire intermediate state or whether he is arguing that David had not ascended to the position of exaltation and kingship that belongs uniquely to the risen Christ. That is the interpretive issue.
So I do not think your sleep analogy is unreasonable.
My only point is that it does not eliminate the question raised by Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8.
Rather, it provides one proposed way of harmonizing them with the resurrection texts.
The debate remains whether that harmonization is the one Paul intended.
Do you think perhaps that Paul may have been looking forward to resurrection day when he could be with Christ?
Especially when he was getting on in years.

That is, in fact, the day Jesus comes to take all His people off the earth, the day we will depart to be with Him.
Jesus did promise His disciples He would come back to take them to heaven (His Father's house of many mansions).

I concede Phil 1:23 is most likely talking about being with Jesus after we die.
But it does not specify "at that exact same moment" but rather the day we depart when Jesus comes.
That would be AFTER the 1st resurrection.

This would seem to resolve the apparent conflict in the bible that teaches about death, resurrection and the 2nd coming.

The burden of proof goes back to you.
Where does the bible show the very same day we die we go to heaven or hell?

I don't think it says that anywhere. But it does, however, show these things must happen after the resurrections.

BTW "hell" in scripture simply means "in the grave"....
 
Do you think perhaps that Paul may have been looking forward to resurrection day when he could be with Christ?
Especially when he was getting on in years.

That is, in fact, the day Jesus comes to take all His people off the earth, the day we will depart to be with Him.
Jesus did promise His disciples He would come back to take them to heaven (His Father's house of many mansions).

I concede Phil 1:23 is most likely talking about being with Jesus after we die.
But it does not specify "at that exact same moment" but rather the day we depart when Jesus comes.
That would be AFTER the 1st resurrection.

This would seem to resolve the apparent conflict in the bible that teaches about death, resurrection and the 2nd coming.

The burden of proof goes back to you.
Where does the bible show the very same day we die we go to heaven or hell?

I don't think it says that anywhere. But it does, however, show these things must happen after the resurrections.

BTW "hell" in scripture simply means "in the grave"....
I think that's a fair challenge, and it may actually be the strongest form of the soul-sleep position I've heard in this discussion.

Yes, Paul could have been looking beyond death to the resurrection day itself.
After all, in 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15, his great hope is clearly centered on the return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead.
Likewise, in 2 Timothy 4:8, he expects his crown "at that day," not at the moment of his death.

What keeps me from fully embracing your conclusion is that Philippians 1:23 seems to join two ideas very closely together:
"to depart" and "to be with Christ."
On its face, the language sounds immediate.
However, I agree that the text does not explicitly say, "the instant I die I will consciously be in heaven." That timing is inferred.

Likewise, I would agree that Scripture repeatedly places the believer's ultimate hope at the resurrection.
The burden is therefore on anyone arguing for an intermediate conscious state to show where Scripture explicitly teaches it rather than merely inferring it.

At the same time, I would say the burden cuts both ways.
The soul-sleep position must explain why Paul speaks of departure and being with Christ in the same breath if he intended a delay of centuries.
Your answer is that there is no perceived passage of time for the dead, so subjectively the next experience is resurrection and Christ's presence.
That is a coherent explanation.

So I think we've narrowed the disagreement considerably.
It is no longer: "Does Scripture teach resurrection?"
We both agree it does.
Nor is it: "Does Philippians 1:23 automatically prove an immediate heavenly existence?"
I agree the text does not explicitly state the timing.

The question becomes: Does Philippians 1:23 describe an objective, conscious fellowship with Christ immediately after death, or does it describe the believer's next conscious experience following resurrection?
At that point, I think both sides are trying to account for the same data, though I still find Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8 naturally suggestive of an intermediate presence with Christ.

As for "hell," I would be more cautious.
Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, and the lake of fire are distinct biblical terms and should not simply be treated as interchangeable.
That discussion would need to be handled text by text rather than by assuming every occurrence means "the grave."
 
I think that's a fair challenge, and it may actually be the strongest form of the soul-sleep position I've heard in this discussion.

Yes, Paul could have been looking beyond death to the resurrection day itself.
After all, in 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15, his great hope is clearly centered on the return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead.
Likewise, in 2 Timothy 4:8, he expects his crown "at that day," not at the moment of his death.

What keeps me from fully embracing your conclusion is that Philippians 1:23 seems to join two ideas very closely together:
"to depart" and "to be with Christ."
On its face, the language sounds immediate.
However, I agree that the text does not explicitly say, "the instant I die I will consciously be in heaven." That timing is inferred.

Likewise, I would agree that Scripture repeatedly places the believer's ultimate hope at the resurrection.
The burden is therefore on anyone arguing for an intermediate conscious state to show where Scripture explicitly teaches it rather than merely inferring it.

At the same time, I would say the burden cuts both ways.
The soul-sleep position must explain why Paul speaks of departure and being with Christ in the same breath if he intended a delay of centuries.
Your answer is that there is no perceived passage of time for the dead, so subjectively the next experience is resurrection and Christ's presence.
That is a coherent explanation.

So I think we've narrowed the disagreement considerably.
It is no longer: "Does Scripture teach resurrection?"
We both agree it does.
Nor is it: "Does Philippians 1:23 automatically prove an immediate heavenly existence?"
I agree the text does not explicitly state the timing.

The question becomes: Does Philippians 1:23 describe an objective, conscious fellowship with Christ immediately after death, or does it describe the believer's next conscious experience following resurrection?
At that point, I think both sides are trying to account for the same data, though I still find Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8 naturally suggestive of an intermediate presence with Christ.

As for "hell," I would be more cautious.
Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, and the lake of fire are distinct biblical terms and should not simply be treated as interchangeable.
That discussion would need to be handled text by text rather than by assuming every occurrence means "the grave."
OMC and Davidstarr:
Good conversation guys. I have already commented that Paul has penned two contradictory concepts of the afterlife. What I think needs to enter the discussion here is that Paul expected Jesus to return in his lifetime. Some of his instructions to his churches - See Corinthians - were short term adjustments to the impending return of Jesus. Paul believed he was going to see Jesus, not just a voice, before he died or very shortly thereafter.
 
I think that's a fair challenge, and it may actually be the strongest form of the soul-sleep position I've heard in this discussion.

Yes, Paul could have been looking beyond death to the resurrection day itself.
After all, in 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15, his great hope is clearly centered on the return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead.
Likewise, in 2 Timothy 4:8, he expects his crown "at that day," not at the moment of his death.

What keeps me from fully embracing your conclusion is that Philippians 1:23 seems to join two ideas very closely together:
"to depart" and "to be with Christ."
On its face, the language sounds immediate.
However, I agree that the text does not explicitly say, "the instant I die I will consciously be in heaven." That timing is inferred.

Likewise, I would agree that Scripture repeatedly places the believer's ultimate hope at the resurrection.
The burden is therefore on anyone arguing for an intermediate conscious state to show where Scripture explicitly teaches it rather than merely inferring it.

At the same time, I would say the burden cuts both ways.
The soul-sleep position must explain why Paul speaks of departure and being with Christ in the same breath if he intended a delay of centuries.
Your answer is that there is no perceived passage of time for the dead, so subjectively the next experience is resurrection and Christ's presence.
That is a coherent explanation.

So I think we've narrowed the disagreement considerably.
It is no longer: "Does Scripture teach resurrection?"
We both agree it does.
Nor is it: "Does Philippians 1:23 automatically prove an immediate heavenly existence?"
I agree the text does not explicitly state the timing.

The question becomes: Does Philippians 1:23 describe an objective, conscious fellowship with Christ immediately after death, or does it describe the believer's next conscious experience following resurrection?
At that point, I think both sides are trying to account for the same data, though I still find Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8 naturally suggestive of an intermediate presence with Christ.

As for "hell," I would be more cautious.
Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, and the lake of fire are distinct biblical terms and should not simply be treated as interchangeable.
That discussion would need to be handled text by text rather than by assuming every occurrence means "the grave."
Sheol is the Hebrew word from the OT. Hades is the Greek word from the NT. Yes, they are interchangeable.
Gehenna is a real physical valley south and west of Jerusalem's Old City - known in Hebrew as Gehinnom or the Valley of Hinnom.
It was a graveyard for the poor and criminals of the times.
Over time, the valley gained a dark reputation, leading to traditions that it served as a municipal rubbish and corpse dump where fires burned continuously.

All 3 locations refer to the same place. A place where the bodies of the dead are kept.
In simpler terms: "the grave", not some place of eternal torment.
The bible does not teach eternal torment. It teaches eternal death for the wicked. Not eternal life in suffering.

I still remain unconvinced that either Phil 1:23 or II Cor 5:8 suggest immediately being with Jesus when a righteous man dies.
I don't even think II Cor 5:8 is even talking about death but simply means not physically being where he would rather be.

Certainly the idea of immediately being in Jesus' presence when one dies goes against many plain statements made in scripture.
 
OMC and Davidstarr:
Good conversation guys. I have already commented that Paul has penned two contradictory concepts of the afterlife. What I think needs to enter the discussion here is that Paul expected Jesus to return in his lifetime. Some of his instructions to his churches - See Corinthians - were short term adjustments to the impending return of Jesus. Paul believed he was going to see Jesus, not just a voice, before he died or very shortly thereafter.
I think you've identified a real possibility.

I agree that Paul clearly lived with the expectation that Christ's return could occur in his lifetime.
In passages like 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, he speaks of "we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord," language that naturally includes himself among those who might witness the event.

However, I would hesitate to say Paul taught two contradictory afterlife doctrines.
It seems more likely that Paul held both beliefs simultaneously:
The Christian's ultimate hope is the resurrection at Christ's return.
Being with Christ is preferable to remaining in the present life.

The question is how those two truths fit together.
Your point is important because it reminds us that Paul was not writing theology in a vacuum.
He lived in eager expectation of Christ's return.
That expectation may explain why he so often focuses on the resurrection and the Parousia rather than giving detailed descriptions of an intermediate state.
What I would be cautious about is saying Paul was mistaken.
Jesus Himself taught that no man knows the day or hour.
Paul certainly hoped and expected Christ might return soon, but he also spoke of events that would precede that return (2 Thess. 2), so he was not simply predicting an immediate appearance.

I think your observation strengthens the soul-sleep side of the discussion in one respect: if Paul expected Christ's return soon, then the interval between death and resurrection may not have been a major focus for him.
His attention was fixed on the resurrection itself.
The problem remains that Philippians 1:23 still says: "to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better."
So even if Paul expected the resurrection very soon, we still have to explain why he describes departure and being with Christ in such close connection.

In other words, I think you've helped explain why Paul emphasizes resurrection so heavily.
I'm less convinced that this resolves the meaning of Philippians 1:23 by itself.
The text still seems to be pushing us to ask what Paul expected immediately following his departure, whether objectively or subjectively.
 
OMC and Davidstarr:
Good conversation guys. I have already commented that Paul has penned two contradictory concepts of the afterlife. What I think needs to enter the discussion here is that Paul expected Jesus to return in his lifetime. Some of his instructions to his churches - See Corinthians - were short term adjustments to the impending return of Jesus. Paul believed he was going to see Jesus, not just a voice, before he died or very shortly thereafter.
Keep in mind, from Paul's perspective, being unconscious in the grave from death to his resurrection would seem to be only a split second, a blink of an eye. I doubt he would realize that almost 2,000 years have passed....
 
Sheol is the Hebrew word from the OT. Hades is the Greek word from the NT. Yes, they are interchangeable.
Gehenna is a real physical valley south and west of Jerusalem's Old City - known in Hebrew as Gehinnom or the Valley of Hinnom.
It was a graveyard for the poor and criminals of the times.
Over time, the valley gained a dark reputation, leading to traditions that it served as a municipal rubbish and corpse dump where fires burned continuously.

All 3 locations refer to the same place. A place where the bodies of the dead are kept.
In simpler terms: "the grave", not some place of eternal torment.
The bible does not teach eternal torment. It teaches eternal death for the wicked. Not eternal life in suffering.

I still remain unconvinced that either Phil 1:23 or II Cor 5:8 suggest immediately being with Jesus when a righteous man dies.
I don't even think II Cor 5:8 is even talking about death but simply means not physically being where he would rather be.

Certainly the idea of immediately being in Jesus' presence when one dies goes against many plain statements made in scripture.
I think we've narrowed the disagreement to where it really belongs.

I agree that Sheol and Hades are often closely related concepts, and I agree that Scripture's emphasis is overwhelmingly on the resurrection rather than on disembodied existence.
I also agree that many Christians speak far more confidently about what happens immediately after death than the biblical text itself sometimes warrants.

However, I would still hesitate to say that Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, and the lake of fire all mean exactly the same thing.
The biblical writers use different terms in different contexts, and those differences need to be accounted for rather than flattened into a single concept.

As for Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8, I think we've arrived at the crucial question.
You are no longer arguing merely: "Philippians 1:23 doesn't mean being with Christ."
You are arguing:
"Philippians 1:23 does mean being with Christ, but that experience occurs at the resurrection, which is the next conscious moment experienced by the believer."
That is a much stronger and more coherent argument than simply dismissing the verse.

Where I still remain unconvinced is with 2 Corinthians 5.
In Philippians 1, I can see how your explanation works.
In 2 Corinthians 5, Paul's contrast between "at home in the body" and "present with the Lord" still strikes me as more immediate. Nevertheless, I admit the text does not explicitly state a timeline.
I also think your criticism of my appeal to Acts 2 has some merit.
Peter certainly says: "David is both dead and buried" (Acts 2:29)
and "David is not ascended into the heavens" (Acts 2:34).
The text does not explicitly insert the qualification "as the Messiah."
That qualification is part of an interpretation of Peter's argument, not part of the wording itself.

So if I'm being fair to your position, I would summarize it this way:
The dead are repeatedly described as asleep.
The dead have no thoughts, knowledge, wisdom, or conscious activity.
David had not ascended to heaven.
Believers receive their reward and crowns at Christ's return.
Therefore Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8 must be understood in a way that harmonizes with those statements.
That's a coherent argument.
My hesitation is simply that I still think Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8 naturally sound like more than that.
But I would agree that your position is attempting to harmonize all the texts, not ignore some of them, and I think that's an important distinction.