Life Before Life After Death: What Happens to Our Souls Before the Resurrection?
September 3rd, 2008 by BenjiOvercashAsk a typical evangelical Christian what will happen to his soul when he dies, and he will likely respond, “Well, it will go straight to heaven, of course.” Having been surrounded by evangelical Protestantism my whole life (I grew up in evangelical churches, attended preschool and elementary school at an evangelical Christian academy, graduated from an evangelical Christian university, and am now studying at an evangelical theological institution) this is what I grew up hearing and believing. As such, the Roman Catholic notion of purgatory, the Eastern Orthodox idea that the soul awaits final judgment in the ‘abode of the dead,’ and the like were off-limits because they were too “Catholic”—and frankly, they seemed rather fantastical to me anyway.
Now, however, try as I might, I simply cannot reconcile the common evangelical Protestant understanding of the course of the afterlife with both Scripture and reason. As a result, I’ve found that the notion of some intermediate state between death and heaven (though not the Catholic dogma of purgatory) to better suit both my own reasoning (inasmuch as I have actually reasoned it out) and what little can be gleaned from Scripture. My rationale follows.
1. Scripture has precious little to say about the matter, at least in explicit terms. What can be gleaned comes only through implicit references, many of which, at times, seem inconsistent. Evangelicals sometimes argue that in fact there are explicit passages supporting the oft-quoted mantra “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord”—which, by the way, is not at all what Paul says in 2 Cor 5:8. Indeed, there are at most a handful of passages that, at first glance, may seem to support this common Evangelical view in a fairly straightforward way (cf. e.g. Deut 18:10-12; 2 Cor 5:8; Phil 1:21-23; 1 Pet 3:18). Space, unfortunately, will not allow for a detailed exegetical discussion here. When read carefully and honestly, however, it is quite apparent that these passages no more explicitly support the notion of immediate entrance into heaven at death than the notion of something like purgatory. Some of them, in fact, are about something else altogether.
To be fair, the passages cited by Roman Catholics in support of purgatory are sketchy as well (cf. e.g. Matt 18:23-25; 1 Cor 3:11-15; 1 Pet 3:19; 2 Tim 1:16-18; Rev 21:27), though this hardly needs mention to a readership which I imagine is by and large Protestant.
It seems clear to me, then, that the precise course of the afterlife cannot be definitively determined sola scriptura. But Scripture does not rule out either of these views—no, not even something like purgatory!
2. God cannot tolerate the presence of sin. This is a rudimentary theme that dominates Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. If God cannot tolerate the presence of sin, then one cannot enter God’s full presence if one is not entirely pure in heart, that is to say in Wesleyan terms, entirely sanctified (cf. Rev 21:27).
So, what of those who aren’t yet entirely sanctified when they die? Their debt has been paid and they will surely enter heaven, but they cannot enter still marred to any degree by sin. The encounter with God requires holiness. I am not satisfied with the Catholic explanation, namely, that souls in purgatory are less than completely happy and need our prayers to get out. However, Protestant theology, as I perceive it, has failed to satisfactorily answer the question it was left with when it rejected the doctrine of purgatory five hundred years ago.
3. The final judgment has not yet occurred. Obviously. In general, Christians agree that when one dies, one experiences particular judgment, that is, the immediate judgment of one’s eternal destiny. And then what until the final judgment? Here is where the road splits in many directions. Without taking the time to expound all of the nuances and distinctions of Christian theology on this matter, all of which I am not familiar with anyway, I will simply say that the Eastern Orthodox explication of the state of the soul between particular judgment and final judgment is the most satisfactory to my own reasoning.
The Eastern Orthodox understanding is that after death, the soul awaits the final judgment in the ‘abode of the dead.’ Depending on whether one is judged righteous or unrighteous at particular judgment, one’s experience while awaiting final judgment will be that of paradise or suffering—a foretaste of one’s ultimate destiny after the final judgment, but not yet the full experience of heaven or hell. Calvin held a very similar understanding. For me, this explanation deals most directly and logically with the position of the soul between the particular and final judgments and the bodily resurrection, though it is not without difficulties, of course.
4. It’s tradition. Like it or not, Protestants, tradition is highly important to Christian theology—and I’m not talking about red carpet and hymn books. When Scripture is vague on certain questions of theology, we must look to the next most authoritative thing, which is Christian tradition. Much of what Christians understand about God, salvation, etc. that cannot be found explicitly within the pages of Scripture has been handed down to us from the very earliest Christians, who were instructed by the apostles, who were students of Jesus. Although in many cases it took several hundred years before certain doctrines became fully developed, most can ultimately be traced back to, or at least very near to, apostolic teaching. Christian tradition, then, must be authoritative (though, of course, it certainly is not infallible).
The dogmatic definition of purgatory and the name “purgatory” were not developed until the thirteenth century. The idea that souls await the final judgment and resurrection in some intermediate state, however, was dominant from Christianity’s inception. It may be found in rather precise terms in the writings of many of the Church Fathers, such as Irenaeus (c. 130-202), Clement (c. 150-215), Origen (c. 185-254), Chrysostom (c. 347-407), and Augustine (354-430).
My hunch is that when the reformer Martin Luther rightly rejected the doctrine of purgatory in the sixteenth century, his contention was primarily with the practice of indulgences, and that contention is what resulted ultimately in his rejection of any such intermediate state, as well as the idea of prayer for the dead. I could be wrong, of course. But it is certain that when Luther rejected the notion of the intermediate state and prayer for the dead, he discounted and discarded 1500 years of Christian tradition. Perhaps he was right—but 1500 years of Christian tradition handed down from the earliest Church Fathers, and perhaps even the apostles and Jesus, is a thing with which to be carefully and prayerfully reckoned.
Conclusion
Plenty more could be said, naturally. I certainly wouldn’t presume to claim that I have it all worked out. After thinking on this for a while, however, I am inclined to believe that some intermediate state—though surely not the Catholic dogma of purgatory—indeed does exist, and necessarily must. Perhaps it is the case that at death, souls experience particular judgment and then await the final judgment and the bodily resurrection in the abode of the dead, either in paradise or anguish, at which time those souls who are not yet entirely sanctified may become prepared to enjoy God’s full presence in heaven. Perhaps I’m wrong.
I’m anticipating a lot of contention and hopefully some good discussion. What do you think?
September 4th, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Wow. You make some excellent points and a strong argument. You are right that it is hard to step back take a look at what you really believe when something has been ingrained into your mindset since your most formative years. This happened to me when I realized that I was calling myself Armenian when I was actually Reformed – I just didn’t understand Reformed doctrine well enough to know that’s what I was.
The idea you present seems to hinge on your second point, that God cannot tolerate sin and that one must be entirely sanctified to enter God’s presence. This particular doctrine is new to me. Could you expand on it a little bit?
September 4th, 2008 at 6:14 PM
Danny,
Yes — and this is probably the point we will most disagree on since you’re Reformed and I’m not.
Wesley believed that through the course of a Christian’s life and the Holy Spirit’s work within it, one should strive for, and indeed may achieve in this life, a thing he called ‘Christian perfection’ (which is now usually referred to as ‘entire sanctification’). This is unfortunate terminology, and Reformed Christians in particular notoriously misunderstand what exactly we Wesleyans mean by ‘entire sanctification’– and understandably so, since the terminology is so poor. I’ll try to explain the doctrine without writing a novel.
We experience justification at the point of salvation. Most believers, I think, are quite familiar with this terminology and quite agree with it. I would agree with my Reformed brethren that, at justification, Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us (that is to say, God views us, through Christ’s work on the cross, as righteous) insofar as Christ’s death atones for our sins. He has paid in full the debt required for our mistake, and no ‘work’ is required on our part. However, it is also necessary to seek imparted righteousness, that is, the gift which enables individuals to actually become righteous through the work of the Spirit — not, of course, through one’s own work. Christ’s righeousness is attributed to the believer, yes, and while this is enough to save her, the Christian life requires more; the believer may (and indeed must) actually be made righteous. This occurs only through the work of the Holy Spirit in the individual’s life. As the Spirit moves and works within the life of the believer, the believer is sanctified, that is, made holy. This is known as ‘progressive sanctification.’ I imagine you would agree with that.
The notion of ‘entire sanctification’ is simply that it is possible in this life for the will of an individual to become aligned completely with the will of God. Such an individual no longer has a desire to sin, but lives every moment in service to God and for God’s pleasure. That is not to say, of course, that such a person will not ever sin again. He may unintentionally sin; but his heart’s deepest desire is to please God, thus he no longer sins willfully and intentionally. You may disagree that this is a possibility in this lifetime. I believe that it is, though it is interesting that Wesley never claimed entire sanctification himself!
I will ephasize again that deeds on our part are no where in this equasion, except of course that good deeds will be the natural result of sanctification. It is only by the work of the Holy Spirit in the individual’s life that we may be sanctified. And it is through the Holy Spirit’s sanctifying work in us that Christ’s saving work is magnified.
Hope that makes sense. Thanks for the comment!
September 4th, 2008 at 6:16 PM
By the way, just for clarification, the whole notion of hades or some intermediate state before the resurrection and the New Heaven and New Earth is not an inherent part of the Wesleyan doctrine of entire sanctification. In my own understanding, that is just where it leads.
September 7th, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Let us think about this a bit:
…yes, and while this is enough to save her, the Christian life requires more; the believer may (and indeed must) actually be made righteous. This occurs only through the work of the Holy Spirit in the individual’s life. As the Spirit moves and works within the life of the believer, the believer is sanctified, that is, made holy. This is known as ‘progressive sanctification.’ I imagine you would agree with that.
This seems to make some sense, though I would be a little leery of making an assumption about my holiness. Romans 6 & 7 resonate with me – I’m not there yet, but He is moving me in that direction.
Such an individual no longer has a desire to sin, but lives every moment in service to God and for God’s pleasure. That is not to say, of course, that such a person will not ever sin again. He may unintentionally sin; but his heart’s deepest desire is to please God, thus he no longer sins willfully and intentionally. You may disagree that this is a possibility in this lifetime.
Scriptural support, please?
The “willfully and intentionally” bit seems at odds with a lot of stuff in Romans. Makes me think of gnosticism more than the bible.
(sorry if this sounds weird…I’m just about to go to bed and am really sleepy)
September 8th, 2008 at 6:39 PM
Steve,
Thanks for the comment. I’m not quite sure I understand what you’re referring to when you say “I would be a little leary of making an assumption about my holiness” since you seem there to be commenting on my explanation of progressive sanctification. The only assumption involved here is the assumption that if I allow the Holy Spirit to shape me more and more–that is, make me holier, more Christlike, etc.–then he will. And indeed, this is not an assumption; it is a biblical mandate and promise. My guess is that you pretty much agree with me there. Most any orthodox Christian would. I was probably just a bit unclear.
Specific scriptural support for the doctrine of entire sancification is just about as plentiful as specific scriptural support against it. In other words, there’s little that speaks directly to it. The only one I can think of that does seem to speak to it directly is 1 Thess 5:23:
May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
You also said that “The ‘willfully and intentionally’ bit seems at odds with a lot of stuff in Romans. Makes me think of gnosticism more than the bible.” Could you be more specific about which passages in Romans you see at odds with this bit? Also, I’m not quite sure you understand gnosticism, unless I’m misunderstanding what you mean by that last statement.
Sorry I didn’t fill this out a bit more, Steve. There has been a death in the family, so I’m out of town and busy at the moment. Perhaps we can continue this discussion when I get back into KY.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Benji:
First things first – I’m sorry to hear that you’ve had a death in the family. I hope this was not a shock and that your family is okay. Reply when (or if) you feel like it.
I hope you’ll extend grace to me for the lack of clarity in my statements. I usually write when I’m winding down for the evening as that is the only time I have time to myself. And I’m not particularly erudite when I’m sleepy.
To clarify my first comment, I don’t think its proper to assume that I have attained any state of holiness. God’s standard is so far and above my own that I’m…frankly…blown away that I haven’t been reduced to a little greasy spot on the ground and wisp of smoke. I know that I am different today than I was 25 years ago, but it’s pretty much like looking back on the 3 miles I’ve walked and realizing that I have 10,000 miles to go. (Glory to God for the 3 miles, BTW). On the other hand, I know that from a judicial standpoint the Judge has declared me righteous.
[In other words, there's little that speaks directly to it. The only one I can think of that does seem to speak to it directly...]
I respect your candor here. I’m not going to attack your comment, just to note that I reckon we’ll all have a few surprises come judgement day.
You also said that “The ‘willfully and intentionally’ bit seems at odds with a lot of stuff in Romans. Makes me think of gnosticism more than the bible.” Could you be more specific about which passages in Romans you see at odds with this bit? Also, I’m not quite sure you understand gnosticism, unless I’m misunderstanding what you mean by that last statement.
Yeah, I was getting sleepy around that point last night (and I’m getting that way now, come to think of it) so let me try to quickly respond before my head droops to the keyboard and a puddle of drool shorts out the D, E, R, and S keys.
When I read Paul in Romans I see a guy a lot like me. In Romans 6 he’s speaking to the church, and he sounds like he’s unhappy because they have failed to attain a state of holiness. Romans 7 (particularly vs. 14-15) is even better: We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.
Sound familiar? That’s what was going through my mind as I was considering how willful my sin state is. I don’t want to sin – right now, at this moment, Sept 8 at 10:30 p.m. EST – but I may want to in three minutes, or tomorrow. The worst sins, as you probably would agree, are not the ones that are visible. Where does my pride well up inside me? Is my response honest, or is there a little tinge of self-interest involved.
I have to go now…fading fast. I will pray for your family, and I am glad we can have this discussion. I like the debate. Please don’t beat up on me too much – I’m not a seminary guy.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:37 PM
Steve,
Thanks for responding. You say that “I don’t think its proper to assume that I have attained any state of holiness,” yet we are not only commanded to be holy in scripture (e.g. Lev 20:26), but we are in fact called holy (e.g. Eph 5:27; Col 1:22, 3:12; 2 Tim 2:21). Indeed, the NT word hagioi, which is normally translated “saints”, is literally “holy ones.” It is in fact the substantive plural form of the adjective hagios, “holy.” You are right when you say that “I know that from a judicial standpoint the Judge has declared me righteous.” In that sense, you are now holy; on the other hand, you surely must agree that it cannot end here. There is far more to the Christian life beyond justification. We must allow the Holy Spirit to search our hearts, to transform us, and to align our wills with the Father’s. We are declared holy at sanctification; we are then made holy in heart and mind after justification, usually I think, for the rest of our lives. This is sanctification. I completely understand your reluctance to use the word “holy” of yourself. I wouldn’t presume to use it of myself in the completed or perfected sense, frankly; but I would presume to claim that the Holy Spirit is continually sanctifying me, that is making me holier, as I allow him to transform me. Yet it is true that Christians both are holy and must continually be made holy.
“That’s what was going through my mind as I was considering how willful my sin state is.” So, you are not entirely sanctified. Neither am I. But I pray that the Holy Spirit will conform my will to that of the Father’s so that I will so want to please him that I will not want to sin — and when I do, I will immediately repent. I’m not there yet, and I take it that you aren’t either. I hope and pray that we both might be someday.
(By the way, I’m learning very quickly that I’m a minority on this site as a non-Reformed Christian. It’s okay, though. I can hold my own! [I hope!])
September 9th, 2008 at 8:35 AM
Benji,
You made the observation that you were a minority on the site because you were non-Reformed. There are some other non-Reformed members, but for whatever reason they aren’t as vocal yet – this is in fact true with most members so far.
You’ve been a great catalyst for discussion; I don’t want you to be discouraged by Reformed commenters. One of the goals of the site is to become mature in our faith. From what I’ve read, that is what is happening on your Life Before Life After Death post – you, Steve, and I have all been working out what we believe. Even if we never come to a complete agreement, we are still growing closer to our Father.
Also, if you haven’t read the latest newsletter, membership is now free for life to the first 7000 members that sign up, so this is a great opportunity for you to recruit some non-Reformed backup!
September 9th, 2008 at 11:44 PM
I gotta agree with Danny – don’t be discouraged. Frankly, I spent a lot of time over at a certain other blog because I wanted to better understand the mindset of agnostic/athiestic conservatives (Christopher Hitchens-types). It was good mental exercise but it’s hard to argue against them without using the Word, and they hate the Word.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:54 PM
Thanks Danny and Steve. The fact that I am outnumbered as a non-Reformed Christian certainly does not discourage me — it’s not a bad thing at all. Like I said, I think I can hold my own against you all, and I invite and enjoy challenges from my Reformed brothers and sisters. I don’t know how fond I am of being likened to atheists and agnostics though, Steve. (Kidding. I know that’s not what you meant!)
September 11th, 2008 at 10:46 PM
I guess it would have been better to say that I get far more out of being challenged than I do from listening to someone say exactly what i believe. That’s why I liked LGF so much – I agreed with a lot of people whose worldviews were so different than mine. But in the end we were never going to agree on the most important questions of all.
As for you hanging out with a bunch of Calvinists, I can say with great confidence that you’ll eventually come to see things our way, particularly if you keep reading your Bible. [Avoiding the temptation to say "it's predestined"]
:)
Steve
September 11th, 2008 at 11:31 PM
I’m highly doubtful about that, Steve. The more I read my Bible, the more Wesleyan I become. But I’m glad I get to engage with with my Calvinist brethren on theophilux.com anyway!
September 14th, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Benji,
I appreciate your blog and your willingness to step back and look at the belief systems that you have been taught. It is fitting for a believer to take time and analyze his belief systems to make sure it aligns with scripture. I hope that in this post and the following posts I don’t appear to be critical and abrasive. I’m a student of Calvin and as you may know he has a tendency to call ppl stupid, idiots and dogs. I hope not to do that nor appear to be an enemy, but only a brother sitting in a good a dialogue with a fellow brother. Now, I have some questions regarding some of your statements in your “Life Before Life After Death” article. I hope to dialogue with you and others over several posts with questions about these statements. But in this post I would like to ask you some questions in order to gain clarification on the relationship between entire sanctification and the state of an individual between the intermediate state and final judgment.
From your article, I’ve pieced together the idea that the soul/spirit going straight to heaven after death is not entirely correct unless a person is completely sanctified, which from your study of Scripture entire sanctification can happen. In other words, since God is holy, a person must be completely holy from their heart to be in his presence. Hence, unless a person dies entirely sanctified, entirely pure in heart then they are not allowed to enter into God’s presence, even though they have Christ’s righteousness imputed to them. Therefore they must wait in some intermediate state. Some may call this the “abode of the dead.” (I hope this is correct evaluation of your articles so far, if not i indulge your forgiveness.)
Now in this intermediate state does the individual who died not entirely sanctified then work with the Spirit to become entirely sanctified. I understand that they’re experiencing a piece of heaven that is if they truly believed in Christ, in the intermediate state, but are they working on making their hearts pure/perfect until final judgment?
If so, then what happens to the individuals who do not become entirely sanctified before final judgment? What happens to those who are not pure in heart? Do they then not get to enter into God’s presence ever? It seems that this could be a situation that could occur in this framework, especially if so much was left to the individual’s decision to cooperate with the Spirit to work towards or progress to entire sanctification. Or would you say that a person who is not entirely sanctified doesn’t enter into final judgment until they’re entirely sanctified in spirit/soul? In other words, the intermediate state is a condition that a person remains in until they attain purity of heart and then at that point they are then brought to final judgment. Or would you say that God will work to ensure that those who wait in the intermediate state will attain to entire sanctification before final judgment?
Also, if you are righteous in particular judgment that leads to an intermediate state, which is a foretaste of heaven, can you be proven unrighteous in final judgment? Conversely, if you are judged as wicked at particular judgment can you be proven righteous at final judgment?
I hope I haven’t misrepresented you, but I find your article intriguing and I’m trying to follow the points out to their logical ends. Of course, these are just what i think might be the logical conclusions of your propositions; it could be that you see a different conclusion and if so I desire to hear them. I hope this proves to be a peaceful, joyful and God-edifying conversation.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:38 PM
Alex,
Thanks for the comment. You ask very good questions. I have actually been waiting for someone to question me on this point, because since I wrote this article (I actually wrote this nearly a year ago), I have done some further reading and thinking and have lately been reconsidering this particular point.
Tom Wright has compellingly argued that it is the present life that is meant to act as a sort of purgatory, and death itself gets rid of all that is still sinful. In other words, this life is for sanctification (of course); but for those who do not reach entire sanctification before death (if you believe that is a possiblility), death finally rids them of what is left of their sinful nature. I won’t expound his argument here, but if you’d like to read up on it a bit, here’s a bibliography:
N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (New York: HarperCollins, 2008).
_____, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3) (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003).
_____, For All the Saints? Remembering the Christian Departed (London: SPCK, 2003). (See especially the chapter entitled “Rethinking the Tradition,” which is available online here.)
Although I’m not arguing for purgatory per se in this article, his argument argument against it has caused me to reconsider this particular point of my own argument, namely that sanctification may take place after death.
Hope that doesn’t seem like a cop-out answer to your questions. However, since I am in the middle of most likely changing my mind about this point, I’m not going to defend it. Definitely do read some of Wright’s fine work on this subject if you’re interested and have time, though.
July 27th, 2009 at 10:21 PM
Here is an article that gives a Biblical alternative for your consideration…It answers the age old question created by 1Corinthians 15:50-52 (50)Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.(51) Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, (52) in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
Mark
What Do People “Do” When They Die?
by Anne Mbeke
“Man is without conscious existence in death.”[1]
I recently went through an experience that opened my eyes to the issue of the “sleep of the dead” in a way I had not imagined possible. My doctor said I had to undergo surgery to remove some uterine tumors that were growing too fast and too big and threatening other functions in my body. I must say I went to the hospital on that morning with great trepidation. I was not sure how this was going to turn out. I had been warned or as they say “informed” of possible complications, including death! Now, I’m not a brave person — not by a long shot! I was very nervous, though I managed to conceal this very well at the time. I kept thinking, suppose this was it? What if I did not make it back? What if something went wrong…I realized then how desperately I wanted to live and not die! To make matters worse, my surgeon had an emergency that required her to travel out of the country on the day of my surgery! Some confidence I got, knowing that she would not even be around by the time I “came back”!
Well, to cut a long story short, I’m writing this paper, so things could not have gone so badly! But the point of it is, when they administered anesthesia, I had no clue —the last thing I remember is saying that I was cold, and someone putting a warm blanket over me. Almost five hours later, I woke up and had a lot of pain. However, it was as if perhaps just a fraction of a second had transpired, and not a whole five hours! In fact, if it had been a thousand years between my last conscious thought and the point of waking up, it still would not have meant anything to me. I only remember that it was evening when I was wheeled into the recovery room, while my last “awake” moment had been mid-morning. My fears were only real to me then because I had conscious knowledge of the procedure before it was initiated. But I felt nothing, knew nothing, feared nothing, and even suspected nothing because I was not conscious!
No Knowledge at Death
So, what does this all mean? I must say I was comforted in knowing that we truly “rest” when we sleep/die. I did not die, but the process I underwent is that of shutting down all consciousness through anesthesia, while the surgery is performed. It is the deepest sleep I have ever had, and probably the closest I’ll ever get to the sleep of the dead before the real thing! There is no more thought, no pain, no worry, nothing. I could no more share in the process of the removal of the tumors than I could in the conversation that must have taken place during this surgery, even if I wanted to. Why not? Because I was completely out of it, and my fate was in the hands of the anesthesiologist whom I was told stayed with the surgeons throughout the process, just to monitor and make sure I stayed out of it. For this I paid a handsome amount of money because my life was literally in his hands.
The writer of Ecclesiastes states, “For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten. Indeed their love, their hate and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun” (Ecc. 9:5, 6). This verse obviously rules out one of the many deceptive expressions that people use when one dies — “he has gone to his reward” — wrongfully implying that man receives his reward at death. In a sense, this expression would be true, if by it is understood the fact that the next moment of consciousness after death will be the resurrection, the point at which believers will be rewarded. Unfortunately the proponents of this misconception are not thinking in this way. They eliminated or changed the reward/promise to mean “going to heaven” instead of inheriting the land/earth as was first promised to Abraham.[2] So, with a twisted understanding of what the reward is, how can they know where it is to be found?
I agree that “It is impossible to explain the Christian religion without clarifying the meaning of the term Kingdom of God.”[3] Unfortunately not many preachers have invested their time and energy in explaining this. It is no wonder that a lot of well-meaning and sincere Christians are stuck with the notion that when one dies, he goes to heaven to receive his reward! It is amazingly simple, yet I must say that I too grew up with the same “going to heaven” preaching. But when I took the time to study the Scripture for myself, I began to realize that I did not have the correct picture of man’s destiny, and consequently what dead people do — i.e. nothing! Only Christ has the authority given him by God to do something for the dead — resurrect them at his Second Coming.
“Behold, I am coming quickly, and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to what he has done” (Rev. 22:12). This implies that the reward will be given at Christ’s Second Coming. In any case, one cannot receive a reward at death because as Alva Huffer correctly says, “To receive a reward, one must have knowledge. The dead, however, are unconscious.”[4] Furthermore, the writer of Hebrews makes it clear that no one has received the reward yet, not even the patriarch saints of the Old Testament: “All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth” (Heb. 11:13). This promise/reward is not allotted to individuals when they die, but rather it will be conferred to all believers at the Second Coming. The Psalmist says, “The dead do not praise the LORD, nor do any who go down into silence” (Ps. 115:17). I imagine the excitement when the reward/promise is unveiled and awarded to the believers — it seems almost inevitable that there will be great rejoicing and praise, and celebration and shouting! The Psalmist reminds us that the dead cannot do this! The prophet Isaiah also says, “For Sheol cannot thank You, death cannot praise You; those who go down to the pit cannot hope for Your faithfulness” (Isa. 38:13). Resurrection, therefore, is the only way that those who die/sleep/go down to the pit or grave or Sheol or Hades can hope for God’s faithfulness. Again, the “heroes of faith” recorded in Hebrews would not have had to wait for their reward if this was conferred at death. We are informed of this by the writer of Hebrews: “And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect” (Heb. 11:39, 40). Believers being made perfect means having immortality awarded to them at resurrection. Christ is the “perfecter” of our faith. Why? Because he is the first fruits among all who sleep, and the first sample of an immortalized human being. God promises the same future life to all who fear him, for “we shall be like Christ,” the apostle John says. This means we shall be resurrected to immortality like Christ is. This is what many of our church fathers call “Conditional Immortality” — awarded on condition that one meets the requirements of the Kingdom.
During my surgery, I could not make any contribution to anything even if I willed it hard enough. I had no visions or dreams of any sort while in this state of “nothingness.” It is like power being turned off — only it was for just a few hours. Georgia Power can decide to turn off the main power supply, so that no amount of switching on of individual power switches in homes that use Georgia Power can bring any power into their homes. But a home owner may turn off the lights for a time, and then turn them back on. I felt like the main power supply — the breath of life that God breathed in Adam to make him a living being — was still on for me, except that the doctors, with the knowledge that God gave them, were able, so to speak, to turn off the switch so that there was no breath in me for a while. They waited and turned it back on when the procedure was complete. I guess if the main power supply — breath of life, which comes from God — had really been turned off, I would not have awakened regardless of what the doctors did!
For those who say that believers go to heaven at death, there is strong evidence to the contrary. As quoted earlier from Revelation, Christ would not be coming back to earth with his reward for believers if they are already in heaven enjoying the reward! Again, it is written that only Christ ascended into heaven after he was raised from the dead and crowned with immortality. The apostle Peter, preaching after Christ had ascended into heaven, says, “For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: ‘THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET”’” (Acts 2:34, 35).
Peter was obviously quoting from Psalm 110:1, which is also quoted by the writer of Hebrews as he explains who Christ is in relation to God, angels and man (Heb. 1:13). The author is referring to God speaking to Christ who alone is right now seated at the right hand of God, where, as the writer of Hebrews says, he is making intercession for believers before the Father (Heb. 7:25).
Death as “Sleep,” “Rest,” even “Lying Down”
Death has been described as “sleep” in the Scriptures — not just in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament as well. In all the cases, the reference is clearly to death. Some express it as “rest,” while other translations use the expression “lie down.” Some of these verses are listed below:
Deuteronomy 31:16: “The LORD said to Moses, ‘Behold, you are about to lie down with your fathers…’” This was towards the end of Moses’ life, and echoes the prophet Daniel’s vision when he was told, “But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age” (Dan. 12:13). This is a powerful statement about the sleep/rest of the dead! It further proves, as discussed earlier, that one has to “rise again” (after death) in order to receive his reward at the “end of the age.”
1 Kings 2:10: “Then David slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David.” It is worth noting that the apostle Peter, speaking after Christ had ascended into heaven, said, “Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day” (Acts 2:29). Later Paul said, “For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep, and was laid among his fathers and underwent decay” (Acts 13:36).
Job 7:21: “For now I will lie down in the dust; and You will seek me, but I will not be.” Again in Job 14:12 the writer says, “So man lies down and does not rise. Until the heavens are no longer, he will not awake nor be aroused out of his sleep.” He will not be awakened or “called out” until the resurrection.
Psalm 13:3: “Consider and answer me, O LORD my God; enlighten my eyes, or I will sleep the sleep of death.”
Jeremiah 51:39: “And may sleep a perpetual sleep and not wake up.”
Daniel 12:2: “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.” Here is the picture of the resurrection — when the believers will be awakened from their “perpetual sleep” to receive their reward, and sinners to answer for what they did with the life God gave them.
John 11:11-14 gives the classic example of the use of the term “sleep” by Jesus himself. When Lazarus had died, Jesus said that he was “asleep.” He then “called him out of the tomb”— note that he did not call him down from heaven. The dead cannot already be “reclining” with Christ in heaven if he has to come back and call out all those who “sleep in Christ” to the resurrection life. “He said to them, ‘Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I go, so that I may awaken him out of sleep.’ The disciples then said to him, ‘Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.’ Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he was speaking of literal sleep. So Jesus then said to them plainly, ‘Lazarus is dead’” (John 11:11-14).
Acts 7:60 records Stephen’s death: “Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, ‘Lord, do not hold this sin against them!’ Having said this, he fell asleep.”
1 Corinthians 11:30: “For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.”
1 Corinthians 15:6: “After that he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep.” Verse 20 says, “But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.” This gives me a lot of hope — knowing that just as Christ was raised from the dead, we too shall be raised from the dead if we believe in God, and Jesus Christ His Son whom He sent to preach the message of a future hope — the Kingdom of God as it was meant to be!
In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-15 we are given an explanation about death and resurrection in very clear language. Paul obviously faced questions and challenges to the faith as we do today, and in particular concerning the matter of human destiny. Moreover, a lot of his listeners did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. He uses the word “sleep” interchangeably with the word “death” when he says, “But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.” Paul compares those who are alive (his audience) with those who have fallen asleep (those who are dead).
1 Thessalonians 5:10: “…who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live together with him.” Awake or asleep, alive or dead would seem to be interchangeable in meaning here.
While making a comment on the differences between man and beast, Edwin Froom says that when beasts die, they cease to be, permanently — no future life. Of man he says, “redeemed and regenerated man will be called forth from his sleep by Christ…to a life that measures with the life of God, and in eternal communion thereafter with God.”[5] This is the picture of resurrection. It seems clear that this author uses the term “sleep” to mean death, just as we have seen in the Scriptures. The redeemed will be called forth, just as Lazarus was called forth after he had been dead (asleep) four days.
I must say, in conclusion, that I am fascinated with the issue of the sleep of the dead, mainly because I realize just how misinformed I was as a young girl attending Sunday School. It is definitely easier for me to understand this, since even in my native language when one dies, we say he or she has “fallen asleep” (onindo), which is the same word as when we go to sleep every night. I thank God that I can make this connection, and find it easy to understand that the dead do nothing because they cannot!²
July 28th, 2009 at 6:08 AM
Mark,
Thanks for commenting. In the ancient world, “sleep” was a euphemism for death. To draw a doctrine of soul sleep out of passages like these, then, is to draw out more than their authors intended to say, I think. The authors weren’t talking about sleep as such; they were talking about death. This euphemism was common across the ancient world and, as the author of the article you posted mentions, it is a common euphemism in many languages even today.