Evidence for God from Science

My understanding is that they are now sleeping in death in "the common grave of mankind." - Hades. And that they are awaiting the resurrection. - 1 Corinthians 15:20-24

One of the reasons I assume this is because of what Jesus said to his disciples when Lazarus died...

"Lazarus our friend has gone to rest, but I am journeyning there to awaken him from sleep." Therefore the disciples said to him: "Lord, if he has gone to rest, he will will get well." Jesus had spoken about his death. But they imagined he was speaking about taking rest in sleep. At that time, therefore, Jesus said to them outspokenly, "Lazarus has died." - John 11:11-13

Might Jesus also say this about these Amish girls who have also died?

Don

Bedtime for Spirits: A Look at the Doctrine of Soul Sleep.

DonCameron wrote:My understanding is that they are now sleeping in death in "the common grave of mankind." - Hades. And that they are awaiting the resurrection. - 1 Corinthians 15:20-24

One of the reasons I assume this is because of what Jesus said to his disciples when Lazarus died...

"Lazarus our friend has gone to rest, but I am journeyning there to awaken him from sleep." Therefore the disciples said to him: "Lord, if he has gone to rest, he will will get well." Jesus had spoken about his death. But they imagined he was speaking about taking rest in sleep. At that time, therefore, Jesus said to them outspokenly, "Lazarus has died." - John 11:11-13

Might Jesus also say this about these Amish girls who have also died?

Don

Do you think there are possibly different spiritual dynamics at work now, post Christ's resurrection?

Hi Bart,

I had mentioned where Jesus referred to Lazarus as being asleep when in fact Lazarus was dead at John 11:11-13

I asked if today Jesus might also refer to the above Amish children as being asleep.

You then asked...

Do you think there are possibly different spiritual dynamics at work now, post Christ's resurrection?

No, I had not thought of that possibility. But apparently you have?

What do you feel were (1) the spiritual dynamics at work pre-Christ's resurrection then, and (2) the different spiritual dynamics at work in the post Christ's resurrection now?

Question for you: Why do you think Jesus referred to Lazarus as being asleep when in fact he was dead?

I have assumed that this was because Lazarus was "conscious of nothing at all" - as if he was in a deep, dreamless sleep. Ecc. 9:5

I have also thought that if someone had asked Lazarus what it like being dead for those three days, he would have said, "I don't remember anything."

I say this because Solomon had explained that "there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom" in the place where Lazarus went when he died. i.e. Sheol or Hades. Ecc. 9:10

Again, why do you think Jesus said Lararus was asleep when he was actually dead?

Don

Hey Don,

What evidence is there within the text itself to presume that Jesus was thinking in the context of Ecclesiastes or that your interpretation of the Ecclesiastes verses are correct? You've been challenged on this previously and I don't recollect that you've given a response.

Why is there any reason to read more into it then as a euphemism? Jesus was not teaching his disciples in this context. It was a comment made in passing. Kings and Chronciles follow a formula for all the kings of saying they "slept with their fathers." It's a figure of speech. We have plenty of them in English as well when it comes to death. Most languages do.

I suspect if Jesus wanted to say more to his disciples along the lines you read he might have used more specific language. As it is there is not any explicit teaching of "soul sleep" that does not equate to euphemism in my mind. The passages I'm aware of that are appealed to in this manner are:

Ps. 13:3; John 11:11-14; Acts 13:36; 1 Cor. 11:30; 1 Cor 15:6,18,20,51; Eph. 5:14; 1 Thess. 4:13-15; 1 Thess 5:10

The counter passages that indicate immediate presence with God upon death would include:

Luke 23:43; 2 Cor. 5:6-9

The idea of soul sleep looking forward to the bodily resurrection also creates problems with regard to the appearance of Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration Matt. 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30-31.

I was asking my earlier question as there are some who believe that a form of a holding place for those saved before Christ's resurrection might have existed. This accounts in some's mind for the descent of Christ into hell as referred to in the Apostles creed. I just wondered where you might stand on that.

There's probably enough in what I've stated above to interact on if you wish.

Blessings,

Bart

Hi Bart,

You asked me...

What evidence is there...that your interpretations of Ecclesiastes 9:5 and 10 are correct?

The following explains why I feel that what I get out of Ecc. 9:5 is not 'my interpretation'...

When I read Bible verses I try to carefully notice what they simply say without any interpretation by me or anyone else.

For example, verse 5 above reads this way...

"For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all."

What I see is that Solomon is simply stating that (1) The living are conscious that they will die, and (2) The dead are not conscious of anything. This is not how I interpret what he said. I''m just acknowledging what he actually said.

But is what Solomon said about the dead true? Was Lazarus really unconscious?

Well, we know for a certainty that what he said about the living is true. We are conscious that we will die. Is there any reason to believe what he then said about the dead was not true?

And so Bart, I believe that Lazarus was conscious of nothing at all because of what Solomon said, not because of my interpretation of what he said.

The same with verse 10. Without any attempt to interpret what Solomon said, I conclude that when Lazarus died he went to "Sheol"" where there is no work, nor devising, nor knowledge nor wisdom. I believe this because this is what Solomon said, not because of my interpretation of what he said.

But there some other reasons why I believe that the dead are reallly dead. I'll get into those reasons later this weekend.

Don

The idea of soul sleep looking forward to the bodily resurrection also creates problems with regard to the appearance of Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration Matt. 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30-31.

Bart,

Advocates of soul sleep would say this of the Mount of Transfiguration:

Matthew 17:1-9 (The Mount of Transfiguration)

Matthew 17:1-9 describes a scene at what is called “the Mount of Transfiguration,” where Jesus conversed with Moses and Elijah. God was preparing Jesus for the challenge of his upcoming suffering. This scene was not a literal reality, but what Jesus plainly said was a “vision.”

Matthew 17:9
And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

Biblically, a vision is a spiritual phenomenon in which God causes something to appear to a person, either in his mind's eye or to his physical eyes. (Some Scriptural examples are 2 Kings 6:17; Acts 10:9-20; 2 Cor. 12:1-4.)

Being a vision, it in no way means that Moses and Elijah made a special guest appearance from heaven where they had been hanging around since leaving earth. To be consistent with the biblical evidence, including Jesus' statement that no man but he “hath ascended up to heaven” (John 3:13), the same must be said of Moses and Elijah as was said of David in Acts 2:34—they are not “ascended into the heavens.”

Jude 1:14
Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints,

DonCameron wrote:When I read Bible verses I try to carefully notice what they simply say without any interpretation by me or anyone else.

Of course you realize that you MUST interpret a text to notice what it says. If you don't want to interpret, read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek without thinking about what it says. 'Interpreting' is just a term for 'figuring out what a text says'. The term for 'reading things into a text' is 'eisegesis' or 'over-exegesis'.

Hi Bart, and everyone else,

So then, what do you think has happened to those Amish children? Where do you feel they are today? Are they able to do anything? Do they feel anything? Are they conscious of anything that is going on with them?

As I mentioned previously, my own understanding is that they are now sleeping in death in Hades - "the common grave of mankind." And that they are awaiting the resurrection. - 1 Corinthians 15:20-24, Revelation 20:13

Don

Hi Turgonian,

I had explained how I first try to notice what a verse is actually saying without any interpretation on my part.

You then said...

You MUST iinterpret a text to notice what it says... 'Interpreting' is just a term for figuring out what a text says.

But the way I see it, interpreting is the term for figuring out what a text means.

You also said..

If you don't want to interpret, read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek without thinking about what it says.

I'm wondering if you might be using the wrong word here. Instead of the word "interpret" it looks to me that it should be "translate."

For example, your first statement would look like this...

i]You MUST translate a text to notice what it says... Translation is the term for figuring out what a text says. [/i]

Your second statement would like this...

If you don't want to translate, read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek without thinking about what it says.

Since I don't know Hebrew or Greek then in order to see what the Bible says it needs to be translated into English for me.

Once it is translated then I can see what it says. Then I can try to interpret what it says in order to understand what it means.

Take Ecclesiastes 9:5 for example. If I saw it written in Hebrew I wouldn't have any idea of what it says. But once it is translated into English I can see that Solomon said that...

"The living are conscious that they will die, but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all."

In this particular case I don't feel the need to have to interpret what he said. I feel I understand what he meant by simply believing what he said. - i.e."The dead are conscious of nothing at all."

When I apply what Solomon said to the Amish girls I conclude that they too are therefore unconscious.

If someone else wants to look for reasons not to believe what Solomon said then that's fine - for them.

From my experience, it is difficult for Christians (including myself) to read a Scripture and not to be influenced by what we already believe about the subject. If what we already believe is true then that should help when trying to understand what related Scriptures mean.

But if what we already believe is not true then our misunderstanding will get in the way when trying to interpret what the Bible is willing to teach us.

Don

Don,

I'd like to suggest that Sheol is not a place of absolute unconsciousness. Consider the following:

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia wrote:Yet it would be a mistake to infer, because of these strong and sometimes poetically heightened contrasts to the world of the living, that Sheol was conceived of as absolutely a place without consciousness, or some dim remembrance of the world above. This is not the case. Necromancy rested on the idea that there was some communication between the world above and the world below (Dt 18:11); a Samuel could be summoned from the dead (1 Sam 28:11-15); Sheol from beneath was stirred at the descent of the king of Babylon (Isa 14:9 ff). The state is rather that of slumbrous semi-consciousness and enfeebled existence from which in a partial way the spirit might temporarily be aroused. Such conceptions, it need hardly be said, did not rest on revelation, but were rather the natural ideas formed of the future state, in contrast with life in the body, in the absence of revelation. (Source)

Again,

The ISBE wrote: In the general conception, Sheol is a place of darkness (Job 10:21,22; Ps 143:3), of silence (Ps 94:17; 115:17), of forgetfulness (Ps 88:12; Eccl 9:5,6,10). It is without remembrance or praise of God (Ps 6:5), or knowledge of what transpires on earth (Job 14:21). Even this language is not to be pressed too literally. Part of it is the expression of a depressed or despairing (compare Isa 38:10 ff) or temporarily skeptical (thus in Ecclesiastes; compare 12:7,13,14) mood; all of it is relative, emphasizing the contrast with the brightness, joy and activity of the earthly life (compare Job 10:22, "where the light is as midnight"--comparative). Elsewhere it is recognized that consciousness remains; in Isa 14:9 ff the shades (repha'im) of once mighty kings are stirred up to meet the descending king of Babylon (compare Ezek 32:21). If Sheol is sometimes described as "destruction" (Job 26:6 margin; 28:22; Prov 15:11 margin) and "the pit" (Ps 30:9; 55:23), at other times, in contrast with the weariness and trouble of life, it is figured and longed for as a place of "rest" and "sleep" (Job 3:17 ff; 14:12,13). Always, however, as with other peoples, existence in Sheol is represented as feeble, inert, shadowy, devoid of living interests and aims, a true state of the dead (on Egyptian Babylonian and Greek analogies, compare Salmond, op. cit., 54-55, 73-74, 99 ff, 173-74). The idea of Dr. Charles, already commented on, that Sheol is outside the jurisdiction of Yahweh, is contradicted by many passages (Dt 32:22; Job 26:6; Prov 15:11; Ps 139:8; Am 9:2, etc.; compare above). (Source)

Might I also remind you of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus? I realize this is a parable (although that is often disputed), but if there were no consciousness after death, then the entire story would be based on a false premise. I don't believe Jesus taught by accomodation. Do you?

It is my view that when someone died before Christ, they went immediately to Sheol. For some, there was torment, and for others, there was rest. However, at Christ's resurrection, He emptied Sheol (Abraham's bosom) of the righteous, and when a person dies today, they either go to Sheol a lost person, or to heaven a saved person. What does this do for children, the retarded, etc.? The simple answer is that I do not know. The Bible does not say, and it's not something we should try to speak authoritatively on just to satisfy our own curiosity. God has made some sort of provisions for them, but it is not our place to know. As Jesus told Peter, "You follow Me!" (John 21:22)

God bless

Jac,

What about the parable of the rich man and Lazarus at Luke: 16:19-31?

You said...

Might I also remind you of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus? I realize this is a parable but if there were no consciousness after death, then the entire story would be based on a false premise.

I have had a difficult time taking this parable literally for the following reasons...

1) If Jesus was trying to explain what happens to the wicked after death, he put the rich man in the wrong place (verse 23). The fire that Jesus referred to elsewhere several other times was in "Gehenna." That's where a literal lake of fire did exist inside the city's garbage dump.

2) Revelation 20:13 says that eventually there won't be anyone, dead or alive, in Hades. And so again, apparently Hades is not the place of the "everlasting punishment."

3) I cannot help wonder how anyone who is being burned alive in a "blazing fire" would ask someone to just dip the tip of their finger in water and place a small drop of water on his tongue! (verse 24)

4) I have a hard time believing that someone in such a painful fire would be able to carry on the conversation that Jesus said was gong on between Abraham and the rich man.

5) Since I believe that Abraham was dead and unconscious, I cannot picture him carrying on a literal conversation with anyone. The same would be true with the rich man who died.

This is one of those cases where what I already believe affects how I understand Jesus' parable.

I can understand why those, who believe that God has created a literal lake of fire in order to burn the wicked forever, can read this parable and take it literally. It's just that I am unable do so.

Don

Don, a lot of orthodox Christians believe in everlasting punishment, but not in a literal fire. So the rich man might just have been thirsty. Others think the parable should just be taken not as a literal description of hell, but a story illustrating status-reversal to come in the afterlife.

Please don't assume that everyone who talks about eternal punishment means fire and brimstone.

Don Cameron wrote:Since I don't know Hebrew or Greek then in order to see what the Bible says it needs to be translated into English for me.

Once it is translated then I can see what it says. Then I can try to interpret what it says in order to understand what it means.

I didn't quite mean translation. What I meant was: when you're 'simply reading what a text says', you are already interpreting it. You combine the writing with the meaning of the written words.
However, you seem to be talking about the difference between taking something at face value and digging deeper. Well, here's why you can't take Eccl. 9:5 at face value:

JP Holding wrote:As we have noted in other contexts, the nature of Ecclesiastes is paradoxical. It is a book filled with statements regarded as being in tension (for example, on one hand mulling over the despair of life, then shortly thereafter encouraging the enjoyment of life) and has been variously identified as either a dialogue of a man debating with himself, "torn between what he cannot help seeing and what he still cannot help believing," [Kidner, Wisdom of Proverbs, Job and Ecclesiastes, 91], or else as the author's "challenge to the man of the world to think his own position through to its bitter end, with a view to seeking something less futile." In either case, the compositional principle is the same, and derives from the ancient Near Eastern methodology, which we might loosely compare to a Hegelian case of combining thesis and antithesis, to arrive at a synthesis.