CHAPTER VTHE UNSCRIPTURAL THEORY OF NON-EXISTENCE AFTER DEATH Thus far in this book, according to the Holy Scripture, we have learned that man has a spirit within the body, and that at death the spirit departs or separates from the body, and in chapter four we learned the place to which the spirit departs at death. It has been established that since the ascension of Christ, the spirits of the righteous depart to the third heaven paradise, to be in the presence of Christ, and that the spirits of the unrighteous still depart to hades, to the section prepared for them. Since the case thus far has been Firmly established upon the Scripture, we are now ready to proceed with the next logical question. Is the spirit conscious after death? The Bible answer is Yes! However, before we consider the scripture passages which prove beyond a doubt conscious life beyond the grave, we must consider the argument put up against this teaching, by those who believe that the dead are unconscious and out of existence between death and resurrection. When we understand how these false teachers have incorrectly interpreted and misapplied scriptures to teach that the dead are unconscious and non-existent, it will help us to prove that there is conscious life beyond the grave. This error, that physical death is cessation of all consciousness until the resurrection of the body, is usually called the theory of "soul- sleeping" by the Orthodox teachers who oppose it. However, technically speaking, it is a very unfitting name, for we have already pointed out that those who adhere to this theory tell us that "No man has a soul," and that at death man passes entirely out of existence. If it were true that no man has a soul, there would be no soul that could sleep, therefore neither the word, "soul" nor the word, "sleep" is truly descriptive of this erroneous teaching. The theory of "soul-sleep" is based principally upon a few Old Testament passages. For example: There are the ones which Rutherford uses. He says "Now what do the Scriptures say about the dead? Are they conscious or unconscious?" Then he gives the following Old Testament passages: "For the living know that they shall die; but the dead know no! anything . . . Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might: for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave whither thou goest." Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10. "The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence. Psalm 115:17.According to Rutherford's theory these Scriptures are supposed to prove that when man dies - he knows not anything; that he has no knowledge nor wisdom, nor memory; and that he is in a condition of silence, unconsciousness and nonexistence. In answering this so-called scriptural "proof" propounded by Rutherford from the Old Testament, we should remember what has already been said in the preceding chapter about the Old Testament being almost silent and in the "twilight stage" as to the future life. It was said that the time for the full revelation of conditions beyond the grave had not yet come in Old Testament days, but that it was reserved for Christ to "bring life and immortality to light through the Gospel." II Timothy 1:10. It was not Christ's coming that brought life and immortality into existence through the Gospel, but His coming brought it into revelation. In the Old Testament, without the full revelation of this truth as we have it today, since Christ revealed it through the gospel, the grave is the limit of the Old Testament vision. Accordingly, the Old Testament writers speak within the limits set to their knowledge, and speak of the grave as a place where activities of life cease. Furthermore, in the New Testament, in which we should expect to find every doctrine of the Old Testament completed, we find that the dead, whether saved or lost, are in full consciousness. Therefore, if the doctrine of "soul-sleep" were true, it would be completed in thr New Testament, but unfortunately for Rutherford, the New Testament, as we shall see, teaches consciousness beyond the grave. Now let us consider one of the main scriptures that is used so often to try to prove that the dead are unconscious and non-existent. Psalm 115:17 "The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence." Dear reader, this Scripture passage as you see it stands alone. It is separated from the verses that precede and follow it. II Peter 1:20 makes it clear that "no scripture is of private interpretation." This leans that we cannot take a verse out of the Bible away from the surrounding verses and try to interpret it by itself (privately) without considering the context. For example, if we had the right to take a few words of Scripture out of the Bible and let them stand alone without considering the context or other verses from which they were taken, we could even go so far as to make a so-called proof from the Bible that there is no God. Those words are found in Psalm 14:1, 53:1, "There is no God," and according to the system of "private" interpretation, this would be a proof that there is no God. But, dear reader, when we put these words back where they belong with the context, we Find that this is not the meaning at all. The true meaning reads, "The fool hath said in his heart. There is no God." Thus we see when these words are properly placed the entire meaning is changed. And so it is with this particular verse which Rutherford uses so often in trying to prove that the dead are unconscious. When the verse is put back in its proper place in the context, and, when the following verse is added, the meaning is changed. Psalm 115:17, "The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence." Now let us add the part Rutherford omitted. "But we will bless the Lord from this time forth and for evermore." If the first of these two verses teaches that the dead are unconscious and have no knowledge of God, then, the second verse certainly contradicts the first, because the inspired Psalmist said he was going to praise and bless the Lord from this time forth and for evermore." If he were going to praise the Lord "forevermore," it would have necesitated his being alive and conscious "for evermore," not unconscious and out of existence until the resurrection. Now, when we consider Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10, which also has been taken apart from its context, and when we supply the words that Rutherford left out, we find it, too, has an altogether different meaning. (The words in italic type are the ones that Rutherford omitted). Ecclesiastes 9:4-6 "For to him that is Joined to all the living is hope; for a living dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more portion for ever in anything that is done under the Sun." Verse 10. "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do. do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave wither thou goest." When we consider the words in italic type the ones that Rutherford left out it requires little effort to see that this text, like the preceding one referred to, has reference solely to what the dead can know, or do, or receive, of anything "under the Sun" that is, what the dead can know, or do, or receive, of anything in this world. And, of course, when a person dies, he has no more "portion" or part in anything that is done "under the Sun" or in this world. The verses that were omitted are simply explanatory of the statement of the First that our hope and interest in all things earthly is limited to this short and transitory life. Remember that the vision of Ecclesiastes is limited to those things that may be seen and known and done "under the sun" (in this world). The phrase "under the sun" is the key to the book, and is found 29 times. The book is written from a worldly viewpoint - a human viewpoint of things "under the sun." It is the reasonings of a man "under the sun" set down by inspiration. Verse 10 is no more a revelation from God concerning that state of the dead than any other conclusion of Solomon, the writer of Ecclesiastes. Verse 10 reads, "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor wisdom, in the grave whither thou goest." No one would think of quoting chapter 9 as divine revelation. The reasonings of man "under the sun" are set down in inspiration just as the words of Satan (Genesis 3:4; Job 2:4) are recorded by inspiration. Satan said to Eve, "Ye shall not surely die." These words of Satan were put down by inspiration of God they were recorded accurately, but they were not truth. Satan was lying all the time, but his words are recorded in the inspired Bible. Just so are these words of the backslider Solomon. They are set down by the inspiration of God, yet they were written from the human stand-point of things "under the sun," therefore they cannot be held as a revelation of truth concerning the dead. Solomon declared that "under the Sun" all things were vanity. He was giving his estimates of life from a worldly viewpoint. "But when he rises above the Sun" in the last chapter he sees things from a "heavenly viewpoint." He then declares, "Then shall the 'dusf (the body) return to the earth as it was; and the "spirit shall return unto God who gave it." Ecclesiastes 12:7. Thus. he teaches, when looking at it from the "heavenly viewpoint," I that only the body goes to the grave and that the "spirit" returns to God. So the first chapters of Ecclesiastes, including the references we First discussed, chapter 9, verses 4, 5, 6, 10, were set down by inspiration from the "human standpoint" of man "under the sun" and can no more be used as divine revelation concerning the dead than the words of Satan can be used as divine revelation. But the last chapter is set down from the "heavenly viewpoint," "above the sun." The passage, therefore, that Rutherford uses has no bearing whatever upon the question whether or not souls are conscious after the body dies. It has been clearly shown that Rutherford's "soul-sleep" theory has absolutely no Old Testament foundation to stand upon. Now let us see what his New Testament claims are, and how they are supposed to support his far fetched scheme. It is claimed that words "dead" and "death" imply "unconsciousness" and "non-existence," and therefore when a man is spoken of as "dead" the meaning is that he is out of existence. But such an interpretation is not according to the Bible. The words "dead" or "death" do not mean unconsciousness or non- existence. We read in Ephesians 2:1, "For you hath He quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins." Here the unregenerate are spoken of as "dead." It does not mean that they are unconscious or out of existence, for the unregenerate have conscious existence as well as the regenerate. Again in Luke 15:24 we read that when the Prodigal Son returned the Father said, "This my son was dead, and is alive again." And I Timothy 5:6, "She that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth." Death does not mean unconsciousness or non-existence. These people were said to be "dead" in the one sense of the word, and yet they had conscious existence. Those who adhere to this "soul-sleep" theory also claim that words such as "sleep," "slept," "fell asleep," when used in reference to death, mean unconsciousness and non-existence. But again we shall find that this is not so. In order to prove that the words "sleep," "fell asleep," when used in connection with death do not mean unconsciousness, four scriptural instances are cited. (1) In John 11:11-14 we read the words of Jesus concerning Lazarus, "Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go that I may awake him out of sleep. Then said His disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. Howbeit, Jesus spake of his death, but they thought that He had spoken of taking rest in sleep. Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead." Here Jesus speaks of death as a sleep, but it is very plain that He is referring not to Lazarus' soul, but to his body, for Jesus said, "I go to awake him out of sleep," and this he did by raising his body from the dead. Additional proof of this is found in the words of Martha. "By this time he 'stinketh."' This shows that it was only the body and not the soul of Lazarus, that the disciples were thinking of as that which was asleep. (2) In Matthew 27:52 we are told that at the time of the resurrection of Jesus "many bodies" of the saints which slept arose." The fact the word "bodies" is used in this sentence, shows that the word "slept" refers to "bodies," and not to the souls of the dead, otherwise the word "bodies" would have been omitted and the sentence would have read, "Many of the saints which slept arose," instead of "Many of the bodies of the saints which slept arose." (3) In Acts 7:54-60, we are told of the stoning of Stephen. This stoning was so severe that he "fell asleep," that is he died. Here the words, "fell asleep," cannot possibly mean that the "soul" of Stephen became unconscious because verse 55 tells us that he "looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the Glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God." And then when Stephen was dying, he said in verse 59, "Lord receive my spirit." Why should Stephen utter such a prayer if the soul at death entered into a state of unconsciousness? (4) Now in I Corinthians 15:15-20, it is revealed that Christ was the "First-fruits" of them that "slept." Here again the word "sleep" clearly refers to the body and not to the soul, for the subject of this chapter is the resurrection of the body. The word "sleep" used in reference to the dead always applies to the body. The dead body naturally presents itself to us as sleeping. Nowhere in the Bible do we find that the soul separated from the body - is said to be sleeping. "Shall we sleep between death and the judgment?" asks Tertullian. "Why souls do not sleep even when men are alive. It is the province of bodies to sleep." |