CONTENTS IMPORTANT PREFACE - 2021 DEDICATION - TO MY FATHER INTRODUCTION CHAPTER ONE - WHAT IS MAN? CHAPTER TWO - THE LIVING SOUL CHAPTER THREE - THE SPIRIT WITHIN MAN CHAPTER FOUR - IS THE SOUL IMMORTAL? CHAPTER FIVE - LIFE, DEATH AND RESURRECTION IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES CHAPTER SIX - A WEEKEND IN HELL OR IN THE TOMB? CHAPTER SEVEN - HELLFIRE AND DAMNATION CHAPTER EIGHT - THE WRATH TO COME CHAPTER NINE - THE DAY OF JUDGMENT APPENDIX SCRIPTURE INDEX |
APPENDIXAppendix A - Samuel and the Witch of Endor
Appendix B - A Spirit Hath Not Flesh and Bones Appendix C - The God of the Living APPENDIX A
Samuel and the Witch of Endor Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and inquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Endor. And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him up, whom I shall name unto thee. And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die? And Saul sware to her by the LORD, saying, As the LORD liveth, there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing. Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel. And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice: and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul. And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth. And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself. And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do.Then said Samuel, Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing the LORD is departed from thee, and is become thine enemy? And the LORD hath done to him, as he spake by me: for the LORD hath rent the kingdom out of thine hand, and given it to thy neighbour, even to David: Because thou obeyedst not the voice of the LORD, nor executedst his fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore hath the LORD done this thing unto thee this day. Moreover the LORD will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of the Philistines: and to morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me: the LORD also shall deliver the host of Israel into the hand of the Philistines. 1 Samuel 28:7-19 Editor's Note 2022 - I am no longer certain that the exposition given below is entirely correct. While I'm confident I sufficiently demonstrate how problems with the standard interpretation of this passage (i.e. that it can be used to prove the immortality of the soul) are fatal to that position, I now feel that my own explanation may be inadequate.
I argue below that that the appearance of Samuel in the passage is a demonic manifestation. However, that does not account for the accuracy of the prediction regarding the fate of Saul. |
I now feel that this passage is better answered in one of two ways: That either God allowed a temporary miraculous appearance of the real Samuel, or that this was a vision given by God to answer Saul's folly, and to announce his fate.
Regardless of one's view it must be admitted that the passage is difficult as it does not appear to comport entirely with any particular view of the afterlife; whether ancient Jewish, or modern Christian. We are simply not given enough information. However, it should always be kept in mind that one obscure passage should never be used to overturn the combined weight of numerous other scriptures. Those who would use this passage to prove the immortality of the human soul should also be prepared to answer the myriad of problems that such a view presents to their own theology. -DJH
Regardless of one's view it must be admitted that the passage is difficult as it does not appear to comport entirely with any particular view of the afterlife; whether ancient Jewish, or modern Christian. We are simply not given enough information. However, it should always be kept in mind that one obscure passage should never be used to overturn the combined weight of numerous other scriptures. Those who would use this passage to prove the immortality of the human soul should also be prepared to answer the myriad of problems that such a view presents to their own theology. -DJH
THOSE who seek to maintain that man has an immortal soul often cite the above passage as 'proof' for this teaching. It is believed that since 'Samuel' spoke from the dead, that he must have had an immortal soul. While a superficial study of the passage seems to lend credence to this teaching, careful examination will show that this passage can by no means be used to prove that the soul is immortal.
There are basically only two explanations for the scene described in 1 Samuel 28: either this really was Samuel speaking as a 'departed spirit' or an 'immortal soul', or it was a familiar spirit, or a demon spirit impersonating Samuel.
First, let us examine the option that this really was the departed spirit of Samuel speaking. This creates numerous problems. Notice from the text that God had refused to answer Saul by prophets, dreams, or by the Urim and Thummim. In other words, God had refused to speak to Saul by every legitimate means by which he could inquire of him. This creates a serious difficulty. Did God, as some assert, allow Samuel to speak to Saul on this one occasion in order to deliver his message? This doesn't seem possible, or even logical. If God had refused to answer Saul by legitimate means, then are we to believe that he agreed to send his message by means of a spirit medium, something which was strictly forbidden?
But what are our other options? If God did not allow Samuel to speak, yet this was indeed Samuel, then we must conclude that either the departed spirit of Samuel chose to disobey God and talk through the spirit medium, or Samuel had no choice, and his spirit and soul were at the command of the medium.
But this is by no means the end of our problems. If this indeed was the departed spirit of Samuel speaking from the dead, we must also answer the question of where he was after he died and how to reconcile it with this passage. To those who teach that the soul is immortal, Samuel could only have been in one of two places depending on your particular theology. Either Samuel was in heaven, or Samuel was in the 'paradise compartment' of Hades, or Sheol. Unfortunately for our opponents, neither of these are easily reconciled with the text, although these problems are rarely addressed by those who use this passage to teach the 'immortal soul'.
Option 1:
Samuel was in heaven
According to the text, Samuel was clearly NOT in heaven. Please notice:
There are basically only two explanations for the scene described in 1 Samuel 28: either this really was Samuel speaking as a 'departed spirit' or an 'immortal soul', or it was a familiar spirit, or a demon spirit impersonating Samuel.
First, let us examine the option that this really was the departed spirit of Samuel speaking. This creates numerous problems. Notice from the text that God had refused to answer Saul by prophets, dreams, or by the Urim and Thummim. In other words, God had refused to speak to Saul by every legitimate means by which he could inquire of him. This creates a serious difficulty. Did God, as some assert, allow Samuel to speak to Saul on this one occasion in order to deliver his message? This doesn't seem possible, or even logical. If God had refused to answer Saul by legitimate means, then are we to believe that he agreed to send his message by means of a spirit medium, something which was strictly forbidden?
But what are our other options? If God did not allow Samuel to speak, yet this was indeed Samuel, then we must conclude that either the departed spirit of Samuel chose to disobey God and talk through the spirit medium, or Samuel had no choice, and his spirit and soul were at the command of the medium.
But this is by no means the end of our problems. If this indeed was the departed spirit of Samuel speaking from the dead, we must also answer the question of where he was after he died and how to reconcile it with this passage. To those who teach that the soul is immortal, Samuel could only have been in one of two places depending on your particular theology. Either Samuel was in heaven, or Samuel was in the 'paradise compartment' of Hades, or Sheol. Unfortunately for our opponents, neither of these are easily reconciled with the text, although these problems are rarely addressed by those who use this passage to teach the 'immortal soul'.
Option 1:
Samuel was in heaven
According to the text, Samuel was clearly NOT in heaven. Please notice:
Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel. I saw gods ascending out of the earth. Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up
Option 2:
Samuel was in the 'paradise compartment' of Sheol
We examined in Chapter Six the teaching that Hades or Sheol is divided into two compartments. There was to be a paradise compartment for the righteous also called 'Abraham's Bosom', and the 'hell' compartment for the wicked. We learned how this teaching is built upon disconnected scripture passages taken out of context and how none of them actually teach this theory. If however Samuel was not in heaven, then for those who believe in the immortality of the soul this is their only other choice. But once again there are many difficulties with such a belief.
First is the problem mentioned above of who gave Samuel the permission to leave and speak to Saul. Strangely, in the one passage that almost all who hold the traditional view of the soul use to teach this 'paradise compartment' theory, we are given no indication that anyone is ever given permission to do this very type of work:
Samuel was in the 'paradise compartment' of Sheol
We examined in Chapter Six the teaching that Hades or Sheol is divided into two compartments. There was to be a paradise compartment for the righteous also called 'Abraham's Bosom', and the 'hell' compartment for the wicked. We learned how this teaching is built upon disconnected scripture passages taken out of context and how none of them actually teach this theory. If however Samuel was not in heaven, then for those who believe in the immortality of the soul this is their only other choice. But once again there are many difficulties with such a belief.
First is the problem mentioned above of who gave Samuel the permission to leave and speak to Saul. Strangely, in the one passage that almost all who hold the traditional view of the soul use to teach this 'paradise compartment' theory, we are given no indication that anyone is ever given permission to do this very type of work:
And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Luke 16:26-31
Here the rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus from the 'paradise compartment' to warn his brothers and the request is denied. Again the problem arises; If God would not answer Saul by legitimate means then are we to believe he would answer him by a practice that is strictly forbidden in scripture?
Second, 'Samuel's' words to Saul concerning his fate also create problems for this theory:
Second, 'Samuel's' words to Saul concerning his fate also create problems for this theory:
and to morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me
Did Saul go the 'paradise compartment' too? Most commentators seem to realize that this is a problem and note that Samuel must have meant 'with me in death'. But I have to ask, then why didn't he simply say 'To morrow you and your sons shall die' or 'To morrow you and your sons shall be like me'?
What also strikes me as being very strange is that such a practice today is condemned by almost all Christian groups as demonic without question. For example, let's imagine a young man believes that he needs information from a deceased loved one. He ask God, but he feels God is not answering his prayers. Frustrated, the young man goes to a psychic who vividly describes their dead loved one, and gives him a message from them. The young man, convinced that his dead loved one had indeed spoken to him based on the accuracy of the information given by the 'psychic', goes to his pastor and tells him the story.
What do you think would happen? Immediately the young man would be told that what the psychic saw was not their dead loved one at all but a demon impersonating their dead loved one and that God would never use such a practice to answer their prayer.
While all this is true, I have to ask why then at 1 Samuel 28 do these same people believe that the 'psychic' at Endor actually spoke to Samuel and not a demonic impersonation of him? I believe the answer is obvious. There are so few passages which are used in order to maintain the immortality of the soul that anything is grasped upon in order to prove it, despite the inconstancies it creates.
If those who believe that modern day visions of the deceased are demonic impersonations would apply the same logic to this passage, it would make much more sense.
Satan's work has always been to propagate the very first lie he ever told: 'Ye shall not surely die'. The most deceptive way this can be done is to deceive people into thinking that the dead aren't really dead, and indeed many have been utterly deceived by this. This is why the practice is strictly forbidden.
In the case here, a demon impersonating Samuel appears. The demon gives no information that wasn't already well known. But notice just how great a deception this really is.
The demon impersonating Samuel says:
What also strikes me as being very strange is that such a practice today is condemned by almost all Christian groups as demonic without question. For example, let's imagine a young man believes that he needs information from a deceased loved one. He ask God, but he feels God is not answering his prayers. Frustrated, the young man goes to a psychic who vividly describes their dead loved one, and gives him a message from them. The young man, convinced that his dead loved one had indeed spoken to him based on the accuracy of the information given by the 'psychic', goes to his pastor and tells him the story.
What do you think would happen? Immediately the young man would be told that what the psychic saw was not their dead loved one at all but a demon impersonating their dead loved one and that God would never use such a practice to answer their prayer.
While all this is true, I have to ask why then at 1 Samuel 28 do these same people believe that the 'psychic' at Endor actually spoke to Samuel and not a demonic impersonation of him? I believe the answer is obvious. There are so few passages which are used in order to maintain the immortality of the soul that anything is grasped upon in order to prove it, despite the inconstancies it creates.
If those who believe that modern day visions of the deceased are demonic impersonations would apply the same logic to this passage, it would make much more sense.
Satan's work has always been to propagate the very first lie he ever told: 'Ye shall not surely die'. The most deceptive way this can be done is to deceive people into thinking that the dead aren't really dead, and indeed many have been utterly deceived by this. This is why the practice is strictly forbidden.
In the case here, a demon impersonating Samuel appears. The demon gives no information that wasn't already well known. But notice just how great a deception this really is.
The demon impersonating Samuel says:
'Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up'
The Hebrews knew that death was the end. Until the Jews became Hellenized by the influence of Greek philosophy there wasn't any belief in the immortal soul or spirit. Even the demon here knows this and this is why he pretends that he had been sleeping before the woman brought him up. Saul clearly believed that the woman had the power to rouse Samuel out of his sleep in the grave, and so this is exactly what the demon pretended to do.
When 'Samuel' said 'to morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me' he was also being at least somewhat true to Hebrew doctrine. This was obviously a reference to 'Sheol' which to the Hebrews received the good as well as the bad without the 'compartment' distinction. There was no 'good sheol', and 'bad sheol'; there was just Sheol. The prophecy was that Saul and his sons would be in the same state or condition that Samuel was. The deception was that those who are there weren't REALLY dead, but were still in some way able to communicate with the living.
It's said that the most dangerous type of deception is the one that has some truth mixed in and this is clearly the case here. The Bible is clear concerning the state of the dead. Saul disobeyed God's clear command not to inquire at those who used familiar spirits and was deceived. It's just sad that so many in our day believe the same deception and attempt to use this passage to prove the immortality of the soul.
TOP
When 'Samuel' said 'to morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me' he was also being at least somewhat true to Hebrew doctrine. This was obviously a reference to 'Sheol' which to the Hebrews received the good as well as the bad without the 'compartment' distinction. There was no 'good sheol', and 'bad sheol'; there was just Sheol. The prophecy was that Saul and his sons would be in the same state or condition that Samuel was. The deception was that those who are there weren't REALLY dead, but were still in some way able to communicate with the living.
It's said that the most dangerous type of deception is the one that has some truth mixed in and this is clearly the case here. The Bible is clear concerning the state of the dead. Saul disobeyed God's clear command not to inquire at those who used familiar spirits and was deceived. It's just sad that so many in our day believe the same deception and attempt to use this passage to prove the immortality of the soul.
TOP
APPENDIX B
A Spirit Hath Not Flesh and Bones...
Did the Disciples of Jesus Believe in Ghosts?
A Spirit Hath Not Flesh and Bones...
Did the Disciples of Jesus Believe in Ghosts?
DID Jesus disciples believe in "ghosts"? By this we mean: did they believe that the departed immortal spirits of the dead could walk among us? Some authors, attempting to maintain the doctrine of the soul's immortality seem to believe just that. Consider the following quote from Robert Morey:
It is obvious that the Jews during the first century as well as during the Old Testament age believed in the survival of man's mind or soul after the death of the body because they clearly believed in 'ghosts' (Luke 24:37). p.62 Death and the Afterlife
Statements such as this appear to be valid when taken at face value, but when we take a close look at the scriptural evidence, a much different picture emerges. Let's first consider the passage from Luke cited above:
And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit (Gk. Pneuma). And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. Luke 24:36-40
First of all, we must notice that this passage simply does not say what some such as Morey would like it to; namely that the disciples believed they were beholding the departed spirit of a dead man. We have seen time and again how words such as 'soul' and 'spirit' conjure up mental images which may or may not be true to scriptural teaching. It should be apparent that Robert Morey is assuming that the disciples believed they were beholding the departed conscious spirit of a dead man simply because of how he views the word 'spirit' in this text. But of course, such reasoning proves absolutely nothing.
However, I think we need to ask: If the disciples believed that they were beholding the 'ghost' of Jesus, why then were they so terrified? Furthermore, the very same people who attempt to use this passage to teach the immortality of the soul also teach that the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus was Jesus' most complete description on the state of the dead. This creates a serious difficulty. If the disciples had understood the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus to be a literal and emphatic teaching on the state of departed spirits, then surely they must have also understood that the appearing of such a spirit in the midst of them was impossible!
There is no difficulty in this passage once we stop reading in assumptions and ideas which simply are not in the text. As we have seen many times, men are NEVER called 'spirits' in the Bible. On the contrary, there is always a clear line drawn between the fleshly nature and the spirit nature. Men are converted to a spirit nature only in the resurrection, when the union of the flesh and the spirit is consummated. But even then they are MEN of a spirit nature, not spirits. "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." 1 Cor 15:44. But there is still a body, although changed.
In light of this, the text before us makes complete sense:
However, I think we need to ask: If the disciples believed that they were beholding the 'ghost' of Jesus, why then were they so terrified? Furthermore, the very same people who attempt to use this passage to teach the immortality of the soul also teach that the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus was Jesus' most complete description on the state of the dead. This creates a serious difficulty. If the disciples had understood the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus to be a literal and emphatic teaching on the state of departed spirits, then surely they must have also understood that the appearing of such a spirit in the midst of them was impossible!
There is no difficulty in this passage once we stop reading in assumptions and ideas which simply are not in the text. As we have seen many times, men are NEVER called 'spirits' in the Bible. On the contrary, there is always a clear line drawn between the fleshly nature and the spirit nature. Men are converted to a spirit nature only in the resurrection, when the union of the flesh and the spirit is consummated. But even then they are MEN of a spirit nature, not spirits. "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." 1 Cor 15:44. But there is still a body, although changed.
In light of this, the text before us makes complete sense:
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
The disciples certainly did not believe they were beholding the departed 'ghost' of a dead man. Some may have a difficult time grasping this because it is difficult for many to understand that men are never referred to as 'spirits' in scripture when we have been taught this error for so long. Man has a spirit, meaning his mind, will, seat of emotion etc; the area of his thinking which is able to discern right and wrong and communicate with God, but this is a far cry from teaching that man has a 'ghost' which dwells inside his flesh.
Every time 'spirit' is used of a conscious being, it is always a reference to either God ('God is a spirit' John 4:24), angels ('are they not all ministering spirits?' Heb 1:14), Demons ('and when the unclean spirit had torn him' Mark 1:26), or the nature of man AFTER the resurrection. There is simply no scriptural allowance made for for a 'pneuma' existing as a conscious 'ghost' between death and the resurrection.
Furthermore, if we compare this passage from Luke with another passage, we can see clearly that the disciples did not believe they were beholding the departed spirit of a dead man.
Every time 'spirit' is used of a conscious being, it is always a reference to either God ('God is a spirit' John 4:24), angels ('are they not all ministering spirits?' Heb 1:14), Demons ('and when the unclean spirit had torn him' Mark 1:26), or the nature of man AFTER the resurrection. There is simply no scriptural allowance made for for a 'pneuma' existing as a conscious 'ghost' between death and the resurrection.
Furthermore, if we compare this passage from Luke with another passage, we can see clearly that the disciples did not believe they were beholding the departed spirit of a dead man.
And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit (Gk. Fantasma); and they cried out for fear. But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid. Matt 14:25-27
The language here is almost parallel to that of Luke. In both cases the disciples believed they were beholding something other than Jesus. However in this case, the Greek word that has been rendered 'spirit' into English is fantasma, from which we get our English word 'phantom'.
If it is difficult for the reader to grasp that men are never called 'spirits' in the Bible, then certainly we should at least be able to see that men are never referred to as 'phantoms' whether dead or alive. The Bible never speaks of a dead man turning into a 'fantasma'. Therefore, in both cases, the disciples obviously felt they were seeing an apparition of a spirit being, not the departed ghost of a dead man.
Scripturally then, we have only three choices: They thought they were beholding God, they thought they were seeing an angel, or they felt they were seeing a demonic, or spirit manifestation.
Logically, the third option is the only one that makes sense and harmonizes ALL the scriptural evidence. When Jesus died, the disciples knew he was really dead; that he could not appear to them. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that they would be terrified when something they felt was a 'spirit' appeared in their midst. They knew it couldn't be Jesus, so they felt they were beholding a demonic or spirit manifestation.
We also have external evidence to show that this is exactly what they believed. Ignatius who died around 100 AD writes to those in Smyrna:
If it is difficult for the reader to grasp that men are never called 'spirits' in the Bible, then certainly we should at least be able to see that men are never referred to as 'phantoms' whether dead or alive. The Bible never speaks of a dead man turning into a 'fantasma'. Therefore, in both cases, the disciples obviously felt they were seeing an apparition of a spirit being, not the departed ghost of a dead man.
Scripturally then, we have only three choices: They thought they were beholding God, they thought they were seeing an angel, or they felt they were seeing a demonic, or spirit manifestation.
Logically, the third option is the only one that makes sense and harmonizes ALL the scriptural evidence. When Jesus died, the disciples knew he was really dead; that he could not appear to them. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that they would be terrified when something they felt was a 'spirit' appeared in their midst. They knew it couldn't be Jesus, so they felt they were beholding a demonic or spirit manifestation.
We also have external evidence to show that this is exactly what they believed. Ignatius who died around 100 AD writes to those in Smyrna:
For I know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the resurrection; and when he came to Peter and those with him, he said to them: " Take hold of me; handle me and see that I am not a disembodied demon"
This proves that there was a very early understanding that this was the true interpretation of the text. Therefore, all lines of evidence, internal, external, as well as logical point to the simple fact that the scriptures in no way teach that the disciples of Jesus believed in ghosts; at least not in the sense of them being the conscious departed spirits of men.
TOP
TOP
APPENDIX C
The God of the Living
The God of the Living
Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.
Luke 20:37-38
And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.
Mark 12:26-27
But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
Matt 22:31-32
IT is argued from the above passages that somehow the dead are not really dead, but maintain conscious existence between death and the resurrection. It is important as we consider these passages that we confine ourselves to what the scriptures say and do not say. But more importantly that we consider everything these passages say and not only those parts of them which seem to bolster our position.
This is important because many times when I hear these passages quoted as proof of the immortality of the soul, they appear as follows:
This is important because many times when I hear these passages quoted as proof of the immortality of the soul, they appear as follows:
Have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err. Mark 12:26-27
...Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him. Luke 20:37-38
Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Matt 22:31-32
If you ever hear someone quoting these passages to you in this way you should immediately be suspicious. The problem is that they are all quotations out of context which omit the very plain reference to the resurrection given in each one.
The task we have before us is to determine precisely what Jesus meant when he said that the faithful patriarchs and indeed all live unto God. We cannot simply apply our own arbitrary theories and beliefs about life after death to these passages and believe we have proved something. Those who believe that man is in some way immortal in spite of death resort to this tactic over and over again.
In attempting to determine the correct meaning of this passage, the first question we will ask is to whom it was addressed, and why?
The task we have before us is to determine precisely what Jesus meant when he said that the faithful patriarchs and indeed all live unto God. We cannot simply apply our own arbitrary theories and beliefs about life after death to these passages and believe we have proved something. Those who believe that man is in some way immortal in spite of death resort to this tactic over and over again.
In attempting to determine the correct meaning of this passage, the first question we will ask is to whom it was addressed, and why?
The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him... Matt 22:33
Let us never draw any conclusions from this passage without considering the question it was advanced to answer, and the audience to whom these words were spoken. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, or life after death at all. They believed that death was the end. They proposed a question in order to try and trick Jesus and thus prove that there was indeed no resurrection.
Jesus' answer therefore was given in order to establish the fact and the necessity of the resurrection. Those who use these passages in order to try and establish that man has continued conscious existence after death destroy the very force of Jesus' answer. If Jesus really meant that the dead are still alive, then in what way does this establish the fact or necessity of the resurrection at all? Why would the living need a resurrection anyway?
This is a serious problem for the traditional position of man's inherent immortality. You cannot maintain that the dead are really more alive than ever in some way without destroying or downplaying the Biblical doctrine of the resurrection.
William Tyndale who first translated the Bible into English wrote:
Jesus' answer therefore was given in order to establish the fact and the necessity of the resurrection. Those who use these passages in order to try and establish that man has continued conscious existence after death destroy the very force of Jesus' answer. If Jesus really meant that the dead are still alive, then in what way does this establish the fact or necessity of the resurrection at all? Why would the living need a resurrection anyway?
This is a serious problem for the traditional position of man's inherent immortality. You cannot maintain that the dead are really more alive than ever in some way without destroying or downplaying the Biblical doctrine of the resurrection.
William Tyndale who first translated the Bible into English wrote:
"And ye, in putting them (the dead) in heaven, hell and purgatory, destroy the arguments wherewith Christ and Paul prove the resurrection....if the souls be in heaven, tell me why they be not in as good a case as the angels be? And then what cause is there of a resurrection.... The true faith puteth forth the resurrection, which we be warned to look for every hour. The heathen philosophers, denying that, did put that the souls did ever live. And the pope joineth the spiritual doctrine of Christ and the fleshy doctrine of philosophers together: things so contrary that they cannot agree....And because the fleshy-minded pope consenteth unto heathen doctrine, therefore he corrupteth the Scripture to establish it."
William Tyndale was able to see what most in our day cannot. A resurrection of those who are still alive is no resurrection at all but an empty show.
Let us consider what the Apostle Paul had to say concerning the necessity of the resurrection:
Let us consider what the Apostle Paul had to say concerning the necessity of the resurrection:
But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 1 Cor 15:13-18
To Paul, if there was no resurrection, then those which had died in Christ were perished. That is, they were gone forever never to return. We are given no hint that these have any hope beyond this life whatsoever, save the resurrection of the dead. The apostle goes on to convey this very thought.
If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable 1 Cor 15:19
If there is no resurrection, then we have no hope at all for any future life beyond the one we already have.
MAKING A MOCKERY OF GOD?
The Greeks had very clear conceptions of life after death. They unquestionably believed in the immortality of the soul. It is interesting to note the reaction of those who heard Paul preach on Mars Hill:
And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. Acts 17:32
To the Greeks, the idea of a resurrection was ridiculous. They reasoned that the body was only a shell that housed the real individual, the 'I am'. They believed the soul was immortal and therefore there was no need for such a resurrection.
Unwittingly, many in our day make a mockery of God and the resurrection the same way as those on Mars Hill. By reasoning that the soul is immortal, and that the souls of the dead are already in heaven or hell they make a mockery of the resurrection which is simply unnecessary in such a context.
While most evangelical or fundamental denominations today would deny this, their literature, preaching, and style of evangelism betrays them. The emphasis is almost always laid upon where one will go immediately upon death, and never upon the resurrection.
At funerals we hear that the real person has simply moved out of their earthly shell and gone on to heaven usually with no mention of the resurrection whatsoever. A familiar question asked by fundamentalist 'soul-winners' is 'If you die today are you 100% sure you'd go to heaven?' That which the Bible calls 'the first resurrection' has been dubbed 'the rapture' with the emphasis laid upon the living being caught up to God, rather than the raising of the dead at that same time.
The hard facts are that our traditional conceptions concerning the immortality of the soul have destroyed the Biblical doctrine of the resurrection. While Jesus and Paul seem intent on establishing the fact of the resurrection out of absolute necessity, our teachers today seem just as intent on burying it and downplaying its role in God's plan for mankind.
Returning to our passages above, the entire force of Jesus' and Paul's argument is to establish the fact of a resurrection by its absolute necessity. Paul reasons that if the dead are not raised, then we have no hope whatsoever for a future life, therefore the dead must be raised. We know of a surety the dead will be raised because Christ himself has been raised.
The reasoning of Jesus is exactly the same. If God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, yet not the God of the dead, but of the living, then he must purpose to give life back to these in the resurrection as all these passages clearly state:
Unwittingly, many in our day make a mockery of God and the resurrection the same way as those on Mars Hill. By reasoning that the soul is immortal, and that the souls of the dead are already in heaven or hell they make a mockery of the resurrection which is simply unnecessary in such a context.
While most evangelical or fundamental denominations today would deny this, their literature, preaching, and style of evangelism betrays them. The emphasis is almost always laid upon where one will go immediately upon death, and never upon the resurrection.
At funerals we hear that the real person has simply moved out of their earthly shell and gone on to heaven usually with no mention of the resurrection whatsoever. A familiar question asked by fundamentalist 'soul-winners' is 'If you die today are you 100% sure you'd go to heaven?' That which the Bible calls 'the first resurrection' has been dubbed 'the rapture' with the emphasis laid upon the living being caught up to God, rather than the raising of the dead at that same time.
The hard facts are that our traditional conceptions concerning the immortality of the soul have destroyed the Biblical doctrine of the resurrection. While Jesus and Paul seem intent on establishing the fact of the resurrection out of absolute necessity, our teachers today seem just as intent on burying it and downplaying its role in God's plan for mankind.
Returning to our passages above, the entire force of Jesus' and Paul's argument is to establish the fact of a resurrection by its absolute necessity. Paul reasons that if the dead are not raised, then we have no hope whatsoever for a future life, therefore the dead must be raised. We know of a surety the dead will be raised because Christ himself has been raised.
The reasoning of Jesus is exactly the same. If God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, yet not the God of the dead, but of the living, then he must purpose to give life back to these in the resurrection as all these passages clearly state:
And as touching the dead, that they rise... Mark 12:26
Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush... Luke 20:37
But as touching the resurrection of the dead... Matt 22:31
The entire point was to prove the necessity of the resurrection, not to teach doctrine on the state of the dead before the resurrection.
Luke 20:38 states:
Luke 20:38 states:
For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him
In what way do all live unto God? In the way that Jesus had just explained. Because God purposes to give life back to all in the resurrection not because the dead are currently more alive than ever in either heaven or hell.
Some advocates of the traditional theory of the soul's immortality will still insist that for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to still be 'living' to God, they must have conscious existence in some way presently. But is this what the Bible says, or is this simply what they assume must be true? We will let the apostle Paul answer:
Some advocates of the traditional theory of the soul's immortality will still insist that for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to still be 'living' to God, they must have conscious existence in some way presently. But is this what the Bible says, or is this simply what they assume must be true? We will let the apostle Paul answer:
...your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. Col 3:3-4
As the scriptures clearly state, the reason why all can be said to live unto God is because their life is hidden with Christ in God. Christ IS our life, not an immortal soul. The scripture also brings out once again exactly when we will all be with Christ - when he appears, and thus at the resurrection, not immediately at death.
The scriptures are consistent and unambiguous that the only hope for the dead is the resurrection. Why does it seem that as though our modern theology is bent on removing this great truth from the position it rightfully holds?
The scriptures are consistent and unambiguous that the only hope for the dead is the resurrection. Why does it seem that as though our modern theology is bent on removing this great truth from the position it rightfully holds?
