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 |
CHAPTER FOURIS THE HUMAN SOUL IMMORTAL?
THE KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS; WHO ONLY HATH IMMORTALITY I Timothy 6:15 
HE teaching that man has an immortal soul seems to be so widespread, and so accepted that to attempt to challenge such a belief seems futile to many. How many of us are taught from a very young age that we have an 'immortal soul' within us that can not die? Where does this teaching come from? We have seen that in both the Old and New Testaments that 'soul', once properly understood is never used as a separate entity within man that departs at death. Hundreds of passages can be cited showing that 'soul' is used of a whole man, a life, or a sentient being. In contrast to this, six scriptures are usually cited to prove that the soul can and does depart at death; these are: 1Thes 5:23, Gen 35:18, 1King 17:21, Matt 10:28, Rev 6:9, and Rev 20:4. These are not the only scriptures used to 'prove' the immortality of the soul, but these six use the word 'soul' specifically, where others use 'spirit', and still others are believed to imply that something departs at death although the verse does not specifically say what that something may be. All of these verses will be considered within the course of our study.
The teaching that man is mortal and must rely on his creator for a resurrection is referred to by its opponents as 'conditional immortality'. This is in contrast to the teaching that man, or at least part of the man, is immortal by nature. With this in mind, let's consider the following verse: Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul (heb. Nephesh) of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul (Heb Nephesh) that sinneth, it shall die. Ezek 18:4 Note very carefully that there is nothing in this text that warrants giving the word 'soul' an alternate meaning from the way it is used elsewhere in the Hebrew text. The passage, being neither symbolic nor allegorical, makes a direct statement that the soul dies. From this, any reasonable person should be able to conclude that if the soul can in fact die, then surely it can not be immortal.
|
Death of Abel
But someone is sure to say, 'Well, he wasn't speaking of the invisible, immortal soul here, but just that the person died.' But that is the whole point. When you use 'soul' to mean an invisible, immortal, part of a man, you use the word in a way the Bible never does. No matter how you choose to interpret the verse, no one can reasonably suggest that the 'soul' in this passage is immortal, because the soul that sins dies.
To me it seems very puzzling that anyone could teach that the soul is immortal when the Bible is very clear that no one is immortal except God himself. You will search the Bible in vain for the phrase 'immortal soul', and as we will show, it is only by reading a preconceived idea back into the text that such a teaching can be manufactured.
To me it seems very puzzling that anyone could teach that the soul is immortal when the Bible is very clear that no one is immortal except God himself. You will search the Bible in vain for the phrase 'immortal soul', and as we will show, it is only by reading a preconceived idea back into the text that such a teaching can be manufactured.
CONTINUED CONSCIOUS EXISTENCE
BEYOND DEATH
BEYOND DEATH
The teaching of the immortal soul declares that every man has a conscious continuous existence after the death of the body. Most Christians assume that this is clearly taught in the Bible, but careful study shows exactly the opposite. The passages which teach that no part of man is immortal, and that death is unconscious nonexistence are clear and plentiful. On the other hand, the teaching of the immortal soul relies on a few proof-texts which are never explicit in teaching this doctrine. Let's examine some of the clear statements of scripture regarding the state of the dead.
For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Eccl 9:5
If some conscious part of a man survives the death of the body, then how is it that according to the Bible, the dead know nothing? This verse is in harmony with what we have learned so far; that man as a living soul ceases to exist at death. Faced with such a clear teaching as to the state of the dead, it is no surprise that commentators will go to great lengths to show that the verse does not really mean what it so clearly states.
An example of this can be found once again in the Dake's Annotated Reference Bible. Commenting on Ecclesiastes 9:5 Dake says:
An example of this can be found once again in the Dake's Annotated Reference Bible. Commenting on Ecclesiastes 9:5 Dake says:
'This is true so far as the body is concerned. They do not know anything, and they are not conscious in the least, for they came from dust, and return to dust; but the souls and spirits of all men are immortal and continue in a full state of consciousness between death and the resurrection of their bodies...' pg. 673, col. 4
There is nothing in the text that even remotely allows for such a conclusion. Presented with a plain statement that the dead 'know not anything', Dake makes a liar out of God and insists that part of the man doesn't know anything, but part of him (the real man in their view) still does.
The respected creationist author Henry M. Morris, in his Defender's Study Bible has this to say concerning Ecclesiastes 9:5:
The respected creationist author Henry M. Morris, in his Defender's Study Bible has this to say concerning Ecclesiastes 9:5:
'This does not mean that there is no future life or consciousness after death, but only that nothing more can be done to earn heavenly rewards...' pg. 708
We have to ask; What is it in Ecclesiastes 9:5 that causes men such as Dake and Morris to state the exact opposite of what the text says? Clearly this text will not square easily with the teaching that men are conscious after death. Passages such as this are often ignored by proponents of the immortal soul theory but why?
We can observe the same pattern when considering Psalms 6:5
We can observe the same pattern when considering Psalms 6:5
For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks? Ps 6:5
If in death there is no remembrance of God, then how can someone be in conscious existence with God? Dake however, once again insists that a person can:
'Death claims only the body, not the soul and spirit which are immortal. It is true that dead bodies do not remember God, but the soul and spirit are not dust and continue in consciousness after death to the body.' ibid. pg. 550 col. 4
In direct contradiction to God's statement to Adam that 'Dust thou art', Dake insists that only the body is meant, and man goes on living. The fallacy of his comments on Psalm 6:5 should be obvious, for if only the body is meant, then the verse is unnecessary, and entirely without meaning. It is obvious that dead bodies do not give God thanks. The thought of the verse is than in death, men cannot, and do not remember God or give him thanks.
Peter Ruckman's comments here are also interesting:
Peter Ruckman's comments here are also interesting:
''There is no remembrance of thee' is an ideal Jehovah's Witness 'annihilation' text to match Ecclesiastes 9:5. Notice how the English of the 1611 (King James text) corrects this heresy without resorting to Greek or Hebrew. Study carefully Judges 8:34 and Hosea 8:4 with Matthew 7:23 and Galatians 4:9. Observe that although God knows everything and everybody and forgets nothing, He does not 'KNOW' things with favor or approval and does not 'REMEMBER' things ACTIVELY, at times. David is saying that no one in the grave can 'remember' God in the exact sense of the words that follow: 'who shall give thee thanks?' Bible Believers Commentary on Psalms vol. 1, pg. 31
Notice first that Peter Ruckman admits that the text matches Ecclesiastes 9:5 mentioned above and dubs it 'an ideal annihilation text'. By this he means that it obviously teaches the non-existence of the soul at death. He then proceeds to tell us, as Dake above, that the verse does not mean what it says. Rather than resort to the simplistic solution of Dake (that only the body is referred to), Ruckman goes on to erect an elaborate teaching where, 'remembrance' and 'approval' don't really mean 'remembrance' and 'approval' in an active sense. There is no need for this type of straining of the English text unless you are attempting to make it conform to a teaching you already assume to be true. Peter Ruckman by admitting that the plain sense of the verse teaches annihilation of the soul, shows us that he is doing just that.
While I live will I praise the LORD: I will sing praises unto my God while I have any being. Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. Ps 146:2-4
This verse is in perfect harmony with everything we have learned thus far. The soul (the entire being) dies, the body returns to the earth and his 'thoughts perish'. Nothing is said of the soul surviving the death of the body. Once again Dake struggles to force the verse into his system of theology:
'As far as the body is concerned, the thoughts do perish. When it dies and goes back to dust its very thoughts perish i.e. it can not think anymore. The soul and spirit leave the body at death, so it is impossible for the inner man to continue thinking through the dead body of which it is no longer a part. This has nothing to do however with the continued thinking of the inner man and it can not be used to prove that the soul and spirit are mortal. That they are immortal is proved on pg. 270.' Dake's Annotated Reference Bible pg. 616, col 4
The honest reader must ask his or herself; Is there anything in Ps 146:2-4 and the phrase 'his thoughts perish', that warrants such a conclusion? If there is an 'inner man' that continues to think at the death of the body, then clearly his thought do not perish, and the verse is meaningless. Dake's insistence that the soul and spirit are immortal is puzzling because, as we will see, the Bible never uses the words immortal, and immortality of anyone or anything except God himself, and a future state for believers which we do not now possess. It appears at this point that Dake feels the need to offer proof that the Bible elsewhere teaches something contrary to what it appears to be saying in Psalm 146. He points us toward a list of 25 'proof-texts' for the immortality of the soul. It will be shown in a future section that each one of these supposed proof-texts will in no way teach that part of a man survives the death of the body. In fact, it will be shown that each of these is in perfect harmony with the truths thus far presented.
The Old Testament is relentless in failing to bend to the notion of an immortal soul:
The Old Testament is relentless in failing to bend to the notion of an immortal soul:
What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit? Shall the dust praise thee? shall it declare thy truth? Ps 30:9
Let me not be ashamed, O LORD; for I have called upon thee: let the wicked be ashamed, and let them be silent in the grave. Ps 31:17
Shall thy lovingkindness be declared in the grave? or thy faithfulness in destruction? Ps 88:11
The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence. Ps 115:17
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. Eccl 9:10
For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth. The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day: the father to the children shall make known thy truth. Isa 38:18-19
Some will argue that these passages, being all from the Old Testament, have been superseded by the teachings of the New Testament, and that the New Testament gives a clearer and more complete revelation concerning the immortality of the soul and the state of the dead. Our first question to this must be; Can a clearer revelation ever be a contradiction? It is one thing to clarify a teaching and another to flatly contradict it. The common way around this problem seems to be the simplistic solution offered by Finis Jennings Dake. You simply take all passages which will not agree with your view and make them apply to the body only.
In reality, there is no New Testament passage which would even begin o contradict the Old Testament passage concerning the state of the dead. They would only seem to cause difficulty when read in such a way as to assume an immortal soul There are however some New Testament passages which clearly teach that the dead remain unconscious in their graves until the resurrection. One of these can be found in the story of the raising of Lazarus:
In reality, there is no New Testament passage which would even begin o contradict the Old Testament passage concerning the state of the dead. They would only seem to cause difficulty when read in such a way as to assume an immortal soul There are however some New Testament passages which clearly teach that the dead remain unconscious in their graves until the resurrection. One of these can be found in the story of the raising of Lazarus:
These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, 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 of rest in sleep. Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead. John 11:11-14
Here Jesus uses sleep as a metaphor for death. This figure of speech is used many times in the Bible. Death is compared to sleep for obvious reasons. When a person dies the person being unconscious appears to be sleeping. Also, when a person is in a very deep sleep, he is not conscious of the world around him at all. In this respect sleep is a perfect illustration of death. It is very important to note that Jesus equates the person of Lazarus with the body which is in the tomb. He tells them plainly 'Lazarus is dead', because obviously the metaphor 'sleep' wasn't plain enough. However, to those such as Dake, this still isn't plain enough. Those who believe in an immortal soul do not believe that Lazarus was really dead, but that only his body had died. Why does Jesus never use such terminology?
Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee. Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. John 11:21-24
Continuing from the above passage of scripture, Martha, the sister of Lazarus expresses the grief of her brother's death to Jesus along with her faith in believing that if Jesus had been there, he could have prevented Lazarus from dying. Jesus' reply to Martha is very interesting; 'Thy brother shall rise again'. We have to ask; Was Jesus merely referring to the body of Lazarus? If Lazarus had a soul that went to be with God, or to a subterranean paradise, then why is there no mention of it here? Why wouldn't Jesus comfort Martha with the fact that her brother was in a better place if that was truly the case?
Martha's reply 'I know he will rise in the resurrection at the last day' is also interesting. Was Martha also only referring to the body of Lazarus? No, Martha knew that her brother was really dead, and that he would sleep in the grave until the resurrection 'at the last day'. Notice the absolute lack of modern thought and terminology. At our modern Christian funerals we never say that the person is really dead, only that they have set aside their body and moved on.
Martha's reply 'I know he will rise in the resurrection at the last day' is also interesting. Was Martha also only referring to the body of Lazarus? No, Martha knew that her brother was really dead, and that he would sleep in the grave until the resurrection 'at the last day'. Notice the absolute lack of modern thought and terminology. At our modern Christian funerals we never say that the person is really dead, only that they have set aside their body and moved on.
Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? John 11:25-26
The first thing to note here is that Jesus in no way rebuked Martha for her comment that her brother would rise in the resurrection 'at the last day'. Jesus states the he IS the resurrection, that without him there could be no resurrection at all for mankind, and no hope for life beyond the grave. Some take these statements of Jesus to mean that the death Jesus was referring to could not be physical death because obviously believers in Jesus die every day. The problem with this interpretation is that it introduces two meanings of the word 'death' into the context. We have already seen in John 11:11-14 Jesus compared the death of Lazarus to sleep, and no one argues that he meant by this that Lazarus had died physically. There is no reason to suppose that Jesus introduced a different meaning for the word death in John 11:25-26.
The alleged problem here is solved when we consider the context, and that Jesus' reply was in answer to Martha's statement about the resurrection 'at the last day'. In the resurrection those that are dead are raised ('though he were dead, yet shall he live'), and those that are alive at that time get resurrection bodies without ever dying ('and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die') Notice how beautifully the scriptures are in harmony with this:
The alleged problem here is solved when we consider the context, and that Jesus' reply was in answer to Martha's statement about the resurrection 'at the last day'. In the resurrection those that are dead are raised ('though he were dead, yet shall he live'), and those that are alive at that time get resurrection bodies without ever dying ('and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die') Notice how beautifully the scriptures are in harmony with this:
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 1Thes 4:16-17
Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 1Cor 15:51-52
A comparison of these verses shows how well the word of God points to the resurrection as the hope for the dead:
'Though he were dead, yet shall he live'
'the dead in Christ shall rise first'
'for the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall be raised incorruptible'
'And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.'
'Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds'
'and we shall be changed'
Continuing the story of Jesus and Lazarus:
Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw him, she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled, And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see. Jesus wept. John 11:32-35
If, as so many teach, Lazarus had an immortal soul which went to be with God, or some paradise, then why was Jesus so upset here? Jesus wept because he knew that death, as mankind's greatest enemy, had claimed another soul. Indeed, he knew his whole purpose for coming to earth was to buy back the life that Adam had lost and free men from the power of death and secure the hope of the resurrection from the dead. As a man, the truth of this hit home because death had claimed the life of one of his good friends.
Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days. Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God? Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me. And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. John 11:39-44
Again, we are given no indication that Lazarus is anywhere but in the grave. Jesus calls to the body 'Lazarus, come forth', not 'return', 'come up' or 'come down'. After Lazarus is raised from the dead we are told nothing about any 'afterlife' experience that Lazarus had. At Jesus' command, God returned life to Lazarus and restored his body which after four days in the tomb had already begun to decay. At no time in the entire passage did Jesus ever imply that Lazarus was anywhere but in the tomb, and never gave any comfort or hope for Lazarus except the resurrection. This story is clearly at variance with the popular notions concerning the soul and the state of the dead.
The following two passages from the Book of Acts are also very interesting:
The following two passages from the Book of Acts are also very interesting:
Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection. Acts 17:18
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
These two verses from the book of Acts deal with the Apostle Paul's confrontation with the Greek philosophers on Mar's Hill. They are of importance to our discussion because they deal with death, the resurrection, and the way the pagan Greeks viewed these topics.
It must be understood that the Greek philosophers had very strong beliefs about life after death. It was Greek philosophy which taught that man had a soul which survived the death of the body and went on to a higher plane or was re-incarnated into another being.
This was in contrast to the Jewish hope of a resurrection from the dead.
Writing for the Christian Resource Institute, Jirair S. Tashjian elaborates on this:
It must be understood that the Greek philosophers had very strong beliefs about life after death. It was Greek philosophy which taught that man had a soul which survived the death of the body and went on to a higher plane or was re-incarnated into another being.
This was in contrast to the Jewish hope of a resurrection from the dead.
Writing for the Christian Resource Institute, Jirair S. Tashjian elaborates on this:
'In contrast to Jewish and Christian ideas of resurrection, Greek philosophers from the time of Plato thought in terms of immortality of the soul. Human beings were made up of two parts, body and soul. The body died and decayed but the soul lived on forever. When Corinthian Christians said, 'There is no resurrection' (1 Cor 15:12), they meant that the body of Jesus turned to dust but his soul remained immortal'.
This explains to us why when the Stoics and Epicureans heard of the resurrection, 'some mocked', for they saw no need for a resurrection. The pagan Greeks believed in the immortality of the soul. If Paul's preaching also included this belief, then why did they mock him?
Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 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. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 1 Cor 15:12-20
First Corinthians 15 is generally spoken of as the 'resurrection chapter' because of its detailed discussion on this topic. The passage above will prove to be very valuable in understanding death, the state of the dead, and their hope for a future resurrection.
Paul shows the importance of Christ's resurrection and proceeds to show that if Christ is not raised, seven things are also true:
1) 'our preaching is vain'
2) 'your preaching is vain'
3) 'your faith is also vain'
4) 'we are false witnesses'
5) 'ye are in your sins'
6) 'they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished'
7) 'we are of all men most miserable'
Such importance is attached to the resurrection because Paul knew that if Christ was not raised, then Christ had ceased to exist. Christ had preached that he was the resurrection, and if Christ was not raised, then they were entirely without hope. If Jesus had an immortal soul which survived his death, then why the importance placed on resurrection of the body? If there was no resurrection , the Christian faith was in vain.
The phrase 'they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished' proves this to be so.
The Greek word rendered 'perished' is apollumi (ap-ol'-loo-mee). The word is very strong and means 'to destroy fully and completely'. Thayers dictionary of Greek New Testament Words gives the following definitions for apollumi:
Paul shows the importance of Christ's resurrection and proceeds to show that if Christ is not raised, seven things are also true:
1) 'our preaching is vain'
2) 'your preaching is vain'
3) 'your faith is also vain'
4) 'we are false witnesses'
5) 'ye are in your sins'
6) 'they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished'
7) 'we are of all men most miserable'
Such importance is attached to the resurrection because Paul knew that if Christ was not raised, then Christ had ceased to exist. Christ had preached that he was the resurrection, and if Christ was not raised, then they were entirely without hope. If Jesus had an immortal soul which survived his death, then why the importance placed on resurrection of the body? If there was no resurrection , the Christian faith was in vain.
The phrase 'they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished' proves this to be so.
The Greek word rendered 'perished' is apollumi (ap-ol'-loo-mee). The word is very strong and means 'to destroy fully and completely'. Thayers dictionary of Greek New Testament Words gives the following definitions for apollumi:
1) to destroy
a) to put out of the way entirely, to abolish, to put an end to ruin
b) to render useless
c) to kill
a) to put out of the way entirely, to abolish, to put an end to ruin
b) to render useless
c) to kill
What Paul is saying is, if there is no resurrection, then those which are fallen asleep in Christ are gone totally with no hope for a future life. To teach that Paul believed that man has an immortal soul which survives the death of the body would render the verse meaningless.
To Paul, the resurrection was the cornerstone of the Christian faith, and the only hope for life beyond the grave. How different this is from the teaching of most churches today. If the immortal souls of humans go either to heaven or hell immediately at death, then the resurrection is nothing more than an incidental. Nothing makes this more obvious than a look at current Christian literature
What could be clearer; the dead wait for the resurrection. In answer to our original question 'Where are the dead?' we have seen that the dead are neither in heaven, nor are they in hell. The dead sleep in their graves until the resurrection day. This is the harmonious teaching of both the old and new testaments. Man, created a living soul, is a mortal being which dies because of the sin inherited from our original parents Adam and Eve. Upon death our bodies return to dust, our thoughts perish, and we wait until the promised resurrection, which we are assured of because '... now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.' 1 Cor 15:20
To Paul, the resurrection was the cornerstone of the Christian faith, and the only hope for life beyond the grave. How different this is from the teaching of most churches today. If the immortal souls of humans go either to heaven or hell immediately at death, then the resurrection is nothing more than an incidental. Nothing makes this more obvious than a look at current Christian literature
What could be clearer; the dead wait for the resurrection. In answer to our original question 'Where are the dead?' we have seen that the dead are neither in heaven, nor are they in hell. The dead sleep in their graves until the resurrection day. This is the harmonious teaching of both the old and new testaments. Man, created a living soul, is a mortal being which dies because of the sin inherited from our original parents Adam and Eve. Upon death our bodies return to dust, our thoughts perish, and we wait until the promised resurrection, which we are assured of because '... now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.' 1 Cor 15:20
JUST WHO IS IMMORTAL?
The word immortal occurs only once in King James version of the Bible:
Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. 1Tim 1:17
The Greek word here rendered 'immortal' is aphthartos (af'-thar-tos); and denotes undecaying in essence or significance. The same Greek word is rendered differently in English in the following verses:
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible ( gr. aphthartos) God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Rom 1:23
In this verse the word is rendered 'uncorruptible' and again refers only to God in contrast to man and animals which are corruptible.
And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible (gr. aphthartos) 1Cor 9:25
Here the word is used of the reward that God will give to faithful Christians. Paul contrasts the rewards which God gives with earthly rewards.
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible (gr. aphthartos) and we shall be changed. 1Cor 15:52
This verse concerning the resurrection is very significant. Here Paul shows us very clearly that incorruption, or immortality is something we do not by nature posses, but must be given at the resurrection. If, as is commonly taught, the human soul is undying and immortal, it would have no need to put on incorruption as stated in this verse.
To an inheritance incorruptible (gr. arphthartos), and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 1Pet 1:4
Again, referring to a Christians reward which is not subject to decay.
Immortality
The word 'immortality' gives similar results:
The word 'immortality' gives similar results:
To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: Rom 2:7
Why would anyone have to seek immortality if it's something they already possess by nature? 'But' someone will say, 'Paul isn't talking here about the immortal soul, but eternal life in heaven as opposed to the soul being tormented in hell.' But again, that is the whole point! When you use 'immortal' to refer to a part of man that doesn't die, you're using the term in a way the Bible never does. The complete, unified testimony of scripture proclaims it to be so. Over and over again we are told man is not immortal:
For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 1Cor 15:53
So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 1Cor 15:54
What could be clearer? Why would we have to put on immortality if we already had it? 'Because Paul is only referring to the body' someone will answer. But again, that isn't what the text said, is it? Once again you have to assume that the soul is immortal, and then read your assumption back into the text.
Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. 1Tim 6:16
After reading 1Tim 6:16, how can anyone say that man by nature is immortal? We are told, in the clearest possible language, that God alone has immortality. The Greek word rendered 'immortality' here and in 1Cor 15:53 and 54, is athanasia and means 'deathlessness' in contrast to aphthartos, 'incorruption'. What could be clearer than the statement of 1Tim 6:16 that God alone possesses 'deathlessness'. The true Christians hope is that someday they will attain to this state, but only in the resurrection which is the thought brought out in 1Cor 15:53,54.
But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel: 2Tim 1:10
It was through the gospel that life and immortality were brought to light. It was only through the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus that the hope of eternal life was secured.
So, we see from the above, that immortality is not something humans, or any part of us possess by nature. Immortality is either the possession of God alone, or something given only to the faithful as a reward they will receive in the future. But this is by no means the end of the matter. Consider the following verses and ask yourself: are immortality and life something we possess by nature, or are they a gift from God secured by the gospel?
So, we see from the above, that immortality is not something humans, or any part of us possess by nature. Immortality is either the possession of God alone, or something given only to the faithful as a reward they will receive in the future. But this is by no means the end of the matter. Consider the following verses and ask yourself: are immortality and life something we possess by nature, or are they a gift from God secured by the gospel?
ETERNAL LIFE WHEN?
Consider the following scriptures and ask yourself who has eternal life?
And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? Matt 19:16
And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? Mark 10:17
But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life. Mark 10:30
And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? Luke 10:25
And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? Luke 18:18
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:15
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. John 5:39-40
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:54
Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. John 6:68
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. John 10:28
As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. John 17:2-3
And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. Acts 13:48
Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: Rom 2:6-7
That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom 5:21
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom 6:23
Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses. 1 Tim 6:12
Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life. 1 Tim 6:19
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; Titus 1:2
That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Titus 3:7
(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) I Jn 1:2
And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life. I Jn 2:25
Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. I Jn 3:15
And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. I Jn 5:11
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. I Jn 5:13
And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. I Jn 5:20
Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. Jude 1:21
Everlasting Life
And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. Matt 19:29
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36
But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. John 4:14
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 5:24
Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. John 6:27
And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:40
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. John 6:47
Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. Acts 13:46
But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. Rom 6:22
In any of the above verses, is eternal or everlasting life something we possess by nature, or a gift through the Gospel? The answer to this is generally that 'eternal life' means eternal life in heaven, as opposed to an eternal 'death' in hell. But where in the 36 verses listed above does it say this? Once again you can only reach these conclusions by reading your assumptions back into the text, and the fact that it must be done in all 36 cases listed above should cause any seeker of truth to re-examine his beliefs. The question remains; if an 'immortal soul' isn't one that lives forever, then what is it? In what sense does it 'live forever' having died twice?
I am very well aware of the argument that teaches that life and death are a matter of union and separation from God, and do not address existence. But this argument makes utter foolishness out of the Apostles words that God only possesses immortality; literally 'deathlessness'. It would be one thing to say that God couldn't be corrupted, but there's little meaning in saying that God can't be separated from himself. The argument is quite obviously that God cannot cease to exist in death, and if that is true, then it is obvious that human do cease to exist in death. Please see chapter one for further discussion.
I am very well aware of the argument that teaches that life and death are a matter of union and separation from God, and do not address existence. But this argument makes utter foolishness out of the Apostles words that God only possesses immortality; literally 'deathlessness'. It would be one thing to say that God couldn't be corrupted, but there's little meaning in saying that God can't be separated from himself. The argument is quite obviously that God cannot cease to exist in death, and if that is true, then it is obvious that human do cease to exist in death. Please see chapter one for further discussion.
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED
Before looking at some specific verses, I think it would be helpful to look at the following quote from a well-known advocate, Robert Morey, of the 'dualist' theory of man (man consists of body and soul):
The New Testament authors clearly believed that man had a dual nature. They refer to the body as 'the outer man' and the soul/spirit as the 'inner man' in such places as Rom. 7:22 and Eph. 3:16. The contrast is so clearly embedded in the mind of the Apostle Paul that he even described 'the outer man' as decaying while the 'inner man' or soul was being renewed day by day (2 Cor. 4:16). The contrast between the physical life of the body which was decaying and the onward progressive life of the soul could not be clearer. The Apostle Paul did not hesitate to speak of the body as the tabernacle or the house of clay in which man's transcendent soul indwells. In 2 Cor. 12:2-4, he could describe a person as being completely conscious while out of the body as well as when the person was in the body. The man in the passage did not cease to exist while out of his body. The man's transcendent soul or spirit could leave his body and ascend to the third heaven and be conscious in the presence of God. In 2 Cor. 5:14, the body is 'an earthly tent' in which we dwell. In Phil. 1:22-24, Paul could speak of himself as an 'I am' which could choose between being 'in' a body or 'departing' from that body to be with Christ. Paul viewed his approaching death as 'the time of my departure,' not extinction (2 Tim. 4:6). The Apostle Peter spoke of himself as dwelling for awhile in his earthly tabernacle until the time came for him to lay aside his body and depart (2 Peter 1:13-15). With both Peter and Paul there is no indication that they equated their self or soul with their body. Their 'I-ness' dwells in an earthly tabernacle. Just as it would be absurd to equate someone who lived in a tent with the tent itself, there is no way to equate man's soul with the body in which it dwells. The conditional immortalitists have never wrestled with the patently clear passages which speak of a dualism or contrast between the physical life of the body and the transcendent life of the soul or spirit.
It is clear from the above, that the author, Robert Morey, is thoroughly convinced that his belief in the immortal soul is scriptural, and he is willing to offer proof for it. While I would not contend that the above presents common arguments from the scriptures in favor of such a view (and indeed can be read to support such a view), I would not hesitate also to point out that there are many problems with Morey's explication. As I stated at the beginning of this study, the truth will never be arrived at simply by 'proof-texting'. We must ask God for help and guidance, and believe what the scripture says, while not adding something it does not say. We must be careful to always consider the context, and to make sure that whatever conclusions we arrive at are in harmony with the entire testimony of the word of God.
Morey says:
Morey says:
'The Apostle Paul did not hesitate to speak of the body as the tabernacle or the house of clay in which man's transcendent soul indwells.'
While we find the apostle indeed referring to the body as a tabernacle, where is there any reference to it being indwelled by a 'transcendent soul'? That is simply an assertion that Morey has read into the text and uses the perceived implication to support his view.
He says:
He says:
'With both Peter and Paul there is no indication that they equated their self or soul with their body. Their 'I-ness' dwells in an earthly tabernacle.'
But again, isn't this just an assumption? Where do we find anything like the term 'I-ness' in the scriptures? Doesn't this sound like something that has much more in common with Greek philosophy?
He continues:
He continues:
'In 2 Cor. 12:2-4, he could describe a person as being completely conscious while out of the body as well as when the person was in the body. The man in the passage did not cease to exist while out of his body.'
How Morey can use such an argument is perplexing. The fallacy of this logic should be evident to any open-minded person who will simply turn to 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 and read the passage. The fact is that Paul himself didn't claim to know how the experience took place and said so twice. It is amazing to me that those like Morey who attempt to use this passage always have to say that Paul had died to get this vision (because to them that's the only way he could be absent from the body), and then equate the verse with Acts 14:19 in order to supply a time frame in which he may have died and came back to life. The problem is, nowhere does 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 speak of Paul's death, nor does Paul relate it to the incident in Acts 14:19. Morey and others like him are again guilty of reading into the text something which it just doesn't say. Acts 14:19 does not say that Paul died, but rather that those who stoned him supposed he was dead. So here again an implication is read into the text.
All of these verses and many others demand an explanation, and that is what we will endeavor to do. However, we hope that in so doing we will be more honest as to what the text says, and doesn't say, without resorting to 'mental gymnastics'.
All of these verses and many others demand an explanation, and that is what we will endeavor to do. However, we hope that in so doing we will be more honest as to what the text says, and doesn't say, without resorting to 'mental gymnastics'.
VERSES USED TO 'PROVE' THAT
THE SOUL DEPARTS AT DEATH
THE SOUL DEPARTS AT DEATH
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1Thes 5:23
This verse is commonly cited to prove that the soul, as separate from the body, can have an existence without the body, although nothing like that is explicitly stated in the text. This verse has been covered in detail in the chapter 'The Spirit Within Man'. Please refer to the objections answered at the end of that chapter.
HER SOUL WAS IN DEPARTING
And it came to pass, as her soul (Heb. Nephesh) was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin. Gen 35:18
With:
And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again. And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived. I Kings 17:21-22
Many teach that in these two cases we have clear examples of the soul departing at death, but is this really the case? These same two verses, in the New International Version are translated:
As she breathed her last-- for she was dying-- she named her son Ben-Oni. But his father named him Benjamin. Gen 35:18 (NIV)
Then he stretched himself out on the boy three times and cried to the LORD, 'O LORD my God, let this boy's life return to him!' IKing 17:21 (NIV)
The New American Standard Version renders 1Kings 17:21:
Then he stretched himself upon the child three times, and called to the LORD, and said, 'O LORD my God, I pray Thee, let this child's life return to him.' IKing 17:21(NAS)
Which translations are correct? The context of the entire Old Testament must answer. Which translations agree with the verses we studied earlier that 'The dead know not anything', 'their thoughts perish', 'In death there is no remembrance' of God, and so on?
The meaning of these verses is clear and in harmony with the rest of the Bible's teaching about the soul. The soul can be the person or can refer to the life of the person. We see how the Hebrew word nephesh is translated 'life' in the following verses.
The meaning of these verses is clear and in harmony with the rest of the Bible's teaching about the soul. The soul can be the person or can refer to the life of the person. We see how the Hebrew word nephesh is translated 'life' in the following verses.
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. Gen 1:30
And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Gen 9:5
And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed. Gen 19:17
Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die: Gen 19:19
So, we see that many times, the same Hebrew word translated 'soul' is also properly translated 'life'. We see in Genesis 1:30 that the beasts, fowl, and creeping things all have 'life' (Heb Nephesh, soul). No one would suppose that a bird or a cow have souls which depart when they die. When their life, or soul departs, they die, and this is the same sense as Genesis 35:18 and 1Kings 17:21. The teaching that the soul is a separate conscious entity that departs at death is simply not in the text. Only if you ignore the context of the way 'soul' is used in the Old Testament will you arrive at such a conclusion.
The same principal can be seen in the New Testament:
The same principal can be seen in the New Testament:
And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him. Acts 20:9-10
For more information on these verses within the context of the Old Testament, please see the discussion in Chapter 2: The Living Soul
CANNOT KILL THE SOUL
And fear not them which kill the body but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Matt 10:28
I will comment briefly on this verse here, but I would refer the reader to our work A Challenge to the Doctrine of Eternal Torment for extended comments.
As we have seen, much confusion comes from a misunderstanding of what the soul is. We have seen that immortality is not something man by nature possesses, so, if this verse is really talking about a disembodied soul being tormented in hell, then Jesus also must grant eternal life in some sense to the wicked as well. But where do we find such a teaching anywhere in the Bible? Look again at the verses listed earlier in this chapter on 'Eternal Life' 'Everlasting Life', and 'Immortality'. Who are these promised to? In contrast to this we see the following:
As we have seen, much confusion comes from a misunderstanding of what the soul is. We have seen that immortality is not something man by nature possesses, so, if this verse is really talking about a disembodied soul being tormented in hell, then Jesus also must grant eternal life in some sense to the wicked as well. But where do we find such a teaching anywhere in the Bible? Look again at the verses listed earlier in this chapter on 'Eternal Life' 'Everlasting Life', and 'Immortality'. Who are these promised to? In contrast to this we see the following:
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36
The teaching of Matthew 10:28 is clear. Man can kill the body but does not ultimately have the power to take away life. Jesus warns us not to fear the ones who can only kill the body, but to fear the one who can take away all of a person's prospects for eternal life.
Again,I would refer the reader to our work A Challenge to the Doctrine of Eternal Torment for extended comments.
Again,I would refer the reader to our work A Challenge to the Doctrine of Eternal Torment for extended comments.
THE SOULS UNDER THE ALTAR
And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled. Rev 6:9-11
Here we have the one and only passage in which the word 'soul' could possibly be applied to a dis-embodied entity because it appears in heaven. This verse will almost always be cited as proof positive that the soul departs at death and continues to exist outside the body.
We must be very cautious in approaching a verse like this. The verse is from the book of Revelation, and no one would argue that the entire book is in highly symbolic and figurative language. John begins the Book of Revelation by telling us that it is symbolic:
We must be very cautious in approaching a verse like this. The verse is from the book of Revelation, and no one would argue that the entire book is in highly symbolic and figurative language. John begins the Book of Revelation by telling us that it is symbolic:
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: Rev 1:1
It is a commonly accepted rule of interpretation, that one should never use a symbolic passage of scripture to over-turn a doctrine that is clearly taught elsewhere. It's also never a good idea to build a doctrine based on figurative or symbolic passage. Failure to follow these two simple rules of interpretation has led to some of the most serious theological errors.
When we come to a symbolic passage like this, we must first look for a meaning somewhere in its immediate context. If we don't find the interpretation there, then we look to the entire testimony of the Bible to determine the meaning of the symbol.
In this particular case, we find no interpretation in the immediate context. This of course will lead some to take the passage literally even if they must over-turn 100 other verses to do so.
Let's assume for a moment that the passage is literal. What is said to be the location of the souls?
When we come to a symbolic passage like this, we must first look for a meaning somewhere in its immediate context. If we don't find the interpretation there, then we look to the entire testimony of the Bible to determine the meaning of the symbol.
In this particular case, we find no interpretation in the immediate context. This of course will lead some to take the passage literally even if they must over-turn 100 other verses to do so.
Let's assume for a moment that the passage is literal. What is said to be the location of the souls?
I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God
They are said to be 'under the alter'. If the souls were conscious spirits of the dead, don't you think that for them to be confined for centuries under a piece of furniture is bit out of harmony with the character of our Lord? Someone will say 'No, don't be silly, the souls are real, but they aren't confined literally under a piece of furniture.' But again, this is exactly my point; the passage is obviously figurative, at least in some way.
Some will surely object to me suggesting that the 'souls' under the alter are symbolic, but to those I would ask: Does Jesus literally have a sword coming out of His mouth? Is a church literally a lampstand? Is false religion literally a harlot riding a beast?
At the last supper, when Jesus broke the bread and said 'Take, eat, this is my body', did he mean it was literally his body? Wasn't his literal body sitting at the table? Jesus said, 'And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee'. Has anyone reading this taken Jesus' advice literally?
The point is simply this: we must be very careful when approaching highly symbolic passages of scripture or some very strange doctrines are sure to result.
So, what does the passage mean then? Again, we will attempt to determine the correct meaning by comparing scripture with scripture.
First, what else, in the scriptures, can we see under the alter?
Some will surely object to me suggesting that the 'souls' under the alter are symbolic, but to those I would ask: Does Jesus literally have a sword coming out of His mouth? Is a church literally a lampstand? Is false religion literally a harlot riding a beast?
At the last supper, when Jesus broke the bread and said 'Take, eat, this is my body', did he mean it was literally his body? Wasn't his literal body sitting at the table? Jesus said, 'And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee'. Has anyone reading this taken Jesus' advice literally?
The point is simply this: we must be very careful when approaching highly symbolic passages of scripture or some very strange doctrines are sure to result.
So, what does the passage mean then? Again, we will attempt to determine the correct meaning by comparing scripture with scripture.
First, what else, in the scriptures, can we see under the alter?
And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the LORD: it is a sin offering.
And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out his blood at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering. Lev 4:24-25
From the Old Testament we see that the blood of sacrifices was poured out under the altar. Is there any place else in the Bible where we find blood personified and crying out for vengeance?
And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. Gen 4:9-10
The only question remaining is; why would John refer to 'souls'?
For the life (Heb. Nephesh, soul) of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Lev 17:11
What we have in Revelation 6:9 is a personification of the blood of God's martyrs, who sacrificed their lives in service to Him, figuratively crying out for vengeance. John sees the lives of those poured out in sacrifice to God in preaching the gospel. This is not only in harmony with everything else we have learned concerning the state of the dead, but much more reasonable than to suppose that God kept these miserable souls under a piece of furniture in heaven crying out for vengeance for centuries.
THE SOULS OF THEM THAT WERE BEHEADED
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. Rev 20:4
I have only seen this verse used once or twice to prove the 'immortal soul' theory, but I will mention it here because some are likely to be confused by it.
John says that he sees the 'souls of them that were beheaded'. Are these disembodied spirits? No, in fact the rest of the verse will argue against the immortal soul theory.
The verse is discussing the resurrection. We have seen that it is not until then that 'corruption puts on incorruption', 'mortal puts on immortality', and death is swallowed up in victory. This is why John says that the souls 'lived' (literally 'lived again' in the Greek) and reigned. If these 'souls' did not 'live again' until the resurrection, then obviously they were 'dead souls' before this.
There is no problem or contradiction in the verse unless we try to read preconceived notions into the text. John is simply using the word 'soul' here of a whole person; a way in which it is used many times in both the Old and New Testaments.
John says that he sees the 'souls of them that were beheaded'. Are these disembodied spirits? No, in fact the rest of the verse will argue against the immortal soul theory.
The verse is discussing the resurrection. We have seen that it is not until then that 'corruption puts on incorruption', 'mortal puts on immortality', and death is swallowed up in victory. This is why John says that the souls 'lived' (literally 'lived again' in the Greek) and reigned. If these 'souls' did not 'live again' until the resurrection, then obviously they were 'dead souls' before this.
There is no problem or contradiction in the verse unless we try to read preconceived notions into the text. John is simply using the word 'soul' here of a whole person; a way in which it is used many times in both the Old and New Testaments.
