Category: article

I’m involved in a translation project now, which will take me a few years. As I go from text to text of scripture, it gives me opportunity to test my presuppositions about the meaning of certain words. One of those words is “soul.” I trust the Bible to give me an understanding of what a soul is, and what it does. I do not trust the popular understanding of the term. I think the popular understanding draws from the wrong well. We will see.

The Hebrew word translated “soul” in the Old Testament is nefesh, and its Greek equivalent in the New Testament is psuché. The Hebrew term appears 757 times in 686 verses, and the Greek term appears 103 times in 93 verses. However, most of those references do not really help to define the word. They simply use the term in reference to people, either saying that so and so is a soul, or using the phrase “my soul” or “his soul” as another way of saying “me” or “him.” That is, they use the word pronominally.

Of particular importance to me are those instances where the terms are not translated “soul” by the ancient and modern translators. These texts where the terms are present in the original but “hidden” in translation are significant. Their numbers are significant as well. If one looks at the total occurrences of nefesh/psuché (860) compared to the number of times a translation renders it as “soul” this is what one finds:

None of the translations use the word “soul” exclusively to translate nefesh/psuché. The version that is the most literal is (of course) Young’s Literal Translation, but even it translates with some other terms besides “soul” 35% of the time. The older versions tend to use the term “soul” more readily than the newer ones do. But even the older versions had trouble translating a significant percentage of texts where nefesh/psuché appear utilizing the English word soul.

I am guessing that the problem these translators had related to their theological understanding of the word soul. If they assumed that a soul is an immortal, imperishable inner being of a human person, they would have trouble using the term if the passages they are translating rule out or do not suggest that idea.

My original question as a translator was “how shall I translate these terms?” I have decided to try to be consistent with a word-for-word approach, and see what happens. My theological understanding is that there is no immortal entity thriving inside each human body. For that reason, I assume that the word “soul” will not give me the translation problems others have struggled with. As I said, we will see.

Examples from Genesis

And God said, “Let the water swarm with swarms of living souls, and let birds fly above the land across the divider of the sky.” So God created the great sea creatures and every living soul that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. [1]

The very first instances of nefesh are indicative that the popular definition needs help. It appears before the creation of Adam, so does not refer to human beings at all. God uses the term to indicate fish and other sea animals. The Geneva Bible translates the plural of nefesh here as “every creeping thing.” Most translations simply render it as “creatures.” There is no hint of immortality here.

And God said, “Let the land bring forth living souls according to their kinds- livestock and creeping things and animals of the land according to their kinds.” And it became that way.[2]

The land was filled with living souls too, before humanity. Here again, most translators chose to render the word as creature or living thing. If having a soul makes one immortal, then the animals are too.

And to every beast of the land and to every bird of the sky and to everything that creeps on the land, everything that has a living soul in it, I have given all flora for food.” And it became that way.[3]

Anything capable of eating a salad has a soul in it. That hardly narrows the definition. It certainly does not exclude anything but humans.

And out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living soul, that was its name.[4]

Adam named every living soul. Of course, if only humans are souls, that would be easy. All he would have had to say was “Adam.”

But you shall not eat flesh with its soul, that is, its blood. And for the blood of your souls I will require the same: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require the same for killing the soul of man.[5]

Fast-forward to the story of Noah, and God is telling us not to eat animals with their souls still in them. In other words, do not eat anything that is still alive, with their blood still pumping through their veins. He also warns all his creatures that he will vindicate those who are murdered. He implies that such murder is killing the soul. Our translations could not handle this way of putting it, so they steered away from the idea of killing a soul.

Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, “See, I establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you, and with every living soul that is with you, the birds, the livestock, and every beast of the land with you, as many as came out of the ark; it is for every beast of the land. I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the land.” And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living soul that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the land. When I place clouds over the land and the rainbow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living soul of all flesh. And the water shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the rainbow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living soul of all flesh that is on the land.”[6]

God establishes his covenant with Noah, his family, and every living soul on the planet. But there were no humans besides Noah and his family left alive. Who were those living souls? They were the animals who came out of the ark. Once again, the translators could not be consistent, but the texts are. They show that “living soul” refers to anything alive, not just humans.

So Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their possessions that they had accumulated, and the souls that they had made in Haran, and they set out to go to the land of Canaan.[7]

OK, now it gets really interesting. The translators consistently interpret the reference to souls here as the servants acquired from outside the family, and added to Abram’s household while they were sojourning in Haran. But the verb they usually translate as “acquired” is the simple verb “to make.” It is translated that way numerous times in Genesis prior to this text.[8] But the translators must have had problems with the idea of Abraham’s clan making souls. So, instead, they translate the verse as if it refers to new servants being added to the clan. Actually, it seems to refer to new souls being born into the clan. If a soul is simply a living being, not an immortal essence given by God himself, there is no problem to speak of making that soul through the reproductive process. Chew on that for a while!

Say you are my sister, that things may go well with me because of you, and that my soul may be kept alive for your sake.[9]

Young’s translates the word soul, but all the others surveyed use the word life instead. Abram obviously was not in fear of losing his immortal essence (as if he had one). No, he was afraid that the Egyptians would see his life as an obstacle to getting what they wanted – his beautiful wife. So he asked her to tell them that she was his sister. Saving his soul meant keeping himself alive. That is all it has ever meant.

And the king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the souls, but take the property for yourself.[10]

The king of Sodom used the term soul consistent with how Moses uses it elsewhere in Genesis – in reference to a living being as opposed to a piece of property. But the translators of our Bibles (even Young, here) could not bring themselves to do so. For them, the word soul was a technical theological term describing the inward being, not a general term identifying a person. But it is clear that the king of Sodom is asking for the persons, not the property. So, all of the translators use the term persons or people for nefesh here.

Traditionalist theologians have grappled with this problem. They usually respond to it be saying that the term as used here is an example of metonymy: where a term indicating a part of a thing is used to signify the whole. Thus, they say, the souls are the inward beings of these men, but the king would ask for them, knowing that the bodies would come with them. That is inferring a great deal of modern theological understanding on the part of this ancient near eastern king. It is also an unnecessary assumption. The translators are right, of course, if by accident. Souls does mean persons in this case. But the translators’ refusal to use the term souls in this verse also shows that they probably have bought into an unproven theological premise about the nature of human souls.

Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul will be cut off from his people by death; he has broken my covenant.[11]

This is one of the many circumstances where reference to a person as a soul is simply taken by the translators as pronominal. But it is significant that the LORD refers to people’s souls being cut off – a metaphor for death. Parents who dare not circumcise their children are marking them for death. The soul dying is a reference to the whole person dying.

And as they brought them out, one said, “Escape for your soul. Do not look back or stop anywhere in the valley. Escape to the hills, so you will not be swept away.” But Lot said to them, “Oh, no, my lords. See, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my soul. But I cannot escape to the hills, or the disaster will overtake me and I will die. See, this city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there- is it not a little one?- and my soul will be saved!”[12]

The angels rescuing Lot from Sodom apparently felt that Lot’s soul was in danger of being destroyed, not just his body. This makes perfect sense if destruction kills the soul. If the soul is impervious to death – not so much. But translating this passage literally would entail giving an entirely unacceptable meaning to saving one’s soul, and that would never do. So, some of the translators hid the idea of soul using other language. Kudos for the ancient translations (Geneva and King James) and for Young’s, who kept the word soul, regardless.

And he said to them, “If your souls are willing that I should bury my dead out of my sight, hear me and entreat for me Ephron the son of Zohar, that he may give me the cave of Machpelah, which he owns; it is at the end of his field. For the full price let him give it to me in your presence as property for a burying place.”[13]

Sarah has died and Abraham is negotiating a burial place with the Hittites. This use of nefesh is taken by all the translators as pronominal, and rightfully so. It was not necessary for them to exclude the term soul, but it is understandable. For so many, the term soul has an exclusive meaning that does not fit all of these generic uses. My point is that that exclusive meaning flies in the face of hundreds of times, like this, when it appears in the Bible. We should be taking our understanding of its meaning from its uses in the texts. Instead, translators have brought their understanding to the text, and so often avoid using the term soul if that understanding does not fit the text. That is a translation fault and is a product of eisegesis.

Examples from Matthew

The New Testament use of psuché is just as telling as the Old Testament use of nefesh is. How do the translators fare in their literal rendering of it, and in what circumstances do they find it necessary to use some other word? We shall see.

But after the dying of Herod, see, an angel of the Lord appears in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, He is saying, “Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who wanted to kill the soul of the child are dead.”[14]

Herod was doing a little soul searching of his own. Matthew described him as pursuing the soul of baby Jesus in order to kill it. It is quite obvious why traditionalist translators would steer away from a literal rendering here. It suggests that even Jesus had a mortal soul that could be killed by a soldier’s sword. This statement Matthew makes is consistent with Moses’ uses of the term in Genesis. The soul is a life that can be taken. That is what Herod wanted to do.

“Therefore I tell you, do not be distracted by your soul, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor by your body, what you will put on. Is not the soul more than what it eats, and the body more than what it wears?[15]

Wow, Matthew is confused. Could Jesus have ever made that mistake? Matthew has him saying that the body wears clothing, but it is the soul that eats food. Huh? The translators help Matthew with his embarrassment by consistently rendering the word psuché as life here. He really flubbed up there.

But, wait a minute. Luke records Jesus as saying essentially the same thing!

And he said to his disciples, “Therefore I tell you, do not be distracted by your soul, what you will eat, nor by your body, what you will put on.[16]

Could it be that Jesus himself did not know that souls are incorporeal, and cannot eat anything? Didn’t he read Plato in Rabbi school? It seems clear that Jesus is using the term psuché in a way that is consistent with the Old Testament usage of nefesh, but inconsistent with the way the Greeks conceived the soul. Plato regarding the soul as an incorporeal entity inside the shell of the body, destined to be set free from bodily restraints and appetites by death. But Matthew has told us (so far) two things about the soul that oppose that view: the soul can be killed by a sword, and the soul needs food to live.

Whoever finds his soul will lose it, and whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it.[17]

Here, Jesus is telling us that if we really want to find our souls, we have to be prepared to lose them. The Greek concept of psuché is quite clear on the subject: you cannot lose your soul. Even if you die, your incorporeal entity is going to hang around forever, being essentially you without an outer shell. So, this use by Jesus of the term psuché is problematic for the translators as well. They consistently substitute the word life for psuché, even though they all use the word soul for the same word eleven verses earlier in the same chapter.

Because whoever wants to save his soul will lose it, but whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it. For what would it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?[18]

This is essentially an elaboration on the previous text, six chapters later. The phrase appears four times in the two verses of text. Each version surveyed always uses the word life to translate psuché in verse 25. Five of the versions then consistently retranslate that same word as soul in verse 26! Three of the modern translations (ESV,NET, and NRSV) at least consistently use the phrase his life in all four occurrences. Why the consistent inconsistency? Well, one answer would be that the translators felt that it was possible to forfeit one’s soul (to hell), but not possible to lose it (because it stays alive even in hell). Their traditionalist theology prevented them from translating the same term consistently in four connected statements. However, eliminate the foreign presupposition of the soul’s immortality, and these two verses can be translated quite easily.

…just as the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give away his soul as a ransom for many.[19]

Here is another text in which the translators consistently use the word life instead of soul. Jesus said that he came for the purpose of giving away his soul as a ransom for the lost that his sacrifice will save. But traditionalist theology sees giving away one’s soul as an entirely negative thing. It is forfeiting one’s soul to burn in hell. Jesus did not do that. He was talking about his death on the cross. His bodily death on the cross was what he described as giving his soul as a sacrifice. The translators all recognize that, so they – again, consistently — translate the word psuché in the text as life. My point is that the fact that requires the translators to render psuché as life here is the theological misunderstanding of the translators. Rather than accept that Jesus was talking about giving away his soul, they purposely chose a term that they could use which would not challenge their understanding of the meaning of psuché.

Jesus anticipated his soul dying. In Gethsemane, he told his disciples that his soul was very sorrowful, “crushed with grief to the point of death.”[20] The translators did not mess with that one. But it, too, speaks of the psuché as potentially dying. Every reference to psuché in Matthew speaks of the soul as dying along with the body, with the apparent exception of Matthew 10:28.

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Instead, fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.

Traditionalist theology makes much of this verse, which appears to show a distinction between the body and the soul. At first glance, it seems to be saying what Plato said about the human soul, that it cannot be killed, and so will live on forever, no matter what it believes, or whom it fears. But, wait, that cannot be right either. The verse goes on to say that God can destroy the soul, and will do so in hell. That is why we should fear him, and not the people around us.

People are able to “kill the body” but only God can kill the soul. So, rather than saying that hell is going to be filled with undying souls, this verse teaches that it will be filled with dead souls – destroyed souls and bodies. It will be a lake of fire that consumes everything thrown into it.

Responding to this, traditionalists simply choose to redefine yet another word – the word destroy. They say that God will destroy souls in hell by keeping them alive forever in agony. Someone has already translated away all of those pesky passages for them that might indicate that souls can die, so they seem to have no choice but to hold this view.

Here are the words of Jesus as Luke recorded them:

“I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who can only kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. But I will advise you whom you should fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has the right to cast you into Gehenna. Yes, I tell you, fear him!”[21]

Matthew’s text is an abbreviation of what Jesus said, as recorded in Luke. Also, Luke, being a Gentile, and more acquainted with the Greek concept of the immortal soul, took pains not to give it credence. Jesus is contrasting not two parts of humanity, but two kinds of death. The death of the body is real, but not permanent. Death in Gehenna hell will be permanent. Therefore, fear God, not man.

Our soul searching has shown us evidence which has been hidden in many texts of scripture – evidence that the soul can be killed, lost, taken away, or given away as a sacrifice. That evidence contradicts the doctrine of humanity that many Christians believe. It contradicts, Plato, Augustine, Calvin, Wesley and many others. But it is right there in the texts of the Bible where those of us who dare to look can see. Will we dare to let the text triumph over tradition?

---

[1] Genesis 1:20-21.

[2] Genesis 1:24.

[3] Genesis 1:30.

[4] Genesis 2:19.

[5] Genesis 9:4-5.

[6] Genesis 9:8-16.

[7] Genesis 12:5.

[8] Genesis 1:7, 16, 25f, 31; 2:2ff, 18; 3:1, 7, 21; 5:1; 6:6f, 14ff; 7:4; 8:6; 9:6; 11:4; 12:2.

[9] Genesis 12:13.

[10] Genesis 14:21.

[11] Genesis 17:14.

[12] Genesis 19:17-20.

[13] Genesis 23:8-9.

[14] Matthew 2:19-20.

[15] Matthew 6:25.

[16] Luke 12:22.

[17] Matthew 10:39. {I have not forgotten 10:28. We will come back to that. This survey is of those passages which contain psuché but which the translators typically use some other term besides soul to translate it.}

[18] Matthew 16:25-26.

[19] Matthew 20:28.

[20] Matthew 26:38 NLT.

[21] Luke 12:4-5.

 

The Holy spirit has given us a masterpiece of precision in the Bible. Its words are crafted with such care that readers usually stumble upon the correct meaning of texts without much preparation and study. On the other hand, the human brain is a complex organ, and capable of creative interpretation. Sometimes we get rather creative in how we read the Bible.

1 Thessalonians 5:10 provides evidence of this proposition. Paul tells the Thessalonian Christians that Christ “died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him.”[1] Exegetes need to ask (at least) two questions of the text here: “What does ‘awake’ and ‘asleep’ mean in this context?” and “Is this verse an affirmation of dead believers consciously living with Christ before the resurrection?”

“awake” and “asleep”

The passage within which this verse is found is 4:13-5:11. The primary subject matter is the second coming of the Lord. Paul writes “we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope.”[2] In that verse, those considered awake are alive, and “those who are asleep” have died. The question had begun to present itself to believers as to what is happening to their loved ones who died after Jesus’ ascension. Paul does not tell them that it is none of their business. He has an answer to their questions. He does not want his readers assuming (as the godless do) that the dead are gone forever. He wants them to have hope, and a specific hope – not just the anticipation of some kind of life beyond the grave.

The basis for the believer’s hope in life after death is the fact “that Jesus died and rose again.”[3] It is not based on something about human nature, or the existence of something essentially immortal within all human beings. If Jesus had not physically rose from the dead and walked out of his tomb, the hope would not be there. Jesus had been asleep in the tomb, and brought out of that sleep by a resurrection. Paul promises that Jesus will be the means by whom God will bring all the dead in Christ out of their sleep. Jesus said the same thing to Martha. He said that he is “the resurrection and the life.” He spoke of that coming resurrection day when he said that whoever believes in him, will live then, even if he is dead now.[4] He went on to promise that whoever is living at the time of that resurrection, and believes, will never die. So, for both Jesus and Paul, there are only two classes of believer, the living (or awake) and the dead (or asleep). Both await Christ’s second coming.

Paul assures his readers that Christ is not going to return and set up his kingdom on earth without first raising those asleep in him. He says that “that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.”[5] Perhaps someone had taught the Thessalonians that the dead would stay buried until after the millennial reign, or some other event. Paul says, no, when Jesus returns, raising the dead is the first thing on his list.

The second coming will be an unmistakable cataclysmic event. It will be preceded by three unmistakably loud sounds: a command shouted from the Lord himself, the voice of the archangel, and the trumpet call. Then, all the dead will burst from their tombs.[6] When God acts to raise the dead, everyone will know it. It has not happened yet, but we will know it when it does.

with the Lord?

Those believers who are “awake” at the second coming of the Lord will be caught up in the air, together with the resurrected believers. From that time on, all believers will be “with the Lord” always.[7] This is an interesting way for Paul to put it. Many today assume that all believers have to do to be “with the Lord” is to die. But for Paul, being “with the Lord” requires Christ’s return. Until then, neither the “awake” or “asleep” believers are with the Lord. The awake are alive “in the Lord” and the dead die “in the Lord” (en kuriō),[8] but neither are “with the Lord” (sun kuriō) until his return.

So, what did Paul mean when he told the Corinthians that he “would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord”?[9] He meant, simply, that he would rather be away from his present mortal body (his earthly tent) and, at the same time at home with the Lord (pros ton kurion). That is not going to happen until the resurrection, when this temporary mortal “tent” is replaced by his eternal “building from God”.[10] Since this resurrection does not occur until the return of Christ, Paul’s theology is consistent. The hope he speaks of to Corinth and to Thessalonica is the same: a reunion with Christ at his return.[11]

parousia

The New Testament describes the coming of the Lord as a “parousia,” his physical presence, as opposed to his physical absence. It is the combination of ousia, meaning substance or being, and para, meaning close proximity. It’s opposite is apousia, meaning absence.[12] This meaning is implied throughout the uses of parousia in the New Testament. It always applies to Christ’s physical reappearance at his second advent. This is made clear by the New Testament uses of the word when it do not refer to the second coming, but to someone else’s physical presence.[13] For Paul, the hope of the saints is not some spiritual presence at death, but the actual physical presence of Christ at his second advent. At this parousia, those who belong to Christ will be raised to life again.[14] At this parousia, Paul will rejoice over those he has won to Christ.[15] That is because the parousia will be the time when our Lord will appear “with all his saints.”[16] In this verse, 1 Thessalonians 3:13, the English word “coming” – the most popular word used to translate parousia – leads us astray. Popular teaching – based on this mistranslation – has Jesus coming from heaven with the disembodied souls of his saints. Then he reunites these souls with their resurrected bodies. Paul is not saying that Jesus will come with the saints. He is saying that Jesus will appear with the saints. One little word shows that this is the correct interpretation: the word all. All the saints includes those who are alive (awake) as well as those who are dead (asleep). At the parousia, these two groups will be reunited with the Lord.

alive or alert?

Midway in Paul’s description of the second coming, he starts using the words asleep and awake in a different sense. He teaches that Christ will come suddenly, like a thief. On the basis of that sudden coming, he instructs the Thessalonians “let us not sleep, as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober.”[17] His contrast has changed. Instead of contrasting the two categories of believers (living saints and dead saints), he now contrasts unbelievers (those who will be caught sleeping at the parousia) and believers (who live in the light, and so will be ready when Christ comes.

This change in the use of the awake/asleep metaphors has some interpreters concluding that Paul is not referring to the death state at all. The New English Translation renders 1 Thessalonians 5:10 as “He died for us so that whether we are alert or asleep we will come to life together with him.” This translation takes Paul as rendering assurance to believers who are not ready for Christ’s return! One commentator writes “This destiny not only belongs to those Christians who are wide awake when Christ comes, but also to those who are sound asleep.”[18] But Paddison argues that even though the verb translated “to be awake” in 2 Thessalonians 5:10 can mean to be alert, the theological logic of Paul in the entire section argues that Paul is using it in reference to the alive in Christ.[19]

Christ will come for all believers, regardless of their spiritual condition at the moment of his coming. Yet, it is not clear that Paul is giving that assurance in this text. He is, in fact, warning the Thessalonians not to be caught sleeping. It would make no sense for him to turn around and say, in effect, that regardless of their obedience to this command, Christ will accept them anyway.

the intermediate state

What does this verse tell us about the intermediate state – the state of the dead between death and the resurrection at Christ’s parousia? It does not say that believers who are asleep in Christ are presently living with him. It affirms that Christ died “for us” – and that his death is applied equally to all believers, whether living or dead. But only (as the context makes clear) at the parousia will the subjunctive clause become indicative. Only then will both categories of believers live with him. The NLT puts it well: “Christ died for us so that, whether we are dead or alive when he returns, we can live with him forever.”

What this passage does affirm about the intermediate state is that there is a contrast between believers who are living and those who are dead. While both will live with Christ when he returns, only those who awake are living now. The dead in Christ are asleep. While their eternal inheritance is assured, their present walk has been cut short by death. They are unconscious, awaiting the parousia, when we will all be “gathered together to him.”[20] Those of us who have lost loved ones can take courage, because Christ’s death on the cross assures us that their rest is temporary, not eternal.

---

[1] 1 Thessalonians 5:10 ESV.

[2] 1 Thessalonians 4:13 ESV.

[3] 1 Thessalonians 4:14 ESV.

[4] John 11:25.

[5] 1 Thessalonians 4:15.

[6] 1 Thessalonians 4:16.

[7] 1 Thessalonians 4:17.

[8] Revelation 14:13.

[9] 2 Corinthians 5:8 (NIV).

[10] 2 Corinthians 5:1.

[11] For a more comprehensive treatment of 2 Corinthians 5:1-10, see “Away from the body” (http://www.afterlife.co.nz/2011/bible/away-from-the-body-2-corinthians-5-8/).

[12] In Philippians 2:12, Paul contrasts his presence (parousia) with his absence (apousia).

[13] 1 Corinthians 16:17; 2 Corinthians 7:6-7; 10:10; Philippians 1:26; 2:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:9.

[14] 1 Corinthians 15:23.

[15] 1 Thessalonians 2:19.

[16] 1 Thessalonians 3:13.

[17] 1 Thessalonians 5:6.

[18] Keith Krell, “No Sleep Walking” (https://bible.org/seriespage/no-sleep-walking-1-thessalonians-51-11).

[19] Angus Paddison, Theological Hermeneutics and 1 Thessalonians, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 186.

[20] 2 Thessalonians 2:1.

A friend recently posted a quote from Dave Hunt, who said:

“The choice we face is not, as many imagine, between heaven and hell.  Rather, the choice is between heaven and this world.  Even a fool would exchange hell for heaven; but only the wise will exchange this world for heaven.” – An Urgent Call To A Serious faith.

Hunt stated in another book:

“The real choice we must and do make – daily, hourly – is between heaven and this earth. … Our attitudes and actions continually reflect our unconscious answer to the question: ‘Am I willing to leave this earth right now for heaven, or is there something that holds me here and thus something on earth which stands between my Lord and me at this moment?’” – When Will Jesus Come, p. 250.

My response to that FB post will be perhaps confusing to my many friends who are not aware of my conditionalist theological position:

“This world is the place that Jesus died to redeem. This world is the place where Jesus is coming (from heaven) to rule. This world is the place that God and believers will inherit (Psalm 82:8; Matthew 5:5). The gospel is not a call for us to exchange the world for heaven. It is a call for us to accept the grace of the one who is coming from heaven to earth. A serious faith takes the Bible seriously. While Christians are called not to love the present world or the things in it (1 John 2:15), we are never called to escape it. We are called to conquer it (1 John 5:4).”

There is a difference between setting our affections on things above and setting our hopes on leaving the earth. Hunt and many others of the traditionalist view seek to blur that distinction.  They believe that the hope of the believer is to go somewhere else besides earth and be with God when they die. 

This is the Bible’s definition of the blessed hope:

“waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13 ESV).

When people imply that the hope of believers is going to heaven when they die, they are exchanging the biblical hope for something else.  Some have been so conditioned to believe that the goal of believers is to go to heaven that they never see the contradiction when they look at biblical texts.

What are you waiting for?  Are you waiting to die so that you can see Jesus in heaven, or are you waiting for the appearing of Christ on earth?  If you think your goal is to escape earth, why do you think that?  I challenge you to read the Bible again, and look for the hope and the inheritance it describes.  The only thing the Bible calls us to escape is hell.  We are called not to escape the world, but to conquer the world for Christ:

“…whatever is born of God conquers the world. And this is the victory that conquers the world, our faith” (1 John 5:4 NRSV).

You do not conquer something by running away from it, but by doing battle, defeating it, and claiming it for your king.  That is what conquerors do.  They overcome in battle, and claim new territory.  Biblical faith does not urge believers to want to die so that the battle will be over.  Biblical faith challenges believers to take this world back for the king it rightfully belongs to. 

When human beings were placed on this earth, God did not say, “It’s OK for a while, but what I really want is for you to be in heaven with me.” No, he looked on the two people in Eden and said that it was very good.  He called on them not to escape the earth but to have dominion over it, to fill it, and to subdue it (Genesis 1:26-28).  He never rescinded that command.

When Jesus taught his disciples about things to come, he promised them the Holy Spirit from heaven (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7, and he promised that he would return from heaven (Matthew 24:30; Mark 13:26-27; John 14:3). He never once promised them a trip to heaven before he returned. Why would he leave that out?

What Jesus promised us was a resurrection on the last day – the day of his return:

“And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day” (John 6:39 ESV).

“ For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day”(John 6:40 ESV).

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44 ESV).

“Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:54 ESV).

Our king Jesus is the only human being who has ascended to heaven right now:

“No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man” (John 3:13 ESV).

The only biblical hope is that he will return to take his rightful place on this earth as its king.  It sounds right and biblical to talk about exchanging this world for heaven, but it is neither. The world is looking for answers.  The least we believers can do is get the answers right.

 

 

 

 

The epistles in the New Testament offer readers a picture of the gospel in missions and church context. We seldom read them that way, choosing rather to pick a verse here, a paragraph there, and try to apply those isolated texts to our personal lives. That usually works, though, because God’s word does have implications for our personal lives. It would be helpful, however, for us to read through an entire epistle every once in a while, and try to figure out its message to the people it was written to.

We conditionalists often quote 1 Timothy 6:16, because it teaches that God’s immortality is exclusive. That is a great proof-text for our message, because it blows a hole in the concept of innate immortality in humans. But are we taking that text out of its context? The only way to answer that question is to actually look at the epistle as a whole. Once we understand the message of 1 Timothy, we can then see how 6:16 fits within that message.

the context

Ephesus was a major city in the Roman world during the first century, and the church founded there would be a major player in the task of evangelizing that world. We read about Ephesus in the book of Acts,[1] 1 Corinthians,[2] Ephesians,[3] the epistles to Timothy,[4] and The Revelation.[5] Ephesus was an important city financially for the empire, located on a port at “the greatest harbor in Asia,”[6] and serving as an economic center for the province of Asia Minor. Roman inscriptions from the time of the emperor Claudius indicate that the city had a problem with corrupt leaders, stealing funds earmarked for the preservation of its great temple.[7] Ephesus had bad stewards.

the apostle

Reading the letter, it is not difficult to point out the major characters it presents. There is, of course, Paul the apostle, sent by God and seeking to obey his command to spread the gospel and plant churches among the Gentiles. Paul was never the “pastor” of the church at Ephesus. Neither was he a duly registered representative of a governing body of elders. His authority was his message, and the fact that many in Ephesus first heard the gospel as a result of his ministry.

the missionary

He addresses the book to Timothy, whom he regards as his true child in the faith. Timothy is a disciple of Paul as Paul is of Christ. He was sent by the apostle to proclaim the gospel, to evangelize, and to maintain the work of the churches already planted. He served as a representative of the churches to Paul, and a representative of the apostle to the churches. Timothy was not the “pastor” of the “church in Ephesus.” He was more of a missionary, seeking to further establish the church – which consisted of several congregations meeting in several places throughout the city.

the false teachers

The antagonists in 1 Timothy are a group of people who are influencing the church to be something other than what God and Paul intended them to be. They are referred to as “certain persons” who are teaching a “different doctrine.” [8] They are false teachers, but the exact content of their false teachings is not revealed, and has been a matter of a great deal of speculation. It is not too difficult to get an idea of what they taught by paying close attention to what Paul said against them. They are people who know the gospel message, but swerve from it,[9] wandering away into vain discussion.[10] They do not understand what they are talking about,[11] but still keep talking. They have rejected their former faith and have shipwrecked it.[12] They lie like demons,[13] perpetuating silly myths[14] instead of the gospel. These guys are bad news, yet they are teaching within the congregations of Ephesus.

the gospel as truth entrusted

1 Timothy proclaims the good news of life only in Christ as the most valuable thing the world has ever known. This “glorious gospel” is a truth which has been “entrusted” to Paul, and he has passed it on to the Ephesians.[15] Paul was formerly a blasphemer, rejecting that truth, but he was forgiven, and is now charged with proclaiming it. He tells the world that Christ came to save sinners,[16] and that whoever believes in him will gain eternal life.[17]

As he declares this truth, Paul cannot help but stop and glorify the only God, who is the King of ages, immortal, and invisible.[18] God wants all people to be saved and to come to know this gospel truth.[19] He wants his church to serve as a pillar and buttress of this truth.[20] If people within the churches do not discipline themselves to act appropriately, it is like they are denying their faith.[21] The truth entrusted is the message that the church must pass on to their generation, and the next. Anything that people do within the church that hinders that proclamation needs to be confessed and corrected.

stewardship as a motif

Paul describes that obligation to protect and proclaim the gospel as the theme for the epistle. Scattered throughout its six short chapters are terms that reflect the concept of stewardship. The false teachers are promoting speculations (distractions) rather than the “stewardship from God which is by faith.”[22] The term stewardship in Greek is a combination of the word for house, and the word for law. It is also the word from which we get the English term economy. Stewards in rich households were usually trustworthy slaves that were given management responsibilities. When Paul used the term, he was referring to the valuable gospel that has been entrusted to the church. The false teachers were not living up to that trust.

By contrast, Paul says that God found him faithful, and appointed him for service (as a steward of the gospel).[23] Paul, in turn, entrusted that mission to Timothy,[24] who was commanded to entrust it to the faithful leaders in Ephesus.[25] These leaders must not be lovers of money or greedy for dishonest gain.[26] They must have proved themselves by managing their own households well, before being appointed to manage God’s household.[27] These leaders are valuable assets to the church as well, and should be well provided for financially, because the Scriptures teach “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”[28]

Key to the strategy of winning Ephesus to Christ was the personal godliness of the church members. While training for physical fitness is valuable, training in godliness is valuable in every way.[29] That godliness is not just spiritual piety. It works its way into everyday life, by producing a love for family that takes care of aging parents.[30] By properly managing their households, believers “give the adversary no occasion for slander.”[31]

Those members of the congregations in Ephesus who actually are slaves should do well by their masters, and not take advantage of them if they are believers as well. Instead, “they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their good service are believers and beloved.”[32] Their masters, the “rich in this present age” are encouraged not to put their hopes on “the uncertainty of riches” but on their Master, God, “who richly provides us with everything to enjoy.”[33]

The false teachers are described as people known for their heated arguments and personal vices, and for their mistaken assumption that godliness will necessarily make someone rich.[34] Paul encourages Timothy to be financially content, but to pursue the attributes of godly living: “righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness.”[35] These attributes point people to the LORD who made them possible by his grace. This was the stewardship from God, the strategy to win people to eternal life by means of showing God’s miraculous work in the lives of believers.

6:16

The point of mentioning God’s exclusive immortality in this epistle is to show that the only thing of real value in this life is the promise that we, too, might someday share that attribute. Presently, God is invisible, immortal, and dwells in unapproachable light. But those who are being saved have his promise that someday we, too may share in his immortality. Since that is the case, the last thing believers would want to do is get sidetracked by false teachings, and miss out on the only thing of eternal value this life offers – hope of the next life.

Sharing the gospel is a stewardship from God. We are called to manage his household by providing for the needs of those within it, and by bringing others into it. Like Timothy, we are charged with the task of guarding the deposit entrusted to us.[36] The gospel is our resource. Faith in Christ is our currency.

---

[1] Acts 18:19, 21, 24; 19:1, 17, 26, 35; 20:16f.

[2] 1 Cor. 15:32; 16:8.

[3] Eph. 1:1.

[4] 1 Tim. 1:3; 2 Tim. 1:18; 4:12.

[5] Rev. 1:11; 2:1.

[6] Robert C. Linthicum, City of God, City of Satan. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991), 296.

[7] Robert McQueen Grant, Gods and the One God. (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1986), 27.

[8] 1 Tim. 1:3,6.

[9] 1:6; 6:21.

[10] 1:6.

[11] 1:7.

[12] 1:19.

[13] 4:1.

[14] 4:7.

[15] 1:11.

[16] 1:15.

[17] 1:16.

[18] 1:17.

[19] 2:4.

[20] 3:15.

[21] 5:8.

[22] 1:4.

[23] 1:12; 2:7.

[24] 1:18.

[25] 3:1-13.

[26] 3:3, 8.

[27] 3:4, 12.

[28] 5:18.

[29] 4:8.

[30] 5:4.

[31] 5:14.

[32] 6:2.

[33] 6:17.

[34] 6:2-5.

[35] 6:11.

[36] 6:26.

Apologist Dinesh D’Souza spent years studying how the various cultures of the world viewed the afterlife. Among his conclusions was that there was remarkable similarity among the three “Abrahamic” religions. He said “… in all three cases (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) there is an official teaching and an unofficial teaching. … The official teaching is bodily resurrection. … The alternative, unofficial, view – is the immortality of the soul. In this view the body perishes but the soul lives on. Oddly enough, this idea is first articulated not in biblical or Quranic sources, but rather in Greek philosophy.” [1]

He attributes the view’s popularity to Plato. He states that “Life after death is not exclusively a religious belief but is also one that is shared by Western philosophy going back to Plato.”[2] He credits Augustine for making it standard doctrine within Christianity. It was a slight twist of emphasis in theological anthropology. According to D’Souza, “Christianity since Augustine does not espouse life ‘after’ death, but rather life ‘beyond’ death.”[3]

D’souza was ready to concede that this evolved view is more appropriate for Christianity, and set out to prove it by means of science, philosophy, and practical reason. His arguments only prove what we conditionalists have championed all along: the doctrine of innate immortality is not proven by Scripture, because Scripture teaches something else. It makes a great deal of difference whether one believes in life after death (all conditionalists do), or life beyond death.

theology proper

To suggest that all human beings continue to live beyond their apparent deaths is to say that all human beings are immortal. The Bible clearly claims that only God has the attribute of immortality.[4] The only way the proponents of traditionalism have of responding to this fact is by borrowing another idea from Plato – the concept of dualism. Dualism teaches that human beings are made up of two parts, the body and the soul. Plato taught that the body dies, but that the soul lives on, and always will. Traditionalists imagine that when Paul asserted that only God has immortality, he must have referred to the fact God never experiences bodily death, the way his creatures do. However, conditionalists see Paul making a more fundamental statement. Plato’s claims had been taught for four centuries. The readers of 1 Timothy knew about his claims. Paul’s claims about life after death had to either agree with Plato’s or reject them. Paul rejected the concept of life beyond death. God’s attribute of immortality was exclusive to him alone.

anthropology

The notion of life continuing beyond death instead of being revived by resurrection after death suggests that human beings are endowed by their Creator with not only a right to life, but also with the inability to actually die. The Bible teaches the opposite: that human beings are mortal.

“Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not put up with humans for such a long time, for they are only mortal flesh.”[5]

“Take note of my brief lifespan! Why do you make all people so mortal?”[6]

“Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.”[7]

The Resurrection

The only biblical teaching that suggests a possibility of changing our destiny of death is the hope of the resurrection. Paul taught the Corinthians that our resurrection day will be our day of victory.

“For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “Death is swallowed up in victory.”[8]

The proponents of the life beyond death philosophy would have us believe that the real victory has already happened. As they would have it, we do not have to wait for the resurrection to swallow up death, because death is merely an illusion. Our victory over it is found in the fact that we were created to survive it. Yet, that is not what the apostle said. Paul said that the victory will happen if and when the resurrection occurs.

Translators, seeking to justify their own view of life beyond death, simply insert the word “body” or “bodies” in the text of 1 Corinthians 15:53.[9] The word is not in the original Greek text, nor is it implied. Paul was not talking about a partial victory. The whole person (not just his body) will become imperishable and immortal at the resurrection, because the whole person is perishable and mortal before the resurrection.

It is for that very reason that Paul claims his purpose in life is not to survive death, but to be raised to life after death.

“Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith – that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.”[10]

The Wages of Sin

The Bibles teaches that the wages of sin is death,[11] but if people are found to survive it, and have an automatic eternal life beyond it, then death is not real. The wages are paid with bogus, fake, Monopoly money. If people just “cross the Jordon” and are found on the other side of “the great divide” — then death turns out to be a blessing, not a punishment. Yet, the Bible is clear that death came upon all people as a consequence of our ancestors’ sins. The Bible says “in Adam all die.”[12] The tactic that many people take in evangelization is to immediately deny that fact. The first thing they tell the unbeliever is that they will never die, no matter what. No wonder that so many people reject their “good news.” They immediately deny the “bad news.”

The truth is, we all die. Those cemeteries are full of people, not just bones. Those tombs will one day be opened at the sound of Christ’s second coming, and the people within them will come out. Jesus said “Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.”[13] They are bound to those graves until then. They are imprisoned in a dark, silent place, which the Hebrews called Sheol. The Greeks called it Hades. We call it the grave.

The good news of the gospel is that Jesus has the keys to that place. He can set people free from their imprisonment. He proclaimed “I have the keys of Death and Hades.”[14] To suggest that death is really not a prison in which people are confined before the resurrection is to – again — reject the Bible’s good news for some other good news. It is to say to Jesus, “you can keep your keys, death and Hades are not so bad.” To relish in life beyond death is to reject God’s plan to rescue us by Jesus. It is to swallow the original lie of Satan in the garden, that we will not surely die.[15] It is to presume that we are all born without the need of rescue. It does not do justice to what God actually says about death. Death is not a friend, giving us entrance into the Father’s presence. It is an enemy,[16] keeping us from our eternal destiny with him.

Final Punishment

Insisting that everyone continues to live beyond death also circumvents the great warning that reverberates throughout Scripture. People are constantly challenged to repent of their sins and turn to God because he will ultimately and permanently judge and destroy all those who do not. The wages of our ancestors’ sin is the first death, but the wages of our personal sins is the second death.[17] The difference between the two deaths is made clear: from the first death everyone will be raised,[18] but the second death is in a lake of fire. The fire cannot be put out until it has destroyed all within it. From that death there will be no resurrection. Those who are found in that fire will suffer the “punishment of eternal destruction.”[19]

Life After Death

The good news that the Bible proclaims is that through Jesus Christ those who believe in him can have resurrection life after their deaths, not a continuation of disembodied life beyond death. One advantage of holding to this good news rather than accepting the counterfeit good news is that it is what D’Souza calls the “official teaching” of the Bible, rather than the popular “alternative, unofficial view.” We conditionalists need never resort to having to prove our view by practical reason and science alone. We have God’s word on it.

Another advantage of proclaiming life after death through the resurrection is that it is actually what people are really after. As much as a traditionalist might boast about his desire for going to heaven, he will spend his entire fortune to delay the trip. What people really want is to be alive – fully and functionally alive, and to enjoy God and the universe that he created for us. His plan for us is a new heaven and a new earth, restored to its holiness and spiritual vitality. That is our destiny, and it is a certainty for all who are in Christ. But that great event will not happen when we die. It will happen when death dies. It will happen after our Savior returns. Come, Lord Jesus.

---

[1] Dinesh D’Souza, Life After Death: The Evidence . (Washington: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2009), 42.

[2] D’Souza, 35-36.

[3] D’Souza, 48.

[4] 1 Timothy 6:16-17.

[5] Genesis 6:3 (NLT)

[6] Psalm 89:47 (NET)

[7] Romans 1:22-23 (NET)

[8] 1 Corinthians 15:53-54 (NASB).

[9] See ESV, NET, NLT, NRSV.

[10] Philippians 3:8-11 (ESV).

[11] Romans 6:23.

[12] 1 Corinthians 15:22.

[13] John 5:28-29 (ESV).

[14] Revelation 1:18.

[15] Genesis 3:4.

[16] 1 Corinthians 15:26.

[17] Revelation 20:14; 21:8.

[18] John 5:28-29.

[19] 2 Thessalonians 1:9.