SOUL SLEEP/FALSE DOCTRINE

Note: This question keeps popping up and I have spent much time confused on thisissue. I have come to my final conclusion that soul sleep is false doctrine.Everything from the Old Testament to the New Testament clearly states that thereis absolutely no soul sleep at all. We can feel very comfortable in knowing thatupon death, we will be conscious. We were created eternal and that cannot betaken away whether you are in Hell or the presence of God and our wonderfulLord, Jesus Christ......Terry/PWNG
SOUL SLEEP
There are those who believe when someone dies they enter a sleep stage. As thebody is put in the ground, so is the soul. They interpret the word sleep in theScripture to be a state of silence, inactivity, unconsciousness for the soul.Since the beginning of the Church those who have studied the Bible have nevercome to these conclusions, all have had the hope of heaven. Has everyone inChurch history believed in error and died with a false hope of being united withJesus after death?"What does the Bible say about soul sleep?"Answer: When the Bible says a person is "sleeping" in relation to death (Luke8:52; 1 Corinthians 15:6), it does not mean literal "sleep." Sleeping is just away to describe death because a dead body appears to be sleeping. The Bibletells us that the instant you die, you are taken to heaven or Hell based onwhether you had received Christ as your Savior or not. For believers, to beabsent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:6-8;Philippians 1:23). For unbelievers, death means everlasting punishment in Hell(Luke 16:22-23). The concept of "soul sleep" is not a Biblical doctrine. Themoment we die, we face the judgment of God (Hebrews 9:27). Until theresurrection, though, there is currently a temporary heaven "Paradise" (Luke23:43; 2 Corinthians 12:4) and Hell "Hades" (Revelation 1:18; 20:13-14).In a sense, a person's body is "sleeping" while their soul is in Paradise orHades. This body is then "awoken" and transformed into the eternal body a personwill possess for eternity. These eternal bodies is what we possess for all ofeternity, whether we are in heaven or Hell. Those who were in Paradise will besent to the New Heavens and New Earth (Revelation 21:1). Those who were in Hadeswill be thrown into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:11-15). These are thefinal, eternal destinations of all people - based entirely on whether a personhad trusted Jesus Christ alone for the salvation of their sins."What happens after death?"Answer: The question of what happens after death can be confusing. The Bible isnot explicitly clear on when a person will reach their final eternal destiny.The Bible tells us that after the moment of death, a person is taken to Heavenor Hell based on whether he or she had received Christ as his or her Savior. Forbelievers, after death is to be "away from the body and at home with the Lord"(2 Corinthians 5:6-8; Philippians 1:23). For unbelievers, after death meanseverlasting punishment in Hell (Luke 16:22-23).This is where it can get confusing as to what happens after death. Revelation20:11-15 describes all those in Hell being cast into the lake of fire.Revelation chapters 21-22 describe a New Heaven and New Earth. Therefore, itseems that until the final resurrection, after death a person resides in a"temporary" Heaven and Hell. A person's eternal destiny will not change, but theprecise "location" of a person's eternal destiny will change. At some pointafter death, believers will be sent to the New Heavens and New Earth (Revelation21:1). At some point after death, unbelievers will be thrown into the lake offire (Revelation 20:11-15). These are the final, eternal destinations of allpeople - based entirely on whether a person had trusted Jesus Christ alone forthe salvation of their sins.The state of the dead -alive in Christ, or dead and forgotten ?This is my least favourite topic to discuss when it comes to Adventist andChurch of God theology, because I have had this discussion before, and it makesit clear to me that while it is 100% obvious to me that the Bible teaches thatthe soul lives on after death, it is equally obvious to some others that this isnot the case. My best explanation does not change anyone's opinion because tothem it is clearly faulty, and their best explanation is clearly faulty to me.To me this is one of those things that prove the inefficiency of having theBible as sole authority - it is clear in this case that one needs someone toshow us what the Bible really says, like the eunuch in Acts 8:31. I believe thatJesus gave us that authority in Matt 16:18-19, among other places, but I will domy best to explain my point of view without that. I will not try to beconvincing and do a complete proof, as I doubt you will agree anyway, based onpast experience with this topic.First I'll deal with the evolution of the concept of the state of the dead, andthen get onto specific biblical arguments about it.In the beginning of the Bible, the place the dead are in appears to be someplace different to their graves (proof: see later). Slowly, we see thedevelopment of a different view, a split view. The official view is that thedead are not conscious or aware of anything, but the general view held by mostof the people is that of the first part of the Bible, where the dead are seen asbeing in some place of the dead other than the grave. By the time we get to thelatter Old Testament times, we see the view that the dead are alive spiritually.In New Testament times we see that the official Jewish beliefs of the Sadducees,the officially accepted beliefs of the Old Testament on the state of the dead,are corrected by Jesus who tells them that God is God of the living, not of thedead. This same belief denied the possibility of a resurrection, though theconcept was extant in Pharisaic thought. The New Testament goes on to show invarious places that the dead are alive in Christ, not in a state ofunconsciousness, and that the sleep referred to refers to being unconscious,asleep, in the physical sense, not the spiritual sense.Now for some biblical examples of what I said above. In Genesis we see the deadas being gathered to their people. This implies not unconsciousness, but ajourney to where the fathers and ancestors of the people had gone, a place ofthe dead which was not the graves they were buried in. If the dead wereunconscious, then this idiomatic expression has no meaning, for to be gatheredto one's people who simply don't exist is nonsensical. See Gen. 25:8, 35:39,49:29-33 for this expression. God told Abraham that he would go to his fathersin peace (Gen. 15:15). But Abraham was not buried with his fathers. His fatherdied in Haran (Gen. 11:32), and Abraham went on his journey that God planned forhim. He was buried, not with his fathers, but in a cave given to him by theHittites for the burial of his wife Sarah. How could Abraham go to his fathersin peace, and be gathered to his people, if he was not buried with them, andthey were all in a state on non-existence until the resurrection ? I mustconclude from this that the earliest evidence in the Bible is that the dead werein some place of the dead, not in a state of non-existence. Is there anotherexplanation for this ?I Samuel 28:3-25 refers to the well known example of the summoning of Samuel bythe witch at Endor. It refers to Saul putting away mediums - obviously, if therewere mediums in business, the common people must have thought that the dead werealive somewhere and able to be summoned. Saul obviously believed that the personhe called up was Samuel. The Bible states nothing to the contrary, and any otherinterpretation must be forced on this passage - I see no reason (especially inlight of the what I am trying to show here in this letter) to accept theassumption that it was a demon appearing like Samuel. Saul said it was Samuel;if the Bible had disagreed, it should have given a bit more of a hint.Other passages, like Isaiah 14:9-10 show the dead in Sheol rising from thronesand speaking. They seem to be addressing Satan. It can be argued that this ismere poetry, is not to be taken literally, and has no impact on whether the deadare conscious or not in the place of the dead. But if you take it in the contextof what I will try to show, it does have some relevance.Now we get to the very interesting case of Ecclesiastes.The author of Ecclesiastes believed that every person got the same fate -eternal unconsciousness - whether he was good or evil (Eccl 2:14). His onlyreward is the mark he leaves, and the rewards his righteousness and faith bringhim in his lifetime. To him the judgement had nothing to do with eternaldestiny, but with God's acceptance or rejection of your life, work, faith, andrighteousness. He saw a good life and good morals as the end of God's purpose -basically, the death of the wicked are their reward, and the life of the goodare their reward, and after that is nothing. All of this is clearly shown inEccl. 2:14, 2:16, 3:20, 6:6, 6:8, 9:2, 9:5, and 9:10. Is the Bible here teachingis that man has no afterlife at all ?Perhaps he speaks only of this physical life - two texts suggest this, where hetalks of man's spirit - Eccl. 3:19-21 and 12:7. In the first he admits that hedoesn't know the final end of man's spirit, if it is any different to that ofthe animals. The book of Ecclesiastes is not meant as a dissertation of thefinal end of man - it says so. It is a commentary on the pointlessness of thisphysical existence, and is to be taken in the context of the whole Bible, whichdoes promise a perfect existence after this life. The author of Ecclesiastes istrying to make the point that in this life we will get the most happiness out ofliving a good, moral, fruitful and wise life, and by avoiding the trappings ofthe physical pleasures. But what he says on the afterlife is not absolute in anycontext other than his own morbid pessimism. We cannot say that one verse (9:5)proves that man is unconscious after death any more than we can say that oneverse (3:21 or 12:7) proves he is with God. The context of these verses must betaken in the context of the whole book - the former (9:5) to be interpreted withrespect to the physical meaning of life in this physical world (once we aredead, physically there is not more life, and what is done is done, and ourrecord is permanent, and our physical punishment or reward complete), and thelatter (3:21 or 12:7) to be mere speculation, which the author admits, on whatmay or may not happen later - if there is a better reward with God then so beit, but if not, and this is all there is, then make the best out of what Godgives you here, and he'll reward you for it. This message is a very importantone, and probably very necessary for encouraging those within the Church whobegin to doubt God's existence and his purpose in their lives - it will keepthem on the right path while God continues to work with them and in their lives.To summarise, one verse makes it quite clear that Ecclesiastes is referring tothe physical side of death only, and not to what lies beyond, whether immediatelife, or a resurrection following unconsciousness. That verse is Eccl 9:2 - "Onefate comes to all, to the righteous and to the wicked, to the good and the evil... as is the good man, so is the sinner ..." Unless we are all doomed to thesame spiritual fate as the wicked, this verse must be referring to the fate ofthe physical body, what the author has seen happen to good and bad people in hisvast experience - physical death. If we are to believe it makes any statement onwhat lies beyond the moment of physical death, then we are in serious trouble -I don't want the same fate as the wicked. If Eccl 9:5 refers to the after-deathstate of man, it also says that we have no more reward. I must conclude that theobservations of King Solomon were made about the fate and reward of each manthis side of the grave, all ending in the grave, and were not observations aboutthe state of the dead at all. Hence, when it says the dead know nothing (9:5) itrefers to the fact that a body is obviously quite dead, lacking inconsciousness, not knowing anything - the fate of both the good and the wicked.The unconsciousness, in the context of the whole book and its purpose, mustrefer to the loss of this-worldly awareness, and says nothing about what happensto the spirit.There is one verse that does extend beyond the grave - Eccl 12:7. All the restrefer to what happens this side of the grave; Eccl 12:7 refers to what happensto man's spirit - it goes to God who made it. All sorts of theories have beenformed about what this spirit is, many based on a false understanding of Eccl9:5. There is really no biblical evidence that supports a unconscious soultheory, apart from this misunderstood verse. Hence there is no reason to try toexplain how the spirit is unconscious while it remains with God.The next Bible reference is a controversial one - because you won't accept thatit is a valid Bible verse. It is II Maccabees 15:11-16, which shows the deceasedJewish high priest Onias, and the prophet Jeremiah, praying for the people ofJudah. They are dead, but praying for the Jews. Even if you don't accept this asbiblical, it does go to show that it was generally believed that the dead couldintercede through prayer to God, for II Maccabees formed part of major Jewishliterature, and part of the Septuagint, was included in the text of the Bibleused by the Apostles, and by early Christians, thrown out by the Jews because itdidn't suit their theology (and by the Protestants because it didn't suittheirs), and is referred to by Paul in Hebrews 11:35.On to the New Testament.In the New Testament, Jesus refuted the Sadducees' concept of no resurrection.He also told them, in Mark 12:26-27, that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacobwas the God of the living, not the dead. If God is the God of Abraham, Isaac andJacob, and he is specifically God of the living, not the dead, then these threemen must be among the living, and not among the dead. That must mean spirituallyliving, since it is true that they are physically dead. It is also interestingto note that in the preceding verses, the Sadducees asked the question in thefuture tense - and Jesus answered in the present tense, implying that thosethings - marrying not, but being like angels - were going on at that moment. Ofcourse, the Bible also talks of a physical resurrection of our bodies, but whatJesus is talking of here is mainly the spiritual one, which, judging by histenses, occurs at death, else Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would not be among theliving, and God would have to be God of the dead too.Lazarus and the Rich ManNext, we deal with the famous story of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19-31),which both sides use to prove their case. Personally I find the explanationgiven by the Churches of God to be rich in imagination. They do a good job ofexplaining away the obvious, but I don't think it is good enough.Some say that this, as a parable, should not be taken literally, and what ourLord said really has a hidden meaning. But this cannot be true, for severalreasons. St. Luke, as a historian, wrote literally and factually, notcryptically. He surely would have explained the parable if it were not to betaken literally. When our Lord uses parables, they are either references tomasters and servants or guests at a feast, which are clearly figurative inmeaning, referring to God, us, and the heavenly feast. There are also fishingnets, mustard trees, and so forth, that are obviously not real life events. Themost important part of the parable is their clear underlying meaning to usChristians today. The meaning is either explained by the writers, or is quiteclear from the context. It was only the Jews in Jesus' day that could notunderstand some of these parables, because their hearts and minds were closed inorder that the Gentiles might also get to hear the word of God (Rom. 11:8). Thisparable is not like this - all the actions are real human ones, and the Jewishculture at the time would not take it with the pinch of salt some people thinkit requires. Finally, the question must be asked, "If Jesus knew something wasfalse, would He use it deliberately to get a point across, while pretending itwas true, and not explaining it ?"My answer - He didn't. When we look at this story, there is no need to interpretit at all - it is quite clear. The apparent meaning doesn't need to be explainedaway. The rich man died, as did Lazarus. The rich man went to Hades, the realmof the dead. Lazarus was taken to Abraham's bosom - paradise.What is Abraham's bosom ? Well, the Bible tells is that Christians are the seedof Abraham (Gal. 3:29). So, upon entering into a relationship with Christ, webecome the seed of Abraham, entering into a relationship with him too, signifiedby the word "bosom" - showing intimacy, affection, closeness as when one getshugged. Abraham has been called "Father of the Faith" based on Hebrews 11. Hisbosom clearly means the Church, the Body of Christ, the congregation ofChristians, the new Israel. If the angels carried Lazarus off to the part of theChurch that had left their bodies and are now at home in the Lord (see II Cor.5:1-10), then these people must be alive somewhere with God (who is the God ofthe living, after all) - in Heaven, or in Paradise. If this were onlyfigurative, why does Lazarus need angels to carry him ? I have not yet seen asatisfactory explanation of all the symbolism in this story if it is indeed aparable.If the dead are indeed either with God or elsewhere, it makes perfect sense forpeople in heaven to be able to talk or communicate, and if God wishes, tocommunicate with those in Hell. And that is how the parable continues.Even as a parable, it still shows a real situation in the spirit world. In otherparables, the actions are entirely possible ones - the sowing of seed was acommon practice, the celebration of a party, a wedding, the return of a longlost son - these are all based on real events, activities that are reallypossible, that do actually happen. So it must be with the story of Lazarus andthe Rich man - the events are real, possible events, events that Jesus assumesto be a real representation of what really happens in such a situation. So wemust conclude that this parable shows that the events are literal in that theycan literally occur, even if the specific case in question is not. There isabsolutely no indication that this is a cryptic message with hidden truths, butwith a false appearance on the outside.Also in the New Testament, as in II Maccabees, we find the example of the saintsin heaven praying to God - Rev 6:9-10. Here we have a point well before any ofthe resurrections taught by the Churches of God, where we find martyrs in heavenpraying to God. Is this mere symbolism, like the verses that talk of bloodcrying out ? Even in those verses, it is clear that the dead are not silent.There is something that cries out, more than just symbolically. When Revelationtalks of people in heaven, it refers to real people. 24 elders (Rev 4:4) arenever in my experience interpreted as being symbolic. They may well be symbolic,but are also real.Hebrews 12:1 talks of a great cloud of witnesses surrounding us. These witnessesare none other than the dead saints referred to in the preceding verses. If Paulmeant to imply merely that there are many saints whose lives witnessed to theglory of God, he would not have used language like "surround." The imageproduced was definitely of a spiritual presence of witnesses from the pastpresent in the Church - the faithful departed. The language does not imply amere existence in the past of faithful people.II Cor 5:6-9 talks to us of the difference between being here on earth in ourbodies and away from the Lord, and being with the Lord and out of our bodies. Onone level it talks of the difference between this-worldly things and things ofthe Lord. But there is another level, shown by verse 9 - if only the first levelapplied, all true Christians would be away from the body, at home with the Lord.But verse 9 talks of people who are in both states, all trying to please theLord. So, unless Paul is teaching that true Christians can be truly at home inthe materialistic world, another level of understanding must apply to thispassage. Some Christians are still at home in the body, and not yet with theLord. Other Christians are already dead - away from the body. These same peopleare at home with the Lord, and, as verse 9 tells us, still working to pleaseHim. That can only mean that Paul understood that people who were at home withthe Lord, i.e. no longer at home in the body, were alive and with Christ.Note verses 1-5, which talk of our bodies as tents, being temporary, while wewait for our heavenly home.The Apostle John had two disciples whom he trained in the Christian faith, andplaced as leaders of the Church at various places. These were Ignatius andPolycarp, who both claim to have known each other in their writings. They weretaught that the dead Christians went to heaven when they died. At the time ofhis execution in Rome in 107 AD, Ignatius, the successor of Peter at Antioch,wrote that he wished to get this execution over with quickly, and not delay onthis earth much longer, so that he would be sooner with God in heaven.Paul wrote something very similar, in Phil 1:23. Paul writes that on one hand hewishes to depart to be with Christ, and on the other hand he wishes to remainwith the Church. Unlike Ignatius, he is not in line for execution, and can stilllead and help the Church, so there are two open options for him to choose (if itwere his choice.) If he believed that the dead were unconscious, he wouldrealise that if he died, he would not go immediately to Christ. He would haveknown that he would get to Christ at the same time regardless of what happened,and his choice would have automatically been the unselfish one - staying withthe Church, for that was the only way he could truly be with Christ if the onlyalternative was unconsciousness. To die to get the long wait over with wouldhave been a quick fix, an easy option. But that's not what his writings imply atall. The wording implies that his options were going to Christ, or staying withthe Church. He knew that either way he could help the Church, either by theprayers he could pray, as he probably deduced from II Maccabees, which hedefinitely read because he quoted it in Hebrews 11:35. He knew he would bepleasing God (II Cor 5:9.) That is why a valid alternative was, as he said,departing to be with Christ. In fact the very word "depart" implies more thanjust a state of unconsciousness - he leaves somewhere to go somewhere else.Matt 10:28 shows us that the body can die while the soul/spirit lives on. "Anddo not fear those who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul .." - obviouslywhen a person kills another person, the body dies but the soul does not. Thedeath of the soul is a separate death. The first death is the death of the body,the second death is the death of the soul.One verse sometimes used to refute all this is John 3:13, where it says that"no-one has ascended into heaven." That does not at all contradict the teachingthat the dead were conscious, for at that time, no man had ascended to heaven -the Jews taught that the dead were all in the place of the dead, Sheol, and theChurch taught that up to the time of the Resurrection, people were in a placecalled Paradise (i.e. Sheol) awaiting entry into heaven, based on I Peter 3:19,where Jesus preached to the spirits in prison -this Sheol. If this prisonreferred to the place of the damned, there was no use preaching, which is whatis implied here by the word "preached."Acts 3:34 talks of David not having risen into heaven. The KJV says, "David isnot ascended." More reliable translations say "David did not ascend." The latterare correct. The tense is the aorist tense, means "that something has happenedin a past time relative to the speaker, with no particular focus on itsbeginning, end, or progress. The Simple Past (he died) tense is usually the bestEnglish equivalent." Taken from Chapman, Benjamin and Shogren, Gary Steven,Greek New Testament Insert (Quakertown, PA: Stylus Publishing) 1994. So whatthis verse is saying is that, at the time of his death (to which Luke's quoterefers), David did not ascend to heaven. It is saying nothing of David'scontinuous state in any way. The KJV has used an incorrect rendering of thistext, causing the confusion.I Peter 3:19 tells of Jesus preaching to spirits in prison, after his death,before his resurrection. The tense used here is the simple past tense, whichmeans that the events must happen in the order they are listed. So, Jesus diedin the flesh and was made alive in the spirit, after which he went to thespirits in prison to preach to them. That is the only way in which this versecan be interpreted. I Peter 4:6 supports this view - the Gospel was preachedeven to the dead. The word even implies more than that the people are now dead -it implies that even the dead could have the Gospel preached to them.Some claim that the preaching of I Peter 3:19 was done in the days of Noah, butthis is based on misinterpretations of the English text, and is unsupported bythe Greek. It is the disobeying that was done in the days of Noah, not thepreaching. Who are the spirits in prison ? Well, the passage is talking ofpeople who disobeyed, obviously not given the chance to receive saving grace,people who had had their hearts hardened. They were now, in the place of thedead, being preached to in order that they might be given their first chance atsalvation. Anyway, the text refers to the spirits in prison, and immediatelytalks about those who did not obey (in the days of Noah.) So they are obviouslyone and the same group of people, probably with the rest of the unsaved deadadded to them. Why did Peter pick out those who disobeyed in Noah's day as areference point ? Well, he wanted to compare those unsaved by baptism and thosewho were saved by it, and to do so he compared those unsaved by Noah's flood,and those saved by it. Grammatically, this is the only way the text can besensibly understood. I see no way around that fact.Today you will be with me in Paradise !!!Finally, we get to Jesus' words on the Cross. He said to the criminal next tohim - "Truly, truly, I say unto you, today you will be with me in paradise."Adventists and others will immediately jump in here to say that the punctuationhere is in error. In the original Greek there was no punctuation, and it alwayshad to be supplied by the translators. Thus, they tell us, this verse can alsobe translated like this: "Truly, truly, I say unto you today, you will be withme in paradise." If that is what Jesus is saying, then he is saying today thatthe person will be in paradise with him at some point in the future.But can this verse really be translated this way, or is it a ploy to try to makeus accept this false doctrine ?If we take a concordande, and look up every instance where Jesus (or anyone)says "Truly, truly, I say unto you" or "Amen, Amen, I say unto you" or any ofthe various translations of this phrase, we will notice that in none of them dowe ever find anyone saying, "Amen, Amen, I say unto you TODAY." The expressionis ALWAYS "Amen, amen, I say unto you, [and then the promise or statement offact]." Go and look this up for yourself, and go and look up the phrase involved- you will notice that it does not have a time clause in it. Because of thedefinite consistency in the way this phrase is used, and especially the way inwhich Jesus uses this phrase, we can be 100% sure that the "today" in thestatement in question must belong to the second part of the statement, thepromise to the thief on the cross. It cannot belong to the "Amen, Amen" or"Truly, truly" clause because it is never used that way. We must accept thegrammar of this verse, and accept that that very day, the theif was with Jesusin paradise.False Doctrines On The Intermediate State After DeathPART 1 - Soul Sleep vs The Truth Of ScriptureBy Ed Tarkowski"Soul sleep" means that when a person dies, they have no conscious existencefrom that time on until the day of resurrection. Another definition I have comeacross is that the "soul sleep" of the deceased is an existence of silence,inactivity and entire unconsciousness.Mark 12:26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in thebook of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God ofAbraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore dogreatly err.When God spoke to Moses, Jesus said said to him that He was the God of Abraham,Isaac and Jacob. In other words, when God spoke to Moses at the burning bush,Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had already lived and died. Yet Jesus said God wastheir God even now, the God of the living in the present, meaning, though thesethree had died physically, their spirits were not dead. Nor did He mention theirspirits were asleep. In other words, their spirits were alive, God was theirGod, even while their bodies laid in the ground.The bodies of these three were dead and buried at the time Jesus spoke of them.He spoke of them spiritually, though, as being alive. He mentioned God as theGod of the living, not the God of those asleep whether in or out of theirbodies, as some propose, that after death men's spirits slept in their bodiesuntil the resurrection and were basically unconscious. No, He said that Godmeant He was "the God of the living" when He spoke to Moses and when Jesus spoketo the men of His time, "living" meaning,LIVING 2198. zao, dzah'-o; a prim. verb; to live (lit. or fig.):--life(-time), (a-) live (-ly), quick.James described the dead of a person:James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without worksis dead also.In other words, when a person dies, his body dies and the spirit leaves thebody:WITHOUT 5565. choris, kho-rece'; adv. from G5561; at a space, i.e. separatelyor apart from (often as prep.):--beside, by itself, without.In Genesis 35, we read this about the soul departing from Rachel when she died,making soul sleep an impossibility:18 And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that shecalled his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin.19 And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem(parenthesis in the original).That the spirit goes to be with the Lord is stated by Paul in Philippians 1:Philippians 1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.22 But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what Ishall choose I wot not.23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be withChrist; which is far better:24 Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.25 And having this confidence, I know that I shall abide and continue with youall for your furtherance and joy of faith;26 That your rejoicing may be more abundant in Jesus Christ for me by mycoming to you again.Paul's choices were two in number: either(1) stay in the flesh and continue to live on this earth serving God's people,or,(2) depart and be with Christ.Where is Christ? Is He in the ground in some type of soul sleep? No, He is inheaven until He returns and the believer joins Him there when each departs atdeath, that is, when their spirit leaves the body at death as James described.Paul again repeated himself in 2 Corinthians:2 Corinthians 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst weare at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:Simply stated. while he is in his body, he is absent from the Lord's heavenlypresence. When he will be absent from the body, he will no longer be 'absentfrom the Lord." There is no mention of an intermediate state of soul sleep.One of the most important scriptures refuting soul sleep is found in Ephesiansand it concerns Christ and His resurrection:Ephesians 4:7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measureof the gift of Christ.8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive,and gave gifts unto men.9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into thelower parts of the earth?10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens,that he might fill all things.)Jesus lead captivity captive when He descended into the lower parts of theearth. In other words, He descended and then ascended out of their taking withHim a host of captives (those who waited for His coming). That they were therewaiting to be lead out shows the non-existence of soul sleep:LED CAPTIVITY 161. aichmalosia, aheekh-mal-o-see'-ah; from G164;captivity:--captivity.LED CAPTIVITY From 164. aichmalotos, aheekh-mal-o-tos'; from aichme (a spear)and a der. of the same as G259; prop. a prisoner of war, i.e. (gen.) acaptive:--captive.LED CAPTIVITY From 259. halosis, hal'-o-sis; from a collateral form of G138;capture:--be taken.LED CAPTIVITY From 138. haireomai, hahee-reh'-om-ahee; prob. akin to G142; totake for oneself, i.e. to prefer:--choose.LED CAPTIVITY From 142. airo, ah'ee-ro; a prim. verb; to lift; by impl. totake up or away; fig. to raise (the voice), keep in suspense (the mind); spec.to sail away (i.e. weigh anchor); by Heb. [comp. H5375] to expiate sin:--awaywith, bear (up), carry, lift up, loose, make to doubt, put away, remove, take(away, up).At death, the spirits of men of faith were held captive at death in Hades andreleased from there when Jesus descended there after His death (see 1 Peter 3:19and 4:6). Jesus preached to spirits held captive, whether they be the spirits ofthose in Noah's days or not. He didn't preach to a sleeping crowd.Finally, Revelation clearly indicates that the souls of the martyrs and thesaints are in heaven before the resurrection on the last day, again refuting theidea of soul sleep:Revelation 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altarthe souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimonywhich they held:10 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?11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said untothem, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservantsalso and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should befulfilled.False Doctrines On The Intermediate State After DeathPART 2: The False Doctrine Of AnnihilationismBy Ed TarkowskiThe doctrine of Annihilationism has various forms. Some, not believing in anafterlife at all, believe man exists during a life on this earth, but at deathsimply ceases to exist. But, those who are sincere concerning this doctrinebelieve man was made to live forever, a free gift that can be forfeited bycontinuing in sin by rejecting Christ. These do not suffer eternally, but onlytemporarily and then are annihilated and cease to exist.An example of this doctrine is that which is proposed by the Jehovah Witnesses.They do not believe in the separation of the spirit from the body at death asdescribed in James 2:26:James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without worksis dead also.WITHOUT 5565. choris, kho-rece'; adv. from G5561; at a space, i.e. separatelyor apart from (often as prep.):--beside, by itself, without."Without" means separately." The spirit is separated from the body at death.This is much different than believing the soul and spirit become so infused withthe body at death that the entire person is annihilated.They believe each person's life ceases to exist, both those who believe inChrist and those who don't, when the body is placed in the grave. God thensupposedly re-creates them as they were for their life in Paradise.There are basically three forms of this belief. One is that at death, everyoneceases to exist, but those who do believe in Christ receive immortality. Asecond form of this belief is that the wicked are given another chance afterdeath to accept Christ, but if they do not, they then cease to exist and areannihilated. Another form is that the wicked are thrown into hell for a shortperiod of suffering and are then annihilated.Annihilationism denies the existence of an eternal hell as Scripture describesit because the doctrine denies the eternal existence of man. If one isimmediately or eventually annihilated when life on earth ends, there is no needfor a place of punishment. But, Jesus said,Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into EVERLASTING punishment: but therighteous into life eternal.Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life wascast into the lake of fire.Notice the word "everlasting" in Matthew 25:46. It is the same word used in thisverse concerning the New Covenant:Hebrews 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our LordJesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlastingcovenant,21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you thatwhich is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.This denies annihilationism because the wicked will suffer forever in the lakeof fire. If this is not so, then the New Covenant is also nullified because itcannot be eternal as we understand it. The result of this type of nonsenseconcerning annihilationism is that all will eventually be lost and annihilated,the saved and the unsaved (because of the definition of "everlasting" ineverlasting covenant). But, don't worry, the New Covenant is forever.