The Calling

Ain't that life (Isn't death living?)
A Written compostion of the Heavenly Calling Network Study Group

Part 9
Ain't that life!
Joel, "When you study this chapter you might find many aspects of it to be difficult to understand. For example, Christ says in verse 9, "I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings". But in verse 8, our Lord referred to the manager who had done just exactly that as the "dishonest manager".

Another difficulty is in verse 16 where Christ says, "…and everyone is forcing his way into the kingdom of God". We know that no one can force his way into the kingdom of God.

And there are several difficulties with the story of the rich man and Lazarus. In verse 25, for example, we read that "Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your life time you received good things while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here while you are in agony'". There are two difficulties here. We are not told that the rich man was unbelieving or unfaithful or cruel, only that he was rich. And yet, verse 25 implies that he is suffering agony only because he was rich. And similarly, we are not told that Lazarus was faithful or a believer or good in any sense, only that he had nothing during his lifetime. This is not consistent with the message of salvation as given to us in the Word of God. Also scriptures teaches that the body goes back to dust and the spirit goes back to God who gave it (Ecc. 12:7), so what is Abraham's bosom? The Bible also teaches that there is only silence in death. Ps. 6:5 says, "No one remembers You when he is dead, who praises You from the grave?" Ps. 31:17 says, "…let the wicked be put to shame and lie silent in the grave". Ps. 88:10-11, "Do you show your wonders to the dead, do those who are dead rise up and praise you? Is your love declared in the grave, your faithfulness in destruction?" Ps. 115:17, "It is not the dead who praise the Lord, those who go down to silence". If these verses are true, and we know they are, how is there conversation between the rich man and Abraham? Nowhere else in the Bible do we read of Abraham's bosom or of angels carrying any one to his side, Luke 16:22.

In order to understand this chapter we must see to whom was our Lord speaking and what was the underlying message to these people.

In answer to the first question. Luke 16:1 says, "Jesus told His disciples…". That is perfectly clear, He was speaking to His disciples—but notice also verse 14, "The Pharisees heard all of this and were sneering at Jesus". It is clear that the Pharisees heard Jesus and that they took what He was saying as a rebuke or they would not have been sneering.

The next question is what was the underlying message?

Christ begins His message with the parable of the shrewd manager. This manager was called to "Give an account" of his management because he was in danger of losing his job. In an effort to cover his bases, so to speak, he devised a plan so that if he did lose his job people would welcome him into their houses and he would then have a place to stay. He told each one who owed his master a debt to pay only half of it, thereby winning their favor. As it happens the master commends the manager because he had acted shrewdly. But what does Christ think of this manager? Christ, in verse 8 says, "The master commended the dishonest manager". So Christ would not have commended this shrewd but dishonest manager. But in verse 9, He tells us to do exactly what dishonest manager had done, He says, "Use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings". How is this possible? It is not possible! Christ was using the figure of speech, irony, to make His point more emphatically, which is the purpose of a figure of speech. Irony, according to Webster's dictionary is "a sort of …ridicule, the intended implication of which is the opposite of the literal sense of the words". We use irony when we say, for example "I love this bitter, cold weather" when we really mean that we hate this bitter, cold weather.

This is not the first time we read of God using irony. In Judges 10:4 God uses irony when the Lord says, "Go and cry out to the gods you have chosen, let them save you when you are in trouble".

A comparison of Deut. 32:31 with verse 37 of the same chapter will show another occurrence of irony. Verse 32 reads, "For their rock is not like our Rock, as even our enemies concede". We see the irony in verse 37 when we read, " He will say, ‘Now where are their gods, the rock they took refuge in?" It is good to keep in mind that irony as a figure of speech emphasizes the negativity of the statement being expressed in the positive. As difficult as it may be for us to accept that our Lord in using a figure of speech, said the very opposite of what He meant, it is consistent with other portions of God's Word. What Christ is actually saying to the Pharisees is, that they are wrong in teaching that one can enter the kingdom of God by shrewd and dishonest means.

Christ continues His message with the statement about people forcing their way into the kingdom of God. Is this a totally different subject apart from what had been said before? Christ is continuing His rebuke of the Pharisees, this time He is criticizing their mishandling of the Law and the Prophets. He says that even though people were "forcing" their way into the kingdom of God, which is another case of irony, no one can force his way into the kingdom of God. And it continues, the Law will stand unmarred by them. He is saying to the Pharisees in effect, you can try forcing your way into the kingdom of God by misusing the Law and the Prophets, but the Law will stand in spite of you. He then goes on in verse 18 to give an example of the Law that the Pharisees were mishandling. "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery". One can only surmise that the Pharisees had become too lenient with their handling of divorce.

In verses 19-31 we have the story of the rich man and Lazarus. There are difficulties with these verses if interpreted literally. There is no mention of the spiritual life of either the rich man or Lazarus. The only reason given for the rich man's agony is the fact that he was rich, and the only reason for Lazarus's situation was that he had received bad things in his lifetime. This story contradicts other passages in the Bible that describe death and the grave as being silent. A place called Abraham's bosom contradicts Ecc. 12:7 where we are told that the body goes back to the dust and the spirit returns to God.

What is the answer to these questions? Christ told this story to the Pharisees as a criticism of the way they were mishandling the scriptures concerning death. They taught that there were several set of angels, some that carried wicked men to their eternal dwelling and others to carry good men to their eternal dwellings. They also taught that there were three places that one could go after death; Abraham's bosom, under the throne of glory and paradise. It is obvious that these teachings did not come from the scriptures but from their own imaginings. But the Lord uses their false teachings to make His point, which was that, "if they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even though someone rises form the dead",verse 31. In other the words, He, rather then "cast pearls before swine", uses their own false teachings to make His point, i.e. that they would not accept the truth even though someone would be raised from the dead. This is consistent with the context of this story; our Lord is criticizing the Pharisees for their dishonest way of handling the Word of Truth. The summary of Luke chapter 16 is found in the next verse, Luke 17:1, "Jesus said to His disciples, ‘Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to the person through whom they come". If one takes the story of the rich man and Lazarus, as being literal truth then 17:1 makes no sense, it is a non-sequiter. But if one takes it as a rebuke of the Pharisees' mishandling of the scriptures concerning death, (as the parable of the shrewd manager a rebuke of their love of money) then the story stands as a warning to them and anyone else who purposely handles the Word of Truth dishonestly.

In conclusion these are several things we know from scripture in regards to what happens when we die. The body returns to dust and the spirit goes back to God who gave it. The spirit is not alive, nor does it have a personality, in itself. The spirit is simply, the breath of life. When man dies, he "is no more". i.e. he ceases to exist. If a man is a believer, he will be resurrected unto eternal life. If he is not a believer, he will not inherit eternal life, he will remain dead.

Tommy, "What I've noticed Joel, is your heavy reliance on verses from the book of Ecclesiastes to support your view. Now I don't know if you're aware of this, and I'm certainly not associating you with this group, but the Jehovah's Witnesses believes in the doctrine of Annihilationism and pretty much appeals to the same verses in support of their view that the dead "know and does nothing".

Now in response to such groups, and by extension to you, I've always pointed to the fact that the book of Ecclesiastes cannot be used as a basis for thinking there is no consciousness after death for a couple of reasons. First, because the author was writing what he has observed in life from a purely human standpoint. Secondly, this book is basically a "dialogue" the author is having with himself.

I have this book that I have brought with me which comments on this subject. Here's one commentator's thoughts on this. I also want you to take notice to the fact that the book of Job is alluded to here as well to make the same point. This is what it says about this verse.

"Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

Nearly every defense of "soul sleep" I have seen thus far begins with or contains this verse. If it could be taken at face value, it would offer substantial evidence that the dead are in a state of unconsciousness. However, it is precisely because we cannot take it at "face value" that its use for "soul sleep" is unjustified.

As we have noted in other contexts, the nature of Ecclesiastes is paradoxical. It is a book filled with statements regarded as being in tension (for example, on one hand mulling over the despair of life, then shortly thereafter encouraging the enjoyment of life) and has been variously identified as either a dialogue of a man debating with himself, "torn between what he cannot help seeing and what he still cannot help believing," [Kidner, Wisdom of Proverbs, Job and Ecclesiastes, 91], or else as the author's "challenge to the man of the world to think his own position through to its bitter end, with a view to seeking something less futile." In either case, the compositional principle is the same, and derives from the ancient Near Eastern methodology, which we might loosely compare to a Hegelian case of combining thesis and antithesis, to arrive at a synthesis.

In this regard Ecclesiastes is related to other ANE literature with the same, or similar, content and methodology. Works like A Dialogue About Human Misery and Pessimistic Dialogue Between Master and Servant from Babylon; The Man Who Was Tired of Life from Egypt; and the book of Job from the OT, are all examples of this genre in which problems were discussed and resolved via dialogue. It is therefore incautious to use Eccl. 9:5 as a doctrinal foundation passage. It is like quoting, alone, Eliphaz or Bildad in the book of Job (or even Job himself, as some do: cf. Job 14:12), as Ecclesiastes is a whole is a "dialogue" document and, even if this understanding of 9:5 is able to be maintained, it arguably comes from the "negative" side of the dialogue and only represents a perception of the arguer from the negative side rather than being an affirmation of fact.

Joel,"Tommy you said, What I've noticed is your heavy reliance on verses from the book of Ecclesiastes to support your view. I am sorry Tommy, there has been no heavy reliance on Ecclesiastes. It is part and partial.

You also said, the Jehovah's Witnesses believes in the doctrine of Annihilationism and pretty much appeals to the same verses in support of their view that the dead "know and does nothing". That maybe true, Every one, every religion, cult, or what have you, has some truth or they would have no followers. The fact that the cults believe something does not necessarily mean it is wrong. Most believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Most believe that Jesus is coming again. Believing something that the cults believe does not make a person a member of that cult. In teaching on the person & nature of Christ, on salvation by repentance & faith alone, & the Gospel, are all standard evangelical doctrine, and is what I teach which is quite distinct from JW teaching.

You also said, Nearly every defense of "soul sleep" I have seen thus far begins with or contains this verse. If it could be taken at face value, it would offer substantial evidence that the dead are in a state of unconsciousness. However, it is precisely because we cannot take it at "face value" that its use for "soul sleep" is unjustified.

My response is this. I say Soul Sleep? I am sorry but there is no mentioning of your soul sleeping in any of this conversation. For the soul is not sleeping. The Soul is dead. The flesh and the breath of life has been separated. The soul is no more. What I have said, surely is in much length but I won't apologize for that. There is no such thing as to much information. Gen. 2:7, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, neshamah; and man became a living soul ". Which goes along with this truth. 1Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. Adam was made a living soul by combining the dust of the earth with the spirit of life. When the spirit of life is taken. The soul is dead. Jesus Christ is the replacement of the spirit of life. He is the forever quickening spirit. We need HIM to live.

Now about Ecclesiastes. The Hebrew title of Ecclesiastes is Koheleth, which the speaker in it applies to himself, Ecclesiastes 1:12, "I, Koheleth, was king over Israel." It means an Assembler or Convener of a meeting and a Preacher to such a meeting. The feminine form of the Hebrew noun, and its construction once, Ecclesiastes7:27, with a feminine verb, show that it not only signifies Solomon, the Preacher to assemblies, in which case it is construed with the verb or noun masculine, but also Divine Wisdom, which is feminine in Hebrew, speaking by the mouth of the inspired king . Solomon was endowed with inspired wisdom. As it is shown in 1 Kings. Why don't we read it.

1Ki 3:5-14 In Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon in a dream by night: and God said, Ask what I shall give thee. And Solomon said, Thou hast shewed unto thy servant David my father great mercy, according as he walked before thee in truth, and in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart with thee; and thou hast kept for him this great kindness, that thou hast given him a son to sit on his throne, as [it is] this day. And now, O LORD my God, thou hast made thy servant king instead of David my father: and I [am but] a little child: I know not [how] to go out or come in. And thy servant [is] in the midst of thy people which thou hast chosen, a great people, that cannot be numbered nor counted for multitude. Give therefore thy servant an understanding heart to judge thy people, that I may discern between good and bad: for who is able to judge this thy so great a people? And the speech pleased the Lord, that Solomon had asked this thing. And God said unto him, Because thou hast asked this thing, and hast not asked for thyself long life; neither hast asked riches for thyself, nor hast asked the life of thine enemies; but hast asked for thyself understanding to discern judgment; Behold, I have done according to thy words: lo, I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee.

But Tommy, even still your objection is noted. Ecclesiastes, for our discussion will be put aside. Even knowing that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. And from what you have quoted, Job has the same objection so that will be put aside.

These books are not needed to prove anything. There are additions to our understanding. Not the reasons for our understanding. As Psalms 6:5 says, For in death [there is] no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks? Throughout this conversation there has been many examples that have nothing bearing on what you, or the author of that back, have objected to

Dan, " I think you made a wise move Joel, not because Ecclesiastes is not authoritative or not inspired but because soul or nephesh in the Hebrew Scripture conveys the meaning of physical life or having "breath" or a "breathing creature." Cessation of breath indeed means cessation of physical life however it does not prove that annihilationism is true.

Joel," I am thankful Dan, for your words of encouragement. And the scriptures agree with what you have said, that
soul or nephesh in the Hebrew Scripture conveys the meaning of physical life or having "breath" or a "breathing creature." Cessation of breath indeed means cessation of physical life. Amen, the scriptures do agree with this statement. Without breath there is no nephesh . But to be in full context because you finished your statement with these words, it does not prove that annihilationism is true.

This is a new word to me. So let me look at see what it means. Oh I see. Annihilationism teaches that man was created immortal. Hmm, such a short meaning. And I take it that is another word that some cults believe. Dan, thank you for bringing that word to light. The question really then should be, was man created to be immortal or was he created to be mortal . By scriptures itself, and that is the only thing that we should concern ourselves with, the scriptures, it shows that man was created to be IMMORTAL . And there is nothing more important than finding the truth. And I am more than willing to have a changing of the mind if I am found that what scriptures teach me are read in the wrong light.

The intention of man being immortal does not make man immortal. Man had a choice. And man still has the choice. When man was created, man was not immortal, but was given the choice to be immortal through the tree of life. They could have eaten from that tree, but instead willingly, the man ate from the tree of death and destruction.

But that still takes us off from your point. Your point then is physically man is dead. But not the whole of man is dead. I have to ask myself, when and where does it say in scriptures that man was created un physically? The only choices could be that man was created spiritually. Soulfully, at the same time he was made physically. But then I have to say to myself isn't that opposite from what is very clearly taught in 1 Corinthians 16:36?

1Cor 15:36 [Thou] fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die : And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other [grain]: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds. [There are] also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial [is] one, and the [glory] of the terrestrial [is] another. [There is] one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for [one] star differeth from [another] star in glory. So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual , but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual . The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven. As [is] the earthy, such [are] they also that are earthy: and as [is] the heavenly, such [are] they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Man was made a living soul? Then we can't be soulful. The soul is no more when the spirit is taken from it. But yes, there are spiritual bodies aren't there. Man does not have a spiritual body. Nope, he doesn't. Christ has a spiritual body. Angels have spiritual bodies. But we most certainly do not have spiritual bodies. Not until resurrection. So the word that is being used is annihilationism. Paul then was an annihilationist, along with Solomon, and David, and Moses.

Ain't that life 10