I recently received this email (below)concerning soul-sleeping. The reference to the internet has to do with an article Bill Paul (the former preacher from Crown Hiil) wrote (www.crownhillchurch.com/Bible_Truths/bible_truths.htm). I have already responded a couple of times to him, but thought this would be a good discussion starter. This board needs it.

-- Anonymous, January 26, 2003

Answers

The browser keeps telling me its too long so heres the email in pieces:

Hello, I take it, from your material number 28, published on the Internet, that you believe the dead are conscious, and that you base this conviction on a figurative passage, Luke 16:19-31, indeed a parable told to illustrate the inability to render any changes after death. The Bible clearly teaches in Eccl. that "the dead know not anything", "under the sun", and there is nothing anywhere in the Bible that contradicts this plain and simple truth. If you use a figurative pasage to teach otherwise, to be consistent you must teach that heaven has literal streets that are paved with gold, and has rivers of crystal - which we know is not the case. You have contradicted a very clear and plain passage. If you understand the point of the parable, this would not happen. A person is unconsious whether he is asleep or dead. The only difference is that there is no brain activity in death, but one may dream when asleep, whch never happens in death. So there is complete unawareness of anything pertaining to life or the rest of the living. In death one has no further part in any area of life. Just like when a person is asleep he is unaware of the passing of time, just like the dead. The difference is further seen in the fact that the dead have no soul, but it remains when one is asleep. If this is not clear enough, the dead are described as asleep, and no person is conscious when asleep - otherwise he would not be asleep. They are opposites - one can't be both. It will be very interesting to see if you will rectify a glaring error.

-- Anonymous, January 26, 2003

While ever one is alive, and conscious, he may render obedience to the gospel, this will never happen after death - just like when one is aslep, this is the whole point of preaching . The reason being that in either case he is unconscious, and therefore unable to do anything about it. This is what the passage you used [abused] is all about. Furthermore one is not "tormented" or "comforted" before the judgement, otherwise the reward is already given, and there would be no point in judgement, Heb.9:27. Torment belongs only in Hell, the only punishment for sin that God knows, and comfort belongs only in heaven. "The dead know not anything". Do you believe it? If they do know anything it is not "under the sun" - it is therefore foreign to our concept. While the soul is immortal, that does not require it to be conscious, any more than one is alive only when conscous. If this is not clear enough, in the parable the dead still have their physical bodies, finger, eyes, tongue etc, and have access to water, and are aware of "a great gulf" - all physical conditions limited to this life. The passage is not meant to be taken literally any more than the pyhsical description of heaven. It is simple described as a desireable and valuable place. I wonder if you will accept this explanation.

-- Anonymous, January 26, 2003

Scott.....

I sure hope time permits over the next day or so to respond....because both posts are full of errors.

-- Anonymous, January 26, 2003

After I posted this (both posts are oe email) I found out that he is from a Church of Christ in Melbourne Australia. My first impulse was that he was a JW or SDA.

-- Anonymous, January 26, 2003

Thats supposed to be (both posts are one email). I have received several though.

-- Anonymous, January 26, 2003

I submit to you that the account of the Rich Man and Lazarus IS NOT a parable. Rather it is an accurate, historical presentation of fact.

Here are the reasons for denying that it was a parable:

1. Jesus does not call it a parable as He does most of the time when announcing a parable. 2. In no other parable are any of the charcters given names. In this account....the man's name was Lazarus. 3. The word "parable" means "cast along side of." Therefore, a true parable is both true in the physical world and the spiritual world. In other words....if Jesus described something that was not a physical reality and tried to give a heavenly meaning to that....it would no longer be a parable...because....a parable is...."one truth cast along side of another." Since a parable is always an event in reality....what is the reality being expressed in the torment of the Rich man if, indeed, it is a parable? 4. Tradition says the rich man's name was "Nimeusis." Are you aware of any parables where the characters are given names? I'm not. 5. If it is a parable....who do the characters represent? 6. Here is a big one....Jesus spoke this historical narrative to people who viewed Hades (the abode of the dead) as real. Jesus did not coin the word "Abraham's bosom" or "great gulf fixed" or "Hades." These were familiar vocabulary words to people of his day and had been for quite a while (see the writings of Josephus). They believed there was such a place and Jesus SAID NOTHING to deny that such a place existed. In fact, He borrowed the language.

So in conclusion....I believe Jesus is giving us a very accurate portrayal of the "intermediate state"...i.e., the time between death and the Second Coming of Christ.

-- Anonymous, January 26, 2003

Here is my edited response to his first email and then his second:

First, whether or not Lazerus and the Rich man is a parable or not matters very little. Jesus never said it was, and even if it was, parables were always stories having to do with real situations. So even if it is a parable, it is a story about the way things are (or were). I find it hard to believe that Jesus would make up a false scenario to try and use a lie to make a point of truth. Second, your understanding of the Ecc text is questionable. "Under the sun" may mean several things. I take it that your understanding is that it means in this life only. I dont think I would disagree too much with that understanding, only to say that those who have died, while conscious, have no knowledge of what is going on here in life "under the sun." You state that there are no verses that differ from your understanding. I dont think you've noticed one or two. Rev 6:9, 10 When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" Here we see the dead speaking. It is before Judgment. People are still on the earth. Unless you maintain that John, since this is a vision, made up this scenario and used a lie to make a point of truth. I find it hard to believe that Jesus or John would throw lies around so easily. You said, "A person is unconsious whether he is asleep or dead. The only difference is that there is no brain activity in death, but one may dream when asleep, which never happens in death. So there is complete unawareness of anything pertaining to life or the rest of the living. In death one has no further part in any area of life. Just like when a person is asleep he is unaware of the passing of time, just like the dead. The difference is further seen in the fact that the dead have no soul, but it remains when one is asleep." With all due respect, this is nothing more than an opinionated assertion. Except for the passage in Ecc 9:5 you have offered no Scriptural support at all. And to use Ecc 9:5 which says, "For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten" then, to be consistent, you must also teach that they have no hope of any reward, including resurrection, for this verse also says that. The Scriptures are not a doctrinal buffet in which one can pick and choose what he likes and disregard the things he doesn't. I'm not accusing you of intentionally doing this, but let's be consistent. I am aware of many of the "soul-sleeping" arguments and I do not see it as consistent with Scripture. And taking a rock solid stand on idiom (i.e. asleep=dead) to make your point is a very weak foundation.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2003

Hello Scott,

Thankyou for a very prompt reply, and no I take no offense at your material, and did not really expect you to accept it.

About it being a parable. True it is not called a parable but it appears in the midst of parables, and is no more literal than the others around it. You state that Jesus would not tell a lie to estsblish a point of truth - indeed the truth - but to be consistent you must teach that the streets of heaven are paved with gold is to be talen lierally, and not an illustration or parable. What do you teach about that?

Jesus did not tell a lie, He simply used an illustration, or parable, to teach the inabily to render change after death. If man is conscious after death he can render change.

The "story" indeed deals with a very "real situation" - death - something everyone will experience, and then be totally unable to render any change or obedience. The only way Jesus could teach anything about it was to make up a "story" - tell a parable - to get His point across. Since no one has ever returned to tell us of the hopelesness of the situiation.

You mentioned my understanding of the Eccl. passage and said it MAY mean several things - very vague to say the least - and then go on to say you agree they don't know life "under the sun", but in the parable Jesus told that is exactly what they knew. Was Jesus to be taken literally, or do "the dead know nothing"?

You have used a pasage that even states it is written in "sign language" Rev.1, therefore not to be taken literally, but used to teach a point - exactly like the parables. Since the dead know nothing, how can they speak? Does this passage contradict Eccl.?

Your next paragraph that begins, "With all due respect...", claims I made an "opioniated assertion", do you wish to state what is wrong with it? Further you said that I have no scripture apart from Eccl. - EXACTLY - how many times must it be repeated to be truth? The simple fact is that it is in scripture - and is NEVER contradicted.

"With all due respect", yours is the weak argument, and is nothing more than an "opioniated assertion". You too have only one passage to pervert to support you views, you must explain away the details of awareness, and physical bodies, to take it literally. Whereas I find it completely compatible with all other scripture.

So my convictions are every bit as valid as yours.

I at no time said, as you state that, "asleep = dead", but rather that the dead are described as asleep, therefore unconscious. What is weak about that?

I look forward to your further reply.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2003