25). The Matter of Seeing Death and Tasting Death

Listen to this Chapter

Before we go into the next "official" objection, I wanted to cover an issue that could be used as an objection. No one has ever brought this one to my attention as an objection, but it is worth mentioning because it certainly could be used even if it would not really be a very effective argument..  It is the issue of "seeing" and/or "tasting" death.  There are a few interesting passages in the New Testament which declare the following:

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not TASTE of DEATH, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Mark 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not TASTE of DEATH, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Luke 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not TASTE of DEATH, till they see the kingdom of God.

These passages all share the same idea, that there were SOME standing there who would never "taste death" until they saw the kingdom of God come with Power.  All three of these passages immediately precede an account of Christ's transfiguration.  Whatever view of death one takes, this phrase must be interpreted the same, whatever death is, Christ referred to some who would not "taste it."

What does it mean to taste death, I believe tasting death can only be interpreted as meaning, "to die in the very least."  Consider the ideas of "drinking deep of death" or of  "swallowing death  whole"  Through this metaphor Christ is emphasizing that those he was speaking of would not die, not in the least, until they had seen the promised kingdom. 

Notice that those who would not "taste death" are a select group (or individual, because "some" refers to at least one).  Those who would not taste death are an exceptional group, not everyone who believed on him would see this, but only some.  The verses are cryptic, secretive, Christ does not explain.  The promise is arbitrary, there are no conditions on which fulfillment of this promise depends.

Contrast the verses above with the following verse: 

John 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never SEE DEATH.

In this verse, the promise is different in content and character. 

The promise is not arbitrary, fulfillment is dependant on the recipient keeping the saying of Christ. 

The content of this promise is different. In the previous examples it was promised that some would not "taste death TILL,"  In this case, the promise is "never see death."  That is significantly different.  The one is an arbitrary promise to be fulfilled before the death of some who stood there, the other is a conditional promise to never see death for any who fulfill the condition.

Christ's enemies restated his promise, notice how the change of metaphor does seem to alter the promise. I believe they were twisting his words to cast what was being said in the worst light, much as they did when they claimed he said he would destroy the temple and raise it in three days, when what he had said was "destroy this temple and I will raise it again after three days."  He spoke of his body.

John 8:52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never TASTE of DEATH.

So is there more than a rhetorical difference between seeing and tasting death?  I believe the Pharisees thought so.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of DEATH, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should TASTE DEATH for every man.

To suffer death is to taste death, tasting death refers to the experience of losing one's life.  The term "taste" is used to indicate a sensation, it is the sensation of dying.  There is no sensation in the grave.  Christ died, but he also rose from the dead, I believe that when Jesus Christ said that we would "never see death"  he meant that we would die, but that through the resurrection we would escape death.  The term "see" connotes perception which goes beyond mere observation.  By seeing Christ means that we will never truly know death and experience it as it truly is, true death is a permanent state. 

To truly see death one must experience "everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord" (2 Thessalonians 1:9), "the blackness of darkness for ever" (Jude 1:13).  There is really no knowing in death, no seeing, no experience, except in the dying. Only those that escape death can even speak of the dead as seeing death as it truly is, because only the living can see the dead.  Those who escape death will never see (experience, know) what the dead are seeing, which is eternal darkness and destruction, in a word, eternal nothing.  The dead do not see.

So is that what the terms always mean?  Each instance has to be taken in context.

Luke 2:26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not SEE DEATH, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.

In this context, "see death"  has the same force as "taste death."  But you will never see the term "taste" used for the stronger form.  The fate of those who fail to inherit eternal life is never spoken of as merely "tasting death."

That still leaves the question open.  Who was it that would not taste death until they had seen the kingdom of God come with power?

It is always best to first look at the near context, and so some have suggested that Christ was referring to the events that followed on the mount of transfiguration.    Christ is the kingdom of God, and seeing him in his glory on the mount of transfiguration could  be what Christ was referring to.  That is a possible interpretation, but it has never satisfied me, it has always felt like an awkward interpretation.

The transfiguration does not comfortably fit what was described as seeing "the kingdom of God come with power."   Contextual landmarks given from the previous section referring to Christ  "coming in the glory" and "with the holy angels," also contribute a certain expectation to the idea of "seeing the kingdom of God come with power."  The Apostles saw the kingdom of God in Christ in many ways, but this passage is clearly referring to a much more powerful appearance of the Son of man in power and in his kingdom.

Christ may have been referring to what the Apostle John witnessed in the book of Revelation.  That would certainly count as seeing the kingdom of God coming with power, with his holy angels.  The word "some" refers to "at least one."  (Some as in, "There be some standing here."  It has long been my opinion that the only person I can point to whom Christ could have been referring to is the Apostle John.   John is the only person who has ever clearly testified to have seen anything matching the description "the kingdom of God coming with power," this does not mean  he was the only one, but he is the only one I can point to.

26). Objection #3: What About the Mount of Transfiguration?
Listen to this Chapter
In Matthew 17, Mark 9, and Luke 9 are found recorded accounts of Christ appearing transfigured and Moses and Elijah also appearing and speaking with him.  To some, this is evidence of an afterlife, confirming the transition of the soul from one plane of existence to another at death.  But is that the only explanation?  Once again, I want to emphasize that death and resurrection were the contextual subjects of the passages I have used to support my view of death and the resurrection.   But Luke 9, Mark 9, and Matthew 17 record events whose significance is unexplained, this event was something that was seen, but there is no explanation given for these events, so we need to be careful about what we read into what was reported. 

It is not reasonable to take these unexplained events out of context and to use them to undermine other passages which explain the nature of death and resurrection in the context of a discussion of that subject.  We need to interpret these passages in light of the clear doctrine that has already been revealed.  It is very bad practice to take passages such as these which, on their own, are totally open for speculation and use them to change the way we understand what Christ said about death and resurrection.

The three passages are nearly identical and the passages that lead into them are nearly identical.  The latter portions of  Matthew 16 and Mark 8 and the former portion of Luke 9 all deal with the question which Jesus posed to his disciples "Who do men say that I am?  The verses which lead into the transfiguration accounts in Matthew 17, Mark 9, and the parallel section of  Luke contain the following phrases:

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels;

Mark 8:38 ... when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

Luke 9:26 ... when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.

I give these verses so that we can have some sense of the context in which these events took place. The events which followed occurred in the context of teachings regarding the coming of the kingdom of God and Christ in glory with his holy angels which is also the time when the dead shall be raised incorruptible and the living in Christ will be changed. 

The following sections open with a clear pronouncement which we analyzed in the section dealing with "tasting death."

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom

Mark 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Luke 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

The easiest way to understand this declaration is to take it literally.  Some standing there would not die until they had seen the kingdom of God come with power.  I have suggested that Jesus was speaking of the Apostle John who declared in the book of Revelation that he did indeed see those things Christ described.

Revelation 22:8 And I John saw these things, and heard them.

It is interesting that though Matthew Mark and Luke all agree that these things were said before the transfiguration, they all say that about a week passed before the actual transfiguration.  They all place the transfiguration in context with these sayings so that is why I have included them in this analysis. 

Matthew 17:1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, Matthew 17:2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

Mark 9:2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. Mark 9:3 And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.

Luke 9:28 And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray. Luke 9:29 And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering.

To clarify the timeline, Mark and Matthew say, "after six days"  That means that the events took place a week later but they did not count the day of the sayings or the day of transfiguration.   Luke says "about" eight days after, so he must have counted the day of the sayings and the day of the transfiguration.  This is a minor discrepancy.

If the words before were spoken (hypothetically) on Monday, Matthew and Mark don't count Monday. They start counting with Tuesday, then Wednesday, Thursday, Friday,  Saturday, and Sunday, giving them six days between the events.  So they say, "after six days," and the event occurs on Monday the seventh. 

Luke, on the other hand, counted "about 8 days after the sayings"  The context of Luke tells us that late on the day prior to the statement about tasting death, Jesus had fed a multitude (let's say,  this was on hypothetically on Sunday), and it was just after this, when Christ had withdrawn to pray, that he had made the statements to his disciples, so that means that he would have been speaking very early on Monday the first (the Hebrews reckoned the days from sunset to sunset)  Luke therefore counts Monday as a day passing and counts Tuesday-Sunday as an additional six days, then Luke also Counts the following Monday in his calculation as the eighth day, perhaps because the transfiguration occurred late on that day, but before sundown (Which the context supports)  So "after six days" and "about eight days after" can both easily refer to a week, as I said, this is a very minor discrepancy, but I like to be thorough.

These are inspired writings, but the inspiration should not be expected to extend to such mundane aspects as how different people express the passing of a week.  The bible is not supposed to be a miracle of mathematical clarity and uniformity, so we should not be shocked by these kinds of minor discrepancies, do not let the very human way the ideas are communicated distract from the actual ideas themselves.

Matthew 17:3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

Mark 9:4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.

Luke 9:30 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: Luke 9:31 Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem. Luke 9:32 But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him.

So there we have it, Matthew and Mark do not give much detail, but Luke informs us that Moses and Elijah "appeared in glory,"  and they spoke of his death.  But what does any of this say about death itself?  Does this passage tell us that Moses and Elijah, long residents of heaven, descended from heaven to speak with Jesus?  No it does not.  We are given no explanation for their appearance.  They could have been temporarily raised from the dead, they could have been transported through time, this event may have been a visionary experience, we will look at these possibilities.  But none of these explanations can really be said to be superior to the other, except to the degree that all these explanations do not contradict established facts about death and resurrection.  For that reason, there is one explanation that I can rule out completely, and that explanation is the idea that Moses and Elijah had come down from heaven whence they had already ascended in glory at their deaths.  This explanation is clearly contradictory to the teachings of Christ which we have already covered.

Some might object to the idea of a temporary resurrection, after all, I have been emphasizing that the resurrection has a specific order to it.  Still this would only be a temporary exception, they would return to their rest after this event. To ascend to heaven in victory would be a great violation of the order of resurrection, to temporarily appear with Christ on earth, would not really be equivalent. 

I want to emphasize that this is only speculation, I am not presenting this possibility as my personal explanation for the events.  We will explore other explanations as we continue.

Some people read this passage with preconceived ideas about death and resurrection, so they assume that Moses and Elijah were already "glorified" and had come down from heaven.  But the idea that they appeared, "in glory"  indicates that we are talking about resurrected bodies here (or the appearance of resurrected bodies), so if this is real, but not just a temporary event, meant only to foreshadow the coming kingdom and resurrection, then it would violate the order of resurrection. 

1 Corinthians 15:43  it is raised in glory: ... it is raised in power: 44 ... it is raised a spiritual body... and there is a spiritual body.

There is only the natural body and the resurrected spiritual body, there is no in-between un-resurrected spiritual body.  The spiritual body is the result of resurrection.  And the resurrection of the dead is reserved for a specific time (the last day) at the end of the world.  All doctrines that say otherwise are simply heresy.

Christ is the firstfruits, even though he raised up Lazarus and others from the dead, and even though Moses and Elijah appeared in resurrected bodies with him, they all returned to the grave.  Only Christ has risen from the dead and ascended into heaven in victory (John 3:13 And no man hath ascended into heaven except he that came down from heaven, specifically the Son of Man which is in heaven.).

I can't think of any doctrinal objection to the idea that Moses and Elijah were transported through time from the future when the resurrection will have already taken place, though such an idea is complicated and undesirable for that reason, it is not completely without precedent.  As I mentioned in the previous section, John was transported to the future, "in the spirit," so this is definitely not an unprecedented suggestion.  There is also the possibility that Moses and Elijah travelled forward though time and were temporarily transfigured with Christ by virtue of their transportation.  My point here is not to try to explain the events of the transfiguration.  My point is that the least plausible explanation is that they had already risen from the dead in glory and had come down from heaven. 

Matthew 17:4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

Mark 9:5 And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. Mark 9:6 For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid.

Luke 9:33 And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said.

Peter was apparently so stunned at what he saw that he began to suggest they erect of shrines to memorialize the event.  I guess that was the first thing that came to his mind.

Matthew 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. Matthew 17:6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.

Mark 9:7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him

Luke 9:34 While he thus spake, there came a cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud. Luke 9:35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

It seems the purpose of the transfiguration was to bolster the faith of Christ's foremost disciples.  God commands, "Hear him," and Moses the lawgiver and Elijah the prophet appear with him to demonstrate that the purpose of Christ was in unity with the Law and the Prophets.  This passage is about Christ's authority on earth in matters pertaining to the Law and the Prophets, we are to hear him.  One purpose of the transfiguration was doubtless to firmly fix in the minds of his disciples the absolute authority of Christ.

Matthew 17:7 And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid. Matthew 17:8 And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only. Matthew 17:9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

Mark 9:8 And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only with themselves. Mark 9:9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead. Mark 9:10 And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.

Luke 9:36 And when the voice was past, Jesus was found alone. And they kept it close, and told no man in those days any of those things which they had seen.

Matthew 17:9 suggests another possible explanation of the nature of these events.  "Tell the vision to no man." The events could have been visionary in nature, the disciples were described by Luke as being heavy with sleep,    Luke 9:32 But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him. So perhaps Elijah and Moses were not "physically" present.

According to Luke the disciples had been asleep or nearly asleep before they saw Christ transfigured and the two men appear.  This is suggestive of a visionary experience.  They hide their faces and when they look up they only see Christ, in his normal unglistering state.  The idea that the events were visionary means that Moses and Elijah did not have to literally be present, it could have been a vision of the future, or of the past, I don't know, but it means that the things they witnessed did not have to have been occurring right there on that mountain at that moment in time.  It would not mean that the vision was imaginary or a dream.  It would mean that they saw what God wanted them to see,  that they saw things that were not actually occurring at the same place and time that Peter, James, and John were occupying.

This is only speculation, my main point is that all three of these alternatives manage to explain the events on the Mount of Transfiguration without changing the established doctrines regarding death and resurrection.

27). Objection #4: What about Elijah and Enoch?

Listen to this Chapter

This is another common objection to the doctrine of death and resurrection as I have presented it. Does the Translation of Enoch or the Taking Up of Elijah teach us that when we die, we transition from one plane of existence to another?  Do these events signify that all the dead have "passed on" to another plane of existence. After having covered so much ground, I almost feel justified in dismissing this objection out of hand.  After all, the remarkable events associated with Elijah and Enoch are not normal., these are extremely exceptional events and neither is associated with the death of either man. These events were never used in the bible as examples of what happens to us all when we die.  In fact, if these events are examples of what happens to us all when we die, then they would cease to be exceptional and lose their significance.  So what can we say about these things?  Lets look at what the bible says about each of these individuals and see if this objection has any merit.

Enoch

We will tackle Enoch first.  Less is said about Enoch. 

Genesis 5:22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
Genesis 5:23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
Genesis 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

This is the section of Genesis which traces the descent of Adam through Seth down to Noah.  There is a specific pattern in which each descendant is said to have lived so long and to have begat sons and daughters and to have died.  Enoch is the exception, it is not said that he died, but that "God took him."  In our culture, that is actually a euphemism for death, but here it seems to be distinguishing Enoch from the rest of his family.  He walked with God, and God took him, apparently God did not take the others, they died and were buried; another stroke against the popular view. 

The most likely explanation of this "taking" is that Enoch was physically removed from the Earth or earthly plane and no one could report his death nor the location of his body.

The new testament adds to our understanding of these events:

Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

But Hebrews also adds the idea of "translation" to the puzzle concerning Enoch  I have already covered the metaphors about seeing death and tasting death.  Obviously, the idea that Enoch was translated (we assume into a celestial body) gives opponents something to work with.  But what can they really say?  Christ was also transfigured (which I take to be equivalent to translation) and Christ went on to die and rise again. Does the testimony concerning Enoch violate that pattern?

Hebrews 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

If the book meant for Enoch to be excepted from death by his translation, he forgot to make note of that when he got to verse thirteen.  He says quite plainly, "These all died." and Enoch was part of his list, and is not excluded at the end.  He was translated so that he would not see death, but rather know the joy of eternal life, he experienced the direct translation of the body like those who remain alive to the coming of the Lord.  Yet, because of verse 13, I believe he may have still tasted death like every other man. 

 It says they all died, and I'm going to lean towards the authority of that verse.  Though I can still get by without it,

As I said in the preface, if everyone is translated at death, then why was Enoch singled out in the first place?   If Enoch is exceptional in his translation, it is because the rule is that when you die you are NOT instantly translated, but are buried and await the resurrection on the last day.

Elijah

Elijah's case is somewhat similar to Enoch.  He was taken from the Earth in the following manner.

2Kings 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
2Kings 2:12 And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces.

Elijah is taken to heaven and nothing further is recorded of him in that history. 

Interestingly, the men of his time who knew about his going up were concerned about him.

2Kings 2:16 And they said unto him (Elisha), Behold now, there be with thy servants fifty strong men; let them go, we pray thee, and seek thy master: lest peradventure the spirit of the LORD hath taken him up, and cast him upon some mountain, or into some valley.

I mention this verse because it is interesting that they did not presume that Elijah was taken to another dimension or transfigured.  They were concerned Elijah might be stranded on a mountain somewhere.  They did eventually make the search, but did not find Elijah. 

Many years later there was a prophecy concerning Elijah, that he would "come back."

Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:

The angel who appeared to the Zechariah the father of John the Baptist had this to say about John.

Luke 1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. (In the New Testament Elijah is Hellenized as Elias)

I mentioned that scripture earlier in regard to the nature of spirits. But John the Baptist was not the only prophet who shared the spirit of Elijah.

2Kings 2:15 And when the sons of the prophets which were to view at Jericho saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha. And they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before him.

In the time of Christ, the Jews were looking for Elijah to appear. John the Baptist was questioned about whether he was himself Elijah

John 1:21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias?

And John denied that he was Elijah, certainly not the Elijah they were looking for.  The Jews had developed a mythology about Elijah, (as they had also developed mythologies about death which we will touch on later).  Elijah was on people's minds. Jesus was mistaken for Elijah by some.

Luke 9:8 And of some, that Elias had appeared; and of others, that one of the old prophets was risen again.

It is worthy of note that they only speak of Elijah "appearing"  but of the other prophets as "rising again." Elijah may have been taken up to heaven in a whirlwind, but that is not the normal order of things.  The other prophets would have to "rise again."  Once again, the exceptional nature of Elijah's experience only confirms that the normal order of things is otherwise. The prophets rest in their graves, rest or sleep are used as metaphors pointing to the unconscious nature of death.

When Christ was on the cross and was calling on God, some that stood by thought he was calling for Elijah.

Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Mark 15:35 And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elias.
Mark 15:36 And one ran and filled a sponge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down.

Sometimes when reading the Gospels you get the idea that the people of Christ's time had a fixation on the prophet Elijah.  After all, it is not recorded in the writings of the prophets what happened to him, and Malachi had given a prophecy that Elijah would come again. (and he had come again in the person of John, but they did not receive him)  So a popular mythology had sprung up around Elijah.

But what can we learn of Elijah doctrinally from the teachings of Jesus and the writings of his Apostles?  We used Hebrews chapter eleven to establish that Enoch may have died. Let's examine that writing again.

Hebrews 11:32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:

The book is talking about the men (and women) of faith who had died in hope of resurrection.  The book had previously mentioned Enoch's translation and stipulated that all those he spoke of had died, without excepting Enoch. In verse 32 he is begging off from mentioning everyone he could possibly mention, but he does categorically include "the prophets"  without specifically excluding Elijah.   So that is one point to consider but lets go on to see what else he says and if we can learn anything about Elijah in all this.

Hebrews 11:33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,
Hebrews 11:34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.
Hebrews 11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:

The reference to women receiving their dead raised to life again can only be considered a reference to Elijah or to his disciple Elisha, as these two men are the only men recorded to have been involved in all three resurrections recorded in the Old Testament.

But notice the thrust of the reasoning in Hebrews 11.  All that these faithful did and experienced was in expectation of obtaining the resurrection of the dead. I would include Elijah in that number, just because the search party never located him does not mean that Elijah who went up did not come down somewhere else to live out his days and die after the manner of all men.  It is purely an assumption to say that he went to heaven and resides there evermore

Hebrews 11:36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:
Hebrews 11:37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; Hebrews 11:38 (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.

David lived in a cave, and so did Elijah:

1 Kings 19:9 And he came thither unto a cave, and lodged there; and, behold, the word of the LORD came to him, and he said unto him, What doest thou here, Elijah?
1 Kings 19:10 And he said, I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.

Elijah spent some significant time in a cave and it is extremely safe to assume that when Hebrews mentions all these things which the faithful have suffered, Elijah is among those whom he has in mind.

Hebrews 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

As I suggested previously, obtaining a better resurrection is foremost among the promises Hebrews has in mind.  Elijah is accounted among those who all died in faith not having received the promises of resurrection and eternal life, the promise of the kingdom of God, that country to which these strangers and pilgrims on the earth looked to. 

Hebrews 11:40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

Was Elijah made perfect without us?  The first resurrection is the moment when we will all be made perfect in the promise of God, not before, and I am not inclined to accept Elijah as an exception. He did not receive the promise and you can throw in Enoch again here for good measure.

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

All men except Elijah and Enoch?

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die...

All save Elijah and Enoch?  Or not? 

The Apostle Paul cautioned us against giving heed to Jewish fables and I believe one of these Jewish fables is the notion that Elijah and Enoch never tasted death like all other men.  But as I have shown from the book of Hebrews, the Christian teaching is otherwise.  Neither Elijah nor Enoch are considered to have received the promise of the resurrection which would have been in contradiction to the order of resurrection set forth in 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4.

Corinthians 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Do the cases of Enoch and Elijah overthrow the plain language of these verses? Not at all, but people who try to argue with me about the resurrection, in seeking to dismiss John 3:13, invariably turn to Elijah and Enoch as examples which are supposed to make John 3:13 less potent. 

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Was Elijah not taken up?  Was not Enoch taken?  They were indeed, and it is a well recorded fact. So also was John who wrote John 3:13. But it is far easier and more reasonable to look at Hebrews Eleven and conclude that Elijah and Enoch must have eventually died outside of the biblical record, like everyone else, than to say that these two are examples of how no one really dies and no one remains in the grave, but that, at death, all men transition from one plane of existence to another, and that all the good people go to heaven and all the bad people go to hell. (deck stacking, acknowledged)  The transition from one plane of existence to another is a resurrection, they won't call it that, but they teach people that the dead are "gone to heaven (or torment)" and have received glorified bodies to be pampered or tormented in.  Is that what Elijah and Enoch signify?  Nothing even remotely like it.

The argument in favor of the popular view which I have commonly heard is that John 3:13 means that no man has ascended up to heaven "by his own power."  But now we are in the realm of subjective interpretation.  I could name several other valid possibilities for interpreting the verse. Christ is different than Elijah and Enoch in that we are certain that he died before he ascended into heaven. How about "No resurrected man" has ascended into heaven?  That is a much less intrusive interpretation. And the two living men who went up are not the only prophets who seem to have either visited heaven while alive or been translated.  So we could interpret John 3:13 to read "and no man hath ascended up to heaven (with the notable exceptions of Elijah and Enoch and a few other prophets who saw heaven temporarily). 

Either of my two examples are better than the one offered by my opponents because their interpretation is designed to accommodate the idea that all believers have ascended to heaven when we have already gone over plenty of evidence that they are in their graves awaiting the resurrection on the last day. Like Jesus taught.  Their interpretation is the legal equivalent of leading the witness.  They are manipulating the text in a manner inconsistent with conscientious study.

The dead in Christ rise with the sound of the trumpet, the last trumpet according to 1 Corinthians 15.  The translation of Enoch and the taking of Elijah have to be considered purely exceptional events which Hebrews 11 reveals could have only been temporary. 

28). Difficulty: The Case of Elijah and the Resurrection of the Widow's Son

Listen to this Chapter

As I was investigating the case of Elijah I came across the account of the widow's son who was resurrected when Elijah prayed for him.  The language is very suggestive, so I knew that I would have to address this passage as part of this writing.

1 Kings 17:17 And it came to pass after these things, that the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, fell sick; and his sickness was so sore, that there was no breath left in him.
1 Kings 17:18 And she said unto Elijah, What have I to do with thee, O thou man of God? art thou come unto me to call my sin to remembrance, and to slay my son?
1 Kings 17:19 And he said unto her, Give me thy son. And he took him out of her bosom, and carried him up into a loft, where he abode, and laid him upon his own bed.
1 Kings 17:20 And he cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, hast thou also brought evil upon the widow with whom I sojourn, by slaying her son?
1 Kings 17:21 And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again.
1 Kings 17:22 And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.

The terminology  regarding the soul coming into the son would seem to be somewhat contradictory to my assertions that the soul remains with the body.  But that would be an oversimplification of my view and a prejudiced reading of the passage. When God breathed the breath of life into man, man became a living soul. But when the spirit departs, the body dies and the soul becomes dormant, Christ likened this state to sleep, but it would not be accurate to say the the soul is "in" the body. 

 The matter of what happens to the soul when we die is simple from a verbal perspective, the soul goes to hell (the grave). But it often gets complicated when we ask, "and where is the grave."  I have had countless hypothetical scenarios thrown at me over the years.  "What if the body is lost in the sea.? Eaten by animals? etc."  The body decomposes and there is eventually nothing there for the soul to be "in."  The grave, in the biblical sense, has no real fixed location. Hell/Grave/Sheol is not really a physical place, it is more like a state of being.

"Does the soul have a physical presence?" Yes and no, the body is the physical presence of the soul, but without a body the soul has no presence of its own.  A dead man has "no soul"  no life.  So when the body dies, the soul only exists as a non physical potential being, it does not really reside anywhere. 

The word soul is often translated "life." Not in the same sense that the spirit GIVES life. The soul is the life of the individual. The spirit is life from God.  So when it talks about the soul "returning"  we are not talking about the soul returning from a physical location such as heaven, or near God. The soul returns to life in the body.  The soul is returning from hell, the grave to life in the body.  This return is the return of restoration, of state, not of place.

I do not really see this passage as contradicting anything I have said, but I did not wish to ignore it and have people throw it at me later.  People will read into this passage their own prejudices and desires.  I know people accuse me of the very same thing.  But of me it is not true, because for years I wanted to believe, and did believe that dead believers go to heaven immediately on death.  That was my prejudice.  But I get over it because the scriptures kept eating at me.  When I interpret this passage in light of the doctrine I have come to believe in,  I do it having my conscience satisfied that I have taken the teachings of Christ and his Apostles as the greatest authority on the matter and I have accepted at face value the clearest passages having to do with this subject.

29). Objection #5: The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19-31)

Listen to this Chapter

Luke 16:19-31 is a parable, and therefore the events related in this story are not to be taken as literally true any more than the stories in any of the other parables of Jesus are to be taken as literally true.  That very idea is a major stumbling block for many believers who adhere to the idea that every word of the bible is to be understood as literal.  In the view of some, Christ would be a liar if the events transpiring in the parables were not historical events. Of course, there is no way that one can remain completely faithful to that kind of unbridled literalism. On examination, those who say the bible must be taken literally in all its parts are inevitably discovered to have reserved to themselves the right to spiritualize or render metaphorical certain passages of the bible which are inconvenient to their own preferred forms of doctrine or covetous lifestyle.  To offer one example from among many:

Luke 12:33 Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.

Few self-styled "fundamentalists" are even remotely interested in taking that verse literally. 

We ought not  wantonly spiritualize inconvenient passages. Neither ought we encourage unreasonable and unwarranted literalism.  But it is irresponsible to teach that the parables of Jesus were literal historical events.  To adopt such a view is a questionable and presumptive step, because we have neither sanction nor hint from Christ nor any Gospel author directing us to believe that parables are historical accounts.  

In parables, Christ used fantasy to communicate lessons which apply to reality, that does not make him a liar, because he never intended for us to believe the stories were true historical events, and it is genuinely ridiculous that I have to explain this.  The point here about parables is that while we normally need to heed the literal meaning of what the scriptures teach without interjecting interpretations to deflect the meaning, parables are a prime example of the sort of passage which actually requires us to interpret what we are reading.  Parables are intentionally not to be taken at face value.  If we take a parable at face value only, we receive no truth at all, and by our own stubbornness, we make Christ's words into pure fantasy for ourselves.  If we ever needed to "read between the lines," (a phrase I generally despise) it would be when we are dealing with a parable. We need to discern what the parable is really saying, not so much what it is literally saying. The literal meaning is the conduit through which we gain insight of what is really being communicated, so the literal meaning is not totally irrelevant, but the literal meaning is not what Christ was ultimately trying to communicate.

That is the nature of parables. Parables are devices which are intended to teach a lesson which may not be readily apparent to all who hear it.  This can be due to the way their own hearts have been hardened or due to God having specifically excluded them from understanding based on other factors known only to Him.  Parables communicate truths that are not dependant on the reality of the literal objects and players associated with the stories.  Parables are about communicating greater truths.  When Jesus talks about a "certain king" who does this and that, he does not intend for us to believe that he is talking about an historical king, because he is not really talking about any man at all, he is talking about a truth which transcends the actors and settings of the story, the same truth could be communicated using an entirely different set of actors in another setting..

The players in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man are not real people and the events that occur in the story are not real events, neither are the settings real, the story and events related are intended to communicate a truth which is not dependant on the reality of the actors or the scenery. 

Those who deny that Luke 16 19-31 is a parable offer in defense of this view the fact that the beggar has a proper name.  It is suggested, that since in no other parable does Christ assign a proper name to a character, that doing so in this passage designates this story as something other than a parable. This is an argument from silence.  Since Christ does not use proper names in other parables, they presume the use of a proper name in this passage disqualifies it from being a parable.  That is not logical.  There are no such rules about parables.  And while Christ does not use proper names in his other parables, there are other parable-like passages in the bible which utilized proper names with symbolic meanings.  Much of what Christ did and said had reference to the Old Testament so it is entirely reasonable to compare similar stories in the Old Testament with the stories told by Christ.

Ezekiel 23:1 The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, 2 Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother: 3 And they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity. 4 And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.

The names in Ezekiel 23 had symbolic meanings ("In her tent" and "My tent is in her") and their story is presented in much the same manner as a parable.  The opponents do not consider the possibility that the name Lazarus may have a symbolic meaning. They also argue from silence that no parable can contain a proper name.  These are not valid arguments and should not be taken seriously.

Analysis of the Parable:

In order to gain a better understanding we need to set Luke 16:19-31 firmly in context. Parables were often given as further illustrations, in reaction to statements made by Christ, or in response to questions he was confronted with in his ministry. So there are often contextual clues which can help us understand what a parable means.

The parable in Luke 16:19-31 is part of a series of parables which begins in chapter 14.  The parable from earlier in chapter 16 (The Parable of the Unjust Steward) had been about a "certain rich man" who was defrauded by his steward.  The Steward went about writing down the debts of his master's debtors in hopes of making them his friends.  He had hoped that they would then take care of him after his master fired him.  The ironic twist in the story that confuses  people is that the master actually commends the unjust steward for being such a shrewd operator.  Christ explains this twist by saying that the children of the world are wiser in their generations than the children of light.  Christ then issues the following challenge:

Luke 16:9 ...Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.

This is ironic, because the point of the parable is as follows:

Luke 16:10 He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
Luke 16:11 If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?
Luke 16:12 And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?

God is our master and we are his stewards, but Christ was talking to the Pharisees.  Christ went to great lengths to catalog the abuses of the Pharisees.  They were unjust stewards of the Law and the Prophets, they were not faithful to the word of God.  They excused each other for transgressing the law, they wrote down one another's debts, and they patted each other on the back for being so shrewd.  But God is not impressed by their shrewdness.   All God sees is that his laws and doctrines are being corrupted.  We must be faithful to the doctrine of God in every point and not make unjust exceptions to win friends and advance ourselves.  That was the lesson of the parable of the unjust steward. 

The children of this world are wiser in their generations than the children of light because, in this world, the wicked sometimes get ahead by being wicked. But you must understand that we are not to behave like that.  This is a great example of the way that parables can't be taken literally. The reason I'm covering this parable with the parable of Lazarus is because the Unjust Steward illustrates how interpreting parables literally can be hazardous to righteousness and sound doctrine.  If you work for a bank and try to take Christ's advice literally and "go and do thou likewise,"  you may quite possibly wind up in federal prison.  And if you get away with defrauding a bank, you will have shown yourself unfaithful in the unrighteous mammon, and God will not entrust to you the true riches.

Luke 16:11 If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?

The master in that parable is a child of the world, he is not God.  I think that is a point people have difficulty with, they are used to the "Master"  character in many parables being God. But God will not commend the shrewdness of those who defraud him or others. We are not supposed to imitate the unjust steward, even though Christ actually suggests that we "make friends of the mammon of unrighteousness," because, believe it or not, he was saying that with heavy irony. God is not a child of this world, he will not commend nor wink at the greed and self-serving actions of those who are supposed to be his faithful servants.  And no matter how many people we please by fraud, they will not be able to save us from God's judgment and receive us into everlasting habitations, those sort of arrangements only work out in this world. 

Neither the Pharisees nor anyone else should expect the literal interpretation of this parable to work for them the way it worked for the unjust steward in the parable. God will not commend unjust stewards for being shrewd.  This story also reminds me of the self-glorifying kind of thinking associated with the Talmud, where the successors to the Pharisees wrote tales about wise rabbi's who used their shrewdness to out-wit God. 

That parable and the verses that follow are important in understanding what Christ is saying in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, they are contextually linked and the thought continues from one to the other.  Also the literal interpretations of both these parables are demonstrably false. If you got lost in the first parable you will definitely have trouble with the second.  It is wrong to commit fraud and it is wrong to corrupt doctrine, the two ideas are tied together.  Jesus Christ trusted his true followers enough to believe that we would figure out that he did not intend for us to try to win friends in the world by stealing from our employers on their behalf.  And if any Christian working at Bank of America doesn't agree with me, I'd like to talk to you about reducing the balance I owe on my mortgage!  I will be your friend forever!

Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

I love this parable because so many people are confused by it, but if you can handle it, then you are on your way to escaping the kind of unreasoning literalism that cripples many who would like to be counted faithful Christians. Serving God means we are faithful in the way we handle the things which God values.  We cannot serve that interest and also the interest of worldly advancement.  The two things are contradictory.  Seeking worldly approval and wealth will require us to compromise our faithful adherence to the will of God.  If you want to be a faithful Christian be faithful to the ideals that Jesus Christ taught, such as to honesty or to confession, not to a blind literal reading of the scriptures which would lead you to imitate a wicked character in a fictional story! Get your priorities straight.

Luke 16:14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.

The Pharisees derided Jesus the same way prosperity preachers deride him when they say that you can have it both ways. They say that you can have all the money you ever dreamed of and still please God, but it simply does not work that way. They are all rich, and they are all corrupt, every  single one, without exception, because God declared that it is so.  Christ said you cannot serve God and mammon and anyone who says anything remotely to the contrary is plain antichrist.  Rich people become godly by distributing their riches and that is at cross purposes with the means of getting riches.  Do not heed those who peddle schemes where you are told to give earthly riches to men of God in order to get more earthly riches back from God.  They never read you the letters from the people who were hurt in those schemes.  Do not tempt God, you may be required to bear the consequences.  If you give your money away, God may deem it high time for you to live in poverty, and there is nothing wrong with that, but if you were looking to get rich, it will be a hard lesson.

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

Men esteem all kinds of things that God hates.  This is especially true when it comes to doctrine.  I don't know how many times I have heard the problem of evil explained as a necessary consequence of free-will.  The problem with that explanation is that God himself never explains it that way.  Its not a biblical explanation.  That doctrine is highly esteemed by men, but hated by God, because it is a lie.   Men also esteem the doctrine that says the soul is immortal by nature.  Men esteem the doctrine of the transition of the presumed immortal soul from one plane of existence to another at death.  Men esteem that which is contrary to the word of God, and in this they are unjust Stewards.  They are not faithful in the way they handle the doctrine of Christ.  This is part of the point of the previous parable and also relates to the parable of Lazarus.

Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Jesus attracted multitudes and there was often a great press of men about him seeking him and what he offered.  Everyone seemed to want in, but what he has left unsaid is that while men want in with God, they want in on their own terms, it was over these terms that Christ came into conflict with many in his time on earth and many come to conflict with each other ever since that time.  Christianity is always growing in one way or the other, not merely in the number of believers in the world, but in the sheer number of varying beliefs among those that count themselves as inheritors of this exclusive kingdom.  Many are called, but few are chosen. 

From that time to this very day men have pressed into the kingdom and heaped upon the doctrine of Christ all sorts of beliefs and teachings which they find pleasing.  Traditions of men and other strange doctrines which find an audience among those for whom the specific idea holds some appeal.  All this is based on what man finds pleasing and on what man thinks is reasonable and right.  Men find certain ideas to be more palatable than the truth and as they press their way into the kingdom they also try to impress upon the kingdom their own ideas and preferences.

Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

God's word is not intended to be taken back, it is firmly established, but still, we do know that heaven and earth shall pass away.  I often talk about how Christ abolished the law, but to leave that as a bald statement is to invite angry retorts because of statements like Luke 16:17.  Yet Paul declared that Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness in them that believe, which means we do not rely on the law for our righteousness as Christians.  It does not mean that adultery is no longer a sin, or that it is now acceptable to steal.  It means that Christians are made just, by the blood of Christ, not by the keeping of the law.  We do not overcomes sin by following the regulations of the law, but by seeking the kingdom of God and by receiving the promises of God in Christ through faith.  We rely on the power of God to cleanse us from sin and to teach us and lead us to righteousness.  This is as opposed to relying on ourselves to obey the commandments and rituals of the law to accomplish the same thing.   Christ fulfilled the Law in his death and we fulfill the Law in Christ, we cannot fulfill the Law by any other means, nor are we required to as Christians.

The dynamic for Christians is different because we overcome sin by faith, not by the law.  But sin is still sin.  You can't wave your hand and make wrong things right, though that is practiced by politicians and religious leaders from the time of Christ to this day.  Men make exceptions for themselves and excuse themselves for behaving badly while accusing and even punishing others.  It is vile hypocrisy, and it does not matter if they are liberal or conservative, they all do it.  On one side, for example, there are the liberals who want to disqualify sins such as homosexuality from being sin.  Then there are the hypocrites on the right who tell homosexuals that they are not allowed to sin while they themselves admit to sinning daily and confess that they do not expect that they will ever stop sinning.  If in Christ we are not expecting sin to cease, then why do they insist that homosexuals and others are uniquely expected to stop their sinning? They excuse themselves because they are merely liars, full of hypocrisy, having eyes full of adultery, who love not their brothers, and they do not think themselves as needful of rebuke and repentance as others.  I need to stop sinning, that is my first concern, and I seek that end through faith in Jesus Christ declaring the truth in love.

Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

You can't make sin right by abusing loopholes.  I have heard that this verse seems out of place to some, but  it follows perfectly, the subject is unchanged.  The Pharisees were notably liberal in granting divorces; a point over which Christ had clashed with them. 

Mark 10:2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

It wasn't the mere fact of divorce, it is the fact that they made those that got divorces "lawful."  In other words, getting divorced was seen as "keeping the law," because there was a provision in the law for getting a divorce.  They counted themselves sinless in their divorces. But Christ is saying that when a man divorces his wife to marry another woman, that is called ADULTERY.   They were violating the spirit of the Law by abusing this loophole granting divorces.  We need to acknowledge our sins so that we might seek Christ's forgiveness.  When we justify ourselves in our sins, we cut ourselves off from forgiveness; because as Christ said,  "the whole need not a physician."  If you count yourself sinless, then you do not need Christ's forgiveness and will not receive it.  Not that divorce is an unpardonable offense, but that pardon must be sought because sin has been committed. The New Testament says we should forgive all manner of sins, considering ourselves lest we should be tempted (Galatians 6:1), yet it also says that it is unacceptable to continue in sin (Romans 6:1,2), these two ideas may seem to be mutually exclusive, and they are, but God is longsuffering and leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4) 

The point Christ is making is that the Pharisees and other religious leaders were unjust stewards, they were unfaithful  in handling the Lord's riches (the Law).  This was a prime example of the way they had written down the debts of sinners (as the unjust steward had written down the debts of his master's debtors). They had justified men who had unlawfully put away their wives.  I'm sure their views on divorce were popular with wicked husbands.  But that which is esteemed by men is an abomination to God.  Sins may be forgiven, but no sin is taken off the books.

The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is a continuation of this line of thinking:

Luke 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

In this parable the rich man represents the Jewish leadership, they are the ones clothed in purple symbolizing the royalty, and linen representing the priesthood.  The rich man is simply another unjust steward.  The scribes and Pharisees sat in Moses seat, they occupied the earthy seat of political and religious authority.  They were the stewards of God's riches and were held in high regard by many, as many are today.  They had been given political and religious power, but had neglected the godly duties of those in such a position.  They fattened themselves in the things of God but did not heed nor share these riches.  

I need to interject an answer to the arguments of some who have attempted to interpret this parable and have tried to make the rich man and the beggar morally neutral, saying there is no sin in being rich and no virtue in poverty.  But that is ignoring the teachings of Christ.  Christ said that the poor were blessed and the rich were burdened. 

Luke 6:24 But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.
Luke 6:25 Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep.

They have pointed out that it is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom, but that it is not impossible.  But that is ignoring the fact that Christ taught the riches needed to be gotten rid of for the rich man to enter.  (see the example of the rich young man in Matthew 19:16-30, Mark 10:17-31, and Luke 18:18-30) The reason it is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom is because the rich man is reluctant to part with his riches.  To this day rich people look for preachers who will allow them to stay rich.  So difficult is it for them to part with their riches.  But according to the scriptures those that have plenty bear responsibility for those who have little.

1Timothy 6:17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
1Timothy 6:18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; (communicate means share)
1Timothy 6:19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

So it is clear from the new Testament teaching that while riches themselves do not make a man sinful, the holding of riches in the face of the need of others is sinful.  It is interesting the way in which the literal actions in the previous parable conflict with the morals in this parable.  In the previous parable the unjust steward was robbing his master of earthly goods, writing down debts to win friends in this world who would support him in hard times.  The conflicting idea is that God actually wants us to preach forgiveness of sins, forgive debts and distribute to the poor.  It is only superficially in conflict, because the unjust steward was looking after his own interest, against the wishes of his master, while God expects us to forgive one another and distribute the good things he gives us in this world, so we are looking after his interest when we forgive or distribute, not our own. We are liberal with the riches he gives into our possession, but we do not compromise or otherwise tamper with the true riches contained in his promises, or in the doctrine of godliness which we have received through Jesus Christ.

Luke 16:20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
Luke 16:21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

The beggar represents the common people. The sores represent the sins and ailments of the people that have festered and worsened as a result of the poor leadership.  This is possibly an allusion to the words of the prophet Isaiah.

Isaiah 1:4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward...
6 From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.

That whole first chapter of Isaiah makes a good companion piece to this parable.

The crumbs which fell from the table of the Pharisees are the remnants of the rich things of God with which the rulers fed themselves.  The leaders are supposed to feed the people from the riches of God and from the good things God has given them.  Instead of using their status to provide the service for which they were appointed, these use their position to improve their own lives and enrich themselves and their friends (as unjust stewards).  The religious and political leaders grow fat from their stewardship and the people are starved because the leaders corrupt the word of God and precious little edible "crumbs" fall into their mouths.  They help themselves and they help not the people.

The dogs are the ungodly and gentiles.  The Romans served the people of God better than the presumptive servants of God and provided a stable and tolerant government in which the Jewish religion flourished and Christ's ministry was not hindered.  I think this may be the meaning of the dogs that licked the sores of Lazarus.  Christ occasionally referred to gentiles as dogs, (Mark 7:27).

Those that have suggested that the characters are morally neutral have also suggested, that Lazarus represents the gentiles and the rich man the Jews.  I think this is incorrect.  That interpretation renders the parable inapplicable to religious leaders of our day.  In Christ we are supposed to have learned that in every nation those that honor God may be accepted by God. 

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Acts 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

The idea they try to get out of this parable is that the Jews (the rich man) would be out, and the Gentiles (Lazarus) would be in. But that is not really how it went.  The Ecclesia (Church) of the New Testament does not replace Israel, it is the gathering together in one body of both believing Jews and gentiles alike.  I prefer to view this parable based on behaviors rather than based on races, because that is one of the important messages of the New Testament, i.e. that in Christ, race, sex, and social status are irrelevant.

The name Lazarus may have some symbolic meaning.  Its literal interpretation is "God Helps" but the name Lazarus also signifies something else.  It is a contraction of the name Eleazar from the Old Testament.  The most notable Eleazar would have been Eleazar the son and successor of Aaron the brother of Moses. So Lazarus represents the true priesthood of God which does not prosper in this world, because men continually esteem things that God hates, and vice versa.  Two of Aaron's sons, Eleazar's older brothers, were destroyed by God for being derelict in their duties at the altar of God. They were unjust stewards.  Instead of using the true fire kindled by God himself, they offered fire from some other source.

Numbers 3:2 And these are the names of the sons of Aaron; Nadab the firstborn, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. Numbers 3:4 And Nadab and Abihu died before the LORD, when they offered strange fire before the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai, and they had no children: and Eleazar and Ithamar ministered in the priest's office in the sight of Aaron their father. Numbers 3:32 And Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest shall be chief over the chief of the Levites, and have the oversight of them that keep the charge of the sanctuary.

The scribes and Pharisees, the priests and rulers of Christ's day were equivalent to Nadab and Abihu, they were presumptive of their status and were willing to compromise the service of God towards the people.  They were not faithful stewards of the things of God. 

Revelation 1:5...Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Christ makes us Kings and Priests.  He clothes us with the "purple and linen"  in the place of those who unjustly wear it on earth. There are few on earth indeed who fill the rolls of religious or political leadership who are saved; because they are derelict in their duties before God, they are unjust stewards, making friends of the mammon of unrighteousness.

Luke 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

Christ is not trying to teach us that good people go to "Abraham's bosom" when they die anymore than he was trying to say that throwing seed all over the place is the most efficient way for a farmer to plant seed.  The term "Abraham's bosom" comes directly from the false traditions of the Pharisees.

According to the Companion Bible citing the works of John Lightfoot, the Pharisees taught that there were three places they might go when they die: (1) Abraham's Bosom; (2) under the throne of glory; (3) the garden of Eden; (Paradise).  Speaking of death they would say "this day he sits in Abraham's bosom."  Lightfoot, Works, vol.xii, pp.159-163

Such a place as "Abraham's Bosom" is never mentioned in any of the teachings of the scriptures regarding death and resurrection, so this setting is fictional, no such place exists.  

The point is not about demonstrating the places that the dead go, but rather the reversal of fortunes in the resurrection in the Kingdom of God.  When God judges the world, many that are last shall be first, and the first last.  The character Lazarus receives his portion with righteous Abraham and the Religious leaders would not be accounted worthy.  In other words, in the resurrection, God will punish the unjust stewards and comfort the neglected the people of God. 

Luke 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

The word hell here is hades, which answers to the Hebrew word Sheol (the Grave)  Christ always used  hades to refer to the place of the dead, the grave.  In the passages which Christ is referring to final judgment, the word Gehenna is used and also translated "Hell,"  which is unfortunate because they refer to two totally different ideas.

Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Hell in Revelation 20 is "Hades." When Christ referred to the final judgment he used the term Gehenna in order to distinguish the eternal fire of judgment from the abiding place of the dead, which is translated from the Hebrew Sheol as "Hades."  And the Pharisees had apparently adopted many of the mythological ideas of the Greeks about the afterlife when they taught about "sheol/hades."  I will be doing a paper on the nature of hell and everlasting punishment, look for it on my doctrine page.

The Pharisees saw themselves as "on their way to heaven" of course, they did not exactly believe in going to heaven, they went to "Abraham's bosom." The idea is the same, they expected a positive outcome for their afterlife experience.  Christ is clearly refuting that idea. 

From the evidence of scripture it is observed that the Pharisees believed that if you were well off in life; it was evidence that God approved of you.  Whereas if you were a poor beggar with sores all over his body, it was ample evidence that you were cursed by God.  Notice that nothing bad ever happened to the rich man in his life, the Pharisees would have judged such a man as supremely blessed. 

John 9:2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

His disciples asked the question, but the idea came from those that sat in Moses' seat, this was what people were being taught in those days.  We know this because of the way they treated the man who was born blind when they investigated the healing.

John 9:34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.

It is ironic that many Christians today subscribe to the same philosophical line of thought as the Pharisees.  I have had people write me who have told me, "We are so blessed, so it is impossible that we could be doing anything wrong."  Whereas I know that if I revealed my own situation to my enemies, they would rejoice at my poverty and proclaim that God was punishing me.  So many Christian people still equate worldly prosperity with God's approval and worldly want with God's disapproval.  There are many ways which I could demonstrate the falseness of that idea, but this parable really ought to suffice.

You will notice that in the fictional account of Hell, (or Hades) everyone is in sight of each other.  That is because in the doctrine of the Pharisees all the dead are in the same place, they are just treated different.  In the doctrine of Christ, the dead are also in the same place, but will be treated different after the resurrection in the final judgment.   The setting is really irrelevant, because what Christ is saying is that the Pharisees would not be going where they thought they were going, to Abraham's Bosom, or to be approved of God in any way.  Yet that was what they believed.  And the common people whom they despised and counted sinful would be the ones whom God approved.

His message to them is that they would not receive what they expected in death because they were not faithful to the teachings of God in life.  The ironic part is that he is using their own teachings on the subject of death to illustrate his point.  He is not affirming the reality of their doctrine, he is only affirming the fact that they would not escape the judgment of God for having been unfaithful to God's word.  But the setting of the story is an ironic twist to the story, and it should not be taken any more literally than Christ's injunction to "make ye friends of the mammon of unrighteousness."  To do so would to make one an UNJUST STEWARD!  Christ has given us the truth concerning death and resurrection, why would we exchange that for the contrary evidence of a fictional story?  So also had God given the Pharisees the truth concerning death in the old Testament, yet they had exchanged that truth for a fictional story. That is as plain as I can say it.  Christ has already taught us about death, so why would we suddenly be unfaithful to that based on the setting of  a fictional story?

Luke 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

The one who failed in his duty to relieve suffering, is portrayed as desiring relief from the one whose suffering he did not care about in life. 

Luke 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
Luke 16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

These details are directly from the teachings of the Pharisees. They believed that two  men might be "coupled together" in life and see one another in the afterlife.  The Pharisees gave similar stories of  fictional conversations taking place after death.

Luke 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
Luke 16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

The Old Testament contains no accounts of places of torment or of immortal souls.  The dead are in their graves.  But the Pharisees had no doubt been influenced by long association with the Greeks and having heard the myths of Tantalus and Sisyphus believed in places of torment in death and in places of comfort.  Men like to believe that their loved ones are "still alive" and in "a better place" such as "with Abraham" but the teaching of the bible on these subjects does not satisfy man's desired outcome, so men prefer to believe the fiction rather than receive what is actually being taught.

Luke 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

This is the most ironic part of the story because the story itself violates the teachings of the Prophets concerning death and resurrection.  We have discussed how in the matter of Adultery the Pharisees had corrupted the Law, and in the matter of what happens to the dead they had corrupted the teachings of the prophets.

Psalm 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. 4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

This parable is literally filled with things which contradict the scriptures. This is part of Christ's point. The things which are being said are actually Jewish traditions, contrary to the Law of Moses and the Prophets

Luke 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Regardless of whether one comes back from the dead to confirm the contrary, men's hearts are too hardened against the truth to receive what those returned from the dead might say.  Even if it was to warn of eternal torture, men would continue to follow the things that they preferred to believe in than heed any word to the contrary, regardless of the source.  Jesus Christ came working miracles, yet they crucified him.  He rose from the dead, yet they stoned his servants.  Is further evidence required?  Men use every power at their disposal to protect their interests, reputation, and goods.

The Pharisees were covetous and disregarded the teachings of the law and the prophets in order to justify themselves (Luke 16:15). The setting of the parable is ironic, because the imaginary scene which Christ portrays contradicts his own teaching concerning death and also contradicts the teachings of the law and prophets.  The Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead, but they also believed in an afterlife, which I speculate was based on the Greek mythology.  The fictional narrative which Christ uses to make his point is taken directly from the traditions of the Pharisees and was intended to be ironic just as the previous parable in Luke 16 had an ironic ending.   Some people will have trouble with the idea that Christ ever used irony, and I would encourage you to keep an open mind, because there is really no way to understand Luke 16 without conceding that Christ was being ironic.

The Bottom Line on Lazarus

It is not fitting to use the setting of this parable to undermine the consistent biblical teaching regarding death.  When Christ or the Apostles spoke of what it was like to be dead they consistently told the same story it is only in a few places that we can find anything contrary.  And the context of such passages render, without exception, any argument for the popular view highly questionable.

30). Objection #6: Saints with God in the Book of Revelation

Listen to this Chapter

If you accept my view of death, the book of Revelation contains many places where one might pause and question whether this view is correct.

Revelation 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
Revelation 6:10 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?

Context is the key here.  For one, the context of the whole book of Revelation is different than most books of the bible. The book of Revelation is a prophetic vision. It is difficult to place the thing which John saw into the context of human experience.  John was taken up in the spirit, "on the Lord's day"  and saw events which are yet future.

Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

John also saw things which were symbolic of future persons and events. So not everything John saw is to be taken literally.  That is one of the central challenges of a proper understanding of the book of Revelation; to understand what is symbolic and what is a direct reference.  Also we must understand that the things seen in Revelation are future to us and were future to John, but in the world to which John was spiritually transported, the events may have been long past.  John saw events at the beginning of the one thousand year reign of Christ and he saw events that came after that, so when and where exactly was John when he got all this?  John saw the new heavens and earth and many other things, so when we read about "people in heaven" in the book of Revelation it is not reasonable to presume that what is being described is how things stand at this time (in reference to our time).

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

You can bet I take that verse literally.  When I believed in the popular view, that verse bothered me, and no wonder, because it says so much, so simply.  But I bring it up here so that you will notice that when John wrote this, he wrote it as if it had already happened.  When we read other passages in Revelation which cause us to doubt the consistent teaching of Christ and His Apostles, we need to remember to keep it all in context.  We don't really know for sure where and when these things occurred or will occur.

Revelation 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
Revelation 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

We should not be leaping to the conclusion that this all means that dead people are now living in heaven.  If we examine what these worshippers say, then it bears remembering that these same terms are used of those that participate in the first resurrection.

Editorial Note:  It is also worth noting that according to some sources the King James translation of this passage is inaccurate.  Accordingly, the "us" in verse ten ought to be "them," and the "we" ought to be "they," referring to he saints, and most Greek texts supposedly omit the "us" from verse nine.  This makes sense in light of the idea that these are heavenly beings singing about the saints and not the saints singing of themselves.  "...and hast redeemed them to God by thy blood out of every kingdom and tongue and people and nation and hast made them unto our God kings and priests, and they shall reign on the earth.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

These are they that were made priests and kings, they that had been dead and were now alive through the resurrection.  As I have said before, if the soul instantly transitions from one plane of existence to another at death, there really is no such thing as death.  It would require us to awkwardly insert the concept of "spiritual death" into a passage which in context clearly speaks of physical death, i.e. beheading.  They were once beheaded, but they lived again in the resurrection.  These are the same ones which John witnessed in chapter five (if those in chapter 5 were indeed saints).  John was either taken into the future or was shown visions of future things or of things which symbolized future things.  Either way it is not reasonable to suggest that the worshippers witnessed in chapter five were actual dead people, the dead know not anything. The dead do not go to heaven.  Only those that live in the resurrection could literally fill those roles.  Either that or it was purely a vision created by God of what would be, or symbolizing what would be.

Even though chapter five occurs sequentially prior to the resurrection, what was seen in chapters four and five was highly visionary and it is difficult to say when exactly the outward events of  those chapters were taking place.  By "outward events" I mean the things which involved John and his interaction with the people and angels he saw.  The things described in the seals themselves are another matter.  John could have already been transported to a future well past the events that the prophecies were addressing.  In other words, it is reasonable to believe that John was in the distant future receiving prophecies of things which were then past (in reference to that future time, but yet future in reference to John and us (I know the amillennialists are not happy with me).

So it is important for us to consider what we are reading.  What are we really reading?  When do these things occur?  What is the context?  The near context and the broader context.  And we also have to be willing to compromise what we think we know in favor of allowing the scriptures themselves to teach us and give us understanding.  There has to be a consistent biblical teaching regarding death and resurrection and we have to be patient and willing to adjust our opinions until the fullness of that truth is revealed to us clearly.

31). The Souls Under the Altar

Listen to this Chapter

This is the classic objection from Revelation.  I used to use it myself.  "What about the souls under the altar?"

Revelation 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
Revelation 6:10 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?
Revelation 6:11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

So, here we see "souls under the altar" and this is definitely "before" the resurrection because the passage clearly states that more saints must be killed before the desired vengeance will be visited on the enemies of God.  They are told to "rest yet," for a little season.  What exactly does that mean? They seem to be anything but at rest, crying out, crowded there under the altar in their thousands of thousands, is that the reward of their sacrifice?  Obviously, I do not take this passage literally.  The vision of the souls under the alter can be reasonably classified as a symbolic vision.  The voices of the slain saints cry out to God in the same way that the blood of Abel cried out to God from the ground.

Genesis 4:10 ...the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

Interestingly, notice how God does not say, "Cain!  Why has thy brother Abel appeared here before me in heaven?"  God places the cry of Abel's blood as coming from the ground, which received his blood and his body.

The slain saints are shown to John as being under God's gaze, directly under the Altar before his throne.  This is to emphasize the fact that God has not forgotten the sacrifice of  his saints.  It is a matter very close to him which he never ceases to be aware of.  The admonishment to "rest yet," is a nod to the literal truth, the saints are "at rest," they are sleeping in the dust of the earth, as Christ taught.  In the mind of God, from the blood of righteous Abel, to the saints which will be slain at the feet of the beast, the righteous blood cries out for vengeance and God is very attentive to this matter.

The fact that this vision is the result of an opened seal is not without significance.  The intention of this seal is to communicate these ideas, not to change the way we understand death.  We have to keep these things in context.

32). The Mysterious Multitude

Listen to this Chapter

Revelation 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
Revelation 7:10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb. (omitting the verses referring to the angels)
Revelation 7:13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?
Revelation 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Revelation 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
Revelation 7:16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.
Revelation 7:17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

Some people make a big deal about them having "washed their own robes," in order to separate these "tribulation saints"  from the rest, but it does not make sense.  We all have to wash our robes in his blood, by faith.  It is a red herring.

But half the answer is right there. This one is a matter of time.  We are told WHAT John beheld, but not the context of when what he saw existed.  In other words, this multitude is likely post-resurrection, they came out of great tribulation (possibly THE great tribulation) but regardless of where or when they came from.  When John observes them, they are either resurrected, or he is being given a vision of them after their resurrection.

I included verses 15-17 because they mirror verses from the end of the Book of Revelation

Revelation 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Further on the living waters are also mentioned. 

So we see that those mentioned in chapter seven are not likely pre-resurrection residents of heaven.  Much of the confusion surrounding these verses arises from a lack of familiarity with the Book of Revelation and a failure to place the visions and events expressed into their proper context.  I hope to do a study of revelation soon, but I felt this writing was more needful. 

33). Objection #7: Near Death Experiences

Listen to this Chapter

Though this is not a biblical objection I'm going to cover it briefly.  Experience is not something that should be categorically discarded when considering a question.

The objection here is going to take many forms.  There are thousands of anecdotes about what people have seen when they got close to dying.  And they are not consistent which makes analysis of any specific experience questionable.  There is one universal truth about these experiences:  They are not called "near-death"  experiences without good reason.  I don't care how loudly someone protests about them being "clinically dead,"  biologically dead, or whatever terminology by which they choose to describe someone who is not "stone cold dead." These people are quite clearly not "really dead."  If they were "really dead"  then doctors could have legitimately claimed that they had raised the dead.  But I know of no physician who will claim to be able to bring back to life a person (or other animal) who is fully dead.  No matter how gently you may kill them, you can't bring them back after they become completely dead.  For medicine there is a point of no return, and there are no anecdotes from modern medicine about people coming back after being dead for a day or so. And that is the only death that really matters, everything up to that point is the product of  the human imagination.

As the body dies the mind is subject to all kinds of chemicals being released and as one goes unconscious, may enter into a dream state which can seem as real and lucid as any other dream may.  This explains why people have so many different and conflicting experiences.  Kids see Santa Claus, Sinners see Satan, and others see Christ, Jehovah, the Great Spirit, their life flashing before their eyes, or whatever they fancy as their body's biological functions wind down towards actual death.  It does not matter how "life-changing"  these experiences can be.  I have no doubt they are a psychological powerhouse.  And God might even work through such an experience to change someone's life.  That is not the point.

The point is that we have no modern testimonies from people who have had full death experiences.  But we do have testimony from one who died and came back to life from the scriptures.

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

When Christ died, we know it was not a "near-death"  experience because he was dead for three days.  He claims that after three days of being dead, he had not yet ascended to his father.  That was a full-on death experience, and that is the one I take as authoritative.  The dead do not ascend into heaven.  Only through the resurrection may we hope to do so.  Christ is our pattern.

I used to think that "near-death" experiences were the bread and butter of new-age types, but more and more I hear supposedly Christian voices taking advantage of stories which coincide with their view of heaven or hell.  But you can't just cherry-pick the stories that suit you. You have to take all the stories.  If they were 99% in agreement, that would be somewhat compelling, but the stories vary so greatly that it is irresponsible to try to rely on such conflicting testimony from people who were arguably never dead.

34). CONCLUSION

Listen to this Chapter

If there was a parting thought I would like to leave with you, it would be that the passages which actually deal with the subject of "what is it like to be dead,"  as their primary subject matter all agree.  The passages that seem to disagree with these passages are invariably of a different nature and this makes them poor arguments against the primary passages.  It is one thing to use those conflicting passages to cast doubt on the doctrine of death and resurrection.  But it is another thing entirely to construct from the ground up a view of death, based on those scriptures.  If we were to attempt such a thing, we should also have to list all the objections, which here have been my primary evidence.  That would be a difficult sea of scripture to make our way through and I have never seen an opponent even attempt it. And generally they don't have to, because their view is popular, their view is the view that people want to hear. What I'm saying is, I have yet to see anyone even attempt to explain all these passages away. That is a lot of very plain scripture to explain away, which I am not comfortable doing, and that is the reason I changed my view.  And that is the point,  we have to make a choice here, we have to decide, we have to exercise a little of one of the weightier matters of the Law, judgment.

We have to exercise good judgment.  We have to rightly divide the word of God.  We have to decide what we will take at face value, and what was meant to be taken some other way.  You can't have it both ways, and being able to set aside our own prejudices and preferences is part of growing up into Christ and being faithful to the doctrine which is according to godliness.