Beliefs about the Afterlife (xx)

"For man goes to his eternal home, 

And the mourners go about the streets." 

(Eccl. 12: 5)

In this chapter we will continue to examine Ecclesiastes chapter nine and the statements therein about the dead knowing nothing, nor having any activity in Sheol. On the surface of Ecclesiastes chapter nine it seems that Solomon did not believe in a conscious existence of spirit in the afterlife and is thus against the bible which teaches it, and against what he elsewhere wrote in Ecclesiastes. 

In the previous chapter we noticed some of the texts in Ecclesiastes that seemed to affirm a conscious spirit existence after death. However, although we cited 11: 9, 12: 1, 6-7, 13-14, we did not cite the above. The spirit or soul of a human, when he or she dies, departs the body and "goes to" a different dwelling place, to an "eternal house." That is what the above text (12: 5) seems clearly to affirm. So, why does Solomon seem to contradict that belief in Chapter nine when he says "the dead know nothing," etc.? 

We mentioned the leading views of the passage in the previous chapter and we are still considering the question as to whether Solomon is stating a truth, or a falsehood. As stated previously, many bible teachers believe that Solomon is giving the common perspective of men who only believe in what they can see and discover by reason and logic and not expressing his own belief. That is my view.

Further, if what he says is said by way of sarcasm, satire, cynicism, or "tongue an cheek" manner of speech, then we can assume that Solomon believed the very opposite of what the words say. 

If he is merely giving propositions for study or debate, which to my view is likely, then we cannot assume that what he said is in fact what Solomon himself believed to be true, or determine which side of each question he will conclude is correct. From what perspective, then, does he speak? Sometimes, I think, he is speaking for pro and sometimes for con, and sometimes speaking as the debate judge (or decider of the case or question), allowing some propositions while dismissing others of the disputants, and then rendering a decision on the question in dispute. 

As an introduction to the perspective of the author, or of "the preacher," let us look at some excellent observations from Enduring Word Bible Commentary (See here - emphasis mine):

"The Book of Ecclesiastes is one of the most unusual and perhaps most difficult to understand books of the Bible. It has a spirit of hopeless despair; it has no praise or peace; it seems to promote questionable conduct. Yet these words of the Preacher show us the futility and foolishness of a life lived without an eternal perspective."

The difficulty with understanding Ecclesiastes is a failure to interpret what is said in context, from failure to see how it often describes what a human thinks when he or she looks at the world around him or her and then tries to "make sense of it." This is the human perspective. There is also the divine perspective seen in Ecclesiastes at times and in contexts for certain words and statements. It is all about what is seen done "under the sun." It does not deal with the things seen in other worldly places, such as heaven, Sheol, or the spiritual (non physical), for they are not "under the sun." Sheol is in the heart of the earth, heaven is beyond the sun. 

There are also times when the narrator gives us his "stream of consciousness," his mental deliberations, the mental weighing of pros and cons, and dialogues between perspectives of various human groups and kinds of individuals. Perhaps, certain sections in Ecclesiastes are mere lists of propositions he has investigated. Perhaps we could call Ecclesiastes "the dialogues of Solomon" (or "the Preacher"). He is chiefly talking to himself, but also to those who hear him tell his story.

Said the same commentary:

i. The question in Ecclesiastes isn’t about the existence of God; the author is no atheist, and God is always there. The question is whether or not God matters. The answer to that question is vitally connected to a responsibility to God that goes beyond this earthly life. 

The question of whether there is an afterlife is behind much of the discussion in Ecclesiastes. However, Solomon does say things that seem to be made outside of the context of God and providence. 

Said the same commentary:

ii. “He does believe in ‘God,’ but, very significantly, he never uses the sacred name ‘Lord.’ He has shaken himself free, or wishes to represent a character who has shaken himself free from Revelation, and is fighting the problem of life, its meaning and worth, without any help from Law, or Prophet, or Psalm.” (Maclaren) 

 

iii. In the search for this answer, the Preacher searched the depths of human experience, including despair. He thoroughly examined the emptiness and futility of life lived without eternity before coming to the conclusion of the necessity of eternity. 

 

iv. “We face the appalling inference that nothing has meaning, nothing matters under the sun. It is then that we can hear, as the good news which it is, that everything matters – ‘for God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.’” (Kidner) 

v. “What, then, is the purpose of Ecclesiastes? It is an essay in apologetics. It defends the life of faith in a generous God by pointing to the grimness of the alternative.” (Eaton) 

 

Said the same commentary:

"Vanity of vanities: The Preacher begins his sermon with his first conclusion (though not his ultimate conclusion). Looking at life all around, he judges it to be vanity – nothing, useless, meaningless."

Thus, it seems to me, what Solomon said in Ecclesiastes chapter nine is simply a record of the workings of his mind and a list of the propositions (or questions) he analyzed.

Said the same commentary:

i. We see from the first two verses that Solomon wrote this from a certain perspective, a perspective that through the book he will expose as inadequate and wrong. Most all of Ecclesiastes is written from this perspective, through the eyes of a man who thinks and lives as if God doesn’t matter.

Solomon speaks as pro or con when giving us the ruminations of his mind on each question and thus acts as a moderator of the mental debate and subsequent narrator of the debate. He would consider both affirmative and negative, and things in terms of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. If this is so, then when Solomon says "the dead know nothing" he may be giving us the antithesis or the proposition or question to be debated. 

Said the same commentary:

iii. Therefore Ecclesiastes is filled with what we might call true lies. Given the perspective “God does not matter,” it is true that all is vanity. Since that perspective is wrong, it is not true that all is vanity. Yet Solomon makes us think through this wrong perspective thoroughly through Ecclesiastes.

Say Ray Stedman, who we cited in the previous chapter, said (See here): 

"The word can mean "preacher," but I think it is much better translated as "debater" or "arguer," and as you read this book you will see that it is a series of arguments set forth as man views the world around him."

He is a man examining philosophies of life and records the "back and forth" of his thoughts, and sometimes speaks "as a man," as Paul said - "I speak as a man" (Rom. 3: 5); And, "I speak after the manner of men" (Rom. 6: 19); And, "I speak after the manner of men" (Gal. 3: 15); And, "Say I these things as a man?" (I Cor. 9: 8).

Likewise we say similar things about our speech and the way we phrase things as when we hear people say 1) "to use a common expression" or 2) "in a manner of speaking" or 3) "as people generally say."

Dr. Albert Barnes on Rom. 3: 5 said (Commentary):

"I speak as a man - I speak after the manner of human beings. I speak as appears to be the case to human view; or as would strike the human mind."

In Ecclesiastes Solomon is sometimes speaking in this manner.

Myer's Commentary similarly says:

"Paul remarks parenthetically that he says this according to a human standard (Bernhardy, p. 241), after the fashion of ordinary humanity, quite apart from his own higher standpoint of divine enlightenment, to which the idea expressed in that question would be foreign, and speaking only in accordance with mere human reason."

Solomon writes much in the character of a man of reason, as a humanist, as a secularist, as an existentialist, as a Sophist, or Epicurean, as one who believes that this life is the only thing that matters and that obtaining as much pleasure in life is the highest virtue. Idea of God or gods, the afterlife, or the supernatural, are but slightly considered by such men of the world, for such things give them little pleasure or advantage. 

The Scientific Method or Philosophic Look

"All this I saw, as I applied my mind to everything done under the sun." (Eccl. 8: 9)

Solomon says he studied everything. He was the quintessential scientist and philosopher. As such he made some conclusions and gave us his stream of consciousness on life's most important questions, telling us how he logically came to those conclusions from his observing and contemplating what he could see happening "under the sun." Observation and reasoned analysis of the physical, psychological, and social worlds cannot prove nor disprove that there is life after death, nor the existence of angels and disembodied human spirits, and such things. Reason is insufficient. Wrote the apostle Paul:

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened." (Rom. 1: 20-21 nkjv)

So, what did Solomon (or any other man doing as Solomon) conclude about the world around him? He does reason to a belief in the existence of God and his power, wisdom, and rule from observing the cosmos and the behavior of men. He mentions God and things about him throughout Ecclesiastes. Notice these words from chapter one:

"And I set my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all that is done under heaven; this burdensome task God has given to the sons of man, by which they may be exercised." (Eccl. 1: 13)

I think the latter part of this text should be put in parentheses. Keep in mind that in the Hebrew and Greek languages of the bible there is no punctuation. Such punctuation as we use in English are added to the text where it is thought necessary to help properly interpret or translate the text. The punctuation is not inspired and in all translations there are instances where the punctuation is not helpful but hurtful. Consider how a lot of meaning and interpretation occurs for where to put the comma in the words of Christ to the thief on the cross to the right of Christ - "I say unto you today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23: 43) Does a comma go anywhere? Most translations put it before "today" while some others put it after it. Every instance of parentheses in the bible is added by the translator and is not in the original writings. In the above text where there is a semicolon we should perhaps change to the beginning of a parenthesis and remove the comma so that it looks like this:

"And I set my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all that is done under heaven (this burdensome task God has given to the sons of man by which they may be exercised)."

He will look at the world and all that "happens under the sun" just as do "scientists" of all branches of science, to gain knowledge of the world and of all events and happenings. And, for what purpose will he investigate the physical world? The world of ideas or of the mind or psyche? So, what is meant by a hunger for or interest in learning about everything being a "burdensome task" or "sore travail" (KJV)? 

Most humans have a hunger or "thirst for knowledge." What does the bible say about that? That Solomon had something to say about it is evident in Ecclesiastes. What did he say about it?

It was a thirst for knowledge that moved Eve to desire the fruit of the forbidden tree, which is called a "tree of knowledge," of both "good and evil." The serpent teased her with a promise of such wisdom and knowledge that would make her a divinity, like God. Such a tempting idea still lives on in the philosophy of "Gnosticism." Scientific knowledge and research about the physical world or world of the mind (or soul or of human behavior), to be profitable and good, must have a proper motive, right means, and right purpose or end in mind. To do it for the reason that motivated Eve would be an instance of "vanity and vexation of spirit," of being meaningless. The apostle Paul had a lot to say about the wrongful pursuit of knowledge, especially in his Corinthian epistles. Knowledge without love, he says, profits nothing. 

Further, Solomon realized that there is no way that anyone can know it all. There are so many branches of science, that even if a man became expert on one, he cannot be expert in all. What advantage is knowledge of the world? Though the means of much good, it has also been the means of much evil. Is it best to spend all one's time learning new facts about the world? Or is amusement better than musement much of the time? Is all that time in study worth it? Notice Solomon's testimony on this:

"When I applied my heart to know wisdom and to see the business that is done on earth, even though one sees no sleep day or night, then I saw all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun. For though a man labors to discover it, yet he will not find it; moreover, though a wise man attempts to know it, he will not be able to find it." (8: 16-17)

Even if a man spent every minute of his life studying the world and obtaining knowledge of everything, so much that he neglects sleep and amusement, how is he bettered? Does he not end up saying how he has come to realize that he has only scratched the surface when it comes to knowing all there is to know? 

Notice these observations of Solomon: 

"He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end. I know that nothing is better for them than to rejoice, and to do good in their lives, and also that every man should eat and drink and enjoy the good of all his labor—it is the gift of God. I know that whatever God does, It shall be forever. Nothing can be added to it, And nothing taken from it. God does it, that men should fear before Him. That which is has already been, And what is to be has already been; And God requires an account of what is past." (3: 11-15)

So, in two passages in Ecclesiastes we have Solomon concluding that no one man can "find out," or fully comprehend all things. He also made this conclusion:

"As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things." (Eccl, 11: 5 NIV)

There is simply so much to know that no man, no matter how knowledgeable, can comprehend it all. So Solomon says:

"No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all their efforts to search it out, no one can discover its meaning. Even if the wise claim they know, they cannot really comprehend it." (vs. 17)

What did Solomon learn by his study of physics and all the sciences? What were his philosophical conclusions from his reasoning upon the observable facts? His "outlook on life"? From what perspective does Solomon write or make his observations? As a man who is relying upon his own intellect and reason upon things he can observe? Or, as a man relying upon God to make sense of it all for him?

Beliefs about the Afterlife (xix)

The body sleeps, the soul does not. Texts which say that a person is asleep mean that the body is asleep, and not in mere appearance. The body (more particularly the brain) is no longer conscious, no more alive, no more in possession of life force. This is not true of the spirit (or soul). 

In this posting we will begin a look at some of the leading texts that seem to indicate that the dead are not conscious in soul or spirit in an Underworld of spirits. We cannot look at them all. The ones that speak of a person being asleep have already been addressed. We need not look, therefore, at all the numerous passages that speak of a dead person being asleep. 

Let us begin with Solomon and his statements in Ecclesiastes. Those who believe like the Sadducees, or in "Soul Sleep," affirm that there is no consciousness in the afterlife for departed spirits. They love to quote from Ecclesiastes, especially from two verses in chapter nine where Solomon says "the dead know not anything" and "there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave (Sheol) where you go." Let us examine more closely the words and their context. Wrote Solomon:

"For all this I considered in my heart even to declare all this, that the righteous, and the wise, and their works, are in the hand of God: no man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before them. 2 All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous, and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not: as is the good, so is the sinner; and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath. 3 This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead. 4 For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. 5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun...10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave (Sheol), whither thou goest." (Eccl. 9: 1-6, 10 kjv)

We can summarize the words and categorize the verses above as follows:

1-3 The same fate – death – awaits everyone. 

4-6 Death deprives humans of everything in life. 

7-10 Enjoy life while it lasts. 

Major Interpretive Views

1. No knowledge or activity on the earth, in the land of the living, in the physical world. Life is different in Hades, both for the body and the spirit. What is said is true of the body and brain, not of the soul or spirit. Thus it is seen as saying (paraphrase) - "the dead know not anything so far as their physical bodies are concerned, and know not anything about what is happening in the world of the living." 

2. Solomon states what observation of the world and human experience, without a revelation from God, deduces or induces, what conclusions it makes about such based upon science and logic. In other words, Solomon states what some people infer, or conclude, not what he believes. Or we may say that he gives the humanistic or man centered explanation of life and death, and of the afterlife. He cannot speak about what he does not see or discover by study and careful observation. He therefore does not affirm an afterlife, and like the Sadducees, does not confess a belief in the existence of spirit beings or of a immaterial world. 

3. Of course, there is that view that says that the verses affirm that the souls of men do not survive the death of the body, but die as the body or sleep. It says that the verses teach that there is no consciousness after death, that no man has an immortal soul or spirit which survives the death of the body. 

We should reject number three for the passages we have studied so far disprove what the Ecclesiastes verses seem to affirm. Dives was not unconscious when he was in Hades in his disembodied spirit, nor were Abraham and Lazarus. Both the torment and speech of Dives and the comforts and joys of Lazarus show that the dead do know much when they have died. Are we to conclude then that Solomon contradicts Jesus and the other writers of the holy scriptures who teach contrary to Solomon? First, let us see how Solomon seems to contradict Solomon (or himself). Let us see where he seems to affirm life after death, and of a conscious state of existence for ghosts of departed people.  

Solomon On Life After Death

"You who are young, be happy while you are young, and let your heart give you joy in the days of your youth. Follow the ways of your heart and whatever your eyes see, but know that for all these things God will bring you into judgment...Remember your Creator in the days of your youth." (Eccl. 11: 9; 12: 1)

"Remember him—before the silver cord is severed, and the golden bowl is broken; before the pitcher is shattered at the spring, and the wheel broken at the well, and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it." (12: 6-7)

"Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil." (12: 13-14) 

Though it is possible for these passages to be interpreted so as to align with the soul sleep doctrine, yet I believe that they do show that Solomon did believe in God and in the afterlife (thus in the immortality of the soul). The spirit departs the body when the body dies and goes where? It "returns to God who gave it." That is true of every man, both righteous and unrighteous. When the departed spirit stands before God, it is either sent to Heaven or to Hell (or to one of the sides of Hades for OT peoples). This is what Paul had in mind when he said "It is appointed unto man once to die, but after this the judgment." (Heb. 9: 27) This judgment occurs when the naked soul appears before God at death and is given its eternal status. 

Solomon, like many of the writers of the Old Testament scriptures, did not have as clear an understanding of the afterlife as do people who lived with access to the New Testament scriptures. They essentially said the same thing, as we have seen. Recall the words of Isaiah 14 about how Lucifer and the king of Babylon were received by the inhabitants of Sheol as an example. Solomon's affirmation of the immortality of the soul or spirit is not as forceful as other old testament authors. There is not much said about it in his Proverbs either. Consider also another factor in why the old testament did not elaborate more on the conscious state of the dead, such as what is stated in the Abstract of a book titled "Life with Yahweh After Death: How the Psalter’s References to Life After Death Cohere" by Bill Tackmier (Concordia Seminary, St. Louis - See here). In it we find these words in the same direction (emphasis mine):

"This dissertation demonstrates how seven Psalms passages that refer to life beyond death reflect a single, coherent view of postmortem existence held in ancient Israel. Although it has been argued by some over the past hundred years that four of the passages (Pss 6:6; 30:10; 88:10–12; and 115:17) reflect a time when Israel either did not believe in an afterlife or had a very limited view of postmortem existence, this dissertation argues that the seven passages are muted expressions of afterlife belief — muted so as not to be confused with beliefs among Israel’s neighbors that the dead could speak to the living. The psalmists, like many in ancient Israel, opposed the cult of the dead practiced throughout the ancient Near East. The three other psalms examined (Pss 16, 49, and 73) focus on how the individual believed he would go on to an existence of eternal bliss with Yahweh without reference to other deceased persons sharing that existence. The psalmists do not deny that such a community of the dead existed, but they appear to avoid addressing the topic since Israel was often tempted to practice the cult of the dead, which involved offering sacrifices to the dead and soliciting their counsel and guidance from beyond the grave. The dissertation first surveys the cult of the dead as practiced by Israel’s neighbors, then surveys how the rest of Hebrew Scripture cautiously handles the topics of afterlife and the cult of the dead, and finally examines exegetically the seven Psalms references to show that the psalmists are affirming belief in a continued postmortem existence with Yahweh, but one in which the dead were unable to communicate to the living either Yahweh’s praises or his counsel."

That seems like a good reason why the ancient Hebrew scripture writers did not speak at length about the spirit world of Sheol. I also think that more revelation was always being given on that subject.

Consider also that Solomon believed what David his father believed. David, as we have seen, did believe in life after death and the immortality of the soul, and did not believe in soul sleep. 

He would have believed what Moses believed too. In Psalm 90, written by Moses and called a "prayer of Moses the man of God" (vs. 1), he said:

"The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away." (vs. 10 kjv)

What flies away in death? Not the body. It is the spirit that returns to God who gave it. As we noted in the first chapters, the Egyptians often had hieroglyphs which showed a bird flying from a corpse as a symbol to convey the same idea of the soul or spirit leaving the body and going to Sheol, or to Heaven. The Hebrew word means to "fly swiftly away like a bird, as this word signifies" (Poole's Commentary). "The immortal spirit wings its way into the eternal world,"  says Clark's Commentary. 

The fact that the people of Israel often involved themselves in necromancy also shows that they believed that the ghosts (spirits) of the dead had a conscious existence in the spirit world. Why would you try to communicate with non-existent or unconscious spirits?

Further, as we have observed before, it was commonly said of the righteous, when they died, that they were "gathered unto their people." For a list of those several old testament passages see (here). Such language shows that people expected to be consciously joined with their relatives when they died, and this is true with both righteous and unrighteous. 

Consider also these words from the Psalmist (presumed to be king David): "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints." (Psa. 116: 15) I don't think it could be precious to the Lord if death extinguished the persons of his people. 

"Although a wicked person who commits a hundred crimes may live a long time, I know that it will go better with those who fear God, who are reverent before him. Yet because the wicked do not fear God, it will not go well with them, and their days will not lengthen like a shadow." (Eccl. 8: 12-13)

It seems to me that there is an implied belief in the afterlife in these words. It is not always better in this life for the righteous than for the unrighteous. Solomon even grieves over this fact and can't make sense of it. Good people often suffer more than bad people and die young while the wicked grow old. Job also spoke of the same distressing phenomenon. Recall the story of Lazarus and Dives. Who fared better in this life? Though Lazarus did not fare well in this life, compared to Dives, yet he fared better when death came to both, for Lazarus, being righteous, went to the place of the blessed, and "prolonged his days" in the world to come, for he inherited eternal life.

The Speaker's Perspective

From what perspective does Solomon or The Preacher speak of death? Perspective is important. Consider that a person standing above the earth's north pole and looking down would say the earth is spinning counter clockwise but while standing below the south pole would say it turns clockwise. Both are right though what they say is totally different. 

Oftentimes, Solomon speaks of a man who is only believing in what he can see and reasonably conclude. Other times he speaks as a man who has been taught by the unseen, namely God, in ways not observable to the physical eye but discernible by the inner eye of mind and spirit. If this is so, then what he says in chapter nine may be an expression of the way things appear to him, looking at things from the standpoint of the man who only believes in what he can see and conclude by logic and reason.

Wrote Albert Barnes in his Commentary (emphasis mine):

"Solomon here describes what he sees, not what he believes; there is no reference here to the fact or the mode of the existence of the soul in another world, which are matters of faith."

The view I take is very similar to this. But, more on that shortly. Got Questions web page also says something similar (see here, emphasis mine):

"The key to understanding the statement “the dead know nothing” is found in the theme of the book of Ecclesiastes. Ecclesiastes is written specifically from an earthly perspective. The key phrase, repeated throughout the book, is under the sun, used about thirty times. Solomon is commenting on an earth-bound life, “under the sun,” without God. His conclusion, also repeated throughout the book, is that everything from that perspective is “vanity” or emptiness (Ecclesiastes 1:2)...The last clause of Ecclesiastes 9: 6 indicates that the writer confines his observations on the dead to their portion in, or relation to, this world."

Many things that Solomon says in Ecclesiastes are falsehoods because Solomon speaks for the man who believes that this life is all there is, and that there is no afterlife. He speaks often from the perspective of a cynic, skeptic, agnostic, materialist, etc. 

He also speaks sarcastically, or as an infidel might speak. He also uses satire, and as in sarcasm, a man must be interpreted to mean exactly the opposite of what he says; And, if a man read the words, and did not know they were sarcastic or satirical, then he would be led to take them as declarative statements of truth. If I go outside in awful weather and say "nice weather we are having today," no one knowing the context would say I really meant it as a statement of truth or fact. 

Said bible teacher Ray Stedman (See here - emphasis mine):

"The book of Ecclesiastes, or "the Preacher," is unique in scripture. There is no other book like it, because it is the only book in the Bible that reflects a human, rather than a divine, point of view. This book is filled with error. And yet it is wholly inspired. This may confuse some people, because many feel that inspiration is a guarantee of truth."

If this is true (that Ecclesiastes has errors), and it is, then we must be able to discern which are true and which are errors. Doing this is often the hard part. I believe that "the dead know not anything" is not a truth proposition. If it is saying something about the body and brains of the deceased, then it is true. Thus, one of the first decisions the bible student will have to make upon the passage is to decide whether Solomon is stating a truth or a falsehood. If it is decided that he is stating a truth, it still does not necessarily support the soul sleep doctrine for it may be true relative to the physical intellect. However, I rather think Solomon is stating a falsehood or a topic of discussion (the latter being my view, though either is quite plausible). For example, let us notice these words:

“A feast is made for laughter, wine makes life merry, and money is the answer for everything.” (Eccl.10: 19)

So, is money the answer to everything? No. Do men think it is? Yes. There are other similar statements in Ecclesiastes. The above statement is said today by people, but say rather "money talks." That is true, relatively speaking, though not absolutely. The bible is full of statements that say in essence - "your money will not help you." Further, does wine make one happy in life? Well, again, yes and no. It seems to me that the words above are more a topic for discussion than a statement of absolute truth. But, more on that as we progress in our thoughts. Consider also that many things said by Job's friends and counselors were falsities.

Said Stedman 

"Because of its remarkable character Ecclesiastes is the most misused book of the Bible. This is the favorite book of atheists and agnostics. And many cults love to quote this book's erroneous viewpoints and give the impression that these are scriptural, divine words of God concerning life."

It is certainly used by those who deny the immortality of the soul and of a conscious state of the dead, by those who believe in soul sleep or annihilationism. 

Said Stedman 

"But right away in its introduction this book is very careful to point out that what it records is not divine truth. It presents only the human view of life. You'll find that over and over, throughout the whole course of Ecclesiastes, one phrase is repeated again and again: "under the sun," "under the sun." Everything is evaluated according to appearances alone-- this is man's point of view of reality and is utterly exclusive of divine revelation. As such, Ecclesiastes very accurately summarizes what man thinks...it is written from a humanistic point of view."

This is very important to understand. The same with discerning sarcasm in scripture. Many err in interpreting certain biblical statements because they fail to understand that the speaker is speaking sarcastically. (See Job 12: 2 as an example) So, we must decide whether statements like "the dead know not anything" are statements of fact, or are instances of sarcasm, or satire, or simply a stated proposition for discussion. 

Said Stedman 

"Then in chapter 9 he examines the world's value judgments and points out again that they all come to the same thing..."

So, is Solomon stating what he believes is true or what appears to be true to men who believe only in what they can see and explain? That is a priority in a discussion of what he says.

Said Stedman 

"Here he says, "You see these men who say, like Benjamin Franklin, 'Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise' and 'A penny saved is a penny earned'. All these things," he says, "have an aura of wisdom about them -- but they don't really work. I have seen times when the race was not to the swift and the battle didn't go to the strong nor bread to the wise nor riches to the intelligent. It doesn't always work. I have seen some very stupid rich people." So these worldly values and judgments are not accurate, and they too all end in death..."

I think this is so true of Ecclesiastes in several places. Whether it is the case in chapter nine is yet for us to more fully examine. It certainly is more plausible than to conclude that Solomon is affirming what the soul sleepers say about his words. 

In the next chapter we will continue our look at Solomon's words in this chapter.

Beliefs about the Afterlife (xviii)

As promised earlier we will give further evidence to show that "sheol" cannot be strictly a reference to the grave, to the place where a dead body is placed. Sometimes the grave is the thing focused upon when sheol is spoken of, for that is the place of the dead when focus is upon the body of a person. But, when the person's inner person is the focus, sheol is the place of departed spirits. Though both the place of the body and the place of the spirit are called sheol, yet they are but subdivisions of the same world, as we have previously asserted. Further, there was another word that was the foremost used to refer to the grave, the Hebrew word "queber." 

Sheol is found 64 times in the old testament. If we look at each of those passages to see what we can discover about the usage of the word, what would be our definition of it?

Sheol is translated “hell,” “grave,” and “pit” (KJV). It simply means "place of the dead" or "unseen world of the dead," or something similar. If we would substitute the words "place of the dead" in every place where Sheol is used, it would be better understood. Further, the above words (which are intended to give the English translation of the Hebrew word and idea) can refer either to the grave, where the body is concealed (unseen) after burial, or to the spirit world, which is invisible to mortal eyes. It is a place where people "go" when they die.

As we stated in earlier chapters, Sheol may refer either to the grave or to what is below the grave, to the place of departed spirits. When the body is the subject, Sheol denotes the grave, the place where the body or bodily ashes are located. When the soul or spirit is the subject or focus, the grave is not meant, but rather the place of departed spirits. 

For instance, when I think of my beloved father, who departed this life several years ago, I sometimes think of him as in the grave of a cemetery near Trenton, Ohio, a place where other relatives are buried. I also think of his body, his face, his facial gestures, his physical features, and can almost hear his voice. However, most of the time I am thinking of his spirit (soul or psyche or pneuma), his inner self, I am picturing him with Christ in conscious bliss in Heaven. Further, I can both say in truth 1) "father is buried in the cemetery in Trenton" and 2) "my father is with the Lord in Heaven." I can also affirm that his physical brain is no longer living, thinking, or conscious, but I can also affirm that his disembodied spirit has intellect, thinking ability, consciousness and self awareness. We may also, similarly, think of the wicked dead as being in the grave and also in the place of departed wicked spirits. 

As was indicated in previous chapters, in our diagrams of how Christ and the old testament writers described the realm of Sheol, we saw how Sheol (Hades) was a divided place with sections or compartments, much like what we see in prisons among men. We also mentioned how the Latin word "limbus" denoted what was the outer limb or boundary of Sheol or Hades. 

Further, when the grave was referred to as Sheol, it is often viewed as the entering point of Sheol, the gates, door, or mouth of Sheol. I therefore envision the grave as the uppermost section of Sheol, the place where the body died and the spirit departed becoming the mouth or entry gate for entering the place of the dead. The psalmist speaks of “bones” being “scattered at the mouth of sheol.” (Ps. 141:7, kjv). Isaiah says "sheol has enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure." (Isa. 5: 14) "Mouth" denotes the "opening" into the Underworld of Sheol. God asks Job - "Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?" (Job 38: 17) So, rather than believing in two kinds of Sheol, one for the body and one for the soul, I rather think they are two sections of Sheol. Therefore "Sheol" and "Hades" do not mean "grave" only. The most important thing to emphasize is the fact that - 

The Lazarus Story Defines Sheol

The teaching of Christ in Luke 16 about the state of the dead in Hades is the right interpretation of what the Old Testament scriptures taught about the afterlife. That is why I introduced it early on in this series on the afterlife and discussed it in some depth. 

Clearly, by the teaching of Christ, Sheol or Hades is a place where both righteous and unrighteous souls go, and that each group has a designated place within the Underworld, and that the place of the righteous is Edenic and paradisaical, a place of festivity, joy and comfort, and that the place of the wicked is one of suffering. This story thus denies the teaching of the Sadducees for it teaches an afterlife where the spirits of the dead go and dwell when they leave their human bodies. It shows that Sheol does not refer strictly and only to the grave, to the place where the dead body is buried.  

In "Hell, Sheol, Hades, Paradise, and the Grave" by W. Edward Bedore, Th.D. we have an excellent apologetic writing wherein Bedore shows that it is an error to say that "Sheol" or "Hades" refers strictly to the grave. Let us notice some of the things he says therein. Says Bedore: (See here - emphasis mine)

"Hades is the New Testament equivalent of the Old Testament word Sheol. The Greek and Hebrew words speak of the same place, the present Hell. However, this is problematic because Sheol has been translated “grave” as often as it has “hell” and some have mistakenly taught that Sheol and Hades are only references to the grave rather than Hell. This erroneous teaching leads to the denial of the existence of an immediate or present Hell. The false doctrine of soul-sleep, and other ideas that teach the unconscious state of the dead between death and resurrection, spring from this error."

Said Bedore further:

"The common word for “grave” in the Old Testament is queber. Of the sixty-four times it is used, it is translated “grave” thirty-four times, “sepulcher” twenty-six times, and “burying place” four times. Queber is used five additional times as part of a place name, Kibroth-hattaavah, which means “graves of lust.” As we said earlier, Sheol is found sixty-four times, being rendered “grave” thirty-one times, “hell” thirty-one times, and “pit” three times."

Obviously translators realize that Sheol cannot be limited in meaning to the grave. 

Said Bedore:

"A comparison of how Sheol and queber are used reveals eight points of contrast that tell us that they are not the same thing. 

1. Sheol is never used in plural form. Queber is used in the plural 29 times. 

2. It is never said that the body goes to Sheol. Queber speaks of the body going there 37 times. 

3. Sheol is never said to be located on the face of the earth. Queber is mentioned 32 times as being located on the earth. 

4. An individual’s Sheol is never mentioned. An individual’s queber is mentioned 5 times. 

5. Man is never said to put anyone into Sheol. Individuals are put into a queber by man (33 times). 

6. Man is never said to have dug or fashioned a Sheol. Man is said to have dug, or fashioned, a queber (6 times). 

7. Man is never said to have touched Sheol. Man touches, or can touch, a queber (5 times). 

8. It is never said that man is able to possess a Sheol. Man is spoken of as being able to possess a queber (7 times). 

(These eight points of comparison are adapted from “Life and Death” by Caleb J. Baker, Bible Institute Colportage Ass’n, 1941). From the differences between how Sheol and queber are used in Scripture, it is obvious that they are not the same thing."

So, are Sheol and Queber synonyms? I think not. Though both are sometimes translated into English as "grave," they are not the same. The grave is but the opening entry hall of greater Sheol. 

Said Bedore:

"Words associated with queber are quabar and qeburah. Quabar is a verb meaning to bury or to be buried and qeburah is a noun meaning a grave or place of burial. The use of these related words helps to reinforce the difference between queber and Sheol, as they clearly have to do with the grave as a burial place, while Sheol does not."

That is what I have concluded also in my study of the words and ideas. Sheol and Hades occasionally can be translated "grave" but not always. Queber, however, always means "grave" where the body goes. Sheol and Queber are not used interchangeably.

Said Bedore:

"While we have not exhausted the subject by looking at every passage that Sheol is found in, it is clear from these examples that Sheol is not simply the grave but is located at the center of the earth and is the abode of the souls of the unrighteous dead who are awaiting their resurrection unto condemnation. It is equally clear that those in Sheol/Hades are not in an unconscious state of existence but are quite aware of what is going on around them. There is memory, recognition, and communication there."

Again, this is what we have seen is the teaching of the holy scriptures.

Said Bedore:

"While Paradise is not now a part of Sheol/Hades it will be mentioned here because it was located in Sheol/Hades at one time. Before the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ everybody who died went to Sheol/Hades, which was at that time divided into at least two compartments. One was a place of torment while the other was a place of blessing, which was referred to as Abraham’s Bosom (Lk. 16:22-25). As we mentioned before, Tartarus may be a specific place in Sheol/Hades."

This is what we have also seen in the previous chapters.

Said Bedore:

"We know that Jesus Christ went “into the lower parts of the earth” (Eph. 4:9), that is to Sheol/Hades, “in the heart of the earth,” for three days and nights while his body was in the grave (Mat. 12:40). The Lord Jesus told the repentant thief that he would join Him in Paradise that same day (Lk. 23:42,43). This tells us that Paradise was located in Sheol/Hades at that time. We believe that this was the same place referred to as Abraham’s Bosom in Luke 16. However, after Jesus Christ rose from the dead He ascended to the Father, taking the saints who were in Abraham’s Bosom to heaven with Him. Thus, He took “captivity captive” (see Eph. 4:8-10)."

That is what I have become convinced is the teaching of scripture, except that I don't believe that Abraham's Bosom was Paradise proper.

Said Bedore:

"That Paradise was moved to heaven is confirmed to us by the Apostle Paul who speaks of a man who was “caught up into Paradise” where he “heard unspeakable words” (II Cor. 12:3,4). With Jesus Christ’s work complete, the believers who had been confined to Sheol/Hades were now taken to Heaven to wait in God’s presence until the time of their resurrection to enter His Kingdom on Earth. Since that time, at death all believers go to Paradise in Heaven to await the time of their resurrection." 

While I do not say that "Paradise was moved to heaven," believing that Paradise and the "third heaven" have always been the same, I do rather say that the place known as "Abraham's Bosom," though not Paradise, yet was Edenic and paradisaical.  It is like saying some place on earth is "heavenly," meaning that it is not Heaven proper, but like heaven.

In Genesis 37: 35 Jacob said, "For I will go down into the grave (Sheol) unto my son mourning."

From this text we can see how Sheol cannot mean grave, and so is a mistranslation and misleading. Jacob's son, for whom he mourns, is Joseph who Jacob believes (by the lie his other sons told to him) has been devoured and eaten by wild beasts. So, Joseph did not have a grave and so Jacob could not have meant grave (or place where his body lay). He must mean "the place of departed spirits," or the Underworld. 

Said John Gill in commentary upon this verse (emphasis mine):

"...the meaning is, not that he would by any means hasten his own death, or go down to his son in the grave, strictly and literally taken; since, according to his apprehension of his son's death he could have no grave, being torn to pieces by a wild beast; but either that he should go into the state of the dead, where his son was, mourning all along till he came thither..."

Thus, in the story of the rich man (Dives) and Lazarus, Dives is said to have died and been buried and then "in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torments," and we can say that the body of Dives had been buried in the grave (Queber) but his disembodied spirit was in the Underworld of departed spirits of the dead and of fallen angels (Hades and Tartarus).

When king David realized that his infant son had died (for which he had been fasting and praying for healing of his infant son) he said to those around him:

"But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” (II Sam. 12: 23)

This is similar language to that of Jacob in regard to Joseph. It can hardly be interpreted to mean that David thinks of being joined to his son in the graveyard. The idea of once again conversing with his son, though in the Underworld, was expected and longed for. 

Beliefs about the Afterlife (xvii)

In this chapter we will look at some of the objections that theologians and bible believers raise against the idea that Christ descended into the Underworld of Sheol or Hades. So, why do some have reluctance to believe that Christ went to Hell as the Apostles Creed affirms?

Objections & Reluctance

As we stated in an earlier chapter, it ought not to be shocking that Christ would be present in Hades because God is in Hell (Sheol) said the Psalmist:

"Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there." (Psa. 139: 7-8)

Further, many people resist believing that Christ went to "hell" because that word carries a meaning today, in the minds of most people, that it did not have in the first century, nor in the old testament time period. Words change meaning over time, and secondary meanings of words become predominant and primary. Further, there is the question of denotation and connotation when it concerns the meaning of words. 

Christ "going to hell" does not denote or connote that he was a wicked man, nor that he was punished and tormented in the flames of Hell, though that is the common connotation of the words "went to hell" for most people today. But, as we saw in earlier chapters, when "hell" is the translation of the Hebrew word "sheol" or the Greek word "Hades," it does not mean "place of torment" but "the place of the dead," or "the Underworld," etc.  

Many Protestants find it difficult to believe the Christ descended into Hell (Sheol, Hades, or the Underworld of departed spirits) because they think it upholds the false doctrine of "Purgatory" and a kind of "Limbo" where people can be saved in the afterlife who died in their sins. But, as we have seen, Christ' going to Hades does not infer such false ideas. 

Some think that the promise of Christ to the thief on the cross, "today you will be with me in Paradise" shows that he did not go to Hades. However, this is no real objection for many Christians, and church fathers, believed in the fact that old testament children of God went to the side of Hades (Underworld) where the righteous were gathered ("limbus patrum") , seeing "Abraham's Bosom" as equivalent to "Paradise." 

The word "paradise" (in Greek "paradeisos") is of Oriental origin, say the word scholars, and Strong says it signifies "a park, i.e. (specially), an Eden (place of future happiness, "paradise")." It was a word used by several cultures and languages and denoted a happy and beautiful place. 

Even if we believe that old testament believers went in spirit directly into heaven, and not to Sheol, this still would not disprove that Christ descended there. The dead ones in the prison of Hades who were preached to, said Peter, were the ones who were like Dives, on the tormenting side of Hades. So, if he did not remove any righteous souls from the Underworld, there was still reason and purpose for Christ descending to that place.  

Some think that the words "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit," also spoken by Christ while upon the cross and moments before he died, show that he went to the Father in spirit and thus did not go to the Underworld. But, this argument does not disprove the thesis, for Christ went both to the Father (in the most holy place when he presented his blood for atonement), as we have seen, and also went to Hades, as we have also seen. Christ went to both Heaven and Hell when he died. Paradise is wherever Christ is. As long as the thief was with Christ, he was in paradise. 

Some object to the idea that Christ descended to the Underworld because it seems to uphold the idea that people may be saved after they have died lost and think there is no good reason for Christ to go there, believing that all suffering for sin was finished on the cross. These objections we have shown to be unconvincing. The fact is clearly stated in scripture that Christ went to Hades or Sheol and tells us something of the reason why. 

We have also discussed the case of Enoch and Elijah, two old testament period prophets who went to heaven and shown how their cases do not disprove that old testament peoples died and went to Sheol, both saved and lost. We have seen how the Hebrew idea of the Underworld was as Jesus taught in the lesson of Lazarus and the rich man (Dives). Such lesson shows that both righteous and unrighteous go to the same Underworld and that the difference lay in each being in opposite sides of Hades, one being a side of festivity and freedom from all ills, and the other a place of torment and loss of all good. 

We have also stated that we do not believe that old testament believers could not go to heaven because of sin but because Christ must have the preeminence, or be the first in all things. As old testament believers were saved "on credit," as it were, based upon the promise and covenant, so they could have gone to heaven for the same reason, and no doubt was the reason why Enoch and Elijah may have gone there. 

In conclusion I would like to cite from the great English Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon. What he says in these citations are what I have contended for in this part of our series that deals with the death of Christ and his experience in the afterlife and in the Underworld.

Said Spurgeon:

"It may be well here to remark, that the word translated “hell,” though it may be rightfully referred to the region of lost and damned spirits, yet need not be restricted thereto. The word is “Hades,” which signifies the dwelling place of spirits, and so it may include both heaven and hell; no doubt it does include them both in many places, and I think in this. Our Lord then hath the keys of heaven, and hell, and death." (sermon "Christ with the Keys of Death and Hell" here) 

The part of the Underworld where Lazarus was carried by the angels was heavenly, but not heaven proper. Likewise it was paradisaical though not paradise proper.

Said Spurgeon: 

"As if to prove that he had the keys of the grave, Jesus passed in and passed out again, and he hath made free passage now for his people, free entrance, and free exit. Whether, when our Lord died, his soul actually descended into hell itself we will not assert or deny; the elder theologians all asserted that he did, and hence they inserted in the Creed, the sentence, “He descended into hell,” meaning, many of them, at any rate, hell itself."

Spurgeon said he would not assert nor deny that Christ went to Hades. However, his numerous statements on the point show that he was more in favor with the view I have espoused.

Said Spurgeon:

"It was not till Puritanic times that that doctrine began to be generally questioned, when it was, as I think rightly asserted, that Jesus Christ went into the world of separated spirits, but not into the region of the damned. Well, it is not for us to speak where Scripture is silent, but why may it not be true that the Great Conqueror cast the shadow of his presence over the dens of his enemies as he passed in triumph by the gates of hell? May not the keepers of that infernal gate have seen his star, and trembled as they also beheld their Master like lightning fall from heaven? Would it not add to his glory if those who were his implacable foes were made to know of his complete triumph? At any rate, it was but a passing presence, for we know that swiftly he sped to the gates of heaven, taking with him the repentant thief to be with him that day in Paradise. "

I do believe Christ went to all compartments of the Underworld. Though Spurgeon did not fully endorse that point, he confesses that there is no good reason to deny it. 

Said Spurgeon:

"Jesus had opened thus the grave by going into it, hell by passing by it, heaven by passing into it, heaven again by passing out of it, death again by rising from it into this world, and heaven by his ascension. Thus passing, and repassing, he has proved that the keys are at his girdle. At any rate, by his achievements, by his doings, he hath won for himself the power of the keys."  

I don't think that Christ merely "passed by" the Underworld but actually went there. 

Thorny Ground Hearers

"And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection." (Luke 8:14)

“And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them...He also that received seed among the thorns is he that hears the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful.” (Matt. xiii. 7, 22) 

"And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful." (Mark 4: 19)

In the parable of the sowing of the seed (in the three Synoptic Gospels), the "seed" was symbol of the "word of God." The broadcast "sowing" of the seed was symbol of the spreading of the word of God via preaching (orally or in writing). The four kinds of ground (soil type) were symbols of four kinds of hearts that people have who have the word of God communicated to them. 

The first, the "wayside ground" hearer, is one who hears the word but doesn't understand nor accept it as truth, and is therefore never saved. That is like seed falling upon a hardened path. The seed never finds a secure place in good soil. 

The second, the "shallow ground" hearer, is one who initially believes with joy and excitement the word, but when things get tough for being a believer (persecution and loss), he falls away and no longer believes, and is a "leaves only" or fruitless believer, a hypocrite. 

The third, the "thorny ground" hearer, hears (receives) the word of God or the Gospel and also becomes a professing believer like the shallow ground hearer. Both have some growth of the seed in their hearts and lives. The problem with the shallow ground is that it is stony and has not much depth of soil, hence there is no room for a root system (foundation). The thorny ground however does not have this problem. The problem with that kind of soil is that it is overgrown with weeds, with briars and thorns, and so the seed becomes "choked." In the scriptures, this kind of soil was called "fallow ground." It was unplowed and uncultivated land, full of briars and thorns, and other weeds, and hence we read "break up your fallow ground and sow not among thorns." (Jer. 4: 3) 

The fourth, the "good ground" hearer has neither of these problems, and produces fruit, lasting vegetation. The good soil is fertile soil, soil that has been ploughed, and the weeds removed thereby. It is the symbol of a "good and honest heart." The heart (soil) of the other three were not good nor honest. Therefore, none of them were ever truly saved. 

Do we see these four types of people in the crowds who heard the Lord communicate the word of God (or broadcast the seed)? Who heard the apostles and first evangelists? Do we not see them in the visible church? Yes, yes, and yes. But, how can we say that wayside ground hearers become members of the church, seeing that they represent people who never believed the word? We see that fulfilled in the case of those churches who baptize infants into the membership of the church (many of whom never come to believe the word). 

Every person who has heard or read (received in one way or another) the word of God and the good news of it and has not believed it, but rejected it, is a wayside hearer of the word, whose heart is not "good and honest." They are known as atheists, agnostics, irreligious, secularists, infidels, etc. 

Every person who has heard the saving word of God and believed it with delight but who later rejected it when persecution and loss came to those who believed is a stony ground hearer. They are called "apostates" and known in scripture as "hypocrites." They are "false (pseudo) brothers" (Gal. 2: 4). 

Every person who has heard the word of God and become a professed follower of the Lord but who greatly neglects his duties to the Lord, becomes worldly, slothful in religion, is a thorny ground hearer. Practicing the Christian faith is not uppermost with this kind of professing Christian. Other pursuits are deemed more important to this kind of Christian than spending time in prayer, meditation, reading and studying God's word, assembling with other believers, sharing the word of God with others, helping the poor, etc. 

The thorny ground hearer is also a hypocrite (see Matt. 23) and "false brother" (Gal. 2: 4), a "wicked and slothful servant." (Matt. 25: 26) We also see this kind of professing Christian filling the pews of many churches. Demas was one of these kinds of believers. Of him Paul wrote: "Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present evil age."  (II Tim. 4: 10)

Let us focus on the problems with the thorny ground believer. In the texts at the heading, we see that the seed is "choked" or suffocated, that it is overcome by the thorns, briars, and weeds. Rather than the growth from the good seed choking out the weeds, it is the other way around. It would be wonderful if we could sow seed in unplowed weedy ground and it would do well, that it would choke out the thorns! 

The good ground hearer has not only rich soil, and deep, but has been plowed and stones and weeds removed. Many bible teachers have seen how the plowing of the heart and its preparations for seed correspond to that conviction of sin that is produced by the law of God upon the conscience. This is what is lacking however in the thorny ground hearer/believer. Both the thorny ground and shallow ground hearers are what we might called "half-hearted" believers. Or, perhaps as "double minded." 

What Crowds Out The Word?

1. Cares Of This Life

2. Deceitful Riches Of This Life

3. Pleasures Of This Life

4. Lust Of Other Things

When I think of how many professing Christians are thorny ground hearers, I think first of myself, how I have been like him at certain times in my life, in times when I devoted little time and effort in the things of God, when I was too much involved in work, business, pleasures and amusements, etc. Thankfully, those times are few. Let us make some general observations on each of the four things mentioned above as being equivalent to weeds, briars, and thorns in the parable.

 

Cares Of This Life

To have concerns about things in life is normal. But, to allow them to become heavy burdens, anxieties and worries, so that they distract us from holy things, from doing the will of God, is to let them become thorns to choke out the seed of the word of God and become entirely fruitless. It saddens me to think of all the times in my life where fretting and worrying robbed me of communion with God and his people. It also saddens me to see people in my own family who are like the thorny ground hearer. "They profess to know God, but in works they deny him." (Titus 1: 16) They profess to believe the word of God, but they know little of it, little read and study it. 

The church has many thorny ground hearers who put little effort into the religion of Jesus Christ. They rarely read the word of God. They never really study it or meditate upon it daily. They would rather be worldly amused than to muse upon the word of God. They may go to church every Sunday, but most of this class only go on special days, like Easter Sunday. They do not regularly pray, but only pray occasionally, perhaps only a few times before they go to sleep or when they have some pressing need. There is little prayer for others, for there is little to no faith in prayer. 

Deceitful Riches Of This Life

The church has always had members who allowed their desire for riches to choke out whatever interest they have in God, Christ, and the word and religion of Christians. Jesus taught that it was easier for a camel to pass through a needle's eye than for a rich man to be saved and enter the kingdom of God. (Mark 10: 25: Matt. 19: 24) Solomon counseled on the deceitfulness of pursuing wealth at the expense of losing communion with God and eternal life. He said "labor not to be rich." (Prov. 23: 4) Paul also warned of the same when he said 

"Command those who are rich in this present age not to be haughty, nor to trust in uncertain riches but in the living God, who gives us richly all things to enjoy. Let them do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to give, willing to share, storing up for themselves a good foundation for the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life." (I Tim. 6: 17-19 nkjv)  

The thorny ground Christian professor or church member who is ensnared by the evil pursuit of earthly wealth and fame is losing everything of real value. He or she has placed a higher value on earthly treasures than on heavenly. They become workaholics, but not in working for the Lord. Their inordinate time spent working to make money takes away from time spent in doing the things of God, in being a good husband and father (or good mother and wife). The life of such people is fruitless. They will not be saved but only reveal that they have not a good and honest heart. Jesus said "you cannot serve God and Mammon." (Matt. 6: 24)

Pleasures Of This Life

So many thorny ground hearers of the word, professing Christians whose hearts are more like weedy ground than like fertile cultivated land, are choked out of life, of real prosperity. David said that the person who meditates in God's law day and night is the one who prospers (Psalm 1), but this is just what the thorny ground hearer does not do. No, he esteems the "pleasures of this life," of this world, far more than the pleasures of the life and world to come. One of the signs of the last days is that the people will be "lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God." (II Tim. 3: 4) Again, worldly amusement is prized far more than musing over the things of God. The "thought time" of this type of professor is rarely spent in heavenly things, or in the word of God. The thought time is rather spent in thinking about making money, how to have bodily pleasures, how to have fun and be amused and entertained. Anxious thoughts too fill up the mind rather than joyful thoughts about God and his word. 

Notice how it is the riches and pleasures "of this life" that are warned against. They are set in contrast to the riches and pleasures of the life that is to come, and in the riches and pleasures that believers now enjoy as they live in communion with God, walking with him and pleasing him. Thorny ground believers are they who have their hearts and minds focused upon the world and its culture whereas the good ground believers have their hearts and minds focused upon Christ and the world to come, they being not worldly but other worldly. James warned these kinds of hearers of the word, saying "know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." (James 4: 4) The apostle John also wrote:

"15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world. 17 And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever." (1 John 2:15-17)

Lust Of Other Things

So many things choke out the word heard and received by the thorny hearted professors. We could talk at length about each of them. 

The salvation of our souls is serious business. There is no business or enterprise more important. Winning and obtaining Christ and his salvation, and enjoying heaven's riches, must be the most important thing to us or we are lost. 

What is keeping you from the word of God? What is keeping you from doing his will? Jesus said "why call you me Lord and do not the things which I say?" (Matt. 7: 21) He also advised:

"But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Matt. 6: 20-21)

On what is your heart, thoughts, and affections most fixated?

Beliefs about the Afterlife (xvi)

In between the words "by which he went and preached to the spirits in prison" (I Peter 3: 19) and "for this reason was the gospel preached to them who are dead" (I Peter 4: 6) we have these words of the apostle Peter:

"...the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him." (I Peter 3: 21-22)

It was in the exercise of his lordship and judicial authority that Christ went to the Underworld and ascended therefrom.  We have also seen how Christ is the "head" and "lord" of every man, including every dead man or everyone who is in the Underworld, and the words of the above text are similar to the words of Paul in Colossians 2: 10 -  "and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power." 

In our look into the work of Christ while in the Underworld of Hades, or his mission when he descended into the lower parts of the earth, we have seen how Christ accomplished several things. One question however that needs to be addressed is -

Did Christ Suffer In Hades As Atonement?

Though I am still studying this question, I nevertheless at present believe that Christ did not go to Hades to 

1) Finish paying for the sins of sinners, nor to suffer punishment for sin

2) Offer salvation to those with Dives on the torment side of the Gulf of Hades. 

Those are errors and the scriptures do not teach them. Christ said while on the cross, right before he died, "it is finished." I take that to mean that his vicarious sufferings as a substitutionary sacrifice were then being completed when he said those words. Technically, however, "it is finished" does not denote a point in time before Christ actually died. At the time he uttered these words he was still alive, and so atonement was not finished, though he died very soon after saying those words. 

The scriptures say that the elect (or body of believers) were saved by the death of Christ and by the cross of Christ (or by his crucifixion). But, do they not also say that the elect were saved by the resurrection of Christ? When Christ said "it is finished," did he mean that nothing else was necessary for the redemption or salvation of the elect? The way some argue on the words "it is finished" leads one to affirm that anything after the time of his uttering those words is not necessary for salvation, including his resurrection. Therefore, the argument that Christ could not have gone to the Underworld as a condition of salvation for the elect, based upon those words, becomes no argument at all. Let us notice some texts that speak of the resurrection of Christ as necessary for salvation.

"But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished." (I Cor. 15: 13-18 nkjv)

So, in one sense, the work of Christ was not finished when he uttered those words. In a real sense it was not finished till he was resurrected, and in another sense not till he ascended into heaven. Paul says that Jesus “was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.” (Rom. 4: 25) He also said that the salvation (conversion) experience involves experiencing "the power of his resurrection" (Phil. 3: 10). Peter also testifies that believers have been "begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (I Peter 1: 3). He also says that baptism in water is a picture of our salvation, which salvation is "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (I Peter 3: 21)

What Was Finished?

"When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." (John 19:30)

“It is finished” is a translation of the single Greek word tetelestai, the perfect indicative passive tense of the word telos, and means to end; to bring to completion; to bring to a conclusion; to complete; to accomplish; to fulfill; or to finish. It may be used in several nuanced ways. One was in a secular or business sense, the word tetelestai being used in the business world to signify the full payment of a debt. When a debt had been fully paid off, the parchment on which the debt was recorded was stamped with tetelestai, which meant the debt had been paid in full. Said one scholarly source:

"Literally translated the word tetelestai means, “It is finished.” The word occurs in John 19:28 and 19:30 and these are the only two places in the New Testament where it occurs. In 19:28 it is translated, “After this, when Jesus knew that all things were now completed, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, he said, ‘I thirst.’” Two verses later, he utters the word himself: “Then when he received the sour wine Jesus said, ‘It is finished,’ and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.” (See here)

A debtor, upon making the final payment of his debt would take the debt note to his creditor and the word Tetelestai would be written across the face, indicating the debt was canceled, paid in full, and the man was free of the debt forever. We do similar things to denote the completion of our payments on a debt, to cancel it. We write on it "paid in full" or "satisfied." We also cancel contracts by tearing them up or perhaps having what is called a "mortgage burning" celebration. Sometimes a voided contract will simply be "crossed out" by over writing the document with a big "X." All this is part of what it means for Christ to say "tetelestai." It is also referred to in Colossians by Paul.

"And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross." (Col. 2: 13-14 ESV)

"...having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." (NASB)

Technically, it was not finished until Christ had died. Christ uttered these words while he was yet alive, but it was because he knew that death was imminent. 

Christ's active obedience to the law, and his suffering the punishment sinners deserve, as a substitution, were finished when Christ died and shed his blood. Not until the sacrifice was put to death on the altar of Calvary and the blood applied to the mercy seat was the body of believers redeemed and their sins atoned for. Matthew 27:51 says, "Behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent." The veil separated the holy place from the "most holy place," the place where the "mercy seat" was located. Into that enclosed room the high priest alone went once a year to sprinkled the blood of the sacrificial lamb (put to death on the burnt altar in the outer court of the temple). Jesus, in spirit, went through the veil and there sprinkled his own blood. So we read in Hebrews: 

"Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He (Christ) entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption." (9: 12)

The veil was not rent until Christ had died. It was immediately after his sufferings and death that he entered into the holy place with his blood, and at that point, there is no need of any more sufferings nor punishments. Therefore, Christ did not suffer any ills while in the Underworld of Hades. 

Atonement and propitiation and paying the price of redemption occurred when Christ was sacrificed, when he was put to death and his blood applied to the mercy seat on behalf of believers. However, that does not mean that Christ had no more work to do in effecting the salvation of sinners. As stated, he still had to be resurrected for our salvation. Also, he had to become Lord by his victory over hell and death. He still had to continuously act as Savior and as High Priest (between his first and second comings) in order that salvation be "finished." 

Christ went to Hades but it was not a part of his sufferings as an atonement sacrifice. He did not suffer any torment or deprivation in the Underworld. He went through the veil into the holiest place before he descended into the Underworld. 

Dr. Matthew Emerson, Baptist professor, has recently written a book espousing the same views I have been espousing in this part of our series. I have not read his book yet, titled "He Descended to the Dead: An Evangelical Theology of Holy Saturday." Hopefully I can get it and read it soon. However, I have watched several YouTube videos in which he has taught on this question, and have also read some of his writings on this subject before he printed his book. Dr. Emerson wrote the following under “He Descended to the Dead”: The Burial of Christ and the Eschatological Character of the Atonement" (See here emphasis mine):

"Although the doctrine, and even the event itself, is questioned today, it is clear that the early Christian theologians, and subsequently most of historic Christianity, have affirmed that Jesus descended to the dead and accomplished something there. The question throughout the history of doctrine has been what exactly Christ accomplished in his descent."

Agreed. Emerson then writes:

"The descent to the dead, and the multiple understandings of its meaning throughout church history, provides one of the clearest examples of how the burial of Jesus is an eschatological atoning act. In what follows I will sketch the various options for how to understand the descensus doctrine and how they locate the atonement within eschatology."

Rather than say "eschatological atoning act" he should perhaps say "victorious act of redemption." Or, perhaps as "act of vindication." Keep in mind also that the words "Christ died" include the idea that his soul departed his body and descended to the Underworld. So, if we are saved by the death of Christ, we are saved by his descent into the Underworld.

Dr. Emerson wrote further:

"The common thread here, for those who affirm and for those who deny the descent, is that in Jesus’ burial, he defeats the last enemy, which is death (1 Cor 15:26), and crushes Satan’s head. Death is swallowed up in death. Jesus thus accomplishes what will happen on the Day of the Lord: the defeat of Satan, sin, death, hell, and the grave. Indeed, his Passion is the Day of the Lord. The burial of Christ is an eschatological act in its defeat of Hades, both accomplishing that victory and anticipating its culmination at Jesus’ return. (So Gatch, “The Harrowing of Hell,” 78.) Again, even if one does not affirm a Catholic, Orthodox, or Lutheran perspective on the descent, Jesus was still dead for three days and, in being dead, defeated death. His burial can thus be affirmed by all traditions as eschatologically salvific because it gains the victory over God’s enemies."

I believe that is correct. Emerson says further:

"Conclusion:  The burial of Jesus, although neglected in the doctrines of atonement and eschatology, proves to be both more important to each than is often acknowledged and also a nexus between them. By understanding how the burial of Jesus is atoning, in that by it he defeats God’s enemies, vicariously experiences the intermediate state, experiences and brings Sabbath rest, and embodies the already/not yet tension, we see also how it is thoroughly eschatological. Like the rest of Jesus’ work, his burial inaugurates the last days, brings victory over Satan, sin, and death, and is vicarious for those united to Christ. The burial of Jesus is thus an integral piece of his vicarious work and helps to demonstrate the eschatological character of his full work of atonement."

Again, I think that is right.

In one interview with him by Brian Arnold (See here) we have the question of whether Christ' descent into Hades was a means of salvation addressed by Dr. Emerson.

Brian, the interviewer, asks Emerson: 

"And some of the verses that are used are words that come from Jesus on the cross. There’s seven of them, famously, that he said while paying the price for sins. And in John 19:30, Jesus says these three words—"it is finished,” coming across in the Greek in just tetelestai, the one word, “it is finished.” Well, was it finished when Jesus died, or was it not yet finished? Because I think some people would say, if it was really finished when he said so, then why does he need to descend? If it wasn’t finished yet, then why aren’t those words said after the resurrection, or even better yet, after the ascension and the session, him sitting down at the right hand of majesty? So why is Jesus saying “it is finished” on the cross if it’s not yet finished?"

Good questions! Emerson replies: 

"Yeah. So when Jesus says that, he’s saying that his active obedience is done. He’s lived the perfect life that we can’t live, and he’s died the death that we deserve, for us. And there’s nothing else left to do. What happens in his descent and resurrection and ascension, is the application of that work to reality. So in his descent, he’s really dead, he really…I mean, that’s part of the penalty for sin, is being dead. So I affirm penal substitution, so I affirm that Jesus experienced God’s wrath on the cross. So I don’t want to…I want to make very clear that I affirm penal substitution. Jesus took our place. He took our punishment. He took God’s wrath on the cross. But it’s not just that he took God’s wrath, it’s that in taking God’s wrath, he also experienced the punishment for sin, which is ultimately God’s wrath, but there’s also a physical death. So he dies, but he applies his finished work to the realm of the dead in his descent, declaring victory that he’s already won. He’s not doing anything new."

Again, I think that is correct.

Brian then asks:

"And then let me ask you the other one that that trips people up on this, as Jesus turns to the thief on the cross and he says, “today you’ll be with me in paradise.” We’ve kind of answered this a little bit already, but let’s knock this one right on the nose, and address this in terms of—where’s paradise?" 

 

Matthew Emerson replies: 

"Yeah. So paradise was viewed, or was a term to refer to the righteous compartment of the place of the dead. And the place of the dead is…this is all metaphorical language. I mean, there’s not…you can’t dig down in the dirt and find the place of the dead where human souls reside. Okay? So we need to be careful about how we say this, but when the dead are waiting for the resurrection, they’re waiting in the place of the dead, which is down, in kind of the spatial, metaphorical language. And so Jesus, quote unquote, “goes down to paradise.” Now, because of his resurrection, the nature of paradise has changed. The righteous dead are no longer waiting for the Messiah, but the Messiah is in their midst. And so now we talk about going up to heaven, because that’s where Jesus is, and therefore that’s where the righteous dead are. But going down, in terms of his death on the cross and what he says to the thief, and that being related to Old Testament language and New Testament language about the place of the dead—that would have been normal. Everybody would have thought, “yeah, he’s going down to the place of the dead, paradise, righteous compartment, because he’s a good dude. I mean, he’s perfect.”

Again, that is correct. However, perhaps Christ went to both Heaven and the Underworld in spirit. We have already seen where he went into the holiest place when the Temple curtain was rent from top to bottom. The holiest place is of course Heaven itself. So, he could have easily gone to both places (along with the thief who confessed him). 

Emerson continued:

"But it’s changed now. And so the spatial language changes. And it changes because he’s there. He wasn’t there before—they were waiting on him, they were faithful. That’s why they were in the righteous compartment, not the unrighteous compartment, because they’re faithful saints waiting for the Messiah to come. But now he’s come. He’s here, and he’s in their midst. And he’s in the throne room of heaven. And so they’re up with him. And so, when we die, we go up. Or we talk about going up to heaven, rather than down to the place of the dead, because the nature of the place of the dead has changed."

This has been a traditional view of many Christians and I think it is correct to now see Paradise as being up in the third heaven. Whether Paradise was always identified with the third heaven, or whether it changed locations after the death of Christ and his entrance into the Underworld, is a question each one will have to decide. I think that the righteous side of Hades was paradise like, but was not Paradise proper. When Christ "led captivity captive" from the Underworld, the righteous went into Paradise proper, or into the third or highest heaven.

Emerson continued:

"Further, the bible shows that there is no salvation after death. In fact, that is one of the lessons of the story of Lazarus and Dives. Once on one side of the gulf (saved or lost), there is no change of state to the other side possible."

That is true.

 Emerson continued:

"However, though descending to Hades did not serve the above purposes, it nevertheless did have purpose, far more than many realize, especially among those who dismiss the idea that Christ went to Hades and spoke to Dives and his companions. One of those purposes was to further identify with his chosen people. In this sense his identification with his people is like the groans and sufferings Christ endured during his whole life." 

Again, I believe that is correct.