This is the final post of our series on the nature of the soul and the afterlife. We cannot emphasize enough that there are two major factors that have distorted Christian thought on these subjects since the late second century AD.
The first is a failure to grasp how the Bible defines the soul. The second is a failure to recognize the influence of pagan Greek philosophies on church doctrine. These misunderstandings, which began to take root not long after the apostolic era, has left many theologians and believers painted into a theological corner.
Painted into a corner
This flawed premise has resulted in perplexing contradictions and irresolvable debates. A prime example of this conundrum is in Hawthorne and Martin’s commentary on Philippians 1:23. They acknowledge Paul’s consistent teaching on the “sleep” of death until Christ’s return, but then grapples with what appears to be a contradictory view in this verse:
“But what did Paul mean by the phrase σὺν Χριστῷ εἶναι, “to be with Christ”? As simple as these words seem, they nevertheless have been the catalyst for many lengthy and bewildering discussions. The issue arises from seeing in Paul a consistent doctrine of life after death, namely, that Christians who die ‘sleep’ until the second coming of Christ, at which time they will be awakened, raised to life again, and given new, incorruptible bodies in exchange for their old, corruptible, physical bodies, a view that sees Paul insisting on the resurrection as essential in order for one to be a complete person.
Here in Phil 1:23, however, Paul seems to suggest quite a different view, namely, that the Christian, upon dying, goes immediately into the presence of the Lord, where he enjoys conscious personal fellowship with him, a view that leads some to believe that a future resurrection is superfluous, to see the ‘resurrection’ as taking place at death. No completely satisfactory resolution to the problem posed by these seemingly contradictory views has as yet been given, and perhaps none can be given.”1
We cannot make sense of Paul’s words while clinging to Greek dualism
Their struggle exemplifies the broader issue at hand. By failing to recognize the true biblical nature of the soul and the influence of Greek dualism in their own thinking, they find themselves unable to reconcile what they perceive as conflicting doctrines in Paul’s writings. Their conclusion that no satisfactory resolution exists is indeed true – but only as long as one clings to the unbiblical concept of an immortal, separable soul.
Hawthorne and Martin are not alone in expressing puzzlement when trying to reconcile Paul’s statements. When researching this topic, I encountered several scholars who expressed similar struggles. Anyone who has been a serious student of the Bible can relate to this. When we wrestle to make sense of what seems to be contradictory Bible passages, something is wrong.
When we find something irreconcilable or nonsensical, it’s most likely because we don’t have all the facts, or we are working from an invalid premise. I consider these conundrums about the soul and the afterlife to be evidence that most Christians embrace faulty, invalid conclusions.
A flawed understanding of the soul combined with pagan philosophical influences about the afterlife has led to these bad conclusions. Paul’s views are completely consistent and require no reconciliation. However, one must first approach Paul’s writings with the proper biblical concept of the soul.
Surprises await
The traditional view of conscious punishment for unbelievers immediately after death faces significant challenges when examined closely. Ralph Cunnington, in his re-examination of the intermediate state, presents a compelling argument that aligns with Scripture:
“[T]he final judgment will be expected with eager anticipation by believers but will be the cause of great surprise for unbelievers including those who have died prior to the parousia [second coming of Christ]. This cannot be reconciled with the traditional Reformed view that unbelievers experience conscious punishment upon death because if they had already experienced such punishment they would be utterly unsurprised by the verdict passed on the final day – it being nothing other than a reaffirmation of the punishment they have already been subject to.
This finding led us to reconsider the Scriptural basis for the conscious punishment view and we found it to be wholly lacking. The Bible actually teaches very little about the intermediate state of unbelievers, but what it does teach seems to indicate that the souls of unbelievers reside in Sheol where they continue in a somnolent, coma-like existence, trapped until the time of the parousia.”2
No surprises if the dead are conscious
Cunnington’s observation about the element of surprise at the final judgment is consistent with numerous New Testament passages. This surprise factor strongly suggests that the judged individuals were not consciously experiencing punishment or reward prior to this moment. Consider these examples:
- In Matthew 25:37-39, the positive judgment surprises the righteous: “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You something to drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? When did we see You sick or in prison and visit You?’”
- Similarly, in Matthew 25:44, the unrighteous express surprise at their condemnation: “And they too will reply, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’”
- In Matthew 7:22-23, Jesus describes people shocked by their rejection: “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!’”
These passages, among others, support Cunnington’s argument that the judgment scene involves an element of surprise incompatible with the idea of conscious experience immediately after death. This biblical evidence encourages us to reconsider traditional views and seek a more scripturally consistent understanding of the intermediate state.
It’s time to break out of the corner we’ve painted ourselves into
In light of the evidence we’ve examined, it’s clear that our understanding of the soul and the afterlife has been significantly influenced by Greek dualism, leading to misinterpretations of key biblical passages. Even though I believe the tradtional view to be in error, it does not seem to be an error with serious consequences. As Peter van Inwagen notes.
“Since God has allowed dualism to dominate Christian anthropology for two millennia, I can only conclude that if dualism represents, as I believe, a false view of our nature, this view is not perniciously false: a widespread acceptance of dualism does not distort or impoverish the Gospel.”3
While van Inwagen’s perspective offers some comfort, our exploration suggests that a return to a more biblically grounded understanding of the soul and afterlife resolves apparent contradictions in scripture and deepens our appreciation for the significance of the resurrection and final judgment. It’s time to break out of the corner we’ve painted ourselves into.
References
- Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin, Philippians, vol. 43 of Word Biblical Commentary. Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 59.
- Cunnington, Ralph. “A Re-Examination of the Intermediate State of Unbelievers.” The Evangelical Quarterly 82, no. 3 (July 2010): 236–237.
- Inwagen, Peter van. “Dualism And Materialism: Athens And Jerusalem?” Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers 12, no. 4 (October 1, 1995): 487.