About D. Simmons Expertise I can answer questions to the best of my knowledge about Christian living, Christian doctrine, marriage, Biblical guidelines for child rearing, and end times questions. If the answers I give are merely my opinion I will say so.
Experience I am a licensed Baptist minister and have studied the scriptures very diligently. I have taught classes on the topics of Christian doctrine and the book of Revelation. I and my wife have been doing marriage counseling for five years and having four children of our own, although doesn't make me a pro, but does qualify me for questions concerning children.
Question -------------------------
Followup To
Question -
My question is concerning what happens to people after they die. The belief from traditional Christianity is that when an individual dies, his soul immediately travels to some afterlife, be it heaven, hell, or what have you. But after a little studying I have arrived at the idea that this doctrine is not biblical. What is apparent to me is that New Testament writers had an idea of death similar to that of Old Testament writers. Both believed in a place known as Sheol (or Hades in the Greek), which was the place where souls would travel to and sleep. On numerous occasions, the Bible mentions people dying and "sleeping with their fathers". In John 11:11, Jesus says that Lazarus was "sleeping" to mean that he was dead. It seems to me that the biblical idea of death is that people go to Sheol, or "fall asleep", when they die and then stay there until the Messiah comes to resurrect them in a spiritual body. 1 Corinthians 15 is an ideal instance of this idea; it mentions nothing about people being conscious in any sense during death, but being asleep the entire time. Verses 29-32 of that chapter voice how pointless and tragic it would be if Christians were to follow Christ and not be resurrected someday; but why would those circumstances be so tragic if Christian souls were to enjoy bliss in Heaven immediately after they died? Is there any biblical evidence for the doctrine of afterlife immediately after death, or is it just a modern theological fabrication?
Answer -
Luke 16:19-31 clearly states that when people die they immediately go to heaven or hell. Also, when Jesus was on the cross He told the thief beside Him, "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Sheol and hades both basically mean the same thing-the grave. It is not a place where people temporarily go and sleep, it simply means they are dead. There is no pergatory, that is another false teaching from the Catholics. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul is arguing the resurrection. He is asking why are they baptized upon the article of the resurrection of the dead and upon the hope of the resurrection and deny the resurrection of the dead? He asks why do we risk our lives if there wasn't going to be a resurrection? In verse 32 he says if there will be no resurrection then lets just give up and die. When we die our soul immediately goes to heaven or hell, it's our choice. Our body, which goes to the grave, will be resurrected some day.
---I have read your response to my question, and I appreciate it; however, I have some questions about the response. First of all, you said that Luke 16:19-31 clearly states that people go to heaven or hell after they die. However, that verse is a parable and, like all of Jesus' parables, must not be taken literally. Therefore, I don't think this parable should be too strictly interpreted as a theological discussion about death. Further, the parable does not mention the rich man doing anything deserving of hell-fire nor does it mention how Lazarus deserved his reward. As a matter of fact, the parable says that the rich man satisfied Lazarus's hunger with his leftovers, which is obviously not sinful. It is not a sin to be rich or a virtue to be poor. Moreover, the word translated as "hell" in the parable is actually the word "Hades," which is different from Gehenna, the word commonly interpreted as being the true hell; and Lazarus went to "Abraham's bosom," which is not necessarily heaven.
Furthermore, the Bible makes clear that Jesus went to heaven after he rose from the dead and ascended, not before. Acts 2:27 and Acts 2:31 both discuss how Jesus went to Hades, and 1 Peter 3:18-20 talks about how Jesus preached to the souls in prison after he died.
I would like to know what you think about these comments. Also, I am a little confused about your last remarks: How can the soul be in heaven or hell and, at the same time, the body have its own separate existence and life on earth? Are we to have a two-fold existence after the resurrection?
Answer The Bible doesn't say whether the story about Lazarus and rich man is a parable or not although most people,including me, assume it is. Let's look at it both ways- if it was a tale that actually happened then we can see that both the rich man and Lazarus immediately went to an "afterlife". If it was a parable we need to look at what a parable is. A parable is a fable or representation of something real. Even if this is a parable it represents what actually happens. If you ignore all of Jesus' parables then you have missed out on a good bit what Jesus taught because He used parables quite a bit. You are correct to say that it shouldn't be too strictly interpreted as a theological discussion about death. What it is mainly dealing with is hell and the inescapable certainty of it. You said that the parable does not mention the rich man doing anything deserving of hell-fire. Again, what is a parable? A representation of something real. What was Jesus teaching just before this parable? He had taught the danger of the love of money; the deceitful and treacherous nature of riches; that what was in high esteem on earth was hateful to God; that men who did not use their property right could not be received into heaven; that they ought to listen to Moses and the prophets; and that it was the duty of men to show kindness to the poor. The parable was to impress all these truths more vividly on the mind. Jesus doesn't speak of any great fault of the rich man, but leaves us to infer that the mere possession of wealth could be dangerous to the soul and that a man surrounded by every earthly blessing may perish forever. The parable, however does not say that the rich man satisfied Lazarus' hunger with his leftovers. It does say that Lazarus desired to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table. Big difference there.
Moreover, hades, the word translated hell, can either mean the grave or the place of departed spirits or hell literally, letting context decide. The rich man definately wasn't "sleeping" seeing how he was in torment. Also, Abraham's bosom was most definately heaven to the Jews. The Jews always prided themselves as being descendents of Abraham and believed that just they were they were heaven bound. So, Abraham's bosom, to them, was a place of rest, comfort, protection, heaven.
What I said before was that when we die our soul will immediately go to heaven or hell. 1 Thessalonians 4:16 "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:" Those that are saved and die before Christ returns, their souls go to be with Jesus and their bodies go to the grave. When Jesus returns their bodies will be raised incorruptible and reunited with their souls. That's why it is called the resurrection.
1 Peter 3:18-20 And preached. The word used here (ekhruxen) is of a general character, meaning to make a proclamation of any kind, as a crier does, or to deliver a message, and does not necessarily imply that it was the gospel which was preached, nor does it determine anything in regard to the nature of the message. It is not affirmed that he preached the gospel, for if that specific idea had been expressed it would have been rather by another word--euaggelizw. The word here used would be appropriate to such a message as Noah brought to his contemporaries, or to any communication which God made to men. See Mt 3:1; 4:17; Mr 1:35; 5:20; 7:36. It is implied in the expression that he did this himself; that it was the Son of God who subsequently became incarnate, and not the Holy Spirit, that did this; though the language is consistent With the supposition that he did it by the instrumentality of another, Noah. God really proclaims a message to mankind when he does it by the instrumentality of the prophets, or apostles, or other ministers of religion; and all that is necessarily implied in this language would be met by the supposition that Christ delivered a message to the antediluvian race by the agency of Noah. No argument, therefore, can be derived from this language to prove that Christ went and personally preached to those who were confined in hades or in prison. But if it means that he preached to those who lived in the days of Noah, while they were yet alive, the question will be asked why are they called "spirits?" Were they spirits then, or were they men like others? To this the answer is easy. Peter speaks of them as they were when he wrote; not as they had been, or were at the time when the message was preached to them. The idea is, that to those spirits who were then in prison who had formerly lived in the days of Noah, the message had been in fact delivered. It was not necessary to speak of them precisely as they were at the time when it was delivered, but only in such a way as to identify them. They were that wicked race which lived in the days of Noah. There is no allusion in this passage to any other; there is no intimation that to any others of those "in prison" the message here referred to had been delivered. If the meaning be that he went and preached after his death, it seems difficult to know why the reference is to those only who "had been disobedient in the days of Noah." Why were they alone selected for this message? Are they separate from others? Were they the only ones who could be beneficially affected by his preaching? I hope this helps. Thank you and God bless.
