State of the Dead

When someone dies, do they go straight to heaven or hell or are they ("they" meaning body, soul, and spirit) unconsciously "asleep"?

Hmm… hard question. :) First of all, I'd like to mention that I do not believe that the human being is made up of a body, soul, and a spirit, but a body and a soul/spirit. But… that's another debate for another time. :) (Maybe we should make a forum on that sometime?)

I am not sure what I believe on this subject, and I have not really found Scripture to support a view one way or the other. If you can show me some, though, that would be great. :) I personally believe something along the lines of: The righteous, when they die, go immediately to heaven, where they stay until judgment day. Then the entirety of the elect will have come in, and Christ will set up the new heavens and the new earth, where He and His people will dwell forever. (As for paradise, that probably refers to something that existed before Christ's death and resurrection… but I'm not sure.)

As for the unsaved, when they die they go directly to hell. Then God condemns them on judgment day, and they go to the lake of fire for eternity.

Again, these beliefs of mine can be changed if you can give me biblical support for another view. I'd appreciate some others giving their ideas on this subject. :)

1 THESS 5:23
"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Its true that man (2 Corin 4:16)has body(outward man) and soul and spirit(inward man). Whether “in the body” or “out of the body”, Scripture never refers to a separation or parting between spirit and soul. The body may be separated from both, but spirit and soul do not part. It is true that the Word of God is “sharp and powerful” enough to “divide asunder” the two, and it does this in that it enables us to understand the differences between the two, the functions of each, their origin and relationship. But Man is revealed as a unity of spirit and soul, and he is never viewed apart as spirit only or as soul only. We can only understand reference to the soul in its Scriptural relationship with the spirit of man, and we can only understand references to the spirit of man in its Scriptural relationship with the soul.

The higher part of Man is the spirit of Man which has been created in the image of God and accordingly it is that part of Man which is like God in personality and function. It is the spirit of Man that is capable of communing with God, of appreciating and understanding God and of worship (John 4:24). A careful study of the use of the word “spirit” in Scripture as relating to the spirit of Man, shows that it always has reference to that part of Man which controls the understanding, the intelligence and the functions of reasoning and judgment. It is the spirit of Man which is IN the Man that knows the things of the Man. (1 Corin 2:11)

Man is unique in that he has a body and a soul which he shares with all living creatures of the animal kingdom, and a spirit which he shares with the angelic hosts. Man’s soul belongs to a God-breathed spirit life.

The soul is that part of Man which relates the Spirit created, with the body formed, and which continues to exist in relation with the spirit, when the body dies. A study of all the occasions where the soul is referred to in Scripture shows that the soul commands the emotions, affections, desires, the will, and the selecting of right and wrong, loving or hating.

If “mind” characterizes the functions of the spirit, it is “the heart” that characterizes the functions of the Soul. Scripture does not even once refer to “the brain” in the body of Man, nor refer to the “head” in a functional sense. Man’s doings and responsible functions are performed in Scriptural language as from the Mind or the Heart.

So the thing that distinguishes man from the animals is that he has a spirit-soul life as well as a soul-body life and accordingly he IS a moral responsible being.

Peter speaks of the death in the words ‘shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath showed me’ (2 Peter 1:14), and Paul, in the words ‘ For we know that if the earthly house of our tabernacle be dissolved, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands eternal in the heavens’ (2 Corin 5:1).
Note that at death, the tabernacle, not the person, is dissolved, and the person has provision made for him elsewhere.

Paul also a few verses later refers to death as being ‘unclothed’(v.4). That is, death is the laying aside of the clothing of the body that has invested the spirit and the soul.
Peter refers to death as his ‘departure’ (2 Pet. 1:15). Accordingly death is the movement of the man from his body. He is in transit, and he ‘departs’ from his body.
Paul again states that death is to be ‘ absent from the body’ (2 Corin 5:8). And Paul states further and clearly, that for him, to be absent from the body is to be ‘present with the Lord’.

Death is being “out of the body”.

The Rich Man of the Lord’s account in Luke 16 died, and was buried (death of the body) and in Hades (he, the Rich man) lifted up his eyes, being in torment. No wonder the Lord says elsewhere ‘fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell’ (Matt 10:28). This statement carries the Lord’s own warrant that the death of the body, is the death only of the body, and that the soul lives on after the death of the body.

The OT saints after their death went to Paradise and the others to Hell. (Read Luke 16)
NT saints after their death are present with the Lord and the unsaved to the hell. This is because after Jesus ascension (Eph 4:8-10), the location of the paradise alone has changed.

[The most part of these comments are taken from ‘The Doctrine of immortality’ written by *W.G Broadbent, NZ*. (He reviews the teaching and declarations of the Word of God, and set in order the vital grounds of the Faith “once delivered unto the saints”, which as Jude tells us, we “should earnestly contend for”(Jude 3). ]

Thank you Eunice and SBG for getting this discussion started.
I will be very straight forward; I believe that when we die on this earth, we do not go to heaven or to hell immediately, but are rather just "sleeping" as Jesus put it and are not conscious of anything until the resurrection.

Eunice Sophia, you bring up some excellent verses that coincide with your belief. 2 Corinthians 5:8 and Luke 16 definitely sound in harmony with your belief system. If I am understanding your position correctly you read "to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord" as an instant transferal of a person straight to heaven. I on the other hand interpret Paul as saying how he can't wait to be absent from this body of death so that he can be raised or resurrected incorruptible when Jesus returns. As I Corinthians 15:53 puts it: "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." Now, even if Paul is referring to how long it will take to go from dying on this earth to being in heaven, I believe it still fits the view that death is a sleep. In my experience when I go to sleep at night, I wake up in the morning feeling like the night went by in a matter of a moment. I believe the same is true in death; those who have been dead for hundreds of years will feel as if it has only been moments since they had died and all of a sudden Jesus is resurrecting them.

In Luke 16 I don't believe Jesus is trying to lay any foundation for doctrine regarding the state of the dead. If I remember correctly, He is using a common story of that time period to relate a parable with much more important issues to clarify about salvation. In Luke 16:14, the Pharisees were known as "lovers of money" and for the most part, people believed that the more money you have, the easier it is to be saved. This is also a time when the Jews believed that they had the right to be saved because they were "children of Abraham"; and Jesus refutes this in verses 24-25. When the rich man called out to Abraham instead of to God, he is showing that he thought that being related to Abraham was more important than knowing and calling out to God. In v. 25-31, Jesus also makes it very clear that life on this earth is the only chance to get to know God and obtain His gift of salvation. There is no second chance. I also wonder if Jesus purposely chose the name Lazarus because the Pharisees refused to acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God even after hearing Lazarus' (Mary and Martha's brother) testimony that he had been dead and is now alive because of Jesus. I think the purpose of this parable has nothing to do with the state of the dead and has everything to do with how we can and cannot gain God's gift of salvation.
Speaking of Lazarus: if the dead go straight to heaven when they die, then Lazarus of all people should be most pitied. That would mean he was already in heaven, and the last thing he probably would have wanted to hear was "Lazarus, come forth!" To me, It seems cruel of God to send Lazarus back to this earth if indeed he went to heaven after he died.

Here are some of the Biblical reasons why I believe that when we die, we sleep and are unconscious of anything until the resurrection.

Psalms 146:4: "His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish."
Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6, 10: "For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing, and they have no more [earthly]reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished; nevermore will they have a share in anything done under the sun…Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going"
Isaiah 38:18-19: "For Sheol cannot thank You, death cannot praise You; those who go down to the pit cannot hope for Your truth. The living, the living man, he shall praise You, as I do this day."
Acts 2:29, 34: "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day…For David DID NOT ASCEND into the heavens…"

I will surely answer you BGlad as soon as I get a little more time to reply . May be on saturday.

But one thing, the person 'Lazarus' in the parable is not the same as the brother of Mary and Martha. Just look into the time when that would have happened. - clue is in the last verse.

You're going to have to spell out what you mean in the last verse for me.

If you say we do not go to heaven or to hell immediately when we die on this earth, then where would we be until then also why are there no direct verses to prove it? After all the Bible shows everything we need to know.

According to this verse, Ecclesiastes 12:7 - "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." I find no intermediate stage. Either it goes to God or to hell.

Phil 1:21- "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:"
Paul’s desiring to depart is to be with Christ. Isn’t it?

The word ‘sleeping’ is only referred to the believers in Christ.

An illustration may help clarify. Suppose two people are lying down with their eyes closed, one is dead and the other not. When someone tries to wake them up, who’s going to rise? Of course the one that has life.
So only those who died being in Christ, have life in them and they are the ones who are referred to as ‘sleeping’ till the resurrection.

As for Luke 16, Jesus was indeed clarifying on the issues of salvation ‘for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth’ and that life on the earth is the only chance to receive God’s gift of salvation.

What I was trying to say is firstly the parable has Jesus’ mentioning the name ‘Lazarus’ which makes it a reality. If Jesus were to mention the name ‘Lazarus’ purposely as you said to be the case, I would not believe that because he never did that. He always said truth for He is the Truth. To mention the time when Jesus would have said this parable, it is not after Martha and Mary’s brother was risen from the dead because He was still passing the midst of Samaria and Galilee as according to Luke 17:11.

Secondly, I spell out the last verse of Luke 16 for you. 31. -" And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Therefore the time which the parable speaks of must be when the Law and the prophets were there.

About OT saints I’ve already mentioned the verses under ‘Immortality’ forum saying that they did not go to heaven but paradise and were there until Jesus’ ascension.

EDIT: THIS explains the reason why it was written David DID NOT ASCEND into the heavens.

Hope its clear now.

Good point about Lazarus not having yet died and been raised from the dead; I guess I did imply that that was the case. But still, I have a hard time believing that it was a coincidence that Jesus told a story of a poor man named Lazarus, and in the story Jesus says that the rich man's brothers won't "be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." And this is exactly what happened with Lazarus (Mary's brother). Jesus raised him from the dead, and the Pharisees still would not be persuaded that Jesus was the Son of God in spite of such divine evidence, and instead, they sought to kill Jesus and Lazarus.

"Jesus’ mentioning the name ‘Lazarus’ which makes it a reality. If Jesus were to mention the name ‘Lazarus’ purposely as you said to be the case, I would not believe that because he never did that. He always said truth for He is the Truth." For clarification: are you saying that because the name Lazarus is used, that this has to be describing an actual event? If that's true, why didn't Jesus give the rich man a name? Is Jesus (which I agree, He is the Truth) limited to only using names if He is describing actual events? He can't use names in parables and still be the Truth and still tell the truth? Based on the rest of your post, I see that we are going to have a hard time understanding each others' perspectives. We seem to have differing perspectives on the meanings of heaven and paradise, and on the prophets being in paradise, and what is meant by Jesus being the end of the law for righteousness (I assume you are thinking of Romans 10), and probably other beliefs that will make it challenging for us to stick to just the state of the dead.

"Jesus answered him, 'I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.'" Luke 23:43, with the emphasis on the "today".
I think that explains my view on the matter.

Where is paradise, where did Jesus go when he died? The answers to that may change what is taken from the passage.
The word paradise is used for in Greek is: 3857 parádeisos – an ancient Persian word meaning "enclosure, garden, park."
This word is used three times in the New Testament;
Luke 23:43 (ESV) And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
2 Corinthians 12:4 (KJV) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
Revelation 2:7 (ESV) He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.’

This last one makes it seem to mean that paradise is equated with heaven.
I'm not going after a specific point, but it seemed that there were assumptions in what was said, so I studyed this and this is what I came up with.

I am wondering if some of the answers(the right ones) to differences in theoloigical questions among christians are not one or the other, but both, or another answer. I am not however, thinking that we should take anything but the Word of God for our truth, but that our interpretations may sometimes be wrong, because of cultural and time differences between Biblical times and ours, and also for our imperfect knowledge of the scriptures. conjecture.
I don't have any specific proof here, but reasons, and verses were given for both views. Hypothesis; Our veiw of these subjects is skewed because of our time limited perspective, and both veiws are partly right.

@ BGlad:
Jesus told a story. Yes a real one indeed. Its written in Luke 16: 20 – “And THERE WAS a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,”. This was an actual event. It may be that the Righteous people are not forgotten that Lazarus name was mentioned. Jesus calls us to Himself by name as the salvation is personal. At this point I remember that the Book of Life has a special significance.

It does not mean when Jesus did not mention a name that did not happen or does not happen. Parables apply to real life. Mentioning a name makes it even real and specific. You said - Jesus says that the rich man's brothers won't "be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." This is not Jesus’s saying, but Abraham to the rich man : “ ‘IF’ they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." By quoting the above verse I only meant to show you the time of this story. Also it is not just prophets in the paradise- I did not say that. You may well check my comments. I said Old Testament saints.

Your point on Pharisees not believing Jesus though Mary’s brother rose from the dead, is a nice one. To term it 'coincidence' is rather strange.

To avoid some things not being plain, am removing that parenthesis in my last comment. I’ll try to stick to the topic.

BGlad, am not here to prove my point but bow to the authority of His Word.

@MCS: I agree with you on 'paradise' now in heaven.

@Eunice Sophia: I tend to believe with you that the story of Lazarus was one that is true. However, I would like to address one of the comments you made. You seem to say say that because Jesus uses the words "there was," it means it describes an actual event (along with your other reasons). I would like to point out that Jesus uses the same words, "there was" in a great number of his parables, such as the one in Matthew 21:33 and the one in Luke 15. However, we today still view these stories as allegorical. I would like to make the case that just the presence of the words "there was" does not necessarily mean that Jesus is describing an actual event. Again, I believe that the tale of Lazarus is true, but on different grounds than the presence of those two words. :)

You made a point and I agree.
Parables are allegoric and this one is an actual event.

Edit: Though Jesus spoke in parables, I think those were the things that really happened unless Jesus said 'what if' or 'either what' or so on. That's what I believed as our knowledge is limited. Jesus knows everything. For example, about wheat and tares. In those days, enemies who liked to destroy the crop of others used the tactics like as said in the parable. That is the reason why they (may not be Israelis) even had a law to protect the crops. (information I came to know just recently from a reliable source)

I'm willing to hear the rightly divided Word on the views that are not according to God's Word.

I just want to make a point about Luke 23:43 that I think is worth considering. If I remember correctly, the Greek has no punctuation like commas. The verse could just as easily been translated, "I tell you the truth today, you will be with Me in paradise." In other words, Jesus was saying to the thief, "I'm telling you right now [today], you will be with Me in paradise [after the resurrection]."

Eunice, you said, "BGlad, am not here to prove my point but bow to the authority of His Word." I appreciate this perspective, and I hope to do the same.

Is (then - Luke 23:43)today = after the resurrection? Definitely not.

Eunice, I was not trying to say that "today = after the resurrection." I was trying to say that we may be misinterpreting where the comma goes in the verse. I believe that by putting the comma after the word "today" is the same as if Jesus had said, "Today I tell you, that you will be with me in paradise."
It's kind of like when the teacher sent home a note with a student to the parents and it said, "Your student will be out for good Friday." Depending how the parents interpret the note could mean whether the parents take this as good news or bad news. Did the teacher mean, "Your student will be out for Good Friday"? Or did the teacher mean, "Your students will be out for good, Friday"? One implies that they get a day off, while the other implies that the student is about to be expelled.
All I am trying to say is that punctuation matters for interpretation and the Greek did not use a comma in that verse. Therefore, it is possible to interpret it differently, which we obviously do.

Certainly, punctuation matters.
Luke 23:43 (KJV) Exactly says,
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

I believe that when people die they are not in heaven, they are just basically asleep. For example, in the story of Lazarus, Jesus says that he is asleep. Also, if he had been in heaven and therefore paradise, wouldn't he have been upset about being back on this earth. I actually do not believe that we will spend eternity in heaven but rather on the new earth. I do not know everything though. These are my thoughts right now.

I agree with you that we will be on the new earth for eternity. But I don't think I quite understand the first part of your paragraph, meaning the part about Lazerus…could you please explain?

John 11:11 says that Lazarus had fallen asleep and Jesus is going to wake him. However, his disciples do not understand, and so he says that Lazarus is dead. As for the other part, I couldn't quite find the right words to use but what I mean is: If you were in "heaven", and them you came back to earth, wouldn't you be upset. I hope it is easier to understand now.

Oh, okay :) Thanks for explaining. But what about the story of Lazarus and the rich man?

State of the Dead: Six feet under, (most of the time, sometimes 5,4,and maybe 0), decaying.

Ha ha ha.! That is funny.

someone appreciates our humor!

Thou hast been awarded the plastic medal of honor!

does a fake laugh

No one expected you to get it, no need for hypocrisy

That was just so kind of you, Noah! You are always so polite!

Thanks for acknowledging!

rolls eyes and snickers You are so welcome, kind sir! I don't know why anyone would not want to acknowledge that!

You're a little bitter, aren't you?

Scripture never refers to a separation or parting between spirit and soul

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick a powerful and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

If it takes the Word of God to divide the two they must be really similar, but it does talk about a parting/separation to an extent.

That is a tough one, however I think this parable was more about how if someone will not be convinced to believe by the law and the prophets, they will not even believe if someone rises from the dead. It kind of seems to be about how if you are rich now, you may not be following the Lord, and so you could end up with not good things in "Hell", while if you are poor an homeless now, you may be more open to believe and therefore end up with good things on the new earth. To answer your question though, it does not say they were immediately taken. I do not know exactly what this parable means.

@noah: Sorry…I think I took it a little too far. I'm not bitter at all…I was just teasing. I'm so sorry…I shouldn't have said that stuff. Will you please forgive me?

@Isaac: Okay, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I haven't studied this at all so I don't know yet what I believe…on this subject.

I'mjust kidding! don't applegize!

Well, I still shouldn't have said it…it wasn't nice. And what is up with people not to apologize??

You didn't say nothing wrong, I was kitten you.

facedesk I was being mean with my sarcasm.

Just approved a new post from Nateowami. Welcome to the forums!

Welcome to Memverse Nateowami!! Great to have you on here!

Thank you for the warm welcome. Actually I have been on Memverse for almost a year, but I've just joined the forums.

Welcome to the Forums! :)

Scripture never refers to a separation or parting between spirit and soul

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick a powerful and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. If it takes the Word of God to divide the two they must be really similar, but it does talk about a parting/separation to an extent.

That was the verse that came to my mind also. :)

"IT IS true that the Word of God is “sharp and powerful” enough to “divide asunder” the two, and IT DOES THIS in that it enables us to understand the differences between the two, the functions of each, their origin and relationship. But Man is revealed as a unity of spirit and soul, and he is never viewed apart as spirit only or as soul only. We can only understand reference to the soul in its Scriptural relationship with the spirit of man, and we can only understand references to the spirit of man in its Scriptural relationship with the soul."
The above paragraph is from the comment I already made Nateowami. That previous comment did take into consideration Heb 4:12.

State of the Dead: I addressed this before, but I missed two categories.

Drownded people: Not dead, but serving Davy Jones on the Flying Dutchman.

Zombies: Also not dead, taken to hollywood and made into movie stars.