Jesus Contra "Soul Sleep"

"Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to Myself, that where I am you may be also." 

- John 14:1-3 

Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists share a doctrine called "soul sleep." For SDA's, that doctrine says that the spirits of the dead remain, unconscious, with their bodies until the resurrection. For Jehovah's Witnesses, the doctrine is that the spirit of the dead ceases to exist, and is then recreated at the resurrection. So, while there are significant differences between the two, they both deny that there is an intermediate state for the spirits of the dead, whether for the godly in Heaven or for the wicked in Hell. That is a denial of the traditional doctrine of Christians, and I address them together here. 

Look at what Jesus says in the quote above. He was to go away to prepare a place for us to be with Him. Do Witnesses or SDA's claim that Jesus is currently unconscious in a grave? I hope they don't say anything so awful. Rather, we know that He rose into Heaven after His resurrection (Acts 1:9-11). Therefore, logic only allows us to take His words in Matthew to mean that He has been preparing a place with Him in Heaven. 

Even without considering any other scriptures, these words of Jesus preclude any interpretation comparable to "soul sleep." 

Social Disorder, Statism, and God's Law

I write this at a time when America is going through widespread social tumult over police shootings of black men and women. George Floyd and Breonna Taylor are names we hear on the nightly news almost every day. On one hand, we have the protesters, some of whom are committing wanton acts of violence and destruction, and on the other, politicians arguing over who better supports the police. Rather, I am asking whether Scripture tells us anything relevant to this crisis.

Do we see any solutions to this situation in Scripture? Some argue for more evangelism, saying that the Gospel provides an effective means of uniting people. While that is true, I don't think it is the only solution, and it is not my topic here. 

Rather, I am asking whether Scripture addresses government in a way that impacts this situation. And I think it does.

First, what is the source of law in the Bible? Is it the state? No, it isn't. Nowhere in Scripture do we find a basis for government promulgations regarding crimes or punishments. This isn't an argument for anarchy, but rather for a severely restricted state. If not the state, then what is the source of law? It is God alone. "See, I [Moses] have taught you statutes and rules, as the Lord my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the Lord our God is to us, whenever we call upon Him? And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today?" (Deuteronomy 4:5-8). Not the king's law, or the president's or Congress's, but God's law. 

Then who is to enforce the law? Nowhere in Scripture do we see a description of a police force or of inspectors or enforcers. Rather we see this: "On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness. The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst" (Deuteronomy 17:6-7). The enforcement of the law is not assigned to a separate enforcement class, but is instead the responsibility of the people themselves. 

Our social conflict is the result of our worship of the state, of our looking to the state for salvation, of our looking to the state to be the source of social order. Since that is not God's intended role for the state, the result of those expectations is not social order but social chaos.

The Covenant and the Children of Believers

One of the distinctive doctrines that I love about Presbyterianism is what is called "covenant succession," the belief that the children of believers are claimed by God and set apart from the children of unbelievers. 

There are a number of Bible verses that describe this special relationship. 

In the Old Testament, God chastised Israel for sacrificing their children to idols: "You took your sons and your daughters, whom you had borne to me, and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured" (Ezekiel 16:20). As horrific as human sacrifice is, under any circumstances, Israel had compounded their sin by sacrificing the children that God claimed for Himself by covenant.

In that covenant, God had promised a blessing to His children: "And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live." (Deuteronomy 30:6). The same promise is repeated in Isaiah 54:13: "All your children shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children." And again in the New Testament: "The promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself" (Acts 2:39).

It is important to understand that these promises are covenantal. The children of believers are placed in the visible church. It is not an absolute promise that the children of believers will themselves be believers. We know this from experience. We also have the explicit statement of God to Abraham: "Abraham said to God, 'Oh, that Ishmael might live before You!' God said, 'No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish My covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful, and multiply him greatly'" (Genesis 17:18-20). Abraham had a son by his servant Hagar, Ishmael, and begged God to grant him salvation. Yet, God explicitly refuses, promising material blessings, but not eternal life. The distinction would be made again with Isaac's sons, Esau and Jacob. The Apostle Paul would use their example to illustrate God's sovereignty in grace (Romans 9:6-13). He applies the principle to the children of Christians in I Corinthians 7:14: "For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but, as it is, they are holy." That is, federally holy, not personally holy.

While it isn't my topic here, this is the basis for infant baptism, just as it was the basis for the circumcision of Israel's children.

The Death Penalty, Dangerous Animals, and Accountability for Sin

"Whoever sheds the blood of man 

By man shall his blood be shed, 

For God made man in His own image." 

- Genesis 9:6

This brief poem, just three lines, contains God's words to Noah, a blanket provision for the death of murderers. Murder is to be a capital crime because God made man in His own image. Therefore, to attack man is, in a sense, to attack God. This verse comes up frequently in debates over capital punishment. However, rarely do we hear anyone discuss the verse before it: "For your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of  a man" (Genesis 9:5). 

I find it very intriguing that God holds not just a human murderer to be accountable for his action, but also an animal, if it kills a human being. And it isn't just described as a practical matter of removing dangerous animals. Rather, the beast is to make a reckoning parallel to that required from a man. This is the general principle, and then the particulars are provided later in the case law: "When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall not be liable. But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death" (Deuteronomy 21:28-29). If an animal, in this case an ox, kills a human being, it is to be stoned. Notice that it is not butchered. In fact the law explicitly forbids that the animal be eaten. Rather, it is to be killed, executed, as a criminal is killed, not as a food animal.Then there is a two-tier process of dealing with the animal's owner. If the attack were out of character, then the owner faced no additional consequence than the economic loss of his animal. However, if the animal had a history of aggression toward humans, but then was inadequately restrained, the owner, too, is to be executed. The animal and the man are to receive the same judgment.

 That is astounding! It demonstrates the moral accountability of a creature in whom we would not predicate a moral nature. 

And that fact is significant for holders of some modern doctrines, such as an age of accountability for children or a lack of accountability for the mentally disabled. 

What we especially see from the examples above is that God's attention is on the victim, not the perpetrator of the crime. The victim in each case is a human being, God's image bearer. Given that fact, then the necessary penalty is fixed, without regard to any mitigating factors in the nature of the perpetrator. There is no consideration of whether the perpetrator contemplated committing a crime or otherwise mentally displayed evil intent. He is simply to die.

The Nature of Unbelief and the Necessity of the Omnipotent Power of the Holy Spirit

 As Moses approached the end of his life, he faced the prospect of leaving his people to the leadership of someone else, Joshua. Under such circumstances, it is natural for the outgoing leader to believe that his successor will be unable to match the leadership that he had given. It is just part of the fallen nature of men to think that no one else can do the job as well as we could. 

He gives a sermon to Israel, warning them of consequences if they failed to be faithful to God, or, in contrast, the blessings that would come from faithfulness. In that sermon, we find this paragraph (Deuteronomy 29:2-9): "You have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, the great trials that your eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders. But, to this day, the Lord has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear. I have led you forty years in the wilderness. Your clothes have not worn out on you, and your sandals have not worn off your feet. You have not eaten bread, and you have not drunk wine or strong drink, that you may know that I am the Lord your God. And when you came to this place, Sihon the king of Heshbon and Og the king of Bashan came against us to battle, but we defeated them. We took their land, and gave it for inheritance to the Reubenite, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of the Manassites. Therefore, keep the words of this covenant and do them, that you may prosper in all that you do."

Moses gives a partial recapitulation of the miraculous events that Israel had seen, ranging from God's judgments on the Egyptians, sustaining them in the wilderness, and, most recently, the defeat of Sihon and Og, powerful Canaanite kings. But, in the midst of that recapitulation, he says something odd: "But, to this day, the Lord has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear" (verse 4). 

God had given Israel every possible evidence that He was real and that He had chosen Israel as His special covenant people. We read this passage and assume that any rational people would understand that Jehovah is God, with absolute power over the nations. Yet, we know that Israel quickly descended into idolatry. In Judges 17:6 (and repeated in 21:25), we are told, "In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes."

How could there be such a disconnect between the evidence of their eyes and the unbelief in their hearts? 

Moses tells us how: "To this day the Lord has not given you heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear" (Deuteronomy 29:4). The same characteristic would later be addressed by the prophets (e. g., Isaiah 6:9 and Jeremiah 5:21), and even by Jesus Himself (Matthew 13:14-15). Contrary to our view of ourselves, fallen men do not have a natural ability to see the hand of God and give Him the thanks that he deserves. Rather, we love sin more than God, and, therefore, suppress our knowledge of His reality and goodness (Romans 1:18-22). 

This inclination has significant implications for apologetics and evangelism. When we explain the Gospel to unbelievers, their inclination to reject it is not because of a lack of evidence. They already know that the Gospel is true! Rather, their consciences tell them that recognizing the reality of the Gospel would require that they repudiate sin. And they love sin more than they love God! It is not within the power of the Christian to break that addiction in the unbeliever. It is only the Holy Spirit who can do that. Yes, belief requires the power of omnipotent God to triumph over unbelief.

The Creation as Proof of the Being and Goodness of God

"For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is God!), who formed the earth and made it (He established it; He did not create it empty, He formed it to be inhabited!): 'I am the LORD, and there is no other'" (Isaiah 45:18).

I think the verse above is one of the most beautiful in Scripture. But more than its beauty is its fullness. In just two sentences, it defines and applies all of natural theology, i. e., what we can know about God from the Creation. 

The Prophet here repeats some of what we already know from Genesis 1. Like Moses, Isaiah begins with God. However, he tells us more than Moses did. He specifies that it is Yahweh who is doing the creating. We know from other places that Yahweh is the name of the preincarnate Christ. Thus, the Prophet is telling us what Paul would later repeat: "By Him [i. e., Christ] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through Him and for Him" (Colossians 1:16).

Then Isaiah announces - twice! - that the events he is describing show that He is God! And we know from the rest of Scripture that He is God the Son. He made the whole physical universe, thus excluding even the possibility of other gods. And He created purposefully! God's interest has never been in dirt and grass. The goal toward which His work of creation was aimed was always Adam, and in him, the rest of the human race. Where Moses built up step by step to the crowning creation of man, Isaiah makes straight to the point: The creation came into existence not for its own sake, but as the ideal home for mankind. To state that truth is to pronounce doxology, as we see from Isaiah! 

There is also a significant philosophical declaration in Isaiah: the creation was purposeful, with mankind as the goal, bringing into creation the image of God. In contrast, the humanistic philosophy of evolution claims that all occurred by chance, including the coming of man, so that a man has no more significance than a flea, or a weed, or a rock. 

That distinction has consequences. For example, because of our understanding of man as the image bearer, it has been Christians historically who have built schools and hospitals. Education and medical care make no sense if men are merely a random and temporary conglomeration of chemicals.

There is also an apologetical element in Isiah's statement. The atheist thinks that he is clever when he demands proof for the existence and goodness of the biblical God. The Christian knows that all that the atheist claims for evolution actually points to God. and the Scriptures tell us that the atheist knows this, too, but has suppressed that knowledge (Romans 1:18-21).

Man as the Creature and as the Sinner

"When a man sins, he thereby brings a covenantal lawsuit against God. His action violates all five points of the covenant. First, he denies that God is who He says He is: the Lawgiver and eternal Judge. Second, he declares himself no longer under God's hierarchical authority. Third, he says that God's ethical standards do not apply to him. Fourth, he denies that God can or will apply His sanctions, either in history or eternity. Fifth, he asserts that covenant-breakers shall inherit the earth."

- Gary North, "Tools of Dominion"

What North describes here is autonomy, the false belief that mankind is or can be free of God's government. It is the same thing that Satan offered in the temptation of Adam and Eve: "Your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:5). We tend to see these words and think of knowing about good and evil. However, Adam had already been taught about good and evil when God gave him the commandment not to eat of the tree and the consequences if he disobeyed. Rather, Satan is lying to Adam and Eve, promising them that eating of the forbidden fruit will give them the power to decide good and evil. Satan was offering autonomy to Adam and Eve, autonomy from their previous creaturely status, in which they received God's interpretation of good and evil. That is the way in which they would supposedly be like God, having power and authority to interpret for themselves what would be good and evil.

That brings us back to North's comments above. In the reception of Satan's interpretation, a man repudiates his status as God's creation, and seeks to dethrone God as Lawgiver and Judge, imagining, falsely, that he will then be promoted to sit in God's throne.