The Thief on the Cross

“And Jesus said to him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.” --Luke 23:43 (NET)

This passage is considered a strong proof of the immateriality of the soul, and is typically cited to support the teaching that, upon death, the souls of the redeemed go directly to heaven. In this bible account the thief on the cross says to Jesus “remember me when you come into your kingdom". Clearly, he believed Jesus would indeed come into a kingdom at some future time. The prevailing interpretation understands Jesus' answer as a promise of something which far exceeded the petition. In effect Jesus said to him, "there is no need for you to wait until that day, you will be with me this very day."

This interpretation seems clear-cut, but we must ask: is that how the thief understood Jesus words, and more importantly, is it the meaning Jesus intended? If Jesus had something different in mind, what would it be, and how would one justify it based on the text? Virtually every mainstream bible resource supports the traditional view. In fact, pick up any bible commentary and you'll find pretty much the same thing. They unequivocally declare that in using the word 'today' Jesus defines the specific time in which the thief would be with him in paradise. The meaning of the text seems unmistakable!

But there IS another way to read the verse. It is a fact that the punctuation of a bible translation is left to human design and is not considered inspired. If one simply places the comma after the word 'today', the meaning is dramatically altered. The adverb, semeron (today), would then modify the verb 'I say' rather than 'to be', and so read “I tell you the truth today, you will be with me in paradise.

It has been argued that it would be nonsensical for Jesus to use the phrase "I say to you today" because it is already obvious that He was speaking today! But this argument is merely an attack on the intelligence of those who support that reading. Of course we realize that Jesus was speaking 'today'!! But it is not unheard of for one to preface a statement with the phrase “I'm telling you right now...”, in American vernacular. It's simply a way of pointing emphatically to what is being said. Similarly, could not Jesus have responded to the thief's request in such a way?

In a book by Anthony Buzzard, reference is made to a German translation which renders Luke 23:43 as “Truly I give you my assurance today: You will one day be with me in Paradise.” In a note, the author adds “Jesus does not wait until the last day, but promises the thief even now that his request will be granted.” (Our Fathers Who Aren't in Heaven, Buzzard, p.242).

Consider also, that a similar grammatical construction is found in Acts 20:26 where Paul says to the Ephesian elders "I declare to you THIS DAY that I have been faithful". Some argue that if Jesus meant “I tell you the truth today”, semeron would need to precede the verb, but that isn't necessarily true. It is clear what Paul means here. THIS DAY translates semeron, just as in Luke 23:43, and here, as in Luke 23:43, 'today' does NOT precede the verb. Should it then read "I declare to you, this day I have been faithful"? Obviously, that is NOT what Paul meant to say!

So then, we can see that moving the comma in Luke 23:43 is plausible. But we must still answer the question: why would we want to alter the the traditional understanding? The answer, in short, is that the traditional interpretation is based on faulty Biblical understanding of the human soul, and what happens at death.

Consider the following arguments...

1. What is meant by “paradise”? The word paradeisos is found three times in the Bible.

• In 2Cor 12:2-4, Paul equates “the third heaven” with “paradise”. Evidently, it is God's abode, where Christ ascended after God raised him from the dead. It was there that Paul heard things which, he said, cannot be repeated or, simply could not be uttered.
• In Revelation 2:7 we read of the “paradise of God” wherein is the tree of life which is promised to the one who conquers. Many scholars equate this with the garden of Eden and may also be the same paradise that Paul visited in 2Cor 12.
• Then, of course, in our text Jesus refers to a place called paradise which, apparently is the same paradise as described in 2Cor 12 and Rev 2. But this is problematic; which brings us to the next argument.

2. 

   English: Print by Gustave Doré illustrating the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, from the Gospel of Luke Русский: Притча богач и Лазарь из Евангелия от Луки, художник Гюстав Доре (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

   Where in Scripture can it be shown that Jesus entered heaven that very day? According to Acts 1:3 Jesus did not ascend into heaven until at least 40 days after his resurrection. The bible clearly tells us that Jesus died, was buried, and then resurrected on the third day. Luke had previously recorded Jesus as saying “and after they have scourged Him, they will kill Him; and the third day He will rise again." -- Luke 18:33 (NASB).There has been much speculation on how Jesus spent those three days, but according to Matt 12:40, Jesus said of Himself that he would "be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Many assert that by “heart of the earth” is meant Hades, the place described in Luke 16 in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). But it should be observed first that paradise is not mentioned in that story, only “Abraham's bosom” or “Abraham's side”. Heaven is never referred to in any other bible text as Abraham's bosom. Secondly, since it is a parable there is no reason to believe that Jesus was giving a factual account of the afterlife. In fact, the parable was not designed to teach about heaven or hell. Jesus was using a popular idea of the time to figuratively “poke a finger in the eye” of the self-righteous Pharisees. It was really about the Pharisee's attitude concerning rich and poor and of misinterpreting the Law of Moses for their own gain.
   The more accurate understanding of “the heart of the earth” is, idiomatically speaking, in the grave or, the tomb. Some translations read “in the lower parts of the earth”. Any explanation that has Jesus going somewhere or doing something during those three days fails or refuses to acknowledge the plain sense of Scripture that Jesus was dead and in the tomb for three days.
   
   
   
3. Third, as noted above, being in the earth for three days is a picture of being dead and in the grave! If Jesus, the whole person, was not actually dead, it would render his resurrection pointless, for what need would he have for a glorified body if he could already go anywhere and do anything he wanted without one?! For Jesus to be dead he must have ceased from all activities associated with life, including consciousness. In numerous passages of Scripture, we are informed that the dead are unconscious.

• “For in death there is no remembrance of thee: In the grave who shall give thee thanks?” Ps. 6:5.
• “The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence.” Ps. 115 :17.
• “His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.” Ps. 146:4.

Further, he must have been truly dead in every way in order for resurrection to maintain it's literal meaning as restoration of life, not merely revivification of a dead body.

4. Fourth, Acts 2:29-36 clearly shows that David was in the grave and did NOT go to paradise or heaven when he died? If David, a man after God's own heart, did not go to paradise/heaven when he died, why would Jesus proclaim that the thief would accompany him to paradise that very day?
   
   
5. Fifth, that the thief would not immediately go into paradise/heaven is in agreement with the rest of Scripture regarding what happens after death, not the least of which is the fact that Paul calls death "an enemy" in 1Cor 15:26. If it were true that we go directly to heaven at the time of death, we should then welcome it as a friend, not refer to it as the last enemy to be conquered! Not only so, but other Scriptures put our union with Christ “at his appearing”, which means either rapture or resurrection, not at death!

6. Finally, interpreting Luke 23:43 as “..., today you will be with me” does not prove the existence of a soul existing independent of the body, but presupposes it. In other words, one must already have in mind a view that man is made up of parts, such as soul and body, or body, soul, and spirit, and then read it into the text, including the placement of the comma. But numerous scholars, going back at least as far as Eusebius, and more importantly, the Bible itself, sees man as a whole being; a single unitary person.
   
   Note the following quotes from various scholars:

• Lake 2009, pp. 586–97: ‘The English translation of nepeš by the term “soul” has too often been misunderstood as teaching a bipartite (soul and body—dichotomy) or tripartite (body, soul, and spirit—trichotomy) anthropology. Equally misleading is the interpretation that too radically separates soul from body as in the Greek view of human nature. (See body; spirit.) N. Porteous (in IDB, 4:428) states it well when he says, “The Hebrew could not conceive of a disembodied nepeš, though he could use nepeš with or without the adjective ‘dead,’ for corpse (e.g., Lev. 19:28; Num. 6:6).” Or as R. B. Laurin has suggested, “To the Hebrew, man was not a ‘body’ and a ‘soul,’ but rather a ‘body-soul,’ a unit of vital power” (BDT, 492). In this connection, the most significant text is Gen. 2:7, “the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life [nišmat hayyîm], and the man became a living being [nepeš hayyâ]” (the KJV rendering “living soul” is misleading). … It is this essential soul-body oneness that provides the uniqueness of the biblical concept of the resurrection of the body as distinguished from the Greek idea of the immortality of the soul.’
• Vogels (1994), "Review of "The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality", by James Barr", Critical Review of Books in Religion 7: 80, ^"It is generally accepted that in biblical thought there is no separation of body and soul and, consequently, the resurrection of the body is central. The idea of an immortal soul is not a Hebrew concept but comes from Platonic philosophy. It is, therefore, considered a severe distortion of the NT to read this foreign idea into its teaching.".
• Dixon (2000) [9.2.1968], "What Is Man?", Emmaus Journal, "Several Evangelical theologians suggest that the concept of man possessing an “immortal soul” is not the teaching of the Word of God. Clark Pinnock argues that its source is Plato (or Greek philosophy in general), and not the Bible.".

One last thought. There are several accounts of people being resurrected from the dead in the bible, both Old and New Testaments. With the exception of Jesus, all resurrection accounts were to normal physical life and not immortality. In no case do we have anything written about their experiences while in the realm of the dead. There are no protests by anyone about having to leave paradise to come back to physical existence in the earth! It seems clear that death was an experience of complete insensibility. Although this is an argument from silence, it is, at least, worth considering.

In light of all the above facts, it would not be likely that Jesus was alive and in Paradise on that very day, much less, promise the same to the thief on the cross? By saying to the thief, “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise”, Jesus associated paradise with the coming kingdom of God on earth and affirmed that the thief would have a place in that kingdom when he comes again to establish it. And so it is with us. When we die, we sleep until Jesus returns and awakens us. At that time, and only then, “...we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.” 2 Cor. 5:l0

The author desires your reaction and comments. Please check one of the reaction boxes below. To share you thoughts, post a comment.

We Will Rise!

"If a man dies, will he live again? All the days of my struggle 
I will wait Until my change comes." --Job 14:14 (NASB)

"Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who
are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth;
those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life,
those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment."
-- John 5:28-29 (NASB)

It's rather odd, I think, that everyone seems to want to go to heaven, but no one really wants to die. Yet, at funerals, death is tauted as the doorway to life. It is said of the dead that they are "in a better place now", or they've "gone to their reward". I even heard it said once that this certain person was "enjoying life more than ever."

I understand that all this may, in fact, serve to provide comfort to the bereaved. I do not wish for those who are dealing with the death of a loved one to go without comfort, but there is a problem here if we are to call ourselves Bible believing Christians. Does the Bible actually teach life after death in the way it is understood today in popular Christian culture? As Christians, we are to find comfort in truth, are we not? In 1 Thess 4:13-18 the apostle Paul addresses this very issue. Apparently there were those in Thessalonica who were confused about what would happen to those who were already dead when Christ returned. Paul clearly pointed them to the resurrection saying "the dead in Christ will rise first". The remainder of the verse reads "then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord". Those who subscribe to a pre-tribulation rapture of the Church point to this verse for support (misguided support, in my opinion). But one thing is certain, Paul tells us plainly here when Christians will be with the Lord, and it is not at the time of death. Notice the phrase "so we will always be with the Lord". The word "so" ("thus" in some translations) means "in this way" or "by this means". How will we be with the Lord? It will be either by resurrection or by rapture, but in either event, it will not happen until the appearing of Jesus from heaven! Until then, the dead must sleep.

And so we must ask "what is the source of these ideas which are so prevalent in the Church today, such as souls leaving the body and going to heaven at death; ideas in which so many seem to find comfort? The answer is Greek philosophy - pagan thought - which infiltrated the Church very early. For Plato and other Greek philosophers, the soul was imprisoned in the body and death was the means of the souls' escape. Think about it... what is evident here is that dead persons who are supposedly in heaven now, have no bodies!! Yet, the Bible is very clear on this subject: new bodies are obtained via the resurrection, and the resurrection of the dead will happen only at Jesus' appearing!

Resurrection, THE major tenet of the Christian faith, has taken second place to death in our modern version of orthodox Christianity. Paul clearly tells us that our faith hangs on the fact that Jesus was truly raised up from the state of being actually dead. In fact, if Jesus didn't rise, says Paul, "our faith is in vain" (1Cor
15:14,17), and the dead in Christ have truly perished (ie. there is no hope for them beyond the grave - (1Cor 15:18)). If the souls of dead Christians were now in heaven, verse 18 would not be true, would it? It is the fact of Jesus' resurrection, who is the firstfruits of those that sleep (1Cor 15:20), that guarantees the resurrection of all the dead in Christ when He appears again (1Cor 15:21-23). This is the blessed hope of the believer! (Tit 2:13 ( KJV)) Resurrection means coming back to life after being dead, not merely getting a new body!

Image via Wikipedia

Headstone in a small family cemetery in Northern Missouri

Churches today give lip service to resurrection as something that will occur, because it is known to be taught in the Scriptures. But in fact, the present belief system of souls going to heaven at the time of death, is not only a contradiction of resurrection, it is an erosion of Christianity's central truth, the resurrection of the believer! In the Church's current system, only the body is dead while the souls of the dead are alive in the presence of God with no need of a body. It would be constructive for Christians to ask themselves, if dead persons are living what point is there to the  resurrection? If the dead are more alive than ever; if they've gone to their reward; if they really are in a better place, if they are whole and at peace in God's presence, what possible good and what reasonable purpose would it serve to once again have a body, albeit an immortal one? Further, why would Paul refer to death as an enemy? This is the question men like John Wycliffe, and Martin Luther  asked, who believed in the biblical doctrine of the sleep of the dead awaiting resurrection.

But long before Wycliffe and Luther, Justin Martyr, an early Church Father of the 1st century, wrote about his "orthodox" belief. Below is a reprint of the entire dialog from which other author's have quoted. To be clear, we do not recognize Justin Martyr as being of equal authority to Scripture, but his views do show that early Christian thinkers had a very different interpretation of the Scripture, than is widely taught today, which necessarily affected their perspective on the issues of life and death.

THE OPINION OF JUSTIN WITH REGARD TO THE
REIGN OF A THOUSAND YEARS. SEVERAL
CATHOLICS REJECT IT

And Trypho to this replied, “I remarked to you sir, that you are
very anxious to be safe in all respects, since you cling to the
Scriptures. But tell me, do you really admit that this place,
Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to
be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the
patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and
other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came?
or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the
appearance of worsting us in the controversies?”

Then I answered, “I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as
to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly,
that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that
such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the
other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the
pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.
Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called
Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach
doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical,
and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this
before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I
can, of all the arguments which have passed between us;
in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same
things which I admit to you. For I choose to follow not men
or men’s doctrines, but God and the doctrines [delivered]
by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are
called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth],
and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and
the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say
there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their
souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not
imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he
would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sad-
ducees, or similar sects of Genistae, Meristaeans, Gali-
laeans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews (do
not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but
are [only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worship-
ping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the
heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-
minded Christians on all points, are assured that there
will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years
in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and
enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others
declare.

Notice that Justin regards himself as being "right-minded" (orthodox) but allows for others who are "true christians" (orthodox) to "think otherwise" regarding the literal 1000 year reign of Christ. But when it comes to souls going to heaven when they die, it is, in Justin's view, tantamount to denying the resurrection. Have Christians today unwittingly taken the power out of the Biblical doctrine of the resurrection from the dead by subscribing to the idea that we have immortal souls which go either to heaven or hell at the time of death? This, it seems to me, is a serious issue, among others, which should be re-examined by honest and thoughtful Christians desiring to know and practice truth and the Christianity of the first Church! 

Both Jesus and Paul believed and taught that the dead are dead. The early Church believed and taught this truth as well, and we would do well to follow their lead. It is most unfortunate that Greek, pagan, philosophy has so infiltrated Christian thinking, not only with regard to death and resurrection, but many other unbiblical beliefs held by modern Christianity. It would behoove every sincere Christian to study the Scriptures regarding death and resurrection, the soul of man, and heaven and hell. Study as if you knew nothing at all about Bible doctrine and I assert that you will find something very different from what is commonly taught in Churches today.

Will You Go to Heaven When You Die?

From childhood, it has been my understanding that good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell when they die. Of course, as I got older, I learned that it wasn't just being a good person that got you into heaven, but being born again! (John 3:3) In fact, I learned that it is impossible for any person to be good enough to earn a place in heaven, that's why Jesus had to die on the cross. He became our substitute, We were the ones who deserved death, because we are sinners. But Christ never sinned, yet He died in our place, the righteous for the unrighteous, so that we could live forever – with Him – in heaven.

I think that pretty well sums up the basic concept of modern-day Christianity. Now, I have since come to a much deeper understanding of what the Bible teaches about our salvation. But for this article, I want to focus on the orthodox Christian view of "going to heaven" when we die because I think we have been misguided on this subject.

As I reflect on my past, it's difficult for me to pinpoint any one sermon, Bible class, book, recording, or article that actually supported, with solid Scriptural evidence, the common Christian teaching that we go to a place called heaven when we die. Yet, it was taught as matter of fact and the concept is so pervasive in our culture that it is accepted without question as Bible truth.

Reading through my Bible, however, I find that Jesus teaches often about the kingdom of God ; the first Christians, as recorded in the book of Acts, preached and taught about the kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus; and we find the kingdom mentioned often in Paul's epistles as well. However, "going to heaven" seems to be curiously missing! Is it possible that heaven is synonymous with the kingdom of God, or kingdom of heaven?

In my recent studies on the subject I have discovered that, in fact, the Bible nowhere promises a place called heaven as the final home of the Christian believer! The idea that souls go to heaven at the time of death is apparently more of an inference resulting from the misinterpretation of certain scriptures, rather than a true Biblical teaching.

Recently I had to attend the funeral of my father-in-law. He was a good man and will be greatly missed. But as a believer, the family is comforted in knowing that his eternal home is fixed and secure in Christ. However, my family, like many other typical Christian families, believe that he was ushered directly into the presence of Jesus, in heaven. Now, don't misunderstand me... I don't have a problem with the idea of going to heaven to be with Jesus when I die. The issue for me is: is that what the Bible teaches? If it is, I gladly accept it; but if not, I want to know the truth!

Shortly after my father-in-laws death, while the family was still at the hospital, one of the family members, in an effort to say something comforting to the others, began to relate something she had read recently in a book. I will not mention the book or the author, since I have not read it for myself, but as she told it, the author was writing about death from the perspective of those who are already in heaven. This author imagined that when the death of a saint was announced, all of heaven gathered together to welcome the new soul into heaven as though they were witnessing a birth, and as the new soul poked itself through heaven's portal, the angels announced, "It's a boy!!"

Well, that may be an amusing and lighthearted way of looking at death, and perhaps even helps to bring comfort to some at a time when the reality of death can be so heavy. But is it really advisable for Christians to be comforted by something other than truth? Should we not rather comfort ourselves with what God says? I think we should... I think it's what God expects of us!

The following quote from the Zondervan Study Bible regarding the topics of heaven and hell is quite telling.

"Most Christians have definite, though hazy, notions about heaven and hell. We are confident of our resurrection. We are sure that just and unjust alike are ever-living persons. Saved and unsaved will exist forever as self-conscious, aware individuals. Usually we speak of "heaven" as the place where believers go at death, and "hell" as the place where unbelievers go. But when we explore the use of these words in the OT and NT, we discover how little is said about heaven and hell as we usually understand them!"

Notice that is says: “we are confident of our resurrection” and “we are sure that just and unjust alike are ever-living persons.” These two statements are in direct opposition to each other! If we are ever-living persons, of what value is a resurrection? Yet, there can be no doubt about this mindset among most Christians today. Even more surprising though, is the last sentence in the quote above which states that an exploration of the Bible on the subject reveals “how little is said about heaven and hell as we usually understand them!”

Many dictionaries, such as Easton's Bible Dictionary and Smith's Bible Dictionary include the phrase “home of the children of God” in their descriptions of heaven; however, there does not seem to be any basis for this idea from Scripture. It is simply recorded as a “given” without citing reasonable, specific, Scripture references! Consider the following...

Nelson's New Christian Dictionary reads:

heaven 1. Eternal abode of God, the uncreated spiritual realm inhabited by God as well as his angels. 2. Source of everything that is good and changeless and proceeds from God. Thus, in Matthew the question is asked, “Whence was it from? From heaven or from men?” (Matt. 21:25). Jesus and his work are from “heaven” and from “above” (John 3:13, 31, 35). Accordingly, “every good gift and every perfect gift is from above” (James 1:7), and the Lord’s Prayer is that God’s will be done “on earth, as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10). 3. Believer’s hope and eternal home which “eye has not seen, nor ear heard” (1 Cor. 2:9). It is a place of love (1 Cor. 13:13; Eph. 3:19), rest (Heb. 4:9), joy (Luke 15:7), knowledge (1 Cor. 13:12), and perfect harmony (Rom. 8:17; Rev. 22:3).
Kurian, G. T. (2001). Nelson's new Christian dictionary : The authoritative resource on the Christian world. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Pubs.

The above source does very well until it comes to point #3. Notice that heaven is given as the “Believer’s hope and eternal home...” But even a brief look at the Scripture references cited on that point, leaves much to be desired in actual support of the statement!

The following is copied exactly from Nelson's Bible Dictionary. I have chosen to use this information in it's entirety because it seems to be quite accurate. The only problem lies in the fact that what the articles below describe is thought to be experienced upon the believers death, when his soul departs the body and goes to heaven. I do not believe this happens. I believe we sleep in death until the return of Christ at which time we will be resurrected. But, read and judge for yourself.

HEAVEN — a word that expresses several distinct concepts in the Bible:
1. As used in a physical sense, heaven is the expanse over the earth (Gen. 1:8). The tower of Babel reached upward to heaven (Gen. 11:4). God is the possessor of heaven (Gen. 14:19). Heaven is the location of the stars (Gen. 1:14; 26:4) as well as the source of dew (Gen. 27:28).
2. Heaven is also the dwelling place of God (Gen. 28:17; Rev. 12:7–8). It is the source of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2, 10). Because of the work of Christ on the Cross, heaven is, in part, present with believers on earth as they obey God’s commands (John 14:2, 23).
3. The word “heaven” is also used as a substitute for the name of God (Luke 15:18, 21; John 3:27). The kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are often spoken of interchangeably (Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:15). At the end of time a new heaven will be created to surround the new earth. This new heaven will be the place of God’s perfect presence (Is. 65:17; 66:22; Rev. 21:1). Then there will be a literal fulfillment of heaven on earth.

HEAVENLY CITY, THE — the city prepared and built by God for those who are faithful to Him (Heb. 11:10, 16). Known as the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22), this is the city that is to come (Heb. 13:14). These references in Hebrews find their fulfillment in Revelation 21–22. The New Jerusalem is illuminated by the glory of God. It serves as the dwelling place of God among His redeemed forever.

HEAVENS, NEW — a term that, when used with “new earth,” refers to the perfected state of the created universe and the final dwelling place of the righteous. The phrase is found in Isaiah 66:22, 2 Peter 3:13, and in a slightly modified form in Revelation 21:1.
Rooted deep in Jewish thought was the dream of a new heaven and a new earth, a re-creation of the universe that would occur following the Day of the Lord (Is. 13:10–13; Joel 2:1–2, 30–31). The concept of a re-created universe is closely related to the biblical account of the Creation and the Fall and the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 1–3). Because of their sin, “the creation was subjected to futility . . . [and] the bondage of corruption” (Rom. 8:19, 21). The need for a new heaven and a new earth arises from human sin and God’s judgment, not from some deficiency or evil in the universe (Gen. 3:17).

The apostle Paul referred to the Old Testament doctrine of the Day of the Lord and applied it to the events that will occur at the Second Coming of Christ (2 Pet. 3:10, 13). When Christ returns, this present evil age will give way to the age to come. The universe will be purified and cleansed by the power of God. This will be reminiscent of the purging of the earth in the days of Noah, but on a universal scale.
Youngblood, R. F., Bruce, F. F., Harrison, R. K., & Thomas Nelson Publishers. (1995). Nelson's new illustrated Bible dictionary. Rev. ed. of: Nelson's illustrated Bible dictionary.; Includes index. Nashville: T. Nelson.

I believe the above article faithfully describes the Biblical teaching about heaven; but as you can see for yourself, heaven is not depicted as as a place, apart from this earth, where souls go after death to pass await bodily resurrection. Rather, the heavens that have anything to do with people are “new heavens” and are associated with the “new earth”. And the heavenly city, where the righteous will also dwell, will come down from heaven and rest over the earth! But what must be understood here is that the new heavens and the heavenly city do not currently exist as destinations for the righteous dead. Instead, they are promised as part of the age to come - the coming kingdom of God, which will be established at the second coming of Christ!

So then, if the information above faithfully represents what the Bible says about heaven, where did the idea come from that righteous souls go to heaven when they die? I will reserve the answer for another article. But if this topic is intriguing to you, I highly recommend that you read some of Anthony Buzzard's writings on the subject. Click here to go to his website articles page..

Keith

The "Soul" of the Matter

In my last post regarding Hell, I noted that the one orthodox christian belief that has caused more confusion than any other is, perhaps, the idea that "souls" separate from the body at death and must go somewhere, ie. heaven or hell.

This has been a long held belief among most christians and, in fact, is a common belief among the majority of peoples and religions of the world - both past and present! Every religion and culture believes that man has a "soul" or "spirit" which has the ability to live outside of the body. This has led to belief in ghosts and other apparitions, as well as the practice of ancestor worship, necromancy, and the like. It is not surprising then that christianity has it's own belief system of the dead living on in some other metaphysical form. There is one big problem with this idea however; the Bible, which is supposed to be the christians' rule for faith and practice, nowhere teaches such a thing as souls living apart from the body!

Since childhood, I have been taught that I have a soul that lives forever. I never really questioned it. Someone wisely said, "We accept what we've been taught, and teach what we accept." How true. As part of my formal religious education, I was taught that men are spirit beings that have a soul that live in a body. That being the case, I've always imagined my body as a house - a shell, while the real me is my soul or spirit within my body. It was never very clear to me, I confess, but I believed it was taught in the Bible and correlated very nicely with the idea of man being made in the image of God; hence, our three-part nature.

I have recently come to the understanding that the teaching I received was all wrong! The fact is, the world and the church alike, have fallen prey to the oldest lie in the book, and what makes it so effective is, they don't even know it. Christians, especially, think they are enlightened in the question of what happens when a person dies, but we have been deceived. Here is the plain truth recorded in the book of Genesis.

God said to Adam and Eve...

"...but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." --Genesis 2:17

But Satan deceived the woman.

"But the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not surely die.'" --Genesis 3:4

Somehow, the common definition for death has been altered and softened. We now understand death as meaning a separation of the soul from the body. In this way, only the body actually dies while the real person (the soul) continues to live - either in eternal bliss, or eternal torment. But is this what the Bible teaches, or is it a lie of Satan handed down to us as tradition? To find the answer we must be willing to lay aside our tradition and see what the Bible actually teaches concerning the soul.

The best place to start is in the beginning.

"then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. --Gen 2:7 (ESV)

Man is animated dust! The word translated "creature" is nephesh in the Hebrew text, also translated "soul" in the KJV and others. Notice that the text says that "man became a living creature" (soul), not that he has (or acquired) a soul! Man was created an integrated, unified whole; not body, soul and spirit in the sense of separate, independent substances. I will do a more in-depth study of this concept in the future, but for now we should simply understand that the Biblical teaching of man's nature is as a unified being. When a man dies, all of him dies; there is a cessation of life; he is dead in every way. If man had a soul which detached itself from the body at the time of death, then only the body could be said to be dead. But God said "you shall surely die" (Gen 2:17). The use of the singular personal pronoun "you" signifies the person, the whole person, not just a body.

Further, if death does not mean "the cessation of life", why is death called an "enemy"? (1Corinthians 15:26) If death means that the soul leaves the body and goes directly into the presence of God, would it not be considered a friend? The fact is, death is not a friend, it is an enemy! And to believe that we continue living, that only the body dies, is to believe Satan's age-old lie. Not only that, but it destroys the doctrine of the resurrection of the body! If souls are already in a blissful state with God in heaven without a body, what purpose could there possibly be for a resurrection? Think about it!

When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, he didn't call his soul back from heaven to be reunited with his body. No. That would have been a cruel thing to do... don't you think? It is time for the church to question traditional beliefs and pay more attention to what the Bible actually says. It is time for every sincere christian to be more analytical and discerning regarding the messages heard from the pulpit. We should not simply accept everything we hear simply because the preacher is charismatic or exciting or because it agrees with what we've always heard. While the teacher may be "judged with greater strictness" (James 3:1) we will all be held accountable for what we believe and accept as truth! (Mark 4:24)