Another refutation of the accepted doctrine of ‘going
to Heaven’ is, I believe, found in the Acts
of the Apostles.
“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. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an
oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would
raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke
concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades,
nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are
all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having
received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this
which you now see and hear. ‘For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he
says himself: ‘The LORD said to my
Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand,
till I make Your enemies Your
footstool.’’ (Acts 2:29-35)
Peter made two statements on the Day of Pentecost that
are relevant to this discussion: (i) King David was ‘both dead and buried’; (ii) King David ‘did not ascend into the heavens’. This seems a strange thing to say
of a saint whose soul, according to popular theology, was either in Heaven from
the moment of his death or had later ascended with the resurrected Christ to
Heaven.
I understand that Peter’s main point was to show that
David’s prophecy in Psalm sixteen did not speak of David himself, but Christ.
This focus upon Christ, however, does not excuse relegating David to
nonexistence if he was, in reality, experiencing bliss. According to the
theology of ‘Christ leading the righteous dead to Heaven’, David would have ascended into the heavens. Of
course such an ascension would by no means have been as majestic as the
physical ascension of Christ, but could it really be said of David that he ‘did not ascend into the heavens’?
The reason Peter is alluding to David is because he
has just quoted from a Davidic Psalm:
I foresaw the
LORD always before my face, for He is at my right hand, that
I may not be shaken. Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was
glad; moreover my flesh also will rest in hope. For You will not
leave my soul in Hades, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
You have made known to me the ways of life; You will make me full of joy
in Your presence. (Acts 2:25-28)
Can it be argued that, because the context of Acts
chapter two concerns the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, the whereabouts
of David’s immaterial soul did not need to be addressed by Peter? Since Peter
was talking about the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, would this imply
that all references to David were only physical as well? In other words, did
Peter mean ‘David’s body is
both dead and buried; David’s body
did not ascend into the heavens; but David’s immaterial soul is another issue entirely’?
A difficulty for me in accepting this understanding is
that the ‘soul’ is very much part of
the context. In verse twenty seven, Peter
quotes this word from David in Psalm 16:10. ‘You will not leave my soul in Hades’. Since Peter clarifies
that the Psalm did not concern David’s destiny, but Christ’s, we must then
assume that David’s soul is still in
Hades. Presumably most within the church would understand ‘soul’ to mean the physical body here,
otherwise the resurrection of Jesus (of whom the Psalm is really speaking) was
non-physical. With this I would agree for, as I will explain later, I believe
the ‘soul’ to be the man in his entirety – never an immaterial component of man.
The church must therefore conclude that there is an
ambiguity to the word ‘soul’ – sometimes it refers to the material, sometimes
the immaterial. This would then beg the question: why did Peter use such an
ambiguous word in a context where, supposedly, he would not have wanted to
suggest that all of David was in the grave (body and soul/spirit)? In other words, if it were Peter’s intention
to express that David was ‘only’ dead in a physical sense, but not touch upon
the ‘immaterial soul’, why would he use
the word ‘soul’ at all?
As
for those who hold to the teaching that the Lord Jesus, upon His ascension,
brought the righteous dead to Heaven from Abraham’s Bosom, I think it
would be hard to argue that Peter does not mention this because it is not part
of the context. Would Peter say ‘David did not ascend into the heavens’
about an event in which, as a consequence, David did ascend into the
heavens?
In my opinion, the truth that David is dead loses all
of its intended impact if we assume he is, in one sense, very much alive. In
reality he is given an unflattering description: dead, buried and still in the
tomb. The text does not say ‘David’s body’
is dead, buried and still in the tomb. It is simply ‘David’, and no clue is given as to another part of him being alive.
The Psalm of David from which Peter quoted says the
following:
Therefore
my heart is glad, and my glory rejoices; My flesh also will rest in hope. For
You will not leave my soul in Sheol, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see
corruption. You will show me the path of life; in Your presence is fullness of joy; at Your right
hand are pleasures forevermore. (Psalm 16:9-11)
All accept that David is not speaking about himself,
but Christ. Nobody would contend that David’s physical body saw no corruption, but
bodily incorruption was not the only thing that David would miss out on. The
words that directly follow describe a ‘fullness
of joy’ in the ‘presence’ of God.
If therefore Peter assigns the sentiments of David’s Psalm to Christ, then
these final words are also inapplicable to the one who is described as ‘dead and buried’, who ‘did not ascend into the heavens’. King
David’s body, therefore, is not only still in the grave, but King David himself
has no experience of the ‘fullness of joy’
in God’s ‘presence’ – a privilege
only known by the Son of God.
However, I believe that the strongest argument against
this notion of David’s soul ascending to Heaven is found in the definition of
‘soul’ itself – a point I wish to come to next.
No comments:
Post a Comment