Introduction to essay



This is an essay which I have broken down into smaller parts for the sake of this blog, in the hope of being able to locate and address smaller issues within the larger theme with greater ease, and possibly provoke more discussion....

I have entitled this essay Soul-Destroying, not because I believe that man’s soul is ultimately to be destroyed (for I do not) but because I believe that the Scriptures destroy the popular church teaching of what the soul is. The title also metaphorically describes my emotional experience when confronted with the likelihood that what I had been taught for almost thirty years had misled me into serious doctrinal error. However, only when faced with this realisation was I able to reconstruct my understanding of the soul and see the saint’s true hope: bodily resurrection from the dead.

Though my convictions on this doctrine have strengthened over the last few years, mainly as a result of testing them against the biblical texts used in this essay, I must accept that others may wish to point out where they think I err. I may be making some obvious mistakes with the texts I examine. I may not have considered other obvious texts. The purpose of this essay, therefore, is to provoke discussion.

This essay originally emanated from a request that I explain and defend my views concerning the doctrine of ‘going to Heaven when you die’. I had not envisioned that the task would produce something of this size. The reason it did so is because of the wealth of biblical texts that many people (I believe) are either ignoring or misinterpreting. The reader can assume from the offset that I am neither a skilled nor experienced essay writer – this much will become obvious – so I accept that there will be many structural flaws and clumsy use of language. Hopefully any negative feedback, therefore, will be premised upon a sincere disagreement with biblical interpretations and not upon the academic presentation of these views.

In order to be consistent I must accept that, if I have been wrong before, I can be wrong again. But ought this reality to hinder me from re-examining and challenging popular doctrines? I do not think so. I must not be ashamed to ask any question, even should I challenge what transpires to be the truth. Such a process should ultimately serve to give me more confidence in the truth.
Were it to come down to which doctrines I would prefer to espouse, it would undoubtedly be those I formerly held. Why should I wish to destroy things I once considered fundamental to biblical faith, and risk strong disagreement with many important influences and friends?  
I do not hold these things lightly and would therefore trust that any response to them is taken seriously, the responses themselves being open to testing.

Part 1: The Dangers of Orthodoxy



Was man originally created with an immortal soul, and do the souls of God’s people ascend to Heaven after death? To begin to question these things is not only to intrude upon widely-held beliefs but also our emotional responses over what occurs to us after death. However, do the Scriptures teach that man was created with an immortal soul? If not, what happens to our loved ones? Where are the church fathers? Where are the martyrs?

This is a doctrine that I have taught with conviction to children. The first song I wrote when working with children at a local church, entitled Heaven’s Streets of Gold, was composed to encourage children to seek Heaven as their ultimate destination. Thus, I fully embraced and taught others that an integral part of the ‘good news’ was that a saved soul ascends to Heaven after physical death. 

But it is evident now to me that the Bible does not teach this. The destination for the dead is not Heaven, either at death or resurrection. What changed my mind? I began to study the Scriptures on this matter more intently. In the past I assumed that a treasured doctrine defended by most denominations, and one defended throughout all of church history, must have actual biblical proof, even if I were not aware of it.

However, is it sufficient to accept something simply because of what others have believed and embraced in the past? Are their writings not to be compared with the exact wording found in the Bible? Should a specific church doctrine defended by the church fathers prohibit others from disagreeing because they have discovered something contrary? If so, then the Scriptures become of secondary value and the church fathers’ writings should be read in church services instead of the Bible.

Upon investigating the issue of ‘soul immortality’, I became increasingly alarmed not to find a single explicit reference in the Bible of ‘immortal soul’ or that souls ascend to Heaven at death. On the one hand, how can this cardinal doctrine be lacking in the Scriptures, and on the other hand – as I formerly did – be taught by many?

There are many ‘proof-texts’ used – most of which will hopefully be referred to in this essay – but even among these texts there seems to be no unequivocal statement of what is considered a fundamental doctrine (the most commonly used ‘proof-texts’ don’t even use the word ‘Heaven’). 

There are clear references to salvation by grace through faith, the Lordship of Jesus Christ, His substitutionary death, His resurrection, His continued intercession for His people as High Priest, His Second Coming, the forgiveness of sins, our resurrection, etc.; but no statement seems to explain, or even paraphrase, the doctrine of man’s soul going to Heaven at the point of death. Rather, I feel that the doctrine is assumed and several ‘proof-texts’ are suggested as touching upon this ‘truth’, and thus these verses are used to build upon a doctrine that was never biblically established in the first place.

Bearing in mind the reasonable claim that an absolute reference to the doctrine is elusive within the Bible, is it not alarming that most of the church consider it a fundamental part of the good news of Jesus Christ? Why is it the automatic response of many to defend the prevailing view instead of taking more time to consider the weight behind an alternative understanding? Why is the alternative view sometimes given the same response a cult doctrine would receive? 

It seems that the rule of thumb today is to judge the substance of a doctrine by setting it against the backdrop of its popularity within orthodox Christianity. The tendency to validate doctrines in this manner ought to generate more suspicion than when someone challenges the doctrine of going to Heaven. Why do we rush to defend a cherished viewpoint when our method of validating that viewpoint is at best questionable itself? 

God’s Word is not subject to a popularity contest when interpreting its doctrines. The revered saints from key moments in church history – justifiably or not – have been subject to these kinds of tests. Their acceptance within Christendom has been determined by the content of their teaching, but their popularity is no proof within itself that their teaching was biblical.

Calvin and Wesley would have disagreed on doctrines that are considered of importance to many in the faith, and yet few today would label either a ‘heretic’. Most people who subscribe to either extreme in the differing theologies of these men would not go as far as insulting their ‘opponents’ in this way. Why is this the case? Presumably it is because they agreed upon what are today considered to be ‘fundamentals’. The doctrine that involves man’s soul going to Heaven would, no doubt, be among these agreements. 

The continued lack of challenge to this view throughout church history has therefore created the potential for many to fear openly questioning it. It is not presented as a doctrine worth testing by Scripture and serious debate, and yet my own experiences lead me to believe that it is considered biblical because it is orthodox. This orthodoxy, in my view, causes us to impose doctrines upon biblical texts that do not concern the doctrine in question. 

In short, I am challenging the prevailing notion that a doctrine’s widespread acceptance – whether geographically or historically – is sufficient as a defence of the doctrine itself. The only respect in which I should be concerned with what Spurgeon had to say about ‘going to Heaven’ is the biblical evidence he used. The same can be said for any other revered name. 

In other words, what does the Bible say? Orthodoxy prevented all of God’s people, bar two, from entering the Promised Land. Orthodoxy led God’s people into captivity. Let us not assume that the church today is incapable of forming orthodox views at the expense of God’s truth. 

For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ. (Galatians 1:10)

Part 2: Problem Texts (i) John 3:13



Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man [*who is in heaven*]”. (John 3:9-13)
*These words are not included in any manuscript preceding the 9th century. Not one of the thousands of sources that predate this time include the expression, thus rendering it unreliable.

When Jesus was having the above conversation with Nicodemus, where were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Where were Sarah, Rahab and Ruth? One of two answers is commonly given: they were either in Heaven or they were in another place of happy, conscious existence, known as Abraham’s Bosom.

The underlined statement within this passage, however, seems to cast doubt on the first option: Heaven. ‘No one has ascended to heaven’. Had no one ever entered Heaven prior to this time? This would seem to be the natural understanding.

Would this understanding be invalidated by the surrounding context? By extracting one small clause from a much larger conversation, am I guilty of misrepresenting the words? 

I would think that, yes, there is always a danger of misunderstanding literature of any kind when reading a statement that is separated from its context. The context informs us who is saying the words, to whom and when, as well as revealing the subject-matter. Perhaps by re-examining the context of John chapter three I would discover that Jesus (or the author John) had provided us with a new understanding of what ‘heaven’ and/or ‘Son of Man’ mean, in which case this one sentence I have highlighted would take on a new meaning. Perhaps the context has established a less than common understanding of the verb ‘ascend’. Again, this would be cause for reinterpreting the highlighted statement. 

However, given that the context does not suggest uncommon meanings for these words, it makes the statement plain and simple: ‘No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven’. I encourage the reader to study the context carefully, being confident that the same conclusion will be reached.

That said, it seems that one important fact has been obscured by all the major English translations (including the New King James Version used in this essay). There is an assumption that it is Jesus who was speaking in verse thirteen. Careful consideration of several features of John chapter three should lead us away from this conclusion. 

First of all, one needs to be aware that the earliest Greek manuscripts from which we derive our translated New Testaments do not (and never did) use punctuation, including the use of speech marks. The translators assumed that, since Jesus was conversing with Nicodemus up to this point, it was He who was continuing to speak in verse thirteen.

If so, then picture this scenario: Jesus, perhaps a couple of years prior to His death, burial, resurrection and ascension, says to Nicodemus, “no one has ascended [perfect tense] to heaven but...the Son of Man”.  In other words, if it is Jesus speaking in verse thirteen then we should believe that He spoke about His future ascension as an act already completed. Though this is not impossible, it should not be our conclusion if a more immediately sensible interpretation exists.

Is it not more likely that John, the author of the book, begins to write his own comments from verse thirteen? He is writing from the vantage point of someone living years after the ascension. Also note the use of past tense verbs prior to verse thirteen: they are all by John (“came to Jesus by night...”; “Nicodemus said...”; “Jesus answered...”). At no point do Jesus or Nicodemus use a past tense verb in their recorded dialogue. John records their conversation as if everything was spoken using the present tense. This helps to distinguish between the words of the conversation and John’s own words. After verse thirteen the past tense is repeatedly used, including the famous verse sixteen. In other words, a change occurs between verses twelve and thirteen.

Furthermore, in verse twelve (which I believe to be the final words of Jesus in this section), Jesus tells Nicodemus that he is unlikely to believe heavenly things if he cannot grasp the earthly things. Why would Jesus then proceed to explain the heavenly things to Nicodemus? That would be a waste of breath given what Jesus has just concluded about Nicodemus’ state of mind. It is more likely that John explains these things, not for the sake of skeptical Nicodemus, but for the believing readers of his gospel many years later.

The issue of who spoke the words in verse thirteen, to my mind, actually solidifies further the unlikelihood of any one going to Heaven except for Jesus. Why? Not only had no person ascended to Heaven when Jesus was conversing with Nicodemus, the truth still stood when John was writing his gospel, long after the actual ascension.

Nevertheless, even if it is accepted that John wrote these words rather than Jesus who spoke them, some could still argue that there is a deeper meaning to “no one has ascended...” than a simple ascension from below to above. It is assumed by some that there is a depth of meaning behind the verb ‘ascended’ that renders it more like this: no one has ascended in this manner, except the Son of Man. Quite what that manner is, however, is unclear. One would think that a ‘simple’ ascension from earth to Heaven is impressive enough without requiring an added depth of meaning.

Rather than going to such measures to interpret the text, we should ask why the original statement needs to be qualified in the first place. It makes sense by itself. It does not require any special scrutiny. Are we not seeking to qualify it because, taken plainly and simply, it contradicts a predetermined theology? The context is important, yes, but the remark is nonetheless unequivocal in its meaning. 

Contextually, Ephesians chapter five is not about the drinking of alcohol; but ‘do not be drunk with wine’ (v18) is still categorical and can exist as a fully understood stand-alone statement. It is an absolute: 'don't be drunk!' In and of itself, it does not explain the thought-process behind Ephesians chapter five but the command doesn't require an appreciation of the surrounding context in order to be obeyed. 

Such is the case with John 3:13. The statement is an absolute. How can the words be taken any other way? There was a contextual purpose for saying it – I agree – but the statement stands on its own as a truth. Nicodemus could not understand ‘heavenly things’ (the deeper truths that Jesus knew) if he were unable to grasp the ‘earthly things’ that he had already heard. Irrespective of the context of what those ‘things’ were, John qualifies why only Jesus could know them: nobody had ascended to Heaven except for Him. 

Many have come to this same conclusion but, because they view the words of verse thirteen as belonging to Jesus, their agreement is that, at that point, no one had ascended to Heaven except for Him. However, such a conclusion does not, to these people, disprove the overall theology of intermediate existence. It is widely believed that, though dead saints were not in Heaven at this time, they were still consciously experiencing bliss in a place called Abraham’s Bosom.

It is a view with which I am a little familiar as, in the past, I found it convincing. The saints would be comforted in this particular area of Sheol (or Hades in Greek) while everyone else suffered in the remainder of Sheol. The account of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) is used to support this theological assertion. I object to such an interpretation of this passage but will leave that for a more protracted discussion later. 

Throughout this essay there will be challenges to the belief in this alleged former afterlife location, not least when questioning the nature of the soul. But it is worth asking straight away how this view correlates with the general understanding of Ecclesiastes 12:7, which says that ‘the spirit will return to God who gave it’. Given the most common interpretation of ‘spirit’ (a definition with which I disagree: the immortal conscious self) this would mean that saints went straight to Heaven even under the Old Covenant (i.e. prior to Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus). 

It will also be a common feature of this essay to challenge the belief about Abraham’s Bosom as if it were the same argument as those who believe that saints always went to Heaven at death. I am aware that there are important differences between these two views, and I do not wish to discredit either view by misrepresenting it, but I will critique both together because they believe the same thing about where dead saints are today: Heaven. They also believe the same things about the nature of man’s soul.

Proponents of the Abraham’s Bosom view believe that, upon His ascension, the Lord Jesus brought the residents of Abraham’s Bosom to Heaven with Him. He had paid the redemptive price and was ‘setting the captives free’. I have heard Ephesians 4:7-10 used to support this contention.

But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore He says: ‘When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men.’ (Now this, ‘He ascended’—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.) (Ephesians 4:7-10)

I do not wish to make my argument stronger by building a ‘straw man’ on behalf of the opposing view so I should accept that there is possibly more Scripture than the above used to support the idea that Christ brought the righteous dead with Him to Heaven after His victory over death. However, to date, this is the only argument of which I am aware, and again it seems to forge an unnatural meaning into words that do not expressly state this doctrine. 

When Christ was leading ‘captivity captive’ was He leading the righteous dead to Heaven? Does the language not suggest the opposite: the taking of a prisoner? When Christ ‘descended into the lower parts of the earth’ was He in Abraham’s Bosom? Could the ‘lower parts of the earth’ not simply refer to the grave – a reference to His death? 

As I see it, the ‘captivity’ which Christ was leading ‘captive’ involved the principalities and powers of which He had made a public spectacle (Colossians 2:15). Furthermore, the Scripture that Paul quotes (Psalm 68:18) is taken from a context where the captives are the enemies of God. There seems no inherent idea of the ‘captive’ being His own people. This seems a more natural reading to me as the text does not mention Christ leading people or souls from underneath the earth. The only Person mentioned is Christ Himself.

In conclusion, I think that John 3:13 is a very strong indication that nobody went to Heaven prior to Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus. Indeed, properly punctuated, it should indicate that nobody except Jesus went to Heaven prior to John writing his gospel. I further believe that there are many weaknesses with the doctrine that says that the saints were instead happily conscious in Abraham’s Bosom. To me, this is an unlikely alternative location for Abraham, Sarah, etc. (though admittedly it may require the reader to view further arguments in this essay before being equally convinced of this). 

In short, one single sentence should cause us to seriously examine our beliefs about who goes to Heaven.

Part 2: Problem Texts (ii) Acts 2:29-35



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.