Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

For centuries, sages, seers and soothsayers have attempted to answer the question that is the basis of our topic and title. However, fools and philosophers stand on equal footing when they seek to reply to our query. Human wisdom, reasoning and ingenuity cannot fathom the vast sea of mystery that envelopes the dead. The only source of light is the word of God, the Bible. It alone lifts the veil that obscures our view of the dead.

Use Of The Term “Dead”

(1) Dead In Sins. One may be “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2: 1; Jn. 5:25). To be dead in this sense is to be separated from God because of sin. It means one is unforgiven; hence, he is “dead in … sins” (Col. 2:13; Isa. 59:1,2). One may be dead, spiritually speaking, while he fives in the flesh (1 Tim. 5:6; Eph. 5:14). This is not, though, the subject of this essay.

(2) Dead To Sins. The saved are “dead to sin” (Rom. 6:2; 1 Pet. 2:24). The body, the life of sin, has been put to death, “crucified with Christ” (Gal. 2:20; 5:24). One is “dead to sin” when he is forgiven and walking in newness of life (Rom. 6:2-7; Col. 3:1-3). Again, this is not the object of this study.

(3) The Physically Dead. “The body without the spirit is dead” (Jas. 2:26). Where are those whose spirits are separated from their bodies? When the soul departs the body, the body is dead (Gen. 35:18; Lk. 23:46). Where are the dead? This is our theme.

Where The Dead Are Not

They are Not:

(1) Unconscious. John said, “I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain (thus, physically dead) . . . . And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth” (Rev. 6:9,10). They were dead, but conscious; they could feel frustration and appeal for vindication. They were spoken to and expected to understand (Rev. 6:11).

In Luke 16:19-3 1, a rich man “died and was buried.” His body was in a grave, but after physical death, he could see, recognize, feel, speak, plead, reason, desire, and remember. If the Lord Jesus told the truth, this man was not unconscious.

In 2 Corinthians 12:2-4, Paul spoke of a man who may have been “out of the body.” Out of his body, the man could hear and understand that some things were “not lawful for man to utter.” If the apostle Paul told the truth, one may be out of or apart. from his body and remain conscious.

True, “the dead know not anything . . . . neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun” (on earth), “for there is no work, nor device nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave whither thou goest” (Eccl. 9:5-10). However, while the body is dead and in the grave and knows nothing of what is done on the earth, the spirit has gone to God and is conscious (Eccl. 12:7; Lk. 16:19-3 1; Rev. 6:9,10).

(2) Out Of Existence. The dead are neither unconscious nor out of existence. In Luke 9:28-36, Moses and Elijah “appeared in glory, and spake.” They could be seen, recognized and identified; they talked. They knew of Jesus’ impending death and where it was to take place (Jerusalem). They both had been dead for several hundred years, but they were not out of existence.

“Now Samuel was dead . . . and buried” (1 Sam. 28:3). After his death and burial, he appeared to Saul. He spoke and reasoned with Saul and told him, “Tomorrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me” (I Sam. 28:19); that is, in death. Saul and his sons did die and joined Samuel (1 Sam. 31:2-6), but Samuel was not non-existent.

The rich man and Lazarus both died, but they were not out of existence (Lk. 16:19-31). This text shows that the righteous and wicked exist after physical life is terminated.

(3) In Heaven or Hell. Matthew 25:31-46 clearly shows that the righteous and wicked enter into heaven and hell after the final judgment. The banishment “into everlasting fire” and the acceptance “into life eternal” occurs after “all nations” are gathered before the Son of man who is seated upon the throne of His glory.

God will repay indignation and tribulation to the disobedient; He will reward the obedient with rest and eternal life (Rom. 2:6-9; 2 Thess. 1:6-10). But when? “When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, . . . in that day” He will determine each soul’s eternal destiny (2 Thess. 1:7-10).

The “destruction of ungodly men” and the “new heavens and a new earth” of the godly is realized when the Lord comes again and destroys the universe (2 Pet. 3:3-14). Therefore, the dead are not now in either heaven or hell.

Where The Dead Are

(1) Concerning The Body. The dead body is placed “in the grave” (Eccl. 9: 10). The rich man’s body was dead and 6 ‘was buried” in a grave on earth. The sea contains the bodily remains of some of the dead (Rev. 20:13). Jesus’ dead body was placed in Joseph’s tomb (Matt. 27:57-60). “All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust” (Job 34:15). This is the ultimate end of the dead body.

(2) Regarding The Spirit. “The spirit returns unto God who gave it” as the body decays in the grave (Eccl. 12:7). While Jesus’ body was in Joseph’s tomb, His spirit was in God’s hands (Lk. 23:46). While the rich man’s body “was buried” on earth, his spirit was in hades (Lk. 16:19-31).

Hades and Hell

The King James Version (KJV) of the Scriptures has muddled the understanding of many regarding the words “hades” and “hell. ” The KJV translates “hades ” as “hell” and “grave” (Lk. 16:23; Acts 2:27; 1 Cor. 15:55). The word gehenna or “hell,” the place of everlasting punishment, the lake of fire and brimstone, is not the same as hades, but the KJV uses the word “hell” to translate both. The American Standard Version (ASV) makes the distinction clear between “hades” and “hell.” A comparison of the texts which use “hell” in the KJV and ASV will serve to clarify the issue.

“Terms Explained”

“Sheol is a Hebrew word which is used numerous times in the Old Testament and is translated hell 14 times. Contrary to popular opinion, this word does not refer to what we mean when we use the word hell. The word sheol has reference to the unseen world where the dead abide and is equivalent to the Greek word hades (ISBE). There is no idea of unconsciousness, punishment or “hell” in the word.

“Hades is transliterated in ASV but is never translated hell, but it is translated Hell in the KJV which cause considerable confusion in the minds of people. Thayer (an eminent Greek scholar) defines the word to mean the unseen world which is the realm of the dead. It occurs four times in the gospels (Matt. 11:23; 16: 18; Lk. 10: 15; 16:23).

“The Greek word hades and the Hebrew word sheol are equivalent. A study of two passages will demonstrate this. The Psalmist predicts in Psalms 16: 10 that the Christ’s soul would not be left in Sheol. This passage is quoted in Acts 2:27 and the sheol is rendered by the word hades. When Luke, the inspired writer of Acts, quoted the Old Testament word sheol, he used the word hades to translate it. (Another example is seen by comparing Hos. 13:14 and I Cor. 15:55 – LRH). Thus, the two words have the same meaning.

“There is no idea of punishment of hell in either term, though the wicked are tormented in hades (Luke 16:19-3 1). Christ now has the power over death and hades (Rev. 1: 18) and will cast both of them into the lake of fire at the judgment (Rev. 20:14).

“The Term Gehenna”

“This word occurs some 12 times in the New Testament and is uniformly translated hell. It refers to the eternal punishment (Matt. 18:8,9; Lk. 9:47,48). This word is a transliteration from the Hebrew ‘Valley of Hinnom’ and refers to a place of refuse where once children had been burned to Moloch (2 Kings 23:10). It was a burying place of punishment to Jews (Jer. 7:32).

“From this study of the words, one can easily see that there would not be so much confusion had the original words been uniformly translated by the appropriate words. The word gehenna occurs in the following passages: Matt. 5:22,29,30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15,33; Mk.. 9:43, 45, 47; Lk. 12:5; Jas. 3:6. The word Hades occurs in the following passages and is translated hell and grave in the KJV: Matt. 11:23; 16:18; Lk. 10:15; 16:23; Acts 2:27,31; 1 Cor. 15:55; Rev. 1:18; 6:8; 20:13,14” (Clinton D. Hamilton)

The Rich Man, Lazarus, Jesus, and Hades

The rich man in Luke 16:23 died. His body was buried in a grave on earth. Still, the sacred narrative says, “In hell (hades) he lift up his eyes, being in torments.” Lazarus, the beggar, died, “and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom,” where he was “comforted” (Lk. 16:22,25). There was “a great gulf which separated the rich man and Lazarus. It was “fixed,” impassable (Lk. 16:26).

When Jesus died, His body went to the grave of Joseph of Arimathea (Matt. 27:57-60). Jesus’ soul went to hell, or hades (Acts 2:27,3 1). Now, are we to suppose that Jesus was “tormented” in hades? The Bible says, according to the KJV, that He went to “hell’ as did the rich man (Lk. 16:23; Acts 2:27). Remember that “hell” is hades, not gehenna hell, the place of eternal punishment. See the ASV. Jesus had told one of the thieves on the cross, “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” So, “paradise” is a section of hades. It is the place where Lazarus’ soul was located. It is a place of comfort and pleasure. The other compartment of hades is a place of torment. It is called tartarus (2 Pet. 2:4), which means “a place of punishment. ” This is the segment of hades where the rich man’s soul was deposited.

“In Hades then, the receptacle of all the dead, there are rewards and punishments. There is a paradise or an Abraham’s Bosom, and there is a tartarus, in which the evil spirits are chained, and the spirits of wicked men engulfed. Hence, the rich man in tartarus, and Lazarus in Abraham’s Bosom, were both in Hades. Jesus and the converted thief were together in Hades, while they were together in Paradise” (Alexander Campbell).

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 9, pp. 257, 276-277
May 3, 1984

By Quentin McCay

Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me “to glory” (Psalm 73:24). These are the words from one of the Psalms of Asaph, who had observed the affairs of men and wondered why the wicked were so prosperous and happy. He makes a list of their seeming advantages and their evils and concludes momentarily that the righteous life is vain. His conclusion brought him great pain. He then went into the sanctuary of God and learned of the final end of the wicked. He learned that there will be a time when all the inequities of this life will be adjusted, that God will judge all people and prove Himself to be truly just. Asaph then commits himself to God and murmurs no more. He resolves to be guided by the counsel of God and has the blessed hope of being received into glory.

Asaph lived and wrote under the law of Moses, which was abrogated by the death of Christ (Heb. 10:9-10; Col. 2:14). Though we now live by the counsel of God revealed through Christ (Heb. 1:1-3), the principle set forth by Asaph is still true. It is by the counsel of God set forth in the New Testament that we are sanctified, justified, or saved. By the counsel of God, made known by Christ, we must live if we are to be received into glory. It should give one great courage to follow the counsel of God when he recognizes the completeness, sufficiency and the authority of it.

Revelation

The Bible is a revelation of the counsel of God. The word “revelation” means “an uncovering.” At one time the will of God was a “mystery,” which means that His will had not been revealed. Paul declared, “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man, neither was I taught it, but by revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1: 11). From Ephesians 3:1-6, we learn that Christ made known unto Paul the mystery, Paul wrote it down, and those who read it can understand the mystery. This mystery included the message that the Jews and Gentiles are “fellow heirs in the same body and partakers of the promise in Christ by the gospel.” There are no additional revelations from God. The Bible is complete in its message for sinful man. All modern-day revelations, which claim to be from God are false.

Inspired Revelation

The Bible is an inspired revelation. The men chosen to write the message from God were not guided by their own ability, wisdom, or memory. They were “moved along” by the Holy Spirit as they wrote the very word the Holy Spirit directed them to write in expressing to us the counsel of God. The Bible claims to be a verbally inspired revelation (Eph. 3:3-5; 1 Cor. 2:10-13). The Holy Spirit searched the “deep things of God,” and guided men to express the counsel of God in words. Such a revelation assures us that we have a complete and sufficient message containing all of the counsel of God. Since the message from God is complete, there are no inspired men. None are needed.

Confirmed Revelation

The Bible is also a confirmed revelation. What Christ and His inspired apostles revealed was confirmed by “signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will” (Heb. 2:4). Since there is no need of further revelation, there is no need of inspired men to make known the message and no need of confirmation of the message since it has been confirmed once for all time by Christ and His apostles. The miraculous was to end with the complete revelation of the perfect law of liberty (` Cor. 13:8-12). The claims of miraculous powers today are false claims. The Bible plainly declares that “when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” “That which is done in part” (1 Cor. 13:9-10) refers to those nine gifts mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:1-11. “That which is perfect” means the perfect “law of liberty” which has come (Jas. 1:25; Eph. 4:7-16).

As long as there was a need of revelation of God’s counsel, there was a need of inspiration. As long as there was a need of inspiration, there was a need of confirmation. Since revelation is complete (Jude 3), there is no need of inspiration, or further confirmation.

Understandable Revelation

The Bible is an understandable revelation. As stated by Paul in Ephesians 3:1-6, he received his words by revelation, wrote it and we can read it and understand his “knowledge in the mystery of Christ.” The Bible affirms that one can and must understand the counsel of God. “Wherefore, be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). All the truth one needs to know about God, His will, the church, sin and salvation has been revealed to us and one must understand it, believe it and obey it to be received into glory (John 8:31-32; Heb. 5:8-9; Rev. 22:14).

All of this means that God’s will is completely revealed. The counsel of God has been confirmed and is adequate and sufficient. There is no need for doubt. God’s revelation to man is final and fixed. There is no need for more information and we are warned not to tamper with His revealed will. “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8). God’s counsel will judge us in that great day when all the evil thoughts, words and deeds will be remembered (Matt. 12:36-37; 2 Cor. 5: 10). It is a mark of great wisdom to be resolved, as was Asaph, to be guided by God’s counsel. This is the way to glory.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 9, pp. 259-260
May 3, 1984

By Lee Rogol

Introduction

At the very beginning of this series of articles, I pointed out that I wanted to approach the current issues (sponsoring churches, Committees or “Church Councils”, and institutionalism) from a different viewpoint. Being a former Adventist, I keep abreast of the developments within that denomination. There is quite a stir among them over the very things that came into and divided churches of Christ. These are the very things Adventists are now objecting to, and in numerous cases, dividing over. Since many in that denomination realize these things as unscriptural, let their objections be a lesson to the liberal churches that are practicing the very things even the denomination realizes is unscriptural.

We observed that many Adventists object to the hierarchal system of church government, the General Conference, and they present valid arguments that such a hierarchal arrangement is of Catholic origin. We observed that “hierarchy” among Catholics and Adventists, and “sponsoring” churches/elders are the same in design and function.

Now I wish to deal with Institutionalism and use the same basis for my arguments against this arrangement. There are several things we must observe about institutionalism. First, brethren, not God, set up these institutions through which churches carry out their work in benevolence and other functions. (And most of the work is not the work of the church in the first place.) Next, it is interesting to note that institutionalism found its origin in Catholicism. You don’t read of any institution in the New Testament as an adjunct to the church. This is the same as sponsoring churches and “Committees,” which in reality are the same as “Church Councils” of the early centuries in church history.

Adventists Condemn Institutionalism

It is interesting to note that the very objections many Adventists have to institutionalism are the very same we’ve been trying to point out to our liberal brethren for many years. They didn’t listen to us, so just maybe they’ll take heed to what a denominationalists has to say about it. If not, then our liberal brethren are defending the very thing many Adventists find unscriptural in their denomination. Will liberal brethren continue to defend what even denominationalists know is wrong? And all the liberal promotions among churches of Christ were “borrowed from” denominations when they first began to appear among us.

In Judged By The Gospel, Robert Brinsmead (a prominent Adventist minister for many years), makes several critical attacks on the institutions among them. Before going further, let me say that Brinsmead has abandoned Sabbath keeping. But this has no affect on what he has written, for he wrote it long before he gave up the Sabbath. So Adventists have no grounds to discount his statement because he was then writing as a sincere Adventist. On page 275 he wrote: “. . . we need to acknowledge some of the dangerous tendencies in Adventists institutionalism.” (This deals with their schools, hospitals and charitable organizations, as well as publishing houses.) Notice further:

In the first place, the same identification of the organization with the church which marked the development of the Roman Catholic system, has, to a large extent taken place in Adventism (p. 275)

Notice how Mr. Brimsmead points out the deteriorating effects of institutionalism on the church:

Institutionalism does not always encourage the aggressive spirit of a movement …. Nearly all the money and talent is drained from the little churches and conveyed to these centers, while many little churches are impoverished and ready to die (p. 276).

Institutionalism is also associated with another crippling tendency. This is the development of a top-heavy, nonproductive resource consuming bureaucracy. Religious institutions are not immune to the tendency to become self-perpetuating bureaucracies whose primary concern is their own safety, aggrandizement and glory. As the bureaucracy expands, more and more of the church’s resources are consumed by administration, and very little actually reaches the “front lines” (p. 278).

Quotation From Still Another Denominational Leader

. . . something is seriously wrong with modern Christianity …. History indicates that all movements tend to become institutionalized. This is what happened to the religious movements of the past, and the modern religious movement will be no exception (A Quest For Vitality In Religion, Edge, F.E.; pref. pp. 9-10).

Although this author is a denominationalist (not an adventist), he hit the nail on the head in his observation. He realized that “something is wrong with modern Christianity” and connected it with “institutionalized” religion. This author further pointed out that people become more stirred up and involved in social or political matters than in religious. People become more loyal and dedicated to a political system or party, or to a social problem then they do to Christ and spiritual obligations. So, Christians build their institutions to do what they should do as an individual duty, and thus they feel satisfied that they have fulfilled their obligations by letting these institutions do their work for them.

One of our own brethren (who defends the very thing in practice which he opposes in his writing) analyzed the same danger signal of digression.

At the close of the apostolic age, when the last apostle had died, the church was known only by the individual congregations scattered over the world. The work of Christ through the church was carried on through the influence of the local church in its community. Even in apostolic times the church felt no need of an organization devised by human planning, through which the church could cooperate to evangelize the world. They had a fervency and zeal, and history of the church has well shown that the less zeal and devotion there is in the church, the more institutionalism and human organizations are needed (Search For The Ancient Order, West, E.I. Vol. 1, pp. 169-170; all emphasis mine – LR).

Thus, what I fail to do is not so obvious because, on an institutional scale, I can say, “Look what we are doing.” Because we have a huge institutional machine, I can be lulled into a false sense of security and pride in failing as an individual because “we” – the institution is doing the work that needs to be done. As Mr. Brinsmead pointed out that the more these institutions take over the work, the weaker the denominational church becomes, so brother West quoted David Lipscomb’s observation along the same line: “When the Society prospers, the congregations become inactive, allowing the work to be taken over by these human organizations” (Ibid., Vol. 2, p. 59).

Crossroads: A Threat To Institutionalism

The liberals fear and oppose the Crossroads Movement with a passion. It is not because the Crossroads church is so liberal. Many liberal churches are as far out in liberalism as the Crossroads church. So they do not oppose Crossroads because of their liberalism, but because it presents a serious threat to their great institutions. I really believe this is why the liberals fear the Crossroads movement.

I am not defending Crossroads any more than I am defending liberalism in other churches. But they are getting far better results than other liberals do through their institutions. I truly believe the liberals fear the Crossroads movement because it is a threat to these institutions which take over the individual responsibility of each member. Members, who have no zeal, give their work over to their institutions fear that the work and objection of Crossroads is a real threat to the existence of their institutions. So, destroy the Crossroads and preserve “our institutions.”

The evil that sponsoring churches/elders and institutionalism creates is pride, power struggle seeking preeminence and control. The wider in area the sponsoring program, the more prominence and prestige is given to the sponsor. This, in turn, exalts the pride of men seeking preeminence which makes their lust for power and control more determined. Institutional orphans’ homes have their superintendents, managers, directors, etc. Do away with these institutions and these power structures would fall to pieces like the great image of Daniel 2.

Of course, Crossroads finds its supreme power in Chuck Lukas, of the Crossroads church in Gainesville, Florida. But still, the Crossroads concept is that each member devotes about all his time in active evangelism. And this is where the threat to sponsoring churches/elders and institutions lies. This is the conflict between the individual effort of each member dedicated to evangelism and institutional efforts and arrangements is the clash between Crossroads and institutional brethren.

If all the liberal brethren would accept the Crossroads method, it would be the end of sponsoring churches and institutions. And those in prominent positions would lose their power and glory. And thus they oppose Crossroads. As I said, the ultimate power of Crossroads lies in Chuck Lukas. But as a movement, it is on a broad scale of personal commitment to the work that the sponsoring churches/elders and institutions fear and oppose so strongly. They fear that the individual efforts under the Crossroads program is bringing more results than institutionalized religious arrangements. The more effective and wide-spread Crossroads becomes, the more institutional brethren fear they will lose their influence and control over the churches across the land. So actually, the conflict is not over scriptural issues, but over a deadly competition, for self-preservation.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 9, pp. 261-262
May 3, 1984

By Hoyt Houchen

Question: Is it proper for the one leading the congregational singing during worship services to sing harmony, tenor or bass, rather than the melody? I am not referring to those hymns with a tenor or base lead in the chorus.

Response: It makes no difference which part of the song (soprano, alto, tenor or bass) the song leader sings as long as he is directing the singing. When he is standing in front of the assembly and directing the singing, he is the song leader. What part of the song he may choose to sing himself while he is leading is incidental. The song director is to pitch the song, start it and then continue to direct it. Should he decide to sing bass or tenor (he may have a throat condition, or may not for some reason, be able to sing certain notes) would be optional. There is nothing in the Scriptures which teach that anyone must sing one part of a song only; in fact, in the early church there were no notes for music as we have them today. We are simply commanded to sing (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Jas. 5:13). All of us should sing the very best we can, following the song director so that we will all be singing in unison and also singing the same tempo and pitch. Each one should sing his own part to the best of his ability, regardless of what part the song leader himself may be singing.

It is believed by some that, when the song director sings some part other than the melody, the lead is being transferred to the women. This is not the case, because usually some men in the congregation are singing the melody also. All the melody is not necessarily turned over to the women; but even if it were, it would not be a violation of scriptural teaching because the man leading the singing continues to be in charge. His changing to tenor or bass does not turn the song leading over to women. It may not always be the best judgment for the song leader to sing a part other than the melody, because of the effect that it might have upon the quality of the singing; but it is not unscriptural for him to do so.

All of us should be careful that we do not bind our opinion upon others and thereby become contentious about matters of judgment or indifference.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 9, p. 260
May 3, 1984