Paul’s Gospel and the Death-Denying Doctrines that Contradict It

Truth matters to God. In fact, truth is so important to God that he has made a belief in certain truths the criteria by which people are justified, become members of the body of Christ and inherit eonian life.[1] But what are the truths which must be believed in order to qualify as a believer? The answer is provided by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. There, Paul summarizes his gospel (or "evangel") with the following truths concerning Christ:

(1) Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures;

(2) Christ was entombed;

(3) Christ was raised from the dead on the third day, according to the Scriptures.

None of these facts of Paul’s gospel are difficult to understand and believe – unless, that is, one is holding to other beliefs that complicate or contradict them. Unfortunately, this is exactly the case for most people who identify themselves as Christian. Most professing Christians – sincere as they may be - unknowingly hold to beliefs they’ve been taught which complicate, distort and outright contradict these fundamental facts of Paul’s evangel. Although long-established in Christian tradition and deeply entrenched in the hearts and minds of many who hold to them, such beliefs ultimately prevent people from being able to truly understand and intelligently embrace the simple truths of Paul’s evangel. 

The Immortality of the Soul

The fact that Christ died (as affirmed in Paul’s evangel) can be grasped by anyone who has even a basic understanding of what it means for something to be alive. According to both Scripture and common sense, death is simply the absence of life. Thus, in order to understand and define what death is, one must have some basic understanding of “life.” Then, with this understanding in place, one can easily deduce the meaning of death by negation (e.g., “Death is the opposite of life, and since this is what it means to be alive, the opposite is what it means to be dead.”).

Fortunately, it doesn't take any special insight or unusual degree of intelligence to understand what it means to be alive, for this knowledge is immediately and intuitively available to every living, self-aware being. Every human being who knows himself or herself to be alive intuitively understands that consciousness and life always occur together. No one has ever experienced a single moment in which this has not proven to be the case. Thus, when we understand death to be the absence of life, it requires no special insight to arrive at the conclusion that those who are dead are not conscious or involved in any kind of conscious activity.

The Concordant Literal New Testament Keyword Concordance defines “life” (zoe) as "the activity of spirit, especially as manifested in the organic creation." I think this is a pretty good definition of life. To be alive is to be that in which spirit is active and manifesting itself (hence we're told by James that “the body apart from spirit is dead”). Moreover, God is frequently referred to as the “living God.” Since God “is spirit” (John 4:24) and the only necessarily existent being, God is essentially alive (hence we're told by Christ that "the Father has life in Himself," John 5:26). When we consider God as the absolute standard by which we can know what it means to be alive and living, we can conclude that consciousness - something which God necessarily has - is inseparable from being alive, and that anything with consciousness has it by virtue of having spirit and thus being alive. Thus, to die necessarily involves a loss of consciousness (among other things).

For beings whose existence is at least partly “organic,” having spirit means it can move, grow and self-regulate internal conditions. For human beings, having spirit means we have a capacity for self-awareness, rational thought, and volitional activity. In contrast, something that is dead – i.e., something that is without spirit - has completely ceased to be functionally active. It has lost the capacity for all functional activity, including consciousness.

We know that syncope (a temporary loss of consciousness) is due to a shortage of oxygen to the brain because of a temporary reduction of blood flow. But what happens when there is a permanent reduction of blood flow to the brain and all neurological activity ceases? Is there any observable indication that a person whose brain has stopped functioning completely is more functionally active or more conscious than a person who has simply experienced a temporary reduction of blood flow to their brain? Do not our own God-given senses indicate otherwise? Since, for beings such as ourselves, being alive entails having a capacity for consciousness and other functional activities, death necessarily entails a loss of this capacity. And Scripture confirms this view of what appears, from our perspective, to take place when death occurs: those who are dead are said to be unable to engage in the sort of conscious activities that the living are able to do - activities such as thinking, remembering and worshiping God (Eccl. 9:5-6, 10; Psalm 6:5; 30:9; 88:10-12; 115:17).  

In contrast to this common-sense and Scriptural understanding of what it means to be dead, the popular Christian doctrine of the "immortality of the soul" denies that human beings are the sort of things that actually die and lose their capacity for conscious activity. According to this belief, man is actually an immortal (i.e., undying) being that survives the death of his body and continues to consciously exist somewhere in a "disembodied state." Since it denies that any human being truly dies (only the body dies, according to this view), it consequently denies the reality of Christ's death. And yet, Paul wrote that it was Christ himself - not merely some part of Christ - who "died for our sins." While undergoing the torture of Roman crucifixion, it was the man, Jesus Christ - not merely his body - who breathed his last and died.

Like all mortal human beings (beginning with Adam), Christ's existence as a living being with a capacity for sentience/consciousness (i.e., his being a "living soul") was dependent on the union of (1) a body consisting of earthly elements (i.e., "dust" or "soil") and (2) a "spirit" given by God (this life-sustaining spirit from God is given to both humans and animals, and is first spoken of in Genesis 2:7 as the "breath of life"). When Christ died, the union of body and spirit that made Christ a "living soul" was broken, and our Lord was introduced into a lifeless state - i.e., a state of complete functional inactivity and (thus) utter oblivion. As is the case for all human beings who die, Christ lost the capacity to sense, think, speak, breathe or do anything at all. 

Included in Paul's summary of his evangel are the words, "He was entombed." Just as the post-resurrection appearances of Christ mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:5-8 are included as proof that Christ was roused by God, so Paul mentions Christ's entombment as evidence that Christ actually died. This part of Paul’s evangel summary is consistent with the fact that, throughout scripture, those who have died are consistently spoken of as being wherever their body is, or wherever the remains of their body may be (see, for example, Gen. 3:19; 23:19; 25:10; 1 Kings 2:10; 2 Chron. 9:31; Job 14:10-12; Ps. 146:3-4; Dan. 12:2; Isaiah 26:19; John 5:28; 11:17, 43; Acts 2:29; 8:2). Our bodies are where we are last present when we die and cease to be "living souls," and they are where we will be present again when we are restored to a living, conscious existence. Being essentially bodily beings - i.e., beings who are dependent on a living body to be alive - we cannot be said to be somewhere that our body is not. Scripturally speaking, it cannot be said that a human being whose body is lying dead in a grave is, at the same time, experiencing the joys of heaven (see Acts 2:29, 34). The very idea is completely contrary to what scripture teaches about the nature of man and of death. 

But what about the spirit of man, which we're told departs from him at death? Does this support the traditional Christian position that human beings survive their death as "immortal souls?" Let's consider the request of the faithful Jewish believer, Stephen, shortly before he was martyred: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59). Did the Lord receive Stephen when he died, or did he receive Stephen's spirit? We're told by Luke that it was Stephen – the human being - who was "put to repose" (i.e., fell asleep) as he was being stoned to death. If "Stephen" = Stephen's spirit, then it would mean that it was Stephen's spirit that cried out in a loud voice while kneeling, and then fell asleep as it was being stoned to death. But that, of course, is absurd. It was not Stephen's spirit that did these things, but Stephen himself - the human being. And it was not Stephen whom Christ received when Stephen died, but rather something which belonged to Stephen, and which will have to be restored to him in order for him to enjoy any kind of "life after death." But Stephen, by faith, knew his spirit would one day be returned to him; it was for this reason that he entrusted his spirit to Christ (for Stephen knew that it was Christ to whom God had given the authority to raise the dead on the "last day," when all believing, faithful Israelites will be resurrected).

In Luke 23:46, we read, "And shouting with a loud voice, Jesus said, "Father, into Thy hands am I committing My spirit." Now, saying this, He expires." The spirit that Christ committed into the hands of his God and Father is that which, we are told in Ecclesiastes 12:7, "returns to God who gave it." But was this spirit which Christ committed into God's hands Christ himself? Or was it something that rather belonged to Christ? Obviously, the spirit that Christ committed into his Father's hands was something that belonged to Christ - hence, Christ's words, "..am I committing MY spirit." Consequently, this spirit cannot, by itself, be identified with Christ himself. But if that's the case, then this spirit - as essential to Christ's personal identity and conscious existence as I believe it was (and is) - cannot be, in itself, the conscious person we know as the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the Man, Jesus Christ, who was (and is) the conscious being to whom this spirit belongs, and who entrusted it to his Father for safe keeping just before he died. Notice that Christ entrusted to his God and Father what Stephen entrusted to Christ. Why the difference? Answer: Because Christ knew he was about to enter into a state in which he would be utterly helpless to restore himself to a living, conscious existence. When Christ died, his God and Father was the only One who had the power and authority to save him from death (Heb 5:7). And, thank God, save him he did.

The doctrine of the immortality of the soul denies that Christ was in any need of being saved by God from death, since it denies that human beings really die; according to this view, it is only a person's body (rather than the person himself) which actually dies. As such, this doctrine - as popular as it is - contradicts Paul's evangel.

The Trinity/Deity of Christ  

Like the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, there is another doctrine that also undermines the idea that Christ actually died, and thus contradicts an essential element of Paul's evangel. Ironically, this doctrine is considered an essential doctrine of orthodox, mainstream Christianity. In its most popular (and so-called "orthodox") form, the doctrine of Christ's deity affirms that Christ is one of three members of a "tri-personal" (or "triune") "Godhead." But one doesn't have to hold to the doctrine of the Trinity in order to affirm the doctrine of the deity of Christ; for example, this view of Christ is shared by those who hold to both a "modalist" and a "binitarian" view of God. What all of these positions have in common is their shared commitment to the idea that Christ possesses the same divine status and nature as the Father, and is thus "God" in the same sense that the Father is God, without any qualification.

Its overwhelming acceptance among the majority of Christians notwithstanding, the doctrine of Christ’s deity results in a perplexing (and, I believe, insurmountable) problem for those who affirm it. For if Christ died – and if Christ is also God - then it would mean that God died. But anyone who has even the slightest understanding of who and what God is knows that this can’t be right. God - the uncreated Creator whose years have no end (Psalm 102:27) - cannot, by virtue of his divine nature, die. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the "Living God." He is (and always has been) immortal and incorruptible. Paul explicitly affirms the immortal and incorruptible nature of God elsewhere (Rom. 1:22-23; 1 Tim 1:17; 6:13, 16). 

Since God has always been (and always will be) inherently and necessarily immortal, this can mean only one of two things: either (1) Christ did not really die, or (2) Christ is not the same divine being as the Father. Since (according to Paul) Christ did die, the second option is clearly the correct one. Christ is not God – at least, not in the same sense that the Father is God. Rather, Scripture teaches that Christ is a created being who was uniquely and miraculously begotten by God himself. Being made fully human, Christ lived a perfect, sinless life, died for the sins of the world, was raised from the dead by God, and now sits exalted at God's right hand as Lord over all. Christ is the "image of the invisible God," and perfectly revealed to the world the heart and character of God through his life and death. He is also the first human to have ever been vivified (made immortal), and was given power and authority from God that no other created being - whether terrestrial or celestial - has ever possessed.   

Since Scripture is clear that Jesus was (at one point) a mortal human being like you and I, and that he did, in fact, die (and remained dead for three days), the only possible conclusion is that Jesus Christ is not God. Many Christian apologists think they have a way out of this dilemma, however. Consider the following excerpt from the website of Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, in which he tackles the question of how Christ could die while at the same time being God (emphasis mine):

"It is helpful to speak of what Christ does or how he is relative to one of his two natures. For example, Christ is omnipotent relative to his divine nature but he is limited in power relative to his human nature. He is omniscient with respect to his divine nature but ignorant of various facts with respect to his human nature. He is immortal with regard to his divine nature, but mortal with regard to his human nature…Christ could not die with respect to his divine nature but he could die with respect to his human nature."[2] 

In Craig’s response, he relies on the orthodox Christian view that Christ has two distinct “natures” – one that is fully human, and another that is fully divine. This philosophical position is thought by Craig to solve the dilemma of how it can be said that Jesus, while being “fully God,” was yet able to die. But this response is entirely inadequate. To see why, all we need to do is understand what, exactly, a “nature” is, and what it means to say that Christ has two of them. Once we clarify this issue, Craig’s argument crumbles. 

So, what exactly does Craig mean he says that Christ has “two natures?” What is a “nature?” Well, a “nature” is simply the essential properties, attributes or qualities that belong to something, and without which it would be something other than what it is. Christian apologist Matt Slick (of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry) explains the meaning of the term as follows:

"In philosophy, [nature] can refer to the essence of something. Likewise, theologically, the nature of something is that which makes something what it is. It is the most basic essence of something. We would say that the nature of God is good, holy, just, immutable, etc. If we were to take any one of these properties away from God in describing his nature, he would cease to be what he is. The nature of something deals with the essential properties that make something what it is."[3]

So according to Slick, the “nature” of something refers to its “essence” - i.e., the essential properties (or “qualities”) that it has, and which make it what it is.[4] According to this understanding of what a “nature” is, what makes a dog a dog (rather than, say, a cat) are the distinctively canine properties, attributes or qualities that it has. A dog’s distinctively canine properties, attributes or qualities make up its canine “nature” or “essence.” So if a dog’s distinctively canine properties were changed to those of a cat, it would cease to be a dog. It would be a cat. Regardless of what one may want to call it, an animal that possesses all the essential properties of a cat simply cannot be a dog. It would be impossible for any animal to possess all of the essential properties of both a cat and a dog, and if there existed an animal that shared an equal percent of some (but not all) of the properties or qualities of both a cat and a dog, the animal would be neither a cat nor a dog, but a different animal entirely. 

Now, to say (as Craig does) that Christ “is immortal with regard to his divine nature” is simply to say that Christ is immortal with regard to his divine properties, attributes or qualities. In other words, it is to say that Christ has the divine property, attribute or quality of immortality (meaning that Christ is immortal rather than mortal). And to say that Christ is “mortal with regard to his human nature” is simply to say that Christ is mortal with regard to his human properties, attributes or qualities. In other words, it is to say that Christ has the human property, attribute or quality of mortality (meaning that Christ is mortal rather than immortal). Thus, after clarifying what is meant by the term “nature,” we discover that what Christian philosophers such as Craig are actually saying (that is, once their words are stripped of all ambiguity) is that Christ was both mortal and immortal - that he both died and didn’t die. But this is nothing more than contradictory nonsense. 

Thus, it turns out that the entire argument is a subterfuge. It’s a contradiction cloaked in the robe of mystery and ambiguous language. While some Christians may believe there to be something “paradoxical” or “mysterious” about the position that Christ was both immortal and mortal at the same time, that he was both omniscient and “ignorant of various facts,” and that he both died and didn’t die, the fact is that these are just contradictions. Claiming that Christ was, before his death, “immortal with regard to his divine nature and mortal with regard to his human nature” is no different than asserting that a single shape can be both a circle and a triangle. In neither case is one really making a meaningful claim. 

Moreover, not only is this contradictory position regarding Christ mistaken, but holding to it makes it difficult – if not impossible - to affirm the essential truths of Paul’s evangel. For if Christ is God - and thus has the divine property or attribute of immortality - then Christ didn't really die. He just appeared to die. In the same way, if Christ is God, then he was not really raised from the dead, since God (being immortal) has never had any need of being restored to life. But if (as Paul heralded) Christ actually died for our sins, was entombed, and was raised from the dead by God, then it follows that Christ wasn’t - and isn’t - God.

Conclusion

Most Christians profess to believe - and may sincerely think they believe - that Christ died on the cross and was raised from the dead three days later. But if you ask them whether they think Jesus Christ was, during the time of his death, just as lifeless as the dead body which lay in the tomb for three days, it will quickly become clear that, contrary to what they think they believe or profess to believe, they do not, in fact, actually believe that Christ truly died. Instead, they believe that it was only Christ's body that died and laid in a tomb for three days, while Christ himself - the sentient, thinking and volitionally active person - was actually introduced into a different form of life. Contrary to the truth of Scripture, most Christians believe (and would likely brand as heretics those who deny) that Christ survived the death of his body, and continued to consciously exist somewhere other than where his body was. But if this is the case, then Christ didn't really die. Only his mortal body died. And what happened three days after the death of his body wasn't the resurrection of the man himself. No, it was merely the restoration of an immortal being to an embodied existence.

Note: The following are some articles on my blog concerning the subject of the “immortality of the soul”:

Life After Death (Part 3): http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2015/06/life-after-death-part-3.html

The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-parable-of-lazarus-and-rich-man.html

You shall be with me in paradise: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2014/08/you-shall-be-with-me-in-paradise.html

And here is a study refuting the Christian doctrine of the trinity: 

One God and Father of All: How the scriptural revelation of the one true God contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity 

Part One: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/01/one-god-and-father-of-all-how.html

Part Two: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/01/one-god-and-father-of-all-how_1.html

Part Three: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/01/one-god-and-father-of-all-how_8.html

Part Four: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/01/one-god-and-father-of-all-how_82.html

Part Five: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/01/one-god-and-father-of-all-how_70.html

The God Who is Love: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-god-who-is-love.html

---

[1] "Eonian life" is a more accurate translation of the expression rendered "eternal life" in the most popular translations of the Bible. This expression refers to the gift of life that certain people will enjoy during the coming ages (or "eons") of Christ's future reign. While an amazing blessing to be sure (many people will be dead during this time), it does not refer to anyone's final, eternal destiny. Those who do not receive this "eonian salvation" will not be lost for all eternity. For more on this subject, see my seven-part blog series: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2015/01/eternal-or-eonian-part-one_17.html. 

[2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-death-of-god-and-the-death-of-christ#ixzz2tTtiZjYS

[3] http://carm.org/dictionary-nature

[4] Consider the following definitions from Merriam-Webster:

“Nature: the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : ESSENCE.”

“Character: a set of qualities that make a place or thing different from other places or things.”

“Essence: the basic nature of a thing : the quality or qualities that make a thing what it is.”